43 C.F.R. § 3715.1

Do the regulations in this subpart apply to my use or occupancy?

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

To determine if the regulations in this subpart apply to your activities, refer to Table 1 in this section.

Table 1
Applicability of this subpart
If your proposed use of the public lands—	Then—
Includes occupancy and is “reasonably incident” as defined by this subpart	The provisions of this subpart apply to you. You must seek concurrence from BLM before beginning this use and comply with all provisions of this subpart.
Involves the placement, construction, or maintenance of enclosures, gates, fences, or signs	The provisions of this subpart apply to you. You must seek concurrence from BLM before beginning this use and comply with all provisions of this subpart.
Is reasonably incident, but does not involve occupancy	The provisions of this subpart do not apply to you, except for §§ 3715.4, 3715.5 and 3715.7. You are subject to the applicable regulations in 43 CFR part 3800.
Is not reasonably incident (involving rights-of-way, for example), but may be allowed under the public land laws	The occupancy consultation provisions of this subpart do not apply to you. Your use is not allowed under this subpart. You must seek authorization under 43 CFR Group 2900.
Is not allowed under the public land laws, the mining laws, the mineral leasing laws, or other applicable laws	Your use is prohibited. You must not begin or continue unauthorized uses.
Involves occupancy of a site, or any subsequent site within a 25-mile radius of the initially occupied site, for 14 days or less in any 90-day period	The provisions of this subpart do not apply to you. Refer to the applicable regulations in 43 CFR part 8360 and pertinent State Director supplementary rules. 43 CFR part 8360 will not otherwise apply to a reasonably incident use or occupancy that this subpart allows.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 2004–2004 · leading case: United States v. Bollinger, 118 F. App'x 147 (9th Cir. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Bollinger, 118 F. App'x 147 (9th Cir. 2004). “IV Although Calvo has raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding the extent of his milling activities, we affirm the grants of summary judgment as to him because it is undisputed that he neither sought nor received approvals from the BLM as required by the relevant…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.