Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony concerning the Browns Canyon Wilderness bill, HR 4235, an important act of Congress for my county, state and nation. I have lived in Buena Vista, Colorado, for 34 years. My family owned and operated an outdoor specialty retail shop and outfitting business for 32 years, until it was sold in 2004. I have previously served as an elected trustee for the Town of Buena Vista and currently serve on the Chaffee County Planning Commission. I have also been a volunteer member of the local search and rescue team for over 30 years.

I am particularly proud that my own Representative, Congressman Joel Hefley, introduced this bill since I am currently Vice President of the Colorado Chapter of Republicans for Environmental Protection.

When Buena Vista became my home in 1972, it was a mining town, but in 1981, the primary employer, Climax Mine, halted production for the first time in 57 years. Although the reopening of the mine someday could be welcome addition to our local economy, tourism and outdoor recreation have now become the economic drivers. Over 75 percent of Chaffee County is comprised of federal public land managed by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Although our county contains a dozen mountains over 14,000 feet in elevation and portions of two previously designated Wilderness Areas, (Collegiate Peaks and Buffalo Peaks), I don’t believe there is now any point in our county farther than 5 miles from a road! Land areas without roads are a rapidly decreasing, yet totally sustainable and non-depletable, economic resource. Visitors come from all over the world to experience the few roadless areas we have left and I believe the best way to protect roadless areas is in Wilderness designation by Congress.

My family founded the first Buena Vista whitewater rafting company in 1974. Now, the upper Arkansas River in our county is the most boated river in the United States, with over 90,000 people annually rafting the whitewater of the Browns Canyon section of the river alone. The regional rafting industry annually generates $23 million in direct expenditures for a total economic impact of over $60 million in the Arkansas River Valley. The proposed Browns Canyon Wilderness serves as a scenic backdrop for this activity and would be a valuable marketing tool for future whitewater rafting promotion. The idea of simply traveling right past a Wilderness is attractive to many people even though they may never actually enter the Wilderness Area itself.

I have over the years covered much of our county on foot, including all of the “14’ers” (mountains over 14,000 feet in height), while leading commercial hiking trips and on many search and rescue missions. In my opinion, there is no wilder place in our county than the proposed Browns Canyon Wilderness. It contains rugged canyons that are very challenging to traverse. There is a wild variety of wildlife that thrives in the low ,arid terrain complimented by mid-elevation forest habitat. A Browns Canyon Wilderness would be a great addition to the current mountainous Wilderness Areas in our valley because it is at lower elevation with different life zones. Lack of snow in winter months makes the area more accessible year-round than many of the existing wilderness areas in Colorado.

The proposed Browns Canyon Wilderness would provide protection for a large section of the Arkansas River watershed. The 100,000-acre “Fourmile” Area immediately to the north contains numerous off-road vehicle (ORV) routes, and abuse by some ORV users here has caused considerable loss of vegetation, resulting in serious soil erosion. Wilderness designation will prevent the possibility of this kind of resource degradation in the 20,000-acre area to the south.

The Turret Trail, a historic wagon road, runs 7 miles north from the old mining town of Turret to the BLM Wilderness Study Area included in this proposal. Much of this route is along sand washes and was never engineered or constructed with machines. This trail will be open to motorized vehicle travel from Turret for 3 miles to a point at Green Gulch where terrain creates a logical and easily managed Wilderness boundary.

I commend Congressman Hefley for his work in facilitating the compromises that went into the final boundaries for this proposal that now enjoys broad support from local individuals and organizations. It was his leadership that fostered the cooperation between two land management agencies, resulting in an extraordinary Wilderness Area proposal containing both Forest Service and BLM lands.

Thank you for this time. I would be happy to answer any questions.

Colorado Chapter Holds 2006 Annual Meeting

Chapter President Marty Sorensen wrote to USDA Inspector General Phyllis Fong requesting an investigation of the EIS Process for Wolf Creek Proposal:

March 28, 2006

Dear Ms. Fong:

We write asking that you investigate the soon-to-be approved Environmental Impact Statement for the large development proposed at Wolf Creek, Rio Grand National Forest, Colorado. From its inception, this project’s approval process indicates cut corners, backroom deals and undue influence. We hope that is not the case but unless light is shined into the process and the corners are probed, there will always be significant doubt.

The purpose of an EIS, as created by the National Environmental Policy Act, is to allow scrutiny of a proposed agency action from all possible angles by the public and other impacted entities. While often complex and frustrating to agency managers and everyone involved, the NEPA-mandated process is, in fact, the highest example of democracy at work. The uncorrupted fulfillment of an EIS is absolutely critical to safeguard our country’s precious and diminishing natural resources to the fullest extent possible.

No matter your (or our) opinion of the development proposed, an EIS is a critical element of public engagement in agency actions on behalf of all Americans. Any and all EIS processes must not be prostituted and further, each EIS must be widely known to be fair and free from undue influence. Hence, a corrupted EIS process, no matter the scope or scale of the proposed agency action, affects the validity of all those that come after it, across all agencies.

There is ample evidence to doubt the integrity of this EIS. Virtually all the actions of the developer, the Forest Service, the developer’s contactor, Mineral County Commissioners and others are highly suspect.

The mission of Republicans for Environmental Protection is a national grassroots conservation organization working to protect the land we love and safeguard our environment for current and future generations. The Colorado Chapter of Republicans for Environmental Protection joins Colorado Wild, Friends of Wolf Creek and Colorado State Representative Mark Larson in strongly urging your involvement to determine:

a) if the developers of the proposed Village have had undue influence upon the EIS process, thereby prejudicing the EIS and its conclusions,

b) if illegal or even criminal activity has occurred in this process, and

c) if the developers had any illegal influence over the Forest Service’s decision in 1986 to approve the land exchange creating the inholding.

Please refer to the materials included with the investigative request you received from Colorado Wild and Friends of Wolf Creek for more information on the many problematic issues of this EIS process.

Thank you for your engagement in this matter.

Very truly yours,

Marty Sorensen
President, Colorado Chapter
Republicans for Environmental Protection

The Colorado Chapter of Republicans for Environmental Protection helped convince the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission to adopt standards upholding stormwater runoff regulations for oil and gas construction after the federal decision to allow exemptions.

At a January 11, 2006 hearing, the commission voted unanimously to uphold restrictions despite arguments by the Colorado Oil and Gas Association that the industry was exempt from such regulation as a result of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The industry argued unsuccessfully that the Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC) has no authority to regulate the industry.

Thanks go to REP members for contributing some of the 2,460 comments that helped the commission make the right decision.