Why is an alternative unacceptable, neutral, or acceptable?
Any of the Juneau Creek variants is okay - solving most of the reasons for building a new road - as long as there is LIMITED ACCESS where there is private property - it would solve nothing to make the opportunity for "another Cooper Landing" community to "spring-up" along a new stretch of road. I DO NOT think these by-passes will severely impact the local existing businesses as Cooper Landing has become a destination point for all kinds of recreation, and those traveling public who need services (food, gas, restrooms, lodging, shopping, etc.) can easily and with less constrictions access them. The "impact" on the Juneau Creek trail or Falls I see as only positive - enabling the Forest Service to provide more access to scenic and hiking opportunities for more people. With the "wilderness" variant there is less impact with existing facilities where it rejoins at the W. end (boat ramp, etc.) thus avoiding more congestion. Also, the least bridges the better.
Juneau Creek wilderness variant is the most acceptable to me because it impacts the least private property, it joins the current road bed beyond the Russian River ferry area, and construction could take place without causing major traffic delay problems.
Juneau creek "f"variant and Juneau creek wilderness variant are obviously the only two ways this road should go -from project start to end it is the most direct route you would have to want to go into cooper landing to take old road -with road on opposite side of river there would be no side roads into town.
I don't like the idea of cutting into the forest that much. Should keep the route closer to the river. Interruption of existing trails, recreations spots and private property should be minimized.
I do not approve of bypassing the business area.
Going north is totally unacceptable. It snows up there. Goes through too much animal habitat and messes up too many trails.
See my letter to Miriam Tanaka dated April 2001 for details. We should not tamper with an already existing infrastructure of the Resurrection Pass Trail. We should not impact this backcountry trail system. They are too difficult to establish. Changing the Trail system is an irreversible process. Another road system would separate resources such as the Kenai River salmon food source from the habitat and denning areas of the brown bear. We can all get there at the same time. These alternatives would not greatly increase driving time due to grades and distances. A road project is THE most invasive development that can happen to a community so we should limit the impact to the smallest area possible where development already exists. There are too many natural resources to impact elsewhere. JCA has too many obstacles: a 6 - 7% grade for 3 miles, increased state funds for maintenance of a higher, longer elevation road, 11 miles of a new corridor, a national historic trail system, a wildlife refuge at one end requiring congressional approval to put a road through, increased engineering challenges, wetlands, questionable gravel supplies and a high concentration of people at one of its Juneau Creek Alt. variant (Russian River), critical brown bear and other wildlife habitat concerns. Impact on existing employment and Business too great. The valley floor AND south side will be filled with development blight. We don't need 2 roads! 4f: may prove this to be illegal. Juneau Creek Pass not a Bypass: more snow, ice, maintenance and grade!
Impact on trails.
All these alternatives put large grades in the highway with no advantage over the Cooper Creek route. The grades are large enough to create a rise almost equal to the sustained uphill at Turnagain Pass from Turnagain Arm reaching the second highest elevation between Kenai and Anchorage. The grades would possibly slow truck and motorhome traffic through the area. All these alternatives have impacts to the Resurrection Trail and access to it. I am very concerned with building a road on where there is none now and how it could increase the use of the trail and Juneau Creek valley.
I feel that any one of these variants would be acceptable- it gets the road away from the river and away from the community - and the impact on the Resurrection Trail system would only be positive
Any disturbance to the resurrection trail system is unacceptable
Nothing about any of these routes is acceptable. The Resurrection Trail is dear to my heart. Juneau Lake, and the two cabins on it would become like Grand Central Station if this route is allowed to happen. This trail is already heavily used, and it should not have to shoulder any more abuse. This route would put three cabins within easy walking distance. I spend three days every summer at one of these cabins, and even though a hiker is not supposed to approach any cabin unless they have a permit, they do so anyway. I have been awakened in the night, walked in on undressed, and verbally assaulted because we would not let potential squatters spend the night with us. One year, a very large group came through and camped very near to us. They availed themselves of the outhouse. To get to it they had to tramp pass the cabin. In the morning, we had to stand in line to use it, and it was so foul it was an effort to breathe. This trail system is not equipped to handle more people. The only out houses on the whole system are located at the cabins. Every summer I see toilet paper just off the trail, and have even encountered solid human waste ON the trail. Then, of course, is the garbage that is left behind by those that do not have the strength to carry it back out with them. Any of these routes will heavily impact this trail system, and add to the burden of the Forest Service personnel. It will mean more trail maintenance and increased use to cabin users in the form of increased rental fee. Also, in winter, wouldn't there would be increased snow fall and therefore increased road maintenance because of the rise in elevation?
I oppose any route which would move up onto the Juneau Creek bench, in particular, any route above Juneau Creek Falls. Resurrection Trail is a unique asset in the state. A highway above the falls would destroy the wilderness character of the south half of the trail (trailhead to Swan Lake). Now once you are up on the Juneau Creek bench, you are in wild, quiet country. This would be destroyed by a highway. Many visitors from outside, as well as Alaska youth, Scout troops and families use this trail summer and winter. For many it is their introduction to camping and Alaska backcountry. I urge you to review the cabin guest registers for the comments made. The inspiration, knowledge and joy derived by visitors and expressed in these logs is startling. Even if other routes cost more, it is worth the expense to avoid destroying the character of the south side of the trail.
