Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

National Parks & Conservation Ass'n. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., No. 05-56814

By FindLaw Staff on November 10, 2009 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

In a Federal Land and Policy Management Act challenge to the exchange of certain private lands for several parcels of land surrounding a mine site and owned by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed in part where: 1) the BLM should have taken the reasonably probable use of public lands for a landfill into consideration as part of the highest and best use analysis; and 2) as a result of its unreasonably narrow purpose and need statement, the BLM necessarily considered an unreasonably narrow range of alternatives. However, the order is reversed in part where: 1) the BLM's Record of Decision never became effective, and could not serve as the agency's final action; and 2) the record as a whole established that the BLM's interpretation of "full consideration," as evinced by the analyses in the environmental impact statement at issue, was permissible under 43 U.S.C. section 1716(a).

Read National Parks & Conservation Ass'n. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., No. 05-56814

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted December 6, 2007

Filed November 10, 2009


Opinion by Judge Pregerson

Dissent by Judge Trott


For Appellants:

Tamara N. Rountree, United States Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Washington, DC

For Appellees:

Deborah Sivas and Noah Long, Stanford Environmental Law Clinic, Stanford, CA

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard