Special Presentation and Open House
April 27th (Monday) @ 6p.m.
First Congregational Church, 20 East St. Vrain Street
 |
 |
||
|
|||
CHRONOLOGY |
|||
November 11, 1997: the Pikes Peak Group of the Sierra Club sent a notice letter to the City of Colorado Springs and Forest Service charging violations of the Clean Water Act due to gravel discharges from the Pikes Peak Highway into area streams and wetlands. By giving this notice, the Sierra Club notified the City and the Forest Service that if they do not take immediate action within 60 days to comply with the Clean Water Act, the Sierra Club will bring a citizens' suit to enforce it. November 14, 1997: The City and Forest Service signed a 2-page, tentative agreement in principle, in the form of an amendment to the Pikes Peak Highway Special Use Permit, stating that they contemplate spending $15 million over the next 10 years toward erosion and sedimentation control work on Pikes Peak. The amendment also proposes spending $15 million over the next 3 years to build a new Summit House on Pikes Peak, conditioned on availability of funding. March 20, 1998: The Sierra Club filed suit against the U.S. Forest Service for violating the Clean Water Act by failing to obtain State clean water certification prior to modifying the Pikes Peak Highway Special Use Permit. The Sierra Club contends that the more than 1 million tons of gravel that have been applied to the Pikes Peak Highway over the years are a threat to down-slope streams, wetlands, and municipal reservoirs. "The suit simply asks a judge to order the Forest Service to follow the procedures required by law for permitting operation of the Pikes Peak Highway," says Ann Lininger, an attorney for EarthJustice, the public interest law firm representing the Sierra Club. "We're not trying to close the highway; we're trying to compel the Forest Service to consult with the State, as it must under law." Because the parties disagree as to whether state involvement is required by the Clean Water Act, the Sierra Club feels that it is appropriate to have a court decide this issue. March 25–27, 1998: Representatives of the City, Forest Service, and other federal agencies met at the El Pomar Center to finalize architectural plans for a $15 million, 3-story Summit House to be built atop Pikes Peak. March 27, 1998: The City of Colorado Springs issued a press release expressing surprise at the Sierra Club's decision to file suit against the Forest Service. The press release stated that despite spending more than $400,000 on studies, no final decision has yet been reached on how to remedy the erosion problem on Pikes Peak, and that the City will not contribute toward funding a solution. "Because Pikes Peak is maintained as a self-supporting enterprise, no Colorado Springs tax funds can be spent for upkeep of the mountain. That means the estimated $10-$15 million needed to correct erosion issues must be raised from operating revenue and outside sources, such as Federal and State grants."
WHAT CAN YOU DO? Attend the special meeting April 27th. Go look at the damage yourself or take our virtual tour on the web. See next page Complain about the City’s management of the Highway. Contact your Mayor and your City Council Member at PO Box 1575, Colo Spgs CO, 80901. Donate ten bucks (or more). Call: Become the Volunteer Coordinator for the Pikes Peak Group, and
serve on the Executive Committee. |
Dear Members: This is the most important meeting that we have ever held. Your attendance is needed. Pikes Peak needs your help! If you cannot come, but would like to express your opinion or support, or learn more about what you can do to help save Pikes Peak, please call: Jim Lockhart at 385-0045 or John Stansfield at (303) 660-5849. If you would like to make a donation to our efforts, you can do so at the meeting or by sending a check to: Pikes Peak Group, Pikes Peak Fund, PO Box 588, Monument, CO 80132. The Pikes Peak Group of the Sierra Club has brought suit against the U.S. Forest Service to require it to comply with the Clean Water Act in permitting operation of the Pikes Peak Highway by the City of Colorado Springs. We are now in the process of negotiating with the City over this issue, but intend to file suit against the City if they are unable to present a workable plan to solve erosion problems on the Pikes Peak Highway. We, the Executive Committee of the Pikes Peak Group, urge you to support this action and to make your support known to the Forest Service and to Colorado Springs City Council. We are having a special informational Sierra Club meeting about Pikes Peak on Monday,
April 27, 6–8 p.m. at the First Congregational Church, 20 East St. Vrain St. This
meeting will be devoted to the Pikes Peak Highway problem. It is therefore necessary for us to come to our members, and to go to the public at large, for help in paying our anticipated legal costs. The amount which we must raise is not enormous, less than ten dollars per member—about same amount that it would cost a member to take one trip up the Pikes Peak Highway. However, this is a cost which cannot be paid for entirely out of our normal income and operating budget. We need to raise this money, and we also need volunteers willing to lend their time to help with various fundraising activities.
46 Years of Ignored Recommendations: 1952 – The Reddick Report: "It is imperative that a permanent or semipermanent road crown (asphalt) be provided, as the supply of suitable surfacing materials (gravel) available is rapidly being exhausted, and the promiscuous tearing up of additional sites wherever any surfacing is afforded cannot be permitted indefinitely. Hence, action should be taken at an early date." 1967 – Pikes Peak Toll Road Improvement Program: "In addition to improving the quality of the drive to the summit, paving will... substantially eliminate many of the existing erosion problems."1970 – Persisting vegetation in an alpine recreation area in the southern Rocky Mountains, Colorado: "Hundreds of acres of... [tundra] landscape on Pikes Peak in southern Colorado have been reduced to rapidly-eroding gravel by the efforts of man to maintain a highway to the top of the mountain." 1971 – Pikes Peak Group recommendations for proposed extension of Pikes Peak Highway: "The environmental impact of building a road over the tundra would be catastrophic. Any disturbance of the area opens it to erosion." (This study was in response to a proposed extension of the Pikes Peak Highway to Cripple Creek.) 1972 – The effects of human recreation upon bighorn sheep on Pikes Peak:"Two [gravel] pits, one at Glen Cove and one at Little Pikes Peak, mine gravel which is spread onto the toll road. ... Frequent storms wash gravel onto the tundra in sheets, and in gullies. Large areas of tundra are damaged by the erosion. ... Erosion from the toll road affects a good part of the tundra used by (bighorn sheep for food. An unprofitable cycle is occurring — gravel mined from the borrow pit... is being washed off the road as quickly as it is applied. ... Paving with installation of energy dissipaters will stabilize the road. Erosion is a clear and increasing threat to bighorn sheep." 1977 – Pikes Peak toll road: Pikes Peak District input to three-year improvement program: "[Paving is the] best and most long-term dust palliative." (The report also states that the unpaved, gravel surface damages vegetation and leaches into the watershed, and that wildlife habitat is being damaged.) 1992 – Pikes Peak Highway Recreation Corridor Master Plan: "After careful consideration [of the effect of paving on the Pikes Peak Auto Hill Climb,] the environmental effects, the long-range cost projections, and the various pros and cons, the recommendation of this Master Plan is to pave the entire length of the Pikes Peak Highway. This recommendation is supported by a variety of environmental and economic factors, including significant annual savings for maintenance, greater ease in maintaining erosion control structures and the highway itself, increased visitor use and reductions of impacts to vegetation." 1993 – Erosion and Sediment Analysis: Pikes Peak Highway: "Much of the land on Pikes Peak was set aside as a municipal watershed with the express purpose of conserving and protecting the water supply of the City of Colorado Springs. Much of the existing sediment problem can be directly attributed to the erosion and runoff from Pikes Peak Highway. ... Studies indicate that the biological productivity of the streams impacted by sediment has been reduced by 85 percent. This is a clear indication that these streams are not meeting the goal of the Clean Water Act ... We recommend that the highway be paved, curb and gutters be installed, fill slopes and cut slopes be stabilized and drainages be designed to handle the flows."1994 – Pikes Peak Highway erosion and sedimentation study (The Huber Report): "The most important erosion/sedimentation’ impacts of the Pikes Peak Highway are filling of wetlands; diminished stream health; sedimentation of valleys, gullying of hillslopes; sedimentation of South Catamount Reservoir, and burial of the tundra. The authors of this report very strongly urge that the highway be paved its entire length, but [paving] alone will not solve all of the erosion and sedimentation problems. The asphalt mat should be viewed as a component of a comprehensive, site-based drainage plan." 1997 – Drainage, erosion and sediment control master plan, and preliminary road design for the Pikes Peak Highway (draft, Drexell Barell Report): "The road drainage system [should] be improved so that flow from the road does not accumulate, deposited sediment neither interferes with the capacity of the culvert nor is deposited in the downstream watershed, and flow from culvert outlets does not erode fill or native materials. ...It is recommended that the entire highway be paved with six inches of full-depth asphaltic concrete."
Questions & Answers about the Highway: Q. Why is the Sierra Club concerned about Pikes Peak? A. Over the years, more than a million tons of gravel have been used to maintain the Pikes Peak Highway. Gravel eroding from the Highway has destroyed acres of tundra and wetlands and several miles of stream along the course of the Highway.
Q. What does the Sierra Club think should be done to protect Pikes Peak? A. We would like the City to make a firm commitment to fund and carry out its own plan for remedying the erosion and sedimentation problem caused by the Pikes Peak Highway. This plan, prepared for the City by Drexel Barrell & Company, calls for the City to improve drainage, stabilize eroding fill slopes, and stabilize the road surface (Drexel Barrell recommends asphalt pavement). The Drexel Barrell Plan calls for the work to be carried out over six to nine years.
Q. Didn’t the City and Forest Service agree on a solution last November? A. No. The City and Forest Service signed a 2-page agreement-in-principle recognizing the erosion problem on Pikes Peak, agreeing to make the problem a "Number 1 Priority", and tentatively proposing to solve it by the Year 2008. However, the agreement specifically provided that the work actually to be done would be agreed upon at a later date, and described the timeline as a "best estimate, "which"could change due to cash flow". We cannot view such a tentative agreement, with no specifics and no commitment to do the work within a reasonable time, as a solution to the problem on Pikes Peak.
Q. Won’t it cost a lot of money to fix the Pikes Peak Highway? A. Yes. The City has to play catch-up for decades of environmental neglect. The City’s own study, the Drexel Barrell Plan, puts the price tag at over $15 million now, but warns that if work is delayed over a long period, the total price tag could climb to over $20 million.
Q. Will the Sierra Club support additional fundraising efforts? A. Yes, once we are assured that the money will be spent on positive efforts to solve the erosion problem, and will not be wasted attempting to maintain the unacceptable status quo. The City and Forest Service must commit themselves to a definite plan with definite objectives and a definite timetable before we can support fundraising or recommend that others contribute to it.
Q. Why isn't there enough money in the Highway operating fund to fix the road? A. There ought to be. The Highway takes in roughly $2.5 million. The City estimates that it costs the State approximately $250,000, one tenth as much, to maintain the Mount Evans Road.
Q. So where does the rest of the money go? A. Among other things, it goes to: Q. Why can’t the parties simply settle this matter without a lawsuit? A. We have done our best to resolve this matter without filing suit. We have met with both the City and Forest Service to attempt to negotiate a solution. We feel that our position in these negotiations has been reasonable, since we have been asking the City simply to state when and how it will implement its own, detailed plan for remedying the erosion problem. We would be happy to discuss the matter with any Pikes Peak Group member who has questions about the necessity or advisability of bringing a lawsuit at this time. |
||
|
What's New -
Pikes Peak Highway - Calendar of
Events and Outings
Membership - Speak Out -
Things You Can Do - Links -
E-Mail
Pikes Peak Regional Group,
Rocky Mountain Chapter
of the Sierra Club
131 Williams Street, Colorado Springs, CO 80905-1413 - Phone: (719) 592-0963
Last updated February 12, 1999.
I want more information about
this issue.