[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 5]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 6159-6161]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 INTRODUCTION OF THE JAMES PEAK WILDERNESS, JAMES PEAK PROTECTION AREA 
                     AND WILDERNESS STUDY AREA ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, April 24, 2001

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to 
protect a key part of the high alpine environment along Colorado's 
Continental Divide.
  The 13,294-foot James Peak is the predominant feature in a 26,000 
acre roadless area within the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest just 
north and east of Berthoud Pass. The James Peak roadless area straddles 
the Continental Divide within 4 counties (Gilpin, Clear Creek, Grand 
and Boulder). It is the largest unprotected roadless area on the 
Northern Front Range. The area offers outstanding recreational 
opportunities for hiking, skiing, fishing, and backpacking.
  I have been interested in wilderness protection for the James Peak 
area since my election to Congress in 1998. In 1999, I introduced a 
bill (H.R. 2177) in the 106th Congress that would have designated about 
22,000 of the James Peak roadless area as wilderness, including about 
8,000 acres in Grand County. This proposal was designed to renew 
discussions for the appropriate management of these lands that qualify 
for wilderness consideration.
  The bill I am introducing today--the James Peak Wilderness, James 
Peak Protection Area and Wilderness Study Area Act--is the product of 
nearly two years of subsequent discussions with county officials, 
interested groups, and the general public.
  The previous bill had broad support. However, after its introduction, 
the County Commissioners of Grand County--which includes the western 
side of the James Peak area--expressed some concerns with the proposed 
wilderness designation for the lands in that county. They indicated 
that in their view any such legislation needed to make accommodation 
for any ``dispersed recreation'' opportunities in the area and needed 
to address private inholdings. The Commissioners also indicated that 
the Rollins Pass road should be excluded from wilderness.
  I agreed to work with Grand County on these and a number of other 
issues. We held several discussions, including a public meeting in 
Grand County. After that, the Grand County Commissioners indicated that 
they could not ``entirely support [H.R. 2177] as presented,'' and 
outlined a ``James Peak Protection Area'' alternative.
  The Commissioners' ``protection area'' alternative did not spell out 
all details, but its essence was that instead of designation of 
wilderness there should be designation of a ``protection area'' that 
would include the lands in Grand County proposed for wilderness in my 
previous bill and also an additional 10,000 acres of national forest 
land. The Commissioners' proposals also would have allowed for a 
section of high tundra above Rollins Pass along the divide to be open 
to motorized and mechanized recreation (snowmobiles and mountain 
bikes).

[[Page 6160]]

