where we get our information
Tree Cutting
The federal agency funding, in large part, this current deforestation project is FEMA, which released an Environmental Impact Statement describing the exact nature and scope of the work to be done. It gives a detailed account of the trees to be cut down in each targeted area and the herbicides to be spread. For instance:
Here is what the FEMA EIS prescribed for Claremont Canyon:
EIS 3.4.2.2.2 Claremont-PDM is largely a eucalyptus forest... About 10,000 trees would be cut down, mainly eucalyptus with some pine and acacia.
Here is what the FEMA EIS prescribed for Strawberry Canyon:
FEMA EIS 3.4.2.2.1 Strawberry Canyon-PDM
... Approximately 12,000 eucalyptus, pine, and acacia trees would be cut down...The Strawberry Canyon-PDM project may involve closure of Centennial Drive for a few hours at a time to allow cutting and skidding of trees growing close to the road.
Both Claremont and Strawberry Canyons would then be treated with cancer-causing herbicides. For Strawberry Canyon, the EIS states:
To prevent resprouting, an herbicide solution would be applied ... to the cambium ring of eucalyptus and acacia stumps within 60 minutes of felling. The herbicide mixture would likely consist of a combination of Garlon 4 or Garlon 3A (triclopyr) and Stalker (imazapyr) in a solution of methylated seed oil, water, and marking dye. A typical tree requires 1 to 2 ounces of diluted solution. Treatment of pine stumps is not necessary because pine stumps do not produce sprouts... trees would be chipped using a grapple-fed chipper or a tracked chipper. Whole trees would be fed into the chipper and pulled through the blades by a conveyor belt and feed wheel. ..The wood chips are expected to be between 1 and 4 inches long and would be spread on up to 20% of the site to a maximum depth of 24 inches... Branches from trees greater than 24 inches DBH would be cut up and scattered on the site (lopped and scattered). The trunks of these trees would typically be cut into 20- to 30-foot lengths... However, if the site yields a large number of large tree trunks, some may be moved to an adjacent portion of the hillside or shipped for use as fuel, a source of paper pulp, or horse bedding. The potential to obtain funds from the sale of salvaged wood materials is not part of the current project although that may result indirectly in those cases where there are too many large tree trunks to leave on site... Twice a year, herbicides (Garlon 4, Garlon 3A, Stalker, or Roundup [glyphosate]) would be applied to any sprouts emerging from stumps. Eucalyptus seedlings emerging from seeds would be managed to prevent recolonization of the site ... Follow-up treatments twice a year would include a low-volume herbicide spray applied to resprouted foliage between 3 and 6 feet in height. Follow-up treatments may also include a basal bark application or cutting the sprout and treating the cut surface with herbicide. On some resprouts and seedlings, Roundup may be applied to foliage in combination with Stalker....UCB anticipates that eradication of all eucalyptus resprouts and seedlings on the Strawberry Canyon-PDM site would take 7 to 10 years after the mature trees are cut.
In various other sections, it uses similar language. In the Draft ES at 7.2.2.1 (North Hills-Skyline), for example, the goal is not thinning as proponents now claim in order to defray opposition. It is to “eradicate eucalyptus and Monterey pine across the entire ridgline.” In the final EIS, the tree cutting would be the same, but spread out over a longer period of time. At ES.7.2.2.2 (Caldecott Tunnel), it says the goal is “to convert the eucalyptus-dominated forest to annual grassland.” In the final EIS, once again, the tree cutting would be spread out over a longer period of time but achieve the same result. At Frowning Ridge (EIS.3.4.2.3.3), it says “all eucalyptus, Monterey pine, and acacia” will be chopped down (“Approximately 25,000 eucalyptus and pine trees ... would be cut down.”). The words “eradicate” and “all” are incompatible with the notion of thinning.
In addition to the FEMA EIS, we are also relying on the East Bay Regional Park District’s "Wildfire Hazard Reduction Plan and Resource Plan,” which served as the basis for the FEMA EIS, and the EBRPD website where they acknowledge their long term goal is conversion of Eucalyptus and Pine forest to grassland, and cite public opposition as something they need to overcome in order to do so, writing, “Eucalyptus and pine conversion to native species is a long-term goal with economics and public acceptance being the main factors in determining the pace of the transition.” In other words: it is too costly and people do not want it. Although their job is to implement the public will (the forests belong to all of us collectively), instead they have embarked on a campaign to overcome public opposition through false scare tactics about fire, lying about the amount and dangerousness of pesticides to be used, and lying to people about the extent of the destruction of our forests.
