Why 3 small “replacement” trees can’t replace

an ecosystem


The cornerstone of UC Berkeley’s PR spin on the oaks is to talk about replacing each destroyed tree with  three small saplings. But the Memorial Oak Grove is a complex Coast Live Oak ecosystem. Killing the existing trees would decimate that established ecosystem. 


Furthermore, careful analysis of the “3 for 1” replacement scheme reveals how totally in-effective the replacement proposal is.  For instance,  large Oak trees can have tens of thousands of leaves in their canopy habitat area, while UC’s small replacement saplings would typically only have 50 to 100 leaves. These native oaks can provide habitat for hundreds of animal and insect species. So just in terms of the Biomass of a tree that provides habitat, three small trees is nowhere near as valuable as one mature oak.


3 to1 UPDATE -

UC recently revealed, that  in fact, they do not even intend to replace the oaks 3 to 1.  At a UC regents meeting, chancellor Ed Denton disclosed that UC would only replant with 25% native oaks.  This is yet another  example of the university saying one thing in public and then doing another.


It is also important to remember that many of the “replacement” saplings will not survive.  It is typical for a third of the “replacement” trees to die within a year or two of being planted.


Native California Oak woodlands are a crucial component of our natural environment, supporting higher levels of bio-diversity than any other terrestrial ecosystem in California. Over 300 vertebrates and thousands of other plant and insect species depend on California Oak woodland ecosystems for their survival.

 

Saving the Memorial Oak Grove is supported by the Sierra Club, the California Native Plant Society, the California Oak Foundation, and activist Julia Butterfly Hill.

Oak Grove Support

TreeSpirit Photo Coverage by Bcitizen on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li_SvF3LWuY
Memorial Oak Grove TreeSpirit 
Poster Now Availablehttp://jackphoto.com/images/tree/berkeley.html
Click on the image above
 for more informationhttp://jackphoto.com/images/tree/berkeley.html

Memorial Oak Grove Facts:


Why is the Memorial Oak Grove important?


The Memorial Grove is a native Coast Live Oak ecosystem. Native oaks support the most complex terrestrial ecosystems in CaliforniaThe California Native Plant Society CNPS has stated that the Memorial Oak Grove is “an important gene bank for the Coast Live Oak.” 


Every one of the 38 oaks in the grove should be protect by law - the Berkeley Coast Live Oak moratorium forbids cutting mature Coast Live Oaks in Berkeley, but UC refuses to recognize the law.


The grove is part of a National Historic Site. The Stadium and landscape are a memorial to Californians who died in World War I.   It was also recently revealed that   18 Native American burials were discovered under the stadium in 1923.


Saving the Memorial Grove is supported by The Sierra Club, The California Native Plant Society, The California Oak Foundation and Julia Butterfly Hill.



How many oaks does UC want to cut down?


UC’s wants to cut down 38 mature Coast Live Oaks - the university keeps on saying they will cut 26 oaks but a simple count in the grove adds up to 38.  Additionally a number of other specimen trees including California Bay Laurel, Redwood and Sequoia.


UC says they will replace the trees 3 to 1, won’t we end up with more trees at the grove?


No.  There simply would not be enough room to plant the oak trees UC claims they would plant in what little space would be left at the grove.  The University wants to dig out 2/3 of the grove for a massive cement building.  It would be physically impossible for them to cram 3 to 1 oak trees into one third the space.  Oak trees need space to grow for their canopy and the small space that would be left could never support all those extra trees long term.  UC might plant trees in other parts of campus, but they would destroy the existing grove.


But doesn’t UC say it’s OK to cut the trees down because they say they planted them?


That is a PR spin.  First and foremost the Oak Grove is ecologically and historically important no matter who “planted” the trees.


The main problem with UCs argument is that many of the oak trees in the grove planted themselves after the stadium was built!  Because the grove is a thriving ecosystem that is replanting itself.  The California Native Plant Society says,


“The Oaks are well established and signs of recruitment (naturally re-seeded oak trees) are present at this site.”b


bAt least 5 Coast Live Oaks and a native Bay Laurel predate the stadium.  The image below is a historic oak from the 1800s that predates the University itself.

This historic oak from the 1800s would be destroyed

When the University built the stadium in the 1920s they planted many additional oaks in the Memorial Grove.  But even more important many of the oaks in the grove planted themselves as the grove continues to reseed itself to this day!  Thats what makes it an ecosystem NOT a “landscaping project”.


Do they need to cut down the oaks because the stadium is unsafe?


UC is claiming that they must build a training facility at the oak grove to move people out of Memorial Stadium.  But that is simply not true, in fact UC already has the ability to move people out of the stadium before building a new facility.  Lets look at the facts.


• The Stadium is directly on top of the Hayward Fault, it is VERY dangerous.


• UC has a campus program called SURGE which is dedicated to transferring people out of dangerous buildings during earthquake retrofits and new construction.  The SURGE program utilizes tens of thousands of square feet of space and also routinely uses portable temporary buildings.  UC could begin moving people into safer conditions next week, if safety was the real priority.


• Meanwhile even if they began building the training facility tomorrow  it would still take at least two years to build. All that time students and staff would still be inside the stadium. UC should stop messing around and move the people who are inside the stadium to safety, right now.


•  In 1979 UCs Seismic Committee told UC not to build offices inside the stadium until it was retrofitted - the University ignored that warning and has left the people inside the stadium in extremely dangerous conditions for almost 30 years.

21 Students Arrested in

Oak Grove Protest

Sept 14:

Forty UC Berkeley students joined with leaders of the 1964 Free Speech Movement in protest of UC Berkeley fencing in tree-sit protesters at the Memorial Oak Grove.  Students scaled the fence and delivered food and water to the tree-sitters, 21 students were arrested in the protest.

Read More.

Watch Videohttp://www.bayareanewsgroup.com/multimedia/iba/2007/tree0914/
READ coverage in 
the New York Timeshttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/13/education/13trees.html

Jane Tyska Tribune Media

“Naked at the Fence”

NEW TreeSpirit Photo Shoot

Watch Video Coverage!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTSgkjGWYS8
A branch office of Berkeley's protest traditionhttp://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-caltrees7nov07,1,7509069.story?coll=la-headlines-sports&ctrack=5&cset=true

Read Coverage in the

November 15th:


A siege mentality has descended on the Memorial Oak Grove. University Police are now preventing the delivery of food and water to tree-sitters.  Beyond blockading food and water from the protesters UC authorities are now actively threatening community members who attempt to bring food and water to the tree-sitters, telling supporters that they may be arrested for trying to give food to the protesters.


But, on Thursday Dan Mogulof of UC Public Relations was still feeding statements to the press that UC was allowing food and water in.  The situation at the Oak Grove was different from Mogulof’s claims, as of Friday evening UCPD were still actively preventing supplies from being delivered to tree-sitters.  Make no mistake, this is now a starve out campaign and UC is trying to hide it.

UC Begins

Starve Out Campaign

On Tree-Sitters

November 15th:


As word of UC’s starve-out campaign spread last night, about 45 tree-sit supporters gathered at the sidewalk in front of the Memorial Oak Grove tree-sit. Among the supporters were Native American leaders Morningstar Gali and Jimbo Simmons, who had come to lead traditional prayers.  


“We heard that UC Berkeley wasn’t allowing any food or water to be given to the tree sitters so we went to bear witness and offer our prayers.” said Jimbo Simmons of the International Indian Treaty Council. 

 

Soon approximately 20 UC police, many in riot gear arrived. As tensions escalated a tree-sitter was pulled from a branch and thrown to the ground with a choke-hold.  The crowd yelled to the police to stop being so violent in the arrest.  At that point police moved on the scene using batons to control supporters.  UC Police have stated that an officer had a noxious liquid pour on his face in the clash, several supporters noted that this claim appeared to actually be water or soft drink that was thrown as supporters were pushed back.  The University has repeated this claim in the media in an attempt to justify their actions.  One tree-sitter and two supporters were arrested.  

Peaceful Vigil Disrupted with Police Batons

3 Arrested

Tree-Sit Celebrates

1 Year Anniversary

November 23rd 2007:


A group calling themselves Berkeley Grandmothers for the Oaks delivered pies and other supplies to fenced in tree-sitters on Thanksgiving morning.  A large crowd gathered for the event  which was also attended by several UC Police Officers. 

Read More News Coverage Click Here.

Grandmothers Deliver Thanksgiving Pies, Food & Water to Tree-Sittershttp://www.berkeleydaily.org/article.cfm?issue=11-27-07&storyID=28556
Check Out Video CoverageCH_7_Coverage.html

UC Police Endanger Protester

Explanation of UC Stadium / Oaks Lawsuit

Tree sitter "Dumpster Muffin" Interviewed

University Escalates Tactics -

Use of Force to Remove Tree Sitters


RAYMOND L. SHEARMAN

CORNELIUS SULLIVAN

MILTON A. MCAULEY

JAMES L. WILSON

CORNELIUS SULLIVAN

JAMES H. MEAD

HOWARD F. LACY

THOMAS RICHARD GRIFFIN

ARTHUR H. SEARS

FRANCESCO LUCCHESSI

DONALD.B FRAZIER

HENRY F. PETERSON

ALFRED H. L’ECUYER

GEORGE D. JEWETT

JOHN C. PARTRIDEGE

JOHN H. JORDAN

ARNE K. B. HOISHOLT

DANIEL J. NARVES

WILLIAM IRWIN

RALPH W.HILL

JOHN V. COSGRAVE

ROSCOE C. OLDS

RICHARD URIAH GRUBB

LORIN JASPER CHURCH

VICTOR HUBERT HANDLEY

ABELIO ENOS

ANTHONY CENTENI

JOSEPH F. TULLY

CARL T. EDWARDS

OTTO JOHN CARLSON

OTIS KANE NORTON

RALPH E. DINGMAN

ALEX J. BOWMAN

GEORGE CALVERT AHERN

WALTER CAMPBELL CURRAN

GEORGE C. WRENN

LAURENCE S. LYNCH

HAROLD B. LONGFELLOW

FRANK TURINO

CLARK KELLS

D. A. KILDUFF

CHARLES L. SIGOURNEY

FRANCIS M. KELLY

THOMAS L. WILLIAM

WILFRED L. RILEY

FRANCIS. L JUDD

HORACE E. WHITE

MARIO MASCHIO

FRANK JORDAN

HAROLD F. WAYNE

ELWYNN H. MANNHART

GEORGE HEININGER

GEORGE BROWN VARGUS

LLOYD P. MACDONALD

FRANK R. HANSEN

BERT J. HABISHAW

BIRT ADAMS

JOHN VAN MOURIK

RUSSELL L. GARDNER

FRANCIS R. SCOTT

DANIEL K. IOPA

WILLIAM A. DODGE

LIONEL H. HARRIS

WILLIAM G. HUNT

WILLIAM P. DE CUNHA

JOHN W. CARROLL

JAMES J. GIMBEL

ARCHIE H. CAMPBELL

AMBROSE A. WASS

FRANK H.LATHRAPJR.

CHARLES BENNETT

HARRY H. SHONE

ALBERT J. JENKIN

JOSEPH D. HOLMAN

WILSON J. SMITH

CONRAD OSTERLOH

WILLIAM S. WHITE

LOUIS SILVA

EMANUEL A. MUNSON

WALTER J. THEUS

FRANK SANGENITTO

TONEY MONIZE

SAMUEL G. TASULIS

SAMUEL RUSSELL

JOHN H. MCCLURG

GLENN V.SWAN

ARTHUR G. ROOD

HUNTER MCCLURE

FLOYD A. STUDEBAKER

ZENO PEARCE

ROBERT D. MASON

LESTER R. LUDINGHOUSE

EDWARD H. KUHNLE

STANLEY I. JONES

WILLIAM R. LOFTIS

THOMAS A.KING

HANS A. JENSEN

CLEMENS LINSTRUM

PAUL M. KIDWELL

HOWARD JARRETT

THOMAS V. LARSON

ROBERT E. KELLY

CHARLES ERNEST IRWIN

PETER LARSON

PATRICK J. KEENAN

GEORGE HERRIER

WALTER LAMP

JEROME KAPHAN

RICHARD J. HARPER

LOUIS A. HANSEN

HAROLD V. DODD

ALFRED D. CRITTENDEN

CLARENCE H. HAMMELL

HOWARD HENRY DICKENSON

SOL B. COHN

HYMAN J. GOLDSTEIN

HAROLD A. DAVIE

COLOMBE A. CECCHI

JOHN GAZANEGO

MARTIN E. DAHL

JOHN BOYCE

LEWIS L. FRYE

WILLIAM H. CROWELL

GUISEPPI BOLLA

LAWRENCE A. DONAHUE

WILLIAM E. CRANE

LELAND E. BERGESEN

REUBEN LAWLOR

ALFRED NUNES

WILLIAM E. WHITNEY

JOSEPH F. RUSTING

HARRY A. MILLER

CHARLES H. THOMPSON

BEN C. CARSON

BARTON WILLIAM MASTERSON

GEORGE W. ROSS

ISIDORE GIAMBRUNO

LEONARD B. HOLLYWOOD

CARL CASTLEMANN JONES

CLAUDIUS F. VINTHER

ERNEST E. GUIDO

ALFRED CARTER

WILLIAM S. PERRY JR.

LEE R. GRIFFIN

CLARENCE W. BAILAR

HASCALL F. WATERHOUSE

WILLIAM J. HOOPER

EGBERT WILLIAM BEACH

HERMAN D. PARTSCH

WILLIAM J. HANLY

ROY MILVIN SMYTH

J. WILLIS MCELROY

HUGH FULTON

LEON MARTIN

EDWIN M. ELAM

MILITARY PERSONNEL

WHO DIED IN WW1 FROM ALAMEDA COUNTY

Memorial Stadium was designed with it’s grounds, including the oak grove, as a memorial to those CALIFORNIANS who died fighting in WW1.  We encourage  the University to preserve the oak grove and dedicate it to those who died in WW1 as was intended from the inception of the stadium and it’s grounds.

http://www.saveoaks.com/SaveOaks/Media/kpfaquicktime.mov
Listen to Save Oaks Coverage on KPFA http://www.saveoaks.com/SaveOaks/Media/kpfaquicktime.mov


Thanks to all

Jess’s Tree 9-5-2008

Jess Walsh in Tree called Yahweh Jan 2007

the ghosts of emily D mourn the loss of the american woodlands


a short film by mary armentrout

September 10th 2008:


The grove seen in the picture above was recently leveled by the University of California for  construction of a sports facility.  But the lawsuits challenging UC’s “Southeast Campus“ development plans continue on in the courts. 


