Land Disposal Authorities and Processes of the Bureau of Land Management

June 3, 2024 R48079

Land Disposal Authorities and Processes of the June 3, 2024
Bureau of Land Management
Carol Hardy Vincent,
Congress has provided various statutory authorities to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
Coordinator
within the Department of the Interior, to dispose of federal lands through conveyance to another
Specialist in Natural
party. One such disposal authority is the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA; 43
Resources Policy
U.S.C. §§1701 et seq.). Another BLM disposal authority is the Recreation and Public Purposes

Act (RPPA; 43 U.S.C. §§869 et seq.). The suitability of existing BLM disposal authorities, the
Mark K. DeSantis
circumstances of their use, and the extent of BLM land ownership overall form the backdrop for
Analyst in Natural
congressional consideration of measures to establish, eliminate, or modify authorities as well as
Resources Policy
measures to dispose of specific BLM lands.

FLPMA requires BLM to develop land use plans for its lands. Each plan is the basis for actions
Omar M. Hammad
Analyst in Environmental
related to the covered lands and identifies lands potentially available for disposal under FLPMA,
Policy
RPPA, or other authorities. FLPMA allows BLM to sell tracts of land that are identified for

disposal through the land use planning process and that meet certain criteria. These criteria are
that (1) the tract is difficult and uneconomic for BLM to manage and not suitable for
Erin H. Ward
management by another agency, (2) the tract is no longer needed for the purpose for which it was
Coordinator of Research
acquired or for any other federal purpose, or (3) disposal of the tract will serve important public
Planning/ALD
objectives. FLPMA also authorizes BLM to exchange federal lands for nonfederal lands and sets

out terms and conditions for exchanges. For instance, an exchange must be in the public interest
and the federal and nonfederal lands must be in the same state and essentially of equal value.

RPPA allows BLM to sell or lease lands to states and other governmental units, federally recognized Indian tribes, and
nonprofit entities for various public purposes, such as the establishment of parks, schools, police stations, and public works.
Disposal must be in the public interest and requires a classification analysis of the specific intended use. Other conditions
include acreage limitations for sales and term lengths for leases. BLM’s general policy is to first issue a lease to help ensure
the area is developed before authorizing a sale. Further, the price of the land depends in part on the type of entity that is to
receive it (e.g., governmental or nonprofit), whether the land is sold or leased, and the intended use of the land.
BLM conveyances are governed by various requirements and processes. For example, land sales and exchanges under
FLPMA and RPPA generally are subject to the federal environmental review process under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. §§4321 et seq.). The level of review depends on the significance of the potential environmental
effects of the disposal. BLM typically has prepared environmental assessments for disposals under FLPMA or RPPA; highly
complex disposals have, at times, required more detailed environmental impact statements. NEPA analyses may incorporate
information prepared by agencies under other laws, such as consultations under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA; 16 U.S.C. §§1531 et seq.) or reviews under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA; 54 U.S.C.
§§300101 et seq.). Section 7 of the ESA requires federal agencies to ensure their actions do not jeopardize species listed
under the ESA or adversely modify or destroy designated critical habitat. For Section 7 to apply, there must be discretionary
federal involvement or control in the action. Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to review the potential
impacts of their actions on historic properties and consult with interested parties to seek ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate
any adverse effects.
BLM typically obtains an appraisal of market value for land disposals under FLPMA, whether by sale or exchange. FLPMA
specifies that lands may not be sold at less than their fair market value. BLM regulations state that an exchange of lands must
be based on the market value of the federal and nonfederal lands. Market value typically is based on an economic assessment
of the highest and best use. Under RPPA, lands generally are sold or leased for less than market value or for free, although
some lands are sold or leased based on a formula that depends on an appraisal to determine market value.
There is no general statutory timeline for BLM to dispose of lands or authority governing the order in which disposals are
undertaken. The length of time to complete disposals varies widely, ranging from months to years. It depends on the number,
variety, and components of applicable requirements; attributes and variables of the lands; whether the parcel is identified in a
land use plan; BLM priorities and workload; and the availability and expertise of BLM staff, among other factors. Exchanges
can be more time consuming than disposals because they involve two transactions.
Congressional Research Service

Land Disposal Authorities and Processes of the Bureau of Land Management

Introduction
Congress has broad constitutional power to manage the lands owned by the federal government,
including the power to dispose of federal lands.1 Congress has provided an array of statutory
authorities to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), within the Department of the Interior
(DOI), to dispose of federal lands.2 A disposal is the conveyance of BLM-administered land to a
nonfederal party through methods such as sale and exchange. This report provides an overview of
the main authorities and processes for BLM to dispose of federal land managed by the agency.3 It
focuses on two standing authorities that generally are among the primary authorities BLM uses to
dispose of land. For lands meeting certain conditions, the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act (FLPMA) authorizes BLM to sell lands to, or exchange lands with, any nonfederal party.4
The Recreation and Public Purposes Act (RPPA) authorizes BLM to sell or lease lands to states
and other governmental units, federally recognized Indian tribes, and nonprofit entities for
specific purposes.5
In addition to these two standing authorities to convey land, this report covers selected related
requirements and processes for conveyances.6 They include BLM’s land use planning process;
notification, consultation, and coordination requirements; the environmental review process under
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA);7 Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7
consultation;8 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 requirements;9 and land
appraisals. It concludes with a discussion of factors contributing to the length of the land disposal
process.
The BLM land use planning process provides the framework for land disposals and thus is set out
first in this report. Some requirements for disposals often are addressed concurrently by the
agency, such as consultation and coordination and assessments under ESA, NHPA, and NEPA,
notwithstanding the order of their discussion in this report. Other land disposal actions may be
taken later in the disposal process. An example is land appraisal, because appraisals typically are
valid for one year only. Accordingly, appraisals are discussed in this report after other disposal
requirements.

1 The Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 3, clause 2, gives Congress the “Power to dispose of
and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.”
2 Land disposal authorities and actions of the Secretary of the Interior discussed in this report generally are exercised by
BLM. Further, in some cases, this report refers to Bureau of Land Management (BLM) although the authorities specify
the Secretary of the Interior.
3 In this report, references to federal land and land generally encompass areas over which the BLM has full ownership
(i.e., ownership in fee) as well as BLM interests in lands. An interest in land is something less than full ownership,
such as an easement. Also, some of the information in this report is derived from a CRS report that provides an
overview of the main authorities of BLM and other land management agencies to acquire and dispose of lands. See
CRS Report RL34273, Federal Land Ownership: Acquisition and Disposal Authorities, coordinated by Carol Hardy
Vincent.
4 Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) sale authority is at 43 U.S.C. §1713. Exchange authority is at 43
U.S.C. §1716.
5 Recreation and Public Purposes Act (RPPA); 43 U.S.C. §§869 et seq.
6 This report does not identify or discuss all pertinent provisions of FLPMA, RPPA, or other laws governing related
requirements and processes, nor does it identify or discuss all related regulations and agency policies.
7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); 42 U.S.C. §§4321 et seq.
8 Endangered Species Act (ESA); 16 U.S.C. §§1531 et seq.
9 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA); 54 U.S.C. §§300101 et seq.
Congressional Research Service

1

Land Disposal Authorities and Processes of the Bureau of Land Management

Land Use Planning Process Under the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act
FLPMA, enacted in 1976, is sometimes called BLM’s Organic Act because it consolidated and
articulated BLM’s management responsibilities. Under the “multiple use” and “sustained yield”
mandate set out in FLPMA,10 BLM lands are managed for diverse purposes. These purposes
include energy and mineral development, livestock grazing, timber harvesting, rights-of-way,
recreation, preservation of cultural resources, and protection of species and habitat. Some areas
are withdrawn from one or more uses or managed for a predominant use.11
FLPMA requires BLM to develop land use plans for its lands.12 These plans sometimes are called
resource management plans (RMPs) or, more simply, plans. Each BLM plan typically covers a
broad area of BLM lands, such as those within the jurisdiction of a BLM district or field office, or
BLM lands within a specially designated area, such as a national monument.13
Various processes and requirements apply when BLM develops an RMP. BLM develops the RMP
through public participation and coordination with federal, state, local, and tribal planning efforts
and assesses the potential environmental impacts of proposed RMPs under the NEPA process.
The land use planning process begins with public scoping to identify the issues that should be
addressed for the lands covered by the plan. BLM analyzes the issues and develops alternative
management options, typically in a draft RMP and draft environmental impact statement (EIS).14
BLM subsequently revises these draft documents based on comments and, after taking other
required actions, issues a final RMP and EIS.15
Plans are the basis of every action related to BLM lands. In each RMP, BLM provides goals and
direction for managing lands currently and in the future, determines the uses for the covered
lands, sets out resource protection needs and ways of achieving them, and identifies lands that
might be suitable for BLM to acquire. BLM also identifies lands potentially available for disposal
by assessing whether parcels might meet the requirements for sales or exchanges under FLPMA,
sales or leases under RPPA, and/or disposal under other authorities.
For BLM to dispose of a parcel, the parcel generally must be identified in an RMP as suitable for
disposal and the conveyance must conform to the RMP. However, after the initial development of
an RMP, it is possible for BLM to amend the plan to make available for disposal a parcel that

