Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
This bill amends the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993 to add about 6,817 acres of Routt National Forest to the Sarvis Creek Wilderness, as shown on a February 26, 2024 map. It treats the act's effective date as the date of enactment for administering the addition, preserves Indian Tribe treaty rights, allows tribal access for traditional, religious, and cultural uses, and permits the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out activities necessary to control fire, insects, and diseases per the Wilderness Act.
Environmental protection versus limits on local economic uses
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused statutory designation that is largely well-integrated with existing wilderness law and assigns administration to the Secretary of Agriculture.
This bill amends the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993 to add about 6,817 acres of Routt National Forest to the Sarvis Creek Wilderness, as shown on a February 26, 2024 map.
It treats the act's effective date as the date of enactment for administering the addition, preserves Indian Tribe treaty rights, allows tribal access for traditional, religious, and cultural uses, and permits the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out activities necessary to control fire, insects, and diseases per the Wilderness Act.
Content is narrow and administratively clear—common type of legislation that often succeeds—but local opposition, missing details, or legislative calendar risks moderate uncertainty.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused statutory designation that is largely well-integrated with existing wilderness law and assigns administration to the Secretary of Agriculture. It provides the essential legal references and a map/date to define the addition, and includes limited, targeted administrative exceptions.
Environmental protection versus limits on local economic uses
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Environmental protection versus limits on local economic uses
Likely broadly supportive: expands permanent federal wilderness protection and affirms tribal treaty and cultural access.
Views wildfire, insect, and disease management language as necessary but will monitor implementation.
Generally favorable but pragmatic: supports conservation and clarified administration while wanting clarity on costs, wildfire response, and local impacts.
Wants explicit operational details and funding assurances.
Skeptical: views new wilderness designation as increased federal control restricting economic uses and local decision-making.
May accept small scale but worries about precedent and lost uses.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content is narrow and administratively clear—common type of legislation that often succeeds—but local opposition, missing details, or legislative calendar risks moderate uncertainty.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Environmental protection versus limits on local economic uses
Content is narrow and administratively clear—common type of legislation that often succeeds—but local opposition, missing details, or legis…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused statutory designation that is largely well-integrated with existing wilderness law and assigns administration to the Secretary of Agriculture. I…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.