[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 171 (Tuesday, December 11, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H9180-H9184]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
JAMES PEAK WILDERNESS AND PROTECTION AREA ACT
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 1576) to designate the James Peak Wilderness and Protection
Area in the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests in the State of
Colorado, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 1576
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``James Peak Wilderness and
Protection Area Act''.
SEC. 2. WILDERNESS DESIGNATION.
(a) Inclusion With Other Colorado Wilderness Areas.--
Section 2(a) of the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993 (Public
Law 103-77; 107 Stat. 756; 16 U.S.C. 1132 note) is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(21) Certain lands in the Arapaho/Roosevelt National
Forest which comprise approximately 14,000 acres, as
generally depicted on a map entitled `Proposed James Peak
Wilderness', dated September 2001, and which shall be known
as the James Peak Wilderness.''.
(b) Addition to the Indian Peaks Wilderness Area.--Section
3 of the Indian Peaks Wilderness Area and Arapaho National
Recreation Area and the Oregon Islands Wilderness Area Act
(Public Law 95-450; 92 Stat. 1095; 16 U.S.C. 1132 note) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsections:
``(c) The approximately 2,232 acres of Federal lands in the
Arapaho/Roosevelt National Forest generally depicted on the
map entitled `Ranch Creek Addition to Indian Peaks
Wilderness' dated September 2001, are hereby added to the
Indian Peaks Wilderness Area.
``(d) The approximately 963 acres of Federal lands in the
Arapaho/Roosevelt National Forest generally depicted on the
map entitled `Fourth of July Addition to Indian Peaks
Wilderness' dated September 2001, are hereby added to the
Indian Peaks Wilderness Area.''.
(c) Maps and Boundary Descriptions.--As soon as practicable
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Agriculture (hereafter in this Act referred to as the
``Secretary'') shall file with the Committee on Resources of
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources of the Senate a map and a boundary
description of the area designated as wilderness by
subsection (a) and of the area added to the Indian Peaks
Wilderness Area by subsection (b). The maps and boundary
descriptions shall have the same force and effect as if
included in the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993 and the
Indian Peaks Wilderness Area and Arapaho National Recreation
Area and the Oregon Islands Wilderness Area Act,
respectively, except that the Secretary may correct clerical
and typographical errors in the maps and boundary
descriptions. The maps and boundary descriptions shall be on
file and available for public inspection in the office of the
Chief of the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture and in
the office of the Forest Supervisor of the Arapaho/Roosevelt
National Forest.
SEC. 3. DESIGNATION OF JAMES PEAK PROTECTION AREA, COLORADO.
(a) Findings and Purpose.--
(1) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(A) The lands covered by this section include important
resources and values, including wildlife habitat, clean
water, open space, and opportunities for solitude.
(B) These lands also include areas that are suitable for
recreational uses, including use of snowmobiles in times of
adequate snow cover as well as use of other motorized and
nonmotorized mechanical devices.
(C) These lands should be managed in a way that affords
permanent protection to their resources and values while
permitting continued recreational uses in appropriate locales
and subject to appropriate regulations.
(2) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to provide for
management of certain lands in the Arapaho/Roosevelt National
Forest in a manner consistent with the 1997 Revised Land and
Resources Management Plan for this forest in order to protect
the natural qualities of these areas.
(b) Designation.--The approximately 16,000 acres of land in
the Arapaho/Roosevelt National Forest generally depicted on
the map entitled ``Proposed James Peak Protection Area'',
dated September 2001, are hereby designated as the James Peak
Protection Area (hereafter in this Act referred to as the
``Protection Area'') .
(c) Map and Boundary Description.--As soon as practicable
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall file with the Committee on Resources of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the Senate a map and a boundary description of
the Protection Area. The map and boundary description shall
have the same force and effect as if included in this Act,
except that the Secretary may correct clerical and
typographical errors in the map and boundary description. The
map and boundary description shall be on file and available
for public inspection in the office of the Chief of the
Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, and in the office
of the Forest Supervisor of the Arapaho/Roosevelt National
Forest.
(d) Management.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
section, the Protection Area shall be managed and
administered by the Secretary in the same manner as the
management area prescription designations identified for
these lands in the 1997 Revision of the Land and Resource
Management Plan for the Arapaho/Roosevelt National Forest and
the Pawnee National Grasslands. Such management and
administration shall be in accordance with the following:
(A) Grazing.--Nothing in this Act, including the
establishment of the Protection Area, shall affect grazing on
lands within or outside of the Protection Area.
