50 C.F.R. § 29.1

May we allow economic uses on national wildlife refuges?

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

We may only authorize public or private economic use of the natural resources of any national wildlife refuge, in accordance with 16 U.S.C. 715s, where we determine that the use contributes to the achievement of the national wildlife refuge purposes or the National Wildlife Refuge System mission. We may authorize economic use by appropriate permit only when we have determined the use on a national wildlife refuge to be compatible. Persons exercising economic privileges on national wildlife refuges will be subject to the applicable provisions of this subchapter and of other applicable laws and regulations governing national wildlife refuges. Permits for economic use will contain such terms and conditions that we determine to be necessary for the proper administration of the resources. Economic use in this section includes but is not limited to grazing livestock, harvesting hay and stock feed, removing timber, firewood or other natural products of the soil, removing shell, sand or gravel, cultivating areas, or engaging in operations that facilitate approved programs on national wildlife refuges.

[65 FR 62483, Oct. 18, 2000]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1978–2011 · leading case: Delaware Audubon Soc'y v. Salazar, 829 F. Supp. 2d 273 (D. Del. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Delaware Audubon Soc'y v. Salazar, 829 F. Supp. 2d 273 (D. Del. 2011). · cites it 3× “; 50 C.F.R. § 29.1 . Plaintiffs’ fail to cite a single analogous case to support their argument.”

The Wilderness Soc'y & the Alaska Ctr. for the Env't v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv., an Agency of the United States, 316 F.3d 913 (9th Cir. 2003). “18, 2000), codified at 50 C.F.R. § 29.1 (emphasis added). Though this regulation specifically refers to compatibility determinations under another provision of the Refuge Act, as defendant notes, it is not irrelevant to observe the agency’s continued concern for limiting…”

Stevens Cnty. v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 507 F. Supp. 2d 1127 (E.D. Wash. 2007). “50 C.F.R. § 29.1 . However, this regulation went into effect on November 17, 2000, several months after the FWS had com *1132 pleted the FEIS for the LPO.”

Chugach Natives, Inc. v. Doyon, Ltd., 588 F.2d 723 (9th Cir. 1978). “” 50 C.F.R. § 29.1 (1977). . Eklutna correctly notes that the surface within village boundaries cannot be disturbed by Regional Corporations developing their subsurface rights without the approval of the village involved.”

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.