New road meets opposition
Debate continues over the path of U.S. Route 220

By LISA HAARLANDER
Collegian Staff Writer

Although people speak louder than trees and wildlife, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation is trying to balance environmental and residential concerns over improving U.S. Route 220.

An environmental coalition with more than 45,000 members, three state agencies and three University professors oppose building a U.S. Route 220 improvement on Bald Eagle Ridge, from the Tyrone Expressway to Port Matilda, and favor a road in the valley.

"If the ridge project goes through, it will be the death of common sense," said Mike McCarthy, spokesman for the Central Pennsylvania Environmental Coalition, which represents 21 environmental and special-interest groups. "We're making a united statement against the insanity of this project."

PennDOT is upgrading U.S. Route 220 from a two-lane to a four-lane highway to improve safety and accommodate projected job and population growth in Centre County during the next 20 years.

The agency selected the ridge route as the alternative that best balances environmental and residential concerns, but the groups still see the project differently, said PennDOT Engineer Bert Kisner.

The ridge route would impact 3,000 acres of forest, destroy 432 acres, damage groundwater supplies and harm wildlife, McCarthy said. The ridge route would displace one home.

A valley route would impact about 200 acres, destroy about 150 acres, displace up to 25 homes and also affect the environment, Kisner said.

"You've got reasons for using the ridge route, but you've also got a whole stack of negatives," he said. "If you're going to balance all the impacts, the best balance is in the valley."

Two other advisory agencies to PennDOT, the state Fish and Boat Commission in Bellefonte and the state Game Commission in Harrisburg, also recommended using the existing road.

The other six agencies involved in the project did not object to ending a study of the existing road, Kisner said.

Charlie Nearhoof, chairman of a coalition representing valley residents, said he favors the ridge route because it would displace one resident instead of up to 25, and said it is the least environmentally destructive because the forest is not "prime," and the route avoids streams, farmlands and wetlands.

Although Nearhoof sees the ridge route as best for the environment, some University professors see it as the worst environmental choice.

Professor David P. Gold, head of the geosciences department, said the ridge route could cause landslides because of slope instability. He also said the road could cut off or pollute groundwater.

Richard R. Parizek, a geology and geophysics professor, conducted a 200-page study in 1975 for PennDOT and said the best choice is a valley route. He said although it would influence the most landowners, the long-term damage would be far less from a physical, chemical and biological viewpoint.

Professor Dennis W. Thomson, head of the meteorology department, said the ridge route would subject drivers to "white-outs" from blowing snow, more icing than a valley route and increased hazards from fog.

On Jan. 2, he measured windspeeds of 70 mph -- hurricane strength -- on the ridge and windspeeds of 15 mph in the valley.

"The people in the valley are looking at their 40 acres, and I don't think they have a good idea where their water comes from and the larger picture," McCarthy said.

PennDOT will release an environmental statement this fall that will include comments the agency received and responses to the professors' statements, Kisner said.

Peter Kostmayer, an Environmental Protection Agency regional administrator and former congressman, will meet with Gold, Parizek, Thomson, other professors and concerned individuals on April 27, McCarthy said.

Although PennDOT is still soliciting input, Kisner said, "We're never going to have complete consensus on this project."