Ice Age Complex at Cross Plains, Wisconsin Draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

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 T 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.

This document establishes a framework to The potential environmental impacts of all assist in making decisions about the Complex. alternatives have been identified and assessed. It examines five alternatives for managing this The following impact topics are addressed site over the next 15 to 20 years, identifying in this GMP/EIS: soil resources, water desired conditions and analyzing the impacts quality, soundscapes, vegetation and wildlife, of implementing each alternative. Alternative socioeconomics, and visitor use and experience. 1: No Action, Continuation of Current Management looks into the future of The key impacts of Alternative 1 would be current management and provides a basis for short and long-term, minor to moderate, comparison to other alternatives. Alternative adverse impacts on soils from agricultural 2: Ecological Restoration Emphasis would use on some lands and unauthorized trails on restore vegetative conditions to those present others, but beneficial impacts to soils which prior to European settlement, supporting are converted from farmland to prairie. There interpretation of the post-glacial period. would be negligible to minor benefits to visitor Alternative 3: Interpretation and Education experience under current management and Emphasis would focus on interpreting how negligible impacts in all other areas. the glacial landscape evolved over time, and ecological resources would be managed to The key impacts of Alternative 2 would be reveal the glacial landscape. Alternative 4: short and long term, mild to moderate, adverse Outdoor Recreation Emphasis would offer impacts on soils from compaction from visitor visitors a variety of low-impact recreational use, but beneficial impacts to soils which are experiences supporting, and compatible converted from farmland to prairie. There with, the preservation and interpretation of would be temporary adverse impacts to the glacial significance.Alternative 5: Preferred soundscape from construction activities and Alternative would provide interpretation a moderate beneficial impact on vegetation of the landscape since glacial retreat and wildlife from ecological restoration. There and appropriate low-impact outdoor would be negligible to minor benefit to visitor recreation opportunities. experience under this alternative. The key impacts of Alternative 3 would be How to comment on this document minor to moderate adverse impacts to soils from building and trail construction as well as Comments on this draft general management compaction due to trail use, but also beneficial plan / environmental impact statement are impacts to soils as they are converted from welcome and will be accepted during the farmland to prairie. There would be minor to 60-day public review and comment period. moderate adverse impacts to the soundscape During the comment period, comments from construction and increased visitation and may be submitted using the several methods a negligible to moderate beneficial impact on noted below. vegetation and wildlife. There would be minor benefit to visitor experience from indoor We prefer that readers submit comments online exhibits and interpretive programs. (through the park planning website identified below) so the comments become incorporated The key impacts of Alternative 4 would be in the NPS Planning, Environment, and would be minor to moderate adverse impacts Public Comment System. An electronic public to soils from construction and trail use under comment form is provided through this website. this alternative, but also beneficial impacts to soils as they are converted from farmland Please submit comments to prairie. There would be minor beneficial impact on vegetation and wildlife. This online at: http://www.planning.nps.gov alternative would have a minor to moderate benefit to visitor experience by offering broad or by mail: Ice Age Complex outdoor experience and extensive exhibits. at Cross Plains Draft GMP/EIS The key impacts of Alternative 5 would be National Park Service minor to moderate adverse impacts on soils Attn: Christina Miller construction and trail use but also beneficial 12795 W. Alameda Parkway impacts to soils as they are converted from P.O. Box 25287 farmland to prairie. There would be minor Denver, CO 80225 beneficial impact on vegetation and wildlife under this alternative. This alternative would or hand delivery: at public meetings to be have a moderate benefit to visitor experience announced in the media through broad outdoor experience and following the release of this interpretive programming. draft general management plan / environmental This Draft General Management Plan/ impact statement. Environmental Impact Statement has been distributed to other agencies and interested Before including your address, phone number, organizations and individuals for review email address, or other personal identifying and comment. The public comment period information in your comment, you should for the document lasts 60 days. For more be aware your entire comment — including information, contact Superintendent, Ice Age your personal identifying information — may National Scenic Trail, 700 Rayovac Drive, be publicly available at any time. While you may Suite 100, Madison, Wisconsin 53711. ask us in your comment to withhold personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Summary

Summary Background glaciation, including moraines, eskers, kames, kettleholes, drumlins, swamps, lakes, and other A mere 20,000 years ago, two-thirds of what reminders of the ice age.” The continental is today the state of Wisconsin lay under the glaciers last advanced and retreated over the grip of colossal ice sheets. The climate warmed state some 30,000 to 10,000 years ago. and the ice sheets began to melt back. They left in their wake an impressive landscape Congress envisioned the Ice Age Reserve as a of fascinating glacial landforms: moraines, network of distinct areas, each exhibiting an drumlins, kames, kettles, eskers, outwash plains, outstanding example of one type of landscape or meltwater channels, driftless (unglaciated) landform resulting from continental glaciation. topography, glacial lake beds and islands, and The legislation’s intention is that the reserve more. These Wisconsin Ice Age remnants are would be owned and managed by the state of considered among the world’s finest examples Wisconsin, with the assistance and collaboration of how continental glaciation sculpts our planet. of the Secretary of the Interior (acting through Located just west of Madison near the village of the National Park Service). Several of the Cross Plains is a 1,500-acre area that contains outstanding sites selected were already an outstanding collection of glacial landforms, Wisconsin state parks. The legislation made including a gorge carved by meltwater and reference to the Ice Age National Scenic Trail expansive views of both driftless and glaciated but made no provisions for it. terrain. These acres comprise a park called, for the purpose of this planning effort, the “Ice Age When the study was completed, nine sites were Complex at Cross Plains” (henceforth “Ice Age identified to be protected and managed by the Complex” or “complex”) (see figure ES-1). This Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources site, however, has a rich history of different (WDNR) as units of the Ice Age Reserve (see legal designations. figure ES‑2). On May 29, 1971, the Secretary of the Interior published an order in the Federal The lands and landscape of the Ice Age Complex Register that formally brought the Ice Age have been deemed nationally significant under Reserve into existence. two related, but distinct, federal designations. The elements recognized in both designations As noted in Black (1974), “The Cross Plains are parts of the singular concept advanced by area was selected for inclusion in the Reserve in Wisconsin citizens in the late 1950s and early part because it contains a typical portion of the 1960s to protect and showcase Wisconsin’s Johnstown Moraine on the uplands and a typical heritage from continental glaciation. Congress proglacial stream in Black Earth Creek Valley, authorized the concept in two parts, at two and is close to a center of population. More different times, and through two different importantly, it is the only place . . . where the legislative vehicles. terminal moraine rests directly on well exposed, weathered dolomite bedrock and where small In 1964 Congress enacted legislation (Public marginal proglacial lakes, a marginal drainage Law [PL] 88-655; 78 Stat. 1087; 16 United States way, and a subglacial drainage way may all be Code [USC] 469d, et seq.) directing the Secretary seen in a small area. The various glacial features of the Interior to cooperate with the governor associated with the moraine in the vicinity of of Wisconsin in studying and subsequently Cross Plains are more varied and yet as definitive designating an Ice Age National Scientific as one could hope to see, all preserved in a neat Reserve (“Ice Age Reserve”). The purpose of little package. The area is one of increasing the Ice Age Reserve is “to assure protection, urbanization, and preservation of parts of the preservation, and interpretation of the nationally front and its associated phenomena can only be significant values of Wisconsin continental assured in the Reserve.”

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT iii SUMMY AR

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

iv ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Summary

Figure ES-2: Ice Age National Scientific Reserve and Its Nine Units

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT v SUMMY AR

The Wisconsin Department of Natural trailway protection strategies (land protection Resources purchased 100 acres of the plans). The comprehensive plan identifies the Cross Plains unit of the Ice Age Reserve in Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources September 1975, and an additional 60 acres and the nonprofit Ice Age Trail Alliance as were subsequently purchased. The Cross cooperators in the long-term effort to develop Plains unit is also designated as Cross Plains and manage the Ice Age National Scenic State Park by Wisconsin Administrative Rule. Trail. The Park Service serves as the primary liaison with other federal agencies in matters Congress again recognized the national relating to the Ice Age National Scenic Trail. significance of Wisconsin’s glacial landscapes In carrying out this role, the Park Service when, on October 3, 1980, it amended the reviews and comments on federal or federally National Trails System Act to authorize and assisted/permitted projects and activities (such establish the Ice Age National Scenic Trail as as highway, utility, and other development a component of the National Trails System proposals) that may affect trail segments. (PL 96-370; 94 Stat. 1360; 16 USC 1244(a)(10)). The Ice Age National Scenic Trail meanders The Wisconsin Department of Natural through Wisconsin for approximately Resources is the state agency responsible 1,200 miles from Potawatomi State Park in for providing and maintaining outdoor Door County to Interstate State Park in Polk recreation resources of statewide County, generally following the terminal significance, including state parks and moraine and other glacial landscape features trails, in Wisconsin. Thus, the basis for the and connecting six of the nine units of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources’ Ice Age Reserve. The Secretary of the Interior participation in developing and managing was assigned administrative responsibility for the Ice Age Reserve and Ice Age National the Ice Age National Scenic Trail. Scenic Trail is the statewide significance of the reserve and trail and the inclusion of state The Secretary of the Interior delegated overall parks, forests, trails, and recreation areas in administrative responsibility for the Ice Age the reserve and along the route of the trail. National Scenic Trail to the National Park The state legislature formalized this role in Service. The Park Service, in cooperation 1987 by passing legislation that designates with the Wisconsin Department of Natural the Ice Age National Scenic Trail as a State Resources and other parties, completed a Scenic Trail. The legislation assigned the Comprehensive Plan for Management and responsibility to the Wisconsin Department Use of the Ice Age National Scenic Trail of Natural Resources for coordinating the in September 1983. The National Park involvement of state agencies in the trail Service is responsible at the federal level for project and cooperating with the National carrying out the provisions of the National Park Service and private interests in planning, Trails System Act as they relate to the Ice Age acquiring, developing, and maintaining the National Scenic Trail. The National Park Ice Age National Scenic Trail. The Wisconsin Service carries out or facilitates trail planning, Department of Natural Resources has been environmental compliance, trail development the primary NPS partner in administering and management, public and private partner federal financial assistance for acquiring involvement, and land protection activities. lands for the Ice Age National Scenic Trail. The National Park Service assists partners by coordinating, guiding, and assisting their The National Trails System Act authorizes efforts to acquire, develop, operate, protect, the establishment of interpretive sites along and maintain the Ice Age National Scenic Trail national scenic trails. Congress appropriated in accordance with the comprehensive plan funds, in fiscal year (FY) 2001, for the and supplemental trail corridor plans and acquisition of specific lands, owned by James and Jane Wilkie, for an Ice Age National Scenic vi ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Summary

Trail Interpretive Site. The lands specified for This draft general management plan / the interpretive site happen to lie within the environmental impact statement boundaries of the Cross Plains unit of the Ice Age Reserve. The National Park Service identifies desired conditions in different purchased the lands in 2002, subject to a life parts of the Ice Age Complex estate, and took full possession in early 2008. identifies any necessary developments The Wilkie farmstead includes a stone house, and support facilities to achieve the the original two-story portion of which vision and desired conditions dates back to the 1850s, just a few years after statehood in 1848. The one-story addition, ensures that the foundation for built with stone from the same quarry as the decision making has been developed original house, dates to 1952 when the Wilkies in consultation with the public and purchased the farm. There is also a structurally adopted by NPS leadership after sound wood barn, modern garage, shed used sufficient analysis of the benefits, as a chicken coop, and Quonset for equipment impacts, and economic costs of storage. These structures are referred to alternative courses of action elsewhere in this document as the “farmstead” or individually as the “stone house,” “barn,” This document addresses the three purposes and so forth. The structures were evaluated for listed above, but it does not eligibility to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places, but it was determined they describe how particular programs or were not historically significant. projects would be implemented or prioritized; these decisions are deferred The lands that comprise the Ice Age Complex to detailed implementation planning are managed at both a state and federal level. That is, the Ice Age Reserve is owned and provide specific details and answers to managed by the state of Wisconsin, and the all the issues facing the Ice Age Complex Ice Age National Scenic Trail Interpretive Site is owned and managed by the National Park provide funding commitments for Service. Additionally, the Ice Age Complex also implementation of the plan includes Shoveler Sink Waterfowl Production Area, which is owned and managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The involvement of Need for the Plan both federal and state governments, as well The general management plan is needed as Dane County Parks, makes this plan to in order to establish a consistent vision for preserve and interpret the Ice Age Complex a the Ice Age Complex that is shared by all true partnership effort. partners in this project. Those partners are the National Park Service, Wisconsin Purpose of the Plan Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ice Age Trail The final general management plan would Alliance, local government agencies, and the provide a framework to assist NPS and WDNR general public. Although the Department managers in making decisions today and in of Natural Resources’ 1998 feasibility study the future. The alternatives proposed in this provided a rough outline for how the Ice document describe general paths the National Age Complex could be managed, the final Park Service and Department of Natural general management plan would be the first Resources would follow in managing the Ice plan designed to provide comprehensive Age Complex over the next 15 to 20 years. management guidance for the complex.

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT vii SUMMY AR

The Ice Age National Scenic Trail is guided actions were taken. The description for the by a 1983 comprehensive management plan, no-action alternative was used as a baseline and the Ice Age Reserve is guided by a 1968 against which to assess the benefits, costs, and comprehensive management plan. Neither impacts of action alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5. of these older overarching plans, however, articulates the shared vision between the The Ice Age Complex is undeveloped for National Park Service, Department of visitor use and minimally maintained. Both Natural Resources, and the public on how to the Wisconsin Department of Natural best achieve the specific purpose of the Ice Resources and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Age Complex and protect its resources for manage vegetation on lands that each agency future generations. owns and on land owned by the National Park Service. Staff members for the Ice Age Currently, the Ice Age Complex is essentially National Scenic Trail have stabilized facilities undeveloped for visitor use. Given its location to prevent their deterioration. There are just outside the fast-growing suburbs of currently no improvements (such as parking or Madison, Wisconsin, and the interest in Ice constructed trails) on either WDNR- or NPS- Age geology in the region, there is potential for owned lands to facilitate visitor experience. significant visitation at the complex. There is The Shoveler Sink Waterfowl Production also potential for damage to the glacial features Area, managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife at the site without long-term planning for their Service, is open to visitors for hunting, fishing, protection. Thus, this general management and other wildlife-dependent activities, but plan is needed because the production area has no visitor facilities other than two small unsurfaced parking lots. the management plans for related areas Privately owned lands in the complex consist (national scenic trail and scientific of agricultural fields, along with several homes reserve) are outdated and their outbuildings.

there must be a consistent and shared The segment of the Ice Age National Scenic vision for the complex Trail would still be built (by the Ice Age Trail Alliance) within the identified corridor under there is potential for both significant this alternative, but other trails would not visitation and resource damage be constructed.

Boundary Expansion. The boundary of the Ice The Five Alternatives Age Complex would not be expanded.

This draft general management plan / Estimated Costs and Staffing. A staff of six environmental impact statement examines five full-time equivalents would be required to alternatives for managing the Ice Age Complex. implement this alternative and administer In all of the alternatives, NPS managers will the Ice Age National Scenic Trail across the continue to strive to protect, maintain, and state. The annual operating costs (in 2010 monitor key resources. Each alternative dollars) would be approximately $560,000, proposes a different approach to managing including costs for resource management, resources, serving visitors, and providing employee salaries and benefits, and leasing interpretive and recreational opportunities. office space. The total one-time costs would be approximately $1.24 million (in 2010 Alternative 1: No Action, Continuation of dollars) for stabilizing the Wilkie property Current Management and purchasing seed to reestablish natural vegetation conditions. The one-time costs This alternative describes how the Ice Age would not include the cost of land protection, Complex would look in the future if no new such as acquisition or easements. viii ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Summary

Alternative 2: Ecological to manage the Ice Age Complex; therefore, Restoration Emphasis staffing estimates for this alternative cover both of these functions. The annual operating The ecosystem throughout most of the site costs (in 2010 dollars) would be approximately would be restored to vegetative conditions that $760,000 to pay for resource management, were present prior to European settlement employee salaries and benefits, and leasing (circa 1830). The restoration would support office space. The total one-time costs would interpretation of how natural conditions in be approximately $1.94 million (in 2010 the complex would have evolved after the dollars) for removing the Wilkie structures, glacial period under minimal human influence. constructing trails, and purchasing seed to Vegetation would be managed at key points reestablish natural vegetation conditions over to reveal glacial landscapes, but the focus more acreage than the no-action alternative. would be on ecosystem management. Visitors The one-time costs would not include the would enjoy a sense of perceived remoteness cost of land protection (such as acquisition and quiet, primarily by hiking on trails. The or easements). management concept in alternative 2 would be implemented by Alternative 3: Interpretation and restoring presettlement vegetation Education Emphasis by applying natural processes The glacial landscape would be interpreted to wherever possible focus on how the Ice Age Complex has evolved over time since the retreat of the last glacier. removing the buildings at the core of the Throughout most of the complex, ecological site that belonged to the Wilkie family resources would be managed to reveal the and providing parking and trail access at glacial landscape. Visitors would have an this location, as well as outdoor exhibits opportunity to experience a wide variety of and primitive restrooms resources, both ecological and geological, as well as remnants of human use of the site. The providing a minimally developed trail to visitor experience would involve sheltered and along the rim of Cross Plains gorge and indoor settings at the core of the property and hiking throughout most other areas of the interpreting the site with wayside and site. Trails would be placed to tell stories of outdoor exhibits the formation of the glacial landscape and, to a lesser extent, about the ecological resources, managing the complex from an off- such as the oak savanna. Under this alternative, site location — there would be no the Ice Age Complex would serve as the permanent staff stationed at the site, and headquarters for the Ice Age National Scenic visitor interaction with park staff would Trail. This management concept would be be rare implemented by Boundary Expansion. The boundary of the Ice renovating the house and/or barn Age Complex would not be expanded. at the core of the site for reuse to Estimated Costs and Staffing. A staff of eight accommodate visitor orientation, while full-time equivalents would be required to interpreting human use and settlement implement this alternative, together with patterns; space in these facilities would administering the Ice Age National Scenic also be renovated for use as staff offices Trail across the state. The work required to constructing a new facility at the administer the Ice Age National Scenic Trail core of the site to accommodate overlaps significantly with the work required maintenance needs

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ix SUMMY AR

requesting the village of Cross Plains (in 2010 dollars) would be approximately to manage traffic along Old Sauk Pass $1.01 million, including costs for resource between Cleveland Road and North management, employee salaries and benefits, Birch Trail to reduce hazards and maintenance and operations. The total to pedestrians one-time costs would be approximately $4.74 million (in 2010 dollars) and would go toward providing a trail to and along the gorge renovating the Wilkie property, designing with overlooks, surfaced at least in part and installing exhibits, constructing trails to accommodate people with disabilities, and a maintenance facility, and purchasing as well as controlled partial access along seed to reestablish natural vegetation the floor of the gorge conditions. The one-time costs would not include the cost of land protection, such as preserving and enhancing key views acquisition or easements. through vegetation management (for example, by selective thinning Alternative 4: Outdoor and pruning) Recreation Emphasis expanding the complex boundary Visitors would be offered a variety of low- westward to include WDNR-owned impact outdoor recreational experiences in land and enhance opportunities to support of, and compatible with, preserving interpret a wider expanse of driftless and interpreting the glacial significance of area terrain the complex and restoring and managing the ecosystem. Visitors would be able to Boundary Expansion. Alternative 3 proposes to experience resources in diverse ways and expand the boundary of the Ice Age Complex, would enjoy a broad range of interpretive as well as the boundary of Cross Plains State programming in indoor and outdoor settings. Park. The boundary would be expanded to Under this alternative, the Ice Age Complex include a 228‑acre WDNR-protected parcel. would serve as the headquarters for the Ice The Department of Natural Resources owns Age National Scenic Trail. This management part of the parcel in full, and part of it is concept would be implemented by privately owned and protected by an easement. The parcel is recommended for incorporation developing the core of the complex to into the complex’s boundary in order to include and protect significant resources and renovate the Wilkie house and barn values and to enhance opportunities for public primarily for use as staff offices enjoyment related to park purpose. The parcel would offer visitors an expansive view of the selectively site and construct a Driftless Area, a rare sight along the Ice Age new visitor center with orientation National Scenic Trail. services (such as exhibits and film)

Estimated Costs and Staffing. A staff of selectively site and construct a new 10.5 full-time equivalents would be required maintenance facility, unless future to implement this alternative and administer land acquisitions would allow for the Ice Age National Scenic Trail across the this development away from the state. The work required to administer the core of visitor activity Ice Age National Scenic Trail would overlap significantly with the work required to manage provide outdoor gathering the Ice Age Complex; therefore, staffing spaces such as an amphitheater estimates for alternative 3 would cover both and picnic shelter of these functions. The annual operating costs

x ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Summary

requesting the village of Cross Plains to and maintenance and operations. The limit access to Old Sauk Pass between total one-time costs of approximately $8.8 Cleveland Road and North Birch Trail million (in 2010 dollars) would be spent on (same as proposed under alternative 3) renovating the Wilkie property; designing and installing exhibits; constructing trails, a providing a trail to and along the gorge maintenance facility, and a new visitor center; with overlooks that would be surfaced, and purchasing seed to reestablish natural at least in part, to accommodate people vegetation conditions. The one-time costs with disabilities. If feasible a pedestrian do not include the cost of land protection bridge spanning the gorge would be built (acquisition or easements). to provide visitors a unique perspective on its formation Alternative 5: Preferred Alternative

providing extensive, varied trails, This alternative would provide visitors with including a hardened bicycle/pedestrian interpretation of the evolution of the complex trail across the site from the last glacial retreat and opportunities to enjoy appropriate low-impact outdoor offering primitive camping in the recreation. Ecological resources would largely western section of the complex be managed to reveal the glacial landscape. The most sensitive ecological areas would be expanding the complex’s boundary carefully protected, and visitor access would westward to enhance opportunities for be highly controlled in these areas. Visitors recreation, especially for a primitive would experience a wide variety of indoor and camping experience near the Ice Age outdoor interpretive programming. Under this National Scenic Trail alternative, the Ice Age Complex would serve as the headquarters for the Ice Age National Boundary Expansion. The boundary of the Ice Scenic Trail. Age Complex would be expanded to include the same 228‑acre WDNR-protected parcel The management concept for alternative 5 (mentioned under alternative 3). This parcel would be implemented by developing the would be necessary to enhance opportunities core of the site (the former Wilkie property) for public enjoyment related to park purpose. to accommodate offices for Ice Age National There is no appropriate area for camping along Scenic Trail staff (who would support the Ice Age National Scenic Trail corridor administrative and maintenance functions) within the current complex boundary, so the and provide for a visitor center, including a parcel would be managed for an expanded sheltered picnic area. The elements involved in recreational experience to allow for primitive developing the site include camping for hikers on the Ice Age National Scenic Trail, which would traverse this area. producing a building complex that This addition would be feasible to manage for would be highly sustainable (the the same reasons cited under alternative 3. overall goal of this development); certified under the U.S. Green Building Estimated Costs and Staffing. A staff of Council’s Leadership in Energy and 14 full-time equivalents would be required Environmental Design rating system to implement this alternative and administer at a gold level; have a minimal carbon the Ice Age National Scenic Trail across footprint; and employ systems to the state. The annual operating costs (in carefully control surface water runoff 2010 dollars) would be approximately and avoid impacting the quality of Black $1.26 million, including costs for resource Earth Creek. management, employee salaries and benefits,

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT xi SUMMY AR

retaining parts of the existing house rather, the agencies would accommodate and barn to the extent that is practical local efforts to build the path given the need for a cost-effective, environmentally sustainable visitor offering primitive camping equipped center, office space, and space to with a privy in the western part of support maintenance functions. the complex Ultimately, the design of the core area for public and operational use would establishing a wildlife corridor of reflect public feedback as well as cost unbroken habitat between the former and environmental factors. Wilkie property and Shoveler Sink. The area of this corridor is defined as Until the visitor center, office, and “landscape interpretation” because maintenance facility complex described above of the abundance of opportunity to can be funded and constructed, the existing view glacial features here. While the buildings in the core area may be minimally landscape interpretation management modified, as necessary, to make them useful on area generally allows for agricultural an interim basis as a visitor contact station and fields, the intent of landscape for maintenance and storage purposes. interpretation in this particular corridor is to return the land to a type The management concept for alternative 5 of native vegetation (such as short would also be implemented by prairie grasses rather than tall prairie grasses) that would not obscure the requesting the village of Cross Plains view of glacial features to manage traffic along Old Sauk Pass between Cleveland Road and providing picnic tables next to parking North Birch Trail to reduce hazards areas along U.S. Highway 14 and along to pedestrians (same as alternatives 3 Mineral Point Road and 4) Boundary Expansion. Alternative 5 proposes providing a trail leading to and along to expand the complex boundary westward the gorge with overlooks surfaced at to incorporate two expansion areas (parcels). least in part to accommodate people The one parcel would be the same 228‑acre with disabilities. Vegetation in the WDNR‑protected parcel (mentioned gorge would be restored and volunteer above under alternatives 3 and 4), and the trails removed. other would be a 40‑acre parcel protected and owned by the Department of Natural Additionally, the management concept for Resources. Both parcels would be necessary to alternative 5 would be implemented by enhance opportunities for public enjoyment related to park purpose under this alternative. providing an extensive, varied hiking Both parcels would be managed for an trail network throughout the complex expanded recreational experience to allow for primitive camping for hikers on the Ice Age providing a management area in a National Scenic Trail, which would traverse narrow strip along U.S. Highway 14 this area, and for hiking on other trails. to accommodate a bicycle path (in the planning stages) to connect Middleton Estimated Costs and Staffing. A staff of 14 to Cross Plains. This alternative does not full-time equivalents would be required to envision the National Park Service or implement this alternative and administer the the Wisconsin Department of Natural Ice Age National Scenic Trail across the state. Resources building the bicycle path; The annual operating costs (in 2010 dollars)

xii ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Summary would be approximately $1.26 million, ground disturbance within the narrow tread including costs for resource management, corridor. The potential impacts on soils from employee salaries and benefits, and constructing and using the trail would be maintenance and operations. The total one- mitigated to a negligible level with proper time costs of approximately $7.09 million (in layout of the trail on the landscape (for 2010 dollars) would be spent on renovating example, on slopes less than 10%), erosion the Wilkie property and new construction control techniques, planking or bridges, and within the core area, designing and installing trail monitoring. exhibits, constructing trails, and purchasing seed to reestablish natural vegetation The Ice Age National Scenic Trail would still conditions. The one-time costs would not be built under this alternative but other trails include the cost of land protection, such as would not. Over time, unauthorized trails acquisition or easements. (such as paths created by visitors), would proliferate. There is currently minimal impact from erosion and compaction in forest and Impacts from oak savanna areas under present use, with Implementation of the exception of the Cross Plains gorge and the moraine between the Cross Plains gorge the Alternatives and Cleveland Road. There is currently minor impact on the trail on the moraine Soil Resources and impact would remain minor if usage is Alternative 1: No Action, Continuation of Current limited to hiking. If there is no enforcement of Management. It is expected that alternative 1 restrictions on the use of this trail, and if use by would have some beneficial impacts on soils horseback riders were to increase, there would due to conversion of farm land to prairie. be a moderate impact due to compaction. Some soils would be removed from cultivation There is compaction at small parking areas and converted to their presettlement condition off Mineral Point Road and Timber Lane, but (mostly prairie). The ability to farm the prime this land has already been disturbed, and there soils today would be curtailed, and the soils would be minimal further compaction. would be retained for the future because the deep roots of prairie grasses are very effective The steep walls of Cross Plains gorge attract at holding soil. visitors, and human activity has the potential to damage both forest duff cover and soils, The present land use in the Ice Age Complex which could lead to substantial erosion would continue to be a mix of row crop problems. While the steep walls of Black Earth agriculture (corn and soybeans), forest land, Creek valley are also susceptible to erosion if and oak savanna. When agricultural fields are vegetation is disturbed, under present use, the plowed, soil surface is disturbed, and there slopes are not visited as much as those of the is wind erosion of silt particles and organic Cross Plains gorge. As time passes, however, particles off those surfaces. There is also water this site could become better known, and erosion from the fields. There is similar land residential development might increase in the use throughout Dane County. The impacts area. If increased use were not accompanied of agriculture on erosion would be minor to by measures to protect these areas, such as a moderate, depending on numerous factors, designed and delineated trail, damage to the such as the amount of tillage and use of grass steep walls could be expected. There could strips to limit erosion in critical spots. potentially be moderate to major erosion impacts if uncontrolled human activity in the The intensity of impacts on soils caused by vicinity of Cross Plains gorge and Black Earth trail construction would be limited to minor Creek valley increased.

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT xiii SUMMY AR

Alternative 2: Ecological Restoration Emphasis. from the steep walls of Cross Plains gorge and Alternative 2 would have the same beneficial steep slopes at the edge of Black Earth Creek impacts on soils as expressed in the first valley. This would reduce the potential for soil paragraph under alternative 1. compaction and erosion from uncontrolled human activity, resulting in minor to moderate This alternative would contribute to increased beneficial impacts on those areas. trail usage, compared to alternative 1 (no action), and would therefore likely have a Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation Emphasis. minor impact on soils from compaction. Alternative 4 would have the same beneficial There would be moderate impact on soils impacts on soils as expressed in the first from compaction in parking areas, but these paragraph under alternative 1. would not be large areas and would likely be in the same places as in alternative 1. Paving The construction of buildings and a surfaced the parking lots would contribute to increased trail to Cross Plains gorge, as well as a bridge runoff and would require proper management. across the gorge, could potentially have a temporary moderate adverse impact on soils The installation of trails near, but not in, from erosion and compaction in areas subject Cross Plains gorge would minimize impact on to construction. There would be additional the walls of the gorge. Erosion impacts in the trails across the site that would create gorge itself would be negligible because the moderate compaction in the vicinity of the public would be directed (with trail design trail. Once the landscape is stabilized following and signage) to stay off the walls of the gorge. construction, compaction from visitor foot Because the complex would be managed traffic would be confined to the areas around from an off-site location, there would be little buildings and parking lots, which could ability to enforce this direction. If the public potentially result in minor adverse impacts. does not comply with the direction to stay The addition of a bicycle trail from the off the gorge walls, there could be moderate visitor center to a parking lot north of Black adverse impacts on soil and the forest duff Earth Creek would increase visitor activity covering the wall until the park has the in a sensitive area, resulting in an adverse capacity to stop this from happening, given moderate impact on the steep slopes facing the minimal off-site staff. the creek, especially along the trail. The on- site interpretation and maintenance facilities Alternative 3: Interpretation and Education would potentially focus some visitor foot Emphasis. Alternative 3 would have the same traffic to the interpretation building and away beneficial impacts on soils as expressed in the from the steep walls of Cross Plains gorge and first paragraph under alternative 1. steep slopes at the edge of Black Earth Creek valley. This would reduce the potential for soil The construction of buildings and a surfaced compaction and erosion from uncontrolled trail to Cross Plains gorge could potentially human activity, resulting in minor to moderate have a temporary moderate adverse impact beneficial impacts on those areas. on soils from erosion and compaction in areas subject to construction. Once construction is Alternative 5: Preferred Alternative. Alternative completed, there would still be some potential 5 would have the same beneficial impacts on for minor compaction from visitor use, but soils as expressed in the first paragraph under the minor impacts would be confined to areas alternative 1. around buildings and parking lots. The on- site interpretation and maintenance facilities The construction of buildings and a surfaced would potentially focus some visitor foot trail to Cross Plains gorge could potentially traffic to the interpretation building and away have a moderate adverse impact on soils from

xiv ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Summary erosion and compaction during construction. and Alternative 5: Preferred Alternative. These There would be additional trails across the alternatives envision an indoor facility with site that would create moderate compaction modern amenities (such as indoor plumbing) in the vicinity of the trail. Once the landscape for visitors, so there would be a need for a new is stabilized following construction, well and septic system near the core area of the compaction from visitor foot traffic would property. These would be built to appropriate be confined to the areas around buildings codes and would therefore have a negligible and parking lots, which could potentially impact on groundwater. result in minor adverse impacts. The on-site interpretation and maintenance facilities Soundscapes would potentially focus some visitor foot traffic to the interpretation building and Alternative 1: No Action, Continuation of Current away from the steep walls of Cross Plains Management. Due to minimal development gorge and steep slopes at the edge of Black of visitor amenities, this alternative would be Earth Creek valley. This would reduce the expected to have the lowest level of visitation potential for soil compaction and erosion out of the five alternatives and therefore the from uncontrolled human activity, resulting least visitor-created noise. It seems likely that, in minor to moderate beneficial impacts on overall, there would be negligible impacts on those areas. the soundscape.

