News - pcgazette.com

News

County Trunk X crossing gains support from some agencies

By GENE KEMMETER
of The Gazette
A Wisconsin River crossing for Highway 10 north of Stevens Point near County Trunk X is gaining support from some agencies.

The proposed crossing, once considered taboo by the state Department of Natural Resources because of wetlands in the area, has been revised to follow natural terrain that is higher in elevation than originally considered.

Randy Fuchs, project manager of Earth Tech for the study of the Highway 10 bypass of Stevens Point, said the X crossing is one of two being considered. The other possible crossing is in the area of Maple Road in the town of Dewey and Mayflower Road in the town of Eau Pleine, farther north of the X crossing.

The latest proposed X crossing would extend from Interstate 39-Highway 51, go through a corn field and connect with a wheat field and forested area in the extreme northeastern part of the town of Carson.

The route would follow higher elevations, cross County Trunk E about 1,500 feet north of the River Road intersection and reconnect with the existing 10 route in the area east of the former Sadie and Jerry's Supper Club.

Writing about a review of the potential corridor by representatives of the state Department of Transportation, Earth Tech, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the DNR, Ted Johnson of the DOT office in Wisconsin Rapids said the representatives of those agencies indicated the route "would avoid most 'Red Flag' Riparian Forested wetlands."

Jim Grafelman of the DNR, now a fisheries supervisor in the Rhinelander region of the DNR, sent an e-mail to Johnson in October 1999, saying "I agree that this latest modification of the 'X' alternative may prove to reduce wetlands impacts over the previously investigated alternatives. This latest alternative deserves further investigation and inclusion into the next round of the EIS process." The EIS process is the Environmental Impact Statement.

The DNR has been opposed to an X crossing at least since 1977, when a report pointed to loss of waterfowl and furbearer habitats, fish spawning habitat and disruption of wildlife migration patterns.

That same year, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said an X crossing and another nearby crossing "would adversely affect fish and wildlife resources" and "would be most destructive to wetland habitat and should be dropped from further consideration."

The DNR has continued to oppose an X crossing, and in November George Meyer, secretary of the DNR, wrote the DOT reiterating that opposition.

Michael J. Berg, director of the Wisconsin Rapids DOT office, responded to Meyer in a Dec. 12 letter, informing him of alignment modifications to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.

Berg said the DOT is working with a Citizen's Advisory Committee to eliminate less desirable river crossing options and select one that "minimizes negative impacts to the environment while ensuring that the needs of highway users and impacted communities are best served."

Since writing initial reports in opposition to the X crossing, Grafelman has been promoted to the fisheries supervisor position in the Rhinelander region of the DNR and told The Gazette he is no longer associated with the project.

His replacement in the Wisconsin Rapids office, Cameron Bump, said he came in this summer and is just starting to get to the file on the X crossing.
"We haven't given it a full review yet," he said. "We are obligated to look at it and assess the full environmental impact." He said he suspects that will be done this summer because the department was waiting for the list of possible routes to be narrowed down.

While the latest alternative may have the least impact to the environment for that area, Bump said that didn't guarantee the department would find it favorable. As it stands now, he said, the DNR, as stated in Meyer's letter, remains officially opposed to an X crossing until it takes a position on the latest proposal.

State Sen. Kevin Shibilski, D-Stevens Point, who lives in the area and has spoken out against the X crossing, said he doesn't feel the DOT made any significant changes in its latest proposal.

The DOT, he said, will have to overcome widespread environmental opposition, including opposition from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service and local conservation groups.

Shibilski said he also opposes a Plover River crossing for a Highway 10 bypass of Stevens Point. "It would be an environmental and social debacle to route it across the Plover River," he said. "It would plow through established neighborhoods."

Calling the Plover River a community resource, Shibilski said the DOT has to rule out consideration of crossing the river. "The DOT are road builders, they aren't concerned about adverse social and environmental impacts. I'm confident the DNR will object to a Plover River loop.



