U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

55-394 PDF 2010

H.R. 4289, COLORADO 

WILDERNESS ACT OF 2009 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS 

AND PUBLIC LANDS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

Thursday, March 11, 2010 

Serial No. 111-47 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

or 

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman 

DOC HASTINGS, Washington, Ranking Republican Member 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

Jim Costa, California 

Dan Boren, Oklahoma 

Gregorio Sablan, Northern Marianas 

Martin T. Heinrich, New Mexico 

George Miller, California 

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon 

Maurice D. Hinchey, New York 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Diana DeGette, Colorado 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Lois Capps, California 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Joe Baca, California 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Dakota 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts 

Frank Kratovil, Jr., Maryland 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico 

Vacancy 

Don Young, Alaska 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Louie Gohmert, Texas 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania 

Doug Lamborn, Colorado 

Adrian Smith, Nebraska 

Robert J. Wittman, Virginia 

Paul C. Broun, Georgia 

John Fleming, Louisiana 

Mike Coffman, Colorado 

Jason Chaffetz, Utah 

Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming 

Tom McClintock, California 

Bill Cassidy, Louisiana 

James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff 

Rick Healy, Chief Counsel 

Todd Young, Republican Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, Arizona, Chairman 

ROB BISHOP, Utah, Ranking Republican Member 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

Dan Boren, Oklahoma 

Martin T. Heinrich, New Mexico 

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon 

Maurice D. Hinchey, New York 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Diana DeGette, Colorado 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Lois Capps, California 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Dakota 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico 

Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia, ex officio 

Vacancy 

Don Young, Alaska 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina 

Louie Gohmert, Texas 

Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania 

Robert J. Wittman, Virginia 

Paul C. Broun, Georgia 

Mike Coffman, Colorado 

Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming 

Tom McClintock, California 

Doc Hastings, Washington, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Thursday, March 11, 2010 .......................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

DeGette, Hon. Diana, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 2 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4 

Browns Canyon Wilderness Area Supporters ......................................... 6 

Central Colorado Wilderness Coalition ‘‘Wild Ten’’ Endorsers .............. 8 

Coloradans Express Strong Support for Wilderness Protection ............ 6 

Grijalva, Hon. Rau ́l M., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona ...................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Brown, Chris, Director, Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Programs, National Forest System, Forest Service, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture ................................................................................................ 16 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 18 

Burke, Marcilynn A., Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management, 

U.S. Department of the Interior .................................................................. 13 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 14 

Dice, Jenn, Government Affairs Director, International Mountain 

Bicycling Association, Boulder, Colorado .................................................... 38 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 40 

Dvorˇa ́k, Bill, President, Dvorˇa ́k Rafting & Fishing Expeditions, Nathrop, 

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 34 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 36 

Goodtimes, Art, Commissioner, San Miguel County, Norwood, Colorado ... 25 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 27 

Holsinger, Kent, Holsinger Law, LLC, Denver, Colorado ............................. 51 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 52 

Salazar, Hon. John T., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Colorado ..................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 10 

Smith, Steve, Assistant Regional Director, The Wilderness Society, 

Denver, Colorado ........................................................................................... 28 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 30 

Stansfield, John, Coordinator, Central Colorado Wilderness Coalition, 

Monument, Colorado ..................................................................................... 48 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 49 

Additional materials supplied: 

Graham, Glenn, President and Chairman of the Board, Colorado OffHighway Vehicle Coalition, and Don Riggle, Director of Operations, 

Trails Preservation Alliance, Letter submittedfor the record ................... 58 

Houpt, Tresi, Commissioner, Garfield County, Colorado, Statement 

submitted for the record ............................................................................... 22 

List of documents retained in the Committee’s official files ......................... 63 

Moreland, Edward, Vice President, Government Relations, American 

Motorcyclist Association, Letter submitted for the record ........................ 64 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 4289, TO DESIGNATE CERTAIN LANDS IN THE STATE OF 

COLORADO AS COMPONENTS OF THE 

NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION 

SYSTEM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 

(COLORADO WILDERNESS ACT OF 2009) 

Thursday, March 11, 2010 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:09 a.m. in Room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, The Honorable Rau ́l M. 

Grijalva [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Grijalva, Bishop, Heinrich, and 

DeGette. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Mr. GRIJALVA. I call to order the Subcommittee on National 

Parks, Forests and Public Lands for our legislative hearing today. 

The Committee will come to order. 

Today we will receive testimony on H.R. 4289, the Colorado Wilderness Act of 2009. The legislation proposes designating 

approximately 850,000 acres across the State of Colorado as part 

of a National Wilderness Preservation System. Our colleague, Representative DeGette, has been a tireless champion of the Colorado 

Wilderness Act. She understands the unique threats facing her 

state’s last pristine areas, and she has modified her legislation over 

the years to address the changing landscape and to protect its 

highest priorities. 

We recently heard legislation as well from the gentleman from 

Colorado, Mr. Salazar, San Juan Mountains Wilderness Act, also 

introduced during this hearing. We heard again about collaboration 

and the need to protect important pristine areas in Colorado. Our 

colleague, Mr. Heinrich, has also joined us today. He is part of the 

Committee, and I look forward to a good hearing and a good discussion. 

2 

Before Ranking Member Bishop arrives. let me turn the time 

over to the sponsor of the legislation, Ms. DeGette, for any opening 

comments she might have regarding her legislation. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Grijalva follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

The Subcommittee will now come to order. Thank you. 

Today we will receive testimony on H.R. 4289: Colorado Wilderness Act of 2009. 

The legislation proposes designating approximately 850,000 acres across the State 

of Colorado as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

Our colleague, Representative Diana DeGette, has been a tireless champion of the 

Colorado Wilderness Act. She understands the unique threats facing her state’s last 

pristine areas, and she has modified her legislation over the years to address the 

changing landscape and to protect the highest priority areas. 

Recently, the Subcommittee heard testimony on another Colorado wilderness bill, 

the San Juan Mountains Wilderness Act, introduced by Representative John Salazar. During the hearing, it was clear that despite the sometimes controversial nature of land management issues, Mr. Salazar had walked a path of collaboration 

and compromise that led to a strongly endorsed piece of legislation. 

As a wilderness champion myself, I recognize that there are multiple ways to successfully pass wilderness legislation. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses 

about the Colorado Wilderness Act and the lands across Colorado proposed for designation. The citizens of Colorado are lucky to have representatives that are so dedication to the preservation of the unique areas across their state. 

I would now like to turn to Ranking Member Bishop for any opening statement 

he may have. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DIANA DeGETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for having 

this hearing today. I have been waiting 11 years to have this 

hearing, so I really appreciate it. 

As you said, I have introduced my newest version of the Colorado 

Wilderness Act, a version that I have introduced each Congress for 

the last decade. This bill was put together by a coalition of Colorado citizens who are committed, as I am and as all of us are, to 

protecting the few remaining wild places in our state, and I do not 

need to tell you that Coloradans from Carbondale to Colorado 

Springs, from Denver to Durango, live in our state because of the 

very special outdoor heritage that we have and because of the outdoors. 

The bill before us today, the Colorado Wilderness Act of 2009, 

protects some of the most cherished areas in our state. Many of the 

lands in my bill are lower lying canyon areas, foothills and lower 

elevation terrain, and I sent a book to each one of your offices that 

was written about my bill, ‘‘Colorado Canyon Country’’ that talks 

about the very special areas that we have, the canyon areas, and 

how important it is that we protect those areas. Here it is. 

This type of landscape is not well represented among our current 

wilderness areas because almost all of the existing wilderness in 

Colorado is above 9,000 feet in elevation. Part of the reason we 

don’t have lower lying canyon areas in our wilderness inventory 

now is because the original Wilderness Act that Congress passed 

directed the Forest Service and the National Park Service, but not 

the BLM to study lands under their control for potential wilderness 

designation. 

3 

Congress remedied this in 1976 in the Federal Land Policy Management Act. The BLM then undertook the process of inventorying 

lands in Colorado and elsewhere to determine their suitability for 

wilderness. In 1991, the BLM presented its final list of Wilderness 

Study Areas (WSAs). These areas from 1991, almost 20 years ago, 

continue to be managed to preserve their natural position and wilderness character. About three-quarters of the land in the bill we 

are talking about today consist of BLM-managed Wilderness Study 

Areas. 

In the early 1990s, after the WSAs were designated, a group of 

dedicated citizens took it upon themselves to review the areas that 

BLM had recommended and to suggest additional areas that might 

have outstanding wilderness characteristics. These thorough citizen 

inventories were conducted by volunteers who spent countless 

hours on the ground mapping and looking at areas that merited 

the wilderness designation. 

In 1994, those citizens published their first proposal for Colorado 

wilderness on BLM lands. For the next decade they continued to 

review and inventory wilderness-quality areas. They held public 

meetings across western Colorado seeking input on the proposal, 

and as a result of those efforts a revised citizen proposal was published in 2001, and another revision took place in 2007. This bill 

stemmed directly from those citizen efforts. 

Over the last decade, the bill has evolved in significant ways, and 

I expect, Mr. Chairman, that it will continue to evolve through this 

hearing and the legislative process. The full citizens’ wilderness 

proposal is 62 areas, comprising 1.6 million acres. 

While I support the vision of that original citizens’ proposal, I 

have scaled back my bill over time to focus on those areas that are 

most deserving of protection and have the fewest potential conflicts. I have done this in consultation with local citizens, other 

Members of Congress, and local elected officials. I have also made 

significant changes, Mr. Chairman, to the legislative language over 

time. For example, I removed the Federal reserve water right that 

was in earlier versions of the bill, and I made specific boundary 

adjustments as a result of direct local input. 

The current bill that I introduced late last year contains 34 areas 

consisting of roughly 850,000 acres. It would leave unaffected over 

90 percent of BLM-managed lands which would remain open to oil 

and gas drilling, mining, off-road vehicle use and other development. 

Since I introduced the first version of this bill in 1999, I have 

consulted with interested groups, local leaders and other Members 

of the Congressional Delegation to focus on select areas. I have personally traveled the state, visiting 14 of the areas by foot, horse 

and boat. On those trips, I was joined by landowners, ranchers, 

business leaders, elected officials, and many others. I have also 

held a number of public meetings and discussions on the proposal, 

soliciting feedback from all interested parties. 

Last year, before I reintroduced my bill, I released a discussion 

draft of this revised proposal and accepted public comments from 

citizens and elected leaders all over the state. As a result of the 

feedback from this process, I am actually personally sorry to say 

I made the tough decision to remove the Roan Plateau from the 

4 

final bill. While the Roan Plateau is a remarkable area that 

deserves to be protected, it is entangled in litigation over energy 

development and the ongoing settlement discussions should be 

given a chance to succeed before Congress intervenes. 

My proposal has received significant local support over the last 

decade. It has been endorsed by 350 businesses and organizations 

from across the state, 14 Colorado counties and municipalities have 

expressed their support for wilderness, and just last summer over 

14,000 Colorado residents signed cards in support of the wilderness 

areas proposed in our bill. 

I am going to leave it to the witnesses, Mr. Chairman, to talk 

about the many benefits for Colorado that wilderness has, but as 

you said, increased pressures on the public lands for population 

growth, mining, natural gas drilling and diverse forms of recreation 

have made it even more important to preserve our few remaining 

wild places, and I think that it is not contradictory to both preserve 

wilderness and also encourage oil and gas drilling and other types 

of public lands use. 

For all of these reasons, over 70 percent of Coloradans supported 

additional wilderness designation in a 2007 statewide poll, including majorities in all parts of the state and from both political parties. In that same poll, over 90 percent of Coloradans agreed that 

wilderness was important for the tourism it supports, and 71 percent agreed that wilderness-quality lands should not be sacrificed 

for energy development. Seventy-three percent of the people who 

live on the western slope of Colorado, where most of these lands 

occur, support more BLM wilderness. 

This bill, Mr. Chairman, has seen a decade of work for me and 

my staff and from the many citizens statewide who have been involved. The proposed areas have been reviewed and inventoried by 

the BLM, the Forest Service, and local citizens for even longer. But 

Mr. Chairman, I recognize and I think Mr. Salazar recognizes too, 

today’s hearing is not the end of the process. I look forward to continuing to work with local residents and leaders, and all of the 

Members of the Congressional Delegation going forward to continue 

to refine this proposal, and I welcome the feedback and input of 

today’s session. 

Our public lands are valued for many reasons, for motorized 

recreation and resource extraction, to their ability to find solitude 

and unblemished landscapes. But I strongly believe, Mr. Chairman, 

that we must conserve a small portion of those very most special 

public lands for future generations. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. DeGette follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Diana DeGette, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Colorado 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very much appreciate you holding this hearing today. 

I have introduced a version of the Colorado Wilderness Act each Congress for the 

last decade. This bill was brought to me by Colorado citizens committed to protecting the few remaining wild places in our state. Colorado has a remarkable outdoor heritage. Its residents—from Carbondale to Colorado Springs, from Denver to 

Durango—live in Colorado because of the outdoors. As Coloradans, our quality of 

life is enhanced tremendously from access to our state’s magnificent public lands. 

The outdoors is central to our lifestyle, and is essential to our state’s economy. Our 

natural lands bring in millions of tourist dollars every year and support industries 

from outfitters to gear manufacturers. 

5 

The bill before us today, the Colorado Wilderness Act of 2009, would protect some 

of the most cherished lands in our state. Many of these lands are lower lying canyon 

areas, foothills, and lower elevation desert terrain. This type of landscape is not well 

represented among our current wilderness areas. Nearly all existing wilderness in 

Colorado is above 9,000 feet in elevation. 

Part of the reason for this oversight is historical. The original Wilderness Act directed the Forest Service and the National Park Service—but not the BLM—to 

study lands under their control for potential wilderness designation. Congress remedied this in 1976 in the Federal Land Policy Management Act. The BLM then undertook a process of inventorying lands in Colorado and elsewhere to determine 

their suitability for wilderness. In 1991, the BLM presented its final list of Wilderness Study Areas. These areas continue to be managed to preserve their natural 

condition and wilderness character. Approximately three-quarters of the land in this 

bill consist of BLM-managed Wilderness Study Areas. 

In the early 1990’s, after the Wilderness Study Areas were designated, dedicated 

citizens took it upon themselves to review the areas BLM had recommended and 

to suggest additional areas that had outstanding wilderness characteristics. These 

thorough citizen inventories were conducted by volunteers who spent countless 

hours on the ground mapping areas that merited wilderness designation. In 1994, 

the citizens published their first proposal for Colorado wilderness on BLM lands. 

For the next decade, they continued to review and inventory wilderness-quality 

areas. They held public meetings across Western Colorado, seeking input on their 

proposal. As a result of these efforts, a revised citizen proposal was published in 

2001, and another revision took place in 2007. 

This bill has stemmed directly from the citizen efforts. Over the last decade, the 

bill has evolved in significant ways, and it will continue to evolve through this hearing and the legislative process. The full citizen’s wilderness proposal is 62 areas consisting of 1.65 million acres. While I support the vision of the citizen’s proposal, I 

have scaled back my bill over time to focus on those areas that are most deserving 

of protection and have the fewest potential conflicts. I have done this in consultation 

with local citizens, other Members of Congress, and local elected officials. 

I have also made significant changes to the legislative language over time. For 

instance, I removed the federal reserve water right that was in earlier versions of 

the bill, and I made specific boundary adjustments as a result of direct local input. 

The current bill contains 34 areas consisting of roughly 850,000 acres. It would 

leave unaffected over 90% of BLM-managed lands, which would remain open to oil 

and gas drilling, mining, off-road vehicle use and other development. 

Since I introduced the first version of this bill in 1999, I have consulted with interested groups, local leaders, and other members of the Congressional delegation 

to focus on select areas. I have traveled the state, visiting 14 of the areas by foot, 

horse, or boat. On these trips, I was joined by landowners, ranchers, business leaders, and elected officials. I have also held a number of public meetings and discussions on my proposal, soliciting feedback from all interested parties. 

Last year before I reintroduced my bill, I released a discussion draft and accepted 

public comments from citizens and elected leaders all over the state. As a result of 

feedback from this process, I made the tough decision to remove the Roan Plateau 

from the final bill. While the Roan Plateau is a remarkable area that deserves to 

be protected, it is entangled in litigation over energy development and the ongoing 

settlement discussions should be given a chance to succeed before Congress intervenes. 

My proposal has received significant local support over the last decade. It has 

been endorsed by 350 businesses and organizations from across the state. Fourteen 

Colorado counties and municipalities have expressed their support for wilderness. 

And just last summer, over 14,000 Colorado residents signed cards in support of the 

wilderness areas proposed in our bill. 

Wilderness has many benefits for Colorado. With increased pressures on our public lands from population growth, mining, natural gas drilling, and the diverse forms 

of recreation Coloradans now pursue, it is incredibly important to preserve our remaining wild places. I think it’s important to have energy development, but on the 

other hand, I don’t think it’s contradictory to preserve wilderness. Wilderness areas 

are available for many low-impact recreational activities, including hiking, hunting, 

fishing, rafting, camping, rock climbing, and horseback riding. Wilderness provides 

important ecological benefits, protecting wildlife habitat, watersheds, and air quality. Also, wilderness designation contributes significantly to the local economy by attracting tourism, and can increase local property values. 

For all of these reasons, over 70% of Coloradans supported additional wilderness 

designation in a 2007 poll, including majorities in all parts of the state and from 

both political parties. In the same poll, over 90% of Coloradans agreed that wilderVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:29 Jun 21, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\55394.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
6 

ness was important for the tourism it supports, and 71% agreed that wildernessquality lands should not be sacrificed for energy development. Seventy percent of 

Western Slope residents supported additional BLM wilderness. 

This bill has seen a decade of work from me and my staff, and the proposed areas 

have been reviewed and inventoried by the BLM, the Forest Service, and local citizens for even longer. But I recognize, and I know Mr. Salazar recognizes too, that 

today’s hearing is not the end of the process. I look forward to working with local 

residents and leaders, and all members of the Congressional delegation going forward to continue to refine this proposal. And I welcome the feedback and input of 

today’s witnesses. 

Coloradans Express Strong Support for Wilderness Protection 

A May 2007 poll conducted by Talmey-Drake found that a solid majority of Colorado voters favor additional wilderness designation of federal public lands in Colorado. This support is shared widely among Coloradans across geographic, political 

party affiliation and gender categories, and is nearly identical whether respondents 

hunt, fish or recreate in other ways. Specific results are highlighted below. 

• Nearly Three-Quarters of Coloradans Statewide Agree Wilderness Quality Lands Are More Important for Recreation, Tourism and Wildlife than 

for Energy Development and Motorized Recreation. When read pro-wilderness 


55394.001.eps
7 

and anti-wilderness statements, nearly three-quarters (71%) of those surveyed 

agreed with the pro-wilderness argument, versus 24% who aligned themselves with 

the anti-wilderness statement. This support was consistent across all geographic regions of the state (ranging from 59% to 76%, with both Denver and West Slope at 

76%). There was also majority support for the pro-wilderness statement across all 

political parties; although support was higher among Democrats (85%) and Independents (76%), Republicans also favored BLM wilderness (52% supporting versus 

43% opposed). 

Supporters of more wilderness protection say Colorado’s population has 

grown 20 percent in the past eight years and new development uses up 

about 250 acres every day. They also point out that tourism, recreation and 

hunting are some of the largest contributors to Colorado’s economy, and 

that this rapid growth, as well as increased drilling of oil and gas on our 

public lands, is putting intense pressure on Colorado’s national parks, wilderness areas and forests. Therefore more of the state’s remaining wild 

places should be protected for recreation, wildlife, and our children before 

it’s too late. Further, they say that we can never drill our way to energy 

independence and we ought to implement sustainable energy alternatives 

before we damage these last best wild places. 

Opponents of more wilderness protection say there are already enough protected areas in Colorado. They say the state has more than 30 million acres 

designated as national parks and forests, state parks, and open space, and 

more than ten percent of this 30 million acres is already locked up as wilderness, where off-road vehicles users and mountain bikers are prohibited. 

Further, they say that locking up more wilderness areas goes too far by 

banning oil and gas exploration at a time we need more domestic oil and 

gas production to provide greater energy independence from the Middle 

East countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran. 

Now, with which do you tend to agree more—the statement in support of 

more wilderness protection, or the statement opposed to more wilderness 

protection? [n=617] 

• Voters Favor Protection of Wilderness-Quality Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lands. About one million out of the eight million acres of public lands 

managed in Colorado by the BLM meet the criteria for wilderness designation. 

Nearly two-thirds of Coloradans statewide (64%) support wilderness designation of 

these BLM lands—70% strongly so—versus 27% who opposed this proposal (55% 

strongly so). Again, support for this wilderness proposal was consistent across all 

geographic regions of the state and political parties. 

• West Slopers Strongly Support Additional Wilderness near their Communities. Seventy percent of West Slope respondents favored designation of wilderness-quality Forest Service or BLM lands in or near the county where they live, 84% 

strongly so. Only 23% of those surveyed on the West Slope were in opposition (75% 

strongly opposed). This support was particularly high among Democrats (78%) and 

Independents (77%), but less so among Republicans (48% supportive versus 41% opposed). 

• Coloradans Believe Wilderness is Important to the Economy and their 

Quality of Life. When read statements about wilderness, more than 90% agreed 

that wilderness areas were important economically for the hunting, fishing and 

tourism they support, versus 9% who opposed. This result was very consistent 

across political party and geographic region. 

Strong support (80%) was also found for the statement that ‘‘[t]he presence of 

nearby wilderness helps define Colorado and is an important reason why I choose 

to live here.’’ While high across all geographic regions, this sentiment was highest 

on the West Slope (89%, with 67% feeling strongly) and lowest on the Eastern 

Plains at 68%. 

• Coloradans Are Not Swayed by Energy and Motorized Recreation Arguments Against Wilderness. Only 33% of respondents agreed with a statement 

that wilderness-quality lands are needed for domestic energy development, while 

71% supported an alternative statement that wilderness-quality lands should not be 

sacrificing for energy development but clean energy alternatives pursued instead. 

Similarly, a statement suggesting that wilderness unfairly restricts off-road vehicles users and mountain bikers from recreation opportunities received much less 

support (37%) than an alternative statement arguing that these uses have ample 

access to the majority of public lands while additional wilderness is necessary for 

quiet uses (78%). Notably support for this statement was highest on the West Slope 

and North Corridor (Larimer and Weld counties) at 83%. 

8 

1Quotas were established for Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Denver, Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, 

Larimer, Mesa, Pueblo and Weld. 

Methodology 

The survey was conducted by Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc., a public 

opinion and market research firm in Boulder, Colorado. The results of this survey 

are based on 617 random telephone interviews with Colorado residents, conducted 

from May 1st to 14th, 2007. Quotas were established to obtain equal representation 

for men and women, and an appropriate representation from among certain counties 1. The West Slope was then oversampled to obtain approximately 100 completed 

interviews on the West Slope. Results were then weighted to reflect the actual population of the West Slope. A random sample of 617 has a worst-case 95% confidence 

interval of plus or minus 3.9% about any one reported percentage. 

The poll was commissioned by Colorado Environmental Coalition, The Wilderness 

Society and Wilderness Workshop. For more information, please contact: Elise 

Jones, CEC, 303-534-7066, x1504; Suzanne Jones, TWS, 303-650-5818, x102; or 

Sloan Shoemaker, WW, 970-963-3977. 

Central Colorado Wilderness Coalition ‘‘Wild Ten’’ Endorsers 

(the ‘‘Wild Ten’’ including Browns Canyon) 

Aiken Audubon Society—Colorado Springs, CO 

American Lands Alliance—Boulder, CO 

Arkansas River Outfitters Association—Salida, CO 

Arkansas Valley Audubon Society—Pueblo, CO 

Audubon Colorado—Colorado 

Catamount Institute—Colorado Springs, CO 

Center for Native Ecosystems—Denver, CO 

Colorado Environmental Coalition—Colorado 

Colorado Mountain Club—Colorado 

Colorado Native Plant Society—Fort Collins, CO 

Colorado River Outfitters Association—Buena Vista, CO 

Colorado Wild—Denver, CO 

Environment Colorado—Denver, CO 

Friends of Browns Canyon—Salida, CO 

Great Old Broads for Wilderness—Durango, CO 

Mountain Chalet—Colorado Springs, CO 

Quiet Use Coalition—Buena Vista, CO 

Rocky Mountain Recreation Initiative—Nederland, CO 

San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council—Alamosa, CO 

Sierra Club—Rocky Mountain Chapter 

The Evergreen Naturalists Audubon Society (TENAS)—Evergreen, CO 

The Wilderness Society— Four Corners Regional Office, Denver, CO 

Trails and Open Space Coalition—Colorado Springs, CO 

University of Colorado Environmental Center—Boulder, CO 

Western Resource Advocates—Boulder, CO 

Western Slope Environmental Resource Council—Paonia, CO 

Wild Connections—Florissant, CO 

Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads—Missoula, MT 

Wildlands Project—Colorado 

Wilderness Study Group—University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 

Wilderness Workshop—Carbondale, CO 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Let me now ask our Ranking Member if he has 

any opening comments. 

Mr. BISHOP. No, I will waive and we can get on with the testimony. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. OK. Mr. Heinrich, any opening comments? No? 

Thank you. 

The first panel consisting of a panelist, Representative Salazar 

from Colorado’s Third District. Welcome, sir, and I look forward to 

your comments. 

9 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN T. SALAZAR, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Mr. SALAZAR. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

having this very important hearing, and I do want to commend 

Mrs. DeGette from Colorado who has been a strong advocate for 

wilderness and protecting our environment in Colorado. 

As many of you know, I represent the Third Congressional District, it is the most beautiful district in the entire country, and I 

appreciate having this opportunity to comment on Colorado wilderness. Let me first say at the outset that no one has been a greater 

champion for protecting Colorado than Ms. Diana DeGette, and I 

appreciate that. She has tenaciously worked for over 11 years to 

ensure that worthy areas that help define the beauty that is Colorado are preserved for future generations, and I applaud her for 

that. 

The bill before the Committee today would designate as wilderness hundreds of thousands of acres that are located within the 

Third and the Second District of Colorado, and some in Mr. 

Lamborn’s district. The Congresswoman and I have had several opportunities and several conversations about her proposal, and I 

agree that some of these areas deserve further review and potential 

consideration. However, it is my strong belief that there is a right 

way to proceed with wilderness legislation in my district. 

As many of you recall, the Committee recently held a hearing on 

H.R. 3914, the San Juan Mountain Wilderness Act which designates 62,000 acres in my district as wilderness and other protected designations. The way we developed this bill, I believe, was 

the right way to proceed. The San Juan bill is a product of three 

years of hard and detailed work. We spoke with all the interested 

stakeholders in the region, including landowners, oil and gas companies, recreational groups, ranchers, conservation groups, elected 

officials, the Forest Service, and others in order to resolve the 

issues and develop a bill that receive wide support and almost 100 

percent consensus. 

It was a time-consuming process but I believe that the result is 

a wilderness bill that protects pristine natural areas and habitat, 

and that has support of the major stakeholders in the area. It was 

a win/win for our region. I think it is critical that we weigh the 

competing demands when considering areas for wilderness protection. We cannot impose wilderness designations from the outside 

but instead must be a carefully considered process. 

Although I know the Congresswoman has pursued some of these 

areas for over 11 years and has garnered some support for her proposal, I have found that numerous obstacles remain in virtually 

most of the proposed areas. As a Member of Congress who represents these areas, I cannot support simply imposing wilderness 

on my constituents. I believe it must be negotiated and worked out 

with all the various stakeholders in order to achieve a consensus. 

There are some specific concerns about this bill that I would like 

to highlight, and the language used for water issues in this legislation would cause major problems with the water use in the western 

slope of my district. The Congresswoman addressed the issue of 

Federal reserve and non-Federal reserve water rights which has 

been addressed. However, there is a delicate balance that we have 

10 

and there are major concerns among the Dolores water users, and 

with the delicate balance of water distribution in these basins. 

Major water uses could be curtailed, causing sever economic hardship in my district, and the most important part of it is it could 

jeopardize interstate compact agreements. 

This bill also does not have language that protects the existence 

of ditches and reservoirs that are within the areas proposed for wilderness. Each and every specific area must be addressed differently. While one ditch may not seem like a big deal to some, to 

a farmer who depends on it for his livelihood it is, and he should 

be protected. 

This bill in its current form closed numerous motorized routes, 

snowmobile areas and mountain bike trails. These are important 

activities in my district that contribute to both the quality of life 

that my constituents enjoy as well as being a major economic activity in these communities. I believe that we will hear testimony 

about how the San Juan Wilderness Bill will improve the economics of the Telluride and San Miguel County areas. 

There are some areas in this bill that some say have all their 

issues resolved. However, I call your attention to the fact that 

there are still some critical issues that need to be resolved, even 

in some of these cases. For instance at the Palisade, the 

Powderhorn and the Roubideau, there are motorized routes that 

would be closed by this legislation. In short, even in the area some 

argue that they are most ready for designation as wilderness, some 

critical issues still need to be discussed with local communities. 

To shed more light on these issues, I would like to introduce for 

the record the letters, and I have shared these with the Congresswoman, that I have received from entities in my district expressing 

their concern about the legislation. 

Finally, I share the concerns that I have heard from the U.S. 

Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management for this legislation, which you will be hearing about later on in the testimony. 

I do appreciate you holding this hearing today, Mr. Chairman, and 

I commend Mrs. DeGette for her efforts. Our staffs have spoken, 

and it is my understanding that the Congresswoman’s intention of 

moving this bill is one of using it as a means to identify potential 

wilderness for future discussions, and if that is the case, I can assure you that I will continue to work with the interested parties 

and I will continue to work with Ms. DeGette to identify areas in 

my district which may be appropriate for wilderness consideration, 

and I will work to form a consensus with stakeholders just as I did 

with the San Juan Mountain Wilderness Bill. 

I want to thank you for your time and allowing me to testify. We 

may differ in the details but we share the same goal of seeing more 

wilderness created in Colorado. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Salazar follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable John T. Salazar, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Colorado 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I appreciate having this opportunity to comment on H.R. 4289, The Colorado Wilderness Act of 2009, 

Let me first just say at the outset that no one has been a champion for protecting 

natural areas like Congresswoman DeGette has been. She has tenaciously worked 

to ensure that worthy areas that help define the beauty that is Colorado are preVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:29 Jun 21, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\55394.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
11 

served for future generations. And I applaud her for that. But there is a right to 

do this, and there is a wrong way. And as the representative of the district in which 

most of the proposed designations are located, I am going to insist that this process 

be done the right way. And that has not yet happened in this case. 

The bill before the Committee today would designate as Wilderness hundreds of 

thousands of acres that are located within the 3rd congressional district of Colorado, 

which I represent. The Congresswoman and I have had several conversations about 

her proposal, and I agree that some of these areas deserve further review and potential consideration. 

However, it is my strong belief that there is a right way to proceed with wilderness legislation in my district and, unfortunately, H.R. 4289 does not meet what I 

believe are the appropriate standards of discussion and negotiation with my constituents who would be affected. As you’ll recall, the Committee recently held a 

hearing on H.R. 3914, the San Juan Mountain Wilderness Act, which designates 

62thousand acres in my district as Wilderness and other protective designations The 

way we developed this bill is, I believe, the right way to proceed. 

My San Juan bill is the product of three years of hard and detailed work. We 

spoke with all the interested stakeholders in the region, including landowners, recreational groups, ranchers, conservation groups, elected officials, and the Forest 

Service, in order to resolve issues and develop a bill that received wide support and 

consensus. It was a time consuming process, but I believe the result is a Wilderness 

bill that protects pristine natural areas and habitat and that has the support of the 

major stakeholders in the area. It is a win-win for our region. 

It is critical that we weigh the competing demands when considering areas for 

wilderness protection. We cannot impose a wilderness designation from the outside, 

as H.R. 4289 would do, but it instead must be a carefully considered process. Although I know the Congresswoman has pursued some of these areas for a number 

of years and has garnered some support for her proposals, I have found that numerous obstacles remain in virtually all of the proposed areas. As the Member of Congress who represents these areas, I cannot support simply imposing Wilderness on 

my constituents—it must be negotiated and worked out with all the various stakeholders in order achieve a consensus. 

There are some specific concerns about this bill that I would like to highlight. The 

language used for water issues in this legislation would cause major problems with 

water use on the Western Slope of my district. By creating a federal reserved water 

right on major rivers such as the Dolores, the delicate balance of water distribution 

in these basins would be forever lost. Major water uses could be curtailed causing 

severe economic hardship in my district. This bill also does not have language that 

protect the existence of ditches and reservoirs that are within the areas proposed 

for Wilderness. While one ditch may not seem like a big deal to some, to the farmer 

who depends on it is their lifeblood and should be protected. 

This bill in its current form would close numerous motorized routes, snowmobile 

areas and mountain bike trails. These are important activities in my district that 

contribute to both the quality of life that my constituents enjoy as well as being a 

major economic activity in these communities. In addition many of the areas proposed for Wilderness designations in my district have existing mineral leases that 

are important to our nation’s energy supply and an important part of the economy 

in my district. As you know a Wilderness designation on top of an existing mineral 

lease is just not something Congress does without the cooperation, or at least consultation with the lease holder. To do so compromises energy companies private 

property rights and I cannot support that. 

There are some areas in this bill that some are saying have all their issues resolved. However I call your attention to the fact there are still some critical issues 

that need to be resolved even in these areas. For instance at The Palisade, 

Powderhorn and Roubideau there are motorized routes that would be closed by this 

legislation. Perhaps the community in these areas will support this closure if they 

want to see the protection that Wilderness would give these areas, but the discussion has to take place at the community level before that decision can be made. In 

the Thompson Ridge area this legislation would close a mountain bike trail. In short 

even in the areas some argue are most ready for designation as Wilderness some 

critical issues still need to be discussed with local communities. 

To shed more light on these issues I would like to introduce for the record letters 

I have received from entities in my district expressing their concern with this legislation. 

Mr. Chairman I would also like to take the time to update you on several processes under way in the third Congressional District that may result in a community 

consensus to pursue legislation. Some of the areas included in H.R. 4289 are directly impacted by these processes All across Western Colorado the difficult patient 

12 

work of many communities are working to explore the possibility of designating 

more Wilderness Areas that will have broad based support. I believe it is important 

to let these processes proceed at their own pace at the community level before Congress acts. The people of these communities who live and work in these areas are 

best positioned to make these recommendations and decisions to us, not the other 

way around. These are some of the processes ongoing in my district that I am monitoring and participating in: 

Hermosa Creek Workgroup 

For over two years the Hermosa Creek workgroup has met to work towards a consensus set of recommendations to me about how to proceed with a legislative approach to protect this amazing watershed. This group is composed of all interested 

parties that have a stake or an interest in the Hermosa Creek watershed including 

outfitters, conservationists, sportsmen, property owners, mining advocates, water 

district officials, motorized users, mountain bikers and local elected officials. In 

short anyone who has an interest was invited to the table for two years worth of 

meetings and all options were on the table and just this last month I received an 

official communication from this group that they are requesting that I draft legislation to implement their recommendations. I am currently taking a hard look at this 

request and if I decide local support for this proposed legislation is strong enough 

then I will indeed introduce legislation for this area. This legislation could provide 

permanent protection for around 150,000 acres of this watershed, including a new 

50,000 acre Wilderness west of Hermosa Creek. 

Alpine Triangle 

Trout Unlimited and other stakeholders have been working at the grassroots level 

in Hinsdale, Ouray and San Juan Counties to explore the possibility of creating an 

Alpine Loop National Conservation Area that could include a Wilderness designation for some or all of the proposed Redcloud and Handies areas from H.R. 4289. 

This effort may result in legislation the local communities can support. But both the 

counties and Trout Unlimited do not support an effort to push any federal designations through before the extensive on the ground work is done. This community discussion should be given time to unfold at its own pace and reach its own conclusion. 

While this effort is in its early stages if the discussion yields a community consensus with broad support for a legislative approach I would be happy to introduce 

legislation for this area. 

Lower Dolores Plan Working Group 

Just this week the Lower Dolores Plan Working Group formed a subcommittee 

to forge a proposal for a legislative approach to management of the Dolores River 

between McPhee Reservoir and the town of Bedrock. While it is far too soon to tell 

if this will result in an actual recommendation from this community to seek legislation, if it does then I will carry forth legislation on behalf of this community. This 

legislation could designate as Wilderness many of the areas proposed for designation 

in H.R. 4289 in the Dolores River basin. 

To act now on designating any of these areas before the community based processes can conclude is quite simply disrespectful to the constituents of my district. 

Many of my constituents have put in long nights away from home to come and gather around a table and meet with the other members of their community. This is long 

difficult work that requires patience and perseverance. I commend and thank each 

and every one of my constituents who have participated in these work groups. I feel 

strongly that to act to designate these areas before these discussions have a chance 

to conclude is something I simply cannot support. I will continue to monitor all of 

these ongoing efforts and feel the chances are good at least some of them will result 

in legislation. Mr. Chairman please do not be surprised to see me back here before 

you in the near future with legislation that I will bring to this committee on behalf 

of my constituents. 

I appreciate your holding this hearing today, Mr. Chairman, and I commend Ms. 

DeGette for her efforts. However, I cannot support her bill today. I will, though, continue to work with interested parties to identify areas in my district which may be 

appropriate for wilderness consideration and will work to form a consensus with 

stakeholders, just as I did with the San Juan Mountains Wilderness bill. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Salazar. As you informed me, you 

have pending business right now after this hearing and you are 

going to have to leave immediately, as I understand it. I want to 

thank you for your testimony and I am sure if there is any followVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:29 Jun 21, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\55394.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
13 

up that members of the panel will be more than glad to provide 

those requests for information or requests to you directly, so let me 

thank you. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Mr. Chairman. I just wanted— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Please. 

Ms. DEGETTE. If I could just say one thing. I want to thank Mr. 

Salazar for coming and I also want to thank him for all the work 

he has done with my office and all of the discussions we have had. 

I think I can fairly say we consider ourselves to be brother and sister. Now sometimes we argue and sometimes we can agree, but we 

have agreed that we both care about wilderness. We have agreed 

to work on all of these issues—not just in my district, but throughout the state—to make sure that we make the state the best place, 

and I just really appreciate him coming. 

I would also ask unanimous consent to put his letters in the 

record because he has shared those with me. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Without objection. 

[NOTE: A list of documents submitted for the record and 

retained in the Committee’s official files can be found at the 

end of this hearing.] 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Again, thank you, Mr. Salazar. I appreciate your 

time. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I just wanted to 

say that this has been a great opportunity. This is the first time 

that I have been able to sit at the table by myself. I feel a little 

bit lonely, like a bull’s eye. However, I do appreciate it, sir, and 

anyone who may have questions for me I would be happy to submit 

written responses to them. Thank you. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, sir. 

Let me now invite the second panel up, please. Thank you very 

much for being here. Let me begin with Ms. Marcilynn Burke, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management. Welcome, and thank 

you for your time. I am looking forward to your comments regarding the legislation before us. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF MARCILYNN A. BURKE, 

DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

Ms. BURKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on H.R. 4289, the Colorado Wilderness Act. 

The department strongly supports the constructive resolution of 

public lands issues and wilderness designation issues in Colorado 

and across the western United States. H.R. 4289, as you know, 

proposes to designate 34 wilderness units on BLM-managed lands 

and U.S. Forest System lands totaling nearly 850,000 acres to be 

added to the National Wilderness Preservation System. These designations are largely focused in western Colorado and includes 

spectacular canyons, vast open spaces, unique habitats, diverse 

wildlife, and nationally significant cultural resource sites. 

The Bureau of Land Management has not undertaking a detailed 

analysis and review of each of the many areas, however, proposed 

for wilderness designation under the bill. Such a review would take 

a careful look at the myriad of land use issues, including wilderness character or quality, boundary manageability, and conflict 

14 

with current uses, including motorized recreation and energy development. 

Many of the areas proposed for designation have important wilderness values and deserve protection. There are also several areas 

proposed for wilderness designation under H.R. 4289 where conflicts exist with existing and proposed uses, making manageability 

of wilderness here problematic. 

As always, we welcome the opportunity to work cooperatively 

with the sponsor of the legislation, the Committee, and all the 

Members of the Colorado Delegation on wilderness issues in Colorado. However, we suggest a more narrow geographical focus here. 

Our nation’s wilderness system includes many of our most treasured landscapes and ensures that these untrammeled lands and resources are conserved with these outstanding wilderness characteristics intact as they are passed down from one generation of Americans to the next. 

Through our wilderness decisions, we demonstrate a stewardship 

and conservation that is uniquely American and is sensibly balanced with the other decisions we make that affect public lands. 

Colorado’s exquisite deserts, canyons, cliffs, and peaks deserve our 

careful attention and thoughtful review. We recommend a more 

limited approach here so that we can assure proper review and 

consultation. Working cooperatively with local and national constituencies, this Subcommittee, the sponsor of the bill, and the Colorado Congressional Delegation, we can protect these very special 

places. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I would be happy 

to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Burke follows:] 

Statement of Marcilynn A. Burke, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land 

Management, U.S. Department of the Interior 

Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on H.R. 4289, the 

Colorado Wilderness Act. The Department strongly supports the constructive resolution of public lands and wilderness designation issues in Colorado and across the 

western United States. Enactment of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act 

(Public Law 111-11) last year provided resolution of wilderness issues for a wide 

array of lands in California, Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Oregon and Utah. 

The scope of H.R. 4289 is vast; covering over 615,000 acres of lands administered 

by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The BLM has not undertaken a detailed analysis and review of each of the many areas proposed for wilderness designation. Such a review would require detailed mapping by the BLM and a careful 

look at a myriad of land use issues including: wilderness quality, boundary manageability, and conflicts with current uses, including motorized recreation and energy 

development. 

As always, we welcome the opportunity to work cooperatively with the sponsor of 

the legislation, the Committee, and all members of the Colorado delegation on wilderness issues in Colorado. However, we suggest an approach that utilizes a narrower geographical focus. 

Our Nation’s wilderness system includes many of our most treasured landscapes 

and ensures that these untrammeled lands and resources are conserved with these 

outstanding wilderness characteristics intact as they are passed down from one generation of Americans to the next. Through our wilderness decisions, we demonstrate 

a sense of stewardship and conservation that is uniquely American and is sensibly 

balanced with the other decisions we make that affect public lands. 

Background 

The Department strongly supports the constructive resolution of public lands and 

wilderness designation issues in Colorado and across the Western United States. 

The Omnibus Public Land Management Act (P.L. 111-11) signed by the President 

15 

a year ago, added to America’s treasured landscapes and included designation in 

Colorado of the 66,000-acre Dominguez Canyon Wilderness Area within a larger 

210,000-acre National Conservation Area (NCA). In January of this year, we testified in support of designating 8,600 acres as the McKenna Peak Wilderness in San 

Miguel County, Colorado. Both of these proposals are the result of consensus and 

cooperation, bringing together all interested parties to the debate. 

The BLM understands that numerous citizen volunteers have spent countless 

hours combing the cliffs, valleys, canyons, and mountains of western Colorado, and 

have contributed to the proposal before us. These individuals care deeply about the 

land and its protection, and we share that commitment. 

H.R. 4289 

Colorado’s treasured landscapes are recognized for their powerful impact on the 

human spirit and are a source of inspiration. The BLM is committed to managing 

wildlands responsibly in the context of our multiple-use mission. H.R. 4289 proposes to designate 34 wilderness units on BLM-managed lands and U.S. Forest System lands, totaling nearly 850,000 acres, adding them to the National Wilderness 

Preservation System. These designations are largely focused in western Colorado. 

These include spectacular canyons, vast open spaces, unique habitat, diverse wildlife, and nationally significant cultural resource sites. The DOI defers to the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture regarding proposed designations on National Forest System lands. 

Many of the areas proposed for designation by H.R. 4289 have important wilderness values and deserve protection. I would like to highlight three areas where existing uses and land management are well-suited to wilderness designation. 

Known for its spectacular beauty, the proposed Palisade Wilderness contains 

nearly 27,000 acres of remarkable scenery and varied plant and wildlife species. The 

Palisade itself is an iconic fin—a three-mile rocky spine slicing through the area. 

A 12-mile cliff line with steep slopes characterizes the southern area of the proposed 

wilderness and deep rugged canyons dominate the eastern areas. Extraordinary 

backcountry hiking and backpacking provide challenges to experienced travelers. 

The North Fork of West Creek and West Creek waterways running through the Palisade area exhibit unusually high species diversity and density, and are eligible for 

Wild and Scenic River designation. 

The proposed Castle Peak Wilderness consists of over 16,000 acres of steep rugged 

slopes, rolling hills, deep basins, and sprawling meadows. The region is home to a 

vibrant assortment of wildlife, including elk, deer, black bear, mountain lion, bobcat, 

and raptors. Hunting and fishing are popular activities in the area and are consistent with wilderness designation. 

The proposed Browns Canyon Wilderness is one of rugged beauty, colorful 

outcroppings, and abundant wildlife. The 3,000-foot deep canyon along the Arkansas 

River forms the western boundary of the proposed wilderness. From there the land 

climbs dramatically to an elevation of 10,000 feet to the east. While a single ecosystem, the land is divided administratively. The BLM manages the western portion, including the canyon, while the Forest Service manages the eastern portion. 

A significant herd of bighorn sheep resides within Browns Canyon, and it is an important winter range for deer and elk. Views from the area across the Arkansas Valley to the 14,000-foot peaks of the Collegiate Range are among the most spectacular 

in Colorado. The Arkansas River is one of this country’s most popular white water 

rafting destinations, with more than 300,000 visitors floating it annually. Nearly 

half of these visitors float the nationally renowned Browns Canyon segment, which 

is adjacent to the proposed wilderness but is not included in the proposed wilderness. 

There are also several areas proposed for wilderness designation under H.R. 4289 

where conflicts with existing and proposed uses make manageability as wilderness 

problematic. Recreational use has exploded on public lands throughout the West, including in Colorado. While many recreational activities, such as hunting, fishing, 

and hiking are compatible with wilderness designation, others, such as mountain 

biking and off-highway vehicle use, are not. Some of the areas proposed for wilderness designation contain popular motorized or mechanized recreation areas. 

The proposed Bangs Canyon Wilderness is bisected by the nationally recognized 

Tabeguache Trail. Almost 9 miles of the 142-mile Tabeguache Trail connecting 

Grand Junction and Montrose pass through the area proposed for wilderness designation. This trail receives about 30,000 visitors annually and accommodates both 

mountain bikes and motorized recreationists, both of which are incompatible with 

wilderness designation. Approximately 8,000 of the acres of the proposed wilderness 

are managed by the BLM for these mechanized and motorized uses. The BLM manVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:29 Jun 21, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\55394.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
16 

ages approximately 13,000 acres of the ‘‘heart’’ of the proposed wilderness (Bangs 

Canyons East and West) as a back-country primitive area. 

Existing and proposed energy development pose inherent conflicts with wilderness 

designations, creating the challenge of managing extensive active mining claims and 

oil and gas leases within a designated wilderness. For example, all 27,569 acres of 

the proposed South Shale Ridge Wilderness are currently leased under 44 leases for 

oil and gas and include 11 producing wells. This area, part of the Piceance Basin, 

has been identified by the BLM as an oil and gas emphasis area for over 20 years. 

Likewise, nearly half of the proposed Snaggletooth Wilderness is currently under 

lease for oil and gas development, with 27 leases existing within the area. Active 

uranium mining is also currently underway within this area. 

Similarly the proposed Table Mountain Wilderness includes over 300 active mining claims (largely for uranium). An extensive network of 47 miles of primitive 

roads supporting uranium exploration crisscrosses the area. 

Conclusion 

The Department of the Interior looks forward to future opportunities to expand 

the protection of treasured American landscapes. Colorado’s exquisite deserts, canyons, cliffs, and peaks deserve our careful attention and thoughtful review. However, we recommend an approach more limited in scope so that we can assure proper review and consultation. Working cooperatively with local and national constituencies, this subcommittee, the sponsor of the bill, and the Colorado Congressional 

delegation, we can protect these special places. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. 

Mr. Chris Brown, Director of Wilderness and Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Programs, Forest Service. Welcome, Mr. Brown. Look forward to your comments. 

STATEMENT OF CHRIS BROWN, DIRECTOR, WILDERNESS AND 

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS PROGRAMS, FOREST SERVICE, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Members 

of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity today to testify 

and share the department’s view on H.R. 4289, the Colorado Wilderness Act. I am Chris Brown. I am the Director of Wilderness 

and Wild and Scenic Rivers for the Forest Service. 

Wilderness, the lands designated by Congress possessing truly 

special characteristics and beauty are part, a unique part of our 

American heritage. The management of these lands is the responsibility that we in the Forest Service take very seriously, and I am 

proud to lead a national program which includes well over 50 percent of the units in the Wilderness Preservation System. 

H.R. 4289 would designate 34 parcels of Federal land in Colorado, comprising a little over 850,000 acres as new components of 

the national system. Some of these parcels would be stand alone, 

and some would expand existing wilderness areas. Most of the Federal land addressed by the act, about 615,000 acres, is managed by 

my colleagues at BLM. The department defers to the Interior Department in regards to those lands. 

