The Fitzgerald Living Trust v. United States , 460 F.3d 1259 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                      FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    THE FITZGERALD LIVING TRUST,               
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; MIKE
    JOHANNS, Secretary of Agriculture;                No. 04-16149
    DALE N. BOSWORTH, Chief, United
    States Forest Service; UNITED                      D.C. No.
    CV-02-00069-DKD
    STATES FOREST SERVICE; HARV
    OPINION
    FORSGREN, Regional Forester,
    Region III; and ELAINE ZIEROTH,
    Forest Supervisor, Apache-
    Sitgreaves National Forests,
    Defendants-Appellees.*
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Arizona
    David K. Duncan, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted
    April 4, 2006—San Francisco, California
    Filed August 30, 2006
    Before: Marsha S. Berzon, Johnnie B. Rawlinson, and
    Consuelo M. Callahan, Circuit Judges.
    Opinion by Judge Callahan
    *Mike Johanns, Harv Forsgren, and Elaine Zieroth are substituted as
    parties to this appeal for their predecessors Ann M. Veneman, Eleanor S.
    Towns, and John C. Bedell. Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).
    10461
    10464   THE FITZGERALD LIVING TRUST v. UNITED STATES
    COUNSEL
    Joel Spector (argued) and Alison Roberts (on the briefs),
    Mountain States Legal Foundation, Lakewood, Colorado, for
    the plaintiff-appellant.
    Matthew J. Sanders, United States Department of Justice,
    Environment & Natural Resources Division, Washington,
    D.C., for the defendants-appellees.
    THE FITZGERALD LIVING TRUST v. UNITED STATES              10465
    OPINION
    CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge:
    The Fitzgerald Living Trust challenges the district court’s
    summary judgment in favor of the Secretary of the United
    States Department of Agriculture, the United States Forest
    Service and individual Forest Service officials (“the Forest
    Service”). We must decide the nature of the Trust’s right of
    access over a national forest road, and whether the Forest Ser-
    vice’s proposed statutory easement, providing the Trust with
    access over the road, is reasonable.
    I
    In 1983, Raymond and Nancy Fitzgerald purchased the
    O’Haco Cabins Ranch, a twenty-eight acre cattle ranch
    located in northern Arizona approximately fifty miles south-
    west of Winslow. The Fitzgeralds maintain a residence on the
    property and have used and continue to use the ranch as a
    base camp for their cattle grazing operations in the adjacent
    Sitgreaves National Forest.1 The property contains a house,
    with no electricity or generator, and a water source.
    In 1920, President Wilson granted the O’Haco Cabin
    Ranch property to Stelzer Tillman pursuant to the 1862
    Homestead Act. Act of May 20, 1862, ch. 75, 
    12 Stat. 392
    -93
    (1862) (codified at 
    43 U.S.C. §§ 161-284
    ) (repealed 1976).
    The patent transferred the tract of land “with the appurte-
    nances thereof.” When the property was surveyed in 1916, it
    contained simple improvements—a two-room log dwelling, a
    1
    In 1891, Congress passed the Forest Reserve Act, vesting the President
    with the authority to reserve forest land from the public domain. 
    16 U.S.C. § 471
     (repealed 1976). Pursuant to this act, in 1898 President McKinley
    reserved the Black Mesa Forest Reserve, which later became known at the
    Sitgreaves National Forest. In 1974, the Sitgreaves and Apache Forests
    were administratively combined and are sometimes referred to jointly as
    the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests.
    10466     THE FITZGERALD LIVING TRUST v. UNITED STATES
    log and dirt root cellar, two pole corrals, and a well. The sur-
    vey also noted the existence of a nine-mile rough trail from
    the property leading to a forty-six-mile wagon road to Wins-
    low. At the time the United States granted the O’Haco Cabins
    Ranch to Tillman, the property was surrounded by the Sit-
    greaves National Forest or by lands owned by third parties.
    When Tillman obtained the property, he accessed it by cross-
    ing the national forest or land owned by third parties.
    When the Fitzgeralds purchased the O’Haco Cabins Ranch
    in 1983, the property was completely surrounded by the Sit-
    greaves National Forest. There were several access routes to
    the property through the national forest. After the Fitzgeralds
    purchased the ranch, the Forest Service closed all motorized
    access to the property except for the primary access route,
    Forest Development Road 56B (“FDR 56B”). Prior to the
    spring of 1986, the Forest Service never attempted to restrict
    the Fitzgeralds’ or their predecessors-in-interest’s use of FDR
    56B. In the spring of 1986, however, the Forest Service asked
    the Fitzgeralds to apply for a “special use permit” under the
    Federal Land Policy Management Act (“FLPMA”), 
    43 U.S.C. §§ 1701
     - 1785, to continue using the road.2 The request was
    made pursuant to the Forest Service’s determination that FDR
    56B was no longer needed for public use and pursuant to its
    program of having all uses under permit. The Fitzgeralds
    applied for the permit but refused to accept it because they
    2
    Passed in 1976, FLPMA both recognizes preexisting rights-of-way,
    and provides the Secretary of Agriculture with the authority to grant
    rights-of-way for roads over lands administered by the Forest Service. 
    43 U.S.C. §§ 1761
    , 1769(a). The Act mandates that the government manage
    public lands to promote environmental protection, recreation, and human
    occupancy and use. 
    43 U.S.C. § 1701
    (a)(8). To that end, FLPMA directs
    the Forest Service, when granting rights-of-way, to protect scenic and
    esthetic values, fish and wildlife habitat, the environment, and the public
    interest, and to achieve these goals by promulgating regulations. 
    43 U.S.C. §§ 1764
    (c),(e); 1765(a)(ii),(b)(vi). FLPMA also requires that the United
    States receive fair market value for use of the public lands. 
    43 U.S.C. § 1701
    (a)(9).
    THE FITZGERALD LIVING TRUST v. UNITED STATES              10467
    felt that they had a legal right to access their property without
    executing any permit.
    In 1988, based on a policy change, the Forest Service
    offered the Fitzgeralds a “private road easement” under
    FLPMA in lieu of the special use permit. The Fitzgeralds
    refused the statutory easement as well. The Regional Forester
    closed FDR 56B to motorized vehicles, and, in 1993, the
    Chief of the Forest Service upheld the road closure decision.
    The Fitzgeralds filed an earlier lawsuit challenging the road
    closure and seeking to quiet title to a common law easement
    over FDR 56B, but the case was dismissed as moot when the
    proposed easement expired.3
    In January, 2000, the Fitzgeralds submitted a new applica-
    tion to the Forest Service for use of FDR 56B. The Forest Ser-
    vice prepared a thirty-year private road easement with the
    following notable conditions:
    1.   The Fitzgeralds were required to pay the fair
    market value for the easement, set at $114.31
    annually;
    2.   The Forest Service reserved the right to termi-
    nate the easement if it decided that the road
    would not remain private, provided it replace the
    easement with a comparable easement; and
    3.   The Forest Service reserved the right to “sus-
    pend, revoke, or terminate” the easement pursu-
    ant to the Rules of Practice Governing Formal
    Adjudicatory Administrative Proceedings insti-
    tuted by the Secretary of Agriculture.4
    3
    Fitzgerald v. United States, 
    932 F. Supp. 1195
     (D. Ariz. 1996), vacated
    as moot No. CIV-94-0518-PCT-PRG (D. Ariz. July 19, 1999).
    4
    
