Demographics

This analysis is intended to describe the existing demographics of the Town of Emmet and identify the major demographic trends impacting Emmet over the next few decades. Both Marathon County and the State of Wisconsin are also listed for comparison.

Population and Households

Historical Trends

The total population for the Town of Emmet decreased by 1 percent between 1970-2000. From 1990-2000, population increased by 15 percent. Total households increased by 22 percent during this same period.

Table 2-1: Demographic Change, 1970-2000

Source: Wisconsin Department of Administration, 2000

Table 2-2 shows the Median age for the Town is 34.7, which is slightly lower than the state overall, at 36.0 years.

Table 2-2: Population by Age Group, 2000

Source: Wisconsin Department of Administration, 2000

Population Forecasts

The following population projections were determined by the North Central Regional Planning Commission in 2003. The projections are based upon the percentage change (growth) in total population between 1980-2000 for each planning sub-area (NCWRPC used 5 planning sub-areas in Marathon County: Highway 51, Eastern Municipalities, North-Western, South-Central, and South-Western). Table 2-3 below illustrates population projections for the Town and the County using a moderate growth rate.

Looking at Table 2-3, the Town is expected to increase in total population by 152 persons by year 2030. This is an 18 percent increase. The County is expected to increase by 13 percent overall.

Table 2-3: Population Projections – 2000-2030

Source: Marathon County 2030 Population and Employment Projections Methodology Report, NCWRPC, 6/03

Household Forecasts

Like population, household projections were completed in 5-year increments between 2000 and 2030. The number of households was calculated by dividing the average persons per household into the total population for each 5-year increment. In the South-Central sub-area, the average persons-per-household was estimated to be 2.57, based on an average density of 0.83 dwelling units per acre. Persons-per-household for the County was calculated to be 2.59 based on the average persons-per-household for all five planning sub-areas.

Assuming a moderate rate of growth, the number of households is estimated to increase by 49, or 18 percent between 2000 and 2030. This is slightly higher than the County increase of 13 percent.

Table 2-4: Household Projections – 2000-2030

Source: Marathon County 2030 Population and Employment Projections Methodology Report, NCWRPC, 6/03

Education and Income Levels

According to 2000 Census data, 78.8 percent of Town residents have a high school education or higher. This compares to 83.8 percent for the County, and 85.1 percent for the State. In the Town, 8.1 percent of residents have a bachelor’s degree or higher. This is slightly lower than the number of persons with a bachelor’s degree or higher in the County and State with 18.3 percent and 22.4 percent respectively.

Table 2-5: Educational Attainment, 2000

Wisconsin Department of Administration, 2000

Median household income for Town residents was $47,031 in 2000. This compares slightly higher than Marathon County with a median of $45,165, and higher than the state overall at $43,791. Income distribution among all income levels is approximately proportionate to levels observed County and statewide.

Table 2-6: Household Income Levels, 2000

Source: Wisconsin Department of Administration, 2000

Employment Characteristics

In 2000, there were 312 people employed in the Town of Emmet. A breakdown of employment by industry is shown in Table 2-7. Data show that most people were employed in the farm industry, with 300 employees. “Other” is the second largest employment industry with 8 workers.

Table 2-7: Population and Employment by Sector, 2000

Source: North Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (Final, 5-15-03)

An employment forecast completed by the North Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission in 2003 indicates a decrease in total employment for the Town. By the year 2030, it is estimated that the Town will lose 58 workers. This estimate is based upon the rate of change in employment between 1990-2000 for non-farm employment.

Table 2-8: Employment Projections – 2000-2030

Source: North Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (Final, 5-15-03)

Demographic Trends

• The total population for the Town of Emmet decreased by 1 percent between 1970-2000. From 1990-2000, population increased by 15 percent.

• Median age for the Town is 34.7, which is slightly lower than the state overall, at 36.0 years.

• The Town is expected to increase in total population by 152 persons by year 2030. This is an 18 percent increase.

• 78.8 percent of Town residents have a high school education or higher. This compares to 83.8 percent for the County, and 85.1 percent for the State.

Issues

• Losing employment numbers, based on projections.

