This is a reproduction of a library book that was digitized
by Google as part of an ongoing effort to preserve the
information in books and make it universally accessible.
https://books.google.com
MAY 2:
INVENTAL IMPACT STATEMEN
T
ENOTA ZAPORTATION
)‫لوالا‬
‫اب‬
‫ةتوت‬
popolitan
route safety
D
502
WIHWA
MAT ZU 1994
IOWA & LAFAYETTE COUNTIES, WISCONSIN
U
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
4 (f) and 6 (f) Evaluation
1940194
SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. 4332 (2 ) ( C ) AND 49 U.S.C. 303
BY THE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSP
ORTATION LIBRARY
APPROVALS
JUN
5/5/94
Rura
G. Madyaho
l
band
For Federal Highway Administrator
Date
1
NORTHWEST
....VITY
Carol I Cutshall
For Wisconsin Department of Transportation
5-3.94
Date
CONTRACTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT
Richard C.Madrzak
Federal Highway Administration
4502 Vernon Boulevard
Madison, WI 53705
(608)264-5968
Carol Cutshall, Director
Office of Favironmental Analysis
Wisconsin Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 7916
Madison, WI 53707-7916
(608)266-9626
ABSTRACT
United States Highway 151 (USH 151) is the principal route in southwestern Wisconsin , linking themetropolitan
areas of Dubuque , Iowa, with Madison, Wisconsin . The project is being undertaken to improve route safety,
meet future mobility needs, maintain continuity of the overall route , and to enhance regional economic
development. It is proposed to develop USH 151 as a 4-lane divided facility with access management. With the
exception of two community bypasses, the project involves the addition of two driving lanes and a median
adjacent to existing USH 151. The portion of USH 151 between Belmont and Dodgeville is one of the two
remaining sections to be improved in order to have a continuous 4- lane facility between Dubuque and Madison .
This corridor was included as a backbone component on Wisconsin's Corridors 2020 plan which links the
economic centers in the state with each other and to the National Highway System . Primary impacts include
loss of farmland, potential impacts to archaeological sites, and seven residential and three business displacements.
A draft 4 (f) evaluation has been prepared for the crossing of the Pecatonica (Calamine-Platteville) Recreational
Trail and is included in this document.
>
JULY 19 , 1994
or 45 days after the Notice of Availability
Comments on the Draft EIS are due by
is published in the Federal Register, whichever is later , and should be sent to:
Thomas E. Carlsen, P.E.
Wisconsin Department of Transportation - District 1
2101 Wright Street
Madison , WI 53704
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT STATEMENT
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 USC 4321-4347 , became effective January 1 , 1970. This
law requires that all federal agencies have prepared for every recommendation or report on proposals for
legislation and other major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a
detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is, therefore ,
required to have prepared an EIS on proposals that are funded under its authority if the proposal is
determined to be a major action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
EISs are required formany transportation projects, as outlined in NEPA. The processing of an EIS is carried
out in two stages . Draft ElSs are firstwritten and forwarded for review and comment to federal, state , and
local agencies with jurisdiction by law or special expertise and are made available to the public . This
availability to the public must occur at least 15 days before the public hearing and no later than the time of
the first public hearing notice or notice of opportunity for a hearing. Normally , 45 days plus mailing time
will be allowed for comments to be made on the Draft EIS unless a time extension is granted by the Director
of the Office of Environmental Analysis (Wisconsin Department of Transportation ). After this period has
elapsed , preparation can begin on the Final EIS .
Final EISs are prepared to reflect the distribution of the Draft Statement by including the following:
1.
Basic content of the Draft Statementas amended due to internalagency comments , editing, additional
alternatives being considered , and changes due to the time lag between the Draft and Final EIS .
2.
Summary of public hearing environmental comments.
3.
Summary of comments received on the Draft Statement.
4.
Evaluation and disposition of each substantive comment.
Administrative action cannot take place sooner than 90 days after circulation of the Draft Statement to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or 30 days after submittal of the Final Statement to the EPA.
Both the Draft and Final EIS are full disclosure documents which provide a full description of the proposed
project, the existing environment, and analysis of the anticipated beneficial or adverse environmental effects .
R/USH 151/NEPA.JFO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
SUMMARY
A. Project Location
B.
Project Description and Study Area
C. Purpose and Need
D. Alternatives Considered
I
E.
F.
1.
Improvement Concepts .
2.
Preliminary Alternative Development
Detailed Study
3.
Selected Alternatives
4.
Environmental Impacts
Other Activities Required
G.
H.
Regulatory Compliance
Other Government Agency Actions
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION
A. System Linkage and Route Importance
B. Legislative and Transportation Planning History .
C.
D.
Transportation Demand/ Economic Development . .
Local Community Interests
Belmont Area
1.
Belmont to Mineral Point Area .
2.
3.
E.
F.
G.
H.
1.
J.
Mineral Point Area
Other ..
4.
Modal Relationships
Existing Highway Characteristics
1.
Typical Sections ..
Horizontal Geometrics
2.
VerticalGeometrics
3.
Access
4.
Existing and Future Traffic Volumes
Level of Service
Crashes and Safety
Summary of Purpose and Need
S-1
S- 1
S- 1
S -3
S-3
S -4
S -4
S -5
S -5
S -7
S-7
S -8
I- 1
I-2
1-4
I- 5
1-6
1-6
1-6
I- 6
1-7
I- 7
I- 7
1-8
I- 9
I- 9
I- 10
I- 10
I - 13
1-14
ALTERNATIVES
A.
Alternative Development Process
General
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Organization of Section
Summary of Conclusions
6.
Range of Improvement Concepts Considered
Scoping Process
Stages of Alternative Development
II - 1
II - 1
II- 1
II- 1
II - 3
II- 3
II- 5
B.
II- 8
Preliminary Alternatives
1.
2.
3.
II-8
Major Constraints Affecting Alternative Development
Preliminary Belmont Bypass Alternatives
Preliminary Rural Alternatives
II- 10
II -11
II- 11
4.
C.
Preliminary Mineral Point Bypass Alternatives
5.
Preliminary Rural Relocation Alternatives
Alternatives Selected for Initial Stage Detailed Study .
Descriptions
1.
2.
3.
D.
II - 13
II- 14
II- 15
II- 18
Initial Impact Analysis
Conclusions
II- 26
Alternatives Selected for Supplementary Study
Build Alternative
1.
2.
No-Build Alternative
II- 30
II-31
.
II -32
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Land Use and Related Characteristics
A.
III - 1
1.
2.
3.
Geographical Setting O
Transportation
Residential Land Use
4.
5.
Commercial/ Industrial Land Use
Institutional Land Use
6.
7.
Agricultural Land Use
Cemeteries ...
III - 1
III- 2
III- 4
B.
III-6
III - 6
Land Use Planning and Zoning
8.
Socioeconomic Characteristics
2.
3.
Population Levels and Trends
Minority Population
Income and Tax Base
4.
Work Force
1.
III- 5
III- 7
III- 7
.
.
III- 10
.
C.
III- 9
III - 9
Community Services
5.
Environmental and Related Resources
III- 10
III - 11
III- 12
.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Surface Water Resources
Wetlands
Groundwater and Drinking Water Supply
Upland Habitat
Wildlife
7.
8.
Endangered or Threatened Species
Natural and Conservancy Areas
Public Use Lands .
9.
10.
Archaeological Resources
Historic Resources
6.
13.
III- 14
III- 17
III- 17
III- 18
III-20
III-21
III - 22
III- 24
III-26
11. Mines
12.
III- 13
III- 13
III-27
Soils ..
Hazardous Materials
III - 28
14. Noise ..
15. Visual and Aesthetic Resources
III-29
III- 29
III- 30
ii
IV
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Land Use and Related Impacts
A.
Land Use Planning
1.
B.
Transportation
2.
3.
Secondary Impacts
Agricultural Impacts
4.
Socioeconomic Impacts
Neighborhoods and Community Cohesion . .
Access to Facilities and Services
3.
Residential and Business Relocations •
Economic Impacts
4.
Environmental and Related Resource Impacts 0
Surface Water Resources
1.
Wetlands
2.
1.
2.
C.
Floodplains
Groundwater and Drinking Water Supply
Upland Habitat
IV
IV
IV
6.
7.
Endangered or Threatened Species .
Natural and Conservancy Areas
IV
IV
IV
IV
11. Archaeological Resources /Section 106 Review
12. Historic Resources /Section 106 Review
13. Hazardous Materials .
14. Air Quality .
15. Noise ....
16.
17.
V
VI
Visual and Aesthetic Resources
Beneficial Reuse
18. Energy
19. Construction Impacts
Permits and Related Approvals
Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
ONLY PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE FINDING
A. Introduction
B.
Practicable Alternatives
C. Determination of No Practicable Alternative
D.
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
3.
4.
5.
Lands Potentially Subject to Section 4 (f) Requirements .
8.
Lands Subject to Section 4 (f) Requirements
9.
10. Other Public Use Lands
D.
E.
IV - 1
IV - 1
IV - 3
IV - 4
IV - 5
IV -6
IV - 6
IV - 7
Measures to Minimize Harm
to Wetlands
-8
-9
- 10
- 10
- 12
- 14
- 14
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 16
- 19
IV - 21
IV -22
IV -25
IV -29
IV - 30
IV -32
IV -37
IV -40
IV -40
IV -41
IV -42
IV -42
V -1
V -1
V -2
V -2
MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ADVERSE IMPACTS
VI- 1
A.
B.
C.
Introduction
Acquisition /Relocation
Traffic
D.
Water Quality, Hydrology , and Hydraulics
E.
F.
Wetlands
Wildlife
•
iii
VI- 1
VI- 2
VI- 2
VI- 2
VI- 3
G.
Pecatonica Trail
H.
Archaeological Resources
Air Quality
Noise
1.
J.
K.
L.
M.
VII
VIII
VI- 3
VI- 3
VI- 4
VI- 4
VI-6
Visual and Aesthetic Resources
Borrow and Disposal
Farmlands
VI-6
VI-7
SECTION 4 (f)/ 6 (f) EVALUATION
A.
Proposed Action
B.
Property Affected
VII - 1
VII - 1
C.
Impacts on Pecatonica (Calamine - Platteville ) Trail Property
VII- 3
VII - 3
VII - 3
D.
Options for Crossing
1.
Impacts
2.
Avoidance Alternatives
E.
F.
Measures to Minimized Harm
Coordination
VII -4
VII -5
VII-6
COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
Public Involvement
A.
VIII - 1
VIII- 1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Project Newsletters .
News Releases
6.
7.
Additional Public Involvement Meetings
Written Comments
VIII- 1
Toll -Free Telephone
Local Government Meetings
Public Information Meetings
VIII- 1
VIII- 1
VIII- 2
B.
Agency Coordination
1.
State Agencies
Federal Agencies
2.
VIII- 4
VIII -5
VIII-5
VIII- 5
VIII- 8
IX
LIST OF PREPARERS
x
REFERENCES
IX - 1,2,3
X - 1,2
XI
INDEX
XI- 1,2
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
S- 1
Summary of Impacts
S -6,7
I- 1
I- 2
I- 3
1-4
1-5
1-6
Existing Rural Horizontal Curve Design Speeds
Existing Rural Vertical Curve Design Speeds
Existing Access to USH 151 .
Level of Service Characteristics
1-8
1-9
Level of Service Projections - No-Build Alternative
Crash Summary Five - Year (1987-1991)
1-10
I- 11
1-12
1-13
II - 1
II- 2
Alternative Development Process Schematic
Study Alternatives - Summary of Impacts
II - 2
II- 27
III- 1
Existing Land Use
III -2
Agricultural Land Use
III-3
III- 4
III- 5
Population Trends - Southwest Region .
Population Projections - Area Communities
1991 Effective Tax Rates ...
III -4
III- 7
III- 10
III- 10
III-6
III- 7
III - 8
Employment by Industry and Occupation
Wetlands in Project Area
Wetland Community Vegetation
III- 9
Wetland Functional Assessment Summary
III- 11
III- 12
III- 14
III - 15
III- 17
III- 19
III-20
III- 10 Vegetation Observed in Project Area ..
III-11 Fish Species Likely to be Found in the Project Area
IV - 1
IV - 2
IV -3
Surface Water Intersections
Wetland Areas Potentially Impacted
Wooded Areas Potentially Impacted
IV -4
IV -5
Archaeological and Mining Resource - Areas Potentially Impacted
Noise Analysis Summary - No-Build Alternative ..
IV -6
Noise Analysis Summary - Build Alternative
IV
IV
IV
IV
-11
- 12
- 14
-22
IV - 32
IV -34
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure
1-1
1-2
I- 3
1-4
1-5
Project Location
Southwestern Region Transportation Routes
WDOT Corridors 2020 Multi-Lane Backbone System
Connection to National Highway System
Level of Service Illustrations
V
1-16
1-17
.
1-18
I- 19
I-20
II- 1
Typical Urban Roadway Sections - Build on Existing Alignment
II- 2
II - 3
II-33
II- 34
Alternative Costs and Highway User Benefits
Route Preference Survey Tabulation
II-35
III- 1
III- 2
III- 3
Pecatonica River Basin
Recreational Areas
General Location of Mined Areas in Project Study Area
III-33
III- 34
III-4
Spensley Farm Historic District
III- 35
VII- 1
VII-2
Typical Cross Sections - Calamine- Platteville Trail Crossing
Preliminary Belmont Bypass Alternatives Considered .
VII - 8
III - 32
VII - 9
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit
Typical Roadway Sections
Preliminary Alternatives
Detailed Study Initial Stage Alternatives
5
6
Bypass Alternatives
Build Alternative
7
Viewscape from Spensley -Sharp Historic District
Pecatonica Trail Crossing - Overpass Option
Mineral Point Development Plan
8
9
Appendix
A
B
С
D
E
F
G
Draft EIS Distribution List
Correspondence - Pre-Draft
Correspondence - Post-Draft (not used )
Noise Analysis
Conceptual Stage Relocation Plan
Cost/ Benefit Analysis
Draft Agricultural Impact Statement
R /USH151/TOC.ASF
vi
1
LIST OF APPENDICES
1
1
Traffic Projections
2
3
4
--
SUMMARY
A.
PROJECT LOCATION
The segment of USH 151 evaluated in this document is located in southern Iowa and
northern Lafayette Counties in southwestern Wisconsin . The project begins about 1.6 km
( 1.0 mile ) west of the Village of Belmont (Lafayette County ) and extends northeasterly
approximately 32 km (20 miles) to the existing 4 -lane section of USH 151 south of
Dodgeville (Iowa County ). A project location map is shown on Figure 1-1. Included as part
of the analysis are bypasses around the Village of Belmont and the City of Mineral Point.
B.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND STUDY AREA
It is proposed to develop USH 151 as a 4 -lane divided roadway with access management
that will allow for uninterrupted travel with a 89 km /h (55 mph ) speed limit. With the
exception of the two community bypasses, the project involves the addition of two driving
lanes and a median adjacent to existing USH 151, which will generally serve as the location
for the other two lanes of the future 4 -lane highway.
The 32 km
(20-mile ) segment of USH 151 from Belmont to Dodgeville is one of the two
remaining sections of USH 151 (the other is Dickeyville to Belmont) needing improvement
in order to have a continuous 4 -lane facility between Dubuque and Madison . This segment
from Belmont to Dodgeville has logical termini.
The completion of this project does not
require or preclude development of the remaining section and does not preclude future
options.
This action is part of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation's (WDOT) Corridors
2020 plan , which includes a backbone network of multilane divided highways connecting all
regions and major economic centers in the state and tying them
interstate highways.
C.
to the national network of
PURPOSE AND NEED
The proposed project is being undertaken to improve route safety, provide for future
mobility needs, maintain continuity of the overall route, and to enhance regional economic
development.
USH 151 is considered to be southwestern Wisconsin’s principal highway, linking the two
major population centers of Dubuque and Madison. Locally , the area is predominantly
agricultural in nature. On a national basis, however, the area is part of the America's
midwest region and is an integral part of the Corn Belt and the American Dairy Belt.
USH 151 provides a vital transportation link and tie for Wisconsin to these surrounding
regional areas and provides the local area access to a wider range of transportation
alternatives, including commercial airlines, intercity bus, rail freight, and river barge options.
S-1
In recent years, industrial activity and tourism
have become strong economic forces. There
are 20 industrial parks throughout the 5 -county area of southwestern Wisconsin , including
sites at Platteville , Mineral Point, and Dodgeville. The importance of this route as a
corridor in the movement of goods serving Wisconsin’s industry , businesses, and agriculture
is in evidence by the high percentage of truck traffic using this route (approximately
15 percent of the average daily traffic). Major tourism attractions throughout the area
include:
House on the Rock and Governor Dodge State Park (both just north of
Dodgeville ); the Pendarvis site and other historical attractions in Mineral Point; several
recreational trails; the Wisconsin and MississippiRivers ; and casino river boat gambling in
the Dubuque area . With the exception of USH 151, allmajor roadways in the southwestern
region of Wisconsin are 2 -lane highways.
Service expectations for the Corridors 2020 backbone system are for a multilane freeway or
expressway providing uninterrupted 89 km /h (55 mph ) traffic flow . There are numerous
deficiencies which prevent the existing USH 151 facility from serving its intended function
in the regional and statewide highway network .
The existing profile does not provide passing opportunities, except at locations of auxiliary
truck climbing lanes. Much of the traffic on this route has origins and destinations located
outside of the project and conflicts with slower local traffic and farm machinery . Existing
superelevation rates on 21 horizontal curves in the rural segments are deficient, with seven
curves providing less than a 72 km / h (45 mph) design speed .
Speed reductions are required with the two urbanized areas of the project, Belmont and
Mineral Point. Numerous intersections and driveways within these urban areas, including
a 90 -degree intersection in Belmont, adversely affect the operational characteristics of the
highway and contribute to accidents. The large volume of through traffic , including a large
percentage of trucks, is a safety concern for the residents of Belmont and Mineral Point, as
well as an inconvenience to local mobility .
The vertical geometry of the existing highway in the rural segments is deficient in many
locations. Adequate sight distance is not provided at 24 vertical curves, three of which
provide for less than a 64 km /h (40 mph ) design speed . Grades of 6 percent or steeper
occur in several locations.
The large number of rural access points, particularly access by slow -moving farm vehicles,
adversely affects operation of the 2-lane highway. The existing average daily traffic (ADT)
on USH 151 ranges from 5,100 vehicles south of Mineral Point to 9,140 vehicles north of
Mineral Point. The traffic is forecasted to increase by approximately 50 percent by the year
2020. As traffic volumes increase , all of the problems discussed above will become more
severe . The Level of Service (LOS) for all segments of the project will fall below level " E "
( undesirable ) by the design year with a No- Build Alternative .
Improvement of the existing USH 151 corridor to a 4- lane facility has lon been foster
g
ed
by the area communities. These interests have been expressed not only verbally at WDOT
meetings and hearings held throughout the region, but also through the coordinating efforts
of the Southwestern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SWWRPC ) in many of their
S -2
planning documents developed for the area. This project is consistent with the goals and
objectives of plans developed for the area. On December 16 , 1993, the SWWRPC and the
local units of government along the project corridor endorsed the transportation
improvements to USH 151 between Belmont and Dodgeville with a resolution.
D. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The criteria used in evaluating each alternative (including the No-Build Alternative) include:
route length and access locations; farmland and farm severances; impacts to wetlands and
wooded habitats; effects on streams and floodplains; residential and business relocations;
historic impacts; potential archaeological impacts; mine and potentially hazardous site
impacts ; anticipated Highway User Benefits; and construction costs. Additional right of way
acreage , building impacts, severances, and landlocks were determined for each parcel along
each alignment.
1.
Improvement Concepts
The initial concept development included three potential categories of improvement: a
No -Build Alternative; Build Alternatives on the existing USH 151 alignment; and Build
Alternatives providing bypasses on new alignment around the communities of Belmont and
Mineral Point.
The No -Build Alternative was carried throughout the entire alternative development process
and serves as a baseline for comparison of Build Alternatives and for evaluation of their
environmental impacts.
The Build Alternative on existing alignment improvements would include reconstruction of
the existing roadway in the rural segments, along with construction of auxiliary lanes or two
additional travel lanes. In the urban areas, alternatives would include widening for left- and
right- turn lanes, geometric improvements at intersections, and possible removal of parking .
The concept of building on an existing alignment through the urban areas was not given
detailed consideration beyond the concept stage. This alternative would result in an
unacceptable level of impacts; it was opposed by the affected communities ; and it would not
meet the purpose and need of the project. Within Mineral Point and Belmont, the existing
rightof way is bordered by cemeteries, historic properties, churches, schools, and parks. All
of existing USH 151 in the City of Mineral Point is within a National Register Historic
District, and any right of way acquisition would potentially need to meet the requirements
of Section 4 (f) of the U.S. DOT Act. The Village of Belmont is likewise a historically
sensitive area.
The Build Alternative with community bypasses concept was based on providing a 4 -lane
divided facility utilizing the existing highway corridor to the extent practical, with bypasses
of the Village of Belmont and the City of Mineral Point. Freeway access control standards
( no access except at interchanges) would be implemented along the bypass portions of the
route .
Expressway standards, permitting at-grade intersections and farm accesses at
S-3
1
controlled spacings, would be applied to the rural segments located along the existing
alignment.
2.
Preliminary Alternative Development
Several bypass alternatives for both communities were considered. Rural relocation was
investigated and considered reasonable when specific circumstances supported deviating
from the existing alignment.
Four preliminary alternative bypasses of Belmontwere developed: three located northwest
of the Village and one located east and south of the Village .
All Belmont bypass
alternatives included a single interchange providing access to the Village . Following
preliminary analysis and comments received at public meetings, the east bypass of Belmont
was dropped from further consideration , and the northwest bypass alternatives were
consolidated into a single alternative .
The addition of two lanes along the existing alignmentwas identified as the only practical
and prudent alternative for the rural segment of the project between Belmontand Mineral
Point. Impacts were minimized by locating the new lanes to the east of the existing 2 -lane
highway for most of this segment.
Four preliminary alternative bypasses of Mineral Point were developed , including three
alternativeswest of the City and one east of the City . Each alternative included extensions
or realignment of existing roads to provide interchange access to the City . North of Mineral
Point, relocated corridors east and west of the existing alignment were developed , in
addition to
alignment.
the alternative of adding
two lanes approximately parallel to the existing
Following preliminary analysis and comments received at public meetings, portions of the
preliminary Mineral Point bypass alternatives were modified or rejected , and an additional
bypass alternative west of Ludden Lake was developed . North of Mineral Point, the
addition of two lanes to the existing alignment remained under consideration, as well as a
subalternative for a relocated corridor west of the existing alignment.
3.
Detailed Study
The preliminary alternative development process resulted in a single alternative bypass of
Belmont, a single alternative for the rural segmentbetween Belmont and Mineral Point, and
four alternative bypasses of Mineral Point (and one subalternative) being selected for
detailed investigation . Engineering analysis was performed , sufficient to permit an accurate
assessment of the environmental impacts of these remaining reasonable and viable
alternatives . The results of the initial stage of detailed study for these alternatives are
summarized in Table II -2 .
Based on the initial stage of detailed study, only one Build Alternative was determined to
be prudent, and this alternative was carried forward for supplementary detailed study, along
S -4
with the No-Build Alternative . The results of the supplementary stage of detailed study are
presented in Section IV and are summarized in Table S- 1.
4.
Selected Alternatives
a.
No- Build Alternative
The No -Build Alternative is defined as consisting of no major improvements to existing
USH 151 other than normal pavementmaintenance or localized upgrades. There would be
no increase in traffic capacity or flow characteristics. There would be no acquisition of right
ofway within the Mineral Point Historic District. Such acquisition would potentially be
required to meet 4 (f) requirements. The No-Build serves as a baseline for comparison of
the Build Alternative and evaluation of its environmental impacts.
b.
Build Alternative
The Build Alternative consists of the combination of a single alternative bypass at Belmont,
the single alternative for the rural segment between Belmont and Mineral Point, and a
single alternative bypass on the west side of Mineral Point, with the addition of two lanes
to the existing highway for the rural area north of Mineral Point. The single Build
Alternative, which has emerged from the alternative development process , is identified as
the preferred alternative and is shown on Exhibit 6 .
The Build Alternative involves upgrading the existing 2 -lane highway to a 4-lane divided
highway with a 60 -foot wide median between project termini. It includes a transition at the
south end to match the existing 2-lane highway . Where thenew highway follows the existing
alignment, the new lanes will be added at a minimum of 60 feet from the existing highway
to allow for use of the existing road during construction of the new lanes. Some or all of
the existing roadway will be reconstructed to correct geometric deficiencies and provide
adequate clear zones. Bypasses will be provided at Belmont and Mineral Point.
The interchange proposed for the Belmont Bypass willbe at CTH G (north ). Interchanges
proposed for the Mineral Point Bypass will be near CTH O south of the City and near
Barreltown Road north of the City. At- grade local road and private property access
(including field entrances) will be allowed along the non -bypass project sections. However,
to the extent possible, the number of access points will be controlled through combining
entrances, connecting driveways to adjacent side roads, and acquisition of access rights by
the WDOT. For the bypass sections, local roads will be grade separated from the new
highway and private property access points will not be allowed.
E.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The primary environmental impacts associated with the Build Alternative includes
agricultural land acquisition and severances, residential and business relocations, potential
effects on archaeological resources, and use of Section 4 (f) land. Table S - 1 summarizes the
impacts for the No -Build Alternative and the Build Alternative.
S -5
Table S - 1
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
ALTERNATIVE
IMPACT FACTOR
NO -BUILD
BUILD
Route Length
31.2 km (19.4 miles )
30.9 km ( 19.2 miles)
Construction Cost (1993 $ millions)
Pavement Maintenance Costs ( 1993 $ million )
Highway User Benefits (1993 $ millions)
Highway Safety
0
6.2
0
49.6
4.3
51.7
No Improvement
Improvement
Geometric Deficiencies
Inadequate Stopping Sight
Distance and Superelevation
None
Traffic Flow
Increased Delays, LOS E in
year 2020
Regional Transportation Network
Smooth Flow , LOS B in year
2020
Not Compatible
Consistent with Regional and
Statewide Transportation Plans
Additional Right of Way Required
Cropland
Pasture / Other Farmland
Wetlands
Woodland
Other
0
0
0
0
0
0
Farm Operation Impacts
Severances ( each )
Landlocked Parcels ( each )
Landlocked Parcels
0
0
0
Building Impacts
Residential Relocations (each )
Commercial Relocations ( each )
Other Buildings Impacted ( each )
275 ha (680 acres)
151 ha (374 acres)
104 ha ( 256 acres)
0.2 ha (0.5 acres)
8 ha ( 19 acres)
13 ha (31 acres)
13
6
46 ha (114 acres )
0
0
0
Cottage Inn Branch
Pecatonica River
Mineral Point Branch
Unnamed Streams
Historic Properties Impacted
Prehistoric Archaeological Sites Impacted
Historic Mining-Related Sites Impacted
1
1 1 1 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
New Stream Crossings (each )
Bonner Branch
Whiteside Branch
7
3
4
5
0
0
0
Non -Historic Mine Impacts
Hazardous Material Sites Impacted (each )
None
Noise Impacts
None
0
3
7
Minor
Note (1 )
Yes
Yes
S -6
Table S - 1
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
ALTERNATIVE
IMPACT FACTOR
NO -BUILD
BUILD
No
No
4 ( ) Impacts
None
Pecatonica Recreational Trail
Endangered Species Impacts
None
None
Community Support
Low
High
Air Quality Impacts
NOTES:
( 1) Six sites require further investigation .
F.
OTHER ACTIVITIES REQUIRED
nd
Selection of the Build Alternative may affect properties eligible for inclusion on the
NationalRegister of Historic Places and requires compliance with the requirements of the
National Historic Preservation Act in consultation with the State Historic Preservation
Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation .
Stream and wetland involvement associated with selection of the Build Alternative is subject
to individual permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Relocation Assistance Plans for displaced residences and businesses require approvalby the
Wisconsin Department of Industry, Labor, and Human Relations per Section 32.25 ,
Wisconsin Statutes.
The use ofSection 4 (f) lands for the crossing of the Pecatonica (Calamine- Platteville ) Trail
requires coordination with the U.S. Department of Interior and the Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources and is discussed in the Draft 4 (f)/ 6 (f) Evaluation prepared as
Section VII of this Draft EIS.
The bypass alternatives will require a change in the official location of USH 151 per
Section 84 , Wisconsin Statutes. In addition , jurisdictional transfer of portions of the existing
highway would be required.
G. REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
The planning, agency coordination , public involvement, and impact evaluation for the
project having been conducted in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act,
the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, Executive
Orders regardingwetland and floodplain protection , the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act,
the National Historic Preservation Act, the Farmland Protection Policy Act, and other state
S -7
and
federal laws, policies, and procedures
for environmental impact analyses and
preparation of environmental documents.
H. OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCY ACTIONS
The WDOT currently has two construction projects in the general vicinity of the project
corridor. One is the reconstruction of STH 23 from Dodgeville to Spring Green , and the
other is the adding of two lanes to existing USH 151 between Dubuque and Dickeyville .
Both of these projects are located beyond any of the alternatives considered for this project
and, thus, would have no effect on the study analyses or conclusions.
L L
The SWWRPC is currently evaluating the feasibility of connecting the Military Ridge
Recreational Trail north of Dodgeville with the Cheese Country Trail atMineral Point. The
WDOT has indicated its willingness and support to incorporate the connecting trail within
the new right of way for this project if the trail is determined to be feasible.
-
There are no other significant actions proposed by other government agencies in the same
geographic area as the proposed project. This has been determined through coordination
with the SWWRPC, local officials , and an extensive public involvement process described
in Section VIII of this report.
C.
R /USH151/Summary.JFO
녀
=
1
S -8
SECTION I
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION
The segment of USH 151 evaluated in this document is located in southern Iowa County
and northern Lafayette County in Southwestern Wisconsin . The project begins about 1.6 km
( 1.0 mile ) west of the Village of Belmont and extendsnortheasterly 32 km (20 miles) to the
existing 4 -lane section of USH 151 south of Dodgeville (see Figure I- 1, Project Location).
Included as part of the analysis are bypasses around the Village of Belmont and the City of
Mineral Point.
This proposed project is being undertaken to improve route safety, provide for future
mobility needs, maintain continuity of the overall route , and to enhance regional economic
development. It is proposed to develop USH 151 as a 4 -lane divided roadway with access
management that will allow for uninterrupted travel with a 89 km / h (55 mph ) speed limit .
With the exception of the two community bypasses, the project involves the addition of two
driving lanes and a median adjacent to existing USH 151, which will generally serve as the
location for the other two lanes of the future 4 -lane highway .
This action is part of the Wisconsin Departmentof Transportation's (WDOT) Corridors 2020
plan , which includes a backbone network of multilane divided highways connecting all
regions and major economic centers in the State and tying them to the national network of
Interstate Highways. The alternatives evaluated in this document have been developed to
meet the project needs, provide acceptable engineering standards, and avoid or minimize
harm to natural resources, cultural resources, and adjacent development and land use to the
extent practicable .
The proposed improvementmay be funded by State and Federal monies. It is intended that
the improvement be presented to the State Transportation Projects Commission (TPC ) in
1994 for consideration of its inclusion as a major project in a future program . If the TPC
accepts the project for inclusion, it is anticipated that real estate activities could occur in the
late 1990s, with construction activities being initiated in the year 2000 to 2002 .
A.
SYSTEM
LINKAGE AND ROUTE IMPORTANCE
USH 151begins at Cedar Rapids, Iowa, transversing through Dubuque, Iowa, and Madison,
Wisconsin , before terminating in Manitowoc, Wisconsin .
This route is the major
northeast-southwest route between eastern Iowa and the industrial Fox River Valley region
of Wisconsin (See Figures 1-2 and 1-3). The importance of this route as a corridor in the
movement of goods serving Wisconsin's industry, businesses, and agriculture is in evidence
by the high percentage of truck traffic using this route (approximately 15 percent of the
average daily traffic). USH 151 has been designated as a long truck route, which allows
tractor /semitrailer combinations of up to 20 m
1-1
(65 feet) long to use the highway .
Wisconsin's highways are grouped into functional classes according to the character of
service they provide. The classification hierarchy consists of principal arterials, minor
arterials, collectors, and local roads. USH 151, in its entirety , is classified as a Principal
Arterial intended to serve as a major roadway for long distance trips across the State and
region . With the exception of USH 151, all major roadways in the southwestern 5 -county
region of Wisconsin are 2 -lane highways. USH 151 is considered to be the region's principal
highway as it connects the two major population centers of Dubuque and Madison.
Continued access to the south and west portions of the United States is through Dubuque,
and continued access to the north , south , and east portions is at Madison where USH 151
connects with IH - 90 / 94 .
USH 151 is designated as a " backbone component" in Wisconsin's Corridor 2020 plan (see
Figure 1-3 , WDOT Corridors 2020 Multilane Backbone System ).
This plan has been
developed to provide a network of high quality highways linking the economic centers in the
State with each other and to the National Highway System . Backbone components consist
service and safety
of multilane, divided highways designed to provide maximum
characteristics .
These routes are augmented by connectors that link other significant
economic and recreational resources throughout the State and region .
The Dubuque to Dickeyville section of USH 151 is currently under construction as a 4 - lane
facility and is scheduled to be completed in 1994. The Dodgeville to Verona section of
USH 151 was completed to a 4 - lane facility in 1991. The Verona Bypass section is currently
under construction as a 4 -lane facility and is scheduled for completion in 1994. The 32 km
(20-mile) segment ofUSH 151 from Belmont to Dodgeville is one of two remaining sections
of USH 151 (the other is Dickeyville to Belmont) needing improvement in order to have
a continuous 4 -lane facility between Dubuque and Madison . The segment from Belmont
to Dodgeville is of sufficient length to address environmental matters on a broad scope, has
independent utility, and does not require or preclude development of the remaining section
or future options.
USH 151 is designated as a component of Wisconsin's portion of the National Highway
System . Highways in the national system serve major population centers, rural areas, ports,
airports, and international border crossings ; meet national defense requirements ; and serve
interstate and inter-regional travel.
National Highway System .
B.
LEGISLATIVE AND
Figure 1-4 shows the project's connection to the
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING HISTORY
Improvement of the existing USH 151 corridor to a 4- lane facility has long been fostered
by the area communities . These interests have been expressed not only verbally at WDOT
meetings and hearings held throughout the region , but also through the coordinating efforts
ofthe Southwestern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SWWRPC ) in many of their
planning documents developed for the area. While there are no formal local transportation
plans, many of the planning documents have transportation goals and objectives. These
goals and objectives reinforce the need for, and shows the long- term interest in , the
improvements for USH 151. A summary of the legislative and transportation planning
history regarding USH
151 follows.
I- 2
1
The Overall Economic Development Program for Southwestern Wisconsin Planning Report
No. 58 , prepared by the SWWRPC February 1985 , notes that " Local governments and the
Southwestern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission have long urged that the entire
highway between Dubuque and Madison should be completed to a 4 -lane divided highway ."
The Mineral Point Wisconsin Comprehensive Planning Program Planning Report No. 59,
prepared by the SWWRPC July 1985, notes " The most important consideration for the city
involving transportation is the preservation of the U.S. Highway 151 corridor. Excessive
development along the highway with unregulated access points will limit the usefulness of
the corridor for future 4- lane expansion of U.S. Highway 151. This is especially important
north and south of the city since additional development here could alter the future
alignment of the highway."
In March 1989 , the WDOT submitted their Corridors 2020 plan describing proposed
backbone and connector components of the State's highway system , along with an
implementation schedule for completing construction of the backbone system by 2005. The
USH 151 Corridor (Dubuque to Madison ) was included as a backbone corridor.
The 1989 report noted that to complete a freeway / expressway corridor between Dubuque
and Madison, 71 km (44 miles) of multilane improvements would be required under the
Corridors 2020 program . Since the time of that report, three Transportation Projects
Commissions have enumerated major projects as multilane facilities. They include the
Sandy Hook to Dickeyville ,Mt. Horeb to Verona, and Verona Bypass segments for a total
of 32 km (20 miles ). The remaining link in this corridor is the Dickeyville to Dodgeville
section, of which this project is a portion of. This project from Belmont to Dodgeville can
be completed independent of the Dickeyville to Belmont section and does not hinder future
options for development of that section .
In August 1989, the WDOT adopted a statewide plan for managing access on the State
highway system . The purpose of the plan is to set forth policies and guidelines that will
maintain a high level of service for through traffic while providing reasonable access to
abutting properties. The plan's goal is to seek a balance between public investments in
highway improvements and the desire for land development, tax base growth , and job
creation . USH 151 is designated as a corridor on the statewide plan on which managed
access is essential to maintain the required high level of service .
In May 1992, RUST Environment & Infrastructure (f /k / a / Donohue & Associates, Inc.)was
selected by the WDOT to develop and evaluate alternatives for upgrading USH 151
between Belmont and Dodgeville to a 4 -lane divided highway.
In July 1992, as part of the TPC's public hearing process for selection of major project
candidates, USH 151 from Belmont to Dodgeville was identified as one of two statewide
projects for which engineering and environmental analysis was already underway.
Additionally , USH 151 from Dickeyville to Belmont was identified as one of eight 1992
candidates for engineering / environmental study.
1-3
The Overall Economic Development Program Update Planning Report No. 97, prepared
by the SWWRPC June 1993, notes " Special emphasis should be placed on the completion
of a 4 -lane expressway from Madison to Dubuque , and places beyond. Several sections of
this highway are already under construction as a 4 -lane facility, and a study is being
conducted (or soon will be) on the remaining sections to expressway status. This highway
provides a link to the Interstate system and to Milwaukee and other cities in Eastern
Wisconsin , as well as other principal highways in Iowa."
C.
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND /ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
The portion of USH
151 evaluated in
this document lies in
southwestern Wisconsin .
Locally, the area is predominantly agricultural in nature, but is strongly influenced by the
urban centers of Dubuque and Madison . On a more national basis, the area is a part of
America's Midwest region and is an integral part of the Corn Belt and the American Dairy
Belt .
The Corn Belt includes parts of the midwestern states of Wisconsin , Iowa, Illinois,
Minnesota, Indiana, Ohio , Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, and South Dakota . It is noted for
its high degree of interrelationship between corn as a feed grain and the raising of hogs and
cattle. The northern portion of this region, which includes southwestern Wisconsin , reflects
the Dairy Belt because of its cooler summers and relatively rough topography which make
dairying more feasible in Corn Belt agriculture.
Agricultural activities in southwestern Wisconsin become linked to these broader regions
of the midwest, reflecting their economic patterns. USH 151 provides a vital transportation
link and tie for Wisconsin to these surrounding regional areas and provides access to a wider
range of transportation alternatives, including commercial airlines, rail, and river barge
options.
Early settlers were attracted to the area by the abundant lead resources, but by the 1850s,
lead mining had reached its peak and agricultural development was becoming the
predominant activity . In recent years, industrial activity and tourism have become strong
-
economic forces in the region although agriculture is still the primary economic activity in
southwestern Wisconsin .
In lowa County , retail trade is the number one source of income (farming is the second
source ) due in part to the rapid growth of Lands' End, Inc., a direct mail-order house
headquartered in Dodgeville. In Lafayette County , farming is the largest source of income
by far .
Southwestern Wisconsin is greatly influenced by the urban centers of Dubuque and Madison .
Platteville and Dodgeville are identified as Primary Growth Centers and Mineral Point as
a Secondary Growth Center of the southwestern Wisconsin region in SWWRPC's 1993
Overall Economic Development Program Update Planning Report.
Each of these
communities are directly linked to USH 151 and are dependant upon the corridor for major
transportation movement.
1-4
There are 20 industrial parks located throughout the 5-county area of southwestern
Wisconsin , including sites at Platteville, Mineral Point, and Dodgeville. Excluding the
Dodgeville industrial park , since 1962 only about 0.71 ha (1.75 acres) of land per year has
been sold in 14 industrial parks which have had land sales. The lack of a 4 -lane expressway
through the region is one factor often
development in southwestern Wisconsin .
cited as a
liability
for increased
industrial
The Dodgeville Industrial Park originally developed by the City in 1980 as a 19 -ha (47 -acre )
industrial park is a special case. Today, the site is referred to as the "Lands' End site," as
it was purchased entirely by the company. Lands' End has since expanded far beyond the
original site. Dodgeville is located midway between Dubuque and Madison in the USH 151
corridor. The decision to build the Lands' End corporation can be attributed in great part
to the availability of the continuous 4 - lane USH 151 link between Dodgeville and Madison.
The City of Mineral Point has recently purchased a 27 -ha (67-acre ) site immediately north
of the city on existing USH 151 for future use as an industrial park . A diamond interchange
is part of this proposed USH 151 improvement project for the north end of the city and will
be located adjacent to this industrial park site to provide good access.
Tourism is also becoming a strong economic and transportation factor in the region . Within
the last several years, there has been a major impact from tourism in Dubuque as they have
successfully promoted dog track racing and river boat gambling casinos. In addition ,
southwestern Wisconsin has considerable tourism potential due to its varied landscape,
natural scenic beauty, and numerous historic attractions. Major tourism attractions
throughout the area include Stonefield Village at Cassville, the House on the Rock just
north of Dodgeville , the Pendarvis House and other historical attractions at Mineral Point,
Governor Dodge State Park north of Dodgeville, the Wisconsin and Mississippi Rivers,
several recreational bicycle trails, and the Chicago Bears training camp at Platteville. The
USH 151 corridor provides a significant transportation link to all of these activities.
D.
LOCAL COMMUNITY INTERESTS
On a regional basis , improvement of the existing USH 151 corridor from Dubuque to
Madison to a 4 - lane facility has long been fostered by the area communities. These
interests have been expressed not only verbally at WDOT meetings and hearings held
throughout the region , but also through the coordinating efforts of the SWWRPC in many
of their planning documents developed for the area . On December 16 , 1993, the SWWRPC
and local units of government along the project corridor endorsed the transportation
improvements to USH 151 with a resolution regarding the completion ofUSH 151 between
Dodgeville and Belmont. A copy of this resolution is included in Appendix B , pages B -50 ,
51, and 52.
Specific to the Belmont to Dodgeville segment of USH
itemswere noted :
151, the following local interest
5
I
1.
Belmont Area
Based on USH 151 project informational meetings and Bypass Study Committee meetings
held in the Belmont area ,many residents, adjoining property owners, farmers, and business
people expressed interest and concurred with the need for a 4 -lane bypass facility for the
community.
2.
Belmont to Mineral Point Area
Based on USH 151 project informational meetings held in the Belmont and Mineral Point
areas, many residents, adjoining property owners, and farmers expressed interest and
concurred with the need for a 4 -lane facility utilizing the existing corridor.
3.
Mineral Point Area
Based on USH 151 project informational meetings, Bypass Study Committee meetings, and
Planning Commission meetings held in Mineral Point, many residents, farmers, and business
people expressed interest and concurred with the need for a 4 -lane bypass facility for the
community.
On August 3, 1993, the City of Mineral Point passed a resolution stating that the City
supports the improvement of USH 151 between Dubuque and Madison to a 4 -lane facility;
the City endorses the general route described as Alternative 3B (near west side bypass ); the
City endorses the location of a southern interchange for access into the City in the vicinity
of CTH O ; the northern interchange to be located in the general vicinity of the former
Maud Dutton property,now owned by the City ( site of future industrial park ); and the route
should avoid encroaching into the City's historic district and should allow as much room as
possible for future City development on the west and northwest sides of the City. A copy
of the Resolution is included in Appendix B , pages B -34 , 35 , and 36 .
The Mineral Point Chamber of Commerce, in a letter dated September 18, 1992, stated
their interest as being strongly in favor of an improved 4 -lane highway system between
Dickeyville and Dodgeville and noted their support for a west side bypass with two
interchanges. The Chamber also noted that many people were concerned about the issue
of safety with the current traffic conditions on existing USH 151 in the City . Specifically ,
they noted long wait for turns to and from businesses with concern about turning against
heavy traffic, difficulty and safety related to crossing existing USH 151 on a side street, and
safety for pedestrians with a school located right along the highway. A copy of this letter
from the Mineral Point Chamber of Commerce is attached in Appendix B , pages B -23 and
24 .
4.
Other
A Route Preference Survey questionnaire was handed out to all attendees at the May 24
and 25 , 1993, Public Information Meeting. Results of this survey showed there was strong
agreement with the opinion that it was important for the selected 4 -lane route to encourage
economic development and to shorten travel times. There was agreement with the opinion
1-6
that it was important for the selected route to provide visibility to the community, enhance
the natural and scenic viewscapes, promote tourism , and preserve the historic character of
the area .
E. MODAL RELATIONSHIPS
Southwestern Wisconsin , as part of the midwestern United States,has access to a wide range
of transportation alternatives. Within the region and project corridor, however, the area is
deficient in the specific availability of these alternate transportation modes, primarily due
to the rural nature of the area and the density and size of the area population . The
surrounding area is, therefore, highly dependent upon the USH 151 corridor to function as
a vital link for providing access to these alternate facilities.
The USH
151 corridor provides a direct link between the urban centers of Dubuque and
Madison where a variety of transportation alternatives exist tying the area to other parts of
the United States. Specifically, inter-city bus, rail freight, and air transportation service
facilities exist at Dubuque and Madison . In addition , Mississippi River barge freight
transportation service facilities exist at Dubuque.
The SWWRPC is currently evaluating the feasibility of connecting the Military Ridge
Recreational Trail north of Dodgeville with the Cheese Country Recreational Trail at
Mineral Point. The location of these recreational trails is shown on Figure III-2. The
WDOT has indicated its willingness and support to incorporate the connecting trail within
the new right of way for this project, if the trail is determined to be feasible .
F.
EXISTING HIGHWAY CHARACTERISTICS
1.
Typical Sections
Existing USH 151 within the project limits consists of approximately 26.6 km (16.5 miles)
of rural highway and approximately 5.6 km (3.5 miles) of urban street through the City of
Mineral Point and the Village of Belmont. The typical section for the majority of the rural
segments consists of two 3 -m ( 11-foot) to 4 -m ( 12 -foot) driving lanes. Shoulder widths range
from 2 m
lanes.
(7 feet) to 3 m
(11 feet), except in locations of bridges or adjacent to auxiliary
In a 4.8 -km (3.0 -mile ) segment near the Pecatonica river and the Mineral Point Branch , and
in a 1.1-km (0.7 -mile ) segment south of Dodgeville , a combination of steep grades and
length effectively reduce truck speeds. Auxiliary climbing lanes exist at these locations
(three northbound and three southbound ) to provide passing opportunities. The shoulder
width adjacent to the 3.7-m ( 12 -foot) auxiliary lanes is 1 m (3 feet), not enough to safely
accommodate disabled vehicles.
Three structures span streamsin the rural portion of the project. The structures spanning
the Cottage Inn Branch and the Mineral Point Branch each have two 3.7- m ( 12-foot) lanes
with 3-m ( 10 -foot) shoulders for a 13-m (44 -foot) clear width between the parapets. The
1-7
---
structure spanning the Pecatonica River, however, only has two 3.7 - m ( 12 -foot ) lanes with
0.3 -m (1 -foot) shoulders for a 8-m (26 -foot) width between the parapets .
Existing urban sections include the following:
A 0.8 -km (0.5 -mile ) segment within the village of Belmont having curb and gutter, with
a pavement width varying from 13 to 15 m ( 44 to 50 feet) from face-to-face of curb .
A 0.6 -km (0.4 -mile) segment in the city of Mineral Point south of Church Street having
curb and gutter, with a pavement width of 12 m (40 feet) from face -to -face of curb .
A 0.5 -km ( 0.3 -mile ) segment in the City ofMineral Point north of Church Street having
curb and gutter , with a pavement width of 9 m ( 30 feet) from face- to - face of curb .
2.
Horizontal Geometrics
According to the WDOT's Facilities Development Manual, a design speed of 105 km
(65 mph ) can be provided if the horizontal curvature of a road is less than 3 ° 30 '. Existing
USH 151 has 23 horizontal curves in the rural segments all of which are less than 3 degrees.
However, based on existing superelevation rates, most of these horizontal curves do not
provide for a 105 km (65 mph ) design speed . Table I- 1 summarizes the existing design
speed provided by the horizontal curves in the rural area.
Table 1.1
EXISTING RURAL HORIZONTAL CURVE
DESIGN SPEEDS
DESIGN SPEED
km / h (mph )
NUMBER OF CURVES
MEETING CRITERIA
> 97 (60)
2
89-97 (55-60)
5
72-89 (45-55 )
9
below 72 (45 )
7
In the urban segments , there are six horizontal curves and five horizontal deflections without
curves. There is one 3 ° 30' curve , with the remaining curves 3 degrees or flatter. The
deflections include a right angle intersection in Belmont. The other deflections occur at
intersections and vary from approximately 9 degrees to 16 degrees.
L- 8
3.
Vertical Geometrics
There are approximately
gently to steeply rolling.
terrain with a 105 km /h
14 locations. Of these
6.8 percent.
60 vertical curves in the rural segments. The terrain varies from
The recommended maximum grade for a rural arterial in rolling
(65 mph ) design speed is 4 percent. Grades exceed 4 percent in
locations, five exceed 5 percent, with the steepest grade being
In the rural segments, 28 vertical curves result in a design speed of less than 105 km /h
(65 mph ) based on a stopping sight distance of 168 m (550 feet). Table 1-2 summarizes the
number of curves in the rural segments notmeeting stopping sight criteria for speeds of
64 km / h (40 mph ) or greater.
In the urban segments, there are approximately 30 vertical curves. Grades exceed 4 percent
in six locations, 5 percent in five locations, and 6 percent in two locations, with a maximum
grade of 8.9 percent. In the urban segments, design speeds for the majority of vertical
curves fall in the range of 40 to 64 km / h (25 to 40 mph), based on minimum stopping sight
distance . Two sag curves in Belmont fall below 64 km / h (25 mph).
Table I - 2
EXISTING RURAL VERTICAL CURVE
DESIGN SPEEDS
DESIGN SPEED
STOPPING
SIGHT DISTANCE
NUMBER OF CURVES
NOTMEETING CRITERIA
km / h (mph )
m
4.
(feet)
CREST
SAG
TOTAL
105 (65 )
168 (550)
17
11
28
97 (60)
160 (525 )
13
11
24
90 (50 )
137 (450)
2
10
12
65 (40 )
84 ( 275)
1
2
3
Access
In the rural segments of the project, there are approximately 136 access points to existing
USH 151. The majority of these serve residences and farm operations, with a number of
commercial entrances .
The urban segments of USH 151 exhibit characteristics typical of main streets in small
communities. The highway serves a large number of small properties, including residential,
commercial, and public uses. There are numerous intersecting streets, including three
I-9
designated State Trunk Highways.
Table I- 3 .
The intersections and access points are summarized in
Table 1-3
EXISTING
ACCESS
TO
USH
151
RURAL
State Trunk Highways
Belmont to
Mineral Pt.
North of
Mineral Pt.
Village of
Belmont
City of
Mineral Pt.
0
0
0
2
2
2
1
1
5
10
19
Approx.
60
Approx.
80
0
0
1
South of
Belmont
County Trunk Highways
Local Roads/Streets
Commercial P.E.s
Residential P.E.s
Field Entrances
URBAN
1
TYPE OF
ACCESS
0
0
8
10
7
5
29
17
3
33
14
G. EXISTING AND FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES
The existing average daily traffic (ADT) on USH 151 ranges from 5,100 vehicles in the rural
area between Belmont and Mineral Point to 9,140 vehicles in the City of Mineral Point.
The traffic is forecasted to increase by approximately 50 percent by the year 2020. Current
and projected traffic volumes are shown on Exhibit 1. Trucks constitute approximately
15 percent of current and projected traffic, reflecting the importance of this route as a
corridor in the movement of goods serving Wisconsin's industry, businesses, and agriculture.
Current crossroad traffic exceeds 1,500 vehicles at STH
126 in Belmont and at STH
39
(west) in Mineral Point and exceeds 2,500 vehicles at STH 23 in Mineral Point.
H. LEVEL OF SERVICE
Level of Service (LOS) is a measure of a highway's ability to serve traffic demands placed
on it. Traffic volumes, truck percentages, number of driving lanes, lane widths, vertical
grades, passing opportunities, and number of access points affect LOS. Table 1-4 describes
the characteristics of each level of service, ranging from " A " to " F". Figure 1-5 illustrates
traffic conditions associated with each Level of Service for a multilane divided facility.
Levels " A " and " B " are considered desirable, while levels "D " through " F" are undesirable.
Level " C " provides for stable operations. At level " E ", traffic flow is unstable and small
traffic increases will cause substantial deterioration of the LOS.
I- 10
Table 1-4
LEVEL OF SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS
Desirable
A
Unrestricted free flow
Average running speed > 92 km / h (57 mph )
Percent time delay < 30 percent
Excellent level of drive comfort and convenience
B
Slightly restricted stable flow
Average running speed > 89 km / h (55 mph)
Percent time delay < 45 percent
Good level of drive comfort and convenience
С
Moderately restricted stable flow
Average running speed > 84 km / h (52 mph )
Percent time delay < 60 percent
Fair level of comfort and convenience
Undesirable
D
Heavily restricted flow
Average running speed > 80 km /h (50 mph)
Percent time delay < 75 percent
Poor level of driver comfort and convenience
E
Unstable flow ; traffic backups; some stoppage
Average running speed > 72 km /h (45 mph )
Percent time delay > 75 percent
High driver frustration
F
Forced flow with long backups and delays
Average running speed < 72 km / h ( 45 mph)
Percent time delay 100 percent
Maximum driver frustration
For 2 -lane highways, three parameters are used to describe service quality :
1.
2.
3.
Average travel speed .
Percent time delay.
Capacity utilization .
Average travel speed reflects the mobility function of 2-lane highways. Capacity utilization
reflects the access function and is defined as the ratio of the demand traffic flow rate to the
capacity of the facility . These two parameters are secondary measures of service quality,
with percent time delay being the primary factor.
1-11
Percent time delay is the average percent of time that all vehicles are delayed due to the
inability to pass. The percent of vehicles delayed is affected by the traffic demand and the
geometric characteristics of the highway.
Increasing traffic results in lower average speeds and a greater percentage of drivers wishing
to pass while reducing the gaps in the oncoming traffic, which would permit a passing
maneuver. Geometric characteristics, such as sharp verticalor horizontal curves, can restrict
sight distances requiring marked " no passing" zones.
The existing highway within this project is characterized by hilly terrain and numerous
geometric conditionswhich restrict sight distance. As a result, passing is permitted for only
42 percent of the rural route, including the existing truck climbing lanes. The percent " no
passing" is 58 percent for the rural areas, and if the route is taken as a whole , including the
urban areas, the figure increases to 65 percent.
Generally, in the rural areas, the 2-lane highway with 3.7 -m ( 12 -foot) lanes fail to meet level
" C " when traffic volumes exceed approximately 5,330 vehicles. The threshold for level " D "
is approximately 8000 vehicles. Table 1-5 shows the anticipated Level of Service for each
segment of the project in the year 2000 and in the design year 2020 if no improvements are
made. For all rural segments, LOS will deteriorate to level " E " by the design year.
Table 1-5
LEVEL OF SERVICE PROJECTIONS
NO -BUILD ALTERNATIVE
LEVEL OF SERVICE
SEGMENT
Rural South of Belmont
YR 2000
YR 2020
D
E
( 1)
( 1)
D
E
D
E
( 1)
( 1)
E
E
Village of Belmont
Rural Belmont to CTH
Rural CTH
A
A to Mineral Point
City of Mineral Point
Rural North of Mineral Point
( 1) No standard analysis procedure for predicting Level of Service is available
for 2 -way urban arterials without signalized intersections.
I- 12
-
Other factors, such as steep upgrades and truck percentage, also affect service quality. As
a result of the terrain and geometric deficiencies, the existing facility will provide an
undesirable Level of Service as traffic demand increases in the future .
The urban segments in Belmont and Mineral Point are characterized by closely spaced cross
streets and numerous driveways . As a result, average travel speed is greatly reduced and
traffic flow
is disrupted by turning movements from
and on to the highway .
As traffic
volumes increase , there willbe greater delays to through traffic on USH 151 due to left-turn
movements from the highway blocking the available through traffic lane. The current posted
speed limit on USH
(30 mph ) .
1.
151 in Belmont is 40 km / h (25 mph) and in Mineral Point is 48 km / h
CRASHES AND SAFETY
Crashes along USH 151 were evaluated for the 5 -year period 1987 through 1991. The route
was divided into four segments for the analysis: ( 1) the Belmont urban area ; (2 ) the rural
segment between Belmont and Mineral Point; (3 ) the Mineral Pointurban area ; and (4 ) the
rural segment north ofMineral Point. Table 1-6 summarizes the crashes and crash rates per
100 million vehicle miles (mvm ) for each segment and for the entire route. Statewide
average crash rates for rural and urban highways are provided for comparison.
Table 1-6
CRASH SUMMARY
FIVE - YEAR 1987 THROUGH 1991
Total Project
Segment 3
Segment 2
Segment 1
Segment 4
CRASH DATA
Total
Avg.
Avg .
2
98
191
0.4
19.6
38.2
14
39
0.2
2.8
7.8
0
31
36
0
6.2
7.2
0
20
53
0
4
10.6
33
63
0.2
6.6
12.6
55
11
0.2
25
5
4
0.8
25
5
TOTAL CRASHES
346
69.2
55
11
92
18.4
15.4
122
24.4
Fatalities
Injuries
2
164
0.4
32.8
28
0.2
5.6
0
46
0
9.2
0
31
0
6.2
1
Avg .
Total
77
Avg.
Total
1
Avg .
Total
Total
59
0.2
11.8
Fatal Crashes
Injury Crashes
P.D. Crashes
(excluding animals)
P.D. Crashes
(animals)
ANNUAL
ECONOMIC LOSS ( )
$792,360
$ 206,800
$156,860
$ 113,020
$ 315,680
ROUTE DATA
Length (km (miles)
ADT
Vehicle Miles
(in 100 millions)
32.64 (20.28)
5,072
0.375
4.62 (2.87)
4,960
0.052
1-13
16.88 (10.49)
4,360
0.167
2.96 (1.84)
5,420
0.036
8.18 (5.08 )
6,480
0.120
Table I- 6
CRASH SUMMARY
FIVE - YEAR 1987 THROUGH 1991
Total Project
Segment 1
Segment 2
Segment 3
CRASH DATA
Total
Avg .
Total
Avg.
Total
Avg.
Total
Avg .
Segment 4
Total
Avg.
CRASH RATES(2)
5 -Year Average
Total
Fatal
NFI
184
1.1
52
Rural:
State - Wide Average
Total
Fatal
NFI
211
2.3
59
Urban :
State - Wide Average
Total
Fatal
NFI
(1) Based on :
212
3.8
54
110
0.0
37
423
0.0
110
211
2.3
59
432
0.9
141
203
1.7
55
211
2.3
59
432
0.9
141
$ 550,000 per Fatality
(2)Per 161 million vehicle kilometers (100 million vehicle miles)
$ 14,000 per Injury
$ 2,300 per Property Damage Crash
Rates for total crashes and fatal crashes for the entire route are less than statewide averages
for all rural highways ,but substantially higher than the statewide average crash rate for rural
interstates (four lanes) of 89 per 161 million vehicle km . Recent statewide average crash
rates for expressways and freeways are 130 per 161 million vehicle m and 84 per 161
million vehicle km , respectively. Rates for each of the four segments are less than the
corresponding urban or rural statewide averages with the exception of fatal accidents in
Belmont. (This rate reflects a single crash .)
Approximate crash locations were plotted to identify possible high crash areas.
No
exceptional areas were identified . Crashes were generally clustered at side roads and were
more frequent in areas where cross roads are closely spaced .
J.
SUMMARY OF PURPOSE AND NEED
The proposed project is being undertaken to improve route safety , provide for future
mobility needs, maintain continuity of the overall route , and to enhance regional economic
development. Service expectations for the Corridors 2020 backbone system are for a
multi-lane freeway or expressway providing uninterrupted 89 km / h (55 mph) traffic flow .
There are numerous deficiencies which prevent the existing USH 151 facility from serving
its intended function in the regional and statewide highway network .
The existing profile does not provide passing opportunities, except at locations of auxiliary
truck climbing lanes. Much of the traffic on this route has origins and destinations located
1-14
outside of the project and conflicts with slower local traffic and farm machinery. Existing
superelevation rates on 21 horizontal curves in the rural segments result in design speeds
of less than 97 km /h (60 mph) with 7 curves providing less than 72 km /h (45 mph ).
Speed reductions are required within the two urbanized areas of the project, including a stop
condition for the left turn at a 90 degree intersection in Belmont. Numerous intersections
and driveways within the urban areas adversely affect the operational characteristics of the
highway and contribute to accidents. The large volume of through traffic, including a large
percentage of trucks is seen by the residents of Belmont and Mineral Point as a safety
problem
as well as an inconvenience to local mobility .
The vertical geometry of the existing highway in the rural segments is deficient in many
locations. Adequate stopping sight distance for a design speed of 97 km / h (60 mph ) is not
provided at 13 crest and 11 sag vertical curves. Three vertical curves provide for less than
64 km / h (40 mph ) design speed . Grades of 6 percent or steeper occur in several locations.
The large number of rural access points, particularly access by slow -moving farm vehicles,
adversely affects operation of the 2-lane highway. As traffic volumes increase to levels
forecasted for the design year 2020, all of the problems discussed above will become more
severe. The Level of Service for all segments of the project will fall below level " E " by the
design year.
The 5 -year crash rate per 161million vehicle km for the existing USH 151 2-lane facility is
184 as compared to a statewide average of 89 for rural interstates (four lanes).
The improvement alternatives described in this document have been developed to provide
the following benefits :
Provide functional continuity on a principal arterial highway of statewide importance .
Improve a critical service transportation link for southwestern Wisconsin and, thus,
encourage economic development and provide needed access to alternative modes of
transportation for the region .
Provide an adequate LOS for forecast traffic volumes.
Increase safety and reduce the effects of traffic through Belmont and Mineral Point,
including pedestrian safety, truck noise , retention of parking, and the barrier effect of
a heavily traveled roadway .
R /USH151/Secl.ASF
I- 15
-
.
-
---
low
tol
PROJECT LOCATION
P
Edmund
18
O
CH
36
LINDEN
(39)
a
CH
Dodgeville
Br
JI
B
6
| В|
te
e
rp
Linden
|
r
MAP LOCATION
BTS
151
(23)
a
se
Re
GGI
0
Su
da
MIFFLING
n
nm
?
sa
va
GG
UE
Mifflin
E
SS .
nit
cou e
nte
r
wh
en
E
J00
38
G
gra
(39)
E
(39
36
Rug
DD
Mineral
Point
t
M'in
e
ral
Al
Rewey
my
on
k
" Roc
Ka
아
S
ΙΑΑΙ
G
AAL
151
(23)
IOWA CO .
LAFAYETTE CO .
oi
-
BELMONT
s
Jone
KENDALL
Peca
BELMONT: MOUNO
SATE PARK
toni
ca 36
tag
Cot
36
Leslie
WILLOW
SPRINGS
4
e
FIRST
CAPITOL
STATE
PARK
BI
STUDY
AREA
BOUNDARY
6
G
To Darlington ,
0
G
Calamine
Belmont
GI
151
U.S.H. 151
X
Belmont - Dodgeville
Town & Lafayette Counties
F
SCALE MILES
126
ELK
FIGURE
I - 1
211020
is
User
1993
4:44
=Thu
:DATE
13
23
Dec
:!1gis
1PRE
0.07
N
TOWA
OF
STATE
2/OON
projeci
1102015isirici.exD
=usr
LIVE
REFERENCE
pFILE
w,4= eriph
is
FILE
:c5REFERENCE
in.wis
REFERENCE
oFILE
=w.6 wuys
is
REFERENCE
ocation
,w7:lFILE
is
SSE
MISS
ISSI
PP
R: IVER
)(80
Dubuque
)
126
)
151
.
ICO
IOWA
Dodgeville
.CO
LAFAYETTE
)(23
Darlington
Belmont
Mineral
Point
LINDEN
39
RICHLAND
80CENTER
80
RICHLAND
.
CO
Platteville
Dickeyville
75
161
Lancaster
CO
GRANT
.
ER
RIV
SIN
CON
WIS 61
TO LA CRO
Belmont - Dodgeville
U.S.H. 151
Towa & Lafayette Counties
SOUTH WESTERN REGION
TRANSPORTATION ROUTES
FIGURE 1-2
176
ILLINOIS
OF
STATE
)(69
)(69
GREEN
.
CO
Monroe
69
Madison
Verona
Janesville
-
-
N
DULUTH
MINNEAPOLISS
TOAUL
.P
T
Superior
151
Marinette
Wausau
(2)
Eau
Claire
Stevens
Point
Green
Bay
Appleton
Two
Rivers
Manitowoc
Fond du
Lac
Sheboygan
Oshkosh
573
‫ומרמוומוי‬
‫בוורורו‬
La
Crosse
‫הוהררוב‬
TM•|‫ר‬-
Richland
Center
Prairie du
Chien
Milwaukee
Dodgeville
Madison 90
(94)
Racine
Janesville
Kenosha
Beloit 3
TO
CEDAR RAPIDS
Dubuque
TO CHICAGO
U.S.H. 151
Belmont - Dodgeville
SOUTHWESTERN REGION
PLANNING AREA
Towa & Lafayette Counties
IIULU
IS
WDOT CORRIDORS 2020
1-18
USCI
MULTILANE BACKBONE SYSTEM
FIGURE 1-3
211020
is
User
N
Unt
=Thu
DATE
993
13:14:44
23
Dec
:distric.orí
PRE
TOWA
OF
STATE
isirici.exh
=uasr
/1OUN
project
020
LMC
na
4 eriph.wis
FILE
pREFERENCE
cREFERENCE
5: in.wis
FILE
REFERENCE
FILE
6:1owoys.wis
FILE
lREFERENCE
,w7: ocation
is
SSE
MISS
ISSI
PP
R: IVER
)(80
Platteville
Dubuque
Dickeyville
6235
Lancaster
61
)(80
)
126
1519
7
1572
)
IOWA
.CO
Dodgeville
LAFAYETTE
.
CO
)(23
Darlington
Belmont
Mineral
Point
LINDEN
RICHLAND
CENTER
80
)(80
RICHLAND
Co.
.
GRANTICO
ER
RIV
SIN
CON
WIS
61
TO LA CRO
U.S.H. 151
Belmont - Dodgeville
Towa & Lafayette Counties
SOUTH WESTERN REGION
TRANSPORTATION ROUTES
FIGURE 1-2
)(78
ILLINOIS
OF
STATE
69
CO
.GREEN
Monroe
)104
Madison
Verona
Janesville
--
一
N
B
DULUTH
MINNEAPOLISS
T
P
.TOAUL
Superior
(151)
Marinette
Wausau
Eau
Claire
Stevens
Point
(97
Green
Bay
Appleton
Oshkosh
Two
Rivers
Manitowoc
1513
La
Crosse
Fond du
Lac
Sheboygan
Richland
Center
Prairie du
Chien
Milwaukee
Dodgeville
Madison (90)
(94)
Janesvilleom
Racine
Kenosha
Beloit
TO CEDAR RAPIDS
Dubuque
TO CHICAGO
U.S.H. 151
SOUTHWESTERN REGION
Belmont - Dodgeville
PLANNING AREA
lowo & Lafayette Counties
WDOT CORRIDORS 2020
MULTILANE BACKBONE
SYSTEM
FIGURE 1-3
1-18
N
Sault Sto .Marlo
To Seattle
07
Minneapoll s /St. Paul
00
To Soattle
PROJECT
LOCATION
U
U
USH
To Canada
Dotrolt
Milwaukoo
To Canada
Dubuque
Chicago
To the East
Dos Molnos
19
Omaha
39
C
TO Donvor
& the Wost
Indianapoll
To Columbus
& tho Southeast
To Kansas City
& Toxos
1noire
FILE
o
:nREFERENCE
.re
FILE
nREFERENCE
name
reſ
.2= o
FILE
.REFERENCE
3= no
nome
.ref
REFERENCE
FILE
4:.no
name
.ref
REFERENCE
5:.no
ref
.FILE
name
REFERENCE
ref
6:.no
.FILE
name
FILE
.7=nREFERENCE
name
ref
o
To Atlanta
& tho Southoast
10
To Konsas City
St. Louis
TO Nashville , Atlanta,
& tho Southeast
Oy
To foxos
10
d\tPen
=pefault.tbl
lot
ables
Table
To Now Orleans
U.S.H. 151
17:55:13
1993
Dec
22
=Wed
DATE
lPRF
= egendl.prf
-legendl.exh
DGN
CONNECTION TO NATIONAL
HIGHWAY SYSTEM
211020
is
User
)
LEYisure
1-0
BECXNS
Plotter
is
Belmont - Dodgeville
Towa & Lafayette Counties
FIGURE I. 4
1-19
Level- of- Service A
Level-of - Service B
Level- of- Service C
Level- of-Service D
Level-of- Service E
Level- of-Service F
U.S.H.
151
Belmont - Dodgeville
Towa & Lafayette Counties
LEVEL OF SERVICE
ILLUSTRATIONS
FIGURE
I - 5
SECTION II
ALTERNATIVES
A.
ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
1.
General
This section describes both the alternatives which were selected for detailed study and those
alternatives considered which were eliminated from detailed study. It discusses the process
by which alternatives were selected or eliminated and provides reasoning for the selection
of a single Build Alternative ( in addition to the No-Build Alternative) which is analyzed in
detail in Section IV .
2.
Organization of Section
Part A of Section II focuses on the process used to develop and evaluate alternatives and
finally to select a preferred alternative. It discusses the goals of each stage in the
development process and summarizes the conclusions reached .
Parts B , C , and D of Section II focus on description and analysis of alternatives, beginning
with the preliminary alternatives, continuing to the alternatives selected for detailed study,
and concluding with the selected " Build " Alternative . Consistentwith goals of the Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ ) to encourage concise , useful Draft Environmental Impact
Statements, only reasonable alternatives are discussed in detail. The major constraints
within each alternative corridor are discussed .
The impacts of each alternative are
presented and compared , consistent with the level of detail used for the analysis at each
stage of the development process. An assessment is made ofthe viability of each alternative
and the justification provided for either recommending the alternative, modifying it, or
dropping it from further consideration . Table II-1 provides a schematic illustration of the
alternative development process .
3.
Summary of Conclusions
Following the preliminary alternative development stage and public comment, two Belmont
bypass alternatives, including an east bypass , were dropped from further consideration and
two northwest bypass alternatives were consolidated into a single alternative for detailed
study . Portions of the four preliminary Mineral Point Bypass alternatives were either
modified or rejected , and an additional bypass alternative west of Ludden Lake was
developed . The resulting alternatives, including a subalternative involving west realignment
of the rural segment north of Mineral Point, were carried forward for detailed study .
Following the initial stage of detailed study and public comment, it was concluded that only
one of the Mineral Point Bypass alternatives was prudent. This conclusion in Segment 3 ,
following similar conclusions in Segments 1 and 2 , resulted in selection of a single, prudent
Build Alternative being carried forward for supplementary study.
II- 1
II- 2
(4) ee
Exhibit
6S
S
(3)5Exhibits
ee
4and
Exhibit3
S
)(2 ee
:
NOTES
Bypasses
With
Build
Alignment
Buildon
Existing
.No
BAlt
- uild
11
not
does
Alternatives
Preliminary
of
Naming
Detailed
of
naming
with
correspond
necessarily
.(1) sterisks
Alternatives
Preliminary
denote
A
|
A
PROCESS
SCOPING
.Initial
Alternatives
Stage
Study
DEVELOPMENT
ONCEPT
-
uild
B-No
DEVELOPMENT
.3B
-1Alt
3
.-2 B
Alt
*D
.3
Alt
STAGE
TONEXT
CONTINUED
C
*.Alt
4
*. B
4
Alt
*. A
4
Alt
.-No
Alt
uild
B
INITIAL
(3)
STAGE
STUDY
ATION
CONSIDER
FURTHER ED
FROM
ELIMINAT
.E
Alt
3
3
Alt
.C
3B
.Alt
.3C
*Alt
nt
4:
Segme
.3A
Alt
.2A
Alt
1
.B
Alt
.3B
*Alt
ş
*.3A
Alt
:3
ent
Segm
A
Alt
.2
:
Segment2
*.1D
Alt
*1
B
.Alt
*. C
1
Alt
:1
ent
Segm
*.1A
Alt
)2(1
PRELIMINARY
ALTERNATIVE
-1II
Table
plers
SUPPLEMENTA
STUDY
STAGE
(4)
-Build
.No
Alt
Build
.
Alt
DETAILED
STUDY
C
MATI
SCHE
ESS
NT
PROC
PME
ELO
DEV
IVE
RNAT
ALTE
Some modifications were made to the alignment in each study segment in response to the
analysis and to comments received . Detailed archaeological, historic, and hazardous waste
investigations were conducted for the Build Alternative . Noise and air quality analyses were
also performed . A detailed discussion of the environmental impacts of the Build and
No-Build Alternatives is presented in Section IV .
4.
Scoping Process
Preliminary alternatives were developed based on constraints identified during the scoping
process. This process included coordination with federal and state agencies. Concerns were
expressed by the U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR ), Department of Agriculture, Trade and
Consumer Protection (DATCP), State Historical Society of Wisconsin (SHSW ), and
Southwestern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SWWRPC). Alternatives were
modified and refined based on input from county, city, village , and township public officials.
Principal concerns identified
importance ) included :
during the scoping process (not necessarily in
order of
Recognize the importance of the historic resources in the area .
Preserve the integrity of the Mineral Point Historic District.
Minimize taking of farmland and severing of farms.
Minimize impacts on developable land .
Avoid impacts on wetlands and on woodland habitat south of Mineral Point.
Avoid channel changes and minimize floodplain impacts at stream crossings.
Avoid damage to remediation /recreation area along Brewery Creek at Mineral Point.
Avoid large, inactive mines in Mineral Point area .
Avoid bike trails if feasible . If not, close coordination is required on spanning
structures.
Maintain access points north and south of the City of Mineral Point.
Provide interchanges close to the communities to encourage economic development.
5.
Stages of Alternative Development
Preliminary Alternative Development Stage
The purpose of this stage of the development process was to identify a broad range of
possible alternatives in sufficient detail to obtain agency and public input and to make a
preliminary assessment of impacts. Based on the information obtained , some of the
preliminary alternatives were modified or refined (e.g., 1B *, 2A * , and 3C * ) and new
alternatives were developed (e.g., 3E ). Preliminary alternatives found not to be viable or
acceptable to agencies or the public were dropped from further consideration (e.g., 3D *).
For preliminary
segments :
alternative development, the project corridor was divided into
Segment 1: Belmont Bypass from the south terminus to Cottage Inn Road
II- 3
four
Segment 2 : Rural segment from Cottage Inn Road to Oak Park Road
Segment 3: Mineral Point Bypass from Oak Park Road north
Segment 4 : Rural segment from Mineral Point to the north project terminus
Segment 4 , the rural area north of Mineral Point, was consolidated with Segment 3 for the
detailed study initial stage analysis (see Exhibit 4 ).
Feedback and comments on the preliminary alternatives was actively solicited from public
officials and the general public. Preliminary alternatives were presented at a meeting of
local public officials , including representatives of Iowa and Lafayette counties, the Village
of Belmont, the City of Mineral Point, the Townships of Belmont, Linden , and Mineral
Point, Southwest Wisconsin
Regional Planning Commission , and
elected
State
representatives. The same alternatives were presented at public information meetings held
in Belmont and Mineral Point.
b.
Detailed Study
Initial Study Stage
The purpose of this stage of the development process was to develop all reasonable
alternatives in sufficient detail to permit an initial assessment of the environmental impacts
of each one . Engineering analysis was performed for the viable alternatives in each study
segment, including the single reasonable alternatives in Segments 1 and 2 .
A computer model of the existing terrain was used as a tool to evaluate various roadway
alignments within the broader corridors defined by each alternative . A vertical profile for
each alignment was developed and the new roadway was computer-modeled to permit
determination of the approximate right ofway required for each alternative . Modeling also
provided approximate earthwork quantities for cost estimating.
The impacts were evaluated for each alternative including the No-Build Alternative, which
served as a baseline. Evaluation criteria included : route length and access locations; farm
land and farm severances ; impacts to wetlands and woodland habitats ; effects on streams
and floodplains; residential and business relocations; historic impacts; potential archeological
impacts ; mine impacts and potential hazardous site impacts ; anticipated highway user
benefits ; and construction costs.
Right of way areas, building impacts, severances, and landlocks were determined for each
parcel along each alignment. The areas were categorized as farmland, woodland, wetland ,
or other. Interpretation of farmland and woodland acreages was done from 1992 aerial
photographs. Wetland areas were based on WDNR Wetland Inventory Maps.
Historic and archeological impacts were evaluated on the basis of information obtained in
the archival and literature search, supplemented by two field review with representatives
from the State Historical Society of Wisconsin (SHSW ) and the Pendarvis Historic Site .
II -4
Mine impacts were evaluated in terms of the degree to which existing mines impose
constraints on the design of the facility or potentially impact construction . The large mines
were mapped based on available information .
Construction costs were estimated in
1993 dollars.
The estimates reflected earthwork
volumes calculated for each alternate based on roadway modeling. Approximate sizes for
each structure were also determined as a basis for preliminary cost estimates.
An analysis was performed to quantify the anticipated benefits to the highway user due to
the reduced vehicle operation and delay costs for each alternative, in comparison to the
No -Build Alternative. User Benefits reflect route length , traffic volumes, and average
speeds on mainline segments and connecting road segments. Future operation and delay
costs are converted to present worth , and all figures are in
1993 dollars. Assumptions
included : 30 -year (2000-2030) analysis period ; $ 0.17 km ($ 0.28 per mile ) vehicle operation
cost; $0.25 perminute delay cost; and 4 percent effective interest rate. Further information
on the cost-benefit analysis is contained in Appendix F.
Alternatives were again presented to local public officials and at public information
Additional meetings and
meetings, similar to the process for preliminary alternatives.
coordination were conducted with study committees set up by the two communities and with
groups of affected property owners.
Following this process, all but one of the Build alternatives was eliminated from further
consideration due to a combination of engineering factors, environmental, and agricultural
impacts, lack of public support, high cost, and low benefit to highway users. Because only
a single Build Alternative is discussed in Section IV , this section contains a detailed
discussion of the analysis supporting the elimination of the other Build Alternatives.
Supplementary Study Stage
The purpose of this stage was to complete the environmental analysis of the Build and No
Build Alternatives. The Build Alternative was modified slightly from the corresponding
alternatives carried forward from the detailed study initial stage , in response to comments
received, and to reduce building impacts. The alternative was, therefore, reanalyzed for all
the factors considered in the initial stage. In addition , Phase I historic and archaeological
surveys, Phase 2 hazardous material investigations, and air and noise impact analyses were
performed . The findings from
Section IV .
6.
the supplementary analysis stage are presented in detail in
Range of Improvement Concepts Considered
The concept development included five categories of improvements:
Traffic System Management
Mass Transit
"No - Build " Alternative
" Build " Alternatives on the existing USH
151 alignment
II- 5
" Build " Alternatives providing bypasses on new
Belmont and Mineral Point.
a.
alignment around the communities of
Traffic System Management
Traffic system management measures are generally applicable only in larger urban areas
where traffic signal timing, designated use lanes, and othermeasures can have a substantial
effect. Such measures are not reasonable for this predominantly rural project and do not
address the purpose and need for this project.
b.
Mass Transit
Mass transit alternatives are not feasible due to the very low population density in the
project area . Such alternatives also do not address the purpose and need for this project,
particularly the need to increase truck mobility and to remove through truck traffic from
local streets .
No- Build Alternative
C.
Under the No-Build Alternative , no improvements would be made other than normal
pavement maintenance or localized upgrades, and there would be no increase in traffic
capacity or flow characteristics. This alternative does not meet the purpose and need for
this project and does not address the deficiencies outlined in Section I. However, it is
considered a viable alternative throughout the development process and serves as a baseline
for comparison of Build Alternatives and for evaluation of their environmental impacts.
d.
Build on Existing Alignment Alternative
This alternative concept consists of construction of improvements along the existing
alignment for the purpose of improving highway capacity, flow characteristics, and safety.
Improvements would include reconstruction of the existing roadway in the rural segments,
to eliminate geometric and sight distance deficiencies, along with construction of auxiliary
lanes, or two additional travel lanes to improve level of service . In the urban areas,
alternativeswould include widening for left- and right-turn lanes, geometric improvements
Because of the closely- spaced
at intersections, and possible removal of parking.
intersections and driveway accesses in the urban areas, these improvements would most
reasonably be accomplished by construction of a four lane with a median , with or without
parking . Possible typical sections for the urban segments of this alternative are shown in
Figure II-1.
The existing right of way width in the Village of Belmont varies from 18 m (60 feet) to 23 m
(75 feet). Construction of a 4- lane section without parking would require acquisition of
approximately 5 m (16 feet) to 11 m (32 feet) of additional right of way along one or both
sides of the highway. Additional right of way would be required at approximately eight
intersections to provide acceptable right-turn radii. Of particular concern is the existing
intersection of Mound Street and Platteville Road at the south end of Belmont where
USH
151 traffic is currently required to make a 90 -degree turn.
II - 6
Realignment of the
roadways to create a low speed , free flow condition on USH
151 and a " T" intersection with
STH 126 would require approximately 0.3 ha (0.7 acre ) of additional right of way within a
developed area. Two buildings would be removed , including a single -family residence and
a 12 -unit , low income elderly housing facility , resulting in relocation impacts.
The existing right of way width in the City of Mineral Point varies from less than
18 m
(60 feet) to approximately 35 m (115 feet). Construction of a 4-lane section withoutparking
would require acquisition of approximately 3 m ( 10 feet) of additional right ofway along
one or both sides of the highway.
Additional right of way would be required at
approximately 10 intersections to provide acceptable right-turn radii.
Many of the side streets in Mineral Point intersect the highway at a 45-degree angle and
would have to be realigned or dead -ended in order to provide desirable intersection
geometrics.
The concept of building on existing alignment through the urban areas was not given
detailed consideration because it would result in an unacceptable level of impacts, is
opposed by the communities affected , and would not meet the purpose and need for the
project. Within Mineral Point and Belmont, the existing right of way is bordered by
cemeteries, historic properties, churches schools, and parks. Most of the City of Mineral
Point is within a Historic District, which is on the National Register, and any right of way
acquisition would potentially involve 4 (f) lands.
historically sensitive area .
The Village of Belmont is likewise an
Early scoping meetings with local public officials indicated a strong desire to preserve the
existing character of the communities, move through traffic off of the local streets, and to
protect existing historic resources.
Any reasonable Build Alternatives along existing USH
151 through the urbanized areas
would not meet the purpose and need for the project, particularly the need for system
linkage and uninterrupted 88 km / h (55 mph) flow as discussed in Section I. In addition ,
numerous sight distance deficiencies would remain uncorrected . This improvement concept
was determined to not be reasonable and was dropped from
e.
further consideration .
Build Alternatives with Community Bypasses
Due to the system -wide importance of the route , reasonable Build Alternatives are those
which meet the project's purpose and need and meet Corridors 2020 objectives as discussed
in Section 1.
The general concept was to provide a 4 -lane divided facility utilizing the existing highway
corridor to the extent practical, with bypasses of the communities of Belmont and Mineral
Point. The typical existing and proposed highway sections are shown on Exhibit 2. Freeway
access control standards (no access except at interchanges) would be implemented along the
bypass portions of the route. Expressway standards, permitting at-grade intersections and
farm accesses at controlled spacings, would be applied to the rural segments located along
the existing alignment. Several alternative bypasses for both communities were considered .
II- 7
Rural relocations were investigated and considered reasonable when specific circumstances
supported deviating from
the existing alignment.
All alternatives studied in detail, including the recommended Build Alternative were based
on this concept of providing a 4 - lane highway with bypasses of Belmont and Mineral Point.
B.
PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES (Exhibits 4 and 5 )
1.
Major Constraints Affecting Alternative Development
a.
Identification and Mapping of Constraints
The first step in the process was development of a map of the project area showing the
major constraints . Constraints are shown on Exhibit 5. Property lines and ownership were
superimposed on an aerial photographic base to delineate existing land uses. Wetlands were
shown based on WDNR Wetlands Inventory Maps. Streamswith year- around flow were
identified based on USGS Quadrangle Maps, and floodplains were delineated based on
Flood Insurance Studies. Streams in the Pecatonica River basin are shown on Figure III- 1 .
An initial archival and literature search was performed in 1992 to determine previously
reported archaeological and historic sites, including cemeteries. In addition , information
and maps were obtained relating to historic mining activity in the area .
The extensive mining activity which took place in the Mineral Point area from the early
1800s up until the 1960s constitutes a physical constraint in addition to its cultural
importance.
Data was gathered on the type and location of mines from the Wisconsin
Natural History and Geologic Survey (WNHGS), the U.S. Department of Interior, the
director of the Pendarvis Historic Site , and several local informants . A brief report was
prepared for this project by WNHGS. The larger mines, which would impact construction ,
were plotted on the constraint map .
Recreational facilities such as parks, bike trails, and snowmobile trails in the project area
were identified and mapped .
A Phase 1A hazardous waste investigation was performed for the study area in 1992. A
photo log and an inventory database were prepared which identified potential hazardous
material sites within the project study area. Sites were mapped and classified according to
the likelihood and magnitude of impact. Potentially contaminated sites were avoided during
alternative development where practical.
b.
Constraints
Belmont Bypass (Segment 1)
Additional length is a major constraint for any bypass around the east side of the Village.
On the east side, an unnamed creek runs in a southerly direction to its confluence with
Bonner Creek. A high school is located in the northeast corner of the Village and a
II - 8
cemetery and waste treatment plant are located in the southeast corner of the Village.
South of the Village are Bonner Creek, the Pecatonica (Calamine-Platteville State Park )
Trail, a large cemetery, and two farmsteads. Several large farms are potentially severed or
landlocked .
Northwest of the Village are three tributaries of Bonner Creek and a crossing of the future
extension of the Calamine- Platteville State Park Trail. A former quarry west of the Village ,
which is currently operated as a salvage yard , and two additional sites north of the Village
have potential for hazardous material contamination . Several large farms are potentially
severed or landlocked .
Rural Segment ( Segment 2 )
There are two areas of wetlands along the existing highway , east of the highway at Joy Lake
and west of the highway south of theMineral Point Branch . Steep terrain must be traversed
in crossings of the Pecatonica River and the Mineral Point Branch valleys. A prehistoric
archeological site is located just south of the Pecatonica River. Several farm houses and
farm
buildings are located near the existing highway, primarily along the west side.
Mineral Point Bypass (Segment 3)
Steep terrain and environmental constraints combine to limit the locations, which are
suitable for highway construction . South of the City steep terrain must be traversed in
crossing the Brewery Creek valley. There are wetlands associated with the creek, and the
stream itself is considered environmentally sensitive . The Cheese Country Recreational
Trail must also be crossed in this location .
Historic resources are a major constraint in the Mineral Point area . In particular,most of
the City is within the Mineral Point Historic District, which is on the National Register.
Numerous historic mining sites are scattered throughout the Mineral Point area, but were
considered constraints only in relation to their cultural significance.
