govinfo:USCOURTS-idd-3_25-cv-00567-0

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO 
 
FRIENDS OF THE CLEARWATER, 
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
JOHN WORD, in his official capacity as 
Forest Supervisor Nez Perce-Clearwater 
National Forests, and the U.S. FOREST 
SERVICE, 
 
 Defendants. 
 
and 
 
AMERICAN FOREST RESOURCE 
COUNCIL, 
 
Proposed Defendan
t-Intervenor. 
 

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND 
ORDER 
 
I. BACKGROUND 
This case commenced on October 3, 2025, when Friends of the Clearwater sued the 
United States Forest Service (“the Forest Service”). 1 Dkt. 1. Specifically, the Complaint 
challenges the Forest Service’s approval of six new logging and construction projects, as 
well as two previously appr oved and litigated projects, on the Nez Perce-Clearwater 
National Forest.2 Id. at 1. 
On April 23, 2026, the American Forest Resource Council (“AFRC”) filed a Motion 
 
1 Because Defendant John Word is sued only in his of ficial capacity and shares counsel with the Forest 
Service, this brief refers to both defendants collectively as “the Forest Service.” 
2 The Amended Complaint does not alter these challenges. See Dkt. 22. 

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2 
to Intervene under Federal Ru le of Civil Procedure 24(a) and alternatively Rule 24(b), 
asserting an interest in the approval of the logging and building projects. See generally Dkt. 
18. Friends of the Clearwater responded with a memorandum in opposition to the Motion. 
Dkt. 24. AFRC replied. Dkt. 27. The Forest Service has not taken a position on AFRC’s 
Motion. See Dkt. 18-2, at 11. 
For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS AFRC’s Motion to Intervene. 
II. LEGAL STANDARD 
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 24 authorizes intervention as of right 3 or 
permissive intervention. 
Rule 24(a) contains the standards for intervention as of right. It provides that a court 
must permit anyone to intervene who, on timely motion “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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). 
The Ninth Circuit distilled this provision into a four-part test: 
(1) [T]he application for intervention must be timely; (2) the applicant must 
have a significantly protectable interest relating to the property or transaction 
that is the subject of the action; (3) the applicant must be so situated that the 
disposition of the action may, as a prac tical matter, impair or impede the 
applicant’s ability to protect that interest; and (4) the applicant’s interest must 
not be adequately represented by the existing parties in the lawsuit. 
 
Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Berg , 268 F.3d 810, 817 (9 th Cir. 2001) (citation 
modified). Failure to satisfy any of these requirements is fatal to a motion. Cooper v. 
 
3 Also referred to as mandatory intervention. 

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3 
Newsom, 13 F.4th 857, 865 (9th Cir. 2021). Th e party moving for in tervention bears the 
burden of showing it satisfies each requirement. Prete v. Bradbury, 438 F.3d 949, 954 (9th 
Cir. 2006). 
Rule 24(b) also gives the court discretion to allow permissive intervention to anyone 
who has a claim or defense sharing a common question of law or fact with the main action. 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B ). This discretion is broad. United States v. $129,374 in U.S. 
Currency, 769 F.2d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1985). “I n exercising its discretion,” courts must 
also “consider whether intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the 
original parties’ rights.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3). 
In the Ninth Circuit, permissive interven tion “requires (1) an independent ground 
for jurisdiction; (2) a timely motion; and (3) a common question of law and fact between 
the movant’s claim or defense and the main action.” Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. 
v. Geithner, 644 F.3d 836, 843 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). 
III. DISCUSSION 
A. Mandatory Intervention 
The parties do not dispute that AFRC satisfies the first three elements for mandatory 
intervention. Thus, the Court addresses only the fourth element: adequacy of 
representation. 
The burden on a proposed intervenor to show inadequate representation is minimal 
and is satisfied by demonstrating that repres entation of its interests may be inadequate. 
Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1086 (9th Cir. 2003). To determine whether an existing 
party adequately represents an applicant’s interests, courts consider three factors: 

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4 
[W]hether (1) the interest of a pr esent party is such that it will 
undoubtedly make all of a proposed intervenor’s arguments; (2) the 
present party is capable and willing to make such ar guments; and (3) a 
proposed intervenor would offer any necessary elements to the 
proceeding that other parties would neglect. 
 
Id. (citation omitted). The government is presum ed to provide adequate representation 
unless the applicant makes a compelling showing otherwise. Id. 
All three factors weigh in favor of adequa cy in this case. AFRC and the Forest 
Service share the ultimate goa l of “having the projects a nd the associated timber sales 
timely implemented.” Dkt. 18-3, at 10. AFRC’s claim that the Forest Service’s broader 
interests will prevent it from advancing AFRC’s arguments is mere speculation. AFRC has 
neither demonstrated a divergence of interests nor identified any specific arguments it seeks 
to advance which the Forest Se rvice is unwilling or incapabl e of making. Further, AFRC 
fails to indicate any necessary elements it contributes to the litigation that the Forest 
Service would neglect to bring to the Court’s attention itself. 
Because AFRC failed to make a compelling showing that the Forest Service will not 
adequately represent its interests, it is not entitled to mandatory intervention. 
B. Permissive Intervention 
However, AFRC meets the requirements for permissive intervention in this instance. 
The first requirement, an independent ground for jurisdiction, is not relevant in a 
federal-question case. The requirement is inte nded to prevent the enlargement of federal 
jurisdiction where the proposed intervenor seeks to bring in new state-law claims. Freedom 
from Religion Found., Inc., 644 F.3d at 844. But here, AFRC does not bring new claims. 
Dkt. 18-2, at 15–16. 

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5 
The second requirement, the timeliness of AFRC’s motion, is met as previously 
stated. 
The third requirement is met because AFRC’s objectives in both fact and law closely 
align with the Forest Service’s. The parties “share[] the goal of defeating Plaintiff’s claims 
and having the projects and the associated timber sales timely implemented.” Dkt. 18-3, at 
10. That said, AFRC will provide a helpful perspective on the interests of its members and 
the impact of any timber sales—or canc ellations of timber sales—on their ongoing 
operations and the local economy. Because the Forest Service will (likely) take a broader 
approach as a federal agency, AFRC’s participation will highlight these narrower concerns 
and be beneficial to the ultimate resolution of the issues presented in this case. 
Lastly, it is unlikely the additional briefing resulting from intervention will unduly 
delay or prejudice Friends of the Clearwater.4 Any such burden is minimal and outweighed 
by “the additional light the intervenor may shed [,which] . . . will be helpful to the Court.” 
Barcia v. Sitkin, 89 F.R.D. 382, 384 (S.D.N.Y . 1981). 
In sum, intervention here will aid completeness as AFRC brings the “perspective of 
members directly affected by the requested re lief.” Dkt. 27 at 9. Accordingly, the Court 
exercises its discretion and GRANTS AFRC’s Motion to Intervene pursuant to Federal 
Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b). 
/// 
/// 
 
4 In fact, the Parties have already outlined a sch eduling order that includes AFRC—which the Court 
adopted. See Dkts. 21, 23. Thus, today’s order will not delay or burden any party. 

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 6 
 
 
IV . ORDER 
1. AFRC’s Motion to Intervene (Dkt. 18) is GRANTED. 
 
DATED: June 18, 2026 
 
 
 _________________________ 
 David C. Nye 
 U.S. District Court Judge 
 

Passage view · GavelSight