36 C.F.R. § 228.1

Purpose

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

It is the purpose of these regulations to set forth rules and procedures through which use of the surface of National Forest System lands in connection with operations authorized by the United States mining laws (30 U.S.C. 21-54), which confer a statutory right to enter upon the public lands to search for minerals, shall be conducted so as to minimize adverse environmental impacts on National Forest System surface resources. It is not the purpose of these regulations to provide for the management of mineral resources; the responsibility for managing such resources is in the Secretary of the Interior.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1984–2023 · leading case: California Coastal Comm'n v. Granite Rock Co., 480 U.S. 572 (1987).
California Coastal Comm'n v. Granite Rock Co., 480 U.S. 572 (1987). · cites it 12× “In 1980, in accordance with federal regulations, see 36 CFR § 228.1 et seq. (1986), Granite Rock submitted to the Forest Service a 5-year plan of operations for the removal of substantial amounts of limestone.”
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Usfws, 33 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2022). · cites it 11× “” 36 C.F.R. § 228.1 (emphasis added). Part 228A regulations require the owner of a valid mining claim to submit a mining plan of operations (“MPO”) for approval by the Service whenever any mining operation is “likely [to] cause significant disturbance of surface resources.”
Karuk Tribe v. United States Forest Serv., 681 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2012). · cites it 4× “The regulations establish three differ- ent categories of mining, based on whether the proposed activities “will not cause,” “might cause,” or “will likely cause” significant disturbance of surface resources, which include fisheries and wildlife habitat.”
Manning v. United States, 146 F.3d 808 (10th Cir. 1998). · cites it 3× “§ 26 ; see 36 C.F.R. § 228.1 (1997). “This statute was construed to mean that as against parties other than the United States, the locator had exclusive right to use the surface of this land.”
Copar Pumice Co., Inc. v. Tidwell, 603 F.3d 780 (10th Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “” 36 C.F.R. § 228.1 . Mining operators must submit a plan of operations for approval, which must include a description of mining operations, “the period during which the proposed activity will take place,” and the environmental protection measures the mining operator will…”
Okanogan Highlands All. v. Williams, 236 F.3d 468 (9th Cir. 2000). · cites it 5× “§§ 478 and 551, and 36 C.F.R. § 228.1 . Plaintiffs contend that the Organic Act and 36 C.”
Freeman v. United States, 875 F.3d 623 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “” 36 C.F.R. § 228.1 . Appellants fail to identify why the creation of a pilot-prototype plant, which the Forest Service has identified as a standard industry practice for metallurgically complex deposits, J.”
Granite Rock Co. v. California Coastal Comm'n, 590 F. Supp. 1361 (N.D. Cal. 1984). · cites it 3× “(“Mining Act”), federal regulations issued by the National Forest Service, 36 C.F.R. §§ 228.1 et seq. (1983), and a state statute, the California Coastal Act, Cal.”
Francis Skaw v. United States, 740 F.2d 932 (Fed. Cir. 1984). “” 36 C.F.R. § 228.1 . A mine operator contemplating operations which would cause significant disturbance of surface resources is required by the regulations to submit a proposed plan of operations and to post a bond to ensure compliance with reclamation requirements.”
United States v. Godfrey, 112 F. Supp. 3d 1097 (E.D. Cal. 2015). · cites it 2× “regulatory framework of 36 C.F.R. § 228.1 et seq., as well as broader constitutional principles of due process.”
United States v. Ernest L. Brunskill & Evelyn B. Brunskill, 792 F.2d 938 (9th Cir. 1986). “” 36 C.F.R. § 228.1 . Section 228.4(a) provides that “a notice of intention to operate is required from any person proposing to conduct operations which might cause disturbance of surface resources.”
Save Our Cabinets v. United States Dep't of Agric., 254 F. Supp. 3d 1241 (D. Mont. 2017). “2000) (noting that 36 C.F.R. § 228.1 “sets no substantive standards that [the agency] could violate”).”
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.