versus the federal government often with the pro government environmentalists allied with the federal government idaho is different it is rare in idaho to have the federal government as a party to one of these public road access cases the reason for that is that most r s two four seven seven roads in idaho or on private land at least those that have been contested they were on public land of course when they were created but they have long since been patented as a result the typical fact scenario in idaho is is often involving a private property defending rancher who has placed a gated cross  that where did the district court go wrong or where it went wrong is that it recognized that there was continued public use your honor on the court focused on the hell for you to climb so you sort of have to go back to the law and where did the court wrong and that because we look at the state court decisions on beyond the beyond the role that public for public use whatever it was we know that the road was in existence and that there were seven mining claims in addition to an unspecified number of placer claims seven wild claims and  the federal government doesn't undertake mineral surveys in less they are doing work in the in the in the the district court in this case identified in sent on several occasions that they were being worked out and mining claims do we have any idea how many people would be working us claims we don't we don't know if there was just one on each client which had seven people that's conceivable it could have been seven it could have been more you know do we know what they would have been take with are they just walking n no no you run well well we did what do we know well what we do we do know we do have one one record which the district court identified describing it is a good wagon road it is not a and in the court found that that was sufficient going forward the court would not go backwards in time before the existence of that documentation but it was willing to go forward two years and it seems to me that those are the judge but i mean to move that's what is so important that is what the court found was sufficient well i think you're i think you're i think you've barked up the right tree i just think you've overestimated what the what the strength of important point is that you don't need anything else i think and i think we need to look at the words casual and desultory to understand why you didn't need more than that so we sat together with your argument  it there are these morning why is it a reasonable inference that it continued on for five years what do you mean by it your honor i don't expect you to answer that question but we know that the talent did not survive but we do know that the m claims did there was one mind that is described in the district court's decision of the continued to produce gold not i want to hold but it continued to produce goal for i believe twenty years if i recall correctly and and the point is that  seven seven they wanted to people to go out and sell the west the the west was settled particularly in idaho in fits and starts it did not every boom town survives but but but but if people hung on if there was a road that was and we know that the federal government and the surveyors would not have put those on the plant and less they were doing work and in the district court found that the district court specifically talked about assessment work different and well enough k but if the environmental assessment concludes that an environmental impact report needs to be made is the government down by any assertions that it made in its initial assessment well the critical thing for quite title  claim is your honor that in the environmental assessment document the government is clearly claiming the right to block to cut off any historic access that the county or the public or anyone else has to the south road you want us to stand for the proposition that any time the government issues an e t a on a quiet title and a quiet title what that would be that that always starts the writing of the statute of limitations well your honor it would depend on exactly of notice and requests for comments suggest that there may be some the maybe changes to the usa that's true your honor but the important point about the documents here is that the forest service was claiming the authority to close these roads  under this court's case far is sufficient to trigger the running of the twelve year period now the county can wait one year two years three years eleven years it just can't wait more than twelve years that's a very generous some even a start put out to public comment right well i think this was an unusual summary judgment proceeding because of the parties were essentially and the district court recognized the evidence here as happened so long ago and the like it's all historical all historical and both of our both parties two most recent cases where i disagree with mr meyers that i believe he took the position that in galley the court found that there were there had there been proved of five years of regular public use in fact in galley idaho supreme court well i have to disagree with mr meyer again on the on the facts to support a he said that supreme court in that case was willing to do for five years of regular public use solely based on for mining claims up the road but that's that's incorrect  anderson creek road i believe in that case intersected in given's ville with another road it was clear that one of those roads was anderson creek road and was also clear that in the show that there were there were structures and houses lining to work their claims around eagle crate after eight hundred eighty four sufficient circumstantial evidence of the regular usage of the road to establish in our ass twenty to forty seven right away well because there's a new correct factual premise there your honor in your question and then and some publications contain occasional mention of the mining claims in the area but the scant detail if any about whether such claims are being worked and if so to what degree by their owners  court said a description of the access to the mining claims as for some but not all a partial stretch of good wagon road and in all other instances a good trail does not suffice to stablish as a matter of law meaning idaho law a history of regular public use as is required under applicable law and then the judge quoted from galley where those items from court had said the only documentation was the survey maps and notes which is not adequate to show regular public use for five years and we know in fact if the court takes a look at the the one load claim the survey no since such that the county put and it's excerpts of records of so called other than the fact that two tunnels had been developed on that claim during those those four years other than that bare fact we don't know anything else about one of whether the owner of that claim  actually there were two applicants on that so we're only talking about two people gentlemen namely mantle and another person charles warren we don't know what work they did how often if at all they used th out damaged in was very environmentally harmful so the forest service had to decide with respect to eagle creek road but i think there are twelve altogether from other roads or creeks in this in this general watershed what are we going to do to actually ultimately in its final decision decide to do that is not what is relevant for quite title i purposes it's the assertion of authority that causes the claim to accrue and that that's that's clearly what was happening of process that was submitted to the district court i didn't find any comments coming back into the forest service from the county but i would also note that the county has never said that we weren't on notice we didn't know about the need to process or anything like that  they've they've just said well it wasn't we knew about it or doesn't know it doesn't matter whether was there any evidence that they were advocating that the government take some action with respect to this area that as far as the the record that was submitted to the st court reflects or shows the answer's no the county is just now saying oh yes we knew about these environmental assessments but that doesn't matter because the only thing that triggers the quiet title act statute of limitations running is the so called final decision of the forest service  the reasons in our briefing that i've probably over stated or spent too much time on here we think that that's wrong about that's what would trigger an e p a claim to challenge the final decision and if the county didn't want the road to be close insertion of a of a it's an assertion maybe right maybe wrong but it's an assertion of the fee owner of the land over which the road runs to have exclusive authority to close to blood or right to remove this road which is totally inconsistent with the notion that this is really a public road that has to remain open to the public and that is the assertion that triggered the the twelve years within which the county could have brought this quiet title acland and didn't was there anything  clear that the chaldee would indeed have a tough road if we were attacking the factual inferences drawn by the district court that is not what the county is doing the county is saying based on the very factual in princes that the district court drew the county should have prevailed let me tell you which inferences i'm talking about i'll just read short ones because i have such a short time this is from the memorandum decision of pages of thirty seven thirty eight describing eagle creek wrote in it says still used by some to reach their claims to be sure and that's after the demise of the city so the district court this is not the county talking the district court inferred still used by some then elsewhere in the memorandum decision peach thirty three the same route describing the same forty year history the claim that said cooper produced thousands of dollars and many thousands of dollars wasn't much but it's enough to create a road in idaho if this evidence isn't strong enough to create a ro hundred twenty five years ago it will be very difficult to establish a such recreation much of anywhere now the sapan a case out was addressed b that's true and completely irrelevant there was no dispute in that case about whether it was a public road through the old town or givens gone that's not where mr sapan it on his ranch and where he was trying to block public access it was  very clear that the good road was the part on eagle creek road the good trail with where they'd left eagle creek road to approach the adjacent mining claim so i think that was a little bit unfair