36 C.F.R. § 219.15

Project and activity consistency with the plan

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Application to existing authorizations and approved projects or activities. Every decision document approving a plan, plan amendment, or plan revision must state whether authorizations of occupancy and use made before the decision document may proceed unchanged. If a plan decision document does not expressly allow such occupancy and use, the permit, contract, and other authorizing instrument for the use and occupancy must be made consistent with the plan, plan amendment, or plan revision as soon as practicable, as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, subject to valid existing rights.

(b) Application to projects or activities authorized after plan decision. Projects and activities authorized after approval of a plan, plan amendment, or plan revision must be consistent with the plan as provided in paragraph (d) of this section.

(c) Resolving inconsistency. When a proposed project or activity would not be consistent with the applicable plan components, the responsible official shall take one of the following steps, subject to valid existing rights:

(1) Modify the proposed project or activity to make it consistent with the applicable plan components;

(2) Reject the proposal or terminate the project or activity;

(3) Amend the plan so that the project or activity will be consistent with the plan as amended; or

(4) Amend the plan contemporaneously with the approval of the project or activity so that the project or activity will be consistent with the plan as amended. This amendment may be limited to apply only to the project or activity.

(d) Determining consistency. Every project and activity must be consistent with the applicable plan components. A project or activity approval document must describe how the project or activity is consistent with applicable plan components developed or revised in conformance with this part by meeting the following criteria:

(1) Goals, desired conditions, and objectives. The project or activity contributes to the maintenance or attainment of one or more goals, desired conditions, or objectives, or does not foreclose the opportunity to maintain or achieve any goals, desired conditions, or objectives, over the long term.

(2) Standards. The project or activity complies with applicable standards.

(3) Guidelines. The project or activity:

(i) Complies with applicable guidelines as set out in the plan; or

(ii) Is designed in a way that is as effective in achieving the purpose of the applicable guidelines (§ 219.7(e)(1)(iv)).

(4) Suitability. A project or activity would occur in an area:

(i) That the plan identifies as suitable for that type of project or activity; or

(ii) For which the plan is silent with respect to its suitability for that type of project or activity.

(e) Consistency of resource plans within the planning area with the land management plan. Any resource plans (for example, travel management plans) developed by the Forest Service that apply to the resources or land areas within the planning area must be consistent with the plan components. Resource plans developed prior to plan decision must be evaluated for consistency with the plan and amended if necessary.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 21 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 2017–2026 · leading case: All. for the Wild Rockies v. Usfs, 907 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

All. for the Wild Rockies v. Usfs, 907 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2018). “2002) (“[A]ll management activities undertaken by the Forest Service must comply with the forest plan, which in turn must comply with the Forest 1 Our original opinion cited to 36 C.F.R. § 219.15 . However, because the Payette National Forest Plan was adopted pursuant to the…”

Sierra Club, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 897 F.3d 582 (4th Cir. 2018). “1271 (citing 36 C.F.R. § 219.15 (c) (offering these four options if "a proposed project .”

Save Our Cabinets v. United States Dep't of Agric., 254 F. Supp. 3d 1241 (D. Mont. 2017). · cites it 3× “The environmental plaintiffs argue that NFMA’s implementing regulations require that the agency meet a Forest Plan’s desired conditions, relying on 36 C.F.R. § 219.15 (d), which provides in relevant part: “[e]very project and activity must be consistent with the applicable plan…”

WildEarth Guardians v. Jeffries, 370 F. Supp. 3d 1208 (D. Or. 2019). “" 36 C.F.R. § 219.15 (d). Land and resource management plans must "provide for multiple use and sustained yield of the products and services obtained therefrom in accordance with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 [ 16 U.”

Wild Virginia v. United States Forest Serv., 24 F.4th 915 (4th Cir. 2022). “36 C.F.R. § 219.15 (c). In 2012, pursuant to the NFMA, the Forest Service promulgated a rule governing amendments to forest plans (the “2012 Planning Rule”).”

All. for the Wild Rockies v. Usfs, 899 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2018). · cites it 14× “§ 1604 (i); 36 C.F.R. § 219.15 (b); Native Ecosystems Council v.”

Native Ecosystems Council v. Webber (9th Cir. 2026). · cites it 3× “But the Forest Service’s decision document incorporates by reference a “Consistency Table” that identifies and explains that the Project complies with all relevant Forest Plan desired conditions and guidelines.”

McFsc v. Kevin Elliott (9th Cir. 2022). · cites it 2× “Although NFMA regulations promulgated later require a document describing how proposed activities follow the forest plan, 36 C.F.R. § 219.15 (d), such regulations do not apply to plans that predate their enactment; and the Los Padres Forest Plan predated those recent regulations.”

Cent. Sierra Env't Resource Ctr. v. Stanislaus Nat'l Forest (E.D. Cal. 2019). · cites it 2× “” 36 C.F.R. § 219.15 (d)(2). These standards also provide that consistency with the 24 governing forest plan with respect to guidelines is met when the project or activity “[c]omplies with 25 2 purpose of the applicable guidelines.”

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Forest Serv.; Brooke Rollins, in her Off. capacity; Rebecca Brooke, in her Off. capacity; Douglas Cnty., Oregon; Coos Cnty., Oregon; Save the Riders Dunes, Inc. (D. Or. 2026). · cites it 2× “§ 1604 (i); 36 CFR § 219.15 ; 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(A)).”

Onda v. Usfs (9th Cir. 2020). “See 36 C.F.R. § 219.15 (d) (2012) (“A project or activity approval document must describe how the project or activity is consistent with applicable plan components.”

Wild Virginia v. United States Forest Serv. (4th Cir. 2022). “36 C.F.R. § 219.15 (c). In 2012, pursuant to the NFMA, the Forest Service promulgated a rule governing amendments to forest plans (the “2012 Planning Rule”).”

Show all 21 citing 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.