Tag: ecological restoration

Wild by Design: A history of ecological restoration in the U.S.

“This is a superb book. Laura Martin’s research takes us where no restoration literature has gone before, asking, ‘Who gets to decide where and how wildlife management occurs?’ Martin tackles this question with unmatched clarity and insight, illuminating the crucial discussions we must have to secure a future with thriving natural species and spaces.”—Peter Kareiva, President and CEO, Aquarium of the Pacific

The author of Wild by Design, Laura J. Martin, is a professor of environmental history at Williams College.(1) She has written a comprehensive history of ecological restoration in the US that is consistent with my own observations of the restoration industry in the past 25 years.  It’s a story of the gradual transition from a conservation ethic to a preservation ethic and finally to the restoration ethic that we see today.  The story is punctuated by milestone federal laws and actions that facilitated the transition.  Environmental non-profits and academic ecologists used those laws to professionalize and monetize the restoration industry that exists today. 

By the end of the 19th Century, the public began to react to the environmental degradation caused by unregulated resource extraction.  In 1902, a survey of naturalists around the country determined there were 1,143 bison left in the country; virtually all were in captivity.   The American Bison Society was founded in 1905 in reaction to the disappearance of bison in America.  Their activism led to the creation of federal game reserves on former Indian reservations where captive bison were introduced.  The game reserves were the model for the National Wildlife Refuge system that was greatly expanded by President Teddy Roosevelt.

A photograph from 1892 of a pile of American bison skulls in Detroit, Michigan waiting to be ground for fertilizer or charcoal. (Photo Wikimedia Commons)

The creation of the Wild Flower Preservation Society (WFPS) in 1901 was modeled on the successful campaign of the Audubon Society to save birds killed to serve as ornaments on fancy hats.  It was as much a campaign to shame women into abandoning the fashion fad as it was an effort to legally ban the practice.  Likewise, the Wildflower Preservation Society applied social pressure.  They were critical of organized excursions to visit wildflowers because they picked and trampled the wildflowers.  WFPS said that “Weddings are a new menace to our native plants” because of their use of wild flowers. Their criticism was initially aimed at their own community, but “it moved toward policing the behavior of so-called new immigrants to the United States—especially children.”  The moralistic scolding by these early native plant advocates was a preview of the finger-wagging now aimed at those who choose to plant a diverse garden. 

These advocacy organizations are precursors to the many environmental non-governmental organizations that are influential in pressuring government to invest in ecological restorations today.

Conservation and Preservation

The goals of conservation and preservation are similar, but some differences were observable in the past 200 years.  Both ethics are committed to protecting the environment, but conservation allows the sustainable use of natural resources while preservation protects nature from use.  The presidencies of both Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt were committed to conservation. 

Teddy Roosevelt created the US Forest Service based on the premise that government can and should regulate public lands to manage natural resources.  Franklin Roosevelt’s conservation programs were based on the same principle, but were motivated by the economic emergency of the depression as well as the environmental disaster of the Dust Bowl in the Midwest.  The Civilian Conservation Corp (CCC) was created to provide jobs as well as to plant a “shelter belt” of trees across the Midwest of the country as a windbreak to stop dust storms (and many other projects).  Ecologists were critical of CCC projects because they expanded recreational opportunities and put “a stamp of man’s interference on every natural area they invade.” They preferred to exclude humans and their activities from nature. This is another early indicator of the conflicts between preservation and conservation that persist to the present day.

Sharp Park, Pacifica, CA. Photo by Erica Reder, SF Public Press

Government investment in ecological research

Ecological research in the United States was fundamentally altered after World War II, which ended with the beginning of the atomic era.  Atomic bombs were dropped on Japan to end the war without much thought given to the consequences.  After WWII, the federal government made big investments in science, creating the Atomic Energy Commission and the National Science Foundation, which funded ecological research to study the impact of radiation on the environment and those who live in it.  Conservation Sense and Nonsense published an article about those studies and the impact they had on ecological research. 

These studies legitimatized destruction of ecosystems to study effects of the destruction and the concept was expanded from radiation to pesticides in the 1960s.  They also provided funding to the academic profession of ecology that was small and is now enormous.  The dependence of ecological studies on government funding remains to this day and government funding of ecological projects has created the restoration industry that now extends far beyond academia.  Destruction of existing habitat is still considered the prerequisite to restoring a historical landscape.  Often, destruction is the first and only stage of the project because of the persistent fantasy that the native landscape will regenerate without further help. 

In the late 1960s Daniel Simberloff tented and fumigated 6 mangrove islands off the eastern short of Florida with methyl bromide to kill all life on the islands.  The objective of the project was to study how long it would take to repopulate the islands with insects.

From Conservation to Restoration

The post-war economic boom of the 50s and 60s greatly increased the impact of human activities on the environment.  The federal government built a vast highway system that fragmented and disrupted ecosystems.  We built huge dams, and channeled riparian ecosystems.  Open space was rapidly covered by housing and industrial development.  Wetlands were drained and filled with rubble to create more land.

People who cared about the environment began to react to the loss of nature and wildlife that lives in nature.  Although Aldo Leopold is idolized by the native plant movement, his concern about the degradation of nature was primarily for wildlife.  His interest in vegetation was as habitat for wildlife.  He was opposed to government programs devoted to killing animals perceived as predators of game animals because he believed that wildlife is best served by expanding their habitat.  In fact, he was opposed to the expansion of government’s role in conservation because “he believed restoration would be most efficient and effective if pursued by private citizens.” He did not prefer native plants because “Farmers had the opportunity to conserve plants such as ragweed and foxtail (an introduced grass), ones ‘on which game, fur, and feather depend for food.’”  In other words, in the 1940s one of the icons of the native plant movement knew that wildlife is not dependent upon native plants for food.  One wonders if native plant advocates have actually read Leopold’s treatise, A Sand County Almanac. 

Aldo Leopold’s son, Starker Leopold, had as much impact on conservation in the United States as his father.  In 1963, he published the Leopold Report that changed the direction of conservation in the National Park Service.  The Leopold Report recommended a goal for national parks of maintaining historical conditions as closely as possible to those of “primitive America.”  When the Leopold Report was adopted as official policy by the National Park Service in 1967, it committed NPS to restoring park lands to pre-settlement conditions. NPS officially changed this policy in 2021, but we don’t see any change locally in their projects because NPS is decentralized and local parks are autonomous.

Restoration Goals

Professor Martin says that “historical fidelity did not become a widespread restoration goal among ecologists and environmental organizations until the 1980s.”  The arrival of Columbus in the new World in 1492 was arbitrarily selected as the date after which all new plant species were “deemed nonnative, unwanted reminders of human (colonist) presence and activity.”  On the West Coast, 1769 is the equally arbitrary date to confer non-native status because it is the date of the first Spanish expedition to California. 

Many now question the goal of replicating historical landscapes.  After 40 years of effort, there is a growing recognition that it is not a realistic goal, especially in a rapidly changing climate.  The Society for Ecological Restoration has changed its definition of ecological restoration from “the goal of intentionally altering a site to establish a defined, indigenous, historic ecosystem” in 1990 to “the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed” in 2002.  Try telling that to the restorationists on the ground who are still trying to eradicate naturalized non-native plants that have been here for nearly 200 years.  Non-native annual grassland in California is a case in point. It has been repeatedly burned, mowed, plowed, and poisoned for 25 years without any visible progress toward native perennial grassland.   

Blaming non-native species

Around the same time that historical fidelity was identified as the goal of “restorations,” land managers and ecologists decided that the existence of non-native species is the main threat to native species.  I suppose the “logic” was that the main difference between historical landscapes and present landscapes is the existence of non-native species.  Concern about non-native species spread among federal agencies such as the National Park Service and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) began aggressive campaigns to kill non-natives, “which were newly framed as the main threat to wild species…nativity would become a precondition to wildness—of plants and animals both.”   TNC’s methods have become increasingly deadly and destructive: using fire and herbicides to kill plants, poisoning honeybees, aerial hunting of sheep, pigs, and goats.  As a former donor to TNC, their methods finally became intolerable to me.

Professor Martin believes that the identification of non-native species as the scapegoat was not based on experimental evidence, but merely a description of the strategies used by public land managers, as well as The Nature Conservancy.  Non-native species were a convenient scapegoat because they were easily identified and were an easy substitute for identifying and remediating the underlying conditions causing so-called “invasions.”  “Although the role of invasive species in native species extinction has since been challenged by some ecologists, the influence of this fear on species management has been enormous…The US federal budget for invasive species management increased by $400 million between 2002 and 2005, for example.”   

Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) was passed in 1973, along with companion laws such as the National Environmental Protection Act and others.  These federal laws created more funding opportunities for ecological projects as well as the legal justification for ecological restoration projects.

Federal laws permit the reintroduction of legally protected plant and animal species to places where they no longer exist.  The ESA confers the same protections for reintroduced species as it does for naturally occurring species.  Such reintroductions have become a tool for the restoration industry.  I have seen that strategy used in the San Francisco Bay Area.  If we had not been successful in preventing the reintroduction of a legally protected turtle, it would have justified the destruction of the non-native forest in my neighborhood park because the turtle requires unshaded nesting habitat within 500 feet of the water source in the park. The park remains largely forested because that is one of the few battles we have won in 25 years. Reintroduced, legally protected species are the Trojan horses of ecological restorations.

Compensatory mitigation is an equally powerful tool for the restoration industry.  Federal law requires an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for projects that will have a significant impact on the environment, such as big developments like building Disney World in Florida.  Disney World was built on an enormous wetland that was lost by the development of the park.  The EIS for the project agreed that the impact would be great, but it “mitigated” the impact by requiring Disney to fund the creation of a new wetland in a distant location.   

The funding generated to create fake wetlands built a new industry of commercial companies to design and build them.  Academic restoration ecologists questioned the functional equivalency between created and natural wetlands:  “’however accurate [the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan] is the restored community can never be authentic.’”  The tension between commercial and academic restorationists continues today.

The Society for Ecological Restoration published findings that mitigation wetlands were not functionally equivalent to the wetlands they were meant to replace.  In Florida only half of the promised mitigation projects were actually built. Those that were built were colonized by “undesirable plant species” such as cattail and melaleuca in 32 of 40 projects.    

Projects that earn carbon credits are creating the same opportunities to generate funding for restoration projects in distant locations.  The Nature Conservancy was successful in defining carbon offsets as an international market when the Kyoto Protocols were signed in 1997.  They understood that a reforestation project would be cheaper in Costa Rica (for example) than a comparable energy efficiency project in the US.  Such distant projects don’t benefit those in the US who now have a power plant in their backyard that is being offset by a forest in Costa Rica. 

