Save Guanella Pass

Mt. Evans Group of the Sierra Club - GUANELLA PASS ALERT

January, 2001 Contact: Lyn Yarroll (303-838-8117, treehouse@ipse

ALTERNATIVE 6 IS NOT A MINIMAL-IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVE
YOUR COMMENTS NEEDED BY FEBRUARY 2ND
(COMMENT PERIOD HAS BEEN EXTENDED FROM JANUARY 16TH)

Dear Friends of Guanella Pass,
Thanks to your much-appreciated help, we've come a long way since the Federal Highway Administration proposed paving and widening Guanella Pass Road. But we still have a ways to go....

Just before Thanksgiving, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) released its Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) on the proposed improvement of the Guanella Pass Scenic and Historic Byway.

The SDEIS outlines the FHWA's Alternative 6, their response to the public's overwhelming demand for a minimal impact alternative that emphasizes rehabilitation, rather than reconstruction, of the road. The FHWA developed Alternative 6 in "work group" meetings with some limited input from Park and Clear Creek Counties, Georgetown, the Forest Service, and the Colorado Department of Transportation. Under this alternative, 64% of the road would be rehabilitated, while 36% of the road is slated for reconstruction (18% percent "light" reconstruction and 18% "full" reconstruction).

While it could represent the first step toward a minimal-improvement alternative, Alternative 6 is presented in the SDEIS with so many loose ends and vague, complicated descriptions that we could instead end up with exactly what we've been fighting against all these years: a 24-mile long ribbon of smooth, widened, hard-surfaced road that connects Interstate 70 & Highway 285.

Once again, your help is needed! We need to tell the FHWA know that Alternative 6 will not do. Comments are due by February 2nd, 2001; please take a few moments today to send a letter.

Points to make in your letter (along with personal remarks):

· The people have spoken loud and clear: the scenic, rural, rustic character of the road must be maintained. While the FHWA deserves credit for developing a lower impact alternative, Alternative 6 is still not what the people requested. The FHWA must develop an alternative that places protection of the area's sensitive environmental, historic and cultural resources first. It should allow for limited reconstruction only where necessary to address significant erosion or sedimentation problems, and can (and should) even include areas of "no build." If the FHWA feels it cannot develop such an alternative, Alternative 1 (No Build) is the only choice.

· The road is still too wide. While the FHWA says the road will only be 22 feet wide, similar to its current width, the details in the SDEIS tell a different story. While the "roadway" width (travel lanes + shoulders) would be 22 feet, the various extra widths required for such things as foreslopes, ditch slopes, backslopes, widened ditches, guardrails and mechanically stabilized retaining walls would all make the area that drivers perceive as the roadway much wider. The road PLATFORM--the area from which all trees and bushes (anything taller than grass) will be permanently removed--would be at least 26 to 38 feet wide.

· Some of the proposed "Alternative Surface Types" (ASTs) for the unpaved sections of the road are hard-surfaced and similar to pavement. We could end up with "unpaved" sections that look and ride like a paved surface. (Macadam--gravel held together with asphalt--is one example.) The FHWA has still not put down the AST test strips that were promised last fall. We, the people, can't make intelligent decisions about the ASTs until we've seen the test strips. If this project moves ahead, any further decisions about the project, including publication of a Final EIS, should be delayed until the test strips are laid, and the public has had the opportunity to review them and voice their concerns, which must then be addressed by the FHWA.

· Under Alternative 6, the FHWA estimates traffic volume will increase by 117%, as opposed to 80% if nothing is done to the road. This increase will very likely translate into increased use of the Mount Evans Wilderness Area, which the Forest Service admits is already being used beyond its "recreational carrying capacity." Simply put, this level of increase could result in creating more significant environmental problems than any that may currently be caused by the road.

· The size of the design vehicle must be reduced. The FHWA is designing the road for a vehicle that can be up to 35 feet long, when its own studies show that over 97% of the vehicles using the road are 20 feet long or less. Even with signage limiting vehicle lengths, widening the road to accommodate this size of vehicle simply invites their use of the road.

· Moderately steep grades (less than 12%) and moderately tight curves and switchbacks do not necessarily need "improvement." These traffic-slowing characteristics discourage inappropriate use of the road as a connection between I-70 and 285, and keeping them would reduce the amount of reconstruction work needed.

· The Naylor Creek realignment is not acceptable. While it probably would restore some wetlands function, this realignment would fragment an old growth forest, require tearing out many trees and eliminate a section of the road that helps to define the road's unique, historic character.

· The impacts of proposed reconstruction on the environment are too great. In areas slated for full reconstruction, the width of disturbance from construction will be 60 to 100 feet wide, and for light reconstruction, 40 to 60 feet wide. Disturbing that much soil during a construction period that spans several years will increase sedimentation problems and may permanently damage sensitive riparian areas. Additionally, because of the limited success of revegetation efforts at high altitude, the need for revegetation work caused by new construction must be kept to a minimum.

· Construction impacts at both ends of the road are also too great. 8,400 18-wheeled construction trucks passing (one way) through Georgetown and 6,000 construction trucks traveling (one way) on the Park County side will create an intolerable burden for businesses and residents, and a logistic nightmare for visitors. A minimal-improvement alternative could significantly reduce these numbers.

· The levels of construction (rehabilitation and reconstruction) overlap and blur into each other. For example, in one part of the SDEIS, adding drainage structures (such as culverts) as needed is only listed under reconstruction, but in another section, it's included under rehabilitation. Before the public can make informed decisions and comments, the FHWA must more clearly differentiate what kind of work is allowed, or not allowed, under each type of construction.

· Creek and Park Counties can reduce maintenance costs and lower stress on wildlife by closing the top of the road in winter. This would especially benefit the ptarmigan that winter at the top of the pass and lynx. This decision is not dependent on the FHWA's actions; it should be addressed as soon as possible.

Please send your comments to:

Rick Cushing, Environmental Planning Engineer
FHWA, CFLHD (HPD-16.5)
555 Zang St., Room 259
Lakewood, CO 80228
(E-MAIL LETTERS ARE NOT RECOMMENDED; YOUR 34-CENT STAMP IS WORTH IT)

Please also send a copy of your comments to:
Mr. Bob Poirot, Mrs. Fabyan Watrous and Ms. Jo Ann Sorensen
Clear Creek County Commissioners
P.O. Box 2000
Georgetown, CO 80444
and
Mr. Jerry Solberg, Ms. Leni Walker and Mr. Don Staples
Park County Commissioner and Commissioners Elect
P.O. Box 220
Fairplay, CO 80440

Comments must be received by February 2, 2001; the earlier, the better.

THANK YOU, AGAIN, FOR YOUR HELP!

The SDEIS is on the FHWA website, at www.cflhd.gov/projects/co/guanella/. Copies are available at Park and Clear Creek County govt. offices and libraries; call Jennifer Corwin at 303-716-2097 for more info.

Email us
treehouse@ipse