Public land managers in the San Francisco Bay Area are destroying non-native trees and vegetation in our public parks and open spaces because of their preference for native plants. These projects are harmful to wildlife because they destroy habitat, eliminate food sources, and spray herbicides that are harmful to wildlife.
Bev Jo is a frequent visitor to all of the parks of the Bay Area. She knows our parks and the wildlife that lives in them. She cares deeply about our wildlife. We are publishing an excerpt of her comment to East Bay Regional Park District about the damage being done to wildlife, as a result of killing non-native trees and vegetation.
East Bay Regional Park District is in the process of selecting the projects that will be funded by the renewal of the parcel tax, Measure CC. Measure CC will be on the ballot for renewal in November 2018 and will provide funding for “park improvements” for the next 15 years. YOU can have some say about those projects by making your suggestions to the park district by the end of December. Send your suggestions to publicinformation@ebparks.com.
Once upon a time, people in the San Francisco Bay Area were thrilled to live in a place where so many exquisitely beautiful and edible plants from all over the world could survive. It’s not a tropical region, but sub-tropical, so there are limits to what grows here and it depends on the area. But, still there is so much magnificent variety here that cannot live in other parts of the US.
People loved to plant what they missed from their homelands. In our small yard, the previous Lebanese owner had planted a Greek Bay Laurel, Olive, Sour Orange, Apricot, Nectarine, Apple, Pear, and Plums. Our poor neighborhood that was once mostly barren dry grass and juniper hedges, now has so many beautiful herbs and plants that just taking a walk is like a trip to a botanical garden. There also has been an increase in birds and other native animals.
Ice Plant (Carpobrotus), NPS Photo
Visitors used to be stunned that even the California freeways could be beautiful, with South African Ice Plant in glowing bloom and large trees and shrubs that bloom throughout the year to help clean the air from the traffic and soften the noise.
And then, something very disturbing happened. A movement began to spread that many of us recognized as being frighteningly similar to the racist hatred against immigrant people, but this time it was about nature, in the guise of being for nature. Most of the luminous Ice Plant has been eradicated. Flowering plants, including edible herbs, who most rational people would revere for their beauty and ability to survive in an increasingly dry land are being called “trash” and killed.
Ground squirrel
It’s not just innocent plants who are being reviled and killed, but animals are also being poisoned, trapped, and shot for no rational reason. The killing frenzy even includes important keystone native animals, like the California Ground Squirrel.
Why do we have to see parks we have loved for decades ruined, with most of the trees cut down for no reason other than that they are the “wrong” species, especially when many of the “right” (native) species are dying from global warming, disease, and insect infestation? Most parts of the US, as well as the world, treasure trees and are planting more, but not the Bay Area. Even while temperatures are increasing horrifically–and anyone can easily feel the twenty degrees difference between being in the sun versus being under trees–we are cutting down our trees.
Monarch butterflies over-winter in California’s eucalyptus groves
With so much of the land in the Bay Area covered by concrete, asphalt, and buildings, shouldn’t we value and love every tree we have? Aren’t the trees who most help native animals even more important to protect? Of course I’m talking about the majestic Blue Gum Eucalyptus. In spite of myths saying no native animals use Eucalyptus, they are clearly crucial to the survival of the Monarch Butterfly. Their flowers are an important food source for hummingbirds, and they are the preferred nesting tree for large raptors, like Golden and Bald Eagles, Great Horned Owls, and Buteos. Raptors haven’t been indoctrinated in the nativist cult. They just want the safest nest for their babies. A survey in Tilden Park found 38 different plant species beneath the canopy of Eucalyptus forests, compared to only 18 in Oak woodlands.
Monterey pines are also villainized, even though they are native, with fossil records throughout the Bay Area. They give throughout their life cycle, as they irrigate other plants with their extensive fog drip. They enrich the soil more than most other trees, and feed and shelter a diverse population of animals, including woodrats. The woodrat’s intricately constructed pyramid nests provide homes for many other species like mammals, reptiles, amphibians, arthropods, etc. The pines are a self-replenishing forest, continually creating baby trees, while their dead snags are perfect granary trees for acorn and other woodpeckers, as well as being lookouts for hunting birds. Visit Monterey pines to see the rich wildlife around them, from kingfishers to tree creepers. In one small area of local pines, it’s possible to find over forty mushroom species.
Cedar waxwings in crab apple
The advantage of having plants from all over the world is that someone is always blooming, fruiting, and setting seed. One of our most beloved, but not often seen birds, the Cedar Waxwing, travels in flocks from one berry-bearing shrub or tree to another. I have seen Waxwings eating non-native Cotoneaster, Ligustrum, and Pyracantha berries, and only once native mistletoe. Almost all our birds are benefiting from non-native species, for nesting and food.
Our most common spider species, so essential for a healthy eco-system, are non-native. Honeybees are forgotten in the vendetta against non-natives, but they are European and valuable as the chief pollinators of our agricultural crops. They are another example of a beloved species who survives because of the many non-native plants we have. Eucalyptus provide valuable food for honeybees during the winter, when little else is blooming in California. And bees help plants reproduce, which provides more food for native animals, not to mention fruit and vegetables for humans.
Eucalyptus and bee. Painting by Brian Stewart with permission.
As the park district plans future projects for funding by Measure CC, I ask that the projects quit destroying non-native trees and vegetation, particularly by using herbicides. Our wildlife needs these plants. The park district does not “improve” the parks by killing plants and animals.
In the 20-plus years we have advocated for the preservation of our urban forest, my collaborators and I have been accused of many nefarious motivations and deeds. Here is a small sample of what we have been accused of:
The Sierra Club leadership has accused us of being “climate-change deniers” in their publications, in radio interviews, and in written public comments. (We firmly believe in the reality of climate change and that is one of many reasons why we are opposed to the destruction of our urban forest.)
We have been accused of being funded by the Koch brothers by commenters on this blog and other associations with the right-wing, such as Fox News and more recently Kellyanne Conway. (I am not politically conservative.)
Discrediting one’s opponents is a standard debating tactic and we are neither surprised nor dissuaded by such name-calling. So, why are we raising the issue today? Because this name-calling has migrated into the realm of academic science. We find that shocking because academia is a place where we expect reason to prevail and debates to be based on evidence, rather than ad hominem attacks.
Academic scientists in New Zealand resort to name-calling
We have published several articles about the projects that are dumping rodenticides on islands all over the world to kill animals believed to be the predators of birds. The most aggressive projects are found in New Zealand where rodenticides have been aerial bombed on small islands for over 60 years. Recently New Zealand has made a commitment to expand that program to the mainland of New Zealand to kill all wild mammals that have been introduced by humans for over 700 years.
New Zealand intends to be “predator free” by 2050. As you might expect, many people in New Zealand object to this program because rodenticides are an indiscriminate killer of animals, such as the native species of parrot, the kea, and many domestic animals such as dogs. There are other concerns as well, such as the feasibility of such an undertaking and the toxicity of rodenticides to the environment and to humans.
Defending New Zealand’s native parrot, the kea
One of the authors of that aggressive program is an academic at University of Auckland in New Zealand, James C. Russell. His defense of his program and the academic discipline of invasion biology on which the project was based was published by an academic journal. (1) It is an unusual defense, one that we wouldn’t expect to find in an academic journal, because it does not use scientific evidence to defend the annihilation of non-native animals. Rather it accuses those who question those projects of having ulterior motives: “Where evidence is disregarded, or motivations are disingenuous, arguments against [the negative impacts of] invasive alien species take the form of science denialism,” which Russell defines as “the rejection of undisputed scientific facts” such as the causes of climate change or the risks of smoking tobacco.
Russell then tells us what he believes motivates critics of invasion biology:
“Science denialism typically originates from groups with a vested interest in opposition to the scientific consensus…” In other words, the profit motive explains the criticism of invasion biology, in Russell’s opinion.
“…there is a strong correlation with support of free-market ideologies such as laissez-faire. ” Russell paints critics of invasion biology into a right-wing corner.
Finally, Russell advises invasion biologists how to respond to “denialism” of their projects: “engage the criticisms but shift the debate from questions of scientific fact to questions of policy response.” And THAT is at the heart of the matter. Russell advises his colleagues to emphasize the policy goals, such as exterminating all wild mammals from New Zealand, rather than debate the scientific justification for that project. Since there is little scientific justification for this project, that seems like good advice. So, what is this advice doing in a scientific journal? That is the final question.
Academic scientists respond to Professor Russell
A few months after Russell’s ad hominem attack on academic critics of invasion biology, the same scientific journal published four rebuttals to Russell and Blackburn, written by 11 academic scientists.
“We disagree that there is scientific consensus around invasive species, and propose that much debate in this field stems from legitimate disagreement and not from disingenuous rhetoric.” (2)
“Constructing an ostensible category of ‘denialists’ reflects invasion biology’s traditional reliance on inflammatory exaggeration to impose and enforce a dichotomous doctrine.” (3)
“…society’s spectrum of diverse perspectives, aspirations, and personal trade-offs, which effectively constitute what Russell and Blackburn impugn as ‘vested interests,’ could and should influence society’s debates rather than be discredited.” (4)
“The organizations and individuals that continue to bemoan biodiversity loss are misleading the public and are directing conservation support away from the foremost problem, the precarious existence of species with remnant populations that are the result of habitat destruction and overexploitation.” (5)
Threats to mammal species. Source: International Union for Conservation of Nature
Another academic publication also published a response to Russell and Blackburn: “Superficial understanding of the relationships between evidence and values creates exactly the dichotomization between science ‘believers’ and ‘denialists’ that Russell and Blackburn ostensibly seek to avoid. Rather than ‘standing up for science’ such dichotomization undermines it, rendering aspects of scientific enterprise ‘off limits’ to the kind of rigorous critical (self) examination fostered by science at its best.” (6)
Update:James Russell has come to the attention of the US military, according to a press report published on December 4, 2017. Russell says of his collaboration with the US military, “’And obviously we’re in the business of eradicating entire populations of animals from an island and so they have cocked their ear towards me once or twice. You don’t have to be a genius to see that there’s potential military application in that.’ In this instance, Russell’s work was being measured for suitability against a US$100 million research pot made available by the United States’ Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa).”
As psychologists have informed us for decades, it is a short step from animal abuse to human abuse. The child who kills animals often becomes a killer of humans as an adult.
Professor Russell seems to be proud of his collaboration with the US military. In any case, he stands to profit from that collaboration. That’s ironic, given that one of his criticisms of the critics of invasion biology is that they have “vested interests” in their criticism. It seems that a grant from the US Military should be viewed as a “vested interest” in his advocacy for killing animals. And, as he says, he is “in the business of eradicating” animals.
Little scientific basis for invasion biology
Invasion biology as presently defined by academic science originated in the late 1950s. It began as a collection of hypotheses about the harm that non-native plants and animals were doing to native plants and animals. Like all hypotheses, it was based on speculation that had to be tested in the real world. In the past 25 years, many studies have been conducted that were designed to prove that non-native species are harmful to native species. With few exceptions, these studies came up empty. More often than not, studies found pros and cons to introduced species, just as we would expect of similar studies of native species. There is little evidence that invasion biology is an accurate description of how ecosystems operate.
When academic scientists are forced to resort to name-calling to defend invasion biology it no longer deserves the status of scientific hypothesis. And when it is discredited as a scientific discipline, it must be just a matter of time before the public realizes that there is no legitimate reason to kill non-native plants and animals.
We don’t see any sign of that paradigm shift, but we are hopeful that public policy will eventually be revised to reflect the reality that has been revealed by scientific studies. In the absence of scientific justification for eradication projects, they must be treated as public policy decisions. In a democracy, public policy decisions must reflect the public’s wishes. In the absence of public support, these projects will continue to cause conflict.
James C Russell and Tim Blackburn, “The Rise of Invasive Species Denialism,” Ecology & Evolution, January 2017
Sarah Crowley, Steve Hinchliffe, Steve Redpath, Robbie McDonald, “Disagreement About Invasive Species Does not Equate to Denialism: A Response to Russell and Blackburn,” Ecology & Evolution, April 2017
Mark Davis and Matthew Chew, “’The Denialists Are Coming!’ Well, Not Exactly: A Response to Russell and Blackburn,” Ecology & Evolution, April 2017
Jacques Tassin, Ken Thompson, Scott Carroll, Chris Thomas, “Determining Whether the Impacts of Introduced Species are Negative Cannot be Based Solely on Science: A Response to Russell and Blackburn,” Ecology & Evolution, April 2017
John Briggs, “Rise of Invasive Species Denialism” A Response to Russell and Blackburn,” Ecology & Evolution, April 2017
Susanna Lindstrom, “An Interdisciplinary Perspective on Invasive Alien Species,” PLoS Ecology Blog, October 2017
East Bay Regional Park District is preparing to put a parcel tax on the ballot in 2018 that will extend the funding of park improvements for another 15 years. The public has been invited to tell the park district what improvement projects should be funded by the parcel tax in the future. We are publishing a series of such public comments that we hope will inspire the public to submit their own suggestions to the park district.
TO: publicinformation@ebparks.org
CC: Board of Directors
FROM: Park Advocate
RE: Suggestion for Measure CC Projects
Climate change is the environmental issue of our time. The climate has changed and it will continue to change. If park improvement projects are going to be successful, they must have realistic goals that take into consideration the changes that have occurred and the changes anticipated in the future.
The restoration of native grassland is an example of a project that is not realistic, given current environmental conditions. Grassland in California has been 98% non-native annual grasses for over 150 years. Mediterranean annual grasses were brought from Mexico to California by the cattle of the Spaniards in the early 19th century.
David Amme is one of the co-founders of The California Native Grass Association and was one of the authors of East Bay Regional Park District’s “Wildfire Hazard Reduction and Resource Management Plan” while employed by EBRPD. In an article he wrote for Bay Nature he listed a few small remnants of native grasses in the East Bay and advised those who attempt to find them, “As you go searching for these native grasses, you’ll see firsthand that the introduction of the Mediterranean annual grasses is the juggernaut that has forever changed the balance and composition of our grasslands.” That article is available HERE.
The park district seems to understand the futility of trying to transform non-native annual grassland to native bunch grasses. Here are two signs in two of the EBRPD’s parks that acknowledge the reality of California’s grassland.
Serpentine Prairie, April 2017Tilden Park, Inspiration Point, October 2016
Yet, despite this acknowledgement, the park district continues to expand its efforts to transform the parks into native grassland. Park visitors recently observed a failed experiment to introduce native grasses to one of the parks. Six plots of ground were fenced. Two of the plots were control plots in which whatever non-native weeds had naturalized were allowed to grow unmolested. Two of the plots were mulch/seeded with native grasses and two of the plots were fabric/seeded with native grasses. There was no observable difference in plant composition or abundance between the seeded and unseeded plots. There was no observable difference in the outcome of the two different seeding methods that were used. In other words, native grasses were not successfully introduced to this park. My correspondence with the EBRPD employee who was responsible for this project is attached.
Albany Bulb, April 2017Albany Bulb, April 2017
The park in which this experiment was conducted is Albany Bulb. Albany Bulb is the former garbage dump of the City of Albany. It was built on landfill in the bay. The soil is not native and there were never any native plants on it. It does not seem a promising candidate for a native plant “restoration.” Unfortunately, Albany Bulb is not an atypical park along the bay. There are many other parks along the bay that were built on landfill and in which the park district is attempting to establish native plant gardens. This does not seem a realistic objective for these parks.
Albany Bulb April 2018
Update: One year after the experimental planting of native wildflowers at Albany Bulb, there is no evidence of that effort. The trail-sides are mowed weeds and the upslope from the trail is studded with blooming non-native oxalis and wild radish.
Albany Bulb. Non-native wildflowers. April 2018
Albany Bulb will soon be closed to the public for a major “improvement” project. Albany Landfill Dog Owners Group and Friends expects the park to be closed for about one year. They are unsure if the park will allow dogs off leash when the park re-opens. More information about the “improvement” project is available on their website: http://www.aldog.org/announcements-2. They suggest that you sign up on their website to be notified of the progress of the project and the status of the re-opening of the park.
This is not to say that there aren’t many worthwhile park improvement projects that are both realistic and needed.Dredging Lake Temescal is an example of a worthy project. As you know, Lake Temescal was a popular place for people to swim until recently. In the past few years it often has been closed to the public because of toxic algal blooms. The algal blooms are caused by two closely related factors. The water is warmer than it was in the past because of climate change and the lake is shallower than it was in the past because of sediment deposited into the lake.
Black crowned night heron in algal bloom, Lake Temescal, April 2017
The park district has tried to address this issue by using various chemicals to control the growth of the algae. Although that has occasionally been successful for brief periods of time, it is not a long term solution to the problem. Furthermore, it is a good example of why the park district uses more chemicals than necessary. If the park district would address the underlying cause of the problem—that is, the depth of the lake—it would not be necessary to keep pouring chemicals into the lake. Dredging Lake Temescal should be a candidate for Measure CC funding.
And so I return to the point of this suggestion for Measure CC: Please plan projects that take into consideration the reality of climate change, that address the underlying causes of environmental issues, and that have some prospect for success.
Thank you for your consideration.
Send your comments regarding Measure CC renewal to publicinformation@ebparks.org
Send copies to staff and board members of East Bay Regional Park District
Robert Doyle, General Manager rdoyle@ebparks.org
Ana Alvarez, Deputy General Manager aalvarez@ebparks.org
Casey Brierley, Manager of Integrated Pest Management cbrierley@ebparks.org
Board of Directors:
Beverly Lane, Board President blane@ebparks.org
Whitney Dotson wdotson@ebparks.org
Dee Rosario drosario@ebparks.org
Dennis Waespi dwaespi@ebparks.org
Ellen Corbett ecorbett@ebparks.org
Ayn Wieskamp awieskamp@ebparks.org
Colin Coffey ccoffey@ebparks.org
In 2004, voters in Alameda and Contra Costa counties approved Measure CC, a parcel tax, to provide additional funding to East Bay Regional Park District for “Park Access, Infrastructure and Safety Improvements, Resource-Related Projects, and Reserve for Unknown Events.” Measure CC also stipulated that “the overall commitment to natural resources shall be no less than 30% of the revenue raised by the entire measure.” (1) Measure CC is projected to provide about $47 million in the 15 years of its life. (2)
The park district is planning to put Measure CC on the ballot for renewal next year. It’s time to look at how the park district spent our tax dollars and decide if we want to continue to give them our tax dollars for another 15 years. If you want Measure CC funding to be used differently, now is the time to tell East Bay Regional Park District what you want…BEFORE the ballot measure is written.
Fuels Management vs. Resource Management?
The park district budgeted $10.2 million of Measure CC funding for “fuels management,” about 22% of the total available funding from Measure CC. To date, the park district has appropriated $8.8 million of that budget allocation and spent $6.3 million.
The park district describes “fuels management:”“All vegetation/fuels management projects for fuels reduction are in coordination with the protection and enhancement of wildlife habitat in fuel break areas and are therefore considered to be resource related.” (2) In other words, the park district considers destroying vegetation and cutting down trees a part of its “commitment to natural resources.”