It’s a game for those who know how to play.  I have witnessed local examples in the Bay Area.  An oil spill in the bay generated millions of dollars of compensatory damages to fund unrelated “restoration” projects.  How does planting eel grass compensate for hundreds of birds killed by the oil spill?  When the San Francisco airport expanded runways, the airport had to pay compensatory mitigation that funded the restoration of native plants at India Basin in San Francisco that hardly compensates for the increased air traffic enabled by the new runway.   

Conclusion

Professor Martin is surprisingly frank about the future of ecological restoration in America:

“Whatever paths restorationists choose, restorations must happen in tandem with other changes in human behavior.  If we don’t reduce the ongoing harms of racism, fossil fuel burning, overconsumption by the wealthy, and toxic industrial chemicals, restoration will offer no more than a temporary repair, a way to move a problem to some other place or time.”

I would go one step further in my assessment of the restoration industry.  I would say that the methods used by restorationists are directly contributing to environmental degradation. 

Professor Martin asks the right questions in her concluding chapter:  “Who benefits from restoration?  Who is harmed?”  Those who earn their living in the restoration industry are the primary beneficiaries. According to a 2015 study entitled “Estimating the Size and Impact of the Ecological Restoration Economy,” environmental regulation has created a $25 billion-per-year restoration industry that directly employs more people than coal mining, logging or steel production.  Given recent investments in restoration projects of billions of dollars by California and federal infrastructure funding, this figure is undoubtedly an underestimate. 

Who is harmed?  Wildlife and humans are harmed by the destruction of useful habitat with herbicides.  Harmless animals and plants are killed because they have been arbitrarily classified as “invasive.” And all Americans are harmed by the waste of public funds that could be used to benefit society and/or the environment. 

(1) Laura J. Martin, Wild by Design:  The rise of ecological restoration, Harvard University Press, 2022.  All quotes are from this book.

Beyond the War on Invasive Species: Interview with Tao Orion

I am republishing with permission a portion of Kollibri terre Sonnenblume’s interview of Tao Orion.  Kollibri is a writer, photographer, tree hugger, animal lover, and cultural dissident. Kollibri was born and raised in Nebraska, earned a Bachelor of Arts in Writing at the St. Olaf Paracollege, and lived in the Twin Cities and Boston before moving to Portland in 2001. Since 2011, Kollibri has lived predominantly in rural areas in the Western US, working in agriculture and exploring wildtending. Kollibri has published several books, including The Troubles of ‘Invasive’ Plants (with Nicole Patrice Hill), originally a zine and soon to be published as a book.  Kollibri has also recorded interviews available as podcasts, “Voices for Nature & Peace,” which can be found at radiofreesunroot.com.

Conservation Sense and Nonsense

Tao Orion, author of “Beyond the War on Invasive Species”

Tao Orion is the author of “Beyond the War on Invasive Species: A Permaculture Approach to Ecosystem Restoration.” She is a permaculture designer, teacher, homesteader, and mother living in the southern Willamette Valley of Oregon. I interviewed her on May 18, 2020, for my podcast, “Voices for Nature & Peace.” What follows is a partial transcript of that conversation, edited for clarity. [Listen to the entire interview here]

Kollibri terre Sonnenblume, macska moksha press

K: A lot of people have heard the term, “invasive species” and most of them of course are assuming it’s something bad, but when it comes right down to it, it’s actually very difficult to define the term and we could even say that there isn’t one definition of that term.

T: Yes, that’s something that I found really interesting as I was researching my book, because I was really trying to find out if there was a clear, objective description of what an invasive species is, and I found that even the National Invasive Species Council—which in the US is the federal government level board that looks at invasive species issues—spent years on deliberating on the definition and even so, they weren’t able to come up with something that I felt was purely an objective description that could be [applied] in all contexts. It seemed to vary from place to place and time to time.

K: Monsanto was one of the companies involved in setting [that council] up.

T: That’s another disturbing element about how the big frenzy around invasive species and the purported damage that they do came to be so popular; a lot of that was informed and funded by pesticide interests to spur the sale of products, herbicides in particular, to deal with species invasions.

K: I think that most people are probably not aware of the fact that the use of pesticides and herbicides has been rising over the last 20 years, not falling. I think people hear about organic agriculture and they think we must be on the right path. But due in part to the war on invasives and also due to genetically modifying crops to be Round-up Ready so they can survive the use of pesticides—these two things seem to have driven an increase in the use of pesticides over the last 20 years.

T: Yes, it’s definitely alarming. My background is in organic agriculture. I was immersed in that world. Even before writing this book, I was under the impression that herbicides were somewhat less toxic in the realm of pesticide toxicity [as opposed to insecticides or fungicides, for example]. In researching herbicides more for invasive species management and agriculture in general, I learned a lot more about their toxicity and insidious toxicity to insects and mammals and other lifeforms that I don’t think gets talked about enough. People assume they’re more ecologically benign, but really they’re not, and that’s important to bring to the table.

K: One thing you mentioned in your book that I hadn’t thought about much before is that it’s not only the active ingredient in a pesticide, but also the adjuvants—the things that they add to the active ingredient to help it stick to plants or to help make it soluble in water, etc.

T: Yeah, that was a big realization for me too. We talk about these two different terms: “Round Up” is the trade name of the herbicide, of which “glyphosate” is considered the active ingredient. Glyphosate is the ingredient that’s tested for pesticide registration purposes, but that might be only ten percent of a mixture that’s sold in the bottle. The rest of that solution is made up of other ingredients that help the herbicide stay on the plant if it rains or if its windy, or help the herbicide active ingredient penetrate the cells of the plant. A lot of these are trade secrets so they’re not tested and the manufacturers don’t have to say what’s in there. But one compound that has been pulled out and studied by independent researchers is POEA [polyoxyethyleneamine], which has been shown to make glyphosate penetrate human placental cells. So even if you come into contact with glyphosate itself, that wouldn’t necessarily happen, but if you come into contact with Round Up, which contains this adjuvant, POEA, it can actually then allow the glyphosate to enter into the cell. Because that’s what it’s in there to do.

K: The reason we’ve been talking about pesticides because herbicides are such a big part of getting rid of “invasive” species… But your book tries to turn things on its head and to question the concept of whether we should be trying to eradicate them.

T: Yes. I was shocked when I started working in the field of ecological restoration, coming from a background in organic agriculture. I had heard of “invasive species” before but when I got into this context, I was around people who did this professionally, it was just assumed that I was going to use herbicides and I would be totally fine with that, because that’s just what everybody did. The whole context was, “we have to get rid of these plants at all costs, and if we do, everything will be okay.” [Laughs.] That’s the the framework in which we’re approaching ecosystem restoration, and to me, I was amazed because from a more holistic perspective, I could see right off the bat that in every case where invasive species were thriving, there were other things going on in the ecosystem that pesticides weren’t going to address.

It’s the same in conventional agriculture. If you’re having, quote, pest pressure issues, the issue isn’t the pest, the issue is the soil or the plant stress or drought stress. There’s all these different things playing into the manifestation of pest pressure in the ecosystem. So, taking that knowledge a few steps further to ecosystem restoration I think is really necessary. A lot of people involved in these contexts are really highly trained ecologists and it’s still hard for me to square that with the belief that herbicides, pesticides are the only solution. These are often people who are shopping at organic food markets, and only buy organic food, and believe really strongly in that framework for food production, and yet are making decisions about ecosystem restoration outside of agricultural contexts that rely on pesticides and I just think that really needs to be questioned.

I had some very interesting discussions over the years and maybe the needle is starting to shift a little bit, although as you mention, sometimes these discussions flare up online where people are really quite defensive about their position and belief around this.

K: The issue tends to infect any discussion around plants. I’ve been using a couple of plant ID groups on Facebook because I’m in a new area and I’m seeing things coming up and I’m like, “What is this?” Of course if you’re in a native plant group, that’s definitely going to be someplace where [the invasive framework] is strong. You know, a native-plants-equals-good, non-native-plants-equals-bad, black and white paradigm. Which brings us around to looking at the invasive plant not being a problem in and of itself but of being a symptom of something going on.

T: That’s a huge part of the conversation that a lot of folks really aren’t willing to easily engage in, but the design of our livelihood system has really degraded ecosystems to a place where native flora and fauna aren’t thriving. You know, to really sit with that, and acknowledge it, think about how we might approach things differently as a basis for our understanding is challenging. It’s a lot easier to blame the messenger. Also I think one of the things that’s really missing from the discussion of native plants is the fact that native ecosystems were or are managed by indigenous people. They don’t just exist in a vacuum, free from people’s influence and the whole idea of this “pristine” wilderness is very much a western, colonial thought pattern that definitely needs to be disrupted.

K: What you’re referring to in part is that when people are designating a plant as invasive or non-native, there’s a point in time they’re referring to, and that might be different from place to place, but it’s generally accepted in the United States that anything anything that showed up after 1492 is not native. There are people who are willing to describe most non-native plants as “invasive” or throw them in that bin as soon as possible, and then the poisons come out, so this is an important issue.

T: Yes, but we don’t really know the social, ecological, economic context that was going on at that point in time that led to a particular assemblage of plants. There’s no doubt that the floral and faunal assemblies were different, but we should think really hard about why they’ve changed. Draining the wetlands of the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys in California has major ecological implications. Damming the Colorado River for hydro-power and irrigation capacity has major ecological implications. These bigger scale things that we do—that we support—are going to change the surrounding ecosystem. If we can acknowledge that and observe what’s happening because of those major shifts, I think we’ll be in a better position to understand so called “invasions” from a more holistic perspective.

K: Because the entry of an invasive plant or animal into a landscape is in virtually all cases preceded by a human-caused disturbance of some kind.

T: It’s interesting. When I was writing, [I wondered if I] should I put forward the idea of reclaiming a different name because “invasive species” has kind of this negative connotation, but the more I looked into evolutionary biology and some of the ways—in the deep time perspective—how systems have changed, “invasion” is one of these processes and it’s not unnatural. Taking that longer term perspective is important as well. That’s how plants came to be on land. There were marine beds of algae hanging out in the shallow seas a couple billion years ago and eventually, speciation happened because of changing conditions and the land was “invaded” by those plants. You just see that change over time leading to the type of biodiversity that we have now, punctuated by other kinds of events of course, but it’s not something that’s “outside the realm of nature,” which is how invasive species are situated in a lot of discussions.

“When the Killing’s Done” Maybe never.

I have few opportunities to read fiction because most of my time is spent trying to keep up with rapidly evolving ecological science.  I was grateful for the chance to read the fictional account of island eradications on the Channel Islands because it closely relates to my interest in the planned eradication of mice on the Farallon Islands, which is still pending and as controversial as similar projects on the Channel Islands.  TC Boyle’s book foretells the Farallones project as he sends a member of the fictional project team to the Farallon Islands after completion of the project on the Channel Islands.

When the Killing’s Done by TC Boyle is not entirely fictional. (1)  It is impressively accurate in its description of the eradication projects themselves, but Boyle weaves a tight fictional plot around the key players who implemented the project and those who fought like hell to prevent it from happening.  Like other books by Boyle that I have read, When the Killing’s Done creates intense suspense that moves the reader along at top speed.  His characters are vivid and complex. 

Boyle lives in Montecito, near Santa Barbara, close to the Channel Islands.  No doubt he followed the projects closely as they were debated and resisted by opponents, who were primarily animal rights activists according to Boyle’s account.  In interviews after the publication of the book in 2011, Boyle claimed not to have a personal opinion of the projects:  “I’m not an activist in any way. With certain exceptions, I don’t think politics and art mix very well.”  He sees value in both sides of the debate and the characters in his story have much in common.  The antagonists are vegetarians who value nature and care deeply about the environment and the animals who live in it.  I believe this common ground is also true of the adversaries in the debate about the Farallones project and others like it.

However, the ending of the book suggests that Boyle doubts the ability of humans to control nature.  Although the projects on the Channel Islands were completed to the satisfaction of the land managers–National Park Service and The Nature Conservancy—the final image in Boyle’s story is of animals considered non-native on the Islands making their way to the shore of the Island.  The implication is that maybe the killing is never done and that is the crux of the problem with island eradications in general and the planned mice eradication on the Farallon Islands in particular.

Rat eradication on Anacapa Island

The aerial application of rodenticide to kill rats on Anacapa Island in 2001-2002 was the first of its kind in North America.  The project was also unique because it was complicated by the need to spare a population of endemic native mice on Anacapa.  Over 1,000 native mice were captured before the aerial application of rodenticide and released back on the island after the poison was no longer effective. 

Anacapa Island is the usual success story cited by supporters of the Farallones project where non-native mice are the target for eradication.  Native mice on Anacapa were not considered a threat to birds, but non-native mice on the Farallones are, although there is no evidence that mice actually harm birds on the Farallones either.  The operative word here is “native.”  The mice on the Farallones are targets only because they aren’t native.  The mice on Anacapa undoubtedly eat vegetation too, but that’s not considered a problem so long as they are native.   The mice on Anacapa are probably an important source of food for birds, just as they on the Farallones. 

If mice are not harmful to birds, there is no legitimate reason to poison them, along with untold numbers of non-target animals.  The mice on the Farallones are targets only because they aren’t native. 

Killing of non-target animals

Rodenticides are indiscriminate killers of warm blooded animals, including birds.  An animal who eats rodenticide slowly bleeds to death.  The grisly process of dying takes about 10-20 days.  If poisoned mice are eaten by other animals that animal is also poisoned.  It is therefore inevitable that non-target birds who are predators of mice will be killed by widespread dispersal of rodenticide pellets on the ground that can also be directly eaten by birds and other animals.  This deadly sequence of events has been demonstrated many times by island eradications using rodenticides all over the world and the project on Anacapa Island is no exception. 

Billboard sponsored by Raptors Are The Solution (RATS)

Raptors are the main predators of mice.  Therefore, 63% of raptors on Anacapa Island (37 of 59 individual birds) were captured and either relocated or kept in captivity until the project was done, according to the first study of the project published in 2005. According to that study, “The fate of the remaining birds of prey on the island is unclear. There is evidence that some birds survived the bait application… However, three barn owls, six burrowing owls and an American kestrel either died while in captivity or were found dead on the island. The American kestrel and a burrowing owl that were captured in 2001, after the bait application, likely died from brodifacoum poisoning.” The analysis of the project considers these deaths “negligible.”

A total of 94 seed-eating birds were also found dead after the poison drop.  Most were song birds, but an additional 6 birds were too decomposed to identify the species.  The study notes that these collateral kills were consistent with other similar projects.

Western Gull on Channel Islands. NPS photo

The study makes no mention of gulls that were undoubtedly killed by the project.  Gulls are omnivorous scavengers for whom dead and dying mice are ideal food, preferable to dive bombing for French fries on your picnic table.  According to the National Park Service, “Western gulls are the most abundant breeding seabird in the Channel Islands National Park, with a population estimated at more than 15,000.” Shortly after the poison drop, dead seabirds washed up on the shore near the Santa Barbara harbor.  UC Santa Barbara’s daily newspaper said, “…a strong correlation exists between the National Park Service’s most recent airdrop of pesticide on Anacapa Island and the dead birds.”

In other words, those who implemented the eradication project on Anacapa are probably not telling the full story about the death of non-target birds.  The death of hundreds of gulls is anticipated by the promoters of the project on the Farallones.  If the organization that implements the project is the same organization that monitors and reports on the project (as was the case for the projects on the Channel Islands), we may never know the actual impact on the birds living on the Farallones.

Those who promote these poisonous projects justify the death of non-target birds by saying they are “incidental” and have no lasting impact on the species population.  They will apply for and receive “incidental take permits” in advance of the Farallones project that will satisfy legal requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Endangered Species Act.  The lawsuit that was filed to prevent the Anacapa project was overturned on those grounds.

The killing is never done

Rat eradication on Anacapa and pig eradication on Santa Cruz (where over 5,000 pigs were shot by sharpshooters and 54 Golden Eagles were removed because they were predators of endemic foxes) are the focus of TC Boyle’s masterful book.  Both were implemented and considered successful by the organizations that implemented the projects.  Although land managers are no longer killing animals (to our knowledge) in the Channel Islands they are waging a continuous war on non-native plants by spraying them with herbicide.  When we visited Santa Cruz Island in 2010, we witnessed the application of Garlon on non-native fennel.

Roundup (glyphosate) has been used on the Farallon Islands every year since 1988.  Between 2001-2005, an average of 226 gallons of herbicide were used annually (5.4 gallons per acre per year), according to the annual report of the Farallon National Wildlife Refuge.  Given that these islands are not far from the California coast and are visited by thousands of migratory birds every year, we must expect that the arrival of new plants to the islands will be continuous: seeds are eaten and carried by birds; seeds are carried by birds in their feathers and feet; wind and storms carry seeds to the islands, etc.

The Environmental Protection Agency recently published a Biological Evaluation of glyphosate products.   EPA reports that glyphosate is “likely to adversely affect” 93% of legally protected endangered and threatened plants and animals. That finding applies equally to all plants and animals, whether they are legally protected or not because the physiological processes of species in the same order are similar.

The Environmental Impact Statement for the Farallones project accuses mice of eating vegetation, although far more vegetation is probably killed by herbicides.  Non-native vegetation arrives on the Farallones partly because birds eat it and carry it to the Farallones.  Animals do not care if edible vegetation is native.  Nativism is a human prejudice not shared by animals who seek food and shelter wherever they can find it.

The constant poisoning of plants is perhaps a trivial consideration in comparison to the futility of trying to eradicate mice.  Although rats have been successfully (leaving aside the death of non-target animals) eradicated by some projects, attempts to eradicate mice have been significantly less successful. 

A study of 139 attempted eradications on 107 Mediterranean islands in eight countries, with Greece, Italy, and Spain accounting for the highest number found that eradication projects targeted 13 mammal species. The black rat was the target of over 75% of the known attempted eradications in the Mediterranean Basin; other species targeted were feral goat, house mouse, European rabbit, and domestic cat. The most widely used technique was poisoning (77% of all eradications), followed by trapping (15%) and hunting (4%).  Techniques were largely target-specific.

The average failure rate of the projects was about 11%, but success was defined only as the death of animals living on the islands at the time of the project. However, this percentage varied according to species. The failure rate of house mouse eradication was 75%. Reinvasion occurred after 15% of eradications considered initially successful. 

Farallon Islands, NOAA

The proposed project on the Farallon Islands is a dead end in many ways.  It will kill many non-target animals. It will probably not be successful in the short run or the long run.  Every time it is repeated it will kill more animals. Furthermore, it is pointless because mice do not harm birds on the Farallon islands. 

  • T.C. Boyle, When the Killing’s Done, Viking, 2011.

California Natural Resources Agency writes a BIG blank check to the “restoration” industry

California Natural Resources Agency has published the draft of “Pathways to 30X30 California” and has invited the public to comment on the draft by February 15, 2022.  “Pathways to 30X30” is the last in a series of documents that defines the program before implementation in February 2022, when distribution will begin of $15 Billion dollars to public and non-governmental agencies to fund specific projects. 

To recap the process that began in October 2020 with the passage of an Executive Order:

  • In October 2020, Governor Newsom signed Executive Order N-82-20 “enlisting California’s vast network of natural and working lands – forests, rangelands, farms, wetlands, coast, deserts and urban greenspaces – in the fight against climate change. A core pillar of Governor Newsom’s climate agenda, these novel approaches will help clean the air and water for communities throughout the state and support California’s unique biodiversity.” The program and its implications are described by Conservation Sense and Nonsense HERE.
  • California Natural Resources Agency held a series of public workshops in summer 2021 that were theoretically an opportunity for the public to participate in the process of defining the program.  Conservation Sense and Nonsense identified potential opportunities as well as pitfalls of the program HERE.
  • California Natural Resources Agency published the first draft of implementation plans in fall 2021.  Conservation Sense and Nonsense published its favorable opinion of the first draft that is available HERE.

The draft of the final implementation document is disappointing.  My public comment on the draft of “Pathways to 30X30” is below.  To preview it briefly here, this is its concluding paragraph:  “California’s 30X30 initiative had great potential to improve the environment rather than damaging it further.  Instead, draft “Pathways to 30X30” suggests that opportunity may be squandered.  Of course, the proof will be in the projects, but for the moment it looks as though the lengthy public process may have been a charade intended to benefit the “restoration” industry, not the environment or the public.”

Please consider writing your own public comment by February 15, 2022.