    7 C.F.R. § 1.130-1.151
    . These rules provide for the filing and adjudica-
    tion of an administrative complaint when, inter alia, an administrative
    order is violated.
    10468     THE FITZGERALD LIVING TRUST v. UNITED STATES
    The Fitzgeralds did not accept this easement and instead
    filed suit under the Quiet Title Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2409a, and
    the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 
    5 U.S.C. §§ 701
    -
    706. In their complaint, the Fitzgeralds alleged, inter alia, the
    following: (1) they have an easement by necessity, an implied
    easement under the Homestead Act, and an express easement
    over FDR 56B; and (2) the Forest Service’s issuance of the
    FLPMA easement is arbitrary and capricious because it
    restricts their common law rights of access and it deprives
    them of their statutory right of access under the Alaska
    National Interest Lands Conservation Act, 
    16 U.S.C. § 3210
    (a) (“ANILCA”),5 and their right to a permanent ease-
    ment under the National Forest Roads and Trails Act
    (“NFRTA”), 
    16 U.S.C. §§ 532-538
    .
    The district court granted summary judgment in favor of
    the Forest Service, holding that the Forest Service has the
    statutory authority under FLPMA and ANILCA to impose
    restrictions on a private landowner’s ingress and egress over
    national forest land and that the unrestricted use of FDR 56B
    for many years did not trump this authority. The district court
    concluded that the easement’s restrictions were reasonable,
    and that the Forest Service did not abuse its discretion by
    offering the Fitzgeralds an easement under FLPMA and not
    pursuant to NFRTA.
    While the district court held that any common law rights to
    an easement were preempted by statute, citing to Adams v.
    United States (Adams II), 
    255 F.3d 787
    , 794 (9th Cir. 2001)
    5
    ANILCA, passed in 1980, directs the Secretary of Agriculture to pro-
    vide access to private property within the boundaries of the National For-
    est System “as the Secretary deems adequate to secure to the owner the
    reasonable use and enjoyment thereof” and provided that the “owner com-
    ply with rules and regulations applicable to ingress and egress” over the
    federal land. 
    16 U.S.C. § 3210
    . In this respect, ANILCA is not limited to
    national forest land located in the state of Alaska, but rather applies
    nationwide. Mont. Wilderness Ass’n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 
    655 F.2d 951
    ,
    957 (9th Cir. 1981).
    THE FITZGERALD LIVING TRUST v. UNITED STATES              10469
    (holding that “common law [easement] claims are preempted
    by ANILCA and FLPMA where . . . the United States owns
    the servient estate for the benefit of the public”), it also
    reached the merits of the Fitzgeralds’ common law claims.
    The court concluded that an easement by necessity did not
    exist because FLPMA and ANILCA grant the Fitzgeralds
    access to their property, obviating the necessity requirement
    for such an easement. Moreover, it held that an implied ease-
    ment did not exist because the Fitzgeralds’ right of access was
    clearly expressed in those statutes, and, assuming arguendo
    that an express easement was granted based on the 1920
    patent language, it would still be subject to Forest Service
    regulation.
    The Fitzgeralds appealed.6 We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
     and we affirm.
    II
    This court reviews the district court’s grant of summary
    judgment de novo. Buono v. Norton, 
    371 F.3d 543
    , 545 (9th
    Cir. 2004); Universal Health Servs. Inc. v. Thompson, 
    363 F.3d 1013
    , 1019 (9th Cir. 2004). We must determine, viewing
    the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
    party, whether there are any genuine issues of material fact
    and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant
    substantive law. Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 
    363 F.3d 916
    , 922 (9th Cir. 2004).
    6
    On February 26, 2003, Raymond and Nancy Fitzgerald transferred the
    O’Haco Cabins Ranch property to the Fitzgerald Living Trust. On Decem-
    ber 10, 2004, the Clerk substituted the Fitzgerald Living Trust for Ray-
    mond and Nancy Fitzgerald as parties to this appeal. Raymond and Nancy
    Fitzgerald are trustees, and continue to use FDR 56B to access the prop-
