960 F.2d 83 (8th Cir. 1992), 91-2565, Sierra Club v. Robertson
|Citation:||960 F.2d 83|
|Party Name:||SIERRA CLUB; Jerry Williams; Defenders of the Ouachita Forest; Sherry Balkenhol; Bill Greer; Stan Heard, Plaintiffs, Ouachita Watch League; Concerned Citizens of Hot Springs; Beth Johnson, Intervenors, v. F. Dale ROBERTSON, Chief, USDA Forest Service; John E. Alcock; John M. Curran, Supervisor, Ouachita National Forest; Larry Theivagt; George Landr|
|Case Date:||March 27, 1992|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit|
Submitted Feb. 14, 1992.
Jeffery A. Bell, Little Rock, Ark., argued (Winston Bryant, Jeffrey A. Bell and Mary B. Stallcup, on brief), for appellant.
Peter A. Appel, Washington, D.C., argued (Barry M. Hartman, J. Michael Fitzhugh, Charles E. Smith, Martin W. Matzen, David F. Shuey and Peter A. Appel, on brief), and Vicki Breman, Atlanta, Ga., of counsel, for appellees.
Before FAGG and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges, and WOODS, [*] District Judge.
WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.
The State of Arkansas appeals from the district court's denial of the State's motion to intervene as a plaintiff in an action against the Forest Service. We reverse and remand.
The Forest Service proposed to implement certain forest management practices (the "Plan") in the Ouachita National Forest in Arkansas. The Plan addressed, among other things, the production of trees in even-aged stands and the use of burning, clearcutting, and herbicides.
The Sierra Club, certain private citizens, and another private organization ("Plaintiffs") filed suit against the Forest Service for declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs asked the court to declare the Plan void and to enjoin its implementation, alleging that the proposed forest management practices would detract from the aesthetic value of the Forest and lessen their enjoyment of hunting, hiking, biking, fishing and other recreational activities. Plaintiffs also claimed that the practices would diminish tourism.
After the district court stayed the proceedings to accommodate an administrative appeal, and before the Forest Service had filed an answer to the complaint, the State moved to intervene as a plaintiff. The State sought intervention as of right under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2) or, in the alternative, permissive intervention under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b)(2).
The State sought to intervene in order to protect a number of interests. The State asserts an interest in the fish and wildlife within the state...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP