Oliver J. H. Stiefel, OSB No. 135436

oliver@crag.org – (503) 227-2212

Ralph O. Bloemers, OSB No. 984172

ralph@crag.org – (503) 525-2727

Christopher G. Winter, OSB No. 984355

chris@crag.org – (503) 525-2725

Crag Law Center 

917 SW Oak Street, Suite 417 

Portland, OR 97205

Fax: (503) 296-5454

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

BARK, an Oregon non-profit corporation,

FRIENDS OF MOUNT HOOD, an Oregon 

non-profit corporation, NORTHWEST 

ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER, 

an Oregon non-profit corporation, THE SIERRA 

CLUB, a California non-profit corporation,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LISA NORTHROP, Forest Supervisor 

of the Mt. Hood National Forest, BILL 

WESTBROOK, Zigzag District Ranger, JIM

PEÑA, Regional Forester for Region 6, and the

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, a 

federal agency; WILLIAM STELLE, Regional 

Administrator of the West Coast Region, and the 

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES 

SERVICE, a federal agency,

 Defendants,

RLK AND COMPANY, an Oregon corporation,

 Defendant-Intervenor.

 

Case No. 3:13-cv-00828-AA

PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF 

MOTION FOR PARTIAL 

RECONSIDERATION

 

Case 3:13-cv-00828-AA Document 224 Filed 04/18/17 Page 1 of 15
Plaintiffs’ Reply ISO Reconsideration - 1

Bark et al. v. Northrop et al.,

Case No. 3:13-cv-828-AA

Crag Law Center

917 SW Oak St., Suite 417

Portland, OR 97205

Tel. (503) 525-2727

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs have asked this Court to reconsider a narrow element of its March 25, 2015 

Opinion and Order. Plaintiffs present their motion on both legal and factual grounds.

Specifically, Plaintiffs seek reconsideration of the Court’s finding that the construction 

and operation of 17 miles of bike routes on the fragile, high-elevation slopes of Mt. Hood would 

not cause “habitat degradation” within the meaning of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy 

(“ACS”) of the Northwest Forest Plan (“NWFP”). Plaintiffs respectfully request reconsideration 

of this finding because it is untethered to any finding made by the Forest Service on the 

administrative record before the Court. Moreover, since the Opinion and Order, the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) has produced new factual evidence that directly informs the 

question of whether a new, chronic source of sedimentation within Riparian Reserves would 

cause “habitat degradation.” In particular, in its most recent Biological Opinion (“Reinitiation 

BiOp”), NMFS found that construction and operation of the bike routes would result in shortand long-term sediment impacts to Project area watersheds, degrading aquatic habitat for 

threatened Lower Columbia River (“LCR”) steelhead. Plaintiffs ask the Court to evaluate

NMFS’s findings in the context of reviewing the question of “habitat degradation.”

In response, Defendants try to shield this Court’s finding, but premise their arguments on 

an overly narrow reading of the standard of review, and an artificial characterization of the 

question presented by Plaintiffs’ motion. The governing standard of review provides ample 

grounds for this Court to review the merits of Plaintiffs’ motion, and Defendants fail to rebut 

Plaintiffs’ legal and factual bases for reconsideration. In the circumstances of this case, remand 

to the Forest Service to address the “habitat degradation” question in the first instance is 

warranted.

Case 3:13-cv-00828-AA Document 224 Filed 04/18/17 Page 2 of 15
Plaintiffs’ Reply ISO Reconsideration - 2

Bark et al. v. Northrop et al.,

Case No. 3:13-cv-828-AA

Crag Law Center

917 SW Oak St., Suite 417

Portland, OR 97205

Tel. (503) 525-2727

ARGUMENT

I. The Standard of Review for Reconsideration Does Not Preclude This Court From 

Reaching the Merits of Plaintiffs’ Motion.

