u.s. district judge owen panner's opinion on the ashland forest resiliency project

7/29/2019 U.S. District Judge Owen Panner's opinion on the Ashland Forest Resiliency project

1/5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

MEDFORD DIVISIONERIC NAVICKAS, e t a l . ,

P l a i n t i f f s ,v.

SCOTT CONROY, e t a l . ,Defendants .

PANNER, Dis t r i c t Judge:

Case No. 1:10-cv-3004-CL

AMENDED ORDER

Magis t ra te , Judge Mark D. Clarke f i l ed a Repor t andRecommendation (R&R), and th e mat te r i s now before t h i s cour t .See 28 U.S.C. 636(b) (1) (B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) . The R&Rrecommends grant ing defendan t s ' motion fo r summary judgment exceptas to p l a i n t i f f s ' claim t ha t defendants are v io la t ing th e Nat iona lFores t Management Act by f a i l i ng to comply with so i l eros ionrequirements .

Because p l a i n t i f f s and defendants objec t to R&R, I havereviewed t h i s mat te r de novo. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b) (1 ) (C);

1 - AMENDED ORDER

Case 1:10-cv-03004-CL Document 95 Filed 02/25/13 Page 1 of 5 Page ID#: 5134


2/5

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc . , 656 F. 2d1309, 1313 (9th Cir . 1981) . I adopt the R&R except as to therecommendation t ha t p l a i n t i f f s ' motion fo r summary judgment begran ted on the s o i l eros ion c la im.

DISCUSSIONP l a i n t i f f s cha l l enge th e Ashland Fores t Resi l iency pro jec t

(the Ashland fo res t pro j e c t ) , which i s in tended to reducehazardous fue l on about 7,500 acres of fo res t near Ashland.Because decades o f f i re suppress ion have allowed dense vege ta t ionand othe r fue l to accumulate, the fo re s t i s a t r i sk fo r aca tas t roph ic f i r e . The Ci ty o f Ashland and the Nature Conservancyhave endorsed the Fores t Serv ice ' s proposed plan for ca rry ing outthe Ashland fo res t p ro jec t , as descr ibed in the F ina lEnvironmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decis ion(ROD).I . P l a in t i f f s ' So i l Erosion Claim

P l a i n t i f f s cla im th e Ashland fo re s t p ro jec t v i o l a t e s theNat iona l Fores t Management Act by f a i l i ng to comply with s o i leros ion s tandards se t by the Rogue River Nat iona l Fores t Land andResource Management Plan ( the Rogue River Fores t P lan) .P l a i n t i f f s contend t ha t where th e Rogue River Fores t Plandes igna tes land as Res t r i c ted Watershed and Res t r i c ted Riparian ,the Ashland fo res t p ro jec t would allow too much so i l exposure,leading to eros ion . The R&R recommends grant ing p l a i n t i f f s 'motion fo r summary judgment on t h i s cla im only .

Defendants do not cha l l enge the R&R's conc lus ion t h a t the

2 AMENDED ORDER



3/5

Ashland fo res t p ro jec t must comply with the s o i l exposures tandards in the Rogue River Fores t Plan. See R&R a t 44.Defendants argue in s tead t ha t the Ashland fo res t p ro jec t , whichhas been ongoing s ince ea r ly 2010, has not , and w i l l not , v io la t ethe s o i l exposure s tandards .

To suppor t t h e i r ob jec t ions , which apply to t h i s por t ion ofthe R&R o n l y ~ defendants submit a t h i rd dec la ra t ion from DonaldBoucher, who manages the Ashland fo re s t p ro j e c t . The dec la ra t ionwas f i l ed a f t e r Magis t ra te Judge Clarke i ssued the R&R.

P l a i n t i f f s move to s t r i ke the Boucher d ec l a r a t i o n . Whenreviewing an R&R, the d i s t r i c t cour t may rece ive ad d i t i o n a levidence. 28 U.S.C. 636(b) (1) . The Boucher dec la ra t iondescr ibes the ac tu a l impact o f the Ashland fo res t p ro jec t on theareas a t i s sue in p l a i n t i f f s ' s o i l eros ion cla im. The ROD for theAshland fo re s t p ro j e c t provides t ha t " implementat ion moni toring"wi l l determine whether the p ro j e c t i s complying with s o i l coveragerequirements . Because th e t h i rd Boucher dec la ra t ion i s r e levan tto p l a i n t i f f s ' s o i l eros ion claim, I deny p l a i n t i f f s ' motion tos t r i ke .

