Yesterday, Feb. 16, had been exactly 16 years ago to the day, as hard as that was to believe, when the judge announced from the bench that he was going to issue some kind of injunction against the Shawnee National Forest because their required management plan and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) didn't comply with the law. The lawsuit was brought by the the Regional Association of Concerned Environmentalists (RACE), of which I was president, Illinois Audubon Council and the Sierra Club. Our lawyers were lead by Tom Buchele, who at that time, along with his associates that were working on the case, pro bono, were with the large law firm Jenner and Block from Chicago. Before all the dust settled, the court enjoined all oil and gas development, all commercial logging, and all Off Road Vehicle use.

Here we were, exactly 16 years later, back in the same courtroom, in front of the same judge, with our same lawyer, with the Forest Service seeking to have that injunction lifted. Now, Tom, having left the corporate litigation world, is the director of the environmental law clinic, PEAC, at Lewis and Clark University in Portland, OR. The Shawnee case, the first case he had which lead to his change of career to environmental law, is a passion to Tom, even though it is difficult for him to administer the case that far away

Some of the same workers in the Clerk's office that were there 16 years ago came through the hallway in which we were waiting outside the courtroom, and recognized us and spoke to us about how long it had been. The judge's managing clerk greeted us by name, as did the judge when he took the bench. It was an interesting feeling - a feeling of being a part of history.

A federal court injunction against an agency will not last forever - period. This one - having been in effect for 16 years, is undoubtedly not the longest ever, but nevertheless one that would be considered very long. No doubt a court would like to know that an agency addressed the problems raised by the court, and that the court would be able to get disentangled from the agency's business.

The Forest Service inexplicably came to court not ready to eagerly show the court how it had fixed all the problems. Instead, it came to court and argued that simply because it had issued a new management plan and EIS, in 2006 (under the Bush administration), that was enough to get the injunction lifted. That argument flew directly in the face of what the judge had written in the injunction order - in which he wrote that the injunction would remain in effect until the Forest Service fixed the problems consistent with the court's order.

It is absurd to argue that the content of the documents didn't matter - that it was simply the fact that new documents had been produced that were sufficient to cause the injunction to go away. Why would a court find that certain contents of a management plan didn't meet legal requirements if they didn't intend to insure that future plans met those requirements?

Other arguments that the government made were that a programmatic forest plan like that didn't actually make any decisions, and thus their requirements for analysis are less, that we were asking for too much detail in the EIS, and that we should file a whole new lawsuit instead of trying to enforce the injunction. Not much of a defense if you ask me.

Tom was well prepared. He pointed out that what we were asking for wasn't rocket science - that a table in the plan which listed the 36 areas of forest interior habitat that the plan mentioned, and identified where they were, how large, and what management activities were allowed in them, would probably suffice. The problem is, that simple information was not contained in the EIS or the appendices.

The Forest Service was badly out-argued. Their attorney seemed nervous and less than fully prepared. Nevertheless, the fact is that the judge himself seems a little nervous about keeping the injunction on too long. Weighing all the factors, it is, as usual, just about impossible to predict what the court will rule. The court did, however, tell the parties that he wouldn't have a decision for 2 or 3 months because he had some trials coming up that he had to finish. I'm glad, because that will give him a good chance to think about it all carefully. No doubt that the judge, Judge Gilbert, takes his role very seriously, and values the public lands and it's management.

The Shawnee National Forest had brought along a whole bunch of their staff - the supervisor, the planning officer, their NEPA officer, their head forester, their wildlife biologists, and even their PR officer. The fact that PR officer was along suggests that they were hopeful that the injunction would be lifted from the bench at the hearing. That did not even come close to happening. They left the courtroom unhappily.

No matter what happens, this has been a good thing. Prominent news coverage in southern Illinois media, including TV and print, are getting the word out that the Forest Service would really like to ramp up the logging and oil and gas development on the Shawnee. The injunction will stay in effect for at least a few more months. And, we may squeeze another round of planning out of this if we are lucky.

There are news stories about the hearing at the Southern Illinoisan newspaper www.thesouthern.com, the Harrisburg Daily Register newspaper www.dailyregister.com , and the southern Illinois TV station, WSIL, an ABC affiliate, www.wsiltv.com .