Alternative 2: Ecological Restoration Emphasis. Water Quality This alternative would increase trail usage Alternative 1: No Action, Continuation of Current over the no-action alternative, which could Management. At this time, the small basin that potentially result in more visitor-generated collects surface water that flows into Coyle noise. In the short term, there would be Pond is partly used for row crops. Whatever noise generated from the removal of the tillage techniques are used, the application structures at the core of the property, but of herbicides and fertilizer has the potential those moderate adverse impacts on the to contaminate groundwater by passing soundscape would be temporary. Over the through the limestone beneath the sinkhole. long term, most of the complex would be At this time land around Shoveler Sink is managed to allow visitors “a direct sensory not in intensive agriculture, and chemicals experience of natural resources” (refer to are not being applied to the fields, so there table 2 in chapter 2 for the natural experience is currently negligible adverse impact from management area description for desired agricultural runoff. visitor experience), indicating negligible impacts on the soundscape. Alternative 2: Ecological Restoration Emphasis. The small basin that collects surface water Alternative 3: Interpretation and Education flowing into the Coyle Pond would be put Emphasis. Alternative 3 would result in a back into presettlement vegetation under considerable increase in visitation compared this alternative, and any adverse impact on to the no-action alternative, which could lead groundwater would be negligible. In fact, over to more visitor-generated noise. In the short time, agricultural chemicals would not enter term, there would be noise generated from the the groundwater system through the sink, so renovation of the structures at the core of the this would likely have a beneficial effect on property, but these moderate adverse impacts groundwater quality, but the amount of this on the soundscape would be temporary. Over effect cannot be quantified. the long term, most of the complex would be managed for landscape interpretation, under Alternative 3: Interpretation and Education Emphasis; which the management prescription (refer Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation Emphasis; to table 2 in chapter 2) for visitor experience

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT xv SUMMY AR

would concentrate on offering views of the would be decided on a case-by-case basis results of glaciation, instead of offering direct as funding and/or volunteer labor allows. sensory experience of natural resources as the Since there would be few defined trails, natural experience management area would, there would be a risk of vegetation trampling indicating the potential for minor adverse throughout the site from the creation of soundscape impacts. social trails. However, since the site would not be advertised, there would be no facilities Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation Emphasis. to accommodate visitors, and user capacity Alternative 4 could result in a considerable management would allow park managers a increase in visitation, which would lead to number of strategies to mitigate this risk; thus, considerably more visitor-generated noise. adverse vegetation impacts from trampling There would be noise generated from the would be negligible. It seems likely that, construction of structures at the core of the considering the site as a whole, there would be property, but these moderate adverse impacts negligible impacts on vegetation and wildlife. on the soundscape would be temporary. The bike path across the complex could Alternative 2: Ecological Restoration Emphasis. generate more visitors and more noise per Most of the complex would be managed visitor than the hiking trails under the other for natural experience, in which “Natural alternatives. Most of the complex would be resources are managed to approximate managed for landscape interpretation or presettlement (circa 1830) conditions. To the for an expanded recreational experience, extent possible, natural ecological processes under which the management prescription sustain the integrity of these resources.” for visitor experience would concentrate on This management prescription would have a offering views of the results of glaciation and moderate beneficial impact on vegetation the opportunity for low-impact recreation. and wildlife. However, there would also be a large natural experience area at the corner of two of the Alternative 3: Interpretation and Education major roads on the edge of the complex. Emphasis. There would still be a significant Overall, adverse impacts on the soundscape area managed for natural experience, although would be minor. most of the complex would be managed for landscape interpretation, under which Alternative 5: Preferred Alternative. Impacts the management prescription for resource on the soundscape would be very similar conditions would include managing natural to alternative 4, albeit slightly less because resources to reveal glacial features. Since there there would not be a bike path across the would be a range of ways to reveal glacial complex under this alternative. Overall, features through natural resource management adverse impacts on the soundscape would be (for example, planting short row crops or negligible to minor. short prairie grasses), impacts on vegetation and wildlife would range from negligible to Vegetation and Wildlife moderately beneficial. Alternative 1: No Action, Continuation of Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation Emphasis and Current Management. There would be no Alternative 5: Preferred Alternative. Under these comprehensive plan to guide management two alternatives, management prescriptions of the complex, so vegetation and wildlife would be fairly evenly divided between habitat would not be consistently managed. landscape interpretation and expanded Restoration goals (such as for the oak savanna recreational experience (which share the or prairie) and activities (such as prescribed same desired resource condition) and natural burning or mechanical invasive removal) experience. Additionally, under alternative 5,

xvi ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Summary a wildlife corridor of unbroken habitat would no-action alternative and alternative 2 would be established in the southern half of the be adverse. If, on the other hand, net property complex. This combination of management taxes were less than the estimated $350,000 prescriptions would entail a minor beneficial that visitation economic benefits would bring, impact on vegetation and wildlife. the impacts of these two alternatives would be beneficial. Socioeconomics Alternative 3: Interpretation and Education All Alternatives. Typically, the addition of Emphasis. This alternative would not only parklands to a community increases the value offer an outdoor experience, but also a of land adjacent to the park. Because of this, all place to stop and rest indoors, view some of the alternatives would be likely to produce exhibits, and talk with park staff. Visitors beneficial economic impacts. Similarly, all would also benefit from regular interpretive alternatives would have adverse impacts on the programming provided by rangers. These local tax base if lands were federally owned elements would attract more visitors to the because those lands would be exempt from complex, but overall, the estimated visitation property tax, and the payments in lieu of tax would still be relatively low. Visitation under program historically has not fully compensated this alternative could be compared to parks for this loss. However, these adverse impacts with low visitation (50,000–100,000 visitors per might be smaller than for similar areas of the year) in the national park system. These parks, National Park Service because the land would on average, contribute about $2.5 million also be owned by the Department of Natural value-added annually to their communities. It Resources, which does offset local property is not possible to know what the tax receipts tax losses, so this potential tax loss could would have been if this alternative were not be mitigated. implemented. If net property tax receipts from residential development (after the costs Alternative 1: No Action, Continuation of of improving infrastructure to accommodate Current Management and Alternative 2: these residences such as schools and roads Ecological Restoration Emphasis. These two are taken into account) were to exceed alternatives would only provide an outdoor $2.5 million annually, then the economic experience in which activities for visitors impacts of alternative 3 would be adverse. If, would be limited to hiking and other low- on the other hand, net property taxes were less impact activities on a minimal trail system and than the estimated $2.5 million that visitation rare interpretive tours. The visitation level economic benefits would bring, then the under these alternatives could be compared impacts of this alternative would be beneficial. to the most sparsely visited parks (10,000 visitors per year or less) in the national park Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation Emphasis system. These parks, on average, contribute and Alternative 5: Preferred Alternative. These about $350,000 value-added annually to their alternatives would offer a broader outdoor communities. Without knowing what type experience in a variety of ways, such as more of housing would have been built if neither trails, limited primitive camping, picnic areas, of these alternatives were implemented, it and for alternative 4, a bridge across the gorge is impossible to know what the tax receipts and a bike path. The two alternatives would would have been. If net property tax receipts also offer a place to stop and rest indoors; from residential development (after the costs view extensive exhibits, including a film; and of improving infrastructure to accommodate talk with park staff. There would be space to these residences, such as schools and roads are accommodate visitors who come in a group, taken into account) were to exceed $350,000 such as school groups. Visitors would also annually, then the economic impacts of the benefit from regular interpretive programming

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT xvii SUMMY AR

provided by rangers. These elements would disappointed by the indoor space limitations. attract more visitors to the complex, and Overall, this alternative would offer beneficial overall, the estimated visitation would fall in visitor experience at a minor level. the moderate range for visitation (150,000– 200,000 visitors per year) in the national park Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation Emphasis. system. These parks, on average, contribute This alternative would offer a broad outdoor about $5 million value-added annually to their experience in a variety of ways (more trails, communities. It is not possible to know what limited outdoor camping, picnic areas, a the tax receipts would be if these alternatives bridge across the gorge, and a bike path). were not implemented. If net property tax It would also offer a place to stop and rest receipts from residential development (after indoors; view extensive exhibits, including taking into account the costs of improving a film; and talk with park staff. There would infrastructure, such as schools and roads, to be space to accommodate visitors who come accommodate the new residences ) were to in group, such as school groups. Visitors exceed $5 million annually, then the economic would also benefit from regular interpretive impacts of these alternatives would be adverse. programming provided by rangers. However, If, on the other hand, net property taxes visitors seeking solitude and a quiet nature were less than the estimated $5 million that immersion experience might be disappointed visitation economic benefits would bring, to have to travel far from the core of the site then the impacts of these alternatives would to find this. Overall, this alternative would be beneficial. have a minor to moderate beneficial impact on visitor experience. Visitor Use and Experience Alternative 5: Preferred Alternative. This Alternative 1: No Action, Continuation of Current alternative would offer a broad outdoor Management and Alternative 2: Ecological experience in a variety of ways (more trails, Restoration Emphasis. These alternatives would including a half-day-long loop trail; limited only provide an outdoor experience in which outdoor camping; and picnic areas). It would activities for visitors would be limited to hiking also offer a place to stop and rest indoors; and other low-impact activities on a minimal view extensive exhibits, including a film; and trail system and rare interpretive tours. While talk with park staff. There would be space to the activities would offer some beneficial accommodate visitors who come in group, experience for visitors over the current such as school groups. Visitors would also conditions, the benefits would likely range benefit from regular interpretive programming from negligible to minor. provided by rangers. Various attractions (such as a bike path traversing the site and a Alternative 3: Interpretation and Education pedestrian bridge across the gorge) are not Emphasis This alternative would not only proposed in this alternative (as they are in offer an outdoor experience, but also a place alternative 4) because those amenities were to stop and rest indoors, view some exhibits not widely supported by the public when they (not extensive given space limitations), and commented on the preliminary alternatives. talk with park staff. Visitors would also benefit Therefore, it seems like not many benefits to from regular interpretive programming visitor experience were lost with the removal provided by rangers. For visitors interested of those elements. Because the sensitive in the human history of the site, the ability resources management area was enlarged, to view and interpret the Wilkie house and visitors seeking solitude and a quiet nature barn would provide a pleasant variety of immersion experience would not have to experience. However, visitors who might travel far from the core of the site to find this. want to view a film in a theater or arrive in Overall, this alternative would have a moderate groups and gather in one indoor spot might be beneficial impact on visitor experience. xviii ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Summary

Next Steps and Implementation of the Please Note General Management Plan

There is a 60‑day public review and comment period on this draft general management plan / environmental impact statement. After the i t i s i m p o r t a n t t o n o t e that not all comment period, the NPS planning team will evaluate comments from other federal of the actions in the selected alternative would agencies, tribes, organizations, businesses, and individuals regarding this document and necessarily be implemented immediately. incorporate appropriate changes into a final general management plan / environmental The implementation of the approved impact statement. The final document will include letters from government agencies, any plan, no matter which alternative might be substantive comments on the draft document, and NPS responses to those comments. selected, would depend on future NPS,

There will be a 30-day no-action period state, and partner funding levels; staff to following distribution of the final general management plan / environmental impact implement the plan; servicewide priorities; statement. A “record of decision” may be prepared that would document the NPS and on partnership time and effort. Full selected alternative, which would become the new general management plan for the implementation of the plan could be many Ice Age Complex to be implemented over 15 to 20 years. Once a record of decision is years in the future. signed by the NPS regional director, the plan would then be implemented as funding and staffing allows.

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT xix SUMMY AR

xx ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS 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

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT xxi 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

xxii ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS 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

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT xxiii 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 Cnstationo ul 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: Impairment Analysis for the Preferred Alternative 124 Appendix C: Village of Cross Plains Resolution Regarding Old Sauk Pass 125 Appendix D: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Compliance Form 127 Appendix E: Acronyms and Abbreviations 128

Appendix F: Planning Team 129

xxiv ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS 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

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT xxv CONTENTS

xxvi ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED Chapter One FOR A GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

INTRODUCTION

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

Description of the Ice Age Complex

A mere 20,000 years ago, Located just west of Madison two-thirds of what is today near the village of Cross Plains the state of Wisconsin lay is a 1,500-acre area that contains under the grip of colossal ice an outstanding collection of sheets. The climate warmed glacial landforms, including a and the ice sheets began to gorge carved by meltwater and melt back. In their wake they expansive views of both driftless left an impressive landscape of and glaciated terrain. These fascinating glacial landforms: acres comprise a park called, moraines, drumlins, kames, for the purpose of this planning kettles, eskers, outwash plains, effort, the “Ice Age Complex at meltwater channels, driftless Cross Plains” (henceforth “Ice (unglaciated) topography, Age Complex” or “complex”) glacial lake beds and islands, (see figure 1). This site, however, and more. These Wisconsin Ice has a rich history of different Age remnants are considered legal designations. among the world’s finest examples of how Gorge carved continental glaciation by glacial sculpts our planet. meltwater.

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 3 CH APter ONE INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR A GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

The lands and landscape of the Ice Age Congress envisioned the Ice Age Reserve as a Complex have been deemed nationally network of distinct areas, each exhibiting an significant under two related, but distinct, outstanding example of one type of landscape federal designations. The elements recognized or landform resulting from continental in both designations are parts of the singular glaciation. The legislation’s intention is that concept advanced by Wisconsin citizens in the reserve would be owned and managed by the late 1950s and early 1960s to protect and the state of Wisconsin, with the assistance and showcase Wisconsin’s heritage from continental collaboration of the Secretary of the Interior glaciation. Congress authorized the concept in (acting through the National Park Service). two parts, at two different times, and through Several of the outstanding sites selected were two different legislative vehicles. already Wisconsin state parks. The legislation made reference to the Ice Age National Scenic In 1964 Congress enacted legislation (Public Trail but made no provisions for it. Law [PL] 88-655; 78 Stat. 1087; 16 United States Code [USC] 469d, et seq.) directing the When the study was completed, nine sites were Secretary of the Interior to cooperate with identified to be protected and managed by the the governor of Wisconsin in studying and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources subsequently designating an Ice Age National (WDNR) as units of the Ice Age Reserve (see Scientific Reserve (“Ice Age Reserve” or figure 2). On May 29, 1971, the Secretary of “reserve”). The purpose of the Ice Age Reserve the Interior published an order in the Federal is “to assure protection, preservation, and Register that formally brought the Ice Age interpretation of the nationally significant Reserve into existence. 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.

Rolling landscape

Snow covered gorge

4 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Chapter One Introduction and Purpose and Need for a General Management Plan

Figure 1: Ice Age Complex at Cross Plains

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 5 CH APter ONE INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR A GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

Figure 2: Ice Age National Scientific Reserve and its nine units

6 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Chapter One Introduction and Purpose and Need for a General Management Plan

As noted in Black (1974), “The Cross The Secretary of the Interior delegated overall Plains area was selected for inclusion in the administrative responsibility for the Ice Age Reserve in part because it contains a typical National Scenic Trail to the National Park portion of the Johnstown Moraine on the Service. The Park Service, in cooperation uplands and a typical proglacial stream in with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Black Earth Creek Valley, and is close to Resources and other parties, completed a a center of population. More importantly Comprehensive Plan for Management and it is the only place . . . where the terminal Use of the Ice Age National Scenic Trail moraine rests directly on well exposed, in September 1983. The National Park Service is responsible at the federal level for weathered dolomite bedrock and where carrying out the provisions of the National small marginal proglacial lakes, a marginal Trails System Act as they relate to the Ice Age drainage way, and a subglacial drainage National Scenic Trail. The National Park way may all be seen in a small area. The Service carries out or facilitates trail planning, various glacial features associated with the environmental compliance, trail development moraine in the vicinity of Cross Plains are and management, public and private more varied and yet as definitive as one partner involvement, and land protection could hope to see, all preserved in a neat activities. The Park Service assists partners little package. The area is one of increasing by coordinating, guiding, and assisting their urbanization, and preservation of parts of efforts to acquire, develop, operate, protect, the front and its associated phenomena can and maintain the Ice Age National Scenic Trail only be assured in the Reserve.” in accordance with the comprehensive plan and supplemental trail corridor plans and The Wisconsin Department of Natural trailway protection strategies (land protection Resources purchased 100 acres of the plans). The comprehensive plan identifies the Cross Plains unit of the Ice Age Reserve in Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources September 1975, and an additional 60 acres and the nonprofit Ice Age Trail Alliance as were subsequently purchased. The Cross cooperators in the long-term effort to develop Plains unit is also designated as Cross Plains and manage the Ice Age National Scenic State Park by Wisconsin Administrative Rule. Trail. The Park Service serves as the primary liaison with other federal agencies in matters Congress again recognized the national relating to the Ice Age National Scenic Trail. significance of Wisconsin’s glacial landscapes In carrying out this role, the Park Service when, on October 3, 1980, it amended the reviews and comments on federal or federally National Trails System Act to authorize and assisted/permitted projects and activities (such establish the Ice Age National Scenic Trail as a as highway, utility, and other development component of the National Trails System (PL proposals) that may affect trail segments. 96-370; 94 Stat. 1360; 16 USC 1244(a)(10)). The Ice Age National Scenic Trail meanders The Wisconsin Department of Natural through Wisconsin for approximately Resources is the state agency responsible 1,200 miles from Potawatomi State Park in for providing and maintaining outdoor Door County to Interstate State Park in Polk recreation resources of statewide County, generally following the terminal significance, including state parks and moraine and other glacial landscape features trails, in Wisconsin. Thus, the basis for the and connecting six of the nine units of the Ice Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources’ Age Reserve. The Secretary of the Interior was participation in developing and managing assigned administrative responsibility for the the Ice Age Reserve and Ice Age National Ice Age National Scenic Trail. Scenic Trail is the statewide significance of the reserve and trail and the inclusion of

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 7 CH APter ONE INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR A GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

state parks, forests, trails, and recreation The lands that comprise the Ice Age Complex areas in the reserve and along the route of are managed at both a state and federal level. the trail. The state legislature formalized That is, the Ice Age Reserve is owned and this role in 1987 by passing legislation that managed by the state of Wisconsin, and the designates the Ice Age National Scenic Trail Ice Age National Scenic Trail Interpretive Site as a State Scenic Trail. The legislation also is owned and managed by the National Park assigns the responsibility to the Wisconsin Service. Additionally, the Ice Age Complex also Department of Natural Resources for includes Shoveler Sink Waterfowl Production coordinating the involvement of state Area, which is owned and managed by the agencies in the trail project and cooperating U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). with the National Park Service and private The involvement of both federal and state interests in planning, acquiring, developing, governments, as well as Dane County Parks, and maintaining the Ice Age National Scenic makes this plan to preserve and interpret the Trail. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Ice Age Complex a true partnership effort. Resources has been the primary NPS partner in administering federal financial assistance for acquiring lands for the Ice Age National Ovver iew of the Scenic Trail. Planning Process

The National Trails System Act authorizes Why have the National Park Service and the establishment of interpretive sites along Q Department of Natural Resources developed this national scenic trails. In fiscal year (FY) general management plan? 2001 Congress appropriated funds for the acquisition of specific lands, owned by James The National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 and Jane Wilkie, for an Ice Age National Scenic A (Public Law [PL] 95-625) and the Redwood Trail Interpretive Site. The lands specified for Amendment of 1978 (PL 95-250 Sec. 101(6) the interpretive site happen to lie within the (b)) require the preparation and timely boundaries of the Cross Plains unit of the revision of general management plans for Ice Age Reserve. The National Park Service each unit of the national park system. NPS purchased the lands in 2002, subject to a life management policies require each general estate, and took full possession in early 2008. management plan to “set forth a management concept for the park [and] establish a role The Wilkie farmstead includes a stone house, for the unit within the context of regional the original two-story portion of which trends and plans for conservation, recreation, dates back to the 1850s, just a few years after transportation, economic development, and statehood in 1848. The one-story addition, other regional issues.” As part of the planning built with stone from the same quarry as the process, Congress specifically directed (at original house, dates to 1952 when the Wilkies 16 United States Code [USC] 1a-7b) the purchased the farm. There is also a structurally National Park Service to address sound wood barn, modern garage, shed used as a chicken coop, and Quonset for equipment measures for the preservation of the storage. These structures are referred to area’s resources elsewhere in this document as the “farmstead” or individually as the “stone house,” “barn,” indications of types and general and so forth. The structures were evaluated for intensities of development (including eligibility to be listed on the National Register visitor circulation and transportation of Historic Places, but it was determined they patterns, systems, and modes) were not historically significant. associated with public enjoyment and use of the area, including general locations, timing of implementation, and anticipated costs

8 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Chapter One Introduction and Purpose and Need for a General Management Plan

identification of an implementation developed according to the process outlined commitment for visitor carrying by the National Environmental Policy Act capacities [now called user capacity] for (NEPA), a law passed in 1969 to impose all areas of the unit analysis and public review requirements on federal decision makers. This plan follows indications of potential modifications to the NEPA process by proposing a range of the external boundaries of the unit and reasonable alternatives for managing the Ice the reasons therefore Age Complex, evaluating the environmental impacts of the alternatives, and inviting public What is considered in developing general review of the alternatives and impact analysis. Q management plans? NPS Director’s Order 12: Conservation The purpose of the National Park Service, Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, A as stated in the Organic Act of 1916 (which and Decisionmaking and its accompanying brought the service into existence that year), handbook lay the groundwork for how the is “to conserve the scenery and the natural National Park Services complies with the and historic objects and the wild life therein National Environmental Policy Act. Director’s [within the national parks] and to provide for Order 12 and handbook set forth a planning the enjoyment of the same in such manner and process for incorporating scientific and by such means as will leave them unimpaired technical information and establishing a solid for the enjoyment of future generations.” administrative record for NPS projects. These words comprise a mission statement for the entire system of national parks. The Q How did public involvement inform this plan? laws that established the Ice Age Reserve and the Ice Age National Scenic Trail include Public feedback was invited at three specific purpose statements that build on this mission A points in the NEPA process. statement. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources’ 1998 feasibility study 1. Scoping. A newsletter was sent out, (supporting expansion of the Cross Plains unit the website was launched, and public of the reserve) stated that the proposed long- meetings were held in summer 2008 to range goal for the expanded reserve unit was gather general feedback on the scope “to preserve the geologic, natural, cultural, and of this plan. Questions were asked scenic qualities of the Cross Plains Reserve of the public about what they value unit and provide interpretive, educational, and about the Ice Age Complex and what low-impact recreational opportunities.” This problems, concerns, or opportunities general management plan translates the NPS they see. The responses to these mission, combined with the more directive questions were used to formulate purpose statements of the Ice Age Reserve, preliminary alternatives. Ice Age National Scenic Trail, and the Cross Plains unit of the reserve into guidance for the 2. Preliminary Alternatives. A second managers of the Ice Age Complex for the next newsletter was sent out, and public 15 to 20 years. meetings were held in summer 2009 to invite feedback on four potential How are requirements of the National ways that the Ice Age Complex could Q Environmental Policy Act integrated into the be managed. Public responses during general management plan? this stage of the plan’s development influenced the results of the value This draft general management plan / analysis, during which the preferred A environmental impact statement was alternative (alternative 5) was developed.

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 9 CH APter ONE INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR A GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

3. Draft Plan. Comments on this provide specific details and answers to draft general management plan / all the issues facing the Ice Age Complex environmental impact statement are now welcome. NPS responses to provide funding commitments for substantive public comments on this implementation of the plan draft document will be included with the final general management plan / environmental impact statement. Need for the Plan

More explanation of public involvement in this A general management plan is needed in order plan is included in “Chapter 5: Consultation to establish a consistent vision for the Ice Age and Coordination.” Complex that is shared by all partners in this project. Those partners are the National Park Service, Wisconsin Department of Natural Purpose of the Plan Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ice Age Trail Alliance, local government The final general management plan will agencies, and the general public. Although provide a framework to assist NPS and the Department of Natural Resources’ 1998 WDNR managers in making decisions today feasibility study (mentioned above) provided and in the future. The alternatives proposed a rough outline for how the Ice Age Complex in this plan describe general paths that the could be managed, this general management National Park Service and Department of plan is the first plan designed to provide Natural Resources would follow in managing comprehensive management guidance for the Ice Age Complex over the next 15 to the complex. The Ice Age National Scenic 20 years. This draft general management plan / Trail is guided by a 1983 comprehensive environmental impact statement management plan, and the Ice Age Reserve is guided by a 1968 comprehensive management identifies desired conditions in different plan, but neither of these older overarching parts of the Ice Age Complex plans articulate the shared vision between the National Park Service, Department of identifies any necessary developments Natural Resources, and the public on how and support facilities to achieve the to best achieve the specific purpose of the vision and desired conditions complex and protect its resources for future generations. ensures that the foundation for decision making has been developed Currently, the Ice Age Complex is essentially in consultation with the public and undeveloped for visitor use. Given its location adopted by NPS leadership after just outside the fast-growing suburbs of sufficient analysis of the benefits, Madison, Wisconsin, and the interest in Ice impacts, and economic costs of Age geology in the region, there is potential for alternative courses of action significant visitation at the complex. There is also potential for damage to the glacial features The document addresses the three purposes at the site without long-term planning for their listed above, but it does not protection. Thus, this general management plan is needed because describe how particular programs or projects would be implemented or the management plans for related areas prioritized; these decisions are deferred (Ice Age National Scenic Trail and to detailed implementation planning Ice Age National Scientific Reserve) are outdated

10 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Chapter One Introduction and Purpose and Need for a General Management Plan

there must be a consistent and shared There are three purposes of the Ice Age vision for the complex Complex; those are to

there is potential for both significant ensure protection, preservation, visitation and resource damage and interpretation of the nationally significant values of continental glaciation in Wisconsin, including Foundation Statement moraines, eskers, kames, kettleholes, drumlins, swamps, lakes, and other Each park in the national park system must reminders of the Wisconsin Ice Age develop a formal core mission statement that provides basic guidance for making decisions establish a superlative segment of the Ice about that park. The foundation statement is Age National Scenic Trail and provide the formal core mission statement. The core information and interpretation about elements of the foundation statement are the trail to the public at a significant site (1) statements of purpose and significance; along its route (2) descriptions of fundamental and important resources and values; (3) discussion of primary provide outdoor recreational and interpretive themes; and (4) summaries of legal educational opportunities in support of and policy requirements and special mandates and compatible with the conservation for the site. The foundation statement helps and enjoyment of the nationally ensure that park managers and stakeholders significant scenic, historic, natural, and understand these important core elements of cultural resources within the complex the park. Statements of Park Significance Statements of Park Purpose Significance statements describe why (within Purpose statements are the specific reasons a national, regional, and systemwide context) for establishing a park. They are grounded the park’s resources and values are important in a thorough analysis of the park’s enabling enough to warrant national park designation. legislation and legislative history, but they go The significance statements are directly linked beyond simply restating the law to document to the park’s purpose, are substantiated by shared assumptions about what the law means data or consensus, and reflect the most in terms specific to the park. Legislative current scientific or scholarly inquiry and mandates, from which the purpose statements cultural perceptions. for the Ice Age Complex were derived, include the 1964 law establishing the Ice Age These are the three statements of park National Scientific Reserve (because the Ice significance for the Ice Age Complex. Age Complex is also the Cross Plains unit of the reserve, as determined by a 1998 WDNR 1. Nowhere are the marks of continental Feasibility Study) and the National Trails glaciation upon the land more System Act, as amended in 1980 to include the impressive than along the Ice Age Ice Age National Scenic Trail (because part of National Scenic Trail and in the Ice Age the Ice Age Complex is also the interpretive National Scientific Reserve units in site for the Ice Age National Scenic Trail) Wisconsin. The meandering landscape (appendix A contains copies of the legislation). 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

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 11 CH APter ONE INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR A GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

lake plains, outwash plains, and glacial moraine; erratics; bedrock geology; lake beds. While many of these marks driftless area features; and related of the glacier’s advance can be viewed natural biological resources, including in the Ice Age Complex at Cross Plains, vegetation created by the microclimate others are present in other units of in the gorge the reserve. a continuous route for the Ice Age 2. The Ice Age National Scenic Trail’s National Scenic Trail through the path of glacial features provides complex to provide footpath access and outstanding opportunities for interpretive opportunities along its route recreation, education, inspiration, solitude, and enjoyment. the opportunity for people, particularly those in the adjacent urban area, 3. The Ice Age Complex at Cross Plains to experience immersion into a unit is the primary site for interpreting large natural landscape, providing the Ice Age National Scenic Trail. outdoor recreation and education Opportunities for the public to both compatible with and supporting experience and understand the marks conservation of natural resources within of the glacier’s farthest advance are the complex highlighted in the areas where the Ice Age National Scenic Trail crosses the expansive views that provide a visual reserve units, as it does in Cross Plains. display of the contrast between the unglaciated driftless area and lands Fundamental and Other Important shaped by continental glaciation Resources and Values The other important resources and values for The preeminent responsibility of park the Ice Age Complex include the managers is ensuring the conservation and public enjoyment of qualities that are Native American migration route that critical to achieving the park’s purpose and traverses the site maintaining its significance. These qualities are called the park’s “fundamental resources high concentration of open-grown and values.” Parks often have other resources white and burr oak representative of the and values that, while not fundamental to the oak savanna that has disappeared from parks purpose or significance, are nevertheless more than 99.9% of its former range, determined to be particularly important presenting opportunities for restoration considerations for general management and management planning. These resources and values are called the park’s “other important resources Primary Interpretive Themes and values.” Primary interpretive themes describe what The fundamental resources and values for the needs to be interpreted in order to provide Ice Age Complex include people with opportunities to understand and appreciate the park’s purpose and significance. geological features that tell the glacial These themes are primarily derived from story of the site, such as meltwater and reflect park significance, although they channels and proglacial lake basins also offer perspectives on fundamental and (including, but not exclusive to, the important resources and values. There are five Cross Plains gorge); the terminal primary interpretive themes identified for the Ice Age Complex.

12 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Chapter One Introduction and Purpose and Need for a General Management Plan

First Primary The Landscape — this landscape and its features uniquely illustrate the contrast Interpretive Theme 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 People and the Land — the landscapes, both unglaciated and glaciated, have Interpretive Theme 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 Ice Age National Scenic Trail — the trail offers an opportunity to connect with Interpretive Theme 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 Environmental Conditions — our glacial past provides opportunities to better Interpretive Theme 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 Managing the Ecosystem — while natural ecosystems are dynamic, where Interpretive Theme 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.

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 13 CH APter ONE INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR A GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

Legal and Policy Requirements The NPS Organic Act of 1916 (16 USC 1) provides the fundamental management F ederal Laws, Policies, and Executive Orders. direction for all units of the national park The development of this general management system. The act states that the service thus plan / environmental impact statement has established shall proceeded within a complex legal framework. This section identifies what must be done promote and regulate the use within the NPS-owned land at the Ice Age of the Federal areas known as Complex to comply with federal laws and national parks, monuments, policies of the National Park Service. Many and reservations . . . by management directives are specified in laws such means and measure as and policies and are therefore not subject to conform to the fundamental alternative approaches. For example, there purpose of the said parks, are federal laws and policies about managing monuments, and reservations, environmental quality (such as the Clean Air which purpose is to conserve Act, Endangered Species Act, and Executive the scenery and the natural Order 11990, “Protection of Wetlands”); laws and historic objects and the governing the preservation of cultural resource wild life therein and to provide (such as the National Historic Preservation for the enjoyment of the same Act); and laws about providing public services in such manner and by such (such as the Americans with Disabilities Act) — means as will leave them to name only a few. In other words, a general unimpaired for the enjoyment management plan is not needed to decide, of future generations. for instance, that it is appropriate to protect endangered species, control exotic species, The National Park Service also has established protect archeological sites, conserve artifacts, policies that are identified and explained in a or provide for handicap access. Laws and guidance manual entitled NPS Management policies have already decided those and many Policies 2006, which can be found at http:// other things. www.nps.gov/policy.

Laws, Policies, and Orders Applicable Solely or In addition to determining the environmental Primarily to the National Park Service. Some consequences of implementing the preferred laws, policies, and orders are applicable solely alternative and other alternatives, NPS or primarily to the National Park Service. Management Policies 2006 (section 1.4) Examples include the Organic Act of 1916, requires analysis of potential effects to which created the National Park Service; determine whether or not proposed actions General Authorities Act of 1970; National would impair a park’s resources and values. Parks and Recreation Act of 1978; Redwood Amendment of 1978 (signed March 27, 1978), The fundamental purpose of the national park relating to the management of the national system, established by the Organic Act and park system; and the National Parks Omnibus reaffirmed by the General Authorities Act, as Management Act (1998). 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.

14 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Chapter One Introduction and Purpose and Need for a General Management Plan

However, the laws do give the National An impact would be less likely to constitute Park Service the management discretion to an impairment if it is an unavoidable result of allow impacts on park resources and values an action necessary to preserve or restore the when necessary and appropriate to fulfill the integrity of park resources or values, and it purposes of the park. That discretion is limited cannot be further mitigated. by the statutory requirement that the National Park Service must leave resources and values Impairment may result from visitor activities; unimpaired unless a particular law directly and NPS administrative activities; or activities specifically provides otherwise. undertaken by concessioners, contractors, and others operating in the park. Impairment may The prohibited impairment is an impact that, also result from sources or activities outside in the professional judgment of the responsible the park. NPS manager, would harm the integrity of park resources or values, including the Impairment findings are not necessary for opportunities that otherwise would be present visitor experience, socioeconomics, public for the enjoyment of those resources or values health and safety, environmental justice, land (NPS Management Policies 2006). Whether an use, and park operations because impairment impact meets this definition depends on the findings relate back to park resources and particular resources that would be affected; the values. The determination of impairment severity, duration, and timing of the impact; for the preferred alternative is contained in the direct and indirect effects of the impact; appendix B. and the cumulative effects of the impact in question and other impacts. To truly understand the implications of an alternative for NPS-owned and managed An impact on any park resource or value may, property at the Ice Age Complex, it is but does not necessarily, constitute impairment. important to combine NPS and other federal An impact would be more likely to constitute laws, mandates, and policies (listed in table 1), impairment to the extent that it affects a with the management actions and zoning resource or value whose conservation is described in each alternative (presented in chapter 2). necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation Table 1 lists some of the most pertinent NPS or proclamation of the park, or mandates and policies related to managing the Ice Age Complex, other federal laws and key to the natural or cultural integrity executive orders, and the associated desired of the park or to opportunities for conditions needed to comply with those enjoyment of the park, or policies, laws, and mandates. The alternatives in this general management plan address identified in the park’s general the desired future conditions that are not management plan or other relevant mandated by law and policy and must be NPS planning documents as being determined through a planning process. of significance

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 15 CH APter 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 National Park Service is determined and documented. NPS Management Policies 2006 Archeological sites are protected in an undisturbed condition, unless NPS Director’s Order 28: Cultural Resource Management Guideline it is determined through formal processes that disturbance or natural deterioration is unavoidable. When disturbance or deterioration is NPS Director’s Order 28A: Archeology unavoidable, the site is professionally documented and excavated in The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology consultation with the Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Office, and and Historic Preservation the resulting artifacts, materials, and records are curated and conserved. Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement among the National Park Some archeological sites that can be adequately protected may be Service, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National interpreted to the visitor. 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 National Park Service are evaluated under the criteria of the National Register of Historic NPS Management Policies 2006 Places. The qualities that contribute to the listing or eligibility for listing of historic structures in the national register are protected in accordance NPS Director’s Order 28: Cultural Resource Management Guideline with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Archeology and Historic Preservation (unless it is determined through a Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and formal process that disturbance or natural deterioration is unavoidable). Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Note: the only structures on land currently owned by the National NPS List of Classified Structures Park Service have been evaluated and determined not eligible for the Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement among the National Park national register. This statement of desired conditions would apply to Service, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National any other structures on land acquired by the Park Service.) Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (2008) Other Federal National Historic Preservation Act Archeological Resources Protection Act Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

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 (continued)

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES Desired Conditions NPS and Other Federal Sources Cultural landscape inventories are conducted to identify landscapes National Park Service potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic NPS Management Policies 2006 Places and to assist in future management decisions for landscapes and associated resources, both cultural and natural. The content of a NPS Director’s Order 28: Cultural Resource Management Guideline cultural landscape report provides the basis for making sound decisions The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology about management, treatment, and use. The management of cultural and Historic Preservation landscapes focuses on preserving the landscape’s physical attributes, NPS List of Classified Structures biotic systems, and use when that use contributes to its historical significance. CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT Desired Conditions NPS and Other Federal Sources (Note: the only identified cultural landscape on land currently owned by National Park Service the Park Service has been evaluated and determined not eligible for the Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement among the National Park national register. This statement of desired conditions would apply to Service, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National any other structures on land acquired by the park service.) 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 National Park Service of art, archival documents, and natural history specimens) are identified NPS Management Policies 2006 and inventoried, catalogued, documented, preserved, and protected, and a provision is made for their access to and use for exhibits, Director’s Order 24: Museum Collections Management research, and interpretation, according to NPS standards. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology The qualities that contribute to the significance of collections are and Historic Preservation protected in accordance with established standards. 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 National Park Service resources and to prevent, to the extent possible, the unnatural erosion, NPS Management Policies 2006 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. When soil excavation is an unavoidable part of an approved facility National Park Service development project, the National Park Service would minimize soil NPS Management Policies 2006 excavation, erosion, and offsite soil migration during and after the development activity.

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 17 CH APter 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 National Park Service or is better than (exceeds) all applicable water quality standards. 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 National Park Service are maintained and operated to avoid pollution of surface water and NPS Management Policies 2006 groundwater. 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 National Park Service ecosystem, native plants and animals in the Ice Age Complex. NPS Management Policies 2006 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. The management of exotic plant and animal species, including National Park Service eradication, is conducted wherever such species threaten resources or NPS Management Policies 2006 public health and when control is prudent and feasible. 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 National Park Service habitats are protected and sustained. 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 National Park Service greatest extent possible. NPS Management Policies 2006 Where soundscapes have been degraded by unnatural sounds (noise), National Park Service they are restored to a natural condition wherever possible. NPS Management Policies 2006

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)

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE Desired Conditions NPS and Other Federal Sources Natural and cultural resources are conserved “unimpaired” for the National Park Service enjoyment of future generations. Visitors have opportunities for forms NPS Organic Act of 1916 of enjoyment that are uniquely suited and appropriate to the resources found in the Ice Age Complex. No activities occur that would cause National Parks and Recreation Act (PL 95-625) derogation of the values and purposes for which the park NPS Management Policies 2006 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. To the extent feasible, programs, services, and facilities are accessible to National Park Service and usable by all people, including those with disabilities. 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. Wisconsin State Park System Goals — Other laws and policies are part of the Expand the quality and quantity of sustainable, Department of Natural Resource’s legal and nature-based outdoor recreation opportunities policy framework. Cross Plains State Park is and facilities available to Wisconsin State Park designated as a state park under Chapter 27, System visitors to Wisconsin Statutes. This designation allows for a broad range of recreation, education, actively manage, restore, enhance, and vegetative management activities to occur and protect the natural, cultural, and within park boundaries in accordance with the scenic heritage of the Wisconsin State park’s vision and goals. The statutory authority Park System to acquire and manage land within Cross Plains State Park is described in sections 23.09, provide innovative, interpretive 23.11, 23.14, and 27.01, Wisconsin Statutes. opportunities and programs that foster knowledge, appreciation, and Wisconsin state parks are managed to ensure stewardship of the state’s natural preservation of their scenic value, historical and cultural resources and promote value, and the natural wonders they contain. participation in nature-based The mission and goals of the state park system, outdoor recreation as outlined in the 2008 Wisconsin State Park System Strategic Plan, are described below. strengthen the Wisconsin State Park System facilities development program Wisconsin State Park System Mission — to better provide for customer comfort Protect and enhance the natural and cultural and safety resources of our Wisconsin State Park System properties while providing high quality motivate and enable a dedicated and recreational and educational opportunities customer-focused workforce and programs.

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 19 CH APter ONE INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR A GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

achieve financial strength and stability a sense of ownership and support for the Wisconsin State Park System management of the complex

attract new Wisconsin State Park System an interest in participating in specific customers through innovative marketing activities at the complex, such as strategies and retain current customers hunting, dog walking, horseback riding, through exceptional service snowmobiling, and mountain biking

improve operational effectiveness, Issues and Concerns Not Addressed planning, and decision making by managing and using accurate and in this Plan reliable information This document does not address the need to control the deer population. While this is a serious issue that must be addressed, it Scope of the General is beyond the scope of this plan. It will be Management Plan addressed in a deer management plan to be developed jointly by public land managing Issues and Concerns Addressed in this Plan agencies within the complex; those agencies are the National Park Service, Wisconsin This draft general management plan / Department of Natural Resources, and environmental impact statement addresses U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The deer issues raised internally by the partners management plan will propose alternative developing this plan and externally by the ways of managing deer in the complex and public. The issues deal with how resources determine the appropriate means after should be managed, what types of visitor thorough scientific and public review. experiences should be encouraged or accommodated, and how the complex should be managed. Further, the issues expressed Impact Topics An important part of planning is seeking the need to keep the complex area to understand the consequences of making natural and protected from encroaching one decision over another. To this end, a suburban development, including general management plan is accompanied protecting more land beyond that which by an environmental impact statement. An is currently publically owned environmental impact statement identifies the anticipated beneficial and adverse impacts the need to offer formal educational from possible actions on resources, visitors, opportunities to tell the stories of the and neighbors. Impacts are organized by topic, unique resources such as “impacts on the visitor experience” or “impacts on vegetation and soils.” Impact the need to offer varied opportunities topics serve to focus the environmental (camping, hiking, and other low-impact analysis and ensure the relevance of impact activities) for the public to access evaluation. The impact topics included for the complex analysis in this document are presented below, and the impact analyses for the topics the need to address the future of are contained in “Chapter 4: Environmental the Wilkie structures at the core of Consequences.” The topics were identified the complex based on federal laws and other legal requirements, Council on Environmental the need to engage local residents and Quality (CEQ) guidelines, NPS management partner with other groups to instill policies, staff subject-matter expertise,

20 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Chapter One Introduction and Purpose and Need for a General Management Plan and issues and concerns expressed by the Black Earth Creek. An increase in impervious public early in the planning process (see surfaces from development in the complex, previous section). as envisioned in the alternatives, would result in more surface water runoff and impacts on This section also includes a discussion of stream and lake water quality. Additionally, an impact topics that are commonly addressed increase in visitor use would mean a need for but that are not addressed in this plan for the more well-water supply, as well as a need for reasons given. waste removal, such as a septic system. All of these changes to the land and land use would Impact Topics Considered and result in some level of impacts on water quality. Analyzed in Detail. Therefore, this impact topic was retained for consideration. Soil resources — There are prime fertile soils in the Ice Age Complex, ranging from glacial Soundscapes — A soundscape is human till covered with a silt-loam loess cap to the perception of the acoustical environment. east and unglaciated silt loams to the west. Acoustic resources include natural sounds Development in the complex, as envisioned (wind, water, wildlife, vegetation, and so in the alternatives, would cause immediate forth) and cultural and historic sounds (such soil disturbance during construction and an as battle reenactments, tribal ceremonies, increase in impervious surfaces, resulting and quiet reverence). Some of the activities in more runoff and soil erosion. Current proposed under the alternatives in this plan agricultural land would also be taken out of would change the soundscape at the Ice Age production under some of the alternatives. Complex, so this impact topic was retained Therefore, this impact topic was retained for consideration. for consideration. Vegetation and wildlife — The Organic Water quality — The region surrounding Act of 1916 and NPS Management Policies the Ice Age Complex contains one of the 2006 both require the National Park Service Midwest’s most important trout fishing to protect and conserve native plants and streams, the Black Earth Creek. Within the vegetative communities that could be affected complex, the glacier originally impounded by visitors, managers, and external sources. four proglacial lakes. Today, the southern- There are no federally listed threatened or most proglacial lake has been divided in two endangered plant species in the complex, by County Trunk S (Mineral Point Road) and but there is one plant (heart-leaved skullcap) consists of two water-filled basins (Coyle that has been identified as rare by the Pond and Shoveler Sink). The other proglacial Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. lakes are dry and filled with agricultural crops. Additionally, there are some exotic (nonnative) There are a few intermittent streams that bisect and invasive species of vegetation that are the complex. One follows a deep ravine on present in the complex. The potential impacts the south side of the former Wilkie property from actions proposed in the alternatives, before emptying onto the former McNutt especially the difference in how management property at the western edge of the proposed areas would be applied, would affect both site. There is at least one spring north of Old native and exotic invasive vegetation. Sauk Pass that has been partially developed to include a stock tank. This spring drains There are also no federally listed threatened northward toward Black Earth Creek. In the or endangered wildlife species (or critical center of the Ice Age Complex, south of Old habitat for these species) in the Ice Age Sauk Pass, water runoff travels north to a Complex, but there are four bird species depression where it enters and flows through (Henslow’s sparrow, hooded warbler, western the Cross Plains gorge, eventually reaching meadowlark, and yellow-billed cuckoo) that

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 21 CH APter ONE INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR A GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

have been identified as rare by the Wisconsin typically considered in land use planning Department of Natural Resources. Wildlife (such as impacts on the fossil record, museum would be affected by actions proposed in the quality minerals, and caves) were eliminated alternatives, including the difference in levels for all of the alternatives. Fossils are not an of development and predicted visitation, as issue for this plan because fossils are poorly well as how management areas would be preserved in the sandstone and dolomite at the applied; therefore, vegetation and wildlife were Ice Age Complex. retained as impact topics for consideration. There are no museum-quality samples of Socioeconomic environment — The minerals or rock at this site. National Environmental Policy Act requires an examination of social and economic impacts Impact on caves is strictly regulated by the caused by federal actions as part of a complete federal Cave Resources Protection Act and analysis of the potential impacts on the section 4.8.1.2 of the NPS Management Policies “Human Environment.” Dane County is the 2006. Although karst topography exists on affected area for this socioeconomic analysis, the complex, as well as a sinkhole that might with a focus on the local municipalities and be connected to a cave system, there is no towns surrounding the complex: Cross Plains, actual cave or human access to any cave at Middleton, Verona, and Madison. Changes the complex. There would be no foreseeable in land use, as well as impacts on gateway impacts on major geologic features, such as the communities, could result from actions in the end moraine, former lakebed surfaces, and the alternatives. Therefore, this impact topic was subglacial channel (Cross Plains gorge), from retained for consideration. any of the proposed alternatives other than related impacts associated with contamination Visitor experience — One of the of surface water (considered separately under fundamental purposes of the National Park water quality). Service is providing for visitor enjoyment and understanding. Many actions proposed in this Threatened and endangered species — plan could affect patterns of visitor use and There are no federally listed threatened or the type and quality of visitor experiences. endangered species or critical habitat for these Visitor access, orientation, and interpretation species in the Ice Age Complex; therefore, are elements of the visitor experience. Some this impact topic was not analyzed in this actions in this plan could impact the visitor document. The potential impacts on other experience. Therefore, this topic has sensitive wildlife and vegetation are discussed been analyzed. in the “Vegetation and Wildlife” section of chapter 4. Impacts Topics Considered but not Wetlands and floodplains — Analyzed in Detail. There is one small (roughly 100 acres) wetland area in the Geologic resources — Geologic resources southeast corner of the Ice Age Complex, formed by glaciation are fundamental to the in the area around Shoveler Sink and Coyle purposes of the Ice Age Complex. Because of Pond. There are also two small (together, their importance to this site, these resources about 100 acres) floodplains in the southeast are described at length in the affected portion of the site (again, around Shoveler environment chapter of this plan (chapter 3). Sink) and the northwest portion of the site in However, because the alternatives would the area of Black Earth Creek. Construction result in no foreseeable impacts on geologic near wetlands and floodplains might affect resources, they are not described in the how they function. There are two elements environmental consequences chapter of this proposed in the alternatives that could affect plan (chapter 4). Geologic resource impacts wetlands and floodplains; those elements are building a picnic area near Black Earth

22 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Chapter One Introduction and Purpose and Need for a General Management Plan

Creek and building a trail in this same area. These traditions are distinguished The extent of these impacts, however, is too by differences in settlement and speculative to state at this point. Both of these subsistence patterns, changes in projects would be subject to implementation styles and design of stone tools, the plans, which would fully analyze their appearance of ceramic technology, and environmental impacts. Otherwise, none of the construction and design of earthen the activities in the proposed alternatives mounds. Early Paleoindian sites are in this plan would impact the functioning generally limited to surface finds of of wetlands or floodplains. Therefore, this fluted points. The general absence of impact topic was not analyzed in detail. Early Archaic sites may be connected to the Altithermal Climatic episode. Cultural resources — The National During the Late Archaic Tradition Environmental Policy Act requires that any seasonal movements from wintering federal undertaking be examined for its potential sites within rock shelters and interior to affect cultural resources. Cultural resources valleys to summer encampments are aspects of a cultural system that are valued along rivers became established as a by or significantly representative of a culture way of life. The Woodland Tradition is or that contain significant information about a marked by the appearance of ceramics. culture. A cultural resource may be a tangible The Mississippian/Oneota Tradition entity or a cultural practice. Cultural resources is characterized by the development are characterized as archeological resources, of villages that contained increasingly cultural landscapes, historic structures, museum larger populations dependent collections, and ethnographic resources for NPS on agriculture. management purposes. The following describes the various types of cultural resources: Throughout the Historic Period, southern Wisconsin was continually • Archeological Resources. According occupied by various Native American to NPS Director’s Order 28: Cultural nations including the Sauk, Ho-Chunk Resource Management Guideline, (formerly Winnebago), Ioway, Illini, archeological resources are the physical and Potawatomi. The first Euro- evidences of past human activity. American settlers reached the Cross Archeological resources may represent Plains area in the 1830s. At that time, both prehistoric and historic time the village of White Crow, a Ho-Chunk periods, and they are found above and chief, was located in what is now the below ground and under water. Native Village of Cross Plains near Black American occupation of southern Earth Creek. The town received its Wisconsin began around the end of name from two military roads—one the Pleistocene epoch, when groups from Galena to Fort Winnebago, of hunter gatherers moved into the and the other from Prairie du Chien area after the retreat of the last glacial to Green Bay — crossing on a plain advance. Archeologists have established or piece of prairie land, about the a basic broad chronology of cultural middle of the town, and hence the traditions in the region as follows: 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. DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 23 CH APter ONE INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR A GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

was important shipping route and If previously unknown archeological contributed to the town’s growth resources were discovered during along with the Chicago-Milwaukee- construction, all work in the St. Paul railroad. immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted until the resources A number of sites have been reported are identified and documented. If in the vicinity of the Ice Age Complex the resources cannot be preserved in at Cross Plains. These sites represent their original location, an appropriate a range of cultural traditions including mitigation strategy would be developed Late Archaic (campsite/village), in consultation with the state historic Woodland (mounds, burial sites), and preservation officer and, as necessary, Euro-American (cabin/homestead, American Indian tribes. In the unlikely farmstead, cemetery, historic debris event that human remains, funerary scatter). Additional sites of unknown objects, sacred objects, or objects of pre-historic affiliation have been cultural patrimony are discovered recorded including rock shelters, during construction, provisions campsites/villages, isolated finds, outlined in the Native American quarries, workshop sites, and lithic Graves Protection and Repatriation scatter. These sites appear to be Act of 1990 (25 USC 3001) would located primarily along watercourses, be followed. If non-Indian human particularly Black Earth Creek, and the remains were discovered, standard bluffs adjacent to them. A significant reporting procedures to the proper number of sites, many associated with authorities would be followed, as the Ho-Chunk village of White Crow, would all applicable federal, state, and are found in Cross Plains along Black local laws. Therefore, archeological Earth Creek approximately 1.75 miles resources is dismissed as an NW of the complex’s proposed impact topic. northern boundary. • Cultural Landscapes. According to Very few archeological investigations NPS Director’s Order 28: Cultural have taken place within the Ice Age Resource Management Guideline, a Complex at Cross Plains to date. cultural landscape is “a reflection of During the development of the two human adaptation and use of natural parking areas at the US Fish and resources and is often expressed in Wildlife Service’s Shoveler’s Sink the way land is organized and divided, property, archeological surveys were patterns of settlement, land use, completed and no significant resources systems of circulation, and the types of were identified. A site described as a structures that are built. The character ‘military well’ has been reported in the of a cultural landscape is defined both land owned by the Wisconsin DNR by physical materials, such as roads, west of the NPS-owned property buildings, walls, and vegetation, and within the Complex. by use reflecting cultural values and traditions.” As noted below under Archeological surveys and/or “Historic Structures,” the Wisconsin monitoring would precede any ground state historic preservation officer has disturbance of unsurveyed lands. determined that the structures on Archeological resources eligible for or the Wilkie farmstead, as well as the listed in the national register would be farmstead’s associated landscape, avoided during construction activities. are not eligible for listing in the national register. A Native American

24 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Chapter One Introduction and Purpose and Need for a General Management Plan

migration route that traverses the • Museum Collections. According to complex has not been evaluated as a NPS Director’s Order 28: Cultural cultural landscape, but there would be Resource Management Guideline, negligible, if any, ground disturbance museum collections are prehistoric under the proposed alternatives and historic objects, artifacts, works within the pathway of this route, and of art, archival material, and natural- the topography and views and vistas history specimens collected according of the pathway would be unaffected. to a rational scheme and maintained Therefore, cultural landscapes was so they can be preserved, studied, and dismissed as an impact topic. interpreted for public benefit. There are currently no museum collections • Historic Structures. According to for the complex. The site development NPS Director’s Order 28: Cultural plan for the NPS-owned area at the Resource Management Guideline, a core of the complex would provide historic structure is a constructed for appropriate collections storage, work, consciously created to serve if needed. Any museum collections some human activity that is either would be acquired, accessioned and listed in or eligible to be listed in cataloged, preserved, protected, the National Register of Historic and made available for access and Places. Historic structures are usually use according to NPS standards immovable, although some have been and guidelines. Therefore, museum relocated, and others are mobile by collections was dismissed as an design. Historic structures include impact topic. buildings and monuments, dams, millraces and canals, nautical vessels, • Ethnographic Resources. According bridges, tunnels and roads, railroad to NPS Director’s Order 28: Cultural locomotives, rolling stock and track, Resource Management Guideline, stockades and fences, defensive ethnographic resources are any “site, works, temple mounds and kivas, structure, object, landscape, or natural ruins of all structural types, and resource feature assigned traditional outdoor sculpture. legendary, religious, subsistence, or other significance in the cultural The only existing structures on Ice system of a group traditionally Age Complex lands are on the Wilkie associated with it.” Ethnographic farmstead (residence, bank barn with resources are associated with cultural an attached silo, garage, hog-chicken practices, beliefs, the sense of purpose, house, Quonset hut, silage crib, well or existence of a living community that house, and windmill foundation). The is rooted in that community’s history Wisconsin state historic preservation or is important in maintaining its officer has determined that the Wilkie cultural identity and development as farmstead structures and associated an ethnically distinctive people. landscape are not eligible for listing in the national register. Therefore, historic structures was dismissed as an impact topic.

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 25 CH APter ONE INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR A GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

During scoping the tribes traditionally As noted above under “Cultural associated with Ice Age Complex lands Landscapes,” there would be were apprised by letter of the GMP negligible, if any, ground disturbance planning process; those tribes are to the Native America migration route that traverses the complex, and Sac and Fox Nation of Oklahoma the topography and views and vistas of the pathway would be unaffected; Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri thus, ethnographic resources was in Kansas and Nebraska dismissed as an impact topic.

Bad River Band A copy of this draft general of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa management plan / environmental impact statement was sent to each Oneida Tribe of Indians in Wisconsin tribe for review and comment. The National Park Service would Red Cliff Band continue to recognize the past and of Lake Superior Chippewa present existence of peoples in the region and the traces of their use St. Croix Chippewa Indians as an important part of the cultural of Wisconsin environment, and if subsequent issues or concerns were identified, Forest County Potawatomi Community appropriate consultations would of Wisconsin be undertaken.

Sokaogon Chippewa Community, There would be no impacts on archeological Mole Lake Band resources, cultural landscapes, historic structures, museum collections, and Lac du Flambeau Band ethnographic resources from actions under the of Lake Superior Chippewa proposed alternatives; therefore, these impact topics were dismissed from analysis. Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Park operations — The Ice Age Complex is currently undeveloped for visitor use. Sac and Fox Tribe Currently, park operations are limited of the Mississippi in Iowa to vegetation management, Ice Age Trail construction as land and/or access are Stockbridge Munsee Community acquired, and minimal signage installation. of Wisconsin Each action alternative has been designed with the support infrastructure necessary to Ho-Chunk Nation implement the vision of the alternative. Thus, each alternative would have adequate park Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin operations support, and this impact topic was not analyzed further. The tribes were requested to respond with any issues or concerns and Environmental justice — Executive Order were notified of upcoming public 12898 requires that each federal agency shall meetings. Each of the planning make achieving environmental justice part newsletters were also mailed to the of its mission by identifying and addressing, tribes. No concerns were expressed as appropriate, “disproportionately high during the scoping process, and no and adverse human health or environmental requests for meetings were received. effects” of its programs, policies, and

26 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Chapter One Introduction and Purpose and Need for a General Management Plan activities on minority populations and low- Relationship of Other income populations. None of the proposed alternatives would result in disproportionately Planning Efforts to this high or adverse human health or environmental General Management Plan effects on minority populations and low- income populations; thus, this impact topic There are two local planning efforts underway was not analyzed in this document. that could affect or be affected by this plan. The managers of the Ice Age Complex are Air quality, carbon footprint, natural or coordinating with the teams developing the depletable resources, energy requirements, plans described below. and conservation potential — Proposed activities in the alternatives that would U .S. Highway 14 Access Study cause air pollution tend to contribute to The Wisconsin Department of Transportation carbon loading, energy use, and through the (WDOT) is currently studying the best way use of fossil fuels, to depletion of natural to improve access to U.S. Highway 14, which resources. Therefore, these impact topics were forms the northern boundary of the complex. considered together in this analysis. As of this writing, the idea in WDOT’s draft plan is to move one access point east and build The city of Madison and Dane County a frontage road parallel to U.S. Highway 14 generally meet federal air quality standards, on the south side of the highway. There would and during most days, outdoor air quality is need to be further consultation with the ranked as “good.” At times, however, levels Wisconsin Department of Transportation of fine particulate matter do not meet federal in order to ensure adequate access to the standards. Emissions of the criteria pollutants site, while minimizing adverse impacts from (measured by the Clean Air Act) that could highway developments. result from actions proposed in the alternatives would come from tailpipe emissions from visitor and staff vehicles and construction Bike Path Along U.S. Highway 14 equipment. Emissions of carbon dioxide would There have been local efforts in recent years be associated with vehicle traffic (emissions to build a bike path along the section of in the immediate area) and the power needs U.S. Highway 14 that forms the northern of onsite buildings (emissions at the site of boundary of the Ice Age Complex in order to power generation from carbon-based fuels). connect bike paths in the city of Middleton Whenever feasible, the National Park Service to the village of Cross Plains. The preferred strives to maximize the use of renewable alternative in this draft document is zoned to resources and energy and therefore minimize accommodate this bike path. the use of depletable resources. However, it is not possible with today’s technologies to cost- effectively avoid all use of depletable resources Village of Cross Plains Comprehensive Plan in building and operating facilities. Some of Another plan that could influence the future the alternatives proposed in this plan include a of the Ice Age Complex is the recently varying level of construction and would impact completed Village of Cross Plains natural or depletable resources and energy Comprehensive Plan (VCP 2008). This plan to a varying extent. While the alternatives in zoned the land in the Ice Age Complex in this plan would contribute to these impacts to three ways: agricultural/rural; woodlands/open some extent, their incremental contributions space; and on lots that currently have private to air quality (locally) and to carbon footprint homes, single family/exurban. This zoning and resources and energy depletion (globally) is consistent with the alternatives proposed would be extremely small. These impact topics in this draft general management plan / were not analyzed in detail. environmental impact statement.

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 27 CH APter ONE INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR A GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

Next Steps in the Future program and implementation plans, describing specific actions that managers Planning Process intend to undertake and accomplish in the park, would tier from the desired conditions Following distribution of this draft general and long-term goals set forth in this draft management plan / environmental impact general management plan / environmental statement, there will be a 60‑day public review impact statement. and comment period (see page iv at the beginning of this document for instructions on how to comment), after which the NPS Wisconsin State planning team will evaluate comments from other federal agencies, organizations, Property Designation businesses, and individuals regarding this draft The general management plan will be for the plan. Appropriate changes will be incorporated development and management of Cross Plains into the final general management plan State Park and Ice Age National Scientific / environmental impact statement. That Reserve. Under the preferred alternative, the final document will also include letters state’s acreage goal is 1,701 acres. This is the from governmental agencies and tribes (if total acreage inside the proposed boundary applicable); any substantive comments on the for publically protected land. Currently, the draft document; and NPS responses to those following are the public ownership acres comments. Following distribution of the final within the site: plan and a 30‑day no-action period, a “record of decision” may be prepared that would State ownership (2011): 294 acres document the NPS selection of an alternative for implementation. Once it is signed, the plan NPS ownership (2011): 157 acres would then be implemented as funding and USFWS ownership (2010): 160 acres staffing allows. Dane County ownership (2010): 131 acres

Implementation of the Plan State Statutory Authority: The authority to acquire and manage land for the Cross Plains The approval of this plan does not guarantee State Park and Ice Age National Scientific that the funding and staffing needed to Reserve is described in sections 23.09, 23.11, implement the plan would be forthcoming. 23.14, and 27.01, Wis. Stats. 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.

Floating maple leaves 28 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

Alternatives, Including Chapter Two the Preferred Alternative

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

Formulation of the Alternatives

Many aspects of the desired Taking public input into future condition of the Ice Age account, the planning Complex are defined in the team developed a set of laws establishing the Ice Age five management areas and National Scientific Reserve four preliminary alternative and the Ice Age National futures for the complex. A Scenic Trail, as well as in the fifth alternative, the preferred foundation statement for the alternative, was later developed complex described earlier after a detailed value analysis in chapter 1. Within these was completed. The analysis parameters, the National Park considered public feedback Service and the Wisconsin on the four preliminary Department of Natural alternatives, as well as specific Resources solicited input from costs and benefits. the public regarding issues and desired conditions Fresh glacial for the complex. trout stream.

