Many in the fire science community are disappointed by the recent reporting in High Country News (HCN) by Elizabeth Shogren on the tragic fires in northern California (Shrub-choked wildlands played a role in California fires, HCN 10/24/2017).
Portraying the ecology of the region as “choked” by native shrublands not only demonizes California’s richly biodiverse, characteristic habitat, the chaparral, but fails to come close to explaining why and how the fires occurred. Little effort was made in the article to help readers understand the situation. Instead, the article simply repeated hackneyed phrases over-used to describe fires in the western US.
Every fire is different. Large, high-intensity wildfires have long been a natural feature of these chaparral landscapes. What has changed is that we have put people in harm’s way.
A quick overview on Google Earth of what burned in the devastating Tubbs Fire would have revealed that it was not “shrub-choked wildlands,” but rather a complex patchwork of non-native grasslands, oak woodland, conifers, chaparral, and unfortunately, a lot of homes intermixed.


Blaming nature and past efforts by firefighters to save lives and property through fire suppression ignores the actual problem – poorly planned communities in high fire risk areas.
Read MoreIf we stray too close to Marshal South, the celebrated back-to-nature visionary, the story of his dreams and the sudden destruction of all he held dear challenges us to evaluate our own lives and perceptions in uncomfortable ways. But it can also inspire a more productive path in the ongoing debate between preservation and development, both critical issues for our rapidly growing state.

We examined a place near Santa Ysabel, off Highway 78 in San Diego County that we know well. What we found was disturbing.
1. Much of the area designated as having 40 – 15 dead trees per acre is either California sage scrub or chaparral (where there are no trees), or non-native grassland with a few scattered oaks. The white square in the first image represents one square acre for reference. The X on the second Google Image and the corresponding Tree Mortality Viewer map marks the approximate location of the square.
2. In oak woodland areas where there are actually trees, the estimate of tree mortality doesn’t seem to come close to what is actually on the ground.
3. We question the likelihood of having 40 – 15 dead, mature oaks on a single acre, especially in the upper range.
Whatever measurements the state is using, they appear to be based on crowded mixed-conifer forests. Where there are no conifers, the program seems to have a major hiccup.
We have discussed the inaccuracy of the maps with others in the field and they have confirmed the problems are statewide. This is an important issue because land and fire management decisions are likely being made based on these maps.
The state needs to conduct ground-truthing of their computer generated data if they intend to develop policy that reflects what is actually occurring.
The Tree Mortality Viewer can be seen here.
