Ecology – Page 19 – Conservation Sense and Nonsense

Land Management: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

In January 2015, UC Berkeley destroyed about 25 eucalyptus trees at the top of Dwight Way, above the intersection of Sports Lane. We visited the area shortly after the trees were destroyed and told our readers about the project. We also reported that the project was an example of the huge gap between policy and practice in UC Berkeley’s tree removal projects. The following is an excerpt from a letter that a member of the public sent to FEMA about this project, detailing the discrepancies between UC Berkeley’s theoretical commitments to “best management practices” and their actual land management practices:

Green dye is added to Garlon and sprayed on the stump of the tree shortly after it is cut down. January 2015

“The stumps of the trees that were removed have been dribbled with green dye, indicating they were sprayed with herbicide to prevent them from resprouting. However, no herbicide application notices were posted at the site as required by law* and as described in the Final Environment Impact Statement for the FEMA grants: “In addition to the herbicide application measures, the subapplicants would follow procedures for public notification and education, including posting the timing, location, and appropriate amounts and types of pesticides or other chemicals to be applied at least 24 hours in advance.” (EIS, page 5.10-14)
“The Final EIS also states that “in general” most tree removals will be done “from August to November to avoid the wet season and the bird nesting and fledging season.” (EIS page 3-34) This commitment made by UC Berkeley in the EIS has been violated by this round of tree removals in January after heavy rains.
“In addition to the approximately 25 trees that were recently destroyed, we counted over 100 stumps that have been destroyed in this area in the past. This area is not described in the Cumulative Impact Section (EIS 6.0) of the EIS. In other words, cumulative impact of the proposed FEMA projects is underestimated by the EIS.”

Tree removals, Dwight Way and Sports Lane. January 2015

Consequences of tree removals

One of our readers contacted us in late May 2016, suggesting that we revisit this location to see the consequences of tree removals in January 2015. So, we went to take a look. The scene some 18 months later is a stark reminder of why we are opposed to the destruction of all non-native trees in the East Bay Hills.

Where all of the trees were destroyed in January 2015, the ground is now completely covered in non-native weeds. There are several species of thistle and poison hemlock that are over 6 feet tall.

In some places, the trees were only thinned and the tree canopy is still intact. The shaded forest floor is significantly less covered in tall weeds.

We also saw the evidence of attempts at weed control. In some places there was a sharp dividing line between dead weeds and green weeds, suggesting that the brown areas had been sprayed with herbicide. In other places, the grassy weeds seemed to be have been cut down, perhaps with a weed whacker. A sign indicated that goats were also being used to graze the weeds.

Misguided choices create more maintenance issues

When the tree canopy is destroyed, increased sunlight creates opportunities for weeds to colonize the bare ground. Once the weeds take over, land managers are forced to use herbicides to reduce the weed growth. The only alternatives to using herbicide are more costly, such as hand-operated mechanical methods or renting goat herds. This is a man-made problem that could have been avoided by leaving the tree canopy intact.

However, we don’t want to leave our readers with the impression that we support the radical thinning of our eucalyptus forest. We are opposed to such thinning because the herbicide that is used to prevent the trees from resprouting is mobile in the soil. It kills the tree by killing its roots. In a dense eucalyptus forest, the roots of the trees are intertwined. The herbicide used on one tree travels through the intertwined roots and damages surrounding trees that were not destroyed.

The herbicide also damages mycorrhizal fungi in the soil because they are extensions of the tree’s roots. Mycorrhizal fungi play an important role in forest health because they transfer moisture and nutrients from the soil to the tree. Therefore, the success of a succession landscape is handicapped by the damage done to the soil.

Also, the trees develop their defenses against the wind as they grow in a specific location with specific wind conditions. If they are suddenly exposed to a great deal more wind because they have lost the protection provided by their neighbors, the result is often catastrophic windthrow. That is, the chance that a tree will fall down greatly increases when it is exposed suddenly to more wind than it grew in.

The idea of “thinning” is an appealing compromise to a heated controversy. However, the consequences of thinning must be weighed against the entirely theoretical benefit of reduced fire hazard. The cost/benefit analysis does not make a strong argument in favor of radical thinning.

The continuum from Good to Bad land management

East Bay Regional Park District began to implement its “Wildfire Hazard Reduction and Resource Management Plan” in 2011, after the Environmental Impact Report for the plan was approved. According to a presentation made by Fire Chief McCormack to the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors on June 3rd, there are 3,100 acres of park land to be treated for fuels management over the life of the plan, of which 863 acres will be done by the end of 2016 and 64 acres will be done in 2017. The Fire Chief said, in answer to a question, that 1,360 acres (44%) of the total acres are forested with eucalyptus.

Tilden Park, Recommended Treatment Area TI001, June 5, 2016

We went to see one of the “initial treatment” projects in Tilden Park on June 5th. “Recommended Treatment Area” TI001 is along Nimitz Way, which is a paved road/path on the ridgeline. About 17 acres of it is heavily forested in eucalyptus on both sides of the road. The project apparently started recently and is not yet completed, judging by the presence of a lot of heavy equipment still on site. So, these observations of this project should be considered preliminary:

The smallest trees are being cut down and those immediately adjacent to the road.
The tree canopy is intact. That is, the forest floor is still shaded.
The stumps were sprayed with herbicide, judging by the blue dye on the stumps.
There were pesticide application notices, but they had been wiped clean. Presumably there was information on those notices during the spraying and perhaps for some time after the spraying, then the information was removed.

We must say that we were not horrified by what we saw. There are still a lot of trees left and we are encouraged that the forest floor is still shaded. As we have reported, when the eucalyptus forest is clear-cut the bare ground is quickly colonized by non-native weeds, which then must be sprayed with herbicide. Since we don’t know the tree density prior to the project and what it will be when the project is complete, we can’t say what percentage of the trees were destroyed.

We plan to visit this area again after a year or so to answer these questions:

Is there evidence that the trees that remain were damaged or killed by the use of herbicides on the neighboring trees that were destroyed?
Is there evidence of fallen trees, suggesting that increased wind in the forest caused windfall?

One of our concerns about these projects was not addressed by what we saw. The beginning of June is still in the height of bird breeding and nesting season. We heard the calls of many nesting birds, including quail. We are surprised and disappointed that this project began before the end of nesting season, which is the end of July. We also wonder if some effort was made to check for nesting birds before trees were cut down. There is no mention in the requests for proposal that the company doing the work was required to do such nest surveys before the work began.

We are describing a project that is not yet complete. If many more trees are destroyed, it’s possible that the tree canopy will be destroyed and the forest floor will not be shaded. If the tree canopy is intact when the project is complete, we consider this project less damaging than the clear-cuts being done by UC Berkeley and being demanded by the lawsuit of the Sierra Club. On the continuum from Good to Bad projects, East Bay Regional Park District is closer to Good than to Bad. EBRPD also deserves credit for supplying more information to the public about their projects than other land managers, including posting pesticide application notices.

*Last week we reported that we recently learned that pesticide application notices are not required by California law before, during, or after the spraying of Garlon or glyphosate for non-agricultural purposes. You can read about that HERE.

Update: On October 18, 2016, we went to see the result of “initial treatment” of Recommended Treatment Area TI001 in Tilden Park. We confirmed with East Bay Regional Park District that initial treatment is complete, although they reserve the right to destroy more trees “if we discover something we missed this summer.”

Our over-all impression of the project is not substantially changed from our first visit in June 2016, shortly after the project began. These are our observations:

The project is accurately described by the “prescription” for the Recommended Treatment Area TI001. The prescription is available on EBRPD’s website HERE.
With the exception of a few small areas at the ends of the project area, trees were thinned rather than clear-cut. The trees are on average about 25 feet apart.
The canopy is still intact and the forest floor is shaded, though not heavily.
New growth of poison oak and blackberry is already emerging from the leaf litter.

Initial treatment of Recommended Treatment Area TI001 in Tilden Park, October 2016

As we have said before, maintaining the canopy should suppress the growth of weeds and retain moisture in the leaf litter. If so, fire hazards are not substantially increased by this type of treatment.

However, a few of our objections to these projects remain:

Pesticides were used to prevent the trees from resprouting and also sprayed on the understory to destroy the fuel ladder to the trees.
The pesticides that are used are known to damage the soil, which could damage the trees that remain as well as whatever plants remain.
The trees that remain are now more vulnerable to windthrow.
Valuable habitat has been lost and wildlife may have been harmed by the pesticides that were used and will be used going forward.

In conclusion, even radical thinning is preferable to clear cuts. However, the benefits of thinning are questionable, particularly because of the pesticides used by these projects.

Site 29: A preview of the implementation of FEMA grants in the East Bay Hills

Site 29 is identified by the mile marker on Claremont Ave, just west of the intersection with Grizzly Peak Blvd. All the eucalyptus trees were destroyed there about 10 years ago. The trees that were destroyed were chipped and piled on site as mulch intended to prevent the growth of weeds. The trunks of the trees line the road, log reminders of the forest that was destroyed.

The site was adopted by the Claremont Canyon Conservancy (CCC). CCC has planted many redwood trees there and they consider it their showcase for their advocacy to destroy all eucalyptus trees in Claremont Canyon and elsewhere in the East Bay Hills. The Sierra Club and CCC have collaborated in the effort to convince the public that if the eucalyptus trees are destroyed, a lovely garden of native plants and trees will replace the eucalyptus forest. They also want you to believe that their garden will be less flammable than the eucalyptus forest.

There are several flaws in this rosy prediction. The first problem is that Site 29 is ecologically unique. It is a riparian corridor with a creek running through it. Therefore, more water is available there than on the sunny hills where eucalyptus forests grow. It is a canyon with steeply sloping sides that provide protection from sun and wind, which helps retain moisture. In other words, conditions at Site 29 are ideal for the landscape that CCC and its friends are trying to achieve.

