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. § 294.13

Petition process

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

(a) Review and consideration of petitions made pursuant to § 294.12 shall be accomplished as follows:

(1) Review. The Secretary shall review petitions and may request additional information from a petitioner before deciding whether to accept the petition. If the Secretary requests additional information from a petitioner, the petition will be considered complete when the petitioner provides the additional information.

(2) Disposition. The Secretary or the Secretary's designee shall respond to the petition within 180 days of receipt of a completed petition. The response shall accept or decline the petition to initiate a State-specific rulemaking.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2003–2024 · 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). · cites it 5× “at 3273 (to be codified at 36 C.F.R. § 294.13 (b)(1)). 37 The timber-harvesting prohibition and “stewardship” exception were presented and analyzed in the DEIS and FEIS under Alternative 3.”
Los Padres Forestwatch v. Usfs, 25 F.4th 649 (9th Cir. 2022). · cites it 6× “] 36 C.F.R. § 294.13 . LOS PADRES FORESTWATCH V.”
All. for the Wild Rockies v. Krueger, 950 F. Supp. 2d 1196 (D. Mont. 2013). · cites it 5× “3244, 3273 ( 36 C.F.R. § 294.13 (b)(1)(ii)). Here, the Forest Service claims that the timber harvest will restore the natural composition of the timber stands because the areas are currently an unnatural, high fire hazard.”
Wyoming v. United States Dep't of Agric., 277 F. Supp. 2d 1197 (D. Wyo. 2003). · cites it 3× “See 36 C.F.R. § 294.13 . *1211 In all, the Roadless Rule affects 58.”
Wyoming v. United States Dep't of Agric., 570 F. Supp. 2d 1309 (D. Wyo. 2008). · cites it 3× “See 36 C.F.R. § 294.13 . In all, the Roadless Rule affects 58.”
Hogback Basin Pres. Ass'n v. United States Forest Serv., 577 F. Supp. 2d 1139 (W.D. Wash. 2008). · cites it 7× “12 (2001); and (2) a prohibition on timber cutting, sale, or removal in inventoried roadless areas, 36 C.F.R. § 294.13 (2001). The Roadless Rule “does not compel the amendment or revision of any land and resource management plan.”
Sierra Club v. Eubanks, 335 F. Supp. 2d 1070 (E.D. Cal. 2004). “36 C.F.R. § 294.13 (emphasis added). Plaintiffs claim that the Red Star Project violates the Roadless Rule in several respects.”
Siskiyou Reg'l Educ. Proj. v. Goodman, 219 F. App'x 692 (9th Cir. 2007). “36 C.F.R. § 294.13 . The appellants now admit that the rule was repealed in May 2005 and that their claim is moot even though they did not ask the district court to vacate its ruling on this issue.”
All. for the Wild Rockies v. Munoz (D. Mont. 2022). · cites it 6× “f ecosystem composition and structure, such as to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects, within the range of variability that would be expected to occur under natural disturbance regimes of the current climatic period; (2) The cutting, sale, or removal of timber…”
Native Ecosystems Council v. Lannom (D. Mont. 2022). · cites it 2× “See 36 C.F.R. § 294.13 (b)(1)(ii), (2) (2005).”
Los Padres Forestwatch v. Usfs (9th Cir. 2024). “” 36 C.F.R. § 294.13 (b)(1)(ii) (2001). (Because the 2001 version of the Roadless Rule is at issue in this case, see Los Padres ForestWatch v.”
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.