Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 214.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 01 · Reported to Senate with amendment(s) · Sep 9, 2015
Cerros del Norte Conservation Act
(Sec. 3) Designates the Cerro del Yuta Wilderness (comprising approximately 13,420 acres) and Rio San Antonio Wilderness (comprising approximately 8,120 acres) within the Rio Grande del Norte National Monument in New Mexico as wilderness and as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System.
Sets forth requirements for the management of the wilderness areas regarding: (1) livestock grazing, (2) the creation of protective perimeters and buffer zones, and (3) the jurisdiction of the state of New Mexico respecting fish and wildlife located on public land in New Mexico.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Read full official summaryShow less
Releases specified public land within the San Antonio Wilderness Study Area not designated as wilderness by this Act from further study for such a designation.
Requires the wilderness areas to be administered as components of the National Landscape Conservation System.
Withdraws any federal land within the wilderness areas, including any acquired land or interest, from: (1) entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land laws; (2) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and (3) operation of the mineral leasing, mineral materials, and geothermal leasing laws.
Denies that anything in this Act enlarges, diminishes, or otherwise modifies any treaty rights.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 214.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Murkowski with amendments. With written report No. 114-134.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Murkowski with amendments. With written report No. 114-134.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with amendments favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 114-380.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Bill text & related measures
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze S.1240 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine S.1240 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine S.1240 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine S.1240 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.