31

Alternatives, Including 

the Preferred Alternative

T

h i s c h a p t e r b e g i n s by explaining how the range 

of alternatives was formulated, how the environmentally 

preferred alternative was identified, how the preferred 

alternative was determined, the role that boundary assessment 

played in the planning process, and how user-capacity 

standards and indicators were developed. Most of this chapter 

is dedicated to describing the management areas and the 

alternative futures for the Ice Age Complex. This chapter 

concludes with tables that summarize the key differences 

between the alternatives and the environmental impacts that 

could result from implementing any of the alternatives. 

Chapter Two

Formulation of the Alternatives

Many aspects of the desired 

future condition of the Ice Age 

Complex are defined in the 

laws establishing the Ice Age 

National Scientific Reserve 

and the Ice Age National 

Scenic Trail, as well as in the 

foundation statement for the 

complex described earlier 

in chapter 1. Within these 

parameters, the National Park 

Service and the Wisconsin 

Department of Natural 

Resources solicited input from 

the public regarding issues 

and desired conditions 

for the complex. 

Taking public input into 

account, the planning 

team developed a set of 

five management areas and 

four preliminary alternative 

futures for the complex. A 

fifth alternative, the preferred 

alternative, was later developed 

after a detailed value analysis 

was completed. The analysis 

considered public feedback 

on the four preliminary 

alternatives, as well as specific 

costs and benefits. 

Fresh glacial 

trout stream.

FINAL GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
32 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

This general management plan / environmental 

impact statement provides a framework 

within which managers of the Ice Age 

Complex would make decisions to guide the 

management of the complex for the next 15 

to 20 years. It is important to allow flexibility 

for necessary future management actions, 

so the alternatives in this plan focus on what

resource conditions would be provided and 

what visitor experiences would be offered, 

not on how these conditions and experiences 

would be achieved. There is more than one 

way to manage park resources, address 

planning issues, achieve the purpose, maintain 

significance, and preserve the fundamental 

resources and values. Mindful of the need for 

flexibility, this planning process considered 

a range of alternatives, beginning with a “noaction” alternative under which the current 

management of the complex would continue 

as is. The no-action alternative is followed by 

a range of potential management alternatives 

called “action” alternatives. 

The action alternatives indicate how site 

management would change in different ways 

by applying management areas (descriptions 

of distinct sets of resource conditions and 

visitor experiences) to maps of the complex 

to define management intent for resource 

conditions and visitor experiences for each 

location. The application and configuration 

of the management areas vary by alternative, 

depending on the intent of the alternative 

concept. It may help to think of the 

management areas as the colors an artist will 

use to paint a picture. The alternatives in this 

document are the different pictures that could 

be painted with the colors (management areas) 

available. Each of the alternatives has an 

overall management concept and a description 

of how different areas of the site could be 

managed (management areas and related 

actions). The concept for each alternative gives 

the artist (or in this case, the planning team) 

the idea for what the picture (alternative) is 

going to look like.

Identification of the 

Preferred Alternative 

and Environmentally 

Preferred Alternative

The CEQ regulations for implementing the 

National Environmental Protection Act require 

that a preferred alternative be identified 

in an environmental impact statement. 

These same regulations also require that an 

environmentally preferred alternative be 

identified, which is often, but not always, 

the same as the preferred alternative. The 

environmentally preferred alternative is 

decided by applying the six criteria described 

in the section titled “Environmentally 

Preferred Alternative” toward the end of this 

chapter. The preferred alternative is decided 

through a value analysis process called 

“Choosing by Advantages” (CBA). The CBA 

process is a tool for determining the specific 

advantages each alternative would provide 

toward meeting specific park objectives, and 

the advantages represent the benefits that 

would be gained under each alternative. The 

advantages for each alternative are compared 

to the expected costs of each alternative 

to determine the cost-benefit ratio of each 

alternative. The alternative that provides 

the most benefit per dollar, with the least 

adverse environmental impacts, is the best 

value alternative and the one that is labeled 

“preferred” in this plan. The application of 

Choosing by Advantages in this planning 

process is described at the end of this chapter 

under the section titled “Preferred Alternative.”

Consideration of 

Boundary Adjustment(s)

The roughly 1,600-acre boundary of the Ice 

Age Complex (refer to figure 1 in chapter 1) 

is the same as the boundary of the Cross 

Plains unit of the Ice Age Reserve (approved 

by the Wisconsin Natural Resources Board 

in 1999). When this unit of the reserve was 
FINAL GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 33

Chapter Two Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative

originally delineated after passage of the 1964 

law establishing the Ice Age Reserve across 

the state, the boundary was much smaller and 

only north of Old Sauk Pass. At that time, the 

small Cross Plains unit of the Ice Age Reserve 

was designated as Cross Plains State Park. 

Since that time, the unit’s boundary has been 

expanded, the Ice Age National Scenic Trail’s 

route in Dane County has been planned, and 

other state property has been acquired next 

to the state park boundary for the Ice Age 

National Scenic Trail. During the process 

to develop this general management plan / 

environmental impact statement, it became 

apparent that the project goals for Ice Age 

National Scenic Trail lands are parallel with 

this project. The plan recommends that all of 

the state-owned land in the current boundary 

of the Cross Plains unit, as well as the State 

Ice Age Trail Areas, be redesignated as Cross 

Plains State Park lands. Similarly, all lands in 

the Cross Plains unit boundary that come into 

WDNR ownership in the future would also be 

designated as part of Cross Plains State Park 

lands. This designation would provide 

a consistent recreational use policy for the 

Ice Age National Scenic Trail as it passes 

through the Ice Age Complex and other 

recreational uses. 

Currently, about one-third of the land within 

the complex’s boundary is publically owned 

and managed; the remainder of the land is 

privately owned. It is the goal of the partners 

in this planning process to have the ability to 

manage all of the lands within this boundary 

by acquiring either the lands or interests in the 

lands (such as easements) through cooperative 

negotiation processes with willing sellers. 

Any acquisition would only be from willing 

sellers with whom the project partners would 

discuss the best mechanism for protection. 

In acquiring interests in real property, both 

the National Park Service and Department of 

Natural Resources are required by state and/or

federal laws to pay “just compensation,” which 

is the estimated market value of a property or 

interest therein based on an appraisal prepared 

by a certified general licensed appraiser. 

As part of the planning process, the National 

Park Service identified and evaluated 

boundary adjustments that might be necessary 

or desirable to carry out park purposes. 

Section 3.5 of NPS Management Policies 2006 

states that the National Park Service may 

recommend potential boundary adjustments 

(for one or more of the following reasons) to 

include and protect significant 

resources and values or to enhance 

opportunities for public enjoyment 

related to park purpose

address operational and 

management issues

protect resources critical to fulfilling 

the park’s purpose

The NPS policies further instruct that any 

recommendations to expand a park unit’s 

boundaries be preceded by a determination 

that (1) the added lands would be feasible to 

administer considering size, configuration, 

ownership, cost, and other factors; and 

(2) other alternatives for management and 

resource protection are not adequate. 

The Department of Natural Resources 

established objectives to identify when 

boundary expansion is needed; those 

objectives are to 

provide additional space for 

future recreational use and possible 

facility development 

provide more easily recognizable 

boundaries and facilitate better public 

use of the public lands 

provide expanded habitat protection 

within the ecological zone in which the 

park is located 
34 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

During the course of the planning process, two 

parcels were identified as potential additions 

to the Ice Age Complex under alternatives 3, 

4, and 5 (identified as parcels A and B in 

figure 3). These parcels meet the WDNR 

criteria. The application of the NPS criteria 

noted above is described in this chapter under 

each of these alternative descriptions. 

User Capacity

“User capacity” is the type and level of use 

that could be accommodated while sustaining 

the quality of a park’s resources and visitor 

opportunities consistent with the park’s 

purposes. The management of user capacity 

involves establishing desired conditions and 

then monitoring, evaluating, and taking actions 

to ensure that the park’s values are protected. 

Any use on public lands comes with some 

level of impact that must be accepted — it 

is the responsibility of a park’s managers to 

decide what level of impact is acceptable and 

what management actions are needed to keep 

impacts within acceptable limits. 

The process to manage user capacity is 

summarized by five major steps; those steps 

are to

establish desired conditions for 

resources and visitor experiences 

(through management areas)

identify indicators (impacts, such as soil 

loss or vegetation damage, to monitor to 

determine whether desired conditions 

are being met)

identify standards (limits of acceptable 

change) for the indicators

monitor indicators to determine if there 

are disturbing trends or if standards are 

being exceeded

take management action to maintain or 

restore desired conditions

The user-capacity standards and indicators 

for the Ice Age Complex that were developed 

as part of this planning process are described 

below in the section titled “Indicators 

and Standards.”

The Proposed Alternatives

The first four alternatives (no action plus 

alternatives 2, 3 and 4) were presented 

to the public in fall 2009 as preliminary 

alternatives. Public feedback on those 

alternatives was taken into 

account in developing 

the preferred alternative 

(alternative 5) in 

winter 2009/2010. 

Alternative 5 was 

also developed after 

analyzing the costs 

and benefits of the 

four preliminary 

alternatives. The 

alternatives that were 

considered but 

dismissed are 

also described 

in this chapter.
FINAL GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 35

Chapter Two Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative

Figure 3: Expanded Boundary Changes and Inclusion of Parcels A and B
36 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Management Areas

As mentioned above, the different ways 

site management would change under the 

action alternatives is shown by applying 

management areas to maps of the complex 

to define the intent for resource conditions 

and visitor experiences for each location. 

While the configuration of the management 

areas varies by alternative, the management 

areas themselves are the same across all 

alternatives. Five management areas were 

identified for this plan. Table 2 describes each 

management area in terms of the desired 

resource condition, the desired visitor 

experience, and appropriate facilities. 

The Alternatives Considered

Five alternatives were considered and fully 

analyzed in this planning process.

Elements Common to All Alternatives. There are 

five elements that apply to all five alternatives.

1. Different types of trails would be built 

in the Ice Age Complex. A segment 

of the Ice Age National Scenic Trail 

would be built within the identified 

corridor in a sustainable fashion 

guided by trail handbook standards 

(see the impacts on soil resources in 

chapter 4). The handbook standards 

would also guide development of 

other trails, except for those described 

as “accessible,” which would be built 

to accessibility standards. While the 

management areas in this general 

management plan / environmental 

impact statement provide general 

guidance for trail location, a trails 

development plan would examine and 

analyze specific locations for trails. 

2. Visitors would be allowed to walk their 

dogs (on leash) in most areas of the 

complex, with the exception of the 

sensitive resources management area 

identified in alternative 5 (preferred 

alternative). Dog walking was one of 

five specific activities for which interest 

was expressed by some members of 

the public during the course of this 

plan’s development. The other four 

activities were horseback riding, 

snowmobiling, mountain biking, and 

hunting. Because these activities could 

cause impacts on park resources, the 

appropriateness of these types of 

activities on publically owned land in 

the complex was evaluated as part of 

the planning process according to the 

criteria outlined in NPS Management 

Policies 2006 (chapter 8). As stated 

in these policies, the National Park 

Service “will only allow uses that 

(1) are appropriate to the purpose for 

which the park was established, and 

(2) can be sustained without causing 

unacceptable impacts.” Evaluating 

the activities against these criteria, the 

planning team determined that one 

Alternative 1: No Action, 

Continuation of Current 

Management 

Alternative 2: Ecological 

Restoration Emphasis

Alternative 3: Interpretation 

and Education Emphasis

Alternative 4: Outdoor 

Recreation Emphasis

Alternative 5: Preferred 

Alternative
FINAL GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 37

Chapter Two Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative

Table 2: Five Management Areas for the Ice Age Complex

Park Operations 

and Visitor Orientation Sensitive Resources Natural Experience Landscape Interpretation

Expanded 

Recreational Experience

Desired Resource Condition

Resources are maintained in goodcondition, but can be highly modified, as needed to accommodate andwithstand high levels of use by visitors and staff.

Natural resources that are a direct result of glaciation are intact. Natural resources that may not be a direct result of glaciation are managed, as necessary, to reveal glacial features. Resources particularly sensitive to user-created impacts or conditions or that pose a risk to visitor safety are located here. There are no agricultural fields in this management area.

Natural resources are 

managed to approximate presettlement (circa 1830) conditions. To the extent 

possible, natural ecological 

processes sustain the integrity of these resources. 

Natural resources that are a direct 

result of glaciation are intact. 

Natural resources that may not 

be a direct result of glaciation are managed, as necessary, to reveal glacial features (while vegetation would be native wherever feasible, land cover would need to meet glacial feature-revealing criteria such as height requirements). 

Structures or manipulated 

landscapes (such as agricultural fields) do not prevent visitors from being able to recognize glacial and driftless features from key viewpoints. 

Natural resources that are a direct 

result of glaciation are intact. Natural 

resources that may not be a direct result of glaciation are managed, as necessary, to reveal glacial features (land cover would need to meet certain criteria and specifications such as height requirements). Structures or manipulated landscapes (such as agricultural fields and yards) do not prevent visitors from being able to recognize glacial and driftless features from key viewpoints.

Desired Visitor Experience

Orientation. Visitors come to this area for access and to gain an understanding of this site and its resources. Visitor activities might 

include viewing orientation maps at 

trailheads, viewing exhibits and/or participating in interactive exhibits, watching a film, and enjoying programming in both indoor and outdoor sheltered settings. Visitors 

would generally have access to this 

entire area, except for office spaces and maintenance and operation areas.

Access to these areas would be highly controlled to protect resources and ensure safety.

Direct sensory experience 

of natural resources from foot paths would be provided. Interpretation is primarily provided by wayside exhibits and audio tours. Visitors could participate in lowimpact activities such as snowshoeing, cross-country skiing on ungroomed trails,berry picking, photography, bird watching, and earth caching.

Views of the results of glaciation 

on the land across a wide expanse from key points on foot paths, 

as well as direct experience of smaller-scale features along paths. Interpretation is primarily provided by wayside exhibits and audio tours. Visitors could participate 

in low-impact activities such as snowshoeing, cross-country skiing 

on ungroomed trails, berry picking, photography, bird watching, and earth caching.

The primary use is hiking. Other 

allowed uses include primitive camping, following “leave-notrace principles,” and low-impact activities such as snowshoeing, cross-country skiing on ungroomed trails, berry picking, photography, bird watching, and earth caching. Existing snowmobiles and horse trails are accommodated.

Appropriate Facilities

Facilities (newly constructed and/or existing) would be developed to serve purposes such as a visitor center or contact station; indoor and outdoor exhibits; sheltered picnic areas; outdoor gathering areas (such as an amphitheater); office space; maintenance and operations space; parking, bike racks, and bus shelters; access roads and trails; and hardened trails and trailheads leading out of this area.

Trails and overlooks would be carefully designed and located to afford access to or views of resources while avoiding impacts. 

Trails would be designed 

and located to afford direct experience of natural resources. Wayside exhibits, directional signage, and occasional benches, as well as roads for service vehicles to use for maintenance and resource preservation purposes and in emergencies, might also be located in this management area. 

Trails would be designed and 

located to afford views and direct experience of glacial features. Wayside exhibits, directional signage, and occasional benches, as well as roads for service vehicles to use for maintenance and resource preservation purposes and in emergencies, might also be located in this management area.

Trails would be built in this 

management area. Spaces 

and minimal enhancements to accommodate primitive camping, such as a privy, would be provided. Roads for service vehicles to use for maintenance and resource preservation purposes and in emergencies might also be located here.
38 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

of these five activities (dog walking) 

would be acceptable on all publically 

owned land within the complex, 

and hunting would be acceptable on 

some publically owned land in the 

complex under specific circumstances 

(see #3 below). The evaluations of 

horseback riding, snowmobiling, and 

mountain biking can be found below 

in the section titled “Alternatives 

Considered but Dismissed.” Hunting 

will be evaluated as part of a deer 

management plan.

All three public landowners in the Ice 

Age Complex allow dogs to be walked 

on-leash. On WDNR and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Services (USFWS) properties, 

dogs could be off-leash if used for 

hunting. In evaluating whether or 

not to continue to allow dogs at the 

complex, NPS Management Policies 

2006 (Chapter 8); federal regulations 

(36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 

2.15); and state regulations (NR 45.06) 

were consulted. Dog walking is an 

acceptable activity at the complex 

(provided that leash rules are followed) 

because dog walking is compatible 

with the purpose for which the park 

was established and could be sustained 

at current levels without causing 

unacceptable impacts. Dogs used 

during hunting (when they do not have 

to be leased) on WDNR and USFWS 

lands also cannot enter the sensitive 

resources management area given the 

fragility of resources in that area. If, in 

the future, dog walking compromises 

the park managers’ ability to ensure 

that resource conditions and visitor 

experience meet standards, and 

is therefore causing unacceptable 

impacts, then actions would be 

considered to address this problem. 

The indicators and standards outlined 

in the “User Capacity” section of this 

document would be used to monitor 

resource conditions and quality of the 

visitor experience. 

3. A deer management plan would 

be developed jointly by all public 

landowners in the Ice Age Complex. 

The plan’s purpose would be to 

manage the deer herd at appropriate 

numbers, as well as provide 

recreational opportunities for 

hunters consistent with the different 

landowners’ policies and regulations 

governing hunting. The following 

statements apply to current and future 

land ownership: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lands. 

The USFWS lands are open to all 

forms of hunting. This plan does not 

recommend any changes to these 

existing regulations. 

National Park Service Lands. The 

NPS lands are closed to all forms of 

public hunting. A deer management 

plan would consider multiple 

techniques to control the deer 

population; however, public hunting 

cannot be considered in any form.

Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources Lands. The state of 

Wisconsin lands are classified as state 

park, and are open to all forms of 

hunting and trapping unless closed 

by the Wisconsin Natural Resources 

Board to protect public safety or 

to protect a unique animal or plant 

community. These closed areas are 

within or up to 100 yards away from a 

designated use area.

A “designated use area” is any use 

area, facility, or feature that the public 

is encouraged to use and which is 

maintained for public use on WDNR 

property it owns or manages subject 

to an easement or lease, and which 

has been designated as a use area on a 

WDNR map prepared for that purpose 

(WDNR Manual Code 2527.2).
FINAL GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 39

Chapter Two Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative

Designated use areas include those 

areas, facilities, or features developed 

or maintained for public use such 

as public contact offices (e.g., park 

entrance visitor station), WDNR 

owned and/or maintained roads, trails, 

campgrounds, canoe and backpack 

campsites, picnic areas, managed 

swimming beaches, including any 

roped-off areas, observation towers, 

parking lots, and boat access sites.

The Wisconsin Natural Resources 

Board will determine which areas may 

be closed to hunting and trapping in 

an action separate from approval of 

this plan.

4. A management agreement between 

the Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources and the National Park 

Service would govern the day–today responsibilities (operations and 

maintenance, interpretation, and 

administration) for the complex. 

This Management Agreement will 

be developed and refined as the 

site’s visitation and facilities’ profile 

changes to reflect the new needs and 

opportunities these changes bring. 

In the meantime, the partners will 

continue to coordinate activities and to 

pursue joint planning.

5. There would be close coordination 

between the administration of the 

Ice Age National Scenic Trail and 

management of the Ice Age Complex. 

Administration and management 

tasks would be performed in 

different locations as proposed 

under alternatives 1 and 2, but under 

alternatives 3, 4, and 5, the tasks would 

be co-located at a central Ice Age 

National Scenic Trail headquarters 

office within the complex. For 

comparison purposes, the costs of 

both trail administration and complex 

management are factored together in 

the cost analysis for the alternatives.

6. Each landowner will remain responsible 

for vegetation management on the land 

they own. Actions to manage vegetation 

will be designed to achieve the desired 

conditions outlined in this plan and will 

be coordinated for effectiveness and 

efficiency as much as possible.

Alternative 1: No-Action, Continuation of Current 

Management. This alternative describes how 

the Ice Age Complex would look in the future 

if no new actions were taken. The description 

for the no-action alternative was used as a 

baseline against which to assess the benefits, 

costs, and impacts of action alternatives 2, 3, 4, 

and 5. Figure 4 provides an overview of the Ice

Age Complex at Cross Plains.

The Ice Age Complex is undeveloped for 

visitor use and minimally maintained. Each 

public landowning agency manages vegetation 

on the land it owns. Staff members for the 

Ice Age National Scenic Trail have stabilized 

facilities to prevent their deterioration. 

There are currently no improvements (such 

as parking or constructed trails) on either 

WDNR- or NPS-owned lands to facilitate 

visitor experience. The Shoveler Sink 

Waterfowl Production Area, managed by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is open to 

visitors for hunting, fishing, and other wildlifedependent activities, but the production area 

has no visitor facilities other than two small 

unsurfaced parking lots. Privately owned 

lands in the complex consist of agricultural 

fields, along with several homes and 

their outbuildings. 

The segment of the Ice Age National Scenic 

Trail would still be built within the identified 

corridor under this alternative, but other trails 

would not be constructed. 

The proposed management areas do not apply 

to the no-action alternative.
40 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Figure 4: Overview of the Ice Age Complex at Cross Plains
FINAL GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 41

Chapter Two Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative

Boundary expansion — The boundary of the 

Ice Age Complex would not be expanded.

Estimated costs and staffing — There would 

be one-time costs for stabilizing the Wilkie 

property and purchasing seed to reestablish 

natural vegetation conditions. These total 

one-time costs would be approximately $1.24 

million (in 2011 dollars) and do not include 

costs for land protection, such as acquisition 

or easements. The annual operating costs 

(in 2011 dollars) would be approximately 

$560,000 including costs for resource 

management, employee salaries and benefits, 

and leasing office space.

The work necessary to administer the Ice Age 

National Scenic Trail across the state overlaps 

significantly with the work required to manage 

the Ice Age Complex at Cross Plains, thus the 

annual costs above include costs to support 

staff whose work would involve both of these 

functions. The joint staff would comprise six 

and a half full-time equivalent employees: A 

trail superintendent and trail manager, who 

would be responsible primarily for the trail 

across the state, two planners to prepare 

plans for the trail state-wide as well as for the 

complex, an administrative officer, a half-time 

volunteer coordinator, administrative support, 

and GIS support. Because managing the 

Complex would be a partnership effort, this 

staff would be a mixture of federal employees, 

state employees, and volunteers.

Alternative 2: Ecological Restoration Emphasis.

Figure 5 is the map for alternative 2. The 

ecosystem throughout most of the site would 

be restored to a period before European 

settlement (circa 1830). The restoration 

would support interpretation of how natural 

conditions in the complex would have evolved 

after the glacial period under minimal human 

influence. Vegetation would be managed at 

key points to reveal glacial landscapes, but the 

focus would be on ecosystem management. 

Visitors would enjoy a sense of perceived 

remoteness and quiet, primarily by hiking 

on trails.

This management concept would be 

implemented by

restoring presettlement vegetation by 

applying natural processes wherever 

possible 

removing the buildings at the core of the 

site that belonged to the Wilkie family 

and providing parking and trail access at 

this location, as well as outdoor exhibits 

and primitive restrooms 

providing a minimally developed trail to 

and along the rim of Cross Plains gorge 

interpreting the site with wayside and 

outdoor exhibits 

managing the complex from an off-site 

location; there would be no permanent 

staff stationed at the site, and visitor 

interaction with park staff would be rare 

Boundary expansion — The boundary of the 

Ice Age Complex would not be expanded.

Estimated costs and staffing — There would 

be one-time costs for removing the Wilkie 

structures, constructing trails, and purchasing 

seed to reestablish natural vegetation 

conditions. The total one-time costs would be 

approximately $1.94 million (in 2011 dollars) 

and do not include costs for land protection, 

such as acquisition or easements. The annual 

operating costs (in 2011 dollars) would be 

approximately $760,000, including costs for 

resource management, employee salaries and 

benefits, and leasing office space. 

The work necessary to administer the Ice Age 

National Scenic Trail across the state overlaps 

significantly with the work required to manage 

the Ice Age Complex at Cross Plains, thus 

the costs above include costs to support staff 

whose work would involve both of these 

functions. That joint staff would comprise 

eight full-time equivalent employees: A trail 

superintendent and trail manager, who would 

be responsible primarily for the trail across the 
42 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Figure 5: Map for Alternative 2: Ecological Restoration Emphasis
FINAL GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 43

Chapter Two Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative

state, a site manager, who would be responsible 

for the complex, two planners to prepare 

plans for the trail state-wide as well as for 

the complex, an administrative officer and a 

volunteer coordinator, administrative support, 

and GIS support. Because managing the 

Complex would be a partnership effort, this 

staff would be a mixture of federal employees, 

state employees, and volunteers. 

Alternative 3: Interpretation and Education 

Emphasis. Figure 6 is the map for alternative 3. 

The glacial landscape would be interpreted 

with a focus on how the Ice Age Complex has 

evolved over time since the retreat of the last 

glacier. Throughout most of the complex, 

ecological resources would be managed to 

reveal the glacial landscape. Visitors would 

have an opportunity to experience a wide 

variety of resources, both ecological and 

geological, as well as remnants of human use of 

the site. The visitor experience would involve 

sheltered and indoor settings at the core of the 

property and hiking throughout most other 

areas of the site. Trails would be placed to tell 

stories of the formation of the glacial landscape 

and, to a lesser extent, about the ecological 

resources, such as the oak savanna. Under this 

alternative, the Ice Age Complex would serve 

as the headquarters for the Ice Age National 

Scenic Trail. This management concept would 

be implemented by

renovating the house and/or barn at 

the core of the site for adaptive reuse to 

accommodate visitor orientation, while 

interpreting human use and settlement 

patterns; space in these facilities would 

also be renovated for use as staff offices

constructing a new facility at the 

core of the site to accommodate 

maintenance needs

requesting the town of Cross Plains 

to manage traffic along Old Sauk Pass 

between Cleveland Road and North 

Birch Trail to reduce hazards 

to pedestrians 

providing a trail to and along the gorge 

with overlooks, surfaced at least in part 

to accommodate people with disabilities, 

as well as controlled partial access along 

the floor of the gorge

preserving and enhancing key views 

through vegetation management 

(for example, by selective thinning 

and pruning)

expanding the complex boundary 

westward to include WDNR-owned 

land and enhance opportunities to 

interpret a wider expanse of driftless 

area terrain 

Boundary expansion — Alternative 3 

proposes to expand the boundary of the Ice 

Age Complex, as well as the boundary of 

Cross Plains State Park. The boundary would 

be expanded to include parcel A (shown 

on figure 3), which is a 228-acre WDNRprotected parcel. The Department of Natural 

Resources owns part of the parcel in full, and 

part of it is privately owned and protected by 

an easement. The parcel is recommended for 

incorporation into the complex’s boundary 

in order to include and protect significant 

resources and values and to enhance 

opportunities for public enjoyment related 

to park purpose. Parcel A would offer visitors 

an expansive view of the Driftless Area, a rare 

sight along the Ice Age National Scenic Trail. 

This parcel would be feasible because 

it is already publically protected, so no 

additional land-protection costs would 

be incurred 

it is contiguous to the current boundary 

the land is currently open space (there 

are no structures or developments on 

this land) and would continue to be 

managed as such 
44 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Figure 6: Map for Alternative 3: Interpretation and Education Emphasis
FINAL GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 45

Chapter Two Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative

It is possible that current ownership and 

management is adequate because this land 

is currently protected by the Department of 

Natural Resources. Thus, if the land were 

included in the complex, planning for it 

and managing it would be administratively 

seamless and would ensure consistency with 

current lands in the complex. In this sense, 

including parcel A in the complex’s boundary 

would not only be feasible but also more 

efficient than managing it separately. 

Estimated costs and staffing — There would 

be one-time costs to renovate the Wilkie 

property, to design and install exhibits, to 

construct trails and a maintenance facility, 

and to purchase seed to reestablish natural 

vegetation conditions. The total one-time 

costs would be approximately $ 4.74 million 

(in 2011 dollars) and do not include costs 

for land protection, such as acquisition 

or easements. The annual operating costs 

(in 2011 dollars) would be approximately 

$1.01 million, including costs for resource 

management, employee salaries and benefits, 

and maintenance and operations. 

The work necessary to administer the Ice Age 

National Scenic Trail across the state overlaps 

significantly with the work required to manage 

the Ice Age Complex at Cross Plains, thus 

the costs above include costs to support staff 

whose work would involve both of these 

functions. That joint staff would comprise ten 

and a half full-time equivalent employees: A 

trail superintendent and trail manager, who 

would be responsible primarily for the trail 

across the state, a site manager, who would be 

responsible for the complex, two planners to 

prepare plans for the trail state-wide as well as 

for the complex, a chief of interpretation and 

at least one ranger (necessary to develop and 

support interpretive programming), a chief 

of maintenance (necessary to take care of the 

renovated Wilkie buildings), an administrative 

officer, a half-time volunteer coordinator, 

administrative support, and GIS support. 

Because managing the Complex would be 

a partnership effort, this staff would be a 

mixture of federal employees, state employees, 

and volunteers. 

Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation Opportunities 

Emphasis. Figure 7 is the map for alternative 4. 

Visitors would be offered a variety of lowimpact outdoor recreational experiences in 

support of and compatible with preserving 

and interpreting the glacial significance of 

the complex and restoring and managing 

the ecosystem. Visitors would be able to 

experience resources in diverse ways and 

would enjoy a broad range of interpretive 

programming in indoor and outdoor settings. 

Under this alternative, the Ice Age Complex 

would serve as the headquarters for the Ice 

Age National Scenic Trail. 

This management concept would be 

implemented by developing the core of the 

complex to

renovate Wilkie house and barn 

primarily for use as staff offices. The 

interior of these buildings might or 

might not be accessible to visitors; a site 

development plan would determine the 

most effective and efficient use of space 

selectively site and construct a new 

visitor center with orientation services 

(such as exhibits and film)

selectively site and construct a new 

maintenance facility, unless future 

land acquisitions would allow for this 

development away from the core of 

visitor activity

provide outdoor gathering spaces such 

as an amphitheater and picnic shelter 

This management concept would also be 

implemented by

requesting the town of Cross Plains 

to manage traffic along Old Sauk 

Pass between Cleveland Road and 

North Birch Trail to reduce hazards to 

pedestrians (same as proposed under 

alternative 3)

providing a trail to and along the gorge 

with overlooks that would be surfaced, 

at least in part, to accommodate people 
46 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Figure 7: Map for Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation Emphasis
FINAL GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 47

Chapter Two Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative

Oak leaf in snowdrift

with disabilities. If feasible, in terms 

of structural engineering, cost, and 

environmental impacts, a pedestrian 

bridge spanning the gorge could be built 

to provide visitors a unique perspective 

on its formation

providing extensive, varied trails, 

including a hardened bicycle/pedestrian 

trail across the site offering primitive 

camping in the western sections of the 

complex 

expanding the complex’s boundary 

westward to enhance opportunities for 

recreation, especially for a primitive 

camping experience near the Ice Age 

National Scenic Trail

Boundary expansion — The boundary of 

the Ice Age Complex would be expanded to 

include parcel A, which is shown on figure 3. 

Parcel A is the same 228-acre WDNRprotected parcel mentioned under alternative 

3. This parcel would be necessary to enhance 

opportunities for public enjoyment related to 

park purpose. There is no appropriate area 

for camping along the Ice Age National Scenic 

Trail corridor within the current complex 

boundary, so parcel A would be managed for 

an expanded recreational experience (purple 

management area in table 2 above) to allow 

for primitive camping for hikers on the Ice Age 

National Scenic Trail, which would traverse 

this area. This addition would be feasible 

to manage for the same reasons cited under 

alternative 3. Similarly, the explanation for 

efficiency in managing parcel A as part of the 

complex under alternative 3 would also apply 

to alternative 4. 

Estimated costs and staffing — There 

would be one-time costs to renovate the 

Wilkie property and construct a new visitor 

center and maintenance facility, to design 

and install exhibits, to construct trails, and to 

purchase seed to reestablish natural vegetation 

conditions. The total one-time costs would be 

approximately $8.8 million (in 2011 dollars) 

and do not include costs for land protection, 

such as acquisition or easements. The annual 

operating costs (in 2011 dollars) would be 

approximately $1.26 million, including costs 

for resource management, employee salaries 

and benefits, and maintenance and operations. 

The work necessary to 

administer the Ice Age 

National Scenic Trail 

across the state overlaps 

significantly with the 

work required to 

manage the Ice Age 

Complex at Cross 

Plains, thus the 

costs above include 

costs to support 

staff whose work 

would involve 

both of these functions. 

That joint staff would comprise 

fourteen full-time equivalent employees: 

A trail superintendent and trail manager, who 

would be responsible primarily for the trail 

across the state, a site manager, who would be 

responsible for the complex, two planners to 

prepare plans for the trail state-wide as well as 

for the complex, a chief of interpretation and 

at least two rangers (necessary to develop and 

support expanded interpretive programming 

as well as to provide law enforcement), a chief 

of maintenance and at least one maintenance 

employee (necessary to take care of the 

renovated Wilkie buildings as well as the new 

visitor center), an administrative officer, a 

resource manager, a volunteer coordinator, 

administrative support, and GIS support. 

Because managing the Complex would 

be a partnership effort, this staff would 

be a mixture of federal employees, state 

employees, and volunteers. Fir sapling

Leaf print
48 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Alternative 5: Preferred Alternative. Figure 8 

is the map for alternative 5. This alternative 

would provide visitors with interpretation of 

the evolution of the complex from the last 

glacial retreat and opportunities to enjoy 

appropriate low-impact outdoor recreation. 

Ecological resources would largely be 

managed to reveal the glacial landscape. The 

most sensitive ecological areas would be 

carefully protected, and visitor access would 

be highly controlled in these areas. Visitors 

would experience a wide variety of indoor and 

outdoor interpretive programming. Under this 

alternative, the Ice Age Complex would serve 

as the headquarters for the Ice Age National 

Scenic Trail. 

The management concept for alternative 5 

would be implemented by developing the core 

of the site to accommodate offices for Ice Age 

National Scenic Trail staff (who would support 

administrative and maintenance functions) 

and provide for a visitor center, including a 

sheltered picnic area. The elements involved in 

developing the site include

producing a building complex that 

would be highly sustainable (the overall 

goal of this development); certified 

under the U.S. Green Building Council’s 

Leadership in Energy and Environmental 

Design rating system at a gold level; have 

a minimal carbon footprint; and employ 

systems to carefully control surface water 

runoff and avoid impacting the quality of 

Black Earth Creek. 

retaining parts of the existing house 

and barn to the extent that is practical, 

given the need for a cost-effective, 

environmentally sustainable visitor 

center, office space, and space to 

support maintenance functions. 

