HOW TO COMMENT ON THIS STUDY 

Comments on this wilderness study are 

welcome and will be accepted for 90 days after 

the Environmental Protection Agency’s notice 

of availability appears in the Federal Register. 

(For the exact date when the public comment 

period closes, check the park’s website, 

www.nps.gov/apis/wstudy/htm.) If you wish 

to respond to the material in this document, 

you may submit your comments by any one of 

several methods. You may mail written 

comments to: 

 Wilderness Study Coordinator 

 Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

 Route 1, Box 4 

 Bayfield, WI 54814 

You may also comment electronically 

(apis_comments@nps.gov). Please submit 

Internet comments as a text file avoiding the 

use of special characters or any form of 

encryption. Please include your name and 

return address in your Internet message. 

You may hand-deliver comments at public 

meetings to be announced in the media 

following release of this document. Also, 

comments may be hand-delivered to the 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

headquarters, Washington Avenue, Bayfield, 

WI. 

Comments are most useful if they are specific 

and do the following: 

• Identify incomplete or incorrect 

information 

• Describe why a particular alternative 

would or would not work 

• Offer a new idea or complete new 

alternative that would accomplish the 

stated goals 

• Point out discrepancies between legal 

mandates and proposals 

• Highlight deficiencies in the analysis of 

environmental consequences 

Our practice is to make comments, including 

names and addresses of respondents, available 

for public review during regular business 

hours. Individual respondents may request that 

we withhold their address from the planning 

record, which we will honor to the extent 

allowable by law. There also may be 

circumstances in which we would withhold 

from the record a respondent’s identity, as 

allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold 

your name and/or address, you must state this 

prominently at the beginning of your comment. 

We will make all submissions from 

organizations or businesses, and from 

individuals identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of organizations or 

businesses, available for public inspection in 

their entirety. 

This method for public comment submittal 

listed above stems from recent court rulings 

concerning the release of public comments, 

and it is included as recommended by the 

Office of the Solicitor, Department of the 

Interior. 
DRAFT 

WILDERNESS STUDY / 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

June 2003 

 

APOSTLE ISLANDS 

National Lakeshore · Wisconsin 
(Back of Title Page Blank)

ii
DRAFT 

WILDERNESS STUDY 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

APOSTLE ISLANDS NATIONAL LAKESHORE 

Bayfield and Ashland Counties, Wisconsin 

This Draft Wilderness Study / Environmental Impact Statement describes and analyzes four alternatives 

for designating wilderness in Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. Based on the findings of this study, a 

formal wilderness proposal may be submitted to the Director of the National Park Service for approval 

and subsequent consideration by the Department of the Interior, President, and Congress under the 

provisions of the Wilderness Act. 

Alternative A, the “no-action” alternative, provides a baseline for comparing the other alternatives. 

Under this alternative, no wilderness would be proposed in the park. 

Three alternatives would propose wilderness areas of differing sizes and locations in the park. None of 

the waters of Lake Superior would be proposed as wilderness under the alternatives. Alternative B

would propose the highest amount of wilderness (94% of the land base), excluding only the areas 

determined to be not suitable in all of the alternatives. Alternative C, the National Park Service’s 

preferred alternative, would propose that 80% of the park’s land base be permanently protected as 

wilderness. This alternative is intended to ensure that there will be outstanding opportunities for 

people to learn both the stories of the people who settled and altered these islands and the story of the 

subsequent restoration of the park’s “wilderness” qualities. It also strives to minimize the number of 

small, fragmented areas of wilderness or nonwilderness. Alternative D would limit wilderness to 

remote areas and cover about 55% of the park’s land base. It would include those undeveloped and 

isolated areas that provide the best opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation during the busy 

summer season. These areas are not on the current tour boat route, and generally are more distant 

from the mainland.

This document also discusses the potential consequences of each alternative’s actions on natural 

resources, cultural resources, wilderness resources, visitor nonwilderness experiences, and park 

operations. Each alternative has a mix of beneficial and adverse impacts. The main benefits of 

alternative A are that it would provide maximum flexibility to park managers to expand recreational 

and interpretive facilities into new areas and to carry out park programs and operations, and that it 

would allow the greatest number of the park’s cultural resources to be protected in the largest variety 

of ways. Alternatives B, C, and D would better protect the park’s natural and wilderness resources in 

the long term than alternative A (largely in proportion to the amount of wilderness recommended in 

each) and would also provide indirect protection to many of the park’s cultural resources by limiting 

the spread of development on the islands. The main drawbacks of alternative A are that it would provide the least amount of protection against potential new development-related impacts to natural, 

cultural, and wilderness resources, and it would provide the least amount of certainty that the park 

would continue to look and feel as it does today. Alternatives B, C, and D would offer reduced levels of 

flexibility to park managers to expand the level of development in the areas recommended for wilderness, which may put development pressure on the areas excluded from the proposals. These alternatives would also reduce, but do not eliminate, the treatment options available for cultural resources 

contained within the areas recommended for wilderness. The National Park Service believes that 

Alternative C would provide the best mix of beneficial impacts, while minimizing many of the adverse 

ones. 

For questions about this document, contact the park wilderness study coordinator, Jim Nepstad, 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, Route 1, Box 4, Bayfield, WI 54814, write an e-mail message at 

apis_comments@nps.gov, or call 715-779-3398, extension 102. 

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service

iii
A GUIDE TO THIS DOCUMENT

This document contains the Draft Wilderness 

Study, which is intended to determine if and 

where lands and waters within the Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore should be proposed 

for wilderness designation. 

DRAFT WILDERNESS STUDY / 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT 

This Draft Wilderness Study / Environmental 

Impact Statement is organized in accordance 

with the Council on Environmental Quality’s 

implementing regulations for the National 

Environmental Policy Act and the National 

Park Service’s Director’s Orders on “Park 

Planning” (DO-2) and “Environmental 

Analysis” (DO-12).

Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for the 

Wilderness Study sets the framework for the 

entire document. It describes why the study is 

being prepared and what needs it must address. 

It gives guidance for the alternatives that are 

being considered, which are based on the 

Wilderness Act, 1989 General Management 

Plan, and NPS management policies. 

The chapter also provides background on the 

wilderness study and details the issues and 

concerns that were raised during public 

scoping meetings. This chapter concludes with 

a statement of the scope of the environmental 

impact analysis; specifically what impact 

topics were or were not analyzed in detail. 

Chapter 2: Wilderness Alternatives, begins 

by describing what areas were considered not 

suitable for wilderness designation. It then 

describes a no-wilderness alternative 

(alternative A, the no-action alternative). 

Alternatives B, C (the agency’s preferred 

alternative), and D are then presented, which 

propose varying areas for wilderness 

designation. Next, there is a discussion of 

which alternative was determined to be the 

environmentally preferred alternative and a 

description of alternatives considered but 

dismissed. The chapter concludes with 

summary tables of the alternatives and the 

environmental consequences of implementing 

those alternative actions. 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment describes 

those areas and resources that would be 

affected by implementing the various 

alternatives − natural resources, cultural 

resources, wilderness resources (including the 

visitor wilderness experiences), visitor 

experiences in the nonwilderness areas, and 

park operations. 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

analyzes the impacts of implementing the 

alternatives on the topics described in the 

“Affected Environment” chapter. Methods that 

were used for assessing the impacts in terms of 

the intensity, type, and duration of impacts are 

outlined at the beginning of the chapter. 

Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

describes the history of public and agency 

coordination during the wilderness study effort 

and lists agencies and organizations who will 

be receiving copies of this document. 

The Appendixes present supporting 

information for the document, along with 

selected references, a glossary, a list of the 

study authors, and an index.

iv
SUMMARY

The purpose of this wilderness study is to 

determine if and where lands and waters 

within the Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore should be proposed for 

wilderness designation. The study 

identifies a range of possible wilderness 

configurations within the park and 

evaluates their effects. Based on the 

findings of this study, a formal wilderness 

proposal may be submitted to the Director 

of the National Park Service for approval 

and subsequent consideration by the 

Department of the Interior, President, and 

Congress under the provisions of the 

Wilderness Act. 

The National Park Service (NPS) 

Management Policies 2001 (§6.2.1, NPS 

2000) require that all lands administered 

by the National Park Service be evaluated 

for their suitability for inclusion within the 

national wilderness preservation system. 

When the state of Wisconsin donated 

lands in the Apostle Islands to the 

National Park Service, it requested that the 

wilderness qualities of these lands be 

protected. The 1989 General Management 

Plan for Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore directed that a formal 

wilderness study be done for the lands and 

waters within the park to determine if 

areas should be proposed to Congress for 

wilderness designation. The plan stated 

that about 97% (41,054 acres) of the park’s 

land base may be suitable for wilderness 

and instructed that these lands “...be 

managed to preserve their potential 

wilderness values until a formal wilderness 

study has been completed and forwarded 

to Congress.” For the past 14 years the 

National Park Service has managed these 

lands to preserve their wilderness values 

pending completion of a wilderness study. 

In the 2001 Department of Interior 

appropriations bill, Congress specifically 

directed that the National Park Service 

conduct a wilderness study for the Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore. 

WILDERNESS STUDY PROCESS 

In the summer and fall of 2001 the 

National Park Service began to seek public 

input on wilderness designation for the 

Apostle Islands. The public raised several 

major issues and concerns regarding 

designating or not designating wilderness 

during the scoping period, including: 

• impacts of potential new developments 

on the islands 

• changes in access to the park 

• changes in visitor uses and experiences 

• impacts to local communities and the 

economy 

• impacts on Native American treaty 

rights 

• protection of cultural resources 

• changes in park operations 

Once the issues were understood, the 

study team began to identify draft 

alternatives for designating wilderness in 

the park. In preparing these alternatives, 

the study team first identified those areas 

in the park that clearly do not meet the 

Wilderness Act suitability criteria (see the 

“Planning Background: Wilderness and 

the Apostle Islands” section for a list of the 

suitability criteria). Eight areas or types of 

areas were found to be clearly not suitable 

as wilderness and therefore were not 

considered in any of the wilderness study 

alternatives:

v
• waters and submerged lands of Lake 

Superior up to the ordinary high-water 

mark 

• public docks on the islands 

• the mainland unit 

• light stations and adjoining cultural 

landscapes 

• housing/administration areas on 

Stockton, Rocky, Sand, and Oak 

Islands 

• Manitou Island fish camp 

• Southeast tip of Sand Island 

• West Bay Club on Sand Island 

The study team initially identified six draft 

alternative proposals for designating 

wilderness in the park. A series of open 

houses and meetings were then held with 

the public and interested organizations in 

July 2002 to gather public input on the 

alternatives and determine which 

alternative was favored. After analyzing 

this public input, the study team revised 

the alternatives, and dropped two of the 

preliminary alternatives. The four 

remaining alternatives (which have been 

renamed) and their environmental impacts 

are presented in this draft document. A 

preferred alternative was selected among 

these alternatives using a “Choosing By 

Advantages” (CBA) process. 

ALTERNATIVES 

Alternative A (No Wilderness)

This alternative, the “no action 

alternative,” is required under the 

National Environmental Policy Act. It 

provides a baseline for comparing the 

changes and impacts of the other 

alternatives. Under this alternative no 

wilderness would be proposed for Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore. If this 

alternative were selected, it is assumed that 

Congress would approve the no 

wilderness recommendation. As a result, 

the National Park Service would no longer 

be required to manage the park to protect 

the area’s wilderness values. However, for 

at least the short term the National Park 

Service would continue to protect and 

maintain the park’s wilderness 

characteristics indirectly through the 

existing zoning framework in the 1989 

General Management Plan. In the long 

term it is possible that alternative A could 

be a departure from how the National 

Park Service has managed Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore in the past − when the 

existing general management plan is 

revised or a new general management plan 

is adopted, the management directions for 

the park could change, which may result in 

less protection for wilderness resources in 

parts of the park. 

Alternative B (Maximize Wilderness)

Alternative B only excludes the areas 

determined to be not suitable in all of the 

alternatives. Of all the alternatives, 

alternative B would be most similar to how 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore is 

currently being managed because 97% of 

the park’s land base is being managed as de 

facto wilderness. Altogether, approximately 39,500 acres of the park’s 42,160-

acre land base (94%) would be proposed 

as wilderness under alternative B (see the 

Alternative B map on page 31). This is the 

equivalent of 57% of the entire park 

(69,372 acres), if one considers the waters 

as well as the lands within the park 

boundary. 

Alternative C (Preferred Alternative and 

Environmentally Preferred Alternative)

Alternative C is the National Park Service’s 

preferred alternative for designating 

wilderness in Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore. This alternative is intended to 

vi
permanently protect most of the park’s 

natural, cultural, and wilderness resources. 

It also is intended to ensure that there will 

be outstanding opportunities for people to 

learn both the stories of the people who 

settled and altered these islands and the 

story of the subsequent restoration of the 

park’s “wilderness” qualities. Basswood, 

Sand and Long Islands would not be 

included in this wilderness proposal. 

Alternative C also would also strive to 

minimize the number of small, fragmented 

areas of wilderness or nonwilderness. 

Altogether, approximately 33,500 acres of 

the park’s 42,160-acre land base (80%) 

would be proposed as wilderness under 

alternative C (see Alternative C map on 

page 35). This is the equivalent of 48% of 

the entire park (69,372 acres), if one 

considers the waters as well as the lands 

within the park boundary. 

Alternative D (Limit Wilderness to 

Remote Areas)

Alternative D emphasizes those remote, 

isolated areas that provide the best 

opportunities for solitude and primitive 

recreation during the busy summer season. 

These areas are not on the current tour 

boat route, and generally are more distant 

from the mainland. Altogether, approximately 23,000 acres of the park’s 42,160-

acre land base (55%) would be proposed 

as wilderness under alternative D (see 

Alternative D map on page 39). This is the 

equivalent of 33% of the entire park 

(69,372 acres), if one considers the waters 

as well as the lands within the park 

boundary. 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 

The study team evaluated the potential 

consequences the different wilderness 

proposal alternatives would have on 

natural resources, cultural resources, 

wilderness resources, visitor 

nonwilderness experiences, and park 

operations. In order to analyze the impacts 

of wilderness designation it was assumed 

that Congress would approve the no 

wilderness recommendation. It was 

further assumed that if wilderness was not 

designated in the park, administrative or 

visitor developments could be built in the 

undeveloped parts of the islands, provided 

they were consistent with the park’s 

general management plan. It was also 

assumed that the current general 

management plan could be modified to 

allow new development in areas outside 

the current development zones. The 

beneficial or adverse effects of wilderness 

designation were categorized as either 

short or long term, and their intensity was 

rated as negligible, minor, moderate, or 

major. The impacts of the alternatives are 

summarized in table 3. No cumulative 

impacts were identified in any of the 

alternatives. None of the impacts in the 

alternatives were found to be of sufficient 

intensity to constitute an impairment of 

park resources and values. No impacts 

were identified due to wilderness 

designation that would require mitigation 

measures. 

Natural Resources 

Alternative A would have the least 

certainty that the park’s natural resources 

would continue to be protected and 

maintained as they have been. Depending 

on the level and type of future developments that occur, there would be the 

potential for moderate, adverse, long-term 

impacts to soils, plants, and coastal 

vii
processes, and negligible to minor, longterm, adverse impacts to wildlife. 

Wilderness designation in alternatives B, 

C, and D would provide an additional 

layer of protection and ensure that natural 

resources would be permanently 

protected. Alternatives B and C would 

have moderate, long-term, beneficial 

impacts in the wilderness area, while 

alternative D would have minor to 

moderate, long-term, beneficial impacts. 

In the nonwilderness areas alternative B 

would have negligible to moderate, short 

and long-term impacts on natural 

resources in localized areas, depending on 

the new developments that occurred. 

Alternative 

 C would have the same type of impacts as 

alternative B, but more natural resources 

could be adversely affected in more areas, 

depending on the level of development 

that occurred. Likewise, alternative D 

would have the same type of impacts as 

alternative B, but more natural resources 

could be adversely affected in more areas 

than in alternatives B and C. 

Cultural Resources 

Alternative A would provide maximum 

flexibility in managing and preserving 

cultural resources, including flexibility in 

locating new developments to avoid 

cultural resource impacts. But alternative 

A also has the highest potential of all the 

alternatives for adverse, long-term impacts 

associated with increased visitation in 

more areas. Depending on the level of 

development that occurred, alternative A 

might have the potential for minor to 

moderate, long-term, adverse impacts to 

cultural resources throughout the park. 

However, it appears probable that 

alternative A would have little or no net 

impact on cultural resources. 

Alternatives B, C, and D have the potential 

for a mix of beneficial and adverse impacts 

relative to cultural resources. Some minor, 

adverse, long-term impacts could occur in 

the wilderness area in each of the 

alternatives due to reduced flexibility in 

the treatment options that would likely be 

used to manage and protect some cultural 

resources. Moderate, long-term, adverse 

impacts could occur to cultural resources 

in the non-wilderness areas under 

alternative B, and minor to moderate, 

long-term, adverse impacts in alternatives 

C and D, if new developments were built 

near existing developments where there 

were concentrations of cultural resources. 

Wilderness Resources 

Because no wilderness is proposed in 

alternative A, this alternative would 

provide the least assurance that wilderness 

resources, such as apparent naturalness 

and opportunities for solitude, would 

continue to be protected as they have 

been. There would be the potential for 

minor to major, long-term, adverse 

impacts on wilderness resources, 

depending on the level of future 

development that occurred. 

Alternatives B and C would have major, 

long-term, beneficial impacts on 

wilderness resources , including visitor 

wilderness experiences, and alternative D 

would have moderate, long-term, 

beneficial impacts, due to permanent 

protection bestowed by wilderness 

designation. In the nonwilderness areas 

alternative B would have some negligible, 

long-term, adverse impacts on wilderness 

resources due to new developments. In 

alternative C there could be some loss of 

wilderness resources, such as solitude and 

apparent naturalness, due to potential new 

developments, primarily on Basswood, 

Sand, and Long Islands, which would be a 

viii
minor to moderate, long-term, adverse 

impact. Under alternative D there could be 

a loss of wilderness resources due to 

potential new developments, primarily on 

12 islands, which could have a minor to 

major, long-term, adverse impact. 

Visitor Nonwilderness Experiences 

Alternative A would have the potential for 

a minor to moderate, long-term, beneficial 

impact on those visitor experiences not 

related to wilderness, primarily due to 

managers’ flexibility to expand 

recreational and interpretive facilities into 

new areas. Visitors would have additional 

opportunities to learn about the park’s 

stories and further understand the area’s 

significance. 

Alternative B would have the potential for 

a moderate, long-term, adverse impact on 

visitors’ nonwilderness experiences, 

primarily due to limiting the expansion of 

certain visitor facilities into new areas. 

Visitors could have fewer new opportunities to gain an understanding of the park 

and its significance than they would have 

under alternative A. Removing picnic 

tables from about a third of the campsites 

also would adversely affect some visitors’ 

experience. 

Alternatives C and D would have both 

beneficial and adverse impacts on visitors’ 

nonwilderness experiences. Compared to 

alternative A, alternative C would have the 

potential for a minor, long-term, adverse 

impact, primarily due to limits on the possible expansion of certain visitor facilities, 

such as nonpersonal, interpretive media, 

into new areas, which would forego potential opportunities for visitors. Removing picnic tables from about 20% of the 

campsites also would adversely affect 

some visitors’ experience. Alternative D 

likewise would have the potential for a 

negligible, long-term, adverse impact for 

the same reasons. But both alternatives 

would have the potential for a beneficial, 

long-term impact by providing visitors 

with more opportunities onsite to learn 

the wilderness and nonwilderness stories 

of the Apostle Islands. Of all the alternatives, alternative C has the most visible 

“edge” between wilderness and nonwilderness on the islands, which would provide more opportunities for the National 

Park Service to educate visitors onsite on 

the role that wilderness plays in shaping 

the American cultural and physical 

landscape. This would have a beneficial 

impact on some visitors’ experience. 

Park Operations 

All of the alternatives would have the 

potential for both beneficial and adverse 

impacts to park operations, depending on 

the level and type of new developments 

that occur. Alternative A would have the 

potential for minor to moderate, longterm, beneficial impacts due to a high 

degree of management flexibility in carrying out park programs and operations. But 

increased levels of development that could 

occur under this alternative also could 

have minor to major, long-term, adverse 

impacts on the park’s operations, primarily 

due to increased costs and increased 

demands on park staff’s time and energy, 

assuming staffing levels did not change. 

Compared to alternative A, alternative B 

could have a minor to moderate, longterm, beneficial impact on park operations, due to new developments mostly 

being confined to a few areas, which 

would result in lower operational costs. 

Alternative B also would have minor to 

moderate, long-term, adverse impacts due 

to decreased management flexibility and 

possible increased costs in managing the 

ix
few facilities that are in the wilderness 

area. 

Alternatives C and D would have similar 

effects but in varying intensities due to the 

changes in the size of the areas being proposed for wilderness. Compared to alternative A, alternative C would have the 

potential for minor to moderate, longterm, beneficial impacts, and alternative D 

would have the potential for minor, longterm, beneficial impacts, because there 

would be fewer areas where new developments would occur. Both alternatives C 

and D also would have minor, long-term, 

adverse impacts due to a reduction in 

management flexibility and possible 

increased costs of management in the 

wilderness area.

x
CONTENTS 

Purpose and Need for the Wilderness Study 2

Purpose of and Need for the Action 3

Purpose of the Wilderness Study 3

Need for the Wilderness Study 3

Background for the Wilderness Study 6

Brief Description of Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 6

Planning Background: Wilderness and the Apostle Islands 6

Wilderness Suitability Assessment and Study Policies and Guidelines 9

Wilderness Study Process 11

Primary Issues and Concerns 13

1. Impacts of Potential New Developments on the Islands 13

2. Access to Apostle Islands National Lakeshore (Motorboats and Sailboats) 13

3. Changes in Visitor Uses and Experiences 13

4. Impacts to the Local Communities and Economy 14

5. Impacts on Native AmericanTreaty Rights 14

6. Protection of Cultural Resources 14

7. Park Operations 14

Impact Topics Considered in this Environmental Impact Statement 15

Natural Resources (General) 15

Cultural Resources (Archeological Resources, Historic Structures, Ethnographic Resources, and 

