Speaking for FSEEE
members who are Forest Service employees, they believe that the Forest Service is well served by environmental laws on the books that require thoughtful planning before land management actions occur, promote citizen collaboration and participation in the decisions that affect our public lands, and hold the Forest Service accountable to the public and our environmental laws, through the court system or otherwise.
It ruled that both ICL and FSEEE had standing to appeal despite USFS's failure to appeal the district court's ruling.
417) The court reasoned that ICL and FSEEE failed to meet the test for intervention as of right because the federal government is generally the only proper defendant in an action claiming procedural violations of NEPA and private parties do not have a protectable interest in defending NEPA compliance actions because private parties may not be held liable under the statute.
Nonetheless, the court determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing ICL and FSEEE to permissively intervene.
Moreover, the court determined that ICL and FSEEE had constitutional standing to appeal the case, necessary under precedents that require "independent jurisdictional grounds" for permissive intervention to be proper.