Ecology – Page 18 – Conservation Sense and Nonsense

The Ecological “Restoration” Industry: Follow the money

Matt Chew is one of many professional academics that criticize invasion biology. Unlike most, he emphasizes explaining the weaknesses of eco-nativism using scientific, historical, and philosophical methods, depending on the issue. This has made him a useful collaborator and resource for like-minded but primarily science-oriented colleagues. Million Trees is deeply grateful for his willingness to speak publically about the fallacies of invasion biology, including the generous gift of his time in writing this guest post for us.

Dr. Chew is a faculty member of Arizona State University’s Center for Biology and Society and an instructor in the ASU School of Life Sciences. He teaches courses including the History of Biology, Biology and Society, and a senior conservation biology course in “novel ecosystems,” described HERE on the university’s “ASU Now” news website.

He was also a speaker at the 2013 annual conference of Beyond Pesticides. A video of his presentation is available HERE (go to 24:40). He says that “invasive” plants are convenient scapegoats that are presenting a marketing opportunity for the manufacturers of pesticides. Invasion biology is at the core of the greening of pesticides.

In his guest post, Matt helps us to understand how he chose to pursue a multidisciplinary critique of one topic rather than adopting a single disciplinary approach and identity. He began his professional career as a practicing conservation biologist, experiencing firsthand the sometimes startling disconnects between laws, policies, aspirations, public expectations, and realities “on the ground.”

We celebrate April Fool’s Day with Matt Chew’s article. When we waste our money on ecological “restorations” the joke is on us!

Million Trees

Matt Chew with his class in novel ecosystems

Those familiar with my academic work know I invest most of my efforts documenting and explaining the flaws and foibles of “invasion biology.” But I got into this messy business as a practical conservation biologist, a natural resources planner “coordinating” the Arizona State Natural Areas Program during the late 1990s. I found the toxic nativism of natural areas proponents morbidly fascinating, and the practical politics of natural areas acquisition and management morbidly galling. I chose to follow my fascination. But as “Death of a Million Trees” marks the end of its seventh year as a WordPress blog, and in light of recent decisions by Bay Area authorities, it’s time for a galling reminder: Follow the money.

Authorities responsible for suburban fire suppression and recovery necessarily view stands of living trees as liabilities. They can’t see the forest for the fuels. The prospect of eliminating them merely drives their value further into the negative. That it must be subsidized is ironic because eucalyptus and Monterey pine are plantation grown in many countries for timber or pulp. But they aren’t traditional sources of California wood products and a glut of more familiar drought-killed trees awaits salvage far from finicky neighbors.

So condemned trees can’t just be disappeared by pointing them out to eager loggers. “Concept planning” can be fairly vague, but “action planning” must be very specific. A job this big requires both general and sub-contracting. It requires hiring and training and supervising. Capital equipment will be acquired, maintained and repaired. Affected areas must be surveyed and material volumes estimated. Before trees can be felled, access routes must be surveyed and created. After trees are felled they must be sectioned, staged, loaded and hauled away for disposal. More often they are shredded in place. At every step, someone pays and someone profits.

Where “ecological restoration” is the objective, stumps must be pulled or blasted and roots must be excavated. The eucalyptus seed bank will need to be eliminated or rendered inert. Perhaps even a century’s accumulation of organic topsoil will need amending, or removing and replacing to reconstitute prehistoric substrates. Seed suppliers and nurseries will be contracted to provide plant “native” materials. After the armies of tree-fellers and stump-blasters will come waves of laborers, tractors, diggers, spreaders, and planters in an endless relay of trucks. Ecological restoration is farming, all the more so in proximity to a cityscape arrayed in exotic plants. If all goes well and the rain falls in judicious quantities at auspicious times, planting will be followed by perpetual weeding. At every step, someone pays and someone profits.

It’s hardly surprising that FEMA has no intention of underwriting restoration on that scale. Their plans envision minimally spreading shredded wood, leaving a layer up to two feet deep to gradually decompose, and hoping whatever oaks and other present understory plants they haven’t accidentally fractured or flattened will thrive in the sudden absence of big trees. Two feet of material will gradually compact, but assurances that it will rot into organic soil within a few years are pretty optimistic. Whether and when it will support anything resembling a native plant assemblage is dubious. Meanwhile, some viable stumps will require recurring treatment with the herbicide du jour and occasional supplemental felling. It’s not a reset-and-forget strategy. It’s just the first step of a long and contentious cycle of interventions. And of course, at every step, someone pays and someone profits.

Whenever public property and expenditure is concerned there should be an open procurement process with a clear data trail. A call for proposals is written and published, bids are received, contracts awarded, and work commences. But we can be certain that by the time the prospect of deforesting the Bay Area was openly discussed by policymakers, potential bidders were positioning themselves to influence the shape of the emerging policy and take advantage of it. And various interest groups who saw deforesting the hillsides as a means to their ends became a de facto coalition of advocates. Some acted more openly than others, and some to greater effect. But prominent nonprofit organizations expect returns on their investments. Nothing happens unless someone pays and someone profits.

Some of the premises underlying the logic of the program will inevitably be faulty. Should it falter at any step due to unforeseen events (e.g., meteorological, horticultural, ecological, economic or political), contingencies will be implemented… if funds are available. There are only three certainties. Firstly, no action occurs unless someone pays and someone profits. Secondly, nature, within which I include all aspects of human society, is complex and capricious. No one can predict with much certainty how a post-deforestation landscape will look or function. Finally, a coalition of the discontented will emerge and agitate for improvements that require someone to pay, and allow someone to profit. As Nancy Pelosi recently reminded us, “we’re capitalist and that’s just the way it is.”

Matt Chew

The forest is greater than the sum of its parts

The Hidden Life of Trees was written by a German forester, Peter Wohlleben. After completion of formal academic training as a forester, he took a government job managing a 3,000 acre public forest. After 20 years of managing that forest for timber production with chainsaws, bulldozers, and insecticides, he decided about 10 years ago that he could not continue damaging the forest he had fallen in love with.

He resolved to manage a forest for the benefit of the forest, rather than for economic benefit. In fact, he was able to do both. The community for which he had been managing its forest for timber, decided to change its mission to forest preservation: “So, 10 years ago, the municipality took a chance. It ended its contract with the state forestry administration, and hired Mr. Wohlleben directly. He brought in horses, eliminated insecticides and began experimenting with letting the woods grow wilder. Within two years, the forest went from loss to profit, in part by eliminating expensive machinery and chemicals.” (1)

The forest educates the forester

In the decades that Mr. Wohlleben has cared for the forest, he has learned a great deal about the trees, and more importantly how the trees function as a community in the forest: “…in nature, trees operate less like individuals and more as communal beings. Working together in networks and sharing resources, they increase their resistance.” (1)

In The Hidden Life of Trees, Mr. Wohlleben tells us how the trees communicate and share resources in the forest. When foresters interrupt these functions by artificially spacing out the trees, they can disconnect the trees from their networks, depriving them of their natural resilience mechanisms.

How do trees communicate?

Creative Commons. Photo by Steve Garvie.

Scent is one of the means of communication between trees. On the African savannah Acacia trees are one of the favorite food of giraffes. When the giraffes start munching on the Acacia, the tree pumps a powerful toxin into its leaves that makes it unpalatable to the giraffes. The scent of that toxin is wafted to neighboring Acacia trees, which triggers them to start pumping that toxin into their leaves, making them unpalatable before the giraffes even get to them. If the distance between the trees is increased beyond the range of the scent message, the Acacias are unprepared for the giraffes when they arrive after being repelled by the toxic defense of their distant neighbors.

Hope Jahren tells a similar story in Lab Girl about the role of scent in the defense of an entire forest in an infestation of tent caterpillars in a research forest in Washington. The initial attack of the caterpillars defoliated entire trees and fatally damaged others. The wounded trees emitted a powerful acid that made the caterpillars sick. The scent of that acid warned healthy trees a full mile away. The spread of the caterpillars throughout the forest was halted by this scent message, making the healthy trees equally unpalatable to the caterpillars.

The underground communication and defense system

The roots of trees radiate out from the trunk forming a perimeter of roots that is often twice as big as the canopy. In the forest, the root systems of neighboring trees often intersect and grow into one another. The trees in the forest are also connected underground by a web of fungi that connect the roots of a tree to its neighbors. These connections transmit signals from one tree to the next, “helping the trees exchange news about insects, drought, and other dangers.” (2)

This network of roots and fungi is also how trees share resources in the forest. Every tree in the forest lives in a slightly different environment such as the nutrients in the soil, the physical composition of the soil, the available light, etc. Despite these differences in available resources, researchers at the Institute for Environmental Research in Germany discovered that the trees distribute available resources throughout the forest so that every tree was photosynthesizing* at the same rate. That is, every tree in the forest was sharing an equal amount of the sugar produced by photosynthesis: “Their enormous networks act as gigantic redistribution mechanisms. It’s a bit like the way social security systems operate to ensure individual members of society don’t fall too far behind.” (2) (The scientist who documented this sharing of resources by trees gave a TED talk about her research, which is available HERE.)

Wohlleben’s analogy, suggesting that the sharing economy of the forest is comparable to our social safety net is thought provoking. Let’s think about it. Are the trees being generous to their neighbors in the forest by alerting them to dangers and sharing resources with them? No, because by benefiting their neighbors, the trees also benefit themselves: “This is because a tree can be only as strong as the forest that surrounds it…Their well-being depends on their community, and when the supposedly feeble trees disappear, the others lose as well. When that happens, the forest is no longer a single closed unit. Hot sun and swirling winds can now penetrate to the forest floor and disrupts the moist, cool climate.” (2)

Challenging the conventional wisdom

If the trees in the forest benefit by being close to one another, why do the local managers of our public lands keep telling us that “thinning” the forest will be good for the forest? Wohlleben tells us that the conventional wisdom that thinning the forest is good for the trees originates with the timber industry: “In commercial forests, trees are supposed to grow thick trunks and be harvest ready as quickly as possible. And to do that, they need a lot of space and large, symmetrical, rounded crowns. In regular five-year cycles, any supposed competition is cut down so that the remaining trees are free to grow. Because these trees will never grow old—they are destined for the sawmill when they are only about a hundred [in Germany]—the negative effects of this management practice are barely noticeable.” (2)

Our urban forest is not “destined for the sawmill,” so thinning the urban forest does not benefit either the trees that remain or the forest as a whole. The “thinning” strategy being used by the managers of our public lands is damaging both the forest and the environment:

The trees that remain are damaged by the pesticides that are used to kill the roots of their neighbors when they are destroyed. The pesticides that are sprayed on the stumps of the destroyed trees kill the roots of the tree and also travel through the interconnected root systems to damage the trees that remain.
The trees that remain are subjected to more wind when their neighbors are destroyed, which increases the potential for windthrow and therefore public safety hazards.
The forest is less capable of retaining moisture when shade is reduced, which also stresses the trees that remain.
Valuable habitat for wildlife is lost when trees are destroyed.

The Hidden Life of Trees informs us that the forest is greater than the sum of its parts. Every tree contributes to forest health just as every member of society contributes to the well-being of our communities.

*Photosynthesis is the process used by plants to convert light energy into chemical energy that is stored in carbohydrate molecules, such as sugars. The sugars are the fuel that enable plants to live and grow. (Wikipedia)

“German Forest Ranger Finds That Trees Have Social Networks, Too,” New York Times, January 29, 2016.
Peter Wohlleben, The Hidden Life of Trees: What They Feel, How They Communicate, Greystone Book, 2016 (originally published in German in 2015)

Lab Girl: A tribute to the challenges of science

Lab Girl is a memoir of a scientist, Hope Jahren. Jahren is a geobiologist, which is the scientific discipline that “explores the interactions between the physical Earth and the biosphere [global ecosystems].” (1) She describes the arduous journey from curious student to full-fledged scientist. That transition involved physically demanding collection expeditions, digging deep into the soil for the samples that informed her research into the complex relationships between the soil and the plants that live in it. Then long, tedious hours in the laboratory are required to analyze the soil and plant samples to develop the hypotheses needed to explain those relationships. Finally, complicated laboratory tests are needed to test the hypotheses.

If you don’t already have a deep respect for the demands of science, Lab Girl will help you to appreciate the dedication of the scientists engaged in the process of refining our scientific knowledge. At a time in our social history when science is being questioned by those with political agendas, Lab Girl is an antidote to skepticism about science and scientific expertise.

Familiar Themes

Jahren alternates chapters about her career with chapters about the plants she studies. As we might expect, Jahren has a profound respect for trees and so her book is relevant to the mission of Million Trees. She eloquently makes many of the same observations we make on Million Trees. Here are a few:

On the value of observation and the complexity and changeability of nature:

“Time has changed me, my perception of my tree, and my perception of my tree’s perception of itself. Science has taught me that everything is more complicated than we first assume, and that being able to derive happiness from discovery is a recipe for a beautiful life. It has convinced me that carefully writing everything down is the only real defense we have against forgetting something important that once was and is no more, including the spruce tree that should have outlived me but did not.” (2)

On the importance of fungi to forest health:

“Underneath every mushroom is a web of stringy hyphae that may extend for kilometers, wrapping around countless clumps of soil and holding the landscape together. The ephemeral mushroom appears briefly above the surface while the webbing that anchors it lives for years within a darker and richer world. A very small minority of these fungi—just five thousand species—have strategically entered into a deep and enduring truce with plants. They cast their stringy webbing around and through the roots of trees, sharing the burden of drawing water into the trunk. They also mine the soil for rare metals, such as manganese, copper, and phosphorous, and then present them to the tree as precious gifts of the magi.” (2)

Placing blame for “invasive” weeds where it belongs: ON US!

“A plant that lives where it should not live is a weed. We don’t resent the audacity of the weeds, as every seed is audacious; we resent its fantastic success. Humans are actively creating a world where only weeds can live and feigning shock and outrage upon finding so many. This mixed message is irrelevant: there is already a revolution taking place in the plant world as invasives effortlessly supplant natives within every human-modified space. Our impotent condemnation of weeds will not stop this revolution. We aren’t getting the revolution we want; we are getting the one that we triggered.” (2)

On the future of our forests:

“Every year since 1990 we have created more than eight billion new stumps. If we continue to fell healthy trees at this rate, less than six hundred years from now, every tree on the planet will have been reduced to a stump. My job is about making sure there will be some evidence that someone cared about the great tragedy that unfolded during our age.” (2)

And that is the job of Million Trees as well…to make this record of fighting to preserve our urban forests. We echo Hope Jahren’s final message in Lab Girl: “Here is my personal request to you: If you own any private land at all, plant one tree on it this year. If you are renting a place with a yard, plant a tree in it and see if your landlord notices. If he does, insist to him that it was always there. Throw in a bit about how exceptional he is for caring enough about the environment to have put it there.” (2)

Hope for 2017

We have had some big disappointments in 2016, and it isn’t easy to find something useful to do to improve the political climate in our country. Planting a tree is something positive that many people are in a position to do. When you feel discouraged about the future of our country, go visit your tree and pat yourself on the back for making an investment in the future of our country.

Happy New Year

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geobiology
Hope Jahren, Lab Girl, Alfred Knopf, 2016

An epilogue to the saga of the San Francisco Natural Areas Program

On December 15, 2016, the San Francisco Planning Commission approved the Environmental Impact Report for the Natural Areas Program and the Recreation and Parks Commission approved the management plan for the Natural Areas Program. The public hearing was over 6 hours long and is available for viewing HERE. Although we watched the hearing, we won’t try to summarize it here because readers can watch it if they wish. Rather we will comment on a few conspicuous observations about the hearing.

The most noteworthy feature of the hearing was that virtually all of the supporters of the EIR and the Natural Areas Program were allowed to speak first. Critics of the program were called on last. If you have spoken at such a hearing, you know that speakers submit a speaker’s card on which they indicate their support or opposition for the agenda item when they arrive. Typically, speakers are called in the order in which they arrive at the hearing. This usual procedure was apparently not followed in this case.

The main disadvantage of not being called upon in the order in which speakers arrive is that when a hearing is 6 hours long, many people with other responsibilities—such as work or family obligations—are forced to leave before their names are called. In the case of this hearing, I heard a number of names called of people whom I knew to be critics of NAP, who did not speak, presumably because they waited their turn but weren’t called in the order of their arrival.

Another conspicuous feature of this hearing was that the vast majority of speakers in favor of the EIR and the management plan either work directly for the program or are affiliated with it. Many supporting speakers were representatives of non-profits that conduct similar projects or they bring children into the parks to “educate” them about native plants. Their presence at the hearing was therefore a work responsibility which enabled them to spend an unlimited amount of time at the hearing.

This is an illustration of the biggest obstacle to the realization that nativism is a destructive agenda based on outdated scientific hypotheses for which there is no empirical evidence. In a word, “restoration” ecology is now a multi-million dollar industry in which many people are employed. Therefore, there is vested economic interest in continuing such efforts whether or not they are successful or beneficial.

Criticisms of the Natural Areas Program and its EIR

The speakers who opposed the approval of the management plan and its EIR were members of the general public who are neighbors of the so-called “natural areas.” They mentioned the destruction of trees (and the subsequent loss of sequestered carbon) and the use of herbicides as their primary objection to the plans. Another important issue was the restrictions on recreational access such as the closure of 10 miles of trails and the requirement that all access be confined to the trails that remain. These are issues with which our readers are familiar, so we won’t elaborate.

Comments based on personal experience with specific “natural areas” seemed most effective. One fellow said he had participated as a volunteer in several big plantings of native plants in a natural area. The plants died each time and presently few plants have survived several attempts to “restore” this so-called natural area. This experience had led this speaker to conclude that attempts to “restore” this park to native plants were futile.

A neighbor of Glen Canyon Park showed pictures of the impact on her neighborhood of the destruction of trees in the park several years ago. Her neighborhood has lost its windbreak and therefore dust from the bare ground is blowing into their homes. Their beautiful view of the trees has been replaced by bare ground.

The Natural Areas Program began 20 years ago and has been fully staffed and funded since its inception. Therefore, it should be judged by what it has accomplished. It has closed trails, destroyed trees, and built fences. It has repeatedly destroyed vegetation with herbicides and planted those areas with native plants. The native plants have died, in some cases several times in 20 years. In other words, it has little useful to show for 20 years of investment of effort and money. Since it has not been successful after 20 years, it seems insane to invest another 20 years of money and effort. Remember that one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.

Support for the Natural Areas Program

We hesitate to use the word “lie” to describe the justifications for the Natural Areas Program, but after listening to hours of testimony by its supporters, we will use that word to describe a few of their claims:

The most effective lie is that all the trees they destroy will be replaced with native trees. In fact, no such commitment is made in the management plan, which says explicitly that the natural areas will be converted to grassland and dune scrub. This “replacement” fiction is mentioned in the EIR. However, the EIR makes no commitment to planting the replacement trees in the areas or even the same parks where the trees are destroyed. This important caveat to the commitment to replace the trees was not mentioned by any of the speakers in support of the plans, including NAP’s leadership. In the case of the 15,000 trees that will be destroyed at Sharp Park, calling those removals anything other than a clear-cut is a lie.
Inaccurate descriptions of NAP’s use of herbicides also qualify as lies. The executive director claimed during the hearing that only 2.67 quarts of “active ingredient” were used in the natural areas in 2016. In fact, public records requests inform us that NAP used 1 gallon (4 quarts) of active ingredient from January 2016 to October 2016. The “active ingredient” is only a fraction of the amount of the formulated product. The “inert” ingredients in the formulated product are often considered hazardous. In other words, reporting only the volume of active ingredient underestimates the amount of herbicide being applied. The number of pesticide applications done by NAP is another way to evaluate the magnitude of pesticides used by NAP. From January 2016 to October 2016, pesticides were applied in the natural areas 111 times, which is 85% of all pesticide applications in park areas other than Harding Park (which is a golf course maintained to professional competition standards with contractual obligations regarding turf maintenance). A full report of NAP’s pesticide use is available HERE.
Courtesy San Francisco Forest Alliance
Claims that the forest in the natural areas will be “managed” for forest health are false. The management plan says explicitly that the trees will be removed for the purpose of expanding native plant gardens that require full sun. These areas will not be “thinned” as supporters claim. Rather they will be removed along the leading edge of the forest in order to create more unshaded ground for planting native plants. The health of the trees is not the criterion for their removal. These tree removals will not benefit the forest.

However, most of the statements made by supporters are not lies. Rather they are faithful repetitions of an ideology that most of them probably believe. Here are a few examples:

Nativists believe that native animals require native plants. There is no empirical evidence to support that belief. All empirical studies find equal numbers of insects, birds, amphibians, etc., using non-native plants.
Nativists claim that native pollinators require specific native plants. With few exceptions this belief is mistaken. The monarch butterfly, for example, is as willing and able to use one of the many non-native species of milkweed as it is a native species. Some butterflies require a specific genus of plant as its host, but a genus is typically composed of hundreds of species of which many are not native.
Nativists believe that the immutable relationship between specific animals and specific plants has evolved over “thousands of years.” They are mistaken. Animals adapt much more quickly to changes in the environment. Many changes in plants and animals have been observed over a period of years, rather than a period of centuries, let alone millennia.

Many of the supporters of the NAP plans mentioned that native plants would somehow mitigate climate change. This is a mysterious notion that I cannot explain. If we are destroying tens of thousands of trees that store tons of carbon, how can we claim this will reduce climate change? The grassland that is the goal of these “restoration” projects will store a small fraction of the amount of carbon stored by the trees. Is this absurd claim a reflection of ignorance about carbon storage? Or is it a strategy intended to confuse the public? Whatever the motivation, the claim that native plants mitigate climate change is NOT true.

The nativists apparently do not understand that the ranges of native plants and animals have changed in response to changes in the climate and they will continue to change. They aren’t stopping climate change by planting native plants. In fact, climate change requires that the concept of “native” be redefined. That’s why their projects are unrealistic and futile because they are based on a climate that no longer exists.

The epilogue

The San Francisco Forest Alliance has announced its intention to appeal the certification of the Environmental Impact Report to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. This appeal will be heard sometime in 2017. You will be notified of the hearing if you will subscribe to the Forest Alliance website: http//sfforest.org.

Meanwhile, the Forest Alliance will ask the City of San Francisco to prohibit the use of the most toxic herbicides in the city’s parks. There will be two public hearings regarding the city’s pesticide policies and practices:

Monday, December 19, 2016, 5 pm. This is a public hearing by San Francisco’s Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program. Details about that hearing are available HERE.
Tuesday, January 24, 2017. The Commission on the Environment will consider the recommendations of the IPM Program at this hearing. The Forest Alliance will publish the details of that hearing when they are available.

Best Wishes for a BETTER 2017

The certification of the EIR and the approval of the NAP management plan is not the holiday gift that we were hoping for. In fact, the entire year of 2016 wasn’t much of a gift to those who believe government has an important and valuable job to do. We look forward to a better year in 2017 and we wish our readers all the best for the New Year.

The final episode in the 20-year saga of San Francisco’s “Natural Areas Program”

On December 15,2016, the San Francisco Planning commission will hold a public hearing to consider certification of the Environmental Impact Report for the Natural Areas Program. If the EIR is certified, the Recreation and Park Commission will consider formally adopting the management plan for the Natural Areas Program at the same hearing. The Recreation and Park Commission will have the option of adopting one of the alternatives to the management plan. The San Francisco Forest Alliance will ask that the Maintenance Alternative be adopted by the Recreation and Park Commission because it is the “environmentally superior” alternative which will destroy the least number of trees and use the least amount of pesticides.

If you can attend this hearing and make public comment, please contact the SF Forest Alliance (sfforestnews@gmail.com) for the details about where and when the hearing will take place. If you can’t attend the hearing, please consider sending an email to the Recreation and Park Commission (recpark.commission@sfgov.org) by Monday, December 12, 2016 (the deadline for submission of written public comments to be included in the agenda packet of the commissioners).

We lived in San Francisco for nearly 30 years and our local park was designated a “natural area” in 1997. Based on our experience with the Natural Areas Program, we have sent the following email to the Recreation and Park Commission. We hope that our letter will help you write your own public comment.

Subject: Approve the Maintenance Alternative for SNRAMP

Dear Recreation and Park Commissioners,

Since the Natural Areas Program was created 20 years ago, hundreds of healthy trees have been destroyed and over one thousand trees died slowly after being surreptitiously girdled by vandals calling themselves native plant advocates in the 32 so-called “natural areas.” Hundreds of gallons of herbicide have been sprayed on harmless plants, many that provided valuable habitat and food for wildlife. Trails have been closed and big signs installed instructing park visitors to stay on the trails that remain. Fences have been installed in some parks to enforce those restrictions.

This sign in a "natural area" has been altered to express the public's opinion of the Natural Areas Program. Courtesy San Francisco Forest Alliance. — This sign in a “natural area” has been altered to express the public’s opinion of the Natural Areas Program. Courtesy San Francisco Forest Alliance.

After all that destruction and restriction, what has been accomplished? Non-native plants have been repeatedly eradicated in the “natural areas” and native plants were planted. These native plant gardens have repeatedly failed: the native plants die and the non-native plants return, in some cases many times. Native trees have been planted in a few “natural areas” but most have died, despite being irrigated during an extreme drought. After wasting millions of dollars and the associated labor, there is little to show for that investment after 20 years.

Therefore, I am writing to ask the Recreation and Park Commission to vote to adopt the Maintenance Alternative as provided by the Environmental Impact Report that was 10 years in the making. The Maintenance Alternative would enable the Recreation and Park Department to continue to take care of the “natural areas” they have already created, but it would prevent further tree destruction, further restrictions on recreational access, and require fewer pesticide applications.

Besides the obvious lack of success of the Natural Areas Program after 20 years of effort, there are many other reasons why it would be wise for the Recreation and Park Department to quit throwing good money after bad money. Here are some of those reasons:

The Natural Areas Program was predicated on the mistaken assumption that native plants are superior to non-native plants as habitat for animals. In fact, in the past 20 years multitudes of empirical studies have been conducted that prove that wildlife has no preference for native plants. Wildlife is just as likely to use non-native plants as they are native plants.
The Natural Areas Program also assumed that greater biodiversity would be achieved by eradicating non-native plants. They were mistaken in that assumption as well. Studies have been conducted all over the world in the past 20 years that find no decrease in plant biodiversity resulting from introduced plants.
The climate has changed since Europeans arrived in the Bay Area in 1769 and it will continue to change. The plants that existed here in the distant past are no longer adapted to current conditions. The ranges of native plants and animals must change if they are to survive in the long run. Therefore, demanding that historical landscapes be re-created serves no useful purpose.
The native trees of California are dying by the millions. The US Forest Service informs us that 102 million native conifers have died in the Sierra Nevada in the past 6 years. University of Cambridge recently published a study about Sudden Oak Death in which they reported that 5 million oak trees have died in California since 1995 and that the epidemic is “unstoppable.” There are SOD infections in Golden Gate Park and the Arboretum. The US Forest Service tells us that Coast Live Oaks will be virtually gone from California by 2060. A study of redwoods predicts that its native range will shift north into Oregon by the end of this century. In other words, if we want trees in California, many of them will have to be non-native trees adapted to a hotter, drier climate.
Environmental conditions in a densely populated urban area such as San Francisco are also incompatible with the unrealistic goals of the Natural Areas Program. The heat island effect of urban areas exacerbates climate change. Increased levels of soil nitrogen caused by the burning of fossil fuels promotes the growth of weeds.

The Natural Areas Program was a good idea that has outlived its usefulness. We may try to keep it alive for sentimental reasons, but expanding it would be rewarding failure. Please adopt the Maintenance Alternative.

Thank you for your consideration.

California’s Urban Greening Grant Program: An opportunity to speak for the trees

In September 2016, the State of California passed a law that allocated $1.2 billion to create a cap and trade program to reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. The California Natural Resources (CNR) Agency was allocated $80 million to fund green infrastructure projects that reduce GHG emissions. The CNR Agency is creating an Urban Greening Program to fund grants to cities, counties, and other entities such as non-profit organizations in URBAN settings. 75% of the funding must also be spent in economically disadvantaged communities.

These grants must reduce GHG emissions using at least one of these specific methods:

Sequester and store carbon by planting trees
Reduce building energy use from strategically planting trees to shade buildings
Reduce commute, non-recreational and recreational vehicle miles travelled by constructing bicycle paths, bicycle lanes, or pedestrian facilities.

Clearly, planting trees is one of the primary objectives of this grant program. That sounds like good news for the environment and everyone who lives in it until you read the draft program guidelines which are available HERE.

Unfortunately, as presently drafted, the grant program will NOT increase California’s urban tree canopies, because the program requires the planting of “primarily” native trees. That requirement is explicitly stated several times in the draft guidelines, but there are also places in the draft where the reader might be misled to believe the requirement applies only to plants and not to trees. Therefore, I asked that question of the CNR Agency staff and I watched the public hearing that was held in Sacramento on October 31^st. CNR Agency staff responded that the requirement that grant projects plant “primarily” native species applies to both plants and trees.

The good news is that the grant program guidelines are presently in draft form and the public has an opportunity to comment on them. If you agree with me that we need our urban forest, you will join me in asking the CNR Agency to revise their grant program guidelines to remove restrictions against planting non-native trees. Public comment must be submitted by December 5, 2016. Send comments to: Urban Greening Grant Program c/o The California Natural Resources Agency Attn: Bonds and Grants Unit 1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 653-2812, OR Email: urbangreening@resources.ca.gov Fax: (916) 653-8102

Here are a few of the reasons why limiting trees to native species will not increase tree canopies in urban areas in California:

Many places in California were virtually treeless prior to the arrival of Europeans. Non-native trees were planted by early settlers in California because most of our native trees will not grow where non-native trees are capable of growing. According to Matt Ritter’s California’s Guide to the Trees Among Us, only 6% of California’s urban trees are native to California:

Draft guidelines for the Urban Greening grants refers applicants to the California Native Plant Society for their plant palette (see page 24 of guidelines). If applicants use this as the source of their plant palate, they will find few trees on those lists. This is another way to understand that if you want trees in California, most of them must be non-native.

