Opinion ID: 494203
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reduction in Cultivation

Text: 8 Nevitt filed his application for a reduction in the cultivation requirements of homestead entrymen on November 17, 1982 under 43 C.F.R. Sec. 2511.4-3(b) (1986). The reduction may be granted if the land entered is so hilly or rough, the soil so alkaline, compact, sandy, or swampy, or the precipitation of moisture so light as not to make cultivation of the required amounts practicable, or if the land is generally valuable only for grazing. Id. Sec. 2511.4-3(b)(1) (1986). Furthermore: 9 (3) No reduction in area of cultivation will be permitted on account of expense in removing the standing timber from the land. If lands are so heavily timbered that the entryman cannot reasonably clear and cultivate the area prescribed by the statute, such entries will be considered speculative and not made in good faith for the purpose of obtaining a home. The foregoing applies to lands containing valuable or merchantable timber and will not preclude the reduction of area of cultivation on proper showing in cases where the presence of stumps, brush, lodge pole pine, or other valueless or nonmerchantable timber prevents the clearing and cultivation of the prescribed area. 10 Id. Sec. 2511.4-3(b)(3) (1986). The regulations also provide that individuals desiring to make homestead entries should first fully inform themselves as to the character and quality of the lands they desire to enter. Id. Sec. 2511.1(a)(1) (1986). [I]f it appears that at the date of the initiation of the claim the conditions were such as to indicate to a prudent person that cultivation of the required acreage was not reasonably practicable ..., the application [for reduction] will be subject to rejection. Id. Sec. 2511.4-3(b)(1) (1986). 11 The district court relied on a BLM land report to hold that the agency's denial of a reduction in the cultivation requirement was supported by substantial evidence in the record. The district court cited a land report statement that the parcel was heavily timbered [and] typical of the area along the Stony River, the agency's finding that Nevitt should have recognized the stumps as a problem at the time of entry, and the land report's conclusion that a bulldozer proved an efficient and effective method of stump removal on a nearby homestead with similar timber conditions. The land report also notes that even if stump size and density were factors beyond the claimant's control, he did have control over the method of removing stumps. Nevitt stated in his affidavit that he did not think that the cost of using a bulldozer would be worth it. However, 43 C.F.R. Sec. 2511.4-3(b)(3) states that reduction in cultivation will not be granted due to the cost in removing timber from the land. Thus, the district court correctly found that the expenses of compliance does not excuse noncompliance with homestead requirements. 12 The land report together with the regulations concerning original homesteads provide substantial evidence in support of the agency's rejection of Nevitt's application. Because the agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence, the district court properly disposed of this issue on summary judgment. McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1189-90 (9th Cir.1980), cert. denied, sub nom. McCall v. Watt, 450 U.S. 996, 101 S.Ct. 1700, 68 L.Ed.2d 197 (1981).