43 C.F.R. § 1601.0-2
Objective
The objective of resource management planning by the Bureau of Land Management is to maximize resource values for the public through a rational, consistently applied set of regulations and procedures which promote the concept of multiple use management and ensure participation by the public, state and local governments, Indian tribes and appropriate Federal agencies. Resource management plans are designed to guide and control future management actions and the development of subsequent, more detailed and limited scope plans for resources and uses.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case: Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness All., 542 U.S. 55 (2004).
Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness All., 542 U.S. 55 (2004). “” 43 CFR § 1601.0-2 (2003). The statute and regulations confirm that a land use plan is not ordinarily the medium for affirmative decisions that implement the agency’s “projections].”
Utah Shared Access All. v. Carpenter, 463 F.3d 1125 (10th Cir. 2006). “” 43 C.F.R. § 1601.0-2 . FLPMA prohibits the BLM from taking actions inconsistent with the provisions of RMPs.”
Seattle Audubon Soc'y v. Lyons, 871 F. Supp. 1291 (W.D. Wash. 1994). “The FSEIS states: The requirements for a significant amendment to a Forest Plan have been met because the process used in the development of the FEMAT Report and the SEIS incorporates all the elements of the general planning process, including identification of the purpose and…”
Barlow & Haun, Inc. v. United States, 118 Fed. Cl. 597 (Fed. Cl. 2014). “” 6 43 C.F.R. § 1601.0-2 (2012). However, a resource management plan “is not a final implementation decision on actions which require further specific plans, process steps, or decisions under specific provisions of law and regulations.”
Barlow & Haun, Inc. v. United States, 805 F.3d 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “Such plans are implemented via a multi-step process, which includes preparing a draft plan and environmental impact statement (“EIS”), receiving comments on the draft plan, publishing the proposed resource management plan, resolving any protests of the proposed plan, and…”
Biodiversity Conservation All. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 608 F.3d 709 (10th Cir. 2010). “” 43 C.F.R. § 1601.0-2 . Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Bureau must prepare an environmental impact statement before developing or revising resource management plans.”
Wilderness Workshop v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 342 F. Supp. 3d 1145 (D. Colo. 2018). “" 43 C.F.R. § 1601.0-2 ; see Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness All.”
Citizens for a Healthy Cmty. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 377 F. Supp. 3d 1223 (D. Colo. 2019). “" 43 C.F.R. § 1601.0-2 ; id. Part of an RMP indicates the lands open or closed to the development of oil and gas, and subsequent development must abide by the terms of the RMP.”
Citizens for Clean Energy v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 384 F. Supp. 3d 1264 (D. Mont. 2019). “" 43 C.F.R. § 1601.0-2 . RMPs establish "[l]and areas for limited, restricted or exclusive use" and determine "[a]llowable resource uses (either singly or in combination) and related levels of production or use to be maintained.”
S. Utah Wilderness All. v. Norton, 301 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2002). “5-3 (a); see also 43 C.F.R. § 1601.0-2 . However, those regulations do not in any manner suggest that the BLM is relieved from implementing ongoing actions if they are specifically promised in the LUP itself.”
Gardner v. United States Bureau of Land Mgmt., 633 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (D. Or. 2009). “Proposed RMPs are subject to a mandatory period of public notice and comment, see 43 C.F.R. § 1610.”
Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Env't v. Jewell, 312 F. Supp. 3d 1031 (D.N.M. 2018). “" 43 C.F.R. § 1601.0-2 . "[W]herever possible, the proposed plan and related environmental impact statement shall be published in a single document.”
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.