    erty. For the sake of continuity, we continue to refer to the appellants as
    “the Fitzgeralds.”
    10470    THE FITZGERALD LIVING TRUST v. UNITED STATES
    III
    The Fitzgeralds argue that they have a common law ease-
    ment by necessity over FDR 56B, an easement implied from
    the language contained in the Homestead Act, and an express
    easement granted by the language of the 1920 land patent, and
    because these easements establish preexisting rights of access,
    they do not need to accept the Forest Service’s FLPMA ease-
    ment to gain access to their property. Particularly, the Fitzger-
    alds object to the revocable nature of the FLPMA easement
    and the annual fee imposed for its fair market value because
    these conditions would fundamentally change the nature of
    any common law interest they own over FDR 56B.
    [1] FLPMA and ANILCA clearly subject the Fitzgeralds’
    access over Forest Service land to the statutory permitting
    process. Adams II, 
    255 F.3d at 795
    . While the Forest Service
    is correct to note that it has the authority under Adams II to
    impose some regulations on the use of FDR 56B regardless of
    any common law easement held by the Fitzgeralds, this still
    leaves open the question of whether the regulations imposed
    are reasonable. For such an inquiry, whether the Fitzgeralds
    have a common law easement is relevant. For instance, gov-
    ernment counsel acknowledged at oral argument that the fee
    provision of the FLPMA easement would be unreasonable
    under the APA if the Fitzgeralds owned a preexisting ease-
    ment because the Forest Service would be imposing a fee for
    something the Fitzgeralds already owned. Accordingly, we
    will review the Fitzgeralds’ Quiet Title claims to determine
    whether the proposed FLPMA easement is reasonable.
    [2] Skranak v. Castenada, 
    425 F.3d 1213
     (9th Cir. 2005),
    supports our conclusion that a determination of common law
    rights is relevant to the reasonableness of the FLPMA ease-
    ment. In Skranak, the owners of mining claims filed com-
    plaints in the district court under the Quiet Title Act and the
    APA after the Forest Service denied them unconditional spe-
    cial use permits to access their claims. 
    Id. at 1216
    . They chal-
    THE FITZGERALD LIVING TRUST v. UNITED STATES               10471
    lenged the Forest Service’s failure to resolve whether they
    owned any pre-existing easements to their claims, arguing
    that the Forest Service violated its own regulation, 
    36 C.F.R. § 251.114
    (f)(1), by refusing to do so.7 Id. at 1218-19. The dis-
    trict court disposed of their common law easement claims by
    concluding that neither plaintiff owned an easement under any
    theory, and that even if either did, ANILCA extinguished
    them. Id. at 1216. The court also denied plaintiffs’ APA
    claims, concluding that the special use permit conditions were
    reasonable. Id.
    This court reversed the district court’s APA determinations,
    concluding that § 251.114(f) requires the Forest Service to
    address the plaintiffs’ common law easement claims advanced
    in their applications for a FLPMA permit. Id. at 1221. The
    court recognized that requiring an easement-ownership deter-
    mination under § 251.114(f) presented a potential conflict
    with the holding in Adams v. United States (Adams I), 
    3 F.3d 1254
    , 1259 (9th Cir. 1993), that access under ANILCA is
    determined without respect to any preexisting easements.
    Skranak, 
    425 F.3d at 1219-20
    . Skranak resolved this potential
    conflict by holding that deference to the Forest Service’s reg-
    ulation was appropriate under National Cable & Telecommu-
    nications Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Services, 
    125 S. Ct. 2688
    (2005). 
    425 F.3d at 1220
    . National Cable requires that defer-
    ence be given to an agency’s interpretation of a statute unless
    a prior court decision has held that the statute is incompatible
    with the agency’s interpretation. 
    125 S. Ct. at 2700-01
    . It
    explained that a prior judicial construction of a statute trumps
    an agency’s interpretation only if a prior court decision
    “leaves no room for agency discretion.” 
    Id. at 2700
    . Because
    neither Adams I nor Adams II held that ANILCA was unam-
    biguous or that the court’s interpretation of ANILCA left no
    7
    
