Lush wooded landscape

Surrounding hills

Ice Age Complex

Cross Plains, Wisconsin

 

National Park Service – U.S. Department of the Interior

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Ice Age Complex at Cross Plains 

Wisconsin

This document establishes a framework to 

assist in making decisions about the Complex. 

It examines five alternatives for managing this 

site over the next 15 to 20 years, identifying 

desired conditions and analyzing the impacts 

of implementing each alternative. Alternative 

1: No Action, Continuation of Current 

Management looks into the future of 

current management and provides a basis for 

comparison to other alternatives. Alternative 

2: Ecological Restoration Emphasis would 

restore vegetative conditions to those present 

prior to European settlement, supporting 

interpretation of the post-glacial period. 

Alternative 3: Interpretation and Education 

Emphasis would focus on interpreting how 

the glacial landscape evolved over time, and 

ecological resources would be managed to 

reveal the glacial landscape. Alternative 4: 

Outdoor Recreation Emphasis would offer 

visitors a variety of low-impact recreational 

experiences supporting, and compatible 

with, the preservation and interpretation of 

glacial significance. Alternative 5: Preferred 

Alternative would provide interpretation 

of the landscape since glacial retreat 

and appropriate low-impact outdoor 

recreation opportunities. 

The potential environmental impacts of all 

alternatives have been identified and assessed. 

The following impact topics are addressed 

in this GMP/EIS: soil resources, water 

quality, soundscapes, vegetation and wildlife, 

socioeconomics, and visitor use and experience. 

The key impacts of Alternative 1 would be 

short and long-term, minor to moderate, 

adverse impacts on soils from agricultural 

use on some lands and unauthorized trails on 

others, but beneficial impacts to soils which 

are converted from farmland to prairie. There 

would be negligible to minor benefits to visitor 

experience under current management and 

negligible impacts in all other areas. 

The key impacts of Alternative 2 would be 

short and long term, mild to moderate, adverse 

impacts on soils from compaction from visitor 

use, but beneficial impacts to soils which are 

converted from farmland to prairie. There 

would be temporary adverse impacts to the 

soundscape from construction activities and 

a moderate beneficial impact on vegetation 

and wildlife from ecological restoration. There 

would be negligible to minor benefit to visitor 

experience under this alternative. 

ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS, WISCONSIN

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

T

h e I c e A g e C o m p l e x a t C r o s s P l ai n s , W i s c o n s i n comprises land within a 

unit of the Ice Age National Scientific Reserve and includes the interpretive site for the Ice Age 

National Scenic Trail. Within the Complex are lands owned and managed by the National Park 

Service, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Dane County Parks, and the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. This general management plan is needed to establish a consistent vision for 

the Ice Age Complex that is shared by all of these partners. 
The key impacts of Alternative 3 would be 

minor to moderate adverse impacts to soils 

from building and trail construction as well as 

compaction due to trail use, but also beneficial 

impacts to soils as they are converted from 

farmland to prairie. There would be minor to 

moderate adverse impacts to the soundscape 

from construction and increased visitation and 

a negligible to moderate beneficial impact on 

vegetation and wildlife. There would be minor 

benefit to visitor experience from indoor 

exhibits and interpretive programs.

The key impacts of Alternative 4 would be 

would be minor to moderate adverse impacts 

to soils from construction and trail use under 

this alternative, but also beneficial impacts 

to soils as they are converted from farmland 

to prairie. There would be minor beneficial 

impact on vegetation and wildlife. This 

alternative would have a minor to moderate 

benefit to visitor experience by offering broad 

outdoor experience and extensive exhibits. 

The key impacts of Alternative 5 would be 

minor to moderate adverse impacts on soils 

construction and trail use but also beneficial 

impacts to soils as they are converted from 

farmland to prairie. There would be minor 

beneficial impact on vegetation and wildlife 

under this alternative. This alternative would 

have a moderate benefit to visitor experience 

through broad outdoor experience and 

interpretive programming.

This Draft General Management Plan/

Environmental Impact Statement has been 

distributed to other agencies and interested 

organizations and individuals for review 

and comment. The public comment period 

for the document lasts 60 days. For more 

information, contact Superintendent, Ice Age 

National Scenic Trail, 700 Rayovac Drive, 

Suite 100, Madison, Wisconsin 53711.

How to comment on this document

Comments on this draft general management 

plan / environmental impact statement are 

welcome and will be accepted during the 

60-day public review and comment period. 

During the comment period, comments 

may be submitted using the several methods 

noted below. 

We prefer that readers submit comments online 

(through the park planning website identified 

below) so the comments become incorporated 

in the NPS Planning, Environment, and 

Public Comment System. An electronic public 

comment form is provided through this website. 

Please submit comments 

online at: http://www.planning.nps.gov

or by mail: Ice Age Complex 

at Cross Plains 

Draft GMP/EIS 

National Park Service

Attn: Christina Miller

12795 W. Alameda Parkway

P.O. Box 25287

Denver, CO 80225

or hand delivery: at public meetings to be 

announced in the media 

following the release of this 

draft general management 

plan / environmental 

impact statement.

Before including your address, phone number, 

email address, or other personal identifying 

information in your comment, you should 

be aware your entire comment — including 

your personal identifying information — may 

be publicly available at any time. While you may 

ask us in your comment to withhold personal 

identifying information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. 
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT iii

Summary

SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

A mere 20,000 years ago, two-thirds of what 

is today the state of Wisconsin lay under the 

grip of colossal ice sheets. The climate warmed 

and the ice sheets began to melt back. They 

left in their wake an impressive landscape 

of fascinating glacial landforms: moraines, 

drumlins, kames, kettles, eskers, outwash plains, 

meltwater channels, driftless (unglaciated) 

topography, glacial lake beds and islands, and 

more. These Wisconsin Ice Age remnants are 

considered among the world’s finest examples 

of how continental glaciation sculpts our planet. 

Located just west of Madison near the village of 

Cross Plains is a 1,500-acre area that contains 

an outstanding collection of glacial landforms, 

including a gorge carved by meltwater and 

expansive views of both driftless and glaciated 

terrain. These acres comprise a park called, for 

the purpose of this planning effort, the “Ice Age 

Complex at Cross Plains” (henceforth “Ice Age 

Complex” or “complex”) (see figure ES-1). This 

site, however, has a rich history of different 

legal designations. 

The lands and landscape of the Ice Age Complex 

have been deemed nationally significant under 

two related, but distinct, federal designations. 

The elements recognized in both designations 

are parts of the singular concept advanced by 

Wisconsin citizens in the late 1950s and early 

1960s to protect and showcase Wisconsin’s 

heritage from continental glaciation. Congress 

authorized the concept in two parts, at two 

different times, and through two different 

legislative vehicles. 

In 1964 Congress enacted legislation (Public 

Law [PL] 88-655; 78 Stat. 1087; 16 United States 

Code [USC] 469d, et seq.) directing the Secretary 

of the Interior to cooperate with the governor 

of Wisconsin in studying and subsequently 

designating an Ice Age National Scientific 

Reserve (“Ice Age Reserve”). The purpose of 

the Ice Age Reserve is “to assure protection, 

preservation, and interpretation of the nationally 

significant values of Wisconsin continental 

glaciation, including moraines, eskers, kames, 

kettleholes, drumlins, swamps, lakes, and other 

reminders of the ice age.” The continental 

glaciers last advanced and retreated over the 

state some 30,000 to 10,000 years ago.

Congress envisioned the Ice Age Reserve as a 

network of distinct areas, each exhibiting an 

outstanding example of one type of landscape or 

landform resulting from continental glaciation. 

The legislation’s intention is that the reserve 

would be owned and managed by the state of 

Wisconsin, with the assistance and collaboration 

of the Secretary of the Interior (acting through 

the National Park Service). Several of the 

outstanding sites selected were already 

Wisconsin state parks. The legislation made 

reference to the Ice Age National Scenic Trail 

but made no provisions for it. 

When the study was completed, nine sites were 

identified to be protected and managed by the 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 

(WDNR) as units of the Ice Age Reserve (see 

figure ES-2). On May 29, 1971, the Secretary of 

the Interior published an order in the Federal 

Register that formally brought the Ice Age 

Reserve into existence. 

As noted in Black (1974), “The Cross Plains 

area was selected for inclusion in the Reserve in 

part because it contains a typical portion of the 

Johnstown Moraine on the uplands and a typical 

proglacial stream in Black Earth Creek Valley, 

and is close to a center of population. More 

importantly, it is the only place . . . where the 

terminal moraine rests directly on well exposed, 

weathered dolomite bedrock and where small 

marginal proglacial lakes, a marginal drainage 

way, and a subglacial drainage way may all be 

seen in a small area. The various glacial features 

associated with the moraine in the vicinity of 

Cross Plains are more varied and yet as definitive 

as one could hope to see, all preserved in a neat 

little package. The area is one of increasing 

urbanization, and preservation of parts of the 

front and its associated phenomena can only be 

assured in the Reserve.” 
iv ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

SUMMARY

Figure ES-1: Map of Ice Age Complex at Cross Plains
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT v

Summary

Figure ES-2: Ice Age National Scientific Reserve and Its Nine Units
vi ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

SUMMARY

The Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources purchased 100 acres of the 

Cross Plains unit of the Ice Age Reserve in 

September 1975, and an additional 60 acres 

were subsequently purchased. The Cross 

Plains unit is also designated as Cross Plains 

State Park by Wisconsin Administrative Rule. 

Congress again recognized the national 

significance of Wisconsin’s glacial landscapes 

when, on October 3, 1980, it amended the 

National Trails System Act to authorize and 

establish the Ice Age National Scenic Trail as 

a component of the National Trails System 

(PL 96-370; 94 Stat. 1360; 16 USC 1244(a)(10)). 

The Ice Age National Scenic Trail meanders 

through Wisconsin for approximately 

1,200 miles from Potawatomi State Park in 

Door County to Interstate State Park in Polk 

County, generally following the terminal 

moraine and other glacial landscape features 

and connecting six of the nine units of the 

Ice Age Reserve. The Secretary of the Interior 

was assigned administrative responsibility for 

the Ice Age National Scenic Trail.

The Secretary of the Interior delegated overall 

administrative responsibility for the Ice Age 

National Scenic Trail to the National Park 

Service. The Park Service, in cooperation 

with the Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources and other parties, completed a 

Comprehensive Plan for Management and 

Use of the Ice Age National Scenic Trail 

in September 1983. The National Park 

Service is responsible at the federal level for 

carrying out the provisions of the National 

Trails System Act as they relate to the Ice Age 

National Scenic Trail. The National Park 

Service carries out or facilitates trail planning, 

environmental compliance, trail development 

and management, public and private partner 

involvement, and land protection activities. 

The National Park Service assists partners 

by coordinating, guiding, and assisting their 

efforts to acquire, develop, operate, protect, 

and maintain the Ice Age National Scenic Trail 

in accordance with the comprehensive plan 

and supplemental trail corridor plans and 

trailway protection strategies (land protection 

plans). The comprehensive plan identifies the 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 

and the nonprofit Ice Age Trail Alliance as 

cooperators in the long-term effort to develop 

and manage the Ice Age National Scenic 

Trail. The Park Service serves as the primary 

liaison with other federal agencies in matters 

relating to the Ice Age National Scenic Trail. 

In carrying out this role, the Park Service 

reviews and comments on federal or federally 

assisted/permitted projects and activities (such 

as highway, utility, and other development 

proposals) that may affect trail segments.

The Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources is the state agency responsible 

for providing and maintaining outdoor 

recreation resources of statewide 

significance, including state parks and 

trails, in Wisconsin. Thus, the basis for the 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources’ 

participation in developing and managing 

the Ice Age Reserve and Ice Age National 

Scenic Trail is the statewide significance of 

the reserve and trail and the inclusion of state 

parks, forests, trails, and recreation areas in 

the reserve and along the route of the trail. 

The state legislature formalized this role in 

1987 by passing legislation that designates 

the Ice Age National Scenic Trail as a State 

Scenic Trail. The legislation assigned the 

responsibility to the Wisconsin Department 

of Natural Resources for coordinating the 

involvement of state agencies in the trail 

project and cooperating with the National 

Park Service and private interests in planning, 

acquiring, developing, and maintaining the 

Ice Age National Scenic Trail. The Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources has been 

the primary NPS partner in administering 

federal financial assistance for acquiring 

lands for the Ice Age National Scenic Trail.

The National Trails System Act authorizes 

the establishment of interpretive sites along 

national scenic trails. Congress appropriated 

funds, in fiscal year (FY) 2001, for the 

acquisition of specific lands, owned by James 

and Jane Wilkie, for an Ice Age National Scenic 
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT vii

Summary

Trail Interpretive Site. The lands specified for 

the interpretive site happen to lie within the 

boundaries of the Cross Plains unit of the 

Ice Age Reserve. The National Park Service 

purchased the lands in 2002, subject to a life 

estate, and took full possession in early 2008.

The Wilkie farmstead includes a stone house, 

the original two-story portion of which 

dates back to the 1850s, just a few years after 

statehood in 1848. The one-story addition, 

built with stone from the same quarry as the 

original house, dates to 1952 when the Wilkies 

purchased the farm. There is also a structurally 

sound wood barn, modern garage, shed used 

as a chicken coop, and Quonset for equipment 

storage. These structures are referred to 

elsewhere in this document as the “farmstead” 

or individually as the “stone house,” “barn,” 

and so forth. The structures were evaluated for 

eligibility to be listed on the National Register 

of Historic Places, but it was determined they 

were not historically significant.

The lands that comprise the Ice Age Complex 

are managed at both a state and federal level. 

That is, the Ice Age Reserve is owned and 

managed by the state of Wisconsin, and the 

Ice Age National Scenic Trail Interpretive Site 

is owned and managed by the National Park 

Service. Additionally, the Ice Age Complex also 

includes Shoveler Sink Waterfowl Production 

Area, which is owned and managed by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. The involvement of 

both federal and state governments, as well 

as Dane County Parks, makes this plan to 

preserve and interpret the Ice Age Complex a 

true partnership effort. 

PURPOSE OF THE PLAN

The final general management plan would 

provide a framework to assist NPS and WDNR 

managers in making decisions today and in 

the future. The alternatives proposed in this 

document describe general paths the National 

Park Service and Department of Natural 

Resources would follow in managing the Ice 

Age Complex over the next 15 to 20 years. 

This draft general management plan / 

environmental impact statement

identifies desired conditions in different 

parts of the Ice Age Complex

identifies any necessary developments 

and support facilities to achieve the 

vision and desired conditions

ensures that the foundation for 

decision making has been developed 

in consultation with the public and 

adopted by NPS leadership after 

sufficient analysis of the benefits, 

impacts, and economic costs of 

alternative courses of action

This document addresses the three purposes 

listed above, but it does not

describe how particular programs or 

projects would be implemented or 

prioritized; these decisions are deferred 

to detailed implementation planning 

provide specific details and answers to 

all the issues facing the Ice Age Complex

provide funding commitments for 

implementation of the plan 

NEED FOR THE PLAN

The general management plan is needed 

in order to establish a consistent vision for 

the Ice Age Complex that is shared by all 

partners in this project. Those partners 

are the National Park Service, Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Ice Age Trail 

Alliance, local government agencies, and the 

general public. Although the Department 

of Natural Resources’ 1998 feasibility study 

provided a rough outline for how the Ice 

Age Complex could be managed, the final 

general management plan would be the first 

plan designed to provide comprehensive 

management guidance for the complex. 
viii ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

SUMMARY

The Ice Age National Scenic Trail is guided 

by a 1983 comprehensive management plan, 

and the Ice Age Reserve is guided by a 1968 

comprehensive management plan. Neither 

of these older overarching plans, however, 

articulates the shared vision between the 

National Park Service, Department of 

Natural Resources, and the public on how to 

best achieve the specific purpose of the Ice 

Age Complex and protect its resources for 

future generations.

Currently, the Ice Age Complex is essentially 

undeveloped for visitor use. Given its location 

just outside the fast-growing suburbs of 

Madison, Wisconsin, and the interest in Ice 

Age geology in the region, there is potential for 

significant visitation at the complex. There is 

also potential for damage to the glacial features 

at the site without long-term planning for their 

protection. Thus, this general management 

plan is needed because 

the management plans for related areas 

(national scenic trail and scientific 

reserve) are outdated

there must be a consistent and shared 

vision for the complex 

there is potential for both significant 

visitation and resource damage

THE FIVE ALTERNATIVES

This draft general management plan / 

environmental impact statement examines five 

alternatives for managing the Ice Age Complex. 

In all of the alternatives, NPS managers will 

continue to strive to protect, maintain, and 

monitor key resources. Each alternative 

proposes a different approach to managing 

resources, serving visitors, and providing 

interpretive and recreational opportunities.

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. 

The Ice Age Complex is undeveloped for 

visitor use and minimally maintained. Both 

the Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

manage vegetation on lands that each agency 

owns and on land owned by the National 

Park Service. 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 NPSowned 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 wildlife-dependent 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 (by the Ice Age Trail 

Alliance) within the identified corridor under 

this alternative, but other trails would not 

be constructed. 

Boundary Expansion. The boundary of the Ice 

Age Complex would not be expanded.

Estimated Costs and Staffing. A staff of six 

full-time equivalents would be required to 

implement this alternative and administer 

the Ice Age National Scenic Trail across the 

state. The annual operating costs (in 2010 

dollars) would be approximately $560,000, 

including costs for resource management, 

employee salaries and benefits, and leasing 

office space. The total one-time costs would 

be approximately $1.24 million (in 2010 

dollars) for stabilizing the Wilkie property 

and purchasing seed to reestablish natural 

vegetation conditions. The one-time costs 

would not include the cost of land protection, 

such as acquisition or easements. 
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ix

Summary

Alternative 2: Ecological 

Restoration Emphasis

The ecosystem throughout most of the site 

would be restored to vegetative conditions that 

were present prior to 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. The 

management concept in alternative 2 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 offsite 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. A staff of eight 

full-time equivalents would be required to 

implement this alternative, together with 

administering the Ice Age National Scenic 

Trail across the state. The work required to 

administer the Ice Age National Scenic Trail 

overlaps significantly with the work required 

to manage the Ice Age Complex; therefore, 

staffing estimates for this alternative cover 

both of these functions. The annual operating 

costs (in 2010 dollars) would be approximately 

$760,000 to pay for resource management, 

employee salaries and benefits, and leasing 

office space. The total one-time costs would 

be approximately $1.94 million (in 2010 

dollars) for removing the Wilkie structures, 

constructing trails, and purchasing seed to 

reestablish natural vegetation conditions over 

more acreage than the no-action alternative. 

The one-time costs would not include the 

cost of land protection (such as acquisition 

or easements). 

Alternative 3: Interpretation and 

Education Emphasis

The glacial landscape would be interpreted to 

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 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
x ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

SUMMARY

requesting the village 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 a 228-acre WDNR-protected 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. The parcel 

would offer visitors an expansive view of the 

Driftless Area, a rare sight along the Ice Age 

National Scenic Trail. 

Estimated Costs and Staffing. A staff of 

10.5 full-time equivalents would be required 

to implement this alternative and administer 

the Ice Age National Scenic Trail across the 

state. The work required to administer the 

Ice Age National Scenic Trail would overlap 

significantly with the work required to manage 

the Ice Age Complex; therefore, staffing 

estimates for alternative 3 would cover both 

of these functions. The annual operating costs 

(in 2010 dollars) would be approximately 

$1.01 million, including costs for resource 

management, employee salaries and benefits, 

and maintenance and operations. The total 

one-time costs would be approximately $4.74 

million (in 2010 dollars) and would go toward 

renovating the Wilkie property, designing 

and installing exhibits, constructing trails 

and a maintenance facility, and purchasing 

seed to reestablish natural vegetation 

conditions. The one-time costs would not 

include the cost of land protection, such as 

acquisition or easements. 

Alternative 4: Outdoor 

Recreation Emphasis

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 the Wilkie house and barn 

primarily for use as staff offices 

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
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT xi

Summary

requesting the village of Cross Plains to 

limit access to Old Sauk Pass between 

Cleveland Road and North Birch Trail 

(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 

with disabilities. If feasible a pedestrian 

bridge spanning the gorge would 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 section 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 

the same 228-acre WDNR-protected 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 the 

parcel would be managed for an expanded 

recreational experience 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. 

Estimated Costs and Staffing. A staff of 

14 full-time equivalents would be required 

to implement this alternative and administer 

the Ice Age National Scenic Trail across 

the state. The annual operating costs (in 

2010 dollars) would be approximately 

$1.26 million, including costs for resource 

management, employee salaries and benefits, 

and maintenance and operations. The 

total one-time costs of approximately $8.8 

million (in 2010 dollars) would be spent on 

renovating the Wilkie property; designing 

and installing exhibits; constructing trails, a 

maintenance facility, and a new visitor center; 

and purchasing seed to reestablish natural 

vegetation conditions. The one-time costs 

do not include the cost of land protection 

(acquisition or easements). 

Alternative 5: Preferred Alternative

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 (the former Wilkie property) 

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. 
xii ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

SUMMARY

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. 

Ultimately, the design of the core area 

for public and operational use would 

reflect public feedback as well as cost 

and environmental factors. 

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 village 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; 

rather, the agencies would accommodate 

local efforts to build the path 

offering primitive camping equipped 

with a privy in the western part of 

the complex 

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 two expansion areas (parcels). 

The one parcel would be the same 228-acre 

WDNR-protected parcel (mentioned 

above under alternatives 3 and 4), and the 

other would be a 40-acre parcel protected 

and owned by the Department of Natural 

Resources. Both parcels would be necessary to 

enhance opportunities for public enjoyment 

related to park purpose under this alternative. 

Both parcels would be managed for an 

expanded recreational experience 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. 

Estimated Costs and Staffing. A staff of 14 

full-time equivalents would be required to 

implement this alternative and administer the 

Ice Age National Scenic Trail across the state. 

The annual operating costs (in 2010 dollars) 
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT xiii

Summary

would be approximately $1.26 million, 

including costs for resource management, 

employee salaries and benefits, and 

maintenance and operations. The total onetime costs of approximately $7.09 million (in 

2010 dollars) would be spent on renovating 

the Wilkie property and new construction 

within the core area, designing and installing 

exhibits, constructing trails, and purchasing 

seed to reestablish natural vegetation 

conditions. The one-time costs would not 

include the cost of land protection, such as 

acquisition or easements. 

IMPACTS FROM 

IMPLEMENTATION OF 

THE ALTERNATIVES

Soil Resources

Alternative 1: No Action, Continuation of Current 

Management. It is expected that alternative 1 

would have some beneficial impacts on soils 

due to conversion of farm land to prairie. 

Some soils would be removed from cultivation 

and converted to their presettlement condition 

(mostly prairie). The ability to farm the prime 

soils today would be curtailed, and the soils 

would be retained for the future because the 

deep roots of prairie grasses are very effective 

at holding soil. 

The present land use in the Ice Age Complex 

would continue to be a mix of row crop 

agriculture (corn and soybeans), forest land, 

and oak savanna. When agricultural fields are 

plowed, soil surface is disturbed, and there 

is wind erosion of silt particles and organic 

particles off those surfaces. There is also water 

erosion from the fields. There is similar land 

use throughout Dane County. The impacts 

of agriculture on erosion would be minor to 

moderate, depending on numerous factors, 

such as the amount of tillage and use of grass 

strips to limit erosion in critical spots. 

The intensity of impacts on soils caused by 

trail construction would be limited to minor 

ground disturbance within the narrow tread 

corridor. The potential impacts on soils from 

constructing and using the trail would be 

mitigated to a negligible level with proper 

layout of the trail on the landscape (for 

example, on slopes less than 10%), erosion 

control techniques, planking or bridges, and 

trail monitoring. 

The Ice Age National Scenic Trail would still 

be built under this alternative but other trails 

would not. Over time, unauthorized trails 

(such as paths created by visitors), would 

proliferate. There is currently minimal impact 

from erosion and compaction in forest and 

oak savanna areas under present use, with 

the exception of the Cross Plains gorge and 

the moraine between the Cross Plains gorge 

and Cleveland Road. There is currently 

minor impact on the trail on the moraine 

and impact would remain minor if usage is 

limited to hiking. If there is no enforcement of 

restrictions on the use of this trail, and if use by 

horseback riders were to increase, there would 

be a moderate impact due to compaction. 

There is compaction at small parking areas 

off Mineral Point Road and Timber Lane, but 

this land has already been disturbed, and there 

would be minimal further compaction. 

The steep walls of Cross Plains gorge attract 

visitors, and human activity has the potential 

to damage both forest duff cover and soils, 

which could lead to substantial erosion 

problems. While the steep walls of Black Earth 

Creek valley are also susceptible to erosion if 

vegetation is disturbed, under present use, the 

slopes are not visited as much as those of the 

Cross Plains gorge. As time passes, however, 

this site could become better known, and 

residential development might increase in the 

area. If increased use were not accompanied 

by measures to protect these areas, such as a 

designed and delineated trail, damage to the 

steep walls could be expected. There could 

potentially be moderate to major erosion 

impacts if uncontrolled human activity in the 

vicinity of Cross Plains gorge and Black Earth 

Creek valley increased. 
xiv ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

SUMMARY

Alternative 2: Ecological Restoration Emphasis.

Alternative 2 would have the same beneficial 

impacts on soils as expressed in the first 

paragraph under alternative 1. 

This alternative would contribute to increased 

trail usage, compared to alternative 1 (no 

action), and would therefore likely have a 

minor impact on soils from compaction. 

There would be moderate impact on soils 

from compaction in parking areas, but these 

would not be large areas and would likely be 

in the same places as in alternative 1. Paving 

the parking lots would contribute to increased 

runoff and would require proper management.

The installation of trails near, but not in, 

Cross Plains gorge would minimize impact on 

the walls of the gorge. Erosion impacts in the 

gorge itself would be negligible because the 

public would be directed (with trail design 

and signage) to stay off the walls of the gorge. 

Because the complex would be managed 

from an off-site location, there would be little 

ability to enforce this direction. If the public 

does not comply with the direction to stay 

off the gorge walls, there could be moderate 

adverse impacts on soil and the forest duff 

covering the wall until the park has the 

capacity to stop this from happening, given 

the minimal off-site staff.

Alternative 3: Interpretation and Education 

Emphasis. Alternative 3 would have the same 

beneficial impacts on soils as expressed in the 

first paragraph under alternative 1. 

The construction of buildings and a surfaced 

trail to Cross Plains gorge could potentially 

have a temporary moderate adverse impact 

on soils from erosion and compaction in areas 

subject to construction. Once construction is 

completed, there would still be some potential 

for minor compaction from visitor use, but 

the minor impacts would be confined to areas 

around buildings and parking lots. The onsite interpretation and maintenance facilities 

would potentially focus some visitor foot 

traffic to the interpretation building and away 

from the steep walls of Cross Plains gorge and 

steep slopes at the edge of Black Earth Creek 

valley. This would reduce the potential for soil 

compaction and erosion from uncontrolled 

human activity, resulting in minor to moderate 

beneficial impacts on those areas. 

Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation Emphasis. 

