1039 Chandler-Dunbar, 229 U.S. at 80-81; compare NPCA v. BLM, 606 F.3d at 1067-68 (noting “obvious and well-known presence of competing. . . proposals” for nonfederal party’s proposed use), and Desert Citizens, 231 F.3d at 1185 (noting “regional market and the presence of competitors” pursuing similar projects to nonfederal party’s proposed use), with Doña Ana, 521 F.2d at 16 (“no basis whatsoever for considering that the highest and best use was for a missile range” without “evidence that anyone other than the government could or would use the land for [that purpose]”), and J.A. Tobin Constr. Co. v. United States, 343 F.2d 422, 425 (10th Cir. 1965) (“‘there was no market for an ordinary commercial quarry in the area involved’”); see 320 Acres, 605 F.2d at 811 n.107 (“[T]he use must be one which a private owner might reasonably develop or enjoy.” (emphasis added)).