When a warehouse in Oakland burned to the ground, killing 36 young people on December 2, 2016, we learned that the City of Oakland is not inspecting many buildings for fire safety, as required by law. In fact, this particular warehouse had never been inspected because it wasn’t even on the database for such inspections. If it had been inspected, “they would have seen what visitors and former residents called a death trap and a tinder box: piles of wood, shingles and old furniture, extension cords and often-sparking electrical wires running willy-nilly throughout the structure, welding equipment and propane tanks scattered about — the kind of fire code violations that could have led inspectors to shutter the building immediately.” (East Bay Times, 12/8/16)
This tragic loss of young lives is an opportunity for Oakland to examine its priorities with respect to fire safety. Oakland, like most cities, does not have unlimited resources to address every public safety issue. Therefore, it must set priorities and in this case, Oakland needs to refocus its efforts where serious fire safety issues exist and where genuine economic need requires the city’s help. Specifically, we should stop destroying harmless trees and spend our limited resources on identifying and repairing unsafe living conditions that create fire hazards.
Our letter (below) to the elected and city officials of Oakland asking them to revise their priorities regarding fire safety, speaks for itself. If you agree with us about this issue, please write your own letter to your district council representative if you live in Oakland.
December 9, 2016
Dear Mayor Schaaf, (officeofthemayor@oaklandnet.com)
The recent fire in a warehouse that killed 36 young people should be a wakeup call for city officials who say they are concerned about mitigating fire hazards. The City of Oakland wasted 10 years defending an indefensible plan to clear cut trees in the Oakland hills, based on the claim that it would reduce fire hazards. After cancellation of the FEMA grants that would have funded that project, Oakland has made a contractual commitment to spend $800,000 to develop a new plan for “vegetation management.”
Mosswood Recreation Center was gutted by fire on November 26, 2016
Meanwhile, we have had many major fires of residential properties in the flat lands where trees played no role in the fires. On November 26, 2016, the recreation center at Mosswood Park burned to the ground, just 50 feet away from a huge eucalyptus tree that was not ignited by that fire.
Trees around the Mosswood Recreation Center were not ignited by the fire, including this huge eucalyptus tree.
And last Friday, a warehouse that should not have been rented to tenants and should not have been used to stage huge parties, burned to the ground. Although many complaints had been lodged about that warehouse, no inspections or code enforcement corrected the many safety violations. The media also informs us that there are many other warehouses in Oakland being used illegally with potentially unsafe conditions. We also understand that the City of Oakland does not have the staff needed to conduct inspections or ensure enforcement of building codes.
In other words, when it comes to fire safety, the City of Oakland is focusing on the wrong issues in the wrong places. Residents in the hills have the financial resources to create defensible space around their homes. Young people in the flatlands, do not have the resources to pay for safe housing. This is both a safety AND an equity issue.
Therefore, the City of Oakland should redirect its limited resources where serious safety issues exist and genuine economic need requires the City’s help. I am writing to ask that the contract to develop a “vegetation management plan” be cancelled and the money be spent to conduct inspections and to subsidize the mitigation of real fire hazards.
Bay Nature recently published an article about the 1991 fire in the East Bay Hills and the closely related belief that such a fire can be prevented in the future by destroying all non-native trees. To Bay Nature’s credit, it was a more balanced article than most. Although the article was heavily weighted in favor of those who want to destroy all non-native trees in the hills, several defenders of our urban forest were also interviewed.
However, the article contains a fantasy about future fires that feeds into the fear of fire that has been fostered by those who advocate for removing all non-native trees:
“A strong wind begins blowing over the hills from the east. And then somehow—maybe a spark from a car, maybe a tossed cigarette—the whole dry, airy mess catches fire. Now the flames on the ground are 30 feet high and even higher off the boughs, roaring like a jet engine. At the fire’s edges, trees appear to explode as the volatile oils in their leaves reach their boiling point and vaporize. The heat of the fire forms a convection column, with 60-mile-per-hour winds that rip burning strips of bark from the trees and toss them upward. This is another of blue gums’ talents—its bark makes ideal braziers. Tucked away inside a rolled-up strip of bark, a fire might live for close to an hour and fly 20 miles.” (1)
Although we have read many times in the plans to destroy trees that eucalyptus casts embers starting spot fires, we have never seen such an extreme description of how far embers could travel while still on fire and capable of starting a spot fire. So, we tracked down the source of this theoretical scenario with the help of the author who cited this as the source of the theoretical scenario: “The potential for an internally convoluted cylinder of bark to be transported tens of kilometres in a continuously flaming state is indicated by the sample that maintained flaming combustion for the entire experiment…This would correspond to a flameout time of almost 2000 s for a sample 2700 mm long, a lofted height of 9600 m and a spotting distance of ~37 km.” (2)
First let’s translate that quote into measurements we commonly use to appreciate how extreme this particular test was: “This would correspond to a flameout time of almost 33 minutes for a sample 9 feet long, a lofted height of 6 miles and a spotting distance of 23 miles, traveling at 41 miles per hour.” That is a very long ember, lofted a great distance at a great speed (but NOT 60 mph), staying lit for a long time (but NOT “close to an hour”).
Theory vs. Reality
The study that was the source of the extreme prediction in Bay Nature about the distance that burning embers can travel was conducted on samples of Eucalyptus viminalis bark (NOT Blue Gum Eucalyptus, E. globulus) “tethered in a vertical wind tunnel.” These are not real-world conditions. So, how does this theoretical study compare to real-world conditions?
The FEMA Technical Report about the 1991 fire in the East Bay Hillscontains a map of the full extent of the 1991 fire. As you can see on this map, the maximum distance from the northern-most edge of the fire to the southern edge of the fire is less than 3 miles…not remotely close to 20 miles. In other words, embers could not have started fires 20 miles away because the fire wasn’t even close to 20 miles long.
The FEMA Technical Report doesn’t tell us what the wind speeds were during the 1991 fire, although they describe the wind as being strong at several times during the fire. If there is any evidence that winds were as much as 60 miles per hour, it’s not evidence we have been able to find. We found a source of wind speeds measured on the Bay Bridge, including historical records. This website says the strongest wind measured since 2010 was 31 miles per hour in April 2013. That suggests that 60 mph winds are probably unusual in the San Francisco Bay Area.
The FEMA Technical Report doesn’t report any observations of firebrands or burning embers from eucalyptus. The report mentions embers twelve times, but identifies the source of those embers only once. In that one case, the source of embers was “a growth of brush”….not a eucalyptus tree or any tree, for that matter. There are anecdotal reports of finding debris from the fire as far as San Francisco, but no reports that the debris was still on fire or that it started another fire.
US Forest Service study of embers in actual fires
US Forest Service participated in a comprehensive study of “spotting ignition by lofted firebrands” based on actual wildfires all over the world, including the 1991 fire in the East Bay Hills. (3) There is nothing in that study that corroborates the claim that eucalyptus bark embers are capable of travelling 20 miles while remaining lit and therefore capable of starting spot fires:
“In the wildland-urban interface fires in California—Berkeley in 1923, Bel-Air in 1961, Oakland 1991—wooden shingles which were popular in California as roof material, assisted fire spread. Wooden shingles increase fire hazard owing to both ease of ignition and subsequent firebrand production.”
“Unlike the flying brush brands which are often consumed before rising to great heights, the flat wood roofing materials soared to higher altitudes carried by strong vertical drafts…”
The only specific firebrand found in the 1991 Oakland Hills fire was found approximately 1 km (.6 mile) west from the perimeter of the fire, “though it may have travelled several kilometres [1.86 mile].” It was a cedar shingle. Here is a photograph of that shingle:
Cylinder shaped embers do not travel as far as flat particles. Firebrands in the shape of cylinders were found to have a maximum spotting distance of 2050 meters, because “cylinders always fall tumbling.”
“The increased burning time inherent in larger firebrands was cancelled out by an increased time of flight because larger firebrands move more slowly.”
In a study of 245 extinguished fires, experiments and simulations, and observing 48 wildfires, “The longest spotting distance was observed as 2.4 km.”
This comprehensive study of actual wildfires all over the world finds no evidence of embers capable of travelling 20 miles while still burning and starting spot fires. It reports that wooden shingles were the only observed burning embers in the 1991 fire and that wooden shingles are particularly vulnerable to being lofted as embers in a wildfire. There are countless houses in the East Bay Hills covered in wooden shingles, yet instead of addressing that obvious source of embers, we are destroying blameless trees.
Developing the Cover Story
Claims about the extreme flammability of eucalyptus have escalated in the past 15 years as opposition to destroying trees and associated pesticide use has escalated. Nativists have become increasingly dependent on flogging the fear factor as their other storylines have been dismantled by empirical studies and reality:
Monarch butterflies roosting in eucalyptus tree.
The “invasiveness” of eucalyptus has been downgraded by the California Invasive Plant Council from “moderate” to “limited,” their lowest rating. There is little evidence that eucalyptus is invasive unless planted along streams and swales that carry their seeds.
There are many empirical studies that find that all forms of wildlife—such as insects and birds—are served equally well by both native and non-native plants. Some iconic species—such as Monarch butterflies, bees, hummingbirds, hawks, owls—are dependent upon eucalyptus for winter nectar and safe nesting habitat.
Climate change is making nativism increasingly irrelevant.California’s native conifers, oaks, and redwoods are dying by the millions. Unless we want a treeless landscape, we must plant tree species that are capable of tolerating changed climate conditions.
Owl nesting in eucalyptus, courtesy urbanwildness.com
These studies have left nativists with few tools to justify the eradication of non-native plants. We can see the development of the FIRE!! cover story in the archives of the conferences of the California Invasive Plant Council. In 2004 Cal-IPC held a workshop regarding exotic trees and shrubs. Over 30 representatives of major managers of public lands attended, such as National Park Service, San Francisco’s Natural Areas Program, Marin County Open Space, etc. The record of this meeting reflects the dependence upon fire to justify the eradication of non-native shrubs and trees: “Golden Gate National Recreation Area: ‘inform public ahead of time; use threat of fire danger to help build support for invasive plant removal projects.’”The Golden Gate National Recreation Area—a National Park–advises other land managers to frighten the public into accepting the loss of their trees.
Subterfuge is also recommended to land managers to hide the eradication of shrubs and trees from the public: “To avoid public upset, drilling around into tree buttress roots and injecting 25% glyphosate…Trees die slow and branches fall slowly, so won’t pose an immediate hazard.” In other words, land managers were advised to kill trees using a method that won’t be visible to the public.
Perhaps most disturbing of all is that those who attended this workshop admit that they don’t really know if eucalyptus trees are more flammable than native vegetation and some doubt that they are: “People are afraid of fire. Help them understand Eucalyptus trees and other invasive plants are very fire hazardous. Is there any solid research about Eucalyptus and fire? Are Eucalyptus and brooms any greater fire danger than native chaparral?” In other words, even those who wish to destroy non-native shrubs and trees seem to understand that fire is a cover story for which no supporting evidence exists. The evidence has been fabricated to support the cover story.
We now seem to live in a fact-free world in which various interests can make things up and distribute them on the internet with impunity. The mainstream press is dying and is being replaced by fact-free social media. If we are to protect ourselves from such manipulation, we must drill down into these storylines. In the case of eucalyptus, we have debunked the myth that it is more dangerous than the replacement landscape. Now it’s up to us to disseminate that information far and wide as an antidote to fear-driven nativism.
Zach St George, “Burning Question in the East Bay Hills: Eucalyptus is flammable compared to what? Bay Nature, October-December 2016
James Hall, et. al., “Long-distance spotting potential of bark strips of a ribbon gum (Eucalyptus viminalis), International Journal of Wildland Fire, 2015, 24, 1109-1117
Eunmo Koo, et. al., “Firebrands and spotting ignition in large-scale fires,” International Journal of Wildland Fire, 2010, 19, 818-843
We republish with permission a Huffington Post article by Jennifer and Nathan Winograd about the cancellation of FEMA funding for the destruction of hundreds of thousands of trees on the properties of UC Berkeley and the City of Oakland. We are grateful to the Winograds and to the thousands of people who participated in the effort to prevent these projects from being implemented, including the Hills Conservation Network, which bravely filed the expensive lawsuit that resulted in this outcome.
It remains to be seen if the City of Oakland and UC Berkeley will implement their plans using other fund sources. We therefore urge our readers to continue to follow the issue until we have some assurance that the plans have been abandoned.
The Winograds have also provided the following introduction to their Huffington Post article, which explains that this outcome could have been avoided if those who demanded the destruction of our urban forest had been willing to engage in a meaningful dialogue about the projects.
“Many of us tried to engage in meaningful dialog with Bay Area politicians and land managers about our objections to the clear cutting and poisoning of the hills. We were rebuffed. Some, like Mayor Libby Schaaf, did not even extend the courtesy of a reply. Others, like Dan Kalb, Oakland City Councilmember, calls anyone who disagrees with him “stupid.” We tried to engage the media — local newspapers, television and radio, magazines — and with few exceptions, our objections were largely ignored. When we were mentioned, we were ridiculed. Refusing to give us a fair hearing, the Contra Costa Times and San Francisco Chronicle claimed we were indifferent to public safety. Regardless of how many experts — including the U.S. Forest Service, the EPA, and former firefighters — substantiated our concerns, they remained defiant, insisting that even more forests should be clear cut and more poisons be spread. With local politicians, the media, and proponents refusing to engage in reasonable dialog, this left opponents no choice but to force the discussion in a court of law. That lawsuit, filed by Hills Conservation Network, ultimately prevailed with FEMA, which withdrew millions of dollars in funding to the City of Oakland and UC Berkeley. That’s a good thing and here’s why:”
FEMA Pulls Funding for Oakland, Berkeley Clear Cutting
Eucalyptus forest, Lake Chabot
The City of Oakland just lost millions of dollars in federal funding. Given what the intended use of that money was for, that’s a good thing. Combined with similar funding for UC Berkeley and the East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD), over 400,000 trees across seven Bay Area cities were to be chopped down and thousands of gallons of cancer-causing herbicides spread on their stumps to prevent regrowth. Slated for eradication were the vast forests above the Caldecott Tunnel and Caldecott Field, North Hills Skyline, Strawberry and Claremont Canyons in Berkeley, and 11 regional parks including Sibley, Huckleberry, and Redwood in Oakland. Costing nearly $6 million, the plan would have radically transformed the character and appearance of the Oakland hills. Why?
The Scripps Ranch Fire of 2003 burned 150 homes but none of the Eucalyptus abutting those homes.
If you believe proponents, it is because the trees pose a heightened risk of fire. Since the infamous Firestorm of 1991 which burned scores of homes and killed 25 people, they have worked tirelessly to turn public opinion in the East Bay against Eucalyptus and Monterey Pine trees. Chief among their claims is that these trees were to blame for the ferocity of that fire because they are alleged to possess unusually high quantities of volatile oils that make them more flammable and prone to shooting off embers which enable the spread of fire. These claims have been repeated so many times they are often regarded as self-evident, even though the evidence does not support them, nor does the history relating to the ignition and spread of past fires. Indeed, the 1991 fire itself (and a later 2008 fire) started in grasses, the very sort of vegetation that clearcutting is intended to proliferate throughout the hills. In fact, the stated aim of the deforestation effort is to replace Oakland forests containing species of trees that are among some of the tallest in the world with shallow grasses that are highly susceptible to fire and which the EBRPD admits are “one of the most dangerous vegetation types for firefighter safety due to the rapid frontal spread of fire that can catch suppression personnel off guard.”
In a report highlighting the heightened fire risk which would have resulted from this plan, David Maloney, former Chief of Fire Prevention at the Oakland Army Base, criticized the spread of misinformation about these trees as motivated by native plant ideology, calling it “a land transformation plan disguised as a wildfire hazard mitigation plan” that will “endanger firefighters and the general public” and “be an outrageous waste of taxpayer money.” And he’s not alone in his concerns.
The U.S. Forest Service objected, saying it would “increase the probability of [fire] ignition over current conditions” because “removal of the overstory trees can introduce changes to the environment which increase fire behavior in undesirable ways.”
The U.S. Fire Administration Technical Report on the 1991 Fire led to the conclusion that removal of the trees would lead to growth of highly flammable brush species, noting that “brush fuel types played a significant role in the progression of the fire” and that brushland made up “a large portion of the available fuel.”
The Environmental Protection Agency stated that it is predicated on “extensive use of herbicides” and “risks posed to human health and the environment from that use.” It went on to express concern about the “potential impacts of climate change,” including “the length and severity of the fire season.”
FEMA itself admitted that the plan would result in “unavoidable adverse impacts … to vegetation, wildlife and habitats, protected species, soils, water quality, aesthetics, community character, human health and safety, recreation, and noise.”
During the summer, 5,200 California firefighters battled 14 fires across the state. The vast majority of the fires were in grass and brush, with a few in so-called “native” Oak woodlands.
But you would not know any of this by reading Bay Area newspapers, watching Bay Area television news programs, listening to local radio stations, reading local magazines, or hearing Bay Area politicians. These are discussions those who oppose this plan tried to engage in with the Mayor, the Oakland City Council, the media and even plan supporters in order to find a compromise, but were rebuffed. Instead, the “need” for deforestation and herbicide use was deemed “self-evident” and opponents were labeled as indifferent to public safety who debased the memory of those who died in the 1991 Firestorm.
In the absence of public discussion about the expertly substantiated criticism that the plan would have increased rather than reduced fire risk, exposed citizens to huge amounts of dangerous chemicals, released over 17,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases into our environment, poisoned and displaced wildlife, radically altered the appearance of our parks, threatened homeowners values by degrading the aesthetics upon which those values depended, eliminated erosion control for hillside homes, and caused a variety of other harms, the public was denied information that would have allowed them to make a sound and informed choice. This troubling bias does not honor the memory of those who died in that tragic fire 25 years ago; it shames it. Their loss should have served to embolden our resolve to prevent a recurrence of their tragedy through rigorous public debate, rather than hobbled us with emotionally charged rhetoric that stifled discussion before it was allowed to begin and threatened to turn the response to that fire into the root cause of yet another disaster.
For while opponents sought to elevate the discussion on this plan to prevent a future tragedy, local media, politicians, and supporters proved themselves incapable of moving beyond a narrative that was so sensationalist and even after more than two decades, so raw, that the abandonment of caution, reason, and critical analysis were paradoxically and counterproductively portrayed as the moral high ground. It left opponents no choice but to force the discussion in a court of law, a point of view that ultimately prevailed with FEMA. Whether the Mayor, City Council, deforestation advocates, and Bay Area media outlets learn from their failings going forward remains to be seen. But one thing is abundantly clear. If the result of the lawsuit proves anything, it proves opponents of deforestation and poisoning were right.
East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD) is the public utility that supplies our water in the East Bay. To accomplish that task, EBMUD manages thousands of acres of watershed land. Like most open space in the Bay Area, the vegetation on EBMUD’s land is a mix of native and non-native species.
Lafayette Reservoir, one of many EBMUD properties in the East Bay
EBMUD is revising its Master Plan. The draft Master Plan renews its commitment to destroying all eucalyptus and Monterey pines in favor of native vegetation. The draft Master Plan is available HERE. EBMUD is accepting written public comments on the draft Master Plan until September 2 extended to Friday, September 16, 2106. Comments should be sent to watershedmasterplan@ebmud.com or by mail to Doug Wallace, EBMUD, 375 11th St, Oakland, CA 94607.
EBMUD held a public meeting about its draft Master Plan on Monday, August 15, 2016. That meeting was attended by over 200 people. Most of the crowd seemed to be there to defend their access to EBMUD trails by bicycles.
There were 10 speakers who defended our trees against pointless destruction and the consequent pesticide use to prevent their resprouting. As usual, the Sierra Club came to object to increased access for bicycles and to demand the eradication of our trees. As usual, claims of extreme flammability of non-native trees was their stated reason for demanding the destruction of the trees. Update: HERE is a video of speakers at the EBMUD meeting for and against tree destruction and pesticide use.
Furthermore, our native trees are dying of drought and disease. This article in the East Bay Times informs us that 70 million native trees have died in the past four drought years and that the millions of dead trees have substantially increased fire hazards. In other words, it is profoundly stupid to destroy healthy, living trees at a time when our native trees are dying and pose a greater fire hazard.
We are grateful to Save the East Bay Hills for permitting us to publish their excellent letter to EBMUD about their misguided plans to destroy our urban forest. We hope that their letter will inspire others to write their own letters to EBMUD by September 2, 2016. Save the East Bay Hills is a reliable source of information about our issue. Thank you, Save the East Bay Hills for all you do to defend our urban forest against pointless destruction.
Update: Save the East Bay Hills has also created a petition to EBMUD that we hope you will sign and share with others. The petition is available HERE.
Sign the petition!
August 15, 2016
Douglas I. Wallace
Environmental Affairs Officer
Master Plan Update Project Manager
East Bay Municipal Utility District
375 11th Street
Oakland, CA 94607
Dear Mr. Wallace,
This letter serves as our response to the East Bay Municipal Utility District’s invitation for the public to review and comment on the draft of the East Bay Watershed Master Plan (“Draft Master Plan”) update. There is much in the plan to recommend itself and much that leaves a lot to be desired.