As a threshold matter, all Parties agree that this Court has the inherent power, derived 

from the common law, to reconsider its Opinion and Order. See FD Resp. at 3–4.1 The Parties 

further agree that Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure supplements this common-law 

authority, providing a basis for revising a prior order before entry of final judgment adjudicating 

all claims. See id. Thus, there is no dispute that this Court may revisit the Opinion and Order.

Courts generally evaluate three factors when reviewing a motion for reconsideration: (1) 

where there has been an intervening change in law, (2) new evidence has become available, or 

(3) it is necessary to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See Op. Memo at 3, 

ECF_216. Plaintiffs present their motion primarily on grounds (2) and (3). In addition, a court 

may reconsider and revise a prior decision “for any reason it deems sufficient, even in the 

absence of new evidence or an intervening change in or clarification of controlling law.” Abada 

v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., 127 F. Supp. 2d 1101, 1102 (S.D. Cal. 2000). 

As discussed in the Opening Memorandum, this Court should reach the merits of 

Plaintiffs’ motion because (a) the Court committed error by supplying a basis for ACS 

consistency that was not advanced by the agency in the EA/DN/FONSI; and (b) new facts

bearing on the nature and magnitude of the Project’s impacts are present. Defendants fail to 

show how Plaintiffs’ motion does not accord with the governing standard of review.

With respect to (a), Defendants argue that Plaintiffs already raised the present arguments 

in their earlier summary judgment briefing, but overlook or misapprehend Plaintiffs’ stated basis 

																																																												 1 Because their arguments are largely duplicative, Federal Defendants and Defendant 

Intervenor are collectively referred to as “Defendants,” the former abbreviated as “FD” and the 

latter as “DI.” Citations to briefs are to internal pagination, not the ECF Bates Stamp.

Case 3:13-cv-00828-AA Document 224 Filed 04/18/17 Page 3 of 15
Plaintiffs’ Reply ISO Reconsideration - 3

Bark et al. v. Northrop et al.,

Case No. 3:13-cv-828-AA

Crag Law Center

917 SW Oak St., Suite 417

Portland, OR 97205

Tel. (503) 525-2727

for reconsideration. Here, Plaintiffs ask the Court to reconsider the predicate finding made in 

support of the NFMA holding, specifically, that the Project would not cause habitat degradation 

within the meaning of the ACS. Contrary to Defendants’ argument, Plaintiffs did not “explicitly 

argue” this issue in the earlier briefing—principally because the agency never made the habitat 

degradation finding on the administrative record. 

In asking this Court to revisit the habitat degradation finding, Plaintiffs submit that it is 

appropriate for the Court to consider new facts and circumstances, which include the completion 

of the restoration activities, NMFS’s decoupling of restoration from the construction/operation 

components of the Project, and NMFS’s findings that the construction/operation of the bike 

routes would cause take of a listed species. This new information is relevant to the Court’s 

evaluation of its own habitat degradation finding. Defendants suggest that it would be improper 

for the Court to address this new evidence, citing the standard of review for record review cases. 

Defendants fail to correlate that standard to the standard of review for motions for 

reconsideration, which permits a court to reconsider a previous determination “when new 

evidence becomes available,” among other reasons. See supra. 

Accordingly, Defendants’ arguments appear to be based on a misapprehension of

Plaintiffs’ motion. Plaintiffs do not argue that the Court should consider the new circumstances 

and information for purposes of reassessing the merits of the Forest Service’s 2012 decision; 

rather, Plaintiffs ask the Court to review the new evidence in reviewing its own habitat 

degradation finding, and the implications of that finding with respect to the holding on Plaintiffs’ 

ACS consistency claim. 

In a similar vein, Defendants mistakenly argue that Plaintiffs are precluded from 

contesting the relevance of Bark v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 643 F. Supp. 2d 1214 

Case 3:13-cv-00828-AA Document 224 Filed 04/18/17 Page 4 of 15
Plaintiffs’ Reply ISO Reconsideration - 4

Bark et al. v. Northrop et al.,

Case No. 3:13-cv-828-AA

Crag Law Center

917 SW Oak St., Suite 417

Portland, OR 97205

Tel. (503) 525-2727

(“Bark v. BLM”) (D. Or. 2009). Defendants argue that it is “inappropriate” for Plaintiffs to argue 

the case’s relevance as a threshold matter, but misconstrue the purpose of Plaintiffs’ citation to 

the case. Plaintiffs do not argue that Bark v. BLM represents an “intervening change in law,” 

such that it provides a basis for reconsideration. See supra. Rather, should the Court review its 

habitat degradation finding, Plaintiffs submit that it is appropriate for the Court to revisit its 

reliance on that case, because there, unlike here, the agency made an explicit habitat degradation 

finding on the record.

With respect to (b), Defendants, citing zero case law in support, imply that Plaintiffs are 

time-barred from bringing this motion on equity grounds. Not so.2 In recognition of 

administrative efficiency and judicial economy, Plaintiffs decided to bring all of their final 

arguments in one set of proceedings, rather than piecemeal the remainder of the litigation. 

Plaintiffs waited for the close of further administrative proceedings in this case—preparation of 

the second BiOp, and the Forest Service’s internal process regarding NEPA supplementation—

because Plaintiffs could not predict the outcome of those proceedings. In particular, had the 

Forest Service decided to go back and prepare supplemental NEPA, it may have decided to 

amend or alter its decision. See Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 350 

(1989) (NEPA procedures “are almost certain to affect the agency’s substantive decision”);

Lemon v. Geren, 514 F.3d 1312, 1315 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (“[I]f the agency’s eyes are open to the 

environmental consequences of its actions * * * it may be persuaded to alter what it proposed.”).

Plaintiffs filed their motion only two months after the Forest Service’s 2016 New Information 

Report (“NIR”), pursuant to a stipulated schedule that coordinated all the briefing in an efficient 

manner. See ECF_213. Defendants—aside from perfunctorily noting the date of the Opinion

																																																												 2 Notably, Defendants do not argue that they were prejudiced in any way (they were not). 

Case 3:13-cv-00828-AA Document 224 Filed 04/18/17 Page 5 of 15
Plaintiffs’ Reply ISO Reconsideration - 5

Bark et al. v. Northrop et al.,

Case No. 3:13-cv-828-AA

Crag Law Center

917 SW Oak St., Suite 417

Portland, OR 97205

Tel. (503) 525-2727

and Order and the date this motion was filed—offer no argument as to why this approach was 

somehow “inequitable.” 

In sum, this Court has the authority—through its common-law power and Rule 54(b)—as 

well as the grounds—both legal and factual—for reconsidering its prior finding that the Project 

would not cause habitat degradation, and thus revisiting its NFMA holding.

II. Reconsideration is warranted because the Forest Service on the record never 

concluded that the bike routes would not cause habitat degradation.

Defendants zero in on Plaintiffs’ legal basis for seeking reconsideration, citing this 

Court’s finding that the Project would not cause habitat degradation within the meaning of the 

ACS. See FD Resp. at 11–12; DI Resp. at 5. The problem with this finding, as evidenced by 

Defendants’ citation to the Opinion and Order—not the record—is that the Forest Service did not 

make this finding in the first instance. Rather than citing to the record, the Court and Defendants

cite to Bark v. BLM, but that case is readily distinguishable, as explained in Plaintiffs’ Opening 

Memorandum and below. Absent record support for the proposition that the construction and 

operation of 17 miles of bike routes in sensitive, high-elevation watersheds would not cause 

habitat degradation, there is no basis to sustain the holding that the Project is consistent with the 

ACS and NFMA. 

Defendants offer a handful of additional responses, but none are meritorious. For 

example, Defendants note that the Forest Service assessed ACS consistency, but their citation 

only further highlights the basis for Plaintiffs’ motion. See FS_28087 (“With the concurrent 

implementation of the restoration projects * * * [t]he project is consistent with the Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy.”); see also DI Resp. at 9 (appealing to the “net positive” effects of 

restoration). This passage states precisely the conflict that remains unresolved by the Court’s 

Opinion and Order, for which Plaintiffs seek reconsideration: the Forest Service on the 

Case 3:13-cv-00828-AA Document 224 Filed 04/18/17 Page 6 of 15
Plaintiffs’ Reply ISO Reconsideration - 6

Bark et al. v. Northrop et al.,

Case No. 3:13-cv-828-AA

Crag Law Center

917 SW Oak St., Suite 417

Portland, OR 97205

Tel. (503) 525-2727

administrative record concluded that the restoration measures would “offset” the impacts from 

construction and operation; it did not conclude that construction/operation of 17 miles of new 

routes would not cause habitat degradation within the meaning of the ACS. The habitat 

degradation finding therefore is central to resolution of Plaintiffs’ NMFA claim: if the Project 

does indeed cause habitat degradation, and the Forest Service used the restoration measures to 

“offset” the habitat degrading impacts, then the Project is inconsistent with ACS Standard WR-3. 

See Op. Memo at 8–9. 

In addition, Defendants note that the Project involves some measures to “avoid and 

minimize” adverse impacts, but fail to demonstrate why that fact has any direct bearing on the 

question of “habitat degradation.” Indeed, as reflected by the record, even with the Project 

Design Criteria, the construction and operation of the bike trails would be a chronic source of 

sediment, impacting Critical Habitat for LCR steelhead. See Op. Memo at 7–8. This is exactly 

why the Forest Service developed the restoration measures—to try to “offset” the negative 

habitat impacts of the bike routes. See, e.g., FS_27698; FS_27805–06.3

Finally, Defendants accuse Plaintiffs of trying to “divide and conquer” the Project, as 

opposed to reviewing all of the Project elements as a whole. But assessing whether the Project’s 

restoration component is being used to offset the habitat degrading impacts of 

construction/operation is not a requirement invented by Plaintiffs—that is what WR-3 

specifically requires. It was the Forest Service that modified the original Project to include 

restoration measures. FS_12030. It was the Forest Service that chose to make its effects 

determinations in reliance on the offsetting influence of the restoration measures. FS_24051. 

																																																												 3 Defendants also suggest that the agency crafted the Project Design Criteria to “ensure 

compliance with WR-3,” DI Resp. at 5, but that argument cannot be squared with the record. 

The first time the Forest Service ever mentioned WR-3 was the Appeal Responses—well after

the Project had been designed, evaluated, and opened up for public comment.

Case 3:13-cv-00828-AA Document 224 Filed 04/18/17 Page 7 of 15
Plaintiffs’ Reply ISO Reconsideration - 7

Bark et al. v. Northrop et al.,

Case No. 3:13-cv-828-AA

Crag Law Center

917 SW Oak St., Suite 417

Portland, OR 97205

Tel. (503) 525-2727

And it was the Forest Service that evaluated ACS consistency by appealing to the benefits of 

restoration. See Op. Memo at 8.

Critically, it was also incumbent on the Forest Service to square this Project design with 

the plain mandates of the ACS. See, e.g., FS_3164 (NWFP EIS, providing: “Frequently, 

mitigation was used to attempt to neutralize the negative effects on riparian-dependent resources. 

Implementing a project placed the risk on the mitigation measure, which might not have 

achieved the desired result. * * * The risk has been shifted under the ACS * * *.”) (emphasis 

added); Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’ns v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 265 F.3d 1028, 

1032 (9th Cir. 2001) (“PCFFA”) (“The ACS also has binding standards and guidelines that 

restrict certain activities within areas designated as riparian reserves or key watersheds.”). 

If it is the case that the Forest Service believes that the construction and operation of the 

bike trails—independent from restoration measures—would not cause habitat degradation, then 

the agency must make that finding on the public record, in accordance with NEPA. But because 

the agency did not make this finding on the record before the Court, Plaintiffs respectfully ask 

the Court to reconsider its finding on the matter and revisit its ACS holding. 

III. New circumstances and information bear directly on whether the construction and 

operation of the bike routes would cause “habitat degradation.”

Under the standard of review for motions for reconsideration, this Court may take into 

account new evidence that has arisen during the course of the proceedings. In this case, the new 

evidence includes the completion of the restoration work and the publication of NMFS’s findings 

and conclusions in the Reinitiation BiOp, where NMFS specifically decoupled restoration from 

the impacts of bike route construction and operation in its effects analysis. Using this analytical 

framework, NMFS found that the “revised proposed action” would degrade the quality and 

Case 3:13-cv-00828-AA Document 224 Filed 04/18/17 Page 8 of 15
Plaintiffs’ Reply ISO Reconsideration - 8

Bark et al. v. Northrop et al.,

Case No. 3:13-cv-828-AA

Crag Law Center

917 SW Oak St., Suite 417

Portland, OR 97205

Tel. (503) 525-2727

quantity of aquatic habitat for listed LCR steelhead. See Op. Memo at 12.

4

 

Defendants offer no valid basis for their argument that this Court should turn a blind eye 

to current conditions. Defendants note that restoration has been completed in accordance with a 

stipulation of the Parties, and observe that NMFS was required to evaluate restoration as part of 

the “environmental baseline.” Plaintiffs do not contest those points.5 But neither point precludes 

this Court from considering the new evidence bearing directly on the present motion, which asks 

the Court to reconsider its finding that the Project would not cause habitat degradation.

Defendants’ briefing brings the relevance of this new evidence into sharper focus. For 

example, Defendants accuse Plaintiffs of characterizing “habitat degradation” according to a 

“hair-trigger” definition. But NMFS in the Reinitiation BiOp concluded that construction and 

operation of the bike routes would contribute short- and long-term habitat degradation. See, e.g., 

NMFS2AR _1676 (“Suspended sediments associated with the operation and maintenance of the 

bike park will occur annually and will be generated for the life of the bike park.”). Defendants 

provide no support for their argument that the impacts from an action that would “reduce 

spawning ground quality, limit egg and fry success, reduce pool volume, and reduce prey 

availability due to increased substrate embeddedness,” id., are somehow “de minimis.”

Defendants also suggest that NMFS did not find significant impacts at the watershed 

																																																												 4 As described in Plaintiffs’ concurrently filed briefing on summary judgment, this degree 

of habitat degradation was not disclosed or considered in the NEPA analysis, because the Forest 

Service presumed that all impacts would be “offset” by the restoration activities. The Forest 

Service made this finding in conjunction with its NLAA finding regarding LCR steelhead.

5 It is worth noting that Defendants agreed to the stipulation in lieu of defending against 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. ECF_37.

Furthermore, Defendant-Intervenor’s suggestion that Plaintiffs have “drawn-out” this 

litigation is not well taken. The length of this case is due to the intervening administrative 

actions of the Forest Service and NMFS, including (1) preparing the 2013 NIR; (2) revisiting the 

NLAA concurrence; (2) preparing the 2014 BiOp; (3) preparing the 2014 NIR; (4) assessing 

whether reinitiation was required; (5) preparing the Reinitiation BiOp; (6) preparing the 2016 

NIR.

