U.S. Code » Title 16 » Chapter CHAPTER 2— NATIONAL FORESTS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— SCENIC AREAS

16 U.S.C. § 544m

Enforcement

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 16 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Administrative remedies(1) Commission orders

The Commission shall monitor activities of counties pursuant to sections 544 to 544p of this title and shall take such actions as it determines are necessary to ensure compliance.

(2) Appeal to the Commission

Any person or entity adversely affected by any final action or order of a county relating to the implementation of sections 544 to 544p of this title may appeal such action or order to the Commission by filing with the Commission within thirty days of such action or order, a written petition requesting that such action or order be modified, terminated, or set aside.

(3) Civil penalties

Any person or entity who willfully violates the management plan or any land use ordinance or any implementation measure or any order issued by the Commission pursuant to sections 544 to 544p of this title may be assessed a civil penalty by the Commission not to exceed $10,000 for each violation. No penalty may be assessed under this subsection unless such person or entity is given notice and opportunity for a public hearing with respect to such violation. The Commission may compromise, modify, or remit, with or without conditions, any penalty imposed under this subsection, taking into consideration the nature and seriousness of the violation and the efforts of the violator to remedy the violation in a timely manner.

(b) Judicial remedies(1) Civil actions to enforce sections 544 to 544p of this title(A) Except as otherwise limited by sections 544 to 544p of this title, the Attorney General of the United States may, at the request of the Secretary, institute a civil action for an injunction or other appropriate order to prevent any person or entity from utilizing lands within the special management areas in violation of the provisions of sections 544 to 544p of this title, interim guideline adopted or other action taken by the Secretary pursuant to sections 544 to 544p of this title.(B) The Commission, or, at the request of the Commission, or the attorney general of Oregon or Washington, may institute a civil action for an injunction or other appropriate order to prevent any person or entity from utilizing lands within the scenic area outside urban areas in violation of the provisions of sections 544 to 544p of this title, the management plan, or any land use ordinance or interim guideline adopted or other action taken by the Commission or any county pursuant to sections 544 to 544p of this title.(2) Citizens suitsAny person or entity adversely affected may commence a civil action to compel compliance with sections 544 to 544p of this title—(A) against the Secretary, the Commission or any county where there is alleged a violation of the provisions of sections 544 to 544p of this title, the management plan or any land use ordinance or interim guideline adopted or other action taken by the Secretary, the Commission, or any county pursuant to or Commission 11 So in original. The word “Commission” probably should not appear. under sections 544 to 544p of this title; or(B) against the Secretary, the Commission, or any county where there is alleged a failure of the Secretary, the Commission or any county to perform any act or duty under sections 544 to 544p of this title which is not discretionary with the Secretary, the Commission or any county.(3) Limitation on bringing of citizens suitsNo action may be commenced—(A) under paragraph (2)(A) of this subsection—(i) prior to sixty days after the plaintiff has given notice in writing of the alleged violation to the Secretary, to the Commission, and to the county in which the violation is alleged to have occurred; or(ii) if the Attorney General of the United States, or the attorney general of Oregon or Washington, has commenced and is diligently prosecuting a civil action on the same matter pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection to require compliance with the management plan or any regulations, guidelines, or standards issued or other actions taken by the Secretary, the Commission, or any county pursuant to sections 544 to 544p of this title: Provided, That in any such action any person or entity otherwise entitled to bring an action pursuant to paragraph (2) of this subsection may intervene as a matter of right; or(iii) which challenges the consistency of the draft management plan with the purposes and standards of sections 544 to 544p of this title or with other applicable law prior to the certification or adoption of the Management Plan pursuant to section 544d of this title; or(B) under paragraph (2)(B) of this subsection prior to sixty days after the plaintiff has given notice in writing of such action to the Secretary, the Commission, and to the county in which the failure to perform any act or duty pursuant to sections 544 to 544p of this title is alleged: Provided, That such action may be brought immediately after such notification where the violation or order complained of constitutes an imminent threat to the health or safety of the plaintiff or would immediately affect a legal interest of the plaintiff.