Ruby Mountains Protection Act
- Bill Number
- S. 1349
- Origin Chamber
- Senate
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Public Lands and Natural Resources
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2026-02-12: Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. Hearings held.
- Last Updated
- 2026-03-24T12:48:03Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
The Ruby Mountains Protection Act (S. 1349) aims to protect specific federal lands in Nevada by prohibiting new mineral leasing activities, such as for oil, gas, or other extractable minerals, to preserve the natural environment and wildlife habitats in these areas.
Key Provisions
- Withdrawal of National Forest Lands: Approximately 309,272 acres in the Ruby Mountains subdistrict of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest (located in Elko and White Pine Counties, Nevada) are withdrawn from all forms of operation under mineral leasing laws. This applies subject to valid existing rights (meaning current legal claims are unaffected).
- Future Acquisitions: Any land or interests acquired by the U.S. government after the bill's enactment within these boundaries will also be automatically withdrawn.
- Map Reference: A specific Forest Service map (entitled "S. 258 Ruby Mountains Protective Act," dated December 5, 2019) defines the exact area and is available for public inspection at Forest Service offices.
- Withdrawal of Wildlife Refuge Lands: Approximately 39,926.10 acres in the Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge are similarly withdrawn from mineral leasing laws, subject to valid existing rights.
- Exception: The withdrawal does not apply to noncommercial management activities conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (e.g., habitat maintenance or research).
- Future Acquisitions for Refuge: Post-enactment acquisitions within the refuge boundaries will follow the same withdrawal rules.
- Map Reference for Refuge: A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service map (entitled "S. XXX Ruby Mountains Protection Act," dated February 23, 2021) defines the refuge area and is available for public inspection at agency offices.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Prior to this bill, these lands were potentially open to mineral leasing under federal laws like the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, which allows for extraction of resources such as oil, natural gas, and coal on public lands.
- The act introduces a permanent withdrawal, closing these areas to new leasing operations while respecting pre-existing rights, effectively shifting them from potential resource development zones to protected conservation areas without altering other land uses like recreation or grazing.
Potential Impacts
- Government Agencies: The U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service gain enhanced authority to manage these lands for conservation, potentially simplifying oversight by eliminating mineral development conflicts. No direct funding changes are specified.
- Citizens and Local Communities: Residents in Elko and White Pine Counties may benefit from preserved ecosystems supporting tourism, hunting, and wildlife viewing, but could face economic limitations if mining jobs or energy development were anticipated. Broader U.S. citizens gain from national environmental protection.
- International Relations: No direct impacts, as the bill focuses on domestic federal lands.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Federal Agencies: U.S. Forest Service (manages national forest lands) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (oversees the wildlife refuge).
- Environmental and Conservation Groups: Likely supporters, as the withdrawal protects biodiversity and habitats.
- Mining and Energy Industries: Adversely affected, as they lose access to potential mineral resources in these areas.
- Local Governments and Residents: Elko and White Pine Counties in Nevada, including ranchers, tourists, and Native American communities with cultural ties to the land, who may see both preservation benefits and development restrictions.
- General Public: U.S. taxpayers and outdoor enthusiasts who value protected public lands.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: The withdrawal is a standard tool under federal land management laws (e.g., Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976), ensuring no takings of existing rights under the Fifth Amendment. Maps provide clear boundaries to avoid disputes.
- Constitutional: Aligns with Congress's authority over federal lands (Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution), balancing resource use with public welfare without infringing on private rights.
- Political: Represents a bipartisan effort from Nevada senators to prioritize local environmental concerns over extractive industries, potentially setting a precedent for similar protections in other western states amid debates on conservation versus economic development. No major controversies are evident in the bill text itself.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Sen. Cortez Masto, Catherine [D-NV]
Cosponsors (1)
Recent Actions
- 2026-02-12: Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. Hearings held.
- 2025-04-08: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
- 2025-04-08: Introduced in Senate
Bill Versions
- Ruby Mountains Protection Act — issued 2025-04-08 — PDF (3 pages)