10 In 43 U.S.C. §1702, FLPMA defines multiple use in part to include “a combination of balanced and diverse resource
uses that takes into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources,
including, but not limited to, recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic,
scientific and historical values.” The law also defines sustained yield as “the achievement and maintenance in
perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular periodic output of the various renewable resources of the public lands
consistent with multiple use.”
11 For information on the multiple use and sustained yield mission of BLM, see CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10982, Federal
Land Management: When “Multiple Use” and “Sustained Yield” Diverge, by Adam Vann.
12 43 U.S.C. 1712. Regulations governing BLM resource management planning are at 43 C.F.R. §1610. Additional
BLM policy sources include BLM Manual 1601—Land Use Planning and BLM Handbook H-1601-1—Land Use
Planning Handbook, release 1-1693, March 11, 2005, https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/uploads/
Media_Library_BLM_Policy_Handbook_h1601-1.pdf.
13 BLM regulations specify that a plan must be developed on a resource or field office basis unless the BLM state
director authorizes otherwise. 43 C.F.R. §1610.1(b).
14 See, for instance, 43 C.F.R. §1601.0-6.
15 For additional information on BLM’s land use planning process, see the agency’s “Planning and NEPA in the BLM”
webpage at https://www.blm.gov/programs/planning-and-nepa. For additional information on notification, consultation,
and coordination requirements and NEPA, see the pertinent sections in this report.
Congressional Research Service

2

Land Disposal Authorities and Processes of the Bureau of Land Management

originally had not been identified.16 BLM regulations provide that interest in having specific
parcels of land offered for sale may be expressed through public input to the land use planning
process or made directly to the pertinent BLM personnel.17
BLM typically does not engage in detailed reviews, analyses, and consultations regarding
particular parcels as part of the land use planning process because circumstances affecting the
parcels could change before they are disposed of. Instead, when a party expresses interest in
acquiring a parcel identified as suitable for disposal in a plan, BLM engages in various reviews,
analyses, and consultations to determine whether the parcel can be disposed of. These actions are
undertaken pursuant to various laws. Some reviews may be conducted as part of the NEPA
process, such as mineral, cultural, and other resource assessments. Analyses related to species and
critical habitat are undertaken pursuant to ESA, and assessments related to historic properties are
made pursuant to NHPA. BLM checks the cadastral survey and land status of the federal land to
ensure its availability for disposal and, for exchanges, the title of the nonfederal land to ensure its
acceptability for acquisition.18 DOI conducts an appraisal to determine the value of the land being
conveyed out of federal ownership and the value of land being acquired as part of any exchange.19
In addition, RPPA disposals have a specific classification requirement to determine whether an
intended land use upon transfer would be consistent with RPPA and appropriate for the resources
in the area.20 Classification can be set out in the RMP or determined when an entity (e.g., a local
government) applies to have the land conveyed. Classification often is done when there is an
application for lands for a specific project.21
Federal Land Policy and Management Act Sales and
Exchanges22
Sales
FLPMA authorizes BLM to sell certain tracts of land that are identified for disposal through the
land use planning process. Such a tract must meet specific criteria:23

16 See 43 C.F.R. §1610.5-3(c) and 43 C.F.R. §1610.5-5 pertaining to plan amendments.
17 43 C.F.R. §2710.0-6(b).
18 A cadastral survey creates, marks, defines, retraces, or reestablishes the boundaries and subdivisions of BLM land in
order to define the limits of title. The distinguishing features of a cadastral surveys are the establishment of monuments
on the ground to define the boundaries of the land and their identification in land records by field notes and plats. See
BLM, Glossaries of BLM Surveying and Mapping Terms, prepared by the cadastral survey training staff, Denver
Service Center, 1980, p. 10, and BLM, Public Land Statistics 2022, Glossary, p. 241, https://www.blm.gov/sites/
default/files/docs/2023-07/Public_Lands_Statistics_2022.pdf.
19 Sections of this report discuss several of these reviews, analyses, and consultations.
20 Regulations governing land classification are at 43 C.F.R. Part 2400. In particular, 43 C.F.R §2400.0-3(f) identifies
RPPA disposals as requiring classification.
21 CRS consultation with BLM staff on September 18, 2023.
22 As noted, sale authority is at 43 U.S.C. §1713 and exchange authority is at 43 U.S.C. §1716. Regulations governing
FLPMA sales are at 43 C.F.R. Part 2710. Regulations governing FLPMA exchanges are at 43 C.F.R. Part 2200.
Additional BLM policy sources include BLM Handbook H-2200-1—Land Exchange Handbook, release 2-297, August
20, 2007, https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/H-2200-1.pdf. Hereinafter referred to as Land Exchange Handbook.
23 The criteria are set out in 43 U.S.C. §1713(a).
Congressional Research Service

3

Land Disposal Authorities and Processes of the Bureau of Land Management

• The tract must be difficult and uneconomic to manage as part of the public lands
because of its location or other characteristics and not suitable for management
by another federal department or agency; or
• The tract must have been acquired for a specific purpose and must no longer be
required for that or any other federal purpose; or
• Disposal of the tract must serve important public objectives, including but not
limited to expansion of communities and economic development, that cannot be
achieved prudently or feasibly on land other than public land and that outweigh
other public objectives and values, including but not limited to recreation and
scenic values, that would be served by maintaining such tract in federal
ownership.
BLM generally determines the size of the tract to make available for sale by “the land use
capabilities and development requirements.”24 FLPMA specifies that proposals to sell parcels of
more than 2,500 acres first must be submitted to Congress and can be disapproved by Congress.25
Also, FLPMA generally provides for the reservation of minerals to the United States in land sales,
although it allows for conveyance of such rights in certain specified situations.26
Under FLPMA, lands may not be sold at less than their fair market value.27 (For information on
appraisal of a tract’s fair market value, see “Appraisals,” below.) They generally must be sold
through competitive bidding.28 However, modified competition and noncompetitive sales are
allowed where the Secretary of the Interior determines it is necessary to assure equitable
distribution among purchasers or to recognize equitable considerations or public policies. In
determining the method of sale, factors for consideration include competitive interest, needs of
state and local governments, adjoining landowners, historical uses, and equitable distribution of
land ownership.29
Exchanges
FLPMA authorizes BLM to exchange lands. The land exchange process generally has five
phases: (1) development of an exchange proposal, (2) feasibility evaluation, (3) processing and
documentation, (4) decision analysis and approval, and (5) title transfer.30 Each phase typically
involves multiple actions. For example, the processing and documentation phase includes title
review; public notice and comment; identification and mitigation of environmental effects under
NEPA; assessments of mineral, cultural, and other resources; Native American consultations;
threatened and endangered species consultations; and preparation and review of land appraisals.31

24 43 U.S.C. §1713(e).
25 43 U.S.C. §1713(c). In 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held in National Mining Association v.
Zinke, 877 F.3d 845, 861 (9th Cir. 2017), that the concurrent resolution disapproval mechanism for withdrawals in
FLPMA §204(c) constituted an unconstitutional legislative veto in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Immigration
and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 952-59 (1983), due to the omission of a presentment requirement
in the statutory provision. The concurrent resolution disapproval mechanism for sales would raise the same
constitutional concern.
26 43 U.S.C. §1719.
27 43 U.S.C. §1713(d).
28 43 U.S.C. §1713(f).
29 43 C.F.R. §2710.0-6(c).
30 BLM, Handbook H-2200-1—Land Exchange Handbook, p. 1-15 - I-17.
31 Additional detail on these five phases and land exchanges in general is contained in CRS Report R41509, Land
Exchanges: Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Process and Issues, by Carol Hardy Vincent.
Congressional Research Service

4

Land Disposal Authorities and Processes of the Bureau of Land Management

FLPMA sets out terms and conditions for exchanges.32 The law requires that the federal and
nonfederal lands in the exchange must be located in the same state.
Exchanges under FLPMA must be in the public interest. Public land may be exchanged if the
Secretary of the Interior determines the public interest will be “well served.”33 FLPMA and
accompanying regulations require that, when determining the public interest, the Secretary must
consider numerous factors. These factors include achieving better federal land management,
including by consolidation of lands; meeting the needs of state and local people for economic and
community expansion; enhancing recreation and public access; and protecting fish and wildlife
habitats, cultural resources, watersheds, wilderness, and aesthetic values.34
To make an exchange, the Secretary must find that the resource values and public benefits of the
federal lands to be conveyed are not more than those of the nonfederal lands being acquired.35
Further, the intended use of the conveyed federal lands should not conflict significantly with
management of adjacent federal and Indian trust lands.36 In making an exchange, BLM must
reserve any rights or retain interests that are needed to protect the public interest or otherwise
impose restrictions on the use of the federal lands conveyed.37 BLM may not accept title to
nonfederal land if there are reserved or outstanding interests that would interfere with the use and
management of the lands or are inconsistent with the purposes for which the lands are being
acquired.38
Under FLPMA, the values of the lands exchanged are to be equal or, if they are not equal, they
are to be equalized by the payment of money up to 25% of the value of the federal lands being
conveyed in the exchange.39 The parties in the exchange may agree to waive this payment if the
exchange meets certain requirements, including that the amount waived is not more than 3% of
the value of the federal lands or $15,000, whichever is less.40 Another way of equalizing value is
for either party to add or remove lands. Further, the Secretary of the Interior may exchange lands
that are of “approximately” equal value under certain conditions, including if the value of the
federal lands does not exceed $150,000.41 (For information on appraisals, see “Appraisals,”
below.)
BLM and other parties generally are required to bear their own administrative costs of an
exchange; these may include, for instance, costs related to conducting land appraisals, mineral
examinations, and cultural resource surveys and addressing deficiencies preventing highest and
best use of the land.42 However, if BLM determines it is in the public interest, the parties can
agree that one party may bear costs and responsibilities typically assumed by the other, subject to
certain terms.43

32 43 U.S.C. §1716.
33 43 U.S.C. §1716(a).
34 43 U.S.C. §1716(a); 43 C.F.R. §2200.0-6(b).
35 43 U.S.C. §1716(a).
36 43 C.F.R. §2200.0-6(b).
37 43 C.F.R. §2200.0-6(i).
38 43 C.F.R. §2201.8(c).
39 43 U.S.C. §1716(b).
40 43 U.S.C. §1716(b).
41 43 U.S.C. §1716(b); 43 C.F.R. §§2201.5 and 2201.6.
42 43 C.F.R. §2201.1-3.
43 43 U.S.C. §1716(f)(2)(B); 43 C.F.R. §2201.1-3.
Congressional Research Service

5

Land Disposal Authorities and Processes of the Bureau of Land Management

Although some exchanges involve single parcels, BLM regulations also allow for the use of
assembled land exchanges, which consolidate multiple parcels for one or more exchanges over
time.44 An assembled land exchange may be used to facilitate exchanges and reduce costs, for
instance, by consolidating many federal parcels of limited value. In other cases, third parties may
secure lands that BLM wants to acquire from multiple owners to facilitate negotiations. Both for-
profit and nonprofit organizations have facilitated assembled land exchanges, typically
functioning as brokers/agents for the exchange.
Recreation and Public Purposes Act Sales and
Leases45
RPPA authorizes the disposal of BLM lands “to a State, federally recognized Indian Tribe,
Territory, county, municipality, or other State, Tribal, Territorial, or Federal instrumentality or
political subdivision for any public purposes, or to a nonprofit corporation or nonprofit
association for any recreational or any public purpose consistent with its articles of incorporation
or other creating authority.”46
The lands can be sold or leased for various public purposes. Examples of public purposes include
the establishment of parks, historic monument sites, fairgrounds, schools, hospitals, fire and
police stations, courthouses, social services facilities, and public works, among others.47
RPPA and related authorities specify conditions and qualifications for land sales and leases.48
Under BLM policies, BLM first issues a lease, or a lease with option to purchase, before selling
the land.49 This process is intended to help ensure the area is developed before BLM sells the
land. A disposal must be in the public interest. The land may not be of national significance or
more acreage than is reasonably necessary for the proposed use. The Secretary must be satisfied
that the land is to be used for “an established or definitely proposed project” that includes
development and management plans.50 As noted, disposals under RPPA require a classification
analysis of a specific intended use of the land to determine whether the disposal would be
consistent with RPPA and the resources in the area. Such classification usually is done when there
is an application for lands for a specific project. For proposals of over 640 acres, the appropriate

44 BLM regulations, at 43 C.F.R. §2200.0-5(f), define an assembled land exchange as consolidation of multiple parcels
of federal or nonfederal land for the purpose of one or more exchange transactions over a period of time.
45 43 U.S.C. §§869 et seq. Regulations governing RPPA sales are at 43 C.F.R. Part 2740. Regulations governing RPPA
leases are at 43 C.F.R. Subpart 2912. Additional BLM policy sources for sales and leases include BLM Manual
Handbook H-2740-1—Recreation and Public Purposes, release 2-275, May 10, 1993, https://www.blm.gov/sites/
blm.gov/files/Media_Library_BLM_Policy_h2740-1.pdf, and a BLM “Recreation and Public Purposes Act Information
Sheet” on the agency’s website at https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/
LandTenure_RecandPublicPurposesAct_InfoSheet.pdf. Hereinafter cited as “BLM RPPA Information Sheet.”
46 43 U.S.C. §869.
47 BLM regulations define public purpose as “providing facilities or services for the benefit of the public in connection
with, but not limited to, public health, safety or welfare. Use of lands or facilities for habitation, cultivation, trade or
manufacturing is permissible only when necessary for and integral to, i.e., and [sic] essential part of, the public
purpose.” 43 C.F.R. §2740.0-5(d).
48 Information on conditions and qualifications is derived from the law at 43 U.S.C. §§869 et seq., regulations at 43
C.F.R. Part 2740, regulations for leases at 43 C.F.R. Part 2912, and the BLM RPPA Information Sheet. This report
does not detail RPPA and associated provisions of regulations specific to solid waste disposal and the disposal,
placement, or release of hazardous substances. See 43 U.S.C. §869-2 and 43 C.F.R. Subpart 2743.
49 However, projects that include the disposal, placement, or release of hazardous materials (i.e., sanitary landfills) may
only be sold. BLM RPPA Information Sheet, p. 1.
50 43 U.S.C. §869.
Congressional Research Service

6

Land Disposal Authorities and Processes of the Bureau of Land Management

state, tribal, or local authority must have adopted comprehensive land use plans and zoning
regulations applicable to the area.51 Also, RPPA sales and leases must provide for the reservation
of minerals to the United States.52
Additional conditions apply to leases under RPPA. These conditions include a stipulation that
leases may not exceed 20 years for nonprofit entities and 25 years for governmental entities and
may allow for renewal.53 Leases may be terminated for noncompliance with the terms, including
use of the land for purposes that were not authorized and failure to use the lands for the specified
period. A lessee may apply for a new lease with any changes in terms and conditions,
accompanied by consent to cancel an existing lease.54
For sales, the law specifies annual acreage limitations. For example, for recreational purposes,
any state, state (park) agency, or political subdivision of a state may acquire up to 6,400 acres
annually and may acquire “such additional acreage as may be needed” for roadside parks and rest
sites of no more than 10 acres each.55 As another example, in general, no more than 25,600 acres
annually may be conveyed for recreational purposes in any state.56 For purposes other than
recreation, any state, state agency, political subdivision of a state, nonprofit entity, and federally
recognized Indian tribe may acquire 640 acres annually.57 For leases, the law does not set
limitations on the acreage.
Under RPPA, the price of the land depends in part on the type of entity that is to receive it—for
instance, whether the entity is governmental or nonprofit.58 The price also depends on whether the
lands are sold or leased and the intended use of the land. For governmental entities, RPPA
provides that sales are to be made at no cost for recreational or historic monument purposes and
sales for other purposes are to be made at a price determined by the Secretary of the Interior
“through appraisal or otherwise after taking into consideration the purpose for which the lands are
to be used.”59 The law provides that leases to governmental entities for recreation are to be made
at no cost and leases for other purposes are to be made “at a reasonable annual rent.”60 For
nonprofit entities, RPPA provides that sales are to be made at a price determined by the Secretary
of the Interior “through appraisal, after taking into consideration the purpose for which the lands
are to be used,” and leases are to be made at a “reasonable annual rent.”61 BLM policies detail
pricing schedules for different entities for varying purposes.62 Some sales and leases qualify for
special fixed pricing under BLM policies (e.g., $10 per acre for certain sales).63

51 43 U.S.C. §869.
52 43 U.S.C. §869-1.
53 43 C.F.R. §2912.1-1(a).
54 43 C.F.R. Subpart 2912.
55 This and other acreage limitations are set out at 43 U.S.C. §869(b).
56 43 U.S.C. §869(b)(1)(C).
57 43 U.S.C. §869(b)(2).
58 Governmental is used in this paragraph to encompass “State, federally recognized Indian Tribe, Territory, county, or
other State, Tribal, Territorial, or Federal instrumentality or political subdivision in which the lands are situated, or to a
nearby federally recognized Indian Tribe or municipal corporation in the same State or Territory,” as set out in 43
U.S.C. §869-1.
59 43 U.S.C. §869-1.
60 43 U.S.C. §869-1.
61 43 U.S.C. §869-1.
62 BLM RPPA Information Sheet, p. 2.
63 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

7

Land Disposal Authorities and Processes of the Bureau of Land Management

Patents for lands sold under RPPA typically include a reversionary clause requiring the recipient
to use the lands for the intended public purposes or the lands revert to the federal government.64
This is because the lands are conveyed for free or below market value to a qualified applicant for
specified public purposes.
BLM policies contain application requirements and guidance for parties interested in an RPPA
sale or lease.65 Depending on the magnitude of, and public interest in, the proposed use, “various
investigations, studies, analyses, public meetings and negotiations may be required of the
applicant prior to the submission of the application,” according to BLM regulations.66 BLM
policies also address agency actions and procedures after receiving an RPPA application. These
actions and procedures include determining if the proposal conforms with governing authorities
such as the RMP, law, and regulations; evaluating the applicant’s development and management
plans, construction schedule, and financing to determine their adequacy and effectiveness;
checking for the presence of unpatented mining claims (which would bar an RPPA disposal);
conducting a cadastral survey of the land; obtaining an appraisal (for lands sold or leased based
on market value); soliciting views and comments from agencies and the public; and engaging in
environmental and other reviews and analyses, among other requirements.67
Other BLM Disposal Authorities
In addition to authority in FLPMA and RPPA, Congress has provided BLM with other standing
authorities to dispose of land. One authority pertains to patents under the General Mining Law of
1872.68 However, since FY1995, a series of moratoria in annual appropriations laws essentially
have prevented this means of federal land disposal.69 Certain laws provide specifically for the
disposal of desert lands. The Carey Act authorizes transfers of desert lands to a state,70 upon
application and meeting certain requirements, and the Desert Entry Land Act allows citizens to
reclaim and patent 320 acres of desert public land.71
The Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act provides for the sale or exchange of BLM lands
identified for disposal under BLM land use plans.72 The law created a separate Treasury account

64 43 U.S.C. §869-2.
65 BLM RPPA Information Sheet, pp. 4-6.
66 43 C.F.R. §2741.3(c).
67 Some of these actions are set out in the BLM RPPA Information Sheet, pp. 6-7.
68 Provisions of the General Mining Law of 1872 allow access to and development of hard-rock minerals on federal
lands that have not been withdrawn from entry. With evidence of valuable minerals and sufficient developmental effort,
the law allows mining claims to be patented, with full title (of surface and mineral rights) transferred to the claimant
upon payment of the appropriate fee (30 U.S.C. §29). Nonmineral lands used for associated milling or other processing
operations also can be patented (30 U.S.C. §42).
69 Patent applications meeting certain requirements filed on or before September 30, 1994, have been allowed to
proceed. See, for example, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (P.L. 117-42), Division E, §404.
70 Carey Act; 43 U.S.C. §641.
71 Desert Entry Land Act; 43 U.S.C. §321. Desert land laws are seldom used today because the lands must be classified
as available and the claimant must obtain sufficient water rights for settling on the land.
72 The Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA) originally was enacted on July 25, 2000, as P.L. 106-248,
Title II. The law initially provided authority to BLM to sell or exchange land under FLTFA for 10 years, expiring on
July 25, 2010. Subsequently, on July 29, 2010, the authority was extended for one year; it expired on July 25, 2011.
The authority was revised and made permanent on March 23, 2018, by provisions of the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141, Division O, Title III).
Congressional Research Service

8

Land Disposal Authorities and Processes of the Bureau of Land Management

for most of the proceeds from the sale or exchange,73 and it provided for the use of those funds by
the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture.74 The Secretaries may use the funds
to acquire nonfederal lands (specifically inholdings), lands adjacent to federal lands that contain
exceptional resources, and areas adjacent to inaccessible lands that are open to recreation. Up to
20% of the funds in the account may be used for administrative costs, and at least 80% of the
funds for acquisition are to be used in the state in which the funds are generated.
BLM also has geographically limited land disposal authorities. The program with the largest
revenue stream has been under the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998.75 The
law authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to sell or exchange BLM land around Las Vegas,76
with a goal of allowing for community expansion and economic development. Of total receipts,
85% are deposited into a special account and are available to the Secretary of the Interior for land
acquisition and other activities in Nevada and 15% are allocated to Nevada for specified state and
local purposes. Other provisions of law similarly authorize BLM land disposal in particular areas
with specific allocations of the proceeds. In addition, BLM continues to dispose of land in Alaska
as required by law, such as through transfers to the State of Alaska, Alaska Native Corporations,
and individual Alaska Natives.77 A total of about 150 million acres in Alaska is in the process of
being transferred from federal ownership to state and private ownership.
In addition to providing BLM with standing disposal authorities, Congress enacts legislation
authorizing or directing the disposal of particular parcels or types of land managed by BLM.
BLM disposals under such legislated conveyances generally are subject to requirements and
processes similar to those for BLM disposals under FLPMA and RPPA, unless Congress specifies
otherwise. There may be other exceptions; for example, BLM might determine there is
insufficient time or need to engage in an action, such as an appraisal of lands specified in law for
disposal at no cost.78
Notification, Consultation, and Coordination
Requirements79
BLM is required to provide for notification, consultation, and governmental coordination in
management of lands generally. For instance, FLPMA requires the Secretary of the Interior to

73 The FY2024 BLM budget justification notes that under the 1952 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
“states are paid five percent of the net proceeds (four percent of gross proceeds) from the sale of public land and public
land products.” See BLM, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2024, p. XI-2. This same
source notes that 4% of FLTFA collections are paid to the state where the land is sold; see pp. IV-3 and XII-14.
74 The FLTFA Interagency Implementation Agreement, dated January 2022, provides for an approximate allocation of
acquisition funds: 60% for BLM, 20% for U.S. Forest Service, 10% for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and
10% for National Park Service.
75 Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998; P.L. 105-263, as amended.
76 In this report, authorities and actions of the Secretary of the Interior generally are exercised by BLM. Further, in
some cases, this report refers to BLM although the authorities specify the Secretary of the Interior.
77 Multiple provisions of law provide authority for conveyance of lands in Alaska. They include the 1906 Native
Allotment Act, Alaska Statehood Act of 1959, Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Alaska Native Veterans
Allotment Act of 1998, and Alaska Native Vietnam Era Veterans Land Allotment Program in P.L. 116-9, §1119. For
information on the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, see CRS Report R46997, Alaska Native Lands and the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA): Overview and Selected Issues for Congress, by Mariel J. Murray.
78 This information is based in part on CRS consultation with BLM staff on September 18, 2023.
79 In addition to the authorities referenced in this section, notification, consultation, and coordination requirements are
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

9

Land Disposal Authorities and Processes of the Bureau of Land Management

provide for public involvement in land use planning and management, and it directs the Secretary
to issue regulations establishing procedures to give federal, state, and local governments and the
public “adequate notice and opportunity to comment upon and participate in the formulation of
plans and programs” related to management of BLM lands.80 BLM regulations set out
requirements for public participation in land use planning.81 Under this authority, BLM often
receives input on planning from the general public, local user groups, and industry
representatives, among other groups. Further, FLPMA provides for coordination of BLM land use
inventory, planning, and management activities with the land use planning and management
programs of other federal agencies, state and local governments, and tribes. It also provides for
consistency of BLM plans with nonfederal government plans to the maximum extent
practicable.82 BLM regulations include related provisions.83
Related provisions of FLPMA pertain to notification, consultation, and coordination requirements
for land conveyances in particular. For example, one provision directs the Secretary of the Interior
to notify pertinent state and local governments at least 60 days before offering to dispose of lands
under the act, to allow state and local governments to zone/regulate the area or change the
zoning/other regulations for the area prior to conveyance.84 BLM regulations contain additional
directives. For instance, at least 60 days prior to a land sale under FLPMA, BLM is required to
publish and send notice to interested parties. The notice must provide 45 days for comment by the
public and interested parties. At least 60 days prior to a sale, BLM also is required to send notice
to Members of Congress in whose districts or states the lands are located and to certain state and
local officials. In addition, BLM must send notice to adjoining landowners, current landowners,
and “other known interested parties of record.”85
In addition to FLPMA, other authorities require notification, consultation, and/or governmental
coordination in BLM land management generally and land disposal in particular. For example,
RPPA requires the Secretary of the Interior to provide “an opportunity for participation by
affected citizens in disposals” under the law, including public hearings or meetings as the
Secretary deems appropriate.86 For any proposed disposal of more than 640 acres, the law
requires at least one public meeting and that comprehensive land use plans and zoning regulations
for the area have been adopted by the appropriate state, local, or tribal authority, as noted.87
Another example is Section 120(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).88 This provision requires federal agencies to
disclose whether contamination is present and to remediate contamination prior to disposal,
unless the recipient agrees to accept responsibility for the remediation in certain situations.89

contained in BLM policy sources. These include BLM Manual 1780—Tribal Relations, BLM Handbook H-2200-1—
Land Exchange Handbook, and BLM’s 2012 guidance entitled A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and
Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners.
80 43 U.S.C. §1712(f).
81 See, for example, 43 C.F.R. §1610.2.
82 43 U.S.C. §1712(c)(9).
83 See, for example, 43 C.F.R. §1610.3.
84 43 U.S.C. §1720.
85 43 C.F.R. §2711.1-2.
86 43 U.S.C. §869(a).
87 43 U.S.C. §869(a).
88 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; 42 U.S.C. §9620(h).
89 For additional information on these requirements and notification of other potential hazards, see BLM Handbook H-
2000-02—Environmental Site Assessments for Disposal of Real Property, release 2-299, August 21, 2012,
https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/uploads/Media_Library_BLM_Policy_H-2000-02.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

10

link to page 7 Land Disposal Authorities and Processes of the Bureau of Land Management

Additional authorities pertain to notification of Congress, as is the case for land sales under
FLPMA exceeding 2,500 acres.90 Further, explanatory statements accompanying annual
appropriations laws have specified that exchanges involving federal lands valued at more than
$1.0 million may not be completed until the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
have had 30 days to review the exchange. The explanatory statements also have directed that
agencies provide advance notice to these committees of exchanges involving federal lands valued
at between $0.5 million and $1.0 million.91
National Environmental Policy Act Environmental
Review Process
A BLM land sale or exchange may be subject to the federal environmental review process under
NEPA if it is a “major federal action” covered under the statute.92 Section 321 of the Fiscal
Responsibility Act of 2023 (FRA) amended NEPA to define this and other terms and specified
certain review procedures in the statute.93 These amendments codified various regulations that the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) promulgated to carry out NEPA, albeit with certain
differences and additions.94 On May 1, 2024, CEQ issued a rule to revise these regulations
pursuant to the FRA amendments and for certain other purposes; the revised regulations will
become effective on July 1, 2024.95 Individual agencies also may revise their NEPA procedures
pursuant to the FRA amendments and these CEQ regulations. DOI regulations for carrying out
NEPA apply department-wide.96 BLM outlined additional procedures in its National
Environmental Policy Act Handbook for major federal actions under its jurisdiction.97 DOI and
BLM issued these procedures prior to the FRA, but many of these procedures are similar to those
codified in the amendments to NEPA.
NEPA defines major federal action to mean “an action that the agency carrying out such action
determines is subject to substantial Federal control and responsibility.”98 This definition also
excludes certain types of actions that are not subject to NEPA; for example, it excludes “activities
or decisions that are non-discretionary and made in accordance with the agency’s statutory
authority.”99
Discretionary land sales or exchanges executed under BLM’s standing authority (e.g., under
FLPMA or RPPA) generally are subject to NEPA, unless the specific action is covered by an

90 See footnote 25.
91 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, “Joint Explanatory Statement, Division E, Department of the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024,” Congressional Record, March 5, 2024, S1676.
92 42 U.S.C. §§4321 et seq.
93 Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023; P.L. 118-5. For an overview of NEPA as amended, see CRS In Focus IF12417,
Environmental Reviews and the 118th Congress, by Kristen Hite.
94 40 C.F.R. Parts 1500-1508.
95 Council on Environmental Quality, “National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations Revisions Phase
2,” 89 Federal Register 35442-35577, May 1, 2024.
96 43 C.F.R. Part 46.
97 BLM Handbook H-1790-1—National Environmental Policy Act Handbook, release 1-1710, January 30, 2008,
https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/uploads/Media_Library_BLM_Policy_Handbook_h1790-1.pdf. Hereinafter
referred to as National Environmental Policy Act Handbook.
98 42 U.S.C. §4336e(10).
99 42 U.S.C. §4336e(10)(B)(vii).
Congressional Research Service

11

Land Disposal Authorities and Processes of the Bureau of Land Management

exclusion in NEPA.100 Whether a land sale or exchange is subject to NEPA review also depends
on certain other exclusions that could apply to some situations.101 Land sales or exchanges that
Congress directs in statute also generally are subject to NEPA review, unless the statute
authorizing the sale or exchange expressly waives the requirement or removes all BLM discretion
in executing the disposal (or unless the sales or exchanges are otherwise excluded under
NEPA).102 The BLM Land Exchange Handbook notes that legislatively directed land exchanges
have varied widely in terms of whether Congress has specified in such legislation if NEPA
analysis must be conducted.103
When NEPA applies to a land sale or exchange, the level of review that BLM must conduct
depends on the significance of the proposed action’s potential environmental effects. NEPA
requires the preparation of an EIS for major federal actions “significantly affecting the quality of
the human environment.”104 The act also requires that an EIS include analyses of the “reasonably
foreseeable environmental effects” of a proposed action, a “reasonable range of alternatives” to
carry out the purpose and need of the action, and certain other factors.105 CEQ regulations specify
additional information to support these analyses.106 NEPA also requires agencies to request public
comment when issuing a notice of intent to prepare an EIS.107 CEQ regulations outline additional
opportunities for public involvement.108 Once an EIS is finalized, CEQ regulations require an
agency to document its decision, consideration of alternatives, and analyses in a record of
decision.109
NEPA directs agencies to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) when the proposed action
“does not have a reasonably foreseeable significant effect” on the human environment to merit an
EIS or when the significance of such effects is unknown, unless an exclusion applies under NEPA
or another provision of law.110 If an agency determines the proposed action’s effects would be
significant, an EIS would be required.111 If an agency determines the effects would not be
significant, the agency would issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (commonly referred to as
FONSI), which would conclude the NEPA process for that action.112 Agencies may provide
opportunities for public involvement in preparing an EA, but such opportunities are not required
by statute.
NEPA allows agencies to identify specific categories of major federal actions that normally would
not have significant effects on the quality of the human environment sufficient to trigger a
requirement to prepare a detailed statement (i.e., EIS) under NEPA, generally referred to as

100 42 U.S.C. §4336e(10)(B).
101 42 U.S.C. §4336(a).
102 42 U.S.C. §4336e(10); 42 U.S.C. §4336(a).
103 BLM Handbook H-2200-1—Land Exchange Handbook, p. 1-5.
104 42 U.S.C. §4332(2)(C); 42 U.S.C. §4336(b)(1); 42 U.S.C. §4336e(6).
105 42 U.S.C. §4332(2)(C).
106 40 C.F.R. Part 1502.
107 42 U.S.C. §4336a(c).
108 40 C.F.R. §1506.6.
109 40 C.F.R. Part 1505.
110 42 U.S.C. §4336(b)(2). Council on Environmental Quality regulations, which predate the existing statutory
provision, outline similar procedures for when agencies should prepare an environmental assessment (EA). See 40
C.F.R. §1501.5.
111 42 U.S.C. §4332(2)(C); 42 U.S.C. §4336(b)(1)-(2); 40 C.F.R. §1501.5(c)(1).
112 42 U.S.C. §4336e(7) and 40 C.F.R. §1501.6.
Congressional Research Service

12

Land Disposal Authorities and Processes of the Bureau of Land Management

categorical exclusions.113 CEQ regulations outline procedures for agencies to establish
categorical exclusions.114 To date, neither Congress, DOI, nor BLM has established a categorical
exclusion for land sales and exchanges.115
In past practice, BLM typically has prepared an EA for land disposals conducted under FLPMA
or RPPA, according to BLM.116 However, for a highly complex area, BLM indicated the agency
would more likely prepare an EIS.117 The BLM National NEPA Register contains documents
related to BLM land disposals.118
The timing of a NEPA review is largely driven by the complexity of the analyses. The scope of
potential environmental effects that an agency must consider under NEPA is relatively broad.
CEQ regulations define the term environmental effects or impacts for the purposes of NEPA to
include not just ecological effects but also “aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or
health effects, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative.”119
Depending on the breadth of the potential effects and applicable laws, multiple federal, state,
local, or tribal agencies may be involved in the preparation of analyses for an EA or EIS. NEPA
establishes procedures for identifying lead, cooperating, and participating agencies and for
coordination of their respective roles.120 NEPA analyses may incorporate information prepared by
lead, cooperating, or participating agencies under other laws, such as ESA consultations or NHPA
reviews (discussed below). A land exchange could be more complex than a land sale, given that
BLM would be required to consider foreseeable future uses of both the federal and nonfederal

113 42 U.S.C. §4336e(1) and 40 C.F.R. §1501.4. Categorical exclusions often are referred to as CE, CX, or CAT-EX.
114 40 C.F.R. §1501.4.
115 Department of the Interior (DOI) department-wide categorical exclusions are listed in 43 C.F.R. §46.205, §46.210,
and §46.215. Additional BLM categorical exclusions are listed in BLM Handbook H-1790-1, National Environmental
Policy Act Handbook, pp. 17-20.
116 CRS consultation with BLM staff on September 18, 2023.
117 Ibid.
118 The BLM National NEPA Register is on the BLM website, “BLM National NEPA Register” webpage,
https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/home. See the following documents on the website for examples of land
disposal:
For an example of a BLM EA for a land sale under FLPMA, see BLM’s webpage on “Smith Mountain Land Sale
(Disposal),” project information last updated on August 22, 2016, https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/
62496/510. This EA pertains to the Smith Mountain Land Sale (CA), a direct sale of an approximately 40-acre parcel to
an adjacent property owner, at not less than fair market value. The sale was to include the surface and mineral estate
and a reservation to the United States for ditches and canals, and was subject to an existing right-of-way for a
communication facility.
For an example of a BLM EA for a lease and conveyance under RPPA, see BLM’s webpage on “Peralta Recreation &
Public Purposes Act Project,” project information last updated on August 8, 2019, https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-
ui/project/93074/510. This EA pertains to the Peralta RPPA Project (AZ). This project involved an application from a
county for a 25-year lease, with an option for conveyance, of approximately 498 acres for a regional park. The EA also
analyzed impacts of cancellation of an existing BLM grazing lease.
For an example of an environmental impact statement for a land exchange under FLMPA, see BLM’s webpage on
“Proposed Blue Valley Land Exchange,” project information last updated on May 7, 2024, https://eplanning.blm.gov/
eplanning-ui/project/81162/510, regarding the Blue Valley Land Exchange (CO). The exchange involves BLM
conveyance of nine parcels totaling 1,489 acres and a cash equalization payment to the owner of Blue Valley Ranch, in
exchange for nine parcels of nonfederal lands totaling 1,830 acres, a portion of which was donated. The exchange
included mineral estates, water rights, and an access easement to the United States. A portion of the nonfederal land
acquired by BLM would be transferred to the administrative jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service because the area is
within the boundaries of a National Forest. (This description reflects corrections in an Errata document at 03032023
Blue Valley Ranch Extra Sheet for ROD.pdf (blm.gov)).
119 40 C.F.R. §1508.1.
120 42 U.S.C. §4336a(a).
Congressional Research Service

13

Land Disposal Authorities and Processes of the Bureau of Land Management

land for a land exchange.121 However, the complexity of NEPA analyses to evaluate a particular
action ultimately would be site-specific. Land sales and exchanges may vary in terms of this
complexity and whether an EA or EIS is required under NEPA.
Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation122
When disposing of public land, BLM must consider its obligations under the ESA.123 Section 7 of
the ESA requires federal agencies such as BLM to ensure their actions do not jeopardize species
listed under the ESA or adversely modify or destroy designated critical habitat.124 Agencies must
make these determinations in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the
National Marine Fisheries Service (together, the Services), which administer the act.125 Section 7
requirements generally apply to actions that federal agencies undertake directly, authorize (e.g.,
permit or license), or fund.126 With regard to disposals by exchange, the Section 7 requirements
would apply to the entire agency action, including the effect of accepting the nonfederal land into
federal ownership.
For Section 7 to apply, there must be discretionary federal involvement or control in the action.127
A disposal mandated by Congress in legislation gives BLM less discretion in carrying out the
action than if BLM were to initiate a disposal under one of its standing authorities, such as
FLPMA or RPPA. So long as BLM retains discretion in any aspect of carrying out a disposal, the
requirements of Section 7 may apply to the action. Even if Section 7 applies to a particular action
such that consultation is required, the discretion afforded the agency may affect other aspects of
the consultation. Such aspects may include the reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPAs)
available for the action, if the Services determine the action may jeopardize listed species, or the
reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs) the Services may determine are necessary or
appropriate to minimize the action’s impact on listed species.128
The level of consultation required under Section 7 depends on the extent of the agency’s
discretion in carrying out the action and the action’s anticipated effect on listed species and
critical habitat. To assess the action’s potential effect, the agency must determine the area likely to
be affected, referred to as the action area.129 The action area includes areas directly or indirectly
affected by the action.130 For example, for BLM disposals, the action area would include the land
to be conveyed but also may include surrounding areas that may be affected by the transfer of
ownership. For disposals by exchange, the action area would include the land to be taken into

121 BLM Handbook H-2200-1—Land Exchange Handbook, p. 6-3.
122 For additional information on the Section 7 consultation process, see CRS In Focus IF12423, Endangered Species
Act (ESA) Section 7 Consultation, by Erin H. Ward and Pervaze A. Sheikh.
123 16 U.S.C. §§1531 et seq.
124 16 U.S.C. §1536(a)(2). Species are listed as endangered or threatened pursuant to Section 4 of the ESA. 16 U.S.C.
§1533. Critical habitat, endangered species, and threatened species are defined in Section 3 of the ESA. 16 U.S.C.
§1532(5), (6), & (20).
125 16 U.S.C. §1536(a)(2); 50 C.F.R. §402.01(b). Generally, FWS administers the ESA for terrestrial, freshwater, and
catadromous species and the National Marine Fisheries Service administers the act for marine and anadromous species.
126 16 U.S.C. §1536(a)(2); 50 C.F.R. §402.02.
127 50 C.F.R. §402.03.
128 16 U.S.C. §1536(b)(4).
129 50 C.F.R. §402.02.
130 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

14

Land Disposal Authorities and Processes of the Bureau of Land Management

federal ownership in addition to the land being conveyed and any other areas that may be
affected.
Once BLM determines the action area for the disposal, it must determine whether listed species or
critical habitat are present in the action area. FWS’s “Information for Planning and Consultation”
(IPaC) site provides resources to assist federal agencies with determining whether listed species
or critical habitat may be affected by a particular project, among other things.131 BLM may use
the IPaC site to assess a particular disposal or seek assistance directly from FWS to make this
determination.
If BLM determines that listed species or critical habitat may be present in the action area, it must
assess the potential impact the disposal would have on the species and habitat. Depending on the
nature of the disposal, BLM may be required to prepare a biological assessment or to otherwise
provide the Services with “an account of the basis for evaluating the likely effects of the
action.”132 Such an analysis might include examining the effects of removing federal management
and any associated protections or requirements that apply only to federal land and the effects of
any planned activities on the land following the conveyance. For example, when the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Forest Service proposed to approve a mining project that would
involve an exchange of federal lands for nonfederal lands, FWS considered the proposed future
development by the mining company on the conveyed federal land to be an indirect effect of the
proposed land exchange.133
When determining a proposed action’s potential effects and whether formal consultation is
required, BLM may choose to informally consult with the Services on the anticipated effects of a
disposal and alternatives for modifying the action to reduce or eliminate anticipated effects on
listed species or critical habitat.134 When disposing of federal property, BLM may consider, for
example, whether to include conditions or reversionary clauses in the deed (if permitted by the
authorizing federal law) to provide for the protection of species or habitat.135
If BLM concludes the disposal may adversely affect listed species or critical habitat, it must
initiate formal consultation with the Service(s) responsible for administering the ESA for the
affected species.136 BLM then initiates formal consultation by submitting a request in writing to
the relevant Service that includes information about the proposed action and its anticipated effects
on species and critical habitat.137
At the conclusion of formal consultation, the relevant Service issues a biological opinion (BiOp)
setting forth how the disposal may affect listed species and critical habitat and, specifically,
whether it is likely to jeopardize listed species or adversely modify or destroy critical habitat.138 If
the Service concludes the disposal as proposed is likely to jeopardize listed species or adversely
modify critical habitat, it must suggest any RPAs that BLM could take in carrying out the disposal

131 FWS, “Information for Planning and Coordination,” https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/.
132 50 C.F.R. §402.12; FWS and National Marine Fisheries Services, Section 3.4: “Biological Assessments,” in
Endangered Species Consultation Handbook, March 1998.
133 FWS, Biological Opinion: Effects to Canada Lynx, Gray Wolf, and Northern Long-Eared Bat from the Proposed
NorthMet Project and Land Exchange, February 2016, p. 2, https://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Portals/57/docs/
regulatory/PolyMet/Northmet%20ROD%20App%20C-%20Bio%20opinion.pdf?ver=2019-03-22-085448-887.
134 50 C.F.R. §402.13.
135 A reversionary clause requires the land to revert to federal ownership if the federal government determines the land
is not being used in accordance with its specific intended purpose.
136 50 C.F.R. §402.14.
137 50 C.F.R. §402.14(b).
138 16 U.S.C. §1536(b)(3); 50 C.F.R. §402.14(h).
Congressional Research Service

15

Land Disposal Authorities and Processes of the Bureau of Land Management

that would not violate the ESA.139 Provided the Service concludes the disposal will not jeopardize
listed species or adversely modify critical habitat—or identifies RPAs—then the BiOp includes
an incidental take statement that specifies the anticipated impact of any incidental take of the
species and operates as a permit to take the species without violating the ESA.140 The incidental
take statement also includes RPMs as necessary to minimize the impact on the species, as well as
terms and conditions to implement such measures that the federal agency must abide by to
receive the benefit of the effective permit.141
National Historic Preservation Act Section 106
Requirements142
Real property disposals typically are considered to be undertakings subject to the review process
under Section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations promulgated by the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP).143 Section 106 requires federal agencies to review the
potential impacts of their actions on historic properties and consult with interested parties to seek
ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects.144 Section 106 reviews generally follow
a four-step process: (1) initiation, in which the agency determines whether the action is an
undertaking subject to review; (2) identification of historic properties in the area of potential
effects;145 (3) assessment of whether the action would cause adverse effects to historic properties;
and (4) resolution between parties on steps to address any adverse effects. Throughout the Section
106 process, federal agencies must consult with various entities—such as the state historic
preservation officer (SHPO) or tribal historic preservation officer—to determine whether the
relevant historic properties have been identified and to consider solutions to address potential
adverse effects on those properties.
Regulations allow federal agencies to work with the ACHP to tailor the Section 106 process to
meet their needs and develop alternate methods to meet their obligations under the NHPA.146 In
1997, BLM executed a national programmatic agreement (nPA) with the ACHP and the National
Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers to guide the BLM’s planning and
decisionmaking as it affects historic properties and to outline the manner in which the agency will
comply with its Section 106 responsibilities. The nPA subsequently was revised and signed in