Most California native trees are not suitable as street trees because of their horticultural requirements and growth habits.

The approved list of street trees for the City of San Francisco includes no trees native to San Francisco. There are many opportunities to plant more trees in San Francisco because it has one of the smallest tree canopies in the country (12%). The US Forest Service survey of San Francisco’s urban forest reported that 16% are eucalyptus, 8% are Monterey pine, and 4% are Monterey cypress. None of these tree species is native to San Francisco.
The approved list of street trees for the City of Oakland includes 48 tree species of which only two are natives. Neither seem appropriate choices: (1) toyon is a shrub, not a tree and the approved list says it will “need training to encourage an upright form.” It is wishful thinking to believe that toyon can be successfully pruned into a street tree; (2) coast live oak is being killed by the millions by Sudden Oak Death and the US Forest Service predicts coast live oaks will be virtually gone in California by 2060.

Climate change requires native plants and trees to change their ranges if they are to survive. One of the indicators of the impact of climate change on our landscapes is that 70 million native trees have died in California because of drought, insect infestations, and disease. The underlying cause of these factors is climate change.

66 million native conifers have died in the Sierra Nevada in the past 4 years because of drought and native bark beetles that have spread because winters are no longer cold enough to keep their population in check. Update: A new survey of California’s trees now reports that 102 million trees are now dead. That’s one-third of California’s trees. 62 million trees died in 2016 alone, which is an accelerating rate of death. These trees are still standing and they pose an extreme fire hazard. These are NATIVE TREES being killed by a combination of drought and NATIVE BARK BEETLES.
5 million native oaks have died since 1995 because of Sudden Oak Death. A study of SOD by University of Cambridge said in spring 2016 that the SOD epidemic is “unstoppable” and predicted that most oaks in California would eventually be killed by SOD. The Oak Mortality Task Force reported the results of its annual survey for 2016 recently. They said that SOD infections increased greatly in 2016 and that infections that were dormant in 2015 are active again. This resurgence of the pathogen causing SOD is caused by increased rain in 2016.
Scientists predict that redwood trees will “relocate from the coast of California to southern Oregon” in response to changes in the climate.

If you care about climate change, please join us in this effort to create a grant program that will expand our urban forests and reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing climate change. Restrictions against planting non-native trees must be removed from grant guidelines in order to increase our tree canopies in California’s urban environments.

Update: Final guidelines for California State Urban Greening grant applications were published on March 1, 2017, and are available HERE. That program will distribute $76 million to cities that reduce greenhouse gas emissions by planting trees or reducing fossil fuels emissions. The deadline for grant applications is May 1, 2017. There will be a workshop for applicants at the Lake Temescal Beach House (6500 Broadway, Oakland) on March 27, 2017.

Final guidelines are improved from the draft guidelines. Draft guidelines would have required applicants to plant only native trees. The State agency received 62 public comments on the draft. 27 of those comments asked that the guidelines be revised to permit planting non-native trees as well as native trees. One of the 27 comment letters was signed by 33 tree-advocacy non-profit organizations.

Final guidelines reflect the public’s opposition to prohibiting the planting of non-native trees, which would have severely limited the number of trees that would survive. Native trees have specific horticultural requirements that limit the places where they can be planted.

Final guidelines now say that only “invasive” trees cannot be planted by grant projects. If the granting agency uses the classification of the California Invasive Plant Council to determine “invasiveness,” ~~applicants would not be allowed to plant 15 specific tree species.~~ However, the California Invasive Plant Council is revising its inventory of “invasive” plants, so we don’t know if the number of “invasive” trees will be increased by that revision.

Update #2: The California Invasive Plant Council has published the proposed revision to its list of “invasive” species. There were about 200 plants on the existing list. Now they propose to add another 99 species. Ten of those species are added based on their current impacts in California. One of the ten is a tree (glossy privet). 87 of the species are proposed for addition “based on risk of becoming invasive” in the future in California. Twelve of the 89 potentially invasive plants are trees.

There were 15 trees on the original list of “invasive” species. That means that the revised list of “invasive” trees will now include a total of 28 trees that cannot be planted by Urban Greening projects that are applying for grant funds.

The revised inventory of “invasive” plants was just published. Public comments can be submitted on the proposed revisions by May 8. The proposed revisions and how to make comments on the proposal are available HERE.

Personally, I object to the introduction of a new category of 89 plants that are not presently having any “impact” according to Cal-IPC but are predicted to in the future. These revisions will increase the inventory of “invasive” plants by 50%. It represents a significant escalation of the crusade against non-native plants in the California.

Nativist bias is not entirely absent from the revised guidelines for the Urban Greening program. Applicants are required to explain why they plan to plant non-native trees. However, applicants are also required to have a certified arborist or comparable horticultural expert certify that the plant list is appropriate to the planting location. Hopefully, that will prevent the wasteful planting of native trees where they will not survive.

What will the East Bay Hills look like if our forests are destroyed?

If the owners of our public lands in the East Bay hills are finally successful in implementing their plans to destroy our urban forest, what will the hills look like? The land owners tell us in their written plans that the forests will be replaced by grassland with islands of shrubs. They also say they will preserve existing oak-bay woodlands. However, their plans make no commitments to plant anything. They predict that this conversion will take place naturally, without further intervention.

The Sierra Club, which advocates for the destruction of our urban forest, is more specific about their desire for a native landscape. The Sierra Club says, “Existing native plants in the understory will be preserved and replaced naturally. Grass and shrub land will be restored…with more naturally fire-resistant native trees and plants.”

Are these realistic predictions for the future of the East Bay hills if most of the non-native forests are destroyed? That’s the question we will ponder today.

Grassland in California

We predict that grassland is the likely immediate outcome of tree removals. The grassland will quickly succeed to shrubs in the absence of grazing and periodic fires. However, that grassland won’t be native because grassland in California has not been native for over 150 years. Here are a few of the sources of that information:

“…only about 1% of [California] grassland today could be considered pristine [AKA native]” (1)
“Non-native species are widespread and often the dominant plants in California’s grasslands…it is clear that annual grasses…are dominant over enormous portions of the state.” (2)
David Amme is one of the co-founders of The California Native Grass Association and one of the authors of East Bay Regional Park District’s “Wildfire Hazard Reduction and Resource Management Plan” at a time when he was employed by EBRPD. In an article he wrote for Bay Nature he lists a few small remnants of native grasses in the East Bay and advises 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.” (3)
In a video recording of a lecture given to ecology students at UC Berkeley, Professor Joe McBride tells the students that an inventory of grassland in Strawberry Canyon found that it is 97% non-native annual grasses. (4)

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

Poison hemlock and thistle are 8 feet tall where not sprayed with herbicide. Site 29, May2016. — Along the roads and riparian corridors, where trees have been destroyed, tall weeds reign. Poison hemlock and thistle are 8 feet tall where not sprayed with herbicide. Site 29, May 2016.

Why were native perennial bunchgrasses quickly replaced by non-native annual grasses?

David Amme explains why non-native annual grasses quickly replaced native bunch grasses in his article in Bay Nature:

“The Mediterranean annual grasses grow faster and bigger than the native bunchgrasses. Established annual grass stands produce ten times the amount of seed as do native grass stands of equal area, and most important, their seeds are five to ten times larger, giving them a big jump on establishment and fast growth. Another advantage they have is their shallow, weblike root system, which quickly exploits the moisture near the surface of the soil, rendering tiny, slow-growing native perennial seedlings helpless.” (3)

Serpentine Prairie being weeded by hand. Mowing will be required during the restoration. Prescribed burns will be required to maintain it as prairie. — Serpentine Prairie on Skyline Blvd is one of the small remnants of native bunch grasses in the East Bay. Serpentine soil suppresses the growth of annual grasses. About 8 years ago 500 trees (including many oaks) were destroyed there to begin a restoration attempt. It is being weeded by hand. Mowing will be required during the restoration. Prescribed burns will be required to maintain it as prairie.

Stromberg says land use changes were also instrumental in the replacement of native grasses by non-native annual grasses:

“…drought, combined with intensification of crop agriculture and intensive year-round livestock grazing resulted in a dramatic decline in native perennial grasses over a relatively short period. Diaries of early explorers such as John Muir also suggest that dramatic change occurred relatively rapidly in the mid 1800s. Native species were presumably replaced with non-native annuals whose seeds had become widespread as a result of transport by livestock, contaminations of seed crops, or active planting as forage crops.” (2)

European annual grasses evolved with a 40,000 year history of association with human disturbance in Eurasia and are therefore pre-adapted to take advantage of a highly disturbed environment such as agricultural and urban environments. They are also much more drought tolerant than California native grassland. (2)

Another factor in the dominance of non-native annual grassland is that many are known to be capable of transferring atmospheric nitrogen into the soil (called “nitrogen-fixers”). Modern burning of fossil fuels has increased atmospheric nitrogen levels. These two factors combine to increase levels of nitrogen in the soil. High levels of nitrogen in the soil “promotes fast-growing exotic annual grasses to the exclusion of native species.” (2)

What are the prospects of restoring native bunch grasses in the Bay Area?

Given the competitive advantages of non-native annual grasses, is it realistic to expect native bunch grasses to “naturally” colonize the landscape when the forests are destroyed without being planted? Probably not.

Stromberg reports on 18 grassland restoration projects on 943 acres in California in California Grasslands. All eighteen of those projects planted native plants after using various methods to eradicate non-native annual grasses. 78% of the projects used herbicides. 61% of the projects also used grazing. 56% of the projects also used some combination of mowing, disking, or burning. 11% of the projects also irrigated. None of these projects resulted in exclusively native grassland and none predicted permanent return of native grassland. (2)

Dunnigan Test Plot, August 2011. The result of an eight-year effort to restore native grassland. Does it look "biodiverse?" ecoseed.com. — Dunnigan Test Plot, August 2011. The result of an eight-year effort to restore native grassland. Does it look “biodiverse?” Courtesy ecoseed.com.

We reported on a project in which nearly $500,000 was spent to convert 2 acres of non-native annual grasses to native grasses over a period of 8 years. Every possible combination of planting and eradication was used. When they ran out of money, they described their success as 50% native grasses that were predicted to last for 10 years.

We turn to David Amme again to describe the prospects of converting non-native to native grassland:

“…the Mediterranean annual grasses are a permanent part of the Californian grasslands, and they now are as much a part of California’s grasslands as the native perennial grasses once were. The time is long overdue for an official naturalization ceremony. Despite the losses suffered by native plants in the face of exotic grasses, the East Bay annual grasslands remain a tremendously productive ecosystem, in terms of producing great volumes of both forage and seed.” (3)

And apparently East Bay Regional Park District agrees with that assessment, judging by this sign posted at Inspiration Point in Tilden Park:

Sign at Inspiration Point, Tilden Park: “By the 1860s [native grasslands] were largely replaced by Mediterranean grasses –‘supercompetitors’ that can be managed by grazing or burning, but never eliminated.”

And the future of grassland is bleak

Researchers at Stanford University conducted a study of the future of grasslands in California by mimicking carbon dioxide and temperature levels that are predicted in the future: “In the course of a 17-year experiment on more than 1 million plants, scientists put future global warming to a real-world test.”

Here is what they learned: “The results aren’t pretty…the plants…didn’t grow more or get greener. They also didn’t remove the pollution and store more of it in the soil…Plant growth tended to decline with rising temperature….grassland ecosystems will likely not be able to tolerate the higher temperatures and increased drought stress.” (5)

Bay Nature published an interview with Elizabeth Hadly, Stanford University Paleoecologist and recently appointed faculty director of Stanford’s Jasper Ridge Ecological Reserve, where that research study was conducted. Professor Hadly told Bay Nature, “Global change is in motion and there is no going back, no ‘restoration’ to some historic state. I want to anticipate the future. How do we anticipate the future of the nature reserve in this place?” (6)

We agree with Professor Hadly. In a rapidly changing climate, conservation efforts should look to the future, not to the past. The past is increasingly irrelevant to conservation.

Ignorance or Strategy?

Why does the Sierra Club believe that our urban forests will be replaced by native grassland? Are they ignorant of the fact that our grassland is almost entirely non-native annual grassland? Are they unaware of the fact that none of the owners of our public land in the East Bay has any intention to plant native plants? Are they unaware of the competitive advantages of non-native grasses and the notorious failures of attempts to convert grassland from non-native to native?

Or is their ignorance actually a strategy? Do they want to seduce their followers into believing that destroying non-native trees will result in the return of a native landscape?

We don’t claim to know the motivation of those who demand the destruction of our urban forest. But we know this: destroying our urban forest will not magically produce a native landscape. Claims that it will are either dishonest or delusional.

In our next post we will address the claim that oak woodlands will also expand as a result of destroying our non-native forests. Preview: the claim that oak woodlands will expand is also delusional.

Alan Schoenherr, A Natural History of California, UC Press, 1992, page 520
Mark Stromberg, et. al., California Grasslands, UC Press, 2007, page 67
David Amme, “Grassland Heritage,” Bay Nature, April 1, 2004
https://youtube/aBnvjDFT6X0
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3774958/Future-climate-change-field-test-doesnt-make-Earth-greener.html
“Elizabeth Hadly Turns to the Future,” Bay Nature, October-December 2016

FEMA funding for East Bay tree destruction is cancelled!

We republish with permission a Huffington Post article by Jennifer and Nathan Winograd about the cancellation of FEMA funding for the destruction of hundreds of thousands of trees on the properties of UC Berkeley and the City of Oakland. We are grateful to the Winograds and to the thousands of people who participated in the effort to prevent these projects from being implemented, including the Hills Conservation Network, which bravely filed the expensive lawsuit that resulted in this outcome.

It remains to be seen if the City of Oakland and UC Berkeley will implement their plans using other fund sources. We therefore urge our readers to continue to follow the issue until we have some assurance that the plans have been abandoned.

The Winograds have also provided the following introduction to their Huffington Post article, which explains that this outcome could have been avoided if those who demanded the destruction of our urban forest had been willing to engage in a meaningful dialogue about the projects.

“Many of us tried to engage in meaningful dialog with Bay Area politicians and land managers about our objections to the clear cutting and poisoning of the hills. We were rebuffed. Some, like Mayor Libby Schaaf, did not even extend the courtesy of a reply. Others, like Dan Kalb, Oakland City Councilmember, calls anyone who disagrees with him “stupid.” We tried to engage the media — local newspapers, television and radio, magazines — and with few exceptions, our objections were largely ignored. When we were mentioned, we were ridiculed. Refusing to give us a fair hearing, the Contra Costa Times and San Francisco Chronicle claimed we were indifferent to public safety. Regardless of how many experts — including the U.S. Forest Service, the EPA, and former firefighters — substantiated our concerns, they remained defiant, insisting that even more forests should be clear cut and more poisons be spread. With local politicians, the media, and proponents refusing to engage in reasonable dialog, this left opponents no choice but to force the discussion in a court of law. That lawsuit, filed by Hills Conservation Network, ultimately prevailed with FEMA, which withdrew millions of dollars in funding to the City of Oakland and UC Berkeley. That’s a good thing and here’s why:”

FEMA Pulls Funding for Oakland, Berkeley Clear Cutting

The City of Oakland just lost millions of dollars in federal funding. Given what the intended use of that money was for, that’s a good thing. Combined with similar funding for UC Berkeley and the East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD), over 400,000 trees across seven Bay Area cities were to be chopped down and thousands of gallons of cancer-causing herbicides spread on their stumps to prevent regrowth. Slated for eradication were the vast forests above the Caldecott Tunnel and Caldecott Field, North Hills Skyline, Strawberry and Claremont Canyons in Berkeley, and 11 regional parks including Sibley, Huckleberry, and Redwood in Oakland. Costing nearly $6 million, the plan would have radically transformed the character and appearance of the Oakland hills. Why?

The Scripps Ranch Fire of 2003 burned 150 homes but none of the Eucalyptus abutting those homes.

If you believe proponents, it is because the trees pose a heightened risk of fire. Since the infamous Firestorm of 1991 which burned scores of homes and killed 25 people, they have worked tirelessly to turn public opinion in the East Bay against Eucalyptus and Monterey Pine trees. Chief among their claims is that these trees were to blame for the ferocity of that fire because they are alleged to possess unusually high quantities of volatile oils that make them more flammable and prone to shooting off embers which enable the spread of fire. These claims have been repeated so many times they are often regarded as self-evident, even though the evidence does not support them, nor does the history relating to the ignition and spread of past fires. Indeed, the 1991 fire itself (and a later 2008 fire) started in grasses, the very sort of vegetation that clearcutting is intended to proliferate throughout the hills. In fact, the stated aim of the deforestation effort is to replace Oakland forests containing species of trees that are among some of the tallest in the world with shallow grasses that are highly susceptible to fire and which the EBRPD admits are “one of the most dangerous vegetation types for firefighter safety due to the rapid frontal spread of fire that can catch suppression personnel off guard.”

In a report highlighting the heightened fire risk which would have resulted from this plan, David Maloney, former Chief of Fire Prevention at the Oakland Army Base, criticized the spread of misinformation about these trees as motivated by native plant ideology, calling it “a land transformation plan disguised as a wildfire hazard mitigation plan” that will “endanger firefighters and the general public” and “be an outrageous waste of taxpayer money.” And he’s not alone in his concerns.

The U.S. Forest Service objected, saying it would “increase the probability of [fire] ignition over current conditions” because “removal of the overstory trees can introduce changes to the environment which increase fire behavior in undesirable ways.”

The U.S. Fire Administration Technical Report on the 1991 Fire led to the conclusion that removal of the trees would lead to growth of highly flammable brush species, noting that “brush fuel types played a significant role in the progression of the fire” and that brushland made up “a large portion of the available fuel.”

The Environmental Protection Agency stated that it is predicated on “extensive use of herbicides” and “risks posed to human health and the environment from that use.” It went on to express concern about the “potential impacts of climate change,” including “the length and severity of the fire season.”

FEMA itself admitted that the plan would result in “unavoidable adverse impacts … to vegetation, wildlife and habitats, protected species, soils, water quality, aesthetics, community character, human health and safety, recreation, and noise.”

During the summer, 5,200 California firefighters battled 14 fires across the state. The vast majority of the fires were in grass and brush, with a few in so-called “native” Oak woodlands.

But you would not know any of this by reading Bay Area newspapers, watching Bay Area television news programs, listening to local radio stations, reading local magazines, or hearing Bay Area politicians. These are discussions those who oppose this plan tried to engage in with the Mayor, the Oakland City Council, the media and even plan supporters in order to find a compromise, but were rebuffed. Instead, the “need” for deforestation and herbicide use was deemed “self-evident” and opponents were labeled as indifferent to public safety who debased the memory of those who died in the 1991 Firestorm.

In the absence of public discussion about the expertly substantiated criticism that the plan would have increased rather than reduced fire risk, exposed citizens to huge amounts of dangerous chemicals, released over 17,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases into our environment, poisoned and displaced wildlife, radically altered the appearance of our parks, threatened homeowners values by degrading the aesthetics upon which those values depended, eliminated erosion control for hillside homes, and caused a variety of other harms, the public was denied information that would have allowed them to make a sound and informed choice. This troubling bias does not honor the memory of those who died in that tragic fire 25 years ago; it shames it. Their loss should have served to embolden our resolve to prevent a recurrence of their tragedy through rigorous public debate, rather than hobbled us with emotionally charged rhetoric that stifled discussion before it was allowed to begin and threatened to turn the response to that fire into the root cause of yet another disaster.

For while opponents sought to elevate the discussion on this plan to prevent a future tragedy, local media, politicians, and supporters proved themselves incapable of moving beyond a narrative that was so sensationalist and even after more than two decades, so raw, that the abandonment of caution, reason, and critical analysis were paradoxically and counterproductively portrayed as the moral high ground. It left opponents no choice but to force the discussion in a court of law, a point of view that ultimately prevailed with FEMA. Whether the Mayor, City Council, deforestation advocates, and Bay Area media outlets learn from their failings going forward remains to be seen. But one thing is abundantly clear. If the result of the lawsuit proves anything, it proves opponents of deforestation and poisoning were right.

A guest post addresses a nativist myth about redwoods

We are grateful to Keith McAllister for this guest post about the history of redwood trees in the East Bay. One of many myths that we often hear repeated by native plant advocates is that all of our non-native trees can be and should be replaced by redwoods.* Although we like redwoods a great deal, this wish is unrealistic because redwoods cannot grow in most places where non-native trees are thriving because they require more water and they do not tolerate wind. The strongest evidence that redwoods are not suitable substitutes for our non-native forests is where they grew before Europeans arrived in the East Bay and where they grow now. Thank you, Keith, for this valuable contribution to our knowledge of the natural history of the East Bay.

Redwoods of the East Bay Hills

The first Europeans to visit the East Bay Hills late in the 18^th century found forests of magnificent old redwood trees (Sequoia sempervirens), with some trees 32 feet in diameter and over 300 feet tall. However, contrary to the mythology of native plant enthusiasts, the hills were never covered with redwoods. The redwoods of 1776 were essentially where the redwoods are today, in three forests: the western slopes where Joaquin Miller Park now sits, the canyon of Redwood Creek which now comprises Redwood Regional Park, and the canyon of upper San Leandro Creek near the town of Canyon. The entire forested region lay within an area about 3 ½ miles long and ½ to 2 miles wide, less than five square miles. For context, Oakland and Berkeley cover 95.7 square miles. The hills were primarily grasslands.

The East Bay redwoods were first seen by the de Anza expedition in April, 1776, on its fruitless attempt to get “around” San Francisco Bay to Marin County. The Carquinez Straits and the San Joaquin/Sacramento delta were an unpleasant surprise. A map of the bay drawn a few weeks later by Jose de Canizares, pilot for Juan Manuel de Ayala on the ship San Carlos, showed forests on the east side of the bay.

Map of San Francisco bay by Canizares, 1776

Some timbers from East Bay trees were used in the construction of Mission San Jose at the beginning of the 19^th century, but logging operations did not affect the forests for some time. Contrary to urban legend, East Bay redwoods were not used to construct the presidio or mission in San Francisco. Redwood lumber was exported from Ft Ross, Monterey, and the Santa Cruz area in the 1820’s, primarily to the Sandwich Islands (now Hawaii), but there is no historical evidence of any export from the East Bay.

Redwood trees in Oakland. Creative Commons

There is evidence of logging in the East Bay from 1840-41, with the lumber sent to Yerba Buena (now San Francisco) for export. With a mere twenty houses in Yerba Buena, local demand couldn’t support much logging. East Bay logging virtually ceased from 1842 to 1846 when John Sutter expanded his logging operations at Fort Ross and flooded the market with lumber at lower cost than East Bay lumber.

East Bay redwood logging flourished in 1848 and 1849 as the Bay Area population grew with the discovery of gold in the Sierra foothills. Yerba Buena and other towns around the bay grew rapidly, and some disappointed gold seekers found they could make a living selling lumber for the building boom. Some of the lumber was hauled east, into Contra Costa County and the towns of Benicia and Martinez. Still, at the end of 1849, after almost ten years of on-and-off logging, the East Bay redwood forests were essentially intact. Up to this point all sawing was done with the power of human muscle.

Logging changed radically in the East Bay in 1850 with the introduction of steam-powered sawmills. The early 1850’s witnessed a frenzy of boom-and-bust logging. Lumber mills were the center of economic activity in the East Bay. Lumber prices cycled through periods of $350-$600 to $150-$300 to $40-$50 per 1000 board feet. There were many bankruptcies. But through it all, the powerful and efficient steam sawmills chewed through the forests. By 1860 the magnificent redwood forests were reduced to “a sea of stumps.”

Although we will not see giants like those of 1776 in our lifetimes, the redwoods have grown from resprouts of their predecessors in the same locations they formerly inhabited. The needs of redwood trees are the same as they were in 1776, primarily water and shelter from the wind. Those requirements are still met in the same locations, and those locations now have fine second and third growth forests. There is even an “old growth” tree on a steep, over-grown slope above the York trail in Leona Heights Park. It’s stunted and straggly looking, and only 450-500 years old, but still it is a tree that survives from 1776. There are also many redwoods where they didn’t exist in 1776; they were widely planted in the early and middle 20^th century. We are fortunate to have handsome redwood groves on the UC campus, the Mountain View Cemetery, and landscaped areas throughout the East Bay.

Keith McAllister
Oakland

Notes on sources:

Most of the information in this article is taken from “The Forgotten Redwoods of the East Bay” by Sherwood D. Burgess, published in the California Historical Society Quarterly, March 1951.
Further information was provided by Dennis Evanosky on a walk sponsored by the Oakland Heritage Alliance in July, 2016.
A good visual representation of the historical locations of redwoods, and other vegetation types, is provided by an interactive, touch-screen map in the Natural Sciences section of the Oakland Museum of California.

*There are many comments on Million Trees from native plant advocates about replacing all non-native trees with native trees, including redwoods. Here is just one example: “The East Bay Regional Park Wildfire Hazard Reduction and Resource Management Plan is shrouded in bureaucratic speak but does not seem (I can’t get through the many segments down-loadable only one at a time) to incorporate the idea of replacing highly flammable eucalyptus with elegant redwoods and sequoias that are the most enduring and least flammable of trees.”

There are also similar suggestions from nativists in the public comments on the FEMA grant Environmental Impact Statement, available here: https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/100411

“Environmentalism” has been hijacked by nativism

Our family contributed to several mainstream environmental organizations for decades. We were Sierra Club members because we wanted clean water and clean air. We were Audubon Society members because we care about birds and other wildlife.

About ten years ago, we learned that these organizations were actively participating in projects demanded by native plant advocates to destroy our non-native urban forest and fence the public out of its public parks in order to turn our parks into native plant museums. When we learned about the huge quantities of pesticides used by these projects that was the last straw.

The Berkeley Meadow is a 72-acre native plant garden on a former garbage dump on landfill.

We spent several years trying to convince these organizations that they were making a mistake by supporting projects that are doing far more damage to the environment than any theoretical benefit of native plants. Much of our effort was directed to the Sierra Club because they claim to be a democratically run organization. After several years of futile attempts to change the policies of these organizations, we quit because we did not want to contribute to the damage they are doing to the environment.

Logo of The Nature Conservancy.

The Nature Conservancy was the only environmental organization to which we were still contributing. Below is our “resignation” letter to The Nature Conservancy, which explains why we finally gave up on them as well. This was not an easy letter to write because we care deeply about the environment and the animals who live in it. We believe that environmentalism has an extremely important role to play in society and we would like to participate in an organization that is focusing on the environmental issues of our time, particularly climate change.

September 2016

Mark Tercek, Executive Director
The Nature Conservancy

Dear Mr. Tercek,

We have been contributors to The Nature Conservancy for decades. In the past few years we increased our donations because of the publications of TNC’s former Chief Scientist, Peter Kareiva.

While other mainstream environmental organizations were actively supporting destructive and restrictive ecological “restorations,” Mr. Kareiva was questioning that conservation strategy. In his publication, “What is Conservation Science?” Mr. Kareiva said, “Our vision of conservation science differs from earlier framings of conservation biology in large part because we believe that nature can prosper so long as people see conservation as something that sustains and enriches their own lives. In summary, we are advocating conservation for people rather than from people.” Mr. Kareiva was also articulating that revised mission for conservation in presentations around the country (which we attended), in TNC’s publications, and in mainstream media.

As you know, Kareiva’s viewpoint was in conflict with the old guard of conservation biologists who subscribe to the tenets of invasion biology. This conflict resulted in a confrontation of the old guard against TNC that was reported by the New Yorker in 2014. TNC resolved that conflict by making a commitment to quit publishing Mr. Kareiva’s viewpoint in mainstream media and by restoring eradication of “invasive” plants to its budget. That agreement foretold Kareiva’s departure from TNC. Not publishing is tantamount to career suicide for scientists. Mr. Kareiva has left TNC, as any self-respecting scientist would who has been deprived of his freedom to publish.

While this battle between competing visions of conservation played out, the country’s foremost invasion biologist, Daniel Simberloff, conducted a survey of TNC project managers to determine what, if any, impact Kareiva’s leadership was having on TNC’s conservation strategies. Most survey respondents (95%) reported that they “manage” non-native species and nearly all reported that they would devote more effort to that task if more resources were made available. Project managers devote a “substantial proportion” of their resources to “managing” non-native species and they expressed skepticism about “academic research and the invasion management controversy in particular.” Simberloff did not ask project managers what methods they are using and so we have no insight into the use of pesticides by TNC. This is probably information that Simberloff would rather we not have. Invasion biologists prefer to ignore the destructive methods that are used in the fruitless attempt to eradicate non-native plants.

Ecological “restorations” are damaging the environment by destroying useful habitat, poisoning open spaces with pesticides, and killing animals perceived to be competitors of native animals. These projects are usually futile because the plants and animals that are being eradicated are adapted to current environmental conditions that are not reversed by their elimination. The “native” ranges of plants and animals must change in response to changes in the environment, most notably climate change. So-called “invasive” species are symptoms of change, not causes of change.

Here in the San Francisco Bay Area, our urban forest is being destroyed because it is predominantly non-native. Native plant advocates have fabricated an elaborate cover story to mask nativism because widespread destruction of plants and animals does not appeal to the public. Our public lands and open spaces are being poisoned with pesticides to kill vegetation and prevent trees from resprouting after they are destroyed. We are unwilling to support that agenda by contributing to organizations that engage in these projects.

Therefore, we will not renew our TNC membership and we will not contribute further to TNC. If and when TNC abandons its attempts to eradicate plants and animals that are performing valuable ecological functions, we would gladly renew our contributions.

Sincerely,

[Former Members of The Nature Conservancy]

Referenced sources:

D.T. Max, “Green is Good,” New Yorker, May 12, 2014
Sara Kuebbing and Daniel Simberloff, “Missing the bandwagon: Nonnative species impacts still concern managers,” NeoBiota , April 14, 2015