US Forest Service LEO(s)

[ColoradoRedlands]

Has anyone figured out which USFS LEOs cover which Ranger Districts?

This year the radio numbers the USFS uses on CSP talk groups changed from 4-digit numbers like FOREST SERVICE 2158 to 2-digit "FS" numbers like FS-45

Here are the ones I have figured out so far:

FS-27 (Grand County?)

FS-37 (Fremont County?)
FS-38 (?)

FS-42 WRF (Glenwood Springs?)

FS-44 GMF Paonia District (Montrose) (former ID 1914)
FS-45 GMF Grand Mesa District (Grand Junction) (former ID 2158)
FS-46 GMF Uncompagre District (Montrose) (former ID 2223)
FS-47 SJF (Durango?)

FS-49 SJF (Pagosa Springs?)

Can you add other IDs either suspected or confirmed??

These are the uniformed District LEOs. Does any one know the numbers used by the USFS Special Agents or LEO management anywhere in Colorado?

 

[rbuxton]

FS140 San Juan N.F., Columbine R.D.

 

[es93546]

Has anyone figured out which USFS LEOs cover which Ranger Districts?

This year the radio numbers the USFS uses on CSP talk groups changed from 4-digit numbers like FOREST SERVICE 2158 to 2-digit "FS" numbers like FS-45

Here are the ones I have figured out so far:

FS-27 (Grand County?)

FS-37 (Fremont County?)
FS-38 (?)

FS-42 WRF (Glenwood Springs?)

FS-44 GMF Paonia District (Montrose) (former ID 1914)
FS-45 GMF Grand Mesa District (Grand Junction) (former ID 2158)
FS-46 GMF Uncompagre District (Montrose) (former ID 2223)
FS-47 SJF (Durango?)

FS-49 SJF (Pagosa Springs?)

Can you add other IDs either suspected or confirmed??

These are the uniformed District LEOs. Does any one know the numbers used by the USFS Special Agents or LEO management anywhere in Colorado?

U.S. Forest Service LEO's are assigned to a Ranger District, sometimes more than one Ranger District and supervisory personnel are assigned to the Forest Supervisor's Office. Most of the time each National Forest have patrol captains and a group of forests is supervised by Special Agents. If a national forest has a high law enforcement workload they might have a Special Agent assigned to just that forest. Ranger Districts are formed based mostly on watersheds so their boundaries have nothing to do with counties.

 

[es93546]

The NF's in the Rocky Mountain Region (#2) are listed by state groups in alphabetical order (Colorado, Nebraska, South Dakota, Wyoming) and then in alpha order by NF. They are:

1 - Arapaho-Roosevelt NF (5 RD's)
2 - Grand Mesa, Gunnison & Uncompahgre NF (5 RD's)
3- Pike-San Isabel NF (7 RD's)
4 - Rio Grande NF (3 RD's)
5 - San Juan NF (3 RD's)
6 - White River NF (5 RD's)
7 - Nebraska NF (5 RD's)
8 - Black Hills NF (4 RD's)
9 - Bighorn NF (3 RD's)
10 - Medicine Bow-Routt NF (6 RD's)
11 - Shoshone NF (5 RD's)

More esoteric numbering system information:

The logic of this follows the states in groups in alphabetical order (Colorado, Nebraska, South Dakota, Wyoming) and alphabetical within those states. Some regions just list their NF's in alphabetical order without any reference to the states. Alphabetical is followed in every region though. Sometimes numbers are skipped due to NF's being combined over the years. For example in the Southwestern Region (#3) the Apache National Forest was NF #1 and the Sitgreaves was NF #11. The two forests were combined as the Apache-Sitgreaves NF and retained the #1 of the Apache, but #11 is now unassigned. They did not move the Tonto NF (#12) up to fill #11. This is because there are a ton of records/files that use the region #, forest # and RD # for sorting and coding purposes and an effort to, as much as possible, not change numbers is made. It looks like the Rocky Mountain Region wanted to number everything by state and then alphabetically, so many NF's had to change numbers and not retain the old ones.

I have information for the numbers of each Ranger District, however, it would be a long list. I'm willing to list those if you think the ID's correspond to any of the above numbers. It looks like your list indicates it doesn't so I haven't gone ahead and listed each RD number. Engine and fire apparatus built after 2010-2012 now have a national standard and follow the RD number format, with the NF's abbreviation in the identifier as well as the state's postal service two letter abbreviation. The Engine Type is the first digit, then the RD #, followed by the station number or the number of the engine on that RD. So an engine on the Arapaho-Roosevelt would have "CO ARF E311" shown on the front, rear and sides of the engine indicating the state, forest, engine type (a Type 3 in this case), RD #1 (Boulder in this case) and is the first engine on that RD. The second Type 6 engine on the Pike-San Isabel, Salida RD (#2) would show "CO PSF E622."

I know that much of this may not help at all, but I'm trying to list the way various NF ID systems work.

