Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
This bill withdraws about 309,272 acres in the Ruby Mountains subdistrict of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and about 39,926 acres in the Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge from operation under the mineral leasing laws, subject to valid existing rights. It requires future U.S. acquisitions within those boundaries to be similarly withdrawn and makes the relevant maps available for public inspection.
Left emphasizes conservation and climate co-benefits; right emphasizes lost development opportunities.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused substantive policy change that clearly declares the withdrawal of specified Federal lands from operation under the mineral leasing laws and identifies affected lands by acreage and dated maps.
This bill withdraws about 309,272 acres in the Ruby Mountains subdistrict of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and about 39,926 acres in the Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge from operation under the mineral leasing laws, subject to valid existing rights.
It requires future U.S. acquisitions within those boundaries to be similarly withdrawn and makes the relevant maps available for public inspection.
The withdrawal for the wildlife refuge preserves an exception allowing noncommercial refuge management activities.
Content is narrow and low-cost but moderately controversial; most likely to succeed if folded into a larger bipartisan public-lands package or compromise.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused substantive policy change that clearly declares the withdrawal of specified Federal lands from operation under the mineral leasing laws and identifies affected lands by acreage and dated maps. It provides basic implementation cues (application to future acquisitions; maps on file) and a limited exception for noncommercial refuge management.
Left emphasizes conservation and climate co-benefits; right emphasizes lost development opportunities.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Left emphasizes conservation and climate co-benefits; right emphasizes lost development opportunities.
Overall supportive: views the bill as a conservation measure protecting habitat, watersheds, and recreation values in the Ruby Mountains and Ruby Lake.
Sees the mineral-leasing prohibition as preventing future fossil fuel and geothermal leasing that could harm ecosystems and wildlife.
Would emphasize protection of public lands and climate co-benefits.
Cautiously favorable if costs are small and local stakeholders consulted.
Views the bill as a targeted, legally narrow withdrawal from mineral leasing, with protections for existing rights and refuge management.
Wants clearer analysis of economic impacts, energy implications, and local views before full endorsement.
Likely opposed: sees the withdrawal as an unnecessary expansion of federal land restrictions that limits resource development and local economic options.
Concerns center on federal overreach, lost opportunities for energy and mineral development, and impacts on local jobs.
Views the bill as favoring preservation over multiple-use land management.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content is narrow and low-cost but moderately controversial; most likely to succeed if folded into a larger bipartisan public-lands package or compromise.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Left emphasizes conservation and climate co-benefits; right emphasizes lost development opportunities.
Content is narrow and low-cost but moderately controversial; most likely to succeed if folded into a larger bipartisan public-lands package…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused substantive policy change that clearly declares the withdrawal of specified Federal lands from operation under the mineral leasing laws and iden…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.