Cultural Landscapes) 15

Wilderness Resources (Including the Visitor Wilderness Experiences) 16

Visitor Nonwilderness Experiences 16

Park Operations 16

Impact Topics Considered but not Analyzed in Detail 17

Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands 17

Air Quality 17

Floodplains and Wetlands 17

Fish 17

Threatened & Endangered Species 18

Lightscape 18

Soundscape 18

Museum Objects 19

Public Health and Safety 19

Socioeconomic Environment 19

Land Use 20

Indian Trust Resources 20

Environmental Justice 20

Natural or Depletable Resource Requirements and Conservation Potential 21

Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential 21

Wilderness Alternatives 23

Introduction 25

Areas Considered not Suitable for Wilderness 26

Alternative A: No Wilderness (No-Action Alternative) 28

Alternative B (Maximize Wilderness) 29 

 Alternative C (Preferred Alternative) 33 

xi
Alternative D (Limit Wilderness to Remote Areas) 37

Environmentally Preferred Alternative 42

Alternatives Considered but Dismissed 44

Affected Environment 47

Introduction 49

Natural Resources 50

Water Quality 50

Geology and Coastal Processes 51

Soils 51

Vegetation 52

Wildlife 53

Cultural Resources 56

Archeological Resources 56

Historic Structures 56

Ethnographic Resources 57

Cultural Landscapes 57

Wilderness Resources (Including Visitor Wilderness Experiences) 58

Minimal Levels of Development 58

Opportunities for Primitive, Unconfined Recreation 59

Opportunities for Solitude 59

Visitor Nonwilderness Experiences 60

General Visitor Use Patterns 60

Island Experiences 60

Park Operations 62

Interpretation and Education 62

Protection 62

Planning and Resource Management 62

Facility Management 63

Environmental Consequences 65

Introduction 67

Methodologies for Analyzing Impacts 70

Mitigation Measures, Cumulative Impacts, and Resource Impairment 73

Mitigation Measures 73

Cumulative Impacts 73

Impairment of Park Resources or Values 74

Impacts on Natural Resources 76

Alternative A (No Wilderness) 76

Alternative B (Maximize Wilderness) 77

Alternative C (Preferred Alternative) 78

Alternative D (Limit Wilderness to Remote Areas) 78

Impacts on Cultural Resources 80

Alternative A (No Wilderness 81

Alternative B (Maximize Wilderness) 82

Alternative C (Preferred Alternative) 83

Alternative D (Limit Wilderness to Remote Areas) 84

Impacts on Wilderness Resources (Including the Visitor Wilderness Experieinces) 86

Alternative A (No Wilderness) 86

Alternative B (Maximize Wilderness) 86

Alternative C (Preferred Alternative) 87

xii
Alternative D (Limit Wilderness to Remote Areas) 88

Impacts on Visitor Nonwilderness Experiences 89

Alternative A (No Wilderness) 89

Alternative B (Maximize Wilderness) 89

Alternative C (Preferred Alternative) 90

Alternative D (Limit Wilderness to Remote Areas) 91

Impacts on Park Operations 93

Alternative A (No Wilderness) 93

Alternative B (Maximize Wilderness) 94

Alternative C (Preferred Alternative 95

Alternative D (Limit Wilderness to Remote Areas) 97

Other Required Impact Topics 99

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 99

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 99

Relationship between Short-Term Uses and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term 

Productivity 99

Consultation and Coordination 101

Summary of Public Involvement 103

Written Communications and the Internet 103

Public, Agency, and Organizational Meetings 104

Consultations with Native American Tribes 105

Consultation with the Wisconsin State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) 105

Consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 106

Coastal Zone Consistency Determination 106

Public Officials, Agencies, and Organizations to Whom Copies of the Draft Study Were Sent 107

Congressional Delegation 107

State and Local Elected Officials 107

Federal Agencies 107

Native American Tribes and Agencies 107

State of Wisconsin Agencies 107

Local and Regional Government Agencies 108

Organizations and Businesses 108

Libraries 108

Media 108

Appendixes / Bibliography / Preparers / Glossary / Index 111

Appendix A: Wilderness Suitability Assessment Memorandum 113

Appendix B: Letter Of Consultation 116

Bibliography 118

Preparers and Contributors 122

Glossary 124

Index 127

xiii
Maps 

Location 7 

Alternative B 31 

Alternative C 35 

Alternative D 39 

Tables 

1: Summary of Areas Included in Alternatives A-D 41 

2: Summary of Approximate Acreage Proposed for Wilderness in Each Alternative 41 

3: Summary of Impacts 45

xiv
Purpose and Need

for the Wilderness Study
(Back of Divider Page Blank)

2
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE ACTION

PURPOSE OF THE 

WILDERNESS STUDY 

The purpose of this wilderness study is to 

determine if and where lands and waters 

within the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore (also referred to as the park in this 

document) should be proposed for wilderness designation. The study identifies a 

range of possible wilderness configurations within the park and evaluates their 

effects on the human environment. Based 

on the findings of this study, a formal 

wilderness proposal may be submitted to 

the Director of the National Park Service 

for approval and subsequent consideration by the Department of the Interior, 

President, and Congress under the 

provisions of the Wilderness Act. 

It is important to note that the purpose of 

this study is not to examine questions 

regarding how a wilderness area should be 

administered. These questions would be 

addressed in a subsequent wilderness 

management plan, which will be prepared 

if Congress passes legislation designating 

any portion of the park as wilderness. (For 

more details on wilderness management, 

see the NPS Management Policies 2001, 

which are available on-line at www.nps. 

gov/apis/wstudy.htm.) Some questions 

that a wilderness plan will need to address 

are listed in the text box on the following 

page. 