  • Email: CaliforniaNature@Resources.ca.gov;
  • Letter via postal mail: California Natural Resources Agency, 715 P Street, 20th Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814;
  • Voice message: 1 (800) 417-0668.
  • There will be a virtual meeting on Tuesday, February 1, 2022, 3-6 pm in which the public will be invited to make 2 minute comments.  Register HERE.

TO:        California Natural Resources Agency

RE:         Public comment on draft “Pathways to 30X30”

I have attended the public workshops regarding the 30X30 initiative and sent written feedback when given the opportunity.  I am therefore in a position to tell you that the “Draft Pathways to 30X30” is a significant retreat from principles defined by previous drafts because it is so vague that it is meaningless. Any project could be approved within its limitless boundaries. The document puts CNRA in the position to do whatever it wishes, including violate principles defined in previous draft documents.

My public comment is a reminder of commitments made in previous drafts and a request that they be reinstated in the final version of the Draft “Pathways to 30X30” document:

  • “Pathways to 30X30” must confirm its commitment to reducing the use of pesticides on public lands.  The draft mentions the need to “avoid toxic chemicals” only in the context of working lands.  That commitment must also be made for public parks and open spaces because widespread pesticide use is exposing the public and wildlife to dangerous pesticides and killing harmless plants while damaging the soil.
  • Unlike the previous draft, “Climate Smart Strategy,” “Pathways to 30X30” requires the exclusive use of native plants, which contradicts the commitment to “promote climate-smart management actions.”  The ranges of native plants have changed and must continue to change because native plants are no longer adapted to the climate.  We cannot reduce greenhouse gas emissions causing climate change if we cannot plant tree species that are capable of surviving in our changed climate, as acknowledged by previous draft documents. As Steve Gaines said in the January 12th public meeting regarding “Pathways to 30X30,” “We must help species move [because the changing climate requires that they do].”

There are significant omissions in “Pathways to 30X30” that epitomize my disappointment in this draft:

  • The draft kicks the can down the road with respect to integrating climate change into consideration of projects funded by the initiative:  “Designations have not yet been established that emphasize climate benefits such as carbon sequestration or buffering climate impacts. While the definition of conserved lands for 30×30 builds upon existing designations, it will be important to integrate climate…” (pg 26)  Climate change is the underlying cause of most problems in the environment, yet “Pathways to 30X30” dodges the issue by declining to take the issue into consideration as it distributes millions of grant dollars to projects that are toxic band aides on the symptoms of climate change.
  • The 30X30 initiative made a commitment to protecting 30% of California’s land and coastal waters.  At 24%, we are close to that goal for land, but at only 16% we are far from the goal for coastal waters.  Yet, the draft declines to protect more marine waters:  “MPA [Marine Protected Areas] Network expansion will not be a component of meeting the State’s 30×30 marine conservation goals.” (pg 29, deeply embedded in fine print) The excuse for this omission is that the decadal review of existing MPAs won’t be completed for another year.  That is not a legitimate reason for refusing to designate new MPAs.  The evaluation of existing MPAs can and should be completed and inform the management of new MPAs going forward. 

The lack of guidance in “Pathways to 30X30” is particularly dangerous because California law has recently been revised to exempt projects considered “restorations” from CEQA requirements for Environmental Impact Reports for three years, ending January 1, 2025. An Environmental Impact Report is the public’s only opportunity to preview planned projects and challenge them within the confines of CEQA law.  The public is effectively shut out from the process of distributing millions of grant dollars of the public’s tax money by this blanket exemption on CEQA requirements for an EIR. 

The Draft of “Pathways to 30X30” writes a big blank check for projects that will potentially increase the use of pesticides on our public lands and increase greenhouse gas emissions by destroying plants and trees that sequester carbon and are capable of surviving our current and anticipated climate. 

California’s 30X30 initiative had great potential to improve the environment rather than damaging it further.  Instead, draft “Pathways to 30X30” suggests that opportunity may be squandered.  Of course, the proof will be in the projects, but for the moment it looks as though the lengthy public process may have been a charade intended to benefit the “restoration” industry, not the environment or the public. 

Draft of California’s Climate Smart Strategy looks promising

California has made a $15 Billion budget commitment to address climate change and protect biodiversity. The California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) held a series of workshops to explain the initiative and give the public an opportunity to provide feedback to CNRA.  Sixteen hundred Californians participated in those workshops, including me. 

California Natural Resources Agency recently published a draft of the first installment of implementation plans:  “Natural and Working Lands Climate Smart Strategy.”  The public is invited to comment on this draft.  The deadline for comment is November 9, 2021.  There are three ways you can send your comments and feedback:  Email: CaliforniaNature@Resources.ca.gov; Letter via postal mail: California Natural Resources Agency, 715 P Street, 20th Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814; Voice message: 1 (800) 417-0668.

Update: The deadline for public comment has been extended to Wednesday, November 24, 2021.

Below is the comment that I submitted today.  I focused my attention on the portions of the draft that are relevant to my urban home, such as developed land and urban forests.  My comment may not be relevant to your concerns, so I encourage you to write a comment of our own.  If you find issues in the draft that I haven’t mentioned please post a comment here to alert other readers.

TO:  California Natural Resources Agency

RE: Public Comment on “Natural and Working Lands Climate Smart Strategy”

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the draft of California’s Climate Smart Land Stretegy.

I find much to like in the draft of California’s Climate Smart Land Strategy.  In particular:

  • The draft makes a commitment to reduce pesticide use on public lands, for example:

Priority nature-based solutions for developed lands: 

“low-chemical management of parks and open spaces in and around cities to beneft underserved communities who are often the most negatively affected by health impacts related to air pollution and extreme heat caused by urban heat islands.”

“Prioritize protection of public safety by ecologically treating vegetation near roads and energy infrastructure.”

“Utilize safer, more sustainable pest management tools and practices to combat invasive species and accelerate the transition away from harmful pesticides.”

  • The draft makes a commitment to expanding, maintaining and preserving urban forests:

Priority nature-based solutions for developed lands: 

“Increase development and maintenance of both urban tree canopy and green spaces to moderate urban heat islands, decrease energy use, and contribute to carbon sequestration.”

“Maintain urban trees to provide vital ecosystem services for as long as feasible”

  • The State of California defines the urban forest broadly and the draft acknowledges its importance in climate smart land management:

“California Public Resources Code defines urban forests as “those native or introduced trees and related vegetation in the urban and near‐urban areas, including, but not limited to, urban watersheds, soils and related habitats, street trees, park trees, residential trees, natural riparian habitats, and trees on other private and public properties.”  Urban forests are our opportunity to apply climate smart land management in the places most Californians call home. The character of urban forests is diverse, which heavily influences the localized selection of management options and outcomes related to both carbon storage and co-benefits.”

  • The draft acknowledges that suitability to a specific location and climate are the appropriate criteria for planting in the urban forest.  Because native ranges are changing in response to changes in the climate, whether or not a tree is native to a specific location is no longer a suitable criterion.

“Utilize place-based tree and plant selection and intensity, to ensure the species selection process considers climate, water, and locally-specific circumstances.”

  • The draft acknowledges the importance of forests to maintain carbon sinks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change.  The urgent need to address climate change must trump nativists’ desire to replicate treeless historical landscapes. 

“Healthy forests can serve as reliable carbon sinks, both because they are able to store significant amounts of carbon and because they are at a lower risk of carbon loss due to climate impacts such as wildfire and drought. After large, high-severity fires, some of California’s forests may convert to shrublands and grasslands59 that are not capable of supporting the same level of carbon storage as forests.”

“…shrublands and chaparral store substantially less carbon, and the dynamics of their growth and disturbance are less well known. Evidence indicates that shrublands in California are burning more frequently than they would have historically, leading to degraded conditions, possible conversion to grasslands, and reduced carbon storage in above ground biomass.”

Making these commitments operational implies that the State must also make these commitments:

  • The State of California should not fund projects that destroy healthy trees for the sole purpose of replicating treeless historical landscapes, especially on developed lands.
  • The State of California should not fund projects that destroy functional landscapes and healthy trees, particularly by using herbicides.

Suggested improvements in the draft

These commitments in the draft should be revised:

“Implement healthy soils practices, including through native plant landscaping and mulch and compost application.”

The word “native” should be deleted because the nativity of a plant is irrelevant to soil health.  Introduced plants do not damage soil, but using herbicides to kill them does damage the soil by killing beneficial microbes and mycorrhizae.   

“Increase drought-tolerant yards and landscaping through, for example, native plant species replacements and lawn removal and by adopting, implementing and enforcing the State’s Model Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance.”

The word “native” should be replaced by “drought-tolerant,” which would include many native species, but not all.  Redwoods are an example of a native tree that is definitely not drought-tolerant.  Many species of drought-tolerant plants have been introduced to California from other Mediterranean climates that are well adapted to our climate and the anticipated climate in the future.

California’s urban forest is predominantly non-native because these are the tree species that are adapted to our climate and can survive harsh urban conditions. Professor Matt Ritter of CalPoly is the source of these data. He presented this slide at a conference of the California Urban Forest Council on October 14, 2021.

“Where appropriate and applicable, Departments should rely on the Class 33 categorical exemption for small habitat restoration projects in the CEQA Guidelines”

Such exemptions should not be granted to projects that will use pesticides because they will damage the environment, including the soil, and the wildlife that lives there.  Such a specific limitation is consistent with commitments in the draft to reduce pesticide use in parks and open spaces around cities because those are the places where such small projects (5 acres or less) are likely to be proposed.  Such a limitation on the use of this exemption to CEQA requirements should be added to the final draft because it does not explicitly exist in the code.

The importance of setting priorities

The strength of the draft is its emphasis on addressing the sources of climate change.  All projects funded by this initiative must be consistent with that over-riding mission because climate change is the primary threat to all ecosystems. Reducing the sources of greenhouse gases causing climate change is a prerequisite for protecting biodiversity.

I appreciate the mention of opportunities to remediate brownfields, but I believe a broader commitment to addressing sources of pollution is needed:

“Ensure brownfield revitalization supports community efforts to become more resilient to climate change impacts by incorporating adaptation and mitigation strategies throughout the cleanup and redevelopment process. These efforts also increase equity, as many climate vulnerable communities live close to brownfields and other blighted properties.”

