Federal Public Lands & Bureau of Land Management

The federal government owns approximately 640 million acres — roughly 28% of all land in the United States — concentrated in the West, where federal ownership exceeds 50% of total land area in Nevada (81%), Utah (63%), Idaho (62%), Alaska (61%), and Oregon (52%). The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), an agency within the Department of the Interior, administers 245 million acres of this land under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA, 1976) — codified at 43 U.S.C. §§ 1701–1787 — plus 700 million acres of mineral rights (including subsurface rights beneath privately owned surface land). The FLPMA established "multiple use and sustained yield" as BLM's governing mandate: managing public lands for a mix of grazing, mining, energy development, recreation, and conservation — balancing competing interests that frequently end up in litigation. The BLM's National Forest System counterpart, administered by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) under the Agriculture Department, covers another 193 million acres under the National Forest Management Act (1976) — distinct from BLM but similarly subject to multiple-use management. The Wilderness Act (1964) (16 U.S.C. §§ 1131–1136) has protected 110+ million acres from development across both systems. Federal land management is among the most politically contentious areas of U.S. policy: oil and gas leasing, grazing permits, mining claims, renewable energy development, conservation designations, and off-road vehicle access all generate intense conflict between extractive industries, conservation groups, tribal nations, and state governments.

Current Law (2026)

Legal Authority

• 43 U.S.C. § 1701 — FLPMA declaration of policy (public lands shall be retained in federal ownership unless disposal serves the national interest; managed under principles of multiple use and sustained yield; the public shall be provided opportunity to participate in land management decisions)
• 43 U.S.C. § 1712 — Land use planning (BLM shall develop, maintain, and revise land use plans — Resource Management Plans — that provide for multiple use and sustained yield; plans must consider environmental, ecological, and economic factors)
• 43 U.S.C. § 1752 — Grazing leases and permits (BLM and Forest Service issue 10-year grazing permits; permittees must comply with terms; fees set by formula based on livestock forage value)
• 16 U.S.C. § 1131 — Wilderness Act (establishes the National Wilderness Preservation System; wilderness areas managed to preserve natural conditions; generally prohibits roads, motor vehicles, mechanical transport, and commercial activities)
• 16 U.S.C. § 528 — Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act (national forests established and managed for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife purposes)

How It Works

The federal government owns and manages approximately 640 million acres — nearly 28% of all land in the United States. This land includes some of America's most iconic landscapes and its most valuable natural resources, and its management generates intense political conflict between conservation, energy development, recreation, ranching, and indigenous rights.

Four agencies manage the vast majority of federal land. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) under the Department of the Interior manages 245 million acres — mostly arid and semi-arid lands in the western states and Alaska — for "multiple use" including grazing, mining, energy development, recreation, and conservation. The U.S. Forest Service under USDA manages 193 million acres of national forests and grasslands for timber, recreation, wildlife, watershed, and grazing. The National Park Service manages 85 million acres for preservation and public enjoyment. The Fish and Wildlife Service manages 89 million acres of national wildlife refuges primarily for wildlife conservation. Each agency has different mandates and management philosophies, creating a complex patchwork of rules across the federal landscape. FLPMA and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act establish that BLM and Forest Service lands must simultaneously serve many purposes — livestock grazing, mineral extraction, timber harvest, outdoor recreation, wildlife habitat, watershed protection, and wilderness preservation — while managing renewable resources for indefinite productivity. In practice, multiple use creates constant conflict: energy companies want drilling access, ranchers want grazing rights, conservationists want wilderness protection, recreationists want trails, and tribes seek protection of sacred sites and treaty rights; land use plans attempt to balance these competing demands through resource management planning with public input.

Livestock grazing covers approximately 155 million acres of BLM land and 95 million acres of national forest under a permit system; the federal grazing fee ($1.69 per Animal Unit Month effective March 1, 2026 — far below private market rates) has been criticized as a subsidy to ranchers, while the ranching community argues it reflects permittees' infrastructure obligations on public land (see Federal Grazing). The Wilderness Act of 1964 created the National Wilderness Preservation System — 800+ areas covering 112 million acres managed to preserve their "primeval character" with no permanent roads, no motor vehicles, no commercial activities, and no timber harvesting — with Congress designating each area by statute. Federal lands also contain enormous energy and mineral resources including oil, natural gas, coal, critical minerals, and renewable energy potential (wind, solar, geothermal); the Mineral Leasing Act (1920) and FLPMA govern federal mineral leasing, and revenue from leasing is shared with states and funds conservation programs through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The Inflation Reduction Act (2022) linked renewable energy development on federal lands to continued oil and gas leasing in a political compromise that left both energy advocates and environmentalists partially satisfied.

How It Affects You

State Variations

Implementing Regulations

• 43 CFR Part 1820 — BLM general regulations (application procedures, fees, forms for public land transactions)

• 43 CFR Part 2300 — Withdrawals of public lands (withdrawal procedures, reviews, revocations)

• 43 CFR Part 2370 — Restorations and Revocations of Public Land Orders: BLM's procedures for returning withdrawn or reserved federal lands to the public domain — the process by which land that was set aside for a specific federal purpose (military use, reclamation project, agency facilities) is released back into the general public land estate when the original purpose is no longer needed. Key provisions:

  • § 2372.1 — Notice of intention to relinquish: a holding agency (the agency for whose benefit lands were withdrawn — such as the Department of Defense, Bureau of Reclamation, or GSA) that no longer needs withdrawn lands files a notice of intention to relinquish with the appropriate BLM state office; the notice must specify the legal land description, the basis for the original withdrawal, and the reason for relinquishment
  • § 2372.3 — Return to the public domain: when BLM's authorized officer determines that the holding agency has complied with applicable regulations (including contamination cleanup under § 2374.2) and the lands are suitable for return, BLM issues a public land order restoring the lands to the public domain; restored public domain lands then become eligible for BLM management under FLPMA — including grazing permits, mining claims, energy leases, or recreation management — according to the applicable resource management plan
  • § 2374.1 — GSA surplus determination: for federal lands determined not suitable for return to the public domain (because they are not needed for public land management), BLM transfers jurisdiction to the General Services Administration for disposal as surplus federal property; GSA may then sell, transfer to states, or convey to other federal agencies based on the highest and best use determination under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act
  • § 2374.2 — Conditions of BLM acceptance: agencies will not be discharged of responsibility for withdrawn lands until: (1) lands have been decontaminated of all dangerous materials and restored to suitable condition (or a specific decontamination plan and schedule has been approved by BLM and the appropriate environmental agencies); and (2) all improvements not required for BLM's future use have been removed or documented; this condition is particularly significant for former military ranges, which may require decades of unexploded ordnance (UXO) remediation before BLM will accept return

  Part 2370 is the mechanism for recovering public lands that were administratively removed from BLM's general estate. The decontamination requirement in § 2374.2 is frequently the bottleneck in military land transfers: former bombing ranges and training areas with unexploded ordnance require extensive DOD environmental liability analysis and cleanup before BLM will accept return — creating real estate that is legally BLM-eligible but practically unavailable for decades. Several high-profile public land restoration actions (including Nevada Test Site perimeter lands and former military bases in Hawaii) have been delayed by contamination disputes between DOD and DOI over cleanup standards and liability. When lands are successfully restored, the BLM resource management plan amendment process determines their future use.

• 43 CFR Parts 2800–2880 — Rights-of-way on public lands (applications, terms, conditions, rental fees for pipelines, roads, utilities)

• 43 CFR Part 2740 — Recreation and Public Purposes Act (BLM, 27 sections across two subparts — the administrative framework for conveying or leasing BLM public lands to state and local governments, federal instrumentalities, and nonprofit organizations for recreational or public purposes; authority: 43 U.S.C. § 869 et seq. (Recreation and Public Purposes Act of June 14, 1926, as amended); the R&PP Act creates an authorized exception to FLPMA's general rule that public lands should be retained in federal ownership, specifically for public benefit uses that serve community recreation and civic needs):

  • § 2741.1 — Lands subject to disposition: any public lands administered by BLM may be conveyed or leased under the R&PP Act except lands that are (a) withdrawn or reserved for national defense purposes, (b) within the boundaries of National Parks, monuments, or wilderness areas, or (c) subject to an active mining claim or mineral lease — these exclusions protect federal reserved uses while leaving the vast majority of BLM lands available for R&PP conveyance
  • § 2741.2 — Qualified applicants: eligible applicants include States; Federal and State instrumentalities (counties, cities, irrigation districts, school districts, and other governmental units); and qualified nonprofit organizations whose purposes are exclusively recreational or public (churches may qualify for some public purposes but not where the use would primarily serve religious functions); commercial organizations and private individuals are categorically ineligible — the R&PP Act is specifically for public benefit uses, not private development
  • § 2741.5 — Guidelines for conveyances and leases: BLM will only convey or lease land if (a) the proposed use is a qualified recreational or public purpose; (b) a development plan has been submitted showing the intended improvements and use; (c) the use is consistent with the applicable Resource Management Plan and NEPA review; and (d) the disposal will not conflict with other public land uses or federal management objectives; BLM has discretion to lease rather than convey when a permanent transfer is not clearly in the public interest
  • § 2741.7 — Acreage limitations and general conditions: conveyances to any single applicant in any calendar year generally may not exceed 640 acres for recreational purposes; BLM may authorize larger conveyances for qualifying large-scale public facilities with specific approval; conveyances are subject to a patent condition requiring the land to revert to the United States if the grantee ceases to use it for the approved purpose — protecting against purpose diversion
  • § 2741.8 — Price: the price for R&PP conveyances is set below fair market value to reflect the public benefit purpose:
    • States, counties, and other governmental entities for recreational purposes: $25 per acre (a nominal price reflecting the direct public benefit)
    • States for purposes other than recreation: fair market value
    • Historic monument conveyances to any eligible entity: no charge (patent issued at no cost)
    • Federal instrumentalities (e.g., municipalities receiving land for parks, schools, or civic centers): between $2.50–$25/acre depending on the nature of the public use
  • § 2741.9 — Patent provisions and reversion: all R&PP patents include an automatic reversion clause — if the land is used for purposes other than those specified in the patent, or if the grantee abandons the approved use, title reverts to the United States without further legal action required; BLM monitors compliance with patent terms through periodic site visits; grantees must seek BLM approval before changing the use specified in the patent (§ 2741.6 — applications for transfer or change of use)
  • §§ 2742.1–2742.4 — Omitted lands and unsurveyed islands: states (only, not nonprofits or municipalities) may apply to acquire omitted public lands (public lands that were inadvertently excluded from original surveys) and unsurveyed islands adjacent to state-owned lands; these provisions address a narrow category of surveying irregularities in the historical public land survey system

  The Recreation and Public Purposes Act is the legal basis for thousands of city parks, county fairgrounds, community recreational facilities, cemeteries, and public campgrounds built on former BLM land across the western United States. The combination of below-market pricing and the reversion clause is the policy structure that preserves the public investment: the federal government subsidizes the initial acquisition cost because the use is genuinely public, but if the grantee later tries to sell or develop the land commercially, title automatically reverts — preventing windfall privatization. Applications are submitted to the BLM district office for the area where the land is located, with a development plan, NEPA documentation, and proof of the applicant's eligibility. Processing times typically range from 1–3 years for straightforward applications. No major Part 2740 amendments in recent years — the R&PP Act framework has been stable for decades.

• 43 CFR Parts 4100–4700 — Range management (grazing administration, allotment management, wild horse and burro management)

• 43 CFR Part 3470 — Coal Management Provisions and Limitations — the foundational rules governing who may hold BLM coal leases, how lease terms and royalties are structured, and under what conditions leases may be forfeited or canceled. Federal coal leasing is governed by the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. § 189) and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C. § 1701). Key provisions:

  • Subpart 3471 — General Provisions: coal leases must include a complete legal land description; unsurveyed lands require a cadastral survey at federal expense before leasing (§ 3471.1-2); if federal lands are sold or transferred with a reservation of the coal mineral estate, the lessee remains liable to the federal government for royalties but the surface owner has independent rights (§ 3471.2-1); leases may be canceled or forfeited for violation of lease terms, but a bona fide purchaser who acquired an interest without knowledge of the violation receives protection (§ 3471.3-1)
  • Subpart 3472 — Lease Qualification Requirements: BLM coal leases may be issued only to (a) U.S. citizens; (b) associations of citizens organized under U.S. or state law; (c) corporations organized under U.S. or state law; or (d) municipalities — foreign nationals and foreign corporations may not directly hold federal coal leases (§ 3472.1-1); applicants must also demonstrate compliance with acreage limitations — no person may control more than 46,080 acres of federal coal leases in any one state (§ 3472.1-2), a limit designed to prevent concentration of federal coal reserves
  • Subpart 3473 — Fees, Rentals, and Royalties: coal lessees pay an annual rental before production begins and royalties on all coal produced; the minimum royalty for surface-mined federal coal is 12.5% of the value of coal at the mine (raised to 12.5% in 1976; multiple subsequent review proposals that have not changed this rate); underground coal royalties are a minimum of 8%; royalties are collected through ONRR (Office of Natural Resources Revenue); rentals credited against royalties once production begins
  • Subpart 3474 — Bonds: every coal lessee must maintain a performance bond with BLM covering all lease obligations; bond amounts are set by BLM based on the scope of operations; national and regional blanket bonds may be accepted from large operators with consistent compliance history
  • Subpart 3475 — Lease Terms: initial coal leases are issued for 20 years and may be renewed for successive 10-year terms as long as the lessee continues diligent development and pays all rentals and royalties; "diligent development" requirements prevent lessees from holding coal reserves without producing — BLM may cancel leases where production has unreasonably lapsed

• 43 CFR Part 3900 — Oil Shale Management—General — the administrative and qualification framework that governs all BLM oil shale leasing, providing the general rules that apply across exploration licenses, commercial leases, and the entire oil shale regulatory program. Part 3900 defines the program's scope, eligibility requirements, and administrative procedures that companion regulations (Parts 3910–3930) build upon. Key provisions:

  • § 3900.10 — Lands subject to leasing: BLM may issue oil shale leases on all federal lands except (a) lands explicitly excluded by the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act; (b) lands within the boundaries of National Parks, National Monuments, and Wilderness areas; and (c) lands where oil shale development would conflict with surface management objectives; virtually all viable Green River Formation oil shale deposits in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming are on BLM-administered public land and are within the leasing program's geographic scope
  • § 3900.40 — Multiple use development: the granting of an oil shale lease does not disturb the BLM's authority to authorize other uses of the same lands (grazing, recreation, other mineral extraction) simultaneously — oil shale leases are non-exclusive surface use grants; the lease gives the right to develop the oil shale deposit but the BLM manages the surface for multiple uses consistent with the land use plan
  • § 3900.50 — Land use plans and environmental review: every oil shale lease must be consistent with the applicable Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the area; no lease may be issued that conflicts with the land use plan without an RMP amendment; the environmental review requirement means that areas not currently planned for oil shale development require a planning revision (a process that can take years) before leasing can proceed — one reason why the commercial program has advanced slowly
  • Subpart 3902 — Qualification Requirements: only qualified applicants may hold oil shale leases — limited to U.S. citizens, U.S.-organized associations or corporations, or the State of Colorado/Utah/Wyoming; foreign nationals and foreign-controlled corporations may not directly hold federal oil shale leases; applicants must comply with acreage limitations and divestiture requirements if existing holdings approach the maximum; qualification requirements prevent concentration of the nation's oil shale resources in the hands of a single entity
  • Subpart 3903 — Fees, Rentals, and Royalties: oil shale lessees pay (a) application filing fees; (b) annual rentals before production; and (c) royalties on production once commercial extraction begins; the royalty rate for commercial oil shale production has been a contested issue — the regulations authorize royalties but the specific rate is set as a condition of each lease's terms; Congress and BLM have debated appropriate royalty levels for years given the energy policy importance of domestic oil shale
  • Subpart 3904 — Bonds and Trust Funds: all oil shale lessees must post bonds or establish trust funds sufficient to cover estimated reclamation and environmental remediation costs; the bonding requirement ensures the federal government is not left with an unfunded cleanup obligation if a lessee goes bankrupt or abandons a lease; bond amounts are set based on the scope of authorized operations and are subject to periodic adjustment as operations expand

• 43 CFR Part 3930 — Management of Oil Shale Exploration Licenses and Leases — the BLM framework for commercial oil shale development on federal lands in the western United States (primarily Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming), implementing the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. § 15927), which directed BLM to establish a commercial oil shale leasing program. Oil shale — marlstone rock that contains kerogen, convertible to synthetic crude via retorting — represents the world's largest oil shale resource, with roughly 1 trillion barrels of potential oil equivalent on federal lands in the Green River Formation. Key provisions:

  • §§ 3930.10–3930.13 — Performance standards: all oil shale operations must be conducted in a manner that (a) prevents waste of the resource; (b) meets modern environmental, health, and safety standards; (c) maintains maximum economic recovery; performance standards are differentiated by extraction method — in situ operations (heating the shale underground to extract oil without mining), underground mining, and surface mining each have specific requirements for boundary pillars, ventilation, reclamation, and containment
  • § 3930.20 — Maximum Economic Recovery requirement: all development and production operations must be conducted to yield the Maximum Economic Recovery (MER) of the oil shale deposits — BLM may require modifications to approved Plans of Development if operations are not achieving MER; this standard prevents "creaming" (extracting only the richest deposits and leaving marginal resource behind)
  • § 3930.30 / § 3930.40 — Diligent development milestones: BLM establishes specific milestones (dates by which exploration, pilot operations, or commercial production must begin); operators who miss a milestone are assessed $50 per acre per year until the milestone is achieved, prorated daily; persistent failure to meet milestones can result in lease termination
  • §§ 3931.10–3931.20 — Plan of Development (POD): no oil shale operations may begin without an approved POD; the POD must detail all operations, environmental protection measures, reclamation plans, and workforce safety programs; PODs are subject to environmental review and public comment; reclamation must restore disturbed land to pre-mining condition or higher agreed use (§ 3931.20)
  • §§ 3933–3934 — Assignments and subleases; relinquishments: oil shale leases may be assigned or subleased with BLM approval; BLM evaluates whether the assignee is qualified and capable of meeting lease obligations; lessees may relinquish at any time but remain responsible for all reclamation obligations incurred before relinquishment

  The federal oil shale leasing program has been the subject of repeated policy reversals. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 directed a commercial program; BLM issued commercial oil shale leases during the Bush administration; the Obama administration significantly reduced the program and revised regulations; the Trump administration reopened leasing; the Biden administration again paused new leases while reviewing the program's environmental and royalty framework; the Trump administration reinstated the program in 2025. Low oil prices and the high capital costs of commercial oil shale development (primarily in-situ heating technology) have meant that no commercial oil shale operations from federal leases have yet proceeded to production, making these regulations largely a prospective framework awaiting economic conditions that justify development.

• 43 CFR Part 3480 — Coal Exploration and Mining Operations Rules: the BLM regulations governing exploration and production operations on federal coal leases, implementing the Mineral Leasing Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. The United States has the world's largest recoverable coal reserves; approximately 40% of U.S. coal production comes from federal leases (concentrated in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming and Montana). Part 3480 governs how coal is extracted once a lease is issued, while 43 CFR Parts 3400-3450 govern the leasing process itself. Key provisions:

  • § 3480.0-5 — Definitions: key terms include "operator/lessee" (the party holding the lease and responsible for operations), "maximum economic recovery" (the production efficiency standard), and "logical mining unit" (LMU) — a consolidated area of one or more leases that may be combined for administrative purposes to allow continuous mining operations across lease boundaries; LMUs are important for Powder River Basin surface mines that span multiple federal and state leases
  • § 3481.1 — General obligations: the operator/lessee must conduct all exploration, mining, and reclamation activities in compliance with the lease terms, BLM and OSMRE requirements, and applicable environmental laws; the BLM-OSMRE coordination structure means that BLM (under the Department of Interior) approves mining plans while OSMRE (also Interior) regulates surface reclamation and environmental protection — two separate but overlapping regulatory frameworks for the same mining operation
  • § 3481.2 — Procedures and public participation: all major BLM decisions on coal mining plans are issued as written findings and are subject to protest and appeal; this creates the administrative record for any subsequent litigation over mine approvals
  • §§ 3481.4-1 to 3481.4-4 — Temporary interruption of coal severance: a lessee who stops producing coal from a federal lease faces diligence requirements — failure to produce can cause the lease to be deemed non-producing, affecting lease renewal rights; Part 3480 establishes conditions under which a temporary production halt (equipment breakdown, market conditions, mine safety investigation) qualifies as an excused interruption that does not jeopardize diligence; lessees must document the reason and duration of any interruption
  • § 3483 — Royalty on coal: federal coal royalties are assessed as a percentage of the gross proceeds from the sale of coal — currently 12.5% for surface-mined federal coal and 8% for underground-mined coal (set by the Mineral Leasing Act); the royalty calculation has been disputed: does "gross proceeds" mean the price at the mine mouth, or the price at the power plant after transportation? The Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) enforces royalty collection; underpayment of federal coal royalties was a major Interior OIG finding in 2012, leading to valuation rule changes

  Federal coal leasing has been politically contested for decades. The Obama administration halted new leasing in 2016 to conduct a programmatic environmental review (the moratorium was challenged by states and industry); the Trump administration reopened leasing in 2017; the Biden administration again halted new leasing and then issued new regulations requiring higher royalty rates; the Trump administration reversed Biden's royalty increase in 2025. The Powder River Basin in Wyoming accounts for approximately 90% of federal coal production; a single PRB surface mine may produce 100 million tons per year, making BLM's mine plan approval process for PRB operations among the most consequential single land management decisions in federal resource management. Part 3480 governs the operational side; the strategic question of how much federal coal to lease and at what royalty rate is governed by Part 3400's leasing regulations.

• 43 CFR Part 2920 — Leases, Permits and Easements (29 sections): the general authorization framework for non-federal entities to use public lands for purposes not covered by a specific leasing statute — a residual authority under FLPMA §§ 302, 303, and 310 (43 U.S.C. §§ 1732, 1733, 1740) that allows BLM to authorize virtually any lawful, compatible use of federal land that does not fall within the more specific mineral leasing, grazing, rights-of-way, or recreation permit frameworks. Part 2920 is the "catch-all" land use authorization pathway: cellphone towers, weather monitoring stations, research installations, agricultural operations not covered by grazing regulations, private water pipelines, filming locations, and similar non-standard uses all come through Part 2920.

  Authorization types and eligibility (§§ 2920.0-5, 2920.1): BLM may issue three types of authorizations under Part 2920 — (1) leases for use of land or facilities for a specified term, typically renewable; (2) permits for temporary, revocable uses; and (3) easements for rights to use land across a defined corridor; any person, corporation, state, local government, or nonprofit may apply; federal agencies may also apply when they need to use BLM land for a program not covered under their own authority; the type of authorization issued depends on the duration, exclusivity, and nature of the proposed use — permanent or long-term improvements generally require a lease, while temporary monitoring equipment might receive a permit.

  Fair market value requirement (§ 2920.0-6): all Part 2920 authorizations must be issued at fair market value as determined by appraisal or competitive bidding — BLM cannot provide subsidized land use to private entities; fair market value is assessed based on the comparable market for similar uses and the value of the specific location; exceptions exist for nonprofit educational or research uses where Congress has authorized reduced rates, and for uses by state or local governments for public purposes; annual rental fees are adjusted at least every 5 years based on updated appraisals; unauthorized uses discovered after-the-fact are subject to retroactive fair market value charges for the period of the trespass.

  Land use plan conformity (§ 2920.0-6(b)): BLM may only issue Part 2920 authorizations for uses that conform with the applicable Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the area — the land use planning document that designates appropriate uses for each parcel; a proposed use that conflicts with the RMP requires an RMP amendment before BLM can authorize it; this conformity requirement prevents site-specific authorizations from undermining the landscape-level planning that FLPMA requires; applicants should review the applicable RMP before submitting proposals to identify potential planning conflicts.

  Unauthorized use and trespass (§ 2920.1-2): any use, occupancy, or development of public lands without a Part 2920 authorization (or other applicable authorization) constitutes an unauthorized use — commonly called a trespass; BLM may order immediate removal of unauthorized structures and restoration of the disturbed area; BLM may assess retroactive fair market value rental for the unauthorized use period, plus a 25% penalty on top of the fair market value rental; when BLM must conduct restoration itself because the trespasser fails to comply, the trespasser is liable for all costs; criminal prosecution for willful trespass is also available under 43 U.S.C. § 1733(a); Part 2920 trespass enforcement has become more prominent as unauthorized solar array installations, remote communications facilities, and other structures have appeared on public lands in the Southwest and West without BLM authorization.

  Application process (§ 2920.2): applicants submit a proposal to the appropriate BLM field office describing the proposed use, location, facilities, duration, and environmental protection measures; BLM evaluates proposals for land use plan conformity, environmental impacts (NEPA review), conflicts with existing authorizations or pending applications, and fair market value; BLM may hold competitive bidding if multiple applicants seek the same parcel; most Part 2920 authorizations are issued for initial terms of up to 10 years, with the possibility of renewal upon reapplication and a new environmental review; leases of 10+ years require Congressional authorization under FLPMA's long-term lease provisions.

• 43 CFR Part 2810 — Tramroads and Logging Roads on O&C Lands (39 sections): the BLM regulations governing rights-of-way for tramroads (fixed-rail timber transport systems) and logging roads across the Oregon and California Revested Lands — the 2.4 million acres of western Oregon timberlands that Congress took back from the Oregon and California Railroad in 1916 after the railroad violated its land grant's settlement-and-cultivation requirement by selling timber rights to large companies rather than to actual settlers. The Revested Lands Sustained Yield Management Act of 1937 directs BLM to manage O&C lands primarily for permanent timber production on a sustained-yield basis, making access infrastructure — tramroads and logging roads — essential to the O&C timber program. Key provisions:

  • § 2812.0-6 — Statement of policy: the intermingled character of O&C lands (BLM parcels checkerboarded with private timberlands throughout western Oregon) requires cooperation between BLM and private landowners; BLM grants road rights-of-way across its O&C lands to facilitate private timber harvest from surrounding parcels, and uses Part 2810 to ensure reciprocal access
  • § 2812.1-1 — Filing: applications for tramroad or logging road rights-of-way must be submitted in duplicate on a prescribed form to the BLM district office having jurisdiction; for routes that cross multiple BLM districts, the applicant files with the district where most of the proposed road would lie
  • § 2812.1-2 — Citizenship disclosure: the application must include a statement of whether the applicant is a U.S. citizen; individual members of any unincorporated association must each make this disclosure — reflecting the O&C Act's original intent to benefit actual settlers and the local community rather than large timber corporations
  • § 2812.1-3 — Unauthorized use: any use, occupancy, or development of O&C lands without a permit is unlawful; unauthorized road construction triggers trespass proceedings and liability for the value of any timber removed or land disturbed
  • § 2812.2-1 — Nonexclusive license: a tramroad or logging road permit is a nonexclusive license, not an easement; the permit does not convey any ownership interest in the underlying land and does not grant rights to timber or other resources along the road corridor
  • § 2812.2-2 — Third-party use restriction: a permittee may not authorize other parties to use the right-of-way for transporting forest products without BLM's separate approval; this prevents private parties from converting a BLM road permit into a for-hire transport corridor that competes with public roads
  • § 2812.2-3 — Construction in advance of permit: where project scheduling requires it, the authorized BLM officer may allow an applicant to begin road or tramroad construction before the final permit determination; this provision accommodates timber harvest scheduling while the full permit review is completed
  • § 2812.3 — Road use agreements: where the proposed road route crosses lands controlled by the applicant that lie between BLM O&C parcels, BLM may require a road use agreement granting BLM and subsequent permittees access across those private lands in exchange for the logging road right-of-way across BLM land — ensuring that road access is genuinely reciprocal across the checkerboard ownership pattern

  The O&C lands generate approximately $100 million annually in timber receipts, which are shared 50% with the 18 O&C counties in Oregon (replacing the property taxes those counties would otherwise collect on the federal land). BLM manages roughly 2.6 billion board feet per decade from these lands. The Part 2810 logging road framework is the logistical backbone of O&C timber access — without road rights-of-way across the intermingled BLM and private parcels, large-scale sustainable-yield timber operations in western Oregon would be operationally impossible.

• 43 CFR Part 2520 — Desert-Land Entries (30 sections): the BLM regulations implementing the Desert Land Act of March 3, 1877 (43 U.S.C. §§ 321–323, as amended 1891), one of the last surviving Homestead Act-era public land entry programs. The Desert Land Act was enacted to encourage reclamation of the arid and semi-arid public lands of the American West by conditioning federal land conveyance on the entrant actually irrigating the land — the theory being that the Western desert had little value without water, but that private irrigation investment could make it productive. Unlike the Homestead Act (which required cultivation), the Desert Land Act requires artificial irrigation as proof of improvement. While new entries are rare today, existing entries must complete their 4-year proof process, and BLM administers the residual program under Part 2520. Key provisions:

  • § 2520.0-1 — Purpose: the statute's purpose is to encourage reclamation of arid and semi-arid public lands by irrigation; reclamation is defined as conducting water in adequate amounts onto the land to make it productive; the land must actually produce a crop when proof is submitted — theoretical irrigation capacity is insufficient
  • § 2520.0-8 — Land subject to entry: land that the desert-land law requires to be artificially irrigated to produce a crop is eligible; the BLM State Director determines which lands in each state are "desert land" for eligibility purposes; eligibility has been narrowly construed — land that receives sufficient rainfall to grow crops without irrigation is not eligible; mineral lands, lands reserved for other purposes, and lands within approved reclamation projects are generally ineligible
  • § 2521.1 — Who may enter: any U.S. citizen 21 or older may make a desert-land entry; citizens who have already made a Homestead Act entry may also make a desert-land entry (the two programs are not mutually exclusive); each applicant is limited to 320 acres of desert land per state; declarants (persons who have declared intent to become citizens) are also eligible
  • § 2521.2 — Application: the applicant files an application with a $0.25/acre filing fee; the application describes the land by legal description, explains why it qualifies as desert land, and describes the proposed irrigation plan; BLM posts notice of the application for 60 days to allow competing claims to be filed
  • § 2521.4 — Sale and mortgage rights: after submitting final proof and making final payment ($1.25/acre), the land may be sold or mortgaged; until final proof, the land may not be transferred without BIA/BLM approval of the assignment — this prevents land speculation while the desert-land development obligation is outstanding
  • § 2521.5 — Annual proof: each year, the entrant must file an annual proof showing: (a) the amount of water actually applied to the land; (b) the acreage under cultivation; (c) the nature and value of improvements; (d) expenditures made during the year; annual proofs prevent abandonment of land while holding the entry open
  • § 2521.6 — Final proof: within 4 years of the entry date, the entrant must submit final proof showing that: (a) the land has been reclaimed by artificial irrigation throughout; (b) the land bore a crop in the preceding year; (c) the entrant has expended at least $1/acre in addition to purchase price; upon final proof acceptance and payment, BLM issues a patent conveying the land in fee simple; the entrant receives unrestricted ownership and the federal trust relationship ends
  • § 2521.8 — Contests: any person seeking to acquire the same land, or claiming a prior right, may file a contest before BLM; contests are adjudicated through BLM's administrative hearing process; common contest grounds include abandonment, fraud in the irrigation showing, or prior valid claim to the land

  The Desert Land Act produced significant Western agricultural development in the late 19th and early 20th centuries — major irrigation districts in California's Central Valley, Arizona's Salt River Project area, and Nevada's Humboldt Valley were built in part by desert-land entrants. Today the program is essentially closed to new entries in practical terms: virtually all federal land suitable for desert-land entry is either reserved, withdrawn, covered by an existing entry, or within a federal reclamation project area where separate law applies. BLM maintains the regulations primarily to administer the residual proof, contest, and patent processes for entries already in the system.

• 43 CFR Part 51 — Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska (27 sections): the federal regulations implementing Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980 (16 U.S.C. §§ 3111–3126), which established a federal priority for subsistence use of fish and wildlife by rural Alaska residents on federal public lands. Subsistence — the traditional harvesting of wild animals, fish, plants, and other natural resources for personal and family consumption — is central to the culture, nutrition, and economy of Alaska Native communities and many rural non-Native Alaskans. ANILCA's Title VIII created a legal framework that, when the State of Alaska failed to comply with its subsistence priority requirements (following the Alaska Supreme Court's ruling in McDowell v. State in 1989 that the state's subsistence law violated Alaska's constitution), required the federal government to administer subsistence on federal public lands directly. Part 51 establishes that Federal Subsistence Management Program. Key provisions:

  • § 51.1 — Purpose: the regulations implement the Federal Subsistence Management Program on public lands within the State of Alaska, ensuring that qualified subsistence users have a priority opportunity to take fish and wildlife for subsistence uses
  • § 51.2 — Authority: the Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of Agriculture issue Part 51 jointly under ANILCA Title VIII and FLPMA (43 U.S.C. § 1733); the joint authority reflects that federal public lands in Alaska are managed by multiple agencies — BLM, National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and USDA Forest Service — all subject to the same federal subsistence obligation
  • § 51.10 — Federal Subsistence Board: the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture establish a Federal Subsistence Board (the Board) to make program-wide subsistence management decisions; the Board consists of the Alaska Regional Directors of BLM, FWS, NPS, BIA, and USDA Forest Service; the Board sets regulations for subsistence harvest of fish and wildlife on federal public lands
  • § 51.11 — Regional advisory councils: the Board establishes a Regional Council for each of ten subsistence resource regions of Alaska (Southeast, Southcentral, Kodiak/Aleutians, Bristol Bay, Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Western Interior, Central Interior, Eastern Interior, Arctic, and Northwest); Regional Councils consist of local residents, Alaska Native representatives, and subsistence users; they provide recommendations on subsistence regulations in their region and review Board decisions affecting local communities
  • § 51.12 — Local advisory committees: within each region, the Board may establish local Federal Advisory Committees at the community level to provide additional locally-specific input; local committees are composed of subsistence users from the immediate area and provide ground-level knowledge of fish and wildlife conditions, harvest patterns, and community needs
  • § 51.14 — Relationship to state regulations: state of Alaska fish and game regulations apply on federal public lands and are hereby adopted as federal regulations, except where federal regulations (including ANILCA's subsistence priority) differ; when state regulations conflict with the federal subsistence priority, federal regulations control — this provision is the source of the federal-state jurisdictional conflict that has defined Alaska subsistence management for three decades
  • § 51.15 — Rural determination process: the Board determines which areas and communities in Alaska are "nonrural" — communities that are not rural are excluded from the federal subsistence priority, which applies only to "rural Alaska residents"; current nonrural determinations are listed at § 51.23 and include Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, and other urban areas; the rural/nonrural boundary has been litigated extensively because it determines who qualifies for the subsistence priority
  • § 51.16 — Customary and traditional use determinations: the Board determines which fish stocks and wildlife populations have been customarily and traditionally used by specific communities for subsistence; these determinations establish the eligibility of particular communities to participate in subsistence harvests of particular species — a community without a recognized customary and traditional use of a species cannot be a priority user for that species
  • § 51.17 — Priority determinations among subsistence users: when subsistence harvests must be restricted, the Board must determine how to allocate the subsistence opportunity among qualified rural residents; ANILCA establishes a preference system (subsistence users over sport hunters/fishers) and allows the Board to further prioritize among subsistence users based on local residence, specific communities' nutritional needs, and cultural relationship to the resource
  • § 51.18 — Regulation adoption process: the Board accepts proposals for changes to subsistence regulations (subparts C and D — the actual species-specific harvest rules) annually; proposals may be submitted by anyone; the Board holds public meetings in affected communities before adopting changes; this community-participatory rulemaking process distinguishes federal subsistence management from conventional rulemaking and is designed to incorporate traditional ecological knowledge
  • § 51.19 — Special actions: in emergency situations where immediate regulatory action is necessary to ensure continued viability of a fish or wildlife population or to ensure a subsistence opportunity, the Board (or, for less urgent situations, the relevant Regional Director) may take "special action" — an expedited regulatory change outside the annual cycle; emergency special actions take effect immediately; non-emergency special actions require public notice and at least 5 days for public comment before taking effect

  The Federal Subsistence Management Program covers approximately 250 million acres of federal public lands in Alaska — about 60% of the state — making it the largest wildlife management program in North America by area. The program administers subsistence regulations for approximately 500 species of fish and wildlife. The federal-state conflict at the heart of Alaska subsistence management is ongoing: the State of Alaska has repeatedly sought to regain management authority by amending its constitution or legislation to comply with ANILCA's rural preference, but voter initiatives to amend the Alaska Constitution to allow the rural preference have failed at the polls (1992, 2000). Federal management under Part 51 continues by default. The Katie John v. United States litigation established that navigable waterways within Alaska, including many rivers and streams used for subsistence fishing, are "public lands" subject to federal subsistence management — a ruling that significantly expanded the federal program's geographic scope beyond uplands.

