The bill designates four discrete wilderness areas in Wyoming (Encampment River Canyon, Prospect Mountain, Upper and Lower Sweetwater Canyons, and Bobcat Draw), establishes the Dubois Badlands National Conservation Area and a Dubois Motorized Recreation Area, and creates multiple Special Management Areas (SMAs) across the State. It also removes dozen-plus wilderness study areas (WSAs) from WSA status, directing the Secretary of the Interior to manage the newly released lands under FLPMA and specific, area-by-area rules including limited leasing, withdrawals, and travel-management plans.
Why this matters: the package is a comprehensive land-use reconfiguration for selected BLM lands in Wyoming — trading formal wilderness protections for other conservation designations and management regimes while carving out narrow pathways for subsurface oil and gas development (directional drilling only, no surface occupancy). The bill imposes firm deadlines for fire and travel plans, establishes county implementation structures, and creates targeted prohibitions (new overhead lines, commercial timber, new permanent roads) that will change how operators, local governments, recreation users, and agencies plan and permit activities on these federal lands.
At a Glance
What It Does
Designates roughly 20,000+ acres across five named wilderness units and reconfigures dozens of wilderness study areas into a mix of wilderness, a national conservation area (~4,446 acres), a motorized recreation area (~368 acres), and multiple SMAs with tailored management rules and withdrawals from public-land and mining laws. It also contains explicit leasing exceptions that allow oil and gas leases only if accessed by directional drilling and prohibit surface occupancy.
Who It Affects
BLM and (for one area) Forest Service management staff; holders of grazing permits within affected units; oil and gas operators (especially those seeking surface access, wind/solar or transmission developers); motorized recreation users where travel plans and designated motorized routes are required; county governments involved in implementation teams and transfer negotiations.
Why It Matters
The bill swaps a set of WSAs for a mixed portfolio of permanent protections and managed-use areas, setting precedent for coupled wilderness designations plus managed development corridors (subsurface-only leasing). It narrows siting options for renewables and transmission in several SMAs while formalizing deadlines and processes that will govern access, fire planning, and travel management on BLM lands in Wyoming.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Section 3 places five named wilderness units into the National Wilderness Preservation System. Each unit is defined by acreage and an authoritative map (with specific map dates), and the bill explicitly excludes small parcels and 100-foot corridors adjacent to certain roads.
It also reconciles existing motorized routes by excluding established legal routes with authorized motorized use where specified.
Section 4 sets out administration rules for the new wilderness units. It preserves standard Wilderness Act management but clarifies that references to the Wilderness Act’s effective date and to the Secretary of Agriculture should be read as the enactment date and Secretary of the Interior, respectively.
The Secretary gets a 180-day deadline to adopt a fire-management plan covering control of fires, insects, and disease and must coordinate that plan with the Wyoming Forestry Division and affected counties. Grazing that existed on enactment continues under the Wilderness Act’s grazing provisions and under the Interior-specific guidance in Appendix A to House Report 101–405.
The bill also disclaims the creation of buffer zones and states that visibility or noise from outside does not restrict outside activities.Section 5 releases a list of 17 named wilderness study areas (or portions thereof) from WSA protections under FLPMA section 603(c), and instructs the Secretary to manage released lands under FLPMA, applicable land-use plans, and several narrowly tailored area-specific provisions. Those area-specific rules include physical fence alignments (Dubois Badlands), firm prohibitions on new overhead transmission and communication towers (Copper Mountain and Sweetwater Rocks SMAs), and the use of directional-drilling-only oil and gas leases where permitted—each with an absolute no-surface-occupancy requirement.
For a subset of released lands (e.g., Bobcat Draw), the bill requires a two‑year timeline to develop travel management plans and, in some cases, temporary withdrawals from mining and leasing laws unless the directional-drilling exception applies.Sections 6–9 create a management mosaic: a Dubois Badlands National Conservation Area (NCA) with motorized use limited to designated routes and an explicit withdrawal from mining and leasing; a small Dubois Motorized Recreation Area with a required western boundary fence and a travel-management plan tied to fence completion; and multiple SMAs (Bennett, Black Cat on National Forest System land, Sweetwater Rocks, Fortification Creek, Fraker Mountain, North Fork, Cedar Mountain) each carrying the same basic constraints—no new permanent roads, motorized use limited to designated existing routes except for administrative/emergency uses, two‑year travel plan deadlines, and conditional oil and gas leasing via directional drilling only. Some SMAs include a specific withdrawal from wind and solar rights-of-way or a prohibition on commercial timber harvest.
The bill also directs the Secretary to pursue land transfers with the State in Fremont County and to establish a Fremont County Implementation Team (not subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act) to advise on implementation, and it requires studies and reports on possible special motorized recreation areas in several counties with two‑year reporting deadlines.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 3 designates five wilderness units by name and map — Encampment River Canyon (~4,523.84 acres), Prospect Mountain (~1,099.76 acres), Upper Sweetwater Canyon (~2,877.35 acres), Lower Sweetwater Canyon (~5,665.19 acres), and Bobcat Draw (~6,246.84 acres).
Section 5 removes 17 named wilderness study areas (or portions) from WSA status so they are no longer subject to FLPMA §603(c) and will be managed under FLPMA and applicable land-use plans.
Multiple provisions authorize oil and gas leasing only if leases are accessed by directional drilling from outside the affected area and contain an absolute prohibition on surface occupancy or disturbance within the area.
The Secretary must adopt a fire management plan for the new wilderness areas within 180 days of enactment and must complete travel management plans for SMAs and released lands within 2 years where the bill requires them.
The bill withdraws specified SMA lands from public-land disposals, mining location, and mineral/geothermal leasing — but carves a narrow, directional-drilling exception for subsurface oil and gas and prohibits wind/solar and new overhead transmission in at least one SMA.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Creates five named wilderness areas with mapped boundaries
This section converts identified BLM-managed parcels into wilderness under the Wilderness Act. Each unit is described by acreage, an official map (with a dated exhibit), and narrow exclusions — for example, 100-foot buffers along specified roads and specific quarter‑quarter parcel exclusions. For Upper and Lower Sweetwater the bill ties internal boundaries to an existing road (Strawberry Creek Road) and explicitly preserves established authorized motorized routes that cross the new wilderness boundaries.
Administration rules, fire management, grazing, and buffer clarification
The Secretary must administer the new wilderness units under the Wilderness Act but with two technical clarifications (date references and agency references). The Secretary has 180 days to finalize a fire management plan for the units and must coordinate with Wyoming Forestry and county governments; the plan must protect adjacent federal, state, and private lands 'to the maximum extent practicable.' Existing grazing is grandfathered and governed by Wilderness Act §4(d)(4) and by Interior guidance in Appendix A to House Report 101–405, which affects range improvements and permit administration. The bill also explicitly rejects the creation of buffer zones and says that outside activities visible or audible from within the wilderness do not constrain outside uses.
Releases multiple wilderness study areas and prescribes management of released lands
Seventeen named WSAs (or portions) are declared 'adequately studied' and released from FLPMA §603(c). The Secretary must manage released parcels under FLPMA and applicable land-use plans, but the bill attaches individualized management rules to certain releases: Dubois Badlands gets a specified fence alignment and management tied to Sections 6–7; Copper Mountain releases are open to mineral leasing only under strict directional-drilling/no-surface-occupancy conditions and bar new wind/solar/transmission leases; Whiskey Mountain releases must be managed consistent with an existing cooperative agreement emphasizing bighorn sheep management.
Establishes Dubois Badlands National Conservation Area (NCA)
The bill creates an NCA of about 4,446.46 acres with a defined purpose centered on conserving ecological, wildlife, recreational, scenic, cultural and historic resources. Motorized vehicles are limited to existing roads, trails, and Secretary-designated areas; motorized use may otherwise be authorized for administrative and emergency needs. The NCA is withdrawn from public-land disposals, mining location, and mineral/geothermal leasing, subject to valid existing rights.
Creates Dubois Motorized Recreation Area with fence and coordinated travel plan
About 367.72 acres are set aside specifically for motorized recreation. The Secretary must authorize construction of a fence along the western boundary on BLM land west of North Mountain View Road, and then, as soon as practicable after fence completion, adopt a travel management plan to coordinate motorized off‑road vehicle use. The fence and travel-plan sequencing create a clear implementation trigger for delineating motorized routes and staging.
Creates multiple Special Management Areas with no new roads and travel‑plan deadlines
The bill establishes a suite of SMAs (Bennett, Black Cat on NFS land, Sweetwater Rocks, Fortification Creek, Fraker Mountain, North Fork, Cedar Mountain) with harmonized rules: no new permanent roads, motorized use limited to designated existing routes except for specified administrative or resource-protection activities, and required travel management plans within two years. Several SMAs prohibit commercial timber harvest, ban new overhead transmission or communications towers, and withdraw lands from wind/solar rights-of-way or public-land disposals. Each SMA includes a conditional exception for oil and gas leases only when accessed by directional drilling and with no surface occupancy.
