− Occupation to protect the Redwoods. −
The City of Oakland has put tree removal permits on
dozens of beautiful, healthy, NATIVE trees including
twenty-one redwoods. City of Oakland plans to cut down a large grove
of redwoods, oaks, and other native trees and
bulldoze the banks of Sausal Creek. If not for community support, this park could have already been changed forever by chainsaws. We need your support to stop the destruction of the park now! These trees have been here for hundreds of years. We need to stand up as a community, and have our voices heard.
In solidarity with nature.
Occupy Dimond Park. Starts Saturday, December 15th 2012.
Please save and protect the trees and creek!
Thank you for your efforts to save the trees in Dimond Park from being needlessly destroyed. Although I applaud your efforts, I am sorry to see the qualification that your effort is only on behalf of the redwoods because they are native.
Most of the trees in the East Bay are not native. According to David Nowak of the US Forest Service only 2% of the City of Oakland was forested prior to the arrival of Europeans in the late 18th century. The landscape of the Bay Area was predominantly grassland and scrub. Trees were found only in ravines where they were sheltered from the wind and where water was funneled to them by the sloped watershed.
Thousands of trees are being destroyed in the San Francisco Bay Area solely because they are not native and the managers of public land intend to destroy millions more if their projects are funded. You can read about this pointless destruction on the Million Trees blog, http://milliontrees.me.
Non-native trees are storing tons of carbon that will be released into the atmosphere as Carbon Dioxide when the trees are destroyed and as the wood decays. Carbon Dioxide is the predominant greenhouse gas that is causing climate change. These trees perform many other important ecological functions such as protection from the wind, absorbing rain water into the soil which prevents erosion, etc.
Let’s save all healthy trees, including the redwoods.
You people are crazy. The trees are being removed to restore sausal creek and save the creek wildlife. Do your homework. Where were you during the public meetings? The city and community have been working on this project for years, determining how to save the creek with minimal removal of existing trees. No one wants to cut down trees, but the creek needs more exposure to sunlight or else too much alge stifles the habitat.
We have to keep reinventing the wheel here. There was a meeting in November with the city people, the green architects who were designing the plan for rerouting the creek to reduce flooding danger for the homes on Canon and with us folk who were concerned about losing those redwoods. A lot of the folks wanted to vent and as soon as they finished venting they left. We came convinced that removing redwoods was a bad idea. We stayed till the end, heard all the presentations and the very good arguments presented by the community, both pro and con removing these trees. We walked the area to be changed and discussed each tree to be removed. There were representatives from Friends of Sausal Creek and the man who leads the hikes to see the only old growth redwood left in our hills. I’m sorry I can’t recall his name, but he is an expert on redwoods. These folks are on board with the removal and rerouting of the creek.
We came away feeling that the trees to be removed fall into a couple of categories. A lot of them are small, spindly and young and can easily be replanted elsewhere. Of the large trees, they are leaning over the creek and will fall at some point from now until 10 years from now and when they fall, they will fall into the creek and hit the homes across the creek on Canon. The plan calls for a rerouting of the creek as, in high water times, the creek currently is undermining the foundations of these homes. That rerouting will drown the roots of the trees that are growing too far down the bank.
We are usually the biggest skeptics out there, but we do understand the biology of redwoods and I personally witnessed a large redwood on the Bayview Trail in Joaquin Miller Park fall during a light rain and it wasn’t a tree that one would have expected to fall. I ran up toward the arena, and when I ran back the tree had come down across the trail. Very, very scary. It was a healthy tree.
I hope Occupy, which has been probably the most important movement for social responsibility that we’ve had since the movements of the 1960′s, will look further into this issue before beginning a tent city in Dimond Park. There are hearings to go to. The meeting we attended kept emphasizing that this is only the beginning of the planning stage. If you object, go to the hearings as they come up. Input from citizens is very important and, believe it or not, the city welcomes it.
The plans can be changed, modified or scrapped. Put your brains, mouths & ears to work and go to the hearings. Check with Friend of Sausal Creek and ask them how they feel and why. They are hands on with the creek and very active in replanting with natives, removal of invasive species and enhancement of the native fish & bird populations. They are on board with the plan.
reality check:
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/PWA/o/FE/s/ID/OAK024753
While I support saving as many trees as posiible, and having asked them to be as gentle.as possible, I do realize that there are.flood.issues to be considered. While I don’want the redwoods removed, I also want to see creek salvaged & safe & to protect those that live.along its banks.Let’s be sure that we work towards a compromise & not just clog up.the courts, etc.
Right on, Kimberly!
I am usually one of the first to come to the defense of our tree brothers/sisters and I’m not happy that trees are going to be killed in this project. But your characterization is quite wrong. To say they are going to destroy the creek, the park is just plain wrong. In fact they are going to daylight a whole new section of the creek that is currently underground! This is a VERY good thing. This should be done to every inch of the creeks in the east bay – UnBury Them!! Then the flora and fauna will return! Right now the trout cannot get up past the current underground culvert system.
The rest of the plan is to keep the homes from being washed away as the rains get heavier (global warming!) or having the trees that now line the creek fall on the houses as they are undermined by the creek water … and we could argue about that… as whether homes should be saved… but there is no way the city can allow homes to be in danger like that. They’ll get their pants sued.
Also, just a point of ‘truth telling’, none of the trees being targeted are 100 yrs old. They are all 2nd – 3rd growth… the place was wiped out a long time ago of any old growth (except one lone redwood but that is not in Dimond Park.)
To my mind, daylighting the creek is something to fight FOR.
Peace!
Roger that! Thanks for the corrections, Carlos, we are not against creek restoration but they are not going to take down those trees!
Sandi Morey’s post explained the process and issue so well–some of the big redwoods are leaning towards the creek and will not keep standing on unstable banks. Maybe some can be kept but a bunch of them are not compatible, with or without the restoration. If you support the restoration, as you say, then it entails removal of trees.
Just for the record there are parts of the community that live here and support the city’s project. Some of your readers may want to know that the tree removal is part of a creek restauration program trying to stabilize a creek with unstable banks and sink holes and ultimately provide better flood control, in addition to providing interpretative features and partial daylighting of the creek. If you want to be a meaningful and balanced voice in the debate of how to make the creek and trees coexist as vital members of the ecosystem, then I am happy you have joined the fray. If you have just come to be one sided and spread propaganda–I notice you ignored the creek project entirely, so it is hard to not get this impression–what a missed opportunity to meaninfully expand the occupy label beyond its initial domain.
You may have to study up on your botanical history. I believe redwoods are not native to that elevation. The lower elevations were oak chaparral. Thus, we have the word “Oakland.”
This is a very narrow definition of the word “native.” If it is used solely to describe the location of plant species in exactly the same location which it historically occupied, you will end of up with virtually no trees anywhere in the bay area. Is that really what you want?
A more pragmatic definition of “native” would merely ask the question, “Is that species of plant or tree adapted to the current conditions of that location?” If the answer is “yes,” then surely we should be happy to have as many trees as possible.
This approach is even more important in a rapidly changing climate. If the plant or tree is no longer adapted to the current conditions of its historical range, shouldn’t we be planting something that is adapted and will therefore survive?
The native plant movement wishes to freeze-frame nature. This approach is unrealistic and unnecessarily destructive. .
I live in Dimond and I am involved in the Occupy movement, and especially the
Dimond Dist. and especially regarding Credit Unions. Please join the dialogue and get the information. Sausal Creek restoration folks are thoughtful, wise and care about the environment. I hope all of us who care about the important things in life, can keep a sense of humor and work together for a better world. Keeping inner peace while meeting such huge issues head on is a challenge. Communication with respect is the key.
The removal of the trees is part of the Sausel Creek Restoration Project, a project that we, as residents and park users, have already reviewed, studied, analysed, modified and APPROVED OF a long te ago. The plans to remove a number of trees along the creek to accommodate the new restoration channel is a necessary and environmentally sound project that WE WANT. The creek restoration project has a number of goals, including:
• Protect native trout and remove barriers to trout passage upstream
• Improve habitat diversity
• Improve water quality
• Decrease erosion
• Create creek bank and channel stability
• Improve flood protection
• Protect adjacent roadway
• Improve safety
The project was designed specifically to retain as many existing trees as possible. The trees that need to be removed are within the area that must be graded to create the new channel. Of the 139 trees within the project area:
• 79 trees need to be removed and 60 trees will be protected and preserved.
• 47 of the trees to be removed are nonnative species.
• 32 of the trees to be removed are native, including 8 oaks, 21 redwoods, 1 bay laurel, 1 walnut, and 1 elderberry.
• 57 of the trees being preserved are native, including 1 alder, 2 birch, 2 buckeyes, 1 cedar, 5 maples, 24 oaks (including the two largest oaks in the project area, each 36” diameter), 4 willows, and 18 redwoods (including the largest redwood tree in the project area).
• In addition to retaining 60 existing trees, the project will include planting 80 new, site-appropriate native trees and over 500 new willows.
• The redwoods that have to be removed are being removed solely to accommodate the grading necessary to restore the riparian area and creek. The existing redwoods were likely planted less than 50 years ago.
The 745-linear-foot restoration includes removing 180 feet of buried culvert, regrading and stabilizing stream banks, installing a wide variety of native trees and plants, and creating an ADA-accessible pathway with interpretive features along the creek.
The project is funded by a Proposition 50, River Parkways grant from the State of California, the Measure DD Bond for Clean Water and Safe Parks, and the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, a partner on the project design.
We live here. We play here. We have been a part of the review and approval process. We have already had ample time to put forth questions and oppose this project. Modifications to this plan were made to accomodate our comments and concerns. We, as a community, agreed to this final plan and WE want this project to proceed.
what about the cats?
Do you or do you not, in principle, think there is ever a case when an established tree in a public park may need to be removed? If not, there is nothing to discuss. If so, the question is whether the particular rationale and design work (done here at great care and length, with much public discussion and input, and with close consultation with the Friends of Sausal Creek group, and in open conversation with people like me who are longtime neighborhood residents and who care about this park and its trees as much as anyone) justify the planned removals.
Please specifically discuss the actual plans and reasoning in actual detail. Here is the City’s full presentation: www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/PWA/o/FE/s/ID/OAK024753
If you keep characterizing this as a fight against an evil plot perpetrated by a supposed enemy, I will conclude that you are a simply a self-appointed opportunist.
Have you been to the park? Did you see the ties taken down? There are some that retain the ties, but it’s a sloppy design job that would level all the oldest trees in the park. I saw a message on MacArthur Avenue on the trash cans there that covers pretty well Environmentalism: Toxic Reductions, Healthy Food Systems, Clean Air, Parks, Habitat, and Wildlife. Those trees clean the park and air, and give homes to the cats there, and it’ s not right to cut them down to make the human- centered design run a golf course slope up to the playground. I would posit to reclaim this movement for the environment for the common person instead of a wealthy design cult.
Is everyone used to those trees yet? Let’s design an alternative plan that saves most of them.