Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00953/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00953-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 05:702 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----

PACIFIC RIVERS COUNCIL, NO. CIV. S 05-0953 MCE GGH

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE,

et al., 

Defendants.

and

CALIFORNIA SKI INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION,

Applicant for Intervention.

----oo0oo----

In its complaint, Plaintiff Pacific Rivers Council

challenges the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (“2004

Framework”) on grounds that its approval, by Defendant United

States Forest Service (“Forest Service”), violates various

provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §

4321, et seq. (“NEPA”) and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5

Case 2:05-cv-00953-MCE-AC Document 54 Filed 10/19/05 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.

CSIA has already been permitted to intervene in two related 2

cases, Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign et al. v. Rey et

al., Case No. CIV. S 05-0205 MCE GGH (a similar challenge to the

2004 Framework brought by a consortium of environmental

protection organizations), and People of the State of California

(continued...)

2

U.S.C. §§ 701-706 (“APA”). By Order dated July 21, 2005, the

Court allowed the California Forest Association (“CFA”) and the

American Forest & Paper Association (“AFPA”) to intervene on a

permissive basis under Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Moreover, on September 14, 2005, permissive 1

intervention was also permitted on behalf of the Quincy Library

Group. Presently before the Court is a Motion to Intervene on

behalf of the California Ski Industry Association (“CSIA”). CSIA

asks that it be permitted to intervene either as a matter of

right under Rule 24(a) or permissively pursuant to Rule 24(b).

CSIA claims that Plaintiff’s challenge to the 2004

Framework, if successful, could impact the continued viability of

Special Use Permits granted to ski areas utilizing national

forest land. According to CSIA, the 2004 Framework makes it

clear that certain species and vegetation management standards do

not apply to ski areas. CSIA seeks to assert these 

particularized interests, and in so doing to protect the 2004

Framework, through this intervention request. As opposed to the

Forest Service, which will defend the 2004 Framework in general

terms, CSIA claims that it has a narrowly focused perspective

which it should be permitted to underscore by way of

intervention. Plaintiff nonetheless opposes CSIA’s motion, 2

Case 2:05-cv-00953-MCE-AC Document 54 Filed 10/19/05 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

(...continued) 2

v. U.S. Dept. Of Agriculture, et al, Case No. CIV. S 05-0211 MCE

GGH (California’s own challenge to the 2004 Framework). By

seeking to intervene in the third related challenge to the 2004

Framework represented by this case, CSIA seeks to ensure that its

interests are adequately heard in all three related cases.

3

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 CSIA 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

dispenses with any requirement that the intervenor shall have a

direct personal or pecuniary interest in the subject of the

Case 2:05-cv-00953-MCE-AC Document 54 Filed 10/19/05 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

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

CSIA’s part appear to have been satisfied. The instant action

was filed on May 13, 2005 and no briefing schedule for resolving

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

established. In addition, because the interests advanced by CSIA

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 CSIA. 

The potential magnitude of the 2004 Framework is great, and the

implications flowing from any challenge to it may be

considerable. Ensuring that all competing interests implicated

by the Framework are heard, including those advanced by CSIA

Case 2:05-cv-00953-MCE-AC Document 54 Filed 10/19/05 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, 3

this matter was deemed suitable for decision without oral

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

5

herein, will contribute to the just and equitable resolution of

this case. Moreover, CSIA’s particular interests in preserving

the 2004 Framework may not adequately be represented by the

existing parties in this case. Consequently permissive

intervention will be allowed, and the motion presently before the

Court is granted.3

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-00953-MCE-AC Document 54 Filed 10/19/05 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 exceed 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: October 19, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00953-MCE-AC Document 54 Filed 10/19/05 Page 6 of 6