Unfortunately, the existing house and 

barn are not adequate today in size or 

condition to fully and permanently serve 

these functions. Ultimately, the design of 

the core area for public and operational 

use would reflect public feedback as well 

as cost and environmental factors. 

site and construct a new maintenance 

facility away from the core of visitor 

activity, if land acquisition occurs 

Until the visitor center, office, and maintenance 

facility complex described above can be 

funded and constructed, the existing buildings 

in the core area may be minimally modified, 

as necessary, to make them useful on an 

interim basis as a visitor contact station and for 

maintenance and storage purposes. 

The management concept for alternative 5 

would also be implemented by

requesting the town of Cross Plains 

to manage traffic along Old Sauk 

Pass between Cleveland Road and 

North Birch Trail to reduce hazards 

to pedestrians (same as alternatives 3 

and 4)

providing a trail leading to and along 

the gorge with overlooks surfaced at 

least in part to accommodate people 

with disabilities. Vegetation in the gorge 

would be restored and volunteer 

trails removed.

Additionally, the management concept for 

alternative 5 would be implemented by

providing an extensive, varied hiking 

trail network throughout the complex

providing a management area in a 

narrow strip along U.S. Highway 14 

to accommodate a bicycle path (in the 

planning stages) to connect Middleton 

to Cross Plains. This alternative does not 

envision the National Park Service or 

the Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources building the bicycle path but, 

rather, would accommodate local efforts 

to build the path 

offering primitive camping equipped 

with a privy in the western part of 

the complex 
FINAL GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 49

Chapter Two Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative

Figure 8: Map for Alternative 5: Preferred Alternative
50 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

establishing a wildlife corridor of 

unbroken habitat between the former 

Wilkie property and Shoveler Sink. 

The area of this corridor is defined as 

“landscape interpretation” because of 

the abundance of opportunity to view 

glacial features here. While the landscape 

interpretation management area 

generally allows for agricultural fields, 

the intent of landscape interpretation in 

this particular corridor is to return the 

land to a type of native vegetation (such 

as short prairie grasses rather than tall 

prairie grasses) that would not obscure 

the view of glacial features 

providing picnic tables next to parking 

areas along U.S. Highway 14 and along 

Mineral Point Road 

Boundary expansion — Alternative 5 

proposes to expand the complex boundary 

westward to incorporate expansion areas 

(parcels) A and B shown on figure 3. Parcel A 

is the same 228-acre WDNR-protected parcel 

mentioned above under alternatives 3 and 

4, and parcel B is a 40-acre parcel protected 

and owned by the Department of Natural 

Resources. Both parcels would be necessary 

in order to enhance opportunities for public 

enjoyment related to park purpose under this 

alternative. Parcels A and B would be managed 

for an expanded recreational experience 

(purple management area on table 2) to allow 

for primitive camping for hikers on the Ice Age 

National Scenic Trail, which would traverse 

this area, and for hiking on other trails. 

The two parcels would be feasible to 

manage because 

there would be no acquisition costs 

since the lands in the two parcels are 

already protected by the Department of 

Natural Resources

the inclusion of the two parcels in 

the boundary would not substantially 

change the current conditions of 

these parcels. Today, the parcels 

are undeveloped open space; after 

inclusion, the parcels would be used 

to enhance opportunities for public 

enjoyment related to park purpose 

The explanation under alternative 3 for 

efficiency in managing these parcels as part 

of the complex would also apply to this 

alternative 5. 

Estimated costs and staffing — There 

would be one-time costs to renovate the 

Wilkie property and/or for new construction 

in the core area, to design and install exhibits, 

to construct trails and to purchase seed to 

reestablish natural vegetation conditions. The 

total one-time costs would be approximately 

$7.09 million (in 2011 dollars) and do not 

include costs for land protection, such as 

acquisition or easements. These one-time 

costs would be lower than in alternative 4 

because alternative 5 does not propose 

constructing a bicycle path to traverse the 

property, constructing a pedestrian bridge 

spanning the gorge or renovating the former 

Wilkie buildings (unless the cost would be 

comparable to building new facilities). The 

annual operating costs (in 2011 dollars) would 

be approximately $1.26 million, including 

costs for resource management, employee 

salaries and benefits, and maintenance 

and operations. 

The work necessary to administer the Ice Age 

National Scenic Trail across the state overlaps 

significantly with the work required to manage 

the Ice Age Complex at Cross Plains, thus 

the costs above include costs to support staff 

whose work would involve both of these 

functions. That joint staff would comprise 

fourteen full-time equivalent employees: A 

trail superintendent and trail manager, who 

would be responsible primarily for the trail 

across the state, a site manager, who would be 

responsible for the complex, two planners to 

prepare plans for the trail state-wide as well as 

for the complex, a chief of interpretation and 

at least two rangers (necessary to develop and 

support expanded interpretive programming 

as well as to provide law enforcement), a chief 
FINAL GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 51

Chapter Two Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative

of maintenance and at least one maintenance 

employee (necessary to take care of the new 

spaces for visitors and for staff offices), an 

administrative officer, a resource manager, a 

volunteer coordinator, administrative support, 

and GIS support. Because managing the 

Complex would be a partnership effort, this 

staff would be a mixture of federal employees, 

state employees, and volunteers.

Alternatives Considered but Dismissed

Four elements for potential inclusion in 

the range of management alternatives were 

dismissed from further consideration. This 

section describes the four elements and the 

reasons they were dismissed.

Element 1, Locating the Primary Access Point 

and Visitor Center on the North or South ends 

of the Complex. The northern and southern 

boundaries are both major roads and would 

be obvious access points to the complex. The 

GMP/EIS team considered areas along each of 

these boundaries for visitor center placement 

but did not select these locations for the 

following reason:

The complex measures roughly 3 miles 

from north to south. Placing a visitor 

center and parking area on either the 

northern or southern boundary means 

visitors would have to hike as much as 

3 miles from the primary orientation site 

to see the entire complex. Additionally, 

the features that are expected to be 

most attractive to visitors, and that are 

also the fundamental resources of the 

park, such as the Cross Plains gorge 

and most high points, are concentrated 

toward the center of the site. Placing 

a visitor center on the north or 

south boundaries would exclude the 

opportunity for the park to conduct 

programs in which rangers would walk 

short distances with visitors (0.5 mile 

or less) from the visitor center to these 

resources. Lastly, it would be easier to 

protect resources and monitor for signs 

of misuse or vandalism if staff were 

closer to the resources. 

Element 2, Establishing Horse Trails. The 

planning team considered but dismissed the 

possibility of establishing horse trails at the 

Ice Age Complex. The appropriateness of 

accommodating horseback riding in the Ice 

Age Complex was evaluated according to NPS 

Management Policies 2006 (chapter 8); federal 

regulations (36 CFR 2.16 – Horse and Pack 

Animals); and WDNR design standards for 

horse trails. The horseback riding policies for 

the agencies are presented below. 

Policy on NPS-owned land: Horses are 

prohibited outside of trails designated 

for their use. There is no designated 

route on NPS-owned land. 

Policy on WDNR-owned land: Horses 

are prohibited except in areas or on 

trails designated for their use. There 

is a short trail used as a horse trail 

connection on state-owned lands west 

of the current boundary, and these 

lands are proposed for inclusion in the 

boundary under alternatives 3, 4, and 5. 

Policy on USFWS-owned land: Horses 

are prohibited. 

Evaluation of horseback riding — Currently, 

of all the lands included in the complex’s 

boundary under alternatives 3, 4, and 5, 

horseback riding is allowed on only a short 

trail on the state-owned lands (parcel A 

on figure 3). This horse trail connects two 

parcels of private land. When the Department 

of Natural Resources gave permission for 

horseback riders to pass across state-owned 

lands between these two private parcels, 

the understanding was that, eventually, 

the horseback riding public would be 

able to access this trail. Today, however, 

access remains available to only those with 

permission from the owner of these private 

parcels. Despite the years that have passed 

since this permission was granted, the horse 

trail still provides exclusive access to public 

lands and is therefore no longer appropriate. 

This trail would be closed to horses. 
52 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Beyond the state-owned lands, horseback 

riding is an inappropriate use of public lands 

at the Ice Age Complex given the potential for 

resource degradation. Well-used horse trails 

in the area of glacial topographical features 

would likely damage or destroy these features. 

In addition, the Ice Age National Scenic Trail 

segment (when constructed) would be an 

inappropriate location for horses. The Ice Age 

National Scenic Trail is built and maintained 

by volunteers to sustainable footpath 

standards for hiking. Consequently, there is a 

high probability that horse use would degrade 

the trail as well as compromise the NPS 

and WDNR relationship with their primary 

nonprofit partner (the Ice Age Trail Alliance) 

who builds and maintains the Ice Age National 

Scenic Trail statewide. It is unlikely that a horse 

trail would be established in the parts of the 

complex (where glacial features are absent) 

outside the Ice Age National Scenic Trail 

corridor that would, from a length perspective, 

provide a quality experience.

Element 3, Establishing Snowmobile Trails. The 

planning team considered but dismissed the 

possibility of establishing snowmobile trails at 

the Ice Age Complex. The appropriateness of 

allowing snowmobiles in the Ice Age Complex 

was evaluated according to NPS Management 

Policies 2006 (Chapter 8) and federal 

regulations (36 CFR 2.18 – Snowmobiles).

The snowmobile policies for the agencies are 

presented below. 

Policy on NPS-owned land: 

Snowmobiles are prohibited except 

on designated routes. There is no 

designated route on NPS-owned land.

Policy on WDNR-owned land: There 

is currently a snowmobile trail on the 

state-owned lands that dips into the 

southwest corner inside the current 

complex boundary (to be included in 

the boundary under alternatives 3, 4, 

and 5). Any other snowmobiling 

would need to be approved through a 

planning process.

Policy on USFWS-owned land: Use of 

snowmobiles is not appropriate.

Evaluation of snowmobiling — A new 

snowmobile route beyond the established 

area on state-owned lands would be an 

inappropriate use of public lands at the 

Ice Age Complex. New snowmobile trails 

would be inconsistent with natural (such as 

wildlife), scenic, and aesthetic values and 

safety and management objectives. The 

existing snowmobile route will remain open, 

but no new trails will be established. The 

existing snowmobile trail on state-owned 

lands is a small part of a much larger statewide 

network of snowmobile trails and functions 

as a connector between other trails used by 

snowmobilers. In addition to conflicting 

with management objectives at the complex, 

using lands in the Ice Age Complex for 

snowmobiling is unnecessary given the extent 

of the existing snowmobile trail network 

and the mechanisms in place to identify and 

maintain snowmobile trails across the region. 

Element 4, Establishing Mountain Bike Trails. The 

planning team considered but dismissed the 

possibility of establishing mountain bike trails 

at the Ice Age Complex. The appropriateness 

of allowing off-road biking on trails in the Ice 

Age Complex was evaluated according to the 

NPS Management Policies 2006 (chapter 8); 

federal regulations (36 CFR 4.30 – Bicycles);

and state regulations (NR 45.05). 

The bicycling policies for the agencies are 

presented below. 

Policy on NPS-owned land: Bicycles 

are prohibited except on park roads, in 

parking areas, and on routes designated 

for bicycle use. There are no designated 

bicycle trails in the complex. The 

established practice of road biking along 

Old Sauk Pass would continue. 
FINAL GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 53

Chapter Two Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative

Policy on WDNR-owned land: Bicycles 

are prohibited except in areas and trails 

posted for their use. As mentioned above, 

the established practice of road biking 

along Old Sauk Pass would continue.

