Administrative Rule Review 2026-2027
The Montana DNRC is reviewing administrative rules for recreational use of state trust land to understand if there are any needs for changes.
August 2026 Update
In March of 2026, DNRC gathered user input through a public survey to help define the scope of potential future rule revisions, gauge overall interest in changes, and identify topics that are most important to Montanans. The survey was open for 30 days and closed on March 31, 2026, with 1,582 responses.
In April and May of 2026, DNRC met with stakeholder groups to discuss the public survey and collect their perspectives. Stakeholders included groups that represent hunter access, angler access, general recreation access, lessees, law enforcement, and land managers.
The survey responses and stakeholder conversations reflect a public that deeply values recreational use of Montana's state trust lands. Feedback for some of the key topics identified through the survey was split on position, but across nearly all topics, respondents repeatedly called for greater clarity, consistency, and equitable enforcement. Read more about the findings in the Public Outreach Spring 2026 Summary Document.
Public Comment
The department is soliciting public comment on the following identified themes that emerged from public and stakeholder outreach in the spring of 2026. This additional comment period gives Montanans an opportunity to expand on the issues that matter most to them. The department will consider these findings when determining if new rules should be proposed or existing rules modified for clarity and consistency. The department will consider public and stakeholder input, department rulemaking authority and the fiduciary duty of state trust land management before making any proposal for modification. Any proposed changes require Land Board approval.
Public comment can be submitted through the individual theme sections. Public comment is open through through September 25, 2026.
Public comment can be submitted through the individual theme sections. Public comment is open through through September 25, 2026.
Themes
What do the existing rules say about this, in plain language?
Camping is allowed within 200 feet of an access point for tent or non-motorized camping, and within 50 feet of an access point if a motorized vehicle is required (RV or camper trailers). The stay is limited to two days on leased land, and up to 16 days per month on unleased land. Campfires are not allowed on leased land.
Where can I read the official rule language for this?
The full text of the existing rule related to overnight use can be viewed at:
ARM 36.25.1204 General Recreation Rules and Restrictions
What feedback did DNRC receive through public and stakeholder outreach in the spring of 2026?
Camping drew substantial comment through the public survey, with the dominant sentiment being that current rules are confusing. The general sentiment supports continued camping access, especially for multi-day recreation and hunting, but with clearer standards, and more active management to reduce trash, fire risk, site degradation, and conflicts with other users. Very few respondents asked for tightening camping rules; most wanted clarification or expanded flexibility.
The 200-Foot Rule and Backcountry Camping
The specific provision in current rules requiring overnight use on leased or licensed land to be within 200 feet of a customary access point— drew feedback from backcountry hunters and hikers who find it impractical on large parcels.
Two-Day Limit on Leased Land
The two-day camping limit on leased DNRC land (versus 16 days on unleased land) was widely noted as arbitrary and inconsistent.
Leased vs. Unleased Confusion
Many commenters noted that members of the public have no practical way to determine whether a given parcel is leased — and therefore which camping limit applies. Several respondents noted that the distinction is not posted at access points, is not easily discoverable online, and is not widely understood.
Campfire Restrictions
A smaller number called for fire-season campfire restrictions comparable to those applied on federal lands, citing fire danger from careless campers.
Department Consideration
The department is considering if rules related to camping and overnight use should be proposed for modification for clarity and consistency and if modification is in the best interest of the trust.
The department is collecting further public and stakeholder feedback on this specific issue before proposing any change or language. Any proposed changes would require Land Board approval. If this topic is important to you, please submit a public comment so your thoughts can be heard.
What do the existing rules say (in plain language)?
E-Bikes are considered motorized vehicles on state trust land. They are allowed on public roads only. E-bikes are covered within the existing definition for “motorized vehicle”. There are currently no other rules pertaining to e-bikes on state trust land.
Where can I read the official rule language for e-bike use on state trust land?
The full text of existing rules related to e-bikes can be viewed under the definition for “motorized vehicle” at:
36.25.1202 Definitions
The full text of existing rules related to motorized use can be found at:
36.25.1204 General Recreation Rules and Restrictions
What feedback did DNRC receive through public and stakeholder outreach in the spring of 2026?
E-bike regulation was a contested topic. The central policy question is whether pedal-assist e-bikes (Class 1) should be treated like conventional bicycles or classified as motorized vehicles. Respondents were divided, with those favoring restriction slightly outnumbering those favoring allowance.
Support for Allowing Class 1 E-bikes
Many respondents made a principled technical distinction between throttle-powered e-bikes and pedal-assist models, arguing the latter produce no more ground impact than conventional bicycles and that federal land managers have increasingly recognized this.
Respondents raised an equity and accessibility angle, and a practical argument was also made for older recreationists who may want to use a pedal-assist bike to maintain recreation levels.
Support for Treating All E-bikes as Motorized
Others commented that all e-bikes should be classified as motorized vehicles, citing concerns about weed spread, trail damage, and the difficulty of enforcing distinctions in the field.
Regulatory Consistency
Across both perspectives, respondents consistently called for DNRC to align its e-bike definitions and enforcement approach with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) and with federal land managers.
