View Full Version : Pike/San Isabel Forest Planning Meetings- HACKETT!!

12-04-2006, 08:06 AM
Hello! This is to let you know that our Pike and San Isabel NationalForests Plan Revision meetings have been scheduled as follow:
Forests Plan Revision Collaboration Meetings:
January & February 2007
1. Leadville, CO: 1/17/07; 5:30 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.;
National Mining Hall of Fame & Museum, 120 W. 9th St.

2. Salida, CO: 1/18/07; 5:30 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.;
Chaffee County Fairgrounds, 10165 County Rd. 120

3. Denver, CO: 1/30/07; 5:30 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.;
Lloyd C. Clements Community Center, EDIT!! 1580 Yarrow Street!!!. Changed 1/16/2007

4. Colorado Springs, CO: 1/31/07; 5:30 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.;
La Foret Conference Center, 6145 Shoup Rd.

5. Westcliffe, CO: 2/14/07; 5:30 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.;
Rancher’s Roost Café & Bowling Alley, 25 Main St.

6. Pueblo, CO: 2/15/07; 5:30 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.;
El Pueblo Museum, 302 N. Santa Fe Ave.

7. Fairplay, CO: 2/21/07; 5:30 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.;
Fairplay Fairbarn, 880 Bogue St.

For more information, please visit:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/psicc/projects/forest_revision/for_rev.shtml (http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/psicc/projects/forest_revision/for_rev.shtml)
(For information and special accommodations, please call: (719) 553-1400.)

Thank you for your interest!

01-11-2007, 07:22 AM

Dear BRC Action Alert Subscriber,
Attention Colorado Recreationists!
The Pike and San Isabel National Forests are revising their Land and Resource Management Plans (Forest Plans). To begin the process they are holding a series of public meetings during the months of January and February throughout central Colorado.
These meetings will begin by recording and mapping your views on needed changes to the management strategies on various issues ranging from recreation to conservation. Then there will be discussions on the changes you have identified and how they will fit into the revision process and how this will leads to a working relationship in the future.
The review is part of a directive that forest plans be revised every 15 years. Although the Pike and San Isabel plan has been amended 31 times in the past 22 years, it hasn't been completely rewritten since 1984.
National forest plan revisions in Colorado have spawned controversy in the past. A revision for the White River National Forest resulted in many delays and lawsuits before being finalized in 2002.
At issue on the Pike and San Isabel national forests will be ranching, recreation, oil and gas development, logging, forest thinning and off-road vehicle use. The FS says they will complete the plan by October 2008.
This is the chance to have your ideas heard and to let the FS know what is working and what is not with the current management of the Pike and San Isabel National Forest.
The meetings will be from 5:30 to 9 p.m. and will take place at a variety of locations in January and February:
- Jan. 17, Leadville, National Mining Hall of Fame and Museum, 120 W. 9th St.
- Jan. 18, Salida, Chaffee County Fairgrounds, 10165 County Road 120.
- Jan. 30, Denver, Clements Community Center, NOTE! CHANGED 1/16/2007!! 1580 Yarrow Street.
- Jan. 31, Colorado Springs, La Foret Conference Center, 6145 Shoup Road.
- Feb. 14, Westcliffe, Rancher's Roost Cafe & Bowling Alley, 25 Main St.
- Feb. 15, Pueblo, El Pueblo Museum, 302 N. Santa Fe Ave.
- Feb. 21, Fairplay, Fairplay Fairbarn, 880 Bogue St.
As always, if you have any questions or concerns please contact BRC.
Thanks in advance for your involvement,
Brian Hawthorne
Public Lands Director
BlueRibbon Coalition
208-237-1008 ext 102

01-25-2007, 08:07 AM
Hey, just a bump- DO NOT MISS THIS ONE!!!

Uncle Ben
01-25-2007, 08:11 AM
Hey, just a bump- DO NOT MISS THIS ONE!!!

Thanks for the kick! Where is 480 S. Allison Parkway?


01-25-2007, 08:16 AM
It's sorta near the Fed Center, not so far from Stevinson.

Came up pretty well on Mapquest, I can link it if you need to.

Val posted this on Colo 4x4, and I take issue with one point which I also posted and will here too.

The Forest Service needs to know that the public cares about motorized recreation access and opportunities within the forest. They also need to know that we are conservationists and care about watershed protection and sustainability of trail systems within the forest to allow future use. They want to know about the places you care about.

When speaking at a meeting, remember to explain who you are, your role in the community, and your family’s interest in the area. Here are some suggestions of what you might want to ask the Forest Service to do in the Pike-San Isabel Forest Plan:
Protect and expand opportunities for motorized recreation. Motorized recreation is a valid form of recreation and cannot and should not be shut out of the public lands.
Manage all forms of recreational use in the forest in a balanced way so as to preserve the recreational experience of all users.
Recommend that all citizen proposed wilderness areas NOT be included in the plan, although some should be, not all.
Protect watershed areas from all forms of recreation as they are the filters for our water.
Follow the recommendations by Governor Owens for Inventoried Roadless Areas that was laid out by the Roadless Task Force in 2006.
Support the principles and recommendations of COHVCO regarding motorized recreation within the Pike San Isabel National Forest.Meeting info:
Denver, CO: 1/30/07; 5:30 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.; Lloyd C. Clements Community Center, 1580 Yarrow St. (Lakewood)

Protect watershed areas from all forms of recreation as they are the filters for our water.
Just a word of caution on this one. Much of the Hayman area is watershed. In the minds of many advocates, "Protect watershed areas from all forms of recreation as they are the filters for our water" means not opening it again for OHV or fishing, ever.

I would suggest mentioning mitigation of impact, which is very doable, as well as monitoring the routes and encouraging club adoption of these trails. Also mention their importance as access for timber management, rescue/medical access, and the importance of letting the public see what carelessness with fire can do. Mention the importance of partnering with the OHV community to restore and maintain the area - it has not been insignificant, and can be utlized more.

You might also mention that protecting the land, while stopping short of Wild and Scenic Rivers/ Wilderness designation, actually makes it soooo much simpler to mitigate the impact from the fire on our water sources. It's a case study as to why hardcore Wilderness designation is not the right choice for everything.

We are activists too. Leverage our resources more effectively.

I was part of the process on designating the South Platte as Wild and Scenic River. It would have been Wilderness-Lite. I commented on just how difficult that would make mitigation of fire damage and erosion (big factors in that area) on the water supply, and that many of the protections could be put in place without full restriction which would tie the land manager's hands. This gained traction with the land managers.

This was several years BEFORE Hayman. Didn't even use my crystal ball. But they did not do full designation, we still had access until the fire, and boy did that turn out to be prescient.

So you think your comments don't matter? OH YES THEY DO, if you address all the land manager's concerns as well as OHV concerns. Provide an evenhanded comment that solves the greatest number of problems and you WILL see it enacted in land management decisions.

01-25-2007, 08:31 AM


01-31-2007, 08:28 AM
I only saw Seldom Seen at the meeting.... Hmmmm...:confused:

I could have missed someone, but it seems to me that we need to ramp up our involvement with this sort of thing. It is part of who we are as a club, no? Hmmmm?
[nag mode off]

RE: Pike/San Isabel meetings.
This phase is the 'Need for Change' phase of an iterative (that means each step builds upon another) process under the 2005 forest planning guidelines. Pike is one of the first forests to undergo a forest plan revision under these. I think it is a good plan, because they develop overall vision for the forest, more concrete goals or aspirations, and then more granular guidelines for projects. This will add a lot of clarity for evaluating individual projects' compliance with forest planning.

