PUBLIC LANDS: Lawmakers announce next step toward elevating Colo. monument to national park
Scott Streater, E&E reporter
Published: Tuesday, April 1, 2014
Two top Colorado lawmakers today unveiled a possible path to redesignate the Colorado National Monument as a national park, a significant step forward in a long-standing bid to boost the monument's profile and the surrounding area's economy.
The proposal to redesignate and rename the national monument the "Rim Rock Canyons National Park," was devised by a five-member committee composed of local community leaders near the monument appointed last year by Sen. Mark Udall (D) and Rep. Scott Tipton (R), whose House district includes the monument in western Colorado.
Udall and Tipton want the public to review the proposal and submit comments to them within 90 days. Depending on the public feedback, Udall and Tipton would then file a bipartisan bill, likely by the end of the year, designating the monument as the 60th national park.
Changing the status of Colorado National Monument to a national park would require congressional approval, but it would not affect the management of the site, which has been under the control of the National Park Service since President Taft in 1911 used his authority under the Antiquities Act to designate the 20,500-acre site a national monument.
Tipton said in a statement that the monument "is one of Colorado's most scenic natural wonders and plays an important role in the lives of all who are blessed to live in the Mesa County region."
And Udall added that designating Colorado National Monument as a national park would honor the memory of John Otto, who in 1907 first lobbied Congress to designate the site a national park.
"From Colorado's earliest days, when John Otto first proposed making the Colorado National Monument a Park, through today, Mesa County has discussed making these iconic red rock canyons a national park," Udall said in a statement. "This step will hopefully provide us with a bipartisan, common-sense way forward to honor John Otto's original vision for the Colorado National Monument."
Nevertheless, some nearby residents have expressed concerns that the change could result in more heavy-handed federal management of the park unit with more restrictions on park uses and the enforcement of stronger air-quality standards that could hurt the local economy.
The Park Service has repeatedly said such concerns are not valid. And both Udall and Tipton have insisted publicly that they would not move forward with any proposal to change the monument without strong community support.
But some of the language that's included in the drafting committee's proposal released today has raised concerns.
Among them, the drafting language states that costs for signs, alternations or additions needed to redesignate the monument can be paid for only with non-federal funds, "or appropriations made before establishment of the National Park."
Josh Green, a spokesman for Tipton in Grand Junction, Colo., said "the motivation behind that is just recognizing the fiscal situation in the country and trying to keep costs in check."
Also, the drafting language would establish the Rim Rock Canyons National Park Advisory Committee, made up of 15 members that would "provide guidance on the ongoing implementation of the management plan for the Park."
The members would include representatives from local municipalities, such as Grand Junction and Fruita, as well as the Grand Junction Area Chamber of Commerce and West Slope Colorado Oil and Gas Association.
Joan Anzelmo, a former superintendent of the Colorado National Monument, said such an advisory committee would be unprecedented.
"A committee like this does not exist in any other unit of the National Park System, and it certainly has never been a part of legislation that establishes a new national park," Anzelmo said.
She said there already are multiple formal and informal channels "that exist to fully engage park communities and the officials of a community in the work and operations of any unit of the National Park System."
She added that this proposal "most likely would be opposed by Americans who overwhelmingly do not want to see individuals have control over a national park for potentially personal or business agendas."
Mike Saccone, a spokesman for Udall in Denver, said such concerns are what they want to hear back from residents during the 90-day public comment period.
"We want to hear from all sides," Saccone said.
Ginny McBride, one of the five members of the drafting committee and the chairwoman of the Colorado National Monument Association, said in a statement that the draft proposal "is the product of much discussion and compromise."
Tipton in his statement reiterated what he and Udall have vowed from the beginning that they would not proceed with filing a bipartisan bill without community support.
"When it comes to our public lands, the Monument included, I believe that any possible change in designation or management should be done through a bottom-up process, driven by community support and broad consensus," he said.
Ongoing debate
The draft committee's proposal is the latest in a years-long debate over redesignating the monument a national park.
Indeed, formation of the five-member drafting committee followed more than a year of public hearings and discussions by Udall and Tipton with stakeholders about redesignating the monument as a national park. These discussions also explored keeping it a national monument but changing the name to better represent the canyons, red rock formations and other natural treasures at the site.
Udall and Tipton had appointed an earlier working group to study the issue. But after more than a year of meetings and discussions, the group could not come to any conclusions.
There is documented evidence that changing the status of a monument or other park unit to a national park increases the profile of the site and draws in more international and domestic tourists.
For example, Pinnacles National Monument in Central California -- designated as a monument in 1908 by President Theodore Roosevelt -- became Pinnacles National Park in January 2013. Officials there have said the new designation sparked greater public interest and more traffic at the 26,600-acre park.
The Congressional Research Service in a 2012 report examined the significance of park titles and concluded that changing the designation of park units to national parks generally has an economic benefit to the surrounding region (Greenwire, June 10, 2013).
The CRS report specifically addressed the Colorado National Monument and noted that proponents of changing the designation to a national park have argued that doing so would establish the country's largest concentration of national parks in western Colorado and eastern Utah, "creating a marketing advantage that could increase visitation, resulting in economic benefit to the region."
Anzelmo said the monument meets specific criteria necessary to be named a national park, and she said she applauds Udall and Tipton "for their willingness to look at the potential" of redesignating it a national park.
But she added, "While the community has by and large been very interested in the peripheral benefit of economic growth by having a national park there -- and the economic benefits are huge -- that alone is not the reason to legislate a national park."
Again, Tipton said he has made no decision to file any bill that would redesignate the monument as a national park and will not without board community support.
"To be clear, I have not drafted a bill in the House of Representatives to change the designation of the Colorado National Monument," he said in a statement. "Any potential legislation to change that status of the Monument first must be community-driven and locally supported. I look forward to the community's comments and ideas on the committee's recommendations, and will take them into careful consideration as we determine what's next."
