Citations
- 257 F. Supp. 3d 1039
Full opinion text
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS NORTH DAKOTA’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND TO DISMISS COUNTIES’ FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
Daniel L. Hovland, Chief Judge
Before the Court are two motions filed on behalf of the Defendant United States of America: “The United States of America’s Amended Motion to Dismiss North Dakota’s Amended Complaint for Lack of Jurisdiction” filed on September 26, 2014 (Docket No. 88), and “The United States of Ameriea’s Motion to Dismiss the First Cause of Action in the Counties’ Third Amended and Supplemental Complaint for Lack of Jurisdiction” filed on December 9, 2015 (Docket No. 169). Plaintiff North Dakota filed a response in opposition to the motions of the United States on January 27,2015. See Docket No. 104. Plaintiffs Billings County, Golden Valley County, McKenzie County, and Slope County similarly filed a response in opposition to the motions on January 28, 2015. See Docket No. 141. The United States then filed a reply brief in support of its motions to dismiss on April 30, 2015. See Docket No. 148. The Plaintiffs jointly filed a surreply on May 28, 2015. See Docket No. 152. On June 8, 2015, the United States filed a response to the Plaintiffs’ surreply. See Docket No. 154. For the reasons set forth below, the Defendant United States’ motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction are granted.
I. PROCEDURAL & FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On July 30, 2012, Billings County, McKenzie County, Slope County, and Golden Valley County initiated an action against the Defendant United States of America (“United States”) to quiet title to their claims of section line rights-of-way in the Little Missouri National Grassland as well as six -individual roads claimed by McKenzie County. See Docket No. 1 (Case No. 1:12-cv-102). The State of North Dakota then filed a complaint on September 14, 2012, against the Defendant United States to quiet title to its claim of section line rights-of-way within the Little Missouri National Grassland, the Sheyenne National Grassland, and the portion of the Cedar River National Grassland located in North Dakota, all which are a part of the Dakota Prairie Grasslands. See Docket No. 1 (Case No. l:12-cv-125). On April 16, 2013, the Court consolidated the two actions, with North Dakota’s action designated as the lead case (Case No. 1:12-cv-125) and the action by the Counties as the consolidated case (Case No. l:12-cv-102). See Docket No. 24.
The Plaintiffs’ claims arise from a controversy surrounding the public’s rights-of-way along section lines within the Dakota Prairie Grasslands in North Dakota. At the heart of both complaints is the contention all section lines in North Dakota, including those within the Dakota Prairie Grasslands, are subject to right-of-way for travel by the public. The Plaintiffs allege the public’s right to travel along such section lines arises from North Dakota’s acceptance of the grant for construction of public highways offered by federal statute, known as R.S. 2477. However, the Plaintiffs allege the United States refuses to recognize the existence of such public rights-of-way along section lines on lands managed by the United States Forest Service (“Forest Service”). Accordingly, the Plaintiffs request the Court quiet title to the public’s right-of-way along section lines within those lands managed by the Forest Service (i.e. Little Missouri National Grassland, the Sheyenne National Grassland, and the portion of the Cedar River National Grassland located in North Dakota).
In the motions before the Court, the United States seeks to dismiss the complaints of North Dakota and the Counties for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the claims are untimely under the Quiet Title Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2409a. The United States argues the Plaintiffs’ claims are untimely because both North Dakota and the Counties had sufficient notice of the United States’ position that North Dakota had not accepted the R.S. 2477 grant to create rights-of-way for public travel along the section lines, specifically within the Dakota Prairie Grasslands in North Dakota. The Plaintiffs disagree and contend their quiet title claims were timely filed and consequently the Court has jurisdiction over this matter.
A. Claims of North Dakota
In its complaint, North Dakota alleges three (3) claims against the United States. See Docket No. 17, pp. 17-20. In its first cause of action, North Dakota seeks “to quiet title to all section line easements” managed by the Forest Service within the Little Missouri National Grasslands, with the exception of those section lines on lands “(1) located within the Theodore Roosevelt National Park; (2) managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; (3) managed by the Bureau of Land Management; and (4) within the Theodore Roosevelt National Park Elkhorn Ranch Site.” See Docket No. Í7, p. 17. In its second cause of action, North Dakota seeks “to quiet title to all section line easements” managed by the Forest Service within the Sheyenne National Grassland, excluding those section line easements on lands “(1) managed by the U.S. Corps of Engineers; and (2) land managed by the Bureau of Land Management.” See Docket No. 17, pp. 18-19. In its third cause of action, North Dakota seeks to quiet title to all section line easements managed by the Forest Service within the Cedar River National Grassland, with the exclusion of sections lines on those lands “(1) managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and (2) lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management.” See Docket No. 17, pp. 19-20.
According to North Dakota’s complaint, the United States has unlawfully interfered with section line easements in the Little Missouri National Grassland, Shey-enne National Grassland, and Cedar River National Grassland “[b]y failing to recognize the state’s valid and existing rights in the easement over the 33 feet of federal land abutting section lines in the Dakota Prairie Grasslands, and by failing to abide by the reservation and exception in the conveyances by which it reacquired title....” See Docket No. 17, pp. 18-20.
North Dakota alleges its claim arises from Forest Service decisions in 2001 and 2002, in which the Forest Service “rejected and no longer intended to recognize the [Sjtate’s valid and existing right to section line easements in the National Grasslands.” See Docket No. 17, p. 9. Specifically, in 2001, the Forest Service issued a Record of Decision prohibiting off-highway motor vehicle travel in the Little Missouri National Grassland. Based upon this Record of Decision, the Forest Service then issued an order that “closed to motorized uses all non-system roads or trails on National Forest System land in the Dakota Prairie Grasslands that had not been previously traveled.” Id. Then, in the Dakota Prairie Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan from 2002, the Forest Services expressed that North Dakota “could not accept the R.S. 2477 grant by establishing highways pursuant to state laws that did not satisfy federal requirements, such as construction of the road.” See Docket No. 17, p. 10.
The controversy regarding section lines has been amplified by recent oil and gas development on lands owned by North Dakota to support state schools, with the State owning both the subsurface and surface estate. These “state school lands” are scattered throughout the Little Missouri National Grassland. The State also has a reserved mineral interest in additional lands located within the Little Missouri National Grassland. In its cpmplaint, North Dakota alleges lessees of the State’s mineral interest in state school lands, as well as other lands in which the State holds a mineral interest, have sought to access such lands by way of section lines. These lessees have been informed by the Forest Service “it does not recognize the state’s section line rights-of-way and that using the 33-feet on the USFS side of a section line is prohibited.” See Dqcket No. 17, p. 10. Consequently, in order to develop these State-owned minerals, North Dakota has permitted lessees to build access roads completely on state-owned lands, instead of utilizing the thirty-three feet on the Forest Service’s side of section lines.
North Dakota’s complaint also includes allegations outlining the consequences because Forest Service refused to recognize section line right-of-way within the Dakota Prairie Grasslands:
105. Had the USFS recognized the section line rights-of-way and not opposed building roads on the section lines described in the preceding paragraphs, .the burdens of the roads would not fall entirely on the state school lanfi and its previously-unencumbered surface estate and would have remained in the already existing easements.
106.. Had the USFS recognized the section line rights-of-way and not opposed building roads on the section lines described in the preceding paragraphs, the state would have avoided the entire responsibility for overseeing road reclamations when the purposes for which the roads were built terminate.
107. Had the USFS recognized the section line right of way and not opposed Frank’s Greek Road realignment along the section lines, the state would not have incurred the time and expense of administering road construction.
See Docket No. 17, p. 16.
B. Claims of Counties
In their Third Amended and Supplemental Complaint, the Counties allege several causes of action against the United States. In the first cause of action, the Counties “seek to quiet title to the rights-of-way for all of the section lines within the [Little Missouri National Grassland] managed by the United States Forest Service within the 'Counties’ boundaries.” See Docket No. 163, p. 18. The Counties do not seek to quiet title as to section line easements: “(1) located within the Theodore Roosevelt National Park; (2) managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; (3) managed by the Bureau of Land Management; and (4) within the Theodore Roosevelt National Park Elkhorn Ranch Site.” Id.
Like North Dakota, the Counties allege their quiet title claim accrued when the Forest Service issued a Record of Decision in January of 2001, prohibiting off-highway motor vehicle travel and limiting travel to existing roads and trails within the Little Missouri National Grasslands. Id. at pgs. 12-13. Based upon this Record of Decision, the Forest Service closed “all non-system roads or trails” not previously traveled in the Dakota Prairie Grasslands to motorized travel. Id. The Counties further allege that in a Record of Decision issued on July 31, 2002, the Forest Service “expressed it position that the state could not accept the R.S. 2477 grant by establishing highways pursuant to state law that did not satisfy federal requirements, such as construction of a road.” Id. at 13.
C. Revised Statute 2477 & North Dakota ‘Section Line Laws’
In 1866, Congress provided for public access across unreserved public domain lands by granting rights-of-way for the construction of highways by the passage of a statute that is commonly referred to as “R.S. 2477.” R.S. 2477 read in its entirety as follows: “The right of way for the construction of highways over public lands, not reserved for public uses; is hereby granted.” Act of July 26,1866, ch. 262, § 8, 14 Stat. 251, 253, codified at 43 U.S.C. § 932, repealed by Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-579, Title VII, § 706(a), 90 Stat. 2743, 2793. See also Kane Cnty. v. United States, 772 F.3d 1205, 1209 (10th Cir. 2014). R.S. 2477 remained in effect for 110 years and many transportation routes in the western part of the United States were established under its authority. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 425 F.3d 735, 740 (10th Cir. 2005). The establishment of a R.S. 2477 right-of-way required no administrative formalities: “no entry, no application, no license, no patent, and no deed on the federal side; no formal act of public acceptance on the part of the state or localities in' whom the right was vested.” Id. at 741. During this time, “congressional policy promoted the development of the unreserved public lands and their passage into private productive hands.” Id. at 740.
In 1976, Congress “abandoned its prior approach to public lands and instituted a preference for retention of the lands in federal ownership,-with an. increased emphasis on conservation and preservation,” by its enactment of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (“FLPMA”). Id. at 741. The FLPMA repealed R.S. 2477, but preserved “any valid” right-of-way “existing on the date of approval of this Act.” Pub. L. No. 94-579, §§ 701(a), 706(a), 90 Stat. at 2786, 2793; see, also S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 425 F.3d at 741.
Plaintiffs’ claims rest upon an 1871 Dakota Territory law, and successor versions enacted after statehood, that- Plaintiffs contend, and the North Dakota Supreme Court agrees, was. an “acceptance” of the purported open-ended grant of rights-of-way for highways under R.S. 2477. E.g., Small v. Burleigh Cnty., 225 N.W.2d 295 (N.D. 1974); Faxon v. Lallie Civil Tp., 36 N.D. 634, 163 N.W. 531, 532 (1917). Primarily, the claim of North Dakota and the Counties is .that every section -line within or adjacent to Forest Service lands is subject to a sixty-six feet wide public right-of-way running along and extending thirty-three feet on either side of section lines. Plaintiffs contend this right-of-way burdens the lands of the Dakota Prairie Grasslands regardless of whether a road has been constructed or there is evidence of use of the section line for public travel.
The law accepting the R.S. 2477 grant was enacted by the Dakota Territory in 1871 and stated that “[hjereafter all section lines in this territory shall be and are hereby declared public highways as far as practicable....” Small, 225 N.W.2d at 297. After North Dakota achieved statehood, the statute was amended in 1895 without substantial change to the relevant portion quoted above. N.D. Revised Code § 1050 (1895). Since then,. it has been revised, with the present version codified at N.D.C.C. § 24-07-03 and reads as follows:
In all townships in this state, outside the limits of incorporated cities, and outside platted townsites, additions, or subdivisions recorded pursuant to sections 40-50.1-01 through 40-50.1-17 or recorded prior to July 1,1987, under former chapter 40-50, the congressional section lines are considered public roads open for public travel to the width of thirty-three feet [10.06 meters] on each side of the section lines.
