Comments closed September 15
Restore Moraine Park wetlands in Rocky Mountain National Park
National Park Service · Rocky Mountain National Park, Moraine Park
- What
- This project would repair wetland and riparian habitat in a glacial valley critical for elk and native wildlife.
- Where
- Rocky Mountain National Park, Moraine Park, CO
- How much
- Moraine Park's floodplain wetlands and riparian ecosystem are at stake, degraded over time and in need of active restoration to recover their natural function.
- Decided
- Comments closed September 15, 2026. No decision document is on file yet.Date from National Park Service PEPC project page ↗, read August 31, 2026.
Where these four lines come from
- WhatOur plain-English read of the NPS Planning (PEPC) project page ↗. Check it against the agency’s own words under Case.
- WhereThe places and states the project page names, as PLAN read them.
- How muchThe first sentence of our What’s at risk read of the notice; the whole read is under Case.
- DecidedSeptember 15, 2026, from National Park Service PEPC project page, the document’s comment period ↗. Read August 31, 2026. The decision document is the one on file in PLAN’s record.
- Read from PLAN’s record November 9, 2026.
What the proposal said, and what the decision did
No figure from the proposal has been checked against the decision on this fight yet. What the record does hold is the issues ledger below.
No decision document is on PLAN’s record for this fight yet. When the agency’s decision lands, what it answered goes here.
Protective action worth supporting
This project would repair wetland and riparian habitat in a glacial valley critical for elk and native wildlife.
What’s at risk
If we stay silent
Our plain-English read of the official notice ↗. Check it against the agency’s own words below.
The agency’s own analysis
What the notice says, and what it leaves out
The window has closed; the record of what was missing stays.
The agency says
“The hydrology and hydraulics (H&H) modeling was based on the 30% project design.”
The H&H modeling driving this entire floodplain analysis is based on 30% project design, meaning 70% of the design details were unknown when the flood hazard and risk conclusions were drawn.
Section 3 (Detailed Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Analysis) ↗
The agency says
“To test the potential ramifications of this scenario, the existing conditions were modified to simulate a 100% blockage under the Kaley Cottage Road Bridge up to the height of the railing.”
The sole flood scenario modeled is 100% blockage of the Kaley Cottage Road Bridge.
The agency says
“Flow velocities in both the existing and proposed conditions are less than 1 cubic foot per second; bank erosion is not likely in either condition.”
Section 3.2 states that flow velocities on private properties 'are less than 1 cubic foot per second' in both existing and proposed conditions, but cubic feet per second is a unit of discharge, not velocity.
The agency says
“Beneficial effects of the project that are predicted to ameliorate flood damage such as slowing movement of water across the landscape, increased residence time in the floodplain and increased soil infiltration are not quantified in these scenarios.”
The Summary in Section 4 acknowledges that 'beneficial effects of the project that are predicted to ameliorate flood damage such as slowing movement of water across the landscape, increased residence time in the floodplain and increased soil infiltration are not quantified in these scenarios.' The agency uses these unquantified benefits as qualitative justification throughout the document for accepting increased flood risk to roads and private properties, yet they are never modeled or numerically validated.
Section 4 (Mitigation Measures) ↗
The agency says
“For the first 5-years following project implementation, the park will inspect the bridge abutments annually to monitor change of scouring condition and debris build-up.”
The mitigation section (Section 4, Mitigation Measures) proposes only two measures for all identified risks: annual bridge abutment inspections for five years and scour countermeasures if scour is observed.
The agency says
“Peak park visitation coincides with the May through October thunderstorm-driven flood risk period.”
The document states that peak park visitation 'coincides with the May through October thunderstorm-driven flood risk period,' yet Section 3.2 dismisses risk to human health and safety on Kaley Cottage Road and Bridge by noting that both are 'already inundated in the existing condition during the 0.2% annual-chance event.' This reasoning ignores the project-induced increase in inundation depth (up to 1.2 feet more) and velocity (up to 2.3 ft/s more) over the road during a period when thousands of visitors are present.
Section 2 (Justification for Use of the Floodplain) ↗
The agency says
“This type of restoration can be very disruptive and damaging to the sensitive habitats during and after construction. It is also much more expensive than LTPBR implementation.”
Section 2 (Justification for Use of the Floodplain) dismisses the 'natural channel design' alternative in a single sentence, characterizing it only as 'very disruptive and damaging to the sensitive habitats during and after construction' and 'much more expensive.' No cost figures, no habitat impact analysis, and no comparison of long-term flood risk between the two alternatives is provided.
The agency says
“During a flood, debris could accumulate upstream of fencing and lead to local changes in flood extent, or the fencing may get knocked down and become a flow obstruction.”
The document states that the ungulate exclosure fences are 'temporary, per the Elk and Vegetation Management Plan Record of Decision' and that 'fences are considered impermanent as they are planned for removal once the wetland restoration is complete and the vegetation is mature,' but no timeline for removal is given, no trigger criteria for 'vegetation maturity' are defined, and no analysis is provided of flood risk during the interim period when approximately 10,000 linear feet of new fencing is present.
In the agency’s own words
Floodplain Statement of Findings
The groups on this fight
4 groups predicted likely to care in Colorado
Predicted likely to care is a guess from the group's sourced work in Colorado, with no link to this decision. Give straight to them; nothing routes through us.
- Rocky Mountain Wild
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Colorado BLM Lease Sale, Colorado: Joined the formal challenge to the January 2026 replacement lease sale and previously sued BLM over the Roan Plateau leases.
- San Juan Citizens Alliance
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, Colorado: Shaped the 2010 management plan, has fought oil and gas leasing decisions inside the monument for two decades, mobilized against the 2017 monument review, and states it continues to defend CANM.
- Thompson Divide Coalition
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Thompson Divide, Colorado: A conservation group working on Thompson Divide.
- WildEarth Guardians
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Dinosaur National Monument, Colorado: Named petitioner against the Uinta Basin Railway over habitat destruction in the basin.
Every group above is on STAND for Public Lands, with its court record, its filings and who backs it.
Who signs it
The notice names no signer PLAN could read. PLAN names a decision-maker only when the document names one.
The ground
The window has closed, so there’s no watch to set on it here.
The photograph on this page: Bull elk in autumn aspens. It’s the country this decision sits in, not the site itself. More Than Just Parks.
In court on this ground
No court case we track is over Rocky Mountain National Park.
Who holds the vote
PLAN’s record doesn’t tie a member of Congress to this fight yet. The scorecard grades the votes and bills that decide public lands; nothing joins a vote or a bill to this decision, so there’s no member to name here without guessing.
See how your members vote ↗NPS PEPCWe track this on the agency’s own system of record, where most on-the-ground decisions live.
Know an open comment period we are missing, or spotted a wrong deadline? .
More fights that need you
Go deeper, free
See how your members of Congress vote on public lands
Every representative, graded on the votes that decide the fate of parks, forests, and refuges.
Open ↗The mapSee the places under active threat
A live map of the parks, monuments, and wild country in the crosshairs right now.
Open ↗A wrong fact, a dead link, a form that wouldn’t take your letter: one tap and it comes to the people who build PLAN, with this fight attached.