We are grateful that the Draft Master Plan recognizes the value of trees regardless of their historical antecedents, specifically noting that,
“Eucalyptus trees provide a source of nectar and pollen that attracts insects, which in turn serve as a prey base for birds and other animals. Hummingbirds and many migratory bird species feed extensively on the nectar. In addition, eucalyptus trees produce an abundant seed crop. These tall trees are used as roosting sites for birds. Bald eagles have roosted in eucalyptus groves in the San Pablo Reservoir watershed, and a great blue heron rookery exists in the eucalyptus trees at Watershed
Headquarters in Orinda. A great blue heron and great egret rookery was active near the northern arm of Chabot Reservoir in the recent past.”
The Draft Master Plan recognizes, “the ecological value and likely permanence of certain nonnative species and habitats,” including Eucalyptus and Monterey Pine. It recognizes that these two species of trees, especially Monterey Pine “provide stability to watershed soils” and “provide erosion control with a widespreading root system.”
It recognizes that they provide “protection from solar exposure, wind, and noise.”
It recognizes that they “provide biodiversity value (bald eagle and other raptor species) on District watershed lands.” For example, “Monterey Pine seeds provide food for small rodents, mammals and birds…”
It cites to the EBMUD Fire Management Plan which recognizes the value of trees in mitigating fire: “They do not represent a significant fire hazard when the understory is maintained for low fire intensities… Stands that are well spaced with light understory, proper horticultural practices, and maintenance of trees, e.g. spacing and above-ground clearance, can serve to minimize fire hazard.”
It admits that removing the trees would lead to inevitable grasses and shrubs which increase the risk of fire: “The most susceptible fuels are the light fuels (grasses, small weeds, or shrubs)…”
Finally, it recognizes that these tall trees occupy a very small portion of District lands: 1% for Eucalyptus and 2% for Monterey Pines.
Given their immense beauty, the habitat they provide, their mitigation against fire, the erosion control, all the other recognized benefits, and the fact that they occupy such a small percentage of overall District lands, why does the Draft Master Plan propose that they be eradicated over time?
The answer appears to be nothing more than perceived public will:
“As this species is considered a nonnative pyrophyte, regional pressure is present to reduce the number of Monterey Pine stands.”
“As a nonnative pyrophyte, eucalyptus plantations are a target of regional public pressure for removal.”
This is a misreading of the public will. The Draft Master Plan is elevating the nativist agenda of a loud, vocal minority over good sense, good science, ecological benefit, protection against fire, and the desires of the vast majority of residents and users of District lands. How do we know?
The City of Oakland, the University of California, and the East Bay Regional Park District have also proposed eradicating Monterey Pine and Eucalyptus trees and of the 13,000 comments received by FEMA during the public comment period following its draft plan, roughly 90% were in opposition by FEMA’s own admission. Moreover, over 65,000 people have petitioned the City of Oakland to abandon its effort to remove the trees.
That EBMUD does not hear from people who find beauty, shade, and benefit in the trees is not because they do not care; rather, it is because most members of the public do not understand the extent to which these trees are under siege by nativists, nor the level of cooperation these individuals are receiving from public lands managers to see their vision prevail.
For most members of the public, it simply strains credulity that those tasked with overseeing our public lands would cooperate with efforts to destroy not only large numbers of perfectly healthy trees, but given their height and beauty, trees that are the most responsible for the iconic character of East Bay public lands and the appeal of our most beloved hiking trails. And for what end? To treat our public lands as the personal, native plant gardens of those who subscribe to such narrow views. In short, there is no widespread desire to get rid of these trees and they should not be removed.
Indeed, the Draft Master Plan recognizes several “emerging challenges” as a result of climate change including, but not limited to, “increasing average temperatures, prolonged droughts, erosion, decreased soil moisture, and augmented risk of fires.” Tall trees like Eucalyptus and Monterey Pine help mitigate these challenges. For example, fog drip falling from Monterey Pines in the East Bay has been measured at over 10 inches per year. In San Francisco, fog drip in the Eucalyptus forest was measured at over 16 inches per year.
Moreover, Eucalyptus trees are an important nesting site for hawks, owls and other birds and are one of the few sources of nectar for Northern California bees in the winter. Over 100 species of birds use Eucalyptus trees as habitat, Monarch butterflies depend on Eucalyptus during the winter, and Eucalyptus trees increase biodiversity. A 1990 survey in Tilden Park found 38 different species beneath the main canopy of Eucalyptus forests, compared to only 18 in Oak woodlands. They also prevent soil erosion in the hills, trap particulate pollution all year around, and sequester carbon.
Many of these benefits are especially important in light of Sudden Oak Death which the Draft Master Plan admits is an ongoing challenge and is likely to increase because of climate change. If Sudden Oak Death impacts oak woodlands and EBMUD intentionally cuts down Eucalyptus and Monterey Pine which are proving themselves more suitable for the environment, it risks a treeless landscape, which would not only be a loss of beauty and loss of wildlife habitat, but exacerbate the challenges already faced by EBMUD as a result of climate change.
We also object to the Draft Master Plan accepting the labels “native” and “non-native” and making decisions based on that fact alone. “Non-native” and “invasive species” are terms that have entered the lexicon of popular culture and become pejorative, inspiring unwarranted fear, knee-jerk suspicion, and a lack of thoughtfulness and moral consideration. They are language of intolerance, based on an idea we have thoroughly rejected in our treatment of our fellow human beings — that the value of a living being can be reduced merely to its place of ancestral origin.
Each species on Earth, writes Biology Professor Ken Thompson, “has a characteristic distribution on the Earth’s land surface… But in every case, that distribution is in practice a single frame from a very long movie. Run the clock back only 10,000 years, less than a blink of an eye in geological time, and nearly all of those distributions would be different, in many cases very different. Go back only 10 million years, still a tiny fraction of the history of life on Earth, and any comparison with present-day distributions becomes impossible, since most of the species themselves would no longer be the same.”
This never-ending transformation — of landscape, of climate, of plants and animals — has occurred, and continues to occur, all over the world, resulting from a variety of factors: global weather patterns, plate tectonics, evolution, natural selection, migration, and even the devastating effects of impacting asteroids. The geographic and fossil records tell us that there is but one constant to life on Earth, and that is change.
Even if one were to accept that the terms “native” and “non-native” have value, however, not only do they not make sense as it relates to Monterey Pine and Eucalyptus, but the outcome would not change for three reasons. First, Monterey Pine and Eucalyptus provide numerous tangible benefits as previously discussed, while the claimed “problem” of their foreign antecedents is entirely intangible. That a plant or animal, including the millions of humans now residing in North America, may be “non-native” is a distinction without any practical relevance beyond the consternation such labels may inspire in those most prone to intolerance; individuals, it often seems, who demand that our collectively owned lands be forced to comply to their rigid and exiguous view of the natural world. What does it matter where these trees once originated if they provide such tremendous beauty and benefit here and now?
Second, the fossil record demonstrates that Monterey Pine are, in fact, “native” to the East Bay. (See, e.g., http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/montereypines_01.) Monterey Pine fossils from the middle Miocene through the Pleistocene have been found in several East Bay locations. Similarly, since Eucalyptus readily hybridizes with other species, many experts now claim that California Eucalyptus hybrids could rightly be considered native, too.
Of more immediate concern, however, is that the five narrowly defined “native” stands of Monterey Pine — the Año Nuevo-Swanton area in San Mateo and Santa Cruz Counties, the Monterey Peninsula and Carmel in Monterey County, Cambria in San Luis Obispo County, and Guadalupe and Cedros Islands off Baja California in Mexico — are in danger. In light of escalating temperatures due to climate change, to save Monterey Pine requires “a new foundation for conservation strategies of the species and its associated ecosystems. If Monterey pine has long existed in small, disjunct populations and if these have regularly shifted in location and size over the California coast in response to fluctuating climates… then it would be consistent to extend our conservation scope…” “Areas not currently within its [narrowly defined so-called] native range could be considered suitable habitats for Monterey pine conservation.” (Millar, C., Reconsidering the Conservation of Monterey Pine, Fremontia, July 1998.)
As tree lovers and environmentalists in Cambria are banding together to determine how, if at all, they can save their precious remaining Monterey Pines now dying from drought in record numbers, here in the East Bay – less than 224 miles away – land managers at EBMUD are considering plans to willfully destroy them in record numbers. It is ecologically irresponsible and for those of us who dearly love the stunning, even arresting, beauty of these trees, it is also truly heartbreaking.
Third, and perhaps more importantly, removing Eucalyptus and restoring “native” plants and trees is not only predicated on the ongoing use of large amounts of toxic pesticides, it does not work, a fact acknowledged by cities across the country. In the last ten years, the City of
Philadelphia has planted roughly 500,000 trees, many of which are deemed “non-native” precisely because “native” trees do not survive. “[R]ather than trying to restore the parks to 100 years ago,” noted the City’s Parks & Recreation Department, “the city will plant non-native trees suited to warmer climates.”
For all these reasons, we oppose the elimination of Monterey Pine and Eucalyptus, even if phased over time as proposed, and likewise oppose EBMUD’s participation in the destruction of similar Pine and Eucalyptus forests in the Caldecott Tunnel area, in partnership with outside agencies. We ask that these be stricken from the Master Plan.
Finally, we oppose the ongoing and, if the trees are cut down, potentially increasing use of pesticides and ask that a ban on their use be put in effect in the final Master Plan, for the following reasons:
● Extremely low levels of pesticide exposure can cause significant health harms, particularly during pregnancy and early childhood.
● Children are more susceptible to hazardous impacts from pesticides than are adults and compelling evidence links pesticide exposures with harms to the structure and functioning of the brain and nervous system and are clearly implicated as contributors to the rising rates of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, widespread declines in IQ, and other measures of cognitive function.
● Cancer rates among children are increasing at an alarming rate and pesticide exposure contributes to childhood cancer, as well as other increasingly common negative health outcomes such as birth defects and early puberty.
● Approximately 4,800,000 children in the United States under the age of 18 have asthma, the most common chronic illness in children, and the incidence of asthma is on the rise. Emergence science suggests that pesticides may be important contributors to the current epidemic of childhood asthma.
● Animals, including wildlife and pets, are at great risk from exposure to pesticides, including lethargy, excessive salivation, liver damage, blindness, seizures, cancer, and premature death.
● Pesticides contain toxic substances, many of which have a detrimental effect on animal health, including pets, raptors, deer, and other wildlife, which is compounded when the bodies of poisoned animals are ingested by subsequent animals.
● The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has recommended non-chemical approaches, such as sanitation and maintenance.
These concerns are compounded by the fact that pesticides are to be administered near reservoirs, threatening the safety and integrity of our water supply and the water supply of the plants and animals who also depend on it. These reasons are why the Marin Municipal Water District removed the use of herbicides from further consideration in its Draft Plan and maintained the pesticide ban it has had in place for several years.
Pesticides are not only dangerous, they are also incredibly cruel. Rodenticides, for example, are opposed by every animal protection group in the nation because not only do they kill animals, but they do so in one of the cruelest and most prolonged ways possible, causing anywhere from four to seven days of suffering before an animal finally comes to the massive internal bleeding these poisons facilitate. This long sickness period often includes abnormal breathing, diarrhea, shivering and trembling, external bleeding and spasms, suffering and death that is perpetuated when their dead bodies are ingested by subsequent animals, such as owls and raptors. Put simply, EBMUD should not be in the business of targeting any healthy animals, trees, and plants for elimination; and doing so by pesticides harms animals well beyond the target species, including humans.
In summary, public agencies overseeing public lands have a responsibility to minimize harm and reject radical transformations of those lands and the ecosystems they contain, especially in absence of any clear public mandate. Not only have these lands been handed down in trust from prior generations for us to enjoy, preserve, and bequeath to future generations, but there is a reasonable expectation on the part of most citizens that those overseeing our collectively owned lands not undertake agendas to destroy large numbers of healthy trees, kill healthy animals, and poison our environment. Regardless of how Eucalyptus and Monterey Pine trees may be maligned by the extreme few, they are beloved by the many, being in large part responsible for the East Bay’s beauty, iconic character and treasured, shady walking trails and picnic areas.
In the case of EBMUD, this orientation is even more alarming and a violation of the public trust because it elevates the ideological driven, nativist agenda of the few above the agency’s primary mandate and interests of the many: ensuring the integrity and safety of our water supply and the plants and animals who reside there. Adopting plans to alter pre-existing landscapes through the use of toxic pesticides in order to placate unreasonable and xenophobic demands on lands that contain the public’s precious reserves of drinking water is a deep inversion of priorities.
We respectfully request that these proposed ends and means be stricken from the Master Plan.
John Muir is the founder of the Sierra Club. He would be disgusted by the Club’s advocacy for deforestation. He planted eucalyptus trees on his property in Martinez. He was as fond of eucalyptus as those who fight for their preservation.
We are grateful to Marg Hall, member of the Forest Action Brigade for this guest post about the role the Sierra Club is playing in the destruction of our urban forest and the poisoning of our public lands.
For the past year, members of the Forest Action Brigade have been spotlighting the Sierra Club as part of a larger campaign to stop the destruction of the trees in the East Bay Hills. This article answers the question: “Why focus on the Sierra Club?”
Long associated with environmental stewardship, the Sierra Club is a major player in local politics. Because so many Bay Area residents prioritize environmental protection, the Sierra Club enjoys lots of political capital, a ton of money, a deep bench of litigators, and the respect and fear of local politicians. They also have an entrenched leadership that pretends to be democratic, but in fact pushes around grass roots environmentalists, suppresses internal debate and dictates to local land managers.
As readers of Million Trees well know, the SF Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club supports deforestation and the use of pesticides in the East Bay Hills. Some of us have concluded that they not only support this project, but are a major behind-the-scenes driver.