The board of county commissioners, if petitioned by a person having an interest in the adjoining land or a portion thereof, after public hearing and a finding by the commissioners of public benefit,. may close section lines or portions thereof which are not used for ten years, are not. traveled due to natural obstacles or difficulty of terrain, are not required due to readily accessible alternate routes of travel, or are intersected by interstate highways causing the section line to be a deadend, providing the closing of the dead-end section line does not deprive adjacent landowners access to the landowners’ property. After the section lines are closed, they may be used to the benefit of' the adjacent landowners. However, survey or property reference monuments may not be disturbed, removed, or destroyed. If drainage is interfered with due to the farming operations, alternate means of drainage must be provided'for by the landowners or tenants farming the lands.
N.D.C.C. § 24-07-03.
The Plaintiffs allege the territorial law of 1871, along with the subsequent codification and revisions, establishes that all section lines in North Dakota are subject to a public right-of-way and served as a valid acceptance of the R.S; 2477 grant. The Plaintiffs further allege that because North Dakota’s law was a valid acceptance of the R.S. 2477 grant and such acceptance occurred prior to the FLMPA enactment, such grant was preserved as a valid existing public right-of-way.
D. The Dakota Prairie Grasslands in North Dakota
The current dispute between the Plaintiffs and the United States regarding section line rights-of-way encompasses the lands within the Dakota Prairie Grasslands in North Dakota. The Dakota Prairie Grasslands in North Dakota consist of three distinct grasslands: (1) the Little Missouri National Grassland, (2) the Shey-enne National Grassland, and (3) the Cedar River National Grassland. Most of the lands within the now-Dakota Prairie Grasslands in North Dakota were settled in the late 1800s through the 1920s for agricultural purposes under the Homestead Act. See Docket No. 90, Ex. A, Attach. 23a, pg. 8. However, some lands which now make-up the Dakota Prairie Grasslands were not settled during this time, but instead remained in the public domain.
By the 1930s, extensive drought, along with plowing of sub-marginal farm land caused the loss of the lands’ protective cover. The lands quickly lost fertility and the soil blew, causing “dustbowl” conditions and significant crop failure. As a result, farmers were forced to abandon their land. See Docket No. 90, Ex. A, Attach. 19a, pgs. 24-25. To remedy the situation and re-establish grasses on the land, the federal government sought to reacquire these sub-marginal lands. To this end, the United States Department of Agriculture (“Department of Agriculture”) initiated the Land Utilization Program to purchase and develop sub-marginal lands and then transfer lands to their most suitable use. See Docket No. 90, Ex. H, pg. 8. Through the Land Utilization Program, the United States purchased several hundred thousand acres of land in North Dakota and South Dakota. Id. at pg. 30.
Eventually, the Land Utilization Program was supplemented by the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (“BJFTA”), which was passed in 1937 to provide “a more permanent status for the land utilization program.” Id. at pg. 19, Under the BJFTA, the Secretary of Agriculture was to:
[d]evelop a program of land conservation and land utilization, including the retirement of lands which are submarginal or not primarily suitable for cultivation, in order thereby to correct maladjustments in land use, and thus assist in controlling soil erosion, reforestation, preserving natural resources, mitigating floods, preventing impairment of dams and reservoirs, conserving surface and subsurface moisture, protecting the watersheds of navigable streams, and protecting the public lands, health, safety, and welfare.
Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act, ch. 517, sec. 31, 50 Stat. 522, 525 (1937). Pursuant to Title III of the Act, the Secretary of the Agriculture was specifically authorized “[t]o acquire by purchase, gift, or devise” submarginal land and land not primarily suitable for cultivation. Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act, ch. 517, sec. 32, 50 Stat. 522, 526 (1937). Such property “may be acquired subject to any reservations, outstanding estates, interests, easements, or other encumbrances which the Secretary determines will not interfere with the utilization of such property for the purposes of this title.” Id. In 1937, reacquired lands and public domain lands that would later become the Dakota Prairie Grasslands in North Dakota were withdrawn from “settlement, location, sale or entry, and reserved and set apart for use and development by the Department of Agriculture for soil erosion control and other land utilization activities,” subject to valid existing rights. Exec. Order No. 7673, 2 Fed. Reg. 1512 (July 19, 1937).
By 1939, the Department of Agriculture reacquired an estimated nine million acres of lands by purchase or condemnation for $46,277,273.00, and had options to buy additional land. Elizabeth Howard, Management of the National Grasslands, 78 N.D. L. Rev. 409, 418 n. 72 (2002). Between 1936 and 1953, the Department of Agriculture transferred a portion of the lands acquired under the Land Utilization Program to other federal agencies, including the National Park Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Fish and Wildlife Service. See Docket No. 90, Ex. H at pg. 32. From 1938 to 1953, the Soil Conservation Services managed most of the submarginal agricultural lands not transferred to other federal agencies. See Docket No. 90, Ex. H at pg. 20. Then, in 1954, the Secretary of Agriculture transferred management of nearly nine (9) million acres, including those lands that would later became National Grasslands, to the Forest Service. See Docket No. 90, Ex. H at pg. 36. The Secretary of Agriculture designated nearly four (4) million acres of the project lands as National Grasslands. See Docket No. 90, Ex. H at pp. 39-40; Howard, supra, at 425.
In 1998, the Forest Service established the Dakota Prairie Grasslands to separate their management from the administration of the Custer National Forest. See Docket No. 90, Ex. A, Attach. 24e, p. 3. As discussed above, the Dakota Prairie Grasslands includes the Little Missouri National Grassland, the Sheyenne National Grassland and the Cedar River National Grassland. Little Missouri National Grassland consists of roughly 1,026,000 acres in McKenizie, Billings, Slope, and Golden Valley Counties. See Docket 17, Ex. 1 (conventionally filed). Of those lands within the Little Missouri National Grassland, roughly 923,700 acres were lands reacquired by the United States, and roughly 101,700 acres are reserved public domain lands. See Docket No. 90, Ex. A, Attach. 2.
