DNR Received More Than 1,000 Comments On State Park

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has released a summary of the vast public input received regarding the future of Blue Mound State Park. Taking feedback online, in person, in writing and on the phone over the past two years, the DNR received 1,073 comments about the park. The majority of these were received through the online public input form. Approximately 400 individual sticky note comments were also received from the public meeting activity. The comments from the sticky notes are incorporated into this summary document with the rest of the comments received. 

Not surprisingly given how strongly people on all sides feel about the issue, snowmobiling received the most voluminous feedback. 

According to the DNR, many comments were related to snowmobile access to Blue Mound State Park in general and not related to a specific alternative. 

Comments in support of snowmobile access to Blue Mound State Park (BMSP) “often cited economic benefits to communities, enjoyment of snowmobiling as a recreational activity and support for snowmobile access to public lands in general.”

Comments against snowmobiling in BMSP “frequently expressed concerns about exposure to snowmobile sounds and fumes, safety concerns and their view that BMSP is a park that should be dedicated to nonmotorized activities. Others discussed environmental concerns, including invasive species spread and habitat loss.”

Those that selected Alternative 1 as their preferred alternative noted that it removed snowmobiles from the unpaved portions of the roadway while keeping them near the existing road corridor. Some commenters that preferred Alternative 1 also noted that this alternative was close to the status quo while offering an improved snowmobiling experience. 

Those supporting Alternative 2: (Service Road Trail) often noted that the trail in this alternative does not intersect with cross-country ski trails. Comments in support of Alternative 2 frequently discussed the existing infrastructure the trail would be sited on and the limited cost and construction needed to open this trail to snowmobile use. Many commenters that preferred Alternative 2 noted their view that this trail is a safe alternative. Others commented that Alternative 2 is near the location of the snowmobile trail that operated until the 1990s and that it would be a scenic trail. 

Those that chose Alternative 3: West and North Slope Trail as their preferred alternative often discussed this alternative as a solution that may work for both snowmobilers and those who prefer to not have snowmobiling present in BMSP. Other comments supporting Alternative 3 noted its limited impact on other park activities and as a solution to the snowmobile sound and trail crossing concerns noted by some commenters.

Commenters that selected Alternative 4: (Status Quo) as their preferred alternative frequently noted that the status quo currently makes the desired connection between the Military Ridge State Trail and the county trail system north of the park. These commenters often noted that because this connection exists, they did not feel additional snowmobile facilities were necessary or they expressed concern with additional snowmobile activity in the park. Others commented in support of Alternative 4 because they felt resources may be better allocated to other projects. Environmental concerns with additional snowmobile facility development were also often cited by those that preferred Alternative 4.  

Perhaps the biggest change being considered is a major expansion of the park’s project boundary. The project boundary does not always exactly match a park’s borders, but the proposed expansion could increase uses and the park’s footprint. Comments in favor of Alternative 1: Project Boundary Expansion frequently cited appreciation for public land access, especially in southern Wisconsin and near the Madison metro-area. Comments in favor of Alternative 1 also discussed the potential for increased recreational opportunity and increased resource protection in positive terms. Additional opportunity to buffer the existing park from development was also stated as a reason for supporting Alternative 1. Commenters expressed appreciation for Alternative 1’s potential to expand the connection between BMSP and Brigham County Park. 

Those comments in favor of Alternative 2: (Status Quo) discussed the current park as adequate or thought the resources needed to expand the park may be better allocated elsewhere. 

The public also weighed in on camping, skiing, mountain biking and more. 

Those who chose Camping Alternative 1: (Expanded Camping) as their preferred option frequently cited the increased opportunity offered by the alternative as a reason for their selection. Maintaining adequate spacing between sites, ensuring adequate support facilities and adding electrical receptacles were mentioned as considerations for campground expansion. Some commenters that selected Alternative 1 suggested they supported only expanding certain types of camping. Several commenters requested additional camping types, such as dispersed camp sites, be included in Alternative 1. 

Commenters that preferred Alternative 2: Status Quo often stated that the park was too small to accommodate additional camping opportunities. Others preferred the smaller campground experience and expressed concern that additional campsites would lead to overcrowding. 

Respondents that preferred Cross-Country Skiing Alternative 1: (Controlled Mounds Park Road Crossing) often cited the increased convenience of only removing their skis once, and the increased safety of crossing Mounds Park road at one controlled intersection, as their reason for preferring the alternative.  

Those that preferred Alternative 2: (Status Quo) frequently discussed their appreciation for the trails in their current alignment. Other comments in favor of Alternative 2 discussed concerns with snow quality and two-way skiing on the potential Alternative 1 trail, as well as safety concerns with crossing Mounds Park Road at the controlled intersection. 

Comments on cross-country skiing at BMSP in general expressed appreciation for the trails and frequently mentioned BMSP as one of the top skiing destinations in Southern Wisconsin. Several commenters also requested cross-country ski trails be included in future park expansion areas.     

The mountain biking alternatives received the second-most comments of any topic.  Increased mountain biking opportunity through better water management and a trail system that fits a full spectrum of skill levels were common reasons for supporting Alternative 1: (Trail Network Redesign). Commenters expressed dissatisfaction with the number of days the current trail system is closed due to water management (soil displacement or poor drainage) issues. Commenters on Alternative 1 also often mentioned the potential to connect to Brigham County Park and to limit environmental impacts, such as erosion, as positive attributes of the alternative. Commenters also requested that the total mileage of mountain bike trails not be reduced at the park.

Those that selected Alternative 2: Status Quo as their preferred alternative often cited environmental concerns, such as erosion, with mountain biking trails and appreciation for the current trail system as reasons for selecting the alternative.   

Comments on other recreation topics included slow speed four-wheel drive trails, hunting, trapping, snowshoeing, fat-tire (winter) biking, and appreciation for the observation towers. Several people commented positively on the potential Driftless Trail connection.  Natural resources management was discussed. 

Comments in support of Forest Zone Alternative 1: (Large Hardwoods Management) frequently focused on BMSP’s forest setting and a desire to see little timber management. Several commenters discussed other efforts to manage oaks in the region and suggested that BMSP should be a setting where Central Hardwoods succeed the oak forest. The limited potential impact to recreational activities under this alternative was discussed in some comments. 

Comments in support of Forest Zone Alternative 2: (Large Hardwoods Management) with Oak Component often cited oak forests as the historic or iconic cover type in the BMSP region and supported efforts to regenerate oaks. Other comments supporting Alternative 2 focused on the wildlife and habitat benefits oak forests provide. 

Comments on the oak woodland and prairie zone were limited. Those that favored the management described for this zone cited ecological benefits and discussed historic cover. Those with concerns about the management discussed maintaining the wooded nature of BMSP and potential disruptions to recreational activity. 

Few comments on the Day Use and Camping Zone were received. 

In June 2018, the Wisconsin Natural Resources Board (NRB) approved the Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) recommendation to develop a plan revision to the Blue Mound State Park (BMSP) master plan. Initial public involvement occurred in Spring 2019. In Fall 2019, the public had the opportunity to comment on management alternatives for the Blue Mound State Park Master Plan. The management alternatives input period was an additional public involvement step the department offered to gain information for the planning team as it forms the draft master plan.  

The number of public comments received and attendees at the public meeting demonstrated continuing public interest in this planning process. DNR is committed to an open, transparent planning process that follows the process described in chapter NR 44, Wis. Adm. Code. The planning team will continue to develop the draft master plan while considering public input, staff expertise and background information summarized in this and other documents posted to the Blue Mound State Park Master Plan website.  Additional formal public input processes will take place at key milestones during the planning process.

A press release regarding the management alternatives public involvement opportunity issued statewide as part of the DNR Weekly News packet on November 5, 2019. The press release was forwarded to the 1,899 people on the Blue Mound State Park Master Plan and the Statewide Master Planning GovD distribution lists.  The press release was also forwarded to organizations DNR identified as potentially having an interest in this planning process, local and county governments and legislative and Wisconsin Conservation Congress contacts.  A display describing the management alternatives and the input process was set up in the Friends Shelter at BMSP.  The public had the opportunity to comment on and review the management alternatives through a multitude of online and in person forms and meetings, including three in Mount Horeb, the most recent of which took place November 19 at Mount Horeb High School and drew 130 people.