These descriptions of Measure CC projects illustrate the close relationship between fuels management and resource management:
“Assess and remove hazardous trees, promote native tree regeneration.” (2)
“Manage exotic plant species and promote fire resistant natives to reduce the risk of wildfires.” (2)
“Manage vegetation for fuels reduction in coordination with the protection and enhancement of wildlife habitat in fuel break areas to provide defensible space and meet Hills Emergency Forum flame length standard.” (2)
The park district’s policies and practices are based on mistaken assumptions:
Most monarchs in California spend the winter months roosting in eucalyptus trees. These trees are being destroyed in East Bay parks where monarchs have roosted in the past, such as Point Pinole.
There is no evidence that destroying non-native trees will “enhance wildlife habitat.” In fact, wildlife habitat is being destroyed by “fuels management” projects.
There is a wide range of opinions about the tree removals that the park district has done since their program began in 2011, after approval of the “Wildfire Hazard Reduction and Resource Management Plan” and the associated Environmental Impact Report. At one extreme, some people want the park district to destroy ALL non-native trees on its property. They consider “thinning” inadequate. The Sierra Club is in that camp and has sued to enforce their wishes. At the other extreme, some people don’t want any trees to be removed, although most would make an exception for dead and hazardous trees.
Tilden Park, Recommended Treatment Area TI001, June 5, 2016. This in one of the projects of East Bay Regional Park District, in process
After observing the park district’s tree removal projects, I have reached the conclusion that they represent a middle ground that I can accept because in many cases the canopy is intact and the forest floor is still shaded. The shade retains the moisture that retards fire ignition as well as suppresses the growth of weeds that ignite more easily during the dry season. In the 20+ years that I have defended our urban forest, I was always willing to accept a compromise and the park district’s methods look like a compromise to me. I still have concerns about tree removals and they are explained HERE. You must reach your own conclusions.
So, what’s the beef?
Unfortunately, coming to terms with the park district’s tree removals has not resolved my misgivings about how Measure CC money has been used. In a nutshell, I believe that the park district’s “resource management” projects are based on outdated conservation practices. I believe the park district is trying to re-create historic landscapes that are no longer adapted to environmental conditions. Their projects are often not successful because they do not take the reality of climate change into consideration, nor do they look to the future of our environment. They are stuck in the past.
One of the projects funded by Measure CC is typical: the effort to eradicate non-native spartina marsh grass from all park properties. The park district has been participating in the effort to eradicate all non-native spartina marsh grass from the entire West Coast for 14 years. In the first few years, EBPRD aerial sprayed from helicopters several hundred gallons of herbicide per year. Now the quantity of herbicide is about 25 gallons per year.
The reason why the rails have been harmed by the eradication of their habitat is that non-native spartina provides superior cover for the rail. The non-native species of spartina grows taller, more densely, and it doesn’t die back in the winter as the native species of spartina does. When the rail begins its nesting season, there is no cover for the birds. They are therefore being killed by their many predators.
The fact that non-native spartina provides superior cover for the birds is related to a second issue. Non-native spartina provides superior protection from winter storm surges compared to the native species which provides no protection, even when it grows and it is NOT growing.
The third issue is that eradicating non-native spartina has not resulted in the return of native spartina. Even when extensive planting has been done, native spartina does not provide habitat or storm surge protection in the San Francisco Bay Area. We should be asking if pouring hundreds of gallons of herbicide on the ground might be a factor in the unsuccessful attempt to bring native spartina back to the Bay Area.
Finally, recently published studies that compared native with non-native marsh grasses and aquatic plants with respect to the ecological functions they perform. These studies both say, “If you look at the role of exotic water plants in an ecosystem, you won’t find any significant differences compared to indigenous species.”
The spartina eradication project is an example of conservation that no longer makes sense. It damages the environment with herbicides. It destroys the habitat of rare birds. It exposes our shoreline to strong storm surges and rising sea levels. Native vegetation does not return when it is eradicated.
Looking forward, not back
The parks are very important to me. I visit them often and I treasure those visits. I would like to vote for Measure CC. I hope that the measure on the ballot will give me a reason to vote for it.
I will be looking for a revised definition of “resource management” in the ballot measure, one that acknowledges that climate change is the environmental issue of our time and that conservation must be consistent with the changes that have already occurred, as well as look forward to the changes that are anticipated in the future. Specifically, “resource management” must respect the landscape we have now, which means not trying to eradicate it, particularly by spraying it with herbicides. Resource management projects must be based on reality, rather than on fantasies about the past.
Opportunities to tell EBRPD what you want from Measure CC
East Bay Regional Park District is holding public meetings about Measure CC to give the public the opportunity to provide input regarding future park needs and priorities:
November 4, 10-12, Harrison Recreation Center, 1450 High St, Alameda
November 8, 2:30-4:30 pm, David Wendel Conference Center, 1111 Broadway, 19th Floor, Oakland
EBRPD asks that the public RSVP by sending an email to Monique Salas at msalas@ebparks.org or call 510-544-2008.
If you can’t attend, please send written feedback here: publicinformation@ebparks.org. Please tell East Bay Regional Park District what you want Measure CC funding to pay for.
The war on so-called “invasive species” continues to escalate. One of the indicators of this escalation is the recently revised California Invasive Plant Council’s (Cal-IPC) inventory of “invasive” plants. Nearly 100 plant species were added, a 50% increase in the inventory.
Scabiosa is one of 87 plants recently added to the inventory of “invasive” plants in California, despite the fact that is isn’t invasive in California. Scabiosa is very useful to bees because it blooms prolifically for much of the year.
More alarming is that most of the additions to the list are not considered “invasive” in California. Rather, a new category of “potentially” invasive plants was created, based on their behavior elsewhere. Many of the plants in the new category are considered invasive in Hawaii, a place with a distinctly different climate than California. Hawaii is a tropical climate, hotter than much of California and wetter and more humid than everywhere in California.
The big increase in the number of plant species now designated as “invasive” in California is a concern partly because of the herbicides that are usually used to eradicate them. Not only do we lose that plant species in our landscape when it is added to the hit list, we can also expect to see an increase in the use of the herbicides that are used to kill it.
Increased use of herbicides
Native plant advocates are aggressively defending the use of herbicides. Policies and practices are being developed to accommodate increased use of herbicides on our public lands.
East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD) is evaluating its Integrated Pest Management Program (IPM), including practices and policies regarding pesticide use. The first draft of EBMUD’s revised IPM program was made available to the public in July 2017. The draft adds several new goals to the IPM program: “habitat protection and restoration,” reducing populations of “invasive plant species,” and “use of alternative vegetation such as native plants.” EBMUD is the supplier of our drinking water in the East Bay and the quality of the water they supply should be the top—if not the only—priority. If destroying non-native plants requires greater use of herbicides, that goal contradicts EBMUD’s obligation to providing safe drinking water.
Garlon sprayed on the trail in a San Francisco park. San Francisco Forest Alliance
San Francisco’s IPM program has also changed some policies to accommodate use of herbicides in parks on plants the Natural Resource Division of the parks department considers “invasive.” The parks department restricts all park access to the established trails in the 33 “natural areas” where non-native plants are eradicated and replaced by native plants. The new IPM policy permits the spraying of herbicides without posting pesticide application notices in places that are “publicly inaccessible.” In other words, pesticide application notices are no longer required in the “natural areas” unless herbicides are sprayed on the trails. One way to reduce the public’s opposition to pesticides is to hide their use and this policy seems designed to do that.
Update: The San Francisco Forest Alliance (SFFA) has informed me that Chris Geiger, head of San Francisco’s IPM program, has given assurances that the IPM program will no longer offer City departments a blanket exemption to apply herbicides without posting in areas the department considers “publicly inaccessible”. Previous to this, each land manager was empowered to make their own decisions as to which areas they considered “publicly inaccessible”. The IPM group did not provide oversight of the decisions or keep records of which areas were exempted. Now specific exemptions will be issued and recorded on the IPM exemptions webpage. Chris Geiger reports RPD will not be requesting any posting exemptions. SFFA is still waiting for formal written documentation of this change.
This post will focus on the intersection of these symptoms of the escalating war on “invasive” plants: the expansion of California’s inventory of “invasive” plants and the closely associated claim that non-native plants must be eradicated because they compete with the native plants required by wildlife. We use buddleia, commonly known as butterfly bush, as an example.
Butterfly Bush (Buddleia): friend or enemy of butterflies?
Monarch nectaring on butterfly bush. butterflybush.com
Buddleia is one of 87 plant species recently added to Cal-IPC’s inventory of “invasive” plant because it is considered invasive outside of California. Buddleia is called butterfly bush because it produces large quantities of nectar that attract swarms of butterflies. Since buddleia is very appealing to butterflies, it is popular with gardeners who like to see butterflies in their gardens.
Since buddleia is obviously useful to butterflies and Doug Tallamy claims to be concerned about the welfare of our pollinators, why is he telling gardeners to quit planting buddleia?His advice is based on the fact that buddleia is considered invasive in some places and his belief that it will eventually be invasive everywhere. In fact, that’s his belief about all non-native plants: they may not be invasive now, but he predicts that eventually they all will be invasive.
Secondly, Tallamy argues that although buddleia provides food for butterflies, it is not a host plant for butterflies. The host plant is where butterflies lay their eggs and where the caterpillar feeds when the eggs hatch. The choice of host plant species is much smaller than the number of food plant species available to butterflies, but it is not as small as Tallamy thinks it is. Tallamy does not seem to realize that many plants are chemically similar, which enables butterflies to make a transition from a native plant to a chemically similar non-native plant. Here in California, many butterfly species have made that transition and a few butterfly species are dependent upon abundant non-native plants that are available year-around because their original native host plant is dormant much of the year.
Buddleia “starves” butterflies?
This is Tallamy’s apocalyptic prediction about the fate of butterflies if gardeners continue to plant buddleia:
“It’s no exaggeration to say that when you choose which plants to include in your garden, even the beautiful, seemingly harmless butterfly bush, you’re deciding if members of your community’s local food web will be nourished or unintentionally starved. And to get to that mind frame, which is a way of thinking that truly benefits nature, including its butterflies, you’re going to have to come to a harsh realization: You need to stop planting the butterfly bush—forever.” (1)
Ironically, this harsh verdict on buddleia was published by a blog entitled, “Organic Life.” Is Organic Life unaware of the fact that the most widely used method of eradicating non-native plants is spraying herbicides? The consequence of adding more plant species to the long list of “bad plants,” is more pesticide use. That’s not very “organic.”
What amoral, selfish gardener would plant buddleia in their garden after such a severe scolding? First, let’s stop and think about the logic of the claim that buddleia will disrupt the “food web” and starve butterflies. Since buddleia is an excellent source of nectar and swarms of butterflies are observed nectaring on buddleia, how could we be “starving” them? Professor Art Shapiro (UC Davis), our local butterfly expert, said when asked about this article, “The ‘disrupting food webs’ argument is ludicrous. It’s equivalent to saying that if you eat popcorn rather than apples, you’re contributing to unemployment in the apple-picking industry.”
Is buddleia a host plant for butterflies?
Now let’s consider the argument that we should not plant buddleia in our gardens because although it feeds butterflies, it isn’t their host plant where they lay their eggs. The problem with that argument is that it isn’t true!!
Checkerspot laying eggs on buddleia, near Santa Barbara. Photo by Marc Kummel
In 1940, Charles M. Dammers reported that the Variable Checkerspot (Euphydryas chalcedona) “can use” buddleia as a substitute for its usual native host in southern California desert-mountain areas, based on a laboratory study of the larval stages of its caterpillar on buddleia. In 2001, chemical analysis of buddleia found that it is chemically similar to the native host of the checkerspot, which confirmed the potential for such a substitution.
The first actual observation of checkerspot butterflies breeding spontaneously and successfully on buddleia was in Mariposa County, California in the Sierra Nevada foothills. “Mariposa” is Spanish for butterfly. Mariposa County was named by an early Spanish explorer who saw many butterflies near Chowchilla.
Checkerspot bred successfully on buddleia in 2005 and in subsequent years. This colony of checkerspot on buddleia was reported in 2009: “We conclude that buddleia davidii [and other species of buddleia] represents yet another exotic plant adopted as a larval host by a native California butterfly and that other members of the genus may also be used as the opportunity arises.” (2)
Variable checkerspot. Photo by Roger Hall
More recently, a gardener in Mendocino County also reported the use of buddleia as the host plant of checkerspot:
“By now I am questioning how it was that butterfly larvae were using my butterfly bush as a host plant, completely against everything I’d ever heard. How was this possible? I emailed Art Shapiro, a very well-known butterfly expert and author, sending him a pic. He wrote back to confirm they were butterfly larvae, but added, ‘These are not mourning cloak butterflies. They are checkerspots. And the only time I’m aware this has happened [like, ever, except one in a lab in 1940…] is in Mariposa County.’” (3)
Bad rap for non-native plants
When the native plant movement began some 30 years ago, native plant advocates promoted their agenda with a straight-forward claim that they are superior to non-native plants. The public was initially resistant to that argument because non-native plants have been around for a long time and people have become fond of them.
Native plant advocates began to fabricate stories about the evils of non-native plants to convince the public that eradicating them was necessary because they are harmful to wildlife and they damage the environment. The Million Trees blog was created to address those claims.
But Doug Tallamy’s active participation in the crusade against non-native plants is a special case because he is an academic entomologist, credentials that make him more influential with the public. For that reason, Million Trees has critiqued several of his publications.We publish this critique of Tallamy’s opinion of buddleia for several reasons:
Buddleia is very useful to butterflies. The loss of buddleia in our gardens would be a loss to butterflies.
San Francisco’s IPM program is using Doug Tallamy’s mistaken theories to promote the use of herbicides to eradicate non-native plants in San Francisco.
Buddleia is one of 87 plants that have been classified as “invasive” by the California Invasive Plant Council despite the fact that it is NOT invasive in California. The expansion of the list of “invasive” plants in California to include plants that are NOT invasive in California, will increase the use of herbicides and will eliminate plants that are performing valuable ecological functions.
https://www.rodalesorganiclife.com/garden/never-plant-butterfly-bush (N.B. The butterfly in the photo in this article is European Small Tortoiseshell, found in Britain and in Europe. The caterpillar in the photo is the monarch caterpillar on its host plant, milkweed. Buddleia is food for both of these butterfly species.)
Arthur M. Shapiro and Katie Hertfelder, “Use of Buddleia as Host Plant by Euphydryas chalcedona in the Sierra Nevada foothills, California,” News of the Lepidopterists’ Society, Spring 2009
It is my pleasure to publish a guest post about dune “restorations” in Humboldt County that began about 30 years ago. Like most “restorations,” these projects are primarily destroying non-native plants. More often than not, they don’t plant native plants to replace the plants they destroy, although the stated goal is to “restore” native plants.
Uri Driscoll tells us why the non-native plants were planted over 100 years ago and the consequences of removing them. According to Mr. Driscoll’s Facebook page, he has lived in Arcata, Humboldt County since 1983. He has had a life-long interest in outdoor recreation, horses, organic farming, and conservation. He is a member of Arcata’s Open Space and Agriculture Committee.
If you live in the San Francisco Bay Area, you might think these projects are not relevant to us. In fact, they have everything to do with us because there are many similar projects here and the issues with those projects are similar.
Bird’s eye view of San Francisco in 1868. US Library of Congress
The San Francisco peninsula was about one-third barren sand dunes when Europeans first arrived at the end of the 18th century. About 30 years ago, native plant advocates decided they wanted whatever open space that still remains on the peninsula to be returned to pre-settlement conditions, including sand dunes where they existed in the past.
These are the sand dunes in San Francisco where Golden Gate Park was built by creating a windbreak by planting trees. The windbreak stabilized the sand dunes and made it possible to plant and sustain vegetation behind the protection of the windbreak. San Francisco Public Library, historical photo collection.Pacheco & 32nd Ave, San Francisco, 1943. San Francisco Public Library, historical photo collection
As residential neighborhoods in San Francisco were developed, iceplant and European beach grass were planted on the sand dunes to hold the sand in place. Native dune plants are not capable of stabilizing sand for long, before strong winds move the sand beneath them. In fact, the long term survival of native dune plants is dependent upon these disturbances.
Iceplant has been removed from several sand hills in residential neighborhoods, dumping sand on the properties at the base of the hills. The Great Highway, which separates Ocean Beach from the residential Sunset District is often closed because of drifting sand after removal of beach grass.
In fact, everyone living on the coast of California should have an interest in the preservation of our sand dunes because they are our first line of defense against rising sea levels and the intense storms associated with climate change. If non-native plants and trees are needed to maintain the stability of our sand dunes, so be it. Competing agendas must take a back seat to the safety of our coastal communities.
Million Trees
Stable Dunes or Native Plants?
The North and South Spits of Humboldt County are the physical barrier between Humboldt Bay and the Pacific Ocean. After the introduction of European beach grass (Ammophila arenaria) in the early 1900’s there has been a substantial stabilizing effect on the dunes as they grew wider and taller. Prior to the establishment of the grass our dunes consisted of wide expanses of unvegetated, open, moving sand. This is in sharp contrast to the variety of plant cover we have today.
Humboldt Bay
In the 1980s public land managers began removing European beach grass with the goal of restoring native vegetation. This is the story of the consequences of their projects.
Foredunes (the sand ridges parallel to and closest to the shore) with open, actively moving sands have a very high potential for accelerated erosion. The foredunes of the North Spit and South Spit are still extremely vulnerable to accelerated erosion caused by disturbances to the vegetation. A beach and dunes management plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was developed in 1993 to address such issues.
Of greater concern, waves have washed over the foredunes on both spits where waves have breached the foredune where vegetative cover had been removed. Repeated overwash events would significantly and immediately impact the only access road to the South Spit and the municipal water main and water treatment facilities on the North Spit.
These dunes could again be set in motion by removal of the protective cover of native and non-native vegetation. Indeed, the intention to remobilize dunes was identified in the Conditional Use Permit application Bureau of Land Management (BLM) submitted for vegetation removal at Table Bluff County Park, a portion of the South Spit. However, those intentions are contrary to the local Humboldt Bay Beach and Dune Management Plan and accompanying EIR.
The danger is that the South Spit’s dune topography is characterized as typically low and narrow. With erosion and subsequent lowering of the foredune that occurs following vegetation removal, the right combination of concurrent high-magnitude seismic subsidence and wave attack could cause collapse of the land barrier between the Ocean and Humboldt Bay. With anticipated sea level rise we would see this risk multiply.
Source: 2008-2014 BLM monitoring report
The problem is that the previous and on-going work to remove European beach grass from the North and South Spits (in the effort to restore natural conditions and processes) has not and does not provide for the immediate re-establishment of other comparable vegetative cover to trap moving sand and prevent accelerated dune erosion. By not including this mandated mitigation measure, there is a real, legitimate potential for significant, cumulative environmental impact.
Why was European beach grass introduced?
The important thing to understand is that this specific type of beach grass (Ammophila arenaria) was introduced in Humboldt County in the early 1900’s. It was done in order to stabilize dunes to protect growing communities and infrastructure. It had the additional benefit of creating extensive coastal wetlands and wildlife habitat. By collecting sand from the beach the grass builds protective and multiple parallel ridges and accompanying deflation planes. These depressions behind the ridges act as sheltered nurseries for new plant and animal life. This process can take several decades but is reversed rapidly after the grass is removed. Such an effect has happened not only in Humboldt County but also in Point Reyes where valuable wetlands and organic pastures have been smothered by destabilized sand.
Why was European beach grass removed?
