Biodiversity Conservation Alliance v. Bureau of Land Management

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding the BLM did not need to consider a proposed alternative that “would not meet the project’s purposes”
• “Our review of a decision not to consider a particular alternative is informed by a rule of reason and practicality.”
• “An environmental impact statement must study reasonable alternatives in detail.... The Bureau may eliminate alternatives that are ‘too remote, speculative, impractical, or ineffective,’ or that do not meet the purposes and needs of the project.” (citation omitted

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).