139 16 U.S.C. §1536(b)(3).
140 16 U.S.C. §1536(b)(4).
141 Ibid.
142 For additional information on the Section 106 process, see CRS Report R47543, Historic Properties and Federal
Responsibilities: An Introduction to Section 106 Reviews, by Mark K. DeSantis.
143 54 U.S.C. §§300101 et seq. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) is an independent agency
comprised of federal, state, and tribal government members, as well as experts in historic preservation and members of
the public. Through its authority under NHPA, the ACHP promulgated regulations for the Section 106 process found at
36 C.F.R. Part 800.
144 A historic property is defined in 54 U.S.C. §300308 as “any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure,
or object included on, or eligible for inclusion on, the National Register of Historic Places, including artifacts, records,
and material remains relating to the district, site, building, structure, or object.”
145 As defined in 36 C.F.R. §800.16(d), the area of potential effects is “the geographic area or areas within which an
undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such
properties exist. The area of potential effects is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking and may be
different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking.”
146 36 C.F.R. §800.14.
Congressional Research Service

16

Land Disposal Authorities and Processes of the Bureau of Land Management

2012.147 The agreement authorizes the development of state-specific protocol agreements between
BLM state offices and SHPOs that set forth measures for alternative compliance for certain types
of actions in 11 states.148 Specifically, these protocols allow for “streamlined (as opposed to case-
by-case) consultation” for undertakings that are determined to have no adverse effect on historic
properties or for scenarios in which BLM and the relevant SHPO reach an agreement on the
resolution of such adverse effects.149 The nPA also established a Preservation Board composed of
BLM historic preservation experts and line officers that provide policy recommendations to BLM
managers at the local, state, and national levels. BLM policies and procedures—contained in
agency manuals and handbooks—provide further direction on the agency’s responsibilities under
Section 106 and how to implement the nPA and state-specific protocol agreements.150
In general, the time needed—and the analysis required—to comply with Section 106 is contingent
on the scale, complexity, and particulars of the project in question. For land disposals, such
factors could include the geographic footprint of the proposed disposal, whether an area identified
for disposal has been previously inventoried for historic properties, or whether any legal
covenants or protections apply to the land or properties in question.151 In addition, agencies often
coordinate Section 106 compliance with other federal review processes, such as those required by
NEPA.152 As a result, it can be difficult to distinguish between requirements and the compliance
timeline associated with NEPA and requirements that must be met under separate statutory
mandates, such as Section 106.

147 BLM, “Programmatic Agreement Among the Bureau of Land Management, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers Regarding the Manner in Which the
BLM Will Meet Its Responsibilities Under the National Historic Preservation Act,” 2012, https://www.blm.gov/sites/
blm.gov/files/National%20Programmatic%20Agreement.pdf (hereinafter “BLM, “National Historic Preservation
nPA”). The 2012 agreement was set to expire after a period of 10 years, with an option for renewal in 2-year
increments. In 2022, the ACHP, BLM, and National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers executed a two-
year extension to the nPA. In 2023, BLM announced a proposed revision to the nPA based on tribal, public, and
signatory consultation and to extend it an additional 10 years. As of May 1, 2024, the revision process was not yet
completed. In February 2024, the signatories executed another two-year extension to the nPA. The agreement is set to
expire on February 9, 2026.
148 The 11 states authorized to execute state-specific protocol agreements are Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado,
Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. Protocol agreements can be found at ACHP,
“BLM Completes Revision of All State Protocols,” https://www.achp.gov/BLM/State%20Protocols.
149 BLM, “National Historic Preservation nPA.”
150 For example, see BLM, Manual 1780, Tribal Relations; BLM, Handbook H-1780-1, Improving and Sustaining
BLM—Tribal Relations, release 1-1781, December 15, 2016, https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/uploads/H-1780-
1__0.pdf; and BLM, Manual Series 8000, Recreation & Cultural Programs.
151 Examples of BLM land disposals illustrate the range of associated NHPA analysis and documentation. For instance,
the proposed exchange of 719 acres of BLM lands to the J. R. Simplot Company (Simplot) in exchange for 667 acres of
nonfederal land required the agency to contract a third party to conduct a full class III cultural resource survey (see
BLM, “BLM National NEPA Register: Documents,” https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/119626/570).
(Class III surveys are the most intensive field surveys and are intended to locate and record all historic properties in a
given area.) By contrast, because BLM previously had conducted a class III survey as part of a broader 46,700-acre
proposed conveyance analyzed in 2004 (see BLM, 2004 Final Las Vegas Valley Disposal Boundary Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS)), the direct sale of a 10-acre parcel of land to the city of Henderson, NV, in 2018 did not
require additional analysis (see BLM, “BLM National NEPA Register: 1 Parcel City of Henderson Direct Sale,”
https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/103848/510).
152 In particular, regulations encourage federal agencies to use their broad environmental review process, carried out
under NEPA, as an “umbrella” compliance process. Regulations for the coordination of the Section 106 process with
NEPA can be found at 36 C.F.R. §800.8. Discussion of NEPA as an umbrella compliance process can be found at
ACHP, “Integrating NEPA and Section 106,” https://www.achp.gov/integrating_nepa_106.
Congressional Research Service

17

Land Disposal Authorities and Processes of the Bureau of Land Management

Appraisals
BLM typically obtains an appraisal of market value for land disposals under FLPMA, whether by
sale or exchange.153 Both federal employees and contractors conduct appraisals.154 Appraisals are
guided by law, regulation, and other authorities, including the Uniform Appraisal Standards for
Federal Land Acquisitions and the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.155
FLPMA specifies that lands may not be sold at less than their fair market value.156 BLM
regulations state that an exchange of lands must be based on the market value of the federal and
nonfederal lands.157 For FLPMA sales and exchanges, market value typically is based on the
highest and best use of the property—that is, the highest and most profitable use for which the
property is physically adaptable and needed or likely to be needed in the future.158 Market value is
based on an economic assessment of the highest and best use. The appraiser is to estimate the
value of the lands as if in private ownership and available for sale in the open market, and must
include historic, wildlife, recreation, wilderness, scenic, cultural, or other resource values or
amenities that are reflected in prices paid for similar properties in the competitive market.
Interests in land—such as minerals or water rights—are considered to the extent consistent with
highest and best use. In the absence of current market information, other methods may be used to
estimate market value.159
The appraiser prepares a report estimating market value that describes the work conducted and
sets forth the information and analysis supporting the estimate, among other information. Each
appraisal report is assessed by a review appraiser. FLPMA provides that disputes over the
appraised values of lands to be exchanged can be resolved by arbitration, bargaining, or other
methods.160
Under RPPA, although lands generally are sold or leased for less than market value or for free,
some lands are sold or leased based on a formula that depends on an appraisal to determine

153 Some BLM authorities and related appraisal guidance use the term market value, and others use the term fair market
value. In this section, the terms are used interchangeably.
154 DOI, Appraisal and Valuation Services Office, is the lead federal office for conducting appraisals of BLM land and
nonfederal land that is part of an exchange with BLM. For information on the work of the office, see the DOI website
at https://www.doi.gov/valuationservices.
155 See The Appraisal Foundation, Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions, 2016, on the website
of the Department of Justice at Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions (justice.gov). Hereinafter
referred to as Appraisal Foundation, Uniform Appraisal Standards. Although the document specifies appraisals for
acquisitions, it also is used for disposals. For instance, BLM regulations at 43 C.F.R. §2710.0-6(f) state that for
FLPMA land sales, “value is to be determined by an appraisal performed by a Federal or independent appraiser, as
determined by the authorized officer, using the principles contained in the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal
Land Acquisitions.”
See The Appraisal Foundation, Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, 2024. This document contains
ethical and performance standards for the appraisal profession. For additional information on the document, see The
Appraisal Foundation, “What Is USPAP?,” https://www.appraisalfoundation.org/imis/TAF/Standards/
Appraisal_Standards/Uniform_Standards_of_Professional_Appraisal_Practice/TAF/USPAP.aspx?hkey=a6420a67-
dbfa-41b3-9878-fac35923d2af.
156 43 U.S.C. §1713(d).
157 43 C.F.R. §2200.0-6(c).
158 Appraisal Foundation, Uniform Appraisal Standards, p. 22.
159 Information in this paragraph is derived from 43 C.F.R. §2201.3–2 for exchanges and, more generally, Uniform
Appraisal Standards, including pp. 22-24.
160 43 U.S.C. §1716(d). Regulations governing bargaining and arbitration for exchanges are at 43 C.F.R. §2201.4.
Congressional Research Service

18

Land Disposal Authorities and Processes of the Bureau of Land Management

market value. For instance, BLM may sell or lease land to a nonprofit entity at 50% of market
value (or 90% if the use is not open to the public).161
Factors Contributing to Length of Disposal Process
There is no general statutory timeline for BLM to dispose of lands. The length of time to
complete disposals varies widely among transactions, with some completed in months, others in
one or two years, and still others several years or more. Further, there is no general statute
governing the order in which BLM land disposals are undertaken. Instead, disposals are based
primarily on agency priorities and workload.
BLM disposals generally must comply with various statutory and regulatory requirements and
policies, unless exempted by Congress. Such requirements include those set out in this report,
namely BLM land use planning; notification, consultation, and coordination requirements; ESA
Section 7 consultations; NHPA Section 106 reviews; NEPA analyses; CERCLA environmental
site assessments and remediation of contamination if needed; and land appraisals, among others.
The number, variety, and components of these requirements are major factors in the time to
complete disposals, although in some cases the requirements are undertaken simultaneously or
with partial overlap. Even if not exempted by Congress, disposals mandated by Congress may
reduce the extent of BLM discretion in disposing of the land and thereby may result in a more
limited and potentially faster version of certain analyses, such as NEPA and ESA Section 7.
The attributes and variables of the lands themselves also contribute to the time to complete
disposals. Challenges may arise where there is a wide variety of resources and land uses on the
BLM parcels to be conveyed. Challenges also may arise related to the nonfederal lands to be
acquired by exchange, such as environmental hazards or infrastructure on the lands, and title
ambiguities, among others.
A parcel of land generally must be identified for disposal in an RMP for BLM to convey it.162
Thus, additional time would be involved in amending an RMP to specify a parcel that had not
been identified previously.
The authority used to dispose of land can affect the length of the process. For example, some
disposals under RPPA may take less time because they do not require an appraisal to determine
value. Instead, they are made at no cost or through special (fixed) pricing.
Exchanges
Estimates of the time to complete land exchanges have varied. The most recent estimates
produced and made available by government agencies appear to have been issued more than a
decade ago. The BLM Land Exchange Handbook estimated an average completion time of 18 to
24 months for 26 actions related to BLM exchanges. The source also noted that times may vary
widely, from two months to several years for development of exchange proposals, with additional
time for other actions such as evaluating the feasibility of proposals.163 A 2009 report of the
Government Accountability Office determined that BLM completed 38 exchanges between
October 2004 and June 2008, with an average completion time of four years from the time an

161 BLM RPPA Information Sheet, p. 2. In other cases, BLM sells or leases lands under RPPA through other methods,
such as for free or through special (fixed) pricing.
162 BLM, “Lands Potentially Available for Disposal,” https://www.blm.gov/programs/lands-and-realty/land-tenure/
lands-potentially-for-disposal.
163 BLM, Handbook H-2200-1, Land Exchange Handbook, p. 1-15.
Congressional Research Service

19

link to page 22 Land Disposal Authorities and Processes of the Bureau of Land Management

agreement to initiate an exchange was signed between BLM and the other parties to the
exchange.164 More recently, BLM staff estimated that after formal initiation, a nongovernmental
exchange that is relatively straightforward might be completed on average in 18 months to 24
months. However, they indicated that additional research would be needed to estimate with more
certainty.165
In general, exchanges can be more time consuming than transactions involving only disposal of
BLM land. This is because they involve two transactions—a disposal of BLM land and an
acquisition by BLM of nonfederal land. On the complexities of exchanges, the BLM Land
Exchange Handbook states,
Proper consideration of land exchange proposals involves a substantial investment of time
and resources by both Federal and non-Federal parties. Land exchange processing is often
highly complex because of the wide range of individuals and entities that hold some form
of valid right, title, or interest in the land being considered for exchange, determining land
values, weighing public interests and effectively involving the public in the process.166
In effect, an exchange could double the requirements for consultation, evaluation, and appraisal,
among other requirements. Further, the FLPMA requirement for equal value exchanges can be
difficult to achieve.167 The most complicated exchanges often involve tribes or state or local
governments.168 Such transactions require compliance both with authorities applicable to the
federal lands and authorities applicable to the lands of the other government. Due to their
intricacies, some exchanges have been facilitated by third parties and/or conducted in multiple
phases.
Staffing Capacity
The number, availability, and expertise of BLM realty staff can affect the length of the disposal
process. BLM realty staff generally have broad responsibilities that may compete for their time to
conduct exchanges. These responsibilities may include assistance with issuing permits,
implementing land withdrawals, acquiring lands, and issuing rights-of-way, among other
activities. Some BLM field offices may have one or a few realty specialists responsible for
managing transactions affecting hundreds of thousands or even millions of acres of BLM land.
Further, the complexity of some land disposals can require deep expertise, and it may take several
years for realty staff to become capable of handling such processes independently. Retirements
and other departures of BLM realty staff may have impacted the capacity to process disposals.169
Similarly, DOI’s capacity to conduct land appraisals can affect the length of the land disposal
process. DOI has cited an insufficiency of appraisers as contributing to delays in land
appraisals.170 The DOI Appraisal and Valuation Services Office (AVSO) is the lead federal office
for conducting appraisals for BLM and other DOI agencies. According to DOI, “[l]ack of staff
has a direct impact on the timely delivery of appraisals to clients and improvement in the
timeliness of service remains a top goal for AVSO as we continue to fill vacant appraisal

164 Government Accountability Office, Federal Land Management: BLM and the Forest Service Have Improved
Oversight of the Land Exchange Process, but Additional Actions Are Needed, GAO-09-611, June 2009, p. 14.
165 CRS consultation with BLM staff on September 18, 2023.
166 BLM, Handbook H-2200-1, Land Exchange Handbook, p. 1-1.
167 For details on the equal value requirement, see the discussion of FLPMA in the “Exchanges” section of this report.
168 CRS consultation with BLM staff on September 18, 2023.
169 Information in this paragraph is derived in part from CRS consultation with BLM staff on September 18, 2023.
170 DOI, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2024, Office of the Secretary,
Departmentwide Programs, pp. DO-93–DO-94.
Congressional Research Service

20

Land Disposal Authorities and Processes of the Bureau of Land Management

positions.”171 DOI cited a profession-wide problem of a decrease over the past decade in the pool
of appraisers to recruit from, together with no increase in people entering the profession. DOI
identified actions being taken to address this deficiency, including special pay efforts, staff
training, implementation of workplace efficiencies, and development of an apprenticeship
program.
Congressional Role in Disposal of BLM Lands
Congress often faces questions regarding the adequacy of RPPA, FLPMA, and other BLM
disposal authorities; the nature, extent, and location of their use; and the extent of BLM land
ownership overall. These questions form the backdrop for congressional consideration of
measures to establish, eliminate, or modify authorities as well as measures to dispose of specific
BLM lands. For example, with regard to the establishment of new authorities, legislation
introduced in the 117th Congress sought to authorize certain states to apply to relinquish land
grant parcels in exchange for federal lands managed by BLM.172 With regard to the elimination of
authorities, moratoria on issuing mineral patents under the General Mining Law of 1872 have
been included in annual appropriations laws since FY1995, as noted.173 With regard to the
modification of authorities, for example, the 117th Congress amended RPPA to specifically
authorize disposal to federally recognized Indian tribes.174
In addition, Congress frequently considers legislation governing the disposal of specific parcels
of BLM land. For example, provisions of P.L. 117-263 authorized exchanges of BLM and private
land in Churchill County, NV, and directed conveyance of BLM parcels to Lander County, NV,
for use for airport facilities, watershed protection, recreation, and parks.175 In general, Congress
might consider disposal legislation to provide BLM with authority in a particular situation when
such authority is lacking, based on its evaluation of public needs. Congress also might seek to
direct specific transactions, although BLM already has authority to dispose of lands, in order to
facilitate the transactions. Further, Congress may seek to modify the applicable requirements by
authorizing or directing actions not ordinarily permitted under an agency’s authority to dispose of
land. For instance, it might expedite the disposal process by including provisions that limit
assessment and evaluation requirements or authorize the conveyance of land at reduced or no cost
rather than at fair market value.
Congress also addresses disposal policy in the context of deliberations on the role and goals of the
federal government in owning and managing land generally. Stakeholders have differing views on
when federal ownership of lands is appropriate and how federal lands should be managed.176 For
example, some stakeholders contend that there is excessive federal influence over western lands
and economies and that the federal government should divest itself of many lands. Other
stakeholders support the policy of retaining lands in federal ownership on behalf of the public and
sometimes advocate adding more lands to enhance protection. Recent Congresses considered

171 Ibid, p. DO-94.
172 H.R. 2348, 117th Congress.
173 Patent applications meeting certain requirements filed on or before September 30, 1994, have been allowed to
proceed. See, for example, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (P.L. 118-42). Division E, Title IV, §404.
174 RPPA was amended by provisions of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, at P.L. 117-328, Division DD,
Title I, §104.
175 P.L. 117-263, Division B, Title XXIX, §2908 (Churchill County, NV) and §2922 (Lander County, NV).
176 As an example of varied stakeholder perspectives, see Property and Environment Research Center (PERC), “Should
Federal Lands be Transferred to Western States? A PERC Forum,” July 27, 2017, https://www.perc.org/2017/07/27/
should-federal-lands-be-transferred-to-western-states/.
Congressional Research Service

21

Land Disposal Authorities and Processes of the Bureau of Land Management

diverse bills pertaining to the extent of federal land ownership. Among other proposals,
legislation in the 118th Congress would direct federal agencies with a net increase in lands
through acquisition to offer an equal amount of land for sale.177

Author Information

Carol Hardy Vincent, Coordinator
Omar M. Hammad
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Analyst in Environmental Policy

Mark K. DeSantis
Erin H. Ward
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
Coordinator of Research Planning/ALD

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

177 H.R. 172, 118th Congress.
Congressional Research Service
R48079 · VERSION 1 · NEW
22

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Jun. 3, 2024

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

Energy Policy

Environmental Policy

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov

Raw Metadata: JSON