Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00308/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00308-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 16:1538 Endangered Species 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

CALIFORNIA STATE GRANGE, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v. 

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES

SERVICE, et al.,

 Defendants,

 and

FEDERATION OF FLY FISHERS, et

al.,

 Intervenor-Defendant

 Applicants.

1:06-CV-00308 OWW DLB

ORDER GRANTING INTERVENORDEFENDANT APPLICANTS’

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO

INTERVENE (DOC. 21)

I. INTRODUCTION

This lawsuit concerns the listing of five populations of

West Coast steelhead (O. Mykiss) as threatened or endangered

species under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”). Plaintiffs

challenge the listings, arguing that, in reaching the listing

determinations, the federal defendants unlawfully distinguished

populations of migratory O. Mykiss from populations of resident

O. Mykiss, and populations of naturally-spawed O. Mykiss from

hatchery-born O. Mykiss. (Compl. at ¶1.) 

Three non-profit organizations dedicated to the promotion of

Case 1:06-cv-00308-OWW -DLB Document 38 Filed 11/01/06 Page 1 of 11
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

2

fly fishing and to the conservation of fishery resources move to

intervene as defendants in the lawsuit. (Doc. 21.) Their motion

is unopposed.

II. APPLICANTS

The Federation of Fly Fishers (FFF) is a national non-profit

organization based in Bozeman, Montana. It has regional councils

or chapters that encompass California. (Rockwell Decl., Doc.

22., at ¶5.) FFF has approximately 11,000 members who are

dedicated to promoting “fly fishing as a recreational use of

aquatic resources and to preserving, protecting, and restoring

aquatic resources, including water, fauna, and riparian lands.” 

(Id. at ¶5.) FFF’s mission includes the conservation of wild

steelhead populations. (Id. at ¶¶ 5-6.)

The Northern California Council for the Federation of Fly

Fishers (NCCFFF) is a non-profit organization associated with FFF

and organized under the laws of California. (Id. at ¶¶ 2-3.) 

All members of NCFFF are also members of FFF. (Id. at ¶ 13.) 

NCCFFF represents the fly fishing interests of approximately

6,000 individuals, “many of whom either live near steelhead

habitat or frequently visit those areas for recreation.” (Id.) 

NCCFFF’s mission is to “promote the sport of fly fishing and the

conservation, preservation, and restoration of fishery resources

in northern California...including Central Valley Steelhead and

their habitats in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River system and the

Sacramento/San Francisco Bay Delta.” (Id. at ¶4.)

Trout Unlimited (TU) is a national non-profit coldwater

fisheries conservation organization. (Curtis Decl., Doc. 23, at

Case 1:06-cv-00308-OWW -DLB Document 38 Filed 11/01/06 Page 2 of 11
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

¶2.) TU is dedicated to the conservation, protection, and

restoration of wild trout, salmon, and steelhead fishery

resources. (Id.) TU has more than 140,000 members in over 450

chapters across the country. (Id.) TU’s members fish and

otherwise recreate in the rivers of Northern California that

provide habitat for California steelhead. (Id. at ¶7.) TU has

participated in numerous efforts to protect wild steelhead in

California and has led efforts to shape NMFS’s policies regarding

the treatment of hatchery salmon and steelhead. (Id. at ¶4.)

III. DISCUSSION

A. Intervention as of Right.

1. Legal Standard.

Intervention is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

24. To intervene as a matter of right under Rule 24(a)(2), an

applicant must claim an interest, the protection of which may, as

a practical matter, be impaired or impeded if the lawsuit

proceeds without the applicant. Forest Conservation Council v.

United States Forest Serv., 66 F.3d 1489, 1493 (9th Cir. 1993). 

The Ninth Circuit applies Rule 24(a) liberally, in favor of

intervention, and requires a district court to “take all wellpleaded, non-conclusory allegations in the motion as true absent

sham, frivolity or other objections.” Southwest Ctr. for

Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 820 (9th Cir. 2001). 

A four part test is used to evaluate a motion for intervention of

right: 

//

//

Case 1:06-cv-00308-OWW -DLB Document 38 Filed 11/01/06 Page 3 of 11
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

(1) the motion must be timely; 

(2) the applicant must claim a "significantly

protectable" interest relating to the property or

transaction which is the subject of the action; 

(3) the applicant must be so situated that the

disposition of the action may as a practical

matter impair or impede its ability to protect

that interest; and 

(4) the applicant's interest must be inadequately

represented by the parties to the action. 

Forest Conservation Council, 66 F.3d at 1493.

2. Timeliness.

In assessing timeliness, courts in the Ninth Circuit must

consider: (1) the current stage of the proceedings; (2) whether

the existing parties would be prejudiced; and (3) the reason for

any delay in moving to intervene. League of United Latin Am.

Citizens v. Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297, 1302 (9th Cir. 1997). Here,

although six months have passed since the filing of the complaint

on March 20, 2006 (Doc. 1), the administrative record was not

filed until late September 2006 (Doc. 18), and Plaintiffs’

pending motion for summary judgment (set for hearing on January

8, 2007) was not filed until after the filing of the instant

motion for intervention (see Doc. 29, filed Oct. 10, 2006). 

