Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
This bill designates multiple Special Management Areas, Wildlife Conservation Areas, Protection Areas, Recreation Management Areas, a Scientific Research and Education Area, and several wilderness additions in Gunnison County and nearby areas in Colorado. It withdraws some lands from oil and gas leasing, establishes management rules for vehicle use, vegetation projects, road construction, seasonal closures, and restoration activities, and directs the Secretary to take approximately 19,080 acres into trust for the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe (prohibiting gaming).
Left emphasizes conservation and tribal trust land; right emphasizes resource access loss
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes extensive substantive legal changes (multiple land use designations, wilderness additions and modifications, withdrawals, and a fee-to-trust transfer) and supplies a moderate-to-strong set of implementing mechanics, but it does not address implementation resourcing or comprehensive accountability reporting.
This bill designates multiple Special Management Areas, Wildlife Conservation Areas, Protection Areas, Recreation Management Areas, a Scientific Research and Education Area, and several wilderness additions in Gunnison County and nearby areas in Colorado.
It withdraws some lands from oil and gas leasing, establishes management rules for vehicle use, vegetation projects, road construction, seasonal closures, and restoration activities, and directs the Secretary to take approximately 19,080 acres into trust for the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe (prohibiting gaming).
The Act preserves grazing and State fish-and-wildlife jurisdiction, requires collaborative vegetation management, and allows wildfire, insect, and disease responses consistent with law.
Localized, non-fiscal land bill with compromise language has a realistic path, but Senate obstacles and industry opposition lower odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes extensive substantive legal changes (multiple land use designations, wilderness additions and modifications, withdrawals, and a fee-to-trust transfer) and supplies a moderate-to-strong set of implementing mechanics, but it does not address implementation resourcing or comprehensive accountability reporting.
Left emphasizes conservation and tribal trust land; right emphasizes resource access loss
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Left emphasizes conservation and tribal trust land; right emphasizes resource access loss
Likely to view the bill favorably as a significant conservation and public lands protection package.
Supports wilderness additions, wildlife conservation designations, restoration work, tribal trust land transfer, and oil and gas leasing restrictions.
May want stronger limits on motorized access in key habitats and clearer funding for restoration.
Generally supportive but pragmatic; sees conservation and tribal trust as positive while watching economic impacts.
Wants clarity on local economic effects, emergency and administrative access, and explicit timelines and funding for winter travel plans, restoration, and road decommissioning.
Would favor modest adjustments to balance recreation, grazing, and resource uses.
Likely to be skeptical or opposed because the bill expands federal land protections and restricts energy development.
Concerned about limits on mineral leasing, no-surface-occupancy rules, and added federal management constraints on local use.
May accept tribal trust transfer but objects to federal control and potential impacts on jobs and multiple-use access.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Localized, non-fiscal land bill with compromise language has a realistic path, but Senate obstacles and industry opposition lower odds.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Left emphasizes conservation and tribal trust land; right emphasizes resource access loss
Localized, non-fiscal land bill with compromise language has a realistic path, but Senate obstacles and industry opposition lower odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes extensive substantive legal changes (multiple land use designations, wilderness additions and modifications, withdrawals, and a fee-to-trust transfer) and…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.