[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 3]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 3268-3270]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK WILDERNESS AND THE INDIAN PEAKS WILDERNESS 
                             EXPANSION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 9, 2006

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a revised 
bill to designate as wilderness most of the lands within the Rocky 
Mountain National Park, in Colorado.
  Since introduction of my previous bill (H.R. 3193), I have heard from 
a number of local

[[Page 3269]]

communities and other interests on the western side of the park 
regarding some issues and accommodations they would like to see 
reflected in the bill. The bill I am introducing today reflects that 
input.
  This legislation will provide important protection and management 
direction for some truly remarkable country, adding well over 200,000 
acres in the park to the National Wilderness Preservation System. The 
bill is similar to one previously introduced by my predecessor, 
Representative David Skaggs, and one I introduced in the 107th and 
108th Congresses. Those bills in turn were based on similar measures 
earlier proposed, including some by former Senator Bill Armstrong and 
others.
  Over a number of years my predecessor and I have worked with the 
National Park Service and others to refine the boundaries of the areas 
proposed for wilderness designation and consulted closely with many 
interested parties in Colorado, including local officials and both the 
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and the St. Vrain & Left 
Hand Ditch Water Conservancy District. These consultations provided the 
basis for many of the provisions of the bill I am introducing today, 
particularly regarding the status of existing water facilities.
  Unlike these previous bills, the new bill includes designation as 
wilderness of more than 700 acres in the Twin Sisters area south of 
Estes Park. These lands were acquired by the United States and made 
part of the park after submission to Congress of the original 
wilderness recommendation for the park in the 1970s, and so were not 
included in that recommendation. They are lands of a wilderness 
character and their designation will not conflict with any current 
uses.
  Since I introduced the earlier bill in this Congress, the communities 
bordering the park have been considering this wilderness proposal. The 
communities and local governments along the eastern side of the Park 
have expressed support for this proposal, including the Town of Estes 
Park and Larimer County.
  On the west side, the Town of Grand Lake and Grand County requested 
that about 650 acres inward from the Park boundary around the Town be 
omitted from the wilderness designation in order to allow the Park to 
respond to potential forest fire threats. The revised bill reflects 
this change.
  In addition, the Town of Grand Lake, Grand County and the Headwaters 
Trails Alliance (a group composed of local communities in Grand County 
that seeks to establish opportunities for mountain biking) requested 
that an additional non-wilderness area remain along the western park 
boundary, running south along Lake Granby from the Town to the park's 
southern boundary. This request was made to allow the National Park 
Service to retain the option of authorizing construction of a possible 
future mountain bike route within this part of the park.
  The revised bill introduced today responds to that request by 
omitting from wilderness an area, called the East Shore Trail Area, in 
this part of the park. However, it provides that the area will become 
wilderness 25 years after enactment unless a bicycle trail has been 
constructed before then.
  During the discussions of the previous version of the bill, it was 
suggested that the existing Indian Peaks Wilderness Area (within the 
Arapaho National Forest) should be expanded.
  The new bill adopts that suggestion by inclusion of a new section 
that would expand the Indian Peaks Wilderness Area by 1,000 acres in 
the area south of the park and north of Lake Granby. The lands involved 
are currently managed as part of the Arapaho National Recreation Area, 
which accordingly would be reduced by about 1,000 acres.
  In addition, this section of the revised bill would amend the 
original Indian Peaks Wilderness Act to reflect this additional acreage 
as well as the 2,232-acre Ranch Creek Addition and the 963-acre Fourth 
of July Addition to the Indian Peaks Wilderness Area that were made in 
the James Peak Wilderness and Protection Area Act in 2001. These 
changes will be reflected by a new official map for both areas which 
will establish the precise location of the Indian Peaks Wilderness Area 
boundary north of Lake Granby and the corresponding boundary change to 
the Arapaho National Recreation Area.
  Finally, a new section has been added to authorize the park to lease 
a property called the Leiffer Property. This 11-acre property was 
donated to the National Park Service in 1977, under terms requiring it 
to be retained by the Park Service. It is an isolated tract outside the 
boundaries of the park and has two buildings, including a house that is 
listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Park Service 
would like to have the option of leasing the tract, but their leasing 
authority is limited to ``property administered . . . as part of the 
National Park System,'' and this property does not qualify because it 
is neither within nor contiguous to the park's boundaries. The new 
section would allow the Park Service to lease the property as if it 
were located inside or contiguous to the park.
  The wilderness designation for the park will cover some 94 percent of 
the park, including Longs Peaks and other major mountains along the 
Great Continental Divide, glacial cirques and snow fields, broad 
expanses of alpine tundra and wet meadows, old-growth forests, and 
hundreds of lakes and streams, all untrammeled by human structures or 
passage. Indeed, examples of all the natural ecosystems that make up 
the splendor of the Park are included in the wilderness that would be 
designated by this bill.
  The features of these lands and waters that make Rocky Mountain 
National Park a true gem in our national parks system also make it an 
outstanding wilderness candidate.
  The wilderness boundaries will assure continued access for use of 
existing roadways, buildings and developed areas, privately owned land, 
and areas where additional facilities and roadwork will improve park 
management and visitor services. In addition, specific provisions are 
included to assure that there will be no adverse effects on continue 
use of existing water facilities.
  This bill is based on National Park Service recommendations, prepared 
more than 25 years ago and presented to Congress by President Richard 
Nixon. It seems to me that, in that time, there has been sufficient 
study, consideration, and refinement of those recommendations so that 
Congress can proceed with this legislation. I believe that this bill 
constitutes a fair and complete proposal, sufficiently providing for 
the legitimate needs of the public at large and all interested groups, 
and deserves to be enacted.
  It took more than a decade before the Colorado delegation and the 
Congress were finally able, in 1993, to pass a statewide national 
forest wilderness bill. Since then, action has been completed on bills 
designating wilderness in the Spanish Peaks area of the San Isabel 
National Forest as well as in the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National 
Park, the Gunnison Gorge, the Black Ridge portion of the Colorado 
Canyons National Conservation Area, and the James Peak area of the 
Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests.
  We now need to continue making progress regarding wilderness 
designations for deserving lands, including other public lands in our 
state that are managed by the Bureau of Land Management. And the time 
is ripe for finally resolving the status of the lands within Rocky 
Mountain National Park that are dealt with in the bill I am introducing 
today.
  All Coloradans know that the question of possible impacts on water 
rights can be a primary point of contention in Congressional debates 
over designating wilderness areas. So, it's very important to 
understand that the question of water rights for Rocky Mountain 
National Park wilderness is entirely different from many considered 
before, and is far simpler.
  To begin with, it has long been recognized under the laws of the 
United States and Colorado, including a decision of the Colorado 
Supreme Court, that Rocky Mountain National Park already has extensive 
federal reserved water rights arising from the creation of the national 
park itself.
  This is not, so far as I have been able to find out, a controversial 
decision, because there is a widespread consensus that there should be 
no new water projects developed within Rocky Mountain National Park. 
And, since the park sits astride the continental divide, there's no 
higher land around from which streams flow into the park, so there is 
no possibility of any upstream diversions. And it's important to 
emphasize that in any event water rights associated with wilderness 
would amount only to guarantees that water will continue to flow 
through and out of the park as it always has. This preserves the 
natural environment of the park, but it doesn't affect downstream water 
use.
  The bottom line is that once water leaves the park, it will continue 
to be available for diversion and use under Colorado law regardless of 
whether or not lands within the park are designated as wilderness.
  These legal and practical realities are reflected in my bill--as in 
my predecessor's--by inclusion of a finding that because the park 
already has these extensive reserved rights to water, there is no need 
for any additional reservation of such right, and an explicit 
disclaimer that the bill effects any such reservation.
  Some may ask, why should we designate wilderness in a national park? 
Isn't park protection the same as wilderness, or at least as good? The 
answer is that the wilderness designation will give an important 
additional level of protection to most of the park.