But about 218,000 acres lying in 14 of 34 parcels identified in the 

act include National Forest System lands. All 14 parcels have public land administered by BLM contiguous with the Forest Service 

lands, and I want to state that we are really proud to partner with 

BLM in our wilderness management on some of our nation’s most 

treasured lands. 

We have not completed an extensive review of each of the proposed areas. However, during the development or revision of our 

17 

forest land and resource management plans each national forest 

conducts a thorough evaluation of potential wilderness to assure 

recommendations fully satisfy the definition of wilderness found in 

Section 2 of the Wilderness Act. 

Extensive public involvement and input from many interested 

user groups goes into the development of those forest plans. They 

are the foundation by which we evaluate any proposal related to 

our national forests, and many of the areas cited in this bill were 

not recommended for wilderness designation in their respective 

forest plans. 

In an initial assessment of the parcels shows them falling into 

three distinct categories for us. Areas we support with minimal adjustment or changes, areas that merit further discussion and modification, and areas on which we feel different management options 

or designations would be more appropriate to best balance the interests of many user groups and fulfill our multiple use mission. 

We respectfully ask to work with the Committee and the bill’s 

sponsor, Representative DeGette, to address these concerns. I am 

submitting a more detailed breakdown of each of the proposed parcels as part of my written testimony. In general though the areas 

we support include Browns Canyon, the majority of the Thompson 

Creek area, and a small portion of the Flat Tops Addition. Areas 

that we feel merit further consideration and more discussion include Badger Creek, Beaver Creek, Grape Creek, Roubideau and 

West Elk Addition. Parcels that we do not support as potential wilderness areas include Handies Peak, Norwood Canyon, Sewemup 

Mesa, Snaggletooth, Unaweep and Deep Creek. 

Most of these areas that we are not supporting have extensive 

motorized vehicle trails, roads, other kinds of uses through them, 

conflicting uses such as existing mineral, oil and gas leases. In addition, the White River National Forest Plan specifies that the 

Deep Creek area be managed for wild and scenic river objectives, 

pending the completion of a suitability study we were doing with 

the Bureau of Land Management. If as a result of that study the 

river is determined suitable, we would be pleased to support the 

river’s addition to the National Wild and Scenic River System. 

Also, in the Deep Creek area, we have the issues of military aviation training that is a consideration for us. 

So, in summary, some of the proposed areas in this bill merit wilderness designation or at least further discussion, at the same time 

many of the parcels cited in the bill have a variety of conflicting 

uses and human impacts that are inconsistent with wilderness 

character. We want to work with the Committee to take a close 

look at some of these proposed wilderness areas to identify those 

nonconforming uses in detail and adjust boundaries, where possible, to identify manageable areas that include high quality wilderness characteristics. 

So, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, thank you 

again for the opportunity to be here today. That concludes my 

statement. I would be happy to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:] 

18 

Statement of Chris Brown, Director, Wilderness and Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Programs, National Forest System, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity today 

to provide the Department’s view on H.R. 4289, the Colorado Wilderness Act of 

2009. I am Chris Brown, Director of the Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers Programs for the USDA Forest Service. 

Wilderness—those lands designated by Congress possessing truly special characteristics and beauty—is a part of our uniquely American heritage. The management 

of these lands is a duty the United States Forest Service takes very seriously. I am 

proud to lead a national program that manages well over half of the Federal land 

units designated for wilderness. 

H.R. 4289 would designate 34 parcels of federal land in Colorado—comprising 

850,134 acres—as new components of the National Wilderness Preservation System 

(NWPS). Some of these parcels would be stand-alone wilderness areas, and some 

would expand existing wilderness areas. Most of the federal land addressed by this 

Act—about 615,000 acres—is managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 

The Department defers to the Department of the Interior in regards to the proposal 

to designate BLM lands. A total of about 218,000 acres, lying in 14 of the 34 parcels 

identified in the Act, include National Forest System (NFS) lands. All 14 parcels 

also have public land administered by BLM contiguous to the NFS lands. I also 

want to state how proud we are to partner with the BLM on managing some of our 

nation’s most treasured lands. 

The proposed legislation would designate 13 of the 14 areas having National 

Forest System Lands as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System upon enactment. The parcels are Badger Creek, Beaver Creek, Browns Canyon, 

and Grape Creek on the Pike and San Isabel National Forests; the Flat Tops Addition and Thompson Creek on the White River National Forest; Norwood Canyon, 

Roubideau, West Elk Addition and Unaweep on the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and 

Gunnison National Forests (GMUG); Sewemup Mesa on the Manti-LaSal and 

GMUG; Snaggletooth on the San Juan National Forest; and Handies Peak on the 

Rio Grande, San Juan, and GMUG. In addition, Deep Creek, on the White River 

National Forest, is identified as a ‘‘Potential Wilderness Area.’’ 

Evaluation of Proposed Wilderness Areas 

We have not completed an extensive review of each of the proposed areas. However, during the development or revision of a forest land and resource management 

plan (LRMP), each national forest conducts a thorough evaluation of potential wilderness or wilderness study areas to assure recommendations fully satisfy the definition of wilderness found in section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964. Extensive 

public involvement and input from many interested user groups goes into the development of these plans. They are the foundation by which we evaluate any proposal 

related to our national forests. Many of the areas cited in this bill were not recommended for wilderness designation in their respective forest plans. An initial assessment of the parcels show them falling into 3 distinct categories: areas we support with minimal adjustment or change, some that merit further discussion and 

modification; and some we feel different management options or designations would 

be more appropriate to best balance the interests of our many user groups and fulfill 

our multiple use mission. We respectfully ask to work with the committee and the 

bill’s sponsor, Representative DeGette, to address these concerns. 

NFS Proposed Wilderness Areas on the White River National Forest 

The Department supports wilderness designation of 830 acres of the 16,392 acres 

in the Flat Tops Addition Proposed Wilderness Area, as recommended in the White 

River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (2002). The remaining 

acres would present management problems, such as a cherry-stemmed road intersecting the middle of the area that would encourage the spread of unauthorized motorized trails; a developed campsite; a private resort development directly adjacent 

to the proposed wilderness; and frequent snowmobile use. 

The Department supports wilderness designation of Assignation Ridge, an area 

comprising 11,752 acres of the 17,114 acres in the Thompson Creek Proposed Wilderness Area, as recommended in the White River Land and Resource Management 

Plan. The Braderich Trail, heavily used by mountain bikers, lies within the proposed wilderness boundary. Adjusting the western boundary to reflect the forest 

plan recommendation would exclude the trail from wilderness, and allow the continuation of mountain biking opportunities while minimizing concern about mechanized trespass. Leasable minerals, three oil and gas leases, and adjacent private 

lands needing wildland urban interface fuels treatments are additional concerns 

19 

that argue for limiting the proposed wilderness area to that recommended in the 

forest plan. 

The Department does not support ‘‘Potential Wilderness’’ designation for the 

16,392-acre NFS portion of the Deep Creek Proposed Wilderness Area. The White 

River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan specifies that Deep 

Creek be managed for wild and scenic river objectives pending completion of an ongoing joint BLM/FS suitability study. If, as a result of this study, the river is determined suitable, we would be pleased to support its addition to the National Wild 

and Scenic Rivers System (WSRS). 

The Act specifies that the Deep Creek area would be designated wilderness ‘‘upon 

the Secretary publishing in the Federal Register a notice that all nonconforming 

uses’’ have ceased.’’ The non-conforming uses relate to High-Altitude Aviation Training Site (HAATS) activities (aerial navigation training maneuver exercises) that 

occur in this area under a memorandum of understanding (MOU) among the Colorado Army National Guard, Forest Service, and BLM. It should be noted that the 

correct date of this MOU is November 19, 2007, not August 4, 1987. 

The Act specifies that HAATS exercises may continue under the MOU, but the 

MOU and associated operating plan shall be reviewed by the parties not later than 

180 days after enactment of Act, and annually thereafter. The review is to include 

consideration of alternative locations for HAATS activities on NFS lands or lands 

administered by the BLM, other than designated wilderness or potential wilderness 

areas. 

NFS Proposed Wilderness Areas on the Pike and San Isabel National 

Forests 

The Department supports designation of the Browns Canyon Proposed Wilderness 

Area. However, we are concerned that the Act would allow continued motorized use 

of the Turret Road. The road extends 3.25 miles from the proposed wilderness 

boundary into the heart of the proposed area, virtually bisecting it. This use is problematic for several reasons: some motorized users are driving off the road, creating 

a system of informal trails that damage vegetation and soil, and disturb wildlife; 

motorized use creates noise that is inconsistent with wilderness character; and motorized use complicates management of the area for wilderness. Therefore, we suggest that the road be closed to motorized use at Green Gulch, on the border of the 

proposed wilderness area. 

The Department would like to further discuss designation of the 14,696 acres in 

the Badger Creek Proposed Wilderness Area. 14,440 acres are inventoried roadless 

acres. The remaining acres contain motorized roads that would complicate management. We therefore would suggest adjusting the boundary of the proposed wilderness area. The Department would also like to further discuss designation of the Beaver 

Creek Proposed Wilderness Area. This 4,326-acre area is classified as inventoried 

roadless with no non-conforming uses. However, there are concerns that designating 

this area as wilderness could inhibit our ability to actively fight fire in the wildland 

urban interface. 

The Department does not support designation of the 16,913-acre Grape Creek Proposed Wilderness Area. Much of the proposed area is a network of motorized roads 

that would not offer a true wilderness experience. Other nonconforming uses include 

power transmission lines and pipelines under special-use permit. 

At the same time there is a smaller portion of this area-5,866 inventoried roadless 

acres known as West Tanner Peak-that we feel would merit further consideration. 

The westernmost portion of the Tanner Peak area, adjacent to BLM lands, makes 

a more manageable topographic boundary and would exclude motorized trails. 

NFS Proposed Wilderness Areas on the Rio Grande, San Juan and Grand 

Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests (GMUG) 

The Handies Peak Proposed Wilderness Area has a number of uses that would 

not conform to the Wilderness Act and that could complicate its management as wilderness. Wager Gulch is a heavily used motorized corridor on the east side of the 

proposed wilderness area; numerous roads would encourage motorized trespass. 

Moreover, a land exchange in Wager Gulch is currently being analyzed. Mountain 

bike use occurs in the Cuba Gulch area, and there is a private in-holding. The Hard 

Rock 100 foot race also crosses a portion of the area. We do not support wilderness 

designation for this area. 

NFS Proposed Wilderness on the GMUG 

The Norwood Canyon Proposed Wilderness Area has a number of nonconforming 

uses, including existing and pending oil and gas leases; a power line; past and 

planned forest management treatments, plantations and fuel treatment projects; 

20 

and a four-mile cherry stem that would complicate management as wilderness. We 

do not support wilderness designation of this area. 

The NFS portion of the Roubideau Proposed Wilderness Area adjoins the BLM’s 

Roubideau Wilderness Study Area. This 2,161 acre parcel has no motorized or nonconforming uses. Rather than discussing the merits of this smaller parcel, we would 

like to be involved in any future discussions regarding the designation of the entire 

Roubideau Wilderness Area. 

The Department does not support designation of the 39,392-acre Unaweep Proposed Wilderness Area. Most of this area has a number of nonconforming uses including motorized use, extensive vegetation management (pinyon, juniper, and 

oakbrush), timber harvest, mechanical fuels treatments, water transportation 

ditches, and reservoirs. 

The Department would like to further discuss designation of the West Elk Addition Proposed Wilderness Area. Currently the West Elk Wilderness is managed as 

a single-unit by the GMUG. The proposed addition comprises lands adjacent to it 

that are managed by the Forest Service, BLM, and National Park Service. The complexity of managing the proposed addition could be reduced by consolidating management of the federal lands in the proposed addition under one agency. It should 

be noted that the proposed area was identified in the Final Resource Protection 

Study/EIS for the Curecanti National Recreation Area (NRA) (August 2008) as land 

to be added to the NRA. 

Manti-LaSal and GMUG National Forests 

The Sewemup Mesa Proposed Wilderness Area straddles the state line of Colorado 

and Utah. There are old uranium mines at the lower end of Roc Creek, and uranium 

and active oil and gas leases within the proposed wilderness. Limited public access 

and uncontrolled motorized traffic would also pose significant problems. We do not 

support the proposed wilderness designation of Sewemup Mesa. 

San Juan National Forest 

The Snaggletooth Proposed Wilderness Area has a large number of nonconforming 

uses, including 27 oil and gas leases, roads that are used for recreation and permitted uses, active uranium mine claims, potash prospecting permits, timber treatments, wildlife habitat improvements, and fuels treatments. We do not support the 

proposed wilderness designation for this area. 

Summary 

In summary, some of the proposed areas in this bill merit wilderness designation 

or at least, further discussion. However, many of the parcels cited in the bill have 

a variety of conflicting uses and human impacts that are inconsistent with wilderness character. We want to work with the Committee to take a close look at some 

of the proposed wilderness areas to identify these nonconforming uses in detail and 

adjust boundaries, where possible, to identify manageable areas that include the 

highest-value wilderness characteristics. In addition, we strongly support the water 

provisions in the Act, which state that the Secretary shall obtain and exercise water 

rights pursuant to the laws of the State of Colorado for federal purposes necessary 

for wilderness and wilderness uses. 

This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any questions that you 

may have. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. I don’t have any questions at this point. We have 

six votes coming up and I am going to ask for the panelists’ indulgence to come back. I know we have follow-up questions for you. 

Let me at this point ask Mr. Bishop if he has any comments before we break for voting? 

Mr. BISHOP. If we are going to vote right now, I would move to 

vote and then come back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. We have six votes. 

Mr. BISHOP. I would obviously ask this request for the panel 

however long this goes that we have the right to submit written 

questions with the expectations they will be coming back, and I 

think we can vote and come back afterwards if that is OK with 

you. 

Ms. DEGETTE. I do have questions for the panel. 

21 

Mr. GRIJALVA. OK. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. After the voting? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes, after the votes. 

Mr. BISHOP. Fine. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. OK, so we are going to recess until after these 

votes—a half an hour or so. That’s the hope. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. GRIJALVA. After that short interlude, will the panelists come 

back up? Thank you. 

And again thank you. Obviously my prediction of a half an hour 

was a little bit off, but thank you for waiting through, and to the 

witnesses that are coming up in the next panel thank you as well. 

Deputy Director Burke, your testimony mentions that you would 

support a narrower geographic focus. Is that because of the level 

of support in certain areas is stronger than in others or are there 

other reasons for the narrower approach? 

Ms. BURKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We think that the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 

2009 gives us several good models about how to go about designating wilderness in the future, the Washington County portion of 

that bill, for example, or the Ouray County portion of the bill. So 

that was one county at a time. Certainly we can look at multi-county proposals as well, but our concern here is that we haven’t had 

an opportunity to thoroughly evaluate the land in order to make 

a good management decision. 

It is very rare, in fact, I am only aware of one case where we 

have had active development in a wilderness area. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Brown, could you expand a little bit on why 

potential wilderness designation is not acceptable to the Forest 

Service? 

Mr. BROWN. We in our forest plans look at the potential for wilderness and evaluate the areas, roadless areas for possible designation, but from a management point of view we would prefer to have 

a designation, if Congress wants to designate a specific name, 

something like a special management area, it is difficult for us to 

manage with a trigger or the sort of uncertainty created by potential wilderness. We would rather have the definitiveness of a special particular designation such as special management area. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes. The same question that I asked Ms. Burke, 

mining claims, oil and gas leases, there are some, you mentioned 

there are some in Forest Service areas, how have you handled similar leases in other wilderness areas? 

Mr. BROWN. Well, when an area is designated by law, the area 

is withdrawn from oil/gas leasing new leases subject to a valid existing claims. Where there are operations underway, those operations will continue. We will honor the authority under which those 

are being conducted. We will typically review the conditions, the 

stipulations that they are being conducted under, but they do continue. We have, for example, an operation underway in a wilderness area in Texas. It is not common but it does occur. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. OK, thank you. Thank you, both. 

Ms. DeGette, any questions? 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Before I ask 

my questions I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into 

22 

the record the results of the 2007 wilderness poll that I referenced 

in my opening statement. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Without objection. 

Ms. DEGETTE. A list of supporters from the Central Colorado 

Wilderness Coalition; a list of supporters from the proposed Browns 

Canyon Wilderness Area; a survey on the economic impact of hunting and fishing, and a statement from Tresi Houpt, who is a Garfield County Commissioner in support of my legislation. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Without objection. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement of Tresi Houpt, Garfield County Commissioner, 

submitted for the record follows:] 

Statement of Commissioner Tresi Houpt, Garfield County Commission 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for this opportunity to 

comment on H.R. 4289, the Colorado Wilderness Act of 2009. 

I am honored to say that I am a native Coloradan and proud 15 year resident 

of Garfield County, Colorado. My county is a diverse county in every sense of the 

word, from our flat top peaks, lush riparian river valleys to our sage brush covered 

desert highlands. Our economy spreads from tourism to growing natural gas development across the county. What makes our county special are our unique residents 

who range from old-time ranchers, workers in the service industry, and workers on 

a drilling rig. However, the fabric which binds us together in Garfield County is the 

land, the Roaring Fork and Colorado Rivers which run through it, and the wilderness all around us. 

Garfield County contains one of the first reserves ever established by the federal 

government under President Theodore Roosevelt and one of the earlier wilderness 

areas set aside in the Wilderness Act of 1964—the Flat Tops Wilderness. 

Even back then, the process of establishing wilderness in Colorado brought controversy with views ranging from those who felt the land should never be set aside 

if it had even the potential for economic production, to those who felt that every 

acre of land ‘‘untouched’’ by humans should be set aside for wildlife and recreation. 

However, people came together, as they do today, talked about what was possible, 

compromised, and put together a wilderness proposal that was reasonable, attainable and yet visionary. 

The citizens of Colorado and Congresswoman Diana DeGette have put together 

a similar proposal—the Colorado Wilderness Act—which was closely considered, 

ground-truthed by citizen volunteers and federal agencies, and vetted for the proposed lands’ wilderness potential and characteristics. 

Colorado is a fast-growing state with a population that has spread itself out as 

we have grown. Moreover, my county and the western slope of Colorado, has seen 

a proliferation of energy development—benefiting our economy, but impacting our 

citizens and our land. So it is truly remarkable to say there are remaining public 

lands still worthy of wilderness protection. The Colorado Wilderness Act before you 

today contains many of these remaining areas. 

I applaud the work of Congresswoman DeGette who has engaged our elected officials and local residents on the areas in the Colorado Wilderness Act of 2009. Without her leadership of proposing these areas and encouraging public debate and discussion of wilderness in Colorado—in particular the lower-elevation Bureau of Land 

Management areas which are the focus the Congresswoman’s legislation—we may 

never have had this historic hearing. 

There are some areas in this proposal that will require renewed review with local 

officials and citizens across the State who want to have additional opportunities for 

input. But that doesn’t mean we should not be initiating discussions on these areas 

or that they should not be considered for the very special federal designation of wilderness. 

As I look at my county today and western Colorado as a whole, I embrace the 

changes we have seen but I am also concerned for what may be lost in the future, 

particularly to our public lands. In the areas which do qualify for wilderness across 

our State and where citizens can move forward together, as generations have done 

before, we must embrace our opportunities and protect our wilderness lands so our 

children and grandchildren can enjoy the beauty and splendor of what makes the 

Colorado we love today. 

23 

I would like to close by stating that I fully support Congressman Salazar’s San 

Juan Wilderness Bill and the process he followed for identifying wilderness boundaries. In developing wilderness legislation, it is critical to engage local officials and 

citizens, as well as state and federal agencies. I appreciate the promise of collaboration demonstrated by Ms. DeGette and Mr. Salazar and the commitment to continued dialogue in Colorado as we move through this process. 

[NOTE: The other documents submitted for the record can 

be found on pages 6 and 8.] 

Ms. DEGETTE. I want to thank both of you for testifying today 

and ask you a couple of questions about your testimony. Ms. Burke, 

I want to thank you for your testimony today, and I appreciate the 

BLM support for several areas in my bill. 

Are there additional areas that you believe the BLM could support with boundary fixes or other kinds of fixes on oil and gas, minerals language, other kinds of language? 

Ms. BURKE. We would welcome the opportunity to work with you 

and to determine what areas would be appropriate for the designation. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And many of the areas in my legislation are area 

that were identified by the BLM in the original wilderness inventory back in the early 1990s, correct? 

Ms. BURKE. Yes, there are a number of WSAs, or Wilderness 

Study Areas that were identified. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Of those Wilderness Study Areas, all of those 

areas have been managed as if they were wilderness since that 

date, is that correct? 

Ms. BURKE. That is correct. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And so for the areas, the BLM Wilderness Study 

Areas that have been managed as such, what that would mean is 

there would be no legal motorized use, ATVs, or other kinds of motorized use in those areas, would that be correct? 

Ms. BURKE. Those sorts of uses would be precluded in wilderness 

areas. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And also in the Wilderness Study Areas that are 

being managed as wilderness? 

Ms. BURKE. Correct. 

Ms. DEGETTE. All right. So for people who might talk about use 

of motorized vehicles or other types of vehicles that are not allowed 

in wilderness areas, for the last 20 years or so the WSAs that are 

managed by the BLM have been managed without those kinds of 

motorized uses? 

Ms. BURKE. Yes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. I also wanted to ask you, Ms. Burke, about 

Handies Peak because this is an interesting area. Handies and Red 

Cloud are two of the areas in my bill that I, frankly, am particularly attached to because Handies Peak is the highest peak managed by the BLM outside of Alaska, and there is a 16,000-acre Wilderness Study Area in Handies that the BLM did not recommend 

for wilderness designation. My understanding is back when the 

BLM did the original inventory this was because of mining potential. And my question to you is, now it has been over 15 years since 

that inventory was conducted. Has there been any interest in mining on Handies since that time? 

24 

Ms. BURKE. I am not aware of any interest in mining on that 

area. We are currently managing it as a primitive or semi-primitive 

recreational area, and I understand from my staff in Colorado that 

it is really a spectacular back country recreational area. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Yes, and I will say as someone who has been up 

there, I mean, it is a gorgeous alpine area, and so I would imagine 

anybody’s management plans for that, since it is alpine tundra, 

would not include ATVs or other kinds of—I mean, one of the management problems they have, one of the management problems 

your agency has right now with Handies, there is a road that cuts 

right through Handies and Red Cloud which we cherry stem in my 

bill, but then they have a problem with unauthorized ATV use and 

other use in that area which might be helped by wilderness management. 

Would your agency be willing to work with me on boundaries and 

other kind of issues in Handies if we wanted to move forward with 

that particular area? 

Ms. BURKE. Absolutely. 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK, thank you very much. 

Mr. Brown, I just have a couple of questions for you. Your testimony and your written testimony, and you reflected it today, your 

agency supports seven of the Forest Service-managed areas in my 

bill with some modification or additional discussion, and I appreciate that, and I want to thank you for saying, as Ms. Burke does, 

that you are willing to work with me as we go forward. I want to 

talk to you about two of the specific issues. 

The first one is Browns Canyon. One of the areas you identify 

is Browns Canyon but the Forest Service says it is concerned that 

the bill might leave the turret trail open and the Forest Service 

would like to see it closed. I am wondering if you can explain that 

rationale for that particular area. 

Mr. BROWN. We do support Browns Canyon for wilderness designation, and we would like to see the road closed. It is a road that 

bisects the area and really provides for access for motorized use 

that would lead to trespass, very difficult to manage, and creates 

enforcement issues for us. So without the road closure on that, we 

just don’t think—well, the job of managing the wilderness would be 

very difficult, so we are very—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. And do you think that if we closed that trial, that 

would hamper peoples’ access into the Browns Canyon area? 

Mr. BROWN. Well, I think for wilderness users that would not be 

a problem. There is adequate access for them. 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. One last question, Mr. Chairman. I know in 

your written testimony you said that your agency supports the 

water language in my bill. I am wondering if you could just describe briefly what are the advantage of requiring the Federal government to obtain water rights pursuant to Colorado versus the old 

language we used to use of the Federal reserve water rights? 

Mr. BROWN. Well, the language in your bill tracks with the language that is in the Great Sand Dunes National Park Preserve Act 

of 2000, and that is language we are very comfortable with because 

it does assert that the Federal government can gain a water right, 

but it is working within the State of Colorado system for appropriaVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:29 Jun 21, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\55394.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
25 

tion and that is really what we are comfortable with, so we appreciate very much your having that language in your bill. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I have no further questions of this panel. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, and let me thank the panelists for 

your comments and information, and also for your patience. Thank 

you. 

Ms. BURKE. Thank you. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Let me invite the next panel up, please, and we 

will go out of order and ask Commissioner Goodtimes of San 

Miguel County Commissioner to be the first one because I think he 

has a pending exit somewhere that he has to be at. 

Thank you very much, and again thank you for waiting us out. 

I appreciate it and thank you for those that come a distance for 

being here. It is an important piece of legislation and we appreciate 

you being here and your comments, we are looking forward to 

them. 

Commissioner, if you don’t mind. 

STATEMENT OF ART GOODTIMES, COMMISSIONER, 

SAN MIGUEL COUNTY, COLORADO, NORWOOD, COLORADO 

Mr. GOODTIMES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is an 

honor to be once more before your Committee, to be here with Congresswoman DeGette, the Committee Members and staffers. 

I would like to echo the testimony of Representative John Salazar, who is my elected official here in the House, and applaud Congresswoman DeGette for all of her great work as a protector of wild 

places and for seeking to preserve a few of our natural systems relatively free of human influences in this great State of Colorado. 

I count her as the esteemed dean of the Colorado Congressional 

Delegation. She has been an environmental ally, an ideological colleague, and a personal political friend, and I just want to again 

take this opportunity to commend her for her great work with wilderness. 

You know, I believe her championing of this Omnibus Colorado 

Wilderness Bill, House Bill 4289, in doing that she has given our 

centennial state a grand vision of wilderness that we need to work 

toward putting into law. Many of these areas are most suitable for 

wilderness designation by the Congress, and it is something that 

I think a lot of us support in the grand picture, but I think this 

isn’t a final picture. I think the omnibus bill needs to be fine tuned 

in some places. 

We need to have the kind of face-to-face hearings that Representative John Salazar and his staff had on the San Juan Mountains 

Wilderness Bill where ranchers were sitting down with the environmental community. We had hunters with motorized users, 

hikers, and bikers with rafters and professional guides. We had politicos from all different jurisdictions, along with special-interest 

groups. I think it is that kind of broad-ranged collaborative processes that are really critical as we move forward in the 21st Century into putting wild lands into protective status. We understand 

the needs of communities for strong economies, particularly in this 

downturn. At the same time, we have to preserve for the future 

some of these amazing areas that we have. 

26 

I think we also need kind of a full vetting process in which folks 

closest to the wilderness boundaries have as much say as their distant constituencies, and I believe that deeply as both as a progressive and a local elected official. I think we have started a national 

coalition of gateway communities specifically to address at the national level the ability of local communities to have a say in decisionmaking. 

You know, we have couched it as local control, and that is not 

appropriate on Federal lands, but it is appropriate, I think, to have 

real local input and local influence and decisionmaking. So I think 

we need a full round of negotiations and collaborations, some round 

table discussions that are happening in western Colorado right 

now, things like the Dolores River dialogue in Cortez, and the public lands partnership in Montrose. I think those are great examples 

of collaborative efforts that have taken quite some time, but have 

been very, very useful to getting us to a better place in terms of 

understanding our needs both for a strong economy and for strong 

ecology. 

I think we heard testimony from our agency people that we need 

to do a little bit more review on some of these areas. Some of them, 

as the Congresswoman has pointed out, I think are perhaps are 

close to ready, but some aren’t. Personally I have been a life-long 

champion of wilderness. I have been a member of numerous community groups devoted to wilderness protection. I have been an activist who founded a local environmental group in my county, and 

so I know it is really important about wilderness, and so many of 

my constituents have worked very hard, particularly on Representative Salazar’s bill. 

I am Chair of the San Miguel County Board of Commissioners, 

I am Chair of my state association’s Public Lands Committee, and 

I am also chair of this new National Association of County Gateway Community Subcommittee. 

So, again, the effect of public lands on all aspects of peoples’ 

lives, both as a driver for tourism, as a place of refuge for our 

biome, and also for a way to move forward and protect these special places. I think all of these places have real meaning for us. 

You know, 11 years ago I was one of the few commissioners that 

supported Congresswoman DeGette when she came forward with 

this wilderness bill, and I think my quote appeared in the Colorado 

Coalition’s brochure in support at that time. 

In those years since that time of the initial support I have met 

and talked with many of my Colorado citizen constituents, and 

those who are for wilderness and those who have been against wilderness, and I think I have learned a number of controversies and 

on-the-ground skepticism expressed by rural commissioner, both 

progressive and conservatives, regarding House Bill 4289. I think 

personally what Congresswoman DeGette has offered us is am omnibus bill is a road map for investigation that can begin the arduous and lengthy task of vetting meetings, hearings, tours and detail work that will get us to a wilderness designation for suitable 

public lands in these areas. 

I also would like to just stand by thanking her for her vision. 

Without this kind of vision, without this kind of idea of the areas 

that are so special, I think it would be a lot harder for us to move 

27 

forward. But I also hope you will defer consideration on this omnibus bill at this time and commend wilderness advocates to undertaking the region by region process that Representative Salazar’s 

bill has demonstrated, a process that I personally would hope will 

become a template for how wilderness designations should be done 

in our country. 

With that, I thank you very much, Mr. Chair, Congresswoman, 

Members and staffers. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Goodtimes follows:] 

Statement of Commissioner Art Goodtimes, San Miguel County 

I applaud Rep. Diana DeGette for being a protector of wild places and of preserving natural systems relatively free of human influences. 

I count her as the esteemed dean of the Colorado congressional delegation, environmental ally, ideological colleague, and political friend. 

I believe by championing this omnibus Colorado wilderness bill, she has given the 

Centennial State a grand vision of wilderness that we need to work towards putting 

into law. There are many areas most suitable for wilderness designation by the Congress included in the bill. But it’s not a final picture. It’s a rough draft. 

The Omnibus bill needs to be fine-tuned. Ground-truthed. We need to have the 

kind of face-to-face hearings that Salazar’s San Juan Mountains Wilderness Bill 

had, where ranchers sit down with enviros, hunters with motorized-users, hikers 

and bikers with rafters and professional guides, politicos with special-interest 

groups. 

We need a full vetting process in which folks who live closest to wilderness boundaries have as much say as distant constituencies. We need a full round of negotiations, collaborations, round-table discussions like are becoming more common in 

rural Colorado, from the Dolores River Dialogue in Cortez to the Public Lands Partnership in Montrose. 

I have been a lifelong champion of wilderness, a member of countless community 

groups devoted to wilderness protection, an activist who helped found our local environmental group in San Miguel County—where I live and which is supporting 

Salazar’s wilderness bill. 

I’m chair of the San Miguel County Board of Commissioners, chair of my state 

county organization’s Public Lands Steering Committee, and chair of the National 

Association of Counties’ Gateway Communities Subcommittee. 

I publicly supported Rep. DeGette’s omnibus Colorado wilderness proposal when 

she first introduced it a number of years ago. My quote appeared on the Colorado 

Environmental Coalition brochure supporting her bill. The bill has not won a hearing before this committee until this very year. 

In the years since I first supported it, I have met and talked with many Colorado 

citizens, both those for and those against wilderness. I’ve listened to constituents 

who know many of these areas intimately, and I’ve learned of numerous controversies and seen the on-the-ground skepticism of my rural commissioner colleagues, 

both progressive and conservative. 

What Rep. DeGette has offered us in the omnibus bill here is a roadmap for investigation to begin the arduous and lengthy task of vettings, meetings, hearings, tours 

and detail work that will get us to wilderness designation for suitable public lands 

and some other suitable designation compatible with developing forest and resource 

management plans in Colorado forests. 

I thank her for her vision. But I hope you will defer consideration of this omnibus 

bill at this time, and commend wilderness advocates to undertaking the region-byregion process that Rep. Salazar’s bill has demonstrated—a process that should become the template for bringing new wilderness to fruition in Colorado 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And before you depart, Commissioner, Ms. 

DeGette have any comments? 

Ms. DEGETTE. I just want to thank Mr. Goodtimes for making 

the long trip here, a trip which was made even longer by the collapse of one of our main roads in Colorado, which is why Commissioner Houpt couldn’t be with us today. So thanks for coming. I appreciate it. We will keep working on this. 

28 

Mr. GOODTIMES. Thank you very much, Congresswoman. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And Commissioner, I am fascinated by the point 

that you are making because we see it all the time, that collaboration and consensus building and accommodation now has to be part 

and parcel of the wilderness designation process as we go forward. 

Local communities, interested groups, whatever kind having to be 

part of it. 

The question that lingers for me, at what point is that process 

over or is it an ongoing process and never ends because that is the 

reverse criticism of it. 

Mr. GOODTIMES. Mr. Chairman, that is an excellent question. I 

guess I would answer it by saying what I have discovered, particularly with the public land partnership, is that we establish a table 

of trust, and it took seven, eight, nine years to get that table of 

trust in place where when the woman who represented the timber 

industry spoke, I actually believe her. When the motorized community said that this was important to them, I really believe what 

they were saying, and they began to hear when we said that this 

are was very critical environmentally, they began to listen. Even 

though it took a long time, I think that process of building a table 

of trust is almost the most important element. Once you get to the 

table of trust and you begin listening to each other, then I think 

we begin to make the accommodations that make this a successful 

bill, and I think that is what has happened with Representative 

Salazar’s 30,000 acres. It took us two and a half years. 

Congresswoman DeGette has been working at this for 11. I think 

it takes awhile sometimes, but you are right, there is a point at 

which when you can’t get people together, when you have done 

very reasonable thing, that you finally have to say that is enough, 

we need to make legislation, and with your good graces I believe 

that is your authority and I appreciate your willingness to take a 

look at that. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Mr. Chairman, if I may. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. I agree with a lot of what Mr. Goodtimes says. In 

fact, one of the key areas in Mr. Salazar’s bill is an area from my 

bill, that was originally in my bill, McKenna Peak, so those kinds 

of collaborative efforts have been happening and I am sure they 

will continue. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Appreciate your time, Commissioner. Thank you. 

Good to see you again. 

Mr. GOODTIMES. It is an honor, sir. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Steve Smith, Assistant Regional Director, The 

Wilderness Society. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE SMITH, ASSISTANT REGIONAL 

DIRECTOR, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY, DENVER, COLORADO 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to be here 

to take this generous opportunity to comment on H.R. 4289. I am 

always happy to speak about the remarkable splendor of Colorado 

wildlands in general, and the importance of promptly protecting 

more of our enduring resource of wilderness. 

My name is Steve Smith. I live in Glenwood Springs, Colorado. 

I am speaking today for The Wilderness Society as well as for our 

29 

associate organizations, Colorado Environmental Coalition, Colorado Mountain Club, Environment Colorado, and Wilderness Workshop. 

We are especially pleased to see our state’s Congressional Representatives here today, Congresswoman Diana DeGette, of course, 

whose visionary legislative proposal is the topic of today’s hearing, 

and Congressman John Salazar who was here earlier, in whose district so many of these wonderful lands are found and who has 

taken important wilderness protection initiatives of his own. 

Colorado is generously blessed with an astounding heritage of 

wilderness, some already recognized and designated by Congress, 

and still others so deserving of that designation. In addition to 

more typical wilderness of high showy mountain peaks, Colorado 

also boasts serpentine sandstone canyons, rich and vibrant desert 

ecosystems, and temperate elevation lands that provide essential 

seasonal habitat for wildlife and year-round respite and recreation 

for people. 

In the pursuit of protection of this more complete tapestry of 

Colorado’s wonder that brings us here today to seek your help. 

Congresswoman Diana DeGette has long stood as a true wilderness 

champion in Colorado. Over the past decade she has proposed variations of wilderness designations that help complete that tapestry. 

Her legislation before you is a well-considered installment on those 

new protections that are needed. 

The lands in this proposal have been carefully researched on the 

ground to embrace the key features of these wildlands and to avoid 

conflicts with a variety of non-wilderness activities. We are proud 

to have helped with those field inventories of the areas which come 

from our citizen-crafted Colorado’s Canyon Country Wilderness 

Proposal. For all that we have done on that proposal we recognize 

that significant work still remains focused on learning and incorporating the views, recommendations and commitments of local 

elected officials, of local people in general, and of the broader Colorado citizenry. 

The protection of natural stream flows in wilderness is an important policy question in Colorado, and H.R. 4289 proposes straightforward language for protecting streams based on Colorado water 

law. Normally we would endorse this clear and simple approach. 

Last year, however, we saw Congress approve new Colorado customized water protection language for midstream wilderness areas. 

That language directs Federal managers to work directly with the 

State of Colorado to establish state-held in-stream flow water 

rights for wilderness streams. This new Federal/state partnership 

is, I believe, the new model for midstream wilderness. Combined 

with the head waters language, also Colorado crafted and first approved by Congress in 1993, we think we have a good creative approach to water protection in wilderness. 

Another key policy issue, the Wilderness Act declares that historical grazing is compatible with wilderness. H.R. 4289 affirms that 

declaration, and we support that. 

Military helicopter training is a unique issue in a few of the 

areas proposed in this legislation, and the bill includes accommodations for that important training program based on the CongressVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:29 Jun 21, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\55394.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
30 

woman’s extensive discussions with the military and Federal managers. 

More recent discussions with the national guard and army are 

nearing agreement on a new version of legislative provisions that 

will protect these areas. Once finished, we will encourage their use. 

In all instances, even where we have made good progress in 

these and other technical issues, we all need to do more to incorporate local knowledge and to secure local support for these deserving areas, and to help facilitate a team approach among our congressional wilderness champions. Specifically critical to that teamwork, areas proposed in Colorado’s Third Congressional District 

need to be shepherded through Congress with the insights and 

leadership of Congressman Salazar, who has undertaken specific 

wilderness negotiations and legislation in that part of our state. 

In addition to the bills already introduced, we will soon bring to 

our representatives and to you additional proposals to establish 

mid-elevation wilderness in central Colorado in the White River 

National Forest, and as you will hear shortly, some marvelous 

areas along the Arkansas River Watershed. 

We are blessed to have both diverse wilderness in our state and 

we are also blessed with a team of wilderness advocates in our 

Congressional Delegation. We are now poised to add to both these 

legacies the legacy of wilderness itself and the legacies of wilderness champions working together. This is the way successful wilderness legislation has always worked in Colorado, and this is the 

way we must approach the work now. 

We will provide our help to getting this done. With such remarkable places at stake, each detail of their permanent protection must 

be resolved carefully. With so many pressures on these lands we 

must act quickly to protect them before we lose the opportunity to 

do so. Carefully and quickly are the watch words for successful wilderness legislation. 

We thank Congresswoman DeGette for pressing a Colorado wilderness vision. We thank our Delegation Members for joining in 

that effort, and we thank the Committee for giving it its timely attention. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 

Statement of Steve Smith, Assistant Regional Director, 

The Wilderness Society, Denver, Colorado 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, for this opportunity 

to comment on H.R. 4289, the proposed Colorado Wilderness Act of 2009, to speak 

about remarkable splendor of Colorado wildlands in general, and to support an 

array of legislative opportunities to protect the best of those lands as ‘‘an enduring 

resource of wilderness’’. 

I live in Glenwood Springs, Colorado, where I serve as Assistant Regional Director 

for The Wilderness Society. I speak today in behalf of The Wilderness Society, Colorado Environmental Coalition, Colorado Mountain Club, Environment Colorado, and 

Wilderness Workshop. 

We are especially pleased to see our state’s congressional representatives here 

today—Congresswoman Diana DeGette, of course, whose visionary legislative proposal is the topic of today’s hearing; Congressman Mike Coffman, who represents 

so many of our fellow citizens who enjoy the outdoors; Congressman Doug Lamborn, 

whose district includes several rich areas proposed for wilderness; and Congressman 

John Salazar, in whose district so many of these wonderful lands are found. 

Colorado is generously blessed with an astounding heritage of wilderness, some 

already recognized and designated by Acts of Congress, others still waiting for—and 

ever so deserving of—additional protective designation. 

31 

Our state is home to more towering, snow-capped peaks over 14,000 feet high 

than in any other state. Many of those are in wilderness. Colorado also boasts deep, 

serpentine, sandstone canyons, rich and vibrant desert ecosystems, and more temperate elevation lands of gnarled oak, pinyon pine, and western juniper that provide 

essential seasonal habitat for wildlife, and year-round respite and recreation for people. 

It is the pursuit of enduring and reliable protection for this more complete tapestry of Colorado’s wonder that brings us here today, and we seek your help in securing that protection. 

Congresswoman Diana DeGette has long stood as a true wilderness champion in 

Colorado over the past decade, proposing variations of new wilderness designations 

that will help complete that tapestry. Her Colorado Wilderness Act of 2009, before 

you today, is the latest refinement of that proposal and a well-considered installment on the new wilderness protections that are needed. 

The lands in this proposal have been carefully researched on the ground, both to 

embrace the key features of these wildlands, and to avoid conflicts with a variety 

of non-wilderness human activities and needs. We are proud to have helped with 

those field inventories and with crafting the individual wilderness proposals in this 

package as part of our larger Colorado’s Canyon Country Wilderness Proposal. 

Many of those areas are formal BLM wilderness study areas; others are recommended for wilderness by the U.S. Forest Service. All will add essential mid-elevation wilderness, so uniquely under-represented in the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

Congresswoman DeGette has visited many of these areas herself, deliberately taking along local officials and on-the-ground experts in order to engage in thorough 

discussions of issues, boundaries, and local concerns. 

For all that we and others have done on that proposal, we recognize that significant work still remains. 

This work must be focused on learning and incorporating the views, recommendations, and commitments of local elected officials, of local people in general, and of 

the broader Colorado citizenry. In many regions of the state, we are doing that 

work, meeting with local citizens, advocacy organizations, and local governments. In 

other parts of the state, this proposed legislation queues up that needed work and 

those discussions to come. 

We are committed to seeing the areas in our proposal, and in this bill, protected 

as wilderness, and we will continue this work, with sensitive attention to local 

needs, even if that means that some of the areas need to move at a later date. 

This is a good bill in that it includes some areas that are, by practical measure, 

ready for congressional action, and in that it provides the foundation and stimulus 

for additional discussions and work toward consensus on other areas. 

Some of the additional work that is needed relates to general policy issues, some 

of it to boundaries and other details of individual areas. 

Wilderness proposal issues 

Water 

The protection of natural streamflows in wilderness is one of those policy questions, and H.R. 4289 proposes straightforward language directing the establishments of water protections secured through negotiations and acquisitions based in 

Colorado water law. Normally, we would endorse this clear and simple approach. 

A year ago, however. we saw Congress approve new Colorado-customized water 

protection language for mid-stream wilderness areas. That language directs federal 

managers to ensure that protective water rights are secured to protect wilderness 

streams—in that instance, at the new Dominguez Canyon Wilderness. The legislation simultaneously directs federal officials to work directly with the Colorado Water 

Conservation Board, with the preferred intention that the board establish state-held 

instream flow water rights for the wilderness streams. If this partnership with the 

state is successful—as we think it will be—no federal water rights will be needed. 

Another passage of Colorado-crafted water protection language for headwaters 

wilderness areas, first approved by Congress in 1993, completes the water templates 

for future wilderness legislation. This headwaters language recognizes the importance of healthy wilderness streamflows but prohibits the use of federal water rights 

to protect those flows and also prohibits construction of new water projects in the 

wilderness. This works simply because the wilderness areas involved—and their 

streams—lie at the top of watersheds, with no opportunity for water diversions upstream and, correspondingly, no conflict with other water rights. 

This combination of provisions ensures healthy wilderness streams while affirming the continued operation and maintenance of key water diversion and delivery 

facilities for agriculture and for communities. We recommend that H.R. 4289, and 

32 

any upcoming Colorado wilderness legislation, use these carefully negotiated and 

well reasoned approaches to wilderness water protection. 

Grazing 

The Wilderness Act declares that historical grazing is compatible with wilderness. 

H.R. 4289 affirms that declaration, and we support that principle. The bill appropriately references Section 4(d)(4) of The Wilderness Act, finer detail provided in the 

Colorado Wilderness Act of 1980, and the grazing clarifications presented in House 

Report 101-405. 

Wilderness advocates and Members of Congress need to be sure that farmers and 

ranchers who use wilderness lands are both familiar and comfortable with those 

provisions. 

Military training 

Military helicopter training—with periodic landings and low-altitude flights—is a 

unique issue in some of the lands proposed in this legislation. H.R. 4289 proposes 

accommodations for that important training program, based in the congresswoman’s 

discussions with the military and with federal land managers. 

More recently—even in the months since H.R. 4289 was introduced—wilderness 

advocates have been working diligently with the Colorado National Guard and with 

the United States Army toward agreement on a new version of legislative provisions 

that will protect the wilderness values in those areas while ensuring the continued 

operation and success of the military training. 

We will be pleased to work with Congresswoman DeGette, and with other members of our congressional delegation, once those agreements are completed, to incorporate the new agreements into any new legislation affecting areas used the National Guard’s High Altitude Aviation Training Site. 

Areas 

All the areas in this bill are eminently qualified for wilderness protection. All the 

areas contain the remarkable wildland features that are the essence of Colorado’s 

beauty. 

The practical, on-the-ground details of least some of the areas proposed protection 

in H.R. 4289 are resolved or very nearly resolved. These well-worked areas include 

Beaver Creek, Brown’s Canyon, Castle Peak, Bull Gulch, Maroon Bells Addition, 

Powderhorn Addition, West Elk Addition, The Palisade, Roubideau, a newly modified Thompson Creek/Assignation Ridge, and, soon, Pisgah Mountain. 

Some other areas in the proposal need additional technical refinement—certainly 

additional discussion—to be certain that policy questions, boundary details, and 

local support are put in clean and final form. 

Many technical questions have been addressed or are being actively addressed. 

Just a few examples of the extensive research and outreach undertaken by our wilderness network and by Congresswoman DeGette are instructive. 

• Private land inholdings in some of the proposal areas can, under the proposed 

legislation, be acquired only for willing sellers. 

• Portions of the Thompson Creek wilderness proposal that contain existing oil 

and gas leases have been removed, deferring instead to a community approach 

that will help retire or mitigate those leases in order to ensure continued 

healthy grazing use of that land. 

• Existing major water diversion and delivery facilities have been drawn out of 

proposal areas. 

• Boundaries for Dolores River Canyon proposal, a stunning icon of southwestern 

canyon country, have been carefully drawn to exclude used roads, powerlines, 

and other potential conflicts. 

• Former coal leases in Little Book Cliffs have been relinquished, and gas development has been dropped there; existing motor routes are outside the proposal 

area. 

• The Palisade proposal area provides remarkable backdrop to the growing successful tourism economy for the adjacent community and region. 

In all instances, even where basic technical issues appear to be simple or resolved, 

we need to do more to gain support, from citizens and from local officials, for areas 

that are otherwise fully deserving of wilderness designation. 

One element very essential to those continuing discussions and refinements will 

be combined and collaborative work of all key members of our Colorado congressional delegation. Much of this has already been undertaken with Congresswoman 

DeGette’s leadership and urging, starting the process that now continues. 

Specifically critical to that delegation collaboration, areas proposed in Colorado’s 

Third Congressional District in particular need to be shepherded through Congress 

33 

with the insights and leadership of Congressman Salazar, who has also undertaken 

specific wilderness negotiations and legislation for that part of our state. 

Mr. Salazar has engaged in vigorous discussions with local stakeholders in his 

wilderness efforts. This approach is important both to the citizens of his district and 

to the success of wilderness protection itself. This is the model to guide continuing 

Colorado wilderness negotiations. 

Certainly, Congresswoman DeGette’s wilderness initiative, and her steadfast promotion of wilderness protection, have also contributed to this principle of involvement. We thank her for setting in a motion a wilderness agenda for Colorado. We 

are pleased that other congressional members have also taken up the task of securing strong and enduring protection for deserving lands. 

In addition to being blessed with extensive and diverse wildlands in our state, 

therefore, we also continue to be blessed with a team of wilderness advocates within 

our congressional delegation. 

This is the way successful wilderness legislation has worked in Colorado in the 

past and present, and it is the way we must approach this work now. 

Colorado’s congressional representatives have always approached this essential 

task of wilderness protection in a combined, collective, patient, and respectful coalition manner. Fourteen times, beginning in 1964, Colorado’s leaders have teamed up 

to pass wilderness legislation. 

Personalities as diverse as Aspinall, Allard, Brown, Campbell, Hefley, Kogovsek, 

McInnis, Salazar, Schroeder, Skaggs, and Wirth have variously come together to 

protect places with names like Dominguez, Sangre de Cristo, Flat Tops, Never Summer, Ptarmigan, and O-Be-Joyful—all areas originally championed by citizens and 

ultimately negotiated with local and statewide partners. 

