Nearly a half million trees will be destroyed in the east Bay if FEMA project is approved (Oakland: home, gardens)

[TheDragonslayer]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

That wasn't what I asked but thanks

What are you asking? The eucalyptus tree is not edible to native fauna, it does not handle the brief and infrequent cold spells too well and that is part of why it is a dangerous tree. Oak trees are edible to the fauna and handles the cold and heat very well. The eucalyptus spreads like crazy and creates an even larger impact on the fire danger. It is the most dangerous of the trees in the hills, that and coyote bush and acacia trees.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Mr5150

The aforementioned (non-native) trees were introduced by the white man. Simple as that. Any questions? I for one fully support the removal of non-native vegetation, some of which is harmful to the natural environment. More so than the herbicides. Herbicides are but for a season. No so the invasive vegetation.

Read up:

Kudzu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ya beat me to the punch. I was going to bring up kudzu as a prime example of a non-native, destructive plant with no "socially" redeeming features despite some potential commercial uses. "Social construct?" I think not. More an invasive species like a cancer on the land. It just flat out takes over. It's more of a blight than anything else.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by TheDragonslayer

What are you asking? The eucalyptus tree is not edible to native fauna, it does not handle the brief and infrequent cold spells too well and that is part of why it is a dangerous tree. Oak trees are edible to the fauna and handles the cold and heat very well. The eucalyptus spreads like crazy and creates an even larger impact on the fire danger. It is the most dangerous of the trees in the hills, that and coyote bush and acacia trees.

This isn't entirely true. White-Crowned Sparrows have been found to eat the young seeds of Eucalyptus globulus as well as Band-Tailed Pigeons. Bolluck's Oriole's feed on the nectar of it's flowers. Because of it's height, birds of pray, especially Red-Tailed Hawks frequently use them for nesting. When I said earlier they are becoming naturalized, that's what naturalized means. Now this isn't to say that it isn't a problem still, just not as big of one as other introduced species. I'd be all for removing it if there were a better plan to replace the native trees rather than covering the area with mulch or whatever.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Ya beat me to the punch. I was going to bring up kudzu as a prime example of a non-native, destructive plant with no "socially" redeeming features despite some potential commercial uses. "Social construct?" I think not. More an invasive species like a cancer on the land. It just flat out takes over. It's more of a blight than anything else.

Now that plant is crazy. Destroys everything where it goes.

[Sierravillian]

Originally Posted by TheDragonslayer
What are you asking? The eucalyptus tree is not edible to native fauna, it does not handle the brief and infrequent cold spells too well and that is part of why it is a dangerous tree. Oak trees are edible to the fauna and handles the cold and heat very well. The eucalyptus spreads like crazy and creates an even larger impact on the fire danger. It is the most dangerous of the trees in the hills, that and coyote bush and acacia trees.

Monarch Butterflies have adapted quite nicely to eucs, they winter in them down along the coast.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Sierravillian

Monarch Butterflies have adapted quite nicely to eucs, they winter in them down along the coast.

Back in the dark ages when Orange County was actually full of orange orchards they made great wind-breaks.

[TomThumb22]

They still act as such in many areas of the Central Valley.

We are a bit short on the monarchs though on the valley floor. Have seen less than ever before this spring.

[sequoias]

I think it would be best to leave as it is. Trees can grow anywhere the climate is suited for. For example, there's redwood and sequoia trees growing in New Zealand and Europe, coast redwoods in high elevations of Hawaii, etc.

I don't believe it cause impact to the nature. If they replaced the urban areas with native landscape, it would be a huge difference. If you wanted to get the picture what the native area looked like, go to Mt. Diablo area.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by 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

This is ecological restoration.

This is in long run is a good thing. Eucalyptus really doesn't belong here. And its not just preference, there are very good reasons why regeneration, and reintroduction of natives is a good thing.

Eucalyptus supports many, many animals in its native Australia. But in California - its a virtual ecological desert. Few birds and other animals really use it.

[Tex?Il?]

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).

What do you think all those biologists do at the universities??

Of course species migrate - but at much, much lower rates, than what humans introduce. When plants and animals are introduced by people, its a shock to the system.