While meeting the requirements of §§ 219.8 and 219.9, a plan developed or revised under this part must provide for ecosystem services and multiple uses, including outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife, and fish, within Forest Service authority and the inherent capability of the plan area as follows:
(a) Integrated resource management for multiple use. The plan must include plan components, including standards or guidelines, for integrated resource management to provide for ecosystem services and multiple uses in the plan area. When developing plan components for integrated resource management, to the extent relevant to the plan area and the public participation process and the requirements of §§ 219.7, 219.8, 219.9, and 219.11, the responsible official shall consider:
(1) Aesthetic values, air quality, cultural and heritage resources, ecosystem services, fish and wildlife species, forage, geologic features, grazing and rangelands, habitat and habitat connectivity, recreation settings and opportunities, riparian areas, scenery, soil, surface and subsurface water quality, timber, trails, vegetation, viewsheds, wilderness, and other relevant resources and uses.
(2) Renewable and nonrenewable energy and mineral resources.
(3) Appropriate placement and sustainable management of infrastructure, such as recreational facilities and transportation and utility corridors.
(4) Opportunities to coordinate with neighboring landowners to link open spaces and take into account joint management objectives where feasible and appropriate.
(5) Habitat conditions, subject to the requirements of § 219.9, for wildlife, fish, and plants commonly enjoyed and used by the public; for hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering, observing, subsistence, and other activities (in collaboration with federally recognized Tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, other Federal agencies, and State and local governments).
(6) Land status and ownership, use, and access patterns relevant to the plan area.
(7) Reasonably foreseeable risks to ecological, social, and economic sustainability.
(8) System drivers, including dominant ecological processes, disturbance regimes, and stressors, such as natural succession, wildland fire, invasive species, and climate change; and the ability of the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems on the plan area to adapt to change (§ 219.8);
(9) Public water supplies and associated water quality.
(10) Opportunities to connect people with nature.
(b) Requirements for plan components for a new plan or plan revision. (1) The plan must include plan components, including standards or guidelines, to provide for:
(i) Sustainable recreation; including recreation settings, opportunities, and access; and scenic character. Recreation opportunities may include non-motorized, motorized, developed, and dispersed recreation on land, water, and in the air.
(ii) Protection of cultural and historic resources.
(iii) Management of areas of tribal importance.
(iv) Protection of congressionally designated wilderness areas as well as management of areas recommended for wilderness designation to protect and maintain the ecological and social characteristics that provide the basis for their suitability for wilderness designation.
(v) Protection of designated wild and scenic rivers as well as management of rivers found eligible or determined suitable for the National Wild and Scenic River system to protect the values that provide the basis for their suitability for inclusion in the system.
(vi) Appropriate management of other designated areas or recommended designated areas in the plan area, including research natural areas.
(2) Other plan components for integrated resource management to provide for multiple use as necessary.
[77 FR 21260, Apr. 9, 2012, as amended at 81 FR 90737, Dec. 15, 2016]
Notes of Decisions
Sierra Club-Black Hills Grp. v. United States Forest Serv., 259 F.3d 1281 (10th Cir. 2001).
· cites it 8× “1996); see also 36 C.F.R. 219.10 (2000). In the first stage, the Forest Service develops a proposed land and resource management plan ("LRMP"), together with a draft and final environmental impact statement ("EIS").”
Hammond v. Norton, 370 F. Supp. 2d 226 (D.D.C. 2005).
· cites it 5× “As part of this ROD, USFS made a “Finding of Non-Significant Amendment” (“FONSA”) pursuant to former 36 C.F.R. § 219.10 (f) (1997) (amended Jan.”
Pac. Rivers Council v. United States Forest Serv., 689 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 4× “See 36 C.F.R. § 219.10 (b) (1983) (“A draft and final environmental impact statement shall be prepared for the proposed plan according to the NEPA procedures.”
Utah Env't Cong. v. Bosworth Ex Rel. Forest Serv., 372 F.3d 1219 (10th Cir. 2004).
· cites it 3× “Forest Management Plans are to be revised every ten to fifteen years and can be amended. 16 U.S.C. § 1604 (f). To accomplish NFMA’s broad land management responsibilities, the Forest Service has promulgated regulations, including: further clarification of general forest planning…”
Biodiversity v. Thompson, 265 F.3d 1038 (10th Cir. 2001).
· cites it 3× “§ 1604 ; 36 C.F.R. § 219.10 (a), (b) (1982). 2 Second, the Forest Service is required to implement the forest plan by approving or disapproving specific projects.”
Forest Guardians v. US Forest Serv., 180 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (D.N.M. 2001).
· cites it 3× “§ 1604 (d); 36 C.F.R. § 219.10 (b). The Forest Plan must incorporate the “multiple use” and “sustained yield” principles of the National Forest Management Act, including providing for biodiversity and the maintenance of native animal populations.”
Sierra Club v. Kimbell, 623 F.3d 549 (8th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 3× “See 36 C.F.R. § 219.10 (b) (2000). 3 The Forest Service must consider in the EIS a broad range of reasonable alternatives to help identify the alternative that best maximizes “net public benefits.”
Prairie Wood Prods. v. Glickman, 971 F. Supp. 457 (D. Or. 1997).
· cites it 7× “§ 1604 (f); 36 C.F.R. §§ 219.10 (f) and 219.12. For non-significant forest plan amendments, the agency must provide for *463 “appropriate public notification and satisfactory completion of NEPA procedures.”
Colorado Env't Coalition v. Dombeck, 185 F.3d 1162 (10th Cir. 1999).
· cites it 2× “The Forest Plan must incorporate multiple forest uses, and thus coordinate the management of “outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife and fish, and wilderness.” 6 16 U.S.C. § 1604 (e)(1). The Forest Plan must also “provide for diversity of plant and animal…”
— 36 C.F.R. § 219.10(a) — 1 case
Sierra Club-Black Hills Grp. v. United States Forest Serv., 259 F.3d 1281 (10th Cir. 2001).
“1996); see also 36 C.F.R. 219.10 (2000). In the first stage, the Forest Service develops a proposed land and resource management plan ("LRMP"), together with a draft and final environmental impact statement ("EIS").”
— 36 C.F.R. § 219.10(a)(3) — 1 case
— 36 C.F.R. § 219.10(b) — 3 cases
Sierra Club-Black Hills Grp. v. United States Forest Serv., 259 F.3d 1281 (10th Cir. 2001).
“1996); see also 36 C.F.R. 219.10 (2000). In the first stage, the Forest Service develops a proposed land and resource management plan ("LRMP"), together with a draft and final environmental impact statement ("EIS").”
— 36 C.F.R. § 219.10(c)(1) — 1 case
— 36 C.F.R. § 219.10(d) — 1 case
— 36 C.F.R. § 219.10(e) — 1 case
Sierra Club-Black Hills Grp. v. United States Forest Serv., 259 F.3d 1281 (10th Cir. 2001).
“1996); see also 36 C.F.R. 219.10 (2000). In the first stage, the Forest Service develops a proposed land and resource management plan ("LRMP"), together with a draft and final environmental impact statement ("EIS").”
— 36 C.F.R. § 219.10(f) — 5 cases
— 36 C.F.R. § 219.10(g) — 3 cases
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.