Wildearth Guardians v. Salazar
272 F.R.D. 4
D.D.C.2010Background
- Plaintiffs challenge the Bureau of Land Management’s leasing decision for West Antelope II tracts in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming, under Lease-by-Application rather than Competitive Leasing; Antelope Coal LLC sought to lease adjacent lands and the Bureau split the land into two tracts for separate competitive bids.
- Powder River Basin was previously designated and later decertified as a Coal Production Region; decertification rationale emphasized administrative efficiency and market conditions, with Basin production rising since then.
- Plaintiffs allege the Bureau failed to recertify the Powder River Basin and inadequately analyzed environmental impacts under NEPA, FLPMA, and the Endangered Species Act.
- The action targets the Bureau’s decision to authorize leasing of the West Antelope II tracts without re-certifying the Powder River Basin or conducting more comprehensive region-wide analyses.
- Intervenors Antelope, NMA, and Wyoming move to intervene as defendants; the Court must decide whether intervention is as of right, and, if so, under what conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Antelope may intervene as of right under Rule 24(a). | Antelope’s role remains unopposed by Plaintiffs. | Antelope has a cognizable interest and timely, adequate representation is not guaranteed by existing parties. | Yes; Antelope intervenes as of right, with conditions. |
| Whether NMA may intervene as of right under Rule 24(a). | Plaintiffs argue adequate representation by existing parties. | NMA has standing and an interest that may not be adequately represented. | Yes; NMA intervenes as of right, with conditions. |
| Whether Wyoming may intervene as of right under Rule 24(a). | Plaintiffs oppose expanding party scope? (Not contested for right.) | Wyoming has substantial interests in environmental regulation and economic impact. | Yes; Wyoming intervenes as of right, with conditions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fund for Animals v. Norton, 322 F.3d 728 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (intervention standards; standing and representation principles applied to intervenors)
- United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 566 F.3d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (standing and intervention considerations in agency-action cases)
- Smuck v. Hobson, 408 F.2d 175 (5th Cir. 1969) (courts’ discretion to impose conditions on intervention to preserve efficiency)