Nat'l Audubon Soc'y, Inc. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv.

• Decision Date: 17 October 2014
• Docket Number: No. 14–CV–5341 SJFSIL.,14–CV–5341 SJFSIL.
• Citation: 55 F.Supp.3d 316
• Parties: NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE; United States Army Corps of Engineers; Sally Jewell, in her official capacity as Secretary, Department of the Interior; Daniel M. Ashe, in his official capacity as Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Wendi Wever, in her official capacity as Northeast Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Lieutenant General Thomas P. Bostick, in his official capacity as Commanding General and Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and Colonel Paul E. Owen, in his official capacity as New York District Commander, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

55 F.Supp.3d 316

NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY, INC., Plaintiff

v.UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE; United States Army Corps of Engineers; Sally Jewell, in her official capacity as Secretary, Department of the Interior; Daniel M. Ashe, in his official capacity as Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Wendi Wever, in her official capacity as Northeast Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Lieutenant General Thomas P. Bostick, in his official capacity as Commanding General and Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and Colonel Paul E. Owen, in his official capacity as New York District Commander, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Defendants.

No. 14–CV–5341 SJFSIL.

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

Signed Oct. 17, 2014.

Christopher A. Amato, Hannah Chang, Earthjustice, Katherine Eleanor Ghilain, Arnold & Porter LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

OPINION & ORDER

FEUERSTEIN, District Judge.

I. Introduction

On September 12, 2014, plaintiff National Audubon Society, Inc. (“plaintiff”) filed: (1) a complaint pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 –706, against defendants United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”); United States Army Corps of Engineers (“Army Corps”); Sally Jewell, in her official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior (“DOI”); Daniel M. Ashe, in his official capacity as Director of the FWS; Wendi Wever, in her official capacity as Northeast Regional Director of the FWS; Lieutenant General Thomas P. Bostick, in his official capacity as Commanding General and Chief of Engineers of the Army Corps; and Colonel Paul E. Owen, in his official capacity as New York District Commander of the Army Corps (collectively, “defendants”), challenging (a) a Biological Opinion issued by the FWS under Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2), on or about May 23, 2014 (“the Biological Opinion”), and (b) a final Environmental Assessment (“EA”) and Finding of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”) issued by the Army Corps under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 –4375, relating to the Fire Island Inlet to Moriches Inlet Fire Island Stabilization Project (“the Project”); and (2) an application pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction enjoining defendants “from undertaking, either directly or indirectly, or causing or allowing [their] contractors * * * to undertake, the destruction or modification of upland areas, beaches, intertidal areas, tidal flats, ephemeral pools, and shorelines at Smith Point County Park and Fire Island Lighthouse Beach [“Lighthouse Beach”] on Fire Island, Suffolk County, New York, including the construction of dunes, berms or roads, the operation of motorized equipment, and any other activity that alters or may have the effect of altering, either temporarily or permanently, the physical condition of the aforementioned areas [pending a ruling on plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and during the pendency of this action, respectively].” (Order to Show Cause for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [“OTSC”] at 2–3). By order dated September 12, 2014, inter alia: (1) defendants were ordered to show cause, by filing a memorandum in response to the plaintiff's application and any supporting evidence on or before September 18, 2014, why the preliminary injunction should not be issued; and (2) plaintiff's application for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) was granted upon its posting of an undertaking in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) pursuant to Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff posted the required undertaking on September 15, 2014.

Subsequently, defendants moved, inter alia, to dissolve the TRO pursuant to Rule 65(d)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to extend the briefing schedule for the preliminary injunction motion. By order dated September 17, 2014, defendants' motion was granted to the extent that their time to serve and file opposition to plaintiff's preliminary injunction motion was extended to October 2, 2014 and plaintiff's time to serve and file any reply was extended to October 6, 2014. Thereafter, plaintiff moved pursuant to Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence to strike certain paragraphs and exhibits of the Declaration of F. Franklin Amanat, dated September 16, 2014, submitted by defendants in support of their motion to dissolve the TRO (“the Amanat declaration”).

Also pending before the Court is the motion of Fire Island Lighthouse Preservation Society (“FILPS”) for leave to file a brief amicus curiae in opposition to plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction.

For the reasons set forth herein, all of the above referenced motions are denied.