Now we are poised to add to both those legacies—the legacy of Colorado wilderness itself, and the legacy of wilderness champions working together—respectfully, 

and efficiently—to create and expand that wilderness tapestry. 

Each of our congressional representatives, in his or her own way, recognizes the 

significance of Colorado’s wildlands and the importance of permanently protecting 

those lands while there still is opportunity to do so. 

This is timely. A place as attractive as Colorado faces relentless population 

growth and, with that, increasing pressures on our public lands—for development, 

road-building, motor travel, and general wear and tear. Just as there is no better 

time than now to plant a tree, knowing that its full benefits will really come in the 

distant future, there is no better time than now to protect more wilderness. 

In addition to the Colorado Wilderness Act of 2009 before you today, Congress is 

now considering bold and carefully crafted legislation from Congressman John Salazar—H.R. 3914, the proposed San Juan Mountains Wilderness Act of 2009—that 

will protect sweeping alpine vistas and rugged canyons in southwestern Colorado. 

That bill has some lands in common with H.R. 4289. Prompt action by Congress 

on Mr. Salazar’s legislation is important to this larger collaborative and coalition 

effort. 

Soon, we will also bring to you additional measures establishing mid-elevation 

wilderness in the rich and scenic mountains of central Colorado—in and around 

White River National Forest—adding to the collection of protected lands and to the 

collaboration of leaders. As you will hear from other witnesses, we also have rich 

landscapes in the Arkansas River watershed that warrant the highest of protections. 

In each of these instances, and in their combination, we look forward enthusiastically to providing any and all help we can to our team of Colorado wilderness champions in Congress, always putting first focus on the land and on the benefits that 

come from protecting that land. 

We urge the committee to help guide and encourage these discussions. Wilderness 

legislation is necessarily a team effort. With such remarkable lands at stake, and 

with their permanent protection the question before us, each detail must be resolved 

carefully, and each leader must be consulted and engaged. Only this approach will 

ensure that diverse support for wilderness protection will be as enduring as the protection itself. 

Make no mistake; the pressures on these lands are immense, and we must act 

quickly if we are to protect them before we lose the opportunity to do so. All the 

more reason for us foster open, respectful, and active engagement among our elected 

leaders, building on the knowledge and advice of their citizen constituents. 

Thank you again. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Mr. Bill Dvorˇa ́k, President of Dvorˇa ́k 

Rafting & Fishing Expeditions. Welcome, sir. 

34 

STATEMENT OF BILL DVORˇ A ́ K, PRESIDENT, DVORˇ A ́ K RAFTING 

& FISHING EXPEDITIONS, NATHROP, COLORADO 

Mr. DVORˇ A ́ K. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva and 

Members of the Committee. My name is Bill Dvorˇa ́k, and I am 

President of my own outfitting company, Dvorˇa ́k Rafting & Fishing 

Expeditions, and I am here to talk today about the benefits of wilderness designation for businesses like mine. 

I have been an outfitter in Colorado since 1975, and have the 

privilege of holding the first river-issued recreation outfitter license, Serial No. 001. Since 1984, I have owned an outfitting business and I am proud to say that our business has grown to be one 

of Colorado’s most respected outfitters. I have served on the board 

of directors of some of the outfitter industry’s leading organizations, including the Colorado River Outfitters Association and 

America Outdoors. I have also been a member of the Colorado 

Tourism Board and was elected to be the recreational representative for the Colorado Travel & Tourism Authority for three terms. 

My company runs rafting trips on nine different rivers in five different states, as well as we do some international trips in New Zealand and Nepal. We employ about 30 to 40 people with guides and 

backup staff, and we have been honored by the National Geographic Adventure Magazine as one of the best 10 river-oriented 

adventure companies in the world for the last two years. 

Colorado has a vibrant recreation community and culture. We 

have hundreds of outfitting businesses like mine throughout the 

state. Colorado is also home to lots of different gear manufacturers, 

rental shops, and all these folks rely on the outdoors for their livelihood. These businesses means jobs for Coloradans. The tourism 

sector employs about 144,000 people in Colorado, making tourism, 

I believe, the second largest industry in the state after manufacturing. 

In 2008, the total amount spent in the state was about $15.3 billion. Commercial rafting is a fairly small part of that. We only generate about 142 million. But other industries like skiing, I think 

are about 2.1 billion. A lot of people don’t realize that hunting and 

fishing account for 2.5 billion of that tourism recreational industry, 

and that tourism of hunting and fishing very much relies on wilderness areas, particularly when we are getting all of the additional kinds of pressures on other sorts of areas, a lot of people, 

hunters in particular, are having to go into wilderness areas to find 

the game that they are after because there is, again, a lot of other 

pressure, particularly vehicle pressure in other areas. 

As an outfitter, my livelihood is based upon those protected lands 

and rivers in which we raft, fish, and paddle. We have the benefit 

of operating in a state with truly remarkable natural assets, but 

many of these areas are undergoing pressures from increased demand on public lands. Wilderness designation is one of the vital 

tools the Federal government has to set aside some of our most 

cherished land for low impact recreation. 

Colorado wilderness areas are potent draws for both in-state and 

out-of-state recreation. When an area is designated as wilderness, 

this raises its profile and acts as a draw to recreationists from 

around the country. Expanding wilderness in Colorado would keep 

35 

rafting and the tourism industry growing and would create new 

jobs in the outdoor industry. 

Wilderness is valuable for many non-economic reasons as well. 

Wilderness areas serve as sanctuaries for wildlife of all kinds. As 

private land across Colorado is seeing more development and population growth, our public lands serve as a final refuge for many 

species. 

The Colorado National Heritage Program based out of Colorado 

State University has assembled the most complete data of critical 

areas for sensitive species and natural communities in Colorado. 

Based on this data, the CNHP ranks in Colorado, depending on 

how important the habitat is to bio diversity. Many of the areas in 

the Colorado Wilderness Act of 2009 rank highly in those maps. 

For example, the proposed Sewemup Mesa, Palisade, Handies 

Peak, South Shell Ridge and West Elk Addition Wilderness Areas 

all contain areas classified as having outstanding bio diversity significance, the most critical need category. 

The bill focuses on many of the landscapes that matter to me 

most, low-lying canyon lands that provide outstanding opportunities for rafting, fishing, and paddling. These areas are not well represented in our current wilderness areas in Colorado. Almost all 

the wilderness areas that we have now are high elevation alpine 

areas. The bill proposes to protect some of our outstanding low elevation lands, which provide unique opportunities for recreation and 

are no less striking in their beauty and wilderness characters. 

I am familiar with many of these proposed wilderness areas in 

the bill. My company actively leads rafting trips every year on several of the rivers protected by the bill. For example, we run the Dolores River, which is actually my favorite river in Colorado, and my 

only true real claim to fame is that I actually had more runs of 

Snaggletooth Rapid, a Class 4 or 5 rapid, of any person alive, 17 

in a day, I did 12 in a kayak, and five in a raft one time. 

I floated through the Dolores River Canyons, Sewemup Mesa, 

Palisade, Snaggletooth areas. The Dolores River actually runs 

through a pristine desert area containing some of the most outstanding canyon scenery in Colorado. In some areas the cliff rise 

700 feet above the water. In my opinion, the float through Slick 

Rock Canyon from Slick Rock down to Bed Rock is probably the 

prettiest Slick Rock Desert Canyon in the Southwest. I would actually rate a five or six-day trip on the Dolores River as one of the 

three best river trips in the country. It ranks right up there with 

the Grand Canyon and the Middle Fork of the Salmon River, and 

I think it is one of those things that really needs to be preserved. 

I know there are some issues about maybe gas and oil leases on 

the rim, but the central corridor down in the canyon is definitely 

worth wilderness protection. 

I am actually proud to say that my company usually has more 

commercial use on the Dolores than all the other river companies 

combined. My company also leads trips down the Colorado near the 

proposed Bull Gulch Wilderness Area, and wile Bull Gulch does not 

actually include the Colorado River, it would protect remarkable 

lands above the river, including golden aspen, dark green spruce, 

and cliffs of blinding white sandstone. 

36 

The area I care about most about though is Browns Canyon 

along the Arkansas River in Chaffee County. It lies just in front 

of my home, and it is our bread and butter river. Almost a third 

of my trips through Browns Canyon are wilderness camping multiday trips, and the main-attraction selling point for those trips is 

the fact that people do get to camp in a wilderness area, and because it is a wilderness are they get to see lots of critters. 

Browns is one of the last pristine canyons in the state. The area 

includes important habitat for elk, deer, eagles, hawks, coyotes, 

bears, big horn sheep, mountain lions, bobcats, and I have even 

seen a couple of antelope in that area. It provides needed sanctuary 

for these critters. It is a stunning landscape with picturesque vistas 

and rugged rock outcroppings. Browns Canyon is actually the heart 

of the Arkansas River which is the most popular white water river 

in the world, and about half of the use of the Arkansas River happens in Browns Canyon. I think we had over 200,000 people that 

floated that canyon last year, and again the reason people come 

there is because it is good. The white water is good, the scenery 

is good, the canyon is beautiful, and that is why people want to 

come to that magical place. 

I am not alone in wanting Browns Canyon to be protected. In addition to Representative DeGette’s efforts, bills to protect Browns 

Canyon have been introduced by former Senator Ken Salazar, 

former Senator Wayne Allard and former Representative Joel 

Hefley. When Representative Hefley introduced his legislation in 

the 109th Congress to protect Browns Canyon, the bill was co-sponsored by every Colorado Member of the House of Representatives. 

Wilderness protection to the canyon has also been endorsed by dozens of local and statewide organizations and businesses, as well as 

The Denver Post. 

In sum, I am a strong supporter of new wilderness in Colorado. 

Wilderness protection will increase tourism, increase jobs, and preserve some of the most special places in our state for future generations. I have spoken in favor of Wilderness protection for many 

years in Colorado, and appreciate the opportunity speak to Congress about the importance of protecting the areas proposed in this 

bill. 

Thank you for having me here today and I am glad to answer 

any questions, and again I would love to thank Representative 

DeGette for having the foresight to bringing these areas to our attention. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dvorˇa ́k follows:] 

Statement of Bill Dvorˇa ́k, President, 

Dvorˇa ́k Rafting & Fishing Expeditions 

Good morning Chairman Grijalva and members of the Subcommittee. My name 

is Bill Dvorˇa ́k and I am President of my own outfitting company, Dvorˇa ́k Rafting 

& Fishing Expeditions. I am here today to talk about the benefits of wilderness designation in Colorado for businesses like mine. 

I have been an outfitter since 1975, and have the privilege of holding the firstissued River Recreation Outfitter license, serial number 001. Since 1984, I have coowned an outfitting business, and am proud to say that our business has grown to 

be one of Colorado’s most respected outfitters. I have served on the Board of Directors for some of the outfitting industry’s leading organizations, including the Colorado River Outfitters Association, and America Outdoors. I have also been a member of the Colorado Tourism Board, and was elected as the recreational representative to the Colorado Travel and Tourism Authority for 3 terms. 

37 

My company leads rafting trips on 9 different rivers in 5 different states, as well 

as international trips to New Zealand and Nepal. We employ about 30 to 40 guides 

and support staff. We have also been honored by National Geographic Adventure 

Magazine as one of the 10 best river-oriented adventure travel companies in the 

world. 

Colorado has a vibrant recreation culture and economy. In addition to my own 

outfitting company, there are dozens of others throughout the state. Colorado is also 

home to hundreds of outdoor gear manufacturers and retail goods shops that rely 

on customers who love the outdoors. 

These businesses mean jobs for Coloradans. The tourism sector employs 144,000 

people in Colorado, making tourism one the largest industries in the state. In 2008, 

the total amount spent in the state from tourists was $15.3 billion. Commercial rafting alone contributes about $140 million annually to Colorado’s economy, while providing river trips to around 500,000 people. 

As an outfitter, my livelihood is based on having protected land and rivers in 

which to raft, fish, and paddle. We have the benefit of operating in a state with 

truly remarkable natural assets. But many of areas are under growing pressures 

from increased demands on our public lands. Wilderness designation is one of the 

vital tools the federal government has to set aside some of our most cherished land 

for low-impact recreation. 

Colorado’s wilderness areas are one of the potent draws for both in-state and outof-state recreation. When an area is designated as wilderness, this raises its profile 

and acts as a draw to recreationalists from across the country. Expanding wilderness in Colorado would help the rafting and tourism industries grow, and would create new jobs in the outdoor industry. 

Wilderness is valuable for many non-economic reasons as well. Wilderness areas 

serve as sanctuaries for wildlife of all kinds. As private land across Colorado is seeing more development and population growth, our public lands serve as the final 

refuge for many species. The Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP), based 

out of Colorado State University, has assembled the most complete data of critical 

areas for sensitive species and natural communities in Colorado. Based on this data, 

the CNHP ranks areas in Colorado depending on how important the habitat is to 

biodiversity. Many of the areas in the Colorado Wilderness Act of 2009 rank highly 

on the CNHP maps. For example, the proposed Sewemup Mesa, Palisade, Handies 

Peak, South Shale Ridge, and West Elk Addition Wilderness Areas all contain areas 

classified as having Outstanding Biodiversity Significance—the most critical need 

category. 

This bill focuses on many of the landscapes that matter most to me—low-lying 

canyon lands that provide outstanding opportunities for rafting, fishing and paddling. These areas are not well represented in our current wilderness areas in Colorado. Almost all of the wilderness areas in Colorado are high-elevation alpine areas. 

This bill proposes to protect some of our outstanding low elevation lands, which provide unique opportunities for recreation and are no less striking in their beauty and 

wilderness character. 

I am very familiar with many of the proposed wilderness areas in this bill. My 

company actively leads rafting trips every year on several of the rivers protected by 

the bill. For example, we run the Dolores River, which is my personal favorite river 

trip and my only true claim to fame. I have more runs of the class 4-5 Snaggletooth 

Rapid than any other person. My record in a day was 17 runs, 12 kayaks and 5 

rafts. 

I have floated through the proposed Dolores River Canyon, Sewemup Mesa, Palisade, and Snaggletooth areas. The Dolores River runs through pristine desert areas 

containing some of the most outstanding canyon scenery in Colorado. In some areas, 

the cliffs rise 700 feet above the water. In my opinion the float through Slickrock 

Canyon is the prettiest slickrock canyon trip in the Southwest. I would rate a 5- 

6 day Dolores River trip as one of the 3 best trips in the lower 48, right up there 

with the Grand Canyon and the Middle Fork of the Salmon River in Idaho. Rafting 

on the Dolores also provided over $150,000 in economic impact in 2009, with over 

500 user days. I’m proud to say that my company usually has more commercial use 

on the Dolores than all other outfitters combined. 

My company also leads trips down the Colorado River, near the proposed Bull 

Gulch wilderness area. While the Bull Gulch proposal does not include the Colorado 

River itself, it would protect the remarkable landscape above the river, including 

golden aspen, dark green spruce, and cliffs of blinding white sandstone. 

The area I care about most deeply, though, is Browns Canyon, along the Arkansas 

River in Chaffee County. It lies just in front of my home and is our bread and butter 

river. Almost one-third of my trips through Browns Canyon are wilderness camping, 

38 

multi-day trips. The main attraction or selling point for these trips is the true wilderness aspect of camping in that area. 

Browns Canyon is one of the last pristine canyons in the state. The area includes 

important habitat for elk, deer, eagles, hawks, coyotes, bear, bighorn sheep, mountain lions, and bobcats. I’ve even seen a few antelope in there. It provides needed 

sanctuary for all these critters. It is a stunning landscape with picturesque vistas 

and rugged rock outcroppings. 

Browns Canyon is also one of the most popular rafting rivers in the state. In 

2009, there were over 200,000 user days on the river, generating over $60 million 

in economic benefit. The rafting run at Browns Canyon is 16 miles of challenging 

Class II and Class III rapids slicing through beautiful, solid pink granite. Protection 

of the remarkable wild country surrounding the river canyon would be a boon to 

our vital rafting business along the river and would help protect a truly magical 

place. 

I am not alone in wanting Browns Canyon to be protected. In addition to Representative DeGette’s efforts, bills to protect Browns Canyon have been introduced 

by former Senator Ken Salazar, former Senator Wayne Allard, and former Representative Joel Hefley. When Representative Hefley introduced legislation in the 

109th Congress to protect Browns Canyon, his bill was co-sponsored by every Colorado member of the House of Representatives. Wilderness protection of the Canyon 

has also been endorsed by dozens of local and statewide organizations and businesses, as well as The Denver Post. 

In sum, I am a strong supporter of new wilderness in Colorado. Wilderness protection will increase tourism, create jobs, and will preserve some of the most special 

areas in our state for future generations. I have spoken in favor of wilderness protections for many years in Colorado, and appreciate the opportunity to speak to Congress about the importance of protecting the areas proposed in this bill. Thank you 

for having me here today and I’ll be glad to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, sir, and you ran over your time but 

after I butchered your name I felt it was the least I could do. I 

apologize for that. 

Mr. DVORˇ A ́ K. It has happened before, believe me. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Jenn Dice, Government Affairs Director, International Mountain Bicycling Association. Welcome. Look forward to 

your comments. 

STATEMENT OF JENN DICE, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL MOUNTAIN BICYCLING ASSOCIATION, 

BOULDER, COLORADO 

Ms. DICE. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you 

for inviting me to speak today. I will begin by asking you to imagine yourself visiting Colorado. It is not a work trip. You have come 

to enjoy yourself, to vacation and to recreate like so many visitors 

do each year. You might imagine yourself hiking in one of our gorgeous mountains or casting a fishing line into a sparking river, or 

maybe you are a skier, or maybe you will take the opportunity to 

get back on a bicycle. 

Remember when you were a kid and you had that wind-in-yourface feeling of freedom riding a bike? Well, thousands of visitors 

come to Colorado each year to mountain bike on our incredible 

trails. After all, it is revered as one of the best places in the world 

to enjoy our majestic scenery. 

My name is Jenn Dice, and I work for IMBA, the International 

Mountain Bicycling Association, and mountain bikers are passionate about the outdoors. We cherish the places that we can take 

epic forays into the back country. We love trails and are amount 

the very first to volunteer to build and repair them. Annually, 

mountain bikers contribute almost 1 million volunteer hours buildVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:29 Jun 21, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\55394.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
39 

ing and repairing environmentally sound sustainable trail, and advocating for public land protection. 

We share a concern with conservationists and fellow trail users 

that the pressures of growth in industry threaten the very qualities 

that make our favorite trails special. Now, wilderness designations 

are one of the most historically important methods for protecting 

natural areas. However, because bicycling is not allowed in wilderness, IMBA recommends the use of companion designations such as 

national conservation areas, national protection areas or national 

scenic areas to complement wilderness, protect more land and 

maintain bicycle access to Colorado’s world renowned mountain 

bike trails. 

We believe mountain biking has been caught in the cross fire of 

well-intentioned legislation to protect public lands. Colorado’s natural areas need to be protected from poorly planned resource extraction. However, they don’t need to be protected from bicycles. 

Fortunately, we know that land protection proposals can be crafted 

in a way to include mountain biking as this Committee has done 

in the past for several states. We believe there are many tools in 

the toolbox to protect public lands. 

And H.R. 4989, IMBA can support 13 proposed units totaling 

more than 230,000 acres of wilderness, but we believe that there 

are significant improvements that can be made to the bill. We object to the approximate 200 miles of dirt trails and roads that 

would be closed to bicycling. We hope to see our traditional use protected in several parcels included in my written testimony, including Thompson Creek and Banks Canyon. 

Colorado has a long history of protecting public lands through inclusive collaborate processes. We believe this bill needs to go 

through some more community vetting to make sure that those 

closest to the land have an opportunity to draw boundaries and to 

write robust land protections. IMBA has 30 clubs in Colorado and 

we stand ready to participate. 

Although research shows that the impact of bicycling are much 

less than those caused by motorized recreation and equestrian use, 

and similar to hiking, outdated Forest Service regulations often 

equate bicyclists to motorized users, and inappropriately group bicycles into categories with motorized and mechanized in their analysis. 

The Forest Service needs better management tools to address our 

quiet, low impact sport. We hope to work with Congress, the Forest 

Service, the BLM and others to write robust, strong public land 

protections that give land managers better forest and recreation 

management tools that are inclusive of our human power use. 

At a time when every Federal public land agency has initiatives 

to get kids exercising, to get them outdoors, to get them to experience their public lands, we don’t understand why we would exclude 

bicycles. Bicycles create future public land stewards. They make 

national forests more relevant to today’s youth, and bicycling is 

fun. 

In closing, mountain biking is an extremely popular sport with 

more than 47 million Americans participating. IMBA has inspired, 

trained, and organized one of the most committed volunteer corps 

in our nation’s history. We are proud that our members have emVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:29 Jun 21, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\55394.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
40 

braced the ethic of trail stewardship and we will continue to protect the water, wildlife, clean air and back country landscapes for 

the foundation of America’s great outdoors. 

In closing, I will thank you for the opportunity to speak and we 

would love to take you and your staff on a bike ride in Colorado 

anytime soon. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Dice follows:] 

Statement of Jenn Dice, Government Affairs Director, 

International Mountain Bicycling Association, Boulder, Colorado 

On behalf of the International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) and our 

Colorado IMBA-affiliated clubs, thank you for the opportunity to offer comments on 

the Colorado Wilderness Act of 2009 H.R. 4289. 

IMBA is a national and international education and advocacy organization whose 

mission is to create, enhance, and preserve great trail experiences for mountain 

bicyclists worldwide. Nationally, we represent 750 IMBA-affiliated clubs, 32,000 individual members, and more than 800 corporate partners and bike shops. Annually, 

mountain bikers contribute almost one million volunteer hours advocating for public 

land protection and building environmentally sustainable trails. 

We begin by thanking Congresswoman DeGette for her outstanding support for 

Colorado public lands. There are many special places across our beautiful state 

threatened by resource extraction, development, and road building. IMBA agrees 

that Colorado’s most treasured places must be safeguarded. Our hope is to see them 

protected from detrimental activities while still allowing for healthy, low-impact 

recreation, such as mountain biking. 

Wilderness designations are one of the most historically important methods for 

protecting natural areas. However, because bicycling is not allowed in Wilderness 

by regulation, IMBA suggests a strategy of employing ‘‘companion designations,’’ 

such as Natural Conservation Areas, National Scenic Areas, and Natural Protection 

Areas, to complement Wilderness areas and maintain access for Colorado’s worldrenown mountain biking trails. 

Bicycling Brings $133 Billion to U.S. Economy and Supports 1.1 Million 

Jobs 

Bicycling, both on road and off, contributes $133 billion annually to the U.S. economy, supports nearly 1.1 million jobs across the U.S. and generates $17.7 billion in 

annual federal and state tax revenues. Bicycling produces $53.1 billion annually in 

retail sales and services, including $6.2 billion in bicycling gear sales and services 

and $46.9 billion in bicycling trip-related expenditures (Outdoor Industry Foundation 2006). 

In the mountain states—combining Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Montana, Utah, Nevada, and Wyoming—bicycling contributes $6.2 billion annually to 

the regional economy. Bicycling supports more than $1 billion in annual state and 

federal tax revenues and produces nearly $4.1 billion annually in retail sales and 

services. 

Colorado a Top State for Mountain Bicycling 

In Colorado, IMBA represents 30 IMBA-affiliated mountain bike clubs and five 

volunteer mountain bike patrols. The state has 312 independent bicycle dealers that 

support our work. Tourism in Colorado industries is strongly influenced by mountain biking, including some of the nation’s most popular races and festivals, plus 

guiding services, touring companies, and hut-to-hut travel. 

Colorado is truly an epicenter for the mountain bike industry, with almost 100 

companies building and making mountain bike frames, components, accessories, and 

apparel. Many prominent outdoor companies that promote outdoor recreation and 

mountain biking are based here, including national and regional bicycling magazines and firms that deal in events marketing, public relations, advertising, and 

media services. Bicycling, in general, supports more than 60,000 jobs across the 

Rocky Mountain region (OIF 2006), with mountain biking comprising approximately 

40 percent of that figure. 

Mountain bicycling is an extremely popular sport nationally. According to the National Survey on Outdoor Recreation and the Environment (NSRE 2007), the sport 

attracts 47 million participants, making it more popular than golf, hunting, backpacking, or horseback riding. 

Many young people enjoy mountain biking, helping counter a distressing trend toward youth obesity and inactivity. The Outdoor Foundation’s Outdoor Recreation 

41 

Participation Study (2008) shows that overall youth (ages 6 to 17) participation in 

the outdoors declined 16.7 percent over the last three years. However, youth participation in mountain bicycling, hiking, backpacking, kayaking, and skiing all showed 

increases. This research affirms that outdoor activities like bicycling and hiking are 

popular, accessible, and often lead to participation in other healthy activities. 

Mountain Bicyclists Are Enthusiastic Supporters of Public Lands 

Protection 

Mountain bicyclists are passionate about the outdoors. We believe in managing 

public lands as a public trust and a priceless national treasure. We cherish the 

places where we can enjoy epic forays into the backcountry. We love trails and are 

among the first to volunteer to build and repair them. We share a concern with 

other trail users that the pressures of growth and industry threaten the qualities 

that make our favorite rides special. 

That’s why Wilderness designations are such a difficult issue for us. Existing Wilderness protections near trails can contribute to the peace, quiet, and solitude that 

make them special. At the same time, Wilderness expansions and new Wilderness 

designations block access to those same trails. 

Fortunately, we know that land protection proposals can be crafted to include 

mountain biking, as they have been in Colorado, Washington, Oregon, California, 

Georgia, and Virginia. IMBA champions the strategy of combining Wilderness protections with other land protection solutions—such as National Scenic Areas, Recreation Areas, or Protections Areas. In this manner we can both safeguard the land 

and preserve local mountain biking traditions. We believe that there are many tools 

in the toolbox to protect public lands. Preserving Colorado public lands doesn’t have 

to be at the expense of mountain bicycling. 

We believe there are significant improvements that can be made to the bill. In 

its present state, the legislation fails to acknowledge the large number of bicycle 

trails that would be closed by Wilderness boundaries. We believe that the addition 

of more companion designations, and corresponding adjustments to Wilderness 

boundaries, would create a better, more inclusive, bill. 

Areas Appropriate for Wilderness in H.R. 4289 

IMBA can support roughly 216,958 acres for Wilderness in the Colorado Wilderness Act of 2009. IMBA believes that these parcels are appropriate for Wilderness: 

Badger Creek (25,229), Beaver Creek (38,378), Browns Canyon (20,025), Cross Canyon (25,947), Deep Creek (20,843), Flat Tops (16,427), Grand Hogback (11,701), Little Bookcliffs (30,557), Maroon Bells (316), McIntyre Hills (17,318), Platte River (33), 

Powderhorn (3,306), and West Elk (6,878). 

Areas That Need to Be Further Examined for Partial Wilderness, 

Companion Designations, and Boundary Adjustments 

Large segments of the following parcels could also be supported as Wilderness but 

IMBA needs to work with Congresswoman Degette and local stakeholders to determine if boundaries need to be redrawn for existing roads and trails or if a companion designation would be a more appropriate land protection. 

Further research and ground-truth efforts need to be conducted for the trails in 

these areas: Bull Gulch (15,155), Castle Peak (16,263), Demaree Canyon (25,881), 

Dolores River Canyon (41,133), Granite Creek (14,089), Norwood Canyon (13,288), 

Pisgah Mountain (15,679), Redcloud Peak (38,594), South Shale Ridge (27,569), 

Table Mountain (27,888), Weber-Menefee Mountain (14,598). 

IMBA can support the Snaggletooth Wilderness (32,050), so long as the boundary 

of the Wilderness respects the existing Snaggletooth Trail important to local 

bicyclists. The current map is unclear and it is difficult to determine if this trail 

is in or outside of the Wilderness boundary. 

Areas Important to Bicyclists That Could Be Protected Through A 

Companion Designation 

There are many trails that would close under H.R. 4289 and areas we cannot 

support for Wilderness: Bangs Canyon (21,110), Grape Creek (44,372), Handies 

Peak (72,397), McKenna Peak (33,467), The Palisade (26,914), Roubideau (22,604), 

Sewemup Mesa (65,448), Thompson Creek (25,285), and Unaweep (39,392). 

IMBA estimates that close to 200 miles of trails or dirt roads will close to bicycle 

use in the bills current form. In some places a simple boundary adjustment or nonWilderness corridors would allow for continued use. In other places, trails split parcels and a companion designation may be more appropriate, such as a National Protection Area, National Conservation Area, or National Scenic Area. In all instances, 

IMBA wants to make sure the land is still protected. We hope to work will the bill’s 

42 

sponsor and the committee to write a robust protection that complements some of 

the key Wilderness areas. 

Bangs Canyon 

IMBA would not support Wilderness for Bangs Canyon. This parcel provides 

mountain bike access on dirt roads accessible for winter riding around Grand Junction as well as the nationally famous Tabeguache Trail. 

Grand Junction is a world-renowned mountain bicycling destination. This area 

hosts an abundance of year round singletrack opportunities. IMBA’s local club, the 

Colorado Plateau Mountain Bike Trail Association (COPMOBA), is a dedicated 

group of volunteers who organized in 1989 and were recently inducted into the 

Mountain Bike Hall of Fame for their stewardship. This group includes a board of 

directors and numerous member volunteers who work with land managers to protect 

resources in the Grand Junction, Fruita, Gateway, and Montrose areas. This group 

has been dedicated to maintaining trails such as the Tabeguache, Paradox, and 

Kokopelli trails. 

The proposed Bangs Canyon parcel would close approximately five miles of the 

Tabeguache Trail. This trail, in its entirety, is 144 miles from Montrose to Grand 

Junction and was put together by the COPMOBA in 1990. The Tabeguache is also 

part of the three legs of the Grand Loop, a large triangle formed by the Kokopelli 

and Paradox trails. The closure would bi-sect this important long-distance trail and 

prevents completion of the Grand Loop. COPMBA has been working with the Grand 

Junction Bureau of Land Management Field Office to re-route this section of trail, 

but nothing official has come of the process. 

Grape Creek 

IMBA would not support Wilderness for the Grape Creek parcel as local bicyclists 

of the Colorado Springs (Medicine Wheel Trail Advocates) and Canyon City (Lower 

Arkansas Mountain Bicycling Association) enjoy several trails that would be closed 

under the proposal: Bear Gulch Trail, Tanner Peak Trail, and Stultz Trail. The 

Grape Creek area is featured in a well-known guide, Mountain Biking Colorado 

Springs Guide Book, by David Crowell (Falcon Publishing). 

Handies Peak 

IMBA does not support the Handies Peak Wilderness proposal. This proposed 

area includes the Colorado Trail, which is of critical importance to mountain bikers. 

It is a premier backcountry singletrack experience and certain segments are an 

international destination. Many bicyclists put this long-distance trail on their 

‘‘must-ride’’ list of epic backcountry rides and aspire to bike the entire distance from 

end to end. There is a tremendous amount of Wilderness already in the area that 

restricts local bicyclists. The CO Wilderness Act of 2009 would needlessly close a 

critical segment (#23) that would make bicyclists detour around yet another parcel 

of Wilderness in the Handies Peak Proposed Wilderness. Mountain bikers love this 

trail and would be upset to be excluded. 

Already there are several Colorado Trail segments that require challenging and 

onerous reroutes. The Lost Creek Wilderness is a good example. Here, bicyclists 

must bike 71.6 miles on state highways and dirt roads to bypass roughly 20 miles 

of trail with no alternative trail route available. This is an enormous burden on our 

community. If segment #23 were closed, this would require a similar problem for 

this segment and require an extensive reroute for mountain bikers to stay outside 

of Wilderness. Other trails that would be affected in this area are West Lake Creek 

and Pole Creek. 

McKenna Peak 

IMBA would not support Wilderness for major segments of McKenna Peak. There 

are several dirt roads that bicyclists use to view wild horse populations in the 

Spring Creek area. 

The Palisade 

IMBA would not support the Palisade (26,914) proposal. With mountain biking on 

the rise in Gateway, we need to keep in mind amenities that go along with the sport 

such as camping. The Wilderness boundary cuts off small roads that allow for camping in the area. There is limited camping in the canyon and this area has provided 

bikers with numerous camping opportunities. 

Roubideau 

IMBA does not support the Roubideau Wilderness proposal. This section bisects 

a very popular long distance trail, the Tabeguache trail. As previously mentioned 

in the Bangs Canyon proposal, this trail is in its entirety is 144 miles from 

43 

Montrose to Grand Junction. The Tabeguache is also part of the three legs of the 

Grand Loop, a large triangle formed also by the Kokopelli and Paradox trails. 

The proposal would eliminate the #3 Transfer Road section (7.1 miles) and #4 

Roubideau Trial section (21.3 miles). This trail offers an experience for riders exploring diverse geologic areas and applying remote backcountry riding skills, a unique 

trail system for mountain bikers. Trail surface consists of gravel road, maintained 

dirt road, primitive 4WD paths, and singletrack. 

Sewemup Mesa 

Sewemup Mesa is another area with an important trail to bicyclists and we ask 

there be boundary adjustments for this parcel. Sewemup Mesa is a wonderfully wild 

area, but H.R. 4289 goes outside the original BLM Wilderness Study Area proposal 

and would impact access to existing jeep roads near the Paradox Trail. The 100-mile 

Paradox Trail follows the stunning Paradox valley from Colorado’s high plains to 

Moab’s desert along trails and jeep roads and was put together by the COPMOBA 

in 1995. Included in this proposal are a number of short sections of road and trail 

that mountain bicyclists currently use. Beehive Canyon is also an area that has a 

short section of singletrack that is important to bikers. The boundary could be adjusted to exclude these areas that our constituents find important. 

Thompson Creek 

IMBA does not support Wilderness designation for Thompson Creek. This parcel 

borders the town of Carbondale, a destination for mountain biking and home to a 

very active IMBA club, the Roaring Fork Mountain Bike Association. There are 

many important trails in this parcel including Tall Pines and Braderich Creek trails 

that would close under the current proposal. IMBA suggests a companion designation for this unit. We cannot support the permanent restriction of mountain bike 

access to this areas urban trail development. 

Unaweep 

IMBA would not support the Unaweep parcel for Wilderness designation. In the 

Unaweep area there are currently trails used by mountain bikers, which include: 

Lower Ute Creek (2.5 miles), Ute Creek #608 (7.7 miles), and Snowshoe #607. Although it is only 1.5 miles long, Snowshoe #607 is an important connector trail. This 

area provides opportunity for loop trail rides in the area. There are currently three 

trails that were closed in 2002, but COPMBA has been working with the U.S. Forest 

Service to reopen these three trails: #601, #654, and #650. A Wilderness designation 

would eliminate the option of allowing bikes. 

H.R. 4289 Needs More Community Vetting 

IMBA hopes to work with Congresswoman Degette on conducting town hall meetings across the state to better collaborate with community groups affected by the 

legislation. Colorado has a long history of protecting public lands through inclusive 

processes that bring many interest groups to the table. We believe this bill needs 

to go through more community stakeholder meetings to make sure those closest to 

the land have been involved in drawing the boundaries. 

IMBA recently worked with Colorado Congressman John Salazar (D-3) over the 

course of several years to craft H.R. 3914 the San Juan Mountains Wilderness Act 

of 2009, which we support. The bill includes numerous boundary adjustments for 

critical trails and dirt roads that our community uses in southwest Colorado. Further, the legislation includes both Wilderness and a Special Management Area that 

allows our historical use to continue on one trail system. The bill recognizes the importance of outdoor recreation and also allows the Hard Rock trail running race, and 

heli-skiing and snowboarding, to continue on these newly protected lands. 

IMBA also worked collaboratively for years with then U.S. Representative Mark 

Udall (D-2) on shaping the James Peak Wilderness and Protection Area (H.R. 1576, 

P.L. 107-216 or 16 USC 5391). James Peak is another great example of complementing Wilderness through a companion designation of a National Protection Area, 

as it allows for bicyclists to continue riding an important, high-alpine trail. 

Last year, IMBA supported the Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area 

and Dominguez Canyon Wilderness Area Act (S. 3065) after working with then Colorado U.S. Senator Ken Salazar to draft a proposal that included a companion of 

a National Conservation Area, which protected public lands and allowed our traditional use along many important trails. 

IMBA is now working with Colorado Congressman Jared Polis (D-2) and the Hidden Gems coalition to craft a robust protection measure that includes Wilderness 

and a companion designation for Summit, Pitkin, Eagle, and Gunnison counties. 

44 

Forest Service Needs Better Management Tools for Human-Powered 

Recreation 

IMBA believes the time has come for the Forest Service and Congress to consider 

another robust public land protection that gives clear guidance to the Forest Service 

for management. The Forest Service has specific regulations and management guidance for Wilderness, and needs better direction for companion designations. 

IMBA is asking the Forest Service to help address the disparities that unfairly 

restrict mountain bicycle access. Although research shows that the impacts of bicycling are much less than those caused by motorized recreation, Forest Service regulations often equate bicyclists to motorized users and inappropriately group bicycles 

into the category of ‘‘motorized and mechanized’’ in their analysis. Too often, environmental and social science research is based on the impacts of motorized users, 

ignoring the need for a unique analysis specific to bicycling as a low-impact, humanpowered activity. The Forest Service needs better management tools to address our 

sport. 

IMBA believes it is important that this committee consider the congressional intent of the Wilderness Act and the inspiration behind that important moment in 

history. It is clear from the congressional record and study group reports, which recommended the parameters of the legislation, that even back in the late 1950’s, 

Americans were becoming too sedentary. The pressures of development were starting to erode these treasured areas and Congress wanted places people were required 

to get to under their own human-power. No people movers, no motors, and no 

mechanized transport—which the Forest Service in 1966 defined as, ‘‘propelled by 

a non-living power source’’ (36 CFR § 293.6). Since bicycles are obviously powered 

by a living power source, they were not contemplated by the Act. IMBA believes the 

congressional intent was to prohibit motorized vehicles completely and any non-motorized but non-human powered devices used to deliver people or supplies. Examples 

of the latter would include animal-powered wagons and mining carts. 

In addition, Congress has recognized that bicycling is compatible with Wilderness 

values in the Rattlesnake Wilderness Act (1980) where it found that ‘‘bicycling’’ was 

a form of ‘‘primitive recreation’’ fitting for Wilderness. 

‘‘The Congress finds that—(1) certain lands on the Lolo National Forest in 

Montana have high value [as Wilderness]. This national forest area has 

long been used as a wilderness...as a source of solitude...and primitive 

recreation, to include such activities as hiking, camping, backpacking, hunting, fishing, horse riding, and bicycling....’’ 

I mention this to further dispel the idea that bicycles are an incompatible use of 

pristine places. Almost 30 years have passed since the first invention of the mountain bike and twenty-five years since the 1984 Forest Service regulatory ban of bicycles in Wilderness. We have learned a lot in the last 30 years on recreation ecology 

and management of mountain bikes. 

We now know that the resource impacts of mountain biking are similar to hiking 

and much less than horses, two allowed uses of Wilderness. For example, a study 

published by Dr. Jeffrey L. Marion, Assessing and Understanding Trail Degradation: Results from Big South Fork National River and Recreational Areas, United 

States Department of the Interior (2006), demonstrates that mountain bike trails 

were the least eroded, narrowest, and least muddy of the trails studied (.6 percent), 

including hiking (1.4 percent), equestrian (9.0 percent), ATV (24.0 percent) (See also 

Attachment B—Environmental Impacts of Mountain Biking: Science Review and 

Best Practices, Jeff Marion and Jeremy Wimpey). We have also learned a tremendous amount about the management of mountain bikes and shared-use trails and 

have hundreds of examples across the country where hikers, bicyclists, and equestrians successfully share trails. (See Minimum Tool Rule, Attachment B). 

Relying solely on Wilderness designations has other drawbacks. The Forest Service is restricted in Wilderness as to what tools they can use for forest restoration, 

watershed protection, forest thinning, and mechanized trail building. Further, Wilderness prevents fixed anchors for climbers and backcountry structures such as 

yurts that back-packers and cross-country skiers would appreciate. 

At a time when every federal public land agency has initiatives to get more kids 

exercising, into the woods, and out experiencing their public lands, why would we 

exclude bicyclists? Bicycling creates future public land stewards; it makes national 

parks and national forests more relevant to today’s youth. 

As a community, mountain bikers can add a valuable new voice to campaigns to 

protect America’s forests, water, wildlife, and scenic landscapes. Ask any mountain 

biker what they think about public land protection. They absolutely do not want the 

lands around their trails mined, developed, or turned into road systems. The fervently agree in protecting public lands. 

45 

But the one-size fits all approach of Wilderness is no longer an adequate solution. 

Mountain bikers are slowly changing the national conversation on public land protection and introducing companion designations in legislation around the country. 

We hope to work with Congress, the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, 

and others to write better public land protections that are inclusive of our human 

powered use. 

In closing, I want to emphasize that IMBA has inspired, trained, and organized 

one of the most committed volunteer trail corps in this nation’s history. We’re proud 

that our members have embraced the ethic of trail stewardship so wholeheartedly 

and we will continue to promote riding that respects all trail users. We will continue 

to protect the water, wildlife, clean air, and backcountry landscapes that are the 

foundation of America’s matchless outdoor recreation heritage. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to present this testimony. 

ATTACHMENT A 

Summary Excerpt: Environmental Impacts of Mountain Biking: Science 

Review and Best Practices. 

By Jeff Marion and Jeremy Wimpey 

Mountain biking is still a relatively new activity whose environmental impact and 

contribution to trail degradation is poorly understood. As with all recreational pursuits, it is clear that mountain biking contributes some degree of environmental degradation. In the absence of adequate research, land and trail managers have frequently been cautious, implementing restrictive regulations in some instances 

(Edger 1997). Surveys of managers have shown that they frequently perceive mountain biking to be a substantial contributor to trail degradation but lack scientific 

studies or monitoring data to substantiate such concerns (Chavez and others 1993; 

Schuett 1997). In recent years, however, a small number of studies have been conducted that help clarify the environmental impacts associated with mountain biking. 

This article describes the general impacts associated with recreational uses of natural surface trails, with a focus on those studies that have examined mountain 

biking impacts. [...] 

Conclusion 

While land managers have long been concerned about the environmental impacts 

of mountain biking, there are still very few good studies published in peer-reviewed 

journals. White and others (2006) and Hendricks (1997) note that the majority of 

mountain biking research has focused on social issues, such as conflicts between 

trail users. As a consequence, the ecological effects of mountain biking on trails and 

natural resources remain poorly understood. 

Still, an emerging body of knowledge on the environmental impact of mountain 

biking can help guide current management decisions. All of the existing scientific 

studies indicate that while mountain biking, like all forms of recreational activity, 

can result in measurable impacts to vegetation, soil, water resources, and wildlife, 

the environmental effects of well-managed mountain biking are minimal. 

Furthermore, while the impact mechanics and forces may be different from foot 

traffic, mountain biking impacts are little different from hiking, the most common 

and traditional form of trail-based recreational activity. 

Key observations about the environmental impacts of mountain biking: 

1. Environmental degradation can be substantially avoided or minimized when 

trail users are restricted to designated formal trails. Many studies have shown 

that the most damage to plants and soils occur with initial traffic and that the 

per capita increase in further impact diminishes rapidly with increasing subsequent traffic. Many environmental impacts can be avoided and the rest are 

substantially minimized when traffic is restricted to a well-designed and managed trail. The best trail alignments avoid the habitats of rare flora and fauna 

and greatly minimize soil erosion, muddiness, and tread widening by focusing 

traffic on side-hill trail alignments with limited grades and frequent grade reversals. Even wildlife impacts are greatly minimized when visitors stay on 

trails; wildlife have a well-documented capacity to habituate to non-threatening 

recreational uses that occur in consistent places. 

2. Trail design and management are much larger factors in environmental degradation than the type or amount of use. Many studies have demonstrated that 

poorly designed or located trails are the biggest cause of trail impacts. As evidence, consider that use factors (type, amount, and behavior of trail visitors) 

are generally the same along the length of any given trail, yet there is often 

substantial variation in tread erosion, width, and muddiness. These impacts 

46 

are primarily attributable to differences in grade and slope alignment angle, 

soil type and soil moisture, and type of tread construction, surfacing, and 

drainage. This suggests that a sustainable trail that is properly designed, constructed, and maintained can support lower-impact uses such as hiking and 

mountain biking with minimal maintenance or degradation. 

3. The environmental degradation caused by mountain biking is generally equivalent or less than that caused by hiking, and both are substantially less impacting than horse or motorized activities. In the small number of studies that included direct comparisons of the environmental effects of different recreational 

activities, mountain biking was found to have an impact that is less than or 

comparable to hiking. For example, Marion and Olive (2006) reported less soil 

loss on mountain bike trails than on hiking trails, which in turn exhibited substantially less soil loss than did horse and ATV trails. Similarly, two wildlife 

studies reported no difference in wildlife disturbance between hikers and 

mountain bikers (Taylor & Knight 2003, Gander & Ingold 1997), while two 

other studies found that mountain bikers caused less disturbance (Papouchis 

and others. 2001, Spahr 1990). Wilson and Seney (1994) found that horses 

made significantly more sediment available for erosion than hikers or mountain bikers, which were statistically similar to the undisturbed control. 

One final point to consider, however, is that mountain bikers, like horse and vehicle users, travel further than hikers due to their higher speed of travel. This means 

that their use on a per-unit time basis can affect more miles of trail or wildlife than 

hikers. However, an evaluation of aggregate impact would need to consider the total 

number of trail users, and hikers are far more numerous than mountain bikers. 

Mountain Bike Management Implications 

So what does this mean for mountain biking? The existing body of research does 

not support the prohibition or restriction of mountain biking from a resource or environmental protection perspective. Existing impacts, which may be in evidence on 

many trails used by mountain bikers, are likely associated for the most part with 

poor trail designs or insufficient maintenance. 

Managers should look first to correcting design-related deficiencies before considering restrictions on low-impact users. By enlisting the aid of all trail users through 

permanent volunteer trail maintenance efforts, they can improve trail conditions 

and allow for sustainable recreation. 

ATTACHMENT B 

Minimum Tool Rule 

THE MINIMUM TOOL RULE 

Public land managers who seek to provide high-quality recreation experiences on 

trails face the challenge of increasing user conflicts. Successful resolution of this 

problem depends on the management approach. The International Mountain Bicycling Association recommends that managers adopt the ‘‘minimum tool rule’’: Use 

the least intrusive measures that will solve the problem. 

This approach is explained well in ‘‘Conflicts on Multiple-Use Trails: Synthesis of 

the Literature and State of the Practice,’’ by Roger Moore (1994): 

The nature of the recreation experience limits the manager’s options in addressing the potential negative impacts of trail use. Freedom, and freedom 

of choice in particular, are essential for high-quality outdoor recreation on 

and off trails. Multiple-use trail managers must be sensitive to this fact and 

avoid restriction and manipulation whenever possible. The ’minimum tool 

rule’’ proposed by Hendee, Stankey, and Lucas (1990) for wilderness management is an appropriate guideline for the management of most multipleuse trails as well. They advocate using the least intrusive measures (whether physical or managerial) that will still achieve area objectives. This sensitivity is critical to maintaining the freedom and naturalness so important 

to most trail-based recreation. 

Some managers, unaware of this principle, have fallen into a more simple and less 

successful approach. Andy Kulla, a recreation manager in the Lolo National Forest 

of Montana, calls it ‘‘Ignore or Restrict:...New uses are ignored until they conflict 

with a traditional established use and then are managed by prohibition or restriction...The manager then tries to resolve a conflict between two or more often very 

angry and alienated user groups. By then it’s often too late...Positions are taken, 

heels are dug in, and emotions rather than rational thought dominate the negotiations.’’ 

47 

Kulla developed a list of possible management actions and arranged them according to the minimum tool rule. His hierarchy of solutions offers excellent guidance 

to all recreation managers. 

REFERENCES: 

Moore, Roger, ‘‘Conflicts on Multiple Use Trails: Synthesis of the Literature and 

State of the Practice,’’ U.S. Federal Highway Administration, Report No. FHWA-PD94-031, 1994. 

Kulla, A., ‘‘A New Perspectives Approach to National Forest Recreation and is Application to Mountain Bike Management.’’ Unpublished paper prepared for Utah 

State University’s Professional Development for Outdoor Recreation Managers/Planners Shortcourse, 1991. 

A hierarchy of options for managing trail user conflict 

by Andy Kulla, USDA Forest Service—Lolo National Forest 1994 

Listed from most preferable to least preferable. 

Signing 

Urge cyclists to stay on routes, slow down, limit party size, consider other users, 

etc. voluntarily through signing. Use signs to make sure that cyclists who care, but 

don’t know proper etiquette, have enough information to monitor themselves. 

Present a good map depicting areas that are open, closed, congested, or whatever. 

Peer Pressure 

Encourage your friends and other cyclists to patrol their own ranks in a positive 

way. 

Education 

Work with bike shops, local clubs, universities, other user groups, city bike programs, mountain bike outfitters and guides, and other interested parties to educate 

bicyclists about low impact use, etiquette, and consideration for other users. Develop 

posters, brochures, and a logo or trademark to become a recognized reminder or 

symbol of considerate cycling. 

