October 15, 2020 Mr. Glenn Fulkerson, Division Administrator Federal

Division of Transportation Tony Evers, Governor System Development Craig Thompson, Secretary Northeast Regional Office Internet: www.dot.wisconsin.gov 944 Vanderperren Way Green Bay, WI 54304 Telephone: (920)492-5643 Facsimile (Fax): (920)492-5640 E-mail: [email protected]

October 15, 2020

Mr. Glenn Fulkerson, Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration 525 Junction Road, Suite 8000 Madison, WI 53717

RE: Project I.D. 4556-02-00 South Bridge Connector County EB/F to County GV/X Brown County Public Hearing Certification- Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Dear Mr. Fulkerson,

This letter is to provide WisDOT’s formal certification concerning the South Bridge Connector public hearing in accordance with 23 USC 128 and 23 CFR 771.111(h)(2)(vi). The public hearings for the Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was held virtually online on July 7, 2020 and in-person on July 8, 2020.

The public hearing record is transmitted electronically along with this certification letter and contains the following information:

Transcript – Public hearing proceedings, public and private verbal testimony Hearing notices and news releases Hearing handouts and displays Hearing sign-in sheets PowerPoint Presentation Hearing written and verbal testimony Tier 1 Draft EIS Signed Cover Sheet

As documented in the hearing record, WisDOT afforded an opportunity to attend the public hearing that considered the economic and social effects of the proposed project, its impacts on the environment, and its consistency with the goals and objectives of regional and local planning. The virtual public hearing was held via YouTube Live on July 7, 2020. The in-person public hearing was held July 8, 2020 at the Brown County Fairgrounds. The hearings were open to anyone desiring to comment on the document.

The Tier 1 Draft EIS which was the basis for the public hearing was made available to the public beginning on June 19, 2020 and copies of the document were available for viewing during the public hearings, on the project website, and in-person. The comment period ended on August 3, 2020. Comments needed to be received or postmarked by August 3, 2020 to be included in the public hearing record. The Tier 1 Draft EIS documents the social, environmental and other effects of the location and design of the proposed project, as well as the various alternatives that were presented and considered at the public hearing.

Please contact me if you have any questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

Bryan Lipke, P.E. WisDOT Northeast Region Project Manager (920) 492-5703 [email protected] cc: Ian Chidister, FHWA Jonquil Johnson, WisDOT Jay Waldschmidt, WisDOT Cole Runge, Brown County

PUBLIC HEARING RECORD LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS AND NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR IDENTIFYING A CORRIDOR FOR THE SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR BETWEEN COUNTY EB/F IN THE TOWN OF LAWRENCE AND COUNTY GV/X IN THE TOWN OF LEDGEVIEW BROWN COUNTY PROJECT I.D. 4556-02-00 HELD JULY 7 AND 8, 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Transcript of Hearing from the Court Reporter 1a Transcript from Virtual Hearing July 7, 2020 1b Transcript from In-Person Hearing July 8, 2020 2 Legal Notice of Availability and Public Hearing 3 Public Hearing Handout 4 Hearing Sign-In Sheets 5 Photographs of Hearing Display Exhibits 6 PowerPoint Presentation 7 Written and Verbal Testimony received or postmarked by August 3, 2020 8 Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Signed Cover Sheet*

*The Environmental Document is on file in the WisDOT Northeast Region Files for Project 4556- 02-00.

1. Transcript of Hearing from the Court Reporter

a Transcript from Virtual Hearing July 7, 2020 b Transcript from In-Person Hearing July 8, 2020

1 WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 2 BROWN COUNTY, WISCONSIN 3 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION 4 ------5 VIRTUAL PUBLIC HEARING 6 for 7 TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 8 SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR 9 County EB/F in the Town of Lawrence and 10 County GV/X in the Town of Ledgeview 11 Brown County 12 Project ID: 4556-02-00 13 Number of People in Attendance: 78 14 ------15 Wisconsin Department of Transportation/Brown 16 County, Wisconsin/Federal Highway Administration 17 Virtual Public Hearing via YouTube Live, taken upon 18 published notice before Carrie Bohrer, RPR, RMR, CRR, 19 a Notary Public in and for the State of Wisconsin, and 20 private testimony taken by Christie Wydeven, RPR, RMR, 21 Notary Public in and for the State of Wisconsin, at 22 the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, 23 944 Vanderperren Way, Green Bay, Wisconsin, on the 24 7th day of July, 2020, commencing at 6:00 p.m. and 25 ending at 8:00 p.m. 1 DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 CHAIRPERSON 2 Cole Runge Brown County Planning & Land Services Department 3

4 FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 5 Bryan Lipke - WisDOT Northeast Region 6 Melissa Kok - WisDOT Northeast Region 7 Kathie VanPrice - WisDOT Northeast Region 8 Jill Michaelson - WisDOT Northeast Region 9 Scott Ebel - WisDOT Northeast Region 10 Jay Waldschmidt - WisDOT Central Office 11 Rudy King - WisDOT Central Office 12

13 FROM BROWN COUNTY 14 Nick Uitenbroek - Brown County Public Works Department 15 Paul A. Fontecchio, P.E. - 16 Brown County Public Works Department 17

18 FROM JACOBS 19 Charlie Webb, Senior Project Manager 20 Kelly Rehberg, Environmental Planner 21

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 I N D E X P A G E

3 VIRTUAL PUBLIC TESTIMONY 4 (None)

6 VIRTUAL PRIVATE TESTIMONY 7 • BY KATHY PEETERS

10 ------

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 2 CHAIRPERSON: Welcome. My name is 3 Cole Runge, Interim Director of the Brown County 4 Planning Commission. I will be serving as the 5 Hearing Chairperson. Thank you for attending 6 this Virtual Public Hearing. 7 Other project team members that will be 8 participating include: 9 • Bryan Lipke, project manager, the 10 Wisconsin Department of Transportation 11 • Charlie Webb, the Jacobs Project Manager 12 and 13 • Several other Brown County and Wisconsin 14 DOT staff who will be monitoring email and phone 15 calls to answer questions and help people 16 provide verbal testimony. 17 This Virtual Public Hearing will end when 18 all interested persons have provided testimony 19 or at 8:00 p.m., whichever occurs first. 20 We will be providing contact information 21 throughout the Virtual Public Hearing, so please 22 have paper and pencil ready to write things 23 down. Much of the contact information is 24 already available on the project website and in 25 the Public Hearing Packet on the project website

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 as well. 2 If you prefer not to or cannot view the 3 Virtual Public Hearing through YouTube Live, you 4 may use the listen-only line we have established 5 for this Virtual Public Hearing by calling 6 (920)385-5851, conference ID 91959483#. 7 To get the most accurate accounting of those 8 participating in the Virtual Public Hearing, we 9 ask that you send an email to 10 [email protected] which 11 includes your name, address including 12 City/State/Zip Code, Phone Number, and if 13 applicable, if you are representing yourself, 14 someone else, or a group. 15 Please note that the information provided 16 (including names, addresses, phone numbers and 17 email addresses) is not confidential, and may be 18 subject to disclosure upon request, pursuant to 19 the requirements of the Wisconsin Open Records 20 Law, Sections 19.31 to 19.39 of the Wisconsin 21 Statutes. 22 Before proceeding further, I would like to 23 introduce the court reporters, Christie Wydeven 24 and Carrie Bohrer, who are taking down these 25 proceedings for the official public hearing

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 record and recording your public and private 2 verbal testimony. If you would like to obtain a 3 copy of the transcript of this Public Hearing, 4 you should make the request through the 5 information we provide on the project website 6 and in the Public Hearing Packet found on the 7 project website as well. 8 Materials presented tonight and other 9 information to assist you in forming comments 10 and testimony about the proposed project 11 including: Public Hearing exhibits, Public 12 Hearing Packet, the Tier 1 Draft Environmental 13 Impact Statement, presentation slides, and 14 project contact information are also available 15 on the website and by request. 16 This Virtual Public Hearing is being 17 recorded for the official project record. The 18 Virtual Public Hearing recording will be posted 19 on the WisDOT YouTube page and a link will be 20 included on the project website. 21 If you do not have access to the project 22 website and would like to obtain a copy of 23 specific portions of this Virtual Public Hearing 24 or other project materials, please contact me, 25 Cole Runge, at

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 [email protected] or at 2 (920) 448-6480. 3 Two options are available tonight for you to 4 provide verbal testimony. The first option is 5 private verbal testimony. The second option is 6 to provide public verbal testimony through 7 YouTube Live. Both options will be recorded by 8 a court reporter. 9 We will be using a call back process for you 10 to provide either private verbal testimony or 11 public verbal testimony through YouTube Live. 12 Those wishing to provide private verbal 13 testimony may do so at the same time during this 14 Virtual Public Hearing. 15 For those wishing to provide public verbal 16 testimony through YouTube Live, this opportunity 17 will begin following the Project Statement being 18 read into the record. 19 To get placed into the call back queue to 20 provide testimony in either manner, please call 21 (920)492-7705 or send an email to 22 [email protected]. A 23 call taker will take your name, address and a 24 call back phone number. If we are experiencing 25 high call volumes, a call taker may not

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 immediately be available to take your 2 information. Please hold on the line and we 3 will answer your call in the order received. If 4 sending an email, please indicate whether you 5 are interested in providing either private or 6 public verbal testimony. 7 Participants will be called back when it is 8 your turn to provide either private or public 9 verbal testimony based on the order in which the 10 request was received. Please be patient when 11 waiting for your call back. Each person 12 providing either style of verbal testimony is 13 limited to three minutes, but this is the first 14 time we are using the call back process and we 15 do not know the number of people interested in 16 providing testimony in either manner. When you 17 receive the call back, please provide your name 18 and address. You may also indicate if you are 19 representing a business or organization. Then 20 proceed with your testimony. 21 Also, when you get your call back for either 22 type of testimony, please turn off the audio on 23 your computer. There is up to a 30-second time 24 lag between your phone testimony and what is 25 broadcast over YouTube Live coming back out of

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 your computer audio which will cause confusion 2 for all parties. When providing verbal 3 testimony, the YouTube Live presentation audio 4 coming through your speaker will make it 5 difficult for the court reporter to understand 6 your testimony. 7 In addition to the verbal testimony options 8 during this Virtual Public Hearing, you may 9 provide additional written or oral testimony for 10 the public hearing record via email to 11 [email protected], by 12 sending the comment form in the Public Hearing 13 Packet or a letter to Cole Runge, Interim 14 Planning Director/MPO Director, Brown County, 15 P.O. Box 23600, Green Bay, Wisconsin, 16 54305-3600. You may also call me, Cole Runge, 17 at (920)448-6480 and I will provide a written 18 summary of your call for entry into the public 19 hearing record. Written testimony will be 20 accepted if it is postmarked and oral testimony 21 will be accepted if received no later than 22 August 3rd, 2020. 23 I will summarize the contact information 24 just provided before we begin accepting public 25 verbal YouTube Live testimony.

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 There will also be another opportunity to 2 hear about the project and present testimony 3 during the In-Person Public Hearing being held 4 tomorrow from 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at the 5 Brown County Fairgrounds, located at 1500 Fort 6 Howard Avenue, in De Pere. 7 I will now proceed with the opening 8 statement. 9 This Virtual Public Hearing is being 10 conducted on behalf of Brown County, the 11 Wisconsin Department of Transportation, and the 12 Federal Highway Administration as part of the 13 comprehensive consideration of the location and 14 environmental aspects of the proposed 15 improvement of the South Bridge Connector from 16 the intersection of County Trunks EB and F in 17 the Town of Lawrence to the intersection of 18 County Trunk Highways GV and X in the Town of 19 Ledgeview in Brown County, Wisconsin. 20 The objective of this Virtual Public Hearing 21 is to give you full opportunity to express your 22 opinions about the location and environmental 23 aspects of the proposal. You may also present 24 questions as part of your testimony for Brown 25 County's, the Department's, and the Federal

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 Highway Administration's consideration as the 2 total concept of the proposal is reviewed prior 3 to arriving at a decision. 4 If you have questions about any aspect of 5 this proposal, you may call or email me, 6 Cole Runge, Interim Planning Director, Brown 7 County, at the contact provided in the handout 8 or on the website. 9 I emphasize that this public hearing has the 10 basic purpose of getting the most complete 11 expression of public opinion and your individual 12 viewpoints on record so that they can be 13 considered along with all other judgments and 14 opinions to be reviewed by Brown County, the 15 Department, and the Federal Highway 16 Administration before further decisions are 17 made. 18 We will now proceed with the project 19 presentation and brief general question and 20 answer session. Following that we will have the 21 official notice of public hearing and other 22 articles entered into the record. 23 The court reporter will continue 24 transcription during the project presentation. 25 Following the presentation, a brief general

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 question and answer session will be conducted 2 using only email or the chat function of YouTube 3 Live. The phone number used for requesting a 4 call back to provide public and private verbal 5 testimony may not be used to ask questions. We 6 will read your email or chat question and the 7 project team will provide an answer. 8 The purpose of the question and answer 9 session following the presentation is to assist 10 the public in preparing your formal testimony 11 and will not be part of the official public 12 hearing record. Statements made in the chat 13 window or via email will not be read to the 14 group. 15 Please remember that statements intended for 16 the record should be provided through public 17 verbal YouTube Live testimony or private verbal 18 testimony to a court reporter tonight. You may 19 also provide written or additional oral testimony 20 for the Public Hearing record via email to 21 [email protected], by 22 sending the comment form in the Public Hearing 23 Packet found on the project website or a letter 24 to Cole Runge at Brown County, P.O. Box 23600, 25 Green Bay, Wisconsin, 54305-3600. You may also

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 call me at (920)448-6480 and I will provide a 2 written summary of your call for entry into the 3 public hearing record. Written testimony will 4 be accepted if it is postmarked and oral 5 testimony will be accepted if received no later 6 than August 3rd, 2020. 7 And don't forget about the opportunity to 8 present testimony during the In-Person Public 9 Hearing being held tomorrow from 3:00 p.m. to 10 8:00 p.m. at the Brown County Fairgrounds, which 11 is located at 1500 Fort Howard Avenue in 12 De Pere. 13 We can start the presentation. 14 * * * * * 15 MR. WEBB: Thank you for participating 16 in the public hearing for the South Bridge 17 Connector project. 18 The purpose of this public hearing is to 19 provide information and receive comments on the 20 South Bridge Connector Tier 1 Draft Environmental 21 Impact Statement prepared by Brown County, 22 WisDOT, and the Federal Highway Administration. 23 A public hearing is a more formal event than 24 a public involvement meeting and is required by 25 law. All public testimony is recorded by a

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 court reporter and entered into the record. 2 The Tier 1 Draft EIS was signed on June 12th, 3 2020, and a notice of availability was published 4 in the Federal Register on June 19th, 2020. 5 This presentation will describe the 6 background of the project, the preferred 7 alternative and the reason it was identified, 8 the public hearing process, and next steps for 9 the project.

11 PROJECT BACKGROUND

13 The project is located in the southern part 14 of the Green Bay metro area in the City of 15 De Pere, Town of Lawrence, Town of Ledgeview, 16 and Town of Rockland. 17 The concept of a new bridge across the Fox 18 River was first envisioned in a Brown County 19 plan in 1968. 20 In 1996, Brown County's long-range plan 21 recommended the general location of what was 22 referred to as the Southern Bridge. 23 In 2008, Brown County began preparing an 24 Environmental Impact Statement. This process 25 involved extensive input from the public and

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 local governments to document the purpose of and 2 need for the project. 3 Brown County also worked closely with WisDOT 4 and the Federal Highway Administration as well 5 as state and federal resource agencies like the 6 Wisconsin DNR and the U.S. Environmental 7 Protection Agency. 8 Some of the alternatives that were developed 9 and analyzed included a new interchange with 10 I-41. For that reason, the Federal Highway 11 Administration asked that Brown County and 12 WisDOT analyze how a new interchange on I-41 13 could affect traffic operations on the freeway. 14 The EIS process was paused in 2012 while this 15 analysis, called a preliminary engineering and 16 operational review, took place. 17 The EIS process resumed in 2019 in the form 18 of a Tier 1 EIS. The Federal Highway 19 Administration recommended that the study 20 transition to a Tier 1 EIS since funding is not 21 immediately available for the entire project. 22 A Tier 1 EIS is a broad-scale document that 23 analyzes broad corridors and conceptual 24 transportation improvements rather than detailed 25 alignments.

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 For this project, a 500-foot-wide corridor 2 is evaluated for each alternative. That does 3 not mean that a new roadway would be 500 foot 4 wide; rather, it means somewhere in that 5 500-foot-wide corridor a new roadway would be 6 located. The roadway itself would be between 7 125 and 150 feet wide. 8 This provides an indication of potential 9 impacts that may be associated with the proposed 10 alternatives, but it is not a detailed analysis 11 of impacts because the exact location of the 12 roadway has not been determined yet. 13 A Tier 1 EIS generally relies on previously 14 developed information to assess impacts rather 15 than extensive data collection out in the field 16 as part of this process. 17 Lastly, a Tier 1 EIS does not directly 18 result in construction. A Tier 2 environmental 19 analysis is required. This could be in the form 20 of an environmental assessment or an 21 Environmental Impact Statement required before 22 construction would begin. 23 This Tier 1 EIS utilizes a lot of the work 24 completed by Brown County during development of 25 the Draft EIS between 2008 and 2012.

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 The purpose of the project is to address 2 existing east-west transportation demand as well 3 as demand that will be generated by planned 4 development in the southern portion of the 5 Green Bay metro area. 6 The project is needed in order to address 7 four different issues: 8 • Addressing congestion in the vicinity of 9 the existing Fox River bridges, namely the 10 Claude Allouez Bridge and the Highway 172 bridge 11 • To accommodate existing and planned land 12 use and future travel demand generated by 13 planned development 14 • To reduce travel time by improving 15 east-west connectivity 16 • And to address higher-than-average crash 17 rates and safety issues near the Claude Allouez 18 Bridge and Highway 172 bridge. 19 Section one of the Tier 1 Environmental 20 Impact Statement documents the purpose of and 21 need for the project in more detail. 22 The Lead Agencies developed and analyzed a 23 wide range of alternatives. A three-step 24 process was used to identify the preferred 25 alternative.

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 In Step 1, the alternatives were developed 2 and then analyzed to see how they would address 3 the project's purpose and need statement that I 4 talked about in the previous slide. 5 The initial range of alternatives considered 6 were the No Build alternative; improving 7 existing roads, eleven different 8 corridors/routes for a new road; the 9 Transportation System Management alternative; 10 and the Transportation Demand Management 11 alternative. 12 Some of these alternatives were eliminated 13 from consideration in Step 1, and others were 14 carried forward to Step 2. 15 In Step 2, the remaining alternatives were 16 evaluated against nine objectives that Brown 17 County had developed in close coordination with 18 the public and local governments. Several 19 alternatives were dropped in this step. 20 Chapter 2 of the EIS describes the reasons for 21 dropping alternatives in more detail. 22 I will note that Alternative Routes 6 23 through 11 were dropped from consideration 24 because they were determined to be too far south 25 of where existing and planned development is

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 expected to occur. They would not draw enough 2 traffic off of the Claude Allouez Bridge to 3 provide effective congestion relief. 4 Three alternatives were carried forward into 5 Step 3 and evaluated in the Tier 1 EIS. The No 6 Build alternative, Corridor Alternative 1, and 7 Corridor Alternative 2. 8 All throughout this process, input from the 9 public, tribes, local officials, and regulatory 10 agencies were considered. 11 This exhibit shows the location of the 11 12 different corridors that were evaluated for a 13 new roadway. 14 This exhibit shows the location of Corridor 15 Alternative 1 and Corridor Alternative 2. 16 Corridor Alternative 1 is depicted by the red 17 line. It would follow Heritage Road and 18 Scheuring Road. Heritage Road, or County X, is 19 a two-lane road that would be widened to four 20 lanes. A new bridge would be built across the 21 Fox River, and Scheuring Road, or County F, 22 would be widened as well to four, and in an area 23 near Interstate 41 potentially even to six 24 lanes. 25 Corridor Alternative 2 is depicted by the

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 blue line. It would also be a four-lane roadway 2 with the new bridge across the Fox River. 3 Part of Corridor Alternative 2 would follow 4 existing roads, Rockland Road, Red Maple Road, 5 and Southbridge Road, and part of Corridor 6 Alternative 2 would be built on new alignment 7 where there is no road today. 8 Corridor Alternative 2 would involve 9 building a new interchange with Interstate 41 10 about a mile south of the County F, or Scheuring 11 Road, interchange. 12 A collector-distributor road may be built 13 along Interstate 41 between the new interchange 14 and the Scheuring Road/County F interchange 15 under Corridor Alternative 2.

17 Preferred Alternative 18 The Lead Agencies have identified Corridor 19 Alternative 2, which would follow Rockland Road, 20 Red Maple Road, and Southbridge Road, with a new 21 interchange with I-41, as the preferred 22 alternative. 23 Corridor Alternative 2 is identified as the 24 preferred alternative because it would provide 25 the best solution for addressing long-term

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 mobility needs and safety concerns while most 2 effectively serving existing and planned 3 development and balancing impacts to 4 socioeconomic and environmental resources. 5 Corridor Alternative 2 would reduce travel 6 time in the Green Bay area more than Corridor 7 Alternative 1 would. There would be less 8 congestion along Scheuring Road and Heritage 9 Road and especially at the Scheuring Road 10 interchange under Corridor Alternative 2. 11 Corridor Alternative 2 would be safer than 12 Corridor Alternative 1, mostly because it has 13 fewer driveways and crossroads connecting to it. 14 Several studies have shown that the more 15 driveways and other connections to a 16 roadway increases the potential for crashes. 17 Corridor Alternative 2 was deemed most 18 compatible with land use plans. 19 On the next slide I'll talk about the 20 socioeconomic impacts and natural environmental 21 impacts of both alternatives. 22 This table summarizes the impacts of 23 Corridor Alternative 1 and Corridor 24 Alternative 2. Chapter 3 of the EIS presents 25 this information in more detail. Impacts in the

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 EIS and in this table are presented as a range. 2 That is because the EIS is evaluating corridors 3 rather than specific alignments. 4 In terms of residential property 5 acquisition, Corridor Alternative 1 would 6 require property be purchased from between 45 to 7 75 residential properties. Corridor 8 Alternative 2 would require property acquisition 9 from between 16 and 25 residential properties. 10 In terms of actually displacing or 11 relocating homes, Corridor Alternative 2 would 12 require between 10 and 16 homes to be relocated, 13 whereas Corridor Alternative 1 would require 14 between 4 and 6 homes to be relocated. 15 Corridor Alternative 2 would have a higher 16 impact on agricultural land compared to Corridor 17 Alternative 1 but also will have modestly higher 18 impacts to cultural resources and parks. 19 Corridor Alternative 1 could affect more 20 sensitive noise receptors than Corridor 21 Alternative 2. Sensitive noise receptors are 22 things like homes, schools, and day cares. 23 Corridor Alternative 2 would also have a 24 higher impact on streams, in terms of more 25 stream crossings, as well as a higher impact on

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 wetlands than Corridor Alternative 1. 2 Corridor Alternative 1 would cross more 3 floodplain than Corridor Alternative 2, unless 4 the collector-distributor road option is 5 implemented as part of Corridor Alternative 2, 6 then it would cross five floodplains rather than 7 four under Corridor Alternative 1. 8 In terms of protected species, both 9 alternatives could have similar impact. 10 As part of the traffic analysis for the 11 Tier 1 EIS, the Lead Agencies estimated the 12 traffic volumes that would be carried by 13 Corridor Alternative 1 and by Corridor 14 Alternative 2 on several area roadways. This 15 exhibit is presented in the EIS, and we'd like 16 to pore over it in more detail. It is Exhibit 17 2-16. 18 You will note near the top middle of the 19 page, at Main Avenue, and the Claude Allouez 20 Bridge, where it crosses the Fox River, under 21 the No Build alternative, which would be no new 22 bridge crossing, the Claude Allouez Bridge would 23 carry 44,000 cars per day, which would result in 24 a Level of Service E traffic conditions. Again, 25 on that scale of A to F.

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 Under Corridor Alternative 1 and 2, a lot of 2 that traffic would be diverted to the new 3 bridge, and the Claude Allouez Bridge would 4 accept -- operate at an acceptable Level of 5 Service B or C.

7 The Public Hearing Process 8 The hearing handout provides a complete 9 project statement and additional details on: 10 Project background, purpose and need for the 11 project, alternatives, the impact of the 12 alternatives, and exhibits on display. 13 The Project Statement was read into the 14 record and transcribed by the court reporter 15 prior to the beginning of this public hearing. 16 To provide testimony, you may provide verbal 17 testimony or written testimony. If you choose 18 to make a public verbal testimony, you may make 19 a statement which will be heard by the public 20 and recorded by a court reporter. You may 21 choose to speak yourself or have your statement 22 read aloud. Your name and, if appropriate, your 23 affiliation will be announced. 24 For private verbal testimony, you may make a 25 statement privately to a court reporter rather

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 than heard by the public. 2 Written testimony may be used in addition to 3 or in place of verbal testimony. You may 4 complete the comment form at the end of the 5 hearing packet, write letters using your own 6 stationery, or submit via email. 7 Additional verbal and written comments on 8 the Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 9 will be accepted if received or postmarked by 10 August 3rd, 2020. 11 Comments can be sent to Cole Runge, at the 12 Brown County Planning Commission, P.O. Box 23600, 13 Green Bay, Wisconsin, 54305-3600. Cole Runge's 14 phone number is (920)448-6480, or emails may be 15 sent to [email protected].

17 Next Steps 18 As I noted a moment ago, the comment period 19 will end on August 3rd. 20 By October 2020, the Lead Agencies 21 anticipate signature of the Tier 1 Final EIS and 22 Record of Decision. 23 The Record of Decision will identify the 24 selected alternative for the project. Although 25 I noted that Corridor Alternative 2 has been

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 identified as the preferred alternative, only 2 after reviewing all the input received during 3 the public comment period will the Lead Agencies 4 actually select an alternative to move forward 5 with. 6 Tier 2 studies can begin following 7 completion of the Tier 1 Final EIS and Record of 8 Decision. And if the Tier 1 Final EIS and 9 Record of Decision select a corridor 10 alternative, WisDOT's I-41 study, which is going 11 on right now, could serve as the Tier 2 study 12 for the South Bridge Connector-related 13 improvements needed at I-41. 14 Other sections can move into Tier 2 studies 15 as the Lead Agencies identify funding. 16 MS. REHBERG: Now to briefly run 17 through the displays that are available on the 18 project website and will be on display at the 19 in-person public hearing. 20 This first exhibit shows the project history 21 which was talked about during the presentation 22 as well as a timeline and development for this 23 Tier 1 EIS. This display lists the project 24 purpose and need which was discussed during the 25 presentation. The purpose and need is also

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 written in the public hearing handout available 2 on the project website. 3 Here we have the environmental process, 4 which proceeds from a Tier 1 Draft EIS to the 5 Tier 1 Final EIS and Record of Decision which is 6 anticipated later this year. Following the 7 Record of Decision, Tier 2 environmental and 8 design studies will begin. 9 This exhibit displays traffic counts 10 collected in 2015 or 2018, depending on 11 location, and projected traffic volumes for the 12 planning horizon year 2045 within the study area. 13 Existing traffic volumes show that drivers 14 currently experience congestion on the existing 15 Fox River bridges, and this congestion is 16 expected to worsen in the future. 17 This exhibit displays crash rates in the 18 study area and compares them to the statewide 19 average. The boxes outlined in red represent 20 locations where crash rates are higher than the 21 statewide average for that type of roadway. 22 The next three exhibits display the 23 alternative screening process. This process was 24 explained in greater detail during the 25 presentation and is also included in the public

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 hearing handout. The first step shown here was 2 to develop and screen the alternatives based on 3 the project's purpose and need. After the first 4 screening step, 11 alternative routes remained. 5 In the second step of the screening process, 6 the Lead Agencies assessed the 11 alternative 7 routes retained and screened them based on how 8 each route met the needs-based screening 9 criteria and whether major environmental impacts 10 could result. The image at the bottom shows the 11 four routes that remained after Step 2. 12 This exhibit describes the third step in the 13 alternative screening process and the criteria 14 used. This step resulted in two corridor 15 alternatives along with a no build alternative 16 retained for detail evaluation in the EIS. 17 Throughout all three steps in the 18 alternative screening process, the Lead Agencies 19 considered the input of the public, tribes, 20 agencies, and local governments. 21 This exhibit explains the corridor width and 22 working alignments the Lead Agencies developed 23 to estimate impacts for the Tier 1 study. In 24 subsequent Tier 2 studies, the roadway alignment 25 and width would be adjusted to reduce impacts to

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 the extent practicable. 2 Here we show the average daily traffic 3 volumes and level of service in the year 2045 4 for each corridor alternative. For example, 5 Corridor Alternative 1 would carry about 31,000 6 vehicles per day on its new bridge over the 7 Fox River in 2045, while Corridor Alternative 2 8 would carry about 25,000 vehicles per day. This 9 exhibit was discussed in greater detail during 10 the presentation. 11 This exhibit provides an estimate of key 12 impacts from Corridor Alternative 1 and Corridor 13 Alternative 2, both with and without the 14 collector-distributor option. The presentation 15 further explained these potential socioeconomic 16 and environmental impacts as well as the impact 17 analysis. 18 Here we show the location of residential 19 areas adjacent to each of the corridor 20 alternatives. These are not areas of impact 21 but, rather, types and locations of residences 22 in the corridors. 23 This exhibit shows the potential 24 agricultural impacts for each of the corridor 25 alternatives. The area shaded in green for

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 Corridor Alternative 1, in yellow for Corridor 2 Alternative 2, represent the areas potentially 3 impacted. 4 As discussed in the presentation, the Lead 5 Agencies identified Corridor Alternative 2 as 6 the preferred alternative. This exhibit further 7 discusses the reasons for this choice and the 8 advantages of Corridor Alternative 2 over 9 Corridor Alternative 1. 10 It's anticipated that the project will be a 11 four-lane divided roadway with a median similar 12 to the reconstructed County GV which is shown 13 here. A shared-use path or sidewalk will also 14 be included in the project. The decision on the 15 specific roadway cross-section will be further 16 developed and evaluated during the Tier 2 17 process. 18 This provides an example schedule for the 19 South Bridge Connector through the Tier 2 20 process and construction. The project is 21 anticipated to be built in sections; however, 22 this timing may change based on availability of 23 funds. 24 This exhibit shows the environmental and 25 community features for Corridor Alternative 1

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 along with the working alignment. It does not 2 show impacts but just provides an overview of 3 resources in the corridor. This exhibit calls 4 out wetlands and waterways along with community 5 features such as schools, parks, and churches. 6 Similar to the last exhibit, this one shows 7 the environmental and community features for 8 Corridor Alternative 2, providing an overview of 9 resources in the area. All of the exhibits that 10 were displayed here are available for review in 11 greater detail on the project website. 12 * * * * * 13 CHAIRPERSON: This concludes the 14 presentation. The court reporter will now 15 discontinue transcription during the general 16 question-and-answer session. Transcription will 17 resume when the information for the record is 18 presented. 19 The time for questions and answers will be 20 limited so we have adequate time to take public 21 verbal YouTube Live testimony. 22 (Court reporter off record.) 23 CHAIRPERSON: The court reporter 24 should now begin recording again, please. 25 I now ask Charlie Webb to present the

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 information for the record. 2 MR. WEBB: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. 3 I would like to enter several articles into the 4 record. In addition to the testimony provided 5 at this Virtual Public Hearing, all exhibits, 6 handouts, presentations, and displays for 7 viewing during this Virtual Public Hearing will 8 be included in the official public hearing 9 record. 10 Page 16 of the Public Hearing Handout Packet 11 found on the project website contains a complete 12 list of these materials. Other materials you 13 wish to provide, along with other testimony 14 received after this Virtual Public Hearing, and 15 testimony received during and after the 16 In-Person Public Hearing, will be added to the 17 official Public Hearing record, provided they 18 are received or postmarked prior to the end of 19 the environmental document availability period, 20 which is August 3rd, 2020. 21 The environmental document for this project 22 proposal has been made available to the public 23 and is available on the website for your review. 24 Mr. Chairperson, I request that the 25 published public hearing notice, environmental

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 document, brochures, and the Hearing Handout 2 Packet which contains a description of all 3 exhibits, handouts, audio/visual presentations, 4 and displays for viewing during this Virtual 5 Public Hearing be entered into the record as 6 exhibits. 7 CHAIRPERSON: It is so ordered. 8 Thank you, Charlie. 9 The project presentation given earlier 10 serves as the extended version of the Project 11 Statement. In addition, the detailed Project 12 Statement is included in the Hearing Handout 13 Packet which is available for review on the 14 project website. 15 A summary of the Project Statement has also 16 been read and transcribed into the record by the 17 court reporter shortly before the beginning of 18 the Virtual Public Hearing. 19 We will begin taking verbal public 20 testimony, YouTube Live testimony, shortly. 21 As a reminder, there are two options 22 available tonight for participants to provide 23 verbal testimony: a public option and a private 24 option. 25 To get placed into the call-back queue to

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 provide testimony in either manner, please call 2 (920)492-7705, and a call-taker will take your 3 name, address, and a call-back phone number. If 4 we are experiencing high call volumes, please 5 hold on the line, and we will answer your call in 6 the order received. You may also send an email 7 to [email protected], 8 indicating whether you are interested in 9 providing private testimony or public testimony. 10 Participants will be called back when it is 11 your turn to provide either private or public 12 verbal testimony based on the order in which the 13 request was received. Please be patient when 14 waiting for your call back. Each person 15 providing either style of verbal testimony is 16 limited to three minutes. When you receive the 17 call back, provide your name and address. You 18 may also indicate if you are representing 19 someone or a group. Then proceed with your 20 testimony. 21 It is important to also remember to turn off 22 the audio on your computer when it is your turn 23 to provide testimony. 24 Questions asked while participants are 25 providing testimony will not be answered.

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 Testimony will only be halted if the Chairperson 2 believes the project team needs additional 3 clarification to understand the testimony being 4 presented. 5 We will now begin receiving YouTube Live 6 public verbal testimony. When you are called, I 7 will introduce you, but please also state your 8 name and address. Also, you may indicate if you 9 are representing yourself, someone else, or a 10 group, if desired. 11 We ask that you please limit your verbal 12 testimony to three minutes. This will allow 13 everyone an opportunity to present their 14 testimony. If you wish to provide additional 15 testimony, please call our call takers once more 16 and indicate your desire for another call back 17 to provide additional testimony. Once everyone 18 has had an opportunity to present verbal 19 testimony, we will call you back to provide 20 additional testimony if time allows. 21 Remember that you may also provide written 22 or additional oral testimony for the Public 23 Hearing record via email to 24 [email protected] by 25 sending the comment form in the Public Hearing

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 Packet found on the project website or a letter 2 to Cole Runge at Brown County, P.O. Box 23600, 3 Green Bay, Wisconsin, 54305-3600. You may also 4 call me at (920)448-6480 and I will provide a 5 written summary of your call for entry into the 6 public hearing record. Written testimony will 7 be accepted if it is postmarked and oral 8 testimony will be accepted if received no later 9 than August 3rd, 2020. 10 I now call on the -- will begin the 11 presentation of the YouTube Live public verbal 12 testimony. And let's see who we have in the 13 queue. 14 Okay. Currently we have nobody in the queue 15 for public verbal testimony. And if anybody 16 would like to get in the queue, I encourage you 17 to do so now. 18 (Pause.) 19 CHAIRPERSON: If you'd like to 20 provide testimony, don't forget to call 920 -- 21 you can testify by either calling -- or emailing 22 at [email protected]. 23 (Pause.) 24 CHAIRPERSON: Okay. We currently 25 have no one in the queue for the --

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 MR. KING: Wait a second. It popped 2 up again. 3 CHAIRPERSON: All right. We 4 currently don't have anyone in the queue for the 5 Virtual Public Hearing, so we'll allow five more 6 minutes for anyone who would like to testify 7 during the Virtual Public Hearing. 8 (Pause.) 9 CHAIRPERSON: Okay. We've reached 10 the end of our five-minute period. We currently 11 have nobody in the queue to provide public 12 verbal testimony, so thank you for taking the 13 time to be a part of this Virtual Public 14 Hearing. The taking of YouTube Live public 15 testimony is now formally concluded. We will be 16 accepting private verbal testimony until 17 8:00 p.m. At that time the Virtual Public 18 Hearing will be adjourned. 19 (Taking of public verbal YouTube Live 20 testimony concluded.) 21 (Virtual YouTube Live Public Hearing 22 concluded.)

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 PROJECT STATEMENT

3 (Transcribed into the record by Carrie Bohrer.)

5 Project Background:

7 The study area generally comprises the area 8 between I-41 on the west to I-43 on the east, 9 within the City of De Pere and the Towns of 10 Rockland, Lawrence, and Ledgeview.

12 The need for transportation system improvements 13 was first identified in the 1968 Brown County 14 comprehensive plan. Since that time, the 15 concept of building a new Fox River bridge and 16 connecting street system was included in many 17 local community plans and studies as an 18 important component of future development 19 patterns.

21 In 2006, Brown County began early public 22 involvement and agency coordination to explore 23 the need for improved east-west travel in the 24 southern Green Bay metropolitan area. In 2008, 25 the Lead Agencies issued a Notice of Intent to

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 2 in compliance with the National Environmental 3 Policy Act (NEPA) to explore options to address 4 transportation needs in the southern portion of 5 the Green Bay metropolitan area. The purpose of 6 and need for the project were developed, 7 alternatives were analyzed, and extensive public 8 involvement was conducted to gather public 9 input.

11 In 2012, the NEPA process was paused to conduct 12 additional traffic and engineering studies. 13 During this time, the Lead Agencies determined 14 that since full funding for the project would 15 not be immediately available, the project would 16 likely need to be implemented in phases as funds 17 became available. Therefore, to continue and 18 complete the study as a federally approved NEPA 19 action, FHWA recommended that the study 20 transition to a Tier 1 EIS.

22 On December 30, 2019, the Lead Agencies resumed 23 the NEPA process and published a revised Notice 24 of Intent to prepare a Tier 1 EIS. This Tier 1 25 EIS evaluates transportation needs in the study

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 area and analyzes broad corridors and conceptual 2 transportation improvements rather than detailed 3 alignments. If the Tier 1 Final EIS and Record 4 of Decision identifies a selected corridor for 5 improvements, then as funding becomes available 6 to construct sections of the project, subsequent 7 Tier 2 environmental documents will be prepared 8 to evaluate the design, cost, and impacts of 9 specific alignment alternatives. No 10 construction will directly result from the 11 completion of the Tier 1 EIS alone, since Tier 2 12 environmental document(s) will be required 13 before construction occurs.

15 Project Purpose:

17 The purpose of the project is to identify the 18 most appropriate improvements for addressing 19 existing east-west transportation demand and 20 demand that will be generated by the planned 21 development in the southern portion of the 22 Green Bay metropolitan area.

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 Project Need: 2 The project is needed to:

4 • Address congestion in the vicinity of the 5 existing Fox River bridges - The limited 6 number of Fox River crossings in the southern 7 Green Bay metropolitan area causes congestion 8 on the Claude Allouez and WIS 172 bridges that 9 is expected to worsen in the future. Downtown 10 De Pere is not suited to carry high volumes of 11 traffic because of the 25 miles per hour (MPH) 12 speed limit, on-street parking, pedestrian 13 crossings, and high number of businesses and 14 residences on Main Avenue/Reid Street.

16 • Accommodate existing and planned land use and 17 future travel demand generated by planned 18 development - Population and employment in 19 study area communities are forecast to 20 increase, and communities have adopted land 21 use plans to accommodate growth, designating 22 future development to occur in the study area 23 on both the east and west sides of the river. 24 While it is not a foregone conclusion that a 25 new Fox River crossing will be built, the

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 comprehensive plans of study area communities 2 include constructing a new Fox River bridge to 3 support and accommodate traffic from future 4 growth.

6 • Reduce travel time by improving east-west 7 connectivity - The lack of a river crossing 8 for more than 10 miles between downtown 9 De Pere and downtown Wrightstown hinders 10 east-west connectivity in the study area and 11 causes increased congestion on existing 12 bridges, travel times, travel distances, and 13 travel indirection. Congestion and travel 14 times will continue to increase as population 15 and employment grows. The limited number of 16 river crossings also affects emergency 17 services as responders have to travel farther 18 to get to destinations across the river and 19 can experience longer response times when the 20 bridges are congested.

22 • Address higher-than-average crash rates and 23 safety issues in the vicinity of the existing 24 Fox River bridges - The crash rates on the WIS 25 172 bridge and on roadways in the vicinity of

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 the Claude Allouez Bridge are higher than the 2 statewide average. In addition, due to the 3 lack of river crossings, drivers must travel 4 out of their way to reach destinations, which 5 provides the opportunity for more crashes.

7 Summary of Alternatives: 8 The Lead Agencies conducted a three-step 9 alternatives screening process.

11 Step 1 - Develop and screen alternatives. 12 In this step, the Lead Agencies identified 15 13 alternatives within the project boundaries: the 14 No Build Alternative, 12 build alternatives, the 15 Transportation System Management (TSM) 16 Alternative, and Transportation Demand 17 Management (TDM) Alternative. The build 18 alternatives consist of the Improve Existing 19 Roads Alternative and 11 alternative routes (see 20 exhibit below). During Step 1, the 11 21 alternative routes were analyzed as a collective 22 group (Build New Route) rather than 23 individually. For these 11 routes, the Lead 24 Agencies considered two types of roadways, a 25 freeway and an arterial, and evaluated them

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 relative to the project needs.

3 The Lead Agencies conducted a preliminary 4 evaluation based on how well the alternatives 5 met the project purpose and need (address 6 congestion, accommodate land use and future 7 travel demand, reduce travel time, and address 8 safety issues near Fox River bridges). This 9 step ultimately eliminated the Improve Existing 10 Roads Alternative, the TDM Alternative and the 11 TSM Alternative as standalone alternatives, and 12 the freeway option for the Build New Route 13 Alternative. Therefore, at the end of Step 1, 14 the alternatives remaining were the No Build 15 Alternative and the Build New Route Alternative 16 (composed of 11 arterial alternative routes).

18 Step 2 - Evaluate Alternative Routes. 19 In this step, the Lead Agencies assessed the 11 20 alternative routes retained based on how each 21 route met the needs-based screening criteria and 22 whether major environmental impacts could 23 result. The project screening criteria included 24 transportation considerations, land use and 25 growth management, environmental considerations,

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 and consistency with local and regional plans. 2 As part of this step, the Lead Agencies 3 determined that some routes did not meet the 4 project screening criteria; were inconsistent 5 with land use, planning, and transportation 6 management goals and objectives; or would result 7 in social, environmental, and economic impacts 8 that were too great.

10 This step ultimately eliminated nine of the 11 routes from further evaluation because they 12 would not meet the screening criteria: 3, 4, 5, 13 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. Based on considerations 14 that arose during Step 2 evaluation, the Lead 15 Agencies added two modified alternative routes 16 for consideration in Step 3. Alternative Route 2 17 was expanded to include an alternative without a 18 new I-41 interchange and the Lead Agencies also 19 added the Alternative Route 5/6 Hybrid to assess 20 whether an alternative route south of Rockland 21 Road-Southbridge Road with a new I-41 22 interchange could improve the metropolitan area 23 transportation system's ability to handle future 24 travel demand because of its location in an area 25 planned for development.

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

2 At the end of Step 2, four routes remained: 3 Alternative Route 1, Alternative Route 2 with 4 and without an interchange with I-41, and 5 Alternative Route 5/6 Hybrid.

7 Step 3 - Refine Alternative Routes. 8 In the final step, the Lead Agencies conducted 9 additional analysis to further evaluate the four 10 remaining routes (Alternative Route 1, 11 Alternative Route 2 with and without an 12 interchange with I-41, and Alternative Route 5/6 13 Hybrid) and identify corridors to be evaluated 14 in detail in this Tier 1 EIS. This step 15 provided a more detailed assessment of each of 16 the four routes based on the following measures: 17 • Is the route consistent with local and 18 county plan updates, and do local 19 governments support it? 20 • Does the route contribute to problems on 21 nearby existing roads and interchanges? 22 • What is the extent of land acquisition 23 needed for the route? 24 • Does the route minimize effects on 25 environmentally sensitive areas?

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 Step 3 narrowed the routes retained to two: 2 Alternative Route 1 and Alternative Route 2 with 3 an interchange with I-41. These two routes were 4 retained for detailed study in the Tier 1 Draft 5 EIS.

7 Corridor alternatives retained for detailed 8 study:

10 Following Step 3 of the alternative 11 identification, screening, and evaluation 12 process, the No Build Alternative and two build 13 route alternatives were retained for detailed 14 evaluation in the EIS. These routes are 15 Corridor Alternative 1: Scheuring Road-Heritage 16 Road (County F-County X) and Corridor 17 Alternative 2: Rockland Road-Red Maple Road 18 with an I-41 interchange. The Lead Agencies 19 identified a working alignment within 500-foot 20 corridors for each alternative as a basis for 21 estimating the impacts.

23 Corridor Alternative 1: 24 Corridor Alternative 1 is approximately 5.5 25 miles long. Alternative Route 1 begins at

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 County EB (Packerland Drive) and passes through 2 the existing I-41 interchange at the northern 3 edge of Preserve Park. It continues along 4 County F in the Town of Lawrence, crosses the 5 Fox River, and continues along County X 6 (Heritage Road). The route ends at the 7 previously improved County GV (Monroe Road) in 8 the Town of Ledgeview. Alternative Route 1 9 would provide a river crossing 1.5 miles south 10 of the Claude Allouez Bridge.

12 From its western terminus at County EB 13 (Packerland Drive) to west of Mid Valley Drive, 14 the representative cross-section of the South 15 Bridge Connector is a four-lane divided rural 16 roadway. West of the Fox River, between Mid 17 Valley Drive and Lawrence Drive, County F would 18 need additional capacity, likely three lanes in 19 each direction. If it is reconstructed, 20 features such as a sidewalk or shared-use path 21 would likely be added. In addition, the 22 County F intersections with the I-41 interchange 23 ramps would need to be reconstructed to 24 accommodate the increased traffic and the 25 County F bridge over I-41 would need to be

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 widened.

3 Also, west of Fox River, between Matthew Drive 4 and the Fox River, one lane is expected to be 5 added in each direction, and the existing 6 two-way left-turn lane would remain. A sidewalk 7 or shared-use path would likely be provided. 8 East of the Fox River to County GV (the east 9 terminus) it follows County X, and the road 10 would likely be widened to be a four-lane 11 divided roadway with a median.

13 Corridor Alternative 1 could impact 18 wetlands, 14 totaling 5 to 8 acres of impacts. Corridor 15 Alternative 1 also has 4 crossings of the 16 100-year floodplain. The floodway and 17 floodplain crossings would be required where 18 existing roadways would be widened to 19 accommodate the proposed improvements. The one 20 exception is the Fox River, where a new bridge 21 is proposed, and bridge piers would need to be 22 placed in the floodway.

24 Corridor Alternative 2: Rockland Road-Red Maple 25 Road Arterial with I-41 Interchange

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 Corridor Alternative 2 is approximately 6 miles 2 long. It would begin at County EB (Packerland 3 Drive) in the Town of Lawrence and continue 4 along a new alignment to connect to a new 5 full-access interchange on I-41. The route 6 would continue east on Southbridge Road and Red 7 Maple Road, cross the Fox River, and continue 8 along Rockland Road. At the intersection of 9 Rockland Road and County PP (South Broadway), 10 the route would continue northeast along a new 11 alignment and end at the intersection of 12 County X and the previously improved County GV 13 (Monroe Road) in the Town of Ledgeview. 14 Alternative Route 2 would cross the Fox River 15 2.5 miles south of the Claude Allouez Bridge.

17 The representative cross-section for Corridor 18 Alternative 2 is anticipated to be a four-lane 19 divided roadway with a median, shared-use path 20 or sidewalk, and ditches from its west terminus 21 at the intersection of County F and County EB 22 (Packerland Drive) to its east terminus at 23 County GV. In addition, the County F 24 interchange with I-41 may need to be 25 reconstructed to accommodate additional traffic.

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 The Lead Agencies are considering a 2 Collector-Distributor (C-D) road along I-41 3 between the proposed new I-41 interchange and 4 the existing County F interchange 1 mile north 5 as an option for Alternative 2. A C-D road is a 6 limited-access road carrying traffic from local 7 roads to freeways. The purpose of a C-D road is 8 to reduce the number of exit and entrance points 9 on the freeway between two relatively close 10 freeway interchanges. This reduces freeway 11 merging/diverging (weaving) intensity, thereby 12 improving traffic flow and safety. The decision 13 on cross sections, including the C-D option, 14 will be evaluated and finalized during Tier 2.

16 Corridor Alternative 2 could impact 24 to 25 17 wetlands resulting in 12 to 21 acres of impacts 18 depending on whether the C-D option is included. 19 Corridor Alternative 2 would cross the 100-year 20 floodplain 3 times. There would be an 21 additional 2 crossings with the C-D option. The 22 Ashwaubenon Creek floodway and floodplain 23 crossing would be impacted as part of the 24 widening of Southbridge Road. The floodplain 25 would also be impacted by the proposed

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 interchange (specifically, the northbound exit 2 ramp from I-41 to Southbridge Road).

4 Identification of a Preferred Corridor 5 Alternative: 6 The Lead Agencies have identified Corridor 7 Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative.

9 The No Build Alternative was not selected as the 10 preferred corridor alternative because it would 11 not meet the purpose and need for the project.

13 The Lead Agencies identified Corridor 14 Alternative 2 rather than Corridor Alternative 1 15 as their preferred for several reasons:

17 • Travel Time. Corridor Alternative 2 would 18 result in fewer vehicle hours of travel than 19 Corridor Alternative 1. This indicates that 20 Alternative 2 provides a more efficient 21 connection between origins and destinations 22 for travelers.

24 • Congestion. Congestion relief for both 25 alternatives is similar. Although Corridor

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 Alternative 1 would divert more traffic from 2 the Claude Allouez Bridge, the bridge would 3 operate at an acceptable level of service 4 under both alternatives. Corridor 5 Alternative 1 would increase congestion at the 6 County F interchange with I-41, requiring it 7 to be reconstructed. The new I-41 interchange 8 as part of Corridor Alternative 2 would reduce 9 the additional capacity needed at the County F 10 interchange with I-41 compared to Corridor 11 Alternative 1; however, some improvements 12 would be required.

14 • Safety. Due to the development adjacent to it 15 and the existing access control, Corridor 16 Alternative 1 has nearly 5 times more access 17 points than Corridor Alternative 2 with little 18 opportunity to consolidate driveways or side 19 streets, which would make Corridor 20 Alternative 1 a less safe corridor. With 21 fewer access points and the ability to 22 implement stronger access control, Corridor 23 Alternative 2 has the ability to provide safer 24 travel.

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 • Land Use Compatibility. Corridor Alternative 2 2 is more compatible with existing and planned 3 land use. De Pere, Lawrence, Ledgeview, 4 Rockland, Ashwaubenon, Bellevue, and Hobart 5 all support Corridor Alternative 2, and public 6 support for Corridor Alternative 2 is stronger 7 than support for Corridor Alternative 1. The 8 land uses and development adjacent to 9 Alternative 1 require multiple access points 10 that slow the movement of traffic and 11 sensitive land uses that are inconsistent with 12 an arterial carrying longer and higher-speed 13 trips. These land uses would require that the 14 posted speed be lower on Corridor 15 Alternative 1, thus not serving the need as 16 well. Corridor Alternative 2 allows 17 communities to implement stricter access 18 control, post the route at a speed limit 19 appropriate for carrying longer trips, and 20 continue to plan for adjacent development that 21 is consistent with the type of roadway needed 22 to address the purpose and need.

24 • Socioeconomic Impacts. Due to its greater 25 length, Corridor Alternative 2 could require

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 more right-of-way (mostly agricultural land) 2 than Alternative 1. While Corridor 3 Alternative 2 has the potential for more 4 residential displacements, Corridor 5 Alternative 1 could impact substantially more 6 property owners in a denser area. The density 7 of development, number of access points, and 8 impacts to parking and other features of these 9 properties has the potential to change the 10 character of the neighborhoods adjacent to 11 Corridor Alternative 1. Due to the lesser 12 development and prevalence of agricultural 13 land uses, Corridor Alternative 2 could 14 introduce less disruption to surrounding land 15 uses.

17 • Natural Environment Impacts. Corridor 18 Alternative 2 has the potential to have 19 greater impacts to wetlands and stream 20 crossings than Corridor Alternative 1. 21 Additionally, as Tier 1 considers a broad 22 corridor for the purposes of comparing a wide 23 range of alternatives, there exists the 24 potential to avoid and minimize impacts within 25 the corridor. With the less dense development

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 present in Corridor Alternative 2, the 2 avoidance and minimization potential are 3 greater than it is in the more developed area 4 of Corridor Alternative 1.

6 Corridor Alternative 2 is the Lead Agencies' 7 preferred alternative because it would provide 8 the best solution for addressing long-term 9 mobility needs and safety concerns while most 10 effectively serving existing and planned 11 development and balancing impacts to 12 socioeconomic and environmental resources. It 13 provides a similar level of relief to the Claude 14 Allouez Bridge, requires fewer vehicle hours of 15 travel (provides more direct travel), provides 16 better safety performance, would create less 17 disruption to neighborhoods, and is more 18 consistent with surrounding land uses. The new 19 interchange with I-41 would also reduce the 20 additional capacity needed at the I-41/County F 21 interchange. Further, Corridor Alternative 2 is 22 more strongly favored by the public and has been 23 endorsed by all of the adjacent communities 24 because it provides a river crossing in an area 25 aligned with the future growth patterns of the

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 communities. 2 * * * * * 3 VIRTUAL PRIVATE TESTIMONY 4 (Phone call is placed by Mr. Ebel to 5 Kathy Peeters.) 6 MS. PEETERS: Hello. This is Kathy. 7 MR. EBEL: Hello. I'm calling for 8 you to provide testimony for the Brown County 9 South Bridge Connector project. If you're 10 listening to the -- 11 MS. PEETERS: Yes. 12 MR. EBEL: Great. If you're 13 listening to the presentation, I'd ask that you 14 mute your computer speakers while you're giving 15 testimony. 16 MS. PEETERS: I just did that. 17 MR. EBEL: Okay. And before 18 beginning testimony, please state your name, 19 address, and who you represent, if that applies. 20 And please also limit your testimony to 3 21 minutes. I'll try to let you know when you have 22 about a minute remaining. 23 And after providing your testimony, please 24 hang up the phone. 25 Do you have any questions?

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 MS. PEETERS: No. 2 MR. EBEL: All right. You may begin. 3 MS. PEETERS: My name is 4 Kathy Peeters. My address is 2130 Deer Point 5 Lane, De Pere, Wisconsin, 54115. 6 And I have concern about the -- with the 7 proposed alternative that -- the outcome of 8 Old Plank Road, since it is considered a 9 historic roadway, and how that is going to be 10 preserved in the preferred alternative as well 11 as the effect it has on the recreational 12 activities on the Fox River with putting another 13 road just less than 3 miles south of the current 14 Claude Allouez Bridge. And it does not allow 15 for a lot of area for recreational activities, 16 boating, waterskiing and things like that. 17 It also is the widest part of the river and 18 I'm concerned about the cost associated with 19 putting a bridge at the proposed alternative 20 versus the alternative going from Heritage Road 21 across to Scheuring Road. 22 The other part that I'm concerned about is 23 the amount of debt that's going to be incurred 24 given the debt that we are taking on with the 25 COVID-19 situation and how that would affect any

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 future plans as far as actually building a 2 bridge across the river. Thanks. 3 (Virtual private testimony concludes.)

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 STATE OF WISCONSIN ) 2 COUNTY OF BROWN )

5 I, CARRIE S. BOHRER, a Notary Public and Registered 6 Professional Reporter in and for the State of 7 Wisconsin, do hereby certify that the foregoing 8 proceedings were taken at said time and place and 9 is a true and accurate transcript of my original 10 machine shorthand notes.

12 Dated at Green Bay, Wisconsin This 15th day of July, 2020. 13

14 Carrie S. Bohrer 15 CARRIE S. BOHRER, RPR, RMR, CRR 16 Notary Public, State of Wisconsin My commission expires 10/30/20 17 (fc)

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

1 STATE OF WISCONSIN ) 2 COUNTY OF BROWN )

4 I, CHRISTIE WYDEVEN, a Notary Public, 5 Registered Professional Reporter and Registered 6 Merit Reporter, in and for the State of Wisconsin, 7 do hereby certify that the foregoing proceedings 8 were taken at said time and place and is a true and 9 accurate transcript of my original machine 10 shorthand notes. 11 That the appearances were as noted 12 initially.

15 Dated at Green Bay, Wisconsin this 15th day of July, 2020. 16

19 Christie Wydeven 20 CHRISTIE WYDEVEN, RPR, RMR 21 Notary Public, State of Wisconsin My commission expires 2-4-22 (FC) 22

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

A 11:1 46:12 47:2,2,10 45:22,24 55:6 basic 11:10 ability 45:23 53:21 adopted 41:20 47:12,15,17,20,23 56:3,24 58:15 basis 47:20 53:23 advantages 30:8 47:24,25 48:8 areas 29:19,20 30:2 Bay 1:23 9:15 12:25 accept 24:4 affect 15:13 22:19 49:13,15,24 50:1 46:25 14:14 17:5 21:6 acceptable 24:4 58:25 50:14,18 51:5,16 arose 45:14 25:13 36:3 38:24 53:3 affiliation 24:23 51:19 52:5,7,7,9 arriving 11:3 39:5 40:22 41:7 accepted 9:20,21 agencies 15:5 17:22 52:10,14,14,17,19 arterial 43:25 44:16 60:12 61:15 13:4,5 25:9 36:7,8 19:10 20:18 23:11 52:20 53:1,5,8,11 49:25 54:12 began 14:23 38:21 accepting 9:24 25:20 26:3,15 53:16,17,20,23 articles 11:22 32:3 beginning 24:15 37:16 28:6,18,20,22 54:1,5,6,7,9,15,16 Ashwaubenon 33:17 57:18 access 6:21 53:15 30:5 38:25 39:13 54:25 55:2,3,5,11 51:22 54:4 begins 47:25 53:16,21,22 54:9 39:22 43:8,12,24 55:13,18,20 56:1 asked 15:11 34:24 behalf 10:10 54:17 55:7 44:3,19 45:2,15 56:4,6,7,21 58:7 aspect 11:4 believes 35:2 accommodate 45:18 46:8 47:18 58:10,19,20 aspects 10:14,23 Bellevue 54:4 17:11 41:16,21 51:1 52:6,13 alternatives 15:8 assess 16:14 45:19 best 20:25 56:8 42:3 44:6 48:24 Agencies' 56:6 16:10 17:23 18:1 assessed 28:6 44:19 better 56:16 49:19 50:25 agency 15:7 38:22 18:5, 12,15,19,21 assessment 16:20 blue 20:1 accounting 5:7 ago 25:18 19:4 21:21 23:9 46:15 boating 58:16 accurate 5:7 60:9 agricultural 22:16 24:11,12 28:2,15 assist 6:9 12:9 Bohrer 1:18 5:24 61:9 29:24 55:1,12 29:20,25 39:7 associated 16:9 38:3 60:5,14,15 acquisition 22:5,8 aligned 56:25 40:9 43:7,9,11,13 58:18 bottom 28:10 46:22 alignment 20:6 43:14,18 44:4,11 Attendance 1:13 boundaries 43:13 acres 49:14 51:17 28:24 31:1 40:9 44:14 47:7,13 attending 4:5 Box 9:15 12:24 Act 39:3 47:19 50:4,11 52:25 53:4 55:23 audio 8:22 9:1,3 25:12 36:2 action 39:19 alignments 15:25 amount 58:23 34:22 boxes 27:19 activities 58:12,15 22:3 28:22 40:3 analysis 15:15 audio/visual 33:3 bridge 1:8 10:15 added 32:16 45:15 Allouez 17:10,17 16:10,19 23:10 August 9:22 13:6 13:16,20 14:17,22 45:19 48:21 49:5 19:2 23:19,22 29:17 46:9 25:10,19 32:20 17:10,10,18,18 addition 9:7 25:2 24:3 41:8 43:1 analyze 15:12 36:9 19:2,20 20:2 32:4 33:11 43:2 48:10 50:15 53:2 analyzed 15:9 availability 14:3 23:20,22,22 24:3 48:21 50:23 56:14 58:14 17:22 18:2 39:7 30:22 32:19 24:3 26:12 29:6 additional 9:9 allow 35:12 37:5 43:21 available 4:24 6:14 30:19 38:15 42:2 12:19 24:9 25:7 58:14 analyzes 15:23 40:1 7:3 8:1 15:21 42:25 43:1 48:10 35:2,14,17,20,22 allows 35:20 54:16 announced 24:23 26:17 27:1 31:10 48:15,25 49:20,21 39:12 46:9 48:18 aloud 24:22 answer 4:15 8:3 32:22,23 33:13,22 50:15 53:2,2 50:25 51:21 53:9 alternative 14:7 11:20 12:1,7,8 39:15,17 40:5 56:14 57:9 58:14 56:20 16:2 17:25 18:6,9 34:5 Avenue 10:6 13:11 58:19 59:2 Additionally 55:21 18:11,22 19:6,6,7 answered 34:25 23:19 bridges 17:9 27:15 address 5:11 7:23 19:15,15,16,25 answers 31:19 Avenue/Reid 41:14 41:5,8 42:12,20 8:18 17:1,6,16 20:3,6,8,15,17,19 anticipate 25:21 average 27:19,21 42:24 44:8 18:2 34:3,17 35:8 20:22,23,24 21:5 anticipated 27:6 29:2 43:2 brief 11:19,25 39:3 41:4 42:22 21:7,10,11,12,17 30:10,21 50:18 avoid 55:24 briefly 26:16 44:5,7 54:22 21:23,24 22:5,8 anybody 36:15 avoidance 56:2 broad 15:23 40:1 57:19 58:4 22:11,13,15,17,19 appearances 61:11 55:21 B addresses 5:16,17 22:21,23 23:1,2,3 applicable 5:13 broad-scale 15:22 addressing 17:8 23:5,7,13,14,21 applies 57:19 B 24:5 broadcast 8:25 20:25 40:18 56:8 24:1 25:24,25 appropriate 24:22 back 7:9,19,24 8:7 Broadway 50:9 adequate 31:20 26:1,4,10 27:23 40:18 54:19 8:11,14,17,21,25 brochures 33:1 adjacent 29:19 28:4,6,13,15,18 approved 39:18 12:4 34:10,14,17 Brown 1:2,11 2:2 53:14 54:8,20 29:4,5,7,12,13 approximately 35:16,19 2:13,14,16 4:3,13 55:10 56:23 30:1,2,5,6,8,9,25 47:24 50:1 background 14:6 9:14 10:5,10,19 adjourned 37:18 31:8 43:14,16,17 area 14:14 17:5 14:11 24:10 38:5 10:24 11:6,14 adjusted 28:25 43:19,19,21 44:10 19:22 21:6 23:14 balancing 21:3 12:24 13:10,21 Administration 1:3 44:10,11,13,15,15 27:12,18 29:25 56:11 14:18,20,23 15:3 1:16 10:12 11:16 44:16,18,20 45:15 31:9 38:7,7,24 based 8:9 28:2,7 15:11 16:24 18:16 13:22 15:4,11,19 45:16,17,19,20 39:5 40:1,22 41:7 30:22 34:12 44:4 25:12 36:2 38:13 Administration's 46:3,3,5,7,10,11 41:19,22 42:1,10 44:20 45:13 46:16 38:21 57:8 60:2

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

61:2 Charlie 2:19 4:11 component 38:18 consistent 46:17 13:10,21 14:18,23 Bryan 2:5 4:9 31:25 33:8 composed 44:16 54:21 56:18 15:3,11 16:24 build 18:6 19:6 chat 12:2,6,12 comprehensive consolidate 53:18 18:17 19:18,21 23:21 28:15 43:14 choice 30:7 10:13 38:14 42:1 construct 40:6 20:10 25:12 30:12 43:14,17,22 44:12 choose 24:17,21 comprises 38:7 constructing 42:2 36:2 38:13,21 44:14,15 47:12,12 Christie 1:20 5:23 computer 8:23 9:1 construction 16:18 46:18 47:16 48:1 52:9 61:4,19,20 34:22 57:14 16:22 30:20 40:10 48:4,5,7,12,17,22 building 20:9 38:15 churches 31:5 concept 11:2 14:17 40:13 48:25 49:8,9 50:2 59:1 City 14:14 38:9 38:15 contact 4:20,23 50:9,12,12,21,21 built 19:20 20:6,12 City/State/Zip5:12 conceptual 15:23 6:14,24 9:23 11:7 50:23,23 51:4 30:21 41:25 clarification 35:3 40:1 contains 32:11 33:2 53:6,9 57:8 60:2 business 8:19 Claude 17:10,17 concern 58:6 continue 11:23 61:2 businesses 41:13 19:2 23:19,22 concerned 58:18,22 39:17 42:1450:3 County's 10:25 24:3 41:8 43:1 concerns 21:1 56:9 50:6,7,10 54:20 14:20 C 48:10 50:15 53:2 concluded 37:15,20 continues 48:3,5 court 5:23 7:8 9:5 C 24:5 56:13 58:14 37:22 contribute 46:20 11:23 12:18 14:1 C-D 51:2,5,7,13,18 close 18:17 51:9 concludes 31:13 control 53:15,22 24:14,20,25 31:14 51:21 closely 15:3 59:3 54:18 31:22,23 33:17 call 7:9,19,20,23,24 Code 5:12 conclusion 41:24 coordination 18:17 COVID-19 58:25 7:25,25 8:3,11,14 Cole 2:2 4:3 6:25 conditions 23:24 38:22 crash 17:16 27:17 8:17,21 9:16,18 9:13,16 11:6 conduct 39:11 copy 6:3,22 27:20 42:22,24 11:5 12:4 13:1,2 12:24 25:11,13 conducted 10:10 corridor 16:1,5 crashes 21:16 43:5 34:1,4,5,14,17 36:2 12:1 39:8 43:8 19:6,7,14,15,16 create 56:16 35:15,15,16,19 collected 27:10 44:3 46:8 19:25 20:3,5,8,15 Creek 51:22 36:4,5,10,20 57:4 collection 16:15 conference 5:6 20:18,23 21:5,6 criteria 28:9,13 call-back 33:25 collective 43:21 confidential 5:17 21:10,11,12,17,23 44:21,23 45:4,12 34:3 collector-distribu... confusion 9:1 21:23 22:5,7,11 cross 23:2,6 50:7,14 call-taker 34:2 20:12 23:4 29:14 congested 42:20 22:13,15,16,19,20 51:13,19 called 8:7 15:15 51:2 congestion 17:8 22:23 23:1,2,3,5,7 cross-section 30:15 34:10 35:6 coming 8:25 9:4 19:3 21:8 27:14 23:13,13 24:1 48:14 50:17 calling 5:5 36:21 commencing 1:24 27:15 41:4,7 25:25 26:9 28:14 crosses 23:20 48:4 57:7 comment 9:12 42:11,13 44:6 28:21 29:4,5,7,12 crossing 23:22 calls 4:15 31:3 12:22 25:4,18 52:24,24 53:5 29:12,19,24 30:1 41:25 42:7 48:9 capacity 48:18 53:9 26:3 35:25 connect 50:4 30:1,5,8,9,25 31:3 51:23 56:24 56:20 comments 6:9 connecting 21:13 31:8 40:4 47:7,15 crossings 22:25 cares 22:22 13:19 25:7,11 38:16 47:16,23,24 49:13 41:6,13 42:16 Carrie 1:18 5:24 commission 4:4 connection 52:21 49:14,24 50:1,17 43:3 49:15,17 38:3 60:5,14,15 25:12 60:16 61:21 connections 21:15 51:16,19 52:4,6 51:21 55:20 carried 18:14 19:4 communities 41:19 connectivity 17:15 52:10,13,14,17,19 crossroads 21:13 23:12 41:20 42:1 54:17 42:7,10 52:25 53:4,8,10 CRR 1:18 60:15 carry 23:23 29:5,8 56:23 57:1 Connector 1:8 53:15,17,19,20,22 cultural 22:18 41:10 community 30:25 10:15 13:17,20 54:1,5,6,7,14,16 current 58:13 carrying 51:6 54:12 31:4,7 38:17 30:19 48:15 57:9 54:25 55:2,4,11 currently 27:14 54:19 compared 22:16 Connector-related 55:13,17,20,22,25 36:14,24 37:4,10 cars 23:23 53:10 26:12 56:1,4,6,21 cause 9:1 compares 27:18 consideration 10:13 corridors 15:23 D causes 41:7 42:11 comparing 55:22 11:1 18:13,23 19:12 22:2 29:22 D 3:1 Central 2:10,11 Compatibility 54:1 45:16 40:1 46:13 47:20 daily 29:2 certify 60:7 61:7 compatible 21:18 considerations corridors/routes data 16:15 Chairperson 2:1 54:2 44:24,25 45:13 18:8 Dated 60:12 61:15 4:2,5 31:13,23 complete 11:10 considered 11:13 cost 40:8 58:18 day 1:24 22:22 32:2,24 33:7 35:1 24:8 25:4 32:11 18:5 19:10 28:19 counts 27:9 23:23 29:6,8 36:19,24 37:3,9 39:18 43:24 58:8 county 1:2,9,10,11 60:12 61:15 change 30:22 55:9 completed 16:24 considering 51:1 1:16 2:2,13,14,16 De 10:6 13:12 14:15 Chapter 18:20 completion 26:7 considers 55:21 4:3,13 9:14 10:5 38:9 41:10 42:9 21:24 40:11 consist 43:18 10:10,16,18,19 54:3 58:5 character 55:10 compliance 39:2 consistency 45:1 11:7,14 12:24 debt 58:23,24

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

December 39:22 19:12 early 38:21 environmental 1:7 42:19 decision 11:3 25:22 difficult 9:5 east 38:8 41:23 49:8 2:20 6:12 10:14 experiencing 7:24 25:23 26:8,9 27:5 direct 56:15 49:8 50:6,22 10:22 13:20 14:24 34:4 27:7 30:14 40:4 direction 48:19 east-west 17:2,15 15:6 16:18,20,21 expires 60:16 61:21 51:12 49:5 38:23 40:19 42:6 17:19 21:4,20 explained 27:24 decisions 11:16 directly 16:17 42:10 25:8 27:3,7 28:9 29:15 deemed 21:17 40:10 EB 10:16 48:1,12 29:16 30:24 31:7 explains 28:21 Deer 58:4 Director 4:3 9:14 50:2,21 32:19,21,25 39:1 explore 38:22 39:3 demand 17:2,3,12 11:6 EB/F 1:9 39:2 40:7,12 express 10:21 18:10 40:19,20 Director/MPO 9:14 Ebel 2:9 57:4,7,12 44:22,25 45:7 expression 11:11 41:17 43:16 44:7 disclosure 5:18 57:17 58:2 56:12 extended 33:10 45:24 discontinue 31:15 economic 45:7 environmentally extensive 14:25 dense 55:25 discussed 26:24 edge 48:3 46:25 16:15 39:7 denser 55:6 29:9 30:4 effect 58:11 envisioned 14:18 extent 29:1 46:22 density 55:6 discusses 30:7 effective 19:3 especially 21:9 Department 1:1,3 displacements 55:4 effectively 21:2 established 5:4 F 1:15,22 2:2,4,14 displacing 22:10 56:10 estimate 28:23 F 10:16 19:21 20:10 2:16 4:10 10:11 display 24:12 26:18 effects 46:24 29:11 20:14 23:25 48:4 11:15 26:23 27:22 efficient 52:20 estimated 23:11 48:17,22,25 50:21 Department's displayed 31:10 EIS 14:2 15:14,17 estimating 47:21 50:23 51:4 53:6,9 10:25 displays 26:17 27:9 15:18,20,22 16:13 evaluate 40:8 44:18 56:20 depending 27:10 27:17 32:6 33:4 16:17,23,25 18:20 46:9 F-County 47:16 51:18 disruption 55:14 19:5 21:24 22:1,2 evaluated 16:2 Fairgrounds 10:5 depicted 19:16,25 56:17 23:11,15 25:21 18:16 19:5,12 13:10 describe 14:5 distances 42:12 26:7,8,23 27:4,5 30:16 43:25 46:13 far 18:24 59:1 describes 18:20 ditches 50:20 28:16 39:1,20,24 51:14 farther 42:17 28:12 divert 53:1 39:25 40:3,11 evaluates 39:25 favored 56:22 description 33:2 diverted 24:2 46:14 47:5,14 evaluating 22:2 fc 60:17 61:21 design 27:8 40:8 divided 30:11 48:15 either 7:10,20 8:5,8 evaluation 28:16 features 30:25 31:5 designating 41:21 49:11 50:19 8:12,16,21 34:1 44:4 45:11,14 31:7 48:20 55:8 desire 35:16 DNR 15:6 34:11,15 36:21 47:11,14 federal 1:3 10:12 desired 35:10 document 15:1,22 eleven 18:7 event 13:23 10:25 11:15 13:22 destinations 42:18 32:19,21 33:1 eliminated 18:12 exact 16:11 14:4 15:4,5,10,18 43:4 52:21 document(s) 40:12 44:9 45:10 example 29:4 30:18 federally 39:18 detail 17:21 18:21 documents 17:20 email 4:14 5:9,17 exception 49:20 feet 16:7 21:25 23:16 27:24 40:7 7:21 8:4 9:10 exhibit 19:11,14 fewer 21:13 52:18 28:16 29:9 31:11 DOT 4:14 11:5 12:2,6,13,20 23:15,16 26:20 53:21 56:14 46:14 downtown 41:9 25:6 34:6 35:23 27:9,17 28:12,21 FHWA 39:19 detailed 15:24 42:8,9 emailing 36:21 29:9,11,23 30:6 field 16:15 16:10 33:11 40:2 Draft 1:7 6:12 emails 25:14 30:24 31:3,6 final 25:21 26:7,8 46:15 47:4,7,13 13:20 14:2 16:25 emergency 42:16 43:20 27:5 40:3 46:8 details 24:9 25:8 27:4 47:4 emphasize 11:9 exhibits 6:11 24:12 finalized 51:14 determined 16:12 draw 19:1 employment 41:18 27:22 31:9 32:5 first 4:19 7:4 8:13 18:24 39:13 45:3 Drive 48:1,13,13,17 42:15 33:3,6 14:18 26:20 28:1 develop 28:2 43:11 48:17 49:3 50:3 encourage 36:16 existing 17:2,9,11 28:3 38:13 developed 15:8 50:22 endorsed 56:23 18:7,25 20:4 21:2 five 23:6 37:5 16:14 17:22 18:1 drivers 27:13 43:3 ends 48:6 27:13,14 40:19 five-minute 37:10 18:17 28:22 30:16 driveways 21:13,15 engineering 15:15 41:5,16 42:11,23 floodplain 23:3 39:6 56:3 53:18 39:12 43:18 44:9 46:21 49:16,17 51:20,22 development 16:24 dropped 18:19,23 enter 32:3 48:2 49:5,18 51:4 51:24 17:4,13 18:25 dropping 18:21 entered 11:22 14:1 53:15 54:2 56:10 floodplains 23:6 21:3 26:22 38:18 due 43:2 53:14 33:5 exists 55:23 floodway 49:16,22 40:21 41:18,22 54:24 55:11 entire 15:21 exit 51:8 52:1 51:22 45:25 53:14 54:8 entrance 51:8 expanded 45:17 flow 51:12 54:20 55:7,12,25 E entry 9:18 13:2 expected 19:1 27:16 follow 19:17 20:3 56:11 E 3:1,1 23:24 36:5 41:9 49:4 20:19 different 17:7 18:7 earlier 33:9 Environment 55:17 experience 27:14 following 7:17

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

11:20,25 12:9 generally 16:13 37:5,7,14,18,21 13:21 14:24 16:21 individual 11:11 26:6 27:6 46:16 38:7 held 10:3 13:9 17:20 22:16,24,25 individually 43:23 47:10 generated 17:3,12 Hello 57:6,7 23:9 24:11 25:8 information 4:20 follows 49:9 40:20 41:17 help 4:15 29:16,20 39:1 4:23 5:15 6:5,9,14 Fontecchio 2:15 getting 11:10 Heritage 19:17,18 49:13 51:16 55:5 8:2 9:23 13:19 foot 16:3 give 10:21 21:8 48:6 58:20 impacted 30:3 16:14 21:25 31:17 forecast 41:19 given 33:9 58:24 high 7:25 34:4 51:23,25 32:1 foregoing 60:7 61:7 giving 57:14 41:10,13 impacts 16:9,11,14 initial 18:5 foregone 41:24 goals 45:6 higher 22:15,17,24 21:3,20,21,22,25 initially 61:12 forget 13:7 36:20 going 26:10 58:9,20 22:25 27:20 43:1 22:18 28:9,23,25 input 14:25 19:8 form 9:12 12:22 58:23 higher-speed 54:12 29:12,16,24 31:2 26:2 28:19 39:9 15:17 16:19 25:4 governments 15:1 higher-than-aver... 40:8 44:22 45:7 intended 12:15 35:25 18:18 28:20 46:19 17:16 42:22 47:21 49:14 51:17 intensity 51:11 formal 12:10 13:23 great 45:8 57:12 Highway 1:3,16 54:24 55:8,17,19 Intent 38:25 39:24 formally 37:15 greater 27:24 29:9 10:12 11:1,15 55:24 56:11 interchange 15:9 forming 6:9 31:11 54:24 55:19 13:22 15:4,10,18 implement 53:22 15:12 20:9,11,13 Fort 10:5 13:11 56:3 17:10,18 54:17 20:14,21 21:10 forward 18:14 19:4 green 1:23 9:15 Highways 10:18 implemented 23:5 45:18,22 46:4,12 26:4 12:25 14:14 17:5 hinders 42:9 39:16 47:3,18 48:2,22 found 6:6 12:23 21:6 25:13 29:25 historic 58:9 important 34:21 49:25 50:5,24 32:11 36:1 36:3 38:24 39:5 history 26:20 38:18 51:3,4 52:1 53:6,7 four 17:7 19:19,22 40:22 41:7 60:12 Hobart 54:4 improve 43:18 44:9 53:10 56:19,21 23:7 28:11 46:2,9 61:15 hold 8:2 34:5 45:22 interchanges 46:21 46:16 group 5:14 12:14 homes 22:11,12,14 improved 38:23 51:10 four-lane 20:1 34:19 35:10 43:22 22:22 48:7 50:12 interested 4:18 8:5 30:11 48:15 49:10 grows 42:15 horizon 27:12 improvement 10:15 8:15 34:8 50:18 growth 41:21 42:4 hour 41:11 improvements Interim 4:3 9:13 Fox 14:17 17:9 44:25 56:25 hours 52:18 56:14 15:24 26:13 38:12 11:6 19:21 20:2 23:20 GV 10:18 30:12 Howard 10:6 13:11 40:2,5,18 49:19 intersection 10:16 27:15 29:7 38:15 48:7 49:8 50:12 Hybrid 45:19 46:5 53:11 10:17 50:8,11,21 41:5,6,25 42:2,24 50:23 46:13 improving 17:14 intersections 48:22 44:8 48:5,16 49:3 GV/X 1:10 18:6 42:6 51:12 Interstate 19:23 49:4,8,20 50:7,14 I in-person 10:3 13:8 20:9,13 58:12 H I-41 15:10,12 20:21 26:19 32:16 introduce 5:23 35:7 freeway 15:13 halted 35:1 26:10,13 38:8 include 4:8 42:2 55:14 43:25 44:12 51:9 handle 45:23 45:18,21 46:4,12 45:17 involve 20:8 51:10,10 handout 11:7 24:8 47:3,18 48:2,22 included 6:20 15:9 involved 14:25 freeways 51:7 27:1 28:1 32:10 48:25 49:25 50:5 27:25 30:14 32:8 involvement 13:24 full 10:21 39:14 33:1,12 50:24 51:2,3 52:2 33:12 38:16 44:23 38:22 39:8 full-access 50:5 handouts 32:6 33:3 53:6,7,10 56:19 51:18 issued 38:25 function 12:2 hang 57:24 I-41/County 56:20 includes 5:11 issues 17:7,17 42:23 funding 15:20 hear 10:2 I-43 38:8 including 5:11,16 44:8 26:15 39:14 40:5 heard 24:19 25:1 ID 1:12 5:6 6:11 51:13 funds 30:23 39:16 hearing 1:5,17 4:5 identification 47:11 inconsistent 45:4 J further 5:22 11:16 4:6,17,21,25 5:3,5 52:4 54:11 Jacobs 2:18 4:11 29:15 30:6,15 5:8,25 6:3,6,11,12 identified 14:7 increase 41:20 Jay 2:10 45:11 46:9 56:21 6:16,18,23 7:14 20:18,23 26:1 42:14 53:5 Jill 2:8 future 17:12 27:16 9:8,10,12,19 10:3 30:5 38:13 43:12 increased 42:11 judgments 11:13 38:18 41:9,17,22 10:9,20 11:9,21 47:19 52:6,13 48:24 July 1:24 60:12 42:3 44:6 45:23 12:12,20,22 13:3 identifies 40:4 increases 21:16 61:15 56:25 59:1 13:9,16,18,23 identify 17:24 incurred 58:23 June 14:2,4 14:8 24:7,8,15 25:23 26:15 40:17 indicate 8:4,18 G 25:5 26:19 27:1 46:13 34:18 35:8,16 K G 3:1 28:1 32:5,7,8,10 image 28:10 indicates 52:19 Kathie 2:7 gather 39:8 32:14,16,17,25 immediately 8:1 indicating 34:8 Kathy 3:7 57:5,6 general 11:19,25 33:1,5,12,18 15:21 39:15 indication 16:8 58:4 14:21 31:15 35:23,25 36:6 impact 1:7 6:13 indirection 42:13 Kelly 2:20

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

key 29:11 7:16 8:25 9:3,25 45:22 NEPA 39:3,11,18 operational 15:16 King 2:11 37:1 12:3,17 31:21 Michaelson 2:8 39:23 operations 15:13 know 8:15 57:21 33:20 35:5 36:11 Mid 48:13,16 new 14:17 15:9,12 opinion 11:11 Kok 2:6 37:14,19,21 middle 23:18 16:3,5 18:8 19:13 opinions 10:22 local 15:1 18:18 mile 20:10 51:4 19:20 20:2,6,9,13 11:14 L 19:9 28:20 38:17 miles 41:11 42:8 20:20 23:21 24:2 opportunity 7:16 lack 42:7 43:3 45:1 46:17,18 47:25 48:9 50:1 29:6 38:15 41:25 10:1,21 13:7 lag 8:24 51:6 50:15 58:13 42:2 43:22 44:12 35:13,18 43:5 land 2:2 17:11 located 10:5 13:11 minimization 56:2 44:15 45:18,21 53:18 21:18 22:16 41:16 14:13 16:6 minimize 46:24 49:20 50:4,4,10 option 7:4,5 23:4 41:20 44:6,24 location 10:13,22 55:24 51:3 53:7 56:18 29:14 33:23,24 45:5 46:22 54:1,3 14:21 16:11 19:11 minute 57:22 Nick 2:14 44:12 51:5,13,18 54:8,11,13 55:1 19:14 27:11 29:18 minutes 8:13 34:16 nine 18:16 45:10 51:21 55:13,14 56:18 45:24 35:12 37:6 57:21 noise 22:20,21 options 7:3,7 9:7 lane 49:4,6 58:5 locations 27:20 mobility 21:1 56:9 north 51:4 33:21 39:3 lanes 19:20,24 29:21 modestly 22:17 northbound 52:1 oral 9:9,20 12:19 48:18 long 47:25 50:2 modified 45:15 northeast 2:5,6,7,8 13:4 35:22 36:7 Lastly 16:17 long-range 14:20 moment 25:18 2:9 50:10 order 8:3,9 17:6 law 5:20 13:25 long-term 20:25 monitoring 4:14 northern 48:2 34:6,12 Lawrence 1:9 10:17 56:8 Monroe 48:7 50:13 Notary 1:19,21 ordered 33:7 14:15 38:10 48:4 longer 42:19 54:12 move 26:4,14 60:5,16 61:4,21 organization 8:19 48:17 50:3 54:3 54:19 movement 54:10 note 5:15 18:22 original 60:9 61:9 Lead 17:22 20:18 lot 16:23 24:1 58:15 MPH 41:11 23:18 origins 52:21 23:11 25:20 26:3 lower 54:14 multiple 54:9 noted 25:18,25 outcome 58:7 26:15 28:6,18,22 mute 57:14 61:11 outlined 27:19 30:4 38:25 39:13 M notes 60:10 61:10 overview 31:2,8 39:22 43:8,12,23 machine 60:10 61:9 N notice 1:18 11:21 owners 55:6 44:3,19 45:2,14 Main 23:19 41:14 N 3:1 14:3 32:25 38:25 45:18 46:8 47:18 major 28:9 44:22 name 4:2 5:11 7:23 39:23 P 51:1 52:6,13 56:6 management 18:9 8:17 24:22 34:3 number 1:13 5:12 P 3:1 Ledgeview 1:10 18:10 43:15,17 34:17 35:8 57:18 7:24 8:15 12:3 P.E 2:15 10:19 14:15 38:10 44:25 45:6 58:3 25:14 34:3 41:6 p.m 1:24,25 4:19 48:8 50:13 54:3 manager 2:19 4:9 names 5:16 41:13 42:15 51:8 10:4,4 13:9,10 left-turn 49:6 4:11 narrowed 47:1 55:7 37:17 length 54:25 manner 7:20 8:16 National 39:2 numbers 5:16 P.O 9:15 12:24 lesser 55:11 34:1 natural 21:20 55:17 25:12 36:2 let's 36:12 Maple 20:4,20 near 17:17 19:23 O Packerland 48:1,13 letter 9:13 12:23 47:17 49:24 50:7 23:18 44:8 objective 10:20 50:2,22 36:1 materials 6:8,24 nearby 46:21 objectives 18:16 packet 4:25 6:6,12 letters 25:5 32:12,12 nearly 53:16 45:6 9:13 12:23 25:5 level 23:24 24:4 Matthew 49:3 need 15:2 17:21 obtain 6:2,22 32:10 33:2,13 29:3 53:3 56:13 mean 16:3 18:3 24:10 26:24 occur 19:1 41:22 36:1 limit 35:11 41:12 means 16:4 26:25 28:3 38:12 occurs 4:19 40:13 page 6:19 23:19 54:18 57:20 measures 46:16 38:23 39:6,16 October 25:20 32:10 limited 8:13 31:20 median 30:11 49:11 41:1 44:5 48:18 Office 2:10,11 paper 4:22 34:16 41:5 42:15 50:19 48:23,25 49:21 official 5:25 6:17 Park 48:3 limited-access51:6 meet 45:3,12 52:11 50:24 52:11 54:15 11:21 12:11 32:8 parking 41:12 55:8 line 5:4 8:2 19:17 meeting 13:24 54:22 32:17 parks 22:18 31:5 20:1 34:5 Melissa 2:6 needed 17:6 26:13 officials 19:9 part 10:12,24 12:11 link 6:19 members 4:7 41:2 46:23 53:9 Okay 36:14,24 37:9 14:13 16:16 20:3 Lipke 2:5 4:9 merging/diverging 54:21 56:20 57:17 20:5 23:5,10 list 32:12 51:11 needs 21:1 35:2 Old 58:8 37:13 45:2 51:23 listen-only 5:4 Merit 61:6 39:4,25 44:1 56:9 on-street 41:12 53:8 58:17,22 listening 57:10,13 met 28:8 44:5,21 needs-based 28:8 once 35:15,17 participants 8:7 lists 26:23 metro 14:14 17:5 44:21 Open 5:19 33:22 34:10,24 little 53:17 metropolitan 38:24 neighborhoods opening 10:7 participating 4:8 Live 1:17 5:3 7:7,11 39:5 40:22 41:7 55:10 56:17 operate 24:4 53:3 5:8 13:15