NEED FOR THE 

WILDERNESS STUDY 

The Wilderness Act and National Park 

Service Management Policies 2001 (§6.2.1, 

NPS 2000) require that all lands administered by the National Park Service be 

evaluated for their suitability for inclusion 

within the national wilderness preservation system. Section 6.2.2 further states 

that “lands and waters found to possess 

the characteristics and values of wilderness, as defined in the Wilderness Act and 

determined suitable pursuant to the 

wilderness suitability assessment, will be 

formally studied to develop the recommendation to Congress for wilderness 

designation.” 

The 1989 General Management Plan (see 

the Glossary at the back of the document 

for a list of terms) for Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore directed that a formal 

wilderness study be done for the lands and 

waters within the park to determine if 

areas should be proposed to Congress for 

wilderness designation. The plan stated 

that about 97% (41,054 acres) of the park’s 

land base may be suitable for wilderness 

and instructed that these lands “...be managed to preserve their potential wilderness 

values until a formal wilderness study has 

been completed and forwarded to 

Congress.” For the past 14 years the 

National Park Service has managed these 

lands to preserve their wilderness values 

pending completion of a wilderness study. 

In the 2001 Department of Interior 

appropriations bill, Congress specifically 

directed the National Park Service to 

conduct a wilderness study for the Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore.

3
WHAT IS WILDERNESS? 

As defined in the Wilderness Act, wilderness is “...an area of undeveloped Federal land...without 

permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its 

natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of 

nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities 

for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least 5,000 acres of land or is of 

sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition....” 

{Emphasis added} 

It is important to note that wilderness does not have to be pristine or greater than 5,000 acres in size −

smaller areas and those that have been previously altered by people can qualify for wilderness 

designation. 

“Potential wilderness” also is a term that the National Park Service uses. As defined in NPS 

Management Policies (§6.2.2.1), potential wilderness is an area that is surrounded by or adjacent to 

lands proposed for wilderness designation but does not qualify for immediate designation due to 

temporary, nonconforming or incompatible conditions. If so authorized by Congress, potential 

wilderness areas become designated wilderness upon the Secretary of the Interior’s determination that 

the nonconforming use has been removed or eliminated. Areas that may be potential wilderness 

include areas with use and occupancy cabins and areas where there are rights owned by entities other 

than the federal government. 

4
USES AND MANAGEMENT IN WILDERNESS

Although this study is not examining use or management of wilderness, the Wilderness Act and NPS policies 

permit and prohibit various uses, developments, and actions. These directions need to be considered in evaluating 

impacts of the wilderness proposals. 

A variety of recreational uses, management actions, and even facilities are permitted in wilderness areas under the 

Wilderness Act and NPS policies. Among the uses, management actions, and facilities permitted in wilderness are: 

• nonmotorized recreational uses (e.g., hiking, backpacking, picnicking, camping) 

• hunting and trapping (where otherwise permitted by law, as in the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore) and 

fishing 

• Native American religious activities and other actions recognized under treaty-reserved rights 

• guided interpretive walks and onsite talks and presentations 

• use of wheelchairs, service animals, and reasonable accommodations for the disabled that are not in conflict 

with the Wilderness Act (e.g., barrier-free trails, accessible campsites) 

• scientific activities/research 

• monitoring programs 

• management actions taken to correct past mistakes or impacts of human use, including restoration of 

extirpated species, controlling invasive alien species, endangered species management, and protection of air 

and water quality 

• fire management activities (including fire suppression) 

• protection and maintenance of historic properties eligible for the National Register of Historic Places 

• trails 

• campsites 

• certain administrative facilities if necessary to carry out wilderness management objectives (e.g., storage or 

support structures, ranger station) 

• signs necessary for visitor safety or to protect wilderness resources 

• uses and facilities permitted for landowners with valid property rights in a wilderness area 

The Wilderness Act also specifically prohibits certain uses and developments. Under section 4(d) of the Act, the 

following uses are not permitted in a wilderness: 

• permanent improvements or human habitation 

• structures or installations 

• permanent roads 

• temporary roads 

• use of motor vehicles 

• use of motorized equipment 

• landing of aircraft (except for emergency purposes) 

• other forms of mechanical transport (e.g., bicycles) 

• commercial enterprises (except for commercial services that are necessary for realizing the recreational or 

other wilderness purposes of the area, such as guiding and outfitting) 

With the exception of permanent roads, the Act does recognize that the above uses may be permitted if necessary 

to meet the minimum requirements for the administration of the area as wilderness or for emergency purposes. 

In addition to the above prohibitions, NPS policies also prohibit some developments: 

• new utility lines 

• permanent equipment caches 

• site markings or improvements for nonemergency use 

• borrow pits (except for small quantity use of borrow material for trails) 

• new shelters for public use 

• picnic tables 

• interpretive signs and trails and waysides (unless necessary for visitor safety or to protect wilderness 

resources) 

Ninety-seven percent of the land base of Apostle Islands National Lakeshore is currently being managed 

according to the above NPS policies and directions. 

5
BACKGROUND FOR THE WILDERNESS STUDY

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF 

APOSTLE ISLANDS NATIONAL 

LAKESHORE 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, on 

the tip of the Bayfield Peninsula in 

northern Wisconsin, includes 21 islands in 

Lake Superior and a 12-mile narrow strip 

of mainland shoreline (see figure 1). 

Established by an act of Congress on 

September 26, 1970, the purpose of the 

park is “to conserve and develop for the 

benefit, inspiration, education, 

recreational use, and enjoyment of the 

public” the islands and their related 

geographic, scenic and scientific values. 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

encompasses 69,372 acres, of which 27,323 

acres are submerged lands in Lake 

Superior; the park boundary extends a 

quarter mile from the shore of the 

mainland and from each island. The 

islands range in size from 3-acre Gull 

Island to 10,054-acre Stockton Island. A 

variety of scenic features can be found on 

the islands, including examples of some of 

the earliest and latest events of geologic 

history in the lower 48 states. The park 

features pristine stretches of sand beaches 

and coves, spectacular sea caves, remnant 

old growth forests, a diverse population of 

birds, mammals, amphibians, and fish, and 

the largest collection of lighthouses in the 

national park system. People have used the 

islands for thousands of years. During the 

historic period, people constructed 

residences and started farms, fishing 

operations, brownstone quarries, and 

logging camps on the islands. Several of 

these historic sites are listed on the 

National Register of Historic Places. 

PLANNING BACKGROUND: 

WILDERNESS AND THE APOSTLE 

ISLANDS 

Throughout the planning efforts that led 

to the establishment of Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore, the importance of 

protecting the wilderness qualities of the 

islands was recognized. The 1965 

Department of Interior proposal for the 

park stated that the islands “...should be 

considered as primitive and wild areas and 

as such only minimum basic facilities are 

necessary for their use and enjoyment.” 

Assistant Secretary of the Interior Leslie 

Glasgow stated in testimony at a March 

1970 Senate hearing that “The majority of 

the islands are...ideally suited for 

wilderness camping, hiking, and natural 

science studies....” Jordahl (1994) noted 

that in establishing the park Congress 

clearly intended that, with the exception 

of Sand Island, the islands be kept wild 

and primitive. 

The state of Wisconsin also directed that 

wilderness qualities be protected in the 

park. One of the conditions the Wisconsin 

legislature stipulated when it donated its 

lands to the federal government for the 

park was that this area’s wilderness 

character be preserved. The legislature 

stated: “It is the policy of the legislature 

that the Apostle Islands be managed in a 

manner that will preserve their unique 

primitive and wilderness character” 

(Wisconsin Statutes §1.026(1)(b)). 

As noted above, the 1989 General 

Management Plan, Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore, called for a formal wilderness 

study for Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore. The General Management Plan

found approximately 97% of the lands 

6
Grand Portage

National

Monument

Thunder

Bay

Boundary Waters

Canoe Area

Voyageurs

National Park

Pictured Rocks

National Lakeshore



N

Madeline Basswood

Hermit

Oak

Stockton

Gull

Michigan

Otter Manitou

Rocky

South 

Twin

North

Twin

Ironwood

Cat

Outer

Ù

Canada

United States

Lake Superior

Ontario

Minnesota

W

Michigan

isconsin

Minnesota

Wisconsin

61

Duluth

Superior

13

Wisconsin Bayfield

Park Boundary

Eagle

Sand York

Raspberry

Bear

Devils

Long

Copper Harbor

Keweenaw Peninsula

Ù Marquette

41

Cameron Ù8

Eau

 Claire

Heafford 

Junction

St. Croix

Falls

Minneapolis

st.

Paul

Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore

Û35

Location

Isle Royale National Park

St. Croix National

Scenic

Riverway

 0 25 50 Miles

Indian

Reservation



N

No Scale

633•20075•DSC•6/2003

U.S. Department of the Interior

National Park Service
Blank on back of map

8
in the park under NPS jurisdiction (about 

41,054 acres) may be suitable for 

wilderness. These lands and waters were 

placed in the natural zone in the General 

Management Plan and have been managed 

to preserve their potential wilderness 

values pending completion of a formal 

wilderness study. 

National Park Service Management Policies 

2001 direct that a wilderness suitability 

assessment be prepared that identifies all 

areas within the park that potentially 

qualify as being suitable for wilderness 

designation. The accompanying text box 

describes the criteria that are used to 

determine if areas are suitable for 

wilderness. On April 27, 2001, the NPS 

Director concurred that the park’s 1989 

General Management Plan met the 

requirements for a wilderness suitability 

assessment (see appendix A). 

WILDERNESS SUITABILITY 

ASSESSMENT AND STUDY 

POLICIES AND GUIDELINES

The Wilderness Act (PL 88-577) and 

National Park Service Management Policies

2001 (NPS 2000) provide directions and 

guidelines for wilderness suitability 

assessments, which also apply to 

wilderness studies. These policies and 

guidelines delineate existing and future 

conditions and uses that are compatible 

with wilderness designation. Congress also 

implied in the Eastern Wilderness Act (PL 

93-622) that wilderness does not have to 

consist solely of pristine old-growth forest 

and that lands previously disturbed can be 

rehabilitated to meet wilderness standards 

and qualities. 

The following directions are particularly 

relevant to the Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore wilderness study: 

• Past Uses − Lands that have been 

logged, farmed, grazed, mined, or 

otherwise utilized in ways not 

involving extensive development 

or alteration of the landscape may 

also be considered for wilderness 

designation if the effects of these 

activities are substantially 

unnoticeable or their wilderness 

character could be maintained or 

restored through appropriate 

management actions. 

• Management − An area will not be 

excluded from a determination of 

wilderness suitability solely 

because established management 

practices require the use of tools, 

equipment or structures, if those 

practices are necessary to meet 

minimum requirements for the 

administration of the area as 

wilderness. 

• Historic Features − Historic features that are primary visitor 

attractions (e.g., light stations) will 

not be recommended for wilderness designation by Congress. 

However, an area that attracts 

visitors primarily for the enjoyment 

of solitude and unconfined recreation in a primitive setting and that 

may also contain historic features 

may be recommended for wilderness. Typical historic features that 

may be included are archeological 

sites, historic trails, travel routes, 

and minor structures. 

• Existing Developments − Areas 

where evidence of people and their 

developments are obvious and are 

expected to remain are not suitable 

for wilderness designation. NPS 

development zones, as identified in 

the General Management Plan, 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore,

are not compatible with wilderness 

designation. 

