Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman

holding that regular “recreation and nature apprecia- tion” on land covered by challenged agency action established injury-in-fact | holding that while lack of interest in the subject of litigation precluded intervention under Rule 24(a), permissive intervention was warranted where movant presented defenses that were “directly responsive” to the plaintiffs claims | stating that “[p]rotecting the road-less areas of our national forests from further degradation,” the defined objective of the Roadless Rule, “can hardly be termed unreasonably narrow” | noting that the Corps need not include projects in its cumulative impacts analysis that are highly speculative | stating that "members of the public had every right and ability after publication of the FEIS on November 13, 2000, to comment further before adoption of the final [Roadless] Rule on January 12, 2001” | finding that the environmental status quo was not 11 maintained since “the reduction in human intervention that would result from [challenged action] 12 actually does alter the environmental status quo” | stating that even if the maps presented by the Forest Service were "less than ideal, plaintiffs cannot seriously dispute that they had actual notice as to the roadless areas that would be affected, by virtue of their prior contact with the Forest Service” | “[H]aving considered additional alternatives in a preliminary manner, the Forest Service could reasonably conclude that only a near total ban on road construction in roadless areas could satisfy [the] policy objectives [of the Roadless Rule].” | finding standing where party alleged harm to 58.5 million acres of land | rejecting the argument that an agency’s maps 3 were insufficiently detailed because “plaintiffs cannot seriously dispute that they had actual notice as to the [] areas that would be affected” | finding standing where party alleged harm to 58.5 million acres of land | rejecting "the district court’s conclusion that the Forest Service failed adequately to evaluate the cumulative effects of the Road-less Rule” and concluding that "the potential cumulative effects of the Roadless Rule are too speculative to be amenable to in-depth analysis in the EIS” | abrogated on other grounds by Wilderness Soc’y v. U.S. Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2011) | “Local considerations are taken into account in plans for each forest; but government, if it chooses to do so, may act more broadly.” | plaintiffs had ownership interests in lands adjacent to national forests that could be affected by implementation of Forest Service rule | “To establish standing [to appeal], the defendant- intervenors must first show that they have suffered an injury in fact . . . .” | plaintiffs had ownership interests in lands adjacent to national forests that could be affected by implementation of Forest Service rule | plaintiffs had ownership interests in lands adjacent to national forests that could be affected by implementation of Forest Service rule | plaintiffs with ownership interests in land adjacent to forest affected by proposed action established geographic nexus | abrogated on other grounds by Wilderness Soc’y v. U.S. Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2011) | “To establish standing [to appeal], the defendant-intervenors must first show ORGANIZED VILLAGE OF KAKE V. USDA 39 generated, not a right to have revenue generated. Alpine Cnty., Cal. v. United States, 417 F.3d 1366, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2005 | "We have already decided that, in a case such as this one where the purpose of the challenged action is to benefit the environment, the public's interest in preserving precious, unreplenishable resources must be taken into account in balancing the hardships." | “We have already-decided that, in a case such as this one where the purpose of the challenged action is to benefit the environment, the public’s interest in preserving precious, unreplen-ishable resources must be taken into account in balancing the hardships.” | transition to le