The Sheyenne National Grassland is comprised of roughly 71,000 acres in Ransom and Richland Counties. See Docket 17, Ex. 2 (conventionally filed). Of those lands within the Sheyenne National Grassland, roughly 70,200 acres were reacquired by the United States and 40 acres are reserved public domain lands. See Docket No. 90, Ex. C, Attach. 2.
The Cedar River National’ Grassland consists of roughly 6,800 acres and is located within Grant and Sioux counties. See Docket 17, Ex. 3 (conventionally filed). All the lands within the Cedar River National Grassland were reacquired'by the United States. See Docket No. 90, Ex D., Attach. 2.
Against this backdrop, the Court now turns to consider the current motion by the United States to dismiss North Dakota’s amended complaint and, the Counties’ first cause of action in their third amended complaint. In its motion, the United States requests the Court dismiss the Plaintiffs’ Quiet Title Act claims because'the time for the Plaintiffs to bring their claims has run, divesting the Court of jurisdiction to hear the case.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The United States requests the Court dismiss North Dakota’s amended complaint as well as the first cause of action (“Quiet Title to Section Lines”) of the Counties’ Third Amended and Supplemental Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. When considering a motion to dismiss, the Court must generally construe the complaint liberally and assume all factual allegations to be true. Eckert v. Titan Tire Corp., 514 F.3d 801, 806 (8th Cir. 2008). Dismissal will not be granted unless it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would entitle plaintiff to relief.
Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs challenges to subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Here, the United States asserts a factual challenge to the Court’s jurisdiction. In such a factual 12(b)(1) motion, the trial court’s jurisdiction — its very power to hear the case — is at issue, and the trial court is “free to weigh the evidence and satisfy itself as to the existence of. its power to hear the case.” Osborn v. United States, 918 F.2d 724, 730 (8th Cir. 1990). As a result, “no presumptive .truthfulness attaches to the. plaintiff s allegations” and the existence of disputed mater rial facts will not preclude the trial court from evaluating for itself the merits, of jurisdictional claims. Spirit Lake Tribe v. North Dakota, 262 F.3d 732, 744 (8th Cir. 2001). The burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate jurisdiction exists. Id.
III. LEGAL ANALYSIS
The complaints of North Dakota and the Counties were brought pursuant to the Quiet Title Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2409a. In summary, the complaints seeks to quiet title to a public easement for travel within the thirty-three feet on each side of the section lines within the Little Missouri National Grassland, Sheyenne National Grassland, and Cedar River National Grassland, in North Dakota. The United States requests the Court dismiss North Dakota’s amended complaint as well as the first cause of action of the Counties’ third amended and supplemental complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure because the Plaintiffs’ claims are untimely and, consequently, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the matter. The Plaintiffs contend their claims are timely as their complaints were filed within the twelve (12) year statute of limitations of the Quiet Title Act and the Court has jurisdiction over the matter.
The United States is" immune from suit absent a waiver of sovereign immunity. Hart v. United States, 630 F.3d 1085, 1088 (8th Cir. 2011). The Quiet Title Act (“QTA”) provides a limited waiver of sovereign immunity:
The United States may be named as a party defendant in a civil action under this section to adjudicate a disputed title to real property in which the United States claims an interest, other than a security interest of water rights.
28 U.S.C. § 2409a(a). The QTA is the exclusive means by which an adverse claimant can challenge the United States’ title to real property. Block v. North Dakota ex rel. Bd. of Univ. & Sch. Lands, 461 U.S. 273, 286, 103 S.Ct. 1811, 75 L.Ed.2d 840 (1983). “Because the QTA waives the government’s sovereign immunity from suit, a plaintiff must comply with the limitations period to effectuate that waiver. Hence the QTA statute of limitations acts as a jurisdictional bar unlike most statutes of limitations, which are affirmative defenses.” Spirit Lake Tribe, 262 F.3d at 737-38 (internal citations omitted).
When the QTA was enacted in 1972, it contained a 12-year statute of limitations that applied to all QTA actions and reads as follows:
Any civil action under this section shall be barred unless it is commenced within twelve years of the date upon which it accrued. Such action shall be deemed to have accrued on the date the plaintiff or his predecessor in interest knew or should have known of the claim of the United States.
Block, 461 U.S. at 275 n.1, 103 S.Ct. 1811 (quoting Act of Oct. 25, 1972, Pub. L. No. 92-562, 86 Stat. 1176, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(f)). In 1983, the Supreme Court concluded in Block this limitation period applied to claims brought by the states. Id. at 290, 103 S.Ct. 1811. Dissatisfied with the result in Block, Congress amended the Quiet Title Act in 1986. The amendment did not modify the statute of limitations for claims brought by persons or entities other than the states, but added new provisions to limit the reach, of the 12-year limitations period to only certain lands of the United States and, for some types of lands, provide a new test for when a claim accrues.
Current subsection (g) of 28 U.S.C. § 2409a, describes the statute of limitations applicable to claims brought by persons or entities other than the states:
Any civil action under this section, except for an action brought by a State, shall be barred unless it is commenced within twelve years of the date upon which it accrued. Such action shall be deemed to have accrued on the date the plaintiff or his predecessor in interest knew or should have known of the claim of the United States.
28 U.S.C. § 2409a(g). In contrast, current subsection (i) of 28 U.S.C. § 2409a, outlines the limitations period applicable to claims brought by a state:
Any civil action brought by a State under this section with respect to lands, other than tide or submerged lands, on which the United States or its lessee or right-of-way or easement granted has made substantial improvements or substantial investments or on which the United States has conducted substantial activities pursuant to a management plan such as range improvement, timber harvest, tree planting, mineral activities, farming, wildlife habitat improvement, or other similar activities, shall be barred unless the action is commenced within twelve years after the date the State received notice of the Federal claims to the lands.
28 U.S.C. § 2409a(i) (emphasis added).
The Court is now tasked with determining whether North Dakota and the Counties complied with the limitations period of the Quiet Title Act to effectuate a waiver of sovereign immunity by the United States. Because North Dakota instituted its action on September 14, 2012, its attempt to quiet title is barred if the State received notice of the United States’ adverse claim by September 14, 2000. See Docket No. 17 (Case No. 1:12-cv-125). The Counties attempt to quiet title is barred if they knew or should have known of the United States’ adverse claim by July 30, 2000, as the Counties instituted their action on July 30, 2012. See Docket No. 1 (Case No. 1:12-cv-102). The Court first examines whether North Dakota timely brought its action, and then examines whether the Counties timely brought their action.