 

[es93546]

I have information on the ID's for USFS LEO's in the Southwestern Region (R3) and the Pacific Southwest Region (R5). In R3 the forests are numbered alphabetically for the entire region and does not group them by states (Arizona and New Mexico). LEO's are identified with "FS" followed by the region number (#3), followed by the forest number and then the ranger district number on that forest. For example the LEO on the Gila NF, Wilderness RD is "FS365" as the Gila NF is #6 and the Wilderness RD is #5. In R5 the forest # is the first character, the type of unit is next (LEO - "Edward," Patrol Captain - "Charles" & Special Agent - "Adam."). So on the Cleveland NF (#2), Descanso RD (#4) the LEO would be "2 Edward 4." If a district has more than one LEO the ID would be "2 Edward 41." The Angeles NF just numbers all of its LEO's numbers 1 -10 without any reference to the ranger district. There is only one patrol captain per NF so they just show as "2 Charles 1" on the Cleveland, as an example. Special agents usually cover more than one NF, except on NF's with a very high workload. In R5 the Angeles has one for just that forest. Sometimes groups of forests will have more than one special agent so a "Adam 1, 2 or 3" might be heard.

I should add that some NF's numbered their RD's geographically and some alphabetically. To add to the confusion is that many ranger districts have been combined, especially in the austere budget years since 1994, but especially since 2010. There are numbers missing from each NF's RD numbers. The number that is used for a couple RD's after combination is whichever RD keeps their RD ranger station as the station for the two RD combination. Sometimes the old ranger station is turned into a work center and sometimes the old ranger station, especially if it was a leased building in a town is just vacated.

 

[rdrunnermedic]

"FS LE-36" was out with Battalion 11-1 investigating a smoke report on Russell Ridge this afternoon. He came up on the Pike NF frequency with Pueblo Dispatch. South Platte Ranger District, Pike National Forest in Jefferson County.

 

[rdrunnermedic]

Has anyone figured out which USFS LEOs cover which Ranger Districts?

This year the radio numbers the USFS uses on CSP talk groups changed from 4-digit numbers like FOREST SERVICE 2158 to 2-digit "FS" numbers like FS-45

Here are the ones I have figured out so far:

FS-27 (Grand County?)

FS-37 (Fremont County?)
FS-38 (?)

FS-42 WRF (Glenwood Springs?)

FS-44 GMF Paonia District (Montrose) (former ID 1914)
FS-45 GMF Grand Mesa District (Grand Junction) (former ID 2158)
FS-46 GMF Uncompagre District (Montrose) (former ID 2223)
FS-47 SJF (Durango?)

FS-49 SJF (Pagosa Springs?)

Can you add other IDs either suspected or confirmed??

These are the uniformed District LEOs. Does any one know the numbers used by the USFS Special Agents or LEO management anywhere in Colorado?

Add "FS-34" and "FS-39" to the roster for Pike NF. They were heard working in the South Platte RD this afternoon. So far I've heard FS-34, 36, and 39 on the Pike, specifically on the South Platte RD.

 

[ColoradoRedlands]

Thanks guys I appreciate the input.

 

[ColoradoRedlands]

I have information for the numbers of each Ranger District, however, it would be a long list. I'm willing to list those if you think the ID's correspond to any of the above numbers.

Hi, I wouldn't mind knowing the Ranger District numbers for all the Colorado Forests.

 

[es93546]

Hi, I wouldn't mind knowing the Ranger District numbers for all the Colorado Forests.

I will try to squeeze it in with all the getting ready for winter tasks I'm buried in right now. Every day I can work on outside tasks is a gift right now. If I don't get back to you in a week, send me a PM as I'm quite forgetful now.

 

[ColoradoRedlands]

If I don't get back to you in a week, send me a PM as I'm quite forgetful now.

Hi again, just checking in on the request. (I don't think there is a PM function on RR right now, or maybe I have forgotten where is lives.)

 

[es93546]

Hi again, just checking in on the request. (I don't think there is a PM function on RR right now, or maybe I have forgotten where is lives.)

Thanks for checking back, I haven't forgotten. I decided to do the entire agency and not just the USFS in Colorado. It goes a bit slowly right now as I have a lot of tasks going at once. After nearly a year a health problem, mostly arthritis in my hands and pain in my lower back, I'm trying to catch up on some car maintenance that the above normal temperatures of this fall have given me a window for. I also have 3 journeys in the crawl space of my house to do and would like to do so before it gets real cold. During such times RR gets shoved down on the priority list.

Not only that, the job is not straightforward as I have to reconcile about 3 different sources of info I have in my files. When I can get it fitted in . . . . . Never thought I would be using that expression during retirement, but there it is.

Watch the Federal Forum as I will be posting the info there. I also posted an update to my research on this topic there.

 

[es93546]

I posted the numbering for the entire Rocky Mountain Region (R2) in the federal forum. Sorry this has taken 6 months. In the meantime I found a more current listing of all the numbers for national forests and ranger districts so maybe the delayed result is better.