43 C.F.R. § 8364.1

Temporary closure and restriction orders

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

(a) The authorized officer may issue an order to temporarily close or restrict the use of designated public lands, including roads, trails, and waterways, to protect persons, property, public lands, or resources; avoid conflict among public land users; or ensure the privacy of Tribal activities for traditional or cultural use.

(b) Each order shall:

(1) Identify the public lands, including roads, trails, or waterways, that are closed to entry or restricted as to use;

(2) Specify the uses that are restricted;

(3) Specify the date and period of time that the closure or restriction order will become effective and the date and time that the order will terminate;

(4) Identify any persons or groups who are exempt from the closure or restriction; and

(5) Identify the reasons for the closure or restriction.

(c) When issuing closure or restriction orders pursuant to this section, the authorized officer shall provide public notice by:

(1) Posting the order in a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Office having jurisdiction over the public lands, including roads, trails, or waterways, to which the order applies;

(2) Posting the order at places near or within the area to which the closure or restriction applies, in such manner and location as is reasonable to bring prohibitions to the attention of users;

(3) Notifying local media outlets; and

(4) Posting information on at least one BLM-controlled, publicly available online communication system.

(d) Notwithstanding any contrary provisions in part 4 of this title, the authorized officer will provide that orders issued pursuant to this section will be effective upon issuance or at a date and time established in the order. If appealed, such orders shall remain in effect pending the decision on appeal unless a stay is granted.

(e) Any person who violates a temporary closure or restriction order may be tried before a United States magistrate and fined in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3571, imprisoned no more than 12 months under 43 U.S.C. 1733(a) and § 8360.0-7, or both.

[89 FR 64397, Aug. 7, 2024]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1982–2018 · leading case: Utah Shared Access Alliance v. Carpenter
Utah Shared Access Alliance v. Carpenter (2006) ca10 · cites it 6× “” 43 C.F.R. § 8364.1 . An order closing or restricting the use of public lands under this authority must identify the lands that are closed to entry or restricted as to use; specify the uses that are restricted; specify the period of time during which the closure or restriction…”
Gardner v. United States Bureau of Land Management (2011) ca9 · cites it 2× “” 43 C.F.R. § 8364.1 (a). II. 5 U.S.C. § 706 (1), 43 U.”
Rodger L. O'neal, Theresa O'Neal v. United States (1987) ca9 “§ 1181a make it clear that the primary use of the revested lands is for timber production to be managed in conformity with the provision of sustained yield, and the provision of recreational facilities as a secondary use.”
Kelly v. Hochberg (2010) or “43 CFR 8364.1. 7 In contrast to roads that are “public roads” under Oregon statutes, BLM could close Cedar Flat Road if it determined that the use of the road by the public was hindering BLM management objectives.”
Gardner v. United States Bureau of Land Management (2009) ord · cites it 2× “” 43 C.F.R. § 8364.1 . An order closing or restricting the use of public lands under this authority must identify the lands that are closed to entry or restricted as to use; specify the uses that are restricted; specify the period of time during which the closure or restriction…”
Humboldt County v. United States (1982) ca9 · cites it 2× “4 (1977) (now codified at 43 C.F.R. § 8364.1 (1981)) and (2) section 603(c) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), 43 U.”
American Sand Ass'n v. United States Department of the Interior (2003) casd “In addition, 43 C.F.R. § 8364.1 authorizes the BLM to close lands or restrict its use “to protect persons, property and public lands and resources .”
United States v. Sullivan (2018) ca9 “Sullivan admits he did not have a driver’s license and McGrath cited Sullivan for violating 43 C.F.R. § 8364.1 (d), A magistrate judge found Sullivan guilty of the offense after a bench trial, and imposed a $100 fíne and a $25 filing fee.”
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.