C.F.R. » Title 43 » CHAPTER II—BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR › SUBCHAPTER A—GENERAL MANAGEMENT (1000) › PART 1600—PLANNING, PROGRAMMING, BUDGETING › Subpart 1610—Resource Management Planning

43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-3

Conformity and implementation

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

(a) All future resource management authorizations and actions, as well as budget or other action proposals to higher levels in the Bureau of Land Management and Department, and subsequent more detailed or specific planning, shall conform to the approved plan.

(b) After a plan is approved or amended, and if otherwise authorized by law, regulation, contract, permit, cooperative agreement or other instrument of occupancy and use, the Field Manager shall take appropriate measures, subject to valid existing rights, to make operations and activities under existing permits, contracts, cooperative agreements or other instruments for occupancy and use, conform to the approved plan or amendment within a reasonable period of time. Any person adversely affected by a specific action being proposed to implement some portion of a resource management plan or amendment may appeal such action pursuant to 43 CFR 4.400 at the time the action is proposed for implementation.

(c) If a proposed action is not in conformance, and warrants further consideration before a plan revision is scheduled, such consideration shall be through a plan amendment in accordance with the provisions of § 1610.5-5 of this title.

(d) More detailed and site specific plans for coal, oil shale and tar sand resources shall be prepared in accordance with specific regulations for those resources: Group 3400 of this title for coal; Group 3900 of this title for oil shale; and part 3140 of this title for tar sand. These activity plans shall be in conformance with land use plans prepared and approved under the provisions of this part.

[48 FR 20368, May 5, 1983, as amended at 70 FR 14567, Mar. 23, 2005; 81 FR 89661, Dec. 12, 2016; 82 FR 60555, Dec. 21, 2017]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 38 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1987–2025 · leading case: Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness All., 542 U.S. 55 (2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness All., 542 U.S. 55 (2004). · cites it 2× “§ 1732 (a); see also 43 CFR § 1610.5-3 (a) (2003) (“All future resource management authorizations and actions .”
Oregon Nat. Resources Council Fund v. Brong, 492 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2007). · cites it 4× “§ 1732 ; 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-3 (a). Specifically, ONRC alleged that the Project violated the Plan because it proposed the excessive removal of large diameter dead or dying trees, impermissible research logging, and timber removal in "non-suitable woodlands.”
New Mexico Ex Rel. Richardson v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 565 F.3d 683 (10th Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “3d at 1151-52 , 43 C.F.R. §§ 1610.5-3 , 3162.3-1(c). The parties dispute whether our precedents create a hard rule that no site-specific EIS is ever required until the permitting stage, or a flexible test requiring a site-specific analysis as soon as practicable.”
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation P'ship v. Salazar, 616 F.3d 497 (D.C. Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “5 million acre area in south-central Wyoming that straddles the Continental Divide.”
Pennaco Energy, Inc. v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 377 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir. 2004). “” 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-3 (a). In the context of oil and gas development, the BLM is initially charged with determining whether the issuance of a particular oil and gas lease is consistent with the RMP.”
Mt Royal Jt. Vntr v. Kempthorne, Dirk, 477 F.3d 745 (D.C. Cir. 2007). “” 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-3 (a). "If a proposed action is not in conformance [with an approved plan], and warrants further consideration before a plan revision is scheduled, such consideration shall be through a plan amendment in accordance with the provisions of § 1610.”
W. Watersheds Proj. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 721 F.3d 1264 (10th Cir. 2013). “” 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-3 (a). This means BLM’s actions must be “clearly consistent with the terms, conditions, and decisions of the approved plan.”
Utah Shared Access All. v. Carpenter, 463 F.3d 1125 (10th Cir. 2006). “”); 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-3 (“All future resource management authorizations and actions .”
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…”
S. Utah Wilderness All. v. United States Dep't of Interior, 250 F. Supp. 3d 1068 (D. Utah 2017). · cites it 2× “Important to this case, FLPMA governs oil and gas leasing on federally managed lands through a three-step process.”
Shasta Resources Council v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 629 F. Supp. 2d 1045 (E.D. Cal. 2009). · cites it 2× “§ 1732 (a); 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-3 )); Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr.”
Wildearth Guardians v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 8 F. Supp. 3d 17 (D.D.C. 2014). “43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-3 (a). II. Factual and Procedural Background The Powder River Basin (“PRB”), located in Wyoming and Montana, is the single largest source of coal in the United States, see Administrative Record (“AR”) 9378, 11148, and over 90 percent of its coal deposits are…”
Show all 38 citing cases →
— 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-3(a) — 1 case
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…”
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.