I first heard about the Club’s support for local deforestation about 6 years ago at a FEMA scoping hearing for the project Environmental Impact Statement. Naïve me, I thought, “Oh good! the Sierra Club is here, and certainly they will weigh in on the right side of this issue.” This is where my education began. The speaker representing the Sierra Club explained that they support this project and of course they will use pesticides, because that’s the only way to rid our parks of unwanted vegetation. Wow! Pesticides? “Unwanted plants”?
Until then, I had been a Club member for a number of years, thinking that the Sierra Club did good things. Before voting in our very complicated local elections, I’d check to see who and what they endorsed. I supported bond measure CC (which the EBRPD uses in part to fund their eucalyptus tree removal) back in 2004 because, well, what could be wrong with increasing funding for the East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD)? Nowhere in the ballot measure did they mention pesticides. And as a former building inspector, the “fire hazard” reduction part sounded good. I thought the discussion in favor of native plants meant not planting English style lawns or plants in your garden that need lots of water. That sounded reasonable for a water scarce region.
Like so many of my neighbors, I’m neither a botanist nor a wildlife biologist, but I love the local parks and visit them almost daily. I trusted the Sierra Club to “protect” the environment. I suspect a lot of folks do the same. Now, after delving deeply into this local issue, I know better. The local Sierra Club has a fanatical obsession with eradication, with waging a war on non-native plants in our local parks. This agenda drives much of their work. Many voters follow their lead, basing decisions in the voting booth on blind faith. Politicians go along with the Sierra Club agenda in order to gain Club endorsement. Land managers must follow the lead of their elected bosses. All one needs to do is invoke the label “non-native,” and weapons of war are deployed: ground troops of weed pullers, tree cutters, pesticide sprayers, imported “biologics” (bugs and germs), and even, on occasion, aerial bombardment of pesticides. Other mainstream environmental organizations (The World Wildlife Fund, Audubon Society) also participate in this war, but it’s the local Sierra Club that provides the propaganda and the political clout behind this horrible deforestation plan. It’s the Sierra Club that sits down on a regular basis with the managers of the East Bay Regional Park District to dictate the terms under which they must operate. And when the EBRPD fails to fall in line, the Sierra club pulled out the big guns and sued in an attempt to force them to cut down all of the eucalyptus trees in the project areas, rather than a “thinning” plan that EBRPD preferred.
Here’s an example of the kind of hold that the Sierra Club has over the EBRPD. Through a public records request, we obtained a letter (dated April 28, 2015) to the parks district governing board from Norman LaForce, long time Chairperson of the Sierra Club’s Public Lands Committee. The letter laid out in great detail the kind of compliance he expects in order for the EBRPD to obtain Sierra Club endorsement of Measure CC renewal (which expires in 2020). Mr LaForce is perhaps the single most influential person promoting the local club’s nativist agenda. (emphasis added)
“The Sierra Club played a major and key role in the creation of Measure CC and the projects for which money would be spent….
“…Vegetation management that restores native habitat is less costly than programs that merely thin non-natives. Native habitat that is restored in the fire prone areas that are currently eucalyptus plantations is less costly to maintain on an annual basis than a program of thinning non-native eucalyptus and other non-native trees.
“Hence, the Sierra Club believes it is critical that in any renewal of Measure CC funding for vegetation management should be increased for the removal of non-natives such as eucalyptus and their replacement with restored native habitat. If the Park District wants to continue with a program that merely thins the non-native ecualyputs (sic) and other non-ntaive (sic) trees, then it must find other funds for those purposes. Future tax money from a renewal of Measure CC funds should not be used to thin eucalyptus but must be allocated to the restoration of native habitat.”
The letter goes on to detail the Sierra Club’s position on a variety of other issues and projects, most of which involve “restoration”, which sounds good, but is a code word for removal of non-native plants by any means necessary, including the use of herbicides. Here’s a link to the complete letter: Sierra Club dictates terms of Measure CC endorsement
I want to it make clear that we are environmentalists. We support some of the same goals as the Sierra Club: opposition to XL pipeline, fracking, refinery expansion, use of coal, environmental racism. We are not right wing climate deniers—one of the arguments Sierra Club uses to marginalize us. The Sierra Club is on the wrong side of this issue and we want them to stop bullying local officials into this war against trees. John Muir, who loved eucalyptus trees, would weep at this travesty.
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 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
Milk thistle at Site 29, April 2016
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.
Dead milk thistle, Site 29, May 2016The 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 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!!”
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
Postcard petitions to Sierra Club
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. 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.
We have the pleasure of publishing a guest post by a member of the team that is trying to prevent the pointless destruction of the urban forest in the East Bay Hills. This article is an example of the expertise and dedication of our team. It also makes another contribution to the considerable body of evidence that eucalyptus has been inappropriately blamed for the 1991 Oakland fire and that destroying our urban forest will not reduce fire hazards. (emphasis added)
April 24, 2016
Jack Cohen is a fire scientist at the US Forest Service fire lab in Missoula Montana. For decades he has researchedfire behavior in the Wildland Urban Interface areas (WUI). His research includes scores of post-fire investigations, as well as controlled experiments in the only forest fire lab in this country. WUI fire poses a unique set of challenges to local fire departments. Mr Cohen’s research has informed nationwide strategies on how to prevent and manage fire in the WUI setting.
He concludes that it is neither desirable nor realistic to attempt complete suppression of catastrophic fires, or to expect fire departments to fully defend WUI areas. We live, after all, in a fire dependent natural environment, and have over the years constructed many combustible structures within heavily vegetated and dry areas. He does believe it is possible to construct and maintain buildings to resist ignition, (by addressing the Home Ignition Zones) and that this effort will do much more towards preserving human life and property than remote fuel treatment, or poorly focused fire suppression efforts.
As part of my work as a building inspector and engineer, I spent 18 years studying, developing and enforcing building codes in the East Bay, including the WUI areas of Berkeley. In years following the 1991 Oakland hills fire, both local and national bodies incorporated the findings of Mr. Cohen’s ground-breaking research into building regulations for new construction. “…destruction in the WUI is primarily the result of the flammability of the residential areas themselves, rather than the flammability of the adjacent wildlands…Research has shown that a home’s characteristic and its immediate surroundings principally determine the WUI ignition potential during extreme wildfire behavior.” (1)
It’s my opinion that the removal of eucalyptus trees from the hills will not advance, and may even worsen, fire hazard mitigation. The trees are not the problem. As for firebrands emitted during a fire, they are generated in all vegetation types. The best strategy to save homes is to harden structures to prevent ignition and maintain surrounding defensible space. Still, I wondered about the often-repeated claim by local officials that these eucalyptus trees are to blame for the 1991 fire, and that they present a major threat to fire safety. So, I asked Jack. Here’s his private email response. He included some photos, worth taking a look at. His website follows, including links to his extensive research: http://www.firewise.org/wildfire-preparedness/wui-home-ignition-research/the-jack-cohen-files.aspx?sso=0 Marg Hall Berkeley, Ca
Elizabeth Reinhardt, Robert Keane, David Calkin, Jack Cohen, “Objectives and considerations for wildland fuel treatment in forested ecosystems of the interior western United States,” Forest Ecology and Management, 256 (2008) 1997-2006.
(Here attach emails, but remove our addresses)
From: “Cohen, Jack -FS” Date: March 25, 2016 3:38:38 PM PDT To: Margaret Hall Subject: RE: 1991 Oakland Hills fire
Marg—
Thank you for your generous words of support for the research I’ve done!
I did a quick analysis of Oakland Hills as part of an internal effort to better understand the contribution of firebrand ignitions. I used video footage as my window to the event and did not do a site examination. This effort did not generate a written report. However, it became abundantly clear the Oakland residential fire disaster was similar to more recent disasters where eucalyptus is significantly present. I have attached 5 photos (poor quality) showing that the “gasoline” tree remains unconsumed adjacent to/surrounding destroyed houses as with all the other disasters I’ve examined (refer to my reports). The first 2 photos are from the 2009 Melbourne, Victoria fires that destroyed many structures with 173 civilian fatalities in Kinglake and Marysville in the hills north of Melbourne (I did a site visit but these are not my photos). The unconsumed tree vegetation is eucalyptus. The next 3 photos (not mine) are from the 2003 San Diego County fires. All of the destroyed homes and the burning wood roof home have adjacent eucalyptus – not burning in the tree canopy with high intensities. This is consistent with all the disaster examinations I’ve done (internal reports and published) regardless of the tree species. The common characteristics initiating the disastrous losses in high density residential development are extreme wildfire conditions in surrounding wildlands producing firebrand showers that ignite homes directly and surface fuels within the community to produce significant firebrands from burning homes/structures and adjacent trees that were ignited by the burning homes. This indicates that the eucalyptus trees did not burn with high intensities (or any intensity) leading to home destruction.This strongly suggests that eliminating eucalyptus and replacing it with some other vegetation would not prevent future WU fire disasters because the problem was inappropriately defined as a eucalyptus vegetation problem and not a home ignition-home ignition zone problem.
This is my perspective in answer to your question. Hope that helps. If you have further questions please feel free to ask.
Cheers—
Jack
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 2009Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 2009San Diego County, California, 2003San Diego County, California 2003San Diego County, California, 2003
From: Margaret Hall Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 3:09 PM To: Cohen, Jack -FS Subject: 1991 Oakland Hills fire
Dear Mr. Cohen,
I am a retired building inspector/civil engineer in the SF Bay Area and am familiar with your work on home ignition zones. After the 1991 fire, we (City of Berkeley) adopted a building code ordinance which focused on hardening structures against wild land/urban interface fire. When I began to learn of your research, I realized retrospectively how very helpful that information was in developing our code. Thanks for all your great work!
There is a debate in our community about a plan to remove large quantities of eucalyptus stands in the East Bay hills. Some firefighters remember that the many wood shingle roofs were the primary contributor to the spread of that fire. Other folks remember events quite differently and blame the trees. I’ve got two questions:
Did you study the1991 Oakland HIlls fire? If so, can I have a copy of your report? (if it’s not in electronic form, I’m happy to pay for copying/mailing as needed)
Do you have any fire-science based information on the dangers represented by a specific tree species (in this case E globulus) as compared to other vegetation types? Is there any basis in science for calling eucalyptus trees “gasoline trees”?
Full disclosure: I am opposed to this plan. I don’t think it will reduce the fire danger, especially as the goal of this plan is to replace forested areas with very dry ignitable “grasslands and shrubs”. Also, I’m not happy about the prospect of escalating the use of herbicides in heavily used regional parks, herbicides required to prevent the trees from re-sprouting and suppress unwanted vegetation.
Please let me know if I need to file a formal public records request, and if so, in what format you need that. Again, thanks for your great research. I love watching your videos and the way you are able to make geeky fire science accessible to firefighters and to the public.
Sincerely,
Andrew Cockburn speaking at a conference in Seattle, March 30, 2016
I attended a conference in Seattle last week about the many sources of pollution in our water and what that means for the seafood we eat: “Clean Waters = Healthy Seafood.” I always learn something new at these conferences, but this was also a case of serendipity.
Andrew Cockburn was the keynote speaker at the conference. He is the author of “Weed Whackers: Monsanto, glyphosate, and the war on invasive species,” published by Harper’s Magazine in September 2015 (available here: Cockburn – Weed Whackers ). The 1991 fire in the Oakland hills is used in that article as an example of how native plant advocates use “cover stories” such as flammability to convince the public to eradicate non-native plants and trees. And so, that fire was mentioned in passing at our table of conference attendees.
Tilden Park, Berkeley. Courtesy Save the East Bay Hills
Much to my surprise, a couple at our table volunteered that they are survivors of that fire. They defended eucalyptus trees, based on their experience. I asked them to write up their experiences to share with our readers and here is what they sent for publication:
“I grew up in Virginia and spent some time in Colorado, Florida, Bermuda, the Philippines, and Japan while in the Navy. I was living in South Carolina in 1989 when I made my first trip to the SF Bay Area. It was in late October, just after the earthquake. I had come to the Bay Area to interview for a job with the Environmental Protection Agency. I was hired and moved to San Francisco in January 1990.
Initially, I was living on a sailboat near Brisbane, but by June I had rented a studio apartment in a small Montclair house in the Oakland Hills. From the beginning, I was smitten with my new home. While having lived in a variety of places, I was drawn to the mystical aspects of the area. I was especially drawn to the volcanoes, redwoods, and eucalyptus. Even now, 26 years later, I am taken back to my early days in the Bay Area when I see or smell a eucalyptus tree. I remember the excitement of the new work and meeting my wife who is a Bay Area native.
We were married in June 1991, and lived together in the Montclair studio. It was a truly magical, but short-lived time for us. The fire came in October. We understand that some transient campers started it in a canyon near the Caldecott tunnel on Saturday. The Fire Department thought they had extinguished the fire, but the Santa Ana winds on Sunday whipped new life into the embers, which in turn caused the massive wildfire. Our home was destroyed. As uninsured newlywed renters, it was devastating. Fortunately though, we survived, as did our cats. Some of our friends and neighbors were not so fortunate.
We stayed in our home through most of the day as the fire moved through the area. When the fire got close we knew we had to go and so our neighbors and we evacuated. It was hot and dry before the fire and everything burned. The only things left standing in our neighborhood on Monday were brick chimneys.
That was a long time ago in our lives. We live near Seattle, WA now. It came as a shock to learn last week that there is an effort underway to remove the eucalyptus from the East Bay. We are told that it is because the eucalyptus “exploded” during the 1991, firestorm. Well, I can tell you that they did burn with fervor, but so did everything else including the more native trees and plants. The eucalyptuses, while not being “native”, have established themselves as a solid part of the Bay Area. It would not be the same there without the eucalyptus and to scapegoat them for the 1991, firestorm is short sighted. The same hot and dry conditions and large supply of fuel on the ground will be ripe for a repeat whether or not the eucalyptuses are there.”
Scott West
Special Agent-in-Charge, Retired
Criminal Investigation Division
US Environmental Protection Agency
Scott doesn’t mention in this account that the fire was very hard on marriages and he was pleased to tell me that his very recent marriage was made immediately stronger by the ordeal of finding a new place to live and replacing all of their belongs. So, when his wife, Suzanne, chimed in with the following addition to Scott’s story, it seemed a fitting example of the teamwork that began in 1991 and continues to this day:
“No, I think you covered it quite well. One thing you could add is that after the fire in October, we purchased a home in the Hayward hills (Dec 1991) and it backed up to a fence line which contained a big grove of eucalyptus trees. We had no fear of these trees posing a huge fire threat, and we had just been through the biggest area fire in anyone’s memory. We loved that grove and the wildlife that lived there and were frequent visitors to our yard – deer, fox, raccoons. We also had 3 indoor/outdoor cats and I swear that the grove was the reason we never had any major issue with fleas.”
Thanks,
Suzanne West
Executive Director
Sarvey Wildlife Care Center
And Scott, adds to their shared memory:
“Good point Suzanne.
That grove was illegally cut while we lived there and it was a blow to us. We loved those trees. And don’t forget the opossum.”
Scott
I am very grateful for Scott and Suzanne’s willingness to tell us their story. We know they are not alone in their assessment of the 1991 fire. We have received many similar comments over the many years we have worked on this issue from other survivors of the 1991 fire. We do not think the Wests’ experiences are unique.
View of Seattle from the Space Needle, with Mount Rainier in the distance. It was a beautiful day on March 29, 2016.
We are re-publishing an excerpt of Dave Maloney’s report, “The Next Major Fire in the East Bay Hills” that was written and published by Save the East Bay Hills. Thanks to Save the East Bay Hills for making this important report available to the readers of Million Trees. If you haven’t visited the website of Save the East Bay Hills, we recommend that you do. Its strong suit is the “Take Action” page, where you will find many specific suggestions for what you can do to help us prevent the destruction of our urban forest.
Dave Maloney is the former Chief of Fire Prevention for the U.S. Army at the Oakland Army Base. He is a retired firefighter from the Oakland Fire Department. He holds lifetime certification from the California State Fire Marshal’s Office as a Fire Investigator, and lifetime certification from the U.S. Dept. of Defense as a Fire Inspector. He was a member of the 1991-92 Emergency Preparedness and Community Restoration Task Force (the Oakland-Berkeley Mayors’ Firestorm Task Force) which investigated the 1991 Oakland Hills Fire. He is currently a wildland fire prevention consultant.
The plan to deforest thousands of acres of East Bay public lands:
“ignores the U.S. Forest Service analysis dated September 27, 2013, which recommends against removing Eucalyptus trees;”
“violates the recommendations made by the 1991/1992 Task Force on Emergency Preparedness and Community Restoration, commonly known as the Oakland/Berkeley Mayors’ Fire Storm Task Force;”
“has no basis in fire science;”
“violates fundamental principles of Wildland Fire Prevention;”
“is ideologically motivated;” and,
“creates the conditions for a perfect firestorm.”
Specifically, Maloney states that, “The EBRPD, UC Berkeley (UCB), and the City of Oakland (Oakland) deforestation plan will create an enormous belt of grass and chaparral that will stretch from Richmond to Castro Valley to the eastern edge of Contra Costa County. This grassland belt will be many times more flammable than wooded terrain.” In fact, “the speed of grass fires can be at least twice that of fires involving trees, especially if there are only a few trees, or none, to act as windbreaks.”
Why? “All trees perform three vital functions in preventing or slowing the spread of grass and chaparral fires: they collect, with their leaves, moisture from the night air and drip it on the natural vegetation beneath them; the tops (canopies) of the trees create shade so this moisture is not evaporated by the sun by mid day; [and] they act as windbreaks which slow the velocity of the wind that pushes grass and chaparral fires.” As a result, “Removing trees of any species and wanting grasses and chaparral to replace them greatly increases the chance of a catastrophic, unstoppable fire.”
Chief Maloney further notes, “that any claims by proponents of deforestation that this will reduce the risk of fire “typified opinionated misinformation being spread by those with quotable positions.” In fact, Maloney argues that proponents know they are not being truthful, but are intentionally “exploiting the public’s fear of wildfire and misrepresenting fire hazard mitigation as a strategy to achieve their goals” which has nothing to do with fire and everything to do with wanting to return the hills to the largely treeless appearance they had during the pre-Colombian period.
For example, he states that their “claim that Eucalyptus trees are more flammable than other trees — and more flammable than grasses — is untrue and now dangerously misleading.” “One example of their true intentions is revealed by their refusal to tell the public that the California Bay Laurel tree, which they consider ‘native’ to the Bay Area has more volatile oil than any Eucalyptus tree. For years we’ve been hearing that the volatile oils of the Eucalyptus trees make them a supreme fire hazard. Yet the Bay Laurel contains 7.6% volatile oils of the samples tested, according to the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry (1974). The amount of volatile oils in Eucalyptus trees range from 1 to 7% of the samples tested. But no Bay Laurel trees are to be cut down — nor ever mentioned.”
Even if this were not true, he notes that “essential/volatile oils of any tree [are] irrelevant to the flammability of a tree…” for two primary reasons. First, “Every species of tree in the East Bay hills is at least 30% water. This moisture is far greater than the amount of essential/volatile oil in any tree. It overwhelms by far any chance the essential/volatile oil has to set the tree on fire.” Second, “the volatile/essential oil in any tree cannot sustain heat long enough to ignite the highly dense wood of the tree.”
That is why “only 1% of all wildland fires start in trees. The other 99% start in grasses, bushes and shrubs. (The Oakland Hills fire of 1991 started in grass.) And only 8% of all wildland fires catch trees on fire. This means that 91% of all wildland fires do not involve trees at all but are restricted to grasses, bushes and shrubs. If we decrease the amount of trees in the hills and replace them with grasses we will have dramatically increased the chances of a wildland fire occurring.”
Instead of clear cutting trees, what should be done to reduce fire risk?
Maloney notes that the “Task Force on Emergency Preparedness and Community Restoration, commonly known as the 1991 Oakland/Berkeley Mayors’ Fire Storm Task Force,” of which he was a member, investigated “the causes of the ’91 fire and mak[d]e recommendations to prevent its recurrence. The committee spent hundreds of hours analyzing data and examining the burned areas.” Its February, 1992 report noted that “the most important factor in reducing fire danger from vegetation is not removing specific species but regular ongoing maintenance” such as “regular brush removal.” Not surprisingly, the “recommendations have been ignored by U.C. Berkeley, the City of Oakland and the East Bay Regional Park District.”
“Ignorance and influence are the parents of disaster,” he writes. “The Sierra club, the California Native Plant Society, Claremont Canyon Conservancy and others are very influential organizations. They are misusing their influence by attempting to lead the public into supporting the destruction of our East Bay forests and the creation of grassy, fire prone East Bay hills. And they are being very disrespectful to the entity of fire and the laws of physics which tell us how that entity behaves.” Instead, they are exploiting the 1991 tragedy in a manner that “imperils the public” and “endangers the firefighters who will be called to fight the fires” that will be caused by “improper wildfire hazard management” that puts “ideology ahead of fire science.”
Indeed, similar deforestation occurred in Australia, leading to predictable and catastrophic fires, exactly what proponents of deforestation threaten here.
Conservation Sense and Nonsense 