When the efforts to remove the non-native, albeit naturalized grasses began in the early 1990’s invasive biology was in its infant stages. Not much was known about the impacts from the eradication efforts of dominant species. But to some it was important to return coastal areas to the pre-beach grass era so native plants would not be out-competed.
Every movement needs a poster child. About this same time a cute little shore bird named the western snowy plover became just that. Even though it is registered as a threatened species on the west coast, other parts of the country and Mexico have significant and stable populations. We were told by local biologist Ron LaValley that the non-native grass needed to be removed to recover the local plover’s population. This claim contradicted his original report showing plover eggs nestled in the non-native grass. He was later convicted and sent to jail for falsifying data and embezzling a million dollars from similar projects involving the spotted owl.
Recognizing that manual eradication was very expensive and time consuming, California State Parks decided to bulldoze 40+ acres of Little River State Beach to provide plover breeding areas. Unfortunately, as Humboldt State Professor Mark Colwell noted in his 2008 report “importantly, eggs often fail to hatch in restored areas.” This is largely because ravens and crows find it easy to locate the nests in open sand areas.
The Lanphere-Christenson Dunes Refuge director Eric Nelson determined during a 2016 Climate Ready project that the foredunes were being excessively eroded by the 25 California Conservation Corp (CCC) workers who were digging out beach grass. His decision to spray glyphosate and imazapyr instead of hand removal was carried out despite public opposition. It remains unclear whether, despite acknowledging excessive erosion from manual eradication efforts, the refuge will return to using that method again.
Lanphere Dunes and Mad River Slough
The public takes notice of the consequences
Some of us who live near these project areas and use them for recreation started noticing native tree mortality and changes to the landforms caused by removing the stabilizing grasses. We started doing some initial research. We began looking into coastal development permits, beach and dunes management plans and monitoring reports. Our findings revealed the project areas that actually had permits also had mitigation requirements. Those included immediate replanting and strict monitoring to make sure topography and landforms were not altered. When we inquired about the monitoring and replanting programs we found those to be significantly deficient and in some cases non-existent.
Taking action
Our next step was to approach the various regulatory agencies. US Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the State Water Board should be interested in the freshwater wetland infill we were witnessing. The Harbor District and the municipal water district have a major interest in securing the two 42-inch industrial water mains protected by the same beach grass that was being removed. The Manila Community Service District maintains a waste water treatment facility on the dunes. We thought the California Coastal Commission would certainly want to know that these unauthorized alterations to coastal landforms were taking place. We felt sure the County planning department that issued some of the permits would take enforcement action.
The town of Manila’s water treatment facility
We brought photo and research documents from Oregon and Washington (2 and 3), made presentations and had meetings, site visits and sent email communications to no avail.
We stepped back and took a look at the board of directors for the non-profit called Friends of the Dunes (FOD) that has been promoting the grass removal from the very beginning. They had grown from a small, broken down 400 square foot building with a net worth of about $20,000 in 2004 to 60 + acres of ocean front property with a 3000 square foot building and a net worth of over $3.4 million in 2014. The board of directors at the time consisted of employees of most of the agencies listed above. We understood then why we were running into so many road blocks.
Our community is well known for environmental activism. So why the hesitation of local environmental organizations like the North Coast Environmental Center (NEC), Environmental Protection Information Center, and Bay Keeper to call out such impacts caused by bulldozers, herbicide spraying and wetland infilling? We can only presume that the banner of “restoration” has been used as a blindfold.
Some significant successes….more to do
We have had worthy successes. Through our efforts the California Coastal Commission has asked the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a new determination to address the impacts related to the Ocean Day activities involving 1000 school children digging grasses from the dunes. So far, the BLM does not think it needs to provide that. BLM puts on the event but the Coastal Commission bankrolls it. We do not know yet what the Commission’s response will be to that refusal.
The town of Manila has stopped grass removal activities in its management area and has supported the planting of native pine trees (Pinus contorta, contorta) in the dunes, which we did last February.The County planning department is engaged and acknowledges that there has been no contract with the California Conservation Corp or BLM for prior grass removal at the County Park and will not allow any more vegetation removal until a Memorandum of Understanding is developed.
The Coastal Commission has committed to reviewing the authorization allowances for BLM’s grass removal over the rest of the South Spit. The existing Plan states a two-acre area would be subjected to grass removal strictly for monitoring purposes not the mile long area subjected to eradication to date. BLM contends that authorization extends over the whole 800-acre Spit but have not been able to provide supporting documents.
The North Coast Environmental Center and even the Friends of the Dunes (FOD) took a position against spraying herbicides on the dunes.
Former board members of the FOD that are regulatory agency officials have resigned their director positions.
Communities around the country are hosting events to plant beach grasses like the ones that have been removed here. Recognition of the incredible value of stabilized dunes is becoming more wide spread. The “non-native” label is becoming more questioned.
Setting new goals and looking ahead
For us on the North Coast of California we need a much more cost effective and precautionary approach than tearing out plants that have beneficial attributes.We need to allow the beach grass to do its job of stabilizing and protecting our dunes. As we allow it to do that, the beach grass “declines in vigor” (4). When that happens, other plant and animal species utilize those protections from the harsh winds and tides of the Pacific and establish heathy vibrant wildlife habitat. Our local and migratory wildlife depend on it. And so do we.
Uri Driscoll, Arcata, California
We commend the people of Humboldt County for paying attention to the damage that is being done to their public land and we congratulate them on the progress they have made to prevent further damage. We are impressed with the methodical approach they have taken to convincing public land managers to reconsider the goals of the project and the methods being used to accomplish them.
We wish them the best of luck with their efforts. We are grateful to Uri Driscoll for taking the time and trouble to share this story with our readers.
Million Trees
(1) South Spit Interim Management Plan 2002.
(2) Evaluating Coastal Protection Services Associated with Restoration Management of an Endangered Shorebird in Oregon, U.S.A. Lindsey Carrol
Michael McCarthy is a British environmental journalistwhose love of nature originates with personal loss. When he was only 7 years old, his mother had a mental breakdown that forced her to abandon him and his brother. This traumatic experience caused irreparable psychological damage to his brother, but not to him because he withdrew from the family and found refuge in nature.
Fortunately, he lived close enough to wild land, where he could spend endless hours wandering on his own, watching birds, insects and animals. He found peace there and because it was 1954, he also found an abundance of creatures. The title of his book, The Moth Snowstorm, is a metaphor for the abundance of nature when he was a child:
“There were lots of many things, then. Suburban gardens were thronged with thrushes. Hares galumphed across every pasture. Mayflies hatched on springtime rivers in dazzling swarms. And larks filled the air and poppies filled the fields, and if the butterflies gilled the summer days, the moths filled the summer nights, and sometimes the moths were in such numbers that they would pack a car’s headlight with beams like snowflakes in a blizzard, there would be a veritable snowstorm of moths, and in the end of your journey you would have to wash your windscreen, you have to sponge away the astounding richness of life. It was to this world, the world of the moth snowstorm, that I pledged my youthful allegiance.” (1)
Mr. McCarthy laments the loss of the natural abundance of his childhood and he places most of the blame for that loss on the explosion of agriculture in post-WW II Britain. One of the lessons of the war was that there is greater national security in food independence. Government policies began to subsidize agriculture to such an extent that it became profitable to cultivate every square inch of the British countryside, producing an agricultural surplus of which much is wasted. The hedgerows of the past that had provided habitat for wildlife were plowed under.
In addition to the loss of habitat, the widespread use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides by the growing agricultural enterprise was a culprit: “Agricultural poisons [were also to blame]. Poisons for this, poisons for that. Kill off the insects. Kill off the snails. Kill off the wild flowers. Kill off anything that isn’t your money-making crop with herbicides, pesticides fungicides, molluscidides.” (1)
Initially this chemical warfare was waged with DDT. It took many years for the world to understand that DDT was killing birds and decades more for most countries to be willing to stop using DDT and other organochlorine pesticides. It was a short-lived victory because, “They were replaced with new generations of pesticides which generally did not kill birds directly…Certainly, however, they all killed insects, and they did not just kill ‘target’ insects, they killed almost all insects, just as herbicides usually killed almost all herbs…” (1)
Defending nature
The damage done to nature in the past 100 years is well known. The environmental advocacy of the past 50 years to stop—if not reverse—that damage is equally well known. Mr. McCarthy briefly summarizes recent strategies to defend the environment and dismisses them as ineffective:
The sustainability movement was based on the theory that human development will not damage nature if it is “sustainable.” The word “sustainable” quickly became a buzzword with little meaning beyond its value as a public relations cover to justify whatever development, timber, mining projects are desired by humans. Every project is now advertised as being “sustainable.”
More recently, environmentalists have tried to defend nature by quantifying its economic value to human society. This was a “fight-fire-with-fire” strategy and it has not proved to be more effective than affixing the word “sustainable” onto every intrusion into wild lands. As we calculate the economic value of pollination by insects we hope to save, scientists are probably “designing” agricultural crops that are pollinated by wind.
Mr. McCarthy believes those strategies failed because they “engage the intellect [without] engaging the imagination.” He believes that the only effective defense of nature is based on the “joy and wonder” that nature brings to humans. He shares his personal experiences in nature that have made him a devoted advocate for its preservation.
Nostalgia for the nature of our childhood
Mr. McCarthy describes his first encounters with specific landscapes and species of birds, butterflies, and plants and the joy and wonder they brought to him. Most of those encounters were in Britain, where he grew up, and so most are landscapes and species with which I am unfamiliar. It was therefore, difficult to empathize with Mr. McCarthy’s emotional attachment to them.
And so I reflected on my own early experiences in nature and how they shaped my own aesthetic and horticultural preferences. I was raised in a densely populated, suburban, working class community in Southern California by a single mother. We did not own a car until I was a teenager and so our trips into wild nature were rare and memorable. There were a few treasured trips to Catalina Island and one unforgettable trip to Yosemite in a Studebaker coupe packed with 4 children and 2 single moms.
Charlotte Armstrong rose. 1001 Landscaping Ideas. com
As much as I enjoyed those trips, most of my childhood experience with nature was in my own small backyard, which was populated by a few fruit trees and flowering shrubs. One of my most rewarding experiences in the garden was successfully growing a Charlotte Armstrong rose from cuttings given to me by a teacher when I was about 11 years old. In retrospect, I now know that nothing in our garden was “native” although at the time I had no reason to know that they weren’t.
As different as my childhood experience in nature was from Mr. McCarthy’s, it was no less meaningful to me. My childhood was as chaotic as Mr. McCarthy’s after the unexplained disappearance of my father when I was 2. I built my ideal home in the dirt in my backyard and played out peaceful scenarios with my small plastic dolls under the canopy of the avocado tree. The neighbor’s lantana bushes attracted swarms of skippers. We puffed out our cheeks and put as many skippers in our mouths as we could, for the pure pleasure of watching them flutter out of our mouths, seemingly unharmed. (I wouldn’t do that today, but I don’t begrudge my childhood self that pleasure.) I bristle when I hear claims that lantana is “invasive” and must be eradicated as well as the claim that non-native plants are not useful to wildlife. I know otherwise.
Unless they are limbed up, the canopy of avacado trees grow nearly to the ground, creating a private “green room” under the canopy.Skipper on lantana
There are as many personal experiences in nature as there are people and they obviously vary widely depending upon location, lifestyle and a multitude of other variables. Predictably, there are therefore a multitude of opinions about “ideal” nature.
Must nature be exclusively “native” or is a cosmopolitan mix of plants and animals equally valuable? This is just one of many debates that rage within the community of people who all consider themselves environmentalists. In our own gardens we can indulge our personal preferences, but the differences of opinion become a source of conflict when public open space is at stake.
Acknowledging the ways in which nostalgia influences our preferences should help us to resolve those conflicts. Chris Thomas is a British academic scientist who addresses this question in his new book, Inheritors of the Earth in which he calls out “conservationists for holding viewpoints that seem more driven by nostalgia than by logical thinking about the biological future of our planet.” (2) He believes that conservation efforts inappropriately focus on trying to defend the losers in nature’s great competition for survival, rather than backing the winners that are probably the species that are the future of our biological communities.
If we can acknowledge that our preferences are based on the past, rather than the future of nature, it is more difficult to justify the use of pesticides to destroy the future. As Mr. McCarthy tells us, pesticides are one of the primary reasons why the abundance of nature is rapidly disappearing. Using pesticides to kill existing landscapes is contributing to the loss of nature, not enhancing it.
Please give some thought to how your personal experiences have helped to shape your preferences in nature. We hope that your reflections will help you to respect the preferences of others.
Michael McCarthy, The Moth Snowstorm, New York Review of Books, 2015
The most recent newsletter (see page 8) of the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) informed us that the beetle that was introduced in Arizona to eradicate tamarisk has spread to California, where it was not introduced. When the beetle was originally introduced, its spread beyond where it was introduced was not predicted, based on climatic restrictions on its life cycle. As usual, evolution overturns the best laid plans. According to Cal-IPC, “Rapid evolution in this developmental trait, however, allowed beetles to stay active later in the season and thus facilitated their expansion southward…”
Tamarisk defoliated by tamarisk leaf beetle along Colorado River, near Needles, California
The rapid defoliation of tamarisk throughout the southwest, including California, is an immediate threat to the endangered Southwestern willow flycatcher, which long ago adapted to tamarisk in the absence of its native host, willow. The native willow requires a great deal more water than tamarisk. Therefore, willow died off when water throughout the southwest was diverted out of riparian corridors for human consumption and agricultural production.
Dr. Chew is an expert on tamarisk and the role it plays in the ecosystems of the southwest and so we asked him to write another guest post for us on this topic. He has generously obliged with this detailed history of biocontrols and their use to eradicate non-native species.
Biocontrols are also topical because a new biocontrol was recently approved by the USDA to eradicate cape ivy. This biocontrol was eagerly anticipated by native plant advocates and is likely to be widely used by land managers in California. Therefore, this is a timely opportunity to learn about the pros and cons of biocontrols. How long will it take the introduced insect to start feeding on the many other species of ivy that are not considered “invasive?”
Evolution and natural selection are wild cards in attempts to eradicate non-native plants and animals. Although there are many dangerous consequences of using pesticides, the role that evolution plays in rendering pesticides useless is less understood and taken into consideration. Much like the hungry beetle that now is running rampant in the southwest, the weeds that are continuously sprayed with herbicide are also adapting and evolving defenses against the chemicals being used to eradicate them. There are now millions of acres of agricultural crop land infested by weeds that are immune to the pesticides that were sprayed on them for decades. Our pesticides are now useless on these “superweeds.” Instead of getting off the pesticide treadmill, we are developing stronger—and therefore more toxic—herbicides.
There are many reasons why we object to the eradication of non-native plants and animals. The tamarisk beetle is an example that illustrates a few of our objections:
Many of the plants being eradicated are providing food and habitat for animals. The animals that depend upon them are being harmed by their elimination.
The methods used to eradicate non-native species often have unintended, negative consequences, such as breeding “superweeds” that cannot be eradicated.
The puny tools of humans are often powerless against the much stronger forces of nature, such as natural selection and evolution. These forces of nature should be treated with greater respect, particularly by people who call themselves “scientists.”
Million Trees
Southwestern willow flycatcher
From California to Texas and occasionally beyond, tamarisks are among the most talked-about introduced plants in the US. Most of that discussion consists of familiar anti-alien dogma, augmented by the long-obsolete assertion that tamarisks are profligate water-guzzlers. Suffice for now to say that anti-tamarisk sentiment led to state and federal suppression policies beginning around 1940, and eventually to legislation at both levels. Little more than accumulated bad reputation of tamarisk and its presence in the region of interest led the US Fish and Wildlife Service to include tamarisks among the supposed threats to the persistence of the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) when that subspecies was formally listed “endangered” in 1993. All of that meant both political will and appropriations were applied to the US Department of Agriculture’s search for biological control agents to deploy as “counter-pests” against tamarisks. By 1998 they had their critter, an Asian leaf-eating beetle that putatively specialized on tamarisks and would rather die than eat anything else.
By that time, though, circumspection had set in, because especially in southern Arizona the endangered birds had taken to nesting in tamarisk stands. USDA promised USFWS that their armored foreign legion would not jeopardize flycatcher populations. USDA argued that the beetles they were about to propagate and release by the multi-millions were genetically incapable of surviving below 38° North latitude. In addition to famously dividing North from South Korea, that frontier runs from near the tip of Point Reyes through Stockton and Mono Lake; just south of Tonopah, Nevada; south of Canyonlands Nation Park; through Moffat and Swink, Colorado; on through the Garden City Kansas and increasingly irrelevant points east. Southern Arizona would surely never see a tamarisk leaf beetle. “Because SCIENCE!” Hold that thought.
In 1952 the otherwise obscure and perhaps pseudonymous writer Rose Bonne copyrighted a succinct cautionary account of biological pest control. Perhaps it was read or sung or shown to you as a child: I know an Old Lady [who swallowed a fly]. Ms. Bonne denied knowing how or why the old lady swallowed the fly, but considered it portentous: “Perhaps she’ll die!” Subsequent actions had definite (if sometimes puzzling) rationales. The next four animals consumed represented a hopeful trophic cascade: the Old Lady swallowed a spider to catch the fly, then a bird to catch the spider, a cat to catch the bird and a dog to catch the cat. At that point, distended and incoherent, she panicked, swallowing a goat to catch the dog, a cow to catch the goat, then finally, fatally, a horse. (Revisionists inserted a pig between the goat and the cow. If you doubt me, Google it.)
The history of biocontrols
We can barely pause to consider the long and checkered history of biological control. Its inception required a few conditions, which may have arisen in different orders in different places. A sense of ownership, territorial claims or resource collection rights seems necessary, as does dissatisfaction with the dictates of fate. Why attempt to affect an outcome without expecting to benefit from the effort? A bit of empirical, practical natural history knowledge is also indispensable. Together they add up to the possibility of acting on the basis that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” to garner a greater share of whatever natural product seems desirable. Dogs to guard flocks and cats to discourage rodents are biological controls. The more organized and concentrated agriculture became, the greater the need for knowledge of “natural enemies” to enlist as economic allies. Even after revolutions in industrial chemistry offered alternatives, better living was still sometimes available through biology.
With private property rights come boundary disputes, complaints about trespass and spillover effects of management decisions. Public property, especially where subject to intensive multiple use mandates, adds complexity and diversity (if not novelty) to the mix. Rights collide with powers and authorities. Politically compromised jurisdictions—like U.S. state authority over wildlife except where superseded by federal laws and treaties or licensed to private parties—are endless fodder for litigation and finger pointing. All the while, science reconstructs what is known or considered knowable, changing expectations, affecting policies and destabilizing political balances.
Modern civilizations depend upon the plants they have introduced
Modern agricultural, horticultural and forestry practices are all legacies of the Renaissance, Reformation and Enlightenment motivations underpinning European colonialism. Empires were assembled and contested primarily for their economic advantages. During the past half-millennium they generated new wealth and new social classes that developed new governments. Among the array of actions those governments continue to undertake is facilitating the redistribution of valuable plants and animals. A visit to any retail food market reveals our near-total embrace of that redistribution. Almost every staple ingredient in every foodstuff is raised or grown far from its “wild” point of origin. Even insistent locavores prefer locally raised food, not locally evolved food. A negligible fraction of us recognize never-transported, never-domesticated edible organisms. Fewer still could survive on them as hunter-gatherers. Such are among the generally intended, hoped-for, positive outcomes of imperial colonialism. Famine is unnecessary, though it is a political tool, deployable as a weapon.
