Opinion ID: 3065224
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The resource values and the public objectives

Text: that the Federal lands or interests to be conveyed may serve if retained in Federal ownership are not more than the resource values of the non-Federal lands or interests and the public objectives they could serve if acquired,[6 ] and (2) The intended use of the conveyed Federal lands will not, in the determination of the authorized officer, significantly conflict with established management objectives on adjacent Federal lands and Indian trust lands. Such finding and the supporting rationale shall be made part of the administrative record. 43 C.F.R. § 2200.0-6(b). [11] The Management Act does not define the term “full consideration.” Our review is thus limited to the question whether the BLM’s interpretation of the term is based on a permissible construction of the statute. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat’l Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837, 843 (1984). We review the entire record to determine whether the agency’s decision was based on a reasonable consideration of the relevant factors. Hjelvik v. Babbitt, 198 F.3d 1072, 1074 (9th Cir. 1999). [12] The district court’s analysis was constrained by its decision to review only the Record of Decision. Having held that the Appeals Board’s decision, which incorporates the EIS, is the final agency action under review, we examine a broader set of materials than did the district court. The Final EIS alone includes over 1,600 pages of material not considered by the district court, including detailed environmental analyses. Though we do not necessarily agree with the BLM’s public interest determination, the record as a whole establishes that the BLM’s interpretation of “full consideration,” as 6 In other words, the BLM must find that the resource values of the public land being conveyed do not outweigh the resource values of the private land being acquired. 15120 NATIONAL PARKS v. KAISER EAGLE MOUNTAIN evinced by the analyses in the EIS, is permissible under 43 U.S.C. § 1716(a).7 Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s determination on this issue.