36 C.F.R. § 219.3
Role of science in planning
The responsible official shall use the best available scientific information to inform the planning process required by this subpart for assessment; developing, amending, or revising a plan; and monitoring. In doing so, the responsible official shall determine what information is the most accurate, reliable, and relevant to the issues being considered. The responsible official shall document how the best available scientific information was used to inform the assessment, the plan or amendment decision, and the monitoring program as required in §§ 219.6(a)(3) and 219.14(a)(3). Such documentation must: Identify what information was determined to be the best available scientific information, explain the basis for that determination, and explain how the information was applied to the issues considered.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 49
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1989–2024 · leading case: Forest Guardians v. Forsgren, 478 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 2007).
Forest Guardians v. Forsgren, 478 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 2007). “See 16 U.S.C. § 1536 (a)(2). LRMPs, however, “typically do not approve or execute projects and activities,” and do not authorize the irreversible commitment of forest resources.”
Biodiversity Conservation All. v. Jiron, 762 F.3d 1036 (10th Cir. 2014). “36 C.F.R. § 219.3 (1982); see San Juan Citizens Alliance v.”
All. for the Wild Rockies v. Jim Pena, 865 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2017). “36 C.F.R. § 219.3 (im *1221 posing this standard on “the planning process required by [ 36 C.”
Sierra Club v. Mike Espy, in His Off. Capacity as Sec'y of Agric., 38 F.3d 792 (5th Cir. 1994). “See 36 C.F.R. § 219.3 . Even-aged management includes clearcutting, where all the trees are cut down; seed tree cutting, where most of the trees are cut down, leaving only a few to naturally seed the cut area; and shelterwood cutting, where about double the number of trees are…”
Sierra Club v. Glickman, 974 F. Supp. 905 (E.D. Tex. 1997). “” 36 C.F.R. § 219.3 . But the regulations do not dictate that the Forest Service analyze diversity in any specific way, and courts defer to the Forest Service’s method of diversity unless it is irrational.”
Citizens for Env't Quality v. United States, 731 F. Supp. 970 (D. Colo. 1989). “5 36 C.F.R. § 219.3 (Definition of “net public benefits”).”
Krichbaum v. Kelley, 844 F. Supp. 1107 (W.D. Va. 1994). “See 36 C.F.R. § 219.3 . The court therefore concludes that the management indicator species approach at the planning level, particularly when combined with the more site-specific information provided in the biological evaluation, furnishes more than enough of an “inventory” to…”
Fed. Forest Resource Coalition v. Vilsack, 100 F. Supp. 3d 21 (D.D.C. 2015). “For example, with respect to the procedural requirements agency officials must follow, the 2012 Planning Rule states that “[t]he responsible official shall use the best available scientific information to inform the planning process!,]” 36 C.F.R. § 219.3 , and clarifies that…”
Sierra Club v. Robertson, 784 F. Supp. 593 (W.D. Ark. 1991). “NFMA Regulations define diversity “within the area covered by a land and resource management plan,” 36 C.F.R. § 219.3 , or in the “planning area,” 36 C.”
Sierra Club v. Peterson, 185 F.3d 349 (5th Cir. 1999). “See 36 C.F.R. 219.3. Even-aged methods are clearcutting, seedtree cutting, or shelterwood cutting.”
Forest Conservation Council v. Jacobs, 374 F. Supp. 2d 1187 (N.D. Ga. 2005). “36 C.F.R. 219.3. In conducting forest planning the Forest Service is required to “estimate the effects of each [management] alternative on fish and wildlife” species that are selected “because their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities.”
Ecology Ctr., Inc. v. United States Forest Serv., 451 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2006). “36 C.F.R. §§ 219.3 , 219.10 (2005). Accordingly, we need not decide if Ecology Center’s myriad of pointed arguments regarding Forest Services’s failure to comply with the Forest Plan’s habitat and monitoring requirements demonstrates that the Forest Service engaged in a clear…”
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.