PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Executive Comment Requested from USDA, Interior.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 6, 2001
Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act of 2001 - Designates the following lands in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming as wilderness and components of the National Wilderness Preservation System (System): (1) Greater Glacier/Northern Continental Divide ecosystem; (2) Greater Yellowstone ecosystem; (3) Greater Salmon/Selway ecosystem; (4) Greater Cabinet/Yaak/Selkirk ecosystem; (5) Islands in the Sky Wilderness; and (6) Blackfeet Wilderness.Designates: (1) specified wild land areas as Biological Connecting Corridors to protect the life flow of the Northern Rockies Bioregion; (2) the inventoried roadless areas identified as part of the Corridors as components of the System; and (3) certain biological connecting corridors as special corridor management areas.Establishes the Hells Canyon/Chief Joseph National Park and Preserve as a National Park System unit. Repeals Federal law provisions that establish the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area.Requires the Secretary of the Interior to: (1) implement a program of ecosystem restoration in the Preserve; and (2) study the feasibility of creating a Flathead National Park and Preserve in the area generally known as the Glacier View Ranger District of the Flathead National Forest.Amends the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of specified rivers and creeks in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.Establishes the National Wildland Restoration and Recovery System and the National Wildland Recovery Corps.Requires the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to assure nonexclusive access to the specified areas and corridors designated by this Act by Native Americans for traditional cultural and religious purposes.
People & committees
Rep. Shays, Christopher [R-CT-4] · R–CT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Executive Comment Requested from USDA, Interior.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 19, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.488 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.488 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.488 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.488 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.