Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00205/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00205-2/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 CIV-S-05-0211 MCE GGH

DEFENSE COUNCIL, SIERRA CLUB, CIV-S-05-0905 MCE GGH 

and THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY, CIV-S-05-0953 MCE GGH 

non-profit organizations,

 (Related Cases)

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.

----oo0oo----

Case 2:05-cv-00205-MCE-GGH Document 46 Filed 06/16/05 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

The other applicants for intervention, in addition to 1

TuCare, are California Forest Counties Schools Coalition,

Regional Council of Rural Counties, Western Council of Industrial

Workers, Klamath Alliance for Resources & Environment, Coarsegold

Resource Conservation District/Eastern Madera County Fire Safe

Council, Tulare County Resource Conservation District, Sierra

Resource Conservation District, Strawberry Property Owners’

Association, Huntington Lake Association, Huntington Lake Big

Creek Historical Conservancy, California Equestrian Trails &

Lands Coalition, California Forestry Association, California

Licensed Foresters Association, California/Nevada Snowmobile

Association, American Forest & Paper Association, American Forest

Resource Council, and BlueRibbon Coalition.

2

These related cases all challenge the sufficiency of the

2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (“the 2004 Framework”). 

Plaintiffs allege that in adopting the 2004 Framework, the

government violated various portions 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”). 

Now before the Court are five different Motions to Intervene

brought on behalf of twenty-seven (27) different

groups/organizations seeking to assert their own particular

interests into this litigation so as to ensure that those

interests are heard. Three motions have been filed in Sierra

Nevada Forest Protection Campaign v. Rey, et al., Case No. CIV-S05-0205, on behalf of the following: 1) Quincy Library Group and

Plumas County; 2) California Ski Industry Association; and 3)

Tuolumne County Alliance for Resources & Environment (TuCare), et

al. In People of the State of California ex rel. Bill Lockyer 1

v. United States

Department of Agriculture, et al., Case No. CIV-S-05-0211,

Case 2:05-cv-00205-MCE-GGH Document 46 Filed 06/16/05 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

All further references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the 2

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

3

motions have been submitted both on behalf of the TuCare group of

intervenors and by the California Cattlemen’s Association. 

Finally, in California Forestry Ass’n, et al. v. Dale N.

Bosworth, et al., Case No. CIV-S-05-0905, the Sierra Nevada

Forest Protection Campaign, Center for Biological Diversity,

National Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and The

Wilderness Society have collectively moved to intervene.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, a party may 2

intervene in pending litigation either as a matter of right,

under subsection (a), or permissively with the court’s consent

under subsection (b). 

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 the parties seeking to intervene in the cases

presently before this Court are largely private parties, and

Case 2:05-cv-00205-MCE-GGH Document 46 Filed 06/16/05 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

given the fact that many of the claims sought to be asserted do

implicate NEPA, intervention as a matter of right appears

inappropriate in this instance.

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

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

While several parties have filed responses to the

intervention requests now before the Court, no one argues that

the threshold requirements for permissive intervention have not

been satisfied. These cases were only recently filed and there

is no dispute that intervention has been sought on a timely

basis. Similarly, because the interests advanced by the proposed

intervenors all 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.

Case 2:05-cv-00205-MCE-GGH Document 46 Filed 06/16/05 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

In exercising its discretion to allow permissive

intervention, the Court finds that the 2004 Framework impacts

large and varied interests, including those advanced by the

proposed intervenors. 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 proposed intervenors herein, will contribute to the

just and equitable resolution of these cases. Consequently

permissive intervention will be allowed, and the motions

presently before the Court are 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). This inquiry has been the

primary focus of the original parties to this litigation in

response to these motions. Those parties contend 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

Case 2:05-cv-00205-MCE-GGH Document 46 Filed 06/16/05 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

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 these related

cases. Opening points and authorities will be limited to fifty

(50) pages in length. Opposition papers are subject to a thirty

(30) page 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 16, 2005

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00205-MCE-GGH Document 46 Filed 06/16/05 Page 6 of 6