## Facts

- The U.S. Forest Service began a travel-management process for Eldorado National Forest (ENF) in 2005 to regulate motor-vehicle use through a NEPA review.
- In March 2008, the Forest Service issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and a Record of Decision limiting motor-vehicle use to designated roads, trails, and areas, and closing other routes to motor-vehicle traffic.
- Forest Service mining regulations (36 C.F.R. pt. 228, subpt. A) require miners to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) or a Plan of Operations when proposed mining-related activities meet specified impact thresholds.
- The FEIS recognized that closures would require miners and prospectors to obtain authorization (via an NOI or Plan of Operations) to use motor vehicles in areas where such permission had not previously been required.
- Public Lands for the People, Inc. and individual miners challenged the ENF travel decision, asserting it impaired motorized access to mining claims by treating previously open routes as non-public/closed.
- The district court dismissed the miners’ claims and entered judgment for the government; the miners appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Forest Service had statutory and regulatory authority to restrict motor-vehicle use in ENF, including closing routes and treating them as non-public for management purposes.
2. Whether the Forest Service reasonably interpreted “public road” in 36 C.F.R. § 228.4(a) to exclude routes closed to public motor-vehicle use by the travel-management decision, and whether that interpretation warranted deference.
3. Whether the 2008 travel-management decision was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for allegedly failing to account for mining access and for altering the meaning of “public road.”

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment for the government.
- The court held the Forest Service had authority to regulate motor-vehicle use on national forest lands through travel management, including closing routes to motor vehicles.
- The court deferred to the Forest Service’s interpretation of “public road” in its mining regulations, concluding the interpretation was reasonable and not inconsistent with the regulation.
- The court held the travel-management decision was not arbitrary and capricious because the agency conducted a multi-year NEPA process, considered alternatives and user needs, and addressed impacts on miners, including the need for NOI/Plan authorization in newly closed areas.

## Legal Principles

- Under APA review, an agency action is upheld if the agency examined the relevant considerations and explained a rational connection between the record and its decision.
- A court generally defers to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation unless the interpretation is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.
- Forest Service mining regulations in 36 C.F.R. pt. 228 govern when mining operations require an NOI or Plan of Operations; they do not confer a fixed entitlement to motor-vehicle access independent of separate travel-management authority.
- For purposes of 36 C.F.R. § 228.4(a), the agency may treat a road’s “public” status as dependent on whether it is open to public motor-vehicle use under applicable travel-management decisions.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld the Eldorado National Forest travel-management plan restricting motor-vehicle use, ruled that the Forest Service could close routes affecting mining access, and deferred to the agency’s interpretation that roads closed to public motor vehicles are not “public roads” under 36 C.F.R. § 228.4(a).


Pub. Lands for the People, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 697 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 2012)