If the State and Borough can agree to maintain a preservation corridor along the road as identified in the Cooper Landing Land Use Plan together with no additional points of ingress/egress along the new highway the impacts should be minimized.
Even though it will disrupt resurrection trail, it is the best alternative.
The steep grades and elevations required for these alternatives make them unacceptable to me. This is a cold-weather climate (to say the least), and these steep grades would cause problems for motorists much of the year. In addition, the disruption to brown bear and other wildlife habitat is unacceptable to me.
Would solve through traffic congestion.
My understanding is that the wilderness variant is the one that bypasses the ferry area. That is essential as it is the most congested area. Any of the Juneau Creek variants would be acceptable as long as they reconnect with the existing road somewhere west of the ferry. The brown bears of Juneau creek should be given the widest reasonable berth.
I want to minimize environmental impact and cost.
Cost too much.
I don't think these would get away from the tourist traffic as well. We need a highway for getting to the lower Kenai
None of these areas are acceptable because they would destroy to much land in an attempt to fix a problem that only exists in the area for a few months in the summer. Even if a new road was built in the area away from the existing road something still has to be done with the existing road because it is still going to be used and the problems with it are still going to exist.
Juneau Creek "G" variant is unacceptable because of the new bridge over the Kenai River and it is too close to private property. The Wilderness variant is acceptable because it has the least impact on private property, low cost of the Juneau Creek bridge, opens new land to development, takes high speed traffic out of town and no new bridges over the Kenai River. The "F" variant is less desirable due to the high cost of the Juneau Creek bridge, but still more desirable than any new Kenai River bridges. The Forest variant is as desirable as the wilderness variant. The most desirable of the two would be that which makes access to the Russian River Ferry and Sportsman's boat launch safest and least congested.
Negatively impacts resurrection pass trail parallel roads - concern with winter travel and safety visual impact concerns enters unroaded area
These alternatives seem to be the most cost effective way to address the very important issues of safety and traffic congestion with the least impact to fish, habitat, wildlife and recreation.
The Juneau Creek F variant in my opinion would have the least impact in the Cooper Landing area and would expedite traffic flow.
The route will offer a a much safer road with much less curve area. I don't believe the impact on game will be that great having used this area before statehood. Again the north route will still allow for a scenic bypass along the river with less impact.
Juneau creek "f" looks like the best route
The "G" and "F" variants keep traffic below the falls.
Not as steep. On the sunny side of mountain which would help melt ice and provide great views. Better access to Juneau Creek falls and trails.
The Juneau Creek Wilderness Variant is less expensive.
"F"variant is best the other are possible but for a cost out look and time factor the "F"variant has my support
These alternatives get the road away from the river. More areas to build a better-super highway.
I like the road staying as much on the north side as possible. The"G" variant seems more "river user friendly"if that makes sense.
Through traffic is routed away from Russian confluence and costs are better.
Stay out of the north side. The impacts to Resurrection trail and Juneau Falls is too great.
Juneau Creek wilderness variant solves most of the current corridor problems. I would like to see even from milepost 55 to 60 to be North of the current road so it could be widened and straightened.
The "F" Variant seems to have the least impact on the environment of these four alternatives, while providing an almost complete bypass of the community area and most of the hot spots along the river during fishing season. This should provide for safe driving and a safer environment for pedestrian traffic, both of which have increased several fold in the last twenty years and will probably continue to do so.
I would think if we are going to fund a road to relieve a bottleneck and make it safer, we would do just that, and not compromise for a few commercial interests.
Resurrection Pass and Juneau Creek are simply too valuable as accessible and extremely popular natural areas to be destroyed by man's unreasoned drive to speed, not to mention DOT's need to build or die.
These alternative all tend north of the river, giving the highway good sun exposure with little frost or avalanche danger. They also by-pass much of the local congestion of Cooper Landing. The "F" variant reduces the margins involved intruding into virgin territory but still allows for a fairly straight alignment and even allows for minimal interaction with Russian River Ferry traffic. I'm very happy with this choice, although if design constraints require the Forest or Wilderness alternatives, the latter provides for better traffic flow, while still has only marginal impacts on the "wilderness" features of the area.
I like the alternatives that separate local and river access traffic from the highway traffic for the longest distance. I don't like the alternatives that bring the bypass back to the river road near the sportsman's access area - too much congestion already!
Conservation concerns.
SAFTEY AND TIME.
I, again, do not want you to do anything to the road. One alternative effects my property, the other alternatives effect my lively hood.
I want the straight shot.
Best use of thermal factor to reduce snow/ice, clear shot thru area, bypasses congested areas and allows access if destination is cooper landing. No delays or conflicts with existing development and thru traffic
All of the Juneau Creek Alternatives disturb too much undeveloped area.
The Juneau Creek alternatives all propose a new road corridor in an undeveloped area that is already nationally recognized either as wilderness or a national recreation trail. Without removing the existing road, the result is two generally parallel roads going to the same place. Also, leaving it to the Borough to enact truck route ordinances (in most of the alternatives)is just "passing the buck" and it's unlikely to happen. A citable offense for through truck traffic on the old road won't be enforced, even with good intentions and reassurances from the law enforcement branches. Some truck traffic will still go through town, despite the new ordinance.
