Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs v. United States Forest Serv.
| Decision Date | 29 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | 4:23-cv-00012-TWP-KMB |
| Parties | MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, INDIANA FOREST ALLIANCE INC., HOOSIER ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL, FRIENDS OF LAKE MONROE, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, MICHAEL CHAVEAS, CHRISTOPHER THORNTON, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana |
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Monroe County Board of Commissioners, Indiana Forest Alliance, Hoosier Environmental Council, and Friends of Lake Monroe's (collectively, "Plaintiffs") Motion for a Preliminary Injunction ("Motion") pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 (Filing No. 20). Because the Defendant United States Forest Service (the "Forest Service")[1]is scheduled to move forward with project implementation on April 1, 2023, and Plaintiffs do not view that time frame as sufficient for the parties to fully present their case on the merits or for the Court to render a fully informed merits decision, Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the Forest Service from implementing the Houston South Vegetation Management and Restoration Project (the "Project").[2] Plaintiffs contend the Forest Service's decision to prepare a Supplemental Information Report ("SIR") rather than an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") or an Environmental Assessment ("EA") was arbitrary and capricious and, as such, violates the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ("NEPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., and the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 701-06 (Filing No 20). Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim, and have made the other showings necessary to be entitled to a preliminary injunction. For the reasons set forth below, preliminary injunctive relief is granted.
These background facts are not intended to provide a comprehensive explanation of all the facts presented in this complex case or the administrative record; rather, it provides the background relevant to the issues before the Court.
On May 13, 2020, the Plaintiffs[3]sued the Forest Service[4] alleging violations of the NEPA, the National Forest Management Act, and the APA.[5]Plaintiffs later amended their Complaint to add an Endangered Species Act claim[6]and then the parties filed Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment.[7]On March 30, 2022, the Court granted in part and denied in part the parties' CrossMotions for Summary Judgment (the "SJ Order").[8]The Court found in favor of the Forest Service on all asserted claims except for Plaintiffs' NEPA claim.[9] The Court determined that the Forest Service had "failed to evaluate the potential impact of the Houston South Project on Lake Monroe (the "Lake")."[10]The Court noted that "[t]he problem with Defendants' EA is that it failed to adequately consider or discuss the legitimate concerns the Houston South Project could have on the Lake."[11]
In particular, the Court stated: "While Defendants' EA does discuss the possibility of sedimentation to the South Fork Salt Creek and the use of best practices to reduce negative impacts, there is no mention of the present concerns regarding Lake Monroe's water or how the Houston South Project may exacerbate these problems."[12]Given that "Lake Monroe is the sole source of drinking water for 120,000 people in southern Indiana," and "the number of comments and concerns that were raised during the scoping process regarding Lake Monroe," the Court expected that the Forest Service would have provided a "convincing statement of reasons" explaining why the impact to Lake Monroe would not be significant."[13]As a result, the Court remanded Plaintiffs' claim that the Forest Service failed to "fully evaluate the environmental effects to Lake Monroe," so that the Forest Service "for analysis consistent with federal law."[14]
Soon thereafter, the Plaintiffs appealed the Court's SJ Order to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (Filing No. 8). This appeal remains pending before the appellate court.
On January 25, 2023, the Plaintiffs initiated this related action against the Forest Service alleging the final SIR violated the NEPA, APA, and this Court's SJ Order. (Filing No. 1). Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion (Filing No. 20) seeking vacatur and to enjoin the Forest Service from taking any action to implement the Project and requests that the Court remand the claim once more to the Forest Service for further analysis consistent with federal law. Id. Of immediate concern to the Plaintiffs is the burn scheduled to begin on or about April 1, 2023. The Project authorizes prescribed fire on up to 13,000 acres over the [10-15 year] lifetime of the Project. This calendar year, the Forest plans three prescribed burns on 3,500 acres in the Project area. The burns and acreages are Lincoln-Back Combs (2,145 acres), Squirrel Town (1,040 acres), and Winkler (316 acres). The Forest plans to begin the prescribed fire treatments on April 1, 2023, as conditions allow. In order to achieve the desired objectives for each burn, individual burn plans are developed. (Filing No. 23-3 at 4-5.)
Plaintiffs move for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Defendants—i.e., the U.S. Forest Service and officials of that agency—from taking any action to implement the Houston South Vegetation Management and Restoration Project in the Hoosier National Forest. This project entails substantial burning, logging, herbicide application, and road building in thousands of acres of Indiana's only national forest, including in important wildlife habitat and recreation areas. These activities will occur on highly erodible, steep slopes that will drain project-related pollutants into Lake Monroe—the sole drinking water source for nearly 150,000 Hoosiers—thereby significantly exacerbating degradation of these waters and threatening public health, safety, and recreational interests in the Lake Monroe watershed. (Filing No. 20).
Plaintiffs argue the Forest Service violated the NEPA, its implementing regulations, and the APA by preparing an SIR, instead of an EA or an EIS, in response to the Court's SJ Order and by failing to fully respond to public comments prior to finalizing the SIR. The Forest Service contends the Plaintiffs cannot carry its burden of demonstrating entitlement to a preliminary injunction and, as such, the Motion should be denied. Alternatively, if the Court were to determine that an injunction is appropriate, Plaintiffs should be required to post a bond in the amount of $115,906.00. Plaintiffs contend they will likely succeed on the merits, that they will likely suffer irreparable harm, that the balance of equities tips in their favor, that there is no adequate legal remedy, that an injunction is in the public's interest, and that the Court should not require a bond but, if it were to require a bond, that the bond be a nominal amount.
A preliminary injunction is "an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion." Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997). "The purpose of such an injunction is to minimize the hardship to the parties pending the ultimate resolution of the lawsuit." Faheem-El v. Klincar, 841 F.2d 712, 717 (7th Cir. 1988). To obtain a preliminary injunction the plaintiff has the burden of establishing that (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim; (2) he has no adequate remedy at law; and (3) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm without the injunction. Planned Parenthood of Ind., Inc. v. Comm'r of Ind. State Dep't of Health, 699 F.3d 962, 972 (7th Cir. 2012). If the movant establishes each of these elements, the court then must weigh two additional factors: the balance of harms and the effect of the injunction on the public interest. Id. The balance of harms requires further weighing of the harm to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial