• Jack-it Night: April 2024 RS Meeting Hey Guest: Wed. April 3rd is the next Rising Sun meeting, and you won't want to miss it. We're doing our annual offroad recovery equipment demonstration and trail skills training aka "Jack It Night." Meeting starts at 6:30 p.m. (early) Click here for all the details.

pike san isabel deis meetings

rover67

Rising Sun Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Messages
9,291
Location
Boulder, Co
I wish I could but can't guys. I am on dad duty and get to replace a hot water heater tonight after I make dinner and the kid goes down.
thanks for representing.
 

AimCOTaco

Cruise Moab Committee
Staff member
Cruise Moab Committee
Joined
Aug 13, 2010
Messages
2,247
Location
Longmont, CO
I was hoping to make it but cannot. Thanks to those representin' looking forward to hearing your updates.

Those who can't attend can still send in comments.
 

Inukshuk

Rising Sun Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
7,271
Location
Denver, CO
Deadline is November 4. Do it by Nov 1!
Submit comments here: Pike & San Isabel National Forests Motorized Travel Management (MVUM) Analysis #48214

The "meeting" was "open house" style. A bunch of easels with information and maps to look over. Full sized maps are much easier to read, but all are available online.

There were many FS employees there to talk to.

One of their documents has a white FJ40 on the cover. They NEED and WANT our comments. They can't help us unless we comment.

One I chatted with and exchanged information drives a nice 4Runner with some mods and I will be following up with him to go run a trail (for fun, not business).

Be specific. Pick roads, identify them by number. Tell them why you want it to remain open.

We must should submit an organization comment from The Rising Sun Four Wheel Drive Club of Colorado and say how many members we have, how many miles (estimated) we cover a year, and our trail hours, and adopt-a-trails. Who can help?

IMG_3313.jpg
IMG_3312.jpg
IMG_3311.jpg
IMG_3314.jpg
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3314.jpg
    IMG_3314.jpg
    1.5 MB · Views: 179

Jameson

Rising Sun Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
371
Location
Woodland Park, CO
Deadline is November 4. Do it by Nov 1!
Submit comments here: Pike & San Isabel National Forests Motorized Travel Management (MVUM) Analysis #48214

The "meeting" was "open house" style. A bunch of easels with information and maps to look over. Full sized maps are much easier to read, but all are available online.

There were many FS employees there to talk to.

One of their documents has a white FJ40 on the cover. They NEED and WANT our comments. They can't help us unless we comment.

One I chatted with and exchanged information drives a nice 4Runner with some mods and I will be following up with him to go run a trail (for fun, not business).

Be specific. Pick roads, identify them by number. Tell them why you want it to remain open.

We must should submit an organization comment from The Rising Sun Four Wheel Drive Club of Colorado and say how many members we have, how many miles (estimated) we cover a year, and our trail hours, and adopt-a-trails. Who can help?

View attachment 82138View attachment 82143View attachment 82142View attachment 82141

Somehow just saw this thread - I am happy to help craft a response from Rising Sun, in coordination with other members to submit by the end of next week.
 

SteveH

Hard Core 4+
Joined
Aug 10, 2006
Messages
2,907
Location
Colo Springs
That is 'Alternative E' (42% loss) - I have read about 'Alternative C' - which is a 10% loss in roads and a 20% gain in trails and is their 'proposed action'. I'd like to submit comments, but may not fully plow through the 400 page document.

Do we (the Rising Sun types) tend to think 'Alternative A' is best, or could we live with 'C'? Pike NF has a lot of crappy stupid ATV trails that probably should be closed for erosion reasons, but it's hard to know which trails will be closed under Alternative C. Do we trust the FS to do this right? I tend to toward 'Alternative A' - given the history of things.

Thanks - Steve
 

DaveInDenver

Rising Sun Ham Guru
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
12,941
Location
Grand Junction
Alternative A is a baseline inventory but I don't see any way it could actually be implemented (the "No Action" alternative is usually just for comparison). So from an OHV perspective Alternative C seems like the least disruptive.

It took the USFS years to generate the documents and unless its something you work with daily I can't see any one person knowing enough to comment intelligently on the whole package. Look for areas or trails you know and see what is proposed then make a pointed comment. Being specific helps too because if they get tons of unique comments they have to look at the data point and potentially respond to it. A single comment could be the one that keeps a route open or potentially even helps sway to one alternative if the argument is valid, such as accessing a piece of property or something.

The main hope I suppose is that C is actually chosen and that they aren't flooded with comments that cause B, D or E to be chosen. They got sued and are reaching out to users to I think support doing as few actual changes as possible. But if they are directed to close roads and get no push-back they will close them.

The problem I have is the colors they used on the maps look similar so its hard to visually tell an NFS subtraction from a seasonal closure (mostly seasonal is assigned to either side of a primary route color so subtraction & seasonal I don't think would ever be overlaid) and an NFS addition from a change. So I have to go between the map and the data to see what they mean. I'm conflicted in that if a route is changed to non-motorized but left or one is added for mechanized (mountain biking) that's relatively less bad than a complete closure. So all alternatives have pros and cons.
 
Last edited:

Jameson

Rising Sun Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
371
Location
Woodland Park, CO
Alright - I'd like to touch base with anyone who has volunteer numbers for the club, trail time, some research (Dave?), as well as obtain permission to put this together from club exec committee. I can touch base with folks Mon, Tues on the phone, draft a statement Wed and send it out Friday.
 

Jameson

Rising Sun Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
371
Location
Woodland Park, CO
Alright - I'd like to touch base with anyone who has volunteer numbers for the club, trail time, some research (Dave?), as well as obtain permission to put this together from club exec committee. I can touch base with folks Mon, Tues on the phone, draft a statement Wed and send it out Friday.
If you are any of those people (Marco, Dave, Jackson, (who has trail time and volunteer hours??) ) DM me your phone number and when you would like to talk Monday or Tuesday.
 

DaveInDenver

Rising Sun Ham Guru
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
12,941
Location
Grand Junction
This viewer is very handy for finding a particular trail and its status under the alternatives.

https://psi-route-viewer.firebaseapp.com/routes

FWIW, I think any individual general responses should be to make a comment to support alternative C with no addendums (if you don't have a specific recommendation. I mean). Put something into your own words and at least register clear support for that as an OHV enthusiast. It seems mostly that C has seasonal closures that might bite and a couple of inconsistencies that need to be fixed but it's about as fair as can be expected TBH.
 
Last edited:

Jameson

Rising Sun Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
371
Location
Woodland Park, CO
This viewer is very handy for finding a particular trail and its status under the alternatives.

https://psi-route-viewer.firebaseapp.com/routes

FWIW, I think any general response should be to make a comment to support alternative C with no addendums. Put something into your own words and at least register clear support for that as an OHV enthusiast.
Hey Dave - I had the same thought... essentially endorse Alternative C as a club but maybe call out any specific roads/trails that are set for closure under C as an exception - can't hurt. My thought on the structure of the letter is mention the collective hours we spend enjoying roads and trails in Colorado - and how much time we spend cleaning them up and maintaining them. Then endorse C but call out any exceptions we feel strongly about. Also pledge our continued support to contribute to maintenance and cleanups on the trails. Some arguments I'll include are: pop of CO increasing, reducing trails/roads as seem in other alternatives will compound with that to drive up traffic/wear/tear on the remaining open trails. Also - with a Forestry Service stretched thin they want us on the trails - we are a net positive. I'll be drafting the letter tonight with the goal of providing a draft for everyone's feedback by end of day tomorrow (Wednesday).
 

MountainGoat

Club Treasurer
Staff member
Cruise Moab Committee
Joined
Jul 4, 2008
Messages
3,053
Location
Evergreen, CO
Thanks for taking this on Jameson. I think it's a GREAT idea.

I wonder if other clubs are doing similar things. I am curious what their approach is and if we could work together to create a bigger and better impact. Our effort needs to match that of the people who are trying to reduce access. They are working together and so should we. It seems like a coordinated front is probably the best way to prevail.
 

SteveH

Hard Core 4+
Joined
Aug 10, 2006
Messages
2,907
Location
Colo Springs
I stressed in my comments that roads are the only practical way the some elderly and disabled can enjoy the national forests, and that (as Jameson said) reducing the number of roads increases the pressure on the remaining ones.
 

rover67

Rising Sun Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Messages
9,291
Location
Boulder, Co
In case anybody is wondering how this affects us....

I cross referenced the roads/trails that we've traveled on as a club last year in the Pike - San Isabel Forests and which ones are affected by this plan and here they are. For the majority of these Option C is the best bet. Also all except for one in those forests that we traveled on are affected:


347 - Missouri Gulch
357 - Rule Ridge
212- China Wall
408 - Wheeler Lake
446 - Topaz Mountain
854 - Wallace Gulch
39 - Rock Creek Hills
33 Boreas Pass
560 - Stoney Pass
120 - Hall Valley
108 - Harris Park
563 Dakan Mountain
118.E Buno Gulch -
119 - Upper Geneva
105 - Slaughterhouse
565 - Red Cone
550 - Redskin Creek
543 - Wellington Lake
300 - Bald Mtn. Gulch
185 - ASpen Ridge
6 - Hayden Creek
277 - Baldwin Creek 4WD
278 - Mt. Antero -
267 - Tin Cup Pass
296 - Grizzly Gulch
105 - Hagerman Pass
110 - Halfmoon
559 - Medano Pass

Also out of 2639 hours on these trails spent by Clubs belonging to the Colorado State Association, Rising Sun spent 2269 hours.
 

jps8460

Cruise Moab Committee
Cruise Moab Committee
Joined
Feb 15, 2013
Messages
2,910
Location
Broomfield
In case anybody is wondering how this affects us....

I cross referenced the roads/trails that we've traveled on as a club last year in the Pike - San Isabel Forests and which ones are affected by this plan and here they are. For the majority of these Option C is the best bet. Also all except for one in those forests that we traveled on are affected:


347 - Missouri Gulch
357 - Rule Ridge
212- China Wall
408 - Wheeler Lake
446 - Topaz Mountain
854 - Wallace Gulch
39 - Rock Creek Hills
33 Boreas Pass
560 - Stoney Pass
120 - Hall Valley
108 - Harris Park
563 Dakan Mountain
118.E Buno Gulch -
119 - Upper Geneva
105 - Slaughterhouse
565 - Red Cone
550 - Redskin Creek
543 - Wellington Lake
300 - Bald Mtn. Gulch
185 - ASpen Ridge
6 - Hayden Creek
277 - Baldwin Creek 4WD
278 - Mt. Antero -
267 - Tin Cup Pass
296 - Grizzly Gulch
105 - Hagerman Pass
110 - Halfmoon
559 - Medano Pass

Also out of 2639 hours on these trails spent by Clubs belonging to the Colorado State Association, Rising Sun spent 2269 hours.
Awesome Marco!!!
 

Jameson

Rising Sun Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
371
Location
Woodland Park, CO
Thanks for taking this on Jameson. I think it's a GREAT idea.

I wonder if other clubs are doing similar things. I am curious what their approach is and if we could work together to create a bigger and better impact. Our effort needs to match that of the people who are trying to reduce access. They are working together and so should we. It seems like a coordinated front is probably the best way to prevail.
I think some collaboration with other clubs could go a long way. I won't be at next week's meet, but would strongly suggest that this be brought up. Perhaps could be integrated into the role of the land use committee or whatever we end up deciding to do here. The threat's not going away and we should adapt to fight a smarter fight.
 

DaveInDenver

Rising Sun Ham Guru
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
12,941
Location
Grand Junction
These are great examples.

33 Boreas Pass
This has a proposed seasonal closure. It would be open all year for about 2 miles above Como and seasonally closed beyond that up to the pass. It's County Road 10 from the summit to Breckenridge and unaffected on that side? But how do you argue against this since it's not kept open all winter and is a well know ski route to the Section House. So is anything really changing on the ground with Alt C just formalizing the reality? The only one that hurts us is Alt E, which decommissions it completely. In some alternatives the road is improved.

267 - Tin Cup Pass
This is one of a couple of places I noticed that is in conflict. The connection to 267 going from the northwest is still an open, legal route in the Gunnison North MVUM so closing 267.F leaves a short gap if 267 and 267.A are left open on the PSI side and nothing changes on the GMUG side.

559 - Medano Pass
Another seasonal closure in Alt C at the last 1.8 miles I think into the GSDNP and no change otherwise. Is this another hard to argue against case if we stress Alternative C is acceptable without change? Can we live with a compromise to close the trail seasonally (I believe closures would be December 1st - April 15th) if it means the road isn't decommissioned?
 
Last edited:

jps8460

Cruise Moab Committee
Cruise Moab Committee
Joined
Feb 15, 2013
Messages
2,910
Location
Broomfield
Top