## Facts

- Burlington Northern, Inc. owned privately held timber inholdings completely surrounded by the Gallatin National Forest in Montana.
- The inholdings lay within the Taylor–Hilgard Wilderness Study Area designated under the Montana Wilderness Study Act of 1977.
- To reach and log its timber, Burlington Northern sought a road across national forest lands, including portions of the wilderness study area.
- The U.S. Forest Service issued a road permit authorizing access; environmental organizations and a neighboring ranch challenged the permit as inconsistent with wilderness-study management duties.
- During the litigation, the Forest Service suspended the permit and referred Burlington Northern’s claimed access rights to the Attorney General, who suggested an implied access right.
- The district court, on cross-motions for partial summary judgment, concluded Burlington Northern had a right of access based on easement theories tied to federal land-grant history.
- After the district court ruling, Congress enacted the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA), including an access provision for nonfederal lands within the National Forest System.

## Issues

1. Whether ANILCA § 1323(a) applies to inholdings within the National Forest System outside Alaska.
2. Whether ANILCA § 1323(a) requires the Forest Service to provide access sufficient to secure an inholder’s “reasonable use and enjoyment,” and what discretion the agency retains over the means of access.
3. Whether Burlington Northern had access rights independent of ANILCA through an easement by necessity against the United States or an implied easement arising from the Northern Pacific Land Grant Act of 1864.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the partial summary judgment recognizing Burlington Northern’s right of access, but rested its decision on ANILCA § 1323(a).
- The court held § 1323(a) applies to the entire National Forest System and is not limited to Alaska.
- The court concluded the statute obligates the Secretary of Agriculture, through the Forest Service, to provide access adequate to secure the owner’s reasonable use and enjoyment of the inholding.
- Because ANILCA provided a dispositive statutory basis, the court declined to decide the common-law and land-grant easement theories.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings concerning implementation and conditions of access consistent with the statutory right.

## Legal Principles

- ANILCA § 1323(a) grants owners of nonfederal inholdings within the National Forest System a statutory right to access sufficient for reasonable use and enjoyment of their land.
- The term “National Forest System” in § 1323(a) is nationwide in scope absent limiting language; geographic limitations must be stated expressly.
- The Forest Service may regulate the route, manner, and conditions of access to address resource impacts, but may not deny access in a way that effectively prevents reasonable use of the inholding.
- When a federal statute provides a clear basis for relief, a court may resolve the dispute on statutory grounds without reaching broader common-law property questions.
- Statutory access rights for inholders can coexist with wilderness-study management directives; environmental protections may shape conditions of access rather than eliminate access.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that ANILCA § 1323(a) applies nationwide and requires the Forest Service to provide adequate access to nonfederal inholdings within the National Forest System to ensure reasonable use and enjoyment, affirming Burlington Northern’s access right and leaving the common-law easement questions unresolved.


Montana Wilderness Ass'n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 655 F.2d 951 (9th Cir. 1981)