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 31 CH APter TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

This draft general management plan / Identification of the environmental impact statement provides a framework within which managers of the Preferred Alternative Ice Age Complex would make decisions to and Environmentally guide the management of the complex for the next 15 to 20 years. It is important to allow Preferred Alternative flexibility for necessary future management actions, so the alternatives in this plan focus on The CEQ regulations for implementing the what resource conditions would be provided National Environmental Protection Act require and what visitor experiences would be offered, that a preferred alternative be identified not on how these conditions and experiences in an environmental impact statement. would be achieved. There is more than one These same regulations also require that an way to manage park resources, address environmentally preferred alternative be planning issues, achieve the purpose, maintain identified, which is often, but not always, significance, and preserve the fundamental the same as the preferred alternative. The resources and values. Mindful of the need for environmentally preferred alternative is flexibility, this planning process considered decided by applying the six criteria described a range of alternatives, beginning with a “no- in the section titled “Environmentally action” alternative under which the current Preferred Alternative” toward the end of this management of the complex would continue chapter. The preferred alternative is decided as is. The no-action alternative is followed by through a value analysis process called a range of potential management alternatives “Choosing by Advantages” (CBA). The CBA called “action” alternatives. process is a tool for determining the specific advantages each alternative would provide The action alternatives indicate how site toward meeting specific park objectives, and management would change in different ways the advantages represent the benefits that by applying management areas (descriptions would be gained under each alternative. The of distinct sets of resource conditions and advantages for each alternative are compared visitor experiences) to maps of the complex to the expected costs of each alternative to define management intent for resource to determine the cost-benefit ratio of each conditions and visitor experiences for each alternative. The alternative that provides location. The application and configuration the most benefit per dollar, with the least of the management areas vary by alternative, adverse environmental impacts, is the best depending on the intent of the alternative value alternative and the one that is labeled concept. It may help to think of the “preferred” in this plan. The application of management areas as the colors an artist will Choosing by Advantages in this planning use to paint a picture. The alternatives in this process is described at the end of this chapter document are the different pictures that could under the section titled “Preferred Alternative.” be painted with the colors (management areas) available. Each of the alternatives has an overall management concept and a description Consideration of of how different areas of the site could be Boundary Adjustment(s) managed (management areas and related actions). The concept for each alternative gives The roughly 1,600-acre boundary of the Ice the artist (or in this case, the planning team) Age Complex (refer to figure 1 in chapter 1) the idea for what the picture (alternative) is is the same as the boundary of the Cross going to look like. Plains unit of the Ice Age Reserve (approved by the Wisconsin Natural Resources Board in 1999). When this unit of the reserve was

32 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Chapter Two Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative originally delineated after passage of the 1964 As part of the planning process, the National law establishing the Ice Age Reserve across Park Service identified and evaluated the state, the boundary was much smaller and boundary adjustments that might be necessary only north of Old Sauk Pass. At that time, the or desirable to carry out park purposes. small Cross Plains unit of the Ice Age Reserve Section 3.5 of NPS Management Policies 2006 was designated as Cross Plains State Park. states that the National Park Service may Since that time, the unit’s boundary has been recommend potential boundary adjustments expanded, the Ice Age National Scenic Trail’s (for one or more of the following reasons) to route in Dane County has been planned, and other state property has been acquired next include and protect significant to the state park boundary for the Ice Age resources and values or to enhance National Scenic Trail. During the process to opportunities for public enjoyment develop this draft general management plan related to park purpose / environmental impact statement, it became apparent that the project goals for Ice Age address operational and National Scenic Trail lands are parallel with management issues this project. The plan recommends that all of the state-owned land in the current boundary protect resources critical to fulfilling of the Cross Plains unit, as well as the State the park’s purpose Ice Age Trail Areas, be redesignated as Cross Plains State Park lands. Similarly, all lands in The NPS policies further instruct that any the Cross Plains unit boundary that come into recommendations to expand a park unit’s WDNR ownership in the future would also be boundaries be preceded by a determination designated as part of Cross Plains State Park that (1) the added lands would be feasible to lands. This designation would provide administer considering size, configuration, a consistent recreational use policy for the ownership, cost, and other factors; and Ice Age National Scenic Trail as it passes (2) other alternatives for management and through the Ice Age Complex and other resource protection are not adequate. recreational uses. The Department of Natural Resources Currently, about one-third of the land within established objectives to identify when the complex’s boundary is publically owned boundary expansion is needed; those and managed; the remainder of the land is objectives are to privately owned. It is the goal of the partners in this planning process to have the ability to provide additional space for manage all of the lands within this boundary future recreational use and possible by acquiring either the lands or interests in the facility development lands (such as easements) through cooperative negotiation processes with willing sellers. provide more easily recognizable Any acquisition would only be from willing boundaries and facilitate better public sellers with whom the project partners would use of the public lands discuss the best mechanism for protection. In acquiring interests in real property, both provide expanded habitat protection the National Park Service and Department of within the ecological zone in which the Natural Resources are required by state and/or park is located 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.

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 33 CH APter TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

During the course of the planning process, two The user-capacity standards and indicators parcels were identified as potential additions for the Ice Age Complex that were developed to the Ice Age Complex under alternatives 3, as part of this planning process are described 4, and 5 (identified as parcels A and B in below in the section titled “Indicators figure 3). These parcels meet the WDNR and Standards.” criteria. The application of the NPS criteria noted above is described in this chapter under each of these alternative descriptions. The Proposed Alternatives The first four alternatives (no action plus User Capacity alternatives 2, 3 and 4) were presented to the public in fall 2009 as preliminary “User capacity” is the type and level of use alternatives. Public feedback on those that could be accommodated while sustaining alternatives was taken into the quality of a park’s resources and visitor account in developing opportunities consistent with the park’s the preferred alternative purposes. The management of user capacity (alternative 5) in involves establishing desired conditions and winter 2009/2010. then monitoring, evaluating, and taking actions Alternative 5 was to ensure that the park’s values are protected. also developed after Any use on public lands comes with some analyzing the costs level of impact that must be accepted — it and benefits of the is the responsibility of a park’s managers to four preliminary decide what level of impact is acceptable and alternatives. The what management actions are needed to keep alternatives that were impacts within acceptable limits. considered but dismissed are The process to manage user capacity is also described summarized by five major steps; those steps in this chapter. 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

34 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Chapter Two Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative

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

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 35 CH APter TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Management Areas Elements Common to All Alternatives. There are five elements that apply to all five alternatives. As mentioned above, the different ways site management would change under the 1. Different types of trails would be built action alternatives is shown by applying in the Ice Age Complex. A segment management areas to maps of the complex of the Ice Age National Scenic Trail to define the intent for resource conditions would be built within the identified and visitor experiences for each location. corridor in a sustainable fashion While the configuration of the management guided by trail handbook standards areas varies by alternative, the management (see the impacts on soil resources in areas themselves are the same across all chapter 4). The handbook standards alternatives. Five management areas were would also guide development of identified for this plan. Table 2 describes each other trails, except for those described management area in terms of the desired as “accessible,” which would be built resource condition, the desired visitor to accessibility standards. While the experience, and appropriate facilities. management areas in this general management plan / environmental The Alternatives Considered impact statement provide general guidance for trail location, a trails Five alternatives were considered and fully development plan would examine and analyzed in this planning process. 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 Alternative 1: No Action, five specific activities for which interest Continuation of Current was expressed by some members of Management the public during the course of this plan’s development. The other four Alternative 2: Ecological activities were horseback riding, Restoration Emphasis snowmobiling, mountain biking, and hunting. Because these activities could Alternative 3: Interpretation cause impacts on park resources, the and Education Emphasis appropriateness of these types of activities on publically owned land in Alternative 4: Outdoor the complex was evaluated as part of Recreation Emphasis the planning process according to the criteria outlined in NPS Management Alternative 5: Preferred Policies 2006 (chapter 8). As stated Alternative 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

36 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Chapter Two Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative xperience E xpanded E ecreational ecreational R Trails would be built in this Trails Spaces management area. and minimal enhancements to accommodate primitive camping, would be provided. such as a privy, Roads for service vehicles to use for maintenance and resource purposes and in preservation emergencies might also be located here. The primary use is hiking. Other primary use is hiking. The allowed uses include primitive “leave-no- following camping, and low-impact principles,” trace activities such as snowshoeing, cross-country skiing on ungroomed bird photography, , berry picking, trails Existing and earth caching. watching, snowmobiles and horse trails are accommodated. Natural resources that are a direct Natural Natural result of glaciation are intact. resources that may not be a direct as result of glaciation are managed, to reveal glacial features necessary, (land cover would need to meet certain criteria and specifications such Structures as height requirements). or manipulated landscapes (such as yards) do not fields and agricultural prevent visitors from being able to recognize glacial and driftless features viewpoints. from key andscape Interpretation L Trails would be designed and Trails located to afford views and direct experience of glacial features. directional exhibits, Wayside and occasional benches, signage, as well roads for service vehicles to use for maintenance and resource preservation purposes and in emergencies, might also be located in this management area. Views of the results glaciation Views on the land across a wide expanse points on foot paths, from key as well direct experience of features along paths. smaller-scale Interpretation is primarily provided exhibits and audio by wayside could participate Visitors tours. in low-impact activities such as cross-country skiing snowshoeing, berry picking, on ungroomed trails, and bird watching, photography, earth caching. Natural resources that are a direct Natural result of glaciation are intact. resources that may not Natural be a direct result of glaciation are to reveal as necessary, managed, 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 viewpoints. key o m plex C ge A ce I the

xperience E f or rea s atural atural A N

Trails would be designed Trails and located to afford direct experience of natural exhibits, Wayside resources. and directional signage, as well occasional benches, as roads for service vehicles to use for maintenance and resource preservation purposes and in emergencies, might also be located in this management area. Direct sensory experience resources from foot of natural paths would be provided. Interpretation is primarily exhibits provided by wayside Visitors and audio tours. could participate in low- impact activities such as cross-country snowshoeing, , skiing on ungroomed trails photography, berry picking, and bird watching, earth caching. Natural resources are Natural managed to approximate presettlement (circa 1830) the extent To conditions. ecological natural possible, processes sustain the integrity of these resources. m ent anage M ive esources 2: F 2: R able T ensitive S Trails and overlooks would Trails be carefully designed and located to afford access or views of resources while avoiding impacts. Access to these areas would be highly controlled to protect resources and ensure safety. Natural resources that are a Natural direct result of glaciation are resources that Natural intact. may not be a direct result of as glaciation are managed, to reveal glacial necessary, Resources particularly features. sensitive to user-created impacts or conditions that pose a risk to visitor safety are There are located here. fields in this no agricultural management area. rientation O perations perations O isitor ark V P and acilities (newly constructed and/ F or existing) would be developed to serve purposes such as a visitor indoor and center or contact station; sheltered picnic outdoor exhibits; outdoor gathering areas (such areas; office space; as an amphitheater); space; maintenance and operations and bus shelters; racks, bike parking, and hardened access roads and trails; leading out of and trailheads trails this area. Orientation. Visitors come to this Visitors Orientation. area for access and to gain an understanding of this site and its activities might Visitor resources. include viewing orientation maps at viewing exhibits and/or trailheads, exhibits, participating in interactive and enjoying a film, watching in both indoor and programming Visitors outdoor sheltered settings. have access to this would generally except for office spaces entire area, areas. and maintenance operation Park operations and visitor orientation operations Park are maintained in good condition but as needed, can be highly modified, to accommodate and withstand high levels of use by visitors and staff. isitor esource esource ondition xperience acilities Appropriate Appropriate F V E Desired Desired Desired Desired R C

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 37 CH APter TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

of these five activities (dog walking) 3. A deer management plan would would be acceptable on all publically be developed jointly by all public owned land within the complex, landowners in the Ice Age Complex. and hunting would be acceptable on The plan’s purpose would be to some publically owned land in the manage the deer herd at appropriate complex under specific circumstances numbers, as well as provide (see #3 below). The evaluations of recreational opportunities for horseback riding, snowmobiling, and hunters consistent with the different mountain biking can be found below landowners’ policies and regulations in the section titled “Alternatives governing hunting. The following Considered but Dismissed.” Hunting statements apply to current and future will be evaluated as part of a deer land ownership: management plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lands. All three public landowners in the Ice The USFWS lands are open to all Age Complex allow dogs to be walked forms of hunting. This plan does not on-leash. On WDNR and U.S. Fish and recommend any changes to these Wildlife Services (USFWS) properties, existing regulations. dogs could be off-leash if used for hunting. In evaluating whether or National Park Service Lands. The not to continue to allow dogs at the NPS lands are closed to all forms of complex, NPS Management Policies public hunting. A deer management 2006 (Chapter 8); federal regulations plan would consider multiple (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] techniques to control the deer 2.15); and state regulations (NR 45.06) population; however, public hunting were consulted. Dog walking is an cannot be considered in any form. acceptable activity at the complex (provided that leash rules are followed) Wisconsin Department of Natural because dog walking is compatible Resources Lands. The state of with the purpose for which the park Wisconsin lands are classified as state was established and could be sustained park, thus requiring state legislation to at current levels without causing permit hunting. The state recognizes unacceptable impacts. Dogs used the existing chronic wasting disease during hunting (when they do not have issue for the Ice Age Complex and to be leased) on WDNR and USFWS the responsibility to control this lands also cannot enter the sensitive disease. This property is within deer resources management area given the management unit number 76m and fragility of resources in that area. If, in is also included as part of the chronic the future, dog walking compromises wasting disease zone. The management the park managers’ ability to ensure unit head goal is 10 deer per square that resource conditions and visitor mile. In addition, deer numbers experience meet standards, and in the park are severely hindering is therefore causing unacceptable regeneration of park vegetation, and impacts, then actions would be it is clear that changes are needed to considered to address this problem. more effectively reduce the number of The indicators and standards outlined deer in this area. It is recommended in the “User Capacity” section of this that a deer hunting framework be document would be used to monitor established for all current and future resource conditions and quality of the visitor experience.

38 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Chapter Two Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative

WDNR lands west of Timber Lane comparison purposes, the costs of and south of Old Sauk Pass; the both trail administration and complex framework would management are factored together in the cost analysis for the alternatives. allow deer hunting during all seasons, beginning on the 6. Each landowner will remain responsible Saturday immediately before the for vegetation management on the land Thanksgiving holiday though the they own. Actions to manage vegetation end of December will be designed to achieve the desired prohibit hunting on the traveled conditions outlined in this plan and will portion of the Ice Age National be coordinated for effectiveness and Scenic Trail efficiency as much as possible.

There are currently 742 publically Alternative 1: No-Action, Continuation of Current protected acres in the Ice Age Management. This alternative describes how Complex. Under the management the Ice Age Complex would look in the future guidance described above, most of if no new actions were taken. The description the WDNR-owned parcels south of for the no-action alternative was used as a Old Sauk Pass and all of the USFWS- baseline against which to assess the benefits, owned parcels would be open to some costs, and impacts of action alternatives 2, 3, 4, form of hunting. and 5. Figure 4 provides an overview of the Ice Age Complex at Cross Plains. 4. A management agreement between the Wisconsin Department of Natural The Ice Age Complex is undeveloped for Resources and the National Park visitor use and minimally maintained. Each Service would govern the day–to- public landowning agency manages vegetation day responsibilities (operations and on the land it owns. Staff members for the maintenance, interpretation, and Ice Age National Scenic Trail have stabilized administration) for the complex. facilities to prevent their deterioration. This Management Agreement will There are currently no improvements (such be developed and refined as the as parking or constructed trails) on either site’s visitation and facilities’ profile WDNR- or NPS-owned lands to facilitate changes to reflect the new needs and visitor experience. The Shoveler Sink opportunities these changes bring. Waterfowl Production Area, managed by In the meantime, the partners will the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is open to continue to coordinate activities and to visitors for hunting, fishing, and other wildlife- pursue joint planning. dependent activities, but the production area has no visitor facilities other than two small 5. There would be close coordination unsurfaced parking lots. Privately owned between the administration of the lands in the complex consist of agricultural Ice Age National Scenic Trail and fields, along with several homes and management of the Ice Age Complex. their outbuildings. Administration and management tasks would be performed in The segment of the Ice Age National Scenic different locations as proposed Trail would still be built within the identified under alternatives 1 and 2, but under corridor under this alternative, but other trails alternatives 3, 4, and 5, the tasks would would not be constructed. be co-located at a central Ice Age National Scenic Trail headquarters The proposed management areas do not apply office within the complex. For to the no-action alternative.

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 39 CH APter TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

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

40 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Chapter Two Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative

Boundary expansion — The boundary of the This management concept would be Ice Age Complex would not be expanded. implemented by

Estimated costs and staffing — There would restoring presettlement vegetation by be one-time costs for stabilizing the Wilkie applying natural processes wherever property and purchasing seed to reestablish possible natural vegetation conditions. These total one-time costs would be approximately $1.24 removing the buildings at the core of the million (in 2011 dollars) and do not include site that belonged to the Wilkie family costs for land protection, such as acquisition and providing parking and trail access at or easements. The annual operating costs this location, as well as outdoor exhibits (in 2011 dollars) would be approximately and primitive restrooms $560,000 including costs for resource management, employee salaries and benefits, providing a minimally developed trail to and leasing office space. and along the rim of Cross Plains gorge

The work necessary to administer the Ice Age interpreting the site with wayside and National Scenic Trail across the state overlaps outdoor exhibits significantly with the work required to manage the Ice Age Complex at Cross Plains, thus the managing the complex from an off-site annual costs above include costs to support location; there would be no permanent staff whose work would involve both of these staff stationed at the site, and visitor functions. The joint staff would comprise interaction with park staff would be rare six full-time equivalent employees: A trail superintendent and trail manager, who would Boundary expansion — The boundary of the be responsible primarily for the trail across the Ice Age Complex would not be expanded. state, a half-time site manager, who would be responsible for the complex, two planners to Estimated costs and staffing — There would prepare plans for the trail state-wide as well be one-time costs for removing the Wilkie as for the complex, and half-time volunteer structures, constructing trails, and purchasing coordinator, GIS and administrative support. seed to reestablish natural vegetation Because managing the Complex would be conditions. The total one-time costs would be a partnership effort, this staff would be a approximately $1.94 million (in 2011 dollars) mixture of federal employees, state employees, and do not include costs for land protection, and volunteers. such as acquisition or easements. The annual operating costs (in 2011 dollars) would be Alternative 2: Ecological Restoration Emphasis. approximately $760,000, including costs for Figure 5 is the map for alternative 2. The resource management, employee salaries and ecosystem throughout most of the site would benefits, and leasing office space. be restored to a period before European settlement (circa 1830). The restoration The work necessary to administer the Ice would support interpretation of how natural Age National Scenic Trail across the state conditions in the complex would have evolved overlaps significantly with the work required after the glacial period under minimal human to manage the Ice Age Complex at Cross influence. Vegetation would be managed at Plains, thus the costs above include costs to key points to reveal glacial landscapes, but the support staff whose work would involve both focus would be on ecosystem management. of these functions. That joint staff would Visitors would enjoy a sense of perceived comprise eight full-time equivalent employees: remoteness and quiet, primarily by hiking A trail superintendent and trail manager, who on trails. would be responsible primarily for the trail

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 41 CH APter TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Figure 5: Map for Alternative 2: Ecological Restoration Emphasis

42 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Chapter Two Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative across the state, a site manager, who would providing a trail to and along the gorge be responsible for the complex, two planners with overlooks, surfaced at least in part to prepare plans for the trail state-wide as to accommodate people with disabilities, well as for the complex, an administrative as well as controlled partial access along officer and a volunteer coordinator, GIS and the floor of the gorge administrative support. Because managing the preserving and enhancing key views Complex would be a partnership effort, this through vegetation management staff would be a mixture of federal employees, (for example, by selective thinning state employees, and volunteers. and pruning) Alternative 3: Interpretation and Education expanding the complex boundary Emphasis. Figure 6 is the map for alternative 3. westward to include WDNR-owned The glacial landscape would be interpreted land and enhance opportunities to with a focus on how the Ice Age Complex has interpret a wider expanse of driftless evolved over time since the retreat of the last area terrain glacier. Throughout most of the complex, ecological resources would be managed to Boundary expansion — Alternative 3 reveal the glacial landscape. Visitors would proposes to expand the boundary of the Ice have an opportunity to experience a wide Age Complex, as well as the boundary of variety of resources, both ecological and Cross Plains State Park. The boundary would geological, as well as remnants of human use of be expanded to include parcel A (shown the site. The visitor experience would involve on figure 3), which is a 228‑acre WDNR- sheltered and indoor settings at the core of the protected parcel. The Department of Natural property and hiking throughout most other Resources owns part of the parcel in full, and areas of the site. Trails would be placed to tell part of it is privately owned and protected by stories of the formation of the glacial landscape an easement. The parcel is recommended for and, to a lesser extent, about the ecological incorporation into the complex’s boundary resources, such as the oak savanna. Under this in order to include and protect significant alternative, the Ice Age Complex would serve resources and values and to enhance as the headquarters for the Ice Age National opportunities for public enjoyment related Scenic Trail. This management concept would to park purpose. Parcel A would offer visitors be implemented by an expansive view of the Driftless Area, a rare sight along the Ice Age National Scenic Trail. renovating the house and/or barn at This parcel would be feasible because the core of the site for adaptive reuse to accommodate visitor orientation, while it is already publically protected, so no interpreting human use and settlement additional land-protection costs would patterns; space in these facilities would be incurred also be renovated for use as staff offices it is contiguous to the current boundary constructing a new facility at the the land is currently open space (there core of the site to accommodate are no structures or developments on maintenance needs this land) and would continue to be requesting the village of Cross Plains managed as such to manage traffic along Old Sauk Pass between Cleveland Road and North Birch Trail to reduce hazards to pedestrians

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 43 CH APter TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

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

44 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Chapter Two Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative

It is possible that current ownership and Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation Opportunities management is adequate because this land Emphasis. Figure 7 is the map for alternative 4. is currently protected by the Department of Visitors would be offered a variety of low- Natural Resources. Thus, if the land were impact outdoor recreational experiences in included in the complex, planning for it support of and compatible with preserving and managing it would be administratively and interpreting the glacial significance of seamless and would ensure consistency with the complex and restoring and managing current lands in the complex. In this sense, the ecosystem. Visitors would be able to including parcel A in the complex’s boundary experience resources in diverse ways and would not only be feasible but also more would enjoy a broad range of interpretive efficient than managing it separately. programming in indoor and outdoor settings. Under this alternative, the Ice Age Complex Estimated costs and staffing — There would would serve as the headquarters for the Ice be one-time costs to renovate the Wilkie Age National Scenic Trail. property, to design and install exhibits, to construct trails and a maintenance facility, This management concept would be and to purchase seed to reestablish natural implemented by developing the core of the vegetation conditions. The total one-time complex to costs would be approximately $ 4.74 million (in 2011 dollars) and do not include costs renovate Wilkie house and barn for land protection, such as acquisition primarily for use as staff offices. The or easements. The annual operating costs interior of these buildings might or (in 2011 dollars) would be approximately might not be accessible to visitors; a site $1.01 million, including costs for resource development plan would determine the management, employee salaries and benefits, most effective and efficient use of space and maintenance and operations. selectively site and construct a new visitor center with orientation services The work necessary to administer the Ice Age (such as exhibits and film) National Scenic Trail across the state overlaps significantly with the work required to manage selectively site and construct a new the Ice Age Complex at Cross Plains, thus maintenance facility, unless future the costs above include costs to support staff land acquisitions would allow for this whose work would involve both of these development away from the core of functions. That joint staff would comprise ten visitor activity and a half full-time equivalent employees: A provide outdoor gathering spaces such trail superintendent and trail manager, who as an amphitheater and picnic shelter would be responsible primarily for the trail across the state, a site manager, who would be This management concept would also be responsible for the complex, two planners to implemented by prepare plans for the trail state-wide as well as for the complex, a chief of interpretation and requesting the village of Cross Plains at least one ranger (necessary to develop and to manage traffic along Old Sauk support interpretive programming), a chief Pass between Cleveland Road and of maintenance (necessary to take care of the North Birch Trail to reduce hazards to renovated Wilkie buildings), an administrative pedestrians (same as proposed under officer, a volunteer coordinator, and GIS alternative 3) support. Because managing the Complex would be a partnership effort, this staff would providing a trail to and along the gorge be a mixture of federal employees, state with overlooks that would be surfaced, employees, and volunteers. at least in part, to accommodate people

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 45 CH APter TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Figure 7: Map for Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation Emphasis

46 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Chapter Two Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative

with disabilities. If feasible, in terms Estimated costs and staffing — There of structural engineering, cost, and would be one-time costs to renovate the environmental impacts, a pedestrian Wilkie property and construct a new visitor bridge spanning the gorge could be built center and maintenance facility, to design to provide visitors a unique perspective and install exhibits, to construct trails, and to on its formation purchase seed to reestablish natural vegetation conditions. The total one-time costs would be providing extensive, varied trails, approximately $8.8 million (in 2011 dollars) including a hardened bicycle/pedestrian and do not include costs for land protection, trail across the site offering primitive such as acquisition or easements. The annual camping in the western sections of the operating costs (in 2011 dollars) would be complex approximately $1.26 million, including costs for resource management, employee salaries expanding the complex’s boundary and benefits, and maintenance and operations. westward to enhance opportunities for recreation, especially for a primitive The work necessary to camping experience near the Ice Age administer the Ice Age National Scenic Trail National Scenic Trail Boundary expansion — The boundary of across the state overlaps the Ice Age Complex would be expanded to significantly with the include parcel A, which is shown on figure 3. work required to Parcel A is the same 228-acre WDNR- manage the Ice Age protected parcel mentioned under alternative Complex at Cross 3. This parcel would be necessary to enhance Plains, thus the opportunities for public enjoyment related to costs above include park purpose. There is no appropriate area costs to support Leaf print for camping along the Ice Age National Scenic staff whose work Trail corridor within the current complex would involve boundary, so parcel A would be managed for both of these functions. an expanded recreational experience (purple That joint staff would comprise management area in table 2 above) to allow fourteen full-time equivalent employees: for primitive camping for hikers on the Ice Age A trail superintendent and trail manager, who National Scenic Trail, which would traverse would be responsible primarily for the trail this area. This addition would be feasible across the state, a site manager, who would be to manage for the same reasons cited under responsible for the complex, two planners to alternative 3. Similarly, the explanation for prepare plans for the trail state-wide as well as efficiency in managing parcel A as part of the for the complex, a chief of interpretation and complex under alternative 3 would also apply at least two rangers (necessary to develop and to alternative 4. 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 Oak leaf in snowdrift DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 47 CH APter TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Alternative 5: Preferred Alternative. Figure 8 the core area for public and operational is the map for alternative 5. This alternative use would reflect public feedback as well would provide visitors with interpretation of as cost and environmental factors. the evolution of the complex from the last glacial retreat and opportunities to enjoy Until the visitor center, office, and appropriate low-impact outdoor recreation. maintenance facility complex described above Ecological resources would largely be can be funded and constructed, the existing managed to reveal the glacial landscape. The buildings in the core area may be minimally most sensitive ecological areas would be modified, as necessary, to make them useful on carefully protected, and visitor access would an interim basis as a visitor contact station and be highly controlled in these areas. Visitors for maintenance and storage purposes. would experience a wide variety of indoor and outdoor interpretive programming. Under this The management concept for alternative 5 alternative, the Ice Age Complex would serve would also be implemented by as the headquarters for the Ice Age National Scenic Trail. requesting the village of Cross Plains to manage traffic along Old Sauk The management concept for alternative 5 Pass between Cleveland Road and would be implemented by developing the North Birch Trail to reduce hazards core of the site (the former Wilkie property) to pedestrians (same as alternatives 3 to accommodate offices for Ice Age National and 4) Scenic Trail staff (who would support administrative and maintenance functions) providing a trail leading to and along and provide for a visitor center, including a the gorge with overlooks surfaced at sheltered picnic area. The elements involved in least in part to accommodate people developing the site include with disabilities. Vegetation in the gorge would be restored and volunteer producing a building complex that trails removed. would be highly sustainable (the overall goal of this development); Additionally, the management concept for certified under the U.S. Green Building alternative 5 would be implemented by Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design rating system providing an extensive, varied hiking at a gold level; have a minimal carbon trail network throughout the complex footprint; and employ systems to carefully control surface water runoff providing a management area in a and avoid impacting the quality of Black narrow strip along U.S. Highway 14 Earth Creek. to accommodate a bicycle path (in the planning stages) to connect Middleton retaining parts of the existing house to Cross Plains. This alternative does not and barn to the extent that is practical, envision the National Park Service or given the need for a cost-effective, the Wisconsin Department of Natural environmentally sustainable visitor Resources building the bicycle path but, center, office space, and space to rather, would accommodate local efforts support maintenance functions. to build the path Unfortunately, the existing house and barn are not adequate today in size or offering primitive camping equipped condition to fully and permanently serve with a privy in the western part of these functions. Ultimately, the design of the complex

48 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Chapter Two Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative

Figure 8: Map for Alternative 5: Preferred Alternative

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 49 CH APter TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

establishing a wildlife corridor of are undeveloped open space; after unbroken habitat between the former inclusion, the parcels would be used Wilkie property and Shoveler Sink. to enhance opportunities for public The area of this corridor is defined as enjoyment related to park purpose “landscape interpretation” because of the abundance of opportunity to view The explanation under alternative 3 for glacial features here. While the landscape efficiency in managing these parcels as part interpretation management area of the complex would also apply to this generally allows for agricultural fields, alternative 5. the intent of landscape interpretation in this particular corridor is to return the Estimated costs and staffing — There land to a type of native vegetation (such would be one-time costs to renovate the as short prairie grasses rather than tall Wilkie property and/or for new construction prairie grasses) that would not obscure in the core area, to design and install exhibits, the view of glacial features to construct trails and to purchase seed to reestablish natural vegetation conditions. The providing picnic tables next to parking total one-time costs would be approximately areas along U.S. Highway 14 and along $7.09 million (in 2011 dollars) and do not Mineral Point Road include costs for land protection, such as acquisition or easements. These one-time Boundary expansion — Alternative 5 costs would be lower than in alternative 4 proposes to expand the complex boundary because alternative 5 does not propose westward to incorporate expansion areas constructing a bicycle path to traverse the (parcels) A and B shown on figure 3. Parcel A property, constructing a pedestrian bridge is the same 228‑acre WDNR-protected parcel spanning the gorge or renovating the former mentioned above under alternatives 3 and Wilkie buildings (unless the cost would be 4, and parcel B is a 40-acre parcel protected comparable to building new facilities). The and owned by the Department of Natural annual operating costs (in 2011 dollars) would Resources. Both parcels would be necessary be approximately $1.26 million, including in order to enhance opportunities for public costs for resource management, employee enjoyment related to park purpose under this salaries and benefits, and maintenance alternative. Parcels A and B would be managed and operations. for an expanded recreational experience (purple management area on table 2) to allow The work necessary to administer the Ice Age for primitive camping for hikers on the Ice Age National Scenic Trail across the state overlaps National Scenic Trail, which would traverse significantly with the work required to manage this area, and for hiking on other trails. the Ice Age Complex at Cross Plains, thus the costs above include costs to support staff The two parcels would be feasible to whose work would involve both of these manage because functions. That joint staff would comprise fourteen full-time equivalent employees: A there would be no acquisition costs trail superintendent and trail manager, who since the lands in the two parcels are would be responsible primarily for the trail already protected by the Department of across the state, a site manager, who would Natural Resources be responsible for resource management activities for the complex, two planners to the inclusion of the two parcels in prepare plans for the trail state-wide as well as the boundary would not substantially for the complex, a chief of interpretation and change the current conditions of at least two rangers (necessary to develop and these parcels. Today, the parcels support expanded interpretive programming as well as to provide law enforcement), a chief

50 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Chapter Two Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative

of maintenance and at least one maintenance (2) While locating a visitor center on the employee (necessary to take care of the new eastern side of the complex, along spaces for visitors and for staff offices), an Timber Lane, midway between the administrative officer, a volunteer coordinator, north and south boundaries, would and GIS support. Because managing the have been a convenient location, only Complex would be a partnership effort, this a small portion of that land is currently staff would be a mixture of federal employees, publically owned, which would limit state employees, and volunteers. the site-development options. The partners involved in this project did Alternatives Considered but Dismissed not want to plan for developments on land not currently publically owned Four elements for potential inclusion in because, even though the goal is to the range of management alternatives were eventually protect this land through dismissed from further consideration. This acquisition or other means, it is not section describes the four elements and the possible to predict when this goal reasons they were dismissed. would be realized. In order to move forward with developing this site for Element 1, Locating the Primary Access Point visitor use after this plan is approved, it and Visitor Center away from the Center of the was necessary to identify land already Complex. The northern, southern, and eastern publically owned for a visitor center. boundaries are all major roads and would be obvious access points to the complex. The Element 2, Separating Maintenance Operations GMP/EIS team considered areas along each of from the Core Visitor Area. Physically these boundaries for visitor center placement separating maintenance space from the space but did not select any of these locations for the most developed for visitors would keep the following reasons: area where visitors congregate quieter and potentially safer. Because of this, the GMP/ (1) The complex measures roughly 3 EIS planning team initially thought about miles from north to south. Placing placing a management area for park operations a visitor center and parking area and support facilities along Timber Lane, in on either the northern or southern the area where it intersects Old Sauk Pass, boundary means visitors would have rather than as part of the visitor complex at to hike as much as 3 miles from the the core of the site. None of the proposed primary orientation site to see the action alternatives include this option for the entire complex. Additionally, the same reason cited above under item 2; that features that are expected to be most is, land in this area is not publically owned attractive to visitors, and that are also (at the time of this writing). Even though the the fundamental resources of the park, goal is to eventually protect this land through such as the Cross Plains gorge and acquisition or other means, it is not possible most high points, are concentrated to predict when this goal would be realized. toward the center of the site. Placing In order to move forward with developing a visitor center on the north or the complex after approval of this plan, it was south boundaries would exclude the necessary to identify land already publically opportunity for the park to conduct owned for maintenance operations. programs in which rangers would walk short distances with visitors (0.5 mile Element 3, Establishing Horse Trails. The or less) from the visitor center to these planning team considered but dismissed the resources. Lastly, it would be easier possibility of establishing horse trails at the to protect resources and monitor for Ice Age Complex. The appropriateness of signs of misuse or vandalism if staff were closer to the resources.