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

parties 9:2 53:21 54:9 55:7 32:18 8:8,17 9:9,17 12:4 putting 58:12,19 passes 48:1 Policy 39:3 private 1:20 3:6 6:1 12:7,19 13:1,19 path 30:13 48:20 popped 37:1 7:5,10,12 8:5,8 19:3 20:24 24:16 Q 49:7 50:19 population 41:18 12:4,17 24:24 24:16 32:13 33:22 question 11:19 12:1 patient 8:10 34:13 42:14 33:23 34:9,11 34:1,11,17,23 12:6,8 patterns 38:19 pore 23:16 37:16 57:3 59:3 35:14,17,19,21 question-and-ans... 56:25 portion 17:4 39:4 privately 24:25 36:4,20 37:11 31:16 Paul 2:15 40:21 problems 46:20 48:9 53:23 56:7 questions 4:15 Pause 36:18,23 portions 6:23 proceed 8:20 10:7 57:8 10:24 11:4 12:5 37:8 post 54:18 11:18 34:19 provided 4:18 5:15 31:19 34:24 57:25 paused 15:14 39:11 posted 6:18 54:14 proceeding 5:22 9:24 11:7 12:16 queue 7:19 33:25 pedestrian 41:12 postmarked 9:20 proceedings 4:1 32:4,17 46:15 36:13,14,16,25 Peeters 3:7 57:5,6 13:4 25:9 32:18 5:25 60:8 61:7 49:7 37:4,11 57:11,16 58:1,3,4 36:7 proceeds 27:4 provides 16:8 24:8 pencil 4:22 potential 16:8 process 7:9 8:14 29:11 30:18 31:2 R people 1:13 4:15 21:16 29:15,23 14:8,24 15:14,17 43:5 52:20 56:13 ramp 52:2 8:15 55:3,9,18,24 56:2 16:16 17:24 19:8 56:15,15,24 ramps 48:23 Pere 10:6 13:12 potentially 19:23 24:7 27:3,23,23 providing 4:20 8:5 range 17:23 18:5 14:15 38:9 41:10 30:2 28:5,13,18 30:17 8:12,16 9:2 31:8 22:1 55:23 42:9 54:3 58:5 PP 50:9 30:20 39:11,23 34:9,15,25 57:23 rates 17:17 27:17 performance 56:16 practicable 29:1 43:9 47:12 public 1:5,17,19,21 27:20 42:22,24 period 25:18 26:3 prefer 5:2 Professional 60:6 2:14,16 3:3 4:6,17 reach 43:4 32:19 37:10 preferred 14:6 61:5 4:21,25 5:3,5,8,25 reached 37:9 person 8:11 34:14 17:24 20:17,21,24 project 1:12 2:19 6:1,3,6,11,11,16 read 7:18 12:6,13 persons 4:18 26:1 30:6 52:4,7 4:7,9,11,24,25 6:5 6:18,23 7:6,11,14 24:13,22 33:16 phases 39:16 52:10,15 56:7 6:7,10,14,17,20 7:15 8:6,8 9:8,10 ready 4:22 phone 4:14 5:12,16 58:10 6:21,24 7:17 10:2 9:12,18,24 10:3,9 reason 14:7 15:10 7:24 8:24 12:3 preliminary 15:15 11:18,24 12:7,23 10:20 11:9,11,21 reasons 18:20 30:7 25:14 34:3 57:4 44:3 13:17 14:6,9,11 12:4,10,11,16,20 52:15 57:24 prepare 39:1,24 14:13 15:2,21 12:22 13:3,8,16 receive 8:17 13:19 piers 49:21 prepared 13:21 16:1 17:1,6,21 13:18,23,24,25 34:16 place 15:16 25:3 40:7 24:9,10,11,13 14:8,25 18:18 received 8:3,10 60:8 61:8 preparing 12:10 25:24 26:18,20,23 19:9 24:7,15,18 9:21 13:5 25:9 placed 7:19 33:25 14:23 27:2 30:10,14,20 24:19 25:1 26:3 26:2 32:14,15,18 49:22 57:4 present 10:2,23 31:11 32:11,21 26:19 27:1,25 34:6,13 36:8 plan 14:19,20 38:14 13:8 31:25 35:13 33:9,10,11,14,15 28:19 31:20 32:5 receiving 35:5 46:18 54:20 35:18 56:1 35:2 36:1 38:1,5 32:7,8,10,14,16 receptors 22:20,21 Plank 58:8 presentation 6:13 39:6,14, 1540:6 32:17,22,25 33:5 recommended planned 17:3,11,13 9:3 11:19,24,25 40:15,17 41:1,2 33:18,19,23 34:9 14:21 15:19 39:19 18:25 21:2 40:20 12:9 13:13 14:5 43:13 44:1,5,23 34:11 35:6,22,25 reconstructed 41:16,17 45:25 26:21,25 27:25 45:4 52:11 57:9 36:6,11,15 37:5,7 30:12 48:19,23 54:2 56:10 29:10,14 30:4 project's 18:3 28:3 37:11,13,14,17,19 50:25 53:7 Planner 2:20 31:14 33:9 36:11 projected 27:11 37:21 38:21 39:7 record 6:1,17 7:18 planning 2:2 4:4 57:13 properties 22:7,9 39:8 54:5 56:22 9:10,19 11:12,22 9:14 11:6 25:12 presentations 32:6 55:9 60:5,16 61:4,21 12:12,16,20 13:3 27:12 45:5 33:3 property 22:4,6,8 published 1:18 14:3 14:1 24:14 25:22 plans 21:18 38:17 presented 6:8 22:1 55:6 32:25 39:23 25:23 26:7,9 27:5 41:21 42:1 45:1 23:15 31:18 35:4 proposal 10:23 11:2 purchased 22:6 27:7 31:17,22 59:1 presents 21:24 11:5 32:22 purpose 11:10 12:8 32:1,4,9,17 33:5 please 4:21 5:15 Preserve 48:3 proposed 6:10 13:18 15:1 17:1 33:16 35:23 36:6 6:24 7:20 8:2,4,10 preserved 58:10 10:14 16:9 49:19 17:20 18:3 24:10 38:3 40:3 8:17,22 12:15 prevalence 55:12 49:21 51:3,25 26:24,25 28:3 recorded 6:17 7:7 31:24 34:1,4,13 previous 18:4 58:7,19 39:5 40:15,17 13:25 24:20 35:7,11,15 57:18 previously 16:13 protected 23:8 44:5 51:7 52:11 recording 6:1,18 57:20,23 48:7 50:12 Protection 15:7 54:22 31:24 Point 58:4 Price 2:7 provide 4:16 6:5 purposes 55:22 Records 5:19 points 51:8 53:17 prior 11:2 24:15 7:4,6,10,12,15,20 pursuant 5:18 recreational 58:11

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

58:15 29:18 55:4 16:12 19:13 20:1 sections 5:20 26:14 45:20 48:9,14 red 19:16 20:4,20 resource 15:5 21:16 27:21 28:24 30:21 40:6 51:13 50:9,15 57:9 27:19 50:6 resources 21:4 30:11,15 48:16 see 18:2 36:12 58:13 reduce 17:14 21:5 22:18 31:3,9 49:11 50:19 54:21 43:19 south.bridge.con... 28:25 42:6 44:7 56:12 58:9 select 26:4,9 5:10 7:1,22 9:11 51:8 53:8 56:19 responders 42:17 roadways 23:14 selected 25:24 40:4 12:21 25:15 34:7 reduces 51:10 response 42:19 42:25 43:24 49:18 52:9 35:24 36:22 referred 14:22 result 16:18 23:23 Rockland 14:16 send 5:9 7:21 34:6 Southbridge 20:5 Refine 46:7 28:10 40:10 44:23 20:4,19 38:10 sending 8:4 9:12 20:20 50:6 51:24 Region 2:5,6,7,8,9 45:6 52:18 45:20 47:17 49:24 12:22 35:25 52:2 regional 45:1 resulted 28:14 50:8,9 54:4 Senior 2:19 southern 14:13,22 Register 14:4 resulting 51:17 route 28:8 43:22 sensitive 22:20,21 17:4 38:24 39:4 Registered 60:5 resume 31:17 44:12,15,21 45:16 46:25 54:11 40:21 41:6 61:5,5 resumed 15:17 45:19,20 46:3,3,5 sent 25:11,15 speak 24:21 regulatory 19:9 39:22 46:10,11,12,17,20 serve 26:11 speaker 9:4 Rehberg 2:20 26:16 retained 28:7,16 46:23,24 47:2,2 serves 33:10 speakers 57:14 relative 44:1 44:20 47:1,4,7,13 47:13,25 48:6,8 service 23:24 24:5 species 23:8 relatively 51:9 review 15:16 31:10 50:5,10,14 54:18 29:3 53:3 specific 6:23 22:3 relief 19:3 52:24 32:23 33:13 routes 18:22 28:4,7 services 2:2 42:17 30:15 40:9 56:13 reviewed 11:2,14 28:11 43:19,21,23 serving 4:4 21:2 specifically 52:1 relies 16:13 reviewing 26:2 44:16,18,20 45:3 54:15 56:10 speed 41:12 54:14 relocated 22:12,14 revised 39:23 45:11,15 46:2,7 session 11:20 12:1,9 54:18 relocating 22:11 right 26:11 37:3 46:10,16 47:1,3 31:16 staff 4:14 remain 49:6 58:2 47:14 shaded 29:25 standalone 44:11 remained 28:4,11 right-of-way 55:1 RPR 1:18,20 60:15 shared-use 30:13 start 13:13 46:2 river 14:18 17:9 61:20 48:20 49:7 50:19 state 1:19,21 15:5 remaining 18:15 19:21 20:2 23:20 Rudy 2:11 shorthand 60:10 35:7 57:18 60:1,6 44:14 46:10 57:22 27:15 29:7 38:15 run 26:16 61:10 60:16 61:1,6,21 remember 12:15 41:5,6,23,25 42:2 Runge 2:2 4:3 6:25 shortly 33:17,20 statement 1:7 6:13 34:21 35:21 42:7,16,18,24 9:13,16 11:6 show 27:13 29:2,18 7:17 10:8 13:21 reminder 33:21 43:3 44:8 48:5,9 12:24 25:11 36:2 31:2 14:24 16:21 17:20 reporter 7:8 9:5 48:16 49:3,4,8,20 Runge's 25:13 shown 21:14 28:1 18:3 24:9,13,19 11:23 12:18 14:1 50:7,14 56:24 rural 48:15 30:12 24:21,25 25:8 24:14,20,25 31:14 58:12,17 59:2 shows 19:11,14 33:11,12,15 38:1 31:22,23 33:17 RMR 1:18,20 60:15 S 26:20 28:10 29:23 39:1 60:6 61:5,6 61:20 S 60:5,14,15 30:24 31:6 statements 12:12,15 reporters 5:23 road 18:8 19:17,18 safe 53:20 side 53:18 statewide 27:18,21 represent 27:19 19:18,19,21 20:4 safer 21:11 53:23 sides 41:23 43:2 30:2 57:19 20:4,5,7,11,12,19 safety 17:17 21:1 sidewalk 30:13 stationery 25:6 representative 20:20,20 21:8,9,9 42:23 44:8 51:12 48:20 49:6 50:20 Statutes 5:21 48:14 50:17 23:4 45:21 47:16 53:14 56:9,16 signature 25:21 step 18:1,13,14,15 representing 5:13 47:17 48:6,7 49:9 scale 23:25 signed 14:2 18:19 19:5 28:1,4 8:19 34:18 35:9 49:25 50:6,7,8,9 schedule 30:18 similar 23:9 30:11 28:5,11,12,14 request 5:18 6:4,15 50:13 51:2,5,6,7 Scheuring 19:18,21 31:6 52:25 56:13 43:11,12,20 44:9 8:10 32:24 34:13 51:24 52:2 58:8 20:10,14 21:8,9 situation 58:25 44:13,18,19 45:2 requesting 12:3 58:13,20,21 47:15 58:21 six 19:23 45:10,14,16 46:2 require 22:6,8,12 Road-Heritage schools 22:22 31:5 slide 18:4 21:19 46:7,8,14 47:1,10 22:13 54:9,13,25 47:15 Scott 2:9 slides 6:13 steps 14:8 25:17 required 13:24 Road-Red 47:17 screen 28:2 43:11 slow 54:10 28:17 16:19,21 40:12 49:24 screened 28:7 social 45:7 stream 22:25 55:19 49:17 53:12 Road-Southbridge screening 27:23 socioeconomic 21:4 streams 22:24 requirements 5:19 45:21 28:4,5,8,13,18 21:20 29:15 54:24 street 38:16 41:14 requires 56:14 Road/County 20:14 43:9 44:21,23 56:12 streets 53:19 requiring 53:6 roads 18:7 20:4 45:4,12 47:11 solution 20:25 56:8 stricter 54:17 residences 29:21 43:19 44:10 46:21 second 7:5 28:5 south 1:8 10:15 stronger 53:22 54:6 41:14 51:7 37:1 13:16,20 18:24 strongly 56:22 residential 22:4,7,9 roadway 16:3,5,6 Section 17:19 20:10 26:12 30:19 studies 21:14 26:6

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

26:14 27:8 28:24 35:1,3,6,12,14,15 33:16 38:3 Valley 48:13,17 wide 16:4,7 17:23 38:17 39:12 35:17,19,20,22 transcript 4:1 6:3 Van 2:7 55:22 study 15:19 26:10 36:6,8,12,15,20 60:9 61:9 Vanderperren 1:23 widened 19:19,22 26:11 27:12,18 37:12,15,16,20 transcription 11:24 vehicle 52:18 56:14 49:1,10,18 28:23 38:7 39:18 57:3,8,15,18,20 31:15,16 vehicles 29:6,8 widening 51:24 39:19,25 41:19,22 57:23 59:3 transition 15:20 verbal 4:16 6:2 7:4 widest 58:17 42:1,10 47:4,8 thank 4:5 13:15 39:20 7:5,6,10,11,12,15 width 28:21,25 style 8:12 34:15 32:2 33:8 37:12 transportation 1:1 8:6,9,12 9:2,7,25 window 12:13 subject 5:18 Thanks 59:2 1:3,22 2:4 4:10 12:4,17,17 24:16 WIS 41:8 42:24 submit 25:6 things 4:22 22:22 10:11 15:24 17:2 24:18,24 25:3,7 Wisconsin 1:1,2,15 subsequent 28:24 58:16 18:9,10 38:12 31:21 33:19,23 1:19,21,22,23 40:6 third 28:12 39:4,25 40:2,19 34:12,15 35:6,11 4:10,13 5:19,20 substantially 55:5 three 8:13 19:4 43:15,16 44:24 35:18 36:11,15 9:15 10:11,19 suited 41:10 27:22 28:17 34:16 45:5,23 37:12,16,19 12:25 15:6 25:13 summarize 9:23 35:12 48:18 Transportation/B... version 33:10 36:3 58:5 60:1,7 summarizes 21:22 three-step 17:23 1:15 versus 58:20 60:12,16 61:1,6 summary 9:18 13:2 43:8 travel 17:12,14 vicinity 17:8 41:4 61:15,21 33:15 36:5 43:7 Tier 1:7 6:12 13:20 21:5 38:23 41:17 42:23,25 Wisconsin/Federal support 42:3 46:19 14:2 15:18,20,22 42:6,12,12,13,13 view 5:2 1:16 54:5,6,7 16:13,17,18,23 42:17 43:3 44:7,7 viewing 32:7 33:4 WisDOT 2:5,6,7,8 surrounding 55:14 17:19 19:5 23:11 45:24 52:17,18 viewpoints 11:12 2:9,10,11 6:19 56:18 25:8,21 26:6,7,8 53:24 56:15,15 Virtual 1:5,17 3:3,6 13:22 15:3,12 system 18:9 38:12 26:11,14,23 27:4 travelers 52:22 4:6,17,21 5:3,5,8 WisDOT's 26:10 38:16 43:15 27:5,7 28:23,24 tribes 19:9 28:19 6:16,18,23 7:14 wish 32:13 35:14 system's 45:23 30:16,19 39:20,24 trips 54:13,19 9:8 10:9,20 32:5,7 wishing 7:12,15 39:24 40:3,7,11 true 60:9 61:8 32:14 33:4,18 work 16:23 T 40:11 46:14 47:4 Trunk 10:18 37:5,7,13,17,21 worked 15:3 table 21:22 22:1 51:14 55:21 Trunks 10:16 57:3 59:3 working 28:22 31:1 take 7:23 8:1 31:20 time 7:13 8:14,23 try 57:21 volumes 7:25 23:12 47:19 34:2 17:14 21:6 31:19 TSM 43:15 44:11 27:11,13 29:3 Works 2:14,16 taken 1:17,20 60:8 31:20 35:20 37:13 turn 8:8,22 34:11 34:4 41:10 worsen 27:16 41:9 61:8 37:17 38:14 39:13 34:21,22 Wrightstown 42:9 taker 7:23,25 42:6 44:7 52:17 two 7:3 28:14 33:21 W write 4:22 25:5 takers 35:15 60:8 61:8 43:24 45:15 47:1 Wait 37:1 written 9:9,17,19 talk 21:19 timeline 26:22 47:3,12 51:9 waiting 8:11 34:14 12:19 13:2,3 talked 18:4 26:21 times 42:12,14,19 two-lane 19:19 Waldschmidt 2:10 24:17 25:2,7 27:1 TDM 43:17 44:10 51:20 53:16 two-way 49:6 waterskiing 58:16 35:21 36:5,6 team 4:7 12:7 35:2 timing 30:22 type 8:22 27:21 waterways 31:4 Wydeven 1:20 5:23 terminus 48:12 today 20:7 54:21 way 1:23 43:4 61:4,19,20 49:9 50:20,22 tomorrow 10:4 types 29:21 43:24 we'll 37:5 terms 22:4,10,24 13:9 We've 37:9 X 23:8 tonight 6:8 7:3 U weaving 51:11 X 3:1 10:18 19:18 testify 36:21 37:6 12:18 33:22 U.S 1:3 15:6 Webb 2:19 4:11 47:16 48:5 49:9 testimony 1:20 3:3 top 23:18 Uitenbroek 2:14 13:15 31:25 32:2 50:12 3:6 4:16,18 6:2,10 total 11:2 ultimately 44:9 website 4:24,25 6:5 7:4,5,6,10,11,13 totaling 49:14 45:10 6:7,15,20,22 11:8 Y 7:16,20 8:6,9,12 Town 1:9,10 10:17 understand 9:5 12:23 26:18 27:2 year 27:6,12 29:3 8:16,20,22,24 9:3 10:18 14:15,15,16 35:3 31:11 32:11,23 yellow 30:1 9:6,7,9,19,20,25 48:4,8 50:3,13 updates 46:18 33:14 36:1 YouTube 1:17 5:3 10:2,24 12:5,10 Towns 38:9 use 5:4 17:12 21:18 Welcome 4:2 6:19 7:7,11,16 12:17,18,19 13:3 traffic 15:13 19:2 41:16,21 44:6,24 west 38:8 41:23 8:25 9:3,25 12:2 13:5,8,25 24:16 23:10,12,24 24:2 45:5 54:1,3 48:13,16 49:3 12:17 31:21 33:20 24:17,17,18,24 27:9,11,13 29:2 uses 54:8,11,13 50:20 35:5 36:11 37:14 25:2,3 31:21 32:4 39:12 41:11 42:3 55:13,15 56:18 western 48:12 37:19,21 32:13,15 33:20,20 48:24 50:25 51:6 utilizes 16:23 wetlands 23:1 31:4 33:23 34:1,9,9,12 51:12 53:1 54:10 49:13 51:17 55:19 Z 34:15,20,23,25 transcribed 24:14 V whichever 4:19

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 7, 2020

0 29:7,13 30:2,5,8 5 45:12 49:14 53:16 30:16,19 31:8 5.5 47:24 1 40:7,11 44:18 5/6 45:19 46:5,12 1 1:7 6:12 13:20 45:14,16 46:2,3 500 16:3 14:2 15:18,20,22 46:11 47:2,17 500-foot 47:19 16:13,17,23 17:19 49:24 50:1,14,18 500-foot-wide 16:1 18:1,13 19:5,6,15 51:5,14,16,19,21 16:5 19:16 21:7,12,23 52:7,14,17,20 54115 58:5 22:5,13,17,19 53:8,17,23 54:2,5 54305-3600 9:16 23:1,2,7,11,13 54:6,16,25 55:3 12:25 25:13 36:3 24:1 25:8,21 26:7 55:13,18 56:1,6 6 26:8,23 27:4,5 56:21 28:23 29:5,12 2-16 23:17 6 18:22 22:14 45:13 30:1,9,25 39:20 2-4-22 61:21 50:1 39:24,24 40:3,11 2.5 50:15 6:00 1:24 43:11,20 44:13 2006 38:21 7 46:3,10,14 47:2,4 2008 14:23 16:25 47:15,23,24,25 38:24 7 45:13 48:8 49:13,15 2012 15:14 16:25 75 22:7 51:4 52:14,19 39:11 78 1:13 53:1,5,11,16,20 2015 27:10 7th 1:24 54:7,9,15 55:2,5 2018 27:10 8 55:11,20,21 56:4 2019 15:17 39:22 1.5 48:9 2020 1:24 9:22 13:6 8 45:13 49:14 10 22:12 42:8 45:13 14:3,4 25:10,20 8:00 1:25 4:19 10:4 10/30/20 60:16 32:20 36:9 60:12 13:10 37:17 100-year 49:16 61:15 9 51:19 2045 27:12 29:3,7 11 18:23 19:11 28:4 21 51:17 9 45:13 28:6 43:19,20,23 2130 58:4 91959483 5:6 44:16,19 45:13 23600 9:15 12:24 920 7:2 36:20 12 43:14 51:17 25:12 36:2 920)385-5851 5:6 125 16:7 24 51:16 920)448-6480 9:17 12th 14:2 25 22:9 41:11 51:16 13:1 25:14 36:4 15 43:12 25,000 29:8 920)492-7705 7:21 150 16:7 34:2 3 1500 10:5 13:11 944 1:23 15th 60:12 61:15 3 19:5 21:24 45:12 16 22:9,12 32:10 45:16 46:7 47:1 172 17:10,18 41:8 47:10 51:20 57:20 42:25 58:13 18 49:13 3:00 10:4 13:9 19.31 5:20 30 39:22 19.39 5:20 30-second 8:23 1968 14:19 38:13 31,000 29:5 1996 14:20 3rd 9:22 13:6 25:10 19th 14:4 25:19 32:20 36:9

2 4 2 16:18 18:14,15,20 4 22:14 45:12 49:15 19:7,15,25 20:3,6 41 19:23 20:9,13 20:8,15,19,23 44,000 23:23 21:5,10,11,17,24 448-6480 7:2 22:8,11,15,21,23 45 22:6 23:3,5,14 24:1 4556-02-00 1:12 25:25 26:6,11,14 5 27:7 28:11,24

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI 1 WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 2 BROWN COUNTY, WISCONSIN 3 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 4 FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION 5 ------6 IN-PERSON PUBLIC HEARING 7 for 8 TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 9 SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR 10 County EB/F in the Town of Lawrence and 11 County GV/X in the Town of Ledgeview 12 Brown County 13 Project ID: 4556-02-00 14 Number of People in Attendance: 41 15 ------16 Wisconsin Department of Transportation/Brown 17 County, Wisconsin/Federal Highway Administration 18 In-Person Public Hearing, taken upon published 19 notice before Carla Burns, RPR, a Notary Public in 20 and for the State of Wisconsin, and private testimony 21 taken by Carrie Bohrer, RPR, RMR, CRR, a Notary Public 22 in and for the State of Wisconsin, at the Brown County 23 Fairgrounds, 1500 Fort Howard Avenue, De Pere, 24 Wisconsin, on the 8th day of July, 2020, commencing 25 at 3:00 p.m. and ending at 8:00 p.m.

1 DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 CHAIRPERSON 2 Cole Runge Brown County Planning & Land Services Department 3

4 FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 5 Bryan Lipke - WisDOT Northeast Region 6 Kathie VanPrice - WisDOT Northeast Region 7 Jill Michaelson - WisDOT Northeast Region 8 Jay Waldschmidt - WisDOT Central Office 9

10 FROM BROWN COUNTY 11 Nick Uitenbroek - Brown County Public Works Department 12 Paul A. Fontecchio, P.E. - 13 Brown County Public Works Department

15 FROM JACOBS 16 Charlie Webb, Senior Project Manager 17 Carly Dutkiewicz 18 Max Walker

20 FROM SEH 21 Darren Fortney

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 I N D E X P A G E 2 IN-PERSON PUBLIC TESTIMONY 3 (None) 4 5 IN-PERSON PRIVATE TESTIMONY • BY ANN PATTESON 6 • BY JOHN MUELLER • BY CAROL MUELLER 7

8 EXHIBITS MARKED: 9 1) Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 10 for South Bridge Connector 11 2) Affidavit of Publication of a display ad in 12 The Press Times 13 ------14

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 PROJECT STATEMENT 2 (Transcribed into the record by Carla Burns.)

4 Project Background:

6 The study area generally comprises the area 7 between I-41 on the west to I-43 on the east, 8 within the City of De Pere and the Towns of 9 Rockland, Lawrence, and Ledgeview.

11 The need for transportation system improvements 12 was first identified in the 1968 Brown County 13 comprehensive plan. Since that time, the 14 concept of building a new Fox River bridge and 15 connecting street system was included in many 16 local community plans and studies as an 17 important component of future development 18 patterns.

20 In 2006, Brown County began early public 21 involvement and agency coordination to explore 22 the need for improved east-west travel in the 23 southern Green Bay metropolitan area. In 2008, 24 the Lead Agencies issued a Notice of Intent to 25 prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 in compliance with the National Environmental 2 Policy Act (NEPA) to explore options to address 3 transportation needs in the southern portion of 4 the Green Bay metropolitan area. The purpose of 5 and need for the project were developed, 6 alternatives were analyzed, and extensive public 7 involvement was conducted to gather public 8 input.

10 In 2012, the NEPA process was paused to conduct 11 additional traffic and engineering studies. 12 During this time, the Lead Agencies determined 13 that since full funding for the project would 14 not be immediately available, the project would 15 likely need to be implemented in phases as funds 16 became available. Therefore, to continue and 17 complete the study as a federally approved NEPA 18 action, FHWA recommended that the study 19 transition to a Tier 1 EIS.

21 On December 30, 2019, the Lead Agencies resumed 22 the NEPA process and published a revised Notice 23 of Intent to prepare a Tier 1 EIS. This Tier 1 24 EIS evaluates transportation needs in the study 25 area and analyzes broad corridors and conceptual

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 transportation improvements rather than detailed 2 alignments. If the Tier 1 Final EIS and Record 3 of Decision identifies a selected corridor for 4 improvements, then as funding becomes available 5 to construct sections of the project, subsequent 6 Tier 2 environmental documents will be prepared 7 to evaluate the design, cost, and impacts of 8 specific alignment alternatives. No 9 construction will directly result from the 10 completion of the Tier 1 EIS alone, since Tier 2 11 environmental document(s) will be required 12 before construction occurs.

14 Project Purpose:

16 The purpose of the project is to identify the 17 most appropriate improvements for addressing 18 existing east-west transportation demand and 19 demand that will be generated by the planned 20 development in the southern portion of the 21 Green Bay metropolitan area.

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 Project Need:

3 The project is needed to:

5 • Address congestion in the vicinity of the 6 existing Fox River bridges - The limited 7 number of Fox River crossings in the southern 8 Green Bay metropolitan area causes congestion 9 on the Claude Allouez and WIS 172 bridges that 10 is expected to worsen in the future. Downtown 11 De Pere is not suited to carry high volumes of 12 traffic because of the 25 miles per hour (MPH) 13 speed limit, on-street parking, pedestrian 14 crossings, and high number of businesses and 15 residences on Main Avenue/Reid Street.

17 • Accommodate existing and planned land use and 18 future travel demand generated by planned 19 development - Population and employment in 20 study area communities are forecast to 21 increase, and communities have adopted land 22 use plans to accommodate growth, designating 23 future development to occur in the study area 24 on both the east and west sides of the river. 25 While it is not a foregone conclusion that a

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 new Fox River crossing will be built, the 2 comprehensive plans of study area communities 3 include constructing a new Fox River bridge to 4 support and accommodate traffic from future 5 growth.

7 • Reduce travel time by improving east-west 8 connectivity - The lack of a river crossing 9 for more than 10 miles between downtown 10 De Pere and downtown Wrightstown hinders 11 east-west connectivity in the study area and 12 causes increased congestion on existing 13 bridges, travel times, travel distances, and 14 travel indirection. Congestion and travel 15 times will continue to increase as population 16 and employment grows. The limited number of 17 river crossings also affects emergency 18 services as responders have to travel farther 19 to get to destinations across the river and 20 can experience longer response times when the 21 bridges are congested.

23 • Address higher-than-average crash rates and 24 safety issues in the vicinity of the existing 25 Fox River bridges - The crash rates on the WIS

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 172 bridge and on roadways in the vicinity of 2 the Claude Allouez Bridge are higher than the 3 statewide average. In addition, due to the 4 lack of river crossings, drivers must travel 5 out of their way to reach destinations, which 6 provides the opportunity for more crashes.

8 Summary of Alternatives: 9 The Lead Agencies conducted a three-step 10 alternatives screening process.

12 Step 1 - Develop and screen alternatives. 13 In this step, the Lead Agencies identified 15 14 alternatives within the project boundaries: the 15 No Build Alternative, 12 build alternatives, the 16 Transportation System Management (TSM) 17 Alternative, and Transportation Demand 18 Management (TDM) Alternative. The build 19 alternatives consist of the Improve Existing 20 Roads Alternative and 11 alternative routes (see 21 exhibit below). During Step 1, the 11 22 alternative routes were analyzed as a collective 23 group (Build New Route) rather than 24 individually. For these 11 routes, the Lead 25 Agencies considered two types of roadways, a

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 freeway and an arterial, and evaluated them 2 relative to the project needs.

4 The Lead Agencies conducted a preliminary 5 evaluation based on how well the alternatives 6 met the project purpose and need (address 7 congestion, accommodate land use and future 8 travel demand, reduce travel time, and address 9 safety issues near Fox River bridges). This 10 step ultimately eliminated the Improve Existing 11 Roads Alternative, the TDM Alternative and the 12 TSM Alternative as standalone alternatives, and 13 the freeway option for the Build New Route 14 Alternative. Therefore, at the end of Step 1, 15 the alternatives remaining were the No Build 16 Alternative and the Build New Route Alternative 17 (composed of 11 arterial alternative routes).

19 Step 2 - Evaluate Alternative Routes. 20 In this step, the Lead Agencies assessed the 11 21 alternative routes retained based on how each 22 route met the needs-based screening criteria and 23 whether major environmental impacts could 24 result. The project screening criteria included 25 transportation considerations, land use and

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 growth management, environmental considerations, 2 and consistency with local and regional plans. 3 As part of this step, the Lead Agencies 4 determined that some routes did not meet the 5 project screening criteria; were inconsistent 6 with land use, planning, and transportation 7 management goals and objectives; or would result 8 in social, environmental, and economic impacts 9 that were too great.

11 This step ultimately eliminated nine of the 12 routes from further evaluation because they 13 would not meet the screening criteria: 3, 4, 5, 14 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. Based on considerations 15 that arose during Step 2 evaluation, the Lead 16 Agencies added two modified alternative routes 17 for consideration in Step 3. Alternative Route 2 18 was expanded to include an alternative without a 19 new I-41 interchange and the Lead Agencies also 20 added the Alternative Route 5/6 Hybrid to assess 21 whether an alternative route south of Rockland 22 Road-Southbridge Road with a new I-41 23 interchange could improve the metropolitan area 24 transportation system's ability to handle future 25 travel demand because of its location in an area

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 planned for development.

3 At the end of Step 2, four routes remained: 4 Alternative Route 1, Alternative Route 2 with 5 and without an interchange with I-41, and 6 Alternative Route 5/6 Hybrid.

8 Step 3 - Refine Alternative Routes. 9 In the final step, the Lead Agencies conducted 10 additional analysis to further evaluate the four 11 remaining routes (Alternative Route 1, 12 Alternative Route 2 with and without an 13 interchange with I-41, and Alternative Route 5/6 14 Hybrid) and identify corridors to be evaluated 15 in detail in this Tier 1 EIS. This step 16 provided a more detailed assessment of each of 17 the four routes based on the following measures: 18 • Is the route consistent with local and 19 county plan updates, and do local 20 governments support it? 21 • Does the route contribute to problems on 22 nearby existing roads and interchanges? 23 • What is the extent of land acquisition 24 needed for the route?

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 • Does the route minimize effects on 2 environmentally sensitive areas? 3 Step 3 narrowed the routes retained to two: 4 Alternative Route 1 and Alternative Route 2 with 5 an interchange with I-41. These two routes were 6 retained for detailed study in the Tier 1 Draft 7 EIS.

9 Corridor alternatives retained for detailed 10 study:

12 Following Step 3 of the alternative 13 identification, screening, and evaluation 14 process, the No Build Alternative and two build 15 route alternatives were retained for detailed 16 evaluation in the EIS. These routes are 17 Corridor Alternative 1: Scheuring Road-Heritage 18 Road (County F-County X) and Corridor 19 Alternative 2: Rockland Road-Red Maple Road 20 with an I-41 interchange. The Lead Agencies 21 identified a working alignment within 500-foot 22 corridors for each alternative as a basis for 23 estimating the impacts.

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 Corridor Alternative 1: 2 Corridor Alternative 1 is approximately 5.5 3 miles long. Alternative Route 1 begins at 4 County EB (Packerland Drive) and passes through 5 the existing I-41 interchange at the northern 6 edge of Preserve Park. It continues along 7 County F in the Town of Lawrence, crosses the 8 Fox River, and continues along County X 9 (Heritage Road). The route ends at the 10 previously improved County GV (Monroe road) in 11 the Town of Ledgeview. Alternative Route 1 12 would provide a river crossing 1.5 miles south 13 of the Claude Allouez Bridge.

15 From its western terminus at County EB 16 (Packerland Drive) to west of Mid Valley Drive, 17 the representative cross-section of the South 18 Bridge Connector is a four-lane divided rural 19 roadway. West of the Fox River, between Mid 20 Valley Drive and Lawrence Drive, County F would 21 need additional capacity, likely three lanes in 22 each direction. If it is reconstructed, 23 features such as a sidewalk or shared-use path 24 would likely be added. In addition, the County 25 F intersections with the I-41 interchange ramps

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 would need to be reconstructed to accommodate 2 the increased traffic and the County F bridge 3 over I-41 would need to be widened.

5 Also, west of Fox River, between Matthew Drive 6 and the Fox River, one lane is expected to be 7 added in each direction, and the existing 8 two-way left-turn lane would remain. A sidewalk 9 or shared-use path would likely be provided. 10 East of the Fox River to County GV (the east 11 terminus) it follows County X, and the road 12 would likely be widened to be a four-lane 13 divided roadway with a median.

15 Corridor Alternative 1 could impact 18 wetlands, 16 totaling 5 to 8 acres of impacts. Corridor 17 Alternative 1 also has 4 crossings of the 18 100-year floodplain. The floodway and 19 floodplain crossings would be required where 20 existing roadways would be widened to 21 accommodate the proposed improvements. The one 22 exception is the Fox River, where a new bridge 23 is proposed, and bridge piers would need to be 24 placed in the floodway.

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 Corridor Alternative 2: Rockland Road-Red Maple 2 Road Arterial with I-41 Interchange 3 Corridor Alternative 2 is approximately 6 miles 4 long. It would begin at County EB (Packerland 5 Drive) in the Town of Lawrence and continue 6 along a new alignment to connect to a new 7 full-access interchange on I-41. The route 8 would continue east on Southbridge Road and Red 9 Maple Road, cross the Fox River, and continue 10 along Rockland Road. At the intersection of 11 Rockland Road and County PP (South Broadway), 12 the route would continue northeast along a new 13 alignment and end at the intersection of County 14 X and the previously improved County GV (Monroe 15 Road) in the Town of Ledgeview. Alternative 16 Route 2 would cross the Fox River 2.5 miles 17 south of the Claude Allouez Bridge.

19 The representative cross-section for Corridor 20 Alternative 2 is anticipated to be a four-lane 21 divided roadway with a median, shared-use path 22 or sidewalk, and ditches from its west terminus 23 at the intersection of County F and County EB 24 (Packerland Drive) to its east terminus at 25 County GV. In addition, the County F

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 interchange with I-41 may need to be 2 reconstructed to accommodate additional traffic. 3 The Lead Agencies are considering a 4 Collector-Distributor (C-D) road along I-41 5 between the proposed new I-41 interchange and 6 the existing County F interchange 1 mile north 7 as an option for Alternative 2. A C-D road is a 8 limited-access road carrying traffic from local 9 roads to freeways. The purpose of a C-D road is 10 to reduce the number of exit and entrance points 11 on the freeway between two relatively close 12 freeway interchanges. This reduces freeway 13 merging/diverging (weaving) intensity, thereby 14 improving traffic flow and safety. The decision 15 on cross sections, including the C-D option, 16 will be evaluated and finalized during Tier 2.

18 Corridor Alternative 2 could impact 24 to 25 19 wetlands resulting in 12 to 21 acres of impacts 20 depending on whether the C-D option is included. 21 Corridor Alternative 2 would cross the 100-year 22 floodplain 3 times. There would be an 23 additional 2 crossings with the C-D option. The 24 Ashwaubenon Creek floodway and floodplain 25 crossing would be impacted as part of the

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 widening of Southbridge Road. The floodplain 2 would also be impacted by the proposed 3 interchange (specifically, the northbound exit 4 ramp from I-41 to Southbridge Road).

6 Identification of a Preferred Corridor 7 Alternative: 8 The Lead Agencies have identified Corridor 9 Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative.

11 The No Build Alternative was not selected as the 12 preferred corridor alternative because it would 13 not meet the purpose and need for the project.

15 The Lead Agencies identified Corridor 16 Alternative 2 rather than Corridor Alternative 1 17 as their preferred for several reasons:

19 • Travel Time. Corridor Alternative 2 would 20 result in fewer vehicle hours of travel than 21 Corridor Alternative 1. This indicates that 22 Alternative 2 provides a more efficient 23 connection between origins and destinations 24 for travelers.

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 • Congestion. Congestion relief for both 2 alternatives is similar. Although Corridor 3 Alternative 1 would divert more traffic from 4 the Claude Allouez Bridge, the bridge would 5 operate at an acceptable level of service 6 under both alternatives. Corridor Alternative 7 1 would increase congestion at the County F 8 interchange with I-41, requiring it to be 9 reconstructed. The new I-41 interchange as 10 part of Corridor Alternative 2 would reduce 11 the additional capacity needed at the County F 12 interchange with I-41 compared to Corridor 13 Alternative 1; however, some improvements 14 would be required.

16 • Safety. Due to the development adjacent to it 17 and the existing access control, Corridor 18 Alternative 1 has nearly 5 times more access 19 points than Corridor Alternative 2 with little 20 opportunity to consolidate driveways or side 21 streets, which would make Corridor Alternative 22 1 a less safe corridor. With fewer access 23 points and the ability to implement stronger 24 access control, Corridor Alternative 2 has the 25 ability to provide safer travel.

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 • Land Use Compatibility. Corridor Alternative 2 2 is more compatible with existing and planned 3 land use. De Pere, Lawrence, Ledgeview, 4 Rockland, Ashwaubenon, Bellevue, and Hobart 5 all support Corridor Alternative 2, and public 6 support for Corridor Alternative 2 is stronger 7 than support for Corridor Alternative 1. The 8 land uses and development adjacent to 9 Alternative 1 require multiple access points 10 that slow the movement of traffic and 11 sensitive land uses that are inconsistent with 12 an arterial carrying longer and higher-speed 13 trips. These land uses would require that the 14 posted speed be lower on Corridor Alternative 15 1, thus not serving the need as well. 16 Corridor Alternative 2 allows communities to 17 implement stricter access control, post the 18 route at a speed limit appropriate for 19 carrying longer trips, and continue to plan 20 for adjacent development that is consistent 21 with the type of roadway needed to address the 22 purpose and need.

24 • Socioeconomic Impacts. Due to its greater 25 length, Corridor Alternative 2 could require

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 present in Corridor Alternative 2, the 2 avoidance and minimization potential are 3 greater than it is in the more developed area 4 of Corridor Alternative 1.

6 Corridor Alternative 2 is the Lead Agencies' 7 preferred alternative because it would provide 8 the best solution for addressing long-term 9 mobility needs and safety concerns while most 10 effectively serving existing and planned 11 development and balancing impacts to socioeconomic 12 and environmental resources. It provides a 13 similar level of relief to the Claude Allouez 14 Bridge, requires fewer vehicle hours of travel 15 (provides more direct travel), provides better 16 safety performance, would create less disruption 17 to neighborhoods, and is more consistent with 18 surrounding land uses. The new interchange with 19 I-41 would also reduce the additional capacity 20 needed at the I-41/County F interchange. 21 Further, Corridor Alternative 2 is more strongly 22 favored by the public and has been endorsed by 23 all of the adjacent communities because it 24 provides a river crossing in an area aligned 25 with the future growth patterns of the communities.

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 TRANSCRIPT OF IN-PERSON PUBLIC HEARING 2 MR. RUNGE: Okay. Welcome. My name 3 is Cole Runge. I'm the Interim Director of 4 Brown County Planning Commission. I will be 5 serving as the Hearing Chairperson. Thank you 6 for attending this In-Person Public Hearing. 7 We have many of the project team members 8 here today to assist you. Just look for the 9 people wearing the name tags throughout the 10 room. 11 This In-Person Public Hearing will end when 12 all the interested persons have provided 13 testimony or at 8:00 p.m., whichever occurs 14 first. 15 We have social distancing measures in place 16 that we would like you to follow. While waiting 17 to view the presentation, to provide public or 18 private testimony, to provide written testimony, 19 or while viewing displays, please maintain a 20 distance of at least 6 feet from others by 21 standing on the spots marked on the floor or 22 sitting in one of the available chairs. We have 23 also provided masks and hand sanitizers for your 24 use. 25 Before proceeding further, I would like to

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 introduce the court reporters, Carrie Bohrer and 2 Carla Burns, who will be taking down these 3 proceedings for the official In-Person Public 4 Hearing record and recording your public and 5 private verbal testimony. If you would like to 6 obtain a copy of the transcript of this 7 In-Person Public Hearing, you should contact 8 Carrie or Carla through the information we will 9 provide on the project website or provide them 10 with your contact information today. 11 If you do not have access to the project 12 website and would like to obtain a copy of 13 specific portions of this In-Person Public 14 Hearing, please provide one of the project team 15 members with your contact information and the 16 items desired while you are here today. 17 Two options are available today for you to 18 provide verbal testimony, a public option and a 19 private option. Both options will be accepted 20 at any time during the In-Person Public Hearing 21 which will run from 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., 22 following the Project Opening Statement. 23 For those wishing to provide private verbal 24 testimony, please follow the signs or ask for 25 directions to the room with the court reporter

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 taking private verbal testimony. Wait for an 2 opening, provide the court reporter with your 3 completed Registration Slip for Verbal 4 Testimony, which is included in the handout 5 packet or at a table near the room. Then state 6 your name and address and, if applicable, the 7 group, organization, or business you are 8 representing. Then give the court reporter your 9 testimony. Please limit your testimony. Please 10 limit your testimony to three minutes to allow 11 time for others to provide their testimony. 12 For those wishing to provide verbal public 13 testimony, please complete a Registration Slip 14 for Verbal Testimony. This is included in the 15 handout packet, as I mentioned a second ago, or 16 on the table next to the hearing room. Give it 17 to staff at the verbal testimony table at any 18 time. Your name will be called in the order 19 that the registration slips are received. When 20 you are called to the microphone to provide 21 testimony, please state your name, address, and, 22 if applicable, the group, organization, or 23 business you are representing. Please limit 24 your testimony to three minutes to allow time 25 for others to provide their testimony in public.

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 You can testify again as part of the public 2 verbal testimony after others wishing to testify 3 have done so. 4 In addition to the verbal testimony options, 5 you may provide written testimony at any time. 6 Written testimony may be provided via email at 7 [email protected] or by 8 sending a letter to Cole Runge, Interim Planning 9 Director/MPO Director, Brown County, PO Box 10 23600, Green Bay, Wisconsin 54305-3600. 11 Written testimony will be included in the 12 In-Person Public Hearing record if it is 13 postmarked no later than August 3rd, 2020. 14 Contact information is also provided on the 15 project website. You may also call me at 16 (920)448-6480, and I will provide a written 17 summary of your call for entry in the In-Person 18 Public Hearing record. 19 There is a project presentation running on a 20 continuous loop, so feel free to start watching 21 at any time since the presentation will be begin 22 again immediately after it ends. The 23 presentation will be paused while someone is 24 giving public verbal testimony. 25 I will now proceed to the opening statement.

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 This In-Person Public Hearing is being conducted 2 on behalf of Brown County, the Wisconsin 3 Department of Transportation, and the Federal 4 Highway Administration as part of the 5 comprehensive consideration of the location and 6 environmental aspects of the proposed 7 improvement of the South Bridge Connector 8 between County EB/F in the Town of Lawrence and 9 County Trunk Highway GV/X in the Town of 10 Ledgeview in Brown County, Wisconsin. 11 The objective of this In-Person Public 12 Hearing is to give you full opportunity to 13 express your opinions about the location and 14 environmental aspects of this proposal. You may 15 also present questions as part of your testimony 16 for Brown County's, Wisconsin Department of 17 Transportation's, and Federal Highway 18 Administration's consideration as the total 19 concept of the proposal is reviewed prior to 20 arriving at a decision. 21 If you have questions about any aspect of 22 this proposal, please have discussions with the 23 project team members here today or submit 24 questions by email or phone through the contact 25 information provided in the Public Hearing

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 Handout Packet and/or the project website. 2 I emphasize that this In-Person Public 3 Hearing has the basic purpose of getting the 4 most complete expression of public opinion and 5 your individual viewpoints on record so that 6 they can be considered along with all other 7 judgements and opinions to be reviewed by 8 Brown County, Wisconsin Department of 9 Transportation, and Federal Highway 10 Administration before further decisions are 11 made. 12 We will now proceed with the project 13 presentation. Following that, we will have the 14 official notice of public hearing and other 15 articles entered into the record. 16 If you have questions following the project 17 presentation, please have discussions with 18 project team members here today or submit 19 questions by email or phone through the contact 20 information provided in the Public Hearing 21 Handout Packet. Statements intended for the 22 record should be provided in writing using the 23 project website, via email or phone to 24 Cole Runge, me, at the contact listed on the 25 project website and the hearing handout or

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 through public verbal or private verbal 2 testimony to a court reporter. 3 Would you please start the presentation now. 4 (Presentation commences.)