East of the City there are several large mines, which are potentially obstacles to
construction . There is a small cemetery southeast of the city. Several large farms are
potentially severed or landlocked.
West of the city the Mineral Point Branch and Ludden Lake are major constraints because
of both terrain and environmental concerns. The stream may provide habitat for threatened
or endangered species in the reach above Ludden Lake. There are wetlands and woodland
habitat associated with the Mineral Point Branch valley and a tributary draw . There is a
historic property northwest of the city. The terrain north of the city is dissected by a deep
creek valley , and there are wetlands associated with the creek . The existing industrial park
and a fairgrounds are located on the west edge of the city . Several large farms are
potentially severed or landlocked .
II - 9
2.
Preliminary Belmont Bypass Alternatives ( Segment 1)
In Segment 1, four initial alternative bypasses of Belmont were developed, three located
northwest of the Village and one located east and south of the Village . All Belmont Bypass
alternatives included a single interchange providing access to the Village . The preliminary
bypass alternatives are shown on Exhibit 3 .
Preliminary alternatives are identified with an asterisk to avoid confusion with detailed
study stage alternatives.
The names of preliminary alternatives do not necessarily
correspond to names of detailed study initial stage alternatives.
a.
Alternative 1A * : Northwest Bypass with Northeast Interchange
Alternative 1A * was the most northerly of the preliminary Belmont Bypass alternatives. It
included a grade separation at CTH G and a single interchange north and slightly east of
the Village. Access to the interchange would be provided by a new road connecting existing
USH 151 north of the Village with Cottage Inn Road . This alternative results in relatively
inconvenient access to the community , particularly for trips with a south origin or
destination . Public officials and community residents opposed this alternative and it was
dropped from further consideration.
b.
Alternative 1B * : Northwest Bypass with
North Interchange
The Alternative 1B * alignment was located close to the east limits of the Village and
rejoined the existing alignment approximately 0.5 miles south of Cottage Inn Road . A single
interchange was located on a northerly extension of Mound Avenue, which would continue
north and east to connect to existing CTH G.
This general concept received broad community support and was the basis for the Belmont
Bypass alternative selected for detailed initial study.
Alternative 1B * was refined to :
eliminate a reverse curve in the mainline alignment; avoid a potential hazardous waste site ;
provide more favorable terrain for the interchange ; and cross Bonner Creek and the
Pecatonica (Calamine -Platteville ) trail in a more suitable location . This new alignment lying
generally in an intermediate location between the 1A * and 1B * alignments was combined
with the 1B * interchange concept and carried forward to the detailed study initial stage as
Alternative 1B . Preliminary Alternative 1B * was dropped from further consideration .
c.
Alternative 1C * :
Southeast Bypass
Alternative 1C * stayed south and east of the Village, crossing CTH X , STH 126, and
CTH G. Mound Avenue would be extended southward to the single interchange , continuing
southeast to connect to STH 23.
The alignment crosses Bonner Creek and another
tributary , as well as the Pecatonica (Calamine- Platteville ) trail.
This alternative was approximately 1.8 km ( 1.1 miles) longer than any of the northwest
bypasses, took approximately 14 ha (36 acres) more farmland , and provided relatively
II- 10
inconvenient access to the Village .
advantages.
d.
It received no public support and had no identified
The concept of a southeast bypass was dropped from
further consideration .
Alternative ID * : Northwest Bypass with West Interchange
The Alternative 1D * alignmentwas similar to the Alternative 1B alignment, but the single
interchange was located west of the Village. Access to the interchange was from Platteville
Avenue (existing USH 151), which would be realigned west of the Village, curving north to
the interchange and continuing north to connect with existing CTH G. This alternative had
the advantage of permitting STH 126 traffic to access the new highway without traveling
through the Village .
This alternative would have required considerable indirection for traffic with a north origin
or destination on either CTH G or USH 151. The interchange location would greatly
complicate the crossings of Bonner Creek and the Calamine- Platteville trail.
This
alternative, with its interchange concept, received little public support and was dropped from
further consideration.
3.
Preliminary Rural Alternatives (Segment 2 )
In Segment 2 , constructing two lanes along the existing alignment was identified as the only
practical alternative. Impacts were minimized by locating the new lanes to the east of the
existing 2 -lane highway for most of the rural segment.
a.
Alternative 2A * :
Two Additional Lanes Along Existing Highway
In the rural area between the communities, no compelling reasons for relocating the
corridor were identified. Any such relocation would involve greater land acquisition ,
additional farm severances,higher construction costs, and greater environmental impact than
construction along the existing highway. This alternative was judged to be the only feasible
and prudent alternative in this segment. It meets project objectives while minimizing
environmental impacts, farm impacts, and construction costs.
Initial studies indicated that impacts to existing residences and farm buildings would be
minimized by locating the new lanes to the east of the existing 2 -lane highway formost of
the rural segment, crossing over to the opposite side, as necessary, to provide the community
bypasses.
This alternative was carried forward
Alternative 2A .
4.
to the detailed study initial stage as
Preliminary Mineral Point Bypass Alternatives ( Segment 3)
In Segment 3, four initial alternative bypasses of Mineral Point were developed , including
three alternatives west of the City and one east of the City. Each alternative included
extensions or realignment of existing roads to provide interchange access to the City .
II- 11
a.
Alternative 3A * : West Bypass with Access on Commerce Street Extended
Alternative 3A * began on realignment just north of Oak Park Road and proceeded
northeast roughly paralleling the Mineral Point Branch and staying west of the Iowa Count
Fairgrounds. It deflected eastward , through the existing Mineral Point industrial park and
crossed STH 39 and East Lake Road. The alignment remained east of an unnamed creek
flowing into Ludden Lake and crossed South Barreltown Road . Relocation for the bypass
ends approximately 1 mile north of the City .
This alternative included an extension of Commerce Street (STH 23) north and east to a
new interchange, continuing from there northward to connect to existing Barreltown Road .
A south interchange was located at Oak Park Road.
Public officials and the business community expressed support for the location of the
alignment, but felt strongly that the north interchange should be located east of Barreltown
Road and that the main north entrance to the community should continue to be existing
Ridge Street (existing USH 151) to a point north of Shake Rag Street. A new alignment
( Alternative 3A ) was developed for the detailed study initial stage to reflect these concerns.
Alternative 3A * was dropped from further consideration .
b.
Alternative 3B * : Near - West Bypass
This alternative was located closer to the developed area of the City than Alternative 3A *.
It included an extension of Commerce Street (STH 23 ) north to a dead -end diamond
interchange . A south interchange was located near CTH O. The portion north of STH 39
met the same objection as Alternative 3A * regarding location of the north interchange. In
addition, there were strong concerns that the north portion was located too close to
developed areas of the City and infringed significantly on the Historic District.
portion was dropped from further consideration .
This north
A new alignment west of Alternatives 3A * and 3B * and west of the creek was developed
to avoid the Historic District. The north interchange was moved east of Barreltown Road .
The south portion of Alternative 3B * was refined and the new alignment described above
were incorporated into Alternative 3B for detailed study. Alternative 3B * was dropped from
further consideration .
c.
Alternative 3C *
East Bypass
East Bypass Alternative 3C * begins on realignment just north ofOak Park Road, proceeding
east across CTH O and the Brewery Creek valley. A diamond interchange is provided at
СTH 0 .
The alignment proceeds northeast to STH 23 and stays east of a large , inactive mine . It
crosses STH 39 and turns to the northwest to avoid a mine, continuing east of the City
across Antoine Street/CTH SS. The alignment then turns northeast , rejoining existing
USH 151 with a trumpet- type directional interchange . Numerous concerns were recognized
following preliminary analysis and public input, but this alternative remained the most
II- 12
feasible location east of the City. With minor modifications, this alternative was carried
forward to the detailed study initial stage as Alternative 3C .
d.
Alternative 3D * : West Bypass with Access on High Street
This alternative was located northwest of Alternative 3B * north of High Street (East Lake
Road ). It differed from other west bypasses in that it provided an interchange at High
Street as the main access to the City. It included extension of High Street to CTH QQ and
improvements along High and Doty Streets within the City. The improved High Street/
Doty Street corridor would become STH 23 under this alternative. Public officials and
citizens voiced strong opposition to routing STH 23 through the center of the City and to
focusing interchange traffic on High Street. This alternative was dropped from further
consideration .
5.
Preliminary Rural Relocation Alternatives (Segment 4 )
The rural segment north of Mineral Point was treated as a fourth study segment in the
preliminary development stage . In the subsequent detailed study stage, Segment 3 was
extended to the north terminus and rural alternatives were treated as Mineral Point Bypass
subalternatives. In Segment 4, relocated corridors east and west of the existing alignment
were developed , in addition to the alternative of adding two lanes approximately parallel
to the existing alignment.
a.
Alternative 4A * :
Two Additional Lanes Along Existing Highway
This alternative was based on reusing the existing corridor. North of East Barreltown Road,
the new lanes would be added on the west side of the existing highway to match into the
existing 4 -lane facility at the north project terminus.
A short relocation between
Weidenfeller Road and East Barreltown Road was considered to eliminate curves and
consolidate access from two commercial traffic generators. South of Weidenfeller Road, the
new lanes would be added along the east side to avoid two farm complexes. This alternative
was carried forward to the detailed study initial stage as part of Alternative 3A .
b.
Alternative 4B * :
West Relocation North of Mineral Point
This alternative was developed early in the study process as a possible extension of the
Mineral Point west bypasses 3A * or 3D * . It required additional farmland and created
additional farm severances, but had the advantage of slightly shortening route length and
leaving the existing highway in place as a farm access road . This alignment was carried
forward to the detailed study initial stage as Sub -Alternative 3B - 1.
C.
Alternative 4C * : East Relocation North of Mineral Point
This alternative was developed early in the study process as a possible extension of the
Mineral Point east bypass, Alternative 3C . It requires additional farmland , creates
additional farm severances, and adds length to the overall route . No clear advantageswere
identified for this alternative , and it is not compatible with the proposed Build Alternative.
II- 13
Several comments opposing this alternative were received.
from further consideration .
This alternative was dropped
C. ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR INITIAL STAGE DETAILED STUDY (Exhibits 4
and 5 )
Alternatives involve upgrading the existing 2-lane highway to a 4 -lane divided highway with
a 18 m (60-foot) wide median between project termini. It includes a transition at the south
end to match the existing 2 -lane highway. The typical section is shown on Exhibit 2.
Where the new highway follows the existing alignment, the new lanes will be added a
minimum of 18 m (60 feet) from the existing highway to permit use of the existing road
during construction of the new lanes . Some or all of the existing roadway will be
reconstructed to correct geometric deficiencies and provide adequate clear zones.
Alternatives selected for detailed study are described below .
These included a single
Belmont Bypass alternative ( Segment 1) and a single alternative for the rural segment
between the communities (Segment 2 ). In the Mineral Point Bypass area ( study Segment 3 ),
Alternatives are shown on
four alternatives and two sub- alternatives were studied .
Exhibit 4 , and bypass alternatives for Belmont and Mineral Point are shown in greater detail
on Exhibit 5 .
Following the descriptions is an analysis of the impacts, organized by category of impact.
In order to provide a consistent basis for comparison of Mineral Point Bypass alternatives,
impacts were evaluated for a segmentwith a common south terminus at Oak Park Road and
north terminus at the existing Dodgeville interchange. Finally, conclusions are presented
regarding the feasibility and prudence of each alternative.
All four Mineral Point Bypass alternatives include two interchanges, one north and one
south of the City,with the interchange side road in each case being a realignment of Ridge
Street ( existing USH 151). There was consistent input from local public officials, business
leaders, and the public that it was important to maintain the existing north -south traffic
pattern within the City. Different interchange configurations were investigated and, in all
cases but one, a diamond-type interchange was selected . This reflected the need to provide
access across the new facility in order to avoid landlocking large parcels of land.
Freeway access control standards were applied to the entire length of the bypass segments .
In Belmont, this extended from the south project terminus to north of Cottage Inn Road .
In Mineral Point, this extended from interchange to interchange, extending approximately
305 m (1,000 feet) beyond the ends of the ramp tapers. Beyond those points, expressway
standards were applied , permitting a limited number of private driveways and intersections
with rural side roads. Access control at interchange side roads was assumed to extend
152 m (500 feet) to 305 m ( 1000 feet )beyond ramp terminals. Within the freeway segments ,
continuity of side roads was accomplished with grade separation structures.
II- 14
1.
Descriptions
a.
Alternative 1B : Belmont West Bypass
West Bypass Alternative 1B begins at the south terminus of the project, approximately
one-half mile west of CTH X on existing USH 151. It turns northeast through farmland,
crossing the Calamine-Platteville trail, Bonner Branch , and existing CTH G. A transition
from two lanes to four lanes is included in this first stretch . The alignment then curves to
the east around the Village of Belmont to the location of a new diamond -type interchange
with proposed relocated CTH G.
The alignment then curves north with the bypass segment ending at Cottage Inn Road .
Where the new highway alignment joins the existing highway , the new southbound lanes
would approximately coincide with the existing highway, with the new northbound lanes
added to the east. Cottage Inn Road would cross the new facility at a grade separation and
a frontage road would be constructed connecting Cottage Inn Road with the existing
USH 151 roadway north of the Village.
Access from Belmont to the interchange is provided by a new road which would connect to
existing Mound Street ( existing USH 151) on the south and will continue north and west of
the interchange to connect with existing CTH G. Existing CTH G would be closed at the
new highway . The new road to the interchange will enter Belmont on a north -south axis as
a continuation of Mound Street, preserving the existing dominant travel pattern in the
Village. A " T " intersection will connect the new extension ofMound Street with the existing
USH 151 roadway north of Belmont. This existing roadway will remain as a frontage road ,
connecting at the north end with Cottage Inn Road at a new intersection .
b.
Alternative 2A : Rural Segment
The rural segment begins at Cottage Inn Road and approximately follows the existing
highway alignment northeast to Oak Park Road south of Mineral Point. For most of this
distance, the two new northbound driving lanes were added east of the existing highway,
approximately paralleling the existing alignment. The new southbound lanes were in
approximately the same location as the existing roadway .
Approximately 914 m (3,000 feet) south of Oak Park Road the additional driving lanes
crosses over to the west side of the existing highway, continuing parallel to the existing
highway to the point where relocation begins for the bypass of Mineral Point.
In this rural segment, access to the new highway was provided by at-grade intersections at
Burr Oak Road, Jericho Road, and CTH A. At Oak Park Road, there would be an at-grade
intersection or an interchange depending on the alternative selected for the Mineral Point
Bypass. Minor relocations would be made at side roads to improve intersection angles and
sight distances.
II- 15
c.
Alternative 3A : Mineral Point West Bypass
West Bypass Alternative 3A begins on realignment approximately 460 m ( 1,500 feet) north
interchange is located at Oak Park Road and requires
of Oak Park Road . A south
construction of a new frontage road connecting the interchange with the existing USH 151
roadway south of Mineral Point.
The new alignment proceeds northeast, roughly paralleling the Mineral Point Branch and
staying west of the Iowa County Fairgrounds. It deflects eastward , crossing through the
existing Mineral Point Industrial Park . It continues northeast , crossing over STH 39 and
East Lake Road on grade separations and cutting the northwest corner of the Mineral Point
Historic District.
The new alignment remains east of an unnamed creek flowing into Ludden Lake and
crosses South Barreltown Road , which will be closed at the new highway . A new road will
be constructed connecting Ridge Street ( existing USH 151/STH 23) with South Barreltown
Road north of the new highway, and a diamond interchange will be constructed where it
intersects the new highway. Relocation for the bypass ends approximately 1 mile north of
the City .
From that point to the north terminus, the new highway follows the existing alignment, with
the exception of a 1-km (0.9-mile ) relocation proposed to eliminate two reverse curves and
consolidate several accesses. The new lanes will be constructed to the east of the existing
roadway up to Weidenfeller Road and on the west side from there to the Dodgeville
interchange. This is done to avoid two large farm operations on the south and to match
with the existing 4 -lane roadway to the north .
d.
Alternative 3B : Mineral Point West Bypass
West Bypass Alternative 3B begins on realignment approximately 0.8 miles north of Oak
Park Road and curves to the north staying just west of the fairgrounds. A diamond
interchange with realigned Ridge Street is located near CTH O. From there the alignment
proceeds northeast to approximately coincide with the 3A alignment between STH 39 and
East Lake Road .
The alignment then turns north to avoid the Historic District, crosses the tributary to
Ludden Lake, continues northeast approximately parallel to the creek, and rejoinsUSH 151
just north of East Barreltown Road . A north interchange is located north of the creek .
Ridge Street /STH 23 is realigned , connecting to
Alternative 3A .
e.
South Barreltown Road , similar to
Subalternative 3B - 1: Mineral Point West Bypass
Subalternative 3B -1 was identical to Alternative 3B to a point approximately 2 km
(1.5 miles ) north of Mineral Point. From there , 3B - 1 curved north and continued on
realignment across a mix of cropland and pasture for approximately 5 km (2.8 miles) to the
existing interchange with STH 23 south of Dodgeville. At- grade intersections were located
II- 16
at Widenfeller Road, East Barreltown Road, East Survey Road, and Wil-Na-Mar Road.
Existing USH 151 would remain in place to a point north of CTH
continued northward to Wil-Na-Mar Road.
f.
Y , but would not be
Subalternative 3B -2 : Mineral Point West Bypass
Subalternative 3B -2 was identical to Alternative 3B to approximately South Barreltown
Road . From there it curved east, recrossing the creek valley and rejoining the existing
USH 151 alignment approximately 1 km (0.9 miles) north of Shake Rag Street. North of
that point, the alternative was identical to Alternative 3A . A trumpet- type interchange was
provided where the new highway joins existing USH 151.
g.
Alternative 3C : Mineral Point East Bypass
East Bypass Alternative 3C begins on realignmentjust north of Oak Park Road , proceeding
east across CTH O and the Brewery Creek valley. A diamond interchange is provided at
CTH O , which would be realigned to proceed directly into Mineral Point as an extension
of Ridge Street. In the creek valley, multiple structures would span Brewery Creek , the
Cheese Country Trail, and Ferndale Road .
The alignment proceeds northeast to a grade separation over STH 23.
It stays east of a
large, inactive mine on the Ceniti and Pierson properties before turning to the north . It
crosses STH 39 at a grade separation and turns to the northwest to avoid a mine on the
Olson property. The alignment continues north, staying east of the City and the Mineral
Point Historic District, and crosses Antoine Street /CTH SS at a grade separation and a
WDNR -funded snowmobile trail.
The alignment then turns northeast, rejoining existing
USH 151 approximately 2 km ( 1 mile ) north of the City.
A trumpet-type directional
interchange located on the Gevelinger property would connect to a realigned Ridge Street.
Variations using the same alignment as 3C , but incorporating different south interchange
arrangements, were developed for the cost/benefit analysis.
These included a " split
interchange" option which would provide the southbound on-ramp and northbound off -ramp
at CTH O and the northbound on -ramp and southbound off -ramp at STH
h.
23 .
Alternative 3E : Mineral Point Far West Bypass
Alternative 3E begins on realignment approximately 0.5 miles south of Oak Park Road and
proceeds north across North Oak Park Road and the Mineral Point Branch . A diamond
interchange is provided at North Oak Park Road, which is realigned to go directly into
Mineral Point as an extension of South Ridge Street.
After crossing the river, the alignment continues north crossing Miller Road at a grade
separation . Curving to the northeast, it crosses Burr Oak Road, STH 39, and CTH QQ at
grade separations. It then turns to the east crossing the Mineral Point Branch again north
of Ludden Lake. From there it continues east crossing South Barreltown road , which will
be closed at the new facility. A diamond-type north interchange is located east of South
Barreltown Road at realigned Ridge Street /STH 23 connecting to South Barreltown Road
II- 17
similar to Alternatives 3A and 3B . The alignment continues to the east and coincides with
Alternative 3B approximately 2.4 km
2.
(1.5 miles) north of Mineral Point.
Initial Impact Analysis
a.
Land Requirements (Right of Way)
The approximate total additional right of way acreages required for each alternative are:
Alternative
Ha (Acres)
1B
50 ( 123)
2A
69 ( 170 )
158 ( 390 )
3A
3B
3B - 1
3B - 2
3C
ЗЕ
168 (415)
175 ( 432 )
156 ( 385)
176 (434 )
200 (494 )
Within the Mineral Point bypass segment, approximately 117 ha (290 acres) potentially are
suitable for residential or commercialdevelopment in the area west of existing development,
between STH 39 and Barreltown Road . Of this area, Alternative 3A requires 16 ha
(40 acres) and Alternative 3B requires 4 ha ( 10 acres). Mineral Point's future industrial
park consists of 27 ha (67 acres) located along USH
151 just north of Barreltown Road.
Under Alternative 3A, approximately 14 ha (35 acres) out of a total of 15 ha (67 acres) of
the future industrial park property would either be acquired or prevented from developing
commercially.
Alternative 3B requires approximately 2 ha (4 acres) from the future
industrial park for roadways, which could serve the development of the property.
b.
Farmland
The approximate farmland acreages impacted by each alternative are:
Alternative
Ha (Acres )
1B
49 (120 )
2A
3A
66 ( 164)
129 (318 )
3B
151 ( 373 )
160 ( 394 )
3B - 1
3B - 2
3C
ЗЕ
142 ( 350 )
165 (407 )
191 (471)
II- 18
The land east of Mineral Point along Alternative 3C is generally considered to be more
valuable farmland. West of the City , a greater proportion of the land is pasture or
land-bank land rather than cropland .
c.
Wetlands
The approximate areas of wetlands impacted by each alternative are :
Alternative
1B
2A
3A
3B
3B - 1
3B - 2
3C
ЗЕ
Ha (Acres)
0.0 (0.0 )
0.3 (0.8 )
2.2 (5.5 )
0.04 (0.1)
0.04 (0.1)
0.04 (0.1)
0.5 ( 1.3)
0.0 (0.0 )
The impacted wetlands are classified as emergent/wet meadow with narrow
leaved
persistent vegetation . While the acreages are small, their importance is stressed by WDNR
because there are few wetlands in the area .
In Segment 2 , the impacts are to Joy Lake and to a small area of wetland south of the
Pecatonica River. Neither of these involves severing of a wetland .
In Segment 3,
Alternative 3A severs the largest wetland in the project area . Alternative 3C also severs a
more extensive group of wetlands.
d.
Woodlands
The approximate areas of woodlands impacted by each alternative are:
Alternative
1B
2A
ЗА
3B
3B - 1
3B - 2
3C
ЗЕ
Ha (Acres)
0 (0)
1 (3 )
22 (55)
10 (24 )
9 (21)
7 ( 17)
7 ( 17 )
7 ( 18 )
Alternative 3A severs a large wooded area on the Wayne Carey property . The WDNR has
identified this area as high quality wildlife habitat.
II - 19
Crossings
Stream
e.
The number of stream
crossings was tabulated for each alternative as a rough measure of
potential environmental impacts. Stream crossings were tabulated where USGS mapping
indicated year- around stream flow or where preliminary hydrologic analysis indicated the
need for a box culvert. Intermittent streams requiring pipe culverts were not counted .
The number of stream
Alternative
0
Cottage
Inn
Branch
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Unnamed
Creeks
2
2
3
2
3
3
1 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pecatonica
River
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
Bonner
Branch
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
Brewery
Creek
1
1B
2A
ЗА
3B
3B - 1
3B - 2
3C
3E
Mineral
Point
Branch
crossings for each alternative is :
Total
3
5
3
2
3
3
3
3
Stream crossings impact floodplains and wildlife habitat and increase the probability of
impacting pre-settlement archaeological sites. The Pecatonica River is the largest stream
in the project area . The Mineral Point Branch is the largest stream in study Segment 3 and
has the greatest associated impacts . Alternative 3E affects this stream , in particular the
reach above Ludden Lake which may provide suitable habitat for a state endangered fish
and a state threatened fish .
Alternative 3C affects Brewery Creek . This stream is sensitive as it is currently the focus
of a water quality improvement project being undertaken by the WDNR in cooperation with
the City of Mineral Point. This project includes consolidation and capping of mine wastes,
restoration of a meandering stream channel, and dedication of land for recreation and
conservancy purposes. One goal is to restore Brewery Creek as a trout stream , with
improvements being partially funded by Trout Unlimited .
f.
Farm
Operation Impacts
Severances and landlocked parcels were tabulated as a rough measure of farm operation
impacts. Severances were tabulated if the severed parcel was greater than 2 ha (5 acres).
Landlocked parcels were identified along the route where freeway-standard access control
will be implemented . The number of farm severances and landlocks for each alternative
is :
II-20
Severances
1B
4
2A
ЗА
0
10
11
12
14
3B
3B - 1
3B - 2
3C
ЗЕ
uruwow
Nwoo
Alternative
Landlocks
10
10
All alternativeswill adversely impact some adjacent farms. The south half of Alternative 3A
creates serious severances of the Schaaf, Wayne Carey, and Wedig farms and would
landlock approximately 81 ha (200 acres) of the Wayne Carey and Wedig farms.
Landlocking of the Schaaf property could be prevented by construction of a frontage road,
Further north ,
but the route between the severed pieces would be very indirect.
Alternative 3A landlocks a small piece of the Harris farm and severs the Cenite farm .
The south half of Alternative 3B avoids the more severe landlocks and severances caused
by 3A by generally following north-south property lines. The Wayne Carey farm is severed
from the farmstead , but relatively direct access is provided across the new highway. This
alternative would sever and landlock parts of the Suthers farm and sever the Harris farm .
It appears that the landlocked portion of the Suthers farm currently has a low intensity of
use and the severed portion of the Harris farm
adjacent Cody farm .
is currently being worked as part of the
Two large farm
operations own or lease much of the land along the north half of
Alternative 3B and have a need to operate farm equipment along and across existing
USH 151. These operationswould benefit from relocating USH 151 and leaving the existing
road as a local road .
Variation 3B - 1 creates additionalmajor severances of the Pittz and Goldthorpe farms. It
could benefit some additional farm operations which operate equipment along and across
existing USH 151.
There are several major severances created by Alternative 3C , including the J. Carey , Ortiz,
Ceniti, Pierson, and Godfrey properties. The north interchange location will severely limit
access to the Gevelinger farm and could potentially landlock itdepending on the exact limit
of freeway standard access control.
Large parts of the Clayton , McNett, and Wahl farms are severed and landlocked under
Alternative 3E , in addition to numerous smaller severances.
II -21
g.
Relocation and Building Impacts
Buildings within or partially within the proposed right of way were assumed to be impacted .
The impacts tabulated are representative of probable impacts within each alternative
corridor, although somebuilding removals may be avoidable with design refinements. If the
building was a residence or a non-farm business, it was tabulated as a relocation . Farm
buildings other than residences were tabulated separately. Garages and small outbuildings
were not tabulated .
The numbers of relocation and building impacts for each of the alternatives are as follows:
Alternative
Residential
Commercial
Other
Relocations
Relocations
Buildings
2
2
7
4
h.
7
3
3
0
8
5
7
2
3
9
2
1
ЗЕ
0
0
6
1
ЗА
3B
3B - 1
3B - 2
30
1
1B
2A
8
8
11
Archaeological and Historic Impacts
In Segment 1, the initial archival and literature search indicated that the Village of Belmont
contained numerous historic resources, and Alternative 1B , as well as all preliminary
alternatives, avoided the existing developed community with the new highway.
In Segment 2 , the initial archival and literature search identified a previously reported
prehistoric archaeological site south of the Pecatonica River. This site is located adjacent
to the existing roadway and will be affected by Alternative 2A.
In
Segment 3 , the Mineral
Point Historic District and several potentially
eligible
archaeological or historic sites are potentially impacted . Within the Mineral Point Historic
District, a great number of the contributing historic resources are located east of existing
USH 151, including the Pendarvis Historic Site and the Mineral Point Hill District, which
are on the National Register . No contributing resources have been identified in the
northwest corner of the district.
Alternative 3A crosses the northwest corner of the Mineral Point Historic District, which
would potentially require acquisition of 4 (f) lands. Alternative 3B avoids acquisition of land
from the Mineral Point Historic District.
Alternatives 3A and 3B have potential indirect (visual/ noise ) impacts on an eligible historic
property located outside the Historic District, approximately 500 m (1,600 feet) away from
the proposed highway .
II-22
The Alternative 3C alignment does not encroach upon the Mineral Point Historic District,
but could have adverse indirect impacts on two sensitive viewscapes from within the district,
which were identified by SHSW .
Alternative 3E has little impact on identified historical sites, including the Mineral Point
Historic District.
All of the Mineral Point Bypass alternatives avoid previously reported archaeological sites,
including cemeteries. Alternative 3C crosses Brewery Creek twice and Alternative 3E
crosses the Mineral Point Branch twice. Potential prehistoric archaeological sites are
generally concentrated along these major streamsand would likely be affected by these two
alternatives. Alternatives 3A and 3B do not cross any major streams.
Early mining activity, dating from the 1830s, is widespread throughout the bypass study area .
A Phase I Archeological Reconnaissance of any of the alternative corridors would be
expected to encounter several historic mining-related archeological sites.
i.
Recreational Sites
In Segment 1, the Calamine- Platteville recreational trail is impacted by Alternative 1B .
Because of the generally east-west orientation of the trail and the generally north -south
orientation of the highway , a crossing of the trail is unavoidable by all alternatives, including
the No- Build Alternative.
In Segment 2, a small highway wayside would be eliminated by Alternative 2A .
In Segment 3, Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 3E do not impact recreational sites. Alternative 3C
crosses the Pecatonica Trail (Cheese Country Trail) constructed by the WDNR as part of
the "Rails to Trails" program . It is owned by the Tri-County Rail Commission and operated
by the Pecatonica Trail Commission . Any structure crossing the trail would have to meet
railroad clearance requirements .
Along with the trail, Alternative 3C crosses Brewery
Creek just south
of the WDNR
remediation project, which includes dedication of land for recreation and conservancy
purposes.
Alternative 3C also crosses a county snowmobile trail (funded by WDNR ), which runs
between Mineral Point and the Military Ridge Trail near Ridgeway.
j.
Mining Activity
Mining activity is a construction factor only in Segment 3. Early mines generally were
hand -dug " surface mines," many of which have been filled in and obscured by other land
uses. From a construction standpoint, these sites are not considered to be ofmajor concern .
The archeological significance of these sites is discussed under a separate heading.
II - 23
Activity continuing through the early 1960s, primarily zinc mining , produced much more
extensive underground diggings. Depths vary from approximately 9 m to 30 m (30 to
100 feet),with ceiling heights of 9 m (30 feet) ormore and horizontaldimensions exceeding
100 m ( 300 feet).
These mines are considered to be a major construction obstacle,
particularly where roadways are built in cut sections.
The larger mines are concentrated on the southeast side of Mineral Point along the
Alternative 3C corridor, where they cause indirection and add length to the highway route .
The proximity to mines complicates the design and possibly the construction of the highway
and make the STH 23 /STH 39 area an unfavorable interchange location .
k.
Hazardous Waste Sites
In Segment 1, Alternative 1B impacts a petroleum contamination site , which is currently in
the process of remediation .
In Segment 2, Alternative 2A may impact one site with suspected petroleum contamination .
In Segment 3, all alternatives would acquire land from
terminus, with suspected petroleum
a site just south of the north project
contamination and a possible construction materials
dump site. Alternative 3B will acquire land from a small quarry and former dump site
Alternative 3C potentially impacts an explosives
suspected of being contaminated .
processing site suspected of contamination .
1.
Community Access/ Interchange Locations
Segment 1 has a single interchange located approximately 0.3 km (0.2 miles ) from the
Village of Belmont. The connecting road to the interchange will be an extension of Mound
Street ( existing USH 151 ), which is compatible with the existing major traffic pattern within
the Village
In Segment 3, all Mineral Point bypass alternatives have two interchanges, one north and
one south of the City. In each case, the connecting road to the interchange is an extension
and realignment of Ridge Street ( existing USH 151), preserving the existing major traffic
pattern within the City. Differences occur in the type of interchange (diamond vs. trumpet )
and in the distance from the City to the interchange. (For purposes of comparison , the
north line of Section 6 is considered the north City limits.)
Distances in kilometers (miles ) from the north and south City limits to the interchanges are :
II- 24
South
North
Alternative
Interchange
Interchange
3A
3B
3.4 km (2.1 miles)
0.8 km (0.5 miles)
0.8 km (0.5 miles)
0.8 km (0.5 miles)
1.0 km
3B - 1
3B - 2
3C
ЗЕ
1.4 km
3.5 km
(0.9 miles )
(2.2 miles)
(0.6 miles
1.9 km ( 1.2 miles)
1.9 km ( 1.2 miles)
1.6 km ( 1.0 miles )
1.1 km (0.7 miles )
2.4 km
( 1.5 miles )
The Alternative 3A north interchange would limit access to the future industrial park
property in addition to acquiring a large portion of the site for right of way, as discussed
previously.
The proposed side road through the Alternative 3B south interchange would terminate at
the Wayne Carey farm , providing access to his farm and creating potential for future
construction of a local road system and development of the land to the west.
The
Alternative 3B north interchange location provides convenient access to the future industrial
park property .
Both north and south Alternative 3C interchanges provide convenient access to the City
though access to the future industrial park is less direct.
Alternative 3E north interchange provides direct access to the future industrial park ,
although it is further away from that site as well as from the City limits. The Alternative 3E
south interchange location would provide relatively inconvenient access to the City and
would not encourage economic development.
m .
Construction Costs and User Benefits
Initial construction costs and Highway User Benefits, tabulated below for each alternative ,
were estimated in 1993 dollars. Highway User Benefits reflect the anticipated benefits to
the highway user due to the reduced vehicle operation and delay costs in comparison to the
No-Build Alternative. User Benefits do not represent a comprehensive measure of all
factors, but rather, is one factor to be considered along with other factors, such as
agricultural and environmental impacts.
II- 25
Initial
Construction
Alternative
1B
2A
ЗА
3B
3B - 1
Costs
Highway
User
Benefits
Benefit
$ 10.8
$ 21.2
$ 10.4
$ 12.8
$ 5.9
$ 38.6
( $6.9 )
$ 11.6
$ 7.3
$ 27.0
$ 26.7
$ 34.0
$ 37.9
$ 26.9
3B - 2
3C
$ 27.0
$ 28.3
3E
$ 31.6
$ 27.6
$ 5.8
$ 14.9
11
Net
User
$ 11.0
$ 0.6
MI
($ 22.5 )
($ 16.7 )
II
Figure II-2 provides a graphic summary of construction costs and Highway User Benefits for
the alternatives and several variations. Further information on the cost/benefit analysis is
contained in Appendix F.
In Segment 3, User Benefits for Alternatives 3A , 3B , and 3B - 1 exceed construction costs
resulting in a positive Net User Benefit , while for Alternatives 3C and 3E construction costs
considerably exceed User Benefits, resulting in a negative Net User Benefit.
n.
Public Support
Public acceptance was considered an important factor in evaluating the feasibility of
alternatives.
Opportunities to discuss and comment on the Mineral Point Bypass
alternativeswere provided for local public officials, elected representatives, and the general
public. A detailed discussion of public involvement activities is presented in Section VI.
These activities included distribution of a Route Preference Survey,which specifically asked
respondents to rate their opinion of each of the bypass alternatives.
Figure II-3 is a
summary of the responses to the Route Preference Survey question concerning bypass
alternatives. A large majority of the written and verbal comments received are in support
of the project in general, and in particular, the need for bypasses of the Belmont and
Mineral Point urban areas. The Route Preference Survey shows a clear preference for
Alternatives 3A or 3B over Alternatives 3C or 3E . These results are consistent with verbal
comments received from local officials and public information meetings, as well as other
comments received throughout the evaluation process .
3.
Conclusions
The results of the environmental analysis of the four Mineral Point Bypass alternatives are
summarized in Table II-2. Following is a comparison of the alternatives and conclusions as
to the prudence of each alternative.
II - 26
Table II - 2
STUDY ALTERNATIVES
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
ALTERNATIVES
IMPACT
FACTOR
Segment Length (km ) (miles)
1B
2A
6.6 (4.1)
9.2 (5.7)
3B
ЗА
14.5 (9.0 )
3B - 1
16.6 (10.3)
15.8 (9.8 )
156 (385)
142 (350)
0.04 (0.1)
7 (17)
176 (434)
165 (407)
0.5 (1.3)
7 (17)
200 (494)
191 (471)
0 (0.0)
7 ( 18)
14
8
10
3
10
2
168 (415)
151 (373)
0.04 (0.1)
10 (24)
Farm Operation Impacts
Severances (each )
Landlocks (each
4
3
0
10
3
11
5
12
5
Stream Crossings (each )
Pecatonica River
Cottage Inn Branch
Bonner Branch
Mineral Point Branch
Brewery Creek
Unnamed Streams
0
1
2
2
1
2
3
2
3
3
2
0
2
0
7
7
3
8
4
3
0
5
2
7
3
8
9
2
8
11
No
Moderate
No
Moderate
Direct
Low
Indirect
Low
Indirect
Low
Indirect
Low
Indirect
Moderate
No
Moderate
None
None
Low
Moderate
High
Low
Low
2
6
1
Low
2
2
1
Mine Impacts
1 1
158 (390 )
129 (318)
2.2 (5.5)
22 (55)
1
15.4 (9.6 )
65 ( 161)
64 (155)
0.3 (0.8 )
1.2 (2.9)
Historic Impacts
Archaeological Impacts
ЗЕ
14.6 (9.1)
50 (123)
49 (120 )
0 (0)
0 (0)
ResidentialRelocations (each )
Business Relocations
Other Buildings
3C
14.8 (9.2 )
176 (434)
155 (383)
0.04 (0.1)
13 (33)
Total Land Required (ha) (acres)
Farmland
Wetlands
Woodland
3B - 2
2
Distance to Interchanges (miles)
South Interchange
North Interchange
N /A
0.2
NIA
NIA
2.1
0.6
0.5
1.2
0.5
1.2
0.5
1.0
0.9
0.7
2.2
1.5
Highway User Benefits (1993 $ mil)
Construction Cost (1993 $ mil)
21.2
10.8
5.9
12.8
38.6
27.0
34.0
26.7
37.9
26.9
27.6
27.0
5.8
28.3
14.9
31.6
Community Support
High
High
High
High
Medium
Low
Low
Low
Hazardous Waste Sites (each )
0
1B - Belmont Bypass
2A - Belmont to Mineral Point
3A through 3E - Mineral Point Bypass
II-27
a.
Alternative 1B
Alternative 1B met the purpose and need for the project while providing a relatively direct
It avoided environmentally sensitive areas while
route to minimize farmland acquisition .
providing convenient access to the community and preserving the major traffic pattern in
the Village. Highway User Benefits exceeded construction costs . It also received strong
support from local officials and the public. This alternative was carried forward as the basis
for Segment 1 of the Build Alternative.
b.
Alternative 2A
Alternative 2A met the purpose and need for the project while minimizing farmland
severances, which would result from building on new
acquisition and avoiding farm
alignment. It avoided most of the buildings and farm houses in the segment. The concept
of building along the existing alignment in the rural area received strong support from local
officials and the public. This alternative was carried forward as the basis for Segment 2 of
the Build Alternative .
C.
Due to
Alternative 3A
a
combination
of adverse impacts to
the natural and cultural environment,
Alternative 3A was judged not to be prudent. Although this alternative has the shortest
overall route length , the south half of this alternative severs the largest wetland in the
project area and severs a large wooded area, which has been identified as valuable wildlife
habitat. It traverses very steep terrain , making construction difficult. It also severs three
large farms, landlocking a large part of at least one of them . The south interchange
location , which is more than 2 miles from the City, provided relatively inconvenient access .
The north half of Alternative 3A crosses the Mineral Point Historic District, potentially
requiring the acquisition of 4 (f) lands, to which there is a feasible and prudent alternative.
The north interchange negatively impacts the city's future industrial park .
d.
Alternative 3B
Alternative 3B meets the purpose and need for the project, compares favorably to all other
alternatives in most impact categories, and provides Highway User Benefits exceeding
construction cost. This alternative required less new right of way and had fewer adverse
farm impacts than Alternatives 3C or 3E . The DATCP has identified Alternatives 3A and
3B as the agriculturally preferred routes. It avoided wetlands and minimized impacts on
woodland habitat. It balanced the conflicting goals of providing convenient access to the
community and the future industrial park while minimizing adverse impact on developable
land. In addition , Alternative 3B had strong community support and was supported by a
resolution of the Mineral Point City Council and SWWRPC . Copies of resolutions are
included in Appendix B , pages B -23 and 24 , and B -34 through 36 .
II-28
Alternative 3B was carried forward as the basis of Segment 3 of the Build Alternative .
More in -depth archaeological, historic, noise , and hazardous waste investigations were
conducted for the Build Alternative, beyond the level of study presented in this section .
Those investigations support the conclusion that Alternative 3B is feasible and prudent.
Results of these investigations are discussed in Section IV .
e.
Subalternative 3B - 1
Subalternative 3B - 1 is not a prudent alternative because of adverse impacts on farms and
on the local road network. Additional analysis was undertaken to compare the impacts of
Subalternative 3B- 1 with Alternative 3B. A smaller study segment was defined to include
only the area north of Mineral Point, from the location where the alignments diverge to the
north project terminus. Analysis included a small refinement of each alignment to avoid
several buildings and to improve crossing angles at side roads. Land impacts were re
evaluated for this limited segment, with acreages for cropland and pasture separately
computed . Local road connections and individual farm
accesses were investigated .
Within the study segment, Variation 3B -1 requires approximately 20 percentmore farmland ,
much of which is high -value cropland and severs two additional farms. Building and
relocation impacts are comparable for the two sub- alternatives.
Variation 3B - 1 has serious negative impacts on the local road network . An intersection
connecting the existing USH 151 roadway with the new highway at the north end would be
unacceptable as it would attract a large volume of traffic to an at- grade intersection located
very close to the existing interchange ramps. Variation 3B - 1 results in nearly 2 km
(1 mile )
of additional local road to be maintained, which is essentially parallel to the new facility,
and approximately 0.8 km (0.5 miles ) of dead -end road. It would add 1.0 km (0.6 miles) to
the trip between Dodgeville and the golf course and bowling alley, which are the major
traffic generators in the segment.
There was some perception among several adjacent property owners that leaving more of
the existing highway in place would be beneficial to their operations. However , those
operations can be served by the new highway under Alternative 3B while avoiding the
adverse impacts created by Variation 3B - 1 .
f.
Subalternative 3B - 2
Subalternative 3B - 2 is not a prudent alternative because it adds substantial length and cost
to the project and has several adverse land use impacts. The location of the highway and
interchange would acquire or landlock nearly half of the City's future industrial park. It
would also landlock a large farm parcel located immediately north of the interchange .
g.
Alternative 3C
This alternative was judged not to be prudent due to its adverse impacts to the natural and
cultural environment, public opposition, and negative Net User Benefit. This alignment
crosses Brewery Creek in an area of steep terrain , impacting wetlands and a recreational
II -29
corridor potentially creating a 4 (f) condition. It crosses the creek in a sensitive area near
the location of a current WDNR project aimed at improving stream quality. The alignment
stays outside the Mineral Point Historic District,but it passes close to the district along the
side which containsthe greatest concentration of contributing resources and could adversely
impact the viewscape from several locations within the district.
This alternative has greater adverse farm impacts than either of the near west alternatives,
including several severe severances. It requires more acres and generally higher quality
farmland than the Alternatives 3A or 3B .
The major mines along this corridor contribute to its having the greatest overall route
length , which increases construction cost while reducing Highway User Benefits. Several
interchange variations were analyzed for this alternative and construction cost was found to
exceed Highway User Benefits for all variations. Finally, this alternative does not receive
broad support from the community of Mineral Point and numerous commentors have
expressed strong opposition to this alternative .
h.
Alternative 3E
Alternative 3E is not prudent due to adverse farm impacts, adverse impacts to the natural
environment, poor community access, negative Net User Benefits, and lack of public
support. This alternative requires the greatest amount of farmland and has more severe
farm impacts than the near west alternatives. It requires two additional crossings of the
Mineral Point Branch in difficult terrain . The largest stream in the bypass area, theMineral
Point Branch, and its associated floodplain support a wide variety of wildlife . The upper
reaches may provide habitat for endangered species. The two additional crossings would
require placement of fill in the floodplain and would adversely impact the natural
environment. The crossing locations also have a high probability of impacting prehistoric
archaeological sites.
This alternative has greater overall route length than the near west alternatives and results
These factors contribute
in interchanges being located undesirably distant from the City.
to construction costs greatly exceeding Highway User Benefits. In addition , this alternative
does not receive broad support from the community . Many commentors have expressed
opposition to this alternative .
D. ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR SUPPLEMENTARY STUDY
Following initial detailed study, a single Build Alternative was determined to be the only
prudent and feasible alternative . It consists of a combination of Alternatives 1B , 2A , and
3B , with some modifications resulting from the analysis or from comments received. This
Build Alternative is identified as the preferred alternative.
No- Build Alternative remains under consideration .
II- 30
1.
Build Alternative
The Build Alternative is described below and is shown on Exhibit 6 .
a.
Segment 1
The Build Alternative in Segment 1 is identical to Alternative 1B , except for two
modifications. First, a small shift in the alignment of the proposed relocated CTH G
roadway was made to provide more favorable terrain for the interchange. Second, the
proposed USH 151 alignment near Cottage Inn Road was adjusted to reduce impacts on an
existing residence .
b.
Segment 2
The Build Alternative in Segment 2 is similar to Alternative 2A . The new southbound lanes
will be approximately in the same location as the existing roadway, with a small eastward
shift to permit correction of geometric and clear zone deficiencies while avoiding building
impacts on the west side of existing USH 151.
In this rural segment, expressway access control standardswould be implemented , permitting
access to the new highway by means of at-grade intersections at side roads and driveways
in controlled locations. At- grade intersections would be constructed at Cottage Inn Road,
Burr Oak Road, Jericho Road, CTH A , and Oak Park Road . Minor relocations would be
made at side roads to improve intersection angles and sight distances.
C.
Segment 3
Segment 3 is the Mineral Point Bypass and includes the rural area between the community
and the north terminus of the project at the existing interchange with STH 23 south of
Dodgeville .
The Build Alternative is a refinement of near west Bypass Alternative 3B which was
described in Subsection B above. It begins on realignment approximately 1.3 km (0.8 miles)
north of Oak Park Road, somewhat farther north than Alternative 3B , in order to avoid
severing the Wayne Carey farm
closer to the City.
and to locate the interchange on more favorable terrain
It then curves to the north staying just west of the fairgrounds. From there it proceeds
northeast, crossing through the existing Mineral Point Industrial Park, but avoiding Nelson
Industries building on Fair Street. It continues northeast, crossing over STH 39 and Lake
Road on grade separations.
The alignment then turns north to avoid the Historic District, crossing the tributary to
Ludden Lake . It continues northeast approximately parallel to the creek and rejoins
USH 151 just north of East Barreltown Road . The north interchange is located north of the
creek, slightly east of the Alternative 3B interchange. Ridge Street/STH 23 is realigned to
II-31
cross the future industrial park south of the interchange, continuing north to connect with
South Barreltown Road.
2.
No -Build Alternative
Under the No-Build Alternative , no improvements would be made other than normal
pavement maintenance or localized upgrades, and there would be no increase in traffic
capacity or flow characteristics . The No-Build Alternative is not consistent with statewide
mobility goals and will result in an undesirable level of service for this route in the coming
years.
It will leave numerous geometric and safety deficiencies uncorrected .
It will not
benefit regional economic development, which is one of the goals of the WDOT Corridors
2020 program .
However, the No-Build Alternative avoids environmental impacts associated with the Build
Alternative and remains under consideration as a viable alternative .
=uxh
sr
rolect
2bp/.eDGN
11020
ridge
Ilser
21
is
102
Pioller
BECXNS
is
FMar
= ri
DATE
18:37:50
04
1994
bPRF
= ridge.pr
1-63
are
Levels
-pbl
Table
\dPen
.ltables
lol
efaull
FILE
REFERENCE
REFERENC
FILF
7 E
REFERENC
FILE
E
REFERENCE
FILE
.!-no
name
ref
nref
.2- o
name
3=no
FILE
.REFERENCE
name
rel
REFERENCE
4= o
ref
n.FILE
name
.5=noo
name
REFERENCE
name
6-nrel
FILE
.ref
.•ranoma
R /USH151/SecII.ASF
II -32
211020
is
User
W/R
Mar
-Fri
DATE
1994
18:37:50
04
bPRF
= ridge.prf
BECXNS
is
Plotter
2/pDGN
=u.ebsr
11020
roject
xh
ridge
d\tPen
=pefault.ibi
Table
ables
lot
—
1-63
are
Levels
W/R
8')-m1| 24
SIDEWALK
'-6)2m14
m(4'-8)| 2
WALK
SIDE
'1-26)m 4
)4m1'2 612
MINIMUM
SECTION
SAFETY
FILE
E
ino
1REFERENCE
ref
name
REFERENCE
FILE
ref
..2: no
name
REFERENCE
FILE
3=.no
name
ref
REFERENCE
FILE
name
ref
n4= o
REFERENCE
FILE
5=ino
name
ref
REFERENCE
FILE
nname
6= o
rel
REFERENCE
FILE
ret
.1: no
name
')4m112
12
::.
‫الثا‬
so
')-2(104
DESIREABLE
SECTION
SAFETY
MINIMUM
DESIREABLE
DMIN
. ESIREABLE
m6-4
6m-4
23
3m- 1
-1) 02
'176
28
3826
2
)1'-m(9
-20
')114
8
FIGURE
'Im112
GUTTER
TERRACE
2m1'-8
27
2')-( 68
DESIGN
CLASS
N
(
4
PARKI
NG
) O
9m
m521')-117
5
2-5m
R/W
77
'-1710
WR/
STRUCTURE
PAVEMENT
-PAVEMENT
STRUCTURE
GUTTER
TERRACE
(2
)im
|3m1201
'-1
DESIG
CLASS
4
W
(
ITH N
PARKI
NG
)
10
1m- 2
3')-(384
-
U.S.H. 151
Belmont - Dodgeville
Toma & Lafayette Counties
TYPICAL URBAN ROADWAY SECTIONS
BUILD ON EXISTING
I
ALIGNMENT
:)
INITIAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS
$ 40
$ 31.6
$ 30
$ 27.0
$ 26.7
$ 27.0
$ 26.9
$ 28.3
$ 20
$ 12.8
$ 10.8
$ 10
ЗЕ
HIGHWAY USER BENEFITS
$ 38.6
$ 40
$ 37.9
$ 34.0
$ 30
$ 27.6
$ 21.2
$ 20
$ 14.9
S
10
$ 5.8
$ 5.9
iA
2A
3B
ЗА
3B - 1
3C
3B - 2
3E
NET USER BENEFIT
$ 20
$ 11.6
$ 11.0
$ 10.4
$
10
$ 7.3
$ 0.6
0
-( $ 6.9 )
$ -10
( $ 16.7 )
$ -20
( $ 22.5 )
$ -30
1A
2A
3A
3B
3B - 1
3B - 2
3E
3C
U.S.H. 151
Belmont - Dodgeville
NOTES:
1. ALL FIGURES ARE IN 1993 $ MILLIONS
Towa & Lafayette Counties
HIGHWAY USER
2. NET USER BENEFITS
BENEFIT MINUS CONSTRUCTION COSTS
ALTERNATIVE COSTS
AND
HIGHWAY USER BENEFITS
FIGURE
11-34
II - 2
ALTERNATIVE 3A
60 %
750 %
230 %
OF
RESPONDENTS
PERCENT
20 %
10 %
0%
STRONOLTAARDE
NOT SURE
AGREE
RE
DGARE
ALTERNATIVE 1A
60 %
50 %
240%
230 %
-20 %
10 %
0 40 %
STRONOLYDIS
STRONGLY AOREE
ALTERNATIVE 3B
60 %
RESPONDENTS
OF
PERCENT
OF
RESPONDENTS
PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE
REFERENCE
name
3:no
FILE
.rei
4:rel
FILE
.REFERENCE
name
no
REFERENCE
5: no
.FILE
name
ref
REFERENCE
name
6: no
FILE
.ref
7:.no
FILE
REFERENCE
name
ref
STRONGLY AGRA
AGRI.
NOT SURE
OISHORES
DISAOREE STRONGLY DIS.
ALTERNATIVE 3B - 1
60 %
0%
STRONGLYNORD
60 %
50 %
MORE
NOT URL
olan
MONOLY DO
ALTERNATIVE 3C
QUESTION NO . 5
The following alternatives best
serve the needs for both the
area communities and the
டடடட
10 %
0 % STRONGLY AOREE
RESPONDE
OF
PERCENT
NOT SURE
AOREE
STRONOLYDS
23096
p/1e2DGN
roject
gend.exh
11020
=usr
DISAOREE STRONGLY DIS.
30 %
-20 %
10 %
20 %
dpTable
efault.ibi
\:Pen
lotlables
NOT SURE
ALTERNATIVE 2A
60 %
50 %
30 %
0%
AOREE
604
50 %
40 %
F
AGREE
traveling public :
NOT SURE
DISAGREE STRONOLY DIS .
ALTERNATIVE 3E
U.S.H. 151
Belmont - Dodgeville
1993
07:44:52
Oct
04
DATE
-Mon
lPRF
.: egend.prf
20 %
10 %
0 % STRONOLY AOREE
Towo & Lafayette Counties
AORee
NOT SURE
DISAOREE STRONOLY DIS .
ROUTE PREFERENCE
211020
User
is
SURVEY
TABULATION
FIGURE 11-3
11-35
SECTION III
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
A.
LAND USE AND RELATED CHARACTERISTICS
The USH 151 project corridor from Belmont to Dodgeville is located in southwestern
Wisconsin . Regionally, the area is comprised of the five counties of Grant, Green , Iowa,
Lafayette, and Richland . There are 12 cities,40 villages, and 97 townships, with a combined
total 1990 population of 133,350 persons.
Locally, the project is in southern Iowa County and northern Lafayette County . The project
begins about 1.6 km ( 1.0 mile ) west of the Village of Belmont and extends northeasterly
32 km (20 miles) to the existing 4 -lane section of USH 151 south of Dodgeville . The two
municipalities that would be directly affected by the bypass sections of the project are the
Village of Belmont and the City of Mineral Point with 1990 populations of 836 and 2,431,
respectively.
1.
Geographical Setting
Southwestern Wisconsin is within what is known as the "Driftless Area" of Wisconsin as it
was not covered by glacial drift during the last age of continental glaciation . This area is
unique in the state because its topography is relatively rugged , characterized by steep -walled
valleys, high relief,and very few lakes, a direct result of the non- glaciated nature of the area
permitting streams and other forces of nature to carry on an erosionalprocess uninterrupted
for thousands of years .
One of the dominant topographic features of the region , known as the Military Ridge, is
located at the northern end of the Belmont to Dodgeville project corridor. The Military
Ridge runs east-west from Madison to Prairie du Chien and constitutes the divide between
the north -flowing tributaries of the Wisconsin River and the south flowing tributaries of the
Mississippi and Rock Rivers. The Ridge has several smaller ridges varying from 13 to
19 km ( 8 to 12 miles ) in length which extend southward from it. These north -south ridges
extend into the Belmont to Dodgeville project corridor area and are characterized by steep
topography and uneven ridges. (Physical Geography of Wisconsin , Martin Lawrence , the
University of Wisconsin Press , 1982 edition ).
The City of Mineral Point lies within the area of these north -south ridges. The City itself
is built on a steeply sloping hillside with an elevation difference from top to bottom of about
60 m (200 feet). Existing USH 151 lies along the top of the ridge through the City.
The local relief normally ranges between 30 to 90 m ( 100 to 300 feet). Themaximum relief,
however, is about 300 km ( 1,000 feet), primarily as a result of a number of isolated hills or
mounds that rise above the general rolling upland. These mounds are prominent features
of the landscape and can be easily viewed from a 15- to 25-km ( 10- to 24 -mile ) distance.
III- 1
The principal mound in the project area is the BelmontMound, which is one of the three
Platte Mounds between Platteville and Belmont.
Twomajor rivers form boundaries of the five counties in the southwestern Wisconsin region .
The Wisconsin River forms the northern boundary of Iowa and Grant Counties and the
southern boundary of Richland County; and the Mississippi River forms the western
boundary of Grant County . The Pecatonica River and the Mineral Point Branch are located
within the project corridor area . These major tributaries drain the area into the Rock River,
which in turn flows into the Mississippi River.
2.
Transportation
a.
Highways
The southwestern Wisconsin region is traversed by five major transportation routes
connecting nearby population centers (see Figure 1-2). Each is functionally classified as a
Principal Arterial. These routes are :
1.
USH 151 which passes through
Iowa, Lafayette , and Grant Counties connecting
Dubuque, Iowa, with Madison.
2.
USH
14 which passes through Iowa and Richland Counties connecting La Crosse with
Madison .
3.
USH 61 which connects Dubuque with La Crosse , bisecting Grant County .
4.
USH 18
west.
5.
STH 11 which crosses Grant, Lafayette , and Green Counties connecting Dubuque with
Janesville .
extends through Grant and Iowa Counties connecting Madison with points
With the exception of some portions of USH 151, all major roadways listed above in
southwestern Wisconsin are 2 -lane highways. USH 151 is considered the region's principal
highway as it connects the major metropolitan centers of Dubuque and Madison , where a
wide variety of services and alternative transportation modes exist.
The segment of
USH 151 from Dickeyville to Dodgeville is the remaining section of USH 151 requiring
improvement in order to have a continuous 4 -lane facility between Dubuque and Madison.
The area is also served by town and county roads which provide access from farms to
markets. These facilities also provide farms with access to schools, shopping, church and
social, and recreational activities, as well as to agribusiness equipment and material
suppliers .
III - 2
b.
Public Transportation
The availability of public transportation in southwestern Wisconsin has decreased during the
past few years and is virtually nonexistent. When traveling from Madison to Dubuque, there
are no alternative options, except for use of the automobile.
Greyhound Lines, Inc., is the only public bus company providing intercity transportation in
the southwestern Wisconsin region. However, the only area served by this company is the
route from Madison to La Crosse. There is no intercity bus service between Dubuque and
Madison .
Several human service agencies in the region provide various specialized transportation
services designed specifically for the elderly , handicapped , youth, and low -income persons
and are not open to the general public . Taxi service is available in Lancaster /Fennimore,
Monroe, Platteville , and Richland Center ,but their service area is generally limited to their
community. There is no taxi or public bus service within Belmont or Mineral Point.
Burlington Northern is the only major railroad providing limited direct freight service to the
region . The Burlington Northern has tracks along the east bank of the Mississippi River.
Its nearest railhead is at East Dubuque, Illinois, which is about 65 km (40 miles) from the
project area . Currently, there is no passenger or freight rail service in the project area .
The former Milwaukee Road line between Janesville and Mineral Point has been acquired
by a multi- county rail transit commission , created by their County Boards, in order to
preserve rail service to the communities along these lines. The Monroe to Mineral Point
portion of this line has been rail banked under the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources' "Rails to Trails " program . It is currently being operated as a bicycle trail and
is known as the Tri-County , or Cheese Country , Trail.
The air transportation system
for the southwestern Wisconsin region includes 18 general
utility airports. None of these airports provide scheduled air service . Connections with
major airports and scheduled air service are provided at the Dane County Regional Airport
in Madison. Major carriers serving the Dane County Airport include American Airlines,
American Eagle,Midway Airlines (Chicago Air), Midwest Express, Northwest, TWA,United
Airlines, and United Express. Limited passenger service is also provided at Dubuque, Iowa.
The closest major airports serving the project area are located in Milwaukee and Chicago .
The general aviation needs of the area are presently served by the Iowa County Airport,
located about 1.5 miles west of Mineral Point on STH 39. This airport is open for public
use and features runways for medium -sized aircraft. Several improvements to the Iowa
County Airport are planned for the mid - 1990s.
There are barge freight service facilities along the Mississippi River. The nearest port is at
Dubuque, Iowa.
III - 3
3.
Residential Land Use
A breakdown of existing land use is shown in Table III-1. Residential land use represents
a small percentage of land in the southwestern Wisconsin region. Of the total 973 859 ha
(2,406,406 acres ), only 6 259 ha ( 15,465 acres) are in residential use . The amount of land
dedicated to residential use is not expected to increase significantly in the near future.
Table III - 1
EXISTING LAND USE (1)
Southwestern Wisconsin Counties
Developed
Residential
Grant
Green
Iowa
Lafayette
Richland
Region
2 561
(6,328 )
1 078
(2,664 )
993
(2,454)
766
860
( 1,894 )
(2,126 )
6 259
(15,465)
77
195
98
(483)
( 241 )
88
(218)
( 191)
68
( 168 )
527
( 1,301)
Industrial
268
(663)
202
(499)
128
( 316 )
144
(357)
92
(228 )
835
(2,063)
Institutional
320
(791)
110
(271)
125
98
(308 )
(243)
136
(337)
( 1,950 )
1 297
( 3,204)
337
(833)
3 351
(8,280 )
881
(2,176 )
156
(386 )
6 022
(14,880 )
8 098
3 885
(9,600 )
4 315
3 860
3 660
(20,010 )
(10,663)
(9,539 )
( 9,044)
23 819
(58,856)
62 957
(155,505 )
12 289
(30,355 )
46 171
( 114,043)
12 695
(31,357)
49 352
( 121,899 )
183 465
(453,159)
11 332
(28,101)
526
( 1,300)
2 870
(7,093)
832
(2,057 )
2 088
(5,159 )
17 689
(43,710 )
219 666
131 935
(542,795)
(326,011)
140 971
(348,339)
143 895
(355,565)
98 062
( 242,312 )
734 529
( 1,815,022)
198 994
(491,714)
163 245
(403,379)
154,455
(381,659)
( 2,406,406 )
Commercial
Active
Recreation
Transportation
Communication &
Utilities
789
Undeveloped
Woodland
Surface Water
Ag. & Open
Lands
TOTAL
306 710
150 455
(757,880 )
( 371,774 )
973 859
(1) All figures are hectares (acres)
SOURCE: Southwestern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission.
While there are a few residences and farm homesteads located along the rural sections of
the project corridor from Belmont to Dodgeville , residential areas are concentrated in the
Mineral Point and Belmont.
Existing USH
151 traverses through the center of each
municipality and has residential areas along each side of the highway. Due to the smaller
III - 4
population for each of these two communities, the entire community is generally treated as
a neighborhood residential group .
4.
Commercial/Industrial Land Use
Southwestern Wisconsin's economy is predominantly agricultural in nature . Only.05 percent
of the developed land in the region is in commercial use and .09 percent is in industrial use .
Commercial lands include all wholesale and retail businesses, offices, warehouses, bulk
storage facilities, and similar uses. Industrial lands, which comprise more than 810 ha
(2,000 acres), include all manufacturing and extractive industries.
There are 20 industrial parks located throughout the 5 - county area of southwestern
Wisconsin , including Platteville , Mineral Point, and Dodgeville. According to surveys taken
in the area, a factor often cited as a liability for industrial development in southwestern
Wisconsin , is the lack of a 4 -lane expressway through the region . Since 1962, excluding the
Dodgeville Industrial Park, only about 0.7 ha ( 1.75 acres) of land per year has been sold in
14 industrial parks which have had land sales.
Mineral Point's current industrial park is located on the west side of the City adjacent to
STH 39 .
Other lightly scattered industrial land use is present in the western and
southeastern portions of the City. The City, wanting to encourage further expansion of
industrial development, recently purchased a 27 -ha (67-acre) site north of the City on
existing USH 151 for future use as an industrial park .
Commercial land use in Mineral Point is located in the downtown area along High Street
and scattered on USH 151 along the north and south City boundaries. The City is known
for its historic attractions, antique shops, and artisan community of painters, sculptors,
weavers, photographers, and glass artists. Their work is displayed in shops, galleries, and
studios primarily located in the downtown area of the community. In addition , the existing
USH 151passes by three english -style Bed and Breakfasts in Mineral Point, which are listed
on the National Register of Historic Places .
Commercial land uses in Belmont consist primarily of agriculturally -oriented businesses,
retail, and a few restaurants and taverns, most of which are located adjacent to USH 151.
Tourism is also becoming a strong economic and transportation demand force in the
southwestern Wisconsin region . The region has considerable tourism potential due to its
varied landscape, natural scenic beauty, and numerous historic attractions. Major tourism
attractions throughout the area include the House on the Rock just north of Dodgeville; the
Pendarvis House, and other historical attractions at Mineral Point; several recreational
bicycle trails; and the Shakespeare Festival and the Chicago Bears training camp at
Platteville. Within the last few years, Dubuque successfully promoted dog track racing and,
along with East Dubuque, promoted casino riverboat gambling to attract a large number of
tourists .
III -5
5.
Institutional Land Use
There are 790 ha ( 1,950 acres) dedicated to
institutional land use in
the southwestern
Wisconsin region . In addition , to numerous elementary schools,middle, junior high schools,
and secondary schools, there are three vocational-technical institutes and one university
(Platteville ), totalling 42 school districts in all.
Students within the project area attend one of two school districts , Mineral Point Unified
or Belmont. The Mineral Point school system consists of a grade school,middle school, and
a high school, all clustered in close proximity to each other, providing a campus-type
atmosphere . The grade school and middle school are located one block off USH 151,while
the high school is adjacent to the highway .
Belmont's educational facilities consist of kindergarten , elementary, junior high , and high
school. The junior high is located is the high school building , two blocks off existing
USH 151.
Mineral Point's Municipal Building, located in the downtown area on High Street, houses
the city library, police department, volunteer fire department, senior citizen center, and a
400 -seat community theater. Belmont's Community Center is located on existing USH 151
and houses the Village administrative offices and senior citizen center. The Village's library
is located in a separate building on USH 151, next to the Community Center. The police,
fire , and EMS personnel are located in a separate building located on USH 151.
Mineral Pointhas two traditional-type health care clinics and three specialized health care
centers which serve not only Mineral Point residents, but also constituents outside the City.
In addition , a hospital facility exists in Dodgeville. Belmont has a senior citizen center.
Residents of the Belmont area travel to Platteville or Mineral Point for traditional health
care .
6.
Agricultural Land Use
The predominant land use in the southwest Wisconsin region is agriculture . Approximately
75.4 percent of the land is used for agricultural purposes.
Lafayette and Iowa Counties have farmland , which will be affected by the proposed project.
According to the 1993 Agricultural Statistics, prepared by the Wisconsin Statistical Service ,
agriculture is a significant contributor to the Lafayette County economy, generating 1991
cash receipts of over $ 131 million . Dairy products were the leading contributor with cash
receipts of over $67 million, meat animals ranked second with over $42 million , and field
crops ranked third with $ 20 million . Lafayette County ranked third highest in the state in
cash receipts for meat animals, fifth for the production of corn for grain , sixth for alfalfa
hay, and ninth for the production of soybeans. The County also ranked 11th highest in the
State for amount of land in farms.
Agriculture is also a significant contributor to the Iowa County economy, generating 1991
cash receipts of over $ 106 million .
Dairy products were the leading contributor
III-6
($ 59 + million ), with meat animals ranked second ( $32 + million ) and field crops ranked
third ($ 11.1 million). Within the state , Iowa County ranked fourth in the production of
alfalfa hay and ninth in the production of barley .
During the period between 1976-1991, Iowa County followed the statewide trend of a
decline in the amount of land in farms, whereas Lafayette County experienced an increase .
For the same period , both counties showed a decline in the number of farms, but
correspondingly had an increase in the average farm size acreage. These agricultural land
use trends are summarized in Table III -2 . (Note : 1991 statewide average farm size was
89.6 ha (221.5 acres).)
Table III- 2
AGRICULTURAL LAND USE
LAFAYETTE COUNTY
IOWA COUNTY
Total Farm
Area - ha
( acre )
Number of Farms
Average Farm
Size - ha
( acre )
7.
1976
1991
1976
1991
174 100
167 200
157 700
161 100
(430,000)
(413,000 )
( 389,500)
(398,000 )
1,670
1,450
1,640
1,420
104
115
( 258)
(285 )
96
(236 )
116
(286 )
Cemeteries
Nine cemeteries were identified between Belmont and Dodgeville. One cemetery is located
about 2.4 km ( 1.5 miles) south of Belmont, while within the Village , there are two additional
cemeteries, one of which abuts existing USH 151. Approximately 5.6 km (3.5 miles) north
of Belmont and 152 m
cemetery.
(500 feet) west of existing USH
151, there is also one very small
Within Mineral Point, four cemeteries were located , two of which abut existing USH
One cemetery is just east of the City and south of STH 23.
8.
151.
Land Use Planning and Zoning
Several reports prepared by the Southwestern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
(SWWRPC ) and other agencies were used as resource materials for the Draft EIS .
SWWRPC provides technical assistance and coordination for many of the local planning
efforts in the southwestern Wisconsin region . The City of Mineral Point is the only
community in the project area which has a development (land use ) plan . This development
plan was part of their Comprehensive Plan and is shown on Exhibit 9.
The City's
Comprehensive Plan is currently in the process of being updated, and the revised
III- 7
development plan will be attached to the Final EIS. Following is a summary of the major
documents contributing information relevant to the USH
The Overall Economic
Development Program
151 project.
(OEDP ) for Southwestern
Wisconsin
Planning Report No. 58 (February 1985), prepared by the SWWRPC . This document
describes the District's Overall Economic Development Program . It examines the
problems, needs, and resources of the District and sets forth the goals of the program
together with the strategy to achieve these goals .
The OEDP Update Planning Report No. 97 ( June 1993), prepared by the SWWRPC .
This document provides a detailed update to the February 1985 report described above .
The Mineral Point, Wisconsin , Comprehensive Planning Program Planning Report No. 59
( July 1985), prepared by the Mineral Point Planning Commission and Mineral Point
Area Development Corporation, with technical assistance from SWWRPC . In addition
to identifying development potential, this report identifies development problems that
are unique to Mineral Point due to its relief and soil and bedrock limitations .
TheMineral Point, Wisconsin, Comprehensive Planning Program report is currently being
updated by SWWRPC and should be completed in early 1994. The development of the
bypass corridor alternatives were coordinated, when efforts were undertaken to update
this plan , through several joint meetings with the Mineral Point Bypass Study
Committee , Mineral Point Planning Commission , Mineral Point Chamber of Commerce,
Mineral Point Area Development Corporation , and the SWWRPC .
Both the Lafayette County Farmland Preservation Plan and the Iowa County Farmland
Preservation Plan were certified in 1980. These plans are intended to guide future
growth and to preserve farmland by identifying agricultural areas; transition areas; and
excluded areas, such as unincorporated communities and developed small tracts . In
addition , the plans allow eligible farmers to participate in the Farmland Preservation
Program by signing farmland protection agreements or through the adoption of exclusive
agricultural zoning by their towns.
While Iowa County has countywide exclusive agriculturalzoning as a meansof farmland
preservation , only certain townships within Lafayette County have exclusive agricultural
zoning . Within the project area affecting Lafayette County, the Town of Belmont does
not have exclusive agricultural zoning , while the Town of Kendall does . In addition ,
only one farm owner in the Town of Belmont ( within the project area ) has signed an
individual agreement with the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer
Protection (DATCP) for protection of farmland .
Soil Survey of Lafayette County, Wisconsin ( 1960 ) and Soil Survey of Iowa County,
Wisconsin (1962) were both prepared by the Soil Conservation Service . These reports
provide detailed descriptions of the soil types in Lafayette and Iowa Counties, along
with information on their properties, use , and management.
III- 8
The Geology of the Upper Mississippi Valley Zinc -Lead District (1959 ), prepared by the
USGS. This document provided detailed information and maps on themining resources
in the Upper Mississippi Valley Zinc-Lead District, which included all of the project
corridor area . In particular to this project, the report provided location information for
several large mines in and around the Mineral Point area.
Corridors 2020 ( 1989), prepared by the WDOT. This report identified a system of high
quality highways, which are important to enhancing Wisconsin’s agriculture , business,
manufacturing, and tourism .
The Corridors 2020 network has two elements: a
statewide backbone system of multilane, divided highways connecting all regions and
major economic centers in the state to the national transportation network ; and a
system of high quality connectors linking other significant economic and tourism centers
to the backbone system . USH 151 is designated as a multilane backbone component
of the Corridors 2020 network .
The Access Management System Plan for Wisconsin's Highways (August 1989 ), prepared
by the WDOT. The purpose of this statewide plan is to set forth policies and guidelines
that will maintain a high level of service for through traffic while providing reasonable
access to abutting properties. The plan's goal is to seek a balance between public
investments in highway improvements and the desire for land development, tax base
growth , and job creation . USH 151 is designated as a corridor on WDOT's statewide
plan .
B.
SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
1.
Population Levels and Trends
The population ofsouthwest Wisconsin has decreased by 3,000 people, or 2.3 percent during
the most recent decade (see Table III-3 ). In comparison, the State ofWisconsin showed a
4.0 percentincrease in population during the same period. The trend of population loss was
fairly widespread throughout the region . Lafayette County experienced a sizable loss of
7.7 percent, while Iowa County recorded the highest increase of 348 people, or 1.8 percent.
Population projections for the decade 1990 to 2000 show increases in most communities.
These projections are based on the population increases many communities experienced
since 1990 when a turnaround in growth began (see Table III -4 ). Projections for the City
ofMineral Point and the Village of Belmont show slight increases.
III- 9
Table III - 3
POPULATION TRENDS
1960 - 1990
Southwestern Wisconsin
County
Grant
Green
lowa
Lafayette
Richland
TOTAL
1960
'60-'70
% Chng.
1970
'70 -'80
% Chng.
1980
'80 -'90
% Chng.
1990
44,419
25,851
19,631
18,142
17,684
9,0 %
3.3 %
-1.7 %
-3.8 %
-3.4 %
48,398
26,714
19,306
17,456
17,079
6.9 %
12.3 %
2.6 %
-0.3 %
2.3 %
51,736
30,012
19,802
17,412
17,476
-4.8 %
1.1 %
1.8 %
-7.7 %
0.3 %
49,264
30,339
20,150
16,076
17,521
125,727
2.6 %
128,953
5.8 %
136,438
-2.3 %
133,350
Table III- 4
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
AREA COMMUNITIES
Community
1990
Census
Dickeyville
Lancaster
1992
Estimate
2000
%
Projected
Change
862
902
4,197
1,096
4,221
27.1 %
4,192
Dodgeville
Mineral Point
Belmont
9,862
3,882
9,946
4,008
10,341
4,601
2,428
823
2,431
836
2,445
897
4.9 %
18.5 %
0.7 %
9.0 %
Darlington
2,235
2,258
2,366
5.9 %
Platteville
0.7 %
SOURCE: Southwestern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, January 1993 .
2. Minority Population
The population of the southwest Wisconsin region is predominantly white, with only 1,249
persons of minority population groups living in the region in 1990 (less than 1 percent of the
population of the region). Iowa County had a 1990 minority population of 57 persons
(0.3 percent of the County), ofwhich Mineral Point had 13 persons (0.5 percent of the City) .
Lafayette County had a 1990 minority population of67 persons (0.4 percent of the County ),
of which the Village of Belmont had 3 persons (0.4 percent of the Village ).
3.
Income and Tax Base
According to the most recent information available (the 1990 Census of Population and
Housing, prepared by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, and the OEDP
Update, prepared by SWWRPC ), substantial areas in Grant, Lafayette , and Richland
III- 10
Counties and the western half of Iowa County have income levels below
the regional
average of $ 11,283 and the State average of $ 13,276 . Iowa County has 8,220 housing units,
for a total population of 20,150 ;median household income is $ 25,914 ; and per capita income
is $ 11,339. Lafayette County has 6,315 housing units, for a total population of 16,076 ;
median household income is $ 24,479; and per capita income is $ 10,641.
Per capita income increased by 81.5 percent for the region during the decade, compared to
an increase of 83.3 percent for the State of Wisconsin .
The 1991 effective tax rate for affected cities, villages, and townships is shown on Table
III-5. The 1991 statewide " average effective tax" rates were .03215 (cities), .02880 (villages ),
and .02490 ( towns) .
Table III- 5
1991 EFFECTIVE TAX RATES
City of Mineral Point
.0348
Village of Belmont
.0297
Town of Mineral Point
.03018
Town of Kendall
.03181
Town of Belmont
.03297
Property tax is the most important revenue source for local governments .
The " effective"
tax rate is obtained by subtracting the State property tax credit from the general property
tax level and dividing by the full value. The full value is the amount of all taxable general
property determined by the Wisconsin Department of Revenue . It is meant to reflect the
actualmarket value. Rates shown in Table III -5 indicate that all affected cities, villages, and
towns are above the statewide average tax rate . This can be attributed generally to the
agricultural nature of the area, lower population density , and lack of substantial commercial
or industrial properties.
4.
Work Force
Per 1990 Census data , Table III -6 shows the employment distribution among industries and
occupations in Iowa and Lafayette Counties.
In Iowa County, retail trade is the number one source of employment due in part to the
growth of Lands' End, Inc., a direct mail-order business, with farming as the second most
important source . In Lafayette County, farming is by far the largest source of employment,
with retail trade being second , followed by manufacturing .
III- 11
Table III- 6
EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY AND OCCUPATION
APRIL 1 , 1990
SOUTHWESTERN WISCONSIN
Industry Classification
Agriculture, Forest, Fish
Mining and Construction
Manufacturing - Durable
Manufacturing - Non-Durable
Transport., Comm . & Utilities
Retail Trade
Wholesale Trade
Finance , Ins., Real Estate
Health Services
Educational Services
All Other Services
Public Administration
Total
3,831
1,026
1,760
946
942
3,730
685
659
1,157
1,285
1,743
355
21
6
10
5.
5
20
4
4
6
7
10
1
Iowa
%
1,894
680
815
421
540
2,517
389
426
613
724
1,099
193
18
7
8
4
5
24
4
4
6
7
11
2
1,937
346
945
525
402
1,213
296
233
544
561
644
162
Lafayette
%
25
4
12
7
5
15
4.
3
7
7
8
2
Totals
18,119
100
10,311
100
7,808
100
1,153
1,572
336
1,622
2,411
2,215
3,597
2,205
1,396
817
795
6
9
2
9
13
12
20
12
8
5
4
702
962
221
1,028
1,530
1,212
1,761
1,251
7.28
461
455
7
9
2
10
15
12
17
12
7
5
4
451
610
115
594
881
1,003
1,836
954
668
356
340
6
8
2
8
11
13
24
12
9
4
3
18,119
100
10,311
100
7,808
100
Occupational Classification
Exec., Admin ., & Managerial
Professional Specialty
Technicians/Related Support
Sales Occupations
Admin . Support, Incl Clerical
Service Occupations
Farming, Forestry & Fishing
Precision Prod ., Craft /Repair
Machine Oper., Assemb ., Inspect.
Transport., & Material Moving
Handlers, Cleaners, Laborers
Totals
SOURCE :
5.
U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census of Population and Housing,
prepared by the Southwestern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission.
Community Services
Southwestern Wisconsin is served in part by a privately -owned electric utility, several
cooperatives , and a number of municipally-owned utilities. Most of Iowa and Green
Counties are served by Wisconsin Power & Light Company, while Grant, Lafayette, and
Richland Counties are served in part by this privately- owned company and in part by
cooperatives (Grant-Lafayette Rural Electric Cooperative and Richland Rural Electric
Cooperative ), as well as municipal utilities.
III- 12
Wisconsin Gas Company or Wisconsin Power & Light Company provide high- pressure gas
service to most communities , including Belmont, Dodgeville , Mineral Point, and Platteville .
Southwestern Wisconsin is served by a multitude of telephone exchanges. Many of the
exchanges are affiliated with larger companies, such as General Telephone, Wisconsin
Telephone, United Telephone, and PTI, Inc. The Village of Belmont is served by Belmont
Telephone Company, located in Cuba City .
Mineral Point has its own police department and uses jail facilities in Dodgeville. The City
maintains a volunteer fire departmentwith 35 members. The department is responsible for
fire protection in parts of the Towns of Kendall, Linden , Mifflin , Waldwick , and Willow
Springs.
The Village of Belmont employs one full-time police chief. Both the emergency medical
service (EMS) and the 40 -member volunteer fire department serve the Village of Belmont
and parts of the Towns of Belmont, Elm Grove , Seymour, and Kendall.
Belmont Light and Water Company and Belmont Wastewater Utility provide sanitary
services.
C. ENVIRONMENT AND RELATED RESOURCES
1.
Surface Water Resources
Two major streams, the West Branch of the Pecatonica River and the Mineral Point Branch ,
along with three smaller streams, the Cottage Inn Branch , Whiteside Branch, and Bonner
Branch , lie within the project area.
The West Branch of the Pecatonica River is a warm water seepage stream , located in the
Pecatonica River Watershed (Figure III- 1). It originates in western Iowa County on Military
Ridge and flows southerly into Lafayette County where it combines with the East Branch
and forms the Pecatonica River proper. It supports various species of game fish, including
smallmouth bass and channel catfish , as well as panfish and forage fish (WDNR, 1968;
WDNR, 1967 ) .
Mineral Point Branch , located in the Pecatonica River Watershed, is also classified as a
warm water seepage stream
although there are several springs feeding it. It originates in
central Iowa County , on Military Ridge west of Dodgeville, and flows southerly into
Lafayette County then into the West Branch of the Pecatonica River. It supports various
game fish , including smallmouth bass, walleye, and channel catfish, as well as panfish and
forage fish , such asminnows and shiners. Ludden Lake, a 28 -ha (70 - acre) impoundment of
Mineral Point Branch, was created in 1962 by private enterprise for recreational and
development purposes and is located west of Mineral Point (WDNR, 1968). In addition ,
Mineral Point Branch has several unnamed tributaries which flow through the project area .
III- 13
Cottage Inn Branch , a warm water seepage stream located in the Pecatonica River
Watershed , originates in northwestern Lafayette County and flows into Bonner Branch
(WDNR, 1967). Cottage Inn Branch supports populations of smallmouth bass, rock bass,
and forage fish (WDNR, 1967). Joy Lake, a 22 -ha (55 -acre ) impoundment of Cottage Inn
Branch, was created in 1970 for recreational and development purposes and is located
directly downstream from the current USH 151 bridge over the Cottage Inn Branch (USDA ,
1974) .
Whiteside Branch , located in the Pecatonica River Watershed, is a warm
water drainage
stream originating in western Lafayette County and flows eastward into Cottage Inn Branch ,
downstream of Joy Lake. It supports a population of forage fish (WDNR , 1967).
Bonner Branch , located in the Pecatonica River Watershed , is a warm water seepage stream
originating in western Lafayette County and flows eastward into the West Branch of the
Pecatonica River. It supports populations of smallmouth bass and channel catfish , as well
as panfish and forage fish (WDNR , 1967). Bonner Branch has several unnamed tributaries
which flow through the project area .
Finally, there are two small farm ponds located in the area . The farm pond located on the
Dalles property is spring fed , while the origin and water source of the pond on the Graber
property is unknown .
These farm ponds have various uses, such as water supply for
livestock ; sediment retention of farmyard runoff; and fish ponds.
2.
Wetlands
The project area is well drained , hence there are few wetlands.
wetlands that are located in the project area (see Exhibit 6 ).
Table III- 7 lists the
Table III- 7
WETLANDS IN PROJECT AREA
Station
( See Exhibit 5 )
Total Area
Location
Hectares ( Acres)
Area Impacted by
Build Alternative
Hectares (Acres )
327
560
565
720
Right
Left
1500 m
( 1,500 ft) RT
(4,900 ft) RT
22.3 (55.0 )
2.1 (5.2 )
2.8 (6.9)
10.2 (25.3 )
460 m
275 m
( 1,500 ft) LT
(900 ft) RT
17.0 (42.0 )
2.5 (6.2 )
460 m
750
920
SOURCE :
0.1 (0.2 )
0.1 (0.3 )
No Impact
No Impact
No Impact
No Impact
Wisconsin Wetland Inventory Maps and 1:4800 (1" = 400 ') aerial photo base map .
III- 14
er
a.
Classifications
ch
S.
n
These wetland types are classified as emergent /wet meadow and aquatic beds. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Services Classification System defines these communities as follows
(Cowardin et al., 1979 ) :
e
Emergent/wetmeadow wetlands are characterized by erect, rooted, herbaceous hydrophytes.
The vegetation is present formost of the growing season in most years and is dominated by
perennial plants .
Aquatic bed wetlands are characterized by plants that grow principally on or below the
surface of the water for most of the growing season in most years. The vegetation is either
attached to the substrate or floating freely in the water above the bottom or on the surface.
--
Table III-8 lists the most common plant species within each wetland type based on published
reports and observations during field reconnaissance of the area .
Table III-8
WETLAND COMMUNITY VEGETATION
Characteristic Vegetation
Community Type
Emergent/Wet Meadow
Cattails (Typha spp.)
Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea )
Sedges (Carex spp.)
Flatsedges (Cyperus sp .)
Rushes (Juncus spp .)
Green bulrush (Scirpus atrovirens)
Blue vervain (Verbena hastata )
Giant goldenrod (Solidago gigantia
Stinging nettle (Urtica dioica )
Monkeyflower (Mimulus ringens)
Jewelweed (Impatiens capensis)
Smartweeds (Polygonum spp .)
Willows ( Salix spp.)
Box elder (Acer negundo )
Aquatic Bed *
(typical species)
Waterweed (Elodea spp.)
Pondweed ( Potamageton spp.)
Water smartweed (Polygonum amphibium )
Duckweed (Lemna spp .)
Bladderworts (Utricularia spp.)
Coontail (Ceratophyllum spp.)
*SOURCE :
Cowardin , L.M., Carter, V.C., Colet, F.C., and LaRoe , E.T.,1979, Classification of Wetlands and
Deep Water Habitat of the United States, U.S. Department of the Interior.
III- 15
b.
Functions
Wetlands serve many important functions, including stormwater retention , water quality
improvement, aesthetics, recreation, shoreline protection , and habitat for wildlife .
wetlands in the affected environment provide the following functions :
The
Wetlands intercept storm runoff and store stormwaters, thereby ameliorating sharp runoff
peaks into slower discharges over a longer period of time. In this way, the wetlands reduce
the damage that flooding may do to stream banks, farm fields, and residences (Mitsch and
Gosselink , 1986 ). The wetlands that are located along the West Branch of the Pecatonica
River and Mineral Point Branch and their tributaries serve this function .
Wetlands have been shown to remove organic and inorganic nutrients and toxic materials
from the water which flows through them . Wetlands do this by reducing velocity of runoff
as it enters the wetland, allowing sediments to settle out. This allows uptake of chemicals
absorbed to the sediments , such as fertilizer or livestock waste, by wetland vegetation before
the chemicals can enter the stream . When the wetland vegetation dies, the accumulated
organic material may also immobilize the chemicals (Mitsch and Gosselink , 1986 ).
The wetlands provide breeding and rearing grounds for fish , reptiles, and amphibians;
nesting areas for birds; and forage and cover areas for many species of wildlife.
Wetlands provide protection for river and stream banks by reducing wave action . Wave
action , produced by boat traffic , wind , or currents, can reduce or destroy banks through
constant erosion .
Wetlands serve as groundwater recharge and discharge locations.
Wetlands may be a valuable resource in meeting the demand for recreational uses such as
hunting, camping, canoeing, hiking, and nature study. Indirectly,wetlands may be a valuable
resource by helping to maintain water quality and by providing wildlife habitat.