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 51 CH APter TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

accommodating horseback riding in the Ice area of glacial topographical features would Age Complex was evaluated according to NPS likely damage or destroy these features. In Management Policies 2006 (chapter 8); federal addition, the Ice Age National Scenic Trail regulations (36 CFR 2.16 – Horse and Pack segment (when constructed) would be an Animals); and WDNR design standards for inappropriate location for horses. The Ice Age horse trails. The horseback riding policies for National Scenic Trail is built and maintained the agencies are presented below. by volunteers to sustainable footpath standards for hiking. Consequently, there is a Policy on NPS-owned land: Horses are high probability that horse use would degrade prohibited outside of trails designated the trail as well as compromise the NPS for their use. There is no designated and WDNR relationship with their primary route on NPS-owned land. nonprofit partner (the Ice Age Trail Alliance) who builds and maintains the Ice Age National Policy on WDNR-owned land: Horses Scenic Trail statewide. It is unlikely that a horse are prohibited except in areas or on trail would be established in the parts of the trails designated for their use. There complex (where glacial features are absent) is a short trail used as a horse trail outside the Ice Age National Scenic Trail connection on state-owned lands west corridor that would, from a length perspective, of the current boundary, and these provide a quality experience. lands are proposed for inclusion in the boundary under alternatives 3, 4, and 5. Element 4, Establishing Snowmobile Trails. The planning team considered but dismissed the Policy on USFWS-owned land: Horses possibility of establishing snowmobile trails at are prohibited. the Ice Age Complex. The appropriateness of allowing snowmobiles in the Ice Age Complex Evaluation of horseback riding — Currently, was evaluated according to NPS Management of all the lands included in the complex’s Policies 2006 (Chapter 8) and federal boundary under alternatives 3, 4, and 5, regulations (36 CFR 2.18 – Snowmobiles). horseback riding is allowed on only a short trail on the state-owned lands (parcel A The snowmobile policies for the agencies are on figure 3). This horse trail connects two presented below. parcels of private land. When the Department of Natural Resources gave permission for Policy on NPS-owned land: horseback riders to pass across state-owned Snowmobiles are prohibited except lands between these two private parcels, on designated routes. There is no the understanding was that, eventually, designated route on NPS-owned land. the horseback riding public would be able to access this trail. Today, however, Policy on WDNR-owned land: There access remains available to only those with is currently a snowmobile trail on the permission from the owner of these private state-owned lands that dips into the parcels. Despite the years that have passed southwest corner inside the current since this permission was granted, the horse complex boundary (to be included in trail still provides exclusive access to public the boundary under alternatives 3, 4, lands and is therefore no longer appropriate. and 5). Any other snowmobiling This trail would be closed to horses. Beyond would need to be approved through a the state-owned lands, horseback riding is an planning process. inappropriate use of public lands at the Ice Age Complex given the potential for resource Policy on USFWS-owned land: Use of degradation. Well-used horse trails in the snowmobiles is not appropriate.

52 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Chapter Two Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative

Evaluation of snowmobiling — A new Evaluation of mountain biking — Mountain snowmobile route beyond the established biking is an inappropriate use of public lands area on state-owned lands would be an at the Ice Age Complex given inconsistency inappropriate use of public lands at the with safety and management objectives, as Ice Age Complex. New snowmobile trails well as the potential for resource degradation. would be inconsistent with natural (such as Even if the impacts of off-road biking wildlife), scenic, and aesthetic values and could be mitigated effectively, it seems very safety and management objectives. The unlikely that the complex would provide a existing snowmobile route will remain open, satisfactory mountain biking experience. but no new trails will be established. The Well-used mountain bike trails in the area of existing snowmobile trail on state-owned glacial topographical features would likely lands is a small part of a much larger statewide damage or destroy these features. Beyond network of snowmobile trails and functions the state-owned lands, mountain biking is an as a connector between other trails used by inappropriate use of public lands at the Ice snowmobilers. In addition to conflicting Age Complex given the potential for resource with management objectives at the complex, degradation. Well-used off-road bike trails using lands in the Ice Age Complex for in the area of glacial topographical features snowmobiling is unnecessary given the extent would likely damage or destroy these features. of the existing snowmobile trail network In addition, when constructed, the Ice Age and the mechanisms in place to identify and National Scenic Trail segment would be an maintain snowmobile trails across the region. inappropriate location for bikes.

Element 5, Establishing Mountain Bike Trails. The The portion of the Ice Age National Scenic planning team considered but dismissed the Trail outside the complex is built and possibility of establishing mountain bike trails maintained to sustainable footpath standards at the Ice Age Complex. The appropriateness for hiking. Consequently, there is a high of allowing off-road biking on trails in the Ice probability that bike use would degrade the Age Complex was evaluated according to the trail, as well as compromise the NPS and NPS Management Policies 2006 (chapter 8); WDNR relationship with their primary federal regulations (36 CFR 4.30 – Bicycles); nonprofit partner (Ice Age Trail Alliance) and state regulations (NR 45.05). who builds and maintains the Ice Age National Scenic Trail (the statewide portion The bicycling policies for the agencies are of the trail outside the complex). In addition, presented below. the Ice Age National Scenic Trail is not an appropriate location for mountain biking Policy on NPS-owned land: Bicycles given the potential to compromise the trail are prohibited except on park roads, in experience for hikers, who are not only the parking areas, and on routes designated primary users of the Ice Age National Scenic for bicycle use. There are no designated Trail, but who also comprise the membership bicycle trails in the complex. The of the primary volunteer group (Ice Age established practice of road biking along Trail Alliance) that maintains the trail. It is Old Sauk Pass would continue. unlikely that a mountain biking trail would be established in the parts of the complex (where Policy on WDNR-owned land: Bicycles glacial features are absent) outside the Ice Age are prohibited except in areas and trails National Scenic Trail corridor that would, posted for their use. As mentioned above, from a length and topographic perspective, the established practice of road biking provide a quality experience for mountain along Old Sauk Pass would continue. bikers while not interfering with other park users. Policy on USFWS-owned land: Use of bicycles is not appropriate.

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 53 CH APter TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Estimated Costs and User Capacity

Staffing (in 2010 dollars) General management plans for units of of the Five Alternatives the national park system are required, by law, to identify and address implementation The National Park Service requires that cost commitments for user capacity, also known as estimates of projects be included in general carrying capacity. The National Park Service management plans (costs are required under defines user capacity as the types and levels the 1978 Parks and Recreation Act and are of visitor use that could be accommodated requested by Congress for budget control while sustaining the quality of park resources purposes). The purpose of cost estimates is to and visitor experiences consistent with park assist managers with setting priorities and to purposes. Managing user capacity in national inform the public. Table 3 provides very broad parks is inherently complex. It depends not estimates based on costs of construction, only on the number of visitors but also on supplies, and employee salaries and should not where the visitors go, what they do, and the be used for budgeting and project planning. “footprints” they leave behind. Rather than Actual costs would be determined at a later just regulating the number of people in a park date, considering the design of facilities, area, the park staff and partners rely on a identification of detailed resource protection variety of management tools and strategies to needs, and changing visitor expectations. The manage user capacity. NPS facility models were used to estimate the needed size and therefore presumed costs In addition, the ever-changing nature of visitor of future facilities. Note that potential costs use in parks requires a deliberate and adaptive for land protection tools (such as easements approach to user-capacity management. Figure 9 and acquisitions) to fully protect lands in the presents the NPS user-capacity framework. Ice Age Complex are not included in these estimates. The estimated staffing costs in The purpose, significance, special mandates, table 3 cover not only costs for staffing the and management areas associated with the complex but also for staffing the Ice Age Trail Ice Age Complex comprise the foundation administration. The reason for including both for making user capacity decisions in this of these functions in the cost estimate of all of document. The purpose, significance, and the alternatives is for comparison purposes. 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.

54 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Chapter Two Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative

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

Alternative 1: No Action, Alternative 3: Alternative 4: Continuation Alternative 2: Interpretation Outdoor Alternative of Current Ecological and Education Recreation 5: Preferred Cost Category Management Restoration Emphasis Emphasis 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

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 55 CH APter TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

In dicators and Standards Table 4 presents the indicators, standards, and potential future management strategies This plan includes indicators and standards (allocated by management area) that would be for the Ice Age Complex that are in addition implemented as a result of this planning effort. to the important directives discussed above. The planning team considered many potential issues and related indicators that would identify Indicators and standards are measureable impacts of concern, but those described below variables that are monitored to track were considered the most significant, given the changes in resource conditions and visitor importance and vulnerability of the resource or experiences. The indicators and standards visitor experience affected by visitor use. The help the National Park Service ensure that planning team also reviewed the experiences of desired conditions are being attained and other parks with similar issues to help identify that those conditions support the fulfillment meaningful indicators. Standards that represent of the park’s legislative and policy mandates. the minimum acceptable condition for each The general management plan identifies the indicator were then assigned, taking into types of management strategies that would consideration the qualitative descriptions of the be taken to achieve desired conditions desired conditions, data on existing conditions, and also identifies related legislative and relevant research studies, staff management policy mandates. experience, and scoping on public preferences.

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

Assigned Recommended Indicator(s) Management Area Recommended Standard(s) Management Strategies Number of unauthorized campsites* Expanded recreational Expanded recreational and natural Educate public on park regulations, per year experience, natural experience resource sensitivity, and appropriate experience, and behaviors *As evidenced by obvious No more than 3 unauthorized sensitive resources vegetation damage (such as campsites per year Install signage on park regulations, resource flattening, trampling, or removal) Sensitive resources sensitivities, and appropriate behaviors Zero tolerance for unauthorized Regulate and enforce designated campsites in any season camping areas Increase frequency of patrols Temporarily or permanently close areas Number of campfires* per year Parkwide, especially Sensitive resources Educate public on park regulations, near parking areas resource sensitivity, and appropriate *As evidenced by obvious fire No tolerance for campfires in any behaviors activity (such as blackened soil, fire season rings, or burnt materials) All other management areas Increase frequency of patrols No more than 1 campfire per year Install signage at parking areas and trailheads

56 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Chapter Two Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative

Table 4: Indicators, Management Areas, Standards, and Potential Management Strategies (continued)

Assigned Recommended Indicator(s) Management Area Recommended Standard(s) Management Strategies Decrease in populations of specific Parkwide (Dependent on plant species Conduct formal review of visitor-caused plant and animal species and communities) impacts in order to isolate the possible Levels, density, and diversity of No more than 5% decrease in reason for the impacts and determine the important/targeted plant and plant and animal diversity in the appropriate management response. animal species expanded recreational experiences, Educate public on low-impact practices, natural experience, and landscape park regulations, and appropriate behavior interpretation management areas combined No more than 1% decrease in plant and animal diversity in the sensitive resources management area 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 Parkwide No new occurrences of invasive Conduct formal review of visitor-caused existing known priority invasive species where they do not impacts in order to isolate possible reasons plant species detections** presently exist; no spread or for the impacts and determine the most **See the list following this growth of existing invasions appropriate management response. table of known priority invasive Remove invasive species and restore plant species. 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 Parkwide Zero tolerance for the removal, Educate public on appropriate behaviors, of geologic features damage, or defacement of regulations, process of reporting, and low- Visitor-caused erosion to bluffs geologic features impact practices Zero tolerance for visitor-caused Increase staff presence erosion to bluffs Limit public access Temporarily close areas for restoration Increase fences and barriers 1. Number of unauthorized trails 1. Parkwide Zero tolerance for Conduct formal review of impacts caused 2. Sensitive area and unauthorized trails by an unauthorized trail (either visitor or natural experience animal related) in order to isolate possible reasons for the impacts and determine most appropriate management response Educate public on resource sensitivity, low- impact practices, appropriate behaviors, and park regulations Increase enforcement of trailing especially on steep slopes

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 57 CH APter TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Table 4: Indicators, Management Areas, Standards, and Potential Management Strategies (continued)

Assigned Recommended Indicator(s) 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 All management No more than a 50% increase of Educate public on resource sensitivity, low- beyond designated trail tread over a areas, more frequent trail width beyond designated trail impact practices, appropriate behaviors, distance of at least 20 feet monitoring in sensitive tread over a distance of at least and park regulations feet resource and park 20 Increase trail maintenance or rehabilitation operations and visitor orientation 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* Sensitive resources No more than a 10% increase Educate public on low-impact practices (measured in square feet) beyond in disturbed area (measured in Increase overlook maintenance, such as designated overlook area square feet) beyond designated improving edging or rehabilitation *As evidenced by obvious damage overlook area Improve delineation of overlook area, such (such as flattening, trampling, or as adding barriers, resurfacing, and so forth removal) to vegetation Redesign or relocate the overlook area Add overlook areas Regulate group sizes Temporarily or permanently close the overlook

Percent increase in the number of Parkwide No more than a 20% increase in Educate public on low-impact practices, complaints related to any specific the number of complaints related activity etiquette, and park regulations visitor experience or interaction to any specific visitor experience and policies issues (such as crowding, conflicts or interaction issue per year, above Separate visitor groups between specific visitor groups) the three-year rolling average per year, above the three-year Increase enforcement rolling average Regulate activities Temporarily or permanently close areas Increase in the total volume of litter Parkwide No more than a 25% increase in Increase education picked up during biannual clean- the total volume of litter picked up Increase enforcement up events and during regularly during biannual clean-up events scheduled staff/volunteer patrols and during regularly scheduled Restrict certain activities staff/volunteer patrols Add trash receptacles, if appropriate

58 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Chapter Two Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative

Table 4: Indicators, Management Areas, Standards, and Potential Management Strategies (continued)

Assigned Recommended Indicator(s) Management Area Recommended Standard(s) Management Strategies Number of incidences of Parkwide Zero tolerance for unauthorized Increase enforcement unauthorized overnight parking overnight parking 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) oriental bittersweet (watch list) (Celastrus orbiculatus) autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata) common chicory (Cichorium intybus) Queen Anne’s lace (Daucus carota) black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) St. John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum) burdock (Arctium spp.) leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) white and yellow clover (Melilotus alba and Melilotus officinalis) Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) multiflora rose Rosa( multiflora) wild parsnip (watch list) (Pastinaca sativa) common buckthorn (Rhammus cathartica) musk thistle (Carduus nutans)

** The following plant species are native but can be problematic because they are vigorous growers and invade other plant communities raspberries (Rubus spp.) staghorn sumac (Rhus typhina) walnut (Juglans spp.)

User-capacity decision making is a form of Similar to the natural resource indicators, adaptive management (refer to figure 9) in that visitor opportunities and related experiences it is an iterative process in which management in the complex are already being managed decisions are constantly informed and in various ways, but they are not routinely improved. Indicators are monitored, and monitored. The indicators presented in table 4 adjustments are made as appropriate. As above would help park staff track these specific monitoring of conditions continues, managers issues to ensure that desired conditions are might decide to modify or add indicators if being achieved. better ways are found to measure important changes in resource and social conditions. Visitor activities that might impact visitor Information on the NPS monitoring efforts, experience could include crowding on trails related visitor use management actions, and and overlooks, which contribute to the any changes to the indicators and standards creation of unauthorized trails, widening of would be available to the public. formal trails, and degradation of overlooks; user conflicts related to unauthorized Priority Visitor Experience Indicators camping; and illegal or prohibited activities and Standards such as the unauthorized removal of resources, vandalism, campfires, overnight The issues associated with the priority parking, and littering. The impacts on visitor visitor experience indicators for the Ice Age experience from visitor activities could include Complex are disturbance to natural resources (vegetation, wildlife, and geologic features); disturbance to visitor experience impacts at campsites, other visitors or nearby residents; and injuries the creation of unauthorized trails due to from unauthorized trailing on steep slopes and crowding on trails or at attraction points injuries related to campfires. or from illegal or unauthorized uses

number of complaints related to These impacts could be widespread, with any specific visitor experience or greater emphasis in areas that would be interaction issues more heavily used, such as along trails, in parking areas, at points of interest, and at amount of litter designated campsites. overnight parking or parking in undesignated areas

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 59 CH APter TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Several of the indicators described above, Initial monitoring of the indicators would with regard to visitor use impacts on natural determine if the indicators are accurately resources, also apply to visitor experience. measuring the conditions of concern and if Visitor-use impacts on natural resources could the standards truly represent the minimally also affect the aesthetic qualities of the complex, acceptable condition of the indicator. Park contribute to visitor conflict and crowding, and staff might decide to modify the indicators or require management actions (refer to table 4) in standards and revise the monitoring program response to resource degradation. if better ways are found to measure changes caused by visitor use. Most of these types of Currently, the complex provides no visitor changes should be made within the first several amenities and minimal signage, so members years of initiating monitoring. After this initial of the public (other than local residents testing period, adjustments would be less likely who are aware of its existence) do not visit. to occur. Finally, if use levels and patterns There are no formal trails, overlooks, or change appreciably, the park staff might need to designated camping areas. Therefore, visitor identify new indicators to ensure that desired conflicts and crowding are currently minimal conditions would be achieved and maintained. or nonexistent. The potential for conflicts This iterative learning and refining process, a and crowding could greatly increase if the form of adaptive management, is a strength of site becomes established and if formal trails, the NPS user-capacity management program. overlooks, and designated camping areas were developed. Needed Future Studies In designated camping areas, failure to and Plans adhere to the policies outlined in a camping management plan could also lead to crowding Various implementation plans would be or conflict between users. Weather conditions needed under all action alternatives; those could sometimes force visitors to stay in plans are a a particular location, and this would be unavoidable. The concern is when visitors deer management plan (by all stray from camping policies solely for project partners) that addresses deer convenience or preference. Park staff would overpopulation, as well as concerns monitor the indicator related to the number of regarding chronic wasting disease unauthorized campsites per year. trails development plan that Long-term Monitoring identifies the location and type of trails throughout the complex in The park staff would monitor use levels and accordance with the management areas patterns throughout the park. In addition, the and descriptions in the final general park staff would monitor the user-capacity management plan indicators. The rigor of monitoring (such as frequency of monitoring cycles and amount resource stewardship strategy that of geographic area monitored) the indicators describes the steps necessary to manage would vary considerably, depending on how resources, followed by a vegetation close existing conditions are to the standards management plan that would provide day- listed in table 4. If the existing conditions are to-day guidance on methods and means far from exceeding the standard, the rigor of of managing vegetation in the different monitoring might be less than if the existing management areas of the complex conditions are close to or trending toward exceeding (not meeting) the standard.

60 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Chapter Two Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative

long-range interpretive plan that Environmentally describes programming necessary to interpret the themes described in the Preferred Alternative foundation statement in chapter 1 of this draft general management plan / The environmentally preferable alternative is environmental impact statement defined as “the alternative that will promote national environmental policy as expressed The implementation plan needed under in Section 101 of the National Environmental alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 would be a Policy Act.” Section 101 states that “it is the continuing responsibility of the federal site development plan for the core area government to . . . of the complex identified with the “Park Operations and Visitor Orientation” (1) fulfill the responsibilities of management area; this plan would each generation as trustee of consider options for locating and the environment for succeeding designing facilities specified in the generations; alternative description for this area. The plan would focus on analyzing impacts (2) assure for all Americans safe, (such as impacts on visitor experience and healthful, productive, and archeology but that are unknown at this aesthetically and culturally pleasing time) that could be associated with this surroundings; development. Specific design and location decisions would influence these impacts. (3) attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without The implementation plan needed under degradation, risk to health or safety, alternatives 4 and 5 would be a or other undesirable and unintended consequences; camping management plan to help decide how to ensure leave-no-trace (4) preserve important historic, cultural, camping opportunities would be and natural aspects of our national available for long-distance hikers on heritage; and maintain, wherever the Ice Age National Scenic Trail, possible, an environment which while avoiding resource degradation; a supports diversity, and a variety of permitting system would be considered individual choices; as part of this plan (5) achieve a balance between population It is possible that, as these plans are developed and resource use which would permit and implemented, the need for other plans high standards of living and a wide might surface. 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.

r taking a rest Snowshoe Snowshoe tracks DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 61 CH APter TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Table 5: Six Criteria for Assessing the Environmentally Preferred Alternative

Alternative 1: No Action, Alternative 2: Alternative 3: Alternative :4 Continuation Ecological Interpretation Outdoor Alternative 5: of Current Restoration and Education Recreation Preferred Criterion Management Emphasis Emphasis Emphasis Alternative Generations as trustees Would partially meet Would partially meet Would fully meet Would fully meet Would fully meet criterion criterion criterion criterion criterion Pleasing surroundings Would fully meet Would partially meet Would fully meet Would fully meet Would fully meet criterion criterion criterion criterion criterion Beneficial uses without Would fully meet Partially meets Would fully meet Would fully meet Would fully meet consequences criterion criterion criterion criterion criterion Preserve with diversity Would partially meet Would partially meet Would partially meet Would fully meet Would fully meet and choices criterion criterion criterion criterion criterion Balance permitting high Would fully meet Would fully meet Would fully meet Would fully meet Would fully meet standard of living and criterion criterion criterion criterion criterion sharing of amenities Renewable resources Would partially meet Would partially meet Would partially meet Would partially meet Would fully meet and recycling criterion criterion criterion criterion criterion

Because there would be no on-site staff to Alternatives 4 and 5 would enable a larger monitor visitor activity on a daily basis under diversity of experiences through multimedia alternatives 1 and 2, the park’s ability to exhibits, as well as personal interaction avoid damage to resources would be less than with more rangers (an advantage over under alternatives 3, 4, and 5. Because of this, alternatives 1, 2, and 3). Alternatives 4 and 5 alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would fully realize the would also add primitive camping to the Ice responsibilities of each generation as trustee Age National Scenic Trail hiking experience. of the environment for succeeding generations These factors, combined, mean that than would alternatives 1 and 2 (criterion 1). alternatives 4 and 5 would more fully promote an environment that supports diversity and a Alternative 1 would present safety concerns variety of individual choices than would the for visitors who park along Old Sauk Pass other alternatives (criterion 4). and cross the road with traffic as it is now. Under each of the other alternatives, the park None of the alternatives would entail such would work with the village of Cross Plains a strong shift in socioeconomic or resource to limit access to Old Sauk Pass in order to use that standard of living or sharing of life’s provide safe passage between the north and amenities would change (criterion 5). south sections of the complex. Therefore, alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would more fully Because alternatives 3, 4, and 5 specify prevent risks to safety surroundings than retention and reuse of the Wilkie structures, would alternatives 1 or 2 (criteria 2 and 3). and alternative 5 would result in a highly environmentally sustainable complex, these Under alternatives 1, 2, and 3, visitors would alternatives would more fully enhance the not have the choices for enjoying the complex quality of renewable resources and approach that they would have under alternatives 4 the maximum attainable recycling of and 5 due to a lack of interior space. depletable resources than alternatives 1 and 2 (criterion 6).

Considering all of the criteria, alternative 5 is the most environmentally preferable alternative.

62 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Chapter Two Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative

Preferred Alternative supported and would be costly to construct. Similarly, a pedestrian bridge that would span The value-analysis method, “Choosing by the gorge did not offer great advantages toward Advantages,” was used to build the preferred meeting objectives, was not supported by the alternative. As mentioned in the beginning public, and costs to construct the bridge would of this chapter, the CBA process is a tool for be high. Thus, constructing the bridge was not determining the specific advantages each considered reasonable, and it was not included alternative would provide toward meeting in alternative 5. specific park objectives, taking into account any expected environmental impacts. The objectives for this analysis process, against Comparison of the which the elements of each alternative were Alternatives weighed, were drawn from the park purpose statements described in the foundation Table 6 summarizes the key elements of each statement in chapter 1. Those objectives are to of the five alternatives. Table 7 provides a summary comparison of the environmental preserve and protect identified impacts of each alternative. 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

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 63 CH APter TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 5: Alternative 5: referred Alternative referred P This alternative combines This concepts of the other three This action alternatives. alternative would provide visitors with interpretation of the evolution of complex from the last glacial retreat and opportunities to enjoy appropriate low-impact outdoor Ecological resources recreation. would largely be managed to reveal the glacial landscape. Sensitive areas would be and visitor access protected, would be highly controlled would Visitors in these areas. experience a wide variety of indoor and outdoor interpretive programming. Original appearance of the Original appearance buildings would be retained to given the extent that is practical goal of using this the overall area to support administrative, and visitor center maintenance, functions while demonstrating sustainable building. Limited access for through traffic to allow safe on Old Sauk Pass passage between north and south sections of complex. mphasis E ecreation ecreation R Alternative 4: Alternative 4: utdoor O Outdoor recreation opportunities are emphasized in this alternative. opportunities would include Visitor low-impact outdoor recreational experiences compatible with the and interpretation preservation of the glacial significance as well with the complex, and management of restoration would Visitors the ecosystem. also experience a wide variety of indoor and outdoor interpretive programming. Buildings renovated and reused. and reused. Buildings renovated Incidental public access to part of Wilkie property. the Limited access for through traffic Limited access for through traffic to allow safe on Old Sauk Pass passage between north and south sections of complex. s lternative A

mphasis the E

o f

ducation Alternative 3: Alternative 3: Interpretation Interpretation le m ent s E E ey and K Interpretation and education are the Most emphases in this alternative. resources would be managed to Visitors reveal the glacial landscape. of interpretive would have a variety experiences in sheltered and indoor settings and while on hiking trails throughout the site. Buildings renovated while Buildings renovated maintaining extensive integrity and opened to public access in visitor contact space. Limited access for through traffic Limited access for through traffic to allow safe on Old Sauk Pass passage between north and south sections of complex. the

o f

u mm ary 6: S 6: estoration R able T Alternative 2: Alternative 2: cological E Ecological restoration is the Ecological restoration While emphasis in this alternative. most of the site would be restored to a period before European glacial landscapes settlement, would be revealed over part of the Interpretation would site as well. be largely through outdoor exhibits Visitors (nonpersonal). and waysides would enjoy a sense of remoteness but and quiet while hiking trails, they would not have access to indoor sheltered space. All buildings removed No changes anagement ontinuation C M Alternative 1: Alternative 1: urrent urrent C o Action, Action, o N of continuation of current management. no would be few trails, There and sheltered space for visitors, Resources very limited parking. would be managed inconsistently. Buildings preserved but not open for public access ES I T I L I C A armstead CONCEPT alternative reflects the This F Wilkie F Old Sauk Pass No changes

64 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Chapter Two Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative Alternative 5: Alternative 5: referred Alternative referred P Preserved or restored Trail to and along the gorge Trail with overlooks would replace surfaced at least volunteer trail, disabilities with people for part in into the gorge No trail No bridge construction would not be Vegetation comprehensively managed Comprehensive management a mix of resource zoning: about conditions in corridor, 50% of vegetation in landscape interpretation and expanded recreational experience management areas and 50% of experience vegetation in natural and sensitive resources A wildlife management areas. corridor would be established between Shoveler Sink and the Wilkie property. former Development of the core the site to accommodate and maintenance administrative functions and provide for a Development visitor center. would meet high standards for sustainability. mphasis E ecreation ecreation R Alternative 4: Alternative 4: ) utdoor O Preserved or restored Trail to and along the gorge with Trail overlooks would replace volunteer surfaced at trail, least in part for people with disabilities into the gorge No trail Construct bridge (if feasible) would not be Vegetation comprehensively managed Comprehensive management a mix of resource zoning: about conditions in corridor, 50% of vegetation in landscape interpretation and expanded recreational experience management areas and experience 50% in natural management area. New construction and extensive renovation continued ( mphasis E s lternative A

the

o f ducation

Alternative 3: Alternative 3: Interpretation Interpretation E and le m ent s Preserved or restored Improved trail around gorge would Improved trail maintained replace volunteer trail, and with interpretive signs into part of the gorge Trail No bridge construction would not be Vegetation comprehensively managed Comprehensive management a mix of resource conditions zoning: about 80% of vegetation in corridor, in landscape interpretation management area and experience 20% in natural management area. New construction and some renovation E ey K the

o f

u mm ary estoration R 6: S 6: Alternative 2: Alternative 2: able T cological E Preserved or restored Minimally improved trail around Minimally improved trail gorge would replace volunteer maintained and with trail, interpretive signs into the gorge No trail No bridge construction would not be Vegetation comprehensively managed Comprehensive management zoning: Comprehensive management zoning: a mix of resource conditions in about 80% of vegetation in corridor, experience management area natural and 20% in landscape interpretation management area. No new construction anagement ontinuation C M Alternative 1: Alternative 1: urrent urrent C o Action, Action, o depending on management N of hoc basis Gorge trail would not be signed Gorge trail or maintained — remains an informal volunteer trail into the gorge No trail No bridge construction would not be Vegetation comprehensively managed No comprehensive guidance on resource management — glacial features would either be revealed for public viewing or not, approach at the time. approach at the time. PE A SC D N A Oak savanna Preserved or restored on an ad Cross Plains gorge L Resource conditions and management Construction No new construction

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 65 CH APter TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE viewpoints, viewpoints,

miles)

Alternative 5: Alternative 5: ighway 14 ighway referred Alternative referred H . P iking on formal trails iking on formal trails igh level of encounters .S Contrast between glaciated Contrast and unglaciated areas obvious over 70% of site and potentially obscured over 30% (6 out of 6 views obvious) from 6 Views H (about 13 would be trails Formal marked, developed, or maintained to interpreted, direct use from the Ice Spur trails Trail Age National Scenic throughout complex Bicycle path would be accommodated along U of quiet and Feeling nature immersion is less during the day due likely to presence of developed management area H with other visitors expected given level of amenities at complex for overnight stay Possibility offers a type of immersion (due to length of stay) interpreted and with to viewpoints formal trails (significant sixth point) Camping (primitive and limited) Indoor facilities and picnic area at the visitor center ecreation ecreation R mphasis E Alternative 4: Alternative 4: utdoor O miles)

views obvious) iking on formal trails (about iking on formal trails igh level of encounters with