II. Background

A. Factual Background

1. The Project

The Project area stretches from Robert Moses State Park in the west to Smith Point County Park (“the Park”) in the east, for a total of nineteen (19) miles, on Fire Island, New York. (Biological Opinion [“Bio. Op.”] at 10). The Project includes “dune and beach construction * * * [and] beach fill tapers (lateral extensions of dune and beach fill)” on Fire Island. (Bio. Op. at 5). The stated purpose of the Project is “to address shoreline erosion on Fire Island that occurred as a result of Hurricane Sandy [“the storm”] and to provide a level of storm damage protection to mainland developments * * *.” (Id. at 10). Specifically, “[t]he storm created three breaches and extensive overwash areas on the eastern end of Fire Island,” (id. at 11), particularly in the Park. (Id. )

2. Consultation

On or about December 9, 2013, the Army Corps transmitted to the FWS the plan layout designs for the Project. (Bio. Op. at 5).

On or about December 13, 2013, the FWS provided recommendations to the Army Corps “to avoid or minimize impacts to listed and proposed species and their habitats[,]” (Bio. Op. at 5)¹ , including changes in dune alignment and beach elevation at, inter alia, Lighthouse Beach in order “to maximize protection of partial overwash habitats at [that] site[ ],” (id. ); “a ‘Berm only’ design profile and maximum berm elevation of 9 feet (ft) National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) at [the Park] in [certain] area[s],” (id. ), i.e., elimination of “the proposed artificial dune system in [the Park],” (Chang Decl., Ex. 5 at 2); “sediment textural compatability,” (Bio. Op. at 5); and “vegetation density[,]” (id. ).

On or about December 16, 2013, the Army Corps transmitted to the FWS a preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment (“Draft EA”), including two (2) alternatives, i.e., a “No Action Alternative” and a “Beach Fill Alternative,” that did not include a biological assessment for piping plovers because it was “being revised based on the December 13, 2013[ ] meeting.” (Bio. Op. at 5–6).

On or about December 18, 2013, the Army Corps convened a meeting with the FWS, National Park Service (“NPS”), New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYDEC”), Suffolk County Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation (“SCDPRC”) and Suffolk County Department of Public Works (“SCDPW”) “to discuss endangered species conservation measures and habitat restoration alternatives in the proposed [P]roject area.” (Bio. Op. at 6). The Biological Opinion indicates that at that meeting, the Army Corps “slightly modifie[d] the dune alignment at [Lighthouse Beach] * * * to address the [FWS's] December 13, 2013[ ] comments[;] * * * propose[d] to lower tolerance limits for berm elevation to 0.5 ft from 1.0 ft[;] [and] propose[d] several options for vegetation maintenance throughout the [P]roject area[ ] and habitat restoration near the east end of [the Park] in an area known as Great Gun Beach.” (Id. )

On or about December 19, 2013, the Army Corps provided the FWS “its final proposed dune and berm alignment for the [Park] portion of the [P]roject area[,]” including modifications for “dune and beach construction, vegetation maintenance in piping plover breeding habitat, and habitat restoration at the eastern end of [the Park],” (Bio. Op. at 6), “based upon feedback the [Army] Corps received during * * * [the December 18, 2013] meeting * * *.” (Chang Decl., Ex. 6).

On or about January 9, 2014, the FWS transmitted correspondence to the Army Corps, inter alia, concurring with the Army Corps that the modifications adopted by it “are an improvement over [its] earlier proposed plan and impact less habitat than the earlier proposal,” (Chang Decl., Ex. 6), but “identifying additional alternatives the [Army] Corps should consider for the [Park] portion of the project area,” (Bio. Op. at 6), to “further diminish the impacts to habitat and provide storm protection[,]” (Chang Decl., Ex. 6). Those additional alternatives include “construct[ion] of an enhanced berm” only, with “no solid dune,” at the Park; an “experimental” “ ‘staggered dune’ approach at [the Park] that would consist of two lines of dunes with overlapping staggered openings[;]” not having a dune constructed through “at least one of the three overwash lobes[;]” and having “breaks in the dunes [.]” (Id. ) The FWS indicated, inter alia, that “[a]lthough [it] appreciate[s] monitoring and adaptive management of vegetation in specific [Park] areas, preserving the[ ] ocean-to-bay overwash lobes is most likely to provide the most recovery benefits.” (Id. )

On or about January 10, 2014, the Army Corps provided the FWS with “updated project plans for a portion of the [P]roject at [the Park] * * * advis[ing] that the constructed dunes must be straight lines, with as shallow transitions as possible, but they can be modified during the Plans & Specification period of project planning[ ] * * * [and] that the back slope of the dune design can be modified slightly * * * for a ‘smaller’ overall foot print.” (Bio. Op. at 6).

On or about January 24, 2014, the DOI, ...