San Diego County Slash and Burn ... or how a regional government denies science to obtain $ to grind up native plant communities
An old-growth manzanita destroyed during an unnecessary "fuel" reduction project.
Instead of dealing with the wildfire problem by addressing all the variables involved and adequately funding a county-wide fire department, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors and the County's Department of Planning and Land Use (DPLU) has decided to misrepresent scientific reearch and blame nature by proposing to burn off or grind up extensive amounts of the region's native shrublands.
Below is the historical record of our efforts to correct San Diego County's attempts to purposely misrepresent science to justify its policy goals. Here are some of the letters scientists have written to the county protesting the misrepresentation of their work:
San Diego County denies proven science in comments to State
In a comment letter to the California Board of Forestry, San Diego County's Department of Planning and Land Use ignored overwhelming scientific evidence and claimed that chaparral is not threatened by type-conversion. The county also urged the state not to consider climate change in developing long range fire management plans. Why? Because by acknowledging these facts, San Diego County believes such acknowledgement would interfere with its ability to obtain funding to clear native habitat.
Round 1: April 13, 2003 - SD County Making up Their Own Science
On April 13, 2003, San Diego County staff produced a report titled "Mitigation Strategies for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks." It was the beginning of the effort by the Board of Supervisors to promote landscape-scale prescribed burns throughout the backcountry.
The authors of the report misrepresented the work of quoted scientists, created fictious references, and ignored contrary data in order to promote their particular viewpoint. Below are the letters from the misrepresented scientists. In response to the scientists' requests that San Diego County reevaluate its position and examine the data more objectively, county staff was instructed to no longer associate with or grant consulting contracts to those who were involved in writing the letters. After a protracted effort, the report was finally removed from the county's website.
Dr. Jon E. Keeley, USGS. "This report contains an undeniable bias against work that suggests vigorous and expensive fuel manipulations in the backcountry of San Diego are not an effective means of reducing the current fire hazard situation at the urban / wildland interface."
Frederic Schoenberg and Roger Peng, UCLA. "We were disturbed by the way our research findings were completely mischaracterized in this report on page 8. Not only are the specific statements about our findings completely false, but also, more generally, our research does not support the claims and recommendations of this section of the report."
CJ Fotheringham, UCLA. "The report is poorly researched and on the face appears heavily biased toward influencing the San Diego Board of Supervisors and Planning Department toward a decision of managing large fires in San Diego County by control burning of remote wildland areas."
Round 2: May 14, 2008 - The Vegetation "Management" Report
On May 14, 2008, San Diego County Supervisor Bill Horn instructed county staff to come up with a vegetation management plan to facilitate the removal of native vegetation in the region's protected wildland areas through burning, mastication, and grazing. Please see below our original comment letter to the Board for a detailed analysis explaining why such an approach is not only destructive, but will actually increase fire risk.
The following video is an edited version of the testimony given at the January 5, 2009 Planning Commission hearing. It provides an excellent way to understand why so many of us are frustrated with San Diego County's approach to fire risk reduction.
Our June 25, 2008 comment letter to the San Diego County Board of Supervisors on their plan to burn, graze, or masticate wildland vegetation in the back country. Key Quote: "Our opposition is based on science, first-hand firefighter experience, and public law. There is no question in our minds that if the County engages in the kind of burning program the Board described on May 14, San Diego County would be less fire-safe, would irreversibly damage its natural resources, and would seriously compromise the ecological health of the region.In addition, US Forest Service scientists have concluded that "landscape mosaics are impractical, unnecessary, and probably not particularly effective" in creating a strategic approach to fuel and fire management in chaparral (Conrad and Weise 1998)."
Our 8/19/08 comment letter on Draft #2 Key Quote: "Unfortunately, as the Draft now stands, the objective of improving fire safety in the County is lost due to the inclusion of scientifically unsupportable speculations about ecosystem health, historical fire regimes, and the efficacy of prescribed burning."
Our 1/5/09 comment letter to the SD County Planning Commission on Draft #4. Key quote: "Despite assurances to the contrary, the current draft document continues to imply that large scale vegetation treatments should be used on a county-wide basis. This approach was NOT the consensus reached during the two county workshops."
The FINAL Report 3/25/09 While this document is obviously not perfect because it remains focused on native vegetation and does not properly address the entire fire risk reduction equation, it is a significant improvement from previous drafts. It acknowledges the role of urban fuels and embers in property loss and the negative impacts of vegetation treatments. Unfortunately, there are still statements about the desire to exempt controlled burns from the California Environmental Quality Act and failures to understand basic ecological principles (e.g. the proposal to get rid of those pesky, “invading chaparral shrubs” in the Cuyamacas remains).
Additional appendices (maps, etc.) can be downloaded at the county website here.
Round 3: April 22, 2009 - San Diego County Breaks its Promise
With the release of the county's final draft of their vegetation management report (see Round 2 below), San Diego County staff members and several county supervisors publicly stated (repeatedly) that county vegetation management projects would be properly reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
But on April 22, 2009, the Board of Supervisors attempted to approve a CEQA exemption on a $7 million vegetation management project that involved expanding clearance distances around homes and evacuation routes up to 500 feet! That's nearly two football field lengths.
However, due in part to an excellent letter written and delivered to the Board of Supervisors by Dr. Anne Fege, this proposal was pulled from the agenda during the April 22 meeting. You can download a copy of Dr. Fege's letter here. We guess they didn't think we were watching.
Here is the April 22 county document. The county was back at it on May 13, 2009, but this time with a modified proposal that limited the project to creating 100 feet of defensible space around homes (a good thing) and clearing what the county deems as unhealthy trees from within 500 feet of structures and roads. The CEQA exemption was still there. The board passed the proposal unanimously.
Yes, we thought we had prevented the county from exempting their clearing projects from CEQA, especially after the board itself passed a motion that they would subject each project to CEQA review.
Here is our May 12, 2009 letter to the Board of Supervisors objecting to their claim that their Clearing Project was exempt from public review and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Why we are filing a lawsuit:
The Institute strongly supports the use of $7 million to create 100 feet of defensible space around homes. However, removing trees deemed unhealthy and damaging habitat nearly two football field lengths away from structures and roads is a waste of taxpayer money. In addition:
1. The project deflects attention away from what needs to be done - assisting residents to retrofit their homes and reducing hazardous fuels directly next to communities. This issue was highlighted in a new study released June 6, 2009 (Schoennagel et al. 2009) that federal programs intended to reduce wildfire risks in the West have been largely ineffective because fuel-reduction efforts seldom hit areas near homes and businesses. Here's the news story.
2. San Diego County is violating state law by denying citizens the right to provide input on a tax-payer supported project that will directly impact their lives.
3. The project may lead to the spread of weedy, flashy fuels across the landscape, increasing the risk of fires and unnecessarily damaging natural resources.
4. The project may not use the best available knowledge to make the right decisions about how to strategically save lives and homes during the next wildfire.
5. The project may lead to the spread of the gold-spotted oak beetle that is killing thousands of oak trees in the region.
The only way to help insure that the project's potentially negative consequences are avoided is to require the county to conduct a full environmental review as required by CEQA.
Round 5: December 2, 2009 - San Diego County Fails to Produce Documents
Unfortunately, San Diego County is continuing to waste tax payer money and violating the law... again.
In brief, on June 10, 2009 we filed a lawsuit to force the county to allow citizens and outside experts to provide input into the expenditure of $7 million in public funds to clear vegetation in the name of fire protection beyond what is supported by scientific evidence.
On October 23, 2009, we filed a request to obtain documents (under California Government Code 6256) relating to this project.
The county is required by state law to release and deliver these documents within ten days of the request.
San Diego County still has not complied with our request.
Most notable in the county's refusal is their failure to produce documents relating to a monitoring plan for their vegetation clearing project. Monitoring is required by theVegetation Management Reportthat was accepted by the Board of Supervisors on March 25, 2009. Did the county insert this requirement because they intended to follow through with monitoring or only to appease concerned citizens (who they hoped wouldn't be watching)?
We may need to go to court again to force the county to follow through on their legal obligations.
Timeline for our original lawsuit: 12/09 County's response to our lawsuit brief (25 pages)
01/08 Our reply brief (15 pages)
01/15 10:00 Court Hearing
Thanks to all those citizens and groups (especially the California Native Plant Society and the San Diego Sierra Club) for supporting our efforts to bring honesty to San Diego County government, protect its citizens from wildfire, and preserve the region's natural resources.
Round 6: December 8, 2009 - County finally produces requested documents
Round 7: March 4, 2010 - Court rules that county violated state laws by exempting tree removal project from public/environmental review
Negative impacts to taxpayers, fire safety, and nature must now be considered
SAN DIEGO, Calif. – The Superior Court issued its final ruling today in favor of the California Chaparral Institute requiring the County of San Diego to follow state environmental laws and conduct a full environmental review of its backcountry vegetation clearance and dead tree removal project. The court rejected the county's position that its three to four year, $7 million vegetation management project was a short-term project addressing an immediate, emergency occurrence. Hence, the project is not exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
"Removing dead trees nearly two football field lengths distant from roads and structures in the backcountry will not significantly reduce fire risk to people as the county claims," said Richard Halsey, director of the Institute. "In fact, besides potentially damaging habitat, such action may actually increase fire risk by introducing flammable weeds, giving people a false sense of security, and wasting taxpayer money that could have been used to create defensible space directly around homes and communities."
Requiring the county to conduct a public review of this project will allow objective scientific evaluation and citizen participation to help ensure public funds are used in a way that will protect lives, property, and natural resources in the most effective manner.
For a thorough discussion of what the lawsuit addresses and how we have responded to sometimes less than informed criticism, please download and read this newspaper article and the reader comments.
Here are the relevant documents you can download relating to our lawsuit:
Round 8: July 1, 2010 - SD County issues document stating that there will be no significant environmental impacts caused by their dead tree removal project.
Round 9: November 8, 2010 - SD County issues notice of intent to produce and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on dead tree removal project.
After receiving a significant number of criticisms from a wide range of scientists on their negative declaration document, the county realized they needed to do what the judge told them to do in the first place - a complete environmental impact study. The document the county issued requesting comments on the scope of their EIR contained many of the same misconceptions and erroneous conclusions the county has been issuing for years to justify their misguided approach to land management.
The 2009 North San Diego County Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP)
After more than five years of intense effort by many of the most prominent fire scientists and ecologists in Southern California, we were hopeful that San DiegoCounty would have the necessary background to incorporate a modern understanding of fire into its conservation land planning process. Unfortunately, we have found many of the same misunderstandings about fire as it relates to shrubland ecosystems in the current North County MSCP draft document as have been present in previous county reports.
Here is our comment letter on the North San Diego County MSCP draft document.
You can obtain a copy of the entire MSCP draft document here.