Contrast between glaciated Contrast and unglaciated areas obvious over 70% of site and potentially obscured over 30% (6 out of 6 from 6 viewpoints, Views interpreted and with formal trails to viewpoints (significant sixth point) H 13 would be trails Formal interpreted, marked, developed, or maintained to direct use Age from the Ice Spur trails throughout Trail National Scenic 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 of quiet and nature Feeling during immersion is less likely the day due to presence of developed management area H other visitors expected given level of amenities at complex for an overnight stay Possibility offers a type of immersion (due to length of stay) ) continued ( mphasis E s lternative A

ducation Alternative 3: Alternative 3: Interpretation Interpretation E the

o f

and miles)

iking on formal trails (about iking on formal trails 13 H of quiet along the trail Feeling Some encounters with other visitors would be expected Some sense of nature immersion Contrast between glaciated Contrast and unglaciated areas obvious over 80% of site and potentially obscured over 20% (6 out of 6 views obvious) from 6 viewpoints, Views interpreted and with formal trails to viewpoints (significant sixth point) would be developed, trails Formal or maintained interpreted, marked, to direct use Age from the Ice Spur trails throughout Trail National Scenic complex Bicycling on existing roadways No camping No outdoor facilities Indoor facilities offering information and visitor contact le m ent s E ey K the

o f

estoration R u mm ary Alternative 2: Alternative 2: cological 6: S 6: E iking on formal trails (about 6 iking on formal trails able H miles) and low-impact activities would be developed, trails Formal or maintained interpreted, marked, to direct use Age from the Ice Spur trails Trail National Scenic throughout complex Bicycling on existing roadways No indoor space to rest but sheltered kiosks covered, offering information eeling of quiet along the trail Solitude is probable Definite sense of nature immersion Contrast between glaciated Contrast and unglaciated areas obvious over 45% of site and potentially obscured over 55% (3 out of 5 views obvious) from 5 highpoints, Views interpreted and with formal trails to viewpoints T anagement ontinuation C M Alternative 1: Alternative 1: urrent urrent C o Action, Action, o N of iking on volunteer trails and iking on volunteer trails H of quiet along the trail Feeling Solitude is likely Strong sense of nature immersion low-impact activities Trail Age National Scenic Ice The One or two short would be built. interpretive to key formal trails locations would also be built Bicycling on existing roadways No camping No indoor sheltered space to rest and obtain information Contrast between glaciated and Contrast unglaciated areas may be lost from 5 highpoints, Views most not interpreted and no formal access ENCE I EXPER

TOR I S uiet/solitude I V Recreation Q Encounters with other visitors Views

66 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Chapter Two Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative Alternative 5: Alternative 5: referred Alternative referred P Total Acres: 1,701 Acres: Total Evening interpretive programs and restrooms Parking Scheduled and frequent tours ranger-led Interior exhibits and media (such as film) and adequate space for large education programming classroom-type ecreation ecreation R mphasis E Alternative 4: Alternative 4: utdoor O Total Acres: 1,701 Acres: Total Scheduled and frequent tours ranger-led Interior exhibits and media (such as film) and adequate space for large education classroom-type programming Evening interpretive programs and restrooms Parking Variety of interpretive programming interpretive of Variety for more than two Potential and interpretive trails waysides (about 15 miles) designed to allow visitors to have contact with the fundamental resources ) continued ( mphasis E s lternative A

ducation Alternative 3: Alternative 3: Interpretation Interpretation E the

o f

and Total Acres: 1,701 Acres: Total Some interior exhibits, inadequate Some interior exhibits, space for large education classroom-type programming and restrooms Parking Interpretive programming would Interpretive programming focus on the influence of glacial activity on human use and settlement patterns tours Scheduled ranger-led le m ent s E ey K the

o f

estoration R u mm ary Alternative 2: Alternative 2: miles) designed to allow

cological 6: S 6: E able Total Acres: 1,473 Acres: Total Potential for more than two Potential and interpretive trails waysides (about 6 visitors to have contact with the the with visitors to have contact resources fundamental tours Occasional volunteer-led No interior shelter for visitors and privies Parking Very limited interpretive Very would focus on the programming conditions evolution of natural since the glacial period under minimal human influence T anagement ontinuation C M Alternative 1: Alternative 1: urrent urrent C o Action, Action, o N of otal Acres: 1,473 Acres: otal T No restrooms, parking would No restrooms, very limited remain as it is now, No interpretation beyond 1–2 waysides volunteer-led Possible limited tours, Interior space not visitor-ready, no shelter RY DA OUN Acreage B Interpretation

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 67 CH APter TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 5: Alternative 5: referred Alternative referred P 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 following from foot traffic construction would be confined to areas around buildings and parking lots. would be a reduction in There uncontrolled human activity, thus a reduction in the potential for soil compaction resulting in minor and erosion, impacts beneficial moderate to on those areas. Future actions would contribute very little to cumulative impacts when considered with the long-term adverse minor to moderate impact on soils. ecreation ecreation R mphasis E Alternative 4: Alternative 4: utdoor O Alternative 4 would have some beneficial impacts on soils due to conversion of farm land to prairie. Construction activities could potentially have a temporary adverse impact on soils moderate from erosion and compaction in areas subject to construction. Minor adverse impacts from following construction foot traffic would be confined to areas lots. parking and buildings around Increased visitation could result adverse impact in a moderate on the steep slopes facing Black especially along Earth Creek, the trail. would be a reduction in There 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- adverse term minor to moderate impact on soils. s lternative A

mphasis E the

o f

ducation Alternative 3: Alternative 3: Interpretation Interpretation E s m pact I and o f

Alternative 3 would have some beneficial impacts on soils due to conversion of farm land to prairie. Construction activities could potentially have a temporary adverse impact on soils moderate from erosion and compaction in areas subject to construction. Minor adverse impacts from foot following construction traffic would be confined to areas around buildings and parking lots. would be a reduction in There thus uncontrolled human activity, a reduction in the potential for soil resulting compaction and erosion, beneficial in minor to moderate impacts on those areas. Future actions would contribute very little to cumulative impacts when considered with the long-term minor adverse impact on soils. to moderate s on o m pari C mphasis E u mm ary cological 7: S 7: E Alternative 2: Alternative 2: able T estoration estoration R Alternative 2 would have some beneficial impacts on soils due to conversion of farm land to prairie. usage would Increased trail result in minor impacts likely from compaction. on trails could also be moderate There impacts from compaction in which would parking areas, eventually be paved. Erosion impacts in the gorge itself would be negligible. could be moderate There adverse impacts on soil and the forest duff covering until the park has gorge walls the public the capacity to keep off the walls. Future actions would contribute very little to cumulative impacts when considered with the long-term adverse negligible to moderate impact on soils. airie. airie. 1. 1.

anagement ontinuation C M Alternative 1: Alternative 1: urrent urrent C o Action, Action, o N of Alternative 1 would have some beneficial impacts on soils due to conversion of farm land to pr to major could be moderate There adverse effects from erosion due to unauthorized trails. potential impacts on soils from The construction and use of the Ice trail would be Trail Age National Scenic mitigated to a negligible level. Future actions would contribute very little to cumulative impacts when considered with the long-term negligible to major adverse impact on soils from alternative opic T RESOURCES

L esource esource I R SO

68 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Chapter Two Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative Alternative 5: Alternative 5: referred Alternative referred P Future actions would contribute very little to cumulative impacts when considered with long-term adverse minor to moderate impact on the soundscape. There would be negligible There to minor adverse impacts on the soundscape from increased visitation. Same as alternative 3. Same as alternative 3. Same as alternative 3. Same as alternative 3. ecreation ecreation R mphasis E Alternative 4: Alternative 4: utdoor O ) Cumulative impacts would be the 3. alternative for described as same There would be minor adverse There impacts on the soundscape from increased visitation. Construction activities would result in temporary adverse impacts on moderate the soundscape. Same as alternative 3. Same as alternative 3. Same as alternative 3. Same as alternative 3. continued ( mphasis E s lternative A

the

ducation Alternative 3: Alternative 3: Interpretation Interpretation o f E

and s m pact I Future actions would contribute very little to cumulative impacts when considered with the long-term minor adverse impact on to moderate the soundscape. There would be minor adverse There impacts on the soundscape from increased visitation. activities would result in Renovation impacts adverse moderate temporary on the soundscape. Impacts on water quality from road Impacts on water such as road maintenance activities, would continue. salt runoff, If impacts from future actions were added to the negligible moderate quality adverse impacts on water there would be from alternative 3, long-term negligible to moderate adverse cumulative impacts on quality in the complex. water There would be a negligible impact There from installation of on groundwater a new well and septic system near the core area of property. o f s on o m pari mphasis C E cological E u mm ary Alternative 2: Alternative 2: estoration estoration 7: S 7: R Future actions would contribute very little to cumulative impacts when considered with the long-term adverse negligible to moderate impact on the soundscape. There would be negligible negligible be would There adverse impacts on the soundscape from increased visitation. would result Building removal adverse moderate in temporary impacts on the soundscape. The discontinuation of The chemicals would agricultural have a beneficial effect likely but the on groundwater, amount of this effect cannot be quantified. quality from Impacts on water road maintenance activities, would such as road salt runoff, future from impacts If continue. actions were added to the negligible adverse impacts on quality from alternative water there would be long-term 2, adverse negligible to moderate cumulative impacts on water quality in the complex. Restoring presettlement vegetation would result in negligible adverse effects on groundwater. able T anagement ontinuation C M Alternative 1: Alternative 1: urrent urrent C o Action, Action, o N of here would be negligible adverse here would be negligible adverse Future actions would contribute very little to cumulative impacts when considered with the long-term negligible adverse impact on the soundscape. T impacts on the soundscape from visitation. Impacts on water quality from road Impacts on water such as road maintenance activities, would continue. salt runoff, Future actions would contribute very little to cumulative impacts when considered with the potential long- term negligible adverse impact on quality. water impact from agricultural runoff impact from agricultural applied. being are chemicals no because T TY I opic L PES T A A U SC Q D TER esource esource R SOUN WA

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 69 CH APter TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 5: Alternative 5: referred Alternative referred P Same impacts as presented for alternative 1. Cumulative impacts would be the same as described for alternative 2. Same as alternative 4. Same as alternative 4. ecreation ecreation R mphasis E Alternative 4: Alternative 4: utdoor O ) Same impacts as presented for alternative 1. Cumulative impacts would be the 2. alternative for described as same The combination of management The prescriptions (almost evenly divided between landscape expanded interpretation, and recreational experience, experience) would result natural in minor beneficial impacts on vegetation and wildlife. continued ( mphasis E s lternative A

the

o f ducation Alternative 3: Alternative 3:

Interpretation Interpretation E and s m pact I Same impacts as presented for alternative 1. Cumulative impacts would be the same as described for alternative 2. Since there would be a range of Since there would be a range to reveal glacial features ways resource through natural planting management (for example, short row crops or prairie impacts on vegetation and grasses), from negligible wildlife would range beneficial. to moderately o f

owever, owever, s on o m pari H C mphasis E u mm ary cological E Alternative 2: Alternative 2: 7: S 7: estoration estoration R able T Same impacts as presented for alternative 1. If future actions were added to the beneficial impacts of there would be alternative 2, combined long-term minor to adverse cumulative moderate impacts on vegetation and wildlife in the complex. the effects would not add to adverse cumulative the overall impacts because alternative 2 actions would all be beneficial. Managing the complex for a in which experience, natural vegetation would be restored to would presettlement conditions, beneficial have a moderate wildlife. and vegetation on impact ely anagement ontinuation C M ails, there would be ails, Alternative 1: Alternative 1: urrent urrent C o Action, Action, o FE I N of L D All alternatives would produce beneficial impacts by lik of adjacent increasing the value all alternatives would lands; have adverse impacts on the local tax base if lands were owned. federally Economic impacts could be depending beneficial or adverse, on net property tax receipts. Future actions, when considered Future actions, with the long-term negligible adverse impact on vegetation and would 1, alternative under wildlife, contribute very little to cumulative impacts when considered with the long-term negligible adverse impact on vegetation and wildlife. Because there would be few defined tr some risk of vegetation trampling from the creation of social trails, but potential adverse vegetation would impacts from trampling be negligible. likely L CS D WI D I N A opic T ON I T A OECONOM I esource esource R SOC VEGET

70 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Chapter Two Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative 1.

Alternative 5: Alternative 5: referred Alternative referred P Cumulative impacts would be the same as presented for alternative Available activities would offer Available a beneficial experience for visitors over current conditions; this alternative would result in beneficial impacts on moderate visitor experience. mphasis E ecreation ecreation R Alternative 4: Alternative 4: ) utdoor O Cumulative impacts would be the 1. alternative for presented as same Available activities would offer a Available beneficial experience for visitors and this over current conditions, alternative would result in minor beneficial impacts on to moderate visitor experience. continued 1.

( mphasis E s lternative A

the

o f ducation Alternative 3: Alternative 3:

Interpretation Interpretation E and s m pact I Cumulative impacts would be the same as presented for alternative Available activities would offer a offer would activities Available over visitors for experience beneficial alternative this and conditions, current beneficial minor in result would experience. visitor on impacts o f s on o m pari C mphasis E u mm ary cological E Alternative 2: Alternative 2: 7: S 7: estoration estoration R able T Cumulative impacts would be the 1. alternative for presented as same Same impacts as presented for alternative 1. anagement ontinuation C M Alternative 1: Alternative 1: urrent urrent C o Action, Action, o ENCE I N of ailable activities would offer owever, the development of owever, The beneficial impacts on visitor The experience from each of the five when combined with alternatives, other present and reasonably foreseeable future actions outside would result in the complex, long-term negligible to minor adverse cumulative impacts, depending on the amount and location of development and volume. level of increase in traffic H path would add a moderate bike beneficial increment to the overall cumulative impact. Av some beneficial experience for visitors over current conditions, and this alternative would result in negligible to minor beneficial impacts on visitor experience. There would be either long- There 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 All visitation to the complex. five alternatives would contribute a very small increment to cumulative impacts. EXPER D N A opic T USE

TOR I esource esource S R I V

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 71 CH APter TWO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

72 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

Affected Chapter Three Environment

h i s c h a p t e r d e s c r i b e s the existing environment T 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. Geologic and Soil Resources

The Ice Age Complex at Cross At some time in the past, Plains (“Ice Age Complex” solution of the dolomite or “complex”) straddles two resulted in the formation of distinctly different landscapes. cave passages that likely run The northern and eastern beneath the area. A collapse of edges were covered by glaciers over-lying sandstone into one during the Late Wisconsin of these caves has resulted in glaciation, which began 25,000 at least two sinkholes. One of to 30,000 years ago. Excellent sinkholes now drains water examples of end moraine, from Shoveler Pond into this ice marginal and subglacial likely cave system during the channels, glacial outwash, spring when water levels and ice marginal lakes are are high. within the boundaries. The remainder of the complex is During the Late Wisconsin in the driftless area and was glaciation, this erosional apparently never glaciated. landscape was modified by Its hills and valleys are a torrents of glacial meltwater product of millions of years of that flowed down Black hillslope and stream erosion Earth Creek valley and lesser on sedimentary bedrock that amounts that flowed from the consists of sandstone ice margin along what is now and dolomite. The soils Timber Lane and Old Sauk in this area consist Pass Road. This water flowed of weathered northward along the ice margin bedrock covered before draining into the Black by windblown silt Earth Creek valley, first along called loess. the ice edge and later beneath the ice in what is now called Cross Plains gorge.

Early morning dew drops.

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 75 CH APter THREE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Bedrock Geology walls of Cross Plains gorge and along steep slopes facing Black Earth Creek. Fossils called The bedrock in the Ice Age Complex is “stromatolites” dominate the rocks deposited all sedimentary and consists primarily of during this time, but they are rare and are not sandstone and dolomite of Paleozoic age. an important part of the resource. Figure 10 shows the distribution of bedrock units at the complex. Figure 11 portrays a Figure 11 shows that sand and gravel cover north-south cross section though the complex the bedrock units in most valley bottoms and showing the sedimentary rock units. Cambrian under the Johnstown moraine, so rock is not sandstone does not crop out at the surface, but mapped there. Because most of the contacts it is close to the surface in Black Earth Creek are covered, this map portrays the likely valley. There are small surface outcrops of the distribution of rocks, but it should not be remaining rock units at the complex, and not used for site-specific purposes without drilling all of these have been mapped. There are no or further research. 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

76 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS 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.

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 77 CH APter THREE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

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

The materials above the bedrock are too Figure 12 shows that several shallow lakes were thin to show on figure 11. Contacts between present when the ice was at the Johnstown bedrock units are mostly projected into the moraine. L1 is the highest; L2 was just slightly cross-section from logs of wells located south, lower and was damned by ice in the present east, and west of the complex. Because most position of Old Sauk Road; and L3 was of the contacts are covered, this cross section substantially lower than L1 and L 2. Possible portrays the likely distribution of rocks but sinkholes are depicted by h1 and h2. should not be used for site-specific purposes without drilling or other further research. Platteville dolomite of the Sinnipee Group was In particular, the bottom contact of the St. deposited in the sea about 450 million years Peter sandstone is quite variable over short ago. It is well exposed in the Wingra Stone distances, and its thickness varies considerably. quarry north of Mineral Point Road and the road cut on Mineral Point Road. There are low The Prairie du Chien dolomite is overlain exposures of it elsewhere. Corals, mollusks, by the St. Peter sandstone. Although most of and brachiopods are common, especially the sandstone was deposited in the shallow farther west in the driftless area. They are ocean, part of the St. Peter sandstone consists very difficult to find in the dolomite at the of wind blown sand. All of it is made up of complex, and they are not an important part well-rounded, quite pure quartz sand. St. Peter of the resource. The Platteville dolomite is the sandstone is the surface rock in much of the youngest bedrock in the Ice Age Complex. central part of the Ice Age Complex. It is well Many of the surrounding hills that are part of exposed at the sinkhole near the northeastern the viewscape, especially those to the west, edge of the Shoveler Pond (“h1” on figure 12). are capped with the even younger Galena It is also exposed along the trail just south of dolomite. West Blue Mound, the highest hill the Wilkie farm buildings. St. Peter sandstone that can be seen from the Ice Age Complex, is contains some trace fossils, such as worm capped by even younger Silurian dolomite. burrows, but they are not seen in the small outcrops at the Ice Age Complex. Fossils are not an important part of this resource.

78 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS 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

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 79 CH APter THREE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The remaining geologic and soil resources Johnstown Moraine. Moraines are ridges of result from earth surface processes such as glacial debris. They form wherever sand and weathering, erosion, and glaciation. gravel and till are piled up either on or adjacent to a glacier. End moraines are those that form Karst Topography. Karst topography develops at the edge (end) of the glacier as debris is when limestone bedrock is eroded and carried to the ice margin and released as the dissolved by surface and groundwater. Caves glacier ice melts. The moraine at the outer edge and caverns are common in limestone, and of the southern Green Bay lobe is called the a common surface expression of karst is the Johnstown moraine. sinkhole, or sink. A sinkhole forms where surface water finds a path down into the In much of southern Wisconsin, moraines are limestone. Solution of the limestone takes only about 50 feet high and 0.25 to 0.5 mile place, slowly enlarging the opening and wide. The best place to see the moraine at allowing more water to pass through. In some the Ice Age Complex is northwest of the cases a sinkhole can form rapidly when the intersection of Cleveland Road and Old Sauk roof of the cave collapses. Pass. There is a single crested ridge up to 50 feet high. There are scattered erratics on the surface. Shoveler Sink drains into a sinkhole at times of high water. It has no other outlet. The location Glacial Lakes. Glacial lakes are also called of the sinkhole is shown as h1 on figure 12. ice-dammed lakes. When the glacier sat at The land around the sinkhole appears to have the Johnstown moraine, the climate was very been modified by human activity. There is cold, and there was permafrost in front of another depression north of the h1 sinkhole. and beneath the glacier edge. Meltwater was This might be a sinkhole, or it might be an probably only produced on warm days for abandoned small quarry that was mined at a month or two in summer. Water that was some time in the past. When viewed in 2009, produced by melting was dammed between there was no evidence of water entering the the glacier and the hills of the driftless ground through this depression. area landscape to the west in several small basins at the Ice Age Complex. Lake L1 on When the glacier was present just to the east, figure 12 had the highest level. There is still it is possible that these sinkholes were actually silty lake sediment at least up to an elevation springs where groundwater discharged. Water of 1,150 feet and perhaps slightly higher. A under pressure would have been forced narrow band of outwash sand separates the through the groundwater system, and would finer silty lake sediment from the till in the have been able to come to the surface outside Johnstown moraine. Lake L2 seems to have the ice-covered area. There were likely also been just slightly lower than Lake L1. Water springs discharging glacial melt water into from Lake L2 drained through a drainage way the upper part of the Sugar River basin at the into Lake L3. southwest edge of the Ice Age Complex. It appears that Lake L3 drained through an Glacial Deposits. The most recent glaciation, the ice-marginal channel along the ice edge across late Wisconsin Glaciation, began in Wisconsin the ridge north of Old Sauk Pass and into Black about 30,000 calendar years ago. Ice from Earth Creek valley before Cross Plains gorge Canada, north of the eastern part of the Lake was cut. At some point, perhaps when climate Superior basin, advanced southwestward down warmed enough to allow melting at the bottom the Green Bay–Lake Winnebago lowland. This of the glacier near its edge, water found its way lobe of ice is called the Green Bay lobe, and under the ice and down the steep slope on the its maximum extent lies along the eastern and side of Black Earth Creek valley. It was this flow northern edges of the Ice Age Complex. of water that eroded Cross Plains gorge.

80 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Chapter Three Affected Environment

Lake L4 formed in a north-flowing tributary productive nature of these soils: “Dane County valley of Black Earth Creek between the glacier is one of the most productive agricultural edge and the Driftless Area upland. It could counties in Wisconsin.” At the same time, the have been dammed directly by the ice, or it comprehensive plan notes that “the County is could have been dammed by the accumulating in the third most threatened farm area in the outwash in Black Earth Creek valley. country.” One of the reasons for this threat is the rapid pace of development that removes Cross Plains Gorge and Black Earth Creek Valley. productive soils from cultivation (VCP 2008, Cross Plains gorge is a submarginal chute, a p. 17). type of channel that carries water from the ice edge down under the ice. Its location was probably determined by a pre-existing Water Quality weakness or opening in the ice such as a crevasse. The water in Lake L3 (on figure 12) The region surrounding the Ice Age Complex was about 200 feet higher than the Black Earth contains one of the Midwest’s most important Creek valley, and water would naturally take trout fishing streams, the Black Earth Creek. the steepest path available to the bottom of the This small spring-fed stream runs from the valley. Once water made its way beneath the terminal moraine near Cross Plains, northwest ice to the bottom of Black Earth Creek valley, to the Wisconsin River, traversing a number of water under high pressure and flowing rapidly scenic hill-and-valley landscapes along the way. cut the deep gorge that we see today. Black The creek and its surrounding lands provide Earth Creek valley now has outwash sand and a number of recreational opportunities such gravel over 200 feet thick that was deposited by as fishing, hiking, snowshoeing, cross-country braided streams flowing beneath and in front skiing, and horseback riding. Because of its of the glacier. high recreational and ecological value, the creek was named as one of Wisconsin’s “Land Legacy” areas, which are regions of the state Soils that are important in meeting the state’s Tens of millions of years of erosion by recreation and conservation needs. Within rainwash on slopes and by streams produced the proposed complex, the glacier originally most of the hills and valleys in the landscape impounded four proglacial lakes. Today, today. Soils on bedrock in the driftless area are the southernmost proglacial lake has been of two main origins. Weathering of sandstone divided in two by County Trunk S (Mineral produced quartz sand, and weathering of Point Road) and consists of two water-filled dolomite produced a clayey residuum that basins: Coyle Pond and Shoveler Sink. The is distinctly different. Over both of these other proglacial lakes are dry and filled with weathering products, windblown silt, called agricultural crops. There are a few intermittent loess, was deposited during the last glaciation. streams that bisect the complex. One follows In general, soils in the unglaciated part of the a deep ravine on the south side of the former Ice Age Complex are thin silt loams that are Wilkie property before emptying onto the susceptible to erosion on steep slopes. Soils are former McNutt property at the western edge thicker near the base of slopes. of the proposed site. There is at least one spring north of Old Sauk Pass that has been Soils on the moraine are also silt loam soils partially developed to include a stock tank. for the most part. In places where the loess The spring drains northward toward Black cover is thin, rocks from the underlying till Earth Creek. In the center of the complex, show through. Soils on the former lake beds south of Old Sauk Pass, water runoff travels (refer to figure 12) are silty and sandy with few north to a depression where it enters and flows stones. In its comprehensive plan (VCP 2008), through the gorge, eventually reaching Black the village of Cross Plains commented on the Earth Creek.

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 81 CH APter THREE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Nearly all of the Ice Age Complex is a The southern dry-mesic forest is prominently groundwater recharge area, meaning surface red and white oak, with shagbark hickory, water goes into the groundwater system. black cherry, white oak, and basswood as However, much of the precipitation that falls canopy associates. Disturbance history and on the uplands runs off on the surface. Some landscape position have allowed variability of that water flows northward to Black Earth within the areas of southern dry-mesic forest. Creek, some southward to the Sugar River, This variability includes areas dominated by and some eastward to the Yahara River basin. large white oak, some greater than 24 inches Because the walls and the floor of Cross Plains in diameter, and open grown; some areas gorge are steep, precipitation that falls there dominated by red oak with white birch and does not remain in the gorge, but instead big-tooth aspen as canopy associates; and flows northward towards Black Earth Creek. other areas with a very widely spaced canopy Shoveler Sink and Coyle Pond sit on the and a dense tall shrub layer composed mostly surface water divide between these basins. of common buckthorn and prickly ash.

The southern mesic forest can be found in the Soundscapes narrow bottoms of steep ravines. This forest is characterized by a canopy of sugar maple There is abundant natural quiet within most of with basswood and ironwood as associates. the complex given its isolation from road noise The shrub layer has a moderate cover, with and from an urban center. While there are eastern prickly gooseberry as a common farms throughout the site, they are small farms, species. The forest ground layer has many not large agricultural operations, and generate species that bloom in the spring and include little unnatural sound. As one moves from the wild ginger, sharp-lobed hepatica, jack-in- center of the complex towards its northern the-pulpit, mayapple, and bloodroot. Spring and eastern edges along U.S. Highway 14 and ephemerals are also present, although not Timber Lane, natural quiet dissipates and road abundant. Shoveler Sink is currently fringed noises begin to dominate. Similarly, the sound by reed canary grass with some sedges and of traffic from the two roads (Old Sauk Pass smartweeds. Many of the uplands have been and Mineral Point Road) that traverse the site planted into prairie with big bluestem and becomes louder the closer one moves towards switch grass, as well as smooth brome grass for those roads. This sound assessment is based hay and pasturing. Many of the open fields in on experience of the team members writing the Ice Age Complex are cropped for corn and this plan; a formal sound inventory has not soybeans or remain as old fields. been conducted at the complex. There is one rare plant in the Ice Age Complex: Vegetation and Wildlife the heart-leaved skullcap (Scutellaria ovata). This plant prefers dry-mesic forests and The Wisconsin Department of Natural flowers from early June to late July. The Resources notes that the Ice Age Complex heart-leaved skullcap has been given comprises three ecological landscapes: “special concern” status by the Western Coulee and Ridges, Central Sand state, wherein a problem with Hills, and Southeast Glacial Plains. Although the species abundance or this combination of landscapes in the complex distribution is suspected indicates a variety of native vegetation, but not yet proved. The southern dry-mesic forest dominated the main purpose of this site before European settlement. category is to focus attention on certain species before they become threatened or endangered.

82 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Chapter Three Affected Environment

Because oak openings, also called “oak hooded warbler starts a bit later (in late May) savanna,” are so rare today in comparison and also extends through mid-July. to their large historic range, restoring oak openings has been given special attention The two birds of special concern are the in recent years. The Board of Regents at the western meadowlark and the yellow-billed University of Wisconsin has noted that “In cuckoo. The western meadowlark inhabits the 1800s, oak savanna (or oak openings) pastures and small grain fields, as well as once covered more than 5,000,000 acres in other short, open grasslands and agriculture Wisconsin . . . now, only a few thousand fields, including hayfields. The yellow-billed [acres] of this native landscape remain” cuckoo prefers open deciduous woodlands (UW 2001). The Ice Age Complex historically with dense shrubby undergrowth, especially contained oak openings. In the absence of along the backwaters of a major river or slow- fire, many of the historic oak openings have moving creek. converted to closed-canopy forests. According to Wisconsin’s Natural Heritage Inventory The WDNR staff have observed the red- Program, “the presence of several areas with headed woodpecker, a “species of greatest open-grown and semi-open-grown oaks and conservation need,” in the walnut grove some residual savanna ground layer species bordering the south side of Old Sauk Pass. such as Tinker’s weed, indicates that there is a This presence indicates that red-headed possibility of restoring the critically imperiled woodpeckers would be expected to nest in globally rare oak opening natural community cavity trees if oak opening is restored. within the project area” (WDNR et al. 2006). Shoveler Sink, a remnant glacial depression, Some invasive plants are well-established provides excellent habitat for migratory birds within the Ice Age Complex, including such as waterfowl, shorebirds, songbirds, and common buckthorn, Tatarian honeysuckle, waterbirds seeking a freshwater pond, marsh, prickly ash, and reed canary grass. Other and grassland. An online checklist program invasive plants that occur and present (“eBird”) for recreational and professional bird possible future threats to diversity include watchers highlights this important resource, garlic mustard, winged burning-bush, star-of- in that at least 17 species of waterfowl have Bethlehem, multiflora rose, Asian bittersweet, been observed using the pond. Waterbirds Japanese barberry, and common burdock. recorded include several species of herons and Numerous other invasive species are present in large numbers of geese and cranes that stage the old field and planted prairie areas. there (eBird 2008). The presence of food and water are two important resources present at There are two species of birds that are listed Shoveler Sink that allow for large numbers of as “threatened” on a state level in the Ice Age individuals from many species to accumulate Complex and two species that have a special during migration. The pond provides floating concern status. The threatened birds are and submerged plants in the open water zone Henslow’s sparrow, which prefers old fields, and is surrounded by an emergent zone that open grasslands, wet meadows, unmowed includes cattails, smartweed, and arrowheads highway right-of-ways, undisturbed pastures, whose tubers provide important food for timothy hay fields, and fallow land grown up to migrating waterfowl and geese. 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

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 83 CH APter THREE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Shoveler Sink is also an important area for The grasslands surrounding Shoveler Sink, as breeding amphibians, which in turn, makes well as the old agricultural fields in the complex, it very attractive for waterbirds such as such as the former McNutt lands, support herons and cranes. Stresses to migratory several conservative grassland obligate species birds include habitat destruction and habitat like Henslow’s sparrow (8–10 nesting pairs alteration (Duncan 2002). Many similar in 2008); eastern meadowlark; one western ponds and depressions have been filled for meadowlark; several bobolink; and dickcissel. agriculture and development, both of which could threaten the viability of this valuable Socioeconomics resource. As this depression is maintained through direct precipitation and runoff The Ice Age Complex is located in the village from the surrounding landscape, nutrient of Cross Plains, Wisconsin, between Cross runoff could pose an indirect threat if not Plains and Middleton, and about 10 miles west monitored closely. of the center of Madison (figure 13).

