Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01979/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01979-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:4321 Review of Agency Action-Environment

---

United States District Court

Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CONSERVATION CONGRESS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MERV GEORGE, et al.,

1

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-01979-TEH 

ORDER RE: MAY 4, 2015 HEARING

The parties shall come to the May 4, 2015 hearing prepared to address the following 

questions. 

For Plaintiff: 

1. How do you distinguish your challenges to the Algoma, Beaverslide, 

Mudflow and Porcupine projects, such that the Court should resolve this challenge 

differently? 

2. How is it consistent to argue both that Defendants did not consider the White 

Paper and that they erroneously used some of its analysis and conclusions? 

3. How would using a 0.7 mile radius for Northern Spotted Owl analysis, 

instead of 0.5 miles, change the environmental review process or results, since Defendants 

formally consulted and concluded that no habitat downgrade or take will occur? 

4. Is it your position that Defendants cannot take any action that would increase 

sediment deposits to waterways, even if they implement best management practices to deal 

with those deposits?

 

1

This case was previously styled Conservation Congress v. Tyrone Kelley, et al. 

However, Mr. Kelley has been replaced in his capacity as Forest Supervisor by Mr. Merv 

L. George, Jr. Defs.’ Cross-Mot. at viii & n.1 (Docket No. 33). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 25(d), the Clerk shall substitute Mr. George for Mr. Kelley as the individually named 

defendant in this action, and the parties shall use the new caption in all future submissions. 

Case 3:14-cv-01979-TEH Document 36 Filed 04/13/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

Northern District of California

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

For Defendants: 

5. What are the exact definitions of “high-quality” and “low-quality” 

nesting/roosting habitat used in the Project, and where did they come from? 

6. How can Defendants reasonably conclude that thinning “low-quality” 

nesting habitat to less than half the basal area of the Fish & Wildlife Service definition 

would not downgrade that habitat? 

7. The “guideline” you cite for Defendants’ references to a nest protection area 

of 70 acres appears to be one of the proposed conservation measures used in the Project, 

rather than any independently developed guideline. Why did Defendants repeatedly refer 

to 70 acres of protection, if the Forest Plan and the Project itself actually set aside more 

than 100 acres of protection?

8. What is the status of the wastewater waiver that the Forest Service stated it 

would seek after the Record of Decision was signed in April 2014?

9. Is it your position that an agency is not required to consider a reasonable 

alternative to a project that was proposed after the scoping phase?

10. How is it consistent to argue both that Plaintiff’s suggested diameter-cap 

alternative would have a substantially similar environmental result, and that such an 

alternative would fail to meet the resources objectives of the Project?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 04/13/15 _____________________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-01979-TEH Document 36 Filed 04/13/15 Page 2 of 2