Greater Hells Canyon Council v. Stein
2:18-cv-00054
| D. Or. | May 9, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Greater Hells Canyon Council sued to vacate the Forest Service’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) and the Record of Decision (ROD) reauthorizing livestock grazing in the Lower Imnaha Rangeland Analysis (LIRA) area of the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area, alleging threats to the federally threatened Spalding’s catchfly.
- Final EIS released March 2015; ROD signed September 2015; suit filed January 10, 2018.
- McClaran Ranch (holds grazing permits and has grazed the area since early 1900s) and Wallowa County (LIRA lies entirely within county; public lands grazing materially affects county economy) moved to intervene as defendants of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2).
- Neither existing parties nor defendants opposed intervention; motion filed April 5, 2018, early in the litigation.
- Court analyzed the four Rule 24(a)(2) factors: timeliness, interest relating to subject matter, potential impairment of interests, and adequacy of existing representation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant/Proposed Intervenors' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of motion to intervene | Intervention sought after suit filed but early; should be untimely if delayed | Motion filed three months after complaint; case at early stage | Motion is timely; no prejudice shown |
| Whether intervenors have a protectable interest | Plaintiff aims to enjoin grazing; intervenors' interests subordinate | Ranch and County claim property/economic interests from grazing permits and local economy | Intervenors demonstrated significantly protectable interests related to the LIRA and grazing permits |
| Whether litigation would impair intervenors' ability to protect interests | Plaintiff argues relief would not unfairly harm third parties | Vacatur of EIS/ROD would delay or terminate grazing, harming ranch and county finances | Court found practical impairment likely absent intervention |
| Adequacy of existing parties to represent intervenors | Forest Service represents public interest and will defend its decision | Intervenors assert Forest Service represents broader public interests and may not make parochial grazing/economic arguments | Court concluded existing representation may be inadequate; minimal burden met; intervention allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- County of Orange v. AirCal, 799 F.2d 535 (9th Cir.) (timeliness factors for intervention)
- Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810 (9th Cir.) (definition of protectable interest for intervention)
- Forest Conservation Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 66 F.3d 1489 (9th Cir.) (adequacy of representation and need for intervention by affected parties)
- Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Babbitt, 150 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir.) (standard for adequacy of representation — minimal showing that representation may be inadequate)
- Citizens for Balanced Use v. Mont. Wilderness Ass'n, 647 F.3d 893 (9th Cir.) (government may not adequately represent private or local interests)
- Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians of Sugar Bowl Rancheria v. United States, 921 F.2d 924 (9th Cir.) (vacatur of agency action can have immediate impact on third parties)