    36 C.F.R. § 251.114
    (f) provides: “[T]he authorizing officer, prior to
    issuing any access authorization, must also ensure that: (1) The landowner
    has demonstrated a lack of any existing rights or routes of access available
    by deed or under State or common law.”
    10472     THE FITZGERALD LIVING TRUST v. UNITED STATES
    room for agency discretion, Skranak held that the Adams
    cases did not obviate the requirement that an easement-
    ownership determination be made under § 251.114(f). 
    425 F.3d at 1220
    .
    [3] Unlike the plaintiffs in Skranak, the Fitzgeralds do not
    assert that the Forest Service violated the APA by failing to
    determine their common law rights before issuing the FLPMA
    easement. Nevertheless, Skranak is important because it
    instructs that the existence of a preexisting easement, as
    claimed by the Fitzgeralds, is relevant to the Forest Service’s
    issuance of a statutory easement under FLPMA.
    IV
    An Implied Easement Under the Homestead Act
    The Fitzgeralds argue that Congress granted settlers under
    the Homestead Act an implied easement to access their land,
    maintaining that the right is implied from the statutory lan-
    guage entitling persons “to enter . . . unappropriated public
    lands” to establish homesteads. 
    43 U.S.C. § 161
     (repealed
    1976). The Fitzgeralds contend that, like statutory railroad
    land grants, the Homestead Act should be construed liberally,
    and that without an implied right to cross public lands freely,
    a homesteader could not settle the land as Congress intended.
    The Forest Service responds by pointing to the rule that
    unless the language in a land grant is clear and explicit, the
    grant will be construed to favor the government so that noth-
    ing passes by implication, citing to Watt v. Western Nuclear,
    Inc., 
    462 U.S. 36
    , 59 (1983), Andrus v. Charlestone Stone
    Products Co., 
    436 U.S. 604
    , 617 (1978), and Albrecht v.
    United States, 
    831 F.2d 196
    , 198 (10th Cir. 1987). It also
    urges that implying an easement into the Homestead Act
    would render meaningless language in the Forest Service
    Organic Administration Act of 1897, 
    16 U.S.C. §§ 473-482
    ,8
    8
    The 1897 Organic Act authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to make
    rules and regulations to protect the national forests. 
    16 U.S.C. §§ 473-482
    .
    THE FITZGERALD LIVING TRUST v. UNITED STATES               10473
    FLPMA, and ANILCA that provides for express rights of
    access to inholders.
    [4] While we accept the Fitzgeralds’ argument that the
    Homestead Act contemplated an inholder’s access to his prop-
    erty over public lands, we agree with the Tenth Circuit’s hold-
    ing in United States v. Jenks, 
    129 F.3d 1348
    , 1354 (10th Cir.
    1997), that the access across government lands implied into
    the Homestead Act is not an implied easement. Jenks con-
    cluded that settlers had an implied license to use public lands
    to access their property, relying on Buford v. Houtz, 
    133 U.S. 320
     (1890). 
    129 F.3d at 1354
    . Burford described the access to
    public lands in the nineteenth century as an implied license
    growing out of custom where lands were left open and no act
    of government forbade their use. 
    133 U.S. at 326
    . Impor-
    tantly, the Court later clarified that the use of public lands to
    graze livestock did not confer any vested right on the public.
    See Light v. United States, 
    220 U.S. 523
    , 535 (1911). Given
    the custom of unfettered use of public lands in 1862 when
    Congress passed the Homestead Act and the Supreme Court’s
    refusal to characterize a settler’s use of public lands as a
    vested property right, we conclude that Congress did not
    imply an easement over public lands into the 1862 Homestead
    Act.
    [5] In sum, we hold that the Homestead Act did not grant
    settlers a vested property right of access over public lands to
    their homesteads, but instead merely sanctioned the long-
    standing customary use of public lands by a settler. Moreover,
    we reject the Fitzgeralds’ assertion that even if the Homestead
    Act only established an implied license for a settler to access
    his homestead, the license was transformed into an easement
    when, in 1920, the Fitzgeralds’ predecessor-in-interest
    obtained the patent to the O’Haco Cabins Ranch. The Fitzger-
    The Act protects the egress and ingress over the national forests of settlers
    residing within the boundaries of the forests. 
    16 U.S.C. § 478
    .
    10474    THE FITZGERALD LIVING TRUST v. UNITED STATES
    alds cite to no authority that the grant of a patent changes the
    nature of a settler’s access to his homestead into a vested
    property right, and we have found none. Our conclusion is
    also supported by the 1897 Organic Act and ANILCA, pro-
    viding for a right of access over federal land. Indeed, if the
    Homestead Act granted a vested access right over federal
    land, there would have been no need for Congress to subse-
    quently provide for such a right.
    Easement by Necessity
    The Fitzgeralds rely on United States v. Dunn, 
    478 F.2d 443
     (9th Cir. 1973), and Jenks to suggest that it is well-settled
    that an easement by necessity against the United States exists.
    We do not agree. In Dunn, successors-in-interest to a South-
    ern Pacific Railroad Company land patent challenged the dis-
    trict court’s summary judgment for the United States that
    rejected the plaintiffs’ claim to an easement by implication
    and necessity. 
    Id. at 444-46
    . We reversed, concluding that a
    question of fact existed as to the necessity and the scope of
    the easement. 
    Id. at 446
    . The government did not argue in
    Dunn that an easement by necessity was unavailable against
    the United States. 
    Id.
     at 444 n.2. However, the dissenting
    judge concluded that the doctrine of easement by necessity
    was not binding on the United States under the facts presented
    in that case. 
    Id. at 446
     (Wright, J., dissenting). The majority
    responded to the dissent’s position by stating in a footnote
    that “[s]ince the government did not, in our judgment, raise
    the point . . . we have not discussed it in the opinion,” but
    went on to say “nevertheless [we] did give it due consider-
    ation and concluded that it lacked merit.” 
    Id.
     at 444 n.2. We
    read this statement as declining to render a holding on the
    question because it was not properly raised, while expressing
    the tentative views of the panel majority on the question.
    Thus, Dunn is at most persuasive authority for the argument
    that an easement by necessity may be taken against the United
    States when it owns the servient tenement.
    THE FITZGERALD LIVING TRUST v. UNITED STATES      10475
    Moreover, in Jenks the Tenth Circuit did not decide
    whether successors-in-interest to land patented under the
    Homestead Act obtained an easement by necessity against the
    United States because it concluded instead that a necessity did
    not exist in that case. 
    129 F.3d at 1353
    . Jenks acknowledged
    the differing views regarding an easement by necessity
    against the United States, citing to a property treatise favoring
    the recognition of an easement by necessity against the United
    States, and a 1980 United States Attorney General Opinion
    concluding that the common law easement by necessity does
    not apply to federal lands. 
    Id.
     at 1354 (citing 4 Richard R.
    Powell, Powell on Real Property § 34.07 at 34-76 (rev. ed.
    1997), and Rights-of-Way Across Nat’l Forests, 43 Op. Att’y
    Gen. 243, 255 (1980)).
    [6] We find ourselves in the same position as the Jenks
    court—not having to decide now whether, as a matter of law,
    an easement by necessity may be taken against the United
    States. This is because the Fitzgeralds do not meet the com-
    mon law elements of an easement by necessity.
    [7] An easement by necessity is created when: (1) the title
    to two parcels of land was held by a single owner; (2) the
    unity of title was severed by a conveyance of one of the par-
    cels; and (3) at the time of severance, the easement was neces-
    sary for the owner of the severed parcel to use his property.
    Mont. Wilderness Ass’n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 
    496 F.Supp. 880
    ,
    885 (D. Mont. 1980), 4 Richard R. Powell, Powell on Real
    Property § 34.07 (2006). An easement by necessity is not
    defeated by the grantee’s ability to access a public road over
    a stranger’s property. Powell, supra, at § 34.07[1], [3]. More-
    over, the easement is extinguished once the necessity is no
    longer present. Id. at § 34.19.
    [8] The Fitzgeralds argue that they have an easement by
    necessity over FDR 56B because when the United States
    granted the patent to Tillman in 1920, the O’Haco Cabins
    Ranch was surrounded by land owned by the United States or
    10476       THE FITZGERALD LIVING TRUST v. UNITED STATES
    by third parties. This argument fails because, in addition to
    any right of access provided by the 1897 Organic Act,
    FLPMA and ANILCA provide statutory rights of access that
    would destroy any easement by necessity. Jenks, 
    129 F.3d at 1353-54
    .
    An Express Easement Under the 1920 Patent
    The Fitzgeralds argue that they own an express easement
    over FDR 56B based on the language “with the appurtenances
    thereof” contained in the 1920 patent to Tillman.9 They urge
    that this language grants all things necessary for the use and
    enjoyment of the land and that an easement over the Sit-
    greaves National Forest was included as an appurtenance to
    the O’Haco Cabins Ranch because without this easement, the
    land would be worthless.
    [9] The Tenth Circuit rejected this argument in Jenks. Jenks
    concluded that an express easement was not created by the
    inclusion of the words “with the appurtenances thereof.” 
    129 F.3d at 1355
    . We agree. While the word “appurtenance” will
    carry with it an existing easement, it will not create the ease-
    ment. Humphreys v. McKissock, 
    140 U.S. 304
    , 314 (1891);
    see also 25 Am Jur 2d Easements and Licenses in Real Prop-
    erty § 15 (2004) (“The intent to grant an easement must be so
    manifest on the face of the instrument . . . that no other con-
    struction can be placed on it.”). Even assuming that the rough
    trail noted in the 1916 survey became FDR 56B, we conclude
    that the language “with the appurtenances thereof” lacks the
    intent and the specificity to convey an easement over the trail.
    9
    The patent to the O’Haco Cabins Ranch reads:
    NOW KNOW YE, That there is, therefore, granted by the
    UNITED STATES unto the said [grantee] the tract of Land above
    described; TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said tract of Land,
    with the appurtenances thereof, unto the said [grantee] and to the
    heirs and assigns of the said [grantee] forever[.]
    THE FITZGERALD LIVING TRUST v. UNITED STATES       10477
    V
    [10] The Constitution provides Congress with the authority
    to “make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the . . .
    Property belonging to the United States.” U.S. Const. art. IV,
    § 3, cl. 2. The fair market value annual fee mandated by
    FLPMA is within the bounds of Congressional authority.
    Because the Fitzgeralds do not have a common law easement
    over FDR 56B, they are not being required to pay an annual
    use fee for something they already own. Except for their dis-
    pute over whether they already own the easement, the Fitzger-
    alds do not challenge the Forest Service’s calculation of the
    fee. Accordingly, we conclude that the $114 annual use fee is
    reasonable.
    [11] We conclude further that the conditions in the ease-
    ment providing for the suspension, revocation, or termination
    of the easement also are reasonable. FLPMA vests the Forest
    Service with the discretion to restrict the “duration, . . . trans-
    fer or assignment, and termination” of a FLPMA easement.
    
