(a) Forest Officers shall periodically inspect operations to determine if the operator is complying with the regulations in this part and an approved plan of operations.
(b) If an operator fails to comply with the regulations or his approved plan of operations and the noncompliance is unnecessarily or unreasonably causing injury, loss or damage to surface resources the authorized officer shall serve a notice of noncompliance upon the operator or his agent in person or by certified mail. Such notice shall describe the noncompliance and shall specify the action to comply and the time within which such action is to be completed, generally not to exceed thirty (30) days: Provided, however, That days during which the area of operations is inaccessible shall not be included when computing the number of days allowed for compliance.
Notes of Decisions
Karuk Tribe v. United States Forest Serv., 681 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 2× “36 C.F.R. § 228.7 . During the 2004 mining season, the Forest Service monitored miners’ compliance with the protective criteria set forth in the approved NOIs, something the agency would not do if the approval merely constituted unenforceable, nonbinding advice.”
Copar Pumice Co., Inc. v. Tidwell, 603 F.3d 780 (10th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 2× “See 36 C.F.R. § 228.7 (a) (emphasis added). In addition, the FS explained to Copar in the agency’s May 21, 2003 letter that “a [p]lan of [operations does not exempt the operator from compliance with the other mineral regulations.”
United States v. Godfrey, 112 F. Supp. 3d 1097 (E.D. Cal. 2015).
· cites it 3× “” 36 C.F.R. § 228.7 (a) (emphasis added). The regulations go on to provide that, “[i]f an -operator fails to comply with the regulations or his approved plan of operations .”
Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. United States Forest Serv., 52 F. Supp. 3d 1089 (E.D. Cal. 2014).
· cites it 2× “As Plaintiffs argue, the operating season will run from July 10 to October 15, unless surveys show no northern spotted owls in the area, in which case the Proponent can begin operations on May 15.”
United States v. John Godfrey, 659 F. App'x 928 (9th Cir. 2016).
· cites it 2× “Part 261 because he never received formal written notice of noncompliance pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 228.7 (b). But Defendant failed to comply with Part 228’s *930 prerequisites for exercising a right to conduct mining operations by refusing to submit a notice of intent or proposed…”
United States v. Pepper, 697 F. Supp. 2d 1171 (E.D. Cal. 2009).
· cites it 2× “36 CFR § 228.7 Inspection, noncompliance.”
United States v. Dean Mostad (9th Cir. 2019).
“Mostad argues that his conviction should be vacated because the government failed to issue a notice of noncompliance as required by 36 C.F.R. § 228.7 before initiating criminal proceedings, and that its failure to do so violated his due process right to fair notice.”
State of New Mexico v. Dwyer (10th Cir. 1997).
“at 3); see also 36 C.F.R. § 228.7 (a) (1995) (expressly authorizing the Forest Service to inspect mining claims); 36 C.”
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.