Northern Alaska Environmental Center et al v. Trump et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
NORTHERN ALASKA
ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SCOTT DE LA VEGA, in his official
capacity as Acting Secretary of the
Interior, et al.,
Defendants,
and
AMBLER METALS LLC, et al.,
Intervenor-Defendants.
Case No. 3:20-cv-00187-SLG
ORDER RE STATE OF ALASKA’S MOTION TO INTERVENE
Before the Court at Docket 30 is the State of Alaska’s motion to intervene in
this action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 24(a) or 24(b). Plaintiffs
filed an opposition to the motion at Docket 31, to which the State replied at Docket
34-3. No other party opposes the motion.1
The State seeks to intervene as of right pursuant to Rule 24(a) or,
alternatively, to intervene by permission pursuant Rule 24(b). Rule 24(a)(2)
requires a court to allow intervention as of right by a party who “claims an interest
1 Docket 30 at 2.
Case 3:20-cv-00187-SLG Document 37 Filed 01/22/21 Page 1 of 5

Case No. 3:20-cv-00187-SLG, Northern Alaska Environmental Center, et al. v. de la Vega, et al.
Order re State of Alaska’s Motion to Intervene
Page 2 of 5
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.” A party seeking to intervene pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2) must meet
four requirements:
(1) the applicant must timely move to intervene; (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
situated such that the disposition of the action may impair or impede
the party’s ability to protect that interest; and (4) the applicant’s
interest must not be adequately represented by existing parties.2
Plaintiffs do not contest that the first three requirements are met.3 Instead,
Plaintiffs maintain that the State’s interest in this case is already adequately
represented, as its interest is “indistinguishable from the interests of the
[intervenor-defendant] Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority
(‘AIDEA’).”4 Plaintiffs add that “[t]he presumption of adequate representation
applies because there is no difference between AIDEA’s interests and the interests
of the State and there is ‘no possible divergence between their position[s] . . . on
the primary issue.’”5
2 Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1083 (9th Cir. 2003), as amended (May 13, 2003) (citing
Donnelly v. Glickman, 159 F.3d 405, 409 (9th Cir. 1998)).
3 Docket 31 at 2.
4 Docket 31 at 2.
5 Docket 31 at 4 (second alteration in original) (quoting Envtl. Def. Fund, Inc. v Higginson, 631
F.2d 738, 739 (D.C. Cir. 1979)).
Case 3:20-cv-00187-SLG Document 37 Filed 01/22/21 Page 2 of 5

Case No. 3:20-cv-00187-SLG, Northern Alaska Environmental Center, et al. v. de la Vega, et al.
Order re State of Alaska’s Motion to Intervene
Page 3 of 5
The Court finds that there is a presumption of adequacy of representation
because AIDEA and the State have the same ultimate objective in this case: The
progression of the Ambler Access Project.6 However, the Court also finds that the
State has overcome this presumption, as it has made a compelling showing that
its interests are considerably broader than AIDEA’s interests.7 Specifically, the
State has an interest in more than just the Project, but in the greater management
of the State’s land through which the road is slated to run, management of
numerous mining claims in the Ambler Mining District, and long-term management
of Alaska’s natural resources.8 In contrast, AIDEA’s narrower “purpose for the
Project is to support mineral resource exploration and development in the Ambler
Mining District” by “provid[ing] surface transportation access to the District . . . .”9
Moreover, the State has a considerable economic interest in the Ambler Access
Project because it maintains that road access to mines may generate hundreds of
millions of dollars in revenue for the State and provide employment.10 And the
State asserts that it “has broader concerns regarding the NEPA and ANILCA Title
6 See Docket 34-3 at 2-3 (citing Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F. 3d 810, 823 (9th
Cir. 2001)).
7 See Perry v. Proposition 8 Official Proponents, 587 F. 3d 947, 951 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that
proposed intervenor can rebut presumption of adequacy with “compelling showing”).
8 Docket 30-1 at 7; Docket 34-3 at 3.
9 Docket 19 at 4.
10 Docket 30-1 at 6.
Case 3:20-cv-00187-SLG Document 37 Filed 01/22/21 Page 3 of 5

Case No. 3:20-cv-00187-SLG, Northern Alaska Environmental Center, et al. v. de la Vega, et al.
Order re State of Alaska’s Motion to Intervene
Page 4 of 5
XI precedent that could be set by this litigation.”11 AIDEA’s interests are narrower,
and focus on its commitment to the Ambler Access Project, as it has received
authorizations and permits required to pursue the Project and “has invested
millions of dollars in the Ambler Access Project.”12 Due to these differences in
interests, the State has overcome the presumption that AIDEA would adequately
A court is to consider three factors in determining the adequacy of
representation:
(1) Whether the interest of a present party is such that it will
undoubtedly make all of a proposed intervenor’s arguments; (2)
whether the present party is capable and willing to make such
arguments; and (3) whether a proposed intervenor would offer any
necessary elements to the proceeding that other parties would
neglect.13
Having considered these factors, the Court finds that AIDEA is not certain to make
all of the State’s arguments regarding the State’s broader interests and obligations;
that AIDEA may not be able to capably make all of the State’s arguments; and that
that the State may be able to provide the Court with a perspective and information
that AIDEA would not. The State has persuasively demonstrated that “the
administration of mining claims, transport corridors, or the day-to-day realities of
11 Docket 30-1 at 18.
12 Docket 19 at 9, 13.
13 Arakaki, 324 F.3d at 1086 (citing California v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 792 F.2d 775, 778
(9th Cir. 1986)).
Case 3:20-cv-00187-SLG Document 37 Filed 01/22/21 Page 4 of 5

Case No. 3:20-cv-00187-SLG, Northern Alaska Environmental Center, et al. v. de la Vega, et al.
Order re State of Alaska’s Motion to Intervene
Page 5 of 5
state land and natural resource management . . . are matters that only the State of
Alaska can effectively advocate.”14
In light of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the motion at Docket 30 is
GRANTED. However, in an effort to prevent cumulative arguments and enhance
the efficient conduct of this case, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED (1) that the
opposition briefing of all Intervenor-Defendants shall be filed one week after
Federal Defendants’ merits briefing, unless otherwise ordered; and (2) that AIDEA
and the State shall meet and confer prior to the filing of any motion, responsive
filing, or merits brief to determine whether their positions may be set forth in a
consolidated document—separate filings by these Intervenors shall include a
certificate of compliance with this requirement and briefly describe the need for
separate filings.
The State shall file a clean copy of its answer within 7 days of the date of
this order.
DATED this 22nd day of January, 2021, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14 Docket 30-1 at 18.
Case 3:20-cv-00187-SLG Document 37 Filed 01/22/21 Page 5 of 5