Fremont County transfers, motorized recreation study, and implementation team
Directs the Secretary to pursue land exchanges with the State for certain Areas of Critical Environmental Concern in Fremont County, conditioned on legal compliance and subject to appropriation. The Secretary must study potential special motorized recreation areas in the County and report to Congressional natural-resources committees within two years. The bill creates a Fremont County Implementation Team — Secretary designee plus county‑appointed members — explicitly exempted from the Federal Advisory Committee Act to advise on local implementation matters.
Studies for Hot Springs and Washakie Counties
Requires the Secretary to evaluate suitability of BLM-managed lands in Hot Springs and Washakie Counties for special motorized recreation areas (excluding lands already restricted to non‑motorized uses), with required public input and collaboration with State parks and counties. The Secretary must report findings to the natural-resources committees within two years.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Local recreation economy and motorized recreation users — the bill creates a designated motorized recreation area (Dubois) and directs travel management plans that will preserve defined motorized access and staging areas, increasing certainty for outfitters and event organizers.
- Grazing permittees with established allotments — the bill preserves existing grazing uses in wilderness units and directs that grazing continue under Wilderness Act provisions and Interior guidance, maintaining existing grazing rights and range‑improvement authorities.
- State and county governments — the Fremont County Implementation Team and mandated coordination on fire and transfer negotiations give local officials an advisory role and a formal channel to influence implementation and land exchanges.
- Wildlife and landscape conservation objectives — the wilderness, NCA, and several SMAs prohibit commercial timber harvest, new permanent roads, and certain infrastructure, protecting habitat and scenic values for species such as bighorn sheep (explicitly referenced with Whiskey Mountain).
- BLM and Forest Service program planners — the bill provides legal clarity on the status of multiple WSAs and prescribes the management framework and timelines (fire plans, travel plans), enabling targeted planning rather than ad-hoc status reviews.
Who Bears the Cost
- Renewable energy and transmission developers — the bill explicitly prohibits new wind/solar leases and overhead transmission in at least one SMA and includes similar prohibitions elsewhere, narrowing suitable siting options on the affected federal footprint.
- Surface‑seeking oil and gas operators and infrastructure applicants — the directional‑drilling‑only rule plus absolute prohibitions on surface occupancy block conventional surface development inside many units, forcing operators to rely on costlier directional access from outside parcels or forego development.
- Federal agencies (BLM/USFS) — the bill imposes multiple new deadlines (180 days for fire plan, 2 years for travel plans), new travel-management, fencing, study and reporting obligations, and ongoing monitoring/enforcement responsibilities without authorizing appropriations, increasing workload.
- Environmental and recreation groups focused on WSAs — several WSAs are released from FLPMA protections, which may allow future uses they oppose; they will likely need to engage in planning and possible litigation to protect values on released lands.
- Motorized users where designations clarify or restrict routes — while some motorized use is codified, other areas will see route designations and prohibitions on new motorized trails, potentially reducing informal access that users currently enjoy.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is tradeoff: Congress protects specific places as wilderness and conservation areas while simultaneously opening (or leaving open) other formerly off‑limits WSAs to multiple uses and carefully circumscribed subsurface development. That approach attempts to reconcile local economic and recreational access with long-term conservation, but it forces a choice between protecting surface values absolutely and permitting economically valuable subsurface extraction — a compromise that resolves one problem (surface impacts) while creating enforcement, access, and legal‑rights headaches on the other.
The bill packages permanent wilderness designations with the simultaneous release of many WSAs and the creation of SMAs and an NCA. That mix resolves the binary WSA question (designate or not) by carving out both protections and uses — but it also creates implementation complexity.
For example, the directional‑drilling-only leasing exceptions allow subsurface development while forbidding surface disturbance; enforcing a no‑surface‑occupancy covenant attached to leases will require monitoring, baseline topographic and subsurface data, and potentially long, costly legal defenses if surface rights or pre‑existing access claims conflict. The bill repeatedly ties management to dated maps and very precise fence or parcel descriptions; minor mapping discrepancies or survey errors could trigger boundary disputes that complicate the otherwise clear policy intent.
Operationally, the statute imposes several strict timelines (180 days for a fire plan; two years for travel management plans) but does not appropriate funds. BLM and the Forest Service will have to prioritize staff time and possibly delay other planning work; counties and stakeholder groups will be asked to engage quickly.
The exemption of the Fremont County Implementation Team from the Federal Advisory Committee Act speeds local input but reduces formal transparency and public‑meeting requirements, raising questions about balanced stakeholder representation. Finally, the bill’s withdrawals from public‑land disposals and mining laws, paired with narrow leasing exceptions, create an uneven marketplace for resource development: surface development is tightly constrained in many areas while other released WSAs may become targets for new uses under revised land‑use plans.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.