Fish, meat and leather, plant and animal fibers, timber, pulp and derived products can still be wild harvested, but are mostly and increasingly farmed. Anything worth gathering is worth cultivating, from redwood trees to bison to sugarcane to minks to soybeans to insects, yeasts, and bacteria. Even aspirational exceptions like native plant gardening are actually impossible to accomplish: seed intentionally transported from one location to another has been biogeographically rerouted; plants sold by native plant nurseries are raised in multi-source, formulated soils in plastic pots. Even simply deciding to leave a plant where it was found can render it an artifact, and there may no longer be any wilderness so remote that the configuration of its biota remains uninfluenced by human agency.
Benefits of introduced species often outweigh harm
We are told that some of the consequences of all this redistributed and reconfigured biota are marginally negligible. Others are cutting into the profits. Some organisms are moved around unintentionally and unknowingly (zebra mussels, various “blight” fungi) often because unaware transportation technology designers and operators never prevented their distribution. Many intentionally abducted and marooned populations are behaving in unexpected ways, thriving without always accomplishing their intended purposes (alligator apples and cane toads in Australia; house sparrows and wild carrots in North America) or even significantly over-achieving (“Asian” carps and kudzu in North America; rhododendrons and grey squirrels in Britain). Even where post-colonial inclinations to recover and reinstate pre-colonial values are tolerated, they hardly withstand translation into economic choices. We are adeptly, fundamentally invested in moving things around. We are likewise invested in competition, and building coalitions and alliances to help us win competitions. Especially competitions we thoughtlessly or accidentally set in motion.
Tamarisk on the Colorado River
The Old Lady who swallowed the fly would probably have been fine had she not overthought the problem. The fly was doubtless well on its way to being digested by the time she found a spider, which was likewise moribund before a bird came to hand. Maybe should could have swallowed a willow flycatcher (already protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act) and skipped the spider? Had the US Army Corps of Engineers, the USDA and others not overthought the problem in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, they might have come up with suitable alternatives to planting tamarisks to stabilize Texas barrier islands, deepening Four Corners arroyos and fly-away Dust Bowl topsoils. Yes, tamarisks, too, were brought to us to biologically control problems of our own making and conception. Then we needed a beetle…
As things turned out, USDA scientists were either mistaken or disingenuous regarding the latitudinal limits of their tamarisk leaf beetles. Likewise, even about the identity of the beetles, which is why I haven’t inflicted their Latin epithets on you yet. By 2010, sniping between USFWS and USDA, abetted by various conflicting conservation NGOs, led to a new “Biological Assessment” for the federally imposed tamarisk leaf beetle invasion. (I usually avoid using “invasion” in such circumstances, because invading exceeds many capacities of so-called “invasive species.” This was a real invasion, though, planned and carried out by people, not beetles. Beetles merely bred and spread.) One species of beetle became five, four which had been introduced: Diorhabda carinulata; D. elongata; D. sublineata; and D. carinata. Some were quite well-adapted to life in southern Arizona (31-32° N) and beyond. Furthermore, the endangered birds were also nesting in tamarisks in southern Utah, c. 37° N. USDA washed its hands of the federal program and revoked federal permits to release beetles; but that had no effect on the State of Colorado, which was heavily invested in producing them and continues to do so.
Distribution of tamarisk leaf beetle. Tamarisk CoalitionTamarisk leaf beetle
Fast-forward to 2017. Tamarisk leaf beetles have been spreading along Arizona waterways at rates up to ten times faster than their most ardent cheerleaders imagined they could, and from multiple directions. They will arrive in almost every known Southwestern Willow Flycatcher nesting area sometime this year. By next spring those riparian thickets will be defoliated just at the point when the nestlings most require thermal cover (i.e., shade). Thanks to Reclamation-Era water diversion projects, attempts to re-vegetate those areas with willows will require constant gardening. Reclamation replaced willow habitat with tamarisk habitat. Nevertheless, the birds persisted. Beetle releases suppressed the tamarisks, but will almost certainly fail to eliminate them entirely. Beetles are just another evolutionary pressure on a tamarisk population that is already unlike any other in the world due to unforeseen hybridizing among several species. New tamarisks and new beetles are evolving. Maybe the beetles will try a bite of something else. They’re in California now; could they find something there? Maybe the birds will evolve to eat the beetles, although that hasn’t happened yet. Perhaps the day will come when the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher gives way to the Tamarisk Beetlebird. It might not even take very long. But don’t bet on it. And don’t bet on biologists, bureaucrats or any other ambitious adults to re-learn the lesson of unintended consequences they laughed at as children, then (like so many other lessons) forgot.
The story of America’s urban forests, as told in a book by the same name (1), is a story of loss and redemption.
The loss of America’s trees
The American chestnut was the first of our iconic trees to be lost to us. Between 3 and 4 billion chestnut trees were killed in their natural range by a blight caused by a fungus imported in an Asian species of chestnut (2). With the exception of a few isolated chestnuts outside their natural range, all American chestnuts died in the first half of the 20th Century. Over one hundred years after the epidemic began, scientists believe they have finally developed an American chestnut that will survive the fungal infection. They have achieved this by the addition of a single gene to the 38,000 genes of American chestnut. They are applying for regulatory approval of the EPA and USDA to plant the genetically modified tree in the wild, a process they expect to take several years.
American elm. Creative Commons
Dutch elm disease (DED) was introduced in America from Europe in logs and furniture in the 1930s. DED is a fungal disease spread by a beetle. The natural range of American elm was much larger than chestnuts and they were widely planted as park and street trees in cities because of their tolerance for challenging urban conditions. Therefore, their loss was devastating to many communities. Most communities tried to save their elms by removing diseased trees in an attempt to isolate the disease. By the 1990s, the majority of American elms were dead. Many scientists have tried to develop a DED-resistant variety of American elm by cross-breeding them with species that are not vulnerable to the disease. Several DED-resistant varieties of elms are being planted and their fate will determine the future of American elms.
Asian long-horned beetle (ALB) arrived in North America in the late 1990s on wood packing material, such as wooden pallets. It is less selective about its tree hosts than the beetle that carries the elm fungus, although it has a preference for maples. Once again, destroying infested trees was the preferred control method. “Over 1,550 trees in Chicago have been cut down and destroyed to eradicate ALB from Chicago. In New York, over 6,000 infested trees resulted in the removal of over 18,000 trees; New Jersey’s infestation of over 700 trees led to the removal and destruction of almost 23,000 trees, but infested trees continue to be discovered.” (2) Injections of a pesticide (imidacloprid, a neonicotinoid insecticide) were also used on infected trees.
White ash. Creative Commons
Emerald ash borer (EAB) also arrived in North America in the 1990s, but it has spread far more rapidly than the long-horned beetle. Little was known about EAB when it arrived from Asia because it does not kill Asian species of ash, which have developed a resistance to the beetle predators after centuries of co-existence. In North America, the EAB threatens the entire ash genus: “It has killed at least tens of millions of ash trees so far and threatens to kill most of the 8.7 billion ash trees throughout North America. Emerald ash borer kills young trees several years before reaching their seeding age of 10 years.” (2) Ironically, ash trees were widely planted in urban areas to replace the elms that were destroyed by DED.
Here in California, we have lost 5 million of our oak trees to the pathogen that causes Sudden Oak Death since 1995. Also, over 100 million conifer trees in the Sierra Nevada have died in the past 5 years of a combination of drought and native bark beetles.
A digression: Turnabout is fair play
Some of our readers might be surprised by our reporting about the devastating consequences of introducing pathogens and insects to our urban forests. After all, aren’t we usually defenders of introduced species? So, let’s take this detour to explain how this topic is consistent with the mission of Million Trees:
Asian long-horned beetle
There is a lesson in these stories about the relationships between insects and trees. Insects introduced from distant places, such as Asia, quickly attacked our native tree species that do not exist in the native ranges of the insects. It didn’t take thousands of years of co-evolution for the insects to find the native trees that they killed. They came, they saw, and they feasted on our trees. In most cases, the insects found trees here in the same genus as the trees in their home ranges that were chemically similar. And in most cases, the insects were not nearly as damaging to trees in their home ranges because their host trees had developed resistance to the insects.
Now let’s turn this story around. Native plant advocates who wish to destroy non-native plants claim that they will become “invasive” because they don’t have insect predators here. They claim that native insects “co-evolve” exclusive relationships with native trees and are unwilling and/or unable to use introduced plants and trees.
Furthermore, when introduced plants are attacked by our native insects, they are more vulnerable to the native insects because they have not had an opportunity to develop defenses against them. The Asian insects that are killing our native trees are not a serious problem in their home ranges because the trees in their home ranges are resistant to them
In other words, claims that introduced plants are invasive because they have no insect predators are contradicted by reality. In fact, introduced plants are at a disadvantage when confronted by the insect predators in their new home. Once again, we find little logic in the unproven hypotheses of invasion biology.
Redemption of our urban forests
Efforts to restore America’s urban forests began in earnest in the 1960s, partly as a response to the loss of chestnuts and elms and partly as a growing interest in the environment. These efforts are too numerous to mention, but we will pay tribute to a few of them.
Arbor Day is celebrated all over the country. This is a park in Minneapolis.
Early interest in America’s trees was reflected in the creation of Arbor Day in Nebraska in the 1870s. Celebration of Arbor Day spread slowly across America until it was observed in nearly every state of the nation. Sterling Morton was the organizer of the first Arbor Day and he was also instrumental in the creation of one of our most important research arboretums, the Morton Arboretum in Illinois. Harvard’s research arboretum, Arnold Arboretum, was founded in 1872 and to this day is responsible for much of our knowledge of our trees.
