I just got off the phone with Russ Lajoie from the USFS.
I am much less encourage after talking to him.
The story is a bit more complicated than I had previously thought.
Yes, the city did put up the gate. No, the USFS did not officially endorse the gate, BUT, the City did work with the USFS ranger, and the ranger in essence told the city they were not opposed to the closure, and they would not fight the city over the closure.
Turns out, there is disagreement within the Forest Service about what do with this route, and there apparently are some "sensitive resource" areas up on that ridge. (Sensitive plants and animals). There is a contingent within the USFS that is very supportive of the closure... but there is no contingent within the USFS that strongly supports re-opening it. Everyone else he suggested is pretty apathetic.
The way it sounded to me is that the Forest Service was already interested in closing the route... or at least some within the Forest Service were considering it... and, the City actions in essence allows them to effectively close the route without going through the required Public notice and process.
4-5 years ago, the Forest Service was mandated to go through a public process of identifying routes that are open to the public. Carveacre was identified and designated as open to the public during that process. To officially "close" the route, the USFS HAS to open a new public process to try and close it. As Mike said, they cannot just close it.
In essence it is 100% legal to drive on the forest service portion of the route still. There is just no legal way to access it.
But, he said, the "Forest Service doesn't have the energy at this point to fight the city" on this, and, there policy is generally not to fight other agencies over such things.
So, in essence we are at the mercy of the city.
In addition to general road abuse and lack of maintenance on the road... the city apparently cited sediment run-off into the Taylor Creek watershed as one of the urgent reasons to close the route.
So, between the city (watershed) and the USFS (sensitive plants and Animals), it seems there is a strong environmental case to keep the route closed...
Anyway... sorry for the somewhat scatter comments... Russ told me a lot... none of which sounds good for getting the route re-opened.
He basically said, at this point, it's going to take the PUBLIC to bring the City and the USFS together to come up with a solution... and he said frankly... he's seen very little from the public. He says he fielded a couple calls like mine... but he say he's seen no serious coordinated effort... and without that... he believes frankly nothing will happen.
I am much less encourage after talking to him.
The story is a bit more complicated than I had previously thought.
Yes, the city did put up the gate. No, the USFS did not officially endorse the gate, BUT, the City did work with the USFS ranger, and the ranger in essence told the city they were not opposed to the closure, and they would not fight the city over the closure.
Turns out, there is disagreement within the Forest Service about what do with this route, and there apparently are some "sensitive resource" areas up on that ridge. (Sensitive plants and animals). There is a contingent within the USFS that is very supportive of the closure... but there is no contingent within the USFS that strongly supports re-opening it. Everyone else he suggested is pretty apathetic.
The way it sounded to me is that the Forest Service was already interested in closing the route... or at least some within the Forest Service were considering it... and, the City actions in essence allows them to effectively close the route without going through the required Public notice and process.
4-5 years ago, the Forest Service was mandated to go through a public process of identifying routes that are open to the public. Carveacre was identified and designated as open to the public during that process. To officially "close" the route, the USFS HAS to open a new public process to try and close it. As Mike said, they cannot just close it.
In essence it is 100% legal to drive on the forest service portion of the route still. There is just no legal way to access it.
But, he said, the "Forest Service doesn't have the energy at this point to fight the city" on this, and, there policy is generally not to fight other agencies over such things.
So, in essence we are at the mercy of the city.
In addition to general road abuse and lack of maintenance on the road... the city apparently cited sediment run-off into the Taylor Creek watershed as one of the urgent reasons to close the route.
So, between the city (watershed) and the USFS (sensitive plants and Animals), it seems there is a strong environmental case to keep the route closed...
Anyway... sorry for the somewhat scatter comments... Russ told me a lot... none of which sounds good for getting the route re-opened.
He basically said, at this point, it's going to take the PUBLIC to bring the City and the USFS together to come up with a solution... and he said frankly... he's seen very little from the public. He says he fielded a couple calls like mine... but he say he's seen no serious coordinated effort... and without that... he believes frankly nothing will happen.
Last edited:
