How the BLM Plans: FLPMA, Resource Management Plans, Grazing, Rights-of-Way and Leasing

A BLM decision in Idaho comes from a field office, a district or the state office in Boise, and the person who signs and the clock that applies depend on what kind of decision it is. A plan, a grazing renewal, a transmission line, a lease sale and a land sale each run on different rules and different deadlines. This lesson sets them side by side, and the table near the end compares the BLM with the Forest Service lessons in lesson 5.

The BLM in Idaho

The BLM's Idaho page says it manages "nearly 12 million acres" of public land in the state, about one-fourth of the state's land area. The Congressional Research Service's Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data (acreage as of September 30, 2024) puts the BLM's Idaho total at 11,768,027 acres. Divided by Idaho's 52,933,120 acres, that is 0.222, or 22.2 percent. The BLM's Idaho State Office is at 1387 S. Vinnell Way in Boise.

The BLM's Idaho history page says today's structure is four districts with twelve field offices. The BLM's Idaho recreation guide lists them:

District	Field offices
Boise	Bruneau, Four Rivers, Owyhee
Twin Falls	Burley, Jarbidge, Shoshone
Idaho Falls	Challis, Pocatello, Salmon, Upper Snake
Coeur d'Alene	Coeur d'Alene, Cottonwood

Count them: 3 + 3 + 4 + 2 = 12 field offices. The history page also explains where the structure came from. Before 1946 the General Land Office and the Grazing Service managed Idaho's public domain. The Grazing Service created five grazing districts in the mid-1930s (Owyhee at Boise, Twin Falls at Burley, Lost River at Pocatello, Lemhi at Salmon, and Wood River at Shoshone), and when the Grazing Service and the General Land Office merged in 1946 those became the BLM's first district offices (Boise, Burley, Idaho Falls, Salmon and Shoshone; the Lost River district office at Pocatello later moved to Idaho Falls). The old grazing district names are still visible in today's maps and offices.

Who signs

Field offices and districts decide project-level actions such as grazing renewals, and the State Director in Boise approves resource management plans (43 CFR 1610.5-2 refers to "the State Director's decision"). The BLM Director decides protests of plans. A reader can find the signing official on the decision record, which for NEPA documents is posted on the BLM's ePlanning site and National NEPA Register.

FLPMA: the law behind every BLM decision

FLPMA's definitions in 43 U.S.C. 1702 are the vocabulary of BLM stories. Multiple use means managing public lands and their resources so they serve the present and future needs of Americans, balancing and combining uses over large enough areas to adjust over time, without permanently reducing productivity or environmental quality, and without letting economic return alone drive the choice. Sustained yield means keeping a high, steady output of renewable resources in perpetuity, consistent with multiple use. An area of critical environmental concern (ACEC) is a place needing special management attention to prevent serious harm to historic, cultural or scenic values, fish and wildlife, or natural systems, or to protect people from natural hazards. The term "public lands" in FLPMA means federally owned lands the Secretary manages through the BLM.

Planning is required by 43 U.S.C. 1712. The Secretary must develop, maintain and revise land use plans with public participation, apply multiple use and sustained yield, use an interdisciplinary approach, give priority to designating and protecting ACECs, and coordinate with other federal agencies, states, localities and tribes, keeping plans consistent with state and local plans to the extent federal law allows. Section 1712(f) requires adequate notice and opportunity to comment. Section 1712(e) also requires notice to Congress when a management decision excludes a principal or major use for two or more years on a tract of 100,000 acres or more, and Congress can block it by concurrent resolution of nonapproval within 90 days.

The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (43 U.S.C. 315 and following) is the older law. Section 315 says its purpose is to "promote the highest use of the public lands pending its final disposal" and lets the Secretary establish grazing districts on lands that are vacant, unappropriated and unreserved, excluding national forests, parks and Indian reservations. Section 315b provides grazing permits of up to ten years, with preference to nearby applicants who own livestock operations, live on the land or hold water rights, and says neither a district nor a permit gives the holder an ownership interest in the land. The government keeps title.

Resource management plans

A resource management plan (RMP) is the BLM's counterpart of a forest plan. It covers a field office or planning area and allocates uses: which lands are open or closed to oil, gas and geothermal leasing, which are available for grazing, where rights-of-way are avoided or excluded, which areas are ACECs, and which routes are open to motor vehicles. Later decisions must conform to it. BLM planning regulations are in 43 CFR part 1600. Three features of the process matter to readers.

• Protest. Under 43 CFR 1610.5-2, a person who took part in the planning process and whose interests may be harmed by approval of an RMP or amendment may protest to the Director. The protest must be filed within 30 days of the EPA's Federal Register notice of the final EIS (for amendments without an EIS, 30 days from the notice of the amendment's effective date), and it may raise only issues submitted for the record during the planning process. It must include the filer's name, address, phone number and interest, the issues and plan parts protested, the planning-record references, and a concise explanation of why the State Director's decision is believed wrong. The Director's written decision is the final decision of the Department of the Interior.
• Governor's consistency review. Under 43 CFR 1610.3-2(e), the State Director sends a proposed plan to the governor, who has 60 days to identify inconsistencies with state or local plans. If the governor does not respond, the plan is presumed consistent. If the State Director rejects the governor's recommendations, the governor has 30 days to appeal to the BLM Director. The Director accepts them if they provide a reasonable balance between the national interest and the state's interest, and publishes the reasons.
• Cooperating agencies and coordination. Section 1712(c)(9) calls for coordination with and consistency with state and local plans where possible, which is the legal basis for county involvement. Lesson 8 covers how counties use it.

An Idaho example: the Four Rivers plan

The Four Rivers Field Office, in the Boise District, published a Proposed RMP and Final EIS in February 2020. In a Federal Register notice dated May 8, 2023, the BLM opened a 30-day public comment period (through June 7, 2023) on clarifications and significant changes to the proposed plan, including splitting fluid mineral allocations into separate oil and gas and geothermal actions, identifying additional areas closed to oil and gas leasing and adding an action to prioritize mineral leasing in high-potential areas. The notice does not give acreage for the changes. The file name of the BLM's record of decision for the plan indicates August 2023, but the page behind that link was unavailable when checked, so confirm the date on the National NEPA Register. The example shows two things. A plan can take years. And a proposed plan can change after the final EIS, with its own comment step.

Planning rules that came and went

The BLM's 2016 "Planning 2.0" rule was repealed under the Congressional Review Act in 2017. A senator's release dated March 27, 2017 says the President signed the resolution and describes the effect as returning resource management planning to local BLM field offices working with state, local and tribal governments. The next section covers a more recent rule, the 2024 Public Lands Rule, which the BLM rescinded in 2026.

The 2024 Public Lands Rule and its rescission

In May 2024 the BLM issued the rule it called the Public Lands Rule, at 89 FR 40308 (May 9, 2024). A final rule titled "Rescission of Conservation and Landscape Health Rule" (the 2024 rule's formal name), published May 12, 2026 at 91 FR 25787 (some reports date it May 11, the day before publication) and effective June 11, 2026, rescinded it in full. According to the Federal Register text, the rescission:

• removed all of 43 CFR part 6100, including restoration and mitigation leasing (43 CFR 6102.4 and 6102.4.1), land health standards provisions with fixed timelines and a 10-year evaluation interval, monitoring and reporting requirements, tribal engagement provisions and the part's definitions;
• removed the 2024 changes to the ACEC regulations in 43 CFR part 1610 and restored the pre-2024 text of 43 CFR 1610.7-2, under which an ACEC must meet relevance and importance criteria, the State Director must publish a notice of proposed ACECs with a 60-day public comment period, and approval of the RMP constitutes formal designation;
• left FLPMA's statutory duties in place, including multiple use, sustained yield and preventing unnecessary or undue degradation, and left the pre-2024 land health standards framework in the grazing regulations in place.

The BLM's stated reasons are legal and practical. It argues that conservation is not a "use" under FLPMA and that its leasing authority covers only third-party authorization to use, occupy and develop public lands, so restoration and mitigation leases exceed that authority. It also argues that the 2024 rule gave authorizing officers too much discretion to exclude grazing, mining, energy development and similar uses, which it views as inconsistent with multiple use, and added burdens, delays and litigation risk. The rescission also says the BLM may pursue separate rulemaking to refine ACEC regulations later.

Rangeland health in Idaho

Idaho's grazing standards predate both rules. The BLM approved the Idaho Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management in August 1997. They have eight standards: watersheds; riparian areas and wetlands; stream channel and floodplain; native plant communities; seedings; exotic plant communities other than seedings; water quality; and threatened and endangered plants and animals (which covers habitat for special status species). If a standard is not being met and livestock grazing is the cause, allotment management will be adjusted, unless significant progress toward the standard is being made. The document sets no deadline for action in the text read.

Grazing: permits, allotments, AUMs and the fee

Grazing on BLM land runs on permits and leases tied to allotments. 43 U.S.C. 1752 sets the rules that matter to a reader:

• Term: generally ten years, with shorter terms allowed in specific cases (land pending disposal, a public purpose within ten years, or sound land management).
• Renewal: the holder of an expiring permit has first claim on a new one if the land remains available under the land use plan, the holder complies with the rules and accepts the new terms. The terms of an expired permit carry over into a new one until the required environmental review is complete.
• Allotment management plans: permits may incorporate a plan developed in consultation with permittees, landowners, grazing advisory boards and affected states.
• Environmental review: issuing a permit that continues current management can be categorically excluded when the allotment meets land health or forest plan objectives, or when shortfalls stem from factors other than grazing. The agency sets the priority and schedule for environmental analyses based on significance and funding.
• Compensation: if a permit is canceled to free land for another public purpose, the holder is compensated for authorized permanent improvements, up to fair market value of the terminated interest, generally with two years' notice.

Permit holders do not own the land. Section 315b of the Taylor Grazing Act says neither a grazing district nor a permit gives the holder an ownership interest in the land, and the federal government keeps title.

The 2026 fee

The BLM and the Forest Service announced (release dated February 5, 2026) a 2026 grazing fee of $1.69 per animal unit month, effective March 1, 2026. The BLM's fee page defines an AUM as "the amount of forage needed to sustain one cow and calf, one horse, or five sheep or goats for a month," and says the 2026 fee is up from $1.35 in 2025. The formula comes from the 1978 Public Rangelands Improvement Act and continues under a 1986 executive order (E.O. 12548). Under 43 CFR 4130.8-1 it starts from a $1.23 base established by the 1966 Western Livestock Grazing Survey and adjusts for private grazing land lease rates, beef cattle prices and livestock production costs. The fee cannot fall below $1.35 per AUM, and a yearly change cannot exceed plus or minus 25 percent of the previous year's fee. The agencies list about 18,000 BLM permits and leases and about 5,550 Forest Service permits across the West. The fee page says annual receipts of roughly $13 million are shared with state and local governments as required by law. Idaho-only counts of BLM permits or allotments were not on the pages read for this lesson.

Check the cap. A 25 percent increase on $1.35 is 1.35 times 1.25, which is $1.6875, and that rounds to $1.69. The 2026 fee is therefore the largest rise the cap allows.

A worked example on AUMs

An invented operator, the Cedar Wash allotment on the invented Pinecrest Flat, turns out 120 cow-calf pairs from June 1 to October 15, which is 4.5 months. AUMs: 120 pairs times 4.5 months is 540 AUMs. Fee at $1.69: 540 times 1.69 is $912.60. Fee at the 2025 rate of $1.35: 540 times 1.35 is $729.00. The difference is $183.60, which is 540 times $0.34. As a share of the old bill, 183.60 divided by 729.00 is 0.252, or 25.2 percent. Now compare "AUM" with "head." A story that says "120 head" and a story that says "540 AUMs" describe the same grazing use in different units: head counts animals on the ground on one day, and AUMs count animal-months over the season. If the operator turns out 120 pairs for only 3 months, the head count is the same and the AUMs fall to 360.

The protest rule is at 43 CFR 4160.2: any applicant, permittee, lessee or other interested public may protest a proposed decision, in person or in writing, to the authorized officer within 15 days after receiving it. The protest and appeal rules for plans (30 days to the Director) and for grazing decisions (15 days to protest, 30 days to appeal) are different clocks, and missing one does not preserve rights under the other.

Rights-of-way: the lines and roads that cross BLM land

Title V of FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. 1761, authorizes rights-of-way across BLM land (and Forest Service land for the Secretary of Agriculture), except designated wilderness, for water systems, liquid and gas pipelines, solid-material pipelines, systems for generating, transmitting and distributing electric power, communications, roads, trails, highways and railroads, and other systems serving the public interest. Applicants must disclose plans, effects on competition and, for businesses, owners and affiliates. Regulations are at 43 CFR part 2800, which the section cross-references. The right-of-way is a grant for a use, not a transfer of land.

Case 1: Gateway West

Gateway West is a 10-segment proposed 500-kilovolt line from the Windstar substation near Glenrock, Wyoming to the Hemingway substation southwest of Boise, proposed by Idaho Power and Rocky Mountain Power. According to the BLM's release dated January 20, 2017, the BLM approved segments 1 through 7 and 10 in November 2013 and then segments 8 and 9, after supplemental environmental analysis, in a record of decision granting rights-of-way. The Idaho segments cross Gooding, Elmore, Owyhee, Cassia and Twin Falls counties, and 321 miles of 500-kilovolt line would cross BLM-managed land in Idaho. The routes cross 17.6 miles of the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area (8.8 miles per line), with the two lines separated by 250 feet within a 500-foot-wide right-of-way. The routes avoid all priority habitat management areas for greater sage-grouse identified in the 2015 plan amendments for Idaho. Mitigation terms include a net conservation gain for sage-grouse habitat impacts and at least no net loss or a net benefit for the Oregon-California National Historic Trail, Class I visual resources and migratory bird habitat, and they become stipulations of the right-of-way grants. The State of Idaho, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission were cooperating agencies. Whether the lines get built, and when, is a separate matter; the course on Hemingway, B2H and Gateway West covers the schedule, which that lesson reports as mostly 2036 or later outside one circuit.

Case 2: SWIP-N

Idaho Power's SWIP-North page describes a 285-mile, 500-kilovolt line between its Midpoint substation in south central Idaho and eastern Nevada near Ely, with 76 miles in Idaho on easements already in place, a BLM record of decision following a full environmental impact statement, construction starting in mid-2026 and an in-service date of 2029. The course 42 lesson on SWIP-N traces the BLM's federal grant to a November 1994 record of decision and reports a developer completion date of 2028; the two sources differ on the in-service year, and that lesson explains why. The BLM piece is one layer. State siting, FERC filings and county permits are others. The point for this lesson is that a federal right-of-way decision can be decades older than the construction, and that the existing grant, not a new BLM decision, may be what lets work start.

Energy leasing: geothermal, oil and gas, wind and solar

Geothermal and oil and gas leasing on BLM land happens through lease sales that follow the allocations in the RMP, with NEPA review before parcels are offered. The Four Rivers example above shows an Idaho plan separating oil and gas from geothermal and identifying closed areas. A current Idaho example is the geothermal sale. The BLM's April 16, 2026 announcement described 36 parcels of about 114,000 acres in seven counties (Washington, Owyhee, Elmore, Twin Falls, Cassia, Clark and Lemhi) with comments through May 13, 2026, citing Executive Order 14154, "Unleashing American Energy." A later trade report, ThinkGeoEnergy on October 5, 2026, citing a BLM release, gave the sale date as November 17, 2026 and the offering as 35 parcels and 113,330 acres in eight counties (adding Boise to the list), with bids placed online through EnergyNet. The parcel count, acreage and counties changed between the two accounts, which is common when parcels are deferred or adjusted after review. Check the final sale notice for the list that will actually be offered, and ask whether the sale notice allows a protest period.

Wind and solar projects on BLM land use the same right-of-way authority as other generation (43 U.S.C. 1761(a)(4)). The sources read for this lesson include no Idaho solar or wind right-of-way decision for 2026.

Land sales and exchanges

FLPMA lets the BLM sell or exchange land, but only through the planning process.

Tool	Statute	Key limits (as read)
Sale	43 U.S.C. 1713 (FLPMA section 203)	The tract must be identified for disposal in land use planning under section 1712 and meet one of three criteria (costly and impractical to manage and not needed by another federal agency; acquired for a purpose that no longer applies; or serves important public goals such as community expansion or economic development that outweigh other values). Not available for wilderness, wild and scenic river or national trail units. Fair market value at a minimum. Competitive bidding unless modified bidding is needed for equitable distribution or public policy. Tracts over 2,500 acres need a 90-day congressional review and are barred if Congress disapproves by concurrent resolution
Exchange	43 U.S.C. 1716 (section 206)	Public interest finding; lands should be of equal value; cash to equalize cannot exceed 25 percent of the total value of the federal land transferred out; appraisals within 90 days after agreement, with a 180-day window to resolve disagreement before arbitration

A worked example with invented numbers. A 3,000-acre tract identified for sale triggers the 90-day review because 3,000 is more than 2,500. A 2,400-acre tract does not. For an exchange, if the federal parcel is appraised at $4,000,000 and the non-federal parcel at $3,000,000, the $1,000,000 gap is 25 percent of $4,000,000 (1,000,000 divided by 4,000,000 is 0.25), exactly at the cap. If the non-federal parcel is appraised at $2,900,000, the gap of $1,100,000 is 27.5 percent and exceeds the cap, so the parties must change the package.

In 2025 Congress considered a mass land sale. According to Outdoor Life's June 28, 2025 report, a provision on pages 202 to 211 of the reconciliation bill would have put more than a million acres of BLM land up for auction in 11 Western states, with a later revision that could have made as much as 3 million acres available. Its sponsor, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, withdrew it that evening, saying the reconciliation rules prevented him from writing enforceable safeguards to limit buyers, and the report says senators from both parties and public pressure from hunters, anglers and conservation groups played a role. Lesson 9 covers the sales and transfer debates and each side's arguments. For this lesson the point is the legal route: land sales under FLPMA must come through planning and carry the limits above. A sale directed by Congress in a statute can bypass them, which is why the 2025 proposal drew attention.

Special designations: ACECs, wilderness study areas and Owyhee wilderness

ACECs are designated in plans, and the pre-2024 rule restored in 2026 requires relevance and importance, a notice by the State Director and a 60-day comment period. Wilderness study areas come from FLPMA section 603 (43 U.S.C. 1782), which directed review of roadless areas of 5,000 acres or more within 15 years of October 21, 1976, and requires the Secretary to manage them "so as not to impair the suitability of such areas for preservation as wilderness" until Congress decides, while allowing existing mining, grazing and mineral leasing at their October 1976 levels. In Idaho, Congress designated six Owyhee wildernesses in 2009 (Owyhee River, North Fork Owyhee, Pole Creek, Big Jacks Creek, Little Jacks Creek and Bruneau-Jarbidge Rivers), totaling over 516,000 acres, according to Wilderness Watch. National news about "Owyhee Canyonlands" proposals for wilderness and a national monument has mostly concerned the larger canyonlands region that reaches Oregon; check the state before assuming a proposal applies to Idaho.

Sage-grouse plan amendments

Greater sage-grouse management in Idaho is set by BLM plan amendments layered over the RMPs. The BLM's planning page lists a 2015 Idaho and Southwestern Montana approved amendment (September 2015), a 2019 Idaho record of decision, a 2021 record of decision for a supplemental EIS, a rangewide proposed amendment and final EIS (volumes dated October and November 2024), a rangewide document on changes to the proposed amendments, and an Idaho record of decision and approved amendment dated December 2025, with a note that dates are completion estimates. The September 3, 2025 Federal Register notice of significant changes covered Idaho and four other planning areas with a 30-day comment period. Proposed changes included revising adaptive management language to match state programs, removing the separate "PHMA with limited exceptions" category so those areas generally become standard priority habitat management areas, and, for Idaho and Nevada/California, changing the perennial grass height benchmark for nesting and early brood-rearing from a numeric standard to a qualitative one. Because priority habitat designations interact with rights-of-way (Gateway West was routed to avoid them) and with grazing, readers should look at the current Idaho record of decision for the map and the rules in a particular area.

NEPA at Interior in 2026

BLM follows the Department of the Interior's NEPA procedures. On February 24, 2026 Interior published a final rule (91 FR 8738) adopting, with changes, its July 3, 2025 interim final rule. The rule moves most NEPA procedures from the Code of Federal Regulations to a departmental handbook and keeps provisions on emergency responses, categorical exclusions and applicant-prepared documents in 43 CFR part 46, and adds sections on lead and cooperating agencies. According to a Perkins Coie summary, public comment is required only when an agency issues a notice of intent to prepare an EIS, bureaus may still seek comment voluntarily, hazardous fuels categorical exclusions were reinstated at up to 4,500 acres for prescribed fire and up to 4,200 acres for post-fire rehabilitation, and the handbook is not regulation, so Interior can change it without rulemaking. FLPMA's own planning notice duties in section 1712(f) are separate from NEPA, so RMP processes still have public participation steps. Lesson 7 covers NEPA in detail.

BLM and Forest Service side by side

Question	BLM (Interior)	Forest Service (USDA)
Organic law	FLPMA 1976; Taylor Grazing Act 1934	National Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1604); Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act 1960
Idaho acres (CRS, 2024)	11,768,027 (22.2%)	20,451,561 (38.6%)
Land use plan	Resource management plan per field office	Forest plan per national forest
Plan approved by	State Director	Forest supervisor (unless a higher official acts)
Plan-level review step	Protest to the Director within 30 days of the final EIS notice	Objection within 60 days (45 days for amendment without EIS) of the public notice
Who may use it	Participants in the planning process whose interests may be harmed; issues limited to those in the record	Those who submitted substantive formal comments
Project-level review	Grazing: protest in 15 days, appeal in 30 days; other decisions have their own appeal rights	Objection: 10 days (EA) or 20 days (EIS) under the final Part 218 rule (91 FR 64760, effective November 12, 2026); 45 days under the earlier rule
State role	Governor's 60-day consistency review of proposed plans	Coordination with state, local and other federal planning under NFMA
NEPA procedures	43 CFR part 46 and the DOI handbook (final rule Feb. 24, 2026)	7 CFR part 1b (Apr. 3, 2026)
Federal grazing fee, 2026	$1.69 per AUM	$1.69 per AUM

Questions and answers

How much of Idaho does the BLM manage?

The BLM says nearly 12 million acres. The Congressional Research Service count for September 30, 2024 is 11,768,027 acres, 22.2 percent of Idaho's 52,933,120 acres.

What does a resource management plan decide?

It allocates uses across a field office or planning area: grazing availability, leasing categories for oil, gas and geothermal, rights-of-way avoidance and exclusion areas, travel management and special designations such as ACECs. It sets direction that later decisions must conform to. It does not by itself approve a specific lease, permit or line.

Who can protest a plan, and by when?

A person who took part in the planning process and whose interests may be harmed can protest to the BLM Director within 30 days of the EPA's Federal Register notice of the final EIS. The protest may raise only issues submitted for the record during planning, and the Director's decision is final for the Department.

What is the governor's role?

Under 43 CFR 1610.3-2(e), the governor has 60 days to identify inconsistencies between a proposed plan and state or local plans. If the State Director rejects the governor's recommendations, the governor has 30 days to appeal to the BLM Director.

How long is a grazing permit, and can it be renewed?

Generally ten years. The holder of an expiring permit has first claim on a new one if the land remains available under the plan, the holder complies with the rules and accepts the new terms. The terms of an expired permit continue until the required environmental review is finished.

Why did the fee go to $1.69?

The formula adjusts the previous year's fee using private grazing land lease rates, beef cattle prices and livestock production costs, and caps a yearly change at 25 percent. The 2025 fee was $1.35, and 25 percent above that is $1.6875, which rounds to $1.69.

Can I protest a grazing decision, and how fast?

Yes. Any applicant, permittee, lessee or other interested public may protest a proposed decision to the authorized officer within 15 days of receiving it (43 CFR 4160.2). An appeal or stay petition on a final decision is due within 30 days of receipt (43 CFR 4160.4) at the issuing BLM office.

What happened to the Public Lands Rule?

The BLM rescinded it in a final rule effective June 11, 2026. It removed 43 CFR part 6100 and the 2024 changes to the ACEC rules, restored the older ACEC text, and left FLPMA's duties and the pre-2024 land health framework in place.

Can the BLM sell land in Idaho?

Yes, under FLPMA section 203, if the tract was identified for disposal in planning and meets one of three criteria, at no less than fair market value, usually by competitive bidding, with a 90-day congressional review for tracts over 2,500 acres. Sales are not available for wilderness, wild and scenic river or national trail units. The 2025 proposal to sell much more land through the reconciliation bill was withdrawn.

Hard questions

"Should the grazing fee be higher?"

The fee is set by a formula that follows private lease rates, cattle prices and production costs, is capped at a 25 percent change a year and has a floor of $1.35. The sources read for this lesson do not include a study comparing the federal fee with private lease rates or with the agency's grazing program costs, so this lesson does not give that comparison. A reader can test either side's claim with data: private lease rate surveys, the cost of range improvements that permittees fund, and the agency's grazing program costs. The 2026 figure of $1.69 is the largest change the cap allowed. Whether the formula should change is a question for Congress and the executive branch.

"Was the Public Lands Rule a conservation tool or an overreach?"

The BLM's 2026 rescission argues that conservation is not a "use" under FLPMA, that restoration and mitigation leases exceed its leasing authority, and that the 2024 rule gave officers too much discretion to exclude other uses. The rescission leaves FLPMA's multiple use and undue degradation duties in place, so the dispute is over which tools the statute allows. The case for the 2024 rule is in that rulemaking's preamble (89 FR 40308) and comments, and a reader should read it there. No court decision on the question appears in the sources read for this lesson.

"Is a sage-grouse plan a barrier to development or a way to keep the species off the endangered list?"

The Gateway West record shows the BLM routing lines to avoid priority habitat and requiring net conservation gains for impacts. The September 2025 notice describes its changes as better matching state programs (adaptive management) and, for Idaho and Nevada/California, replacing a numeric grass-height benchmark with a qualitative one. Those who care most about habitat will ask whether a qualitative benchmark can be measured and enforced. Those who care most about workable plans will ask whether a numeric height fits varied sites. The notice states the agency's reasons, and the comments in the docket state the positions. Whether habitat outcomes differ will show up in monitoring.

"Should Idaho's federal land be sold or transferred?"

Lesson 9 takes this up in full. What this lesson supports: FLPMA section 203 already allows sales through planning, a 2025 proposal for a mass sale was withdrawn on June 28, 2025 after opposition from members of Congress across parties and from hunting, fishing and conservation groups, and sales over 2,500 acres have a congressional review step.

"Does shortening NEPA public comment help the BLM or hurt the public?"

Interior's February 2026 rule requires comment only at the notice of intent for an EIS and leaves other comment to bureaus, and a law firm summary says Interior reported that bureaus continue to seek comment voluntarily. The rule's supporters say it reduces delay. Those concerned about it point to fewer guaranteed chances to be heard. The BLM planning steps in FLPMA, including public notice and protest, still apply to plans, so the effect falls most on projects decided under categorical exclusions and environmental assessments. The rule took effect on February 24, 2026, and decisions made under it will show the effect. The practical check for a reader is whether each project notice offers a comment period, and for how long.