A federal appeals court has ruled an Oregon timber company isn’t entitled to compensation for a rail-to-trail project across its land because its property interests weren’t harmed.

Severe storm damage ended rail service on the Port of Tillamook Bay Railroad in 2007, giving rise to the concept of an 80-mile-long “Salmonberry Trail” between the Willamette Valley and the Coast.

In 2018, Stimson Lumber, which owns multiple parcels along the proposed trail, filed a lawsuit seeking unspecified compensation from the federal government for allegedly taking its property.

Though an intergovernmental agency is in charge of planning the trail, such rail-to-trail conversions are possible due to a federal law.

Because that statute prevents landowners from regaining control over easements when rail service stops, lawsuits seeking damages for such trails are filed against the U.S. government.

In this case, however, the U.S. government claims the easement’s original terms allowed for a trail and not just railroad tracks across Stimson’s property, meaning the company wasn’t deprived of a property interest and isn’t owed damages for the conversion.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has now rejected Stimson Lumber’s claim that the context for the easement limited it to rail purposes, finding that its scope encompassed trail uses as well.

“We find that the purpose of the deed here is clear from its express terms and plainly covers unrestricted reasonable use,” the ruling said.

Representatives of Stimson Lumber didn’t respond to requests for comment as of press time.

Easements affecting other landowners have specifically precluded any other use than a railroad, but terms weren’t so narrow in this case, the ruling said. “Express language limiting the purpose of the easement is lacking in Stimson’s deed.”

The appellate court also rejected the argument that the Port of Tillamook Bay Railroad entirely terminated its easement by deciding against repairing the tracks and filing a federal notice to abandon the railroad, among other arguments.

The cessation of rail service and other examples cited by Stimson only affected the easement’s rail uses, but didn’t apply to trail uses or terminate the easement entirely, the ruling said.

According to the appellate court, “Stimson has not met its burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that the railroad abandoned the easement.”