People v. Channer

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that FWS improperly evaluated cumulative effects where administrative record indicated that action area was likely to be impacted by numerous non-Federal future activities, but none of those impacts was expressly addressed in the BiOp
• observing that the BiOp “notes the genetic importance” of two populations of the listed species in the action area and “extensively describes the ecological conditions in these areas”
• requiring FWS “to address not only the flaws [the court] identified but also any additional matters that may be raised on remand”
• rejecting an environmental baseline evaluation as arbitrary and capricious when FWS evaluated conditions “at the population level” and of geographic region larger than the action area rather than conditions of the relevant species within the well-defined action area
• “Though the agency admirably describes conditions at the population level, it never narrows its analysis to focus on the specific action area.”
• affording deference to FWS’s action area definition

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).