  I gave serious attention to this alternative and also carefully 
considered the views of a variety of interested individuals and groups 
who had concerns about it. Based on that, on February 12, 2001, I 
released a more detailed legislative proposal for public review and 
comment.
  This proposal was based on the Commissioners' ``protection area'' 
alternative. It would have designated as wilderness 14,000 acres of the 
James Peak roadless area in Boulder, Clear Creek and Gilpin Counties. 
It also would have designated 18,000 acres in Grand County as a ``James 
Peak Protection Area,'' and would have added 2,000 acres (that were 
encompassed by the Commissioners' ``protection area'' alternative) to 
the Indian Peaks Wilderness area (these acres were recommended for 
wilderness by the Forest Service).
  The proposal included language to spell out in more detail the 
management regime of the ``protection area.'' These provisions 
(including a ban on hardrock mining, a ban on campgrounds, and a ban on 
timber cutting) were largely based the management rules for the Bowen 
Gulch ``backcountry recreation'' area and the existing ``special 
interest area'' Forest Service management under the 1997 Forest Plan. 
Inclusion of the latter provision was at the request of the Grand 
County Commissioners.
  Following the release of this proposal, I met with the Grand County 
Commissioners to discuss this proposal and for the option of wilderness 
for some lands in the Grand County part of the James Peak roadless 
area. This was a productive meeting. We discussed a number of issues, 
most of which have been addressed in the bill that I am introducing 
today. In summary, those issues included:
  (1) Prohibiting Motorized and Mechanized Recreation Atop Rollins 
Pass--Although this area was identified as a possible location for 
motorized and mechanized recreation in the previous proposal, all 
agreed (including the snowmobile and mountain bike users) that this 
area should not be available for such use.
  (2) Reopening the Rollins Pass Road--The Commissioners and the users 
of the Rollins Pass road (also known as the Corona Pass road) indicated 
an interest in reopening this road for two-wheel drive traffic. 
Presently, this road is blocked due to the closure of the Needle Eye 
tunnel and degrading railroad trestles. As a result, a number of 
motorized recreational users have been creating roads and trails to 
bypass these blockages. The users of Rollins Pass road indicated that 
if this road could be reopened, then they would be willing to work with 
the Forest Service to close these bypasses. The Grand County 
Commissioners agreed with this suggestion.
  (3) The Berthoud Pass Ski Area--The Commissioners expressed an 
interest in drawing any proposed boundaries near Berthoud Pass to 
accommodate the existing Berthoud Pass Ski Area's permitted boundary. 
Everyone agreed that this should be done.
  (4) Private Inholdings--The Commissioners expressed an interest in 
ensuring that the rights of private inholders be preserved.
  (5) Forest Service Management--The Commissioners requested that the 
proposal include specific language indicating that the ``protection 
area'' would be managed according to the 1997 Forest Plan. In addition, 
the Commissioners and recreational users requested that this management 
be flexible enough to allow the Forest Service to relocate trails, 
roads or areas in order to address future management issues.
  (6) Wilderness Addition to Indian Peaks--The Commissioners expressed 
support for including the approximately 2,000-acre wilderness addition 
to Indian Peaks--an area that was ``recommended for wilderness'' in the 
1997 Forest Plan.
  (7) Buffer Zone--The Commissioners indicated an interest in 
considering the inclusion of language that would prohibit the 
establishment of a restrictive ``buffer zone'' around the area. This 
provision would ensure that the existence of a ``protection area''/
wilderness area would not lead to managerial restrictions on the lands 
outside the proposed boundaries.
  (8) Telecommunication Opportunities on Mount Eva--The Commissioners 
also indicated an interest in keeping the top of Mt. Eva open for 
telecommunication facilities as this area was used in the past for such 
activity. However, the State Land Board permitted the previous 
facilities on Mt. Eva as the intention was to site these facilities on 
the State Land Board section. But the facilities were mistakenly 
located on Forest Service land. Nevertheless, these facilities were 
removed when the company went bankrupt. In addition, there are no 
access roads or services to this area. Given all of these difficulties, 
it was suggested that other locations for these options may be more 
