In order to evaluate the proposal by UC Berkeley and its partners to deforest and poison East Bay public lands, FEMA hired environmental consultants. The consultants' report was a withering critique of the plan which can be summarized in a repeating theme of their analysis: UC Berkeley is not honest in its claims about the project and “there is no scientific evidence to support the project as proposed.”
But that is not what the administrators at FEMA wanted to hear, so they succeeded in having the environmental consultants replaced. Not surprisingly, the project was then approved. But the original analysis states:
Finally, the report notes that Federal law requires that FEMA “rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives.” They have not. In fact, they fire consultants and dismiss any evidence that gets in the way of their predetermined conclusion regardless of how many people are put at risk.
But that is not what the administrators at FEMA wanted to hear, so they succeeded in having the environmental consultants replaced. Not surprisingly, the project was then approved. But the original analysis states:
- Claims by UC Berkeley that “native” vegetation will grow when Eucalyptus trees are clearcut is not supported by the evidence. Instead, highly flammable grasses like French broom will, increasing the risk and severity of fire.
- Contrary to proponent’s claims, the project “does not include any plans for native revegetation.”
- Plans to spread chipped trees to a depth of two feet is a fire risk via “spontaneous combustion that can occur when decomposition of organic materials creates enough energy in a pile to ignite a fire.” Moreover, these piles can “not only sustain a localized burn but to connect fuels in vegetation types.” It will take about 10 years to abate this threat, possibly longer.
- Proposed brush and grasslands burn “faster” and are “easier to ignite and carry fire quickly across a landscape” and are “one of the most hazardous wildland fuel types” with “flame lengths that far exceed those of the other possible vegetation types.”
- These “fires burn with great intensity and are difficult to fight.”
- Monterey Pine trees, which are also going to be clearcut, would “not pose a [fire] threat” if ground fuels are picked up (which the Oakland Fire Department is obligated but refuses to do) and in the absence of Eucalyptus.
- Acacia trees, which are also going to be clearcut, “do not pose a substantial fire hazard.”
- If the goal is “native” vegetation, the project will not meet its goal. Replacing the trees will be “a non-native mix of Mediterranean grasses, Italian thistle, English ivy, various broom species, and vinca.”
Finally, the report notes that Federal law requires that FEMA “rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives.” They have not. In fact, they fire consultants and dismiss any evidence that gets in the way of their predetermined conclusion regardless of how many people are put at risk.
