California Association of 4WD Clubs, Inc. v. Andrus

No. 80-5666 (9th Cir. January 22, 1982)

The court affirms the district court's approval of an order by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) closing two corridors in the Imperial Sand Dunes to use by off-road vehicles (ORVs). It holds that closure of the corridors on grounds of ORV destructiveness to plant life was supported by substantial evidence and authorized by BLM's ORV regulations. In addition, BLM complied with all procedural requirements of the regulations, including the public hearing requirement.

Counsel for Appellants
Kevin W. Midlam
Ault, Midlam & Reynolds
5030 Camino de la Siesta, Suite 201, San Diego CA 92108
(714) 295-1202

Counsel for Appellees
Ed Kolker, Ass't U.S. Attorney
940 Front St., Rm. 5-N-19, San Diego CA 92189
(714) 293-5610

James W. Moorman, Ass't Attorney General
Land and Natural Resources Division
Department of Justice, Washington DC 20530
(202) 633-2701

Counsel for Intervenors
Laurens H. Silver
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Inc.
2044 Fillmore St., San Francisco CA 94115
(415) 567-6100

Before Anderson, Canby, and Craig,^* JJ.

[12 ELR 20457]

The California Association of 4WD Clubs and the California Off-Road Vehicle Association appeal from an order of the district court granting summary judgment against them in an action brought to force the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to reopen two corridors in the Imperial Sand Dunes. In February 1977, the BLM ordered a temporary closing of the corridors to vehicular use. In December 1977, the BLM permanently closed the areas.¹ Appellants contested both closings. The Interior Board of Land Appeals issued an opinion upholding the BLM's actions. The district court agreed and affirmed the validity of both closure orders.

There is substantial evidence in the record to support BLM's closing of the corridors on the ground that vehicular use was destructive to plant life in areas through which the corridors ran. The applicable regulations justify closings for this purpose. 43 C.F.R. §§ 6010.4 & 6292.3 (1976). The BLM further complied with all procedural requirements for closings set forth in the regulations. 43 C.F.R. §§ 6010.3, 6292.2, 6292.4 (1976). Specifically, there was no deviation from the public hearing requirement of 43 C.F.R. § 6292.4(a) (1976). There is no requirement that a majority of those appearing at a hearing control the result. Moreover, there is no indication that appellants were not given an adequate opportunity to be heard or that their views were not taken into account.

AFFIRMED.

* The Honorable Walter E. Craig, Senior U.S. District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.

1. A new plan is in effect which supersedes the December 1977 order. All parties agree, however, that this appeal is not moot. The types of orders issued here present a situation "capable of repetition, yet evading review." Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 125 (1975).