43 C.F.R. § 1601.0-6
Environmental impact statement policy
Approval of a resource management plan is considered a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The environmental analysis of alternatives and the proposed plan shall be accomplished as part of the resource management planning process and, wherever possible, the proposed plan and related environmental impact statement shall be published in a single document.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1998–2025 · leading case: W. Energy All. v. Zinke, 877 F.3d 1157 (10th Cir. 2017).
W. Energy All. v. Zinke, 877 F.3d 1157 (10th Cir. 2017). “43 C.F.R. § 1601.0-6 . Generally, an RMP “describes, for a particular area, allowable uses, goals for future condition of the land, and specific next steps.”
Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness All., 542 U.S. 55 (2004). “Here, by contrast, although the “[aJp-proval of a [land use plan]” is a “major Federal action” requiring an EIS, 43 CFR § 1601.0-6 (2003) (emphasis added), that action is completed when the plan is approved.”
Cottonwood Env't Law Ctr. v. United States Forest Serv., 789 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2015). “§ 4332 and 43 C.F.R. § 1601.0-6 ) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).”
Oregon Nat. Desert Ass'n v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 625 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2010). “” 43 C.F.R. § 1601.0-6 . For that reason, the land use planning process implicates the third major statute we address today, NEPA, which requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement (“EIS”) for such actions.”
Oregon Nat. Desert Ass'n v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 531 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2008). “” 43 C.F.R. § 1601.0-6 . For that reason, the land use planning process implicates the third major statute we address today, NEPA, which requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement (“EIS”) for such actions.”
W. Org. v. Ryan Zinke, 892 F.3d 1234 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “The Secretary's 1979 Final Rule referred to "the adoption of the Federal coal management program on June 1 and 2, 1979" as "a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment" for which the 1979 EIS was published.”
WildEarth Guardians v. Zinke, 368 F. Supp. 3d 41 (D.C. Cir. 2019). “See 43 C.F.R. § 1601.0-6 . 4 2. Leasing Stage If a resource management plan authorizes oil and gas development on certain land parcels, BLM must sell leases for those parcels on a quarterly basis.”
W. Watersheds Proj. v. Bob Abbey, 719 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2013). “(quoting 43 C.F.R. § 1601.0-6 ). Council on Environmental Quality regulations require an EIS to state the purpose and need of the project and to consider a reasonable range of alternatives.”
Pac. Rivers Council v. United States Forest Serv., 668 F.3d 609 (9th Cir. 2012). “See 43 C.F.R. § 1601.0-6 ("Approval of a resource management plan is considered a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.”
S. Utah Wilderness All. v. Norton, 457 F. Supp. 2d 1253 (D. Utah 2006). ““[T]he approval of an RMP is considered a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, (see 43 C.F.R. § 1601.0-6 ), and an [environmental impact statement] is prepared as a step in the process of preparing the RMP.”
Salix v. United States Forest Serv., 944 F. Supp. 2d 984 (D. Mont. 2013). “NEPA regulations recognize the “[a]pproval of a [forest plan]” as a major Federal action, 43 C.F.R. § 1601.0-6 , but the Court held that “that action is completed when the plan is approved” and “[t]here is no ongoing ‘major Federal action’ that could require supplementation.”
State of Utah v. Babbitt, 137 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 1998). “” 43 C.F.R. § 1601.0-6 . If a federal agency is required to prepare an EIS and fails to do so, an action may be brought to compel compliance with NEPA See Committee to Save the Rio Hondo, 102 F.”
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.