An Idaho ranch has appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals a lower court ruling that the statute of limitations expired over a disputed conservation easement for the federal government to construct a public access trail.
Sawtooth Mountain Ranch LLC filed suit against the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) in 2019 to halt the construction of a portion of a 4.4-mile public trail across their property connecting Redfish Lake with the town of Stanley, ID.
Michael Berger, attorney for Sawtooth Mountain Ranch, said during oral arguments before a panel of judges on Oct. 5 the government did not raise the issue of the statute of limitations and the real issue in the case is what the parties called a “conservation easement.”
“This deed gives the public a right that it did not have before,” Berger said. “And it seems to me that’s important. That was the right to continue using a bucolic dirt trail, not building something that is quite intrusive into this forested area.”
Judge Robert Hinkle pointed out the deed grants all rights, titles and interests to the government on the easement except those reserved for the grantor in part three, which excludes people. Hinkle said Berger is basing his argument on this portion of the deed when it previously says otherwise.
Berger countered that the purpose of the deed was to increase the restrictions on land use.
Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr. said the third section in the deed states the U.S. has the right to permit public use and shows the easement shall be 30 feet wide and does not grant public access to the overall property.
Background
According to court documents, David Boren, co-founder of Boise-based Clearwater Analytics, and his wife, Lynn Arnone, purchased the 1,781-acre property in 2016 and were aware of the 2005 conservation easement deed.
USFS began an external scoping period in 2014 for the trail, which would be 78 inches wide with a natural surface on 1.2 miles of the trail and gravel several inches high on the remainder.
USFS contacted Boren in November 2016 to ensure he was aware of the proposal and in June 2017, the agency authorized construction.
In 2018, the government began soliciting bids for the construction and the recreational area landscape architect consulted with Boren about the proposed route. Court documents state Boren wanted the trail to be less intrusive and was informed it would be built as proposed. Boren reiterated his concerns in a phone call in 2019 and was assured by the area ranger for USFS that the trail would only be located within the easement.
Construction was scheduled for September 2019, but Boren filed for an injunction in April. In June 2019, Judge Candy Dale denied the request for an injunction, and an amended complaint under the Quiet Title Act (QTA) on the boundary and scope of the trail was filed in August. Dale again denied the injunction, and a second amended complaint was filed in March 2020 on the basis the trail would violate the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Clean Water Act. Dale denied the claim, stating the government completed an environmental review and considered activity discharges’ impacts on waters of the U.S.
After legal wrangling, where the court denied a temporary restraining order and cross-motions for summary judgment, Dale denied the preliminary injunction and issued two separate decisions.
One was regarding claims that the government did not consider the ranching heritage of the property or reasonable alternatives. It also claimed USFS did not ensure its plans were consistent with the recreational area plan, violated the National Environmental Policy Act and ESA and accounted for discharge into waters.
“Plaintiffs’ overarching theme is that the Forest Service ignored or overlooked environmental conditions when it applied the environmental statutes at issue here,” Dale wrote. “But, when the court reviewed the record, the court was confronted with a multitude of environmental analyses, which considered soils, terrestrial wildlife, aquatic species, wetlands, and the values which make the Sawtooth National Recreation Area awe inspiring to all who visit. Critically for the court’s determination, plaintiffs generally do not attack the substance of the analyses, or claim they were faulty in some way—only that certain aspects of the required analyses were not performed at all.”
Dale’s second opinion stated while the QTA waives the immunity of the government on property it claims an interest, the claim “must be brought within the applicable limitations period.” Dale disagreed with the plaintiffs’ claims that “the clock did not begin to run on their QTA claims until the Forest Service announced its intent to begin construction activities” in 2014. Dale said the right to public use began in 2005, and USFS’ decision brought to fruition its right to permit public use within the easement.
“The 12–year limitations period begins when a plaintiff knows or should know of the government’s adverse land claim,” Dale wrote. “The statute of limitations is not tolled simply because the Forest Service had not officially proposed until 2014 a trail that could actually be used by the public for bicycle, horse, and foot travel within the easement area.”
Government argument
Christine England, an attorney for the government, argued the statute of limitations should apply in 2005 and the judges should uphold the district court’s decision.
“I think the district court put it really well,” England said. “(Case) explained that the plaintiff’s challenge, the right to permit public use, is the same property that the plaintiff’s predecessors in interest granted to the government in May of 2005. The Forest Service’s plan to actually construct a trail within the 30-foot easement area and thereby facilitate public use did nothing to expand the public use rights granted to the government.”
Judge Smith questioned the timeline as the government did nothing until 2014 to construct a trail.
England replied that the scope of the easement was very broad and those rights were reserved in 2005. England continued the new owners had knowledge of the rights when the property was sold and the new owners could have sued the federal government under QTA.
Berger is asking the court to order the trail’s removal and compensate the owners for the restoration of the area. — Charles Wallace, WLJ contributing editor