Policy on USFWS-owned land: Use of 

bicycles is not appropriate.

Evaluation of mountain biking — Mountain 

biking is an inappropriate use of public lands 

at the Ice Age Complex given inconsistency 

with safety and management objectives, as 

well as the potential for resource degradation. 

Even if the impacts of off-road biking 

could be mitigated effectively, it seems very 

unlikely that the complex would provide a 

satisfactory mountain biking experience. 

Well-used mountain bike trails in the area of 

glacial topographical features would likely 

damage or destroy these features. Beyond 

the state-owned lands, mountain biking is an 

inappropriate use of public lands at the Ice 

Age Complex given the potential for resource 

degradation. Well-used off-road bike trails 

in the area of glacial topographical features 

would likely damage or destroy these features. 

In addition, when constructed, the Ice Age 

National Scenic Trail segment would be an 

inappropriate location for bikes. 

The portion of the Ice Age National Scenic 

Trail outside the complex is built and 

maintained to sustainable footpath standards 

for hiking. Consequently, there is a high 

probability that bike use would degrade the 

trail, as well as compromise the NPS and 

WDNR relationship with their primary 

nonprofit partner (Ice Age Trail Alliance) 

who builds and maintains the Ice Age 

National Scenic Trail (the statewide portion 

of the trail outside the complex). In addition, 

the Ice Age National Scenic Trail is not an 

appropriate location for mountain biking 

given the potential to compromise the trail 

experience for hikers, who are not only the 

primary users of the Ice Age National Scenic 

Trail, but who also comprise the membership 

of the primary volunteer group (Ice Age 

Trail Alliance) that maintains the trail. It is 

unlikely that a mountain biking trail would be 

established in the parts of the complex (where 

glacial features are absent) outside the Ice Age 

National Scenic Trail corridor that would, 

from a length and topographic perspective, 

provide a quality experience for mountain 

bikers while not interfering with other 

park users. 

Estimated Costs and 

Staffing (in 2010 dollars) 

of the Five Alternatives

The National Park Service requires that cost 

estimates of projects be included in general 

management plans (costs are required under 

the 1978 Parks and Recreation Act and are 

requested by Congress for budget control 

purposes). The purpose of cost estimates is to 

assist managers with setting priorities and to 

inform the public. Table 3 provides very broad 

estimates based on costs of construction, 

supplies, and employee salaries and should not 

be used for budgeting and project planning. 

Actual costs would be determined at a later 

date, considering the design of facilities, 

identification of detailed resource protection 

needs, and changing visitor expectations. The 

NPS facility models were used to estimate the 

needed size and therefore presumed costs 

of future facilities. Note that potential costs 

for land protection tools (such as easements 

and acquisitions) to fully protect lands in the 

Ice Age Complex are not included in these 

estimates. The estimated staffing costs in 

table 3 cover not only costs for staffing the 

complex but also for staffing the Ice Age Trail 

administration. The reason for including both 

of these functions in the cost estimate of all of 

the alternatives is for comparison purposes. 
54 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

User Capacity

General management plans for units of the 

national park system are required, by law, 

to identify and address implementation 

commitments for user capacity, also known as 

carrying capacity. The National Park Service 

defines user capacity as the types and levels 

of visitor use that could be accommodated 

while sustaining the quality of park resources 

and visitor experiences consistent with park 

purposes. Managing user capacity in national 

parks is inherently complex. It depends not 

only on the number of visitors but also on 

where the visitors go, what they do, and the 

“footprints” they leave behind. Rather than 

just regulating the number of people in a park 

area, the park staff and partners rely on a 

variety of management tools and strategies to 

manage user capacity. 

In addition, the ever-changing nature of visitor 

use in parks requires a deliberate and adaptive 

approach to user-capacity management. Figure 9 

presents the NPS user-capacity framework.

The purpose, significance, special 

mandates, and management areas 

associated with the Ice Age Complex 

comprise the foundation for making user 

capacity decisions in this document. The 

purpose, significance, and special mandates 

define why the park was established and 

identify the most important resources and 

values (including visitor opportunities) 

that must be provided and protected. The 

management areas in each action alternative 

describe the desired resource conditions and 

visitor experiences, including appropriate 

types of activities and general use levels for 

different locations throughout the park. 

The management areas, as applied in the 

alternatives, are consistent with and would 

help the park achieve its specific purpose, 

significance, and special mandates. The NPS 

staff at the complex commit to abiding by 

these directives for guiding the types and levels 

of visitor use that would be accommodated, 

while sustaining the quality of park resources 

and visitor experiences consistent with the 

purposes of the park.
FINAL GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 55

Chapter Two Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative

Cost Category

Alternative 1: 

No Action, 

Continuation 

of Current 

Management

Alternative 2: 

Ecological 

Restoration

Alternative 3: 

Interpretation 

and Education 

Emphasis

Alternative 4: 

Outdoor 

Recreation 

Emphasis

Alternative 

5: Preferred 

Alternative

Annual Operating Costsa 560,000 760,000 1,010,000 1,260,000 1,260,000

Staffing (FTE)b 6 8 10.5 14 14

One-time Costsc

Facility Costsd 40,000 170,000 2,270,000 5,400,000 3,600,000

Nonfacility Costse 1,200,000 1,770,000 2,470,000 3,400,000 3,490,000

Total One-time Costs 1,240,000 1,940,000 4,740,000 8,800,000 7,090,000

Notes:

a. All costs in 2010 dollars. Annual operating costs include maintenance and operations, utilities, supplies, staff salaries and benefits, and leasing costs.

b. Total full-time equivalents (FTE) are the number of employees required to operate the complex (includes staff for maintenance and operations, visitor services, resource 

management, and so forth) and to administer the Ice Age National Scenic Trail statewide. Employee salaries and benefits are included in the annual operating costs. 

c. The one-time costs are divided between facility and nonfacility costs.

d. One-time facility costs are for design and construction of new buildings and other structures, roads, parking areas, and trails, as well as changes to existing buildings.

e. One-time nonfacility costs include actions for the preservation and/or restoration of natural resources and development of visitor use tools not related to facilities. 

Examples include purchase of seed for restoring native vegetation and wayside exhibits.

Figure 9: NPS User-Capacity Framework

Table 3: Estimated Costs of Implementing Each of the Five Alternatives
56 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Indicators and Standards

This plan includes indicators and standards 

for the Ice Age Complex that are in addition 

to the important directives discussed above. 

Indicators and standards are measureable 

variables that are monitored to track 

changes in resource conditions and visitor 

experiences. The indicators and standards 

help the National Park Service ensure that 

desired conditions are being attained and 

that those conditions support the fulfillment 

of the park’s legislative and policy mandates. 

The general management plan identifies the 

types of management strategies that would 

be taken to achieve desired conditions 

and also identifies related legislative and 

policy mandates. 

Table 4 presents the indicators, standards, 

and potential future management strategies 

(allocated by management area) that would be 

implemented as a result of this planning effort. 

The planning team considered many potential 

issues and related indicators that would identify 

impacts of concern, but those described below 

were considered the most significant, given the 

importance and vulnerability of the resource or 

visitor experience affected by visitor use. The 

planning team also reviewed the experiences of 

other parks with similar issues to help identify 

meaningful indicators. Standards that represent 

the minimum acceptable condition for each 

indicator were then assigned, taking into 

consideration the qualitative descriptions of the 

desired conditions, data on existing conditions, 

relevant research studies, staff management 

experience, and scoping on public preferences. 

Recommended Indicator(s)

Assigned 

Management Area Recommended Standard(s) Management Strategies

Number of unauthorized campsites* 

per year

*As evidenced by obvious 

vegetation damage (such as 

flattening, trampling, or removal)

Expanded recreational 

experience, natural 

experience, and 

sensitive resources

Expanded recreational and natural 

experience 

No more than 3 unauthorized 

campsites per year

Sensitive resources

Zero tolerance for unauthorized 

campsites in any season

Educate public on park regulations, 

resource sensitivity, and appropriate 

behaviors 

Install signage on park regulations, resource 

sensitivities, and appropriate behaviors

Regulate and enforce designated 

camping areas

Increase frequency of patrols

Temporarily or permanently close areas

Number of campfires* per year

*As evidenced by obvious fire 

activity (such as blackened soil, fire 

rings, or burnt materials) 

Parkwide, especially 

near parking areas

Sensitive resources

No tolerance for campfires in any 

season

All other management areas

No more than 1 campfire per year

Educate public on park regulations, 

resource sensitivity, and appropriate 

behaviors

Increase frequency of patrols

Install signage at parking areas and 

trailheads

Table 4: Indicators, Management Areas, Standards, and Potential Management Strategies
FINAL GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 57

Chapter Two Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative

Recommended Indicator(s)

Assigned 

Management Area Recommended Standard(s) Management Strategies

Decrease in populations of specific 

plant and animal species 

Levels, density, and diversity of 

important/targeted plant and 

animal species 

Parkwide (Dependent on plant species 

and communities)

No more than 5% decrease in 

plant and animal diversity in the 

expanded recreational experiences, 

natural experience, and landscape 

interpretation management 

areas combined

No more than 1% decrease in 

plant and animal diversity in 

the sensitive resources 

management area

Conduct formal review of visitor-caused 

impacts in order to isolate the possible 

reason for the impacts and determine the 

appropriate management response.

Educate public on low-impact practices, 

park regulations, and appropriate behavior

Increase fences and barriers

Increase staff presence

Increase monitoring

Regulate or restrict access (especially 

while undergoing restoration or during 

breeding seasons)

New occurrences or expansion of 

existing known priority invasive 

plant species detections**

**See the list following this 

table of known priority invasive 

plant species.

Parkwide No new occurrences of invasive 

species where they do not 

presently exist; no spread or 

growth of existing invasions

Conduct formal review of visitor-caused 

impacts in order to isolate possible reasons 

for the impacts and determine the most 

appropriate management response.

Remove invasive species and restore 

disturbed areas

Educate public on low-impact practices and 

park regulations

Require the cleaning of gear and 

equipment that is capable of transferring 

plant material

Reduce use levels

Temporarily or permanently close areas 

(especially while undergoing restoration or 

in sites with sensitive resources)

Incidences of damage to or removal 

of geologic features

Visitor-caused erosion to bluffs

Parkwide Zero tolerance for the removal, 

damage, or defacement of 

geologic features 

Zero tolerance for visitor-caused 

erosion to bluffs 

Educate public on appropriate behaviors, 

regulations, process of reporting, and lowimpact practices

Increase staff presence

Limit public access

Temporarily close areas for restoration

Increase fences and barriers

Number of unauthorized trails 1. Parkwide

2. Sensitive area and 

natural experience 

Zero tolerance for 

unauthorized trails 

Conduct formal review of impacts caused 

by an unauthorized trail (either visitor or 

animal related) in order to isolate possible 

reasons for the impacts and determine 

most appropriate management response 

Educate public on resource sensitivity, lowimpact practices, appropriate behaviors, 

and park regulations

Increase enforcement of trailing especially 

on steep slopes

Table 4: Indicators, Management Areas, Standards, and Potential Management Strategies (continued)
58 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Recommended Indicator(s)

Assigned 

Management Area Recommended Standard(s) Management Strategies

Improve delineation (marking/mapping) 

of designated trails and overlooks 

(placement of border logs or other barriers 

along formal trails at the junction with 

unauthorized trails)

Redesign and relocate trail and 

overlook areas

Remove excess (unauthorized) trails

Formalize the unauthorized trails, possibly 

on new alignment, to accommodate 

visitor interest

Install temporary or permanent signage

Limit or reduce levels of use

Percent increase of trail width 

beyond designated trail tread over a 

distance of at least 20 feet

All management 

areas, more frequent 

monitoring in sensitive 

resource and park 

operations and 

visitor orientation 

No more than a 50% increase of 

trail width beyond designated trail 

tread over a distance of at least 

20 feet

Educate public on resource sensitivity, lowimpact practices, appropriate behaviors, 

and park regulations 

Increase trail maintenance or rehabilitation

Improve delineation of designated trails

Redesign or relocate the trail

Redirect visitor use

Regulate activities 

Temporarily or permanently close trails

Percent increase of disturbed area* 

(measured in square feet) beyond 

designated overlook area

*As evidenced by obvious damage 

(such as flattening, trampling, or 

removal) to vegetation 

Sensitive resources No more than a 10% increase 

in disturbed area (measured in 

square feet) beyond designated 

overlook area

Educate public on low-impact practices 

Increase overlook maintenance, such as 

improving edging or rehabilitation

Improve delineation of overlook area, such 

as adding barriers, resurfacing, and so forth

Redesign or relocate the overlook area

Add overlook areas

Regulate group sizes

Temporarily or permanently close 

the overlook 

Percent increase in the number of 

complaints related to any specific 

visitor experience or interaction 

issues (such as crowding, conflicts 

between specific visitor groups) 

per year, above the three-year 

rolling average

Parkwide No more than a 20% increase in 

the number of complaints related 

to any specific visitor experience 

or interaction issue per year, above 

the three-year rolling average

Educate public on low-impact practices, 

activity etiquette, and park regulations 

and policies

Separate visitor groups

Increase enforcement 

Regulate activities

Temporarily or permanently close areas

Increase in the total volume of litter 

picked up during biannual cleanup events and during regularly 

scheduled staff/volunteer patrols

Parkwide No more than a 25% increase in 

the total volume of litter picked up 

during biannual clean-up events 

and during regularly scheduled 

staff/volunteer patrols

Increase education

Increase enforcement 

Restrict certain activities

Add trash receptacles, if appropriate

Table 4: Indicators, Management Areas, Standards, and Potential Management Strategies (continued)
FINAL GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 59

Chapter Two Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative

Recommended Indicator(s)

Assigned 

Management Area Recommended Standard(s) Management Strategies

Number of incidences of 

unauthorized overnight parking

Parkwide Zero tolerance for unauthorized 

overnight parking

Increase enforcement

Increase education

Increase coordination with local authorities

** The following are the known exotic (nonnative) invasive plant species in the Ice Age Complex (NPS and WDNR properties) 

autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata) common chicory (Cichorium intybus) oriental bittersweet (watch list) (Celastrus orbiculatus)

black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) Queen Anne’s lace (Daucus carota)

bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea)

burdock (Arctium spp.) leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) St. John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum)

Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) white and yellow clover (Melilotus alba and Melilotus officinalis)

common buckthorn (Rhammus cathartica) musk thistle (Carduus nutans) wild parsnip (watch list) (Pastinaca sativa)

** The following plant species are native but can be problematic because they are vigorous growers and invade other plant communities

staghorn sumac (Rhus typhina) walnut (Juglans spp.) raspberries (Rubus spp.)

User-capacity decision making is a form of 

adaptive management (refer to figure 9) in that 

it is an iterative process in which management 

decisions are constantly informed and 

improved. Indicators are monitored, and 

adjustments are made as appropriate. As 

monitoring of conditions continues, managers 

might decide to modify or add indicators if 

better ways are found to measure important 

changes in resource and social conditions. 

Information on the NPS monitoring efforts, 

related visitor use management actions, and 

any changes to the indicators and standards 

would be available to the public. 

Priority Visitor Experience Indicators 

and Standards

The issues associated with the priority 

visitor experience indicators for the Ice Age 

Complex are 

visitor experience impacts at campsites, 

the creation of unauthorized trails due to 

crowding on trails or at attraction points 

or from illegal or unauthorized uses

number of complaints related to 

any specific visitor experience or 

interaction issues

amount of litter 

overnight parking or parking in 

undesignated areas

Similar to the natural resource indicators, 

visitor opportunities and related experiences 

in the complex are already being managed 

in various ways, but they are not routinely 

monitored. The indicators presented in table 4 

above would help park staff track these specific 

issues to ensure that desired conditions are 

being achieved. 

Visitor activities that might impact visitor 

experience could include crowding on trails 

and overlooks, which contribute to the 

creation of unauthorized trails, widening of 

formal trails, and degradation of overlooks; 

user conflicts related to unauthorized 

camping; and illegal or prohibited activities 

such as the unauthorized removal of 

resources, vandalism, campfires, overnight 

parking, and littering. The impacts on visitor 

experience from visitor activities could include 

disturbance to natural resources (vegetation, 

wildlife, and geologic features); disturbance to 

other visitors or nearby residents; and injuries 

from unauthorized trailing on steep slopes and 

injuries related to campfires. 

These impacts could be widespread, with 

greater emphasis in areas that would be 

more heavily used, such as along trails, in 

parking areas, at points of interest, and at 

designated campsites. 

Table 4: Indicators, Management Areas, Standards, and Potential Management Strategies (continued)
60 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Several of the indicators described above, 

with regard to visitor use impacts on natural 

resources, also apply to visitor experience. 

Visitor-use impacts on natural resources could 

also affect the aesthetic qualities of the complex, 

contribute to visitor conflict and crowding, and 

require management actions (refer to table 4) in 

response to resource degradation. 

Currently, the complex provides no visitor 

amenities and minimal signage, so members 

of the public (other than local residents 

who are aware of its existence) do not visit. 

There are no formal trails, overlooks, or 

designated camping areas. Therefore, visitor 

conflicts and crowding are currently minimal 

or nonexistent. The potential for conflicts 

and crowding could greatly increase if the 

site becomes established and if formal trails, 

overlooks, and designated camping areas 

were developed. 

In designated camping areas, failure to 

adhere to the policies outlined in a camping 

management plan could also lead to crowding 

or conflict between users. Weather conditions 

could sometimes force visitors to stay in 

a particular location, and this would be 

unavoidable. The concern is when visitors 

stray from camping policies solely for 

convenience or preference. Park staff would 

monitor the indicator related to the number of 

unauthorized campsites per year. 

Long-term Monitoring

The park staff would monitor use levels and 

patterns throughout the park. In addition, the 

park staff would monitor the user-capacity 

indicators. The rigor of monitoring (such as 

frequency of monitoring cycles and amount 

of geographic area monitored) the indicators 

would vary considerably, depending on how 

close existing conditions are to the standards 

listed in table 4. If the existing conditions are 

far from exceeding the standard, the rigor of 

monitoring might be less than if the existing 

conditions are close to or trending toward 

exceeding (not meeting) the standard. 

Initial monitoring of the indicators would 

determine if the indicators are accurately 

measuring the conditions of concern and if 

the standards truly represent the minimally 

acceptable condition of the indicator. Park 

staff might decide to modify the indicators or 

standards and revise the monitoring program 

if better ways are found to measure changes 

caused by visitor use. Most of these types of 

changes should be made within the first several 

years of initiating monitoring. After this initial 

testing period, adjustments would be less likely 

to occur. Finally, if use levels and patterns 

change appreciably, the park staff might need to 

identify new indicators to ensure that desired 

conditions would be achieved and maintained. 

This iterative learning and refining process, a 

form of adaptive management, is a strength of 

the NPS user-capacity management program. 

Needed Future Studies 

and Plans

Various implementation plans would be 

needed under all action alternatives; those 

plans are a 

deer management plan (by all 

project partners) that addresses deer 

overpopulation, as well as concerns 

regarding chronic wasting disease 

trails development plan that identifies 

the location and type of trails throughout 

the complex in accordance with the 

management areas and descriptions in 

the final general management plan

transportation plan in coordination with 

the expansion and study of Hwy 14 and 

the bike path, and to address sustainable 

and alternative transportation options

resource stewardship strategy that 

describes the steps necessary to manage 

resources, followed by a vegetation 

management plan that would provide dayto-day guidance on methods and means 

of managing vegetation in the different 

management areas of the complex
FINAL GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 61

Chapter Two Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative

long-range interpretive plan that 

describes programming necessary to 

interpret the themes described in the 

foundation statement in chapter 1 

of this general management plan / 

environmental impact statement

The implementation plan needed under 

alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 would be a

site development plan for the core area 

of the complex identified with the “Park 

Operations and Visitor Orientation” 

management area; this plan would 

consider options for locating and 

designing facilities specified in the 

alternative description for this area. The 

plan would focus on analyzing impacts 

(such as impacts on visitor experience and 

archeology but that are unknown at this 

time) that could be associated with this 

development. Specific design and location 

decisions would influence these impacts. 

The implementation plan needed under 

alternatives 4 and 5 would be a

camping management plan to help 

decide how to ensure leave-no-trace 

camping opportunities would be 

available for long-distance hikers on 

the Ice Age National Scenic Trail, 

while avoiding resource degradation; a 

permitting system would be considered 

as part of this plan

It is possible that, as these plans are developed 

and implemented, the need for other plans 

might surface.

Environmentally 

Preferred Alternative

The environmentally preferable alternative is 

defined as “the alternative that will promote 

national environmental policy as expressed 

in Section 101 of the National Environmental 

Policy Act.” Section 101 states that “it is 

the continuing responsibility of the federal 

government to . . . 

fulfill the responsibilities of each 

generation as trustee of the 

environment for succeeding 

generations;

assure for all Americans safe, healthful, 

productive, and aesthetically and 

culturally pleasing surroundings;

attain the widest range of beneficial 

uses of the environment without 

degradation, risk to health or safety, 

or other undesirable and unintended 

consequences;

preserve important historic, cultural, 

and natural aspects of our national 

heritage; and maintain, wherever 

possible, an environment which 

supports diversity, and a variety of 

individual choices;

achieve a balance between population and 

resource use which would permit 

high standards of living and a wide 

sharing of life’s amenities; and

enhance the quality of renewable 

resources and approach the 

maximum attainable recycling of 

depletable resources.” 

Table 5 shows the extent to which each of the 

alternatives in this plan would meet the above 

six criteria for assessing the environmentally 

preferred alternative.

Snowshoer taking a rest

Snowshoe tracks
62 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Table 5: Six Criteria for Assessing the Environmentally Preferred Alternative

Criterion

Alternative 1: 

No Action, 

Continuation 

of Current 

Management

Alternative 2: 

Ecological 

Restoration 

Emphasis

Alternative 3: 

Interpretation 

and Education 

Emphasis

Alternative :4 

Outdoor 

Recreation 

Emphasis

Alternative 5: 

Preferred 

Alternative

Generations as trustees Would partially meet 

criterion

Would partially meet 

criterion

Would fully meet 

criterion

Would fully meet 

criterion

Would fully meet 

criterion

Pleasing surroundings Would fully meet 

criterion

Would partially meet 

criterion

Would fully meet 

criterion

Would fully meet 

criterion

Would fully meet 

criterion

Beneficial uses without 

consequences

Would fully meet 

criterion

Partially meets 

criterion

Would fully meet 

criterion

Would fully meet 

criterion

Would fully meet 

criterion

Preserve with diversity 

and choices

Would partially meet 

criterion

Would partially meet 

criterion

Would partially meet 

criterion

Would fully meet 

criterion

Would fully meet 

criterion

Balance permitting high 

standard of living and 

sharing of amenities

Would fully meet 

criterion

Would fully meet 

criterion

Would fully meet 

criterion

Would fully meet 

criterion

Would fully meet 

criterion

Renewable resources 

and recycling

Would partially meet 

criterion

Would partially meet 

criterion

Would partially meet 

criterion

Would partially meet 

criterion

Would fully meet 

criterion

Because there would be no on-site staff to 

monitor visitor activity on a daily basis under 

alternatives 1 and 2, the park’s ability to 

avoid damage to resources would be less than 

under alternatives 3, 4, and 5. Because of this, 

alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would fully realize the 

responsibilities of each generation as trustee 

of the environment for succeeding generations 

than would alternatives 1 and 2 (criterion 1). 

