The Secretary of the Interior shall provide, by suitable rules and regulations, for cooperation with local associations of stockmen, State land officials, and official State agencies engaged in conservation or propagation of wildlife interested in the use of the grazing districts. The Secretary of the Interior shall provide by appropriate rules and regulations for local hearings on appeals from the decisions of the administrative officer in charge in a manner similar to the procedure in the land department. The Secretary of the Interior shall also be empowered to accept contributions toward the administration, protection, and improvement of lands within or without the exterior boundaries of a grazing district, moneys, so received to be covered into the Treasury as a special fund, which is appropriated and made available until expended, as the Secretary of the Interior may direct, for payment of expenses incident to said administration, protection, and improvement, and for refunds to depositors of amounts contributed by them in excess of their share of the cost.
Notes of Decisions
Smithsfork Grazing Ass'n v. Salazar, 564 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 2× “” 43 U.S.C. § 315h (emphasis added). 7 The TGA does not direct the Secretary to provide a hearing each time the BLM issues a decision *1215 modifying the terms and conditions of a grazing permit.”
McCarrey v. Comm'r of Nat. Resources, 526 P.2d 1353 (Alaska 1974).
“43 U.S.C.A. § 315h. Without this explicit reference the adjudicatory provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act would not be applicable to federal grazing permits.”
Pub. Lands Council v. Babbitt, 154 F.3d 1160 (10th Cir. 1998).
“” The new regulations similarly provide that “[a]ny person whose interest is adversely affected by a final decision of the authorized officer may appeal the decision for the purpose of a hearing before an administrative law judge.”
Pub. Lands Council v. Babbitt, 167 F.3d 1287 (10th Cir. 1999).
“” The new regulations similarly provide that “[a]ny person whose interest is adversely affected by a final decision of the authorized officer may appeal the decision for the purpose of a hearing before an administrative law judge.”
United States v. Korman, 427 P.3d 72 (Mont. 2018).
· cites it 2× “43 U.S.C. § 315h. In the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, also enacted in 1934, Congress mandated, with respect to "any waters .”
Fallini v. Hodel, 963 F.2d 275 (9th Cir. 1992).
“On the contrary, Congress anticipated future regulations to encourage propagation of wildlife (43 U.S.C. § 315h). Congress also provided that nothing in that Act should be construed to impair any right thereafter initiated ( 43 U.”
USA BLM v. Korman, 2016 MT 351N (Mont. 2016).
“The Water Court did not determine that the BLM was precluded from appropriating water in its own right by following Montana law, and the Powder River proceedings do not preclude the BLM claims in this case.”
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.