43 C.F.R. § 1610.5
Resource management plan approval, use and modification
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2002–2025 · leading case: Douglas Timber Operators, Inc. v. Salazar, 774 F. Supp. 2d 245 (D.D.C. 2011).
Douglas Timber Operators, Inc. v. Salazar, 774 F. Supp. 2d 245 (D.D.C. 2011). “a), and “allow an opportunity for public involvement and by regulation shall establish procedures, including public hearings where appropriate, to give Federal, State, and local governments and the public, adequate notice and opportunity to comment upon and participate in the…”
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation P'ship v. Salazar, 605 F. Supp. 2d 263 (D.D.C. 2009). “” 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5 — 3(a); see also S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.”
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 746 F. Supp. 2d 1055 (N.D. Cal. 2009). “(quoting FLPMA regulations, 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5 — 3(a)). The court found that while the land use plan permitted salvage logging in limited circumstances and clearly prioritized the preservation of protected ecosystems over commercial benefits, the BLM had interpreted the salvage…”
S. Utah Wilderness All. v. Norton, 301 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2002). “” *1246 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5 — 3(b) (2001) (emphasis added).”
Backcountry Against Dumps v. Jim Abbott, 491 F. App'x 789 (9th Cir. 2012). “See 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5 — 2(a)(2)(iii) (requiring that protest contain a statement of the “part or parts of the plan or amendment being protested”).”
S. Utah v. Norton (10th Cir. 2004). “See 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5 - -33- 3(a); see also 43 C.”
Douglas Timber Operators, Inc. v. Salazar (D.D.C. 2011). “2006) (quoting 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5 ); see also Seattle Audubon Society v.”
Desert Prot. Soc'y v. Bernhardt (E.D. Cal. 2023). “) They also agree that BLM had 11 the authority to amend the plan under 43 C.F.R. section 1610.5–3 (c) and did amend 12 the plan to make it consistent with the right-of-way grant.”
Cascadia Wildlands v. United States Bureau of Land Mgmt. (9th Cir. 2025). “(alterations in original) (quoting 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5 - 3(a)). “‘The statutory directive that BLM manage “in accordance with” land use plans, and the regulatory requirement that authorizations and actions “conform to” those plans, prevent BLM from taking actions inconsistent…”
Douglas Timber Operators, Inc. v. Salazar, 831 F. Supp. 2d 285 (D.D.C. 2011). “See also 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5 . The northern spotted owl has been listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.”
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.