Julie Bargmann was recently awarded the Oberlander Prize in Landscape Architecture for her ground-breaking work to bring blighted land back to useful life in the heart of post-industrial cities. Her work is unique because it transforms abandoned industrial land into beautiful public space while honoring and preserving its history.  She brings new meaning to the word “restoration.”  She does not begin by destroying functional landscapes.  She provides a model for a new approach that is particularly important to underserved inner-city communities.  I live in Oakland, where I see many such opportunities to restore public land to useful life without the scorched-earth strategies commonly used by ecological “restorations.”

Julie Bargmann projects. Source: NPR News Hour

When ecological restorations are funded without addressing sources of pollution, valuable resources are often wasted.  The recent oil leak from an oil platform off the coast of Southern California is a case in point.  Millions of dollars were spent restoring a wetland that was doused with oil for the second time. Yet, some of the oil platforms in California waters are no longer productive, but have not been safely decommissioned.  This is putting the conservation cart before the horse. 

Talbert Marsh. Source: Huntington Beach Wetland Conservancy

We are about to make enormous investments in the expansion of wetlands, as we should.  At the same time, we should address the sources of pollution that will despoil those wetlands, such as many miles of impaired waters in the watersheds that drain into the wetlands.  For example, the draft touts seagrasses as carbon sinks and acknowledges pollution as one of the major threats to seagrass:  “The leading causes of seagrass loss are nutrient pollution, poor water clarity, disease, and disturbance.”

At every turn, climate smart solutions should stay focused on the underlying causes of problems in the environment, rather than cosmetic solutions that don’t address those causes.  Quibbling about whether or not marsh grass is native or non-native is like arguing about the color of the lifeboat. Let’s focus on whether or not a landscape is functional as a carbon sink.

In conclusion

The draft gives me hope that the State of California can do something useful with our tax dollars to address climate change without damaging the environment further.  The draft shows the influence of learned hands with good intentions.  Now let’s see specific projects funded that are consistent with the goals defined by the draft.  That’s where the rubber meets the road.

Science meets the “restoration” industry

I was encouraged to hear a presentation by an academic scientist at the recent Beyond Pesticides Forum that was another indication of the paradigm shift in invasive species management toward a less destructive approach.  Dr. Bernd Blossey is a Professor at Cornell University, where he directs the Ecology and Management of Invasive Plants Program in the Department of Natural Resources.  His many years of studying invasive plants, such as purple loosestrife, garlic mustard, water chestnut, Japanese knotweed, and phragmites have convinced him that there are often “multiple stressors” that contribute to such invasions.  Some factors such as the presence of earthworms and deer can be more important factors in the Northeast than the non-native plants themselves. 

Based on his research experience, Dr. Blossey delivered wise advice to land managers at the Beyond Pesticide Forum.  The featured photo at the top of this article was his introductory slide. 

Before a restoration project begins, these questions should be asked and answered:

Source: Dr. Blossey’s presentation to Beyond Pesticides Forum on June 8, 2021

If the project seems worthwhile after such analysis is done, this is Dr. Blossey’s advice about monitoring the project and measuring its success:

Source: Dr. Blossey’s presentation to Beyond Pesticides Forum on June 8, 2021

Practicing what he preaches

Dr. Blossey used these principles in his study of garlic mustard in the forests of the northeast. (1) Over a period of more than 10 years, Dr. Blossey and his collaborators measured the abundance of garlic mustard in 16 plots from New Jersey to Illinois where no attempt had been made to control or eradicate it.  They found that growth rates initially increased, but decreased over time and eventually the population started to decline.  Dr. Blossey explained their findings in a recent webinar that is available HERE:

Garlic mustard was first recorded in North America in 1868 on Long Island, New York.  It spread west from there and is now found from southern Canada to Georgia and from New York and Quebec to Oregon, British Columbia and Alaska.  Because land managers believed that garlic mustard suppresses populations of native plants, they have been trying to eradicate garlic mustard in northern forests for decades, with little long term success.  Dr. Blossey addressed that concern in his webinar. 

Source: Dr. Blossey’s webinar about garlic mustard

Earthworms are the prerequisite for garlic mustard invasion.  Earthworms in northern forests are also considered alien invaders because they were killed, along with forests, by advancing glaciers during the Ice Age.  When forests returned after the Ice Age over 10,000 years ago, they evolved without earthworms that were reintroduced by European settlers less than 500 years ago. 

When deer are excluded from areas by fencing plots with garlic mustard populations, abundance of native vegetation does not decline.  Deer have a strong preference for native vegetation.  Absent deer, garlic mustard does not seem to suppress the growth of native plants in northern forests.

In other words, garlic mustard is not guilty as charged.  Dr. Blossey explains the disadvantages of attempting to eradicate it.  The decline of garlic mustard abundance over time is attributed to negative soil feedback that builds over time as the soil microbial community responds to the new plant. Removing garlic mustard episodically prolongs the process of building that negative soil feedback.  When groups of well-meaning young people are sent into the forest to pull garlic mustard, they trample the very native plants they are trying to save. 

Are there lessons for land managers in the Bay Area?

Because garlic mustard doesn’t exist in California and our native earthworms are considered beneficial to soil health, you might wonder if this study is relevant here.  California was not glaciated during the Ice Age.  Our earthworms survived the Ice Age and they evolved with our forests. 

So, what can we learn from this study?  The pattern of initial growth and eventual decline of populations of introduced plants is not unique to garlic mustard:  “A phenomenon that has received increased attention is whether introduced species go through boom and bust cycles, ultimately becoming non-threatening members of local communities.” (1)  One recently published study was based on nearly 5,000 vegetation inventories collected in 49 National Parks in the eastern United States.  It reported that non-native plants appeared to decline after 100-200 years: 

“Residence time appears a core part of invasion that interacts with other mechanisms, such as climate matching, propagule pressure and empty niche. Initially, time appears to benefit non-native species as they establish in a novel range. They likely face low enemy loads, and any successful dispersal increases their populations and invaded range. As they spread, initial barriers, such as distance or suboptimal habitat, were overcome, as was resistance from native relatives. However, their biggest challenge appeared to be time, as they all declined after ~1 to 2 centuries, suggesting that pathogens and herbivores caught up with them.” (2)

The message for land managers everywhere is that patience is needed to judge the impact of introduced species.  Most will fit into ecosystems eventually and attempts to speed up that process often do more harm than good.  We can’t judge changes in nature by the short-term perspective of human lifetimes because the evolution of nature is a continual process that began long before humans existed and is likely to persist long after we are gone. 

Applying Dr. Blossey’s “Core Knowledge” to local projects

What if Dr. Blossey’s “Core Knowledge” had been applied to projects in the San Francisco Bay Area?  Here are examples of local eradication projects that might have benefitted:

  • San Francisco has been trying to eradicate oxalis in its parks for over 20 years by spraying a selective herbicide (Garlon).  There seems to be more oxalis now than there was 20 years ago.  Oxalis is visible only about 2 months of the year.  When it dies back in the spring it leaves behind the native plants with which it co-exists.  If a control plot had been set aside before they started eradicating oxalis perhaps we would know the answer to these important questions:  Does oxalis suppress the growth of native plants?  Does attempting to eradicate oxalis produce more or less oxalis?
  • California, Oregon, and Washington have been trying to eradicate non-native spartina marsh grass along the entire West Coast for over 20 years.  Here in the Bay Area, non-native species of spartina have been 99% eradicated, but a hybrid of the native and the non-native remains and is poisoned with imazapyr annually.  According to a recent presentation by the Invasive Spartina Project, the hybrid is visually indistinguishable from the native and it occupies the same elevation of the marsh.  Over 500 genetic tests are needed every year to distinguish the hybrid from the native in order to poison the hybrid.  Dr. Blossey’s approach might ask these important questions:  What harm is hybrid spartina doing?  Do more or fewer animals live in hybrid spartina?  What effect has 20 years of spraying imazapyr had on the soil and the microbes that live in it?  Is the eradication project doing more harm than good? 
oxalis bloom, February 2021

We don’t know the answers to these important questions because projects were initiated and implemented without the analysis and monitoring metrics needed to answer the questions.  The projects continue without being accountable for the damage they are doing.  Public money is funding these projects without requiring the projects to be accountable for the consequences. 

California has made a commitment to spend billions of dollars on “nature based solutions” and achieving “biodiversity goals.”  This is an opportunity to start new projects off on the right foot by:

  • Requiring the analysis needed to determine the impacts and causes of perceived problems in the environment.
  • Requiring control plots so that the effects of the project can be compared with the option of not doing the project.
  • Requiring that projects be monitored, using established metrics so that the success of the project can be measured.
  1. Bernd Blossey, et. al., “Residence time determines invasiveness and performance of garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolota) in North America, Ecology Letters, February 2021.  
  2. Robert Warren, et. al., “Multiple mechanisms in woodland plant species invasion,”  Plant Ecology, April 2019.

Happy New Year and Farewell

The Million Trees blog is folding its tent and moving on because most of the projects in the San Francisco Bay Area that I have followed for 20 years have been approved, funded, and are being implemented.  Every public land manager in the Bay Area has made a commitment to destroying most non-native trees and using pesticides for that purpose.

If you wish to continue following the development of these projects, I recommend these websites:  San Francisco Forest Alliance,  Defend East Bay Forests, Save the East Bay Hills, and Hills Conservation Network.

For the record, this is a brief summary of my beliefs about the environment:

If I return to the blogosphere in the future, the title and mission of a new blog would change.  The focus would be the science that informs my commitment to the cosmopolitan landscape that exists, rather than the fantasized landscape of the past.  I will also continue to inform readers of new studies that find evidence of the damage that pesticides do to the environment and its inhabitants.  If you are a subscriber to the Million Trees blog, you will be informed if I publish a new blog.

Thank you for your readership.

Million Trees

Conference of the California Invasive Plant Council: Fallacies and Failures

The California Invasive Plant Council held their 27th annual conference in Monterey in November.  It was their biggest conference, with about 400 attendees and more sponsors than ever before.  Clearly the industry that promotes the eradication of non-native plants is alive and well.  However, a closer look at the conference presentations suggests otherwise.  Eradication efforts are growing, but eradication success is not and establishing a native landscape after eradication is proving elusive.

A few common themes emerged from the presentations:

  • Eradication cannot be accomplished without using pesticides.
  • When eradication is achieved with pesticides, non-natives are rarely replaced by native plants.
  • Planting natives after non-natives are eradicated reduces re-invasion, but secondary invasions of different non-native plants are common.
  • “Managing” forests with prescribed burns did not result in more biodiversity than leaving the forest alone.

Goals of these eradication projects have shifted in response to these failures to achieve original goals:

  • Replacement plantings after eradication are sometimes a mix of natives and non-natives.
  • Inability to establish native grassland has given way to different goals.
  • Language used to describe the projects are evolving to be more appealing to potential volunteers.

Here are a few examples of presentations that illustrate these themes:

Eradicating beach grass in Point Reyes National Seashore

About 60% of sand dunes in the Point Reyes National Seashore were covered in European beach grass when the eradication effort began in 2000.  The goal of the project was to restore native dune plants and increase the population of endangered snowy plovers that nest on bare sand.

The project began by manually pulling beach grass from 30 acres of dunes at Abbott’s Lagoon.  The grass grew back within one year, presumably because the roots of the beach grass are about 10 feet long.  Manually pulling the grass from the surface does not destroy the roots.

A new method was devised that was more successful with respect to eradicating the beach grass.  The grass and its roots were plowed up by bulldozers and buried deep in the sand.  The cost of that method was prohibitively expensive at $25,000 to $30,000 per acre and the barren sand caused other problems.

The barren dunes were mobile in the wind.  Sand blew into adjacent ranches and residential areas, causing neighbors of the park to object to the project.  The sand also encroached into areas where there were native plants, burying them.  The bare sand was eventually colonized by “secondary invaders.”  Different non-native plants replaced the beach grass because they were more competitive than the desired native plants.

In 2011, the National Park Services adopted a third strategy for converting beach grass to native dune plants.  They sprayed the beach grass with a mixture of glyphosate and imazapyr.  At $2,500 to $3,000 per acre, this eradication method was significantly cheaper than the mechanical method.

However, it resulted in different problems that prevented the establishment of native dune plants.  The poisoned thatch of dead beach grass was a physical barrier to successful seed germination and establishment of a new landscape.  Where secondary invaders were capable of penetrating the dead thatch, the resulting vegetation does not resemble native dunes.

Presentation at California Invasive Plant Council conference regarding attempt to eradicate European beach grass at Point Reyes National Seashore

The concluding slides of this presentation were stunning.  They said it is a “Restoration fallacy that killing an invader will result in native vegetation.”  My 20 years of watching these futile efforts confirm this reality.  However, I never expected to hear that said by someone actually engaged in this effort.  The presenter mused that such projects are like Sisyphus trying to roll a boulder up hill. 

Presentation at California Invasive Plant Council conference regarding attempt to eradicate European beach grass at Point Reyes National Seashore

Attempting to plant Douglas fir after eradication of broom

Over a period of 5.5 years, broom was eradicated in plots in Oregon by spraying glyphosate.  The plots were then planted with Douglas fir seedlings that soon died.  They were replanted the following year and died in the second year.

There were two theories about why the plantings failed, both broadly described as “legacy” effects in the soil left by the broom.  One theory is that nitrogen levels were too high for successful growth of Douglas fir.  That theory is consistent with the fact that broom is a nitrogen fixer.  That is, broom—like all legumes—have the ability to transfer nitrogen in the atmosphere to nitrogen in the soil with the help of bacteria that facilitate that transfer.  Nitrogen generally benefits plant growth, but there can also be too much nitrogen.

The second theory is that Douglas fir requires a specific suite of mycorrhizal fungi for successful growth.  Mycorrhizal fungi live in roots of plants and trees.  They transfer moisture and nutrients from the soil to the plants.  Plants with a healthy suite of mycorrhizal fungi are more drought tolerant because they extract more moisture from the soil.

Neither of these theories has been successfully proven by this project.  They remain unanswered questions.  We were struck that the researchers had not considered the possibility that the repeated use of glyphosate could have been a factor in the failure of the Douglas fir.  Glyphosate is known to kill bacteria in the soil.  Could it also kill mycorrhizal fungi?  (We know that triclopyr kills mycorrhizal fungi.) That possibility was not considered by this project. Did the project consider that glyphosate also changes the consistency of the soil by binding certain minerals together?  It is more difficult for roots and water to penetrate the hard soil.  Were soil samples taken before and after repeated applications of glyphosate to determine how the soil had been changed by pesticide applications?

The published abstract for this project made this observation:  “It is typically assumed that once an invasive species is successfully removed, the impact of that species on the community is also eliminated.  However, invasive species may change the environment in ways that persist, as legacy effects, long after the species itself is gone.”  In fact, it seems likely that the pesticides used to eradicate the “invasive” species could also be the source of the “legacy effects.”

Does “managing” a forest result in greater biodiversity in the understory?

California State Parks tested that hypothesis by conducting prescribed burns in some of their forests in the Sierra Nevada 20 years ago, while leaving other portions of the forest “unmanaged.”

The abstract for this presentation describes the goals and expectations for the prescribed burns:  “Prescribed fire is a tool used to reduce fuels in the forests in the Sierra Nevada and mimic the low and moderate severity wildfires that burned before the onset of fire suppression.  A manager’s hope is that prescribed fire will create the disturbance necessary to stimulate the development of species rich understory communities and increase species richness, compared to unburned forests, which are often viewed as species depauperate.”

Twenty years after the burns, abundance and species composition of the understory in the burned areas were compared to the unburned areas.  They found little difference in the biodiversity of the understory of burned areas compared to unmanaged forests:

  • “Species richness was highly variable within burned and passively managed areas but was not statistically different.”
  • “Passively managed areas did not appear to be depauperate in understory species diversity compared to areas managed with prescribed fire.”
  • “Fire did not appear to reduce or enhance species richness numbers in burned areas, as compared to passively managed areas.”

No fires occurred in either the burned areas or the unmanaged areas during the 20-year period.  Therefore, this study did not test the theory that prescribed burning reduces fire hazards in forests.  This study found no significant differences in diversity of forest understory resulting from prescribed burns.

There are significant risks associated with prescribed burns.  They cause air pollution and they frequently escape the controlled perimeter of the fire, becoming wildfires that destroy far more than intended.  This study does not provide evidence that would justify taking those risks.  In fact, available evidence supports the “leave-it-alone” approach to land management.

Moving the goal posts

If at first you don’t succeed, you have the option of redefining success.  Here are a few of the projects presented at the conference that seemed to take that approach.

Make projects so small that success can be achieved

Eric Wrubel introduced himself as the National Park Service staff who is responsible for prioritizing invasive plants for removal in the National Parks in the Bay Area (GGNRA, PRNS, Muir Woods, and Pinnacles).  His work is based on the premise that the most successful eradications are those that are small.  The bigger the infestation, the greater the investment of time and resources it takes to eradicate it and the smaller the likelihood of success.  This is illustrated by a graph showing this inverse relationship between the size of the invasive population and the success of eradication.

Source: Rejmanek and Pitcairn, “When is eradication of an exotic pest plant a realistic goal?,” 2002

The process of prioritizing eradication projects began over 10 years ago with a survey of over 100 species of plants considered invasive.  Cal-IPC’s “watch list” was used to identify the plants that are not yet widely spread in California, but considered a potential problem in the future.  Cal-IPC’s risk assessment was the third element in the analysis.  Plants with “High” risk ratings by Cal-IPC were put higher on the priority list than those with “Moderate” or “Limited” ratings.  Plants that did not exist elsewhere in the region or watershed were also given higher priority, based on the assumption that re-invasion was less likely.

This is the list of eradication projects in the National Parks in the Bay Area that was presented at the conference of the California Invasive Plant Council. The projects marked with the red symbol for crossing out are completed projects. Nearly half of the plants on this hit list are not considered invasive in California.

The priority list showed that the highest priority eradication projects were quite small.  Some were just a few acres.  Buddleia jumped out as the 7th highest priority on only 13 acres.  Buddleia was recently added to a new category of plants on Cal-IPC’s “invasive” inventory.  It is not considered invasive in California, although it is considered invasive elsewhere.

In placing buddleia on its “hit list,” Cal-IPC illustrates one of the fundamental weaknesses of its evaluation method.  Cal-IPC does not evaluate pros and cons of non-native plants.  Only traits considered negative are taken into consideration.

Monarch sanctuary in Monterey, California. November 2018

Buddleia is one of the most useful nectar plants for pollinators in California.  We took the time to visit the monarch butterfly sanctuary in Monterey while attending the conference.  The monarchs are arriving now to begin their winter roost in the eucalyptus, Monterey pine and cypress in this small grove.  At the entrance to the sanctuary a sign instructs visitors to plant only native milkweed as the monarch’s host plant and only native flowers for nectar.  Fortunately whoever planted the flowering shrubs in the sanctuary didn’t follow the advice of the sign-makers.  They planted buddleia and other flowering non-natives such as bottle-brush.  Several species of butterflies and hummingbirds were enjoying those plants in the Sanctuary. Strict adherence to the native plant agenda is not beneficial to wildlife because animals do not share our prejudices.

Monarch nectaring on butterfly bush. butterflybush.com

Acknowledging the difficulties of converting non-native annual grass to native perennial grass

Pinnacles National Park acquired 2000 acres of former ranchland in 2006.  The park wanted to convert the non-native annual grasses and yellow-star thistle on the former ranch to perennial bunch grasses and oak woodland.  They were able to reduce the amount of yellow-star thistle by burning and spraying with herbicide, but cover of native species remained low.  Conversion of grasses from non-native annuals to native perennial grass has been tried many times, in many places, and for long periods of time.  These projects were notoriously unsuccessful.

The project at Pinnacles has changed its goal to plant forbs (herbaceous flower plants) instead of grasses and they report that they are having some success.   They justify that shift in goal on soil analysis that suggests forbs were more prevalent than perennial grasses in inland valleys in California than previously thought.

This change in goal could be described as “adaptive management,” which adjusts methods and goals in response to observable outcomes of existing methods.  You could also call it “trial and error.”  We would like to see more land managers make such adjustments to their strategies, rather than doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.

Recruiting volunteers with appealing messages

There were several presentations about effective methods of recruiting volunteers to participate in restoration projects.  Some of their messages seem to acknowledge that the language used in the past may have alienated some potential volunteers.  Speaking from personal experience, I can confirm that observation.  Here are just a few of the cringe-worthy native plant mottos that I hope have been abandoned in favor of a more positive message:

  • “That plant doesn’t belong here.”
  • “That is a good plant and the other is a bad plant.”
  • “The invasive landscape is sick and requires chemotherapy.” (to justify the use of pesticides)
  • “That’s a trash bird.” (said of common, introduced birds, such as starlings and house sparrows)

The speaker advised those who work with volunteers to focus on why an unwanted plant is a problem rather than where it comes from.  Unfortunately, the list of problems is heavily influenced by the preferences of native plant advocates.  If their criticisms are not accurate, or they don’t acknowledge the advantages of the plant, little has been achieved by using euphemisms.  Here are a few of the inaccurate criticisms made of eucalyptus:

What was missing?