You can hear the highway until you get to the falls on the trail. If you put the highway up there, you will hear it all the way to swan lake. Just because it looks good on a map doesn't make it a good plan. Also, additional maintenance costs can not be avoided by raising the elevation of the roadway. Bad idea!
"G"alternative crosses the Kenai. Also to many cuts into banks above and along side the river. It's not a good alignment.
The G Route is the most cost effective with minimal impact. Over all it is my favorite from all plans.
Best routes stay away, and don't cross the Kenai River. We cannot risk catastrophic contamination.
The further from dwelling, business and the river the more acceptable for me.
G variant is very costly and crosses the Kenai River unnecessarily for little benefit. F variant is also costly based on an improved grade and a bridge below the falls rather than above. Is it worth it? The wilderness and forest alternatives seem the best options, the grades seemingly better in the wilderness variant.
The G variant stays closer to the current road. The others are moving up the hill a ways and would probably be more hazardous for travel in the winter.
Runs right along my property. I'll hear noise on both sides. Also, you will cut off the trail; a lot of people use the trail.
JC-Forest and Wilderness - crossing above the falls cuts too deep into the Resurrection Trail & the falls. F variant's OK, but G would be better if it included a provision to go past Sportsman's pt.
These routes appeal the most to me, especially the G variant because it routes the traffic outside of Cooper Landing, which will be good for the residents and land owners there. Additionally, this route keeps the traffic away from the river until after the Sportsman's boat launch. The others could work as well, but I see it unnecessary to take the road farther north than in the G variant (such as the wilderness route).
Same reasoning as on the other alternative. The Wilderness variant is my preferred, with lowest cost and highest level of service on a new alignment. My next preference is the Forest Variant for similar reasons. Third preference is the"F" Variant, but with the problem of higher cost. The "G" Variant is unacceptable due to high cost and use of the old alignment near the river.
I think that DOT should be focusing on lowering traffic speeds in the area, and not solely on straightening out the road. I am opposed to any alternative that impacts the Kenai or Russian rivers, and all alternatives that impact the Resurrection trail.
Forest variant makes most sense to me.
Same as before on an alternative bypass route through the town itself. A bypass route in my estimation would be good either way
The entire Juneau Creek region is entirely too precious, too critical to be subjected to highway development simply for the sake of expediency and safety at high speeds (speeds must be lowered -- there's nothing wrong with that).
Not having all the facts, I would vote for the F plan, it would move the thru traffic for years in the future and would give Cooper Landing good access.
I would like too see the highway go to the north and by-pass copper landing.
Can use the road ways that are already there.
RE-ROUTING TRAFFIC OUT OF COOPER LANDING WOULD DESTROY MY BUSINESS IN THE WINTER MONTHS AND HURT IT DURING THE SUMMER MONTHS
I've hiked the Resurrection Trail and observed the Juneau Creek falls. I think the falls would be a great place for a wayside, allowing all Alaskans and tourists to view the falls.
I feel the Juneau Creek F Variant is the best route for this highway. This route accomplishes what I would like to see in a highway through the area.
I wish not to travel so far away from the river. Also, I would not like the road to be at a higher elevation than it is now.
Juneau Creek Wilderness Variant combined with the "F" variant is the most desirable route as it is the straightest and shortest route. Although a bridge would have to be built across the canyon the cost of building the Juneau Creek Alternative would probably be as high and would increase the travel distance considerably. The "G" variant is unacceptable as it again crosses the river and winds up mixing Cooper Landing/Kenai River traffic. The "forest" variant is probably OK if cheaper to build than the "F" variant although it appears to ramble more.
I think the Juneau Creek "F" is the right way to go. It seems to be straight and have less impact on any of the reasons you give in the other routes.
The north side routes will be safer for everyone by keeping the different types of users separated.
It is not necessary to put a new road through Cooper Landing.
Any of these would be acceptable.
Precludes crossing the river relieves cooper landing traffic congestion
I don't like the fact that you are having to climb in elevation again.
Road should be on north side of river, by pass cooper landing for safety of c.laning resents and for drivers. Straighten the road.
Need to stay away from the trail systems on this side of the highway. Keep the alignment the same.
The "G" variant seems to be the least intrusive solution.
This would place all traffic away from town and also open up new land for development. Don't worry about wildlife, they will hang around and we have lots of bears.
The Juneau Falls should be kept protected as much as possible. It should remain as foot access only. Juneau Creek "F" variant will give the river the most protection and yet some viewing areas.
Because of the damage to the area. Plus download of maps was impossible.
This bypass alternative is clearly not acceptable because it destroys and compromises the beauty and integrity of the Resurrection Trail.
Like the idea of getting away from the river, not impacting the Russian River side, not impacting the town, most direct route.
Mostly unacceptable- too much new terrain impacted that is also used by wildlife mostly acceptable- reduced amount of new ground affected while addressing some traffic safety needs
Stay away from the Resurrection Pass Trail, and the Kenai Wilderness area. Stay away from lower Juneau Creek -- it is important wildlife habitat. If put a road through these places you will create significant aesthetic and environmental damage which cannot be mitigated. The Forest Variant would be particularly harmful. If the road moved to the proposed Juneau Creek crossing it would cut off an important part of the Resurrection Pass Trail and trash the falls. Because of the elevation and topography, noise pollution would devastate the trail all the way to the top of the Swan Lake Grade. Other variants are little better. Get away from the north side of the river, whatever you do.
I believe this is the best route. It gets all the traffic away from Cooper Landing and the ferry area. With Cooper Landing already having all the facilities people needing them will come through town anyway. All the campgrounds are in town and this would be the choice way to route the highway so the campers would likely have to go through town to get to them.
Severe impact on regionally and nationally significant fish, wildlife, and recreation resources.
The Forest Variant makes accessibility to the Russian River Ferry very easy but can possibly increase the potential for MVA's because of traffic to the Ferry. The "G" variants put the highway too close to existing residential areas. Road noise would effect the homeowners. The Wilderness variant keeps the highway a bit higher than the existing residential areas and keeps the traffic and noise away from Cooper Landing.
Opens new areas for development.
These alternatives are all unacceptable because they transverse Resurrection Trail which will have dire consequences for wildlife and the pristine quality of the trail.
If a future bypass is needed I would like to see one of these variants used. There is already business and residential interests on that side of the Kenai and as far as wildlife impact, there will be some but the Moose and Bear will cross the new road just as they do all the other roads in Alaska.
Forest variant: The ideal route. Gets the traffic out of Cooper Landing and keeps it away from the Kenai/Russian rivers which minimizes scenic impacts, traffic noise footprint, and the possibility of spills, contamination, and fish habitat damage. There is minimal bridge construction which is not only cost effective but much safer as it reduces the chances of accidents caused by ice on frozen bridges in the winter. This route also enhances the wilderness setting of the River by moving the traffic well away from it. Wilderness Variant: Why trample on a mile of wilderness when a better alternative is available? "F" Variant: A long bridge on a 3.8% grade is a very expensive recipe for disaster. Paying $17 million for a bridge that *will* ice up in the winter and cause vehicles to loose control on a steep grade is simply buying ourselves problems. Plus, the summer tourist traffic will be craning their necks to catch a glimpse of the falls a half mile upstream as they negotiate the bridge at 60 mph creating even more work for the Cooper Landing Ambulance. The Forest Variant is far superior. "G" Variant: This adds a new bridge across the Kenai River and routes traffic along the Kenai River which detracts from the wilderness setting of the River.
Too much impact to brown bear habitat and exciting trails. Unacceptable to cross into the refuge.
Don't put a road in wilderness. Don't build new bridges across the Kenai. Don't use handicapped access to Juneau Falls as a "pro" argument -- protect the falls' resource values by keeping the road away from it, and find other ways to improve ped. access if this is desirable. Northside is smarter in AK -- more light on roadway for more of the year reduces icing etc.
Impacts to Bean Creek & Res Pass Impacts to bears Impacts to Quiet deep into backcountry of National Scenic Trail Opening up cabins on Res Pass to vandalism.
Acceptable to move highway away from the river and the "downtown" area of our community.
The F Variant, Wilderness Variant and G Variant Northside alternatives provide for the greatest disturbance, greatest wildlife disturbance potential, and affect an ANILCA Conservation Unit(s). The Forest Variant uses more of the existing road to decrease total disturbance, but adds an additional bridge crossing. This alternative avoids the ANILCA Conservation Unit.
The Juneau creek area is a unique wilderness area that should not be changed by this project.
Juneau Creek is a gem. This area should not be destroyed with a road and the Brown Bear habitat eliminated. I have used the trails in this area often even in events like the Hope to Homer Ultramarathon and skiing with my family. A road would destroy it and wipe out miles of trail.
The"G" variant appears to be a halfway measure, due to rerouting heavy through traffic around Cooper Landing, but then dropping it back into the center of tourist and fishing traffic long before sportsman's boat launch and the Russian river ferry. The question here would be, to me, why bother? plus it adds another needless crossing of the river. The forest variant seems to fall just short of the point by dropping by-pass traffic right on top of the Russian river boat launch and ferry high congestion spot. It makes sense to me to give ample warning of the turn off the .6 miles further down the road that the wilderness variant allows. It appears the new wilderness variant road would just clip the wildlife refuge edge, and this would be acceptable due to the added safety to traffic flow this would add. It is difficult to rate the only two (in my opinion) acceptable alternatives; the Juneau creek and the Juneau creek F variants. Looking at the maps and from my first had knowledge of the area, I tend towards the F variant with the wilderness variant reconnecting west end. 1/4 mile above the falls or 1/2 mile below would be a matter of preference. The bridge above would be less costly, but the road would be longer and less straight and vice versa. Both alternatives will make the entire Juneau lake area and resurrection trail more accessible to day hikers and will increase use with pros and cons. these two alternatives route heavy traffic away from and before the congestion points that are ignored or underplayed in other alternatives. "Downtown" cooper landing thereby can be bypassed by those who wish to drive through, and any slower sightseeing traffic, hungry trucker, fishing condo-on-wheels, out of gas biker who wants to pull over at cooper landing or take the slow route along the river will have that choice. These two alternatives also take into account that future residential development will most likely occur on the north west side of the kenai river, in between (below) the new route and (above) the kenai river.
Of these four unacceptable options, the "G" variant is the least offensive for the simple reason that it does not cross the Resurrection Pass trail. I still feel, however, that increased noise pollution from the additional roadway would lessen the experience for hikers along the trail. I am also concerned about the impacts to brown bear habitat associated with this alternative.
The big loops around Juneau are not needed.
No route on this side of the river is acceptable.
The "F" variant seems to be the most logical route. Less of a grade, and not so expensive, less of an impact on the river.
I love hiking and biking up this trail. It's truly great when you turn the last corner (switchback) and can no longer hear the highway. It's mostly quiet now at Juneau Falls. It needs to stay that way. IMHO the only road improvement alternatives are on the South side of the Kenai River.
no related to Juneau creek but I need something to put in here. What sense does it make to fix the problem of congestion in the Cooper Landing are only to push it further down the road. On a bad day in the summer you have a number of bottle neck on one of them happens to be outside of Soldotna (before the y)and Fred Myers. On a good summer travel day, traffic is backed up there. If you make getting there quicker you just pile it up at the y. instead of streamlining the process maybe you should look at creating more bottle necks. You won't decrease the time to homer because each bottle neck will be shorter. This a a people managing problem not a highway problem
Juneau Creek Forest, and Juneau Creek G variants do not reduce pedestrian and traffic interactions. The Forest Variant directs the high speed traffic directly to Sportsman's and pedestrian traffic. This is not safe.
My priority is avoiding bisecting the Juneau Creek Trail
The northern routes impact brown bear habitat and the Resurrection Trail. Cutting the lower portion of the trail off is unacceptable. The road noise would carry a long way up the trail and ruin the upper portion as well. The road should not violate the wilderness in the name of allowing cars to drive faster!
Like the idea of keeping traffic away from the river, straightening the road, reducing river crossings. In the long run, there will be less potential for fuel spills, accidents, and other human impact.
JCF because of impacts to Sportsman's Lodge. JCG because continued impacts to Kenai River.
Too many miles of new construction (10-11 miles)thru wilderness and brown bear habitat. State road maintenance funds already strained. With no long range fiscal plan adopted, adequate maintenance is a real problem for current state roads let alone new construction.
Too many trail crossings and disruption to bear habitat. Stream impact is too great.
Routing the road thru the Russian river/Kenai fishery to save a teeny bit of wilderness located next to the highway seems extreme when the extra miles of safety are considered.
Too many wildlife, wetland, secondary development and cumulative impact issues
There are 101 reasons why the northside routes could be rated Acceptable. I can list each and every one of them. There are 102 reasons why the northside routes are Unacceptable to me at this point. I can list each of those too. For myself, I'll spare you all but the 102nd reason, which is the local ADF&G vote in favor the Pink Flyod Alternative(The Wall).
These all interfere with bear habitat and degrade the wilderness experience of the Resurrection trail. It is not worth spending all this money to forever eliminate the accessibility to this experience. Slope icing in winter, noise to Juneau Valley, and to valley below would be significant for any of these alternatives. The forest variant and wilderness variant are deemed to be the most acceptable. These alternatives follow the general corridor which was selected by ADOT&PF in Project Update MP 37-60 Project No. F021-2(15)/53014 in bulletin dated July 1995. We highly recommend acceptance of the recommendation as set forth therein. The "F" and "G" variant are considerable more costly and would not eliminate traffic congestion as well, and would impact more private property on the north side of the river.
I would recommend the "F" variant due to the fact that it is the least hilly route. I believe that grades of 4% or more is less than desirable. Please consider the maintenance costs of the routes - do we get federal money to cover maintenance?
Stays away from town.
Takes traffic out of Cooper Landing and has the lease impact on through traffic during construction phase.
Interference with wildlife Fragments areas
I don't believe you need to relocate the highway into any area that will affect the Res Pass Trail. The Southside alternative looks fine. All of the Juneau Ck alternatives are too costly and would impact too much recreation area, even though you say the Juneau CK falls would be more accessible to folks.
These are all unacceptable. 1. An environmental disaster. 2. Trail interdictions. It would ruin the national historic designated Resurrection Trail. 3. Noise from trucks shifting down. 4. Ice and fog hazards all winter since at an elevation/location where terrain/natural features trap these natural hazards. 6. Use of spur roads, parking areas, and other accesses, would foster herds of folks wandering this key brown bear habitat. 7. DNR or some other state or borough agency would sell adjacent lands to take an already ugly 11+ mile swath of land to initiate a collateral "spawl" while also ruining the pristine nature of Juneau Falls and all the surrounded wilderness. 8. Snowmachiners and skiers already have conflicts. The JCA would exacerbate the problem. 9. Wildlife would be impacted, especially Brown Bears, Moose, Caribou, and Dall sheep. 10. Juneau Creek Falls would be placed in jeopardy. 11. It would only be a matter of time before the DOT, the Borough, USFS and CIRI would install all kinds of access and a whole strip town would be built. 12. Local existing businesses would lose the highway business that they have long depended up to survive. The only the guided fishing would survive,the others would fail. 13. It has been proposed that if the JCA is selected, then Unit 395 will be selected by the Borough. The Borough would then develop both sides of the highway, thereby creating a whole new town. 14. It would be the unnecessary destruction of thousands of acres of pristine land, dramatically increased noise levels from trucks, place the road in severe danger of avalanches, increase high speed deaths of people and animals 16. The legal restrictions of Title 11, in-place PLOs, DOT 4(f) Section 303) plus the guaranteed of law suits by the environmental groups makes further analysis of this approach, with NEPA valid "reasonable alternatives" already identified,a waste of DOT analysis resources better spent on "legal" rather that dead-end alternatives 17. They won't pass 4(f) muster, which I have been shouting at DOT for 5 years(to no avail). 18. The exits on the West side will create the most dangerous intersection in the State. Trucks and cars will come screaming down the hill onto the existing highway and it will look like Beruit. People will not be able to exit or enter the Russian River Ferry Campground without placing their life at great risk. This is already the worst traffic spot on the Kenai Peninsula during the summer. 19. These alternatives will only take minutes off the travel time from Anchorage to Soldotna, and is not worth the money or the negatives aforementioned.
I didn't rate these because any one of them would be at best the third choice. My bottom line is protect the rivers, especially the Russian. Do the minimum possible, give minimum weight to expediting thru traffic, and give maximum weight to, in this order, 1. PROTECTING THE RIVERS 2. protecting the habitat, and 3. protecting the scenic beauty. I would give some weight to safety. I would give very little weight to convenience. Some things, like Cooper Landing, are worth a little inconvenience.
In the end the only long term alternatives are on the Juneau creek side. Traffic will pass the community and this has happened all over America as our highway systems have grown. It does not seem that protecting business, and community lifestyles has ever been a concern before. This is evident in other Alaskan area where roadhouses, trails, and communities have been abandon when transportation needs changed. The Juneau creek area also will give room for future highway expansions with our further major impact to the upper kenai river corridor. If fore thought had been used in the past the current corridor would have allowed for expansion. The current corridor is very under sized for current and future traffic needs.
Any one of these routes will result in the destruction of my home due to blasting of bedrock 200 feet from my back door. If the home is not destroyed, it will suffer major damage - broken windows - for which I do not have the funds to replace. I also obtain home use water from a small creek over which this alternative will cross. DOT/PF and HDR staff have told me that the long term water quality of the creek will not be guaranteed. This means that I would - assuming house is still here - have to buy water on the open market at $0.75 to $1.00 per gallon. At an average use of 50 gallons per day that would cost me roughly $1,500 a month just for water for my family. I have worked for the State of Alaska and The Municipality of Anchorage and am very familiar with the bureaucratic process and the bureaucracy's insensitivity to the individual. Thus, I am very suspect of staff assurances that I would be fairly, or promptly, compensated for any and all costs that I would have to expend to 1) move and find suitable housing, or 2) repair damage to my home or 3) bring potable water to my family. These alternatives have a direct impact on my life as well as the life of my family. I made a major effort to retire with no house payment by sinking a majority of my savings into a "dream home". These alternatives will take that away from me and my family and as usual the State of Alaska will tell me to fend for myself because of the higher good to many others.
Protect Brown Bear at any cost
I like these because they get the through traffic (those bound for Homer, Soldotna) out of the local area. It would open some more area for access to Alaskan residents and other visitors.
I feel that the Juneau Creek "F" with the Forest Variant is the most feasible. Looking at the grade, cost, bridge building and distance away from the river.
No need to open a new corridor in an undisturbed area
Too big of an impact.
All offer minimum impact visually, offer scenic views of valley to travelers and disruption of existing facilities such as Resurrection Trail is minimal compared with other alternatives
All of the Juneau Creek/Northside alternatives are equally unnecessary and unacceptable. These alternatives would be detrimental to the Kenai brown bear population. We are also opposed to the new, cumulative development that would occur along this federal highway corridor, impacting inventoried roadless areas of the Chugach National Forest, KNWR wilderness, along a multitude of impacts associated with the access created for the opening of up to 1000 acres (Plot 395) for subdivision and commercial development. The exit of the road in the Russian River Ferry region is not feasible given the traffic and small shoulder in this area.
Juneau Creek Wilderness Variant: 1. It is the only alternative that best isolates the Kenai River and Cooper Landing area from non-local vehicular traffic, creating a sanctuary for resource users and outdoor enthusiasts rather than a thoroughfare for non-local vehicular and truck traffic. 2. It is the most cost effective choice, considering the benefits it provides for the majority of users. 3. Potential for new development on Borough selected land. 4. New trail head and better access to Juneau Creek falls for people of all physical abilities. 5. Better access and potential for new trail heads for summer (hiking) and winter (skiing, snowmachines) on USFS, State, Borough, and proposed KRSMA lands. Now, many of these areas have limited access from the existing highway. 7. Minimal construction disruption to traffic during peak season. 8. This selection bypasses the majority of the Kenai River recreational areas, thus decreasing traffic congestion, reducing accidents and minimizing the chances of catastrophic hazardous materials spills. 9. Ultimately, bypassing Cooper Landing and making it a destination rather than a through-fare for nonessential traffic will allow for the development of the old highway through Cooper Landing and along the Kenai River as an access route for community, resource users and outdoor enthusiasts. It will allow for the posting of slower vehicular speeds, limiting and rerouting truck traffic, development of a bicycle path along or paralleling the existing highway from Cooper Landing to Russian River, pull-offs for wildlife and scenic viewing, better parking, better access to campgrounds and trails, thus providing for a safer highway and preserving the aesthetic beautiful area for generations to come. This will enhance the area's ability to attract tourists, outdoor enthusiasts and recreational users, bringing more tourist dollars to the community. Juneau Creek Forest Variant: 1. Potential conflict with Sportsman's Boat Launch. 2. Does not isolate the Kenai River from non-local vehicular traffic congestion as much as the Wilderness Variant. Juneau Creek G Variant: 1. This variant is too expensive for what it will accomplish. 2. This variant calls for an additional bridge over Kenai River and a larger (1300 foot) bridge over Juneau Creek Canyon. More and/or larger bridges increase environmental impacts to affected waterways. 3. The Juneau Creek bridge may be visible from the trail and river. 4. Greater impact on private property owners. 5. Possible noise impact on Bean Creek Trail users. 6. Does not isolate the Kenai River from non-local vehicular traffic congestion as much as the Wilderness Variant. 7. Causes increased congestion at MP52 - MP58 during peak season around Gwins, Russian River Campground and Sportsman's Boat Launch (there have been numerous accidents in these areas). Juneau Creek F Variant: 1. This variant is too expensive for what it will accomplish. 2. This variant calls for a long span (730) bridge over Juneau Creek Canyon. Larger bridges increase environmental impacts to affected waterways. 3. The Juneau Creek bridge may be visible from the trail and river. 4. Possible noise impact to Juneau Falls area and Bean Creek Trail. 6. Crosses into the Kenai National Refuge. 7. Potential conflict with Refuge Visitor's Center or Sportsman's Boat Launch.
Habitat
Juneau Creek plans seem like the best bang for the buck. Least amount of impact to Cooper Landing and Kenai River.
All of these variants are totally unacceptable from the impacts to the resurrection trail and wildlife. Should not even be considered viable.
These get the most traffic away from the river for the most miles while having the least impact. The impact or the resurrection trail is minimal and will actually bring improvements. There are plenty more miles of trails. Not as much disruption of traffic during construction. The wilderness and G are maybe OK, but lets try to not push the highway so very far back into the forest, hence, less impact.
I don't want this road on the North side of the river.
All of these alternatives will open up new ground and put another wide open area in this small valley. They would not be good for the community as a hole, nor would they help the local business. The state would have to maintain two roads summer and winter. The trucks that travel through the area in winter will drive the existing road when ice and snow are on the road. All of these alternatives will disrupt the wildlife in this area. And the cost for construction will be as much as rebuilding the existing road where it is at.
Far too much environmental impact. All any of these routes do is maybe (probably not) speed up traffic flow. With increased access to the area, congestion would increase, negating any traffic flow gain. Couple this with the habitat and and animal movement loss, the entire north side alternatives become totally unacceptable.
All of these options accomplish the goal of bypassing Cooper Landing, speeding traffic, however the route north of Juneau Creek is the least desirable.
All Juneau Creek alternatives, except possibly for the G variant, are totally unacceptable because of their routing near Juneau Creek Falls.
As stated above, there is very strong opposition to this route. I suspect it may be the preferred for the community, but I could be wrong. But, there will be immense public pressure against it.
Are there issues and/or opportunities that, if addressed, could make any of the North Bypass Alternatives more acceptable?
The Resurrection Pass trail will be impacted, but hopefully as little as possible. No large parking areas or campgrounds should be built off the bypass. Greenbelts should be kept along the bypass with perhaps a couple of pullouts to enjoy the view. No businesses, no private property along the bypass. The state has a parcel earmarked for settlement---about a 1000 acres---that may go to the borough. The JC wildnerness variant bypass would cross this parcel. I would like to see the land above (north) of the bypass be classified as recreation or preservation and the land below the bypass considered for residential use and accessed from the existing highway. Logging roads are either close to or go through that area now.
Not the way it is routed.
I feel the Juneau Creek Wilderness Variant is the best alternative because it stays away from the river for the longest distance going west. Too bad you didn't have an alternative away from the river all the way to the Skilak turnoff. As a Cooper Landing resident, I would like to see the heavy traffic bypass the town as well. It's pretty scary walking to the post office with eighteen wheelers screaming by you only ten foot away. But also as a resident, it's a touchy issue with a lot of friends of mine who will be directly impacted whatever the alternative. So let's do it right "the first time", and get the highway away from the river.
In Hawaii, to be able to proceed past the two mile point of the eleven mile trail known as Kalalau, one must have a permit. In the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, a permit is also required. These permits are not free, and limit the number of people in any one area at a time. If the route that falls below the falls were selected, and a permit was needed to proceed beyond, it could be acceptable provided that it is enforced. Cabin renters would have their permit included in their reservation. All others could be easily obtained via a website (just like the cabins) and paid for with a credit card. This would enable the Forest Service to limit the size of groups and the number of people using the system at any one time. This would not be an altogether bad thing. This could be a win win situation for both sides. My quiet would be secured, more people could view the falls, (which are awesome), there would be less traffic through the existing route, and the Forest Service would have increased revenue. I would be in favor of a permit system in any case.
There is no way you can put a highway on Juneau Creek bench and avoid the impacts described above.
Getting the road on the south slopes and away from the river would help reduce the icing problems and the sharp curves experienced now on the existing road.
Bring the road down past the ferry and give the Juneau Crk. brownies elbow room. Minimizing further congestion at the Russian River Ferry would be preferable. Through traffic creates dangerous conditions for tourists and pedestrians. Our goal should be to make our roadways as safe as possible.
What are the possibilities of addressing the elevation and grade issues associated with these routes/alternatives?
Safer and more scenic route.
Less expensive to build. Less impact on traffic during construction. Eliminate the congestion around Russian River during Salmon Season. Provides the quickest and shortest route between Anchorage and Kenai Peninsula. Greatly improves traffic flow around Cooper Landing.
Need to address the wild life habit-People and Bears
The "F" Variant looks pretty good as is.
Yes Extend the confluence of the new and the existing roadways on the west end at least to the Skilak Lake Access Road.
I know that there are some who will bitch about these choices impacting either traffic into the village or to the Resurrection Trail, but both of these can easily be addressed. I submit that business traffic will actually increase when visitors can stop and stroll Cooper Landing without fear of being run over or having constant truck noise. Blue directional signage pointing out the "Business District" would steer every newcomer to the village, whereas now anyone with a motorhome is afraid to stop for fear of tweaking off thirty cars behind him. By way of addressing the concerns of those Resurrection Trail purists, I would suggest that a newer, bigger parking lot to be built as part of the construction package (and a rest area with REAL restrooms, maybe?!!) could actually enhance the trail experience. Good planning here could accomplish a lot!
I do not want the bypass to go thru the refuge wilderness area.
No, northside alternatives are unacceptable.
G is the only bad one. Wilderness and forest don't need to go that high up the trail just because its a shorter bridge span. I think we should spend the extra money on the bridge and keep the road a little lower.
Add a parking area for Guano Creek Falls.
The North routes should be the only viable alternatives.
Yes, leave the Cooper Landing area as it is and put a new road through.
None, this is a bad choice.
Take Russian River and Sportsmans Pt into account (part of southside proposals). Stay away from the falls. And never mind about Cooper Landing resident's "impacts" to business - if people are going to stop in CL, they're going to stop because they planned on it, not just because they happened to be driving by. I say this as someone who's participated in Russian River fishery for over 15 years, since I lived in Cooper Landing and Moose Pass.
If there is a reason to take the road farther north as shown in the wilderness route, then I would support that as well.
Keep traffic moving along safely.
THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD MAKE THIS MORE ACCEPTABLE WOULD BE IF THE BY-PASS WAS DESIGNATED AS A TRUCK ROUTE AND SOMETHING WAS ESTABLISHED TO ROUTE TOURIST TRAFFIC THROUGH COOPER LANDING
Shortest, straightest route is preferred. The maximum grades and projected costs for the Juneau Creek wilderness variant and "F" variant appear to make them the logical choice.
We need to do our best protecting all interests.
Protecting the streams from degradation, providing parking where appropriate to access hiking, providing restrooms where appropriate.
Keeping freight traffic out of the area is one of my major concerns, however, encouraging business traffic into the area is crucial to maintaining a healthy economy in Cooper Landing.
Forest Variant: They could make a roadside rest stop with a viewing platform by the Juneau Creek Falls which would allow many more people to enjoy this spectacular landmark.
This is not a viable alternative.
Avoid Jim's landing and Kenai Refuge VC impacts. Keep the road away from sensitive resources like the falls, critical habitat (if possible)
the two Juneau creek alternatives seem to be acceptable as they are with a stress on the wilderness variant. But not the "G" variant.
All three of the other Juneau Creek variants are completely unacceptable to me. There are several reasons, most importantly the crossing of Resurrection Pass Trail and the impacts to trail users. 10,000 people per summer hike, bike and ride horses on this section of this National Recreation Trail. A highway crossing of this trail would be a travesty from an outdoor enthusiasts point of view. People come from all over the world to hike here. Secondly, the impacts to the Juneau Falls area and its possible development are unacceptable. Making this area more accessible is not a benefit in any way. Thirdly, I'm concerned with the cutting in half and shortening of the Resurrection Pass Trail and the resulting impacts to areas such as Trout and Juneau Lakes if the distance for the public to reach them is decreased by 5 miles. In addition, the area where the proposed highway crosses Juneau Creek is zoned as Backcountry Non-Motorized (Feb.15-Dec.1) in the U.S.F.S. Management plan. This should be respected (as well as crossing any designated WIlderness area in the N.W.R.). Please, I urge you, do not disrupt this unique trail system. It is not necessary to achieve the objectives of this project.
Yes. The Juneau Creek Wilderness Variant could be improved if it stayed as far north as practicable, all the way up to Skilak Road, thus creating a by-pass for the entire Upper Kenai River Valley.
Proper access with GOOD signage for Cooper Landing and the boat launch (Russian River Ferry) are a MUST! 
I don't want this road on the North side of the river. 
Yes
Maybe
Probably 
34 respondents replied "no" to this question.