White Eagle Rough v1

JULY • 2011 $2.95

Eagle One Stays The Course

28 STILLWATER LIVING JULY 2011

ost of us can say that we’ve experienced a physical setting that feels special. In that place wherever it is, something stirs our souls. Music

can have the same effect—registering on a deep, aesthetic level. It’s a little hard to explain. Some experts refer to this sensation as a spiritual feeling. I think it’s safe to assume that a sense of connectedness is what Joseph Campbell was referring to as he uttered the above quote. Wherever your sacred space is, you are drawn to it, and somehow you feel elevated when you’re there.

Bill Block felt a stir fourteen years ago when he first walked the land that is now known as the White Eagle Community in Hudson, Wisconsin. “The natural beauty was just indescribable, the land seemed to have its own character,” he says with a smile. “It really drew me in.” Bill has made a career as a civil engineer. Like so many entrepreneurs, he started out working for a good firm then later ventured out on his own. Bill has seen dozens, if not hundreds, of parcels developed, so for him to have a spiritual stirring as he walked this land is noteworthy. There must be something special about it.

Your sacred space is where you can find yourself again and again. -Joseph Campbell

M

Stirring Souls And Building Homes:The White Eagle Community

By Geoffrey Bishop, Photos By Curtis Dale

WWW.STILLWATERLIVING.NET 29


Fourteen years ago, information presented to Bill indicated that the old lift bridge in Stillwater was obsolete and that a new river crossing was approved and had funding. With this in mind, Bill thought to himself, “Why not develop a little 350-acre parcel in St. Joseph Township?” He knew he didn’t want to create another vinyl-sided track housing community. He wanted something that combined his love of golf with his reverence for this special land he had discovered. Many urged Bill to follow Troy Burne’s blueprint and maximize the housing density along the golf course. Thankfully, Bill took the long view and decided to patiently incorporate what was best for the land, for the golfer and for the eventual resident.

Portions of the land were whole growth woods that had never been logged while another area, roughly 35 acres, was an active pine tree forest. Wetlands and prairies complemented dramatic elevations and drop-

offs throughout the parcel. Given his experience in land development, Bill knew with whom he wanted to work on this special project. He chose noted golf course architect Garrett Gill, located in River Falls, who has designed numerous championship courses including Willinger’s Golf Club, Golf at the Legacy and Legends Golf Club among others. The actual construction work of shaping the course was handled by the renowned golf course builder Enebak Construction Company of Northfield, MN. Enebak Construction has built such courses as Bear Path CC, TPC of the Twin Cities, Willinger’s GC, Deacon’s Lodge, Spring Hill GC, Legends Golf Club and many others.

Bill Block could have hired any course designer or course construction company at all, but he chose these two firms because he knew they would deliver on his vision of creating a world-class community. They moved 450,000

From left to right: Phil Sibinski, Leah Cory, Pam and Dan Dynan, Charlie Cory, Bill Block AKA Eagle One


yards of dirt, uprooted and replanted 500 pine trees. In an effort to make the best use of the natural wetlands they installed 400 catch basin-type structures and connected the wetlands with over five miles of drainage pipe. The grading and drainage plan of the golf course and community is robust enough to handle two consecutive one hundred year floods.

Conventional real estate development runs contrary to what Bill has created in White Eagle. Jon Whitcomb is a local real estate and development expert and he had this to say about White Eagle: “As the Western part of St Croix County develops in the future, this type of lot (3 acre +/- on a high level golf course) will most likely be a thing of the past. Higher density around amenities is really the trend. The White Eagle development model is unsustainable and will be looked back upon as a rarity. Land and development costs are too high to not maximize the number of living units on a property as nice as White Eagle. It is too bad that Mr. Block did not get better advice when laying out his project. For so few homes to be able to enjoy the amenity is a shame. Today the number of lots would be triple what Block has on the course.”

While the early settlers of White Eagle understand Whitcomb’s synopsis, they couldn’t disagree with him more. Their setup is not a shame; it’s a paradise. And many couples will attest to that.

In 2000, Dan and Pam Dynan lived in Maplewood and they were looking for a change. They wanted a respite from the city with a little nature. They had considered Troy Burne before getting a tip from their realtor that the land was better in this “new” White Eagle development. They ended up being the first ones to purchase a lot from Bill. Their plot is elevated above the eight green with a grove of Norwegian pines separating their home from the course. The trees take root at the lower elevation of the golf course and nicely compliment the style of build Dan and Pam chose for their house. The tree tops dance in the wind as they enjoy their backyard deck. Pam walks three or more miles everyday and just loves the scenic beauty of the land that surrounds their home.

Phil and Terry Sibinski moved in about one year later and couldn’t be happier with their choice. Phil grew up in

Northeast Minneapolis, and like most hard working city kids, he had long dreamt of the day when he could move out to prestigious Lake Minnetonka. Phil did achieve his dream, but it didn’t take long for him to despise his lakeside home due to the fact that the area was overrun with people. The quaint lake cabins and private coves that he adored as a child had been replaced by McMansions. Overcrowding had ruined what was once beautiful and made the present-day reality hard to tolerate. Today, from his home at White Eagle, Phil can’t see any neighbors or golfers. Life is quiet and serene. The only welcome interaction happens when his path occasionally crosses that of a curious brown bear as it casually makes its way

through Phil’s front yard.

Charlie and Leah Cory have lived at White Eagle for roughly five years. Charlie gets to play on a golf course that he loves, and Leah has a backyard full of beautiful birch trees. As a serious golfer, Charlie has always enjoyed playing in tournaments at White Eagle, even while he was living in Cottage Grove. The land spoke to him and the golf course challenged him. He fell in love with the land, and as soon as he showed the space to his wife, she too fell in love with the idea of living there. Charlie

works in St Paul and appreciates the slower speed limit once he enters North Hudson. It forces him to calm his mind and be more present for his family once he gets home.

The three early settlers of White Eagle that we interviewed share an enjoyment of golf, but their real common thread is an appreciation of nature and their love for this particular track of land. They all understand and value the fact that Bill took his time with course architects to compose preeminent building sites. They also appreciate the protections provided by the covenants, declarations and architectural guidelines that Bill has not wavered from.

Most developers would have changed the rules and prices of the available lots when our economy took a nosedive a few years ago. They might have abandoned the long view due to short-term pressures. Bill didn’t panic. He kept his head up and acted like a big boy that can stomach a down cycle, knowing that most busts are followed by a recovery. In fact, in an effort to spark activity, Bill is offering attractive terms to potential buyers by carrying

30 STILLWATER LIVING JULY 2011 WWW.STILLWATERLIVING.NET 31

the note on the lot and golf privlages until the new bridge opens.

And what about that new bridge anyway? The information Bill Block was presented with 14 years ago told him that a bridge was approved and funded. As the saying goes, “Fool me once shame on you; fool me twice shame on me.” No one is dancing in the streets of White Eagle proclaiming the victory of a new river crossing, but the situation has changed and we are closer than ever before to breaking ground on a new bridge.

Representative Michele Bachmann introduced legislation to the U.S. House of Representatives to allow the proposed river crossing project to move forward. The legislation is cosponsored by Representatives Sean Duffy and Ron Kind of Wisconsin, and Chip Cravaack, Bachmann’s colleague from Minnesota. In May, the legislation had a hearing in the House Natural Resources’ Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Land. It passed through committee without incident and is apparently headed for the floor, which typically means a vote. The governors of both Minnesota and Wisconsin publicly said that they want a new river crossing. All four state senators of Minnesota and Wisconsin support the current plan. This “new bridge momentum” is unprecedented and it has been fueled by a recent History Channel documentary in their "America's Crumbling Infrastructure" series that warned us the current Stillwater Lift Bridge could collapse at any time due to crumbling piers and corroded steel plates.

