C.F.R. » Title 50 » CHAPTER I—UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR › SUBCHAPTER F—FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE—WILDLIFE AND SPORT FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM › PART 80—ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, PITTMAN-ROBERTSON WILDLIFE RESTORATION AND DINGELL-JOHNSON SPORT FISH RESTORATION ACTS › Subpart J—Real Property

50 C.F.R. § 80.135

What if a State fish and wildlife agency allows a use of real property that interferes with its authorized purpose?

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

(a) When a State fish and wildlife agency allows a use of real property that interferes with the authorized purpose of the real property under an award, the agency must fully restore the real property to its authorized purpose.

(b) If the agency cannot fully restore the real property to its authorized purpose, then the agency must replace the real property using non-Federal funds.

(c) The agency must determine that the replacement property:

(1) Is of at least equal value at current market prices; and

(2) Has fish-, wildlife-, and public-use benefits consistent with the purposes of the original award.

(d) The Regional Director may require the agency to obtain an appraisal and appraisal review to estimate the value of the replacement property at current market prices if the agency cannot support its assessment of value.

(e) The agency must obtain the Regional Director's approval of:

(1) The agency's determination of the value and benefits of the replacement property; and

(2) The documentation supporting this determination.

(f) The agency may have up to 3 years from the date of notification by the Regional Director to restore the real property to its authorized purpose or acquire replacement property. If the agency does not restore the real property to its authorized purpose or acquire replacement property within 3 years, the Director may declare the agency ineligible to receive new awards in the program or programs that funded the original acquisition.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2012–2018 · leading case: Scarborough Citizens Protecting Resources v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 674 F.3d 97 (1st Cir. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Scarborough Citizens Protecting Resources v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 674 F.3d 97 (1st Cir. 2012). “” 50 C.F.R. § 80.135 (f) (2011) (emphasis added).”
New Jersey Outdoor All. Vs. New Jersey Dep't of Env't Prot. (Dep't of Env't Prot.) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2018). “50 C.F.R. § 80.135 (f) (2018). The fact that Congress omitted any private cause of action from the P-R Act – but created a discretionary remedy for the federal government to withhold monies for states in diversion – strongly militates against any inference that Congress intended…”
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.