Natural Resources

Because natural resource features do not follow geo-political boundaries, it is important to consider their patterns and inter-relationships on a broader scale. In addition, many of the programs for protecting or mitigating impacts to natural resources are administered at the County, State or Federal level. Thus, an overview of recent county-wide natural resource planning efforts is described below, followed by a description of local natural resource conditions. Of particular interest are geographic areas of the landscape encompassing valued natural resources features grouped below by resource type, including water, soil and biological resources.

Recent Planning Efforts Related to Natural Resources

In the last decade, several plans were prepared by the County specifically to address protection and management of natural resources. These plans may be used as resources to guide local policy and decision-making regarding resource management and protection. In addition to the plans listed below, Marathon County and several local communities have adopted park and outdoor recreation plans that discuss natural resource based recreational facilities and protection strategies. These are described in more detail in the Parks section.

• Marathon County Land and Water Resource Management Plan - In 2001, Marathon County adopted a Land and Water Resource Management Plan in accordance with Wisconsin Statutes (Wisconsin Act 27, Chapter 92.10). The primary intent of this plan is to identify a vision for natural resource management in Marathon County and outline strategies to protect the quality and quantity of soil and water resources. Marathon County encompasses portions of 22 watersheds. The WDNR has ranked these watersheds according to water pollution impacts and designated five as “priority” watersheds to receive special planning and funding through the voluntary, state-funded Priority Watershed Program. The County’s Department of Conservation, Planning and Zoning works with the WDNR to implement the program. Program funding is used to hire staff to assist in developing management plans for each watershed and to provide cost sharing to landowners for implementation of “best management practices” (BMPs) to achieve the program objectives.

• Marathon County 2001 Groundwater Protection Guide – This guide is an extension of the efforts established with adoption of the Marathon County Groundwater Plan in 1988. It is intended to guide local and County officials in setting policy. It also serves as a resource of information about groundwater and other natural resources and recommends strategies to address issues related to groundwater protection.

• Marathon County Forest Ten-Year Comprehensive Land Use Plan, 1996-2005 – This plan includes recommendations to guide management of forest land in Marathon County in accordance with the County Parks, Recreation, and Forestry Department’s mission to manage and protect the county forest on a sustainable basis for ecological, economic, educational, recreational, and research needs of present and future generations. It provides substantial information on existing forest resources and as well as information regarding the roles of the various agencies and regulatory framework related to forest management.

Water Resources

Marathon County contains abundant water resources. Many have remained in a fairly pristine state and others are in need of focused efforts to improve water quality. Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) and Exceptional Resource Waters (ERW) designations are derived from an amendment to the U.S. Clean Water Act, which directed states to identify waters that were largely unaffected by pollution and should remain that way. States were required to develop “anti-degradation” policies to protect these waters from pollution. As a result, wastewater entering an ORW must be as clean as the water in the “outstanding” water body. The anti-degradation policies only apply to point sources of pollution, such as an industrial discharge pipe. However, Wisconsin has other programs in place to control non-point source pollution, such as animal waste and pesticides in farm runoff, urban runoff, and failing septic systems.

The Wisconsin Natural Resources Board also wanted to extend higher levels of protection to top trout waters. As such, the WDNR established a second category of waterways to be protected under the anti-degradation policy; these are the “Exceptional Resource Waters”. Wastewater entering an ERW must meet minimum clean water standards, although higher standards are encouraged where feasible.

There are no Outstanding Resource Waters or Exceptional Resource Waters in the Town of Emmet.

Water resources that have been significantly degraded are identified as “impaired waters”. Four of the 22 watersheds in Marathon County have been identified as “impaired waters” on the “303 (d) list” of the U.S. Clean Water Act. The list identifies waters that do not meet current water quality standards and merit water quality improvement and protection. These include:

• Upper Big Eau Pleine in western Marathon County

• Lower Big Eau Pleine in the south-central part of the County.

Streams/Rivers – The Big Eau Pleine Reservoir is located in the far southwestern corner of the Town. Freeman, Burns and Rocky Run creeks pass through the Town of Emmet. The Town is part of the Big Eau Pleine River Watershed, which is considered an Impaired Waters.

Floodplains – Floodplains consist of land likely to be covered by floodwater during the regional (100-year) flood. Floodplain areas are based on information compiled by the Federal Emergency Management Agency on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). The floodplain includes the floodway and the flood fringe. In the Town of Emmet, floodplains are located adjacent to the creeks and the Big Eau Pleine Reservoir.

Other Water Resources – The wetlands are located adjacent to the creeks and their tributaries, as well as the Big Eau Pleine Reservoir.

Wetlands -- Wetlands in Wisconsin were defined by the State Legislature in 1978 as: "an area where water is at, near, or above the land surface long enough to be capable of supporting aquatic or hydrophytic (water-loving) vegetation and which has soils indicative of wet conditions.”

Programs in three levels of government - local, state and federal - regulate activities in wetlands. There are dozens of wetland types in Wisconsin, characterized by vegetation, soil type and degree of saturation or water cover. Some of the more prominent wetland types are:

• Aquatic Bed wetlands contain plants growing entirely on or in a water body no deeper than 6'. Plants may include pond-weed, duckweed, lotus and water-lilies.

• Marshes are characterized by standing water and dominated by cattails, bulrushes, pickerel-weed, lake sedges and/or giant bur-reed

• Sedge or "Wet" Meadows wetlands may have saturated soils, rather than standing water, more often than not. Sedges, grasses and reeds are dominant, but look also for blue flag iris, marsh milkweed, sneeze-weed, mint and several species of goldenrod and aster.

• Scrub/Shrub wetlands include bogs and alder thickets and are characterized by woody shrubs and small trees such as tag alder, bog birch, willow and dogwood.

• Forested wetlands include bogs and forested floodplain complexes. They are characterized by trees 20 feet or more in height such as tamarack, white cedar, black spruce, elm, black ash, green ash and silver maple.

Groundwater – Depth to groundwater varies from shallow to deep within the Town. Quantities are considered limited at current levels of development and land uses.

Soil Resources

Prime Farm Soils – With the exception of the water bodies and the associated wetlands and floodplains, the entire Town is considered prime farmland soils. Several parcels are under Farmland Preservation Contracts. The bordering municipalities of Mosinee and Day are zoned exclusive agriculture.

Figure 3-5 illustrates soils that have been identified as prime farm soils according to the Marathon County Cropland Evaluation System (CES). This system establishes a basis from which one parcel of land can be compared to another. It rates soils on their ability to produce food, feed, forage, and fiber crops. It is based upon the knowledge that soil properties affect yields. The system is non-biased, defendable, and can be consistently applied. Additional information on Marathon County CES can be obtained from Marathon County Department of Conservation, Planning, and Zoning.

These class designations refer to the quality of soils for growing crops and are based on USDA classifications. Class 1 soils are the best soils in Marathon County for growing all crops. Class 2 soils are also very good agricultural soils, however, they may be prone to wetness and are therefore less desirable than Class 1 soils. It should be noted that not all prime farm soils are used for farming; some have been developed with residential or other uses. The “prime farm soils” designation simply indicates that these soils are good productive farmland.

Steep Slopes -- Steep slopes are defined as slopes with gradients over 12 percent. Figure 3-7 illustrates where steep slopes exist and separates them into two categories. Category D includes areas with slopes between 12 and 20 percent. Category E includes areas where slopes are all greater than 15%. A few areas of steep slopes are adjacent to the creek in the northeast. Erosion is high within the Town with soil loss of 2.0 – 3.0 tons/acre/year.

Granite Pits – There are several granite pits in the Town primarily located in the portion of the Town that extends into Range 6.

Biological Resources

Vegetation – Half of the Town is wooded, with the remainder in cropland or other agriculture.

Wildlife Resources and Habitat – Wildlife resources include a variety of game and non-game species of birds, mammals, fish, reptiles and amphibians that typically live in Marathon County. Common types of wildlife include deer, wild turkeys, raccoon, squirrels, songbirds, waterfowl and raptors. Wildlife resources are abundant in the many undisturbed sanctuaries, refuges, reserves, and scattered habitats located throughout the County. Numerous other species of migrating birds use habitat in Marathon County for food, shelter, and resting stops during seasonal migration.

There is a significant amount of wildlife habitat in Marathon County. In addition to County parks and forest units, major wildlife habitat areas include: the George W. Mead Wildlife Area, the McMillan Marsh State Wildlife Management Area, and Rib Mountain State Park.

Threatened and Endangered Species - Both aquatic and terrestrial endangered, threatened, or special concern species are present within the Town. These include:

1. Wildlife – Terrestrial Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern species are within the township.

2. Northern Mesic Forest Community - This forest complex covered the largest acreage of any Wisconsin vegetation type prior to European settlement. Sugar maple (Acer saccharum) is dominant or co-dominant in most stands, while hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) was the second most important species, sometimes occurring in nearly pure stands with white pine (Pinus strobus). Beech (Fagus grandifolia) can be a co-dominant with sugar maple in the counties near Lake Michigan. Other important tree species were yellow birch (Betula allegheniensis), basswood (Tilia americana), and white ash (Fraxinus americana). The groundlayer varies from sparse and species poor (especially in hemlock stands) with woodferns (especially Dryopteris intermedia), bluebead lily (Clintonia borealis), clubmosses (Lycopodium spp.), and Canada mayflower (Maianthemum canadense) prevalent, to lush and species-rich with fine spring ephemeral displays. After old-growth stands were cut, trees such as quaking and bigtoothed aspens (Populus tremuloides and P. grandidentata), white birch (Betula papyrifera), and red maple (Acer rubrum) became and still are important in many second-growth Northern Mesic Forests. Several distinct associations within this complex warrant recognition as communities, and draft abstracts of these are currently undergoing review.

Issues

• Several issues regarding gravel pits were raised in the Community Survey. Concerns included:

  • Reclamation

  • Groundwater

  • Operating hours

Land Use

Boundaries:

The Town of Emmet is bordered to the east by the Town of Mosinee, to the west by the Town of Cleveland, to the north by the Town of Cassel, and finally to the south by the Town of Green Valley and the Town of Bergen. No municipalities lie within Emmet’s borders.

Current Pattern of Land Use

The Town of Emmet is made up primarily of agricultural lands, located mainly in the west, and woodlands, located mainly in the east. Residences are scattered throughout the Town. Large quarry operations are located north of STH 153, east of STH 107.

Residential

Residential development within the Town of Emmet is exclusively single family. A concentration of residences lies in the eastern section of the Town along Maple Leaf Road. Another borders STH 153 and Halder Drive, in proximity to a recreational area, a commercial parcel, and publicly owned development. The largest grouping of residential is sited around the Big Eau Pleine Reservoir in the southwestern most corner of the Town.

Commercial

There are seven commercial areas in the Town of Emmet. Four are located in the eastern segment of the Town, along STH 107 and Springbrook Road. The two centrally located commercial developments border Halder Road and STH 153. The westernmost commercial area is at CTH H and Fairview Road.

Industrial and Office

No industrial or office areas are located in the Town of Emmet.

Parks and Recreational Open Space

A recreation site is located in the Town of Emmet, along Halder Road.

Big Eau Pleine Reservoir, Freeman Creek, Burns Creek and various small water bodies are located in the Town of Emmet.

Agricultural

The majority of land in the Town of Emmet is agricultural. This classification includes both cropland and other agriculture. The largest concentration of continuous agricultural land is located in the eastern segment of Town. Other large tracts are in the south and west. Ginseng fields are scattered throughout the Town.

Public

The Town owns 40 acres at the end of Town Road and 23 acres along Halder Road.

Mineral Excavation

Three quarries/gravel pits are located in the eastern portion of town along STH 107.

Existing Land Use -- For purposes of this report, tax assessment land use categories were used to represent existing land use. Table 4-1 describes the various land use categories and Figure 4-1 illustrates the existing land use.

Table 4-1: Land Use Cover Classification

Source: Marathon County Land Use Cover Database

Current Land Use Plans and Regulations

Land Use Plan(s) – The Town does not have an adopted land use plan.

Zoning – The Town of Emmet adopted Town zoning in 1975, with periodic amendments. Figure 4-2 illustrates the existing pattern of zoning in the Town.

Shoreland, shoreland wetlands, and floodplain regulations are applicable in all geographic areas of the county.

Farmland Preservation Program–The State of Wisconsin has a Farmland Preservation Tax Credit Program that provides for voluntary contracts between landowners and the state. These contracts provide income tax relief to landowners who keep the land in agricultural uses. The program requires that a landowner own a minimum of 35 or more acres of contiguous land, which produced gross farm profits of not less than $6,000 in the last year, or $18,000 in the last three years. Alternatively, a landowner can participate with ownership of a 35-acre parcel in which at least 35 acres are enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). Landowners must also comply with county soil and water conservation standards. Contracts can range from 10 to 25 years, and remain in effect regardless of change in ownership.

Forest Crop Law (FCL) and Managed Forest Law (MFL) With a large amount of forest land in the county, forest tax laws have a major effect on land uses. Because the tax laws require 25- to 50-year contracts, they are a good indicator of the amount of land that is effectively kept from development for the near future.

In the state, over 2.6 million acres are enrolled under the Forest Crop Law (FCL) and the Managed Forest Law (MFL). Because high taxes had encouraged the cutting of timber for revenue, the laws were developed to encourage better forest management and provide tax relief to the woodland owners. Land set aside under the Forest Crop Law (which was combined into the MFL in 1986) required at least 40 acres in one quarter-quarter section, set aside under a 25- or 50-year contract, and public access for hunting and fishing activities. Current contracts will continue until their expiration dates. This land is typically shown in plat books to identify locations. Land set aside under the FCL in Marathon County is often owned by forest products companies, although many individuals also own large enough parcels to participate. There are approximately 600 acres set aside in Easton. This amount is anticipated to grow, as owners take advantage of the tax relief offered through the program.

The Managed Forest Law was enacted in 1985 and requires at least 10 acres of contiguous forest land. Because of the smaller acreage requirement, many individual landowners take advantage of the MFL. Landowners may close to the public up to 80 acres of their forest lands set aside under MFL. The remaining program acres must be open to public access for hunting, fishing, hiking, sight-seeing and cross-country skiing. Landowners must choose a 25- or 50-year contract. The landowner pays an Acreage Share Amount as part of their tax bill in lieu of taxes. Current rates through 2007 are $0.83 per acre for land open to the public and $1.95 per acre for closed land. Information on MFL land is not readily available since landowners select various acreage amounts and may have both closed or open land. These acreages do not correspond with the parcel boundaries, and thus are not mapped.

Development Trends

Land Supply – Development is somewhat limited by the enrollment of properties into tax incentive programs to maintain existing use/cover under the managed forest law, the forest crop law, and farmland preservation.

The Town of Emmet has 19,886 acres of land available and 5,858 acres of land unavailable. This was calculated using NCWRPC data. Available land was considered to be cropland, special cropland, woodlands, and barren / vacant lands. All other types were considered “unavailable”.

Land Demand – NCWRPC projections indicate there will be a very slight need for new residential development, with 49 acres developed by year 2030. It is likely there will also be a small demand for non-residential land use.

Land Values – Land values in the Town are affected by the farm economy, and new residential development. As the farm economy rises and falls, so does the amount of residential development.

Major Opportunities and Constraints

• Access – Access primarily from State Highways 107 and 153. Additional access from County Roads H, P, and S.

• Developable Land – The Town has an ample supply of land, much of it agricultural land, that could be considered developable.

Issues

• When asked if the conversion of productive farmland to non-farm uses was a concern, 63% of respondents to a survey agreed it is a concern.

• The Community Survey resulted in 47% of respondents voicing concerns about gravel pits in the Town. The following concerns were listed:

• Reclamation

• Groundwater

• Operation hours

• Respondents to the survey were nearly split (50%/46%) regarding controlling the number of cattle in confined feeding operations.

• The majority of respondents (62%) would like to see commercial or industrial development to be concentrated.

• Half of the respondents to the survey did not think the Town should plan future development of recreational facilities.

Transportation

Background

Community Survey – A community survey was conducted in April 2002. Of the 370 surveys mailed out, 167 were returned for a 45% response rate. When asked what they liked least about their Town, roads were listed most often with 60 comments, local government was the second most noted issue with 13 comments.

When asked what improvement would be beneficial to the Town, 33 respondents listed road concerns, the most of any other issue. Government received the second most comments from 11 respondents. Fifty percent of survey respondents said the Town should not develop future recreational facilities. However, of those that did feel that the Town should develop recreational facilities, 14 suggested hiking and bicycling facilities.

Existing Transportation Planning Efforts

Recent Transportation Plans

Transportation planning in Marathon County is coordinated between Marathon County Department of Conservation, Planning, and Zoning staff and the Wausau Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO); the body designated by the Federal Department of Transportation to be responsible for transportation planning in the metropolitan area. The County Planning provides staff for the Wausau Area MPO. The County also does transportation planning for areas outside the Wausau metropolitan area.