There were the predictable comments, such as separate areas for motorized and nonmotorized areas to reduce user conflict. There were also comments asking for more multi-use areas, and these were not necessarily just from the motorized users. One Sierra Club member I know presented for her table and actually asked that single track routes remain single track, rather than getting widened by uses with a larger impact (she said 'larger users', which garnered a few chuckles...). This is a frequent complaint by motorcyclists when ATVs widen their trails (not to mention a complaint of ours when ATVs braid our trails... hmm, there's a pattern here...).

Our table had Val from COHVCO present, and we stressed the need for more OHV routes to reduce pressure from those areas closest to the metro Front Range and reduce per-mile impact on those routes.

Of particular interest was the conversation I had with Randy Hickenbottom afterwards. Predator 4x4 in Colorado Springs has partnered with Teller County to restore some of the routes in the Hayman burn area, and Randy feels very good about their progress and plans. This is very good news.

Randy also has a warm fuzzy about the management of the Rampart Range Motorcycle area with the RRMMC group, and though the ecological footprint of the area is smaller, there are actually more trail miles developed in it than there were. This is a very good precedent, and the likely direction of the future (30 years +) as the Front Range grows.http://s3.amazonaws.com/advrider/eek7.gif (ick, not fun to contemplate).

Now for the challenges:
Another area of interest, and adjacent to the Argentine Pass area that our club has adopted: the areas around Geneva Basin and Hall Valley. These areas need better management, and I will meet with Randy on these. I think (if our club agrees) that these areas would be good candidates for our club to adopt, or co-adopt with other 4x4 / MC clubs.

I also met an interesting fella who designs singletrack (for bicycles and/or motorized users), and who can get funding for same. He has been frustrated working with (IIRC) the Canyon Lakes RD, as in, he had money and they refused.

Now wouldn't it be interesting to help him let out some of that frustration in an area that is designated for motorized recreation, and needs well designed sustainable singletrack? Hmmmmmm.....http://s3.amazonaws.com/advrider/mwink.gif

The future is about collaboration with other OHV users. This means pooling resources, gaining USFS partnership because we address the needs of multiple user groups. It also means doing what the Blue Ribbon Coalition says they are about: supporting ALL forms of motorized, mechanized, equine and foot recreation.

It's a good chance to make a difference. What say you?

02-01-2007, 01:39 PM
I only saw Seldom Seen at the meeting.... Hmmmm...:confused:

I could have missed someone, but it seems to me that we need to ramp up our involvement with this sort of thing. It is part of who we are as a club, no? Hmmmm?
It's a good chance to make a difference. What say you?

That was one meeting I wish I would have been able to attend. Time is in limited supply with a little one right now and giving the wife a break. Once the smoke starts to clear a little more i'd like to try and take some time and follow the pike/SI forest info items.

Thanks for the write up and representation, that was very informative.

02-02-2007, 08:15 AM
Valerie Douglas' summary of the Denver Pike National Forest planning meeting is below. Valerie is the COHVCO Trails Advocate and a fierce fighter for OHV opportunities.

The Pike San Isabel National Forest held their workshop planning meeting on Tuesday night in Denver and Wednesday night in Colorado Springs
regarding planning for the upcoming revised Forest Plan. Both meetings
were jam packed; Colorado Springs was packed to the point that they had
to turn people away and will be scheduling another meeting in COS as a

The meetings were set up as tables to conduct group work, ideas, and
brainstorming. The basis was considering a need for change on the
forest. The FS asked three questions for everyone to fill out on their
own worksheet, and then do a worksheet as a group and present the top
two issues if they have not already been stated.

The questions requesting pubic input are:

1. Considering what you know of the Pike and San Isabel National Forests
(that may be related to places, resources, or topics of interest)

a. what about the Forests do you think is working well and requires no
change, and
b. what about the Forests do you think should change?

2. Why should these remain the same or why should they be considered for
future change?

3. What are the locations of what you've mentioned in your answers to
Questions 1 and 2? Please list locations.

Groups were broken out by the number on your name tag and the table number.

