18 C.F.R. § 2.7

Recreational development at licensed projects

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

The Commission will evaluate the recreational resources of all projects under Federal license or applications therefor and seek, within its authority, the ultimate development of these resources, consistent with the needs of the area to the extent that such development is not inconsistent with the primary purpose of the project. Reasonable expenditures by a licensee for public recreational development pursuant to an approved plan, including the purchase of land, will be included as part of the project cost. The Commission will not object to licensees and operators of recreational facilities within the boundaries of a project charging reasonable fees to users of such facilities in order to help defray the cost of constructing, operating, and maintaining such facilities. The Commission expects the licensee to assume the following responsibilities:

(a) To acquire in fee and include within the project boundary enough land to assure optimum development of the recreational resources afforded by the project. To the extent consistent with the other objectives of the license, such lands to be acquired in fee for recreational purposes shall include the lands adjacent to the exterior margin of any project reservoir plus all other project lands specified in any approved recreational use plan for the project.

(b) To develop suitable public recreational facilities upon project lands and waters and to make provisions for adequate public access to such project facilities and waters and to include therein consideration of the needs of persons with disabilities in the design and construction of such project facilities and access.

(c) To encourage and cooperate with appropriate local, State, and Federal agencies and other interested entities in the determination of public recreation needs and to cooperate in the preparation of plans to meet these needs, including those for sport fishing and hunting.

(d) To encourage governmental agencies and private interests, such as operators of user-fee facilities, to assist in carrying out plans for recreation, including operation and adequate maintenance of recreational areas and facilities.

(e) To cooperate with local, State, and Federal Government agencies in planning, providing, operating, and maintaining facilities for recreational use of public lands administered by those agencies adjacent to the project area.

(f)(1) To comply with Federal, State and local regulations for health, sanitation, and public safety, and to cooperate with law enforcement authorities in the development of additional necessary regulations for such purposes.

(2) To provide either by itself or through arrangement with others for facilities to process adequately sewage, litter, and other wastes from recreation facilities including wastes from watercraft, at recreation facilities maintained and operated by the licensee or its concessionaires.

(g) To ensure public access and recreational use of project lands and waters without regard to race, color, sex, religious creed or national origin.

(h) To inform the public of the opportunities for recreation at licensed projects, as well as of rules governing the accessibility and use of recreational facilities.

[Order 313, 30 FR 16198, Dec. 29, 1965, as amended by Order 375-B, 35 FR 6315, Apr. 18, 1970; Order 508, 39 FR 16338, May 8, 1974; Order 2002, 68 FR 51115, Aug. 25, 2003]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1966–2017 · leading case: Hackett v. J.L.G. Props., LLC, 940 A.2d 769 (Conn. 2008).
Hackett v. J.L.G. Props., LLC, 940 A.2d 769 (Conn. 2008). · cites it 14× “7 provides in relevant part: "The [c]ommission will evaluate the recreational resources of all projects under [f]ederal license or applications therefor and seek, within its authority, the ultimate development of these resources, consistent with the needs of the area to the…”
Senior Citizens Coalition of Ne. Minnesota v. Minnesota Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 355 N.W.2d 295 (Minn. 1984). · cites it 5× “” 18 C.F.R. § 2.7 (b) (1983). 4 Mean *299 while, the FERC has held that a licensee has ultimate responsibility for recreational development and that it retained sole authority to determine, upon a licensee’s petition, “whether a particular level of [recreational] demand attained…”
Town of Springfield v. Vermont Env't Bd., 521 F. Supp. 243 (D. Vt. 1981). “See 18 C.F.R. § 2.7 (1980) (enumerating the responsibilities of the applicant and the Commission in the development of recreational resources at federal projects); § 4.”
Kantner v. Combustion Eng'g, 701 F. Supp. 943 (D.N.H. 1988). “” 18 C.F.R. § 2.7 . This implies that FERC does not contemplate unlimited recreational access.”
Coalition for Fair & Equitable Reg. of Docks on Lake of the Ozarks v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 297 F.3d 771 (8th Cir. 2002). · cites it 3× “18 C.F.R. § 2.7 (2001). Specifically, the regulation states: “The Commission will not object to licensees and operators of recreational facilities within the boundaries of a project charging reasonable fees to users of such facilities in order to help defray the cost of…”
Kokajko v. United States Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 873 F.2d 419 (1st Cir. 1989). · cites it 3× “” 18 C.F.R. § 2.7 (1988). One of the popular “recreational purposes” to which the project and the Kenne-bec River is put is whitewater rafting.”
Chapman v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 367 F.2d 163 (9th Cir. 1966). “16198, 18 C.F.R. § 2.7 , which provides that the Commission will evaluate the recreational resources of all projects under federal license and will seek the ultimate development of these resources consistent with the needs of the area, and not inconsistent with the primary…”
City of Rockingham v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 702 F. App'x 106 (4th Cir. 2017). “” 18 C.F.R. § 2.7 . They argue that, under this regulation, FERC was required to provide the “best or most extreme” recreation development.”
Wisconsin Pub. Serv. Corp. v. Oconto Cnty., 347 N.W.2d 908 (Wis. Ct. App. 1984). “” The Federal Power Commission conditioned its license on WPSC’s agreement to provide the 640 acres.”
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.