Department Consideration
The department is considering if rules related to e-bike use should be proposed for modification for clarity and consistency and if modification is in the best interest of the trust.
The department is collecting further public and stakeholder feedback on this specific issue before proposing any change or language. Any proposed changes would require Land Board approval. If this topic is important to you, please submit a public comment so your thoughts can be heard.
Submit a Comment on E-bike Use
What do the existing rules say (in plain language)?
Shooting is not allowed within ¼ mile of a dwelling or associated outbuilding. Targets and debris must be cleaned up to avoid littering. Negligent firearm use is not allowed.
Where can I read the official rule language for target shooting on state trust land?
The full text of existing rules related to target shooting can be found at:
36.25.1204 General Recreation Rules and Restrictions
What feedback did DNRC receive through public and stakeholder outreach in the spring of 2026?
Firearms regulation generated strong views across the spectrum. Two perspectives stood in opposition: those who want stricter controls on unregulated recreational shooting, and those who want the existing 1/4-mile discharge restriction eliminated.
Calls for More Restrictions
Many respondents described recreational target shooting as one of the fastest-growing management problems on state trust lands near urban areas, citing safety hazards, noise, debris, lead contamination, and the exclusion of all other users from affected areas.
Several respondents specifically called for shooting to be restricted to designated areas or prohibited outside commercial shooting facilities.
Opposition to the 1/4-Mile Rule
A minority commented that the prohibition on firearm discharge within 1/4 mile of an occupied dwelling is unconstitutional, practically unenforceable in the field, and applied inconsistently by FWP game wardens.
Department Consideration
The department is considering if rules related to target shooting should be proposed for modification for clarity and consistency and if modification is in the best interest of the trust.
The department is collecting further public and stakeholder feedback on this specific issue before proposing any change or language. Any proposed changes would require Land Board approval. If this topic is important to you, please submit a public comment so your thoughts can be heard.
Submit a Comment on Target Shooting
What do the existing rules say (in plain language)?
Snowmobiles are limited to public roads through leased land but are generally allowed off-road on unleased land. There may be environmental factors that limit snowmobile use in certain areas on unleased land.
Where can I read the official rule language for snowmobile use on state trust land?
The full text of existing rules related to snowmobile use can be found at:
36.25.1204 General Recreation Rules and Restrictions
What feedback did DNRC receive through public and stakeholder outreach in the spring of 2026?
Comments on snowmobiles called for seasonal rules for clarity or area-specific closures to protect wintering wildlife. Specific geography was frequently mentioned, including the Big Hole Valley near Wisdom and the East Fork of the Bitterroot. Concerns were also raised about impacts to tree seedlings and concerns for public safety.
Department Consideration
The department is considering if rules related to snowmobile use should be proposed for modification for clarity and consistency and if modification is in the best interest of the trust.
The department is collecting further public and stakeholder feedback on this specific issue before proposing any change or language. Any proposed changes would require Land Board approval. If this topic is important to you, please submit a public comment so your thoughts can be heard.
Submit a Comment on Snowmobile Use
Snowmobiles are limited to public roads through leased land but are generally allowed off-road on unleased land. There may be environmental factors that limit snowmobile use in certain areas on unleased land.
Where can I read the official rule language for snowmobile use on state trust land?
The full text of existing rules related to snowmobile use can be found at:
36.25.1204 General Recreation Rules and Restrictions
What feedback did DNRC receive through public and stakeholder outreach in the spring of 2026?
Comments on snowmobiles called for seasonal rules for clarity or area-specific closures to protect wintering wildlife. Specific geography was frequently mentioned, including the Big Hole Valley near Wisdom and the East Fork of the Bitterroot. Concerns were also raised about impacts to tree seedlings and concerns for public safety.
Department Consideration
The department is considering if rules related to snowmobile use should be proposed for modification for clarity and consistency and if modification is in the best interest of the trust.
The department is collecting further public and stakeholder feedback on this specific issue before proposing any change or language. Any proposed changes would require Land Board approval. If this topic is important to you, please submit a public comment so your thoughts can be heard.
Submit a Comment on Snowmobile Use
What do the existing rules say (in plain language)?
Motorized vehicles are allowed on public roads (federal, state, and dedicated county roads) only. All other roads are closed unless designated as open by DNRC. Parking is allowed within 50 feet of a public/open road.
The rules require the department to notify the underlying lessee before designating a road as open on leased land.
Where can I read the official rule language for motorized use on state trust land?
The full text of existing rules related to motorized use can be found at:
36.25.1204 General Recreation Rules and Restrictions
The definitions for “motorized vehicle” and “open road” in existing rules can be found at:
36.25.1202 Definitions
The full existing rule related to roads on state trust land for recreational use can be found at:
36.25.1208 Roads
What feedback did DNRC receive through public and stakeholder outreach in the spring of 2026?
Motorized vehicle use generated the sharpest policy divide in the survey. Among varying positions on the subject, slightly more favored tighter restrictions than expanded access.
Calls for Restrictions
Most comments focused on off-road travel, particularly by ATVs, UTVs, and motorcycles, which respondents described as causing permanent ruts, erosion, noxious weed spread, and road degradation.
Calls for Expanded Motorized Access
A minority commented that motorized recreation is underserved on state trust lands relative to neighboring states and support expanded access.
Additionally, the department has observed that, beyond lessee notification, the existing rules do not provide a process for opening or closing a road on state trust land. Rules could provide clear and consistent guidelines and considerations for decision-making and related processes.
The department is also considering existing rules for roads related to timber management through the forest management plan that may be applicable in certain scenarios. These rules are not currently cross-referenced in the recreational use rules. Cross-referencing these existing rules would provide clarity and consistency through process alignment. See 36.11.4 State Forest Land Management.
Department Consideration
The department is considering if rules related to motorized use and the process for road management should be proposed for modification for clarity and consistency and if modification is in the best interest of the trust.
The department is collecting further public and stakeholder feedback on this specific issue before proposing any change or language. Any proposed changes would require Land Board approval. If this topic is important to you, please submit a public comment so your thoughts can be heard.
Submit a Comment on Motorized Use and Road Management
What do the existing rules say (in plain language)?
State trust land can be enrolled in BMAs if DNRC finds that it is in the best interest of the public and the trust, and if the BMA includes adjacent private land. A BMA on state trust land cannot conflict with existing rights of leases, licenses or easements.
Initial enrollment involves coordination between FWP and DNRC. Public review is required for a new proposed BMA if it creates more restrictions than those that already apply to the state trust land, or if the state trust land is legally accessible or adjacent to land that is not within the BMA boundary. The rule establishes the public review process and certain provisions that must be included in any BMA that includes state trust land.
BMAs that include state trust land can be renewed. Renewals only require public review if there are changes to the agreement that impose more restrictions than those contained in the original agreement, or if there are complaints that: are unresolved; express significant concerns regarding compliance; or indicate enrollment is not in the best interest of the public or the trust.
Where can I read the official rule language for state trust land enrollment in block management agreements?
The full text of existing rules related to state trust land enrollment in block management can be found at:
36.25.1209 Interagency Land Management Agreements
What feedback did DNRC receive through public and stakeholder outreach in the spring of 2026?
A recurring comment was that state trust lands enrolled in FWP's Block Management Program (BMP) can carry private-land restrictions that do not otherwise apply to state trust lands. This creates confusion and allows lessees to informally override public rights on legally accessible trust land.
Some stakeholders expressed concern that lessees are financially compensated for the inclusion of legally accessible state trust land in BMAs, not trust beneficiaries. Other stakeholders expressed that including adjacent trust land within a BMA provides consistent expectations and enforcement, and are concerned that private landowners may be less interested in enrolling their land in BMAs if their leased land is not eligible for inclusion. A third view noted that inaccessible state trust land is not rendered accessible through an adjacent BMA if it is not enrolled within the BMA.
Department Consideration
The department is considering if rules related to state trust land enrollment in BMAs should be proposed for modification for clarity and consistency and if modification is in the best interest of the trust.
The department is collecting public and stakeholder feedback on this specific issue before proposing any change or language. Any proposed changes would require Land Board approval. If this topic is important to you, please submit a public comment so your thoughts can be heard.
Submit a Comment on State Trust Land Enrollment within Block Management
State trust land can be enrolled in BMAs if DNRC finds that it is in the best interest of the public and the trust, and if the BMA includes adjacent private land. A BMA on state trust land cannot conflict with existing rights of leases, licenses or easements.
Initial enrollment involves coordination between FWP and DNRC. Public review is required for a new proposed BMA if it creates more restrictions than those that already apply to the state trust land, or if the state trust land is legally accessible or adjacent to land that is not within the BMA boundary. The rule establishes the public review process and certain provisions that must be included in any BMA that includes state trust land.
BMAs that include state trust land can be renewed. Renewals only require public review if there are changes to the agreement that impose more restrictions than those contained in the original agreement, or if there are complaints that: are unresolved; express significant concerns regarding compliance; or indicate enrollment is not in the best interest of the public or the trust.
Where can I read the official rule language for state trust land enrollment in block management agreements?
The full text of existing rules related to state trust land enrollment in block management can be found at:
36.25.1209 Interagency Land Management Agreements
What feedback did DNRC receive through public and stakeholder outreach in the spring of 2026?
A recurring comment was that state trust lands enrolled in FWP's Block Management Program (BMP) can carry private-land restrictions that do not otherwise apply to state trust lands. This creates confusion and allows lessees to informally override public rights on legally accessible trust land.
Some stakeholders expressed concern that lessees are financially compensated for the inclusion of legally accessible state trust land in BMAs, not trust beneficiaries. Other stakeholders expressed that including adjacent trust land within a BMA provides consistent expectations and enforcement, and are concerned that private landowners may be less interested in enrolling their land in BMAs if their leased land is not eligible for inclusion. A third view noted that inaccessible state trust land is not rendered accessible through an adjacent BMA if it is not enrolled within the BMA.
