The project is currently in the planning/design stage. It is anticipated that a Draft Project Report with an Environmental Document will be ready for circulation and review by spring of 2004. Construction is tentatively scheduled to commence in late 2008, provided funding is available.
The map shows alternatives being studied (all begin 0.7 km before the Russian River Bridge):
The East Alternative: The East alternative would traverse the foothills immediately east of East Side Road near the community of Old Hopland. This route was developed to minimize impacts on agricultural lands in the valley.
The Valley East Alternative: The Valley East alternative crosses Eastside Road and goes up the valley to the east of the Russian River. It crosses the Russian River just to the west of Old Hopland and goes up the valley to the west of the river to meet with existing SR 101 about the same place as the eastern alignment.
The West Alignment is no longer being studied due to resounding rejection by the community. Not only did the community of Hopland not like the West alignment, visual impacts and design challenges further supported eliminating it from consideration.
For more information on the bypass, check the website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist3/departments/planning/HoplandBypass/hopland_body.html
Following are comments on the Caltrans draft report from river advocate and former MEC board member Dennis O'Brien.
by Dennis O'Brien
I am a member of the Russian River Watershed Council on behalf of the Friends of the Eel River. I was present during a presentation by Praj White of your Eureka office concerning the Hopland bypass and connector to Ukiah. I have since read the draft Route Concept Report (RCR) on the entire 101 project. This letter will respond to both.
The RCR appears deficient in a few areas. The section on environmental concerns, for example, talks about the Eel River and its tributaries, but does not even mention the Russian River. Yet the Russian is also home to threatened species, and our fisheries and watershed are every bit as fragile as the Eel's, perhaps more so with the proximity of development.
The RCR also talked about sensitive points near planned projects, including Little Lake near Willits. Yet it did not mention the Sanel Valley south of Hopland, whose broad flood plain, marsh, and extensive riparian growth provide habitat for many species and a flyway for birds during the dry months. Since the Hopland bypass is the next step in the northern extension of the four-lane highway, it should not be overlooked.
In the section about transportation alternatives, you mentioned inter-city busses and bicycle lanes. Yet you did not discuss passenger rail service, even though such service between Santa Rosa and Willits had already been contracted before the line was closed for safety repairs. Although Caltrans may not be involved directly in building a rail line, it should at least acknowledge, if not encourage, such multi-model transportation networks, especially when considering conditions twenty years into the future. With its multi-county service area, District 1 can be a leader in meeting the transportation needs of its residents.
The RCR also suggests that there has been constant support for a four-lane bypass around Willits. This is inaccurate. This representative and the Willits Environmental Center, among others, have long argued that a two-lane limited access road would be sufficient and leave the smallest "footprint" on the sensitive area around Little Lake. The RCR's own charts show a significant drop off in traffic volume at Willits, with much of it turning on to Highway 20 west, still going through town and not served by any proposed bypass. The RCR should not present the four-lane bypass as a done deal.
Finally, there is the status of the four-lane connector between Hopland and Ukiah. Mr. White stated that the Mendocino supervisors wanted a limited-access freeway with interchanges and frontage roads, rather than same-level turnoffs as now exist. First, I am not aware of any public position taken by the supervisors on this issue, and doubt that Mr. Colfax of the Fifth District, where the project is located, would support a project that is larger than necessary. And full interchanges with frontage roads are not necessary. As the RCR itself states:
Access safety along the Hopland-Ukiah segment is "generally not a concern";
Traffic there is currently 35% less than the Ukiah bypass segment, and will remain 25% less even after construction;
The North Coast County Supervisors Association has given the project a low priority, and the Mendocino Council of Governments has not even assigned it a priority.
This does not demonstrate either a practical need or political consensus for a large footprint. Yet Mr. White again presented this as another done deal, and suggested that a freeway might have to be built up the east side of the valley, leaving the current highway as the frontage road. Such a massive disruption of the Russian River watershed is not only harmful but also unnecessary.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to respond. Please make sure that your final RCR includes the concerns of the Russian River as well as those of the Eel, and does not present various decisions as final when in fact they are not.
Copyright Mendocino Environmental Center 2002
Permission granted to excerpt or use this article if source is cited