The principle of conserving the natural beauty of shore lines for recreational use shall apply to all Federal lands which border upon any boundary lake or stream contiguous to this area, or any other lake or stream within this area which is now or eventually to be in general use for boat or canoe travel, and that for the purpose of carrying out this principle logging of all such shores to a depth of four hundred feet from the natural water line is forbidden except as the Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture may see fit in particular instances to vary the distance for practical reasons: Provided, That in no case shall logging of any timber other than diseased, insect infested, dying, or dead be permitted closer to the natural shore line than two hundred feet, except where necessary to open areas for banking grounds, landings, and other uses connected with logging operations.
Notes of Decisions
Minnesota Pub. Interest Rsch. Grp. v. Butz, 358 F. Supp. 584 (D. Minnesota 1973).
“16 U.S.C. § 577a. In 1939 much of the Superior Primitive Area, plus additional areas acquired by expansion of the Forest in 1936, were classified as the Superior, Caribou, and Little Indian Sioux Roadless Areas, pursuant to regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture.”
Izaak Walton League of Am. v. St. Clair, 353 F. Supp. 698 (D. Minnesota 1973).
· cites it 2× “Further, an inconsistency would appear to arise in that both the 1964 Wilderness Act and the BWCA Regulations speak in terms of “existing” and “reserved” rights and yet the Wilderness Act specifically reaffirmed the Ship-stead Nolan Act, 16 U.S.C. § 577a which contains no such…”
Minnesota Pub. Interest Rsch. Grp. v. Butz, 401 F. Supp. 1276 (D. Minnesota 1975).
· cites it 2× “Commercial logging will not be allowed in the Interi- or Zone but will be permitted in the Portal Zone subject to the restrictions of the Shipstead-Newton-Nolan Act, 16 U. S.C. § 577a. Timber within 400 feet of the shorelines of lakes and streams suitable for boat or canoe…”
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.