Claremont Canyon Conservancy sign says, "“These coastal redwoods…have been planted by volunteers as part of a habitat restoration to create a native and fire-resistant environment in Claremont Canyon.” The sign is planted in wood chip mulch and obscured by poison hemlock and milk thistle, which are both non-native. — Claremont Canyon Conservancy sign at Site 29 says, ““These coastal redwoods…have been planted by volunteers as part of a habitat restoration to create a native and fire-resistant environment in Claremont Canyon.” The sign is planted in wood chip mulch and obscured by poison hemlock and milk thistle, which are both non-native.

Site 29 is also unique because CCC has planted many trees there and they have sponsored many work parties to maintain the site. CCC has not made a commitment to plant all 2,000 acres of the East Bay Hills on which all non-native trees will be destroyed by the FEMA grant projects. Nor have any of the land owners made a commitment to plant those acres after the trees are destroyed.

So, given the ideal landscape conditions, the planting, and maintenance invested by CCC, how successful is Site 29? Is it a lovely native plant garden? Is it less flammable than the eucalyptus forest it replaced? This is our photo essay of Site 29 that answers those questions. But photos can be deceiving, so we invite you to visit yourself. Just drive east on Claremont Ave until you reach mile marker 29, park your car beside the road and take a walk.

The reality of Site 29

When we visited Site 29 in late April the milk thistle was thriving, but not yet in bloom. The striking zebra pattern of the leaves makes it an attractive plant, in our opinion, and this lazuli bunting seems to agree that it is a plant worthy of admiration. It is, however, not a native plant.

Lazuli bunting at Rancho San Antonio on milk thistle, April 2016. Courtesy Greg Barsh

When we visited Site 29 a month later, in late May, it was a very different scene. The milk thistle had been sprayed with herbicide along the road, to a width of about six feet, providing a stark contrast between the dead vegetation and the still green weeds. Poison hemlock now grows along the trail into the canyon to a height of about 8 feet, joining the thistles as the landscape of Site 29. The piles of wood chips are still visible, but are mostly covered with non-native annual grasses and other weedy shrubs.

The trail down into the canyon is lined by 8-foot tall poison hemlock at Site 29.

More fantasies face harsh realities

The contractors who apply herbicides on UC Berkeley properties have been photographed many times spraying herbicides at Site 29 and elsewhere. When they are observed spraying herbicides there are not any pesticide application notices to inform the public of what is being applied and when the application is taking place. So, unless you see them doing it, you don’t know that you are entering a place that has been sprayed with herbicide. Several days later, you know that herbicides have been applied only because the vegetation is dying and soon looks dead.

Herbicide spraying at mile marker 29 on Claremont Ave. — Herbicide spraying on UC Berkeley property on Claremont Ave.

When the Environmental Impact Statement for the FEMA projects was published, the land managers claimed they would use “best management practices” in their pesticide applications, including posting notices in advance of spraying that would remain in place during the spraying and for some time after the spraying. That assurance turns out to be meaningless. Herbicides are being applied without any public notification before, during, or after application.

We were under the mistaken impression that posting application notices was required by California law. We therefore asked those who observed herbicide applications without posted signs to report the incidents as violations of California law.

The Alameda County Agricultural Department is responsible for enforcement of California’s laws regarding pesticide use in Alameda County. They have informed us that no notices of pesticide application are required for non-agricultural applications of glyphosate (RoundUp) or Garlon (triclopyr; the herbicide sprayed on the stumps of trees that are destroyed to prevent them from resprouting). The manufacturers of these products say they dry within 24 hours, which is the definition of when re-entry is permitted. Notification is not required for pesticides for which re-entry is permitted within 24 hours, even while the pesticide is being sprayed.

Would you like more Site 29s?

The eucalyptus forest at Site 29 was destroyed over 10 years ago. Therefore, it is a preview of what we can expect when eucalyptus is destroyed on 2,000 more acres of public land in the East Bay Hills. So, what can we learn from Site 29?

Site 29 had every advantage: plenty of water, protection from wind and sun, planting of native trees, and maintenance by a volunteer neighborhood association. Even with all those advantages, unshaded areas in which trees were destroyed at Site 29 are dominated by non-native weeds that are more flammable than a shady eucalyptus forest. And because the weeds are flammable, they must be repeatedly sprayed with herbicides along the roads where ignition is most likely to occur. Dead vegetation is more flammable than living vegetation, so the logic of the spraying seems muddled.

Most of the 2,000 acres of public land on which eucalyptus forests will be destroyed do not have a water source, or protection from wind and sun. Nor will trees be planted or maintenance provided. They are going to look much worse than Site 29 and they will be more flammable.

Site 29 is an opportunity for us to say,”NO, this is NOT the landscape we want. PLEASE do not destroy our eucalyptus forests!!”

GIVE US A VOTE!! Results of letter to Sierra Club members

Our readers will recall that California law enabled a member of the Sierra Club to send a letter to over 26,000 members of the San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club about the chapter’s support for deforestation and pesticide use in the East Bay Hills. Today we’re reporting the result of that letter and the next step in the long, tortuous path to changing the chapter’s policy on these issues. The letter and enclosed postcard petition are available HERE and HERE: Letter to Sierra Club members and Letter to Sierra Club members – postcard petition

To date, this is the number of postcard petitions that have been received:

Since many couples have joint memberships, the actual number of Club members who signed the postcard petition is greater than the number of postcards. The postcard petitions represent the opposition of 1,823 members to Sierra Club policy. Many members also added written messages on the postcard petition, which are available HERE: Petition Comments

The Sierra Club is now obligated to give us a VOTE on this issue!

According to the Sierra Club bylaws, critics of the Club’s policy regarding the destruction of our urban forest and pesticide use are now entitled to a formal vote on the issues. The Sierra Club reports: “More than 45,000 members nationwide voted” in the 2016 election for the Club’s National Board of Directors. Let’s say 46,000 voted. Two percent (2%) of 46,000 is 920. Nearly twice as many (1,823) Sierra Club members have indicated their opposition to the Club’s policy regarding the destruction of our urban forest and pesticide use. Thus the results of the postcard petition now obligate the Sierra Club to conduct a formal vote on the issues:

“11.2. Except as provided in Bylaw 5.10, whenever a number of members of the Club equal at least to two percent (2%) of the number of ballots cast at the immediately preceding annual election for Directors shall request in writing that a resolution be adopted by the Club, the Board may adopt the resolution by majority vote, unless the petition specifically requests a vote of the membership or such a vote is required by law or these Bylaws; if the resolution is not so adopted, the Board shall certify it to the Secretary for a vote of the members.”

The author of the letter to Sierra Club members informed the leadership of the Sierra Club of the number of postcard petitions received and requested a formal vote on the issues, as provided by the Club’s by-laws.

How to get the attention of the Sierra Club?

We have planned a demonstration at the national headquarters of the Sierra Club on Monday, June 13, 2016, at noon. Unless the Sierra Club agrees to conduct a formal vote on the issues before that date, we plan to tell the Sierra Club to let its members decide whether the Club should continue to support deforestation and pesticide use on public lands.

Noon 12:00 pm
Monday June 13, 2016
2100 Franklin St. (at 21st Street), Oakland
Sierra Club National Office (13th Floor)
(Close to 19th Street BART Station)

We hope that those who care about deforestation and pesticide use in the East Bay will join us for this peaceful demonstration. A leaflet that you can print and post or distribute for this demonstration is available HERE: Flyer for demonstration Please help us make the case that the bylaws of the Sierra Club obligate the club to give the membership a formal vote on these issues.

Sierra Club protest, August 25, 2015. About 80 people attended the peaceful protest. — Sierra Club protest, August 25, 2015. We delivered an on-line petition to Bay Chapter headquarters of the Sierra Club on these issues that now has over 2,800 signatures on it.

Why focus on the Sierra Club?

Opponents of the deforestation projects in the East Bay Hills may wonder why so much time and energy is spent on trying to change the policy of the Sierra Club on this matter. Sometimes, Million Trees wonders too.

So, we will take a minute to explain that the Sierra Club has filed a lawsuit that demands immediate eradication of 100% of non-native trees on over 2,000 acres of public land. East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD) is the biggest of the three land owners engaged in these projects. EBRPD prefers to thin its eucalyptus forests from an average of 650 trees per acre to about 60-80 of the biggest trees per acre. Although that seems to be the destruction of too many trees, it is clearly preferable to destroying EVERY non-native tree (eucalyptus, Monterey pine, and acacia) on about 1,600 acres of park land in the East Bay, which is what the Sierra Club lawsuit demands. The other two land owners (UC Berkeley and City of Oakland) have always planned to destroy 100% of the non-native trees on about 500 acres of their land. The Club’s lawsuit demands that they do so immediately, rather than phase some of the tree removals over a period of 10 years.

Furthermore, the Sierra Club is influential with public policy makers, including elected officials. We believe that some decision-makers would be less likely to support these destructive projects if the Sierra Club would quit demanding the destruction of our urban forest. In a liberal, environmentally conscious community such as ours, the Club’s promise of endorsement (or threat of non-endorsement) of a particular candidate for elected office is a powerful tool to impose the Club’s will on our decision makers.

Finally, we believe that the policy of the local chapter of the Sierra Club that demands destruction of much of our urban forest and douses our public lands with pesticides compromises the important mission of the national Sierra Club. The national Sierra Club is appropriately focused on addressing the causes of climate change. Climate change is the environmental issue of our time and the Sierra Club is one of the most important tools we have to address that issue. Deforestation is a major cause of climate change. The policy of the local chapter is therefore a contradiction of the mission of the Sierra Club.

“The Forest Unseen”

David George Haskell, the author of The Forest Unseen, is a professor of biology at University of the South in southeastern Tennessee. (1) He chose a circle of old-growth forest near his home, about a meter in diameter, to observe for a year. He chose that spot at random because there was a suitable rock close by on which he could sit to smell, listen, and watch the forest. He called this spot his forest mandala.

“Mandala” means “circle” in Sanskrit. It is a spiritual and ritual symbol representing the universe. It is often used as a method of meditation by Buddhist monks who sit for many hours creating a painting of a mandala, using colored chalk that is destroyed upon completion. The mandala is therefore also a symbol of the ephemeral quality of life and an apt metaphor for the ever-changing forest that is teeming with life.

In 43 short chapters, Haskell shares his observations with us. Sometimes he sits back and observes the big picture: the sound of the birds, the rustle of the wind, and the smell of blooming or decomposing vegetation. Sometimes he lays on his belly with magnifying lens in hand and observes the activities of the smallest insects. He seeks the answer to this question, “Can the whole forest be seen through a small contemplative window of leaves, rocks, and water?” This reader believes Haskell has succeeded in finding the universal truths of the forest in the microcosm of his forest mandala.

There is a multitude of fascinating biological, evolutionary, and ecological stories in Haskell’s book that defy summary, so I have selected one episode that seems most fitting to the mission of Million Trees. Also, we must let Haskell speak for himself because his writing is more eloquent than ours.

“To love nature and to hate humanity is illogical”

One hot day in August, Haskell is startled by the bright white of a golf ball in his forest mandala. His mandala is located below a bluff on which there is a golf course, so golf balls are not surprising here. Still they are unsettling and they present a dilemma:

“…should I remove the balls or leave them nestled in place? Removing them would break my rule about not meddling in the mandala. But taking them away would restore the mandala to a more natural state and might make room for another wildflower or fern. Discarded golf balls have nothing to contribute to the mandala. They don’t decompose and release their nutrients. They don’t become another species’ habitat. The grand cycle of energy and matter seems to halt when it reaches a dumped golf ball.

“My first impulse, therefore, is to restore the mandala to ‘purity’ by removing the plastic balls. But this impulse is problematic for two reasons. First, removing the balls will not cleanse the mandala of industrial detritus. Acidity, sulfur, mercury, and organic pollutants rain in continually. Every creature in the mandala carries in its body a sprinkling of alien molecular golf balls. My own presence here has undoubtedly added strands of worn clothing fiber, alien bacteria, and exhaled foreign molecules. Even the genetic code of the mandala’s inhabitants is stamped by industry. Flying insects, in particular those whose ancestors have come near humans, carry resistance genes for many pesticides. Removing golf balls would merely tidy up the most visually obvious of these human artifacts, preserving an illusion of the forest’s ‘pristine’ separation from humanity.

“The impulse to purify might fail on a second, deeper level. Human artifacts are not stains imposed on nature. Such a view drives a wedge between humanity and the rest of the community of life. A golf ball is the manifestation of the mind of a clever, playful African primate. This primate loves to invent games to test its physical and mental skill. Generally, these games are played on carefully reconstructed replicas of the savanna from which the ape came and for which its subconscious still hankers. The clever primate belongs in this world. Maybe the primate’s productions do also.

“As these able apes get better at controlling their world, they produce some unintended side effects, including strange new chemicals, some of which are poisonous to the rest of life. Most apes have little idea of these ill effects. However, the better-informed ones don’t like to be reminded of their species’ impact on the rest of the world, especially in places that don’t yet seem to be overly damaged. I am such an ape. Therefore, when a golf ball in the woods strikes my eyes, my mind condemns the ball, the golf course, the golfers, and the culture that spawned them all.

“But, to love nature and to hate humanity is illogical. Humanity is part of the whole. To truly love the world is also to love human ingenuity and playfulness. Nature does not need to be cleansed of human artifacts to be beautiful or coherent. Yes, we should be less greedy, untidy, wasteful, and shortsighted. But let us not turn responsibility into self-hatred. Our biggest failing is, after all, lack of compassion for the world. Including ourselves.

“Therefore, I resolve to leave the golf balls in the mandala. I’ll continue removing strange plastic objects from the rest of the forest, but not from here. There is value in keeping a patina of ‘naturalness’ along hiking trails and in gardens. Our harried eyes need a visual break from the productions of industry. Keeping the woods trash-free is a symbol of our desire to be more careful members of life’s community. But there is also value in the discipline of participating in a world as it is, discarded golf balls and all.”

A new “restoration” ethic

We hope this episode in The Forest Unseen resonates with you as it did with us. There is a generosity of spirit in it that we believe should inspire ecological restorations. It is an ethic that is inclusive and respects the role of humans in nature. We believe that ecological restorations based on this viewpoint would be less destructive and more constructive. We would feel more welcome in restorations that reflect this viewpoint than the projects in which we only feel a sense of loss.

(1) David George Haskell, The Forest Unseen: A Year’s Watch in Nature, Penguin Books, 2012

Lesson Learned: Don’t prune trees during breeding/nesting season

This article is reposted with permission from CoyoteYipps, a blog about San Francisco’s urban coyotes. It is a timely reminder that spring is breeding/nesting season for birds.

There isn’t a hard-and-fast rule about when birds breed, build their nests, and raise their nestlings. The general “rule” in the Bay Area is that most birds are nesting between February and August. However, as the climate changes, we should expect outliers and we should be watchful for them.

This story illustrates that pruning trees during nesting season is risky business. We commend the author of this story for correcting a serious mistake and bringing this story to a happy ending.

We attended the Western Conference of the International Society of Arborists in Anaheim, California last week. One of many excellent presentations we heard was about what arborists need to know about taking care of trees without harming wildlife.

The presentation was made by an employee of HortScience in the San Francisco Bay Area. HortScience is the arboriculture company that does most of the evaluations of trees for San Francisco’s Recreation and Park Department. They are therefore influential in determining the future of the Bay Area’s urban forest.

HortScience has developed a protocol for arborists to avoid harming wildlife when they are working on trees. The draft protocol is available HERE. The author of the protocol is taking public comments on the draft until the end of May: ryan@hortscience.com. When the protocol is completed, HortScience plans to offer training to arborists to help them protect the birds in our urban forest.

We hope that people who are knowledgeable about birds will look at the draft and make suggestions for improving it to be most effective. Thanks for your help to protect the birds in our urban forest.

MY HUMMINGBIRD ADVENTURE by LAUREL ROSE

I learned a valuable lesson this weekend: Do Not Prune or Remove Trees in Spring!

Over the past couple years, I’ve been removing a row of unattractive honeysuckle trees along the fence line to let more light into our shady yard and plant some ferns & other foliage. The trees all had long skinny bare trunks with foliage starting at about 15- 20 feet up so all I could see was fallen leaves on top of compacted dirt and 8 pencil-thin tree trunks.

This weekend 7 and 8 were scheduled for removal. After getting 7 out of the ground, root and all, my friend and & I were getting ready to start breaking the trunk & branches down to 4 foot size segments required by the city for the green waste bins. I had a hand saw and my friend was using my mini electric chain saw for the job. I kept a safe distance in a far corner of the yard and we got to work. 2 branches into it, the chainsaw turns off and I hear “Oh Noooo! Oh my god! Nooo!” then, “chirp, chirp chirp”!

Tiny hummingbird nest on a twig — This is how I found the nest (copyright Laurel Rose)

The tree had a hummingbird nest camouflaged and expertly woven very securely onto a few twig size branches. Both my friend and I love & respect nature so we were a little frantic and horrified at the thought of nearly chainsawing through this little womb-like nest cradling 2 chicks. I found a little box and cushioned it with soft material scraps and toilet paper and placed the nest inside very carefully. It took a good hour for us to calm down and stop focusing on how thoughtless we had been to choose April to remove a tree. Even ugly trees with sparse foliage provide habitat and serve a s food source. My friend, a somewhat burly guy named Terry but whose friends call him “Bubba” was on the verge of tears telling me, “I searched for a nest before sawing off each branch. . .” . Even if one of us has noticed it, it did not resemble a typical storybook nest.
I called every organization and person I could think of for help on that Saturday evening: Golden Gate Audubon Society, Wild Care, and Janet. I was able to listen to a recorded instructions for caring for a injured chick. I kept them inside for the night in a warm dark spot away from my curious little dog who likes to be a part of everything I do whenever possible. As soon as it was light outside, I placed the box up high in the area where the tree had been. Within 20 minutes, mom showed up and fed her hungry babies and I watched as she gathered nectar from the flowers overhead on tree number 8 (which will stay in my yard).

Baby hummingbird (copyright Laurel Rose) — DAY 1: a few hours after discovery

We estimated the age to be between 2 & 3 weeks and were told that hummingbird chicks leave the nest at 23 days old. A couple days before this happens, a stronger chick pushes the weaker out of the nest and it dies because mom will not feed it on the ground. The reason this happens is because the nest is very small and is needed as a “launching pad”. Once the other chick takes flight, mom will continue to feed her baby for several days, teaching how and where to find all the best nectar & bugs before she chases it away to find its own territory. Since they are in a box, neither one will be pushed out of the nest and mom will continue to feed them both. I’m not sure if this may have any negative or unforeseen consequences but I like that idea!

Two hummingbird chicks in the nest — Two hummingbird chicks on the first day

Two Hummingbird chicks — Second Day – Hummingbird chicks

Box put up to rescue hummingbird nest — A safe space for a hummingbird nest

Day 2: I secured a new box in the other Honeysuckle tree because we were having some very windy days.

Box fastened into tree to rescue a hummingbird nest — Box fastened well against the wind

Day 3: I wasn’t sure if Mama was feeding her chicks with the new placement of the box with a different type of access, but I caught her in the act (see video below)

Mama hummingbird entering box to feed chicks in rescued nest — Mama hummingbird entering to feed the chicks – click for video (copyright Laurel Rose)

Day 4: They changed so much from one day to the next

Day 5: Just before I left late Thursday morning, I went to check on the chicks and snapped this photo. They looked like they were ready to spread their wings. I might have made them a little nervous putting the camera up so close but wondered if they were contemplating their first flight.

Hummingbird chicks just before departing nest

When I came home in the early evening, the first thing I did was check the box and it was empty. I stood there for several minutes wondering how such a tiny creature with only 23 days of life can survive on their own. That’s when I heard chirping above and looked up- there was mama with 1 chick shoulder to shoulder on a branch.

hummingbird sitting in chain link fence — Hummingbird sitting in chain link fence

I looked around for the other chick and had noticed what I thought was a leaf caught in one of the links on the fence, but a closer look told me otherwise.

Maybe the little guy didn’t feel quite ready, or maybe he wanted to say goodbye. He let me get real close and looked at me with that one little eye as I said some encouraging words and slowly reached in my back pocket for my camera. I snapped one photo and he flew to the branch up above where his family was.

Today would be Day 8. I’ve been seeing what I believe to be this same little chick hanging out in the honeysuckle tree where the box was. A few hours ago, I observed the mama arrive and feed the chick patiently waiting on a little branch.

If you would like to invite hummingbirds to your yard I would not recommend those feeders with sugar water because they must be cleaned every 3- 4 days or they can make the hummingbirds very sick. It’s much better and healthier to provide their natural food sources and plant things like honeysuckle, sage, fuchsia, Aloe vera and other long tubular flowers that provide both nectar as well as habitat for insects that serve as protein. Hummingbirds also need a place to perch during the day & sleep at night that offers some protection from wind & rain- usually trees. You can also hang a perch up high in a tree near the flowers and you can encourage nesting by providing materials by hanging a “Hummer Helper” you can purchase and fill with store bought material or even dog and cat hair — the “Hummer Helper” is actually just a “suet feeder” which you can buy for a lot less. The best time to start is May. The Hummingbird Society has a lot more tips and information on their website.

*One last note about trimming trees- the safest time is in the Fall during the months of September- December

Why poisoning the soil contributes to failed “restorations”

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

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

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

Relationships between animals and forests

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eucalyptus forest in California and Australia

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

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

Predicting the consequences of destroying our urban forest

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

UC Berkeley’s “Vegetation Management”

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

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

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

“Beyond Words: What animals think and feel”

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

Inadequate scientific inquiry

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

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

Observing animals

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

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

Emotional lives of elephants

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

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

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

Social structure of animal communities

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

Pack of Gray Wolves, Yellowstone National Park

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

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

Individuality

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

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

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

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

Bad news for animals

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

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

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

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

Food for thought

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

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

Bees are harmed by nativism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eucalyptus and bee. Painting by Brian Stewart.

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

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

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

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

Lessons learned

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

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

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

Mopping up the last load of Sierra Club propaganda

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

The truth about how much herbicide will be used

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

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

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

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

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

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

Horticultural fiction

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

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

URS Corporation is the environmental consultant initially hired to complete the environment impact review of the FEMA projects. Their report said: “However, we question the assumption that the types of vegetation recolonizing the area would be native. Based on conditions observed during site visits in April 2009, current understory species such as English ivy, acacia, vinca sp., French broom, and Himalayan blackberry would likely be the first to recover and recolonize newly disturbed areas once the eucalyptus removal is complete.”
The US Forest Service evaluated the FEMA projects. This is their prediction of the post-project landscape: “a combination of native and non-native herbaceous and chaparral communities.”
The California Native Plant Society predicted the post-project landscape in its written public comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) with this rhetorical question: “What mechanism is being instituted by FEMA in this DEIS to guarantee a commitment of money and personnel for management of greatly increased acreages of newly created annual weedy grassland?”
The Audubon Society predicted the post-project landscape in its written public comment on the DEIS: “There is no support for the conclusion that native vegetation will return on its own. This plan may not result in an increase in native trees and plants…Heavy mulching will delay or prevent the growth of native species.”

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

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

Fundamentals of carbon storage

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

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

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

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

Killing habitat needed by wildlife

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

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

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

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

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

Environmentalism gone awry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Irrational fears threaten bats and trees

The Secret Lives of Bats is appropriately named because our knowledge of bats is limited by the fact that they are active at night while we sleep and their activities are shrouded by darkness. The author of this engaging little book, Merlin Tuttle, devoted his life, from the time he was a teenager, to the study and conservation of bats. Although he learned a great deal about bats in the 60 years he has studied them, it is his accomplishments in bat conservation that are most inspiring and impressive.

A few bat facts

"Chiroptera" from Ernst Haeckel's Kunstformen der Natur, 1904 — “Chiroptera” from Ernst Haeckel’s Kunstformen der Natur, 1904

There are nearly 1,300 species of bats and they are distributed all over the world, with the exception of Polar Regions. We can’t describe the entire range of variation in the characteristics of such a diverse order (Chiroptera), so we will describe them only in general terms:

Bats are the only flying mammal. Their pups are born live and are generally fed breast milk by their mothers.
Many bat species live in caves and migrate from cold caves where they hibernate in winter to warmer caves where their pups are born.
Seventy percent of bat species eat insects. Bats in the US are insectivores. Most remaining bat species eat fruit and live in tropical regions. There are three bat species, called vampire bats that eat exclusively blood. There are also a few species of carnivorous bats such as those that eat fish or frogs.
Many bat species live 20 to 30 years.
Most bat species use echolocation to find their prey in the darkness. See a video of a bat finding a moth, using echolocation HERE.

Local bat facts

There are 17 bat species in coastal California. A study of foraging bats in 22 of San Francisco’s municipal parks found 4 species of insectivore bats. The amount of forest edge and distance to water were the factors best explaining species richness and foraging activity. The study found no correlation between bat foraging and the percent of native of plants, implying that there is no correlation between insect populations and native plants.

