context: NEDC notes that at least 142 structures have been allowed since the species' listing in 1999, (BiOp 18), yet no attempt was made to determine the amount of take that has resulted from those structures. It contends no accurate understanding of potential jeopardy can be made without this information.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 130 F.Supp.2d 121, 127
citation_a.parenthetical: "The impact of an authorized incidental take cannot be determined or analyzed in a vacuum, but must necessarily be addressed in the context of other incidental take authorized by [the agency]."
citation_a.sentence: See Defenders of Wildlife v. Babbitt, 130 F.Supp.2d 121, 127 (D.D.C.2001) (“The impact of an authorized incidental take cannot be determined or analyzed in a vacuum, but must necessarily be addressed in the context of other incidental take authorized by [the agency].”); see also Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 524 F.3d 917, 936 (9th Cir.2008) (“It is only logical to require that the agency know roughly at what point survival and recovery will be placed at risk before it may conclude that no harm will result from ‘significant’ impairments to habitat that is already severely degraded.”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 524 F.3d 917, 936
citation_b.parenthetical: "It is only logical to require that the agency know roughly at what point survival and recovery will be placed at risk before it may conclude that no harm will result from 'significant' impairments to habitat that is already severely degraded."
citation_b.sentence: See Defenders of Wildlife v. Babbitt, 130 F.Supp.2d 121, 127 (D.D.C.2001) (“The impact of an authorized incidental take cannot be determined or analyzed in a vacuum, but must necessarily be addressed in the context of other incidental take authorized by [the agency].”); see also Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 524 F.3d 917, 936 (9th Cir.2008) (“It is only logical to require that the agency know roughly at what point survival and recovery will be placed at risk before it may conclude that no harm will result from ‘significant’ impairments to habitat that is already severely degraded.”).