6 PROJECT PRESENTATION

8 MR. WEBB: Thank you for participating 9 in the public hearing for the South Bridge 10 Connector project. 11 The purpose of this public hearing is to 12 provide information and receive comments on the 13 South Bridge Connector Tier 1 Draft Environmental 14 Impact Statement prepared by Brown County, 15 WisDOT, and the Federal Highway Administration. 16 A public hearing is a more formal event than 17 a public involvement meeting and is required by 18 law. All public testimony is recorded by a 19 court reporter and entered into the record. 20 The Tier 1 Draft EIS was signed on June 12th, 21 2020, and a notice of availability was published 22 in the Federal Register on June 19th, 2020. 23 This presentation will describe the 24 background of the project, the preferred 25 alternative and the reason it was identified,

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 the public hearing process, and next steps for 2 the project.

4 PROJECT BACKGROUND

6 The project is located in the southern part 7 of the Green Bay metro area in the City of 8 De Pere, Town of Lawrence, Town of Ledgeview, 9 and Town of Rockland. 10 The concept of a new bridge across the Fox 11 River was first envisioned in a Brown County 12 plan in 1968. 13 In 1996, Brown County's long-range plan 14 recommended the general location of what was 15 referred to as the Southern Bridge. 16 In 2008, Brown County began preparing an 17 Environmental Impact Statement. This process 18 involved extensive input from the public and 19 local governments to document the purpose of and 20 need for the project. 21 Brown County also worked closely with WisDOT 22 and the Federal Highway Administration as well 23 as state and federal resource agencies like the 24 Wisconsin DNR and the U.S. Environmental 25 Protection Agency.

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 Some of the alternatives that were developed 2 and analyzed included a new interchange with 3 I-41. For that reason, the Federal Highway 4 Administration asked that Brown County and 5 WisDOT analyze how a new interchange on I-41 6 could affect traffic operations on the freeway. 7 The EIS process was paused in 2012 while this 8 analysis, called a preliminary engineering and 9 operational review, took place. 10 The EIS process resumed in 2019 in the form 11 of a Tier 1 EIS. The Federal Highway 12 Administration recommended that the study 13 transition to a Tier 1 EIS since funding is not 14 immediately available for the entire project. 15 A Tier 1 EIS is a broad-scale document that 16 analyzes broad corridors and conceptual 17 transportation improvements rather than detailed 18 alignments. 19 For this project, a 500-foot-wide corridor 20 is evaluated for each alternative. That does 21 not mean that a new roadway would be 500 foot 22 wide; rather, it means somewhere in that 23 500-foot-wide corridor a new roadway would be 24 located. The roadway itself would be between 25 125 and 150 feet wide.

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 This provides an indication of potential 2 impacts that may be associated with the proposed 3 alternatives, but it is not a detailed analysis 4 of impacts because the exact location of the 5 roadway has not been determined yet. 6 A Tier 1 EIS generally relies on previously 7 developed information to assess impacts rather 8 than extensive data collection out in the field 9 as part of this process. 10 Lastly, a Tier 1 EIS does not directly 11 result in construction. A Tier 2 environmental 12 analysis is required. This could be the form of 13 an environmental assessment or an Environmental 14 Impact Statement required before construction 15 would begin. 16 This Tier 1 EIS utilizes a lot of the work 17 completed by Brown County during development of 18 the Draft EIS between 2008 and 2012. 19 The purpose of the project is to address 20 existing east-west transportation demand as well 21 as demand that will be generated by planned 22 development in the southern portion of the 23 Green Bay metro area. 24 The project is needed in order to address 25 four different issues:

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 • Addressing congestion in the vicinity of 2 the existing Fox River bridges, namely the 3 Claude Allouez Bridge and the Highway 172 bridge 4 • To accommodate existing and planned land 5 use and future travel demand generated by 6 planned development 7 • To reduce travel time by improving 8 east-west connectivity 9 • And to address higher-than-average crash 10 rates and safety issues near the Claude Allouez 11 Bridge and Highway 172 bridge. 12 Section one of the Tier 1 Environmental 13 Impact Statement documents the purpose of and 14 need for the project in more detail. 15 The Lead Agencies developed and analyzed a 16 wide range of alternatives. A three-step 17 process was used to identify the preferred 18 alternative. 19 In Step 1, the alternatives were developed 20 and then analyzed to see how they would address 21 the project's purpose and need statement that I 22 talked about in the previous slide. 23 The initial range of alternatives considered 24 were the No Build alternative; improving 25 existing roads, eleven different

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 corridors/routes for a new road; the 2 Transportation System Management alternative; 3 and the Transportation Demand Management 4 alternative. 5 Some of these alternatives were eliminated 6 from consideration in Step 1, and others were 7 carried forward to Step 2. 8 In Step 2, the remaining alternatives were 9 evaluated against nine objectives that Brown 10 County had developed in close coordination with 11 the public and local governments. Several 12 alternatives were dropped in this step. Chapter 13 2 of the EIS describes the reasons for dropping 14 alternatives in more detail. 15 I will note that Alternative Routes 6 16 through 11 were dropped from consideration 17 because they were determined to be too far south 18 of where existing and planned development is 19 expected to occur. They would not draw enough 20 traffic off of the Claude Allouez bridge to 21 provide effective congestion relief. 22 Three alternatives were carried forward into 23 Step 3 and evaluated in the Tier 1 EIS. The No 24 Build alternative, Corridor Alternative 1, and 25 Corridor Alternative 2.

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 All throughout this process, input from the 2 public, tribes, local officials, and regulatory 3 agencies were considered. 4 This exhibit shows the location of the 11 5 different corridors that were evaluated for a 6 new roadway. 7 This exhibit shows the location of Corridor 8 Alternative 1 and Corridor Alternative 2. 9 Corridor Alternative 1 is depicted by the red 10 line. It would follow Heritage Road and 11 Scheuring Road. Heritage Road, or County X, is 12 a two-lane road that would be widened to four 13 lanes. A new bridge would be built across the 14 Fox River, and Scheuring Road, or County F, 15 would be widened as well to four, and in an area 16 near Interstate 41 potentially even to six 17 lanes. 18 Corridor Alternative 2 is depicted by the 19 blue line. It would also be a four-lane roadway 20 with the new bridge across the Fox River. 21 Part of Corridor Alternative 2 would follow 22 existing roads, Rockland Road, Red Maple Road, 23 and Southbridge Road, and part of Corridor 24 Alternative 2 would be built on new alignment 25 where there is no road today.

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 Corridor Alternative 2 would involve 2 building a new interchange with Interstate 41 3 about a mile south of the County F, or Scheuring 4 Road, interchange. 5 A collector-distributor road may be built 6 along Interstate 41 between the new interchange 7 and the Scheuring Road/County F interchange 8 under Corridor Alternative 2.

10 Preferred Alternative 11 The Lead Agencies have identified Corridor 12 Alternative 2, which would follow Rockland Road, 13 Red Maple Road, and Southbridge Road, with a new 14 interchange with I-41, as the preferred 15 alternative. 16 Corridor Alternative 2 is identified as the 17 preferred alternative because it would provide 18 the best solution for addressing long-term 19 mobility needs and safety concerns while most 20 effectively serving existing and planned 21 development and balancing impacts to 22 socioeconomic and environmental resources. 23 Corridor Alternative 2 would reduce travel 24 time in the Green Bay area more than Corridor 25 Alternative 1 would. There would be less

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 congestion along Scheuring Road and Heritage 2 Road and especially at the Scheuring Road 3 interchange under Corridor Alternative 2. 4 Corridor Alternative 2 would be safer than 5 Corridor Alternative 1, mostly because it has 6 fewer driveways and crossroads connecting to it. 7 Several studies have shown that the more 8 driveways and other connections to a 9 roadway increases the potential for crashes. 10 Corridor Alternative 2 was deemed most 11 compatible with land use plans. On the next 12 slide I'll talk about the socioeconomic impacts 13 and natural environmental impacts of both 14 alternatives. 15 This table summarizes the impacts of 16 Corridor Alternative 1 and Corridor Alternative 17 2. Chapter 3 of the EIS presents this 18 information in more detail. Impacts in the EIS 19 and in this table are presented as a range. 20 That is because the EIS is evaluating corridors 21 rather than specific alignments. 22 In terms of residential property 23 acquisition, Corridor Alternative 1 would 24 require property be purchased from between 45 to 25 75 residential properties. Corridor Alternative

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 2 would require property acquisition from 2 between 16 and 25 residential properties. 3 In terms of actually displacing or 4 relocating homes, Corridor Alternative 2 would 5 require between 10 and 16 homes to be relocated, 6 whereas Corridor Alternative 1 would require 7 between 4 and 6 homes to be relocated. 8 Corridor Alternative 2 would have a higher 9 impact on agricultural land compared to Corridor 10 Alternative 1 but also will have modestly higher 11 impacts to cultural resources and parks. 12 Corridor Alternative 1 could affect more 13 sensitive noise receptors than Corridor 14 Alternative 2. Sensitive noise receptors are 15 things like homes, schools, and day cares. 16 Corridor Alternative 2 would also have a 17 higher impact on streams, in terms of more 18 stream crossings, as well as a higher impact on 19 wetlands than Corridor Alternative 1. 20 Corridor Alternative 1 would cross more 21 floodplain than Corridor Alternative 2, unless 22 the collector-distributor road option is 23 implemented as part of Corridor Alternative 2, 24 then it would cross five floodplains rather than 25 four under Corridor Alternative 1.

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 In terms of protected species, both 2 alternatives could have similar impact. 3 As part of the traffic analysis for the Tier 4 1 EIS, the Lead Agencies estimated the traffic 5 volumes that would be carried by Corridor 6 Alternative 1 and by Corridor Alternative 2 on 7 several area roadways. This exhibit is 8 presented in the EIS, and we'd like to pore over 9 it in more detail. It is Exhibit 2-16. 10 You will note near the top middle of the 11 page, at Main Avenue, and the Claude Allouez 12 Bridge, where it crosses the Fox River, under 13 the No Build alternative, which would be no new 14 bridge crossing, the Claude Allouez Bridge would 15 carry 44,000 cars per day, which would result in 16 a Level of Service E traffic conditions. Again, 17 on that scale of A to F. 18 Under Corridor Alternative 1 and 2, a lot of 19 that traffic would be diverted to the new 20 bridge, and the Claude Allouez Bridge would 21 accept -- operate at an acceptable Level of 22 Service B or C.

24 The Public Hearing Process. 25 The hearing handout provides a complete

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 project statement and additional details on: 2 Project background, purpose and need for the 3 project, alternatives, the impact of the 4 alternatives, and exhibits on display. 5 The Project Statement was read into the 6 record and transcribed by the court reporter 7 prior to the beginning of this public hearing. 8 To provide testimony, you may provide verbal 9 testimony or written testimony. If you choose 10 to make a public verbal testimony, you may make 11 a statement which will be heard by the public 12 and recorded by a court reporter. You may 13 choose to speak yourself or have your statement 14 read aloud. Your name and, if appropriate, your 15 affiliation will be announced. 16 For private verbal testimony, you may make a 17 statement privately to a court reporter rather 18 than heard by the public. 19 Written testimony may be used in addition to 20 or in place of verbal testimony. You may 21 complete the comment form at the end of the 22 hearing packet, write letters using your own 23 stationery, or submit via email. 24 Additional verbal and written comments on 25 the Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 will be accepted if received or postmarked by 2 August 3rd, 2020. 3 Comments can be sent to Cole Runge, at the 4 Brown County Planning Commission, P.O. Box 23600, 5 Green Bay, Wisconsin, 54305-3600. Cole Runge's 6 phone number is (920)448-6480, or emails may be 7 sent to [email protected].

9 Next Steps 10 As I noted a moment ago, the comment period 11 will end on August 3rd. 12 By October 2020, the Lead Agencies 13 anticipate signature of the Tier 1 Final EIS and 14 Record of Decision. 15 The Record of Decision will identify the 16 selected alternative for the project. Although 17 I noted that Corridor Alternative 2 has been 18 identified as the preferred alternative, only 19 after reviewing all the input received during 20 the public comment period will the Lead Agencies 21 actually select an alternative to move forward 22 with. 23 Tier 2 studies can begin following 24 completion of the Tier 1 Final EIS and Record of 25 Decision. And if the Tier 1 Final EIS and

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 Record of Decision select a corridor 2 alternative, WisDOT's I-41 study, which is going 3 on right now, could serve as the Tier 2 study 4 for the South Bridge Connector-related 5 improvements needed at I-41. 6 Other sections can move into Tier 2 studies 7 as the Lead Agencies identify funding. 8 (Presentation concludes.) 9 MR. RUNGE: This concludes the 10 presentation. We will now continue by entering 11 information into the record. I now ask 12 Charlie Webb to present the information for the 13 record. 14 MR. WEBB: Thank you, 15 Mr. Chairperson. I would like to enter several 16 articles into the record. In addition to the 17 testimony provided at this In-Person Public 18 Hearing, all exhibits, handouts, presentations 19 and displays for viewing during this In-Person 20 Public Hearing will be included in the official 21 public hearing record. Page 16 of the Public 22 Hearing Handout Packet provided today contains a 23 complete list of these materials. Other 24 materials you wish to provide, along with 25 written testimony received after the Virtual and

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 In-Person Public Hearing components, will be 2 added to the official Public Hearing record 3 provided they are received or postmarked prior 4 to the end of the environmental document 5 availability period which is August 3rd, 2020. 6 The environmental document for this project 7 proposal also has been made available to the 8 public and is available for public viewing today 9 and is available on the website for your review. 10 Mr. Chairman, I request that the published 11 public hearing notice, environmental document, 12 brochures, and the Hearing Handout Packet which 13 contains a description of all exhibits, 14 handouts, audio/visual presentations and 15 displays for viewing at this In-Person Public 16 Hearing be entered into the record as exhibits. 17 MR. RUNGE: It is so ordered. Thank 18 you, Charlie. 19 The project presentation given earlier 20 serves as the extended version of the Project 21 Statement. In addition, the detailed Project 22 Statement is included in the Hearing Handout 23 Packet provided today and is available for 24 review on the project website. A summary of the 25 Project Statement has also been transcribed into

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 the record by the court reporter before the 2 beginning of the In-Person Public Hearing. 3 As I mentioned before, two options are 4 available today for you to provide verbal 5 testimony. The first option is to provide 6 private verbal testimony. The second option is 7 to provide public verbal testimony to the public 8 hearing panel and anyone else interested in 9 listening. Both options will be recorded by a 10 court reporter. 11 In addition to the verbal testimony options, 12 you may provide written testimony at any time. 13 Written testimony may be provided by placing 14 your comment in the comment box provided here 15 today, via email to 16 [email protected], or by 17 sending a letter to Cole Runge at PO Box 23600, 18 Green Bay, Wisconsin 54305-3600. You may also 19 call me at (920)448-6480 and I will provide a 20 written summary of your call for entry into the 21 Public Hearing record. The contact information 22 is also included in the Public Hearing Handout 23 Packet. Additional testimony will be included 24 in the Public Hearing record if it is postmarked 25 no later than August 3rd, 2020.

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 This presentation that was just given will 2 restart shortly and run continuously on a loop 3 during the hearing. 4 You may now ask questions of project team 5 members to assist you in preparing your formal 6 testimony. You may also proceed to the verbal 7 testimony sign-in table if you wish to provide 8 verbal testimony or proceed to the tables 9 provided to prepare your own written testimony. 10 At the verbal testimony sign-in table, you 11 will fill out the Registration Slip for Verbal 12 Testimony form found in the Public Hearing 13 Handout Packet or at the verbal testimony 14 sign-in table. You will be asked if you wish to 15 provide private verbal testimony or 16 traditional-style public testimony. You will be 17 directed to the private verbal testimony room if 18 you wish to private verbal testimony, and take 19 your completed Registration Slip for Verbal 20 Testimony form along with you. You will also be 21 directed to the microphone if you wish to 22 provide traditional-style verbal testimony to 23 the in-person public hearing panel and others 24 interested in listening. Again, thank you for 25 participating in this In-Person Public Hearing.

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 You can discontinue transcribing, please, 2 and if you would please restart the 3 presentation, thank you very much. 4 (Presentation resumes and plays in a 5 continuous loop.) 6 MR. RUNGE: At 6:00 p.m. we will 7 discontinue public verbal testimony. We will 8 continue taking private verbal testimony until 9 8:00 p.m. 10 (Public verbal testimony concludes at 11 6:00 p.m.)

13 * * * * * * * * * *

15 PRIVATE TESTIMONY

17 • BY ANN PATTESON: Well, I'm 18 Ann Patteson, and I live at 2500 Old Plank Road, 19 De Pere, and I have three concerns regarding the 20 proposed southern bridge. The first is that the 21 economic impact of COVID-19 is yet to be 22 determined. It looks like part of our economy 23 has been dismantled and we don't know when 24 things are going to be turning around. We don't 25 know what the altered economy will look like, so

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 at this point we don't know whether the funds 2 that would be designated for the bridge are the 3 best use of those funds, that there might be 4 other areas of the economy where those funds 5 would be better used. 6 The second point also deals with 7 coronavirus, which is that many parts of the 8 workforce have been altered by the virus, and 9 traffic flows have been reduced. And employers 10 have accelerated switching their workforce from 11 in-person to remote working, and having less 12 commuters on the road will mean that there's 13 less of rush-hour traffic. Until we know 14 when -- rather, until we know what the final 15 impact is of COVID-19 on the workforce and 16 working remotely, I think that it's premature to 17 proceed with the bridge. 18 And the third reason -- or the third concern 19 that I have deals with the preferred designation 20 of the bridge on Rockland Road, as that would 21 require a bridge to cross over Old Plank Road, 22 which has a state designation as a Rustic Road. 23 And that designation is designed to provide 24 protection to Old Plank Road to preserve its 25 rustic nature. And having a large bridge

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 crossing over it is inconsistent with the 2 purpose of those laws that are designed to 3 provide protection. 4 That's it. Thank you.

6 PRIVATE TESTIMONY 7 • BY JOHN MUELLER: Well, we've been 8 living on Lost Dauphin Road since 19 -- 9 • BY CAROL MUELLER: '65. 10 • BY JOHN MUELLER: -- '65. And at 11 the time we moved out there, within a matter of 12 about ten years they widened out Lost Dauphin 13 Road, and I asked the fellow why it was being 14 made about 40 feet wide. He said, Well, there's 15 going to be a bridge put across off of Scheuring 16 Road to go across the Fox River to go to the 17 east side. Well, that's, what now, 55 years -- 18 oh, no, 40-some years ago. 19 • BY CAROL MUELLER: 45. 20 • BY JOHN MUELLER: 45 years ago. 21 And all these years I've been waiting for that 22 bridge to be built. I realized after 1996 when 23 they scuttled the bridge on Scheuring Road that 24 the next road down would probably be the bridge, 25 what's called now --

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 • BY CAROL MUELLER: Southbridge 2 Road. 3 • BY JOHN MUELLER: -- Southbridge 4 Road. It used to have a different -- what was 5 the name before that? 6 • BY CAROL MUELLER: Red Maple. 7 • BY JOHN MUELLER: Red Maple Road. 8 And there's a whole heck of a lot of property 9 out there. If the bridge went across the Fox 10 River and hooked up with GV, there's a whole lot 11 of territory there on both sides that could be 12 used for industrial -- industries, all sorts of 13 businesses that could open up along the highway, 14 on both sides of the river. And it would be a 15 clear path to go to I-43. And I think that's 16 what should be done. 17 There is a tremendous amount of tax revenue 18 for Bellevue, Ledgewood (sic), Town of De Pere, 19 the City of De Pere, Rock -- what is that -- 20 • BY CAROL MUELLER: Rockland. 21 • BY JOHN MUELLER: -- Rockland, and 22 the Town of Lawrence on the west side. There'd 23 be a tremendous amount of tax revenue that would 24 benefit all those townships and communities. 25 Also, it would provide an alternative route

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 than going through downtown De Pere to go from 2 west side industrial park to an east side 3 industrial park. And that could help those 4 businesses work together to provide all sorts of 5 product that could be sold in Wisconsin and the 6 United States. 7 So I think -- and I've been sitting here, 8 and you don't want to hear what I've said over 9 the years because it wasn't very polite at 10 times, but there's a -- just lost opportunity 11 all over the place. 12 And it would provide an alternate way to go 13 from 41 to 43 without going through De Pere, 14 without going over 172, which is a lot of times 15 really backed up. So that's it. 16 I would say I'm just interested in it 17 benefiting the townships and the City of De Pere 18 because it would generate a lot of revenue for 19 those entities, and that would keep the tax rate 20 down for everybody. And it would alleviate the 21 congestion in De Pere by the bridge. 22 (Private testimony concluded.)

24 * * * * * * * *

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 CHAIRPERSON: Well, thank you for 2 taking time to participate in this public 3 hearing. 4 Please remember additional written or oral 5 testimony you would like to become part of the 6 public hearing record should be emailed to 7 [email protected], by 8 sending the comment form or a letter to 9 Cole Runge at P.O. Box 23600, Green Bay, 10 Wisconsin, 54305-3600. You may also call me at 11 (920)448-6480 and I will provide a written 12 summary of your call for entry into the public 13 hearing record. Written testimony will be 14 accepted if it is postmarked and oral testimony 15 will be accepted if it is received no later than 16 August 3rd, 2020. 17 If you have questions or would like to 18 discuss aspects of the project, please contact 19 me by phone, email, or by mail. My contact 20 information is included in the Public Hearing 21 Handout Packet. 22 The Public Hearing is now formally 23 adjourned. 24 (In-Person Public Hearing concluded 25 at 8:00 p.m.)

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 STATE OF WISCONSIN ) 2 COUNTY OF BROWN )

5 I, CARRIE S. BOHRER, a Notary Public 6 and Registered Professional Reporter in and for the 7 State of Wisconsin, do hereby certify that the 8 foregoing proceedings were taken at said time and 9 place and is a true and accurate transcript of my 10 original machine shorthand notes.

13 Dated at Green Bay, Wisconsin This 20th day of July, 2020. 14

15 Carrie S. Bohrer 16 CARRIE S. BOHRER, RPR, RMR, CRR 17 Notary Public, State of Wisconsin My commission expires 10/30/20 18 (fc)

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

1 STATE OF WISCONSIN ) 2 COUNTY OF BROWN )

4 I, CARLA BURNS, a Notary Public and 5 Registered Professional Reporter in and for the 6 State of Wisconsin, do hereby certify that the 7 foregoing proceedings were taken at said time and 8 place and is a true and accurate transcript of my 9 original machine shorthand notes.

12 Dated at Green Bay, Wisconsin This 20th day of July, 2020. 13

14 Carla Burns 15 CARLA BURNS, RPR 16 Notary Public, State of Wisconsin My commission expires 6/12/2021 17 (fc)

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

A 30:23 33:15 35:3 9:19 10:5,12,15 available 5:14,16 broad 5:25 21:21 ability 11:24 19:23 36:11 39:4 41:12 13:9,15 19:2,6 6:4 23:22 24:17 31:16 19:25 41:20 42:7 21:23 31:1 32:3 31:14 43:7,8,9,23 broad-scale 31:15 accelerated47:10 Agencies' 22:6 33:16,19,23 34:5 44:4 Broadway 16:11 accept 39:21 agency 4:21 30:25 34:8,12,14,22 Avenue 1:23 39:11 brochures 43:12 acceptable 19:5 ago 25:15 41:10 37:14 39:2 40:3,4 Avenue/Reid 7:15 Brown 1:2,12,22 39:21 48:18,20 amount 49:17,23 average 9:3 2:2,10,11,13 4:12 accepted 24:19 41:1 agricultural 21:1 analysis 12:10 31:8 avoid 21:24 4:20 23:4 26:9 51:14,15 21:12 38:9 32:3,12 39:3 avoidance 22:2 27:2,10,16 28:8 access 19:17,18,22 aligned 22:24 analyze 31:5 29:14 30:11,13,16 B 19:24 20:9,17 alignment 6:8 13:21 analyzed 5:6 9:22 30:21 31:4 32:17 21:7 24:11 16:6,13 35:24 31:2 33:15,20 B 39:22 34:9 41:4 52:2 accommodate 7:17 alignments 6:2 analyzes 5:25 31:16 backed 50:15 53:2 7:22 8:4 10:7 31:18 37:21 and/or 28:1 background 4:4 Bryan 2:5 15:1,21 17:2 33:4 alleviate 50:20 Ann 3:5 46:17,18 29:24 30:4 40:2 build 9:15,15,18,23 accurate 52:9 53:8 Allouez 7:9 9:2 announced 40:15 balancing 22:11 10:13,15,16 13:14 acquisition 12:23 14:13 16:17 19:4 anticipate 41:13 36:21 13:14 18:11 33:24 37:23 38:1 22:13 33:3,10 anticipated 16:20 based 10:5,21 11:14 34:24 39:13 acres 15:16 17:19 34:20 39:11,14,20 applicable 25:6,22 12:17 building 4:14 36:2 Act 5:2 allow 25:10,24 appropriate 6:17 basic 28:3 built 8:1 35:13,24 action 5:18 allows 20:16 20:18 40:14 basis 13:22 36:5 48:22 ad 3:11 aloud 40:14 approved 5:17 Bay 4:23 5:4 6:21 Burns 1:19 4:2 24:2 added 11:16,20 altered 46:25 47:8 approximately 14:2 7:8 26:10 30:7 53:4,14,15 14:24 15:7 43:2 alternate 50:12 16:3 32:23 36:24 41:5 business 25:7,23 addition 9:3 14:24 alternative 9:15,17 area 4:6,6,23 5:4,25 44:18 51:9 52:13 businesses 7:14 16:25 26:4 40:19 9:18,20,20,22 6:21 7:8,20,23 8:2 53:12 49:13 50:4 42:16 43:21 44:11 10:11,11,12,14,16 8:11 11:23,25 began 4:20 30:16 C additional 5:11 10:16,17,19,21 21:6 22:3,24 30:7 beginning 40:7 44:2 12:10 14:21 17:2 11:16,17,18,20,21 32:23 35:15 36:24 begins 14:3 C 39:22 17:23 19:11 22:19 12:4,4,6,8,11,12 39:7 behalf 27:2 C-D 17:4,7,9,15,20 40:1,24 44:23 12:13 13:4,4,12 areas 13:2 47:4 Bellevue 20:4 49:18 17:23 51:4 13:14,17,19,22 arose 11:15 benefit 49:24 call 26:15,17 44:19 Additionally 21:21 14:1,2,3,11 15:15 arriving 27:20 benefiting 50:17 44:20 51:10,12 address 5:2 7:5 15:17 16:1,3,15 arterial 10:1,17 best 22:8 36:18 called 25:18,20 8:23 10:6,8 20:21 16:20 17:7,18,21 16:2 20:12 47:3 31:8 48:25 25:6,21 32:19,24 18:7,9,9,11,12,16 articles 28:15 42:16 better 22:15 47:5 capacity 14:21 33:9,20 18:16,19,21,22 Ashwaubenon blue 35:19 19:11 22:19 addressing 6:17 19:3,6,10,13,18 17:24 20:4 Bohrer 1:21 24:1 cares 38:15 22:8 33:1 36:18 19:19,21,24 20:1 asked 31:4 45:14 52:5,15,16 Carla 1:19 4:2 24:2 adjacent 19:16 20:8 20:5,6,7,9,14,16 48:13 boundaries 9:14 24:8 53:4,14,15 20:20 21:10 22:23 20:25 21:2,3,5,11 aspect 27:21 box 26:9 41:4 44:14 Carly 2:17 adjourned 51:23 21:13,18,20 22:1 aspects 27:6,14 44:17 51:9 CAROL 3:6 48:9 Administration 1:4 22:4,6,7,21 29:25 51:18 bridge 1:9 3:10 48:19 49:1,6,20 1:17 27:4 28:10 31:20 33:18,24 assess 11:20 32:7 4:14 8:3 9:1,2 Carrie 1:21 24:1,8 29:15 30:22 31:4 34:2,4,15,24,24 assessed 10:20 14:13,18 15:2,22 52:5,15,16 31:12 34:25 35:8,8,9,18 assessment 12:16 15:23 16:17 19:4 carried 34:7,22 Administration's 35:21,24 36:1,8 32:13 19:4 22:14 27:7 39:5 27:18 36:10,12,15,16,17 assist 23:8 45:5 29:9,13 30:10,15 carry 7:11 39:15 adopted 7:21 36:23,25 37:3,4,5 associated 32:2 33:3,3,11,11 carrying 17:8 20:12 affect 31:6 38:12 37:10,16,16,23,25 Attendance 1:14 34:20 35:13,20 20:19 Affidavit 3:11 38:4,6,8,10,12,14 attending 23:6 39:12,14,14,20,20 cars 39:15 affiliation 40:15 38:16,19,20,21,23 audio/visual 43:14 42:4 46:20 47:2 causes 7:8 8:12 agencies 4:24 5:12 38:25 39:6,6,13 August 26:13 41:2 47:17,20,21,25 Central 2:8 5:21 9:9,13,25 39:18 41:16,17,18 41:11 43:5 44:25 48:15,22,23,24 certify 52:7 53:6 10:4,20 11:3,16 41:21 42:2 49:25 51:16 49:9 50:21 Chairman 43:10 11:19 12:9 13:20 alternatives 5:6 6:8 availability 29:21 bridges 7:6,9 8:13 Chairperson 2:1 17:3 18:8,15 9:8,10,12,14,15 43:5 8:21,25 10:9 33:2 23:5 42:15 51:1

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

chairs 23:22 comprises 4:6 continue 5:16 8:15 court 24:1,25 25:2 depicted 35:9,18 change 21:9 concept 4:14 27:19 16:5,8,9,12 20:19 25:8 29:2,19 40:6 describe 29:23 Chapter 34:12 30:10 42:10 46:8 40:12,17 44:1,10 describes 34:13 37:17 conceptual 5:25 continues 14:6,8 COVID-19 46:21 description 43:13 character 21:10 31:16 continuous 26:20 47:15 design 6:7 Charlie 2:16 42:12 concern 47:18 46:5 crash 8:23,25 33:9 designated 47:2 43:18 concerns 22:9 continuously 45:2 crashes 9:6 37:9 designating 7:22 choose 40:9,13 36:19 46:19 contribute 12:21 create 22:16 designation 47:19 City 4:8 30:7 49:19 concluded 50:22 control 19:17,24 Creek 17:24 47:22,23 50:17 51:24 20:17 criteria 10:22,24 designed 47:23 48:2 Claude 7:9 9:2 concludes 42:8,9 coordination 4:21 11:5,13 desired 24:16 14:13 16:17 19:4 46:10 34:10 cross 16:9,16 17:15 destinations 8:19 22:13 33:3,10 conclusion 7:25 copy 24:6,12 17:21 38:20,24 9:5 18:23 34:20 39:11,14,20 conditions 39:16 coronavirus 47:7 47:21 detail 12:15 33:14 clear 49:15 conduct 5:10 corridor 6:3 13:9 cross-section 14:17 34:14 37:18 39:9 close 17:11 34:10 conducted 5:7 9:9 13:17,18 14:1,2 16:19 detailed 6:1 12:16 closely 30:21 10:4 12:9 27:1 15:15,16 16:1,3 crosses 14:7 39:12 13:6,9,15 31:17 Cole 2:2 23:3 26:8 congested 8:21 16:19 17:18,21 crossing 8:1,8 14:12 32:3 43:21 28:24 41:3,5 congestion 7:5,8 18:6,8,12,15,16 17:25 22:24 39:14 details 40:1 44:17 51:9 8:12,14 10:7 19:1 18:19,21 19:2,6 48:1 determined 5:12 collection 32:8 19:1,7 33:1 34:21 19:10,12,17,19,21 crossings 7:7,14 11:4 32:5 34:17 collective 9:22 37:1 50:21 19:22,24 20:1,5,6 8:17 9:4 15:17,19 46:22 collector-distribu... connect 16:6 20:7,14,16,25 17:23 21:20 38:18 Develop 9:12 17:4 36:5 38:22 connecting 4:15 21:2,4,11,13,17 crossroads 37:6 developed 5:5 22:3 commences 29:4 37:6 21:20,22,25 22:1 CRR 1:21 52:16 31:1 32:7 33:15 commencing 1:24 connection 18:23 22:4,6,21 31:19 cultural 38:11 33:19 34:10 comment 40:21 connections 37:8 31:23 34:24,25 development 4:17 41:10,20 44:14,14 connectivity 8:8,11 35:7,8,9,18,21,23 D 6:20 7:19,23 12:1 51:8 33:8 36:1,8,11,16,23 D 3:1 19:16 20:8,20 comments 29:12 Connector 1:9 3:10 36:24 37:3,4,5,10 Darren 2:21 21:7,12,25 22:11 40:24 41:3 14:18 27:7 29:10 37:16,16,23,25 data 32:8 32:17,22 33:6 commission 23:4 29:13 38:4,6,8,9,12,13 Dated 52:13 53:12 34:18 36:21 41:4 52:17 53:16 Connector-related 38:16,19,20,21,23 Dauphin 48:8,12 different 32:25 communities 7:20 42:4 38:25 39:5,6,18 day 1:24 38:15 33:25 35:5 49:4 7:21 8:2 20:16 consideration 11:17 41:17 42:1 39:15 52:13 53:12 direct 22:15 22:23,25 49:24 27:5,18 34:6,16 corridors 5:25 De 1:23 4:8 7:11 directed 45:17,21 community 4:16 considerations 12:14 13:22 31:16 8:10 20:3 30:8 direction 14:22 commuters 47:12 10:25 11:1,14 35:5 37:20 46:19 49:18,19 15:7 compared 19:12 considered 9:25 corridors/routes 50:1,13,17,21 directions 24:25 38:9 28:6 33:23 35:3 34:1 deals 47:6,19 directly 6:9 32:10 comparing 21:22 considering 17:3 cost 6:7 December 5:21 Director 23:3 26:9 Compatibility 20:1 considers 21:21 county 1:2,10,11,12 decision 6:3 17:14 Director/MPO 26:9 compatible 20:2 consist 9:19 1:17,22 2:2,10,11 27:20 41:14,15,25 discontinue 46:1,7 37:11 consistency 11:2 2:13 4:12,20 42:1 discuss 51:18 complete 5:17 consistent 12:18 12:19 13:18 14:4 decisions 28:10 discussions 27:22 25:13 28:4 39:25 20:20 22:17 14:7,8, 10,15,20 deemed 37:10 28:17 40:21 42:23 consolidate 19:20 14:24 15:2,10,11 demand 6:18,19 dismantled 46:23 completed 25:3 construct 6:5 16:4,11,13,14,23 7:18 9:17 10:8 displacements 21:4 32:17 45:19 constructing 8:3 16:23,25,25 17:6 11:25 32:20,21 displacing 38:3 completion 6:10 construction 6:9,12 19:7,11 23:4 26:9 33:5 34:3 display 3:11 40:4 41:24 32:11,14 27:2,8,9,10 28:8 dense 21:25 displays 23:19 compliance 5:1 contact 24:7,10,15 29:14 30:11,16,21 denser 21:6 42:19 43:15 component 4:17 26:14 27:24 28:19 31:4 32:17 34:10 density 21:6 disruption 21:14 components 43:1 28:24 44:21 51:18 35:11,14 36:3 Department 1:1,3 22:16 composed 10:17 51:19 41:4 52:2 53:2 1:16 2:2,4,11,13 distance 23:20 comprehensive contains 42:22 County's 27:16 27:3,16 28:8 distances 8:13 4:13 8:2 27:5 43:13 30:13 depending 17:20 distancing 23:15

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

ditches 16:22 41:13,24,25 exhibits 3:8 40:4 17:22,24 18:1 gather 5:7 divert 19:3 eleven 33:25 42:18 43:13,16 38:21 general 30:14 diverted 39:19 eliminated 10:10 existing 6:18 7:6,17 floodplains 38:24 generally 4:6 32:6 divided 14:18 15:13 11:11 34:5 8:12,24 9:19 floodway 15:18,24 generate 50:18 16:21 email 26:6 27:24 10:10 12:22 14:5 17:24 generated 6:19 7:18 DNR 30:24 28:19,23 40:23 15:7,20 17:6 floor 23:21 32:21 33:5 document 30:19 44:15 51:19 19:17 20:2 22:10 flow 17:14 getting 28:3 31:15 43:4,6,11 emailed 51:6 32:20 33:2,4,25 flows 47:9 give 25:8,16 27:12 document(s) 6:11 emails 41:6 34:18 35:22 36:20 follow 23:16 24:24 given 43:19 45:1 documents 6:6 emergency 8:17 exists 21:23 35:10,21 36:12 giving 26:24 33:13 emphasize 28:2 exit 17:10 18:3 following 12:17 go 48:16,16 49:15 downtown 7:10 8:9 employers 47:9 expanded 11:18 13:12 24:22 28:13 50:1,12 8:10 50:1 employment 7:19 expected 7:10 15:6 28:16 41:23 goals 11:7 Draft 1:8 3:9 13:6 8:16 34:19 follows 15:11 going 42:2 46:24 29:13,20 32:18 endorsed 22:22 experience 8:20 Fontecchio 2:12 48:15 50:1,13,14 40:25 ends 14:9 26:22 expires 52:17 53:16 foot 31:21 governments 12:20 draw 34:19 engineering 5:11 explore 4:21 5:2 forecast 7:20 30:19 34:11 Drive 14:4,16,16,20 31:8 express 27:13 foregoing 52:8 53:7 great 11:9 14:20 15:5 16:5 enter 42:15 expression 28:4 foregone 7:25 greater 20:24 21:19 16:24 entered 28:15 29:19 extended 43:20 form 31:10 32:12 22:3 drivers 9:4 43:16 extensive 5:6 30:18 40:21 45:12,20 Green 4:23 5:4 6:21 driveways 19:20 entering 42:10 32:8 51:8 7:8 26:10 30:7 37:6,8 entire 31:14 extent 12:23 formal 29:16 45:5 32:23 36:24 41:5 dropped 34:12,16 entities 50:19 formally 51:22 44:18 51:9 52:13 dropping 34:13 entrance 17:10 F Fort 1:23 53:12 due 9:3 19:16 20:24 entry 26:17 44:20 F 14:7,20,25 15:2 Fortney 2:21 group 9:23 25:7,22 21:11 51:12 16:23,25 17:6 forward 34:7,22 grows 8:16 Dutkiewicz 2:17 Environment 21:17 19:7,11 22:20 41:21 growth 7:22 8:5 environmental 1:8 35:14 36:3,7 found 45:12 11:1 22:25 E 3:9 4:25 5:1 6:6 39:17 four 12:3,10,17 GV 14:10 15:10 E 3:1,1 39:16 6:11 10:23 11:1,8 F-County 13:18 32:25 35:12,15 16:14,25 49:10 earlier 43:19 22:12 27:6,14 Fairgrounds 1:23 38:25 GV/X 1:11 27:9 early 4:20 29:13 30:17,24 far 34:17 four-lane 14:18 east 4:7 7:24 15:10 32:11,13,13 33:12 farther 8:18 15:12 16:20 35:19 H 15:10 16:8,24 36:22 37:13 40:25 favored 22:22 Fox 4:14 7:6,7 8:1,3 hand 23:23 48:17 50:2 43:4,6,11 fc 52:18 53:17 8:25 10:9 14:8,19 handle 11:24 east-west 4:22 6:18 environmentally features 14:23 21:8 15:5,6,10,22 16:9 handout 25:4,15 8:7,11 32:20 33:8 13:2 federal 1:4 27:3,17 16:16 30:10 33:2 28:1,21,25 39:25 EB 14:4,15 16:4,23 envisioned 30:11 28:9 29:15,22 35:14,20 39:12 42:22 43:12,22 EB/F 1:10 27:8 especially 37:2 30:22,23 31:3,11 48:16 49:9 44:22 45:13 51:21 economic 11:8 estimated 39:4 federally 5:17 free 26:20 handouts 42:18 46:21 estimating 13:23 feel 26:20 freeway 10:1,13 43:14 economy 46:22,25 evaluate 6:7 10:19 feet 23:20 31:25 17:11,12,12 31:6 hear 50:8 47:4 12:10 48:14 freeways 17:9 heard 40:11,18 edge 14:6 evaluated 10:1 fellow 48:13 full 5:13 27:12 hearing 1:6,18 23:1 effective 34:21 12:14 17:16 31:20 fewer 18:20 19:22 full-access 16:7 23:5,6,11 24:4,7 effectively 22:10 34:9,23 35:5 22:14 37:6 funding 5:13 6:4 24:14,20 25:16 36:20 evaluates 5:24 FHWA 5:18 31:13 42:7 26:12,18 27:1,12 effects 13:1 evaluating 37:20 field 32:8 funds 5:15 47:1,3,4 27:25 28:3,14,20 efficient 18:22 evaluation 10:5 fill 45:11 further 11:12 12:10 28:25 29:9,11,16 EIS 4:25 5:19,23,24 11:12,15 13:13,16 final 6:2 12:9 41:13 22:21 23:25 28:10 30:1 39:24,25 6:2,10 12:15 13:7 event 29:16 41:24,25 47:14 future 4:17 7:10,18 40:7,22 42:18,20 13:16 29:20 31:7 everybody 50:20 finalized 17:16 7:23 8:4 10:7 42:21,22 43:1,2 31:10,11,13,15 exact 32:4 first 4:12 23:14 11:24 22:25 33:5 43:11,12,16,22 32:6,10,16,18 exception 15:22 30:11 44:5 46:20 44:2,8,21,22,24 34:13,23 37:17,18 exhibit 9:21 35:4,7 five 38:24 G 45:3,12,23,25 37:20 39:4,8 39:7,9 floodplain 15:18,19 G 3:1 51:3,6,13,20,22

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

51:24 11:8 13:23 15:16 35:1 41:19 lane 15:6,8 46:5 heck 49:8 17:19 20:24 21:8 intended 28:21 lanes 14:21 35:13 lost 48:8,12 50:10 help 50:3 21:17,19,24 22:11 intensity 17:13 35:17 lot 32:16 39:18 49:8 Heritage 14:9 35:10 32:2,4,7 36:21 Intent 4:24 5:23 large 47:25 49:10 50:14,18 35:11 37:1 37:12,13,15,18 interchange 11:19 Lastly 32:10 lower 20:14 high 7:11,14 38:11 11:23 12:5,13 law 29:18 higher 9:2 38:8,10 implement 19:23 13:5,20 14:5,25 Lawrence 1:10 4:9 M 38:17,18 20:17 16:2,7 17:1,5,6 14:7,20 16:5 20:3 machine 52:10 53:9 higher-speed 20:12 implemented 5:15 18:3 19:8,9,12 27:8 30:8 49:22 mail 51:19 higher-than-aver... 38:23 22:18,20 31:2,5 laws 48:2 Main 7:15 39:11 8:23 33:9 important 4:17 36:2,4,6,7,14 37:3 Lead 4:24 5:12,21 maintain 23:19 highway 1:4,17 improve 9:19 10:10 interchanges 12:22 9:9,13,24 10:4,20 major 10:23 27:4,9,17 28:9 11:23 17:12 11:3,15,19 12:9 management 9:16 29:15 30:22 31:3 improved 4:22 interested 23:12 13:20 17:3 18:8 9:18 11:1,7 34:2,3 31:11 33:3,11 14:10 16:14 44:8 45:24 50:16 18:15 22:6 33:15 Manager 2:16 49:13 improvement 27:7 Interim 23:3 26:8 36:11 39:4 41:12 Maple 13:19 16:1,9 hinders 8:10 improvements 4:11 intersection 16:10 41:20 42:7 35:22 36:13 49:6 Hobart 20:4 6:1,4,17 15:21 16:13,23 Ledgeview 1:11 4:9 49:7 homes 38:4,5,7,15 19:13 31:17 42:5 intersections 14:25 14:11 16:15 20:3 marked 3:8 23:21 hooked 49:10 improving 8:7 Interstate 35:16 27:10 30:8 masks 23:23 hour 7:12 17:14 33:7,24 36:2,6 Ledgewood 49:18 materials 42:23,24 hours 18:20 22:14 in-person 1:6,18 introduce 21:14 left-turn 15:8 matter 48:11 Howard 1:23 3:2,5 23:1,6,11 24:1 length 20:25 Matthew 15:5 Hybrid 11:20 12:6 24:3,7,13,20 involve 36:1 lesser 21:11 Max 2:18 12:14 26:12,17 27:1,11 involved 30:18 letter 26:8 44:17 mean 31:21 47:12 28:2 42:17,19 involvement 4:21 51:8 means 31:22 I 43:1,15 44:2 5:7 29:17 letters 40:22 measures 12:17 I-41 4:7 11:19,22 45:23,25 47:11 issued 4:24 level 19:5 22:13 23:15 12:5,13 13:5,20 51:24 issues 8:24 10:9 39:16,21 median 15:13 16:21 14:5,25 15:3 16:2 include 8:3 11:18 32:25 33:10 limit 7:13 20:18 meet 11:4,13 18:13 16:7 17:1,4,5 18:4 included 4:15 10:24 items 24:16 25:9,10,23 meeting 29:17 19:8,9,12 22:19 17:20 25:4,14 limited 7:6 8:16 members 23:7 31:3,5 36:14 42:2 26:11 31:2 42:20 J limited-access17:8 24:15 27:23 28:18 42:5 43:22 44:22,23 JACOBS 2:15 line 35:10,19 45:5 I-41/County 22:20 51:20 Jay 2:8 Lipke 2:5 mentioned 25:15 I-43 4:7 49:15 including 17:15 Jill 2:7 list 42:23 44:3 ID 1:13 inconsistent 11:5 JOHN 3:6 48:7,10 listed 28:24 merging/diverging identification 13:13 20:11 48:1 48:20 49:3,7,21 listening 44:9 45:24 17:13 18:6 increase 7:21 8:15 judgements 28:7 little 19:19 met 10:6,22 identified 4:12 9:13 19:7 July 1:24 52:13 live 46:18 metro 30:7 32:23 13:21 18:8,15 increased 8:12 15:2 53:12 living 48:8 metropolitan 4:23 29:25 36:11,16 increases 37:9 June 29:20,22 local 4:16 11:2 5:4 6:21 7:8 41:18 indicates 18:21 12:18,19 17:8 11:23 identifies 6:3 indication 32:1 K 30:19 34:11 35:2 Michaelson 2:7 identify 6:16 12:14 indirection 8:14 Kathie 2:6 located 30:6 31:24 microphone 25:20 33:17 41:15 42:7 individual 28:5 keep 50:19 location 11:25 27:5 45:21 immediately 5:14 individually 9:24 know 46:23,25 47:1 27:13 30:14 32:4 Mid 14:16,19 26:22 31:14 industrial 49:12 47:13,14 35:4,7 middle 39:10 impact 1:8 3:9 4:25 50:2,3 long 14:3 16:4 mile 17:6 36:3 15:15 17:18 21:5 industries 49:12 L long-range 30:13 miles 7:12 8:9 14:3 29:14 30:17 32:14 information 24:8 lack 8:8 9:4 long-term 22:8 14:12 16:3,16 33:13 38:9,17,18 24:10,15 26:14 land 2:2 7:17,21 36:18 minimization 22:2 39:2 40:3,25 27:25 28:20 29:12 10:7,25 11:6 longer 8:20 20:12 minimize 13:1 46:21 47:15 32:7 37:18 42:11 12:23 20:1,3,8,11 20:19 21:24 impacted 17:25 42:12 44:21 51:20 20:13 21:1,13,14 look 23:8 46:25 minutes 25:10,24 18:2 initial 33:23 22:18 33:4 37:11 looks 46:22 mobility 22:9 36:19 impacts 6:7 10:23 input 5:8 30:18 38:9 loop 26:20 45:2 modestly 38:10

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

modified 11:16 Notary 1:19,21 24:21,21 46:6,9 22:10 32:21 33:4 presents 37:17 moment 41:10 52:5,17 53:4,16 46:11 51:25 33:6 34:18 36:20 preserve 14:6 47:24 Monroe 14:10 note 34:15 39:10 P.O 41:4 51:9 planning 2:2 11:6 Press 3:12 16:14 noted 41:10,17 Packerland 14:4,16 23:4 26:8 41:4 prevalence 21:12 move 41:21 42:6 notes 52:10 53:9 16:4,24 plans 4:16 7:22 8:2 previous 33:22 moved 48:11 notice 1:19 4:24 packet 25:5,15 28:1 11:2 37:11 previously 14:10 movement 20:10 5:22 28:14 29:21 28:21 40:22 42:22 plays 46:4 16:14 32:6 MPH 7:12 43:11 43:12,23 44:23 please 23:19 24:14 Price 2:6 MUELLER 3:6,6 number 1:14 7:7,14 45:13 51:21 24:24 25:9,9,13 prior 27:19 40:7 48:7,9,10,19,20 8:16 17:10 21:7 page 39:11 42:21 25:21,23 27:22 43:3 49:1,3,6,7,20,21 41:6 panel 44:8 45:23 28:17 29:3 46:1,2 private 1:20 3:5 multiple 20:9 park 14:6 50:2,3 51:4,18 23:18 24:5,19,23 O parking 7:13 21:8 PO 26:9 44:17 25:1 29:1 40:16 N objective 27:11 parks 38:11 point 47:1,6 44:6 45:15,17,18 N 3:1 objectives 11:7 34:9 part 11:3 17:25 points 17:10 19:19 46:8,15 48:6 name 23:2,9 25:6 obtain 24:6,12 19:10 26:1 27:4 19:23 20:9 21:7 50:22 25:18,21 40:14 occur 7:23 34:19 27:15 30:6 32:9 Policy 5:2 privately 40:17 49:5 occurs 6:12 23:13 35:21,23 38:23 polite 50:9 probably 48:24 narrowed 13:3 October 41:12 39:3 46:22 51:5 population 7:19 problems 12:21 National 5:1 Office 2:8 participate 51:2 8:15 proceed 26:25 natural 21:17 37:13 official 24:3 28:14 participating 29:8 pore 39:8 28:12 45:6,8 nature 47:25 42:20 43:2 45:25 portion 5:3 6:20 47:17 near 10:9 25:5 officials 35:2 parts 47:7 32:22 proceeding 23:25 33:10 35:16 39:10 oh 48:18 passes 14:4 portions 24:13 proceedings 24:3 nearby 12:22 Okay 23:2 path 14:23 15:9 post 20:17 52:8 53:7 nearly 19:18 Old 46:18 47:21,24 16:21 49:15 posted 20:14 process 5:10,22 need 4:11,22 5:5,15 on-street 7:13 patterns 4:18 22:25 postmarked 26:13 9:10 13:14 30:1 7:1 10:6 14:21 open 49:13 Patteson 3:5 46:17 41:1 43:3 44:24 30:17 31:7,10 15:1,3,23 17:1 opening 24:22 25:2 46:18 51:14 32:9 33:17 35:1 18:13 20:15,22 26:25 Paul 2:12 potential 21:3,9,18 39:24 30:20 33:14,21 operate 19:5 39:21 paused 5:10 26:23 21:24 22:2 32:1 product 50:5 40:2 operational 31:9 31:7 37:9 Professional 52:6 needed 7:3 12:24 operations 31:6 pedestrian 7:13 potentially 35:16 53:5 19:11 20:21 22:20 opinion 28:4 people 1:14 23:9 PP 16:11 project 1:13 2:16 32:24 42:5 opinions 27:13 28:7 Pere 1:23 4:8 7:11 preferred 18:6,9,12 4:1,4 5:5,13,14 needs 5:3,24 10:2 opportunity 9:6 8:10 20:3 30:8 18:17 22:7 29:24 6:5,14,16 7:1,3 22:9 36:19 19:20 27:12 50:10 46:19 49:18,19 33:17 36:10,14,17 9:14 10:2,6,24 needs-based 10:22 option 10:13 17:7 50:1,13,17,21 41:18 47:19 11:5 18:13 23:7 neighborhoods 17:15,20,23 24:18 performance 22:16 preliminary 10:4 24:9,11,14,22 21:10 22:17 24:19 38:22 44:5 period 41:10,20 31:8 26:15,19 27:23 NEPA 5:2,10,17,22 44:6 43:5 premature 47:16 28:1,12,16,18, 23 new 4:14 8:1,3 9:23 options 5:2 24:17 persons 23:12 prepare 4:25 5:23 28:25 29:6,10,24 10:13,16 11:19,22 24:19 26:4 44:3,9 phases 5:15 45:9 30:2,4,6,20 31:14 15:22 16:6,6,12 44:11 phone 27:24 28:19 prepared 6:6 29:14 31:19 32:19,24 17:5 19:9 22:18 oral 51:4,14 28:23 41:6 51:19 preparing 30:16 33:14 40:1,2,3,5 30:10 31:2,5,21 order 25:18 32:24 piers 15:23 45:5 41:16 43:6,19,20 31:23 34:1 35:6 ordered 43:17 place 23:15 31:9 present 22:1 27:15 43:21,24,25 45:4 35:13,20,24 36:2 organization 25:7 40:20 50:11 52:9 42:12 51:18 36:6,13 39:13,19 25:22 53:8 presentation 23:17 project's 33:21 Nick 2:11 original 52:10 53:9 placed 15:24 26:19,21,23 28:13 properties 21:9 nine 11:11 34:9 origins 18:23 placing 44:13 28:17 29:3,4,6,23 37:25 38:2 noise 38:13,14 owners 21:6 plan 4:13 12:19 42:8,10 43:19 property 21:6 north 17:6 20:19 30:12,13 45:1 46:3,4 37:22,24 38:1 northbound 18:3 P Plank 46:18 47:21 presentations 42:18 49:8 northeast 2:5,6,7 P 3:1 47:24 43:14 proposal 27:14,19 16:12 P.E 2:12 planned 6:19 7:17 presented 37:19 27:22 43:7 northern 14:5 p.m 1:25,25 23:13 7:18 12:1 20:2 39:8 proposed 15:21,23

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

17:5 18:2 27:6 Q relative 10:2 right-of-way 21:1 12:11,17 13:3,5 32:2 46:20 questions 27:15,21 relatively 17:11 river 4:14 7:6,7,24 13:16 34:15 protected 39:1 27:24 28:16,19 relief 19:1 22:13 8:1,3,8,17,19,25 RPR 1:19,21 52:16 protection 30:25 45:4 51:17 34:21 9:4 10:9 14:8,12 53:15 47:24 48:3 relies 32:6 14:19 15:5,6,10 run 24:21 45:2 provide 14:12 R relocated 38:5,7 15:22 16:9,16 Runge 2:2 23:2,3 19:25 22:7 23:17 ramp 18:4 relocating 38:4 22:24 30:11 33:2 26:8 28:24 41:3 23:18 24:9,9,14 ramps 14:25 remain 15:8 35:14,20 39:12 42:9 43:17 44:17 24:18,23 25:2,11 range 21:23 33:16 remained 12:3 48:16 49:10,14 46:6 51:9 25:12,20,25 26:5 33:23 37:19 remaining 10:15 RMR 1:21 52:16 Runge's 41:5 26:16 29:12 34:21 rate 50:19 12:11 34:8 road 11:22 13:18 running 26:19 36:17 40:8,8 rates 8:23,25 33:10 remember 51:4 13:19 14:9,10 rural 14:18 42:24 44:4,5,7,12 reach 9:5 remote 47:11 15:11 16:2,8,9,10 rush-hour 47:13 44:19 45:7,15,22 read 40:5,14 remotely 47:16 16:11,15 17:4,7,8 rustic 47:22,25 47:23 48:3 49:25 realized 48:22 reporter 24:25 25:2 17:9 18:1,4 34:1 S 50:4,12 51:11 really 50:15 25:8 29:2,19 40:6 35:10,11,11,12,14 provided 12:16 reason 29:25 31:3 40:12,17 44:1,10 35:22,22,23,25 S 52:5,15,16 15:9 23:12,23 47:18 52:6 53:5 36:4,5,12,13,13 safe 19:22 26:6,14 27:25 reasons 18:17 34:13 reporters 24:1 37:1,2,2 38:22 safer 19:25 37:4 28:20,22 42:17,22 receive 29:12 representative 46:18 47:12,20,21 safety 8:24 10:9 43:3,23 44:13,14 received 25:19 41:1 14:17 16:19 47:22,24 48:8,13 17:14 19:16 22:9 45:9 41:19 42:25 43:3 representing 25:8 48:16,23,24 49:2 22:16 33:10 36:19 provides 9:6 18:22 51:15 25:23 49:4,7 sanitizers 23:23 22:12,15,15,24 receptors 38:13,14 request 43:10 Road-Heritage scale 39:17 32:1 39:25 recommended 5:18 require 20:9,13,25 13:17 Scheuring 13:17 public 1:6,18,19,21 30:14 31:12 37:24 38:1,5,6 Road-Red 13:19 35:11,14 36:3,7 2:11,13 3:2 4:20 reconstructed 47:21 16:1 37:1,2 48:15,23 5:6,7 20:5 22:22 14:22 15:1 17:2 required 6:11 15:19 Road-Southbridge schools 38:15 23:1,6,11,17 24:3 19:9 19:14 29:17 32:12 11:22 screen 9:12 24:4,7,13,18,20 record 4:2 6:2 24:4 32:14 Road/County 36:7 screening 9:10 25:12,25 26:1,12 26:12,18 28:5,15 requires 22:14 roads 9:20 10:11 10:22,24 11:5,13 26:18,24 27:1,11 28:22 29:19 40:6 requiring 19:8 12:22 17:9 33:25 13:13 27:25 28:2,4,14 41:14,15,24 42:1 residences 7:15 35:22 scuttled 48:23 28:20 29:1,9,11 42:11,13,16,21 residential 21:4 roadway 14:19 second 25:15 44:6 29:16,17,18 30:1 43:2,16 44:1,21 37:22,25 38:2 15:13 16:21 20:21 47:6 30:18 34:11 35:2 44:24 51:6,13 resource 30:23 31:21,23,24 32:5 Section 33:12 39:24 40:7,10,11 recorded 29:18 resources 22:12 35:6,19 37:9 sections 6:5 17:15 40:18 41:20 42:17 40:12 44:9 36:22 38:11 roadways 9:1,25 42:6 42:20,21,21 43:1 recording 24:4 responders 8:18 15:20 39:7 see 9:20 33:20 43:2,8,8,11,15 red 16:8 35:9,22 response 8:20 Rock 49:19 SEH 2:20 44:2,7,7,21,22,24 36:13 49:6,7 restart 45:2 46:2 Rockland 4:9 11:21 select 41:21 42:1 45:12,16,23,25 reduce 8:7 10:8 result 6:9 10:24 13:19 16:1,10,11 selected 6:3 18:11 46:7,10 51:2,6,12 17:10 19:10 22:19 11:7 18:20 32:11 20:4 30:9 35:22 41:16 51:20,22,24 52:5 33:7 36:23 39:15 36:12 47:20 49:20 sending 26:8 44:17 52:17 53:4,16 reduced 47:9 resulting 17:19 49:21 51:8 Publication 3:11 reduces 17:12 resumed 5:21 31:10 room 23:10 24:25 Senior 2:16 published 1:18 5:22 referred 30:15 resumes 46:4 25:5,16 45:17 sensitive 13:2 20:11 29:21 43:10 Refine 12:8 retained 10:21 13:3 route 9:2310:13,16 38:13,14 purchased 37:24 regarding 46:19 13:6,9,15 10:22 11:17,20,21 sent 41:3,7 purpose 5:4 6:14,16 Region 2:5,6,7 revenue 49:17,23 12:4,4,6,11,12,13 serve 42:3 10:6 17:9 18:13 regional 11:2 50:18 12:18,21,24 13:1 serves 43:20 20:22 28:3 29:11 Register 29:22 review 31:9 43:9,24 13:4,4,15 14:3,9 service 19:5 39:16 30:19 32:19 33:13 Registered 52:6 reviewed 27:19 14:11 16:7,12,16 39:22 33:21 40:2 48:2 53:5 28:7 20:18 49:25 services 2:2 8:18 purposes 21:22 registration 25:3,13 reviewing 41:19 routes 9:20,22,24 serving 20:15 22:10 put 48:15 25:19 45:11,19 revised 5:22 10:17,19,21 11:4 23:5 36:20 regulatory 35:2 right 42:3 11:12,16 12:3,8 shared-use 14:23

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

15:9 16:21 state 1:20,22 25:5 take 45:18 times 3:12 8:13,15 two 9:25 11:16 13:3 shorthand 52:10 25:21 30:23 47:22 taken 1:18,21 52:8 8:20 17:22 19:18 13:5,14 17:11 53:9 52:1,7,17 53:1,6 53:7 50:10,14 24:17 44:3 shortly 45:2 53:16 talk 37:12 today 23:8 24:10,16 two-lane 35:12 shown 37:7 statement 1:8 3:9 talked 33:22 24:17 27:23 28:18 two-way 15:8 shows 35:4,7 4:1,25 24:22 tax 49:17,23 50:19 35:25 42:22 43:8 type 20:21 sic 49:18 26:25 29:14 30:17 TDM 9:18 10:11 43:23 44:4,15 types 9:25 side 19:20 48:17 32:14 33:13,21 team 23:7 24:14 top 39:10 49:22 50:2,2 40:1,5,11,13,17 27:23 28:18 45:4 total 27:18 U sides 7:24 49:11,14 40:25 43:21,22,25 ten 48:12 totaling 15:16 U.S 1:3 30:24 sidewalk 14:23 15:8 Statements 28:21 terminus 14:15 Town 1:10,11 14:7 Uitenbroek 2:11 16:22 States 50:6 15:11 16:22,24 14:11 16:5,15 ultimately 10:10 sign-in 45:7,10,14 statewide 9:3 terms 37:22 38:3,17 27:8,9 30:8,8,9 11:11 signature 41:13 stationery 40:23 39:1 49:18,22 United 50:6 signed 29:20 step 9:12,13,21 territory 49:11 Towns 4:8 updates 12:19 signs 24:24 10:10,14,19,20 testify 26:1,2 townships 49:24 use 7:17,22 10:7,25 similar 19:2 22:13 11:3,11,15,17 testimony 1:20 3:2 50:17 11:6 20:1,3 23:24 39:2 12:3,8,9,15 13:3 3:5 23:13,18,18 traditional-style 33:5 37:11 47:3 sitting 23:22 50:7 13:12 33:19 34:6 24:5,18,24 25:1,4 45:16,22 uses 20:8,11,13 six 35:16 34:7,8,12,23 25:9,9,10,11,13 traffic 5:11 7:12 8:4 21:13,15 22:18 slide 33:22 37:12 steps 30:1 41:9 25:14,17,21,24,25 15:2 17:2,8,14 utilizes 32:16 Slip 25:3,13 45:11 stream 21:19 38:18 26:2,4,5,6,11,24 19:3 20:10 31:6 45:19 streams 38:17 27:15 29:2,18 34:20 39:3,4,16 V slips 25:19 street 4:15 7:15 40:8,9,9,10,16,19 39:19 47:9,13 Valley 14:16,20 slow 20:10 streets 19:21 40:20 42:17,25 transcribed 4:2 Van 2:6 social 11:8 23:15 stricter 20:17 44:5,6,7,11,12,13 40:6 43:25 vehicle 18:20 22:14 socioeconomic stronger 19:23 20:6 44:23 45:6,7,8,9 transcribing 46:1 verbal 24:5,18,23 20:24 22:11 36:22 strongly 22:21 45:10,12,13,15,16 transcript 23:1 25:1,3,12,14,17 37:12 studies 4:16 5:11 45:17,18,20,22 24:6 52:9 53:8 26:2,4,24 29:1,1 sold 50:5 37:7 41:23 42:6 46:7,8,10,15 48:6 transition 5:19 40:8,10,16,20,24 solution 22:8 36:18 study 4:6 5:17,18 50:22 51:5,13,14 31:13 44:4,6,7,11 45:6,8 sorts 49:12 50:4 5:24 7:20,23 8:2 thank 23:5 29:8 transportation 1:1 45:10,11,13,15,17 south 1:9 3:10 8:11 13:6,10 42:14 43:17 45:24 1:3 2:4 4:11 5:3 45:18,19,22 46:7 11:21 14:12,17 31:12 42:2,3 46:3 48:4 51:1 5:24 6:1,18 9:16 46:8,10 16:11,17 27:7 submit 27:23 28:18 things 38:15 46:24 9:17 10:25 11:6 version 43:20 29:9,13 34:17 40:23 think 47:16 49:15 11:24 27:3 28:9 vicinity 7:5 8:24 9:1 36:3 42:4 subsequent 6:5 50:7 31:17 32:20 34:2 33:1 south.bridge.con... substantially 21:5 third 47:18,18 34:3 view 23:17 26:7 41:7 44:16 suited 7:11 three 14:21 25:10 Transportation's viewing 23:19 51:7 summarizes 37:15 25:24 34:22 46:19 27:17 42:19 43:8,15 Southbridge 16:8 summary 9:8 26:17 three-step 9:9 Transportation/B... viewpoints 28:5 18:1,4 35:23 43:24 44:20 51:12 33:16 1:16 Virtual 42:25 36:13 49:1,3 support 8:4 12:20 Tier 1:8 3:9 5:19,23 travel 4:22 7:18 8:7 virus 47:8 southern 4:23 5:3 20:5,6,7 5:23 6:2,6,10,10 8:13,13,14,14,18 volumes 7:11 39:5 6:20 7:7 30:6,15 surrounding 21:14 12:15 13:6 17:16 9:4 10:8,8 11:25 32:22 46:20 22:18 21:21 29:13,20 18:19,20 19:25 W speak 40:13 switching 47:10 31:11,13,15 32:6 22:14,15 33:5,7 Wait 25:1 species 39:1 system 4:11,15 9:16 32:10,11,16 33:12 36:23 waiting 23:16 48:21 specific 6:8 24:13 34:2 34:23 39:3 40:25 travelers 18:24 Waldschmidt 2:8 37:21 system's 11:24 41:13,23,24,25 tremendous 49:17 Walker 2:18 specifically 18:3 42:3,6 49:23 want 50:8 speed 7:13 20:14,18 T time 4:13 5:12 8:7 tribes 35:2 wasn't 50:9 spots 23:21 table 25:5,16,17 10:8 18:19 24:20 trips 20:13,19 watching 26:20 staff 25:17 37:15,19 45:7,10 25:11,18,24 26:5 true 52:9 53:8 way 9:5 50:12 standalone 10:12 45:14 26:21 33:7 36:24 Trunk 27:9 we've 48:7 standing 23:21 tables 45:8 44:12 48:11 51:2 TSM 9:16 10:12 wearing 23:9 start 26:20 29:3 tags 23:9 52:8 53:7 turning 46:24 weaving 17:13

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR JULY 8, 220

Webb 2:16 29:8 Y 19:10,19,24 20:2 500-foot-wide 42:12,14 years 48:12,17,18 20:5,6,16,25 21:3 31:19,23 website 24:9,12 48:20,21 50:9 21:13,18 22:1,6 54305-3600 26:10 26:15 28:1,23,25 22:21 32:11 34:7 41:5 44:18 51:10 43:9,24 Z 34:8,13,25 35:8 55 48:17 Welcome 23:2 35:18,21,24 36:1 went 49:9 0 36:8,12,16,23 6 west 4:7 7:24 14:16 37:3,4,10,17 38:1 6 11:14 16:3 23:20 14:19 15:5 16:22 1 38:4,8,14,16,21 34:15 38:7 49:22 50:2 1 1:8 3:9,9 5:19,23 38:23 39:6,18 6/12/2021 53:16 western 14:15 5:23 6:2,10 9:12 41:17,23 42:3,6 6:00 46:6,11 wetlands 15:15 9:21 10:14 12:4 2-16 39:9 65 48:9,10 17:19 21:19 38:19 12:11,15 13:4,6 2.5 16:16 7 whichever 23:13 13:17 14:1,2,3,11 2006 4:20 wide 21:22 31:22 15:15,17 17:6 2008 4:23 30:16 7 11:14 31:25 33:16 48:14 18:16,21 19:3,7 32:18 75 37:25 widened 15:3,12,20 19:13,18,22 20:7 2012 5:10 31:7 8 35:12,15 48:12 20:9,15 21:2,5,11 32:18 widening 18:1 21:20,21 22:4 2019 5:21 31:10 8 11:14 15:16 WIS 7:9 8:25 29:13,20 31:11,13 2020 1:24 26:13 8:00 1:25 23:13 Wisconsin 1:1,2,16 31:15 32:6,10,16 29:21,22 41:2,12 24:21 46:9 51:25 1:20,22,24 26:10 33:12,19 34:6,23 43:5 44:25 51:16 8th 1:24 27:2,10,16 28:8 34:24 35:8,9 52:13 53:12 9 30:24 41:5 44:18 36:25 37:5,16,23 20th 52:13 53:12 50:5 51:10 52:1,7 38:6,10,12,19,20 21 17:19 9 11:14 52:13,17 53:1,6 38:25 39:4,6,18 23600 26:10 41:4 920)448-6480 26:16 53:12,16 40:25 41:13,24,25 44:17 51:9 41:6 44:19 51:11 Wisconsin/Federal 1.5 14:12 24 17:18 1:17 10 8:9 11:14 38:5 25 7:12 17:18 38:2 WisDOT 2:5,6,7,8 10/30/20 52:17 2500 46:18 29:15 30:21 31:5 100-year 15:18 3 WisDOT's 42:2 17:21 wish 42:24 45:7,14 11 9:20,21,24 10:17 3 11:13,17 12:8 45:18,21 10:20 11:14 34:16 13:3,12 17:22 wishing 24:23 35:4 34:23 37:17 25:12 26:2 12 9:15 17:19 3:00 1:25 24:21 work 32:16 50:4 125 31:25 30 5:21 worked 30:21 12th 29:20 3rd 26:13 41:2,11 workforce 47:8,10 15 9:13 43:5 44:25 51:16 47:15 150 31:25 4 working 13:21 1500 1:23 47:11,16 16 38:2,5 42:21 4 11:13 15:17 38:7 Works 2:11,13 172 7:9 9:1 33:3,11 40 48:14 worsen 7:10 50:14 40-some 48:18 Wrightstown 8:10 18 15:15 41 1:14 35:16 36:2 write 40:22 19 48:8 36:6 50:13 writing 28:22 1968 4:12 30:12 43 50:13 written 23:18 26:5 1996 30:13 48:22 44,000 39:15 26:6,11,16 40:9 19th 29:22 45 37:24 48:19,20 40:19,24 42:25 4556-02-00 1:13 44:12,13,20 45:9 2 5 51:4,11,13 2 3:11 6:6,10 10:19 11:15,17 12:3,4 5 11:13 15:16 19:18 X 12:12 13:4,19 5.5 14:2 X 3:1 13:18 14:8 16:1,3,16,20 17:7 5/6 11:20 12:6,13 15:11 16:14 35:11 17:16,18,21,23 500 31:21 18:9,16,19,22 500-foot 13:21

920-432-5662 BAY REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 800-424-2224 414 S. Jefferson St.,Green Bay, WI

2. Legal Notice of Availability and Public Hearing

Federal Register Notice of Availability Legal Notice – English Legal Notice – Spanish Legal Notice – Hmong Affidavit of Publication Postcard Mailing and Display Ad

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 119 / Friday, June 19, 2020 / Notices 37095

20460–0001. As part of the mailing Notice of Receipts—New Uses ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION address, include the contact person’s AGENCY name, division, and mail code. The 1. EPA Registration Numbers: 100– [ER–FRL–9051–4] division to contact is listed at the end 791, 100–1202 and 100–1614. Docket ID number: EPA–HQ–OPP–2019–0346. of each application summary. Environmental Impact Statements; Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of Availability LLC. P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC I. General Information 27419. Active ingredient: Mefenoxam. Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use: Activities, General Information 202– A. Does this action apply to me? Tree nut Crop Group 14–12. Contact: RD 564–5632 or https://www.epa.gov/nepa. You may be potentially affected by 2. EPA Registration Numbers: 7969– Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact this action if you are an agricultural 312 and 7969–310. Docket ID number: Statements (EIS) producer, food manufacturer, or EPA–HQ–OPP–2020–0228. Applicant: Filed June 8, 2020, 10 a.m. EST Through June 15, 2020 10 a.m. EST pesticide manufacturer. The following BASF Corporation, Agricultural Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. list of North American Industrial Products P.O. Box 13528, 26 Davis Classification System (NAICS) codes is Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act not intended to be exhaustive, but rather requires that EPA make public its 27709. Product name: Xemium provides a guide to help readers comments on EISs issued by other Fungicide Technical and Merivon determine whether this document Federal agencies. EPA’s comment letters Xemium Brand Fungicide. Active applies to them. Potentially affected on EISs are available at: https:// entities may include: ingredient: Fluxapyroxad at 99.5% cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/ (Xemium Fungicide Technical); Crop production (NAICS code 111). action/eis/search. • Fluxapyroxad at 21.26% and EIS No. 20200124, Final, APHIS, NAT, • Animal production (NAICS code Pyraclostrobin at 21.26% (Merivon 112). Southern Gardens Citrus Nursery, Xemium Brand Fungicide). Proposed LLC Permit to Release Genetically • Food manufacturing (NAICS code use(s): Pomegranate; Vegetable, fruiting, Engineered Citrus tristeza virus, 311). group 8–10; Fruit, pome, group 11–10; Review Period Ends: 07/20/2020, B. What should I consider as I prepare Cottonseed subgroup 20C. Contact: RD. Contact: Cindy Eck 301–851–3892. my comments for EPA? 3. EPA Registration Numbers: 7969– EIS No. 20200125, Draft, USAF, FL, F– 446 and 7969–444. Docket ID number: 35A Wing Beddown at Tyndall AFB 1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this EPA–HQ–OPP–2020–0267. Applicant: and MQ–9 Wing Beddown at Tyndall information to EPA through BASF corporation, 26 David Drive, P.O. AFB or Vandenberg AFB, Comment regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark Period Ends: 08/03/2020, Contact: the part or all of the information that Box 13528, RTP, NC 27709. Product name: Glufosinate-Ammonium Nolan Swick 210–925–3392. you claim to be CBI. For CBI EIS No. 20200126, Final Supplement, information in a disk or CD–ROM that Technical and Finale Herbicide. Active ingredient: Glufosinate at 95% USFS, MT, Greater Red Lodge Area you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the Vegetation and Habitat Management (Glufosinate-Ammonium Technical) and disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then Project, Review Period Ends: 08/03/ 11.33% (Finale Herbicide). Proposed identify electronically within the disk or 2020, Contact: Victoria Regula 406– use(s): Turfgrass Use Pattern to Include CD–ROM the specific information that 848–7375. is claimed as CBI. In addition to one All Turf Scenarios, Including EIS No. 20200127, Final, DHS, SC, complete version of the comment that Residential, Golf, and Sod farms. Adoption—Navy Base Intermodal includes information claimed as CBI, a Contact: RD. Container Transfer Facility, Review copy of the comment that does not 4. EPA File Symbol: 89459–RRT. Period Ends: 07/20/2020, Contact: contain the information claimed as CBI Docket ID number: EPA–HQ–OPP– Jennifer DeHart Hass 202–834–4346. must be submitted for inclusion in the 2020–0269. Applicant: Central Garden & The Department of Homeland public docket. Information so marked Pet, 1501 E Woodfield Rd., Suite 200W, Security (DHS) has adopted the U.S. will not be disclosed except in Schaumburg, IL 60173. Active Army Corps of Engineers Final EIS No. accordance with procedures set forth in ingredients: Acetamiprid and 20180148, filed 06/22/2018 with EPA. 40 CFR part 2. Etofenprox. Product type: Insecticide. DHS was not a cooperating agency on 2. Tips for preparing your comments. Proposed use: Non-food indoor use on this project. Therefore, recirculation of When preparing and submitting your horses. Contact: RD. the document is necessary under comments, see the commenting tips at Section 1506.3(b) of the CEQ https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. Regulations. commenting-epa-dockets. Dated: June 12, 2020. EIS No. 20200128, Draft, FHWA, WI, II. Registration Applications Delores Barber, South Bridge Connector, Brown Director, Information Technology and County, Wisconsin, Tier 1 DEIS, EPA has received applications to Resources Management Division, Office of Comment Period Ends: 08/03/2020, register new uses for pesticide products Pesticide Programs. Contact: Ian Chidister 608–829–7503. containing currently registered active [FR Doc. 2020–13272 Filed 6–18–20; 8:45 am] EIS No. 20200129, Revised Final, USFS, ingredients. Pursuant to the provisions BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ID, Little Boulder, Review Period of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. Ends: 07/20/2020, Contact: Amy 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing Boykin 208–476–8205. notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice Amended Notice of receipt of these applications does not EIS No. 20200054, Draft, BIA, BLM, NM, imply a decision by the Agency on these Farmington Mancos-Gallup Resource applications. Management Plan Amendment and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Jun 18, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19JNN1.SGM 19JNN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 37096 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 119 / Friday, June 19, 2020 / Notices

Environmental Impact Statement, Please note that due to the public accordance with procedures set forth in Comment Period Ends: 09/25/2020, health emergency the EPA Docket 40 CFR part 2. Contact: Jillian Aragon 505–564– Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room 2. Tips for preparing your comments. 7722. Revision to FR Notice Published was closed to public visitors on March When preparing and submitting your 2/28/2020; Extending the Comment 31, 2020. Our EPA/DC staff will comments, see the commenting tips at Period from 5/28/2020 to 9/25/2020. continue to provide customer service https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ EIS No. 20200060, Draft, FHWA, VA, via email, phone, and webform. For commenting-epa-dockets. Route 220 Martinsville Southern further information on EPA/DC services, II. Registration Applications Connector, Comment Period Ends: 07/ docket contact information and the 24/2020, Contact: Mack A Frost 804– current status of the EPA/DC and EPA has received applications to 775–3352. Revision to FR Notice Reading Room, please visit https:// register pesticide products containing Published 5/15/2020; Extending the www.epa.gov/dockets. active ingredients not included in any currently registered pesticide products. Comment Period from 6/19/2020 to 7/ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 24/2020. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA Robert McNally, Biopesticides and section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA Dated: June 16, 2020. Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), is hereby providing notice of receipt and Cindy S. Barger, main telephone number: (703) 305– opportunity to comment on these Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office 7090, email address: BPPDFRNotices@ applications. Notice of receipt of these of Federal Activities. epa.gov. The mailing address for each applications does not imply a decision [FR Doc. 2020–13252 Filed 6–18–20; 8:45 am] contact person is: Office of Pesticide by the Agency on these applications. BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Programs, Environmental Protection For actions being evaluated under EPA’s Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, public participation process for Washington, DC 20460–0001. As part of registration actions, there will be an ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION the mailing address, include the contact additional opportunity for public AGENCY person’s name, division, and mail code. comment on the proposed decisions. The division to contact is listed at the [EPA–HQ–OPP–2020–0049; FRL–10010–84] Please see EPA’s public participation end of each pesticide petition summary. website for additional information on Pesticide Product Registration; SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: this process (http://www2.epa.gov/ Receipt of Applications for New Active I. General Information pesticide-registration/public- Ingredients participation-process-registration- A. Does this action apply to me? actions). AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). You may be potentially affected by A. Notice of Receipt—New Active ACTION: Notice. this action if you are an agricultural Ingredients producer, food manufacturer, or 1. File Symbol: 71771–RG. Docket ID SUMMARY: EPA has received applications pesticide manufacturer. The following number: EPA–HQ–OPP–2020–0285. to register pesticide products containing list of North American Industrial Applicant: Plant Health Care Inc., 2626 active ingredients not included in any Classification System (NAICS) codes is Glenwood Avenue, Suite 350, Raleigh, currently registered pesticide products. not intended to be exhaustive, but rather NC 27608. Product name: PHC 25279. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, provides a guide to help readers Active ingredient: Fungicide; PDHP Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act determine whether this document 25279 at 1%. Proposed classification/ (FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice applies to them. Potentially affected Use: Biochemical, food and non-food of receipt and opportunity to comment entities may include: crops. Contact: BPPD. on these applications. • Crop production (NAICS code 111). 2. File Symbol: 73049–LRA. Docket ID DATES: Comments must be received on • Animal production (NAICS code number: EPA–HQ–OPP–2019–0516. or before July 20, 2020. 112). Applicant: Valent BioSciences LLC. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, • Food manufacturing (NAICS code Product name: ACC Technical Powder identified by docket identification (ID) 311). Plant Growth Regulator. Active number and the File Symbol of interest B. What should I consider as I prepare ingredient: Plant Growth Regulator; 1- as shown in the body of this document, my comments for EPA? Aminocyclopropanecarboxylic Acid by one of the following methods: (ACC) at 98.56%. Proposed • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this classification/use: Manufacturing Use www.regulations.gov. Follow the online information to EPA through Product. Contact: BPPD. instructions for submitting comments. regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark 3. File Symbol: 73049–LRT. Docket ID Do not submit electronically any the part or all of the information that number: EPA–HQ–OPP–2019–0516. information you consider to be you claim to be CBI. For CBI Applicant: Valent BioSciences LLC. Confidential Business Information (CBI) information in a disk or CD–ROM that Product name: VBC–30445 Plant or other information whose disclosure is you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the Growth Regulator Liquid Concentrate. restricted by statute. disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then Active ingredient: Plant Growth • Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental identify electronically within the disk or Regulator; 1- Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ CD–ROM the specific information that Aminocyclopropanecarboxylic Acid DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. is claimed as CBI. In addition to one (ACC) at 10.0%. Proposed NW, Washington, DC 20460–0001. complete version of the comment that classification/Use: End Use Product. • Hand Delivery: To make special includes information claimed as CBI, a Contact: BPPD. arrangements for hand delivery or copy of the comment that does not 4. File Symbol: 89186–E. Docket ID delivery of boxed information, please contain the information claimed as CBI number: EPA–HQ–OPP–2020–0252. follow the instructions at https:// must be submitted for inclusion in the Applicant: ConidioTec LLC, 2440 www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send- public docket. Information so marked Earlystown Road, Suite 600 Centre Hall, comments-epa-dockets. will not be disclosed except in PA 16828 (c/o Lewis & Harrison, 2461

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Jun 18, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19JNN1.SGM 19JNN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON THE LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS AND NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR IDENTIFYING A CORRIDOR FOR THE SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR BETWEEN COUNTY EB/F IN THE TOWN OF LAWRENCE AND COUNTY GV/X IN THE TOWN OF LEDGEVIEW BROWN COUNTY

ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are advised that Brown County and the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) will hold a public hearing as provided by law to consider the location and environmental aspects for identifying a corridor for the South Bridge Connector between County EB/F in the Town of Lawrence to County GV/X in the Town of Ledgeview in Brown County, Wisconsin.

The purpose of the South Bridge Connector project is to identify the most appropriate improvements for addressing existing east-west transportation demand and demand that will be generated by the planned development in the southern portion of the Green Bay metropolitan area. The need for the proposed action is demonstrated through a combination of factors that include project history, regional/local transportation and land-use planning, congestion on existing Fox River bridges, travel times resulting from travel indirection, and safety issues.

The study area generally comprises the area between I-41 on the west to I-43 on the east, within the City of De Pere and the Towns of Rockland, Lawrence, and Ledgeview.

A preliminary range of alternatives was developed in the context of regional and community plans and with input from local officials, tribes, state and federal agencies, and suggestions from the public. Alternatives were presented to the public and were assessed to determine their environmental impacts and the extent to which they fulfill the purpose of the project. This Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) evaluates a range of alternative corridors, rather than specific road alignments. The corridors cover a wider area in which the roadway (alignment) could lie and provide flexibility in positioning a roadway and evaluating potential impacts prior to conducting detailed engineering during Tier 2 studies.

Estimated project impacts include between 4-16 residential relocations; 16-75 property acquisitions; 13-78 acres of agricultural land; 0.2-9.5 acres of parkland; and 5-21 acres of wetland.

Further information concerning the project is available for inspection and copying at the three locations given below. (Information can also be viewed online at https://www.browncountywi.gov/departments/planning-and-land-services/planning/south-bridge- connector/).

There will be two opportunities to attend the public hearing for this study—one held virtually online, and one held in-person. In consideration of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is encouraged that the public participate in the process through the virtual public hearing component to the extent possible. Both opportunities will present the same information and allow for recording of public and private testimony.

The virtual public hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 7, 2020 via YouTube Live from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. (Link: https://youtu.be/E69wyE_e5Ig. Call-in number for those without access to YouTube: (920) 785-5851, conference ID 91959483#). Information is also available on the project website listed above. All materials will be available on the project website and a recording of the hearing will be available on the project website shortly after the hearing.

The virtual public hearing will begin at 6:00 p.m. and will end when all interested persons have provided testimony or 8:00 p.m., whichever occurs first. The virtual public hearing will begin with an informational project presentation prior to accepting testimony from the public. Instructions on how to give verbal REV 7/2019 testimony publicly through YouTube Live or privately by phone to a court reporter during the virtual public hearing component will be provided at the hearing. Instructions will also be available in a handout on the project website.

For the virtual public hearing, exhibits of the project and a statement about the project will be available for review on the project website. The project staff will be available to answer informal questions via email or YouTube comments; however, these comments do not count as verbal testimony.

The in-person public hearing will be held on Wednesday, July 8, 2020, at the Brown County Fairgrounds at 1500 Fort Howard Ave, De Pere, WI 54115. The public hearing will be conducted from 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Interested persons may attend anytime between 3:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. to review displays and other hearing materials, ask questions, and provide private or public testimony.

The traditional-style portion of the in-person public hearing will begin at 3:00 p.m. and will end when all interested persons have provided testimony or 8:00 p.m., whichever occurs first. The public hearing will include a continuous loop of the project presentation.

At the in-person public hearing, project staff will be available for informal discussion to explain the project and answer questions. Exhibits of the project will be on display and a statement about the project will be available for review.

To allow for arranging assistance for special accommodations needed to participate, or to request public hearing materials (handout and exhibits) be mailed to you, please contact Cole Runge, at the contact information listed below, no later than three working days prior to the public hearing. The meeting facility is wheelchair accessible. Deaf or hard of hearing persons needing assistance should contact the Wisconsin Telecommunications Relay System (dial 711). For those without access to YouTube, you may call in to the virtual public hearing and listen along at (920) 785-5851, conference ID 91959483#.

All interested persons are invited to attend one or both hearings and to present relevant verbal and/or written testimony concerning the South Bridge Connector location; the social, economic, and environmental impacts and effects of the identification of the corridor and whether the corridor is or is not in the public interest and consistent with the goals and objectives of area planning.

It is anticipated that the relocation of persons, businesses, or farms will occur as a result of the project. This will be evaluated during Tier 2 and no relocations will occur until Tier 2 environmental analysis is complete.

Provisions have been made for the submission of written statements or other exhibits in place of or in addition to the testimony presented at the public hearing. This additional testimony will be included in the hearing record if postmarked no later than August 3, 2020. Send this additional testimony to the project manager contact listed below.

ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are further notified of the availability of a Draft Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that evaluates the proposal's environmental impacts and effects which has been filed according to the Wisconsin and National Environmental Policy Acts. Copies of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement are available for inspection and copying by appointment at the following locations:

Brown County Planning Commission 305 E. Walnut St., Room 320 Green Bay, WI 54305-3600 (920) 448-6480 Brown County REV 7/2019

Department of Public Works 2198 Glendale Avenue Green Bay, WI 54303 (920) 492-4925 Northeast Region Office Wisconsin Department of Transportation 944 Vanderperren Way Green Bay, WI 54304 (920) 492-5623

Printed copies of the draft document may be obtained at these locations. There may be a charge for this service. An online copy can be viewed at the project website: https://www.browncountywi.gov/departments/planning-and-land-services/planning/south-bridge- connector/

Persons with an interest in or knowledge about historical and archaeological resources in the project area are invited to present such information at the public hearing.

Comments regarding the environmental impacts and effects of the project will be addressed in the Final Tier 1 EIS if postmarked no later than August 3, 2020. Written or oral comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS should be submitted to the Brown County contact person listed below.

Cole Runge Brown County PO Box 23600 Green Bay, WI 54305-3600 (920) 448-6480 [email protected]

Brown County and WisDOT will review all comments and testimony presented as part of this public hearing process and reserves the right to make a final determination on the project as described in this notice.

Brown County Planning Department

Project ID 4556-02-00

REV 7/2019

AVISO DE AUDIENCIA PUBLICA DE LA UBICACION Y LOS ASPECTOS AMBIENTALES Y NOTIFICACION DE DISPONIBILIDAD DE EL AMBIENTAL DOCUMENTO PARA IDENTIFICAR UN CORREDOR PARA EL SUR DEL CONECTOR DEL PUENTE ENTRE EL CONDADO DE EB/F EN LA CIUDAD DE LAWRENCE Y CONDADO GV / X EN LA CIUDAD DE LEDGEVIEW CONDADO DE BROWN COUNTY

TODAS LAS PERSONAS INTERESADAS se les informa que el Condado de Brown y el Departamento de Transporte de Wisconsin (WisDOT) realizarán una audiencia pública según lo dispuesto por la ley para considerar la ubicación y los aspectos ambientales para identificar un corredor para el del proyecto en El Sur del Conector del Puente entre el Condado EB / F en el Ciudad de Lawrence al condado GV / X en la ciudad de Ledgeview en el condado de Brown, Wisconsin.

El propósito del proyecto en El Sur del Conector del Puente es para identificar las mejorías más apropiadas para abordar la demanda de transporte este-oeste existente y la demanda que se generará por el desarrollo planificado en la parte sur del área metropolitana de Green Bay. La necesidad de la acción propuesta se demuestra a través de una combinación de factores que incluyen el historial del proyecto, el transporte regional / local y la planificación del uso del suelo, la congestión en los puentes existentes del río Fox, los tiempos de viaje resultantes de la indirecta del viaje y los problemas de seguridad.