[[Page 3270]]

  Our national park system was created, in part, to recognize and 
preserve prime examples of outstanding landscape. At Rocky Mountain 
National Park in particular, good Park Service management over the past 
83 years has kept most of the park in a natural condition. And all the 
lands that are covered by this bill are currently being managed, in 
essence, to protect their wilderness character. Formal wilderness 
designation will no longer leave this question to the discretion of the 
Park Service, but will make it clear that within the designated areas 
there will never be roads, visitor facilities, or other manmade 
features that interfere with the spectacular natural beauty and 
wildness of the mountains.
  This kind of protection is especially important for a park like Rocky 
Mountain, which is relatively small by western standards. As nearby 
land development and alteration has accelerated in recent years, the 
pristine nature of the park's backcountry becomes an increasingly rare 
feature of Colorado's landscape.
  Further, Rocky Mountain National Park's popularity demands definitive 
and permanent protection for wild areas against possible pressures for 
development within the park. While only about one tenth the size of 
Yellowstone National Park, Rocky Mountain sees nearly the same number 
of visitors each year as does our first national park.
  At the same time, designating these carefully selected portions of 
Rocky Mountain as wilderness will make other areas, now restricted 
under interim wilderness protection management, available for overdue 
improvements to park roads and visitor facilities.
  So, Mr. Speaker, this bill will protect some of our nation's finest 
wild lands. It will protect existing rights. It will not limit any 
existing opportunity for new water development. And it will affirm our 
commitment in Colorado to preserving the very features that make our 
State such a remarkable place to live. So, I think the bill deserves 
prompt enactment.

                          ____________________