Alternative 4 would have the same beneficial 

impacts on soils as expressed in the first 

paragraph under alternative 1. 

The construction of buildings and a surfaced 

trail to Cross Plains gorge, as well as a bridge 

across the gorge, could potentially have a 

temporary moderate adverse impact on soils 

from erosion and compaction in areas subject 

to construction. There would be additional 

trails across the site that would create 

moderate compaction in the vicinity of the 

trail. Once the landscape is stabilized following 

construction, compaction from visitor foot 

traffic would be confined to the areas around 

buildings and parking lots, which could 

potentially result in minor adverse impacts. 

The addition of a bicycle trail from the 

visitor center to a parking lot north of Black 

Earth Creek would increase visitor activity 

in a sensitive area, resulting in an adverse 

moderate impact on the steep slopes facing 

the creek, especially along the trail. The onsite interpretation and maintenance facilities 

would potentially focus some visitor foot 

traffic to the interpretation building and away 

from the steep walls of Cross Plains gorge and 

steep slopes at the edge of Black Earth Creek 

valley. This would reduce the potential for soil 

compaction and erosion from uncontrolled 

human activity, resulting in minor to moderate 

beneficial impacts on those areas. 

Alternative 5: Preferred Alternative. Alternative 

5 would have the same beneficial impacts on 

soils as expressed in the first paragraph under 

alternative 1. 

The construction of buildings and a surfaced 

trail to Cross Plains gorge could potentially 

have a moderate adverse impact on soils from 
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT xv

Summary

erosion and compaction during construction. 

There would be additional trails across the 

site that would create moderate compaction 

in the vicinity of the trail. Once the landscape 

is stabilized following construction, 

compaction from visitor foot traffic would 

be confined to the areas around buildings 

and parking lots, which could potentially 

result in minor adverse impacts. The on-site 

interpretation and maintenance facilities 

would potentially focus some visitor foot 

traffic to the interpretation building and 

away from the steep walls of Cross Plains 

gorge and steep slopes at the edge of Black 

Earth Creek valley. This would reduce the 

potential for soil compaction and erosion 

from uncontrolled human activity, resulting 

in minor to moderate beneficial impacts on 

those areas. 

Water Quality

Alternative 1: No Action, Continuation of Current 

Management. At this time, the small basin that 

collects surface water that flows into Coyle 

Pond is partly used for row crops. Whatever 

tillage techniques are used, the application 

of herbicides and fertilizer has the potential 

to contaminate groundwater by passing 

through the limestone beneath the sinkhole. 

At this time land around Shoveler Sink is 

not in intensive agriculture, and chemicals 

are not being applied to the fields, so there 

is currently negligible adverse impact from 

agricultural runoff. 

Alternative 2: Ecological Restoration Emphasis.

The small basin that collects surface water 

flowing into the Coyle Pond would be put 

back into presettlement vegetation under 

this alternative, and any adverse impact on 

groundwater would be negligible. In fact, over 

time, agricultural chemicals would not enter 

the groundwater system through the sink, so 

this would likely have a beneficial effect on 

groundwater quality, but the amount of this 

effect cannot be quantified. 

Alternative 3: Interpretation and Education Emphasis; 

Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation Emphasis; 

and Alternative 5: Preferred Alternative. These 

alternatives envision an indoor facility with 

modern amenities (such as indoor plumbing) 

for visitors, so there would be a need for a new 

well and septic system near the core area of the 

property. These would be built to appropriate 

codes and would therefore have a negligible 

impact on groundwater. 

Soundscapes

Alternative 1: No Action, Continuation of Current 

Management. Due to minimal development 

of visitor amenities, this alternative would be 

expected to have the lowest level of visitation 

out of the five alternatives and therefore the 

least visitor-created noise. It seems likely that, 

overall, there would be negligible impacts on 

the soundscape. 

Alternative 2: Ecological Restoration Emphasis.

This alternative would increase trail usage 

over the no-action alternative, which could 

potentially result in more visitor-generated 

noise. In the short term, there would be 

noise generated from the removal of the 

structures at the core of the property, but 

those moderate adverse impacts on the 

soundscape would be temporary. Over the 

long term, most of the complex would be 

managed to allow visitors “a direct sensory 

experience of natural resources” (refer to 

table 2 in chapter 2 for the natural experience 

management area description for desired 

visitor experience), indicating negligible 

impacts on the soundscape. 

Alternative 3: Interpretation and Education 

Emphasis. Alternative 3 would result in a 

considerable increase in visitation compared 

to the no-action alternative, which could lead 

to more visitor-generated noise. In the short 

term, there would be noise generated from the 

renovation of the structures at the core of the 

property, but these moderate adverse impacts 

on the soundscape would be temporary. Over 

the long term, most of the complex would be 

managed for landscape interpretation, under 

which the management prescription (refer 

to table 2 in chapter 2) for visitor experience 
xvi ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

SUMMARY

would concentrate on offering views of the 

results of glaciation, instead of offering direct 

sensory experience of natural resources as the 

natural experience management area would, 

indicating the potential for minor adverse 

soundscape impacts. 

Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation Emphasis.

Alternative 4 could result in a considerable 

increase in visitation, which would lead to 

considerably more visitor-generated noise. 

There would be noise generated from the 

construction of structures at the core of the 

property, but these moderate adverse impacts 

on the soundscape would be temporary. 

The bike path across the complex could 

generate more visitors and more noise per 

visitor than the hiking trails under the other 

alternatives. Most of the complex would be 

managed for landscape interpretation or 

for an expanded recreational experience, 

under which the management prescription 

for visitor experience would concentrate on 

offering views of the results of glaciation and 

the opportunity for low-impact recreation. 

However, there would also be a large natural 

experience area at the corner of two of the 

major roads on the edge of the complex. 

Overall, adverse impacts on the soundscape 

would be minor. 

Alternative 5: Preferred Alternative. Impacts 

on the soundscape would be very similar 

to alternative 4, albeit slightly less because 

there would not be a bike path across the 

complex under this alternative. Overall, 

adverse impacts on the soundscape would be 

negligible to minor. 

Vegetation and Wildlife

Alternative 1: No Action, Continuation of 

Current Management. There would be no 

comprehensive plan to guide management 

of the complex, so vegetation and wildlife 

habitat would not be consistently managed. 

Restoration goals (such as for the oak savanna 

or prairie) and activities (such as prescribed 

burning or mechanical invasive removal) 

would be decided on a case-by-case basis 

as funding and/or volunteer labor allows. 

Since there would be few defined trails, 

there would be a risk of vegetation trampling 

throughout the site from the creation of 

social trails. However, since the site would 

not be advertised, there would be no facilities 

to accommodate visitors, and user capacity 

management would allow park managers a 

number of strategies to mitigate this risk; thus, 

adverse vegetation impacts from trampling 

would be negligible. It seems likely that, 

considering the site as a whole, there would be 

negligible impacts on vegetation and wildlife. 

Alternative 2: Ecological Restoration Emphasis.

Most of the complex would be managed 

for natural experience, in which “Natural 

resources are managed to approximate 

presettlement (circa 1830) conditions. To the 

extent possible, natural ecological processes 

sustain the integrity of these resources.” 

This management prescription would have a 

moderate beneficial impact on vegetation 

and wildlife. 

Alternative 3: Interpretation and Education 

Emphasis. There would still be a significant 

area managed for natural experience, although 

most of the complex would be managed 

for landscape interpretation, under which 

the management prescription for resource 

conditions would include managing natural 

resources to reveal glacial features. 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. 

Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation Emphasis and 

Alternative 5: Preferred Alternative. Under these 

two alternatives, management prescriptions 

would be fairly evenly divided between 

landscape interpretation and expanded 

recreational experience (which share the 

same desired resource condition) and natural 

experience. Additionally, under alternative 5, 
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT xvii

Summary

a wildlife corridor of unbroken habitat would 

be established in the southern half of the 

complex. This combination of management 

prescriptions would entail a minor beneficial 

impact on vegetation and wildlife. 

Socioeconomics

All Alternatives. Typically, the addition of 

parklands to a community increases the value 

of land adjacent to the park. Because of this, all 

of the alternatives would be likely to produce 

beneficial economic impacts. Similarly, all 

alternatives would have adverse impacts on the 

local tax base if lands were federally owned 

because those lands would be exempt from 

property tax, and the payments in lieu of tax 

program historically has not fully compensated 

for this loss. However, these adverse impacts 

might be smaller than for similar areas of the 

National Park Service because the land would 

also be owned by the Department of Natural 

Resources, which does offset local property 

tax losses, so this potential tax loss could 

be mitigated. 

Alternative 1: No Action, Continuation of 

Current Management and Alternative 2: 

Ecological Restoration Emphasis. These two 

alternatives would only provide an outdoor 

experience in which activities for visitors 

would be limited to hiking and other lowimpact activities on a minimal trail system and 

rare interpretive tours. The visitation level 

under these alternatives could be compared 

to the most sparsely visited parks (10,000 

visitors per year or less) in the national park 

system. These parks, on average, contribute 

about $350,000 value-added annually to their 

communities. Without knowing what type 

of housing would have been built if neither 

of these alternatives were implemented, it 

is impossible to know what the tax receipts 

would have been. If net property tax receipts 

from residential development (after the costs 

of improving infrastructure to accommodate 

these residences, such as schools and roads are 

taken into account) were to exceed $350,000 

annually, then the economic impacts of the 

no-action alternative and alternative 2 would 

be adverse. If, on the other hand, net property 

taxes were less than the estimated $350,000 

that visitation economic benefits would bring, 

the impacts of these two alternatives would 

be beneficial. 

Alternative 3: Interpretation and Education 

Emphasis. This alternative would not only 

offer an outdoor experience, but also a 

place to stop and rest indoors, view some 

exhibits, and talk with park staff. Visitors 

would also benefit from regular interpretive 

programming provided by rangers. These 

elements would attract more visitors to the 

complex, but overall, the estimated visitation 

would still be relatively low. Visitation under 

this alternative could be compared to parks 

with low visitation (50,000–100,000 visitors per 

year) in the national park system. These parks, 

on average, contribute about $2.5 million 

value-added annually to their communities. It 

is not possible to know what the tax receipts 

would have been if this alternative were not 

implemented. If net property tax receipts 

from residential development (after the costs 

of improving infrastructure to accommodate 

these residences such as schools and roads 

are taken into account) were to exceed 

$2.5 million annually, then the economic 

impacts of alternative 3 would be adverse. If, 

on the other hand, net property taxes were less 

than the estimated $2.5 million that visitation 

economic benefits would bring, then the 

impacts of this alternative would be beneficial.

Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation Emphasis 

and Alternative 5: Preferred Alternative. These 

alternatives would offer a broader outdoor 

experience in a variety of ways, such as more 

trails, limited primitive camping, picnic areas, 

and for alternative 4, a bridge across the gorge 

and a bike path. The two alternatives would 

also offer a place to stop and rest indoors; 

view extensive exhibits, including a film; and 

talk with park staff. There would be space to 

accommodate visitors who come in a group, 

such as school groups. Visitors would also 

benefit from regular interpretive programming 
xviii ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

SUMMARY

provided by rangers. These elements would 

attract more visitors to the complex, and 

overall, the estimated visitation would fall in 

the moderate range for visitation (150,000–

200,000 visitors per year) in the national park 

system. These parks, on average, contribute 

about $5 million value-added annually to their 

communities. It is not possible to know what 

the tax receipts would be if these alternatives 

were not implemented. If net property tax 

receipts from residential development (after 

taking into account the costs of improving 

infrastructure, such as schools and roads, to 

accommodate the new residences ) were to 

exceed $5 million annually, then the economic 

impacts of these alternatives would be adverse. 

If, on the other hand, net property taxes 

were less than the estimated $5 million that 

visitation economic benefits would bring, 

then the impacts of these alternatives would 

be beneficial.

Visitor Use and Experience

Alternative 1: No Action, Continuation of Current 

Management and Alternative 2: Ecological 

Restoration Emphasis. These alternatives would 

only provide an outdoor experience in which 

activities for visitors would be limited to hiking 

and other low-impact activities on a minimal 

trail system and rare interpretive tours. While 

the activities would offer some beneficial 

experience for visitors over the current 

conditions, the benefits would likely range 

from negligible to minor. 

Alternative 3: Interpretation and Education 

Emphasis This alternative would not only 

offer an outdoor experience, but also a place 

to stop and rest indoors, view some exhibits 

(not extensive given space limitations), and 

talk with park staff. Visitors would also benefit 

from regular interpretive programming 

provided by rangers. For visitors interested 

in the human history of the site, the ability 

to view and interpret the Wilkie house and 

barn would provide a pleasant variety of 

experience. However, visitors who might 

want to view a film in a theater or arrive in 

groups and gather in one indoor spot might be 

disappointed by the indoor space limitations. 

Overall, this alternative would offer beneficial 

visitor experience at a minor level. 

Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation Emphasis.

This alternative would offer a broad outdoor 

experience in a variety of ways (more trails, 

limited outdoor camping, picnic areas, a 

bridge across the gorge, and a bike path). 

It would also offer a place to stop and rest 

indoors; view extensive exhibits, including 

a film; and talk with park staff. There would 

be space to accommodate visitors who come 

in group, such as school groups. Visitors 

would also benefit from regular interpretive 

programming provided by rangers. However, 

visitors seeking solitude and a quiet nature 

immersion experience might be disappointed 

to have to travel far from the core of the site 

to find this. Overall, this alternative would 

have a minor to moderate beneficial impact 

on visitor experience. 

Alternative 5: Preferred Alternative. This 

alternative would offer a broad outdoor 

experience in a variety of ways (more trails, 

including a half-day-long loop trail; limited 

outdoor camping; and picnic areas). It would 

also offer a place to stop and rest indoors; 

view extensive exhibits, including a film; and 

talk with park staff. There would be space to 

accommodate visitors who come in group, 

such as school groups. Visitors would also 

benefit from regular interpretive programming 

provided by rangers. Various attractions 

(such as a bike path traversing the site and a 

pedestrian bridge across the gorge) are not 

proposed in this alternative (as they are in 

alternative 4) because those amenities were 

not widely supported by the public when they 

commented on the preliminary alternatives. 

Therefore, it seems like not many benefits to 

visitor experience were lost with the removal 

of those elements. Because the sensitive 

resources management area was enlarged, 

visitors seeking solitude and a quiet nature 

immersion experience would not have to 

travel far from the core of the site to find this. 

Overall, this alternative would have a moderate 

beneficial impact on visitor experience. 
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT xix

Summary

NEXT STEPS 

AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 

GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

There is a 60-day public review and comment 

period on this draft general management plan / 

environmental impact statement. After the 

comment period, the NPS planning team 

will evaluate comments from other federal 

agencies, tribes, organizations, businesses, 

and individuals regarding this document and 

incorporate appropriate changes into a final 

general management plan / environmental 

impact statement. The final document will 

include letters from government agencies, any 

substantive comments on the draft document, 

and NPS responses to those comments. 

There will be a 30-day no-action period 

following distribution of the final general 

management plan / environmental impact 

statement. A “record of decision” may be 

prepared that would document the NPS 

selected alternative, which would become 

the new general management plan for the 

Ice Age Complex to be implemented over 

15 to 20 years. Once a record of decision is 

signed by the NPS regional director, the plan 

would then be implemented as funding and 

staffing allows. 

i t i s i m p o r t a n t t o n o t e that not all 

of the actions in the selected alternative would 

necessarily be implemented immediately. 

The implementation of the approved 

plan, no matter which alternative might be 

selected, would depend on future NPS, 

state, and partner funding levels; staff to 

implement the plan; servicewide priorities; 

and on partnership time and effort. Full 

implementation of the plan could be many 

years in the future. 

Please Note
xx ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

SUMMARY
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT xxi

Contents

CONTENTS

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR A GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 3

Introduction 3

Description of the Ice Age Complex 3

Overview of the Planning Process 8

Purpose of the Plan 10

Need for the Plan 10

Foundation Statement 11

Statements of Park Purpose 11

Statements of Park Significance 11

Fundamental and Other Important Resources and Values 12

Primary Interpretive Themes 12

Legal and Policy Requirements 14

Scope of the General Management Plan 20

Issues and Concerns Addressed in this Plan 20

Issues and Concerns Not Addressed in this Plan 20

Impact Topics 20

Relationship of Other Planning 

Efforts to this General Management Plan 27

U.S. Highway 14 Access Study 27

Bike Path Along U.S. Highway 14 27

Village of Cross Plains Comprehensive Plan 27

Next Steps in the Planning Process 28

Implementation of the Plan 28

Wisconsin State Property Designation 28

CHAPTER TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 31

Formulation of the Alternatives 31

Identification of the Preferred Alternative 

and Environmentally Preferred Alternative 32

Consideration of Boundary Adjustment(s) 32

User Capacity 34

The Proposed Alternatives 34

Management Areas 36

The Alternatives Considered 36

Alternatives Considered but Dismissed 51

Estimated Costs and Staffing (in 2010 dollars)

of the Five Alternatives 54
xxii ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CONTENTS

User Capacity 54

Indicators and Standards 56

Priority Visitor Experience Indicators and Standards 59

Long-term Monitoring 60

Needed Future Studies and Plans 60

Environmentally Preferred Alternative 61

Preferred Alternative 63

Comparison of the Alternatives 63

CHAPTER THREE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 75

Geologic and Soil Resources 75

Bedrock Geology 76

Soils 81

Water Quality 81

Soundscapes 82

Vegetation and Wildlife 82

Socioeconomics 84

Visitor Experience 85

CHAPTER FOUR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 89

Definitions for Evaluating Effects 90

Types of Effects 90

Duration of Effects 90

Intensity of Effects 90

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future

Actions On or In the Vicinity of the Ice Age Complex 90

Soil Resources 91

Analysis Methodology 91

Alternative 1: No Action, Continuation of Current Management — 

Direct and Indirect Impacts on Soils 91

Alternative 2: Ecological Restoration Emphasis — 

Direct and Indirect Impacts on Soils 92

Alternative 3: Interpretation and Education Emphasis — 

Direct and Indirect Impacts on Soils 93

Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation Emphasis — 

Direct and Indirect Impacts on Soils 93

Alternative 5: Preferred Alternative — 

Direct and Indirect Impacts on Soils 93

All Alternatives — Cumulative Impacts on Soils 94
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT xxiii

Contents

Water Quality 94

Analysis Methodology 94

Alternative 1: No Action, Continuation of Current Management — 

Direct and Indirect Impacts on Water Quality 95

Alternative 2: Ecological Restoration Emphasis — 

Direct and Indirect Impacts on Water Quality 95

Alternative 3: Interpretation and Education Emphasis;

Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation Emphasis; and 

Alternative 5: Preferred Alternative — 

Direct and Indirect Impacts on Water Quality 95

Cumulative Impacts on Water Quality 95

Soundscapes 96

Analysis Methodology 96

Alternative 1: No Action Alternative, Continuation of Current Management — 

Direct and Indirect Impacts on the Soundscape 97

Alternative 2: Ecological Restoration Emphasis — 

Direct and Indirect Impacts on the Soundscape 97

Alternative 3: Interpretation and Education Emphasis — 

Direct and Indirect Impacts on the Soundscape 97

Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation Emphasis — 

Direct and Indirect Impacts on the Soundscape 97

Alternative 5: Preferred Alternative — 

Direct and Indirect Impacts on the Soundscape 97

Cumulative Impacts on the Soundscape 98

Vegetation and Wildlife 98

Analysis Methodology 99

Alternative 1: No Action, Continuation of Current Management — 

Direct and Indirect Impacts on Vegetation and Wildlife 100

Alternative 2: Ecological Restoration Emphasis — 

Direct and Indirect Impacts on Vegetation and Wildlife 100

Alternative 3: Interpretation and Education Emphasis — 

Direct and Indirect Impacts on Vegetation and Wildlife 100

Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation Emphasis and Alternative 5: Preferred Alternative — 

Direct and Indirect Impacts on Vegetation and Wildlife 100

Cumulative Impacts on Vegetation and Wildlife 100

Socioeconomics 101

Analysis Methodology 102

All Alternatives — Direct and Indirect Impacts on Socioeconomics 103

Alternative 1: No Action, Continuation of Current Management and Alternative 2: 

Ecological Restoration Emphasis — Direct and Indirect Impacts on Socioeconomics 103

Alternative 3: Interpretation and Education Emphasis — 

Direct and Indirect Impacts on Socioeconomics 104

Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation Emphasis and Alternative 5: Preferred Alternative — 

Direct and Indirect Impacts on Socioeconomics 104

Cumulative Impacts on Socioeconomics 104
xxiv ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CONTENTS

Visitor Use and Experience 105

Analysis Methodology 105

Alternative 1: No Action, Continuation of Current Management and Alternative 2: 

Ecological Restoration Emphasis — Direct and Indirect Impacts on Visitor Experience 106

Alternative 3: Interpretation and Education Emphasis — 

Direct and Indirect Impacts on Visitor Use and Experience 106

Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation Emphasis — 

Direct and Indirect Impacts on Visitor Use and Experience 107

Alternative 5: Preferred Alternative — 

Direct and Indirect Impacts on Visitor Use and Experience 107

Cumulative Impacts on Visitor Use and Experience 107

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 108

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 108

Relationship of Short-term Uses of Man’s Environment and Long-term Productivity 108

CHAPTER FIVE CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 111

Public Involvement 111

Tribal Consultation 112

Federal Agencies Consultation 113

Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Office Consultation 113

Consultation Letters and Responses 114

APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, AND INDEX 121

Appendix A: Laws Establishing the Ice Age National Scientific Reserve 

and the Ice Age National Scenic Trail 121

Appendix B: Village of Cross Plains Resolution Regarding Old Sauk Pass 125

Appendix C: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Compliance Form 127

Appendix D: Acronyms and Abbreviations 128

Appendix E: Planning Team 129
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT xxv

Contents

FIGURES

ES-1: Map of Ice Age Complex at Cross Plains iv

ES-2: Ice Age National Scientific Reserve and its nine units v

1: Ice Age Complex at Cross Plains 5

2: Ice Age National Scientific Reserve and Its Nine Units 6

3: Expanded Boundary Changes and Inclusion of Parcels A and B 35

4: Overview of the Ice Age Complex at Cross Plains 40

5: Map for Alternative 2: Ecological Restoration Emphasis 42

6: Map for Alternative 3: Interpretation and Education Emphasis 44

7: Map for Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation Emphasis 46

8: Map for Alternative 5: Preferred Alternative 49

9: NPS User-Capacity Framework 55

10: Distribution of near-surface bedrock units at the Ice Age Complex 77

11: North-south cross-section through the Ice Age Complex 78

12: Detailed map of glacial and related deposits in the Ice Age Complex 79

13: Map of Dane County and the Ice Age Complex 84

TABLES

1: NPS Mandates and Policies 16

2: Five Management Areas for the Ice Age Complex 37

3: Estimated Costs of Implementing Each of the Five Alternatives 55

4: Indicators, Management Areas, Standards, and Potential Management Strategies 56

5: Six Criteria for Assessing the Environmentally Preferred Alternative 62

6: Summary of the Key Elements of the Alternatives 64

7: Summary Comparison of Impacts of the Alternatives 68
xxvi ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CONTENTS


3

DESCRIPTION OF THE ICE AGE COMPLEX

Chapter One INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED 

FOR A GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

INTRODUCTION

T

h i s c h a p t e r b e g i n s by providing background on the 

Ice Age Complex at Cross Plains (henceforth, “Ice Age Complex” 

or “complex”) to explain what and where it is and why the 

National Park Service (NPS) and the Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resources (WDNR) are proposing a plan for preserving 

and interpreting it. This chapter also explains the process used 

to develop this draft general management plan / environmental 

impact statement (GMP/EIS), as well as the purpose of and need 

for a general management plan and the actions proposed herein.

A mere 20,000 years ago, 

two-thirds of what is today 

the state of Wisconsin lay 

under the grip of colossal ice 

sheets. The climate warmed 

and the ice sheets began to 

melt back. In their wake they 

left an impressive landscape of 

fascinating glacial landforms: 

moraines, drumlins, kames, 

kettles, eskers, outwash plains, 

meltwater channels, driftless 

(unglaciated) topography, 

glacial lake beds and islands, 

and more. These Wisconsin Ice 

Age remnants are considered 

among the world’s finest 

examples of how 

continental glaciation 

sculpts our planet. 

Located just west of Madison 

near the village of Cross Plains 

is a 1,500-acre area that contains 

an outstanding collection of 

glacial landforms, including a 

gorge carved by meltwater and 

expansive views of both driftless 

and glaciated terrain. These 

acres comprise a park called, 

for the purpose of this planning 

effort, the “Ice Age Complex at 

Cross Plains” (henceforth “Ice 

Age Complex” or “complex”) 

(see figure 1). This site, however, 

has a rich history of different 

legal designations. 

Gorge carved 

by glacial 

meltwater.

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
4 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR A GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

Snow covered gorge

Rolling landscape

The lands and landscape of the Ice Age 

Complex have been deemed nationally 

significant under two related, but distinct, 

federal designations. The elements recognized 

in both designations are parts of the singular 

concept advanced by Wisconsin citizens in 

the late 1950s and early 1960s to protect and 

showcase Wisconsin’s heritage from continental 

glaciation. Congress authorized the concept in 

two parts, at two different times, and through 

two different legislative vehicles. 

In 1964 Congress enacted legislation (Public 

Law [PL] 88-655; 78 Stat. 1087; 16 United 

States Code [USC] 469d, et seq.) directing the 

Secretary of the Interior to cooperate with 

the governor of Wisconsin in studying and 

subsequently designating an Ice Age National 

Scientific Reserve (“Ice Age Reserve” or 

“reserve”). The purpose of the Ice Age Reserve 

is “to assure protection, preservation, and 

interpretation of the nationally significant 

values of Wisconsin continental glaciation, 

including moraines, eskers, kames, kettleholes, 

drumlins, swamps, lakes, and other reminders 

of the ice age.” The continental glaciers last 

advanced and retreated over the state 

some 30,000 to 10,000 years ago. 

Congress envisioned the Ice Age Reserve as a 

network of distinct areas, each exhibiting an 

outstanding example of one type of landscape 

or landform resulting from continental 

glaciation. The legislation’s intention is that 

the reserve would be owned and managed by 

the state of Wisconsin, with the assistance and 

collaboration of the Secretary of the Interior 

(acting through the National Park Service). 

Several of the outstanding sites selected were 

already Wisconsin state parks. The legislation 

made reference to the Ice Age National Scenic 

Trail but made no provisions for it. 

When the study was completed, nine sites were 

identified to be protected and managed by the 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 

(WDNR) as units of the Ice Age Reserve (see 

figure 2). On May 29, 1971, the Secretary of 

the Interior published an order in the Federal 

Register that formally brought the Ice Age 

Reserve into existence. 
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 5

Chapter One Introduction and Purpose and Need for a General Management Plan

Figure 1: Ice Age Complex at Cross Plains
6 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR A GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

Figure 2: Ice Age National Scientific Reserve and its nine units
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 7

Chapter One Introduction and Purpose and Need for a General Management Plan

As noted in Black (1974), “The Cross 

Plains area was selected for inclusion in the 

Reserve in part because it contains a typical 

portion of the Johnstown Moraine on the 

uplands and a typical proglacial stream in 

Black Earth Creek Valley, and is close to 

a center of population. More importantly 

it is the only place . . . where the terminal 

moraine rests directly on well exposed, 

weathered dolomite bedrock and where 

small marginal proglacial lakes, a marginal 

drainage way, and a subglacial drainage 

way may all be seen in a small area. The 

various glacial features associated with the 

moraine in the vicinity of Cross Plains are 

more varied and yet as definitive as one 

could hope to see, all preserved in a neat 

little package. The area is one of increasing 

urbanization, and preservation of parts of 

the front and its associated phenomena can 

only be assured in the Reserve.” 

The Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources purchased 100 acres of the 

Cross Plains unit of the Ice Age Reserve in 

September 1975, and an additional 60 acres 

were subsequently purchased. The Cross 

Plains unit is also designated as Cross Plains 

State Park by Wisconsin Administrative Rule. 

Congress again recognized the national 

significance of Wisconsin’s glacial landscapes 

when, on October 3, 1980, it amended the 

National Trails System Act to authorize and 

establish the Ice Age National Scenic Trail as a 

component of the National Trails System (PL 

96-370; 94 Stat. 1360; 16 USC 1244(a)(10)). 

The Ice Age National Scenic Trail meanders 

through Wisconsin for approximately 

1,200 miles from Potawatomi State Park in 

Door County to Interstate State Park in Polk 

County, generally following the terminal 

moraine and other glacial landscape features 

and connecting six of the nine units of the Ice 

Age Reserve. The Secretary of the Interior was 

assigned administrative responsibility for the 

Ice Age National Scenic Trail. 

The Secretary of the Interior delegated overall 

administrative responsibility for the Ice Age 

National Scenic Trail to the National Park 

Service. The Park Service, in cooperation 

with the Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources and other parties, completed a 

Comprehensive Plan for Management and 

Use of the Ice Age National Scenic Trail 

in September 1983. The National Park 

Service is responsible at the federal level for 

carrying out the provisions of the National 

Trails System Act as they relate to the Ice Age 

National Scenic Trail. The National Park 

Service carries out or facilitates trail planning, 

environmental compliance, trail development 

and management, public and private 

partner involvement, and land protection 

activities. The Park Service assists partners 

by coordinating, guiding, and assisting their 

efforts to acquire, develop, operate, protect, 

and maintain the Ice Age National Scenic Trail 

in accordance with the comprehensive plan 

and supplemental trail corridor plans and 

trailway protection strategies (land protection 

plans). The comprehensive plan identifies the 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 

and the nonprofit Ice Age Trail Alliance as 

cooperators in the long-term effort to develop 

and manage the Ice Age National Scenic 

Trail. The Park Service serves as the primary 

liaison with other federal agencies in matters 

relating to the Ice Age National Scenic Trail. 

In carrying out this role, the Park Service 

reviews and comments on federal or federally 

assisted/permitted projects and activities (such 

as highway, utility, and other development 

proposals) that may affect trail segments. 

The Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources is the state agency responsible 

for providing and maintaining outdoor 

recreation resources of statewide 

significance, including state parks and 

trails, in Wisconsin. Thus, the basis for the 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources’ 

participation in developing and managing 

the Ice Age Reserve and Ice Age National 

Scenic Trail is the statewide significance of 

the reserve and trail and the inclusion of 
8 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR A GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

state parks, forests, trails, and recreation 

areas in the reserve and along the route of 

the trail. The state legislature formalized 

this role in 1987 by passing legislation that 

designates the Ice Age National Scenic Trail 

as a State Scenic Trail. The legislation also 

assigns the responsibility to the Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources for 

coordinating the involvement of state 

agencies in the trail project and cooperating 

with the National Park Service and private 

interests in planning, acquiring, developing, 

and maintaining the Ice Age National Scenic 

Trail. The Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources has been the primary NPS partner 

in administering federal financial assistance 

for acquiring lands for the Ice Age National 

Scenic Trail. 

The National Trails System Act authorizes 

the establishment of interpretive sites along 

national scenic trails. In fiscal year (FY) 

2001 Congress appropriated funds for the 

acquisition of specific lands, owned by James 

and Jane Wilkie, for an Ice Age National Scenic 

Trail Interpretive Site. The lands specified for 

the interpretive site happen to lie within the 

boundaries of the Cross Plains unit of the 

Ice Age Reserve. The National Park Service 

purchased the lands in 2002, subject to a life 

estate, and took full possession in early 2008.

The Wilkie farmstead includes a stone house, 

the original two-story portion of which 

dates back to the 1850s, just a few years after 

statehood in 1848. The one-story addition, 

built with stone from the same quarry as the 

original house, dates to 1952 when the Wilkies 

purchased the farm. There is also a structurally 

sound wood barn, modern garage, shed used 

as a chicken coop, and Quonset for equipment 

storage. These structures are referred to 

elsewhere in this document as the “farmstead” 

or individually as the “stone house,” “barn,” 

and so forth. The structures were evaluated for 

eligibility to be listed on the National Register 

of Historic Places, but it was determined they 

were not historically significant.

The lands that comprise the Ice Age Complex 

are managed at both a state and federal level. 

That is, the Ice Age Reserve is owned and 

managed by the state of Wisconsin, and the 

Ice Age National Scenic Trail Interpretive Site 

is owned and managed by the National Park 

Service. Additionally, the Ice Age Complex also 

includes Shoveler Sink Waterfowl Production 

Area, which is owned and managed by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 

The involvement of both federal and state 

governments, as well as Dane County Parks, 

makes this plan to preserve and interpret the 

Ice Age Complex a true partnership effort.

OVERVIEW OF THE 

PLANNING PROCESS

Why have the National Park Service and 

Department of Natural Resources developed this 

general management plan?

The National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978

(Public Law [PL] 95-625) and the Redwood 

Amendment of 1978 (PL 95-250 Sec. 101(6)

(b)) require the preparation and timely 

revision of general management plans for 

each unit of the national park system. NPS 

management policies require each general 

management plan to “set forth a management 

concept for the park [and] establish a role 

for the unit within the context of regional 

trends and plans for conservation, recreation, 

transportation, economic development, and 

other regional issues.” As part of the planning 

process, Congress specifically directed (at 

16 United States Code [USC] 1a-7b) the 

National Park Service to address 

measures for the preservation of the 

area’s resources

indications of types and general 

intensities of development (including 

visitor circulation and transportation 

patterns, systems, and modes) 

associated with public enjoyment 

and use of the area, including general 

locations, timing of implementation, 

and anticipated costs

Q

A
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 9

Chapter One Introduction and Purpose and Need for a General Management Plan

identification of an implementation 

commitment for visitor carrying 

capacities [now called user capacity] for 

all areas of the unit

indications of potential modifications to 

the external boundaries of the unit and 

the reasons therefore

What is considered in developing general 

management plans? 

The purpose of the National Park Service, 

as stated in the Organic Act of 1916 (which 

brought the service into existence that year), 

is “to conserve the scenery and the natural 

and historic objects and the wild life therein 

[within the national parks] and to provide for 

the enjoyment of the same in such manner and 

by such means as will leave them unimpaired 

for the enjoyment of future generations.” 

These words comprise a mission statement 

for the entire system of national parks. The 

laws that established the Ice Age Reserve 

and the Ice Age National Scenic Trail include 

purpose statements that build on this mission 

statement. The Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resources’ 1998 feasibility study 

(supporting expansion of the Cross Plains unit 

of the reserve) stated that the proposed longrange goal for the expanded reserve unit was 

“to preserve the geologic, natural, cultural, and 

scenic qualities of the Cross Plains Reserve 

unit and provide interpretive, educational, and 

low-impact recreational opportunities.” This 

general management plan translates the NPS 

mission, combined with the more directive 

purpose statements of the Ice Age Reserve, 

Ice Age National Scenic Trail, and the Cross 

Plains unit of the reserve into guidance for the 

managers of the Ice Age Complex for the next 

15 to 20 years. 

How are requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act integrated into the 

general management plan? 

This draft general management plan / 

environmental impact statement was 

developed according to the process outlined 

by the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA), a law passed in 1969 to impose 

analysis and public review requirements on 

federal decision makers. This plan follows 

the NEPA process by proposing a range of 

reasonable alternatives for managing the Ice 

Age Complex, evaluating the environmental 

impacts of the alternatives, and inviting public 

review of the alternatives and impact analysis. 

NPS Director’s Order 12: Conservation 

Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, 

and Decisionmaking and its accompanying 

handbook lay the groundwork for how the 

National Park Services complies with the 

National Environmental Policy Act. Director’s 

Order 12 and handbook set forth a planning 

process for incorporating scientific and 

technical information and establishing a solid 

administrative record for NPS projects. 

How did public involvement inform this plan? 

Public feedback was invited at three specific 

points in the NEPA process.

1. Scoping. A newsletter was sent out, 

the website was launched, and public 

meetings were held in summer 2008 to 

gather general feedback on the scope 

of this plan. Questions were asked 

of the public about what they value 

about the Ice Age Complex and what 

problems, concerns, or opportunities 

they see. The responses to these 

questions were used to formulate 

preliminary alternatives.

2. Preliminary Alternatives. A second 

newsletter was sent out, and public 

meetings were held in summer 2009 

to invite feedback on four potential 

ways that the Ice Age Complex could 

be managed. Public responses during 

this stage of the plan’s development 

influenced the results of the value 

analysis, during which the preferred 

alternative (alternative 5) was developed.

Q

A

Q

A

Q

A
10 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR A GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

3. Draft Plan. Comments on this 

draft general management plan / 

environmental impact statement are 

now welcome. NPS responses to 

substantive public comments on this 

draft document will be included with 

the final general management plan / 

environmental impact statement. 

More explanation of public involvement in this 

plan is included in “Chapter 5: Consultation 

and Coordination.”

PURPOSE OF THE PLAN

The final general management plan will 

provide a framework to assist NPS and 

WDNR managers in making decisions today 

and in the future. The alternatives proposed 

in this plan describe general paths that the 

National Park Service and Department of 

Natural Resources would follow in managing 

the Ice Age Complex over the next 15 to 

20 years. This draft general management plan / 

environmental impact statement

identifies desired conditions in different 

parts of the Ice Age Complex

identifies any necessary developments 

and support facilities to achieve the 

vision and desired conditions

ensures that the foundation for 

decision making has been developed 

in consultation with the public and 

adopted by NPS leadership after 

sufficient analysis of the benefits, 

impacts, and economic costs of 

alternative courses of action

The document addresses the three purposes 

listed above, but it does not

describe how particular programs or 

projects would be implemented or 

prioritized; these decisions are deferred 

to detailed implementation planning 

provide specific details and answers to 

all the issues facing the Ice Age Complex

provide funding commitments for 

implementation of the plan 

NEED FOR THE PLAN

A general management plan is needed in order 

to establish a consistent vision for the Ice Age 

Complex that is shared by all partners in this 

project. Those partners are the National Park 

Service, Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Ice Age Trail Alliance, local government 

agencies, and the general public. Although 

the Department of Natural Resources’ 1998 

feasibility study (mentioned above) provided 

a rough outline for how the Ice Age Complex 

could be managed, this general management 

plan is the first plan designed to provide 

comprehensive management guidance for 

the complex. The Ice Age National Scenic 

Trail is guided by a 1983 comprehensive 

management plan, and the Ice Age Reserve is 

guided by a 1968 comprehensive management 

plan, but neither of these older overarching 

plans articulate the shared vision between 

the National Park Service, Department of 

Natural Resources, and the public on how 

to best achieve the specific purpose of the 

complex and protect its resources for future 

generations.

Currently, the Ice Age Complex is essentially 

undeveloped for visitor use. Given its location 

just outside the fast-growing suburbs of 

Madison, Wisconsin, and the interest in Ice 

Age geology in the region, there is potential for 

significant visitation at the complex. There is 

also potential for damage to the glacial features 

at the site without long-term planning for their 

protection. Thus, this general management 

plan is needed because 

the management plans for related areas 

(Ice Age National Scenic Trail and 

Ice Age National Scientific Reserve) 

are outdated
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 11

Chapter One Introduction and Purpose and Need for a General Management Plan

there must be a consistent and shared 

vision for the complex 

there is potential for both significant 

visitation and resource damage

FOUNDATION STATEMENT

Each park in the national park system must 

develop a formal core mission statement that 

provides basic guidance for making decisions 

about that park. The foundation statement is 

the formal core mission statement. The core 

elements of the foundation statement are 

(1) statements of purpose and significance; 

(2) descriptions of fundamental and important 

resources and values; (3) discussion of primary 

interpretive themes; and (4) summaries of legal 

and policy requirements and special mandates 

for the site. The foundation statement helps 

ensure that park managers and stakeholders 

understand these important core elements of 

the park. 

Statements of Park Purpose

Purpose statements are the specific reasons 

for establishing a park. They are grounded 

in a thorough analysis of the park’s enabling 

legislation and legislative history, but they go 

beyond simply restating the law to document 

shared assumptions about what the law means 

in terms specific to the park. Legislative 

mandates, from which the purpose statements 

for the Ice Age Complex were derived, 

include the 1964 law establishing the Ice Age 

National Scientific Reserve (because the Ice 

Age Complex is also the Cross Plains unit of 

the reserve, as determined by a 1998 WDNR 

Feasibility Study) and the National Trails 

System Act, as amended in 1980 to include the 

Ice Age National Scenic Trail (because part of 

the Ice Age Complex is also the interpretive 

site for the Ice Age National Scenic Trail) 

(appendix A contains copies of the legislation). 

There are three purposes of the Ice Age 

Complex; those are to 

ensure protection, preservation, 

and interpretation of the nationally 

significant values of continental 

glaciation in Wisconsin, including 

moraines, eskers, kames, kettleholes, 

drumlins, swamps, lakes, and other 

reminders of the Wisconsin Ice Age

establish a superlative segment of the Ice 

Age National Scenic Trail and provide 

information and interpretation about 

the trail to the public at a significant site 

along its route

provide outdoor recreational and 

educational opportunities in support of 

and compatible with the conservation 

and enjoyment of the nationally 

significant scenic, historic, natural, and 

cultural resources within the complex

Statements of Park Significance

Significance statements describe why (within 

a national, regional, and systemwide context) 

the park’s resources and values are important 

enough to warrant national park designation. 

The significance statements are directly linked 

to the park’s purpose, are substantiated by 

data or consensus, and reflect the most 

current scientific or scholarly inquiry and 

cultural perceptions.

These are the three statements of park 

significance for the Ice Age Complex.

1. Nowhere are the marks of continental 

glaciation upon the land more 

impressive than along the Ice Age 

National Scenic Trail and in the Ice Age 

National Scientific Reserve units in 

Wisconsin. The meandering landscape 

that exhibits the marks of the glacier’s 

farthest advance is a showplace of 

moraines, kames, drumlins, erratics, 

kettle lakes, potholes, eskers, marshes, 

meltwater channels, gorges, ice-walled 
12 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR A GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

lake plains, outwash plains, and glacial 

lake beds. While many of these marks 

of the glacier’s advance can be viewed 

in the Ice Age Complex at Cross Plains, 

others are present in other units of 

the reserve. 

2. The Ice Age National Scenic Trail’s 

path of glacial features provides 

outstanding opportunities for 

recreation, education, inspiration, 

solitude, and enjoyment. 

3. The Ice Age Complex at Cross Plains 

unit is the primary site for interpreting 

the Ice Age National Scenic Trail. 

Opportunities for the public to 

experience and understand the marks 

of the glacier’s farthest advance are 

highlighted in the areas where the Ice 

Age National Scenic Trail crosses the 

reserve units, as it does in Cross Plains.

Fundamental and Other Important 

Resources and Values

The preeminent responsibility of park 

managers is ensuring the conservation 

and public enjoyment of qualities that are 

critical to achieving the park’s purpose and 

maintaining its significance. These qualities 

are called the park’s “fundamental resources 

and values.” Parks often have other resources 

and values that, while not fundamental to the 

parks purpose or significance, are nevertheless 

determined to be particularly important 

considerations for general management 

planning. These resources and values are 

called the park’s “other important resources 

and values.”

The fundamental resources and values for the 

Ice Age Complex include 

geological features that tell the glacial 

story of the site, such as meltwater 

channels and proglacial lake basins 

(including, but not exclusive to, the 

Cross Plains gorge); the terminal 

moraine; erratics; bedrock geology; 

driftless area features; and related 

natural biological resources, including 

vegetation created by the microclimate 

in the gorge

a continuous route for the Ice Age 

National Scenic Trail through the 

complex to provide footpath access and 

interpretive opportunities along its route

the opportunity for people, particularly 

those in the adjacent urban area, 

to experience immersion into a 

large natural landscape, providing 

outdoor recreation and education 

both compatible with and supporting 

conservation of natural resources within 

the complex

expansive views that provide a visual 

display of the contrast between the 

unglaciated driftless area and lands 

shaped by continental glaciation

The other important resources and values for 

the Ice Age Complex include the

Native American migration route that 

traverses the site

high concentration of open-grown 

white and burr oak representative of the 

oak savanna that has disappeared from 

more than 99.9% of its former range, 

presenting opportunities for restoration 

and management 

Primary Interpretive Themes

Primary interpretive themes describe what 

needs to be interpreted in order to provide 

people with opportunities to understand and 

appreciate the park’s purpose and significance. 

These themes are primarily derived from 

and reflect park significance, although they 

also offer perspectives on fundamental and 

important resources and values. There are five 

primary interpretive themes identified for the 

Ice Age Complex.
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 13

Chapter One Introduction and Purpose and Need for a General Management Plan

First Primary 

Interpretive Theme

The Landscape — this landscape and its features uniquely illustrate the contrast 

between unglaciated and glaciated landscapes, which demonstrates the 

dramatic earth-shaping power of glaciers. 

The subtheme derived from the first primary theme will focus on the process 

of glaciation and will compare and contrast unglaciated and glaciated 

landscapes.

Second Primary 

Interpretive Theme

People and the Land — the landscapes, both unglaciated and glaciated, have 

affected human migration, settlement patterns, land use, and values of the 

land for thousands of years. These landscapes have influenced locations of 

transportation corridors and agriculture and resource extraction and have 

inspired land stewardship and contemporary land ethics. 

The subtheme derived from the second primary theme will focus on how the 

landscape affected human interaction with the land throughout time.

Third Primary 

Interpretive Theme

Ice Age National Scenic Trail — the trail offers an opportunity to connect with 

the past while immersed in nature. The Ice Age National Scenic Trail and other 

long-distance trails provide for extended outdoor experiences of discovery. 

The third primary theme focuses on the trail itself. 

Interpretation derived from this theme would encourage visitors to use the trail 

to find their own connections with the past and nature and will relate the Ice 

Age National Scenic Trail to other long-distance trails.

Fourth Primary 

Interpretive Theme

Environmental Conditions — our glacial past provides opportunities to better 

understand changing current environmental conditions that affect the way we 

live today and might live tomorrow.

The subthemes derived from the fourth primary theme will invite reflection on 

current environmental conditions in comparison with those of ancient times. 

While global climate change will be a strong subtheme, this primary theme 

is expressed more broadly in order to be inclusive of discussions on other 

environmental conditions for which the site offers learning opportunities. For 

example, the erosive effect of glacial meltwaters on the land can be compared 

at the site to the erosive effect of surface water runoff from developed 

landscapes today.

Fifth Primary 

Interpretive Theme

Managing the Ecosystem — while natural ecosystems are dynamic, where 

communities migrate and change, human intervention can disrupt the natural 

balance. Reintroduction of natural processes is necessary to restore this balance.

Subthemes derived from the fifth primary theme will focus on the site’s 

plant and animal communities, their current condition, and their need for 

management — not only to return a sustainable natural balance but also to 

enable visitors to better view and understand the glacial landscape.
14 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR A GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

Legal and Policy Requirements

Federal Laws, Policies, and Executive Orders.

The development of this general management 

plan / environmental impact statement has 

proceeded within a complex legal framework. 

This section identifies what must be done 

within the NPS-owned land at the Ice Age 

Complex to comply with federal laws and 

policies of the National Park Service. Many 

management directives are specified in laws 

and policies and are therefore not subject to 

alternative approaches. For example, there 

are federal laws and policies about managing 

environmental quality (such as the Clean Air 

Act, Endangered Species Act, and Executive 

Order 11990, “Protection of Wetlands”); laws 

governing the preservation of cultural resource 

(such as the National Historic Preservation 

Act); and laws about providing public services 

(such as the Americans with Disabilities Act) — 

to name only a few. In other words, a general 

management plan is not needed to decide, 

for instance, that it is appropriate to protect 

endangered species, control exotic species, 

protect archeological sites, conserve artifacts, 

or provide for handicap access. Laws and 

policies have already decided those and many 

other things.

Laws, Policies, and Orders Applicable Solely or 

Primarily to the National Park Service. Some 

laws, policies, and orders are applicable solely 

or primarily to the National Park Service. 

Examples include the Organic Act of 1916, 

which created the National Park Service; 

General Authorities Act of 1970; National 

Parks and Recreation Act of 1978; Redwood 

Amendment of 1978 (signed March 27, 1978), 

relating to the management of the national 

park system; and the National Parks Omnibus 

Management Act (1998). 

The NPS Organic Act of 1916 (16 USC 1) 

provides the fundamental management 

direction for all units of the national park 

system. The act states that the service thus 

established shall

promote and regulate the use 

of the Federal areas known as 

national parks, monuments, 

and reservations . . . by 

such means and measure as 

conform to the fundamental 

purpose of the said parks, 

monuments, and reservations, 

which purpose is to conserve 

the scenery and the natural 

and historic objects and the 

wild life therein and to provide 

for the enjoyment of the same 

in such manner and by such 

means as will leave them 

unimpaired for the enjoyment 

of future generations.

The National Park Service also has established 

policies that are identified and explained in a 

guidance manual entitled NPS Management 

Policies 2006, which can be found at http://

www.nps.gov/policy. 

In addition to determining the environmental 

consequences of implementing the preferred 

alternative and other alternatives, NPS 

Management Policies 2006 (section 1.4) 

requires analysis of potential effects to 

determine whether or not proposed actions 

would impair a park’s resources and values. 

The fundamental purpose of the national park 

system, established by the Organic Act and 

reaffirmed by the General Authorities Act, as 

amended, begins with a mandate to conserve 

park resources and values. NPS managers 

must always seek ways to avoid, or to minimize 

to the greatest degree practicable, adverse 

impacts on park resources and values. 
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 15

Chapter One Introduction and Purpose and Need for a General Management Plan

To truly understand the implications of an 

alternative for NPS-owned and managed 

property at the Ice Age Complex, it is 

important to combine NPS and other federal 

laws, mandates, and policies (listed in table 1), 

with the management actions and zoning 

described in each alternative (presented in 

chapter 2). 

Table 1 lists some of the most pertinent NPS 

mandates and policies related to managing 

the Ice Age Complex, other federal laws and 

executive orders, and the associated desired 

conditions needed to comply with those 

policies, laws, and mandates. The alternatives 

in this general management plan address 

the desired future conditions that are not 

mandated by law and policy and must be 

determined through a planning process.
16 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR A GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

Table 1: NPS Mandates and Policies

CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Desired Conditions NPS and Other Federal Sources

Archeological sites are identified and inventoried, and their significance 

is determined and documented. 

Archeological sites are protected in an undisturbed condition, unless 

it is determined through formal processes that disturbance or natural 

deterioration is unavoidable. When disturbance or deterioration is 

unavoidable, the site is professionally documented and excavated in 

consultation with the Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Office, and 

the resulting artifacts, materials, and records are curated and conserved. 

Some archeological sites that can be adequately protected may be 

interpreted to the visitor.

National Park Service

NPS Management Policies 2006

NPS Director’s Order 28: Cultural Resource Management Guideline 

NPS Director’s Order 28A: Archeology 

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology 

and Historic Preservation 

Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement among the National Park 

Service, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National 

Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (2008) 

Other Federal

National Historic Preservation Act

Archeological Resources Protection Act 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

Executive Order 13007, “Indian Sacred Sites” 

HISTORIC AND PREHISTORIC STRUCTURES

Desired Conditions NPS and Other Federal Sources

Historic structures are inventoried, and their significance and integrity 

are evaluated under the criteria of the National Register of Historic 

Places. The qualities that contribute to the listing or eligibility for listing 

of historic structures in the national register are protected in accordance 

with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for 

Archeology and Historic Preservation (unless it is determined through a 

formal process that disturbance or natural deterioration is unavoidable).

(Note: the only structures on land currently owned by the National 

Park Service have been evaluated and determined not eligible for the 

national register. This statement of desired conditions would apply to 

any other structures on land acquired by the Park Service.)

National Park Service

NPS Management Policies 2006 

NPS Director’s Order 28: Cultural Resource Management Guideline 

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and 

Reconstructing Historic Buildings

NPS List of Classified Structures

Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement among the National Park 

Service, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National 

Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (2008)

Other Federal

National Historic Preservation Act

Archeological Resources Protection Act 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES

Desired Conditions NPS and Other Federal Sources

Cultural landscape inventories are conducted to identify landscapes 

potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic 

Places and to assist in future management decisions for landscapes 

and associated resources, both cultural and natural. The content of a 

cultural landscape report provides the basis for making sound decisions 

about management, treatment, and use. The management of cultural 

landscapes focuses on preserving the landscape’s physical attributes, 

biotic systems, and use when that use contributes to its 

historical significance.

National Park Service

NPS Management Policies 2006 

NPS Director’s Order 28: Cultural Resource Management Guideline 

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology 

and Historic Preservation 

NPS List of Classified Structures
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 17

Chapter One Introduction and Purpose and Need for a General Management Plan

CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

Desired Conditions NPS and Other Federal Sources

(Note: the only identified cultural landscape on land currently owned by 

the Park Service has been evaluated and determined not eligible for the 

national register. This statement of desired conditions would apply to 

any other structures on land acquired by the park service.)

National Park Service

Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement among the National Park 

Service, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National 

Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (2008)

Other Federal

National Historic Preservation Act

Archeological Resources Protection Act 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

Executive Order 13007, “Indian Sacred Sites”

MUSEUM COLLECTIONS

Desired Conditions NPS and Other Federal Sources

All museum collections (prehistoric and historic objects, artifacts, works 

of art, archival documents, and natural history specimens) are identified 

and inventoried, catalogued, documented, preserved, and protected, 

and a provision is made for their access to and use for exhibits, 

research, and interpretation, according to NPS standards.

The qualities that contribute to the significance of collections are 

protected in accordance with established standards.

National Park Service

NPS Management Policies 2006 

Director’s Order 24: Museum Collections Management

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology 

and Historic Preservation 

NPS Museum Handbook, Parts I–III

Other Federal

National Historic Preservation Act

Archeological Resources Protection Act 

NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

SOILS

Desired Conditions NPS and Other Federal Sources

The National Park Service actively seeks to understand and preserve soil 

resources and to prevent, to the extent possible, the unnatural erosion, 

physical removal, or contamination of soil or its contamination of 

other resources.

Natural soil resources and processes function in as natural a condition 

as possible, except where special considerations are allowable 

under policy.

National Park Service

NPS Management Policies 2006

When soil excavation is an unavoidable part of an approved facility 

development project, the National Park Service would minimize soil 

excavation, erosion, and offsite soil migration during and after the 

development activity. 

National Park Service

NPS Management Policies 2006

Table 1: NPS Mandates and Policies (continued)
18 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR A GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

Table 1: NPS Mandates and Policies (continued)

WATER RESOURCES

Desired Conditions NPS and Other Federal Sources

Surface water and groundwater are protected, and water quality meets 

or is better than (exceeds) all applicable water quality standards. 

National Park Service

NPS Management Policies 2006 

Other Federal

Clean Water Act

Executive Order 11514, “Protection and Enhancement of Environmental 

Quality”

NPS programs and facilities and NPS permitted programs and facilities 

are maintained and operated to avoid pollution of surface water and 

groundwater.

National Park Service

NPS Management Policies 2006

Other Federal

Clean Water Act

Rivers and Harbors Act

Executive Order 12088, “Federal Compliance with Pollution Control 

Standards”

NATIVE VEGETATION AND ANIMALS

Desired Conditions NPS and Other Federal Sources

The National Park Service strives to maintain, as part of the natural 

ecosystem, native plants and animals in the Ice Age Complex. 

Populations of native plant and animal species function in as 

natural condition as possible, except where special considerations 

are warranted.

Populations of native species that have been severely reduced or 

extirpated from the complex are restored, where feasible, 

and sustainable.

National Park Service

NPS Management Policies 2006

The management of exotic plant and animal species, including 

eradication, is conducted wherever such species threaten resources or 

public health and when control is prudent and feasible.

National Park Service

NPS Management Policies 2006 

Other Federal

Executive Order 13112, “Invasive Species”

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Desired Conditions NPS and Other Federal Sources

Federally and state-listed threatened and endangered species and their 

habitats are protected and sustained. 

National Park Service

NPS Management Policies 2006 

Other Federal

Endangered Species Act

NATURAL SOUNDSCAPES

Desired Conditions NPS and Other Federal Sources

The natural soundscape of the Ice Age Complex is preserved to the 

greatest extent possible.

National Park Service

NPS Management Policies 2006

Where soundscapes have been degraded by unnatural sounds (noise), 

they are restored to a natural condition wherever possible.

National Park Service

NPS Management Policies 2006 
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 19

Chapter One Introduction and Purpose and Need for a General Management Plan

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE

Desired Conditions NPS and Other Federal Sources

Natural and cultural resources are conserved for the enjoyment of 

future generations. Visitors have opportunities for forms of enjoyment 

that are uniquely suited and appropriate to the resources found in the 

Ice Age Complex. No activities occur that would cause derogation of the 

values and purposes for which the park 

was established.

Visitors have opportunities to understand and appreciate the 

significance of the complex and its resources and to develop a personal 

stewardship ethic.

For all management areas, units, or other logical management divisions 

in the complex, the types and levels of visitor use are consistent with 

the desired resource and visitor experience conditions prescribed for 

those areas.

National Park Service

NPS Organic Act of 1916

National Parks and Recreation Act (PL 95-625)

NPS Management Policies 2006 

To the extent feasible, programs, services, and facilities are accessible to 

and usable by all people, including those with disabilities.

National Park Service

NPS Director’s Order 42: Accessibility for Visitors with Disabilities in NPS 

Programs, Facilities, and Services

Other Federal

Americans with Disabilities Act

Architectural Barriers Act

Laws and Policies of the State of Wisconsin.

Other laws and policies are part of the 

Department of Natural Resource’s legal and 

policy framework. Cross Plains State Park is 

designated as a state park under Chapter 27, 

Wisconsin Statutes. This designation allows 

for a broad range of recreation, education, 

and vegetative management activities to occur 

within park boundaries in accordance with the 

park’s vision and goals. The statutory authority 

to acquire and manage land within Cross 

Plains State Park is described in sections 23.09, 

23.11, 23.14, and 27.01, Wisconsin Statutes.

Wisconsin state parks are managed to ensure 

preservation of their scenic value, historical 

value, and the natural wonders they contain. 

The mission and goals of the state park system, 

as outlined in the 2008 Wisconsin State Park 

System Strategic Plan, are described below.

Wisconsin State Park System Mission —

Protect and enhance the natural and cultural 

resources of our Wisconsin State Park System 

properties while providing high quality 

recreational and educational opportunities 

and programs. 

Wisconsin State Park System Goals —

Expand the quality and quantity of sustainable, 

nature-based outdoor recreation opportunities 

and facilities available to Wisconsin State Park 

System visitors to 

actively manage, restore, enhance, 

and protect the natural, cultural, and 

scenic heritage of the Wisconsin State 

Park System

provide innovative, interpretive 

opportunities and programs that 

foster knowledge, appreciation, and 

stewardship of the state’s natural 

and cultural resources and promote 

participation in nature-based 

outdoor recreation

strengthen the Wisconsin State Park 

System facilities development program 

to better provide for customer comfort 

and safety

motivate and enable a dedicated and 

customer-focused workforce

Table 1: NPS Mandates and Policies (continued)
20 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR A GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

achieve financial strength and stability 

for the Wisconsin State Park System

attract new Wisconsin State Park System 

customers through innovative marketing 

strategies and retain current customers 

through exceptional service

improve operational effectiveness, 

planning, and decision making by 

managing and using accurate and 

reliable information

SCOPE OF THE GENERAL 

MANAGEMENT PLAN

Issues and Concerns Addressed in this Plan

This draft general management plan / 

environmental impact statement addresses 

issues raised internally by the partners 

developing this plan and externally by the 

public. The issues deal with how resources 

should be managed, what types of visitor 

experiences should be encouraged or 

accommodated, and how the complex should 

be managed. Further, the issues expressed 

the need to keep the complex area 

natural and protected from encroaching 

suburban development, including 

protecting more land beyond that which 

is currently publically owned

the need to offer formal educational 

opportunities to tell the stories of the 

unique resources 

the need to offer varied opportunities 

(camping, hiking, and other low-impact 

activities) for the public to access 

the complex 

the need to address the future of 

the Wilkie structures at the core of 

the complex 

the need to engage local residents and 

partner with other groups to instill 

a sense of ownership and support 

management of the complex 

an interest in participating in specific 

activities at the complex, such as 

hunting, dog walking, horseback riding, 

snowmobiling, and mountain biking

Issues and Concerns Not Addressed 

in this Plan

This document does not address the need 

to control the deer population. While this 

is a serious issue that must be addressed, it 

is beyond the scope of this plan. It will be 

addressed in a deer management plan to be 

developed jointly by public land managing 

agencies within the complex; those agencies 

are the National Park Service, Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources, and 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The deer 

management plan will propose alternative 

ways of managing deer in the complex and 

determine the appropriate means after 

thorough scientific and public review.

Impact Topics

An important part of planning is seeking 

to understand the consequences of making 

one decision over another. To this end, a 

general management plan is accompanied 

by an environmental impact statement. An 

environmental impact statement identifies the 

anticipated beneficial and adverse impacts 

from possible actions on resources, visitors, 

and neighbors. Impacts are organized by topic, 

such as “impacts on the visitor experience” 

or “impacts on vegetation and soils.” Impact 

topics serve to focus the environmental 

analysis and ensure the relevance of impact 

evaluation. The impact topics included for 

analysis in this document are presented 

below, and the impact analyses for the topics 

are contained in “Chapter 4: Environmental 

Consequences.” The topics were identified 

based on federal laws and other legal 

requirements, Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) guidelines, NPS management 

policies, staff subject-matter expertise, 
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 21

Chapter One Introduction and Purpose and Need for a General Management Plan

and issues and concerns expressed by the 

public early in the planning process (see 

previous section). 

This section also includes a discussion of 

impact topics that are commonly addressed 

but that are not addressed in this plan for the 

reasons given.

Impact Topics Considered and 

Analyzed in Detail. 

Soil resources — There are prime fertile soils 

in the Ice Age Complex, ranging from glacial 

till covered with a silt-loam loess cap to the 

east and unglaciated silt loams to the west. 

Development in the complex, as envisioned 

in the alternatives, would cause immediate 

soil disturbance during construction and an 

increase in impervious surfaces, resulting 

in more runoff and soil erosion. Current 

agricultural land would also be taken out of 

production under some of the alternatives. 

Therefore, this impact topic was retained 

for consideration.

Water quality — The region surrounding 

the Ice Age Complex contains one of the 

Midwest’s most important trout fishing 

streams, the Black Earth Creek. Within the 

complex, the glacier originally impounded 

four proglacial lakes. Today, the southernmost proglacial lake has been divided in two 

by County Trunk S (Mineral Point Road) and 

consists of two water-filled basins (Coyle 

Pond and Shoveler Sink). The other proglacial 

lakes are dry and filled with agricultural crops. 

There are a few intermittent streams that bisect 

the complex. One follows a deep ravine on 

the south side of the former Wilkie property 

before emptying onto the former McNutt 

property at the western edge of the proposed 

site. There is at least one spring north of Old 

Sauk Pass that has been partially developed 

to include a stock tank. This spring drains 

northward toward Black Earth Creek. In the 

center of the Ice Age Complex, south of Old 

Sauk Pass, water runoff travels north to a 

depression where it enters and flows through 

the Cross Plains gorge, eventually reaching 

Black Earth Creek. An increase in impervious 

surfaces from development in the complex, 

as envisioned in the alternatives, would result 

in more surface water runoff and impacts on 

stream and lake water quality. Additionally, an 

increase in visitor use would mean a need for 

more well-water supply, as well as a need for 

waste removal, such as a septic system. All of 

these changes to the land and land use would 

result in some level of impacts on water quality. 

Therefore, this impact topic was retained 

for consideration. 

Soundscapes — A soundscape is human 

perception of the acoustical environment. 

Acoustic resources include natural sounds 

(wind, water, wildlife, vegetation, and so 

forth) and cultural and historic sounds (such 

as battle reenactments, tribal ceremonies, 

and quiet reverence). Some of the activities 

proposed under the alternatives in this plan 

would change the soundscape at the Ice Age 

Complex, so this impact topic was retained 

for consideration. 

Vegetation and wildlife — The Organic 

Act of 1916 and NPS Management Policies 

2006 both require the National Park Service 

to protect and conserve native plants and 

vegetative communities that could be affected 

by visitors, managers, and external sources. 

There are no federally listed threatened or 

endangered plant species in the complex, 

but there is one plant (heart-leaved skullcap) 

that has been identified as rare by the 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 

Additionally, there are some exotic (nonnative) 

and invasive species of vegetation that are 

present in the complex. The potential impacts 

from actions proposed in the alternatives, 

especially the difference in how management 

areas would be applied, would affect both 

native and exotic invasive vegetation. 

There are also no federally listed threatened 

or endangered wildlife species (or critical 

habitat for these species) in the Ice Age 

Complex, but there are four bird species 

(Henslow’s sparrow, hooded warbler, western 

meadowlark, and yellow-billed cuckoo) that 
22 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR A GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

have been identified as rare by the Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources. Wildlife 

would be affected by actions proposed in the 

alternatives, including the difference in levels 

of development and predicted visitation, as 

well as how management areas would be 

applied; therefore, vegetation and wildlife were 

retained as impact topics for consideration. 

Socioeconomic environment — The 

National Environmental Policy Act requires an 

examination of social and economic impacts 

caused by federal actions as part of a complete 

analysis of the potential impacts on the 

“Human Environment.” Dane County is the 

affected area for this socioeconomic analysis, 

with a focus on the local municipalities and 

towns surrounding the complex: Cross Plains, 

Middleton, Verona, and Madison. Changes 

in land use, as well as impacts on gateway 

communities, could result from actions in the 

alternatives. Therefore, this impact topic was 

retained for consideration. 

Visitor experience — One of the 

fundamental purposes of the National Park 

Service is providing for visitor enjoyment and 

understanding. Many actions proposed in this 

plan could affect patterns of visitor use and 

the type and quality of visitor experiences. 

Visitor access, orientation, and interpretation 

are elements of the visitor experience. Some 

actions in this plan could impact the visitor 

experience. Therefore, this topic has 

been analyzed.

Impacts Topics Considered but not 

Analyzed in Detail. 

Geologic resources — Geologic resources 

formed by glaciation are fundamental to the 

purposes of the Ice Age Complex. Because of 

their importance to this site, these resources 

are described at length in the affected 

environment chapter of this plan (chapter 3). 

However, because the alternatives would 

result in no foreseeable impacts on geologic 

resources, they are not described in the 

environmental consequences chapter of this 

plan (chapter 4). Geologic resource impacts 

typically considered in land use planning 

(such as impacts on the fossil record, museum 

quality minerals, and caves) were eliminated 

for all of the alternatives. Fossils are not an 

issue for this plan because fossils are poorly 

preserved in the sandstone and dolomite at the 

Ice Age Complex. 

There are no museum-quality samples of 

minerals or rock at this site. 

Impact on caves is strictly regulated by the 

federal Cave Resources Protection Act and 

section 4.8.1.2 of the NPS Management Policies 

2006. Although karst topography exists on 

the complex, as well as a sinkhole that might 

be connected to a cave system, there is no 

actual cave or human access to any cave at 

the complex. There would be no foreseeable 

impacts on major geologic features, such as the 

end moraine, former lakebed surfaces, and the 

subglacial channel (Cross Plains gorge), from 

any of the proposed alternatives other than 

related impacts associated with contamination 

of surface water (considered separately under 

water quality). 

Threatened and endangered species —

There are no federally listed threatened or 

endangered species or critical habitat for these 

species in the Ice Age Complex; therefore, 

this impact topic was not analyzed in this 

document. The potential impacts on other 

sensitive wildlife and vegetation are discussed 

in the “Vegetation and Wildlife” section of 

chapter 4. 

Wetlands and floodplains — There is one 

small (roughly 100 acres) wetland area in the 

southeast corner of the Ice Age Complex, 

in the area around Shoveler Sink and Coyle 

Pond. There are also two small (together, 

about 100 acres) floodplains in the southeast 

portion of the site (again, around Shoveler 

Sink) and the northwest portion of the site in 

the area of Black Earth Creek. Construction 

near wetlands and floodplains might affect 

how they function. There are two elements 

proposed in the alternatives that could affect 

wetlands and floodplains; those elements 

are building a picnic area near Black Earth 
23

Creek and building a trail in this same area. 

The extent of these impacts, however, is too 

speculative to state at this point. Both of these 

projects would be subject to implementation 

plans, which would fully analyze their 

environmental impacts. Otherwise, none of 

the activities in the proposed alternatives 

in this plan would impact the functioning 

of wetlands or floodplains. Therefore, this 

impact topic was not analyzed in detail. 

Cultural resources — The National 

Environmental Policy Act requires that any 

federal undertaking be examined for its potential 

to affect cultural resources. Cultural resources 

are aspects of a cultural system that are valued 

by or significantly representative of a culture 

or that contain significant information about a 

culture. A cultural resource may be a tangible 

entity or a cultural practice. Cultural resources 

are characterized as archeological resources, 

cultural landscapes, historic structures, museum 

collections, and ethnographic resources for NPS 

management purposes. The following describes 

the various types of cultural resources:

•	 Archeological Resources. According 

to NPS Director’s Order 28: Cultural 

Resource Management Guideline, 

archeological resources are the physical 

evidences of past human activity. 

Archeological resources may represent 

both prehistoric and historic time 

periods, and they are found above and 

below ground and under water. Native 

American occupation of southern 

Wisconsin began around the end of 

the Pleistocene epoch, when groups 

of hunter gatherers moved into the 

area after the retreat of the last glacial 

advance. Archeologists have established 

a basic broad chronology of cultural 

traditions in the region as follows:

These traditions are distinguished 

by differences in settlement and 

subsistence patterns, changes in 

styles and design of stone tools, the 

appearance of ceramic technology, and 

the construction and design of earthen 

mounds. Early Paleoindian sites are 

generally limited to surface finds of 

fluted points. The general absence of 

Early Archaic sites may be connected 

to the Altithermal Climatic episode. 

During the Late Archaic Tradition 

seasonal movements from wintering 

sites within rock shelters and interior 

valleys to summer encampments 

along rivers became established as a 

way of life. The Woodland Tradition is 

marked by the appearance of ceramics. 

The Mississippian/Oneota Tradition 

is characterized by the development 

of villages that contained increasingly 

larger populations dependent 

on agriculture.

Throughout the Historic Period, 

southern Wisconsin was continually 

occupied by various Native American 

nations including the Sauk, Ho-Chunk 

(formerly Winnebago), Ioway, Illini, 

and Potawatomi. The first EuroAmerican settlers reached the Cross 

Plains area in the 1830s. At that time, 

the village of White Crow, a Ho-Chunk 

chief, was located in what is now the 

Village of Cross Plains near Black 

Earth Creek. The town received its 

name from two military roads—one 

from Galena to Fort Winnebago, 

and the other from Prairie du Chien 

to Green Bay — crossing on a plain 

or piece of prairie land, about the 

middle of the town, and hence the 

name “Cross Plains.” Subsequently, 

the Madison-Mineral Point stage road Paleoindian Tradition, ca. 12,000–8,000 

Before Present (B.P.)

Archaic Tradition, ca. 8,000–2,500 B.P.

Woodland Tradition, ca. 2,500–700 B.P.

Mississippian/Oneota Tradition, 

ca. 800–350 B.P. Early Historic, 

350-150 B.P. Late Historic, 

150 B.P.- Modern Era.

Chapter One Introduction and Purpose and Need for a General Management Plan

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
24 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR A GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

was important shipping route and 

contributed to the town’s growth 

along with the Chicago-MilwaukeeSt. Paul railroad.

A number of sites have been reported 

in the vicinity of the Ice Age Complex 

at Cross Plains. These sites represent 

a range of cultural traditions including 

Late Archaic (campsite/village), 

Woodland (mounds, burial sites), and 

Euro-American (cabin/homestead, 

farmstead, cemetery, historic debris 

scatter). Additional sites of unknown 

pre-historic affiliation have been 

recorded including rock shelters, 

campsites/villages, isolated finds, 

quarries, workshop sites, and lithic 

scatter. These sites appear to be 

located primarily along watercourses, 

particularly Black Earth Creek, and the 

bluffs adjacent to them. A significant 

number of sites, many associated with 

the Ho-Chunk village of White Crow, 

are found in Cross Plains along Black 

Earth Creek approximately 1.75 miles 

NW of the complex’s proposed 

northern boundary.

Very few archeological investigations 

have taken place within the Ice Age 

Complex at Cross Plains to date. 

During the development of the two 

parking areas at the US Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s Shoveler’s Sink 

property, archeological surveys were 

completed and no significant resources 

were identified. A site described as a 

‘military well’ has been reported in the 

land owned by the Wisconsin DNR 

west of the NPS-owned property 

within the Complex.

Archeological surveys and/or 

monitoring would precede any ground 

disturbance of unsurveyed lands. 

Archeological resources eligible for or 

listed in the national register would be 

avoided during construction activities. 

If previously unknown archeological 

resources were discovered during 

construction, all work in the 

immediate vicinity of the discovery 

would be halted until the resources 

are identified and documented. If 

the resources cannot be preserved in 

their original location, an appropriate 

mitigation strategy would be developed 

in consultation with the state historic 

preservation officer and, as necessary, 

American Indian tribes. In the unlikely 

event that human remains, funerary 

objects, sacred objects, or objects of 

cultural patrimony are discovered 

during construction, provisions 

outlined in the Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation 

Act of 1990 (25 USC 3001) would 

be followed. If non-Indian human 

remains were discovered, standard 

reporting procedures to the proper 

authorities would be followed, as 

would all applicable federal, state, and 

local laws. Therefore, archeological 

resources is dismissed as an 

impact topic.

•	 Cultural Landscapes. According to 

NPS Director’s Order 28: Cultural 

Resource Management Guideline, a 

cultural landscape is “a reflection of 

human adaptation and use of natural 

resources and is often expressed in 

the way land is organized and divided, 

patterns of settlement, land use, 

systems of circulation, and the types of 

structures that are built. The character 

of a cultural landscape is defined both 

by physical materials, such as roads, 

buildings, walls, and vegetation, and 

by use reflecting cultural values and 

traditions.” As noted below under 

“Historic Structures,” the Wisconsin 

state historic preservation officer has 

determined that the structures on 

the Wilkie farmstead, as well as the 

farmstead’s associated landscape, 

are not eligible for listing in the 

national register. A Native American 
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 25

Chapter One Introduction and Purpose and Need for a General Management Plan

migration route that traverses the 

complex has not been evaluated as a 

cultural landscape, but there would be 

negligible, if any, ground disturbance 

under the proposed alternatives 

within the pathway of this route, and 

the topography and views and vistas 

of the pathway would be unaffected. 

Therefore, cultural landscapes was 

dismissed as an impact topic. 

•	 Historic Structures. According to 

NPS Director’s Order 28: Cultural 

Resource Management Guideline, a 

historic structure is a constructed 

work, consciously created to serve 

some human activity that is either 

listed in or eligible to be listed in 

the National Register of Historic 

Places. Historic structures are usually 

immovable, although some have been 

relocated, and others are mobile by 

design. Historic structures include 

buildings and monuments, dams, 

millraces and canals, nautical vessels, 

bridges, tunnels and roads, railroad 

locomotives, rolling stock and track, 

stockades and fences, defensive 

works, temple mounds and kivas, 

ruins of all structural types, and 

outdoor sculpture. 

The only existing structures on Ice

Age Complex lands are on the Wilkie 

farmstead (residence, bank barn with 

an attached silo, garage, hog-chicken 

house, Quonset hut, silage crib, well 

house, and windmill foundation). The 

Wisconsin state historic preservation 

officer has determined that the Wilkie 

farmstead structures and associated 

landscape are not eligible for listing 

in the national register. Therefore, 

historic structures was dismissed as an 

impact topic.

•	 Museum Collections. According to 

NPS Director’s Order 28: Cultural 

Resource Management Guideline, 

museum collections are prehistoric 

and historic objects, artifacts, works 

of art, archival material, and naturalhistory specimens collected according 

to a rational scheme and maintained 

so they can be preserved, studied, and 

interpreted for public benefit. There 

are currently no museum collections 

for the complex. The site development 

plan for the NPS-owned area at the 

core of the complex would provide 

for appropriate collections storage, 

if needed. Any museum collections 

would be acquired, accessioned and 

cataloged, preserved, protected, 

and made available for access and 

use according to NPS standards 

and guidelines. Therefore, museum 

collections was dismissed as an 

impact topic.

•	 Ethnographic Resources. According 

to NPS Director’s Order 28: Cultural 

Resource Management Guideline, 

ethnographic resources are any “site, 

structure, object, landscape, or natural 

resource feature assigned traditional 

legendary, religious, subsistence, 

or other significance in the cultural 

system of a group traditionally 

associated with it.” Ethnographic 

resources are associated with cultural 

practices, beliefs, the sense of purpose, 

or existence of a living community that 

is rooted in that community’s history 

or is important in maintaining its 

cultural identity and development as 

an ethnically distinctive people. 
26 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR A GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

Lac du Flambeau Band 

of Lake Superior Chippewa

Lac Courte Oreilles Band 

of Lake Superior Chippewa

Sac and Fox Tribe 

of the Mississippi in Iowa

Stockbridge Munsee Community 

of Wisconsin

Ho-Chunk Nation

Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin

The tribes were requested to respond 

with any issues or concerns and 

were notified of upcoming public 

meetings. Each of the planning 

newsletters were also mailed to the 

tribes. No concerns were expressed 

during the scoping process, and no 

requests for meetings were received. 

As noted above under “Cultural 

Landscapes,” there would be 

negligible, if any, ground disturbance 

to the Native America migration 

route that traverses the complex, and 

the topography and views and vistas 

of the pathway would be unaffected; 

thus, ethnographic resources was 

dismissed as an impact topic.

A copy of this draft general 

management plan / environmental 

impact statement was sent to each 

tribe for review and comment. 

The National Park Service would 

continue to recognize the past and 

present existence of peoples in the 

region and the traces of their use 

as an important part of the cultural 

environment, and if subsequent 

issues or concerns were identified, 

appropriate consultations would 

be undertaken. 

There would be no impacts on archeological 

resources, cultural landscapes, historic 

structures, museum collections, and 

ethnographic resources from actions under the 

proposed alternatives; therefore, these impact 

topics were dismissed from analysis. 

Park operations — The Ice Age Complex 

is currently undeveloped for visitor use. 

Currently, park operations are limited 

to vegetation management, Ice Age Trail 

construction as land and/or access are 

acquired, and minimal signage installation. 

Each action alternative has been designed 

with the support infrastructure necessary to 

implement the vision of the alternative. Thus, 

each alternative would have adequate park 

operations support, and this impact topic was 

not analyzed further. 

Environmental justice — Executive Order 

12898 requires that each federal agency shall 

make achieving environmental justice part 

of its mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, “disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or environmental 

effects” of its programs, policies, and 

During scoping the tribes traditionally 

associated with Ice Age Complex lands 

were apprised by letter of the GMP 

planning process; those tribes are 

Sac and Fox Nation of Oklahoma

Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri 

in Kansas and Nebraska

Bad River Band 

of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa

Oneida Tribe of Indians in Wisconsin

Red Cliff Band 

of Lake Superior Chippewa

St. Croix Chippewa Indians 

of Wisconsin

Forest County Potawatomi Community 

of Wisconsin

Sokaogon Chippewa Community, 

Mole Lake Band
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 27

Chapter One Introduction and Purpose and Need for a General Management Plan

activities on minority populations and lowincome populations. None of the proposed 

alternatives would result in disproportionately 

high or adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority populations and lowincome populations; thus, this impact topic 

was not analyzed in this document. 

Air quality, carbon footprint, natural or 

depletable resources, energy requirements, 

and conservation potential — Proposed 

activities in the alternatives that would 

cause air pollution tend to contribute to 

carbon loading, energy use, and through the 

use of fossil fuels, to depletion of natural 

resources. Therefore, these impact topics were 

considered together in this analysis. 

The city of Madison and Dane County 

generally meet federal air quality standards, 

and during most days, outdoor air quality is 

ranked as “good.” At times, however, levels 

of fine particulate matter do not meet federal 

standards. Emissions of the criteria pollutants 

(measured by the Clean Air Act) that could 

result from actions proposed in the alternatives 

would come from tailpipe emissions from 

visitor and staff vehicles and construction 

equipment. Emissions of carbon dioxide would 

be associated with vehicle traffic (emissions 

in the immediate area) and the power needs 

of onsite buildings (emissions at the site of 

power generation from carbon-based fuels). 

Whenever feasible, the National Park Service 

strives to maximize the use of renewable 

resources and energy and therefore minimize 

the use of depletable resources. However, it is 

not possible with today’s technologies to costeffectively avoid all use of depletable resources 

in building and operating facilities. Some of 

the alternatives proposed in this plan include a 

varying level of construction and would impact 

natural or depletable resources and energy 

to a varying extent. While the alternatives in 

this plan would contribute to these impacts to 

some extent, their incremental contributions 

to air quality (locally) and to carbon footprint 

and resources and energy depletion (globally) 

would be extremely small. These impact topics 

were not analyzed in detail. 

RELATIONSHIP OF OTHER 

PLANNING EFFORTS TO THIS 

GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

There are two local planning efforts underway 

that could affect or be affected by this plan. 

The managers of the Ice Age Complex are 

coordinating with the teams developing the 

plans described below. 

U.S. Highway 14 Access Study

The Wisconsin Department of Transportation 

(WDOT) is currently studying the best way 

to improve access to U.S. Highway 14, which 

forms the northern boundary of the complex. 

As of this writing, the idea in WDOT’s draft 

plan is to move one access point east and build 

a frontage road parallel to U.S. Highway 14 

on the south side of the highway. There would 

need to be further consultation with the 

Wisconsin Department of Transportation 

in order to ensure adequate access to the 

site, while minimizing adverse impacts from 

highway developments. 

Bike Path Along U.S. Highway 14

There have been local efforts in recent years 

to build a bike path along the section of 

U.S. Highway 14 that forms the northern 

boundary of the Ice Age Complex in order to 

connect bike paths in the city of Middleton 

to the village of Cross Plains. The preferred 

alternative in this draft document is zoned to 

accommodate this bike path. 

Village of Cross Plains Comprehensive Plan

Another plan that could influence the future 

of the Ice Age Complex is the recently 

completed Village of Cross Plains 

Comprehensive Plan (VCP 2008). This plan 

zoned the land in the Ice Age Complex in 

three ways: agricultural/rural; woodlands/open 

space; and on lots that currently have private 

homes, single family/exurban. This zoning 

is consistent with the alternatives proposed 

in this draft general management plan / 

environmental impact statement.
28 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR A GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

Floating maple leaves

NEXT STEPS IN THE 

PLANNING PROCESS

Following distribution of this draft general 

management plan / environmental impact 

statement, there will be a 60-day public review 

and comment period (see page iv at the 

beginning of this document for instructions 

on how to comment), after which the NPS 

planning team will evaluate comments 

from other federal agencies, organizations, 

businesses, and individuals regarding this draft 

plan. Appropriate changes will be incorporated 

into the final general management plan 

/ environmental impact statement. That 

final document will also include letters 

from governmental agencies and tribes (if 

applicable); any substantive comments on the 

draft document; and NPS responses to those 

comments. Following distribution of the final 

plan and a 30-day no-action period, a “record 

of decision” may be prepared that would 

document the NPS selection of an alternative 

for implementation. Once it is signed, the plan 

would then be implemented as funding and 

staffing allows. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN

The approval of this plan does not guarantee 

that the funding and staffing needed to 

implement the plan would be forthcoming. 

The implementation of the approved plan 

would depend on future funding, and it could 

also be affected by factors such as changes 

in NPS staffing, visitor use patterns, and 

unanticipated environmental changes. NPS 

funding levels and servicewide priorities, 

partnership funds, time, and effort would also 

influence the plan’s implementation. 

Full implementation could be many years in the 

future. Once the general management plan has 

been approved, additional feasibility studies 

and more detailed planning, environmental 

documentation, and consultations would be 

completed, as appropriate, before certain 

actions in the selected alternative could be 

carried out. 

Future program and implementation plans, 

describing specific actions that managers 

intend to undertake and accomplish in the 

park, would tier from the desired conditions 

and long-term goals set forth in this draft 

general management plan / environmental 

impact statement. 

WISCONSIN STATE 

PROPERTY DESIGNATION

The general management plan will be for the 

development and management of Cross Plains 

State Park and Ice Age National Scientific 

Reserve. Under the preferred alternative, the 

state’s acreage goal is 1,701 acres. This is the 

total acreage inside the proposed boundary 

for publically protected land. Currently, the 

following are the public ownership acres 

within the site: 

State ownership (2011): 294 acres

NPS ownership (2011): 157 acres

USFWS ownership (2010): 160 acres

Dane County ownership (2010): 131 acres

State Statutory Authority: The authority to 

acquire and manage land for the Cross Plains 

State Park and Ice Age National Scientific 

Reserve is described in sections 23.09, 23.11, 

23.14, and 27.01, Wis. Stats.


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.

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

CHAPTER TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

This draft 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 
DRAFT 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 draft 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.
DRAFT 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
DRAFT 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

Park operations and visitor orientation are maintained in good condition but can be highly modified, as needed, to accommodate and withstand 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, thus requiring state legislation to 

permit hunting. The state recognizes 

the existing chronic wasting disease 

issue for the Ice Age Complex and 

the responsibility to control this 

disease. This property is within deer 

management unit number 76m and 

is also included as part of the chronic 

wasting disease zone. The management 

unit head goal is 10 deer per square 

mile. In addition, deer numbers 

in the park are severely hindering 

regeneration of park vegetation, and 

it is clear that changes are needed to 

more effectively reduce the number of 

deer in this area. It is recommended 

that a deer hunting framework be 

established for all current and future 
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 39

Chapter Two Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative

WDNR lands west of Timber Lane 

and south of Old Sauk Pass; the 

framework would 

allow deer hunting during 

all seasons, beginning on the 

Saturday immediately before the 

Thanksgiving holiday though the 

end of December 

prohibit hunting on the traveled 

portion of the Ice Age National 

Scenic Trail 

There are currently 742 publically 

protected acres in the Ice Age 

Complex. Under the management 

guidance described above, most of 

the WDNR-owned parcels south of 

Old Sauk Pass and all of the USFWSowned parcels would be open to some 

form of hunting. 

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
DRAFT 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 full-time equivalent employees: A trail 

superintendent and trail manager, who would 

be responsible primarily for the trail across the 

state, a half-time 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, and half-time volunteer 

coordinator, GIS and administrative 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 
42 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

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

Chapter Two Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative

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, an administrative 

officer and a volunteer coordinator, GIS and 

administrative 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 village 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
DRAFT 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 volunteer coordinator, 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 village 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
DRAFT 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 volunteer coordinator, 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 (the former Wilkie property) 

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. 

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 village 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 
DRAFT 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 resource management 

activities 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 
DRAFT 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 volunteer coordinator, 

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 away from the Center of the 

Complex. The northern, southern, and eastern 

boundaries are all 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 any of these locations for the 

following reasons:

(1) 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. 

(2) While locating a visitor center on the 

eastern side of the complex, along 

Timber Lane, midway between the 

north and south boundaries, would 

have been a convenient location, only 

a small portion of that land is currently 

publically owned, which would limit 

the site-development options. The 

partners involved in this project did 

not want to plan for developments on 

land not currently publically owned 

because, even though the goal is to 

eventually protect this land through 

acquisition or other means, it is not 

possible to predict when this goal 

would be realized. In order to move 

forward with developing this site for 

visitor use after this plan is approved, it 

was necessary to identify land already 

publically owned for a visitor center. 

Element 2, Separating Maintenance Operations 

from the Core Visitor Area. Physically 

separating maintenance space from the space 

most developed for visitors would keep the 

area where visitors congregate quieter and 

potentially safer. Because of this, the GMP/

EIS planning team initially thought about 

placing a management area for park operations 

and support facilities along Timber Lane, in 

the area where it intersects Old Sauk Pass, 

rather than as part of the visitor complex at 

the core of the site. None of the proposed 

action alternatives include this option for the 

same reason cited above under item 2; that 

is, land in this area is not publically owned 

(at the time of this writing). Even though the 

goal is to eventually protect this land through 

acquisition or other means, it is not possible 

to predict when this goal would be realized. 

In order to move forward with developing 

the complex after approval of this plan, it was 

necessary to identify land already publically 

owned for maintenance operations. 

Element 3, Establishing Horse Trails. The 

planning team considered but dismissed the 

possibility of establishing horse trails at the 

Ice Age Complex. The appropriateness of 
52 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

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. 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 4, 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.
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 53

Chapter Two Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative

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 5, 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. 

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. 
54 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

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. 

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.
DRAFT 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
DRAFT 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

1. 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)
DRAFT 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

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
DRAFT 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 draft 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 . . . 

(1) fulfill the responsibilities of 

each generation as trustee of 

the environment for succeeding 

generations;

(2) assure for all Americans safe, 

healthful, productive, and 

aesthetically and culturally pleasing 

surroundings;

(3) attain the widest range of beneficial 

uses of the environment without 

degradation, risk to health or safety, 

or other undesirable and unintended 

consequences;

(4) 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;

(5) achieve a balance between population 

and resource use which would permit 

high standards of living and a wide 

sharing of life’s amenities; and

(6) 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 village 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. 
DRAFT 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.
DRAFT 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/solitudeEncounters 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)
DRAFT 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 programmingPotential 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

BOUNDARYAcreage 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. 
DRAFT 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)
DRAFT 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


75

AFFECTED

ENVIRONMENT

T

h i s c h a p t e r d e s c r i b e s the existing environment 

of the Ice Age Complex and the surrounding region. 

It focuses on the park resources, uses, and facility and 

socioeconomic characteristics that could potentially be affected 

by each of the alternatives. 

Chapter Three

Early morning 

dew drops.

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

GEOLOGIC AND SOIL RESOURCES

The Ice Age Complex at Cross 

Plains (“Ice Age Complex” 

or “complex”) straddles two 

distinctly different landscapes. 

The northern and eastern 

edges were covered by glaciers 

during the Late Wisconsin 

glaciation, which began 25,000 

to 30,000 years ago. Excellent 

examples of end moraine, 

ice marginal and subglacial 

channels, glacial outwash, 

and ice marginal lakes are 

within the boundaries. The 

remainder of the complex is 

in the driftless area and was 

apparently never glaciated. 

Its hills and valleys are a 

product of millions of years of 

hillslope and stream erosion 

on sedimentary bedrock that 

consists of sandstone 

and dolomite. The soils 

in this area consist 

of weathered 

bedrock covered 

by windblown silt 

called loess. 

At some time in the past, 

solution of the dolomite 

resulted in the formation of 

cave passages that likely run 

beneath the area. A collapse of 

over-lying sandstone into one 

of these caves has resulted in 

at least two sinkholes. One of 

sinkholes now drains water 

from Shoveler Pond into this 

likely cave system during the 

spring when water levels 

are high. 

During the Late Wisconsin 

glaciation, this erosional 

landscape was modified by 

torrents of glacial meltwater 

that flowed down Black 

Earth Creek valley and lesser 

amounts that flowed from the 

ice margin along what is now 

Timber Lane and Old Sauk 

Pass Road. This water flowed 

northward along the ice margin 

before draining into the Black 

Earth Creek valley, first along 

the ice edge and later beneath 

the ice in what is now called 

Cross Plains gorge. 
76 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER THREE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Bedrock Geology

The bedrock in the Ice Age Complex is 

all sedimentary and consists primarily of 

sandstone and dolomite of Paleozoic age. 

Figure 10 shows the distribution of bedrock 

units at the complex. Figure 11 portrays a 

north-south cross section though the complex 

showing the sedimentary rock units. Cambrian 

sandstone does not crop out at the surface, but 

it is close to the surface in Black Earth Creek 

valley. There are small surface outcrops of the 

remaining rock units at the complex, and not 

all of these have been mapped. There are no 

other large outcrops. 

All of the remaining sedimentary rocks 

exposed at the Ice Age Complex are 

Ordovician age. The oldest rock unit exposed 

in outcrop is dolomite of the Prairie du Chien 

Group. The best exposures are along the 

walls of Cross Plains gorge and along steep 

slopes facing Black Earth Creek. Fossils called 

“stromatolites” dominate the rocks deposited 

during this time, but they are rare and are not 

an important part of the resource. 

Figure 11 shows that sand and gravel cover 

the bedrock units in most valley bottoms and 

under the Johnstown moraine, so rock is not 

mapped there. Because most of the contacts 

are covered, this map portrays the likely 

distribution of rocks, but it should not be 

used for site-specific purposes without drilling 

or further research. 
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 77

Chapter Three Affected Environment

Figure 10: Distribution of near-surface bedrock units at the Ice Age Complex

Notes: 

a. Only three units occur near the surface beneath windblown silt (loess).

b. PL is Platteville dolomite, SP is St. Peter sandstone, P du C is Prairie du Chien dolomite.
78 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER THREE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Figure 11: North-south cross-section through the Ice Age Complex

The materials above the bedrock are too 

thin to show on figure 11. Contacts between 

bedrock units are mostly projected into the 

cross-section from logs of wells located south, 

east, and west of the complex. Because most 

of the contacts are covered, this cross section 

portrays the likely distribution of rocks but 

should not be used for site-specific purposes 

without drilling or other further research. 

In particular, the bottom contact of the St. 

Peter sandstone is quite variable over short 

distances, and its thickness varies considerably. 

The Prairie du Chien dolomite is overlain 

by the St. Peter sandstone. Although most of 

the sandstone was deposited in the shallow 

ocean, part of the St. Peter sandstone consists 

of wind blown sand. All of it is made up of 

well-rounded, quite pure quartz sand. St. Peter 

sandstone is the surface rock in much of the 

central part of the Ice Age Complex. It is well 

exposed at the sinkhole near the northeastern 

edge of the Shoveler Pond (“h1” on figure 12). 

It is also exposed along the trail just south of 

the Wilkie farm buildings. St. Peter sandstone 

contains some trace fossils, such as worm 

burrows, but they are not seen in the small 

outcrops at the Ice Age Complex. Fossils are 

not an important part of this resource.

Figure 12 shows that several shallow lakes were 

present when the ice was at the Johnstown 

moraine. L1 is the highest; L2 was just slightly 

lower and was damned by ice in the present 

position of Old Sauk Road; and L3 was 

substantially lower than L1 and L 2. Possible 

sinkholes are depicted by h1 and h2. 

Platteville dolomite of the Sinnipee Group was 

deposited in the sea about 450 million years 

ago. It is well exposed in the Wingra Stone 

quarry north of Mineral Point Road and the 

road cut on Mineral Point Road. There are low 

exposures of it elsewhere. Corals, mollusks, 

and brachiopods are common, especially 

farther west in the driftless area. They are 

very difficult to find in the dolomite at the 

complex, and they are not an important part 

of the resource. The Platteville dolomite is the 

youngest bedrock in the Ice Age Complex. 

Many of the surrounding hills that are part of 

the viewscape, especially those to the west, 

are capped with the even younger Galena 

dolomite. West Blue Mound, the highest hill 

that can be seen from the Ice Age Complex, is 

capped by even younger Silurian dolomite.
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 79

Chapter Three Affected Environment

Figure 12: Detailed map of glacial and related deposits in the Ice Age Complex

Notes: 

C = colluvium d is a drainage ways

M is the Johnstown moraine A is alluvial fan

D is driftless area O is outwash

R is thick till not in moraine S is steep slope controlled by bedrock with patchy till cover

There is also colluvium at the base of most steep slopes, but it is too narrow to map at this scale
80 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER THREE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The remaining geologic and soil resources 

result from earth surface processes such as 

weathering, erosion, and glaciation.

Karst Topography. Karst topography develops 

when limestone bedrock is eroded and 

dissolved by surface and groundwater. Caves 

and caverns are common in limestone, and 

a common surface expression of karst is the 

sinkhole, or sink. A sinkhole forms where 

surface water finds a path down into the 

limestone. Solution of the limestone takes 

place, slowly enlarging the opening and 

allowing more water to pass through. In some 

cases a sinkhole can form rapidly when the 

roof of the cave collapses. 

Shoveler Sink drains into a sinkhole at times of 

high water. It has no other outlet. The location 

of the sinkhole is shown as h1 on figure 12. 

The land around the sinkhole appears to have 

been modified by human activity. There is 

another depression north of the h1 sinkhole. 

This might be a sinkhole, or it might be an 

abandoned small quarry that was mined at 

some time in the past. When viewed in 2009, 

there was no evidence of water entering the 

ground through this depression.

When the glacier was present just to the east, 

it is possible that these sinkholes were actually 

springs where groundwater discharged. Water 

under pressure would have been forced 

through the groundwater system, and would 

have been able to come to the surface outside 

the ice-covered area. There were likely also 

springs discharging glacial melt water into 

the upper part of the Sugar River basin at the 

southwest edge of the Ice Age Complex.

Glacial Deposits. The most recent glaciation, the 

late Wisconsin Glaciation, began in Wisconsin 

about 30,000 calendar years ago. Ice from 

Canada, north of the eastern part of the Lake 

Superior basin, advanced southwestward down 

the Green Bay–Lake Winnebago lowland. This 

lobe of ice is called the Green Bay lobe, and 

its maximum extent lies along the eastern and 

northern edges of the Ice Age Complex. 

Johnstown Moraine. Moraines are ridges of 

glacial debris. They form wherever sand and 

gravel and till are piled up either on or adjacent 

to a glacier. End moraines are those that form 

at the edge (end) of the glacier as debris is 

carried to the ice margin and released as the 

glacier ice melts. The moraine at the outer edge 

of the southern Green Bay lobe is called the 

Johnstown moraine. 

In much of southern Wisconsin, moraines are 

only about 50 feet high and 0.25 to 0.5 mile 

wide. The best place to see the moraine at 

the Ice Age Complex is northwest of the 

intersection of Cleveland Road and Old Sauk 

Pass. There is a single crested ridge up to 50 feet 

high. There are scattered erratics on the surface. 

Glacial Lakes. Glacial lakes are also called 

ice-dammed lakes. When the glacier sat at 

the Johnstown moraine, the climate was very 

cold, and there was permafrost in front of 

and beneath the glacier edge. Meltwater was 

probably only produced on warm days for 

a month or two in summer. Water that was 

produced by melting was dammed between 

the glacier and the hills of the driftless 

area landscape to the west in several small 

basins at the Ice Age Complex. Lake L1 on 

figure 12 had the highest level. There is still 

silty lake sediment at least up to an elevation 

of 1,150 feet and perhaps slightly higher. A 

narrow band of outwash sand separates the 

finer silty lake sediment from the till in the 

Johnstown moraine. Lake L2 seems to have 

been just slightly lower than Lake L1. Water 

from Lake L2 drained through a drainage way 

into Lake L3. 

It appears that Lake L3 drained through an 

ice-marginal channel along the ice edge across 

the ridge north of Old Sauk Pass and into Black 

Earth Creek valley before Cross Plains gorge 

was cut. At some point, perhaps when climate 

warmed enough to allow melting at the bottom 

of the glacier near its edge, water found its way 

under the ice and down the steep slope on the 

side of Black Earth Creek valley. It was this flow 

of water that eroded Cross Plains gorge.
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 81

Chapter Three Affected Environment

Lake L4 formed in a north-flowing tributary 

valley of Black Earth Creek between the glacier 

edge and the Driftless Area upland. It could 

have been dammed directly by the ice, or it 

could have been dammed by the accumulating 

outwash in Black Earth Creek valley. 

Cross Plains Gorge and Black Earth Creek Valley.

Cross Plains gorge is a submarginal chute, a 

type of channel that carries water from the 

ice edge down under the ice. Its location 

was probably determined by a pre-existing 

weakness or opening in the ice such as a 

crevasse. The water in Lake L3 (on figure 12) 

was about 200 feet higher than the Black Earth 

Creek valley, and water would naturally take 

the steepest path available to the bottom of the 

valley. Once water made its way beneath the 

ice to the bottom of Black Earth Creek valley, 

water under high pressure and flowing rapidly 

cut the deep gorge that we see today. Black 

Earth Creek valley now has outwash sand and 

gravel over 200 feet thick that was deposited by 

braided streams flowing beneath and in front 

of the glacier.

Soils

Tens of millions of years of erosion by 

rainwash on slopes and by streams produced 

most of the hills and valleys in the landscape 

today. Soils on bedrock in the driftless area are 

of two main origins. Weathering of sandstone 

produced quartz sand, and weathering of 

dolomite produced a clayey residuum that 

is distinctly different. Over both of these 

weathering products, windblown silt, called 

loess, was deposited during the last glaciation. 

In general, soils in the unglaciated part of the 

Ice Age Complex are thin silt loams that are 

susceptible to erosion on steep slopes. Soils are 

thicker near the base of slopes.

Soils on the moraine are also silt loam soils 

for the most part. In places where the loess 

cover is thin, rocks from the underlying till 

show through. Soils on the former lake beds 

(refer to figure 12) are silty and sandy with few 

stones. In its comprehensive plan (VCP 2008), 

the village of Cross Plains commented on the 

productive nature of these soils: “Dane County 

is one of the most productive agricultural 

counties in Wisconsin.” At the same time, the 

comprehensive plan notes that “the County is 

in the third most threatened farm area in the 

country.” One of the reasons for this threat is 

the rapid pace of development that removes 

productive soils from cultivation (VCP 2008, 

p. 17). 

WATER QUALITY

The region surrounding the Ice Age Complex 

contains one of the Midwest’s most important 

trout fishing streams, the Black Earth Creek. 

This small spring-fed stream runs from the 

terminal moraine near Cross Plains, northwest 

to the Wisconsin River, traversing a number of 

scenic hill-and-valley landscapes along the way. 

The creek and its surrounding lands provide 

a number of recreational opportunities such 

as fishing, hiking, snowshoeing, cross-country 

skiing, and horseback riding. Because of its 

high recreational and ecological value, the 

creek was named as one of Wisconsin’s “Land 

Legacy” areas, which are regions of the state 

that are important in meeting the state’s 

recreation and conservation needs. Within 

the proposed complex, the glacier originally 

impounded four proglacial lakes. Today, 

the southernmost proglacial lake has been 

divided in two by County Trunk S (Mineral 

Point Road) and consists of two water-filled 

basins: Coyle Pond and Shoveler Sink. The 

other proglacial lakes are dry and filled with 

agricultural crops. There are a few intermittent 

streams that bisect the complex. One follows

a deep ravine on the south side of the former 

Wilkie property before emptying onto the 

former McNutt property at the western edge 

of the proposed site. There is at least one 

spring north of Old Sauk Pass that has been 

partially developed to include a stock tank. 

The spring drains northward toward Black 

Earth Creek. In the center of the complex, 

south of Old Sauk Pass, water runoff travels 

north to a depression where it enters and flows 

through the gorge, eventually reaching Black 

Earth Creek. 
82 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER THREE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Nearly all of the Ice Age Complex is a 

groundwater recharge area, meaning surface 

water goes into the groundwater system. 

However, much of the precipitation that falls 

on the uplands runs off on the surface. Some 

of that water flows northward to Black Earth 

Creek, some southward to the Sugar River, 

and some eastward to the Yahara River basin. 

Because the walls and the floor of Cross Plains 

gorge are steep, precipitation that falls there 

does not remain in the gorge, but instead 

flows northward towards Black Earth Creek. 

Shoveler Sink and Coyle Pond sit on the 

surface water divide between these basins. 

SOUNDSCAPES

There is abundant natural quiet within most of 

the complex given its isolation from road noise 

and from an urban center. While there are 

farms throughout the site, they are small farms, 

not large agricultural operations, and generate 

little unnatural sound. As one moves from the 

center of the complex towards its northern 

and eastern edges along U.S. Highway 14 and 

Timber Lane, natural quiet dissipates and road 

noises begin to dominate. Similarly, the sound 

of traffic from the two roads (Old Sauk Pass 

and Mineral Point Road) that traverse the site 

becomes louder the closer one moves towards 

those roads. This sound assessment is based 

on experience of the team members writing 

this plan; a formal sound inventory has not 

been conducted at the complex.

VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE

The Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources notes that the Ice Age Complex 

comprises three ecological landscapes: 

Western Coulee and Ridges, Central Sand 

Hills, and Southeast Glacial Plains. Although 

this combination of landscapes in the complex 

indicates a variety of native vegetation, 

southern dry-mesic forest dominated the 

site before European settlement.

The southern dry-mesic forest is prominently 

red and white oak, with shagbark hickory, 

black cherry, white oak, and basswood as 

canopy associates. Disturbance history and 

landscape position have allowed variability 

within the areas of southern dry-mesic forest. 

This variability includes areas dominated by 

large white oak, some greater than 24 inches 

in diameter, and open grown; some areas 

dominated by red oak with white birch and 

big-tooth aspen as canopy associates; and 

other areas with a very widely spaced canopy 

and a dense tall shrub layer composed mostly 

of common buckthorn and prickly ash. 

The southern mesic forest can be found in the 

narrow bottoms of steep ravines. This forest 

is characterized by a canopy of sugar maple 

with basswood and ironwood as associates. 

The shrub layer has a moderate cover, with 

eastern prickly gooseberry as a common 

species. The forest ground layer has many 

species that bloom in the spring and include 

wild ginger, sharp-lobed hepatica, jack-inthe-pulpit, mayapple, and bloodroot. Spring 

ephemerals are also present, although not 

abundant. Shoveler Sink is currently fringed 

by reed canary grass with some sedges and 

smartweeds. Many of the uplands have been 

planted into prairie with big bluestem and 

switch grass, as well as smooth brome grass for 

hay and pasturing. Many of the open fields in 

the Ice Age Complex are cropped for corn and 

soybeans or remain as old fields.

There is one rare plant in the Ice Age 

Complex: the heart-leaved skullcap (Scutellaria 

ovata). This plant prefers dry-mesic forests 

and flowers from early June to late July. 

The heart-leaved skullcap has been 

given “special concern” status by 

the state, wherein a problem 

with the species abundance 

or distribution is suspected 

but not yet proved. The 

main purpose of this 

category is to focus 

attention on certain 

species before they 

become threatened 

or endangered. 
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 83

Chapter Three Affected Environment

Because oak openings, also called “oak 

savanna,” are so rare today in comparison 

to their large historic range, restoring oak 

openings has been given special attention 

in recent years. The Board of Regents at the 

University of Wisconsin has noted that “In 

the 1800s, oak savanna (or oak openings) 

once covered more than 5,000,000 acres in 

Wisconsin . . . now, only a few thousand 

[acres] of this native landscape remain” 

(UW 2001). The Ice Age Complex historically 

contained oak openings. In the absence of 

fire, many of the historic oak openings have 

converted to closed-canopy forests. According 

to Wisconsin’s Natural Heritage Inventory 

Program, “the presence of several areas with 

open-grown and semi-open-grown oaks and 

some residual savanna ground layer species 

such as Tinker’s weed, indicates that there is a 

possibility of restoring the critically imperiled 

globally rare oak opening natural community 

within the project area” (WDNR et al. 2006). 

Some invasive plants are well-established 

within the Ice Age Complex, including 

common buckthorn, Tatarian honeysuckle, 

prickly ash, and reed canary grass. Other 

invasive plants that occur and present 

possible future threats to diversity include 

garlic mustard, winged burning-bush, star-ofBethlehem, multiflora rose, Asian bittersweet, 

Japanese barberry, and common burdock. 

Numerous other invasive species are present in 

the old field and planted prairie areas.

There are two species of birds that are listed 

as “threatened” on a state level in the Ice Age 

Complex and two species that have a special 

concern status. The threatened birds are 

Henslow’s sparrow, which prefers old fields, 

open grasslands, wet meadows, unmowed 

highway right-of-ways, undisturbed pastures, 

timothy hay fields, and fallow land grown up to 

tall weeds; and the Hooded warbler, which is 

found in large upland forest tracts in southern 

Wisconsin, where they occur in pockets 

of dense understory near small or partial 

canopy openings. The breeding season for the 

Henslow’s sparrow extends from mid-May 

through mid-July. The breeding season for the 

hooded warbler starts a bit later (in late May) 

and also extends through mid-July.

The two birds of special concern are the 

western meadowlark and the yellow-billed 

cuckoo. The western meadowlark inhabits 

pastures and small grain fields, as well as 

other short, open grasslands and agriculture 

fields, including hayfields. The yellow-billed 

cuckoo prefers open deciduous woodlands 

with dense shrubby undergrowth, especially 

along the backwaters of a major river or slowmoving creek. 

The WDNR staff have observed the redheaded woodpecker, a “species of greatest 

conservation need,” in the walnut grove 

bordering the south side of Old Sauk Pass. 

This presence indicates that red-headed 

woodpeckers would be expected to nest in 

cavity trees if oak opening is restored.

Shoveler Sink, a remnant glacial depression, 

provides excellent habitat for migratory birds 

such as waterfowl, shorebirds, songbirds, and 

waterbirds seeking a freshwater pond, marsh, 

and grassland. An online checklist program 

(“eBird”) for recreational and professional bird 

watchers highlights this important resource, 

in that at least 17 species of waterfowl have 

been observed using the pond. Waterbirds 

recorded include several species of herons and 

large numbers of geese and cranes that stage 

there (eBird 2008). The presence of food and 

water are two important resources present at 

Shoveler Sink that allow for large numbers of 

individuals from many species to accumulate 

during migration. The pond provides floating 

and submerged plants in the open water zone 

and is surrounded by an emergent zone that 

includes cattails, smartweed, and arrowheads 

whose tubers provide important food for 

migrating waterfowl and geese. 
84 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER THREE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Shoveler Sink is also an important area for 

breeding amphibians, which in turn, makes 

it very attractive for waterbirds such as 

herons and cranes. Stresses to migratory 

birds include habitat destruction and habitat 

alteration (Duncan 2002). Many similar 

ponds and depressions have been filled for 

agriculture and development, both of which 

could threaten the viability of this valuable 

resource. As this depression is maintained 

through direct precipitation and runoff 

from the surrounding landscape, nutrient 

runoff could pose an indirect threat if not 

monitored closely.

The grasslands surrounding Shoveler Sink, as 

well as the old agricultural fields in the complex, 

such as the former McNutt lands, support 

several conservative grassland obligate species 

like Henslow’s sparrow (8–10 nesting pairs 

in 2008); eastern meadowlark; one western 

meadowlark; several bobolink; and dickcissel. 

SOCIOECONOMICS

The Ice Age Complex is located in the village 

of Cross Plains, Wisconsin, between Cross 

Plains and Middleton, and about 10 miles west 

of the center of Madison (figure 13). 

Figure 13: Map of Dane County and the Ice Age Complex
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 85

Chapter Three Affected Environment

This area is increasing in population. The 

village of Cross Plains grew from 2,362 to 

3,084 in the 1990s — a 23% increase. This 

growth makes Cross Plains among the fastest 

growing communities in Dane County (other 

communities are Middleton and Madison). 

The county had a population in 2000 of 

426,526 and is also a fast-growing area. Dane 

County is estimated to have a population of 

505,385 by 2030. In comparison, the 2030 

estimate for Cross Plains is 3,654. Note 

that these growth projections are from the 

Wisconsin Department of Administration, 

but the village of Cross Plains used a different 

method (acceptable levels of residential 

development) in its recent comprehensive plan 

(VCP 2008) to come up with a projection for 

Cross Plains of 6,084 by 2030. Extrapolating 

this method to the overall Dane County 

population, the projection for Dane County 

would be 841,478. Therefore, using this 

alternate estimating method, population 

growth could be even stronger. 

Today, the population of this area is relatively 

young (40% are between ages of 20 and 

44) and relatively well-educated (60% have 

attended at least some college in comparison 

to 50% statewide) (VCP 2008, p. 9). 

Like many local governments around the 

country, Cross Plains has been struggling 

in recent years to increase tax revenues and 

retain open space. There has been pressure to 

develop the lands that comprise the complex 

in order to increase property tax revenue, but 

at the same time, there is tremendous support 

for keeping these lands free from development. 

The vision stated in the Village of Cross Plains 

Comprehensive Plan includes these sentences: 

“The rich natural resources of the village 

and surrounding countryside and the Black 

Earth Creek in particular will continue to be 

a defining feature of the community due to 

careful preservation efforts” and “Though ties 

with Madison will strengthen, the Village will 

retain its character and identity.” Among the 

specific goals of the comprehensive plan are to 

“limit conversion of farmland” and “safeguard 

against increased future erosion.” 

Although land use is typically a separate 

consideration in a socioeconomic analysis, 

impacts on land use would be the same because 

all of the GMP/EIS alternatives would change 

how land is used in essentially the same way. 

Each of the alternatives proposes working 

with private owners of all of the land in the 

complex to protect it from incompatible uses, 

such as dense development, either by publically 

acquiring the land or by employing another 

land protection tool, such as the purchase of an 

easement. All of the alternatives would change 

land use in this way, and their impacts on land 

use do not differ (see chapter 4 for impacts that 

could result from each alternative).

VISITOR EXPERIENCE

NPS Management Policies 2006 state that 

the enjoyment of park resources and values 

is part of the fundamental purpose of all 

parks and that the National Park Service is 

committed to providing appropriate, highquality opportunities for visitors to enjoy the 

parks. Because many forms of recreation can 

take place outside a national park setting, the 

National Park Service seeks to

provide opportunities for forms of 

enjoyment that are uniquely suited and 

appropriate to the superlative natural 

and cultural resources found in a 

particular unit

defer to local, state, and other federal 

agencies; private industry; and 

nongovernmental organizations to meet 

the broader spectrum of recreational 

needs and demands that are not 

dependent on a national park setting

Unless mandated by statute, the National 

Park Service will not allow visitors to conduct 

activities that

would create an unsafe or 

unhealthful environment for other 

visitors or employees
86 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER THREE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

are contrary to the purposes for 

which the park was established

would unreasonably interfere 

with the atmosphere of peace 

and tranquility, or the natural 

soundscape maintained in 

wilderness and natural, historic, 

or commemorative locations 

within the park; NPS interpretive, 

visitor service, administrative, or 

other activities; NPS concessioner 

or contractor operations or services; 

or other existing, appropriate park uses

Part of the purpose of the Ice Age Complex 

is to “provide outdoor recreation and 

educational opportunities in support of 

and compatible with the conservation and 

enjoyment of the nationally significant scenic, 

historic, natural, and cultural resources within 

the Complex.” Each of the action alternatives 

proposed in this document are designed 

to meet the purpose of the complex but in 

different ways. The impact analysis presented 

in chapter 4 estimates impacts on the ability of 

visitors to experience Ice Age resources under 

each alternative. 


89

ENVIRONMENTAL

CONSEQUENCES

T

h e c e q r e g u l a t i o n s that implement the procedural 

provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act

(40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1502) require 

that environmental documents discuss the environmental 

impacts (both adverse and beneficial) of a proposed federal 

action, feasible alternatives to that action, and any adverse 

environmental effects that cannot be avoided if a proposed 

action is implemented. In this case, the proposed federal action 

would be the adoption of a general management plan for the 

Ice Age Complex at Cross Plains. 

Chapter Four

The National Park Service 

(NPS) Director’s Order 

12: Conservation Planning, 

Environmental Impact Analysis, 

and Decisionmaking and its 

accompanying Handbook 

require that impacts on park 

resources be analyzed in terms 

of their context, duration, and 

intensity. It is crucial for the 

public and decision makers to 

understand the implications 

of those impacts in the short 

and long term, cumulatively, 

and within context, based 

on an understanding and 

interpretation by resource 

professionals and specialists. 

This chapter analyzes the 

environmental impacts of 

implementing any one of the 

five alternatives proposed 

in this document. For each 

impact topic, there is a 

description of the methods 

and assumptions used for the 

impact analysis. The impact 

analysis discussions are 

organized by resource topic, 

followed by each alternative 

under each topic. Table 7 in 

chapter 2 provides a summary 

of the impacts. 

Bird tracks in 

the snow.

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
90 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER FOUR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

DEFINITIONS FOR 

EVALUATING EFFECTS

The impact discussion for each resource topic 

describes the types of impacts (same as the 

term “effects”) that would result from taking 

no action or implementing any of the four 

action alternatives; those effects are described 

according to the definitions shown below.

Types of Effects

Beneficial Effects. These effects would result 

in a change that moves a resource toward its 

desired condition. 

Adverse Effects. These effects would result in 

a change that moves a resource away from its 

desired condition. 

Direct Effects. These effects would be caused 

by the action and occur at the same place and 

time as the action. 

Indirect Effects. These effects would also be caused 

by the action, would occur later in time, and 

would be further removed in distance but would 

still be reasonably foreseeable; or the response 

of the target resource would be triggered by the 

reaction of another resource to the action.

Cumulative Effects. These effects would result 

from the incremental impact of the action 

when added to other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions.

Duration of Effects

Short-term Effects. These effects would be 

temporary, lasting a year or less, such as effects 

associated with construction.

Long-term Effects. These effects would last 

more than one year and could be permanent.

Intensity of Effects

“Intensity” refers to the severity of effects or 

the degree to which an action would adversely 

or beneficially affect a resource. The intensity 

definitions are presented in each resource 

section because they vary by resource topic.

PAST, PRESENT, AND REASONABLY 

FORESEEABLE FUTURE ACTIONS 

ON OR IN THE VICINITY OF THE 

ICE AGE COMPLEX

Cumulative actions are those that have additive 

impacts on a particular environmental resource. 

It is irrelevant who takes these actions (that is, 

they are not confined to NPS or even federal 

activities), or whether they took place in the 

past, are taking place in the present, or could 

take place in the reasonably foreseeable future. 

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

interprets the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) and CEQ’s NEPA regulations on 

cumulative effects as requiring analysis and a 

concise description of the identifiable present 

effects of past actions to the extent they are 

relevant and useful in analyzing whether the 

reasonably foreseeable effects of the agency’s 

proposed action and alternatives could have a 

continuing, additive, and significant relationship 

to those effects. 

The current or reasonably foreseeable future 

actions considered for the purpose of assessing 

cumulative effects in this chapter include 

agricultural activities 

construction of a bike path by the village 

of Cross Plains along U.S. Highway 14, 

with a possible decision by NPS staff to 

provide a route through the complex 

to connect the city of Middleton to the 

village of Cross Plains

new residential development

snowmobiling outside the complex 

boundaries

events, such as the Ford Ironman 

(whose course currently runs through 

the complex) 

road maintenance activities such as 

salting for ice melt, which results in 

runoff and impacts on water quality 
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 91

Chapter Four Environmental Consequences

SOIL RESOURCES

Analysis Methodology

This impact analysis is based on the knowledge 

of the soil types at the complex and also how

development and other land use changes 

would impact soils. Soils could be adversely 

impacted by human activity in two ways: either 

by increased activity, which would cause soil 

compaction along trails, parking areas, and 

other developed areas; or by disturbance of 

vegetation cover and forest duff on the soil 

surface, which could lead to soil erosion. 

Disturbance of vegetation is a potential 

problem, particularly on steep slopes in the 

Cross Plains gorge and along the edge of Black 

Earth Creek valley. 

“Intensity” refers to the severity of effects 

or the degree to which an action would 

adversely or beneficially affect a resource. 

The intensity levels used to evaluate impacts 

on soils are listed below. The intensity levels 

below apply only to adverse impacts. When 

the term “beneficial” is used in this analysis 

to describe impacts, those impacts would 

always be negligible and long term. In this case 

“beneficial” refers to the avoidance of loss 

of productive soil as opposed to increasing 

the amount of soil. The formation of soil is 

a complex process that can take more than a 

thousand years to produce just a single inch 

of soil. During the process rocks, minerals, 

and other parent materials are weathered. 

The resulting soil varies, depending on the 

degree of weathering (a function of climate); 

the duration of weathering (a function of 

time); the site-specific biological activity; and 

landscape position (a function of topography). 

Because of this long, natural process, the 

activities that would take place under any of 

the alternatives would either adversely affect 

soil in a way that would take generations to 

reverse or avoid adverse impacts that would 

otherwise be expected (called “beneficial 

impacts” in this analysis). 

Negligible. Soil compaction or vegetation 

disturbance that creates erosion might occur, 

but the change would be so small that it would 

not be measurable. 

Minor. Soil compaction or vegetation 

disturbance that creates erosion would occur 

and would be measurable but would have little 

consequence.

Moderate. Soil compaction or vegetation 

disturbance that creates erosion would occur 

and would be measurable, resulting in smallscale consequences that could be remedied.

Major. Soil compaction or vegetation 

disturbance that creates erosion would be 

substantial at certain locations and would not 

be easily remedied.

Alternative 1: No Action, Continuation 

of Current Management — Direct and 

Indirect Impacts on Soils

It is expected that alternative 1 would have 

some beneficial impacts on soils due to 

conversion of farm land to prairie. Some 

soils would be removed from cultivation and 

converted to their presettlement condition 

(mostly prairie). The ability to farm the prime 

soils today would be curtailed, and the soils 

would be retained for the future because the 

deep roots of prairie grasses are very effective 

at holding soil. 

The intensity of impacts on soils caused by 

trail construction would be limited to minor 

ground disturbance within the narrow tread 

corridor. The potential impacts on soils from 

constructing and using the trail would be 

mitigated to a negligible level with proper 

layout of the trail on the landscape (for 

example, on slopes less than 10%), erosion 

control techniques, planking or bridges, 

and trail monitoring. The proper erosioncontrol techniques that would be employed, 

as necessary, include sidehill construction, 

waterbars, and drainage dips. Soils that are 

particularly unsuitable, such as in poorly 
92 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER FOUR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

drained areas, would be avoided. If the trail 

must cross a wet area, planking or bridges 

would minimize the negative impacts from this 

crossing. Volunteer trail maintainers would 

monitor trails to help identify any cumulative 

erosion problems so that appropriate erosioncontrol actions could be taken. The National 

Park Services, in conjunction with the 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 

and the Ice Age Park and Trail Foundation, 

has developed a handbook on trail design, 

construction, and maintenance for the Ice Age 

National Scenic Trail. This handbook is used 

by all volunteer trail builders. The Ice Age Trail 

Alliance also has a “mobile skills crew” that 

trains volunteers to build sustainable trails 

with minimal environmental impacts. 

The present land use in the Ice Age Complex 

would continue to be a mix of row crop 

agriculture (corn and soybeans), forest land, 

and oak savanna. When agricultural fields are 

plowed, soil surface is disturbed, and there 

is wind erosion of silt particles and organic 

particles off those surfaces. There is also water 

erosion from the fields. There is similar land 

use throughout Dane County. The impacts 

of agriculture on erosion would be minor to 

moderate, depending on numerous factors, 

such as the amount of tillage and use of grass 

strips to limit erosion in critical spots.

The Ice Age National Scenic Trail would 

still be built under this alternative but other 

trails would not. Over time, unauthorized 

trails (paths created by visitors, rather than 

formally planned and constructed) would 

proliferate. Since there would be no plan 

providing comprehensive guidance on 

resource management, resources would likely 

be managed inconsistently. There is currently 

minimal impact from erosion and compaction 

in forest and oak savanna areas under present 

use, with the exception of the Cross Plains 

gorge and the moraine between the Cross 

Plains gorge and Cleveland Road. There is 

currently minor impact on the trail on the 

moraine; impact would remain minor if usage 

is limited to hiking. If there is no enforcement 

of restrictions on the use of this trail, and 

if use by horseback riders were to increase, 

there would be a moderate impact due to 

compaction. There is compaction at small 

parking areas off Mineral Point Road and 

Timber Lane, but this land has already been 

disturbed, and there would be minimal 

further compaction.

The steep walls of Cross Plains gorge attract 

visitors, and human activity has the potential 

to damage both forest duff cover and soils, 

which could lead to substantial erosion 

problems. While the steep walls of Black Earth 

Creek valley are also susceptible to erosion if 

vegetation is disturbed, under present use, the 

slopes are not visited as much as those of the 

Cross Plains gorge. As time passes, however, 

this site could become better known, and 

residential development might increase in 

the area. If increased use is not accompanied 

by measures to protect these areas, such as a 

designed and delineated trail, damage to the 

steep walls would be expected. There could 

potentially be moderate to major erosion 

impacts if uncontrolled human activity in the 

vicinity of Cross Plains gorge and Black Earth 

Creek valley increased. 

Alternative 2: Ecological Restoration 

Emphasis — Direct and Indirect 

Impacts on Soils 

Alternative 2 would have the same beneficial 

impacts on soils as expressed in the first 

paragraph under alternative 1. 

This alternative would contribute to increased 

trail usage, compared to alternative 1 (no 

action), and would therefore likely have a 

minor impact on soils from compaction. 

There would be moderate impact on soils 

from compaction in parking areas, but these 

would not be large areas and would likely be 

in the same places as in alternative 1. Paving 

the parking lots would contribute to increased 

runoff and would require proper management.
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 93

Chapter Four Environmental Consequences

The installation of trails near, but not in, 

Cross Plains gorge would minimize impact 

on the walls of the gorge. Erosion impacts in 

the gorge itself would be negligible because 

the public would be directed (with trail design 

and signage) to stay off the walls of the gorge. 

Because the complex would be managed from 

an off-site location, there would be little ability 

to enforce this direction. If the public does not 

comply with the direction to stay off the gorge 

walls, there could be moderate adverse impacts 

on soil and the forest duff covering the wall 

until the park has the capacity to stop this from 

happening, given the minimal off-site staff.

Alternative 3: Interpretation and 

Education Emphasis — Direct and Indirect 

Impacts on Soils

Alternative 3 would have the same beneficial 

impacts on soils as expressed in the first 

paragraph under alternative 1.

The construction of buildings and a surfaced 

trail to Cross Plains gorge could potentially 

have a temporary moderate adverse impact 

on soils from erosion and compaction in areas 

subject to construction. Once construction is 

completed, there would still be some potential 

for minor compaction from visitor use, but 

the minor impacts would be confined to areas 

around buildings and parking lots. The onsite interpretation and maintenance facilities 

would potentially focus some visitor foot 

traffic to the interpretation building and away 

from the steep walls of Cross Plains gorge and 

steep slopes at the edge of Black Earth Creek 

valley. This would reduce the potential for soil 

compaction and erosion from uncontrolled 

human activity, resulting in minor to moderate 

beneficial impacts on those areas. 

Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation 

Emphasis — Direct and Indirect 

Impacts on Soils

Alternative 4 would have the same beneficial 

impacts on soils as expressed in the first 

paragraph under alternative 1.

The construction of buildings and a surfaced 

trail to Cross Plains gorge, as well as a bridge 

across the gorge, could potentially have a 

temporary moderate adverse impact on soils 

from erosion and compaction in areas subject 

to construction. There would be additional 

trails across the site that would create 

moderate compaction in the vicinity of the 

trail. Once the landscape is stabilized following 

construction, compaction from visitor foot 

traffic would be confined to the areas around 

buildings and parking lots, which could 

potentially result in minor adverse impacts. 

The addition of a bicycle trail from the 

visitor center to a parking lot north of Black 

Earth Creek would increase visitor activity 

in a sensitive area, resulting in a moderate 

adverse impact on the steep slopes facing 

the creek, especially along the trail. The onsite interpretation and maintenance facilities 

would potentially focus some visitor foot 

traffic to the interpretation building and away 

from the steep walls of Cross Plains gorge and 

steep slopes at the edge of Black Earth Creek 

valley. This would reduce the potential for soil 

compaction and erosion from uncontrolled 

human activity, resulting in minor to moderate 

beneficial impacts on those areas. 

Alternative 5: Preferred Alternative — 

Direct and Indirect Impacts on Soils

Alternative 5 would have the same beneficial 

impacts on soils as expressed in the first 

paragraph under alternative 1.

The construction of buildings and a surfaced 

trail to Cross Plains gorge could potentially 

have a moderate adverse impact on soils from 

erosion and compaction during construction. 

There would be additional trails across the 

site that would create moderate compaction in 

the vicinity of the trail. Once the landscape is 

stabilized following construction, compaction 

from visitor foot traffic would be confined to 

the areas around buildings and parking lots, 

which could potentially result in minor adverse 

impacts. The on-site interpretation and 
94 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER FOUR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

maintenance facilities would potentially focus 

some visitor foot traffic to the interpretation 

building and away from the steep walls of 

Cross Plains gorge and steep slopes at the edge 

of Black Earth Creek valley. This would reduce 

the potential for soil compaction and erosion 

from uncontrolled human activity, resulting in 

minor to moderate beneficial impacts on 

those areas.

All Alternatives — Cumulative Impacts 

on Soils

The soils in much of the Ice Age Complex 

have likely been altered by past activities 

(such as agricultural practices). Some soils on 

lands adjacent to the complex could be lost or 

modified in the future if the village of Cross 

Plains builds a bike path along U.S. Highway 

14. The decision could be made by NPS staff 

to provide a route through the complex to 

connect the city of Middleton to the village 

of Cross Plains. These actions would result in 

cumulative effects on soils in localized areas.

Alternative 1: No Action, Continuation of 

Current Management. If impacts of the abovedescribed developments were added to the 

continuing minor to major adverse impacts 

under the no-action alternative, there would 

be a long-term negligible to major adverse 

cumulative impact on area soils. 

Alternative 2: Ecological Restoration Emphasis.

If impacts of present or future actions were 

added to the negligible to moderate adverse 

impacts under alternative 2, there would 

be a long-term minor to moderate adverse 

cumulative impact on area soils. 

Alternative 3: Interpretation and Education 

Emphasis; Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation 

Emphasis; and Alternative 5: Preferred 

Alternative. If impacts of present and future 

actions were added to the minor to moderate 

adverse impacts under alternatives 3, 4, and 5, 

there would be long-term minor to moderate 

adverse cumulative impacts on area soils. 

WATER QUALITY

Groundwater could potentially be 

contaminated through openings in dolomite 

rock. Of particular concern is the area of 

Shoveler Sink and Coyle Pond, which both 

sit on the surface water divide between Black 

Earth Creek, Sugar River, and Yahara River 

basins. The sink and pond are closed basins 

with no surface water outflow. The closed 

basins collect water from adjoining hillslopes 

and are areas of concentrated groundwater 

recharge. Normally, this takes place slowly 

through sediment at the bottom of the ponds. 

At times of high water levels, they drain 

into a sinkhole in fractured limestone, thus 

potentially introducing contaminants into 

the groundwater system. The sinkhole allows 

surface water to rapidly enter the groundwater 

system without the benefit of “filtering” out 

contaminants. There is possibly a small cave 

system somewhere beneath this part of 

the complex.

Analysis Methodology

This impact analysis is based on knowledge 

of water resources and flow patterns at the 

Ice Age Complex. The analysis focuses on 

groundwater impacts because, as described 

in chapter 3, nearly all of the complex is a 

groundwater recharge area, meaning surface 

water goes into the groundwater system. All 

impacts on groundwater also apply to surface 

water (such as Coyle Pond, Shoveler Sink, and 

Black Earth Creek). 

The intensity levels used to evaluate impacts 

on water quality are provided below. 

Negligible. Changes would be either barely 

detectable or would have effects that would be 

considered slight and localized. 

Minor. An action would have measurable 

effects on water quality in a localized area. 

Moderate. An action would have clearly 

detectable effects on water quality and would 

potentially affect natural ecological processes. 
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 95

Chapter Four Environmental Consequences

Major. An action would have substantial effects 

on water quality and would potentially affect 

natural ecological processes. 

Alternative 1: No Action, Continuation of 

Current Management — Direct and Indirect 

Impacts on Water Quality

At this time, the small basin that collects surface 

water that flows into Coyle Pond is partly used 

for row crops. Whatever tillage techniques 

are used, the application of herbicides and 

fertilizer has the potential to contaminate 

groundwater by passing through the limestone 

beneath the sinkhole. At this time land around 

Shoveler Sink is not in intensive agriculture, and 

chemicals are not being applied to the fields, 

so there is currently negligible adverse impact 

from agricultural runoff. 

Alternative 2: Ecological Restoration 

Emphasis — Direct and Indirect 

Impacts on Water Quality

Any adverse impact on groundwater would 

be negligible because the small basin that 

collects surface water flowing into Coyle 

Pond would be put back into presettlement 

vegetation under this alternative. In fact, over 

time, agricultural chemicals would not enter 

the groundwater system through the sink, so 

this would likely have a beneficial effect on 

groundwater quality, but the amount of this 

effect cannot be quantified. 

Alternative 3: Interpretation and 

Education Emphasis; 

Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation 

Emphasis; and 

Alternative 5: Preferred Alternative — 

Direct and Indirect Impacts on Water Quality

These alternatives envision an indoor facility 

with modern amenities (such as indoor 

plumbing) for visitors, so there would be a 

need for a new well and septic system near the 

core area of the property. These would be built 

to appropriate codes and would therefore have 

a negligible impact on groundwater. 

Cumulative Impacts on Water Quality

Water quality in much of the Ice Age Complex 

is generally in good condition and has not 

been greatly altered by past activities (such as 

agricultural practices). 

The small basin that collects surface water 

that flows into the Coyle Pond is partly 

used for row crops at this time. None of the 

alternatives would restrict land use in this area, 

so it could remain in intensive agriculture. 

Whatever tillage techniques are used, the 

application of herbicides and fertilizers could 

result in a moderate potential to contaminate 

groundwater by passing through the 

limestone beneath the sinkhole. Land around 

Shoveler Sink is not in intensive agriculture, 

and chemicals are not being applied to the 

fields, so there would be minimal impacts 

from agricultural runoff. If land use were 

to remain the same, then any impacts from 

the alternatives, combined with agricultural 

activities, would potentially result in negligible 

cumulative impacts. Impacts on water quality 

from road maintenance activities, such as road 

salt runoff, would continue. 

Water quality could be adversely affected by 

potential future new development on adjacent 

lands. The Ice Age National Scenic Trail would 

eventually be developed through the complex. 

The possible future actions outside the complex 

boundary could affect water quality in Black 

Earth Creek and possibly Shoveler Sink. 

Alternative 1: No Action, Continuation of Current 

Management. If potential impacts from the 

above activities were added to the continuing 

negligible adverse impacts under the noaction alternative, there would be long-term 

negligible adverse cumulative impacts on water 

quality, depending on the type and quantity 

of pollutants that enter the waters within the 

complex. However, the level of impacts added 

by the no-action alternative would be relatively 

small compared to the impact from pollutants 

being added from actions outside the 

complex boundary. 
96 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER FOUR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Alternative 2: Ecological Restoration Emphasis. If 

impacts from the above activities were added 

to the negligible adverse impacts on water 

quality under alternative 2 (negligible because 

of the conversion of agricultural lands back 

to presettlement vegetation), there would 

be long-term negligible to moderate adverse 

cumulative impacts on the complex’s water 

quality, depending on the type and quantity 

of pollutants that might enter the waters in 

the complex. However, the level of impacts 

added by alternative 2 would be relatively 

small compared to the impact from pollutants 

that could potentially be added from actions 

outside the complex boundary. 

Alternative 3: Interpretation and Education 

Emphasis; Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation 

Emphasis; and Alternative 5: Preferred 

Alternative. If impacts from future actions 

were added to the negligible to moderate 

impacts under alternatives 3, 4, and 5 (due to 

no restrictions on land use), there would be 

negligible to moderate adverse cumulative 

impacts on water quality, depending on the 

type and quantity of pollutants that could 

potentially enter the waters within the 

complex. However, the level of impacts added 

by each of the three alternatives would be 

relatively small compared to the impact from 

pollutants that could potentially be added 

from actions outside the complex boundary. 

SOUNDSCAPES

Analysis Methodology

As mentioned in chapter 3, there is abundant 

natural quiet in areas of the complex furthest 

from the roads (U.S. Highway 14, Timber 

Lane, Old Sauk Pass, and Mineral Point 

Road) that surround and traverse it. One of 

the fundamental resources of the complex 

is “the opportunity for people, particularly 

those in the adjacent urban area, to experience 

immersion into a large, natural landscape.” 

Therefore, in this analysis, activities in the 

alternatives that would remove or lessen 

unnatural sounds would be beneficial to the 

soundscape, and activities that would add or 

increase unnatural sounds would result in 

adverse impacts. Note that traffic noise on U.S. 

Highway 14, Timber Lane, and Mineral Point 

Road would likely continue to grow regardless 

of the future direction of the complex. The 

volume of traffic on these roads is related 

much more strongly to land use patterns in the 

region (suburban and exurban development) 

than to land use in the complex. The analysis 

below refers only to the soundscape impacts 

that might result from the actions that the park 

would take under each alternative. 

The intensity levels used to evaluate impacts 

on the soundscape are provided below. 

Negligible. There would be no audible impacts 

on the soundscape. Impacts would be of short 

duration and well within natural fluctuations. 

Noise would not affect appropriate transmission 

of natural sounds. 

Minor. Impacts on the soundscape would be 

slight but audible. Impacts would likely not be 

outside the range of natural variability. Noise 

would be expected to have short-term impacts 

on the soundscape or short-term impacts on 

appropriate transmission of natural sounds.

Moderate. Impacts on the soundscape would 

be clearly audible. Impacts would sometimes 

be outside the range of natural variability. 

Noise would not be expected to have longterm impacts on the soundscape or any longterm impacts on appropriate transmission of 

natural sounds.

Major. Impacts on the soundscape would be 

clearly audible and would be well outside the 

range of natural variability. Noise would have 

long-term impacts on the soundscape or longterm impacts on appropriate transmission of 

natural sounds.
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 97

Chapter Four Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: No Action Alternative, 

Continuation of Current Management — 

Direct and Indirect Impacts 

on the Soundscape

Due to minimal development of visitor 

amenities, this alternative would be expected 

to have the lowest level of visitation out of the 

five alternatives and therefore the least visitorcreated noise. It seems likely that, overall, there 

would be negligible impacts on the soundscape. 

Alternative 2: Ecological Restoration 

Emphasis — Direct and Indirect Impacts 

on the Soundscape

This alternative would increase trail usage 

over the no-action alternative, which could 

potentially result in more visitor-generated 

noise. In the short term, there would be noise 

generated from the removal of the structures 

at the core of the property, but those moderate 

adverse impacts on the soundscape would be 

temporary. Over the long term, most of the 

complex would be managed to allow visitors “a 

direct sensory experience of natural resources” 

(refer to table 2 in chapter 2 for the natural 

experience management area description 

for desired visitor experience), indicating 

negligible impacts on the soundscape. 

Alternative 3: Interpretation and 

Education Emphasis — Direct and Indirect 

Impacts on the Soundscape

Alternative 3 would result in a considerable 

increase in visitation compared to the noaction alternative, which could lead to more 

visitor-generated noise. In the short term, 

there would be noise generated from the 

renovation of the structures at the core of the 

property, but these moderate adverse impacts 

on the soundscape would be temporary. Over 

the long term, most of the complex would be 

managed for landscape interpretation, under 

which the management prescription (refer 

to table 2 in chapter 2) for visitor experience 

would concentrate on offering views of the 

results of glaciation instead of offering direct 

sensory experience of natural resources, as the 

natural experience management area would, 

indicating the potential for minor adverse 

soundscape impacts. 

Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation 

Emphasis — Direct and Indirect Impacts 

on the Soundscape

Alternative 4 could result in a considerable 

increase in visitation, which would lead to 

considerably more visitor-generated noise. 

There would be noise generated from the 

construction of structures at the core of the 

property, but these moderate adverse impacts 

on the soundscape would be temporary. 

The bike path across the complex could 

generate more visitors and more noise per 

visitor than the hiking trails under the other 

alternatives. Most of the complex would be 

managed for landscape interpretation or 

for an expanded recreational experience, 

under which the management prescription 

for visitor experience would concentrate on 

offering views of the results of glaciation and 

the opportunity for low-impact recreation. 

However, there would also be a large natural 

experience area at the corner of two of the 

major roads on the edge of the complex. 

Overall, adverse impacts on the soundscape 

would be minor.

Alternative 5: Preferred Alternative — 

Direct and Indirect Impacts 

on the Soundscape

Impacts on the soundscape under the 

preferred alternative would be very similar to 

alternative 4, albeit slightly less because there 

would not be a bike path across the complex 

under this alternative. Overall, adverse impacts 

on the soundscape would be negligible 

to minor.
98 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER FOUR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Cumulative Impacts on the Soundscape

Noise from outside the complex has minimally 

affected the complex’s soundscape in the past 

and would continue to affect the soundscape, 

but perhaps at greater levels as the population 

continues to grow and traffic increases on 

roads adjacent to and through the complex.

Depending on the location in the complex, 

common human-caused sounds (such as 

vehicles on roads, maintenance activities, and 

agricultural activities) would continue to be 

heard. In the winter, noise from snowmobiles 

passing by the complex would also continue to 

be heard. It is possible that events, such as the 

Ford Ironman, would continue to occur (the 

Ford Ironman course currently runs through 

the complex and generates substantial noise). 

In addition, new residential development 

could occur on lands adjacent to the complex, 

which would result in noise during and after 

the construction period in these areas. 

These activities could produce intermittent 

to long-term (occurring every year) negligible 

to moderate adverse cumulative impacts 

from noise. The adverse impacts would vary 

depending on the type of noise, duration, 

and location. 

Alternative 1: No Action, Continuation of 

Current Management. If impacts of the above 

actions were added to the negligible adverse 

impacts under the no-action alternative, 

there would be long-term negligible to 

moderate adverse cumulative impacts on the 

soundscape. However, the cumulative impacts 

would primarily occur at certain times of the 

year — either seasonally or on weekends. 

The continuation of activities under the noaction alternative would result in a minimal 

contribution to the overall cumulative impacts.

Alternative 2: Ecological Restoration Emphasis.

If impacts of the above actions were added 

to the negligible to moderate adverse impacts 

under alternative 2, there would be long-term 

negligible to moderate adverse cumulative 

impacts on the soundscape. However, these 

cumulative impacts would primarily occur at 

certain times of the year – either seasonally 

or on weekends. The proposed activities 

under alternative 2 would result in a minimal 

contribution to overall cumulative impacts.

Alternative 3: Interpretation and Education 

Emphasis and Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation 

Emphasis. If impacts of the above actions 

were added to the minor to moderate 

adverse impacts under alternatives 3 and 

4, there would be long-term minor to 

moderate adverse cumulative impacts on 

the soundscape. However, these cumulative 

impacts would primarily occur at certain times 

of the year – either seasonally or on weekends. 

The proposed activities under alternatives 3 

and 4 would result in a minimal contribution 

to overall cumulative impacts.

Alternative 5: Preferred Alternative. If impacts 

of the above actions were added to the 

negligible to moderate adverse impacts under 

alternative 5, there would be long-term minor 

to moderate adverse cumulative impact on 

the soundscape. However, these cumulative 

impacts would primarily occur at certain times 

of the year – either seasonally or on weekends. 

The proposed activities under alternative 5 

would result in a minimal contribution to 

overall cumulative impacts.

VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE

As noted in chapter 3, the Ice Age Complex 

comprises three ecological landscapes: 

Western Coulee and Ridges, Central Sand 

Hills, and Southeast Glacial Plains. Although 

this combination of landscapes in the complex 

indicates a variety of native vegetation, 

southern dry-mesic forest dominated the site 

before European settlement. 

The NPS Organic Act, which directs parks 

to conserve wildlife unimpaired for future 

generations, is interpreted by the agency 

to mean that native animal life should be 

protected and perpetuated as part of the park’s 

natural ecosystem. Natural processes are relied 
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 99

Chapter Four Environmental Consequences

on to control populations of native species 

to the greatest extent possible, otherwise, 

they are protected from harvest, harassment, 

or harm by human activities. According to 

NPS Management Policies 2006 (section 4.1),

maintenance of natural ecosystems is a priority 

in parks. Management goals for wildlife include 

maintaining components and processes of 

naturally evolving park ecosystems, including 

natural abundance, diversity, and the ecological 

integrity of plants and animals.

Analysis Methodology

This impact analysis is based on knowledge 

of native and current vegetative conditions 

and wildlife habitat at the Ice Age Complex 

(as described in chapter 3), as well as an 

understanding of the types of activities (such 

as visitor activity, construction, and resource 

management) in parks that affect vegetation 

and wildlife. This draft general management 

plan / environmental impact statement does 

not include site-specific actions because 

the desired resource conditions and visitor 

experience, as described in the management 

area prescriptions and applied to each 

alternative, inform the impact assessment. 

The intensity levels used to evaluate impacts 

on vegetation and wildlife are provided below. 

Negligible. Impacts would have no measurable 

or perceptible changes in plant community 

size, integrity, or continuity. There would be 

no observable or measurable impacts on native 

species, their habitats, or the natural processes 

sustaining them. Impacts would be of short 

duration and well within natural fluctuations. 

Minor. Impacts would be measurable or 

perceptible but would be localized within a 

relatively small area. The overall viability of the 

plant community would not be affected and, 

if left alone, would recover. Impacts would be 

detectable, but they would not be expected 

to be outside the natural range of variability 

of key ecosystem processes and would not be 

expected to have any long-term effects on native 

species, their habitats, or the natural processes 

sustaining them. Population numbers, 

population structure, genetic variability, and 

other demographic factors for species might 

have small short-term changes, but long-term 

characteristics would remain stable and viable. 

Sufficient habitat would remain functional to 

maintain viability of all species. 

Moderate. Impacts would cause a change in 

the plant community (such as abundance, 

distribution, quantity, or quality); however, 

the impact would remain localized. Animals 

are present during particularly vulnerable 

life stages, such as migration, breeding, or 

juvenile stages. Mortality or interference 

with activities necessary for survival can 

be expected on an occasional basis but is 

not expected to threaten the continued 

existence of the species in the park unit. 

Impacts on native species, their habitats, or 

the natural processes sustaining them would 

be detectable, and they could be outside the 

natural range of variability for short periods 

of time. Population numbers, population 

structure, genetic variability, and other 

demographic factors for species might have 

short-term changes but would be expected to 

rebound to pre-impact numbers and remain 

stable and viable in the long term. 

Major. Impacts on the plant community 

would be substantial, highly noticeable, and 

permanent. Impacts on native species, their 

habitats, or the natural processes sustaining 

them would be detectable, and they would 

be expected to be outside the natural range 

of variability for long periods of time or be 

permanent. Population numbers, population 

structure, genetic variability, and other 

demographic factors for species might have 

large short-term declines, with long-term 

population numbers significantly depressed. 

Key ecosystem processes might be disrupted in 

the long term or permanently. Loss of habitat 

might affect the viability of at least some 

native species.
100 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER FOUR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Alternative 1: No Action, Continuation of 

Current Management — Direct and Indirect 

Impacts on Vegetation and Wildlife

There would be no comprehensive plan to 

guide management of the complex under 

alternative 1, so vegetation and wildlife 

habitat would not be consistently managed. 

Restoration goals (such as for the oak savanna 

or prairie) and activities (such as prescribed 

burning or mechanical invasive removal) 

would be decided on a case-by-case basis 

as funding and/or volunteer labor allows. 

Since there would be few defined trails, 

there would be a risk of vegetation trampling 

throughout the site from the creation of 

social trails. However, since the site would 

not be advertised, there would be no facilities 

to accommodate visitors, and user capacity 

management allows park managers a number 

of strategies to mitigate this risk; thus, adverse 

vegetation impacts from trampling would be 

negligible. It seems likely that, considering 

the site as a whole, there would be negligible 

impacts on vegetation and wildlife. 

Alternative 2: Ecological Restoration 

Emphasis — Direct and Indirect Impacts 

on Vegetation and Wildlife

Most of the complex would be managed 

for natural experience, in which “Natural 

resources are managed to approximate 

presettlement (circa 1830) conditions. To the 

extent possible, natural ecological processes 

sustain the integrity of these resources” (refer 

to the natural experience management area 

prescription for desired resource conditions 

in chapter 2, table 2). This management 

prescription would have a moderate beneficial 

impact on vegetation and wildlife. 

Alternative 3: Interpretation and 

Education Emphasis — Direct and Indirect 

Impacts on Vegetation and Wildlife

There would still be a significant area managed 

for natural experience, although most of the 

complex would be managed for landscape 

interpretation, under which the management 

prescription for resource conditions would 

include managing natural resources to reveal 

glacial features. 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. 

Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation 

Emphasis and Alternative 5: Preferred 

Alternative — Direct and Indirect Impacts 

on Vegetation and Wildlife

Under these two alternatives, management 

prescriptions would be fairly evenly divided 

between landscape interpretation and 

expanded recreational experience (which 

share the same desired resource condition) 

and natural experience. Additionally, under 

alternative 5, a wildlife corridor of unbroken 

habitat would be established in the southern 

half of the complex. This combination of 

management prescriptions would result in 

minor beneficial impacts on vegetation 

and wildlife. 

Cumulative Impacts on Vegetation 

and Wildlife

Several potential actions, independent of this 

plan, could affect the complex’s vegetation

and wildlife. As described in the “Affected 

Environment” chapter, some of the park’s 

vegetation and wildlife habitat has been 

altered by past human activities (including 

agricultural uses and development) and have 

also been altered due to the absence of fire. 

The impacts of these past actions far outweigh 

the impacts of the actions being proposed in 

the alternatives in this plan.

Residential development could occur in the 

future on lands adjacent to the complex, which 

would result in the loss and modification of 

vegetation, modification or loss of wildlife 

habitat, and the displacement of wildlife in 

these areas. This would have a long-term 

minor adverse impact on natural vegetation 

and wildlife in the vicinity of the complex. 
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 101

Chapter Four Environmental Consequences

Hunting has affected wildlife in the past and 

would continue to affect wildlife as long as it 

continues to take place in the complex. 

The possible development of a bike path along 

Highway 14 and through the complex would 

affect vegetation in the area and possibly 

displace some wildlife, which would add a 

long-term minor adverse incremental effect to 

the effects from all alternatives.

As noted in the “Affected Environment” 

chapter, the spread of nonnative plants is 

currently a problem in the complex. Nonnative 

species have been spreading in different 

locations in the complex, such as around the 

Cross Plains gorge, in the old field, and in 

planted prairie areas, due to visitor activities 

and natural sources like wind and birds. 

In addition, even with education efforts, 

some nonnative plants could be introduced 

or spread by visitors in the park, such as at 

picnic areas, campsites, and along trails. It 

is difficult to determine the impact of these 

nonnative species on native vegetation due 

to the uncertainties about the type of species 

that might be introduced in the future and the 

locations and frequencies of introductions. 

The adverse effects from the introduction and 

spread of nonnative species could range from 

minor to moderate and be long term.

Alternative 1: No Action, Continuation of Current 

Management. If the effects of all the past, 

present, and future actions were added to the 

continuing negligible adverse impacts under the 

no-action alternative, there would be long-term 

minor to moderate adverse cumulative impacts 

on vegetation and wildlife in the complex. 

However, the effects of the no-action alternative 

would result in a minimal contribution to the 

overall adverse cumulative impacts.

Alternative 2: Ecological Restoration Emphasis; 

Alternative 3: Interpretation and Education 

Emphasis; Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation 

Emphasis; and Alternative 5: Preferred Alternative.

If the impacts of all past, present, and future 

actions were added to the impacts of 

alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5, there would be longterm, minor to moderate adverse cumulative 

impacts on vegetation and wildlife in the 

complex. However, the effects of alternatives 2, 

3, 4, and 5 would not add to the overall adverse 

cumulative impacts because their actions 

would all be beneficial. 

SOCIOECONOMICS

Social and economic goals are closely related 

and are therefore generally grouped together 

in this analysis as “socioeconomic impacts.” In 

this analysis, social impacts were determined 

by considering the goals that have been set by 

the local community and by judging the extent 

to which the alternatives would meet these 

goals. Economic impacts were determined by 

considering the impacts of each alternative on 

funding that would be available to the local 

government through tax receipts. 

The Village Board of Cross Plains, Wisconsin, 

adopted a new comprehensive plan on June 

9, 2008. Although the boundary of the village 

of Cross Plains is 1 mile from the northwest 

corner of the Ice Age Complex boundary, the 

comprehensive plan covers the extraterritorial 

boundary of the village, which includes 

unincorporated areas and overlaps with the 

complex on the northern end. The village’s 

comprehensive plan states the following vision 

for the planning area:

For the lands that comprise the Ice Age 

Complex, the comprehensive plan described 

most of the future land use as either agricultural/

rural or woodlands/open space. The exception 

to these two designations is for the lots that are 

currently residential. These current residential 

lots are zoned as “single-family exurban.” All of 

the alternatives in this draft general management 

plan / environmental impact statement are 

consistent with these zones for future land use, 

and therefore, all of them would have beneficial 

impacts on social goals because the Ice Age 

Complex would comprise a large open area for 

the village of Cross Plains. Preserving the natural 

state of this area would amount to a long-term 

moderate beneficial impact on social goals 

established for the village. There are differences, 

however, in how the alternatives would impact 

economic goals — these are discussed below. 
102 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER FOUR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Analysis Methodology

Property sales and income taxes are a large 

part of the economies of local governments. 

In order to determine the impacts on 

economic goals, it is necessary to consider 

the likely direction of the lands that comprise 

the Ice Age Complex if no alternatives 

were implemented and then compare that 

to the vision of each alternative. Under all 

alternatives, the National Park Service, the 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 

and their partners would seek to preserve 

as much open land as possible throughout 

the complex. This would mean that most 

potential for residential development would be 

removed, along with the property taxes these 

private residences would have paid. The extent 

to which payments in lieu of taxes would be 

made for publically owned lands depends on 

which of the project partners owns the land. 

Village of Cross Plains Overall Vision

“ l o o k i n g f o r wa r d t o 2 0 2 5 a n d b e y o n d , the Village desires a safe, clean, 

attractive and prosperous community that residents of all ages are proud to call home. There 

will be available a range of housing choices by price and features and a sustainable business 

environment. The rich natural resources of the Village and surrounding countryside and 

the Black Earth Creek in particular, will continue to be a defining feature of the community 

due to careful preservation efforts. Residents and visitors alike will be able to travel freely 

throughout the community by car, bike, or foot, and commuter transit service to Madison 

will reinforce the strong economic relationship with the metropolitan area. Though ties with 

Madison will strengthen, the Village will retain its character and identity.” 

The potential for property tax payments would 

be lost over the long term if the land were 

owned federally. Although local governments 

are eligible for federal payments in lieu of 

taxes to help offset losses in property taxes 

due to nontaxable federal property within 

their boundaries, historically, these payments 

have not kept pace with lost potential property 

tax revenue. However, for all new properties 

purchased, the Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resources makes an annual payment 

in lieu of real estate taxes that would have been 

paid had the property remained in private 

ownership. The payment is made to the local 

taxing authority where the property is located.1

1

 Information on how the Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resources pays property taxes can be found 

in a publication titled “Public Land Property Taxes” 

(publication number PUB-LF-001), available from 

the DNR.
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 103

Chapter Four Environmental Consequences

The issue in determining the economic 

impacts of the alternatives is whether or not 

the potential loss of property tax would be 

offset by the economic benefits of visitation. 

The National Park Service uses an economic 

model called the “Money Generation Model” 

to estimate economic benefits of parks in 

terms of visitor spending (Stynes 2009). 

Unfortunately, data to feed into this model is 

not gathered for the Ice Age National Scenic 

Trail or for any other national trail. The 

analysis for the Ice Age Complex uses data 

from parks that are comparable in size and 

demographics to estimate potential economic 

benefits to the area around the complex. 

The intensity levels used to evaluate impacts on 

economic conditions are provided below. All 

impacts were compared to the most likely future 

for the complex over the 15- to 20-year term of 

this plan if none of the proposed alternatives 

were implemented. In that case (without 

implementation), as much as half of the land 

currently publically owned would potentially 

be developed as residences, while the other half 

would likely remain in agriculture. 

Negligible. No measurable effect on the 

economic environment.

Minor. Only a very small sector of the local 

and regional economies would be affected and 

would not be readily apparent.

Moderate. A small sector of the economic 

environment, or the relationship between 

sectors of the local and regional economies, 

would be measurably affected but would not 

alter basic economic functions and structure.

Major. Changes to the local and regional 

economies would occur and would become 

readily apparent in the form of shifts in 

economic functions and structure. In certain 

cases, entirely new economic sectors would be 

created or established sectors eliminated. 

Geographic Area for Socioeconomic Analysis.

The regional study area for the purpose of 

this socioeconomic impact analysis is Dane 

County, Wisconsin. Dane County is about 

1,200 square miles centered around the city 

of Madison. The Ice Age Complex is located 

in the northwestern part of Dane County. 

The west and northern county boundaries 

are roughly 10 miles from the complex, the 

southern boundary is roughly 20 miles away, 

and one would travel about 40 miles before 

crossing the eastern boundary of Dane County 

(refer to figure 13 in chapter 3).

All Alternatives — Direct and Indirect 

Impacts on Socioeconomics

All of the alternatives would produce 

beneficial impacts by increasing the value 

of adjacent lands. Similarly, all alternatives 

would have adverse impacts on the local tax 

base if lands were federally owned because 

federally owned land is exempt from property 

tax, and the payments in lieu of tax program 

historically has not fully compensated for 

this loss. However, these adverse impacts 

might be smaller than for similar areas of the 

National Park Service because the land would 

also be owned by the Department of Natural 

Resources, which would offset local property 

tax losses, so this potential tax loss would be 

mitigated. The impacts of land use changes 

were not considered separately in this analysis. 

Alternative 1: No Action, Continuation of 

Current Management and Alternative 2: 

Ecological Restoration Emphasis — Direct 

and Indirect Impacts on Socioeconomics

These two alternatives would only provide 

an outdoor experience in which activities 

for visitors would be limited to hiking and 

other low-impact activities on a minimal 

trail system and rare interpretive tours. The 

visitation level under these alternatives could 

be compared to the most sparsely visited 

parks (10,000 visitors per year or less) in 

the national park system. These parks, on 

average, contribute about $350,000 valueadded annually to their communities (valueadded is the sum of labor income, profits, 

rents, and indirect business taxes; see Stynes 
104 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER FOUR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

2009, p. 6). Without knowing what type of 

housing would have been built if neither of 

these alternatives were implemented, it is 

impossible to know what the tax receipts 

would have been. If net property tax receipts 

from residential development (after the costs 

of improving infrastructure to accommodate 

these residences, such as schools and roads are 

taken into account) were to exceed $350,000 

annually, then the economic impacts of the 

no-action alternative and alternative 2 would 

be adverse. If, on the other hand, net property 

taxes were less than the estimated $350,000 

that visitation economic benefits would bring, 

the impacts of these two alternatives would 

be beneficial. 

Alternative 3: Interpretation and 

Education Emphasis — Direct and Indirect 

Impacts on Socioeconomics

This alternative would not only offer an 

outdoor experience, but also a place to stop 

and rest indoors, view some exhibits, and talk 

with park staff. Visitors would also benefit 

from regular interpretive programming 

provided by rangers. These elements would 

attract more visitors to the complex, but 

overall, the estimated visitation would 

still be relatively low. Visitation under this 

alternative could be compared to parks with 

low visitation (50,000–100,000 visitors per 

year) in the national park system. These parks, 

on average, contribute about $2.5 million 

value-added annually to their communities. It 

is not possible to know what the tax receipts 

would have been if this alternative is not 

implemented. If net property tax receipts 

from residential development (after the costs 

of improving infrastructure to accommodate 

these residences such as schools and roads 

are taken into account) were to exceed 

$2.5 million annually, then the economic 

impacts of alternative 3 would be adverse. If, 

on the other hand, net property taxes were less 

than the estimated $2.5 million that visitation 

economic benefits would bring, then the 

impacts of this alternative would be beneficial. 

Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation 

Emphasis and Alternative 5: Preferred 

Alternative — Direct and Indirect Impacts 

on Socioeconomics

These alternatives would offer a broader 

outdoor experience in a variety of ways, such 

as more trails, limited primitive camping, 

picnic areas, and for alternative 4, a bridge 

across the gorge and a bike path. The two 

alternatives would also offer a place to stop 

and rest indoors; view extensive exhibits, 

including a film; and talk with park staff. There 

would be space to accommodate visitors 

who come in a group, such as school groups. 

Visitors would also benefit from regular 

interpretive programming provided by rangers. 

These elements would attract more visitors 

to the complex, and overall, the estimated 

visitation would fall in the moderate range 

for visitation (150,000–200,000 visitors per 

year) in the national park system (see the 

“Visitor Use and Experience” section for an 

explanation of expected visitation). These 

parks, on average, contribute about $5 million 

value-added annually to their communities. 

It is not possible to know what the tax 

receipts would be if these alternatives were 

not implemented. If net property tax receipts 

from residential development (after taking into 

account the costs of improving infrastructure, 

such as schools and roads, to accommodate 

the new residences ) were to exceed $5 million 

annually, then the economic impacts of these 

alternatives would be adverse. If, on the other 

hand, net property taxes were less than the 

estimated $5 million that visitation economic 

benefits would bring, then the impacts of these 

alternatives would be beneficial. 

Cumulative Impacts on Socioeconomics 

Residential and commercial growth and 

development could gradually increase in 

Dane County — this is according to the 

county population projections discussed in 

the “Affected Environment” chapter. Given 

the exurban nature of the lands surrounding 

the complex, much of the population 
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 105

Chapter Four Environmental Consequences

increase would likely be absorbed by existing 

communities / employment centers with 

established infrastructure. The rate of growth 

would likely be slow but could result in new 

construction- and real estate-related jobs 

and new property tax revenue. If population 

growth were to occur, the addition of taxable 

property and consumer spending would likely 

have a beneficial impact on the socioeconomic 

environment over the long term. 

All Five Alternatives. If the likely effects of each 

of the five alternatives were combined with 

the potential effects of present and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, there would be 

either long-term 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 this cumulative impact. 

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE

As mentioned in chapter 3, the action 

alternatives were designed to respond, in 

various ways, to demand for low-impact 

passive recreational activities, as well as the 

opportunity to learn about glaciation of the 

area. An assumption of the planning team, 

based on a wealth of experience in park 

management, is that the greater the variety 

of things to do at a park, the more visitors 

it would attract. Therefore, it is expected 

that each alternative might attract a different 

number of visitors. 

Analysis Methodology

In order to estimate the number of expected 

visitors at the Ice Age Complex, the GMP/EIS 

planning team identified established comparable 

parks and researched their visitation counts. 

This comparison took into account state and 

local parks that are similar in theme and in size, 

as well as national parks in close proximity 

and in areas with similar demographics. Parks 

with similar themes used for comparison were 

the interpretive centers for units of the Ice Age 

National Scientific Reserve. While hiking the Ice 

Age National Scenic Trail is a popular activity 

in the state of Wisconsin, especially in densely 

populated areas like the city of Madison and 

vicinity, there are few destination areas along 

the trail where visitors can learn more about the 

unique geology and no learning opportunities 

in the Madison area. The Ice Age National 

Scenic Trail passes through two units of the Ice 

Age National Scientific Reserve. The two units 

have interpretive centers: Interstate State Park 

and Chippewa Moraine, which are both about 

200 miles from Madison. The Reserve Center 

at Interstate Park benefits from being part of a 

well-visited park and estimates 250,000 visitors a 

year. The Reserve Center at Chippewa Moraine, 

on the other hand, estimates only 20,000 visitors 

to its center per year, although staff there 

estimate higher visitation to the property. 

There are four parks within 20 miles of the 

Ice Age Complex that are about the same 

size as the complex; those four parks are 

Blue Mounds State Park, Governor Nelson 

State Park, Lake Kegonsa State Park, and the 

University of Wisconsin Arboretum. Visitation 

counts at these parks range from 150,000 to 

600,000. Lastly, the two units of the national 

park system used to estimate visitation were 

Effigy Mounds National Monument, the 

closest unit, and Wilsons Creek National 

Battlefield, which is similar demographically 

in that, like the Ice Age Complex, it is in the 

outskirts of a city (Springfield, Missouri) about 

the size of Madison. Effigy Mounds counts 

about 88,000 visitors a year; Wilsons Creek 

counts about 200,000. 

Considering all of the comparable estimates 

for visitation, the GMP/EIS planning team 

estimated that, if the Ice Age Complex were 

minimally developed with little interpretation 

(as in the no-action alternative and alternative 

2), the complex might attract only 10,000 

visitors per year. Those visitors would 

essentially be hikers on trails and participants 

in occasional programming. 
106 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER FOUR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

On the other hand, if the complex were 

developed to offer a wider range of interpretive

and recreational opportunities (as in alternatives 

3, 4, and 5), the complex might attract as many as 

200,000 visitors per year. Among these 200,000 

would be groups of visitors, such as school 

groups, for whom special programming would 

be provided, as well as more casual visitors taking 

short hikes along well-developed trails. These 

visitation estimates were used in the analysis of 

socioeconomic impacts above, as well as in this 

analysis of visitor experience. 

The intensity levels used to evaluate impacts 

on visitor experience are provided below. 

The baseline against which these impacts 

were evaluated are the current conditions 

in which visitors are only aware that the 

complex contains publically owned parkland 

if they read the small signs at the boundary 

areas. The Ice Age National Scenic Trail is not 

constructed through the complex at this time, 

and the only existing trails are visitor-created 

social trails. Also, there is no interpretation. 

This baseline is different from the no-action 

alternative, which describes the future for the 

complex as it would evolve over the next 15–20 

years under current management strategies. 

Negligible. Visitors likely would not be aware 

of any additional opportunities to experience 

park resources.

Minor. Beneficial. Visitors would likely be 

aware of some additional opportunities to 

experience park resources but not a wide 

variety of different types of opportunities. 

They would be satisfied with the changes.

Adverse. Visitors would likely be aware of a 

decrease in opportunities to experience park 

resources and would be dissatisfied with 

the changes.

Moderate. Beneficial. Visitors would definitely 

be aware of additional opportunities to 

experience park resources in a variety of 

new ways. They would be very satisfied with 

the changes.

Adverse. Visitors would definitely be aware of 

a decrease in opportunities and/or diversity in 

opportunities and would be very dissatisfied 

with the changes. 

Major. Beneficial. Visitors would be highly aware 

of additional opportunities to experience park 

resources in a wide variety of new ways. They 

would be so satisfied with these changes that 

most new visitors would make the trip due to 

referrals from past visitors. 

Adverse. Visitors would be highly aware of a 

decrease in opportunities and/or diversity in 

opportunities and would be so dissatisfied with 

the changes that they would tell other potential 

visitors and visitation numbers would drop. 

Alternative 1: No Action, Continuation of 

Current Management and Alternative 2: 

Ecological Restoration Emphasis — Direct 

and Indirect Impacts on Visitor Experience 

These alternatives would only provide an 

outdoor experience in which activities for 

visitors would be limited to hiking and other 

low-impact activities on a minimal trail 

system and rare interpretive tours. While 

they activities would offer some beneficial 

experience for visitors over the current 

conditions, the benefits would likely range 

from negligible to minor. 

Alternative 3: Interpretation and 

Education Emphasis — Direct and Indirect 

Impacts on Visitor Use and Experience

This alternative would not only offer an 

outdoor experience, but also a place to stop 

and rest indoors, view some exhibits (not 

extensive given space limitations), and talk 

with park staff. Visitors would also benefit 

from regular interpretive programming 

provided by rangers. For visitors interested 

in the human history of the site, the ability 

to view and interpret the Wilkie house and 

barn would provide a pleasant variety of 

experience. However, visitors who might 
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 107

Chapter Four Environmental Consequences

want to view a film in a theater or arrive in 

groups and gather in one indoor spot might be 

disappointed by the indoor space limitations. 

Overall, this alternative would offer beneficial 

visitor experience at a minor level. 

Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation 

Emphasis — Direct and Indirect Impacts 

on Visitor Use and Experience

This alternative would offer a broad outdoor 

experience in a variety of ways (more trails, 

limited outdoor camping, picnic areas, a 

bridge across the gorge, and a bike path). 

It would also offer a place to stop and rest 

indoors; view extensive exhibits, including 

a film; and talk with park staff. There would 

be space to accommodate visitors who come 

in group, such as school groups. Visitors 

would also benefit from regular interpretive

programming provided by rangers. However, 

visitors seeking solitude and a quiet nature 

immersion experience might be disappointed 

to have to travel far from the core of the site 

to find this. Overall, this alternative would 

have a minor to moderate beneficial impact 

on visitor experience. 

Alternative 5: Preferred Alternative — 

Direct and Indirect Impacts on Visitor Use 

and Experience

This alternative would offer a broad outdoor 

experience in a variety of ways (more trails, 

including a half-day-long loop trail; limited 

outdoor camping; and picnic areas). It would 

also offer a place to stop and rest indoors; 

view extensive exhibits, including a film; and 

talk with park staff. There would be space to 

accommodate visitors who come in group, 

such as school groups. Visitors would also 

benefit from regular interpretive programming 

provided by rangers. Various attractions 

(such as a bike path traversing the site and a 

pedestrian bridge across the gorge) are not 

proposed in this alternative (as they are in 

alternative 4) because those amenities were 

not widely supported by the public when they 

commented on the preliminary alternatives. 

Therefore, it seems like not many benefits to 

visitor experience were lost with the removal 

of those elements. Because the sensitive 

resources management area was enlarged, 

visitors seeking solitude and a quiet nature 

immersion experience would not have to 

travel far from the core of the site to find this. 

Overall, this alternative would have a moderate 

beneficial impact on visitor experience. 

Cumulative Impacts on Visitor Use 

and Experience

There are no foreseeable actions in the 

complex or surrounding area that would 

likely cause adverse effects on visitor use 

and experience. There is the possibility of 

development on adjacent lands, which could 

affect viewsheds. Traffic volume could increase 

due to a slight increase in visitation or a 

change in visitor interests and demand due 

to potential changes in regional populations 

or national recreation trends. The likelihood 

of these changes is unknown at this time. If 

they were to occur, they could cause a slight 

increase in visitor use concerns, such as 

crowding and conflicts at high-use areas or 

attraction sites, or have adverse effects on the 

visitor experience commensurate with the 

extent to which developments would be visible 

and traffic would be audible from various 

visitor use areas within the complex. 

All of the Alternatives. The beneficial impacts 

on visitor experience from each of the five 

alternatives, when combined with other 

present and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, 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. 
108 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER FOUR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

UNAVOIDABLE 

ADVERSE IMPACTS

Unavoidable adverse impacts are defined here 

as major impacts that cannot be fully mitigated 

or avoided. No major adverse impacts are 

expected under any of the alternatives. It is 

expected that the development of trails and 

visitor, staff, and maintenance support areas 

at the core of the site would cause some 

impact. Those impacts, however, would 

be minimized through best construction 

practices, and any unexpected major adverse 

impacts would be mitigated. For example, if 

archeological resources were encountered 

during construction activities, mitigation 

measures would be implemented to protect 

those resources. 

IRREVERSIBLE AND 

IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS 

OF RESOURCES

Implementing alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would 

likely result in the consumption of some 

nonrenewable natural resources in the form 

of construction materials and fuels that would 

constitute an irretrievable commitment of 

resources. There is also the potential for loss 

of archeological resources during construction 

projects. Future planning would examine this 

potential and would avoid or, if avoidance is 

not feasible, mitigate any loss. 

RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM 

USES OF MAN’S ENVIRONMENT 

AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

The first purpose of the Ice Age Complex 

at Cross Plains is to ensure protection, 

preservation, and interpretation of the 

nationally significant values of continental 

glaciation in Wisconsin. All five alternatives 

would achieve this purpose, and thus all of 

them would ensure long-term productive 

use of the complex. The only substantive 

development (“use of man’s environment”) 

would occur in a previously disturbed 

area. Outside the developed area, under all 

alternatives, productive ecosystem function 

would be maintained or restored throughout 

most of the complex, and where this is not 

feasible, the productivity of agricultural fields 

would remain. 


111

CONSULTATION 

AND COORDINATION

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

P

l a n n i n g f o r t h e future of the Ice Age Complex 

began in fall 2007 with a workshop to develop a set of 

desired future conditions for the site. This workshop involved 

representatives of the NPS Ice Age National Scenic Trail office, 

as well as the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Ice Age Trail Alliance 

(then called the Ice Age Trail Foundation). Shortly after that 

workshop, the decision was made to move beyond a set of 

desired future conditions to a full general management plan for 

the complex as a joint NPS/WDNR plan.

Chapter Five

Meetings were held first with 

local officials in summer 2008 

and then with the general 

public to announce the 

beginning of the planning 

process for the general 

management plan. The 

National Park Service solicited 

public comments on the 

scope of the plan by mailing 

newsletters to an extensive 

mailing list maintained by 

the Ice Age Trail offices, as 

well as a list maintained by 

the Department of Natural 

Resources. Notices were 

published in local newspapers 

to announce the beginning of 

the planning process. A project 

website was made available 

through the NPS “Planning, 

Environment, and Public 

Comment” (PEPC) website 

(http://parkplanning.nps.

gov/). Two public meetings, 

one in Cross Plains, Wisconsin, 

and the other in Middleton, 

Wisconsin, were well-attended. 

The public entered comments 

directly into the PEPC website 

and sent comments through 

the mail. Comments were 

also recorded on flipcharts at 

meetings. Public input yielded 

a total of 275 comments. 

History of the 

planning process 

through today.

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
112 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER FIVE CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

The planning team took public comments 

into account as it crafted the preliminary 

alternatives. The preliminary alternatives 

were then presented for public review in 

September 2009. The National Park Service 

prepared a second newsletter that presented 

the preliminary alternatives and announced 

public meetings. The newsletter was sent to 

members of the mailing list and uploaded 

to the NPS PEPC website, and notices were 

again published in local media to announce 

the meetings. The Ice Age National Scenic 

Trail staff and members of the local planning 

team offered tours of the complex to members 

of the community so they could get to know 

the site and be able to visualize how the 

management alternatives might change it. 

Local officials were briefed on the alternatives 

in advance of the general public. This second 

public input process yielded a total of 428 

comments. The proposal to limit access to Old 

Sauk Pass prompted questions and concerns 

on the part of those living in the area of the 

complex, so a separate meeting was held with 

those neighbors and with representatives of 

the village of Cross Plains (which has authority 

over that road) to discuss the concerns. 

One result of this discussion was the village 

of Cross Plains’ resolution included in this 

document as appendix B. 

The planning team reviewed public 

comments on the preliminary alternatives 

and took those comments into account as it 

analyzed, in detail, the costs, advantages, and 

environmental impacts of the alternatives. 

That process also contributed to the creation 

of a new alternative (“Alternative 5: Preferred 

Alternative”) that could potentially yield the 

highest advantage and best value. This draft 

general management plan / environmental 

impact statement was then written and 

reviewed internally and has been distributed 

for public review and comment.

TRIBAL CONSULTATION

The following tribes were contacted in May 

2008 (at the beginning of the planning process) 

to inquire of their interest in participating in 

the process:

Sac and Fox Nation of Oklahoma

Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri 

in Kansas and Nebraska

Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe 

of Chippewa

Oneida Tribe of Indians in Wisconsin

Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa

St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin

Forest County Potawatomi Community 

of Wisconsin

Sokaogon Chippewa Community, 

Mole Lake Band

Lac du Flambeau Band 

of Lake Superior Chippewa

Lac Courte Oreilles Band 

of Lake Superior Chippewa 

Sac and Fox Tribe of the Mississippi 

in Iowa

Stockbridge Munsee Community 

of Wisconsin

Ho-Chunk Nation

Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin

None of these tribes responded to the 

invitational letters, but they were included 

on the mailing list and sent copies 

of the newsletters as the planning 

process progressed. 
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 113

Chapter Five Consultation and Coordination

FEDERAL AGENCIES 

CONSULTATION

The following agencies were contacted in 

May 2008 (at the beginning of the planning 

process) to let them know the process had 

been initiated and to inquire of their interest 

in it:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Green Bay Field Office 

U.S. Natural Resources 

Conservation Service

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Federal Highway Administration

U.S. Geological Service

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service

WISCONSIN STATE 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION 

OFFICE CONSULTATION

The Wisconsin Historical Society is 

the federally designated State Historic 

Preservation Office. The society was consulted 

before actions were proposed that could affect 

cultural resources at the Ice Age Complex. 

The structures at the core of the property 

that had belonged to the Wilkie family (and 

before them, the Lowe family) had not been 

formally evaluated for historic significance 

prior to initiation of the planning process. The 

National Park Service evaluated the structures 

and the landscape surrounding them and 

discussed their potential eligibility for listing in 

the National Register of Historic Places with 

the Wisconsin Historical Society. The society 

concluded that the Lowe-Wilkie farm is not 

eligible in the area of architecture or for its 

association with the area of settlement. The 

letter expressing the society’s conclusion is 

included in this chapter.

The State Historic 

Preservation Office 

received a copy of 

the notification letter 

indicating the National 

Park Service and the 

Wisconsin Department 

of Natural Resources 

were initiating a General 

Management Plan for the Ice

Age Complex at Cross Plains. 

The National Park Service 

sent the letter to the State 

Historic Preservation Office, 

along with federal agencies, at 

the beginning of the General 

Management Plan process. Two 

examples of the notification 

letter are included in this chapter.

Wisconsin State

Historic Preservation

Office
114 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER FIVE CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

CONSULTATION LETTERS AND RESPONSES
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 115

Chapter Five Consultation and Coordination

RECEIVED
116 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER FIVE CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 117

Chapter Five Consultation and Coordination
118 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

CHAPTER FIVE CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 121

APPENDIX A: LAWS ESTABLISHING 

THE ICE AGE NATIONAL SCIENTIFIC RESERVE 

AND THE ICE AGE NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL
122 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

APPENDIXES 
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 123

Appendixes
124 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

APPENDIXES 
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 125

Appendixes

APPENDIX B: VILLAGE OF CROSS PLAINS RESOLUTION 

REGARDING OLD SAUK PASS
126 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

APPENDIXES 
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 127

Appendixes

APPENDIX C: WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT 

OF NATURAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE FORM 
128 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

APPENDIXES 

 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

CBA Choosing by Advantages

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CLR cultural landscape report

EIS environmental impact statement

GMP general management plan

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NPS National Park Service

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

PEPC Planning, Environment, and Public Comment

PL public law

USC United States Code

USDI U.S. Department of the Interior

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

WDNR Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

WDOT Wisconsin Department of Transportation

APPENDIX D:
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 129

Appendixes

APPENDIX E: PLANNING TEAM

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Ruth Heikkinen

Outdoor Recreation Planner

Project Manager, Primary Author 

10 years with the National Park Service

Masters of Public Management, 

University of Maryland

Christina Miller

Natural Resource Specialist–Planner

Project/Interdisciplinary Team Member

5 years with the National Park Service

Master’s in Environmental Policy and 

Management for Natural Resources, 

University of Denver

Tom Gilbert

Superintendent, Ice Age National Scenic Trail

Participant

30 years with the National Park Service

B.S., Park and Recreation Resources, 

Michigan State University

Pamela Schuler

Manager, Ice Age National Scenic Trail

Participant

20 Years with the National Park Service

Bachelor of Science, 

Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, 

University of Wisconsin

Dean Gettinger

Management Assistant

Participant

12 years with the National Park Service, 

3 years with the Bureau of Land Management

M.S., Resource Recreation and Tourism, 

University of Idaho

Mary Tano

Outdoor Recreation Planner

Participant

9 years with the National Park Service

Masters of Environmental Biology, 

Governors State University

Douglas T. Wilder

Coordinator - Geospatial Support Center

Mapping and data development

8 years with the National Park Service 

(15 years in Geographic Information Systems) 

M.S., Marine Science (Geology), 

University of South Florida 
130 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX E: PLANNING TEAM (CONTINUED)

WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT 

OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Jeff Prey

Senior Planner

Participant

25 years with the State of Wisconsin

M.S., University of Wisconsin – Madison 

Rene Lee

Park Manager

Participant

13 years with the Wisconsin Department 

of Natural Resources

Degree in Design Engineering and Law Enforcement, 

Madison Area Technical College 

Dana White Quam

Participant

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Regional Park Specialist

30 years with the Department of Natural Resources

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Steven J. Lenz

District Manager, 

Leopold Wetland Management District

Planning Team Member or Participant

31 years with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

B.S., University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point

PARTNERS

Ice Age Trail Alliance

Mike Wollmer

Executive Director

Participant

Executive Director since 2007, 

20 years as a volunteer associated with 

the Ice Age Trail Alliance

Bachelor of Business Administration, 

University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee

Andrew (“Drew”) Hanson III

Trailway Director

Participant 

13 years with the Ice Age Trail Alliance

Bachelors in Geography, 

University of Wisconsin – Madison

University of Wisconsin

David Mickelson

Glacial Geologist

Participant, Secondary Author

39 years with the University of Wisconsin – Madison

Ph.D., Geology, 

Ohio State University

John Harrington

Professor of Landscape Architecture

Participant

27 years with the University of Wisconsin – Madison

M.S., Landscape Architecture, 

University of Wisconsin – Madison

Dee Finnegan

Community Preservation Planner (through NPS 

Student Temporary Employment Program)

Participant

Current University of Wisconsin – Madison 

Landscape Architecture Graduate Student
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 131

References

REFERENCES AND WORKS CONSULTED

Black, Robert F. 1974. Geology of Ice Age National Scientific 

Reserve of Wisconsin, University of Connecticut, 

Storrs, pp. 72–75.

Duncan, C., B. Abel, D. Ewert, M.L. Ford, S. Mabey, 

D. Mehlman, P. Patterson, R. Sutter and 

M. Woodrey. 2002. “Protecting Stopover Sites 

for Forest-Dwelling Migratory Landbirds.” 

The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA. 

Unpublished report.

eBird. 2008. Access at http://ebird.org/content/ebird/news/

the-state-of-ebird-2008-read-this.

Stynes, Daniel J. 2009. National Park Visitor 

Spending and Payroll Impacts 2008. 

National Park Service, Social Science Program. 

Michigan State University. October 2009. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. 

Leopold Wetland Management District, 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

UW (University of Wisconsin Board of Regents). 2001. 

Exploring Options to Restore Wisconsin’s Oak Savanna. 

Editorial assistance by B. Webendarfer. 

University of Wisconsin – Extension 

Environmental Resources Center. Available at 

http://www.prairieoaks.com/images/savanna.pdf.

VCP (Village of Cross Plains). 2008. Village of Cross Plains 

Final Comprehensive Plan. June 9. 

Access at http://www.cross-plains.wi.us/files/Final%20

Cross%20Plains%20Comprehensive%20Plan%20

Adopted%206%209%2008(4).pdf

WDNR et al. (Wisconsin Depart of Natural Resources, 

Bureau of Parks and Recreation); 

National Park Service, Ice Age National Scenic Trail; 

Ice Age Park and Trail Foundation; and Bay-Lake 

Regional Planning Commission. 2006. Ice Age National 

Scenic Trail Corridor Plan and Environmental Assessment for 

Kewaunee, Manitowoc, and Sheboygan Counties, Wisconsin. 

PUB-PR-811 06. December. Available at http://dnr.wi.gov/

master_planning/completed_archive/parks_trails/lmiat/

LMIAT_Final.pdf

WDNR (Wisconsin Depart of Natural Resources, 

South Central Region). 1998. Feasibility Study 

and Environmental Analysis for the Cross Plains Unit, 

Ice Age National Scientific Reserve Study Area. December.
132 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

REFERENCES

REFERENCES AND WORKS 

CONSULTED (CONTINUED) 

http://files.usgwarchives.net/wi/dane/history/1877/

madisond/crosspla39nms.txt

Madison, Dane County and surrounding towns; 

being a history and guide to places of scenic 

beauty and historical note found in the towns of 

Dane County and surroundings, including the 

organization of the towns, and early intercourse 

of the settlers with the Indians, their camps, 

trails, mounds, etc. With a complete list of county 

supervisors and officers, and legislative members, 

Madison Village and City Council. Illustrated, 

Madison, Wis.: published by WM. J. Park & Co., 

Booksellers, Stationers and Binders, 11 King Street. 

1877. Copyright. Wm. J. Park & Co. 1877. David 

Atwood, Stereotyper and Printer, Madison, Wis.

A Phase I Archeological Survey of Proposed Work 

on the Ice Age National Scenic Trail in Dane, 

pole, Marathon, Taylor, and Waupaca Counties, 

Wisconsin. Prepared for National Park Service 

by Mississippi Valley Archeology Center at the 

University of Wisconsin-LaCrosse. Reports of 

Investigations No. 587. September 2005.

Phase I Archeological Investigations of Six 

Segments of the Ice Age National Scenic Trail in 

Manitowoc, Dane, Waushara, Polk, and Marquette 

Counties, Wisconsin. Prepared for the National 

Park Service by Commonwealth Cultural Resources 

Group, Inc. WR-0392. September 2009.
DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 133

Index

INDEX

biking, bike path, xvi, xvii, xviii, 20, 27, 36, 38, 53, 

71, 90, 94, 97, 101, 104, 107

camping, xi, xii, xvii, xviii, 20, 37, 47, 48, 50, 56, 59, 

60, 61, 62, 66, 104, 107

comprehensive plan, vi, xvi, 7, 81, 85, 100, 101

cultural resources, 11, 19, 23, 85, 86, 113

Dane County, i, vii, xiii, xxv, 8, 22, 27, 28, 33, 81, 84, 

85, 92, 103, 104, 132

education, 12, 19, 58, 59, 64, 67, 101

gorge, iii, ix, x, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, xv, xvii, xviii, 3, 4, 12, 

21, 22, 41, 43, 45, 47, 48, 50, 51, 63, 65, 68, 76, 80, 

81, 82, 91, 92, 93, 94, 101, 104, 107

hiking, ix, xii, xiii, xvi, xvii, xviii, 20, 37, 41, 43, 48, 

50, 52, 53, 62, 64, 81, 92, 97, 103, 105, 106

horse, horseback riding, 20, 36, 37, 38, 51, 52, 81

hunting, viii, 20, 36, 38, 39

Ice Age Complex at Cross Plains, Ice Age Complex, 

complex, i, ii, iii, iv, vii, viii, ix, x, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, 

xv, xvi, xvii, xviii, xix, xxi, xxii, xxv, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 

10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 

31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 47, 48, 

50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 66, 69, 

70, 71, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 

89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 

102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 111, 112, 113, 124

Ice Age National Scenic Trail, i, ii, iii, vi, vii, viii, ix, 

x, xi, xii, xiii, xxiv, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 31, 33, 

36, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 48, 50, 52, 53, 55, 61, 62, 63, 

66, 68, 92, 95, 103, 105, 106, 111, 112, 121, 129, 

131, 132

Ice Age National Scientific Reserve, Ice Age Reserve, 

reserve, i, iii, v, vi, vii, viii, xxiv, xxv, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 

10, 11, 12, 28, 31, 32, 33, 105, 121

interpretive, interpretation, i, ii, iii, vi, vii, viii, ix, x, xi, 

xii, xiv, xv, xvi, xvii, xviii, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 17, 19, 22, 

39, 41, 45, 47, 48, 50, 57, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 

86, 89, 93, 94, 97, 100, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108

natural resources, xv, xvi, 12, 24, 27, 37, 55, 59, 60, 

85, 97, 100, 102, 108

orientation, ix, x, 22, 37, 43, 45, 51, 58

parking, viii, ix, xii, xiii, xiv, xv, 24, 37, 39, 41, 50, 51, 

53, 55, 56, 59, 64, 67, 68, 91, 92, 93

snowmobiling, snowmobile trail, 20, 36, 38, 52, 

53, 90

state park, 19, 33, 38

threatened and endangered, 18

trail, ii, vi, viii, ix, x, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, xv, xvii, xviii, 7, 8, 

11, 13, 23, 36, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 48, 50, 52, 53, 57, 

58, 65, 66, 68, 78, 91, 92, 93, 97, 103, 105, 106, 107

U.S. Highway 14, xii, xxi, 27, 48, 50, 82, 90, 94, 96

visitor center, x, xi, xii, xiv, 37, 45, 47, 48, 51, 63, 64, 

65, 66, 93

Wilkie gorge, Wilkie, vi, vii, viii, ix, x, xi, xii, xiii, 

xviii, 8, 20, 21, 24, 25, 41, 45, 47, 48, 50, 62, 64, 

65, 78, 81, 106, 113

Wisconsin, i, ii, iii, vi, vii, viii, xii, xxi, xxiv, 3, 4, 7, 

8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 

28, 31, 32, 38, 39, 48, 75, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 

92, 101, 102, 103, 105, 108, 111, 112, 

113, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132
134 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

INDEX

Lush wooded landscape

Surrounding hills

Ice Age Complex

Cross Plains, Wisconsin

 

National Park Service – U.S. Department of the Interior

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Ice Age Complex at Cross Plains 

Wisconsin