36 C.F.R. § 218.1

Purpose and scope

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

This subpart establishes a predecisional administrative review (hereinafter referred to as “objection”) process for proposed actions of the Forest Service concerning projects and activities implementing land and resource management plans documented with a Record of Decision or Decision Notice, including proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects as defined in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA). The objection process is the sole means by which administrative review of qualifying projects.

(a) This subpart A provides the general provisions of the objection process, including who may file objections to proposed projects and activities, the responsibilities of the participants in an objection, and the procedures that apply for review of the objection.

(b) Subpart B of this part includes provisions that are specific to proposed projects and activities implementing land and resource management plans documented with a Record of Decision or Decision Notice, except those authorized under the HFRA.

(c) Subpart C of this part includes provisions that are specific to proposed hazardous fuel reduction projects authorized under the HFRA.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2011–2022 · leading case: Decker v. United States Forest Serv., 780 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (D. Colo. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Decker v. United States Forest Serv., 780 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (D. Colo. 2011). · cites it 2× “See 36 C.F.R. § 218.1 . Individuals and organizations can submit written comments to the proposed hazardous fuel reduction project during a public comment period while the Forest Service prepares an Environmental Assessment (“EA”) or Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) for…”

Fseee v. Usfs (9th Cir. 2020). “Although LaFord had authority with respect to pre- decisional administrative review, 36 C.F.R. § 218.1 , Millett was the “responsible official,” 36 C.”

Earth Island Inst. v. U.S. Forest Serv. (E.D. Cal. 2022). “at § 218.2. Those who 9 submitted written comments on a proposed project can file an objection.”

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.