Seattle's Proposed New Green Code....Really?? 75% Native Plant Mandate??

The city of Seattle is considering a new green code that calls for removal of invasives, oversight of planting plans in even private landscapes (I think that's what it means, although I can't quite believe it) and 75% native plants when replacing landscapes. Honestly, this is hard to take seriously as it lacks specifics and is so out of line with the nursery industry and home gardeners.

Scott Vergara, in his excellent response to the city (below) asks what this means for our public landscapes - an arboretum filled with salal and big leaf maple? His letter is filled with specific examples and questions. Please read it and weigh in with the city as soon as possible.

Here's the City's proposal, with information on who to contact:

Green Code Provisions
HEALTHY LANDSCAPES
Please send your comments to Kathleen Petrie at kathleen.petrie@seattle.gov or Attn: Kathleen Petrie, 700 5th Avenue, Suite 2000, Seattle, WA 98124
4. Invasive species and native vegetation:
 
Concept Background:
The following draft code concept is under co-development by participating jurisdictions in the Puget Sound Region. The intent is to encourage native plan selection in order to reduce the use of fertilizers, water and the strain often imposed on native environments by foreign constraining species. This provision would apply to all new vegetated landscapes, or those to be replaced. This draft concept does not yet appear in proper code format, but comments are appreciated based on the information provided.
Draft Concept:
Invasive plant species shall be prohibited from a building site.
A plan shall be submitted to show that existing invasive species will be removed, and that 75% of all new plantings will be native to Western Washington. Said plan shall be prepared by a qualified professional or generated based upon published recommendations.
Existing native plant life shall be protected whenever possible.

And here's Scott's response:

Dear Ms. Petrie:
 
I would like to submit the following comments.
 
 As a professional horticulturist with well over 35 years of practical work experiences ranging from working in independent garden centers, large wholesale nurseries as well as small retail operations, teaching over 14 subjects in horticulture programs at community colleges in the Puget Sound region, working as the Executive Director of the Rhododendron Species Botanical Garden in Federal Way, WA in the early 1990’s  I feel compelled to comment on the draft  Green Code Provisions 4  Invasive species and native vegetation provision.
 
I realize this is a draft concept but the vagueness and over reaching aspects had me staring at my computer screen utterly speechless for several minutes as I reread the section, thinking of the disastrous impact implementation of this provision would have on a region wide industry that generates many millions of dollars in sales and tax revenues and provides thousands of jobs.  Equally important to realize would be the negative culture changing impact on a region known nationally and internationally as a horticultural Mecca.   People visit the region to see native/natural areas such as the Olympic Peninsula AND the fantastic plantings of the URBAN horticulture scene.
 
The 75% requirement of western Washington natives for all new plantings is draconian and intrusive.  I found no distinction between commercial, private, or governmental agency properties.  Since the draft suggests this applies to “replacement” plantings, does this require that every time a planting of annuals or perennials is reworked you can only replant 25% back into similar plants and the other 75% must be natives, and this repeats each year?   You can see where this is going.  What about edible landscaping, fruit trees and vegetable beds?   If a windstorm topples a tree and this destroys a planting of four specimens of Acer palmatium does that mean you can only replant one Acer palmatum and have to plant only western Washington natives in the remaining area?  Would several windstorms turn the world renowned collections at the Washington Park Arboretum of the University of Washington Botanic Gardens into a non descript assemblage of big-leaf maples, alders, salal, and Douglas-fir?
 
Plans for new and replacement landscapes are to be submitted for review?!  Really????   Who will do the reviews?  Appeal process? Who pays for this? Is there staff and funding available?  As you can gather from my questions, I find this part of the code to likely be unmanageable.

The idea that all new and replacement landscape plans must be prepared by a “qualified professional” or generated based upon “published recommendations” is just plan scary.  Who are these “qualified professionals”?  Would these qualified individuals be required to be certified as to being knowledgeable about all the various micro climates and soil conditions in our region and which plants are suitable?   Who is going to pay for these professional plans?   Any “qualified professional” who suggests that a big-leaf maple be installed in residential of business plantings should have their appellation stripped and sent to work on a cleanup crew after an ice storm.

Who would put together the “published recommendations”?  Would this be the same group that proposed this section of the code in the first place?  And these people were qualified because of……????  And who picked them to be on the advisory groups?   And how were they vetted?  And just because a plant is on some list, doesn’t mean it is available.    Listing a plant as being “native” to a region or stream drainage or to your one acre back yard does not mean it is suitable or appropriate throughout the specific site being landscaped for the first time or in the landscape being replaced.  Let’s not venture into the area of provenance and ecotypes just yet.
 