Case 3:13-cv-00828-AA Document 224 Filed 04/18/17 Page 9 of 15
Plaintiffs’ Reply ISO Reconsideration - 9

Bark et al. v. Northrop et al.,

Case No. 3:13-cv-828-AA

Crag Law Center

917 SW Oak St., Suite 417

Portland, OR 97205

Tel. (503) 525-2727

level, but fail to connect those statements with the requirements of the ACS. See PCFFA, 265 

F.3d at 1036–37 (“Appropriate analysis of ACS compliance is undertaken at both the watershed 

and project levels.”). At the project level, NMFS found that the construction and operation of 

the bike routes would have adverse impacts on LCR steelhead and Critical Habitat. See, e.g., 

NMFS2AR_1673 (“While principal spawning and rearing habitat are located downstream of the 

action area, the aggregate effects of chronic sediment accumulation may have localized 

effects.”). Under the ACS, “[m]anagement actions that do not maintain the existing condition or 

lead to improved conditions in the long term would not ‘meet’ the intent of the [ACS] and thus, 

should not be implemented.”).

NMFS’s findings in the Reinitiation BiOp that the construction and operation of the bike 

routes would degrade aquatic habitat to the extent that the Project would result in “take” of 

threatened LCR steelhead and would adversely affect designated critical habitat are directly 

relevant to the “habitat degradation” question presented in this motion. NMFS2AR_1634, 1636.

IV. Defendants are mistaken that Bark v. BLM is on point. 

As a final matter, Plaintiffs briefly respond to Defendants’ portrayal of Bark v. BLM, to 

clear up Defendants’ mischaracterizations of that case on both the law and the facts. 

On the law, Defendants suggest that Bark v. BLM’s “key line of reasoning” was the 

observation that “evidence * * * that a project will result in some degradation does not, standing 

alone, constitute ACS noncompliance.” FD Resp. at 12 (citing 643 F. Supp. 2d at 1234–35). 

Defendants are wrong. As Plaintiffs pointed out in their Opening Memorandum, this statement 

from Bark v. BLM was dictum. When the court offered this alleged “key line of reasoning,” it 

expressly cabined the statement: “Even if the BLM had found that the adopted proposal would 

increase effects in the short-term to detectable levels, it would still not be in violation of the ACS 

Case 3:13-cv-00828-AA Document 224 Filed 04/18/17 Page 10 of 15
Plaintiffs’ Reply ISO Reconsideration - 10

Bark et al. v. Northrop et al.,

Case No. 3:13-cv-828-AA

Crag Law Center

917 SW Oak St., Suite 417

Portland, OR 97205

Tel. (503) 525-2727

objectives.” 643 F. Supp. 2d at 1234 (emphasis added).

The court already had held that the agency reasonably concluded that the project would 

not violate the ACS objectives on account of the fact that the project “would not lead to 

detectable increases in sediment and turbidity in streams.” Id. at 1234. It did so on the basis of 

numerous findings. Id. at 1225, 1226, 1234. Accordingly, the statement that followed “Even if,” 

on which Defendants rely, was dictum. See Blacks Law Dictionary (6th Ed. 1991) (defining 

“dicta” as those “[o]pinions of a judge which do not embody the resolution or determination of 

the specific case before the court.”). Defendants present no argument to the contrary. 

In any event, on the facts, the statements from Bark v. BLM are inapplicable because the 

Project here involves long-term sediment inputs. See NMFS2AR_1676 (suspended sediments 

for the life of the Project). In addition to the temporal differences between the instant Project 

and the one at issue in Bark v. BLM, there are key differences in the magnitude of impacts.

Defendants observe that the project in Bark v. BLM involved 85 acres of thinning in 

Riparian Reserves, but fail to mention that the logging would be carried out primarily via 

helicopter yarding. Id. at 1225. Defendants also fail to mention that the project did “not 

incorporate road construction in the [Riparian Reserves]”. Id. Moreover, the agency there had 

taken steps to remove the risk of short-term turbidity by eliminating culvert repair and 

replacement. Id. Finally, that project involved 60-foot buffers around streams, again, to prevent 

increases in stream turbidity. Id. Given the design measures in Bark v. BLM, “it [was] unlikely 

there would be increased sediment from the proposed action; in the event there is some increase, 

it will probably be too small to measure or observe.” 643 F. Supp. 2d at 1225. 

Here, in contrast, the Project involves the construction of 17 miles of road-like bike 

routes that would convert 12 acres of land to bare compacted soils. See FS_27782. Two acres of 

Case 3:13-cv-00828-AA Document 224 Filed 04/18/17 Page 11 of 15
Plaintiffs’ Reply ISO Reconsideration - 11

Bark et al. v. Northrop et al.,

Case No. 3:13-cv-828-AA

Crag Law Center

917 SW Oak St., Suite 417

Portland, OR 97205

Tel. (503) 525-2727

Riparian Reserves would be directly impacted within sensitive headwater watersheds. See 

FS_27803 (routes would be a “chronic sediment source,” similar to roads). There would be 22 

new stream crossings, and all the trails would converge “directly adjacent to a stream that is 

critical habitat for steelhead * * *.” FS_24000. Project-related sediment inputs would be 

measured in tons. See Op. Memo at 7, 14. The Forest Service should be made to determine, in 

the first instance, whether these impacts to the sensitive headwater drainages on the flanks of Mt. 

Hood, within Critical Habitat for LCR steelhead, constitute “habitat degradation” within the 

meaning of the ACS.

IV. Conclusion

For all of the foregoing reasons, and those stated in their Opening Memorandum,

Plaintiffs respectfully ask the Court to grant their motion, revisit the finding as to “habitat 

degradation,” and remand to the Forest Service to address the question in the first instance.

Respectfully submitted this 18th day of April 2017. 

/s/ Oliver J. H. Stiefel

Oliver J. H. Stiefel, OSB No. 135436

oliver@crag.org – (503) 227-2212

Ralph O. Bloemers, OSB No. 984172

ralph@crag.org - (503) 525-2727

Christopher G. Winter, OSB No. 984355 

chris@crag.org - (503) 525-2725

Crag Law Center

917 SW Oak Street, Suite 417

Portland, OR 97205

Fax: (503) 296-5454

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 3:13-cv-00828-AA Document 224 Filed 04/18/17 Page 12 of 15
Plaintiffs’ Reply ISO Reconsideration - i

Bark et al. v. Northrop et al.,

Case No. 3:13-cv-828-AA

Crag Law Center

917 SW Oak St., Suite 417

Portland, OR 97205

Tel. (503) 525-2727

TABLE OF CITATIONS

Forest Service Administrative Record (“FS”)

FS_ DATE Author / TITLE

244–871 1990 U.S. Forest Service, Land and Resource Management Plan –

Mt. Hood National Forest

2954–4594

3164

2/1/1994 U.S. Forest Service, Final Environmental Impact Statement on 

Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and OldGrowth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the 

Northern Spotted Owl

1812–2850 1/1/1991 Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team, Forest 

Ecosystem Management: An Ecological, Economic, and 

Social Assessment

12027–12054

12030

11/24/2010 U.S. Forest Service, Proposed Action

12295–12856 3/3/2011 U.S. Forest Service, Timberline Mountain Bike Trails and 

Skills Park – Preliminary Assessment

2954–4594 2/1/1994 U.S. Forest Service, Final Environmental Impact Statement on 

Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and OldGrowth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the 

Northern Spotted Owl

23464–23485 6/13/2011 William Stelle, Endangered Species Act Section 7 

Consultation – Letter of Concurrence from NMFS

23998–24000

24000

6/17/2011 Tom Black / Todd Parker, Emails discussing modeling

24001–24081

24051

6/22/2011 Katheryn Arendt, Fisheries Biological Assessment –

Timberline Downhill Bike Park

27628–27720

27698

7/11/2012 Katheryn Arendt, Fisheries Biological Evaluation –

Timberline Downhill Bike Park

27731–28084

27782, 27803,

27805, 27806 

11/2012 U.S. Forest Service, Timberline Ski Area Mountain Bike 

Trails and Skills Park: Environmental Assessment

28085–28108

28087

11/19/2012 Christopher Worth, Timberline Ski Area Mountain Bike 

Trails and Skills Park – Decision Notice and Finding of No 

Significant Impact

///

///

///

///

Case 3:13-cv-00828-AA Document 224 Filed 04/18/17 Page 13 of 15
Plaintiffs’ Reply ISO Reconsideration - ii

