The National Parks Service (NPS) has filed it's response to the DOW/National Audubon Society's request for preliminary injunction that seeks banning of ORV access at CPHS. The full text can be found here:
The new date for the next hearing is April 4.
While the NPS does not dispute certain claims of the plaintiffs, it does make these points (page 5)(n.b.: emphasis is mine, not found in the original):
"... But, as the Court is aware, a judge is not ??mechanically obligated to grant an injunction for every violation of the law.?? Nat?l Audubon Soc?y v. Dept. of Navy, 422 F.3d 174, 200 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Weinberger, 456 U.S. at 313). The Court ?must look to traditional principles of equity to determine what form of injunctive relief, if any, is appropriate to remedy a [regulatory] violation.? Id. An injunction ??should be tailored to restrain no more than what is reasonably required to accomplish its ends[,]?? and can be overly broad ?if it restricts nonharmful actions - even ones that are precursors to other actions that are potentially harmful. Id. at 201 (quoting S.C. Dep?t of Wildlife & Marine Res. v. Marsh, 866 F.2d 97, 100 (4th Cir. 1989)).
Federal Defendants question whether Plaintiffs? proposed injunction, adopting the restrictions set forth in Option B of the United States Geological Survey Management Protocols, is the appropriate relief, given the Court?s duty to ?pay particular regard for the public consequences of employing the extraordinary remedy of injunction.? Nat?l Audubon Soc?y, 422 F.3d at 201 (quoting S.C. Dep?t of Wildlife & Marine Res., 866 F.2d at 100).