The future of the Guanella Pass Byway

By Claude Neumann

By now, or any day soon, the final environmental impact statement is expected for Guanella Pass Scenic Byway. All indications are that the EIS will propose that the road be "improved.";

This would include paving most of it (currently half is paved), widening and improving the road and curves, and doing some slope stabilization to reduce erosion.

The plan may also be a forerunner to another proposal by the Forest Service to "improve"the corridor as a recreational facility and to control environmental impacts from heavy recreational use, including the use of toll booths. The great majority of public comments, written or spoken at hearings, have indicated a preference to leave the corridor a more "rustic"byway.

The CMC and other groups, as well a majority of local residents concur with this approach and advocate that only improvements needed for safety, sedimentation control, and long-term stability should be made. Our fear is that with a widened and improved road, traffic on the pass will be faster, include larger vehicles (perhaps even trucks), and significantly increase volume. This may then cause environmental degradation as well as reduce the enjoyment of Guanella as a scenic “backcountry” byway.

The CMC, through Denver Conservation, participated in an effort over the past several years to oppose more extensive “improvements.” In 1999, a draft EIS was released that essentially offered the alternative of “no action” (required by law to be an option), and four other alternatives all favoring significant widening and paving. The comments on that draft strongly advocated an alternative with minimal “improvement” but included proper repair and maintenance. In 2000, the highway administration released a “supplemental” draft that added alternative six. This alternative “scaled back” (somewhat) the project, but still contained a considerable amount of widening, paving, and “improvements.” The Federal highway officials seemed determined to avoid a “basic” repair alternative in the study. A year later the Forest Service suddenly appeared on the scene with a sedimentation study that maintained that sedimentation was largely from the gravel road and was a major problem.

>The feedback from our members, the Conservation Committees, and executive committee of the CMC voiced a common opinion that “less is preferred.” Rocky Smith does conservation work for the group “Colorado Wild,” the Sierra Club, and the CMC. He thinks the sedimentation study, as well as the draft and supplemental impact statements, did not address road repair and sedimentation control without paving.

The CMC (and others) are reviewing the sedimentation study. Indications are that the Federal agencies are determined to pave at almost any cost (estimated at approximately forty million dollars), despite public opinion. The Federal Highway Administration is leading the charge. The CMC remains opposed to additional paving unless it can clearly be shown that other alternatives would not work.

CMC members interested in this issue are welcome to attend our Denver Conservation meeting the first Wednesday of June to learn more as we continue to follow this situation and involve members wanting to become involved. For more information, contact Phil Kummer (303) 756-1763 or Claude Neumann (720) 865-2813.

Switchbacks is a column in which members of the Colorado Mountain Club experess their opinion about matters important to the membership. For guidelines about writing a switchbacks article, click here. You can also send an e-mail inquiry to the editor.