Veneman

Opinion by Judge GOULD; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge KLEINFELD.

*1104 OPINION

I

This case involves procedural challenges to a United States Forest Service rule, known commonly as the “Roadless Rule,” with a potential environmental impact restricting development in national forest lands representing about two percent of the United States land mass. 1 These challenges in essence urge that the Roadless Rule was promulgated without proper process and that it is invalid. The case also presents constitutional. and procedural issues about the ability of the plaintiffs and of the proposed intervenors to be heard.

But we must start closer to the beginning: This appeal arises out of litigation that began on January 8, 2001 when Koo-tenai Tribe of Idaho and Boise Cascade Corporation, joined by motorized recreation groups, livestock companies, and two Idaho counties 2 filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho, alleging that the United States Forest Service’s Roadless Area Conservation Rule (“Roadless Rule”) violated, inter alia, the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq., and the Administrative Procedure Act…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I concur in the majority’s rejection of the Idaho Conservation League’s 1 and the Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics’ intervention of right under Rule 24(a) and with the holding that the plaintiffs have standing to pursue this action. I must part company with the majority, however, in its treatment of permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) and in its reversal of the preliminary injunction.

Under Sports Form,, 2 we review preliminary injunctions only for abuse of discretion. It is not enough that we disagree with the district judge. We cannot reverse if we merely “would have arrived at a different result if[we] had applied the law to the facts of the case;” rather, we must conclude that “the district court relied on an erroneous legal premise or abused its discretion.” 3 Such a determination cannot be made in this case.

A. Permissive Intervention

The majority relies on Rule 24(b)(2), permitting intervention “when an applicant’s claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common.” There is no such commonality in this case.

The majority correctly recognizes that “private parties do not have a…