appropriate.
  (9) Rogers Pass Trail--Members of the public also expressed interest 
in keeping this trail open and available for mountain bike recreational 
use. It is unclear whether this trail is in fact open to such use. 
Nevertheless, the Grand County Commissioners indicated that they would 
like to pursue the option of allowing such use of this trail.
  (10) Prohibition of Land Exchanges--The Commissioners expressed an 
interest in having the bill prohibit any further land exchanges in the 
area to prevent further development from encroaching into Forest 
Service areas.
  I reworked my proposal to incorporate these issues. It was my hope 
that in accommodating these concerns in the bill, that the Grand County 
Commissioners would reconsider some wilderness protection for the lands 
in the James Peak roadless area south of Rollins Pass. However, the 
three Grand County Commissioners were divided on this question (one 
Commissioner did suggest extending the wilderness boundary westwards 
over the Divide and down to timberline in Grand County).
  Nevertheless, the Grand County Commissioners did express support for 
the wilderness addition to the Indian Peaks Wilderness Area, support 
for the ``protection area'' to be managed according to the 1997 Forest 
Plan and for the adjustments that I had made based on their input. 
Regrettably, however, they expressed opposition to any wilderness 
designation now for lands south of Rollins Pass or Rogers Pass.
  The Commissioners also indicated a concern that such a designation 
might have some effect on water rights. I think it is clear that there 
are no grounds for such concerns. Careful review has convinced me that 
there are no water rights except those for national forest purposes and 
no diversion facilities in the portion of the James Peak roadless area 
south of Rollins Pass. In addition, if any such rights do exist, they 
would not be extinguished by wilderness designation. Furthermore, as 
any wilderness designation for this area would be governed by the 1993 
Colorado Wilderness Act, the courts would be barred from considering 
any assertion that the designation involved a federal reserved water 
right. Further, this area is essentially a headwaters area. Wilderness 
protection would thus ensure that water would continue to flow out of 
this area--unimpeded--for downstream users and benefits.
  The Grand County Commissioners did indicate that they understood and 
found acceptable the Forest Service's process for periodic review of 
the way it manages national forest lands in Grand County. Further, the 
Commissioners indicated they would not oppose having the Forest Service 
again review the lands south of Rollins Pass for possible wilderness 
designation. 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.
  Accordingly, the bill I am introducing today provides for such a 
renewed study of these lands. It designates the James Peak roadless 
lands in Grand County south of Rollins Pass as a ``wilderness study 
area'' and directs the Forest Service to re-look at this area for 
suitability as wilderness. This provision will preserve the status quo 
on approximately 8,000 acres south of Rollins Pass by keeping this area 
in its current roadless and pristine state. The bill would require the 
Forest Service to report its recommendations for these 8,000 acres 
within three years. It will then be up to Congress to decide regarding 
the future management of these lands.
  This part of the bill also addresses the Roger Pass trail issue--an 
issue of importance to the Grand County Commissioners and users of this 
trail. While I believe that this trail should be included in wilderness 
(it is within the proposed wilderness study area), the bill directs 
that the Forest Service evaluate whether and to what extent this trail 
should be managed for mechanized recreational use.
  I believe that the bill I am introducing today keeps faith with my 
commitment to work with local County Commissioners and others. It 
addresses a majority of the issues that were raised.
  These lands are indeed special. They contain a number of high alpine 
lakes and tundra ecosystems. This area also represents one of the last 
remaining unprotected stretches of the Continental Divide that 
comprises the Northern Front Range Mountain Backdrop.
  With the population growth occurring along the Front Range of 
Colorado, I am concerned that if we do not protect these special lands 
for future generations, we could loose a critical resource for future 
generations. That is why I am introducing this bill and why I will work 
hard for its enactment into law.
  For the benefit of our colleagues, I am attaching a fact sheet that 
summarizes the main provisions of the bill.