Ecological restoration is a major industry. Thousands of people are employed by the industry, which is funded by many different sources of public money.  Whether individual projects are successful or not, the industry will survive and thrive as long as it is funded.  Greater care should be taken to design and implement projects that will be successful.

Stepping back from the conference presentations of specific restoration projects, here are a few issues that were conspicuously absent from the conference. 

  • Pesticides are being widely used by the restoration industry. When projects don’t achieve desired outcomes, pesticides should be considered as a factor.  Did pesticides alter the soil?  Were beneficial microbes and fungi killed? How persistent was the pesticide in the soil?  How mobile was the pesticide in the soil?  Was pesticide applied in the right manner?  Could aerial drift account for death of non-target plants?  There are many other useful questions that could be asked.

Update:  The California Invasive Plant Council has published “Land Manager’s Guide to Developing an Invasive Plant Management Plan.”  It says very little about the disadvantages of using herbicides to eradicate plants they consider “invasive” other than a vague reference to “unintended consequences,” without discussion of what they are or how to avoid them. 

However, it does give us another clue about why eradication efforts are often unsuccessful. When herbicides are used repeatedly, as they have been in the past 20 years, weeds develop resistance to them:   “The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds (2018) reports there are currently 496 unique cases (species x site of action) of herbicide-resistant weeds globally, with 255 species…Further, weeds have evolved resistance to 23 of the 26 known herbicide sites of action and to 163 different herbicides.”  The Guide therefore recommends that land managers rotate herbicides so that the “invasive” plants do not develop resistance to any particular herbicide.  The Guide gives only generic advice to use “herbicide X” initially and “herbicide Y or Z” for subsequent applications.

In other words, the California Invasive Plant Council continues to promote the use of herbicides to kill plants they consider “invasive.”  They give advice about ensuring the effectiveness of herbicides, but they do not give advice about how to avoid damaging the soil, killing insects, and harming the health of the public and the workers who apply the herbicides.  May 20, 2019

  • Are workers who apply pesticides being adequately trained and supervised by certified applicators? The safety of workers should be one of many goals of restoration projects.
  • When non-native plants are eradicated, serious thought should be given in advance to the probable outcome. Will native plants return?  Will wildlife be harmed?  Will the risks of failure outweigh the potential benefits of success?
  • Is climate change taken into consideration when planning the replacement landscape? Are the plants that grew in the project location 200 years ago still adapted to that location?  Is there enough available water?
  • If new plantings require irrigation to be established, what is the water source? Is it recycled water with high salt content that will kill many plants, including redwoods?
  • Are the new plantings vulnerable to new infectious diseases, such as phytopthera or infestations of new insects such as shot-hole borer?
  • Does the project team have sufficient horticultural knowledge to choose plants that can survive in current conditions? Does the project team know the horticultural needs of the plants they are planting?  Is there enough sunlight, water and wind protection for the trees they are planting?

The public is investing heavily in the “restoration” of ecosystems.  We can only hope that our investment is being used wisely and that projects will not do more harm than good.  Cal-IPC can play a role in raising the questions that have the potential to improve projects and enable them to succeed.  The long-term survival of the “restoration” industry depends on it.

Most quotes are from abstracts of presentations published in the conference program.

Catalina Island: Island ecology and restoration

Catalina Island is dear to my heart because of several childhood vacations there.  It was thrilling to return after 60 years and find it unchanged from my memories.  Avalon, the small town of about 3,500 people, is still a quaint collection of little wooden shacks, painted bright colors.  But as an adult, my recent visit to Catalina was broader and encompassed the entire island, which was unknown to me as a child.  That broader perspective on Catalina is my focus today. (1)

Avalon Harbor, Catalina Island. Creative Commons

Catalina is one of the Channel Islands off the coast of Southern California.  It rose from the ocean about 5 million years ago as the result of geologic processes lifting the ocean floor as tectonic plates collided.  Like other oceanic islands (as opposed to those that broke off from continents), it was composed of barren rock for thousands of years.  It took thousands of years to build soil needed to support plants.  Then it took thousands of years to establish plants from the seeds blown in the wind from the mainland, brought by birds in their stomachs or adhered to their feathers and feet, or brought by waves carrying plants in storms.  When plants gained a foothold, the island was able to support insects brought by wind and waves.

The process of populating Catalina with plants and animals accelerated with the arrival of American Indians about 10,000 years ago.  Foxes were probably brought to Catalina by the Indians and oaks probably arrived as acorns brought by the Indians.  Archaeological remains of Indian settlements indicate that there were as many as 2,500 Indians living on Catalina, using only the food and materials available on the island or the surrounding ocean.

Most of the plant and animal life on Catalina came from the mainland of California, only 22 miles away from the island.  When plants and animals evolve in isolation from their ancestors, their gene pools gradually drift apart and are eventually distinct species.  That’s why there are about 60 plant and animal species on Catalina that are endemic, meaning that they exist only on Catalina.  This process of diverging evolution from mainland ancestors to unique island species is typical of all island ecosystems.

Europeans arrive on Catalina

Catalina was visited by Spanish explorers for the first time in 1542 and again in 1602.  Although their visit was brief, it was fatal because they brought diseases to which Europeans were immune and the Indians were not.  Most of the Indians on the island were killed by those diseases, a scenario that played out all over the New World in the 16th and 17th centuries.

Europeans tried to establish communities on the island in the 19th century, but their economic ventures were not successful.  They brought sheep, cattle and goats.  But there wasn’t sufficient forage for their herds and supplementing their diets by growing hay wasn’t economically viable.  They tried mining, but found little of value.  They introduced animals for hunting, such as mule deer and pigs.

Towards the end of the 19th century, Europeans made their first attempt to turn the island into a tourist destination.  The first effort ended when the entire town of Avalon burned in a fire in 1915.  That fire set the stage for the final chapter in the development of the island.  William Wrigley Jr. was able to purchase the entire island in 1919 in the “fire sale” that resulted in a bargain price.

The Wrigley Era on Catalina

William Wrigley Jr. made his fortune manufacturing and selling chewing gum.  He had the means to indulge his passion for the island, which he envisioned as a recreational paradise.  He built a magnificent Art Deco casino in Avalon that opened in 1929 and turned the town of Avalon into a famous destination that attracted celebrities as well as one million visitors each year, arriving on the huge steamers Wrigley built to bring them to Catalina.

Bison on Catalina Island. Creative Commons

Many movies were made on Catalina and movie stars were frequent visitors to the island.  One of the movies brought bison to the island to feature in their western themed story.  The bison herd grew and eventually became another challenge to the survival of vegetation on the island.

The conservancy era on Catalina

When William Wrigley died, his heirs changed the direction of the island’s development.  The island could have continued to grow into a tourist destination, but in 1972 Wrigley’s heirs decided that nearly 90% of the island would be turned into a nature reserve.  The Catalina Island Conservancy was born.  Access and development on conservancy land is restricted.

Catalina Island Conservancy land.

The conservancy has made big investments in restoring the island’s ecosystems and protecting endemic plant and animal species.  Sheep and cattle were removed, which wasn’t difficult because those enterprises had largely failed.  Feral pigs and goats were much harder to round up and were killed by hired sharp shooters.  The extermination of the pigs and goats was as controversial on Catalina as it has been on other Channel Islands.  A decade later, “with the quality of the island habitat rebounding and increased ecotourism revenue being realized by island businesses, the bitterness surrounding the pig and goat eradication is subsiding.  Conservation, contrary to popular belief, is not one long group hug.  This stuff can be hard.”  (1) Indeed, “restorations” in the San Francisco Bay Area have caused one pitched battle after another for over 20 years.  They might have been less heated battles if all opinions had been treated with equal respect, as they seem to have been on Catalina Island.

The population of mule deer is being controlled with hunting licenses.  Most of the herd of 600 bison was given to an Indian reservation in South Dakota.  The remaining herd of 150 is being controlled by a contraception program.  Maintaining the small bison herd is considered a concession to their popularity with residents and tourists on the island.

Island fox. Catalina Island fox is a sub-species of the Island fox on other Channel Islands. USFWS

The Catalina Island Fox, an endemic species, was nearly wiped out by distemper virus introduced by a castaway raccoon.  Fortunately, conservancy staff figured out why the population dwindled to only 100 foxes in time to save the foxes from extinction.  A captive breeding and vaccination program returned the fox population to over 1,500 animals in 2011.  A captive breeding program for the island’s bald eagles has also restored their population.

Invasive species

Like most restorations, the Catalina Island Conservancy is concerned about invasive species.  However, their approach to controlling non-native plants is less extreme than many similar projects.  They consider a species of broom (Genista linifolia) their highest priority for eradication.  Although they have tried and will continue trying to control it they acknowledge that it may not be possible.

Genista linifolia is native to the Canary Islands.  It was introduced to Catalina over 100 years ago when it was used to landscape the Saint Catherine Hotel when it was originally built in 1900.  The conservancy launched the Avalon Grasses Initiative in 2016 to prevent similar introductions of grasses that have a high potential to spread on the wind—such as pampas and fountain grass–from gardens in Avalon to conservancy wildlands.  Conservancy staff quietly patrol the gardens in Avalon, looking for these exotic grasses.  When they find them they approach the property owner with their proposal to remove them and replace them with native plants.  The 20 property owners who have agreed to this proposal express satisfaction with the substitution.  This strategy seems to treat the property owners with respect. (2)

Over 200 species of non-native plants live on the island, but the conservancy considers only 35 of the species a problem.  They describe their approach to non-native plants:

“The Catalina Island Conservancy has developed a thoughtful and comprehensive set of strategies for dealing with invasive plants.  First, they realized that not all introduced plants are invasive and some are less likely to outcompete native species.  Those considered invasive were ranked according to the magnitude of the problems they present, including how widespread they are, how fast they can spread and how damaging to the local native species they are.  On the basis of this information, each highly ranked invasive species is being treated with the purpose of reducing its impact on the native communities, reducing its spread or eliminating the threat.” (1)

They acknowledge that “topical chemical treatments” are one of the methods they use to control plants they consider invasive, but details of their pesticide use are not available to me.  The conservancy is a private entity that is not subject to public record laws.

My eucalyptus litmus test

Catalina Ironwood is one of few species of native trees on the Island. It is an endemic species, like most of the native trees on the island.

There are few species of native trees on Catalina Island and their population on the island is also very small.  Therefore, most trees on the island were introduced.  Eucalyptus (mostly Red River gum and blue gum) were introduced to the island in the 1920s by the Wrigley family for a variety of reasons:  aesthetic, shade, wind break, erosion control of road cuts, etc.  Eucalypts are still there and they are the predominant tree species on the island.  Eucalyptus is found throughout the island, including the town of Avalon and several places on conservancy land, where they were planted.

 

The bark of Catalina ironwood is shredded, similar to the peeling bark of Blue Gum eucalyptus

The conservancy does not plan to eradicate eucalyptus on the island:  “The eucalyptus trees…are non-native, but are not highly invasive. Because of their non-invasive growth pattern and their place in the cultural heritage of the Island, they are not targeted for replacement, except when they die of natural causes.” (3)

The myth that eucalypts are highly flammable that is used as an excuse to eradicate them in Northern California is not heard on Catalina Island.  An enormous wildfire torched about 10% of the island in 2007.  The fire started on conservancy land and spread to the outskirts of Avalon where it was finally extinguished after destroying several homes.  The town was evacuated and its residents stood on the beach front watching the fire approach their homes.  The eucalyptus trees that surround Avalon did not burn.  In the conservancy description of the fire, no mention is made of eucalyptus.  Although the fire was started by unsafe use of mechanized equipment, the conservancy describes fire as a natural and beneficial feature of the chaparral ecosystem of the island.

A street in Avalon is named “Eucalyptus Street.” In the background are some of the eucalypts that surround the town of Avalon.

A restoration that makes sense

I have been studying native plant restorations for over 20 years.  I have finally found on Catalina a restoration that makes some sense to me.  The restoration on Catalina Island has been more constructive than it is destructive.  It has killed less and preserved more.  It preserves eucalyptus because they aren’t doing any harm.  It does not fabricate a cover story to justify killing eucalypts just because they aren’t native. 

The conservancy also acknowledges that difficult choices must be made and that differing opinions must be respected.  Recreational interests and aesthetic preferences are not always consistent with the goals of conservation.  The conservancy preserves bison because people like to see them, despite the fact that they are not native to the island. Competing interests must be balanced if the restoration is to be supported by residents of the island:  “We have realized that people are an intrinsic part of the nature of the island—an influential and fundamental component of the conservation effort.”  (1)

Most of this article comes from this book (1) which was written by the leadership of the Catalina Island Conservancy:

  1. Frank Hein & Carlos de la Rosa, Wild Catalina Island: Natural Secrets and Ecological Triumphs, Natural History Press, 2013
  2. “Protecting Catalina’s Wildlands from Invasive Plants,” Catalina Island Conservancy Times, Fall 2017
  3. Catalina Island Conservancy website: https://www.catalinaconservancy.org/

Renewal of Measure CC is an opportunity to determine the future of parks in the East Bay

In 2004, voters in Alameda and Contra Costa counties approved Measure CC, a parcel tax, to provide additional funding to East Bay Regional Park District for “Park Access, Infrastructure and Safety Improvements, Resource-Related Projects, and Reserve for Unknown Events.”  Measure CC also stipulated that “the overall commitment to natural resources shall be no less than 30% of the revenue raised by the entire measure.” (1) Measure CC is projected to provide about $47 million in the 15 years of its life. (2)

The park district is planning to put Measure CC on the ballot for renewal next year.  It’s time to look at how the park district spent our tax dollars and decide if we want to continue to give them our tax dollars for another 15 years.  If you want Measure CC funding to be used differently, now is the time to tell East Bay Regional Park District what you want…BEFORE the ballot measure is written.

Fuels Management vs. Resource Management?

The park district budgeted $10.2 million of Measure CC funding for “fuels management,” about 22% of the total available funding from Measure CC.  To date, the park district has appropriated $8.8 million of that budget allocation and spent $6.3 million.

The park district describes “fuels management:”  “All vegetation/fuels management projects for fuels reduction are in coordination with the protection and enhancement of wildlife habitat in fuel break areas and are therefore considered to be resource related.” (2)  In other words, the park district considers destroying vegetation and cutting down trees a part of its “commitment to natural resources.”

These descriptions of Measure CC projects illustrate the close relationship between fuels management and resource management: 

  • “Assess and remove hazardous trees, promote native tree regeneration.” (2)
  • “Manage exotic plant species and promote fire resistant natives to reduce the risk of wildfires.” (2)
  • “Manage vegetation for fuels reduction in coordination with the protection and enhancement of wildlife habitat in fuel break areas to provide defensible space and meet Hills Emergency Forum flame length standard.” (2)

The park district’s policies and practices are based on mistaken assumptions:

  • There is no evidence that native plants and trees are less flammable than non-native plants and trees. In fact, available evidence suggests that native landscapes in California are highly flammable.

  • Most monarchs in California spend the winter months roosting in eucalyptus trees. These trees are being destroyed in East Bay parks where monarchs have roosted in the past, such as Point Pinole.

    There is no evidence that destroying non-native trees will “enhance wildlife habitat.” In fact, wildlife habitat is being destroyed by “fuels management” projects.

The destruction of non-native trees is also controversial because the stumps of the trees and shrubs that are cut down must be sprayed with herbicide to prevent them from resprouting.  The park district used an average of 26 gallons of Garlon each year from 2000 to 2015 and 39 gallons in 2016, for that purpose.

There is a wide range of opinions about the tree removals that the park district has done since their program began in 2011, after approval of the “Wildfire Hazard Reduction and Resource Management Plan” and the associated Environmental Impact Report.  At one extreme, some people want the park district to destroy ALL non-native trees on its property.  They consider “thinning” inadequate. The Sierra Club is in that camp and has sued to enforce their wishes.  At the other extreme, some people don’t want any trees to be removed, although most would make an exception for dead and hazardous trees.

Tilden Park, Recommended Treatment Area TI001, June 5, 2016. This in one of the projects of East Bay Regional Park District, in process

After observing the park district’s tree removal projects, I have reached the conclusion that they represent a middle ground that I can accept because in many cases the canopy is intact and the forest floor is still shaded.  The shade retains the moisture that retards fire ignition as well as suppresses the growth of weeds that ignite more easily during the dry season.  In the 20+ years that I have defended our urban forest, I was always willing to accept a compromise and the park district’s methods look like a compromise to me.  I still have concerns about tree removals and they are explained HERE.  You must reach your own conclusions.

So, what’s the beef?

Unfortunately, coming to terms with the park district’s tree removals has not resolved my misgivings about how Measure CC money has been used.  In a nutshell, I believe that the park district’s “resource management” projects are based on outdated conservation practices.  I believe the park district is trying to re-create historic landscapes that are no longer adapted to environmental conditions.  Their projects are often not successful because they do not take the reality of climate change into consideration, nor do they look to the future of our environment.  They are stuck in the past.

One of the projects funded by Measure CC is typical: the effort to eradicate non-native spartina marsh grass from all park properties. The park district has been participating in the effort to eradicate all non-native spartina marsh grass from the entire West Coast for 14 years.  In the first few years, EBPRD aerial sprayed from helicopters several hundred gallons of herbicide per year.  Now the quantity of herbicide is about 25 gallons per year.

California Clapper Rail

We have known for several years that the eradication of non-native spartina has decimated the population of endangered California rails.  In 2016, a paper was published in a peer reviewed scientific journal about the huge declines in the rail population that were caused by the eradication of spartina.

The reason why the rails have been harmed by the eradication of their habitat is that non-native spartina provides superior cover for the rail.  The non-native species of spartina grows taller, more densely, and it doesn’t die back in the winter as the native species of spartina does.  When the rail begins its nesting season, there is no cover for the birds.  They are therefore being killed by their many predators.

The fact that non-native spartina provides superior cover for the birds is related to a second issue.  Non-native spartina provides superior protection from winter storm surges compared to the native species which provides no protection, even when it grows and it is NOT growing.

The US Geological Survey recently reported that sea level on the Coast of California is predicted to rise as much as 10 feet in just 70 years.  USGS predicted that 67% of Southern California’s beaches are expected to be lost by the end of the century.  Marsh grass for coastal protection is more important than ever.

The third issue is that eradicating non-native spartina has not resulted in the return of native spartina.  Even when extensive planting has been done, native spartina does not provide habitat or storm surge protection in the San Francisco Bay Area.  We should be asking if pouring hundreds of gallons of herbicide on the ground might be a factor in the unsuccessful attempt to bring native spartina back to the Bay Area.

Finally, recently published studies that compared native with non-native marsh grasses and aquatic plants with respect to the ecological functions they perform.  These studies both say, “If you look at the role of exotic water plants in an ecosystem, you won’t find any significant differences compared to indigenous species.”

The spartina eradication project is an example of conservation that no longer makes sense.  It damages the environment with herbicides.  It destroys the habitat of rare birds.  It exposes our shoreline to strong storm surges and rising sea levels.  Native vegetation does not return when it is eradicated.

Looking forward, not back

The parks are very important to me.  I visit them often and I treasure those visits.  I would like to vote for Measure CC.  I hope that the measure on the ballot will give me a reason to vote for it.

I will be looking for a revised definition of “resource management” in the ballot measure, one that acknowledges that climate change is the environmental issue of our time and that conservation must be consistent with the changes that have already occurred, as well as look forward to the changes that are anticipated in the future.  Specifically, “resource management” must respect the landscape we have now, which means not trying to eradicate it, particularly by spraying it with herbicides.  Resource management projects must be based on reality, rather than on fantasies about the past.

Opportunities to tell EBRPD what you want from Measure CC

East Bay Regional Park District is holding public meetings about Measure CC to give the public the opportunity to provide input regarding future park needs and priorities:

November 4, 10-12, Harrison Recreation Center, 1450 High St, Alameda

November 8, 2:30-4:30 pm, David Wendel Conference Center, 1111 Broadway, 19th Floor, Oakland

EBRPD asks that the public RSVP by sending an email to Monique Salas at msalas@ebparks.org or call 510-544-2008.

If you can’t attend, please send written feedback here:  publicinformation@ebparks.org.  Please tell East Bay Regional Park District what you want Measure CC funding to pay for. 

  1. Full Text of Measure CC
  2. Agenda of Park Advisory Committee, June 26, 2017. Scroll down to Measure CC Renewal Spending Plan