Also, how would this be enforced?  Who would do the enforcing? There is money in city budgets to pay for this?  I really don’t think city governments should look to the US Congress and follow their lead of unfunded mandates.  I would hope we are better than that.
 
 I appreciate your thoughtful consideration of my comments and act to withdraw this premature proposal.  Invasive species are a huge problem, one that needs to be worked on throughout our region.  However, attempting to turn back the hands of time to try and remake a NON Native environment like the metropolitan Seattle area into a pre 1492 setting, demonstrates in my honest opinion, severe myopia and a simplistic thought process.
 
Hopefully you have stirred up some people with this proposal and received at least a few comments.  Hopefully more eyes will be watching what comes out of various committees and what attempts at code revisions are contemplated.
 
Respectfully,
Scott Vergara
 
Scott Vergara
Proprietor
WOODLAND GARDENS
P.O. BOX 419
BURLEY, WA 98322-0419
 
 
 

Comments

[Robin Haglund]

Valerie & Scott, Thanks for getting the word out there and for sharing Scott's letter. Many in the industry have written in, and we must hope they're listening. I recently learned that there is a closed-door meeting coming up in early September during with horticulture industry organizations like APLD, WALP and WSNLA will be sitting down with whoever/whatever agency actually drafted this to discuss. I hope we'll all hear the results of our letters and this meeting in the very near future. Robin H. Garden Mentors inc

[Deirdre]

The idea is well intentioned but has holes you could drive a truck through. What does 75% mean? Could it mean 75 star flowers and twenty five exotic trees? Who approves the plans? What are their qualifications? What are their guidelines, if any, based on? What about the fact that most plants native to western Washington are woodland plants requiring a tree canopy and forest duff, both of which are hard to find in an urban setting? What about the fact that most natives deal with our summer drought by going dormant and looking like hell or disappearing? Who do the rules apply to?
I can get behind banning and removing plants on the states noxious plant list. That would be a step in the right direction, but the way the draft reads, I have reservations.

[elizabeth oseid]

I have been encouraged by fhe efforts that are underway by mostly volunteer groups in the area to restore public land by removing invasives and replanting (where appropriate) with native species. This approach is very useful for hillsides such as Lewis Park, and Rizal, but I don't know how useful it would be to implement a heavy handed approach as rhe one mentioned above sounds like.

It would be more appropriate to use educafion to encourage thoughtful landscaping, which would of course avoid invasive species that could easily escape the garden, and would encourage use of native species where it makes sense. I think there is an interest in restoring native habitat, but that does not mean it is appropriate for each and every landscape. To take this program to its extreme (though I do not think that it is intended to be so strictly interpreted) one might wonder about the legality of having a vegetable garden. Or sbout maintaining fruit orchards.

[R]

Unless the City ... and the State ... rid all of THEIR public spaces of blackberry and ivy and Scotch broom, this is simply stupid.

We're talkin' the UW campus ... the entire "camp" of Joint Base.

Furthermore: There is a distinct difference between an "introduced" and an "invasive" species. An introduced species is not, by definition, "invasive."

I'm all for banning/controlling noxious weeds: Spent the first 18 years of my life pulling tansey ragwort on my family farm in SW Washington .. Thanks to the Fed Gov't which planted it as a "soil stabilizer" after the Yacolt Burn.

[sue]

Well written examination of a not well thought out plan. Nicely done, Scott. Thanks for getting the word out Val.

[DariaW]

Earlier this summer I was snickering at cities in the news w/ plans and ordinances that squelch the kind of creativity and vitality that Seattle gardeners are famous for. Personally, I love native plants and grow up to 40 different species and cultivars of species in my garden, but I'm not willing to let them be 75% of my garden, especially as so many native shrubs sucker something fierce. Please, Seattle gardeners, unleash a firestorm on your city government!

[Connie Fliegel]

Sounds like the Nativestas have a new agenda; one can only hope they will be awakened to the biological diversity encouraged by both nature and humans. Most of the comment comes from the wet side of the state, so I hope you won’t mind a little perspective from a former wet side resident now residing on the dry side of the state. I agree wholeheartedly with the cogent comments already stated and would only add that soil types will add another wrinkle to this flawed plan. I would hate to give up my Iris, Pines, Agastache, or various Miscanthus (to name some plant life that does well here without the aid of fertilizers) in favor of bitter brush, rabbit brush, rice grass, or sage brush. The dry side of the state has a beautiful shrub steppe collection of native plants that bloom (with a few exceptions) in the spring for a couple of weeks and then disappear. If the object of this group is to minimize the use of water and chemicals, many of the new cultivars and hybrids are easier to grow, look better longer and don’t need fertilizer. Please plant this gardener firmly in the diversity column with the hardy cultivars, hybrids, and natives.

[Laweinberg]

Alien plants do not provide biodiversity, alien plants diminish biodiversity (don't take my word for it look up Tallamy's research). The human behavior of decorating the outside of our homes like we decorate the inside of our homes does not serve sustainable biodiversity. That picture you put on the wall inside your home is not the same as that "pretty look at plant" that that you stick in your garden: the plant spreads eventually and it is no longer your attractive little plant that you look at, it is now spreading and/or displacing useful native plants that sustain biodiversity. These "pretty look at plants" are now all over every yard and every cubic foot of these plants displace habitat that could be bio-useful but are not. Our ignorance and behavior have turned our urban, suburban and rural gardens into dead zones that do not support any insects, birds or other critters. We humans are so arrogant and selfish that we can't allow a little insect damage to a few native plants for the benefit of a few butterflies, birds and other critters. It is time for the gardening industries to stop the environmental damage caused by alien plants and to think seriously about the attitude of denial toward the science that supports sustaining biodiversity using native plants. The "pretty to look at" gardens are really ugly if you know what they actually do. It is really sick that we humans simply can't share our environment with other creatures due to our selfish desire to have everything we look at be subjectively lovely. I garden with native plants and everyday I get to see the amazing creatures that my garden provides home to.

[Ian Barclay]

Laweinberg: You're implying that because something isn't native it automatically should be shunned as an invasive. Tens of thousands of plants have been cultivated in the Northwest, yet only a handful of these have made it to the noxious weed list: these are largely prohibited from nursery sale. If anything, most annuals and certain perennials (Heuchera, anyone?) have the opposite problem: they aren't bred to be tough enough to survive in an outdoor environment without tons of pampering in what becomes an essentially artificial setting. On this we may agree; that any plant pumped up with synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and growth regulators and tons of excess water is detrimental to native plants and wildlife. But let's create regulations that focus on eliminating these harmful practices rather than reducing diversity of plantings based on the false assumption that exotic plants are *automatically* problematic.

Furthermore, let's remember that 15,000 years ago Seattle was under a mile-thick sheet of ice. The native plants/communities have changed significantly several times since then and are currently far more arbitrary than people usually think.

[eric nelson]

Thank you, Scot, for your excellent presentation and you, Val, for bringing his words into the light. Most people really do not want to damage the environment in which they and their families live, but nobody has a reasonably well-researched concept, much less a list, to show what is a sound choice and what is not. In my career analyzing the environmental consequences of various materials and applications and helping people choose standards and measurement processes to optimize their choices, it became clear that we can't arrive at a regulatory approach until we have arrived at well-reasoned and researched standards and specifications. This well-intentioned draft policy and the comments herein are a promising start to a much larger conversation. Might we hope to look to the UW Center for Urban Horticulture for leadership and venue?

[eric nelson]

Establishing meaningful standards of environmental preferability for use in contract specification is a central issue in contracting, and we are pleased to see the City of Seattle set its objectives so plainly on being GREEN.

Because every project or process takes place within its own context, design and specification must serve the specific requirements of that context. What is GREEN in one time and place is not assured to be GREEN in any other, and the only way to ensure you are GREENer is through application of standards we are only beginning to envision, expose to informed public and academic scrutiny, implement, and promote.

The rigor of this process struggles against the pressure of relentless commercial and pop-cultural assertions of GREENness that seldom offer evidence. In fact, few claims can be proven in any direction until we have developed, tested, and implemented standards applicable to limitless numbers of rapidly developing products.

By soliciting comment upon this draft proposal, the City of Seattle has opened a conversation that can inform broad and useful questions about what GREEN means and how to show its truth in any context. Does GREEN mean GREEN for humans, wildlife, air, water, soils, future generations? How? Is there a formula? and how can we prove it? This is not a short or easy process, but necessary to help us all manage the impacts of our behavior toward environmental benefit and provide models others can test and improve.

This discussion of the draft City policy presented here has represented a team that could inform this intention to environmental benefit with insight and practical experience. Let's hope to help the city make use of this resource.

Until clearer guidelines are formulated, we need to use our eyes, our brains, and our colleagues to just do less environmental damage and more environmental good. It's not rocket science and "to encourage thoughtful landscaping" is a great place to start, then we can tell everybody about our success, so they can do it too.

[CP]

There are two threads on this here, and because I have a long comment on the other thread I will be brief here. The city's proposal truly stuns and scares me. Not so much because they want to encourage "native" plants (whatever that really means), or discourage "invasive" plants (whatever that really means), but because the City of Seattle wants to force every homeowner to get local government approval before planting their garden.

Just think of the expense, the hassle, the joylessness, the irritation. Not to mention the petty humiliation of having to get the approval of some faceless, do-gooding bureaucrat at city hall to put in a plant.

These people are absolutely unreal. The city planning department is obviously very overstaffed, and has way, way, WAY too much time on its hands!

[CP]

Eric, I have a different idea. Maybe the City of Seattle should "open the conversation" by not being egregiously vague, scary, stupid, and ignorant of what other cities in the Pacific NW have done about noxious plants.

This reminds me a little bit of the city's recent ban on plastic grocery bags, which was sold as the "green" thing to do. Guess what? It turns out that, of all the different kinds of bags you can use in a grocery store, including the reusable cloth kind, the kind that the city banned is the "greenest" one you can use.

So now we have some idiot from city hall coming to tell us that annuals, lawns, and any plant that wasn't growing here 400 years ago has to not only be banned, but removed. And that same city wants to require anyone who's replacing their garden or planting a new one to get his plan approved by these aggressively ignorant people?

God help us!

[valerie Easton]

Dear Mr. Browne,
I've deleted your comment - if you'd like to respond to Scott or Ian in a polite and respectful way I'd be happy to have your opinions published on my blog. But I won't accept any snarky, rude, disrespectful comments here on Plant Talk....
Val Easton

[Tony Avent]

So, are they also applying the same standards to pets, edible crops, lawns, insects, and of course, that truly invasive species, Homo sapiens...or is this only an attack on the defenseless, but easily targeted ornamental plant industry?

[niall dunne]

Truly bizarre to even consider applying such a code to home gardens, if that's the intention. Though I wouldn't have a problem with banning the sale/use of known invasives. Good letter by Scott. Could have done without the crude caricature of PNW natives, though.

[eric nelson]

I'm actually on board, I think; stay with me:
Yes, lunacy abides, but all this fuss has brought together a strong group of contributors. Maybe we and our friends can grow this idea: this community can put together a world-class model program to promote appropriate garden and landscape practices. Candidates for inclusion immediately include UW CUH, WSU Extension, the WSU Master Gardener Program hosted at CUH, the Miller library and it's network of allies in the community, and the regional community colleges, Seattle Tilth...

About that bag ban: can anybody help me find the data supporting the ban? Here we see representation that 'the bag the city banned is the "greenest" one you can use', a sharp reminder that we still don't have workable standards of environmental preferability.

[CP]

There was no data supporting the ban on plastic bags. No one ever offered any data. It was entirely driven by sentiment: talk about the so-called plastic trash island in the Pacific Ocean, which isn't an island and doesn't contain any grocery bags.

We were told that birds and marine life are endangered by plastic bags. Apparently, someone found one in an orca's stomach. We were told that plastic bags "clog landfills," when in fact a plastic bag takes less than one-fourth of the space in a landfill that a paper sack takes.

It goes on and on. And no, I'm not from some chemical lobbying group. It's all about whether people are going to have a factual discussion or not. If for some reason that issue interests you, then you can read through this report by Britain's equivalent of the Environmental Protection Agency.

It conclusively and thoroughly shows, from every angle, that the bags Seattle banned are the most environmentally friendly ones, and that includes the reusable cloth sacks that the uber-"environmentalists" think are the best, but actually are the worst. Even the biodegradable plastic bags are worse than the standard kind.

http://www.biodeg.org/files/uploaded/Carrier_Bags_Report_EA.pdf

As far as the garden requirements go, these geniuses from city hall didn't even bother to tell us what they think a "native" plant is, much less why they hate our flowers, tomatoes, spices, and veggies.