Proposed changes include year-round camping bans in key areas and temporary widespread vehicle restrictions during times of heightened fire risk. Flagstaff city leaders have expressed general support for the change, although concerns remain about how the proposal will affect unprotected people living in Coconino National Forest.

If the changes are adopted, the new limits will come into force in April.

Following the 2022 fire season, when tunnel and pipeline fires wreaked havoc on Flagstaff communities, there was a major public outcry calling for stricter fire limits in Coconino National Forest. Experts say rising temperatures, a prolonged drought, and forests that have stored fuel from historic fires have created the perfect storm conditions for a wildfire that could pose an existential threat to the city of Flagstaff. I generally agree.

The new set of proposals “are part of a long-term risk reduction strategy that addresses pressing concerns about future large-scale human-induced wildfires and focuses on forest health and resilience.” Forestry officials said it was designed.

“After taking a closer look at everything the Flagstaff Ranger District can do to reduce the risk of man-made wildfires, we know that additional measures need to be considered during the hotter, drier parts of the year. ‘ said Nick Mast, Deputy Ranger Chief. “Our top priority is community safety, and we are confident that these proposed changes strike a balance between community safety and access to public lands.”

This proposal consists of two main components. The first is to expand the perimeter of year-round camping and fire bans adjacent to the City of Flagstaff. The new boundary will encompass most of the Dry Lake Hills area south of the San Francisco Peaks, selected areas near the Cinder Hills OHV area, and a swath of land north of Walnut Canyon National Monument.

The second element is the enforcement of the electric vehicle ban, which takes effect during the second phase of fire restrictions, which usually starts in mid-June and lasts about a month. This motor vehicle ban will cover the entire Kachina Peaks Wilderness and Mount Elden region, the Pumphouse Wash near Kachina Village, and the forests between Lake Mary and Walnut Canyon.

A ban on motorized vehicles may seem extreme to some, but “in fact, about 98% of fires start in the immediate vicinity of a car,” says district ranger Matt McGrath. . “By keeping vehicles out of the area during times of heightened fire risk, we have a better chance of preventing catastrophic fires west of the peak.”

McGrath clarified that under the proposed motor vehicle restrictions, Snowball Road and the Arizona Snowball Ski Resort will be allowed to remain open and function normally. The trailhead is also left open to make it accessible to non-motorized trips such as hikers, bikers and equestrians.

Extending the year-round camping ban is an effort to improve the effectiveness of existing fire bans in key areas, which McGrath said would be difficult to enforce.

“Both of last year’s presumably man-made fires occurred in areas with permanent fire restrictions,” McGrath said.

Banning campfires is more realistic than banning campfires, McGrath said.

“I wouldn’t say it’s easy for us to enforce,” he said. “But it’s easier to shut the gates and keep people off the road than to patrol every road and find every illegal campervan and illegal campfire.”

The problem, however, is that the forests around Flagstaff and some key areas affected by the ban are populated by people who can’t afford to live elsewhere.

“The long-term problem we all share in this community is that many people live in the forest without protection because there are not many other options,” McGrath said. . “We need to ask how humans can understand and respect those who are trying to survive while trying to protect Peak and communities from devastating fires.”

Many members shared these concerns when the Forest Service submitted the proposal to Flagstaff City Council.

Deputy Mayor Austin Aslan said, “There are two sides to every coin, and there will be an already marginalized population that will be disproportionately affected by some of these decisions.” I hope that you will continue to have a special sensitivity to it.”

The debate turned to what planning and public outreach could be done to ensure that the unprotected populations affected by the proposed ban have access to other options. rice field.

“This is a community issue,” said City Councilor Deborah Harris, calling on the Forest Service to act unilaterally to find solutions for unprotected people living in fire-sensitive areas. He added that it seemed unfair.

“We all have to do this,” she said.

To that end, Flagstaff Mayor Becky Daggett asked what arrangements could be made with local nonprofits to create shelter plans for those displaced under the proposed restrictions. Alderman Lori Matthews, veteran of Flagstaff Shelter Services and founder of the nonprofit Anew Living, said emergency shelter networks are well established, but this long-term He pointed out that this is not always the case in the case of evacuation.

“I think we’re going to be permanently closed from now on,” Matthews said. “I think we should make a handshake agreement with the non-profit organization.”

According to Mayor Greg Clifton, the city has a shelter plan for “emergency situations,” but it was unclear whether the plan would effectively address concerns related to the fire limit proposal.

Daggett requested that the plan be made available for consideration by the city council.

Despite the concerns, city leaders and staff voted in favor of the Forest Service’s proposal.

“We think it makes a lot of sense,” said Paul Ortlosi, the city’s wildfire manager. “It speaks to the reality we all face of living in a fire-dependent ecosystem and a city that deals with fire all the time.”