The Wilderness Society et al v. United States Forest Service et al

Filing 75

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting 69 Motion to Intervene; The Magic Valley Trail Machine Association, Idaho Recreation Council, and BlueRibbon Coalition shall HEREBY be listed in this action as Intervenor-Defendants.. Signed by Judge Edward J. Lodge. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by dks)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY and
PRAIRIE FALCON AUDUBON, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE UNITED STATES FOREST
SERVICE, et al,
Defendants,
and
MAGIC VALLEY TRAIL MACHINE
ASSOCIATION, an Idaho non-profit
Corporation; IDAHO RECREATION
COUNCIL, and Idaho unincorporated
non-profit association; and
BLUERIBBON COALITION, INC., an
Idaho non-profit corporation,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV08-363-E-EJL

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Intervenor-Applicants.

Pending before the Court is Magic Valley Trail Machine Association, Idaho
Recreation Council, and BlueRibbon Coalition (collectively referred to as the
“Recreational Groups”) Amended Motion to Intervene. (Dkt. No. 69.) The Motion is
made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 seeking both intervention of right
and permissive intervention. Having fully reviewed the record herein, the Court finds that
M EM ORANDUM ORDER - 1

the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and record.
Accordingly, in the interest of avoiding further delay, and because the Court conclusively
finds that the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument, the
Motion shall be decided on the record before this Court without oral argument.
Factual and Procedural Background
This is an environmental suit whereby the Plaintiffs, two conservation groups, are
seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the named Federal Defendants under the
Administrative Procedure Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water
Act, the National Forest Management Act, Executive Order 11644 as amended by
Executive Order 11989, and the regulations established to implement the same. (Dkt. No.
1.) Plaintiffs are challenging the United States Forest Service’s May 28, 2008 Appeal
Decision designating 1,196 miles of roads and trails for motorized recreational use in the
Minidoka Ranger District of the Sawtooth National Forest in Idaho. This decision,
Plaintiffs argue, violates the above statutes and executive orders by allowing motorized
traffic in the area.
The Recreational Groups “represent and include individuals who use motor
vehicles and other means of access to visit and recreate” in the area at issue on a regular
basis. (Dkt. No. 15, pp. 3, 6.) They seek to intervene asserting “an interest relating to the
property or transaction at issue in this matter” which they will be unable to protect unless
permitted to intervene. (Dkt. No. 15, p. 2.) The Federal Defendants, they argue, “do not
adequately represent the private recreational, aesthetic and procedural interests of the
Recreational Groups....” (Dkt. No. 15, p. 2.) This Court previously denied the
M EM ORANDUM ORDER - 2

Recreational Groups’ Motion to Intervene. (Dkt. No. 23.) On appeal, the Ninth Circuit
reversed that decision abandoning the “federal defendant” rule and remanded the matter
to this Court to “consider anew” the Recreational Groups’ Motion to Intervene. (Dkt.
Nos. 66, 68); Wilderness Society v. USFS, 630 F.3d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 2011). The
Recreational Groups then filed their Amended Motion to Intervene based upon the
briefing previously submitted. (Dkt. No. 69.)
In their Amended Motion, the Recreational Groups again seek intervention as of
right or, alternatively, permissive intervention. (Dkt. No. 69.) In doing so, the
Recreational Groups have agreed, for the sake of expediency, to 1) concur and join in the
Federal Defendants’ cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and associated pleadings and
2) will not seek to raise any cross-claims against the 2008 Minidoka Ranger District
Travel Plan Revision. (Dkt. No. 69.) The Recreational Groups do, however, desire to be
fully involved as a party should further proceedings be needed. The Federal Defendants
have taken no position on the Amended Motion other than to continue their position
previously articulated regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies and would object
to any participation in this action by the Recreational Groups that would circumvent
exhaustion requirements. (Dkt. No. 73.) The Plaintiffs likewise take no position on the
Motion so long as it includes the terms of intervention as set forth therein by the
Recreational Groups. (Dkt. No. 72.)1

1

The Plaintiffs previously filed an opposition to the motion. (Dkt. No. 17.)

M EM ORANDUM ORDER - 3

Discussion
Under Rule 24(a), an applicant is entitled to intervention as of right if a property
interest claimed by the applicant may, as a practical matter, be impaired or impeded by
the lawsuit’s adjudication and the applicant’s interest is inadequately represented by
existing parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). The Ninth Circuit has articulated a four-part test to
aid the court in determining when intervention of right is permitted:
(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.
Wilderness Society, 630 F.3d at 1177 (citation omitted). Rule 24(a) is construed liberally
in favor of potential intervenors. Id. at 1179.
The Court finds the Recreational Groups have satisfied this test. The Motion was
initially filed prior to any dispositive motions and was therefore timely. (Dkt. No. 15.)
Further, the Amended Motion states given the current procedural posture of the case that
the Recreational Groups will not seek to file a separate dispositive motion or any crossclaims. (Dkt. No. 69.) As such, the Court finds the Motions to be timely. See Idaho Farm
Bureau Fed’n v. Babbitt, 58 F.3d 1392, 1397 (9th Cir. 1995). The Recreational Groups
have also satisfied the second element of the test by claiming a significantly protectable
interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action.
“To determine whether putative intervenors demonstrate the ‘significantly
protectable’ interest necessary for intervention of right in a NEPA case, the operative

M EM ORANDUM ORDER - 4

inquiry should be whether the ‘interest is protectable under some law’ and whether ‘there
is a relationship between the legally protected interest and the claims at issue.’”
Wilderness Society, 630 F.3d at 1180 (quoting Sierra Club v. EPA, 995 F.2d 1478, 1484
(9th Cir. 1993). “A putative intervenor will generally demonstrate a sufficient interest for
intervention of right in a NEPA action, as in all cases, if ‘it will suffer a practical
impairment of its interests as a result of the pending litigation.’” Id. (quoting California
ex rel. Lockyer v. United States, 450 F.3d 436, 441(9th Cir. 2006)).
The gravamen of this cause of action challenges whether or not the Federal
Defendants complied with certain environmental statutes and executive orders when
issuing the May 28, 2008 decision. (Dkt. No. 1.) That decision designates the use of
motorized vehicles in the Minidoka Ranger District. The Recreational Groups’ interest in
this case is to ensure its members will be able to continue to enjoy “reasonable access for
motorized and mechanized use throughout the Sawtooth National Forest and the
Minidoka Ranger District....” (Dkt. No. 15, pp. 6-8.) Because the Recreational Groups’
interest will be practically impaired as a result of this litigation, the Court finds they have
a “significantly protectable interest.”
Further, the Recreational Groups are situated such that the disposition of this
action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede its ability to protect that interest. The
Plaintiffs in this matter challenge the Travel Plan for the area and seek an injunction
which would impair or possibly eliminate the modes of uses the members of the
Recreational Groups employ when using and enjoying the Minidoka Ranger District.

M EM ORANDUM ORDER - 5

Finally, the existing parties to this action do not adequately represent the
Recreational Groups’ interests. In determining whether an existing party adequately
represents the applicant intervenor’s interests courts consider whether 1) a named party’s
interests are such that it would make the intervenor’s arguments, 2) that party is capable
and willing to make such arguments, and 3) the proposed intervenor would offer any
necessary element to the proceedings that would be neglected by the named parties. See
County of Fresno v. Andrus, 622 F.2d 436, 438-39 (9th Cir. 1980). Again, the Court is
mindful of the fact that Rule 24(a) is construed liberally in favor of potential intervenors.
Wilderness Society, 630 F.3d at 1179.
As stated above, the Recreational Groups’ interest in this matter is the continued
ability of its members to reasonable access for motorized and mechanized use in the
subject areas. This interest is distinct from that of both named parties in this action and
will not be adequately represented by those parties. (Dkt. No. 15, p. 8.) The Plaintiffs’
interests are contrary to the Recreational Groups, having brought this action to
limit/enjoin the modes of use enjoyed by the members of the Recreational Groups. (Dkt.
No. 1.) The Federal Defendants’ interest is focused on complying with the requirements
of the applicable laws and regulations for management of the lands at issue. The
Recreational Groups further argue the Forest Service will “not necessarily defend its
decision ... as vigorously as a party with something to lose.” (Dkt. No. 15, p. 9.)
The Court finds the interest of the Recreational Groups is different from the named
parties and is not likely to be raised or adequately protected by either party. Though the
Recreational Groups align themselves on the side of the Forest Service, their interests in
M EM ORANDUM ORDER - 6

this action are both to ensure their members continued access to the lands and, on a larger
scale, to avoid setting precedent eliminating or severely restricting their interest in use on
other lands in the future. (Dkt. No. 15, p. 6.)
Based on the foregoing, the Court grants the Amended Motion as to intervention as
of right. The Recreational Groups shall be included as a party in this action. In the interest
of judicial economy, the Court will make the intervention subject to the conditions
expressed in the Amended Motion that the Recreational Groups: 1) concur and join in the
Federal Defendants’ cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and associated pleadings and
2) will not seek to raise any cross-claims against the 2008 Minidoka Ranger District
Travel Plan Revision. (Dkt. No. 69.) Because the Court has granted the Amended Motion
as to intervention of right, the Court will not address the alternative permissive
intervention argument.
ORDER
THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Amended Motion to Intervene
(Dkt. No. 69) is GRANTED. The Magic Valley Trail Machine Association, Idaho
Recreation Council, and BlueRibbon Coalition shall HEREBY be listed in this action as
Intervenor-Defendants.
DATED: May 5, 2011

Honorable Edward J. Lodge
U. S. District Judge

M EM ORANDUM ORDER - 7