With three-acre minimum lots, a championship golf course, close proximity to both Stillwater and Hudson and the great possibility that a new bridge will cross the St. Croix nearby, White Eagle looks pretty good on paper. But the real test is whether or not the land speaks to you. Does it feel special to you? Does it stir your soul? There’s really only one way to find out.

Geoffrey Bishop is a frequent contributor to Stillwater Living magazine.

ey, thanks for sitting down with us. I appreciate meeting with you today. So let’s get right to it: have you always had an interest in environmental issues?

You know, I don’t think I’ve always had an interest in environmental issues. For most of my life, I was not really thinking about our environment and the impact I was having. But I’ve always had an interest in travel and, in the course of my travels, I’ve seen the effect man has had on the planet. I’ve seen beautiful places in the world that are being destroyed by our actions.

About ten years ago, I decided I needed to do something to help preserve what is left of our natural areas. People before us sacrificed a lot so we can enjoy what we have today, and I believe I need to help do the same so those natural treasures can be passed down to generations to come.

What exactly is your role at the Sierra Club? At 1.3 million members, the Sierra Club is the largest grassroots environmental organization in the United States. I am one of thousands of club members who volunteer to get involved in issues and events. The Sierra Club’s motto is to explore, enjoy, and protect the planet. We’re about trying to save our environment in this country and around the world and encouraging people to get out and enjoy our natural places.

As a grassroots organization, the club is largely driven by volunteers, like myself. Here in Minnesota we have about

16,000 members, and in Wisconsin we have another 16,000 members or so. Our group’s particular focus is preserving the great attributes we enjoy in the St. Croix Valley, but many of us also get involved in regional or national issues as well.

The St Croix River Crossing: we’ve been reading about it and heard about it on the radio. What is the current status of the St. Croix River Crossing project?

The National Park Service is reevaluating their environmental assessment of the proposed design, commonly called a Section 7 evaluation . . . The judge ruled that the previous approval by the Park Service does not hold: he found that it “arbitrary and capricious.”

As a result, the National Park Service has an opportunity to take another look at the proposal to consider the environmental impacts. Until that reevaluation occurs, significant development of the bridge is stopped. But, that being said, there is still work going on for preliminary engineering and concept design work.

The National Park Service has said publicly that they plan to reissue the Section 7 evaluation in July of this year. In fact yesterday, as a part of our continued partnership with the National Park Service, we met with the Superintendent and talked about the bridge and other opportunities for National Park Service and the Sierra Club to work together on issues. We will continue to do that despite any disagreement we have on the bridge itself.

corner table

32 STILLWATER LIVING JUNE 2010

A FRIENDLY CONVERSATION WITH JIM RICKARD OF THE SIERRA CLUB

BY PETER MCNIFF, PHOTO BY AIMEE CHRISTENSONTRANSCRIBED BY NATALIE BOURMAN-KARNS

JUNE 2010 STILLWATER LIVING 33

DEVELOPING THE RIGHT WAY

Phot

o co

urte

sy o

f MnD

ot

H


What impact do you see this new river crossing proposition having on this community?

The big concern the Sierra Club has is the impact of the size and location of the proposed design on the riverway. This river has been designated as one of a few Wild and Scenic Rivers in the country—the proposed design will essentially create a superhighway cutting right through the valley, causing a great amount of direct and indirect destruction which violates the protections that are in place to preserve the riverway.

What is interesting is that many of the stories in the press make it sound like the Sierra Club is the only group against the proposed bridge design. But most people I’ve talked to also don’t want to see the river valley destroyed. In fact, if you look deeper into the goals of a new bridge, there seems to be more common ground in this debate that I think most people realize.

If you consider the needs of the folks who are advocates for the bridge, you can identify three groups. The first is the regular commuters who cross the bridge every day and who are concerned about the life of the bridge and the time it takes to cross when the bridge is up. The second is folks concerned with the volume of traffic in downtown Stillwater and how that affects businesses. The third group is folks who are most interested in economic development of Western Wisconsin.

For the first and second groups, there really is alignment with the Sierra Club’s position. All along, the Sierra Club has been supportive of a replacement bridge which would meet the needs of current users, provide reasonable accommodation for growth, and be located south of downtown Stillwater to relieve traffic congestion in the historic downtown. The real disagreement tends to be with the third group, those who want to build the biggest possible bridge to maximize development in western Wisconsin at the expense of destroying our riverway. How do we decide what size bridge is needed?

The size of the bridge is really determined in a couple of different ways. The first is looking at the volume of traffic that the bridge needs to support. The current bridge handles somewhere between 16,000 – 18,000 vehicles per day. To forecast for future growth, we need to add reasonable projections for growth to that number. In the current proposal, the way growth was forecasted was to ask the local communities how much growth those communities expect. The problem lies in the fact that those communities forecasted growth based on having the largest sized bridge in place. That’s immediately assumes we should destroy the river to build the largest bridge possible. Using this kind of logic, the outcome is

predetermined and the result is a bridge which greatly exceeds current user needs.

The second critical issue in determining size and location of the bridge is the design criteria used. The DOTs are using design criteria which allow cars and 80,000 semi trucks to go sixty-five without slowing down. That’s obviously not the standard we have today on the current bridge. When those design criteria are used, that largely determines the size, scale, and location of the bridge, and a large chunk of the costs.

Again, this is where we have a problem: do we really need to design for a superhighway through the Valley? How about we use a design that allows cars uninterrupted, but not at sixty-five mph: wouldn’t that address the concerns of commuters and reduce their commute times? We’ve been encouraging Minnesota and Wisconsin to step back and say, “What are we really trying to accomplish here? Do we really want to destroy a protected natural area to subsidize development in Western Wisconsin?”

Some would argue that the growth is inevitable. How would it be better done?

Growth is okay, but it’s really a question of how we accommodate that growth. Are we allowing growth to occur in an integrated, planned way or are we spending hundreds of millions of dollars on huge superhighways which encourage uncontrolled sprawl?

Sprawl is going to create all sorts of other problems for the community. We have seen the effects of sprawl throughout the Twin Cities for the last few decades. We have spent billions of dollars on new roads in the Twin Cities, and traffic is worse than ever, not to mention the fact that MnDOT is projecting a $50 billion funding deficit just to maintain current roads.

Phot

o co

urte

sy o

f MnD

ot

"take the Lower St. Croix out of federal protections and we'll have another Lake Minnetonka..."

34 STILLWATER LIVING JUNE 2010 JUNE 2010 STILLWATER LIVING 35

There are many ways we can accommodate growth that are better investments for taxpayers.

Right now, St. Croix County is where the development would occur. Are they prepared for it?

Some planning has been done, but it is only planning. The massive amounts of development will require new water systems, new schools, new sewage treatment capabilities, new power and gas lines, and all the other demands of suburban communities. Where are all those dollars going to come from? Will all those be built properly so the riverway is protected? If you look at other areas which have had massive sprawl, those communities have found themselves in trouble because they grew too fast. It sounds like you are saying a smaller bridge would be better, with a better infrastructure and traffic going north to south. What would that look like?

The Sierra Club and other groups have been advocating since the 90s for a smaller scale bridge design located south of downtown Stillwater, combined with a number of other improvements to more effectively handle traffic and support growth. Building better north-south access from I-94 is just one improvement which would provide better traffic flow.

Road improvements should also be combined with transit improvements so citizens have choices other than just getting in their cars. We need to seriously invest in regular bus and commuter rail services which cross the river. By

considering an integrated set of solutions with a smaller scale bridge, we can still accomplish many of the needs of the community with less destruction to the river valley at a much lower cost to taxpayers.

When you talk about such a huge bridge like we’ve discussed, what are the impacts you are talking about?

The most obvious ones are the direct impacts. These include the significant visual impacts from just the size of the bridge. The towers will be an estimated 190 feet above the water, which would be clearly visible from up and down the river for miles and be an impediment for migratory birds. The new bridge will also create light pollution, effectively blocking out the night skies for people who are within a half mile of the bridge. Noise will also be a big issue: trucks going sixty five create a lot of noise which carries over water even more.

Then there is the destruction to the bluff line and the riverbeds which come from excavating for such a massive structure. This will require significant tree removal and habitat destruction. A number of eagle and osprey nesting sites located in the vicinity of the proposed bridge site will inevitably be affected.

Then there are the effects on the fish and endangered mussel populations and the overall water quality. It is the quality of the water that allows us to enjoy the river for fishing or swimming. Destroying such a large chunk of the ecosystem and increasing runoff from development will surely not benefit the river and the quality of the water.

Phot

o co

urte

sy o

f MnD

ot


corner table

Do you think it’s fair to say that you’d like to see a new river crossing, but you’d like to see it done right, with a better infrastructure and roadwork and a plan for development in Wisconsin?

Our definition of “done right” means that we have a new bridge with other road and transit improvements which accommodate the needs of the people but minimizes the destruction of the river valley. We don’t need a bridge that is ten times larger than the current bridge at the expense of destroying our Valley and the great lifestyle it provides us all.

All right, thank you. Now let’s talk about it on the national scale. It seems to me that we’ve heard talk that it’s a precedent-setting bridge.

So there are a lot of local issues here that we’ve been talking about so far, and that’s the primary concern that we have. The secondary concern that everybody should have is that this proposed design will, in many ways, set a precedent for other development projects in protected areas around the country. Essentially, if this massive design in approved, we’re allowing an economic development project which will cause significant, permanent impact to overrun the protections of a designated natural area. This is very much the same as putting an interstate highway right through the middle of Yellowstone National Park or the Boundary Waters. If we allow this here, there is no reason that similar projects can’t be allowed in Yellowstone or other protected areas.

Another national precedent issue will be from the increased pressure that will inevitably come for removing the Lower St. Croix River from federal protections. As more and more people move in from the uncontrolled growth, more and more people will not want to abide by the river protections in place. We have already had Congresswoman Bachmann say she thinks the Lower St. Croix should be taken out of federal protections. Given that we have fewer and fewer natural areas left in the country, what would this mean? Should we start removing other areas from federal protections just so we can exploit them for short term gain?

What would delisting the Lower St. Croix mean to this entire area?

Delisting the Lower St. Croix would mean it’s taken out of the federal protection. What that will do is remove a series of protections that are in place to control development and water quality to preserve the environmental and scenic qualities of the riverway.

It would be very much like the situation we have with Lake Minnetonka, where we have beautiful waterways with little control and oversight. As a result, the area has been developed to the max, with houses and parking lots built right up to the water and forested and natural habitat areas destroyed. With the type of exploitation you see in Lake Minnetonka now, there is no longer a viable ecosystem for eagles, osprey, and other birds and endangered species. You can’t find a quiet, scenic hideaway on Lake Minnetonka like you still can on the St Croix River. If this massive bridge is put in, the resulting sprawl will increase pressure to take the Lower St. Croix out of federal protections and we’ll have another Lake Minnetonka, where the view from the river is looking into windows of people’s houses and businesses. Thanks so much for talking with us.

Thank you.

i Bill. Thanks for spending some time with us. To get started, how about telling us a little about yourself?

Sure. I’m a land developer that got into the golf course business back in 1998 when I built White Eagle Golf Club just north of Hudson, roughly three miles from the Stillwater lift bridge.

So is it fair to call you a western Wisconsin developer?

On that project, yes.

What was your first experience with a proposed new St. Croix River crossing?

Well I bought 360 acres in 1998, in six different parcels. When I did that, the (new) bridge at Stillwater had been approved and funded. They were expecting the bridge to be completed by 2004.

Who expected that? Wis. Dot, Mn/DOT?

I don’t know all of the entities involved, but when they completed the feasibility study for the golf course, the 2004 date was part of the deal—obviously it didn’t happen.

Today is August 12, 2010—what is the current situation with the proposed new St. Croix River crossing?

I had a discussion last week with Todd Clarkowski from Mn/DOT. He sent me updates and renderings of the new bridge. They are apparently going through a Sierra Club lawsuit where Judge Davis has thrown out five out of six

issues, and that is supposed to be completed sometime this month. Todd believes that bridge will move forward to the bid letting in July of 2013 with completion in July of 2016.

When you say “bid letting,” what are you talking about?

Well, it needs to be designed. Once they get the approval that they are expecting later this month, they will go through the design process. That will include both sides of the river, and the highway restructuring and everything involved with that. When they get that all ready for bids it will be July 2013.

In your development in western Wisconsin, did you deal with density clauses, water runoff, sewage, impervious surfaces, and other things that government officials require of us to be good stewards of the environment?

When we went into the golf course project we had to comply with all the regulations of St. Croix County and St. Joseph Township, and it was not an easy process. We went through unbelievable amounts of red tape: groundwater monitoring, runoff issues, and so on. The Wisconsin DNR had us spend over $400,000 on the erosion control that my contractor said we didn’t need to spend, but the DNR required us to do the work. It was a very difficult process to get the golf course and development approved.

Do you think the DNR and other government officials are focused on caring for the land?

Well that is what the government employees are convinced

corner table

32 STILLWATER LIVING SEPTEMBER 2010

A FRIENDLY CONVERSATION WITH BILL BLOCK

BY PETER MCNIFF, PHOTOS BY AIMEE CHRISTENSON

H

32 STILLWATER LIVING SEPTEMBER 2010 SEPTEMBER 2010 STILLWATER LIVING 33

that they are doing. Obviously they have never worked in the private sector or invested any money themselves in any kind of a project—frankly I think they are just trying to stay busy. St. Joseph’s township has a very restrictive development policy, so if the Sierra Club is concerned about high density developments as a result of a new bridge . . . that’s just not going to happen.

So the high density development concept is not part of the plan in western Wisconsin or, in your case, St. Joseph Township?

In St. Joseph Township I can’t ever see that happening.

In your development around White Eagle Golf Club you have a conservation community plan. What does that mean to a potential builder or homeowner?

Our minimum lot size is three acres. We have buffering between the lots, we have trees planted, and we maintain architectural guidelines. It is a very controlled development environment and it very conservative environmentally.

So you don’t expect to see Woodbury type development with vinyl-sided tract housing exploding in western Wisconsin?

Not a chance.

Now regarding the river crossing itself: What would you like to see the bridge look like? Do you care how high it is or how fast the traffic flows?

Mn/DOT and Wis. DOT have studied this thing for so many years that I am convinced that the crossing they have now is the best location. I have seen a number of alternative locations and I believe that this one is the best. As far as the height off the water, that’s controlled by the bluffs.

The design of the bridge has changed quite a bit from 1998 to today. Now it’s more of a suspension bridge—it looks like a small Golden Gate Bridge and that added more cost. I think they have added $500 million to the cost of the project since 1998.

" I think they have added $500 million to the cost of the

project since 1998."

www.schifskylandscape.com

651-439-0603Troy Schifsky

Schifsky Landscaping

pavers • retaining walls • plantings • installation & maintenance

Creative - Unique - Design

34 STILLWATER LIVING SEPTEMBER 2010 SEPTEMBER 2010 STILLWATER LIVING 35

What do you think of the notion of creating a smaller bridge with larger north/south supporting roads?

We are in a metropolitan area of over 3 million people and we have one good crossing down at I-94. It is ridiculous that we don’t have another major crossing into Wisconsin. A bridge coming off 36 to connect with the brand-new four-lane highway from New Richmond to Houlton is absolutely necessary, and should be done to support the maximum amount of traffic. We’re looking at 60,000 to 80,000 vehicles per day, and the current design is an excellent one.

The Sierra Club has voiced concern for migratory birds and other parts of the ecosystem. Are you concerned about a negative impact on nature?

Absolutely not. If the Sierra Club is 16,000 members in Minnesota and another 16,000 in Wisconsin, I just don’t think they have clue about what is going on with this project. To worry about migratory birds running into the bridge gives you some kind of idea of the Sierra Club’s perspective. They are able to go out and file lawsuits, and I don’t know where their funding is coming from, but they are costing taxpayers millions upon millions of dollars by delaying these kinds of projects with frivolous migratory bird concerns.

Another item of concern is delisting the upper St Croix from federal protection.

I think Michelle Bachman brought that up and I think it was probably an overreaction. There is no reason to delist this beautiful scenic riverway, and the new bridge is going to have no negative impact—it’s going to make things better. Just think about all the cars sitting in traffic along Main Street, and all of the pollution in downtown Stillwater coming from the big trucks that can totally avoid

downtown in the future. This new bridge is going to be beautiful and it’s going to be the new gateway between the states. The lift bridge is looked at now as a very scenic bridge. The one that’s going to replace it will be looked on in the future as a great project.

Thanks so much for talking with us.

Thank you.

SEPTEMBER 2010 STILLWATER LIVING 35

corner table

1933 South Greeley • INeedaNewKitcheN.com

Contact Jim, Chanda or Carol275-0700

• build or remodel • excellent service• certified designers • years of experience

Quality Small Town Service

FREE Financ

ing-

No Inte

rest, N

o Pay

ments

For 1 Y

ear!

design • remodel • renew

see our before & after remodels at www.freshstartmn.com

651-430-2412

lease tell us a little about yourself.

I have been a park ranger for 34 years, the last two at the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway. I'm the father of 3 grown sons, and my wife and I recently became family with 2 young daughters born in China.

How did you become employed by the National Park Service?

On a 4th grade field trip to the home of Theodore Roosevelt on Long Island, NY, I was inspired by a National Park Ranger who spoke to our class. Fifteen years later, I was that park ranger at "Sagamore Hill" talking to school groups. I consider myself very fortunate to be employed by the National Park Service

Is St. Croix River a national park?

The St Croix is a national park just like Yellowstone, Yosemite, or the Grand Canyon; we just have a different last name -- National Scenic Riverway as opposed to "National Park." Before coming to the beautiful St. Croix Valley, some of the parks I worked at were Yosemite, Great Smoky Mountains, and American Samoa. The same "Management Policies Guide" that I pulled off my shelf to help make important decisions at those parks is the

same book I pull off my shelf here to help make decisions affecting this "national park" here in the St. Croix Valley. How lucky we are to have been given this gift by Act of US Congress with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Thanks to then Senators Gaylord Nelson and Walter Mondale, the (upper) St. Croix was one of the original eight rivers protected by that 1968 Act (from St. Croix Falls north). How do you split duties with MN and WI Departments of Natural Resources over the River?

This is a confusing issue. The Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway was created by a separate Act of the US Congress in 1972 (from St. Croix Falls south to the Boomsite in north Stillwater). However (and this is a big however), the lower 26 miles of the River, from the Boomsite south were not included in the federally managed zone of the park. These lower 26 miles of the River are part of the "state managed zone" added in 1976 and managed by the two state DNRs. In Section 7a of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Congress gave the National Park Service the responsibility to comment on "water resources projects" in this state managed zone. That's why the National Park Service evaluated the impacts of the proposed St. Croix River Crossing Project. Many management activities are conducted cooperatively between the National Park

32 STILLWATER LIVING NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2010

corner tableBY PETER MCNIFF, PHOTOS BY AIMEE CHRISTENSON

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2010 STILLWATER LIVING 33

P

A friendly conversation with Chris Stein

Our Local Superintendent of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.


Service and the States including protecting water quality and natural resources such as native mussels. When we work in partnership with other agencies and organizations that have a mission similar to our own, what we can achieve grows exponentially.

What does it mean to have the Wild and Scenic designation?

Again, the St. Croix River from St Croix Falls north was one of the first of eight rivers across the nation designated by the 1968 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. That's a big deal...one of the first rivers in the United States! That is very special. With this Act, Congress recognized that in the United States we needed to balance "developed" rivers (such as dammed rivers and rivers managed primarily for commercial navigation) with a system of clean, free flowing rivers managed to protect resources and provide the public with recreational opportunities.

At one time the National Park Service approved this project. Is this true?

Yes. In 2005, the NPS evaluated this project and approved it as long as a package of "mitigation items" were included in the project. These items included things such as: removing the mooring cells and the barge off-loading

Comfort and Joy...

Just Fo r Me the Spa110 S. Greeley Street • Stillwater

651.439.4662 • justformespa.com

Massage & Body TreatmentsFacial Treatments

Hair & Nails • Spa PackagesSpa Accommodations • Holiday Gift Cards

34 STILLWATER LIVING NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2010 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2010 STILLWATER LIVING 35

the river at the L.S. King Power Plant, converting the Lift Bridge to pedestrian/bicycle use only and creating a loop trail connecting with the proposed new bridge, and saving the historic Shoddy Mill from the bridge's right of way and restoring it at another location in Stillwater.

I recently read that National Park Service opinion is that the adverse impact of the project can not be eliminated. Please comment on this.

The National Park Service team (at all levels -- local, regional, and national) came to the same conclusion that the "adverse recreational and scenic impacts" of the proposed bridge across the Wild and Scenic River could not be eliminated, therefore the National Park Service could not approve of the project because of these impacts. In this evaluation, the National Park Service was not evaluating the cost of the bridge or regional transportation needs. We just evaluated the "scenic and recreational impacts" of a bridge across the River.

With this evaluation, the National Park Service followed the law (Wild and Scenic Rivers Act) as given to the American people by the US Congress. The National Park Service is part of the executive branch of government. The National Park Service does not make laws. As defined in the US Constitution, we "take care" that laws are properly carried out. Only Congress can make laws.

I think it would be good for your readers to see what the actual language is in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act that guided the National Park Service's decision. Section 7(a) of the Act provides substantial protection to the Riverway. It states that: “No department or agency of the United States shall assist by loan, grant, license or otherwise in the construction of any water resources project that would have a direct and adverse effect on the values for which such river was established, as determined by the Secretary charged with its administration.”

The proposed new bridge is a water resources project because it would require piers in the river.

I understand that the NPS participated in a mediation process that led stakeholders to believe that the preferred bridge design would not have a direct and adverse effect on the scenic and recreational values of the Riverway, provided an appropriate mitigation package was fully incorporated into the project. How do you explain and justify this new evaluation to those 28 stakeholders who invested considerable time and energy in the mediation process?

Throughout the process the NPS operated in good faith. Prior to the court ruling in March 2010, the NPS believed that we had the authority to consent to a project if the adverse impacts were partially offset with mitigation. In light of the court decision, we took a hard look at the Act and related policies and came to the conclusion at all levels of the National Park Service that we do not have this authority. We have since come to understand that for us to consent to a project, the direct and adverse effect it would have on the values for which Congress set this River aside (in this case scenic and recreational values) must be eliminated.

Photo

cour

tesy o

f MnD

ot


corner table

Photo

cour

tesy o

f MnD

ot

Your Community Partner Since 1974Get your repairs done locally by someone you trust

Stop in today for a free estimate

Paint & Frame

13601 60th St North • Stillwater651-439-9340

www.jerrysautodetail.com

Quality Body WorkCourtesy Cars

Collision speCialists

the valley booksellerthe valley booksellergreat books • great people

217 north main street • stillwater www.valleybookseller.com

ev

en

ts

Wednesday, November 17: 6:30 pm John Reimringer, author of Vestments

Thursday, November 18: 6:00 pmLadies Night Out in downtown StillwaterAllen & Linda Anderson, authors of Dogs & The Women Who Love Them

Friday, November 26: 5:00 pm Warren Hanson, author of The Next Place and new release, Today’s Special: Yes It Is

December 3 through December 6:Pre-Holiday Customer Appreciation Sale

Tuesday December 7: 7:00 pmChuck Logan, author of five novels, presenting Writers On Writing series at ArtReach St. Croix

Friday, December 10: 6:30 pmJohn Kriesel & Jim Kosmo, authors of Still Standing

Saturday, December 11: 2:00 pmIan Punnett, author of Dizzy The Mutt With The Propeller Butt

GasthausBavarian Hunter

Since 1966

nn

Reserve Your

Holiday Parties

Early!

44 Years of Old World Bavarian

Hospitality

For Reservations call 439-7128

We strongly believe that the mitigation measures developed by the 28 stakeholders, plus maybe other measures, will be incorporated into a final bridge design if Federal Highway Administration and the US Congress decide to proceed with this project, as Congress can do.

How should we solve the need for a new crossing?

In our evaluation, the NPS obeyed the law. That's all the NPS can do. If the people want a bridge, only the US Congress can pass legislation to build a bridge.

The 80-year old Lift Bridge is a safety concern. What are the 16,000 daily commuters going to say when they can't cross the Lift Bridge anymore? Are you saying that the scenic and recreational values of the river are more important than safety concerns?

Public safety is a concern of everyone involved with the project. Though the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act does not allow the National Park Service to approve a project that has a direct and adverse effect on the scenic and recreational values of the river, the Federal Highway Administration has an avenue to move the project forward.

ello Representative Bachmann, thank you for meeting with us. Please tell us about your first experience with the proposed St Croix River Crossing.

My husband and I made our home and raised our five kids and twenty-three foster kids here in Stillwater. Since we moved here, the lift bridge has needed a replacement; in fact a replacement for the bridge has been discussed since the 1950s! So when I saw the current plans for the four-lane crossing at Oak Park Heights I was supportive. The current bridge is just not safe, or practical, and it injects too much traffic pressure through historic downtown Stillwater. This was a hot topic when I was a State Senator too. I witnessed groups filing lawsuits which have delayed the construction of a new bridge and have unnecessarily driven up the cost. Together with our local state representative, Mark Holsten, I offered an amendment on a spending bill to ensure Department of Transportation funding was reserved for another year. Unfortunately, outside groups continued delay tactics and that funding eventually was released for other transportation projects. I understand that you introduced legislation (H.R. 4924) last year in an effort to clear the way for construction of a new river crossing. Where is that bill now? What do you expect will happen with that bill?

I did introduce legislation in the 111th Congress to allow the Secretary of the Interior to use his authority to move forward with the proposed river crossing. The bill was referred to the House Natural Resources Committee where it unfortunately didn't see any action. Bills don't automatically advance to future Congresses, so now that we are in the 112th Congress I introduced new legislation regarding the crossing. My bill, H.R. 850, reaffirms the October 2005 National Park Service decision which determined that the proposed crossing is in compliance with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. When the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway was designated as one of the eight original wild and scenic rivers in 1968 by Congress the historic lift bridge was already considered in need of replacement and widening. This new legislation has been sent to the Natural Resources committee. I worked with the committee in writing the bill and I anticipate congressional hearings on the topic. This bill has three co-sponsors: Congressman Sean Duffy (WI-7), Congressman Ron Kind (WI-3) and Congressman Chip Cravaack (MN-8). We are hopeful Natural Resources will take up consideration of this bill soon. Have you had any constructive dialog with Interior Secretary Salazar about striking a balance between his department's duty to care for the river and the region's transportation needs?

corner table

32 STILLWATER LIVING APRIL 2011

A FRIENDLY CONVERSATION WITH MICHELE BACHMANNBY PETER MCNIFF

H


I wrote Secretary Salazar last year in March requesting that he defend the 2005 ruling by the National Park Service. I urged the Secretary to meet with local officials and me in the area, and he has a standing invitation to visit Minnesota and Wisconsin to see it all firsthand. Do you believe that MNDOT and WISDOT have explored all possible options and have proposed an optimal bridge design? In other words, is there anything about the current proposal that you would like to see change? With confidence, I believe MNDOT and WISDOT acted with due diligence in analyzing modern options for crossing the span of the river. With 18,000 daily drivers, the proposed plan will meet the needs of the area. Highway 36, the feeder into the bridge, is a four-lane highway. Highway 35 in Wisconsin is a four-lane highway. How foolish it would be to build anything smaller than a four-lane bridge! Wouldn't anything we build less than four-lanes wide create traffic congestion, bottle necks and increase the likelihood of traffic accidents? And for those worried about aesthetic qualities, the designers incorporated measures to minimize the visual impacts of the structure. It was bureaucrats from Washington who called the bridge "visual pollution". If that is the case, they must consider the existing Stillwater lift bridge "visual pollution" as well. Do you have any concerns about the size or scope of the proposed St Croix River Crossing? No. Why would we build a bridge that is obsolete before it is built? I believe the four-lane crossing will meet the desired needs. Anything smaller would create bottlenecks on both sides of the river. There seems to be some concern about explosive growth in Western Wisconsin. Have you had any dialog with Wisconsin representatives about the bridge or their plans to accommodate growth? Yes, Congressman Ron Kind and Congressman Sean Duffy are well aware of these efforts and have co-sponsored this legislation. Our nation is still facing the devastating effects of the recession and this bridge will not only serve to create jobs in its construction, but it will boost interstate commerce. The proposed St Croix River Crossing has been compared to putting an interstate highway through Yellowstone National Park. Are there national implications to what happens here? We can continue to be wise stewards of our surroundings and build a new, safe, river crossing. Remember the

existing Stillwater lift bridge was here before this portion of the St. Croix was put into the Wild and Scenic River Act. The St. Croix River is wide at the point of Stillwater, which is populated and filled with industry and shopping. After all, Stillwater is the "Birthplace of Minnesota." All of this economic activity precedes its inclusion in the Act. It is nonsensical to act like the portion of the St. Croix River which passes through the City of Stillwater is not used to human activity and commerce across the river between the neighboring states.

Is the safety of the current lift bridge a matter of concern and a potential motivator for a new river crossing? Yes, safety is a main factor in the pressing need for a bridge. Last year the bridge was inspected. It received only a 33 rating on a 100-point scale. Moreover, it was labeled "structurally deficient". It's worth noting the I-35 Bridge had a rating of 50 before it collapsed in 2007. This highlights the urgency of bridge construction. Even the Stillwater City Council voted unanimously earlier this year to seek state legislative action to close the bridge down. Mayor Harycki cited safety among his reasons for shutting it down. Have you studied the environmental impact of traffic congestion surrounding the current bridge? The agencies I have worked with specifically looked into that. Consider for a moment the current effect of so many cars idling through downtown Stillwater. Or, if the unspeakable happened, a structural disaster — citizens would not want rusted steel in the river. Is it reasonable to de-list the St Croix River from federal protection?

Some groups have claimed my bill exempts the Lower St. Croix from the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This is flat out wrong. My bill simply points to the 2005 National Park Service decision stating that the proposed four-lane bridge construction with mitigation is consistent with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. And, at this point Congressional action may be the only real avenue our citizens have to get this bridge built. Will de-listing be required in order to build a bridge at this point? My legislation points to a National Park Service decision that stated the project could move forward. Do you think a new bridge will be built? I'm confident it will be done because it's been needed for decades and the businesses of our region demand action

34 STILLWATER LIVING APRIL 2011

now. Sooner or later, the lift bridge will actually have to be closed due to structural safety. I would rather see the new bridge built now, before there is no way to cross the river. Remember what happened in Minneapolis when the I-35 Bridge was out? Residents tacked considerable commuting time on their drives, increased their weekly gas consumption and snarled traffic on streets that weren't meant to be thoroughfares. I don't want to see this scenario play out between Wisconsin and Minnesota

residents. Not to mention, in the decades this plan has been under consideration construction prices have skyrocketed. I hold the radical environmental groups responsible to the taxpayers for holding up the projects up in the courts over the previous years. They are the reason the costs skyrocketed from $80 million to nearly $700 million. Let's focus on safety, job creation and the best interests of Minnesota.

Photo

cour

tesy o

f MnD

ot

A perfect blend of personal service and expertise.

Specializing in a broad range of services for business owners, executives and

independent professionals.

Affordable rates - experienced and friendly.

foleykalseim.com - Stillwater - 651-430-3635

Certified Public Accountants & Consultants

Celebrating 20 Years In The Valley

So now, before construction costs rise further, Congress must pass this much needed common sense bill to get construction of this project underway. What do you recommend people on either side of this issue do in order to participate in the process? We have witnessed a robust discussion on the bridge and now is the time to move forward. I encourage my constituents to reach out to my office, Governors Dayton and Walker, and the Minnesota and Wisconsin Senators to express their thoughts on the bridge.

They may also continue to watch our efforts to build a new bridge by visiting my website at Bachmann.house.gov and following my Twitter and Facebook pages.

Thanks so much for talking with us.

Thank you.

34 STILLWATER LIVING APRIL 2011 WWW.STILLWATERLIVING.NET 35

corner table

Photo

cour

tesy o

f MnD

ot

Be happy with your smile.TM

Dr. Donna Stenberg, D.D.S., M.S.1395 Curve Crest Blvd • Stillwater • 651-439-1966

www.stenbergorthodontics.com

First, can you please tell us a little about your history with Mn/DOT and the project?

I have worked in project development at Mn/DOT for more than 20 years. I currently work with communities throughout Washington and Chisago Counties if Mn/DOT or the community has a project or issue that impacts the state highway system. I have been involved in the St. Croix River Crossing project since 1995.

Is the Stillwater Lift Bridge safe?

The Stillwater Lift Bridge is safe. It opened to traffic in 1931 and deterioration of various parts of the bridge is to be expected after 80 years of service. The bridge and its many components are being monitored and repairs are made as needed. MnDOT carefully inspects the lift bridge, does timely maintenance and repair work, and when necessary, schedules rehabilitation and preservation projects to ensure that the bridge continues to be safe and functional.

A rehabilitation project was last done in 2005, and one is scheduled for fall 2012. The fall 2012 project will make steel and concrete repairs and do further repairs on the lift spans electrical components.

How long has the St. Croix River Crossing project been under development?

There have been rumors of discussions back into the 1950s about a replacement bridge. However, more formal project development activities occurred in the late 80s and early 90s. After the environmental review was completed in the mid 90s, final road and bridge design was done and a number of homes were purchased in Oak Park Heights to clear the way for the bridge. Legal action at that time suspended moving forward with construction.

The “Stakeholder Resolution Process” began in 2003 and their studies and recommendations are documented in the Environmental Impact Statement that was completed in 2006. The National Park Service approved the project during that environmental review process. However, following a negative court ruling the NPS re-reviewed the project and reversed their earlier approval. Congressional action is now needed to move the project forward.

How was the project developed?

The project development process consisted of extensive study and input from federal and state agencies, local governments, interest groups, property owners, the general public, and other interests. The Stakeholder Resolution Process brought together 28 diverse interest groups representing environmental, historic, and transportation interests. The Stakeholder Group worked cooperatively to define why the project is needed, consider the context of

corner table


A Friendly Conversation With Adam Josephson, MNDOT East Area Manager

BY PETER MCNIFF, PHOTOS BY AIMEE CHRISTENSON



the project area, evaluate a full range of alternatives to the transportation problems, determine how to best avoid or minimize impacts to protected resources, determine where the best location for a bridge crossing was, what the bridge should look like, the future use of the lift bridge, and a mitigation package to offset project impacts that could not be avoided.

In July 2006 the Stakeholder Group held their last large group meeting and endorsed the project and mitigation package that is now documented in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The stakeholder group found a one-of-a-kind solution that considered and balanced all the competing interests. Twenty-seven of the 28 stakeholders supported the process and the outcome, with the dissenting group being the Sierra Club.

The environmental groups are calling for a crossing closer to downtown Stillwater. What are MnDOT’s thoughts on that idea?

Options for crossing the river closer to Stillwater were studied as part of the project development process and thoroughly reviewed by project Stakeholders. The options are identified as alternates “D” and “E” in the Environmental Impact Statement. Both options provided a new bridge crossing that would run diagonally across the river from near the Oasis Café in Minnesota to the existing Hwy 64 bluff cut on the east end of the lift bridge in Wisconsin. The difference between the two options is that alternate D has both directions of traffic on a new bridge and alternate E has eastbound traffic on a new bridge and westbound traffic on the lift bridge.

During the development of these options it was determined that they would have greater environmental impacts than the alternative that was selected, which is located a mile to the south. Impacts of alternates D and E were greater on historic properties, park properties, bluff areas, floodplains, wetlands, commercial properties, and other sensitive areas. Alternatives D and E were ultimately dropped because they did not solve the transportation problems and had more significant environmental impacts than the selected alternative.

Can you explain the mitigation package, why there is one, and what’s in it?

The project area contains a large number of state and federally protected natural and cultural resources. Federal and state laws proscribe how these resources are to be addressed during project development. Every effort is made to avoid or minimize impacts, but in areas where impacts cannot be avoided, mitigation is needed to offset

the impact. The project’s mitigation package was developed during the stakeholder process to offset unavoidable project impacts on the riverway, historic properties, and other resources. The bridge’s design and aesthetics are also part of the project’s mitigation.

Why does the bridge look the way it does, and what is “visual pollution”?

Visual impacts were fully assessed on this project. It was recognized that the St. Croix River, as a designated Wild and Scenic River and thus a National Park, with one of its outstanding remarkable values being “scenic,” that visual aspects of the project were extremely important. A Visual Impact Assessment was part of the public and stakeholder processes to determine the project’s visual impacts and aesthetic features. The assessment evaluated visual impacts from many different locations and from the perspectives of many different user groups. Animations and photo renderings were used during this study.

Each user group has a different perspective on what a visual impact is and how it may impact the various resources. The National Park Service perspective is that if you can see a bridge where one did not exist at the time the river was designated (1972) under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, there is a negative impact to the riverway and that cannot be allowed, thus a new bridge cannot be approved. Replacing the I-94 Hudson Bridge in 1994 was allowed and presumably replacing the Stillwater Lift bridge in the exact same location could be allowed since both bridges were in-place in 1972, but building a new bridge in a new location where none existed in 1972 cannot be approved by the NPS, which is why congressional approval is needed for the project to proceed.

The stakeholder’s evaluated a universe of bridge types for the different alternatives, including cable stayed, box beams, trusses, arches, extradosed, bowstring, and others. The stakeholder group considered how each bridge type might fit into the river valley and ultimately selected the extradosed bridge as a slim and elegant bridge type that would be the best fit within the river valley. The extradosed design is a signature bridge combining structural elements of a cable-stayed bridge (Sunshine Bridge - St. Petersburg Fla.) and a box girder bridge (the new I-35W Bridge). I think they did a great job with the selected design, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and people will need to judge for themselves.

Has the cost of the bridge gone up something like $500 million?

The 1995 estimated construction-only cost of the project was about $80 million. The estimated total project cost

34 STILLWATER LIVING JULY 2011 WWW.STILLWATERLIVING.NET 35

for the project in 2013 dollars is projected to be between $574 million and $690 million. These costs are not directly comparable because they include different project costs.

The general scope of the project from 1995 compared with the current project is very similar. The project includes roadway improvements in both states and a new river crossing bridge. The bridge length and size are also similar.

The primary project changes are the extradosed bridge design instead of a more traditional beam bridge design as was planned in 1995. The mitigation package and the conversion of the lift bridge to a bike and pedestrian facility as part of a loop trail system. Inflation has been the primary cost driver due to delays experienced over the last 16 years.

The 1995 cost of $80 million was for construction only, while the projected 2013 construction-only cost for the project is about $410 million. The higher 2013 costs are the total expected costs of the project and represent not only the construction cost, but also include right-of-way, engineering, mitigation, contingencies and past project development expenses. The total project cost approach has been done to give a more complete picture of project costs.

The costs have risen substantially due to inflation since 1995, including large increases in the costs of steel, concrete, fuel and right-of-way over the years. The cost estimate currently has $110 million identified for contingencies and unknown cost risks. As we continue to develop the project, the cost risks will be reduced. One example of reducing cost risk is a foundation load testing project. This foundation

1809 Northwestern Avenue - Stillwatereckberglammers.com

Nick Vivian

Call Nick for a comprehensive business analysis

at 651-379-3080

• Complex Business Planning

• Commercial Real Estate Transactions

• Land Use and Development

• Creditor’s Rights

• Serving Minnesota and Wisconsin

Photo courtesy of MnDot

test will construct two temporary foundations in the river and test them to better understand the soil and bedrock characteristics under the river. This data will then provide data to engineer more refined and cost-efficient bridge foundations.

If the project gets a green light from Washington DC, what would be a potential time line?

We were planning for construction to begin in 2013, but with recent delays we are looking at a 2014 start. Construction would take approximately three years to complete. That, of course, is assuming that congress passes legislation for the project to move forward. Once the project receives approval from Congress we will continue to look for ways to shorten the expected time frame.

Additional project information can be found at the St. Croix River Crossing project website atwww.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/stcroix


corner table

A perfect blend of personal service and expertise.

Specializing in a broad range of services for business owners, executives and

independent professionals.

Affordable rates - experienced and friendly.

foleykalseim.com - Stillwater - 651-430-3635

Certified Public Accountants & Consultants

Celebrating 20 Years In The Valley

Be happy with your smile.TM

Dr. Donna Stenberg, D.D.S., M.S.1395 Curve Crest Blvd • Stillwater • 651-439-1966

www.stenbergorthodontics.com

Please tell us a little bit about yourself?

I am a twenty-three year resident of Stillwater with a small business on Main Street. My training is in architecture and environmental design, and my business is focused in urban design and community planning. How did you get involved with the bridge issue?

In 1999, two good friends and I were frustrated with the debate we saw between MnDOT and the community over the river crossing. We asked ourselves, what would we do differently? We created what became known as the 3 Architects Plan and in 2003 we were asked to be members of the federal mediation process on the river crossing. A lot of good work was completed in that process, but unfortunately only large, high-speed freeway solutions were investigated. We were one of two groups that did not sign off on the mediation because we felt a freeway solution was inappropriate and unnecessary. The process continued without us and has led to the $690 million freeway solution that we see proposed today. How does that tie into your current proposal?

All along there were several groups who were interested in lower, slower and smaller solutions, but we were all cut out of the conversation. After the National Park Service declared in 2010 that the current proposal could not be

built without direct and adverse effects on the scenic and recreational values of the river, we thought maybe now people would be interested in a solution that respected the intent of the Wild and Scenic River Act. Last month we put forward a solution that we call the Sensible Stillwater Bridge. What are the details of your plan?

One of the main tenets of our plan has been the re-use of as much existing infrastructure as possible, to minimize both costs and environment impacts. The plan utilizes the current roadway on the Houlton Hill and the existing roadway from Highway 36 to the Oasis Café. The bridge itself is a three lane bridge utilizing an alternating center lane to accommodate the morning and afternoon commuters. It would leave the Minnesota shoreline near the Oasis Café and touch down on the Wisconsin shore at the base of the causeway, just east of the Historic Lift Bridge. The new bridge would have sufficient clearance for large boat traffic and a bike/pedestrian lane on the north side. The Historic Lift Bridge would be preserved and maintained as a bicycle and pedestrian trail, creating a triangular loop trail from Lowell Park to Kolliner Park on the Wisconsin shore, and back again. Another main tenant is the lower speed. This allows for minimized environmental impacts, a smaller footprint on the land and it certainly seems appropriate to drive slower through a beautiful National Park.

corner table

32 STILLWATER LIVING SEPT/OCT 2011

A Friendly Conversation With Roger Tomten

BY PETER MCNIFF, PHOTOS BY SHANNON CRIMMINS



Others have stated that this has been studied before and it was discarded because the environmental impacts were too large. How do you respond?

I was part of the mediation process, and I can state that the Sensible Stillwater Bridge was not studied as part of the mediation process. Some folks are confused, because there was a similar location studied called Alternate D, and it was thrown out because of its environmental impacts. But Alternate D was a four lane freeway bridge accommodating traffic at 65 mph and created huge intersections near the Oasis Café, Sunnyside and in Houlton. Our proposal is much smaller, much slower and lower to the water than Alt. D. And, because it provides two lanes of free flowing traffic into MN in the morning and two lanes of free flowing traffic in the afternoon, it is capable of handling similar traffic counts as the big freeway bridge.

How much does your plan cost?

We have estimated the cost range of the Sensible Stillwater Bridge to be between $236 and $283 million. That’s in comparison to the $574 to $690 million for the mega-bridge currently proposed. We think that we can save close to $400 million.

How has your plan been received so far?

Overall the reaction has been very positive. While there is a lot of bridge fatigue in the community, there also are

a lot of questions about the cost and the appropriateness of a freeway cutting through our communities and our National Park. When smaller and cheaper alternatives are looked at that meet the traffic needs, people see that there is a lot of money being spent to shave a few seconds off of a commute across the river. Of the stakeholders in the mediation process, four of the groups now support our plan. Two who originally supported the free-way bridge, have pulled their support, and now endorse our lower, slower, cheaper, Sensible Stillwater Bridge plan. People can see more about the plan at sensiblestillwaterbridge.org.

Furthermore, the proposed bridge’s speed and location will be detrimental to the economic vitality of the Historic Commercial District. Out of sight and out of mind. On several occasions during floods or bridge repairs, the lack of traffic brought a sense of bliss to some business owners. This may be true on a short term basis, but over a period of years, a complete bypass will be detrimental. This new bypass traffic pattern, like so many other bypasses around other towns throughout our country, will be a negative to the businesses downtown.

What about timing, some have stated that a design change at this point would set the project back another six to ten years?

Currently, construction isn’t slated to begin until 2014. We can easily create a supplement to the existing Environmental Impact Statement and maintain the same time frame for completion as the mega-bridge.

34 STILLWATER LIVING SEPT/OCT 2011

What do you feel are the primary drawbacks in the MNDOT plan?

Its speed, size and the fact that it will still be incomplete in 2017. It will need to continue with grade separations through Oak Park Heights to finally accomplish the speed it requires. The impact that will have on the 36 corridor businesses and the severing of the two communities have yet to be discussed and analyzed. So many things have changed since the purpose and need for this project were defined. Gasoline has risen to nearly $4/gal in lieu of $2, Vehicle miles traveled has fallen or plateaued in lieu of the continuous upward projection we were used to in the ‘90s, and driving to affordability is no longer the buzzword in the real estate market.

We need to focus on the maintenance of our existing infrastructure and not be so glib about building and expanding our infrastructure beyond what we can afford to maintain. Given all that has changed over the last several years, it is ludicrous to not look into alternates that cost less and have less environmental impact.

Why do we need a new bridge at all? Isn't it possible to simply improve the north/south thoroughfares on either side of the river?

This would be an interesting study with all that has changed in the last five years however, Stillwater has been the site of a river crossing for over one hundred years. It has been an integral part of what Stillwater has become, what it is. I worry that losing that transportation element will alter the downtown area to the point of being detrimental to its economic vitality and eventually lead to Main Street’s demise.

What about timing, some have stated that a design change at this point would set the project back another six to ten years?

Currently, construction isn’t slated to begin until 2014. We can easily create a supplement to the existing Environmental Impact Statement. That’s months to do, not years. And we can complete our bridge in the same time frame as the mega-bridge. We don’t need to simply repeat the process that was used from 2003-2006. We have all the background work done. We can streamline the process, establish deadlines, and approve our solution in a timely manner.

There have been discussions recently about deadlines for congressional action in order to allocate funds for the bridge. How has this affected your plan?

316 White Eagle Trail • Hudson, WI 54016 • 1-888-465-3004 • 715-549-GOLF(4653)

www.whiteeaglegolf.com

Up north ambiance is just across The St. Croix River!

The Governor had given Congress until September 30th to provide an exemption to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act for the mega-bridge. Rep. Bachmann and Sen. Klobuchar have sponsored bills to create that exemption. At some point the federal funds need to be allocated to projects or they are lost. We hear now that the Governor has moved the deadline to November 15th. We hope MnDOT will use this additional time to review the merits of the proposal and fine-tune aspects of our plan. In these economic times, why build a $700 million bridge for such a limited traffic problem? We have a solution that costs 60 percent less, will remedy Stillwater’s traffic problems and not scar the protected St. Croix River Valley. We think Minnesota common sense will ultimately prevail and the Governor and MnDOT will ultimately support our Sensible Stillwater Bridge proposal.


corner table

Hill-Murray School �e Catholic Benedictine Prep School, Grades 7-12

2625 Larpenteur Ave. E. Maplewood, MN 55109 | 651-777-1376 | www.hill-murray.org

Celebrating 50 Years!

Become A Part OfOur History

Open HouseOctober 27

6 p.m.

Tom O’BrienRealtor

Licensed in MN and WI

651 343 4440 cell651 430 7747 office

[email protected]

tomobrienrealtor.com

790

790

790

800800

800

800

810

810

810

810

810

820

820

820

820

820

820

820

820

820

820

820

820

820

820

820

830

830

830

830

830

830

830

830

830

830

830

830

830

830

830

038

830

830

830

038

830

830

830

830

830

830

830

840

840

840

840

840

840

840

840

840

840

840

840

840

840

840

840

840

840

840

840

840

840

840

840

840

840

840

840

840

840

840

850

850

850

850

850

850

850

850

058

850

850

850

850

850

850

850

850

850

850

850

850

850

850

850

850

850

850

850

850

058

850

850

850

850

850

850

860

860

860

860

860

860

860

860

860

860

860

860

860

860

860

860

860

068

860

860

860 860

860

860

860

860

860

860

860

860

860

860

860

860

860

860

860

860

870

870

870

870

870

870

870

870

870

870

870

870

870

870870

078

870

870

870

870

870

870

870

870

870 870

870

870

870

870

870

870

870

870

870

870

870

870

870

870

870

870

870

880

880

880

880

880

880

880

880

880

880

880

880

880

880

880

880

880

880

880

880

880

880

880

880

880

880

880

880

880

880

880

880

880

880

088

880

880

880

880

880

880

880

880

880

880

880

880

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890890

890

890

890

098

890

890

890

098

890

890

890

098

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

900

900

900

900

900

900

900

900

900

009

900

900

900

900900

900

900

900

900

009

900

900

900

900

900

900

900

900

900

900

900

900

900

900

900

910

910

910

910

910

910

910

910

910

910

910

910

910

910

910

910

910

910

910

910

910

910

910

910

910

910

910

910

910

910

910

910

910

910

910

910

019

910

910

920

920

920

920

029

920

920

920920

920

920

920

920

920

920

920

920

920

920

920

930

930

930

930

930

930

930

890

880

930

920

910

910 930

930

930

930

920

910

910

900

900

900

870

830

910

910

890

860

910

910

900

900

900

810

790

900

890

860

860

870

900

880

900

910

009

039

780

870

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

7

15

10

Family Two

TwoFamily

30

39

38

37

36

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

424140

35

34 33 32 31

16

15 14

32

4

1

5

8

9

10

11

12

13

7

6

Driving Range

Cart Tunnel

MaintenanceArea

Putting Green

130th AvenueW

hite

EagleRoad

White

Eagle

Trail

27th Street

County R

oad V

White Eagle Overlook

White

EagleW

ay

Wetland

Wetland

Wetland

Wetland

Wetland

Wetland

Wetland

Pond

Pond

Pond

Wetland

Wetland

Wetland

Wetland

Wetland

Wetland

Wetland

Wetland

Wetland

Wetland

Wetland

TwoFamily Two

Family

TwoFamily

TwoFamily

Pond

EntranceSign

Natural Area

Clubhouse

Parking

Parking

WetlandWetland

Wetland

Drop Off

Natural Area

Natural Area

NaturalArea

Natural Area

Natural Area

NaturalArea

Natural Area

NaturalArea

NaturalArea

Natural Area

Natural Area

Natural Area

Natural Area

Natural Area

North

February 15, 2000

50 100 200 400 600

Scale:

300150

Golf ClubNorth Hudson, Wisconsin

White Eagle Rough v1

Documents

Transcript of White Eagle Rough v1