43 CFR Part 2540 — Color-of-Title and Omitted Lands (36 sections): one of the oldest public land disposal programs still on the books, implementing the Color-of-Title Act of 1928 (43 U.S.C. §§ 1068–1068a). The Act allows individuals, corporations, or groups who have occupied and improved public land for a long period under a "color of title" — a document suggesting valid ownership (such as a deed from a state, a tax patent, or a faulty federal grant) that turns out to be legally defective — to purchase up to 160 acres from the federal government at appraised fair market value, minus the value attributable to improvements the applicant made. The Act resolved a longstanding tension in the American West: settlers who had been living on and improving land for decades in reliance on documents that were not legally valid federal patents found themselves occupying land they did not own, with no path to clear title. Key provisions:

• § 2540.0-5 — Class 1 and Class 2 claims: Class 1 covers occupants in "actual physical possession" at the time of application; Class 2 covers applicants who were in possession but were "ousted" — removed by others — prior to application; the distinction determines proof requirements
• § 2541.1 — Eligibility: any individual, group, or corporation authorized to hold title in the applicable state may apply; the Act's occupancy requirement had to have commenced no later than January 1, 1901 — a cutoff that limited the program to long-term historical occupants whose claims predated the conservation era
• § 2541.3 — Patents: qualifying applicants receive a BLM patent conveying fee title to the land after proof of publication and resolution of any protests
• § 2541.4 — Price: land is appraised at fair market value, but value attributable to improvements made by the applicant is deducted from the purchase price — the applicant pays only for the raw land value, not for buildings, wells, or cultivation they created; in practice, long-improved land may be purchased at well below current market value
• § 2541.5 — Publication: the applicant publishes notice of the application once a week for four consecutive weeks in a designated newspaper at their expense; the publication period allows third parties to protest before BLM issues a patent
• Parts 2542–2544: state-specific omitted lands programs for New Mexico (1932 Act — lands omitted from original federal surveys), Arkansas (1922 Act — 90-day filing window from enactment), and Louisiana (1925 Act — 6-month filing window); the Arkansas and Louisiana windows have long since closed, making those subparts entirely historical

The Color-of-Title program is largely historical — the January 1, 1901 occupancy cutoff means no new classes of eligible applicants have emerged since the Act was passed. The vast majority of claims were filed and resolved in the mid-20th century. The New Mexico Omitted Lands provisions address small parcels that fell between surveying errors and ended up technically in federal ownership while being treated as private land by adjacent landowners. Part 2540 remains in the CFR for administration of any pending residual claims and as authority for patents issued under the program.

• 43 CFR Part 9230 — Trespass on Public Lands: BLM's dedicated trespass enforcement regulations covering unauthorized extraction of natural resources — timber, vegetative materials, minerals — from federal public lands. While general land-use trespass enforcement is addressed in the context of specific authorization programs (Part 2920 for land use, Part 2800 for rights-of-way), Part 9230 focuses specifically on the economic harm of unauthorized resource removal.

  • § 9239.0-7 — Penalty for unauthorized removal of material: any extraction, severance, injury, or removal of timber, other vegetative resources, or mineral materials from public lands without authorization is a trespass; the trespasser is liable to the United States for the value of the materials taken plus applicable penalties; the penalty framework applies regardless of whether the trespasser knew the land was federal — good faith is not a defense to the civil liability for the value of resources taken
  • § 9239.0-8 — Measure of damage: the rule of damages follows the Supreme Court's framework for natural resource trespass — in cases of innocent (non-willful) trespass, the measure is the value of the severed resource; for willful trespass, BLM applies a higher measure to reflect the deterrent function of the penalty; state law providing stricter penalties governs when state law exceeds the federal measure
  • § 9239.0-9 — Sale, lease, permit, or license to trespassers: a person or entity responsible for an unlawful use of public lands may be barred from obtaining BLM authorizations while the trespass remains unresolved; BLM maintains discretion to deny applications from known trespassers, preventing trespassers from legitimizing their unauthorized use by subsequently applying for a permit after the fact
  • § 9239.1 — Timber and other vegetative resources: unauthorized cutting, removal, or injury of trees, brush, grass, or other vegetative materials from public lands constitutes trespass; minimum damages for timber trespass are set by the federal statute and by BLM appraisal of the fair market value of removed material; BLM may also require restoration of disturbed areas at the trespasser's expense
  • § 9239.1-2 — Penalty for timber trespass: the trespasser is liable in a civil action for the value of the timber taken plus costs; for willful timber trespass, an additional penalty factor applies; BLM coordinates with the U.S. Attorney's Office for criminal prosecution when willful trespass involves significant quantities of timber — a recurring issue in national forest and BLM timber country in the Pacific Northwest and California
  • § 9239.1-3 — Measure of damages for timber trespass: unless state law provides stricter penalties, minimum damages are calculated by valuing the severed timber or vegetative material at market price at the time of removal; where the materials have been processed (logs milled into lumber), the calculation may use the value of the processed product minus reasonable processing costs
  • Subpart 9260 — Criminal Trespass: Part 9260 (adjacent in the BLM regulations) establishes criminal penalties for willful trespass on public lands, complementing the civil damage framework in Part 9230; criminal violations are referred to DOJ for prosecution under 43 U.S.C. § 1733

  BLM trespass enforcement is an active program in the western United States, where the federal-state checkerboard land ownership pattern — alternating sections of federal and private land from 19th-century railroad land grants — creates frequent boundary disputes and inadvertent (and sometimes deliberate) encroachments. The most common trespass violations involve: (1) unauthorized grazing — livestock from permitted operations wandering onto lands without a grazing authorization; (2) unauthorized mining or mineral extraction — particularly in areas adjacent to valid mining claims; (3) unauthorized vegetation collection — commercial gathering of native plants, mushrooms, or other products without BLM permit; and (4) unauthorized road construction or land clearing for adjacent private development. BLM estimates tens of millions of dollars in annual resource loss from trespass, though the figure is difficult to quantify. No major standalone amendments to Part 9230 in recent years.

• 43 CFR Parts 2710–2720 — Sales of Public Lands (BLM, 21 sections — the regulations implementing FLPMA § 203, 43 U.S.C. § 1713, which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to sell public lands where disposal serves the national interest; authority: 43 U.S.C. §§ 1701, 1713, 1740): FLPMA reversed the prior federal policy of encouraging disposal of public lands — land sales are now the exception, not the rule, and are permitted only when (1) the land is identified in an approved Resource Management Plan as suitable for disposal, (2) the sale will be for at least fair market value, and (3) the disposal meets specific statutory criteria. Key provisions:

  • § 2710.0-1 — Purpose: implements FLPMA § 203 sale authority; disposal by sale is authorized only when the Secretary determines it will serve the national interest under criteria Congress specified — isolation, cost of management, threat of unauthorized use, or community expansion needs
  • § 2710.0-2 — Objective: no sale may be for less than fair market value as determined by independent appraisal; BLM may not accept bids below appraised value; the requirement prevents below-market transfers that would constitute a subsidy to the buyer
  • § 2710.0-6 — Policy: sales may only occur in implementation of an approved land use plan (Resource Management Plan); parcels not identified in an applicable RMP as suitable for disposal are not available for sale regardless of applicant interest; this RMP-conformity requirement ensures disposal decisions run through the public planning process rather than happening on an ad hoc basis
  • § 2710.0-8 — Lands subject to sale: only public lands meeting FLPMA's criteria are eligible; the most commonly invoked are: (1) isolated tracts difficult to manage economically because of their location or size, (2) parcels whose disposal will serve important public objectives not achievable through use authorizations alone, and (3) land adjacent to communities needing expansion for residential, industrial, or similar purposes
  • § 2711.1-1 — Identification through land use planning: BLM identifies sale-eligible parcels during the RMP process; once identified, parcels are placed on a proposed disposal list; listing establishes eligibility but does not compel sale — BLM retains discretion over timing and method
  • § 2711.1-2 — Notice of realty action: BLM publishes a Notice of Realty Action in the Federal Register and local newspapers identifying the parcel, the proposed sale method, minimum bid, and appraisal basis; the notice opens a protest period allowing affected parties to contest the proposed sale before it is finalized
  • § 2711.1-3 — Grazing permit or lease cancellations: any grazing permit or lease affecting the parcel must be cancelled before final transfer; the grazing permittee receives advance notice and appeal rights; cancellation-before-sale prevents purchasers from acquiring land still encumbered by active federal grazing authorizations
  • § 2711.2 — Qualified conveyees: purchasers must be U.S. citizens 18 or older, associations of citizens, corporations subject to state or federal law, or state and local governments; foreign nationals may not purchase directly; the requirement prevents acquisition by entities whose ownership would raise sovereignty or national security concerns
  • § 2711.3 — Procedures for sale: competitive public auction is the default; the minimum bid equals appraised fair market value; the highest qualified bid above the minimum wins; BLM may use modified competitive bidding (preference to adjacent landowners) or direct sale when competition is not feasible given parcel characteristics

  FLPMA land sales are a small fraction of BLM's overall land portfolio — BLM typically sells a few hundred to a few thousand acres annually through Part 2710 procedures, against the 245 million acres under management. The core policy tension is between communities (especially fast-growing western municipalities) that argue isolated federal parcels serve no real public purpose and should be released for housing or commercial development, and conservationists who argue that FLPMA's retention mandate means sales must remain genuinely exceptional. The Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA) established a parallel disposal authority for the Las Vegas valley that operates alongside Part 2710 and has driven some of the largest federal land sales of recent decades. Regulations established under original FLPMA authority (1976–1984); no major standalone amendments to Parts 2710–2720 in recent years.

• 43 CFR Part 3100 — Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing (109 sections across 10 subparts — the foundational BLM framework governing the full lifecycle of federal onshore oil and gas leases, from competitive bidding through production royalties through relinquishment; implements the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. § 189), FLPMA (43 U.S.C. § 1701), and the Energy Policy Act of 2005; applies to BLM-administered lands and, separately, to Indian tribal and allotted lands under 25 U.S.C. § 396d). Part 3100 is the framework that governs most oil and gas leasing activity on the roughly 700 million acres of federal mineral estate managed by BLM, including subsurface rights beneath privately owned surface land:

  • § 3100.10 — Helium reservation: all helium in gas produced from any federal lease is reserved to the United States; lessees produce and deliver gas to federal buyers without acquiring title to the helium component — a consequence of the Helium Act, which treats helium as a strategic resource separate from the hydrocarbon estate
  • §§ 3100.21–3100.22 — Drainage compensation: when wells on adjacent non-federal lands drain oil or gas from the federal mineral estate, BLM may order the lessee to drill a protective well or pay compensatory royalty at double the lease royalty rate; the compensatory royalty mechanism protects federal revenue when non-federal development outpaces federal leasing in a geologic formation
  • §§ 3101.21–3101.22 — Acreage limitations: no person may hold more than 246,080 acres of federal oil and gas leases on public domain lands in any one state at any one time; separately, an additional 246,080 acres on acquired lands in the same state is allowed — the two limits are additive, not merged, so a company with maximum holdings could theoretically hold up to 492,160 leased acres in one state; competitive bids must disclose acreage held to demonstrate compliance
  • § 3101.12 — Surface use rights: a lessee may use only as much surface as is reasonably necessary to explore for, drill, extract, and transport the mineral estate — the "reasonably necessary" standard gives surface owners and BLM leverage to limit surface disruption beyond what extraction requires; surface-owner compensation agreements are required for split-estate lands (§ 3171.19)
  • § 3101.13 — Lease stipulations: BLM includes in each lease only those stipulations identified in the applicable Resource Management Plan (RMP); stipulations may restrict timing of operations (seasonal restrictions protecting wildlife), designate no-surface-occupancy zones, or require special reclamation measures; lease modifications, waivers, or exceptions to stipulations require authorized officer approval (§ 3101.14)

  Fiscal terms (Subpart 3103):

  • § 3103.31 — Royalty rates: for leases issued before August 16, 2022, the rate is whatever the lease document specifies (historically 12.5% onshore); for leases issued after that date, the rate must meet the minimum set by the Inflation Reduction Act — a 16.67% minimum royalty for competitive leases — the most significant increase in federal onshore royalty rates since the Mineral Leasing Act was enacted; royalty is paid in value or in-kind on all production removed or sold
  • § 3103.32 — Minimum royalty: once production is discovered in paying quantities, a minimum annual royalty (equal to the per-acre rental rate or higher) is owed even in years when the lessee does not produce — preventing indefinite lease holding without production
  • § 3103.41 — Royalty reductions: the Secretary may reduce the royalty rate on a lease-by-lease basis to encourage production from marginal wells or to prevent waste; reduction requires a finding that the lease cannot be produced in paying quantities under standard royalty terms; the IRA also created a tiered structure limiting reductions for high-volume wells
  • § 3103.1 — Fiscal term adjustments: rental rates and other fiscal terms are adjusted every 4 years according to the change in the GDP Implicit Price Deflator — an inflation-indexing mechanism that keeps federal land payments current with economic conditions without requiring regulatory rulemaking each cycle

  Bonding (Subpart 3104):

  • § 3104.20 — Lease bond: every lessee or operator must hold a bond in its own name before beginning surface-disturbing activities; the bond guarantees compliance with all lease terms, including reclamation; bond amounts are set in § 3104.1 and adjusted every 10 years per IPD-GDP
  • § 3104.30 — Statewide bond: operators may elect to post a single statewide bond covering all their federal leases and operations in a given state in lieu of individual lease bonds; statewide bonds simplify administration but must cover the full potential liability; nationwide bonds (covering all states) were eliminated by 2024 rule and required replacement with statewide bonds by June 2025 (§ 3104.90)
  • § 3104.40 — Surface owner protection bond: when a lessee cannot reach an agreement with the split-estate surface owner (as required by 43 CFR 3171.19) before beginning operations, BLM requires the lessee to post a separate surface owner protection bond — effectively ensuring the surface owner has a financial backstop for compensation claims independent of the lease reclamation bond

  Lease lifecycle (Subparts 3106–3108): assignments and subleases of federal oil and gas leases require BLM approval; BLM reviews the qualifications of assignees and confirms acreage limits will not be exceeded (Subpart 3106); leases continue beyond their initial 10-year term as long as production is maintained in paying quantities (Subpart 3107); lessees may relinquish all or part of a lease at any time, though relinquishment does not eliminate accrued royalty obligations (Subpart 3108). Recent rulemakings: 87 FR 16524 (2022) — BLM revised bonding requirements and eliminated nationwide bonds, requiring transition to statewide bonds by 2025; Inflation Reduction Act (P.L. 117-169, 2022) — raised minimum royalty rate to 16.67% for new competitive leases and established minimum bid prices; 89 FR 2152 (2024) — BLM updated the fiscal term table in § 3103.1 to reflect IRA requirements.

• 43 CFR Part 3150 — Onshore Oil and Gas Geophysical Exploration: BLM's authorization framework for geophysical exploration (primarily seismic surveys) on federal and Indian lands where no oil or gas lease exists yet — covering the "look before you lease" phase that precedes competitive bidding. Authority: Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. § 189), Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands (30 U.S.C. § 351), and Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. The rule divides into two tracks based on geography:

  Outside Alaska (Subpart 3151 — Notice of Intent): operators who want to conduct seismic or other geophysical work on BLM land outside Alaska must file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the BLM District Manager at least 30 days before beginning operations (§ 3151.10); the NOI must describe the type of exploration, the proposed activities (shot holes, vibroseis, aerial), the surface disturbance, and the proposed reclamation; BLM reviews for conflicts with existing land use plans, existing leases, and environmental concerns; if BLM does not object within the 30-day period, the operator may proceed; upon completion, operators file a Notice of Completion (§ 3151.20) and must submit all data acquired to BLM (§ 3151.30) — geophysical data collected on public lands belongs to the United States; there is a confidentiality period during which BLM holds the data nonpublic, but it eventually enters the public domain.

  Alaska (Subpart 3152 — Permit Required): geophysical exploration in Alaska requires a formal permit rather than a mere notice of intent (§ 3152.1); the permit application must include maps, environmental impact analysis, and a reclamation plan; BLM has 90 days to act on a permit application (§ 3152.2); Alaska's more rigorous treatment reflects the greater environmental sensitivity, wilderness context, and the complexity of overlapping land management jurisdictions (BLM, FWS, NPS, state, Native) in Alaska.

  Enforcement (§ 3150.1): BLM may revoke or suspend an exploration permit or NOI authorization after notice if the operator is not complying with the terms; revocation triggers an appeals right to the Interior Board of Land Appeals. Geophysical exploration does not grant any right to the underlying mineral estate — it is purely a surface access authorization to gather data. Operators who discover promising geology must still compete in BLM's normal competitive oil and gas lease sale process (43 CFR Parts 3120–3130) to acquire development rights.

• 43 CFR Part 3920 — Oil Shale Leasing (Competitive Leasing Procedures): the BLM regulations implementing the competitive bid process for oil shale leases on federal lands, complementing the general program rules in Part 3900 and the operations framework in Part 3930. Part 3920 governs how BLM identifies tracts for competitive sale, solicits expressions of interest, consults with affected states and tribes, and conducts the actual competitive bidding:

  • § 3921.10 — Land use planning prerequisite: before any competitive sale, BLM must identify the proposed tract in an approved Resource Management Plan as available for oil shale leasing; the planning requirement creates a built-in barrier to rapid leasing — areas not yet planned for oil shale require an RMP amendment, an NEPA process that typically takes 3–5 years
  • § 3921.20 — NEPA compliance: BLM must complete an environmental analysis of the proposed competitive lease sale under NEPA before offering any tract; the NEPA analysis must evaluate alternatives, potential impacts on water resources, surface disturbance, and reclamation; for large commercial oil shale tracts in Colorado/Utah/Wyoming, environmental review has typically required a full EIS
  • § 3921.30 — Call for expression of leasing interest: BLM may invite industry, states, and other interested parties to identify tracts they would like offered for competitive sale; expressions of leasing interest inform BLM's planning but are not binding — BLM decides independently whether to proceed with a sale
  • § 3921.40 — Intergovernmental consultation: after receiving expressions of interest, BLM must notify and consult with the Governors of affected states and local governments, and interested Indian tribes; this consultation step is a substantive requirement — not just notice — and has been a significant element in political opposition to oil shale leasing in western states that depend on water resources that oil shale development could affect
  • § 3922.10–3922.40 — Competitive lease applications: interested parties must submit formal applications with processing fees; BLM delineates the specific tracts to be offered (§ 3922.40), considering resource concentration and development logistics; tracts are offered at competitive auction, with the winning bidder paying a signing bonus plus ongoing rentals and royalties under the lease terms in Part 3900 (Subpart 3903)

  The competitive leasing procedures in Part 3920 have rarely been invoked since the commercial oil shale program's inception under the 2005 Energy Policy Act — primarily because no commercial oil shale technology has yet achieved economic viability at oil price levels seen since the program's creation. The few competitive oil shale leases issued (primarily during the George W. Bush administration) have been maintained in exploration or development stages without commercial production.

43 CFR Part 5510 — Free Use of Timber: BLM's implementing regulations for the Free Timber Use Act of 1878 (30 U.S.C. § 601), which allows settlers, miners, and residents of certain states to cut timber on public lands for personal, non-commercial uses without paying the federal government. Part 5510 is a legacy regulatory framework reflecting 19th-century public land settlement policy — timber for building homes, fences, and fuel was essential to western settlement, and Congress provided free access to public timber as a settlement incentive. The program remains active today but is significantly narrower in scope than its origins.

• § 5511.1-1 — Free use on mineral and nonmineral public lands: free-use permits may be issued for timber cutting on: (a) mineral public lands — lands known to be valuable for minerals and subject to the Mining Law; and (b) nonmineral public lands — other BLM-administered public lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming; the geographic limitation to western public land states reflects the program's original settlement-era scope
• § 5511.1-1(b) — Permitted uses: free-use timber may be cut for personal use only — not for sale or commercial purposes; permissible uses include building and repairing homes, barns, and farm outbuildings; fencing; firewood for personal heating; and other domestic purposes; timber cut under a free-use permit may not be sold or removed from the permit area for commercial purposes; a miner may take timber from their mining claim area for use in developing the mine (timbering shafts, constructing mine buildings), but not for sale
• § 5511.1-1(c) — Quantity limits: the authorized officer sets the volume of timber the permittee may cut based on the described need; permits are issued for specific volumes, not as blanket take-what-you-want authorizations; BLM typically limits free-use timber to amounts genuinely necessary for the stated personal purpose; commercial quantities are not authorized under the free-use permit
• § 5511.1-3 — Timber on grazing lease lands: before a grazing lessee or permittee may take timber from public land under a grazing lease, they must obtain a free-use permit from BLM; the existence of a grazing lease does not automatically authorize timber cutting; the timber resource and the forage resource are managed separately, and BLM may impose conditions on timber cutting within grazing allotments to protect riparian areas, slope stability, or forage production
• § 5511.2-1 through 5511.2-3 — Alaska free use (1898 Act): the Alaska free use provisions operate under the Alaska Free Timber Act of 1898 (formerly applicable to the Territory of Alaska); permits may not be issued to persons who own or control private land with an adequate timber supply — the free use privilege is for those who genuinely lack access to adequate private timber; permits require a formal application on BLM forms filed with the relevant BLM office; the permit specifies the area, the volume, the species, and the cutting period

The Free Use of Timber program today primarily serves rural landowners, small-scale miners, and subsistence users in Alaska and the western states who need modest quantities of timber for personal use and do not have convenient access to commercial timber markets. Applications are processed by BLM district and field offices. The program is distinct from BLM's stewardship timber sales and commercial timber sale programs, which sell timber at appraised market value to commercial operators; free use permits are administrative authorizations for personal-use quantity removal. No recent rulemaking — Part 5510 reflects regulations last substantially revised in the 1970s; BLM manages the program through field office discretion within the regulatory framework.

• 43 CFR Part 2910 — Leases (26 sections across three subparts — BLM's regulations governing leases of public land for aviation, recreation, public purposes, and Alaska fur farming; three subparts serve distinct legal authorities and constituencies):

  • Subpart 2911 — Airport Leases (10 sections): implements the Act of May 24, 1928 (49 U.S.C. Appendix, §§ 211–213), which authorizes leasing unreserved and unappropriated public lands for airport and landing strip development; the lessee must equip the leased land as an airport within 1 year of lease issuance; leases are typically sought by small rural communities in Alaska and western states that lack alternative airport sites on private or state land
  • Subpart 2912 — Recreation and Public Purposes Act Leases (5 sections): implements the Recreation and Public Purposes Act (43 U.S.C. § 869), which authorizes BLM to lease (and in some cases sell) public lands to state and local governments and qualified nonprofit organizations for recreation or public purposes at below-market prices; eligible lessees include counties, municipalities, park authorities, school districts, and 501(c)(3) nonprofits; typical uses include parks, athletic fields, campgrounds, fairgrounds, and community centers; lease terms may run up to 25 years with renewal options; BLM monitors to ensure the land remains in approved public use — conversion to private or commercial use triggers termination
  • Subpart 2916 — Alaska Fur Farm Leases (11 sections): authorizes leasing public lands in Alaska for fur animal farming — a legacy of Alaska's historical fur trade; leases are limited to isolated islands or areas where fur farms will not conflict with other uses; lessees must comply with state wildlife regulations; this subpart has declined substantially as the commercial fur farming industry in Alaska contracted

  The Recreation and Public Purposes Act program (Subpart 2912) is the most active and practically significant: BLM processes dozens of RPP lease applications annually, primarily from counties and municipalities seeking to establish parks and recreation facilities on BLM land in western states. The program serves a critical function in communities where most surrounding land is federally owned — without RPP leases, these communities would have no legal mechanism for local parks and public facilities. No major recent rulemaking — Part 2910 reflects regulations from the 1970s; BLM administers RPP leases through the Land Use Authorizations program in each state office.

• 43 CFR Part 1860 — Conveyances, Disclaimers, and Correction Documents (25 sections — BLM's procedures under FLPMA §§ 315–316 (43 U.S.C. §§ 1745–1746) for resolving title disputes and correcting patent errors without litigation; a practical mechanism for landowners and local governments that discover their land record or patent contains errors):

  • Subpart 1864 — Recordable Disclaimers of Interest (12 sections): under FLPMA § 315, if the United States claims or appears to claim an interest in private or state land that it does not actually own, the Secretary may issue a "recordable disclaimer of interest" — a formal federal document clearing the federal cloud on title; any entity claiming ownership may apply with a non-refundable $100 fee; BLM will not approve applications filed more than 12 years after the claimant knew of the federal interest claim (no time limit for state government applicants); BLM consults with other federal agencies before issuing a disclaimer over their objection; once issued and recorded in the county recorder's office, the disclaimer eliminates the federal interest from public land records without a quiet title lawsuit
  • Subpart 1865 — Correction of Conveyancing Documents (11 sections): under FLPMA § 316, if a previously issued federal patent or conveyancing document contains an error in land description, acreage, or patentee name, the Secretary may issue a corrected patent; applications require a $100 fee and documentation of the specific error; BLM may also initiate corrections on its own motion; corrected patents are recorded in county land records; the authority is limited to clerical and technical errors — BLM cannot use it to re-convey land that was properly transferred
  • Subpart 1863 — Other Title Conveyances (2 sections): covers evidence-of-title requirements when the United States acquires land through purchase or donation — ensures the government receives clear title

  The disclaimer and correction authorities are particularly valuable in states with checkerboard land ownership patterns from 19th-century railroad and homestead grants, where landowners may find patent errors that cloud their current title. Part 1864 and 1865 provide administrative remedies faster and less expensive than a federal quiet title action under the Quiet Title Act (28 U.S.C. § 2409a). No major recent rulemaking — Part 1860 regulations reflect the original FLPMA implementing rules from the late 1970s.

• 43 CFR Part 1780 — Cooperative Relations — BLM Advisory Committees (Subpart 1784, 23 sections): the regulatory framework for creating, operating, and terminating advisory committees to the Secretary of the Interior and Bureau of Land Management on matters relating to public lands and resources; implements the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act's requirement that BLM seek public input in planning and management. Key provisions:

  • § 1784.0-3 — Authority: BLM advisory committees are established under FLPMA § 309 (43 U.S.C. § 1739), which directs the Secretary to establish advisory committees to assist in carrying out public land management; committees operate under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requirements for balanced membership, open meetings, and public recordkeeping
  • § 1784.3-1 — Establishment: a BLM advisory committee may be created only with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior or the BLM Director; the approving official must determine that the committee is necessary, that existing non-advisory mechanisms cannot accomplish the same purpose, and that the costs are justified; new advisory committees are chartered for 2-year terms with a 15-day Federal Register notice requirement before establishment
  • § 1784.4-1 — Membership: advisory committee members are selected to represent a balanced cross-section of the public with knowledge of and interest in BLM programs; typical resource advisory councils (RACs) include representatives from commercial interests (grazing, timber, minerals, energy), conservation and recreation groups, State and local governments, tribal governments, and the general public; no single interest may dominate the membership; members serve without compensation but receive travel reimbursement
  • § 1784.6-1 — Designated Federal Official (DFO): every BLM advisory committee must have a Designated Federal Official — a BLM employee who attends all committee meetings, ensures compliance with FACA requirements, and may adjourn the meeting if it falls outside the committee's chartered purpose; the DFO is not a committee member but serves as the link between the committee and the BLM program it advises
  • § 1784.6-2 — Record keeping: all advisory committee meetings must be open to the public; detailed minutes must be kept and made available for public inspection; each committee must maintain files accessible at the appropriate BLM state office; the public filing requirement is the primary FACA accountability mechanism — records of what a committee recommended, who said what, and whether BLM followed the advice are all public documents

  BLM's Resource Advisory Councils (RACs) — the primary form of BLM advisory committee — operate under this framework and serve as the principal public-input mechanism for BLM resource management planning. Most BLM state and field offices have an associated RAC that reviews and comments on draft Resource Management Plans, environmental impact statements for major proposed uses, and significant management decisions. RACs have been used in both conservation and development contexts — to gather input on sage-grouse conservation plans and to review solar energy development zones.

• 43 CFR Part 9260 — Law Enforcement — Criminal (23 sections across 8 subparts): the BLM criminal law enforcement framework governing the authority and procedures for BLM law enforcement rangers and special agents to enforce federal criminal statutes on public lands; implements the FLPMA enforcement provisions (43 U.S.C. § 1733) and specific resource protection statutes covering range, timber, wildlife, and recreation. BLM employs approximately 250 law enforcement rangers and special agents who patrol 245 million acres of public land — among the most geographically dispersed law enforcement responsibility in federal government. Key subparts:

  • Subpart 9260 — Law Enforcement, General: establishes BLM law enforcement rangers as federal law enforcement officers with authority to carry firearms, make arrests, execute warrants, and enforce federal criminal law on public lands; rangers operate under a dual authority structure — FLPMA for public land management violations and the federal criminal code for general offenses (theft, assault, drug crimes) committed on federal land
  • Subpart 9264 — Range Management: criminal enforcement provisions for grazing trespass — livestock grazing without a permit or in violation of permit terms is both a civil (43 CFR Part 4150) and a criminal violation; repeated or willful trespass grazing can result in criminal prosecution under 43 U.S.C. § 1733(a); BLM rangers conduct range inspections and document unauthorized livestock presence as evidence for both administrative and criminal proceedings
  • Subpart 9265 — Timber and Vegetative Resources: criminal enforcement for timber theft from federal lands — the unauthorized cutting, removal, or destruction of timber on BLM lands is a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 1852 (theft of government property); BLM special agents investigate both individual theft cases and organized timber theft operations; enforcement is concentrated in Oregon, Washington, and Northern California where O&C timberlands support commercial logging
  • Subpart 9266 — Wildlife Management: enforcement of the Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. § 3372) and other wildlife statutes on public lands — unlawful taking, possession, or transport of wildlife on federal land; BLM rangers coordinate with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agents for major wildlife enforcement operations; poaching of big game on BLM lands is the most common wildlife violation
  • Subpart 9269 — Technical Services: evidence handling, crime scene preservation, and investigative support procedures for complex cases; BLM agents work with FBI forensic labs and USDA's Timberland Investigative Group for major cases

  BLM criminal law enforcement operates under a concurrent jurisdiction model: state law enforcement agencies retain jurisdiction over crimes committed on federal land within their state unless Congress has granted exclusive federal jurisdiction (as it has for some federal enclaves). BLM rangers often operate under cross-deputization agreements with county sheriffs that expand their authority to enforce state law while on patrol — reducing gaps in remote areas where the nearest sheriff's deputy may be hours away.

• 43 CFR Parts 3830–3839 — Administration of Mining Claims and Sites under the General Mining Law of 1872 (24 sections in Part 3830 — the general provisions governing how mining claims are located, recorded, and maintained on BLM-administered public lands; authority: 30 U.S.C. §§ 22–54 (General Mining Law), 43 U.S.C. § 1201):

  The General Mining Law of 1872 permits any U.S. citizen (or alien intending to become a citizen) to prospect for and stake a "mining claim" on unappropriated federal public lands for "locatable minerals" — primarily hardrock metals like gold, silver, copper, lead, zinc, uranium, and gemstones. Unlike oil and gas or coal (which require BLM leases), hardrock mineral rights on federal land are secured by "location" — the physical act of marking the boundaries and filing the appropriate documentation with BLM. Once properly located, a mining claim gives the holder the right to mine the deposit; the federal government cannot generally cancel a validly located claim unless the locator fails to meet annual maintenance requirements.

  • § 3830.2 — Scope: Parts 3830–3839 govern the location, recording, and maintenance of lode mining claims (for vein or lode deposits), placer mining claims (for minerals deposited in alluvial material), millsite claims (for processing facilities), and tunnel sites (for access tunnels); the regulations apply to all public lands open to mining under the General Mining Law — approximately 350 million acres of BLM and Forest Service land
  • § 3830.3 — Who may locate: any U.S. citizen or alien who has declared intent to become a citizen may locate a mining claim; an association of such persons may locate a claim collectively; corporations organized under U.S. state law are treated as "persons" entitled to locate claims
  • §§ 3830.10–3830.12 — Locatable minerals: a mineral is "locatable" if it is (1) recognized as a mineral by the scientific community; (2) not subject to a statutory exception (oil/gas, coal, phosphate, potassium, sodium, sulfur, and other "leasable" or "saleable" minerals are governed by separate regimes); and (3) found in sufficient quantity and quality that a person of ordinary prudence would be justified in spending money to develop it — the "prudent person" test, which has been interpreted to require a reasonable prospect of commercial viability; sand, gravel, and common rock are "saleable" materials, not locatable minerals, and do not support a mining claim
  • §§ 3830.20–3830.25 — Fee requirements: a locator must pay: (1) a processing fee at the time of recording the claim; (2) a location fee ($49/claim under the September 2024 BLM fee schedule); and (3) an annual maintenance fee of $200 per claim (effective with the September 2024 BLM fee adjustment) due on or before September 1 each year — failure to pay the maintenance fee by the deadline results in automatic forfeiture of the claim; small miners (10 or fewer claims) may instead perform $100 in annual assessment work (labor or improvements) on the claim, provided they file a valid notice of intent to hold by September 1
  • §§ 3830.91–3830.97 — Compliance and forfeiture: failure to timely pay maintenance fees results in automatic forfeiture — the claim is abandoned as of the deadline for payment, and no curative action is available after the September 1 deadline; BLM may also declare a claim null and void if the locator fails to record required documentation (the notice of location) within the required timeframe; the 2025 rulemaking (90 FR 42331, May 2025) updated fee schedules and clarified recording requirements for the modernized BLM land records system

  The practical significance: the General Mining Law has never been comprehensively reformed since 1872, and it does not require payment of royalties for minerals extracted from federal land (unlike the Mineral Leasing Act's royalty system for oil, gas, and coal). Mining reform legislation has been introduced in every recent Congress but not enacted; the absence of a federal hardrock mining royalty is estimated to cost the federal government hundreds of millions of dollars annually in foregone revenue from gold, silver, and copper production on federal land. The 2023 BLM Waste Discharge Rule (88 FR 23284) added environmental restrictions on mine waste at claim sites but did not alter the fundamental location-based ownership structure. Recent rulemakings: 90 FR 42331 (May 2025) — updated fee schedules and recording procedures for BLM's modernized land records system; 89 FR 35710 (2024) — BLM proposed amendments to update locatable mineral definitions and address legacy mine remediation requirements.

Pending Legislation

• HR 6300 — Revise FLPMA for grazing leases on national grasslands to match other federal lands. Status: In committee.
• HJRES 140 — Disapprove BLM withdrawal of Minnesota lands. Status: Passed House.
• HR 7348 — Require FWS to publish draft land protection plans with 60-day public comment. Status: Introduced.
• HR 7458 — 15-day notice and review for mineral exploration on public lands up to 25 acres. Status: In committee.
• S 4053 — Move 860 acres of BLM land into Pechanga Band tribal trust. Status: Introduced.
• HR 6864 — Ban motor vehicles for intentional predator killing on federal land. Status: Introduced.
• S 3526 — Large California restoration area with wildfire resilience and cleanup. Status: Introduced.

Recent Developments

• Energy development on federal lands remains politically contested, with ongoing tensions between fossil fuel leasing and conservation/renewable energy goals
• The 30x30 initiative (conserving 30% of U.S. lands and waters by 2030) has driven new conservation designations and management changes
• Wildfire management has become a dominant issue for both BLM and Forest Service, with climate change extending fire seasons and increasing severity
• Critical mineral development on federal lands has gained urgency for supply chain security
• Tribal co-management of federal lands has expanded, including Bears Ears and other culturally significant areas
• In February 2026, BLM published a notice of intent to revise Resource Management Plans for Northwestern, Coastal, and Southwestern Oregon under the O&C Act and NEPA, and received a substantive comment causing rescission of its direct final rule on leasing of solid minerals other than coal and oil shale.