El área de estudio generalmente comprende el área entre 1-41 en el oeste a 1-43 en el este, dentro de la ciudad de De Pere y las ciudades de Rockland, Lawrence y Ledgeview.

Se desarrolló una gama preliminar de alternativas en el contexto de los planes regionales y comunitarios y con el aporte de funcionarios locales, tribus, agencias estatales y federales, y sugerencias del público. Las alternativas se presentaron al público y se evaluaron para determinar sus impactos ambientales y la medida en que cumplen con el propósito del proyecto. Esta Declaración de Impacto Ambiental de Nivel 1 (EIS) evalúa una gama de corredores alternativos, en lugar de alineaciones de carreteras específicas. Los corredores cubren un área más amplia en la cual la calzada (alineación) podría estar y brindan flexibilidad para posicionar una calzada y evaluar los posibles impactos antes de realizar ingeniería detallada durante los estudios de Nivel 2.

Los impactos estimados del proyecto incluyen entre 4 y 16 reubicaciones residenciales; 16-75 adquisiciones de propiedades; 13-78 hectáreas de tierra agrícola; 0.2-9.5 hectáreas de zonas verdes; y 5-21 hectáreas de humedal.

Hay más información sobre el proyecto disponible para su inspección y copia en los tres lugares que se detallan a continuación. (La información también se puede ver en línea en https://www.browncountywi.gov/departments/planning-and-land-services/planning/southbridge-connector/).

Habrá dos oportunidades para asistir a la audiencia pública para este estudio: una realizada virtualmente en línea y otra en persona. En consideración de la pandemia de COVID-19, se recomienda que el público participe en el proceso a través del componente de audiencia pública virtual en la medida de lo posible. Ambas oportunidades presentarán la misma información y permitirán el registro de testimonios públicos y privados.

La audiencia pública virtual se llevará a cabo el martes 7 de Julio de 2020 a través de YouTube Live de 6:00 p.m. a 8:00 p.m. Un enlace y un número de llamada a la audiencia pública virtual estarán disponibles en el sitio web del proyecto mencionado anteriormente. Todos los materiales estarán disponibles en el sitio web del proyecto y una grabación de la audiencia estará disponible en el sitio web del proyecto poco después de la audiencia.

REV 7/2019 La audiencia pública virtual comenzará a las 6:00 p.m. y finalizará cuando todas las personas interesadas hayan dado testimonio o a las 8:00 p.m., lo que ocurra primero. La audiencia pública virtual comenzará con una presentación informativa del proyecto antes de aceptar el testimonio del público. El enlace y el sitio web de YouTube Live proporcionan instrucciones sobre cómo dar testimonio verbal públicamente a través de YouTube Live o de forma privada por teléfono a un periodista judicial durante el componente de audiencia pública virtual.

Para la audiencia pública virtual, las exhibiciones del proyecto y una declaración sobre el proyecto estarán disponibles para su revisión en el sitio web del proyecto. El personal del proyecto estará disponible para responder preguntas informales por correo electrónico o comentarios de YouTube; sin embargo, estos comentarios no cuentan como testimonio verbal.

La audiencia pública en persona se llevará a cabo el miércoles 8 de Julio de 2020, en el recinto ferial del condado de Brown en 1500 Fort Howard Ave, De Pere, WI 54115. La audiencia pública se llevará a cabo de 3:00 p.m. a 8:00 p.m. Las personas interesadas pueden asistir en cualquier momento entre las 3:00 p. M. Y las 8:00 p. M. Para revisar exhibiciones y otros materiales de la audiencia, hacer preguntas y dar testimonio privado o público.

La porción de estilo tradicional de la audiencia pública en persona comenzará a las 3:00 p.m. y finalizará cuando todas las personas interesadas hayan dado testimonio o a las 8:00 p.m., lo que ocurra primero. La audiencia pública incluirá un ciclo continuo de la presentación del proyecto.

En la audiencia pública en persona, el personal del proyecto estará disponible para una discusión informal para explicar el proyecto y responder preguntas. Las exhibiciones del proyecto estarán en exhibición y una declaración sobre el proyecto estará disponible para su revisión.

Para permitir la organización de asistencia para acomodaciones especiales necesarias para participar, o para solicitar que se le envíen por correo materiales de audiencia pública (folletos y exhibiciones), comuníquese con Cole Runge, a la información de contacto que figura a continuación, a más tardar tres días hábiles antes del público escuchando. Las instalaciones para reuniones son accesibles para sillas de ruedas. Las personas sordas o con problemas de audición que necesiten asistencia deben comunicarse con el Sistema de retransmisión de telecomunicaciones de Wisconsin (marque 711).

Todas las personas interesadas están invitadas a asistir a una o ambas audiencias y a presentar un testimonio verbal y / o escrito relevante sobre la ubicación de del proyecto en El Sur del Conector del Puente; los impactos y efectos sociales, económicos y ambientales de la identificación del corredor y si el corredor es o no de interés público y es consistente con las metas y objetivos de la planificación del área.

Se anticipa que la reubicación de personas, negocios o granjas ocurrirá como resultado del proyecto. Esto se evaluará durante el Nivel 2 y no se realizarán reubicaciones hasta que se complete el análisis ambiental del Nivel 2.

Se han hecho provisiones para la presentación de declaraciones escritas u otras pruebas en lugar de o además del testimonio presentado en la audiencia pública. Este testimonio adicional se incluirá en el registro de la audiencia si está matasellado a más tardar el 3 de agosto de 2020. Envíe este testimonio adicional al contacto del gerente del proyecto que se detalla a continuación.

A TODAS LAS PERSONAS INTERESADAS se les notifica adicionalmente sobre la disponibilidad de un Borrador de la Declaración de Impacto Ambiental de Nivel 1 (EIS) que evalúa los impactos y efectos ambientales de la propuesta que se ha presentado de acuerdo con las leyes de Wisconsin y la Política Nacional de Medio Ambiente. Las copias de este Borrador de la Declaración de Impacto Ambiental están disponibles para su inspección y copia en las siguientes ubicaciones:

REV 7/2019 Condado de Brown Comisión de Planificación 305 E. Walnut St., Room 320 Green Bay, WI 54305-3600 (920) 448-6480

Condado de Brown Departamento de Obras Publicas 2198 Glendale Avenue Green Bay, WI 54303 (920)492-4925

Oficina de la Región Noreste Departamento de Transporte de Wisconsin 944 Vanderperren Way Green Bay, WI 54304 (920) 492-5623

Se puede obtener copias impresas del borrador del documento en estos lugares. Puede haber un cargo por este servicio. Se puede ver una copia en línea en el sitio web del proyecto: https://www.browncountywi.gov/departments/planning-and-land-services/planning/south-bridgeconnector/

Personas con interés o conocimiento sobre recursos históricos y arqueológicos en Se invita al área del proyecto a presentar dicha información en la audiencia pública. Los comentarios sobre los impactos y efectos ambientales del proyecto se abordarán en el EIS Final de Nivel 1 si se matasellan a más tardar el 3 de agosto de 2020. Los comentarios escritos u orales sobre el Borrador del EIS de Nivel 1 se deben enviar a la persona de contacto del Condado de Brown que se detalla a continuación.

Cole Runge Condado de Brown PO Box 23600 Green Bay, WI 54305-3600 (920) 448-6480 [email protected]

Condado de Brown y WisDOT revisarán todos los comentarios y testimonios presentados como parte de este proceso de audiencia pública y se reserva el derecho a tomar una determinación final sobre el proyecto como se describe en este aviso.

ID de Proyecto 4556-02-00 Condado de Brown Departamento de Planificación

REV 7/2019

CEEB TOOM RAU COV PEJ XEEM HAIS TXOG QHOV CHAW THIAB IB PUAG NCIG THIAB CEEB TOOM TXOG DAIM NTAWV QHIA TXOG NRHIAV IB QHOV CHAW RAU TUB CHOJ SIB TXUAS NRUAB NRAB NTAWM TXOJ KEV COUNTY EB/F HAUV LUB ZOS LAWRENCE THIAB TXOJ KEV COUNTY GV/X HAUV LUB ZOS LEDGEVIEW LUB NROOG BROWN COUNTY

Hais qhia TXHUA TUS NEEG NYIAM tias lub nroog Brown County thiab koom haum Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) yuav tsa rooj sib tham rau pej xeem raws li txoj cai lij choj los txiav txim siab txog thaj chaw thiab ib puag ncig kom paub txog txoj kev txoj kev xaiv rau txhim tsa choj nruab nrab ntawm txoj kev County EB/F hauv lub zos Lawrence thiab txoj kev County GV/X hauv lub zos Ledgeview huav lub nroog Brown County,xeev Wisconsin.

Lub hom phiaj ntawm South Bridge Connector qhov haujlwm yog txhawm rau txheeb xyuas cov kev txhim kho uas tsim nyog tshaj plaws los daws cov kev xav tau tsheb thauj mus los sab hnub tuaj thiab sab hnub poob uas xav tau los ntawm kev tsim kho nyob rau thaj tsam yav qab teb ntawm Green Bay cov chaw nyob. Qhov xav tau ntawm qhov kev thov tau ua pov thawj los ntawm kev sib koom ua ke nrog cov keeb kwm kev ua haujlwm, thaj chaw hauv cheeb tsam / tsheb thauj mus los thiab thaj av kev siv, kev yws ntawm cov choj Fox River uas twb muaj lawm, lub sijhawm taug kev los ntawm kev mus ncig ua si, thiab teeb meem kev nyab xeeb.

Thaj chaw kawm nyob nruab nrab txoj kev I-41 nyob rau sab hnub poob txog rau txoj kev I-43 nyob rau sab hnub tuaj, hauv lub nroog ntawm De Pere thiab cov zos ntawm Rockland, Lawrence, thiab Ledgeview.

Cov haujlwm ntawm cov kev hloov pauv tau tau tsim nyob rau hauv cheeb tsam thiab cov phiaj xwm hauv zej zog thiab nrog cov lus pom zoo los ntawm cov neeg ua haujlwm hauv cheeb tsam, pab pawg, xeev thiab tsoom fwv cov koom haum, thiab cov lus qhuab qhia los ntawm pej xeem. Lwm txoj kev xaiv tau nthuav qhia rau pej xeem thiab raug txheeb xyuas los txiav txim siab txog lawv cov kev cuam tshuam ib puag ncig thiab thaj chaw uas lawv ua tiav lub hom phiaj. Daim ntawv Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) ntsuas txog ntau txoj kev hloov pauv, tsis yog kho raws kev ntxawg.

Cov chaw txoj kev taug mus rau thaj tsam dav uas txoj kev tsheb loj (txoj kev sib txig) tuaj yeem nyob thiab muaj kev yoog raws kev teeb tsa txoj hauv kev thiab ntsuas cov kev cuam tshuam uas muaj peev xwm ua ntej ua qhov kev tshawb fawb ntawm cov ntawv Tier 2 kev tshawb nrhiav.

Kwv yees li kev cuam tshuam cov phiaj xwm muaj xws li thaj tsam plaub mus rau kaum rau chaw nyob hloov chaw; kaum rau mus rau xya caum tsib cov kev yuav lwm tus thaj av; kaum peb mus rau xya caum yim ev kawj cov av ua liaj ua teb; taw tes ob mus rau cuaj taw tes tsib ev kawj av tiaj nyom; thiab tsib rau nees nkaum ib ev kawj daim av ntawm cov chaw ntub dej.

Cov lus qhia ntxiv hais txog lub phiaj xwm muaj rau kev tshuaj xyuas thiab luam ntawm peb qhov chaw muab hauv qab no. (Cov ntaub ntawv tseem tuaj yeem pom nyob ntawm lub vev xaib https://www.browncountywi.gov/departments/planning-and-land-services/planning/south-bridge- connector/).

Yuav muaj ob txoj hauv kev mus koom kev sib tham rau pej xeem rau qhov kev kawm no - ib qho yog siv online, thiab ib qho yog mus ntsib tim ntsej tim muag hauv zej zog. Hauv kev txiav txim siab ntawm COVID-19 qhov kev kis ceev, xav kom cov pej xeem tuaj koom sib tham thiab mloog rau hauv khoos phis tawj. Ob txoj hauv kev yuav nthuav tawm tib cov ntaub ntawv thiab tso cai ua pov thawj ntawm cov lus pov thawj pej xeem thiab ntiag tug. REV 7/2019

Lub rooj sib tham rau pej xeem virtual yuav muaj rau hnub Tuesday, July 7, 2020 ntawm YouTube Live txij 6:00 p.m. txog rau 8:00 p.m. Ib qhov txuas thiab tus xov tooj rau cov neeg mloog sib tham yuav muaj nyob rau ntawm lub phiaj xwm qhov vev xaib saum toj no. Txhua cov ntaub ntawv yuav muaj nyob rau ntawm lub phiaj xwm qhov vev xaib thiab kaw cov lus sib hais yuav muaj nyob rau ntawm lub phiaj xwm lub vev xaib sai tom qab kev sib tham.

Lub rooj sib tham rau pej xeem virtual yuav pib rau thaum 6:00 p.m. thiab yuav xaus thaum txhua tus neeg txaus siab tau los ua pov thawj lossis 8:00 p.m., saib qhov twg los tshwm sim ua ntej. Lub rooj sib tham rau pej xeem virtual yuav pib nrog kev tshaj tawm xov xwm kev qhia ua ntej lees txais cov lus pov thawj los ntawm pej xeem. YouTube Live link thiab lub vev xaib muab cov lus qhia yuav ua li cas los hais cov lus tim khawv rau pej xeem hauv YouTube Live lossis hauv xov tooj tshwj xeeb rau tus kws hais plaub thaum lub sijhawm sib hais plaub rau pej xeem. YouTube Live lossis hauv xov tooj tshwj xeeb rau tus kws sau cov ntawv thaum hais plaub thaum lub sijhawm sib hais plaub rau pej xeem

Rau lub rooj sib tham hauv zej zog virtual, cov khoom pov thawj ntawm txoj haujlwm thiab cov lus hais txog qhov project yuav tuaj xyuas rau ntawm lub vev xaib dej num. Cov neeg ua haujlwm ntawm txoj haujlwm yuav muaj los teb cov lus nug tsis xws li email lossis YouTube cov lus qhuab qhia; txawm li cas los xij, cov ncauj lus no tsis suav nrog qhov hais ua tim khawv.

Yuav tuaj hais lus tim ntsej tim muag rau cov pej xeem rau Wednesday, July 8, 2020, rau hauv Brown County Fairgrounds ntawm 1500 Fort Howard Ave, De Pere, WI 54115. Lub rooj sib tham rau pej xeem yuav ua los ntawm 3:00 p.m. rau 8:00 p.m. Cov neeg txaus siab tuaj yeem koom nrog txhua lub sijhawm ntawm 3:00 p.m. rau 8:00 p.m. txhawm rau tshuaj xyuas cov ntawv tshaj tawm thiab lwm cov khoom siv sib hais, nug cov lus nug, thiab muab cov lus pov thawj lossis pej xeem.

Qhov ib txwm muaj ntawm cov tib neeg hauv kev sib tham yuav pib thaum 3:00 p.m. thiab yuav xaus thaum txhua tus neeg txaus siab tau muab cov lus pov thawj lossis 8:00 p.m., saib qhov twg los tshwm sim ua ntej. Lub rooj sib tham rau pej xeem yuav suav nrog kev sib txuas lus txuas ntxiv ntawm txoj kev nthuav qhia qhov dej num.

Thaum tuaj hais lus tim ntsej tim muag rau cov pej xeem, yuav muaj cov neeg ua haujlwm ntawm cov phiaj xwm yuav muaj sijhawm sib tham kom piav txog qhov project thiab teb cov lus nug. Cov khoom pov thawj ntawm qhov dej num yuav muab coj los tso saib thiab cov lus hais txog qhov dej num yuav tuaj xyuas.

Txhawm rau pab npaj kev pabcuam rau cov kev pabcuam tshwj xeeb xav tau koom nrog, lossis thov rau cov ntaub ntawv sib hais hauv zej zog (daim ntawv qhia thiab cov khoom pov thawj) xa rau koj, thov hu rau Cole Runge, ntawm cov xov tooj chaw nyob hauv qab no, tsis pub dhau peb hnub ua haujlwm natwm lub rooj sib tham rau pej xeem. Lub chaw sib tham muaj chaw neej siv tau lub rooj zaum log. Cov neeg lag ntseg lossis tsis hnov lus zoo uas xav tau kev pab yuav tsum tau hu rau Wisconsin Telecommunications Relay System (ntaus 711).

Txhua tus neeg txaus siab raug caw tuaj koom ib lossis ob qho kev sib tham thiab hais cov lus hais lossis cov lus sau ua pov thawj uas muaj feem txog lub coj sib txuas qhov chaw: txoj kev raug tsim txom hauv zej zog, kev khwv nyiaj txiag thiab ib puag ncig thiab cov txiaj ntsig ntawm kev txheeb xyuas txoj kev hauv tsev thiab seb txoj kev hauv tsev los yog tsis yog pej xeem txoj kev nyiam thiab muaj raws li cov hom phiaj thiab cov phiaj xwm ntawm thaj chaw npaj.

Cia siab tias yuav tau tsiv cov neeg nyob, lag luam, lossis liaj teb ntawm thaj chaw sim vim qhov haujlwm no. Qhov no yuav raug tshuaj xyuas thaum Tier 2 thiab tsis muaj kev tsiv chaw nyob yuav tshwm sim kom txog thaum Tier 2 ib puag ncig kev tshuaj xyuas tiav.

Muaj lwm txoj hauv kev xa cov lus sau ntawm cov ntawv sau cia lossis lwm yam khoom pov thawj hloov chaw lossis ntxiv rau cov lus pov thawj uas nthuav tawm hauv lub rooj sib tham. Cov lus pov thawj ntxiv

REV 7/2019 no yuav suav nrog hauv cov rooj sib tham yog tias tshaj tawm tsis pub dhau August 3, 2020. Xa cov lus pov thawj ntxiv no mus rau tus tswj hwm qhov project hu rau hauv qab no.

Ceeb toom rau TXHUA TUS NEEG NYIAM tias muaj daim ntawv qauv Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) uas ntsuas qhov kev xav tau ntawm ib puag ncig thiab cov teeb meem uas tau ua tiav raws li txoj cai Wisconsin and National Environmental Policy Acts. Yoj xav tau ntawv luam ntawm daim qauv Environmental Impact Statement muaj rau kev tshuaj xyuas thiab teem sijhawn ntawm cov chaw nram qab no:

Brown County Planning Commission 305 E. Walnut St., Room 320 Green Bay, WI 54305-3600 (920) 448-6480 Brown County Department of Public Works 2198 Glendale Avenue Green Bay, WI 54303 (920) 492-4925 Northeast Region Office Wisconsin Department of Transportation 944 Vanderperren Way Green Bay, WI 54304 (920) 492-5623

Cov ntawv luam ua tiav tuaj yeem muab tau ntawm cov chaw no. Tej zaum yuav raug them tus nqi rau cov kev pabcuam no. Ib daim ntawv tuaj yeem saib ntawm nyob lub vev xaib no: https://www.browncountywi.gov/departments/planning-and-land-services/planning/south-bridge- connector/

Cov neeg uas muaj kev txaus siab nyob rau hauv lossis kev paub txog keeb kwm thiab keeb kwm kev pab hauv thaj chaw tsim kho raug caw tuaj nthuav qhia cov ntaub ntawv zoo li no hauv kev sib hais rau pej xeem.

Cov lus hais txog kev cuam tshuam thiab kev cuam tshuam ntawm ib puag ncig ntawm lub phiaj xwm yuav raug hais tawm rau hauv daim ntawv kawg Tier 1 EIS yog tias tshaj tawm tsis pub dhau August 3, 2020. Sau los yog lus hais ntawm cov quav Tier 1 EIS yuav tsum muab xa rau tus neeg hauv qad no.

Cole Runge Brown County PO Box 23600 Green Bay, WI 54305-3600 (920) 448-6480 [email protected]

Brown County thiab WisDOT yuav xyuas tag nrho cov lus pom thiab cov lus pov thawj uas tau hais ua ib feem ntawm txheej txheem hnov lus no thiab muaj cai txiav txim siab zaum kawg rau txoj haujlwm raws li tau piav qhia hauv tsab ntawv ceeb toom no.

Brown County Planning Department

Project ID 4556-02-00

REV 7/2019

Wh>/,Z/E' ǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚǇŽĨƚŚĞdŝĞƌϭƌĂŌ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů/ŵƉĂĐƚ^ƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚ ƌŽǁŶŽƵŶƚǇĂŶĚƚŚĞtŝƐĐŽŶƐŝŶĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƟŽŶĂƌĞ ĐŽŶĚƵĐƟŶŐĂƉƵďůŝĐŚĞĂƌŝŶŐƚŽĚŝƐĐƵƐƐƚŚĞůŽĐĂƟŽŶĂŶĚĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů ĂƐƉĞĐƚƐĨŽƌŝĚĞŶƟĨǇŝŶŐĂĐŽƌƌŝĚŽƌĨŽƌƚŚĞ^ŽƵƚŚƌŝĚŐĞŽŶŶĞĐƚŽƌďĞƚǁĞĞŶ ONLINE HEARING County EB/F in the town of Lawrence and County GV/X in the town of Tuesday, July 7, 2020 >ĞĚŐĞǀŝĞǁŝŶƌŽǁŶŽƵŶƚǇ͘ 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. dŚĞƌĞǁŝůůďĞƚǁŽƉĂƌƟĐŝƉĂƟŽŶŽƉƟŽŶƐĨŽƌƚŚŝƐƉƵďůŝĐŚĞĂƌŝŶŐ͗ŽŶůŝŶĞ ŚƩƉƐ͗ͬͬǇŽƵƚƵ͘ďĞͬϲϵǁǇͺĞϱ/Ő ĂŶĚŝŶͲƉĞƌƐŽŶ͘ŽƚŚŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƟĞƐǁŝůůƉƌĞƐĞŶƚƚŚĞƐĂŵĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶ͘ WƌŽũĞĐƚƐƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƟŽŶďĞŐŝŶƐĂƚ WůĞĂƐĞĂƩĞŶĚƚŚĞŽŶĞƚŚĂƚŝƐŵŽƐƚĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƟŶŐĨŽƌǇŽƵ͘dŚĞŚĞĂƌŝŶŐƐ ϲ͗ϬϬƉ͘ŵ͘ĨŽůůŽǁĞĚďǇǀĞƌďĂůƚĞƐƟŵŽŶǇ͘ ǁŝůůĐŽŶƚĂŝŶĂƉƌŽũĞĐƚƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƟŽŶ͕ĚŝƐƉůĂǇƐ͕ĂƐƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚŽŶƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͕ ĂŶĚŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚǇƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƚĞƐƟŵŽŶǇ͘ƌĞĐŽƌĚŝŶŐŽĨƚŚĞǀŝƌƚƵĂůƉƵďůŝĐ /EͳWZ^KE,Z/E' ŚĞĂƌŝŶŐǁŝůůďĞĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞŽŶƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚǁĞďƐŝƚĞƐŚŽƌƚůǇĂŌĞƌŝƚŝƐŚĞůĚ͘ Wednesday, July 8, 2020 ůůǁŚŽǁŝƐŚƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞǀĞƌďĂůŽƌǁƌŝƩĞŶƚĞƐƟŵŽŶǇĐĂŶĚŽƐŽĚƵƌŝŶŐ 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. ĞŝƚŚĞƌŽƉƟŽŶ͘/ŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶƐǁŝůůďĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚĂƚƚŚĞŚĞĂƌŝŶŐƐ͘zŽƵŵĂǇĂůƐŽ Brown County Fairgrounds ƐƵďŵŝƚĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐŽƵƚƐŝĚĞŽĨƚŚĞƉƵďůŝĐŚĞĂƌŝŶŐƚŽŽůĞZƵŶŐĞ͘ŽŵŵĞŶƚƐ 1500 Fort Howard Ave, De Pere, WI 54115 ŵƵƐƚďĞƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚŽƌƉŽƐƚŵĂƌŬĞĚďǇƵŐƵƐƚϯ͕ϮϬϮϬ͘ ŽŵĞĂŶǇƟŵĞĨƌŽŵϯ͗ϬϬƉ͘ŵ͘ƵŶƟůϴ͗ϬϬƉ͘ŵ͘ ƚŽǀŝĞǁƚŚĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƟŽŶ;ƌƵŶŶŝŶŐŽŶĂůŽŽƉͿ ĂŶĚĚŝƐƉůĂǇƐ͕ĂŶĚƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƚĞƐƟŵŽŶǇ͘^ŽĐŝĂů dŽĂƌƌĂŶŐĞĂƐƐŝƐƚĂŶĐĞĨŽƌƐƉĞĐŝĂůĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƟŽŶƐŶĞĞĚĞĚƚŽƉĂƌƟĐŝƉĂƚĞ͕ ĚŝƐƚĂŶĐŝŶŐŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐǁŝůůďĞŝŶƉůĂĐĞ͘ or to request public hearing materials (exhibits and handouts) be mailed ƚŽǇŽƵ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞĐŽŶƚĂĐƚŽůĞZƵŶŐĞŶŽůĂƚĞƌƚŚĂŶƚŚƌĞĞǁŽƌŬŝŶŐĚĂǇƐ prior to the public hearing. ŽŶƚĂĐƚ/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶ͗ Cole Runge, Brown County PO Box 23600 dŽǀŝĞǁƚŚĞdŝĞƌϭ/^ƌĂŌ͕ĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŚĞŽŶůŝŶĞŚĞĂƌŝŶŐ͕ŽƌĨŽƌŵŽƌĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂ- Green Bay, WI 54305-3600 ƟŽŶ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞǀŝƐŝƚƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚǁĞďƐŝƚĞ͗ŚƩƉƐ͗ͬͬǁǁǁ͘ďƌŽǁŶĐŽƵŶƚǇǁŝ͘ŐŽǀͬ (920) 448-6480 ĚĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐͬƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐͲĂŶĚͲůĂŶĚͲƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐͬƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐͬƐŽƵƚŚͲďƌŝĚŐĞͲĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŽƌͬ [email protected]

SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR PUBLIC HEARING AND AVAILABILITY OF THE TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Brown County and the Wisconsin Department of Public Hearing Opportunities: Transportation are conducting a public hearing to discuss the location and environmental aspects for identifying a Online Hearing: corridor for the South Bridge Connector between County Tuesday, July 7, 2020 EB/F in the town of Lawrence and County GV/X in the town 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. of Ledgeview in Brown County. YouTube Live (https://youtu.be/E69wyE_e5Ig) or call in at There will be two participation options for this public (920) 785-5851, conference ID 91959483# hearing. Both opportunities will present the same link also available on project website information. In consideration of the COVID-19 pandemic, it In-Person Hearing: is encouraged that the public participate in the process Wednesday, July 8, 2020 through the virtual public hearing component to the extent 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. (open house) possible. A recording of the virtual public hearing will be Brown County Fairgrounds available on the project website shortly after it is held. 1500 Fort Howard Ave, De Pere, WI 54115 All who wish to provide testimony can do so during either option. Instructions to provide testimony will be provided at Contact Information: the hearing. You may also submit comments outside of the Cole Runge, Brown County public hearing to Cole Runge. Comments must be received PO Box 23600 Green Bay, WI 54305-3600 or postmarked by August 3, 2020. (920) 448-6480 [email protected] For more information, to access the online hearing, or view a copy of the Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement, To arrange assistance for special accommodations needed to please visit the project website: participate, or to request public hearing materials (exhibits and handouts) be mailed to you, please contact Cole Runge no later https://www.browncountywi.gov/departments/planning- than three working days prior to the public hearing. and-land-services/planning/south-bridge-connector/

3. Public Hearing Handout

Hearing Handout Packet

Public Hearing For Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement South Bridge Connector

County EB/F in the Town of Lawrence and County GV/X in the Town of Ledgeview Brown County Project ID: 4556-02-00

Virtual Portion of the Public Hearing held via YouTube Live Tuesday, July 7, 2020 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

In-Person Portion of the Public Hearing held at the Brown County Fairgrounds Wednesday, July 8, 2020 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

Handout Packet Contents

Page Description 1 Welcome and Purpose of the Public Hearing 2 Public Hearing Agenda 3 Options and Instructions for Providing Testimony 5 Information for the Public Hearing Record 6 Project Location Map 6 Environmental Documentation Process 7 Project Statement 14 Alternatives Comparison Matrix 15 Property Acquisition/Relocation Assistance and Benefits 15 Next Steps 16 Description of Public Hearing Exhibits 16 PowerPoint Presentation Description 16 Contact Information 19 Written Testimony Form—Due by August 3, 2020 21 Registration Slip for Verbal Testimony

i Welcome and Purpose of the Public Hearing

Thank you for attending today’s public hearing for the South Bridge Connector project. This public hearing provides you the opportunity to give testimony on the Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that contains information regarding proposed transportation improvements that affect both near-term and long-term changes to the corridor.

The objective of the public hearing and environmental document availability period is to get the most complete expression of public opinion regarding the project aspects listed in this handout on the record. Testimony provided during this public hearing and during the environmental document availability period will be considered along with other judgments and opinions received before further decisions are made on the proposed project alternatives. This public hearing includes a project presentation and opportunities to provide public/private verbal testimony to a court reporter and/or written testimony. All testimony will be entered into the public hearing record along with other public hearing presentations, exhibits and materials

This public hearing will focus on the following aspects of the proposed South Bridge Connector project:

• The location and design features of the proposed improvements and alternatives being considered. • The National and Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act public hearing process, as applicable, on projects which include preparation of an environmental document. The final environmental document prepared following this public hearing will be the decision document for the proposed improvements. Copies of the draft environmental document are available for review at this public hearing. • Project activities that will eventually (after Tier 2 environmental analysis) require authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act for placing fill into waters of the United States including wetlands, and other approvals from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Wisconsin Historical Society.

More information on the project, along with the Tier 1 Draft EIS can be found on the project website: https://www.browncountywi.gov/departments/planning-and-land- services/planning/south-bridge-connector/

1 Public Hearing Agenda

Virtual Hearing via YouTube Live – July 7, 2020 Participants may also call (920)785-5851, conference ID 91959483# to listen to the virtual hearing via audio only

Time Item Sign in, review handout and exhibits on the website. Informal questions about the 6:00 p.m. project may be asked via email. Important! – Determine if you will be providing testimony. If so, determine which

option(s) and follow the instructions*. Availability to provide Private Verbal Testimony* and Written Testimony* begins. Private Verbal Testimony is available until the end of the public hearing. Written Testimony will be accepted until August 3, 2020. Welcome and Opening Statement Project presentation and description of exhibits Public Verbal Testimony* option begins upon completion of project presentation. 6:15 p.m. Opportunity to review exhibits on the project website and ability to ask informal questions to the project staff via email or YouTube Live chat continues. Public Hearing ends at 8:00 p.m. or after all public verbal testimony has been 8:00 p.m. recorded, whichever is later. Written, mail in, email, and call in testimony* available until August 3, 2020.

In-Person Hearing at Brown County Fairgrounds – July 8, 2020

Time Item Sign in, pick up handout, review exhibits, listen to the presentation, visit with 3:00 p.m. project staff and ask questions about the proposed improvements. Important! – Determine if you will be providing testimony. If so, determine which

option(s) and follow the instructions*. Availability to provide Public Verbal Testimony*, Private Verbal Testimony* and Written Testimony* begins. All options are available until the end of the public hearing. Written Testimony will continue to be accepted until August 3, 2020. Opening Statement, Information for the Record, and Project Statement read 8:00 p.m. Public Hearing ends at 8 pm or after all public verbal testimony has been recorded, whichever is later. Written, mail in, email, and call in testimony* available until August 3, 2020

*See the following “Options and Instructions for Providing Testimony”

2 Options and Instructions for Providing Testimony

There are several options for providing testimony as described below. Your testimony will be reviewed and considered by Brown County, Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (also referred to as the Lead Agencies) as part of the process for identifying the selected alternative. Testimony should be limited to tonight’s public hearing aspects (see Page 1), and statements or opinions about the project.

Provide comments on the alternative(s) you support or oppose and your reasons. Questions related to the project can be directed to project staff during the informal discussions but will not be answered during public testimony.

Private Verbal Testimony

This option may be preferred if you wish to make your statement privately to the court reporter rather than in front of an audience. This option is available during the entire public hearing.

Virtual Public Hearing To get placed into the call back queue to provide private testimony, please call 920-492-7705 or send an email to [email protected]. A call taker will take your name, address and a call back phone number. If we are experiencing high call volumes, a call taker may not immediately be available to take your information. Please hold on the line and we will answer your call in the order received. If sending an email, please indicate that you are interested in providing private testimony. Participants will be called back when it is your turn to provide private testimony based on the order in which the request was received. Please be patient when waiting for your call back. Please limit your testimony to approximately 3 minutes to allow time for others to provide their testimony. When you receive the call back, provide your name and address. You may also indicate if you are representing a business or organization. Then proceed with your testimony. When you get your call back, please turn off the audio on your computer; the YouTube Live presentation audio coming through your speaker will make it difficult for the court reporter to understand your testimony.

In-Person Public Hearing For the in-person public hearing at the Brown County Fairgrounds, follow the signs or ask project team members for directions to the location for providing private verbal testimony. Wait for an opening, provide the court reporter with your completed “Registration Slip for Verbal Testimony” (included in this handout packet or on a table at the in-person hearing), state your name, address, and if applicable, the group, organization or business you are representing. Then give the court reporter your testimony. Please limit your testimony to approximately 3 minutes to allow time for others to provide their testimony.

3 Public Verbal Testimony

Virtual Public Hearing To get placed into the call back queue to provide public testimony, please call 920-492-7705 or send an email to [email protected]. A call taker will take your name, address and a call back phone number. If we are experiencing high call volumes, a call taker may not immediately be available to take your information. Please hold on the line and we will answer your call in the order received. If sending an email, please indicate that you are interested in providing public testimony. Participants will be called back when it is your turn to provide public verbal testimony based on the order in which the request was received. Please be patient when waiting for your call back. Please limit your testimony to approximately 3 minutes to allow time for others to provide their testimony in public. When you receive the call back, provide your name and address. You may also indicate if you are representing a business or organization. Then proceed with your testimony. When you get your call back, please turn off the audio on your computer. There is up to a 30-second time lag between your phone testimony and what is broadcast over YouTube Live coming back out of your computer audio which will cause confusion for all parties.

In-Person Public Hearing For the in-person public hearing at the Brown County Fairgrounds, public verbal testimony will be accepted any time during the public hearing from 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., following the Project Opening Statement.

Complete a “Registration Slip for Verbal Testimony” (included in this handout packet or on a table at the in-person hearing). Give it to staff at the verbal testimony table any time. Your name will be called in the order the registration slips are received.

When you are called to the microphone to provide testimony, please state your name, address, and if applicable, the group, organization or business you are representing. Please limit your testimony to approximately 3 minutes to allow time for others to provide their testimony in public. You can testify again as part of the public verbal testimony after others wishing to testify have done so.

Public verbal testimony will continue until everyone interested in providing testimony has had the opportunity to do so or until the public hearing ends at 8:00 p.m., whichever comes later.

Verbal Testimony following the Public Hearings

Following the public hearings, you may provide oral comments on the project by phone until August 3, 2020 by contacting Cole Runge, Interim Planning Director/MPO Director, Brown County, at (920) 448-6480. A summary of the oral comments made by phone, including voicemail, will be written down for inclusion in the public hearing record.

4 Written Testimony

You may provide written testimony in addition to, or in place of, verbal testimony. Complete the “Written Testimony Form” (included in this handout packet, at the sign-in table at the main entrance, or on tables throughout the room). You may also use your own stationery. Include your name, address, and if applicable, the group, organization or business you are representing. If you prepared written testimony prior to the public hearing, you may submit that also.

There are two options for submitting your written testimony as described below.

1. Submit Tonight: Complete the Written Testimony Form and place the form along with any other supporting documentation in the box located on the table in the hearing room or e-mail to Cole Runge, Interim Planning Director/MPO Director, Brown County, at [email protected].

2. Mail In: You may prefer this option if you would like additional time to organize your thoughts/testimony. The Written Testimony Form is pre-addressed. You may also send written testimony via e-mail. Comments can be sent to:

Cole Runge Interim Planning Director/MPO Director, Brown County PO Box 23600 Green Bay, WI 54305-3600 (920) 448-6480 [email protected]

Mailed or e-mailed testimony must be postmarked or received no later than August 3, 2020 to be included in the official public hearing record.

Information for the Public Hearing Record

In addition to the testimony provided at this public hearing, all exhibits, handouts, audio/visual presentations and displays available for viewing at the public hearing will be included in the official public hearing record. Page 16 of this handout contains a complete listing of these materials. Other materials you wish to provide, along with other written testimony received after the public hearing, will be added to the official public hearing record provided they are postmarked or received no later than August 3, 2020.

5 Project Location Map

Environmental Document Process

The environmental document process includes developing a project purpose and need, developing a range of alternatives, evaluating and screening alternatives, identifying a preferred alternative, and selecting and alternative. Numerous factors are considered throughout the environmental document development process including safety, mobility, compatibility with state/regional/local plans, engineering design standards, impacts to the socio-economic, natural and physical environment, cost, and input from the public and state/federal agencies.

The South Bridge Connector is currently at the Tier 1 Draft EIS stage. The Tier 1 Draft EIS documents the project purpose and need for the proposed improvements, describes corridor alternatives considered, identifies the preferred corridor alternative, identifies environmental impacts of the alternatives retained for detailed study, and records public involvement and agency coordination during the development of the purpose and need and refinement of alternatives. The Tier 1 Final EIS and Record of Decision will identify the selected1 the corridor alternative, document reasons for its selection, and summarize the results of public testimony provided during the public hearing as well as document the availability period along with public and agency comments on the Tier 1 Draft EIS.

1 Although the Draft EIS identifies the Lead Agencies’ preferred corridor alternative, the decision is not final until an alternative is selected in the Record of Decision. 6 Project Statement

Project Background:

The study area generally comprises the area between I-41 on the west to I-43 on the east, within the City of De Pere and the Towns of Rockland, Lawrence, and Ledgeview.

The need for transportation system improvements was first identified in the 1968 Brown County comprehensive plan. Since that time, the concept of building a new Fox River bridge and connecting street system was included in many local community plans and studies as an important component of future development patterns.

In 2006, Brown County began early public involvement and agency coordination to explore the need for improved east-west travel in the southern Green Bay metropolitan area. In 2008, the Lead Agencies issued a Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to explore options to address transportation needs in the southern portion of the Green Bay metropolitan area . The purpose of and need for the project were developed, alternatives were analyzed, and extensive public involvement was conducted to gather public input.

In 2012, the NEPA process was paused to conduct additional traffic and engineering studies. During this time, the Lead Agencies determined that since full funding for the project would not be immediately available, the project would likely need to be implemented in phases as funds became available. Therefore, to continue and complete the study as a federally approved NEPA action, FHWA recommended that the study transition to a Tier 1 EIS.

On December 30, 2019, the Lead Agencies resumed the NEPA process and published a revised Notice of Intent to prepare a Tier 1 EIS. This Tier 1 EIS evaluates transportation needs in the study area and analyzes broad corridors and conceptual transportation improvements rather than detailed alignments. If the Tier 1 Final EIS and Record of Decision identifies a selected corridor for improvements, then as funding becomes available to construct sections of the project, subsequent Tier 2 environmental documents will be prepared to evaluate the design, cost, and impacts of specific alignment alternatives. No construction will directly result from the completion of the Tier 1 EIS alone, since Tier 2 environmental document(s) will be required before construction occurs.

Project Purpose:

The purpose of the project is to identify the most appropriate improvements for addressing existing east-west transportation demand and demand that will be generated by the planned development in the southern portion of the Green Bay metropolitan area.

Project Need: The project is needed to:

7 • Address congestion in the vicinity of the existing Fox River bridges—The limited number of Fox River crossings in the southern Green Bay metropolitan area causes congestion on the Claude Allouez and WIS 172 bridges that is expected to worsen in the future. Downtown De Pere is not suited to carry high volumes of traffic because of the 25-miles per hour (mph) speed limit, on-street parking, pedestrian crossings, and high number of businesses and residences on Main Avenue/Reid Street. • Accommodate existing and planned land use and future travel demand generated by planned development—Population and employment in study area communities are forecast to increase, and communities have adopted land use plans to accommodate growth, designating future development to occur in the study area on both the east and west sides of the river. While it is not a foregone conclusion that a new Fox River crossing will be built, the comprehensive plans of study area communities include constructing a new Fox River bridge to support and accommodate traffic from future growth. • Reduce travel time by improving east-west connectivity—The lack of a river crossing for more than 10 miles between downtown De Pere and downtown Wrightstown hinders east- west connectivity in the study area and causes increased congestion on existing bridges, travel times, travel distances, and travel indirection. Congestion and travel times will continue to increase as population and employment grows. The limited number of river crossings also affects emergency services as responders have to travel farther to get to destinations across the river and can experience longer response times when the bridges are congested. • Address higher-than-average crash rates and safety issues in the vicinity of the existing Fox River bridges—The crash rates on the WIS 172 bridge and on roadways in the vicinity of the Claude Allouez Bridge are higher than the statewide average. In addition, due to the lack of river crossings, drivers must travel out of their way to reach destinations, which provides the opportunity for more crashes.

Summary of Alternatives: The Lead Agencies conducted a three-step alternatives screening process.

Step 1—Develop and Screen Alternatives. In this step, the Lead Agencies identified 15 alternatives within the project boundaries: the No Build Alternative, 12 build alternatives, the Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative, and Transportation Demand Management (TDM)Alternative. The build alternatives consist of the Improve Existing Roads Alternative and 11 alternative routes (see exhibit below). During Step 1, the 11 alternative routes were analyzed as a collective group (Build New Route) rather than individually. For these 11 routes, the Lead Agencies considered two types of roadways, a freeway and an arterial, and evaluated them relative to the project needs.

The Lead Agencies conducted a preliminary evaluation based on how well the alternatives met the project purpose and need (address congestion, accommodate land use and future travel demand, reduce travel time, and address safety issues near Fox River bridges). This step ultimately eliminated the Improve Existing Roads Alternative, the TDM Alternative and the TSM Alternative as standalone alternatives, and the freeway option for the Build New Route Alternative. Therefore, at the end of

8 Step 1, the alternatives remaining were the No Build Alternative and the Build New Route Alternative (composed of 11 arterial alternative routes).

Step 2—Evaluate Alternative Routes. In this step, the Lead Agencies assessed the 11 alternative routes retained based on how each route met the needs-based screening criteria and whether major environmental impacts could result. The project screening criteria included transportation considerations, land use and growth management, environmental considerations, and consistency with local and regional plans. As part of this step, the Lead Agencies determined that some routes did not meet the project screening criteria; were inconsistent with land use, planning, and transportation management goals and objectives; or would result in social, environmental, and economic impacts that were too great.

This step ultimately eliminated nine of the routes from further evaluation because they would not meet the screening criteria: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. Based on considerations that arose during Step 2 evaluation, the Lead Agencies added two modified alternative routes for consideration in Step 3. Alternative Route 2 was expanded to include an alternative without a new I-41 interchange and the Lead Agencies also added the Alternative Route 5/6 Hybrid to assess whether an alternative route south of Rockland Road-Southbridge Road with a new I-41 interchange could improve the metropolitan area transportation system’s ability to handle future travel demand because of its location in an area planned for development.

At the end of Step 2, four routes remained: Alternative Route 1, Alternative Route 2 with and without an interchange with I-41, and Alternative Route 5/6 Hybrid.

Step 3—Refine Alternative Routes. In the final step, the Lead Agencies conducted additional analysis to further evaluate the four remaining routes (Alternative Route 1, Alternative Route 2 with and without an interchange with I-41, and Alternative Route 5/6 Hybrid) and identify corridors to be evaluated in detail in this Tier 1 EIS. This step provided a more detailed assessment of each of the four routes based on the following measures:

• Is the route consistent with local and county plan updates, and do local governments support it? • Does the route contribute to problems on nearby existing roads and interchanges? • What is the extent of land acquisition needed for the route? • Does the route minimize effects on environmentally sensitive areas?

Step 3 narrowed the routes retained to two: Alternative Route 1 and Alternative Route 2 with an interchange with I-41. These two routes were retained for detailed study in the Tier 1 Draft EIS.

Corridor Alternatives Retained for Detailed Study:

Following Step 3 of the alternative identification, screening, and evaluation process, the No Build Alternative and two build route alternatives were retained for detailed evaluation in the EIS. These routes are Corridor Alternative 1: Scheuring Road-Heritage Road (County F-County X) and Corridor Alternative 2: Rockland Road-Red Maple Road with an I-41 Interchange. The Lead Agencies identified a working alignment within 500-foot corridors for each alternative as a basis for estimating the impacts.

