16 U.S.C. § 3120

Subsistence and land use decisions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 16 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Factors considered; requirementsIn determining whether to withdraw, reserve, lease, or otherwise permit the use, occupancy, or disposition of public lands under any provision of law authorizing such actions, the head of the Federal agency having primary jurisdiction over such lands or his designee shall evaluate the effect of such use, occupancy, or disposition on subsistence uses and needs, the availability of other lands for the purposes sought to be achieved, and other alternatives which would reduce or eliminate the use, occupancy, or disposition of public lands needed for subsistence purposes. No such withdrawal, reservation, lease, permit, or other use, occupancy or disposition of such lands which would significantly restrict subsistence uses shall be effected until the head of such Federal agency—(1) gives notice to the appropriate State agency and the appropriate local committees and regional councils established pursuant to section 3115 of this title;(2) gives notice of, and holds, a hearing in the vicinity of the area involved; and(3) determines that (A) such a significant restriction of subsistence uses is necessary, consistent with sound management principles for the utilization of the public lands, (B) the proposed activity will involve the minimal amount of public lands necessary to accomplish the purposes of such use, occupancy, or other disposition, and (C) reasonable steps will be taken to minimize adverse impacts upon subsistence uses and resources resulting from such actions.(b) Environmental impact statement

If the Secretary is required to prepare an environmental impact statement pursuant to section 4332(2)(C) of title 42, he shall provide the notice and hearing and include the findings required by subsection (a) as part of such environmental impact statement.

Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit or impair the ability of the State or any Native Corporation to make land selections and receive land conveyances pursuant to the Alaska Statehood Act or the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act [43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.].

(d) Management or disposal of lands

After compliance with the procedural requirements of this section and other applicable law, the head of the appropriate Federal agency may manage or dispose of public lands under his primary jurisdiction for any of those uses or purposes authorized by this Act or other law.

(Pub. L. 96–487, title VIII, § 810, Dec. 2, 1980, 94 Stat. 2427.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Alaska Statehood Act, referred to in subsec. (c), is Pub. L. 85–508, July 7, 1958, 72 Stat. 339, which is set out as a note preceding section 21 of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.

The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, referred to in subsec. (c), is Pub. L. 92–203, Dec. 18, 1971, 85 Stat. 688, which is classified generally to chapter 33 (§ 1601 et seq.) of Title 43, Public Lands. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set our under section 1601 of Title 43 and Tables.

This Act, referred to in subsec. (d), is Pub. L 96–487, Dec. 2, 1980, 94 Stat. 2371, known as the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 3101 of this title and Tables.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 37 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531 (1987).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531 (1987). · cites it 8× “2371 , 16 U. S. C. § 3120 , prior to issuing the leases.”

United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Coop., 532 U.S. 483 (2001). · cites it 2× “531, 544-546 (1987) (holding that a District Court did not err in declining to issue an injunction to bar exploratory drilling on Alaskan public lands, because the District Court's decision "did not undermine" the policy of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, 16…”

Sierra Club v. John O. Marsh, Jr., 872 F.2d 497 (1st Cir. 1989). · cites it 4× “First, the statute says that before making a decision affecting the “use, occupancy, or disposition” of “public lands,” the head of a federal agency must “evaluate the effect” of the decision on “subsistence uses and needs, the availability of other lands for the purposes sought…”

Sierra Club v. Penfold, 664 F. Supp. 1299 (D. Alaska 1987). · cites it 6× “Finally, it is uncontroverted that Birch Creek residents have traditionally drawn heavily on the river for fish and drinking water.”

Kunaknana v. Clark, 742 F.2d 1145 (9th Cir. 1984). · cites it 6× “16 U.S.C. § 3120 . A preliminary injunction issued on July 19, 1983, after the district court concluded that the BLM had failed to make the required findings.”

City of Tenakee Springs v. Clough, 915 F.2d 1308 (9th Cir. 1990). · cites it 4× “(NEPA) and § 810(a) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. § 3120 (a) (ANILCA). The litigation arises out of a 50-year timber sale contract which the Forest Service and Alaska Pulp Company (APC) entered into in 1956 for logging in the Ton-gass National…”

City of Tenakee Springs v. Clough, 750 F. Supp. 1406 (D. Alaska 1990). · cites it 9× “Defendants argue that this court earlier ruled that all of the original plaintiffs in this action lacked standing to raise claims under section 810 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (“ANIL-CA”), 16 U.S.C. § 3120 . Defendants object to plaintiffs’ proposed…”

Sierra Club v. Penfold, 857 F.2d 1307 (9th Cir. 1988). · cites it 3× “2-1 , and a subsistence evaluation, 16 U.S.C. § 3120 . The purpose behind approval is to minimize the adverse environmental effects of the mining activity.”

Sierra Club v. Marsh, 701 F. Supp. 886 (D. Me. 1988). · cites it 3× “2d 542 (1987), outer continental shelf [OCS] oil leases were challenged as having been issued without compliance with section 810 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act [ANILCA], 16 U.S.C. § 3120 . Speaking to the appropriateness of preliminary injunctive relief,…”

Pub. Serv. Co. of Colorado v. Andrus, 825 F. Supp. 1483 (D. Idaho 1993). · cites it 2× “1985), an action brought under Section 810 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (“ANILCA”), 16 U.S.C. § 3120 . The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Village of Gambell, holding that such a presumption runs contrary to traditional equitable…”

Hoonah Indian Ass'n v. Morrison, 170 F.3d 1223 (9th Cir. 1999). · cites it 7× “Sitka and Hoonah both argue that the timber sales would violate 16 U.S.C. § 3120’s limitation on dispositions affecting subsistence uses of public land.”

Akiak Native Cmty. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 625 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “16 U.S.C. § 3120 (a). Before performing any activity covered by section 810(a), the federal agency must provide notice and a hearing and must determine that "(A) such a significant restriction of subsistence uses is necessary, consistent with sound management principles for the…”

Show all 37 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.