(B) Mining withdrawal.--Subject to valid existing rights,
all Federal land within the Protection Area and all land and
interests in land acquired for the Protection Area by the
United States are withdrawn from--
(i) all forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal under
the public land laws;
(ii) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
(iii) the operation of the mineral leasing, mineral
materials, and geothermal leasing laws, and all amendments
thereto.
Nothing in this subparagraph shall be construed to affect
discretionary authority of the Secretary under other Federal
laws to grant, issue, or renew rights-of-way or other land
use authorizations consistent with the other provisions of
this Act.
(C) Motorized and mechanized travel.--
(i) Review and inventory.--Not later than two years after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in
consultation with interested parties, shall complete a review
and inventory of all roads and trails in the Protection Area
on which use was allowed on September 10, 2001, except those
lands managed under the management prescription referred to
in subparagraph (F). During the review and inventory, the
Secretary may--
(I) connect existing roads and trails in the inventoried
area to other existing roads and trails in the inventoried
area for the purpose of mechanized and other nonmotorized use
on any lands within the Protection Area as long as there is
no net gain in the total mileage of either roads or trails
open for public use within the Protection Area; and
(II) close or remove roads or trails within the Protection
Area that the Secretary determines to be undesirable, except
those roads or trails managed pursuant to paragraph (2) of
this subsection or subsection (e)(3).
(ii) After completion of inventory.--After completion of
the review and inventory required by clause (i), the
Secretary shall ensure that motorized and mechanized travel
within the Protection Area shall be permitted only on those
roads and trails identified as open to use in the inventory
or established pursuant to subparagraph (D).
(D) New roads and trails.--No new roads or trails shall be
established within the Protection
[[Page H9181]]
Area except those which the Secretary shall establish as
follows:
(i) Roads and trails established to replace roads or trails
of the same character and scope which have become
nonserviceable through reasons other than neglect.
(ii) Nonpermanent roads as needed for hazardous fuels
reduction or other control of fire, insect or disease control
projects, or other management purposes.
(iii) Roads determined to be appropriate for reasonable
access under section 4(b)(2).
(iv) A loop trail established pursuant to section 6.
(v) Construction of a trail for nonmotorized use following
the corridor designated as the Continental Divide Trail.
(E) Timber harvesting.--No timber harvesting shall be
allowed within the Protection Area except to the extent
needed for hazardous fuels reduction or other control of
fire, insect or disease control projects, or protection of
public health or safety.
(F) Special interest area.--The management prescription
applicable to the lands described in the 1997 Revision of the
Land and Resource Management Plan as the James Peak Special
Interest Area shall also be applicable to all the lands in
the Protection Area that are bounded on the north by Rollins
Pass Road, on the east by the Continental Divide, and on the
west by the 11,300 foot elevation contour as shown on the map
referred to in subsection (b). In addition, motorized vehicle
use shall not be permitted on any part of the Rogers Pass
trail.
(2) Natural gas pipeline.--The Secretary shall allow for
maintenance of rights-of-ways and access roads located within
the Protection Area to the extent necessary to operate the
natural gas pipeline permitted under the Arapaho/Roosevelt
National Forest master permit numbered 4138.01 in a manner
that avoids negative impacts on public safety and allows for
compliance with Federal pipeline safety requirements. Such
maintenance may include vegetation management, road
maintenance, ground stabilization, and motorized vehicle
access.
(3) Permanent federal ownership.--All right, title, and
interest of the United States, held on or acquired after the
date of the enactment of this Act, to lands within the
boundaries of the Protection Area shall be retained by the
United States.
(e) Issues Related to Water.--
(1) Statutory construction.--
(A) Nothing in this Act shall constitute or be construed to
constitute either an express or implied reservation of any
water or water rights with respect to the lands within the
Protection Area.
(B) Nothing in this Act shall affect any conditional or
absolute water rights in the State of Colorado existing on
the date of the enactment of this Act.
(C) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as
establishing a precedent with regard to any future protection
area designation.
(D) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as limiting,
altering, modifying, or amending any of the interstate
compacts or equitable apportionment decrees that apportion
water among and between the State of Colorado and other
States.
(2) Colorado water law.--The Secretary shall follow the
procedural and substantive requirements of the law of the
State of Colorado in order to obtain and hold any new water
rights with respect to the Protection Area.
(3) Water infrastructure.--Nothing in this Act (including
the provisions related to establishment or management of the
Protection Area) shall affect, impede, interfere with, or
diminish the operation, existence, access, maintenance,
improvement, or construction of water facilities and
infrastructure, rights-of-way, or other water-related
property, interests, and uses, (including the use of
motorized vehicles and equipment existing or located on lands
within the Protection Area) on any lands except those lands
managed under the management prescription referred to in
subsection (d)(1)(F).
SEC. 4. INHOLDINGS.
(a) State Land Board Lands.--If the Colorado State Land
Board informs the Secretary that the Board is willing to
transfer to the United States some or all of the lands owned
by the Board located within the Protection Area, the
Secretary shall promptly seek to reach agreement with the
Board regarding terms and conditions for acquisition of such
lands by the United States by purchase or exchange.
(b) Jim Creek Inholding.--
(1) Acquisition of lands.--The Secretary shall enter into
negotiations with the owner of lands located within the
portion of the Jim Creek drainage within the Protection Area
for the purpose of acquiring the lands by purchase or
exchange, but the United States shall not acquire such lands
without the consent of the owner of the lands.
(2) Landowner rights.--Nothing in this Act shall affect any
rights of the owner of lands located within the Jim Creek
drainage within the Protection Area, including any right to
reasonable access to such lands by motorized or other means
as determined by the Forest Service and the landowner
consistent with applicable law and relevant and appropriate
rules and regulations governing such access.
(c) Report.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a
report concerning any agreement or the status of negotiations
conducted pursuant to--
(A) subsection (a), upon conclusion of an agreement for
acquisition by the United States of lands referred to in
subsection (a), or 1 year after the date of the enactment of
this Act, whichever occurs first; and
(B) subsection (b), upon conclusion of an agreement for
acquisition by the United States of lands referred to in
subsection (b), or 1 year after the date of the enactment of
this Act, whichever occurs first.
(2) Funding information.--The report required by this
subsection shall indicate to what extent funds are available
to the Secretary as of the date of the report for the
acquisition of the relevant lands and whether additional
funds need to be appropriated or otherwise made available
to the Secretary for such purpose.
(d) Management of Acquisitions.--Any lands within the James
Peak Wilderness or the Protection Area acquired by the United
States after the date of the enactment of this Act shall be
added to the James Peak Wilderness or the Protection Area,
respectively, and managed accordingly.
SEC. 5. JAMES PEAK FALL RIVER TRAILHEAD.
(a) Services and Facilities.--Following the consultation
required by subsection (c), the Forest Supervisor of the
Arapaho/Roosevelt National Forest in the State of Colorado
(in this section referred to as the ``Forest Supervisor'')
shall establish a trailhead and corresponding facilities and
services to regulate use of National Forest System lands in
the vicinity of the Fall River basin south of the communities
of Alice Township and St. Mary's Glacier in the State of
Colorado. The facilities and services shall include the
following:
(1) Trailhead parking.
(2) Public restroom accommodations.
(3) Trailhead and trail maintenance.
(b) Personnel.--The Forest Supervisor shall assign Forest
Service personnel to provide appropriate management and
oversight of the area described in subsection (a).
(c) Consultation.--The Forest Supervisor shall consult with
the Clear Creek County commissioners and with residents of
Alice Township and St. Mary's Glacier regarding--
(1) the appropriate location of facilities and services in
the area described in subsection (a); and
(2) appropriate measures that may be needed in this area--
(A) to provide access by emergency or law enforcement
vehicles;
(B) for public health; and
(C) to address concerns regarding impeded access by local
residents.
(d) Report.--After the consultation required by subsection
(c), the Forest Supervisor shall submit to the Committee on
Resources and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate a
report regarding the amount of any additional funding
required to implement this section.
SEC. 6. LOOP TRAIL STUDY; AUTHORIZATION.
(a) Study.--Not later than three years after funds are
first made available for this purpose, the Secretary, in
consultation with interested parties, shall complete a study
of the suitability and feasibility of establishing,
consistent with the purpose set forth in section 3(a)(2), a
loop trail for mechanized and other nonmotorized recreation
connecting the trail designated as ``Rogers Pass'' and the
trail designated as ``Rollins Pass Road''.
(b) Establishment.--If the results of the study required by
subsection (a) indicate that establishment of such a loop
trail would be suitable and feasible, consistent with the
purpose set forth in section 3(a)(2), the Secretary shall
establish the loop trail in a manner consistent with that
purpose.
SEC. 7. OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.
(a) Buffer Zones.--The designation by this Act or by
amendments made by this Act of wilderness areas and the
Protection Area in the State of Colorado shall not create or
imply the creation of protective perimeters or buffer zones
around any wilderness area or the Protection Area. The fact
that nonwilderness activities or uses can be seen or heard
from within a wilderness area or Protection Area shall not,
of itself, preclude such activities or uses up to the
boundary of the wilderness area or the Protection Area.
(b) Rollins Pass Road.--If requested by one or more of the
Colorado Counties of Grand, Gilpin, and Boulder, the
Secretary shall provide technical assistance and otherwise
cooperate with respect to repairing the Rollins Pass road in
those counties sufficiently to allow two-wheel-drive vehicles
to travel between Colorado State Highway 119 and U.S. Highway
40. If this road is repaired to such extent, the Secretary
shall close the motorized roads and trails on Forest Service
land indicated on the map entitled ``Rollins Pass Road
Reopening: Attendant Road and Trail Closures'', dated
September 2001.
SEC. 8. WILDERNESS POTENTIAL.
(a) In General.--Nothing in this Act shall preclude or
restrict the authority of the Secretary to evaluate the
suitability of lands in the Protection Area for inclusion in
the National Wilderness Preservation System or to make
recommendations to Congress for such inclusion.
(b) Evaluation of Certain Lands.--In connection with the
first revision of the land and resources management plan for
the Arapaho/Roosevelt National Forest after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall evaluate the
suitability of the lands managed under the management
prescription referred to in section 3(d)(1)(F) for inclusion
in the National Wilderness Preservation System and make
recommendations to Congress regarding such inclusion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. McInnis) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis).
[[Page H9182]]
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1576 introduced by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Udall) establishes the James Peak Wilderness Area, adds to the existing
Indian Peaks Wilderness Area, and designates a James Peak Protection
Area, all within the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest located in the
State of Colorado.
As the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) knows, I have a particular
interest in this piece of legislation. That is because the majority of
land impacted by the proposal actually falls within the boundary of the
Third Congressional District of the State of Colorado, my district. The
area in question is truly spectacular. There is no denying that it
deserves special protection. That is something that all sides have
agreed on for some period of time. Where there has not been agreement
over the years is on the question of actually how and under what
congressional designation the James Peak area should be managed.
While Gilpin, Clear Creek and Boulder Counties all fall in the
district of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), I have long
supported the wilderness designation for these lands within the borders
of their counties; Grand County, in my district, has not. Grand
County's opposition is the primary reason that this bill did not
progress in either the 105th or the 106th Congress. Today, thanks to
the good-faith efforts of a number of Members, we have been able to
overcome the differences that have stalled this bill in the past and
reached a consensus agreement that enjoys wide-spread local support.
The agreement was submitted in the form of an amendment I offered to
the bill at full committee markup earlier this year. The compromise is
a simple and straightforward one. For those communities that have
expressed support for the wilderness designation, my amendment would
establish exactly that, wilderness.
For those lands where a local consensus for wilderness has not
emerged, the amendment would statutorily lock in the existing
management framework as established in the local forest plan, a highly
protective regime that will afford substantial protections for this
landscape, while allowing certain recreational activities and important
other access considerations to continue. This is the protection area.
Within the protection area, the bill includes language protecting
access and maintenance rights for existing water facilities in the
area, a critical element and an issue that was overlooked in the bill
as it was originally introduced. It requires the Federal Government to
acquire any new water rights in the protection area under the
substantive and procedural requirements of Colorado water law. I
repeat, under the substantive and procedural requirements under
Colorado water law. It directs the Forest Service to sit down with
mountain biking enthusiasts and environmentalists to decide which
recreational trails should remain open, and which should be closed.
Finally, it leaves open an opportunity for the Forest Service and the
affected local communities to reconsider wilderness designation for the
lands in the protection area some time down the road.
Mr. Speaker, I note that the acreage numbers in the bill are
estimates, and reaffirm the fact that the map accompanying this
legislation is intended to be the controlling statement on the boundary
issue. At a subcommittee meeting earlier this year, I promised the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) and my friends in the environmental
community that if they would support my compromise proposal, I would do
everything I could to see that this bill made its way through the House
of Representatives before the end of year. With their support in hand,
Mr. Speaker, today I fulfill that promise.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer special thanks to the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall); his staff; Dave Bull and Craig
McGuire with the Forest Service; the Grand County commissioners, Duane
Daily, James Newberry, and Bob Anderson; the Boulder, Clear Creek and
Gilpin County commissioners, especially Web Sill; Steve Smith with the
Colorado Sierra Club; Sara Duncan with the Denver Water Board; the
Headwaters Trail Alliance; the International Mountain Biking Alliance;
Lisa Daly with legislative counsel; and my staff and the Committee on
Resources staff.
Mr. Speaker, I salute our former colleague, David Skaggs, who first
introduced this measure during the 105th Congress and was very
dedicated to the proposition. These people have all put forth a lot of
effort and energy into this legislation today. They deserve real
credit. I would also like to thank the majority leader and his staff
for scheduling this vote.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support H.R. 1576.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
bill. I begin by thanking the chairman of the subcommittee, the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), as well as the chairman of the
Committee on Resources, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), and the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) for making it possible for
the House to be considering it today. In particular, the hard work and
leadership of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) have been
essential, and I appreciate all the gentleman has done in connection
with this legislation which will provide additional protection for a
key part of the high alpine environment along Colorado's Continental
Divide.
Rising to 13,294 feet above sea level, James Peak is a dramatic
feature of this part of the front range section of our State. It is a
dominant feature in a 26,000-acre roadless area within the Arapaho-
Roosevelt National Forest that straddles this part of the Continental
Divide. The peak itself was named after Dr. Edwin James, a prominent
botanist and journalist with the Stephen H. Long expedition to Colorado
way back in 1820.
During that expedition, James became the first Anglo-American to
climb a 14,000 foot peak in the continental United States, the one that
is now known as Pike's Peak near Colorado Springs. That name, of
course, referred to Zebulon Pike, who had earlier seen and described
but never climbed that peak.
In fact, historians say Long tried to change the name of Pike's Peak
in honor of Dr. James' ascent, but by the time of the Long expedition,
the name Pike's Peak was too well established. As an alternative, the
more northerly peak, visible from many places in the Denver metro area,
was named after Dr. James in the 1860s.
As my colleague has mentioned, the James Peak roadless area includes
lands within four counties. Three of those counties, Boulder, Clear
Creek and Gilpin, are on the east side of the divide, within Colorado's
Second Congressional District. The other, Grand County, is on the
western side in the Third Congressional District.
The area offers outstanding recreational opportunities for hiking,
skiing, fishing and backpacking. It includes a dozen spectacular alpine
lakes, including the Forest Lakes, Arapaho Lakes, and Heart Lake. It is
one of the highest rated areas for biological diversity on the entire
Arapaho National Forest. It includes unique habitat for wildlife, miles
of riparian corridors, stands of old growth forests, and it is home to
some threatened and endangered species.
Adding James Peak to the chain of protected lands from Berthoud Pass
to the Wyoming boundary will promote movement of sensitive species such
as wolverine, lynx, and pine marten, and improve the chances of these
and similar species that only thrive in wilderness settings.
Currently, this is the largest wilderness area on the Northern Front
Range that has no specific statutory protection. Under current law it
is open to mining claims and other developments that can occur on
general national forest lands. In my opinion, these roadless lands are
eminently qualified for and deserve to be added to the National
Wilderness Preservation System, and that is the view of many Coloradans
as well.
My predecessor, David Skaggs, introduced a James Peak Wilderness
bill,
[[Page H9183]]
but action on it was not completed. Since my first election to
Congress, I have been working to protect the wilderness qualities of
the James Peak area. I introduced a bill in the 106th Congress that
would have designated about 22,000 acres of the James Peak roadless
areas as wilderness, including about 8,000 acres in Grand County.
The proposal was designed to renew discussions for the appropriate
management of these lands that qualify for wilderness consideration,
and that discussion certainly has taken place. In fact, the bill before
us today has been shaped by nearly 2 years of discussions with county
officials, interested groups and the general public. The previous bill
had broad support. However, after its introduction, the Grand County
commissioners, which includes the western side of James Peak, expressed
some concerns with the proposed wilderness designation for the land in
that county. So I undertook to work with the Grand County commissioners
and interested residents of that part of the State.
We held several discussions, including a public meeting in Grand
County. After that, the Grand County commissioners put forth a
suggestion for designation of a James Peak Protection Area that would
include both the Grand County part of the roadless area and additional
lands as well. That suggestion is a key part of the bill now before the
House.
Mr. Speaker, the bill introduced earlier this year included
wilderness designation of about 14,000 acres of the James Peak roadless
area in Boulder, Clear Creek and Gilpin Counties. It also included a
designation of about 18,000 acres in Grand County as the James Peak
Protection Area, and would have added 2,000 acres in Grand County to
the Indian Peaks Wilderness Area in accordance with the recommendation
of the Forest Service. Within the protection area, there would have
been an 8,000 acre wilderness study area. I included the wilderness
study provision after the Grand County commissioners indicated that
they would not oppose having the Forest Service again review the lands
involved for possible wilderness designation.
{time} 2115
They indicated that they were aware that the Forest Service had
reviewed this area in the past and could have recommended it for
wilderness but did not do so. The commissioners also indicated that if
the Forest Service were to review the area again, they would respect
that process.
I thought, and still think, that the bill as introduced was a sound,
balanced measure that deserved their support and the support of the
Congress. However, the bill before us today differs in several ways
from the version I introduced earlier. Instead, as it comes to the
House, the bill incorporates a number of changes developed through
negotiations between the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), and myself.
One of those changes is that the bill before us does not provide for
an immediate wilderness study of any of the lands in the protection
area. And there are other changes as well, including an increase in the
additions to existing wilderness. In short, this bill is a compromise
but it is a good compromise. It does not do everything I would have
liked, but it probably does more than some others would have liked.
That is what a compromise is all about.
In particular, as I have mentioned, it does not designate as much
wilderness as I would have preferred on the western side of the James
Peak area. But it also does not preclude the Forest Service from
revisiting that issue in the future, and in fact it makes it clear that
at least part of these lands on the west side will be reviewed for
possible wilderness recommendations.
In any event, some of these lands on the west side, the ones
designated in the bill as the James Peak protection area and
specifically the ``special interest area'' lands within this
designation, are to be managed by the Forest Service for their pristine
and roadless qualities. Furthermore, the present forest plan
restrictions for this area are to be locked in place with the
additional restrictions prohibiting commercial logging, land exchanges,
mining activities, and new recreational trail development.
This ``protection area'' designation has been designed especially for
these lands. It should not be seen as something that necessarily can be
applied elsewhere in Colorado or elsewhere as a substitute for
wilderness designation where that designation is appropriate. But I
think it is appropriate in the way it addresses the management of the
lands involved.
On one related point, I want to compliment what my colleague, the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), also said, it should be noted
that it is the intention that the final map and boundary description
will make clear that the existing water diversion and impoundment
facilities owned by the Denver Water Board and other entities are not
within the protection area because the boundary is set back so that
these facilities, including an aqueduct, are excluded from the
designation. I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge
and thank all of the people who made this legislation possible. There
are too many of them for me to mention them all, and I am deeply
grateful for all their contributions; but let me highlight some who
made particular contributions:
All of the county commissioners in the four counties, Boulder, Clear
Creek, Gilpin and Grand, deserve thanks for their support and input. I
want to especially thank Gilpin County Commissioner Web Sill. I would
also recognize and applaud the passion and perseverance of the local
conservationists who saw the value of these lands early on. These
include Bill Ikler of Nederland, Colorado; Kirk Cunningham and Linda
Batlin of Boulder, Colorado; Sue Howell of Idaho Springs, Colorado; and
Matt Sugar of Winter Park, Colorado.
I also must thank Sierra Club regional representative Steve Smith.
Steve was a member of the staff of my predecessor, Congressman David
Skaggs, and has been involved in land protection in Colorado for over
20 years. His understanding of the issues as well as his tenacity and
diplomacy were indispensable to working out these compromises. Finally,
I want to add a special note of appreciation for the work of Doug Young
of my staff. His dedication, persistence and expertise were crucial in
the process that has brought us to this point.
Mr. Speaker, the James Peak area is indeed special. With the
continuing pressure of population growth along Colorado's Front Range,
I am concerned that if we do not protect these lands now, we could lose
a critical resource for future generations.
In closing, again I want to thank my colleague particularly, the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), the chairman of the
subcommittee, for his invaluable assistance and leadership and his
friendship. I look forward to working with him in the future when we
have the opportunity. I urge passage of this much-needed bill.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of points here I would like to make
very clear. First of all, there are a couple of other thank-you's I
want to make: Josh Penry on my staff, Melissa Simpson and a couple of
others in the staff, Christopher and some others, put a lot of effort
into this. I understand the gentleman's comment in regards to model. I
think this should be a piece of model legislation or legislation on
which to model future compromises, the reason being is that this bill
required a lot of local effort.
The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) was involved at the
grassroots level in putting that compromise together. That is the exact
kind of model for the future of Colorado that we should look forward
to. As the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) realizes, between the
two of us and our staffs, we were able to go to Colorado and bring
these various factions together. Wilderness will never receive further
designation in Colorado in my opinion if it is going to be black and
white, that clear. It can never be that clear a line. There has to be
compromise, and there has to be local support. I think that was
recognized by my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
But I want to make it clear on the record that this should
[[Page H9184]]
be a model piece of legislation for future discussions in regards to
wilderness.
I also want to point out that this bill was introduced in the 105th
session and in the 106th session. It never received a hearing. It never
got a vote. The reason that it is here on the floor today is because
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) and the communities and myself
were able to come together. I would hope that as a result of what we
saw, the compromise that came here tonight that brought this bill to
the floor, we will also see the same kind of, I guess, courtesies, or
reciprocation from the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) in regards
to the Deep Creek wilderness.
As he knows, these bills were close to being companion bills. The
Deep Creek bill still has some work in regards to description and so on
before we can get it to hearing, but I would hope that my colleague
will also put forth his efforts and energies as I did with his bill; I
hope he puts the same kind of energy and efforts to making my bill on
the Deep Creek wilderness become a reality.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McINNIS. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding. I wanted to make the statement that I look forward to working
with him on the Deep Creek wilderness proposal. Also if I could, I
might just point out, I think the process was a model, first and
foremost. We brought people together on an ongoing basis. Nobody walked
away from the table. We had differences of opinion and differences of
approaches over, as he points out, almost a 3-year or arguably a longer
period of time given that Congressman Skaggs introduced the bill back
in the 105th Congress. But nobody walked away from the process. People
were trusting of other people's motives even though there was perhaps a
difference in approach and opinion.
I hope that we can bring that model not only to our State, Colorado,
but around the West as we continue to have to deal with some of these
thorny issues that surround the use of public lands. People operated in
good faith. I thank the chairman again for his support and work, and I
look forward to working with him in the future.
Mr. McINNIS. I would point out to the gentleman from Colorado that,
yes, people were at the table, but it required leadership to get
something done at the table. They were willing to sit at the table,
they were willing to sit politely and have a discussion; but it took
your leadership, it took my leadership, it took the leadership of these
county commissioners to come in with this kind of compromise. It also
took some resistance on our part for people who at the last minute want
to pull off the table or try and squash the deal by always moving the
goal posts. I am afraid we are going to see that in Deep Creek. I would
hope, as I said, that you would reciprocate with the same kind of
leadership that I showed, I think, with your bill, that you would show
with my bill. But I think you have done a tremendous job. I also want
to commend Mr. Sloss and his efforts. We both live close there.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. If the gentleman will yield further, if I
might, I was remiss in not acknowledging the tremendous staff work on
the part of Stan Sloss who anybody who works with the Committee on
Resources knows is an institution and is a great resource not just to
Democrats but to Republicans as well and is a tremendous resource to
all of us. I thank the gentleman for acknowledging Stan Sloss and the
great work that he does.
Mr. McINNIS. On a lighter moment, as the gentleman knows, Mr. Sloss'
mother was my school teacher many years ago, so I walked the straight
line as a result of the lessons I learned from that fine lady.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for favorable consideration of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Johnson of Illinois). The question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) that
the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1576, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________