A. QTA Statute of Limitations and North Dakota’s Claims
North Dakota filed its complaint on September 14, 2012. See Docket No. 1. In its motion to dismiss, the United States contends North Dakota’s amended complaint should be dismissed because North Dakota cannot prove their claims are timely under the QTA. To determine whether North Dakota’s claims were timely brought pursuant to the QTA, the Court looks to 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(i), which provides:
Any civil action brought by a State under this section with respect to lands, other than tide or submerged lands, on which the United States or its lessee or right-of-way or easement grantee has made substantial improvements or substantial investments or on which the United States has conducted substantial activities pursuant to a management plan such as range improvement, timber harvest, tree planting, mineral activities, farming, wildlife habitat improvement, or other similar activities, shall be barred unless the action is commenced within twelve years after the date the State received notice of the Federal claims to the lands.
28 U.S.C. § 2409a(i). For the purposes of the accrual of an action brought by a state pursuant to subsection (i), “notice” shall be:
(1) By public communications with respect to the claimed lands which are sufficiently specific as to be reasonably calculated to put the claimant on notice of the Federal claim to the lands, or
(2) By the use, occupancy, or improvement of the claimed lands which, in the circumstances, is open and notorious.
28 U.S.C. § 2409a(k). Before the Court can determine whether the limitations period in Section 2409a(i)’s precludes North Dakota’s claim, the Court must first decide whether Section 2409a(i) applies to the lands at issue.
1. Applicability of 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(i) Limitation Period
As outlined above, the twelve (12) year statute of limitations proscribed in subsection (i) only applies to lands “on which the United States or its lessee or right-of-way or easement grantee”: (1) has made substantial improvements or substantial investments or on which the United States (2) has conducted substantial activities in accordance with a management plan, such as range improvement, timber harvest, tree planting, mineral activities, farming, wildlife habitat improvement, or other similar activities. 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(i). Both parties dedicate substantial space in their briefing to the issue of whether the concerned lands here are of the type of lands to which 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(i) applies. The United States posits that the twelve (12) year limitations period of Section 2409a(i) applies because the Soil Conservation Service as well as the Forest Service and its permitees have made substantial improvements within the Dakota Prairie Grasslands, including improvements to the thirty-three feet on each side of sections lines. See Docket No. 90, pp. 42-49. According to North Dakota, the lands at issue are not of the type contemplated within Section 2409a(i) because any improvements or investments by the Soil Conservation Service or the Forest Service and its permi-tees’ are not substantial activities for the purposes of Section 2409a(i) and are not significantly related to the section line right-of-way. See Docket No. 104, pp. 42-49.
In its brief, the United States describes many distinct improvements and investments made to the Dakota Prairie Grasslands, including (1) improvements to combat dustbowl conditions and prevent soil erosion in the 1930s and 1940s, (2) range improvements, (3) oil and gas development, and (4) public recreation. Although many of the ■ improvements and investments described by the United States were made within the Dakota Prairie Grasslands, the Court looks only to those improvements and investments made within the thirty-three feet on each side of the section lines of the Dakota Prairie Grasslands, to determine whether the United States, or its lessee or right-of-way or easement grantee, made substantial improvements or investments or conducted substantial activities in accordance with a management plan. ■ See 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(i). In its first amended complaint, North Dakota explicitly and specifically requests the Court to “quiet ■ title to the public easement that provides a right-of-way for public travel on the thirty-three feet on each side of section lines in North Dakota,' regardless of whether a visible road or trail exists.” See Docket No. 17. In particular, the State seeks to quiet title to this easement on land acquired by the United States in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s that is currently administered and managed through the Department of Agriculture by the Forest Service. Id. Accordingly, the scope of this quiet title action is limited to the lands within the thirty-three feet on each side of section lines, as presented by the State in its 'complaint. The question for the Court to then consider is whether Section 2409a(i) applies to the thirty-three feet on each side of the section lines within the Little Missouri National Grassland, Sheyenne National Grassland, and Cedar River National Grassland. Neither party has directed the Court to a decision by any court that meaningfully analyzes whether any improvement, activity, or investment by the United {States’ is considered ‘substantial’ to determine the applicability of Section 2409a(i). Moreover, after a thorough review of QTA actions across the country, the Court was unable to identify any well-developed case law outlining what particular improvements, activities, or investments, are “substantial” when the concerned land consists of a right-of-way for public travel within the 33 feet on each side of section lines. The sole decision in which the Court, finds guidance is the Tenth Circuit’s decision of San Juan County v. United States, which addressed whether the QTA limitations period barred Utah’s claim to a right-of-way to use a road with the Canyonlands National Park. 754 F.3d 787, 790 (10th Cir. 2014).
In San Juan County v. United States, the Tenth Circuit addressed the applicability of Section 2409a(i) and determined reservation of land as a national park, reconstruction of the park’s access road, repair and maintenance of the disputecj road to ensure it remained usable by vehicles, and restoration of the disputed road after floods were “substantial activities” conducted by the United States sufficient to trigger the application of Section 2409a(i). Id. at 795. However, the San Juan Court did not expound on its reasoning for determining these activities were “substantial activities” conducted by the United States. With only this guidance, the Court turns to examine investments, improvements, and activities of the United States, as well as its lessees or right-of-way or easement grantees, within the thirty-three feet on each side of the section lines in the Dakota Prairie Grasslands.
In its brief, the United States identifies several improvements, activities, and investments made to the Dakota Prairie Grasslands, including (1) improvements to combat dustbowl conditions and prevent soil erosion in the 1930s and 1940s, (2) range improvements, (3) oil and gas development, and (4) public recreation. As previously discussed, the Soil Conservation Service managed most of the submarginal agricultural lands in the Land Utilization Project. These lands eventually became part of the National Grasslands, including the Dakota Prairie Grasslands. Improvements made by the Soil Conservation Service to these lands include the following:
[Gjeneral land treatment, structural improvements, provision of transportation facilities, control of erosion, flood control, water storage, and development for forestry, recreation, and wildlife.' Buildings and fences were removed; old roads no longer needed were blocked up; new roads were built where needed; suitable areas were seeded to grass or planted in trees; forest stands were improved and protected from fire; gullies were stopped; terraces, stock ponds and dams were built; and stream channels were widened and cleaned.
See Docket No. 90, Ex. H, pg. 25, The record is unclear whether these improvements were made within the thirty-three feet of the section lines in the Dakota Prairie Grasslands. However, the United States enumerates several specific improvements made within the thirty-three feet of the section lines of the Dakota Prairie Grasslands. For instance, the Soil Conservation Service planted many trees during its management of the land. See Docket No. 90, Ex. C, ¶20. In two locations, the tree plantings are large enough to block motorized travel the entire sixty-six feet (thirty-three feet on each side) of the section line. Several other tree plantings are within thirty-three feet of section lines. Id.
Certain lands within the National Grasslands have also been made available to ranchers for grazing through cooperative grazing associations. The Forest Service issues permits to local grazing associations, allowing the associations to graze livestock on the lands. Pursuant to management programs for .the grasslands, grazing associations are required to facilitate public grazing on the lands through conservation practices, which include construction of fences, cattle guards, and water supply improvements. The cost of these projects completed by grazing associations is then subtracted from the annual fee charged by the Forest- Service for grazing on the lands. The Forest Service estimates 54 stockwater tanks, 35 dams, 2 dugouts, 25 water wells, 7 spring developments, 8 windmills,. 4 corrals, 1,309.29 miles of fence,-and 227.89 miles of stock-water pipeline, constructed through conservation practices, are located within or across the thirty-three feet on either side of the sections lines within the Dakota Prairie Grasslands. See Docket No. 90, Ex. B, ¶ 32, and Ex. C, ¶ 16. In addition, at least ten exclosures (fences designed to exclude livestock and/or wildlife from certain areas) constructed by the Forest Service cross section lines.
Within the. Dakota Prairie Grasslands, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) cooperatively manage the leasing and drilling of federal minerals, such as oil and gas, under federal surface estates. According to its brief, the United States “.owns the mineral rights for approximately 79% of the National Forest System lands within the Little Missouri National Grassland.” See Docket No. 90, p. 40. For federal mineral interests, the BLM enters into a mineral lease upon receiving authorization to do so from the Forest Service, after the Forest Service completes a leasing analysis. The lessee of the mineral interest must then request a permit to drill on an oil or gas lease. Before commencing operations, the lessee must have both an approved surface use plan of operations from the Forest Service as well as an approved permit. See 30 U.S.C. § 226(g).
The United States identified forty-one (41) oil and gas well sites (including associated well pads) in the Dakota Prairie Grasslands located within thirty-three feet of a section line or across a section line. See Docket No. 90, Ex. A, ¶ 19, and Ex. B, ¶ 20. Of those forty-one leases, thirty-eight (38) involve the leasing of federal mineral interests. See Docket No. 148, Ex. F, ¶ 7 and Ex. G, ¶ 7. Of those well sites located within thirty-three feet of .a section line or across a section line, the first was drilled in 1980. See Docket No. 90, Ex. A, ¶ 19. The Forest Service also grants permits to operators of special use facilities (e.g. compressor stations and trucking stations) to support oil and gas development. In the Little Missouri National Grassland alone, five special use facilities are located within thirty-three feet of a section line. See Docket No. 90, p. 40.
The Forest Service maintains numerous campgrounds, recreational trails, and other facilities throughout the Dakota Prairie Grasslands. The boundaries of five campgrounds (Burning Coal Veil Campground, Buffalo Gap Campground, Summit Campground, Elkhorn Campground, and Civilian Conservation Corps Campground) are within thirty-three feet of a section line. The first, Burning Veil Campground, is located approximately ten miles northwest of Amidon, North Dakota. Burning Veil Campground was once a dispersed camping area, but was developed into a- campground during the 1960s. Current facilities at the Burning Veil Campground include: eight campsites, a hand-operated water pump, an informational kiosk, site markers and directional signs, open areas between and around campsites, and graveled roads. Each campsite includes “graveled parking areas and graveled pads with a table and fire ring.” See Docket No. 90, Ex. A, ¶ 52. The southern trailhead to the Maah Daah Hey Trail, which is within thirty-three feet of a section line, is also incorporated into the campground.
Buffalo Gap Campground is located approximately seven (7) miles west of Medo-ra, North Dakota.- Buffalo Gap Campground was first developed during the 1960s,' but was closed to the public for several years in the 1990s due to substandard road conditions. The current facilities at Buffalo Gap Campground include:
[Boundary fence, water and wastewater system (storage tanks, pump, water lines, 11 water hydrants, lift station, two drain fields, and a sewer hookup at one of the host sites), two comfort stations with running water and flush toilets, one vault toilet, one shower building with 3 showers, paved day-use parking area, 75-person picnic shelter, paved access road, two paved campground loop roads, 37 campsites (two or which are host sites with electric hookups), site markers and directional signs,. garbage cans, information kiosk, pollinator , garden with interpretive signs, overlook with paved trail and interpretive signs, and a scenic loop trail.
See Docket No. 90, Ex. A, ¶ 53. Buffalo Gap Campsite covers approximately 190 acres. The Summit campground was similarly constructed in the 1960s, although first constructed ás a picnic site. In 2001, the Forest Service upgraded the campground. The current facilities at the Summit Campground, which traverses a section line, include three drive-up campsites with graveled parking areas and graveled pad with picnic tables and fire rings. There are also two walk-in sites accessible by a short trail, each of which has a table and fire ring.
The remaining two campgrounds with exterior boundaries within thirty-three feet of a section line were constructed in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The Civilian Conservation Corps Campground was a well-known dispersed camping site for decades before development as a campground. The current facilities at the Civilian Conservation Corps Campground include a picnic shelter, thirty-two campsites, a host site with electrical and sewer hookups, a hand-operated water pump, site markers, three vault toilets, an informational kiosk, three sets of hitch rails, graveled roads, directional signs, and a boundary fence. See Docket No. 90, Ex. B, ¶ 38. The last campground within thirty-three feet of a section line is the Elk-horn Campground. The Elkhorn Campground is approximately twenty miles north of Medora, North Dakota. According to Ronald Jablonski, then District Ranger for the Medora Ranger District:
Elkhorn Campground was developed soon after the May 2000 decision as part of the Maah Daah Hey Overnight Site Project. Public scoping for the project began in June 1999, and the Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact were signed in May of 2000.
See Docket No. 90, Ex. A, ¶ 54. Currently, the facilities at the Elkhorn Campground include ten campsites, a vault toilet, two hitching rails, a hand-operated water pump, site markers and directional signs, an informational kiosk, graveled roads, and a boundary fence. Id In addition to campgrounds, the Forest Service also maintains approximately 250 miles of hiking trails through the Grasslands. See Docket No. 148, p. 43.
The United States contends the above-described maintenance of campgrounds and hiking trails to facilitate public recreation, oil and gas development by its lessees, range improvements in coordination with grazing associations through conservations practices, and improvements to the lands by the Soil Conservation Service, constitute substantial improvements, substantial investments, and substantial activities conducted pursuant to management plans by the United States within the thirty-three feet on each side of section lines in the Dakota Prairie Grasslands. See 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(i). As such, the United States reasons Section 2409a(i) applies to the lands in dispute (i.e., the thirty-three feet on either side of section lines in the Dakota Prairie Grasslands). North Dakota, with support from the Counties, claims the lands in dispute fall outside the scope of Section 2409a(i) because the United States, or its lessees or right-of-way or easement grantees, have not made substantial improvements, have not made substantial investments, and have not conducted substantial activities pursuant to a management plan to the lands.
North Dakota first contends any improvements or investments by the Soil Conservation Service were not substantial and not specifically tied to the Dakota Prairie Grasslands or the thirty-three feet on either side of section lines within the Dakota Prairie Grasslands. See Docket No. 104, pp. 59-61. In support of its contention, North Dakota specifically notes the improvements by the Soil Conservation Services are not improvements in the “traditional sense” and the roughly $150 million investment into lands by the United States as part of the Land Utilization program should not be considered by the Court because these costs were likely apportioned unevenly across lands. Further, North Dakota highlights a missing nexus between the improvements (e.g. structural improvements, control of erosion, flood control, water storage, buildings and fences removal, new road construction, tree planting, and dams) by the Soil Conservation Service as part of the land utilization and the lands at issue in this case.
It is undisputed by the parties the United States invested in the lands that later became the Dakota Prairie Grasslands when it acquired the lands. It is also undisputed the Soil Conservation Service improved those same lands through its management of the land utilization program. Nonetheless, the Court agrees with North Dakota the record is unclear whether substantial improvements by the Soil Conservation Service were made within the thirty-three feet of section lines in the Dakota Prairie Grasslands. Even keeping in mind the fact that the Soil Conservation Services planted trees encroaching the thirty-three feet of section lines during its management of the lands, the scope of other similar improvements by the Soil Conservation Service within the thirty-three feet of section lines in the Dakota Prairie Grasslands is unknown.
The Court fully acknowledges the United States made substantial improvements to and substantial investment in the submarginal lands of the land utilization program. To define which improvements and what portion of the United States’ monetary investment are attributable to the thirty-three feet on either side of the section lines in the Dakota Prairie Grasslands is an impractical, if not impossible, task. In fact, it is one which the Court need not undertake at this juncture. Even assuming, arguendo, improvements and investment'attributable to the thirty-three feet on either side of the section lines within sub-marginal lands of the land utilization program (that later became the Dakota Prairie Grasslands) were not substantial, the Court would nonetheless conclude the United States, along with its lessees, made substantial improvements, substantial investments, and has conducted substantial activities within the thirty-three feet on either side of the section lines of the Dakota Prairie Grasslands for the reasons discussed below.
North Dakota next challenges the United States’ assertion its oil and gas development and range improvements are substantial investments and improvements to the lands. North Dakota explicitly contends range improvements should not be considered by the Court to determine the applicability of Section 2409a(i) because the improvements were made by grazing associations as permittees and the ownership of such improvements is unknown. Although North Dakota suggests any range improvements to the Dakota Prairie Grasslands constructed through conservation practices should not be considered by the Court because the ownership of the improvements is unknown or ambiguous, the plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(i) does not require the ownership of an improvement to be vested in the United States, or even known, for such improvement to trigger Section 2409a(i). In addition, North Dakota has not directed the Court to any case law in support of this contention. North Dakota also argues any range improvements were not significant or substantial based upon Forest Service employees’ deposition testimony. North Dakota directs the Court to the deposition testimony of several Forest Rangers in which the Forest Rangers discussed whether improvements, investments, and activities were substantial or significant. A review of the Forest Rangers’ depositions reveals each discussed his subjective view of whether improvements, investments, and activities within the Dakota Prairie Grasslands were “significant" or “substantial.” The Court is not convinced it should rely pn individuals’ subjective definitions of the terms “substantial” and “significant” as guidance for this Court’s legal determination of whether investments, activities, or improvements are “substantial” as used in Section 2409a(i). Under some circumstance it may be appropriate for a Court to give due consideration to a particular individual’s view of whether improvements, activities, and investments are substantial; however, doing so here introduces an unnecessary degree of subjectivity into the Court’s inquiry and results in a malleable definition, easily shaped by the parties’ intentions. . ,
North Dakota also requests the -Court not consider range improvements made by grazing associations in its determination of whether 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(i) applies because such range improvements were made by grazing associations as permit-tees, and were not made by the “United States or its lessee or right-of-way or easement grantee.” See 28 U.S.C, § 2409a(i). The plain language of Section 2409a,(i) limits its application to lands “on which the United States or its lessee or right-of-way or easement grantee has made, substantial improvements or substantial investments or on which the United States has conducted substantial activities ...” 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(i) (emphasis added). North Dakota interprets this portion of Section 2409a(i) to exclude its application to lands on which permittees (i.e. grazing associations) of the United States conducted activities or made improvements. However, the grazing associations’ relationship with the United States cannot be simply categorized as a permittee of the United States. Instead, the relationship between the United States and local grazing associations is defined by Allotment Management Plans (36 C.F.R. § 222.1(b)(2)), grazing or livestock use permits, as well as association rules/ In addition, 36 C.F.R. § 222.7 outlines one of the purposes of grazing associations is to provide a means for permittees to “share costs for handling of livestock, construction and maintenance of range improvements.” See 36 C.F.R. § 222,7(a)(2)(iv). Based upon the Court’s thorough review of the record, the historical cooperative relationship between grazing associations and the Forest Service, and the pertinent federal regulations, it is it apparent to the Court that the status of grazing associations, along with their members, is not merely that of a permittee of the United States.
