Protect Our Communities Foundation v. Jewell

Tule Wind LLC (Tule) (defendant) proposed to build a new utility facility using wind turbines to produce energy. The facility was to be located partly on public lands outside San Diego. Consequently, Tule applied for a right-of-way allowing the construction and operation of turbines on the lands. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (defendant) issued an environmental-impact statement (EIS) addressing the project’s environmental impacts. As the purpose and need for the proposed action, the EIS referenced the BLM’s duty to act on right-of-way applications and on federal objectives for promoting renewable energy. The EIS then discussed potential environmental impacts, including noise impacts, electric-and-magnetic-field pollution, climate change, and impacts on bird species. The EIS acknowledged that both the turbines’ construction and their operation posed risks to migratory bird species and possibly golden eagles. However, the EIS also referenced mitigation measures. Additionally, the EIS explored five alternatives to the proposed plan. The BLM ultimately approved one of those alternatives, the reduction-in-turbines alternative, which granted Tule a right-of-way to construct and operate a more limited number of turbines than originally proposed. Protect Our Communities Foundation and others (collectively, the foundation) (defendants) challenged the BLM’s decision. The foundation argued that (1) the EIS did not comply with the requirements in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and (2) the BLM’s failure to acquire certain permits violated the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). Both sides moved for summary judgment.