The lawsuits brought by the California Oak Foundation and Panoramic Hill Association will be heard in the California Appellate Court sometime next year (2009).


Many legal experts expected that the cases would need to be brought before the Court of Appeals, because UC Berkeley had never lost in the lower court in Alameda County, while the Appellate Court has a reputation for holding UC to a higher level of scrutiny.


What Does This Mean ?


Essentially this means that UC undertakes construction of the training facility at their own risk and that the trial in 2009 could require them to halt construction and perhaps even demolish part or all of the training building. 

 

The larger issues covered by the legal suits challenge the entire development projects for the area, not just the Oak Grove.


The lawsuits under appeal challenged the Environmental Impact Report prepared by UC Berkeley for 7 projects in and around the stadium area which include  reconstruction and expansion of the Stadium itself, a massive parking garage, and a new Law/Business building.  One major issue is the ongoing questions of legality of the Stadium reconstruction because the Hayward Fault passes directly under the structure.


If the Appeals Courts finds next year that UC’s impact study was inadequate or that UC is in violation of earthquake laws then construction of the sports training facility would likely come to a halt.  According to current schedules the training facility would only be partially built by the time the case is heard in court.  At which point UC could then be required to perform additional environmental review and could even be required to tear down all or part of the training facility, depending on the results of the court deliberations. 


A common outcome from this type of lawsuit would be to require UC would  to perform new studies on alternate locations for the training facility, stadium and parking facilities.


Although this would be a bitter outcome given the loss of the Memorial Oak Grove, it would in be very important for the larger issues of UC development across California and the ongoing struggle of communities around the state to fight the impacts of University expansion in cities like Santa Cruz, Davis, Santa Barbara and Berkeley.

Grove is Cleared
But Lawsuit Challenging Development Plans Continues
In Appellate Court in 2009http://www.berkeleydaily.org/article.cfm?issue=11-27-07&storyID=28556


Dear friends of the Memorial Oak Grove,


Today, after 648 days, the treesitters and the University of California reached an agreement that brought the Oak Grove treesit to an end.


The treesitters agreed to come down voluntarily, and University representatives agreed that they would make a public statement that the University will create new ways for the community to be involved in land use decisions going forward. What form precisely that will take is yet to be determined.


It is up to the community to ensure that the format is substantial, and that the community is involved in the beginning, brainstorm phases and on an ongoing basis with land use.


The University representatives and treesit supporters agreed that confrontations are in no one's best interest, and it is a mutually shared interest for real cooperation to take place.


The supporters of the treesitters have made a request for bail funds... please visit:


http://oaksarrestees.org/


click on "donate"

or if you'd rather send a check, make it out to "Oaks Arrestees Defense Committee" and mail it to....

Oaks Arrestees Defense Committes

1610 North Normandie Avenue, #210

Hollywood, California, 90027


Many brave souls are in jail right now, including the four treesitters who surrendered to the UC Police (Huck, Mondo, Shem, and Ernesto), as well several ground supporters who were arrested today.


Also, Native American leader and organizer Morningstar Gali requested that UC Police honor a prior commitment they made to allow the Native Community to enter the remains of the grove and place tobacco at the stump of the Grandmother Oak once the treesitters come down. Thus far, UC Police have refused to respond to this request. If you agree that UC Police should allow the ceremony to happen, please call the office of Chief of Police Victoria Harrison at 510-642-1133 to express your views, or send an email to vlh@berkeley.edu.


Furthermore, treesit supporers want the stump of the Grandmother Oak returned to the Native community so that they may create drums and other religious artifacts. If you agree, please state this desire as well when you contact Chief Harrison.


The treesitters say that they sincerely thank you for your love, your time, your letters, your food, your water, your witnessing, your words, your presence. We know many of you contributed deeply to this campaign in many ways, and many of those contributions have gone unrecognized and unseen. So know that whether your participation was visible or not, the treesitters say that your support for them -- and most importantly, for the trees -- is deeply appreciated.



http://oaksarrestees.org/


Sincerely,


Your friends from the Oak Grove

A Message From the

Friends of the Oak Grove Network


Reproduced below is a message sent out by the Friends of Memorial Oak Grove to supporters.