	County Trunk X crossing gains support from some agencies By GENE KEMMETER of The Gazette A Wisconsin River crossing for Highway 10 north of Stevens Point near County Trunk X is gaining support from some agencies. The proposed crossing, once considered taboo by the state Department of Natural Resources because of wetlands in the area, has been revised to follow natural terrain that is higher in elevation than originally considered. Randy Fuchs, project manager of Earth Tech for the study of the Highway 10 bypass of Stevens Point, said the X crossing is one of two being considered. The other possible crossing is in the area of Maple Road in the town of Dewey and Mayflower Road in the town of Eau Pleine, farther north of the X crossing. The latest proposed X crossing would extend from Interstate 39-Highway 51, go through a corn field and connect with a wheat field and forested area in the extreme northeastern part of the town of Carson. The route would follow higher elevations, cross County Trunk E about 1,500 feet north of the River Road intersection and reconnect with the existing 10 route in the area east of the former Sadie and Jerry's Supper Club. Writing about a review of the potential corridor by representatives of the state Department of Transportation, Earth Tech, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the DNR, Ted Johnson of the DOT office in Wisconsin Rapids said the representatives of those agencies indicated the route "would avoid most 'Red Flag' Riparian Forested wetlands." Jim Grafelman of the DNR, now a fisheries supervisor in the Rhinelander region of the DNR, sent an e-mail to Johnson in October 1999, saying "I agree that this latest modification of the 'X' alternative may prove to reduce wetlands impacts over the previously investigated alternatives. This latest alternative deserves further investigation and inclusion into the next round of the EIS process." The EIS process is the Environmental Impact Statement. The DNR has been opposed to an X crossing at least since 1977, when a report pointed to loss of waterfowl and furbearer habitats, fish spawning habitat and disruption of wildlife migration patterns. That same year, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said an X crossing and another nearby crossing "would adversely affect fish and wildlife resources" and "would be most destructive to wetland habitat and should be dropped from further consideration." The DNR has continued to oppose an X crossing, and in November George Meyer, secretary of the DNR, wrote the DOT reiterating that opposition. Michael J. Berg, director of the Wisconsin Rapids DOT office, responded to Meyer in a Dec. 12 letter, informing him of alignment modifications to avoid or minimize environmental impacts. Berg said the DOT is working with a Citizen's Advisory Committee to eliminate less desirable river crossing options and select one that "minimizes negative impacts to the environment while ensuring that the needs of highway users and impacted communities are best served." Since writing initial reports in opposition to the X crossing, Grafelman has been promoted to the fisheries supervisor position in the Rhinelander region of the DNR and told The Gazette he is no longer associated with the project. His replacement in the Wisconsin Rapids office, Cameron Bump, said he came in this summer and is just starting to get to the file on the X crossing. "We haven't given it a full review yet," he said. "We are obligated to look at it and assess the full environmental impact." He said he suspects that will be done this summer because the department was waiting for the list of possible routes to be narrowed down. While the latest alternative may have the least impact to the environment for that area, Bump said that didn't guarantee the department would find it favorable. As it stands now, he said, the DNR, as stated in Meyer's letter, remains officially opposed to an X crossing until it takes a position on the latest proposal. State Sen. Kevin Shibilski, D-Stevens Point, who lives in the area and has spoken out against the X crossing, said he doesn't feel the DOT made any significant changes in its latest proposal. The DOT, he said, will have to overcome widespread environmental opposition, including opposition from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service and local conservation groups. Shibilski said he also opposes a Plover River crossing for a Highway 10 bypass of Stevens Point. "It would be an environmental and social debacle to route it across the Plover River," he said. "It would plow through established neighborhoods." Calling the Plover River a community resource, Shibilski said the DOT has to rule out consideration of crossing the river. "The DOT are road builders, they aren't concerned about adverse social and environmental impacts. I'm confident the DNR will object to a Plover River loop.