Department Consideration
The department is considering if rules related to state trust land enrollment in BMAs should be proposed for modification for clarity and consistency and if modification is in the best interest of the trust.
The department is collecting public and stakeholder feedback on this specific issue before proposing any change or language. Any proposed changes would require Land Board approval. If this topic is important to you, please submit a public comment so your thoughts can be heard.
Submit a Comment on State Trust Land Enrollment within Block Management
What do the existing rules say (in plain language)?
Recreational trapping on state trust land requires a no-charge special recreational use license (SRUL) in addition to required licenses from FWP. Trapping is excluded from the definition of “general recreational use,” so a separate SRUL is required. Terms for trapping are within the SRUL and there are currently no other rules in DNRC’s recreational use rules that pertain specifically to trapping on state trust land.
* Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) statutes and rules for trapping apply at all times in addition to a DNRC license for state trust land use.
Where can I read the official rule language for trapping licenses on state trust land?
The full text of existing rules related to SRULs (currently required for trapping) use can be found at:
36.25.1210 Special Recreational Use
The definition for “general recreational use” in existing rules can be found at:
36.25.1202 Definitions
What feedback did DNRC receive through public and stakeholder outreach in the spring of 2026?
Trapping on state trust lands was the most frequently discussed topic in the public survey. No other topic generated as much volume. Views span the full spectrum — from calls for immediate and total prohibition to strong support for the traditional practice.
Calls for Restriction or Abolition
The most common comment was the risk of traps to non-target animals, particularly dogs. Multiple respondents described traumatic firsthand experiences.
Many comments noted that trapping constitutes a commercial activity that falls outside the definition of general recreational use and should therefore not be permitted under the recreational use framework at all.
Some respondents framed their opposition in broader wildlife conservation terms, linking trapping to non-target casualties including eagles and deer.
Support for Retaining Trapping
Many respondents supported trapping as an important wildlife management tool and traditional use of state trust lands, while acknowledging the need for targeted reforms. These respondents frequently cited the ecological role of predator management and the cultural heritage of trapping in Montana.
Several respondents proposed seasonal windows as a reasonable accommodation, arguing that trapping primarily conflicts with other users when cattle and other livestock are present.
Fee and Licensing Reform
A significant subset called for DNRC to charge fees for trapping (SRULs). The rationale centered on administrative cost recovery and equitable treatment relative to other permitted uses.
Trap Signage
The current requirement that trappers post signage on state trust lands (within the SRUL terms) generated its own differing perspectives. Some users want more and clearer trap posting to protect themselves and their animals, but many trappers argue that required signage actively worsens the situation by advertising set locations and inviting theft, interference, and public hostility.
Department Consideration
The department is considering if rules related to the trapping license process for state trust lands should be proposed for modification for clarity and consistency and if modification is in the best interest of the trust.
Note: fundamental concerns about trapping in the State of Montana are outside the scope of DNRC’s administrative rules. DNRC is considering if rules related only to license requirements and process on state trust land should be modified or adopted.
The department is collecting further public and stakeholder feedback on this specific issue before proposing any change or language. Any proposed changes would require Land Board approval. If this topic is important to you, please submit a public comment so your thoughts can be heard.
Submit a Comment on the Trapping License Process for State Trust Lands
What do the existing rules say (in plain language)?
Special recreational use is any recreational activity that is commercial, concentrated, results in unique impacts, or is otherwise not covered by the general recreational use rules. Special recreational use cannot occur on state trust land without a special recreational use license (SRUL) and payment of the license fee. The fee for SRULs must be full market value and can be issued through competitive bid. DNRC must notify impacted lessees and include certain terms in the SRUL. SRULs cannot prohibit general recreation.
Where can I read the official rule language for special recreational use on state trust land?
The full text of existing rules related to SRULs use can be found at:
36.25.1210 Special Recreational Use
What feedback did DNRC receive through public and stakeholder outreach in the spring of 2026?
Outfitting and commercial hunting on state trust lands generated particular interest with comments expressing concerns about access equity and pricing. Several respondents called for strengthening the commercial outfitting application process with clear application deadlines and increasing the fees charged.
Additional comments called for expanded and formalized trail opportunities and noted the absence of a viable process for recreation or conservation organizations to formally sponsor and fund trail maintenance or development.
Department Consideration
The department is considering if rules related to the special recreational use license process should be proposed for modification for clarity and consistency and if modification is in the best interest of the trust.
The department is collecting further public and stakeholder feedback on this specific issue before proposing any change or language. Any proposed changes would require Land Board approval. If this topic is important to you, please submit a public comment so your thoughts can be heard.
Submit a Comment on Special Recreational Use
Special recreational use is any recreational activity that is commercial, concentrated, results in unique impacts, or is otherwise not covered by the general recreational use rules. Special recreational use cannot occur on state trust land without a special recreational use license (SRUL) and payment of the license fee. The fee for SRULs must be full market value and can be issued through competitive bid. DNRC must notify impacted lessees and include certain terms in the SRUL. SRULs cannot prohibit general recreation.
Where can I read the official rule language for special recreational use on state trust land?
The full text of existing rules related to SRULs use can be found at:
36.25.1210 Special Recreational Use
What feedback did DNRC receive through public and stakeholder outreach in the spring of 2026?
Outfitting and commercial hunting on state trust lands generated particular interest with comments expressing concerns about access equity and pricing. Several respondents called for strengthening the commercial outfitting application process with clear application deadlines and increasing the fees charged.
Additional comments called for expanded and formalized trail opportunities and noted the absence of a viable process for recreation or conservation organizations to formally sponsor and fund trail maintenance or development.
Department Consideration
The department is considering if rules related to the special recreational use license process should be proposed for modification for clarity and consistency and if modification is in the best interest of the trust.
The department is collecting further public and stakeholder feedback on this specific issue before proposing any change or language. Any proposed changes would require Land Board approval. If this topic is important to you, please submit a public comment so your thoughts can be heard.
Submit a Comment on Special Recreational Use
What do the existing rules say (in plain language)?
Currently, there are no administrative rules that expressly address abandoned property or vehicles on state trust land. However, there are rules that prohibit littering.
Where can I read the applicable official rule language?
The full existing rule related to abandoned property and vehicles through prohibition on littering can be found at:
36.25.1204 General Recreation Rules and Restrictions
Why is DNRC considering rules about abandoned vehicles and property?
State trust land has seen an increase of abandoned vehicles, campers, and campsites on state trust land. There are currently no administrative rules that provide clear direction on storage and/or disposal of items. Cleanup of abandoned property and vehicles is costly and at times there may be safety considerations for state trust land users and DNRC staff. Rules could provide clarity on process and prioritization to protect the best interest of the trust, the safety of the public, lessees, operators, and DNRC staff, and define responsibility for costs as well as the rights of the abandoned vehicle and property owners.
There has also been increased occurrence of game cameras, hunting blinds, and tree stands left on state trust land. Current rules do not regulate these hunting tools on state trust land, including seasonality, abandonment, or removal.
Department Consideration
The department is considering if rules related to abandoned vehicles and property should be proposed for adoption for clarity and consistency and if adoption is in the best interest of the trust.
The department is collecting public and stakeholder feedback on this specific issue before proposing any change or language. Any proposed changes would require Land Board approval. If this topic is important to you, please submit a public comment so your thoughts can be heard.
Submit a Comment on Abandoned Vehicles and Property
Currently, there are no administrative rules that expressly address abandoned property or vehicles on state trust land. However, there are rules that prohibit littering.
Where can I read the applicable official rule language?
The full existing rule related to abandoned property and vehicles through prohibition on littering can be found at:
36.25.1204 General Recreation Rules and Restrictions
Why is DNRC considering rules about abandoned vehicles and property?
State trust land has seen an increase of abandoned vehicles, campers, and campsites on state trust land. There are currently no administrative rules that provide clear direction on storage and/or disposal of items. Cleanup of abandoned property and vehicles is costly and at times there may be safety considerations for state trust land users and DNRC staff. Rules could provide clarity on process and prioritization to protect the best interest of the trust, the safety of the public, lessees, operators, and DNRC staff, and define responsibility for costs as well as the rights of the abandoned vehicle and property owners.
There has also been increased occurrence of game cameras, hunting blinds, and tree stands left on state trust land. Current rules do not regulate these hunting tools on state trust land, including seasonality, abandonment, or removal.
Department Consideration
The department is considering if rules related to abandoned vehicles and property should be proposed for adoption for clarity and consistency and if adoption is in the best interest of the trust.
The department is collecting public and stakeholder feedback on this specific issue before proposing any change or language. Any proposed changes would require Land Board approval. If this topic is important to you, please submit a public comment so your thoughts can be heard.
Submit a Comment on Abandoned Vehicles and Property
What do the existing rules say (in plain language)?
Currently, there are no existing administrative rules that expressly provide for any categorical exclusions for recreational activity on state trust land under the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA).
Where can I read the applicable official rule language?
Currently, there are no existing administrative rules pertaining specifically to MEPA for recreational use of state trust land.
The statute related to categorical exclusions under MEPA can be found at:
75-1-209, MCA. Agency determination of categorical exclusion
Why is DNRC considering rules about categorical exclusions under MEPA?
The department has observed that there are no categorical exclusions identified through administrative rule in accordance with statute 75-1-209, MCA. Identifying appropriate categorical exclusions for general recreation and special recreation could ensure consistency with MEPA application and expectations, improve customer service, and increase efficiency in permitting where appropriate.
Department Consideration
The department is considering if rules related to categorical exclusions under MEPA should be proposed for adoption for clarity and consistency and if adoption is in the best interest of the trust.
The department is collecting public and stakeholder feedback on this specific issue before proposing any change or language. Any proposed changes would require Land Board approval. If this topic is important to you, please submit a public comment so your thoughts can be heard.
Submit a Comment on Categorical Exclusions under MEPA
Currently, there are no existing administrative rules that expressly provide for any categorical exclusions for recreational activity on state trust land under the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA).
Where can I read the applicable official rule language?
Currently, there are no existing administrative rules pertaining specifically to MEPA for recreational use of state trust land.
The statute related to categorical exclusions under MEPA can be found at:
75-1-209, MCA. Agency determination of categorical exclusion
Why is DNRC considering rules about categorical exclusions under MEPA?
The department has observed that there are no categorical exclusions identified through administrative rule in accordance with statute 75-1-209, MCA. Identifying appropriate categorical exclusions for general recreation and special recreation could ensure consistency with MEPA application and expectations, improve customer service, and increase efficiency in permitting where appropriate.
Department Consideration
The department is considering if rules related to categorical exclusions under MEPA should be proposed for adoption for clarity and consistency and if adoption is in the best interest of the trust.
The department is collecting public and stakeholder feedback on this specific issue before proposing any change or language. Any proposed changes would require Land Board approval. If this topic is important to you, please submit a public comment so your thoughts can be heard.
Submit a Comment on Categorical Exclusions under MEPA
What do the existing rules say (in plain language)?
State trust land is available for general recreational use, subject to legal access and closures and restrictions.
Certain lands are categorically (automatically) closed to recreation. Land is categorically closed when it has active growing crop, is leased for residential or commercial use, has active military training or if there is extreme wildfire threat.
Land can also be closed through a petition and subsequent public process. On an annual cycle beginning in April of each year, any person can petition the department to close a tract of state trust land to recreational use. The department must take public comment on valid petitions, and decide to grant, deny, or grant the petition with modifications by July 1 each year. The decision can then be appealed.
Temporary management closures may be created by a lessee for specific situations, including certain livestock activities, weed control treatment, and irrigation. These temporary closures are typically allowed for 1-5 days. However, calving or lambing may have a temporary closure for up to 60 days, and temporary closures for breeding, weaning, or shipping can be up to 30 days.
The department may close leased land to recreational use in exchange for public access to the lessee’s private land. These scenarios require similar recreation values and equal or greater public access.
Where can I read the applicable official rule language?
The full existing rule related to closure of state trust land to recreational use can be found at:
36.25.1207 Closure of State Trust Land to Recreational Use
Why is DNRC considering rules about closure of state trust land to recreational use?
The department is experiencing an increase in petitions to close state trust land to recreational use. The department has observed the existing petition process to be costly to administer and the timeline to be restrictive for meaningful investigation should the volume of petitions continue to grow.
The department also heard from stakeholders representing lessee interests that the timelines for temporary management closure durations in rule for livestock calving/lambing, weaning, shipping, and breeding may be shorter than typically required for the activity.
There are existing rules through the forest management plan that require closure for certain endangered species. These rules are not currently cross-referenced in the recreational use rules. Cross-referencing these existing rules would provide clarity and consistency through process alignment. See 36.11.4 State Forest Land Management
Department Consideration
The department is considering if rules related to recreational use closure should be proposed for modification for clarity and consistency and if modification is in the best interest of the trust.
The department is collecting public and stakeholder feedback on this specific issue before proposing any change or language. Any proposed changes would require Land Board approval. If this topic is important to you, please submit a public comment so your thoughts can be heard.
Submit a Comment on Recreational Use Closure
State trust land is available for general recreational use, subject to legal access and closures and restrictions.
Certain lands are categorically (automatically) closed to recreation. Land is categorically closed when it has active growing crop, is leased for residential or commercial use, has active military training or if there is extreme wildfire threat.
Land can also be closed through a petition and subsequent public process. On an annual cycle beginning in April of each year, any person can petition the department to close a tract of state trust land to recreational use. The department must take public comment on valid petitions, and decide to grant, deny, or grant the petition with modifications by July 1 each year. The decision can then be appealed.
Temporary management closures may be created by a lessee for specific situations, including certain livestock activities, weed control treatment, and irrigation. These temporary closures are typically allowed for 1-5 days. However, calving or lambing may have a temporary closure for up to 60 days, and temporary closures for breeding, weaning, or shipping can be up to 30 days.
The department may close leased land to recreational use in exchange for public access to the lessee’s private land. These scenarios require similar recreation values and equal or greater public access.
Where can I read the applicable official rule language?
The full existing rule related to closure of state trust land to recreational use can be found at:
36.25.1207 Closure of State Trust Land to Recreational Use
Why is DNRC considering rules about closure of state trust land to recreational use?
The department is experiencing an increase in petitions to close state trust land to recreational use. The department has observed the existing petition process to be costly to administer and the timeline to be restrictive for meaningful investigation should the volume of petitions continue to grow.
The department also heard from stakeholders representing lessee interests that the timelines for temporary management closure durations in rule for livestock calving/lambing, weaning, shipping, and breeding may be shorter than typically required for the activity.
There are existing rules through the forest management plan that require closure for certain endangered species. These rules are not currently cross-referenced in the recreational use rules. Cross-referencing these existing rules would provide clarity and consistency through process alignment. See 36.11.4 State Forest Land Management
Department Consideration
The department is considering if rules related to recreational use closure should be proposed for modification for clarity and consistency and if modification is in the best interest of the trust.