Despite these documents which clearly state that their aim is to “eradicate” vast portions of our forests on 2,059 acres of public land, the various agencies are making claims intended to create the impression that the nature and scope of the work to be done has yet to be determined, has not already been copiously documented and has not already been approved by each of the agencies involved. For example, the East Bay Regional Parks District claims that it is only “very selectively thinning out dead trees, dying trees, saplings as well,” U.C. Berkeley says it does not know how many trees will be cut down or which ones. And the City of Oakland is saying they will only “thin” the trees. But under the documents above, essentially their own grant application, their long-range strategic plan, and the FEMA grant they voted to accept, they admit the goal is to convert forests to “grassland with islands of shrubs.” More specifically, U.C. Berkeley’s grant application to FEMA proposed removal of 52,000 trees “including all eucalyptus, Monterey pine, and acacia trees.” 22,000 trees will be clear cut in Strawberry and Claremont Canyon (which amounts to all of these trees) and 25,000 at Frowning Ridge (which amounts to all of these trees). Their own proposal, their own grant application, and the grant itself contradicts U.C. Berkeley’s claim. The same with the City of Oakland, which admitted it will “convert … forest to annual grassland…” by removing all the Eucalyptus and Monterey Pine over three years: ⅓ each year until they are gone. (Statement of Vince Crudele, Press Conference, June 2, 2015.)
The EBRPD, said their goal is to “eradicate eucalyptus and Monterey pine across the entire ridgeline” in order to convert the area to “grassland.” In addition to removing "entire groves" on ridgelines, it will cut down by as much as 90% of the trees elsewhere based on their “Wildfire Hazard Reduction Plan and Resource Plan,” which FEMA approved. EBRPD reports that the average density of eucalyptus forests is about 650 trees per acre (and as much as 900 trees). They have called for reduction to about 60 trees per acre, roughly 90% fewer trees. Indeed, the FEMA grant is specific as to what will happen in each park. Based on these before and after densities, we estimate about 400,000 trees will be chopped down. Said one critic, “Such an extreme reduction in tree density cannot be accurately described as ‘selectively removing or thinning.’”
Indeed, FEMA admits that “unavoidable adverse impacts would occur with respect to vegetation, wildlife and habitats, protected species, soils, water quality, aesthetics, community character, human health and safety, recreation, and noise.” (ES-18.)
Herbicides
FEMA EIS: Executive Summary: 3.4.2.3.2 Caldecott Tunnel-PDM (Oakland) ...To suppress resprouting of eucalyptus, the cambium ring of stumps would be treated with a combination of Garlon4 and Stalker in a solution of methylated seed oil, water, and marking dye. All eucalyptus resprouts and eucalyptus seedlings would receive follow-up treatment with Garlon4, Stalker, or Roundup twice a year.
At a June 2, 2015 press conference of the Oakland Fire Department held at the North Oakland Sports Complex, Vegetation Manager Vince Crudele explained the nature of the work to be done by the City of Oakland to comply with the terms of this plan. Standing adjacent the sports field and pointing to the 53.6 acres of Eucalyptus growing on the hill behind him, he explained that the City would be eliminating the forest in its entirely over the course of 3 years, and that the stumps would be prevented from resprouting by the repeated application of herbicides.The use of such chemicals for this project was never denied by the City until increased public awareness about this plan resulted in greater public scrutiny. Then, the City began to deny the certainty that herbicides would be spread, contradicting FEMA and Crudele, the person in charge of the project.
Similar, in response to public concerns regarding the use of toxic herbicides on stumps from the many hundreds of thousands of trees to be cut down in 11 East Bay Regional Parks, EBRPD Fire Chief Dan McCormick has been attempting to quell public fears by making several alarmingly ignorant statements about the number of trees which will be cut down and the application of herbicides which will follow -- statements which not only contradict the terms of the FEMA grant which the EBRPD Board voted in May to implement, but the name of one of the herbicides to be spread, the manner in which that herbicide will be applied to tree stumps, and the amount of chemicals that will be used.
Ignoring the language of the FEMA grant which calls for the removal of “entire groves” of Eucalyptus, Monterey Pine, and Acacia trees growing on EBRPD ridgelines and 90% of trees in other targeted areas, the EBRPD is claiming that they will merely "thinning" dead and dying trees and brush. In addition, not only is McCormick calling the herbicide by its wrong name - "Garland" instead of "Garlon" - undermining any faith that the EBRPD has actually studied the evidence regarding the danger this and other chemicals approved for use pose to wildlife, park visitors and nearby residents, his claim that the herbicide will be spread with a brush rather than by spraying contradicts both the manufacturer's instructions as well as the terms of the FEMA grant which specifically prescribes spraying.
Equally alarming is McCormick's claim that a mere 15 gallons of this chemical will be used on the 1,605 acres and hundreds of thousands of tree stumps that will be created, an amount that dramatically contrasts with the much larger amount used by the EBRPD in the past. Consider that reports from the EBRPD itself indicate that from 2011 to 2014, 157 gallons of triclopyr (Garlon) were used. With the plan to cut down hundreds of thousands of trees pending, it is simply impossible that they will use less than that. His statement also ignores the inevitable and FEMA approved use of other toxic herbicides to control the brush that will grow in the absence of trees, including Monsanto's Glyphosate which the World Health Organization has labeled a "probable human carcinogen," causing officials in Marin County to ban its use on several open spaces in that county. A meticulously researched rebuttal by Mary McAllister clarifying McCormick's many misrepresentations states, "EBRPD’s management staff is either ignorant of these facts or they are being dishonest with the public... The public’s concern about this project is increased by misrepresentations … by the land managers who will implement this project." You can read the rebuttal by clicking here.
See, also, for example:
2.1.1.1.7 EBRPD’s Wildfire Hazard Reduction and Resource Management Plan (EBRPD 2009b) EBRPD’s vegetation management methods are based on its Wildfire Hazard Reduction and Resource Management Plan (EBRPD 2009b) ... Eucalyptus, Monterey pine, and acacia trees would be targeted to reduce the number of trees per acre or remove entire groves... Eucalyptus and acacia stumps would be treated with herbicide to prevent or reduce re-sprouting ...The herbicide application would include Garlon 4 Ultra or Garlon 3A, a colorant, and an approved carrier agent such as Hasten oil, water, or other product indicated as acceptable on the product label. EBRPD would apply herbicides in accordance with the instructions on the product label ... Seedlings of eucalyptus, Monterey pine, and acacia would be hand-pulled or chemically treated depending on size. In the maintenance phase, sprouts growing from cut stumps would be treated by hand-spraying herbicide on their leaves or by cutting them and hand-spraying the cut stubble... Frequency of maintenance treatment would depend on the effectiveness of initial treatment.
In 2001-2003, moreover, U.C. Berkeley chopped down 18,000 trees and spread 141 gallons of herbicides over the course of ten years.
More importantly, FEMA documents prove that thousands of gallons of cancer-causing herbicides to be used. The EBRPD told FEMA, as it was conducting review for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), exactly how many gallons of Garlon they needed to use for the project: 2,245 gallons. Not 15. Here are the documents to prove it, directly from the final FEMA EIS. And that doesn’t include all the herbicides that will be used by the City of Oakland and U.C. Berkeley, where the FEMA EIS states,
“Twice a year, herbicides (Garlon 4, Garlon 3A, Stalker, or Roundup [glyphosate]) would be applied to any sprouts emerging from stumps. Eucalyptus seedlings emerging from seeds would be managed to prevent recolonization of the site ... Follow-up treatments twice a year would include a low-volume herbicide spray applied to resprouted foliage between 3 and 6 feet in height. Follow-up treatments may also include a basal bark application or cutting the sprout and treating the cut surface with herbicide. On some resprouts and seedlings, Roundup may be applied to foliage in combination with Stalker.”
Moreover, records for 2015 show that the use of cancer causing pesticide products, including herbicides and rodenticides, by the East Bay Regional Park District increased in 2015 and is expected to go up again in 2016. They used 643 pounds of diphacinone, 100 gallons of glyphosate, 53 gallons of oryzalin, and 40 gallons of tripclopyr.
Why is McCormick and the rest of the EBRPD lying about the extent of herbicide use?
FEMA admitted that their herbicide use will have an “unavoidable adverse impact” to “human health and safety.” They further write,
“The proposed and connected actions would take place in regional parks and other open space areas used for recreation. Visitors and campers in these areas could be exposed to herbicides directly during application and indirectly after application. In addition, because residential neighborhoods are adjacent to the parks and open space, residents could also be exposed to herbicides directly during application and indirectly after application. Because a university, a high school, three elementary schools, and a preschool are also close to project areas, students of all ages have the potential to be exposed.”
FEMA goes on to admit that “Groundwater could also be impacted,” “Surface water could be impacted by herbicides,” that people, including children, “Could inadvertently inhale or directly contact the herbicides,” and “Of primary concern are impacts to (1) non-target terrestrial plants from direct contact through spraying, (2) terrestrial wildlife from direct contact with herbicides and consumption of contaminated prey, and (3) aquatic life from direct contact with herbicides in surface water and consumption of contaminated prey.”
As such, they admit of “potential adverse health effects of herbicides on vegetation management workers, nearby residents, and users of parks and open space.”
While officials deny that these are a public threat, the evidence once again contradicts them. Monsanto’s Glyphosate is associated with an increased risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Imazapyr increases risk of adrenal, brain, and thyroid cancer. And Dow Chemical’s Triclopyr is linked to an risk of breast cancer and genetic damage called dominant lethal mutations. Herbicide drift, for which Glyphosate is particularly infamous, will inevitably result in these chemicals spreading beyond their place of original application, especially as much of the chemicals are to be spread on ridgelines and slopes during the rainy season. Wind and storm run off will deliver these poisons to nearby private property. In fact, FEMA admits that the plan will have “unavoidable adverse impacts” on “human health and safety” and result in “potential adverse health effects of herbicides on vegetation management workers, nearby residents, and users of parks and open space.”
While California has deemed it a carcinogen and San Francisco public health officials recently announced the reclassification of Glyphosate as a Tier 1 (most hazardous) chemical and vowed to re-evaluate its use and Marin County has recently banned its use on popular hiking trails, East Bay officials -- including District 1 Oakland City Council Member Dan Kalb who is the most vocal supporter of this plan -- remain heedless of recent warnings by the World Health Organization that Glyphosate is a "probable human carcinogen" and are pushing forward with this.
In short, we get our information from FEMA and the agencies themselves. That those agencies are now pretending those statements have not been made proves how unpopular the true nature of their agenda actually is, and that the only way they can dilute public backlash is to lie about what they intend to do our beloved forests.
The federal agency funding, in large part, this current deforestation project is FEMA, which released an Environmental Impact Statement describing the exact nature and scope of the work to be done. It gives a detailed account of the trees to be cut down in each targeted area and the herbicides to be spread. For instance:
Here is what the FEMA EIS prescribed for Claremont Canyon:
EIS 3.4.2.2.2 Claremont-PDM is largely a eucalyptus forest... About 10,000 trees would be cut down, mainly eucalyptus with some pine and acacia.
Here is what the FEMA EIS prescribed for Strawberry Canyon:
FEMA EIS 3.4.2.2.1 Strawberry Canyon-PDM
... Approximately 12,000 eucalyptus, pine, and acacia trees would be cut down...The Strawberry Canyon-PDM project may involve closure of Centennial Drive for a few hours at a time to allow cutting and skidding of trees growing close to the road.
Both Claremont and Strawberry Canyons would then be treated with cancer-causing herbicides. For Strawberry Canyon, the EIS states:
To prevent resprouting, an herbicide solution would be applied ... to the cambium ring of eucalyptus and acacia stumps within 60 minutes of felling. The herbicide mixture would likely consist of a combination of Garlon 4 or Garlon 3A (triclopyr) and Stalker (imazapyr) in a solution of methylated seed oil, water, and marking dye. A typical tree requires 1 to 2 ounces of diluted solution. Treatment of pine stumps is not necessary because pine stumps do not produce sprouts... trees would be chipped using a grapple-fed chipper or a tracked chipper. Whole trees would be fed into the chipper and pulled through the blades by a conveyor belt and feed wheel. ..The wood chips are expected to be between 1 and 4 inches long and would be spread on up to 20% of the site to a maximum depth of 24 inches... Branches from trees greater than 24 inches DBH would be cut up and scattered on the site (lopped and scattered). The trunks of these trees would typically be cut into 20- to 30-foot lengths... However, if the site yields a large number of large tree trunks, some may be moved to an adjacent portion of the hillside or shipped for use as fuel, a source of paper pulp, or horse bedding. The potential to obtain funds from the sale of salvaged wood materials is not part of the current project although that may result indirectly in those cases where there are too many large tree trunks to leave on site... Twice a year, herbicides (Garlon 4, Garlon 3A, Stalker, or Roundup [glyphosate]) would be applied to any sprouts emerging from stumps. Eucalyptus seedlings emerging from seeds would be managed to prevent recolonization of the site ... Follow-up treatments twice a year would include a low-volume herbicide spray applied to resprouted foliage between 3 and 6 feet in height. Follow-up treatments may also include a basal bark application or cutting the sprout and treating the cut surface with herbicide. On some resprouts and seedlings, Roundup may be applied to foliage in combination with Stalker....UCB anticipates that eradication of all eucalyptus resprouts and seedlings on the Strawberry Canyon-PDM site would take 7 to 10 years after the mature trees are cut.
