(a) Decision document approving a new plan, plan amendment, or revision. The responsible official shall record approval of a new plan, plan amendment, or revision in a decision document prepared according to Forest Service NEPA procedures (36 CFR part 220). The decision document must include:
(1) The rationale for approval;
(2) A statement of how the plan, plan amendment, or plan revision applies to approved projects and activities (§ 219.15);
(3) The documentation of how the best available scientific information was used to inform planning, the plan components, and other plan content, including the plan monitoring program (§ 219.3);
(4) The concurrence by the appropriate research station director with any part of the plan applicable to any experimental forests or experimental ranges (§ 219.2(b)(4)); and
(5) The effective date of the plan, amendment, or revision.
(b) Decision document for a new plan or plan revision. In addition to meeting the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, the decision document must include an explanation of how the plan components meet the sustainability requirements of § 219.8, the diversity requirements of § 219.9, the multiple use requirements of § 219.10, and the timber requirements of § 219.11.
(c) Decision document for a plan amendment. In addition to meeting the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, the decision document must explain how the responsible official determined:
(1) The scope and scale of the plan amendment; and
(2) Which specific requirements within §§ 219.8 through 219.11 apply to the amendment and how they were applied.
(d) Planning records. (1) The responsible official shall keep the following documents readily accessible to the public by posting them online and through other means: assessment reports (§ 219.6); the plan, including the monitoring program; the proposed plan, plan amendment, or plan revision; public notices and environmental documents associated with a plan; plan decision documents; and monitoring evaluation reports (§ 219.12).
(2) The planning record includes documents that support analytical conclusions made and alternatives considered throughout the planning process. The responsible official shall make the planning record available at the office where the plan, plan amendment, or plan revision was developed.
[77 FR 21260, Apr. 9, 2012, as amended at 81 FR 90738, Dec. 15, 2016]
Notes of Decisions
Citizens for Env't Quality v. United States, 731 F. Supp. 970 (D. Colo. 1989).
· cites it 17× “Designation of land suitable for timber production and the establishment of allowable timber sale quality ( 36 C.F.R. §§ 219.14 and 219.16); 5. Nonwilderness multiple-use allocations for those roadless areas that were reviewed under 36 C.”
Biodiversity Conservation All. v. Jiron, 762 F.3d 1036 (10th Cir. 2014).
· cites it 8× “” 36 C.F.R. § 219.14 (f) (2005). One of the issues in this case is what effect the 2005 Modification had on § 219.”
Wilderness Soc'y v. Alcock, 867 F. Supp. 1026 (N.D. Ga. 1994).
· cites it 4× “” 36 C.F.R. § 219.14 (a)(2) (1991). Moreover, to establish that technology is available, the Forest Service must identify the technology to be used in preventing irreversible damage and make provisions for its implementation in the Forest Plan.”
Sierra Club v. Wagner, 555 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2009).
· cites it 2× “*27 Next, Sierra Club contends that the Than Project EA was based on the Management Indicator Species Provision of the 2005 rules, 36 C.F.R. § 219.14 (f) (2005), which were enjoined nationwide in March 2007.”
Sierra Club v. Robertson, 845 F. Supp. 485 (S.D. Ohio 1994).
· cites it 7× “36 C.F.R. § 219.14 (a)(l)-(4). The forest planners found that available technology could ensure timber -production on 169,215 acres of the Wayne without irreversible resource damage to soils productivity, or watershed conditions.”
Utah Env't Cong. v. Bosworth, 443 F.3d 732 (10th Cir. 2006).
“in effect prior to November 9, 2000, the Responsible Official may comply with any obligations relating to management indicator species by considering data and analysis relating to habitat unless the plan specifically requires population monitoring or population surveys for the…”
Earth Island Inst. v. United States Forest Serv., 442 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2006).
· cites it 4× “Because the 2001 Framework and 2004 Supplement were developed based on regulations in effect before November 9, 2000, transitional rules, now con- tained at 36 C.F.R. § 219.14 , govern this case. The applicable regulation provides: For units with plans developed, amended, or…”
Forest Guardians v. United States Forest Serv., 579 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 2× “"); see also 36 C.F.R. § 219.14 (f) (2005) (noting that the USFS must comply with plans developed prior to November 9, 2000, that "specifically require[] population monitoring or population surveys" for MIS).”
Sierra Nevada Forest Prot. Campaign v. Rey, 573 F. Supp. 2d 1316 (E.D. Cal. 2008).
· cites it 2× “See 36 C.F.R. § 219.14 (e) (plan amendments initiated before said transition period “may continue to use the provisions of the planning regulations in effect before November 9, 2000 .”
Lands Council v. Martin, 529 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 2008).
“36 C.F.R. § 219.14 (b). "Plan amendments initiated during the transition period may continue using the provisions of the planning regulations in effect before November 9, 2000.”
— 36 C.F.R. § 219.14(c) — 2 cases
Sierra Club v. Gary Cargill, in His Off. Capacity as Reg'l Forester for the Rocky Mountain Region of the U.S. Forest Serv. F. Dale Robertson, in His Off. Capacity as Chief of the U.S. Forest Serv. Lloyd Todd, in His Off. Capacity as Forest Supervisor for the Bighorn Nat'l Forest, Sheridan Cnty. Econ. Dev. Council, a Wyoming Non-Profit Corp., Defendant-Intervenor, & Wyoming Sawmills, Inc., a Wyoming Corp. Ernie Schmidt, Defendants-Intervenors-Appellants. Sierra Club v. Gary Cargill, in His Off. Capacity as Reg'l Forester for the Rocky Mountain Region of the U.S. Forest Serv. F. Dale Robertson, in His Off. Capacity as Chief of the U.S. Forest Serv. Lloyd Todd, in His Off. Capacity as Forest Supervisor for the Bighorn Nat'l Forest, & Wyoming Sawmills, Inc., a Wyoming Corp. Ernie Schmidt & Sheridan Cnty. Econ. Dev. Council, a Wyoming Non-Profit Corp., Defendants-Intervenors, 11 F.3d 1545 (10th Cir. 1994).
— 36 C.F.R. § 219.14(c)(1) — 1 case
Sierra Club v. Gary Cargill, in His Off. Capacity as Reg'l Forester for the Rocky Mountain Region of the U.S. Forest Serv. F. Dale Robertson, in His Off. Capacity as Chief of the U.S. Forest Serv. Lloyd Todd, in His Off. Capacity as Forest Supervisor for the Bighorn Nat'l Forest, Sheridan Cnty. Econ. Dev. Council, a Wyoming Non-Profit Corp., Defendant-Intervenor, & Wyoming Sawmills, Inc., a Wyoming Corp. Ernie Schmidt, Defendants-Intervenors-Appellants. Sierra Club v. Gary Cargill, in His Off. Capacity as Reg'l Forester for the Rocky Mountain Region of the U.S. Forest Serv. F. Dale Robertson, in His Off. Capacity as Chief of the U.S. Forest Serv. Lloyd Todd, in His Off. Capacity as Forest Supervisor for the Bighorn Nat'l Forest, & Wyoming Sawmills, Inc., a Wyoming Corp. Ernie Schmidt & Sheridan Cnty. Econ. Dev. Council, a Wyoming Non-Profit Corp., Defendants-Intervenors, 11 F.3d 1545 (10th Cir. 1994).
— 36 C.F.R. § 219.14(c)(l) — 1 case
— 36 C.F.R. § 219.14(f) — 1 case
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.