    43 U.S.C. § 1764
    (c). A termination provision conditioned
    upon the Forest Service’s issuing a replacement easement or
    the initiation of administrative proceedings based on a viola-
    tion of the easement is reasonable.
    VI
    [12] Lastly, the Fitzgeralds challenge the Forest Service’s
    refusal to provide them with an easement under NFRTA.
    NFRTA was passed out of concern for the construction and
    maintenance of roads and trails within and near the national
    forests to meet the increasing demands for timber, recreation,
    and other uses of the national forests. 
    16 U.S.C. § 532
    . It pro-
    vides for the granting of easements to applicants who are par-
    ticipating in the construction and maintenance of the national
    forest road system. H.R. Rep. 88-1920 (1964). These ease-
    ments are provided without cost.
    10478   THE FITZGERALD LIVING TRUST v. UNITED STATES
    [13] The Fitzgeralds are not entitled to a NFRTA easement
    because they are not using FDR 56B to assist the Forest Ser-
    vice in managing the Sitgreaves National Forest. Given the
    intent of the statute, there is no support for the Fitzgeralds’
    argument that the Forest Service erred by failing to exercise
    its discretionary power to provide a NFRTA easement or by
    failing to offer any reason for not doing so.
    VII
    [14] FLPMA vests the Secretary of Agriculture with the
    authority to regulate access over the Sitgreaves National For-
    est. 
    43 U.S.C. § 1761
    (a). The FLPMA easement offered to the
    Fitzgeralds, who hold no common law easements over the for-
    est service land, is a reasonable exercise of that authority.
    Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-16149

