Go Back   Pacific Northwest Four Wheel Drive Association > Wheeling > Washington Trails > Evans Creek Trails
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 05-14-2010, 12:28 PM
Nichol's Avatar
Nichol Nichol is offline
rollin
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Lake Tapps
Posts: 553
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogfather View Post
It is also My opinion that if restrictions are subjected, I will build my rig accordingly. (( I play well with others))
Edward, did you check out the link that JEEP is building them wider?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nichol View Post
http://www.jeep.com/hostc/vsmc/vehic...ode=CUJ201006# Go to Dimensions & Capacities on the left, check out the widths :
__________________
Nichol Phillips
Cascade 4x4's Tacoma
El Dorado Dust Devils
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-14-2010, 12:46 PM
jim putman's Avatar
jim putman jim putman is offline
Washington State Director
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: puyallup wa.
Posts: 1,530
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merrick Graves View Post
Be careful with the above statement. There is much said that applies but the full story has not been stated. The width restriction may not apply to todays vehicle standard but what else also does not apply to todays standard. Has anyone here other than myself ever been to a White River meeting and heard from Bob Pacific that under todays regulations Evans Creek could not be built? I have heard that not only from Bob. The FS was speaking from soil conditions to water quality and other enviromental/ecological concerns that Evans Creek would not meet the standards in place today.

There is much that does not meet "Todays Standard".
Yep goes for Elbe too.
__________________
Member #40 Hombres jeep club
Region 2 landmatters chairman
Wa. State Director PNW4WDA
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-14-2010, 12:46 PM
Nichol's Avatar
Nichol Nichol is offline
rollin
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Lake Tapps
Posts: 553
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merrick Graves View Post
Everything you mention can be mitigated. Only takes money for the projects you describe. Maybe we should appeal the "Queen Christine" to return the funding she took from the trail system. She took it all.

.
We did file a case, I understand it was rejected but now in the appeals process. http://documents.clubexpress.com/doc...bEBnJGtkmEs%3d
__________________
Nichol Phillips
Cascade 4x4's Tacoma
El Dorado Dust Devils

Last edited by Nichol; 05-14-2010 at 01:26 PM. Reason: grammer and all that stuff
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-14-2010, 12:47 PM
jim putman's Avatar
jim putman jim putman is offline
Washington State Director
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: puyallup wa.
Posts: 1,530
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peppermint Patti View Post
This is one of those issues that you will never be able to satisfy everyone and everyone has a passionate opinion. We have had a similar discussion on our board http://www.deschutescounty4wheelers....?TOPIC_ID=1764. There are some updated USFS specs posted there. In the Deschutes National Forest, the forest supervisor has adopted a blanket 80 inch rule for all new trail systems. Keep in mind that a full-size F-350 is under 80 inches. Depending on the vegetation, terrain and distance between trees, sometimes a length restriction would be more appropriate. Sometime a tire size restriction is more appropriate. Sometimes a width restriction works better.

The goal is to maintain the integrity of the trail system and not allow folks to make a freeway out of it. Often times, people lose sight of this goal while "protecting" their right to use the system. Not all trails are appropriate for all rigs, we just have to accept that. A full size truck with 44 inch tires is inappropriate for Edison, whereas a stock or semi-stock rig with 31" tires and no lockers is inappropriate for Santiam. We need to keep the big picture in mind.
Key word being "new"
__________________
Member #40 Hombres jeep club
Region 2 landmatters chairman
Wa. State Director PNW4WDA
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-14-2010, 04:01 PM
Grant Collins's Avatar
Grant Collins Grant Collins is offline
Friends
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Tacoma
Posts: 47
Default

I was at the meeting on Tuesday.
The issue of "width restrictions" was brought up a wheeler not by any forest employees. The question was asked what was the width restrictions at Evans Creek was, and the answer was 72". The original width used to be 60" way back. It was not discussed if it was hub-hub or tire-tire.
Changing the number for current vehicles is being addressed for the Tail Jamboree, those involved are trying to get it up to 76".
Evans Creek is an existing ORV park and the rules are already in place. When a new park is opened new rules are written.
Keeping our current trails healthy and open needs to today's focus.
I would like to see consistent numbers for all National Forest ORV Parks.
The current staff is in a hard place, they want to keep the parks open, but need to maintain current (even if out of date) rules and regulations.
I feel that this issue can be looked at to accommodate today's vehicles, but it needs to presented in a educated and professional manner.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-16-2010, 02:45 PM
dirk's Avatar
dirk dirk is offline
that WOHVA guy
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: washington
Posts: 645
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peppermint Patti View Post
Well, the specs are located in the Forest Service Handbook FSH 2309.18_20 Exhibit 23.23-01 and are effective 10/16/2008. In the case of our 80 inch rule, it falls within the parameters of these specs. The forest service came to us and asked us if we would agree.
A quick search of FSH 2309.18 via google led me to this...did I find the correct info Patti?
http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/fsh/2309.18/
In the index above are 2 sections to focus on:
Trail Class definitions start on page 06...

http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/f...2309.18_10.doc
4x4 Trail Specifications start on page 30...

http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/f...2309.18_20.doc
If I am reading the specifications correctly, 4x4 trails on FS land should fall between the following widths:
Trail Class 1 = Typically not designed or actively managed for 4WD Vehicles > 50, although use may be allowed
Trail Class 2 = 72 84
Trail Class 3 = 72 96
Trail Class 4 = 96 120
Trail Class 5 = Typically not designed or actively managed for 4WD Vehicles > 50, although use may be allowed
So it seems that there is some flexibility with the width rules as written in the FSH?!?

Does anyone know what Trail Class our local FS trails fall under? I assume Class 1 or 2.

Thoughts?
__________________
Bryan Peterson
WOHVA | PNW4WDA
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-16-2010, 03:04 PM
dirk's Avatar
dirk dirk is offline
that WOHVA guy
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: washington
Posts: 645
Default

I converted a couple of the charts to jpeg...





__________________
Bryan Peterson
WOHVA | PNW4WDA
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-17-2010, 12:59 PM
uberzuki's Avatar
uberzuki uberzuki is offline
Webfooter VP
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Maple Valley
Posts: 36
Default

Was there any more discussion about this mysterious bird that is encouraging the closure of Evans?
__________________
Michael Mayfarth
Tacoma Webfooter's Vice President


'03 Black TJ
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.