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 has decided to blame nature by proposing to burn off or grind up extensive amounts of the region's native shrubland ecosystems. Interestingly, most of the money required for such a plan would come from the federal government. The county would have to pay for its own fire department.
Below is the historical record of our efforts to correct San Diego County's attempts to deflect attention away from its historical failure to provide adequate fire protection and emergency services for its citizens.
Round 4: June 10, 2009 - San Diego Needs to Follow the Law
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.
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 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.
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 .
Round 1: April 13, 2003 - 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."
* * * * *
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 .