16 U.S.C. § 1612

Public participation

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 16 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Adequate notice and opportunity to comment

In exercising his authorities under this subchapter and other laws applicable to the Forest Service, the Secretary, by regulation, shall establish procedures, including public hearings where appropriate, to give the Federal, State, and local governments and the public adequate notice and an opportunity to comment upon the formulation of standards, criteria, and guidelines applicable to Forest Service programs.

(b) Advisory boards

In providing for public participation in the planning for and management of the National Forest System, the Secretary, pursuant to chapter 10 of title 5 and other applicable law, shall establish and consult such advisory boards as he deems necessary to secure full information and advice on the execution of his responsibilities. The membership of such boards shall be representative of a cross section of groups interested in the planning for and management of the National Forest System and the various types of use and enjoyment of the lands thereof.

(Pub. L. 93–378, § 14, as added Pub. L. 94–588, § 11, Oct. 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 2958; amended Pub. L. 117–286, § 4(a)(114), Dec. 27, 2022, 136 Stat. 4318.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2022—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 117–286 substituted “chapter 10 of title 5” for “the Federal Advisory Committee Act (86 Stat. 770)”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesForest Service Decisionmaking and Appeals Reform

Pub. L. 102–381, title III, § 322, Oct. 5, 1992, 106 Stat. 1419, which provided for the establishment of a notice and comment process for proposed actions of the Forest Service relating to certain land and resource management projects and required modification of the procedure for appeals of decisions concerning such projects, was repealed by Pub. L. 113–79, title VIII, § 8006(a), Feb. 7, 2014, 128 Stat. 913.

Executive DocumentsTransfer of Functions

For transfer of certain enforcement functions of Secretary or other official in Department of Agriculture under this subchapter to Federal Inspector, Office of Federal Inspector for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System, and subsequent transfer to Secretary of Energy, then to Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects, see note set out under section 1601 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1994–2024 · leading case: Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (2009).
Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (2009). · cites it 4× “1419 , note following 16 U.S.C. § 1612 . Among other things, this required the Forest Service to establish a notice, comment, and appeal process for "proposed actions of the Forest Service concerning projects and activities implementing land and resource management plans…”
Jim Bensman, Mark Donham & Heartwood, Inc. v. United States Forest Serv. & Randy Moore, 408 F.3d 945 (7th Cir. 2005). · cites it 10× “The plaintiffs believe that the Forest Service arbitrarily and capriciously dismissed their appeals and therefore deprived them of their rights under the Appeals Reform Act (“ARA”), 16 U.S.C. § 1612 note, 3 to file an appeal from the Service’s initial determination and to have…”
Back Country Horsemen of Am. v. Johanns, 424 F. Supp. 2d 89 (D.D.C. 2006). · cites it 13× “Because the Court finds that the Forest Service failed to provide for public notice and comment as required by 16 U.S.C. § 1612 , but complied with NEPA, it will grant each party’s motion for summary judgment in part and remand the case to the agency for further proceedings.”
Ohio Forestry Assn., Inc. v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726 (1998). · cites it 2× “1419 (note following 16 U. S. C. § 1612 ); 36 CFR pt. 215, § 217.”
Earth Island Inst. v. Pengilly, 376 F. Supp. 2d 994 (E.D. Cal. 2005). · cites it 5× “1419 (1992), codified at 16 U.S.C. § 1612 note. 1 Plain *999 tiffs argue that the regulations violate the ARA by improperly exempting certain Forest Service decisions from appeal, by exempting certain Forest Service decisions that are subject to appeal from the automatic stay…”
Prairie Rivers Network v. Dynegy Midwest Generation, LLC, 2 F.4th 1002 (7th Cir. 2021). “Earth Island Institute, the Supreme Court addressed, on an appeal from summary judgment, whether several environmental organi- zations had associational standing for an injunctive challenge to land management regulations promulgated under the For- est Service Decisionmaking and…”
Wilderness Soc'y v. Rey, 180 F. Supp. 2d 1141 (D. Mont. 2002). · cites it 6× “1419 ; 16 U.S.C. § 1612 Note. Plaintiffs maintain that the Record of Decision for this salvage project is appealable under applicable regulations.”
Nat'l Ski Areas Ass'n v. United States Forest Serv., 910 F. Supp. 2d 1269 (D. Colo. 2012). · cites it 6× “See 16 U.S.C. §§ 1612 et seq. As to the substantive claims as previously noted, the Court has exercised it discretion not to address these claims, 7 because the 2012 Directive is being vacated by the terms of this Order.”
Wilderness Soc'y, Inc. v. Rey, 622 F.3d 1251 (9th Cir. 2010). “1419 (1992) (codified as 16 U.S.C. § 1612 note). The Act also requires the Secretary to modify the appeals procedure for decisions concerning these projects.”
Wilderness Soc'y v. Alcock, 83 F.3d 386 (11th Cir. 1996). “1374 , 1419 (1992) ( 16 U.S.C. § 1612 note). The APA gives "[a] person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute” a right to judicial review of that agency action.”
Sierra Club-Black Hills Grp. v. United States Forest Serv., 259 F.3d 1281 (10th Cir. 2001). “at 51, 66-67 (describing the public involvement preceding the Needles and Grizzly decisions); see also 16 U.S.C. § 1612 (requiring “adequate” notice and comment opportunities); 36 C.”
Earth Island Inst. v. Ruthenbeck, 459 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2006). · cites it 4× “1419 (1992) (codified at 16 U.S.C. § 1612 note). In a cross-appeal, the environmentalist plaintiffs Earth Island Institute et al.”
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.