Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974

The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) (16 U. S. C. §§ 1600 et seq.) is a United States federal law which authorizes long range planning by the United States Forest Service to protect, develop, and enhance the productivity and other values of forest resources. RPA requires that a renewable resource assessment and a Forest Service plan be prepared every ten and five years, respectively, to plan and prepare for the future of natural resources. RPA also directs the Secretary of Agriculture to prepare and transmit to the President a recommended Renewable Resource Program displaying alternative objectives and associated programs to provide for the protection, management, and development of the National Forest System. The Program should include, but not be limited to: (1) an inventory of specific needs and opportunities for both public and private program investments; (2) specific identification of program outputs, results anticipated, and benefits associated with investments in such a manner that the anticipated costs can be directly compared with the total related benefits and direct and indirect returns to the Federal Government; and (3) a discussion of priorities for accomplishment of inventoried program opportunities, with specified costs, outputs, results, and benefits. !Date
!Action
|
|July 31, 1973
|Introduced in Senate
|
|February 21, 1974
|Considered and passed Senate
|
|July 1, 1974
|Considered and passed House, amended (in lieu of H. R. 15283)
|
|August 1, 1974
|House agreed to conference report
|
|August 2, 1974
|Senate agreed to conference report
|
|August 17, 1974
|Signed by President
|}

Senate Bill 3292 was a proposed amendment in the 115th Congress to modify a provision relating to consultation requirements in the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974. The bill was introduced by Senator Steve Daines (R MT) and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works on July 26, 2018. If passed, the amendment would have removed additional consultation requirements with respect to certain new information. The bill proposed to amend Section 6(d)(2) of the Act (16 U. S. C. 1604(d)(2)) by striking “and” at the end of subparagraph (A)(i), by removing the period and inserting "or" at the end of subparagraph (A)(ii), and by adding the following language: “(iii) any new information (within the meaning of subsection (b) of section 402.16 of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation)) relating to a land management plan, if the land management plan has been adopted by the Secretary as of the date on which the new information is revealed.” The bill also proposed to amend the timing requirements within subparagraph (B)(ii).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that an Oregon senate bill that temporarily prohibited instream mining that used any form of motorized equipment within certain limited areas including the beds or banks of the waters of the state containing essential indigenous salmon habitat (which included areas on federal land) was a reasonable environmental regulation that did not mandate particular uses of land or prohibit all mining altogether, and thus was not preempted by federal law. The stated purpose of the bill was to regulate the environmental impacts of motorized instream mining, which posed significant risks to state's natural resources, the bill limited only one form of mining in specific areas, and bill allowed motorized instream mining outside of prohibited areas.

Plaintiffs (Biodiversity Associates, Friends of the Bow, and Leila Bruno) brought suit against the Forest Service, the Regional Forester, and the Forest Supervisor challenging various timber sales on the Medicine Bow National Forest. Plaintiffs alleged that the 1985 Medicine Bow National Forest Management Plan has not been revised within the fifteen year deadline set out by Congress in 16 U. S. C. § 1604, and that Defendants were following a timber sale schedule not contemplated by the Plan. The United States District Court for the District of Wyoming held that annual monitoring reports specifically concluded that no significant changes had occurred, and thus a revision was unnecessary.