County transportation planning efforts are presented in various plans and studies. Findings and recommendations presented in these plans should be integrated into local community planning efforts when relevant and appropriate. Recent transportation plans prepared by Marathon County include:

• Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) – The TIP includes all programmed transportation projects receiving federal and/or state funds and adopted in October 2001.

• State Trunk Highway 29 Corridor Land Use Review (1997) – This plan was prepared by a multi-departmental team working with communities along the STH 29 corridor in the western part of Marathon County. The primary goal was to identify recommendations to allow local communities to protect STH 29 from impacts related to unplanned growth.

• Marathon County Functional / Jurisdictional Highway Classification Study (1998) –This plan was to identifies and groups classes of roadways that provided similar levels of service. The plan recommended that the unit of government having the greatest basic interest in the roadway’s function would carry out the operation, maintenance, and improvement of the classified roadways.

• Marathon County Program Evaluation Team (P.E.T.) Transportation Services Recommendations (2002) –The Marathon County Human Services Committee directed the P.E.T. to study issues related to specialized transportation services and present recommendations to address the issues.

Road Network

Functional Classification of Roads/Jurisdiction (Source: WisDOT Facilities Development Manual)

Functional classification:

A functionally classified road system is one in which streets and highways are grouped into classes according to the character of service they provide, ranging from a high degree of travel mobility to land access functions. At the upper limit of the system (principal arterials, for example), are those facilities that emphasize traffic mobility (long, uninterrupted travel), whereas at the lower limits are those local roads and streets that emphasize access.

The functional classifications are generally defined as:

Principal Arterials serve corridor movements having trips length and travel density characteristics of an interstate or interregional nature. These routes generally serve all urban areas with a population greater than 5,000 or connect major centers of activity, the highest traffic volumes and the longest trip desires.

Minor Arterials, in conjunction with principal arterials, serve cities, large communities, and other major traffic generators providing intra-community continuity and service to trips of moderate length, with more emphasis on land access than principal arterials.

Collectors provide both land access service and traffic circulation within residential neighborhoods, commercial areas, and industrial areas. The collector system distributes trips from the arterials through the area to the local streets. The collectors also collect traffic from the local streets and channel it onto the arterial system.

Local Streets comprise all facilities not on one of the higher systems. They serve primarily to provide direct access to abutting land and access to the higher order of systems. Local streets offer the lowest level of mobility, and serve the through-traffic movement on this system is usually discouraged.

Jurisdiction - Roads are commonly classified in one of two ways: by ownership or by purpose. Jurisdictional responsibility refers to ownership of a particular road, while functional classification, as describe above, identifies the road by the level of service it provides.

Jurisdiction refers to governmental ownership, not necessarily responsibility. For example, some State owned roads are maintained by local jurisdictions. Additionally, the designation of a public road as a “Federal-aid highway” does not alter its ownership or jurisdiction as a State or local road, only that its service value and importance have made that road eligible for Federal-aid construction and rehabilitation funds.

Ownership is divided among the Federal, State, and local governments. States own over 20 percent of the national road network. The Federal Government has responsibility for about 5 percent, primarily in national parks, forests, and Indian reservations. Over 75 percent of the road system is locally controlled.

In some cases, local municipalities are responsible for conducting routine maintenance and minor repairs on state and federal highways within their jurisdictional boundaries. In return, the State generally provides financing to those jurisdictions. However, major repairs and reconstruction are generally still the responsibility of the State Department of Transportation. Roadway jurisdictions (i.e. US, State, and County highways) are indicated in

Major Road Facilities

All major roads in Emmet are summarized below by functional classification, jurisdiction, and Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT), when available.

• STH 153 is an east-west minor arterial connecting the Town to Mosinee to the east and Stratford to the west. Near Cedar Hedge Road, STH 153 had an AADT volume of 3,000 in 1998 and 1,200 in 2001. Just west of STH 107, the AADT volume was 3,800 in 1998 and 2,300 in 2001.

• CTH S is a minor collector north of STH 153 and a major collector south of STH 153. North of the STH 153 intersection, CTH S had 1998 and 2001 AADT volumes of 260 and 370, respectively. South of the STH 153 intersection, CTH S had an AADT of 920 in 1998 and 1,300 in 2001.

• STH 107 is a major collector and serves as Emmet’s eastern boundary. STH 107 provides a connection to Marathon City to the north. STH 107 had an AADT north of its intersection with STH 153 of 2,900 in 1998 and 1,100 in 2001.

• CTH H is a major collector that serves as the western boundary of Emmet. CTH H provides a connection to the Village of Edgar to the north. In 1998, CTH H had an AADT volume of 900 just north of STH 153. An AADT for 2001 was not available.

• CTH P is a major collector serving and the northern boundary to Emmet. The AADT volume west of CTH S was 500 in 1998 and 730 in 2001. The AADT volume west of STH 107 was 620 in 1998 and 1,200 in 2001.

• Eau Pleine Park Road is classified as a local street and had an AADT volume of 220 in 1998 and 180 in 2001.

Road Maintenance -- The Town has maintenance sharing agreements for boundary roads such as Townline Road. The town does provide snowplowing service.

PASER – The Wisconsin Department of Transportation required all incorporated communities to prepare a Pavement Management Plan using a pavement rating system for their local roads. These plans were to be submitted for review by December 2001. The data from these plans is intended to provide the foundation for the Wisconsin Information System for Local Roads (WISLR), which is a computer resource that will enable communities and the State to begin to assess Wisconsin’s local roadway system.

The Pavement Surface Evaluation Rating (PASER) system, which was designed by the Transportation Information Center of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, is the rating system used most by Wisconsin communities. PASER rates road surfaces on a scale of 1 to 10. This scale is broken down as follows:

• “1” and “2” = very poor condition

• “3” = poor condition

• “4” and “5” = fair condition

• “6” and “7” = good condition

• “8” = very good condition

• “9” and “10” = excellent condition

In addition to its use in the new WISLR, the rating system gives communities a detailed assessment of the appropriate maintenance method for each road segment under their jurisdiction. This assessment is then incorporated into the community’s Pavement Management Plan.

Land Use and Transportation

Access Management – Wisconsin was one of the first states to recognize the relationship between highway operations and the use of abutting lands. Under Chapter 233, the Department of Transportation (WisDOT) was given the authority to establish rules to review subdivision plats abutting or adjoining state trunk highways or connecting highways. Regulations enacted by WisDOT establish the principles of subdivision review. They require new subdivisions to: (1) have internal street systems; (2) limit direct vehicular access to the highways from individual lots; (3) establish building setbacks; and (4) establish access patterns for remaining unplatted land.

Marathon County issues driveway permits and implements access restrictions on all properties fronting a lettered county road. The County Trunk Highway Access-Driveway Policy addresses the requirements regarding culverts, access width, slope, visibility and spacing. The policy is available through the Marathon County Highway Department.

Other Transportation Modes

Pedestrian – Pedestrian travel in the Town of Emmet is limited to road shoulders.

Bicycle -- The Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan for the Non-Urbanized Area of Marathon County, Wisconsin, 1996 identified recommended bicycle routes in Marathon County. These recommended routes were based on traffic counts and condition of pavement. Formal action has not occurred to adopt these as designated bicycle routes. The Marathon County Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan identified County Road P, County Road S, Sugar Bush Road and Eau Pleine Park Road as recommended bicycle routes.

Transit -- There is no public transit service currently available in the Town of Emmet. Elderly, needy, and disabled transit service is provided throughout the county through North Central Health Care. The services include semi-fixed routes that are scheduled, and demand services available with a 48-hour notice. Information and services are available by calling 848-4555.

Rail –There is no rail access in the Town of Emmet.

Airports – Central Wisconsin Airport (CWA – pronounced “see-way”) is a joint venture of Marathon and Portage Counties. It is the only airport within Marathon County or neighboring counties that provides scheduled air passenger services. The Central Wisconsin Airport is located east of Mosinee and accessible via I-39. The terminal has been modernized and highway access reconstructed to be more convenient. Since 1982 more than $24,000,000 has been spent to keep the airport ready to serve the needs of the region. Service is provided through Mesaba/Northwest, United/United Feeder Service and Skyway/Midwest Express, offering 24 flights per day that connect through Minneapolis, Chicago, Detroit and Milwaukee. There are also nine airfreight and express flights daily.

Issues

• Determining, prioritizing, and funding additional blacktopping and maintenance of roads.