The department is collecting public and stakeholder feedback on this specific issue before proposing any change or language. Any proposed changes would require Land Board approval. If this topic is important to you, please submit a public comment so your thoughts can be heard.
Submit a Comment on Recreational Use Closure
What do the existing rules say (in plain language)?
There are standing restrictions that already apply to all recreational use on state trust lands that are located in disparate rules or statutes and are not currently cross-referenced within the overarching rule entitled “General Recreational Use Rules and Restrictions.” These include:
Lessee Notification
Recreationists are required to sign in at a drop box when the lessee has posted appropriate signs and provided a drop box. This requirement is currently located in a standalone rule pertaining to lessee notification.
Special Recreational Use
Special recreation (commercial/concentrated) requires a special recreational use license. Only general recreation is allowed with a conservation license. This requirement is currently located in a standalone rule pertaining to special recreation.
Dumping of Refuse and Destruction of Property
Dumping of refuse and destruction of property, including land and improvements, are misdemeanor crimes punishable by a fine of not more than $1,500. This is currently provided in statute and not explained in rule.
Multiple Use Management
State trust land is subject to multiple use management that must be coordinated in a way that does not impair the productivity of the land. This is provided in statute, and rules currently provide that a Recreationist may not interfere with the legitimate lease management activities of lessees or their agents.
Where can I read the applicable official rule language?
The full existing rule for standing restrictions on state trust land (including littering and interference with lease management) can be found at:
ARM 36.25.1204 General Recreation Rules and Restrictions
The full existing rule for lessee notification can be found at:
ARM 36.25.1205 Notice to Lessee Prior to Entry
The full text of existing rules related to Special Recreational use can be found at:
36.25.1210 Special Recreational Use
Why is DNRC considering cleanup and clarification for these specific existing rules that apply to recreational use of state trust land?
The existing rules that require lessee notification prior to entry, and those that require a special recreational use license for commercial or concentrated recreation, are not currently cross-referenced in the overarching rule entitled “General Recreational Use Rules and Restrictions.” Adding a cross-reference simplifies the number of rules for recreationists and law enforcement.
The department has seen an increase in dumping of refuse and damage to land and improvements from public use of state trust land. The rule currently prohibits littering but does not reiterate existing statute that provides dumping of refuse and damage to the land and improvements is a misdemeanor crime. Adding a cross-reference could bolster understanding of this law and simplify the number of rules for recreationists and law enforcement. See 77-1-804, MCA.
State trust land is subject to Multiple Use Management that must be coordinated in a way that does not impair the productivity of the land. See 77-1-203, MCA. Current rules specify that interference with lease management activities is prohibited, but it does not reference other multiple uses that occur on state trust land, including wildfire management, timber management, and mineral management activities. Adding clarifying language for multiple-use management could bolster understanding of state trust land management obligations and simplify the number of rules for recreationists and law enforcement.
Department Consideration
The department is considering if these rules related to recreational use restrictions should be proposed for modification for clarity and if modification is in the best interest of the trust.
The department is collecting public and stakeholder feedback on this specific issue before proposing any change or language. Any proposed changes would require Land Board approval. If this topic is important to you, please submit a public comment so your thoughts can be heard.
Submit a Comment on Administrative Cleanup and Clarifications for Restrictions
There are standing restrictions that already apply to all recreational use on state trust lands that are located in disparate rules or statutes and are not currently cross-referenced within the overarching rule entitled “General Recreational Use Rules and Restrictions.” These include:
Lessee Notification
Recreationists are required to sign in at a drop box when the lessee has posted appropriate signs and provided a drop box. This requirement is currently located in a standalone rule pertaining to lessee notification.
Special Recreational Use
Special recreation (commercial/concentrated) requires a special recreational use license. Only general recreation is allowed with a conservation license. This requirement is currently located in a standalone rule pertaining to special recreation.
Dumping of Refuse and Destruction of Property
Dumping of refuse and destruction of property, including land and improvements, are misdemeanor crimes punishable by a fine of not more than $1,500. This is currently provided in statute and not explained in rule.
Multiple Use Management
State trust land is subject to multiple use management that must be coordinated in a way that does not impair the productivity of the land. This is provided in statute, and rules currently provide that a Recreationist may not interfere with the legitimate lease management activities of lessees or their agents.
Where can I read the applicable official rule language?
The full existing rule for standing restrictions on state trust land (including littering and interference with lease management) can be found at:
ARM 36.25.1204 General Recreation Rules and Restrictions
The full existing rule for lessee notification can be found at:
ARM 36.25.1205 Notice to Lessee Prior to Entry
The full text of existing rules related to Special Recreational use can be found at:
36.25.1210 Special Recreational Use
Why is DNRC considering cleanup and clarification for these specific existing rules that apply to recreational use of state trust land?
The existing rules that require lessee notification prior to entry, and those that require a special recreational use license for commercial or concentrated recreation, are not currently cross-referenced in the overarching rule entitled “General Recreational Use Rules and Restrictions.” Adding a cross-reference simplifies the number of rules for recreationists and law enforcement.
The department has seen an increase in dumping of refuse and damage to land and improvements from public use of state trust land. The rule currently prohibits littering but does not reiterate existing statute that provides dumping of refuse and damage to the land and improvements is a misdemeanor crime. Adding a cross-reference could bolster understanding of this law and simplify the number of rules for recreationists and law enforcement. See 77-1-804, MCA.
State trust land is subject to Multiple Use Management that must be coordinated in a way that does not impair the productivity of the land. See 77-1-203, MCA. Current rules specify that interference with lease management activities is prohibited, but it does not reference other multiple uses that occur on state trust land, including wildfire management, timber management, and mineral management activities. Adding clarifying language for multiple-use management could bolster understanding of state trust land management obligations and simplify the number of rules for recreationists and law enforcement.
Department Consideration
The department is considering if these rules related to recreational use restrictions should be proposed for modification for clarity and if modification is in the best interest of the trust.
The department is collecting public and stakeholder feedback on this specific issue before proposing any change or language. Any proposed changes would require Land Board approval. If this topic is important to you, please submit a public comment so your thoughts can be heard.
Submit a Comment on Administrative Cleanup and Clarifications for Restrictions
What do the existing rules say (in plain language)?
Certain state lands are not subject to the administrative rules for recreational use of state trust land. Specifically, lands contractually managed by other government entities for public parks or fishing access sites, waterways that are open to recreation under the stream access law, highways, administrative sites, lands administered by the Department of Corrections, and any land where DNRC or the Land Board does not own the surface. These lands are controlled by the managing entity, including any recreational access and associated rules.
Where can I read the applicable official rule language?
The full existing rule that contains exemption language can be viewed at:
36.25.1201 Overview
Why is DNRC considering cleanup and clarification for rule applicability within eased sites on state trust land?
Current rule language clearly exempts certain lands from state trust land recreational use rules. However, easements to government entities for public purposes beyond parks, fishing access sites, and highways are not identified. These public purpose easements include airports, schools, fire stations, sewers, and other administrative buildings. Language in rule could clarify the applicability of recreational use rules within all public purpose easements.
Department Consideration
The department is considering if rules related to exemptions should be proposed for modification for clarity and if modification is in the best interest of the trust.
The department is collecting public and stakeholder feedback on this specific issue before proposing any change or language. Any proposed changes would require Land Board approval. If this topic is important to you, please submit a public comment so your thoughts can be heard.
Submit a Comment on Administrative Cleanup and Clarifications for Restrictions
Certain state lands are not subject to the administrative rules for recreational use of state trust land. Specifically, lands contractually managed by other government entities for public parks or fishing access sites, waterways that are open to recreation under the stream access law, highways, administrative sites, lands administered by the Department of Corrections, and any land where DNRC or the Land Board does not own the surface. These lands are controlled by the managing entity, including any recreational access and associated rules.
Where can I read the applicable official rule language?
The full existing rule that contains exemption language can be viewed at:
36.25.1201 Overview
Why is DNRC considering cleanup and clarification for rule applicability within eased sites on state trust land?
Current rule language clearly exempts certain lands from state trust land recreational use rules. However, easements to government entities for public purposes beyond parks, fishing access sites, and highways are not identified. These public purpose easements include airports, schools, fire stations, sewers, and other administrative buildings. Language in rule could clarify the applicability of recreational use rules within all public purpose easements.
Department Consideration
The department is considering if rules related to exemptions should be proposed for modification for clarity and if modification is in the best interest of the trust.
The department is collecting public and stakeholder feedback on this specific issue before proposing any change or language. Any proposed changes would require Land Board approval. If this topic is important to you, please submit a public comment so your thoughts can be heard.
Submit a Comment on Administrative Cleanup and Clarifications for Restrictions
Details on Prior Rulemaking
Through the fall and winter of 2024, DNRC worked to remedy rules that conflicted with existing statute, and to align food storage requirements with other state lands and federal lands in Montana. A proposal notice was approved by the Montana Board of Land Commissioners (Land Board) at their August 19, 2024 meeting. DNRC scoped for public comment and for environmental impacts through October 4, 2024, and a public hearing was held on September 26, 2024. The Land Board approved the adoption notice at their January 21, 2025 meeting, and the amended rules were effective on February 7, 2025.
Phase 2 rulemaking considers renumbering and organizing public use rules within their own section of the administrative rules, and simplifying language throughout. This rulemaking effort is to make the rules easier to find and understand. The proposal notice was published by the Secretary of State on July 11, 2025, and the department took public comment and hosted a hearing on August 8, 2025 on the drafted rules. The Land Board approved the adoption notice at their October 20, 2025 meeting. The new rules were published with the Secretary of State and are effective as of November 8, 2025. See side bar for details on important dates.
References and Links
Administrative Rules (subchapter 36.25.12)
Statute (MCA Title 77, Chapter 1, Part 8)
Important Dates
Public Comment Period on Key Findings
Closes September 13, 2026
Get Involved