BOCC denies appeal for road validation

WALLACE — On Thursday morning, the Shoshone Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) decided not to overturn a recent decision by the board concerning the validation of the West Fork Pine Creek Road.

The recent decision came after a public hearing in early September of a decision made by the BOCC earlier this year where they denied a petition filed by Kootenai County resident Paul Loutzenhiser, an off-road vehicle enthusiast and member of the North Idaho Trailblazers (NITB), for the purposes of validating a section of road that intersects through multiple different property owners before heading into lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

Also on the petition were Silver Valley native Bob Jutila and NITB president Wayne Hallgren.

The petitioners were represented in their appeal by David Claiborne, an attorney with Sawtooth Law Offices, who also serves on the Idaho Recreation Council.

After hearing the new testimony from Claiborne, as well as listening to a recording of the original hearing, the BOCC decided that they would take a month to research what had been presented, including more than 200 pages of historical evidence — for and against the validation — and then make their determination.

No additional testimony or evidence was allowed during Thursday’s decision.

Commissioner John Hansen was the first to speak, stating that he couldn’t find any historical records to support the validation — something Claiborne had alleged in his testimony in September.

Claiborne had previously explained that according to Idaho code there are two different ways a public road can be established — by public use or by order of the county commissioners.

“What we were able to find was that in 1909, the BOCC acted, first to appoint surveyors and overseers. They came back later that year, I believe it was in July, and the BOCC issued an order declaring the West Fork Pine Creek Road as a public road,” Claiborne said. “From its confluence with the East Fork, all the way to the county line. I think that is conclusive, it’s certainly compelling evidence of a public road. This very body has already examined the question and determined that this is a public road.”

“I found no record of a public highway ever being recorded,” Hansen said.

Hansen also alluded to the fact that the BLM would require the county to apply for a right-of-way grant for any sort of validation — which would also include an expensive survey, a cost that he doesn’t want to impose on the citizens.

Commissioner Tracy Casady agreed with Hansen on the survey.

BOCC Chairman Jay Huber was the third member of the board to express concerns over the cost of a potential survey

“We don’t know where the road is since the last flood and we’d need the survey to find out where it went and where it goes,” Huber said. “It would cost thousands of dollars and we don’t know how far up the road we’d have to go. I also found no recorded documents for the last survey that was done for this section of the road, and no work has been done on this section since 1974.”

Following the meeting, Huber told the News-Press that it was estimated that any surveying would start at $20,000.

The original petition is steeped in history but really gained steam following the actions of nearby property owner Joe Avery, who had placed blockades across the road on two different occasions — including one particular roadblock in 2020 that resulted in the county work crews being tasked with removing the pile of logs and debris from the roadway.

Members of Loutzenhiser’s NITB group, as well as other local recreators, have used the road to access a section of BLM land with varying trails and roads throughout it — including an area of specifically constructed off-road obstacles called the “Roller Coaster.”

While alternative routes to the Roller Coster do exist, they pass through a section of property owned by Avery, who has an easement that allows him the ability to close the road at his discretion as well as a lengthy seasonal closure.

It is unknown if this is the end of the line for the petition — which at this point would likely head toward a judicial review should the petitioners decide to continue their pursuit of validation.