36 C.F.R. § 219.8

Sustainability

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

A plan developed or revised under this part must provide for social, economic, and ecological sustainability within Forest Service authority and consistent with the inherent capability of the plan area, as follows:

(a) Ecological sustainability. (1) Ecosystem Integrity. The plan must include plan components, including standards or guidelines, to maintain or restore the ecological integrity of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and watersheds in the plan area, including plan components to maintain or restore structure, function, composition, and connectivity, taking into account:

(i) Interdependence of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems in the plan area.

(ii) Contributions of the plan area to ecological conditions within the broader landscape influenced by the plan area.

(iii) Conditions in the broader landscape that may influence the sustainability of resources and ecosystems within the plan area.

(iv) 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 terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems on the plan area to adapt to change.

(v) Wildland fire and opportunities to restore fire adapted ecosystems.

(vi) Opportunities for landscape scale restoration.

(2) Air, soil, and water. The plan must include plan components, including standards or guidelines, to maintain or restore:

(i) Air quality.

(ii) Soils and soil productivity, including guidance to reduce soil erosion and sedimentation.

(iii) Water quality.

(iv) Water resources in the plan area, including lakes, streams, and wetlands; ground water; public water supplies; sole source aquifers; source water protection areas; and other sources of drinking water (including guidance to prevent or mitigate detrimental changes in quantity, quality, and availability).

(3) Riparian areas. (i) The plan must include plan components, including standards or guidelines, to maintain or restore the ecological integrity of riparian areas in the plan area, including plan components to maintain or restore structure, function, composition, and connectivity, taking into account:

(A) Water temperature and chemical composition;

(B) Blockages (uncharacteristic and characteristic) of water courses;

(D) Aquatic and terrestrial habitats;

(E) Ecological connectivity;

(F) Restoration needs; and

(G) Floodplain values and risk of flood loss.

(ii) Plans must establish width(s) for riparian management zones around all lakes, perennial and intermittent streams, and open water wetlands, within which the plan components required by paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section will apply, giving special attention to land and vegetation for approximately 100 feet from the edges of all perennial streams and lakes.

(A) Riparian management zone width(s) may vary based on ecological or geomorphic factors or type of water body; and will apply unless replaced by a site-specific delineation of the riparian area.

(B) Plan components must ensure that no management practices causing detrimental changes in water temperature or chemical composition, blockages of water courses, or deposits of sediment that seriously and adversely affect water conditions or fish habitat shall be permitted within the riparian management zones or the site-specific delineated riparian areas.

(4) Best management practices for water quality. The Chief shall establish requirements for national best management practices for water quality in the Forest Service Directive System. Plan components must ensure implementation of these practices.

(b) Social and economic sustainability. The plan must include plan components, including standards or guidelines, to guide the plan area's contribution to social and economic sustainability, taking into account:

(1) Social, cultural, and economic conditions relevant to the area influenced by the plan;

(2) Sustainable recreation; including recreation settings, opportunities, and access; and scenic character;

(3) Multiple uses that contribute to local, regional, and national economies in a sustainable manner;

(4) Ecosystem services;

(5) Cultural and historic resources and uses; and

(6) Opportunities to connect people with nature.

[77 FR 21260, Apr. 9, 2012, as amended at 81 FR 90737, Dec. 15, 2016]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 25 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1992–2022 · leading case: Sierra Club, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 897 F.3d 582 (4th Cir. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Sierra Club, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 897 F.3d 582 (4th Cir. 2018). · cites it 3× “Having determined the purpose of the amendment, it is clear the Planning Rule sets forth substantive requirements directly related to that purpose: "soil and soil productivity" ( 36 C.F.R. § 219.8 (a)(2)(ii) ); "water resources" ( 36 C.”

Sierra Forest Legacy v. Rey, 577 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “36 C.F.R. § 219.8 (e), § 223.30. The Forest Service introduces its bias at the stage of making the forest plan, while case law prohibits bias only at the stage of awarding contracts.”

Forest Guardians v. Forsgren, 478 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 2007). “See 36 C.F.R. § 219.8 (b), (e); Forest Service Manual 1926.”

Cowpasture River Pres. v. Forest Serv., 911 F.3d 150 (4th Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “See 36 C.F.R. §§ 219.8 - 219.11 ; Sierra Club , 897 F.”

Silverton Snowmobile Club v. United States Forest Serv., 433 F.3d 772 (10th Cir. 2006). “3d at 1132 (citing 36 C.F.R. § 219.8 (b)). 4 Plaintiffs claim the agencies violated NFMA because they changed the Forest Plan at issue in this case without *786 formally amending it.”

Fed. Forest Resource Coalition v. Vilsack, 100 F. Supp. 3d 21 (D.D.C. 2015). · cites it 2× “the complaint are based upon the language of the 2012 Planning Rule section that is titled “Sustainability” ( 36 C.F.R. § 219.8 ). As noted above, this provision states in part that land management plans “must provide for social, economic, and ecological sustainability within…”

Anglers of the Au Sable v. United States Forest Serv., 565 F. Supp. 2d 812 (E.D. Mich. 2008). “36 C.F.R. § 219.8 (e); see also Colorado Off-Highway Vehic.”

Sierra Forest Legacy v. Rey, 526 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “This delay in the bite of the bias should not insulate it from judicial review.”

Colorado Off-High. Veh. Coalition v. United States Forest Serv., 357 F.3d 1130 (10th Cir. 2004). “36 C.F.R § 219.8(b). When a forest plan is in effect, the USFS implements the policies of the forest plan through various proposals, projects, and decisions.”

Wild Virginia v. United States Forest Serv., 24 F.4th 915 (4th Cir. 2022). “” 36 C.F.R. § 219.8 (a)(1) (emphasis supplied).”

Seattle Audubon Soc'y v. Moseley, 798 F. Supp. 1473 (W.D. Wash. 1992). “§ 1604 (g)(1); 36 C.F.R. § 219.8 (c). SAS alleges, in its fourth claim for relief, that the Forest Service has violated NEPA because the FEIS: a.”

Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 632 F. Supp. 2d 968 (N.D. Cal. 2009). “at 43,042 (revising 36 C.F.R. § 219.8 -.9). Furthermore, the Rule contained “minimum specific management requirements,” setting forth mandatory directives which all regional LRMPs must follow, and specific, quantifiable baselines below which no LRMP or site-specific plan can…”

Show all 25 citing cases →

— 36 C.F.R. § 219.8(b) — 1 case

— 36 C.F.R. § 219.8(b)(2) — 1 case

Cascade Forest Conservancy v. United States Forest Serv. (W.D. Wash. 2021).

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.