(a) Consistent with applicable legislation and Federal administrative policies, and based upon a determination that such action is necessary for the maintenance of public health and safety, protection of environmental or scenic values, protection of natural or cultural resources, aid to scientific research, implementation of management responsibilities, equitable allocation and use of facilities, or the avoidance of conflict among visitor use activities, the superintendent may:
(1) Establish, for all or a portion of a park area, a reasonable schedule of visiting hours, impose public use limits, or close all or a portion of a park area to all public use or to a specific use or activity.
(2) Designate areas for a specific use or activity, or impose conditions or restrictions on a use or activity.
(3) Terminate a restriction, limit, closure, designation, condition, or visiting hour restriction imposed under paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section.
(b) Except in emergency situations, a closure, designation, use or activity restriction or condition, or the termination or relaxation of such, which is of a nature, magnitude and duration that will result in a significant alteration in the public use pattern of the park area, adversely affect the park's natural, aesthetic, scenic or cultural values, require a long-term or significant modification in the resource management objectives of the unit, or is of a highly controversial nature, shall be published as rulemaking in the Federal Register.
(c) Except in emergency situations, prior to implementing or terminating a restriction, condition, public use limit or closure, the superintendent shall prepare a written determination justifying the action. That determination shall set forth the reason(s) the restriction, condition, public use limit or closure authorized by paragraph (a) has been established, and an explanation of why less restrictive measures will not suffice, or in the case of a termination of a restriction, condition, public use limit or closure previously established under paragraph (a), a determination as to why the restriction is no longer necessary and a finding that the termination will not adversely impact park resources. This determination shall be available to the public upon request.
(d) To implement a public use limit, the superintendent may establish a permit, registration, or reservation system. Permits shall be issued in accordance with the criteria and procedures of § 1.6 of this chapter.
(e) Except in emergency situations, the public will be informed of closures, designations, and use or activity restrictions or conditions, visiting hours, public use limits, public use limit procedures, and the termination or relaxation of such, in accordance with § 1.7 of this chapter.
(f) Violating a closure, designation, use or activity restriction or condition, schedule of visiting hours, or public use limit is prohibited.
[48 FR 30275, June 30, 1983, as amended at 51 FR 29470, Aug. 18, 1986]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
36
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case:
Mashack v. Jewell, 149 F. Supp. 3d 11 (D.D.C. 2016).
Mashack v. Jewell, 149 F. Supp. 3d 11 (D.D.C. 2016).
· cites it 18× “§§ 701-706 ; and its • own regulations: 36 C.F.R. §§ 1.5 and 1.7. - Am. Compl. ¶¶ 6, 81-100.”
Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Sally Jewell, 747 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2013).
· cites it 2× “The Department repeatedly warned the company that it did regulations require rulemaking for certain use terminations, 36 C.F.R. § 1.5 (b), the more specific section of 1976 legislation provided that conversion to wilderness would be automatic “upon publication in the Federal…”
Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. State of Wyoming, 665 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2011).
· cites it 2× “1997); see 36 C.F.R. §§ 1.5 (a), 1.7(b). Therefore, the incorporation of the Strategy’s population stan- dards into the Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Park Superintendent’s Compendia gives these standards—which include mortality limits, see Final Conservation Strategy,…”
Henke v. Dep't of the Interior, 842 F. Supp. 2d 54 (D.D.C. 2012).
· cites it 4× “Finally, in the event NPS decides to close McPherson Square under 36 C.F.R. § 1.5 and seizes tents in connection with such a closure, Plaintiffs argue that NPS lacks constitutionally adequate standards for making the determination to close the park and for notifying interested…”
Voyageurs Nat'l Park Ass'n v. Norton, 381 F.3d 759 (8th Cir. 2004).
· cites it 3× “Rather, we conclude that the opening and closing of the bays is a discretionary Park Service decision that is subject only to the Park Service’s obligation (as well-stated by the district court) to be a “faithful steward of national resources” and its own procedural rules and…”
Spiegel v. Babbit, 855 F. Supp. 402 (D.D.C. 1994).
· cites it 7× “First, he asserts that the National Park Service’s limitation on overnight mooring at Washington Harbour was established in violation of the Park Service’s own regulations, 36 C.F.R. §§ 1.5 (b) and 1.5(c). According to Plaintiff, the Park Service failed both to prepare the…”
Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Sally Jewell, 729 F.3d 967 (9th Cir. 2013).
· cites it 2× “The Department repeatedly warned the company that it did regulations require rulemaking for certain use terminations, 36 C.F.R. § 1.5 (b), the more specific section of 1976 legislation provided that conversion to wilderness would be automatic “upon publication in the Federal…”
United States v. Knauer, 707 F. Supp. 2d 379 (E.D.N.Y 2010).
· cites it 8× “For example, the first several pages of the Compendium consist of regulations implemented in accordance with the Superintendent’s authority under 36 C.F.R. § 1.5 (a) to impose limits on the use of park areas.”
Fabend v. Rosewood Hotels & Resorts, L.L.C., 381 F.3d 152 (3rd Cir. 2004).
· cites it 2× “See 36 C.F.R. § 1.5 . As the District Court observed, appellees do not attempt to control, other methods of accessing the beach at night.”
Ft. Funston Dog Walkers v. Babbitt, 96 F. Supp. 2d 1021 (N.D. Cal. 2000).
· cites it 6× “7 of the Code of Federal Regulations: “[t]his memorandum fulfills the requirement of 36 CFR section 1.5, closures and public use limits for the above referenced actions (A.”
— 36 C.F.R. § 1.5(a) — 1 case
— 36 C.F.R. § 1.5(a)(1) — 1 case
— 36 C.F.R. § 1.5(a)(2) — 1 case
— 36 C.F.R. § 1.5(b) — 3 cases
Ft. Funston Dog Walkers v. Babbitt, 96 F. Supp. 2d 1021 (N.D. Cal. 2000).
“7 of the Code of Federal Regulations: “[t]his memorandum fulfills the requirement of 36 CFR section 1.5, closures and public use limits for the above referenced actions (A.”
— 36 C.F.R. § 1.5(c) — 1 case
Mashack v. Jewell, 149 F. Supp. 3d 11 (D.D.C. 2016).
“§§ 701-706 ; and its • own regulations: 36 C.F.R. §§ 1.5 and 1.7. - Am. Compl. ¶¶ 6, 81-100.”
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.