[[Page 6161]]

James Peak Wilderness, James Peak Protection Area and Wilderness Study 
                                Area Act

       Summary--The bill would designate the James Peak Wilderness 
     Area, add to the existing Indian Peaks Wilderness Area, 
     designate a James Peak Protection Area and a James Peak 
     wilderness study area, all within the Arapaho Roosevelt 
     National Forest in Colorado.
       Background: In 1999, Congressman Mark Udall introduced the 
     James Peak Wilderness Act (H.R. 2177) which would have 
     designated about 22,000 acres of land in the Arapaho-
     Roosevelt National Forest as wilderness north of Berthoud 
     Pass and south of the Indian Peaks Wilderness Area. Since 
     then, there have been further discussions with county 
     governments, the Forest Service, and the public. On January 
     31, 2000, the Grand County Commissioners proposed the 
     alternative of designating lands in that county as a 
     ``protection area'' instead of wilderness. On February 12, 
     2001, Congressman Udall released a proposal that was similar 
     to the Grand County ``protection area'' proposal. This bill 
     is a refined version of that proposal resulting from 
     discussions with the Grand County Commissioners and other 
     interested parties.
       The Lands: The 13,294-foot James Peak is the predominant 
     feature in a 26,000-acre roadless area within the Arapaho-
     Roosevelt National Forest just north and east of Berthoud 
     Pass. The James Peak roadless area straddles the Continental 
     Divide within 4 counties (Gilpin, Clear Creek, Grand and 
     Boulder). It is the largest unprotected roadless area on the 
     Northern Front Range. The area offers outstanding 
     recreational opportunities for hiking, skiing, fishing, and 
     backpacking, including the popular South Boulder Creek trail 
     and along the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail. It 
     also includes the historic Rollins Pass road which provides 
     access for mechanized and motorized recreation in the area.
       James Peak is one of the highest rated areas for biological 
     diversity on the entire Arapaho National Forest, including 
     unique habitat for wildlife, miles of riparian corridors, 
     stands of old growth forests, and threatened and endangered 
     species. The area includes a dozen spectacularly situated 
     alpine lakes, including Forest Lakes, Arapaho Lakes, and 
     Heart Lake. Many sensitive species such as wolverine, lynx, 
     and pine marten only thrive in wilderness settings. Adding 
     James Peak to the chain of protected lands from Berthoud Pass 
     to the Wyoming boundary will promote movement of these 
     species and improve their chances for survival.
       What the bill does: James Peak Wilderness: The bill would 
     designate over 14,000 acres of the James Peak area in Clear 
     Creek, Gilpin and Boulder Counties as the James Peak 
     Wilderness Area; Indian Peaks Wilderness Area Addition: The 
     bill would add about 2,000 acres in Grand County to the 
     existing Indian Peaks Wilderness area (these acres were 
     recommended for wilderness in the Forest Service's 1997 
     revised plan); James Peak Protection Area: The bill would 
     designate about 18,000 acres in Grand County as the James 
     Peak Protection Area and provide the following: Forest 
     Service to manage the area consistent with the management 
     directions for this area under the 1997 Forest Plan for the 
     Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest; No transfer of federal 
     lands by exchange or otherwise; Forest Service required to 
     designate appropriate roads, trails and areas for motorized 
     and mechanized recreation.
       James Peak Wilderness Study Area: The bill would designate 
     about 8,000 acres in the part of the Protection Area 
     generally south of the Rollins Pass Road as a wilderness 
     study area. For these lands, the bill would direct the Forest 
     Service to do the following--study this area and report in 
     three years as to the suitability of these lands for 
     inclusion in the National Wilderness System: meanwhile, 
     manage the study area to preserve its wilderness 
     characteristics, and evaluate whether and, if so, to what 
     extent mechanized recreation (mountian bikes and snowmobiles) 
     should be allowed in the wilderness study area, especially 
     along the Rogers Pass trail.
       Fall River Trailhead: The bill would establish a new 
     trailhead and Forest Service facilities in the Fall River 
     basin east of the proposed wilderness area--to be done in 
     collaboration with Clear Creek County and the nearby 
     communities of St. Mary's Glacier and Alice Township
       General provisions: The bill also would: encourage but not 
     require the Forest Service to acquire two non-federal 
     inholdings within the wilderness study area; prohibit the 
     creation of a restrictive buffer zone around the wilderness 
     area, the Protection Area or wilderness study area; direct 
     the Forest Service to work with the respective counties if 
     the Rollins Pass road is reopened to two-wheel drive traffic.
       What the bill does not do: Designate any portion of the 
     James Peak Roadless Area in Grand County as wilderness: The 
     bill would not create wilderness in the James Peak roadless 
     area in Grand County. Instead, it would designate a James 
     Peak Protection Area, subject to use and management 
     restrictions, as proposed by the County Commissioners and 
     within that would designate a wilderness study area.
       Restrict Off-Road Vehicle Use Throughout the Area: The bill 
     would prohibit motorized and mountain bike recreation use in 
     the wilderness and wilderness study areas, but would allow 
     this use, consistent with the Forest Service's management 
     directives, in the Protection Area. Furthermore, the bill 
     would require the Forest Service to identify appropriate 
     roads, trails and areas for such use within three years. Such 
     identifications can be revised by appropriate Forest Service 
     processes.
       Affect Water Rights: The bill would not affect any existing 
     water rights. In addition, all lands designated by the bill 
     are headwaters areas.
       Affect the Berthoud Pass Ski Area: The bill would exclude 
     this Ski Area's existing permitted boundary.
       Affect Search and Rescue Activities: The bill would not 
     affect the activities related to the health and safety of 
     persons within the area. Such necessary activities will be 
     allowed, including the need to use mechanized equipment to 
     perform search and rescue activities.

     

                          ____________________