36 C.F.R. § 219.16

Public notifications

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

The following public notification requirements apply to plan development, amendment, or revision. Notifications may be combined where appropriate.

(a) When formal public notification is required. Public notification must be provided as follows:

(1) To initiate the development of a proposed plan, plan amendment, or plan revision;

(2) To invite comments on a proposed plan, plan amendment, or plan revision, and associated environmental analysis. For a new plan, plan amendment, or a plan revision for which a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) is prepared, the comment period is at least 90 days, except for an amendment that applies only to one project or activity. For an amendment that applies only to one project or activity for which a draft EIS is prepared, the comment period is at least 45 days unless a different time period is required by law or regulation or authorized pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.10(d). For an amendment for which a draft EIS is not prepared, the comment period is at least 30 days;

(3) To begin the objection period for a plan, plan amendment, or plan revision before approval (§ 219.52);

(4) To approve a final plan, plan amendment, or plan revision; or

(5) To announce whenever a plan, plan amendment, or plan revision process initiated under the provisions of a previous planning regulation will be conformed to meet the provisions of this part (§ 219.17(b)(3)).

(b) Project or activity plan amendments. When a plan amendment is approved in a decision document approving a project or activity and the amendment applies only to the project or activity, the notification requirements of 36 CFR part 215 or part 218, subpart A, applies instead of this section.

(c) How public notice is provided. The responsible official should use contemporary tools to provide notice to the public. At a minimum, all public notifications required by this part must be posted online, and:

(1) When the Chief, the Under Secretary, or the Secretary is the responsible official, notice must be published in the Federal Register.

(2) For a new plan or plan revision, when an official other than the Chief, the Under Secretary, or the Secretary is the responsible official, notice must be published in the Federal Register and the applicable newspaper(s) of record.

(3) When the notice is for the purpose of inviting comments on a proposed plan, plan amendment, or plan revision for which a draft EIS is prepared, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Federal Register notice of availability of a draft EIS shall serve as the required Federal Register notice.

(4) For a plan amendment when an official other than the Chief, the Under Secretary, or the Secretary is the responsible official, and for which a draft EIS is not prepared, notices must be published in the newspaper(s) of record.

(5) If a plan, plan amendment, or plan revision applies to two or more units, notices must be published in the Federal Register and the newspaper(s) of record for the applicable units.

(6) Additional public notice of administrative changes, changes to the monitoring program, opportunities to provide information for assessments, assessment reports, monitoring evaluation reports, or other notices not listed in paragraph (a) of this section may be made in any way the responsible official deems appropriate.

(d) Content of public notices. Public notices required by this section except for notices applicable to paragraph (c)(3) of this section, must clearly describe the action subject to notice and the nature and scope of the decisions to be made; identify the responsible official; describe when, where, and how the responsible official will provide opportunities for the public to participate in the planning process; and explain how to obtain additional information.

[77 FR 21260, Apr. 9, 2012, as amended at 81 FR 90739, Dec. 15, 2016]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases, 1994–2017 · leading case: Forest Guardians v. Forsgren, 478 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Forest Guardians v. Forsgren, 478 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “” 36 C.F.R. § 219.16 . LRMPs developed pursuant to the NFMA and Sub-part A of the regulations— generally contain desired conditions, objectives, and guidance for project and activity decisionmaking in the plan area.”

Native Ecosystems Council v. Tidwell, 599 F.3d 926 (9th Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “8; see also 36 C.F.R. § 219.16 (2008). However, the Forest Service is "required to comply with the regulations and forest plan in place at the time of its decision.”

Biodiversity v. Thompson, 265 F.3d 1038 (10th Cir. 2001). “36 CFR 219.16(2)(iii)....” (Id. at 11-65 to 11-67.”

California Forestry Ass'n v. Thomas, 936 F. Supp. 13 (D.D.C. 1996). “§ 472a; 36 C.F.R. §§ 219.16 & 219.3; cf. Swan View Coalition, Inc.”

Sierra Club v. Robertson, 28 F.3d 753 (8th Cir. 1994). “See 36 C.F.R. § 219.16 . B. The LRMP and accompanying final EIS for the Ouachita National Forest were released in 1986.”

Save Our Cabinets v. United States Dep't of Agric., 254 F. Supp. 3d 1241 (D. Mont. 2017). “15 (c)(3), (4), and that such an adjustment would be subject to NFMA and NEPA, 36 C.F.R. § 219.16 (b). That has not happened for the provisions of the Forest Plan addressed here.”

Env't Prot. Info. Ctr. v. United States Forest Serv., 451 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2006). “Although new regulations have eliminated the MIS concept, see 36 C.F.R. § 219.16 , USFS concedes that it was required to comply with the regulations and forest plan in place at the time of its decision.”

Coalition for Sustainable Resources, Inc. v. United States Forest Serv., 48 F. Supp. 2d 1303 (D. Wyo. 1999). “See 36 C.F.R. § 219.16 (1998). These forest plans are revised after a ten to fifteen-year period.”

Native Ecosystems v. Kimbell (9th Cir. 2010). “8; see also 36 C.F.R. § 219.16 (2008). However, the Forest Service is “re- quired to comply with the regulations and forest plan in place at the time of its decision.”

— 36 C.F.R. § 219.16(2)(iii) — 1 case

Biodiversity v. Thompson, 265 F.3d 1038 (10th Cir. 2001). “36 CFR 219.16(2)(iii)....” (Id. at 11-65 to 11-67.”

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.