Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database
Collection

Monroe County Board of Commissioners v. U.S. Forest Service

Monroe County Board of Commissioners v. U.S. Forest Service 

4:23-cv-00012S.D. Ind.5 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
06/27/2023
Decision
Entry regarding offer of judgment so-ordered.
06/27/2023
Decision
Judgment entered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants in the amount of $70,000.
After the federal district court for the Southern District of Indiana granted a preliminary injunction barring the U.S. Forest Service from conducting a burn and other activities related to a vegetation management and restoration project in the Hoosier National Forest, the Forest Service withdrew the supplemental information report it had prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and said it would further evaluate its decision. The parties then stipulated to dismissal of the plaintiffs’ action except for the plaintiffs’ claim for recovery of fees and costs, which was resolved on June 27, 2023, when the court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in the amount of $70,000 pursuant to an officer of judgment made by the defendants and accepted by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs’ claims included assertions that the Forest Service failed to analyze the project’s contribution to climate change.
04/13/2023
Stipulation
Joint stipulation of dismissal filed (excluding plaintiffs' claim for recovery of attorneys' fees and costs).
03/29/2023
Decision
Motion for preliminary injunction granted.
The federal district court for the Southern District of Indiana granted a motion for a preliminary injunction barring the U.S. Forest Service from implementing the Houston South Vegetation Management and Restoration Project burn in the Hoosier National Forest. The court <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/monroe-county-board-of-commissioners-v-us-forest-service/">previously found</a> that the Forest Service violated NEPA by failing to consider the project’s impacts on a lake and remanded for additional analysis. This new lawsuit asserted that the Forest Service violated NEPA by failing to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) or EIS on remand and instead relying on a “supplemental information report” (SIR) to explain why impacts on the lake would not be significant. The new complaint alleged, among other things, that the Forest Service failed to “analyze the fact that the Project itself may contribute to climate change through the emissions associated with logging older trees and repeatedly burning thousands of acres of forest land, which emits greenhouse gases during burns and reduces the long-term ability of trees in the burn areas to store excess carbon once they are burned.” In the order granting the preliminary injunction, the court found that the plaintiffs made a strong showing that the Forest Service acted arbitrarily and capriciously by preparing an SIR instead of an EA or EIS. The court also found that irreparable harm was likely to occur, given the risks posed to the environment and human health and safety, and that the public interest favored an injunction.