How to Hire an Attorney for Natural Resources Matters
1. Match the attorney’s substantive specialty, regulatory track record, and regional expertise
Natural resources law spans water rights, mineral and mining law, oil & gas, forestry, fisheries, public lands (BLM/Forest Service), conservation easements, endangered species, wetlands and Clean Water Act permitting, and state‑level resource allocation. Tell candidates exactly which resource and which activity you’re dealing with (surface water appropriation, groundwater pumping, mineral leasing, NPDES/Section 404 permits, pipeline siting, timber harvest plans, habitat mitigation, or conservation finance). Ask for recent, similar matters and outcomes, permitting approvals, contested administrative appeals, mitigation banking negotiations, or successful habitat conservation plan (HCP) or incidental take permit (ITP) approvals. Confirm regional experience: water law doctrines, groundwater adjudication practices, and permitting timelines vary by state and watershed; federal‑land projects require practitioners who regularly deal with the specific agencies and field offices that will review your project. Attorneys with matched subject- and place‑experience anticipate agency expectations, administrative record needs, and local stakeholder concerns.
2. Require a technical‑coordination plan, expert network, and environmental‑process fluency
Natural‑resource matters are technical and fact‑driven. Insist on a written plan identifying necessary technical workstreams (hydrology models, biological surveys, cultural‑resource assessments, NEPA/CEQA documents, baseline ecology studies, geotechnical reports, air‑quality and greenhouse‑gas analyses) and who will manage them. Verify relationships with qualified experts, hydrologists, fisheries biologists, geomorphologists, soil scientists, environmental economists, and permitting consultants, and ask for examples where expert work changed permitting outcomes. Confirm procedural fluency with environmental review: scoping processes, public‑comment strategies, administrative-record compilation, and litigation tactics for CEQA/NEPA lawsuits or APA administrative appeals. Also probe experience with mitigation strategies (mitigation banks, in‑lieu fees, conservation easements, adaptive management plans) and with secured financing mechanisms (conservation finance, mitigation-credit monetization, and public‑private partnership structures).
3. Insist on a phased engagement: clear scope, budgeted permitting/litigation stages, and enforcement/monitoring plans
Get a written engagement that breaks the project into phases with deliverables and budgets: pre‑application scoping and stakeholder outreach, permit drafting and submission, administrative review and hearing representation, post‑permit compliance monitoring, and contingency litigation or appellate defense. For fees, prefer stage‑based pricing, fixed fees for permit applications or rulemaking comments, capped hourly for contested hearings, and explicit estimates for third‑party costs (specialist surveys, modeling, mitigation purchases). Require a compliance and monitoring plan tied to permit conditions (reporting schedules, adaptive management triggers, inspection protocols) and clarity on who handles enforcement responses if agencies allege violations (administrative enforcement, negotiated corrective actions, or civil defense). Finally, include dispute‑resolution planning: preferred forums (administrative appeal vs. federal court), timelines for challenge windows, preservation of the administrative record, and remedies strategy (injunctions, declaratory relief, settlement terms including monitoring bonds), so you control costs and avoid surprises across the full life cycle of the resource project.
