Category: Ecology

Open letter to Nature in the City

Latest Pesticide Application Notice, Glen Park, March 3, 2012

Nature in the City (NIC) is one of the non-profit organizations in San Francisco that supports native plant “restoration” projects in our public lands, especially the Natural Areas Program (NAP) in the Recreation and Park Department.  We recently published a response to a NIC newsletter which described critics of NAP as “a handful of people” and accused them of “misrepresenting” NAP’s plans for San Francisco’s parks.  In their most recent newsletter they seem to have changed their tune.  This suggests they are starting to take criticism of NAP more seriously.  But does it suggest any change in actions or plans?  With this open letter, we will ask Nature in the City for clarification.

Here is NIC’s latest attempt to communicate with NAP critics or discredit them.  We don’t know which.

“Restore to 1769 or to Now?!

I often hear the question, “to what year do you restore?” Some folks are skeptical about ecological restoration since, of course, we can’t turn back the clock!

Some skeptics sardonically say, “are you going back to the ice age, pre-last glacial maximum (22,000 BP)? Well, then, Monterey Pine are native…”

In fact, the answer I give is that we restore to now. Ecological restoration, like all human activities, has a social and environmental context, which is historical indeed, but also very current. And restoration is about healing and looking toward a brighter future, not looking back into the abyss of ecological destruction. Thus, we Spring Forward, taking into account current conditions, constraints, as well as opportunities.

We document historical ecology; are blessed with knowledge of and from a recent and current indigenous cultural context; and study nearby ecological reference sites. Meanwhile, we have laws, recent history, and communities that present a unique local context in every case. Wildlife habitat now takes diverse forms, including in the human-dominated landscape.

If restoring integrity and biodiversity are always the goals, the specifics can vary widely. And this is just fine, because restoration should be a community-driven, democratic process, like every other human endeavor.
-Peter Brastow

 

Open Letter to Nature in the City:

We are writing to request clarification of your newsletter of March 8, 2012. 

What does it mean to “restore to now?”  If we are satisfied with our parks now, why do they need to be restored?  Isn’t that a contradiction?  If not, what—if anything—does that mean? 

Why is it necessary to “heal” a park that we don’t think is in “the abyss of destruction?”  What if we think that spraying our parks with gallons of pesticides is sending us into “the abyss of destruction?”  Is there a “brighter future” in spraying places called “natural areas” with pesticides 86 times in one year? 

What does it mean to “restore integrity and biodiversity?”  If biodiversity is the goal of the Natural Areas Program why are they eradicating non-native species, thereby reducing biodiversity?  As for “integrity,” we assume NIC means in the sense of “unimpaired.”  But we don’t consider our parks impaired, so we aren’t concerned about their “integrity.” 

Talking out of both sides of your mouth

The tone of the latest NIC newsletter is definitely an improvement over the previous accusatory tone.  However, it isn’t comprehensible, nor is it credible because it is contradicted by the words and actions of NIC.  Here are a few phrases from NIC’s public comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Review (DEIR) of the Natural Areas Program:

“…the analysis [of the DEIR] neglects to fully address the long-term impact of invasive plants from the retention of invasive weed-nurturing eucalyptus groves in the MA-3 areas.”

In other words, NIC wants all the eucalypts destroyed in all of the acres of “natural areas.”  Expanding tree removals into the lowest-priority management areas (MA-3) would increase the number of tree removals substantially.  MA-3 acres are 42% of the total acres of “natural areas.”  The management plan currently prohibits removal of healthy trees in MA-3 acres. 

The DEIR reports that the Maximum Restoration Alternative would have the most impact on the environment.  NIC says in its written public comment on the DEIR that this judgment “may be…a misinterpretation of the intent of CEQA.”  Peter Brastow, Founding Director of NIC, said during his public testimony to the Planning Commission on October 6, 2011, that the Maximum Restoration Alternative should be designated as the environmentally superior alternative in the final version of the Environmental Impact Report.  The Maximum Restoration Alternative would expand all the destructive activities of NAP into all 1,107 acres of “natural areas:” tree removals, eradication of non-native plants, reintroduction of legally protected species, recreational access restrictions, etc. 

But Mr. Brastow is not satisfied with maximizing native plant restorations in San Francisco’s parks.  In his public comment for the revision of the Recreation, Open Space Element (ROSE) of San Francisco’s General Plan, he proposes that a new agency be created to manage all public lands in San Francisco as “natural areas.”  All open space in the city, currently managed by Public Utilities, Port, and Public Works agencies as well as Recreation and Park should be “become part of a single natural resources agency.”  This new agency would “Integrate the protection and restoration of biodiversity within all open space management activities (not just natural areas), e.g., native plant landscaping in designed landscapes, wildlife management and monitoring in all parks, etc.” 

But why stop there?  Mr. Brastow also proposes in his public comment on the ROSE that these principles be extended to private yards:  “Conserve private open space, especially rear yards, as habitats and habitat connectors.” 

Is there any way to reconcile these demands to expand the empire of the Natural Areas Program into every piece of vacant property in San Francisco, both private and public, with the empty phrases of NIC’s latest newsletter?

Looking how far back into the botanical past?

Before we leave this contentious topic, we will address NIC’s opening gambit, “Restore to 1769 or Now?”  The author goes on to dismiss 1769 as the standard, preferring a more forward looking goal.  However, he is once again stuck with the written record, which establishes the pre-European landscape as the goal of the Natural Areas Program.

The management plan for the Natural Areas Program says explicitly that. “The following are the list of criteria…to determine the location of potential plant re-introductions:   Evidence of historic presence (based on Howell et al. 1958).” (page 2-6) And Howell (1958) says that “Native plant [is] present within the geographic limits of present-day San Francisco prior to the arrival of Portola expedition in 1769.” 

NIC may be prepared to welcome plants into San Francisco that arrived after 1769, but until the language in the management plan (and other similar documents such as “Assessment for Forestry Operations,” for Recreation and Park Department, June 2010.) is changed, we will continue to assume that is the standard used by the Natural Areas Program.

Making Peace

The tone of the latest NIC newsletter is welcome and we hope it is a first step toward resolving the conflict over the future of San Francisco’s parks.  If this is a sincere effort to address the objections of San Franciscans to the destructive and restrictive actions of the Natural Areas Program, the next step should be to demonstrate intentions with actions.  We therefore ask Nature in the City to join us in making the following requests of the Natural Areas Program and the Recreation and Park Department:

  • The Natural Areas Program should STOP spraying pesticides in the so-called “natural areas” NOW.
  • The Natural Areas Program should STOP expanding their native plant gardens until the Environmental Impact Report is complete and approved.
  • The Natural Areas Program should STOP destroying non-native plants and healthy trees until the Environmental Impact Report is complete and approved.

These actions would set the stage for the next step.  A lawyer and a critic of the Natural Areas Program has notified the Planning Department, the Natural Areas Program, and the City Attorney that the public comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Natural Areas Program did not meet legal standards.  The law requires that notice of the public comment period be posted in all the natural areas and mailed to the neighbors of the natural areas.  Neither of these requirements was met.  Therefore, the lawyer requests that the public comment period be announced as required by law and repeated.

Since NIC says in its current newsletter that “restoration should be a community-driven, democratic process” NIC should agree that another properly announced public comment period is required.  The public cannot participate in this “democratic process” if they are unaware of what is planned for their parks.  

The DEIR must also be revised to accurately identify the Maintenance Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative.  And, finally, when the Planning Commission holds a hearing on the DEIR, the time of that hearing must be announced in advance and adhered to so that those who want to speak have the opportunity to do so (unlike the hearing on October 6, 2011 when the time was changed with little warning and many people were deprived of the opportunity to speak).

Actions speak louder than words!

Plants from all over the world are welcome in the English garden

In a recent post about weeds in Britain, we pondered the interesting question of why there are so few plants in Britain that are considered invasive, a mere dozen compared to the nearly 200 labeled “invasive” by the California Invasive Plant Council.  The Brother Gardeners* enabled us to dismiss one possible explanation. 

The English Garden, Creative Commons

The fact that fewer plants are considered invasive in Britain is not the result of fewer non-native plants in their gardens.  The Brother Gardeners informs us that the British have been enthusiastic importers of plants from all over the world for hundreds of years.  They had one of the biggest empires in the world, spanning the globe from India to Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and America, which put them in a unique position to sample the botanical riches of the world.

The Brother Gardeners was written by a German who immigrated to Britain about 10 years before writing this book.  She was immediately struck with the importance of gardening in Britain compared to her home country, and she quickly became immersed in the British obsession with gardening. 

She tells us the history of botany and gardening in Britain, going back to the 17th century.  This is no stale retelling of dry history.  This is an engaging tale of the personal relationships that reshaped the English garden, focusing on a 40-year business relationship between an English businessman and a Quaker farmer in Pennsylvania.  The American farmer supplied the Englishman with thousands of plants and seeds from the American landscape. 

The evolution of their relationship from a business relationship to a friendship is analogous to the relationship between America and Britain.  The Englishman was wealthier and more educated than the American and predictably he was condescending to the American at the beginning of their relationship.  Over the years, the American acquired both wealth and botanical knowledge, so that eventually they were on an equal footing.  But we digress.

Magnolia grandiflora. Creative Commons

 Magnolias, tulip trees, wisteria, and dogwoods were early favorites in this trade from America to England, but over time thousands of different species made the trip into English gardens.  The American trees “were thoroughly naturalized, growing side by side with native trees” by 1760 and “Many of the American plants had become so common in the English landscape that gardeners needed new species to parade as rarities in their shrubberies…” 

Joseph Banks, the intrepid botanical explorer, brought many new species of plants to Britain.  He joined the maiden voyage of Captain Cook into the Pacific in 1769.  His team collected plants in Brazil, Tahiti, New Zealand, and Australia on their three year voyage, bringing home specimens of 3,600 species of which 1,400 were new to Britain’s botanical knowledge.  Joseph Banks returned to become the head of the Kew Royal Botanical Garden and the Royal Academy of Science.  He continued to acquire botanical specimens from all over the world in that capacity.

Banksia, named for Joseph Banks. Creative Commons

 The crowning glory of Banks’ acquisitions was the specimen collection of Carl Linneaus, after Linneaus died in 1783. This collection was the “base reference” used by Linneaus to develop the system of categorizing all species, which is still used to this day.  The Brother Gardeners tells us the fascinating story of how the Swedish botanist, Linneaus, “sold” his system to botanists throughout the world.  It wasn’t an easy sell, particularly to the British.  They were initially scandalized by the sexual metaphors used by the system of categories which is based on counting the female (stamens) and male (pistils) parts of the plant, using explicit terms such as the “bridal bed which God adorned with such precious bedcurtains, and perfumed with so many sweet scents.”  You may have heard the saying, “No sex please. We’re British.”

The English garden is to this day an eclectic mix of species from all over the world.  It is a rich mix of color and texture that seems a mad jumble until the eye can make sense of its logic.  It is admired the world over and has influenced gardening everywhere.  It rejects the meaningless and artificial distinction between native and non-native.  Beauty is its only standard for judgment.  Whatever grows and adds color and texture is welcome in the English garden. 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

*Andrea Wulf, The Brother Gardeners, Alfred Knopf, 2008.  All quotes are from Brother Gardeners

The Globalization of Ecology by Humans

Humans have had a profound impact on our planet wherever they have lived.  Since the industrial age man’s impact on the environment has even extended beyond where he lives as atmospheric changes impact remote places such as the polar regions. Humans are a particularly restless species of animal, forever fleeing whatever conditions threaten existence or seeking a better life ahead.  Because we are an adaptable species with the capacity to alter conditions, we have a wider range of movement than other animals. 

Wherever humans have gone they have taken with them the seeds of plants, at first unwittingly and then purposefully after the advent of agriculture.  Edward Salisbury, a 19th Century British horticulturalist, reported raising 300 plants of 80 different species from the debris in his trouser cuffs despite wearing spats.(1)

The impact of Native Americans on the landscape

Native Americans arrived in North America about 13,000 years ago and slowly migrated to South America.   The megafauna that Native Americans found when they arrived disappeared soon after they arrived.  Although not all scientists agree, there is strong evidence that the megafauna, such as enormous buffalo and mastodons were hunted to extinction by the first human inhabitants of the New World.  The loss of these huge herbivores was a factor in the development of grasslands that were not adapted to heavy grazing.(2)

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

The most profound alteration of the ecology of the New World by Native Americans was their use of fire to assist their hunting and gathering activities.  Burning grassland to the ground encourages the growth of new sprouts that improve grazing and attract the animals the Native Americans hunted.  And burning grassland funneled the animals into the hunt.  These frequent burns prevented the succession of grassland to shrubs and forest, maintaining prairies that were essentially manmade. 

The arrival of Europeans in the New World

This process of transplanting plants around the globe was greatly accelerated by the age of exploration which began in earnest in the 15th century.  When Columbus arrived in the New World in 1492, he found a land that had already been radically altered by Native Americans, though he had no way of knowing that. 

The Europeans that eventually settled the New World were ignorant of the impact of Native Americans on their new home until the advent of archaeology in the 20th century.  Their ignorance was based on their mistaken perception that the Native American population was small.(3) 

In fact, the population of Native Americans was decimated by the time the Europeans settled the New World nearly 200 years after the early explorers arrived at the end of the 15th century.  The early explorers introduced European diseases to which they were immune, but the Native Americans were not.  From just a few localized contacts with Europeans these diseases–such as measles, smallpox, and syphilis–spread quickly through Native American communities, sometimes reducing the population by as much as 90%.  These deadly epidemics were largely unwitnessed by the tiny population of early explorers.

Alfred Crosby speculates in Ecological Imperialism that Native Americans were particularly vulnerable to these diseases because they had virtually no domesticated animals.  He gives us a fascinating explanation of how Europeans developed their immunities by living in close proximity with animals for centuries.

The history of Native Americans was initially recorded by the European settlers who arrived in numbers nearly 200 years after initial contact in the 15th century.  Their perception that they found a pristine wilderness, largely untouched by human hands, has persisted to this day in the public’s mind.   It is that perception that has led native plant advocates to the conclusion that the pre-European landscape should be the goal of restorations.

The impact of Europeans on the landscape

As much impact as Native Americans had on our landscape it pales in comparison to that of Europeans.  The importation of domesticated animals—such as cattle, pigs, horses, and sheep—changed the ecology of the New World quickly.  Because the population of early settlers was small and the grazing resources vast, these animals quickly became huge herds of feral animals, roaming places such as the pampas of Argentina and the prairies of the mid-west of North America.  The native grasses were quickly replaced by the non-native grasses spread by these wandering herds. (4)

Herd of sheep, Mono County, CA. Creative Commons

Likewise, the agricultural practices of European settlers have introduced virtually everything we eat today in North America.  Nearly all of our fruits, vegetables, and cereals are not native to North America.  If non-native food were to be banished from California, we would be reduced to a diet of game, acorn mush and a few species of nuts and berries.   The diet of Europeans would be equally impoverished if they lost the potatoes, corn, tomatoes, etc. that came to them from the New World.

USDA photo

The Anthropocene:  The geologic age of humans

The Earth’s ecology is in a constant state of change.  Humans are not the source of much of that change.  The continents shift.  The climate oscillates.  Plants are moved by the wind and tide.  Animals move without the assistance of humans, often taking plants with them.  But change has been accelerated by the restless movements and activities of humans. 

Scientists have recently begun to advocate for the naming of a new geologic era, the Anthropocene.   The Anthropocene would officially acknowledge that the environment has been altered by humans.  Although the beginning of this era is still being debated by scientists, Erle Ellis (University of Maryland, Baltimore) believes that an appropriate beginning would be about 6,000 years ago, when humans domesticated animals. 

Why are we suddenly afraid of change?

Changes in the ecology of North America resulting from the movement of humans have been going on for thousands of years and have greatly accelerated in the last 500 years.  Until very recently, these changes were broadly perceived as improvements.  We enjoy a more varied diet than our ancestors and we are shielded from famine by our access to food from anywhere in the world.  We find the products of the New World useful in other ways, such as the rubber that is essential to transportation.

Suddenly, for little apparent reason, we are afraid of everything new in our environment.  The media is full of panic-stricken reports of alien “invasions.”  Most of these panic attacks eventually prove to be baseless.  The newcomers are eventually absorbed into the landscape or they disappear without a trace.  Or scientists eventually explain that the newcomers are better adapted than their predecessors to the climate, water, and soil conditions created by the activities of man. 

We asked a scientist who advises us occasionally this question:  Since new species of plants and animals have been introduced to our landscape for hundreds, if not thousands of years, why the sudden panic?  His reply was:  “It’s trendy. It’s ‘cutting edge.’ It’s ‘hot.’ It’s…fundable.”   

In the service of a scientific fad that has spread into the popular culture, introduced species of plants and animals are being needlessly destroyed.  Many of these new species are better adapted to present conditions than their predecessors.  Many are essential to our way of life and the animals with which we share the planet. 

(1) Richard Mabey, Weeds:  In Defense of Nature’s Most Unloved Plants, Harper-Collins, 2011

(2) Alfred Crosby, Ecological Imperialism. Cambridge University Press, 2004

(3) Charles Mann, 1491, Random House, 2005

(4) Crosby

A novel definition of “wilderness”

As our readers know, we troll the websites of supporters of the native plant movement, looking for clues about the basis for belief in that ideology.  We hope that our understanding will enable us to provide the scientific information to our readers that will reveal the fallacies of nativism. 

The following comment on the San Francisco Forest Alliance website alerted us to a new theme in this debate:  native plant advocates seem to believe that we can and should return our urban parks to “wilderness.”

“It is interesting that your post shows the trail side covered with English ivy, and possibly a fallen eucalyptus or two. Each of these is a non-native element. Any and all exotic species present in the canyon destroy the wilderness aspect of Glen Canyon Park.

Please note the term “wilderness”. It implies natural, native flora and fauna; the wild plants and the bird and animal populations that support one another. That is what we want to have if we want a wild retreat. A morass of garden escapes and foreign invasive species is to be deplored. Let’s progress toward returning the area to a REAL wilderness. Do not let the concept that a plant’s becoming established in an area is a sign of its becoming native to the area. It remains an invasive element, a weed. It disrupts and destroys the normal habitat of native plants, animals, and insects in its surroundings.

It will be a huge and long term task, but we can restore the entire canyon to a truly wilderness state. Lets get started!”

Chainsaw massacre in Glen Canyon, November 2011

In this particular native plant advocate’s view, wilderness is composed exclusively of native plants.  Everything else must be eradicated.  If chainsaws and pesticides must be used repeatedly in perpetuity, so be it.  All this destruction is justified by the glorious goal of “wilderness.”  This wilderness is apparently not disturbed by chainsaws and pesticides.  Presumably they must be ignored to achieve the glorious goal.

We rarely indulge in sarcasm on Million Trees.  We hope our readers recognize it when they see it.

Conservation Refugees: The misanthropy of ecological “restorations”

Hawaiians protest confiscation of public lands

We recently told our readers about the controversial “restoration” projects in Hawaii.  Now our colleagues in Hawaii have sent us photographs of a public protest in Hawaii and The Hawaii Reporter tells us why they are protesting.  Hawaii’s Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) is fencing the public out of another 17 square miles of prime forest on the Big Island.  All the non-native animals—sheep, goats, pigs—will be exterminated and all their non-native food—strawberry guava, passion fruit, etc—will be eradicated in that fenced enclosure.   The people who hunted the animals and gathered fruit in the forest are protesting the loss of this source of food. 

In addition to the loss of food, the protestors also object to the loss of an activity that is central to the Hawaiian culture of foraging and hunting for food.   DLNR’s response to that particular complaint is that the historical record indicates that Hawaiians didn’t hunt prior to the arrival of Europeans because they raised animals as their own. 

In other words, not only does DLNR wish to stop the biological clock, they also wish to freeze-frame the Hawaiian culture to a pre-European standard.  They don’t seem to have considered that the Europeans essentially confiscated the land of the Hawaiians when they arrived, which deprived the Hawaiians of the land needed to raise animals.  That’s too bad.  The Hawaiians are not allowed to hunt now because they didn’t hunt 250 years ago.   As absurd as creating botanical museums seems to us, the suggestion that culture must also be prevented from evolving strikes us as utterly ridiculous.

Hawaiians protest loss of access to public lands

Conservation Refugees

Hawaii’s cost of living has always been one of the highest in the country because virtually all of its food must be imported.   And now Hawaiians are being deprived of an important source of food by the confiscation of public lands.  Will these Hawaiians join the ranks of the millions of conservation refugees all over the world who have been displaced in the name of conservation?

We were introduced to conservation refugees by Mark Dowie in 2004.  He told us that the belief that wilderness is not compatible with human community originated with John Muir, who demanded that Native Americans living in Yosemite be removed from the valley.  Native Americans were also removed from Yellowstone when the National Park was created.  These Native Americans were the first conservation refugees, but not the last.

Dowie told us that the worldwide official protected areas—parks, reserves, wildlife sanctuaries, biodiversity corridors—had expanded from 1,000 in 1962 to 108,000 in 2004.  The total number of indigenous people displaced by the creation of these protected areas is not known because most countries make no attempt to quantify the impact.  In Chad an estimated 600,000 indigenous people became conservation refugees when the amount of protected areas increased from 0.1 to 9.1 percent of total national land in the 1990s.  India admits to creating 1.6 million conservation refugees as a result of creating new protected areas and the Indian government estimates that 2 or 3 million more will be displaced in this decade.

Dowie visited some of the communities that have been displaced by the confiscation of their ancestral land.  The loss of their land is also the loss of their way of life.  Hunters/gatherers are deprived of their source of food.  Likewise, farmers lose their croplands.  They wander into shanty towns where they lack the skills to survive in the modern world.  They create shabby squatter camps on the perimeter of their homeland where they live without sanitation or water.  The fabric of their communities is shattered.

Emma Marris* observes the irony of these evictions of traditional cultures which have tended these remnants of the wilderness for generations.  These places were targets for conservation because they had been preserved by traditional cultures that had learned to co-exist with nature.  This is how they are rewarded for their stewardship of the land.

What is accomplished?

What is gained when Hawaiians are thrown out of their public lands, depriving them of a source of food?  Are these projects successful?  Are the plants and animals that existed in Hawaii several hundred years ago returning to the fenced reserves that have been created for them?

Emma Marris visited one of these projects in Hawaii.  A small test plot was cleared of all non-native plants, requiring the removal of about half of all the vegetation.  That process took about a week per thousand square feet and then “epic bouts of weeding thereafter.”

 The theory was that the removal of all the non-natives would enable the natives to thrive without the competition for sunlight and water.  Five years later, there is little evidence that native plants have benefited from the eradication of all non-native plants:

“Disappointingly, the mature native trees had grown very little.  As [the project directors] put it, ‘The native trees may either be responding to the treatments very slowly and still undetectably, or they may be unable to respond at all.’”

The directors of this project also told Marris, “I think that people that are interested in protecting Hawaii’s flora and fauna have resigned themselves to it being in postage-stamp sized reserves.”   Apparently Hawaii’s Department of Land and Natural Resources hasn’t gotten this message.  They are now creating another 17 square mile reserve with the intention of eradicating everything non-native in it.  Nothing is likely to be accomplished by all that death and destruction and some Hawaiians will also go hungry.

The slippery slope of nativism

Perhaps we should be grateful that the “restoration” projects in the San Francisco Bay Area aren’t depriving us of our homes and our livelihoods.  We are just being fenced out of our public parks.  We are just losing our trees.  Our public parks are just being poisoned with pesticides.

But we watch these projects all over the world and we listen to the demands of local native plant advocates and we wonder where this is headed.  In San Francisco, for example, native plant advocates are demanding that all of the public lands in the city be managed as “natural areas.”  In addition to destroying the trees in our parks, would we lose the trees on all our public properties?  We also know that native plant advocates want plant nurseries to quit selling to the public the approximately 200 plants that they have categorized as “invasive.”  Will we lose the right to plant what we want in our own backyards?  Given what we see happening around the world, it doesn’t seem farfetched. 

* Emma Marris, Rambunctious Garden, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2011

Response to Nature in the City

Nature in the City (NIC) is one of many organizations that support native plant “restorations” in San Francisco as well as the principle entity which engages in them, the Natural Areas Program (NAP) of the Recreation and Park Department.  NIC is consistently critical of anyone who questions the value of these restorations, but in their most recent newsletter they confront our objections directly.  Although we don’t presume to represent the many constituencies which are critical of the Natural Areas Program, we are responding in this post to NIC based on our knowledge of the issues. (The NIC newsletter is in quotes and is italicized.  Our response is not italicized.)

“Natural Areas in 2012

Last fall saw the the [sic] Planning Commission public meeting for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Significant Natural Resource Areas Management Plan.  Some time later this year, the City will issue a Final Environmental Impact Report, which may be appealed by opponents of the Natural Areas Program.

Unfortunately, a handful of people are still propagating misinformation about the rationale, values, and intention of ecological restoration, management and stewardship, and of the City’s celebrated Natural Areas Program.”

Webmaster:  Critics of the Natural Areas Program cannot be described accurately as a “handful of people.”  We now have four websites(1) representing our views and there have been tens of thousands of visits to our websites.  Comments on our websites are overwhelmingly supportive of our views. Our most recently created website, San Francisco Forest Alliance, lists 12 founding members.  That organization alone exceeds a “handful of people.”

Our objections to the Natural Areas Program have also been reported by three major newspapers in the past month or so (San Francisco Examiner, Wall Street Journal,  Sacramento Bee).

 Many critics of NAP have been engaged in the effort to reduce its destructive and restrictive impacts on our parks for over 10 years.  Scores of public meetings and hearings have been held to consider our complaints.  We consistently outnumbered public speakers in support of NAP until 2006, when the NAP management plan was finally approved by the Recreation and Park Commission.  Although we were outnumbered for the first time, there were over 80 speakers who asked the Recreation and Park Commission to revise NAP’s management plan to reduce its negative impact on our parks.

The public comments on the NAP DEIR are the most recent indicator of the relative size of the groups on opposite sides of this issue.  These comments were submitted in September and October 2011.  We obtained them with a public records request.  The Planning Department reported receiving about 400 comments.  In analyzing these comments, we chose to disregard about half of them because they were submitted as form letters, even though they were from dog owners who were protesting the loss of their off-leash privileges in the natural areas.  We also leave aside the comments from golfers whose only interest is in retaining the golf course at Sharp Park.  In other words, we set aside the majority of the comments critical of the NAP management plan in order to focus on those comments that demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the impact of NAP on the city’s parks.  Of the comments remaining, those critical of NAP and its deeply flawed DEIR outnumbered comments in support of the NAP DEIR about three to one.  We urge NAP supporters to read these public comments to learn about the wide range of criticisms of NAP, including pesticide use, destruction of trees, recreational access restrictions, loss of wildlife habitat and more. 

We will challenge NIC’s accusation that we are “propagating misinformation” within the context of their specific allegations:

“Contrary to the many myths that continue to percolate, the Natural Areas Plan and Program seek to do the following (among other worthwhile endeavors):

1.       Protect and conserve our City’s natural heritage for its native wildlife and indigenous plant habitats and for the overall health of our local ecosystem;”

Webmaster:  Since the majority of acreage claimed as natural areas by NAP 15 years ago had no native plants in them, there is little truth to the claim that NAP is protecting our “natural heritage.”  The so-called “natural area” at Balboa and the Great Highway is typical of the “natural areas.”  There is photographic evidence that it was built upon for about 150 years.  It was the site of Playland by the Beach before it was designated a “natural area.”  Sand had to be trucked onto the property and disked down 18” into the construction rubble, then shaped into dunes by bulldozers before native plants could be planted on it. 

Natural Area at Balboa & Great Highway under construction

We don’t make any distinction between “native wildlife” and any other wildlife currently living in our city.  We value them all.  Most are making use of existing vegetation, whether it is native or non-native.  They do not benefit from the loss of the blackberries that are their primary food source or the loss of the thickets or trees that are their homes.  We do not believe that wildlife in San Francisco benefits from the destructive projects of the Natural Areas Program.  See photos of insects, birds, and other wildlife using non-native plants in the natural areas here.

Damselflies mating on ivy, Glen Canyon Park

We do not think an ecosystem that has been sprayed with herbicides qualifies as a “healthy ecosystem.”  NAP sprayed herbicides at least 86 times in 2011.  Their use of herbicides has increased over 330% in the last 4 years.  NAP uses herbicides that are classified as more toxic than those most used by other city departments.  Last spring, 1,000 visitors to Glen Canyon Park signed a petition, asking the Natural Areas Program to stop using pesticides in their park.  This petition was given to Scott Wiener, the Supervisor representing the district in which Glen Canyon Park is located.

These are statements of fact that can be easily verified by the public record.

2.       “Educate our culturally diverse city about the benefits of local nature and about helping with natural areas stewardship in your neighborhood;”

Webmaster:  Although we value education, we do not consider the staff of NAP and/or its supporters qualified to provide it.  We hear them make statements that are demonstrably not true, such as “grassland stores more carbon than trees.”  We see them spray herbicides in the dead of winter that are supposed to be sprayed in the spring when the plants are actively growing.  We watch them plant things where they won’t grow, such as sun-loving plants in deep shade and plants in watersheds where they will soon be drowned by seasonal rains.

And we also have had bad experiences with the volunteers who are called “stewards” by NAP, but sometimes act more like vandals.  We see them spraying herbicides that they aren’t authorized to use.  We see them hacking away at trees that haven’t been designated for removal.  NAP is not providing the necessary guidance and supervision to the volunteers many of whom seem to consider themselves the de facto owners of the parks. 

3.       “Manage the City’s wildlands for public access, safety and the health of the “urban forest.””

Webmaster:  We do not oppose the removal of hazardous trees.  However, we also know that most of the trees that have been designated for removal by the NAP management plan are NOT hazardous.  They have been selected for removal solely because they are not native and are perceived to be obstacles to the reintroduction of native plants.  Claims to the contrary are inconsistent with the management plan as well as our experience in the past 15 years.  (Watch video about the destruction of 1,600 trees over 15 feet tall planned for Mt. Davidson.)

“We hear occasional complaints about public access and tree removal. Three simple facts are thus:

1. Every single natural area in the City has at least one trail through it, where one can walk a dog on a leash;”

Webmaster:  The loss of recreational access in the natural areas is real, not imagined.  The following are verbatim quotes from the NAP management plan:

  • “Approximately 80 percent of the SFRPD off-leash acreage is located within Natural Areas.” (page 5-8).  The NAP DEIR proposes to close or reduce the size of several off-leash areas.  The DEIR provides no evidence that these areas have been negatively impacted by dogs.  It also states that all off-leash areas in the natural areas are subject to closure in the future if it is considered necessary to protect native plants.  Since NAP has offered no evidence that the proposed immediate closures are necessary, one reasonably assumes it will offer no evidence if it chooses to close the remainder of the 80% of all off-leash areas in San Francisco located in natural areas.  We know from the DEIR public comments that NAP supporters demand their closure.
  • “Public use in all Natural Areas, unless otherwise specified, should encourage on-trail use… Additionally, interpretive and park signs should be installed or modified as appropriate to include “Please Stay on Trails” with information about why on-trail use is required.”  (page 5-14)   In other words, the only form of recreation allowed in the natural areas is walking on a trail.  Throwing a ball or frisbee, having a picnic on the grass, flying a kite, climbing the rocks are all prohibited activities in the natural areas.  And in some parks, bicycles have been prohibited on the trails by NAP. 
  • “Finally, this plan recommends re-routing or closing 10.3 miles of trail (approximately 26 percent of total existing trails).” (page 5-14)  So, the only thing visitors are allowed to do in a natural area is walk on the trails and 26% of all the trails in the natural areas will be closed to the public.

2. “The act of removing (a small subset of) non-native trees, e.g., eucalyptus, that are in natural areas has the following benefits:
   a. Restores native habitat for indigenous plants and wildlife;
   b. Restores health, light and space to the “urban forest,” since the trees are all crowded together and being choked by ivy;
   c. Contributes to the prevention of catastrophic fire in our communities.”

Webmaster:  Destroying non-native plants and trees does not restore indigenous plants and wildlife. Native plants do not magically emerge when non-native plants and trees are destroyed. Planting indigenous plants might restore them to a location if they are intensively gardened to sustain them.  However, in the past 15 years we have seen little evidence that NAP is able to create and sustain successful native plant gardens.  Native plants have been repeatedly planted and they have repeatedly failed. 

NAP has not “restored” the health of the urban forest.  They remove trees in big groups as they expand their native plant gardens.  They are not thinning trees.  They are creating large openings for the grassland and dune scrub that they plant in the place of the urban forest.  Every tree designated for removal by the NAP management plan is clearly selected for its proximity to native plants.  It is disingenuous to suggest that NAP’s tree removal plans are intended to benefit the urban forest.

Of all the fictions fabricated by native plant advocates to justify the destruction of our urban forest, the claim that its destruction will “prevent catastrophic fire” is the most ridiculous.  The native ecology of California is highly flammable.  Most fires in California are in native chaparral.  According to San Francisco’s hazard mitigation plan, there has never been a wildfire in San Francisco (2) and one is unlikely in the future because the climate is mild and moist.  When it is hot in the interior, it is foggy in San Francisco.  The hot winds that drive most fires in California never reach San Francisco because it is separated from the hot interior by the bay.  San Francisco is surrounded by water, which moderates its climate and virtually eliminates the chances of wildfire. The tall non-native trees precipitate moisture from the summer fog, which moistens the forest floor and reduces the chances of ignition.  In the unlikely event of a wind-driven fire, the trees provide the windbreak which would stop the advance of the fire. 

3. “The overall visual landscape of the natural areas will not change since only a small subset of trees are planned to be removed over a 20-year period.”

Webmaster:  In addition to the 18,500 trees over 15 feet tall which NAP proposes to destroy, the NAP management plan also states its intention to destroy non-native trees less than 15 feet tall.  In other words, the future of the forest will also be killed.  The intention is to eliminate the urban forest in San Francisco’s parks over the long term.  Yes, this will take some time, but the long-term intention to eliminate the forest is clear.

“Please feel free to email steward@natureinthecity.org if you would like more clarification about the intention, values and rationale of natural resources management.”

Webmaster:  We urge our readers to take NIC up on this offer to provide  ”more clarification” of its spirited defense of the Natural Areas Program. 

  • Do you think NIC is deluded about there being only a “handful of people” that are critical of the Natural Areas Program?
  • Did you notice that NIC does not acknowledge the use of herbicides by NAP?  Do you think that a fair representation of criticism of NAP can omit this issue?
  • If you visit a park that is a natural area, do you think NAP has demonstrated in the past 15 years what NIC claims it is accomplishing?
  • Do you think NIC has accurately described recreational access restrictions in the natural areas?
  • Do you think that San Francisco’s urban forest will be improved by the destruction of 18,500 mature trees and countless young trees?

(1) Save Sutro Forest, Urban Wildness, San Francisco Forest Alliance, Death of a Million Trees

(2) “The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has no record of any wildfire in San Francisco.” San Francisco Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2008, page 5-18.

Ivy Eradication: A Comedy of Errors

When the concert meadow in San Francisco’s Stern Grove was renovated in 2005, at a cost of $15 million, we were surprised that ivy was planted as the ground cover because ivy grows rampant in Stern Grove, shrouding many of the trees.  But, hey!  Who are we to question the choices of horticultural professionals? 

Ivy planted in Stern Grove, 2005

Now ivy is being sprayed with herbicide–presumably with the intention of killing it–by San Francisco’s Natural Areas Program in other parks in San Francisco, so one wonders if the staff who plant it are aware of the future of the ivy they plant.  Seems like another case of man creating problems which he then must solve.  Perhaps full employment is the objective, rather than the creation of a beautiful garden.  But we digress.

Ivy climbing trees in Stern Grove

Combining pesticides

Many members of the public are of the opinion that all pesticide (herbicides, insecticides, etc.) applications are inappropriate in a park that has been designated as a “natural area.”  Last year, the public complained about the spraying of Garlon in the natural areas by the Natural Areas Program because it is classified by the city’s Integrated Pest Management (IPM) policy as “Most Hazardous.”  Consequently, the Natural Areas Program significantly reduced its use of Garlon in 2011. 

For the most part they have substituted a mixture of glyphosate and imazapyr for Garlon. Is this an improvement?  Maybe not.  Although glyphosate and imazapyr have a lower hazard rating of “More Hazardous,” the Natural Areas Program increased their pesticide applications in 2011 at least 20% compared to 2010.  But more importantly, little is known about the toxicity of imazapyr and nothing is known about the toxicity of combining glyphosate and imazapyr.(1)  Imazapyr was approved for use in California in 2005, so only the minimal tests required by law have been done on it.

The manufacturer’s labels for these herbicides suggest that combining them is not an approved use.  The label for Aquamaster (glyphosate) does not include imazapyr on the list of pesticides with which it can be safely combined.  And the Polaris (imazapyr) label says it should not be combined with another pesticide unless it is expressly recommended by the manufacturer of that pesticide.

The “Aquatic Pesticide Application Plan for the San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project” is cited by San Francisco’s IPM program as the evaluation upon which it based its decision to add imazapyr to the list of pesticides approved for use in San Francisco in 2010.   The evaluation explained why imazapyr is being combined with glyphosate by the non-native Spartina eradication project. 

Imazapyr is apparently slow acting.  It can take some months before it kills the plant on which it is sprayed.  Glyphosate, on the other hand, is fast acting.  The plant on which it is sprayed begins to yellow and die within a few weeks.  Glyphosate is therefore used by the Spartina eradication project to provide quicker feedback to those spraying the herbicide.  They know within a few weeks if they have sprayed in the right place.  They don’t have to wait for the next season to spray again if necessary. 

