Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Union Neighbors United, Inc. v. Jewell

831 F.3d 564 (2016)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...

Union Neighbors United, Inc. v. Jewell

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

831 F.3d 564 (2016)

Facts

Buckeye Wind, LLC (Buckeye) sought to build a commercial windfarm of up to 100 wind turbines in Champaign County, Ohio. The proposed windfarm site was in a rural area where it posed potential harm to Indiana bats. Buckeye consulted with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for several years to determine the potential impact of the project on wildlife. The USFWS eventually prepared an environmental-impact statement that identified the issuance of an incidental-take permit (ITP) as the proposed government action. The USFWS stated that the main purpose of the ITP was to protect, conserve, and enhance the Indiana bat habitat and ensure that the take of the bats was avoided and minimized to the maximum extent. The USFWS issued the ITP based on consideration of alternatives to Buckeye’s proposal to minimize the take of bats. The alternatives focused on the dates, times, and speeds of wind-turbine operations. The alternatives included no action, under which the turbines would not operate at all, and a maximum alternative, under which there would be no take of bats but there would be an economic loss. There was a minimum alternative, under which economic gain and take of bats were highest at the take of 12 bats per year. Buckeye’s proposal estimated a take of 5.2 bats a year. The USFWS did not consider other alternatives and reasoned that Buckeye’s proposal was close enough to the maximum alternative to make it unnecessary to consider other variations of alternatives. The USFWS issued the ITP to Buckeye. Union Neighbors United, Inc. (Union Neighbors) (plaintiff) filed a complaint against the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the USFWS (defendants) alleging that the issuance of the ITP was arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and in violation of NEPA because there was a failure to consider a reasonable range of alternatives. The district court found for the DOI and USFWS that the ITP was appropriate and was issued in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Wilkins, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 620,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 620,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 620,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 35,600 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership