Southwest Four Wheel Drive v. Bureau of Land Man., CIV00799LH/ACTACE.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
Citation271 F.Supp.2d 1308
Docket NumberNo. CIV00799LH/ACTACE.,CIV00799LH/ACTACE.
PartiesSOUTHWEST FOUR WHEEL DRIVE ASSOCIATION, a New Mexico non-profit association, and Las Cruces Four Wheel Drive Club, a New Mexico unincorporated association, Plaintiffs, v. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, an agency of the United States Department of the Interior, Amy Leuders, District Manager, Las Cruces District, Bureau of Land Management, and the United States of America, Defendants, The Wilderness Society And New Mexico Wilderness Association, Intervenors.
Decision Date21 May 2003

Lee E. Peters, Las Cruces, NM, for Plaintiff.

Raymond Hamilton and John W. Zavitz, Assistant United States Attorneys, Albuquerque, NM, for Defendants.

David L. Potsky, Michael A. Robinson, Albuquerque, NM, Robert B. Wiygul, Biloxi, MS, Edward B. Zukoski, Denver, CO, for Intervenors.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

HANSEN, District Judge.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on motions of the Defendants and Intervenors ("Defendants") for dismissal or alternatively, for summary judgment (Docket Nos. 62 and 71).1 Plaintiffs have raised the issue as to the propriety of a summary judgment motion in this matter. The parties are informed that the Court has not relied upon any factual materials submitted by Defendants2, but has reviewed the administrative record ("AR") before it. In addition, the Court has taken into its consideration the September 8, 1983 decision of the Department of Interior Board of Land Appeals ("IBLA")3, after according it judicial notice.

The Court, having considered these limited materials as well as the pleadings, motions and briefs of the parties, concludes that this Court does not have jurisdiction to inquire into the merits of the case because it is time barred by the Quiet Title Act ("QTA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(g). See Block v. North Dakota, 461 U.S. 273, 292, 103 S.Ct. 1811, 75 L.Ed.2d 840 (1983). Given this lack of jurisdiction, both motions will be granted and the case dismissed.

I. Overview of Plaintiffs' Claims

In 1998, the BLM closed approximately nine miles of what Plaintiffs characterize as "public roads" to vehicular traffic. These alleged roads consist of twelve separate routes, which Plaintiffs contend were frequently used by their members for many years prior to 1998. In their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs ask the Court to quiet title in the public in these "roads" in the Robledo Mountains, to review the administrative decisions by which such "roads" were closed, and to grant a permanent injunction against the closure of such public "roads".

Plaintiffs do not contest the title of the United States to the real property adjacent to and around these "public roads"4 but rather, claim that the public owns easements, given the status of these roads as "public roads" (Amended Compl. ¶ 36). In short, they want this Court to quiet title to these alleged easements in the public (Amended Compl. ¶ 10).

They contend that their interest in these roads was acquired through use by the public of the roads from at least the 1950's until closure of the roads in 1998. They claim that these roads attained "public road" status pursuant to United States Revised Statute 2477 (R.S. 2477).

II Procedural Background

From 1977 through 1979, the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") conducted a number of wilderness inventories in New Mexico, and published a public report entitled "New Mexico Wilderness Review Initial Inventory Decision" on July 9, 1979. This document identified 38,670 acres in the Robledo Mountains as "roadless". The BLM produced two documents in 1980, entitled "Wilderness Study Area Proposals" and "Wilderness Study Area Decisions." The BLM subsequently designated 11,640 acres out of the 38,670 acres as the Robledo Mountains Wilderness Study Area. See 45 Fed.Reg. 75,590 (November 14, 1980). The area of public lands involved in this lawsuit is this 11,640 acre unit.

This designation decision was protested. The BLM denied the protests. This denial was appealed to the Department of Interior Board of Land Appeals. The IBLA consolidated ten such administrative appeals by three individuals and addressed them in a single decision, dated September 8, 19835. The appeal included the same 11,640 acre unit. The appellants' position in the IBLA appeal was that "roads" within the WSA were incorrectly designated by BLM as "trails" or "ways".6 The IBLA concluded that appellants failed to establish by convincing evidence that the routes in question were "roads". It concluded that two-track vehicle trails do not constitute roads, and affirmed the BLM decision to designate the Robledo unit as a WSA.

Since 1980, the amount of vehicular traffic in this 11,640 acre unit has increased. The BLM analyzed the impacts of this increased use on resource values. Based on the results of both agency and outside studies, it determined that the significant increase in vehicular traffic was adversely impacting the wilderness values that the BLM was required to protect under law.7 Following an administrative process to close these routes, the BLM issued the Robledo Mountains Off-Highway Vehicle Implementation Plan ("the Plan") on February 2, 1998 (AR at 43). Ten days later, Defendants published in the Federal Register a notice of "Emergency Closure of Vehicle Trains in and near the Robledo Mountains Wilderness Study Area", making the vehicle closures referenced therein effective February 18, 1998. (AR at 41).

Plaintiffs maintain that the BLM improperly closed these "roads" when it issued the Plan. On June 2, 2000, a petition for the review of the routes closures was filed in this Court. The Court dismissed this petition on August 28, 2001 for lack of jurisdiction. In that Memorandum Opinion and Order (Docket No. 45), this Court concluded that "the QTA [Quiet Title Act] is Plaintiffs' exclusive remedy and Plaintiffs' claims under the APA [Administrative Procedures Act] and for declaratory and injunctive relief are precluded." The Court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 27, 2001.

Defendants now seek dismissal of the amended complaint.