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

84 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Chapter Three Affected Environment

This area is increasing in population. The Although land use is typically a separate village of Cross Plains grew from 2,362 to consideration in a socioeconomic analysis, 3,084 in the 1990s — a 23% increase. This impacts on land use would be the same because growth makes Cross Plains among the fastest all of the GMP/EIS alternatives would change growing communities in Dane County (other how land is used in essentially the same way. communities are Middleton and Madison). Each of the alternatives proposes working The county had a population in 2000 of with private owners of all of the land in the 426,526 and is also a fast-growing area. Dane complex to protect it from incompatible uses, County is estimated to have a population of such as dense development, either by publically 505,385 by 2030. In comparison, the 2030 acquiring the land or by employing another estimate for Cross Plains is 3,654. Note land protection tool, such as the purchase of an that these growth projections are from the easement. All of the alternatives would change Wisconsin Department of Administration, land use in this way, and their impacts on land but the village of Cross Plains used a different use do not differ (see chapter 4 for impacts that method (acceptable levels of residential could result from each alternative). development) in its recent comprehensive plan (VCP 2008) to come up with a projection for Cross Plains of 6,084 by 2030. Extrapolating Visitor Experience this method to the overall Dane County population, the projection for Dane County NPS Management Policies 2006 state that would be 841,478. Therefore, using this the enjoyment of park resources and values alternate estimating method, population is part of the fundamental purpose of all growth could be even stronger. parks and that the National Park Service is committed to providing appropriate, high- Today, the population of this area is relatively quality opportunities for visitors to enjoy the young (40% are between ages of 20 and parks. Because many forms of recreation can 44) and relatively well-educated (60% have take place outside a national park setting, the attended at least some college in comparison National Park Service seeks to to 50% statewide) (VCP 2008, p. 9). provide opportunities for forms of Like many local governments around the enjoyment that are uniquely suited and country, Cross Plains has been struggling appropriate to the superlative natural in recent years to increase tax revenues and and cultural resources found in a retain open space. There has been pressure to particular unit develop the lands that comprise the complex in order to increase property tax revenue, but defer to local, state, and other federal at the same time, there is tremendous support agencies; private industry; and for keeping these lands free from development. nongovernmental organizations to meet The vision stated in the Village of Cross Plains the broader spectrum of recreational Comprehensive Plan includes these sentences: needs and demands that are not “The rich natural resources of the village dependent on a national park setting and surrounding countryside and the Black Unless mandated by statute, the National Earth Creek in particular will continue to be Park Service will not allow visitors to conduct a defining feature of the community due to activities that careful preservation efforts” and “Though ties with Madison will strengthen, the Village will would impair park resources or values retain its character and identity.” Among the specific goals of the comprehensive plan are to would create an unsafe or “limit conversion of farmland” and “safeguard unhealthful environment for other against increased future erosion.” visitors or employees

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 85 CH APter 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.

86 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

Environmental Chapter Four Consequences

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

The National Park Service in this document. For each (NPS) Director’s Order impact topic, there is a 12: Conservation Planning, description of the methods Environmental Impact Analysis, and assumptions used for the and Decisionmaking and its impact analysis. The impact accompanying Handbook analysis discussions are require that impacts on park organized by resource topic, resources be analyzed in terms followed by each alternative of their context, duration, and under each topic. Table 7 in intensity. It is crucial for the chapter 2 provides a summary public and decision makers to of the impacts. understand the implications of those impacts in the short NPS Management Policies and long term, cumulatively, 2006 (1.4) requires analysis of and within context, based potential effects to determine on an understanding and whether the alternatives would interpretation by resource impair a park’s resources and professionals and specialists. values. The determination of impairment for the preferred This chapter analyzes the alternative is contained in environmental impacts appendix B. of implementing any Bird tracks in one of the five the snow. alternatives proposed

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 89 CH APter FOUR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Definitions for Pa st, Present, and Reasonably Evaluating Effects Foreseeable Future Actions

The impact discussion for each resource topic On or In the Vicinity of the describes the types of impacts (same as the Ice Age Complex term “effects”) that would result from taking no action or implementing any of the four Cumulative actions are those that have additive action alternatives; those effects are described impacts on a particular environmental resource. according to the definitions shown below. It is irrelevant who takes these actions (that is, they are not confined to NPS or even federal Types of Effects activities), or whether they took place in the past, are taking place in the present, or could Beneficial Effects. These effects would result take place in the reasonably foreseeable future. in a change that moves a resource toward its The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) desired condition. interprets the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and CEQ’s NEPA regulations on Adverse Effects. These effects would result in cumulative effects as requiring analysis and a a change that moves a resource away from its concise description of the identifiable present desired condition. effects of past actions to the extent they are relevant and useful in analyzing whether the Direct Effects. These effects would be caused reasonably foreseeable effects of the agency’s by the action and occur at the same place and proposed action and alternatives could have a time as the action. continuing, additive, and significant relationship to those effects. Indirect Effects. These effects would also be caused by the action, would occur later in time, and The current or reasonably foreseeable future would be further removed in distance but would actions considered for the purpose of assessing still be reasonably foreseeable; or the response cumulative effects in this chapter include of the target resource would be triggered by the reaction of another resource to the action. agricultural activities Cumulative Effects. These effects would result construction of a bike path by the village from the incremental impact of the action of Cross Plains along U.S. Highway 14, when added to other past, present, and with a possible decision by NPS staff to reasonably foreseeable future actions. provide a route through the complex to connect the city of Middleton to the Duration of Effects village of Cross Plains Short-term Effects. These effects would be temporary, lasting a year or less, such as effects new residential development associated with construction. snowmobiling outside the complex Long-term Effects. These effects would last boundaries more than one year and could be permanent. events, such as the Ford Ironman Intensity of Effects (whose course currently runs through the complex) “Intensity” refers to the severity of effects or the degree to which an action would adversely road maintenance activities such as or beneficially affect a resource. The intensity salting for ice melt, which results in definitions are presented in each resource runoff and impacts on water quality section because they vary by resource topic.

90 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Chapter Four Environmental Consequences

Soil Resources Negligible. Soil compaction or vegetation disturbance that creates erosion might occur, Analysis Methodology but the change would be so small that it would not be measurable. This impact analysis is based on the knowledge of the soil types at the complex and also how Minor. Soil compaction or vegetation development and other land use changes disturbance that creates erosion would occur would impact soils. Soils could be adversely and would be measurable but would have little impacted by human activity in two ways: either consequence. by increased activity, which would cause soil compaction along trails, parking areas, and Moderate. Soil compaction or vegetation other developed areas; or by disturbance of disturbance that creates erosion would occur vegetation cover and forest duff on the soil and would be measurable, resulting in small- surface, which could lead to soil erosion. scale consequences that could be remedied. Disturbance of vegetation is a potential problem, particularly on steep slopes in the Major. Soil compaction or vegetation Cross Plains gorge and along the edge of Black disturbance that creates erosion would be Earth Creek valley. substantial at certain locations and would not be easily remedied. “Intensity” refers to the severity of effects or the degree to which an action would Alternative 1: No Action, Continuation adversely or beneficially affect a resource. The intensity levels used to evaluate impacts of Current Management — Direct and on soils are listed below. The intensity levels Indirect Impacts on Soils below apply only to adverse impacts. When It is expected that alternative 1 would have the term “beneficial” is used in this analysis some beneficial impacts on soils due to to describe impacts, those impacts would conversion of farm land to prairie. Some always be negligible and long term. In this case soils would be removed from cultivation and “beneficial” refers to the avoidance of loss converted to their presettlement condition of productive soil as opposed to increasing (mostly prairie). The ability to farm the prime the amount of soil. The formation of soil is soils today would be curtailed, and the soils a complex process that can take more than a would be retained for the future because the thousand years to produce just a single inch deep roots of prairie grasses are very effective of soil. During the process rocks, minerals, at holding soil. and other parent materials are weathered. The resulting soil varies, depending on the The intensity of impacts on soils caused by degree of weathering (a function of climate); trail construction would be limited to minor the duration of weathering (a function of ground disturbance within the narrow tread time); the site-specific biological activity; and corridor. The potential impacts on soils from landscape position (a function of topography). constructing and using the trail would be Because of this long, natural process, the mitigated to a negligible level with proper activities that would take place under any of layout of the trail on the landscape (for the alternatives would either adversely affect example, on slopes less than 10%), erosion soil in a way that would take generations to control techniques, planking or bridges, reverse or avoid adverse impacts that would and trail monitoring. The proper erosion- otherwise be expected (called “beneficial control techniques that would be employed, impacts” in this analysis). as necessary, include sidehill construction, waterbars, and drainage dips. Soils that are particularly unsuitable, such as in poorly

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 91 CH APter FOUR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

drained areas, would be avoided. If the trail is limited to hiking. If there is no enforcement must cross a wet area, planking or bridges of restrictions on the use of this trail, and would minimize the negative impacts from this if use by horseback riders were to increase, crossing. Volunteer trail maintainers would there would be a moderate impact due to monitor trails to help identify any cumulative compaction. There is compaction at small erosion problems so that appropriate erosion- parking areas off Mineral Point Road and control actions could be taken. The National Timber Lane, but this land has already been Park Services, in conjunction with the disturbed, and there would be minimal Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources further compaction. and the Ice Age Park and Trail Foundation, has developed a handbook on trail design, The steep walls of Cross Plains gorge attract construction, and maintenance for the Ice Age visitors, and human activity has the potential National Scenic Trail. This handbook is used to damage both forest duff cover and soils, by all volunteer trail builders. The Ice Age Trail which could lead to substantial erosion Alliance also has a “mobile skills crew” that problems. While the steep walls of Black Earth trains volunteers to build sustainable trails Creek valley are also susceptible to erosion if with minimal environmental impacts. vegetation is disturbed, under present use, the slopes are not visited as much as those of the The present land use in the Ice Age Complex Cross Plains gorge. As time passes, however, would continue to be a mix of row crop this site could become better known, and agriculture (corn and soybeans), forest land, residential development might increase in and oak savanna. When agricultural fields are the area. If increased use is not accompanied plowed, soil surface is disturbed, and there by measures to protect these areas, such as a is wind erosion of silt particles and organic designed and delineated trail, damage to the particles off those surfaces. There is also water steep walls would be expected. There could erosion from the fields. There is similar land potentially be moderate to major erosion use throughout Dane County. The impacts impacts if uncontrolled human activity in the of agriculture on erosion would be minor to vicinity of Cross Plains gorge and Black Earth moderate, depending on numerous factors, Creek valley increased. such as the amount of tillage and use of grass strips to limit erosion in critical spots. Alternative 2: Ecological Restoration The Ice Age National Scenic Trail would Emphasis — Direct and Indirect still be built under this alternative but other Impacts on Soils trails would not. Over time, unauthorized Alternative 2 would have the same beneficial trails (paths created by visitors, rather than impacts on soils as expressed in the first formally planned and constructed) would paragraph under alternative 1. proliferate. Since there would be no plan providing comprehensive guidance on This alternative would contribute to increased resource management, resources would likely trail usage, compared to alternative 1 (no be managed inconsistently. There is currently action), and would therefore likely have a minimal impact from erosion and compaction minor impact on soils from compaction. in forest and oak savanna areas under present There would be moderate impact on soils use, with the exception of the Cross Plains from compaction in parking areas, but these gorge and the moraine between the Cross would not be large areas and would likely be Plains gorge and Cleveland Road. There is in the same places as in alternative 1. Paving currently minor impact on the trail on the the parking lots would contribute to increased moraine; impact would remain minor if usage runoff and would require proper management.

92 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Chapter Four Environmental Consequences

The installation of trails near, but not in, The construction of buildings and a surfaced Cross Plains gorge would minimize impact trail to Cross Plains gorge, as well as a bridge on the walls of the gorge. Erosion impacts in across the gorge, could potentially have a the gorge itself would be negligible because temporary moderate adverse impact on soils the public would be directed (with trail design from erosion and compaction in areas subject and signage) to stay off the walls of the gorge. to construction. There would be additional Because the complex would be managed from trails across the site that would create an off-site location, there would be little ability moderate compaction in the vicinity of the to enforce this direction. If the public does not trail. Once the landscape is stabilized following comply with the direction to stay off the gorge construction, compaction from visitor foot walls, there could be moderate adverse impacts traffic would be confined to the areas around on soil and the forest duff covering the wall buildings and parking lots, which could until the park has the capacity to stop this from potentially result in minor adverse impacts. happening, given the minimal off-site staff. The addition of a bicycle trail from the visitor center to a parking lot north of Black Alternative 3: Interpretation and Earth Creek would increase visitor activity in a sensitive area, resulting in a moderate Education Emphasis — Direct and Indirect adverse impact on the steep slopes facing Impacts on Soils the creek, especially along the trail. The on- Alternative 3 would have the same beneficial site interpretation and maintenance facilities impacts on soils as expressed in the first would potentially focus some visitor foot paragraph under alternative 1. traffic to the interpretation building and away from the steep walls of Cross Plains gorge and The construction of buildings and a surfaced steep slopes at the edge of Black Earth Creek trail to Cross Plains gorge could potentially valley. This would reduce the potential for soil have a temporary moderate adverse impact compaction and erosion from uncontrolled on soils from erosion and compaction in areas human activity, resulting in minor to moderate subject to construction. Once construction is beneficial impacts on those areas. completed, there would still be some potential for minor compaction from visitor use, but Alternative 5: Preferred Alternative — the minor impacts would be confined to areas Direct and Indirect Impacts on Soils around buildings and parking lots. The on- site interpretation and maintenance facilities Alternative 5 would have the same beneficial would potentially focus some visitor foot impacts on soils as expressed in the first traffic to the interpretation building and away paragraph under alternative 1. from the steep walls of Cross Plains gorge and steep slopes at the edge of Black Earth Creek The construction of buildings and a surfaced valley. This would reduce the potential for soil trail to Cross Plains gorge could potentially compaction and erosion from uncontrolled have a moderate adverse impact on soils from human activity, resulting in minor to moderate erosion and compaction during construction. beneficial impacts on those areas. There would be additional trails across the site that would create moderate compaction in the vicinity of the trail. Once the landscape is Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation stabilized following construction, compaction Emphasis — Direct and Indirect from visitor foot traffic would be confined to Impacts on Soils the areas around buildings and parking lots, Alternative 4 would have the same beneficial which could potentially result in minor adverse impacts on soils as expressed in the first impacts. The on-site interpretation and paragraph under alternative 1.

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 93 CH APter FOUR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

maintenance facilities would potentially focus Water Quality some visitor foot traffic to the interpretation building and away from the steep walls of Groundwater could potentially be Cross Plains gorge and steep slopes at the edge contaminated through openings in dolomite of Black Earth Creek valley. This would reduce rock. Of particular concern is the area of the potential for soil compaction and erosion Shoveler Sink and Coyle Pond, which both from uncontrolled human activity, resulting in sit on the surface water divide between Black minor to moderate beneficial impacts on Earth Creek, Sugar River, and Yahara River those areas. basins. The sink and pond are closed basins with no surface water outflow. The closed All Alternatives — Cumulative Impacts basins collect water from adjoining hillslopes on Soils and are areas of concentrated groundwater recharge. Normally, this takes place slowly The soils in much of the Ice Age Complex through sediment at the bottom of the ponds. have likely been altered by past activities At times of high water levels, they drain (such as agricultural practices). Some soils on into a sinkhole in fractured limestone, thus lands adjacent to the complex could be lost or potentially introducing contaminants into modified in the future if the village of Cross the groundwater system. The sinkhole allows Plains builds a bike path along U.S. Highway surface water to rapidly enter the groundwater 14. The decision could be made by NPS staff system without the benefit of “filtering” out to provide a route through the complex to contaminants. There is possibly a small cave connect the city of Middleton to the village system somewhere beneath this part of of Cross Plains. These actions would result in the complex. cumulative effects on soils in localized areas. Analysis Methodology Alternative 1: No Action, Continuation of Current Management. If impacts of the above- This impact analysis is based on knowledge described developments were added to the of water resources and flow patterns at the continuing minor to major adverse impacts Ice Age Complex. The analysis focuses on under the no-action alternative, there would groundwater impacts because, as described be a long-term negligible to major adverse in chapter 3, nearly all of the complex is a cumulative impact on area soils. groundwater recharge area, meaning surface water goes into the groundwater system. All Alternative 2: Ecological Restoration Emphasis. impacts on groundwater also apply to surface If impacts of present or future actions were water (such as Coyle Pond, Shoveler Sink, and added to the negligible to moderate adverse Black Earth Creek). impacts under alternative 2, there would be a long-term minor to moderate adverse The intensity levels used to evaluate impacts cumulative impact on area soils. on water quality are provided below.

Alternative 3: Interpretation and Education Negligible. Changes would be either barely Emphasis; Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation detectable or would have effects that would be Emphasis; and Alternative 5: Preferred considered slight and localized. Alternative. If impacts of present and future actions were added to the minor to moderate Minor. An action would have measurable adverse impacts under alternatives 3, 4, and 5, effects on water quality in a localized area. there would be long-term minor to moderate adverse cumulative impacts on area soils. Moderate. An action would have clearly detectable effects on water quality and would potentially affect natural ecological processes.

94 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Chapter Four Environmental Consequences

Major. An action would have substantial effects Cumulative Impacts on Water Quality on water quality and would potentially affect Water quality in much of the Ice Age Complex natural ecological processes. is generally in good condition and has not been greatly altered by past activities (such as Alternative 1: No Action, Continuation of agricultural practices). Current Management — Direct and Indirect Impacts on Water Quality The small basin that collects surface water that flows into the Coyle Pond is partly At this time, the small basin that collects surface used for row crops at this time. None of the water that flows into Coyle Pond is partly used alternatives would restrict land use in this area, for row crops. Whatever tillage techniques so it could remain in intensive agriculture. are used, the application of herbicides and Whatever tillage techniques are used, the fertilizer has the potential to contaminate application of herbicides and fertilizers could groundwater by passing through the limestone result in a moderate potential to contaminate beneath the sinkhole. At this time land around groundwater by passing through the Shoveler Sink is not in intensive agriculture, and limestone beneath the sinkhole. Land around chemicals are not being applied to the fields, Shoveler Sink is not in intensive agriculture, so there is currently negligible adverse impact and chemicals are not being applied to the from agricultural runoff. fields, so there would be minimal impacts from agricultural runoff. If land use were Alternative 2: Ecological Restoration to remain the same, then any impacts from Emphasis — Direct and Indirect the alternatives, combined with agricultural Impacts on Water Quality activities, would potentially result in negligible cumulative impacts. Impacts on water quality Any adverse impact on groundwater would from road maintenance activities, such as road be negligible because the small basin that salt runoff, would continue. collects surface water flowing into Coyle Pond would be put back into presettlement Water quality could be adversely affected by vegetation under this alternative. In fact, over potential future new development on adjacent time, agricultural chemicals would not enter lands. The Ice Age National Scenic Trail would the groundwater system through the sink, so eventually be developed through the complex. this would likely have a beneficial effect on The possible future actions outside the complex groundwater quality, but the amount of this boundary could affect water quality in Black effect cannot be quantified. Earth Creek and possibly Shoveler Sink.

Alternative 3: Interpretation and Alternative 1: No Action, Continuation of Current Education Emphasis; Management. If potential impacts from the above activities were added to the continuing Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation negligible adverse impacts under the no- Emphasis; and action alternative, there would be long-term Alternative 5: Preferred Alternative — negligible adverse cumulative impacts on water Direct and Indirect Impacts on Water Quality quality, depending on the type and quantity of pollutants that enter the waters within the These alternatives envision an indoor facility complex. However, the level of impacts added with modern amenities (such as indoor by the no-action alternative would be relatively plumbing) for visitors, so there would be a small compared to the impact from pollutants need for a new well and septic system near the being added from actions outside the core area of the property. These would be built complex boundary. to appropriate codes and would therefore have a negligible impact on groundwater.

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 95 CH APter FOUR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Alternative 2: Ecological Restoration Emphasis. If unnatural sounds would be beneficial to the impacts from the above activities were added soundscape, and activities that would add or to the negligible adverse impacts on water increase unnatural sounds would result in quality under alternative 2 (negligible because adverse impacts. Note that traffic noise on U.S. of the conversion of agricultural lands back Highway 14, Timber Lane, and Mineral Point to presettlement vegetation), there would Road would likely continue to grow regardless be long-term negligible to moderate adverse of the future direction of the complex. The cumulative impacts on the complex’s water volume of traffic on these roads is related quality, depending on the type and quantity much more strongly to land use patterns in the of pollutants that might enter the waters in region (suburban and exurban development) the complex. However, the level of impacts than to land use in the complex. The analysis added by alternative 2 would be relatively below refers only to the soundscape impacts small compared to the impact from pollutants that might result from the actions that the park that could potentially be added from actions would take under each alternative. outside the complex boundary. The intensity levels used to evaluate impacts Alternative 3: Interpretation and Education on the soundscape are provided below. Emphasis; Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation Emphasis; and Alternative 5: Preferred Negligible. There would be no audible impacts Alternative. If impacts from future actions on the soundscape. Impacts would be of short were added to the negligible to moderate duration and well within natural fluctuations. impacts under alternatives 3, 4, and 5 (due to Noise would not affect appropriate transmission no restrictions on land use), there would be of natural sounds. negligible to moderate adverse cumulative impacts on water quality, depending on the Minor. Impacts on the soundscape would be type and quantity of pollutants that could slight but audible. Impacts would likely not be potentially enter the waters within the outside the range of natural variability. Noise complex. However, the level of impacts added would be expected to have short-term impacts by each of the three alternatives would be on the soundscape or short-term impacts on relatively small compared to the impact from appropriate transmission of natural sounds. pollutants that could potentially be added from actions outside the complex boundary. Moderate. Impacts on the soundscape would be clearly audible. Impacts would sometimes be outside the range of natural variability. Soundscapes Noise would not be expected to have long- term impacts on the soundscape or any long- Analysis Methodology term impacts on appropriate transmission of As mentioned in chapter 3, there is abundant natural sounds. natural quiet in areas of the complex furthest Major. from the roads (U.S. Highway 14, Timber Impacts on the soundscape would be Lane, Old Sauk Pass, and Mineral Point clearly audible and would be well outside the Road) that surround and traverse it. One of range of natural variability. Noise would have the fundamental resources of the complex long-term impacts on the soundscape or long- is “the opportunity for people, particularly term impacts on appropriate transmission of those in the adjacent urban area, to experience natural sounds. immersion into a large, natural landscape.” Therefore, in this analysis, activities in the alternatives that would remove or lessen

96 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Chapter Four Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: No Action Alternative, results of glaciation instead of offering direct Continuation of Current Management — sensory experience of natural resources, as the Direct and Indirect Impacts natural experience management area would, on the Soundscape indicating the potential for minor adverse soundscape impacts. Due to minimal development of visitor amenities, this alternative would be expected Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation to have the lowest level of visitation out of the Emphasis — Direct and Indirect Impacts five alternatives and therefore the least visitor- created noise. It seems likely that, overall, there on the Soundscape would be negligible impacts on the soundscape. Alternative 4 could result in a considerable increase in visitation, which would lead to Alternative 2: Ecological Restoration considerably more visitor-generated noise. Emphasis — Direct and Indirect Impacts There would be noise generated from the on the Soundscape construction of structures at the core of the property, but these moderate adverse impacts This alternative would increase trail usage on the soundscape would be temporary. over the no-action alternative, which could The bike path across the complex could potentially result in more visitor-generated generate more visitors and more noise per noise. In the short term, there would be noise visitor than the hiking trails under the other generated from the removal of the structures alternatives. Most of the complex would be at the core of the property, but those moderate managed for landscape interpretation or adverse impacts on the soundscape would be for an expanded recreational experience, temporary. Over the long term, most of the under which the management prescription complex would be managed to allow visitors “a for visitor experience would concentrate on direct sensory experience of natural resources” offering views of the results of glaciation and (refer to table 2 in chapter 2 for the natural the opportunity for low-impact recreation. experience management area description However, there would also be a large natural for desired visitor experience), indicating experience area at the corner of two of the negligible impacts on the soundscape. major roads on the edge of the complex. Overall, adverse impacts on the soundscape Alternative 3: Interpretation and would be minor. Education Emphasis — Direct and Indirect Impacts on the Soundscape Alternative 5: Preferred Alternative — Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative 3 would result in a considerable on the Soundscape increase in visitation compared to the no- action alternative, which could lead to more Impacts on the soundscape under the visitor-generated noise. In the short term, preferred alternative would be very similar to there would be noise generated from the alternative 4, albeit slightly less because there renovation of the structures at the core of the would not be a bike path across the complex property, but these moderate adverse impacts under this alternative. Overall, adverse impacts on the soundscape would be temporary. Over on the soundscape would be negligible the long term, most of the complex would be to minor. 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

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 97 CH APter FOUR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Cumulative Impacts on the Soundscape cumulative impacts would primarily occur at certain times of the year – either seasonally Noise from outside the complex has minimally or on weekends. The proposed activities affected the complex’s soundscape in the past under alternative 2 would result in a minimal and would continue to affect the soundscape, contribution to overall cumulative impacts. but perhaps at greater levels as the population continues to grow and traffic increases on Alternative 3: Interpretation and Education roads adjacent to and through the complex. Emphasis and Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation Depending on the location in the complex, Emphasis. If impacts of the above actions common human-caused sounds (such as were added to the minor to moderate vehicles on roads, maintenance activities, and adverse impacts under alternatives 3 and agricultural activities) would continue to be 4, there would be long-term minor to heard. In the winter, noise from snowmobiles moderate adverse cumulative impacts on passing by the complex would also continue to the soundscape. However, these cumulative be heard. It is possible that events, such as the impacts would primarily occur at certain times Ford Ironman, would continue to occur (the of the year – either seasonally or on weekends. Ford Ironman course currently runs through The proposed activities under alternatives 3 the complex and generates substantial noise). and 4 would result in a minimal contribution In addition, new residential development to overall cumulative impacts. could occur on lands adjacent to the complex, which would result in noise during and after Alternative 5: Preferred Alternative. If impacts the construction period in these areas. of the above actions were added to the negligible to moderate adverse impacts under These activities could produce intermittent alternative 5, there would be long-term minor to long-term (occurring every year) negligible to moderate adverse cumulative impact on to moderate adverse cumulative impacts the soundscape. However, these cumulative from noise. The adverse impacts would vary impacts would primarily occur at certain times depending on the type of noise, duration, of the year – either seasonally or on weekends. and location. The proposed activities under alternative 5 would result in a minimal contribution to Alternative 1: No Action, Continuation of overall cumulative impacts. Current Management. If impacts of the above actions were added to the negligible adverse impacts under the no-action alternative, Vegetation and Wildlife there would be long-term negligible to moderate adverse cumulative impacts on the As noted in chapter 3, the Ice Age Complex soundscape. However, the cumulative impacts comprises three ecological landscapes: would primarily occur at certain times of the Western Coulee and Ridges, Central Sand year — either seasonally or on weekends. Hills, and Southeast Glacial Plains. Although The continuation of activities under the no- this combination of landscapes in the complex action alternative would result in a minimal indicates a variety of native vegetation, contribution to the overall cumulative impacts. southern dry-mesic forest dominated the site before European settlement. Alternative 2: Ecological Restoration Emphasis. If impacts of the above actions were added The NPS Organic Act, which directs parks to the negligible to moderate adverse impacts to conserve wildlife unimpaired for future under alternative 2, there would be long-term generations, is interpreted by the agency negligible to moderate adverse cumulative to mean that native animal life should be impacts on the soundscape. However, these protected and perpetuated as part of the park’s natural ecosystem. Natural processes are relied

98 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Chapter Four Environmental Consequences on to control populations of native species species, their habitats, or the natural processes to the greatest extent possible, otherwise, sustaining them. Population numbers, they are protected from harvest, harassment, population structure, genetic variability, and or harm by human activities. According to other demographic factors for species might NPS Management Policies 2006 (section 4.1), have small short-term changes, but long-term maintenance of natural ecosystems is a priority characteristics would remain stable and viable. in parks. Management goals for wildlife include Sufficient habitat would remain functional to maintaining components and processes of maintain viability of all species. naturally evolving park ecosystems, including natural abundance, diversity, and the ecological Moderate. Impacts would cause a change in integrity of plants and animals. the plant community (such as abundance, distribution, quantity, or quality); however, Analysis Methodology the impact would remain localized. Animals are present during particularly vulnerable This impact analysis is based on knowledge life stages, such as migration, breeding, or of native and current vegetative conditions juvenile stages. Mortality or interference and wildlife habitat at the Ice Age Complex with activities necessary for survival can (as described in chapter 3), as well as an be expected on an occasional basis but is understanding of the types of activities (such not expected to threaten the continued as visitor activity, construction, and resource existence of the species in the park unit. management) in parks that affect vegetation Impacts on native species, their habitats, or and wildlife. This draft general management the natural processes sustaining them would plan / environmental impact statement does be detectable, and they could be outside the not include site-specific actions because natural range of variability for short periods the desired resource conditions and visitor of time. Population numbers, population experience, as described in the management structure, genetic variability, and other area prescriptions and applied to each demographic factors for species might have alternative, inform the impact assessment. short-term changes but would be expected to rebound to pre-impact numbers and remain The intensity levels used to evaluate impacts stable and viable in the long term. on vegetation and wildlife are provided below. Major. Impacts on the plant community Negligible. Impacts would have no measurable would be substantial, highly noticeable, and or perceptible changes in plant community permanent. Impacts on native species, their size, integrity, or continuity. There would be habitats, or the natural processes sustaining no observable or measurable impacts on native them would be detectable, and they would species, their habitats, or the natural processes be expected to be outside the natural range sustaining them. Impacts would be of short of variability for long periods of time or be duration and well within natural fluctuations. permanent. Population numbers, population structure, genetic variability, and other Minor. Impacts would be measurable or demographic factors for species might have perceptible but would be localized within a large short-term declines, with long-term relatively small area. The overall viability of the population numbers significantly depressed. plant community would not be affected and, Key ecosystem processes might be disrupted in if left alone, would recover. Impacts would be the long term or permanently. Loss of habitat detectable, but they would not be expected might affect the viability of at least some to be outside the natural range of variability native species. of key ecosystem processes and would not be expected to have any long-term effects on native

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 99 CH APter FOUR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Alternative 1: No Action, Continuation of interpretation, under which the management Current Management — Direct and Indirect prescription for resource conditions would Impacts on Vegetation and Wildlife include managing natural resources to reveal glacial features. Since there would be a range of There would be no comprehensive plan to ways to reveal glacial features through natural guide management of the complex under resource management (for example, planting alternative 1, so vegetation and wildlife short row crops or short prairie grasses), habitat would not be consistently managed. impacts on vegetation and wildlife would range Restoration goals (such as for the oak savanna from negligible to moderately beneficial. or prairie) and activities (such as prescribed burning or mechanical invasive removal) Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation would be decided on a case-by-case basis as funding and/or volunteer labor allows. Emphasis and Alternative 5: Preferred Since there would be few defined trails, Alternative — Direct and Indirect Impacts there would be a risk of vegetation trampling on Vegetation and Wildlife throughout the site from the creation of Under these two alternatives, management social trails. However, since the site would prescriptions would be fairly evenly divided not be advertised, there would be no facilities between landscape interpretation and to accommodate visitors, and user capacity expanded recreational experience (which management allows park managers a number share the same desired resource condition) of strategies to mitigate this risk; thus, adverse and natural experience. Additionally, under vegetation impacts from trampling would be alternative 5, a wildlife corridor of unbroken negligible. It seems likely that, considering habitat would be established in the southern the site as a whole, there would be negligible half of the complex. This combination of impacts on vegetation and wildlife. management prescriptions would result in minor beneficial impacts on vegetation Alternative 2: Ecological Restoration and wildlife. Emphasis — Direct and Indirect Impacts on Vegetation and Wildlife Cumulative Impacts on Vegetation Most of the complex would be managed and Wildlife for natural experience, in which “Natural Several potential actions, independent of this resources are managed to approximate plan, could affect the complex’s vegetation presettlement (circa 1830) conditions. To the and wildlife. As described in the “Affected extent possible, natural ecological processes Environment” chapter, some of the park’s sustain the integrity of these resources” (refer vegetation and wildlife habitat has been to the natural experience management area altered by past human activities (including prescription for desired resource conditions agricultural uses and development) and have in chapter 2, table 2). This management also been altered due to the absence of fire. prescription would have a moderate beneficial The impacts of these past actions far outweigh impact on vegetation and wildlife. the impacts of the actions being proposed in the alternatives in this plan. Alternative 3: Interpretation and Education Emphasis — Direct and Indirect Residential development could occur in the Impacts on Vegetation and Wildlife future on lands adjacent to the complex, which would result in the loss and modification of There would still be a significant area managed vegetation, modification or loss of wildlife for natural experience, although most of the habitat, and the displacement of wildlife in complex would be managed for landscape these areas. This would have a long-term minor adverse impact on natural vegetation and wildlife in the vicinity of the complex. 100 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Chapter Four Environmental Consequences

Hunting has affected wildlife in the past and complex. However, the effects of alternatives 2, would continue to affect wildlife as long as it 3, 4, and 5 would not add to the overall adverse continues to take place in the complex. cumulative impacts because their actions would all be beneficial. The possible development of a bike path along Highway 14 and through the complex would affect vegetation in the area and possibly SocioeconomicS displace some wildlife, which would add a long-term minor adverse incremental effect to Social and economic goals are closely related the effects from all alternatives. and are therefore generally grouped together in this analysis as “socioeconomic impacts.” In As noted in the “Affected Environment” this analysis, social impacts were determined chapter, the spread of nonnative plants is by considering the goals that have been set by currently a problem in the complex. Nonnative the local community and by judging the extent species have been spreading in different to which the alternatives would meet these locations in the complex, such as around the goals. Economic impacts were determined by Cross Plains gorge, in the old field, and in considering the impacts of each alternative on planted prairie areas, due to visitor activities funding that would be available to the local and natural sources like wind and birds. government through tax receipts. In addition, even with education efforts, some nonnative plants could be introduced The Village Board of Cross Plains, Wisconsin, or spread by visitors in the park, such as at adopted a new comprehensive plan on June picnic areas, campsites, and along trails. It 9, 2008. Although the boundary of the village is difficult to determine the impact of these of Cross Plains is 1 mile from the northwest nonnative species on native vegetation due corner of the Ice Age Complex boundary, the to the uncertainties about the type of species comprehensive plan covers the extraterritorial that might be introduced in the future and the boundary of the village, which includes locations and frequencies of introductions. unincorporated areas and overlaps with the The adverse effects from the introduction and complex on the northern end. The village’s spread of nonnative species could range from comprehensive plan states the following vision minor to moderate and be long term. for the planning area:

Alternative 1: No Action, Continuation of Current For the lands that comprise the Ice Age Management. If the effects of all the past, Complex, the comprehensive plan described present, and future actions were added to the most of the future land use as either agricultural/ continuing negligible adverse impacts under the rural or woodlands/open space. The exception no-action alternative, there would be long-term to these two designations is for the lots that are minor to moderate adverse cumulative impacts currently residential. These current residential on vegetation and wildlife in the complex. lots are zoned as “single-family exurban.” All of However, the effects of the no-action alternative the alternatives in this draft general management would result in a minimal contribution to the plan / environmental impact statement are overall adverse cumulative impacts. consistent with these zones for future land use, and therefore, all of them would have beneficial Alternative 2: Ecological Restoration Emphasis; impacts on social goals because the Ice Age Alternative 3: Interpretation and Education Complex would comprise a large open area for Emphasis; Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation the village of Cross Plains. Preserving the natural Emphasis; and Alternative 5: Preferred Alternative. state of this area would amount to a long-term If the impacts of all past, present, and future moderate beneficial impact on social goals actions were added to the impacts of established for the village. There are differences, alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5, there would be long- however, in how the alternatives would impact term, minor to moderate adverse cumulative economic goals — these are discussed below. impacts on vegetation and wildlife in the

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 101 CH APter FOUR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Vision Village of Cross Plains Overall

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

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.”

