ELR Citation: ELR 21303
No(s). 92-36784 (9th Cir. Mar 17, 1994)

Adopting the district court's opinion in full, the court upholds the U.S. Forest Service's (Forest Service's) decision to close forest trails to off-road vehicle (ORV) use in a designated area of the Wenatchee National Forest in Washington State. The Forest Service issued its decision in a land and resource management plan developed under the National Forest Management Act. The court first holds that the Forest Service's decision to close the North Entiat area of the Wenatchee National Forest to ORVs is not arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because it is supported by a reasonable basis-in-fact and the Forest Service supplied a reasonable explanation of its rationale. While the Forest Service considered a number of factors in makingits decision, the existence of user conflict was the primary reason for the use restriction. The existence of user conflict is reasonably demonstrated by a letter from a state representative who had received over 500 letters identifying the conflict, by discussions the Forest Service held with different user groups, by 3,000 letters received during the public comment period for the land and resource management plan, by the report of an interdisciplinary team established to study the user group conflict, and by the administrative record. Based on the information gathered from these sources, the Forest Service determined user conflict exists between motorized ORV users and hikers and horseback riders. Even though the record does not contain any direct statements of personal experiences of Forest Service personnel observing user conflicts, the public comments are sufficient basis for such a finding. A showing that there is a direct conflict between user groups in the particular area where use has been restricted is also not necessary because a general conflict in the Wenatchee National Forest, including North Entiat area, has been shown. Moreover, the Forest Service is not required to monitor actual user conflicts before implementing the land and resource management plan. Minimization of actual conflicts is not required by 36 C.F.R. §295.2 or the applicable Executive Order, only an effort by the Forest Service to minimize likely future conflicts.

The court next holds that the Forest Service provided a reasonable explanation for the decision to close the North Entiat area to ORV use, because the record of decision for the land and resource management plan states that user conflict exists and creating a proper balance between uses to minimize conflict requires limiting ORV access to some areas. Furthermore, the final environmental impact statement states that the Forest Service received extensive comments expressing high levels of concern about conflict between ORV users and hikers. The interdisciplinary team developed several alternatives attempting to deal with the conflict. The court holds that the Forest Service's desire to provide a proper balance between forest uses is a reasoned basis for the decision to close the North Entiat area to ORV use. The court notes that the higher "reasoned analysis" standard does not apply in this case because modification of a land and resource management plan to further the existing policy of minimizing user conflict is not a policy change that warrants the higher standard of review.

Finally, the court holds that the land and resource management plan did not limit use of the North Entiat area for the exclusive purpose of providing a buffer zone around an adjoining wilderness area, in violation of the Washington State Wilderness Act. Rather, the creation of a buffer zone was legitimately one factor considered in limiting ORV use in the North Entiat area.

Counsel for Plaintiff
William Perry Pendley, John G. Nelson
Mountain States Legal Foundation
1660 Lincoln St., Ste. 2300, Denver CO 80264
(303) 861-0244

Counsel for Defendants
Louise F. Milkman
Environment and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC 20530
(202) 514-2000

Before: WRIGHT, REAVLEY,^* and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.