III. Statute of Limitation Issue

Defendants' first argument is that this lawsuit is time barred. The QTA, 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(g), provides for a 12 year statute of limitations:

Any civil action under this section, except an action brought by a State, shall be barred unless it is commenced within twelve years of the date upon which it accrued. Such action shall be deemed to have accrued on the date that the plaintiff or his predecessor in interest knew or should have known of the claim of the United States.

Because it provides a statutory waiver of sovereign immunity, the courts strictly and narrowly construe the QTA and its statute of limitations. See Block, 461 U.S. 273, 103 S.Ct. 1811, 75 L.Ed.2d 840 (1983). All that is necessary for a claim to accrue under this statute is a reasonable awareness that the government claims some interest adverse to the plaintiffs. Knapp v. United States, 636 F.2d 279, 283 (10th Cir.1980).

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs knew or should have known in 1980, when the WSA was designated, that the United States claimed there were no "public roads" within the Robledo WSA. They contend that by definition a WSA designation means the United States asserts that the area is roadless. Further, they argue that the 1980 WSA designation would not have been valid if there were "public roads" within the WSA that had been constructed and maintained prior to 1976. Defendants argue that the 1980 publication in the Federal Register of notice of the BLM's "Final Intensive Wilderness Inventory Decisions" triggered the QTA's statute of limitations.

Furthermore, they contend that, as Plaintiffs knew or should have known, this issue was later addressed in the September 8, 1983 IBLA decision. In its decision, the IBLA indicated that the chief issue before it was "whether certain routes were correctly designated as "ways" rather than "roads" by BLM." It indicated that appellates' purpose in taking the appeal was to show the existence of roads in WSAs.

The IBLA relied in its decision upon definitions contained in the BLM Wilderness Handbook (WIH): "According to the WIH 1978 at page 5, `The word roadless refers to the absence of roads which have been improved and maintained by mechanical means to insure relatively regular and continuous use. A way maintained solely by the passage of vehicles does not constitute a road.'" The IBLA noted that the contention that a route is, in fact, a road must be supported by proof of mechanical improvement and mechanical maintenance, and concluded that appellants had failed to provide such proof. Specifically, the decision stated that a vehicle route, "once improved by mechanical means, must receive maintenance by mechanical means as needed in order to qualify as a road.. Appellants do not establish error by alleging mechanical improvement and mechanical maintenance in the past .... Appellants' submissions are limited to sketchy allegations. The contention that a route is, in fact, a road must be supported by proof of mechanical improvement and mechanical maintenance,...." In short, the IBLA upheld the BLM's decision that the units in question were roadless, and that two-track vehicle trails do not constitute roads.

To evaluate the statute of limitation issue, the Court will analyze the effect of publications in the Federal Register, the effect of the IBLA decision, and that of R.S. 2477.

(A) Effect of Federal Register Publication

As noted above, on November 14, 1980, the BLM designated 11,640 acres as the Robledo Mountains Wilderness Study Area. See 45 Fed.Reg. 75,590. I agree with Defendants' argument that this publication provided notice that triggered the QTA's statute of limitations. "Publication in the Federal Register is legally sufficient notice to all interested or affected persons regardless of actual knowledge or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • The Wilderness Soc'y v. Kane County
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • 11 Enero 2011
    ...to the QTA. Sw. Four Wheel Drive Ass'n v. BLM, 363 F.3d 1069, 1071 (10th Cir.2004); see also Sw. Four Wheel Drive Ass'n v. BLM, 271 F.Supp.2d 1308, 1310 (D.N.M.2003) (district court decision clarifying that the “roads” at issue were claimed R.S. 2477 rights); cf. Kinscherff v. United States......
  • San Juan County v. U.S., Civil No. 2:04-CV-0552BSJ
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Court of Utah
    • 27 Mayo 2011
    ...barrier prohibiting motor vehicles on a portion of the claimed road. In Southwest Four Wheel Drive Ass'n v. Bureau of Land Management, 271 F. Supp. 2d 1308, 1312 (D.N.M. 2003), aff'd on other grounds, 363 F. 3d 1069 (10th Cir. 2004), the district court ruled that the designation of a wilder......
  • San Juan County, Ut v. U.S.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • 30 Agosto 2005
    ...of highways over public lands to miners, farmers, ranchers, and homesteaders." Southwest Four Wheel Drive Ass'n v. Bur. of Land Mgmt., 271 F.Supp.2d 1308, 1313 n. 8 (D.N.M.2003) (quotation omitted), aff'd, 363 F.3d 1069 (10th Cir.2004). This statute "granted a right of way for the construct......
  • Kane County, Utah v. Kempthorne, Civil No. 2:05-CV-0941BSJ.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Court of Utah
    • 29 Junio 2007
    ...an agency's decision to close or limit the use of a road. See Southwest Four Wheel Drive Ass'n v. Bureau of Lana' Management, 271 F.Supp.2d 1308, 1310-11 (D.N.M.2003), aff'd, 363 F.3d 1069, 1071 (10th Cir.2004); cf. Shawnee Trail Conservancy v. United States Dept. of Agriculture, 222 F.3d 3......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Recreation wars for our natural resources.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 34 No. 4, September 2004
    • 22 Septiembre 2004
    ...(76) Id. at 1129. (77) Id. (quoting 42 U.S.C. [section] 4331(b)(3)). (78) See Southwest Four Wheel Ass'n v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 271 F. Supp. 2d 1308 (D.N.M. 2003) (upholding BLM road closures in a wilderness study area where off-road vehicles caused adverse impacts), aff'd, 363 F.3d 1069 ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT