Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00205/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00205-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 05:551 Administrative Procedure Act

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

SIERRA NEVADA FOREST PROTECTION No. CIV-S-05-0205 MCE GGH 

CAMPAIGN, CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL 

DIVERSITY, NATURAL RESOURCES 

DEFENSE COUNCIL, SIERRA CLUB, 

and THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY, 

non-profit organizations,

 

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER

MARK REY, in his official

capacity as Under Secretary of

Agriculture, DALE BOSWORTH, in

his official capacity as Chief

of the United States Forest

Service, JACK BLACKWELL, in his

official capacity as Regional

Forester, Region 5, United

States Forest Service, and

JAMES M. PEÑA, in his official

capacity as Forest Supervisor,

Plumas National Forest, 

Defendants.

________________________________/

and Related Cases.

Case 2:05-cv-00205-MCE-GGH Document 72 Filed 09/14/05 Page 1 of 6
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

Unless otherwise noted, all further references to “Rule” or 1

“Rules” are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

2

----oo0oo----

This case, as well as the cases that have been related to

it, challenges the sufficiency of the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest

Plan Amendment (“the 2004 Framework”) as promulgated by the

United States Forest Service (“Forest Service”) . Plaintiffs

allege that in adopting the 2004 Framework, the Forest Service

violated various provisions of the National Environmental Policy

Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq. (“NEPA”), the Administrative

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706 (“APA”), and the National

Forest Management Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1600, et seq. (“NFMA”). By

Order dated July 21, 2005, the Court has already allowed 21

entities represented by three separate sets of counsel to

intervene in this matter on a permissive basis under Rule 24(b)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Presently before the 1

Court is a Motion to Intervene on behalf of the California

Cattlemen’s Association (“CCA”). CCA asks that it be permitted

to intervene either as a matter of right under Rule 24(a) or

permissively pursuant to Rule 24(b).

CCA claims that Plaintiffs’ challenge to the 2004 Framework,

if successful, would have a substantial, undesirable effect on

the ability of its member cattle ranchers to graze their

livestock. CCA alleges that the 2004 Framework, unlike it 2001

predecessor, provided an implementable grazing program. 

According to CCA, Plaintiffs’ objective, a return to the 2001

Framework, would adversely impact the ability of its members to

Case 2:05-cv-00205-MCE-GGH Document 72 Filed 09/14/05 Page 2 of 6
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

3

graze their livestock. CCA asserts that it has distinct,

independent business and property interests in ensuring continued

grazing rights under the 2004 Framework that may not be

adequately represented by either the Forest Service (who seeks to

protect the viability of the 2004 Framework as a whole) or the

other intervenors to this case (none of which are specifically

aligned with the livestock industry, like CCA). Plaintiffs

oppose CCA’s motion, contending that it cannot meet the

requirements for intervention as a matter of right and further

should not be permitted to intervene permissively.

An applicant has the right to intervene under Rule 24(a) if

1) the intervention request is made in a timely fashion; 2) a

“significantly protectable” interest related to the subject

matter of the litigation is asserted; 3) disposition of the

matter may impair or impede the applicant’s interest in the

absence of intervention; and 4) if the applicant’s interest is

not adequately represented by existing parties. Wetlands Action

Network v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs, 222 F.3d 1105,

1113-14 (9 Cir. 2000). Private parties may not, however, th

intervene as a matter of right in an action alleging NEPA

violations on grounds that such parties do not have the requisite

significantly protectable interest in NEPA compliance actions. 

Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094, 1108 (9 Cir. th

2004). Because CCA is a private party, and given the fact that 

the claims sought to be asserted in this action do implicate

NEPA, intervention here as a matter of right appears

inappropriate.

Permissive intervention under Rule 24(b), however, “plainly

Case 2:05-cv-00205-MCE-GGH Document 72 Filed 09/14/05 Page 3 of 6
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

4

dispenses with any requirement that the intervenor shall have a

direct personal or pecuniary interest in the subject of the

litigation.” SEC v. U.S. Realty & Improvement Co., 310 U.S. 434,

459 (1940). Consequently permissive intervention may be allowed

here even in the face of allegations sounding under NEPA.

An applicant seeking permissive intervention must satisfy

three threshold requirements: 1) the motion must be timely; 2)

the court must have an independent basis for jurisdiction over

the applicant’s claims; and 3) the intervenor’s interests must

share a common question of law or fact with the main action. 

Donnelly v. Glickman, 159 F.3d 405, 412 (9 Cir. 1998). The th

district court has broad discretion to grant permissive

intervention if these factors are met. See Spangler v. Pasadena

City Board of Educ., 552 F.2d 1326, 1329 (9 Cir. 1977). th

 The threshold requirements for permissive intervention on

CCA’s part appear to have been satisfied. Although the instant

action was filed on January 31, 2005, no briefing schedule for

resolving this matter (or the other related cases) has yet been

established. In addition, because the interests advanced by CCA

relate to the same 2004 Framework at issue in the main action,

and because the same jurisdictional bases apply, the remaining

prerequisites (common issues and independent jurisdictional

grounds) are also met. 

In exercising its discretion to allow permissive

intervention, the Court finds that the 2004 Framework impacts

large and varied interests, including those advanced by CCA. The

potential magnitude of the 2004 Framework is great, and the

implications flowing from any challenge to it may be

Case 2:05-cv-00205-MCE-GGH Document 72 Filed 09/14/05 Page 4 of 6
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

Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, 2

this matter was deemed suitable for decision without oral

argument. E.D. Local Rule 78-230(h).

5

considerable. Ensuring that all competing interests implicated

by the Framework are heard, including the particular interests

advanced by CCA herein, will contribute to the just and equitable

resolution of this case. Consequently permissive intervention

will be allowed, and the motion presently before the Court is

granted.2

In permitting such intervention, however, the Court must

still consider “whether the intervention will unduly delay or

prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original

parties.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(2). Plaintiff contends that

without briefing limitations, the presence of multiple

intervenors in this matter may prove logistically impracticable,

both in terms of the parties’ response to numerous briefs and the

Court’s burden in considering the voluminous papers that may be

filed in response to anticipated motions for summary judgment. 

In that regard, the court may impose reasonable conditions and

restrictions on the participation of intervenors so that their

involvement does not derail the efficient conduct of these

proceedings. See Stringfellow v. Concerned Neighbors in Action,

480 U.S. 370, 380 (1987).

The Court will consequently impose limits on the briefing

allowed in any summary judgment motion filed in this case, as

well as cases that have been deemed related to it. Opening

points and authorities will be limited to fifty (50) pages in

length. Opposition papers are subject to a thirty (30) page

Case 2:05-cv-00205-MCE-GGH Document 72 Filed 09/14/05 Page 5 of 6
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

6

limitation, and reply memoranda shall not exceed (10) pages. Any

brief filed on behalf of any intervenor, or group of intervenors

represented by single counsel, shall not be longer than twenty

(20) pages. Moreover, since a briefing schedule is in the

process of being established for both this case and its related

cases, no further intervention requests (beyond those already

made) will be entertained absent a showing of compelling interest

for such intervention. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 14, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00205-MCE-GGH Document 72 Filed 09/14/05 Page 6 of 6