Why are bats important?

Insect-eating bats reduce insect populations, which reduces agricultural pests and disease-carrying mosquito populations. A study in Arizona and New Mexico found that crop pests made up to two-thirds of free-tailed bats’ diets. Another study found free-tailed bats feasting on migrating moths in Texas thousands of feet aboveground. Tuttle estimates that “a single bat easily can consume more than 20 moths in a night, each carrying 500 to 1,000 eggs that otherwise would be laid on crops. A density of 5,000 to 10,000 caterpillars per acre of cotton exceeds the threshold for pesticides. Yet 20 moths can lay from 10,000 to 20,000 eggs. If even half hatched to become caterpillars, they still could force a farmer to spray an acre of crop.” (1) Reduced populations of crop pests means fewer pesticides, which reduces farmers’ costs and toxicity exposure to consumers.

Common fruit bat. This photo makes it clear that the wings of a bat are also its hands. Creative Commons

Fruit-eating bats are important pollinators and dispersers of seeds. There are some species of plants that can only be pollinated by bats because of the shape of the flower and the fact that it blooms only at night.

Although birds are also dispersers of seeds, the germination success of the seeds they disperse is probably less than those dispersed by bats because most bird species poop while perched, unlike bats that usually poop while flying. Seeds deposited on open ground are more likely to germinate than seeds deposited in the shade of tree canopy. Therefore, bats probably play a vital role in the reforestation of fallow agricultural land.

Bad raps about bats

So, as useful as bats are, why are their colonies often threatened with destruction?

Bats departing from Congress Ave Bridge, Austin Texac — Bats departing from Congress Ave Bridge, Austin Texas

In the past, ignorance of the valuable functions performed by bats was the usual reason why their colonies are destroyed. The fact that the lives of bats are largely unseen contributes to that ignorance. The colony of Brazilian free-tailed bats in Austin, Texas is a case in point. In 1984, 1.5 million Brazilian free-tailed bats took up residence under a bridge in Austin, Texas. “Newspaper headlines screamed, ‘Bat colonies sink teeth into city.’ They claimed that hundreds of thousands of rabid bats were invading and attacking the citizens of Austin.” (1)

Tuttle was the curator of mammals at the Milwaukee Public Museum in Wisconsin at the time. He had recently founded Bat Conservation International. He quit his job and moved his fledging enterprise to Austin, where he was not warmly received. But Tuttle is an engaging fellow and his knowledge of and fondness for bats is contagious. Tuttle is equally modest, so he gives the bats full credit for convincing the public that bats need not be feared. Within two months of his arrival, he turned the media coverage around.

The colony of Brazilian free-tailed bats in Austin is now internationally famous and a major tourist attraction. Every evening at dusk, crowds form to witness the departure of the bats to forage for the evening. My family has witnessed this moving event. It is, indeed, a spectacle, on par with watching and listening to the raucous honking of huge flocks of Aleutian geese departing at dawn from their roosts for agricultural fields in Humboldt County. Nature makes the best performance art.

Our federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention informs us that we have little to fear from rabid bats: “Most bats don’t have rabies. For example, even among bats submitted for rabies testing because they could be captured, were obviously weak or sick, or had been captured by a cat, only about 6% had rabies.”

Anthropogenic problems and bad solutions

There are only three species of vampire bats in tropical regions, but only one is considered a problem because it has a preference for mammals. The population of this species of bat has grown because of the introduction of large herds of domesticated cattle. The bats deplete the blood of the cattle and can spread diseases. Reluctantly, Tuttle admits that these bat populations must be controlled.

So, his mission where vampire bats are causing problems for ranchers was to educate the ranchers about how to identify and find the bats. There are other species of bats living in these areas that are performing valuable functions and unfortunately they roost in big colonies that are easy for the ranchers to find. The ranchers were dynamiting or destroying these colonies because they were unable to distinguish them from the bats that were causing their problems. Unfortunately, the vampire bats roost independently, hiding in trees. So, they are more difficult for the ranchers to find. With Tuttle’s help, tactics were devised to find the individually roosting vampire bats in order to reduce their populations.

New challenges for bats

Tuttle and his compatriots have accomplished a great deal in the past 60 years to increase our knowledge of bats and the important roles they play in nature. He has convinced many people that it is not in their interests to destroy bat colonies on their properties. However, he closes his book with two new challenges to bats:

Wind turbines are killing as many bats as they are birds. We must carefully study the design and placement of wind turbines to reduce this threat to our winged neighbors.
White-nosed syndrome is a fungus that has killed tens of thousands of bats in caves, particularly in the North East of the US. The fungus seems to live in a fairly narrow temperature range, so we are hopeful that it will not continue to spread rampantly.

The danger of misinformation

Millions of bats needlessly lost their lives because people were afraid of them. Much progress has been made to inform the public of the value of bats. Is this starting to sound familiar? It should. Millions of eucalyptus trees have been destroyed because people were needlessly afraid of them. Please help us spread the word about the value of our trees.

(1) Merlin Tuttle, The Secret Lives of Bats, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2015. A favorable review of this book is also available in the New Yorker.