Nearly a half million trees will be destroyed in the east Bay if FEMA project is approved (San Francisco: 2013, construction)

[azoria]

"UCB and Oakland plan to remove all non-native trees (eucalyptus, Monterey pine, acacia, etc.) and vegetation from the project area. All non-native trees up to approximately 24 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) will be cut into wood chips and scattered on the ground of the project area. They estimate that 20% of the project area will be covered with wood chips to a depth of 24 inches. The DEIS estimates that the wood chips will take from 5 to 10 years to decompose. Larger trees will be cut up and scattered on the site.

Although UCB and Oakland do not intend to plant the project areas (unless erosion subsequent to tree removals demands seeding of native grasses and herbaceous plants), they predict that the project area will eventually become native grassland, scrub, and forest of coast live oak, California bay laurel, big-leaf maple, California buckeye, and California hazelnut. They predict that this conversion from non-native to native vegetation will be accomplished by “recruitment” from areas where these plants exist, into the areas where non-native plants and trees will be removed.

The stumps of eucalyptus and acacia will be sprayed with an herbicide (Garlon with the active ingredient triclopyr) soon after the trees are cut down to prevent resprouting. An estimated 1 – 2 ounces of formulated herbicide will be required for each stump. Based on an experiment conducted by East Bay Regional Park District, an estimated 5% of the trees will require retreatment of subsequent resprouts. They are therefore predicting that between 703 and 1,407 gallons of herbicide will be required to prevent resprouting if only 5% of the stumps require retreatment as they claim. Monterey pines will not require herbicide treatment which reduces this estimate proportionately, although we are not provided with enough information to make this calculation. Herbicide (Roundup with active ingredient glyphosate) will also be sprayed to control non-native vegetation, but no estimates of quantities required for that purpose are provided by the DEIS."







Comments on this document must be submitted by June 17, 2013. You may submit written comments in several ways:

1. Via the project website: Home
2. At the public meetings listed above
3. By email: EBH-EIS-FEMA-RIX@fema.dhs.gov
4. By mail: P.O. Box 72379, Oakland, CA 94612-8579
5. By fax: 510-627-7147

Nearly a HALF MILLION trees will be destroyed if these East Bay projects are approved | Death of a Million Trees

FEMA Plans Clear-Cutting of 85,000 Berkeley and Oakland Trees
BeyondChron: San Francisco's Alternative Online Daily News » FEMA Plans Clear-Cutting of 85,000 Berkeley and Oakland Trees

[bountybligh]

Jesus. How is that their jurisdiction exactly? You'd think it would be Forestry or something. Are they seizing jurisdiction on the theory that they can move to prevent any feasible disaster irregardless if it's state or federal land?

Better cut down every tree between here and DC then. It's all a fire hazard...

You normally think of them responding after a disaster, not mitigating prior to. Guess I should look at their charter and stuff.

[BuickGS]

Well if it stops a future disaster is that a bad thing?

[bountybligh]

What's the probability of the future disaster though? That reasoning could be used to cut down every tree near where anybody lives. Can't fly planes anymore in the interest of preventing future disasters.

I don't know the rationale actually or the probability of a fire in that area, it's why I asked the questions I did basically.

I am not sure why FEMA is out in front on this.

[azoria]

Not to mention the application of 1,000 gallons of roundup in a densely populated area.....

[imcurious]

Ridiculous.

"Native" and "Non-Native" are social constructs.

Nature doesn't discriminate.

"Non-Native" becomes "Native" over time. If they didn't acclimate, they would die off.

In the end, you CANNOT control nature.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by imcurious

Ridiculous.

"Native" and "Non-Native" are social constructs.

Nature doesn't discriminate.

"Non-Native" becomes "Native" over time. If they didn't acclimate, they would die off.

In the end, you CANNOT control nature.

From an evolutionary biological standpoint, this makes no sense what so ever.

[imcurious]

1) There is no such thing as "native." No one can claim to know where anything came from originally.
2) Where is it written that species should not migrate (despite the method, whether it be birds spreading seeds or people planting plants)?

The entire idea of "native" is a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT (made up by someone for some political or social purpose).

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by imcurious

1) There is no such thing as "native." No one can claim to know where anything came from originally.
2) Where is it written that species should not migrate (despite the method, whether it be birds spreading seeds or people planting plants)?

The entire idea of "native" is a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT (made up by someone for some political or social purpose).

Again your lack of biological knowledge is showing. I can do this with you all night.

1. If you believe there's no such thing as native, then you don't know what native is, end of story. Native is an organism that has evolved with it's environment, through the changes, along with it's natural enemies and as such becomes part of the environment it is in. If you think no one can claim what's native where, do some research kid. pay special attention to speciation, genetic drift, gene flow and the founder effect which brings me to your next piece of misinformation.

2. We're not talking about a species migrating. Being transported by human does not in any logical persons brain constitute a migration For starters, plants do not migrate. Being earth bound kinda sorta prevents that Birds spreading seeds is a natural process. In order for that to happen, the seeds must either a. be tolerant of being in the air for long periods as well as having a tolerance for salt and b. must be able to stay and pass undigested in the stomachs of whatever birds ate them. just as not every seed can naturally make the journey, neither can every bird capable of spreading such seeds.

You mention a social construct. I've heard this idiotic argument before. the natural world doesn't care about our social order. it was here before we had one and with any luck will be here after we're gone. When a species is unnaturally placed in a foreign environment where it has no natural enemies and therefore can wreak havoc unchecked, that's not natural, I don't care what planet you've been living on where you were mislead to believe otherwise.

Care to try this again?

[imcurious]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Again your lack of biological knowledge is showing. I can do this with you all night.

1. If you believe there's no such thing as native, then you don't know what native is, end of story. Native is an organism that has evolved with it's environment, through the changes, along with it's natural enemies and as such becomes part of the environment it is in. If you think no one can claim what's native where, do some research kid. pay special attention to speciation, genetic drift, gene flow and the founder effect which brings me to your next piece of misinformation.

2. We're not talking about a species migrating. Being transported by human does not in any logical persons brain constitute a migration For starters, plants do not migrate. Being earth bound kinda sorta prevents that Birds spreading seeds is a natural process. In order for that to happen, the seeds must either a. be tolerant of being in the air for long periods as well as having a tolerance for salt and b. must be able to stay and pass undigested in the stomachs of whatever birds ate them. just as not every seed can naturally make the journey, neither can every bird capable of spreading such seeds.

You mention a social construct. I've heard this idiotic argument before. the natural world doesn't care about our social order. it was here before we had one and with any luck will be here after we're gone. When a species is unnaturally placed in a foreign environment where is has no natural enemies and therefore can wreak havoc unchecked, that's not natural, I don't care what planet you've been living on where you were mislead to believe otherwise.

Care to try this again?

I have no interest in arguing with you and find your tone rude and condescending. You are obviously an objectivist and believe in the "reality" you learned in some textbook.

I am talking about social construction - in this case, just say that "nature knows best," and leave out all of the details. "Man" does not trump nature - we only think we do.

Back to the OP: This is a bad idea for lots of reasons - the logical error of thinking that species are "non-native," therefore are "bad" and must be killed. The use of herbicides, which are by their nature poisonous to the environment - ALL of the environment, including flora and fauna - all forms of life.

The end.