Of course, Section 2409a(i) does not address its" applicability to lands on which improvements and investment made pursuant to the unique relationship between grazing associations and the United States. However, Section 2409a(i) directs that the twelve year statute of limitation applies to lands “on which the United States has conducted substantial activities pursuant to a management plan such as range improvement ....” 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(i) (emphasis added). Section 2409a(i) also" lists several other activities that • trigger the application of the statute of limitations when "conducted by the United States, including “timber harvest, tree planting, mineral activities, farming, and wildlife habitat improvement,” Id. Of these enumerated substantial activities outlined in Section 2409a(i), it is not unfathomable to imagine the United States works in conjunction with private individuals, state agencies, or local municipalities to conduct many of these substantial activities, particularly farming, timber harvest, mineral activities, and range improvements on lands. In fact, as discussed later, the United States routinely enters into leases with private individuals to conduct mineral activities.
Given the statutory construction canon of nosdtur a sociis, which counsels that a word is given more precise content by the neighboring words with which it is associated, the term “range improvements” in Section 2409a(i) is more precisely contextualized by the surrounding terms. See Perez v. Loren Cook Co., 750 F.3d 1006, 1019 (8th Cir. 2014). Inclusion of a list of substantial activities traditionally conducted by the United States, with cooperation, assistance, or work from others, is a clear indication from Congress that substantial activities conducted by the United States in conjunction with others triggers the applicability of Section 2409a(i). Requiring range improvements to be made exclusively by the United States and not by grazing associations in cooperation with the United States would similarly signal timber harvest, mineral activities, and farming could not be considered in the Court’s determination of the applicability .of Section 2409a(i) unless conducted solely by the United States. Such statutory construction is inapposite to the purpose of the Quiet Title Act to timely settle claims to free the lands upon which the United States, in conjunction with others, conducts substantial activities pursuant to the management plan from the applicability of the twelve year statute of limitations. See Block v. North Dakota, 461 U.S. 273, 285, 103 S.Ct. 1811, 75 L.Ed.2d 840 (1983). Accordingly, to interpret Section 2409a(i) to apply only when substantial activities are conducted solely by the United States, without cooperation, assistance, or work from others, too severely limits the lands to which Section 2409a(i) applies. As discussed above, the Forest Service describes numerous range improvements located within or across the thirty-three feet on either side of section lines, including 54 stockwater tanks, 35 dams, 2 dugouts, 25 water wells, 7 spring developments, 8 windmills, 4 corrals, 1,309.29 miles of fence, and 227.89 miles of stockwater pipeline. See Docket No. 90, Ex. B, ¶ 32, and Ex. C, ¶ 16. The Court concludes' these range improvements constitute substantial activities made pursuant to a management plan by the United States to trigger the application of Section 2409a(i) to the lands within the thirty-three feet on either side of the section lines within the Dakota Prairie Grasslands. The Court similarly concludes that Section 2409a(i) applies to these lands because of the United States’ mineral activities and improvements to facilitate recreation in the Dakota Prairie Grasslands as discussed below.
North Dakota does not dispute the United States’ ownership of mineral rights within the Dakota Prairie Grasslands and does not dispute the fact that the United States, through the BLM, enters into mineral leases with parties which then are permitted to drill for oil and gas. As previously discussed, for federal mineral interests, the BLM enters into a mineral lease upon receiving authorization to do so from the Forest Service. The lessee of the mineral interest must then request a permit to drill on an oil or gas lease. The United States identified thirty-eight (38) oil and gas well sites (including associated well pads) in the Dakota Prairie Grasslands that involve the leasing of federal mineral interest and are located within thirty-three feet of a section line or across a section line. See Docket No. 148, Ex. F, ¶ 7 and Ex. G, ¶ 7. Of the well sites located within thirty-three feet of a section line or across a section line, the first was drilled in 1980. See Docket No. 90, Ex. A, ¶ 19. Although it is true lessees of federal mineral interests, as well as other operators of special use facilities to support oil and gas development, are required to receive permits from both federal and state governments to conduct oil and gas activities, such entities are unquestionably lessees of the United States. These lessees have constructed numerous oil and gas well sites within the thirty-three feet of a section line. Accordingly, the Court concludes such construction and development constitutes “substantial improvements or substantial investments” within thirty-three feet of section lines within the Dakota Prairie Grassland for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(i) by the United States’ lessees.
Last, North Dakota notes the Court should not consider recreation areas and activities because these “were only recently improved.” See Docket No. 104, p. 66. North Dakota’s assertion is unsupported by evidence and contrary to the record. As discussed above, campgrounds in the Dakota Prairie Grasslands were developed as early as the 1960s. In addition, the Forest Service maintains approximately 250 miles of hiking trails through the Grasslands, with some portion of the trials within or crossing the thirty-three feet on either side of section lines. See Docket No. 148, p. 43. Therefore, the Court concludes the development of these recreational facilities constitutes substantial improvement, investment, and activities by the United States within thirty-three feet of section lines within the Dakota Prairie Grassland for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(i).
Upon careful review of the record, the Court concludes as a matter of law that the development of recreational facilities by Forest Service, construction and development of oil and gas well sites by the United States’ lessees, and range improvements by the United States in coordination with grazing associations within the thirty-three f