(a) General criteria for designation of National Forest System roads, National Forest System trails, and areas on National Forest System lands. In designating National Forest System roads, National Forest System trails, and areas on National Forest System lands for motor vehicle use, the responsible official shall consider effects on National Forest System natural and cultural resources, public safety, provision of recreational opportunities, access needs, conflicts among uses of National Forest System lands, the need for maintenance and administration of roads, trails, and areas that would arise if the uses under consideration are designated; and the availability of resources for that maintenance and administration.
(b) Specific criteria for designation of trails and areas. In addition to the criteria in paragraph (a) of this section, in designating National Forest System trails and areas on National Forest System lands, the responsible official shall consider effects on the following, with the objective of minimizing:
(1) Damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, and other forest resources;
(2) Harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitats;
(3) Conflicts between motor vehicle use and existing or proposed recreational uses of National Forest System lands or neighboring Federal lands; and
(4) Conflicts among different classes of motor vehicle uses of National Forest System lands or neighboring Federal lands.
In addition, the responsible official shall consider:
(5) Compatibility of motor vehicle use with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account sound, emissions, and other factors.
(c) Specific criteria for designation of roads. In addition to the criteria in paragraph (a) of this section, in designating National Forest System roads, the responsible official shall consider:
(1) Speed, volume, composition, and distribution of traffic on roads; and
(2) Compatibility of vehicle class with road geometry and road surfacing.
(d) Rights of access. In making designations pursuant to this subpart, the responsible official shall recognize:
(1) Valid existing rights; and
(2) The rights of use of National Forest System roads and National Forest System trails under § 212.6(b).
(e) Wilderness areas and primitive areas. National Forest System roads, National Forest System trails, and areas on National Forest System lands in wilderness areas or primitive areas shall not be designated for motor vehicle use pursuant to this section, unless, in the case of wilderness areas, motor vehicle use is authorized by the applicable enabling legislation for those areas.
Notes of Decisions
Idaho Conservation League v. Guzman, 766 F. Supp. 2d 1056 (D. Idaho 2011).
· cites it 8× “36 C.F.R. § 212.55 . The general criteria, applicable to roads, trails, and other areas, require that the Forest Service: *1062 [Cjonsider effects on National Forest System natural and cultural resources, public safety, provision of recreational opportunities, access needs,…”
WildEarth Guardians v. Montana Snowmobile Ass'n, 790 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2015).
· cites it 4× “at 1073 (quoting 36 C.F.R. § 212.55 (b)). As a result, there was “no way to know how or if the Forest Service used [the information in the matrices] to select routes with the objective of minimizing impacts.”
Ctr. for Sierra Nevada Conservation v. United States Forest Serv., 832 F. Supp. 2d 1138 (E.D. Cal. 2011).
· cites it 5× “36 C.F.R. § 212.55 (a). Under Subpart B, the Forest Service’s decision of which routes and areas to open to motor vehicle use must consider: effects on National Forest System natural and cultural resources, public safety, provision of recreational opportunities, access needs,…”
Wildearth Guardians v. Heather Provencio, 923 F.3d 655 (9th Cir. 2019).
“” 36 C.F.R. § 212.55 (a). Plaintiffs contend that the Forest Service violated the Travel Management Rule by permitting off-road motorized vehicle use to collect downed game within one mile of every open road in the Districts, in purported violation of the Rule’s mandate that…”
WildEarth Guardians v. Provencio, 272 F. Supp. 3d 1136 (D. Ariz. 2017).
· cites it 5× “36 C.F.R. § 212.55 (b) Minimization Criteria Plaintiffs allege that the Forest Service violated the TMR by failing to consider, or failing to sufficiently consider, the minimization criteria set forth in § 212.”
Pryors Coalition v. Weldon, 803 F. Supp. 2d 1184 (D. Mont. 2011).
· cites it 4× “Rather, it states that, “In designating National Forest System trails and areas ... the responsible official shall consider the effects on the following with the objective of minimizing .”
Cent. Sierra Env't Resource Ctr. v. United States Forest Serv., 916 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (E.D. Cal. 2013).
· cites it 2× “, the Forest Service’s Travel Management Rule (“TMR”), 36 C.F.R. § 212.55 , and Executive Orders 11644 and 11989, through the Forest Service’s adoption of a Record of Decision (“ROD”) that approved the Stanislaus National Forest Motorized Travel Management Environmental Impact…”
Granat v. United States Dep't of Agric., 238 F. Supp. 3d 1242 (E.D. Cal. 2017).
· cites it 2× “& Reply, at 2-3 (citing 36 C.F.R. § 212.55 (a)). However, the Travel Management Rule only requires such factors to be considered when “designating National Forest System roads, National Forest System trails, and areas on National Forest System lands for motor vehicle use.”
Wilderness Soc'y v. United States Forest Serv., 850 F. Supp. 2d 1144 (D. Idaho 2012).
· cites it 2× “Violation of Executive Order 11644’s Travel Planning Route Designation Criteria Plaintiffs final argument is that the Forest Service failed to minimize damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, or other resources as required by Executive Order 11644, as amended by Executive Order…”
Bitterroot Ridge Runners Snowmobile Club v. U.S. Forest Serv., 329 F. Supp. 3d 1191 (D. Mont. 2018).
· cites it 2× “Federal Defendants and Defendant Intervenors counter that they complied with the Travel Management Rule pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 212.55 (b)(3). (Docs. 47 at 33-36; 51 at 25-29) In 2005, the Forest Service published the Travel Management Rule, 36 C.”
— 36 C.F.R. § 212.55(b) — 1 case
— 36 C.F.R. § 212.55(b)(l) — 1 case
WildEarth Guardians v. Provencio, 272 F. Supp. 3d 1136 (D. Ariz. 2017).
“36 C.F.R. § 212.55 (b) Minimization Criteria Plaintiffs allege that the Forest Service violated the TMR by failing to consider, or failing to sufficiently consider, the minimization criteria set forth in § 212.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.