NOTE: Over the past several years the closure of the trails in the Robledo Mountains near Las Cruces, New Mexico and the subsequent legal action has been the subject of much discussion among four wheelers. But, in all this discussion, no one has adequately been able to lay out all the facts of the case in the order in which they happened, and with an explanation that is understandable to the average four wheeler. So, after digging though the small mountain of paper that constitutes the filings in this case we are providing this summary of what has transpired over the past several years for those that are interested or have just been totally confused by all that has happened. We can only hope that the saga is not over just yet. Please feel free to copy this summary as you see fit for distribution to club members and other interested parties.)

Near the city of Las Cruces in southeast New Mexico lie the Robledo Mountains, a rugged and sparsely vegetated chain typical to the southwestern portion of the United States. This particular chain, due to its proximity to Las Cruces, has been a popular playground for four wheel drive enthusiasts since the 1950s, back when flat fender Jeeps with open differentials were standard equipment. The popularity of the area boomed in the 1990s due to the extremely rugged terrain, perfect for the heavily modified four wheel drives with locking differentials and low gearing that could drive the challenging trails such as Wolf Run and the Guardian Trail. But, in August 1997 a good portion of this area was closed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), including access to the previously mentioned trails.

Subsequent to the posting of the roads as closed, members of the Southwest Four Wheel Drive Association and the Las Cruces Four Wheel Drive Club appealed the closure to the BLM, providing evidence that the roads in question had existed for many years, dating back at least to the 1950s, well before the repeal of RS2477 (43 USC sec. 932) in the mid 1970s, before the enactment of the FLPMA, and before designation of the area as a Wilderness Study Area (WSA) in 1980. Evidence of the prior existence of the roads included aerial photographs taken in the early 1970s and statements of persons that had used those roads well before the repeal of RS2477 in 1976.

The evidence was convincing enough for the BLM District Manager Linda Rundell to have the "No Vehicle" signs removed. Subsequently the BLM, with public input, began work on a Robledo Mountains Off Highway Vehicle Implementation Plan which included areas inside the WSA. The draft plan did not specifically include any mention of closure of roads inside the WSA.

On February 2, 1998 the BLM released the final plan, which to the dismay of local off highway vehicle enthusiasts, included closure of six roads within the WSA, including several "world class" extreme four wheel drive roads that had become major attractions for four wheelers throughout the country. A couple of weeks later a notice called "Emergency Closure of Vehicle Trails in and Near the Robledo Mountains Wilderness Study Area" was published in the Federal register. This closure was effective immediately to "protect wilderness and scenic ACEC values". The six previously mentioned roads were then blocked by the BLM and remain closed at this time, six years later.

The closure of trails such as Wolf Run and the Guardian Trail, among others, did not sit well with four wheelers in Las Cruces and throughout the southwest. Legal action was considered after all administrative appeals were exhausted, and on June 2, 2000 a complaint (Petition for Review of Administrative Decision and Injunction) was filed by the Southwest Four Wheel Drive Association (SWFWDA) and the Las Cruces Four Wheel Drive Club in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico (Case number: 00CV00799, Southwest Four Wheel Drive Association and Las Cruces Four Wheel Drive Club, Plaintiffs vs. Bureau of Land Management and Amy Lenders, District Manager, Las Cruces District, BLM). The complaint asked for the Robledo Mountains OHV Implementation Plan to be set aside, for the Plan to be declared in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, to enjoin the BLM from closing the roads, and in the alternative to remand the Plan back for further public review and comment.

As is the case for most actions of this sort, the case was assigned to a Federal Magistrate and a scheduling order was filed by the court. In October of 2000 a motion was filed by The Wilderness Society and the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance to be included as Intervenors with the BLM. The plaintiffs objected to this Motion to Intervene, claiming that the proposed Intervenors had no standing and therefore no right to intervene. They could show no reason why they would be harmed, and no reason why their interests, if there were any, could not be adequately represented by the defendant, the BLM. But, in the first of what was to become several questionable decisions by the court, the Motion to Intervene was granted and The Wilderness Society and New Mexico Wilderness Alliance were joined with the BLM. This decision by the court to allow the intervention was over the next couple of years to prove a severe handicap to the pursuit of the case by the SWFWDA. The Intervenors, especially The Wilderness Society, have "very deep pockets", and over the course of the case the voluminous filings and delays by them served to put a severe strain on the financial resources of the SWFWDA.

The case proceeded, a Brief in Chief was filed by SWFWDA in January 2001, and then in March the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. A response was filed by SWFWDA to this motion, responses by the defendants were filed, and finally on August 28, 2001 a Memorandum, Opinion and Order was entered by District Judge C. LeRoy Hansen granting the Motion to Dismiss for "lack of subject matter jurisdiction." The Judge gave the SWFWDA 30 days to file an amended petition, saying in his Order that the ONLY remedy the plaintiffs had was under the Quiet Title Act (QTA). This decision, completely ignoring RS2477 and the long term existence of the roads within the WSA and the somewhat arbitrary decision to close the roads by the BLM was the second questionable decision made by the Judge in this case. It is clear to most people familiar with this case and other RS2477 cases that the repealed statute clearly applies, and the BLM had no authority to close the roads. But, for some reason the Judge disagreed, following instead an argument by the Intervenors that a recent decision in Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. BLM involving RS2477 claims by three Utah counties applied also to this case.

Following the Judge's direction, the SWFWDA filed an amended complaint on September 27, 2001 to include an action under the QTA. Subsequent to this filing the defendants again filed numerous motions and requests for extensions of time, prolonging the case and further draining the financial resources of the SWFWDA.

In June 2002 the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and/or in the Alternative Summary Judgment, claiming lack of subject matter jurisdiction and alternatively that the trails cannot qualify as RS2477 roads, basing this argument on convoluted and ludicrous reasoning that the RS2477 issue was addressed in an appeal of the WSA designation by Las Cruces resident Fred Huff, who is not even a party to this action, in the late 1970s, and further that they did not qualify as roads because they were not mechanically maintained. They further argued that since the WSA was designated as roadless, then it would follow that the roads in question did not exist! A lengthy response was filed to this motion by the SWFWDA, proving in great detail that in fact RS2477 did apply under federal as well as New Mexico law as well as the QTA, and furthermore that the filing of the motion is improper and should be dismissed. It could easily be shown that the WSA was heavily roaded, and should never have been included in the roadless inventory or designated a WSA.

The case dragged on due to numerous filings and motions by the Defendants and Intervenors, and finally on March 19, 2003 the Motion to Dismiss was granted and the Judge entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order of Dismissal. The Judge in his Order granted the dismissal because in his opinion the SWFWDA's amended complaint under the QTA was not valid because of time limitations. You will recall that only a year and a half earlier he had directed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint citing the QTA as their only remedy! The logic in this decision can again only be described as convoluted. The Judge reasoned that since the WSA was designated in 1980, then under the QTA's 12 year statute of limitations any claims would have had to been filed by 1992. Furthermore, he again dismissed the RS2477 argument as invalid due to the 1980 WSA designation and decision by the BLM that the area was in fact roadless. The BLM and Intervenors of course filed memorandums in support of this decision.

On April 2, 2003 the SWFWDA filed a Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend Memorandum Opinion and Order of Dismissal and Final Judgment of March 19, 2003, and Memorandum in Support. In this motion the SWFWDA attacked the Court's decision on several fronts, citing the arguments already given concerning RS2477 and the designation of the area as roadless. Furthermore, much of the language in the Court's decision was taken verbatim from the Intervenor's Motion to Dismiss! The Defendants and the Intervenors filed responses to the SWFWDA's motion, but these were really not necessary and turned out to be purely procedural filings, because on May 21, 2003 the Judge entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying the SWFWDA's motion of April 2, citing as the reason for denial that the motion was not filed timely, and also reiterating its earlier decision concerning the lack of timeliness under the QTA.

At this point it looked like from what all appearances was a solid case under RS2477, lack of authority of the BLM to close the roads, and the QTA, was dead. But, knowing that they in fact do have a valid argument to reopen the roads, the SWFWDA filed a Notice of Appeal on June 18, 2003. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear the case on March 10, 2004 in spite of motions by the defendants and Intervenors to dismiss the appeal. If the SWFWDA wins this appeal it will send a very strong message to the District Court that the reasoning in dismissing the case was very flawed.

Pretty long and confusing saga. And I'm sure some readers are asking "Why should I care about a lawsuit in New Mexico, what does this mean to me?" The answer to that question is threefold. First of all, this case can have an enormous impact on other RS2477 cases throughout the country, especially western portions where there are so many of these roads in existence, many of them also tied up in litigation or negotiation. Second, this can be a lesson to the BLM and other government agencies that arbitrary decisions, especially those concerning road closures, will not be tolerated by the public that enjoys the use of those lands. And finally, this decision can impact "roadless" designations throughout the country. As was mentioned several times above, the BLM in their roadless inventory and designation of the Robledo Mountains WSA totally ignored the existence of many roads, and what is even more disturbing is the fact that the Judge followed along with their reasoning. A victory by the SWFWDA in this case has the potential to impact land use and closure decisions nationwide for years to come.