Experts do not support the plan to deforest and poison the hills:

• URS, FEMA’s environmental consultants, stated that “there is no scientific evidence to support the project as proposed;” 
• The U.S. Forest Service objected, saying it would “increase the probability of [fire] ignition over current conditions” because “removal of the overstory trees can introduce changes to the environment which increase fire behavior in undesirable ways;” 
• Former Oakland firefighter, Chief of Fire Prevention at the Oakland Army Base, and member of the Task Force for Emergency Preparedness convened after the 1991 fire stated that this plan “turns fire science on its head” and called it “a land transformation disguised as a wildfire hazard mitigation plan,” that “will endanger firefighters and the general public; and … be an outrageous waste of taxpayer money;”
• Another U.S. Forest Service study found that reducing the risk to homes from a wildfire does not involve clear cutting vast amount of trees: “home losses can be effectively reduced by focusing mitigation efforts on the structure [such as requiring a fireproof roof] and its immediate surroundings;”
  
• A fire scientist from the U.S. Forest Services says that in the 1991 Oakland fire, Eucalyptus trees were not to be blame, that they “did not burn with high intensities leading to home destruction,” and that removing them would increase fire danger.
  
• The Environmental Protection Agency stated that, “the project could result in degradation of natural resources,” is not likely to “provide for natural regeneration,” and is predicated on “extensive use of herbicides” and “risks posed to human health and the environment from that use;” and further expressed concerns about the “potential impacts of climate change on the Project area,” including “the length and severity of the fire season,” “stressed water supplies,” and “the rate and distribution of harmful timber insects and diseases;”
• The U.S. Geological Survey noted that most fires burn in shrublands and grasslands (and urban areas), the exact environment in which the 1991 Firestorm ignited and which native plant ideologues want to recreate in the hills;

• FEMA admitted that the plan will result in “unavoidable adverse impacts … to vegetation, wildlife and habitats, protected species, soils, water quality, aesthetics, community character, human health and safety, recreation, and noise;”
• A Chief of Fire Prevention says it “imperils the public” and “endangers the firefighters who will be called to fight the fires” because of “improper wildfire hazard management” that puts “ideology ahead of fire science.”

See also "Weed Whackers" in Harper's by clicking here.