ü7?

DF DEVETOPMENT
LLC
P.O. Box 458
Donnelly, lD 83615
-
Cecillia Seesholtz
Forest Supervisor, Boise National Forest
L249 S. Vinnell Way, Suite 200
Boise, lD 83709

Dear Ms. Seesholtz,

DF Development received your October 22, 201'8 letter regarding Forest Service Road 374. DF
Development ¡s not necessarily opposed to responsible, appropriate permissive use of the road. ln fact,
DF Development is negotiating with recreational groups to develop terms of access. DF Development is
also working with the ldaho Department of Lands on a temporary road use agreement for timber harvest
activities on the Boise National Forest through the Good Neighbor Authority. DF Development is also
willing to work with the Forest Service to resolve access issues on FR 374 and elsewhere. However, your
letter raises several issues that should be considered moving forward.

DF Development has documented many instances of trespass, vandalism, fires, deposits of trash, off-
road travel, and damage to DF Development'sproperty that can only be explained as resulting from
improper use of FR 374. ln DF Development's experience, the public has used FR 374 not to travel from
one block of Forest Service land to another, but instead to trespass upon, and frequently damage,
private property. This abuse must be addressed as part of any resolution regarding leg¡timate use of FR
374.

You letter acknowledges that, while research is ongoing, the Forest Service is not able to identify any
right to some sections of FR 374. Without this information, DF Development quest¡ons whether FR374
was properly designated for public travel. Establishing jurisdiction over a route is (or should be) the f¡rst
step in the designation process. The Forest Service asserts that Boise County may have some implied
rights based on historic use; however, any rights held by Boise County must be addressed between Boise
County and DF Development. A right held by the County (or anyone else) does not vest the Forest
Service with authority to designate or apply its regulations to a road. Discussions between the Forest
Service and DF Development will, by necessity, center on their respective rights and responsibilities.

As you correctly note, the 1982 and L989 land exchange patents reserve certain rights to the Forest
Service. These rights are limited in certain respects. First, of course, they do not cover the whole road,
placing in question the public's right to use the road. Second, the reservations are for a limited purpose:
"a road," specifically "the Boise Ridge Forest Development Road No. 374." Patent No. 1L-89-009. The
reservations are therefore limited to FR 374; they do not reserve a wide swath of land for the Forest
Service to use however it wishes. Third, the rights-of-way are for "the Forest Service Development
Transportation System," to ensure a "right of access for the people of the United States generally to
lands owned, administered, or controlled by the United States of America for all lawful proper
purposes." Right-of-way reservation No. l-19290. Accordingly, the right-of-way does not allow access to
private land, or allow access for unlawful purposes such as trespass, off-road travel, or other activities.

Page 1 of 2
 tälþ
DF DEVELOPMENT
LLC
P.O. Box 458
Donnelly, lD 836L5

The documented abuses of FR 374 have increased the burden on DF Development's land and may serve
to ¡nvalidate the right-of-way. At the very least, DF Development expects that the Forest Service will
acknowledge that the right-of-way is limited to lawful purposes, and to take steps to enforce this
limitation.

Your letter asserts that DF Development must remove the gates and features designed to prevent off-
road travel. lt is not clear why the Forest Service wants DF Development to remove these features. Even
if the public hasthe rightto use FR 374-somethingthat has not been established, asyou
acknowledge-the public does not have the right to travel off-road, to trespass, or to engage in any
other activity. The open gates and protections against off-road travel do not interfere with any
legitimate rights. DF Development may be willing to remove these features, but in return it exþects the
Forest Service to take seriously its obligation to ensure proper use of the right-of-way.

The regulations cited ¡n the letter do not require removal of the gates or other protective features. 36
CFR 261.50 provides Forest Supervisors the authority to issue closure orders, often used to close areas
for fire danger. lt does not address structures designed to protect private land next to a right-of-way. 36
CFR 261.10(a) prohibits unauthorized structures and soil disturbances on National Forest System land.
The definition of National Forest System land does not extend to a road right-of-way over private land,
and regardless the structures are not located on FR 374, the property reserved in the patents. 36 CFR
26L.9 prohibits damage to natural features or property of the United States, again not at issue here
since the structures are on private land. 36 CFR 261.L2(c) and (d) prohibit blocking or obstructing roads.
The features at ¡ssue here do not block or obstruct the road. Legalities aside, the regulations do not
prohibit measures a private property owners' effort to ensure that public use is limited to the rights
granted by the patent reservations and rights-of-way.

ln conclusion, DF Development is interested in working with the Forest Service to identify possible
resolutions to the issues surrounding FR 374. DF Development is not, however, interested in returning to
the state in which the Forest Service permits unlawful and improper use of FR 374 for trespass, off-road
travel, and other damage to private property. DF Development will work with the Forest Service, but in
return will expect the Forest Service to take seriously its responsibility to ensure proper use of the right-
of-way.

Sincerely,

Colin Chambers
Senior Forest Manager
DF Development, LLC

Page 2 of 2