36 C.F.R. § 51.2
What is the policy underlying concessions contracts?
It is the policy of the Congress and the Secretary that visitor services in park areas may be provided only under carefully controlled safeguards against unregulated and indiscriminate use so that visitation will not unduly impair park values and resources. Development of visitor services in park areas will be limited to locations that are consistent to the highest practicable degree with the preservation and conservation of the resources and values of the park area. It is also the policy of the Congress and the Secretary of the Interior that development of visitor services in park areas must be limited to those as are necessary and appropriate for public use and enjoyment of the park area in which they are located.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1985–2004 · leading case: Yachts Am., Inc. v. United States, 8 Cl. Ct. 278 (Ct. Cl. 1985).
Yachts Am., Inc. v. United States, 8 Cl. Ct. 278 (Ct. Cl. 1985). “See 36 C.F.R. § 51.2 . The procedural requirements for issuance of concession contracts and permits are specified primarily at 36 C.”
City of Sausalito v. O'NEILL, 211 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (N.D. Cal. 2002). “36 C.F.R. § 51.2 . The City claims that the Fort Baker Plan constitutes a “huge commercial enterprise,” which would permanently impair Fort Baker’s resources in violation of this Regulation.”
Seva Resorts, Inc., a Nevada Corp. Seva Dev. Corp., an Arizona Corp. v. Donald P. Hodel, Sec'y of the Interior, 876 F.2d 1394 (9th Cir. 1989). “” 36 C.F.R. § 51.2 (1988). Additionally, the NPS may terminate negotiations and cancel solicitation of a concession contract when “in the best interests of the Government.”
City of Sausalito v. O'Neill, 386 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2004). “” 36 C.F.R. § 51.2 . Sausalito contends that the Park Service has violated this Regulation by not developing the “maximum resource restoration” alternative in the FEIS, and by “ignoring] procedures required under NEPA, ESA, CZMA, MMPA, and MBTA, further eroding the park’s…”
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.