36 C.F.R. § 223.1
Authority to sell timber
Trees, portions of trees, and other forest products on National Forest System lands may be sold for the purpose of achieving the policies set forth in the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, as amended (74 Stat. 215; 16 U.S.C. 528-531), and the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended (88 Stat. 476; as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1600-1614), and the Program thereunder.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1984–2012 · leading case: Karuk Tribe v. United States Forest Serv., 681 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2012).
Karuk Tribe v. United States Forest Serv., 681 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2012). “§ 472a(a); 36 C.F.R. § 223.1 (2011), is undoubtedly an agency “authoriz[ation]” that requires ESA consultation.”
Sierra Forest Legacy v. Rey, 577 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2009). “The Forest Service introduces its bias at the stage of making the forest plan, while case law prohibits bias only at the stage of awarding contracts.”
Sierra Forest Legacy v. Rey, 526 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 2008). “The Forest Service introduces its bias at the stage of making the forest plan, while case law prohibits bias only at the stage of awarding contracts.”
Sierra Club v. Peterson, 228 F.3d 559 (5th Cir. 2000). “See 36 C.F.R. 223.1, et seq. The Forest Service can do this "only after analyzing timber management alternatives and the sale's particular environmental consequences," Sierra Club v.”
City of Angoon v. Marsh, 749 F.2d 1413 (9th Cir. 1984). “See 36 C.F.R. § 223.1 (1983) (authorizing the sale of trees and forest products on National Forest System lands) and 16 U.”
Sierra Club v. Glickman, 228 F.3d 559 (5th Cir. 2000). “See 36 C.F.R. 223.1, et seq. The Forest Service can do this “only after analyzing timber management alternatives and the sale’s particular environmental consequences,” Sierra Club v.”
Sierra Forest Legacy v. Rey (9th Cir. 2008). “The Forest Service introduces its bias at the stage of making the forest plan, while case law prohibits bias only at the stage of awarding contracts.”
Sierra Forest v. Ray Et (9th Cir. 2008). “2000); 36 C.F.R. § 223.1 . Each site-specific project and timber sale contract must be consistent with the applicable forest plan.”
Sierra Forest Legacy v. Rey (9th Cir. 2009). “2000); 36 C.F.R. § 223.1 . Each site-specific project and timber sale SIERRA FOREST LEGACY v.”
Pac. Coast Molybdenum Co. v. The United States, 902 F.2d 44 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “Paragraph E merely states that "the Forest Service will cruise the timber," and "[a]n unadvertised lump sum sale for this timber volume is proposed under regulation 36 C.F.R. 223.1(h)." This language says nothing about whether the sale price would include timber property values.”
— 36 C.F.R. § 223.1(h) — 1 case
Pac. Coast Molybdenum Co. v. The United States, 902 F.2d 44 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “Paragraph E merely states that "the Forest Service will cruise the timber," and "[a]n unadvertised lump sum sale for this timber volume is proposed under regulation 36 C.F.R. 223.1(h)." This language says nothing about whether the sale price would include timber property values.”
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.