[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 24925-24929]
[From the U.S. 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--

[[Page 24926]]

       (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 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

[[Page 24927]]

     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).
  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. 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

[[Page 24928]]

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, 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

[[Page 24929]]

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 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.

                          ____________________