Use Closed Roads 

Emphasize and encourage use of closed roads as bike routes because single track 

trails become congested quickly and have high potential for conflict. 

Soft-Cycling Training Programs 

Develop training programs on low impact cycling for adults and school children 

to be presented by clubs, organizations, bike shops. 

Trail Design 

On new trails or trails that can be reconstructed, include design features that restrict speed and enhance sight distance, and build wide, or pull-out, sections to facilitate safe passing of cyclists, horses, and hikers. 

Barriers To Control Speed 

Leave or install barriers in the trail to control speed. Things like protruding rocks, 

roots, bumps, sharp curves, down trees, speed barriers and waterbars will help. 

Requested Walking Zone 

Request or require that cyclists walk their bikes in certain areas where speed, 

recklessness, or congestion are potential problems. 

One-Way Only 

Designate the direction of travel on trails with very heavy use to avoid the potential for head on collisions. 

Post Speed Limits 

Set maximum allowable or recommended speeds for cyclists. Encourage voluntary 

compliance or involve local cyclists in positive enforcement. Encourage speeds that 

allow a cyclist to stop in less than half the distance they can see. 

Patrolling 

Use properly trained volunteer groups to patrol and talk with cyclists. 

Restrict Cyclists By Time 

Allow for mountain bike use only at certain times of day. 

48 

Restrict Cyclists By Day 

Allow for mountain bike use on only certain days when other use may be at lower 

levels. (odd/even days or weekend/week day) 

Separate Sections 

Construct separate routes for mountain cyclist use where there is the greatest 

congestion (like at trailheads). 

Construct Separate Routes 

Construct separate trails for mountain bikes where there is strong user support 

(like money and/or labor) and where no other solutions are feasible. 

Zoning 

Close certain areas to cycling and then allow and encourage that use in other 

designated areas. This method is dependent on having other areas available and 

usable. 

Close Area To Cyclists 

This should be only used as a last resort after other efforts have proven 

ineffective. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. 

Mr. John Stansfield, Coordinator, Central Colorado Wilderness 

Coalition. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN STANSFIELD, COORDINATOR, CENTRAL 

COLORADO WILDERNESS COALITION, MONUMENT, COLORADO 

Mr. STANSFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Congresswoman 

DeGette. 

I am John Stansfield, representing Central Colorado Wilderness 

Coalition. CCWC is a regional all-volunteer organization founded in 

2002, with the goal of working to secure designation of new wilderness areas in central Colorado, particularly in the Fifth Congressional District. We have 250 members working in collaboration 

with local groups whose membership totals 3,000-plus, and more 

than 30 organizations and businesses have endorsed our wilderness 

proposal, which includes six of the areas in the Colorado Wilderness Act of 2009. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify in favor of H.R. 4289. 

CCWC endorses the testimony of Steve Smith presented today on 

behalf of our group and others. In addition, we would like to comment specifically on five areas in the bill located in our region 

about which we know a fair amount and for which we care greatly. 

These wild and natural parcels are Beaver Creek, Grape Creek, 

Table Mountain, McIntyre Hills, and Badger Creek. We are also 

strong advocates for Browns Canyon, which Bill Dvorˇa ́k has discussed in detail today. 

Our group has explored, inventoried, mapped and continues to 

promote these areas for wilderness designation. We heartily endorse your legislative efforts to make these designations a reality 

in the near future. 

As for myself, I have 40 years’ experience as a volunteer in wild 

land inventory and assessment, especially in central Colorado. 

With a master’s degree in education, I have conducted hundreds of 

back country educational, recreational and service trips for people 

of all ages in Colorado and Wyoming. 

In central Colorado’s Fremont County, the ancient Arkansas 

River and its tributaries have created countless canyons interVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:29 Jun 21, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\55394.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
49 

mingled with steep-sided ridges and peaks. It is in this rugged terrain the five islands of wildness, strong like uncut jewels on the 

chain of river flourish in close proximity to the rapidly urbanizing 

front range. We believe that as development takes place in the region wild public lands become inherently more valuable ecologically 

and recreationally. 

Like many of the proposed wildernesses in H.R. 4289, the Fremont County areas are the mid-elevation range of 6,000 to 10,000 

feet. In terms of ecological diversity, the importance of permanent 

protection for the lower elevation wildlands cannot be understated. 

Beaver Creek, for example, is situated in a biological cross roads 

of plains, mountain and New Mexican habitats blending prairie 

rattlesnakes and big blue stem grass with big horn elk and 

Engelmann spruce along with road runners, Mexican spotted owls, 

pin ̃ on-juniper woodland and ring tail; quite a mix, while only a few 

miles away Grape Creek and the other areas, a few air miles away 

Grape Creek and the other areas have their own blends of diverse 

plant and animal species. 

Mid-elevation areas make for a variety of primitive recreation as 

well. CCWC has conducted hiking trips into each of the Arkansas 

River areas every month of the year. While higher streams are ice 

bound, year-round fishing is common in Badger Creek and Grape 

Creek because some wildlife species, wild turkey for instance, occur 

at lower elevation, so do varied hunting opportunities. 

All five of the wilderness candidates have pending congressional 

action, receive some form of interim protection from their land 

management agencies in recognition of their wild and roadless values. The interim protections for each area are listed in my written 

testimony. 

However, administrative interim protections can be lost. Water 

storage projects or alterations in agency regulation, for example, 

can spell rapid change or elimination of wilderness-quality lands. 

Only congressionally-designated wilderness can effectively preserve 

their values. 

There are resource issues in two of the areas of which the Committee should be aware. There is use of motorcycles, ATVs and 

mountain bikes in some of the Forest Service roadless are portion 

of the Grape Creek proposed wilderness. A draft Federal energy 

corridor proposal on BLM land may impact the potential southern 

wilderness boundary of Badger Creek. We believe that both of 

those issues can be successfully mitigated via public and agency 

participation during the legislative process. 

CCWC is extremely grateful for the de facto, and I say ‘‘de facto’’ 

interim protections all be they unofficial provided by Representative Diana DeGette’s Colorado Wilderness Act proposals during the 

past 11 years. The recurring bills have assisted us in keeping the 

areas we treasure in front of the public and enabled us to keep up 

hope on the long road to wilderness designation, and now at last 

we have a hearing. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stansfield follows:] 

Statement of John Stansfield, Coordinator, 

Central Colorado Wilderness Coalition 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. 

50 

I am John Stansfield, Post Office Box 588, Monument, Colorado 80132. I represent Central Colorado Wilderness Coalition (CCWC). CCWC is a regional, all-volunteer organization founded in 2002 with the goal of working to secure designation 

of new wilderness areas in central Colorado, particularly in the Fifth Congressional 

District. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify for H.R. 4289, the Colorado Wilderness 

Act of 2009. CCWC is a member group of Colorado Wilderness Network and endorses the testimony of Steve Smith presented today. In addition, we would like to 

comment specifically on five areas in the bill, located in our region, about which we 

know a fair amount and for which we care greatly. These wild and natural parcels 

are Beaver Creek, Grape Creek, Table Mountain, McIntyre Hills, and Badger Creek. 

Our group has explored, inventoried, mapped, and continues to promote these areas, 

as well as Browns Canyon, for wilderness designation. We heartily endorse your legislative efforts to make these designations a reality in the near future. 

As for myself, I have 40 years of experience as a volunteer in wild land inventory 

and assessment. With a master’s degree in education, I have conducted hundreds 

of backcountry educational, recreational, and service trips for people of all ages in 

Colorado, Wyoming, and Alaska. 

My first wilderness inventory experience took place in Beaver Creek in spring 

1971. My cohorts and I, all unfamiliar with the area, forced our way up the canyon 

bottom, fording the icy, thigh-deep water again and again, until we came to a seemingly impassable narrows, only 30 feet wide with vertical walls 100 feet high, and 

the creek falling in rapids through it. We baled out of the stream bed. After climbing hand-over-hand through a steep, brushy gulch, all of a sudden there was a trail. 

We were so pleased to walk the scenic path back to the trailhead, unaware of the 

cases of poison ivy we would soon be scratching. The surprises I had that day in 

1971 were only the first of many I have had over the years in my wild land inventories. 

In central Colorado’s Fremont County, the ancient Arkansas River and its tributaries have bored their ways through tough igneous and metamorphic rock, creating 

countless canyons intermingled with steep-sided ridges and peaks. It is in this rugged terrain that the five islands of wildness, strung like jewels on the chain of river, 

flourish in close proximity to the rapidly urbanizing Front Range. We believe that 

as development takes place in the region, wild public lands become inherently more 

valuable—economically, ecologically, recreationally. 

And we can back up that contention. Our sister organization, Wild Connections, 

recently released a professional paper: (http://www.wildconnections.org/images/ 

EcosytemlServiceslEconomiclValuelLandlUselPlanninglWildl Connectionsl2010.pdf) documenting substantial previously unquantified economic 

values provided by ‘‘ecosystem services’’, those goods, including fresh water, the regulation of wastes, the control of climate, the formation of soil, and protection from 

natural hazards, which an ecosystem provides for human use. 

Like many of the proposed wildernesses in H.R. 4289, the Fremont County areas 

are in the mid-elevation range of 6,000 to 10,000 feet. (Most Colorado wilderness 

being at 9,000 feet and up.) In terms of ecological diversity, the importance of permanent protection for lower elevation wild lands cannot be understated. Beaver 

Creek, for example, is situated at a biological crossroads of plains, mountain, and 

New Mexican habitats, blending prairie rattlesnakes and big bluestem grass with 

bighorn, elk, and Engelmann spruce, along with roadrunners, Mexican spotted owls, 

pin ̃ on-juniper woodland, and ringtail. Quite a mix! While only a few air miles away, 

Grape Creek has its own blend of diverse plant and animal species. 

Mid-elevation wilderness areas make for variety in primitive recreation, as well. 

CCWC has conducted hiking trips into each of the Arkansas River areas in every 

winter month. While higher streams are icebound, year-round fishing is common in 

Badger, Grape, and Beaver Creeks. Because some wildlife species, wild turkey, for 

instance, occur at lower elevation, so do varied hunting opportunities there. When 

I meet outdoor people who enjoy the sandstone canyonlands of southeast Utah, I encourage them to also visit the soaring granite canyonlands of Beaver Creek or the 

slot canyons and rain water pour-offs of McIntyre Hills for a new experience. 

All five of the wilderness candidates have, pending congressional action, received 

some form of interim protection from their land management agencies, in recognition of the wild and roadless values they contain. Interim protections include: 

Badger Creek—Forest Service roadless area designation 

Beaver Creek—BLM Wilderness Study Area, Forest Service roadless area designation, Colorado Stewardship Trust Program (state trust inholdings only) 

Grape Creek—BLM Wilderness Study Area and Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern designations, Forest Service roadless area designation, Colorado Stewardship Trust Program (state trust inholdings only) 

51 

McIntyre Hills—BLM Wilderness Study Area, Colorado Stewardship Trust Program (state trust inholdings only) 

Table Mountain—BLM Area of Critical Environmental Concern and Research 

Natural Area designations for portions of the area 

However, administrative interim protections can be lost. Water storage projects, 

or energy-related developments, or alterations in agency regulation, for example, 

can spell rapid alteration or elimination of wilderness-quality lands. Only congressionally-designated wilderness can effectively preserve values on BLM and Forest 

Service lands which the people deem important for our nation’s longterm wellbeing. 

There are resource issues in two of the areas of which the committee should be 

aware. There is use by motorcycles and ATVs in some of the Forest Service roadless 

area portion of the Grape Creek proposed wilderness. A draft federal energy corridor 

proposal on BLM land may impact the potential southern wilderness boundary of 

Badger Creek. We believe that both of these issues can be successfully mitigated via 

public and agency participation during the legislative process. 

In closing, I would like to share a highlight, factual or personal, about each of 

the proposed wildernesses to give you something of the experience of being there: 

The top-of-the-world view looking down from the expansive grass-covered mesa 

top of Table Mountain into Devil’s Hole and the Arkansas River 3,000 feet below. 

A high school biology class discovering a bighorn ram skeleton lying at the bottom 

of the 200-foot-high precipice that marks the confluence of East and West Beaver 

Creek. 

Broad, parallel fingers of wan fall grass and bright yellow aspen reaching 

downslope more than a mile to touch Badger Creek. 

History rising through boot soles treading the grassy roadbed of the short-lived 

railroad that once traversed Grape Creek valley. 

The feeling, in McIntyre Hills, of being what Colorado conservation pioneer Enos 

Mills called ‘‘watched by wildlife’’, and then glimpsing on the ridge above a mountain lion in motion. 

CCWC is extremely grateful for the de facto interim protections, albethey unofficial, provided by Rep. Diana DeGette’s Colorado Wilderness Act legislative proposals 

during the past 11 years. The recurring bills have assisted us in keeping the areas 

we treasure in front of the public and enabled us to keep up hope on the long road 

to wilderness designation. And now, at last, we have a hearing. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. 

Mr. Kent Holsinger of Holsinger Law, Denver, Colorado. Welcome, sir, and look forward to your comments. 

STATEMENT OF KENT HOLSINGER, HOLSINGER LAW, LLC, 

DENVER, COLORADO 

Mr. HOLSINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman 

DeGette. My name is Kent Holsinger. I am the managing partner 

of Holsinger Law LLC. We are a Denver, Colorado-based natural 

resources law firm that specializes in lands, wildlife, and water 

law. 

I appreciate the opportunity to be here to testify today to express 

the great concerns that I have personally and many of my clients, 

many colleagues have with this legislation of both a procedural and 

substantive nature. 

First and perhaps foremost is a real concern with local input into 

this legislation. This would designate vast swaths of land, many of 

which are crisscrossed by roads, trails, pipelines, and other manmade facilities into the most restrictive Federal land use designation possible. 

Club 20’s Public Lands Committee, Club 20 is the organization 

representing 20 West Slope counties has expressed concerns with 

how wilderness bills are implemented and ultimately enacted. 

Their latest resolution on this subject says that wilderness bills 

should be passed only with the strong support of the county commissioners representing the most immediately affected counties. 

52 

Action 22, the coalition of 22 southeastern Colorado counties, has 

opposed H.R. 4289, again with concerns over local input. As Action 

22 stated, this piece of legislation designating public lands as wilderness is the most restrictive of all Federal land designations and 

severely limits the opportunities for the public’s use of their lands 

as well as the local economic benefits associated with those uses. 

Colorado Counties, Inc., their own policy on wilderness designation is that wilderness be supported by the county within which the 

designation is proposed. 

In addition to these concerns in regard to local input, we represent many folks that are interested in water in Colorado. I 

should note that the Colorado River Water Conservation District 

opposes H.R. 4289 as drafted. They have raised significant concerns, and I would echo those concerns of Congressman Salazar 

that this legislation could affect our compact apportioned waters, 

the very life blood to Colorado, our ability to grow crops and recreate and provide for domestic and municipal uses. 

The Southwest Water Conservation District has raised similar 

concerns and have expressed their opposition to 4289 as drafted. 

My clients, the Montezuma Valley Irrigation Company have grave 

concerns about impacts that this legislation could have on them, 

their ability to continue to farm and even their ability to do good 

things to the downstream environment. 

My clients, the Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association 

have concerns with regards to potential impacts on their goals to 

create renewable hydropower on their existing water facilities. The 

Jackson County Water Conservancy District also has concerns with 

this legislation and its impacts on water. 

Many of our other clients, the Colorado Cattlemen’s Association, 

the Colorado Wool Growers Association, have great concerns with 

access to public lands with multiple uses and recreation, continued 

grazing, the ability to do new and improve existing water developments and reach their allotments. Recreation interests have concerns as well. The Colorado Off Highway Vehicle Coalition, Colorado Snowmobilers Association, the Blue Ribbon Coalition and the 

American Motorcyclist Association all oppose H.R. 4289 as drafted. 

In summary, Mr. Chairman, we have great concerns that this 

legislation would have significant economic impacts at a time when 

Colorado faces a billion dollar budget deficit. We urge the Committee to oppose this legislation. We urge the Congresswoman to 

work with local communities and continue the significant efforts I 

know her and her staff have devoted to this bill unless and until 

local communities support it. 

With that, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman DeGette. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Holsinger follows:] 

Statement of Kent Holsinger, Holsinger Law, LLC 

Thank you for the opportunity to present my views on this legislation. I respectfully urge the members of the subcommittee to oppose H.R. 4289 unless and until 

the serious concerns of many of the individuals, companies, organizations and local 

governments we work with are addressed. Holsinger Law, LLC is a small, Denverbased law firm that specializes in lands, wildlife and water law. I am testifying as 

the manager of Holsinger Law, LLC. In that capacity, I can attest to the impacts 

this sweeping legislation would have on many of our clients such as individual landowners, agricultural entities, water providers and energy producers. Many clients, 

53 

colleagues and friends have also authorized me to pass along their opposition, or at 

least their real concerns, with this legislation as drafted. 

There are ample substantive and procedural shortcomings in this bill. With its 

clear aim at restricting domestic energy production, I believe H.R. 4289 is bad for 

Colorado and bad for our economy. Even worse, H.R. 4289 equates to a massive federal takeover of private land and compact-apportioned water in Colorado. This will 

come at a huge social and economic cost and cause much to harm Colorado’s economy. Incredibly, it also comes at a time of deep recession, joblessness and budget 

deficits. 

I. H.R. 4289 is Bad for Colorado Water 

Wilderness designations coupled with implied, if not express, federal reserved 

water rights claims at the state line are tremendous and unheralded threats to 

Colorado’s lifeblood—its compact apportioned water. 

In addition to the grave concerns of our clients, the Montezuma Valley Irrigation 

Company, the Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association and the Jackson County Water Conservancy District, we understand the Colorado River Water Conservation District and the Southwestern Water Conservation District have expressed 

their opposition to this legislation. 

II. Lands Do Not Qualify for Wilderness Designation 

The Wilderness Act of 1964 was passed to protect lands untrammeled by man. 

Colorado boasts some of the most spectacular wilderness areas in the nation. Many 

of the lands included in this bill have not been designated as wilderness—and for 

good reason. Acreage crisscrossed by roads, trails, powerlines and pipelines should 

clearly be excluded from consideration. So too should lands subject to leasing, or potential leasing, for energy development. We urge the subcommittee to require careful surveys, mapping and legal descriptions of the proposed wilderness prior to enactment rather than after-the-fact. 

III. Concerns Expressed by Club 20, Action 22 and Colorado Counties, Inc. 

H.R. 4289 was crafted with little-to-no input from the people that would most be 

affected by it. For example, Club 20’s Public Lands Committee passed a resolution 

which relates to many of my concerns with H.R. 4289. This resolution will be considered before the Club 20 board early in April. A copy of this good work is included, 

along with many other statements and concerns. 

I have been authorized to represent that Action 22, a coalition of 22 counties in 

southeastern Colorado, opposes H.R. 4289 as written. 

Colorado Counties Inc. (CCI) policy supports multiple uses of public lands and 

strongly encourages wilderness designation be based on county input. A copy of 

their policy, as well as a similar National Association of Counties (NACO) policy is 

attached. 

IV. H.R. 4289 Would Harm Domestic Energy Development and Production 

Now is hardly the time to impose even more restrictions on domestic energy. Congress should be working to reduce, rather than increase, economic burdens and impacts to jobs. Many of the lands proposed for wilderness designation are subject to 

mineral leasing and development. The Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States (IPAMS) has documented extensive overlap and conflict in its attached 

presentation. 

V. H.R. 4289 is Bad for Colorado Agriculture 

Our clients the Colorado Cattlemen’s Association and the Colorado Wool Growers 

Association oppose this legislation as drafted given their concerns with the lack of 

local input and support, federal land management, grazing, mechanized use, access 

and water. 

VI. Opposition from Recreational Interests 

The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (COHVCO), the Blue Ribbon Coalition, Colorado Snowmobile Association and the American Motorcyclist Association 

opposes this legislation. 

VII. Impacts to Aviation 

As a private pilot, I also have concerns that H.R. 4289 could impact aviation in 

Colorado. H.R. 4289 overlaps with at least three important Military Operations 

Areas (MOAs) including the Airburst MOA and the La Veta High and La Veta Low 

MOAs that are used for training and testing military aircraft. In addition, many of 

the areas proposed for designation overlap with commonly used visual flight rules 

(VFR) airways. Some areas appear to overlap with airstrips and could potentially 

interfere with the ability to land and take-off from public or private airstrips. These 

54 

could all adversely affect aviation, commerce, and the ability for our military to 

train its pilots. 

VIII. H.R. 4289 Lacks Meaningful Local Support 

Wilderness legislation should be introduced, and enacted, only with significant 

local support. H.R. 4289 clearly lacks meaningful local support. Many of our colleagues, friends and clients have expressed that wilderness legislation should be 

carried by the Member in which the lands are situated. I whole-heartedly agree. 

IX. Conclusion 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. Please include this testimony, as 

well as the attachments hereto, in the record for this proceeding. This legislation 

would have severe and lasting impacts to private property, water rights, energy development and production and access to private and public lands in Colorado. It 

would do much harm to Colorado, the economy and our national defense. I urge the 

Subcommittee to oppose H.R. 4289 unless and until these concerns are adequately 

addressed. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Let me ask a couple of quick questions 

and turn it over to Congresswoman DeGette. 

Mr. Holsinger, let me go back a little bit. The interests that you 

represent or the opinion that you represent is well taken. During 

the discussion of the legislation that Congressman Salazar brought 

before this Committee, were those interests in opposition or in support of that particular piece of legislation given the concerns? 

Mr. HOLSINGER. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, which legislation is 

that? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Congressman Salazar’s legislation which was referred to earlier, were the interests that you represent in favor or 

for it or—— 

Mr. HOLSINGER. You know, Mr. Chairman, I have no talked to 

my clients about that specific legislation, but I do know several of 

the entities that authorized me to speak today and to relay the positions they have on 4289 are in support of Congressman Salazar’s 

efforts. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. OK, thank you. 

There was one question that I had for Mr. Smith from The Wilderness Society. You made the point about the process having to 

be careful but quick in terms of getting these designations done, 

and I agree with you. 

How long does the Society believe it will take to work out the 

problems outlined let us say by agencies or by Mr. Salazar’s earlier 

testimony? What would be the timeline since time is one of the 

issues that keeps coming up in all of these discussions? 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that the timeline 

will vary according to which area you talk about or which watershed you talk about because it depends primarily on those local discussions and those local attitudes and some are gong to come sooner than others. We are delighted to work with our full delegation, 

especially with Congresswoman DeGette, to cue this up on a timeframe, on a time plan to get these done. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. In a designation process and you are going 

through a public process, hypothetically you reach a point that 

can’t be accommodated on the designation. Those irreconcilable differences are going to occur. They occur in any one of these processes, and the suggestion that we wait or get a check off at some 

point on any wilderness designation on these differences to wait inVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:29 Jun 21, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\55394.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
55 

terminably until who knows when is something that concerns me 

because it has always been like a de facto veto on moving forward 

on some of these designations. Your opinion on what happens when 

you reach that crucible before you cannot reconcile. 

Mr. SMITH. I think that is very astute, Mr. Chairman. I will offer 

two quick thoughts. One is that, yes, eventually you cannot get to 

the perfect. You cannot get to absolute agreement, but you will 

come so close that most of the participants will feel satisfied, and 

all of the participants will realize that they can live with what happened. 

The second thought is we found in several of these negotiations 

on these areas and on other wilderness proposals in Colorado after 

perhaps months of lots of posturing where organizations will say, 

we are sweepingly against this, when we actually sit down with 

maps and actually talk about specific places, we find resolution 

within weeks. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. There are points of tolerance. 

Ms. Dice, IMBA supports the San Juan Mountains Wilderness 

Act. Can you tell us how long it took in that process to work out 

the issues in that legislation because I assume there must have 

been some issues at the beginning of that process, and how long 

do you think it would take your organization in particular to work 

out some of the issues that you raised today regarding the Colorado 

Wilderness Act? 

Ms. DICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It took us about two years 

to work through the issues with the San Juan Wilderness legislation, and if you look at each one of the parcels or the units in that 

legislation, a lot of times you can see right outside of the boundary 

of the wilderness is a trail system that the local mountain bike 

community enjoys. 

That legislation also has a companion designation of a special 

management area that allows us to continue to ride until there is 

a trigger point that turns it into wilderness in the future. So it took 

us about two years. 

With the Colorado Wilderness Act, I could guess probably the 

same thing. You know, one to two years. Like Steve said, when you 

sit down and you look at the maps and you get to the specific 

places, there are a lot of things that can be worked out on the 

ground: boundary adjustments, companion designations, and corridors for trails. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Ms. DeGette. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you. Following up, Ms. Dice. You know, I 

really appreciated your testimony because even though I myself am 

not a mountain biker I will take you up on your offer as long as 

it is not one of those really steep. 

Ms. DICE. Nice, make it flat. 

Ms. DEGETTE. On those trails I prefer to hike or go horseback 

riding, but I will come with you, and I also agree that we really 

need to have—I think that the mountain bike community needs to 

have a conversation with the Forest Service about some of these 

trails, and I also think that the Congressional Delegation can help 

you with that. 

But I will say in the areas of my bill that are currently being 

managed as Wilderness Study Areas as you know because of the 

56 

current Forest Service rules mountain bikes are not allowed in 

those areas. So if we designated a lot of those areas that would not 

be removing mountain bike usage, correct? 

Ms. DICE. Correct. 

Ms. DEGETTE. and I also want to thank you for your endorsement of 13 of the areas in my bill that you did not mention in your 

verbal testimony today, and I also want to say, and this goes with 

just about everybody here, I think we can work out some of the 

specific areas that you talk about by boundary adjustments and 

natural discussions. 

For example, the Tabawatch Trail I known in Banks Canyon is 

really important to the mountain bike community, so I am going 

to take a closer look at that to see if wilderness designation is appropriate for Banks Canyon or if we should look at something else, 

and like with Thompson Creek, I think we can look at some boundary issues to preserve those trails. They still have wilderness designation but allow the mountain biking. 

I just want to ask you, will your association agree to work with 

me to keep trying to resolve the issues with the additional areas 

that you flagged for discussion? 

Ms. DICE. Absolutely, and we look forward to working with you 

on it, and we look forward, of course, to taking you on a bicycle 

ride. 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. 

Ms. DICE. But I think more so than just a boundary adjustment 

for existing trails like the Tabawatch Trail, we don’t want the 

boundary to be moved and the land around our trails still mined 

or logged or leased. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Right. You want those other kinds of designations—— 

Ms. DICE. Exactly. 

Ms. DEGETTE.—that will still preserve the wilderness characteristics but allowing mountain bikes. 

Ms. DICE. Exactly. 

Ms. DEGETTE. I want to ask you, Mr. Stansfield, in the Forest 

Service’s testimony regarding Beaver Creek they mention that the 

area has no nonconforming uses, but they are concerned about the 

ability to fight fires in this area if it is designated wilderness. You 

mention in your written testimony that Beaver Creek was the first 

area you inventoried back in 1971. 

Have you ever heard this concern about fires in your many years 

of work, almost 30 years? No, I am sorry, 40 years—— 

Mr. STANSFIELD. That is OK. 

Ms. DEGETTE.—of work on these issues. 

Mr. STANSFIELD. I may not look that old but I really am. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Yes, I know. Me too. Have you ever heard a concern about that, and does the Wilderness Act allow for fire fighting 

in wilderness areas? 

Mr. STANSFIELD. I will answer both if I can. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Super. Thanks. 

Mr. STANSFIELD. No, I have never until very recently heard that 

concern raised about the little bit less than the 5,000 acre portion 

in your bill—Forest Service portion in your bill regarding Beaver 

Creek. So it was a surprise, and I have already talked with several 

57 

of the Forest Service representatives here today, and we will continue to explore that concern and bring the results of that discussion to you, and make you part of it as well. 

Regarding generally fire, yes, the Wilderness Act does allow for 

appropriate methods and in some place extreme, all methods to be 

allowed to be approved by the agency to fight forest fires, where 

needed, in designated wilderness. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And also to take care of other emergencies. If a 

hiker, for example, falls, they are allowed to be evacuated by helicopter, et cetera—— 

Mr. STANSFIELD. Absolutely. 

Ms. DEGETTE.—under the Wilderness Act, correct? 

Mr. STANSFIELD. Absolutely. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Mr. Dvorˇa ́k, thank you so much for your wonderful testimony today, and Mr. Chairman, I am going to reiterate my 

offer to take you on one of Mr. Dvorˇa ́k’s raft trips. 

I want to ask you if you agree with Mr. Holsinger’s statement 

that this bill would cause harm to Colorado’s economy? 

Mr. DVORˇ A ́ K. Well, no. I guess what I actually see is that it kind 

of is an addition to Colorado’s economy because a designated wilderness area, in my experience, has proved to be an actual good 

marketing tool, and I have seen that over the years wild and scenic 

river designation, national park designation, wilderness designation, all of those things actually add to your ability to sort of market to both domestic and international clientele. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, that is all the questions I have. I just want to sort of tell some of the folks who are 

here today, and also you, I agree with some of what folks have 

said, is that, you know, this is an omnibus bill that has been in 

progress for a number of years, even before I introduced it, and so 

my concept, and I have talked to Mr. Salazar and the rest of the 

delegation about this, is to really go through and determine which 

areas are pretty ripe, just need maybe a few boundary adjustments, some water language or something like that. They have 

really good community support, and so we just need to go back and 

talk once again to those communities, and then there are some 

other midterm ones. So we are going to be talking about how we 

proceed forward, but we think that time is of the essence, and we 

agree with you, and also Chairman Rahall, that we can’t just let 

this drift along indefinitely, that at some point we have to act to 

preserve these very special resources, especially as the witnesses 

have seen in Colorado, as the population growth throughout our 

state on the western slope but also in our front range cities, as that 

continues to grow and put additional pressure, so we will be coming to you with that very, very shortly. 

And I also wanted to just say one last thing about the water language. I agree with Mr. Salazar and also with Mr. Smith that the 

water language has now evolved even since the sand dunes language that Secretary Salazar originally negotiated, so we are going 

to be incorporating that language into our legislation, and that is 

going to help alleviate a lot of the water concerns that people have 

expressed. 

With that, let me just thank you on behalf of myself and also 

everybody else who has worked on this bill for holding this hearing 

58 

today. This is the day we have been waiting for—for many, many 

years 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Congresswoman. I couldn’t agree with 

you more that the pressure on those of us that are out in the West 

in terms of population growth, shifting demography, and the need 

to still try to retain some of the special places before they are overgrown, for lack of a better word, is essential. So I understand the 

process. I believe it is essential to get collaboration and get a good 

product, and get community support, but there is an underlining 

urgency that I think we all recognize to get some of these things 

moving and done, so that is why I concentrated on a lot of time 

questions today, because these things can go on forever and ever 

and ever, and I don’t think anyone of us wants it to go on that 

long. 

So thank you very much. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. The meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:47 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

[A letter submitted for the record by Glenn Graham, President 

and Chairman of the Board, Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition, and Don Riggle, Director of Operations, Trails Preservation 

Alliance, follows:] 

March 10, 2010 

The Honorable Rau ́l Grijalva 

Chairman House Subcommittee on 

National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands 

United States House of Representatives 

1440 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515-0307 

The Honorable Rob Bishop 

Ranking Minority Member 

House Subcommittee on 

National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands 

United States House of Representatives 

123 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515-4401 

Dear Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member Bishop: 

We are writing in opposition to H.R. 4289, the Colorado Wilderness Act of 2009 

sponsored by Representative Diana DeGette and scheduled for hearing on March 11, 

2010, in the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands. 

Please incorporate into the record the following comments and attachments of the 

Colorado Off-highway Vehicle Coalition, (COHVCO) and the Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA). Additionally, the American Motorcyclist Association and its sister organization the All-Terrain Vehicle Association opposes H.R. 4289. 

COHVCO is a volunteer based non-profit conservation organization that has focused on preserving and enhancing opportunities for all off-highway vehicle (OHV), 

and snowmobile users in Colorado since 1987. COHVCO represents nearly 200,000 

Coloradans, and thousands of visitors from outside Colorado, who enjoy recreating 

on our public lands with off-highway vehicles. We represent motorcycle, 4WD, ATV 

and snowmobile enthusiasts. COHVCO, its participating clubs, and enthusiasts not 

only provide thousands of volunteer hours, but also contribute over $2.5 million dollars each year to public lands, through Colorado’s OHV Registration Grant Program. 

These funds provide maintenance, signage, restoration and opportunity on trails and 

roads on federal public lands in Colorado and are indispensable given continuing 

cutbacks in federal funding in these areas. These funds also contribute to enforcement activities and education programs for motorized recreation enthusiasts. 

59 

The Trails Preservation Alliance is a Colorado based IRS 501(c) (3) organization. 

It represents over 2500 members (of which a majority are military veterans), who 

are dedicated to preserving public access to public lands. The TPA has generated 

over $500K in OHV funding to the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land 

Management to build and preserve single track trails for all recreational user 

groups. The TPA is dedicated to public recreation on public lands. The TPA has a 

long history of working with Region 2 of the U.S.D.A. Forest Service and other state 

and federal agencies in Colorado. 

A recently completed study on the economic contribution to the State of Colorado 

by both winter and summer motorized recreation showed that these activities are 

responsible for about 12,000 jobs and a cash flow of over $ 1 billion. Many of the 

jobs and a significant part of the total cash flow benefit smaller communities located 

within or near large tracts of federal public lands. In addition, the Colorado Division 

of Wildlife (DOW) estimates that approximately 70% of hunters use OHVs (almost 

exclusively ATVs) to facilitate their hunt and use 4 wheel drive vehicles to reach 

the general area of the hunt. Additional loss of access for this majority of hunters 

could have a negative effect on game management and hunter success. 

Not one acre of any of the land recommended for Wilderness designation in Representative DeGette’s bill is located within her district and the people and communities most affected by her proposal are not her constituents. Therefore they have 

no opportunity to show their opposition or support by voting for or against her in 

any election. In order to avoid problems and conflicts within the state and amongst 

organizations and local governments, the process of developing a Wilderness bill 

must include all affected parties. This collaborative process was not present in the 

development of the DeGette bill. 

While Representative DeGette’s website describes this proposal as a ‘‘Citizen’s 

Wilderness Proposal’’, and claims that all stake holders have been involved, neither 

COHVCO, TPA nor any of their individual members or member clubs were contacted or asked for input to avoid conflict with existing multiple use (including, but 

not limited to motorized) activities. The maps posted on her website that show the 

individual areas proposed for Wilderness designation are so poor in quality and 

lacking in any geo-reference information that it has proven to be extremely difficult 

and time consuming to perform any analysis for any potential conflicts. With one 

exception, all of the maps appear to have been created by the Colorado Environmental Coalition, an avowed anti-motorized access group. 

Individuals who actually live near, and recreate in the areas identified as suitable 

for Wilderness designation by Representative DeGette have, on their own initiative, 

provided comments identifying access conflicts. By their very nature, these existing 

uses violate the criteria for consideration as Wilderness. Those site specific comments are shown in the attachment titled On the Ground Comments. In addition, 

the attachment also contains a sampling of detailed map examples that show the 

existing conflicts and shortcomings of the maps presented on Representative 

DeGette’s website. 

In summary, our objections to H.R. 4289 can be identified as a failure to subject 

this legislation to previous review by all affected parties, a failure to consider the 

negative economic consequences to a faltering economy in the most difficult of times, 

a failure to consider far more practical and less restrictive means of protecting lands 

short of a Wilderness designation, and the lack of identification of conflicts in areas 

as identified by the sponsor’s maps. 

Parts I through III, following, contain more detailed comments on substantive and 

procedural flaws in the content of and process of development of H.R. 4289. 

PART I 

The Public and the Resource are better served by Designations other than 

Wilderness; such options were not considered 

By some estimates, the population of Colorado will triple in the next 35 years. 

The current, greatest demand for public lands is for recreation of all forms allowed 

under the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act. Couple this with a Colorado population that is, at this very moment, growing dramatically older, and Wilderness designation becomes a poor choice. Americans are looking for viable alternatives to Wilderness that are friendlier to the majority of the recreating public. 

Further, Wilderness designations are not in the best interests of Americans. A 

century or more ago, mining, mineral and timber production, and protection of watersheds were of critical importance to the nation. Extraction was the primary activity on public land then. It now appears obvious that the predominant use of public 

land in the 21st century may well be recreation. A recent National Visitor Use Monitoring study for the USFS shows very interesting results. 

60 

This USFS data demonstrates that only 3% of visits to National Forests are to 

designated Wilderness areas. The study goes on to demonstrate that there is a decrease in the length of visits, and that preferred visits are those to developed facilities, from campgrounds, to trailheads, and resorts. The means of access to enjoy 

these resources is most often motorized, whether it is via auto, or off-highway 

vehicle. 

Millions of acres of wild lands in Colorado are already protected as Wilderness; 

specifically, 3.5 million acres. But this is only a small part of the complete picture. 

Over 4.8 million acres of Forest Service Lands are designated as Inventoried 

Roadless Areas (IRA). Colorado has 2 National Parks and 6 National Monuments 

including a list of non-multiple use prescriptions such as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern that, once added to the unusable and impassable areas of the 

mountains and canyon lands, leaves precious little left for a state and a nation seeking recreational opportunity and release. 

All forms of motorized and mechanized recreation are prohibited in Wilderness 

and that includes the simple but beloved family outing by car to view the land. 

While some areas shown above are worthy of the Wilderness prescription, and no 

one is arguing the set aside of lands for National Parks and Monuments, the fact 

must be faced that the management prescriptions for these lands severely limit access to a significant majority of the recreating public. Wilderness areas, above all 

other designations, are available only to an elite few with the time and physical capability to enjoy them. The vast majority of citizens find Wilderness an obstacle to 

their enjoyment of public lands. Further, the amount of congressionally designated 

Wilderness to date has far surpassed the amount of Wilderness contemplated in the 

original Wilderness Act of 1964. 

How far have we moved from the promises of the Wilderness Act? The USFS has 

recommended 11,000 acres of Wilderness from 4.8 million acres in Colorado IRAs. 

Yet what began as an inventory has been translated into a limited use prescription 

despite the absence of suitability as Wilderness. De facto Wilderness is not provided 

for in law and it can be argued violates the Multiple Use Act and the National Environmental Policy ACT. 

Some lands in Colorado do need protection and this protection is available in practical and useful designations that can be tailored to fit resource values and public 


55394.002.eps 55394.003.eps
61 

need equally well without locking out much of the population and threatening the 

very security of the nation by forever holding precious commodities out of reach in 

times of crisis and need. 

In short, the vast majority of lands held up as suitable for Wilderness not only 

do not meet the criteria of the Wilderness Act, but most are clearly at odds with 

what the land management professionals believe should be managed as Wilderness. 

Congress has two well known tools that provide answers to administrative paralysis; National Conservation Areas and National Recreation Areas (NCA and NRA 

respectively). COHVCO and TPA also support a third designation developed by the 

Blue Ribbon Coalition, a nationally respected recreational advocacy group. That alternative is the Back Country Recreation Area, which will protect the land but will 

also allow it to be used and enjoyed by the public. 

History has shown that administrative action has been unable to resolve the conflict associated with public land recreation and Inventoried Roadless Areas. It is imperative that Congress take some specific action to put this issue to rest. Congress 

needs to establish a land designation that provides the protection the public demands for these lands while at the same time providing the managing agencies with 

the necessary flexibility to respond to recreational demands and to address critical 

concerns of forest health, fire prevention and wildlife habitat enhancement. 

Much of our public land reflects an undeveloped, back country character. Evidence 

of man’s activities may be present and obvious to a knowledgeable observer. However, this evidence is not dominant and the landscape is generally perceived as possessing natural, primitive, or back country characteristics. It is important that these 

characteristics be maintained under any land designation category established by 

Congress. 

These lands provide a very valuable resource for recreational activities that allow 

people to experience and enjoy these natural appearing landscapes. They provide opportunities for people to escape from the pressures of large crowds and the more 

developed world. This can include a wide range of recreational activities including 

use of ATVs and off-highway motorcycles, hunting, snowmobiling, fishing, hiking, 

bicycling, horseback riding and 4-wheel driving. At the same time, many of these 

lands are threatened by insect and disease epidemics, and by catastrophic wildfires 

that could destroy the very values that the public wants to see preserved. Therefore, 

it is essential that this land designation also allow the managing agencies the ability to apply the minimum level of management to deal with these threats. 

Any management activities that are planned for these areas must also be subject 

to all the existing laws, regulations and policies that address the protection of the 

environment and cultural and historic resources. Any public land management process must also apply to these lands. In this way the public’s ability to participate 

in and influence the process is preserved. 

The establishment of a Congressional Back Country land designation can achieve 

all of these objectives. The land will be protected and the public will still be able 

to experience and understand the values of these unique areas and the countless 

court cases and legal challenges can be reduced. Congress needs to begin the process 

to make this new land designation a reality. 

Representative DeGette’s bill does not provide the best balance between protection 

of the resource and the public’s desire for recreation. 

PART II 

H.R. 4289 was not Developed with Input from all Recreational users nor 

was it Developed in full Cooperation with Local Government 

The Colorado Off-highway Vehicle Coalition is the umbrella organization representing individuals and families that recreate with all-terrain vehicles, trail bikes, 

full size 4 wheel drives, and snowmobiles. The approximately 200,000 individuals 

engaged in motorized recreation are represented locally by clubs all over Colorado. 

The Trails Preservation Alliance likewise has statewide participation. Representative DeGette’s bill shows a failure to engage the motorized recreation community in 

Colorado at any level. It further seems that not all local governments directly affected by this Wilderness proposal have been a part of the process. This raises further questions regarding the level of contact with sportsmen, mountain bikers, 

equestrians and other major recreational groups. 

Without question, neither COHVCO nor TPA has ever been approached by Representative DeGette or her staff on this proposal. Representative DeGette is a Representative of the City of Denver proper and while it may be her prerogative to run 

legislation directly affecting constituents in other Districts, it should also certainly 

involve engaging important affected parties. None of the 50 plus COHVCO clubs has 

been approached and, indeed, some of those clubs, such as the Mile High Jeep Club, 

whose members live in the Denver Metropolitan area, and who are her constituents, 

62 

were never contacted for their opinion. A critical element of their comments would 

relate to the numerous conflicts existing in the proposed Wilderness areas that infringe on the access and multiple use of such lands. These conflicts raise issues of 

suitability, and suitability is an essential element of a Wilderness proposal where 

land is withdrawn for what has been treated as final prescription. 

Winter recreation has not been spared the negative impacts of the bill nor have 

the snowmobile clubs of Colorado been consulted. The Colorado Snowmobile 

Association, the statewide organization of snowmobile clubs has this to say about 

the legislation: 

The process, or lack thereof, exhibited by the Congresswoman’s office has been unprofessional and completely lacking in representation of the citizens of Western Colorado. Our opposition to H.R. 4289 also encompasses the fact that this proposal is 

so very piecemeal in nature. There is little apparent consistency in the reasons for 

proposal other than appealing to a small constituency that wants exclusive access to 

public land and promotes a desire to close off large chunks of land to the majority 

of other users. 

Colorado (using 2007 statistics) has 3,431,176 Wilderness acres made up of 41 Wilderness areas and covers over 5% of Colorado public land. Couple that with the 4.1 

million acres proposed in Colorado’s Roadless Rule (another 6+% of Colorado public 

land) and much of the most beautiful part of Colorado is accessible by a minority 

population. A plethora of recreationists, motorized and non-motorized, are now denied the opportunity to recreate in these areas. Adding more closures through Wilderness is not in the best interest of Colorado residents or visitors. 

Most, if not all, of the parcels in the Congresswoman’s proposal will have a negative impact on winter motorized recreation. The forests in Colorado do not restrict 

snowmobiles to designated trails (with a few rare exceptions in winter wildlife habitat areas) so most areas that get adequate snow are open to snowmobiling. 

More specifically, we think it is fair to say that any of the parcels in Gunnison, 

San Juan, Hinsdale, Eagle and Garfield County would greatly affect winter activity. 

These would be the West Elk Addition, Powderhorn Addition, Handies Peak, 

Redcloud Peak, Flat Tops Addition, Bull Gulch, Deep Creek, etc. Handies and Red 

Cloud are winter spots. 

There are a few areas where the statement ‘‘BLM has prohibited motorized use’’ 

that may apply to summer use only. A couple of them are high altitude areas and 

the probability that these areas remain open to winter motorized use are high, but 

are not identified as such in the proposal. 

The American people seek transparency in all matters of government including 

how their public lands are to be used. Providing website maps of a proposal that 

fails to identify all open roads and trails is not transparency. To the contrary it 

seems to indicate a guarded approach to a very public process. 

Even more disconcerting is that not all County Commissioners have been consulted for their position on the impact of this bill and the various consequences to 

their constituents. Of course, when the bill seems to be attempting to stop future 

extraction of what may be critical resources, a job killing Wilderness bill of this 

magnitude is not a topic of polite conversation. 

PART III 

Failure of the DeGette Wilderness Maps to Include Sufficient Information 

on Transportation Systems within Proposed Wilderness Areas 

The public information provided on Representative DeGette’s website does not 

meet the standard of quality that this issue requires. It is critical that these deficiencies be considered, as they relate directly to the suitability for Wilderness designation and analyses of the effects of the proposed action on surrounding communities. 

See attached On The Ground Comments & Conflict Analysis Maps. 

The accompanying maps display the following features: The Pink areas are the 

boundaries of the proposed Colorado Wilderness Act (CWA). The Blue areas are the 

boundaries of the BLM Wilderness Study Areas (WSA). Blue areas overlay to form 

a Purple layer that defines where the WSA and the Wilderness proposal come together and where study has been done and budgets have been used to determine 

the suitability of the land for wilderness designation. 

The maps make it immediately apparent that the proposed Wilderness segments 

far exceed the areas of study recommended by the agencies. To the best of our understanding, those segments that coincide with the National Forest Inventoried 

Roadless Areas (IRA) were not recommended to be Wilderness, failing to have the 

necessary Wilderness’ values. 

The several types of bold Red lines show the actual road and trail networks that 

are de-emphasized or completely missing from Representative DeGette’s website. 

63 

The absence of this critical information in the DeGette maps made public makes it 

impossible to determine what part of the terrain is actually suitable for Wilderness 

designation and does not contain numerous existing roads and trails. 

It is clear that IRA and WSA studies were not properly considered in determining 

the appropriate boundaries for wilderness, and it is obvious that the pre-existing 

roads and trails in virtually every segment of the proposed Colorado Wilderness act 

make them unsuitable for wilderness designation. 

There is a clear lack of accurate information necessary for local government and 

the public to make informed decisions. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

/s/Glenn Graham 

Glenn Graham 

President and Chairman of the Board 

COHVCO 

/s/Don Riggle 

Don Riggle 

Director of Operations 

Trails Preservation Alliance 

[NOTE: Attachments have been retained in the Committee’s official files.] 

[The documents listed below have been retained in the 

Committee’s official files.] 

• Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition ‘‘Economic Contribution of Off-Highway 

Vehicle Recreation in Colorado,’’ Executive Summary, July 2009 

• IPAMS Building a Sustainable Energy Future: ‘‘Small and Temporary? Assessing the Impacts of 100 Years of Oil and Natural Gas Development in Western 

Colorado’’ 

• ‘‘2006 Colorado Summary,’’ 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation—Colorado, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior 

The following individuals have submitted documents for the 

record, which have been retained in the Committee’s official files: 

In opposition to H.R. 4289: 

Brown, Allen, Commissioner, Hinsdale County 

Chappell, Steve D., Commissioner, Montezuma County Board of Commissioners (2 

letters) 

Dolores County Commissioners 

Koppenhafer, Gerald W., Commissioner, Montezuma County Board of 

Commissioners (2 letters) 

Kukuk, Janelle, President, Colorado Snowmobile Association 

Martin, John, Chair, Garfield County Board of County Commissioners 

Porter, John, President, Southwestern Water Conservation District 

Porter-Norton, Marsha, Facilitator, Dolores River Dialogue, Lower Dolores Plan 

Working Group 

Preston, Michael, General Manager, Dolores Water Conservancy District (2 letters) 

Rule, Larrie D., Commissioner, Montezuma County Board of Commissioners (2 letters) 

Salazar, The Honorable John T., a U.S. Representative in Congress from the State 

of Colorado 

Samson, Mike, Commissioner, Garfield County Board of County Commissioners 

Treese, Christopher J., Manager, External Affairs, Colorado River District 

No Position on H.R. 4289 

Churchwell, Ty, Backcountry Coordinator, Trout Unlimited 

In Support of H.R. 4289 

Browns Canyon Wilderness Area Supporters 

Central Colorado Wilderness Coalition ‘‘Wild Ten’’ Endorsers 

DeGette, The Honorable Diana, a U.S. a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Colorado, Document for the record, Talmey-Drake Poll 

Houpt, Tresi, Commissioner, Garfield County Commissioner 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife, 2006 Colorado Summary 

64 

[A letter submitted for the record by Edward Moreland, Vice 

President, Government Relations, American Motorcyclist Association, follows:] 


55394.004.eps
65 

Æ 


55394.005.eps