Wilderness Society v. United States Forest Service
630 F.3d 1173
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Forest Service adopted a travel plan designating 1,196 miles of roads/trails for motorized use in Sawtooth National Forest Minidoka District.
- Wilderness Society and Prairie Falcon Audubon allege NEPA violations including failure to prepare an EIS and failure to consider reasonable alternatives.
- Plaintiffs seek declaratory/injunctive relief invalidating the travel plan and restricting motorized travel pending NEPA compliance.
- Three recreation groups sought intervention to counter plaintiffs; district court denied intervention of right under the court's then-existing rule.
- District court also denied permissive intervention for lack of participation and expected added clarity; case proceeded with plaintiffs against the government.
- Ninth Circuit granted en banc review to consider abandoning the rule prohibiting private party intervention on the merits in NEPA cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the federal defendant rule is proper for NEPA interventions | Recreation groups claim rule should be abandoned. | Rule precludes intervention by private parties/locals. | Abandoned; allow intervention on merits under Rule 24(a)(2) if criteria met. |
| What standard governs intervention of right under Rule 24(a)(2) for NEPA | Interest must be significantly protectable under some law and relate to claims. | Intervention denied due to lack of such interest under the federal defendant rule. | Standard is the general four-part test; interest need not be statutory but relate to claims. |
| May private parties intervene of right on the merits in NEPA actions after ruling | Recreation groups seek rights to argue merits to defend their interests. | Existing rule prevents such intervention. | Yes; case-by-case, not categorical; remand to consider intervention anew. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sierra Club v. EPA, 995 F.2d 1478 (9th Cir. 1993) (defines 'significantly protectable' and relationship to claims)
- Portland Audubon Soc'y v. Hodel, 866 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1989) (early NEPA intervention framework; criticized for federal defendant rule)
- Wade v. Goldschmidt, 673 F.2d 182 (7th Cir. 1982) (NEPA economic interests not protectable; basis for prior rule)
- Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2002) (NEPA intervention limitation; foundational to 'federal defendant' rule)
- Forest Conservation Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 66 F.3d 1489 (9th Cir. 1995) (NEPA and interventions in environmental actions; context for rule)
- Sagebrush Rebellion, Inc. v. Watt, 713 F.2d 525 (9th Cir. 1983) (allowed intervenors in FLPMA context; broad interest considerations)
- Idaho Farm Bureau Fed'n v. Babbitt, 58 F.3d 1392 (9th Cir. 1995) (intervention of environmental groups in ESA/APA cases; demonstrates broader interest inquiry)
- Sierra Club v. Espy, 18 F.3d 1202 (5th Cir. 1994) (intervention of right in environmental cases; procedural context)