10 Corridor Alternative 1: Corridor Alternative 1 is approximately 5.5 miles long. Alternative Route 1 begins at County EB (Packerland Drive) and passes through the existing I-41 interchange at the northern edge of Preserve Park. It continues along County F in the Town of Lawrence, crosses the Fox River, and continues along County X (Heritage Road). The route ends at the previously improved County GV (Monroe Road) in the Town of Ledgeview. Alternative Route 1 would provide a river crossing 1.5 miles south of the Claude Allouez Bridge.

From its western terminus at County EB (Packerland Drive) to west of Mid Valley Drive, the representative cross-section of the South Bridge Connector is a four-lane divided rural roadway. West of the Fox River, between Mid Valley Drive and Lawrence Drive, County F would need additional capacity, likely three lanes in each direction. If it is reconstructed, features such as a sidewalk or shared-use path would likely be added. In addition, the County F intersections with the I-41 interchange ramps would need to be reconstructed to accommodate the increased traffic and the County F bridge over I-41 would need to be widened.

Also, west of Fox River, between Matthew Drive and the Fox River, one lane is expected to be added in each direction, and the existing two-way left-turn lane would remain. A sidewalk or shared-use path would likely be provided. East of the Fox River to County GV (the east terminus) it follows County X, and the road would likely be widened to be a four-lane divided roadway with a median.

Corridor Alternative 1 could impact 18 wetlands, totaling 5 to 8 acres of impacts. Corridor Alternative 1 also has 4 crossings of the 100-year floodplain. The floodway and floodplain crossings would be required where existing roadways would be widened to accommodate the proposed improvements. The one exception is the Fox River, where a new bridge is proposed, and bridge piers would need to be placed in the floodway.

Corridor Alternative 2: Rockland Road-Red Maple Road Arterial with I-41 Interchange Corridor Alternative 2 is approximately 6 miles long. It would begin at County EB (Packerland Drive) in the Town of Lawrence and continue along a new alignment to connect to a new full-access interchange on I-41. The route would continue east on Southbridge Road and Red Maple Road, cross the Fox River, and continue along Rockland Road. At the intersection of Rockland Road and County PP (South Broadway), the route would continue northeast along a new alignment and end at the intersection of County X and the previously improved County GV (Monroe Road) in the Town of Ledgeview. Alternative Route 2 would cross the Fox River 2.5 miles south of the Claude Allouez Bridge.

The representative cross-section for Corridor Alternative 2 is anticipated to be a four-lane divided roadway with a median, shared-use path or sidewalk, and ditches from its west terminus at the intersection of County F and County EB (Packerland Drive) to its east terminus at County GV. In addition, the County F interchange with I-41 may need to be reconstructed to accommodate additional traffic. The Lead Agencies are considering a Collector-Distributor (C-D) road along I-41 between the proposed new I-41 interchange and the existing County F interchange 1 mile north as an option for Alternative 2. A C-D road is a limited-access road carrying traffic from local roads to freeways. The purpose of a C-D road is to reduce the number of exit and entrance points on the freeway between two relatively close freeway interchanges. This reduces freeway merging/diverging 11 (weaving) intensity, thereby improving traffic flow and safety. The decision on cross sections, including the C-D option, will be evaluated and finalized during Tier 2.

Corridor Alternative 2 could impact 24 to 25 wetlands resulting in 12 to 21 acres of impacts depending on whether the C-D option is included. Corridor Alternative 2 would cross the 100-year floodplain 3 times. There would be an additional 2 crossings with the C-D option. The Ashwaubenon Creek floodway and floodplain crossing would be impacted as part of the widening of Southbridge Road. The floodplain would also be impacted by the proposed interchange (specifically, the northbound exit ramp from I-41 to Southbridge Road).

Identification of a Preferred Corridor Alternative: The Lead Agencies have identified Corridor Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative.

The No Build Alternative was not selected as the preferred corridor alternative because it would not meet the purpose and need for the project

The Lead Agencies identified Corridor Alternative 2 rather than Corridor Alternative 1 as their preferred for several reasons:

• Travel Time. Corridor Alternative 2 would result in fewer vehicle hours of travel than Corridor Alternative 1. This indicates that Alternative 2 provides a more efficient connection between origins and destinations for travelers. • Congestion. Congestion relief for both alternatives is similar. Although Corridor Alternative 1 would divert more traffic from the Claude Allouez Bridge, the bridge would operate at an acceptable level of service under both alternatives. Corridor Alternative 1 would increase 12 congestion at the County F interchange with I-41, requiring it to be reconstructed. The new I-41 interchange as part of Corridor Alternative 2 would reduce the additional capacity needed at the County F interchange with I-41 compared to Corridor Alternative 1, however some improvements would be required. • Safety. Due to the development adjacent to it and the existing access control, Corridor Alternative 1 has nearly 5 times more access points than Corridor Alternative 2 with little opportunity to consolidate driveways or side streets, which would make Corridor Alternative 1 a less safe corridor. With fewer access points and the ability to implement stronger access control, Corridor Alternative 2 has the ability to provide safer travel. • Land Use Compatibility. Corridor Alternative 2 is more compatible with existing and planned land use. De Pere, Lawrence, Ledgeview, Rockland, Ashwaubenon, Bellevue, and Hobart all support Corridor Alternative 2, and public support for Corridor Alternative 2 is stronger than support for Corridor Alternative 1. The land uses and development adjacent to Alternative 1 require multiple access points that slow the movement of traffic and sensitive land uses that are inconsistent with an arterial carrying longer and higher-speed trips. These land uses would require that the posted speed be lower on Corridor Alternative 1, thus not serving the need as well. Corridor Alternative 2 allows communities to implement stricter access control, post the route at a speed limit appropriate for carrying longer trips, and continue to plan for adjacent development that is consistent with the type of roadway needed to address the purpose and need. • Socioeconomic Impacts. Due to its greater length, Corridor Alternative 2 could require more right of way (mostly agricultural land) than Alternative 1. While Corridor Alternative 2 has the potential for more residential displacements, Corridor Alternative 1 could impact substantially more property owners in a denser area. The density of development, number of access points, and impacts to parking and other features of these properties has the potential to change the character of the neighborhoods adjacent to Corridor Alternative 1. Due to the lesser development and prevalence of agricultural land uses, Corridor Alternative 2 could introduce less disruption to surrounding land uses. • Natural Environment Impacts. Corridor Alternative 2 has the potential to have greater impacts to wetlands and stream crossings than Corridor Alternative 1. Additionally, as Tier 1 considers a broad corridor for the purposes of comparing a wide range of alternatives, there exists the potential to avoid and minimize impacts within the corridor. With the less dense development present in Corridor Alternative 2, the avoidance and minimization potential are greater than it is in the more developed area of Corridor Alternative 1.

Corridor Alternative 2 is the Lead Agencies’ preferred alternative because it would provide the best solution for addressing long-term mobility needs and safety concerns while most effectively serving existing and planned development and balancing impacts to socioeconomic and environmental resources. It provides a similar level of relief to the Claude Allouez Bridge, requires fewer vehicle hours of travel (provides more direct travel), provides better safety performance, would create less disruption to neighborhoods, and is more consistent with surrounding land uses. The new interchange with I-41 would also reduce the additional capacity needed the I-41/County F interchange. Further, Corridor Alternative 2 is more strongly favored by the public and has been endorsed by all of the adjacent communities because it provides a river crossing in an area aligned with the future growth patterns of the communities. 13 Alternatives Comparison Matrix

An alternatives comparison matrix between Corridor Alternative 1 and Corridor Alternative 2 is shown below. Under the No Build Alternative, no right-of-way would be acquired and there would be no relocations. In addition, there would be no impacts to agricultural land, cultural resources, parks, or community resources. However, as congestion increases on existing roads, traffic noise may increase for sensitive noise receptors. There would be also be no impacts to surface waters, wetlands, floodplains, stormwater, or protected species under the No Build Alternative

Resource Corridor Alternative Corridor Alternative Corridor Alternative 1 2 2 Without C-D Road With C-D Road Residential property 45-75 16-25 16-25 acquisition Residential Relocations 4-8 10-16 10-16 Agricultural Land 13-23 47-78 47-78 (acres) Cultural Resources 2 / 0 5 / 1 5 / 1 (archaeological / historic) Park 1 / 0.2-0.3 2 / 0.9-1.5 2 / 4.9-9.5 (number/acres) Sensitive Noise Receptors 300 250 250 Total Stream Crossings 6 (5/1) 8 (3/5) 10 (5/5) (Existing/New) Wetland Impacts 18 / 5-8 24 / 12-20 25 / 13-21 (number/acres) Floodplain Crossings 4 3 5 Protected Species One federally-listed species, the northern long-eared bat, may be affected.

Two state-listed threatened species (wood turtle, snow trillium) may be affected. One state-listed special concern species (lake sturgeon) may be affected during construction.

14 Property Acquisition/Relocation Assistance and Benefits

The extent of specific property acquisitions is not known at this time. If a corridor alternative is selected, Tier 2 assessments will quantify residential relocations needed for the project based on the detailed design and right of way requirements that will be available at that time. As part of the Tier 2 analysis, the Lead Agencies will explore ways to minimize the project’s residential relocation impacts.

Property acquisitions and relocations will be completed in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Uniform Act), as amended. In addition to providing for payment of “Just Compensation” for property acquired, additional benefits are available to eligible displaced persons forced to relocate from their business. Some available benefits include relocation advisory services, reimbursement of moving expenses, replacement of business payments. In compliance with state law, no person would be displaced unless a comparable replacement dwelling would be provided.

Compensation is available to all displaced persons without discrimination. Before initiating property acquisition activities, property owners will be contacted and given an explanation of the details of the acquisition process and Wisconsin’s Eminent Domain Law under Section 32.05, Wisconsin Statutes. Any property to be acquired will be inspected by one or more professional appraisers. The property owner will be invited to accompany the appraiser during the inspection to ensure the appraiser is informed of every aspect of the property. Property owners will be given the opportunity to obtain an appraisal by a qualified appraiser that will be considered by WisDOT in establishing just compensation. Reasonable cost of an owner’s appraisal will be reimbursed to the owner if received within 60 days of initiation of negotiations. Based on the appraisal(s) made, the value of the property will be determined, and that amount offered to the owner.

Next Steps At the end of the document availability period, the project team will review and consider all public hearing testimony and other comments received on the Tier 1 Draft EIS. This input will assist the project team in identifying the selected alternative. Upcoming milestones in completing the engineering and environmental study for the South Bridge Connector project include the following: • Tier 1 Final EIS and Record of Decision (Anticipated October 2020) • If a corridor alternative is selected, begin Tier 2 studies; see table below for tentative dates Section Tier 2 Environmental Document Tentative Construction County EB/ F to Lawrence Drive 2020-2021 2026-2028 (including I-41 Interchange) Lawrence Drive to County D 2022-2023 2029 County D to WIS 57 (including Fox 2023-2025 2030-2031 River Bridge) WIS 57 to County PP 2026-2027 2030 County PP to County GV/X 2027-2028 2032

15 Description of Public Hearing Exhibits The following exhibits and materials are available for review:

Project History and Tier 1 EIS Timeline Environmental and Community Features for Corridor Alternative 2 Purpose and Need of the Project Residential Areas Environmental Process Overview Potential Agricultural Impacts Existing and Future Traffic Volumes and Future Estimated Key Impacts Level of Service under No Build Roadway Segment Crash Rates Preferred Corridor Alternative Alternative Screening Process Step 1 Proposed Typical Cross Section for Alternative 2 Alternative Screening Process Step 2 Example South Bridge Connector Schedule Alternative Screening Process Step 3 Approved Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) available via project website Future Traffic Volumes 3 Copies of the approved Tier 1 Draft EIS (in- person hearing only) Tier 1 Corridor and Working Alignment Directions for attendees that would like to provide testimony (in-person hearing only) Environmental and Community Features for Social Distancing Measures (in-person hearing Corridor Alternative 1 only)

PowerPoint Presentation Brown County is providing a brief PowerPoint presentation as part of this public hearing to update the public on the proposed project alternatives and to explain the public hearing process. The PowerPoint presentation also serves the purpose of providing information required as part of the public hearing Project Statement. Contact Information

Submittal of Written or Oral testimony or general project questions

Additional written or oral public hearing testimony on the Tier 1 Draft EIS after this public hearing should be sent to the Brown County project manager at the address or email address given below. Both written and oral testimony will be recorded and added to the official public hearing record and considered in the final environmental document provided it is postmarked or received no later than August 3, 2020.

Cole Runge Interim Planning Director/MPO Director, Brown County PO Box 23600 Green Bay, WI 54305-3600 (920) 448-6480 [email protected] 16 Property acquisition/relocation questions

No relocations or property acquisitions will occur until Tier 2 environmental analysis. Specific property impacts are not known at this time and will be evaluated during Tier 2. Questions specific to property acquisition and/or relocations of homes and businesses can be answered by Cole Runge.

Project website (project information, schedule and updates)

The Tier 1 Draft EIS and other information can be found at https://www.browncountywi.gov/departments/planning-and-land-services/planning/south-bridge- connector/

The Tier 1 Draft EIS is available for inspection and copying by appointment at the following locations:

Brown County Brown County Northeast Region Office Planning Commission Department of Public Works Wisconsin Department of 305 E. Walnut St., Room 320 2198 Glendale Avenue Transportation Green Bay, WI 54305-3600 Green Bay, WI 54303 944 Vanderperren Way (920) 448-6480 (920) 492-4925 Green Bay, WI 54304 (920) 492-5623

18 Written Testimony Form South Bridge Connector (County EB/F in the Town of Lawrence and County GV/X in the Town of Ledgeview) Public Hearing Tuesday, July 7, 2020, 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. (Virtual Hearing) Wednesday, July 8, 2020, 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. (Brown County Fairgrounds)

Please place this form in the box on the sign-in table or mail or e-mail by August 3, 2020

Name (please print): ______Date: ______Address: ______Phone Number (optional): ______E-mail Address (optional): ______

Testimony (use additional pages if necessary):

______

Fold here

[Stamp]

Brown County Planning Department

PO Box 23600

Green Bay, WI 54305-3600

Attn: Cole Runge

______

Fold here and staple to mail

20 Registration Slip for Verbal Testimony South Bridge Connector (County EB/F in the Town of Lawrence and County GV/X in the Town of Ledgeview) In- Person Public Hearing at Brown County Fairgrounds Wednesday, July 8, 2020, 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

This registration slip may be used for providing public or private verbal testimony. For public verbal testimony, complete this registration slip and submit it to a project team representative. Your name will be called in the order registration slips are received. When you are called to the microphone to provide testimony, please state your name, address, and who you represent if applicable (for example a business). Please speak slowly and clearly. If you do not wish to speak but would like your verbal testimony read aloud to the public to record your position on the project being considered at the public hearing, please check the applicable boxes below.

The same process applies for providing private verbal testimony, but this registration slip should be presented directly to the court reporter when a spot is available to provide your private verbal testimony.

A court reporter will record your testimony. Please limit your testimony to comments and/or opinions regarding the proposed project aspects for which this public hearing is being held. To allow everyone a chance to speak, please limit your testimony to approximately 3 minutes.

Name: ______

Address: ______

______

If applicable - group, organization, or business you are representing: ______

Wishing to speak

Not wishing to speak, but please read aloud and record my position on the preferred corridor alternative or project at the public hearing:

Support the preferred corridor alternative, describe: ______

______

Support the project but Do Not Support the preferred corridor alternative, describe: ______

______

Do Not Support the project, describe: ______

______

______21

4. Hearing Sign-In Sheets YouTube Live Hearing – July 7, 2020 In-Person Hearing – July 8, 2020

The sign-in for the virtual hearing was accomplished through the project team requesting attendees to email their contact information to the project email address. However, the project team noted more participants (78) viewing the YouTube Live presentation during the virtual public hearing than the number that chose to sign in.

BROWN COUNTY VIRTUAL PUBLIC HEARING 4556-02-00 Brown County South Bridge Connector

DATE: TIME: LOCATION: 7/7/2020 6:00PM-8:00PM Virtual, Hosted out of WisDOT NER GB/Lk MI conference room

Street Address Name Representing Phone Number Email City/State/Zip Code Troy Streckenback Brown County [email protected] 1481 Foxborough Ct Dean Sitar De Pere, WI 54115 [email protected] 1489 Fox River Dr Dana Sitar De Pere WI 54115 [email protected] 4479 Stillmeadow Ct Brad & Laurie Rivard De Pere, WI 54115 920.217.4383 [email protected] 2404 Larue Lane Michelle Garrigan Green Bay, WI 54313 920.362.7300 [email protected] 2646 Old Plank Road Irv and Viola Peeters De Pere, WI 54115 920.336.8345 2130 Deer Point Lane Kathy Peeters De Pere, WI 54115 920.217.8465 [email protected] 2130 Deer Point Lane Scott Kasten De Pere, WI 54115 920.676.3678 Joel Brown WisDOT [email protected] 70 S Melcorn Circle Kristin Lison De Pere, WI 54115 920.461.8153 [email protected] Ian Chidister FHWA [email protected] 1365 Jordan Road Pat Boeselager De Pere, WI 54115 [email protected] Colleen Harris WisDOT [email protected]

204 Cornellius Martin Ct Gary Martinson De Pere, WI 54115 612.548.1559 [email protected] Darren Fortney SEH 608-620-6191 [email protected] Tammy Rabe WisDOT [email protected] Todd Sanders HNTB [email protected] 1034 Trailwood Drive Scott Sauer De Pere, WI 54115 [email protected] 1844 Olden Glen Charles Lieb De Pere, WI 54115 [email protected]

5. Photographs of Hearing Display Exhibits

6. PowerPoint Presentation

Purpose of a Public Hearing

The purpose of this public hearing is to provide information and receive comments on the South Bridge Connector Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared by Brown County, WisDOT, and FHWA. A public hearing is a more formal event than a public involvement meeting and is required by law. All public testimony is recorded by a court reporter and entered into the record. PUBLIC HEARING The Tier 1 Draft EIS was signed on June 12, 2020 and a Notice of JULY 7 AND 8, 2020 Availability was published in the Federal Register on June 19, 2020.

Presentation Outline

• Project Background • Preferred Alternative • Public Hearing Process • Next steps Project Background Overview Map Project History

FHWA recommended that the study transition to a Tier 1 EIS since funding is not immediately available for the entire project

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Purpose and Need

This Tier 1 EIS is a broad-scale document The purpose of the project is to address existing that: east-west transportation demand and demand that will be • Analyzes broad corridors and conceptual transportation generated by the planned development in the southern portion of improvements rather than detailed the Green Bay metropolitan area. alignments The project is needed to: • Provides an indication of potential impacts that may be associated with • Address congestion in the vicinity of the the proposed alternatives existing Fox River bridges ¾ Claude Allouez Bridge and WIS 172 • Relies on previous research and public records (minimal additional bridges would operate at level of service E in field work or data collection 2045 w/o new crossing required) • Accommodate existing and planned land use and future travel • Does not directly result in demand generated by planned development construction (Tier 2 required before ¾ Dramatic growth in southern Brown County construction) • Reduce travel time by improving east-west connectivity ¾ Congestion on Claude Allouez Bridge slows emergency response times The Tier 1 EIS utilizes much of the work completed by Brown County • Address higher-than-average crash rates and safety issues near Claude Allouez Bridge and WIS during the development of the Draft EIS between 2008 – 2012. 172 ¾ Main Avenue in De Pere and WIS 172 have above-average crash rates due to congestion Alternatives Analysis Range of Alternatives

Three step process: Step 1—Develop and Screen Alternatives Step 2—Evaluate Alternative Routes Step 3—Refine Corridor Alternatives

Public, tribal, local official, and regulatory agency input were considered in the process

Alternatives Retained for Detailed Study

Preferred Alternative Preferred Alternative Estimated Key Impacts Resource Corridor Corridor Alternative 2 Corridor Alternative 2 Corridor Alternative 2: Rockland Road-Red Maple Road Arterial Alternative 1 Without C-D Option With C-D Option with I-41 Interchange* Residential Property acquisition 45-75 16-25 16-25 Residential Relocations 4-6 10-16 10-16 Corridor Alternative 2 was identified as the preferred alternative Agricultural Land (acres) 13-23 47-78 47-78 because it provides the best solution for addressing long-term Cultural Resources 2 / 0 5 / 1 5 / 1 mobility needs and safety concerns while most effectively serving (archaeological/historic) existing and planned development and balancing impacts to Parks (number/acres) 1 / 0.2-0.3 2 / 0.9-1.5 2 / 4.9-9.5 socioeconomic and environmental resources. Sensitive Noise Receptors 300 250 250 Total Stream Crossings 6 (5/1) 8 (3/5) 10 (5/5) • Travel Time • Land Use Compatibility (Existing/New) • Congestion (esp. at • Socioeconomic Impacts Wetland Impacts (number/acres) 18 / 5-8 24 / 12-20 25 / 13-21 Scheuring Rd interchange) Floodplain Crossings 4 3 5 • Natural Environmental Protected Species One federally listed species, the northern long-eared bat, may be Impacts affected. Two state-listed threatened species (wood turtle, snow • Safety trillium) may be affected. One state-listed special concern species *With or without Collector-Distributor roads between new interchange and Scheuring Rd. (lake sturgeon) may be affected during construction

Traffic Volumes

Public Hearing Process Project Statement Providing Testimony

The hearing handout provides a complete project statement and Public verbal testimony additional details on: • Make a statement which will be heard by the public and recorded by a • Project background court reporter You may choose to speak yourself or have your statement read aloud • Purpose and need for the project • • Name and affiliation will be announced • Alternatives Private verbal testimony: • Impacts of alternatives • Make a statement privately to a court reporter rather than heard by the • Exhibits on display public Written testimony: The Project Statement was read into the record and transcribed by the • May be used in addition to, or in place of, verbal testimony. court reporter prior to the beginning of public hearing • Complete the comment form at the end of the hearing packet, write letters using your own stationery, or submit via email

Comment Period

• Additional verbal and written comments on the Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be accepted if received or postmarked by August 3, 2020. • Comments can be sent to: Cole Runge Brown County Planning Commission Next Steps PO Box 23600 Green Bay, WI 54305-3600 (920) 448-6480 [email protected] Next Steps

• August 3, 2020 – End of Comment Period • October 2020 – Anticipated signature of Tier 1 Final EIS and Record of Decision • Tier 2 studies can begin following completion of Tier 1 Final EIS and Record of Decision • If the Tier 1 Final EIS and Record of Decision select a corridor alternative, WisDOT’s I-41 study could serve as the Tier 2 study for South Bridge Connector-related improvements needed at I-41 (a new interchange, for instance). • Other sections can move into Tier 2 studies as the Lead Agencies identify funding

7. Written Testimony Public Comments Agency Comments

From: Craig Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2020 10:10 PM To: Runge, Cole M. Subject: South Bridge Connector Comments

https://www.browncountywi.gov/departments/planning-and-land-services/planning/southbridge-connector/

Here are my comments about the South Bridge Connector:

High speeds, high regional mobility, and low access should be important to this corridor: - Alternative 6, if mapped as a freeway corridor, would be an ideal reliever for STH 172. It should be initially built as a two-lane road with access control and ROW for a full freeway. - Unfortunately, that alternative has been rejected, so I choose the corridor that has the most potential for high-speed and access control: Alternative 2. - Alt 2 should be built to ultimately be a freeway. Access control should be incorporated from the onset. - The west side of the river should be built as a freeway to begin with, with one service interchange at American Blvd. - The connection with US 41 should incorporate free-flow ramps to/from the east.

Low speed, local access complement: - Alt 1 connecting Scheuring Road with Heritage Road is a great local connection, similar to the Claude Allouez Bridge. The roads are lined up so well and have similar characteristics and it would be a great connection in the future. - The roadblocks to making this connection will not get any worse in the future; the same 4 or 5 residential properties will be impacted if it is done next year or in 50 years. - The roadblocks to making the Alt 2 connection will only get worse with time as the area develops. Alt 2 should be constructed first, to serve the greater mobility needs of the County.

Bike and pedestrian facilities should be accommodated and expanded with this project: - The Fox River Trail should be an overpass or underpass of the new roadway. - The new bridge should have a 10' bike path on BOTH SIDES of the bridge, to cross the river. - A bike path should be incorporated in the corridor for the entire length. - A future bike path along the East River should be accommodated.

Thank you for considering my thoughts.

Craig Holl 13630 W Graham Street New Berlin, WI 53151

From: Rich Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2020 1:44 PM To: BC.PALS.South.Bridge.Connector Subject: Public comment

My wife and i just built a brand new house in Lawrence, about 1000 ft. from the intersection of Scheuring Rd and Williams Grant. We previously lived in Kaukauna and 90% of the reason we moved was to get away from the constant noise of the race track. We chose this subdivision because it was quiet and far enough away from busy traffic.

We are completely opposed to any high traffic interchange being constructed near our home that we built with the expectation of it being a peaceful neighborhood. We are in our mid 50's and had no intention of ever moving again but now I feel like we are going to be forced out of our brand new home in order to be able to find peace and quiet elsewhere.

I don't understand why this can't be constructed somewhere between Hemlock Creek School and Birchwood Dr.

Rich and Brenda Orde

From: Brian Michaels Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 8:10 PM To: BC.PALS.South.Bridge.Connector Subject: South bridge input

I am all in favor of another way to cross the Fox River without going through De Pere or heading north to 172. The proposed route that goes from an I41 interchange south of Scheuring to the east side makes a lot of sense. What I don't understand is the need for a road going from that interchange to the corner of Packerland and Scheuring. I live in the newer development out there and while it would be convenient, it seems like an unnecessary waste of money and a burden of construction and possible detours on the residents. A 5-way stop or roundabout with 5 exits is going to confuse a lot of drivers, and a traffic signal there would be ultimately frustrating and would quickly negate any commute time saved by taking the short cut. I see no issue with simply having to take Scheuring Rd to get to and from I41, which is what I have been doing since I moved to that neighborhood.

Let's keep it simple and address the main issue and that is crossing the river.

Thank you for your time

Brian

From: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 7:35 PM To: BC.PALS.South.Bridge.Connector Subject: question regarding access to bridge/red maple road interchange for alternative #2

My family lives in the Waterview Heights Subdivision in between Red Maple Road and Lost Dolphin. We utilize Red Maple Road near the RR crossing to get to Highway 41 through the Industrial Park. We are wondering if there will be a way to still get to the highway via the Industrial Park from our subdivision or get onto the bridge road so we are not having to go around utilizing Lost Dolphin Rd and then Schuering Rd to get to the highway which would increase traffic on those two roads. Also would we have to back track to the highway to get on the bridge if we were going across the river?

Jennifer Bright 398 Waterview Rd De Pere WI

From: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 5:46 PM To: BC.PALS.South.Bridge.Connector Subject: Comments on South Bridge Project

Cole Runge,

I watched the online hearing last night, and my wife and I agree that Alternate 2 is the best choice. We live in the Heritage Heights Subdivision.

Alternate 1 along Heritage Road would impact more properties as well as Heritage School. It looks like it would be a challenge to fit a 4-lane divided highway into the Heritage Road corridor. Also there are several main side roads intersecting Heritage Road (PP, Jordan, Swan). Cottonwood, which is now the only road into our subdivision, would be another dangerous intersection with the highway along Heritage.

Although Alternate 2 will be fairly close to the south and east sides of our subdivision, we believe it provides safer travel and will impact fewer properties than Alternate 1.

We look forward to the finished roadway and relieving congestion at the DePere Bridge. Thanks for the work put in to hopefully complete the project as soon as possible.

Robert & Marie Prescott 2145 Trellis Drive DePere

From: Kristin Lison Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 6:00 PM To: BC.PALS.South.Bridge.Connector Subject: Testimony

Hello Mr. Runge,

I watched the South Bridge Connector public hearing on You Tube last night and after reviewing the handout documents, I wanted to provide my thoughts.

I completely understand the need for a southern bridge. But I am disappointed, although not surprised, that Corridor 2 is the preferred alternative. First of all, this does affect my family directly: our backyard backs up to Rockland Road. We are not happy about a four lane highway right behind our house; part of the appeal of this neighborhood is the quiet atmosphere and low traffic.

Second, after looking at the Alternatives Comparison Matrix on page 16 of the handout, it appears that many things are affected by choosing corridor 2. More cultural resources, more parks, and more wetlands will be impacted by choosing corridor 2. But what really bothers me are the residential relocations: 10-16 families will be relocated as opposed to 4-8 families by choosing corridor 1. I don't understand why the project would want to upend the lives of twice the amount of families for the preferred corridor. I do understand that corridor 1 has more driveways and that makes it less safe for a highway. I think the wrong corridor is preferred and it seems to make more sense that corridor 1 be chosen for this project.

Thank you for taking the time to record my comments. I do appreciate all the meetings that have been held and have been very accessible, even in this time of social distancing. I am glad to get all this information directly from the source.

Kristin Lison 709 N Melcorn Cir De Pere WI 54115 920.461.8153

From: Mike Rocheleau Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 10:20 AM To: BC.PALS.South.Bridge.Connector Cc: 'Laura Rabas' Subject: 2190 Lost Dauphin Rd, being torn down for South bridge project

Hello Cole I left you a voice mail as well, I will be on vacation tomorrow so you can call me at 920-227- 5135 or respond to this email so Laura (Real Estate Agent) receives it as I cannot get emails when I am not at home.

My concern is I was planning on listing my home for sale at the end of July, I was talking to my neighbor and she said they would be taking down our homes for the roundabout for the south bridge project. Can you confirm this will happen, please be aware that I have to disclose this in the listing. My neighbor to the north was Kelly Stevens and he ended up going to court to get a buy out as he could not sell his house due to the bridge project plans to take it down. Thank you for any clarification you can provide to me or Laura.

Mike Rocheleau 920-227-5135 Laura Rabas 920-309-5229 Cole Runge 920-448-6480

Good Afternoon Ed,

Thanks for your questions. My responses are in red below.

Cole

Cole Runge Interim Planning Director/MPO Director Brown County Planning & Land Services/Green Bay MPO 305 E. Walnut Street Room 320 PO Box 23600 Green Bay, WI 54305-3600 Phone: (920) 448-6480 Fax: (920) 448-4487 Web: www.browncountywi.gov/planning

From: Ed Byrne Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 4:35 PM To: BC.PALS.South.Bridge.Connector Subject: South Bridge questions

Cole:

You were busy talking with citizens when I stopped by the open house at the fairgrounds on Wednesday.

I just had a couple of questions:

Why were the ZZ-Hickory-S and the Midway-Hickory-S corridors eliminated from consideration? – These corridors were eliminated for the following reasons:

• They are too far south to effectively serve existing and planned development.

• They are too far south to relieve forecasted traffic congestion on the Claude Allouez Bridge in Downtown De Pere.

• None of the communities in the project’s study area expressed support for these corridors.

• These corridors did not receive strong public support at meetings.

• These corridors are not consistent with community land use plans, which show most of the new development occurring north of Midway Road.

2. Is this project now seen primarily as a second De Pere bridge over the Fox River rather than as a part of a southern metro beltline highway? – As in the past, the project will include the construction of a new bridge over the Fox River and a divided four-lane arterial street. It will be very similar to County Highway GV in the Town of Ledgeview and Village of Bellevue.

Ed Byrne

Brillion News

(We cover southern Brown County)

From: Gmail Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2020 10:53 PM To: BC.PALS.South.Bridge.Connector Subject: Impact on Remington Ridge Condos

Dear Mr. Runge,

I tuned in the virtual meeting on the South Bridge Connection last week. First of all, thank you for the informative presentation. I think I have made all of them since moving to Ledgeview about 10 years ago. My wife Helen and I reside at Remington Ridge Condominiums. I had a question and typed it in and was directed to refer it to you.

My question is might there be any significant noise impact on RR Condo which are near Rockland Road and Heritage Rd (X)? One of the reasons we bought here 10 years ago was because it was relatively quiet. We expect some noise, but hope the proposed Southern Bridge Connection would not be a huge noice impact with the addition of cars, trucks, cycles, etc. Don’t get me wrong, we do seriously need a bridge. I deal with the downtown De Pere bridge and roundabouts every day, generally at the wrong time of day. I’m just curious about the noise generation from a new connection in the area.

Again, thanks for keeping us informed and any info on impact for RR Condos would be appreciated. I likely have neighbors wondering the same thing.

Sincerely,

Dale M De Villers

From: Mike Rocheleau To: Webb, Charlie/MKE; "BC.PALS.South.Bridge.Connector" Cc: "Laura Rabas"; Rehberg, Kelly/MKE Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: 2190 Lost Dauphin Rd, being torn down for South bridge project Date: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 8:07:50 AM

Please make sure you document me as being strictly opposed to this project in your study. We were told when we built our home that it would stay and there were only an east exit and west entrance ramp only in the project scope, now it has expanded and you are taking up more land than was originally planned.

From: Webb, Charlie/MKE [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 5:34 PM To: Mike Rocheleau ; 'BC.PALS.South.Bridge.Connector' Cc: 'Laura Rabas' ; Rehberg, Kelly/MKE Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: 2190 Lost Dauphin Rd, being torn down for South bridge project

You’ll need to do what you think is best. If you haven’t already, suggest you take a look at the Tier 1 Draft EIS on the County’s south bridge connector website.

https://www.browncountywi.gov/departments/planning-and-land-services/planning/south-bridge- connector/

From: Mike Rocheleau Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 5:23 PM To: Webb, Charlie/MKE ; 'BC.PALS.South.Bridge.Connector' Cc: 'Laura Rabas' ; Rehberg, Kelly/MKE Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: 2190 Lost Dauphin Rd, being torn down for South bridge project

You understand the position I am in, no one will want to buy my house and find out in two years it is being torn down. This is the same thing Kelly Stevens was told so I think I have no choice but to seek legal compensation.

From: Webb, Charlie/MKE [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 4:11 PM To: Mike Rocheleau ; 'BC.PALS.South.Bridge.Connector' Cc: 'Laura Rabas' ; Rehberg, Kelly/MKE Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: 2190 Lost Dauphin Rd, being torn down for South bridge project

Mike----allow me to weigh in. I work for Jacobs, the firm hired by Brown County to help with this study. It is way too soon to conclude there is a “good chance” your house will need to be acquired. Very little engineering has gone into the Alt 2 layout you may have seen online or in the EIS, due to the early stage of the project we are in. What that drawing does show is Lost Dauphin beginning a gradual curve west at about where your driveway is.

Based on the County’s current schedule (Appendix G of the Draft EIS, also on the website), it will be 2-3 years before the level of engineering will progress to the point of answering that question.

Please call me if any other questions.

Thanks, Charlie

From: Mike Rocheleau Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 2:56 PM To: 'BC.PALS.South.Bridge.Connector' Cc: 'Laura Rabas' ; Webb, Charlie/MKE ; Rehberg, Kelly/MKE Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: 2190 Lost Dauphin Rd, being torn down for South bridge project

Cole, I have to disclose that there is a good chance the home may need to be taken down for the bridge project on my offer to sell, by doing this I will not be able to sell my home as was previously documented in the Kelly Steven’s case as this was the same situation he was in. Please give me the names of the people that were involved in buying out the Kelly Steven’s home so I can contact them for their input and work out a solution to this problem. Thank you

From: BC.PALS.South.Bridge.Connector [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 2:10 PM To: Mike Rocheleau ; BC.PALS.South.Bridge.Connector Cc: 'Laura Rabas' ; Webb, Charlie/MKE ; Rehberg, Kelly/MKE Subject: RE: 2190 Lost Dauphin Rd, being torn down for South bridge project

Good Afternoon,

Thank you for your question. It is too soon to know how specific properties will be affected by the South Bridge Connector project because the Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that is currently being developed for the project does not go into that level of detail.

The Tier 2 environmental document that will be prepared for this portion of the corridor project will address how specific properties will be affected and other project details. The development of the Tier 2 environmental document for this portion of the project is currently scheduled to begin in 2022.

Cole

From: Mike Rocheleau Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 10:20 AM To: BC.PALS.South.Bridge.Connector Cc: 'Laura Rabas' Subject: 2190 Lost Dauphin Rd, being torn down for South bridge project

Hello Cole I left you a voice mail as well, I will be on vacation tomorrow so you can call me at 920- 227-5135 or respond to this email so Laura (Real Estate Agent) receives it as I cannot get emails when I am not at home.

Mike Rocheleau 920-227-5135 Laura Rabas 920-309-5229 Cole Runge 920-448-6480

NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged information that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, copying or distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended recipients is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.

I want to give my thoughts on the Southern Brown County Bridge Corridor:

David D. Derozier Crandon, WI 54520

I used to live in the Metro Area, moved due to job opportunity, though I still drive in the area once a month:

1) I believe it would be more advantageous if the bridge were more in the middle of Wrightstown and DePere, closer to DePere would just cause urban sprawl to meet up with the bridge and we would be (or the next generation) dealing with it twenty years from now;

2) The old Claude Allouez Bridge was a nightmare, the new one isn’t much of an improvement and you’re still stuck going through DePere to get somewhere;

3) With the regeneration now going on in DePere to make it one more of ‘culture’ than ‘business district’, the average riff-raff isn’t going to appreciate the ‘finer things’ and would rather get from ‘Point A’ to ‘Point B’. DePere isn’t a ‘destination’, it’s a ‘slow down zone’;

4) This has been talked about since I was a kid, all of the bridges have been built/replaced along this part of Wisconsin, now it’s time to do the right thing and get this done.

David D. Derozier

From: Kurtis Butrymowicz Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 8:53 AM To: BC.PALS.South.Bridge.Connector Cc: Sarah Butrymowicz ; Kurtis Butrymowicz Subject: Written Testimony - South Bridge Connector project

Written Testimony Form Name (please print): Kurtis Butrymowicz Date: July 17, 2020 Address: 2012 Old Plank Ct., De Pere, WI 54115 E-mail Address (optional): [email protected] Testimony (use additional pages if necessary):

Dear Messrs. Runge, Webb, and other project members,

My wife and I live in the Old Plank Rd neighborhood nearby the Southern Bridge Connector alternatives that include Rockland Rd. We have been following the potential bridge project for over a decade and most recently watched the Public Hearing on July 8, 2020.

We would like to use this opportunity of a written testimony to make known a few of our concerns.

Our first concern is the exigency for the bridge. It is well-known that during high commute times (i.e. 7am, 5pm) some congestion occurs on the roads leading to the current bridge at Main Ave. However, this congestion is extremely minor in comparison to what larger cities experience and is not even as bad as other areas in the Green Bay metro area. My wife and I use these roads frequently during these times and never experience a delay caused by congestion of more than 1-3 minutes. This seems like a small inconvenience to trigger a $150+ million project.

On top of this, the studies that were done to justify the Southern Bridge connector project were all done before the Covid-19 pandemic. I am sure we can all agree that traffic patterns and commutes have been and will be permanently altered--ultimately reduced--due to the change in business plans of many companies. It is unfortunate, but these changes very likely make the results of the traffic studies performed for this project moot. It may be difficult to spend additional money to perform a subsequent traffic study, but it also is more prudent than throwing good money after bad by building a $150+ million dollar bridge that may no longer be justified.

If new studies did in fact still justify building the Southern Connector bridge, our second concern is with the apparent leading location alternative--Rockland Rd. to Red Maple Rd. In the past 20 years, there are 100+ homes that have been built along this corridor in the Old Plank neighborhood just north of Rockland Rd and the Ryan Rd. neighborhood just south of Rockland Rd. All of these homes would suddenly be adjacent to a four-lane, busy thoroughfare including many semi-trailers. This seems irresponsible at best when just south of those neighborhoods the population density plummets and an equally-convenient bridge location could be selected that only negatively affects farm or fallow fields.

We hope that you and your project team take all of the public testimonies into account as you move forward with the planning of the Southern Bridge connector project. Your consideration is much appreciated.

Sincerely, Kurtis & Sarah Butrymowicz

From: Bob DeAmico Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2020 10:52 AM To: BC.PALS.South.Bridge.Connector Subject: Written Testimony - Tier 1 EIS Draft

I have the following comments I would like to include in the public record regarding the South Bridge Connector Project Tier 1 EIS.

In Section 3.3.2 Residential Impacts it states that the proposed improvements for the Corridor Alternative 2 without C-D Road System Option “are not anticipated to bisect any neighborhoods.” As a resident of the Old Plank Estates subdivision I can attest to the popularity of Old Plank Road as a walking route among residents living both north and south of Rockland Road from end to end. Old Plank Road currently is designated as a Rustic Road and this designation also brings a number of visitors on casual rides in cars, motorcycles and bicycles through the neighborhood. In the event that this alternative is chosen, design of the Old Plank - Rockland Road intersection I would like to see the unique character of Old Plank Road preserved to the greatest extent possible.

As suggested Section 3.5.3 Tier 2 Analysis I would strongly advocate for a grade-separated crossing at the Fox River Trail regardless of which alternative is chosen. At the very least traffic volume projections and their impact on trail users should be at the forefront for analysis. If a grade-level crossing is considered, a signal system that trail users can activate, much like the one that was recently installed on Riverside Drive (HWY 57) in Allouez should be part of the design.

Appendix G of the Tier 1 document should be updated in the Tier 2 Analysis to include approximate costs and detail on sources (local, county, state, federal, etc.) of funding in addition to a breakdown of the phases of construction, and approximate duration of each phase. Taxpayers need to start understanding the impact that this project will have on budgets at the local, county and state level.

Respectfully,

Robert DeAmico 233 Cornellius Martin Court De Pere WI 54115

From: Runge, Cole M. To: Jay Welty Cc: Rehberg, Kelly/MKE; Webb, Charlie/MKE; Kathy Welty Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Noise Control Date: Monday, July 27, 2020 10:51:01 AM

Good Morning,

Thanks for your response, and I understand your desire for definite answers at this point. However, my experience has taught me that every project is unique and that we need to carefully study the details of each project so we can provide people accurate information and select the most effective mitigation measures.

The South Bridge Connector Project’s current schedule has the Tier 2 environmental study beginning in 2022 for this section of the project, and it’s the Tier 2 study that will provide the answers to your questions.

Thanks again.

Cole

Cole Runge Planning Director/MPO Director Brown County Planning & Land Services/Green Bay MPO 305 E. Walnut Street Room 320 PO Box 23600 Green Bay, WI 54305-3600 Phone: (920) 448-6480 Fax: (920) 448-4487 Web: www.browncountywi.gov/planning

From: Jay Welty Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2020 8:35 AM To: Runge, Cole M. Cc: Rehberg, Kelly/MKE ; Webb, Charlie/MKE ; Kathy Welty Subject: Re: Noise Control

Thank you Mr. Cole.

I’m assuming this isn’t your first road/bridge project. How would you answer those questions based on you past experiences and expertise? Like the County/City I’d like some time to plan and prepare.

Best Regards,

Jay Welty

Sent from my iPhone On Jul 24, 2020, at 1:18 PM, Runge, Cole M. wrote:

Good Afternoon,

Thank you for your questions about the South Bridge Connector project. Answers to the questions from both of your email messages are in red below.

Cole

-----Original Message----- From: Jay Welty Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2020 6:00 PM To: BC.PALS.South.Bridge.Connector Subject: Noise Control

Hello,

I’m inquiring about what plans will be in place for home owners who have back yards that backup to South Bridge Rd.

Jay Welty 2225 Rygar Ct. De Pere, WI 54115 Representing myself and neighbors in the cul de sac.

There is an earth berm from Lawrence running East along South Bridge Rd which stops as it reaches the first property on Rygar Ct.

What plans are in place to reduce noise? As the area is already very noisy with Business Park truck traffic.

Answer: Since this is a Tier 1 environmental study, noise modeling did not occur. Instead, noise-sensitive receptors near the corridor alternatives were identified to compare the magnitude of potential noise impacts.

Because noise modeling did not occur, specific noise abatement measures were not evaluated. However, noise modeling will occur and noise abatement measures will be evaluated during the Tier 2 environmental study, which is currently expected to begin in 2022 for the road segment near your cul-de-sac.

Best Regards, Jay Welty

Hello Again,

Jay Welty 2225 Rygar Ct. De Pere, WI

My entire property is in the 500 ft corridor. What does that mean? Also it appears that I’ll be losing most of my back yard. Does the light blue line represent where road ends or where sidewalk ends? I’m all for the greater good but what’s in it for me?

Answer: The 500-foot corridor is the area within which the future road is expected to be built, and the narrower corridor shown on the maps (which is about 125-150 feet wide) is the working alignment. The working alignment was used for the Tier 1 environmental study to estimate representative physical impacts that could happen if the road is built within a selected corridor.

When the Tier 2 environmental study occurs for the road segment near your cul-de-sac, the specific road alignment that is identified will be somewhere within this 500-foot corridor. The corridor is this wide to allow the road to avoid or minimize impacts on homes, waterways, and other sensitive features. The diagram below illustrates how this works:

Best Regards,

Jay Welty

*************** IMPORTANT CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE *************** This electronic transmission, along with any information attached may contain confidential, proprietary, or privileged information, subject to, among other protections, the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act of 1996, codified as 45 C.F.R. Part 160; the Public Health Service Act, codified as 42 C.F.R. Part 2; and the attorney-client/attorney work-product statutory and common law privileges. If the reader of this transmission is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the information contained in or attached to this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender via return e-mail, then delete the email and any of its attachments, without reading or saving the email. *************** IMPORTANT CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE *************** This electronic transmission, along with any information attached may contain confidential, proprietary, or privileged information, subject to, among other protections, the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act of 1996, codified as 45 C.F.R. Part 160; the Public Health Service Act, codified as 42 C.F.R. Part 2; and the attorney-client/attorney work-product statutory and common law privileges. If the reader of this transmission is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the information contained in or attached to this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender via return e-mail, then delete the email and any of its attachments, without reading or saving the email. From: Andrew Seibel Sent: Monday, July 27, 2020 8:19 AM To: BC.PALS.South.Bridge.Connector Subject: South Bridge comment

Mr. Runge,

I would like to state my support for the Southern Bridge. It is needed as an alternate corridor for truck traffic to get across the river without driving through the center of De Pere.

Thanks, Andy Seibel

From: Runge, Cole M. Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 3:50 PM To: Rehberg, Kelly/MKE Cc: Webb, Charlie/MKE Subject: [EXTERNAL] SBC Comment Received by Phone

Hi Kelly,

I received a brief SBC comment over the phone this afternoon from Larry Carter in De Pere. He stated that:

 He prefers Alternative 2.

 It would not make sense to choose Alternative 1 because millions of dollars would have to be spent to purchase properties for the project.

Thanks.

Cole

August 1, 2020

Mariynn R Quirk 2479 Heritage Road De Pere, WI 54115 920-362-5746

Dear Sirs, I am writing this testimony in regard to the South Bridge Connection. I have lived near the corner of Cty GV and Cty X (second house going west on Cty X) for 30 years. I have watched the GREAT increase of traffic in these years due to the development in the town of Ledgeview including more businesses coming into the area.

Two weeks ago, I tabulated the amount of ONLY truck traffic for a 20 minute time period from 10:00 to 10:20 on a Tuesday morning. There were 48 gravel trucks, 8 WEL(Wisconsin Express Line) semi’s truck-trailers, 4 waste management trucks, 1 straight truck, 3 panel trucks and 22 pick trucks(not SUV’s). The truck traffic alone is unbelievable!! Some days it takes me 10 minutes to pull out of my drive-way.

This huge amount of traffic needs to be taken farther south of the city of De Pere and town of Ledgeview. It does not make sense to have that amount of traffic flowing past an elementary school, 2 daycares, a fire station, a church, a veterinary office, and nursing care facilities. And this is just between the corner of Hwy GV and Hwy PP! The safety of our children should be a concern.

As we look at the future, the amount of traffic is only going to increase. I realize that part of the road bed is there if it would be decided to build the connection on Hwy X, but I don’t think that would be a wise decision for all involved. Once again, that large traffic flow needs to be done as a “By- Pass” and taken away from a populated area to meet up with Interstate Hwy 41.

There are many other reasons for making the “South Bridge Connector” but these are my main concerns as a homeowner in the Town of Ledgeview.

Thank you for the many years of planning this project has required and for taking the time to read my thoughts on this matter.

Sincerely, Marilynn R Quirk [email protected]

From: [email protected] To: BC.PALS.South.Bridge.Connector Subject: Southern Bypass Feedback Date: Monday, August 3, 2020 7:38:42 PM

Hello,

As homeowners at 2170 Swanstone Cirlce, we’d like to express our concern with the Southern Bypass option being placed on Hwy X/Heritage Road. The area is a highly populated and we feel it would not be in the best for anyone for the bypass to be placed on Hwy X/Heritage road. We support the Rockland Road/Red Maple option.

Bill and Julie Cherveny 2170 Swanstone Circle DePere, WI 54115 920.983.8628 From: kjofoster53 To: BC.PALS.South.Bridge.Connector Subject: Southern Bypass Date: Monday, August 3, 2020 8:54:07 PM

We live at 2161 Swanstone Circle and are concerned with the Southern Bypass option being placed on Hwy X/Heritage Road. This is a highly populated area and we feel the better option would be the Rockland Road/Red Maple option.

Karen and Gus Hanold 2161 Swanstone Circle DePere, WI 54115 920-713-4000

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. From: Janet Kubsh To: BC.PALS.South.Bridge.Connector Subject: Southern Bypass Feedback Date: Monday, August 3, 2020 8:01:29 PM

Hello, As a homeowner at 2171 Swanstone Circle, I would like to express my concern with the Southern Bypass option being placed on Hwy X/Heritage Road. The area is highly populated and I feel it would not be in the best for anyone for the bypass to be placed on Hwy X/Heritage Road. I support the Rockland Road/Red Maple option.

Janet Kubsh 2171 Swanstone Cir De Pere, WI 54115 920-562-7322 From: Lori Nelson To: BC.PALS.South.Bridge.Connector Subject: Southern Bypass-Feedback Date: Monday, August 3, 2020 11:42:36 PM

Hello

We are homeowners at 2164 Swanstone Circle, we are concerned with the Southern Bypass option being on Hwy X. This area is highly populated and with schools in session it makes it even more populated. We do not feel this option is the best. We do support the Rockland Road option.

Thank you, Paul and Lori Nelson 2164 Swanstone Cr Depere, WI 54115 920-639-2917 From: Andrew Parks To: BC.PALS.South.Bridge.Connector Subject: Southern bypass feedback Date: Monday, August 3, 2020 11:32:23 PM

We are homeowners at 2158 Swanstone Circle; the back of our house faces Heritage Road. We feel that the Heritage Road option for the Southern Bypass is not wise because it is rapidly changing from rural to urban/residential. We would support the Rockland Road option instead. Thank you.

Andrew and Sarah Parks 2158 Swanstone Cir, De Pere, WI 54115 715.426.1104 From: Michael Patton Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 10:21 AM To: BC_Planning_and_Land_Services Subject: Brown County - - Contact Us

Email Address: [email protected]

First Name: Michael

Last Name: Patton

Address: 2176 Swanstone Circle

City: De Pere

State: Wisconsin

Zip Code: 54115-8274

Phone Number: 9203363947

Fax Number:

Comments/Questions: We are current residents in the Town of Ledgeview on Swanstone Circle for 20 years. Our back lot line is on Cty X, a proposed site of the new bridge. We were unable to contact you prior to this time due to a family member needing surgery. It is very important that you are aware of all the pedestrians crossing Cty X between our home and Swan Rd for exercise to walk in this beautiful neighborhood especially from the condo area across X from our home. Therefore we are strongly NOT in favor of this proposed area for the bridge but rather the Rockland Rd site that has far less pedestrian traffic. Thank you for accepting this important information. Sincerely, Kay & Mike Patton

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 5 77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590

July 28, 2020

REPLY TO THE ATTENTION OF: Mail Code RM-19J

Ian Chidister Federal Highway Administration – Wisconsin Division 525 Junction Road, Suite 8000 Madison, Wisconsin 53717-2157

Re: Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the South Bridge Connector Project, Brown County, Wisconsin, CEQ No. 20200128

Dear Mr. Chidister:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the referenced Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), which was produced by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT). We undertook this review pursuant to our authorities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, and as a cooperating agency in the NEPA-Clean Water Act Section 404 Merger Process (NEPA/404).

FHWA and WisDOT conducted a study to identify appropriate corridors, transportation improvement needs, and future transportation demand generated by the planned development in the southern part of the Green Bay metropolitan area. This study is called the South Bridge Connector Project.

The purpose of this proposed project is to identify the most appropriate improvements for addressing existing east-west transportation demand and demand that will be generated by the planned development in the southern portion of the Green Bay metropolitan area. The project is needed to: x Address congestion in the vicinity of the existing Fox River bridges; x Accommodate existing and planned land use and future travel demand generated by planned development; x Reduce travel time by improving east-west connectivity; and: x Address higher-than-average crash rates and safety issues in the vicinity of the existing Fox River bridges.

Four alternatives have been provided in the DEIS: x No-Build Alternative. Continued maintenance will occur on existing roadways; x Transportation System Management Alternative. Maximize the efficiency and use of existing roadways to delay or eliminate the need for additional capacity, such as by constructing roundabouts, and reducing the number of access points; x Transportation Demand Management Alternative. Reduce the number of vehicles on the area roadways by use of land use planning strategies, such as increasing transit ridership, promoting ridesharing with park-and-ride lots, and improving bicycle and pedestrian mobility; and: x Build Alternative. This alternative includes 11 individual routes that are proposed to either upgrade existing roadway infrastructure, or construct new roadway routes: o Corridor Alternative 1: Scheuring Road-Heritage Road (County F-County X) Arterial Scheuring Road to Heritage Road; o Corridor Alternative 2: Rockland Road-Red Maple Road Arterial with a new interchange at I-41, plus an option for a C-D system road along I-41 between the new interchange and the County F interchange Rockland Road to Red Maple Road; o Corridor Alternative 3: Rockland Road to Wisconsin Highway 172; o Corridor Alternative 4: Rockland Road to American Boulevard to Scheuring Road; o Corridor Alternative 5: Creekview Road to Red Maple Road; o Corridor Alternative 6: Interstate 41 to Wisconsin Highway 172; o Corridor Alternative 7: Freedom Road to Wisconsin Highway 172; o Corridor Alternative 8: Williams Grant Drive to Wisconsin Highway 57; o Corridor Alternative 9: Freedom Road to County Road ZZ; o Corridor Alternative 10: Freedom Road to Wisconsin Highway 96; and: o Corridor Alternative 11: Interstate 41 to Interstate 43.

FHWA and WisDOT retained Corridor Alternatives 1 and 2, and the No-Build Alternative for further detailed study. Corridor Alternative 2 has been selected by FHWA and WisDOT as the preferred alternative, best fulfilling the project’s purpose and need. Under Concurrence Point 3 of the NEPA/404 merger process, we concur with the selection of Corridor Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative. We previously concurred with the purpose and need and the range of alternatives to be analyzed in detail.

We appreciate FHWA and WisDOT identifying and addressing (to the extent possible in Tier 1) avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures for wetlands and streams, air emissions during construction and operation, general air conformity, and historical and cultural resources. We understand these impacts will be addressed in greater detail in the Tier 2 DEIS, when the project footprint is refined to final alignments and features, following the Tier 1 Record of Decision (ROD) commitment to the preferred corridor. Additionally, we are glad to see the Tier 1 DEIS propose installing additional stormwater management infrastructure, pollinator habitat, and pedestrian and bicycle accommodations along the preferred corridor. We look to the Tier 1 Final EIS and ROD to broadly commit to these practices, and for the Tier 2 EIS to analyze these practices in greater detail, prior to final adoption of these measures in the Tier 2 ROD.

We have a comment on the project’s interface with the Lower Fox River Superfund Site (Superfund site). Since a new bridge crossing over the Fox River is being proposed as part of this project, the proposed project is expected to impact the Superfund Site. The DEIS indicates that WisDOT and FHWA have closely coordinated with Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

(WDNR) and EPA Superfund program staff to avoid impacts to the Superfund Site to the greatest extent possible. Communications in Appendix F between WDNR, WisDOT, and EPA staff indicates plans are in place to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate impacts to the Superfund Site. Those plans include: x Conduct analyses of all sediment borings to determine if the affected sediments are contaminated and need to be safely disposed of; x Conduct bathymetric surveys of the river bottom before conducting any in-river work; x Avoid, to the maximum extent possible, known locations of engineered sediment caps that currently encase contaminated sediments; and x Perform repairs to engineered sediment caps, if damaged.

We encourage FHWA and WisDOT to continue working closely with WDNR and EPA as the proposed project footprint narrows in the Tier 2 EIS. If not already completed, we request the bathymetric surveys be conducted as soon as feasible, and results be included in future NEPA documents for the project.

We are available to discuss our contents of this letter at your convenience. Please feel free to contact Mike Sedlacek of my staff at 312-886-1765, or by email at [email protected] if you have any questions or concerns.

Sincerely, Digitally signed by KENNETH KENNETH WESTLAKE Date: 2020.07.28 WESTLAKE 13:49:25 -05'00' Kenneth A. Westlake Deputy Director, Tribal and Multimedia Programs Office Office of the Regional Administrator cc: Bryan Lipke, Wisconsin Department of Transportation Beth Olson, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Jim Saric, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

July 30, 2020

Bryan Lipke Project Manager WisDOT, North East Region 944 Vanderperren Way Green Bay, WI 54304

RE: Project ID: 4556-02-00 South Bridge Connector, Brown County Concurrence Point #3 – Preferred Alternative

Dear Mr. Lipke,

As a participating agency, the Department of Agriculture, Trade & Consumer Protection (DATCP) has reviewed project documents and the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the South Bridge Connector project. The intent of this letter is to provide feedback on the draft EIS and provide the Agency position on concurrence point #3 “Preferred Alternatives”.

The retained alternatives within the draft EIS match the proposed alternatives evaluated in the 2012 Agricultural Impact Statement (AIS) DATCP #3839 and therefore do not constitute a revision to the existing AIS. If the proposed project or project specifications are altered from the 2012 AIS in a manner which could be construed as increasing the potential adverse effects on agriculture or on any farm operation, DATCP should be renotified. Additionally, the 2012 AIS was not mentioned or referenced within key areas of the draft EIS, such as Section 3.8 and Appendix E (2.3.5). DATCP believes it’s critical to document that an AIS has occurred and therefore recommends that the lead agency document the AIS within draft EIS.

The draft EIS retained three alternatives (no build, alternative 1 and alternative 2) for consideration as the preferred alternative route. When selecting the preferred alternative, DATCP emphasizes the alternative that minimizes the conversion of existing farmland to non-farm uses, while achieving the project’s purpose. While the no build alternative does not convert any existing farmland, it also does not meet the project's purpose; therefore DATCP has removed this alternative from consideration. Of the remaining alternatives, both alternative 1 and 2 would address the main objectives of the project. However, these alternatives have different levels of impacts on agricultural lands. Alternative 2 is projected to convert upwards of 78 acres of agricultural lands while alternative 1 is projected to only convert upwards of 23 acres. Furthermore, the 2012 AIS analysis has shown that alternative 2 will result in increased severance and fragmentation of existing farmland as well as encourage further farmland conversation.

Alternative 1 (Scheuring Road-Heritage Road) is the preferred route of DATCP to minimize impacts to agricultural lands. If the lead agency selects alternative 2, DATCP implores it to implement methods to minimize farmland fragmentation in order to preserve the productivity of remnant fields.

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at (608)224-4650 or [email protected].

Sincerely,

Zach Zopp Land and Water Program Specialist - Bureau of Land and Water Resources Division of Agricultural Resource Management Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade & Consumer Protection

Cc: Cole Runge; Interim Planning Director/MPO Director, Brown County Planning & Land Services/Green Bay MPO, 305 E. Walnut Street. Room 320; PO Box 23600, Green Bay, WI 54305- 3600

Attachment: Agricultural Impact Statement #3839: Transportation Improvement in the Southern Portion of the Green Bay Metropolitan Area Brown County.

State of Wisconsin DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Tony Evers, Governor 2984 Shawano Avenue Preston D. Cole, Secretary Green Bay, WI 54313-6727 Telephone 608-266-2621 Toll Free 1-888-936-7463 TTY Access via relay - 711

July 31, 2020 DOT: Brown

Bryan Lipke Wisconsin Department of Transportation 944 Vanderperren Way Green Bay, WI 54304

Subject: Draft Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Concurrence Point Number 3 Review Project I.D. 4556-02-00 Southern Bridge Connector Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) CTH F/CTH EB intersection to CTH X to CTH GV Intersection Towns of Lawrence and Ledgeview, Brown County Sec. 25, 36, T23N – R19E, Sec. 28-36, T23N – R20E, Sec. 1-6, T23N – R20E

Dear Mr. Lipke:

DNR has completed our review of the Draft Tier 1 EIS for the Southern Bridge Connector project, based on the information submitted. The lead agencies have identified Corridor Alternative 2 as their Preferred Corridor Alternative based on their reasoning that it would provide the best solution for addressing long-term mobility needs and safety concerns while most effectively serving existing and planned development and balancing impacts to socioeconomic and environmental resources. Based on the information in the Draft Tier 1 EIS, it appears that aside from the no-build alternative, which doesn’t meet the purpose and need of the project, Alternative Corridor 1 would have less environmental impact compared to Alternative Corridor 2 while still meeting the purpose and need.

As a cooperating agency, DNR has reviewed and provided comments on multiple draft sections of this document. Cooperating agencies have been asked to provide concurrence on the Preferred Corridor Alternative as well as comment on the entire Draft Tier 1 EIS. DNR does not oppose the Preferred Corridor Alternative. While the Preferred Corridor Alternative has the potential for more environmental impacts compared to the no-build alternative and Corridor Alternative 1, local, state, and federal regulations will help minimize environmental impacts. Specific alignment modifications will be needed within the Preferred Corridor Alternative in order to meet local, state, and federal environmental regulations. As an example the diamond interchange with IH-41 and associated auxillary roads currently has greater impacts than the existing IH-41 interchange modifications within Corridor Alterantive 1. Depending on the specific alignment chosen within the Preferred Corridor Alternative there may be some environmental impact advantages over Corridor Alternative 1 such as the alignment and design of the Fox River Bridge. The Preferred Corridor Alternative may have less impacts to the PCB caps than Corrridor Alternative 1.

DNR comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS is broken into two parts, the first part being general or

dnr.wi.gov wisconsin.gov Bryan Likpke – July 30, 2020 DOT ID 4556-02-00 2 overall comments and the second part being specific comments on the language in the document.

General Comments Based on our review of the completed Draft Tier 1 EIS, it is DNR’s position that this document needs improvement.

Section 3: Existing Conditions, Impacts and Next Steps has little discussion regarding impacts to wildlife and fisheries. There is brief mention of wildlife crossings and fish spawning, but little else. This project has the potential for impacts to fish and wildlife by directly impacting habitat (e.g., new structures on waterways and wetland fills) and indirect impacts by impacting wildlife movements (e.g., fragmenting wildlife corridors). There should be a separate sub-section that discusses the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts this project may have.

Section 3: Existing Conditions, Impacts and Next Steps makes the suggestions several times that use of best management practices (BMPs) and mitigation requirements from applicable regulations and authorities will be incorporated into project design and construction for surface waters/stormwater and protected species therefore there will be no indirect and cumulative impacts. The document even states that there may be water quality benefits. DNR does not agree with this premise.

DNR regulations and authorities may require mitigation such as wetland mitigation, post-construction stormwater standards, or timing restrictions to at least partially offset the direct impacts from a project, but they are not intended to eliminate the impacts. These mitigation requirements are also not intended to address indirect and cumulative impacts. Post construction standards for stormwater address total suspended solids (TSS) removal when compared to no TSS controls. The TSS removal is not compared to the original conditions. So for the preferred alternative, there is a large portion of the project that would be built on new alignment thus even with post-construction standards for stormwater there will still be an increase in runoff. Post-construction standards, for stormwater, do not really address the quantity of runoff. There are some peak flow requirements however these are usually for smaller storm events. Thus, even with stormwater mitigation, the volume of runoff is likely to increase as the impervious surface increases.

There is not much discussion regarding potential impacts to the PCB cap in the Fox River. Damage to PCB Project caps must be repaired or replaced by DOT to the satisfaction of DNR, USEPA and PCB Project responsible parties who must monitor those caps. Maps showing the PCB cap locations in realtion to the Corridor Alternatives have been attached.

Wetland mitigation is only intended to address the direct impact of a project. The document recognizes several potential indirect wetland impacts associated with this project, however, wetland mitigation will not address these impacts. The preferred method for wetland mitigation is using an established wetland mitigation bank. Based on rules for wetland mitigation, the wetland impacts could be mitigated many miles away from the project. The indirect and cumulative impacts could still occur and would not be addressed by wetland mitigation.

Requirements, to minimize impacts to protected species, often include construction timing restrictions, relocations of the protected species and in some case mitigation impacted habitat of the protected species. One of the protected species is a State Threatened plant. If this plant is directly impacted, it is possible to try and relocate the existing plants, provided suitable habitat is available, but, it would be difficult to guarantee the relocated plants survival. This could lead to the loss of the protected species in the area.

(Rev. 11/19) Bryan Likpke – July 30, 2020 DOT ID 4556-02-00 3

Specific Comments The following comments relate to specific parts of the draft Tier 1 EIS. There are comments repeated multiple times in this section because the same or similar language was used in different sections.

National Environmental Policy Act Statement 1. Page iii, 3rd paragraph states “These studies would be covered by separate documents that would individually analyze each section of independent utility along the corridor” in reference to the Tier 2 studies. This individual analysis of each section seems to be in conflict with the previous paragraph which states “a tiered approach would provide an understanding of the long- term consequences of corridor-wide improvements. This understanding could not be developed by developing projects individually.” Please explain how analyzing individual segments separately would not limit understanding long-term consequences of the selected corridor.

Executive Summary 1. Page v, Project History last paragraph, it would be beneficial to the user to define what a Tier 2 document is. For example, could it mean an Environmental Analysis (EA), Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), or Categorical Exclusion (CX)?

Section 1: Purpose of and Need for the Project No new comments.

Section 2: Alternatives Considered In addition to our previous comments as a Cooperating Agency, DNR offers the following comments: 1. Page 2-2, Section 2.1 Introduction. The last paragraph mentions Tier 2 environmental documents will be prepared for consideration. Tier 2 environmental documents should be described to include types of documents, what criteria determines what type of Tier 2 document will be prepared, and the limits of each document in relation to the preferred corridor. 2. Page 2-8, Section 2.2.1 Step 1: Develop and Screen Alternatives. The first sentence, should be amended to “The TSM Alternative would have a smaller footprint, lower environmental impacts, and relatively low construction costs.” 3. Page 2-12, Section 2.2.2 Step 2: Evaluate Alternative Routes. Screening criteria number 8, does not clearly state environmental impacts are part of the screening criteria other than as part vehicle emissions. Table 2-1 was modified to discuss and compare potential environmental impacts, however, the narrative is less clear. 4. Page 2-12, Section 2.2.2 Step 2: Evaluate Alternative Routes. The first paragraph after the screening criteria list would be more accurate if it states something like “while number 8 (minimizing emissions and impacts to environmentally sensitive areas) is not one of the needs for the project it is required to be considered under local, state and federal regulations”. 5. Pages 2-13 to 2-18, Table 2-1. Under the Impact on Sensitive Environmental Resources column it would be beneficial to the reader to state how much of the alternative is on new alignment versus existing roadway rights of way. Currently statements like “Would minimize environmental impacts by following existing arterial street rights of way, where possible” doesn’t help the reader understand the differences between alternatives that are substantially on existing alignment versus alternatives that incorporate substantial lengths of new alignment. 6. Page 2-23, Section 2.2.3, Alternative Route 2: Rockland Road-Red Maple Road with I-41 Interchange. The last paragraph states “Alternative Route 2 would largely follow existing arterial street rights of way and reduce the need for land acquisition, but it would relocate more residences than Alternative Route 1.” Because this sentence is comparing Alternatives 1 and 2 and discussing existing arterial street rights of way it should also distinguish the difference in new alignment rights of way between the two alternatives.

(Rev. 11/19) Bryan Likpke – July 30, 2020 DOT ID 4556-02-00 4

7. Page 2-44, Section 2.4.1 Basis for Selection, Socioeconomic Impacts. The third paragraph discusses stormwater and water quality impacts and states that the best management practices could provide some water quality benefits and reduce erosion and sedimentation. Best management practices are intended to minimize impact from the proposed project when compared to no controls and likely will not provide a water quality benefit over existing conditions. 8. Page 2-44, Section 2.4.2 Basis for Selection, Natural Environment Impacts. There should be some discussion of wildlife and fisheries impacts as well and impacts to the Fox River and the Lower Fox River PCB cleanup efforts (e.g., engineered cap impacts). See attached file (Location of Corridors and PCB Caps in LFR.pdf). There is also a 24-inch water intake siphon line structure near Alternative Corridor 2 to be considered. See attached file (Siphon Intake Line for Alternative Corridor 2.pdf). 9. Page 2-46, Section 2.4.2 Preferred Alternative Summary, Natural Environment Impacts, Corridor Alternative 2 also has the potential to have greater impacts to floodplains, wildlife and fisheries impacts. This section should also discuss Fox River impacts (e.g., pier numbers and PCB engineered cap impacts). 10. Page 2-46, Section 2.4.2 Preferred Alternative Summary, Natural Environment Impacts, it is difficult to say Corridor Alternative 2 avoidance and minimization potential is greater than Alternative 1 since we have not entered the design phase. Phase 2 environmental documents will be able to better assess the avoidance and minimization potential.

Section 3: Existing Conditions, Impacts, and Next Steps 1. Page 3-1, Section 3.11 Approach to Analysis of Environmental Impacts should recognize the limitation of this approach as this approach cannot provide a qualitative analysis of potential environmental impacts. 2. Page 3-2, 3.1.2 Environmental Topics, second bullet point should remove the word “unnecessarily”. Surveying the entire corridor would provide more information including a qualitative analysis that would allow a more complete picture of potential environmental impacts thus provide more informed decisions. 3. Page 3-24, Section 3.7 Transportation Services. There is no discussion of the Fox River use for recreational traffic or how a new bridge would affect recreational traffic. 4. Page 3-25, Section 3.7.2 Transportation Impacts. There should be discussion as to how Corridor Alternatives 1 and 2 would affect the Fox River Trail and any operational or safety concerns. For example, the Fox River State Trails is federally railbanked and subject to future restoration and reconstruction of the right-of-way for rail purposes consistent with Section 208 of the National Trails System Act Amendment of 1983, Publ. L. No. 98-11 (16 U.S.C. 1247(d)). This designation may mean that a grade separated crossing could be needed, which may mean a larger footprint for the alignment. 5. Page 3-30, Section Water Resources. This section is incomplete and needs revisions. DNR wrote an initial review letter dated April 13, 2020 that provides additional information regarding the waterways in the project area. a. Waterways in the study area are classified as Areas of Special Natural Resource Interest (ASNRI). b. Waterways in the study area are part of the approved Lower Fox River TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load). This TMDL was established for total phosphorus and total suspended solids. Federal and state regulations require implementation of the TMDL to meet water quality standards. 6. Page 3-32, wetlands section should note wetland functions and why they are important. For example, wetlands may be used as spawning grounds by fish species such as northern pike (Esox lucius), wildlife habitat, flood storage and have water quality benefits.

(Rev. 11/19) Bryan Likpke – July 30, 2020 DOT ID 4556-02-00 5

7. Page 3-38 and 3-39, Section 3.10.1 Existing Condtions, State-Protected Species. The state- listed species need to be redacted or generalize such as state protected turtle or state threatend reptile and state threatened plant. These species should also be redacted or generalized anywhere else they appear in the document such as the April 13, 2020 DNR Initial Review letter in Appendix F. As stated in the intial review letter “NHI Disclaimer: This review letter may contain NHI data, including specific locations of endangered resources, which are considered sensitive and are not subject to Wisconsin’s Open Records Law (s. 23.27 3(b), Wis. Stats.). As a result, endangered resources-related information contained in this review letter may be shared only with individuals or agencies that require this information in order to carry out specific roles in the permitting, planning and implementation of the proposed project. Endangered resources information must be redacted from this letter prior to inclusion in any publicly disseminated documents.” 8. Page 3-56, Section 3.9.3 Tier 2 Additional waterways beyond Fox River, Ashwaubenon Creek and East River may need an instream date restriction for fish spawning. 9. Page 3-47, Section 3.14 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f). There are other federal and state funding programs that may have encumbrances on public recreational lands that may require mitigation or even replacement lands. DNR’s initial review letter dated April 13, 2020 has additional information. 10. Page 3-52, Section 3.15.2 Aesthetic Impacts. The DNR believes that there would be an aesthetic impact from the Fox River with a new bridge associated with Corridor Alternatives 1 and 2. Not only will the bridge deck impact the view above, but the piers would impact the views from the river as well as along the banks. 11. Page 3-61, Table 3.17-2, Water Resources: a. Surface Waters/Stormwater. States there may be potential water quality improvements. Stormwater detention facilities and other best management practices to be implemented with the improvements are intended to partially offset (e.g. 40 or 80 percent TSS removal) suspended solid load compared to no controls. Since there are currently undeveloped areas especially with Corridor Alternative 2 the proposed development would likely increase stormwater runoff over existing conditions thus there is potential for indirect and cumulative impacts from the two Corridor Alternatives. b. Wetlands. States there will be no indirect impacts and mitigation is anticipated to address potential indirect effects. In addition to the types of indirect impacts listed changing in type of wetland is another indirect impact. Development and transportation corridors can alter vegetation composition (spread invasive species), wetland hydrology, and wetland size. These alternations can affect the quality and functionality of the wetland. Wetland mitigation is intended to replace direct wetland impact from the proposed improvements. Wetland mitigation is not intended to offset indirect and cumulative impacts thus there is potential for indirect and cumulative impacts from the two Corridor Alternatives. c. Protected Species. States no direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts anticipated after mitigation. Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation efforts only deal with the direct impacts. Mitigation is not intended to deal with indirect or cumulative impacts therefore there is potential for indirect and cumulative impacts. It should be noted that the Natural Heritage Inventory (NHI) must be re-evaluated annually. 12. Page 3-67, Section 3.17.2 Cumulative Impacts. The first paragraph after the three tables mentions high levels of phosphorus. The Lower Fox River TMDL was established for total phosphorus and total suspended solids. Federal and state regulations require implementation of the TMDL to meet water quality standards. 13. Page 3-69, Surface Water Quality, the last paragraph should also recognize that the waterways in the project area are designated as ASNRI waterways. 14. Page 3-70, Resource Management. The Lower Fox River TMDL also regulates water quality.

(Rev. 11/19) Bryan Likpke – July 30, 2020 DOT ID 4556-02-00 6

15. Page 3-71, Summary – Baseline Condition for the Resource. Best management practices are intended to partially offset suspended solid load due to the addition of impermeable cover compared to no controls. Best management practices will not fully offset suspended solid load and may not offset increased flows. The bridge piers may have a negative impact on the PCB Project engineered caps by changing the velocity of the water passing over the PCB caps. For either Alternative Corridor, the existing armor stone sizes in the PCB caps must be evaluated by DOT for continued protectiveness of the PCB Project cap structures. 16. Page 3-71, Potential Mitigation. Implementation of best management practices would only partially offset the increased direct suspended sediment load and flows of the South Bridge Connector. 17. Page 3-72, Section 3.19 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources. Impacts to wetlands, waterways, and wildlife would be irreversible and irretrievable. Mitigation efforts such as wetland mitigation impacts and best management practices may partially offset the direct impacts to wetlands and waterways.

Section 4: Community Involvement and Agency Coordination 1. Page 4-17, Concurrence Point 3. There should be an explanation as to why Concurrence Point 3, concurrence on the identification of the preferred alternative was combined with the review of the Draft EIS.

Appendix E: Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Technical Memorandum 1. Page 1-1, Introduction. The second paragraph states the Tier 1 analysis of indirect and cumulative impacts will be qualitative. Without field review it is difficult to qualitatively assess environmental impacts. 2. Page 2-5, Section 2.3.2 Local, Regional, and State Plans. As noted below several local comprehensive plans emphasize protection, preservation and increase use opportunities of the waterways within the project area. This document should discuss the potential impacts to these waterways from this project and how these plans would be affected. a. Page 2-8, Section 2.3.2.7 City of D Pere Comprehensive outdoor Recreation Plan 2018- 2-23 mentions the need for a Fox River boat landing in the southern portion of the City. If this is upstream from the De Pere Dam, then the boat landing could increase recreational traffic in the Fox River where the new bridge is being proposed. b. Page, 2-9, Section 2.3.2.11 Town of Ledgeview Park and Recreation Plan 219-2024 state recommendations for protection of Environmentally Sensitive Areas and mentions East River. New crossings of the East River could affect wetlands, floodplains, wildlife movements, etc. c. Page 2-10, Section 2.3.2.14 Village of Allouez 2016-2020 Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan states there is a focus to improve access at Fox and East River. New crossings of the East River could affect access to and use of the East River corridor. d. Page 2-11, Section 2.3.2.16 Village of Ashwaubenon Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan encourages recreational opportunities on or near Fox Riverfront including trails. New crossings of the Fox River could affect access to and use of the Fox River corridor. 3. Page 2-21, Section 2.3.6.1 Surface Waters. All the waterways (named and unnamed) in the project area are classified as Areas of Special Natural Resource Interest (ASNRI). 4. Page 2-22, Section 2.3.6.1 Surface Waters. In addition to the four waterways mentioned many of their tributaries are also used by fish for spawning. 5. Page 2-22, Section 2.3.6.1 Wetlands. During the DNR interview DNR mentioned: a. Because there have not been onsite field reviews of the wetlands it is difficult to assess the quality of the wetlands. b. Wetlands often act as wildlife corridors particularly in more urban settings.

(Rev. 11/19) Bryan Likpke – July 30, 2020 DOT ID 4556-02-00 7

c. In addition to impacts from direct filling there is potential for additional wetland impacts due to change in hydrology (e.g. additional stormwater or interruption of existing drainage patterns), change in vegetation composition, and increased pressure from invasive species. 6. Page 2-22, Section 2.3.6.1 Floodplains. Development can affect floodplains, by increasing runoff. 7. Page 2-25, Table 2-6. Corridor Alternative 2. It should state new river crossings as there will be new waterway crossings in addition to the Fox River crossing. 8. Page 2-25, Section 2.5 Steps 4 and 5: Identify Potentially Significant Indirect Impacts; Analyze the Indirect Impacts and Evaluate Assumptions. The process to identify and analyze potential for project-influence development is a quantitative process by using a multiplier for estimating direct impacts and does not analyze the quality of the environmental resources. This type of analysis is only able to estimate the amount of impact but does not adequately estimate the quality of the impacted environmental resources. 9. Page 2-27, 2.5.1 Project-Influenced Development. Depending on the type of development (e.g. commercial vs residential) there may be some difference in environmental impacts. For example, wetlands can be incorporated into residential developments and there are minor differences in the Wis. Adm. Codes NR 151 and 216 for stormwater management. 10. Page 2-30, Section 2.5.2 Project Encroachment Impacts, Table 2-8, Water Resources. a. Surface Waters/Stormwater. States there may be potential water quality improvements. Stormwater detention facilities and other best management practices to be implemented with the improvements are intended to partially offset (e.g. 40 or 80 percent TSS removal) suspended solid load compared to no controls. Since there are currently undeveloped areas especially with Corridor Alternative 2 the proposed development would likely increase stormwater runoff over existing conditions thus there is potential for indirect and cumulative impacts from the two Corridor Alternatives. b. Best management practices are not designed to provide wildlife habitat and often incorporate wildlife deterrent features into design. For example, the Stormwater ponds for the I-41 expansion adjacent to this project incorporated seed mixes and physical features that were deigned to deter wildlife. c. Wetlands. States there will be no indirect impacts and mitigation is anticipated to address potential indirect effects. In addition to the types of indirect impacts listed changing in type of wetland is another indirect impact. Development and transportation corridors can alter vegetation composition (spread invasive species), wetland hydrology, and wetland size. These alternations can affect the quality and functionality of the wetland. Wetland mitigation is intended to replace direct wetland impact from the proposed improvements. Wetland mitigation is not intended to offset indirect and cumulative impacts thus there is potential for indirect and cumulative impacts from the two Corridor Alternatives. d. Protected Species. States no direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts anticipated after mitigation. Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation efforts only deal with the direct impacts. Mitigation is not intended to deal with indirect or cumulative impacts therefore there is potential for indirect and cumulative impacts.

Section 3: Cumulative Impacts 11. Page 3-3, Section 3.1.1 Scoping Cumulative Impacts, Table 3-1, Comments on reason why the Fox River State Trail was not considered in the Tier 1 Cumulative Impact Analysis states that an at-grade crossing of the Fox River State Trail is proposed; trail users would need to cross additional lanes of traffic. An at-grade intersection would have a safety impact for trail users and have the potential to slow traffic. Because Fox River State Trails is federally railbanked and subject to future restoration and reconstruction of the right-of-way for rail purposes consistent

(Rev. 11/19) Bryan Likpke – July 30, 2020 DOT ID 4556-02-00 8

with Section 208 of the National Trails System Act Amendment of 1983, Publ. L. No. 98-11 (16 U.S.C. 1247(d)) if the trail would revert back to railway there could be additional safety and efficiency issues. 12. Page 3-4, Section 3.1.1 Scoping Cumulative Impacts, Table 3-1. a. Floodplains. As the project area develops and impervious area increases, the existing floodplain will experience larger volumes of runoff and be less able to handle the volume compared to existing conditions. b. Wetlands. The last bullet point says cumulative impacts to floodplains are anticipated but does not mention wetlands. In addition to the types of indirect impacts listed in the second bullet changing in type of wetland is another indirect impact. Development and transportation corridors can alter vegetation composition (spread invasive species), wetland hydrology, and wetland size. These alternations can affect the quality and functionality of the wetland. Wetland mitigation is intended to replace direct wetland impact from the proposed improvements. Wetland mitigation is not intended to offset indirect and cumulative impacts thus there is potential for indirect and cumulative impacts from the two Corridor Alternatives. Wetlands also act as wildlife corridors and fragmenting of wetlands will have a cumulative impact on wildlife particularly in urban settings. c. Protected Species. States no direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts anticipated after mitigation. Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation efforts only deal with the direct impacts. Mitigation is not intended to deal with indirect or cumulative impacts therefore there is potential for indirect and cumulative impacts. 13. Page 3-11, Section 3.2 Describe the Affected Environment and Determine the Environmental Consequences and Potential Mitigation Measures. The last sentence on this page states that the evaluation considers potential mitigation measures to minimize cumulative impacts. Mitigation measures for stormwater, wetlands and protected species impacts are intended to minimize direct impacts and are not intended for indirect or cumulative impacts. Therefore, it is not accurate to state mitigation measures will minimize indirect or cumulative impacts. 14. Page 3-16, Section 3.2.2.1 Affected Environment, Resource Condition, Trends, and Other Future Actions. a. The waterways in the project area are designated as ASNRI waterways. b. The waterways in the project area are used by fish for spawning activities. c. Some of the waterway corridors act as wildlife corridors. 15. Page 3-17, Section 3.2.2.1 Affected Environment, Resource Management. Federal and state regulations require implementation of the Lower Fox River TMDL to meet water quality standards. 16. Page 3-18, 3-17, Section 3.2.2.1 Affected Environment, Summary – Baseline Condition for the Resource. This section should also recognize that these water ways and waterway corridors provide valuable aquatic habit such as spawning grounds and act as wildlife corridors. 17. Page 3-18, 3-17, Section 3.2.2.1 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences. Hydraulic features and best management will not fully offset suspended solid load and may not offset increased flows solids rather than flows. 18. Page 2-18, Section 3.2.2.2 Potential Mitigation. Stormwater detention facilities and other best management practices to be implemented with the improvements are intended to partially offset (e.g. 40 or 80 percent TSS removal) suspended solid load compared to no controls. Since there are currently undeveloped areas especially with Corridor Alternative 2 the proposed development would likely increase stormwater runoff over existing conditions thus there is potential for indirect and cumulative impacts from the two Corridor Alternatives.

(Rev. 11/19) Bryan Likpke – July 30, 2020 DOT ID 4556-02-00 9

Appendix G: Example South Bridge Connector Schedule and Funding Scenario 1. Based on the proposed schedule it is possible that construction on the first section of this project could be under construction before a Tier 2 environmental review of other sections of this project would begin. If part of the project is under construction prior to a Tier 2 environmental review, then the alternatives to minimize impacts within the chosen alternative corridor will be limited. This should be discussed in the Tier 1 EIS.

Appendix H: Section 4(f) and 6(f) Correspondence and Documentations, Fox River State Trail 1. As mentioned earlier, the Fox River State Trails is federally railbanked and subject to future restoration and reconstruction of the right-of-way for rail purposes consistent with Section 208 of the National Trails System Act Amendment of 1983, Publ. L. No. 98-11 (16 U.S.C. 1247(d)). This means that any impacts to the Fox River Trail should be designed to Railway standards.

If any of the concerns or information provided in this letter requires further clarification or if you would like to meet and discuss, please contact this office at (920) 412-0165, or email at [email protected].

Sincerely,

James P. Doperalski Jr. Environmental Analysis & Review Specialist

c: Kathy Van Price – WI DOT Joey Shoemaker - USACOE Kenneth A. Westlake – EPA James Saric – EPA (Superfund) Ian Chidister – FHWA Sarah Quamme – USFWS Cole Runge – Brown County Planning Commission Paul Fonecchio – Brown County Highway Commissioner Beth J. Olson – WI DNR BobbiJo Fischer – WI DNR File

(Rev. 11/19)

CI TY OF DE PERE

Mayor’s Office

335 S. Broadway, De Pere, WI 54115 | 920-339-4040 | www.deperewi.gov

Mr. Cole Runge Interim Planning Director/MPO Director Brown County Planning & Land Services/Green Bay MPO 305 E Walnut Street

Dear Mr. Runge,

The City of De Pere wishes to reiterate its support for the project’s preferred route (Rockland Road-Red Maple Road Arterial) with 1-41 Interchange. Please let me know if you need any additional information and support.

Respectfully yours,

James G. Boyd Mayor, City of De Pere

From: Stacie M. Cutbank Sent: Monday, August 03, 2020 5:00 PM To: Lipke, Bryan - DOT Cc: Melinda J. Danforth Subject: South Bridge Connector- Comment

Mr. Lipke,

Thank you for contacting the Oneida Nation on your informative agency outreach regarding your proposed undertaking known to us as the WDOT South Bridge Connector Tier I Environmental Impact Study (EIS) in Brown County. This process focused on the Tier 1 EIS to identify the most appropriate corridor to address existing and future transportation demands generated by the planned development in the southern part of the Green Bay metropolitan area. A final Tier 1 EIS/Record of Decision (ROD) is expected to be approved in October 2020. Subsequent Tier 2 environmental documents will be prepared with a greater degree of engineering detail and a more detailed impact analysis for specific improvements in the selected corridor prior to design and construction.

At this time the Oneida Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) and the participating Oneida Environmental staff do not have any known questions or concerns with your proposed project at that location. During this process it was noted a separate consultation under Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 2 EIS study will be forthcoming. The Oneida THPO does wish to remain as a consulting party for this proposed undertaking.

Yaw^ko, (thank you)

Stacie Cutbank Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Cultural Heritage Department Oneida Nation P.O. Box 365 – Oneida, WI 54155 Phone: 920-490-3929 Mobile: 920-217-4556

8. Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Signed Cover Sheet

FHWA-WI-EIS-2020-01-D PROJECT I.D. 4556-02-00 SOUTH BRIDGE CONNECTOR BROWN COUNTY, WISCONSIN TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Submitted Pursuant to 42 USC 4332(2)(c) and 49 USC 303 by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, State of Wisconsin Department of Transportation Brown County Department of Public Works Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Coast Guard U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Office (pursuant to 23 USC 139)

APPROVALS FoForr FederalFederal HighwayHighway AdministrationAdministration Date For Wisconsin Department of Transportation Date

CONTACTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT Glenn Fulkerson Scott J. Lawry, P.E. Paul Fontecchio Division Administrator Bureau of Technical Services Director Director Federal Highway Administration Wisconsin Department of Transportation Brown County DPW 525 Junction Road, Suite 8000 4822 Madison Yards Way, 5th Floor 2198 Glendale Avenue Madison, WI 53717 Madison, WI 53705 Green Bay, WI 54303 Phone: 608-829-7500 Phone: 608-266-2186 Phone: 920-662-2170

After circulation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and consideration of the comments received, FHWA will issue a single Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision document pursuant to 23 United States Code 139(n)(2) and 23 Code of Federal Regulations 771.123(g), unless FHWA determines statutory criteria or practicability considerations preclude issuance of the combined document. ABSTRACT The Brown County South Bridge Connector study area extends from the intersection of County GV and X on the east to the intersection of County F and Williams Grant Drive/Packerland Drive on the west, a distance of about 6 miles. This corridor lacks efficient east-west connections due to lack of roads across the Fox River in this developing area of Brown County. As traffic increases, safety and traffic operations on this corridor will continue to deteriorate. By 2045, increased traffic volumes will cause adjacent Fox River crossings and other roads to operate at a poor level of service during peak periods. The Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement evaluates the social, environmental, and economic impacts of the No-Build Alternative and a range of Corridor Alternatives, as well as the extent to which these alternatives address the project’s purpose and need. If the Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision identifies a selected corridor, Tier 2 environmental studies will be necessary to further develop alignment alternatives and evaluate impacts that could result from construction. Comments on this Draft Environmental Impact Statement are due by August 3, 2020, or 45 days after the Notice of Availability is published in the Federal Register, whichever is later, and should be sent to: Cole Runge Interim Planning Director/MPO Director Brown County Planning & Land Services/Green Bay MPO 305 E. Walnut Street. Room 320; PO Box 23600 Green Bay, WI 54305-3600 [email protected]