There is a new version of Jeff Conrad's Still Photography and Permits On US and California Public Land.

Here's are comments from Jeff about the update:

My article on photography permits is over five years old; I've been waiting
for the NPS, BLM, and FWS to issue a new rule implementing Public Law
106-206, but after ten years, nothing has happened and I am not led to
believe that anything will happen soon.

In the mealtime, much of the article has become out of date. Many contacts
have moved on or retired, many links have broken, and even a few laws have
changed. So much has changed that the current article may be more of a
disservice than a help.

I've updated the contacts, fixed the links, checked all the laws (updating a few), and
slightly expanded the material for a few agencies.

Based on the discussion last December
( about
photographers getting unlawfully hassled in California State Parks, I've
included the rulemaking history of that law, suggesting that the current
interpretation is dead wrong. Interestingly enough, I found a very similar
situation with Palo Alto parks, in which the wording of the regulation
(yes, Palo Alto actually has administrative law) is very much at odds with
the explanation given at the commission meeting at which the regulation was

I normally try to keep advocacy out of the descriptions of the laws and
policies for the various agencies; I've added the information mentioned
above because it seems obvious that the regulation based on commercial
intent is not what was intended, and if someone were to challenge a
citation based on the stated intent, the laws would probably be either
voided or construed to mean what was intended. Making such a challenge
would be a fairly big deal, so I don't seriously expect anyone to do it,
but I think making the information available is a start, especially because
it is exceedingly difficult to come by unless one goes to great lengths.

I think I've handled it quite gently, letting the language of the
descriptions make the case without much additional comment. Perhaps it
will at least get a few people thinking. No one should have to endure
petty harassment like that to which Boots McGhee, David Karp, and a few
others were subjected.

I've long maintained that in most cases, the intent was to require permits
for disruptive activity, and that the authors, typically unfamiliar with
photography, simply equated "commercial intent" with "large and
disruptive." I now have at least two smoking guns, suggesting that I
probably could find many more if I were to research the legislative history
of other similar laws. Unfortunately, that's a task for which I simply
don't have the time, so I'll need to leave it to others.

I keep forgetting how much work it is prying this information out of
various people (some are far more helpful than others), so I'm not sure
when I'll get around to another update. I will update the relevant
sections if the US DOI ever issue a new rule, though this may not happen
any time soon.