36 CFR 219.17 - Effective dates and transition
| Cite as | 36 CFR 219.17 |
-
- 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
49 practice notes
-
Cent. Sierra Envtl. Res. Ctr. v. Stanislaus Nat'l Forest, 1:17-cv-00441-LJO-SAB
...revised under a prior planning regulation would be unaffected, stating that "[e]xisting plans will remain in effect until revised." 36 C.F.R. § 219.17(c). It further provides that "[n]one of the requirements of this part apply to projects or activities on units with plans developed or revis......
-
Citizens for Environmental Quality v. US, Civ. A. No. 87-F-1714.
...quality (36 C.F.R. §§ 219.14 and 219.16); 5. Nonwilderness multiple-use allocations for those roadless areas that were reviewed under 36 C.F.R. § 219.17 and not recommended for wilderness 731 F. Supp. 978 6. Monitoring and evaluation requirements (36 C.F.R. § 219.11(d)). Of primary concern ......
-
Idaho Conservation League v. Mumma, No. 90-35796
...which does not necessitate road construction and 59% for development. E.R. 1, Exh. A. These recommendations were made pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 219.17(a), which provides that "roadless areas within the National Forest System shall be evaluated and considered for recommendation as potential wi......
-
Sierra Club v. Bosworth, No. CIV. 03-3572(MJD/JSM).
...revisions of a forest plan, an agency must examine "areas contiguous to existing wilderness" for potential wilderness designation. 36 C.F.R. § 219.17(a)(1)(ii). 2. Population Data for Management & Validity Indicator Species Under The Forest Service is required to monitor the population tren......
Request a trial to view additional results
15 cases
-
Cent. Sierra Envtl. Res. Ctr. v. Stanislaus Nat'l Forest, 1:17-cv-00441-LJO-SAB
...revised under a prior planning regulation would be unaffected, stating that "[e]xisting plans will remain in effect until revised." 36 C.F.R. § 219.17(c). It further provides that "[n]one of the requirements of this part apply to projects or activities on units with plans developed or revis......
-
Citizens for Environmental Quality v. US, Civ. A. No. 87-F-1714.
...quality (36 C.F.R. §§ 219.14 and 219.16); 5. Nonwilderness multiple-use allocations for those roadless areas that were reviewed under 36 C.F.R. § 219.17 and not recommended for wilderness 731 F. Supp. 978 6. Monitoring and evaluation requirements (36 C.F.R. § 219.11(d)). Of primary concern ......
-
Sierra Club v. Bosworth, No. CIV. 03-3572(MJD/JSM).
...revisions of a forest plan, an agency must examine "areas contiguous to existing wilderness" for potential wilderness designation. 36 C.F.R. § 219.17(a)(1)(ii). 2. Population Data for Management & Validity Indicator Species Under The Forest Service is required to monitor the population tren......
-
Idaho Conservation League v. Mumma, No. 90-35796
...which does not necessitate road construction and 59% for development. E.R. 1, Exh. A. These recommendations were made pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 219.17(a), which provides that "roadless areas within the National Forest System shall be evaluated and considered for recommendation as potential wi......
Request a trial to view additional results