Alternative 1 would present safety concerns 

for visitors who park along Old Sauk Pass 

and cross the road with traffic as it is now. 

Under each of the other alternatives, the park 

would work with the town of Cross Plains 

to limit access to Old Sauk Pass in order to 

provide safe passage between the north and 

south sections of the complex. Therefore, 

alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would more fully 

prevent risks to safety surroundings than 

would alternatives 1 or 2 (criteria 2 and 3).

Under alternatives 1, 2, and 3, visitors would 

not have the choices for enjoying the complex 

that they would have under alternatives 4 

and 5 due to a lack of interior space. 

Alternatives 4 and 5 would enable a larger 

diversity of experiences through multimedia 

exhibits, as well as personal interaction 

with more rangers (an advantage over 

alternatives 1, 2, and 3). Alternatives 4 and 5 

would also add primitive camping to the Ice 

Age National Scenic Trail hiking experience. 

These factors, combined, mean that 

alternatives 4 and 5 would more fully promote 

an environment that supports diversity and a 

variety of individual choices than would the 

other alternatives (criterion 4).

None of the alternatives would entail such 

a strong shift in socioeconomic or resource 

use that standard of living or sharing of life’s 

amenities would change (criterion 5).

Because alternatives 3, 4, and 5 specify 

retention and reuse of the Wilkie structures, 

and alternative 5 would result in a highly 

environmentally sustainable complex, these 

alternatives would more fully enhance the 

quality of renewable resources and approach 

the maximum attainable recycling of 

depletable resources than alternatives 1 and 2 

(criterion 6). 

Considering all of the criteria, alternative 5 is 

the most environmentally preferable alternative. 
FINAL GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 63

Chapter Two Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative

Preferred Alternative

The value-analysis method, “Choosing by 

Advantages,” was used to build the preferred 

alternative. As mentioned in the beginning 

of this chapter, the CBA process is a tool for 

determining the specific advantages each 

alternative would provide toward meeting 

specific park objectives, taking into account 

any expected environmental impacts. The 

objectives for this analysis process, against 

which the elements of each alternative were 

weighed, were drawn from the park purpose 

statements described in the foundation 

statement in chapter 1. Those objectives are to

preserve and protect identified 

resources in light of visitation

facilitate interpretation of 

identified themes

provide an attractive stopping point or 

destination for Ice Age National Scenic 

Trail hikers

provide supportive, compatible 

outdoor recreation opportunities to 

the general public 

After determining the advantages each 

alternative would offer toward meeting 

these objectives, the expected costs of each 

alternative were then compared to these 

advantages to determine the cost–benefit 

ratio of each alternative. The elements of the 

alternatives that provided the most benefit per 

dollar, with the least adverse environmental 

impacts, were combined to craft alternative 5, 

the preferred alternative. For example, having 

a visitor center would offer so much advantage 

in interpretation, so the cost of building the 

center was considered reasonable. However, 

the bicycle path across the site was removed 

from alternative 5 because it was considered 

unnecessary, given the existence of a scenic 

on-road alternative — North Birch Trail and 

Old Sauk Pass — that could accommodate 

this activity; and because it was not publically 

supported and would be costly to construct. 

Similarly, a pedestrian bridge that would span 

the gorge did not offer great advantages toward 

meeting objectives, was not supported by the 

public, and costs to construct the bridge would 

be high. Thus, constructing the bridge was not 

considered reasonable, and it was not included 

in alternative 5.

Comparison of the 

Alternatives

Table 6 summarizes the key elements of each 

of the five alternatives. Table 7 provides a 

summary comparison of the environmental 

impacts of each alternative. 
64 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Table 6: Summary of the Key Elements of the Alternatives Alternative 1: No Action, Continuation of Current Management Alternative 2: Ecological Restoration Alternative 3: Interpretation and Education Emphasis Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation Emphasis Alternative 5: Preferred Alternative CONCEPT This alternative reflects the continuation of current management. There would be few trails, no sheltered space for visitors, and very limited parking. Resources would be managed inconsistently. Ecological restoration is the emphasis in this alternative. While most of the site would be restored to a period before European settlement, glacial landscapes would be revealed over part of the site as well. Interpretation would be largely through outdoor exhibits and waysides (nonpersonal). Visitors would enjoy a sense of remoteness and quiet while hiking trails, but they would not have access to indoor sheltered space. Interpretation and education are the emphases in this alternative. Most resources would be managed to reveal the glacial landscape. Visitors would have a variety of interpretive experiences in sheltered and indoor settings and while on hiking trails throughout the site. Outdoor recreation opportunities are emphasized in this alternative. Visitor opportunities would include low-impact outdoor recreational experiences compatible with the preservation and interpretation of the glacial significance of the complex, as well as with the restoration and management of the ecosystem. Visitors would also experience a wide variety of indoor and outdoor interpretive programming. This alternative combines concepts of the other three action alternatives. This alternative would provide visitors with interpretation of the evolution of the complex from the last glacial retreat and opportunities to enjoy appropriate low-impact outdoor recreation. Ecological resources would largely be managed to reveal the glacial landscape. Sensitive areas would be protected, and visitor access would be highly controlled in these areas. Visitors would experience a wide variety of indoor and outdoor interpretive programming. FACILITIES Wilkie Farmstead Buildings preserved but not open for public access All buildings removed Buildings renovated while maintaining extensive integrity and opened to public access in visitor contact space. Buildings renovated and reused. Incidental public access to part of the Wilkie property. Original appearance of the buildings would be retained to the extent that is practical given the overall goal of using this 

area to support administrative, maintenance, and visitor center functions while demonstrating sustainable building. 

Old Sauk Pass No changes No changes Limited access for through traffic 

on Old Sauk Pass to allow safe passage between north and south sections of complex.

Limited access for through traffic on Old Sauk Pass to allow safe passage between north and south sections of complex.

Limited access for through traffic on Old Sauk Pass to allow safe passage between north and south sections of complex.
FINAL GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 65

Chapter Two Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative

Alternative 1: 

No Action, Continuation 

of Current Management

Alternative 2: 

Ecological Restoration

Alternative 3: 

Interpretation 

and Education Emphasis

Alternative 4: 

Outdoor Recreation Emphasis

Alternative 5: 

Preferred Alternative

Construction No new construction No new construction New construction and 

some renovation 

New construction and extensive renovation

Development of the core of the site to accommodate administrative and maintenance functions and provide for a visitor center. Development would meet high standards for sustainability.

LANDSCAPEResource conditions and management 

No comprehensive guidance on resource management — glacial features would either be revealed for public viewing or not, depending on management approach at the time. 

Comprehensive management zoning: a mix of resource conditions in corridor, about 80% of vegetation in natural experience management area and 20% in landscape interpretation management area. 

Comprehensive management zoning: a mix of resource conditions in corridor, about 80% of vegetation in landscape interpretation management area and 20% in natural experience management area.

Comprehensive management zoning: a mix of resource conditions in corridor, about 50% of vegetation in landscape interpretation and expanded recreational experience management areas and 50% in natural experience management area. 

Comprehensive management zoning: a mix of resource conditions in corridor, about 50% of vegetation in landscape interpretation and expanded recreational experience management areas and 50% of vegetation in natural experience and sensitive resources management areas. A wildlife corridor would be established between Shoveler Sink and the former Wilkie property.

Cross Plains 

gorge

Gorge trail would not be signed or maintained — remains an informal volunteer trail No trail into the gorgeNo bridge constructionVegetation would not be comprehensively managed 

Minimally improved trail around 

gorge would replace volunteer trail, maintained and with interpretive signs No trail into the gorge No bridge constructionVegetation would not be 

comprehensively managed 

Improved trail around gorge would 

replace volunteer trail, maintained and with interpretive signs Trail into part of the gorge No bridge constructionVegetation would not be 

comprehensively managed 

Trail to and along the gorge with overlooks would replace volunteer trail, surfaced at least in part for people with disabilities No trail into the gorge Construct bridge (if feasible) Vegetation would not be 

comprehensively managed 

Trail to and along the gorge 

with overlooks would replace volunteer trail, surfaced at least in part for people with disabilities 

No trail into the gorge No bridge constructionVegetation would not be 

comprehensively managed

Oak savanna Preserved or restored on an ad 

hoc basis

Preserved or restored Preserved or restored Preserved or restored Preserved or restored

Table 6: Summary of the Key Elements of the Alternatives (continued)
66 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 1: No Action, Continuation of Current Management Alternative 2: Ecological Restoration Alternative 3: Interpretation and Education Emphasis Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation Emphasis Alternative 5: Preferred Alternative Views Contrast between glaciated and unglaciated areas may be lost Views from 5 highpoints, most not interpreted and no formal access Contrast between glaciated and unglaciated areas obvious over 45% of site and potentially obscured over 55% (3 out of 5 views obvious) Views from 5 highpoints, interpreted and with formal trails to viewpoints Contrast between glaciated and unglaciated areas obvious over 80% of site and potentially obscured over 20% (6 out of 6 views obvious) Views from 6 viewpoints, interpreted and with formal trails to viewpoints (significant sixth point) Contrast between glaciated and unglaciated areas obvious over 70% of site and potentially obscured over 30% (6 out of 6 views obvious) Views from 6 viewpoints, interpreted and with formal trails to viewpoints (significant sixth point) Contrast between glaciated and unglaciated areas obvious over 70% of site and potentially obscured over 30% (6 out of 6 views obvious) Views from 6 viewpoints, interpreted and with formal trails to viewpoints (significant sixth point) VISITOR EXPERIENCE Recreation Hiking on volunteer trails and low-impact activities The Ice Age National Scenic Trail would be built. One or two short formal trails to key interpretive locations would also be built Bicycling on existing roadways No camping No indoor sheltered space to rest and obtain information Hiking on formal trails (about 6 miles) and low-impact activities Formal trails would be developed, marked, interpreted, or maintained to direct use Spur trails from the Ice Age National Scenic Trail throughout complex Bicycling on existing roadways No indoor space to rest but covered, sheltered kiosks 

offering information

Hiking on formal trails (about 13 miles)Formal trails would be developed, 

marked, interpreted, or maintained to direct use 

Spur trails from the Ice Age National Scenic Trail throughout 

complex Bicycling on existing roadways 

No campingNo outdoor facilitiesIndoor facilities offering information and visitor contact

Hiking on formal trails (about 13 miles)Formal trails would be developed, marked, interpreted, or maintained to direct use Spur trails from the Ice Age National Scenic Trail throughout complex Bicycling on existing roadways and paved bicycle trail Camping (primitive and limited) Outdoor facilities such as picnic shelters Indoor facilities at the visitor center

Hiking on formal trails 

(about 13 miles)

Formal trails would be 

developed, marked, interpreted, or maintained to direct use 

Spur trails from the Ice 

Age National Scenic Trail 

throughout complex Bicycle path would be accommodated along 

U.S. Highway 14Camping (primitive 

and limited) Indoor facilities and picnic area at the visitor center

Quiet/solitude

Encounters with other visitors

Feeling of quiet along the trail Solitude is likely Strong sense of nature immersion

eeling of quiet along the trail 

Solitude is probable Definite sense of nature immersion

Feeling of quiet along the trail Some encounters with other 

visitors would be expected 

Some sense of nature immersion

Feeling of quiet and nature immersion is less likely during the day due to presence of developed management area High level of encounters with other visitors expected given level of amenities at complexPossibility for an overnight stay offers a type of immersion (due to length of stay)

Feeling of quiet and nature immersion is less likely during the day due to presence of developed management area High level of encounters 

with other visitors expected given level of amenities at complex Possibility for overnight stay offers a type of immersion (due to length of stay)

Table 6: Summary of the Key Elements of the Alternatives (continued)
FINAL GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 67

Chapter Two Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative

Alternative 1: 

No Action, Continuation 

of Current Management

Alternative 2: 

Ecological Restoration

Alternative 3: 

Interpretation 

and Education Emphasis

Alternative 4: 

Outdoor Recreation 

Emphasis

Alternative 5: 

Preferred Alternative

Interpretation No interpretation beyond 

1–2 waysidesPossible volunteer-led tours, limited Interior space not visitor-ready, no shelter

Very limited interpretive programming would focus on the evolution of natural conditions since the glacial period under minimal human influence

Interpretive programming would focus on the influence of glacial activity on human use and settlement patternsScheduled ranger-led tours 

Variety of interpretive programming

Potential for more than two waysides and interpretive trails (about 15 miles) designed to allow visitors to have contact with the fundamental resources 

Scheduled and frequent ranger-led tours Interior exhibits and media (such as film) and adequate space for large education classroom-type programming

No restrooms, parking would remain as it is now, very limited 

Potential for more than two waysides and interpretive trails (about 6 miles) designed to allow visitors to have contact with the fundamental resources Occasional volunteer-led tours No interior shelter for visitors Parking and privies

Some interior exhibits, inadequate space for large education classroom-type programming Parking and restrooms

Scheduled and frequent ranger-led tours Interior exhibits and media (such as film) and adequate space for large education classroom-type programming Evening interpretive programs Parking and restrooms

Evening interpretive programs Parking and restrooms

BOUNDARY

Acreage Total Acres: 1,473 Total Acres: 1,473 Total Acres: 1,701 Total Acres: 1,701 Total Acres: 1,701

Table 6: Summary of the Key Elements of the Alternatives (continued)
68 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Table 7: Summary Comparison of Impacts of the Alternatives Resource Topic Alternative 1: No Action, Continuation of Current Management Alternative 2: Ecological Restoration Emphasis Alternative 3: Interpretation and Education Emphasis Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation Emphasis Alternative 5: Preferred Alternative SOIL RESOURCES Alternative 1 would have some beneficial impacts on soils due to conversion of farm land to prairie. There could be moderate to major adverse effects from erosion due to unauthorized trails. The potential impacts on soils from trail construction and use of the Ice Age National Scenic Trail would be mitigated to a negligible level. Alternative 2 would have some beneficial impacts on soils due to conversion of farm land to prairie. Increased trail usage would likely result in minor impacts on trails from compaction. There could also be moderate impacts from compaction in parking areas, which would eventually be paved. Erosion impacts in the gorge itself would be negligible. There could be moderate adverse impacts on soil and the forest duff covering the gorge walls until the park has the capacity to keep the public off the walls. Alternative 3 would have some beneficial impacts on soils due to conversion of farm land to prairie. Construction activities could potentially have a temporary moderate adverse impact on soils from erosion and compaction in areas subject to construction. Minor adverse impacts from foot traffic following construction would be confined to areas around buildings and parking lots. There would be a reduction in uncontrolled human activity, thus a reduction in the potential for soil compaction and erosion, resulting in minor to moderate beneficial impacts on those areas. Alternative 4 would have some beneficial impacts on soils due to conversion of farm land to prairie. Construction activities could potentially have a temporary moderate adverse impact on soils from erosion and compaction in areas subject to construction. Minor adverse impacts from foot traffic following construction would be confined to areas around buildings and parking lots. Increased visitation could result in a moderate adverse impact on the steep slopes facing Black Earth Creek, especially along the trail. There would be a reduction in uncontrolled human activity, 

thus a reduction in the potential for soil compaction and erosion, resulting in minor to moderate beneficial impacts on those areas.

Alternative 5 would have some beneficial impacts on soils due to conversion of farm land to prairie. 

Construction activities could 

potentially have a moderate adverse impact on soils from erosion and compaction during construction. Minor adverse impacts from foot traffic following construction would be confined to areas around buildings and parking lots.

There would be a reduction in 

uncontrolled human activity, thus a reduction in the potential for soil compaction and erosion, resulting in minor to moderate beneficial impacts on those areas.

Future actions would contribute very little to cumulative impacts when considered with the long-term negligible to major adverse impact on soils from alternative 1. 

Future actions would 

contribute very little to cumulative impacts when considered with the long-term negligible to moderate adverse impact on soils. 

Future actions would contribute very little to cumulative impacts when considered with the long-term minor to moderate adverse impact on soils. 

Future actions would contribute very little to cumulative impacts when considered with the longterm minor to moderate adverse impact on soils. 

Future actions would 

contribute very little to cumulative impacts when considered with the long-term minor to moderate adverse impact on soils. 
FINAL GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 69

Chapter Two Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative

Resource Topic

Alternative 1: 

No Action, Continuation

of Current Management

Alternative 2: 

Ecological 

Restoration Emphasis

Alternative 3: 

Interpretation 

and Education Emphasis

Alternative 4: 

Outdoor Recreation 

Emphasis

Alternative 5: 

Preferred Alternative

WATER QUALITY

There would be negligible adverse impact from agricultural runoff because no chemicals are being applied. 

Restoring presettlement vegetation would result in negligible adverse effects on groundwater. 

There would be a negligible impact 

on groundwater from installation of a new well and septic system near the core area of the property.

Same as alternative 3. Same as alternative 3. 

The discontinuation of 

agricultural chemicals would likely have a beneficial effect on groundwater, but the amount of this effect cannot be quantified.

Impacts on water quality from road maintenance activities, such as road salt runoff, would continue. Future actions would contribute very 

little to cumulative impacts when considered with the potential longterm negligible adverse impact on water quality. 

Impacts on water quality from road maintenance activities, such as road salt runoff, would continue. If impacts from future actions were added to the negligible adverse impacts on water quality from alternative 2, there would be long-term negligible to moderate adverse cumulative impacts on water quality in the complex. 

Impacts on water quality from road maintenance activities, such as road salt runoff, would continue. If impacts from future actions were added to the negligible to moderate adverse impacts on water quality from alternative 3, there would be long-term negligible to moderate adverse cumulative impacts on water quality in the complex. 

Same as alternative 3. Same as alternative 3. 

SOUNDSCAPES

There would be negligible adverse 

impacts on the soundscape 

from visitation. 

There would be negligible

adverse impacts on the soundscape from increased visitation.Building removal would result in temporary moderate adverse impacts on the soundscape. 

There would be minor adverse impacts on the soundscape from increased visitation.

Renovation activities would result in temporary moderate adverse impacts on the soundscape. 

There would be minor adverse impacts on the soundscape from increased visitation.Construction activities 

would result in temporary moderate adverse impacts on the soundscape. 

There would be negligible to minor adverse impacts on the soundscape from increased visitation.

Future actions would contribute 

very little to cumulative impacts when considered with the long-term negligible adverse impact on the soundscape.

Future actions would 

contribute very little to cumulative impacts when considered with the long-term negligible to moderate adverse impact on the soundscape.

Future actions would contribute very little to cumulative impacts when considered with the long-term minor to moderate adverse impact on the soundscape.

Cumulative impacts would be the 

same as described for alternative 3.

Future actions would contribute very little to cumulative impacts when considered with long-term minor to moderate adverse impact on the soundscape.

Table 7: Summary Comparison of Impacts of the Alternatives (continued)
70 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Resource Topic Alternative 1: No Action, Continuation of Current Management Alternative 2: Ecological Restoration Emphasis Alternative 3: Interpretation and Education Emphasis Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation Emphasis Alternative 5: Preferred Alternative VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE Because there would be few defined trails, there would be some risk of vegetation trampling from the creation of social trails, but potential adverse vegetation impacts from trampling would likely be negligible. Managing the complex for a natural experience, in which vegetation would be restored to presettlement conditions, would have a moderate beneficial impact on vegetation and wildlife. Since there would be a range of ways to reveal glacial features through natural resource management (for example, planting short row crops or short prairie grasses), impacts on vegetation and wildlife would range from negligible to moderately beneficial. The combination of management prescriptions (almost evenly divided between landscape interpretation, expanded recreational experience, and natural experience) would result in minor beneficial impacts on vegetation and wildlife. Same as alternative 4. Future actions, when considered with the long-term negligible adverse impact on vegetation and wildlife, under alternative 1, would contribute very little to cumulative impacts when considered with the long-term negligible adverse impact on vegetation and wildlife. If future actions were added to the beneficial impacts of alternative 2, there would be combined long-term minor to moderate adverse cumulative impacts on vegetation and wildlife in the complex. However, the effects would not add to the overall adverse cumulative impacts because alternative 2 actions would all be beneficial. Cumulative impacts would be the same as described for alternative 2. Cumulative impacts would be the same as described for alternative 2. Cumulative impacts would be the same as described for alternative 2. SOCIOECONOMICS

All alternatives would produce beneficial impacts by likely 

increasing the value of adjacent lands; all alternatives would have adverse impacts on the local tax base if lands were federally owned.Economic impacts could be beneficial or adverse, depending on net property tax receipts.

Same impacts as presented for 

alternative 1. 

Same impacts as presented for 

alternative 1.

Same impacts as presented for alternative 1. 

Same impacts as presented for 

alternative 1. 

Table 7: Summary Comparison of Impacts of the Alternatives (continued)
FINAL GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 71

Chapter Two Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative

Resource Topic

Alternative 1: 

No Action, Continuation

of Current Management

Alternative 2: 

Ecological 

Restoration Emphasis

Alternative 3: 

Interpretation 

and Education Emphasis

Alternative 4: 

Outdoor Recreation Emphasis

Alternative 5: 

Preferred Alternative

There would be either longterm beneficial or long-term adverse cumulative impacts on the socioeconomic environment,depending on the nature and scope of any development on adjacent lands and the level of visitation to the complex. All 

five alternatives would contribute a very small increment to cumulative impacts.

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE

Available activities would offer some beneficial experience for visitors over current conditions, and this alternative would result in negligible to minor beneficial impacts on visitor experience.

Same impacts as presented for alternative 1.

Available activities would offer a beneficial experience for visitors over current conditions, and this alternative would result in minor beneficial impacts on visitor experience. 

Available activities would offer a beneficial experience for visitors over current conditions, and this alternative would result in minor to moderate beneficial impacts on visitor experience. 

Available activities would offer a beneficial experience for visitors over current conditions; this alternative would result in moderate beneficial impacts on visitor experience. 

The beneficial impacts on visitor 

experience from each of the five alternatives, when combined with other present and reasonably foreseeable future actions outside the complex, would result in long-term negligible to minor adverse cumulative impacts, depending on the amount and location of development and level of increase in traffic volume. 

However, the development of the 

bike path would add a moderate beneficial increment to the overall cumulative impact.

Cumulative impacts would be the same as presented for alternative 1.

Cumulative impacts would be the 

same as presented for alternative 1.

Cumulative impacts would be the 

same as presented for alternative 1.

Cumulative impacts would be the same as presented for alternative 1.

Table 7: Summary Comparison of Impacts of the Alternatives (continued)
72 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE