HikeArizona.COM

2016-06-14 perimeter http://hikearizona.com/map.php?GPS=32889

Not sure if anyone else has posted something on the Juniper Fire, but...
All of the southeastern Sierra Ancha is closed due to this being a "managed" wildfire.

Source: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOC ... 502611.pdf
UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE TONTO NATIONAL FOREST PLEASANT VALLEY RANGER DISTRICT
JUNIPER FIRE PUBLIC SAFETY CLOSURE ORDER PROHIBITIONS
Pursuant to 16 USC 551 and 36 CFR 261.50 (a) and (b), the following acts are prohibited on the areas, roads, and trails described in this order, and depicted on the attached map hereby incorporated as Exhibit A (the “closure area”), all within the Pleasant Valley and Tonto Basin Ranger Districts of the Tonto National Forest, Arizona:
1. Going into or being upon the area described in the Order. 36 CFR 261.53 (e)
2. Being on the trail. 36 CFR 261.55 (a)
3. Being on a road. 36 CFR 261.54 (e)
EXEMPTIONS
Pursuant to 36 CFR 261.50 (e), the following persons are exempt from this order:
1. Persons with a US Forest Service permit specifically authorizing the otherwise prohibited act or omission.
2. Any Federal, State, or local officer, or member of any organized rescue or fire fighting force in the performance of an official duty.
3. Persons engaged in a business, trade, or occupation in the area, who are authorized to be in the restricted area by the US Forest Service, the State of Arizona, or the County of Gila, its employees, agents, contractors and subcontractors.
AREA DESCRIBED
All National Forest System Lands, roads, and trails to the east of State Highway 288 and to the west of Forest Road 203 (commonly referred to as the Cherry Creek Road) contained with the boundary lines as depicted on the attached map and hereby incorporated in this order. State Highway 288 and Cherry Creek Road will remain open for the duration of this order.
PURPOSE
To provide for the public’s health and safety during management activities associated with the Juniper Fire.
IMPLEMENTATION
1. USFS Law Enforcement Officers will assist in implementation of the Order and serve as liaisons with Gila County and Arizona Game and Fish.
2. This Order will be effected by appropriate signs and closure notices as required by 36 CFR 261.50. This order is effective May 23, 2016 until June 30, 2016 unless terminated sooner.
3. Violations of these prohibitions is punishable by a fine of not more than $5,000 for individuals and $10,000 for organizations, imprisonment for not more than six (6) months, or both. [16 USC 551, 18 USC 3571(b) (6), 18 USC 3581(b) (7)].
Dated this 23rd day of May 2016, at Phoenix, Arizona
/s/ Neil Bosworth
Neil Bosworth
Forest Supervisor Tonto National Forest

rwstorm wrote:The winds aloft trajectory has pushed a lot of the smoke from this fire between Phoenix and Tucson. Made for a rather dramatic sunset this evening here in Tucson.

I too, would like to see a link to some evidence, say of an image of these dramatic claims, or "sunsets", as you call them. ;) Perhaps an image posted here?

@Our_Newest_Member
I saw the sunset while out shopping yesterday, but took no photo. Some were posted on the Arizona Daily Star I believe, and local news mentioned it. This morning the winds have shifted and the smoke is more evident east of Tucson, like over toward Cochise County. I too am a bit surprised that there hasn't been more info (and photos other than on Inciweb) concerning the Juniper Fire, especially given some of the conspiratorial claims regarding this event.

So, what you're saying is, this was something only you could see? Ah ha!


Seriously though, the AM update for the fire has some newer images. I know some people just don't trust anything or anyone, but the first paragraph has some claims that seem reasonable. My expectation is the benefits of this far out weigh any outlandish claims of__________. Debating such here will be as pointless as it has been 2 years ago.

I would be curious to see some links on these big accusations.

The Clinton deposition type inquiry leads one to considering the motivation.. as I notice “Forest Gangster “

Paragraphs:
1.You doubting wildfire statistics?
2,3. inciweb, And see witness protection laws
4. Wildfire [Cal Gov Code § 51177] and others, Does wild require definition, or fire?
5. inciweb and [Cal Gov Code § 51177] and others
6. I have witnessed intimidation by the FS relating to “wildfires” and at least a dozen first hand accounts of this here and other fires. see witness protection laws, Wikipedia- arson-United States
7 see previous
8 see common law arson..
9, Source is cited
10 witnessed it along with Many.. Fairly sure you know we did too!

The inference is validity can be diluted by questioning weather the FS has claimed to be managing, controlling directing, Aerial ignition and so on of a “wildfire” referenced repeatedly by many in this forum (or see inciweb, also papers, tv, tonto site, any of the over 400 people working it, any land owner there for starters).

Losing what you care about is much worse if you have to live with the knowledge you could have done more to prevent it!

Debating such here will be as pointless as it has been 2 years ago

FYI -Way of topic, No debate and most cases are tried after the fact not before.

5 reasons the Juniper Fire is the ideal Arizona wildfire

It’s believed that a May 17 lightning strike started the Juniper Fire, which continues to burn in the Sierra Ancha Wilderness of the Tonto National Forest.

Check out this story on azcentral.com: http://azc.cc/1t3kuKI

I'm unlocking this topic. If you post follow the guidelines. If you can not figure out how to combine #2 & #7 do not post.

Check out this story on azcentral.com: http://azc.cc/1t3kuKI

Would have been nice if the "journalist" who wrote this story had talked to somebody with an opposing viewpoint. Seems as if it is nothing more than a news release from the Forest Service.

Point #5 explains how the community feels about the fire -- without talking to anybody in the community! Journalism 101 FAIL.

That said, I'm happy to hear that the FS is generally happy with the fire. The skeptic in me wonders if they're not trying to get ahead of the spin because some bad things have happened along the way to reaching their objectives.

Grasshopper wrote:Here is the official Juniper Fire "InciWeb" link: http://inciweb.nwcg.gov/incident/4745/ for ongoing updates.

From Juniper Fire Update June 9th-
(now at 30,357 acres)

"Highway 288 remains closed 10 miles south of Young between mileposts 280 and 293. Forest Road 203 is closed as the fire has reached the Cherry Creek drainage."

I'm curious if it was part of their "managed plan" for it to crossover FR203- Cherry Creek Road to the Cherry Creek drainage

An excellent question by @Grasshopper - I would suspect it "got away from them" but I am suspicious about the FS behavior given Dude's posts which are provocative

I'm sad to see more burn in already burned Ancha areas. Reminds me of multiple burns in Chiricahuas,

The Inciweb map shows that the "operational planning box" extends to FR203 and the Cherry Creek drainage.

There appears to be one section where the fire crossed the drainage, but if the map is to believed, it's basically burning within the planned boundaries. How much of that is spread from the original fire versus having been set intentionally to "backburn" or whatever ... that's a good question.

I'll try to keep this as factual as possible.

Quotes from Inciweb:

Resource objectives continue to achieve desired results.

The Juniper Fire continues to provide significant benefits to the ecosystem in the Sierra Ancha Mountains, meeting the expectations of fire managers.

The Juniper Fire is fulfilling its natural role in the ecosystem maintaining forest health and reducing fuel-loading. The forest needs frequent, low severity fire to restore wildlife habitat, promote healthy vegetation, reduce fuels and the risk of severe fire, and to lower future fire risk for residents, visitors, and firefighters. The Juniper Fire has been an excellent opportunity to reintroduce low severity fire in the Sierra Ancha Mountains.

This fire has burned at a low intensity for the last three weeks in a mosaic pattern, effectively treating over 18,000 acres of forestland while achieving multiple benefits and objectives.

In my opinion, the recently posted photoset does not correspond to the public statements posted on Inciweb regarding low-intensity fire. Fire areas always look especially bad in the immediate aftermath when everything is black and grey with char and ash. I hope it's not really as bad as it looks.

@chumley
Hmm...reminds me of that Aerosmith song, "Dude Looks Like a Lady." Or some sort of close approximation. ;) Seriously, you know we aren't going to be happy with what we see when we get to go back in there.

After taking a good look at the just-released Tonto Travel Management Draft Decision, I believe Cherry Creek Road was going to be closed anyway.

Whether this fire happened or not, and whether or not the Sierra Ancha Wilderness eastern border is changed (100-1 odds anyone?) is was slated for closure.

According to the Draft ROD Map (pdf) the south end will be closed off at the Devil's Chasm TH and just south of the P B Ranch on the north end.

That means:
An extra 3 mile round-trip road-hike for the hike to the Cold Spring/Pueblo Canyon TH.
An extra 7-mile round-trip road-hike to reach the Grapevine Trail #135 TH from the north.

So... for anyone who wants to have their last say in this matter you have the next 45 days (from June 10th) to present final Objections.
One caveat: To participate in submitting objections, previous participation in comment periods is required.

While this may not be what some folks desire, I personally do find a number of positives in the Draft:
- Re-opening FR 594 up to Reno Pass from Punkin Center & FR 1694 running south from Reno Pass.
- Re-opening FR 3715 running south from near Boulder Bob's Peak TH almost to Ballantine Cabin.

And negatives:
- Closing FR 3456 (Log Corral Trail) to everything but motorcycles.

I'm sure I'll find more of both +/- the more I dig into the draft.

CannondaleKid wrote:Re-opening FR 594 up to Reno Pass from Punkin Center

As I recall, you thought it was open ;)

We could start a whole new thread about the travel rule. There's quite a bit of discussion that could be had on that. I wonder how many people actually participate in the public comment periods.

chumley wrote:We could start a whole new thread about the travel rule. There's quite a bit of discussion that could be had on that.

If it takes off, for sure...

chumley wrote:I wonder how many people actually participate in the public comment periods.

Probably not enough.

mazatzal wrote:As I recall, you thought it was open ;)

So I was told... :whistle:
But hopefully it would really be open.
Even better if they opened it up all the way across from Bushnell Tanks, but it doesn't look like that will ever happen.

For those that vehemently oppose this, what would you propose as an alternative?

Some places, like the Gila, have had a liberal fire policy, yet they still suppressed a lightning fire in May of 2010, when the forest was moist, only to have the entire area burn in 2011 and 2012, after very dry winters and in windy conditions.

We know the effects from Wallow, Rodeo-Chedeski, Schultz, and other fires. We know that we are unable to effectively, or even economically control the mega fires, like the ones I mentioned.

Some ecotypes like P-J, burn hot and infrequently, so saying that is low intensity just misleads people. Same with Chaparral. Me, I'm more forgiving of dead ponderosa pines if there are still some live ones and the ground cover is intact. Wait and see.

When you're faced with few options, you choose from what you have. It isn't always what you want.

So, for those that don't like this, or those that say the fire was supposedly a lightning fire (Letty) to imply it was set, or those that want us to believe there is some tanker filled with aerial ignition balls just carpet bombing the forest, or those who just think this is ugly, and don't want fire, what is your alternative?

Trust Jim to pull me out of my no post mode. Let it burn and then burn out naturally. I would like to see what is the actual acreage burned without assistance. Protect what is in the path if it's something really important; I am not the person to decide what is and isn't. I do believe the area to be burned is predetermined when these things happen, and the the FS prosecutes the area to be burned to get rid of brush etc. But must it be done in such a scorched earth manner??

@RedRoxx44
Welcome back!

As far as fires & fire management go, I know I'm not qualified to offer any solutions. Even for the 'qualified' I daresay there is no iron-clad solution.

Personally, having trudged through dozens of fire-scorched areas throughout my life (most during my youth) I have always found beauty in the aftermath... immediately after, as well as in the re-birth over the months and years to come.

CannondaleKid wrote:As far as fires & fire management go, I know I'm not qualified to offer any solutions. Even for the 'qualified' I daresay there is no iron-clad solution.

Ditto that.

And while it's not always necessary for those who are qualified to give the most nuanced details of the operation to the uneducated among us, I feel that transparency would be helpful. It's difficult to get people to believe that a fire is beneficial just because you report that it's beneficial. Especially when that information is conveyed next to vague terms like "low-intensity".

I would personally prefer more information. It would seem less shady or underhanded if the fire managers clearly communicated that the fire would (or at least could possibly) moonscape certain sections within the managed perimeter.

Because either that was in the plan all along -- in which case it would have been better received if we knew about it ahead of time -- or it wasn't in the plan and things totally didn't go the way they wanted it to. Either way, it would be nice if there was accurate, truthful information published instead of being told "move along, nothing to see here..."