In various other sections, it uses similar language. In the Draft ES at 7.2.2.1 (North Hills-Skyline), for example, the goal is not thinning as proponents now claim in order to defray opposition. It is to “eradicate eucalyptus and Monterey pine across the entire ridgline.” In the final EIS, the tree cutting would be the same, but spread out over a longer period of time. At ES.7.2.2.2 (Caldecott Tunnel), it says the goal is “to convert the eucalyptus-dominated forest to annual grassland.” In the final EIS, once again, the tree cutting would be spread out over a longer period of time but achieve the same result. At Frowning Ridge (EIS.3.4.2.3.3), it says “all eucalyptus, Monterey pine, and acacia” will be chopped down (“Approximately 25,000 eucalyptus and pine trees ... would be cut down.”). The words “eradicate” and “all” are incompatible with the notion of thinning.
In addition to the FEMA EIS, we are also relying on the East Bay Regional Park District’s "Wildfire Hazard Reduction Plan and Resource Plan,” which served as the basis for the FEMA EIS, and the EBRPD website where they acknowledge their long term goal is conversion of Eucalyptus and Pine forest to grassland, and cite public opposition as something they need to overcome in order to do so, writing, “Eucalyptus and pine conversion to native species is a long-term goal with economics and public acceptance being the main factors in determining the pace of the transition.” In other words: it is too costly and people do not want it. Although their job is to implement the public will (the forests belong to all of us collectively), instead they have embarked on a campaign to overcome public opposition through false scare tactics about fire, lying about the amount and dangerousness of pesticides to be used, and lying to people about the extent of the destruction of our forests.
Despite these documents which clearly state that their aim is to “eradicate” vast portions of our forests on 2,059 acres of public land, the various agencies are making claims intended to create the impression that the nature and scope of the work to be done has yet to be determined, has not already been copiously documented and has not already been approved by each of the agencies involved. For example, the East Bay Regional Parks District claims that it is only “very selectively thinning out dead trees, dying trees, saplings as well,” U.C. Berkeley says it does not know how many trees will be cut down or which ones. And the City of Oakland is saying they will only “thin” the trees. But under the documents above, essentially their own grant application, their long-range strategic plan, and the FEMA grant they voted to accept, they admit the goal is to convert forests to “grassland with islands of shrubs.” More specifically, U.C. Berkeley’s grant application to FEMA proposed removal of 52,000 trees “including all eucalyptus, Monterey pine, and acacia trees.” 22,000 trees will be clear cut in Strawberry and Claremont Canyon (which amounts to all of these trees) and 25,000 at Frowning Ridge (which amounts to all of these trees). Their own proposal, their own grant application, and the grant itself contradicts U.C. Berkeley’s claim. The same with the City of Oakland, which admitted it will “convert … forest to annual grassland…” by removing all the Eucalyptus and Monterey Pine over three years: ⅓ each year until they are gone. (Statement of Vince Crudele, Press Conference, June 2, 2015.)
The EBRPD, said their goal is to “eradicate eucalyptus and Monterey pine across the entire ridgeline” in order to convert the area to “grassland.” In addition to removing "entire groves" on ridgelines, it will cut down by as much as 90% of the trees elsewhere based on their “Wildfire Hazard Reduction Plan and Resource Plan,” which FEMA approved. EBRPD reports that the average density of eucalyptus forests is about 650 trees per acre (and as much as 900 trees). They have called for reduction to about 60 trees per acre, roughly 90% fewer trees. Indeed, the FEMA grant is specific as to what will happen in each park. Based on these before and after densities, we estimate about 400,000 trees will be chopped down. Said one critic, “Such an extreme reduction in tree density cannot be accurately described as ‘selectively removing or thinning.’”
Indeed, FEMA admits that “unavoidable adverse impacts would occur with respect to vegetation, wildlife and habitats, protected species, soils, water quality, aesthetics, community character, human health and safety, recreation, and noise.” (ES-18.)
Herbicides
FEMA EIS: Executive Summary: 3.4.2.3.2 Caldecott Tunnel-PDM (Oakland) ...To suppress resprouting of eucalyptus, the cambium ring of stumps would be treated with a combination of Garlon4 and Stalker in a solution of methylated seed oil, water, and marking dye. All eucalyptus resprouts and eucalyptus seedlings would receive follow-up treatment with Garlon4, Stalker, or Roundup twice a year.
At a June 2, 2015 press conference of the Oakland Fire Department held at the North Oakland Sports Complex, Vegetation Manager Vince Crudele explained the nature of the work to be done by the City of Oakland to comply with the terms of this plan. Standing adjacent the sports field and pointing to the 53.6 acres of Eucalyptus growing on the hill behind him, he explained that the City would be eliminating the forest in its entirely over the course of 3 years, and that the stumps would be prevented from resprouting by the repeated application of herbicides.The use of such chemicals for this project was never denied by the City until increased public awareness about this plan resulted in greater public scrutiny. Then, the City began to deny the certainty that herbicides would be spread, contradicting FEMA and Crudele, the person in charge of the project.
Similar, in response to public concerns regarding the use of toxic herbicides on stumps from the many hundreds of thousands of trees to be cut down in 11 East Bay Regional Parks, EBRPD Fire Chief Dan McCormick has been attempting to quell public fears by making several alarmingly ignorant statements about the number of trees which will be cut down and the application of herbicides which will follow -- statements which not only contradict the terms of the FEMA grant which the EBRPD Board voted in May to implement, but the name of one of the herbicides to be spread, the manner in which that herbicide will be applied to tree stumps, and the amount of chemicals that will be used.
Ignoring the language of the FEMA grant which calls for the removal of “entire groves” of Eucalyptus, Monterey Pine, and Acacia trees growing on EBRPD ridgelines and 90% of trees in other targeted areas, the EBRPD is claiming that they will merely "thinning" dead and dying trees and brush. In addition, not only is McCormick calling the herbicide by its wrong name - "Garland" instead of "Garlon" - undermining any faith that the EBRPD has actually studied the evidence regarding the danger this and other chemicals approved for use pose to wildlife, park visitors and nearby residents, his claim that the herbicide will be spread with a brush rather than by spraying contradicts both the manufacturer's instructions as well as the terms of the FEMA grant which specifically prescribes spraying.
Equally alarming is McCormick's claim that a mere 15 gallons of this chemical will be used on the 1,605 acres and hundreds of thousands of tree stumps that will be created, an amount that dramatically contrasts with the much larger amount used by the EBRPD in the past. Consider that reports from the EBRPD itself indicate that from 2011 to 2014, 157 gallons of triclopyr (Garlon) were used. With the plan to cut down hundreds of thousands of trees pending, it is simply impossible that they will use less than that. His statement also ignores the inevitable and FEMA approved use of other toxic herbicides to control the brush that will grow in the absence of trees, including Monsanto's Glyphosate which the World Health Organization has labeled a "probable human carcinogen," causing officials in Marin County to ban its use on several open spaces in that county. A meticulously researched rebuttal by Mary McAllister clarifying McCormick's many misrepresentations states, "EBRPD’s management staff is either ignorant of these facts or they are being dishonest with the public... The public’s concern about this project is increased by misrepresentations … by the land managers who will implement this project." You can read the rebuttal by clicking here.
See, also, for example:
2.1.1.1.7 EBRPD’s Wildfire Hazard Reduction and Resource Management Plan (EBRPD 2009b) EBRPD’s vegetation management methods are based on its Wildfire Hazard Reduction and Resource Management Plan (EBRPD 2009b) ... Eucalyptus, Monterey pine, and acacia trees would be targeted to reduce the number of trees per acre or remove entire groves... Eucalyptus and acacia stumps would be treated with herbicide to prevent or reduce re-sprouting ...The herbicide application would include Garlon 4 Ultra or Garlon 3A, a colorant, and an approved carrier agent such as Hasten oil, water, or other product indicated as acceptable on the product label. EBRPD would apply herbicides in accordance with the instructions on the product label ... Seedlings of eucalyptus, Monterey pine, and acacia would be hand-pulled or chemically treated depending on size. In the maintenance phase, sprouts growing from cut stumps would be treated by hand-spraying herbicide on their leaves or by cutting them and hand-spraying the cut stubble... Frequency of maintenance treatment would depend on the effectiveness of initial treatment.