Applicants agree to abide by the existing briefing schedule and

do not anticipate seeking any discovery. (Doc. 21 at 5.) 

Moreover, no substantive decisions have been made by the district

court in this case. See Northwest Forest Resource Council v.

Glickman, 82 F.3d 825, 837 (9th Cir. 1996)(existing parties are

not prejudiced when “the motion was filed before the district

court made any substantive rulings.”). The motion for

Case 1:06-cv-00308-OWW -DLB Document 38 Filed 11/01/06 Page 4 of 11
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

5

intervention is timely. 

3. Significantly Protectable Interests.

To demonstrate a “significantly protectable interest,” “a

prospective intervenor must establish that [1] the interest

asserted is protectable under some law, and [2] there is a

relationship between the legally protected interest and the

claims at issue.” Sierra Club v. EPA, 995 F.2d 1478, 1484 (9th

Cir. 1993). 

Here, for a number of reasons, a finding that Applicants

have a significantly protectable interest is justified. First,

Applicants played a central role in the process that ultimately

generated the challenged listings. (See Rockwell Decl. at ¶¶ 7-

9; Curtis Decl. at ¶¶ 4, 6). TU specifically petitioned to have

wild steelhead listed. (Curtis Decl. at ¶4.) A public interest

group is “entitled as a matter of right to intervene in [an]

action challenging the legality of measure it has supported. 

Idaho Farm Bureau Fed’n v. Babbitt, 58 F.3d 1392, 1297 (9th Cir.

1995); see also Sagebrush Rebellion Inc. v Watt, 713 F.2d 527

(9th Cir. 1983) (National Audubon Society rightful intervenor in

challenge to creation of bird of prey preserve the Society had

supported); Wash. State Bldg. & Constr. Trades v. Spellman, 684

F.2d 627 (9th Cir. 1982)(public interest organization that

sponsored measure prohibiting importation of low-level

radioactive waste originating outside the state had right to

intervene in action challenging constitutionality of the

measure). Moreover, Applicants are conservation and fishing

organizations whose missions are to preserve and restore wild

Case 1:06-cv-00308-OWW -DLB Document 38 Filed 11/01/06 Page 5 of 11
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

salmonids, including ths specific populations of wild steelhead

which are the concern of the listing determinations challenged in

this case. (Rockwell Decl. at ¶13; Curtis Decl. at ¶7.) See

Sagebrush Rebellion, 731 F.2d at 526-28 (applicants’

“environmental, conservation and wildlife interests” warranted

intervention as a matter of right).

4. Impairment of Interests.

An applicant for intervention as of right must be “so

situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical

matter impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect that

interest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). The critical question is

whether the applicant’s interest would be “substantially affected

in a practical sense by the determination made in an action...”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 24, Advisory Committee’s Notes. 

This requirement is met here. Should Plaintiffs succeed in

invalidating the challenged listings, Applicants’ interests in

the preservation and restoration of wild steelhead populations

would suffer. This is sufficient impairment. See Idaho Farm

Bureau Fed’n, 58 F.3d at 1398 (delisting of species impairs

conservation groups’ interest in its preservation). 

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 1:06-cv-00308-OWW -DLB Document 38 Filed 11/01/06 Page 6 of 11
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

7

5. Adequate Representation of DWR’s Interest by

Existing Parties.

In assessing the adequacy of representation, the Ninth

Circuit looks at three factors: 

(1) whether the existing parties will undoubtedly make

all of the applicant’s arguments;

(2) whether the existing parties are capable of and

willing to make the applicant’s arguments; and

(3) whether the applicant offers a necessary element

to the proceedings that otherwise would be

neglected. 

Southwest Ctr. for Biological Diversity, 268 F.3d at 823. 

“[T]he requirement of inadequacy of representation is satisfied

if the applicant shows that representation of its interests may

be inadequate....[T]he burden of making this showing is minimal.” 

Sagebrush Rebellion Inc. v. Watt, 713 F.2d 525, 528 (9th Cir.

1983). It is undisputable that Plaintiffs will not adequately

represent Applicants’ interests. The critical question is

whether the federal defendants can adequately represent

Applicants’ interests.

It is “well-settled precedent in this circuit” that “[w]here

an applicant for intervention and an existing party have the same

ultimate objective, a presumption of adequacy of representation

arises.” League of United Latin Am. Citizens, 131 F.3d at 1305. 

This presumption is triggered here because the Applicants and the

Federal Defendants share the ultimate objective of upholding the

validity of the listings. See id. (ultimate objective of

upholding validity of a law shared by state defendants and

prospective intervenor, a political interest-group). However,

the presumption is rebuttable upon a showing that the applicant

Case 1:06-cv-00308-OWW -DLB Document 38 Filed 11/01/06 Page 7 of 11
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

 Although Forest Conservation Council applies this 1

“practical matter” language in the context of the third element

(“practical impairment”) of the intervention of right test, this

language has informed the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning on the fourth

element (adequacy of representation) as well. See Arakaki v.

Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1086 (9th Cir. 2003). The language is

drawn from the Rule 24 advisory committee notes that state “if an

absentee would be substantially affected in a practical sense by

the determination made in an action, he should, as a general

rule, be entitled to intervene.” 

8

and the existing parties “do not have sufficiently congruent

interests.” Southwest Ctr. for Biological Diversity, 268 F.3d at

823. The Ninth Circuit places considerable weight on the

practical consequences of a lawsuit. Courts must determine

whether an applicant’s ability to protect its interests will be,

“as a practical matter, impaired or impeded by the disposition of

the action.” Forest Conservation Council, 66 F.3d at 1497-98.1

In Forest Conservation Council, environmental groups sued

the Forest Service for failing to undertake appropriate

environmental review of its guidelines for the management of

Northern Goshawk habitat. The State of Arizona moved to

intervene, arguing that the issuance of an injunction requested

by plaintiffs would threaten state lands adjacent to forest

service lands because suspension of forest management activities

would increase the likelihood of catastrophic forest fires. 

Similarly, an Arizona county moved to intervene, asserting that

the relief sought by plaintiffs would adversely affect its

interest in the revenue it receives from taxes and fees imposed

on the use of the federally-controlled lands. Id. at 1492. The

Ninth Circuit held that both the State and the County had the

right to intervene, rejecting the argument that “amicus curiae

Case 1:06-cv-00308-OWW -DLB Document 38 Filed 11/01/06 Page 8 of 11
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

9

status is sufficient for [applicants] to protect their

interests....[because if applicants] are not made a party to this

action, they will have no legal means to challenge [any]

injunction while it remains in effect.” Id. at 1498.

Applicants essentially argue that the federal defendants

will not adequately represent their interests because “the

federal agency has a recent history of refusing to defend

existing ESA protections.” (Doc. 21 at 9.) 

NMFS also does not adequately represent Applicants’

interests. This federal agency has a recent history of

refusing to defend existing ESA protections. For

example, it did not appeal the decision in Alsea Valley

Alliance, in which the Oregon District Court

invalidated the ESA listing for Oregon coast coho

salmon, leaving it to conservation and fishing

organizations to do so as intervenors. See Modesto

Irrigation District, No. CIV F 02-6553 OWW DLB, slip

op. at 15-19 (attached as Exhibit 1) (holding that the

government’s decision not to appeal Alsea Valley

Alliance demonstrates the inadequacy of its

representation of endangered salmonids); Alsea Valley

Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 06-6093-HO, slip op. at 3

(attached as Exhibit 2) (same); California State

Grange, Civ. No. 02-60440HO, slip op. at 7-8 (attached

as Exhibit 3) (same). 

(Doc. 21 at 9.) Of particular note is Applicants’ unrebutted

assertion that “because of inadequacy of NMFS’s representation of

Applicants’ interests, Applicants are currently involved in an

affirmative challenge to NMFS’s listing determination for

populations of steelhead not at issue in the present case. Trout

Unlimited v. Lohn, No. C06-CV-483-JCC (W.D. Wash. July 13,

2006).” (Id.)

Moreover, Applicants intend to “argue that the listings

should remain in place to protect the species during any

necessary remand.” (Doc. 21 at 9.) In contrast, Applicants

assert that “the government has failed to make such arguments in

Case 1:06-cv-00308-OWW -DLB Document 38 Filed 11/01/06 Page 9 of 11
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

10

the past [and ] may not make these arguments in the present

case....” (Id.) Neither Plaintiffs nor the federal defendants

will adequately represent Applicants’ interests in the

subject matter of this litigation.

Applicants’ motion for intervention of right is GRANTED

subject to any conditions upon briefing set by the district

court.

B. Permissive Intervention.

Alternatively, Applicants’ request permission to

permissively intervene pursuant to Rule 24(b)(2), which provides

that a court may, in its discretion, permit intervention, “when

an applicant's claim or defense and the main action have a

question of law or fact in common.” In exercising its discretion

the court “shall consider whether the intervention will unduly

delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original

parties.” Id.

The language of the rule makes clear that if the would

be intervenor's claim or defense contains no question

of law or fact that is raised also by the main action,

intervention under Rule 24(b)(2) must be denied. But,

if there is a common question of law or fact, the

requirement of the rule has been satisfied and it is

then discretionary with the court whether to allow

intervention.

Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094, 1111 (9th Cir.

2002). “Where proposed intervenors would present no new

questions to the court, a motion for permissive intervention is

properly denied.” Hallco Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Quaeck, 161 F.R.D.

98, 103 (D. Or. 1995). Here, however, as discussed, Applicants

may be the only parties supporting certain forms of potential

relief in case of remand. Permissive intervention would be

Case 1:06-cv-00308-OWW -DLB Document 38 Filed 11/01/06 Page 10 of 11
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

11

justified on that ground. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Applicants’ motion to intervene as a matter of right is

GRANTED subject to any conditions upon briefing set by the

district court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 1, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

b2e55c UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00308-OWW -DLB Document 38 Filed 11/01/06 Page 11 of 11