Boucher s t a t e s t ha t on land the Rogue River Fores t Plandes igna tes as Res t r i c ted Ripar ian , the Fores t Service has notconducted any pro jec t a c t i v i t i e s . Furthermore , the Fores tServ ice , in agreement with the Ci ty o f Ashland and the NatureConservancy, has decided not to conduct any fu tu re a c t i v i t i e s onland des igna ted as Res t r i c ted Ripar ian .

Boucher s t a t e s t ha t on land des igna ted as Res t r i c ted

3 - AMENDED ORDER



4/5

Watershed, logging wi l l be by h e l i co p t e r only , causing minimalimpact on s o i l . To th e ex ten t t h a t h e l i co p t e r logging exposess o i l , th e Fores t Serv ice w i l l prompt ly cover the area with s lash .Defendants s t a t e t h a t t h i s t echn ique , ca l l ed "lop and s c a t t e r "mit iga t ion , has been e f f e c t i v e in othe r p a r t s of the Ashlandfo res t p ro jec t . Defendants note t h a t th e FEIS fo r the Ashlandfo res t p ro jec t di scusse s th e use of lop and s c a t t e r mit iga t ion .

P l a i n t i f f s contend defendants are improperly at tempt ing toa l t e r the Ashland fo re s t p ro jec t without formally amending th eFEIS or ROD. I di sagree . Here, th e ROD i t s e l f al lows "[m] inorchanges dur ing implementat ion (adapt ive management) tob e t t e r meet o n - s i t e resource management and pro tec t ionob jec t ives . " AR 7846 (quoted in Defs. Resp. to Mot. to S t r ike a t4). This cour t has noted t ha t adap t ive management can "providethe agency with th e f l e x i b i l i t y to respond to on- the-groundcircumstances when they a r i s e . " Or. Natural Desert Ass 'n v. BLM,2011 WL 5830435, a t *18 (D. Or. 2011) (King, J . ) (c i t ing TheodoreRoosevel t Conservat ion P 'sh ip v. Salazar , 616 F.3d 497, 517 (D.C.Cir . 2010) ("Allowing adap tab le mit iga t ion measures i s arespons ib le dec is ion in l i gh t o f t he inhe ren t uncer ta in ty ofenvironmental impac t s") ; W. Watersheds Pro jec t v. Salazar , 766 F.Supp. 2d 1095, 1110-12 (D. Mont. 2011) (adapt ive managementdescr ibed as th e "unremarkable not ion t ha t resource managersshould eva lua te th e r e s u l t s o f t h e i r e f fo r t s and a d jus t " ) ) . Int h i s case, th e Fores t Service used adap t ive management in decidingto forego a l l pro jec t a c t i v i t i e s on Res t r i c ted Riparian land, and

4 - AMENDED ORDER



5/5

to mit iga te s o i l exposure with s lash on Res t r i c ted Watershed l and .These are not such dramatic a l t e ra t i ons to the Ashland fo res tp ro jec t t ha t defendants must formally amend the FEIS and ROD. Cf.Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center v. Boody, 468 F.3d 549, 558 (9thCir . 2006). I conclude t ha t defendants are en t i t l ed to summaryjudgment on p l a i n t i f f s ' s o i l eros ion cla im.I I . The R&R Is Otherwise Adopted

I otherwise adopt the R&R, which cor rec t ly and ca re fu l lyanalyzes p l a i n t i f f s ' remaining c la ims .

CONCLUSIONMagis t ra te Judge Clarke ' s Report and Recommendation (#78) i s

adopted in p a r t and not adopted in pa r t . P l a i n t i f f s ' motion fo rsummary judgment (#42) i s denied. P l a i n t i f f s ' motion to s t r i ke(#64) i s denied as to Exhibi t A and granted as to Exhibi t B.Defendants ' cross-mot ion fo r summary judgment (#53) i s granted .P l a i n t i f f s ' motion to s t r i ke (#91) the Third Boucher Declarat ion(#85) i s denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.DATED t h i s f \ ~ ~ a y of February , 2013.

OWEN M. PANNERU.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

5 - ORDER


u.s. district judge owen panner's opinion on the ashland forest resiliency project

Documents