At the Denver meeting the focus was recreation related. Every group had
something to say about recreation, but here are some of the topics that
were mentioned that people were either for or against: multi-use trails,
segmented/segregated trails, more trails, less trails, protect habitat,
reduce CO2 in the forest, protect watershed, remove pine beetle kill,
open for logging to thin the forest, primitive OHV trails given
wilderness and urban encroachment, less wilderness, more wilderness and
support the citizens proposed wilderness, etc.

From what constituents have told me, the Colorado Springs meeting was
very similar in responses from the tables.

Bob Leaverton, Forest Supervisor, spoke repeatedly on collaboration and
working with the public on creating the best decision for the Forest
Plan. The current schedule has the revised Forest Plan being released
for the 30 day comment period in the Spring of 2009, and he wants as
much public participation as possible.

Before and after the meeting was over I was able to talk to Randy
Hickenbottom, the South Platte District Ranger, about OHV concerns and
what he thought were key points to keeping areas open for recreation and
for the possibility of future trails to be created. His response was
that focus is now turning to trails that are above timberline or near
timberline and that he would like to see as many as those trails adopted
and patrolled going forward so that they can be sustainable routes with
little "scarring to the landscape". Bill Morgan from Rising Sun 4WD Club
was participating in the conversation with me and we have decided that
we will start up an OHV meeting similar to what is done monthly on the
Boulder Ranger District with the South Platte RD. I am working with Bill
and Randy to set up the meetings, and I invite any clubs willing to
participate to adopt a trail or do trail maintenance to join the
meetings. The Boulder meetings are very useful and the three clubs that
participate the most on that district have made huge headway to keeping
trails open and doing volunteer work with the FS.

The next workshop meetings are:

5. Westcliffe, CO: 2/14/07; 5:30 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.; Rancher's Roost Café & Bowling Alley, 25 Main St.

6. Pueblo, CO: 2/15/07; 5:30 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.; El Pueblo Museum, 301 N. Union Ave.7. Fairplay, CO: 2/21/07; 5:30 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.; Alma Town Hall, 59 E. Buckskin Rd. (Alma)
The second Colorado Springs meeting has not been announced.

Valerie Douglas
COHVCO Trails Advocate

Just so you know, though I am the Land Use Coordinator for a 4x4 club, I am also a committed motorcyclist and feel strongly that my work needs to be on behalf of ALL OHV users. This parallels the philosophy of the Blue Ribbon Coalition, and is what COHVCO is all about. I also met an interesting fella who designs singletrack for multiple uses, that is challenging and sustainable. New and sustainable singletrack is critical to relieve pressure on front range riding areas such as Rampart Range. It will NOT be able to sustain the use demanded 30 years from now!

Randy agrees and is pleased with the Rampart management committee's work. Rampart has a smaller ecological footprint, yet more trail miles. This is a good model for other motorized prescription areas in the forest and does not get a lot of opposition from enviro groups. It will also be an important strategy for 4x4 / ATV routes. We need to be tolerant of other OHV users, and they of us.


02-02-2007, 08:32 AM
what about building a "bridge" with the mtb crowd? The world is shrinking as we know...

I don't really have any contacts there, as I was a roadie, but I am sure someone here gets their crank dirty...:bolt:

02-02-2007, 09:21 AM
Yeah, the singletrack guy does multiuse trails - including mechanized and equine. That's how we gotta think!

I've been known to break out my Trek once in a while. My younger son is quite avid.

02-12-2007, 11:52 AM
It is not too late to submit your comments for Pike NF planning- PLEASE PLEASE participate!

Access the .pdf here:

Then mail it to the office shown on the form. Be sure to emphasize the importance of dispersed OHV usage to relieve high impacts along the front range, and the importance of no net loss of trails, 4x4, and OHV routes in general - especially since demand is increasing. This would not be environmentally responsible, and would result in cascading closures.