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 424—LISTING ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES AND DESIGNATING CRITICAL HABITAT › Subpart B—Revision of the Lists

50 C.F.R. § 424.19

Impact analysis and exclusions from critical habitat

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

(a) At the time of publication of a proposed rule to designate critical habitat, the Secretary will make available for public comment the draft economic analysis of the designation. The draft economic analysis will be summarized in the Federal Register notice of the proposed designation of critical habitat.

(b) Prior to finalizing the designation of critical habitat, the Secretary will consider the probable economic, national security, and other relevant impacts of the designation upon proposed or ongoing activities. The Secretary will consider impacts at a scale that the Secretary determines to be appropriate, and will compare the impacts with and without the designation. Impacts may be qualitatively or quantitatively described.

(c) The Secretary has discretion to exclude any particular area from the critical habitat upon a determination that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying the particular area as part of the critical habitat. In identifying those benefits, in addition to the mandatory consideration of impacts conducted pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, the Secretary may assign the weight given to any benefits relevant to the designation of critical habitat. The Secretary, however, will not exclude any particular area if, based on the best scientific and commercial data available, the Secretary determines that the failure to designate that area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species concerned.

[78 FR 53076, Aug. 28, 2013]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1998–2022 · leading case: Alaska Oil & Gas Ass'n v. Sally Jewell, 815 F.3d 544 (9th Cir. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Alaska Oil & Gas Ass'n v. Sally Jewell, 815 F.3d 544 (9th Cir. 2016). “§ 1533 (b)(2); 50 C.F.R. § 424.19 (b). With this information, FWS determines whether the benefits of excluding particular areas from the designation outweigh the benefits of including those areas in the designation.”
Bear Valley Mut. Water Co. v. Kenneth Salazar, 790 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2015). “” 50 C.F.R. § 424.19 (2010), revised by 78 Fed.”
Cape Hatteras Access Pres. All. v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 731 F. Supp. 2d 15 (D.D.C. 2010). “§ 1533 (b)(2); 50 C.F.R. § 424.19 ; see also CHAPA I, 344 F.”
N. New Mexico Stockman's v. United States Fish, 30 F.4th 1210 (10th Cir. 2022). · cites it 2× “As the preamble to the rule states, [W]e revise 50 CFR 424.19 to clarify the instructions for .”
Alaska Oil & Gas Ass'n v. Salazar, 916 F. Supp. 2d 974 (D. Alaska 2013). · cites it 2× “50 CFR § 424.19 (2005) (emphasis added). .”
Butte Env't Council v. White, 145 F. Supp. 2d 1180 (E.D. Cal. 2001). “See 50 C.F.R. § 424.19 . Other courts have imposed deadlines similar to the one proposed by plaintiff.”
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Norton, 163 F. Supp. 2d 1297 (D.N.M. 2001). “50 C.F.R. § 424.19 (2001); see also Doc. 17, att.”
New Mexico Cattle Growers Ass'n v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv., 81 F. Supp. 2d 1141 (D.N.M. 1999). · cites it 2× “§ 1533 (b)(2); 50 C.F.R. § 424.19 . In other words, after this two part analysis, the FWS is authorized, but not required, to exclude areas based upon its finding.”
Conservation Council for Hawai'i v. Babbitt, 24 F. Supp. 2d 1074 (D. Haw. 1998). “" 50 C.F.R. § 424.19 (emphasis added). Similar to seeking public comment before publishing a proposed rule, the ESA does not prohibit economic analysis prior to publication of a proposed rule, but this should not be used as a justification for contravening the deadlines…”
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Norton, 212 F. Supp. 2d 1217 (S.D. Cal. 2002). “See 50 C.F.R. § 424.19 . CBD also cites Conservation Council of Hawai'i in which the court concluded that a non-statutorily mandated economic analysis “should not be used as a justification for contravening the deadlines specified by the statute.”
Cape Hatteras Access Pres. All. v. United States Dep't of the Interior (D.D.C. 2010). “§ 1533 (b)(2); 50 C.F.R. § 424.19 ; see also CHAPA I, 344 F.”
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.