43 C.F.R. § 1610.8

Transition period

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

(a) Until superseded by resource management plans, management framework plans may be the basis for considering proposed actions as follows:

(1) The management framework plan shall be in compliance with the principle of multiple use and sustained yield and shall have been developed with public participation and governmental coordination, but not necessarily precisely as prescribed in §§ 1610.2 and 1610.3 of this title.

(2) No sooner than 30 days after the Environmental Protection Agency publishes a notice of the filing of a final court-ordered environmental impact statement—which is based on a management framework plan—proposed actions may be initiated without any further analysis or processes included in this subpart.

(3) For proposed actions other than those described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, determination shall be made by the Field Manager whether the proposed action is in conformance with the management framework plan. Such determination shall be in writing and shall explain the reasons for the determination.

(i) If the proposed action is in conformance, it may be further considered for decision under procedures applicable to that type of action, including requirements of regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act in 40 CFR parts 1500-1508.

(ii) If the proposed action is not in conformance with the management framework plan, and if the proposed action warrants further favorable consideration before a resource management plan is scheduled for preparation, such consideration shall be through a management framework plan amendment using the provisions of § 1610.5-5 of this title.

(b)(1) If an action is proposed where public lands are not covered by a management framework plan or a resource management plan, an environmental assessment and an environmental impact statement, if necessary, plus any other data and analysis necessary to make an informed decision, shall be used to assess the impacts of the proposal and to provide a basis for a decision on the proposal.

(2) A land disposal action may be considered before a resource management plan is scheduled for preparation, through a planning analysis, using the process described in § 1610.5-5 of this title for amending a plan.

[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] Group 1700—Program Management

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1987–2021 · leading case: Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Robert F. Burford, Mountain States Legal Found. (Two Cases), 835 F.2d 305 (D.C. Cir. 1987).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Robert F. Burford, Mountain States Legal Found. (Two Cases), 835 F.2d 305 (D.C. Cir. 1987). · cites it 2× “Under 43 C.F.R. § 1610.8 (a)(1) (1986), MFPs can support re-classifications only where they [1] “shall have been developed with public participation and governmental coordination.”

Nat. Resources Def. Council, Inc. v. Jamison, 815 F. Supp. 454 (D.D.C. 1992). · cites it 4× “20,364, 20,375 (1983), at 43 C.F.R. § 1610.8 (1991). Under the transition period regulations, pre-FLPMA land use plans must be amended so as to be: [I]n compliance with the principle of multiple use and sustained yield and shall have been developed with public participation and…”

S. Utah Wilderness All. v. Norton, 457 F. Supp. 2d 1253 (D. Utah 2006). “See 43 C.F.R. § 1610.8 ; Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 164 IBLA at 124.”

Nat. Resources Def. v. McCarthy, 993 F.3d 1243 (10th Cir. 2021). “See 43 C.F.R. § 1610.8 . 6 In 2008, the BLM’s Richfield Field Office released a Proposed RMP and a Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS).”

— 43 C.F.R. § 1610.8(a)(1) — 1 case

Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Robert F. Burford, Mountain States Legal Found. (Two Cases), 835 F.2d 305 (D.C. Cir. 1987). “Under 43 C.F.R. § 1610.8 (a)(1) (1986), MFPs can support re-classifications only where they [1] “shall have been developed with public participation and governmental coordination.”

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.