Citation Numbers: 460 F.3d 1259, 2006 WL 2494210

Judges: Berzon, Rawlinson, Callahan

Filed Date: 8/29/2006

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024

Authorities (18)

henry-skranak-and-alan-skranak-james-skranak-v-robert-castenada , 425 F.3d 1213 ( 2005 )

Humphreys v. McKissock , 11 S. Ct. 779 ( 1891 )

Montana Wilderness Ass'n v. United States Forest Service , 496 F. Supp. 880 ( 1980 )

Buford v. Houtz , 10 S. Ct. 305 ( 1890 )

National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X ... , 125 S. Ct. 2688 ( 2005 )

Light v. United States , 31 S. Ct. 485 ( 1911 )

universal-health-services-inc-a-delaware-corporation-doing-business , 363 F.3d 1013 ( 2004 )

lorna-a-olsen-v-idaho-state-board-of-medicine-idaho-state-board-of , 363 F.3d 916 ( 2004 )

Watt v. Western Nuclear, Inc. , 103 S. Ct. 2218 ( 1983 )

Andrus v. Charlestone Stone Products Co. , 98 S. Ct. 2002 ( 1978 )

montana-wilderness-association-nine-quarter-circle-ranch-and-the , 655 F.2d 951 ( 1981 )

United States v. Michael Dunn (Aka Mike Dunn) , 478 F.2d 443 ( 1973 )

United States v. Jenks , 129 F.3d 1348 ( 1997 )

lester-adams-v-united-states-of-america-lester-adams , 3 F.3d 1254 ( 1993 )

Donald H. Albrecht and Rivermeadows Corporation, a Wyoming ... , 831 F.2d 196 ( 1987 )

Fitzgerald v. United States , 932 F. Supp. 1195 ( 1996 )

frank-buono-allen-schwartz-v-gale-norton-secretary-of-the-interior-in , 371 F.3d 543 ( 2004 )

Lester G. Adams and Jean D. Adams, Individually and as ... , 255 F.3d 787 ( 2001 )

View All Authorities »