Bark et al. v. Northrop et al.,

Case No. 3:13-cv-828-AA

Crag Law Center

917 SW Oak St., Suite 417

Portland, OR 97205

Tel. (503) 525-2727

Forest Service Supplemental Record (“SUPP”)

SUPP_ DATE Author / TITLE

1287–1439 1994 U.S. Forest Service / U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 

Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for 

Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species 

Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl

Forest Service Second Supplemental Record (“FS2ndSUPP”)

FS2ndSUPP_ DATE Author / TITLE

Forest Service Fourth Supplemental Record (“F4thSUPP”)

FS4thSUPP_ DATE Author / TITLE

NMFS Administrative Record (“NMFS”)

NMFS_ DATE Author / TITLE

727–799 8/4/2014 National Marine Fisheries Service, Endangered Species Act 

Biological Opinion for the Timberline Downhill Bike Park, 

Still Creek, Sand Canyon, Glade and West Fork Salmon River 

Sub-Watersheds (HUCs 170800010201, 170800010202, 

170800010101), Mount Hood National Forest, Clackamas 

County, Oregon (signed)

NMFS Second Administrative Record (“NMFS2AR”)

NMFS2AR_ DATE Author / TITLE

1633–1709

1634, 1636, 

1673, 1676

8/4/2016 National Marine Fisheries Service, Biological Opinion 

resulting from Reinitiation of the Endangered Species Act 

Consultation for the Timberline Downhill Bike Park, Still 

Creek, Sand Canyon, Glade and West Fork Salmon River SubWatersheds (HUCs 170800010201, 170800010202, 

170800010101), Mount Hood National Forest, Clackamas 

County, Oregon

Case 3:13-cv-00828-AA Document 224 Filed 04/18/17 Page 14 of 15
Plaintiffs’ Reply ISO Reconsideration - iii

Bark et al. v. Northrop et al.,

Case No. 3:13-cv-828-AA

Crag Law Center

917 SW Oak St., Suite 417

Portland, OR 97205

Tel. (503) 525-2727

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Oliver Stiefel, hereby certify that I electronically transmitted the foregoing via ECF to 

all parties named below:

STEPHEN J. ODELL, OSB #903530 

steve.odell@usdoj.gov 

SEAN E. MARTIN, OSB # 054338 

sean.martin@usdoj.gov 

Assistant United States Attorneys 

1000 SW Third Avenue, Suite 600 

Portland, OR 97204 

Telephone: (503) 727-1010 

Facsimile: (503) 727-1117 

Of Attorneys for Federal Defendants 

SARAH J. CROOKS, OSB NO. 971512

scrooks@perkinscoie.com

PERKINS COIE LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Telephone: (503) 727-2000

Facsimile: (503) 727-2222

ROBERT A. MAYNARD, ISB NO. 5537, PRO HAC VICE

rmaynard@perkinscoie.com

ERIKA E. MALMEN, ISB NO. 6185, PRO HAC VICE

emalmen@perkinscoie.com

PERKINS COIE LLP

1111 West Jefferson Street, Suite 500

Boise, ID 83702

Telephone: (208) 343-3434

Facsimile: (208) 343-3232

Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenor RLK and Company

 /s/ Oliver J. H. Stiefel

Oliver J. H. Stiefel, OSB No. 135436

Case 3:13-cv-00828-AA Document 224 Filed 04/18/17 Page 15 of 15