Pesticide Application Notice, Glen Canyon Park, December 2011

 However, glyphosate should be applied to perennial broadleaf plants during their reproductive stage of growth, when they are budding in the late spring and summer, according to the manufacturer.  In Glen Canyon Park, a mixture of glyphosate and imazapyr was sprayed on ivy in December 2011, clearly not the recommended time period for spraying.  A month later, there is no indication that the ivy was damaged by this spraying.  This suggests that there was no point in combining glyphosate and imazapyr in this application.  The public was exposed to the unnecessary risk of combining these herbicides, with no potential benefit of taking that risk.

 

Pesticides accumulate and persist in the soil

Was it appropriate for the city’s IPM program to use the evaluation of imazapyr for the Spartina project as the basis of their decision to approve its use by the Natural Areas Program?  We don’t think so.  The circumstances of the Spartina project are substantially different from those of its use by the Natural Areas Program.

Imazapyr is used to eradicate non-native Spartina in a tidal estuary.  For that reason the evaluation of its use assured the public that this herbicide would not accumulate in the environment because it would be flushed away from the ground by the tide twice each day. 

The evaluation also said that when imazapyr was used in a pond or stable water source, it persisted in the ground for a longer period of time.  In fact, that’s exactly how imazapyr is being used by the Natural Areas Program.  It has been used at Lake Merced and at Pine Lake, both stable water sources.  It is also being used in Glen Canyon Park, which is a watershed. 

We don’t assume that imazapyr is being used safely to eradicate Spartina.  However, even if it is, it does NOT follow that it is safe for use in watersheds that are not tidal, such as those being sprayed by the Natural Areas Program. 

Collateral damage of pesticides

Glyphosate is a non-selective herbicide.  That is, it kills any plant it is sprayed on at the right stage of its growth.  But imazapyr is far more insidious as a killer of plants because it is known to travel from the roots of the plant that has been sprayed to the roots of other plants.  For that reason, the manufacturer cautions the user NOT to spray near the roots of any plant you don’t want to kill.  For example, the manufacturer says explicitly that imazapyr should not be sprayed under trees, because that tree is likely to be killed, whether or not that was the intention. 

Pesticide Application Notice under willow trees in Glen Canyon Park, December 2011

Much of the ivy that was sprayed by the Natural Areas Program in Glen Park in December 2011 was sprayed under willow trees.  The willow trees are native, so it seems unlikely that they intended to kill them.

Resistance to pesticides

The Federal Drug Administration recently banned some use of antibiotics in domesticated animals because the bacteria antibiotics are intended to kill are developing resistance to the antibiotics.  This resistance is becoming increasingly dangerous to humans who are also the victims of those bacteria.  Antibiotics are being rendered useless by overuse on domesticated animals.  When humans need them, they won’t work because bacteria have developed a resistance to them.

Likewise, plants and animals are also capable of developing resistance to pesticides.  Glyphosate is the most heavily used herbicide in agriculture.  Recent research indicates that weeds are developing resistance to glyphosate. 

The manufacturer of imazapyr says explicitly that repeated use of this herbicide is likely to result in resistance to it over the long term:  “When herbicides with the same mode of action are used repeatedly over several years to control the same weed species in the same application site, naturally occurring resistant weed biotypes may survive…propagate and become dominant in that site.”   So, does it make sense to use imazapyr on a plant as persistent as ivy? 

The GGNRA reported spending $600,000 over 3 years trying to eradicate ivy from 127 sites.  They were successful in only 7 of the sites.(2)  Obviously eradicating ivy is not a one-shot deal.

If ivy must be eradicated, pesticides do not have to be used to do it.  The Audubon Canyon Ranch in Bolinas Lagoon reported “qualified” success using hand-pulling methods on 5 acres over 5 years “utilizing 2375 volunteer hours.”  Biannual monitoring of resprouts will be required for the foreseeable future.  It’s a big commitment, but at least it is safe. 

All risk, no reward

Congratulations to any reader with the patience to slog through this tedious list of apparently incompetent use of pesticides by San Francisco’s misnamed Natural Areas Program.  We reward your persistence with this summary:

  • Combining pesticides is risky business because the toxicity of such combinations has not been tested.  Therefore, when there is no benefit in doing so, these combinations should be avoided.
  • A pesticide that is appropriate for one purpose is not necessarily appropriate for another.  In this case, imazapyr may not accumulate and persist in a tidal estuary, but it is more likely to do so in a stable watershed.
  • The Natural Areas Program may be killing plants it does not intend to kill by using herbicides indiscriminately.
  • Herbicides should not be used repeatedly on the same plants in the same locations because the plants will develop resistance to those herbicides. 
  • If the Recreation and Park Department is planting ivy in one park and destroying it another, could it be such a bad plant that it is worthwhile to expose the public to toxic pesticides?  We don’t think so, but if we are wrong, then ivy should be removed by hand without using pesticides.

(1) “Aquatic Pesticide Application Plan for the San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project,” August 2010, page 32.

(2) Liston, Heather, “Reuniting old adversaries can beat back exotic invaders,” California Wild, Winter 2006

Nativism: The Hawaiian case

The case for native plant and animal restorations is strongest on islands.  They contain the most endemic species, unique to those places.  More extinction has occurred on islands than on the mainland of the United States because species that evolved in isolation are more vulnerable to new competition than species that have evolved with more competition.  Theoretically, if man were able to eradicate non-native species of plants and animals, it would be easier to prevent re-invasions on an island.  Consequently the Hawaiian Islands are a hot-bed of nativism.

The efforts to eradicate many species of plants and animals in the Hawaiian Islands are just as controversial there as they are here in the Bay Area.   Here is a sampling of the legal, environmental, and ethical questions raised by these eradication projects:

  • Coqui frog

    The coqui is a tiny frog that was inadvertently introduced to Hawaii from Puerto Rico in the 1980s.  There are no native frogs in Hawaii, so efforts to eradicate the coqui aren’t predicated on the usual claim that it will out-compete its native counterpart.  In this case, those who launched this campaign claimed that the frog will eat all the insects on the islands, depriving other animals of this food source.  The proposal was to spray highly concentrated caffeine in the forests occupied by the frog.  No tests were conducted to determine what effect this would have on any of the plants or other animals that would be sprayed in the process.

    Strawberry guava, USDS
  • The strawberry guava was introduced to Hawaii as a fruit tree, just as virtually every fruit tree in America was.  The proposal was to eradicate the strawberry guava with biocontrol, which means an insect was introduced that would theoretically feed solely on the strawberry guava.  The theory of biocontrol is more appealing than the reality, which in practice has often introduced new predators that are more difficult to control than the original target.  This eradication effort was also controversial because the strawberry guava is a valuable source of food for all animals in Hawaii, including humans.
  •  Mangroves are coastal forests that are considered valuable nurseries for marine life.  In Hawaii some have been eradicated with herbicides.  The skeletal remains of the mangrove are left to rot in the water, creating an eyesore and a graveyard for the animals that lived there.

                                                Animals are caught in the middle

The endangered monk seal has been caught in the middle of the nativist debate in Hawaii.  Because it is endangered, government biologists are obligated by law to try to prevent its extinction.  The monk seal has therefore been introduced to places in the Hawaiian Islands in which it hasn’t previously lived, based on the belief that it will have less competition in these areas.  This introduction of the monk seal into new territory has made it vulnerable to two diametrically opposite sides of this debate.  The monk seals are being bludgeoned to death by someone who doesn’t want them there.  Is it a fisherman who believes the legal protections provided for the endangered seal will threaten his fishing rights?  Or is it one of the nativists who are saying that the seals “don’t belong here?”

Monk Seal, Hawaii Wikimedia Commons

Dr. Sydney Singer is a medical anthropologist who lives in Hawaii.  He is in the forefront of the opposition to the eradication of non-native plants and animals, particularly the toxic methods used by the projects.  He has written a tongue-in-cheek quiz for Hawaiians to get at the bottom of that vexing question about what “belongs” in Hawaii.  With Dr. Singer’s permission, we share this quiz with our readers:

What belongs in Hawaii?

“A NOAA[National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration]report released last year showed 35 percent of those surveyed at beaches and popular fishing areas on Kauai and Molokai believed the [monk] seals aren’t native to the islands.”

This raises a critical question for our legislators to consider as invasive species eradicators come to the public trough for more money to kill plants and animals that “don’t belong in Hawaii”.

How can we tell what does and doesn’t “belong” in Hawaii? Here is a quiz.

 From the following list, pick the item that best matches your personal prejudice:

  • Any plants or animals that were brought to Hawaii by human beings, including by the Hawaiians, don’t belong here.
  • Any plant or animal brought by the Hawaiians is okay, but those brought by any other culture are bad and don’t belong here. However, alien biocontrol agents, such as insects and fungi which attack plants and animals that don’t belong here, do belong here.
  • Any plants or animals that are useful, beautiful, or in some other way make our lives better belong here, but those that are noxious or poisonous don’t belong here.
  • How do I know?  I’m from New Jersey. I’m just glad to be alive and be living here.

This question is especially important for the invasive species committees and their army of eradicators poisoning, trapping, shooting and infesting our islands to kill species that they have decided “don’t belong.” And now, following their lead, members of the public are killing endangered Monk seals.”

                                                                  The elusive “baseline”

What is Dr. Singer trying to tell us with these rhetorical questions?  He is reminding us that every living creature in the Hawaiian Islands came from somewhere.  When the islands emerged from the sea as volcanoes they were completely barren.  They were slowly populated over millennia by plants and animals brought by the wind, by the sea, by birds and animals.  Humans arrived on the islands over 1,000 years ago when Polynesians came by boat from neighboring islands.  And Captain Cook and his crew were the first Europeans to arrive in the islands in 1778.  Each of these “invasions” brought new creatures.  Many of those creatures are now extinct. The historical food web cannot be recreated because some pieces are missing and some pieces are unknown. So, how can we arrive at a “baseline” which we now attempt to replicate?  It’s a conundrum that illustrates the fundamental absurdity of the entire concept of restoring historical ecology.

Prejudice destroys more eucalypts

We don’t usually talk about tree destruction projects on private land.  We focus on public lands because, as taxpayers we’re paying for those projects and we consider ourselves the owners of public land.  We also respect private property rights.  We’ll make an exception to that general rule today to tell you about the eradication of eucalypts at the Mountain View Cemetery in Oakland, California.

We learned about this project from one of the cemetery’s periodic mailings to its neighbors.  They informed their neighbors that they planned to plant more trees because they observed that fewer shrubs grew under the canopy of trees.  They also said they “prefer to plant using what grows well in the Bay Area climate with minimal water and intervention.”  Finally, they concluded in what seemed a non sequitur, “We intend to remove unwanted eucalyptus trees that border the cemetery.  Although they provide a useful neighborhood screen and help to architecturally define our outdoor landscape, eucalyptus is a damaging pest to the cemetery.”

Eucalyptus, Mountain View Cemetery

Having received this warning, we weren’t surprised when the eucalypts began to disappear from the cemetery.  The lone specimens in prominent areas in the cemetery seem to us a terrible loss.

Few trees grow more successfully than eucalypts in the San Francisco Bay Area.  They require no supplemental water.  They live for several hundred years in Australia and have grown here for over one-hundred years.  They are not invasive.  We don’t think they deserve to be called a “pest.” 

Gone, but not forgotten

The Mountain View Cemetery was planned by Frederick Law Olmstead in 1863 and building began shortly thereafter.  Although there are native Coast Live Oaks and Redwoods, according to an arborist docent they were all planted after the cemetery was built.  This is as we would expect because, “Vegetation before urbanization in Oakland was dominated by grass, shrub, and marshlands that occupied approximately 98% of the area.  Trees in riparian woodlands covered approximately 1.1% of Oakland’s preurbanized lands…”* 

The vast majority of trees in the cemetery are not native.  The original tree-lined avenue through the center of the cemetery was planted with Magnolias by Olmstead.  There are many stunning specimens of non-native trees:  Dawn Redwood, Copper Beech, Ginkos, etc. 

Ginko in the fall, Mountain View Cemetery

Eucalyptus is not our favorite tree.  We would probably choose to plant many other species before we would consider planting eucalyptus.  However, the decision to plant a tree is very different from the decision to destroy a tree.  We see no justification for destroying mature, healthy trees sequestering thousands of tons of carbon.  The prejudice against eucalyptus remains a mystery to us.

Edited to add:  The Oakland Tribune reported on March 4, 2012 that many neighbors of the Mountain View Cemetery object to the destruction of the eucalyptus trees.  The Tribune reported that the neighbors are concerned about the loss of habitat for birds.   The cemetery claims  they are destroying the eucalyptus because they are flammable.  As we have said many times on Million Trees, this is one of many fabricated fictions used by native plant advocates to justify the eradication of non-native plants and trees.    

*Nowak, David, “Historical vegetation change in Oakland and its implication for urban forest management,” Journal of Arboriculture, 19(5): September 1993