Eric Navickas v. Scott Conroy

Good Law
575 F. App'x 758
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 27, 201413-35132California778 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Eric Navickas and Jay Lininger (collectively, Navickas) sued Scott Conroy and the United States Forest Service (collectively, Forest Service) alleging violations of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the Forest Service’s analysis and adoption of the Ashland Fire Resiliency Project (the Project). Navickas appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Forest Service. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we reverse in part and affirm in part.

The district court abused its discretion in admitting the third declaration from Donald Boucher to supplement the administrative record, because the Forest Service failed to demonstrate that the declaration satisfied any of the four narrow exceptions to the general rule against such supplementation. See Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019 , 1030 (9th Cir.2005). Contrary to the Forest Service’s argument, the declaration’s post hoc explanation of how the implementation of the Project could comply with the Land Resources Management Plan (LRMP) did not show that the agency had considered relevant factors at the time it approved the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.