Save Guanella Pass

ALERT Dated 12/21 - please print and send out

NEW PLAN FOR GUANELLA PASS ROAD PUBLISHED

RUSTIC, SCENIC CHARACTER OF AREA STILL THREATENED!

SUBMIT COMMENTS BY JANUARY 16, 2001
See www.neighborhoodlink.com/org/guanella for more information

The long-awaited Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) for repair of the Guanella Pass Road (Also known as Forest Highway 80) in Clear Creek and Park Counties has been released. It contains a new, improved alternative proposal for the road that would still unnecessarily widen and upgrade portions of the road. Your response is urgently requested.

BACKGROUND. The 23.6 mile road over Guanella Pass (11,669 elevation) linking Gerogetown and Grant was completed in 1951. It was designated a Scenic and Historic Byway in 1992. Currently, 48% of the road is paved and the remainder gravel-surfaced. It has not had any major repair work since the 1960's, some of which is now needed to reduce erosion and correct other problems.

In 1999, the Federal Highway Administration (FHwA) released a draft environmental impact statement containing four alternative proposals, one of which would significantly widen and upgrade the entire road. The other three would upgrade and pave at least part of it. At the public meetings and in all but a handful of the hundreds of written comments submitted, the public was overwhelmingly against any change in the rustic, rural, scenic character of the road and its surroundings. People especially opposed any widening of the road. They requested the FHwA formulate a try "rehabilitation" alternative, i.e., one that would repair erosion problems, reduce rockfall onto the road and replace crumbling pavement, all without widening the existing road platform or paving any sections not already paved.

THE SDEIS AND NEW ALTERNATIVE. In response to the overwhelming public opinion, the FHwA has prepared and analyzed a new alternative (designated alternative 6) in the SDEIS. This alternative would preserve the rural character of the road more than any of the other four actions alternatives./ However, there are still some serious problems with alternative 6:

n 64% of the road would be rehabilitated (repair without any upgrading or widening) 18% would be lightly reconstructed (some widening and other upgrading), and 18% fully reconstructed (major upgrading, including widening).
n The road would be designed to accommodate vehicles with wheelbases of 20 feet and length of 25 feet. Very few vehicles this large use the rad now because of the narrow road and tighter switchbacks. Using this size vehicle rather than a standard passenger car for design necessitates road widening (see next point below).
n Some sections of the road would be widened. The total width of the road platform (the travel surface, shoulders, guard rails or walls, ditches and cleared slopes) will be as high as 100 feet for fully reconstructed sections! Width of the existing road platform is typically under 26 feet.
n The design grade (steepness) of the road is 9%; currently, 2.37 miles exceed this grade, but road users do not seem to mind, as they expect some very steeo sectionbs on a mountain road. Reducing the grade to 9% or less forces road relocation , which is essentially new construction. One proposed realignment near Naylor Lake just north of the Pass summit would fragment an old growth forest.
n Guardrails or guard walls would be placed on 5.3 miles (23%) of the road. This would add to the degradation of the scenic, rustic, rural character.


All of these proposed improvements that go beyond repair of existing problems would degrade the character of the road by: increasing speeds on the reconstructed sections, encouraging larger vehicles to use the road, increasing road kill of wildlife (possibly including lynx), and increasing use of the already over-used Mt. Evans Wilderness. Road widening could cause the elimination of one or more boreal toad populations.


WHAT YOU CAN DO

As the public meetings were held in early December, the best way to give your input is through FORMAL WRITTEN COMMENTS.

The FHwA is accepting public comments until January 16, 2001. However, the County Commissioners can stop alternative 6, so it is also important to write to them.

Mr. Richard Cushing
Environmental Planning Engineer - Federal Highway Administration
Central Federal Lands Highway Div. (HPD-16.5)
555 Zang Street, Suite 259
Lakewood, CO 80228
303-716-2138
email guanella.SDEIS@road.cflhd.gov

Park County Commissioners:
Don O. Staples Park County
Lenni Walker P.O. Box 220
Jerry Solberg Fairplay, CO 80440

Clear Creek County Commissioners:
Ms. Fabyan Watrous Clear Creek County
Ms. Joann Sorensen P.O. Box 2000
Mr. Robert Poirot Georgetown, CO 80444


POINTS TO RAISE IN WRITTEN COMMENTS:
Remind the FHwA that people have spoken loud and clear: the scenic, rural rustic character of the road must be maintained. The new alternative, while better than previous ones, would not accomplish these requests.

Insist that the FHwA prepare an alternative that proposes only rehabilitation, i.e. repair of existing problems without widening or otherwise upgrading the road. Otherwise, the project should be dropped.

Insist that the passenger car be the design vehicle, rather than a 25 foot truck or motorhome. This would eliminate the need for widening the road.

Insist that no realignment be done. Especially oppose the Naylor Lake realignment. Remind the FHwA that road users are accustomed to driving a steep and narrow road and don't want the road upgraded.

For additional information and volunteers working on this effort, see www.neighborhoodlink.com/org/guanella

Email us
sfox@ecentral.com