36 CFR 219.19 - Definitions
| Cite as | 36 CFR 219.19 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
162 practice notes
-
National Forest System Land Management Planning
...Forest Service ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 36 CFR Part 219 National Forest System Land Management Planning; Final Rule Page 21162 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service 36 C......
-
Heartwood, Inc. v. Agpaoa, Civil Action No. 07-114-KSF.
...Service is required to "maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area." 36 C.F.R. § 219.19 (2000). According to the Forest Service, "[t]here are a number of species that depend on ecological communities that can be maintained o......
-
Habitat Educ. Center, Inc. v. Bosworth, No. 03C1024.
...shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area," 36 C.F.R. § 219.19 (1999), and that to satisfy this requirement, the agency had to select and monitor certain species known as management indicator species ("M......
-
Curry v. U.S. Forest Service, No. Civ.A. 97-1081.
...impact of land management on migratory bird populations is considered in Page 549 the context of ensuring viability of native species. 36 C.F.R. § 219.19. The viability regulation requires that, in the context of multiple use planning, habitat be provided within the forest to support a mini......
Request a trial to view additional results
130 cases
-
Oregon Natural Resources Council Fund v. Forsgren, No. CV 02-368-BR.
...3). Plaintiffs contend Defendants failed to assure diverse and viable populations of lynx across the Forest in violation of NFMA and 36 C.F.R. § 219.19(a)(7), the regulation in effect before November 20003 that requires the FS to identify habitat determined to be critical for threatened spe......
-
Citizens for Environmental Quality v. US, Civ. A. No. 87-F-1714.
...resources, grazing resources, recreation resources, mineral resources, water and soil resources, and cultural and historic resources. 36 C.F.R. §§ 219.19-219.24. These regulations comply with the mandate of § 1604(g)(2)(C). The record reveals that these resources were considered in the FEIS......
-
Sierra Club v. US Forest Service, Civ. A. No. 92-5101.
...monitor Management Indicator Species (MIS) as required by regulation and by the Forest Plan for the Black Hills National Forest. See 36 C.F.R. § 219.19(a)(6); Tr. Vol. IX, IV-3, IV-4. Again, however, plaintiffs' argument fails upon examination of the administrative The Forest Plan for the B......
-
Heartwood, Inc. v. Agpaoa, Civil Action No. 07-114-KSF.
...Service is required to "maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area." 36 C.F.R. § 219.19 (2000). According to the Forest Service, "[t]here are a number of species that depend on ecological communities that can be maintained o......
Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
-
The Final Auer: How Weakening the Deference Doctrine May Impact Environmental Law
...U.S.C. §§1600-1687, ELR Stat. NFMA §§2-16. 148. Jiron , 762 F.3d at 1049 ( citing 16 U.S.C. §1604(a) & (i)). 149. Id . at 1049 ( citing 36 C.F.R. §219.19 (1982)). 150. Id . at 1050 ( citing 36 C.F.R. §219.14(f) (2005)). Copyright © 2015 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinte......
-
Advising Noah: A Legal Analysis of Assisted Migration
...The Evolution of National Wildlife Law 372 (3d ed. 1997). 80. 16 U.S.C. §1604(g)(3)(B) (2007). 81. 36 C.F.R. §219.26 (2000). 82. 36 C.F.R. §219.19 (2000). 83. See, e.g ., Seattle Audubon Soc’y v. Espy, 998 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1993); Seattle Audubon Soc’y v. Evans, 952 F.2d 297 (9th Cir. 1991......
-
The Politics of Accountability in National Forest Planning
...with appeals, the proposed planning regulation replaces the traditional appeals process with a “predecisional objection process” (36 CFR part 219.19). differences cannot be resolved in the early stages of planning, individuals can file an objection. Objections must contain “a concise statem......