Analysis Methodology The potential for property tax payments would be lost over the long term if the land were Property sales and income taxes are a large owned federally. Although local governments part of the economies of local governments. are eligible for federal payments in lieu of In order to determine the impacts on taxes to help offset losses in property taxes economic goals, it is necessary to consider due to nontaxable federal property within the likely direction of the lands that comprise their boundaries, historically, these payments the Ice Age Complex if no alternatives have not kept pace with lost potential property were implemented and then compare that tax revenue. However, for all new properties to the vision of each alternative. Under all purchased, the Wisconsin Department of alternatives, the National Park Service, the Natural Resources makes an annual payment Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, in lieu of real estate taxes that would have been and their partners would seek to preserve paid had the property remained in private as much open land as possible throughout ownership. The payment is made to the local the complex. This would mean that most taxing authority where the property is located.1 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 1 Information on how the Wisconsin Department of made for publically owned lands depends on Natural Resources pays property taxes can be found which of the project partners owns the land. in a publication titled “Public Land Property Taxes” (publication number PUB-LF-001), available from the DNR.

102 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Chapter Four Environmental Consequences

The issue in determining the economic County, Wisconsin. Dane County is about impacts of the alternatives is whether or not 1,200 square miles centered around the city the potential loss of property tax would be of Madison. The Ice Age Complex is located offset by the economic benefits of visitation. in the northwestern part of Dane County. The National Park Service uses an economic The west and northern county boundaries model called the “Money Generation Model” are roughly 10 miles from the complex, the to estimate economic benefits of parks in southern boundary is roughly 20 miles away, terms of visitor spending (Stynes 2009). and one would travel about 40 miles before Unfortunately, data to feed into this model is crossing the eastern boundary of Dane County not gathered for the Ice Age National Scenic (refer to figure 13 in chapter 3). Trail or for any other national trail. The analysis for the Ice Age Complex uses data All Alternatives — Direct and Indirect from parks that are comparable in size and Impacts on Socioeconomics demographics to estimate potential economic benefits to the area around the complex. All of the alternatives would produce beneficial impacts by increasing the value The intensity levels used to evaluate impacts on of adjacent lands. Similarly, all alternatives economic conditions are provided below. All would have adverse impacts on the local tax impacts were compared to the most likely future base if lands were federally owned because for the complex over the 15- to 20-year term of federally owned land is exempt from property this plan if none of the proposed alternatives tax, and the payments in lieu of tax program were implemented. In that case (without historically has not fully compensated for implementation), as much as half of the land this loss. However, these adverse impacts currently publically owned would potentially might be smaller than for similar areas of the be developed as residences, while the other half National Park Service because the land would would likely remain in agriculture. also be owned by the Department of Natural Resources, which would offset local property Negligible. No measurable effect on the tax losses, so this potential tax loss would be economic environment. mitigated. The impacts of land use changes were not considered separately in this analysis. Minor. Only a very small sector of the local and regional economies would be affected and would not be readily apparent. Alternative 1: No Action, Continuation of Current Management and Alternative 2: Moderate. A small sector of the economic Ecological Restoration Emphasis — Direct environment, or the relationship between and Indirect Impacts on Socioeconomics sectors of the local and regional economies, These two alternatives would only provide would be measurably affected but would not an outdoor experience in which activities alter basic economic functions and structure. for visitors would be limited to hiking and Major. Changes to the local and regional other low-impact activities on a minimal economies would occur and would become trail system and rare interpretive tours. The readily apparent in the form of shifts in visitation level under these alternatives could economic functions and structure. In certain be compared to the most sparsely visited cases, entirely new economic sectors would be parks (10,000 visitors per year or less) in created or established sectors eliminated. the national park system. These parks, on average, contribute about $350,000 value- Geographic Area for Socioeconomic Analysis. added annually to their communities (value- The regional study area for the purpose of added is the sum of labor income, profits, this socioeconomic impact analysis is Dane rents, and indirect business taxes; see Stynes

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 103 CH APter FOUR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

2009, p. 6). Without knowing what type of Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation housing would have been built if neither of Emphasis and Alternative 5: Preferred these alternatives were implemented, it is Alternative — Direct and Indirect Impacts impossible to know what the tax receipts on Socioeconomics would have been. If net property tax receipts from residential development (after the costs These alternatives would offer a broader of improving infrastructure to accommodate outdoor experience in a variety of ways, such these residences, such as schools and roads are as more trails, limited primitive camping, taken into account) were to exceed $350,000 picnic areas, and for alternative 4, a bridge annually, then the economic impacts of the across the gorge and a bike path. The two no-action alternative and alternative 2 would alternatives would also offer a place to stop be adverse. If, on the other hand, net property and rest indoors; view extensive exhibits, taxes were less than the estimated $350,000 including a film; and talk with park staff. There that visitation economic benefits would bring, would be space to accommodate visitors the impacts of these two alternatives would who come in a group, such as school groups. be beneficial. Visitors would also benefit from regular interpretive programming provided by rangers. Alternative 3: Interpretation and These elements would attract more visitors to the complex, and overall, the estimated Education Emphasis — Direct and Indirect visitation would fall in the moderate range Impacts on Socioeconomics for visitation (150,000–200,000 visitors per This alternative would not only offer an year) in the national park system (see the outdoor experience, but also a place to stop “Visitor Use and Experience” section for an and rest indoors, view some exhibits, and talk explanation of expected visitation). These with park staff. Visitors would also benefit parks, on average, contribute about $5 million from regular interpretive programming value-added annually to their communities. provided by rangers. These elements would It is not possible to know what the tax attract more visitors to the complex, but receipts would be if these alternatives were overall, the estimated visitation would not implemented. If net property tax receipts still be relatively low. Visitation under this from residential development (after taking into alternative could be compared to parks with account the costs of improving infrastructure, low visitation (50,000–100,000 visitors per such as schools and roads, to accommodate year) in the national park system. These parks, the new residences ) were to exceed $5 million on average, contribute about $2.5 million annually, then the economic impacts of these value-added annually to their communities. It alternatives would be adverse. If, on the other is not possible to know what the tax receipts hand, net property taxes were less than the would have been if this alternative is not estimated $5 million that visitation economic implemented. If net property tax receipts benefits would bring, then the impacts of these from residential development (after the costs alternatives would be beneficial. of improving infrastructure to accommodate these residences such as schools and roads Cumulative Impacts on Socioeconomics are taken into account) were to exceed $2.5 million annually, then the economic Residential and commercial growth and impacts of alternative 3 would be adverse. If, development could gradually increase in on the other hand, net property taxes were less Dane County — this is according to the than the estimated $2.5 million that visitation county population projections discussed in economic benefits would bring, then the the “Affected Environment” chapter. Given impacts of this alternative would be beneficial. the exurban nature of the lands surrounding the complex, much of the population

104 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Chapter Four Environmental Consequences increase would likely be absorbed by existing the interpretive centers for units of the Ice Age communities / employment centers with National Scientific Reserve. While hiking the Ice established infrastructure. The rate of growth Age National Scenic Trail is a popular activity would likely be slow but could result in new in the state of Wisconsin, especially in densely construction- and real estate-related jobs populated areas like the city of Madison and and new property tax revenue. If population vicinity, there are few destination areas along growth were to occur, the addition of taxable the trail where visitors can learn more about the property and consumer spending would likely unique geology and no learning opportunities have a beneficial impact on the socioeconomic in the Madison area. The Ice Age National environment over the long term. Scenic Trail passes through two units of the Ice Age National Scientific Reserve. The two units All Five Alternatives. If the likely effects of each have interpretive centers: Interstate State Park of the five alternatives were combined with and Chippewa Moraine, which are both about the potential effects of present and reasonably 200 miles from Madison. The Reserve Center foreseeable future actions, there would be at Interstate Park benefits from being part of a either long-term beneficial or long-term adverse well-visited park and estimates 250,000 visitors a cumulative impacts on the socioeconomic year. The Reserve Center at Chippewa Moraine, environment, depending on the nature and on the other hand, estimates only 20,000 visitors scope of any development on adjacent lands to its center per year, although staff there and the level of visitation to the complex. All estimate higher visitation to the property. five alternatives would contribute a very small increment to this cumulative impact. 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 Visitor Use and Experience Blue Mounds State Park, Governor Nelson State Park, Lake Kegonsa State Park, and the As mentioned in chapter 3, the action University of Wisconsin Arboretum. Visitation alternatives were designed to respond, in counts at these parks range from 150,000 to various ways, to demand for low-impact 600,000. Lastly, the two units of the national passive recreational activities, as well as the park system used to estimate visitation were opportunity to learn about glaciation of the Effigy Mounds National Monument, the area. An assumption of the planning team, closest unit, and Wilsons Creek National based on a wealth of experience in park Battlefield, which is similar demographically management, is that the greater the variety in that, like the Ice Age Complex, it is in the of things to do at a park, the more visitors outskirts of a city (Springfield, Missouri) about it would attract. Therefore, it is expected the size of Madison. Effigy Mounds counts that each alternative might attract a different about 88,000 visitors a year; Wilsons Creek number of visitors. counts about 200,000.

Analysis Methodology Considering all of the comparable estimates for visitation, the GMP/EIS planning team In order to estimate the number of expected estimated that, if the Ice Age Complex were visitors at the Ice Age Complex, the GMP/EIS minimally developed with little interpretation planning team identified established comparable (as in the no-action alternative and alternative parks and researched their visitation counts. 2), the complex might attract only 10,000 This comparison took into account state and visitors per year. Those visitors would local parks that are similar in theme and in size, essentially be hikers on trails and participants as well as national parks in close proximity in occasional programming. and in areas with similar demographics. Parks with similar themes used for comparison were

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 105 CH APter FOUR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

On the other hand, if the complex were Adverse. Visitors would definitely be aware of developed to offer a wider range of interpretive a decrease in opportunities and/or diversity in and recreational opportunities (as in alternatives opportunities and would be very dissatisfied 3, 4, and 5), the complex might attract as many as with the changes. 200,000 visitors per year. Among these 200,000 would be groups of visitors, such as school Major. Beneficial. Visitors would be highly aware groups, for whom special programming would of additional opportunities to experience park be provided, as well as more casual visitors taking resources in a wide variety of new ways. They short hikes along well-developed trails. These would be so satisfied with these changes that visitation estimates were used in the analysis of most new visitors would make the trip due to socioeconomic impacts above, as well as in this referrals from past visitors. analysis of visitor experience. Adverse. Visitors would be highly aware of a The intensity levels used to evaluate impacts decrease in opportunities and/or diversity in on visitor experience are provided below. opportunities and would be so dissatisfied with The baseline against which these impacts the changes that they would tell other potential were evaluated are the current conditions visitors and visitation numbers would drop. in which visitors are only aware that the complex contains publically owned parkland if they read the small signs at the boundary Alternative 1: No Action, Continuation of areas. The Ice Age National Scenic Trail is not Current Management and Alternative 2: constructed through the complex at this time, Ecological Restoration Emphasis — Direct and the only existing trails are visitor-created and Indirect Impacts on Visitor Experience social trails. Also, there is no interpretation. This baseline is different from the no-action These alternatives would only provide an alternative, which describes the future for the outdoor experience in which activities for complex as it would evolve over the next 15–20 visitors would be limited to hiking and other years under current management strategies. low-impact activities on a minimal trail system and rare interpretive tours. While Negligible. Visitors likely would not be aware they activities would offer some beneficial of any additional opportunities to experience experience for visitors over the current park resources. conditions, the benefits would likely range from negligible to minor. Minor. Beneficial. Visitors would likely be aware of some additional opportunities to Alternative 3: Interpretation and experience park resources but not a wide Education Emphasis — Direct and Indirect variety of different types of opportunities. Impacts on Visitor Use and Experience They would be satisfied with the changes. This alternative would not only offer an Adverse. Visitors would likely be aware of a outdoor experience, but also a place to stop decrease in opportunities to experience park and rest indoors, view some exhibits (not resources and would be dissatisfied with extensive given space limitations), and talk the changes. with park staff. Visitors would also benefit from regular interpretive programming Moderate. Beneficial. Visitors would definitely provided by rangers. For visitors interested be aware of additional opportunities to in the human history of the site, the ability experience park resources in a variety of to view and interpret the Wilkie house and new ways. They would be very satisfied with barn would provide a pleasant variety of the changes. experience. However, visitors who might

106 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Chapter Four Environmental Consequences want to view a film in a theater or arrive in Therefore, it seems like not many benefits to groups and gather in one indoor spot might be visitor experience were lost with the removal disappointed by the indoor space limitations. of those elements. Because the sensitive Overall, this alternative would offer beneficial resources management area was enlarged, visitor experience at a minor level. visitors seeking solitude and a quiet nature immersion experience would not have to Alternative 4: Outdoor Recreation travel far from the core of the site to find this. Overall, this alternative would have a moderate Emphasis — Direct and Indirect Impacts beneficial impact on visitor experience. on Visitor Use and Experience This alternative would offer a broad outdoor Cumulative Impacts on Visitor Use experience in a variety of ways (more trails, and Experience limited outdoor camping, picnic areas, a bridge across the gorge, and a bike path). There are no foreseeable actions in the It would also offer a place to stop and rest complex or surrounding area that would indoors; view extensive exhibits, including likely cause adverse effects on visitor use a film; and talk with park staff. There would and experience. There is the possibility of be space to accommodate visitors who come development on adjacent lands, which could in group, such as school groups. Visitors affect viewsheds. Traffic volume could increase would also benefit from regular interpretive due to a slight increase in visitation or a programming provided by rangers. However, change in visitor interests and demand due visitors seeking solitude and a quiet nature to potential changes in regional populations immersion experience might be disappointed or national recreation trends. The likelihood to have to travel far from the core of the site of these changes is unknown at this time. If to find this. Overall, this alternative would they were to occur, they could cause a slight have a minor to moderate beneficial impact increase in visitor use concerns, such as on visitor experience. crowding and conflicts at high-use areas or attraction sites, or have adverse effects on the visitor experience commensurate with the Alternative 5: Preferred Alternative — extent to which developments would be visible Direct and Indirect Impacts on Visitor Use and traffic would be audible from various and Experience visitor use areas within the complex. This alternative would offer a broad outdoor experience in a variety of ways (more trails, All of the Alternatives. The beneficial impacts including a half-day-long loop trail; limited on visitor experience from each of the five outdoor camping; and picnic areas). It would alternatives, when combined with other also offer a place to stop and rest indoors; present and reasonably foreseeable future view extensive exhibits, including a film; and actions, would result in long-term negligible to talk with park staff. There would be space to minor adverse cumulative impacts, depending accommodate visitors who come in group, on the amount and location of development such as school groups. Visitors would also and level of increase in traffic volume. benefit from regular interpretive programming However, the development of the bike path provided by rangers. Various attractions would add a moderate beneficial increment to (such as a bike path traversing the site and a the overall cumulative impact. 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.

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 107 CH APter FOUR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Uonav idable Irreversible and Adverse Impacts Irretrievable Commitments

Unavoidable adverse impacts are defined here of Resources as major impacts that cannot be fully mitigated Implementing alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would or avoided. No major adverse impacts are likely result in the consumption of some expected under any of the alternatives. It is nonrenewable natural resources in the form expected that the development of trails and of construction materials and fuels that would visitor, staff, and maintenance support areas constitute an irretrievable commitment of at the core of the site would cause some resources. There is also the potential for loss impact. Those impacts, however, would of archeological resources during construction be minimized through best construction projects. Future planning would examine this practices, and any unexpected major adverse potential and would avoid or, if avoidance is impacts would be mitigated. For example, if not feasible, mitigate any loss. archeological resources were encountered during construction activities, mitigation measures would be implemented to protect Relationship of Short-term those resources. 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.

108 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

consultation Chapter Five and coordination

Public Involvement

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

Meetings were held first with published in local newspapers local officials in summer 2008 to announce the beginning of and then with the general the planning process. A project public to announce the website was made available beginning of the planning through the NPS “Planning, process for the general Environment, and Public management plan. The Comment” (PEPC) website National Park Service solicited (http://parkplanning.nps. public comments on the gov/). Two public meetings, scope of the plan by mailing one in Cross Plains, Wisconsin, newsletters to an extensive and the other in Middleton, mailing list maintained by Wisconsin, were well-attended. the Ice Age Trail offices, as The public entered comments well as a list maintained by directly into the PEPC website the Department of Natural and sent comments through Resources. Notices were 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 111 CH APter FIVE CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

The planning team took public comments Tribal Consultation into account as it crafted the preliminary alternatives. The preliminary alternatives The following tribes were contacted in May were then presented for public review in 2008 (at the beginning of the planning process) September 2009. The National Park Service to inquire of their interest in participating in prepared a second newsletter that presented the process: the preliminary alternatives and announced public meetings. The newsletter was sent to Sac and Fox Nation of Oklahoma members of the mailing list and uploaded Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri to the NPS PEPC website, and notices were in Kansas and Nebraska again published in local media to announce the meetings. The Ice Age National Scenic Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe Trail staff and members of the local planning of Chippewa team offered tours of the complex to members Oneida Tribe of Indians in Wisconsin of the community so they could get to know the site and be able to visualize how the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa management alternatives might change it. St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin Local officials were briefed on the alternatives in advance of the general public. This second Forest County Potawatomi Community public input process yielded a total of 428 of Wisconsin comments. The proposal to limit access to Old Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Sauk Pass prompted questions and concerns Mole Lake Band on the part of those living in the area of the complex, so a separate meeting was held with Lac du Flambeau Band those neighbors and with representatives of of Lake Superior Chippewa the village of Cross Plains (which has authority Lac Courte Oreilles Band over that road) to discuss the concerns. of Lake Superior Chippewa One result of this discussion was the village of Cross Plains’ resolution included in this Sac and Fox Tribe of the Mississippi document as appendix C. in Iowa Stockbridge Munsee Community The planning team reviewed public of Wisconsin comments on the preliminary alternatives and took those comments into account as it Ho-Chunk Nation analyzed, in detail, the costs, advantages, and Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin environmental impacts of the alternatives. That process also contributed to the creation None of these tribes responded to the of a new alternative (“Alternative 5: Preferred invitational letters, but they were included Alternative”) that could potentially yield the on the mailing list and sent copies highest advantage and best value. This draft of the newsletters as the planning general management plan / environmental process progressed. impact statement was then written and reviewed internally and has been distributed for public review and comment.

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

Federal Agencies Wisconsin State Consultation Historic Preservation

The following agencies were contacted in Office Consultation May 2008 (at the beginning of the planning The Wisconsin Historical Society is process) to let them know the process had the federally designated State Historic been initiated and to inquire of their interest Preservation Office. The society was consulted in it: before actions were proposed that could affect cultural resources at the Ice Age Complex. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, The structures at the core of the property Green Bay Field Office that had belonged to the Wilkie family (and U.S. Natural Resources before them, the Lowe family) had not been Conservation Service formally evaluated for historic significance U.S. Environmental Protection Agency prior to initiation of the planning process. The National Park Service evaluated the structures U.S. Federal Highway Administration and the landscape surrounding them and U.S. Geological Service discussed their potential eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers the Wisconsin Historical Society. The society U.S. Department of Agriculture concluded that the Lowe-Wilkie farm is not Forest Service 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 Wisconsin State of Natural Resources were initiating a General Historic Preservation Management Plan for the Ice Age Complex at Cross Plains. The National Park Service Office 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.

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 113 CH APter FIVE CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

Consultation Letters and Responses

114 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

Chapter Five Consultation and Coordination RECEIVED

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 115 CH APter FIVE CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

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

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

118 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS

Appendix A: Laws Establishing the Ice Age National Scientific Reserve and the Ice Age National Scenic Trail

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 121 A I PpenD Xes

122 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Appendixes

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 123 A I PpenD Xes

Appendix B: Impairment analysis for the Preferred Alternative

NPS Management Policies 2006 (1.4), Director’s Order 12: Conservation Planning, Environmental Analysis, and Decision Making (and its accompanying Handbook at 1-2(E)), and “Director’s Order 55: Incident Management Program” require that an impact analysis also include a finding on whether or not the actions contained in the preferred alternative would “impair” park resources. Major adverse impacts on park resources and values would contribute to deterioration of park resources to the extent that the park’s purpose could not be fulfilled as established in its enabling legislation; affect resources key to the park’s natural or cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment; or affect the resource whose conservation is identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan (NPS Management Policies 2006, 1.4.5). Note that an evaluation of impairment is not required for topics related to visitor use and experience (unless the impact is resource based), socioeconomics, public health and safety, environmental justice, land use, and park operations.

Soundscapes

Impairment of the complex’s soundscape would result from impacts that would be far outside the range of natural variability. There would be no area in the complex dominated by natural sound, even if visitors were in the interior of the site and far removed from roads.

The preferred alternative does not include actions that would lead to impairment of the soundscape in the complex.

Soils Vegetation and Wildlife

Impairment of park soils would be caused Impairment would result from any action that by compaction or vegetation disturbance that would contribute substantially to the deterioration could potentially lead to substantial and of park vegetation to the extent that the park’s permanent erosion. vegetation would no longer function as a natural system. Major adverse impacts could impair park The preferred alternative does not include actions resources if their severity, duration, and timing that would lead to impairment of soil resources in resulted in the elimination of a native plant or the complex. animal species or significant population declines in a native species.

Water Quality The preferred alternative does not include actions that would lead to impairment of vegetation Impairment would result from an adverse impact and wildlife in the complex. on water quality that, in the professional judgment of the responsible NPS manager, would harm the integrity of water resources and values, including the opportunities that otherwise would be present for the enjoyment of those resources or values.

The preferred alternative does not include actions that would lead to impairment of water quality in the complex.

124 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Appendixes

Appendix C: village of cross plains resolution regarding old sauk pass

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 125 A I PpenD Xes

126 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Appendixes

Appendix D: Wisconsin Department of natural Resources Compliance Form

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 127 A I PpenD Xes

appendix e: 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

128 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Appendixes

appendix F: Planning team National Park Service

Ruth Heikkinen Pamela Schuler Outdoor Recreation Planner Manager, Ice Age National Scenic Trail Project Manager, Primary Author Participant 10 years with the National Park Service 20 Years with the National Park Service Masters of Public Management, Bachelor of Science, University of Maryland Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, University of Wisconsin Christina Miller Natural Resource Specialist–Planner Dean Gettinger Project/Interdisciplinary Team Member Management Assistant 5 years with the National Park Service Participant Master’s in Environmental Policy and 12 years with the National Park Service, Management for Natural Resources, 3 years with the Bureau of Land Management University of Denver M.S., Resource Recreation and Tourism, University of Idaho Tom Gilbert Superintendent, Ice Age National Scenic Trail Mary Tano Participant Outdoor Recreation Planner 30 years with the National Park Service Participant B.S., Park and Recreation Resources, 9 years with the National Park Service Michigan State University 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

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 129 A I PpenD Xes

appendix F: Planning team (continued) Wisconsin Department Partners of Natural Resources Ice Age Trail Alliance Jeff Prey Mike Wollmer Senior Planner Executive Director Participant Participant 25 years with the State of Wisconsin Executive Director since 2007, M.S., University of Wisconsin – Madison 20 years as a volunteer associated with the Ice Age Trail Alliance Rene Lee Bachelor of Business Administration, Park Manager University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee Participant 13 years with the Wisconsin Department Andrew (“Drew”) Hanson III of Natural Resources Trailway Director Degree in Design Engineering and Law Enforcement, Participant Madison Area Technical College 13 years with the Ice Age Trail Alliance Bachelors in Geography, Dana White Quam University of Wisconsin – Madison Participant Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Regional Park Specialist University of Wisconsin 30 years with the Department of Natural Resources David Mickelson Glacial Geologist Participant, Secondary Author U .S. Fish and Wildlife Service 39 years with the University of Wisconsin – Madison Ph.D., Geology, Steven J. Lenz Ohio State University District Manager, Leopold Wetland Management District John Harrington Planning Team Member or Participant Professor of Landscape Architecture 31 years with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Participant B.S., University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point 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

130 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS 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.

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 131 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.

132 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS Index

Index biking, bike path, xvi, xvii, xviii, 20, 27, 36, 38, 53, natural resources, xv, xvi, 12, 24, 27, 37, 55, 59, 60, 71, 90, 94, 97, 101, 104, 107 85, 97, 100, 102, 108 camping, xi, xii, xvii, xviii, 20, 37, 47, 48, 50, 56, 59, orientation, ix, x, 22, 37, 43, 45, 51, 58 60, 61, 62, 66, 104, 107 parking, viii, ix, xii, xiii, xiv, xv, 24, 37, 39, 41, 50, 51, comprehensive plan, vi, xvi, 7, 81, 85, 100, 101 53, 55, 56, 59, 64, 67, 68, 91, 92, 93 cultural resources, 11, 19, 23, 85, 86, 113 snowmobiling, snowmobile trail, 20, 36, 38, 52, 53, 90 Dane County, i, vii, xiii, xxv, 8, 22, 27, 28, 33, 81, 84, 85, 92, 103, 104, 132 state park, 19, 33, 38 education, 12, 19, 58, 59, 64, 67, 101 threatened and endangered, 18 gorge, iii, ix, x, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, xv, xvii, xviii, 3, 4, 12, trail, ii, vi, viii, ix, x, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, xv, xvii, xviii, 7, 8, 21, 22, 41, 43, 45, 47, 48, 50, 51, 63, 65, 68, 76, 80, 11, 13, 23, 36, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 48, 50, 52, 53, 57, 81, 82, 91, 92, 93, 94, 101, 104, 107 58, 65, 66, 68, 78, 91, 92, 93, 97, 103, 105, 106, 107 hiking, ix, xii, xiii, xvi, xvii, xviii, 20, 37, 41, 43, 48, U.S. Highway 14, xii, xxi, 27, 48, 50, 82, 90, 94, 96 50, 52, 53, 62, 64, 81, 92, 97, 103, 105, 106 visitor center, x, xi, xii, xiv, 37, 45, 47, 48, 51, 63, 64, horse, horseback riding, 20, 36, 37, 38, 51, 52, 81 65, 66, 93 hunting, viii, 20, 36, 38, 39 Wilkie gorge, Wilkie, vi, vii, viii, ix, x, xi, xii, xiii, xviii, 8, 20, 21, 24, 25, 41, 45, 47, 48, 50, 62, 64, Ice Age Complex at Cross Plains, Ice Age Complex, 65, 78, 81, 106, 113 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, Wisconsin, i, ii, iii, vi, vii, viii, xii, xxi, xxiv, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 47, 48, 28, 31, 32, 38, 39, 48, 75, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 66, 69, 92, 101, 102, 103, 105, 108, 111, 112, 70, 71, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 113, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132 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

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 133 IXNDE

134 ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS NR 150 Decision Form

Project Name: Cross Plains State Park /Ice Age Reserve County: Dane

DECISION (This decision is not final until certified by the appropriate authority)

In accordance with s. 1.11, Slats., and Ch . NR 150, Adm. Code, the Department is authorized and required to determine whether it has complied with s.1 .11, Slats., and Ch. NR 150, Wis. Adm. Code.

Complete either A or B below:

A.EIS Process Not Required

The attached analysis of the expected impacts of this proposal is of sufficient scope and detail to conclude that this is not a major action which would significantly affect the quality of the human environment. In my opinion, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required prior to final action by the Department.

B. Major Action Requiring the Full EIS Process D

The proposal is of such magnitude and complexity with such considerable and important impacts on the quality of the human environment that it constitutes a major action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

Date Signed

Number of responses to news release or other notice: 0

Certified to be in compliance with WEPA Environmental Analysis and Liaison Program Staff Date Signed ~~ - -~~ (3'/ t (l '2 ~

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS

If you believe that you have a right to challenge this decision, you should know that the Wisconsin statutes and administrative rules establish lime periods within which requests to review Department decisions must be filed. For judicial review of a decision pursuant to sections 227.52 and 227.53, Wis. Slats., you have 30 days after the decision is mailed, or otherwise served by the Department, to file your petition with the appropriate circuit court and serve the petition on the Department. Such a petition for judicial review must name the Department of Natural Resources as the respondent.

To request a contested case hearing pursuant to section 227.42, Wis. Slats., you have 30 days after the decision is mailed, or otherwise served by the Department, to serve a petition for hearing on the Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources. All requests for contested case hearings must be made In accordance with section NR 2.05(5), Wis. Adm. Code, and served on the Secretary in accordance with section NR 2.03, Wis. Adm. Code. The filing of a request for a contested case hearing does not extend the 30 day period for filing a petition for judicial review.

Revised 06/21/2010