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. § 1610.5-5

Amendment

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

A resource management plan may be changed through amendment. An amendment shall be initiated by the need to consider monitoring and evaluation findings, new data, new or revised policy, a change in circumstances or a proposed action that may result in a change in the scope of resource uses or a change in the terms, conditions and decisions of the approved plan. An amendment shall be made through an environmental assessment of the proposed change, or an environmental impact statement, if necessary, public involvement as prescribed in § 1610.2 of this title, interagency coordination and consistency determination as prescribed in § 1610.3 of this title and any other data or analysis that may be appropriate. In all cases, the effect of the amendment on the plan shall be evaluated. If the amendment is being considered in response to a specific proposal, the analysis required for the proposal and for the amendment may occur simultaneously.

(a) If the environmental assessment does not disclose significant impact, a finding of no significant impact may be made by the Field Manager. The Field Manager shall then make a recommendation on the amendment to the State Director for approval, and upon approval, the Field Manager shall issue a public notice of the action taken on the amendment. If the amendment is approved, it may be implemented 30 days after such notice.

(b) If a decision is made to prepare an environmental impact statement, the amending process shall follow the same procedure required for the preparation and approval of the plan, but consideration shall be limited to that portion of the plan being considered for amendment. If several plans are being amended simultaneously, a single environmental impact statement may be prepared to cover all amendments.

[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 14 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1993–2024 · leading case: Utah Shared Access All. v. Carpenter, 463 F.3d 1125 (10th Cir. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Utah Shared Access All. v. Carpenter, 463 F.3d 1125 (10th Cir. 2006). · cites it 2× “43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-5 . To do so, the BLM must prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement, see id.”
Silverton Snowmobile Club v. United States Forest Serv., 433 F.3d 772 (10th Cir. 2006). “5-5, (2) full public involvement in which BLM and the Forest Service received and considered 815 comment letters as prescribed in 43 CFR 1610.2, and (3) complete interagency coordination (and an interagency task force) as required by 43 CFR 1610.”
Mt Royal Jt. Vntr v. Kempthorne, Dirk, 477 F.3d 745 (D.C. Cir. 2007). “See 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-5 (“If the amendment is being considered in response to a specific proposal, the analysis required for the proposal and for the amendment may occur simultaneously.”
Conservation Nw. v. Harris Sherman, 715 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2013). “In that case, the BLM had first issued a memorandum downgrading the Survey and Manage classification of the red tree vole from Category C to Category D, and subsequently issued a second memorandum removing the vole’s Survey and Manage designation entirely.”
Soda Mountain Wilderness Council v. Norton, 424 F. Supp. 2d 1241 (E.D. Cal. 2006). · cites it 3× “43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-5 . They further require that “[i]n all cases, the effect of the amendment on the plan shall be evaluated.”
Barlow & Haun, Inc. v. United States, 805 F.3d 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-5 . The BLM created three versions of resource management plans relevant here: the 2007 draft resource management plan (“the 2007 Draft RMP”), the 2008 proposed resource management plan (“the 2008 Draft RMP”), and the 2010 final resource management plan (“the…”
S. Utah Wilderness All. v. United States Dep't of Interior, 250 F. Supp. 3d 1068 (D. Utah 2017). “First, as explained above, FLPMA directs BLM to “develop maintain, and, when appropriate, revise land use plans which provide by tracts or areas for the use of the public lands,” 43 U.”
Gardner v. United States Bureau of Land Mgmt., 633 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (D. Or. 2009). · cites it 2× “43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-5 . To do so, BLM must prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement, see id.”
Nat'l Parks & Conservation Ass'n v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 998 F.2d 1523 (10th Cir. 1993). “” 43 CFR § 1610.5-5 (1991). Under section 1610.”
Cloud Found. v. United States Bureau of Land Mgmt., 802 F. Supp. 2d 1192 (D. Nev. 2011). “In their reply, plaintiffs assert that RMPs may be amended through EAs and specific project proposals, citing 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-5 , and therefore defendants could have altered livestock grazing allotments through the EA for this project.”
Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr v. John Gerritsma, 638 F. App'x 648 (9th Cir. 2016). “at 556-57; see 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-5 (summarizing amendment procedures).”
Klamath Siskiyou v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 468 F.3d 549 (9th Cir. 2006). · cites it 2× “Under FLPMA, if BLM wishes to change a resource management plan, it can only do so by formally amending the plan pursuant to 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-5 . Section 1610.5-5 states, in pertinent part: .”
Show all 14 citing cases →
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.