Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-cv-08088/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-cv-08088-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:4332 Environmental Policy - Coop of Agency Reports

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Center for Biological Diversity, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

United States Forest Service,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 12-CV-8088-PCT-PGR

ORDER

Before the Court is the Motion to Intervene filed by proposed intervenors Kane

County, Utah, and Fredonia, Arizona. (Doc. 17.) The proposed intervenors seek to

intervene as of right or permissively under Rule 24(a) and (b) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion. (Doc. 23.) The Court finds that

intervention is appropriate.

At issue in this case is Plaintiff’s challenge to Defendant’s implementation of the

“Jacob-Ryan Vegetation Management Project” in the Kaibab National Forest. Rule

24(a)(2) requires a court to allow intervention for a proposed intervenor who “claims an

interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action” and is “so

situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the

movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that

interest.” See Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 818 (9th

Cir. 2001) (noting that Rule 24(a) is construed “liberally in favor of potential 

intervenors”).

Case 3:12-cv-08088-PGR Document 26 Filed 07/31/12 Page 1 of 2
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 -

The proposed intervenors here, Kane County and the town of Fredonia, have

shown a protectable interest in the Kaibab National Forest and its management,

particularly as it relates to the prevention of forest fires, which effect the economy of the

county and town and the well being of their residents. (See Doc. 18 at 5–7.) The proposed

intervenors have also shown that their interests may not be adequately represented by the

existing parties. See Northwest Forest Resources Council v. Glickman, 82 F.3d 825, 838

(9th Cir. 1996). While they share with the U.S. Forest Service the general goal of

implementing the Jacob-Ryan Plan, the proposed intervenors advocate a more aggressive

approach to reducing fuel loads. (Id. at 8–9.)

The Court also finds that permissive intervention is appropriate under Rule 24(b)

because the proposed intervenors assert a claim or defense in common with the main

action. See Northwest Forest Resources Council, 82 F.3d 825 at 839.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED granting the motion to intervene (Doc. 17).

DATED this 30th day of July, 2012.

Case 3:12-cv-08088-PGR Document 26 Filed 07/31/12 Page 2 of 2