In 2001-2003, moreover, U.C. Berkeley chopped down 18,000 trees and spread 141 gallons of herbicides over the course of ten years.
More importantly, FEMA documents prove that thousands of gallons of cancer-causing herbicides to be used. The EBRPD told FEMA, as it was conducting review for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), exactly how many gallons of Garlon they needed to use for the project: 2,245 gallons. Not 15. Here are the documents to prove it, directly from the final FEMA EIS. And that doesn’t include all the herbicides that will be used by the City of Oakland and U.C. Berkeley, where the FEMA EIS states,
“Twice a year, herbicides (Garlon 4, Garlon 3A, Stalker, or Roundup [glyphosate]) would be applied to any sprouts emerging from stumps. Eucalyptus seedlings emerging from seeds would be managed to prevent recolonization of the site ... Follow-up treatments twice a year would include a low-volume herbicide spray applied to resprouted foliage between 3 and 6 feet in height. Follow-up treatments may also include a basal bark application or cutting the sprout and treating the cut surface with herbicide. On some resprouts and seedlings, Roundup may be applied to foliage in combination with Stalker.”
Moreover, records for 2015 show that the use of cancer causing pesticide products, including herbicides and rodenticides, by the East Bay Regional Park District increased in 2015 and is expected to go up again in 2016. They used 643 pounds of diphacinone, 100 gallons of glyphosate, 53 gallons of oryzalin, and 40 gallons of tripclopyr.
Why is McCormick and the rest of the EBRPD lying about the extent of herbicide use?
FEMA admitted that their herbicide use will have an “unavoidable adverse impact” to “human health and safety.” They further write,
“The proposed and connected actions would take place in regional parks and other open space areas used for recreation. Visitors and campers in these areas could be exposed to herbicides directly during application and indirectly after application. In addition, because residential neighborhoods are adjacent to the parks and open space, residents could also be exposed to herbicides directly during application and indirectly after application. Because a university, a high school, three elementary schools, and a preschool are also close to project areas, students of all ages have the potential to be exposed.”
FEMA goes on to admit that “Groundwater could also be impacted,” “Surface water could be impacted by herbicides,” that people, including children, “Could inadvertently inhale or directly contact the herbicides,” and “Of primary concern are impacts to (1) non-target terrestrial plants from direct contact through spraying, (2) terrestrial wildlife from direct contact with herbicides and consumption of contaminated prey, and (3) aquatic life from direct contact with herbicides in surface water and consumption of contaminated prey.”
As such, they admit of “potential adverse health effects of herbicides on vegetation management workers, nearby residents, and users of parks and open space.”
While officials deny that these are a public threat, the evidence once again contradicts them. Monsanto’s Glyphosate is associated with an increased risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Imazapyr increases risk of adrenal, brain, and thyroid cancer. And Dow Chemical’s Triclopyr is linked to an risk of breast cancer and genetic damage called dominant lethal mutations. Herbicide drift, for which Glyphosate is particularly infamous, will inevitably result in these chemicals spreading beyond their place of original application, especially as much of the chemicals are to be spread on ridgelines and slopes during the rainy season. Wind and storm run off will deliver these poisons to nearby private property. In fact, FEMA admits that the plan will have “unavoidable adverse impacts” on “human health and safety” and result in “potential adverse health effects of herbicides on vegetation management workers, nearby residents, and users of parks and open space.”
While California has deemed it a carcinogen and San Francisco public health officials recently announced the reclassification of Glyphosate as a Tier 1 (most hazardous) chemical and vowed to re-evaluate its use and Marin County has recently banned its use on popular hiking trails, East Bay officials -- including District 1 Oakland City Council Member Dan Kalb who is the most vocal supporter of this plan -- remain heedless of recent warnings by the World Health Organization that Glyphosate is a "probable human carcinogen" and are pushing forward with this.
In short, we get our information from FEMA and the agencies themselves. That those agencies are now pretending those statements have not been made proves how unpopular the true nature of their agenda actually is, and that the only way they can dilute public backlash is to lie about what they intend to do our beloved forests.