Table III-9 summarizes the functional value significance of the two specific wetlands in the
project area which will be impacted .
III- 16
Table III- 9
WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
Location
(See Exhibit 6 )
Station 327 , RT
Station 560, LT
Wetland Community Type
Aquatic Bed
Emergent /Wet Meadow
Functional Values
Floral Diversity
Wildlife Habitat
Fishery Habitat
Flood Storage
Water Quality Protection
Shoreline Protection
Groundwater
Aesthetics
3.
Low
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
Medium
Low
Low
Low
Medium
Medium
N /A
Low
Low
Groundwater and Drinking Water Supply
According to the U.S. EPA , there are no sole-source aquifers that have been designated in
the State of Wisconsin .
The geology in the project area consists of Maquoketa Shale in the highest topographic
areas. The Maquoketa shale is not classified as an aquifer and is not typically used for
groundwater supplies. Underlying the Maquoketa Shale is the Galena- Platteville Unit. The
Galena-Platteville Unit is an aquifer widely used for domestic and farm supplies where it
has an adequate saturated thickness ranging from 0 to 110 m (350 feet). Underlying the
Galena-Platteville Unit is the St. Peter Sandstone, the Prairie du Chien Group, and the
Cambrian sandstones, respectively, which make up the sandstone aquifer. The sandstone
aquifer is the most extensively used aquifer in the area . The St. Peter sandstone, which is
exposed in some of the river valleys, ranges from 0 to 120 m (400 feet) thick .
The
Prairie du Chien Group , also exposed in several river valleys, ranges from 0 to 75 m
(250 feet) thick . The Cambrian sandstones,which consist of Jordan Sandstone, St. Lawrence
Formation, Franconia Sandstone, Galesville Sandstone, Eau Claire Sandstone, and Mount
Simon Sandstone, ranges from 210 m
(700 feet) to 460 m
( 1,500 feet) thick . The majority
of the wells in the project area are finished in the sandstone aquifer (Hindall and Skinner,
1973) .
4.
Upland Habitat
The project area is located south of the tension zone, as described by Curtis ( 1959 ), which
separates the prairies and southern hardwood forests from the northern hardwood forests.
Only 5 to 10 percent of the project area is wooded , the remainder is pasture , cropland, and
fallow agricultural areas. The wooded upland area in the project area consists of dry
III- 17
southern hardwood and dry -mesic southern hardwood communities in the higher areas, and
wet-mesic southern hardwood communities in the drainage swales.
The dry southern hardwood community is characterized by the presence of black oak, black
cherry , bur oak , northern pin oak , chinquapin oak , quaking aspen , and box elder. White
oak, shagbark hickory , black walnut, and green ash are also found in dry southern hardwood
communities ( Curtis , 1959).
The dry -mesic southern hardwood community is characterized by the presence of red oak ,
large -toothed aspen , red maple, basswood, sugar maple, slippery elm , white ash , and
ironwood . White oak , shagbark hickory , black walnut, and green ash are also found in
dry -mesic hardwood communities (Curtis, 1959 ).
Wet mesic southern hardwood communities are characterized by the presence of sugar
maple, basswood, beech , slippery elm , red oak , and ironwood ( Curtis, 1959).
Plant species identified in each wooded area during the site visit are listed in Table III-10 .
5.
Wildlife
The wooded uplands and lowlands in the project area provide wildlife habitat. The forests
may be used by mammals such as deer, raccoons, squirrels, and chipmunks, for food sources
and cover . Many birds may also use the forests for food and cover, such as turkey, ruffed
grouse , hawks, owls, and many species of songbirds. Local residents indicate an abundance
of turkeys and deer which inhabit the forested areas.
The rivers and streams provide food and cover for many species of fish (Table III- 11) and
waterfowl. Mammals such as beavers and muskrats also use the rivers and streams for a
source of food and cover. The wetlands and farm ponds are utilized by amphibians, reptiles,
and waterfowl for breeding, cover, and food, as well as a water source for mammals,
including deer and raccoon .
The agricultural land may also be utilized by wildlife. It serves as a food source for some
species, such as deer, rabbits, turkey, and many species of songbirds. Agricultural land also
serves as a food source for fox , birds of prey, and fish by providing habitat for small
mammals and insects .
III - 18
Table III- 10
VEGETATION OBSERVED
IN
PROJECT AREA
nd
Strata
Wooded Community
ck
Dry Southern
Hardwoods
Canopy
White oak (Quercus alba)
Black cherry (Prunus serotina)
Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides)
Box elder (Acer negundo )
Shrub
Box elder (Acer negundo)
Buckthorn (Rhamnus sp.)
Black cherry (Prunus serotina )
Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides)
White oak (Quercus alba )
Grape (Vitis sp .)
Herbaceous
Wood anemone (Anemone quinquefolia )
Wild bergamot (Monarda fistulosa )
Mayapple (Podophyllum peltatum )
Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia )
Cinquefoil (Potentilla sp.)
Poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans)
Raspberry (Rubus idaeus)
Canopy
White oak (Quercus alba)
Basswood (Tilia americana)
Large-tooth aspen (Populus grandidentata)
Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis )
Shrub
Large -tooth aspen (Populus grandidentata )
Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis)
Box elder (Acer negundo)
Grape (Vitis sp.)
Herbaceous
Wood anemone (Anemone quinquefolia)
Raspberry (Rubus idaeus)
Mayapple (Podophyllum peltatum )
Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia )
Solomon's seal (Polygonatum biflorum )
Wood nettle (Laportea canadensis )
Canopy
Basswood ( Tilia americana)
Large-tooth aspen (Populus tremuloides)
Slippery elm (Ulmus rubra )
Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis)
Shrub
Slippery elm (Ulmus rubra)
Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis)
Basswood ( Tilia americana)
Herbaceous
Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia)
Mayapple (Podophyllum peltatum )
Trillium (Trillium grandiflorum )
Solomon's seal (Polygonatum biflorum )
Wood nettle (Laportea canadensis)
od
d
Dry -Mesic
Southern Hardwoods
Wet-Mesic
Southern Hardwoods
Community Vegetative Species
SOURCE: Based on observations during field reconnaissance.
III - 19
Table III- 11
FISH SPECIES LIKELY TO BE FOUND
IN
THE PROJECT AREA
Fish Species
Central Stoneroller
Largescale Stoneroller
Common Carp
Hornyhead Chub
Common Shiner
Rosyface Shiner
Spotfin Shiner
Sand Shiner
Suckermouth Minnow
Bluntnose Minnow
Creek Chub
Quillback
White Sucker
Northern Hog Sucker
Bigmouth Buffalo
Silver Redhorse
Golden Redhorse
Shorthead Redhorse
Black Bullhead
Channel Catfish
Stonecat
Rockbass
Bluegill
Smallmouth Bass
Black Crappie
Johnny Darter
Banded Darter
Campostoma anomalum pullum
Campostoma anomalum oligolepis
Cyprinus carpio
Hybopsis biguttata
Notropis cornutus frontalis
Notropis rubellus
Notropis spilopterus
Notropis deliciosus deliciosus
Phenacobius mirabilis
Pimephales notatus
Hybopsis plumbea
Carpiodes cyprinus cyprinus
Catostomus commersonnii commersonnii
Hypentelium nigricans
Ictiobus cyprinella
Moxostoma anisurum
Moxostoma erythrurum
Moxostoma macrolepidotum macrolepidotum
Ictalurus melas melas
Ictalurus punctatus punctatus
Noturus flavus
Ambloplites rupestris rupestris
Lepomis macrochirusmacrochirus
Micropterus dolomieui dolomieui
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Etheostoma nigrum
Etheostoma zonale zonale
Note : Species identified in the Mineral Point Branch in 1987 and 1990
SOURCE: Paul Kanehl and John Lyons, WDNR,Memorandum : Sampling of the Little Platte River,Mineral Point Branch , Iowa
County , and Otter Creek, Lafayette County, by Fisheries Management and Fish Research Personnel During 1987 and
1990 , April 22, 1991.
6.
Endangered or Threatened Species
Information provided by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Bureau of
Endangered Resources (WDNR - BER ) indicates that a state endangered fish , a state
threatened fish , and state special concern plant may be presentwithin or near the project
area (WDNR, 1993 ). A copy of the letter correspondence from the WDNR -BER is
attached in Appendix B , pages B -32 and 33.
Slendermadtom (Noturus exilis ), a fish listed as endangered in Wisconsin , occurs in several
streams within the project area. The observation dates for these occurrence records are
1962 and 1976. This species occur in clear , moderate to swift currents of streams and large
rivers over bottoms of gravel and boulders interspersed with fine sand . Spawning occurs
from late May to late June .
III-20
Ozark minnow (Notropis nubilus), a fish listed as threatened in Wisconsin , has been known
to occur in a stream in the project area . This species prefer clear, small to medium ,
low - gradient streams over bottoms of gravel or rubble. Spawning occurs from May through
early August.
Glade mallow (Napaea dioica ), a plant presently under review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service for federal listing and state special concern , occurs in the project area . The
observation date for these occurrence records is 1987. This species prefer wet prairies,wet
meadows, damp railroad rights-of-way, and along streams and rivers. Blooming occurs from
June through August.
Field observations did not indicate the presence of the endangered fish , threatened fish , or
concern plant. Also , the habitat area at the location of the project corridor was not likely
to support the fish or plant species.
7.
Natural and Conservancy Areas
Natural Areas, as defined by the Wisconsin Natural Areas Preservation Council, are tracts
of land or water so little modified by man's activity or sufficiently recovered from the effects
of such activity, that they contain intact, native plant and animal communities believed to
be representative of the pre -settlement landscape. Designated natural areas officially listed
on the Natural Heritage Inventory by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
(WDNR ) include the following areas located within 3 miles of the project study area . These
four areas are shown on Exhibit 3. In addition, there are two unlisted sites of local
significance in Mineral Point: the school forest and the Brewery Creek remediation site.
a.
Belmont Mounds Woods State Natural Area
This area is located just north of the Belmont Mound, approximately 4.0 km (2.5 miles)
northwest of the Village of Belmont. Controlled by WDNR, it consists of 24 ha (60 acres)
containing 8 ha (20 acres) of southern dry -mesic forest and 16 ha (40 acres) of southern
mesic forest. It was designated a State Natural Area in 1981 and is classified as having
statewide significance.
b.
Pecatonica Pines
This area is located along the Jones Branch of the Pecatonica River in Section 24, T4N ,
RIE , approximately 3 km (2 miles) northwest of existing USH 151. It consists of 4 ha
( 10 acres) of southern dry -mesic forest and southern pine relic. It is privately -owned land
and was classified in 1973 as having county -wide significance .
c.
School Forest
This area consists of approximately 4 ha ( 10 acres) of wooded land belonging to the Mineral
Point Unified School District. It is located adjacent to STH 39, in the southwest 1/4 of
Section 36 , Township 5 North , Range 2 East. This property has not been used for school
functions within the last 9 years, and in addition, no current plans exist for its use .
III-21
d.
Brewery Creek Remediation Site
The WDNR , in cooperation with the City of Mineral Point, is currently undertaking a
hazardous waste remediation and water quality improvement project along Brewery Creek
on the south side of Mineral Point. The project includes consolidation and capping ofmine
processing wastes and modification of the creek channel.
The Cheese Country Trail
( Pecatonica Trail) runs through the remediation project area and continues south to the
Calamine- Platteville trail in Lafayette County. The City has agreed to acquire the lands
necessary for the remediation and dedicate them for conservancy purposes.
8.
Public Use Lands
Southwestern Wisconsin offers a wide range of recreational opportunities (see Figure II -2 ).
Two major rivers, the Wisconsin and the Mississippi, contribute to the scenic appeal of the
area and are important places of recreation , as are the Sugar, the Pecatonica , the Platte , the
Grand , the Pine, and Kickapoo Rivers which run through parts of the region .
There are several state parks in the region which offer camping and picnic sites, including
Governor Dodge , and Blue Mound State Parks in Iowa County; and Yellowstone Lake State
Park in Lafayette County. Blackhawk Lake Recreation Area is operated by the Iowa
County communities of Cobb and Highland . Several county parks are located in the area
such as Belmont Mound and Sinsinawa Mound. The closest of these facilities to the project
area is Belmont Mound, located approximately 3 km (2 miles ) northwest of the Village of
Belmont.
Four major bicycle trails in the region attract visitors from both within and outside of the
State . These are the Sugar River State Trail in Green County between New Glarus and
Brodhead , the Military Ridge State Trail in Iowa County between Dodgeville and Madison ,
the Pecatonica (Calamine- Platteville ) Trail in Lafayette County between Calamine and
Platteville, and the Cheese Country Trail in Iowa, Lafayette , and Green County, running
between Monroe and Mineral Point. The latter two are within the project area and are
discussed below .
Within the project study area, public use lands (both publicly and privately owned ) include
bike trails, parks, a highway wayside, golf courses, campgrounds, snowmobile trails , and a
fairgrounds, described as follows (see Exhibit 6 ):
a.
Pecatonica (Calamine- Platteville ) Trail
The Pecatonica (Calamine- Platteville ) Trail occupies an abandoned railroad corridor
acquired from the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, and Pacific Railroad. Beginning at the
small, unincorporated Village of Calamine, the corridor passes through the Village of
Belmont and ends in Platteville . Acquisition of the land and development of the trail were
federally funded under a Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF ) program .
III-22
The trail is operated by the WDNR as part of Yellowstone State Park . The portion of the
trail from Calamine to Mound Avenue in Belmont has been opened for use by hikers ,
bicycles, and snowmobiles. Land acquisition on the segment from Belmont to Platteville is
near completion, with no construction to date . The existing segment of the trail between
Calamine and Belmont was damaged by flooding several times since its construction , and
the WDNR is currently considering converting the trail for equestrian or ATV use . The
proposed crossing of this trail by the new highway is discussed in Section IV .
b.
Cheese Country Trail
The Cheese Country Trail runs south from Mineral Point on the abandoned Chicago ,
Milwaukee, St. Paul, and Pacific Railroad grade, connecting to the Calamine-Platteville
Trail, and continuing to the community of Monroe . Itwas constructed by WDNR under the
" Rails to Trails" program . It is owned by the Tri-County Rail Commission and is operated
by the Pecatonica Trail Commission . The trail serves hikers, bicycles, and snowmobiles and
is the access point for a club - operated snowmobile trail.
c.
Local Parks
There are six local parks in Mineral Point and one in Belmont:
Belmont Village Park, approximately 0.4 ha ( 1.0 acres) in size, consists of picnic areas,
play fields, and support facilities. It serves as a neighborhood playground and is heavily
used by tourists as a rest area due to its location on USH 151 (Mound Avenue). LWCF
funds were used for the development of this park .
Water Tower Park occupies approximately 0.36 ha (0.9 acres) along USH 151 in the
center of Mineral Point, serving in much the same function as Belmont Village Park .
It is the site of the City's original water tower and contains tourist information and
interpretive historical information. It is also the location of the current water tower,
which is considered a local landmark .
Soldiers Memorial Park is a multi-use facility located on the northeast side of Mineral
Point. It comprises approximately 7 ha ( 17.5 acres) and contains a swimming pool,
athletic fields, and support facilities. It serves both regionaland community recreational
needs.
Four additional parks in Mineral Point include: Museum Park , 1.4 ha (3.5 acres); Jerusalem
Park , 0.3 ha (0.7 acres); Library Park, 0.1 ha (0.3 acres); and Public Square Park , 0.6 ha
( 1.5 acres ). These small parks are not affected by the project.
d.
Highway Wayside
One highway wayside is located on the northwest side of existing USH 151 at the
intersection with North Oak Park Road south of Mineral Point. The WDOT- constructed
wayside occupies approximately 0.3 ha (0.7 acres) of land .
III-23
e.
Golf Courses
The Dodge- Point Country Club is a privately -owned course located approximately midway
between Mineral Point and Dodgeville on existing USH 151. There is also a privately
owned golf course north of Mineral Point, in the Ludden Lake development adjacent to
CTH QQ .
f.
Snowmobile Trails
A county -funded snowmobile trail extends from Soldiers Memorial Park on the northeast
side of Mineral Point to the Military Ridge Trail near Ridgeway, approximately 19 km
( 12 miles) northeast. A local trail, funded and administered by a snowmobile club , begins
at the Cheese Country trail on the south side of Mineral Point and continues for several
miles south and west of the City to the Mineral Point Branch . Both of these trails are
located on private property under short-term , revocable agreements.
g.
Campgrounds
A privately -owned campground at Joy Lake is located 5 km
USH 151.
h.
( 3 miles ) north of Belmont on
Fairgrounds
The Iowa County Fairgrounds is located on the southwest side of Mineral Point. The
facility receives a limited amount of outdoor recreational use, with its greatest use occurring
on Labor Day weekend when the Iowa County Fair is held . It is a privately -owned facility
which is rented to lowa County for the week of the fair. The outdoor recreational facility
consists of a dirt race track and covered grandstands. Harness racing is held several times
during the summer, with snowmobile races held in the winter. The site also includes
livestock buildings , a multi-purpose building, a lighted stock exhibit area , and support
facilities.
9.
Archaeological Resources
An archival and literature search was conducted by Great Lakes Archaeological Research
Center (GLARC ) in the spring of 1992 to identify previously recorded archaeological sites,
burial sites, and mining resources in the area. Reported were:
36
11
Archaeological sites
Burial sites
51 Diggings and Mines in the Town of Mineral Point
14 Zinc and Copper Mines in the Mineral Point, Linden , Dodgeville, Belmont District
Log Furnaces in the Mineral Point, Linden , Dodgeville Lead District
4
Lead Digging sites in the Dodgeville area
Early
3
6
Early Lead Digging sites in the Mineral Point area
III- 24
A high concentration of previously reported archaeological sites, including three suspected
cave wall painting sites, were noted along the Mineral Point Branch , southwest of Mineral
Point. Highway alternatives were developed to avoid the suspected cave wall painting sites
and to either avoid or minimally impact the remaining reported archaeological sites. In
addition, all reported burial sites were avoided .
Early mining activity is prevalent throughout the region . Locations of the known historic
mining sites are distributed such that complete avoidance is not possible (see Figure III-3 ).
Recent mining activity, resulting in larger and more extensive mine shafts, is discussed
separately.
An archaeological field survey ofthe USH 151 preferred corridor was conducted byGLARC
during the summer of 1993. Standard archaeological procedures were followed according
to Wisconsin Archaeological Survey Guidelines. Prior to the field survey, a field meeting
was conducted with the State Historic Preservation Officer's (SHPO ) archaeologist to review
the project site .
Phase 1 archaeological field investigations identified 33 new archaeologicalsites and verified
the location of one of the two previously reported archaeological sites. Archaeologists were
unable to locate the other previously reported site within the project corridor.
The 33 newly discovered archaeological sites consist of:
11 Prehistoric sites
5
16
1
Historic sites which are Euro -American homesteads
Historic mining -related sites
Site of unknown origin
Ofthe 11 newly identified prehistoric sites, seven are not considered potentially eligible and
further testing is not recommended . Further testing is recommended for the remaining four
newly identified prehistoric sites and the one previously reported archaeological site to
determine if they meetthe eligibility for inclusion in the NationalRegister of Historic Places
if they are impacted by the project. Impacts are discussed in Section IV .
Three of the five Euro -American historic homesteads have the potential to be eligible for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Each of these sites will be avoided by
the preferred alignment. The remaining two Euro -American historic homesteads lacked the
integrity for eligibility to the National Register.
Impacts to the 16 historic mining-related sites are discussed in Section IV .
A report was submitted to the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO ) for review . A
copy of his comments are attached in Appendix B , pages B - 55 and 56. Archaeological sites
for which the SHPO requested further investigation are shown on Exhibit 6. Further
archaeological studies will be conducted during the 1994 field season after consultation with
the SHPO . All Section 106 requirements willbe fulfilled prior to the submittal of the FEIS.
III- 25
10. Historic Resources
A literature and archives search was conducted by GLARC in May of 1992 to
identify
Two National Register Historic
previously recorded architectural/ historic properties.
Districts were identified within 3 km (2 miles ) of the project corridor, the Mineral Point
Historic District and the Mineral Point Hill District. The historic district boundaries are
shown on Exhibits 5 and 6. Briefly, these districts are described as follows:
Mineral Point Historic District - A 2.4-km (1.5 -mile ) square historic district boundary was
established in 1971 to include the City of Mineral Point and some of the surrounding
townships of Mineral Point. Within the district are 18 sites listed on the National
Register of Historic Places and about 500 sites which are potentially eligible for
National Register nomination. Most of these sites lie on the east side of existing
USH 151
Mineral Point Hill District - Located along Shake Rag Street on the east side of the City
of Mineral Point, the Mineral Point Hill District includes the Pendarvis area and is
recognized for its viewscape. The Pendarvis area includes several representative
buildings (c. 1835 ) of the early mining settlement in the City . The area is now owned
and operated by the State Historical Society of Wisconsin and is a popular tourist
attraction . The original discovery oflead ore was made atMineral Point in the Mineral
Point Hill around 1825. The Merry Christmas mine underlies the eastern part of
Mineral Point Hill.
In May 1987, the City of Mineral Point adopted Historic Preservation Ordinance 440. This
ordinance empowered the City's Historic Preservation Commission to establish a portion of
the Mineral Point National Register Historic District as a local, Mineral Point Overlay
District. Exhibits 5 and 6 shows the boundaries of both historic districts . The Historic
Preservation Commission is responsible for directing and promoting effective progress in the
preservation of Mineral Point's cultural and architectural heritages.
A historic architecture reconnaissance survey for the USH 151 preferred corridor was
conducted by GLARC during the summer of 1993 to identify potential buildings eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places. Prior to the field survey , a field meeting was
conducted with the SHSW Historian and the Pendarvis curator to review the project site ;
make a preliminary assessment of potential project effects on historic properties, particularly
those in the historically sensitive area of MineralPoint; tentatively identify the project's area
of potential effect; and to determine further concerns regarding the proposed project.
A letter dated December 14 , 1993, and attached in Appendix B , pages B -48 and 49 , from
the State Historical Society of Wisconsin (SHSW ) listed only one property believed
potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places based on their review of the
historic architecture reconnaissance survey of USH 151 from Belmont to Dodgeville. This
(Station 800, left). A Determination of Eligibility (NPS Form
10-900) has been completed , and the boundaries of the Spensley Farm Historic District are
shown on Figure III-4 and Exhibit 6. A summary of this site is as follows:
site is the Spensley Farm
III -26
Spensley Farm Historic District - According to the documentation forms, the Spensley
Farm Historic District is eligible for the NationalRegister because it meets Criterion C
as an example of a relatively intact farmstead with a Georgian / Italianate farmhouse
constructed of stone , a relatively intact basement barn , and an unusual stone
springhouse . These structures are located about 490 m ( 1,600 feet ) west of the Build
Alternative .
The historic district also meets Criterion D because archaeological exploration would
likely yield information important in the history of mining and mineral refining in
southwestern Wisconsin . Southeast of the above -mentioned historic structures, and
across CTH QQ, is the site of the Spensley Furnaces which contain the remains of
The Mineral Point Branch is the southeast
Spensley's early smelting operations.
boundary of the Spensley Farm Historic District and is a natural feature connected to
the smelting operation as it was dammed to provide water power. The Mineral Point
Branch is located about 200 m (650 feet) west of the Build Alternative .
11. Mines
Underground mines, particularly more recentmines, have potential impacts on the location
and constructibility of the proposed project. Early mines generally were hand -dug "surface
mines," many of which have been filled in and obscured by other land uses. From a
construction standpoint, these sites are not considered to be of major concern . The
archaeological significance of these sites is discussed
Archaeological Resources /Section 106 Review .
in
Section IV ,
Subsection II,
Throughout the mining district there is potential to encounter small shafts and underground
drifts which have been obscured at the surface and whose locations are not documented .
The WDOT previously studied this concern and concluded that there was no appropriate
sensing technology available to map these features and that, if encountered during
construction , these shafts can be effectively filled and bridged to provide a sound roadway
base .
Activity continuing through the early 1960s, primarily zinc mining, produced much more
extensive underground diggings. Depths vary from approximately 9 m to 30 m (30 to
100 feet),with ceiling heights of 9 m (30 feet) or more and horizontal dimensions exceeding
100 m (300 feet). These mines, shown on Exhibits 5 and 6 , are considered to be a major
construction obstacle, particularly where roadways are built in cut sections.
The larger mines are concentrated on the southeast side of Mineral Point. These mines are
avoided by the Build Alternative and were a factor in eliminating an east bypass ofMineral
Point from further consideration . Two smaller mines, located near the proposed new
roadway to the north Mineral Point interchange under the Build Alternative, will influence
the exact alignment for this roadway .
The final alignment of this roadway will be
determined in the design phase of the project.
III-27
12. Soils
Much of Southwestern Wisconsin , including the area which the project corridor lies, is
referred to as the " Driftless Area." This is an area which was not covered by the most
recent glacial ice movements. As a result, soil formation of the area is created from
weathering bedrock and transporting of soil. The soil formation in the project corridor area
can be described as a dissected sedimentary rock plateau covered by a mantle of weathered
rock , clay residuum , and loess (windblown clays and silt). The soils of the area generally
have a relatively high potential for erosion .
The sedimentary rock of the plateau consists of the Galena - Platteville Dolomite
( limestone) overlying the St. Peter Sandstone. Both of these rock formations overlay the
Prairie du Chien Dolomite . While the Prairie du Chien Dolomite is deep enough that it is
not exposed , the Galena - Platteville Dolomite and the St. Peter Sandstone are exposed at
various locations along the route of existing USH 151.
This entire plateau has been
constantly altered by erosion and affected by vegetation , such as prairie grasses, oak -hickory
forests, and oak savannas. These natural alterations from wind and water create a rolling
and, in areas, a rough terrain .
Investigation of the Belmont to Dodgeville corridor has identified approximately 20 soil
series over the rock plateau . These soil series can be placed into three major groups due
to similar characteristics or topographic location .
The first grouping of soils are those of the upland areas of the hills and ridges along the
corridor route . Included in this group are the Tama, Muscatine, Ashdale, Dodgeville ,
Downs, Palsgraove, and Dubuque soil series. Characteristics of this group include silt and
silty clays overlying dolomite bedrock . They are 1 m (3 feet) to 2 m (6 feet) of depth and
have a topsoil layer. Soils of this group are generally cropland.
The second group of soils include the Fayette ( Valley phase ), Pozetta , Sogn , Judson , Gale ,
and areas designated as Stony and Rocky. These soils are grouped based upon their
location rather than their similarity. They lie within the steeper slopes and convex or
concave benches and terraces of the project corridor.
Two major drainageways , the
Pecatonica River and the Mineral Point Branch , along with smaller streams, Whiteside
Branch , and Cottage Inn Branch , contribute to the more rugged relief found along the
corridor. For example , the difference in elevation of the ridgeline south of Mineral Point
to the Mineral Point Branch is 75 m (250 feet ). This group is important to the roadway
designer as they are generally encountered for short distances in cut to fill transition areas.
Soils of this group are generally pasture or timberland.
The third soil grouping is Alluvial soil (water transported).
This group has similar
characteristics and location . Alluvial soils are found in all of the drainageways along the
corridor. These soils differ generally between sandy, well drained soil and more organic
poorly drained soil. The soil profile for this group is constantly changing. Each time the
drainageways flood, fresh soil is deposited and older soil may be transported downstream .
Included in this third grouping of soils are Worthen, Arenzville, Chaseburg, Huntsville ,
Lawson , Orion , and Ettrick series. Soils of this group are generally pasture or idle land.
III-28
The preferred project corridor generally follows the alignment of existing USH 151 with the
exception of bypasses at Belmont and Mineral Point. Soil series are relatively uniform
throughout the corridor and the bypass areas such that shifting of the alignment corridor
would not significantly change the probability of encountering each of the three soil groups
mentioned.
13. Hazardous Material
An Initial Site Reconnaissance (Phase 1A ) was performed for the entire project study area
for the purpose of identifying suspected contaminated sites. The investigation included
review of aerial photographs taken in 1992, as well as aerial photos from earlier years for
comparison purposes.
Other data sources included :
Department of Industry , Labor and Human Relations (DILHR ) UST Registration List
WDNR Spills Summary
WDNR Registry of Waste Disposal Sites
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA ) CERCLIS List
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Maps
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Maps
The field reconnaissance involved visually inspecting and photographing sites with suspected
contamination . In addition, interviews were conducted with County Highway Departments,
local public works departments, fire departments, other local officials , and property owners.
Approximately 170 sites were identified as having potential for contamination. These sites
were ranked based upon the probability and severity of contamination. To the extent
practical, severe or high probability sites were avoided during development of project
alternatives. Following identification of a preferred alternative , sites were identified with
the potential for contamination within the proposed highway right of way. Results of the
investigation to date are discussed in Section IV .
14. Noise
Noise sensitive areas along the study corridor, such as residences, schools, churches, and
parks are identified and existing noise levels are presented in Section IV . Additional
detailed discussions of the analysis is presented in Appendix D. For this study, a noise level
is presented as an hourly equivalent sound level, which is a single number representation
of the actual fluctuating sound level that accounts for all the sound energy occurring during
a given period of time. Noise levels are given in decibels on an A -weighted scale and
written as dBA . The A -weighting means that the sound level is measured and represented
in a manner that approximates the response of the human ear, with de-emphasis of low and
very high frequencies and emphasis of mid -frequencies.
III- 29
In typical suburban residential areas, existing noise levels generally range between 50 dBA
and 70 dBA . Quiet rural areas can be below 50 dBA , while noisy urban areas with high
volumes of highway traffic can be above 70 dBA . Tables in Section IV presentmeasured
existing noise levels along the existing and proposed USH 151 corridor. The existing noise
levels range from
the mid -40s in rural areas not near existing USH 151 to upper 60s
adjacent to the existing highway .
The effects of noise from the proposed USH 151 facility are judged in accordance with
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) standards and Wisconsin Administrative Code
Trans 405. According to FHWA regulations given in 23 CFR Part 722, traffic noise impacts
occur when :
" ...the predicted traffic levels approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria (NAC )
(see Appendix D , Table D - 1) or when the predicted traffic noise levels substantially
exceed existing noise levels."
FHWA regulations further state that noise impacts should be assessed for the noisiest hour
of the day in the design year , which for this project is the year 2020. " Approach or exceed "
is defined as equal to or greater than a value one decibel below the NAC. Trans 405 states
an increase of 15 dBA or more above the existing levels represents a substantial increase.
Throughout the study corridor, all noise sensitive land uses are considered to fall in Activity
Thus, noise impacts occur when predicted design year USH 151
traffic noise levels approach or exceed 67 dBA , or when predicted traffic noise levels exceed
the existing noise level by 15 dBA or more . Approach noise level is defined as 66 dBA
Category B of Table D - 1.
(within one dBA of the NAC) .
15. Visual and Aesthetic Resources
This subsection addresses the visual and aesthetic resources of the study area which are
potentially impacted by the proposed improvement. It is intended to assist in implementing
FHWA policy to design and build "transportation facilities that fit harmoniously into
communities and the natural environment."
a.
Existing Landscape
Within the project study area, the terrain is rolling to steep , with narrow valleys and
frequent rock outcrops, in contrast to most of the state which is relatively flat. The rolling
plain is dissected to a depth of about 90 m (300 feet) by two large streams in addition to
numerous steep ravines created by smaller streams.
Most of the higher ground is cropland or pasture associated with family farms. The steeper
slopes are generally covered with hardwood forests containing white oak , black cherry,
aspen , box elder, and other southern hardwoods. The mixture of family farms and natural
diversity contribute to the visual landscape.
III-30
The two communities in the study area are among the earliest settlements in the State and
contribute to the visual appeal of the area. Mineral Point, in particular, is characterized by
narrow streets conforming to the topography. Many of the abutting buildings are historic
structures built with the native stone. Most of the City is within a historic district centered
on the Pendarvis Historic Site which is enjoyed for its visual appeal as well as its cultural
significance . Several " viewscapes" from within the district are sensitive because of a
combination of historic structures and their natural setting. Input was obtained from
agencies, officials , and residents in order to identify viewscapes in the study area which are
sensitive because of their perceived value to the community.
These are discussed in
Section IV .
b.
Viewers
One category of potentially affected viewers are those having a view from the proposed
highway . In this category , there are commercial drivers, commuters, local traffic, and
tourists. Because the area is a tourist destination, there will be a relatively large percentage
of drivers for whom the view from the highway is important. Members of the business
community and local officials have stressed the importance from an economic development
standpoint of being able to see the community from the highway .
The second category of potentially affected viewers are those having a view of the highway .
In this category are residents, tourists, recreational, commercial, and industrial viewers. Of
this category of viewers, residents, tourists, and recreational users may be concerned
primarily with protecting the existing viewscapes from visual intrusion by the highway.
Commercial and industrial users are less likely to be concerned about the aesthetics of the
highway and are more concerned that their properties have visibility and access from
highway.
Impacts on these groups of viewers are discussed in Section IV .
R /USH151/Sec III.ASF
III-31
the
2-ER
E-IR
Rf2
in
t
er
rk
Ha
Fl
1
1
(23)
-1
w
lo
1
l
R.
o
CaveH
Cr .
(80 )
118
Ridge
ch
Military
Br
an
Dodgeville
(39)
ca
ni
to
ca
pe
Cobb
I - 6 - NQ
ch
en
T -5-8
st
on
Br
1
15111 (23)
ng
Linden
nt
Su
vi
da
Li
Poi
n
so
39
Rewęy
Br
an
Brewery
ro
Point
ne
ch
r
Mi
an
ve
c
y
Mineral
Ri
| -4 - N
k
ee
Cr
(39)
Br
I - 5 -N
REFERENCE
4:no
FILE
name
ret
REFERENCE
FILE
5=.no
nam
rei
REFERENCE
FILE
ref
.6=no
name
REFERENCE
FILE
ref
.7:ono
name
Ludden
Ligke
ck
DU
1-1
ou.
Ro
)
FILE
REFERENCE
151
(23)
IOWA CO .
LAFAYETTE CO .
s
i
ne
Jo
Br
Pec
ato
nic
oCe
! uit.ibi
pecbasin.exn
a
Co
Soy Lake
tt
ag
e
I - 4 -N
U.S.H. 151
I - 3-N
in
n
Belmont - Dodgeville
nn
er
1.7
11511
Towa & Lofayette Counties
Belmont
PECATONICA RIVER BASIN
‫نهم‬:‫م‬
‫دأاو‬
1994
33
:::
jal
Pipi
Bo
Br
(126 )
FIGURE MI -
.
III - 32
1
N
TOWA
OF
STATE
35)
3( 57
61
PPI
ISSI
R
RIVE
MISS
61
Platteville
Dubuque
Dickeyville
Lancaster
18
(2)
-18
80
FIGURE
)(3
1)( 76
4
LOWER
WISCONSIN
RIVERWAY
STATE
.
CO
LAFAYETTE
78
Darlingtoren
Belmont
Point
Mineral
TOWA
Dodgeville
COMMISSION
PLANNING
REGIONAL
WISCONSIN
: OUTHWESTERN
SSOURCE
126
1151
)(58
‫و‬
‫الهی‬
LINDEN
39
RICHLAND
CENTER
CO
80
RICHLAND
.
CO
GRANTICO
.
SIN
CON
WIS 1611
RIV
ER
SSE
RIVER
MISSISSIPPI
REFUGE
WILDLIFE
NATIONAL
LOWER
WISCONSIN
STATE
RIVERWAY
TO LA CRO
U.S.H. 151
Belmont - Dodgeville
Towa & Lafayette Counties
RECREATIONAL
AREAS
III - 2
)
69
69
OOP
A
59
Madison
Janesville
0000000000000
TRAIL
STATE
RIDGE
MILITARY
CCOUNTY
"TRI
HEESE
COUNTRY
.TREC
RAIL
TRAIL
STATE
PECATONICA
00000000000
STATE
RIVER
SUGAR
TRAIL
TRAILS
RECREATIONAL
Monroe
Co.
GREEN
.GREEN
CO
6)( 9
100000000000000
OIS
ILLIN
OF
STATE
39
9
GOVENOR
PARK
STATE
DODGE
CAPITAL
FIRST
PARK
STATE
PARK
STATE
LAKE
YELLOWSTONE
PARK
STATE
MOUNDS
BLUE
SPRINGS
CADIZ
PARK
STATE
BLACKHAWK
LAKE
REC
.AREA
WYALUSING
STATE
PARK
DEWEY
NELSON
PARK
STATE
GLARUS
NEW
PARK
STATE
WOODS
MAJOR
PUBLIC
PARK
AREAS
AND NW
US 18
) ‫رادا‬
RIDGE
39
STATE
N
US 151
Dodgeville
270
od17 276
II
11
ILT
Edmund
END PROJECT
Il
11
243
NORTH
4 SURVEY
11
11
250
Linden
258
289
287280
262
ki
11
11
1
11
il
11
272
ST 3
H 9
264
PARRELTOWN
MINES
J)
.P
.
11
est
267
265
hi
11
une 217 216
11
220
DIAMOND
GROVE
231 Millis
TH 9
Mineral S 3
Puint
270
297
240
LOST GROVE
3
2
:
1
USH 151
L!
TH
VGS
REFERENCE
FILE
reſ
name
.1:nc
23 /
TOVA
LAFALEMI
36
23
H
ST
Olte
r
us ધા
MS
Pecul
DP
AN
T
or
11
River
CTH
G
il
1:10
11
li
1
Il11
LEGEND
PROPOSED USH 151
U.S.H. 151
EXISTING USH 151 4 -LANE
Belmont - Dodgeville
BOUNDARY OF MINERAL POINT LINDEN DODGEVILLE MINING
SUB - DISTRICT
Towa & Lafayette Counties
GENERAL LOCATION OF MINED AREAS
BEGIN PROJECT
an
IN PROJECT STUDY AREA
.
126
TE
211020
is
User
19
Creehy
FIGURE
SOURCE: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR , GEOLOGICAL SURVEY TECHNICAL PAPER 309
III- 34
III .
3
U.S.H. 151
Belmont - Dodgeville
GEH
US
lowa & Lafayette Counties
SPENSLEY FARM
HISTORIC
DISTRICT
FIGURE
III - 4
-
10
-H
Miner
ao
li
P
nt
h
Branc
District
Boundary
Limits
City
Point
Mineral
locations
all
approximat
scale
to
Not
of
location
Previous
High
St.
2.-b.
.
-.
--
buildings
All
,s
objects
and
tructures
elements
contributing
.are
..
o
c
H.
.
o
.
d
.
F.
.
Farmhouse
Spensley
A.
Cistern
B.
C.
Cellar
Root
House
Spring
D.
E.
Barn
The
Garage
Lead
Smelter
Site
G.
Ha
Pund
mp
Remains
Dam
I.
J.
The
Spensley
Bridge
DISTRICT
HISTORIC
FARM
SPENSLEY
isconsin
W
Iowa
Point
,Mineral
County
-
CTH
-2- >
SECTION IV
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
This section discusses the potential environmental impacts of the Build and No-Build
Alternatives. The Build Alternative is shown on Exhibit 6. The impacts of the Build and
No-Build Alternatives are summarized in Table S - 1.
A.
LAND USE AND RELATED IMPACTS
1.
Land Use Planning
Land use and other project-related plans for Iowa and Lafayette Counties are summarized
in Section III. Most of these plans deal with farmland preservation, economic development,
or, as in the case of Mineral Point, a comprehensive plan .
Review of the various local plans indicate the proposed project is compatible with the land
use elements of these plans. The Build Alternative is not located in any significant area of
existing or proposed residential, commercial, or industrial development. The two areas of
development within the project area are the City of Mineral Point and the Village of
Belmont, both of which are being proposed for a bypass. The majority of the Build
Alternative outside the two bypassed communities is compatible with existing land use and
farmland preservation goals as it is affecting land adjacent to the existing roadway. The
bypass portions of the Build Alternative are less compatible with farmland preservation
goals than the No - Build Alternative because of the amount of farmland required . Less
farmland , and less productive agricultural land, however, is required for each proposed
bypass than for other build bypass alternatives considered .
The Mineral Point Bypass portion of the Build Alternative is consistent with the land use
and anticipated development plans for the City. The development (land use ) plan for
Mineral Point, as shown on Exhibit 9, is part of their 1985 Comprehensive Plan. This plan
is being updated in 1994 , and the revised development plan will be included in the Final
EIS . The development of bypass corridor alternatives were coordinated with SWWRPC's
1993-1994 updating ofthe Mineral Point Comprehensive Plan through several jointmeetings
with Mineral Point's Bypass Study Committee , Planning Commission , Chamber of
Commerce , and Area Development Corporation.
On August 3, 1993, the City of Mineral Point passed a resolution (copy attached in
Appendix B ,pages B -34 , 35 , and 36 ) stating the City supports the improvement of USH 151
between Dubuque and Madison to a 4 -lane facility ; the City endorses the general route
described as Alternative 3B (Build Alternative); the City endorses the location of a south
interchange in the vicinity of CTH O ; the north interchange be located in the general
vicinity of the former Maud Dutton property (future industrial park, now owned by the
City ); and the route should avoid encroaching into the City's historic district and should
allow asmuch room as possible for future City development on the west and northwest sides
IV - 1
of the City . The Build Alternative is consistent with each of these goals .
Alternative is not consistent with this resolution .
The No-Build
The City's existing industrial park south of STH 39 consists of approximately 10 ha
(25 acres), subdivided into seven lots. One lot of approximately 4 ha ( 10 acres), located east
of Fair Street, is the site of Nelson Industries. It is not affected by the Build Alternative.
Four of the remaining lots are occupied by low -intensity uses, including storage units and
an auto parts salvage operation .
The remaining two lots are vacant.
The Build Alternative will acquire approximately 3 ha (7 acres) of the industrial park and
will impact three to four buildings. Two of the existing buildings would remain , as well as
several viable vacant parcels, following the proposed improvement. Loss of part of the
existing industrial park will not significantly impact the overall economy of the area .
Expansion of the existing industrial park is severely limited by steep slopes and shallow
bedrock . Relocation impacts are discussed below .
In 1993, the City of Mineral Point acquired a 27 ha (67-acre ) parcel adjacent to existing
151 north of the City for development as an industrial park.
Planning and
development of the future industrial park are being managed by the Mineral Point Area
Development Corporation (MPADC ). The Build Alternative will acquire approximately
USH
1.5 ha (3.8 acres) from this site for the new roadway connecting existing USH 151 to the
north interchange . The new roadway will provide access to the future industrial park and
will be an integral part of its infrastructure development. The exact location of the new
roadway will be determined in coordination with MPADC .
There is no written land use plan for the Belmont area . Based on several Belmont Bypass
Task Force meetings, along with informationalmeetings, the Build Alternative is consistent
with the anticipated land use of the area .
There are no local transportation plans, although many of the plans described in Section III
have transportation goals and objectives. The Build Alternative is compatible with these
transportation goals . On December 16 , 1993, the SWWRPC and local units of government
along the project corridor endorsed the transportation improvements to USH 151 with a
resolution regarding the completion of USH 151 between Dodgeville and Belmont. A copy
of this resolution is included in Appendix B , pages B -50 , 51, and 52. The No-Build
Alternative is not compatible with this resolution .
The Build Alternative , including bypasses at Belmont and Mineral Point, is compatible with
the WDOT's Corridors 2020 plan and Access Management System Plan for Wisconsin's
Highways regarding regional, intra- and interstate commodities transport, economic
development opportunity, and service to recreational , business, and tourism resource . The
No- Build Alternative does not address these interests.
IV - 2
2.
Transportation
a.
Traffic Analysis
Traffic impacts associated with the improvement were determined by forecasts of design
year (2020 ) traffic for each alternative . The forecasted volumes were developed by WDOT
based on historical data and an origin -destination survey conducted in 1992. Exhibit 1
presents current and forecast ADT for the No-Build and Build Alternatives. The exhibit
also shows estimates of the directional distribution and percent trucks in the average day
and the design hour.
Based on the origin -destination survey , about 70 percent of traffic is expected to bypass
Mineral Point and about 80 percent Belmont. It is also expected that a majority of truck
traffic will also bypass these communities. Trucks account for approximately 15 percent of
USH 151 traffic volumes.
Determination of LOS was based on the Highway Capacity Manual for rural segments under
the No-Build Alternative . Further discussion of LOS is presented in Section I.
b.
No- Build Alternative
Under the No -Build Alternative , traffic through the Village of Belmont would increase from
the current 6,500 ADT to 9,820 ADT in the design year (2020 ). Through the City of
Mineral Point, it would increase from 7,430 ADT to 11,220 ADT over the same period.
Design hour volumes would approach the capacity of the facility resulting in delays,
congestion , and severe deterioration of operations on intersecting streets. Conflicts with
local traffic and with pedestrians would increase, adversely impacting safety as a
consequence . In the rural segments, traffic increases over the design period would result
in delays and reduced running speeds. Level of Service (LOS), which for 2 -lane highways
is primarily a measure of traffic delays, would deteriorate to LOS E in the design year
( 2020 ).
The No- Build Alternative is not consistent with regional and statewide transportation goals.
USH 151 is planned to function as a link in a statewide backbone network of high speed
4 -lane highways connecting major economic centers.
The low speeds, congestion and
conflicts with local traffic in the two communities, would severely limit the highway's
function in the regional network .
C.
Build Alternative
The purpose of this project is to meet future mobility needs, maintain continuity of the
overall route, improve route safety, and to enhance regional economic development. The
Build Alternative is consistent with these goals.
IV -3
The Build Alternative is included on WDOT's Corridors 2020 plan backbone network of
multilane divided highways connecting all regions and major economic centers in the State
and tying them to the national network of Interstate Highways. This project is one of the
remaining links necessary to complete the system .
The bypass sections of the Build Alternative will provide uninterrupted , 89 km / h (55 mph )
travel for traffic with destinations beyond Mineral Point and Belmont. In the design year
(2020 ), a bypass of Belmont would carry 8,960 vehicles per day and a bypass ofMineral
Point would carry 7,100 vehicles per day. This would reduce traffic on existing USH 151
through Belmont and Mineral Point by 5,400 vehicles per day and 5,500 vehicles per day,
respectively . Reduced traffic will enhance both vehicular and pedestrian safety within those
communities .
Upgrading from a 2-lane facility to a 4 -lane facility will improve traffic operations
throughout the project corridor. Two traffic lanes in each direction will improve passing
safety and reduce accidents. The 5 -year crash rate per 161 million vehicle km for the
existing USH 151 2-lane facility is 184 , as compared to a statewide average of 89 for rural
interstates (four lanes).
Conflicts due to cross traffic and turning movements at numerous urban intersections will
be eliminated by grade separations and interchange ramps. In the rural segments , access
will be consolidated and controlled to provide safer ingress and egress from the facility .
The Build Alternative will correct numerous sight distance and geometric deficiencies.
Further discussion of existing deficiencies is presented in Section I.
Relocating USH 151 will result in a jurisdictional transfer of certain portions of the highway
that would no longer be part of the State highway system . Jurisdictional transfer agreements
will be entered into between WDOT and appropriate units of government during a later
project phase.
Due to the lack of any specific public transportation facilities operating in the project
corridor, the Build Alternative will not directly impact these services. The local area ,
however, is highly dependent upon the USH 151 corridor to function as a vital link for
providing access to these alternative facilities. The Build Alternative will improve travel
time, access, and safety to and from airports, intercity bus, rail, and barge facilities.
3.
Secondary Impacts
Secondary impacts involve changes (both beneficial and adverse ) in community
characteristics, such as traffic congestion , population, housing, employment, tax base,
industrial and retail service development, recreational development, and land use controls
that may occur after a transportation improvement is implemented .
IV -4
The Build Alternative will create secondary impacts to the bypassed communities ofMineral
Point and Belmont. These two areas will experience both positive and negative changes to
their community characteristics due to the highway bypass . The positive changes are
expected to be of a greater magnitude than the negative changes.
In an effort to address the effects of bypasses on communities, the WDOT surveyed 133
civic and business leaders in six communities where highway bypasses have been in place
for several years to determine the perceived impacts on the local economic base, traffic
conditions, and community planning (Highway Bypasses, Wisconsin Communities Share
Their Experiences, 1988 ). Communities were selected based on bypass construction within
the last 10 years, population under 10,000 , emphasis on service provided by one major
highway, and similarity to other Wisconsin communities where bypass projects are being
studied . Included in the six communities studied were Dodgeville and Mt. Horeb , both of
which are located on the USH
151 corridor between Dubuque and Madison .
In general, the study found that each community had achieved relief from traffic congestion
and truck noise and experienced increased pedestrian safety as a result of the bypass. The
communities that benefitted most had manufacturing, "agribusiness," mail- order, and / or
distribution businesses that required good truck access. Those that developed new industrial
parks and controlled land development along the bypass tended to benefit.
Mt. Horeb is very similar to Mineral Point in that it could be described as part "bedroom "
community and part tourist attraction. The study indicated that in Mt. Horeb , a strong
majority felt a bypass had little or no influence on business profits . Also , Mt. Horeb did not
perceive a change in neighborhoods along the existing highway. Similar to Mineral Point,
Mt. Horeb is a community where tourism is important to the local economy. Signage and
marketing promotion efforts were identified as important ways to reattract tourists to the
community.
4.
Agricultural Impacts
The Build Alternative would permanently remove 255 ha (630 acres) of farmland from
production . From this total, the Mineral Point Bypass would remove 141 ha (349 acres),
the rural section would remove 66 ha ( 163 acres ) and the Belmont Bypass would remove
48 ha (118 acres).
The Mineral Point Bypass section would sever 10 farm parcels and landlock five parcels; the
rural section would not sever or landlock any new parcels; the Belmont Bypass would sever
three parcels and landlock one parcel.
The loss of farmland would have a negative economic impact on individual farm operators.
Purchase or rental of additional farmland where available and accessible would be the only
practicable way to mitigate the loss of farmland. The Build Alternative bypass for Mineral
Point would impact farmland that is less productive than that which would be affected by
other alternatives.
IV - 5
The Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) will prepare an
Agricultural Impact Statement (AIS ) for the
Final Environmental Impact Statement
discussing the economic impact on farm operations. The completed AIS is expected to be
available in March 1994 and copies will be sent to all farm operators in the study corridor,
per AIS procedures. The DATCP has been consulted several times during the development
of this project and has identified the Build Alternative as the agriculturally preferred
alternative. Correspondence from the DATCP indicating their rational for the agriculturally
preferred alternative and highlighting the general agricultural impacts is located in the
Appendix B , pages B -40 through 43 ).
A Farmland Conversion Rating Impact Rating Form , Number AD - 1006 , was completed for
this project. Any project with total site assessment points greater than 60 must be forwarded
to the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), U.S. Departmentof Agriculture , in accordance with
the Farm Land Protection Policy. The Build Alternative received 59 site assessment points,
and therefore, does not require further evaluation by the SCS. However, the completed
form was sent to the SCS along with project maps to offer them an opportunity to comment
on the project. A copy of the form along with the letter dated October 15 , 1993 , to the SCS
is included in Appendix B , pages B -44 through 47.
The SCS completed an evaluation of farmland impacts for both Iowa and Lafayette Counties
in accordance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act. Copies of these completed forms
along with the SCS's letter response dated February 17, 1994, are included in Appendix B ,
pages B -57 through 59 .
B. SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS
1.
Neighborhoods and Community Cohesion
The Build Alternative will not divide any neighborhoods or communities. Should local
businessesrelocate to the areas surrounding the proposed interchanges, community cohesion
may be affected .
The degree of impact would depend on such factors as number of
relocations, types of relocated businesses, maintenance of rental units and vacant buildings,
and the presence and effectiveness of local planning and zoning ordinances.
Both the Village of Belmont and the City of Mineral Point are stable communities where
the turnover of residents is low . There are no minority or ethnic group neighborhoods
within these communities.
The Build Alternative locates bypasses for each of these
communities in areas where there is little urban development.
Therefore , the Build
Alternative is not expected to result in adverse impacts to community neighborhoods.
Community cohesion will be improved by decreased noise and air pollution , and increased
pedestrian and vehicular safety due to decreased traffic volumes on existing USH 151.
IV - 6
The project area outside the above two communities is a rural, agricultural area with low
population density. In this area , it is proposed to add two lanes to the existing facility.
Farm access and public road connections will be permitted . The Build Alternative is not
likely to create any major adverse social impacts. Some localized disruption will result from
relocations required for right of way acquisitions.
Some disruptive impacts will occur during construction, such as increased noise, air
pollution , dirt, and detours. These impacts would be temporary in nature .
2.
Access to Facilities and Services
A highway improvement has potential to affect access to facilities such as transportation ,
schools, churches, and businesses and services such as police , fire , emergency ,medical, and
postal service .
Within the communities of Belmont and Mineral Point, the Build Alternative will improve
local access to facilities and services by reducing the congestion and barrier effect of the
existing roadway traffic. Freeway standard access control will be implemented along the
bypass sections. Continuity of existing roads within the bypass sections will be maintained
with grade separation structures.
The No- Build Alternative will result in deteriorating access conditions as traffic volumes
increase .
In the rural areas, existing farming operations require slow -moving farm equipment to cross
existing USH 151 or to operate equipment along the shoulder of the highway to get to
fields. The proposed 18 -m (60 -foot) median will permit most equipment to cross one
direction of traffic at a timerather than requiring simultaneous gaps in both northbound and
southbound traffic .
Two lanes in each direction will result in less disruption of traffic caused by farm equipment
operating on the shoulder and encroaching on the driving lane. Construction of a 4 -lane
divided highway with improved shoulders (Build Alternative ) will make these trips safer for
the farmer and the traveling public .
Private farm access will be allowed in the rural areas. Median crossings and farm access
will permit farm operators to continue to use the highway. Existing continuity of public side
roads willbe maintained with at-grade side road connections to the new facility. Therefore ,
the Build Alternative will not adversely affect access to facilities or community services.
Median crossings will be reviewed on an individual basis during the design process. Spacing
of median openings will be a minimum of 305 m (1,000 feet).
The Build Alternative will improve access to recreational and related public facilities within
the USH 151 corridor and the surrounding regions. Tourism will increase and benefit
through reduced travel time and increased safety . The bypasses will remove much of the
IV -7
through traffic and trucks from the bypassed community, thereby allowing tourists and
residences to enjoy less congested travel.
3.
Residential and Business Relocations
The No -Build Alternative will not displace any residences or businesses.
The Build
Alternative will require the relocation of seven residences and three businesses.
According to the Conceptual Stage Relocation Plan , prepared in August 1993, the proposed
displacement of seven residences include four owner -occupied single -family homes and three
tenant-occupied single -family homes. These homes range in value from approximately
$ 30,000 to $ 89,999. A copy of this plan is attached as Appendix E.
a.
Occupant Characteristics
Iowa County has 8,220 housing units, for a total population of 20,150 . Median household
income is $ 25,914 , with per capita income of $ 11,339 . Lafayette County has 6,315 housing
units, for a total population of 16,076 . Median household income is $ 24,479 , with per capita
income at $ 10,641 .
Minorities make up 0.3 percent of Iowa County's and 0.4 percent of Lafayette County's
population . There are no known age, ethnic,minority, or handicapped characteristics which
would require special relocation consideration .
b.
Special Relocation Advisory Services
Presently , there is no indication that any unusual problems exist that would require
establishing special relocation advisory services. Should a problem develop , required
services will be provided .
c.
Available Replacement Housing and Business Locations
A survey of comparable replacement housingwas conducted in the Belmont/ Platteville area
and Mineral Point /Dodgeville area to determine whether or not sufficient replacement
housing is available for the displaced persons.
Adequate replacement housing was available based on the 1992 and first half of 1993 sales
in these two areas. Current listings show at least the same availability as in 1992 .
Displaced businesses include a dairy and cattle operation , an automotive parts salvage yard,
and a liquor store. Additional information on these businesses is contained in Appendix E.
Adequate replacement locations for the displaced businesses are available within the
remaining portion of the existing Mineral Point industrial park, the future industrial park ,
and other outlying areas.
IV - 8
d.
Relocation Assistance Information
The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 , as
amended, provides for payment of just compensation for property acquired for a federal aid
project. The purpose of the relocation program is to provide assistance to displaced persons
in finding comparable housing which is decent, safe, and sanitary .
This applies to
businesses, farms, and non -profit organizations aswell as residential properties. No person
or business will be displaced unless a comparable replacement dwelling or business location
is provided .
Before the initiation of any property acquisition activities,members of WDOT's Real Estate
Section will contact the property owners and tenants to explain the details of the acquisition
process and Wisconsin's EminentDomain Law under Section 32.05 , Wisconsin Statutes. Any
property acquired will be inspected by one or more professional appraisers. The property
owner will be invited to accompany the appraiser during inspection of the property. Based
on the appraisal, the value of the property will be determined and that amount offered to
the owner. The WDOT Real Estate Program provides payment for the reasonable cost of
an owner's independent appraisal.
Construction funding has not yet been approved for this project. Real estate acquisition is
anticipated to begin in 1998 if funding is approved .
4.
Economic Impacts
According to the Overall Economic Development Program (OEDP ) Update , prepared by
Southwestern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SWWRPC ), June 1993, the
highway system
in the southwestern Wisconsin region has long been less than adequate.
USH 151 has been considered the region's primary highway because it connects the
metropolitan communities of Dubuque and Madison . The Build Alternative is consistent
with Wisconsin’s Corridors 2020 plan in which USH 151 is designated as a "backbone
component." This plan is designed to develop a network of high quality highways linking
the economic centers in the state with each other and to the national highway system ,
thereby improving the state's ability to complete more effectively in local and national
markets. The WDOT Corridors 2020 Multilane Backbone System and Connection to
National Highway System
are shown in Figures 1-3 and 1-4 , respectively .
Research shows that bypasses can have both positive and negative impacts on the economies
of rural areas. While the bypasses will improve accessibility and provide substantialbenefits
for the study area , as well as the state as a whole, they could also have negative impacts on
some local businesses. Highway-dependent businesses along the existing highway will be
most sensitive to changes in traffic patterns due to highway improvements and will suffer
some loss of sales.
Businesses most vulnerable to decline in sales are gas stations,
restaurants, motels, and others with a high dependence on highway traffic . However, the
extent of business loss depends on the distance of the bypass from the community and,
consequently , the community's visibility from the highway. Also, the loss of sales will
IV -9
depend on the community's ability to effectively promote its traffic generating attractions,
such as tourism , special events, and so forth .
Mineral Point is similar to the nearby community of Mt. Horeb in size and the importance
of tourism to the local economy. According to WDOT's Highway Bypasses, Wisconsin
Communities Share Their Experiences, a strong majority in Mt. Horeb felt a bypass had little
or no influence on business profits.
Additional economic impacts include the loss of taxable property affecting local government
revenues. The Build Alternative will remove property from the local tax base and relocate
some residences and businesses within the area . Generally, the Build Alternative will result
in positive economic impacts once the roadway improvement is made and the acquired
residences and businesses are relocated , which will offset this initial property tax loss.
Long-term positive economic impacts include new business, industry, and increased tourism ,
as well as the associated increases in jobs, sales, and consumer savings. With an increase
in new businesses and industry, the effective tax rate for the area should decrease creating
a positive economic benefit for the residents .
Initial construction costs, pavementmaintenance costs, and Highway User Benefits for the
No -Build and Build alternatives shown in the Impact Summary, Table S - 1.
Initial construction costs are estimated in 1993 dollars and are assumed to be incurred in
the year 2000. Pavement maintenance costs are estimated in 1993 dollars and are assumed
to occur over the lifetime of the pavement, based on a 50 -year analysis period. The figures
in Table S - 1 are the calculated present worth in the year 2000 of future pavement overlays
and reconstruction . Highway User Benefits are estimated in 1993 dollars and representthe
present worth in the year 2000 of the anticipated benefits to the highway user due to
reduced vehicle operation and driver delay, in comparison to the No-Build Alternative.
Further information on the methodology used to calculate costs and benefits is presented
in Appendix F.
Highway User Benefits exceed construction costs for the Build Alternative. In addition ,
future maintenance costs for the No-Build Alternative are greater than those for the Build
Alternative
C. ENVIRONMENTAL AND RELATED RESOURCE IMPACTS
The impacts discussed in this section are related to the Build Alternative. Except as noted,
the No-Build Alternative will have no impact to the environment.
1.
Surface Water Resources
Table IV - 1 lists the surface water resources potentially impacted by intersections with the
Build Alternative . Streams are shown on Figure III- 1.
IV - 10
Potential impacts to surface water resources are associated with the construction , operation ,
and maintenance of the proposed roadway. Possible impacts to surface water resources are
increased siltation of the rivers and streams, increased flooding, decreased wildlife habitat,
and decreased water quality .
Increased siltation of the surface waters may occur due to erosion of roadside banks, erosion
of river and stream banks, and stirring of sediments during construction of the bridge
foundations. Siltation will increase turbidity, which may reduce aquatic productivity by
interfering with photosynthesis. Siltation can also result in a decrease of fish spawning areas
by adding silt to the substrate. This would also affect insects that the fish feed on and other
wildlife species which feed on either the insects or the fish . The surface water resources
potentially impacted by siltation are the Bonner Branch , the Whiteside Branch , the Cottage
Inn Branch , the West Branch of the Pecatonica River, and the Mineral Point Branch .
Table IV - 1
SURFACE WATER INTERSECTIONS
Station
134
Surface Water
Location
Bonner Branch
Unnamed Stream
Unnamed Stream
SW 1/4, Section 11, T3N , RIE
SE 4/4, Section 11, T3N , RIE
289
328
Whiteside Branch
NW 44, Section 31, T4N , RIE
SE 44 , Section 36 , T4N , R2E
500
West Branch of Pecatonica
Mineral Point Branch
NE 14, Section 21, T4N , R2E
Farm Pond
Unnamed Stream
Farm Pond
NE 14, Section 36 , T5N , R2E
170
187
571
804
822
1029
Cottage Inn Branch
SE 14, Section 11, T3N , RIE
NW 44, Section 15 , T4N , R2E
NE 1/4, Section 36 , TSN , R2E
NW 44, Section 29, T5N , R3E
Erosion controlwill be accomplished in accordance with the WDOT Standard Specifications
for Road and Bridge Construction (WDOT, 1989) . Temporary and permanent erosion
control measures will be performed to control water pollution , erosion , and siltation ; for
example : the use of silt fences, settling basins, ditch checks,mulches, erosion mats, seeding ,
sodding, plantings, and other erosion control devices or methodsmay be used . Avoidance
of washing, sloughing, and deposition of materials into the surface waters will be
accomplished to avoid contamination , siltation , or pollution of the surface waters according
to WDOT specifications (WDOT, 1989) .
IV - 11
Habitat associated with the surface waters would be decreased due to the loss of direct
sunlight on sections of the rivers and streams from the bridge spans; the use of culverts; and
the removal of the two farm ponds, located within the proposed corridor of the Build
Alternative.
Impacts associated with operating/maintaining the highway include chemical pollutants from
motor vehicles which have the potential for affecting water quality, vegetation , and
associated aquatic life. Substances include grease and petroleum from lubricant spills or
leaks; antifreeze , and hydraulic fluid ; lead from leaded fuel; and zincwhich is used as a tire
filler and as a motor oil stabilizer.
De- icing salts can also affect water quality by increasing the chloride levels during runoff
and snow melt. Better equipment calibration in the last decade has resulted in a decrease
in the amount of salt applied and eliminates buildup at intersections and other locations
where trucks are required to slow or stop . De-icing salts are usually applied during snow
falls to prevent bonding of snow to the pavement. Sodium chloride is generally used when
the temperature is 20 degrees or above, and mixtures of sodium and calcium chloride, or
calcium chloride alone, are used at lower temperatures. The amount and frequency of
application depends on temperature, snow and ice conditions, and traffic volumes.
Impacts are associated with salt movement away from the roadway. Where surface runoff
predominates, salt enters drainage ditches and travels toward receiving waterways. Salt
spray occurs due to moving traffic and drifts as a mist,depositing on adjacentvegetation and
soil . The WDOT has an ongoing statewide salt monitoring program start in 1970. Results
indicate that occasional high levels of chlorides occur in drainage ditches and waterways due
to rapid snowmelt conditions. No long-term buildup of chlorides has been observed in the
monitored waterways .
Highways with wide grass medians and clear zones provide maximum buffering opportunity
Nationwide studies by the Federal Highway
for roadway -generated pollutants.
Administration indicate pollutants in highway runoff are not present in amounts sufficient
to threaten surface or groundwater quality ((Constituents of Highway Runoff, Final Report,
Federal Highway Administration , Report No. FHWA /RD -8045 1981) Use of topsoil and
temporary and permanent seeding with grasses will trap and retain pollutants at the soil
surface and will act as a buffer layer over the more permeable subsoils.
2.
Wetlands
Table IV -2 lists
Alternative.
the
approximate
wetland
areas potentially
impacted
by the Build
Impacts to wetlands may occur in two ways: by converting the wetland in the proposed
corridor for highway use or by altering the wetland community near the project area in some
way .
IV - 12
Table IV - 2
WETLAND AREAS POTENTIALLY IMPACTED
Wetland
Location
Station 327 , RT
Station 560 , LT
Hectares (Acres )
Wetland Classification
Aquatic bed with submergent
and free floating vegetation
0.1 (0.2 )
Emergent /wet meadow with
persistent vegetation
Source:
Potentially Impacted
0.1 (0.3)
Wisconsin Wetland Inventory Maps and 1:4800 ( 1" = 400') aerial photo basemap using planimetry.
Converting the wetlands will result in losing wetland functions in the portion of each
wetland impacted. Floral diversity and wildlife and fishery habitat will be lost for species
utilizing it for breeding, food, and cover. The wetland at Station 327 , right, was assessed to
have functional values ofmedium significance for floral diversity and wildlife and fishery
habitat. The wetland at Station 560, left, was assessed to have low significance for these
functional values. Flood storage will be compromised slightly due to the loss of water
storage capacity in the wetland. Both of these wetlands were assessed to have flood storage
values of medium significance .
The ability of the impacted portion of the wetlands to improve water quality by allowing
filtering of sediments and contaminants will be lost, allowing the sediments and
contaminants to enter the rivers and streams directly. Both of these wetlands were assessed
to have water quality protection values ofmedium significance. The wetland's shoreline
protection values will be lost allowing the banks to erode more quickly. The wetland at
Station 327 , right, was assessed to have a shoreline protection functional value of low
significance while the wetland at Station 560, left, does not function as shoreline protection .
The impacted wetlands will no longer function as a groundwater discharge area . Both of
these wetlands were assessed to have groundwater discharge functions of low significance .
In addition, the wetlands will no longer serve an aesthetic function . The wetland at
Station 327 was assessed to have an aesthetic function of medium significance while the
wetland at Station 560 aesthetic function was of low significance .
Altering the wetlands could result in losing some or all wetland functions. This may occur
from converting adjacent wetlands, increasing or decreasing runoff to wetlands, or from
constricting channels upgradient or downgradient from the wetland. This could create more
frequent and longer periods of inundation in the watershed . Altering the water table may
affect the nature of the vegetative community and the wildlife that currently utilizes it. If
the present vegetative community cannot compete in the altered wetland , itmay be replaced
by a less desirable vegetative community , such as a monotypical stand of reed canary grass
or purple loosetrife, which has very little wildlife value .
IV - 13
Impacts to wetlands were avoided to the extent practical during alternative development and
selection of a preferred Build Alternative. Specific measures to minimize adverse impacts
are discussed in Section V.
3.
Floodplains
The Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 116 recognizes that floodplain zoning is a necessary
tool to protect human life , health , and to minimize property damages and economic losses.
Counties, cities, and villages within the State of Wisconsin are required to adopt reasonable
and effective floodplain zoning ordinances within their jurisdiction.
As shown on Exhibit 6 , the Build Alternative will cross Bonner Branch
( Station
134 );
Whiteside Branch ( Station 290 ); Cottage Inn Branch (Station 327); West Branch of the
Pecatonica River ( Station 500 ); Mineral Point Branch
(Station 572 ); and an unnamed
tributary flowing into Ludden Lake and the Mineral Point Branch (Station 825) . New
structures will be provided at each of these waterway crossings. For those crossings along
the existing USH 151, a new structure will be provided for the additional two lanes on the
Build Alternative. If the structure on the existing alignment is determined to be functionally
deficient, rehabilitation or replacement will be considered .
The 100 -year flood areas will not be affected by the Build Alternative . The proposed
roadway will be constructed above the 100-year flood elevation , and each proposed
waterway structure will be designed such that they will not increase the backwater as
regulated by Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 116 .
4.
Groundwater and Drinking Water Supply
The Build Alternative is not anticipated to adversely affect groundwater or drinking water
supplies. The aquifers that supply the drinking water to area residents are at depths which
will not be affected by project construction . According to the U.S. EPA , there are no sole
source aquifers that have been designated in the State of Wisconsin .
5.
Upland Habitat
Table IV -3 lists the approximate acreage of wooded areas potentially impacted by the Build
Alternative . Fringe woodland encroachments occur at five separate locations for a total of
1.5 ha ( 3.6 acres). Woodland severances occur at two locations. The first is a 63.2 -ha
( 156 -acre ) woodland located just south of Mineral Point (Station 740 ) in which the
severances results in two remaining areas of about 56.2 ha ( 139 acres) and 3.0 ha (7 acres).
The second is a 6.6 -ha (16 -acre ) woodland located just north of Mineral Point (Station 940 )
in which the severance results in two remaining areas of about 3.2 ha (8 acres) and 1.1 ha
( 3 acres ).
IV - 14
Table IV - 3
WOODED AREAS
POTENTIALLY IMPACTS
Station
Total Area
Hectares (Acres)
Area Potentially
Impacted
Hectares (Acres)
Type of
Impact
Remaining Areas
Hectares (Acres)
Area 1
545
715
740
820
880
925
940
7.0 ( 17.3 )
1.0 (2.6 )
63.2 (156.2 )
3.9 (9.6 )
2.0 (4.8)
8.1 (20.0 )
6.6 ( 16.4 )
0.1 (0.3)
0.3 (0.7 )
4.0 ( 10.0 )
0.2 (0.4 )
0.7 (1.7)
0.2 (0.5 )
2.3 (5.6 )
Fringe
Fringe
Sever
Fringe
Fringe
Fringe
Sever
6.9 ( 17.0 )
0.8 (1.9 )
56.2 (138.9)
3.7 ( 9.2 )
1.2 ( 3.1)
7.9 ( 19.5)
3.2 (8.0 )
Area 2
N /A
N /A
3.0 (1.4 )
N /A
N /A
N /A
1.1 (2.8 )
Source: 1:4800 ( 1" = 400') aerial photo base map using planimetry.
Impacts to upland habitat may occur in two ways: loss of habitat by converting it to
roadway, and fragmentation of habitat from
the roadway bisecting existing habitat.
Converting habitat to roadway would result in a direct loss of food and cover for species
utilizing the habitat. Fragmentation of habitat reduces the size of individualwooded areas,
thereby decreasing the "habitat island" size . When this happens, there is an increase in edge
area relative to interior area. Edge species, which are more tolerant of dry conditions, may
replace interior species in small wooded areas. The result is that small wooded areas are
not representative of the original wooded habitat (Noss, 1983). Where the Build Alternative
will only impact the edge of the woods, significant fragmentation of the habitat will not
occur.
Relative to larger areas of a particular habitat, small habitat patches are less likely to
contain the full range of resources to support a given species. Additionally, a small habitat
patch will contain a lesser absolute amount of a given resource available to individuals of
species. For these two reasons, a small habitat patch is likely to support a smaller total
number of species and smaller populations of a given species relative to a large habitat
patch .
6.
Endangered or Threatened Species
There is a state endangered fish , a state threatened fish , and a state special concern plant
that are known to occur in the project area according to data on file with the WDNR -BER
(WDNR , 1993).
A copy of the correspondence with WDNR -BER is included in
Appendix B , pages B -29 through 33.
IV - 15
Both fish , the slender madtom and the Ozark minnow , prefer clear streamswith gravel and
rubble bottoms. In the project area, the Mineral Point Branch meets these requirements
near its headwaters upstream of Ludden Lake , but the other streams and rivers do not. At
the time of the site visit in August of 1993 , the Mineral Point Branch and the West Branch
of the Pecatonica River, at the present USH 151 bridges, were turbid with silt accumulation
occurring. The Cottage Inn Branch is slow and turbid at the present USH 151 bridge, which
is the head of the impoundment forming Joy Lake . The Whiteside Branch at the Build
Alternative crossing is mapped as an intermittent stream and is probably dry in years of
normal rainfall. During the site visit, it was turbid and shallow . In addition , the Bonner
Branch was also turbid at the proposed crossing. The fact that these streams were turbid
with silt accumulating indicates that the slender madtom and Ozark minnow probably do
not occur at the areas which would be directly impacted. The Build Alternative will not
impact the headwaters of the Mineral Point Branch , where habitat is suitable for these
species.
The state special concern plant, glade mallow , prefers wet prairies and meadows. This
habitat occurs in three areas: in a drainageway north of Mineral Point, in the Mineral Point
Branch valley, and on the west side of present USH 151 south of the Mineral Point Branch
crossing. The drainageway north of Mineral Point and the Mineral Point Branch valley,
southwest of Mineral Point, provides suitable habitat, but will not be impacted by the Build
Alternative . The area south of the Mineral Point Branch crossing will be impacted by the
Build Alternative ; however, the glade mallow was not identified in this area during the site
visit.
Therefore , no endangered, threatened, or special concern species are likely to be affected
by the Build Alternative.
7.
Natural and Conservancy Areas
The Build Alternative does not directly impact any natural or conservancy areas. The near
lanes of the proposed highway will lie within approximately 324 m (800 feet) of the Mineral
Point Unified School District school forest property located along STH 39 west of the City.
There will be a small increase in noise levels at this property due to the proposed
improvement.
Further information on noise impacts is provided in this section under a
separate heading.
8.
Lands Potentially Subject to Section 4 (f) Requirements
Section 4 (f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Act of 1996 protects public
parks and recreation lands, wildlife, and waterfowl refuges and historic sites. It prohibits
use of such lands by a transportation project unless there is no feasible and prudent
alternative and the project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to these
resources resulting from such use .
IV - 16
Public use lands subject to 4 (f) requirements are discussed in the following subsection . The
following historic properties are discussed in this subsection:
.
The Mineral Point Historic District, which is on the National Register of Historic
Places.
The Spensley Farm
Historic Places.
Historic District, which is eligible for the National Register of
Potentially eligible archaeological sites.
Section 4 (f) applies to
historic districts
if land within
the
district is used by the
transportation project and the project impacts contributing historic resources within the
district. Use of property can occur by direct acquisition or occupancy of the land or when
the proximity of a highway project substantially impairs the capability of a site to perform
its vital functions.
According to FHWA policy , Section 4 (f) applies to archaeological siteswhich are eligible
for the National Register and which warrant preservation in place . Section 4 (f) does not
apply to archaeological resources which are important chiefly because of what can be
learned by data recovery and are of minimal value for the preservation in place.
Discussion of these historic properties is included in this subsection to establish that
Section 4 (f) does not apply. They are discussed in greater detail in subsequent subsections
addressing archaeological resources and historic resources.
a.
Mineral Point Historic District
The Mineral Point Historic District is shown on Exhibit 6 , Sheet 4 of 5 .
The Build Alternative alignment is west of the District staying approximately 450 m
(1,500 feet) to 900 m (3,000 feet) west of the boundary, except at the northwest corner of
the District.
District.
The right of way for the proposed highway will not acquire land from the
There are no identified historic resources in the northwest corner of the District which
contribute to its eligibility for the National Historic Register.
The current use of this land
is agricultural, and there is no public access to that area which would be in close proximity
to the highway right of way. The proposed improvement will not impair the capability of
the District to perform its functions with respect to either its current land use or its historic
resources. The Build Alternative , therefore, does not use land in the Mineral Point Historic
District or impact contributing resources and Section 4 (f) does not apply.
IV - 17
b.
Spensley Farm
Historic District
The Spensley Farm Historic District consists of a residence and outbuildings located north
of CTH QQ and land located between CTH QQ and the Mineral Point Branch , which was
part of the original homestead. District boundaries are shown on Exhibit 6 , Sheet 4 of 5 ,
and Figure III-4 .
The Build Alternative alignment is located southeast of the farm complex, with the near
lanes approximately 480 m ( 1,600 feet) from the residence and approximately 200 m
(650 feet) from the Mineral Point Branch .
The function of the site north of CTH QQ as a residence is sensitive to acquisition , noise
impacts, and visual intrusion . The portion of the district south of CTH QQ contributes to
the eligibility of the District primarily because archaeological exploration would likely yield
information on the history of mining and refining in the area . It is, therefore , sensitive to
acquisition .
The primary potential impacts to the site due to proximity to the highway are noise and
visual impacts. A noise analysis was performed to determine existing and future anticipated
noise levels. A visual analysis was performed to determine the extent of visual intrusion.
The existing terrain and the proposed roadways were computer-modeled , and this modelwas
used to generate graphic images of the new facility from several viewpoints on the property.
Based on the noise and visual analyses, it was concluded that proximity of the proposed
facility will not substantially impair the function or historical integrity of the site. Noise
abatement criteria are not exceeded and there are no substantial noise impacts. The visual
intrusion is minor and not sufficient to impair the function or integrity of the site .
Therefore , the construction of proposed facility does not constitute use of the Spensley Farm
property and Section 4 (f) does not apply.
C.
Archaeological Sites
There are two types of archaeological sites impacted by the project. One is prehistoric
archaeological sites and the other is historic mining resource sites.
The prehistoric archaeologicalsiteswhich are impacted are not visible on the landscape and
are located on private property which is currently used for agricultural purposes.
A
preliminary determination has been made that these sites are important primarily for the
information they may contain and are of minimal value for preservation in place .
The historic mining sites are visible on the surface as small depressions or piles of rock
( tailings). All of these sites are located on private property which is currently used for
agricultural purposes. The era and type of mining represented by these sites have been
extensively documented and more intact examples have been protected and preserved .
Features similar to those being impacted are numerous and widespread throughout the
upper Mississippi lead -zinc mining district, in
IV - 18
general, and the Mineral Point-Linden
Dodgeville sub -district in particular (see Figure III-3 ). A preliminary determination has
been made that these sites are importantprimarily for the information theymay contain and
are of minimal value for preservation in place.
Therefore, Section 4 (f) does not apply to the archaeological sites impacted . Coordination
with the SHPO is currently ongoing (reference letter dated February 1, 1994 , included in
Appendix B , pages B -55 and 56 ). All Section 106 requirements will be fulfilled prior to
submittal of the Final Environmental Impact Statement.
9.
Lands Subject to Section 4 (f) Requirements
Public use lands within the project area are described in Section III . Those public use lands
subject to Section 4(f) requirements include publicly-owned recreational trails and parks.
This subsection includes discussion of impacts on the Pecatonica (Calamine-Platteville )
Trail, the Cheese Country (Tri-County) Trail, and local parks. It is concluded that, of these,
only the Pecatonica Trail has 4 (f) impacts . A detailed evaluation of the Pecatonica Trail
crossing relative to 4 (f) requirements is provided in Section VII.
Following is a summary of the effects of the project on public use lands subject to
Section 4 (f).
a.
Pecatonica (Calamine-Platteville) State Park Trail
The Build Alternative 4-lane highway will cross the right of way, which was acquired for the
Pecatonica (Calamine- Platteville ) Trail. Acquisition of the land and development of the
trail were federally funded under Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) projects ,
encompassing approximately 70 ha (170 acres) of land.
The trail is operated by WDNR as part of Yellowstone State Park . The portion of the trail
from Calamine to Belmonthas been constructed and is open for use . Construction has not
begun on the segment from Belmont to Platteville, although land acquisition is near
completion . Specifically, in the location of the proposed highway crossing, WDNR was not
able to obtain reversion rights to the railroad grade on the property located in the southeast
corner of Section 10. To complete the trail corridor, a 41-m ( 100 -foot) wide right of way
was acquired , which is bordered on the north by the south line of Sections 10 and 11 and
extends east and west to the abandoned railroad corridor. The portion of Section 11 lying
southwest of the rail corridorwas also acquired . The approximate location of the trail right
of way is shown on Exhibit 6 , Sheet 1.
The proposed highway right of way crosses the trail right of way near the southeast corner
of Section 10 at a skew of approximately 45 degrees. The trail segment, which is affected
by the proposed highway, begins in the bottom of the valley formed by Bonner Creek and
climbs a knoll approximately 20 m (50 feet) high as it proceeds to the west, with existing
slopes exceeding 12 percent. The topography limits the available options for crossing the
IV - 19
trail with the proposed highway.
Several options were investigated
for this crossing ,
however, itwas determined that the only practical alternative is an overpass of the highway,
just south of the existing trail right of way ( see Exhibit 8 ).
There will be no net loss of recreational land. Although the proposed action will result in
the conversion of approximately 1.3 ha (4 acres ) of land from recreational use to highway
use, replacement lands will be provided in the immediate vicinity to construct approaches
to the overpass of the highway.
There are no adverse impacts to the function of the recreational facility
The overpass will
be constructed to accommodate trail users and normal maintenance equipment.
Mound Street ( existing USH
151), in the Village of Belmont, will continue to be the
principal access to the trail. Both the safety and functionality of the trail within the Village
will be improved by the removal of traffic, especially truck traffic, from the existing highway
to the proposed facility.
Noise levels can be expected to rise along the trail corridor in the vicinity of the new
highway, since this is a rural setting not close to any major noise generators. The effect of
the highway is mitigated by the fact that it is in cut where it crosses the trail and rock
backslopes will attenuate noise levels outside of the right of way . Noise impacts on trail
users will be transitory due to the nature of the expected use . There will be a reduction in
noise levels in the vicinity of the existing highway in the Village of Belmont due to reduced
automobile and truck traffic.
There will be visual impacts on the trail associated with a 4 -lane highway in an otherwise
rural setting. Portions of the highway will be concealed in cut, so the overall visual effect
is somewhat softened by the curvilinear alignment of the highway. Impacts on trail users
will be transitory .
Measures to minimize harm are discussed in Section VI.
b.
Cheese Country Trail
The Cheese Country Trail runs south from Mineral Point on an abandoned railroad grade,
connecting to the Calamine - Platteville Trail, and continuing to the community of Monroe
(see Figure III-2 ). It is not impacted by the Build Alternative.
c.
Local Parks
There are six local parks in Mineral Point and one in Belmont:
Belmont Village Park serves as a neighborhood playground and is heavily used by
tourists as a rest area because of its location on USH 151. The Build Alternative does
not directly impact the park , but will have an indirect beneficial impact by reducing
noise levels due to the reduced traffic along the existing highway.
IV - 20
Water Tower Park is located along USH 151 in the center of Mineral Point. It serves
much the same functions as Belmont Village Park . The Build Alternative does not
directly impact the park ;however,noise levels will be reduced due to the reduced traffic
along the existing highway .
The five other parks in Mineral Point will not be impacted by the proposed improvement.
10. Other Public Use Lands
Other public use lands within the project area include a highway wayside, golf courses,
campgrounds, snowmobile trails , and a fairground, which are described in Section III. The
effects on these lands are as follows:
a.
Highway Wayside
The existing highway wayside located on the northwest side of the intersection with North
Oak Park Road will be eliminated by the proposed improvement. The WDOT plans to
provide a new wayside along the proposed highway within the project limits. The new
wayside will be an all-season facility with on -site waste treatment. The location for this
wayside has not yet been determined .
b.
Golf Courses
The Dodge -Point Country Club is located approximately midway between Mineral Pointand
Dodgeville on existing USH 151. The Build Alternative does not directly impact the golf
course . The immediate access to the golf course will continue to be from the existing
highway, which will remain as a frontage road . Access to the new highway will be at a new
at- grade intersection.
There is also a privately-owned golf course north of Mineral Point, in the Ludden Lake
development adjacent to CTH QQ .
improvement.
c.
This facility will not be impacted by the proposed
Snowmobile Trails
A county -funded snowmobile trail, extending from Soldiers Memorial Park in Mineral Point
to the Military Ridge Trail near Ridgeway, will not be impacted . However, a local trail,
funded and administered by a snowmobile club , which begins on the south side of Mineral
Point and continues south and west of the City, willbe impacted . The Build Alternative will
cross this trail in the vicinity of the south Mineral Point interchange. WDOTwill coordinate
with the local club and will make an effort to identify a safe and practical alternative
location for the crossing.
Both of these trails are located on private property under short-term , revocable agreements.
IV -21
d.
Campgrounds
A privately-owned campground , Lake Joy, is located 5 km
(3 miles ) north of Belmont on
USH 151. Land adjacent to the existing highway in the form of strip taking will be acquired
from this property for the proposed highway right of way, but this will not affect the use of
this land as a campground .
e.
Fairgrounds
The Iowa County Fairgrounds is located on the southwest side of Mineral Point. It is a
privately -owned facility which consists of a dirt race track and covered grandstands. The site
also includes livestock buildings, a multi -purpose building, a lighted stock exhibit area, and
support facilities. The property is rented to Iowa County once per year for the County Fair.
Harness racing is held several times during the summer and snowmobile races in the winter.
A small corner of the property, approximately 0.3 ha (0.7 acre ), would be acquired under
the Build Alternative . The area to be acquired does not contain buildings or essential
facilities and its acquisition would not prevent continued use of the site for its current
purposes.
11. Archaeological Resources/ Section
106 Review
As discussed in Section III, a report with the results of the Phase 1 archaeological field
investigation of the entire USH 151 Build Alternative corridor has been submitted to the
State Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO ) for review . A copy of the letter response from
the SHPO dated February 1, 1994, is attached in Appendix B , pages B -55 and 56. Table
IV -4 summarizes the status of the archaeological and historic mining resource areas
identified as requiring further study to determine if there are any significant cultural
materials eligible for the National Register which would be affected by the Build
Alternative. These areas are shown on Exhibit 6 .
IV -22
Table IV -4
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND MINING RESOURCE
AREAS POTENTIALLY IMPACTED
Site Number
91-076-1
91-076-10
91-076-29
Lt - 0155
91-076-18
91-076-6
HM 34
HM 14
HM 32
HM 31
MH 17
HM 33
HM 25
HM 24
HM 21
HM 22
HM 19
HM 27
HM 28
HM 20
HM 26
HM 30
Site Name
Reicher
Evans(1)
Graber
S.E. Bridge
Carey III
Toad
Masbruch
Carey Tailing
R.C. Tailings
Wild Plum
Wedig Tailings
Graber Mine
Lillian
Cody
Carl Cenite Mine
Barreltown Mines
Moreland Mine
Fallen Oak
Black Angus
Moreland Tailing
Goldthorpe
Lindauer Mine
Station
135
355
492
497
725
1032
132
705
717
735
759
820
845
860
883
888
900
905
907
944
893
1089
Description
Prehistoric
Euro -American Homestead
Prehistoric
Prehistoric
Prehistoric
Prehistoric
Mining Resource
Mining Resource
Mining Resource
Mining Resource
Mining Resource
Mining Resource
Mining Resource
Mining Resource
Mining Resource
Mining Resource
Mining Resource
Mining Resource
Mining Resource
Mining Resource
Mining Resource
Mining Resource
Avoided
by Design
Further
Study
Required
X
X
x
x
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
(1)
The Evans site was not identified in the SHPO's response letter. Due to its closeness to Build
Alternative , it was avoided by design .
Of the prehistoric sites identified in the SHPO's February 1, 1994 , response letter, all but
three sites will be avoided by design . Further archaeological studies will be conducted
during the 1994 field season for these sites. The prehistoric archaeological sites which are
impacted are not visible on the landscape and are located on private property which is
currently used for agricultural purposes. A preliminary determination has been made that
these sites are important primarily for the information theymay contain and are ofminimal
value for preservation in place.
Of the 16 historic mining resource areas identified, all but 7 will be avoided by design . The
Phase 1 archaeological report recommended further study on only one of these remaining
seven areas, HM 24 - Cody site. The historic Euro -American mining sites are visible on the
surface as small depressions or piles of rock (tailings). All of these sites are located on
private property which is currently used for agricultural purposes. The era and type of
mining represented by these sites have been extensively documented and more intact
examples have been protected and preserved. Features similar to those being impacted are
numerous and widespread throughout the upper Mississippi lead -zinc mining district , in
IV -23
general, and the Mineral Point-Linden -Dodgeville sub -district in particular (see Figure
III- 3). A preliminary determination has been made that these sites are important primarily
for the information they may contain and are of minimal value for preservation in place.
Coordination with the SHPO is currently ongoing to determine an appropriate methodology
for further study for the mining resources located in the project corridor. All Section 106
requirements will be fulfilled prior to the submittal of the Final Environmental Impact
Statement.
The Build Alternative will not affect any of the nine cemeteries located in the vicinity of the
project.
The three prehistoric and seven historic mining sites requiring further study are briefly
described, based on the Phase I reconnaissance , as follows:
a.
Reicher Site
Site is defined on the basis of a small scatter of lithic debitage recovered from
an "L " shaped
area measuring 60 m by 50 m .
b.
Southeast Bridge Site
Previously identified site was verified on the basis of a scatter of lithic debitage and several
chert artifacts. The area from which cultural material was recovered measures 80 m by
115 m .
c.
Toad Site
Site is defined on the basis of a scatter of lithic debitage and bifaces recovered from an area
measuring 68 m by 106 m .
d.
Graber Mine
The Graber Mine consists of one small, isolated depression 2 m
filled mine shaft or digging.
e.
in diameter, including a
Lilian Mine Site
The site consists of one larger tailing with a diameter of 13 m . The mine shaft could not
be identified and was probably backfilled. Ten additional smaller depressions and tailings
that varied in size between 1.0 and 2.5 m in diameter were identified in the surrounding
area . The site extends 259 m north to south and 450 m east to west .
IV - 24
f.
Cody Mine Site
The site consists of a variety of mining features, including diggings, tailings, adits of all
shapes and sizes, as well as possible refilled mine shafts. The Cody site is the largest mining
area exhibiting the most completely preserved features encountered within the project area .
The site extends 243 m from north to south and 426 m from east to west.
8.
South Barreltown Road Mine Site
The site consists of three separate areas that contain small irregular shaped depressions and
tailings that vary in size between 1.5 and 2 m in diameter. The depressions are all cut into
the slope of the upland interfluve . The site extends 30 m north to south and 300 m east to
west.
h.
Moreland Tailings Site
The site consists of tailings and depressions of various size and shape.
213 m north to south and 396 m east to west.
i.
The site extends
Goldthorpe Mine Site
The Goldthorpe site consists of six mining features. The largest depression has a diameter
of 5 m with the deepest spot 1.0 m below present surface. Four depressions are very small
with an average diameter of 1.5 m and a depth of 0.3 m below present surface . The fifth
feature is a tailing thatwas placed in the streambed of an unnamed intermittent stream and
used as a dam .
The tailing measures approximately 10 m
northeast to southwest and 3 m
southeast to northwest. The tailing was largely disturbed at the time of the survey.
depressions are probably remnants of refilled mine shafts or diggings.
j.
The
Lindauer Mine Site
The Lindauer Mine consists of one large isolated depression with an adjacent tailing
immediately to the south . The site measures 30 m north to south and 15 m east to west.
The depression itselfhas a diameter of approximately 10 m and is at its deepest 1.5 m below
present surface. It is filled with modern debris. The tailing consists of large limestone
boulders. The highest spot is approximately 1.0 m above present surface .
12. Historic Resources /Section 106 Review
As discussed in Section III, two sites were reported as being listed on the National Register
of Historic Places. Included were the Mineral Point Hill District and the Mineral Point
Historic District. In addition , one site , the Spensley Farm Historic District, has been
determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
The historic
boundaries for each of these three sites are shown on Exhibit 6 , Sheet 4 of 5 .
IV -25
a.
No-Build Alternative
Under the No-Build Alternative , property would be not be acquired from the above
identified historic resources. Impacts that will increasingly become more significant are
associated with traffic, i.e., noise, visual, and safety .
Existing USH
151 lies along a ridge line through the Mineral Point Historic District. About
one fourth of the district lies west and three quarters east of the existing highway. The
historic resources of this district are primarily located either east of, or along, the existing
highway. The Mineral Point Hill District, which includes the Pendarvis area , lies east of
existing highway along Shake Rag Street. In addition, the historic downtown area is located
east of the highway, as are the majority of the 500 contributing historic buildings. All of
these historic resources depend on the existing highway for access, either direct or indirect.
Existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume along USH 151 is 7,500 vehicles in the City
of Mineral Point and 6,500 vehicles in the Village of Belmont. With the No-Build
Alternative , these volumes are forecasted to increase to 11,200 and 9,800 vehicles
respectively by the design year 2020.
trucks.
About 15 percent of the total traffic volumes are
Under the No- Build Alternative, in Mineral Point along existing USH
151 the existing noise
level is 68 decibels , exceeding the 67 -decibel residential threshold . By the design year 2020,
the noise level is projected to increase to 69.7 decibels.
In Belmont, along existing
USH 151, the existing noise level is 65 decibels with a projected increase to 67.3 decibels.
Within Mineral Point, there are three bed and breakfast homes along the existing highway
which are contributing historic resources to the Mineral Point Historic District. Traffic
volumes, including trucks, will increase under the No-Build Alternative , resulting in adverse
visual impacts on these historic properties .
b.
Build Alternative
The Build Alternative will not cause any change in the quality of the historical or
architectural characteristics of the three identified historical resource sites. Under the Build
Alternative, property would not be acquired from any of the three sites. Based on
evaluation, it has been preliminarily determined that there is no effect on the Mineral Point
Hill District or the Mineral Point Historic District and that there is no adverse effect on the
Spensley Farm Historic District.
Coordination with the SHPO is ongoing, and all
Section 106 requirements will be fulfilled prior to the submittal of the FEIS .
No national or state register sites or registered century farms occur within the Build
Alternative corridor. A farm can become a registered century farm if the property has been
held in the family for 100 years or more and the property owner submits appropriate
documentation forms to the State Historical Society . No contributing properties in the
Mineral Point Historic District or the Mineral PointHill District will be in view of the Build
IV -26
Alternative located west of Mineral Point.
provided below under a separate heading .
Additional discussion of visual impacts is
The Mineral Point Hill District is located along Shake Rag Street on the east side of the
City of Mineral Point. The district boundaries are about 2.1 km ( 1.3 miles) from the Build
Alternative and are beyond an area of potential effect.
The Mineral Point Historic District has a 2.4 -km
(1.5 -mile) square district boundary which
includes the City ofMineral Point and some of the surrounding Township ofMineral Point.
The Build Alternative is a prudent and reasonable avoidance alternative which does not
acquire land from the Mineral Point Historic District. The Build Alternative does, however,
come in close proximity to the northwest corner of the historic district boundaries. There
are no identified contributing historic architectural resources in the northwest corner of the
Mineral Point Historic District. The current land use in that area is agricultural (crop and
pastureland ). The two nearest residents are farmhouses set 365 m ( 1,200 feet) to 610 m
(2,000 feet) back from the corner, neither of which are historic.
Currently, there is no public access to that area of the Historic District in the northwest
corner. The proposed highway will not isolate the Historic District property or change
access to it. The proposed improvement will not change the character of the District's
setting, nor impair the capability of the District to perform its functions with respect to
either current land use or its historic resources.
Existing and future noise levels within the District were specifically studied as part of the
noise analysis for the project. Noise abatement criteria were not exceeded for any receptors
in the northwest corner of the District, and there will be no adverse impacts to any
contributing historic resources within the District. The Build Alternative will have a small
beneficial noise impact on historic resources located on or near existing USH 151 due to
reduced traffic on the existing highway.
The Spensley Farm Historic District is located on CTH QQ west of Mineral Point. The
farmhouse , barn , and springhouse are about 488 m
(1,600 feet) west of the Build
Alternative. Southeast of the above-mentioned historic structures, and across CTH QQ , is
the site of the Spensley Furnaces which contain the remains of Spensley's early smelting
operations. This area is part of the Historic District because archaeological exploration
would likely yield information important in the history of mining and mineral refining in
southwestern Wisconsin . The Mineral Point Branch is the southeast boundary of the
Spensley Farm Historic District and is a natural feature connected to the smelting operation
as it was dammed to provide water power. The Mineral Point Branch is located about
200 m (650 feet) west of the Build Alternative and will be about 40 m (135 feet) lower in
elevation than the Build Alternative. There will be no property purchased from this eligible
National Register historic property .
IV -27
Existing and future noise levels at the Spensley -Sharp farmstead were determined as part
of the noise analysis for the project. Noise abatement criteria were not exceeded within the
District and there will be no noise impacts which would impair the function or historic
integrity of the property . A detailed discussion of noise impacts is provided in Section IV
under a separate heading.
The current use of the land in the District serves as a private residence north of CTH QQ
and as a pasture south of CTH QQ . The Spensley farm buildings can be characterized as
being in a rural landscape setting . While this setting is relatively natural, it is not pristine .
The original road (CTH QQ ) through the site has been relocated over the years. This road
originally crossed the property , connecting to High Street coming out of the City of Mineral
Point.
A
utility easement containing power poles and lines is clearly visible along this
corridor from
the District.
Much of the view of the Build Alternative from the Spensley Farm Historic District will be
hidden by roadway cuts and trees. An area of about 300 m ( 1,000 feet) in length , in which
the Build Alternative will be visible, is at the proposed structure crossing of High Street.
Directly in front of the farmhouse there is a series of evergreen trees, approximately 20 m
(65 feet ) in height, which effectively block most of the view towards the Build Alternative .
A rendering of the viewscape toward the proposed highway from the Spensley Farm Historic
District was developed to assist in evaluating the potential visual impacts. A photograph
was taken from a spot on the eastern boundary of the historic district and 60 m ( 200 feet)
from the farmhouse. This location was selected based on its closeness to the farmhouse and
relatively unobstructed view toward the roadway.
The photo was taken at a time of no
foliage on the trees. The proposed highway was superimposed on the photo based on
computer simulation of the terrain and actual roadway geometrics .
The original
s
photograph and the computer-aided rendering are shown on Exhibit 7 .
There will be no visual impacts which would impair the function or historic integrity of the
property . Much of the Build Alternative within the viewscape is depressed in a cut section
or obscured by evergreen trees and a dense mixed forest and will not be visible . A design
option to lower the proposed roadway and relocate High Street over the top of the highway
was investigated . This option was deemed not practical as it resulted in an additional
construction cost of about $700,000 . Distance to the Build Alternative is sufficient that the
view foreground is not affected and the intermittent view of the Build Alternative does not
substantially alter the view background.
Access to the Spensley Farm Historic District is from CTH QQ which connects to STH 39 .
The Build Alternative will not isolate the property or change access to it.
The Build
Alternative will not impair the capability of the District to perform its functions with respect
to either current land use or its historical resources.
IV -28
13. Hazardous Material
Having completed a Phase 1 investigation for the Build Alternative , the WDOT has
determined that further investigation of six sites is merited. Two additional sites will merit
further investigation if the alignment is modified to be in closer proximity to them . Those
investigations are in the process of being scheduled . WDNR and affected parties will be
notified of the results. WDOT - District 1 will work with concerned parties to resolve the
disposition of any petroleum contamination to the satisfaction of WDNR, WDOT, and
FHWA prior to acquisition of any questionable site and advertising the project for letting.
Nonpetroleum sites will be handled on a case -by-case basis with detailed documentation and
coordination with FHWA as needed .
Following is a listing of the sites potentially impacted by the Build Alternative and requiring
further investigation. The nature of the potential hazard is described with the status of the
summarized investigation to date .
a.
Store and Gas Station (Station 165, Right)
This site, located along existing USH 151 in the Village of Belmont, is not impacted by the
mainline. A portion of the property will be acquired for the side road connection to the
interchange. This site was previously determined to be contaminated due to a leaking
underground storage tank (LUST) and petroleum spills. Remediation is proceeding under
the supervision of the WDNR . No further testing is recommended , but WDNR files will
be monitored .
b.
Repair Garage (Station 195 , Right)
This site, located along the west side of existing USH 151, is a truck repair shop with an
underground storage tank (UST) . There is evidence of pesticide spills, but the Build
Alternative does not require acquisition of land from this property. The proposed highway
is close to the site, but the segment of highway which is downgradient from the site is in fill.
No further testing is recommended at this time. If the highway alignment is modified to
require acquisition of part of this property for right of way, further sampling and testing will
be recommended based on results of the Phase 1B investigation .
C.
Farm
Residence (Station 282, Left)
This site is located adjacent to the existing highway. The initial reconnaissance identified
three aboveground storage tanks (AST) on the site . Additional factorswhich would indicate
ground contamination were not observed . No further testing is recommended .
d.
Farm
Residence (Station 673, Left)
This site is located adjacent to the existing highway. Results of the Phase 1B investigation
indicate that in the 1950s the site was a small 0.2-ha (0.5 -acre) quarry supplying the
construction of USH
151 and used as a disposal site for riprap from highway construction
IV -29
projects. It now contains household and building refuse, such as large appliances, furniture ,
scrap metal, sheetrock , and roofing materials. It also contains tires, auto batteries, and an
abandoned fuel oil tank. It has never been formally operated as a landfill. Further
sampling and testing is recommended to determine if the site contains hazardousmaterials
or subsurface contamination .
e.
Salvage Yard (Station 775, Left)
This site is located in the existing industrial park . Part of this property would be acquired
for right of way to construct a new frontage road between STH 39 and the Donald Wedig
property. The site is currently used as an auto salvage yard and has one aboveground
storage tank (AST). Based on results of the Phase 1B investigation, there is potential for
contamination , and further sampling and testing is recommended .
f.
Commercial Storage (Station 773 , Right)
This site is located in the existing industrial park . The site currently contains commercial
storage buildings. Most or all of this property will be acquired for right of way for the new
highway. Oil stains and stressed vegetation were observed during the initial reconnaissance .
Further sampling and testing to determine the extent of contamination is recommended .
g.
Residence (Station 1100 , Left)
This site is located adjacent to the existing highway. Most or all of this property will be
acquired under the Build Alternative ( as well as all other "build " alternatives considered).
The initial reconnaissance of this property identified two USTs, one AST, and a small dump
containing construction materials. Results of the Phase 1B investigation confirmed there
is potential for contamination on this site . Further sampling and testing is recommended .
h.
Former Bulk Fuel Depot
This site , located right of Station 140 along the southwest side of CTH G , is identified as
the former site of five aboveground bulk oil storage tanks. The acquired right of way will
be within approximately 61 m (200 feet) of the former tanks . Based on results of the
Phase 1B investigation , there is evidence of a gasoline spill and diesel fuel subsurface
contamination . Further sampling and testing is recommended to determine the extent of
subsurface contamination should the alignment be moved closer to this site . No further
testing is recommended at this time.
14. Air Quality
The quality of an area's air resources is evaluated relative to the National Ambient Air
These have been established for the following criteria
Quality Standards (NAAQS).
pollutants : sulphur dioxide (SO2), inhalable particulate matter (PM10 ), nitrogen dioxide
( NO2), carbon monoxide (CO ), and ozone (03). The project study area is located in
IV - 30
Lafayette and lowa Counties. Both counties are currently in attainment of the NAAQS for
all criteria pollutants .
Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 406 requires that all highway projects must be analyzed
for carbon monoxide impacts unless they are exempt under NR 406.06 . Potential project
effects on carbon monoxide (CO ) are discussed below .
a.
No -Build Alternative
Under the No-Build Alternative , CO levels would be expected to gradually increase as
growth of traffic volumes and increased congestion result in slower average speeds,
additional queuing, and interrupted flow .
b.
Build Alternative
It is anticipated that improved traffic flow , increased average speeds, and reduced queuing
associated with the Build Alternative will generally improve air quality with respect to
projected CO levels within the corridor.
The Build Alternative lies within counties not designated as metropolitan counties for air
quality improvement purposes. NR 406.06 analysis and construction permit exemption
requirements for highway projects outside the metropolitan counties include:
1.
A peak hour volume (PHV) less than 1,800 vehicles per hour on any new highway
segment or new intersection log .
2.
An increase in PHV of less than
segment.
3.
A maximum shift in the nearest roadway edge of less than 3.7 m (12 feet ) toward any
potential receptor within the new intersection boundary for any modified intersection .
1,800 vehicles per hour on any modified highway
The projected traffic volumes for the Build Alternative are shown in Exhibit 1, Sheet 3. The
USH 151 (PHV) for 10 years after project construction (year 2010 ) ranges from 816 vehicles
per hour north of Belmont to 1,371 vehicles per hour north of Mineral Point.
volumes are less than the maximum 1,800 vehicles per hour.
These
Queue length and intersection boundary screening analyses were performed for critical
intersections. Based on a review of traffic volumes, it was determined that the west ramp
intersections at the CTH G and the South Barreltown Road interchanges will have the
longest vehicle queue lengths of all USH 151 intersections. Intersection boundaries were
determined from calculated queue lengths for the year 2010 traffic volumes. PHV volumes
range from 35 to 720 vehicles per hour. Queue lengths are predicted to range between 8 m
(25 feet) and 15 m (50 feet). No receptors fall within the intersection boundaries for these
intersections.
IV - 31
Based on the projected USH
151 traffic volumes and the results of the queue length
screening analyses, it was determined that no substantial impacts to air quality are expected
and a screening analysis based on a line source dispersion model (TEXIN2/MOBILE4 ) is
not necessary. The WDNR - Bureau of Air Management has given a letter of concurrence
for the finding that this project is exempt under Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 406 .
A construction permit will not be required. A copy of this letter is in Appendix B , pages
B -63 and 64.
15. Noise
As discussed in Section III, traffic noise impacts occur when predicted design year traffic
noise levels approach FHWA noise abatement criteria (NAC ) (see Appendix D , Table D - 1)
or when future noise levels substantially exceed existing noise levels. Approach is defined
aswithin one dBA of the NAC . When noise impacts occur, noise abatementmeasuresmust
be considered . This section identifies areas of potential noise impacts for the No-Build and
Build Alternatives. The reasonableness and feasibility of abating the identified impacts is
discussed in Subsection D.
The STAMINA 2.0 computer program was used to model and predict noise levels at
representative receivers along the corridor. Further discussion of methodology and traffic
data are provided in Appendix D. Future noise levels were predicted for the design year
Based on FHWA noise abatement criteria (NAC ), the impact threshold level is
66 dBA for residences, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, and
hospitals. A substantial increase is defined as an increase of 15 decibels or more over
2020.
existing noise levels.
The noise analysis for the project included 41 representative receptors along both the
existing and proposed alignment.
The locations of receptors is shown on Exhibit 6. A
number of these receptors were selected to represent existing rural residences along the
proposed new highway. Existing residences within the urban areas of Belmont and Mineral
Point are represented by receptors located at the specific residences which are nearest to
the proposed highway. Additional receptors were located in the rural bypass areas which
do not represent existing residences, but were analyzed in order to provide planning
information to the communities. Receptors were located along the existing highway within
the communities to represent the numerous adjacent residences, inns, churches, schools,
parks , and commercial establishments.
Receptors were specifically selected to represent sites which are potentially sensitive due to
their historic significance . Specific analysis was performed for the Mineral Point Historic
District and for the Spensley Farm Historic District. These analyses are discussed separately
following discussion of Build Alternative impacts.
Actual noise measurements were taken at eight of the 41 sites. Some of these were used
to establish existing noise levels in rural areas not near the existing highway, which can not
be effectively modeled with the STAMINA program . Specific readings were taken in
IV - 32
potentially sensitive historic areas. Additionalnoise meter measurements along the existing
roadway served as a calibration check on existing noise levels modeled with STAMINA.
a.
No -Build Alternative
Existing and future predicted noise levels for the No-Build Alternative are given in Table
IV -5 .
Table IV -5
NOISE ANALYSIS SUMMARY
NO - BUILD ALTERNATIVE
RECEIVER
NOISE LEVELS (LEQ)
Offset )
Location
R4
153+ 50
R
389 ( 1,275 )
Nearest Res. in Village
67
R9
221 +00
L
90 (296 )
1 Residence
67
R10
R11
R12
R13
R14
282 + 50
345 + 50
481 + 50
513 + 50
670 +00
L
R
R
L
R
45 ( 149)
93 (306 )
135 (443)
22 (72)
58 (190)
Approx. 20 Rural Res.
R15
R16
705 +00
723+ 50
L
R
134 (438 )
36 (117)
R25
R26
R27
R28
R29
1017+00
1032 + 50
1067 +00
1070 + 50
1081 +00
R
L
R
L
R
Future
(dBA )
Change
(dBA)
Impact
44
46
2
No
57
59
2
No
67
67
67
67
67
65
60
58
69
63
67
62
59
71
65
2
2
1
2
2
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
1 Residence
1 Residence
67
67
56
64
58
66
2
2
No
Yes
38 (125)
227 (744)
27 (88 )
52 (170)
113 (370)
Approx. 10 Rural Res.
67
67
67
67
67
64
53
69
64
60
66
55
71
66
62
2
2
2
2
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
14 (46 )
20 (67)
Approx. 50 Res., 1 School
Approx. 40 Res., 2
Churches
67
67
68
65
70
67
67
I.D.
46
46
46
41
44
45
Represents
NAC
Existing
(dBA)
Along Existing USH 151
R30
R31
805 +00
158 + 50
R (3)
R (3)
2
Yes
Yes
Mineral Point Historic District
R34
R35
R36
816 +00
818 + 50
819 + 50
R
R
R
738
556
454
( 2,420 )
(1,825)
( 1,490 )
(2)
(2)
1 Residence
Distance to centerline of near driving lane of existing USH 151, in meters (feet)
No existing buildings - location analyzed for planning purposes
-5
-1
N /A
N /A
No
Offset given is from existing USH 151
Noise abatement criteria
Under the No-Build Alternative, the representative urban receptor in Belmont, exceeded
the 66 -dBA residential threshold (but was below the 71-dBA commercial threshold ) in the
design year 2020. In the rural area between Belmont and Mineral Point, seven receptors
representapproximately 20 existing farm residences. One receptor exceeded the 66 -decibel
threshold under both existing and design year traffic . The receptor representing properties
adjacent to the existing highway in Mineral Point exceeded the 66 -decibel residential
IV - 33
threshold in both the current year and the design year.
Most rural receivers north of
Mineral Point were found to be under the residential threshold in the design year, with only
one receptor exceeding the 66 -dBA threshold in 2020.
No noise abatement measures were considered for the No-Build Alternative .
b.
Build Alternative
Existing and predicted future noise levels for the Build Alternative are given in Table IV -6 .
Under the Build Alternative, noise levels along the existing highway within the communities
of Belmont and Mineral Point will decrease due to the reduction in traffic volumes. Noise
levels immediately adjacent to existing USH
NAC .
151, however, will still approach or exceed the
The existing residences in the two communities nearest to the proposed highway were found
to experience an increase of between 2 and 8 decibels in the design year, but would still
remain well below the 66 - dBA threshold .
There are no existing residences along the proposed highway in the Belmont Bypass area .
Noise levels in the design year were found to exceed existing noise levels by 15 decibels at
a distance of approximately 91 m (300 feet) from the nearest traffic lane , with the 66 -dBA
threshold exceeded at a distance of approximately 32 m ( 105 feet).
In the rural segment between Belmont and Mineral Point, the noise level at one receptor
representing two residences is approximately 67 dBA , which is a small reduction from the
existing noise level. Other receptors along existing USH 151 representing approximately 18
residences were found to be below the 66 dBA threshold in the design year.
There are no existing residences immediately adjacent to the proposed highway in the
Mineral Point Bypass area . The analysis indicated that noise levels in the rural areas would
reach 66 decibels at a distance of approximately 40 m (130 feet) from the nearest lanes and
would increase by 15 decibels at a distance of approximately 61 m (200 feet) from the
nearest lanes.
In the rural segment north of Mineral Point, two receptors representing three farm
residences exceed the 66 -decibel threshold in the design year.
IV -34
Table IV -6
NOISE ANALYSIS SUMMARY
BUILD ALTERNATIVE
RECEIVER
I.D.
NOISE LEVELS (LED)
Offset" )
Location
130 + 00
L
130 + 00
L
150 + 00
L
153 +50
R
166 + 50
R
166 + 50
R
L
194 +50
(DELETED )
L
221 +00
R10
R11
R12
R13
R14
R15
282+50
345 + 50
481 +50
513 + 50
670 + 00
705 +00
R16
R17
R18
R19
R20
R21
R22
R23
R24
R25
R26
R27
R28
R29
NAC4
Existing
(dBA )
Future
(dBA )
Change
(dBA )
Impact
NA
N/ A
N /A
67
N /A
N/A
72
45
45
45
44
45
45
50
61
67
58
52
65
58
63
16
22
13
8
20
13
13
N/ A
N/ A
ΝΙΑ
No
N /A
N /A
No
61
4
No
-1
89 (292 )
32 (106)
130 (427)
341 (1,119 )
40 (130)
125 (411)
51 ( 167)
(2 )
(2 )
Nearest Res. in Village
(2)
(2)
1 Commercial
80 (261)
1 Residence
67
RI
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
R8
R9
Represents
57
L
R
L
L
R
L
52 (169)
62 (202)
102 (334)
29 (95)
58 (190)
69 (225)
Approx. 20 RuralResidences
67
67
67
67
67
67
65
60
58
69
63
56
64
63
60
67
63
63
-2
0
7
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
723+ 50
777+ 50
791+00
791 + 50
805 +00
824 + 00
899 + 00
938 +00
938 +00
R
R
R
R
R
R
L
L
L
244 (799)
340 (1,117)
34 (113)
133 (435)
386 (1,267)
70 (229)
75 (246 )
81 (267 )
34 (111)
1 Residence
Nearest Res. on STH 39
(2)
(2 )
Nearest Res . on High Street
67
67
N/ A
N/ A
67
N/ A
N /A
N /A
NA
64
50
45
45
45
46
43
45
45
61
52
65
57
49
61
61
63
68
-3
2
20
12
4
15
18
18
23
No
No
N /A
N/ A
No
NA
N/ A
N /A
NIA
1017 + 00
1032 + 50
1067 +00
1070+ 50
1081+00
R
L
R
L
R
159 (521)
176 (576)
27 (88)
26 (86)
113 (370)
Approx . 10 Rural Residences
67
67
67
67
67
64
53
69
64
60
59
58
71
70
61
-5
5
2
6
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
14 (46)
20 (67)
Approx. 60 Res., 1 School
Approx. 40 Res., 2 Churches
67
67
68
65
67
64
-1
-1
Yes
No
274 (900)
432 (1,418)
(2)
1 Historic Residence
N /A
67
44
44
53
49
5
N /A
No
148 (485)
377 (1,236)
522 (1,713)
91 (300 )
329 (1,078)
476 (1,563)
48 (159)
285 (935)
431 ( 1,414)
(2 )
(2)
1 Residence
(2 )
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
51
49
48
58
50
48
60
51
49
(2 )
Along Existing USH 151
805 +00
158+50
R30
R31
R (3)
R (3)
Spensley -Sharp Historic District
800 + 50
797 + 00
R32
R33
L
L
Mineral Point Historic District
R34
R35
R36
R37
R38
R39
R40
R41
R42
(1)
(2 )
816 + 00
818+ 50
819 + 50
821 +00
823 +00
824+ 50
827 + 00
829 + 00
831 + 50
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
Distance to centerline of near driving lane, in meters (feet)
No existing buildings - location analyzed for planning purposes
IV - 35
5
3
2
12
2
14
5
3
Offset given is from existing USH 151
Noise abatement criteria
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
In summary, under the Build Alternative , noise impacts as defined by FHWA regulations
and WDOT guidelines are exceeded and noise abatement measures must be considered for
the following four locations:
1.
2.
Within the Village of Belmont immediately adjacent to existing USH 151.
One farm residence in the rural segment between Belmont and Mineral Point.
3.
Within the City ofMineral Point, immediately adjacent to existing USH
Three farm residences in the rural segment north of Mineral Point.
151.
Discussion of the feasibility and reasonableness of abatementmeasures for these locations
is presented in Section VI.
c.
Mineral Point Historic District
The existing noise level was measured at 46 decibels in the northwest portion of the Mineral
Point Historic District. To evaluate potential effects in the District, receptors were located
at the three existing residences within the District located closest to the proposed highway
(R17 , R20, and R36 ). An array of eight additional receptors was located in the northwest
corner of the District. A receptor near existing USH 151 in Mineral Point (R30 ) represents
several historic properties located along or near the existing highway. Impacts were
assumed to occur when predicted future noise levels exceeded 66 decibels or exceeded
existing noise levels by greater than
15 decibels .
This criteria was extended to apply to
historic areas with no existing noise receivers, as well as to existing structures. No lands on
which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance were identified.
Under the No-Build Alternative , there would be noise impacts to historic properties located
along existing USH 151, with noise levels approaching 70 decibels near the existing right of
way. Under the Build Alternative , the future noise level along existing USH 151 would
exceed 66 decibels, butwould be less than for the No-Build Alternative and slightly less than
existing noise levels . In the northwest corner of the District, noise levels would be less than
60 decibels in the design year 2020 and would exceed existing noise levels by less than
14 decibels.
Under the Build
Alternative, the nearest existing buildings in
the District are two
farmhouses represented by receptors R20 and R36 . Noise levels at these locations in the
design year would be less than 50 decibels and would exceed existing noise levels by
approximately 4 decibels. Therefore, there are no adverse noise impacts under the Build
Alternative .
d.
Spensley Farm
Historic District
Two receptors were located on the eligible historic property. One receptor (R33) was
located north of CTH QQ and represents conditions near the farmhouse . A second receptor
(R32 ) was located just north of the Mineral Point Branch and represents the area of the
homestead closest to the Build Alternative . An existing noise level of 44 decibels was
measured in the Spensley Farm Historic District. Under the No -Build Alternative , there
IV -36
would be no noise impacts . Under the Build Alternative , noise levels in the design year
would remain less than 53 decibels and the noise level increase would be less than
9 decibels. These levels are well below the stated criteria , and therefore, there are no
adverse noise impacts under the Build Alternative .
16. Visual and Aesthetic Resources
Throughout the study process, information was obtained from agencies, public officials, and
the general public in an effort to identify viewscapes in the study area which are sensitive
because of their visual quality, uniqueness, cultural significance, or perceived value to the
community . Photographs of potentially sensitive viewscapes and an exhibit tabulating visual
impacts were presented at a public information meeting. A route preference survey was
This section lists the
distributed which specifically requested input on visual issues.
identified viewscapes which are impacted by the Build Alternative , discusses the visual
character of the project, and summarizes the visual impacts
mitigation measures are discussed in Section VI.
a.
on each viewscape . Possible
Sensitive Viewscapes
In general, there are visual resources associated with the natural environment and with the
cultural environment. There is some overlap of these categories since the value of some
cultural artifacts is enhanced by their natural setting. For a highway project, there are two
major categories of viewer groups : those with a view of the highway and those with a view
from the highway. Following is a list of potentially impacted sensitive viewscapes noting the
category of resource and the predominant viewer group affected . The general locations of
viewscapes are shown on Exhibit 6 .
VIEWSCAPE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Toward Rural Area West of Belmont
Toward BelmontMound from Highway
Toward Pecatonica River Valley from Highway
Toward Mineral Point Br. Valley from Highway
Toward Rural Area SW of Mineral Point
Toward "Barreltown" Area
From Spensley Farm Historic District
From Mineral Point Historic District
Toward Mineral Point Water Tower
b.
RESOURCE
Natural
Natural
Natural
Natural
Natural
Cultural/Natural
Cultural /Natural
Cultural
Cultural
VIEWER GROUP
Residents, Trail Users
Tourists, Commuters
Tourists, Commuters
Tourists, Commuters
Residents
Tourists, Residents
Residents
Residents
Motorists
Visual Character of the Project
Because of the major earth moving required for this facility, the most prominent features
of the highway affecting the visual environment will be the cut slopes and fill slopes (which
in some cases will be 15 m (50 feet) or more high ). Most of the cuts will be in rock ,
resulting in exposed rock surfaces. Fill slopes may require retaining structures in some
locations to reduce the needed right of way. The pavement surface and the vehicles using
IV -37
the facility can be visually intrusive in a natural setting . Other features affecting the visual
environment include overpass structures, clearing of vegetation , and fencing.
The project also has potential to enhance the visual environment by providing access to
viewscapes that would otherwise not be available. Providing a visually pleasing experience
for the driver is an important goal of the analysis process. While this experience is generally
of short duration, it nevertheless affects a very large number of viewers.
c.
Visual Impacts
It is recognized that construction of a 4 -lane highway will cause visual changes in the area .
The effects can range from beneficial to adverse and can be major or minor. The effects
may also be widespread , affecting a large number of viewers, or localized , affecting a limited
number of viewers. The value, scale, and extent of impacts of the Build Alternative on the
identified sensitive viewscapes is discussed below .
Viewscape 1 : The Build Alternative will have only a minor effect on views from the Village
of Belmont. Very few houses are situated with a view toward the highway, located a
considerable distance from the nearest residences in the community . A quarry / salvage
operation diminishes the quality of the existing viewscape.
Calamine - Platteville Trail are discussed in Section V.
Viewscape 2:
Belmont Mound is a
distinctive landform
Visual impacts on users of the
located approximately 3 km
(2 miles) west of the Village . Its slopes are covered in hardwood forest and is appreciated
throughout the region for its visual appeal and local landmark status. The Build Alternative
will have a minor, beneficial impact of widespread extent by enhancing the view of the
mound for tourists and commuters .
Viewscape 3 : The Pecatonica River winds through a narrow , flat valley with steep , wooded
sides between rolling farmland. It affords a beautiful, pastoral view from the highway just
before it descends into the valley. The Build Alternative will have a minor adverse impact
on the viewscape from the construction of two additional lanes. Consideration is being
given to providing a highway wayside in this area, which would potentially have a beneficial
impact of widespread extent as it will provide a large number of tourists and local drivers
an opportunity to enjoy this view for more than a moment.
Viewscape 4 : The Mineral Point Branch is similar to the Pecatonica valley, although the
views are generally less accessible from the highway. The same comments are applicable .
Viewscape 5 : This viewscape encompasses rolling farmland in the foreground dissected by
deep, wooded draws descending to the Mineral Point Branch in the background . The view
of this area is somewhat limited from the existing highway. Only a small number of
farmhouses have a view of this area and few , if any, houses within Mineral Point. Most of
the land use in this part of the City is commercial /industrial, with the exception of the
fairgrounds. The Build Alternative in this location stays mainly on farmland , avoiding the
IV - 38
deep draws. It will affect the viewscape for a very small number of viewers. Offsetting this
is the potential for pleasing and otherwise inaccessible views for the motorists .
Viewscape 6 : The "Barreltown" area north of the City has cultural value as the site of a
great deal of early mining activity . In addition , the ruins of some structures are still visible
on the landscape. The Build Alternative will have an effect on this setting.
From the standpoint of the current viewers of the area, there could be an adverse effect due
to loss or alteration of the viewscape. The number of affected viewers is very small as the
site is only visible to drivers on Barreltown Road and two or three farmhouses on Spitzbarth
Road . The natural setting is appealing but unexceptional, and there are no interpretive
features which would alert a visitor to the cultural significance of the site .
From the standpoint of motorists, including tourists , there could be a beneficial effect due
Consideration is being given to providing
to greater accessibility to the viewscape.
interpretive information at a wayside located near the site .
Viewscape 7 : The Spensley Farm Historic District is a historic property once associated
with early mining activity. The setting is relatively natural, but not pristine as the original
road through the area has been relocated , and a power line easement and the Ludden Lake
dam are visible from the site. The farmhouse located about 500 m (1,600 feet) from the
Build Alternative , will have little view of the highway due to several tall evergreen trees
located directly in front of the house and the fact thatmuch of the roadway is depressed in
cuts. The affected viewers include a single residence and a small number of drivers on East
Lake Road. Several other residences located along East Lake Road will have little or no
view of the highway due to the topography.
Viewscape 8 : The Mineral Point Historic District includes most of the City of Mineral
Point, centered on the Pendarvis Historic Site . On the east side of the District, there are
numerous historic structures whose value as a cultural resource
setting or by the viewscape from
District where the main
existing highway .
the structure.
enhanced by its natural
This is less true on the west side of the
contributing resources are historic buildings located along the
The northwest corner of the Mineral Point Historic District, nearest the Build Alternative,
is pastureland with no identified contributing historic resources. The two nearest residences
are farmhouses set 370 m ( 1,200 feet ) and 600 m (2,000 feet) back from the corner, neither
of which are historic. Residents will have little or no view of the new highway. The Build
Alternative will be visible from within the western portion of the District, but will not have
an adverse impact on the cultural environment.
Viewscape 9 :
The Mineral Point Water Tower is not historic, but is considered a local
landmark and sits on the site of the original water tower. Local officials and members of
the business community have expressed a strong desire to preserve the visibility of the tower
IV - 39
from the highway north of the City . The Build Alternative will provide a view of the water
tower similar to that provided from the existing highway.
The visual impact of the Build
Alternative will be negligible.
17. Beneficial Reuse
In November 1985 , the Wisconsin legislature passed Wisconsin Act 46 which encouraged the
beneficial reuse of high volume industrial waste (foundry sands and utility coal ash ). In
1992, the legislature enacted Wisconsin Act 269 requiring a "Foundry Sand Study" to further
address the reuse issue. · The purpose of this study was to develop ways of beneficially
reusing high volume waste that are environmental acceptable. As a result of the study,
WDOTroadway projects have been identified as excellent opportunities to beneficially reuse
specific materials.
Wastes that have the greatest potential for reuse in roadway projects include foundry sand
and cupole slag, as well as utility coal ash . Certain mine waste (roaster and floatation) may
also be suitable for certain roadway projects. The waste streams may have slightly elevated
concentrations of metals, but if used according to WDNR guidelines, pose little risk of
adversely impacting the environment.
There may be the potential to incorporate some of these materials into the USH
151 project
in accordance with WDNR conditional approval.
18. Energy
Energy
consumption related to highway projects involves
construction
and
operational
energy. Construction energy is that required in raw materials and equipment to build or
maintain the highway facility . Operational energy is the direct consumption of fuel by
vehicles using the roadway. Fuel consumption is influenced by vehicles types, roadway
grades, and other geometric characteristics, traffic speed , and delays caused by congestion
and intersection stop conditions.
The No-Build Alternative would require minimal construction energy.
Periodic roadway
maintenance such as resurfacing and patching would occur over time until the condition of
the roadway warrant complete reconstruction . Although construction energy would be
greatest for the Build Alternative , these costs would be recovered over time due to long
term savings in operational energy costs. Operational energy would be greatest under the
No-Build Alternative, particularly in Belmont and Mineral Point, due to traffic congestion ,
increased vehicle delays, and inefficient operation at intersections.
IV -40
19. Construction Impacts
The construction of the Build Alternative will involve typical construction activities related
with roadway construction . These activities include the removal of the existing trees,brush ,
and topsoil; rock excavation; grading; bridge and culvert construction; and the placing of
gravel, pavement, and landscaping.
Important impacts associated with road construction are interference with traffic patterns,
detours, and residential and commercial accesses. The Mineral Point and Belmont bypasses
will be constructed on a new location so traffic could continue to use existing USH 151
through the City and Village until the bypasses were completed . For the remainder of the
project, two new lanes will be added alongside the existing two lanes. Traffic could be
maintained on the existing roadway until the two new lanes are completed . At two points
in the project, the two new lanes will change from one side of the existing roadway to the
other side. Through traffic on USH 151 will be maintained in these areas with temporary
connections. Traffic on USH 151 could then be switched over to the two new lanes while
the existing lanes are being upgraded.
Traffic on Cottage Inn Road and CTH A may need to be detoured while their respective
intersections are being constructed . These detours can be located on adjacent roadways or
on temporary connections. Traffic on the remaining county trunk highways and town roads
will be uninterrupted, except for minimal periods when the intersections are being
constructed . During this period , traffic may be detoured to adjacent roads or on temporary
connections. For special construction areas, traffic may be temporarily reduced to one lane
with flag persons. Access to the local residences and businesses will be maintained at all
times.
Construction contract specifications can be used to minimize soil erosion .
Steps will be
taken to protect the exposed soil surface until vegetative or other protective cover can be
reestablished . Flatter slopes, silt fences, erosion mats , mulch , contract restrictions on the
number of open cut areas, and mobilization payments to erosion control subcontractors are
all used to prevent erosion . All of these methodswill be investigated and considered in the
design phase . The contractor will also be responsible for providing, implementing, and
maintaining erosion controlmethods.
The adverse impacts from
construction noise will be minimized by using well maintained
equipment with efficientmufflers and requiring thatmotorized equipment only be operated
during normal working hours.
During dry weather,dust must may be controlled by the use of palliatives, such as water and
calcium chloride, to the road grade or haul roads.
During construction , any affected streams and drainageways will be kept open with
temporary ditches and culverts until permanent drainage paths are built and made
operational. Erosion control measures, such as riprap, sod, and silt fence, will be used as
part of the design and part of the contractor's erosion control plan .
IV -41
The disposal of unwanted construction material, brush , and stumps will be in accordance
with local codes and state requirements.
Sanitary facilities will be provided for all
construction workers. Construction sites will be kept clean and proper safety barricades and
traffic control will be used to keep the sites safe . Construction contract specifications will
be written to keep adverse impacts from construction to a minimum .
D. PERMITS AND RELATED APPROVALS
Chapter 30 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code, administered by WDNR , requires permits
for structures and deposits into navigable waters of the State . WDOT will accomplish all
permit requirements through implementation of their Cooperative Agreement with WDNR,
which outlines procedures for the purpose of minimizing the adverse effects of
transportation actions on environmental resources. Liaison efforts under the interagency
Cooperative Agreement cover project development from early corridor alignment layouts
through selection of a recommended alternative, final design , and construction .
Early coordination with the Department of Natural Resources on the USH
151 project has
resulted in the location of alternatives that minimize overall adverse impacts to natural
resources.
This project will involve placement of fill material into waters of the
United States,
including wetlands. Waterway and wetland involvement associated with the proposed
project are subject to permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act ( 33 USC 1344).
This permit program
is administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Section 32.25 ofthe Wisconsin Administrative Code requires thatRelocation Assistance Plans
for displacement of residences, businesses, or farms, be approved by the
Department of Industry, Labor, and Human Relations.
E.
Wisconsin
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES
Construction of the proposed highway involves commitment of a range of natural, physical,
human , and fiscal resources. Land acquired for construction of the proposed facility is
considered an irreversible commitment during the time period that the land is used for
highway purposes.
Considerable amounts of fossil fuels, labor, and highway construction materials such as
cement, aggregate, and asphaltic material willbe required. Additionally, considerable labor
and natural resources will be used in the preparation of the construction materials. These
resources are not retrievable. However, these materials are not in short supply , and their
use will not have significant adverse effect on continued availability. Construction of the
alternatives would involve non - retrievable fiscal funds and divert these resources from other
areas .
R /USH15 /SecIV.ASF
IV -42
SECTION V
ONLY PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE FINDING
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11990
PROTECTION OF WETLANDS
A.
INTRODUCTION
Presidential Executive Order 11990, " Protection of Wetlands" issued May 24 , 1977 , directs
federal agencies " ... to avoid to the extent possible the long- and short-term adverse
impacts associated with the destruction ormodification of wetlands and to avoid direct or
indirect support of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable
alternative . ... " The following statement sets forth the basis for a finding that there is no
practicable alternative to the construction of USH 151 improvements in wetlands and tha
the highway proposal includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to these resources.
B. PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVES
As discussed in Section II, the alternative development process included a scoping process,
preliminary alternative development, and an initial detailed study stage. Following the
initial detailed study, a single Build Alternative (in addition to the No-Build Alternative )
was determined to be the only prudent and feasible alternative . This Build Alternative is
identified as the preferred alternative and is shown on Exhibit 6 .
The No-Build Alternative is defined as no improvements other than normal pavement
maintenance or localized upgrades. There would be no increase in traffic capacity or flow
characteristics. As such , this alternative would require no wetland encroachment.
The project area is well drained, hence there are few wetlands. Table III-7 in Section III
lists the wetlands that are located in the project area . The Build Alternative avoids these
wetlands with the exception of the following two areas :
The first location , shown on Exhibit 6, is at Station 327, right. In this area, the project
involves the addition of two driving lanes and a median adjacent to existing USH 151,
which will generally serve as the location for the other two lanes of the future 4-lane
highway. The additional two lanes and median will be located on the northeast side of
the existing highway . The crossing of the Cottage Inn Branch potentially impacts an
estimated 0.1 ha (0.2 acres) of a total 22.3 ha (55.0 acres) aquatic bed wetland.
O
The second location , shown on Exhibit 6 , is at Station 560, left. In this area, the project
also involves the addition of two driving lanes and a median adjacent to existing
USH 151. The additional two lanes and median will be located on the south side of the
existing highway and , therefore, will not impact the wetland at this location .
Improvement work on the north side of existing USH 151 at this location to upgrade
the existing 2 -lane clear zone dimensions to 4 -lane standards will potentially impact an
estimated 0.1 ha (0.3 acres) of a total 2.1 ha (5.2 acres) emergent/wetmeadow wetland.
V -1
The quantification of direct wetland losses assumed the worst case situation, i.e., all areas
within the highway right of way would be subject to construction activity . In each of the
above two cases, the direct loss ofwetland habitat could be somewhat less than stated , since
efforts willbe made during design and construction phases to further reduce wetland losses.
C. DETERMINATION OF NO PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE
The Build Alternative has been identified as the preferred alternative. The selection of the
Build Alternative , as discussed in Section II, followed an extensive scoping process and the
evaluation of several preliminary alternatives. The decision -making process sought to
evaluate unavoidable impacts and balance them with respect to public interest. The Build
Alternative was determined to be the only prudent and feasible alternative.
The No-Build Alternative was not selected because it failed to meet the purpose and need
for this project and did not address the deficiencies outlined in Section I. As such, the
No-Build Alternative is not a practicable alternative to the Build Alternative.
D. MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM
TO WETLANDS
Avoidance and minimization of wetland losses have already taken place throughout the
scoping and location study process and will continue through design . The location of the
new traffic lanes in relation to the existing roadway was selected to minimize the acreage
of wetlands affected along the existing right of way. Measures which can be taken during
design to minimize wetland impacts includes the following:
Use of a bridge structure rather than a box culvert at the crossing of Cottage Inn
Branch ,which would reduce placement of fill in this wetland. However, a small portion
of the wetland may still be shadowed by the bridge .
Use ofembankment slopes steeper than 3: 1 or use of a retaining structure which would
reduce or avoid impacts to the wetland at Station 560, left.
Water quality impacts from silt and sedimentation will be minimized through the strict
adherence to erosion controlmeasures, as listed in WDOT's Specifications for Road and
Bridge Construction .
After minimization
has been fully pursued , a mitigation plan will be formulated to
compensate for the unavoidable wetland losses associated with the project. No net loss of
wetland acreage will occur . Wetland replacement will be pursued by either wetland
restoration or wetland creation .
R /USH151/SecV.JFO
V -2
SECTION VI
MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ADVERSE
A.
IMPACTS
INTRODUCTION
Section 101(b ) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA ) requires that federal
agencies incorporate into their project planning all practicable measures to mitigate adverse
environmental impacts resulting from a proposed action .
The following section summarizes concept-level mitigation which has been identified as
appropriate measures to minimize adverse environmental impacts for the Build Alternative .
Agency coordination and contacts with individual property ownerswill continue throughout
the engineering design phase of the project. During this time, concept-levelmitigation will
be developed in more detail. Finalmitigation will be incorporated into the final engineering
plans and specifications for this project.
B. ACQUISITION / RELOCATION
The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 as
amended provides for payment of just compensation for property acquired for a federal aid
project. In addition to acquisition price, costs for the replacement dwelling or business
location ,moving expenses, increased rental or mortgage payments, closing costs, and other
valid relocation costs are covered . No person or business will be displaced unless a
comparable replacement dwelling or business location , or other compensation where a
suitable replacement business location is not practicable, is provided. All of the above
compensation is available to all displaced personswithout discrimination . Before initiation
of any property acquisition activities, property owners will be contacted to explain the details
of the acquisition process and Wisconsin's Eminent Domain Law under Section 32.05,
Wisconsin Statutes. Any property acquired will be inspected by one or more professional
appraisers.
The property owner will be invited to accompany the appraiser during
inspection of the property to ensure that its value is recognized in an appraisal. Based on
the appraisal(s) made, the value of the property will be determined and that amount offered
to the owner. An independent property appraisal by the owner is also provided for.
The WDOT Real Estate Section estimates the typical residence relocation process requires
between 6 and 12 months, and businesses and farms need an additional 6 months. If
difficulties are encountered in finding acceptable relocation opportunities, the WDOT will
extend the right of way acquisition period until relocation can be accomplished . The
recommended alternative would displace seven residences and three businesses. Adequate
replacement housing and business sites are available in the study area .
VI- 1
Property acquisition not involving residential, business, or other building relocations is also
compensated in accordance with state and federal laws. In consultation with landowners
from whom right of way or access rights will be acquired, the value of the affected land will
be appraised and the owner compensated at fair market value. An independent appraisal
may be obtained by the property owner. In the event agreement on the fair market value
cannot be reached , the property owner will be advised promptly of the procedure to follow
in making an appeal.
Any septic tank, drain fields, or wells on properties to be acquired will be abandoned in
accordance with state regulations and local zoning standards .
C.
TRAFFIC
A traffic management plan will be developed and implemented to ensure reasonably
convenience access to residences, businesses, farm parcels , community services, and local
roads during construction.
To minimize delays to emergency vehicles, the WDOT will
coordinate construction activities, sequencing, and traffic management plans with local fire,
police, and emergency rescue services.
D. WATER QUALITY , HYDROLOGY, AND HYDRAULICS
Construction in or near waterways and wetlands will be done in accordance with
Standard Specifications or Special Provisions to minimize erosion
the
and sedimentation .
Temporary and permanent erosion controlmethods may include silt fences, retention basins,
detention ponds, interceptor ditches, seeding and sodding, riprap of exposed embankments,
erosion mats , and mulching .
Structure sizing will be done in accordance with state and
federal guidelines regarding floodplain encroachment and hydraulic capacity . Drainage
systems, including ditches on private lands will be maintained , restored, or re -established in
a manner that will not impound water, unless it is to re -establish farm ponds. Permanent
retention facilities will be considered in areas adjacent to streams and wetlands such that
roadway runoff will be intercepted before entering the waterway.
E. WETLANDS
Presidential Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, requires all federal agencies
to avoid to the extent practicable , long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the
destruction or modification of wetlands. More specifically, the Order directs agencies to
avoid new construction in wetlands unless there is no practicable alternative and states that
where wetlands cannot be avoided , the proposed action must include all practicable
measures to minimize harm to wetlands.
Due to the location of the rivers, streams, and drainage swales, it may not be possible to
avoid all of the wetlands. Measures which can be taken during final design to avoid or
minimize wetland impacts include the following :
VI- 2
Use of a bridge structure rather than a box culvert at the crossing of Cottage Inn
Branch, which would reduce or entirely avoid placement of fill in this wetland.
However, a small portion of the wetland may still be shadowed by the bridge .
Use of embankmentslopes steeper than 3: 1 or use of a retaining structure which would
reduce or avoid impacts to the wetland at Station 560, left.
Water quality impacts from silt and sedimentation will be minimized through the strict
adherence to erosion controlmeasures as listed in WDOT's Specifications for Road and
Bridge Construction .
In areas where wetland loss cannot be avoided , wetland replacement will be pursued by
either wetland restoration or wetland creation . Specific wetland mitigation has not been
identified ,but through coordination with WDNR , it willbe pursued throughout preparation
of the Final EIS and development of project plans.
F.
WILDLIFE
Minimizing wildlife habitat impacts was considered in selection of the Build Alternative.
Attempts were made to avoid wooded and wetland areas. Where wooded areas were not
avoidable, fragmenting of woods was minimized . Where wetland areas were not avoidable ,
wildlife habitat will be considered when selecting the wetland mitigation site .
G. PECATONICA TRAIL
Existing USH 151 crosses the Pecatonica Trail in the Village of Belmont.
practical build alternatives which avoid crossing of the trail right of way .
The principal measures to minimize harm
There are no
to the trail are:
Construction of an overpass structure to carry the trail over the proposed 4-lane
highway. This will maintain the function of the recreational facility .
Acquisition of land for the approaches to the overpass structure ,which will replace the
approximately 2 ha (4 acres) of existing recreational land being converted to highway
use .
Landscaping or other screening measures within the right of way to reduce the visual
impact of the new highway on the trail user .
H. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Further archaeological studies will be conducted during the 1994 field season to determine
the eligibility of cultural resources potentially impacted by the project.
VI- 3
Of the prehistoric sites identified, all but three sites will be avoided by design of the
The first prehistoric site is one that has been previously cultivated.
proposed roadway.
Controlled surface collection of the plowed area and subsequent machine stripping of the
plow zone will be undertaken to determine the presence /absence of subsurface features.
The other two sites are the location of a buried soil (paleosol) that needs to be more fully
investigated to determine geomorphic context and the presence or absence of archaeological
deposits on /in the buried former surface. Further investigation of the buried surface will
be undertaken through close interval coring.
Of the 16 historic mining resource areas identified as a result of the Phase 1 archaeological
survey, all but 7 will be avoided by design . A historical context framework will be prepared
for the identified mining-related sites which will allow for evaluation of these sites relative
to other components of lead mining in southwestern Wisconsin . Furthermore, a detailed
contour map of the impacted mining site components will be produced as a supplement to
the historic context. Themap will place the various site components in relation to the final
project right of way . Coordination and consultation with the SHPO is currently ongoing .
All Section 106 requirements will be fulfilled prior to the submittal of a Final
Environmental Impact Statement for this project.
I.
AIR QUALITY
The project area meets national and state air pollution attainment criteria .
Therefore , no
transportation control measures apply to the project area .
Dust control during construction would be accomplished in accordance with the WDOT's
Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (1989 ) which require the application
of water or other dust control measures during grading operations and on haul roads. The
location and operation of concrete batch plants and asphaltic batch plants will be in
accordance with the Standard Specifications and any Special Provisions developed during
coordination with the WDNR regarding air quality standards and emissions.
J.
NOISE
Properties having noise impacts under the Build Alternative were identified in Section IV ,
Part C. Noise abatement measures which were considered for those locations include:
Trafficmanagementmeasures (e.g., reduced speed limits , prohibition of trucks, time-use
restrictions for trucks, etc.),
Alteration of horizontal or vertical alignment,
Construction of noise barriers , and
Noise insulation of public use or nonprofit institutional structures.
VI-4
Traffic management measures applied to the proposed facility are not deemed to be
reasonable and feasible since this project is intended to improve mobility within the corridor
while removing trucks from local streets. Traffic management measures applied to existing
USH 151 within Belmont and Mineral Point are not deemed to be reasonable and feasible
since there are no alternative routes for commercial vehicles serving the communities.
Therefore, traffic management abatement measures are not proposed.
The horizontal alignment for the proposed facility has been chosen to minimize overall
impacts , including environmental impacts and impacts to existing development along the
corridor. The properties having noise impacts are not located along the bypass segments
of the project, and therefore , alteration of the bypass alignments will not substantially affect
noise impacts. In the rural areas, the proposed alignment closely follows the existing
alignment and alteration of the alignment would result in additional land acquisition ,
increased construction costs and possible construction difficulties. Minor alterations of the
alignment would not result in substantial reduction of noise impacts and major alterations
are not deemed reasonable or feasible.
Therefore , alignment modifications for noise
abatement purposes are not proposed .
Noise barriers are considered feasible if they are able to achieve a substantial reduction of
noise in the location of the impacted receivers. Reasonableness of a noise barrier depends
on such factors as the number of people protected , barrier cost per residence benefitted ,
views of residents, predicted noise levels, difference from existing noise levels, and date of
development along the highway .
In the urban areas of Mineral Point and Belmont, noise barriers are not feasible because
the many openings which would be necessary for street and driveway accesses would prevent
the barriers from being effective . Barriers would also not be reasonable in the communities
because of the relatively low predicted noise levels when compared with both existing noise
levels and future noise levels under the No-Build Alternative .
In the rural areas, noise barriers could be feasible, but they are not reasonable for several
reasons. It is not reasonable to construct noise barriers to protect individual isolated
residences because of the very high cost per residence protected . In addition , noise levels
at the impacted locations are only slightly above the noise abatement criteria and are not
substantially greater than ( and in some cases less than ) existing levels.
Therefore ,
construction of noise barriers is not proposed.
There are no public or nonprofit institutional buildings for which sound insulation measures
would be reasonable . All such buildings are along existing USH 151 within the urban areas,
and predicted future noise levels are less than existing levels in these locations.
In summary, there are no noise abatement measures which are considered feasible and
reasonable for this project and none are proposed.
VI-5
K. VISUAL AND AESTHETIC RESOURCES
Mitigation includes both measures to reduce adverse impacts and to enhance beneficial
impacts. The following measures will improve the visual quality of the proposed project:
A curvilinear alignment fitting the natural terrain reduces the adverse visual impact of
the highway on the countryside. This principal has been incorporated into the Build
Alternative, particularly in the visually sensitive areas. Further refinements may include
varying median widths and independent roadway profiles to blend with the terrain and
take advantage of exceptional views from the highway.
Landscaping and natural revegetation of disturbed areas reduce the visual intrusion of
the highway on the natural landscape. In specific locations, landscaping may be
designed to screen the view of the highway from particularly sensitive viewpoints.
Modifying rock cuts to provide vegetated terraces and varying setbacks can soften the
effects of massive rock cuts, provide visual interest, and preserve the rhythm of the
natural landscape. This approach could be particularly effective in this area , where
natural exposed rock outcrops are not uncommon.
Structures may be tinted
environment.
or textured
to
be more harmonious with
the natural
The use of a structure rather than a high fill to cross deep ravines is less
visually intrusive , while providing other benefits.
Depressing the profile in certain locations can reduce the visibility of the highway and
vehicles while also reducing noise impacts. This measure can be very costly in an area
where most of the excavation will be in rock, but it will be considered where the
highway impacts a particularly sensitive viewscape .
Providing a highway wayside takes advantage of a beautiful viewscape and greatly
increases the opportunity to experience the view . Interpretive information can be
provided which will increase viewers' appreciation and understanding of what they are
seeing
L.
BORROW AND DISPOSAL
Selection of any material borrow sites will be the responsibility of the construction
contractor subject to approval by the WDOT. It is anticipated that borrow material will be
obtained locally from
existing sites. New sites and existing sites expanded more than 5 feet
will require an archaeological survey. Unusable excavated material will be disposed of by
the contractor in accordance with the Standard Specifications or SpecialProvisions to ensure
protection of wetlands and waterways.
All waste and demolition material from project construction activities will be disposed of
in accordance with the Standard Specifications or Special Provisions, and the WDOT/
WDNR One- Time Disposal Guidelines to ensure protection of wetlands and waterways.
VI-6
M. FARMLANDS
Mitigation for impacts to farmlands, especially access, will be determined on a case -by -case
basis during the final design of the project. The WDOT willwork closely with all affected
property owners and make every effort to provide acceptable access to the remainder of the
property. The WDOT may also make offers to purchase property remainders determined
uneconomic to the owner. Access to local road networks will be restored to farm
operations.
R /USH151/Sec VI.JFO
VI- 7
SECTION VII
SECTION 4 (f) /6 (f) EVALUATION
A.
PROPOSED ACTION
It is proposed to improve USH 151 to a 4 - lane, divided highway from west of the Village
of Belmont to the existing interchange with STH 23 south of Dodgeville. The project
includes bypasses of the two urbanized areas within the project limits , the Village of
Belmont and the City of Mineral Point. A detailed description of the Build Alternative is
provided in Section II and is shown on Exhibit 6 .
The purpose of the project is to improve route safety,meet future mobility needs,maintain
continuity of the overall route , and enhance regional economic development. This action
is part of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation's (WDOT) Corridors 2020 plan which
includes a backbone network of multilane, divided highways connecting all regions and
major economic centers in the State and tying them to the national network of Interstate
Highways. Project objectives include providing for uninterrupted 89 km /h (55 mph) traffic
flow . A detailed discussion of the purpose and need for the proposed action is provided in
Section I.
B.
PROPERTY AFFECTED
The following property is discussed in this section :
The Pecatonica ( Calamine- Platteville State Park) Trail, which is a publicly-owned
recreational facility .
Section 4 (f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Act of 1996 protects public
parks and recreation lands, wildlife, and waterfowl refuges and historic sites. It prohibits
use of such lands by a transportation project unless there is no feasible and prudent
alternative and the project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to these
resources resulting from such use .
Use of property can occur by direct acquisition or occupancy of the land or when the
proximity of a highway project substantially impairs the capability of a site to perform
vital functions.
its
Section 6 (f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act requires that
replacementlands be provided for national parklands or lands acquired with LWCF funds
which are converted to highway use . Such lands must be of equal value, location , and
usefulness as a condition of approval.
VII - 1
The proposed highway will cross the Pecatonica (Calamine- Platteville ) Trail and will acquire
LWCF money was used for trail acquisition and development.
recreational lands.
Therefore, both Section 4 (f) and Section 6 (f) apply. This section addresses the trail crossing
in detail.
The proposed 4 -lane highway will cross the corridor which has been acquired for the
Calamine-Platteville State Park Trail. Acquisition of the land and development of the trail
were federally funded under Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF ) Projects 55-00998
and 55-01105. The project consists of sports and play fields and trails encompassing
The Calamine-Platteville Trail occupies an
approximately 69 ha ( 170 acres) of land.
Chicago, Milwaukee , St. Paul, and Pacific
the
from
acquired
grade
railroad
abandoned
Railroad . Beginning at the small, unincorporated Village of Calamine, the grade passes
through the Village of Belmont and ends in Platteville. USH 151 is the major access to the
trail.
The trail, renamed "Pecatonica Trail," is operated by the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (WDNR ) as part of Yellowstone State Park . The portion of the trail from
Calamine to Mound Avenue in Belmont has been constructed and is open for use. Land
acquisition on the segment from Belmont to Platteville is near completion , but construction
has not begun. Specifically in the location of the proposed highway crossing , WDNR did
not obtain reversion rights to the railroad grade on the property located in the southeast
corner of Section 10 and southwest corner of Section II . To complete the trail corridor, a
31 m ( 100 -foot) wide right of way was acquired , which is bordered on the north by the south
line of Sections 10 and 11 and extends east and west to the abandoned railroad corridor .
The approximate location of the trail is shown on Exhibit 6 , Sheet 1.
The proposed highway right of way crosses the trail right of way near the southeast corner
of Section 10 at a skew of approximately 45 degrees. Approximately 1.3 ha (3.1 acres) of
trail right of way would be converted to highway use. A detailed plan of the crossing is
shown on Exhibit 8 .
There are no existing recreational facilities on this land. It is planned as a continuation of
the existing bike trail to extend into Grant County. However , the existing segment of the
trail between Calamine and Belmonthas been damaged by flooding several times since its
construction , and the WDNR is currently considering converting the trail for equestrian or
ATV use .
There are gentle grades on the trail segments which occupy the old railroad corridor . The
trail segment which is affected by the proposed highway, however, begins in the bottom of
the valley formed by Bonner Creek and climbs a knoll approximately 15 m (50 feet) high
as it proceeds to the west, with grades exceeding 12 percent. Substantial cutting and filling
would be required to provide grades comparable to those typical of the remainder of the
trail. The topography also limits the available options for crossing the trail with the
proposed highway. These options are discussed under the next heading .
VII - 2
C.
IMPACTS ON PECATONICA (CALAMINE- PLATTEVILLE ) TRAIL PROPERTY
1.
Options for Crossing
It is proposed to provide a grade separated crossing of the bike trail and the new highway.
Several options were investigated for this crossing:
Grade Separation Within Existing Bike Trail Right of Way: The option ofmaintaining
the present trail alignment by constructing an overpass or underpass along the
approximate centerline of the trail right of way was investigated . A minimum 3 m
(9 -foot) vertical clearance was used for the trail underpass, based on previous
discussions with WDNR. A minimum highway clearance of 5.2 m ( 17.0 feet) was used
for an overpass. Based on the preliminary highway profile , it was determined that
neither of these options were practical. Because the roadway is transitioning from cut
to fill in this location, overpass approaches would have to be on high fill. Also , the
structure span would be considerably lengthened due to the skew of the crossing. An
underpass in this location would require an excessively deep and long tunnel, exceeding
240 m (800 feet) between openings.
Underpass North of the Existing Trail: This option was developed to take advantage
of the proposed fill section as the highway crosses Bonner Creek, as well as a smaller
skew angle, to reduce the length of the underpass tunnel. It results in a structure length
of approximately 60 m (200 feet) and provides a 3 m (9-foot) vertical clearance. The
approach from the west required a steep downgrade of 8 percent followed by a
horizontal curve with a radius of 46 m (150 feet) just before entering the tunnel. It
requires acquisition of approximately 1.3 ha ( 3.1 acres) of additional right of way to
construct. The WDNR, Bureau of Parks, reviewed this option and concluded that the
geometrics are not acceptable to them .
Overpass South of the Existing Trail: This is the preferred option for the crossing. A
plan view and profile for this option is shown on Exhibit 8. This option takes advantage
of the cut section as the highway crosses the knoll south of the trail right of way. The
trail can be built at or close to the existing grade on the bridge approaches. The nearly
perpendicular crossing of the highway permits reasonable span lengths. The sharpest
horizontal curve is located near the top of the grade where speeds will be lower and
visibility better than with the underpass option. A maximum grade of 6 percent is
proposed for the trail approaches to the bridge . This option requires approximately
1.3 ha ( 3.1 acres ) of additional right ofway to construct. The WDNR, Bureau of Parks,
has reviewed this option and has given their qualified support. Further coordination is
required to determine specific design standards and service requirements.
2.
Impacts
Impacts are based on the overpass option which is considered to be the only practical
option . Typical cross sections of the overpass structure and of the trail at the approaches
to the structure are shown on Figure V - 1.
VII - 3
There will be no net loss of recreational land.
The proposed action will result in the
-
conversion of approximately 1.3 ha (3.1 acres) of land from recreational use to highway use.
Four acres of replacement land will be provided to construct approaches to the overpass of
the highway .
There are no adverse impacts to the function of the recreational facility . The overpass will
be constructed to accommodate trail users and normal maintenance equipment. Approach
grades will be approximately the same as those which would be encountered within the
There will be no access to or from the highway at this location . The principal access to the
trail will continue to be from Mound Street ( existing USH 151) in the Village of Belmont,
Both the safety and
approximately 11 km
(0.7 miles) to the east of the crossing.
functionality of the trail in Belmont will be improved by the removal of traffic, especially
truck traffic, from the existing highway to the proposed facility.
Noise levels can be expected to rise along the trail corridor in the vicinity of the new
highway, since this is a rural setting not close to anymajor noise generators. The effect of
the highway is mitigated by the fact that it is in a 5 m
(15 -foot) deep cut where it crosses
the trail. The rock backslopes greatly attenuate noise levels outside of the right of way and
reduce the length of trail which will be impacted . Use of the trail by nature is transitory
and the noise impact on users will be for a short duration of time. There will also be an
offsetting reduction in noise levels in the vicinity of the existing highway in the Village of
Belmont due to reduced automobile and truck traffic .
There will be visual impacts on the trail associated with a 4 -lane highway in an otherwise
ruralsetting. Portions of the highway will be concealed in cut and the overall visual effect
is somewhat softened by the curvilinear alignment of the highway. The visual intrusion can
be mitigated by plantings within the trail right of way . As with noise impacts, the impacts
on trail users will be transitory .
D. AVOIDANCE ALTERNATIVES
No-Build Alternative : Under the No-Build Alternative, no improvements, other than
normal pavement maintenance or localized upgrades, would be made and there would be
no increase in traffic capacity or flow characteristics.
This alternative would avoid
acquisition of 4 (f) property . However, it would still have adverse impacts on the safety ,
function , noise levels, and visual character of the Pecatonica (Calamine- Platteville State
Park ) Trail.
The trail crosses the existing USH 151/Mound Street in the Village of Belmont with an
at-grade crossing. Traffic on the existing highway, which includes approximately 15 percent
truck traffic, is forecasted to increase by approximately 50 percent by the year 2020. This
will reduce the frequency of gaps in the highway traffic which are available to the trail user
to cross the highway . In addition to delays, safety is adversely impacted as trail users are
forced to accept shorter gaps or to cross one lane at a time. Higher traffic volumes will also
generate higher noise levels in the vicinity of the highway. Further discussion of noise
VII -4
-
existing trail right of way if the highway were not constructed .
impacts are included in Section IV . Mound Street is the principal access point for the entire
trail. This is potentially a picturesque and inviting focal point. Increased traffic , including
a large number of trucks, will create a visual intrusion impacting both users and potential
users of the trail.
The " Through Town Build " Alternative would reduce the area of land to be acquired for
highway proposes, but would not eliminate such acquisition . This alternative is discussed
in Section II under the heading "Other Alternatives." It would involve widening and
geometric improvements along the existing highway through the communities of Belmont
and Mineral Point in order to provide a 4 -lane divided urban street with a median and
auxiliary left-turn lanes. The segment through Belmont would require acquisition of right
of way on one or both sides of the existing highway.
This alternative is not feasible and prudent and was eliminated from detailed study. It
would not meet project objectives, would have severe impacts on the cultural environment,
and would likely impact 4 (f) property within the Village.
This project is part of WDOT's Corridors 2020 program backbone network of highways .
Service expectations for this system of highways include uninterrupted 89 km (55 mph )
traffic flow , which would not be provided by this alternative. The existing 23 m (75 -foot)
wide right of way is bordered by potentially historic properties, churches, cemeteries, a
community center, and other sensitive land uses. These include a community park which
was developed using LWCF funds. Comments received at public meetings indicate that
there would be little public support for and strong opposition to any such alternative.
No bypass alternatives have been identified which would avoid crossing the bike trail.
A
crossing at some location is inevitable due to the generally east-west orientation of the trail
and the generally north -south orientation of the highway. Bypass alternatives which were
considered are discussed in Section II and are shown on Figure V - 2 .
E. MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM
The principal measures to minimize harm
are :
1.
Construction of an overpass structure to carry the trail over the proposed 4 -lane
highway . This will maintain the function of the recreational facility.
2.
Acquisition of land for the approaches to the overpass structure, which will replace the
existing recreational land being converted to highway use .
3.
Adjustments to the alignment to reduce the area of land converted or to obtain more
favorable crossing conditions .
4.
Landscaping or other screening measures within the trail right of way to reduce the
visual impact of the new highway on the trail user.
VII - 5
Further coordination with WDNR will take place to determine appropriate mitigation
measures in an effort to minimize the project's effects on the 4 (f) resource .
COORDINATION
F.
The WDNR owns and has jurisdiction over the trail. Coordination has included letters and
phone conversations with both WDNR and with the Department of Interior, National Park
Service (DOI), and meetings with WDNR.
The DOI identified the Calamine-Platteville State Park Trail and Belmont Village Park as
the only recipients of LWCF funds within the project study area and requested that further
consultation take place with WDNR , Office of Intergovernmental Programs.
A field meeting was held on June 4, 1992, with a representative of Yellowstone State Park
unit of WDNR, which is responsible for development and maintenance of the trail.
Principle concerns expressed were that the proposed highway be grade separated from the
trail where they cross and that any structure be designed to accommodate trail grooming
equipment.
An initial coordination meeting was held with WDNR at their Southern District
Headquarters office on August 18 , 1992, to discuss the issues of concern to WDNR that had
been identified at that time. Following is a summary of discussions specifically related to
the trail crossing :
The trail is federally funded and a highway crossing will impact 4 (f) lands.
Crossing the trail cannot be avoided by any reasonable bypass alternative.
WDNR will support the crossing if: a grade separation is provided ; the engineering is
of high quality; the structure provides necessary clearance for trail maintenance and use ;
and there is no cost to WDNR for the crossing.
WDNR would not support relocating the stream
or the bike trail for the purpose of
combining the stream and trail crossings in a single structure .
A
subsequent meeting was held at Southern District Headquarters on August 17 , 1993,
specifically to discuss the trail crossing. The options discussed above were presented and
discussed as they relate to conversion of 6 (f) lands. The proposals involving no net loss of
land would generally be acceptable , providing the design of the crossing is approved by
WDNR , Bureau of Parks. Conceptual plans for two alternatives were provided to WDNR ,
Bureau of Parks, for review and comment.
In subsequent discussions, the Bureau of Parks has expressed strong preference for the trail
over option . The Bureau does not object in principle to an underpass,but objects to a sharp
curve following a downgrade, particularly where view of the trail ahead is obscured by a
tunnel
VII-6
A field meeting with WDNR representatives was held at the site of the proposed crossing
on January 14 , 1994, to discuss the preferred location for the crossing and for replacement
lands. Exhibit 8 was revised to address WDNR's comments and a copy was transmitted to
WDNR for review (see letter dated February 18, 1994, Appendix B , pages B -60 and 61).
Further coordination willbe undertaken to establish design criteria acceptable to the Bureau
of Parks and to reach agreement on a specific design for the crossing.
R /USH151/SecVII.ASF
VII - 7
211020
is
User
DATE
1994
18:37:49
04
Mar
-Fri
bPRF
= ridge.pri
=uxh
sr
/b2pe.DGN
11020
ridge
roject
=pefault.ibi
Table
\dPen
lotllables
-
1:ino
FILE
.REFERENCE
name
rei
REFERENCE
2=.no
name
ref
.FILE
FILE
.REFERENCE
3= no
names
ref
REFERENCE
4:ino
FILE
ref
name
REFERENCE
FILE
5-ino
name
.ref
nref
6= o
FILE
:REFERENCE
name
REFERENCE
FILE
ref
.7=no
name
-
BECXNS
is
Plotter
+
63
are
Levels
m9
3'-0"(
m2.7
(9'-0")
CHAINLINK
1.8 m
16 ' - 0 " ]
12 " )
(6-0 )
HANDRAIL TO
1.8 m
EXTEND FULL
LENGTH
1%
1%
TYPICAL BRIDGE SECTION
1.8 m
1.8 m
(6-0 )
16 ' - 0 " )
TYPICAL TRAIL
I m
7277
2 % MAX .
3 MIN .
3 MIN .
ASPHALTIC PAVEMENT
SECTION
(AT BRIDGE APPROACHES )
U.S.H. 151
Belmont - Dodgeville
Towa & Lafayetle Counties
TYPICAL SECTIONS
CALAMINE - PLATTEVILLE
TRAIL CROSSING
FIGURE
VII- 1
FEN
CE
?
State8 PCaarpkitol
35
1250
Bin
ong
36
US
H
15
1
BELMONT MOUND
L
AI
RE
TR
TU
FU
CO
TT
ALT
AG IN R
E N, D
•
ata
USH 151
ALT.
mi
s
TRITO
ng
nt
scie
oss
113
BYPASS ALTERNATIVES
si
ALT. 1877
EXISTING
Bal
SH 18
reiname
-no
mor
HOST
ART. ICH
Why
et
nG
Beth AronSich
ord sch
-1005 E
VILL RAIL
E
T
T
LA
T
STH
126 L
FILE
REFERENCE
tes
INE
CALAM
N
U.S.H. 151
Belmont - Dodgeville
1000m
0
low
& Lafayette Counties
1000 2000 3000FT.
211020
is
User
PRELIMINARY BELMONT BYPASS
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
FIGURE VII - 2
VII- 9
SECTION VIII
COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Following are community and public agency involvement activities that have been an
integral part of the development and assessment of alternatives. These activities have been
ongoing since the study was initiated in March 1992.
1.
Project Newsletters
Four newsletters were prepared for distribution to abutting property owners, local officials,
interested citizens, and identified local interest groups. Newsletters included highlights of
the upcoming public meetings;maps of proposed alternatives, project analysis , schedule of
project events, and contact names, addresses, and telephone numbers.
2.
News Releases
Three news releases were prepared and distributed to area media , including newspapers,
radio , and television , to initially announce the study and to announce upcoming public
information meetings. Contact names, addresses, and telephone numbers were provided as
part of the releases.
Two feature articles were prepared for distribution to area newspapers focusing on the
progress of the project study, summarizing issues and concerns, and identifying project
alternatives. The articles announced upcoming public meetings and encouraged continued
public input.
3.
A
Toll- free Telephone
toll-free telephone number was established at the start of the study .
All calls were
logged , and when requested , specific information was provided back to the caller.
4.
Local Government Meetings
An Operational Planning Meeting (OPM ) was conducted on June 2, 1992 , to discuss project
approach , public involvement activities, schedule of events, and to generally coordinate the
efforts of the units of government and agencies that will be involved in the project.
Attendees included County, Township, City, and Village officials / staff; Regional Planning
Commission staff ; and WDOT staff.
A Local Public Officials Meeting was held on August 17, 1992, with County , City, Village,
and Township officials to update them on progress of the study, present the preliminary
conceptual corridor alternatives, and solicit continued public input.
VIII- 1
A Local Public Officials Meeting was held on May 4 , 1993 , with County, City , Village, and
Township officials to update them on progress of the study, present corridor evaluation
results, present interchange location and localroad connection options, and solicit continued
public input.
On July 26 , 1993 , a presentation before the Lafayette County Board was made to update
the board members on the progress of the study, to discuss potential impacts of the various
route alternatives as they related to Lafayette County, and to solicit public input.
5.
Public Information Meetings
Two Public Information Meetings were held to present corridor alternatives and to solicit
public input. The meetings were announced through news releases to area newspapers ,
radio and television stations, and project newsletters. Due to the diversity of local
community interests, and for convenience to the general public, both meetings were held in
Mineral Point and in Belmont on consecutive days .
Both meetings were conducted in an " open house " type format from 3:00 PM to 9:00 PM .
Staff members from the consultant team and WDOT, including real estate personnel, were
available to discuss the project. A presentation providing a project overview was made at
7:00 PM .
The first Public Information Meeting (PIM ) was held September 21, 1992 , at Belmont and
on September 22, 1992 , at Mineral Point. A total of 307 persons attended . Display exhibits
included a 1" = 400 ' scale aerial photo map of the project depicting the preliminary
alternative corridor alignments ; a 4 -lane roadway typical section ; color enlargement of a
USGS map of the project area ; corridor evaluation criteria; project time schedule ; and a
handout package, including maps of Belmont and Mineral Point preliminary bypass
alternatives , a project Fact Sheet, and a form for written comments.
Input received from
the first PIM , as well as similar input from public officials, property
owners, bypass committees, other organizations and individuals, included the following:
Acceptance of the need for the USH 151 improvement as a 4 -lane facility in the near
future. Supported a west side bypass for the Village of Belmont. Supported a bypass
for the City of Mineral Point.
Several persons opposed, and no one spoke in favor of, preliminary Alternative 3D * ,
which located a single interchange west ofMineral Point and routed STH 23/39 along
High and Doty Streets through the City.
Several persons opposed, and none spoke in favor of, a " near west" Mineral Point
bypass, (preliminary Alternative 3B * ) north of STH 39 which located a corridor
immediately adjacent to existing development.
Minimal support was given for an east side bypass of Mineral Point (preliminary
Alternative 3C * ).
VIII - 2
Several persons expressed a need for interchanges located on both the north and south
sides of Mineral Point.
Requests for development of an additional alternative which would be located west of
Ludden Lake .
Several persons were concerned about farm
access to the new facility.
Several large farm property owners north of Mineral Point supported relocation of
USH 151 west of the existing roadway . This relocation would put the corridor through
their pastureland rather than cropland and would avoid separating cropland from their
farm operation buildings.
Several persons opposed an easterly relocation of USH
Mineral Point (preliminary Alternative 4B * ).
151 between Dodgeville and
Several persons requested that the overall project construction schedule be accelerated.
The second PIM was held on May 24 , 1993, at Mineral Point and May 25 , 1993 , at Belmont.
A total of 245 persons attended . Displays included a 1" = 400' scale aerial photo map
depicting the detailed study initial stage alternative alignments (Alternatives 1B , 2A , 3A , 3B ,
3B - 1, 3C , and 3E ); USGS color enlargement of the project area with aerial photographs of
various corridor sites; color photo enlargements of various visual sensitive project sites;
visual evaluation matrix; a 4 -lane roadway typical section; summary corridor evaluation
matrix chart; interchange location and local road connections, and a graphic presentation
of construction costs and highway user benefits. A handout package included maps of the
bypass alternatives.
To assist participants in providing their comments, a Route Preference Survey form was
handed out to all attendees. Respondents were asked to evaluate each alternative . The
results indicate strong public support for Alternatives 3A , 3B , or 3B -1 and strong opposition
to Alternatives 3C and 3E .
In addition to the Route Preference Survey, written comments received at and following the
meeting include the following:
Support for project and /or desire to accelerate schedule (11 comments ).
Locate highway to promote economic development ( 3 comments).
Locate interchanges as close to Mineral Point as possible (5 comments).
Minimize
land/farmland acquisition
(2 comments); avoid developable
(2 comments); and avoid /protect residential areas (2 comments ).
Consider the impact of improvement on other communities ( 1 comment).
VIII- 3
land
Oppose Alternative 3C (3 comments) and oppose Alternative 3E (4 comments).
Support Alternative 3A (4 comments); support Alternative 3B (4 comments ); support
Alternative 3C ( 1 comment ); and support Alternative 3E (1 comment).
6.
Additional Public Involvement Meetings
a.
Local Community Meetings
Committees were formed by local units of government in Mineral Point and Belmont to
assist in coordinating and representing community interests during the planning process.
The committees consisted of local officials,business representatives, and citizens of the area .
The following meetings were held to keep committee members updated and to solicit
community input:
June 23, 1992
August 17, 1992
September 10, 1992
November 9, 1992
February 22, 1993
May 10 , 1993
May 11, 1993
August 17, 1993
March 28, 1994
b.
Mineral Point and Belmont Bypass Committees
Mineral Point and Belmont Bypass Committees
Belmont Bypass Committee
Mineral Point Bypass Committee
Mineral Point Bypass Committee , Planning Commission
Mineral Point Bypass Committee, Plan Commission , and
Chamber of Commerce
Belmont Bypass Committee
Mineral Point Bypass Committee, Planning Commission
Mineral Point Planning Commission
Local Property Owners Meetings
On November 2, 1992 , a meeting was held with DATCP representative and six farm
property owners located immediately north of Mineral Point. They expressed the need to
safely access the road to get to their fields. With proper access and median crossovers, they
could accept Alternative 3A , however, preference was for Alternative 3B.
On May 11, 1993 , a meeting was held with four farm property owners located immediately
south of Mineral Point to discuss each alternative interchange location being considered on
south side of Mineral Point. Detailed maps of the alternatives were available . Owners
generally felt Alternative 3B, or some modification thereof, best met their overall needs.
On January 5 , 1994, a meeting was held with 13 property owners south of Dodgeville to
discuss the two alternatives which had been under consideration for that area and to discuss
access. Detailed maps of the alternatives were available . Alternative 3B (adding two lanes
to the existing facility ) was identified as the preferred route and individual access was
discussed.
VIII- 4
7.
Written Comments
Over 150 written comments were received in conjunction with and subsequent to the public
information meetings. All written input was considered in development and refinement of
the alternatives as presented in the Draft EIS .
B.
AGENCY COORDINATION
A scoping letter was sentMay 5 , 1992, to 13 State and Federal agencies to familiarize them
with the project and to determine their interest and concerns. A copy of the scoping letter
Agency
and agency mailing list is included in Appendix B , pages B - 1 through B -6 .
coordination was ongoing throughout data gathering , development and refinement of the
corridor alternatives, and preparation of the Draft EIS . Following is a summary of agency
involvement:
1.
State Agencies
a .
State Historical Society of Wisconsin (SHSW )
June 8. 1992
Received letter from SHSW indicating interest in project
and providing guideline requirements.
June 23, 1992
Coordination meeting to review preliminary findings of
literature search and windshield survey.
February 25, 1993
Coordination meeting to review corridor alternatives and
potential historic /archaeological impacts.
March 12, 1993
Field
review
of corridor alternatives with
SHSW
for
potential historic concerns.
May
6 , 1993
Field review of corridor alternatives with SHSW for review
of archaeological methodology .
May 20 , 1993
Received acceptance letter from
SHSW on archaeological
methodology
May 24 , 1993
SHSW
representative at Mineral Point Public Information
Meeting to observe and discuss public's historic concerns
with corridor alternatives.
December 14 , 1993
Received acceptance letter from SHSW on architectural
reconnaissance report. Requested DOE for one property
(Spensley-Sharp complex ).
February 1, 1994
Received concurrence letter from SHSW on archaeological
reconnaissance report. Requested further testing.
VIII- 5
Coordination will continue throughout preparation of the Final EIS and fulfillment of the
requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
b.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
May 18 , 1992
Discussed hazardouswaste remediation plans along Brewery
Creek at Mineral Point and potential impacts with east side
bypass (Alternate 3C ) .
June 5 , 1992
Field meeting to discuss Calamine to Platteville State Park
recreational trail ( old railroad corridor) at Belmont.
August 18 , 1992
Coordination meeting at Southern District Headquarters.
Discussed following concerns :
Wetland Areas - Try to avoid and preserve the few that
are in the area .
Stream
Crossings
No
channel
change
will
be
permitted .
Upland Habitat - Concerned with potential severance of
large forested areas south of Mineral Point on Wayne
Carey property (Alternative 3A ).
Hazardous Waste Remediation
Site
Along Brewery
Creek - East side bypass alternative (Alternative 3C )
must avoid.
Mines - Several large inactive mine sites east of Mineral
Point near junction of STH 23/39 should be avoided .
Expect to run into several mine tailing piles with any
bypass alternative -- unavoidable .
Ludden Lake - WDNR ordering owners to drain lake
and repair dam .
Calamine to Platteville Bike Trail - Used LWCF funds.
WDNR owns trail and will want 12x12 box to allow
maintenance machinery crossing of trail.
Pecatonica Trail - Bike trail south and east of Mineral
Point is owned by the Tri-County Rail Commission .
Crossing structure must provide clearance meeting
railroad standards .
Belmont Village Park - Used LWCF funds.
VIII -6
July 1 , 1993
Received letter noting potential for two endangered and
one threatened species in project area.
February 14 , 1994
Field review to discuss crossing and replacement land
options for Calamine to Platteville State Park Recreational
Trail at Belmont.
Coordination will continue throughout preparation of the Final EIS .
c.
Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade , and Consumer Protection (DATCP)
November 10 , 1992
Field review meeting to update DATCP on project corridor
alternatives and to meet with group of farm property
owners located just north of Mineral Point. DATCP
indicated Alternative 3B north of Mineral Point would be
agriculturally accepted due to use of pastureland rather
than cropland. An Agricultural Impact Statement will be
required for this project.
September 28 , 1993
Received letter indicating Alternatives 3A and 3B are the
agriculturally preferred alternatives for the Mineral Point
Bypass.
February 22, 1994
Received Draft Agricultural Impact Statement.
Coordination will continue throughout preparation of the Final EIS .
d.
Wisconsin Department of Administration
May 29, 1992
e.
Response to scoping letter indicating no further interest
project.
Wisconsin Department of Labor and Human Resource (DILHR )
May 29 , 1992
Response to scoping letter indicating no further interest in
project.
f.
Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey (WGNHS)
March 24 , 1992
Coordination meeting to review mine location atlas and
boring logs. Several mine locations east of Mineral Point
which could affect corridor location (Alternative 3C ).
May 7 , 1992
WGNHS provided brief report on mines in Mineral Point
area .
VIII- 7
2.
Federal Agencies
a.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
May 27 , 1992
Noted permits required if fill or dredged material in waters
of the U.S. and adjacent wetlands . Provided contact person
in La Crosse field office .
Coordination will continue throughout preparation of the Final EIS.
b.
U.S. Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
May 21, 1992
No comments on project at this time. Request to be kept
informed through future review documents .
Coordination will continue throughout preparation of the Final EIS .
c.
USDA Soil Conservation Service
May 11, 1992
Indicated willingness to
Impact Rating
finalized .
October 11, 1993
(Form
complete Farmland
AD
Conversion
1006 ) once route selection
is
Farmland Conversion Impact Rating (Form
AD 1006 ),
Part VI, determined value was 59. Further coordination
with SCS not required, however, submitted copy of form
and aerial map of corridor to SCS to provide opportunity
for them to comment.
February 17 , 1994
Received
Farmland
Conversion
Impact Rating ( Form
AD 1006 ) with Part V completed for Iowa and Lafayette
Counties .
d.
U.S. Department of the Interior --Bureau of Land Management
May 21, 1992
e.
Noted project will not impact or be impacted by actions
approved by the Bureau of Land Management.
U.S. Department of the Interior --National Park Service
June 1, 1992
There are no national parks in project area. Agency has
some advisory capacity with Ice Age Trail, but trail is not
close enough to be impacted by project.
June 15 , 1992
Noted that project could have impacts on following Land
and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) projects: Belmont
Village Park ; Calamine to Platteville St. Park Trail.
VIII-8
f.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
May 15 , 1992
Sent initial scoping letter. No response indicating interest
or concerns received .
R /USH151/SecVIII.ASF
VIII -9
Section IX
LIST OF PREPARERS
NAME
RESPONSIBILITY
QUALIFICATIONS
RUST ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE (RUST E & I)
James F. Oeth , P.E.
Antony S. Fernandez, P.E.
Project Manager, EIS
preparation , public
involvement
Project Engineer
Alternatives development,
impact analysis, EIS
preparation
Brian J. Klatt, Ph.D.
Wetland, water quality ,
local habitat analysis
B.S. Civil Engineering,
25 years experience in
and
planning,
design ,
management
project
B.S. Civil Engineering
11 years experience in design and
highway planning
B.S. Zoology, M.S. and
Ph.D. Biology , 18 years experience
in ecological studies and
environmental program
management
Steven R. Grumann
Gordon R. Faust
Robert G. Gust
Thomas J. Noonan , P.E.
Data gathering, wetland,
B.S. Water Chemistry, 6 years
water quality, local habitat
analysis, EIS preparation
experience in water analysis and
wetland evaluation
Conceptual Stage Relocation
Plan
in
Conceptual Stage Relocation
Plan
2 years experience in real estate
Field noise measurement
B.S. Civil Engineering , 18 years
experience in highway alternative
analysis, noise analysis, and air
quality evaluation
readings
Peter E. Lemmerhirt
B.S. Conservation and Secondary
Education, 31 years experience
real estate
Noise and air quality
analysis
B.M.Music Composition , 5 years
environmental
in
experience
assessments
IX - 1
NAME
Thomas E. Degen , P.E.
Steven R.Miller, P.E.
RESPONSIBILITY
QUALIFICATIONS
Project Manager of Phase 1
and Phase 2 hazardous
B.S. Civil Engineering, 10 years
experience in Civil and Environmental
material site investigation
Engineering
Phase 1b and 2 hazardous
material site investigation
B.S. Chemistry ,M.S. Environmental
engineering , 10 years experience in
hazardous material work
BRIA
Nina Berkani
Agricultural impact and
socioeconomic analysis ,
EIS preparation
B.A. Economics, M.A. Agricultural
Economics, 8 years experience in
agricultural impact programs
GREAT LAKES ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH CENTER (GLARC )
Patricia Richards
Principal investigation for
cultural resources ,
archaeological investigations
Linda A. Brazeau
Conducted architecture /
history survey
B.A., M.S. Anthropology, 19 years
experience in cultural resource
management
B.A., M.S. Anthropology, M.A.
Art History , 17 years
experience in cultural resource
management
Georgia A. Lusk
Documentation for arch
B.A. Anthropology, 8 years
itecture / history reports
experience
Matthias Kastell
Field supervisor for
archaeological survey.
B.A., M.A. Archaeology, 6 years
Assisted in report preparation
experience in cultural resource
management
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (WDOT)
Matthew Hintze , P.E.
EIS review for environmental
B.S. Civil Engineering, 10 years
and design aspects, public
involvement
experience in civil and structural
engineering
Jon Obenberger, P.E.
EIS review for environmental
B.S. Civil Engineering, 8 years
and design aspects, public
involvement
IX - 2
experience in civil and traffic
engineering
NAME
RESPONSIBILITY
QUALIFICATIONS
Jon Novick
EIS review for NEPA and WEPA
B.S. Sociology, 18 years experience
in review and preparation of
environmental documents
compliance
Robert S. Newbery
EIS review for effects and
impacts on cultural
resources
Shirley C. Stathas
EIS review for effects and
impacts on archaeological
resources and for NEPA and
WEPA compliance
M.A. U.S. History, Ph.D.
candidate in U.S. History,
12 years as WDOT Staff Historian
B.S. Speech Therapy and
English , 7 years as WDOT
Archaeology Coordinator
for highway projects
OTHERS
Katherine H. Rankin
Prepared Determination of
Eligibility Form
B.A., M.S. Anthropology , 12 years
experience in cultural resource
management
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION (FHWA)
Jaclyn D. Lawton, P.E.
DEIS review for environmental
B.S. Civil Engineering ,
aspects
18 years experience in highway
design and environmental
assessment, including 4 years as
FHWA Environmental Coordinator
Richard C.Madrzak , P.E.
Roger Szudera
DEIS review for environmental
and design aspects
B.S. Civil Engineering,
26 years
experience in highway
design , construction , and
environmental assessment
DEIS review for socioeconomic,
B.S. Agricultural Economics,
relocation, and related
impacts
24 years experience in right of way
acquisition
and
environmental
document preparation / review
R /USH151 /SecLX.JFO
IX -3
SECTION X
REFERENCES
Council on Environmental Quality , Executive Office of the President. Regulations for
Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act.
48 FR 55978-56007 Reprint,40 CFR Parts 1500-1508. Washington, D.C., November 29 ,
1978 .
Cowardin , L.M., Carter, V., Colet, F.C., and LaRoe, E.T. Classification of Wetlands and
Deep Water Habitat of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1979 .
Curtis , J.T. The Vegetation of Wisconsin .
Wisconsin , 1959.
The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison ,
Hindall, S.M., and Skinner, E.L. Water Resources of Wisconsin , Pecatonica - Sugar River
Basin . Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA- 453. U.S. Geological Survey . Washington,
D.C., 1973
Holmstrom , B.K., Kammerer, Jr., P.A., and Ellefson , B.R.
Water Resources Data ,
Wisconsin , Water Year 1992 , U.S. Geological Survey Water Data Report WI- 92-1 .
Iowa County Farmland Preservation Plan . 1980 .
Kanehl, P., and Lyons, J. Memorandum : Sampling of the Little Platte River,Grant County,
Mineral Point Branch , Iowa County, and Otter Creek, Lafayette County, by Fisheries
Management and Fish Research Personnel During 1987 and 1990. April 22, 1991.
Lafayette County Farmland Preservation Plan . 1980 .
Lawrence , Martin . Physical Geography of Wisconsin .
Madison , Wisconsin , 1982 .
The University of Wisconsin Press,
Mitsch , W.J., and Gosselink , J.G. Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinhold , New
York , 1986 .
York, New
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation , Division of Water, Bureau of
Water Quality Management. Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff From New
Development. 1992 .
Noss, R.F. A Regional Landscape Approach to Maintain Diversity.
700-706 . 1983.
Bioscience 33( 11) :
Southwestern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SWWRPC ). Overall Economic
Development Program for Southwestern Wisconsin . Planning Report No. 58. February
1985 .
X -1
Mineral Point, Wisconsin , Comprehensive Planning Program . Planning Report
No. 59. July 1985.
Overall Economic Development Program Update.
June 1993 .
Transportation Research Board .
Washington , D.C., 1985 .
Highway
Capacity
Planning Report No. 97 .
Manual (Special Report 209 ).
U.S. Department of Agriculture . Soil Conservation Service.
Wisconsin . 1962.
Soil Survey of Iowa County,
Soil Survey of Lafayette County, Wisconsin . 1960 .
First Capitol Watershed, Lafayette and Iowa Counties, Wisconsin , Watershed
Work Plan Addendum . 1974 .
U.S. Department of Commerce .
Housing. Washington , D.C.
1990 Census of Population and
Bureau of Census .
U.S. Department of Interior. Geological Survey.
Valley Zinc-Lead District. 1959 .
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
County. Madison, Wisconsin , 1967.
The Geology of the Upper Mississippi
Surface Water Resources of Lafayette
Surface Waters Resources of Iowa County. Madison, Wisconsin , 1968.
Wisconsin Wetland Inventory Maps, T5N R3E, T5N R2E, T4N R3E, T4N R2E,
T4N R1E , T3N RIE , 1987.
Wisconsin Department of Transportation . Access Management System
Highways. Madison, Wisconsin , 1989.
Plan for Wisconsin's
Corridors 2020. Madison, Wisconsin , 1989.
Highway Bypasses - Wisconsin
Madison , Wisconsin , 1988.
Standard Specifications
Wisconsin , 1989.
Wisconsin Statistical Service .
for
Communities
Road
and
Bridge
Share
Their
Experiences.
Construction .
Madison,
1993 Agricultural Statistics .
R / USH151/ SecX.ASF
X -2
SECTION XI
INDEX
Aesthetic Resources
III-32, IV -37, VI-5
II -3 , VIII- 5
Agency Coordination
Agriculture / Farm Operations .
Air Quality
Alternative - Preferred
Alternative Development Process .
Alternatives - Detailed Study
Alternatives - Preliminary
Archaeological Resources
Brewery Creek .
II- 18 , II-20, III-6 , IV - 5
IV - 30 , VI- 4
S - 3 , II- 30
II - 1 , II- 2
II-4 , II- 14
II -8 , II- 10
II-22, III- 26, IV -18 , IV -22, VI- 3
II-20 , III -23
Calamine-Platteville Trail ( see Pecatonica Trail)
Cemeteries ..
III- 7
III-24 , IV - 20
III - 5
II-24
Cheese Country Trail
Commercial / Industrial Land Use
Community Access
Community Interests
Community Services
I- 5
III- 12
Conservancy Areas (see Natural and Conservancy Areas)
Constraints ...
Construction Impacts
Corridors 2020
Costs
Crash Rates
Displacements (see Relocations )
Drinking Water Supply
Economics
II- 8
IV -41
1-1
II-25 , IV - 10
I- 13
III- 17 , IV - 14
IV - 9
III- 11
Employment
Endangered and Threatened Species
III -21, IV -15
IV - 14
Floodplains
Geometrics
Governmental Actions
1-8
S -6
Groundwater
Hazardous Materials
Historic Resources
III- 17 , IV - 14
II-24, III-30, IV - 29
II-22 , III- 27 , IV - 17, IV -25 , IV - 36
III- 11
III-6
Income/ Tax Base ..
Institutional Land Use
II- 9 , III -25
III - 1, III - 7 , IV - 1
I-2
1-10
Joy Lake
Land Use
Legislative History
Level of Service
Ludden Lake
Mineral Point Branch
II- 9
II - 9, II- 20 , III - 13 , IV - 11, IV - 14
XI- 1
Mining
Minority Population
Mitigation
Modal Relationships
II - 9 , II-23, III-28
III- 10
VI- 1 , VII-5
1-6
Natural and Conservancy Areas
Noise
III-22 , IV - 16
III -31, IV -32, VI-4
III-24, IV - 20
Parks ...
Pecatonica River
Pecatonica Trail
Permits
II- 20 , III- 13, IV - 11 , IV - 14
III-24, IV -19, VI- 3, VII -1
IV -42
III- 7
III - 9
Planning and Zoning
Population
Preliminary Alternatives (see Alternatives - Preliminary)
Project Description
Project Location .
S- 1
S- 1
S - 1, II- 1
Project Purpose
Public Involvement
Public Use Lands
II -4 , VIII - 1
III- 23, IV - 19
II-23
S -6
Recreation ....
Regulatory Compliance
Relocations
Residential Land Use .
II-22, IV - 8 , VI- 1
III - 4
1-13
Safety
Schools
II- 7 , II -8
IV - 4
Secondary Impacts
Section 106 Review
IV - 19 , IV - 22 , IV - 25
IV - 16 , IV - 19, VII- 1
Section 4 (f) /6 (f)
Socioeconomic
Soils
III- 9 ,> IV -6
III-29
Surface Water Resources
III- 13, IV - 10
1-1
System Linkage
Tax Base (see Income Tax Base )
Traffic ..
Transportation Demand
Upland Habitat
Visual/ Aesthetic Resources (see Aesthetic Resources)
Wetlands
1-10 , IV -3 , VI-2
I-4 , III-2 , IV - 3
II - 19 , III- 17 , IV - 14
II- 19 , III- 14 , IV - 12 , V - 1, VI-2
III- 18 , IV - 15 , VI-3
Wildlife
R /USH151/SecXI.ASF
XI- 2
S
BECXN
is er
Plott
%21 -
76
IS !
ERENCE
e1.3:, mp
0
REFERENCE
FILE
2:.no
name
reſ
FILE
ip.lblables
3:'nREFERENCE
name
rer
o
p\zPen
: lolll
Table
4:.no
FILE
REFERENCE
ref
17:35
1993
name
-Mon :01
DATE
13
Dec
ri
= rollprob.p
TPRF
FILE
5:oREFERENCE
name
rel
no
REFERENCE
6=nname
FILE
.o
/DCN
= usr/projeci/211020/1rollproj.exh ref
REFERENCE
FILE
7'no
name
:rer
21102
is
User 0
22,24
wels
<
18
Dodgeville
151
BA
RR
EL
RD .
D
-8570
( 9840 )
13010
DESIGN DATA
G
X
126
-880
( 1010 )
1340
-6500
( 7440 )
9820
Р
% 11 :
-5900
(6770 )
8960
K30
%01 -
BU
K100
TIDHV ) : 10 %
T ( DHV ) =
T
U.S.H. 151
lowa & Lafayette Counties
Belmont - Dodgeville
Belmo
TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
NO - BUILD ALTERNATIVE
EXHIBIT
SHEET
EZ
N
21102
is 0
User
l
Pen
Table
lol es
:\pzip.lb
llobl
DATE
-Mon :58
13
Dec
17:34
1993
ri
:. rollproj.p
tPRF
0ci
role.exh
sr
=ual
2/pDGN
Ir1102
sproj
REFERENC
TITLE
E
namen
rel
n2 o
E
oFILE
3:REFERENC
no
nome
rer
REFERENC
reſ
4:.FILE
no
E
name
REFERENCE
5:ino
FILE
name
rel
REFERENCE
FILE
6:.no
nome
.reſ
REFERENC
FILE
E
reſ
'n7: o
.name
EFERE
T.ILE
emp
K30
G
X
-600
(690 )
910
126
-880
( 1010 )
1340
151
-2320
12670 )
3530
-2920
13360 )
4440
D
201 -
NS
15
BECX
Ploller
a
-5900
(6770 )
8960
E
,evel
2-22
:
=
18
Dodgeville
23
N
151
BA
RR
EL
RD. .
Y
D
( 1140 )
1500
DESIGN DATA
BU
K100
% IT :
:
12 %
TIDHV ) :
10 %
T ( DHV ) :
9%
: 60-40
U.S.H. 151
Belmont - Dodgeville
Belma
Town & Lofayette Counties
TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
BUILD ALTERNATIVE
EXHIBIT
SHEET 2 O
/DGN
= usr/projeci/211020/1roliproj.exh
UTemp
.3I:"RIT
oyEFERENCE
FILE
REFERENCE
2:•no
name
rel
3:.rel
FILE
REFERENCE
name
no
4:.no
FILE
REFERENCE
nome
ref
REFERENCE
5:.no
.FILE
name
rel
.rel
6: no
FILE
.REFERENCE
namo
FILE
.7:oREFERENCE
name
rer
no
1140 )
( 321
37
U.S.H. 151
EXISTING
( 85 )
100
( 405 )
470
EXHIBIT
-
X
211020
is
User
03
1994
10:01:32
=Thu
DATE
Feb
PRF
I.-) rolipro
pri
1815 )
945
102111
Table
lol
\:pip.lbl
llobles
zPen
o
-2covels
OT
VJ
2,24
BECXNS
is
Ploller
18
Dodgeville
23
N
151
BA
RR
EL
RD .
Y
EXISTING
D
U.S.H. 151
(630 )
720
61
B
140
151
U.S.H. 151
Belmont - Dodgeville
Towa & Lafayette Counties
Belm
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
BUILD ALTERNATIVE
126
SHEET 3 Or
091
BECXNS
is
Plotter
is
211020
User
1993
09:33:57
20
Sep
on
:MDATE
= ypseci.pri
TPRF
163
are
Levels
/DGN
= usr/projec1/211020/1ypseci.exh
efaul
I.Ibl
dpTable
lolllobles
\=Pen
REFERENCE
ret
1:ono
FILE
names
FILE
.2:nREFERENCE
name
ref
o
FILE
REFERENCE
.3=ono
name
rof
oREFERENCE
4: no
FILE
name
roi
FILE
.5:.REFERENCE
name
rel
no
6:ono
FILE
.REFERENCE
name
rel
FILE
7:«no
.REFERENCE
name
ref
NEW
R /W
NEW
R /W
VARIES
VARIES
U.S.H. 151
Belmont - Dodgeville
lowo & Lafayette Counties
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION
EXHIBIT
2
_12
6
BEGIN PROJECT
23
STH
ch
Bran
/DGN
= usr/project/211020/sheet.exh
:100
1050
211020
is
User
1100
1993
11:44:37
10
Dec
-Fri
DATE
= heel.prf
sPRF
FEREN
LE
ref
FILE
REFERENCE
.2:no
name
ref
REFERENCE
3=n. o
FILE
ref
name
4=nname
FILE
REFERENCE
ref
.o
E
5REFERENC
FILE
.:.no
name
ref
E
6:REFERENC
.FILE
. no
name
ref
E
REFERENC
FILE
.7=no
name
ref
HG
ET
06
60
00
N
2006
1000 2000 3000 FT
EXHIBIT
Elk
g
LINE
MATCH
- INE
M
POI
NTRAL BR
OSOI
HISO
$ 41
1000m
ER)
RIV
100
BP
efault.lbl
\=pPen
dTable
lollables
040
L
-63
BECXNS
is
Plotter
-1050
TA
7100
RE
AI
TR
TU
FU
Evels
N
Su
Bra dan
nck
ATONICA RIVER TO
NE
L
LAFA
E
YETT
EG
AT
IC
ON
.
A
TEV
ILL
E A
U.S.H. 151
Belmont - Dodgeville
Towa & Lafayette Counties
PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES
3
SHEET 1 OF 2 11 T3
211020
is
User
DATE
1993
11:44:37
10
Dec
-Fri
= heel.prf
sPRF
PA
RK
RD
FEREM
E
LINE
MATCH
/DGN
= usr/project/211020/sheet.exh
efault.tbl
\t=pPen
dTable
ables
lot
tern
o RENCE
2nREFE
name
ref
FILE
o ENCE
3:nREFER
.FILE
name
ref
REFE
FILE
.4=.no RENCE
narre
ref
5FILE
REFE
no RENCE
name
ret
6REFE
FILE
ref
o RENCE
nname
7:ref
FILE
REFER
name
.no ENCE
Wod
a ry
10
Oak P9ark Şe1h 1
2ZŁ
22
(
PL
N
AETH
T5
TA N
N
260W
AL
T4
8
:
o
SMO
SAMO
is
BECXNS
Plotter
1000m
บ นาย พล มาม ผมชนน1
6-evel
s3
N
END PROJECT
u
yuin mu
a
1000 2000 3000 FT
EX RB
US
H
t
Mintra
TION
Ci CTH
1100
active
Cro
1219
C
H
Plum Grovo S,eh
Quer
y
PAR R
O
K D
TIorNte AK
e95
1193
Ige
U.S.H. 151
Iowa & Lafayette Counties
Belmont - Dodgeville
NGE
PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES
EXHIBIT
3
SHEET 2 OF 2 < 00 S
211020
is
User
ST
H
126
ue
-TMar
DATE
1994
15:18:12
22
PRF
s= heet.prf
heet.exh
sp/2DGN
11020
roject
=usr
lot
ables
d\tpPen
= efault.tbl
Table
JE
I ef
L
FERENC
nie
REFERENCE
FILE
2:no
name
ref
REFERENCE
3ref
FILE
=no
name
name
no
4.REFERENCE
FILE
ref
REFERENCE
FILE
5=oref
. no
name
REFERENCE
6=n. o
FILE
ref
name
o
7=rel
FILE
nREFERENCE
name
BEGU
po
ATONICA RIVERCO
STUDY SEGMENTE
050
TREATME
REALITY
U.S.H.
EXHIBIT
Elk
BR
e
C
StIelTe Paarpkitol
LAF
LINECH
MAT
POINTS
LAPJO
AYWEA
T
ATOYE
W TTE TO
M
85
L
T4
T3 N
N
RA
1000
E
IN
1000 2000 3000 FT
900
BECXNS
is
Plotter
L
AI
E
UR
TR
RT
PE
-63
evels
N
Bra
nch
!OQOm
PM 115
PE
TO
CA
NI
CA
USH
C15
1
& 1050
900
PROJECT
Beli
PLATTEVILLE AVE
151
Belmont - Dodgeville
Towa & Lafayette Counties
DETAILED STUDY INITIAL
STAGE ALTERNATIVES
4
SHEET 1 OF 2 11 TEE
--
is
211020
User
ES
OA
K
PAR
RD K
1994
15:18:12
22
Mar
=Tue
DATE
=sheet.prí
PRF
N
E H
LINTC
MA
usr/project/211020/sheet.exh
/=DGN
efault.tbl
dtp\=Table
ables
lot
Pen
1601
JERENC
....
na
1ef
FILE
.2=no
name
ref
REFERENCE
ref
.o
3=nname
FILE
REFERENCE
. no
name
REFERENCE
4=.ref
FILE
ref
5=.name
no
REFERENCE
FILE
.o
ref
6=nname
FILE
REFERENCE
name
n. o
FILE
7=ref
REFERENCE
P
I DAK ABK
06N2
G
BECXNS
is
Plofter
BD
16
63
culels
US
HA
N
END PROJEOT
1000m
1000 2000 3000 FT
COWEL VEY ROZ
28
ST
carry
USH 151
HANGE
DE
ECTION
PA
HY
1100
-?1050
With
1219
AO
CT D725
H
6
Plum Grove, Sch
Querr
STUDY SEGMENTA 2
895
1193
27
883
1000
Oak Park Seh
U.S.H. 151
Belmont - Dodgeville
Towa & Lafayette Counties
DETAILED STUDY INITIAL
STAGE ALTERNATIVES
EXHIBIT
4
SHEET 2 OF 2
V
IN
N
R
O
A
D
Robinson
Ela
Paul
Borcherding
E
Ruth Robinson
TIV
NA
Rst
en
Eri
nLTCh
Ro
A
ZA
BEGIN PROJECT
MATCH EXISTING U.SH. 151
Bogaert
Harvey Schult
C.
T.
H. X
William
Bockhou
LEGEND
WETLANDS
CEMETERY
U.S.H. 151
Belmont - Dodgeville
MINE
lowa & Lafayette Counties
H
HISTORIC PROPERTY
BELMONT BYPASS
INTERCHANGE
EXHIBIT
5
992
SHEET 1 OF 2
11
NE
LI
H
TC
MA
SUR
VEY
E.
ROA
D
VA
RI
AT
IO
N
3
B
1- 4
LEGEND
WETLANDS
+
CEMETERY
M
MINE
Oates
BAR
REL TOWN
E
H
HISTORIC PROPERTY
Cody
INTERCHANGE
E
er
G
.DON
OD
G
p
es thor
Chan Gold
Na to
WEI
DEN
FEL
DER
E3 .
AL
TE
END PROJECT
MATCR EXISTING J.S.H. 151
laver
TH
2. 3
RN
AT
IV
E
RD
Schaai
U.S.H. 151
S
HS
Goys Day
n
H
NE
yek
Sken ide
Ways
LI
TC
MA
rt y
Robe Lawa
O
PA N. ROAAK
RK
D
nt
Vinceaat
Sch
ue
Linda
t
EKmatahslene&gner
Sixti
uer
Linda
.
PRDARK
t
Ms. Ernegesr
Spri
Paz
t
es
Emes W.Stall
U.S.H. 151
Robes
Belmont - Dodgeville
500 FT
Towa & Lafayette Counties
Floydsa
BEGIN MINERAL POINT BYPASS
STUDY SEGMENT 3
MINERAL POINT BYPASS ALTERNATIVES
EXHIBIT
5
1992
SHEET 2 OF 2
LEGEND
k
WETLANDS
CEMETERY
+
R7
NOISE RECEPTOR
M
MINE
GRADE
AT -GRADE
SEPARATION
INTERSECTION
RIGHT-OF -WAY ,
TRAVEL LANES
" RIGHT -OF -WAY
FREEWAY
.:.FILE
name
rei
2 no
REFERENCE
.FILE
name
rer
3= no
REFERENCE
.FILE
name
ref
4: no
REFERENCE
..REFERENCE
name
ref
5: no
FILE
.ref
name
o
6=nREFERENCE
FILE
.ref
nFILE
name
7: o
REFERENCE
EXPRESSWAY
=
***
OBLITERATE EXISTING
ROAD
ARCHEOLOGICAL
SITE
HISTORIC
SITE
Ø
ARCH . SITE
00-000-0
я
V - 1
eegend
./=xh
1102011
2puDGN
roject
sr
efault.tbl
dTable
\:pPen
loilobles
H. M. SITE
00
MINING
VIEWSCAPE
U.S.H. 151
Belmont
Dodgeville
1993
07:44:52
04
Oct
MDATE
= on
= egend.pri
lPRF
211020
s
i?Use
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
LEGEND
EXHIBIT
9
deixNS
is
Pionier
Towa & Lafayette Counties
U.
15
S.
1
H
TO
AD
Ruth
Robinson
Ella Kame)
2
T
EE
SH
H
TC
MA
Paul
therding
260
Ruth Robinson
Christen
BEGIN PROJECT
MATCH EXISTING U.SH.151 A.MON
Harvey
Schult
Bogaen
Harvey Schult
Vidred Olso
William
Bockhop
C.
T.
S
H. X
lilliam
tkhop
N
U.S.H. 151
Belmont - Dodgeville
Towa & Lafayette Counties
0
500
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
1000 1500
1500m
EXHIBIT
6
1992
SHEET 1 OF
Vincent Palzkill
Jochen Kitzman
c / o 5 Seasons Realty
Thomas J. Paizkil
MATC
H
SHEE
T
3
ED. McNett
Family Trust
V.3
Max 3 Fink
460
R10
T1
EE
SH
H
TC
MA
Cha
Leonard Steinhoff
O
WH
U.S.H. 151
Belmont - Dodgeville
Towa & Lafayette Counties
0
500
1000 1500
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
500m
SODE COLOR DODOS
EXHIBIT
6
1992
SHEET 2 OHE
---
Claver
PEC
ATO
MATC
SHEE H
T
2
NIC
A
RIV
Cora Clayton
ARCH , SITE
91-076-29
480
arles F Opitz
Pau Firkemeyer
(R12
Robert Lawinger
Wayside
640
ARCH . SITE
Lt-0155
Vincent
Schaat
66
0
T
EE
Rober
4
SH
MA
TC
H
Selleck
Emest W. Steftes
(R14 )
Robert Carey
U.S.H. 151
Belmont - Dodgeville
Tow
0
& Lafayette Counties
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
500
o
EXHIBIT
6
1 , 1992
SHEET 3 OF
R
O
S
T
O
W
Miller
Seliz
0
500
1000 1500
Schaaf
Wat:
Lau
500m
Knutson
H. M. SITE
27
Peters
MIN
ERA
Sommer
L
Sommer
H. M
SITE
28
R
E
80
M
Horneo
100 (R22 )
Ridge
ana
uds
R24
T
EE
3
SH
Carey
Wayne W.Carey
H , M. SITES
32
Marian Moreland
V -9
Ed Cody
H. M. SITE
14
H. M. SITE
19
City
[R15 )
700
Future
Industrial Park
une al Point
Floger
naison
Donald decedweiler
Jean Turek
Mark J. Stefies
U.S.H. 151
Johnsoe
Geveta igier
W
Pediey
Joseph
Coverige. I
Lawlinger
U.S.H. 151
Belmont - Dodgeville
E
John Carey
TR
Towa & Lafayette Counties
AI
0
T.
H
.
L
C.
MA
TC
H
ARCH . SITE
91-076-18
5MATCH
SHEET
Tape
H. M. SITE
31
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Ahlgrim
Explosives
992
EXHIBIT
6
SHEET 4 OF
--
ECT
USS
H
T
S
.. 23
Geraldine Anderson
Bauer
U.S
.H
A5
1
Meudi
500
1000 1500
D. & G
Ley
H. M. SITE
30
500m
4
SHEET
MATCH
0
XV & AM
Morelated
jan
Jauer
ipsen
Philo
.
TH
CA
john & David
Lawener
U.S.H. 151
Belmont - Dodgeville
Iowa & Lafayette Counties
C.T.H. SS
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
EXHIBIT
6
SHEET 5 OF EBBHS
rnat
Alte
d ape
Buil
give
win
Sho
Viewsc
STREET
HIGH
QQ
H.
C.T.
U.S.H. 151
Belmont - Dodgeville
lowa & Lafayette Counties
Viewscape From
Spensley Farm Historic District
Exhibit 7
LE
FEREI
JECXNSE
Toile
p1511.181
\ lorables
Pen
Table
1994
11:40:39
15
DATE
=TFeb
ue
4PRF
= 1.prí
/= usr/project/211020/41.exh
DGN
211020
is
User
.2pur
JpREFERENCE
.FILE
ropline
3: ag
rel
name
4:.no
FILE
REFERENCE
.FILE
name
ref
REFERENCE
5:.no
name
rel
6:no
REFERENCE
FILE
name
?ref
7:.no
FILE
REFERENCE
R
TE
LI
NE
N
L
ER
T
EN
C
5 +00
SEB P
IN
E
AV
ME
NT
ME
NB P
E
AV
NT
1504
00
o
100
PECATONICA TRAIL
EXHIBIT
200 FT
MASBRO
IGOm
25 + 00
CENTERLINE OF TRAIL
U.S.H. 151
Belmont - Dodgeville
lowo & Lofayette Counties
CROSSING
OVERPASS OPTION - PLAN
8
Sheet 1 of 2
00+0
|
211020
is
User
1394
09:54:33
06
Apr
=Wed
DATE
PRF
4: 1.pri
.
1025.7
.
1026
1026.4
1026.1
1026.6
1064.9
1058.6
1088.3
m17.3dg
1ERENLE
.1:TUI
FILI
.3REFERCHCE
onlour
2:c0g
FILE
ropli
3:pdg
FILE
.3REFERENCE
ne
1:rel
FILE
REFERENCE
no
namce
5=no
FILE
:REFERENCE
name
rel
6=no
FILE
.REFERENCE
narne
rel
7:no
FILE
.REFERENCE
name
rer
21+40.00
026
+0
025
+0
02+ 0
usr/project/211020/41.exh
/=OGN
erouli
bl
.I\=l'en
dpTable
lolllobles
CZOI
00 *60012
0201
1060
ELY:10
'MUS
ETC
Toveis
BECANS
is
liloller
1120
1120
1100
1080
1000
1040
STM : 22 + 10.00
ELY: 1028.88
-0.18 2
1010
Stine 24180.00
ELV: 1028.40
U.S.H. 151
Belmont - Dodgeville
Towo & Lofayette Counties
PECATONICA
Sheet
TRAIL CROSSING
OVERPASS OPTION - PROFILE
EXHIBIT 8
2 of 2
2011
0901
LEGEND
#
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
MOBILE HOME
D
AGRICULTURAL
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
B
PUBLIC / SEMI- PUBLIC
D
RECREATION
PARKING
2
CONSERVANCY/OPEN SPACE
M
VACANT BUILDING
E
VACANTLAND
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
MANIPARID BY SOUTHWESTIN WISCONSIN RIGIONAL
PLANNING COMMISSION
leniui
LAN
SHOWN IS PART OF MINERAL POINT
:
1
SIVE PLAN . THIS PLAN IS BEING UPDATED
ISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN WILL BE
FINAL EIS .
umu
U.S.H. 151
Belmont - Dodgeville
Tow
& Lofayette Counties
MINERAL POINT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
EXHIBIT
9
APPENDIX
A
DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST
APPENDIX A
DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST
FEDERAL AGENCIES
U.S. Department of Transportation , Office of the Secretary
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service
U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Environmental Projects Review
U.S. Department of Agriculture , Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
U.S. Department of Commerce
Center for Environmental Health and Injury Control
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
STATE AGENCIES
Wisconsin Department of Transportation (various Divisions and Bureaus)
Department of Administration
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Agriculture , Trade and Consumer Protection
Wisconsin Department of Development
Wisconsin Department of Justice , Office of the Public Intervenor
State Historical Society of Wisconsin
Wisconsin Legislative Reference Library
Wisconsin State Reference and Loan Library
Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau
FEDERAL AND STATE ELECTED OFFICIALS
Honorable
Honorable
Honorable
Honorable
Herbert Kohl (U.S. Senator)
Russ Feingold (U.S. Senator )
Scott Klug (U.S. Representative )
David Brandemuehl (State Senator )
Honorable Stephen J. Freese (State Representative )
Honorable David Brandemuehl (State Representative )
Governor Tommy Thompson
A -1
LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT/AGENCIES
Southwestern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
Iowa County Board
Lafayette County Board
Iowa County Highway Department
Lafayette County Highway Department
City of Mineral Point
Village of Belmont
Town of Belmont
Town of Mineral Point
Town of Kendall
Town of Linden
Mineral Point Historical Society
R /USH151/AppendA.ASF
A -2
APPENDIX
B
CORRESPONDENCE - PRE -DRAFT
fiu
4.3.1
*** AUTHOR'S COPY ***
May 5 , 1992
< Agency >
< Address >
< Street >
< Box >
< City > , < State > < Zip >
Attn :
Re:
< Person >
< Title >
Agency Scoping Process
Project I.D. 1200-04-00
Platteville - Dodgeville Road
(Belmont - Dodgeville )
USH 151
Iowa and Lafayette Counties
SEC Donohue Project No. 19509
< Dear >
The Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WDOT), in cooperation with the Federal
Highway Administration , has authorized engineering studies of alternatives and
corresponding environmental impacts for roadway improvements to the USH 151 corridor
from the Village ofBelmont to the City of Dodgeville. SEC Donohue has been retained by
WDOT as consultants to perform engineering studies and to prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS ) for this project.
This segment of USH 151 is part of WDOT's Corridors 2020 Backbone System . As such , it
is envisioned as a 4 -lane limited access facility, some of which may be on new alignment. A
map of the study area is attached.
An important step in the planning process is early communication and coordination with
agencies having an interest in the project. We wish to ensure that issues of concern are
identified early and studied properly . We also need to identify any required permits or
other environmental requirements so that analyses can be incorporated into the
environmental document.
B- 1
*** AUTHOR'S COPY ***
Issues identified to date include potential impacts on wetlands, historic and archaeological
properties, residential relocations, farmland, and farm
operations.
In addition , several
abandoned mines have been identified which could be traversed by alternate alignments.
The planning phase of this project is expected to last about 3 years, followed by design and
real estate activities. Construction could begin 8 to 10 years from now . During the course
of the planning phase, we will conduct several public meetings, the first of which is
anticipated for the fall of 1992 , to disseminate information and solicit input from affected
parties.
In addition to public meetings, we anticipate a coordination meeting with
interested agencies to be held in August 1992, as well as individual meetings, as
appropriate.
If your agency has an interest in the project, we ask that you write us by May 26 , 1992, to
provide the names of appropriate contact individuals and to begin discussions. If your
agency does not have interest in the project, we would appreciate your writing to confirm
that fact.
For your convenience , we have set up a toll-free number (1-800-422-1266 ) to contact me or
Tony Fernandez, Project Engineer. The contact person at WDOT is Jon Obenberger,
Design Project Engineer, WDOT - District 1 , 2101 Wright Street, Madison,
Wisconsin 53704 (608-246-7915 ).
Thank you for your assistance and cooperation on this important project.
Very truly yours,
SEC DONOHUE INC .
James F. Oeth , P.E.
Project Manager
Enc: AsNoted
ASF /dce
T/ L / XE8
B -2
*** AUTHOR'S COPY ***
<Agency > Southwestern Wisconsin Regional
< Address > Planning Commission
<Street >426 Karman Library
< Box > UW Platteville
< City > Platteville
< State >WI
< Zip > 53818
< Person >Mr . Donald Rosenbrook
< Title > Executive Director
< Dear > Dear Mr. Rosenbrook :
<Agency > State Historical Society ,
< Address > Historical Preservation Division
< Street >816 State Street , Room 307
< Box
< City >Madison
< State >WI
< Zip > 53706
< Person >Mr . Richard Dexter
< Title >
< Dear > Dear Mr. Dexter :
<Agency > State of Wisconsin
<Address > Department of Administration
< Street > 101 South Webster Street
< Box >
< City >Madison
< State >WI
<Zip > 53702
<Person > Mr . James R. Klauser
< Title >
< Dear > Dear Mr. Klauser :
<Agency > State of Wisconsin
Department of Industry , Labor &
< Address > Human Relations
< Street > 201 East Washington Avenue
< Box >GEF 1 Room 103
< City >Madison
< State >WI
< Zip > 53707
< Person >Mr. Richard Meyer
< Title >
< Dear > Dear Mr. Meyer :
B- 3
**** AUTHOR'S COPY ***
< Agency > U.S . Corps of Engineers
< Address>Room 219 , Post Office B1
< Street >
< Box > P.0 . Box 1445
< City > La Crosse
< State >WI
< Zip > 54601
< Person >Mr . Bruce Norton
< Title >
<Dear >Dear Mr. Norton :
<Agency >U.S . Department of Agriculture
< Address > 120 South Main Street
< Street >
< Box >
< City > Richland Center
< State >WI
< Zip > 53518-2229
< Person >Mr . William Schaller
< Title > Area Conservationist
<Dear > Dear Mr. Schaller :
< Agency> U.S . Department of Interior ,
< Address > National Park Service
< Street > 1709 Jackson Street
< Box >
< City >Omaha
< State > NE
< Zip > 68102
<Person >Regional Director
< Title >
< Dear >
U
<Agency > U.S . Department of Interior ,
< Address > Bureau Land Management
< Street >
< Box > P.0 . Box 631
<City >Milwaukee
< State >WI
< Zip > 53201-0631
< Person >Mr . Leon R. Kabot
< Title >
< Dear > Dear Mr. Kabot :
B -4
*** AUTHOR'S COPY ***
< Agency >U.S. Department of Interior ,
Fish & Wildlife Service
< Address >Green Bay Field Office
< Street > 1825 South Webster Avenue , Bldg . 2
< Box >
< City >Green Bay
< State >WI
<Zip > 54301 -7001
< Person > Mr . Ron Spry
< Title >
< Dear > Dear Mr. Spry :
<Agency >U.S . Department of Housing &
<Address > Urban Development
r
<Street
> 300 South Wacker Drive
< Box >
77 West Jackson St.
< City >Chicago
< State > IL
<Zip >606064
<Person>Regional Administrator , Ms. Gertrude W.Jordan
< Title>
< Dear >
<Agency >U.S . Forest Service
< Address > 310 West Wisconsin Avenue , Room 500
< Street >
< Box >
< City >Milwaukee
< State >WI
<Zip > 53203
< Person >Mr . Floyd Marita
< Title >Regional Forester
< Dear >Dear Mr. Marita :
<Agency >Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
< Address > Southern District
< Street > 3911 Fish Hatchery Road
< Box
< City >Madison
< State > WI
< Zip > 53711
< Person >Mr . Hal J. Meier
< Title>
< Dear > Dear Mr. Meier :
B -5
ti correctel
545-92
*** AUTHOR'S COPY ****
<Agency >Wisconsin Department of Agriculture ,
<Address > Trade & Consumer Protection
< Street > 801 West Badger Road
< Box > P.0 . Box 8911
<City >Madison
< State >WI
< Zip > 53708
< Person >Ms . Nina M. Berkani
< Title >
<Dear > Dear Ms. Berkani :
T /List / JUI
B -6
United States
Department of
Agriculture
120 South Mc i Street
Richland Center , WI 53581-2237
May 11 , 1992
Soil
Conservation
Service
ASE
Mr. James F. Oeth , P.E.
Project Manager
SEC Donohue
6325 Odana Road
Madison , Wisconsin
HAY ii. in ..
anni:!: . & Lionsclaio . :::: .
Dear Mr. Oeth :
Thank you for considering our office in the agency scoping
process for Project I.D. 1200-04-00 , Platteville to Dodgeville
USH 151 improvement project .
The location map indicates that
this project will impact on prime farmland soils and wetland
areas .
According to the Farmland Protection Policy Act passed December
22 , 1981, federal agencies spending federal monies will need to
complete form AD 1006 , Farmland Conversion Impact Ratings , when
farmland is converted to nonfarm uses .
The Soil Conservation Service would be happy to complete this
form once the route for the construction is finalized .
We would
also be happy to provide hydric soil determinations
wetland areas impacted by the route .
for the
We have an interest in this project and would like to be retained
on your mailing list .
If you have any questions , please contact
me at (608 ) 647-6197 .
Sincerely ,
Willieatlete
William F. Schaller
Area Conservationist
O
Project I.D. 320C-01-00
Belmont · Dodgeville Road
USH 151
lowa and Lafayette Courties
SEC Donohue froicci No. 9
The Soil Conservation Service
is an agency of the
Department of Agriculture
B -7
File
4.3 . 1
SECDONOHUE
Environment & Infrastructure
15
May 8 , 1992
7
U.S.Department of Housing &
Urban Development
300 South Wacker Drive 77 West Jackson
Chicago , IL 60604 4
Gertrude we.
Ms.
Attn :
Regional Administrator
Re :
Note :
Retd with wrong address
mark . Remailed with
corrected address .
St.
Jordan ,
Agency Scoping Process
Project I.D. 1200-04-00
Platteville - Dodgeville Road
(Belmont - Dodgeville )
USH 151
Iowa and Lafayette Counties
SEC Donohue Project No. 19509
The Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WDOT), in cooperation with the Federal
Highway Administration, has authorized engineering studies of alternatives and
corresponding environmental impacts for roadway improvements to the USH
from
151 corridor
the Village of Belmont to the City of Dodgeville. SEC Donohue has been retained by
WDOT as consultants to perform engineering studies and to prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS ) for this project.
This segment ofUSH 151 is part of WDOT's Corridors 2020 Backbone System . As such, it
is envisioned as a 4 -lane limited access facility, some of which may be on new alignment. A
map of the study area is attached.
An important step in the planning process is early communication and coordination with
agencies having an interest in the project. We wish to ensure that issues of concern are
identified early and studied properly. We also need to identify any required permits or
other environmental requirements so that analyses can be incorporated into the
environmental document.
6325 Odana Road
Madison , Wisconsin 53719 · (608 ) 271-1004 · Fax: (608 ) 271-5814
B -8
SEC
DO
NO
Environment
& Infrastructure
HUE
Issues identified to date include potential impacts on wetlands, historic and archaeological
properties, residential relocations, farmland, and farm operations. In addition , several
abandoned mines have been identified which could be traversed by alternate alignments.
The planning phase of this project is expected to last about 3 years, followed by design and
real estate activities. Construction could begin 8 to 10 years from now . During the course
of the planning phase , we will conduct several public meetings, the first of which is
anticipated for the fall of 1992 , to disseminate information and solicit input from
affected
parties. In addition to public meetings; we anticipate a coordination meeting with
interested agencies to be held in August 1992 , as well as individual meetings, as
appropriate.
If your agency has an interest in the project,we ask that you write us by May 26 , 1992, to
provide the names of appropriate contact individuals and to begin discussions. If your
agency does not have interest in the project, we would appreciate your writing to confirm
that fact.
For your convenience, we have set up a toll-free number (1-800-422-1266 ) to contact me or
Tony Fernandez , Project Engineer. The contact person at WDOT is Jon Obenberger,
Design Project Engineer, WDOT · District 1 , 2101 Wright Street, Madison ,
Wisconsin 53704 (608-246-7915 ).
Thank you for your assistance and cooperation on this important project.
Very truly yours,
SEC DONOHUE INC.
el, d
JanF.H
James
Oeth
P.E.
Project Manager
Enc : As Noted
ASF / dce
T / L /XES
B-9
Fil
INTER
OF TH
E
IOR
United
States Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
4.3.1
TAKE
PRIDE IN
AMERICA
Green Bay Field Office
1015 Challenger Court
Green Bay, Wisconsin 54311
Moreto
Recai
In Reply Refei to :
MAY 21
May 21,
sociates , !...
Mbestans F Asteth , P.E.
Project Manager
SEC Donohue
6325 Odana Road
Madison , Wisconsin 53719
1992 MAY
Doo!!!
re :
ad
Project I.D. 1200-04-00
Belmont · Dodgeville Road
USH 151
lowa and Lafayette Counties
& Associens, SC Donohue Project No. 19599
Agency Scoping Process
Project I.D. 1200-04-00
Platteville - Dodgeville Road
USH - 151
Iowa and Lafayette Counties
SEC Donohue Project No. 19509
Dear Mr. Oeth :
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service ) has received your letter dated
May 5 , 1992 , requesting comments on the subject project . Due to staff time
constraints and other priority work activities , we are unable to provide
comments on this project at this time .
Please forward us copies of any future review documents that may be associated
with this project or of future projects you may be planning that would require
Service review .
Questions pertaining to these comments should be directed to Ronald Spry who
can be reached by calling 414-433-3803 .
Sincerely ,
James D. Fossum
James D. Fossum
Acting Field Supervisor
B - 10
Fid 4.2.:
RIOR
INTE H E
T
OF
United
States Department of the Interior
TANE
PRIDE IN
AMERICA
sn
9
4
H 18
MARC
ed
eceiv
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Milwaukee District Office
P.O. Box 631
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201-0631
IN REPLY REFER TO
030 : TS
1790
R
ed
eiv
MAY
Rec
2
Donoiiue & Associajes, 1770 .
MAY ;
tes
Dono vue & Associa
James F. Oeth , P.E.
SEC Donohue Inc.
6325 Odana Road
Madison , Wisconsin 53719
, (26 .
Project I.D. 1209-34-00
Belmont · Dodgeville Road
USH 151
lowa and Lafayette Counties
SEC Donchue Project No. 19509
Dear Mr. Oeth :
This acknowledges receipt of your letter of May 5 , 1992 requesting review and
comment on the proposed roadway improvements to the USH 151 corridor from the
Village of Belmont to the City of Dodgeville . We have reviewed the map of the
study area and find that the project will not impact or be impacted by actions
approved by the Bureau of Land Management .
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project .
If you have any
questions, please feel free to contact Terry Saarela at 414-297-4437.
Sincerely ,
Een
kabel
Leon R. Kabat
Assistant District Manager
Lands and Renewable Resources
B - 11
F : 2
N
ME
RI NT OF
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
ST. PAUL DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
180 E.KELLOGG BLVD.,ROOM 1421
ST. PAUL,MINNESOTA 55101-1479
May 27 , 1992
UNI
TIOSI
4.3.1
AMIMI
SOI M
ATI
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
Construction -Operations
Regulatory ( 92-04704 - SF -MAM )
SEC Donohue Inc. ,
Mr.James F. Oeth , P.E.
6325 Odana Road
Madison , Wisconsin 53719
Dear Mr.Oeth :
This letter concerns the proposed improvements to USH
Village of Belmont to the City of Dodgeville, Wisconsin .
151 from the
A Department of the Army permit is required for the placement of dredged
or fill material in waters of the U.S. and adjacent wetlands .
In addition , a
permit is required for any work in or over a navigable water of the U.S. , such
as the Pecatonia River .
It appears from the information provided that
numerous stream , river and wetland areas may be impacted as a result of the
proposal,
and that a Corps permit would be required .
this project , we must determine whether it
Section 404 (b ) ( 1 ) of the Clean Water Act
that when a project is not "water dependent " ,
in or near water or wetlands to serve its
basic purpose , it is presumed that there are alternative upland sites
available and the use of the upland sites would be less environmentally
damaging than would be the proposed alteration of the aquatic resource .
As part of our analysis of
complies with the guidelines of
( CWA ) . These guidelines require
that is , it does not need to be
A highway does not require access to , or proximity to , or siting within a
water or wetland to fulfill its purpose .
Therefore , it is incumbent upon you
to clearly rebut the presumption that upland sites are available and would be
less environmentally damaging than the proposal. You would be asked to provide
us specific information , such as a site cost - comparison or real estate market
analysis, as to why the project could not be located on existing , upland site
in the area .
Each proposal is judged on its own merits . Permits are issued only when
projects would provide public or private benefits that equal or outweigh their
detriments and comply with the guidelines of the CWA . Our responsibilities
require us to deny all other applications in order to protect the public
interest in maintaining the integrity of the waters of the United States.
B - 12
For a permit to be issued, the proposal must incorporate all practicable
measure to mitigate unavoidable adverse impacts on the aquatic environment .
Mitigation is a three - step process . First , you must conclusively demonstrate
that adverse impacts cannot be wholly avoided as discussed above . Second ,
adverse impacts must be minimized as much as possible through project design ,
construction techniques, or other measures .
Third , unavoidable impacts must
be compensated for by recreating the wetland functions and values at another
location , preferably in the proximity of the project site . Generally , creation
or restoration of wetlands at a ratio of 1 : 5 to 1 is preferred . Also ,
enhancement of existing wetlands is possible and should be done at a minimum
ratio of 3 : 1 wetlands enhanced to wetlands filled .
The acreage and type of
enhancement is dependent on the acreage , functions and values of the wetland
that is proposed to be filled .
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on this project early in
the planning process. Please contact Mary Marx or Bruce Norton at our La
Crosse field office , P.O. Box 1445 , La Crosse, Wisconsin 54602-1445 (608 ) 784
8236 for further information .
Sincerely ,
fo
8/ ‫ر‬
:
Sante
۱ ‫مز‬
‫ارز در‬.
‫کے مز‬
Farna
‫روم‬
Marx
Mary
Ben Wopat
Chief , Regulatory Branch
Construction -Operations Division
‫می‬
5. 3.1
B - 13
- ‫مردم مره ب م‬
17.1294 55)
RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
By:
DATE :
ASF
Project 1.D. 1200-04-00
Belmont - Dodgeville Road
USH 151
Iowa and Lafayette Counties
SEC Donohue Project No. 19509
3:50
TIME :
May 29, 1992
CALL TO :
CALL FROM :
INDIVIDUAL: Mr. Patrick
Meier
ROUTE TO
Oeth
TITLE :
Policy
ADDRESS :
and Budget
wiśc . Dept. of
PHONE NO .:
Analyst
Fernandez
god
File - last
4.3.1
Administratore
101s . weoster
266.2309
Madison
st
SUBJECT :
Response
to
scoping
Letter
MESSAGE / CONVERSATION :
Department of
involved
do
not
this
off
specific
in
have
any
project ,
the
Administration
mailing
probably will
not
we
I
list
get ,
jurisdiction
or
suggest
this
get
projects . They
highway
involvement
and
does not
take
asked
info
in
are
them
for ,
but
writing )
ACTION TO BE TAKEN :
Remove
ACTIOIOI.
T /Misc /0 \oz !
frous
ACTION COMPLETED ON :
T /Misc /GOO
B - 14
I \HT2C107
Public
Involvement
list
RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
HOE
By:
X
4:00
TIME :
5-29.92
DATE :
Project 1.0 . 1200-04-00
Belmont Dodgeville Road
USH 151
lowa and Latayette Counties
SEC Donohue Project No. 19509
CALL FROM :
CALL TO:
ROUTE TO
INDIVIDUAL : Mr. Richard Meyer
Oeth
TITLE :
Fernandez 1ght
Safety
Building
WISC
DILHR
ADDRESS :
division
266-3080
PHONE NO .:
File- last
Response
SUBJECT:
to
+
project , and
this
in
write
a
TO BE TAKEN :
interest
He
project ,
confirming
to
no
does not
rule
letter
get
is
this .
If
this
the
involved
to
we want
to
hiva
conversation
mi miu
Gordon
in
too busy
cuciting ,we should write
For fuesti
ACTION
as a
of
firming
me
has
type
something in
com
letter
scoping
DILHR
MESSAGE /CONVERSATION :
4.3.1
closure ,
Helmeid
266.1818
coordinations
from
Renone
ACTION COMPLETED ON :
T /Misc /GOO
B - 15
he referred
Agency
list .
RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
By:
DATE :
6.1.92
Project 1.0 . 1200-04-00
Belmont Dodgeville Road
USH 151
Towa and Lafayette Counties
SEC Donohue Project No. 19509
ASE
3-50
TIME :
CALL TO :
CALL FROM :
ROUTE TO
INDIVIDUAL :
Monk
Mitts
Oeth
TITLE :
Maintenance
of
Div .
Fernandez Lora
ADDRESS : U.S. Naxl park
PHONE NO .:
Service
( 402 ) 221-3431
4.3.7
File -last
SUBJECT:
Response
MESSAGE /CONVERSATION :
to
seeping
Regional
Lettu
Director
call
secastusy
His
(they
Mark
but
we
do
not
he will
ACTION
need
send
to
us
keep
a
parks
no
have
with
to be
enough
close
is not
highway work .
capacity
advisory
some
it
all
they
said
Mitts
Have
for
Maint.
Div . of
to
my
referred
coordinate
Castle ferry
Don
in
them
letter
to
TO BE TAKEN :
Remove
from
ACTION COMPLETED ON :
T /Misc /GOO
B - 16
list
area
in
Ice
Age
affected
informed , and
that
effect
.
Trail,
Fio T 4.3.1
TAKE
PRIDE IN
AMERICA
United States Department of the Interior
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
MIDWEST REGION
1709 JACKSON STREET
OMAHA, NEBRASKA 68102-2571
IN REPLY ROLI TO :
JUN 1 5 1992
47619 (MWR -PQ )
R ! 468
JUN :1:7 1992
Mr. James F. Oeth
Project Manager
SEC Donohue
6325 Odana Road
Madison , Wisconsin
Dear Mr. C
53719
th :
This is in response to your request to provide early coordination review oi
proposed improvements to the USH 151 roadway corridor from the village of Belmont
to the city of Dodgeviile , Wisconsin .
Based on the information in your letter of May 5 and atiachments, and our general
knowledge of the area , it does not appear that implementation of the proposed
project will adversely affect any unit of the National Park System .
We advise that the proposed project could have an impact on the iollowing Land
and Water conservation Fund (LWCF ) projects :
Project No. County
Type
Project Name
55-00073
55-00998
55-01105
Development
Acquisition
Development
Belmont Village Park
Calamine - Platteville si Pk Tr Acą .
Calamine -Platteville St Pk Trail
Lafayette
Lafayette
Lafayette ,
Grant
Project 55-00073 , Belmont Village Park , is approximately one acra in size and
consists of picnic areas , sports and piayfields , and support facilities .
This
park serves as a neighborhood playground and is heavily used by tourists as а
rest area because it is on Highway 15i .
Project 55-00992 , Calamine -Platteville St Pk Trail ACG . , consists of sports and
playfields and trails and encompasses approximately 170.5 acres of land .
The
Calamine - Platteville Trail was an abandoned railroad grade acquired from the
Chicago , Milwaukee , St. Paul and Pacific Railroad .
Beginning at the small
unincorporated village of Calamine , the grade passes through the village of
Belmont and ends in Platteville . U.S. Highway 151 is the major access to the
trail .
B - 17
, : cc : 55 - ) : 105
intersporii in
County
:
07 : 21: 16-7.527.11 : 5 : ? *
S. and
nat11r71 a
T ! 21.
C ...sis : s of Birdie Trail . ,
This srail extends into Grani
.
The project spunsur should consult with the official vso adminisor : the 1957 in
The State of Hisconsin to ieterninë potential conilicts with Section 5 1 ( 3 ) of
the LHCF Act ( ? ublic Law 38-578 , as amendciil
Io is stated in sec : ion
(f
):
" No property acquired or developed with assistance under this section shall ,
without the approval of the Secretary (of the Interior ) , be converted to other
than publi : outdoor recreation uses . "
Th . iizinistrator oi the 170 ? program for the State of Wiscons" :
sis . Palette
J.Hirder , Director , Office ji Inte : nozernrental P : obcas, Departent of Macural
RAS !! : S
... 6 : 11. liiisc ... isconsin 53707 .
Ang impacts
on
Section 51£ }
compl : ance with ser : 00
Sectic ? 3031 .
lands "
!!f ! oi
is.
- Depar cent
These womments are panied as inioral techr .
sait
in the require
: Transpurcation
assistan : s and arenot intender!
:.
312:. 02. probabis espouse 0 any document ihach nay bè oraaici 2.atta
to comply with the National Envircamental policy ci 1999 ,
Departme:: of Transporticisi jot .
Sincerly
Alarm . thetekings
for
Daiid N. Sia
Associite Regiona . Directo :
Pianning and Resource Prusiacon
B - 18
for
act
this
-
shs
၊
ိ
ရှ
Project i.D. 1223-14-09
Beimont.C
cville Road
USH 151
Igiva 250 ! 2 !ayc ? CO:snijes
SEC Dorici:: 219 ; 1 N3. : 9599
PICAL
NISNO
· HE
T
HISTORIE
STATE
W
1846
OFWISC
ASFIASP
File
4.3.1
State Historical Society of Wisconsin
Division of Historic Preservation
816 State Street • Madison , Wisconsin 53706-1488
(608 ) 264-6500 • FAX (608 ) 264-6404
June 8 ,
1992
JUN 2 2 1992
Mr. James Oeth
SEC Donohue, Inc.
6325 Odana Road
Madison , WI 53719
IN REPLY PLEASE REFER
RE :
ID :
TO
Reconstruct USH 151 :
SHSW #
92-0510 / IA LT
Dodgeville to Belmont
# 1200-04-00 / Iowa and Lafayette Counties
Dear Mr. Oeth :
We are reviewing the above - referenced project as required for
compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Protection of Historic Properties , the
Act and 36 CFR Part 800 :
regulations of the
Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation
governing the
Section
106
review
process .
The study corridor designated for the proposed four - lane facility
encompasses some of the earliest settlement locations in the State
of Wisconsin . Prominent known historic properties include the City
of Mineral Point , which
is listed on the National Register of
Historic Places in its entirety , First Capital State Park and the
Village of Belmont .
In the early days of the Wisconsin territory ,
this area was the core of the Wisconsin portion of the important
lead mining district which stretched to Galena, Illinois and formed
the strong economic impetus for settlement of the region .
B - 19
Mr. Oeth
Page 2
Because we expect that this region could contain numerous early
(pre 1850 ) buildings and sites ( as well as later resources ) , we are
recommending a different course of action than is usual .
At this
time , we recommend that you begin the process of identification of
historic resources in the corridor .
This should begin with the
completion of a detailed examination of relevant published and
unpublished resources
including maps and
archival materials .
Following this , your consultants should complete a reconnaissance
level survey of all properties over 50 years old in the corridor .
An
examination of the USGS topographic maps for this corridor
indicates that
there are not
a
large number
of buildings to
consider .
( The City of Mineral Point need not be included in this ,
as it has recently completed an intensive survey of its historic
survey would be
The results of
resources . )
this
report
a
summarizing the background research , a map and inventory cards for
a
the reconnaissance survey , and
in
the buildings identified
further
need
would
structures that
regarding
recommendation
evaluation should an alternate highway route be located in their
vicinities .
This report might also be of great assistance to your archeologists
in identifying probable locations of early mines , settlements and
other historic resources that may no longer be standing .
If I can be of further assistance , or any questions arise regarding
the information we have requested , please do not hesitate to call
me directly at (608 ) 264-6509 .
Sincerely ,
Rechend wisuda
Richard W. Dexter
Chief, Compliance Section
DIVISION OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION
RWD /GB / gb
CC :
Carol Cutshall , WiSDOT
B - 20
File
**** AUTHOR'S COPY ***
4. 3.1
v to
jo
July 17, 1992
Mr. Hal J. Meier
Wisconsin Department ofNatural Resources
Southern District Office
3911 Fish Hatchery Road
Madison, WI 53711
Re:
Coordination Meeting
Project I.D. 1200-04-00
USH 151
Belmont - Dodgeville
Iowa and Lafayette Counties
SEC Donohue Project No. 19509
Dear Mr.Meier:
In reference to our letter ofMay 5, 1992 ,we have begun preliminary engineering studies
for major improvements to the USH 151 corridor from Belmont to Dodgeville in Iowa and
Lafayette Counties. As we discussed on July 7 , 1992 , we have identified several areas
impacted by our alignment alternativeswhich we believe will be of concern to the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR ). We ask thatyou schedule a meeting with
representatives of the affected programs so that we can provide them with an overview of
our alternative alignments and discuss your concerns with potential impacts.
The date and time you suggested fits our schedule well ( Tuesday , August 18 , 1992 , 1:00 PM
at WDNR Southern District Offices on Fish Hatchery Road ). Please let us know as soon
as possible if there is a need to change the time.
The specific issues which we would like to discuss are:
1.
Severalwetland areas along the Pecatonica and its tributaries.
2.
Hazardouswaste (roaster piles) remediation along Brewery Creek just south of the
City of Mineral Point. In addition, unprocessed mine tailings have been used
extensively in the area for fill and road construction , and we would like to discuss the
hazardous potential of this material.
3.
Several large , inactive mines east ofMineral Point near the junction of STH 23 and
STH 39.
B - 21
Mr. Hal J. Meier
July 17 , 1992
Page 2
4.
Disposition of Ludden Lake northwest of Mineral Point, which we understand is being
addressed by the Dam Safety Program .
5.
Calamine to Platteville bike trailwhich passes through the Village of Belmont.
If the DNR has other concerns, we would appreciate your bringing them to our attention .
It is our goal to coordinate closely with the Department to avoid or minimize the adverse
impacts of the highway project. We appreciate your offer to schedule this meeting and
look forward to meeting with your staff.
Sincerely ,
Anthony S. Fernandez , P.E.
Project Engineer
ASF /dce
T / L /XY3
Note :
Copy
sent
to
WDUT
B - 22
1-17-92
MineralPoint Chamber of Con ..nerce
P. O.Box 78
MINERAL POINT, WISCONSIN 53565
1 09/23
As ,
ftet 4.3.5
J5o
ASE
RECEIVED
SEP 2 2
September
18 ,
1992
1992
SEC Donohue Inc.
Dear Sirs :
We are writing to express our concerns regarding the
route of HWY 151 through / around our community in the
" Corridors 2020 Route " . we are members of the Mineral Point
Chamber of Commerce and feel that we have a vested interest
in this matter .
We are strongly in favor of an improved four way highway
system between Dickeyville and Dodgeville . This should be a
regional project because it will affect the entire
Southwestern section of Wisconsin . We feel that an improved
HWY 151 would be great for the growth of all Southwestern
Wisconsin to attract industry to this area and improve the
transportation to and from this area . We feel it will be
better for Mineral Point's growth if the route of 151 be on
the west side of the current 151 route . We feel that it is
IMPERATIVE to have two on and off ramps . One at the North End
beyond Shake Rag St. and one on the South End of Mineral
Point . We have businesses on and off HWY 151 that will be
critically affected by the route 151 takes . We feel it is
also imperative that Mineral Point be visible from the
highway when motorists are routed around Mineral Point . We
are afraid the old saying , " Out of sight , out of mind " , would
be true .
We also implore that you consider the rural economy
surrounding Mineral Point and make sure you look for a route
that would destroy the LEAST amount of Family Farms . When the
route is finally established , please reimburse
farmers for
the fair market value of their land and please don't forget
about the loss of income they face of the inconvenience they
no doubt will incur .
Many people are concerned about the issue of safety .
With hundreds of cars speeding through Mineral Point daily ,
there are many businesses along 151 with customers who can't
get to and from these businesses without a long wait due to
traffic volume . Don't misunderstand us , businesses are happy
for traffic but are also concerned about the safety of
turning against heavy traffic or having someone speed up
behind you while you wait to turn . Another problem occurs
when you try to cross 151 on a side street , it sometimes
tares a very long time and can be unsafe when people lose
their patience while waiting . We have a school located right
along the highway with much pedestrian traffic to consider .
safety is an extremely important issue in our opinion .
-
we asti that you make thoughtful and informed decisions
that would be good for the Southwestern Wisconsin Community .
B - 23
Find the Resolutions of the fineral Point Chamber
of
Commerce Eoard , passed at their monthiy meeting heid
September 17 , 1992 , below .
Respectively
Yours ,
Mineral Point Chamber
Executive Board .
of Commerce
Chris Phillipson
Mineral Point Chamber
of Commerce Ecard meeting 8/37/92
Mineral Point Chamber of Commerce supports two exits for
Mineral Point, one of which would be located North of Shake
Pag Street .
Mineral Point Chamber of Commerce opposes a single exit for
Mineral point which would route traffic through residential
neighborhoods or the Historic District .
Mineral Point Chamber of Commerce
East of Mineral Point .
opposes the
proposed route
Because of the Historic importance of the City of Mineral
Feint , the Mineral Point Chamber of Commerce believes the
highest consideration must be given to protecting and
preserving the Shale Rag and down town Historic areas from
increased vehicle traffic when the new highway routes are
chosen .
B - 24
ral
Mine
t
Poin
ber
Cham
of Com
.
ASELV .
As
Fil il 4.3.5
erce
P.O.Box 78
MINERAL POINT,WISCONSIN 53565
RECEIVED
SEP 21 1992
9-17-92
SEC
Donohue Inc.
Mineral Point Chamber of Commerce supports two exits for Mineral Point ,
one of which would be located North of Shake Rag Street .
Mineral Point Chamber of Commerce opposes a single exit for Mineral Point
which would route traffic through
residential neighborhoods or the
Historic District .
Mineral Point Chamber of Commerce opposes the proposed route East of
Mineral Point.
Because of the Historic importance of the City of Mineral Point , the
Mineral Point Chamber of Commerce believes the highest consideration
must be given to protecting and preserving the Shake Rag and down town
Historic areas
from
increased vehicle traffic when the new highway
routes are chosen .
Nacy
Luccele
u
hemb
Bu
B - 25
/ fly 43.1
5.5-2
CC
Great
Archaeol
ogical
Lakes
P.O. Box 17767
Researc
h
1659 N. Jackson St.
Milwaukee , WI 53202
Milwaukee, WI 53217
Cente
r
(414 ) 276-9791
FAX (414 ) 276-9818
CulturalResource Management
May 18 , 1993
Sherman Banker
Compliance Archaeologist
Division of Historic Preservation SHSW
816 State Street
Madison , WI 53706-1488
Subject:
Phase I Archaeological Survey
USH 151 Belmont to Mineral Point
Iowa and Lafayette Counties, Wisconsin
SHSW # 92-0510 / IA LT
Dear Mr.Banker:
As per our conversation of 11 May 1993 enclosed please find a copy of GLARC's
methodology for the Phase I Archaeological Survey of the proposed improvements to
USH 151 Belmont to Mineral Point, Iowa and Lafayette Counties , Wisconsin .
As you will see, the methodology is straightforward and consistent with that
recomended by the Wisconsin Archaeological Survey Guidelines. It differs only in
that deep testing of flood plain areas and thorough examination of rock outcroppings
is also suggested . Ultimately , 100 % survey coverage is expected of the project area .
Thank -you for David Lowe's phone number and address. We are excited about the
new sites he has to report.
If you have further questions or require additional information
contact me.
please feel free to
Sincerely ,
Painina
&
Diclicceles
Patricia B. Richards
Research Associate
encl.
cc: Shirley Stathas WDOT /OEA
James Oeth , RUST
FHA
BP
B - 26
OS
THE
HIST
ORRIA
STATE HISTO
5.2
shs
SHS
1846
TVOF WIS
State Historical Society of Wisconsin
Division of Historic Preservation
May 20 ,
816 State Street • Madison , Wisconsin 53706-1488
(608) 264-6500 • FAX (608 ) 264-6404
1993
RECE
IVED
Ms. Carol Cutshall
Office of Environmental Analysis
Department of Transportation
Hill Farms, State Office Building
Madison , Wisconsin
MAY 2 2 1993
ENVI
PONM
RUI
ENT
SN
TFR
ASTRU
C
T
U
RE
&
53707
SHSW # :
92-0510
RE :
Reconstruct USH
151 :
Dodgeville to
Belmont
Dear Ms. Cutshall ,
We have received "Methodology
for
a Phase
I Archaeological
Reconnaissance of the USH 151 Study Corridor , Belmont to
Mineral Point , Iowa and Lafayette Counties , Wisconsin " ,
The proposed survey
prepared by Patricia Richards .
methodology is well thought out and is acceptable
modifications are made .
if
several
We suggest that a geomorphological analysis of the project
area be completed prior to any field work to target specific
areas which have a high potential for containing deeply
buried sites .
The results of the geomorphological analysis
should be written under a separate heading in the body of
the Phase I report .
This study will provide information
necessary to plan a more precise sampling strategy of the
project area .
Special provisions should be made in the
survey methodology regarding the areas and types of deep
testing strategies to be employed .
The survey methodology should also contain a separate
section that describes how mining features will be described
and evaluated .
This methodology should be , in part ,
developed from the initial literature search .
In order to
effectively evaluate all potentially significant historic
properties in compliance with the National Historic
Preservation Act , we are requesting that GLARC familiarize
themselves with
evaluating the mining properties according
B - 27
to
the National Register Bulletin
Evaluating
and
30 , Guidelines
for
Documenting Rural Historic Landscapes .
Special consideration should also be given in the survey
methodology concerning the identification of areas covered
with mining debris and how these areas will be tested for
archeological features .
Please include a provision in the
revised methodology to account
We also
recommend that GLARC contact Mr. David Lowe
that he may
project
Sherman
for this factor .
inform them
on
site
locations within
in
order
your
area that have not yet been reported to our office .
Banker contacted Patricia Richards last week and
provided her with Mr. Lowe's
phone number and address .
We suggest reading " Historical Studies at Two Lead Mining
Sites in the Beetown Mining District of Grant County
Wisconsin " written
study
by Mr. Salkin .
(# 92-1415 /GT)
resources
of this
for
Please contact
in
is available
Sherman
if you have any
Compliance
James Oeth ,
references and
A copy
Banker of my
staff ,
at
(608 )
264-6507
questions regarding these recommendations .
Section
Patricia Richards , GLARC
v
compliance case
at our office .
Richard W. Dexter
Cc :
a
southwestern Wisconsin .
Sincerely ,
Chief ,
is
and contains some useful
lead mining
report
It
SEC Donohue ,
Inc.
B - 28
ENVIRONMENT &
INFRASTRUCTURE
Formerly SEC Donomus
RUST Environment * laissaructure Inc
4738 Norch 40ch Screce . Shebovgan. WT 33083
P.O. Box 1067 • Sheborgan .WI 53082-1067
Tel.(414) 458-8711 • FAX (414 ) 458-0537
June 23 , 1993
Mr. Charles M. Pils
Director , Bureau of Endangered Resources
Endangered Resources Impact Review
Bureau of Endangered Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison , WI 53707-7921
Re:
Endangered Resources Information Request
U.S. Route 151 Realignment and Expansion
Dodgeville to Belmont, Wisconsin
RUST E & I Project No. 19509.301
Dear Mr. Pils:
We are requesting any information on the existence of endangered or threatened species, critical
habitats, and natural or scientific areas in the portions of Iowa and Lafayette Counties identified
on the attached request form . The Wisconsin Department of Transportation is undertaking the
preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS ) for the realignment and
expansion of U.S. Route 151 from Dodgeville, in Iowa County , to Belmont, in Lafayette
County .
A map of the proposed realignment route is included .
resources is necessary
alternatives .
for the evaluation
Information on endangered
of environmental concerns and comparison of
We appreciate your expedient review of and response to this letter. Please feel free to contact
us if you have any questions or need additional information.
Very truly yours,
Steven Grumann
Environmental Scientist
CC :
Brian Klatt
Jim Oeth
6 / TRL ENDANGER.SG
Quality through reamwork
B - 29
*
Wisconsin Natural Heritage Laventory Information Request Form
Wisconsin Natural Heritage Inventory (NH ) consists of a combination of historic records and ongoing survey
informadon on rare plants, animals, and narral communities in an integrated system of computer databases,
maps, and paper files. The Bureau of Endangered Resources provides this information , along with project
timing and location advice and survey recommendations, to private businesses, developers, land use planners,
land managers, and others in an effort to minimize impacts to these resources. To receive NHI information ,
please complete this form and sent it, as well as a letter formally requesting endangered resources informadon
and a map delineating the project area , to :
Endangered Resources Impact Review
Bureau of Endangered Resources
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison , WI 53707-7921
1.
Applicant requesting Natural Heritage Inventory information .
Name
Steven Goumann
RUST Environment &
Organization
4738 N. 40th Street ,
Address
Phone
Infrastructure
Sheboygan , WI
53083
( 414 ) 458-8711
2. Individual/organization / agency proposing project (if different from above).
Name
Organization
Department of Transportation
Wisconsin
- District
1
Address
Phone
3.
Location of proposed project. In addition , please include a map delineading the project area
County (ies )
Town
3
Town
4
Town
Iowa and Lafayette Counties
N
Range
1
N
Range
1
Range
4
N
Continued below
2
Ew
Section (s) 1. 11, 12, 14, 15
@w
Section (s)
Ew
Section (s) 1, 10 , 11, 12 , 15 , 16 , 20 , 21 , 29, 30 , 31
4. What is the proposed date to begin work on the project
36
unknown
5. Briefly describe the project and specify the area of impact, if known . For point source discharges
into waterbodies, please indicate on your map the expected area of the mixing zone
Realignment and expansion of U.S. Route 151 from Dodgeville to Belmont .
Proposed
coute follows existing U.S. Route 151, except for bypasses of Mineral Point and Belmont .
Requested information will be used to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement .
3. ( Continued )
Town
5
N
Town
5
N
Range
Range
2
3
E
E
onsin od riznVisconsin Department of Natural Resources
1 1700--OOT Form 1700-31
3-93
T : 00--007
Sections 25 , 36
Sections 3,4,9,16 , 20 , 21 , 29 , 30
B - 30
(over)
6.
Briefly describe curent and past land use of the project site and surrounding area , if known..
Unknown
7. Have you submitted a NHI Information Request Form for a different phase, pordon , or other alternadve(s)
relating to this project ? If so , please describe .
NO
8. What permits, licenses, or regulatory approvals will you be applying for, have you applied for, or have you
received as part of this project?
To be determined .
Your contact person for permait, etc.
Permit, license, or approval
Application status ( circle one ): will be applying for
have applied for
Your contact person for permit , etc.
Their Agency , District, or Bureau
have received
Their Agency , District, or Bureau
Permit, license , or approval
Application status ( circle one): will be applying for
have applied for
Your contact person for permit, etc.
have received
Their Agency , District, or Bureau
Permit, license , or approval
Application status ( circle one ): will be applying for
have applied for
have received
The information above is complete and accurate. I understand that the specific location of endangered
resources is sensitive information and will use the material provided solely for analysis and review of the
above project. Lagree not to include exact locations of endangered resources in any publicly disseminated
documents . I agree to contact the Bureau prior to publishing any information provided by the Wisconsin
Natural Heritage Laventory and to credit the Bureau of Endangered Resources as the source of the material.
Signature
Shon
Omron
Date
6-23-93
Signed
In order to continue the service of providing NH information , there is a charge for non -DNR requesters of
520 /hour with a minimum fee of $60. Refer to Administrative Code Chapter NR 29 for more information on the
fee structure . The requester is required to submit payment to the Bureau of Endangered Resources within 30 rwa
days upon receipt of the bill.
B - 31
State of Wisconsin
| DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
101 South Webster Street
Box 7921
Madison , Wisconsin 53707
TELEPHONE 608-266-2621
TELEFAX 608-267-3579
TDD 608-267-6897
WISCONSIN
DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES
George E.Meyer
Secretary
IN
July 1 , 1993
REPLY REFER TO : 1650
Mr. Steven Grumann
RUST Environment and Infrastructure
4738 N. 40th St.
Sheboygan, WI53083
SUBJECT:
Endangered Resources Information Review (Log Number 93-286 )
Dear Mr. Grumann :
The Bureau of Endangered Resources has reviewed the project area described in your letter of 23 June 1993
for the U.S. 151 realignment and expansion form Dodgeville to Belmont.
Our Natural Heritage Inventory (NHI) data files contain the following rare species information for the
project site located in T3N R1E Sections 1, 11, 12,14 and 15 , T4N RIE Section 36, T4N R2E Sections 1, 10
12 , 15 , 16 , 20 and 21, T5N R2E Sections 25 and 36 and T5N R3E Sections 3, 4 , 9 , 16 , 20 , 21, 29 and 30 , Iowa
and Lafayette Counties. In addition to the actual project site, we provide endangered resource information
for an area within one mile of the project's location (within five miles for aquatic species .) We provide this
information both so impacts to nearby endangered resources can be assessed and to assist in determining
which rare species may occur in the project's impact area if appropriate habitat exists. If the described
habitat types occur in the project's impact area, then species that occur nearby may be present there. The
species information provided includes the location, date of the most recent observation, and other
information useful in planning protection measures. Rare species occurring or that have been known to
occur within or near the project site include:
Noturus erilis (slender madtom ), a fish listed as Endangered in Wisconsin ,
The observation dates for these occurrence records are 1976 ,
1976, 1962 and 1976 , respectively. This species prefers clear, moderate to swift currents of streams and
large rivers over bottoms of gravel and boulders interspersed with fine sand . Spawning occurs from
late May through late June.
Napaea dioica (glade mallow ), a plant presently under review by the US Fish and Wildlife Service for
Federal listing and State Special Concern ,
The observation date for these occurrence records is 1987. This species prefers wet prairies, wet
meadows, damp railroad rights-of-way, and along streams and rivers. Blooming occurs from June
through August.
In addition to the above information , our data files also contain historical records (generally, records that are
25 years old or older) of rare species known to occur within the vicinity of the project site. Unfortunately,
the Bureau does not have more current survey information documenting the continued existence of this/these
species in this area. I am including these older records as an indication of which species may still occur in
the project area if appropriate habitat exists:
B - 32
Printed
Raya
Paret
2
OS
OM
T
Notropis nubilus (Ozark minnow ), a fish listed as Threatened in Wisconsin , has been known to occur
This species prefers clear, small to medium , low
gradient streams over bottoms of gravel or rubble. Spawning occurs from May through early August.
Special Concern (Watch) species are species about which some problem of abundance or distribution is
suspected but not yet proved . The main purpose of this category is to focus attention on certain
species before they become endangered or threatened .
Comprehensive endangered resource surveys have not been completed for the project area. As a result, our
data files may be incomplete . The lack of additional known occurrences does not preclude the possibility
that other endangered resources may be present.
If the proposed construction will impact any of the habitats mentioned above, we would recommend that
these areas be surveyed for the respective species . If rare species are located in the project's impact area, then
construction timing and location may need to be altered to avoid impacting them .
The specific location of endangered resources is sensitive information that has been provided to you for the
analysis and review of this project. Exact locations should not be released or reproduced in any publicly
disseminated documents .
Please contact Becky Isenring at (608 ) 264-8968 if you have any questions about this information .
Sincerely ,
Charles
M. Pils
Charles M. Pils
Director, Bureau of Endangered Resources
CC :
Michael Neuman - EA /6
Harold Meier - SD
B - 33
P 01
CITY
OF
MINERAL
TREASURER
Mineral Point, WI 53565
FAX #
BETTY HORNE
CLERK - TREASURER
POINT
T
POIN
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
POINT
608.987.2361
(608 ) 987-2181
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION SHEET
MARY E. JAMES
DEPUTY CLERR - TREAS.
Date :
8-4-13
TO :
Reze
Jin
Office City Clerk - Treasurer
137 High Street
Mineral Point , Wi 53565
SUBJECT:
Lát : 452 Bypass
Number of Pages (not including cover sheet ) :
2
( Call sender if pages are unclear or missing )
Additional Notes :
பெட்டியாலா
யாமாமாமாமா
B - 34 மாமாய AITANIARIETAMENDMANENIMIRR
ராயமய
1
.
RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RELOCATION OF U.S.II. 151
WHEREAS, U.S.II. 151 between Dubuquc, lowa, and Madison, Wisconsin , is an important
segnicat of the state's highway system and is included on the Wisconsin Corridors 2020
system as a four - lane facility ; and
WHEREAS, U.S.H. 151 is currently a four - lane facility from Madison to Dodgeville , with the
exception of the Verona bypass, and between Dubuquc and Sandy Hook; and
WHEREAS, thc Dickcyvillc 10 Sandy Hook and Verona bypass scgments of this routc arc under
construction and scheduled for completion in 1994 ; and
WHEREAS, thc Wisconsin Department of Transportation is currently studying alternative routes
for a proposed four- lane U.S.Il. 151 between Dodgevillc and Belmont; and
WHEREAS, part of this study includes an evaluation of routes for a relocated U.S.H. 151 in the
vicinity of the City of Mincral Point; and
WIDEREAS, thc location of this routc will have a significant impact on the City ofMineral Point
for the foreseeable fulure.
NOW , THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED , by the Common Council of thc City ofMincral Point,
as follows:
1.
That the City ofMincral Point supports the improvementof U.S.H. 151 between Madison ,
Wisconsin , and Dubuquc, Iowa, to a four -laue expressway facility.
2.
That it is in the best interest of the City ofMincral Point for the Common Council to take
a specific position on the proposcd route of the relocated U.S.H. 151 in the vicinity of thc
City of Mineral Point.
3.
That the City of Mineral Point endorses the gencral route best described as alternative 3B ,
as presented by WisDoT and Rust Environment and Infrastructure , the consultant hired
by Wisbol to complete the alternatives study.
4.
That the City of Mineral Point endorscs the location of a southern interchange, to connect
the proposed four - lane facility with the existing U.S.H. 151 for access into the city, in
the vicinity of the current intersection of U.S.H. 151 and C.T.H. O.
5.
That the northem interchange nccds additional discussion and refinement, but should bc
located in the general vicinity of the former Dution property, now owned by the city , and
Soulls Bunsellowu Rogu .
6.
That the route should avoid cncroaching into thc city's historic distna ang snvulu anun
as much soon as possible ſur ſulure cily development on the west and northwest sides
of the city bciwccn thc rclocalcd routc and current city development.
B - 35
P 92
Dated this
3rd
1993.
day of
diught
CITY OF MINERAL POINT
liga
Mayor ]
B
City Clark etty
Kemington
Hreve
ATTEST:
1, Betty Home, City Clerk , do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of
a resolution passed by the Common Council of the City of Mineral Point at a meeting held the
3 m
1943.
day of
Rupert
Better Wases
City Clerk
1
B - 36
till
4.3 .
AUTHOR'S COPY
August 10 , 1993
Mr. Peter Nauth
Agricultural Impact Program
Agricultural Resource Management Division
Department of Agriculture, Trade & Consumer Protection
P.O. Box 8911
Madison, WI 53713
Re:
Project I.D. 1200-04-00
USH 151 (Dodgeville to Belmont)
Iowa and Lafayette Counties
RUST E & I Project No. 19509
Dear Mr. Nauth :
As we discussed during our phone
conversation on
August 9,
1993, the Wisconsin
Department of Transportation (WDOT) is proposing to reconstruct USH 151 between
Dodgeville and Belmont, approximately 20 miles. As part of this project, the Village of
Belmont and the City of Mineral Point would be bypassed . As you will notice in the
attached Agricultural Impact Notice (AIN ) form , the project is divided into three sections.
Only Section 3 has more than one build alternative . However, due to a combination of
adverse impacts, lack of public acceptance , and unfavorable cost /benefit ratio, three of the
four alternatives for Section 3 are not feasible and prudent. Therefore , the DEIS will
identify Alternative 3B as the preferred alternative.
The DEIS will discuss all alternatives in detail and emphasize that all alternatives were
evaluated equally, with sufficient investigation and analysis to enable selection of a preferred
alternative. A final decision on route location will not be made until after the public
hearing.
As we discussed , we would like the Department of Agriculture, Trade & Consumer
Protection (DATCP) to review the alternatives, provide comments on the agricultural
impacts associated with each , and recommend an agriculturally preferred alternative for
inclusion in the DEIS. After the final route is chosen , the WDOT will submit a completed
AIN to the DATCP for the preparation of an AIS, according to Wisconsin Statutes 32.035.
B - 37
Mr. Peter Nauth
AUTHOR'S COPY
August 10 , 1993
Page 2
We look forward to meeting with you next Tuesday, August 17, 1993, at 1:00 PM to discuss
the project. Please feel free to come view the project aerial photo maps in our office at any
time prior to our meeting and call if you have any questions or comments .
Sincerely,
James F. Oeth , P.E.
Project Manager
cc: Nina Berkani, BRIA
ASF /dce
WP/ T /L /Nauth151.ASF
B - 38
7.3 .
ENVIRONMENT &
RUST ENVIRONMENT &
INFRASTRUCTURE
Formerly SEC Donohue
RUST Environment & Infrastructure Inc.
6325 Odana Road
Madison ,WI 53719
Tel. (608) 271-1004 • FAX (608) 271-5814
August 23, 1993
Mr. Peter Nauth
Agricultural Impact Program
Agricultural Resource Management Division
Department of Agriculture , Trade & Consumer Protection
P.O. Box 8911
Madison , WI 53713
Re:
Project I.D. 1200-04-00
Belmont - Dodgeville
USH 151, Iowa and Lafayette Counties
RUST E & I Project No. 19509
Dear Mr. Nauth :
We enjoyed meeting with you on August 17 , 1993, to discuss the USH 151 project. We are
pleased that you feel that you have sufficient information to prepare a written response for
inclusion in the draft Environmental Impact Statement. If, in the process of preparing the
written response, you find that you need additional information, do not hesitate to contact
us.
As we discussed , we are forwarding an Impact Summary Table which includes the entire
project. Please discard the partial Impact Summary Table that was sent previously with the
Agricultural Impact Notice (AIN ) and refer to the enclosed table to evaluate the impacts
of the total project.
As you requested, we will submit final agricultural property information to the Department
of Agriculture , Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP ) by November 15 , 1993. This will
permit your Department to complete an AIS by February 15 , 1994. This schedule would
allow for publication and distribution of the AIS before the public hearing scheduled for
April 1, 1994. Please let us know if you need earlier notification to meet this deadline.
Again , we enjoyed meeting with you and look forward to working with you on this project.
Sincerely ,
An
James F. Oeth , P.E.
VProject Manager
Enc :
Impact Summary Table (Information Meeting Handout)
cc: Nina M. Berkani, BRIA
Quality through teamwork
WP/T/L/17th Mig.JFO
B - 39
>
til
NJOOSUM
State of Wisconsin
TRADE G CONSUMER
PROTECTION
Department of Agriculture , Trade and Consumer Protection
801West Badger Road • PO Box 8911
Madison ,WI53708-8911
Alan T. Tracy. Secretary
September 28 , 1993
Mr. James F. Oeth , P.E.
Project Manager
Rust Environment &
Infrastructure
6325 Odana Road
Madison, WI 53719
Dear Mr. Oeth :
Re:
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
USH 151 Corridor Study
Belmont - Dodgeville
Iowa and Lafayette Counties
Project ID # 1200-04-00
Thank you for providing the DATCP with the opportunity to comment on the
alternatives that are being considered in the USH 151 Draft Environmental Impact
Statement.
Based upon the information that you have provided , five alternatives could be selected to
provide a bypass of the City of Mineral Point for USH 151 in Iowa County. Our primary
areas of concern regarding these alternatives are the following: the number of acres of
farmland and cropland that would be acquired ; the number of farm parcels that would
be severed ; and the number of farm parcels on which buildings would be displaced .
Alternative 3A and Alternative 3B are the agriculturally preferred alternatives for the
Mineral Point Bypass. It appears that they would be least detrimental to agriculture in
terms of the concerns that will be discussed below and summarized in the table on page
five .
This information is provided to assist you in selecting a preferred alternative .
Subsequent to the selection of a preferred alternative , the DATCP will prepare an
agricultural impact statementwhich discusses the agricultural impacts and makes
recommendations specific to the selected alternative. The discussion that follows
evaluates the alternatives for the Mineral Point bypass. Table I on page five summarizes
the agricultural impacts of the five alternatives, which are currently proposed.
B - 40
Page 2
AGRICULTURAL IMPACT ISSUES
1.
Loss of Farmland /Cropland
According to current estimates, the proposed Mineral Point bypass portion of the
USH 151 improvement project would require the acquisition of farmland ranging
from 318 acres to 471 acres. As would be expected , the alternatives that pass
through primarily urban areas of Mineral Point require the least amount of
farmland. Alternatives 3A and 3B pass through portions of northwestern and
western Mineral Point while Alternatives 3C and 3E avoid the city completely .
Alternatives 3A and 3B both travel through farmland southwest and northeast of
Mineral Point. Alternative 3A and 3B are agriculturally preferred because they
would convert the least amount of farmland to nonfarm use . Alternative 3A and
3B would convert 318 acres and 373 acres, respectively .
For a matter of perspective, the average farm size in Iowa County is about 283
acres. Consequently , the agriculturally preferred alternatives, Alternative 3A and
Alternative 3B , would represent the conversion of 1.1 farms and 1.3 farms to
roadway purposes respectively. Alternatives 3B - 1, 3C and 3E would require the
acquisition of the greatest number of acres, 394, 407 and 471 acres respectively
and would represent the conversion of 1.4, 1.4 and 1.7 farms to nonfarm use
respectively.
2.
Farm
Severance
Each alternative would sever farm operations and parcels . The agriculturally
preferred alternatives, Alternatives 3A and 3B , would sever ten and eleven farms
respectively . Alternatives 30 and 3E would both sever 10 farms and Alternative
3B - 1 would sever 12 farms. Farm severances generally create irregularly shaped
fields and leave much of the remaining cropland on the opposite side of the
operators' farm residences and buildings. Among the expected effects of the
severance would be the creation of remnant parcels that would be of a size
and /or shape such that they would no longer be economical to farm ; increased
cost-per-acre for field work ; new field -access problems; and possible increases in
drainage , weed, litter and safety problems.
3.
Loss of Farm Structures
In terms of affected farm structures, Alternative 3B is the agriculturally preferred
alternative since it would not require the acquisition of any farm
Alternative 3A would require the acquisition of eight buildings.
B - 41
buildings.
Page 3
4.
Access Changes
According to the information you provided , freeway access conditions (no access
except at interchanges) would be observed on the bypass areas. A controlled
access highway which does not allow direct access between severed parcels
becomes a barrier to farming activities. Our general concerns regarding access
would be the effect of access changes on farm
safety and efficiency. It is both
hazardous and time-consuming for farm machinery to have to travel along or cross
highways. Because the people most qualified to foresee potential operating
problems are the farm operators, it is important that they be involved in selecting
the number and location of access points.
5.
Drainage
In general, we are concerned with the proposed project's potential to aggravate or
create drainage problems on the affected farmland . If drainage improvements
have been made, such as the installation of drainage ditches and / or tiles, we
would be interested in ensuring that the proposed project would not limit the
effectiveness of these measures.
6.
Noise and Other Impacts
An increase in noise , erosion , blowing wind and some disturbance of farm
operations would accompany highway construction . These impacts would be
temporary and are not expected to significantly affect farm
operations.
The proposed project could result in the temporary disruption of farm operations
in that access to fields may be disrupted . Additional time and /or fuel may be
required to travel to and from fields resulting in additional costs to the farm
operator.
This disruption would be especially costly if it were to occur during
planting or harvesting times when more frequent field trips are required .
7.
Conclusion
Although each alternative would have adverse affects on individual farm
operations, Alternatives 3A and 3B would be least detrimental in terms of total
farmland losses and are the agriculturally preferred alternatives for the Mineral
Point Bypass.
8.
AIS Requirements
As previously stated, the DATCP will prepare an AIS subsequent to the selection
of the preferred alternative . We request that you contact us a soon as the
decision is made so that project completion delays can be avoided . If you have
B - 42
Page 4
questions or comments about the AIS process, please feel free to contact me. We
appreciate the extra effort that you have made in providing us with necessary
information and look forward to working with you to minimize the adverse
impacts of this project on agriculture .
Sincerely ,
Puto Moth
Peter Nauth
Agricultural Impact Program
(608)273-6419
B - 43
A ,
the
Art
4.3 . I
AUTHOR'S COPY
October 15, 1993
Mr. William Schaller
USDA - Soil Conservation Service
120 South Main Street
Richland Center, WI 53581-2237
Re:
Farmland Conversion Rating Form
Project I.D. 1200-04-00
USH 151
AD
1006
(Belmont to Dodgeville )
Iowa and Lafayette Counties
RUST E & I Project No. 19509
Dear Mr. Schailer:
We are writing to update you on the status of the USH 151 project from Belmont to
Dodgeville and to submit the enclosed Farmland Conversion Rating Form . In a letter dated
May 11, 1992, we notified you that we were developing several potential corridor
alternatives. During the development of these alternatives, it was determined that only one
alignment was reasonable and prudent for this area. Wehave identified that alignment as
the preferred alternative and will address the impacts associated with that alternative in the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS ).
This project is part of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation's Corridors 2020 plan
and is envisioned as a 4 -lane facility. For the majority of the project,wewill be adding two
lanes to the existing roadway, except for the bypasses around the communities of Belmont
and Mineral Point. The Belmont Bypass will go west of the Village, and the Mineral Point
Bypass will go west and north of the City . These bypasses were determined in coordination
with affected farm landowners and after farmland north of Mineral Point was identified as
being marginally productive
and
characterized
as
rugged and
steep .
The preferred
alternative will have less impact on farmland that is considered more productive .
We have also coordinated the development of the preferred alternative with the Department
of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP ). The DATCP has indicated that
the preferred alternative is also the agriculturally preferred alternative.
We have completed Parts I, III, VI, and VII of the enclosed Farmland Conversion Rating
Form and determined a value of 59 site assessment points in Part VI. While we note that
it is notnecessary for us to send this form to you or for you to respond,wewant to give you
the opportunity to review the form and comment. Therefore , we are forwarding the
completed form and project location maps to you. Please call or write to me if you have
any comments or concerns. We appreciate your cooperation in this matter.
B - 44
AUTHOR'S COPY
Mr. William Schaller
October 15 , 1993
Page 2
Sincerely,
James F. Oeth , P.E.
Project Manager
Enclosure :
Farmland Conversion Rating Form
1 " : 1000' Gerials
Project Location Maps
JFO /dce
T /L /FCRForm.JFO
B - 45
w
lo
PROJECT LOCATION
.18
Edmund
Q
CHI
CH
Br
a
Dodgeville
(39)
36
LINDEN
B
B
6
MAP LOCATION
151
23
ho
BV
Linden
GGI
|КХ)
0
MFFLIN
sid
16
око (
ло
an
GGI
loo
Mifflin
E
EI
ISSI
G
...
(39
EL
36
DD )
Minerad
Pointy
M(in
e
ral
Rua
(39)
Rewey
me
S
TAAL
Ho
AA
G
151
(23)
IOWA CO .
LAFAYETTE CO .
O
G
BELMONT
s
Jone
Peca
BELMONTE WOLNO
SATE PARK
31
toni
ca 36
Cot
36
tor
e
Leslie
.......
FIRST
CAPITOL
STATE
PARK
BI
WILLOW
SPRINGS
KENDALL
STUDY
6
AREA
for
G
To Darlingtong
BOUNDARY
C
0 !
IG
G
Belmsht
Calamine
G
151
U.S.H. 151
X
Belmont - Dodgeville
o
F
SCALE MILES
lowo & Lafayette Counties
126 )
ELK
EXHIBIT
B -46
HAH
Al
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION
IMPACT RATING
Date Of Land Evaluation Request
PARTI(To be completed by Federal Agency )
Federal Agency Involved
FHWA
Name Of Project
1200-64-00 USH 151 (Belmont -Dodgeville )
County And State
Proposed Land Use
Iowa and Lafayette Counties , WI
Highway
Date Request Received By SCS
PART II (To be completed by SCS)
Yes No Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland ?
(If no , the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parts of this form ).
Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
Major Crop /s )
%
Acres:
%
Acres:
n Returned By SCS
Evaluatio
Land
Date
Name Of Local Site Assessment System
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used
Site A
495
ll
708
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency )
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
B. Total Acres To Be Converted indirectly
C. Total Acres In Site
PART IV (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Information
A.
B.
C.
D.
PART
Site D
Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
Percentage Of Farmland In County Or LocalGovt. Unit To Be Converted
Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With SameOr Higher Relative Value
V (To be completed by SCS ) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value OfFarmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 points )
Maximum
Points
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency )
Site Assessment Criteria ( These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5 /6 )
1.
2.
3.
4.
Alternative Site Rating
Site C
Site B
Area In Nonurban Use
Perimeter in Nonurban Use
PercentOf Site Being Farmed
Protection Provided By State And Local Government
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
10. On -Farm Investments
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS
15
10
20
20
-
14
10
14
14
10
25
5
20
25
10
160
0
o
5
2
0
0
59
100
100
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency )
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V )
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or a local
site assessment)
TOTAL POINTS ( Total of above 2 lines)
Site Selected :
Reason For Selection :
Date Of Selection
160
59
260
159
Was A Local Site Assessment Used ?
No O
Yes 0
Form AD -1006 ( 1.T - GA
(See Instructions on reverse side )
B - 47
HHH
SHI.SOCIE
STATE HISTORIA
shs
W
1946
OF WISC
State Historical Society of Wisconsin
816 State Street . Madison , Wisconsin 53706-1488
(608) 264-6500 • FAX (608) 264-6404
Division of Historic Preservation
December 14 ,
Mr. Jon Obenberger
Project Design Engineer
Wisconsin Department of Transportation
Transportation District 1
2101 Wright Street
Madison , WI 53704-2583
LLUI 5 1993
1993
HAT
CONSTANT
FILES
IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO SHSW : # 92-0510 / IA / LF
RE : Recon US 151; Dodgeville to Belmont
ID : 1200-04-00 / Iowa and Lafayette
Dear Mr. Obenberger :
We have reviewed the architectural reconnaissance report for the
above - referenced project ( s ) as required for compliance with Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and 36 CFR Part 800 :
Protection of Historic Properties, the regulations of the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation governing the section 106 review
process and have the following comments to make .
The residence at 319 Mound Avenue does not " embody the distinctive
characteristics of a
type , period , or method of construction "
necessary for it to meet National Register Criterion c .
Although
it may possess some Queen Anne elements , the property as a whole is
not representative of any recognizable style .
We believe that the only property that requires further evaluation
is the Spensley - Sharp House
(Map Code 63/14 ) .
The house and
complex may be eligible for the National Register under criteria A ,
C and D.
Please have prepared the necessary documentation
( i.e. National
а
Park
Service
10-900 ,
National Register
of
Historic
Places
Registration Form ) for a formal determination of eligibility that
address
each
of these
criteria .
When
the documentation
is
completed , please submit an original and two copies to this office
for review and comment pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4 .
***
B - 48
Mr. Jon Obenberger
December 14 , 1993
Page 2
If you have any questions regarding this matter please call Richard
A. Bernstein , Compliance Historian , at (608 ) 264-6506 .
Sincerely
luch
Ricauda
Richaitaw. Dexter
chief , Compliance Section
CC : Linda Brazeau , GLARC
Bob Newbery , OEA
Tricia Canaday , District # 1
B - 49
STE
HWE STEROY
T
U
SO
than
WIS
k
CON
SIN
SOUTHWESTERN
WISCONSIN
IAK
ONAL
NOI
SS
REGI
REGIONAL
PLANNING
COMMISSION
OS
ROOM 426 KARRMANN LIBRARY
1 UNIVERSITY PLAZA
PLATTEVILLE, WISCONSIN 53818
PLANNING
PHONE (608 ) 342-1214
December 22 , 1993
Secretary Charles Thompson
Wisconsin Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 7913
Madison , WI 53707
Dear Secretary Thompson :
The Southwestern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission went on record at its
meeting last week to adopt two resolutions in support of U.S. Highway 151 between
Dodgeville and Dickeyville (copies enclosed ).
The first resolution endorses the "preferred corridor route " identified by the consultants
working on the project between Dodgeville and Belmont. The second resolution urges the
Department of Transportation to proceed as soon as possible to initiate and complete a
study of the U.S. Highway 151 corridor route between Belmont and Dickeyville.
Please note that the second resolution also puts the commission on record in support of
the findings of the Highway 151 Bypass Study Committee completed by Iid -States
Associates for the City of Platteville and encourages the WisDOT to use the findings of
that study in completing its own corridor study ,
Another resolution is also enclosed in which the commission goes on record in support of
Grant County's request to reroute the Great River Road in Grant County . The commis
sion further requests WisDOT to provide assistance with the implementation of this
change, including proper signing and pavement marking of the route .
Sincerely ,
Rosenbach
Donned
Donald Rosenbrook, AICP
Executive Director
Enclosures
XC :
Tom Carlsen, District One
Senator Dale Schultz
Representative David Brandemuehl
Representative Steve Freese
Mayor James McCaulley , City of Dodgeville
Mayor Myron Remington, City of Mineral Point
Kenneth Leahy, Belmont Village President
Rosemary kulow , Platteville City Manager
Don Stumpf, Dickeyville Village President
Grant, Iowa and Lafayette County Clerks
serving Grant. Green , Towa, Lafayette and Richland
B - 50
Counties
#
1
RESOLUTION REGARDING THE COMPLETION OF U.S.HIGHWAY 151
BETWEEN DODGEVILLE AND BELMONT
i
WHEREAS, U.S. Highway 151 between Dubuque, Iowa, and Madison, Wisconsin, is an
important segment of the state's highway system and is included on the Wisconsin
Corridors 2020 system
as a four- lane facility ; and
WHEREAS , U.S. Highway 151 is currently a four lane facility from Madison to Dodgeville,
with the exception of the Verona bypass,, and between Dubuque and Sandy Hook ; and
WHEREAS , the Dickeyville to Sandy Hook and: Verona bypass segments of this route are
under construction and scheduled for completion in : 1994 and 1995 , respectively ; and
WHEREAS, since early 1992 the Wisconsin Department of Transportation with the assistance
of Rust Environment & Infrastructure , and in cooperation with the Southwestern
Wisconsin .Regional Planning Commission and the communities along the corridor has
been studying alternative routes for a proposed four- lane U.S. Highway 151 between
Dodgeville and Belmont, and has released details to what they feel is the preferred
route for public review
and comment; and
WHEREAS, the overwhelming consensus of the communities , townships and citizens along
the route is in support of the preferred corridor, as currently identified ; and
WHEREAS , it is recognized that additional refinements are still anticipated in the location ,
and design of the interchanges: in the Mineral Point areas
WHEREAS , more direct access to STH 39.on the west side of the City ofMineral: Point
_would provide better service to the Mineral Point Industrial Park, the Iowa County
Fairgrounds and the Iowa County Airport .
;
NOW , THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED , by the Board of Commissioners of the
Southwestern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission as follows:
1.
That the commission endorses the preferred route as currently identified between
Dodgeville and Belmont, including the bypass routes around Mineral Point and
Belmont, allowing for possible refinements to the interchanges in the Mineral Point
area .
2.
3.
That the commission requests additional consideration be given to a more direct
connection between U.S. Highway 151 and STH 39.on the west side of Mineral Point,
possibly by means of a service road connection to the south interchange .
That the commission supports and encourages the concept of developing a bike trail
route in conjunction with the construction of U.S. Highway 151 between Dodgeville
and Mineral Point for the purpose of connecting the Military Ridge State Recreation
Trail near Dodgeville with the Cheese Country Trail in Mineral Point.
(over)
B - 51
4.
That the commission urges the Wisconsin Major Highway Projects Commission and
Department of Transportation to complete the construction of the Dodgeville to
Belmont segment of U.S. Highway 151 at the earliest possible date .
Dated this
16
in
day of
December
SOUTHWESTERN WISCONSIN
1993 .
REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
Chairman
Secretary - Treasurer
ATTEST:
I hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution passed by the
Sguchwestern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission at a meeting held the 26thday of
reher
Libert
Secretary - Treasurer
in
B - 52
bieten
ENVIRONMENT &
INFRASTRUCTURE
RUST INFRASTR
UCTURË
COPY
RUST Environment & Infrastructure Inc.
6325 Odana Road
Madison, WI 53719
Tel. (608) 271-1004 . FAX (608) 271-5814
January 20 , 1994
Mr. Russ Anderson
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Southern District
3911 Fish Hatchery Road
Madison , WI 53711
Re:
Calamine-Platteville Trail Crossing
Project I.D. 1200-04-00
USH 151, Belmont - Dodgeville
Iowa and Lafayette Counties
RUST E & I Project No. 19509
Dear Mr. Anderson :
As you are aware, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation proposes to improve
USH 151 to a 4 -lane divided highway between Belmont and Dodgeville , with bypasses of
Belmontand Mineral Point. The Belmont Bypass Preferred Alternative (aswell as all other
alternatives) would cross the Calamine-Platteville Trail right of way.
Per our conversation , we are sending a detail drawing of the proposed crossing of the trail
and USH 151, a sketch showing the proposed section of a bridge structure to carry the trail
over the highway, and a section of the trail at bridge approaches. This drawing shows the
approximate area of trail right of way which would be converted to highway use and
proposed replacement lands.
Also enclosed is an exhibit showing the entire Belmont Bypass Preferred Alternative and
Currently, only the Preferred
exhibit showing the preliminary bypass alternatives.
Alternative is under consideration as other alternatives were found to be not feasible or
prudent.
Please review this information and provide us with your comments. We would be glad to
meet, at your convenience , to discuss a mutually acceptable solution to the concerns
associated with the crossing .
Quiint througir teamwork
B - 53
Mr. Russ Anderson
January 20 , 1994
Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation , and please call us if you have any questions.
Sincerely ,
Anthony S. Fernandez, P.E.
Project Engineer
Enclosures: As Noted
cc: Matt Hintze , WDOT - District 1
ASF /rd
T/L /TrCrsng.ASF
B - 54
SHI.SOCIE
4.3.1
STATE HISTOR
shs
W
1846
OF WIS
State Historical Society of Wisconsin
Division of Historic Preservation
February
1,
816 State Street · Madison , Wisconsin 53706-1488
o (608 ) 264-6500 • FAX (608 ) 264-6404
RE
1994
CE
IV
Ms. Carol Cutshall
Office of Environmental Analysis
Department of Transportation
Hill Farms, State Office Building
Madison , Wisconsin
53707
SHSW # :
92-0510
RE :
Reconstruct USH 151 :
ED
FE
1
B 0 3 994
FR
AS
TR
UC
TU
OS
IN
&
Dodgeville
E
Belmont
ont
Dear Ms. Cutshall ,
We have reviewed the report titled " Phase I Archaeological
Reconnaissance of the Proposed Improvements to USH 151 ,
Dodgeville to Belmont , Iowa and Lafayette Counties , Wisconsin " ,
prepared by Patricia Richards .
We concur with the author that Lt - 155 , Reicher Site, Graber Site ,
Carey III Site and the Toad site appear to represent significant
archeological deposits . We agree that these sites be evaluated
further in order to determine if they are eligible for inclusion
in the National Register of Historic Places .
This should consist
of test excavations to establish the age , nature , extent , and
integrity of the archeological deposits .
The report of these
investigations should also contain appropriate cultural contexts
within which these sites can be evaluated .
The author also identified four stream crossings which harbor the
potential to contain deeply buried archeological deposits .
The
Phase II report needs to include a geomorphological analysis of
these areas .
The results of the geomorphological analysis should
be written under a separate heading in the body of the Phase II
report .
This study should provide information necessary to
implement an appropriate sampling strategy of the areas
the potential to contain deeply buried archeological deposits .
The report also indicated that 15 lead mining sites were
identified as a result of the Phase I survey .
We believe that it
is premature to state that only one of these sites is eligible
for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places .
more complete historical context is needed for each site before
we can determine if each site is or is not eligible for inclusion
in the National Register of Historic Places .
The overall
structure of the historical context should be similar to that
B - 55
developed by Mr. Salkin's report titled " Historical Studies at
Two Lead Mining Sites in the Beetown Mining District of Grant
County , Wisconsin ( 1993 ) " .
We also recommend that the analysis of these mining
sites / features be at varying scales , from and individual
feature to a mining .
For example , it would be difficult to
understand an isolated smelting feature without an
understanding of mining technology or the extent of the
mining pits in the immediate area of such a feature .
Such
features / sites may best be understood as a historical
district .
Therefore , we recommend applying the National
Register guidelines for evaluation and documentation of
rural historic landscapes .
We also recommend that a
detailed map of these features be produced to supplement the
historical context .
The results of this study should
establish a valuable context by which other mining sites in
the state of Wisconsin may be evaluated .
We would also
like to
schedule
an
on - site visit to these
mining sites this spring in order for everybody to obtain as
This
complete an understanding of these sites as possible .
area contains a unique set of lead mining sites and deserves
careful attention to ensure that every effort is made to
preserve them .
If any of the issues outlined above are not clear , it may be
to everyones interest to meet this winter to discuss them .
Please contact Sherman Banker of my staff at
to schedule a meeting at your convenience .
Sincerely ,
Richard W. Dexter
Chief ,
>
CC :
Compliance
Section
Richards , GLARC
James Oeth ,
SEC Donohue ,
Inc.
B - 56
(608 )
264-6507
United States
Dopartment of
Agriculture
Soil
Conservation
Service
120 South Main Street
Richland Center , WI
53581-2237
February
17 ,
1994
Mr. James F. Oeth , P.E.
RUST Environment and Infrastructure Inc.
6325 Odana Road
Dear Mr. Oeth :
Enclosed are the AD - 1006 for USH 151 (Belmont to Dodgeville )
project .
The forms are completed for both Iowa and
Lafayette County .
These forms are required by the Farmland Protection Policy
Act .
One of the intents of the act is to evaluate farmland .
We note in paragraph two of you letter that the selection of
bypasses "were determined in coordination with the affected
landowners " and after farmland north of Mineral Point was
identified as being marginally productive and characterized
as rugged and steep .
If each alternative route was
evaluated on Form AD - 1006 , you could have used that to
further support your choice of alternatives .
attachments
Dame Onant
for
W.F. Schaller
Area Conservationist
RECEIVED
FE3 2 1 1994
RUST ENVOMENT
INSTITUCTURE
&
o
The Soil Conservation Service
is an agency of the
Department of Agriculture
B - 57
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND
CONVERSION
IMPACT RATING
Date Of Land Evaluation Request
PARTI (To be completed by Federal Agency
Federal Agency Involved
Name Of Project
FHWA
1200-04-00 USH151 (Belmont- Dodgenile
County
And
State
Proposed Land Use
LAFAYETTE
Portion
H
fighway
Date Request Received By SCS
PART II (To be completed by SCS)
Yes No Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size (1988 )
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland ?
280.6 As ( +970 )
).
form
of
this
parts
additional
complete
not
do
apply
(If no, the FPPA does not
Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres: 36392
% 9
Acres: 145575
% 36
Corn
Oats , Hay Soybeans
Date Land Evaluation Returned By SCS
NameOfLocal Site Assessment System
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used
None
Lafayette
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency )
Site A
184
4
234
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C. Total Acres In Site
2/17 lay
Alternative Site Rating
Site C
Site B
Site D
PART IV (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Information
A.
B.
C.
D.
PART
Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
Percentage OfFarmland In County Or LocalGovt.Unit To Be Converted
Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
V ( To be completed by SCS ) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value OfFarmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 points )
110.3
.001
34 .
84
Maximum
Points
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency )
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5 (b )
1. Area In Nonurban Use
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
10. On-Farm Investments
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
160
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency )
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V )
100
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or a local
site assessment)
160
TOTAL POINTS ( Total of above 2 lines)
260
Site Selected :
Reason For Selection :
Date Of Selection
Was A Local Site Assessment Used ?
No O
Yes 0
B -58
Wctions on reverse side)
Form AD - 1006 ( 10-83)
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION
IMPACT RATING
Date Of Land Evaluation Request
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Federal Agency Involved,
Name Of Project
'FHWA
lle
nt
)
04_00
Dedgeu
to
USH 151 (Belmo
1200_
County And State
Wisconsin
Proposed Land Use
Iswa County
Highway
Date Request Received By SCS
PART II (To be completed by SCS)
Yes No Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland ?
282.8 ( 1992 )
e
( If no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complet additional parts of this form ).
Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
Major rop (s)
% 23
Acres: 136220
% 28
Acres : 111895
Date Land Evaluation Returned By SCS
Cats, Hay TS JY BEANS
Corn
Name Of Local Site Assessment System
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used
2117194
None
Iowa Co.
Alternative Site Rating
Site D
Site C
Site B
Site A
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency )
318
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
7
ly
ted
rect
ver
Indi
B. Total Acres To Be Con
474
C. Total Acres In Site
PART IV (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Information
82.7
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
and
tant
wide
Farml
And Local Impor
B. Total Acres State
rool
C. Percentage OfFarmland In County Or LocalGovt.Unit To Be Converted
D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With SameOr Higher Relative Value
PART V (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
LS
Relative Value OfFarmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points )
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency )
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5 (b )
1. Area In Nonurban Use
2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
10. On -Farm Investments
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS
Maximum
Points
160
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency )
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V )
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or a local
site assessment )
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines)
100
160
260
Was A Local Site Assessment Used ?
No o
Yes o
Date Of Selection
Site Selected :
Reason For Selection :
B - 59
Form AD -1006
ENVIRONMENT &
RUST INFRASTRUCTURE
RUST Environment & Infrastructure Inc.
6325 Odana Road
Madison,WI 53719
Tel. (608) 271-1004 • FAX (608) 271-5814
Formerly SEC Donohue
February 18, 1994
Mr. Russ Anderson
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Southern District Office
3911 Fish Hatchery Road
Madison , WI 53711
Re:
Pecatonica Trail Crossing
Project I.D. 1200-04-00
USH 151
Belmont - Dodgeville
Iowa and Lafayette Counties
RUST E & I Project No. 19509
Dear Mr. Anderson :
appreciated meeting with you, Allison Beach of the Bureau of Parks, and Steve Thomas,
Trail Coordinator, on February 14, 1994, to field review the crossing of the Pecatonica Trail
with proposed USH 151. We understand that the trail is scheduled for construction in 1996 ,
several years prior to proposed USH
151.
Based on WDNR comments received at this meeting, we have modified the design for the
proposed trail crossing. Enclosed is a copy of the revised exhibit , which we intend to
include in the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the project, showing the changes.
Specifically , the following changes were made since our transmittal of January 20, 1994 :
The existing WDNR trail right ofway was revised to exclude the abandoned railroad
right of way in Section 11.
In response to your comments, the trail alignment was revised to remain south of the
railroad right of way, crossing Bonner Branch in approximately the location of the
existing snowmobile crossing, and avoid existing trees.
The area of recreational land converted to highway use was revised to include the
portion of Section 11 lying northwest of the proposed highway right of way and to
exclude the railroad right of way . We believe that the added remnant, even if not
acquired for highway right of way, will be of little value to the trail function .
Quality through teamwork
B - 60
Mr. Russ Anderson
February 18, 1994
Page 2
The location of replacement lands was revised to better serve the trail function, based
on information from Mr. Thomas. The area of land converted and replacement lands
each total approximately 3.1 acres.
Based on our meeting, we understand that WDNR wants a trail crossing bridge to be
structurally adequate to accommodate a 64,000 -pound (G.W.) tandem -axle dump truck .
Mr. Thomas is currently reviewing vertical and horizontal clearance requirements.
We request that you review the revised crossing layout and provide us with your comments
or concerns. We also request that you confirm vehicle weight and clearance requirements
and provide a sketch or map showing the proposed trail location prior to the highway
project. Thank you for your assistance, and please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Mion SFurauity
i
Anthony S. Fernandez , P.E.
Project Engineer
Enclosure :
As Noted
cc: John Vesperman , WDOT - District 1
ASF /dce
T /L /RevExhib.ASF
B -61
Irani m o s
State of Wisconsin
TADEGCONSUMER
PROTECTION
Department of Agriculture , Trade and Consumer Protection
801West Badger Road • PO Box 8911
Madison , WI53708-8911
Alan T. Tracy. Secretary
February 22 , 1994
VED
FECEI
Mr. James F. Oeth , Project Engineer
FES ? 4 9929
Rust Environment and Infrastructure, Inc.
6325 Odana Road
AT
FUST
Madison , WI 53719
Dear Mr. Oeth :
Re:
Draft Agricultural Impact Statement
USH 151: Dodgeville to Belmont
Project ID # : 1200-04-00
Iowa and Lafayette Counties
Wehave completed a draft Agricultural Impact Statement for the above proposed project. Please
review the enclosed draft and return it to us with your comments. If you have any questions feel
free to contact me at (608 )273-6418 .
Sincerely ,
Cliče
Alice Halpin
Helpin
Agricultural Impact Program
Enclosure
cc :
Nina Berkani
B - 62
State of Wisconsin
| DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
$
101 South Webster Street
Box 7921
Madison , Wisconsin 53707
TELEPHONE 608-266-2621
TELEFAX 608-267-3579
AIR MGMT. TELEFAX 608-267-0560
TDD 608-267-6897
WISCONSIN
DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES
George E.Meyer
Secretary
RECEIVED
File Code:
4530-1
February 22 , 1994
FE3 ? ? 1994
Project ID # : 1200-04-00
Anthony S. Fernandez , P.E.
FUSTESIMENT
RUST Environment & Infrastructufe Inc.
VOTOS
6325 Odana Road
Madison , WI 53719
SUBJECT:
Request for Determination of Exemption from NR 406.06 Indirect
Source Air Quality Permit Regulations for the Belmont-Dodgeville
Indirect Source Project.
Dear Mr. Fernandez :
Thankyou for sending the information concerning the Belmont-Dodgeville roadway
project. I have analyzed the information and determined that the project is exempt from
the NR 406.06 indirect source air quality permit requirements and from any modeling
demands concerning indirect sources. Under NR 406.06 (1) (b ), Indirect sources exempt
from construction permit requirements - Road and highway projects ; all criteria for
exemption
A.
is satisfied :
NR406.06 ( 1) (b ) 4 states: " An increase in the peak hour volume of less than
1800 vehicles per hour on any modified road or highway segment located
in a metropolitan
county . "
The project is located in Iowa and Lafayette Counties. Neither county is considered a
metropolitan county . In addition, the traffic forecasts for the build and build +10 years
predict that over the 10 year period from build year is less than the 1800 vehicles limit
for the peak hour volume. The traffic increase requirement for exemption is satisfied by
this .
B.
NR406.02 Definitions .
(2 ) " Intersection boundary " means a line surrounding an intersection which
is drawn to include the peak hour queue for each intersection approach
and the area on either side of each such queue within a distance of one
queue length , measured
perpendicular to the queue .
Printed on
Recycled
B -63
NR 406.06 ( 1)(b ) 5 states: " A maximum
shift in the nearest roadway edge of
less than 12 feet toward any potential receptor location within the new
intersection boundary for any modified intersection ."
In the case of this project, the roadway is being widened over 12 feet, however the
intersection boundaries lie within the right-of-way . Additionally as the intersection is
widened so also is the right-of-way thus no potential receptor exists and the above
exemption is satisfied .
Should you have any further questions or comments
free to call. My number is (608)267-4581.
Sincerely ,
Darline
Hobart
Marlene Hobart
Air Management Specialist
Bureau of Air Management
MBH :mbh
v \02-94 \idsla :blmont.lt
cc :
Lorna Zach
- AM / 7
Jay Waldschmidt - WDOT-OEA
B - 64
concerning
this project please feel
APPENDIX
C
CORRESPONDENCE - POST -DRAFT
—
(APPENDIX
C
IS NOT USED AT THIS TIME)
-
APPENDIX
D
NOISE ANALYSIS
APPENDIX
D
NOISE ANALYSIS
A. GENERAL METHODOLOGY AND CRITERIA
The FHWA noise analysis procedure consists of five steps:
Identification of existing activities, developed lands, and undeveloped lands for which
development is planned, designed , and programmed , which may be affected by noise
from
the highway .
2.
Prediction of traffic noise levels.
3.
Determination of existing noise levels.
4.
Determination of traffic noise impacts.
5.
Examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or
eliminating the noise impacts .
Traffic noise levels are typically expressed in terms of A -weighted decibels or dBA.
Decibels vary on a logarithmic scale. Using these units, the sounds normally encountered
by the human earmay be expressed in the range from approximately 20 to 140 dBA. Since
the human ear is more sensitive to some frequencies than others, the decibels are weighted
to correspond to the human's subjective response to noise. The A -scale has been found to
most closely approximate the human response to traffic noise. An increase of 10 dBA is
subjectively perceived as doubling in loudness.
Sound levels used in this analysis are expressed in "Leq". Leq represents the equivalent
constant sound level corresponding to a fluctuating noise level that occurs over a specified
time period .
The Federal Highway Standard Method in Noise Analysis (STAMINA 2.0) traffic noise
prediction model was utilized in the prediction of existing and future traffic noise levels .
Specific data input includes such factors as traffic volumes, speeds, and vehicle mixes.
Additional adjustments are made for receiver distance , roadway grade, terrain , and
shielding. Future noise levels are based on the design year 2020 .
The FHWA has issued regulations for determining highway noise impacts and for the
consideration of noise abatement procedures on new highway construction . Table D - 1 lists
established Noise Abatement Criteria, based upon task interference for different land use
categories. The established criterion for residences, schools, churches, public meeting
rooms, and parks is an exterior noise level of67 dBA Leq. By definition , noise impacts
occur when predicted traffic noise levels approach or exceed the Noise Abatement Criteria
or when the predicted traffic noise levels substantially exceed the existing noise levels.
WEDSTA
D -1
When impacts are predicted to occur in the future at a location of human activity,measures
to mitigate noise impacts will be considered .
Table D - 1
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Activity Noise Abatement Criteria (dBA )
Description of Activity Category
Category
А
Leq (h ) *
57 (Exterior )
Lands on which serenity and quiet are of
extraordinary significance and serve an
important public need and where the
preservation of those qualities is essential
if the area is to continue to serve its
intended purpose .
B
67 (Exterior )
Picnic area, recreation areas, playgrounds,
active sports areas, and parks not
included in Category A and residences,
motels, hotels, public meeting rooms,
schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
с
72 (Exterior )
Developed lands, properties, or activities
not included in Categories A and B
above.
D
---
Undeveloped lands.
E
52 (Interior)
Residences, motels, public meeting
rooms, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
auditoriums.
* Leq (h ) - The hourly value of Leq
SOURCE: 23 CFR 772 , Federal Register, Vol. 47, No. 13145
B.
PROJECT SPECIFIC METHODOLOGY
Modeling of existing noise levels assumes the principal source of ambient noise at each
receiver to be traffic generated. At sites located on low -volume roads or set back from main
highways, traffic noise may be secondary to other sources.
For this reason , actual noise
measurements were taken at sensitive receptors and other representative locations along
bypass segments of the project. Measurements were also taken in locations near the existing
highway to confirm and calibrate results obtained from modeling.
Measurements were taken on August 11 and 12, 1993, at eight locations using a Bruel and
Kjaer Precision Integrating Sound LevelMeter. Measuring periods lasted 10 minutes each .
All readings were in units of decibels, A -scale Leq.
D -2
In general, measured values agreed closely with modeling results for locations near the
existing highway. For analysis purposes,modeled values were used for receptor sites near
the existing highway to provide a more meaningful comparison of existing and future
(modeled) noise levels. For receptors distant from the existing highway, representative or
site-specific measured values were used . Measurement sites are identified in Tables D -2
and D - 3 with " Old I.D." numbers M1 through M8.
Coordinates and elevations for receivers and highway locations were obtained from a
computer- generated digital terrain model (DTM ) of the existing terrain and the modeled
Build Alternative . Cut slopes can significantly affect noise dispersion . To account for these
effects, noise barriers were modeled based on DTM - generated cross sections of the
proposed facility.
Because of the directionalsplit on the traffic volumes, separate STAMINA runs were done
to reflect the AM and PM peak hours. The future noise levels shown reflect the "worse
case" of the AM or PM condition. The analysis was done for currentyear (1992 ), build year
(2000 ), and design year (2020) volumes, including a hypothetical current year build
condition. Results of the analysis for the Build and No -Build Alternatives are shown on
Tables D - 2 and D - 3 .
C.
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Traffic volumes were forecasted by WDOT based on historical data on an origin -destination
survey conducted in 1992. Current and future average daily traffic (ADT) peak hour factor,
directional split, and truck percentages are shown in Table D -4. Hourly volumes used for
the noise analyses were developed using K100 and a 60-40 direction split. Hourly volumes
are shown in Tables D -5 through D -6 . The segments of the existing and proposed highway
defined for the noise analysis are described in Table D - 7.
RUSH151/AppendD.ASF
D -3
Table D - 2
USH 151 NOISE ANALYSIS STAMINA INPUT
BUILD ALTERNATIVE
RECEIVER
OLD NEW
I.D.
1
2
M1
M2
3
4
5
6
M4
7
I.D.
RI
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
R8
R9
R10
M5 R11
R12
8
9
R13
10
R14
11
R15
R16
12
13
R17
R18
14
R19
15
17
R20
M7 R21
M8 R22
28
R23
R24
29
30
R25
31
R26
33
R27
R28
32
34 . R29
18
R30 .
M3 R31
16
R32
M6 R33
19
R34
20
R35
R36
21
22
R37
23
R38
24
R39
R40
25
26
R41
R42
27
NOISE LEVELS (LEQ )
2020
2000
1992
CHANGE BUILD CHANGE
BUILD CHANGE BUILD
OFFSET EXISTING
(dBA ).
(dBA )
(dBA )
(dBA )
(dBA )
(dBA )
(dBA )
61.0
16.0
59.2
14.2
59.8
14.8
45.0
292.0
130 + 00 L
67.0
22.0
65.2
20.2
65.8
20.8
106.0
45.0
130 + 00 L
13.3
58.3
56.4
150 + 00 L
12.1
427.0
45.0 ( 3 )
11.4
57.1
51.6
6.6
7.8
50.4
49.8
6.0
43.8
1119.0
153+ 50 R
64.9
19.9
18.7
63.7
63.1
18.1
45.0
130.0
166+ 50 R
11.7
57.9
56.7
11.2
12.9
56.2
166+ 50 R
45.0
411.0
13.3
63.3
62.4
12.4
61.9
11.9
50.0
167.0
194 + 50 L
78.7
28.7
79.3
29.3
80.5
30.5
50.0
2.0
194 + 00 L
60.8
3.8
59.6
2.6
2.0
59.0
57.0
261.0
221 + 00 L
64.1
-0.9
62.9
282 +50 L
-2.1
62.3
-2.7
169.0
65.0
2.9
62.9
1.7
61.1
61.7
1.1
60.0
202.0
345+ 50 R
60.2
1.3
2.5
58.4
0.7
59.0
57.7
334.0
481+ 50 R
-3.2
66.9
-2.0
65.1
65.7
-3.8
95.0
68.9
513+ 50 L
61.3
-1.3
62.0
-2.0
-0.1
63.2
190.0
670 + 00 R
63.3
6.9
62.6
5.6
61.3
5.0
60.7
55.7
225.0
705 + 00 L
- 4.9
60.8
59.1
-3.2
-5.4
58.6
64.0
799.0
723 + 50 R
51.8
1.8
0.6
50.6
0.0
50.0
777 +50 R
1117.0
50.0
65.1
20.1
63.3
18.3
63.9
18.9
45.0
113.0
791+00 R
12.2
10.4
56.0
11.0
57.2
55.4
45.0
435.0
791 + 50 R
49.0
4.0
2.6
47.6
2.0
47.0
45.0
805 + 00 R
1267.01
14.5
60.5
59.3
13.3
229.0
46.0 ( 3 )
58.7
12.7
824 + 00 R
58.8
15.8
59.3
16.3
60.6
17.6
267.0
43.0 ( 3)
899 + 00 L
62.1
18.3
63.3
17.1
16.5
61.5
45.0
246.0
938 + 00 L
21.8
68.0
23.0
66.8
66.2
21.2
45.0
111.0
938 + 00 L
57.3
-5.1
-6.3
59.0
57.8
-6.8
1017 + 00 R
521.0
64.1
57.1
56.5
3.6
4.2
58.3
5.4
576.0
52.9
1032+ 50 L
70.7
-0.9
68.2
1.6
-1.5
67.6
69.1
1067 + 00 R
88.0
70.1
5.7
3.7
68.1
3.1
67.5
86.0
64.4
1070+ 50 L
1.3
0.1
61.0
59.2
-0.5
59.8
370.0
59.7
1081 + 00 R
-2.3
65.1
-2.9
65.7
67.4
-0.6
805 + 00 R ( 2 )
46.0
68.0
65.0 ( 3 )
-2.4
158+ 50 R ( 2 )
67.0
62.0
-3.0
62.6
63.8
-1.2
50.9
51.5
6.9
7.5
52.7
8.7
44.0
900.0
800+ 50 L
5.4
49.4
3.6
48.2
4.2
797 + 00 L
1418.0
44.0 ( 3 )
47.6
4.9
50.9
49.7
3.1
3.7
46.0 ( 3 )
49.1
816 + 00 R
485.0
2.5
1.2
48.5
47.2
46.6
0.6
818+ 50 R
1236.0
46.0 (3 )
1.5
47.5
0.0
46.0
-0.5
45.5
46.0 (3 )
1713.0
819 + 50 R
11.8
57.8
10.0
56.6
10.6
56.0
46.0 ( 3 )
300.0
821 + 00 R
48.9
2.9
50.2
4.2
823 + 00 R
46.0 ( 3)
1078.0
48.4
2.4
1.7
1563.0
824+ 50 R
46.0 ( 3 )
46.3
45.8
-0.2
0.3
47.7
11.9
58.4
12.4
59.6
13.6
57.9
46.0 ( 3 )
159.0
827 + 00 R
4.9
50.9
3.6
49.6
3.1
829 + 00 R
49.1
935.0
46.0 ( 3 )
1.21
48.5 |
2.5
47.2
0.7
46.7
1414.0
46.0 ( 3 )
831+ 50 R
LOCATION
( 1 ) DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE OF NEAR DRIVING LANE
( 2 ) OFFSET GIVEN FROM EXISTING USH 151
( 3 ) BASED ON FIELD MEASUREMENT
12/21/93
noise.wk3 sht. A
D -4
Table
D. 3
USH 151 NOISE ANALYSIS STAMINA OUTPUT
NO - BUILD ALTERNATIVE
NOISE LEVELS (LEQ )
RECEIVER
OLD
I.D.
1
2
M1
M2
3
4
5
6
M4
7
M5
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
M7
M8
28
29
30
31
33
32
34
18
M3
16
M6
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
NEW
I.D.
Ri
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
R8
R9
R10
R11
R12
R13
R14
R15
R16
R17
R18
R19
R20
R21
R22
R23
R24
R25
R26
R27
R28
R29
R30
R31
R32
R33
R34
R35
R36
R37
R38
R39
R 40
R41
R42
2020
1992
2000
LOCATION OFFSET EXISTING NO - BUILD CHANGE NO - BUILD CHANGE
(dBA )
(dba )
(dBA )
( dba )
(dba )
N /A
N /A
N /A
N /A
45.0
2632
130 + 00 L
N /A
N /A
N /A
N /A
2542
45.0
130 + 00 L
N /A
N /A
N /A
N /A
45.0 (2 )
2693
150 + 00 L
- 10.4
153+ 50 R
1275
44.4
56.0
- 11.6
45.6
N /A
N /A
N /A
45.0
N /A
166+ 50 R
1375
N /A
N/ A
N /A
N /A
166+ 50 R
1103
45.0
N /A
N/ A
N /A
991
50.0
N /A
194+ 50 L
N /A
N /A
N /A
50.0
873
N /A
194 + 00 L
2.4
1.2
59.4
58.2
57.0
296
221+00 L
1.8
0.6
65.6
66.8
149
65.0
282+ 50 L
2.1
0.9
62.1
60.9
60.0
345+ 50 R
306
1.7
0.5
59.4
443
58.2
57.7
481+ 50 R
1.8
0.6
70.7
69.5
72
68.9
513 + 50 L
1.8
65.1
0.6
63.9
190
63.3
670 + 00 R
2.0
57.7
0.6
56.3
438
55.7
705 + 00 L
0.5
65.8
1.8
64.5
117
64.0
723 + 50 R
N /A
N /A
N /A
N /A
50.0
777 + 50 R
2720
N /A
N /A
N /A
N /A
45.0
3050
791 + 00 R
N /A
N /AI
N /A
N/A
791 + 50 R
45.0
2800
N /A
N/A
N /A
N /A
50.0
1460
805 + 00 R
N /A
N /A
N /A
N /A
46.0 (2 )
3028
824 + 00 R
N /A
N /A
N /A
N /A
43.0 (2 )
3430
899 + 00 L
N /A
N /A
N /A
N /A
938 + 00 L
2930
45.0
N /A
N /A
N /A
N /A
45.0
2790
938 + 00 L
1.8
0.6
65.9
64.7
125
64.1
1017 +00 R
1.8
0.6
54.7
53.5
52.9 (2 )
744
1032+ 50 L
1.8
70.9
0.6
69.1
88
69.7
1067 + 00 R
1.8
66.2
0.6
64.4
65.0
170
1070+ 50 L
1.8
61.5
0.6
59.7
60.3
370
1081+00 R
1.7
69.7
0.5
68.5
68.0
46
805 + 00 R
2.3
67.3
1.1
67
65.0
66.1
R
50
158 +
N /A
N /A
N /A
N /A
45.0
3770
800+ 50 L
N /A
N /A
N /A
44.0 (2 )
N /A
4340
797 + 00 L
-4.8
41.2
-6.0
46.0 ( 2 )
40.0
816 + 00 R
2420
-2.3
- 3.6
43.7
42.4
46.0
)
(2
1825
R
50
818+
-0.6
45.4
-1.9
44.1
46.0 ( 2 )
819 + 50 R
1490
821 + 00 R
46.0 (2 )
2820
N /A
N /A
N /A
N /A
N /A
N/ A
N /A
N /A
46.0 (2 )
823 + 00 R
2270
N /A
N /AI
N /A
N /A
46.0 ( 2 )
824+ 50 R
1980
N /A
N /A
N /A
N /A
46.0 (2 )
3250
827 + 00 R
N/ A
N /A
N /AI
46.0 (2 )
N/A
2760
829 + 00 R
N /A
N /A
N /A
46.0 ( 2 )
2500
N /A
831+ 50 R
( 1 ) OFFSET GIVEN FROM EXISTING USH 151
( 2 ) BASED ON FIELD MEASUREMENT
ush 151\deis\noise.wk3 sht. B
12/21/93
D-5
VITALITET
35
(VHC
traffic.wk3
Table
NOISE ANALYSIS
D.4
DAILY
pewl
9/14/93
TRAFFIC
1
6
7.
8
SEGMENT
9
5900
6500
7430
8570
5740
6750
7440
8500
9840
6570
8910
11220
13010
8680
9820
7710
2
3
5100
5840
5
4
ADT
NO - BUILD
C.Y. 1992
B.Y. 2000
:
D.Y. 2020
BUILD PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE
600
3760
1000
4680
2920
5100
8570
5900
5740
C.Y. 1992
4320
1140
9840
3360
5850
5370
690
6770
6590
B.Y. 2000
13010
4440
1500
7100
5710
8710
910
8960
7750
D.Y. 2020
=
10.0 %
K (100 )
11.0 %
T (DHV )
MT
HT
D
=
=
1.9 %
9.1 %
60 - 40
D -6
traffic.wk3
D
Table
NOISE ANALYSIS HOURLY
NO - BUILD ALTERNATIVE
TRAFFIC
1
SEGMENT
5
4
3
2
. 5
8
7
6
pewl
9/14/93
9
NO - BUILD 1992
DHV
0
510
574
0
0
0
0
0
590
650
743
857
315
7
397
8
458
32
347
7
35
210
4
21
231
.5
24
265
6
27
305
0
675
744
850
984
0
360
8
37
397
454
8
41
10
46
525
11
54
240
265
6
303
6
350
7
27
31
36
0
272
6
307
0
0
28
31
CARS
MT
HT
0
0
0
182
19
204
4
21
584
657
312
7
32
351
7
0
0
0
208
4
21
234
5
24
0
0
0
0
5
25
0
771
868
0
0
891
982
1122
1301
60 %
CARS
MT
HT
0
0
0
412
9
42
464
10
47
0
0
0
0
0
476
10
49
524
11
54
599
13
61
695
15
71
40 %
CARS
MT
HT
0
0
274
6
309
7
0
0
317
7
399
9
0
28
32
0
32
350
7
36
463
10
47
OOo
4
O
40 %
7
O
CARS
MT
HT
60 %
41
10
47
7
31
NO - BUILD 2000
40 %
CARS
MT
HT
CARS
MT
HT
0
O
60 %
O
DHV
0
0
36
0
0
NO - BUILD 2020
DHV
o
OOO
D -7
41
Table
NOISE ANALYSIS HOURLY
traffic.wk3
jewl
- 6
SEGMENT
5
4
3
114/93
BUILD ALTERNATIVE
TRAFFIC
2
1
D
7
6
8
9
BUILD 1992
60 %
MT
HT
468
857
60
292
376
100
315
272
307
250
458
32
156
7
7
5
10
3
201
4
53
1
32
28
31
26
47
1
3
16
21
5
204
167
21
104
134
36
0
2
2
11
3
14
432
114
231
61
4
4
19
21
17
31
677
585
659
537
984
69
574
305
7
336
312
7
352
8
287
525
MT
362
8
6
11
37
1
179
4
HT
37
32
36
29
54
4
18
24
241
208
191
4
350
7
25
1
120
3
154
20
36
3
12
16
CARS
40 %
510
14
CARS
590
6
DHV
MT
HT
210
4
21
182 2.
4
BUILD 2000
DHV
CARS
1
a
60 %
5
25
21
896
775
871
710
1301
91
444
571
150
414
9
465
379
695
49
237
305
80
478
10
10
42
48
8
39
15
71
5
49
5
24
31
319
276
6
310
7
253
463
32
158
3
203
4
53
28
32
26
16
21
5
5
4
1 4
HT
41
235
5
24
7
40 %
CARS
MT
3
BUILD 2020
DHV
47
3
1
D -8
10
1
7
33
5
40 %
CARS
MT
HT
2 od
HT
1
60 %
CARS
MT
USH 151
Table
D -7
Noise Analysis Traffic Segment Descriptions
DESCRIPTION
SEGMENT
No-Build Alternative
2
Existing USH 151,
CTH G to CTH A
3
Existing USH 151 ,
CTH A to CTH O
6
Existing USH 151,
south terminus to STH 126
7
Existing USH 151, STH 126 to CTH G
8
Existing USH 151, CTH O to Shake Rag Street
9
Existing USH 151, Shake Rag Street to north terminus
Build Alternative
1
Proposed USH 151, south terminus to Belmont interchange
2
Proposed USH 151, Belmont interchange to CTH A
3
Proposed USH 151 , CTH A to Mineral Point south interchange
4
Proposed USH 151, Mineral Point south interchange to north interchange
5
Proposed USH 151, Mineral Pointnorth interchange to north terminus
6
Existing USH 151,
south terminus to STH 126
7
Existing USH 151 ,
STH 126 to CTH G
8
Existing USH 151,
CTH O to Shake Rag Street
9
Existing USH 151,
Shake Rag Street to north terminus
D -9
APPENDLX
E
CONCEPTUAL STAGE RELOCATION PLAN
USH 151, Belmont to Dodgeville
Conceptual Stage Relocation Plan
Conceptual Stage Relocation
Plan
Project I.D. 1200-04-00
USH
Belmont to
151
Dodgeville
Iowa and Lafayette Counties
Prepared by :
Robert G.Gust
RUST Environment &
6325 Odana Road
Madison , Wisconsin
R /USH151/CSR Plan RGG
Infrastructure
53719
March 1994
USH 151, Belmont to Dodgeville
Conceptual Stage Relocation Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1
PURPOSE ..
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1
DISPLACEMENTS
3
DATA SOURCES
3
DIVISIVE OR DISRUPTIVE EFFECTS .
4
NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT
4
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE INFORMATION ..
4
SPECIAL RELOCATION ADVISORY SERVICES ...
4
REMEDIES FOR INSUFFICIENT RELOCATION HOUSING
5
ESTIMATE OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSEHOLDS DISPLACED
5
POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
5
INVENTORY OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSEHOLD UNITS DISPLACED
5
DESCRIPTION OF REPLACEMENT HOUSING
6
(Single-Family Houses (For Sale )
RENTAL UNITS (LISTED FOR RENT)
12
ESTIMATE OF RESIDENTIAL RELOCATION COST
13
ESTIMATE OF BUSINESS DISPLACEMENT
14
ESTIMATE OF BUSINESS RELOCATION
15
COST
SUMMARY OF RELOCATION PAYMENTS
i
R /USHISI/CSR Plan.RGG
15
March 1994
星
USH 151, Belmont to Dodgeville
Conceptual Stage Relocation Plan
CONCEPTUAL STAGE RELOCATION PLAN
Project I.D. 1200-04-00
USH 151
Belmont to Dodgeville
Iowa and Lafayette Counties
PURPOSE
This report has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the U.S. Department
of Transportation , Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Environmental Impact and
Related Procedures Final Rule ( 23 CFR 771), the FHWA Technical Advisory for
environmental document preparation ( T6640.8A , October 30 , 1987), and the State of
Wisconsin , Department of Transportation (WDOT) - Division of Highways and
Transportation Services Relocation Assistance Manual.
This report provides details about the potential impacts and relocations that may occur as
The report will be included in the project's
a result of the upgrading of USH 151.
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS ).
The Conceptual Stage Relocation Plan is written in the form
of an estimate to determine:
The approximate number of households, farms, and /or businesses thatmay be relocated
1.
by the project;
2.
The probable availability of decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing within the
financial means of the households that may be affected by the project; and
3.
An estimate of the possible total relocation assistance costs .
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The segment of USH
151 evaluated in this document is located in southern
Iowa and
northern Lafayette Counties in southwestern Wisconsin . The project begins about 1.4 miles
west of the Village of Belmont (Lafayette County) and extend northeasterly approximately
20 miles to the existing 4 -lane section of USH 151 south of Dodgeville (Iowa County ). A
project location map is shown on Figure 1-1. Included as part of the analysis are bypasses
around the Village of Belmont and the City of Mineral Point.
151 is functionally classified as a Principal Arterial and considered to be southwestern
Wisconsin's principal highway, linking the two major population centers of Dubuque and
Madison. It is proposed to develop USH 151 as a 4 - lane divided roadway with access
management that will allow for uninterrupted travel with a 55 mph speed limit. With the
USH
exception of the two community bypasses, the project involves the addition of two driving
lanes and a median adjacent to existing USH
151, which will generally serve as the location
for the other two lanes of the future 4 -lane highway.
R /USH151/CSR Plar.RGG
E -1
March 1994
USH 151, Belmont to Dodgeville
Conceptual Stage Relocation Plan
The 20 -mile segment of USH
sections of USH
151 from Belmont to Dodgeville is one of the two remaining
151 (the other is Dickeyville to Belmont) needing improvement in order
to have a continuous 4 -lane facility between Dubuque and Madison . This segment from
Belmont to Dodgeville has logical termini. The completion of this project does not require
or preclude development of the remaining section and does not preclude future options.
This action is part of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation's (WDOT) Corridors
2020 plan , which includes a backbone network ofmultilane divided highways connecting all
regions and major economic centers in the state and tying them to the national network of
interstate highways.
Service expectations for the Corridors 2020 backbone system are for a multilane freeway or
expressway providing uninterrupted 55 mph traffic flow . There are numerous deficiencies
which prevent the existing USH 151 facility from
regional and statewide highway network .
serving its intended function in the
The existing profile does not provide passing opportunities, except at locations of auxiliary
truck climbing lanes. Speed reductions are required with the two urbanized areas of the
project, Belmont and Mineral Point. Numerous intersections and driveways within these
urban ares, including a 90 -degree intersection in Belmont, adversely effect the operational
characteristics of the highway and contribute to accidents. The vertical geometry of the
existing highway in the rural segments is deficient in many locations.
The large number of rural access points, particularly access by slow -moving farm vehicles,
adversely affects operation of the 2- lane highway. The existing average daily traffic (ADT)
on USH 151 ranges from 5,100 vehicles south of Mineral Point to 9,140 vehicles north of
Mineral Point. The traffic is forecasted to increase by approximately 50 percent by the year
2020. As traffic volumes increase, all of the problems discussed above will become more
severe. The Level of Service (LOS) for all segments of the project will fall below level " E "
(undesirable) by the design year with a No-Build Alternative.
The development alternatives included investigation of several bypass alternatives for both
Belmont and Mineral Point. Rural relocation was investigated and considered reasonable
when specific circumstances supported deviating from
the existing alignment.
Detailed
engineering analysis was performed , sufficient to permit an accurate assessment of the
environmental impacts for these reasonable and viable alternatives .
Following a detailed study, a single Build Alternative was determined to be the only prudent
and feasible alternative . It consists of the combination of the single alternative bypass at
Belmont, the single alternative for the rural segment between Belmont and Mineral Point
and a single alternative bypass on the west side of Mineral Point, with the addition of two
lanes to the existing highway for the rural area north of the City.
The single Build
Alternative, which has emerged from the alternative development process, is identified as
the preferred alternative.
R /USHIS1/CSRPlan.RGG
E -2
March 1994
USH 151, Belmont to Dodgeville
Conceptual Stage Relocation Plan
The Build Alternative involves upgrading the existing 2 -lane highway to a 4 -lane divided
highway with a 60 -foot wide median between project termini. It includes a transition at the
south end to match the existing 2 -lane highway. Where the new highway follows the existing
alignment, the new lanes will be added at a minimum of 60 feet from the existing highway
to allow for use of the existing road during construction of the new lanes. Some or all of
the existing roadway will be reconstructed to correct geometric deficiencies and provide
adequate clear zones. Bypasses will be provided at Belmont and Mineral Point.
The interchange proposed for the Belmont Bypass would be at CTH G
(north ).
Interchanges proposed for the Mineral Point Bypass would be near CTH O south of the City
and at Barreltown Road north of the City. At- grade local road and private property access
(including field entrances) will be allowed along the non -bypass project sections. However,
to the extent possible, the number of access points will be controlled through combining
entrances, connecting driveways to adjacent side roads, and acquisition of access rights by
the WDOT. For the bypass sections, local roads would be grade separated from the new
highway and private property access points would not be allowed .
The No-Build Alternative serves as a baseline for comparison of the Build Alternative and
evaluation of its environmental impacts. The No-Build Alternative is defined as consisting
of no major improvements to existing USH 151 other than normal pavementmaintenance
or localized upgrades. There would be no increase in traffic capacity or flow characteristics.
The Completion Schedules:
Design
Real Estate Acquisition
1992-1995
1995-1998
1998-2000
Construction
2000-2002
Corridor Location Study
DISPLACEMENTS
The Build Alternative is shown on Exhibit 5. Displacements associated with the proposed
Build Alternative include seven residences and three businesses.
DATA SOURCES
Original and secondary sources were used in developing this plan . Below is a list of some
more prominent sources.
RUST Environment &
1990 U.S. Census
Infrastructure Project Engineer
i
Town of Mineral Point and Belmont Assessors
Town of Mineral Point Treasurer
d
Southwestern Wisconsin Board of Realtors Multiple Listing Service
DODGEVILLE CHRONICLE
IS
R /USHISI/CSR Plan RGG
994
E -3
March 1994
USH 151, Belmont to Dodgeville
Conceptual Stage Relocation Plan
DIVISIVE OR DISRUPTIVE EFFECTS
No significant long-term divisive or disruptive effects are expected except for people and
businesses actually relocated . Most of the people relocated are expected to remain in the
area . Two major areas of public concern have been questions over access to the new
roadway and fears that the route may divide some farmland .
Some disruptive effects may occur during construction . However, since most of the
proposed highway is on new right ofway paralleling the existing road , the effects should be
minor.
NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT
The proposed relocations are not expected to have an impact on neighborhoods since both
Belmont and Mineral Point are proposed to be bypassed , and the remaining portion of the
project contains rural properties. Sufficient housing is available that is comparable in type,
age, size, and price for those wishing to relocate into Dodgeville or Mineral Point and
surrounding rural areas.
There are no known concurrent relocation projects underway or planned in the areas by
either the City, County , or State that would affect the availability of replacement sites, either
residences or businesses.
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE INFORMATION
The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as
amended , provides for payment of just compensation for property acquired for a federal-aid
project. In addition to acquisition price, increased costs for the replacement dwelling or
business location ,moving expenses, increased rental or mortgage payments and closing costs ,
=
and other valid relocation costs are covered by the relocation program . No person will be
displaced unless a comparable replacement dwelling or business location , or other
compensation where a suitable replacement business location is not practicable, is provided .
All the above resources are available to all displacees without discrimination.
and 32.19. Any property acquired will be inspected by one or more professional appraisers.
Property owners may accompany the appraiser during the inspection .
independent property owner appraisals are also provided .
Provisions for
SPECIAL RELOCATION ADVISORY SERVICES
There is no indication at this timethat any unusualrelocation problems exist on this project.
develop, whatever services are needed will be provided .
Should a problem
R/USH151/CSRPlan.RGG
E -4
March 1994
1
Before the initiation of any property acquisition activities, members of the WDOT Real
Estate Section will contact the property owners and tenants to explain the details of the
acquisition process and Wisconsin's Eminent Domain Law under Wisconsin Statutes 32.05
USH 151, Belmont to Dodgeville
Conceptual Stage Relocation Plan
REMEDIES FOR INSUFFICIENT RELOCATION HOUSING
There is no indication at this time that there would not be sufficient housing available for
the relocations for this project. Therefore, no special program is required.
ESTIMATE OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSEHOLDS DISPLACED
The proposed seven residential displacements include both owner occupied single-family
homes and tenant occupied units. Displacements include four owner occupied single -family
homes and three tenant occupied single -family homes.
follows:
Parcel No.
109
113
302
306
341
Location
Comment
Station 163, right
Single -Family
Station 217, left
Station 633, right
Station 650 , left
Station 708 , left
Station 725 , right
Single - Family
Tenant
Tenant
Station 1100, left
Single -Family
Single -Family
Tenant
The location of these units are as
Family Size
Characteristics
1
2
2
2
Adult
Adults
Adults
Adults
2 Adults, 1 Child
3 Adults, 3 Children
1 Adult
POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
Iowa County has 8,220 housing units, for a total population of 20,150, with a median
household income of $25,914 and per capita income of $ 11,339.
Lafayette County has 6,315 housing units, for a total population of 16,076 , with a median
household income of $24,479 and per capita income of $ 10,641.
Minorities ( non-white origin ) make up 0.3 percent of Iowa County's population and
0.4 percent of Lafayette County's population . There are no known predominant ethnic
minority, elderly, and handicapped people on the project. The displacees affected are white
working class, covering all age groups.
INVENTORY OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSEHOLD UNITS DISPLACED
The total number of residential units to be displaced are inventoried by the total number
of bedrooms as indicated in the following table .
R /USHISI/CSR Plan RGG
E -5
March 1994
USH 151, Belmont to Dodgeville
Conceptual Stage Relocation Plan
RESIDENTIAL HOUSEHOLDS DISPLACED
SINGLE -FAMILY OWNER OCCUPIED
Price Range
3 Bedroom
2 Bedroom
4+ Bedrooms
$ 20,000- $29,999
1
$ 30,000- $ 39,000
$ 40,000-$ 49,999
1
$ 50,000-$ 59,999
1
$60,000- $69,999
1
$ 70,000-$ 79,999
$ 80,000- $89,999
$ 90,000- $ 99,999
4
Totals
TENANT UNITS
One 2 bedroom in the under $ 20,000 range
Two 3 bedroom in the $ 70,000- $ 79,999 range
The number of bedrooms is only an estimate at this time, as no interior inspections were
conducted and only limited information was supplied by the local assessors.
DESCRIPTION OF REPLACEMENT HOUSING Single-Family Houses (For Sale )
A survey of comparable replacement housing was made in the Belmont/ Platteville area and
Mineral Point/Dodgeville area to determine whether or not replacement housing is
available for the persons to be displaced .
As illustrated by the following tables, adequate replacement housing has been available in
the past based on the 1992 and first half of 1993 sales in these two areas. Current listings
show at least the same availability in 1993 as in 1992 , and this trend is expected to continue
in the future .
1
11
11
R /USH151/CSRPlan.RGG
E -6
March 1994
USH 151, Belmont to Dodgeville
Conceptual Stage Relocation Plan
BELMONT /PLATTEVILLE AREA
SINGLE - FAMILY HOMES SOLD IN 1992
Price Range
2 Bedrooms
Below $ 20,000
1
$ 20,000-$ 29,999
3 Bedrooms
4 Bedrooms
1
1
7
1
7
2
$ 30,000-$ 39,999
$ 40,000-$49,999
3
1
5
3
1
5
$ 50,000-$ 59,999
$60,000- $69,999
1
$ 70,000-$ 79,999
1
$ 80,000-$ 89,999
2
$ 90,000- $ 99,999
1
$ 100,000-$ 109,999
1
$ 110,000-$ 119,999
$ 120,000 Above
Totals
26
4
4
Information Gathered From Southwestern Wisconsin Multiple Listing Service
R /USH151/CSRPlan.RGG
E-7
March 1994
USH 151, Belmont to Dodgeville
Conceptual Stage Relocation Plan
MINERAL POINT/ DODGEVILLE AREA
SINGLE -FAMILY HOMES SOLD IN 1992
Price Range
2 Bedrooms
2
1
1
$ 20,000-$ 29,999
4 Bedrooms
1
Below $ 20,000
3 Bedrooms
$ 30,000-$ 39,999
3
$ 50,000-$ 59,999
2
1
$ 40,000-$ 49,999
6
2
1
7
$60,000-$69,999
‫در‬
$ 70,000-$ 79,999
1
20
6
1
1
$ 80,000-$ 89,999
$ 90,000-$ 99,999
$ 100,000-$ 109,999
$ 110,000-$ 119,999
1
$ 120,000 Above
Totals
8
Information Gathered From Southwestern Wisconsin Multiple Listing Service
R /USH151/CSRPlas.RGG
E -8
March 1994
USH 151, Belmont to Dodgeville
Conceptual Stage Relocation Plan
SINGLE - FAMILY HOMES SOLD IN THE
FIRST SIX MONTHS OF 1993
(includes Belmont / Platteville and
Mineral Point/ Dodgeville areas)
Price Range
$20,000
3 Bedrooms
4 Bedrooms
1
Below
2 Bedrooms
1
$ 30,000-$ 39,999
4
$ 40,000-$49,999
1
1
$ 20,000-$ 29,999
2
5
1
2
1
6
1
$ 70,000-$ 79,999
2
3
$ 80,000-$ 89,999
$50,000- $59,999
1
$60,000-$69,999
1
1
$ 90,000-$ 99,999
1
$ 100,000-$ 109,999
$ 110,000-$ 119,999
1
$ 120,000 Above
Totals
17
8
11
Information Gathered from Southwestern Wisconsin Multiple Listing Service
R /USH151/CSR Plan RGG
E -9
March 1994
-
USH 151, Belmont to Dodgeville
Conceptual Stage Relocation Plan
RURAL AREAS
SINGLE- FAMILY HOMES SOLD IN
FROM
1992 AND
JANUARY 1, 1993, THROUGH JUNE 30 , 1993
Price Range
3 Bedrooms
4 Bedrooms
1
Below $ 20,000
2 Bedrooms
$ 20,000-$ 29,999
1
$ 40,000-$49,999
1
2
$ 30,000-$ 39,999
$ 50,000-$ 59,999
1
1
$60,000-$69,999
2
$ 80,000-$ 89,999
2
1
1
$ 90,000-$ 99,999
1
$ 70,000-$ 79,999
$ 100,000-$ 109,999
$ 110,000-$ 119,999
2
$ 120,000 Above
Totals
6
5
7
Information Gathered From the Southwestern Wisconsin Multiple Listing Service
R /USH151/CSRPlar .RGG
E - 10
March 1994
USH 151, Belmont to Dodgeville
Conceptual Stage Relocation Plan
AVAILABLE REPLACEMENT HOUSING
SINGLE - FAMILY HOMES FOR SALE NOW
IN THE BELMONT/ PLATTEVILLE AREA
Price Range
2 Bedrooms
3 Bedrooms
4 Bedrooms
Below $ 20,000
$ 20,000- $ 29,999
2
2
1
1
$40,000-$49,999
2
$ 50,000- $59,999
1
$ 30,000-$ 39,999
1
2
$60,000-$69,999
1
1
$ 70,000-$ 79,999
1
$ 80,000-$ 89,999
$ 90,000-$ 99,999
$ 100,000-$ 109,999
2
$ 110,000-$ 119,999
$ 120,000 Above
5
4
Totals
8
Information Gathered From the Southwestern Wisconsin Multiple Listing Service
EVENTS
2
R /USH151/CSR Plan.RGG
basa
PRESS!
sa 2nos
E - 11
WOWOTNO
Diciosen
Bello
March 1994
USH 151, Belmont to Dodgeville
Conceptual Stage Relocation Plan
AVAILABLE REPLACEMENT HOUSING
SINGLE -FAMILY HOMES FOR SALE NOW
IN
THE MINERAL POINT/DODGEVILLE AREA
INCLUDING RURAL AREAS
Price Range
2 Bedrooms
3 Bedrooms
4 Bedrooms
Below $ 20,000
$ 20,000-$ 29,999
$ 30,000-$ 39,999
1
$ 40,000-$ 49,999
2
2
$ 50,000-$ 59,999
3
$60,000-$69,999
4
1
$ 70,000-$ 79,999
2
3
2
$ 80,000- $89,999
2
$ 90,000-$ 99,999
2
$ 100,000- $ 109,999
$ 110,000-$ 119,999
1
$ 120,000 Above
3
Totals
4
14
10
Information Gathered From the Southwestern Wisconsin Multiple Listing Service
RENTAL UNITS (LISTED FOR RENT)
Houses and apartments in the Dodgeville /Mineral Point area currently rent from a low of
$ 275 to a high of $625 per month . The average is $ 350 per month . Forty-five percent of
all rents fall in the range of $250-$ 499 per month ( 1990 census ).
The survey for rental housing was based on a review of the weekly DODGEVILLE
CHRONICLE for each week from January 7, 1993, to June 3 , 1993. It is evident that
comparable replacement rental units will be available during the 2 -year acquisition period
of 1998 to 2000. Also taken into account are the rentals located in rural areas as well as
the neighboring smaller communities.
R /USH151/CSRPlan RGG
E - 12
March 1994
USH 151, Belmont to Dodgeville
Conceptual Stage Relocation Plan
AVAILABLE RENTAL UNITS
Houses
Total Number
Listed
8
4
4
1/3
0/2
0/1
2
0
18
2/4
1/2
0/1
0
0
0
3 Bedroom
4 Bedroom
Apartments /Duplexes
2 Bedroom
3 Bedroom
6
1
4 Bedroom
Average Rents =
Required
1
2 Bedroom
Number
Low /High
1 Bedroom $ 315
2 Bedroom
$ 390
3 Bedroom
$415
An attempt to determine the potential for construction of additional rental units was made,
but no clear response was received .
ESTIMATE OF RESIDENTIAL RELOCATION COST
Replacement
Housing
Payment
Number
Occupancy / Type
Owner / Single -Family
Tenant / Single-Family
of Units
4
5
$ 10,000
$ 5,000
Total
$ 40,000
$ 25,000
$65,000
Moving Costs
Number
of Units
Single-Family
9
Interest /Closing Costs
Number
of Units
Owner / Single -Family
4
Cost
Per Unit
Total
$ 1,000
$ 9,000
Cost
Per Unit
Total
$ 2,500
$ 10,000
GRAND TOTAL
$ 84,000
R /USH151/CSRPlan RGG
E - 13
March 1994
USH 151, Belmont to Dodgeville
Conceptual Stage Relocation Plan
ESTIMATE OF BUSINESS DISPLACEMENT
Three business displacements may occur with the Build Alternative corridor from Belmont
to Dodgeville.
This information was based upon a field survey and personal interviews with the businesses
potentially affected by this alternative.
Information was gathered on the individual
businesses and they in turn were given the relocation benefit brochure containing the
information on benefits to which they would be entitled should their business be acquired .
The general effect of the business relocations on the local economy will be minimal as two
of the three businesses will relocate and become re - established in the community. One
business felt another location as good as the present would be impossible to find and ,
therefore , would probably not go back into business . One business would relocate to other
adjacent lands already owned. One business might relocate within the Industrial Park where
they are located now .
An acquisition or relocation period of at least 2 years would allow for the orderly relocation
of the businesses wishing to rebuild . The description of the type of business properties to
be displaced , building size and number of employees for each business , are described in the
following sections.
The Build Alternative is shown on Exhibit 5 .
2016 Highway 151 - Ronald Borchert, Owner /Operator of Dodge Corner Cheese /Liquor
1.
Ron Borchert and his wife are the owners / operators, with no employees, of the retail
cheese /liquor store (Station 1055 , left). This is approximately 800 square feet on each
floor with a living quarters on the second floor (now vacant ). Gross sales were
estimated at $ 125,000 per year. The owners do not believe they will be able to build
their business back up again after 20 years operating at this location .
Consequently ,
they probably will liquidate their business .
Should they decide to
relocate their business , a market study indicated available
commercial buildings in both the Dodgeville and Mineral Point area .
2.
Highway 39 West - James Sturz , Owner /Operator of Jim's Rust Free Parts
This metal fenced in area (Station 775, left) is primarily for storage oftruck boxes, cabs,
and other automobile parts for resale. The business was relocated to this location in
the Industrial Park under an agreement with the City of Mineral Point. Jim has
expressed some concern over where City zoning will allow him to relocate . He has no
employees and gross sales of approximately $ 100,000 per year. He plans on staying in
business unless this project takes longer than projected . There will still be other land
available in the Industrial Park after completion of this project should he decide to stay
in the same area .
R /USH151/CSR Plart.RGG
E - 14
March 1994
USH 151, Belmont to Dodgeville
Conceptual Stage Relocation Plan
3.
RFD 3 Highway 151 - Robert Carey, Owner of Carey Dairy Farms, Inc.
This is a 200+ dairy cow operation (Stations 705-735 , left and right) with some beef
cattle. Hemilks cows and also raises them for sale and export. He would be losing his
dairy barn , a cattle shed , and his feed storage . His farmhouse is rented by a hired hand.
There is no distinction in the number of employees as he employs three full-time and
three to four part-time people in his three businesses together. His yearly gross income
was difficult to determine because of his business structure . Mr. Carey indicated a
preliminary desire to rebuild on his remaining parcels of land. Other existing dairy
farms would be available for purchase at his option .
ESTIMATE OF BUSINESS RELOCATION COST
Supplemental
Replacement
Payment
Operation
Moving
Payment
1.
Dodge Corner Cheese /Liquor
$ 25,000
$ 5,000
2.
Jim's Rust Free Parts
$ 25,000
$ 20,000
3.
Carey Dairy Farms, Inc.
$ 50,000
$ 10,000
TOTAL
$ 100,000
$ 35,000
SUMMARY OF RELOCATION PAYMENTS
Residential and Business:
Residential Payments
$ 84,000
Business Payments
$ 135.000
TOTAL
R /USH151/CSR Plan.RGG
$ 219.000
E - 15
March 1994
APPENDIX
F
COST /BENEFIT ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F
COST /BENEFIT ANALYSIS
A. GENERAL
The three basic elements of the Cost /Benefit Analysis are initial construction
pavement maintenance costs, and benefits to the highway user.
costs,
The initial construction costs ( ICC ) estimate for the Build Alternative includes the costs to
construct mainline pavement, interchange , new and reconstructed side roads, and
appurtenant work . It does not include land acquisition, utility relocation , engineering, or
contingency costs. It also does not include any work on the existing USH 151 and,
therefore , the ICC for the No-Build Alternative is zero .
It was recognized that there are costs associated with maintaining the serviceability of the
existing USH 151 pavement, including those portions which would remain under the Build
Alternative . These costs , as well as the costs of maintaining the serviceability of the new
Build Alternative pavement are reflected in the pavement maintenance cost (PMC)
estimate.
The PMC estimate includes only major pavement rehabilitations or
reconstructions, not routine maintenance (such as patching, snow plowing , etc.).
The purpose of the highway user benefit (HUB) calculation is to quantify savings to the
highway user in vehicle operation costs and delay costs associated with each Build
Alternative. Benefits are computed as the difference between the operation and delay costs
for a particular Build Alternative versus those costs for the No-Build Alternative . The No
Build Alternative serves as a baseline and by definition has zero HUB.
The benefit calculation reflects only operation and delay savings for drivers using USH 151,
including those with an origin or destination within the communities of Belmont or Mineral
Point. It does not include secondary benefits such as highway maintenance savings, reduced
congestion for local traffic, possible economic development, or increased tourism .
The project was divided into three main segments for analysis :
Segment 1 - the Belmont Bypass
Segment 2 - the portion between Belmont and Mineral Point
Segment 3 - the Mineral Point bypass, including the portion north of Mineral Point
Uniform
terminus points were established for each
segment and were the basis for
tabulating lengths of each alternative within a particular segment for use in determining
construction costs and highway user benefits.
F -1
B.
INITIAL CONSTRUCTION COST
Costs for paving, base course , culverts, and other general construction itemswere computed
on a per mile basis using recent bid tabulations. Individual structure costs were estimated
based on square footage of proposed structures. Earthwork costs for each alternative were
based on yardage calculated from roadway modeling. Interchanges were assumed to add
the same cost (per interchange ) to each alternative . Side road construction mileage was
calculated separately for each alternative . Construction cost estimates are given in 1993
dollars and are assumed to be incurred in the year 2000.
C.
PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE COST
The project was divided into several segments for the analysis based on the age and
condition of the existing pavement.
A probable pavement rehabilitation /reconstruction
strategy was developed for each segment and for the proposed new pavement covering a
50 -year analysis period . Costs were estimated in 1993 dollars and were converted to year
2000 " present worth ."
The No-Build Alternative strategy included rehabilitation of distressed segments of the
existing route in the year 2000. The Build Alternative strategy also included rehabilitation
of those portions of the distressed segments which would remain. For the Build Alternative,
no distinction was made between work which might be done by WDOT prior to
jurisdictional transfer and work which would be done by county or local authorizes following
transfer. Thus, the PMC represents all public costs, rather than costs to WDOT. A lower
cost strategy was applied to the portions of existing USH 151 to remain under the Build
Alternative versus the No-Build Alternative strategy, primarily because of the greatly
reduced truck traffic on these segments
D. HIGHWAY USER BENEFIT
The HUB obtained from the analysis is useful in the following two measures :
HUBs for each alternative within a particular study segment are compared directly as
a measure of the relative desirability of each alternative .
The HUB for an alternative is compared with initial construction
alternative as a measure of the cost -effectiveness of that alternative.
The input parameters considered in the benefit calculation were :
Segment length , including side road connecting links
Average traffic volume on each link
Average speed for each link
Driver delay cost per minute
Analysis period
Effective interest rate
F -2
cost for that
Traffic volumes were assigned to mainline links between interchanges and to the major
connecting highway links into Mineral Point and Belmont. Traffic assignments were based
on the origin -destination survey performed by WDOT in 1992 , with forecasts for the years
2000 and 2020 provided by WDOT Central Office Traffic Forecasting Section.
Average speed for the proposed 4 -lane facility was assumed to be 60 mph,with lower speeds
assigned to other links based on the type of roadway , proximity to the urban areas, and
posted speed limits.
A value of $ 0.28 per mile was used for vehicle operation cost. This figure incorporates fuel,
maintenance , and depreciation for themix of automobiles and trucks using USH 151. This
value, which is the federally recognized average cost of operating a passenger vehicle, is
conservative. While it includes some fixed ownership costs which are not dependent on
mileage , it does not include the higher costs of operating trucks, which account for
approximately 15 % of traffic volumes. Truck operating costs directly related to mileage
were estimated to be approximately $ 0.40 per mile.
Delay costs are highly subjective. They reflect the value drivers, including professional
drivers, commuters, and pleasure drivers, place on their time and includes vehicle
passengers. A value of $0.25 per minute was used for delay cost. This figure is based on
a value of $ 9.00 per hour for passenger vehicle drivers and passengers, with a 1.5 average
vehicle occupancy rate. Professional driver time, including fringe benefits, was valued at
$ 25.00 per hour.
A 30 -year (2000-2030 ) analysis period was used. Future operation and delay costs were
converted to present worth based on a 4 %
dollars.
E.
effective interest rate . All figures are in 1993
CONCLUSIONS
Highway user benefits and construction costs for the preferred Build Alternative are
summarized in Table F - 1 . Pavement maintenance costs are summarized in Table F -2 .
Operation and delay cost calculations for the No-Build and the preferred Build Alternatives
for each of the three study segments are shown on Tables F - 3 through F - 8. Operation and
delay cost calculations for all alternatives considered in the detailed study phase , including
the Mineral Point Bypasses, are summarized in Table F -9, and calculations for each
alternative are shown in Tables F - 10 through F -22 .
Overall route length is the main factor affecting both initial construction cost and highway
user benefits. In the Mineral Point Bypass study segment, route length is comparable for
Alternatives 3A , 3B, and 3B- 1, while Alternatives 3C and 3E are significantly longer. A
secondary factor in increasing highway user benefit is convenient interchange location ,which
reduces the length of the low -speed trips between the interchange and the community it
serves.
F -3
All Build Alternatives show a positive user benefit when compared to the No- Build
Alternative . The user benefit does not exceed the construction cost for some segments or
alternatives resulting in a negative net benefit .
The selected Build Alternative will result in a positive net benefit , taken as a whole , and in
particular, for both bypass segments.
The Build Alternative also results in a reduction in pavement maintenance costs compared
with the No -Build Alternative over the lifetime of the improvement.
Among the Mineral Point Bypass alternatives considered in the detailed study phase,
Alternatives 3A and 3B (including variation 3B - 1) result in a positive net benefit.
Alternatives 3C and 3E result in a negative net benefit . Several variations of the 30
alternative were investigated in regards to user benefits , though they were not given detailed
geometric analysis .
These variations involved different interchange locations and
configurations while keeping the same basic 3C alignment.
Variation 3C -1 improved user benefits, but they remained well below construction costs.
In addition , the terrain , mine locations, and roadway geometrics are not favorable for
construction of an interchange at STH 23. Variation 3C - 2 hasbenefits similar to 3C -1, but
with additional construction costs and land impacts associated with four additional ramps.
Variation 3C -3 has more severe land impacts than 3C while also reducing user benefits .
Because of practical constraints affecting all 3C variations, the basic 3C alternative was
considered the most feasible, and costs for that alternative are reported in the
Environmental Impact Statement.
R /USH151/AppendF.ASF
F -4
Table F - 1
BENEFIT / COST SUMMARY
BUILD ALTERNATAIVE
NET
BENEFIT
e = 'c – d )
USER COST
NO - BUILD
BUILD
a
b
C = (a - b )
CONSTR .
COST
d
2
3
$ 86,565,011
$ 196,300,119
$ 393,163,401
$69,284,727
$ 188,228,568
$ 366,777,288
$ 17,280,285
$ 8,071,551
$ 26,386,113
$ 8,436,000
$ 15,443,000
$ 25,711,000
$ 8,844,285
( $ 7,371,449 )
$675,113
TOTAL
$676,028,531
$624,290,582
$ 51,737,949
$ 49,590,000
$ 2,147,949
SEGMENT
USER
BENEFIT
1
Table F - 2
PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE COST SUMMARY
ALTERNATIVE
CONDITION
CATEGORY
(1 )
NO - BUILD
А.
B
с
3.24
7.49
9.28
TOTAL
20.01
A
B
с
3.24
0.77
3.77
40.00
TOTAL
47.78
BUILD
2 - LANE
MILES
(2)
P.W.COST
PER 2 - LANE
MILE
(3)
$ 430,500
$ 361,500
$ 224,900
PRESENT
WORTH
COST
(3 )
$ 1,394,820
$ 2,707,635
$ 2,087,072
$ 6.189,527
$ 370,100
$ 288,000
$ 93,500
$61,600
$ 1,199,124
$ 221,760
$ 352,495
$ 2,464,000
$ 4,237,379
NOTES :
(1) Condition Categories based on the following pavement type and distress index :
A A.C.C.Pavement PDI = 64 to 81
BP.C.C. Pavement PDI = 34 to 63
CP.C.C.Pavement PDI O to 26
D P.C.C.Pavement New in year 2000
(2 ) Equals Length X 2 for new 4 - lane highway
( 3) Present Worth in year 2000 for analysis period 2000 to 2050
project\ush 151\deis\user4 (sht.G )
F -5
F -6
1
10
45
1.02
1
9
50
1.21
1
8
25
50
0.53
1.18
1
1
project
u
sh151
otus
sr4.wk3
s
)(/lht.D
0
0
0
0
0
0
:
TOTALS
0
0
0
0
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
0$
3
8,634,149
2
$ ,234,217
,771,847
0$
$0
0$
$0
$0
$0
4
$ 7,930,862
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$86,565,011
0$
0$
$0
$0
0$
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
0
0
4
$ ,580,297
2
$ ,489,292
$2,091,005
1
$ 43,956
1
$ 20,923
575,824
431,868
1160
1
$2
9,854,664
4,412,596
85,442,068
93,016
$833,482
1
8,445,391
$52,576,403
,868,988
3,007,580
3,684,659
9
$1
7,423,100
40,408
6,261,560
.30
YRS
17.29
WORTH
PRESENT
OPERATION
DELAY
TOTAL
$( 93
's)'
4%
3,572,065
2,976,721
6740
Annual
=
Rate
Period
=Time
PWF
=
$339,404
$727,295
COSTS
ANNUAL
OPERATION
ADT
DELAY
USAGE
-m
)/y
in
m
v
eh
i
|'
eh
(u
pd
$'s)(r
93
0
M
inute
/$ .25
0
$ .28
/M
ile
COSTS
DELAY
AND
OPERATION
2,909,178
1,212,158
6266
4,030,318
3,358,599
ANNUAL
AVG
.ANNUAL
=
Cost
Operating
=Cost
Delay
7798
.AVG
LENGTH
SPEED
LINK
m
)( ph
1
7
6
5
3
2
22
++60
2
0
7
.60
–Sta
BUILD
NO
.10
1Align
Segment
Table
F-3
0
$
1
1
11
F-7
1
u
project
sh151
S
ht.C
eis
sr4.wk3
)(/d
$0
$0
0
$
1
:
TOTALS
0
$0
0
$
0
0
0
$
11
1
0
0
0
$
10
1
9
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
0$
$0
0
$0
$0
$0
0
0
3
$6
3,725,267
9,284,727
5,559,460
2
1,056,407
||
,950,336
$0
$0
0$
$0
0$
$0
0$
$0
o
0
0
$
8
1
1
$ ,253,028
$854,337
3
$ 98,691
$49,406
$23,056
197,626
0
$
7
6
25
82,344
480
0.47
5
4
$ ,576,441
$2,620,100
1
$ ,956,341
1
$ 51,521
1
$ 13,135
606,083
404,055
3075
0.36
1
4
3
$ ,165,061
$1,812,058
1
$2
6,379,135
72,442,988
3,936,147
19,579
$1
3
3,911,061
5,995,784
97,915,278
25,038
.30
YRS
17.29
WORTH
PRESENT
OPERATION
TOTAL
DELAY
$'s)('93
%4
1
$ ,353,003
Annual
Rate
Time
Period
=
PWF
1
$ 04,792
419,166
279,444
1160
40
0.66
3
8
$ 05,929
1
$ ,036,042
ANNUAL
COSTS
USAGE
OPERATION
DELAY
ADT
DELAY
v
v
eh
pd
(m
'$'s)(reh
93
i
)/y-m
in
$0ile
/M
.28
$0.25
/M
inute
COSTS
DELAY
AND
OPERATION
$ 8,244
7
2,878,317
2,878,317
6740
60
1.17
1
, 51
3,700
2
3,700,151
7798
.ANNUAL
AVG
ANNUAL
60
.AVG
SPEED
LENGTH
LINK
m
)( ph
=
Cost
Operating
=
Cost
y
Dela
Table
F-4
1.30
.1
9222
+Sta
20
2
5
BUILD
.
ALT
. 001
Align
Segment
11
40
0
$
0
$
0
$
1
F -8
1
1
1
u
.E)(S
sr4.wk3
ht
/d
eis
sh151
project
0
0
o
0
:TOTALS
0
0
$0
0$
$0
0$
0
0
0$
$0
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
0$
$0
$0
$0
'$s)(/y-m
m
v
reh
in
i
|m93
pd
ph
ANNUAL
COSTS
LENGTH
LINK
OPERATION
USAGE
DELAY
ADT
SPEED
M
0
$/ .25
inute
$0.28
/M
ile
$0
$0
$0
0$
$0
$0
$0
$0
PWF
Annual
Rate
=
Period
Time
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
0
$
96,300,119
1
$ ,601,343
6,858,611
9
9,441,508
5
,750,712
$0
$0
$0
$0
0$
0$
$0
$0
1,601,343
96,300,119
5
$9
9,441,508
6,858,611
,750,712
.YRS
30
17.29
WORTH
PRESENT
OPERATION
DELAY
TOTAL
$'s)('93
%4
0
$
9
8
1
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
22,405,372
7214
20,538,258
AVG
.A
ANNUAL
. NNUAL
AVG
=Cost ing
Operat
=Cost
Delay
COSTS
DELAY
AND
OPERATION
0
$
7
6
1
55
1
5
7.80
1
4
3
2
+634
.2
Sta
0
22
00
0
BUILD
NO
Segment
.10
2Align
5FTable
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
1
1
1
10
11
F-9
1
1
1
1
1
0
$
1
10
:
TOTALS
0
$0
0$
$0
1
$0
8
$1
8,787,060
88,228,568
5
9,134,565
9,441,508
,750,712
$0
0
$
)project
d
(S/u
ht.F
eis
sr4.wk3
sh151
0
0
$
$0
0
$
$0
0
$
0
0
$0
0
$
0
0
0$
0$
0
$
11
0
$
0
$0
0
$
0
0
$
0$
0
$
0
0
$
0
0
$
0$
0
$
0
0
$
0
$0
$0
1
88,228,568
$8
8,787,060
5,750,712
9
9,441,508
,134,565
.YRS
30
17.29
WORTH
PRESENT
OPERATION
TOTAL
DELAY
'($'s) 93
4%
0
$
9
0
0$
$0
0
$
0
$0
0$
$0
$0
0
0$
$0
0$
0
0
0
0
Annual
Rate
Time
Period
PWF
=
0
$
8
0
20,538,258
20,538,258
7214
COSTS
ANNUAL
OPERATION
DELAY
|L
LINK
SPEED
USAGE
ENGTH
ADT
)./y-m
m
|(v
eh
in
i
pd
ph
'
93
$'s)(9reh
3
0
.28
M
/$ ile
$0.25
/M
inute
0
$
7
1
60
.AVG
NNUAL
AVG
ANNUAL
=
Cost
ing
Operat
=
Cost
Delay
0
$
0
$
6
7.80
Segment
.1001
2Align
DELAY
COSTS
AND
OPERATION
0
$
5
4
3
2
.250
2Sta
–1
+9
22
8633
BUILD
.
ALT
F-6
Table
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
2
F - 10
40
40
40
2.23
0.47
1.27
0
0
11
8
9
10
7
25
35
55
40
4.38
0.75
0.81
1.31
1.46
)m
( ph
.
AVG
SPE
GTH
LENED
LINK
2.84
5
6
4
1
3
+75
1
-+.6
0091
0
34
Sta
UILD
B
-NO
3Seg
1
. 0 ment
Align
1
0
0
0
ht
S
sr4.w
d
sh151
u
tk3
/.B)( eis
projec
173,831
115,888
250
01
63,476
93,146,0
3
17,3
14,0
2
$$ 79,1
1
6,64
1
0,036225
0,36
1
$:$$ 2,37
ALS
TOT
$0
64,331
42,888
250
0
$0
4,070,564
2,713,709
3334
0
3
$ 2,449
3,613,588
2,409,058
2324
0
1
$ 2,009
20,286,631
18,596,078
11632
55
$0
$0
4
$ 3,458
1
$ 6,083
9
$5
58
,071,6922
02
,206,9
$ 0,037,
5,576,053
3,252,698
11882
35
6
$ 74,536
8,81
5,74
1
$9,394
55 1
10,7,013
4,745,537
1,977,307
6688
1
53,64684
5
$ ,186,3
6,506,665
3,795,555
7938
$0
$0
5
$ 61,101
2
$ 07,651
200
8,377,66
1
$1
55
,062,7
$ ,626,6
%4
.
YRS
30
0$
0$
7
$ 51,474
2
$ 78,105
9
1,565
5,6297
1
4,10
1,66
1
9
$$ 03,3
$0
0$
1
$ ,312,574
4
$ 85,756
6
6,23
0,73
3
2
1
$$ 7,59
9,15
3,13
1 7,08
7,64
1
39 4
59,8
7
$$ ,01
674
2
$17,285,
5,621,569
,197
77,737275
1
8
$ 7,699,
3
$29,854,
323
4,105,134
663
0,088,65
3
997
$90,514,
2
,573,6
568
4
$26,505,
8,128,368
3
$19,157,
184
9,321,599
17.29
WORTH
PRESENT
TOTAL
DELAY
OPERATION
93
s)$'(s)$'('93
'
93
4,469,384
415
9,836,
1
$ ,117,3
42
,147,146
=
Rate
Annual
e
Per
Timiod
PWF=
4,096,935
S
COST
ANNUAL
DELAY
TION
OPERA
DELAY
USAGE
ADT
93
$')(rreh
sv
$()v
93
'
('
)ym
y
/-m
in
i
eh
pd
/$ ile
M
.28
0
inute
M
/$ .25
0
S
COST
Y
DELA
AND
N
OPERATIO
7688
AL
L
NNUA
A
.ANNU
AVG
= rat
t ing
Cos
Ope
= la
sty
Co
De
-7F
Table
F - 11
40
project
d
/u
)(S
ht.A
eis
sr4.wk3
sh151
250
38,325
1
$3
84,057,786
66,777,288
82,719,502
0,566,687
:||0,644,080
TOTALS
1
$ 0,731
57,488
0.42
$19,505
$14,564
78,019
52,013
11
40
250
0.57
9,233,920
$1
21,327
4,935,680
3,290,453
5742
10
40
1.57
9
$14,372
3
$ 37,276
$248,519
$251,833
1
$ 85,561
4
$ 34,080
5
$ 89,108
3
17,268,599
$2
5,931,615
1,336,984
2
$ ,465,399
1
$ ,680,954
7
$ 84,445
$97,210
$45,365
388,839
548
162,016
25
0.81
8
7
$ ,057,517
4
$ ,040,563
$3,016,954
$233,666
1
$ ,087,225
1
$ 74,471
$622,457
1
$ 0,736,236
3,139,154
7,597,082
3
11,664,105
$2
7,285,674
5,621,569
$6
1
40,856,782
6,441,878
3,842,340
7
4,414,904
35,265,390
$7
9,497,237
4,762,627
1,206,632
2
$4
,351,427
0,865,114
4,234,041
3,368,927
.
YRS
30
17.29
PRESENT
WORTH
DELAY
OPERATION
TOTAL
$'s)('$'s)('93
93
%4
4
$ 64,768
7,017,641
$1
3,139,154
59,839
Rate
=Annual
Time
Period
=
PWF
=
$35,997
934,665
95,991
623,110
1797
40
0.95
7
4,070,564
$903,397
2
$ 6,878
1547
40
0.17
6
2,713,709
$674,536
4,842,340
$3
,303,421
,284,129
$ ,039,401
2
COSTS
ANNUAL
SPEED
LENGTH
LINK
USAGE
ADT
DELAY
DELAY
OPERATION
'$s)(/y-m
pd
m
|v
rin
eh
i
$'s)(9r93
3ph
0/$ .28
M
ile
0/$ .25
M
inute
DELAY
AND
OPERATION
COSTS
143,987
3334
40
2.23
3,613,588
15,369,362
60
11632
15,369,362
2,409,058
8,157,604
8,157,604
6140
4,826,526
4,826,526
A
.AVG
VG
NNUAL
ANNUAL
=Cost
Operating
Costy
Dela
7688
2324
60
60
40
5
3.62
3
2.84
3.64
2
4
1.72
1
ALT
BUILD
.
1
Segment
. 001
3Align
1
.1e1107
Sta
+9
+00
08633
Table
-8F
Table
F-9
DETAILED STUDY PHASE ALTERNATIVES
BENEFIT / COST SUMMARY
ALTERNATIVE
1A
2A
USER COST
BUILD
NO - BUILD
$ 131,349,863
$ 142,946,753
ЗА
$ 406,449,902
3B
3B - 1
$ 406,449,902
$ 406,449,902
$ 406,449,902
30
$ 367,791,026
$ 372,420,925
$ 368,529,854
$ 400,618,891
$ 389,866,099
$ 406,449,902
3C - 1
3C - 2
3C - 3
ЗЕ
BENEFIT
$ 110,195,702
$ 137,069,008
$ 406,449,902
$ 406,449,902
$ 21,154,161
$ 5,877,745
$ 10,800,000
$ 10,354,161
$ 12,800,000
$ 38,658,876
$ 34,028,977
$ 37,920,048
$ 27,000,000
($ 6,922,255)
$ 11,658,876
$ 26,700,000
$ 26,900,000
$ 7,328,977
$ 11,020,048
$ 5,831,011
$ 16,583,803
$ 17,014,747
$ 1,158,164
$ 28,300,000
$ 28,500,000
$ 29,700,000
($ 22,468,989)
($ 11,916,197
($ 12,685,253)
$ 28,300,000
$ 27,141,836 )
$ 14,913,969
$ 31,600,000
($ 16,686,031)
$ 389,435,155
$ 405,291,738
$ 391,535,933
$ 406,449,902
NET
BENEFIT
CONSTR .
COST
TS
NET USER BENEFI
(USER BENEFITS - CONSTRUCTION COSTS)
$ 20.0
Millions
$ 10.0
$0.0
($ 10.0 )
-
($ 20.0 )
IT
( $30.0 )
1A
2A
3A
3B
3B - 1
project\ush151\lotus \user3 (sht.N )
F - 12
3C
30-1
3C - 2
3C - 3
3E
F - 13
1
1
1
s/)(ht.H
sr3.wk
u
eis
dprojec
sh151
t3
0
0
0
0
0
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
0
:
TOTALS
0
$
0
$
1
8
0
$
,111,456
4
$ ,484,5
19
3
.
YRS
30
$0
0$
$0
$0
0$
2
$ ,489,292
0
$
1
,863
31,349440
$ 0,254,
1,095,
7
422
6
$1
$0
$0
0$
4
$ ,580,297
104
0,072,
7,956,2
192
6,244,
3
912
3,827,05
2
72
1
$$ ,096,0
391
8,445,
1
403
2,576,88
5
$$ ,868,9
071
8,252,21
38,466,
554
9,785,
517
1
01
,144,2
1
$$$ ,067,9
17.29
H
WORT
PRESENT
DELAY
OPERATION TOTAL
$'s)(')$'s(93
'
93
%4
0
$
0$
0$
0
$
0
$0
0$
2
$ ,091,005
0
$
0
0$
$0
$0
0
0
1
$ 43,956
1
$ 20,923
575,824
431,868
1160
Rate
Annual
=
Period
Time
=
=
PWF
0
$
11
1
10
45
1.02
8,384,021
6,986,684
6740
$727,295
,178
2,909
1,212,158
6266
COSTS
ANNUAL
DELAY
TION
OPERA
DELAY
USAGE
ADT
)(reh
93
s)$''
)v
/-(m
93
'
in
m
yv
i
pd
$0.28
/M
ile
$0.25
/M
inute
3
$ 39,404
4,576,802
3,814,002
7798
ANNUAL
.ANNUAL
AVG
=Costating
Oper
=Cosay
t
Del
COSTS
DELAY
AND
ON
OPERATI
0
$
9
50
2.84
1
7
25
50
0.53
1.34
.
AVG
SPEED
LENGTH
LINK
)(mph
.- UILD
ALT
B
NO
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
1
Segment
-1
F0
Table
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
F - 14
40
25
0.36
0.47
1
10
40
0.66
1
9
60
2.73
1
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
60
1
1
)(/ ht.G
S
sr3.wk3
u
eis
d
sh151
project
$3,306,309
$0
0$
$0
3
$ ,066,319
$0
$0
$0
$57,172,805
$0
$0
$0
$0
0$
$0
$0
$0
1
1
11
1
5
$ 3,022,897
10,195,70
$0
$0
$0
$0
0$
$0
1
$ ,253,028
8
$ 54,337
3
$ 98,691
$0
4
$ ,576,441
$2,620,100
1
$ ,956,341
1
$3
2,679,018
6
,880,500
2,517,676
9,033,639
1,551,316
1
$2
0,947,094
8,702,76
39,649,856
TOTAL
$'(s) 93
'
93
3
$ ,165,061
OPERATION
DELAY
.
YRS
30
17.29
PRESENT
WORTH
4%
$1,812,058
1
$ ,353,003
$1
,081,583
2,211,373
0,947,094
Annual
=
Rate
=Time
Period
PWF
=
0
$
:
TOTALS
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
$0
$0
0
0
$0
$0
0$
o
0
0
4
$ 9,406
2
$ 3,056
197,626
82,344
480
$151,521
1
13
,$ 35
1
404,055
3075
1
$ 04,792
606,083
279,444
1160
6,716,073
ANNUAL
COSTS
OPERATION
DELAY
ADT
DELAY
USAGE
LENGTH
SPEED
LINKI
)/y
m
(v'
-m
eh
i
pd
ph
93
$('s)rin
0
$ .28
/M
ile
0
$ .25
/M
inute
7
$ 8,244
6,716,073
6740
4,326,330
ANNUAL
.A
VG
NNUAL
AVG
=
Cost
ing
Operat
=Delay
Cost
OPERATION
AND
COSTS
DELAY
419,166
4,326,330
7798
1A
ALTERNATIVE
1.52
Segment
1
Table
F1
-1
0
$
0
$
F - 15
1
1
1
)S
(/ ht.I
sr3.wk
u
eis
d
sh151
t 3
projec
$0
0$
0
$
0
$
1
1
$0
$0
0
$
,753
42,94627
1
$ ,078,9
937
0,532,
816
2,413,
7
98
4
$$ ,187,6
0$
0$
0
$
S
:
TOTAL
$0
$0
0
$
0
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
0$
$0
,753
42,946816
1
937
0,532,
$ 2,413,
7
0
$
0
0
$0
$0
0
$
0
0
0
$
0
$
9
0
0
$0
0
$
0
0
$
0
$0
.YRS
30
17.29
WORT
PRESEHNT
DELAY
OPERATION TOTAL
93
3
'$s(')('$s993
%4
0
$
8
$0
0
$
0
0
0$
0$
$0
816
2,413,98
7
27
,078,9
4
$$ ,187,6
Rate
Annual
e
Per
Timiod
=PWF
0
$
7
1
0
$
0
$0
0$
COSTSL
ANNUA
DELAY
TION
OPERA
DELAY
USAG
ADT E
SPEED
H
LENGT
LINK
93
93
)/y
in
m
-()('s$')('rreh
ym
i
v
pd
ph
m
M
/$0.25
inute
ile
$0.28
/M
0
$
6
$0
0
$
0
0
16,315,707
0
$
0
0
0
14,956,065
7214
ANNUAL
A
A
VG
NNUAL
.AVG
=Costating
Oper
= ay
t
Cos
Del
S
COST
DELA
AND Y
N
ATIO
OPER
0
$
5
1
4
55
1
3
2
.- UILD
ALT
B
NO
5.68
2
Segment
1
F- 2
Table
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
1
1
10
11
F - 16
1
o
0
1
1
1
4
1
$0
$0
$0
$0
0
$
1
11
2,413,816
||$7,739,016
3
,187,698
4
$0
$0
0$
$0
$0
0$
$0
$0
0
$
6
4,655,193
$137,069,008
0
$
TOTALS
:
0
$0
0$
$0
$0
$0
0
$
0
0
0
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
0$
0
$
0
0
0
$0
0$
0
$
0
0
o
$0
$0
$0
637,069,008
$1
4,655,193
0
$
0
u
/)(S
project
sh151
deis
sr3.wk3
ht.J
0
0
$0
$0
$0
4,739,016
3
$7
,187,698
2,413,816
.YRS
30
17.29
WORTH
PRESENT
OPERATION
DELAY
TOTAL
'
$'s)( 93
%4
0
$
0
$
10
0
0
$0
$0
Annual
Rate
Time
Period
PWF
=
0
$
9
1
0
0
0
0$
COSTS
ANNUAL
SPEED
LENGTH
USAGE
LINK
OPERATION
DELAY
ADT
m
/y-v
in
v
m
pd
i
$'s)('reh
93
)|(m
ph
0
.28
M
/$ ile
M
inute
/$0.25
0
$
0
0
0
0
0
14,956,065
14,956,065
7214
VG
ANNUAL
.A
NNUAL
AVG
A
=
Cost
ing
Operat
=Cost
Delay
COSTS
DELAY
AND
OPERATION
0
$
8
1
0
$
7
1
6
1
60
2A
ALTERNATIVE
1
5
3
2
5.68
2
Segment
Table
1
F- 3
0
$
0
$
0
$
F - 17
0
0
1
10
40
u
)(S
ht.E
sr3.wk3
project
/d
eis
sh151
115,888
250
1.27
1
11
1
2
$4
85,876,687
20,573,215
06,449,902
||TOTALS
2,755,771
: 0,749,267
0
0
0$
0$
73,139,154
$1
,017,641
59,839
91,664,105
$1
03,397
$5
,106,395
9,242,566
0,654,620
1
5,748,811
$9,394,013
10,755
$9,573,665
0$
173,831
42,888
250
0.47
40
$0
$1,312,574
$751,474
5
$ 61,101
$43,458
$32,449
64,331
2,713,709
3334
2.23
2.84
$0
4
$ 85,756
$278,105
$207,651
$16,083
1
$ 2,009
4,070,564
2,409,058
2324
6
$ 74,536
20,425,581
18,723,449
11632
55
4.41
3,613,588
5,576,053
3,252,698
3511882
0.75
1
53,646
.$5,186,384
4,745,537
1,977,307
6688
25
0$
3
1
$ 0,736,236
7,597,082
2
1
$ 7,285,674
5,621,569
8
$18,299,955
78,954,57
29,854,134
$3
4,105,323
20,514,997
$3
0,088,663
4
$28,1
28,368
6,505,568
0.81
$1,626,666
,062,755
8,377,200
6,506,665
3,795,555
7938
35
1.31
40
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1.91
25,276,343
$5
1,226,722
.30
YRS
17.29
WORTH
PRESENT
TOTAL
DELAY
OPERATION
93
$'s) 93
('
%4
5,846,934
1,500,713
$2
,461,733
5,950,379
PWF=
=
Rate
Annual
Time
Period
5,359,689
ANNUAL
COSTS
LENGTH
LINK
SPEED
OPERATION
USAGE
DELAY
ADT
DELAY
|'
m
y
(v
)/y-m
eh
pd
in
ph
i
93
($'s)rreh
M/$0.28
ile
M
/$0.25
inute
DELAY
AND
OPERATION
COSTS
7688
.ANNUAL
A
VG
A
AVG
NNUAL
=Cost
Operating
=Cost
Delay
1
F- 4
Table
55
Segment
3
-.BUILD
NO
ALT
40
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
F - 18
40
25
40
1.27
0.81
0.95
7
8
9
11
$ 0,736,236
3
7,597,08
1
$8,154,920
9
$ ,434,785
2
$ ,465,399
2
$ 2,551,06
4
$ 85,756
9
$ 61,177
4
$ ,218,062
5
$ ,401,595
1
$ ,680,954
2,910,914
1
$ ,640,149
9
1
78
,$ 05
2
5
$ 50,292
3
$ ,936,858
2
$ 43,931
2
$ 07,651
4
$ 10,885
$746,639
$16,083
$31,823
$557,491
1
$ 2,009
$23,762
2,986,558
64,331
127,294
1,991,039
42,888
84,863
5742
250
250
407
100.4
0.93
)(/uht.A
S
sr3a.wk3
eis
d
sh151
project
67,791,026
3
$:$ 0,651,998
83,596,315
84,194,711
1
0,617,393
TOTALS
7
$ 84,445
9
$ 7,210
4
$ 5,365
388,839
162,016
548
40
4
$ ,033,191
3
$ 12,375
$233,240
1,249,499
1797
832,999
9
$ 03,397
1
$ 7,597,082
3,139,154
64,592,31
1
$ 7,637,885
7
6,954,431
8
$89,550,83
1
$ 1,572,860
7,017,641
$1
59,839
2,240,962
4
$ ,442,799
7,309,877
2
,735,935
5
$ ,458,896
WORTH
PRESENT
DELAY
OPERATION TOTAL
)$s(''
'
93
$s)(93
93
2
$ 7,285,674
$6,113,964
.YRS
30
17.29
%4
1
5,621,569
$ 1,664,105
4
5
$ ,489,807
,028,583
3
$ 15,689
=
Rate
Annual
od
=
Peri
Time
PWF=
$227,669
$674,536
$353,571
in
m
)/y
-(m
93
$'s'()r
i
eh
v
93
pd
v
ph
COSTS
ANNUAL
DELAY
DELAY
OPERATION
USAGE
SPEED
ADT
LENGTH
LINK
M
0
$/ .25
inute
$0.28
/M
ile
DELAY
COSTS
AND
OPERATION
975,724
1
, 03
813
1547
50
1.44
6
4,070,564
2.23
5
2,713,709
40
2.84
4
3334
17,959,226
17,959,226
11632
60
40
9,771,196
1,262,754
, 96
1
9,771
1,262,754
3,613,588
6140
7688
ANNUAL
.AVG
A
A
VG
NNUAL
=Cost ting
Opera
=
Cost
y
Dela
0
, 58
2,409
4.23
3
60
60
3A
ALTERNATIVE
1
-F 5
Table
2324
4.36
0.45
3
Segment
2
1
F - 19
9
10
11
$45,365
4,070,564
160,927
1,249,499
388,839
2,713,709
107,284
832,999
162,016
3334
1547
1797
84,863
56,575
250
40
40
0.57
0.62
u
)(S
ht.B
sr3.wk3
/d
eis
sh151
project
3
72,420,925
1
$: 0,756,515
86,418,905
86,002,020
0,780,624
TOTALS
1
$ 5,841
78,019
52,013
5742
40
1.33
250
1
$ 4,564
4,181,181
2,787,454
548
25
0.81
1.27
0.19
2.23
$21,216
$19,505
$97,210
3
$ 12,375
2
$ 33,240
3,613,588
,058
2,409
2324
40
2.84
40
8
$40,232
3
$ 0,040
16,176,041
11632
60
16,176,041
$674,536
8,067,960
8,067,960
6140
60
3.6
3.81
5,051,016
5,051,016
7688
ANNUAL
COSTS
OPERATION
USAGE
DELAY
DELAY
ADT
v)/y-|(v
'
93
pd
m
m
eh
in
i
$'sreh
93
$0ile
/M
.28
$0.25
/M
inute
60
A
NNUAL
.ANNUAL
AVG
=Cost ing
Operat
=Delay
Cost
$273,923
2
$ 51,833
$784,445
91
,1
4
$ ,033
$519,447
=
Rate
Annual
Time
Period
=
=PWF
COSTS
DELAY
AND
OPERATION
1.8
.AVG
SPEED
LENGTH
LINK
m
() ph
ALTERNATIVE
3B
40
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Segment
3
1-F 6 e
Tabl
40
$2,465,399
$1,680,954
3
$ 66,861
$337,276
$9,434,785
5
$ ,401,595
6
$ 40,784
89
,1
5
$ 08
3,045,295
1,571,488
1
$7
3,496,209
8,075,280
80,487
1
$ ,215,134
6
$ 95,687
3
$1
7,597,082
,017,641
3,139,154
70,736,236
59,839
$1
2
97,285,674
1,664,105
03,397
5,621,569
,4,044,010
7
6
$1
2
48
8,320,658
49,817
9,929,159
,529,291
7,016,990
3,941,059
3
$2
9,063,201
4,877,858
,259,029
4,262,754
6,291,439
1
$2
4,455,854
1,835,584
,414,284
.
YRS
30
17.29
WORTH
PRESENT
OPERATION
TOTAL
DELAY
'
93
$'s)(993
3
4%
F - 20
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
11
40
40
40
40
25
40
40
40
2.23
0.19
1.27
0.81
1.33
0.57
0.62
60
60
56,575
52,013
250
250
2,787,454
5742
162,016
832,999
1797
548
107,284
2,713,709
3
68,529,854
1
$TOTALS
84,583,494
83,946,360
0,637,636
: 0,674,482
84,863
78,019
4,181,181
388,839
$15,841
$14,564
4
$ 5,365
2
$ 1,216
$19,505
7,045,295
$1
80,487
9
$ 7,210
2
$ ,465,399
$31,571,488
,1
89
5
$ 08
6
$ 40,784
1
$ 8,075,280
3,496,209
3
$ 37,276
3
$ 66,861
$251,833
$273,923
9
$ ,434,785
1
$ ,215,134
3
$ 0,736,236
$27,285,67
1
$ ,680,954
$784,445
$5,401,595
4
$ ,033,191
$312,375
$233,240
1,249,499
6
$ 95,687
$40,232
3
$ 0,040
160,927
5
$ 19,447
$13,139,154
7,597,082
3,613,588
76,264,998
6
$1
44,358,74
8,093,74
7
$ 3,941,05
3
$ 4,877,858
59,839
$7,017,641
1
$39,063,201
4
$ 6,291,43
TOTAL
'
93
$'s)('93
$ 4,455,854
2
1,835,584
OPERATION
DELAY
.30
YRS
17.29
WORTH
PRESENT
4%
4,070,564
4,937,868
$3
,410,412
2
$ ,016,990
$1,262,754
Rate
Annual
Time
Period
=
PWF
=
$15,621,569
1,664,105
$674,536
2
$ ,259,029
1
$ ,414,284
ANNUAL
COSTS
SPEED
LENGTH
LINK
USAGE
OPERATION
DELAY
ADT
m
/y
in
v
-$'s)('reh
pd
93
i
)|(m
ph
M
/$0ile
.28
0
M
/$ .25
inute
DELAY
AND
OPERATION
COSTS
$903,397
15,751,473
60
11632
15,751,473
,058
2,409
8,067,960
5,051,016
A
VG
.A
NNUAL
AVG
ANNUAL
=
Cost
ting
Opera
=Delay
Cost
8,067,960
5,051,016
1547
3334
2324
6140
7688
ALTERNATIVE
-1
3B
2.84
3.71
3.6
1.8
3
Segment
1
-F 7
Table
F - 21
8
)( eis
ht.C
S
sr3.wk
u
/d
sh151
t 3
projec
115,888
250
40
1.27
11
3,427,832
2,285,221
5492
40
1.14
,891
00,618098
4
$ 96,432
,021
04,186
2
,870
1
1,808,
1
$:$ 1,359,
S732
TOTAL
173,831
20,531
3,772,494
1,571,873
5742
25
0.75
13,688
388,839
162,016
548
25
0.81
250
1,397,078
931,385
1797
40
1.42
40
4,070,564
2,713,709
3334
40
2.23
3,613,588
2,409,058
13,331,435
13,331,435
11632
60
2324
11,452,021
11,452,021
5,584,179
6140
5,584,179
40
60
7688
ANNUAL
A
. NNUAL
AVG
=Costating
Oper
=Cosay
t
Del
1
F- 8
Table
2.84
3.14
5.11
60
.AVG
SPEED
LENGTH
LINK
)( ph
m
3C
ALTERNATIVE
1.99
3
nt
Segme
0.15
9
10
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
3
$ 2,449
$3,833
6
$ 39,862
1
,$ 24
40
4
4
$ 5,365
2
$ 60,788
6
$ 74,536
4
$ 3,458
5
$ ,133
9
$ 43,124
9
$ 7,210
3
$ 49,269
9
$ 03,397
COSTS
ANNUAL
DELAY
OPERA
DELAY
USAG
ADT ETION
sv
)m
93
$)/y-m
'(( reh
'
i
) in
pd
v
$0.28
/M
ile
M
inute
0
/$ .25
$501
,1
61
6
$ 6,272
7
$ 84,445
4
$ ,509,552
3,139,154
41
1
59,839
7
$$ ,017,6
1
$ 1,664,105
734
4,547,
6
59
,332,802
3
$$ ,732,8
044
5,448,
5
05
,863,066
3
$$2,206,5
306
7,037,45
2
70
,563,5
1
$$ ,396,0
=
Rate
Annual
Period
=Time
PWF=
S
COST
Y
DELAATIO
AND
N
OPER
7
$ 51,474
8
$ 8,757
1
$ ,680,954
2
$ 4,140,451
1
$ ,312,574
1
$ 55,028
059
5,883,545
2
4,818,
514
1,064,
1
$$ 56,958
8
167
3,919,
2
523
6,308,44
7
$$1,610,6
2
$ ,465,399
1
78
,039,5130
6
$ 0,549,
3
$10,736,
082
7,597,236
2
$ 7,285,
569
5,621,674
1
,63
22,179905
1
$ 7,631,
5
04,955,226
1
182
4
$ 9,507,
5
$ 1,177,757
.
YRS
30
17.29
WORTH
PRESENT
TOTAL
DELAY
OPERATION
93
93
$'s)('$'s)('93
4%
F - 22
40
25
25
40
40
40
1.42
0.81
0.75
1.14
0.15
1.27
7
8
9
10
11
6
40
5,584,179
115,888
250
ht.K
sr3.w
/)(Seis
u
d
tk3
sh151
projec
13,688
250
89,866,099
$3
96,008,707
1
93,857,392
||: 1,335,203
1,210,792
TOTALS
173,831
20,531
2,577,740
2,877,660
1,199,025
4380
1,718,493
388,839
162,016
548
4130
1,397,078
931,385
1797
3,613,588
13,331,435
8,351,602
4,616,666
2,407,664
2,409,058
6140
60
4,616,666
7502
8,351,602
60
11632
60
13,331,435
5,584,179
F-19
Table
09
,1,605
1
1972
2324
7688
EAST
23
O/STH
CTH
AV
. G
60
AV
.ANN
AN
GNU
UA
AL
L
INTERCHA
:
SPLIT
NGE
40
2.84
2.06
3.05
3.14
1.99
=
Cost
ing
Operat
=
Cost
Delay
30-1
ALTERNATIVE
Segment
3
2.23
4
5
3
2.2
2.1
1
3
$ 2,449
$3,833
4
$ 81,178
3
$ 35,727
$45,365
2
$ 60,788
$449,431
6
$ 74,536
$43,458
$5,133
$644,435
$719,415
9
$ 7,210
$349,269
6
$ 01,916
9
$ 03,397
COSTS
ANNUAL
SPEED
LENGTH
ADT
USAGE
LINK
DELAY
OPERATION
'srr
v
m
(y
)/y-m
eh
in
i
93
|$'
pd
ph
93
M.25
/$0
inute
0
M
/$ .28
ile
.30
YRS
8
$ 8,757
7
$ 51,474
5
$ 61,101
1
1,143,589
8
$ ,320,547
52,440,148
$1
,805,402
$1,680,954
6
$ ,039,578
$27,037,306
4,140,451
$1,312,574
$155,028
$19,464,136
1
$ 8,245,55
$2,465,399
1
0,549
,$ 30
70,408,35
$1
,771,569
8,179,92
17,285,674
$2
1,664,10
5,621,56
1
$1
,154,167
2,292,666
$4
9,957,886
2,310,71
2,352,83
$4
3
0,436,528
6,104,04
27
,087,900
6,540,57
$ ,338,448
6
5,332,859
1
7,631,90
4,547,73
22,179,6
$3
,732,802
$51,177,75
17.29
WORTH
PRESENT
OPERATION
DELAY
TOTAL
'
$'s)('
93
$'s)( 93
%4
6
$ 6,272
7
$ 84,445
$4,509,552
1,396,045
$2
,563,570
7,037,306
Annual
Rate
=
Time
Period
PWF
=
AND
OPERATION
COSTS
DELAY
F - 23
1,379,974
919,983
155,512
1775
526
40
25
1.42
0.81
250
40
1.27
11
)(/ ht.L
Sd
sr3.wk
eis
sh151
t3
u
projec
20,531
13,688
250
40
0.15
10
3
$$ 89,435
,165
95,751
,990
93,683S,155
309
1,320,
764
1,200,
1
$:1
TOTAL
173,831
2,577,740
1,718,493
4130
40
1.14
9
115,888
2,877,660
1,199,025
4380
25
373,229
2,380,804
1,587,203
1950
2.23
40
40
2.84
3,613,588
60
2.06
3.05
3.14
0
, 58 9
2,40
5,584,179
2324
5,584,179
4,616,666
8,351,602
13,331,435
7688
ANNUAL
A
.AVG
AVG
. NNUAL
=
Cost
ating
Oper
=Del
t
Cosay
4,616,
6140 666
7502
602
8,351,
60
,435
13,331
6011632
60
O,:3 TH
C
NTERCHANGES
I
N.
ST./STH23
R
,&23
E IDGE
STH
-2
3C
NATIVE
ALTER
1.99
3
nt
Segme
-2
F0 e
Tabl
0.75
7
8
6
5
4
3
2.1
2.2
1
$32,449
3
$ ,833
4
$ 81,178
3
$ 35,727
4
$ 3,543
2
$ 57,595
4
$ 44,417
$674,536
4
$ 3,458
5
$ ,133
6
$ 44,435
7
$ 19,415
9
$ 3,307
3
$ 44,993
5
$ 95,201
DELAYE
TION
OPERA
DELAY
USAG
ADT
SPEED
H
LENGT
LINK
)
93
s
$
'
(
/-()($'s)('reh
in
93
m
yv
i
pd
ph
m
COSTS
ANNUAL
ile
M
/$ .28
0
inute
M
0/$ .25
5
$ 61,101
$66,272
7
$ 52,953
4
$ ,454,343
Rate
Annual
=Pe
meod
Tiri
=
PWF
COST
Y
DELAS
AND
ATION
OPER
7
$ 51,474
8
$ 8,757
1
$ 2,440,
02
,805,4148
5
1
$ ,613,470
5
$ ,965,638
234
0,292,68
1
$ ,684,8
7
569
5,621,105
1
03,397
9
$$ 1,664,
451
4,140,306
$ ,563,5
7,037,
45
,396,0
70
1
$2
1
$ ,312,574
1
$ 55,028
1
589
1,143,136
47
,320,5
8
$$ 9,464,
1
$ 8,245,551
2
$ ,366,423
1
$ 0,419,981
1
$ 7,977,103
2
$ 7,285,674
717
886
2,310,66
9,957,
$,292,6
1
832
2,352,
67
,154,1
1
$$24
571
043
6,540,
6,104,
$,338,4
3
528
0,436,
4
$$27
00
,087,9
48
,639
22,17959
1
$ ,332,8
905
7,631,
5
734
4,547,
02
3
$$6,732,8
5
$ 1,177,757
.YRS
30
17.29
WORTH
PRESENT
TOTAL
DELAY
OPERATION
$'s)($'s)(''
'
$'s)(93
93
93
%4
F - 24
0.15
1.27
10
11
40
40
ht
d
/.M)(Seis
sr3.wk3
project
u
sh151
250
250
115,888
13,688
1,718,493
4130
40
1.14
9
1,199,025
4380
0.75
8
25
25
0.81
7
136,875
250
155,512
40
1.5
6
2,828,476
2,409,058
3475
2324
7688
60
5,780,607
7502
60
8,351,602
60
13,331,435
11632
5,584,179
526
40
40
60
7688
2ITH
E,:S
23
NTERCHANGES
&RIDGE
NST./STH
23
2.23
2.84
2.06
3.05
3.14
1.99
3
Segment
-2
3C
ALTERNATIVE
5
3
2.1
2.2
1
2
$4
03,753,877
05,291,738
1
01,537,860
1,654,954
: 1,783,107
TOTALS
173,831
20,531
2,577,740
2,877,660
373,229
205,313
4,242,714
3,613,588
5,780,607
8,351,602
13,331,435
5,584,179
A
AVG
.AVG
ANNUAL
NNUAL
=Cost ing
Operat
=Cost
Delay
3
$ 2,449
$3,833
$481,178
3
$ 35,727
$43,543
$751,474
$561,101
4
$ 3,458
1
$ ,312,574
1
$ 55,028
8
$ 8,757
6
$ 6,272
5
$ ,133
1
$ 9,464,136
1
1,143,589
8
$ ,320,547
6
$ 44,435
2
$ ,366,423
$18,245,551
$1,613,470
1
$ ,550,285
8
$ 87,568
$ 2,440,148
1
,805,402
5
$752,953
$662,717
$32,036,11
$27,285,674
1
,445,152
$2
5,618,570
4,989,613
7,988,367
2,977,98
7,338,448
6,540,57
2
3
$4
6,104,04
0,436,528
,087,900
5
,17,631,905
79,639
22
3
$6
,732,802
,332,859
4,547,73
$51,177,75
$18,341,290
3,694,830
$11,664,105
5,621,569
$27,037,306
4,140,451
WORTH
PRESENT
TOTAL
DELAY
OPERATION
$'s)(''93
93
.
YRS
30
17.29
%4
$719,415
$93,307
$51,328
$1,060,679
$791,973
$38,325
9
$ 03,397
6
$ 74,536
$1,396,045
OPERATION
ADT
SPEED
LENGTH
LINKI
USAGE
DELAY
'
93
m
v
ym
(v
-m
)/y
in
pd
ph
i
s)$'(rreh
COSTS
ANNUAL
PWF
Annual
=Rate
Time
Period
=
OPERATION
COSTS
DELAY
AND
M
/$0.25
inute
$0.28
/M
ile
1
$ ,563,570
Table
F-21
F - 25
1,249,499
832,999
1797
40
1.27
13,688
42,888
9,125
250
250
40
40
0.47
0.1
10
11
)( ht.D
S
sr3.wk
/d
u
eis
t 3
sh151
projec
64,331
3,500,036
5742
40
1.67
9
,933
91,535405
3
,792
96,461
1
$$1
,141
95,074
1,281,
S157
: 1,361,
TOTAL
5,250,054
162,016
548
25
2
$ ,555
1
$ 2,009
$45,365
2
$ 33,240
1,050,258
875,215
1547
50
1.55
388,839
2
$ 45,060
4,070,564
2,713,709
6
$ 74,536
3334
3,613,588
2,409,058
2324
40
16,133,584
16,133,584
6011632
3
$ 53,571
2.23
12,348,461
1,262,754
12,348,461
6140
1,262,754
3
$ ,422
1
$ 6,083
9
$ 7,210
3
$ 12,375
2
$ 62,565
$315,689
COSTS
ANNUAL
DELAY
OPERATION
DELAY
USAGE
ADT
SPEED
LENGTH
LINK
)
93
'
(
s
'
$
93
)/y-(v
in
m
eh
y
i
m
pd
)(rreh
ph
$44,181
2
$ 07,651
7
$ 84,445
4
$ ,033,191
4
$ ,237,590
6
$ ,113,964
=
Rate
Annual
e
=Period
Tim
PWF
=
COSTS
DELAY
AND
ON
OPERATI
0
$ .28
Mile
M
inute
/$0.25
40
60
7688
ANNUAL
ANNUAL
. VG
A
AVG
=
Cost
ing
Operat
=Delay
Cost
2
F- 2
Table
2.84
3.8
5.51
60
VE
3E
ALTERNATI
0.45
3
Segment
0.81
7
8
6
5
4
3
2
1
.
YRS
30
$59,171
2
$ 78,105
2,696,028
2
6,946,367
1
$$ ,312,514
80,010
9
1
$ ,680,954
$5,401,595
4
$ ,540,275
7,597,082
3,139,154
1
$$1,017,641
59,839
7
5,621,569
1
$ 1,664,105
03,397
9
5
$ ,458,896
1
$ 03,352
4
$ 85,756
3
$ 9,642,395
2
$ ,465,399
9
$ ,434,785
8
$ ,777,866
3
$ 0,736,236
2
$ 7,285,674
47,860,710
9,745,618
6
8,115,092
7
,033,396
4
$$$1,517,404
70,899
1
,$ ,087,1
13
500
3,382,
400
9,788,
15
69
,457,5
3
$$5
1
$ 1,572,860
17.29
WORTHNT
PRESE
TOTAL
DELAYTION
OPERA
$'s)(93
93
'$s)('
%4
APPENDIX
G
DRAFT AGRICULTURAL IMPACT STATEMENT
AGRICULTURAL IMPACT STATEMENT
DR
Proposed Project:
USH 151
AF
T
Dodgeville to Belmont
Iowa and Lafayette Counties
Project Initiator:
Wisconsin Department of Transportation
Project ID # :
1200-04-00
I. INTRODUCTION
The Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) has
prepared this agricultural impact statement (AIS ) in accordance with $ 32.035 , Wisconsin
Statutes. The AIS is an informational and advisory document which analyzes the potential
agricultural impacts associated with the proposed project. The AIS describes and analyzes the
potential effects of the project on farm operations and agricultural resources, but cannot stop a
project.
The DATCP is required to prepare and AIS when the actual or potential exercise of eminent
domain powers involves an acquisition of interest in more than five acres of land from any
farm operation . The DATCP should be notified of such a project regardless of whether the
proposing agency intends to use these powers in the acquisition of project lands. The
proposing agency may not negotiate with , or make a jurisdictional offer to a landowner until
30 days after the AIS is published .
The DATCP is not involved in determining whether or not eminent domain powers will be
used or the amount of compensation to be paid in the acquisition of any property . The AIS
reflects the general objectives of the DATCP in its recognition of the importance of
conserving important agricultural resources and maintaining a healthy rural economy.
Sources of information used to prepare this statement include: Wisconsin 1993 Agricultural
Statistics and other yearly issues; the Farmland Preservation Plans for Iowa and Lafayette
Counties; The Soil Surveys for Iowa and Lafayette Counties, and the owners and operators of
the affected farmland .
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
The Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) proposes to reconstruct a 20 -mile
segment of U.S. Highway (USH ) 151 from a point 1.4 miles west of the Village of Belmont,
northeast to the existing four-lane section of USH 151 south of Dodgeville . The proposed
project is located in the towns of Belmont T3-4N R1-2E and Kendall T4N R2E in Lafayette
' The following project description was primarily derived from project documents provided by the Wisconsin
Department of Transportation's consulting firm , Rust, Inc.
3
County and the towns of Linden T4N R2E, Mineral Point T4-5N R2-3E, and Dodgeville T5
ON R3E in Iowa County . Refer to the Project Location Map on page 2. Maps of the
proposed relocations can be found on page 14. Acquisitions of land for the proposed project
are scheduled to be made from 1998 through 2000 and construction is planned for 2000 to
2002.
The proposed project includes construction of a four-lane divided highway consisting of four
12 - foot wide driving lanes and a 60 - footmedian with shoulders and outside ditches. It will
require the fee -simple acquisition of 656.3 acres of land from 56 farmland owners.
The proposed project has been divided into three sections to facilitate evaluation and
discussion of the impacts. Section I is 4.1 miles long and consists of the Belmont Bypass
area . Section II is 5.7 miles long and consists of the rural area between Belmont and Mineral
Point. Section III is 10.2 miles long and consists of the Mineral Point Bypass and the area
north ofMineral Point to the Dodgeville Bypass.
Section 1:
The Belmont Bypass begins on the existing alignment 1.25 miles west of the
village of Belmont.
The realignment proceeds in a northeasterly direction for
3.85 miles where it rejoins the existing alignment north of Belmont.
Section II:
WisDOT proposes to use the existing roadway for one set of lanes and
construct two additional lanes and a median adjacent to them . From Belmont
north to the Floyd Spoor property , the additional lanes will be constructed east
of the existing lanes. From the Floyd Spoor property north to the Mineral
Point Bypass, the new lanes will be constructed west of the existing lanes .
Section III:
The realignment for the Mineral Point Bypass begins between Oak Park Road
and County Trunk Highway (CTH ) " O " and proceeds northwesterly to avoid
the fairgrounds and an existing industrial building. It avoids the Mineral Point
Historic district, crosses the tributary to Ludden Lake , continues northeast
approximately parallel to the creek and rejoins USH
151 just north of East
Barreltown Road . A south interchange will be located on realigned Ridge
Street, near CTH " O " on the Robert Carey property. A north interchange will
be located on the Marian Moreland property on a realigned Ridge Street/State
Trunk Highway (STH ) 23. From the Mineral Point Bypass north to the
existing four-lane section of USH 151 south of Dodgeville, the new lanes will
be constructed west of the existing lanes.
5
This alternative would begin on realignment just north of Oak
Park Road . It deviates from the existing roadway and proceeds in a
northwesterly direction , avoiding the fairgrounds and an existing industrial
building. It cuts across the northwest corner of the Mineral Point Historic
Alternative 3A :
District and remains east of the tributary creek to Ludden Lake. It rejoins
existing USH 151 approximately one mile north of the City of Mineral Point.
Interchanges would be located at Oak Park Road on the south and at a
realigned Ridge Street on the north . It was rejected because it would cut
through the Mineral Point Historic District.
Alternative 3C :
This alternative would begin on realignment just north of Oak
Park Road , and proceeds east across CTH " O " and the Brewery Creek Valley
before turning to the north . It would cross STH 23 and STH 39 continuing
east of the city and cross Antoine Street (CTH "SS") before rejoining existing
USH 151 approximately one mile north of the city . Interchanges would be
located on the south end at CTH " O " , and on the north end at existing USH
151. This alternative was not selected because it would require the acquisition
ofmore farmland and higher quality farmland than the preferred alternative,
crossing Brewery Creek would be difficult, it would cross an area with many
large mines which could be hazardous, and there was strong public opposition
to this alternative.
Alternative 3E : This alternative would begin on realignment south of Oak Park
Road and proceed north across the Mineral Point Branch . Curving to the east,
it would cross STH 39 and CTH " QQ " northwest of Ludden Lake before
crossing the Mineral Point Branch again . From there it would continue east
and rejoin existing USH 151. Interchanges would be located at Oak Park Road
on the south end and just east of Barreltown Road on the north end. This
alternative was rejected because it would require the acquisition of the greatest
amount of farmland of any of the proposed routes, it would require two
crossings of the Mineral Point Branch Creek , it would have unfavorable
interchange locations, and it received strong public opposition .
III. AGRICULTURAL SETTING
In 1991, agriculture generated cash receipts of $ 106.2 and $ 131.1 million in Iowa and
Lafayette Counties respectively .“ Dairy products were the leading contributor to marketing
receipts in both counties comprising $59.4 million or 55.9 % of the total in Iowa County and
$67.6 million or 51.6 % of the total in Lafayette County . In 1991-92 , Iowa County ranked
2nd out of Wisconsin's 72 counties in the number of beef cows, 4th in the production of
“Wisconsin 1993 Agricultural Statistics, Wisconsin Agricultural Statistics Service,National AgriculturalStatistics
Service USDA , Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection , June, 1993 , pp . 10-13 and
24-79.
7
the soils are suited to agriculture.
Farmland Preservation
The Iowa and Lafayette County Farmland Preservation Plans were both certified in 1980.
The plans identify farmland preservation areas in the counties and provide eligibility to
farmers to participate in the Farmland Preservation Program . The purposes of the program
are to encourage local governments to develop farmland preservation policies, provide tax
of tax credits to eligible farmers, and to conserve soil and water resources.
The tax credit is provided to owners of farmland protected by a preservation agreement or
exclusive agricultural zoning.
relief in the form
The town of Kendall in Lafayette County has adopted the county's exclusive agricultural
zoning ordinance. This means that any eligible farmland owners having zoning certificates
can receive 100 %
of the available tax credit.
The town of Belmont has not adopted an
exclusive agricultural zoning ordinance, so eligible farmland owners can only participate in
the program if they have preservation agreements. They are then eligible to receive 70 % of
the available tax credit. In Iowa County, the towns of Dodgeville, Linden and Mineral Point
have all adopted the county's version of exclusive agricultural zoning and provide 100 % of
the available tax credit to farmland owners having zoning certificates.
Farmland owners who own land that would be affected by the proposed project and who
participate in the Farmland Preservation Program
are not obligated to pay back any of the tax
credits they have received through the program . According to $ 91.19 (6m ) of the Wisconsin
Statutes, " The department shall release from
a farmland preservation agreement any lands
acquired by the state or the federal government for public improvements or structures
including highway improvements."
Likewise, farmers who are enrolled in the Conservation
Reserve Program won't have to pay any penalties since the acquisitions are for a public
project. Farmers who participate in the Acreage Reduction Program may have their base
reduced due to the smaller size of the farm .
IV . POTENTLAL IMPACTS ON FARM
OPERATIONS
An Agricultural Impact Statement is required by law when 5 or more acres from any farmland
owner will be acquired for a public project.
Thirty days after the date of publication for the
AIS , the purchasing agency may begin negotiating with the affected farmland owners.
The proposed project will require the fee-simple acquisition of 656.3 acres of farmland from
56 farmland owners. This will include 373.9 acres of cropland, 250.8 acres of pasture, 23.5
acres of woodland, 1.1 acres of wetland, and 7.0 acres of land in other use .
Soil Survey for Iowa County, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with
University of Wisconsin , Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey , Soil Survey Division , and Wisconsin
Agricultural Experiment Station , July, 1962, pp. 5-6 .
9
LANDOWNER
EXISTING PARCEL
SIZE IN ACRES
CURRENT LAND USE
FEE SIMPLE
ACQUISITION IN ACRES
375.5
51.0
cropland, woodland and pasture
80
16.6
pasture
160
8.4
cropland and pasture
461.0
6.6
cropland and pasture
148.9
26.3
cropland and pasture
Charles Goldthorpe , Jr.
cropland and woodland
155
25.6
Robert Dalles
Marian Moreland
K. V. & R. M.Moreland
Philip Cody
Gevelinger Inc
5.1
cropland
8.8
cropland and pasture
165
2.3
cropland and pasture
20
1.2
cropland
3.3
pasture
2.2
land in other use
61.5
3.7
cropland
44.8
4.2
cropland
185
1.6
cropland
261.8
4.4
cropland
120
4.9
woodland and pasture
4.5
pasture and wetland
50.3
244
4.4
cropland, pasture and land in other
use
2.0
cropland and land in other use
221
1.4
cropland
4.4
cropland
Brian Lindauer
Amanda Meudt
Merlin Bartels
Janet Keyes
Ilsa Kilpatrick
Eric Skattum
Harland Krueger
Gary Debuhr
Thomas Patzkill
Charles Opitz
Harold Schaaf
Emest Graber
Emest & Kathleen Springer (2
parcels)
Ernest Steffes
Michael Meudt
John & Pamela Lindauer
2.5
six acquisitions of less than one
acre each
656.40
TOTAL
In the following paragraphs, potential negative impacts on farm operations are discussed .
These impacts will be more severe on some farms than others. The effects on individual farm
operations caused by the proposed project will be discussed in greater detail following the
general descriptions of impacts .
SIP
11
Adding two lanes to the existing USH 151 will not create any new severances between the
Belmont Bypass and the Mineral Point Bypass and north of the Mineral Point Bypass. Farm
access will be permitted to the highway on these segments and no parcels will be landlocked.
If a parcel is landlocked as a result of the proposed project, the landowner will have the
option to sell the landlocked parcel to WisDOT or to receive compensation for the loss of
access. Compensation for loss of access is based on a percentage of the market value of the
property . The owner could then rent or sell this parcel to an adjoining landowner who would
have access to it. A landowner should keep in mind that because of the access limitation , the
number of potential renters or buyers may be limited and the landowner would have to pay
the transaction costs (title searches etc.) which WisDOT would cover if it bought the parcel.
Cattle Passes
Cattle passes can be a vital facility for farms that are severed by a highway. Pasture that is
severed from the main portion of the farm operation may not be of economic value without a
cattle pass. A list of landowners who will have property severed as a result of this project
can be found in Table 3 on page 14. These landowners may need cattle passes installed
between their newly severed parcels of land.
The following farmland owners have indicated an interest in having cattle passes installed on
their property : Donald Wedig, Parmley & Jean Harris, Edward & Lillian Spitzbarth , and
Edward Cody.
pasture .
The land owned by Doreen Suthers that will be severed is currently used for
Therefore, she may need a cattle pass installed .
A cattle pass may also be useful to
the McNett Lake Project property since there is pasture on both sides of the highway.
Leonard Steinhoff, Ronald Debuhr, Ted Graber, Caroline Knapp, Clarence Pittz, Robert
Carey , and Gevelinger, Inc. currently have cattle passes and need to have them
in the future
to be able to utilize all of their property . Amanda Meudt also has an existing cattle pass on
her property . This cattle pass is not currently being used for cattle but it does act as a culvert
and it could be used for cattle in the future.
John Schaaf has a cattle pass which is currently
being used but which may not continue to be used after the construction of the proposed
project if drainage problems cannot be corrected .
Land Loss
The proposed project will convert 373.9 acres of cropland , 250.8 acres of pasture, 23.5 acres
of woodland , 1.1 acres of wetland, and 7.0 acres of land in other use to highway right-of-way.
Six farmland owners will each lose less than one acre of land , fourteen farmland owners will
lose between one and five acres of land , and thirty -six farmland owners will lose more than
five acres of land . The average size of farms in Lafayette and Iowa counties is 283.5 acres.
Therefore, the proposed project will cause the loss of the equivalent of 2.3 farms.
To offset these losses of farmland , owners and renters may have to find replacement land or
make adjustments, such as buying feed produced off the farm
or culling some of their
13
The maps on the next page show the proposed highway relocations of the Belmont Bypass
and the Mineral Point Bypass. Table 3 below lists the landowners who will have land severed
by the proposed project. It also gives a brief description ofmost of the severances.
TABLE 3
PARCELS TO BE SEVERED
AFFECTS ON PARCEL
LANDOWNER
Patrick Shea
sever 160-acre parcel into two parcels
Dave Spensley
diamond interchange will sever parcels
George Olthafer
highway will cross 72 -acre parcel of cropland leaving an 18 and a
40- acre parcel
Robert Carey
site of Mineral Point interchange
Gilbert Graber
2 severances , 1 is on land formerly owned by John Ross
Parmley & Jean Harris
Edward & Lillian Spitzbarth
Edward Cody
approximately 5.5 acres of pasture will be landlocked
approximately 6 acres of pasture on parcel # 321a will be
landlocked and parcel # 321b will also be severed
Doreen Suthers
parcel will be divided into two parts
Marian Moreland
20 acresmay be landlocked but also owns parcel to the south so
severed parcelmay be joined to that property
K. V. & R. M.Moreland
parcel will be severed into two parts
Charles Goldthorpe, Jr.
cropland will be severed from pasture
Remnant parcels with a shape or size that severely diminishes their efficient productive use
may be considered " uneconomic remnants " by WisDOT. Section 32.05 of the Wisconsin
Statutes states:
" ... "uneconomic remnant" means the property remaining after a partial taking of
property , if the property remaining is of such size , shape or condition as to be of little
value or of substantially impaired economic viability . If the acquisition of only part of
a property would leave its owner with an uneconomic remnant, the condemnor shall
offer to acquire the remnant concurrently and may acquire it by purchase or by
condemnation if the owner consents."
sa
The determination as to whether a remnant is an " uneconomic remnant" is a WisDOT
judgement. Section 84.09 of the Wisconsin Statutes states ,
S.
... The department may purchase ...remnants of tracts or parcels of land at the time or
after it has acquired portions of such tracts or parcels by purchase or condemnation for
transportation purposes where in the judgement of the department such action would
assist in making whole the landowner , a part of whose lands have been taken for
7
the soils are suited to agriculture.“
Farmland Preservation
The Iowa and Lafayette County Farmland Preservation Plans were both certified in 1980 .
The plans identify farmland preservation areas in the counties and provide eligibility to
farmers to participate in the Farmland Preservation Program . The purposes of the program
are to encourage local governments to develop farmland preservation policies, provide tax
relief in the form
of tax credits to eligible farmers, and to conserve soil and water resources.
The tax credit is provided to owners of farmland protected by a preservation agreement or
exclusive agricultural zoning .
The town of Kendall in Lafayette County has adopted the county's exclusive agricultural
zoning ordinance. This means that any eligible farmland owners having zoning certificates
can receive 100 % of the available tax credit. The town of Belmont has not adopted an
exclusive agricultural zoning ordinance, so eligible farmland owners can only participate in
the program if they have preservation agreements. They are then eligible to receive 70 % of
the available tax credit. In Iowa County, the towns of Dodgeville, Linden and Mineral Point
have all adopted the county's version of exclusive agricultural zoning and provide 100 %
of
the available tax credit to farmland owners having zoning certificates.
Farmland owners who own land that would be affected by the proposed project and who
participate in the Farmland Preservation Program
are not obligated to pay back any of the tax
credits they have received through the program . According to $91.19 (6m ) of the Wisconsin
Statutes, " The department shall release from a farmland preservation agreement any lands
acquired by the state or the federal government for public improvements or structures
including highway improvements."
Likewise, farmers who are enrolled in the Conservation
Reserve Program won't have to pay any penalties since the acquisitions are for a public
project. Farmers who participate in the Acreage Reduction Program may have their base
reduced due to the smaller size of the farm .
IV . POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON FARM
OPERATIONS
An Agricultural Impact Statement is required by law when 5 or more acres from any farmland
owner will be acquired for a public project.
Thirty days after the date of publication for the
AIS, the purchasing agency may begin negotiating with the affected farmland owners.
The proposed project will require the fee-simple acquisition of 656.3 acres of farmland from
56 farmland owners. This will include 373.9 acres of cropland , 250.8 acres of pasture, 23.5
acres of woodland, 1.1 acres of wetland, and 7.0 acres of land in other use .
Soil Survey for Iowa County, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with
University of Wisconsin , Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, Soil Survey Division, and Wisconsin
Agricultural Experiment Station, July , 1962, pp . 5-6 .
9
LANDOWNER
EXISTING PARCEL
SIZE IN ACRES
Marian Moreland
K. V. & R. M.Moreland
CURRENT LAND USE
FEE SIMPLE
ACQUISITION IN ACRES
51.0
cropland , woodland and pasture
375.5
80
16.6
pasture
8.4
cropland and pasture
160
461.0
6.6
cropland and pasture
148.9
26.3
cropland and pasture
25.6
cropland and woodland
155
Philip Cody
Gevelinger Inc
Charles Goldthorpe , Jr.
Robert Dalles
5.1
cropland
8.8
cropland and pasture
2.3
cropland and pasture
165
20
1.2
cropland
3.3
pasture
2.2
land in other use
61.5
3.7
cropland
44.8
4.2
cropland
1.6
cropland
261.8
4.4
cropland
4.9
woodland and pasture
120
4.5
pasture and wetland
244
4.4
cropland , pasture and land in other
use
2.0
cropland and land in other use
221
1.4
cropland
4.4
cropland
Brian Lindauer
Amanda Meudt
Merlin Bartels
Janet Keyes
Ilsa Kilpatrick
Eric Skattum
Harland Krueger
Gary Debuhr
Thomas Patzkill
185
Charles Opitz
Harold Schaaf
50.3
Emest Graber
Emest & Kathleen Springer (2
parcels )
Ernest Steffes
MichaelMeudt
John & Pamela Lindauer
2.5
six acquisitions of less than one
acre each
je
om
3.1
liscani
656.40
TOTAL
In the following paragraphs, potential negative impacts on farm operations are discussed .
These impacts will bemore severe on some farms than others. The effects on individual farm
operations caused by the proposed project will be discussed in greater detail following the
general descriptions of impacts .
7
the soils are suited to agriculture.
Farmland Preservation
The Iowa and Lafayette County Farmland Preservation Plans were both certified in 1980.
The plans identify farmland preservation areas in the counties and provide eligibility to
farmers to participate in the Farmland Preservation Program . The purposes of the program
are to encourage local governments to develop farmland preservation policies, provide tax
relief in the form of tax credits to eligible farmers, and to conserve soil and water resources.
The tax credit is provided to owners of farmland protected by a preservation agreement or
exclusive agricultural zoning .
The town of Kendall in Lafayette County has adopted the county's exclusive agricultural
zoning ordinance. This means that any eligible farmland owners having zoning certificates
can receive 100 % of the available tax credit.
The town of Belmont has not adopted an
exclusive agricultural zoning ordinance , so eligible farmland owners can only participate in
the program if they have preservation agreements. They are then eligible to receive 70 % of
the available tax credit.
In Iowa County, the towns of Dodgeville , Linden and Mineral Point
have all adopted the county's version of exclusive agricultural zoning and provide 100 % of
the available tax credit to farmland owners having zoning certificates.
Farmland owners who own land that would be affected by the proposed project and who
participate in the Farmland Preservation Program are not obligated to pay back any of the tax
credits they have received through the program . According to 891.19 (6m ) of the Wisconsin
Statutes, " The department shall release from a farmland preservation agreement any lands
acquired by the state or the federal government for public improvements or structures
including highway improvements." Likewise, farmers who are enrolled in the Conservation
Reserve Program won't have to pay any penalties since the acquisitions are for a public
project. Farmers who participate in the Acreage Reduction Program may have their base
reduced due to the smaller size of the farm .
IV . POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON FARM
OPERATIONS
An Agricultural Impact Statement is required by law when 5 or more acres from any farmland
owner will be acquired for a public project. Thirty days after the date of publication for the
AIS , the purchasing agency may begin negotiating with the affected farmland owners.
The proposed project will require the fee-simple acquisition of 656.3 acres of farmland from
56 farmland owners. This will include 373.9 acres of cropland, 250.8 acres of pasture, 23.5
acres of woodland, 1.1 acres of wetland, and 7.0 acres of land in other use.
Soil Survey for Iowa County, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with
University of Wisconsin , Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey , Soil Survey Division , and Wisconsin
Agricultural Experiment Station, July , 1962, pp. 5-6 .
9
LANDOWNER
EXISTING PARCEL
SIZE IN A CRES
CURRENT LAND USE
FEE SIMPLE
ACQUISITION IN ACRES
51.0
cropland, woodland and pasture
375.5
80
16.6
pasture
160
8.4
cropland and pasture
461.0
6.6
cropland and pasture
148.9
26.3
cropland and pasture
Charles Goldthorpe, Jr.
cropland and woodland
155
25.6
Robert Dalles
Marian Moreland
K. V. & R. M.Moreland
Philip Cody
Gevelinger Inc
5.1
cropland
8.8
cropland and pasture
165
2.3
cropland and pasture
20
1.2
cropland
3.3
pasture
2.2
land in other use
61.5
3.7
cropland
44.8
4.2
cropland
185
1.6
cropland
261.8
4.4
cropland
4.9
woodland and pasture
120
4.5
pasture and wetland
244
4.4
cropland , pasture and land in other
use
2.0
cropland and land in other use
221
1.4
cropland
4.4
cropland
Brian Lindauer
Amanda Meudt
Merlin Bartels
Janet Keyes
Ilsa Kilpatrick
Eric Skattum
Harland Krueger
Gary Debuhr
Thomas Patzkill
Charles Opitz
Harold Schaaf
Ernest Graber
50.3
Emest & Kathleen Springer (2
parcels)
Ernest Steffes
Michael Meudt
John & Pamela Lindauer
2.5
six acquisitions of less than one
acre each
656.40
TOTAL
In the following paragraphs, potential negative impacts on farm operations are discussed .
These impacts will be more severe on some farms than others. The effects on individual farm
operations caused by the proposed project will be discussed in greater detail following the
general descriptions of impacts .
7
the soils are suited to agriculture.“
Farmland Preservation
The Iowa and Lafayette County Farmland Preservation Plans were both certified in 1980 .
The plans identify farmland preservation areas in the counties and provide eligibility to
farmers to participate in the Farmland Preservation Program . The purposes of the program
are to encourage local governments to develop farmland preservation policies, provide tax
relief in the form of tax credits to eligible farmers, and to conserve soil and water resources.
The tax credit is provided to owners of farmland protected by a preservation agreement or
exclusive agricultural zoning.
The town of Kendall in Lafayette County has adopted the county's exclusive agricultural
zoning ordinance. This means that any eligible farmland owners having zoning certificates
can receive 100 % of the available tax credit. The town of Belmont has not adopted an
exclusive agricultural zoning ordinance, so eligible farmland owners can only participate in
the program if they have preservation agreements. They are then eligible to receive 70 % of
the available tax credit. In Iowa County, the towns of Dodgeville, Linden and Mineral Point
have all adopted the county's version of exclusive agricultural zoning and provide 100 % of
the available tax credit to farmland owners having zoning certificates.
Farmland owners who own land that would be affected by the proposed project and who
participate in the Farmland Preservation Program
are not obligated to pay back any of the tax
credits they have received through the program . According to 891.19 (6m ) of the Wisconsin
Statutes, " The department shall release from a farmland preservation agreement any lands
acquired by the state or the federal government for public improvements or structures
including highway improvements." Likewise, farmers who are enrolled in the Conservation
Reserve Program won't have to pay any penalties since the acquisitions are for a public
project. Farmers who participate in the Acreage Reduction Program may have their base
reduced due to the smaller size of the farm .
IV . POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON FARM
OPERATIONS
An Agricultural Impact Statement is required by law when 5 or more acres from any farmland
owner will be acquired for a public project. Thirty days after the date of publication for the
AIS , the purchasing agency may begin negotiating with the affected farmland owners.
The proposed project will require the fee-simple acquisition of 656.3 acres of farmland from
56 farmland owners. This will include 373.9 acres of cropland , 250.8 acres of pasture, 23.5
acres of woodland, 1.1 acres of wetland, and 7.0 acres of land in other use .
‘Soil Survey for Iowa County, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with
University of Wisconsin , Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey , Soil Survey Division , and Wisconsin
Agricultural Experiment Station, July , 1962, pp. 5-6 .
9
LANDOWNER
EXISTING PARCEL
SIZE IN A CRES
Marian Moreland
K. V. & R.M.Moreland
375.5
CURRENT LAND USE
FEE SIMPLE
ACQUISITION IN ACRES
51.0
cropland , woodland and pasture
16.6
pasture
80
8.4
cropland and pasture
160
6.6
cropland and pasture
461.0
26.3
cropland and pasture
148.9
25.6
cropland and woodland
Philip Cody
Gevelinger Inc
Charles Goldthorpe , Jr.
155
Robert Dalles
5.1
cropland
8.8
cropland and pasture
2.3
cropland and pasture
1.2
cropland
3.3
pasture
2.2
land in other use
3.7
cropland
4.2
cropland
1.6
cropland
4.4
cropland
4.9
woodland and pasture
4.5
pasture and wetland
4.4
cropland , pasture and land in other
use
Brian Lindauer
Amanda Meudt
165
Merlin Bartels
20
Janet Keyes
Ilsa Kilpatrick
Eric Skattum
61.5
Harland Krueger
44.8
Gary Debuhr
185
Thomas Patzkill
261.8
Charles Opitz
120
Harold Schaaf
50.3
Ernest Graber
244
Emest & Kathleen Springer (2
parcels)
2.0
cropland and land in other use
1.4
cropland
4.4
cropland
221
Erest Steffes
Michael Meudt
John & Pamela Lindauer
2.5
six acquisitions of less than one
acre each
656.40
L
TOTA
In the following paragraphs, potential negative impacts on farm operations are discussed .
These impacts will be more severe on some farms than others . The effects on individual farm
operations caused by the proposed project will be discussed in greater detail following the
general descriptions of impacts .
7
the soils are suited to agriculture.
Farmland Preservation
The Iowa and Lafayette County Farmland Preservation Plans were both certified in 1980 .
The plans identify farmland preservation areas in the counties and provide eligibility to
farmers to participate in the Farmland Preservation Program . The purposes of the program
are to encourage local governments to develop farmland preservation policies, provide tax
relief in the form of tax credits to eligible farmers, and to conserve soil and water resources.
The tax credit is provided to owners of farmland protected by a preservation agreement or
exclusive agricultural zoning.
The town of Kendall in Lafayette County has adopted the county's exclusive agricultural
zoning ordinance. This means that any eligible farmland owners having zoning certificates
can receive 100 % of the available tax credit. The town of Belmont has not adopted an
exclusive agricultural zoning ordinance , so eligible farmland owners can only participate in
the program if they have preservation agreements. They are then eligible to receive 70 % of
the available tax credit . In Iowa County, the towns of Dodgeville, Linden and Mineral Point
have all adopted the county's version of exclusive agricultural zoning and provide 100 % of
the available tax credit to farmland owners having zoning certificates.
Farmland owners who own land that would be affected by the proposed project and who
participate in the Farmland Preservation Program are not obligated to pay back any of the tax
credits they have received through the program .
Statutes, " The department shall release from
According to 891.19 (6m ) of the Wisconsin
a farmland preservation agreement any lands
acquired by the state or the federal government for public improvements or structures
including highway improvements." Likewise, farmers who are enrolled in the Conservation
Reserve Program won't have to pay any penalties since the acquisitions are for a public
project. Farmers who participate in the Acreage Reduction Program may have their base
reduced due to the smaller size of the farm .
IV . POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON FARM
OPERATIONS
An Agricultural Impact Statement is required by law when 5 ormore acres from any farmland
owner will be acquired for a public project. Thirty days after the date of publication for the
AIS , the purchasing agency may begin negotiating with the affected farmland owners.
The proposed project will require the fee -simple acquisition of 656.3 acres of farmland from
56 farmland owners. This will include 373.9 acres of cropland , 250.8 acres of pasture , 23.5
acres of woodland, 1.1 acres of wetland, and 7.0 acres of land in other use .
Soil Survey for Iowa County, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with
University ofWisconsin , Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, Soil Survey Division , and Wisconsin
Agricultural Experiment Station , July , 1962, pp . 5-6 .
9
LANDOWNER
EXISTING PARCEL
SEZEN A ORES
Marian Moreland
K. V. & R. M. Moreland
CURRENT LAND USE
FEE SIMPLE
ACQUISITION IN ACRES
51.0
cropland , woodland and pasture
375.5
16.6
pasture
80
8.4
cropland and pasture
160
6.6
cropland and pasture
461.0
26.3
cropland and pasture
148.9
25.6
cropland and woodland
Philip Cody
Gevelinger Inc
Charles Goldthorpe , Jr.
155
Robert Dalles
5.1
cropland
8.8
cropland and pasture
2.3
cropland and pasture
1.2
cropland
3.3
pasture
2.2
land in other use
3.7
cropland
4.2
cropland
1.6
cropland
4.4
cropland
4.9
woodland and pasture
4.5
pasture and wetland
4.4
cropland, pasture and land in other
use
2.0
cropland and land in other use
1.4
cropland
4.4
cropland
Brian Lindauer
Amanda Meudt
165
Merlin Bartels
20
Janet Keyes
Ilsa Kilpatrick
Eric Skattum
61.5
Harland Krueger
44.8
Gary Debuhr
185
Thomas Patzkill
261.8
Charles Opitz
120
Harold Schaaf
50.3
Emest Graber
244
Emest & Kathleen Springer (2
parcels )
221
Emest Steffes
Michael Meudt
John & Pamela Lindauer
2.5
six acquisitions of less than one
acre each
656.40
TOTAL
In the following paragraphs, potential negative impacts on farm operations are discussed .
These impacts will be more severe on some farms than others . The effects on individual farm
operations caused by the proposed project will be discussed in greater detail following the
i
general descriptions of impacts .
7
the soils are suited to agriculture.“
Farmland Preservation
The Iowa and Lafayette County Farmland Preservation Plans were both certified in 1980 .
The plans identify farmland preservation areas in the counties and provide eligibility to
farmers to participate in the Farmland Preservation Program . The purposes of the program
are to encourage local governments to develop farmland preservation policies, provide tax
relief in the form of tax credits to eligible farmers, and to conserve soil and water resources.
The tax credit is provided to owners of farmland protected by a preservation agreement or
exclusive agricultural zoning.
The town of Kendall in Lafayette County has adopted the county's exclusive agricultural
zoning ordinance. This means that any eligible farmland owners having zoning certificates
can receive 100 % of the available tax credit.
The town of Belmont has not adopted an
exclusive agricultural zoning ordinance, so eligible farmland owners can only participate in
the program if they have preservation agreements. They are then eligible to receive 70 % of
the available tax credit. In Iowa County, the towns of Dodgeville , Linden and Mineral Point
have all adopted the county's version of exclusive agricultural zoning and provide 100 % of
the available tax credit to farmland owners having zoning certificates.
Farmland owners who own land that would be affected by the proposed project and who
participate in the Farmland Preservation Program
are not obligated to pay back any of the tax
credits they have received through the program . According to $ 91.19 (6m ) of the Wisconsin
Statutes, " The department shall release from a farmland preservation agreement any lands
acquired by the state or the federal government for public improvements or structures
including highway improvements ." Likewise , farmers who are enrolled in the Conservation
Reserve Program won't have to pay any penalties since the acquisitions are for a public
project. Farmers who participate in the Acreage Reduction Program may have their base
reduced due to the smaller size of the farm .
IV . POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON FARM
OPERATIONS
An Agricultural Impact Statement is required by law when 5 or more acres from any farmland
owner will be acquired for a public project. Thirty days after the date of publication for the
AIS , the purchasing agency may begin negotiating with the affected farmland owners.
The proposed project will require the fee- simple acquisition of 656.3 acres of farmland from
56 farmland owners. This will include 373.9 acres of cropland, 250.8 acres of pasture, 23.5
acres of woodland, 1.1 acres of wetland, and 7.0 acres of land in other use .
Soil Survey for lowa County, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with
University of Wisconsin , Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, Soil Survey Division , and Wisconsin
Agricultural Experiment Station, July , 1962, pp. 5-6 .
1
9
LANDOWNER
EXISTING PARCEL
SIZE IN ACRES
Marian Moreland
K. V. & R. M.Moreland
CURRENT LAND USE
FEE SIMPLE
ACQUISITION IN ACRES
51.0
cropland , woodland and pasture
375.5
16.6
pasture
80
160
8.4
6.6
cropland and pasture
461.0
148.9
26.3
cropland and pasture
25.6
cropland and woodland
155
cropland and pasture
Philip Cody
Gevelinger Inc
Charles Goldthorpe, Jr.
Robert Dalles
5.1
cropland
8.8
cropland and pasture
2.3
cropland and pasture
1.2
cropland
3.3
pasture
2.2
land in other use
3.7
cropland
4.2
cropland
1.6
cropland
4.4
cropland
4.9
woodland and pasture
4.5
pasture and wetland
4.4
cropland, pasture and land in other
use
Brian Lindauer
Amanda Meudt
165
Merlin Bartels
20
Janet Keyes
Ilsa Kilpatrick
Eric Skattum
61.5
Harland Krueger
44.8
Gary Debuhr
185
Thomas Patzkill
261.8
Charles Opitz
120
Harold Schaaf
50.3
Ernest Graber
244
Ernest & Kathleen Springer (2
parcels)
221
2.0
cropland and land in other use
1.4
cropland
4.4
cropland
Ernest Steffes
Michael Meudt
John & Pamela Lindauer
2.5
six acquisitions of less than one
acre each
656.40
L
TOTA
In the following paragraphs, potential negative impacts on farm operations are discussed .
These impacts will be more severe on some farms than others . The effects on individual farm
operations caused by the proposed project will be discussed in greater detail following the
general descriptions of impacts.
7
the soils are suited to agriculture.
Farmland Preservation
The Iowa and Lafayette County Farmland Preservation Plans were both certified in 1980 .
The plans identify farmland preservation areas in the counties and provide eligibility to
farmers to participate in the Farmland Preservation Program . The purposes of the program
are to encourage local governments to develop farmland preservation policies, provide tax
relief in the form
of tax credits to eligible farmers, and to conserve soil and water resources.
The tax credit is provided to owners of farmland protected by a preservation agreement or
exclusive agricultural zoning .
The town of Kendall in Lafayette County has adopted the county's exclusive agricultural
zoning ordinance. This means that any eligible farmland owners having zoning certificates
can receive 100 % of the available tax credit . The town of Belmont has not adopted an
exclusive agricultural zoning ordinance , so eligible farmland owners can only participate in
the program if they have preservation agreements. They are then eligible to receive 70 % of
the available tax credit. In Iowa County, the towns of Dodgeville, Linden and Mineral Point
have all adopted the county's version of exclusive agricultural zoning and provide 100 % of
the available tax credit to farmland owners having zoning certificates.
Farmland owners who own land that would be affected by the proposed project and who
participate in the Farmland Preservation Program
are not obligated to pay back any of the tax
credits they have received through the program . According to $ 91.19 (6m ) of the Wisconsin
Statutes, " The department shall release from
a farmland preservation agreement any lands
acquired by the state or the federal government for public improvements or structures
including highway improvements." Likewise, farmers who are enrolled in the Conservation
Reserve Program won't have to pay any penalties since the acquisitions are for a public
project. Farmers who participate in the Acreage Reduction Program may have their base
reduced due to the smaller size of the farm .
IV . POTENTIAL
IMPACTS ON FARM
OPERATIONS
An Agricultural Impact Statement is required by law when 5 or more acres from
any farmland
owner will be acquired for a public project. Thirty days after the date of publication for the
AIS , the purchasing agency may begin negotiating with the affected farmland owners.
The proposed project will require the fee-simple acquisition of 656.3 acres of farmland from
56 farmland owners. This will include 373.9 acres of cropland , 250.8 acres of pasture, 23.5
acres of woodland, 1.1 acres of wetland , and 7.0 acres of land in other use .
Soil Survey for lowa County, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with
University of Wisconsin , Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, Soil Survey Division , and Wisconsin
Agricultural Experiment Station , July , 1962 , pp. 5-6 .
9
LANDOWNER
EXISTING PARCEL
SIZE IN A CRES
Marian Moreland
K. V. & R. M.Moreland
CURRENT LAND USE
FEE SIMPLE
ACQUISITION IN ACRES
51.0
cropland , woodland and pasture
16.6
pasture
80
8.4
cropland and pasture
160
6.6
cropland and pasture
26.3
cropland and pasture
148.9
25.6
cropland and woodland
155
375.5
Philip Cody
461.0
Gevelinger Inc
Charles Goldthorpe , Jr.
Robert Dalles
5.1
cropland
8.8
cropland and pasture
2.3
cropland and pasture
1.2
cropland
3.3
pasture
2.2
land in other use
3.7
cropland
4.2
cropland
1.6
cropland
4.4
cropland
4.9
woodland and pasture
4.5
pasture and wetland
4.4
cropland, pasture and land in other
use
Brian Lindauer
Amanda Meudt
165
Merlin Bartels
20
Janet Keyes
Ilsa Kilpatrick
Eric Skattum
61.5
Harland Krueger
44.8
Gary Debuhr
185
Thomas Patzkill
261.8
Charles Opitz
120
Harold Schaaf
50.3
Ernest Graber
244
Emest & Kathleen Springer (2
parcels)
cropland and land in other use
2.0
221
Ernest Steffes
1.4
cropland
4.4
cropland
Michael Meudt
John & Pamela Lindauer
2.5
six acquisitions of less than one
acre each
656.40
AL
TOT
In the following paragraphs, potential negative impacts on farm operations are discussed .
These impacts will be more severe on some farms than others . The effects on individual farm
operations caused by the proposed project will be discussed in greater detail following the
general descriptions of impacts.
7
the soils are suited to agriculture.
Farmland Preservation
The Iowa and Lafayette County Farmland Preservation Plans were both certified in 1980.
The plans identify farmland preservation areas in the counties and provide eligibility to
farmers to participate in the Farmland Preservation Program . The purposes of the program
are to encourage local governments to develop farmland preservation policies, provide tax
relief in the form of tax credits to eligible farmers, and to conserve soil and water resources.
The tax credit is provided to owners of farmland protected by a preservation agreement or
exclusive agricultural zoning.
The town of Kendall in Lafayette County has adopted the county's exclusive agricultural
zoning ordinance. This means that any eligible farmland owners having zoning certificates
can receive 100 %
of the available tax credit.
The town of Belmont has not adopted an
exclusive agricultural zoning ordinance, so eligible farmland owners can only participate in
the program if they have preservation agreements. They are then eligible to receive 70 % of
the available tax credit. In Iowa County, the towns of Dodgeville, Linden and Mineral Point
have all adopted the county's version of exclusive agricultural zoning and provide 100 %
the available tax credit to farmland owners having zoning certificates.
of
Farmland owners who own land that would be affected by the proposed project and who
participate in the Farmland Preservation Program are not obligated to pay back any of the tax
credits they have received through the program . According to $ 91.19 (6m ) of the Wisconsin
Statutes, " The department shall release from a farmland preservation agreement any lands
acquired by the state or the federal government for public improvements or structures
including highway improvements." Likewise , farmers who are enrolled in the Conservation
Reserve Program
won't have to pay any penalties since the acquisitions are for a public
project. Farmers who participate in the Acreage Reduction Program
reduced due to the smaller size of the farm .
IV . POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON FARM
may have their base
OPERATIONS
An Agricultural Impact Statement is required by law when 5 or more acres from
any farmland
owner will be acquired for a public project. Thirty days after the date of publication for the
AIS , the purchasing agency may begin negotiating with the affected farmland owners.
The proposed project will require the fee-simple acquisition of 656.3 acres of farmland from
56 farmland owners. This will include 373.9 acres of cropland , 250.8 acres of pasture, 23.5
acres of woodland, 1.1 acres of wetland, and 7.0 acres of land in other use .
'Soil Survey for Iowa County, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with
University of Wisconsin , Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, Soil Survey Division , and Wisconsin
Agricultural Experiment Station, July , 1962, pp. 5-6 .
9
LANDOWNER
EXISTING PARCEL
SIZE IN ACRES
Marian Moreland
K. V. & R. M.Moreland
CURRENT LAND USE
FEE SIMPLE
ACQUISITION IN ACRES
51.0
cropland , woodland and pasture
16.6
pasture
8.4
cropland and pasture
6.6
cropland and pasture
461.0
26.3
cropland and pasture
148.9
25.6
cropland and woodland
155
375.5
80
160
Philip Cody
Gevelinger Inc
Charles Goldthorpe, Jr.
Robert Dalles
5.1
cropland
8.8
cropland and pasture
2.3
cropland and pasture
1.2
cropland
3.3
pasture
2.2
land in other use
3.7
cropland
4.2
cropland
1.6
cropland
4.4
cropland
4.9
woodland and pasture
4.5
pasture and wetland
4.4
cropland, pasture and land in other
use
Brian Lindauer
Amanda Meudt
165
Merlin Bartels
20
Janet Keyes
Ilsa Kilpatrick
Eric Skattum
61.5
Harland Krueger
44.8
Gary Debuhr
185
Thomas Patzkill
261.8
Charles Opitz
120
Harold Schaaf
50.3
Emest Graber
244
Ernest & Kathleen Springer (2
parcels)
2.0
cropland and land in other use
1.4
cropland
4.4
cropland
221
Erest Steffes
Michael Meudt
John & Pamela Lindauer
2.5
six acquisitions of less than one
acre each
656.40
TOTAL
In the following paragraphs, potential negative impacts on farm operations are discussed .
These impacts will be more severe on some farms than others. The effects on individual farm
operations caused by the proposed project will be discussed in greater detail following the
general descriptions of impacts.
7
the soils are suited to agriculture.
Farmland Preservation
The Iowa and Lafayette County Farmland Preservation Plans were both certified in 1980 .
The plans identify farmland preservation areas in the counties and provide eligibility to
farmers to participate in the Farmland Preservation Program . The purposes of the program
are to encourage local governments to develop farmland preservation policies, provide tax
relief in the form of tax credits to eligible farmers, and to conserve soil and water resources.
The tax credit is provided to owners of farmland protected by a preservation agreement or
exclusive agricultural zoning.
The town of Kendall in Lafayette County has adopted the county's exclusive agricultural
zoning ordinance . This means that any eligible farmland owners having zoning certificates
can receive 100 % of the available tax credit. The town of Belmont has not adopted an
exclusive agricultural zoning ordinance, so eligible farmland owners can only participate in
the program if they have preservation agreements. They are then eligible to receive 70 % of
the available tax credit. In Iowa County , the towns of Dodgeville , Linden and Mineral Point
have all adopted the county's version of exclusive agricultural zoning and provide 100 % of
the available tax credit to farmland owners having zoning certificates .
Farmland owners who own land that would be affected by the proposed project and who
participate in the Farmland Preservation Program
are not obligated to pay back any of the tax
credits they have received through the program . According to $ 91.19 (6m ) of the Wisconsin
Statutes, " The department shall release from
a farmland preservation agreement any lands
acquired by the state or the federal government for public improvements or structures
including highway improvements ." Likewise, farmers who are enrolled in the Conservation
Reserve Program won't have to pay any penalties since the acquisitions are for a public
project. Farmers who participate in the Acreage Reduction Program
reduced due to the smaller size of the farm .
IV . POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON FARM
may have their base
OPERATIONS
An Agricultural Impact Statement is required by law when 5 or more acres from
any farmland
owner will be acquired for a public project. Thirty days after the date of publication for the
AIS , the purchasing agency may begin negotiating with the affected farmland owners.
The proposed project will require the fee - simple acquisition of 656.3 acres of farmland from
56 farmland owners. This will include 373.9 acres of cropland, 250.8 acres of pasture, 23.5
acres of woodland, 1.1 acres of wetland , and 7.0 acres of land in other use .
1
“ Soil Survey for Iowa County , U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with
University of Wisconsin , Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, Soil Survey Division , and Wisconsin
Agricultural Experiment Station, July, 1962, pp. 5-6 .
9
LANDOWNER
EXISTING PARCEL
SIZE IN ACRES
Marian Moreland
K. V. & R. M.Moreland
CURRENT LAND USE
FEE SIMPLE
ACQUISITION IN ACRES
51.0
cropland , woodland and pasture
16.6
pasture
375.5
80
160
8.4
cropland and pasture
6.6
cropland and pasture
26.3
cropland and pasture
25.6
cropland and woodland
Philip Cody
461.0
Gevelinger Inc
148.9
Charles Goldthorpe, Jr.
155
Robert Dalles
5.1
cropland
8.8
cropland and pasture
2.3
cropland and pasture
1.2
cropland
Janet Keyes
3.3
pasture
Ilsa Kilpatrick
2.2
land in other use
3.7
cropland
4.2
cropland
1.6
cropland
4.4
cropland
4.9
woodland and pasture
4.5
pasture and wetland
4.4
cropland, pasture and land in other
use
Brian Lindauer
Amanda Meudt
165
Merlin Bartels
20
Eric Skattum
61.5
Harland Krueger
44.8
Gary Debuhr
185
Thomas Patzkill
261.8
Charles Opitz
120
Harold Schaaf
50.3
Emest Graber
244
Ernest & Kathleen Springer (2
parcels)
221
2.0
cropland and land in other use
1.4
cropland
4.4
cropland
Ernest Steffes
Michael Meudt
John & Pamela Lindauer
2.5
six acquisitions of less than one
acre each
656.40
L
TOTA
In the following paragraphs, potential negative impacts on farm operations are discussed .
These impacts will be more severe on some farms than others . The effects on individual farm
operations caused by the proposed project will be discussed in greater detail following the
general descriptions of impacts .
7
the soils are suited to agriculture.
Farmland Preservation
The Iowa and Lafayette County Farmland Preservation Plans were both certified in 1980.
The plans identify farmland preservation areas in the counties and provide eligibility to
farmers to participate in the Farmland Preservation Program . The purposes of the program
are to encourage local governments to develop farmland preservation policies, provide tax
relief in the form of tax credits to eligible farmers, and to conserve soil and water resources.
The tax credit is provided to owners of farmland protected by a preservation agreement or
exclusive agricultural zoning.
The town of Kendall in Lafayette County has adopted the county's exclusive agricultural
zoning ordinance. This means that any eligible farmland owners having zoning certificates
can receive 100 % of the available tax credit. The town of Belmont has not adopted an
exclusive agricultural zoning ordinance, so eligible farmland owners can only participate in
the program if they have preservation agreements. They are then eligible to receive 70 % of
the available tax credit. In Iowa County, the towns of Dodgeville, Linden and Mineral Point
have all adopted the county's version of exclusive agricultural zoning and provide 100 %
the available tax credit to farmland owners having zoning certificates.
of
Farmland owners who own land that would be affected by the proposed project and who
participate in the Farmland Preservation Program are not obligated to pay back any of the tax
credits they have received through the program . According to $ 91.19 (6m ) of the Wisconsin
Statutes, " The department shall release from a farmland preservation agreement any lands
acquired by the state or the federal government for public improvements or structures
including highway improvements." Likewise , farmers who are enrolled in the Conservation
Reserve Program won't have to pay any penalties since the acquisitions are for a public
project. Farmers who participate in the Acreage Reduction Program may have their base
reduced due to the smaller size of the farm .
IV . POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON FARM
OPERATIONS
An Agricultural Impact Statement is required by law when 5 or more acres from
any farmland
owner will be acquired for a public project. Thirty days after the date of publication for the
AIS , the purchasing agency may begin negotiating with the affected farmland owners.
The proposed project will require the fee- simple acquisition of 656.3 acres of farmland from
56 farmland owners. This will include 373.9 acres of cropland , 250.8 acres of pasture, 23.5
acres of woodland, 1.1 acres of wetland, and 7.0 acres of land in other use .
'Soil Survey for Iowa County, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with
University of Wisconsin , Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, Soil Survey Division , and Wisconsin
Agricultural Experiment Station, July , 1962, pp. 5-6 .
9
LANDOWNER
EXISTING PARCEL
SIZE IN ACRES
Marian Moreland
K. V. & R. M.Moreland
CURRENT LAND USE
FEE SIMPLE
ACQUISITION IN A CRES
51.0
cropland , woodland and pasture
16.6
pasture
375.5
80
8.4
cropland and pasture
160
6.6
cropland and pasture
461.0
26.3
cropland and pasture
148.9
25.6
cropland and woodland
Philip Cody
Gevelinger Inc
Charles Goldthorpe, Jr.
155
Robert Dalles
5.1
cropland
8.8
cropland and pasture
2.3
cropland and pasture
1.2
cropland
Janet Keyes
3.3
pasture
Ilsa Kilpatrick
2.2
land in other use
3.7
cropland
4.2
cropland
1.6
cropland
4.4
cropland
4.9
woodland and pasture
4.5
pasture and wetland
4.4
cropland, pasture and land in other
use
Brian Lindauer
Amanda Meudt
165
Merlin Bartels
20
Eric Skattum
61.5
Harland Krueger
44.8
Gary Debuhr
185
Thomas Patzkill
261.8
Charles Opitz
120
Harold Schaaf
50.3
Ernest Graber
244
Ernest & Kathleen Springer (2
parcels)
2.0
cropland and land in other use
1.4
cropland
4.4
cropland
221
Ernest Steffes
Michael Meudt
John & Pamela Lindauer
2.5
six acquisitions of less than one
acre each
656.40
TOTAL
In the following paragraphs, potential negative impacts on farm operations are discussed .
These impacts will be more severe on some farms than others . The effects on individual farm
operations caused by the proposed project will be discussed in greater detail following the
general descriptions of impacts.
7
the soils are suited to agriculture .
Farmland Preservation
The Iowa and Lafayette County Farmland Preservation Plans were both certified in 1980 .
The plans identify farmland preservation areas in the counties and provide eligibility to
farmers to participate in the Farmland Preservation Program . The purposes of the program
are to encourage local governments to develop farmland preservation policies, provide tax
relief in the form of tax credits to eligible farmers, and to conserve soil and water resources.
The tax credit is provided to owners of farmland protected by a preservation agreement or
exclusive agricultural zoning.
The town of Kendall in Lafayette County has adopted the county's exclusive agricultural
zoning ordinance . This means that any eligible farmland owners having zoning certificates
can receive 100 % of the available tax credit. The town of Belmont has not adopted an
exclusive agricultural zoning ordinance , so eligible farmland owners can only participate in
the program if they have preservation agreements. They are then eligible to receive 70 % of
the available tax credit. In Iowa County, the towns of Dodgeville, Linden and Mineral Point
have all adopted the county's version of exclusive agricultural zoning and provide 100 % of
the available tax credit to farmland owners having zoning certificates.
Farmland owners who own land that would be affected by the proposed project and who
participate in the Farmland Preservation Program are not obligated to pay back any of the tax
credits they have received through the program . According to 891.19 (6m ) of the Wisconsin
Statutes, " The department shall release from
a farmland preservation agreement any lands
acquired by the state or the federal government for public improvements or structures
including highway improvements." Likewise, farmers who are enrolled in the Conservation
Reserve Program won't have to pay any penalties since the acquisitions are for a public
project. Farmers who participate in the Acreage Reduction Program may have their base
reduced due to the smaller size of the farm .
IV . POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON FARM OPERATIONS
An Agricultural Impact Statement is required by law when 5 or more acres from any farmland
owner will be acquired for a public project.
Thirty days after the date of publication for the
AIS , the purchasing agency may begin negotiating with the affected farmland owners.
The proposed project will require the fee-simple acquisition of 656.3 acres of farmland from
56 farmland owners. This will include 373.9 acres of cropland, 250.8 acres of pasture , 23.5
acres of woodland, 1.1 acres of wetland, and 7.0 acres of land in other use .
1
'Soil Survey for Iowa County, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with
University of Wisconsin , Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, Soil Survey Division , and Wisconsin
Agricultural Experiment Station , July, 1962, pp . 5-6 .
9
LANDOWNER
EXISTING PARCEL
SIZE IN ACRES
Marian Moreland
CURRENT LAND USE
FEE SIMPLE
ACQUISITION IN ACRES
cropland, woodland and pasture
51.0
375.5
pasture
16.6
K. V. & R. M.Moreland
80
160
8.4
cropland and pasture
6.6
cropland and pasture
26.3
cropland and pasture
25.6
cropland and woodland
Philip Cody
461.0
Gevelinger Inc
148.9
Charles Goldthorpe , Jr.
155
Robert Dalles
5.1
cropland
8.8
cropland and pasture
2.3
cropland and pasture
1.2
cropland
Janet Keyes
3.3
pasture
Ilsa Kilpatrick
2.2
land in other use
3.7
cropland
4.2
cropland
1.6
cropland
4.4
cropland
4.9
woodland and pasture
4.5
pasture and wetland
4.4
cropland , pasture and land in other
use
2.0
cropland and land in other use
1.4
cropland
4.4
cropland
Brian Lindauer
Amanda Meudt
165
Merlin Bartels
20
Eric Skattum
61.5
Harland Krueger
44.8
Gary Debuhr
185
Thomas Patzkill
261.8
Charles Opitz
120
Harold Schaaf
50.3
Emest Graber
244
Ernest & Kathleen Springer (2
parcels)
221
Ernest Steffes
Michael Meudt
John & Pamela Lindauer
2.5
six acquisitions of less than one
acre each
656.40
TOTAL
In the following paragraphs, potential negative impacts on farm operations are discussed .
These impacts will be more severe on some farms than others . The effects on individual farm
operations caused by the proposed project will be discussed in greater detail following the
general descriptions of impacts .
11
Adding two lanes to the existing USH 151 will not create any new severances between the
Belmont Bypass and the Mineral Point Bypass and north of the Mineral Point Bypass. Farm
access will be permitted to the highway on these segments and no parcels will be landlocked.
If a parcel is landlocked as a result of the proposed project, the landowner will have the
option to sell the landlocked parcel to WisDOT or to receive compensation for the loss of
access. Compensation for loss of access is based on a percentage of the market value of the
property . The owner could then rent or sell this parcel to an adjoining landowner who would
have access to it. A
landowner should keep in mind that because of the access limitation , the
number of potential renters or buyers may be limited and the landowner would have to pay
the transaction costs (title searches etc.) which WisDOT would cover if it bought the parcel.
Cattle Passes
Cattle passes can be a vital facility for farms that are severed by a highway. Pasture that is
severed from
cattle pass.
the main portion of the farm
operation may not be of economic value without a
A list of landowners who will have property severed as a result of this project
can be found in Table 3 on page 14. These landowners may need cattle passes installed
between their newly severed parcels of land.
The following farmland owners have indicated an interest in having cattle passes installed on
their property : Donald Wedig, Parmley & Jean Harris, Edward & Lillian Spitzbarth, and
Edward Cody. The land owned by Doreen Suthers that will be severed is currently used for
pasture.
Therefore, she may need a cattle pass installed . A cattle pass may also be useful to
the McNett Lake Project property since there is pasture on both sides of the highway .
Leonard Steinhoff, Ronald Debuhr, Ted Graber, Caroline Knapp , Clarence Pittz, Robert
Carey, and Gevelinger, Inc. currently have cattle passes and need to have them in the future
to be able to utilize all of their property . Amanda Meudt also has an existing cattle pass on
her property.
This cattle pass is not currently being used for cattle but it does act as a culvert
and it could be used for cattle in the future. John Schaaf has a cattle pass which is currently
being used but which may not continue to be used after the construction of the proposed
project if drainage problems cannot be corrected .
Land Loss
The proposed project will convert 373.9 acres of cropland, 250.8 acres of pasture, 23.5 acres
of woodland, 1.1 acres of wetland, and 7.0 acres of land in other use to highway right-of-way.
Six farmland owners will each lose less than one acre of land, fourteen farmland owners will
lose between one and five acres of land, and thirty -six farmland owners will lose more than
five acres of land. The average size of farmsin Lafayette and lowa counties is 283.5 acres.
Therefore, the proposed project will cause the loss of the equivalent of 2.3 farms.
To offset these losses of farmland, owners and rentersmay have to find replacement land or
make adjustments , such as buying feed produced off the farm or culling some of their
13
The maps on the next page show the proposed highway relocations of the Belmont Bypass
and the Mineral Point Bypass. Table 3 below lists the landowners who will have land severed
by the proposed project. It also gives a brief description of most of the severances.
TABLE 3
PARCELS TO BE SEVERED
LANDOWNER
AFFECTS ON PARCEL
Patrick Shea
sever 160- acre parcel into two parcels
Dave Spensley
diamond interchange will sever parcels
George Olthafer
highway will cross 72 -acre parcel of cropland leaving an 18 and a
40-acre parcel
Robert Carey
site ofMineral Point interchange
Gilbert Graber
2 severances, 1 is on land formerly owned by John Ross
Parmley & Jean Harris
Edward & Lillian Spitzbarth
approximately 5.5 acres of pasture will be landlocked
Edward Cody
approximately 6 acres of pasture on parcel # 321a will be
landlocked and parcel # 321b will also be severed
Doreen Suthers
parcel will be divided into two parts
Marian Moreland
20 acres may be landlocked but also owns parcel to the south so
severed parcel may be joined to that property
K. V. & R. M.Moreland
parcel will be severed into two parts
Charles Goldthorpe, Jr.
cropland will be severed from pasture
Remnant parcels with a shape or size that severely diminishes their efficient productive use
may be considered " uneconomic remnants" by WisDOT. Section 32.05 of the Wisconsin
Statutes states:
" ... "uneconomic remnant" means the property remaining after a partial taking of
property, if the property remaining is of such size, shape or condition as to be of little
value or of substantially impaired economic viability . If the acquisition of only part of
a property would leave its owner with an uneconomic remnant, the condemnor shall
offer to acquire the remnant concurrently and may acquire it by purchase or by
condemnation if the owner consents."
The determination as to whether a remnant is an " uneconomic remnant" is a WisDOT
judgement. Section 84.09 of the Wisconsin Statutes states,
" ... The departmentmay purchase ... remnants of tracts or parcels of land at the time or
after it has acquired portions of such tracts or parcels by purchase or condemnation for
transportation purposes where in the judgement of the department such action would
assist in making whole the landowner, a part of whose lands have been taken for
11
Adding two lanes to the existing USH 151 will not create any new severances between the
Belmont Bypass and the Mineral Point Bypass and north of the Mineral Point Bypass. Farm
access will be permitted to the highway on these segments and no parcels will be landlocked.
If a parcel is landlocked as a result of the proposed project, the landowner will have the
option to sell the landlocked parcel to WisDOT or to receive compensation for the loss of
access. Compensation for loss of access is based on a percentage of the market value of the
property. The owner could then rent or sell this parcel to an adjoining landowner who would
have access to it.
A landowner should keep in mind that because of the access limitation , the
number of potential renters or buyers may be limited and the landowner would have to pay
the transaction costs (title searches etc.) which WisDOT would cover if it bought the parcel.
Cattle Passes
Cattle passes can be a vital facility for farms that are severed by a highway . Pasture that is
severed from
the main portion of the farm
operation may not be of economic value without a
cattle pass. A list of landowners who will have property severed as a result of this project
can be found in Table 3 on page 14. These landowners may need cattle passes installed
between their newly severed parcels of land.
The following farmland owners have indicated an interest in having cattle passes installed on
their property: Donald Wedig, Parmley & Jean Harris, Edward & Lillian Spitzbarth , and
Edward Cody. The land owned by Doreen Suthers that will be severed is currently used for
pasture.
Therefore, she may need a cattle pass installed . A cattle pass may also be useful to
the McNett Lake Project property since there is pasture on both sides of the highway.
Leonard Steinhoff, Ronald Debuhr, Ted Graber, Caroline Knapp , Clarence Pittz, Robert
Carey, and Gevelinger, Inc. currently have cattle passes and need to have them in the future
to be able to utilize all of their property. Amanda Meudt also has an existing cattle pass on
her property.
This cattle pass is not currently being used for cattle but it does act as a culvert
and it could be used for cattle in the future.
John Schaaf has a cattle pass which is currently
being used but which may not continue to be used after the construction of the proposed
project if drainage problems cannot be corrected .
Land Loss
The proposed project will convert 373.9 acres of cropland, 250.8 acres of pasture , 23.5 acres
of woodland, 1.1 acres of wetland, and 7.0 acres of land in other use to highway right-of-way.
Six farmland owners will each lose less than one acre of land, fourteen farmland owners will
lose between one and five acres of land, and thirty -six farmland owners will lose more than
five acres of land. The average size of farms in Lafayette and lowa counties is 283.5 acres.
Therefore, the proposed project will cause the loss of the equivalent of 2.3 farms.
To offset these losses of farmland, owners and rentersmay have to find replacement land or
make adjustments , such as buying feed produced off the farm or culling some of their
13
The maps on the next page show the proposed highway relocations of the Belmont Bypass
and the Mineral Point Bypass. Table 3 below lists the landowners who will have land severed
by the proposed project. It also gives a brief description of most of the severances.
TABLE 3
PARCELS TO BE SEVERED
AFFECTS ON PARCEL
LANDOWNER
Patrick Shea
sever 160- acre parcel into two parcels
Dave Spensley
diamond interchange will sever parcels
George Olthafer
highway will cross 72 - acre parcel of cropland leaving an 18 and a
40 -acre parcel
Robert Carey
site of Mineral Point interchange
Gilbert Graber
2 severances, 1 is on land formerly owned by John Ross
Parmley & Jean Harris
Edward & Lillian Spitzbarth
approximately 5.5 acres of pasture will be landlocked
Edward Cody
approximately 6 acres of pasture on parcel # 321a will be
landlocked and parcel # 321b will also be severed
Doreen Suthers
parcel will be divided into two parts
Marian Moreland
20 acres may be landlocked but also owns parcel to the south so
severed parcelmay be joined to that property
K. V. & R.M.Moreland
parcel will be severed into two parts
Charles Goldthorpe, Jr.
cropland will be severed from pasture
Remnant parcels with a shape or size that severely diminishes their efficient productive use
may be considered "uneconomic remnants " by WisDOT. Section 32.05 of the Wisconsin
Statutes states :
"... " uneconomic remnant" means the property remaining after a partial taking of
property , if the property remaining is of such size, shape or condition as to be of little
value or of substantially impaired economic viability . If the acquisition of only part of
a property would leave its owner with an uneconomic remnant, the condemnor shall
offer to acquire the remnant concurrently and may acquire it by purchase or by
condemnation if the owner consents."
1
The determination as to whether a remnant is an " uneconomic remnant" is a WisDOT
judgement. Section 84.09 of the Wisconsin Statutes states ,
a
for
taken
been
have
lands
whose
of
,
a
part
the
whole
in
making
assist
-2
landowner
11 ... The department may purchase ...remnants of tracts or parcels of land at the time or
after it has acquired portions of such tracts or parcels by purchase or condemnation for
transportation purposes where in the judgement of the department such action would
11
Adding two lanes to the existing USH 151 will not create any new severances between the
Belmont Bypass and the Mineral Point Bypass and north of the Mineral Point Bypass. Farm
access will be permitted to the highway on these segments and no parcels will be landlocked .
If a parcel is landlocked as a result of the proposed project, the landowner will have the
option to sell the landlocked parcel to WisDOT or to receive compensation for the loss of
access. Compensation for loss of access is based on a percentage of the market value of the
property . The owner could then rent or sell this parcel to an adjoining landowner who would
have access to it.
A landowner should keep in mind that because of the access limitation , the
number of potential renters or buyers may be limited and the landowner would have to pay
the transaction costs (title searches etc.) which WisDOT would cover if it bought the parcel.
Cattle Passes
Cattle passes can be a vital facility for farms that are severed by a highway. Pasture that is
severed from
the main portion of the farm operation may not be of economic value without a
cattle pass. A list of landowners who will have property severed as a result of this project
can be found in Table 3 on page 14. These landowners may need cattle passes installed
between their newly severed parcels of land.
The following farmland owners have indicated an interest in having cattle passes installed on
their property : Donald Wedig, Parmley & Jean Harris, Edward & Lillian Spitzbarth , and
Edward Cody .
pasture.
The land owned by Doreen Suthers that will be severed is currently used for
Therefore, she may need a cattle pass installed . A cattle pass may also be useful to
the McNett Lake Project property since there is pasture on both sides of the highway .
Leonard Steinhoff, Ronald Debuhr, Ted Graber, Caroline Knapp , Clarence Pittz, Robert
Carey , and Gevelinger, Inc. currently have cattle passes and need to have them
in the future
to be able to utilize all of their property . Amanda Meudt also has an existing cattle pass on
her property . This cattle pass is not currently being used for cattle but it does act as a culvert
and it could be used for cattle in the future. John Schaaf has a cattle pass which is currently
being used but which may not continue to be used after the construction of the proposed
project if drainage problems cannot be corrected .
Land Loss
The proposed project will convert 373.9 acres of cropland, 250.8 acres of pasture, 23.5 acres
of woodland , 1.1 acres of wetland, and 7.0 acres of land in other use to highway right-of-way.
Six farmland owners will each lose less than one acre of land, fourteen farmland owners will
lose between one and five acres of land, and thirty -six farmland owners will lose more than
five acres of land. The average size of farms in Lafayette and Iowa counties is 283.5 acres.
Therefore, the proposed project will cause the loss of the equivalent of 2.3 farms.
To offset these losses of farmland , owners and renters may have to find replacement land or
make adjustments, such as buying feed produced off the farm or culling some of their
13
The maps on the next page show the proposed highway relocations of the Belmont Bypass
and the Mineral Point Bypass. Table 3 below lists the landowners who will have land severed
by the proposed project. It also gives a brief description of most of the severances.
TABLE 3
PARCELS TO BE SEVERED
LANDOWNER
AFFECTS ON PARCEL
Patrick Shea
sever 160 -acre parcel into two parcels
Dave Spensley
diamond interchange will sever parcels
George Olthafer
highway will cross 72 - acre parcel of cropland leaving an 18 and a
40-acre parcel
Robert Carey
site ofMineral Point interchange
Gilbert Graber
2 severances, 1 is on land formerly owned by John Ross
Parmley & Jean Harris
Edward & Lillian Spitzbarth
approximately 5.5 acres of pasture will be landlocked
Edward Cody
approximately 6 acres of pasture on parcel # 321a will be
landlocked and parcel # 321b will also be severed
Doreen Suthers
parcel will be divided into two parts
Marian Moreland
20 acres may be landlocked but also owns parcel to the south so
severed parcel may be joined to that property
K. V. & R. M.Moreland
parcelwill be severed into two parts
Charles Goldthorpe, Jr.
cropland will be severed from pasture
Remnant parcels with a shape or size that severely diminishes their efficient productive use
may be considered " uneconomic remnants" by WisDOT. Section 32.05 of the Wisconsin
Statutes states:
"... " uneconomic remnant" means the property remaining after a partial taking of
property, if the property remaining is of such size, shape or condition as to be of little
value or of substantially impaired economic viability. If the acquisition of only part of
a property would leave its owner with an uneconomic remnant, the condemnor shall
offer to acquire the remnant concurrently and may acquire it by purchase or by
condemnation if the owner consents."
The determination as to whether a remnant is an "uneconomic remnant" is a WisDOT
judgement. Section 84.09 of the Wisconsin Statutes states,
" ... The departmentmay purchase ...remnants of tracts or parcels of land at the time or
after it has acquired portions of such tracts or parcels by purchase or condemnation for
transportation purposes where in the judgement of the department such action would
assist in making whole the landowner, a part of whose lands have been taken for
11
Adding two lanes to the existing USH 151 will not create any new severances between the
Belmont Bypass and the Mineral Point Bypass and north of the Mineral Point Bypass. Farm
access will be permitted to the highway on these segments and no parcels will be landlocked.
If a parcel is landlocked as a result of the proposed project, the landowner will have the
option to sell the landlocked parcel to WisDoT or to receive compensation for the loss of
access. Compensation for loss of access is based on a percentage of the market value of the
property .
The owner could then rent or sell this parcel to an adjoining landowner who would
have access to it. A landowner should keep in mind that because of the access limitation , the
number of potential renters or buyers may be limited and the landowner would have to pay
the transaction costs (title searches etc.) which WisDOT would cover if it bought the parcel.
Cattle Passes
Cattle passes can be a vital facility for farms that are severed by a highway. Pasture that is
severed from the main portion of the farm operation may not be of economic value without a
cattle pass. A list of landowners who will have property severed as a result of this project
can be found in Table 3 on page 14. These landowners may need cattle passes installed
between their newly severed parcels of land .
The following farmland owners have indicated an interest in having cattle passes installed on
their property : Donald Wedig, Parmley & Jean Harris, Edward & Lillian Spitzbarth , and
Edward Cody .
pasture.
The land owned by Doreen Suthers that will be severed is currently used for
Therefore , she may need a cattle pass installed . A cattle pass may also be useful to
the McNett Lake Project property since there is pasture on both sides of the highway .
Leonard Steinhoff, Ronald Debuhr, Ted Graber, Caroline Knapp , Clarence Pittz, Robert
Carey, and Gevelinger, Inc. currently have cattle passes and need to have them
in the future
to be able to utilize all of their property . Amanda Meudt also has an existing cattle pass on
her property.
This cattle pass is not currently being used for cattle but it does act as a culvert
and it could be used for cattle in the future. John Schaaf has a cattle pass which is currently
being used but which may not continue to be used after the construction of the proposed
project if drainage problems cannot be corrected .
Land Loss
The proposed project will convert 373.9 acres of cropland , 250.8 acres of pasture, 23.5 acres
of woodland , 1.1 acres of wetland, and 7.0 acres of land in other use to highway right-of-way.
Six farmland owners will each lose less than one acre of land, fourteen farmland owners will
lose between one and five acres of land, and thirty -six farmland owners will lose more than
five acres of land. The average size of farms in Lafayette and Iowa counties is 283.5 acres.
Therefore, the proposed project will cause the loss of the equivalent of 2.3 farms.
To offset these losses of farmland, owners and renters may have to find replacement land or
make adjustments, such as buying feed produced off the farm or culling some of their
13
The maps on the next page show the proposed highway relocations of the Belmont Bypass
and the Mineral Point Bypass. Table 3 below lists the landowners who will have land severed
by the proposed project. It also gives a brief description of most of the severances.
TABLE 3
PARCELS TO BE SEVERED
AFFECTS ON PARCEL
LANDOWNER
Patrick Shea
sever 160- acre parcel into two parcels
Dave Spensley
diamond interchange will sever parcels
George Olthafer
highway will cross 72 -acre parcel of cropland leaving an 18 and a
40- acre parcel
Robert Carey
site of Mineral Point interchange
Gilbert Graber
2 severances, 1 is on land formerly owned by John Ross
Parmley & Jean Harris
Edward & Lillian Spitzbarth
approximately 5.5 acres of pasture will be landlocked
Edward Cody
approximately 6 acres of pasture on parcel # 321a will be
landlocked and parcel # 321b will also be severed
Doreen Suthers
parcel will be divided into two parts
Marian Moreland
20 acres may be landlocked but also owns parcel to the south so
severed parcelmay be joined to that property
K. V. & R.M.Moreland
parcel will be severed into two parts
Charles Goldthorpe, Jr.
cropland will be severed from pasture
Remnant parcels with a shape or size that severely diminishes their efficient productive use
may be considered " uneconomic remnants" by WisDOT. Section 32.05 of the Wisconsin
Statutes states:
" ... " uneconomic remnant" means the property remaining after a partial taking of
property, if the property remaining is of such size, shape or condition as to be of little
value or of substantially impaired economic viability . If the acquisition of only part of
a property would leave its owner with an uneconomic remnant, the condemnor shall
offer to acquire the remnant concurrently and may acquire it by purchase or by
condemnation if the owner consents."
The determination as to whether a remnant is an " uneconomic remnant" is a WisDOT
judgement. Section 84.09 of the Wisconsin Statutes states,
I
"... The department may purchase ... remnants of tracts or parcels of land at the time or
after it has acquired portions of such tracts or parcels by purchase or condemnation for
transportation purposes where in the judgement of the department such action would
assist in making whole the landowner, a part of whose lands have been taken for
11
Adding two lanes to the existing USH 151 will not create any new severances between the
Belmont Bypass and the Mineral Point Bypass and north of the Mineral Point Bypass. Farm
access will be permitted to the highway on these segments and no parcels will be landlocked.
If a parcel is landlocked as a result of the proposed project, the landowner will have the
option to sell the landlocked parcel to WisDOT or to receive compensation for the loss of
access. Compensation for loss of access is based on a percentage of the market value of the
property.
The owner could then rent or sell this parcel to an adjoining landowner who would
have access to it. A landowner should keep in mind that because of the access limitation , the
number of potential renters or buyers may be limited and the landowner would have to pay
the transaction costs (title searches etc.) which WisDOT would cover if it bought the parcel.
Cattle Passes
Cattle passes can be a vital facility for farms that are severed by a highway . Pasture that is
severed from the main portion of the farm operation may not be of economic value without a
cattle pass. A list of landowners who will have property severed as a result of this project
can be found in
Table 3 on page 14. These landowners may need cattle passes installed
between their newly severed parcels of land .
The following farmland owners have indicated an interest in having cattle passes installed on
their property: Donald Wedig , Parmley & Jean Harris, Edward & Lillian Spitzbarth , and
Edward Cody .
pasture.
The land owned by Doreen Suthers that will be severed is currently used for
Therefore, she may need a cattle pass installed . A cattle pass may also be useful to
the McNett Lake Project property since there is pasture on both sides of the highway .
Leonard Steinhoff, Ronald Debuhr, Ted Graber, Caroline Knapp , Clarence Pittz, Robert
Carey, and Gevelinger, Inc. currently have cattle passes and need to have them in the future
to be able to utilize all of their property . Amanda Meudt also has an existing cattle pass on
her property .
This cattle pass is not currently being used for cattle but it does act as a culvert
and it could be used for cattle in the future. John Schaaf has a cattle pass which is currently
being used but which may not continue to be used after the construction of the proposed
project if drainage problems cannot be corrected .
Land Loss
The proposed project will convert 373.9 acres of cropland , 250.8 acres of pasture , 23.5 acres
of woodland , 1.1 acres of wetland , and 7.0 acres of land in other use to highway right-of-way.
Six farmland owners will each lose less than one acre of land, fourteen farmland owners will
lose between one and five acres of land, and thirty -six farmland owners will lose more than
five acres of land. The average size of farms in Lafayette and lowa counties is 283.5 acres.
Therefore , the proposed project will cause the loss of the equivalent of 2.3 farms.
To offset these losses of farmland, owners and renters may have to find replacement land or
make adjustments , such as buying feed produced off the farm or culling some of their
13
The maps on the next page show the proposed highway relocations of the Belmont Bypass
and the Mineral Point Bypass. Table 3 below lists the landowners who will have land severed
by the proposed project. It also gives a brief description ofmost of the severances.
TABLE 3
PARCELS TO BE SEVERED
AFFECTS ON PARCEL
LANDOWNER
Patrick Shea
sever 160- acre parcel into two parcels
Dave Spensley
diamond interchange will sever parcels
George Olthafer
highway will cross 72 -acre parcel of cropland leaving an 18 and a
40 -acre parcel
Robert Carey
site of Mineral Point interchange
Gilbert Graber
2 severances, 1 is on land formerly owned by John Ross
Parmley & Jean Harris
Edward & Lillian Spitzbarth
approximately 5.5 acres of pasture will be landlocked
Edward Cody
approximately 6 acres of pasture on parcel # 321a will be
landlocked and parcel # 321b will also be severed
Doreen Suthers
parcel will be divided into two parts
Marian Moreland
20 acres may be landlocked but also owns parcel to the south so
severed parcelmay be joined to that property
K. V. & R.M.Moreland
parcel will be severed into two parts
Charles Goldthorpe, Jr.
cropland will be severed from pasture
Remnant parcels with a shape or size that severely diminishes their efficient productive use
may be considered " uneconomic remnants" by WisDOT. Section 32.05 of the Wisconsin
Statutes states:
" ... " uneconomic remnant" means the property remaining after a partial taking of
property , if the property remaining is of such size, shape or condition as to be of little
value or of substantially impaired economic viability . If the acquisition of only part of
a property would leave its owner with an uneconomic remnant, the condemnor shall
offer to acquire the remnant concurrently and may acquire it by purchase or by
condemnation if the owner consents."
The determination as to whether a remnant is an " uneconomic remnant" is a WisDOT
judgement. Section 84.09 of the Wisconsin Statutes states,
--
I
"... The department may purchase ... remnants of tracts or parcels of land at the time or
after it has acquired portions of such tracts or parcels by purchase or condemnation for
transportation purposes where in the judgement of the department such action would
assist in making whole the landowner , a part of whose lands have been taken for
11
Adding two lanes to the existing USH 151 will not create any new severances between the
Belmont Bypass and the Mineral Point Bypass and north of the Mineral Point Bypass . Farm
access will be permitted to the highway on these segments and no parcels will be landlocked.
If a parcel is landlocked as a result of the proposed project, the landowner will have the
option to sell the landlocked parcel to WisDoT or to receive compensation for the loss of
access. Compensation for loss of access is based on a percentage of the market value of the
property . The owner could then rent or sell this parcel to an adjoining landowner who would
have access to it. A landowner should keep in mind that because of the access limitation , the
number of potential renters or buyers may be limited and the landowner would have to pay
the transaction costs (title searches etc.) which WisDOT would cover if it bought the parcel.
Cattle Passes
Cattle passes can be a vital facility for farms that are severed by a highway . Pasture that is
severed from the main portion of the farm operation may not be of economic value without a
cattle pass. A list of landowners who will have property severed as a result of this project
can be found in
Table 3 on page 14. These landowners may need cattle passes installed
between their newly severed parcels of land .
The following farmland owners have indicated an interest in having cattle passes installed on
their property : Donald Wedig, Parmley & Jean Harris, Edward & Lillian Spitzbarth , and
Edward Cody .
pasture.
The land owned by Doreen Suthers that will be severed is currently used for
Therefore, she may need a cattle pass installed . A cattle pass may also be useful to
the McNett Lake Project property since there is pasture on both sides of the highway .
Leonard Steinhoff, Ronald Debuhr, Ted Graber, Caroline Knapp , Clarence Pittz, Robert
Carey, and Gevelinger, Inc. currently have cattle passes and need to have them in the future
to be able to utilize all of their property . Amanda Meudt also has an existing cattle pass on
her property. This cattle pass is not currently being used for cattle but it does act as a culvert
and it could be used for cattle in the future.
John Schaaf has a cattle pass which is currently
being used but which may not continue to be used after the construction of the proposed
project if drainage problems cannot be corrected .
Land Loss
The proposed project will convert 373.9 acres of cropland , 250.8 acres of pasture, 23.5 acres
of woodland , 1.1 acres of wetland, and 7.0 acres of land in other use to highway right-of-way.
Six farmland owners will each lose less than one acre of land, fourteen farmland owners will
lose between one and five acres of land, and thirty -six farmland owners will lose more than
five acres of land. The average size of farms in Lafayette and Iowa counties is 283.5 acres.
Therefore, the proposed project will cause the loss of the equivalent of 2.3 farms.
To offset these losses of farmland, owners and renters may have to find replacement land or
make adjustments, such as buying feed produced off the farm or culling some of their
13
The maps on the next page show the proposed highway relocations of the Belmont Bypass
and the Mineral Point Bypass. Table 3 below lists the landowners who will have land severed
by the proposed project. It also gives a brief description of most of the severances.
TABLE 3
PARCELS TO BE SEVERED
LANDOWNER
AFFECTS ON PARCEL
Patrick Shea
sever 160- acre parcel into two parcels
Dave Spensley
diamond interchange will sever parcels
George Olthafer
highway will cross 72-acre parcel of cropland leaving an 18 and a
40-acre parcel
Robert Carey
site ofMineral Point interchange
Gilbert Graber
2 severances, 1 is on land formerly owned by John Ross
Parmley & Jean Harris
Edward & Lillian Spitzbarth
approximately 5.5 acres ofpasture will be landlocked
Edward Cody
approximately 6 acres of pasture on parcel # 321a will be
landlocked and parcel #321b will also be severed
Doreen Suthers
parcel will be divided into two parts
Marian Moreland
20 acres may be landlocked but also owns parcel to the south so
severed parcel may be joined to that property
K. V. & R. M.Moreland
parcel will be severed into two parts
Charles Goldthorpe, Jr.
cropland will be severed from pasture
Remnant parcels with a shape or size that severely diminishes their efficient productive use
may be considered " uneconomic remnants" by WisDOT. Section 32.05 of the Wisconsin
Statutes states:
" ... "uneconomic remnant" means the property remaining after a partial taking of
property , if the property remaining is of such size, shape or condition as to be of little
value or of substantially impaired economic viability . If the acquisition of only part of
a property would leave its owner with an uneconomic remnant, the condemnor shall
offer to acquire the remnant concurrently and may acquire it by purchase or by
condemnation if the owner consents."
The determination as to whether a remnant is an "uneconomic remnant" is a WisDOT
judgement. Section 84.09 of the Wisconsin Statutes states,
"... The department may purchase...remnants of tracts or parcels of land at the time or
after it has acquired portions of such tracts or parcels by purchase or condemnation for
transportation purposes where in the judgement of the department such action would
assist in making whole the landowner, a part of whose lands have been taken for
11
Adding two lanes to the existing USH 151 will not create any new severances between the
Belmont Bypass and the Mineral Point Bypass and north of the Mineral Point Bypass. Farm
access will be permitted to the highway on these segments and no parcels will be landlocked.
If a parcel is landlocked as a result of the proposed project, the landowner will have the
option to sell the landlocked parcel to WisDOT or to receive compensation for the loss of
access. Compensation for loss of access is based on a percentage of the market value of the
property . The owner could then rent or sell this parcel to an adjoining landowner who would
have access to it. A landowner should keep in mind that because of the access limitation , the
number of potential renters or buyers may be limited and the landowner would have to pay
the transaction costs (title searches etc.) which WisDOT would cover if it bought the parcel.
Cattle Passes
Cattle passes can be a vital facility for farms that are severed by a highway. Pasture that is
severed from the main portion of the farm operation may not be of economic value without a
cattle pass. A list of landowners who will have property severed as a result of this project
can be found in Table 3 on page 14. These landowners may need cattle passes installed
between their newly severed parcels of land.
The following farmland owners have indicated an interest in having cattle passes installed on
their property : Donald Wedig, Parmley & Jean Harris, Edward & Lillian Spitzbarth , and
Edward Cody .
pasture.
The land owned by Doreen Suthers that will be severed is currently used for
Therefore, she may need a cattle pass installed . A cattle pass may also be useful to
the McNett Lake Project property since there is pasture on both sides of the highway .
Leonard Steinhoff, Ronald Debuhr, Ted Graber, Caroline Knapp , Clarence Pittz, Robert
Carey , and Gevelinger, Inc. currently have cattle passes and need to have them
in the future
to be able to utilize all of their property . Amanda Meudt also has an existing cattle pass on
her property . This cattle pass is not currently being used for cattle but it does act as a culvert
and it could be used for cattle in the future. John Schaaf has a cattle pass which is currently
being used but which may not continue to be used after the construction of the proposed
project if drainage problems cannot be corrected .
Land Loss
The proposed project will convert 373.9 acres of cropland , 250.8 acres of pasture, 23.5 acres
of woodland , 1.1 acres of wetland, and 7.0 acres of land in other use to highway right-of-way.
Six farmland owners will each lose less than one acre of land, fourteen farmland owners will
lose between one and five acres of land, and thirty -six farmland owners will lose more than
five acres of land. The average size of farms in Lafayette and Iowa counties is 283.5 acres.
Therefore , the proposed project will cause the loss of the equivalent of 2.3 farms.
To offset these losses of farmland, owners and renters may have to find replacement land or
make adjustments, such as buying feed produced off the farm or culling some of their
13
The maps on the next page show the proposed highway relocations of the Belmont Bypass
and the Mineral Point Bypass. Table 3 below lists the landowners who will have land severed
by the proposed project. It also gives a brief description of most of the severances.
TABLE 3
PARCELS TO BE SEVERED
AFFECTS ON PARCEL
LANDOWNER
Patrick Shea
sever 160- acre parcel into two parcels
Dave Spensley
diamond interchange will sever parcels
George Olthafer
highway will cross 72 -acre parcel of cropland leaving an 18 and a
40 -acre parcel
Robert Carey
site ofMineral Point interchange
Gilbert Graber
2 severances, 1 is on land formerly owned by John Ross
Parmley & Jean Harris
Edward & Lillian Spitzbarth
approximately 5.5 acres of pasture will be landlocked
Edward Cody
approximately 6 acres of pasture on parcel # 321a will be
landlocked and parcel # 321b will also be severed
Doreen Suthers
parcel will be divided into two parts
Marian Moreland
20 acres may be landlocked but also owns parcel to the south so
severed parcelmay be joined to that property
K. V. & R.M.Moreland
parcel will be severed into two parts
Charles Goldthorpe, Jr.
cropland will be severed from pasture
Remnant parcels with a shape or size that severely diminishes their efficient productive use
may be considered " uneconomic remnants" by WisDOT. Section 32.05 of the Wisconsin
Statutes states:
" ... " uneconomic remnant" means the property remaining after a partial taking of
property, if the property remaining is of such size, shape or condition as to be of little
value or of substantially impaired economic viability . If the acquisition of only part of
a property would leave its owner with an uneconomic remnant, the condemnor shall
offer to acquire the remnant concurrently and may acquire it by purchase or by
condemnation if the owner consents."
F
The determination as to whether a remnant is an " uneconomic remnant" is a WisDOT
judgement. Section 84.09 of the Wisconsin Statutes states,
"... The department may purchase ... remnants of tracts or parcels of land at the time or
after it has acquired portions of such tracts or parcels by purchase or condemnation for
transportation purposes where in the judgement of the department such action would
assist in making whole the landowner , a part of whose lands have been taken for
11
Adding two lanes to the existing USH 151 will not create any new severances between the
Belmont Bypass and the Mineral Point Bypass and north of the Mineral Point Bypass. Farm
access will be permitted to the highway on these segments and no parcels will be landlocked.
If a parcel is landlocked as a result of the proposed project, the landowner will have the
option to sell the landlocked parcel to WisDoT or to receive compensation for the loss of
access. Compensation for loss of access is based on a percentage of the market value of the
property . The owner could then rent or sell this parcel to an adjoining landowner who would
have access to it. A landowner should keep in mind that because of the access limitation , the
number of potential renters or buyers may be limited and the landowner would have to pay
the transaction costs (title searches etc.) which WisDOT would cover if it bought the parcel.
Cattle Passes
Cattle passes can be a vital facility for farms that are severed by a highway. Pasture that is
severed from the main portion of the farm operation may not be of economic value without a
cattle pass. A list of landowners who will have property severed as a result of this project
can be found in Table 3 on page 14. These landowners may need cattle passes installed
between their newly severed parcels of land.
The following farmland owners have indicated an interest in having cattle passes installed on
their property : Donald Wedig, Parmley & Jean Harris, Edward & Lillian Spitzbarth , and
Edward Cody . The land owned by Doreen Suthers that will be severed is currently used for
pasture.
Therefore, she may need a cattle pass installed . A cattle pass may also be useful to
theMcNett Lake Project property since there is pasture on both sides of the highway .
Leonard Steinhoff, Ronald Debuhr, Ted Graber, Caroline Knapp , Clarence Pittz, Robert
Carey, and Gevelinger, Inc. currently have cattle passes and need to have them in the future
to be able to utilize all of their property . Amanda Meudt also has an existing cattle pass on
her property . This cattle pass is not currently being used for cattle but it does act as culvert
and it could be used for cattle in the future . John Schaaf has a cattle pass which is currently
being used but which may not continue to be used after the construction of the proposed
project if drainage problems cannot be corrected .
Land Loss
The proposed project will convert 373.9 acres of cropland, 250.8 acres of pasture, 23.5 acres
of woodland, 1.1 acres of wetland, and 7.0 acres of land in other use to highway right-of-way.
Six farmland owners will each lose less than one acre of land, fourteen farmland owners will
lose between one and five acres of land, and thirty - six farmland owners will lose more than
five acres of land . The average size of farms in Lafayette and lowa counties is 283.5 acres.
Therefore, the proposed project will cause the loss of the equivalent of 2.3 farms.
To offset these losses of farmland, owners and renters may have to find replacement land or
make adjustments, such as buying feed produced off the farm or culling some of their
13
The maps on the next page show the proposed highway relocations of the Belmont Bypass
and the Mineral Point Bypass. Table 3 below lists the landowners who will have land severed
by the proposed project. It also gives a brief description of most of the severances.
TABLE 3
PARCELS TO BE SEVERED
I
D
AFFECTS ON PARCEL
LANDOWNER
Patrick Shea
sever 160- acre parcel into two parcels
Dave Spensley
diamond interchange will sever parcels
George Olthafer
highway will cross 72 -acre parcel of cropland leaving an 18 and a
40 -acre parcel
Robert Carey
site of Mineral Point interchange
Gilbert Graber
2 severances, 1 is on land formerly owned by John Ross
Parmley & Jean Harris
Edward & Lillian Spitzbarth
approximately 5.5 acres of pasture will be landlocked
Edward Cody
approximately 6 acres of pasture on parcel # 321a will be
landlocked and parcel # 321b will also be severed
Doreen Suthers
parcel will be divided into two parts
Marian Moreland
20 acres may be landlocked but also owns parcel to the south so
severed parcelmay be joined to that property
K. V. & R.M.Moreland
parcel will be severed into two parts
Charles Goldthorpe, Jr.
cropland will be severed from pasture
Remnant parcels with a shape or size that severely diminishes their efficient productive use
may be considered "uneconomic remnants" by WisDOT. Section 32.05 of the Wisconsin
Statutes states:
" ... " uneconomic remnant" means the property remaining after a partial taking of
property , if the property remaining is of such size, shape or condition as to be of little
value or of substantially impaired economic viability . If the acquisition of only part of
a property would leave its owner with an uneconomic remnant, the condemnor shall
offer to acquire the remnant concurrently and may acquire it by purchase or by
condemnation if the owner consents."
The determination as to whether a remnant is an " uneconomic remnant" is a WisDOT
judgement. Section 84.09 of the Wisconsin Statutes states,
"... The department may purchase ... remnants of tracts or parcels of land at the time or
after it has acquired portions of such tracts or parcels by purchase or condemnation for
transportation purposes where in the judgement of the department such action would
assist in making whole the landowner, a part of whose lands have been taken for
1522
Dopold E 1
Thelma M Peters
Marcia
Wahl
rience
Sorner
Marian
Moreland
Darleen
Richards
87
26
LARTN
mard, JC
Lillian
jer Eduard.ca's tybarth
Lillien
Dorces
Sorbarth
snadM
Surna
Linda
Gibbons
2.21
go
4025 NY
Ralph
vMary
Pittzig
En
:
Main
15
Jones I
Laura
Gold thorpe
Mary
2 Wilhen
Wendt SIN
Lo que
3
SUS landri4
0
27
Gevelinger.
so Joseph
Gevelinger.
Editora Cody
Pres
24.
LAIN
S.
A
8.87
7 1995
Dodge
Point
Country
Cuo
ER
Caow
120
Moland
Milan
Yo
2
Roger
L.
Knutson
1/18
Warcia
Wani
3
Guten
Allar
SOM
Al
van 1 Dand
Lawinger
O
formeyimley
Harris
RS Harris
ON
40
Bernard
Koger
e
Cennite
78
, 15
Maud
Marian
Joseph
Dutton
TO
Moreland
ur
855
& Gerdlinger
30
29 John
72 31
David
VDhas ) Rodort Lawinger
Khas
Canard Doris
Galle
132
2718 04/ v Good
| Cody
NPIL NIL neler
5971
Gerel
ນ
AXI
011
Alvin
Kurson
199 99
!
Crack
Gokarpe .
Op
102
Point
Dodge
80
RM
Country
Cuse
Barbara
Duane
S.
60 rns
Butte
RD
17
Done ! E
Theimal
158 23
Parers
EMAIL TOWN
12
Edward
+ 120
Cody
30
02 74
es 25
205
15000
son
35928
7
Ralph
Pitts
Robert
120
Dalles
155
to
Jom
Carcy
os
John
Ernest
Ruppert
1395
Philip
CE ody
Icon
151
23
40
lisports
Abreleuer
75 55
Linda
400
vom
Gold thorpe
l
Meind
Micha
120 cl
Beurer
19
for USH
C. SURVEY
Victor
Avisos
eral
Donald T
Sleven 8 Ley
Edna K
Meudt
LeR
Phioylips
95
Br.21
Lindavo to
10
Ra
25
Relocation
James A
kirpe
RO
40
150
DC orld
of
Park PIZ
boeing fergessen
Edna K Mevat 004
James R
Jocooson
pore,
Doug
C las
R
Karen
Knox
Areas
Kenneth
Ruppert
240
8
Roger
Anupas
ILO
[ McNett
ng
B5
ha
,cst
Orng
3
‫و‬8
His
Urh
ock
SAres
J te
IK
tonn
Curey
Jay
22
569
334
MI
NE
MA
S
ON
UrHohler
EU
Clayton
Cura
vo
m
Dovid M
HERAU
Godfrey
35 POINTI
32 25
Lawrence 106 Se
Glatt
Linda
Crabe
23
School
14392
20
mer
ILO
MINERAL
39
Pont
cofeeni
ini
JIC
AD
T
Verone
JU
N
LI
11
O
3
woo
n
ancy
*N
Lavern OI
Fair
Sin
Mar
BR Donald
Assn
SoraafP
"NERAE ISI POINT SMALL
TRACTS
nedig
156 99
44
wewraprten
ier
1943
158 23
NT
POI
SS
2
LE
Racor J
n
Eri
Feter Trace
Worcy
248.96 let 111
Wayne w
120 87 partis
est
Carey
red
faul
do
20
57
0
by pai
Clarence
10
151
Borcherding Harvey
Grat3
Scroll
wo
Perala
sara
Anald
Vincent
•
Rob
ert
o
essey
ol
Poul
80
bocing
Screar
ert120
2211
Carly
Pope
eral
CAL
pesb .
Bhagam
e
1
anost Finkelmeyer
h
t
t
Jonn
16053
BRooebaerl ethod
V
Poule
Fin
z Be
keimeyer
Carey
Merken 35
ப
Ray
12144
Glarke's
7V
Ernest
ர
Voigts
120
320
Kathicen
Ernest IV
71.75
Poberts
ப
793
Springer . Mrs Ensest
Steffes
8000
Care
்
y
Springs
c22 /
ப
ert
b
l
A
Paul
to
s
2 Bull
Kayly
Maria
LLAL
01
Mosbruch
N4b0
t
USH 151 Relocation
Li etrz
Schul
20
25
gton
Imrlin ms
de
e
n
l
r
a
Una
a
i
s
F
r
F s
1/73
Caspel / 100
Kanps
Bretaal
da
Rus
e ALS
O
LSO 78
CTH " G " Relocation
ESTA
40
SANN
EN
17125
80 is KENE
11/30
bother cromo
16
X
skattere
89
15
transportation purposes and would serve to minimize the overall costs of such taking
by the public."
Drainage
Proper field drainage is vital to a successful farm operation. Highway construction can
disrupt improvements such as culvert pipes, drainage tiles, grassed waterways, and drainage
ditches which regulate the drainage of farm fields. If drainage is impaired , water can settle in
fields and cause substantial damage, such as harming or killing crops and other vegetation ,
concentrating mineral salts, flooding farm buildings, or causing hoof rot and other diseases
which affect livestock . In addition , where salt is used on road surfaces, runoff water can
increase the content of salt in nearby soils.
Spensley Feeds, Inc., Ronald Debuhr, Leo Bockhop, Ernest & Kathleen Springer, Robert
Carey, Gilbert Graber, Robert Dalles, and Brian Lindauer expressed concern about possible
impacts on drainage caused by this project. There is a grass waterway on the Clarence Pittz
farm which will be affected by the project and Caroline Knapp's property has a grassed
waterway east of the highway and tiling west of the highway which may be affected by the
proposed project.
Section 88.87 of the Wisconsin Statutes requires highways to be built with adequate ditches,
culverts, and other facilities to prevent obstruction of drainage, protect property owners from
damage to lands caused by unreasonable diversion or retention of surface water, and maintain ,
as nearly as possible , the original drainage flow patterns. Refer to Appendix I for the statutes
pertaining to drainage rights . Landowners whose property is damaged by improper
construction or maintenance of highways and highway drainage structures may file a claim
with the appropriate agency within 90 days after the damage occurs.
Fencing
Compensation for any fencing affected by the proposed project will be part of the appraisal
process. However, if fencing or other improvements are damaged outside of the right-of-way,
the owner could receive damages, or the improvement would be restored , repaired or replaced
to a condition similar or equal to that existing before the damage was done.
The following farmland owners indicated that fencing will be affected on their property :
George Olthafer, Ilsa Kilpatrick , Leonard Steinhoff, Ronald Debuhr, the McNett Lake Project,
Harland Krueger, Thomas Patzkill, Charles Opitz , Ted Graber, John Schaaf, Caroline Knapp,
Clarence Pittz, Floyd Spoor, Ernest & Kathleen Springer, Paul Finklemyer , Robert Carey ,
Parmley & Jean Harris, Gevelinger, Inc., and Robert Dalles. Fencing may be affected on the
Donald Wedig property .
16
Obliteration of Old Road
Obliteration of old roadway will occur in several locations mainly at existing intersections
where side-roads will be relocated and short segments of the existing USH 151 where the new
alignment veers away from the existing alignment. This land may revert back to the current
owner of the parcel from which it was originally acquired if the road is on an easement or it
may be offered to the owner of adjacent property if the state owns the right-of-way . In the
second instance, WisDOT may sell this land to adjacent property owners or include it as part
of the compensation for property lost because of the proposed project. Landowners should be
aware that any abandoned right-of-way which has been used for a road bed will be severely
compacted. It may take several years to bring such land up to the level of productivity of the
adjacent agricultural land .
Secondary Development
Highway improvements frequently make formerly remote areas more accessible by reducing
travel time to and from these areas. It can be argued that new commercial and residential
development is encouraged in these formerly remote areas and along the connecting
transportation corridors because of the improved accessibility .
This induced conversion of
productive agricultural land to nonfarm development may result in increased property taxes
stemming from rising land values and the extension of local services to new development
areas.
Noise and Other Impacts
An increase in noise, erosion , blowing dust, and some disruptions of farm
operations would
accompany highway construction . These affects would be temporary in nature and are not
expected to significantly affect farm operations. The highway improvements may lead to
increased levels of day - to -day noise and congestion . These changes in living conditions may
not be reflected in the appraisal process .
Appraisal Process
WisDOT will provide full narrative appraisals of the affected property to the owners. This
appraisal would be the basis for their offer. All land , equipment, and buildings in the
proposed right-of-way will be considered in the appraisal. Items which are severed , such as
fencing, will be reconstructed. The affected landowners have the right to obtain their own
appraisal of their property and would be compensated for the reasonable cost of this appraisal
if the following conditions are met.
1.
The appraisal must be submitted to WisDOT within 60 days after the
landowner receives WisDOT's full narrative appraisal.
2.
The appraisal fee must be reasonable .
17
3.
The appraisal must be a full narrative report.
Effects on Individual Farm
Operations
The following farmland owners and farm operators have five or more acres of land that will
be acquired as part of the proposed project.
The first four farmers listed will lose land for the Belmont Bypass. The proposed construction
of a highway where there was no road before will sever some farms creating irregularly
shaped fields, changing access and putting a barrier (a four-lane highway) through farms.
These impacts are generally more damaging to farm operations than in cases where an
existing road is being widened. Refer to the previous sections on Access, Cattle Passes, and
Size and Shape of Fields.
Farm
Owner/Operator:
Proposed Acquisition :
Dave Spensley
Fee simple acquisition of 47.5 acres
Mr. Spensley owns 158 acres of land and rents 15 additional acres. All of this land is
cropland and it is in a corn /oats rotation . Mr. Spensley does not raise any livestock and his
land is not enrolled in any government farm programs.
The proposed acquisition will reduce the amount of cropland that Mr. Spensley owns by
30.1% . A diamond interchange will be located on this parcel. Mr. Spensley indicated that he
would not need replacement acreage for the lost cropland, but he did express concern about
access to the remaining land. According to WisDOT, access will be provided to the severed
parcels via side roads.
Farm
Owner /Operator :
Proposed Acquisition :
Spensley Feeds Inc
Fee simple acquisition of 11.6 acres
This 36 -acre parcel includes 29 acres of cropland , 1 acre of woodland, and 6 acres for a
stream and the adjacent wetlands. All of the cropland is used to raise corn . None of this land
is enrolled in any government farm programs.
The acquisition will reduce the size of this parcel by 32.1 % . The owner indicated that
replacement acreage would not be needed , but that access to the remaining land is a concern .
The owner also indicated that a farm crossing over the creek may be needed .
Farm Owner /Operator:
Proposed Acquisition :
George Olthafer/Olthafer Land and Cattle
Fee simple acquisition of 22.0 acres
This farm consists of 1,000 acres of cropland and 1,000 acres of pasture. The crops that are
raised include 600 acres of corn , 250 acres of hay , 100 acres of oats, and 60 acres of
soybeans. There is also a beef cattle operation of 900 cows and calves.
18
This acquisition will be from two parcels of land in the town of Belmont. The first is located
in a 60 -acre parcel of pasture in the eastern half of the southeast quarter of section 11.
The
acquisition of 7.5 acres will landlock 3.4 acres of land west of the new highway. WisDOT
will offer to purchase this landlocked parcel in fee -simple or will compensate Mr. Olthafer for
the loss of access. The second parcel is all cropland and is located in the western half of the
northwest quarter of section 12. The acquisition from
this parcel will equal 14.5 acres. This
72 -acre parcel will be severed leaving 18 acres est of the highway and 40 acres west of it.
Access will be provided via Cottage Inn Road or Old USH 151.
The proposed project will affect fencing and Mr. Olthafer indicated that the soils on the
affected land are some of his best.
Farmland Owner :
Kevin & Michele Bockhop
Proposed Acquisition :
Fee simple acquisition of 5.7 acres
The Bockhops own 38 acres of land consisting of 32 acres of cropland and 6 acres of land in
other use. They raise 17 acres of corn and 14 acres of hay. They also rung a 110 -cow dairy
operation with 25 replacement dairy animals and 160 beef cattle. None of their land is
enrolled in any government farm programs.
This acquisition consists of 5.6 acres of cropland and 0.1 of an acre of land in other use. Mr.
Bockhop expressed concern about the proximity of the new highway to his barn and house.
He would like the highway to be as far away from his buildings as possible. Mr. Bockhop
will need an agricultural crossover in the median since he has to travel between separate
parcels of his farm on both sides of the road .
The next twelve farmland owners discussed will be affected by the Mineral Point Bypass.
These farmland owners and farm operators have similar concerns as the farmers discussed
previously.
Farm
Owner /Operator :
Proposed Acquisition:
Robert Carey
Fee simple acquisition of 74.5
Mr. Carey owns 374 acres of land and rents 40 additional acres.
The farm
operation consists
of 400 acres of cropland and 14 acres of pasture. Some of the land that will be acquired for
the proposed project is enrolled in the Acreage Reduction Program and the Conservation
Reserve Program . Mr. Carey raises 225 acres of corn and 175 acres of hay . He also runs a
150 -cow dairy operation with 200 replacement dairy animals, 25 beef cattle, and 25 pigs.
This acquisition consists of 62.7 acres of cropland , 9.4 acres of pasture and 2.4 acres of land
in other use. One house and one dairy barn will be relocated . WisDOTmay be required to
file a relocation service assistance plan in accordance with $ 32.25, Wisconsin Statutes because
19
of these relocations. There are grass waterways running throughout Mr. Carey's land and
some of them will likely be affected by the proposed project. Fences around pastures and the
buildings will also be affected . They are in excellent condition according to Mr. Carey .
Also, all of the access points to this property and one cattle pass will be affected by the
project. Mr. Carey indicated that there is no replacement cropland available in the area .
The proposed acquisition represents 20% of the land that Mr. Carey owns and 15.7 % of his
cropland. The loss of cropland combined with the loss of farm buildings and lack of
available replacement acreage will significantly reduce the economic viability of this farm .
Farm Owner /Operator :
Donald Wedig
Proposed Acquisition :
Fee simple acquisition of 13.4
Mr. Wedig owns a total of 237 acres of land and doesn't rent any additional acreage. His
farm includes 100 acres of cropland, 67 acres of pasture, and 70 acres of woodland . All of
his cropland is currently used for pasture but he plans to plant crops again in one to two
years. The land is enrolled in the Farmland Preservation Plan. He runs a beef operation of
100 cows with calves.
Pasture makes up 12.1 acres of this acquisition with the remainder being woodland . The
proposed acquisition represents a 5.7 % loss in the total amount of Mr. Wedig's land. The
project may affect fencing and access to the property, and a cattle pass may be needed as a
result of the project.
Farm
Owner/Operator :
Proposed Acquisition :
Gilbert Graber
Fee simple acquisition of 39.7 acres
Mr. Graber owns 325 acres of land and rents 477 addition acres. This farm operation
includes 402 acres of cropland 357 acres of pasture, and 43 acres of woodland . Mr. Graber's
land is enrolled in the Farmland Preservation Program . He raises 200 acres of corn , 125 acres
of hay , 30 acres of oats, 12 acres of wheat, and 35 acres of barley. He also has 150 beef
cattle, 120 Holstein steers, and 120 swine.
The proposed acquisition consists of 28.4 acres of cropland, 5.7 acres of woodland , and 5.6
acres of pasture. In addition , some land will be severed and 6.4 acres will be landlocked .
WisDOT will offer to compensate Mr. Graber for the loss of access or will acquire the parcel
in fee -simple. Access to the remaining property will be provided on side-roads. Most of this
property is located within the city limits of Mineral Point. It is currently used for agricultural
purposes but it is identified on the City's Comprehensive Plan as a site for future residential
development
'For more information, contact the Relocation Service Unit, Equal Rights Division , DILHR , P.O. Box 8928,
Madison WI 53708 , or call (608)266-6860.
20
Mr. Graber indicated that he is concerned about the possibility that the proposed project may
affect a shed used for hay storage. Rust, Inc., the engineering consulting firm for this project,
has indicated that this shed is not likely to be affected, but if it is, Mr. Graber will be
compensated for the loss. He also expressed concern aboutmaintaining access to his property
and negative affects on the drainage pattern of the land caused by the project. Mr. Graber is
not in favor of the proposed project because of the effects it will have on his farm and the
surrounding agricultural land.
Farm
Owners/Operators:
Proposed Acquisition :
Parmley &
Jean Harris
Fee simple acquisition of 11.0 acres
This farm operation consists of 64 acres of cropland, 105 acres of pasture, 5 acres of
woodland. and 4 acres of land in other use. None of this land is enrolled in any government
farm programs. The Harrises raise 27 acres of corn , 28 acres of hay, and 9 acres of oats.
They also raise 24 beef cattle, 20 horses, and 2 sheep .
The proposed acquisition will consist of 4.4 acres of cropland and 6.6 acres of pasture
reducing the total amount of cropland by 6.9 % and the amount of pasture by 6.3 % . Some of
this land will be severed by the proposed highway and access will be provided on a side-road.
A fence along the northern property line and a fence separating the cropland and pasture will
be affected by the project. The Harrises would like a cattle pass installed since the new
highway will divide their existing pasture. They also use their cropland for pasture after the
crops have been harvested .
Farmland Owner :
Edward & Lillian Spitzbarth
Operator:
Edward Spitzbarth and Edward Cody
Proposed Acquisition :
Fee simple acquisition of 9.2 acres
Mr. and Mrs. Spitzbarth own 342 acres of land . They have enrolled 124.5 acres in the
Conservation Reserve Program and have 15 to 20 acres of wetland. The remaining land is
pasture. They have 50 beef cows with calves and raise some hay. They also rent 50 acres of
pasture to Edward Cody.
All of the proposed acquisition is pasture . Approximately 5.5 acres in the southeast corner of
the
this parcel will be landlocked by the highway. WisDOT will offer either to compensate
Spitzbarths for the loss of access or to acquire the landlocked parcel in fee-simple. Mr.
Spitzbarth indicated that he would like to keep the severed parcel if a cattle pass could be
provided because the highway will cut off the access to water for his pasture west of the new
highway . Fencing may also be affected by the project .
21
Farmland Owner :
Operator:
Proposed Acquisition :
Edward Cody
Edward & Philip Cody
Fee simple acquisition of 16.9 acres
Mr. Cody owns 580 acres of land and rents from several people including Marian Moreland
and Edward & Lillian Spitzbarth . Mr. Cody and his son Philip farm together. About half of
Edward Cody's property is cropland and the other half is pasture. Their farm is enrolled in
the Farmland Preservation Program . The Codys raise 325 acres of corn , 150 to 160 acres of
hay , and 40 to 50 acres of oats. They also have a 145 - cow beef herd . They market the
finished calves as well as buy and finish about 200 feeder calves each year.
The proposed project will affect two parcels owned by Edward Cody. The first is located
west of the Doreen Suthers property in the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of
section 30 in the town of Mineral Point. All of the 6.5 acre acquisition is pasture. The
proposed project will sever and landlock 0.5 of an acre of pasture in the northwest corner of
this parcel. WisDOT will offer to either acquire the landlocked parcel in fee -simple or
compensate Mr. Cody for the loss of access. The second parcel is located south of East
Barreltown Road. The acquisition consists of 5.2 acres of cropland and 5.2 acres of pasture.
Access to this parcel will be provided on East Barreltown Road.
The proposed project will affect some grassed waterways and fencing . The proposed highway
will divide somepasture and may eliminate water access for some of this pasture . Mr. Cody
would like to have a cattle pass installed in his pasture so that access to water can be
maintained . He indicated that the cropland that will be affected is very productive and he
wasn't sure about the availability of replacement land in the area .
Mr. Cody indicated that the land that he owns inside the Mineral Point City limits is assessed
as cropland but WisDOT considers it pasture. He wants the compensation that he will receive
for this land to be based on cropland values rather than pasture.
ds
ON
‫ܕ‬
dB
ther
Farmland Owner :
Doreen Suthers
Operator:
Proposed Acquisition :
Gilbert Graber
Fee simple acquisition of 21.5 acres
This parcel is 137 acres in size and Ms. Suthers rents all of it to Mr. Graber for pasture . Mr.
Graber uses this land to graze 70 beef cows and their calves. Mr. Graber's farm operation
was previously discussed.
According to WisDOT, this acquisition consists of 19.8 acres of pasture and 1.7 acres of
woodland. A 54 -acre parcel will be severed from the rest of this parcel and will lie to the
southeast of the new highway.
22
Farmland Owner :
Operator :
Proposed Acquisition :
Marian Moreland
Edward Cody
Fee simple acquisition of 51.0 acres
Edward Cody rents about 200 acres of land from Ms. Moreland. About 71 acres of this
property is cropland and the rest is pasture. This acquisition consists of 41.2 acres of pasture ,
9.3 acres of cropland and 0.5 acres of woodland . This parcel will be the site of the northern
interchange. The highway will landlock 8 acres of pasture northeast of the proposed
interchange and 12 acres southeast of the interchange. Since Marian Moreland owns the
parcel immediately south of the affected parcel, these 12 acres might not be landlocked.
Farmland Owner :
K. V. & R.M.Moreland
Operator:
John Goldthorpe
Proposed Acquisition :
Fee simple acquisition of 16.6 acres
This 80-acre parcel is all pasture. The new roadway will sever the parcel into two parts and
24 acres of pasture southeast of the new highway will be landlocked. WisDOT will offer
either to acquire the landlocked parcel in fee-simple or compensate the owners for loss of
access. The land northwest of the highway will not be landlocked .
Farmland Owner :
Philip Cody
Operator:
Philip & Edward Cody
Proposed Acquisition :
Fee simple acquisition of 8.4 acres
This is a 200-acres parcel. The Cody farm operation was previously discussed under Edward
Cody's name. Cropland equals 6.8 acres of this acquisition with the remainder being pasture.
Farmland Owner :
Gevelinger Inc.
Operator :
Joseph Gevelinger
Proposed Acquisition :
Fee simple acquisition of 6.6 acres
The Gevelinger, Inc. farm operation consists of 925 acres of land including 525 acres of
cropland and 400 acres of pasture that the corporation owns plus 230 acres of rented pasture .
Annually , they raise 250 acres of corn , 60 to 65 acres of oats, and 210 to 215 acres of hay.
The affected farmland is enrolled in the Farmland Preservation Program . The farm also has a
60 -cow dairy operation and a 150 -cow beef operation . About 200 steers are marketed
annually .
This acquisition is used for cropland and pasture . The proposed highway will cut diagonally
through a corner of an 80- acre parcel. The proposed project will affect fencing and itmay
affect an existing cattle pass. Mr. Gevelinger is also concerned about a well which is located
in the fence-line which may be affected by the project. This well is needed to provide water
for the Gevelinger cattle . WisDOT's consulting firm for this project,Rust, Inc., indicated that
if the well is included in the acquisition of property , it will be capped and Gevelinger, Inc.
23
will be compensated for the cost of digging a new well.
Farmland Owner :
Proposed Acquisition :
Charles Goldthorpe, Jr.
Fee simple acquisition of 26.3 acres
Twenty five and three tenths acres of this acquisition is pasture and the remainder is cropland.
The new roadway will sever cropland from pasture. Access will be provided on a side-road ,
so none of this property will be landlocked.
The proposed project may affect a spring on this property. Fences along the pasture are not
likely to be affected . The acquisition will take a large share of the pasture on this parcel.
The following landowners are located in the rural section of USH 151 between the Belmont
Bypass and the Mineral Point Bypass and between the Mineral Point Bypass and the northern
limits of the proposed project. None of these farms will have any new severances.
Farmland Owner :
Harvey Schult
Ronald Debuhr
Operator:
Proposed Acquisition :
Fee simple acquisition of 5.9 acres
Mr. Debuhr rents 60 acres from Harvey Schult. In addition to this property, WisDOT will
also acquire land from Mr. Debuhr's farm operation , which will be discussed in detail in the
following paragraphs. Mr. Schult declined to respond to the questionnaire for this project.
This acquisition consists entirely of cropland.
Farm
Owner/Operator:
Proposed Acquisition :
Ronald Debuhr
Fee simple acquisition of 12.7 acres
Mr. Debuhr owns 333 acres of land and rents 60 additional acres from Harvey Schult who
was discussed already. Mr. Debuhr's farm operation includes 297 acres of cropland and 96
acres of pasture. He raises 160 acres of corn , 110 acres of hay and 27 acres of oats. Some
of this land is enrolled in the Acreage Reduction Program . Mr. Debuhr also runs a 66 - cow
dairy operation with 57 replacement dairy animals, 50 Holstein steers and 425 pigs and sows.
Lund
Cropland makes up 10.4 acres of this acquisition and pasture accounts for 2.3 acres. This
acquisition plus the acquisition of the Schult property will reduce Mr. Debuhr's cropland by
5.5 % and reduce his pasture by 2.4 % . Mr. Debuhr indicated that replacement acreage is not
available near his existing farm operation . The proposed project will affect fencing along
USH 151, three access points to the farm and a cattle pass. It may also affect drainage
depending on the final location of the new highway. Mr. Debuhr indicated that his greatest
concern is maintaining access to all of the parcels in his farm operation .
24
Farm
Owner /Operator :
Proposed Acquisition :
Leonard Steinhoff
Fee simple acquisition of 11.4 acres
Mr. Steinhoff owns and farms 498 acres of land . His property consists of 364 acres of
cropland and 134 acres of pasture. He raises 220 acres of corn , 60 acres of hay, 30 acres of
oats, and 54 acres of soybeans. He also raises 150 beef cattle and 500 pigs.
Cropland makes up the entire acquisition .
The proposed project will affect fencing, one
access point, and a cattle pass . Mr. Steinhoff's cropland will be reduced by 3.1 % .
Operator :
McNett Lake Project
Doug Austin and Paul Barth
Proposed Acquisition :
Fee simple acquisition of 13.2 acres
Farmland Owner:
The affected parcel includes 11.4 acres of cropland , 120 acres of pasture, 49.37 acres of
woodland, 183.4 acres of land which is enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program and 60
acres of wetland. All of the cropland is used for hay. Mr. Austin and Mr. Barth each rent a
portion of the pasture. In the past, it hasn't been rented to the same farmer year after year.
This acquisition consists of 12 acres of land in the Conservation Reserve Program and 1.2
acres of pasture.
The project will affect 1,650 feet of new fencing and 330 feet of old
fencing.
Three access points on the east side of the highway and one on the west side will
also be affected . The owner expressed concern about the highway's effects on his ability to
move cattle between the farmstead on the west side of the highway and pasture east of the
highway.
Farmland Owner :
Charles and Alice Van Bogaert
Operator:
Stan Van Bogaert
Proposed Acquisition :
Fee simple acquisition of 7.2 acres
This parcel includes 353 acres of cropland, 8 acres of woodland , and 12 acres of land in other
use. The renter and the owners raise a total of 250 acres of corn and 103 acres of soybeans.
Cropland makes up 7 acres of this acquisition and the rest is pasture.
The owners and renter
had no comments about this project's effects on their property and farm operation.
Farmland Owner :
E. W. Graber Trust
Operator :
Ted Graber
Proposed Acquisition :
Fee simple acquisition of 20.2 acres
Mr. Graber owns 670 acres of land consisting of approximately 300 acres of cropland. M.
Graber usually raises 60 acres of corn , 100 acres of hay, and 20 acres of oats. The rest of
this property is pasture. This farm is enrolled in the Farmland Preservation Program . Mr.
Graber's farm
operation also includes a 140-cow beef operation .
25
Sixteen and one half acres of this acquisition are pasture and the rest is cropland. Mr. Graber
indicated that the affected cropland is very productive and he harvests between 120 and 135
bushels of corn per acre from it each year. There is some tiling on Mr. Graber's land near
the Pecatonica River but he does not believe it will be affected by the project. Fencing will
be affected by the proposed project. Mr. Graber indicated that his greatest concern about the
project is the effect it will have on access to his property. Two field entrances and a
driveway lead directly to the existing highway . He has three cattle passes under the existing
highway which he will continue to need . In addition , he needs a crossover point in the
median because he travels daily between separate parcels of his property .
Farm Owner /Operator:
John Schaaf
Proposed Acquisition :
Fee simple acquisition of 6.9 acres
Mr. Schaaf owns 49 acres of land . Alfalfa is raised on 8 acres and the rest is used for
pasture . None of this land is enrolled in any government farm programs. Mr. Schaaf also
raises 15 head of beef cattle that will produce about 10 calves in the spring.
All of this acquisition is pasture . There is a cattle pass on this property which does not drain
well and is therefore not usable in the summer. He indicated that he is not likely to continue
to raise cattle after the proposed project is completed due to the loss of land and the problems
with the cattle pass. Two line fences will also be affected .
Farm
Owner /Operator:
Proposed Acquisition :
Vincent Schaaf, Sr.
Fee simple acquisition of 7.5 acres
The acquisition of property from Vincent Schaaf will be from two separate parcels. One acre
of cropland will be acquired from parcel # 219 which is adjacent to the John Schaaf property .
The acquisition from parcel # 307, across the highway from the Ernest Steffes property ,
consists of 5.4 acres of cropland and 1.1 acres of land in other use.
Mr. Schaaf indicated that he is opposed to the project because it will take land from his best
fields, the value of his farm will decline, and he had no say in determining the location of the
highway right-of-way . He also expressed strong concern about the negative impact that the
loss of farmland will have on the local economy.
Farmland Owner :
Operator:
Proposed Acquisition :
Caroline Knapp
Vincent Schaaf
Fee simple acquisition of 8.4 acres
Caroline Knapp owns 342 acres of land . She rents 100 acres of pasture to Vincent Schaaf
and 210 acres are enrolled in the Conservation reserve Program . This land is enrolled in the
Farmland Preservation Program . Vincent Schaaf's farm operation is discussed in the
paragraphs immediately preceding this section .
26
This acquisition consists of 8.0 acres of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP ) land , 0.2 of an
acre of woodland and 0.2 of an acre of wetland. Ms. Knapp indicated that the affected CRP
land is very productive land for growing corn . The proposed project will affect a grassed
waterway east of the highway and tiles on the west side . Field access points and fencing on
both sides of the highway will be affected by the project. A cattle pass under the existing
bridge is currently in use.
Ms. Knapp indicated that she is very concerned about the condition her driveway after the
project is completed . This driveway is used daily by six employees and a delivery truck .
Semis use this driveway two or three times each week. She wants to have a safe entrance to
her property that does not have a steep grade.
Farm
Owner/ Operator :
Proposed Acquisition :
Clarence Pittz
Fee simple acquisition of 7.8 acres
Mr. Pittz owns approximately 600 acres of land . One-third to one-half of that land is
cropland . Annually , Mr. Pittz markets 120 head of beef cattle and 1,000 hogs.
This acquisition consists of 4.2 acres of cropland and 3.6 acres of land in other use. the
proposed project will affect access to the property, an existing cattle pass, fencing along the
existing highway, and one grass waterway . Mrs. Pittz indicated that the cropland which will
be acquired has good productivity .
Farm
Owner /Operator:
Proposed Acquisition :
Leo Bockhop
Fee simple acquisition of 7.6 acres
Mr. Bockhop owns 106.6 acres of cropland , 46.9 acres of pasture, and 32 acres of woodland .
He raises 30 acres of corn , 51.6 acres of hay, 10 acres of oats, and 15 acres of soybeans.
Some of the affected land is enrolled in the Farmland Preservation Program . Mr. Bockhop
runs a 35 -cow dairy operation with 23 replacement dairy animals. He also raises 17 beef
cattle and 6 horses.
All of this acquisition is cropland which will reduce Mr. Bockhop's total cropland acreage by
7.1 % . The proposed project will affect one waterway and some fencing along the property
line .
Farm Owner /Operator:
Proposed Acquisition :
Floyd Spoor
Fee simple acquisition of 5.5 acres
Mr. Spoor owns 123 acres of land, some of which he rents out. He indicated that the rented
land is not part of the proposed acquisition . Fifty acres of cropland enrolled in the
Conservation Reserve Program and the Farmland Preservation Program . Mr. Spoor markets
about 25 steers each year.
27
The proposed acquisition consists of 2.2 acres of cropland and 3.3 acres of pasture. The
acquisition will affect two separate parcels owned by Mr. Spoor, one of which was previously
owned by Emanual Steffes. The proposed project will leave a 9 -acre parcel west of the
highway and will affect fencing east of the highway . Direct access to the highway will be
provided for Mr. Spoor's land . He indicated that the affected land is some of his best land
and that comparable replacement land will probably be difficult to find . He also expressed
concern about the proximity of the highway to his barn and to a concrete cattle shoot used to
load livestock on to trucks. Rust, Inc. WisDOT's consulting firm indicated that the highway
will be 20 to 50 feet closer to the buildings which will still leave them about 200 feet from
the highway.
Farm Owner /Operator:
Proposed Acquisition :
Paul Finklemyer
Fee simple acquisition of 8.2 acres
Mr. Finklemyer owns 730 acres of land and rents 87 additional acres. He raises 79 acres of
corn , 60 acres of hay , and 30 acres of oats. He has 438 acres of pasture and 210 acres of
land in the Conservation Reserve Program . He raises 200 head of beef cattle .
All of this acquisition is cropland. The proposed project will affect some fencing . Mr.
Finklemyer had no other comments about this project's effects on his farm operation .
Farm Owner /Operator:
Proposed Acquisition :
Robert Dalles
Fee simple acquisition of 25.6 acres
Mr. Dalles owns and farms 155 acres of land . His farm consists of 133 acres of cropland , 20
acres of pasture and 2 acres of wetland. None of this land is enrolled in government farm
programs. Mr. Dalles raises 85 acres of corn and 48 acres of hay . He also raises 117 head of
beef cattle.
Cropland makes up 17.3 acres of this acquisition and pasture equals 8.3 acres. Mr. Dalles
will lose 13 % of his cropland and 41.5 % of his pasture as a result of this acquisition . He
indicated that the cropland is the best on his farm and that there is no replacement acreage
available near by . Fencing along the existing highway and several access points will be
affected by the proposed project. In addition, the trees in the portion of the pasture that will
be affected provide the only shade for the cattle .
Mr. Dalles expressed very strong concern about this project's effects on drainage . There is a
dam over a spring on Mr. Dalles' property which slows the spring and keeps it from drying
up . This spring supplies the only water for Mr. Dalles's cattle in the adjacent pasture and it
also supplies water to a neighbor's property . Mr. Dalles also indicated that the dam provides
flood control for the valley . The direction of run-off from a neighboring dairy farm may also
be affected by the proposed project.
28
Mr. Dalles indicated that he is very concerned about the affect that this project will have on
the value of his farm . His neighbor who previously expressed interest in some day
purchasing Mr. Dalles' farm , indicated to Mr. Dalles that he would no longer be interested in
the property as a result of the changes (loss of productive land and availability of water)
caused by the highway project.
Farmland Owner :
Brian Lindauer
Proposed Acquisition :
Fee simple acquisition of 5.1 acres
Mr. Lindauer owns 171.5 acres of land including 140 acres of cropland, 10 acres of pasture,
10 acres of woodland, and 10 acres for the building site. In addition, he rents 65 acres of
pasture . The cropland is used to raise 70 acres of hay, 35 acres of oats, and 35 acres of corn.
Mr. Lindauer indicated that this land is very good cropland and that his farm is enrolled in the
Farmland Preservation Program . Mr. Lindauer also runs a 25-cow dairy operation with 25
replacement dairy animals.
All of the proposed acquisition is cropland . The acquisition will reduce Mr. Lindauer's
cropland by 3.7 % . There is a culvert under the existing highway which drains from east to
west. A cattle pass under the existing highway connecting two parcels of Amanda Meudt's
property which is adjacent to Mr. Lindauer's property also acts as a culvert. Water drains
from west to east in the cattle pass. Water from
grassed waterways.
the culvert and the cattle pass drains into
Mr. Lindauer has direct access to the highway from his driveway and he reaches his land
across the highway via an access point on a town road . Mr. Lindauer's brother also owns
land on both sides of the highway and they farm together. Mr. Lindauer is concerned about
his own safety and the safety of other drivers when he crosses the highway with farm
machinery. He indicated that a 60- foot wide median sounded reasonable if an agricultural
crossover is provided . Rust, Inc. has indicated that WisDOT will consult with farm operators
to provide adequate numbers of crossover points in the median of the rural sections of the
highway . farmers agree
Farmland Owner :
Amanda Meudt
Proposed Acquisition :
Fee simple acquisition of 8.8 acres
Cropland equals 8.2 acres of this acquisition and pasture equals 0.6 acres. Access to this
property will be provided via a frontage road. The existing cattle pass on this property is not
currently being used but it may be in the future depending on who farms this property . This
cattle pass also acts as a culvert under the highway. Ms. Meudt did not respond to the
questionnaire for this project.
The following farmland owners did not respond to the questionnaire which was mailed to
them and they were unable to be reached by telephone .
29
Farmland Owner :
Patrick Shea
Proposed Acquisition :
Fee simple acquisition of 24.2 acres
This acquisition consists entirely of cropland. The highway will divide a 160-acre parcel into
two roughly even parcels leaving cropland on both sides of the road . Farm accesses will be
permitted to both parcels.
Mr. Shea declined to respond to questions about his farm
project will have on it.
operation or the affects that this
Farmland Owner :
Antje Fehrensen
Proposed Acquisition :
Fee simple acquisition of 5.5 acres
The acquisition consists entirely of cropland.
Farmland Owner :
Proposed Acquisition :
E. O. McNett Family Trust (Theodora McNett )
Fee simple acquisition of 24.2 acres
The cropland portion of this acquisition equals 22.5 acres and the rest is pasture .
Farmland Owner :
Proposed Acquisition :
Carl Cenite
Fee simple acquisition of 11.6 acres
All of this acquisition is pasture .
V. RECOMMENDATIONS
The DATCP recommends the following as ways to mitigate the potential adverse impacts
associated with the proposed project:
1.
The DATCP recommends that WisDOT consult with all of the affected landowners to
provide safe and adequate access to their property .
2. WisDoT should consult with affected farmers and provide adequate, safe and convenient
crossover points in themedian for farm use .
3. DATCP recommends that any farmer who needs a cattle pass should make a formal
written request explaining the need and identifying where cattle have been pastured in the
past. This request should be addressed to : Nina Berkani, Bria Berkani-Rineer Impact
Analysis, 4111 Nakoma Road , Madison, WI 53711. WisDOT should also identify landowners
whose property is or will be severed by the project and consult with them to determine
whether or not a cattle pass is needed.
30
4. Affected landowners and farm operators should be given advance notice of the acquisition
and construction schedules so that farm activities can be adjusted accordingly. To the extent
feasible , the timing of the acquisition and construction should be coordinated with them to
minimize crop damage and disruption of farm operations .
5.
The county conservationist should be consulted to assure that construction proceed in a
manner that minimizes crop damage, soil erosion and soil compaction.
6. In order to adequately address possible drainage problemswhich could occur because of
highway construction , DATCP recommends that WisDOT representatives discuss construction
plans with representatives of the Lafayette and Iowa County Land Conservation Departments
in the early stages of planning.
7. DATCP recommends that WisDOT offer to purchase any remnant parcels which are
deemed uneconomic .
8. After the acquisition of property and prior to the construction of the highway, the
individuals who currently farm
the affected cropland should have the first opportunity to rent
that land if there is sufficient growing season (s) to harvest crops before construction begins.
9. In locations where the old roadbed will be abandoned and the right-of-way reverted back
to the adjacent landowner, WisDOT should remove rocks and gravel that would create a
significant hazard to cultivation and cover the area with top soil that is equal to or better than
the quality and productivity of the adjacent soils.
10. WisDOT should consult with Edward & Lillian Spitzbarth, Charles Goldthorpe, Robert
Dalles, and Joseph Gevelinger to ensure that they continue to have access to their existing
water supplies or they are adequately compensated for finding new sources of water.
ome
息
k
民