At present, the forest is almost like a cloud forest; it traps the moisture in the fog, so the ground is almost always damp in there. Though UCSF’s application for FEMA funding was based on the assumption of fire hazard, the evidence is overwhelming that it’s very low (for the whole story and a discussion of the evidence, see the next section.
But it’s possible to create a fire hazard.
UCSF’s PLANNED PROJECTS COULD INCREASE THE FIRE DANGER
1. The thinning of the forest will make it dryer and windier, and the scrub and weed that will substitute the ferns and blackberry will be more flammable. The felled trees will be chipped and the dry logs and chips left in the forest – increasing the fuel load.
2. The eucalyptus is more fire-resistant than anything that will grow in its place. In the 2008, a fire burned across Angel Island, which was deforested of most of its eucalyptus twelve years ago. The grass burned – and the burn stopped at the line of remaining trees. A grass fire on Angel Island was relatively risk-free; one in the midst of housing and hospitals would be a crisis. We have more on eucalyptus and fire on our Eucalyptus Myths page.
3. In the 1930s, the forest was logged. In 1934, there was a 10-acre fire, and logging stopped. There’s been no significant fire since then. Drying out the forest could recreate the 1934 conditions.
4. There is already evidence that opening up the forest increases the fire hazard. Between 2003 and 2009, the fire risk on the mountain increased. The main difference was that this was a time when a lot of trails were being opened into the forest and drying it out.
5. UCSF will need to provide for ongoing maintenance of what will become a high-maintenance garden rather than a no-maintenance forest. Once the forest is removed, keeping the place from becoming flammable scrub will apparently be performed by goats and chemicals. It will require thousands of applications of herbicides – probably Roundup/ Garlon – for years to prevent resprouting and control weed-growth.
THE FEMA FIRE-HAZARD STORY
UCSF applied to FEMA for funds on the basis that the forest had a Very Severe Fire Hazard. It doesn’t. (At least unless UCSF and the Mount Sutro Stewards implement the thinning and drying out of the forest.)
Here’s our discussion of the fire hazard in the forest in its natural state, and the arguments that were made to FEMA, together with relevant pictures.
(Note: Many of the comments below reference that discussion and data.)