C.F.R. » Title 36 » CHAPTER II—FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE › PART 294—SPECIAL AREAS › Subpart B—State Petitions for Inventoried Roadless Area Management

36 C.F.R. § 294.10

Purpose

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

The purpose of these administrative procedures is to set forth a process for State-specific rulemaking to address the management of inventoried roadless areas in areas where the Secretary determines that regulatory direction is appropriate based on a petition from the affected Governor.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2003–2021 · leading case: Wyoming v. United States Dep't of Agric., 661 F.3d 1209 (10th Cir. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wyoming v. United States Dep't of Agric., 661 F.3d 1209 (10th Cir. 2011). “at 3272-73 (to be codified at 36 C.F.R. §§ 294.10 -,14). 8 The final Roadless Rule was applicable to the 58.”
Utah Env't Cong. v. Bosworth Ex Rel. Forest Serv., 372 F.3d 1219 (10th Cir. 2004). “See 36 C.F.R. § 294.10 (stating purpose of rules “is to provide, within the context of multiple-use management, lasting protection for inventoried roadless areas within the National Forest System”).”
Sierra Club v. Eubanks, 335 F. Supp. 2d 1070 (E.D. Cal. 2004). · cites it 2× “, and the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, 36 C.F.R. § 294.10 et seq. (“Roadless Rule”).”
Wyoming v. United States Dep't of Agric., 277 F. Supp. 2d 1197 (D. Wyo. 2003). “asons, the Court FINDS that: (1) Wyoming’s challenges to the 2000 Planning Regulations, the Road Management Rule, and the Transportation Policy are not ripe for judicial review; (2) Wyoming has waived its claims under the National Historic Preservation Act, the Wyoming…”
Wyoming v. United States Dep't of Agric., 570 F. Supp. 2d 1309 (D. Wyo. 2008). “Therefore, the Court ORDERS that the Roadless Rule, 36 C.F.R. §§ 294.10 to 294.14, be permanently enjoined, for the second time.”
Organized Vill. of Kake v. United States Dep't of Agric., 776 F. Supp. 2d 960 (D. Alaska 2011). “em> For the reasons set out above, plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment at docket 42 is GRANTED insofar as it seeks to vacate the Tongass Exemption and reinstate the Roadless Rule’s application to the Tongass, and is DENIED without prejudice insofar as it seeks an order…”
Hogback Basin Pres. Ass'n v. United States Forest Serv., 577 F. Supp. 2d 1139 (W.D. Wash. 2008). · cites it 4× “On summary judgment, Plaintiffs assert only eight of the thirteen claims: 1 (1) violation of the Roadless Rule, 36 C.F.R. § 294.10 et seq. (2001), (CompLCDkt# 1) ¶¶ 32-38); (2) NEPA, failure to adequately consider the cumulative impacts of reasonably foreseeable actions…”
United States v. Union Pac. R.R., 565 F. Supp. 2d 1136 (E.D. Cal. 2008). “See 36 C.F.R. § 294.10 et seq. While the Roadless Rule may preclude logging within some of the QLG offbase lands beyond the expiration of the Quincy Library Group Act, such prohibition does not prevent plaintiff from seeking timber damages for the same reasons plaintiff may…”
WildEarth Guardians v. United States Forest Serv. (D. Utah 2021). “2 above, NEPA requires an agency to “‘rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives’ for the proposed action in response to a ‘specif[ied] underlying purpose and need.’”99 But “[t]he range of reasonable alternatives ‘is not infinite.”
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.