Francis Metal Door & Window Corp. v. Commissioner

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an agency cannot try to “minimize” the environmental impact of an activity by simply adopting a scale of analysis so broad that it marginalizes the site-level impact of the activity on ecosystem health
• holding “no jeopardy” findings in biological opinions flawed because agency failed to analyze short-term impacts on listed species despite acknowledging that short-term effects had potential to jeopardize listed fish populations
• evaluating whether a proposed project was “consistent” with the ACS objectives
• also noting that the FE-MAT report “emphasized the importance of curtailing incremental aquatic habitat degradation because the effects of numerous actions can cause significant damage to fish species and their habitat.”
• “[T]he issuance of a biological opinion marks the ‘consummation’ of NMFS’s consultation process.”
• biological opinions and accompanying incidental take statements are “final agency actions”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).