(4) Judicial reviewAny person or entity adversely affected by—(A) any final action or order of a county, the Commission, or the Secretary relating to the implementation of sections 544 to 544p of this title;(B) any land use ordinance or interim guideline adopted pursuant to sections 544 to 544p of this title;(C) any appeal to the Commission pursuant to this section;(D) any civil penalty assessed by the Commission pursuant to paragraph (a)(3) of this subsection may appeal such action or order by filing in any of the courts specified in paragraph (5) of this subsection, within sixty days after the date of service of such order or within sixty days after such action is taken, a written petition requesting such action, order, land use ordinance, interim guideline, or appeal taken to the Commission be modified, terminated, or set aside.(5) Federal court jurisdictionThe United States district courts located in the States of Oregon and Washington shall have jurisdiction over—(A) any criminal penalty imposed pursuant to section 551 of this title, or any other applicable law for violation of any order, regulation or other action taken by the Secretary pursuant to sections 544 to 544p of this title;(B) any civil action brought against the Secretary pursuant to this section; or(C) any appeal of any order, regulation, or other action of the Secretary taken pursuant to paragraph (4) of this subsection.(6) State court jurisdictionThe State courts of the States of Oregon and Washington shall have jurisdiction—(A) to review any appeals taken to the Commission pursuant to subsection (a)(2) of this section;(B) over any civil action brought by the Commission pursuant to subsection (b)(1) of this section or against the Commission, a State, or a county pursuant to subsection (b)(2) of this section;(C) over any appeal of any order, regulation, or other action of the Commission or a county taken pursuant to paragraph 4 22 So in original. Probably should be paragraph “(4)”. of this subsection; or(D) any civil penalties assessed by the Commission pursuant to subsection (a)(3) of this section.(Pub. L. 99–663, § 15, Nov. 17, 1986, 100 Stat. 4297.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1991–2023 · leading case: SKAMANIA CTY. v. Columbia River Gorge Com'n
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
SKAMANIA CTY. v. Columbia River Gorge Com'n (2001) wash · cites it 8× “The court specifically adjudged "that the Columbia River Gorge Commission correctly applied 16 U.S.C. § 544m in the Decision." CP at 67.”
Skamania County v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (2001) wash · cites it 8× “The court specifically adjudged “that the Columbia River Gorge Commission correctly applied 16 U.S.C. § 544m in the Decision.” CP at 67.”
Skamania County v. Woodall (2001) washctapp · cites it 5× “16 U.S.C. § 544m(a)(2). If the Secretary did not approve the ordinance, the Commission could either send the ordinance back to the county for revision, or override the Secretary’s veto with a two-thirds vote.”
Skamania County v. Woodall (2001) washctapp · cites it 4× “16 U.S.C. § 544m(a)(2). If the Secretary did not approve the ordinance, the Commission could either send the ordinance back to the county for revision, or override the Secretary's veto with a two-thirds vote.”
Broughton Lumber Company v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (1992) ca9 · cites it 4× “Broughton argues that the federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over its declaratory judgment action pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 544m(b)(4)-(6). Although paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 when read individually are ambiguous, when read collectively they clearly confer mandatory…”
Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (2009) or · cites it 2× “ment of Transportation will develop a plan for restoring the Old Columbia River Highway, 16 USC § 544j, that designated rivers and streams will be subject to restrictions set out in section 7(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 16 USC § 1278 (a), 16 USC § 544k, and that the…”
Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Schafer (2008) ord · cites it 3× “The Scenic Area Act provides for judicial review, 16 U.S.C. § 544m(b), but does not provide a standard of review; therefore, the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) standards apply.”
Samuel's Furniture, Inc. v. Department of Ecology (2002) wash “In determining whether the Gorge Commission had blanket authority to enforce the Act, we evaluated the plain language of the statutes, the general statutory scheme, and the policy in Washington favoring administrative finality of land use decisions.”
Klickitat County v. State (1993) washctapp · cites it 4× “Even if 16 U.S.C. § 544m is a jurisdictional statute rather than a limited waiver of sovereign immunity, the pre *766 sumption that the state courts enjoy concurrent jurisdiction with the federal courts over federal questions is rebutted by explicit statutory directive.”