Private enterprise has also made significant contributions to our knowledge of trees. Davey Tree Experts was founded in 1880 by a tree-evangelist who was inspired by butchered trees to write practical guides to inform citizens about how to take care of their trees properly. Bartlett Tree Experts was founded in 1907 and is also a respected provider of tree care. Much of the damage done in our urban forests is caused by people who don’t know how to take care of their trees. Hiring a certified arborist to take care of your trees is money well spent.
The US Forest Service is the source of much of our knowledge about the value of our urban forests. David Nowak and Greg McPherson of the US Forest Service were responsible for groundbreaking research about the carbon stored by trees, the pollution that trees remove from the air, the contribution that trees make to the value of our properties and to our health and well-being.
Armed with this new improved understanding of the value of our trees, an army of volunteers and a proliferation of non-profit organizations are now engaged in the effort to preserve our urban forests. Tree People in Los Angeles was among the first of these organizations. One of their first projects was to plant one million trees for the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles. Since then they have planted millions of trees in Los Angeles.
We recently had an opportunity to appreciate how many non-profit organizations there are in California, devoted to the care and preservation of our urban forests. Thirty-three non-profit tree advocacy organizations collaborated in a public comment on California’s Urban Greening Grant Program, which will give California cities $76 million to plant trees to increase carbon storage and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The letter of the non-profits acknowledged the importance of introduced trees in our urban forests: “Native trees are generally not suited to urban conditions. They have difficulty adapting to the urban environment, thereby substantially reducing survivability. According to California’s Guide to the Trees Among Us, only 6% of California’s urban trees are native to California. As an example, the approved list of street trees for the City of San Francisco includes no trees native to San Francisco. In Oakland, two of the 48 allowed species are native.”
These are the forestry non-profit organizations that signed the letter to the Urban Greening Grant Program
Introduced trees are the foundation of California’s urban forests. Efforts to eradicate non-native trees will doom us to a treeless landscape and all that implies about our environment: more pollution, more noise, more wind, more greenhouse gas emissions, more erosion, less habitat for wildlife, and less beauty in our landscapes.
Jill Jonnes, Urban Forests: A natural history of trees and people in the American cityscape, Viking, 2016
The Hills Conservation Network (HCN) has won the third legal battle against the many attempts to destroy the urban forest in the East Bay. Every lawsuit they have filed has resulted in significant victories that have prevented three public land managers from destroying as many trees as they wanted. We will briefly describe HCN’s early victories and end by telling you about their most recent victory. Finally, we will explain the implications of those legal successes for the threats to the urban forest that are still anticipated.
East Bay Regional Park District
Frowning Ridge after 1,900 trees were removed from 11 acres in 2004. This is one of UC Berkeley’s first projects to destroy all non-native trees on its properties.
When UC Berkeley clear cut all non-native trees on about 150 acres of their properties in the hills over 10 years ago, there was no opportunity for the public to object to those projects because there was no environmental impact review. Those projects were a preview of the damage that other public land managers intended and they helped to mobilize opposition to the projects when they were formally presented to the public.
The East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) published its “Wildfire Hazard Reduction and Resource Management Plan” in 2009. That plan proposed to radically thin and/or clear cut all non-native trees on several thousand park acres. Along with HCN, I was one of the members of the public who objected to those plans for many reasons: the loss of stored carbon and carbon storage going forward, the pesticides used to poison the non-native trees and vegetation, the increased fire hazard resulting from grassy vegetation that occupies the unshaded forest floor when the trees are destroyed.
Tilden Park, Recommended Treatment Area TI001, June 5, 2016. This in one of the projects of East Bay Regional Park District, in process.
EBRPD chose to ignore our objections and published an Environmental Impact Report based on the unrevised plans. We repeated our objections to the project when the EIR was published. The Hills Conservation Network filed their first lawsuit against the EBRPD EIR, which did not adequately address the environmental impacts of the plans. HCN and EBRPD engaged in a long and arduous negotiation which resulted in a settlement that saved many trees in Claremont Canyon and some in other project areas. EBRPD continues to implement their plans as revised by the HCN settlement.
UC Berkeley and City of Oakland
Meanwhile, UC Berkeley and City of Oakland wrote their own plans and applied to FEMA for grants to implement their plans. Their plans were more extreme than those of EBPRD. They proposed to clear cut ALL non-native trees on their project acres.
Once again, along with HCN, I asked that FEMA not fund those grants to UC Berkeley and City of Oakland because of the environmental damage they would do and the increased fire hazard that would result if the projects were implemented. FEMA’s response to our objections was to require an Environmental Impact Study (the federal equivalent of an EIR) for the projects.
I joined HCN in recruiting over 13,000 public comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Study (EIS). About 90% of those public comments were opposed to the projects. Despite that public opposition, the EIS was approved with a few small concessions. A few project acres would be “thinned” over a 10-year period, but ultimately all non-native trees would be destroyed on the project acres of UC Berkeley and City of Oakland.
HCN sued FEMA to prevent the funding of the projects as described by the EIS. The Sierra Club prevented any negotiation from taking place by counter-suing. The Sierra Club lawsuit demanded that EBRPD clear-cut ALL non-native trees. The Sierra Club was not satisfied with the radical thinning that EBRPD is doing on most project acres. These competing lawsuits produced a stalemate that lasted until September 2016, when FEMA cancelled all grant funding to UC Berkeley and City of Oakland in settlement of HCN’s lawsuit against FEMA.
That was truly a fantastic victory that was not anticipated. In fact HCN’s lawsuit only asked that UC Berkeley and City of Oakland scale back their plans to use the same “thinning” strategy being used by EBRPD. To this day, it feels like a gift.
Sierra Club’s lawsuit to force EBRPD to clear cut non-native trees on their property was dismissed by the same judge who approved the FEMA settlement. The Sierra Club has filed an appeal of that dismissal. Sierra Club remains fully committed to its agenda of destroying all non-native trees and using pesticides to prevent them from resprouting.
UC Berkeley’s response to losing FEMA grant
UC Berkeley attempted to satisfy CEQA requirements for an Environmental Impact Report for their FEMA project by writing an addendum to their Long Range Development Plan. They claimed that their Long Range Development Plan adequately evaluated environmental impacts of their planned tree removals. If they had succeeded, they would have been in a position to implement their plan without FEMA funding.
The Hills Conservation Network filed their third lawsuit against UC Berkeley on the grounds that a brief addendum to UC’s long-range development plan did not meet legal requirements for an EIR. The judge who heard arguments for a permanent injunction to delay implementation of the project until completion of a full EIR, agreed with HCN. He pointed out to UC Berkeley’s lawyer that the description of the project in the long-range development plan bore little resemblance to the project presently planned. The judge had done his homework.
The final chapter in this legal saga was that UC Berkeley attempted to avoid paying HCN’s legal fees. California’s environmental law (CEQA) requires that the losing party pay the legal fees of the winning party. This provision is intended to enable small citizen groups to challenge deep pocket corporations and institutions. HCN (and its legal representative) had been adequately compensated in its first two legal battles, but UC Berkeley thought it could refuse.
The judge thought otherwise. Not only did he require UC Berkeley to pay for its illegal attempt to avoid environmental impact review, he commended HCN for its public service: “The Court determines that Petitioners were a successful party in this action, and that this case resulted in enforcement of important public rights and conferred a significant benefit on the public.” Yes, indeed, HCN has performed a valuable public service and we are grateful for the judge’s recognition.
For the moment, we believe that UC Berkeley’s plans to destroy all non-native trees are on hold. They have several options. They can complete an EIR for the original plans. Or they can revise or abandon their plans. We will watch them closely.
Update: On June 14, 2017, UC Berkeley filed a lawsuit against FEMA and California Office of Emergency Services to reverse the settlement that cancelled the FEMA grants to destroy all non-native trees on UC Berkeley project acres. (Media report on UCB lawsuit is available HERE.) HCN is developing a legal strategy to address this latest move by UC Berkeley. UC Berkeley’s lawsuit implies that they are still committed to their original plans to destroy all non-native trees.
City of Oakland’s response to loss of FEMA grants
The reaction of City of Oakland to the cancellation of their FEMA grant was thankfully very different from UC Berkeley’s reaction. In November 2016, they signed a contract to write a vegetation management plan for the purpose of reducing fire hazards. That contract makes a commitment to conducting a complete public process, including an environmental impact review. The contractor has already held two public meetings and an on-line survey. We will participate in this process and we urge others to participate. Sign up HERE to be notified of the public meetings.
The Oakland Fire Department has announced the next public meeting regarding the development of the vegetation management plan on Thursday, June 29, 2017 to provide project updates and offer an opportunity to ask questions/provide feedback. Project staff will be available to give a summary of the community survey responses received in March/April 2017, and to provide an update on Vegetation Management Plan development, methodologies, and work completed and underway.
Public Meeting: June 29, 2017, 5:30 PM – 7:30 PM Richard C. Trudeau Conference Center
11500 Skyline Blvd
Oakland, CA 94619
These are the Oakland city properties that will be covered by the vegetation management plan: 1,400 acres of parks and open spaces and 300 miles of roadsides. Interactive map is available here: https://oaklandvegmanagement.org/
We are hopeful that Oakland’s vegetation management plan will be one that we can live with. The City of Oakland should understand that another lawsuit is an alternative if the vegetation management plan is as destructive as their original plans.
Although I contributed to the cost of HCN’s lawsuits (along with many others), I don’t have the stomach to engage in them. Therefore, I am deeply grateful to HCN for their courage and fortitude in preventing the total destruction of our urban forest. Although I was skeptical of legal challenges as the way to prevent the destruction of our urban forest, I am now a convert. The HCN lawsuits were the most effective tool we had.
Conservation Sense and Nonsense 