C.F.R. » Title 50 » CHAPTER IV—JOINT REGULATIONS (UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE); ENDANGERED SPECIES COMMITTEE REGULATIONS › SUBCHAPTER A › PART 402—INTERAGENCY COOPERATION—ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973, AS AMENDED › Subpart A—General

50 C.F.R. § 402.05

Emergencies

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

(a) Where emergency circumstances mandate the need to consult in an expedited manner, consultation may be conducted informally through alternative procedures that the Director determines to be consistent with the requirements of sections 7(a)-(d) of the Act. This provision applies to situations involving acts of God, disasters, casualties, national defense or security emergencies, etc.

(b) Formal consultation shall be initiated as soon as practicable after the emergency is under control. The Federal agency shall submit information on the nature of the emergency action(s), the justification for the expedited consultation, and the impacts to endangered or threatened species and their habitats. The Service will evaluate such information and issue a biological opinion including the information and recommendations given during the emergency consultation.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1997–2018 · leading case: Forest Serv. Employees for Env't Ethics v. United States Forest Serv., 726 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (D. Mont. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Forest Serv. Employees for Env't Ethics v. United States Forest Serv., 726 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (D. Mont. 2010). · cites it 5× “Therefore, at minimum, if fire retardant is used in the vicinity of listed species or critical habitat, the [Forest Service] must conduct consultation under the emergency procedures as stated in the regulations at [ 50 C.F.R. § 402.05 ]. Id. D. The Forest Service’s NEPA…”
Forest Serv. Employees for Env't Ethics v. United States Forest Serv., 397 F. Supp. 2d 1241 (D. Mont. 2005). · cites it 5× “Defendant and Defendant-Intervenors claim that the USFS’s use of the emergency consultation procedures described in 50 C.F.R. § 402.05 sufficiently satisfies the USFS obligations under 16 U.”
Washington Toxics Coalition v. United States Dep't of Interior, 457 F. Supp. 2d 1158 (W.D. Wash. 2006). · cites it 3× “Finally, the counterpart regulations expand the permissible use of the truncated “emergency” consultation procedures under 50 C.F.R. § 402.05 to cover all FIFRA section 18 actions, 2 effectively equating FI-FRA emergencies with ESA emergencies.”
Strahan v. Linnon, 967 F. Supp. 581 (D. Mass. 1997). “50 C.F.R. § 402.05 . NMFS has explained this provision as follows: The Service [NMFS] recognizes that it is sometimes necessary to take immediate steps to contain, limit, or alleviate an emergency in order to protect health, safety, and welfare prior to initiating any form of…”
Friends of Merrymeeting Bay v. United States Dep't of Com., 810 F. Supp. 2d 320 (D. Me. 2011). · cites it 12× “us, based on its related assessment that “[a] failure of the Worumbo Dam would result in significant environmental consequences and could also produce serious public safety consequences and property damage,” FERC was writing this letter to NMFS to “request[] formal consultation…”
WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 314 F. Supp. 3d 1178 (D.N.M. 2018). “) In the event of an emergency, Corps says proper procedure is to follow 50 C.F.R. § 402.05 , a Corps regulation covering emergencies.”
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.