Broughton Lumber Co. v. Yeutter (1991) cafc · cites it 4× “1 See 16 U.S.C. § 544m(b). Prior to the formation of the Commission and pursuant to statutory mandate, the U.”
W. Birkenfeld Trust v. Bailey (1993) waed · cites it 6× “” The jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to the Gorge Act, 16 U.S.C. § 544m; the Civil Rights Act, 28 U.”
Twin Bridge Marine Park v. State (2008) wash “3d 241 (2001) (construing a federal act, 16 U.S.C. § 544m(a), no collateral attack on a local final land use decision can be made when no timely appeal is filed); Chelan County v.”
Show all 31 citing cases →
— 16 U.S.C. § 544m(2) — 1 case
Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. United States Forest Service (2008) ord
— 16 U.S.C. § 544m(a) — 4 cases
SKAMANIA CTY. v. Columbia River Gorge Com'n (2001) wash “The court specifically adjudged "that the Columbia River Gorge Commission correctly applied 16 U.S.C. § 544m in the Decision." CP at 67.”
Skamania County v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (2001) wash “The court specifically adjudged “that the Columbia River Gorge Commission correctly applied 16 U.S.C. § 544m in the Decision.” CP at 67.”
Twin Bridge Marine Park v. State (2008) wash “3d 241 (2001) (construing a federal act, 16 U.S.C. § 544m(a), no collateral attack on a local final land use decision can be made when no timely appeal is filed); Chelan County v.”
Twin Bridge Marine Park, LLC v. Department of Ecology (2008) wash
— 16 U.S.C. § 544m(a)(1) — 2 cases
SKAMANIA CTY. v. Columbia River Gorge Com'n (2001) wash “The court specifically adjudged "that the Columbia River Gorge Commission correctly applied 16 U.S.C. § 544m in the Decision." CP at 67.”
Skamania County v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (2001) wash “The court specifically adjudged “that the Columbia River Gorge Commission correctly applied 16 U.S.C. § 544m in the Decision.” CP at 67.”
— 16 U.S.C. § 544m(a)(2) — 5 cases
SKAMANIA CTY. v. Columbia River Gorge Com'n (2001) wash “The court specifically adjudged "that the Columbia River Gorge Commission correctly applied 16 U.S.C. § 544m in the Decision." CP at 67.”
Skamania County v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (2001) wash “The court specifically adjudged “that the Columbia River Gorge Commission correctly applied 16 U.S.C. § 544m in the Decision.” CP at 67.”
Skamania County v. Woodall (2001) washctapp “16 U.S.C. § 544m(a)(2). If the Secretary did not approve the ordinance, the Commission could either send the ordinance back to the county for revision, or override the Secretary's veto with a two-thirds vote.”
Skamania County v. Woodall (2001) washctapp “16 U.S.C. § 544m(a)(2). If the Secretary did not approve the ordinance, the Commission could either send the ordinance back to the county for revision, or override the Secretary’s veto with a two-thirds vote.”
Judith Zimmerly, V. Columbia River Gorge Commission (2023) washctapp
— 16 U.S.C. § 544m(a)(l) — 1 case
Samuel's Furniture, Inc. v. Department of Ecology (2002) wash “In determining whether the Gorge Commission had blanket authority to enforce the Act, we evaluated the plain language of the statutes, the general statutory scheme, and the policy in Washington favoring administrative finality of land use decisions.”
— 16 U.S.C. § 544m(b) — 3 cases
Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Schafer (2008) ord “The Scenic Area Act provides for judicial review, 16 U.S.C. § 544m(b), but does not provide a standard of review; therefore, the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) standards apply.”
Broughton Lumber Co. v. Yeutter (1991) cafc “1 See 16 U.S.C. § 544m(b). Prior to the formation of the Commission and pursuant to statutory mandate, the U.”
W. Birkenfeld Trust v. Bailey (1993) waed “” The jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to the Gorge Act, 16 U.S.C. § 544m; the Civil Rights Act, 28 U.”
— 16 U.S.C. § 544m(b)(2) — 8 cases
Broughton Lumber Co. v. Yeutter (1991) cafc “1 See 16 U.S.C. § 544m(b). Prior to the formation of the Commission and pursuant to statutory mandate, the U.”
Delaware Valley Toxics Coalition v. Kurz-Hastings, Inc. (1993) paed
Klickitat County v. State (1993) washctapp “Even if 16 U.S.C. § 544m is a jurisdictional statute rather than a limited waiver of sovereign immunity, the pre *766 sumption that the state courts enjoy concurrent jurisdiction with the federal courts over federal questions is rebutted by explicit statutory directive.”
GLW Ventures LLC v. United States Department of Agriculture (2016) wawd
Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. United States Forest Service (2008) ord
— 16 U.S.C. § 544m(b)(2)(A) — 3 cases
Klickitat County v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (1991) waed
Broughton Lumber Co. v. Yeutter (1991) cafc “1 See 16 U.S.C. § 544m(b). Prior to the formation of the Commission and pursuant to statutory mandate, the U.”
Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Elicker (2009) ord
— 16 U.S.C. § 544m(b)(2)(B) — 1 case
Zimmerly v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (2023) wawd
— 16 U.S.C. § 544m(b)(3)(A) — 1 case
W. Birkenfeld Trust v. Bailey (1993) waed “” The jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to the Gorge Act, 16 U.S.C. § 544m; the Civil Rights Act, 28 U.”
— 16 U.S.C. § 544m(b)(3)(A)(iii) — 2 cases
Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Schafer (2008) ord “The Scenic Area Act provides for judicial review, 16 U.S.C. § 544m(b), but does not provide a standard of review; therefore, the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) standards apply.”
W. Birkenfeld Trust v. Bailey (1993) waed “” The jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to the Gorge Act, 16 U.S.C. § 544m; the Civil Rights Act, 28 U.”
— 16 U.S.C. § 544m(b)(4) — 8 cases
Broughton Lumber Company v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (1992) ca9 “Broughton argues that the federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over its declaratory judgment action pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 544m(b)(4)-(6). Although paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 when read individually are ambiguous, when read collectively they clearly confer mandatory…”
Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (2009) or “ment of Transportation will develop a plan for restoring the Old Columbia River Highway, 16 USC § 544j, that designated rivers and streams will be subject to restrictions set out in section 7(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 16 USC § 1278 (a), 16 USC § 544k, and that the…”
Murray v. State of Oregon (2005) orctapp
Klickitat County v. State (1993) washctapp “Even if 16 U.S.C. § 544m is a jurisdictional statute rather than a limited waiver of sovereign immunity, the pre *766 sumption that the state courts enjoy concurrent jurisdiction with the federal courts over federal questions is rebutted by explicit statutory directive.”
Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (2010) orctapp
— 16 U.S.C. § 544m(b)(4)(A) — 1 case
Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Schafer (2008) ord “The Scenic Area Act provides for judicial review, 16 U.S.C. § 544m(b), but does not provide a standard of review; therefore, the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) standards apply.”
— 16 U.S.C. § 544m(b)(4)(D) — 1 case
Stevenson v. Rominger (1995) waed
— 16 U.S.C. § 544m(b)(5) — 3 cases
Skamania County v. Woodall (2001) washctapp “16 U.S.C. § 544m(a)(2). If the Secretary did not approve the ordinance, the Commission could either send the ordinance back to the county for revision, or override the Secretary’s veto with a two-thirds vote.”
Broughton Lumber Company v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (1992) ca9 “Broughton argues that the federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over its declaratory judgment action pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 544m(b)(4)-(6). Although paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 when read individually are ambiguous, when read collectively they clearly confer mandatory…”
Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Elicker (2009) ord
— 16 U.S.C. § 544m(b)(6) — 6 cases
Skamania County v. Woodall (2001) washctapp “16 U.S.C. § 544m(a)(2). If the Secretary did not approve the ordinance, the Commission could either send the ordinance back to the county for revision, or override the Secretary's veto with a two-thirds vote.”
Skamania County v. Woodall (2001) washctapp “16 U.S.C. § 544m(a)(2). If the Secretary did not approve the ordinance, the Commission could either send the ordinance back to the county for revision, or override the Secretary’s veto with a two-thirds vote.”
Broughton Lumber Company v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (1992) ca9 “Broughton argues that the federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over its declaratory judgment action pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 544m(b)(4)-(6). Although paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 when read individually are ambiguous, when read collectively they clearly confer mandatory…”
Klickitat County v. State (1993) washctapp “Even if 16 U.S.C. § 544m is a jurisdictional statute rather than a limited waiver of sovereign immunity, the pre *766 sumption that the state courts enjoy concurrent jurisdiction with the federal courts over federal questions is rebutted by explicit statutory directive.”
Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Com'n (2005) washctapp
— 16 U.S.C. § 544m(b)(6)(A) — 1 case
Tucker v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (1994) washctapp
— 16 U.S.C. § 544m(b)(6)(B) — 1 case
Zimmerly v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (2023) wawd
— 16 U.S.C. § 544m(b)(6)(C) — 2 cases
Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (2007) orctapp
Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (2008) orctapp
— 16 U.S.C. § 544m(b)(l) — 1 case
Columbia River Gorge Commission v. Hood River County (2007) orctapp
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.