The University of Wisconsin System
VICE PRESIDENT FOR GENERAL SERVICES / 1762 Van Hise
Hall / Madison, Wisconsin 53706 -
Return correspondence
should be addressed to:
P. 0. Box 8010
Madison, Wisconsin 53708
Re: Environmental Impact Statement
North Campus Development
UW-La Crosse
Enclosed is the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for the above
referenced project. The EIS was prepared in compliance
with the Guidelines
for State Agencies under the Wisconsin Environmental
Policy Act (WEPA) and
Executive Order 26, February 1976. Additional EIS copies
are available for
public inspection as indicated in the attached
announcement sheet.
A Preliminary Environmental Report (PER) was
circulated December 1, 1977.
The Final EIS addresses PER review and comment, and both
documents intend
to provide decision-makers and the public with relevant
information and
reasonable alternatives which would avoid or minimize
adverse impacts or
enhance the quality of the human environment. The EIS is
more than a dis-
closure document. It is to be used by state and federal
officials in
conjunction with other relevant material to plan actions
and make decisions.
I would appreciate your review of this report. All
written comments must
be dated and signed. Comments received prior to or at
the public hearing,
which is scheduled for September 11, 1978, will be
considered in the
agency's decision letter.
Cordially,
Donald Gerhard
Director, Environmental Affairs
DG:sd
Enclosure
Universities: Eau Claire, Green Bay, LaCrosse,
Madison, Milwaukee, Oshkosh, Parkside, Platteville,
River Falls, Stevens Point, Stout, Superior, Whitewater.
University Centers: Baraboo/Sauk County, Barron County,
Fond du Lac, Fox Valley, Manitowoc County, Marathon
County, Marinette County,
Marshfield/Wood County, Medford, Richland, Rock County,
Sheboygan County, Washington County, Waukesha County.
Extension: Statewide.
AVAILABILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
NORTH CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT
AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-LA CROSSE, LA CROSSE, WISCONSIN
The University of Wisconsin-La Crosse herewith
publicly announces its inten-
tion to develop an Outdoor Physical Education and
Environmental Interpretive
Facility on approximately twenty-nine acres of
university-owned land. The
site is north of the main campus within the City of La
Crosse. It is in the
La Crosse River marsh area but physically separated from
the overall marsh
by the roadways of Lang Drive and Gorder Road.
The University of Wisconsin-La Crosse has prepared an
Environmental Impact
Statement on the proposed project. This report
represents and summarizes
the environmental information currently available to the
University. It in-
cludes the comments received from other state agencies,
local government,
and private individuals. Excerpts from public hearing
testimony will be
considered in the written decision.
Availability
Copies of the Environmental Impact Statement are
available for public review
at Murphy Library, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse,
and at the La Crosse
Public Library, 8th and Main Streets.
In addition, copies have been sent to:
1. La Crosse County Board, County Courthouse
2. La Crosse County Highway Commissioner, County
Courthouse
3. Mayor's Office, La Crosse City Hall /
4. City Attorney, La Crosse City Hall
5. Public Works Department, La Crosse City Hall
6. Parks and Recreation Department, La Crosse City Hall
7. Planning Department, La Crosse City Hall
8. City Traffic Engineer, La Crosse City Hall
9. Inspection Department, La Crosse City Hall
10. Engineering Department, La Crosse City Hall
11. Chairperson, University Affairs Committee, City of
La Crosse
12. La Crosse Tribune
13. Coulee Gazette
14. State, regional, and federal agencies assumed to
have an interest in
the project.
Review Procedure
Written comments on the Environmental Impact
Statement should be addressed
to Mr. Donald Gerhard, University of Wisconsin, System
Administration, 1930
Monroe Street, P. O. Box 8010, Madison, Wisconsin 53708.
All written comments must be dated and signed.
Comments will also be accepted at the public hearing
to be held on Monday,
September 11, 1978, at 7:30 p.m. in the Annett Recital
Hall, Fine Arts Build-
ing, 16th and Vine Streets, University of
Wisconsin-La Crosse, La Crosse,
Wisconsin.
EIS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
NORTH CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT
AT
THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-LA CROSSE
Submitted pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969
Public Law 81 1 90
and
The Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act
Chapter 1.11(2) (c) Wis. Statutes
The University of Wisconsin - La Crosse
La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
PREFACEi
SUMMARY STATEMENT iii
LOCATION MAPS:
LA CROSSE COUNTY MAP
REGIONAL MAP - LA CROSSE AREA
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 1-70
A. General Description 1
B. General Location 3
C. Historical Perspectives 5
1. History of the City of La Crosse and of the La Crosse
River Marsh 5
2. History of the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse 17
Purpose, Mission, and Programs 17
Institutional Development 19
Academic Needs 26
Campus Plans 31
Previous Events and Actions 34
D. Description of the Existing Environment 37
1. Physical and Chemical Environment 37
Environmental Setting of the Project Site 37
Topography 38
Geology and Soil 39
Hydrology 41
Flooding 43
Water Quality 45
Noise Level 46
Air Quality 47
2. Biological Environment 48
Vascular Plant Life in the Marsh 48
Vascular Plant Life in the Project Site 50
Animals Observed in the Marsh 50
Fish Spawning 52
Birds Observed in the La Crosse River Marsh 54
Birds Observed in the Proposed Site 55
Invertebrates 56
Insects of the Marsh 57
3. Economic, Social and Cultural Environment 59
Tax Base 59
Zoning 59
Fire Conditions 59
Aesthetics 60
Historical and Archaeological Sites 61
Recreational Use 61
Academic Use 62
E. Description of the Proposal 63
1. Location and Accessibility 63
2. Aesthetic Concerns 63
3. Natural Topography 64
4. Fill Material 65
5. Topography of the Land Fill 66
PAGE NO.
6. Landscape Plans 67
7. Vegetation Preservation 67
F. Maps and Graphics 69
1. La Crosse River Watershed
2. Aerial Photo of UW-La Crosse and Adjacent Marsh
3. Aerial Photo of City and La Crosse River Marsh
4. Aerial Photo of Marsh Flooding During 1978
5. Contour Map of Project Area
6. Vegetation Map
7. Campus Master Plan/Alternate
8. Site Model
9. North Campus Proposed Development Plan
10. Elevations of Proposed Project Area
11. Cross Sections of Proposed Project Area
12. Exercise Fitness Trail
13. (a) & (b) Two Proposed Alternative "I" Field
Development Areas
14. Existing Park and Recreation Facilities
15. Noise Level Chart
16. Design Noise Level/Land Use Relationship Chart
17. Vascular Plant Flora List
18. Map of Areas in Harris Study
19. List of Birds Observed in Area Two
20. List of La Crosse River Marsh Fires (1972-1977)
21. Photo: Marsh Fire April 9, 1977
22. Suggested List of Vascular Plant Species for North
Campus
Development
23. Vegetation Preservation Photo and Map Location
24. List of Wildlife Species Observed in La Crosse River
Marsh
II. PROBABLE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
ON THE ENVIRONMENT
A. Physical Impact
1. Topography
2. Drainage
3. Soil
4. Flooding
5, Water Quality
6. Noise Level
7. Air Quality
8. Aesthetics
B. Biological Impact
1. Plant Life
2. Animal Life
3. Birds
4. Insects and Invertebrates
C. Socio-Economic Impact
1. Academic Support for the University
2. Recreational Facility Available to the Community
3. Neighborhood Preservation
4. Create Jobs
5. Flood Control
6. Effect on City Well Water
7. Cost/Benefit Analysis
71-88
71
71
71
71
72
72
73
75
75
76
76
77
77
77
78
78
78
82
83
83
86
86
PAGE NO.
Ill. PROBABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH
CANNOT BE AVOIDED 89-90
A. Loss of Lowland Wildlife Habitat 89
B. Mitigating Steps 89
IV. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF
THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCE-
MENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 91-92
A. Filling Marsh Land Versus Preservation of Existing
Site 91
V. IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF
RESOURCES IF THE PROPOSED ACTION IS IMPLEMENTED 93-94
A. Loss of Wildlife Habitat 93
B. Loss of Flood Water Storage 93
C. Resources Used to Develop the Project 93
VI. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 95-104
A. No Action 95
B. Propose Another Project (Site Restoration) 95
C. Change Land Use (Without Fill) 97
D. Use Entire Site (Lake Proposal) 97
E. Elevate 29 Acres Above 100 Year Flood (18 Acres
Undisturbed) 98
F. Between C.B. & Q. RR & S.T.H. 16 98
G. Northeast of Vlyrick Park 99
H. City Country Club Golf Course 99
I. Contiguous Neighborhood Expansion 99
J. All Remote Sites 100
K. Assessment Criteria 101
APPENDICES:
APPENDIX A - COORDINATION CORRESPONDENCE
APPENDIX B - GEOLOGY AND SOIL
APPENDIX C - FLOOD DATA
APPENDIX D - FISH AND WILDLIFE
APPENDIX E - TRANSPORTATION DATA
APPENDIX F - BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON ALTERNATE SITES
APPENDIX G - RESPONSES TO PRELIMINARY ENN'IRONMENTAL
REPORT (PER)
PREFACE
The Preliminary Environmental Report (PER) was made
available to the public
December 1, 1977. The major objection from the
Department of Natural Re-
sources, the Department of Interior, and the
Environmental Protection Agency
centered on the level of required objectivity. The
Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) provides additional documentation and
addresses specific
comments as requested by these agencies and the Corps of
Engineers. Addi-
tional alternatives are also presented in response to
requests from the EPA
and the Corps.
The adjacent proposed Lang Drive project is presently
in its final EIS de-
velopment stage pending Corps approval. A project
decision on the part of
the City, the Department of Natural Resources, and the
Department of Trans-
portation not to create a lake in the La Crosse River
Marsh resulted in revi-
sion of earlier plans for the north campus development
project. Recent
consideration of the possibility of using stockpiled
dredge-spoil on the Lang
Drive project, if available to the City, and the
suggested change in the
placement, number, and size of culverts under Lang
Drive, will have economic
and environmental consequences requiring close
cooperation between this
project and the north campus plan.
Due to the City's need to preserve housing area and
the University's need
for outdoor teaching areas within close proximity of its
existing facilities, the
University of Wisconsin-La Crosse has requested
development of a limited
portion of its north campus property. The University
understands, appre-
ciates, and shares a common interest with the public in
the ultimate best use
of the area.
ii
SUMMARY STATEMENT
Project Action
(xx) Distribution of the Preliminary ( )
Administration Action
Environmental Report
(xx) Environmental Impact Statement ( ) Legislative
Action
1. Description of the Proposed Action
The University of Wisconsin-La Crosse is proposing
the development of an
outdoor physical education and environmental
interpretive facility on a + 29
acre parcel of university land. The project would
involve placing 150,000
cubic yards of land fill on the + 29 acre site and
construction of four instruc-
tional playing fields, two baseball fields, a track
and field facility, a fitness
trail, two golf greens, a parking lot, and bleachers
for one of the baseball
fields. The project would be landscaped and designed
to fit into the sur-
rounding natural environment so that it can be
integrated as an environmental
observation area as well.
2. Description of the Proposed Environment
The site to be filled is part of a two thousand acre
marsh. The site is
physically separated from the overall marsh by two
roadways, Lang Drive and
Gorder Road, which connect at perpendicular angles to
one another. During
some years, flood waters from the La Crosse and
Mississippi Rivers flow into
the site through culverts in the roadbeds. Standing
water may also be the
result of water seepage from a high water table
especially during spring
months. Past conditions would indicate that the area
is relatively free of
iii
standing water during the summer except for a few low
areas outside of the
proposed fill area. The project site supports
wildlife.
The total acreage of the La Crosse River marsh before
settlement is not
known. Areas of the original marsh land which have
been filled include
businesses, industries, and residential homes east of
George Street between
the La Crosse River and the railroad tracks. Lang
Drive, Gorder Road, the
Northern States Power substation, the University's
Maintenance and Stores
facility, and waterpumping causeways are other
developments in the marsh.
3. Probable Impact of the Proposed Action on the
Environment
The positive impacts are: (I) the development of a
facility which will support
the UW-La Crosse special mission in physical
education, (2) the creation of a
recreational and educational facility from which the
community can benefit, (3)
the preservation of the residential neighborhoods
adjacent to the main cam-
pus, and (4) the creation of jobs as a secondary
effect of implementation of
the project.
The negative impacts are: (I) the loss of + 29 acres
of marsh vegetation, (2)
the loss of + 29 acres of wildlife habitat, and (3)
the loss of + 29 acres for
flood water storage (150,000 cubic yards of storage
capacity).
This project will not cause the displacement of any
families or businesses.
iv
4. Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Ten alternatives to the proposed action were
evaluated, four of which would
preserve all or a portion of the marsh vegetation and
wildlife as well as
preserving the flood water storage. Three of these
alternatives, however,
would not enable the University to achieve its
objective of providing a needed
facility for its academic programs. The fourth
approach, that of using near-
by residential neighborhoods for the project, would
save the marsh land and
provide the necessary facility but at a high monetary
cost and at a great
sacrifice to the people whose homes, rental
apartments, and businesses would
have to be relocated. The alternative of utilizing
the site for different pur-
poses would still destroy the marsh vegetation but
would save the flood water
storage space. Another possibility considered is that
of improving the func-
tion of the project by using more fill. This would
further decrease the space
available for flood water storage.
5. Availability of Information
(1) Environmental Impact Statement Procedures
The Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act (WEPA),
Section I.11, Wisconsin
Statutes, became effective on April 29, 1972. This
law requires that all
state agencies prepare an environmental impact
statement for every
recommendation or report on proposals for legislation
and other major
actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment, and
that a public hearing be held on those proposals
other than for legisla-
tion. The University of Wisconsin, therefore, is
required to prepare
v
environmental impact statements for university
proposals determined to
be actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment.
The Governor's Executive Order Number 26 established
guidelines to be
used by state agencies in implementing WEPA. The
guidelines require
that the agency prepare a Preliminary Environmental
Report, develop an
Environmental Impact Statement, and hold a public
hearing. Under these
guidelines, the Preliminary Environmental Report
(PER) is circulated for
a forty-five day review period to federal, state, and
local agencies with
expertise or concerns related to the project. It is
also made available to
the public. Comments and questions submitted on the
PER are used to
develop an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The
EIS is circulated
to the commenting agencies and to the public for a
thirty-day review
period. A hearing is then held to receive the views
of the public on the
environmental impact statement. Following the public
hearing, the UW-
System formulates a conclusion on the proposed action
and its decision is
circulated to commenting agencies and to the public.
Both the PER and the EIS are full-disclosure
documents which provide a
complete description of the proposed project, of the
existing environ-
ment, and an analysis of the anticipated
environmental effects.
The review schedule for the proposed north campus
field development,
La Crosse, Wisconsin, is as follows:
Date PER released: December I, 1977
Review Deadline on PER: January 16, 1978
Date EIS released: August 7, 1978
Review Deadline on EIS: September 8, 1978
Hearing Date:
vi
Comments should be addressed to:
Mr. Donald Gerhard
University of Wisconsin System -
System Administration
1930 Monroe Street
P. O. Box 8010
Madison, Wisconsin 53708
Phone: (608) 263-4404
(2) Copies of the draft were made available to the
following agencies:
Number
Agencies of Copies
A. Federal Agencies
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Minnesota-Wisconsin District Office 3
Region V Administrator 5
U.S. Department of the Interior
Office of Land Use and Water Planning 2
Office of Environmental Project Review 20
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation I
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 3
U.S. Geological Survey I
Bureau of Indian Affairs I
Regional Director 3
National Park Service I
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District I
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
Area Director I
Eastern Region I
Soil Conservation Service
Regional Technical Service Center 2
State Conservationist 4
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Environmental Office Region V 2
Director of Environmental Affairs 2
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Region V Administrator 3
Area Director 2
U.S. Department of Commerce
Water Resources Management Division 2
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Environmental Affairs 8
District Office
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration 2
U.S. Coast Guard - Second District
Regional Federal Highway Administration 2
Federal Energy Administration
B. State Agencies
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 4
vii
Number
Agencies of Copies
B. State Agencies-continued
Wisconsin Department of Business Development
Wisconsin Department of Transportation 2
Wisconsin Department of Agriculture
Wisconsin State Historical Society 6
Wisconsin Department of Administration
Bureau of State Planning
Bureau of Facilities Management
Wisconsin Public Service Commission
Wisconsin Department of Local Affairs and Development
Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey
Wisconsin Scientific Areas Preservation Council
Wisconsin Natural Beauty Council
University of Wisconsin
System Administration 6
University of Wisconsin-La Crosse 12
Governor's Office I
Legislative Reference Library 2
Public Intervenor
Western Wisconsin Technical Institute
C. Regional Agencies
Mississippi River Regional Planning Commission
D. Local Agencies
La Crosse County Board
La Crosse County Highway Department
City of La Crosse Mayor's Office
City of La Crosse Public Works Department I
City of La Crosse Parks Department
City of La Crosse Public Library
City of La Crosse Planning Department I
City of La Crosse Traffic Engineer
City of La Crosse Inspection Department
City of La Crosse Engineering Department
Sales Cash Orders 25
Northern Natural Gas Company
Northern States Power Company
La Crosse Telephone Corporation I
Chicago and Northwestern Transportation Company
University Affairs Committee, c/o John Shubert,
Chairperson 9
River and Bluffs Bicentennial Intracity Trail
Citizens Committee for Environmental Education
Izaak Walton League, Great River Chapter
Audubon Society of La Crosse
Sierra Club, Coulee Region Group
Coalition for Regional Environmental Educational
Development
viii
1) 6S0 0 1 /.oo00o 000 !.ooo 0500 ,000 o
/! ---' - 4 TREMPEALEAU CO.-JACKSON CO.JACKSON CO. +
4R-8-W R-87-W R-6W MONROE CO.
/ <4L | R-5-I
Town of Gale _ . Town of North Bend Town of Melrose Town
of Little Falls
Civ TowBoundory_ _____/ Town of BergenTown of
HaburgTown of Coon LiFalls
Corporofe Limits_____E: T : ED-' : *^*^** -^^ii:^:
Unincorp. Villoge____-.__:------- M ILES OF H-HWA --A
CROSSE
MILESOF HGHWA ^ -^ ---- Bnerr Oak a
Hospitol_______ _______LOCA........... 565 STATEOFF E
GIT-18EON AS ARMINGT.'a CAMnPBELLBaT-18- aso
Ronger Stotion -:___ATOTAL FOR COUNTY...........1005
\ [ BARRE -1-E 1 | MIL E 5
Public Cmp Picnic Grds.- o---i
Sote PorkPCIVIL TOWNS )SHELBYGREENWASHING-JAN. 1976
townt FIELDTON CompiledU.S.G.S. Quadrangles
T-66
State.. o :-- d ry
l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~Tc ofHrfroTw fCo
Bituminos ----- ---:
SomeASKA iorSo E,
/C iour n Beus t.
P'brHuT° Ror F ...d- a--
FireGLane - - - - - -o pt BF I
Hopltan D. LOASOtare F-....to ...r.. R-7-Wo
Rigerp Staort io. .L FOB750'arw.000 .
Publro Camp0 VERNOPrcrcBr CIVIL TOWNSS.HELBY00SMEEM.
JAN. 5976'.nNo
State Pogkwa r N Com--r- F.L.TO. C.le. _
BtCounty Hw rpe.et t....tr....5
MILES OF H IGHWAY
'GameFor m------------------ - 1__ LLANDFARMINGTO!
OFCOUNTY ...........................
TOTALORCONTY............ 1005BARRESCALEMILES
Slate Pork ---FIL__Di'h ON1
Witho u Campsite....FIEL Compiled from U.S.G.S.
Quadrangles
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Jspi;J
County PorkWith Faciites.- -Land Area............4
B.asedonAerial Photographs
Population................. 79.98.
COUNTYMAP
Without Facilities____I Counly Seat.........i.... LC C
osseM P
With Facilities _____-
Wayside __ _he
Without Facilities _____
*Surface types onrtown roods not shown.+Grid based on
Wisconsin coordinate system, soulh-central zones.LA
CROSSE 32-5
A CRSE3-
Ii
1 .. 0-laaae~mas ~ ~ L PBlrBL ~ ~ _L- ~· ·.;_
_ _ ·
- pbPWC-- a CLnpe--LSr C al c--r.
-r-· -- -- -- .g
N
-
MISSISSIP
REGIONAL
n~~~~A
VK v~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LA CROSSE
COUNTY
o ~ ~~~~~~~~o
LA CROSSE
i~sg -II WIISCONSIN
IL-
~. .T~t~ ,PROJECT\
TT SBT
w LAt~9/8
~~~~~~~~~~~~~I~ ~~~~~~~~A-
T.IA
i ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
iCROS! EZS
'RICT uw~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~CUIIPCU
VISCONSIN
CROSSE COUNTY
CAMPUS PLANNING
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-LA CROSSE
LA CROSSE WISCONSIN
NORTH
NORTH
E/m.
UNIVERSITY OF
WISCONSIN* LA
DOWNTOWN
BUSINESS DIST
-m MAIN ROADS
REGIONAL MAP * LACROSSE AREA
::
u
P
i
c
cl
J
r
ii
10Lr31 AC
-"'
_is
3 JB
C
-T. I
o,, ,
I
.,
··,
w
w
a
. ·i·
i··
P-·a o
::-:e
r ::
o
zas:.·3:-2'
·i:::::i:::i':-l:·:·:::::
·'-"'·:
c
:i: '·:·"·;:':':':-: ·:-:·::::: *o
-··--·:-:·;:-:·:-. .·.·.;·.-
- - -= j I
II
31
I
' INI-
moma
i "^\ |B
- - f; a
-1'' AA h
\ NA~
:44:,-1. %,-,
H.. ,F ILA CRFSUP41' 1,N 7 IB·.
P1ANGLE:GEOL001CALSURVEY '
11:fr ij.i'jA -3.w iti...1...........
r \r·-~~~~~t~~n 1,IPE .\?u't) PI~~~. 11.-.."i 11
:r7i.-
-- -7 -77'777=f`........ -i`"-'·-_ -'-,. :1::-
?ib ~--:IQ- : ,,:
_ ,I 7. ,. ,
,. :j: i :f":I:.. 8 ,-,,
?;~~~~~~~~ 1 ·.·~~~.~-1~ ,:
.MI . II...I...
, ~9: ;i; 703... 1.·~i :- m5~ WAIAl.jjqj : T,#.I.. ;\
I.a .
c, dC --i ,I,-G -
I ~ ~ ~ tT., ,": ~~~~~~~~~~~~ %-.~~~pnte
i 1!C1,I :i ,:i!:rl. ,0i'.
.:11 P 111is s i s ill."..,.... ~ ,;.::-;:·... ,
...i_,~1.
\ ,W·i i·'I: i:~ ;.. ,-..,(-
Azo ,~ ~ ~~,~~,1. - ~ ~ :1 I -1 4 - I A .~~~~~_ ~~ ~ W
,~~ k. II..-Y_--~ ~ ~ ~~~-~ ~.... --- ... 1.i -
IS~i' AmsIn ,,:.... 1i: -- ,- )
~--^-I·- -I~ ., iiit:Z
: ~:..........._.i.ar, *.% ,I:ii: ~.;
\ __ _:~..~._a...._ __ _ "~_," :.:,~.~... ~~:_ ;~_ -
-..I1. ~ f : ,.....I..-..
~:I...;..~l-~.~ -~~ ,~~. - - ~ ~ : -::, ~ ~
I..-._.~:::,1I -.-,i_ ,
~~.,u..··;4,i ,Z,,.1.
k:C.~.1.1.IF1. -1I, r :z _.. - _-i..-, ,:u.
.II.-· `-I I I.,.: eI- II 1.- 1 -
~~.X,I II 1-1 ;-3."/7ik<.,..1n .
..I I -.'1:!- ...f.·-.i,
~::~·;-·- ~-~·E·_-7-I, T.,,: r i : :, ,;::ia i: h~ d % :
',
I.. -, I\ie6"]:iI. j: %..i.;II... .
.~~.. I1, .:6'~~: 4
..II.:..~tI I : ,fi~I:::W PBELL.il, 11s·~ r~
". ~~~. ~ ~ 1 I.0I.I 1; 1 ii i iilll fB..!_; , VCi:I
1i1,·..
I II1 i· :.~.,! I L_ _.- ,..- Ix~:!-. %._ _i a,if rG-a
:~ ,,:'.. .... - ·..
~)i r.i . - , o w"7 ,
:'7·I Z, I.,~t.":1..
,Ii- .. -.. .l d
IN \.I /. i.: \1i_1- ·,.. "'·.
.~~'I - -.-;-i-.,- -- :i,ci/.
~·l.. ,,I -, \.I :.-ir. Ittt:
~I·-, -.... , I..1:::~::jl1--,::;:: .
I.,=.., \ -~:2 ,.. -i--iI % 16
. , ,;, , r'8 i
, I :I., '.(_.p 1
'·;xv., ...~ii.... .(.., i -.-.../t;;. . r_ ; I I
·i···..··I-··-, r\......I...I~t
.Si·'i:: ... :."..., ·.'·~. I ·?I7 %, j i
- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ X ; .. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~;.; .
.i - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~~~z
1..i ~ ~ .... ----: ::~-IiI::,.~-- :~.. ,%rCI
* aige"-; -- i------.......... i.... jI......... . \j
- -. --- --j --- *-*., !' C.i --..
^Ilii,-: W - :S f -v 'is At: : ';-^35 3:
.: fi
14. "I
_s J.
m Y i
A/ iI
-~ Cy:
Si { ^{
.-:-0 **.:
.. >; * :-
v --t. *
I,.
(@ E^i .x;r
. .^/^
e f.....And,
'^ ..;'-'
,*: -e,,_P
.., '^ \;v.
'^tf.t
I.-.-I
^W
J
0. ,,-, -
dI k
-i%-1.. K....I11 'z i ,1-1 `-'-.H-',-
H 1:
-I.....zI _
V ' ,
2000 ACRE LA CROSSE RIVER MARSH I
- ~~iii i i0 0, ', ' K ^.,'>.20 A ':' ''a
itXf II s stiIXq
* * 0., fi '''v tffl^ V- -- ,,9-N-J-j-.r----l5 %' " U.
rE^r00 lS S iLS- l1 v; ..t I X l, XT
^S1 I tA ' i1) F I S iIt. ' 6 i TOPOGRAPHMAP
e i v --5-^]t **wII ::W-1S.) W LI 1 A N 1) rI S HR E' F
U GE I
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Description
The intent of the proposed action is to develop
outdoor field facilities for
the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse. Approximately
150,000 cubic
yards of fill would be placed on + 29 acres of
wetlands raising the
existing contour three to four feet. The facility
would provide four
physical education fields, two baseball fields, a
track and field facility,
two golf greens, a nature/fitness trail, bleachers
for one of the baseball
fields, and off-street parking. Landscape grading
designed to blend
with the environment, turf development of the fields,
and future plant-
ings of native species would provide an interpretive
environmental facili-
ty which could also serve as an observation area of
the surrounding
wetlands.
1
B. General Location
The proposed site is located in La Crosse County and
within the city
limits of La Crosse, Wisconsin. The site is one-half
mile north of the
main campus of the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse.
The project location is within the La Crosse River
flood plain and Myrick
Marsh. The land on which the site is proposed is not
contiguous with
the larger marsh to the north. Lang Drive (S.T.H. 35)
to the west and
Gorder Road to the north connect at perpendicular
angles to restrict and
dike flood waters coming into the proposed site.
South of the site are
undisturbed buffer areas, a hillside, and Oak Grove
Cemetery. The
proposed site's east boundary is adjacent to the
University's Maintenance
and Stores facility. The north edge borders on a
thirty-foot strip of
city land extending along the Gorder Road
right-of-way.
The project site will be located south of and
parallel to Gorder Road.
The site will connect with the University's
Maintenance and Stores facili-
ty to the east and will stop short of the
right-of-way of Lang Drive to
the west. Approximately eighteen acres of undisturbed
marsh will be
preserved between the project site and the hillside
to the south.
3
C. Historical Perspective
1. History of the City of La Crosse and of the La
Crosse River Marsh
The growth and development of La Crosse from trading
post to
industrial city has been expertly detailed in the
Lang Drive Project
EIS recently published by the Wisconsin Department of
Transporta-
tion (DOT). Those remarks are reproduced here in
their entirety.
In addition, the extensive historical treatment of
the La Crosse
River Marsh which appears in the DOT document is also
cited here.
The City of La Crosse was settled in 1841 by Nathan
Myrick, originally from Westport, New York, who built a
cabin trading post on Barron's Island. The island was
selected because it had the much needed resource for
building: trees. The site of the present City of La
Crosse was at that time a treeless plain that extended
from the east bank of the Mississippi River to the foot
of
the bluffs to the east. Easy access to the river and the
medium of transportation that it offered was necessary
to
Myrick for his trading operations with the local
Indians.
Within less than a year, Myrick moved his operation
to
the mainland and eventually laid claim to most of the
land
that is currently La Crosse's downtown business section.
The fur-trading base of early La Crosse's economy did
not last. The Indians with whom Myrick and others did
business were moved farther west as the government
bought up their lands through treaties, and the
annuities
that the Indians received as compensation for their
lands
introduced them to an easier way of life so that they no
longer had to hunt and trap fur bearing animals to make
a living. With government money coming in at regular
intervals, they were able to forego the rigors of
survival
for the "good life"--to the demise of fur trade.
During the 1850's, the beginning of the lumber
industry
occurred, accompanied by an influx of settlers. The
lumber industry was flourishing long before there was
any attempt to develop the area agriculturally. By 1953,
there were several sawmills in operation, supplied by
the
pineries of the Black River, and in 1856 the Village of
La
Crosse was incorporated as a city with a council and
mayor form of government.
5
For the next fifty years, La Crosse was a lumber
town--
home of numerous mills and the headquarters of the
largest fleet of raft towboats on the Mississippi River.
The lumber industry became the largest single industry
of
the city and for many years depended upon river trans-
portation to bring in freight and new settlers. By 1856,
the steamboat traffic averaged over two hundred boats a
month landing at La Crosse.
Road building commenced in 1845 when a wagon trail
was
hewn through the woods along the bluffs from Prairie du
Chien to La Crosse. Later on, during the 1850's, La
Crosse became a gateway city--a focal point for stage-
coach routes and wagon roads. These roads followed the
coulees (steep-walled valleys or ravines) to the Black
River valley, the Fox-Wisconsin River portage, Baraboo,
and the Root River valley in Minnesota.
In 1858, the La Crosse and Milwaukee Railroad (now
the
Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Paul Railroad) entered the
city, and by 1872 had completed their tracks to St.
Paul,
Minnesota. Earlier, in 1866, the Chicago, Burlington and
Quincy tracks reached Prescott through La Crosse. The
Green Bay & Western Railroad also entering the city
during this period. By 1900, four railroads (including
the Chicago Northwestern) served the city, making it the
largest railroad center between Chicago and the Twin
Cities of Minnesota, Minneapolis and St. Paul.
Many immigrants added their numbers to the growing
city, of whom the Germans and Scandinavians made up
the largest ethnic groups. Smaller groups of Poles and
Bohemians arrived later in the century. In 1900, the
percentage of foreign-born settlers was twenty-five per-
cent of a total population of 29,000.
At the beginning of the century, the people of La
Crosse
witnessed the sudden end of their single largest
industry
--lumbering--because of the exhaustion of pineries.
Fortunately, for at least twenty years before the end of
the century, small diversified manufacturing plants had
been locating in the city, and these plants saved the
city
from economic disaster and a loss of population. Among
the leading industries were the mnanufacturers of beer,
agricultural implements, rubber goods, and ironwork, and
the milling of feed grains into flour. After World War
I,
the city experienced the growth of several large
manufac-
turing plants, the leaders of which were producers of
automotive accessories and rubber footwear. Later on
during the thirties, the manufacture of heating and
cooling equipment and agricultural implements added to
the ranks of major industries in the city.
La Crosse developed slowly during the Great
Depression
of the 30's, as did all cities in the nation. Later on
in
6
the 40's, stimulated by war contracts, employment and
production soared to new heights. The adjustment to the
following peace economy was made with little difficulty,
and by 1947 employment and production were at new
levels. Building and industrial expansion, however, were
limited by the lack of suitable sites.
The 1940's was a decade of high civic activity for La
Crosse. Following the end of World War 11 hostilities,
the
people became engaged in securing a place in the new
world for their city. They did this by adding to the
city
structure such facilities as an airport, civic center,
and
off-street parking lots, to name a few--the latter
design-
ed to alleviate the crowded condition in the commercial
section caused by the increasing automobile population
of
the area.
By 1950, the City of La Crosse had grown to a
population
of almost 50,000 and, while this growth was not
consider-
ed to be spectacular, its physical expansion went from
about Sixteenth Street to the toe of the bluffs that
paral-
lel the Mississippi River. Good commercial and
industrial
sites were becoming scarce, and family dwellings were
built in the coulees. By 1960, the City of La Crosse,
to-
gether with the surrounding and neighboring communities
of the City of Onalaska, Holmen, the Town of Medary and
portions of the Towns of Campbell, Holland, Onalaska and
Shelby, had risen to a population of 62,400. The census
of 1970 placed the population of this growing complex at
69,500. Together with this, between the years of 1940
and 1973, motor vehicle registrations have also risen
from
14,460 to 38,053. These neighboring communities are
included because they have, in effect, become the over-
flow areas for the City of La Crosse and contribute to
La
Crosse's social and economic well-being, as well as to
its
traffic and transportation problems. The City of La
Crosse and these surrounding areas comprise the only
urban area in the county and in 1960 alone accounted for
more than eighty-five percent of the county's total
popu-
lation. Almost ninety percent of the 1950-1960 county
population growth occurred in these areas. The fastest
growing communities then were the Towns of Shelby and
Onalaska. Today the population growth has progressed
farther north into the Village of Holmen. The City of La
Crosse itself has experienced a low rate of growth be-
cause of a lack of developable land and suburbanization
to
surrounding communities.
1 Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Division of
Highways, District #5,
Final Environmental Inpact Statement for Project M4202,
pp. 12-15.
7
The La Crosse River Marsh "probably originally
consisted of the
seasonally flooded basins, fresh meadows, shallow
fresh meadows,
and a few deep fresh marshes."2 Over the years, its
size has
changed as the City of La Crosse grew.
The City of La Crosse grew in early years without a
plan. There were no building codes, zoning laws, street
planning, nor a plan for the location of public
buildings,
and it was not until the latter part of 1919 that a need
for a city plan was publicly expressed. Editorials by
the
local newspaper espoused the need for such a plan, but
it
was not until after World War I that any individuals or
groups actively supported the subject. Ultimately, the
City retained the services of a noted city planner from
Cambridge, Massachusetts, to prepare such a plan. The
need for one was very apparent in that La Crosse had
progressed from a town of lumber mills to a prosperous,
industrialized city.
The aforementioned planner produced a plan that
included
forty large maps, charts, diagrams and various recommen-
dations that were presented to the mayor and city offi-
cials. The plan was ultimately defeated for two reasons
put forth by the opposition. First, the plan was compre-
hensive and would have required large outlays of money
that people felt should be spent for things other than
correcting the errors and mistakes that have been made
by earlier residents and settlers. Secondly, the plan
was
politically motivated, setting the north side in
opposition
to the south side.
The "Nolen Plan," as it came to be known, was
dropped,
and with it any comprehensive city plan, for more than
twenty-five years.
Although the Wisconsin State Legislature passed a law
in
1909 authorizing cities to create city planning commis-
sions, ten years passed before any city in the state
took
advantage of the law to create such a commission--the
first being the City of Appleton. During the next ten
years, more than thirty cities in the state created city
planning commissions. The La Crosse City Council esta-
blished one in 1929, composed of the mayor, city engi-
neer, the president of the park board, an alderman, and
three other local citizens.
2 S.H. Sohmer, Contributions from the Herbarium. V.,
January 1, 1973.
8
In 1855, a causeway was built by a privately-funded
corporation known as the La Crosse and Onalaska Plank
Road and Bridge Company, whose sole purpose was to
build a solid road across the marsh that separated the
two sections of the city--the north and south sides--and
thereby reduce the trip by two and a half miles of
travel
over the previous customary route. The company was to
be reimbursed for its expense by the collection of tolls
at
a toll house that was in operation for some years at the
south end of the road.
The causeway--a plank road--was like every other
board-
walk except that it was twenty feet wide. It was laid
across the marsh between the north and south settlements
of the prairie la crosse elevated in the lower spots
about
five feet above the low-water mark. Wooden bridges
graced both ends, for in those days the La Crosse River
wandered from the main stream across the north end of
the marsh. The toll gate was located on the bank of the
La Crosse River.
Even though it was a wretched highway from its very
beginning, it was a busy one. It led to the prosperous
lumbering communities of North La Crosse and Onalaska,
and its twenty-foot width was thronged winter and
summer with the sleighs and wagons of lumbermen. It
was then the only direct communication between La
Crosse, the point of entry to the pineries, and all of
the
back country that is now traversed in every direction by
hard-surfaced highways.
Four years after it went into operation, the
proprietors of
the tollway removed the toll and washed their hands of
the whole affair. From that time on, it became a sadly
neglected thoroughfare--rutted, potholed, and always
flooded during periods of high water, so much so that
the
water was often over the tops of the wagon wheels and
into the bodies of the wagons and buggies that dared to
venture across it. It was described to have been more of
a ford than a road.
It was not until 1865 that the City of La Crosse
finally
took it over, and because of its stra egic location and
the
heavy amount of traffic it accommodated, the improvement
of it became imperative. From time to time, it was
raised
and graded and eventually was widened to one hundred
feet and paved with limestone macadam. However, it was
still too low and was completely submerged during the
flood of 1880 that cut off all road communications with
North La Crosse.
As years went by, traffic between the north and south
sides increased and a narrow wagon bridge was con-
structed over the La Crosse River to the west. This was
a trestle bridge that was constructed by the La Crosse
9
City Railway Company. Horse-drawn and, later,
electric
cars crossed this bridge.
In 1922, the Common Council of the City voted to con-
struct the present concrete bridge, which was completed
in 1927, on what is now the causeway known as Copeland
Avenue. The termini of the causeway are the junction of
Rose Street and Copeland Avenue on the north and the
junction of 3rd and 4th Streets on the south. Today it
is
a thriving business district with a variety of
commercial
establishments that range from service stations and oil
companies to pizza parlors and a ready-mix concrete
plant. Recently, another section on the west side of the
causeway was dredge-filled and is the site of the modern
condominium-type apartment buildings and business
offices.
The La Crosse or Myrick Marsh, as it later came to be
known after the City's founding father, Nathan Myrick,
was again bridged somewhat to the east of the first
causeway in 1932 after a ten-year struggle on the part
of
some of the more farsighted city officials. It was later
named Lang Drive, the highway being proposed for im-
provement, in honor of the city alderman, C. F. Lang,
who was the most ardent supporter of the second cause-
way.
Like all public improvements involving a substantial
amount of money, Lang Drive was in the making for a
period of ten years or more and involved much discussion
both on the part of the Common Council and the County
Board. At the time it was proposed, in 1924, the first
causeway was simply not adequate to meet the ever-
increasing demands of the traffic that was spawned by a
growing city. It was still narr ,w and riddled with
holes
and generally unacceptable as a very important transpor-
tation link between the north and south sections of the
city.
The second causeway generated a great deal of
opposition
from all sectors of the city when first proposed because
of the cost of the fill and bridging of the La Crosse
River and Northwestern Railroad tracks. The main theme
of the opposition was that the olu 2r existing causeway
was sufficient to accommodate the traffic needs and
could
be made better by improving the pavement and construct-
ing a new bridge over the river. The subject of a
second causeway stayed embroiled in controversy, follow-
ed by a ten-year period of inactivity.
In the meantime, the La Crosse Rubber Mills, which is
located on what was proposed to be the north terminus of
the controversial second causeway--St. Andrew Street--
enlarged its plant facilities and its work force. Many
of
their workers were southsiders commuting to work across
10
the old causeway. This imposed an added traffic
strain
on the route to the plant and home again, as well as the
time-consuming and car-destructing aspect of the trip
itself over the deteriorated and antiquated connecting
facility.
In August of 1929, the mayor announced that the
second
causeway would be part of the improvement program for
the following year, 1930. However, the issue again
became bogged down in controversies as to what exact
route the new causeway would follow. Several locations
and termini were proposed, the original concept being
between West Avenue extended and St. Andrew Street.
Other suggested locations were: the old right-of-way of
the Green Bay and Western's railroad line that had been
abandoned, one that would proceed northwesterly from
Myrick Park, one from 12th Street north to St. Andrew
Street, one from the north end of West Avenue to St.
Cloud Street, and still another along the east side of
the
Northwestern Railroad tracks terminating with St. Andrew
Street on the north end near the Rubber Mills plant.
In January, 1930, the City Plan Commission
recommended
to the Council that the second causeway be built between
West Avenue and St. Andrew Street in direct line with
George Street. It further recommended the acquisition of
the necessary land and buildings, one of which was a
brewery, for right-of-way purposes, either by outright
purchase or through condemnation procedure. The brew-
ing company's demand for compensation was deemed to be
too high, and again the project returned to a state of
dormancy until several months later when the Council
authorized the Board of Public Works to obtain bids for
the construction of a trestle bridge over the La Crosse
River and for constructing the necessary fill up to that
point.
Bids were received and approved, payment for which
was
to be made from funds set aside earlier for the project
by
La Crosse County, the project having first been proposed
as a county project. However, the project still did not
get underway as the controversy over location of the
proposed facility continued. At one point, it was about
to be submitted to a referendum in the spring election,
but this was deferred. As the year 1931 started, the
proposed project was still awaiting positive action, and
again the County Board, into whose lap the project had
been thrown by the City Council, battied over the
issues.
Several years had gone by since the proposal of a second
causeway had first been made, and no positive action had
been taken.
By this time, La Crosse, as well as the rest of the
na-
tion, was suffering the effects of the deepening depres-
sion, and the ranks of the unemployed were becoming
11
greater every day. With this in mind, one of the
alder-
men on the City Council introduced a resolution whereby
the city and county would be authorized to proceed with
the construction of the proposed project without a
formal
contract of any kind, making use of the many unemployed
men in the area and, in effect, solving the problem of
getting the causeway built and providing income, if only
temporary, to the unemployed of the city. This resolu-
tion was approved, authorizing the construction of the
fill
with county and city supervision of the fill with the
labor
force made up of local unemployed men, while the con-
struction of the trestle bridge was let to private
contract.
The site finally connected 12th Street to St. Andrew
Street. (Later, in 1958-59, the south connection was
modified to align with West Avenue, its present
terminus.)
The second causeway--Lang Drive--was completed in
1932
at a total cost of $50,000 after many years of heated
controversy and indecisiveness. Since then, it has
served the useful purpose for which it was intended--
reducing the traffic load of the old causeway...
Over the ensuing years, the City of La Crosse--while
enjoying what is perhaps an unexcelled environmental
setting--has been strained to the limits of its ability
to
provide the amount of land that is necessary to the
sustenance of economic and social growth. Because of
this, the Myrick Marsh has been proposed for various
developmental projects 3for many years by many different
people and interests...
The next documented marsh improvement program of
significance
evolved in 1938. The project was spearheaded by Dr.
Frank
Hoeschler and included approximately 680 acres of
marshland in the
La Crosse River Marsh. Hoeschler's plan was to cover
a majority of
the acreage with earthen fill to raise the land
surface seven or
eight feet. He also felt the La Crosse River should
be relocated to
reduce the possibility of flooding in the reclaimed
area. The work
would have required five and one-half million cubic
yards of
dredged fill, at a cost of ten cents a cubic yard.
The completed
Wisconsin Department of Transportation, pp. 16-22.
12
project would have had two lakes, 1,777 residential
and industrial
lots, curbs, paving, parks, sewers, water mains, and
bridges.
Total cost was estimated at $1,299,230. The plan was
not imple-
mented when the people of La Crosse rejected the
proposal in two
referendum elections held that year.
Eight years later, the City of La Crosse hired an
engineering firm
to try to determine the practicability of filling the
marshland area.
The Chicago firm of Alvord, Burdick, and Howson,
studied the
marsh for several months. In 1946 they presented La
Crosse city
officials with two development plans for the marsh
area. The plans
called for extensive improvement of the La Crosse
River channel.
The consultant's suggestion was to widen the La
Crosse River
channel, fill the land, and carry flood water to the
Black River in
a newly-created diversion channel. The plan called
for the con-
struction of bridges and the development of the
filled land into
residential and commercial sites. When the plans were
presented to
the La Crosse city common council, they were
rejected. 4
A year later, Max Bemel revived the idea of marsh
area develop-
ment. He initiated the filling process himself in the
areas on each
side of Copeland Avenue and completed his work in the
fall of 1947.
The results of his work are visible today. Filling
stations, lumber
yards, and supermarkets now exist in the causeway
area [busi-
nesses have changed], which originally started with
Bemel's pro-
ject.5
La Crosse Tribune, January 8, 1978.
River Studies Center Newsletter, Vol. 5, No. 4, page
3.
13
Another public plan met rejection as city fathers
voted down a
Wisconsin Planning Commission proposal for
development in 1950.
The plan would have dredged the La Crosse River
valley creating
lagoons for recreation while using the filled land
for development.
In 1958, the La Crosse city engineer proposed a
development plan
that was comprehensive in scope. In addition to
providing for an
enlargement of the City's trans-marsh street and
highway facilities,
it would have created 181 building lots that would
have covered
slightly over thirty-three acres of the project's
grand total of
forty-seven acres. The other fourteen acres would
have been
devoted to streets, playgrounds, and a small area for
a sewage lift
station to serve this subdivision. Land fill material
would have
been obtained by dredging a lake in the north half of
the area
bounded by Red Cloud Park, Lang Drive, Gorder Road,
and East
Avenue extended across the marsh. It provided for
another lake
on the east side of extended East Avenue; both lakes
would have
been enlargements of the La Crosse River.6
Reconstruction of Lang Drive across the marsh to a
connection with
George Street, and an ultimate further connection
with U.S.H. 53
just south of the then-being-planned Interstate-90
and U.S.H. 53
interchange, was also proposed. In 1962, this
facility was further
enhanced by connecting Lang Drive with George Street
(Lang
Drive-George Street extension). While this road
provides a direct
14
6 La Crosse Tribune, April 20, 1958.
_
and continuous route from the south side of the city
to the north
side and beyond, it bears three names: West Avenue,
Lang Drive,
and George Street. This route is also designated at
S.T.H 35, the
highway that is known nationally as "The Great River
Road".
In addition to the two causeways and the East Avenue
extension, a
fourth connection between the north and south sides
was proposed
in the city engineer's 1958 plan. It called for the
extension of
Seventh Street from La Crosse Street, across the
marsh east of the
Copeland Avenue Causeway, to a connection with
Monitor Street. A
short distance after leaving La Crosse Street, a
proposed "North-
east Expressway" would have curved eastward across
the marsh to
what is now Gorder Road and ultimately to a
connection with U.S.
Highway 16.
Due to economic considerations that were to a great
extent the
result of a general recession in the national
economy, the overall
proposal was reduced to building Only the Lang Drive
- George
Street extension.
Concerned with flood hazards and with increasing
traffic problems,
the community again considered a plan "s r developing
the marsh in
1965. Advanced by the Army Corps of Engineers and the
Wisconsin
Division of Highways, the plan also suggested
relocating the river
channel and filling the wetlands to make industrial
and residential
areas. The land use plan presented at that time has
since been
studied, revised, advocated, and disputed, but has
been neither
implemented nor rejected completely.
15
In 1970 community leaders decided upon a joint
planning effort for
all land use and transportation planning until 1995.
A La Crosse
Area Planning Committee was formed and was composed
of super-
visors from the four adjoining towns, the mayors of
La Crosse and
Onalaska, and the chairman of the County Board, with
the mayor of
La Crescent serving as a non-voting member.
16
2. History of the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse
PURPOSE, MISSION, AND PROGRAMS
The Wisconsin Statutes, Chapters 36.01 and 36.02,
outline the
statement of purpose and mission of the University of
Wisconsin
System. Among the statements of purpose are these:
"The legislature finds it in the public interest to
provide
a system of higher education which . . . fosters
diversity
of educational opportunity; which promotes service to
the
public; which makes efficient use of human and physical
resources."
It is efficient to have the various universities
through the state
emphasize different academic disciplines. In this
way, one institu-
tion can develop programs for particular academic
pursuits while
another uses its resources for a different emphasis.
Prospective
students can then decide which university to attend
depending upon
their choice of study and vocation.
The University of Wisconsin-La Crosse fulfills a
unique educational
opportunity among the thirteen universities within
the system by
placing an emphasis upon the programs of its School
of Health,
Physical Education and Recreation (HPF?). Its
physical education
program is the largest in the UW-System. This
emphasis represents
a special service to the public which becomes a
reality through
those who graduate from this institution and go on to
meaningful
employment in their chosen professions.
17
The approved mission statement for the University of
Wisconsin-
La Crosse states:
The primary mission of the University of Wisconsin-
La Crosse is teacher education at the undergraduate
level. This mission includes a broad program in the
liberal arts and sciences at the undergraduate level as
well as a special thrust in physical education and
recrea-
tion. At the graduate level, La Crosse has a mission-
related strength in physical education and recreation.
A university mission which includes a special thrust
in physical
education and recreation assumes a need for extensive
outdoor
facilities by the nature of the large movement
activities inherent in
the program.
The University of Wisconsin-La Crosse has acquired
and maintained
a national reputation in physical education over the
years. This
reputation, plus a fine staff, attracts a large
number of students
who desire to prepare themselves for a career in
physical educa-
tion. There are presently 1,848 students enrolled in
the School of
Health, Physical Education and Recreation. This
represents rough-
ly one-fourth of the total university enrollment.
Physical education
has by far the greatest enrollment of any major
offered at the
University of Wisconsin-La Crosse (1,109 majors).
UW-La Crosse
has the fifth largest physical education program in
the United
States and the largest in the UW-System.
The strong reputation enjoyed by the La Crosse
programs in recrea-
tion and physical education in the professional arena
defies enroll-
ment comparisons with most other campus disciplines.
Students are
attracted to these programs from thirty-six states.
They should
18
continue to draw students from throughout the country
because of
the outstanding faculty and recent program additions.
Programs in
marks administration, therapeutic recreation,
athletic training, and
Master of Science degrees in recreation and adult
fitness-cardiac
rehabilitaton have been added to the curriculum or
will be imple-
mented by the fall semester of 1978.
INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
The political and business leaders of the La Crosse
community had
discussed the establishment of a normal school at La
Crosse as early
as 1857. In 1892, in 1893, and again in 1894, the
legislature and
the board of normal school regents were strongly
urged to authorize
such a school. In 1905, a bill introduced by State
Senator Thomas
Morris passed the legislature and directed the board
of regents to
locate a state normal school in the City of La
Crosse. An appro-
priation of $10,000 provided for the purchase and
improvement of a
site.7
The La Crosse city council, following the pattern of
other munici-
palities, contributed an additional $15,000 to
purchase the necessary
land which included two city blocks. This
appropriation was not
made without opposition. Opponents threatened to
obtain an
injunction to stop it; and newspaper items admonished
citizens to
Journal of Proceedings of the Forty-Seventh Sessions
of Wisconsin Legis-
lature, Volune I, 1905 (Madison, 1905), page 127.
19
"watch your alderman!" There was continuing
opposition to the
proposal from business schools operating in the city.
But this time
the supporters of the school had planned carefully
and they ob-
tained a sandy tract emcompassing two blocks in the
southeast part
of the city.
On a portion of this sandy land the "Old Main"
building was erected
in 1908 and, for the first eleven years of the
school's history, it
housed all indoor educational activities. Three
stories high and
about two hundred feet square, the red brick building
stood nearly
alone on the sand flats in the southeastern part of
the city. It was
incomplete but usable when the first students entered
on September
7, 1909. Old Main contained all classrooms, gymnasia,
the "training"
school, offices for both faculty and administration,
kitchen and
lunchroom, heating plant, and library. The first
faculty and
student body then set out to beautify the grounds by
landscaping
and planting them.8
In the minds of the community which now took great
pride in its
normal school this building was long overdue. Its
construction was
a tribute to the persistence of prominent city
leaders and the
political acumen of Thomas Morris. Early in 1905, the
directors of
the Board of Trade and the Board's special normal
school committee
met with Morris to arrange lobbying for the bill the
Senator had
8 George R. Gilkey, "La Crosse, a Half-Century of
Higher Education in Wis-
consin's Coulee Region," History of the Wisconsin State
Universities.
20
presented. Assemblyman J.J. Durland assured the Board
of his
support of the bill and promised to aid the city
council's normal
school committee at its appearance before the
legislature. Ulti-
mately, the community designated three groups to
plead its case:
the school committees of the Board of Trade and city
council and
the delegates of the Manufacturers' and Jobbers'
Union. The
Chamber of Commerce, which became the successor of
the Board of
Trade in 1916, further interested itself in the
school by seeking
9
ways to encourage additional students to come to La
Crosse.
The drive for the school was patently economic in
nature, but there
were other concerns as well. John E. McConnell spoke
of the lack
of adequate teaching for the 80,000 children in areas
adjacent to La
Crosse. Others, such as former Platteville President
Albert Hardy,
proclaimed the value of the proposed school to
Wisconsin's total
educational system. Mayor Torrance praised La Crosse
as the
"second city in the state," and emphasized the urgent
need for a
school. Support also came from Jackson, Trempealeau,
and Juneau
county assemblymen together with aid from Superior's
representa-
tives who had won a similar battle a decade earlier.
As the bill for
the school passed through legislative channels, the
protagonists fol-
lowed its step-by-step progress. In a fit of
journalistic pique, a
special correspondent for the La Crosse Tribune
despaired of suc-
cess. Under bold headlines reading "No New Normal
School To Be
Provided This Year," he expressed the fear that the
needs of the
9 La Crosse Tribune February 9, 11, & 17, 1905.
21
Milwaukee and Platteville normal schools and of the
University pre-
sented new obstacles to the La Crosse proposal. But
this time
proponents of the school had laid the ground-work
carefully; and
10
the victory was duly noted in an exuberant press.
In 1927 the normal school received authority to grant
baccalaureate
degrees in education and was named a State Teachers
College. With
the addition of liberal arts programs in 1950 it
became a Wisconsin
State College; in 1964 it was named Wisconsin State
College -
La Crosse; and in 1971 it became the University of
Wisconsin -
La Crosse.
Physical culture, athletics, and physical education
have always been
associated with La Crosse. The earliest European
visitors to prairie
la crosse found local Indians playing a ball game
with sticks shaped
like the crosiers carried by French bishops and
abbots; hence, the
name: La Crosse. Physical training, and later
athletics, also
played a major role in the lives of the normal school
students. At
first physical training, like speech, was not a
regular part of the
curriculum. However, from opening day until the time
it became a
definite and required part of the curriculum, some
form of calis-
thenics was required of every student.11
10 La Crosse Tribune March 22, 23, 24, & 28, 1905.
11 William Harold Herrmann, The Rise of the Public
Normal School System in
Wisconsin (Madison: The Board of Regents of State
Universities, 1971),
page 388.
22
Fassett A. Cotton was appointed the first principal
(president) of
the La Crosse State Normal School in February, 1909,
and formally
assumed the duties on March 10, 1909. Writing and
speaking often
on the subject of education, Cotton was an intense,
vigorous, and
dedicated person. He stressed that education must be
fer all the
people in a democracy and should educate the whole
person. The
traditional approach to education had been to train
some of the
people partly. In his opinion this was not education
for democracy
where every person should be developed both
physically and men-
tally. Writing "Complete Education for the Masses,"
he said:
There never was a time when the demand was so strong
for the education and training of the entire individual
as
it is today. There is no less demand for culture and
scholarship in the broadest meaning of the terms, but
there is more demand for education that will meet the
practical needs of life . . . It is not a demand for
direct
teaching of trades so much as it is 12call for the
utiliza-
tion of common everyday experience."
Cotton's concept of physical education became the
philosophy of the
program established at La Crosse as its special field
in the training
of teachers. He viewed physical education not as
athletic competi-
tion but as individual development. He further
stated:
. . a distinction should be drawn between physical
education and athletics. Athletics have assumed a place
in the school world that is simply out of all proportion
to
their merits . . . Every high school should be equipped
with a good gymnasium, and the boys and girls should
have constant systematic training in physical education.
This training should be supplemented with play. Games
that will bring into play the entire student body should
be encouraged. Interclass games can be healthful and
helpful sports and cat3 be kept subordinate to the real
purpose of school life.
12 Mary W. Wayman, The Work and Influence of Fassett
Allen Cotton in Education
(unpublished Master's Thesis, Ball State Teachers
College, Muncie, Indiana,
1945), page 23.
13 Wayman, page 27.
23
To meet the demand for physical education teachers,
the normal
board established a school of physical education in
the state normal
school at La Crosse. The regents authorized the
resident regent
and the president of La Crosse Normal to introduce
two- and three-
year courses open to high school graduates and a
one-year course
open only to college graduates.14 This special
department opened
September 2, 1913 with an enrollment of six men and
four women.
Three of these students graduated from the two-year
course and
received good positions. The remaining seven returned
to school
and were graduated from the three-year course in
June, 1916. All
accepted positions as directors of physical education
in high
schools, normal schools, and colleges. Later, as the
school became
better known, enrollment increased rapidly.15
The physical education curriculum grew very rapidly
over the years
until it became virtually synonymous with the school
itself. In
1926, a comprehensive resolution relating to
four-year courses was
adopted by the board of regents of n<ormal schools:
Resolved, that for the purpose of putting into effect
Sections 37.11(5) of the statutes the following
provisions
are hereby established:
II. Four-year courses leading to the degree of
bachelor
of education in special departments are hereby
authorized
and approved at state normal schools as follows,
effective
September 1, 1926:
(a) In Art and Music at Milwaukee
(b) In Agriculture at Platteville and River Falls
(c) In Industrial Education at Platteville
(d) In Industrial and Vocational Education at Oshkosh
(e) In Home Economics at Stevens Point
(f) In Physical Education at La Crosse
(g) In Rural Education at Stevens Point
(h) In Education of Exceptional Children at Oshkosh
14 Board of Regents of Normal Schools, Proceedings,
July 15-18, 1913, 15.
15 La Crosse State Normal School, School of Physical
Education, 1919-1920, 11.
24
III. Four-Year courses leading to the degree of
bachelor
of education in secondary education are hereby
authorizecl6
in all state normal schools, effective September 1,
1927...
A joint physical education major and recreation minor
was establish-
ed in 1945; and a minor in health education was first
offered in
1952. This instructional area, presently designated
the School of
Health, Physical Education and Recreation, has taken
pride in its
philosophy which emphasizes the training of the
individual in theory
and in skills and which reflects the ancient Greek
ideal of the
healthy mind in the healthy body. In this philosophy,
team sports
have generally been regarded as an adjunct or branch
of physical
education. Coaches have been appointed as instructors
first with
coaching being regarded as a part of their teaching
load. The
school is proud of its more than 3,500 graduates who
have held
positions as directors of physical education
programs, instructors,
and coaches throughout the United States. Over forty
graduates
from this program have obtained doctorates and the La
Crosse
masters program in physical education has granted 120
degrees.
The program demands theoretical knowledge and
practical compe-
tence in all activities in which future teachers may
have to offer
instruction. Through the history of the La Crosse
school, collea-
gues in physical education from other institutions
have regarded
17
this instructional pattern as having few peers.
16 Board of Regents of Normal Schools, Proceedings,
July 20-21, 1926.
Gilkey, pp. 275-288.
25
ACADEMIC NEEDS
During President Cotton's administration the campus
and the physi-
cal plant of the Normal School were expanded.
Following designa-
tion of La Crosse as the special school for training
teachers of
physical education, options and land purchases
prepared the way
for the erection of a building for that purpose. The
building itself
was first authorized in 1914 but not completed until
1920. Funds
were also allotted for developing an athletic field
on fairgrounds
property which was close by. Opposition in the
legislature to the
expenditure of $45,000 for the physical education
building almost
prevented its erection. Assemblymen W.C. Bradley of
Hudson, Carl
Pieper of Dunn County, and Henry Freehoff of La
Crosse sought to
stop the appropriation. Pieper denounced the proposal
as "non-
sense" and added ". . . that there never was a
greater curse
inflicted on the people of Wisconsin than the
teaching of physical
training." Ultimately the proposal was saved through
the work of
Regent William F. Wolfe, Assemblymen E.J. Kneen and
Carl
Kurtenacher, and Senator Otto Bosshard, while the
local press
satirized Pieper as "David from Dunn" out to destroy
that Goliath
"physical culture."19
Despite its tenuous beginnings, the University of
Wisconsin-
La Crosse has since become one of the largest
physical education
Gilkey, pp. 280 & 281.
19 La Crosse Tribune, March 11, 1915.
26
schools in the nation. It has acquired this stature
in spite of
having only one outdoor physical education field. The
University
has shared city-owned athletic facilities with the
local schools and
with the City Department of Recreation and Parks for
many years.
This situation creates inevitable conflicts in
scheduling, improve-
ments, maintenance, and funding and helps to clarify
the Univer-
sity's long-standing need to acquire additional land
for physical
education fields.
Only five and one-half acres of the city facilities
are presently
available to the University for outdoor classroom
space. This area
is maintained by the University which has regular use
of it during
the school year but it is inadequate to support the
large physical
education programs in existence. Heavy field use also
makes it
impossible to maintain adequate grass coverage.
During the 1976-77
school year, six major soccer injuries were directly
attributed to
the limited, unofficial size field space allotted for
this activity The
track and field facility, which is owned by the city
and available to
the University for official competition with other
colleges and univer-
sities, could not be used during the 1976-77 academic
year because
of its deteriorated condition. Other teams in the
Wisconsin State
University Conference refused to use the facility for
track meets.
Dr. Glenn Smith, dean of the School of Health,
Physical Education
and Recreation, has identified eight factors related
to the existing
outdoor areas which are handicaps to a good physical
education
program:
27
I. SIZE
The areas assigned to the various outdoor activities
are not regulation size required by the rules of the
activity. It has been necessary to narrow and to
shorten the available field areas in archery, field
hockey, soccer, football, etc., in order to offer the
variety of activities necessary for a balanced pro-
gram. As a result, certain skills and strategies are
lost because of the lack of opportunity to participate
on a regulation size field that allows for optimum
teamplay.
2. SAFETY
For safety reasons, the type of instruction has had
to be modified from a predominantly activity-oriented
program to more of a classroom-lecture program.
This is in direct opposition to the philosophy which
guided the college to its national prominence.
We have also had recent letters from doctors in the
Student Health Center and from instructors in the
Physical Therapy Department suggesting that the
outdoor areas overlap and are inadequate for the
activities to be conducted in a safe manner. There
have been numerous accidents and near misses
resulting from baseballs, javelins, and discus being
batted or thrown into areas occupied by participants
in other activities.
3. MARKINGS
Because of the multiple use of the present outdoor
areas, class instruction is hampered by the inability
to line the fields properly for various activities. If
all the sports were allowed to have the proper mark-
ings, no one field would be distinguishable from the
others. The overlapping lines would make the area
confusing.
4. TIME LOSS
Multiple use of the area also leads to the loss of
valuable class time which is presently used to move
equipment on and off the field; e.g., at the begin-
ning and end of each soccer and hockey class,
cumbersome goals must be moved to prepare the area
for another activity.
5. PROGRAM CURTAILMENT
It has been necessary to curtail and/or eliminate
certain desired activities from the program because
of a lack of space; e.g., golf, archery. The
28
women's intercollegiate softball team was recently
dropped from the program for this reason.
The intramural program controls the number of
sports offered, the number of teams, the number of
games played per season, and the length of each
game. In every case, the number controls are
necessary because of space limitations and this, in
turn, limits the quality of the present programs.
With the advent of the Club Sport movement and
Title IX, new activities and teams are putting a
further squeeze on an already difficult situation.
The Marching Chiefs, UW-La Crosse's band, are also
seeking a space for practice. Because of the short-
age of field space in the entire City of La Crosse,
community requests (i.e. YMCA, local high schools,
industry) for use of the few areas available must be
denied.
6. GROWING ENROLLMENTS
The enrollment at the University of Wisconsin-
La Crosse increased approximately 10% during the
1977-78 academic year. Additional students have
been added to existing classes because there is no
space for additional class sections of P.E. 100.
7. EXPANSION NEEDS
Due to the lack of available outdoor teaching sta-
tions, we have been unable to implement programs
properly with the expansion of the physical educa-
tion curriculum to include an emphasis in elementary
and handicapped specialties.
8. MAINTENANCE
Even with a conscientious effort at continuous main-
tenance, it is impossible to retain a safe playing
surface on the fields. Most of the time, the area is
either slippery or dusty, bumpy and irregular.
Because of the extensive use given such a small
area, it is impossible to maintain the grassy areas
and requests for constant resodding are needed.
The School of Health, Physical Education and
Recreation had 2,154
majors enrolled in the fall semester of the 1977-78
academic year.
This is a record enrollment and one of the largest,
if not the
largest, in the United States. Qualitatively
speaking, this increase
has occurred in spite of increased standards directed
towards
controlling the continuing growth in the disciplines.
29
One confirmation of a high quality product is the
placement of gra-
duates. The 1976-77 job placement report shows that,
in spite of a
tight market, 82.6%, or 119 of 144, of the graduates
in physical
education obtained positions. Recreation graduates
were placed in
ninety positions out of the 117 seeking employment
for a total of
76.9%. These results are far above any comparable
figures
available.
The enrollment projections for UW-La Crosse are
estimated to de-
cline to 6,400 in the early 1990's and begin
increasing thereafter.
The percentage of student majors in the School | 