9
WILDERNESS SUITABILITY CRITERIA 

Under National Park Service Management Policies 2001, NPS lands will be considered suitable for 

wilderness if they are at least 5,000 acres or a sufficient size to make practicable their preservation and 

use in an unimpaired condition, and if they possess the following characteristics as identified in the 

Wilderness Act: 

• The earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who 

does not remain. 

• The area is undeveloped federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without 

permanent improvements or human habitation. 

• The area generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint 

of man's work substantially unnoticeable. 

• The area is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions. 

• The area has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of 

recreation. 

Some have questioned whether the Apostle Islands meets the criteria for wilderness designation. It is 

true that the Apostle Islands are not a pristine landscape. Logging, quarrying, and farming have altered 

the landscape of many of the islands. However, in the Eastern Wilderness Act, Congress recognized 

that smaller natural areas can still be considered for wilderness designation even if they are not 

“pristine.” The key questions that need to be answered are: 1) Will the area recover significantly to a 

natural state (not necessarily to its original state)? 2) Can the area be reasonably protected in the future 

as wilderness? In the case of the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, the National Park Service 

determined in the 1989 General Management Plan that most of the park’s land base was recovering and 

could be reasonably protected as wilderness. 

10
WILDERNESS STUDY PROCESS

In the summer and fall of 2001 the 

National Park Service began to seek public 

input on wilderness designation for the 

Apostle Islands. A public open house was 

held in Bayfield and meetings were held 

with agencies, tribes, and organizations. 

However, the formal public scoping 

process for the wilderness study, required 

for an environmental impact statement 

under the National Environmental Policy 

Act, began on October 12, 2001, when a 

notice of intent to prepare the wilderness 

study/environmental impact statement 

was published in the Federal Register. 

Letters were sent out at that time to the 

park’s mailing list, requesting the public to 

identify the major issues and concerns 

regarding the wilderness study. The 

mailing list that the park staff routinely 

uses to invite public input on its plans and 

studies was used as the starting point for 

the wilderness study mailing list. This list 

was supplemented with individuals and 

organizations who expressed interest in 

the study after it was publicized. Once the 

issues were understood, the study team 

identified six draft alternative proposals 

for designating wilderness in the park. A 

series of open houses and meetings were 

then held with the public and interested 

organizations during the summer of 2002 

to gauge public reaction to the alternatives 

and determine which draft alternative was 

favored (see the “Consultation and 

Coordination” chapter for a list of these 

meetings). After analyzing this public 

input, the study team revised the 

alternatives, and dropped two of the 

preliminary alternatives. The four 

remaining alternatives (which have been 

renamed) and their environmental impacts

TREATY AND PROPERTY RIGHTS PERTINENT TO THE WILDERNESS STUDY

Certain treaty and property rights apply to all the alternatives being considered in the wilderness 

study: 

3⁄4 Treaty Rights: Native American treaty rights will continue to be honored under all of the 

alternatives being considered in the study − none of the alternatives being considered would 

impede, prevent, or in any way negate treaty rights. Wilderness will not, indeed cannot, affect the 

gathering or harvesting of plants or plant materials, hunting, fishing, and trapping rights, or 

commercial fishing (although with appropriate consultation it may affect the manner in which 

these treaty rights are exercised). These rights are “reserved rights” through the treaties of 1837, 

1842, and 1854, which were reaffirmed through State vs. Gurnoe and Lac Courte Oreilles Band of 

Chippewa Indians vs. Voigt. In addition, the Red Cliff and Bad River Bands of Chippewa Indians 

have reserved rights beyond or in addition to those guaranteed by the Treaty of 1842 for those 

portions of the park that lie within their reservations. 

3⁄4 Other Valid Rights: Wilderness will not affect the owners of various valid property rights under all 

of the alternatives being considered in the study. This includes county and township owned lands, 

mineral right owners, and individuals with use and occupancy rights. The National Park Service 

will continue to honor and respect the valid rights of these entities and individuals under all of the 

alternatives, as required under the provisions of the Wilderness Act and NPS management 

policies.

11
are presented in this draft document. A 

preferred alternative was selected among 

these alternatives using a “Choosing By 

Advantages” (CBA) process (Suhr 1999). 

This process, which has been used 

extensively by government agencies and 

the private sector, evaluates different 

choices (in this case, the four draft 

alternatives) by identifying and comparing 

the relative advantages of each according 

to a set of factors. The factors used to 

evaluate the alternatives were 

• ability to ensure long-term 

preservation of natural and cultural 

resources 

• consistency with the spirit and 

intent of the Wilderness Act, 

Eastern Wilderness Act, other 

relevant legislation, NPS policy and 

the Wisconsin Legislature’s policy 

in donating its lands to the federal 

government 

• ability to preserve and tell the 

stories of the Apostle Islands 

• consistency with public comments 

received on the preliminary 

alternatives 

This Draft Wilderness Study / Environmental Impact Statement will have a 90-day 

public review comment period. During 

this period, the National Park Service also 

will hold public meetings, including at 

least one public hearing, to provide 

additional opportunities for the public to 

provide comments on the draft. After the 

comment period ends, the study team will 

review comments on the draft document, 

make appropriate revisions to address the 

comments, and prepare a final wilderness 

study / environmental impact statement. 

The final document will include responses 

to substantive written and oral comments 

on the draft document — comments that 

modify the preferred alternative, the range 

of alternatives, or the environmental 

analysis. A minimum of 30 days after the 

final study / environmental impact 

statement is published, a record of 

decision will be signed by the NPS 

Midwest Regional Director and published 

in the Federal Register. This record of 

decision will document what action the 

National Park Service intends to take 

regarding a wilderness proposal for the 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. 

If the decision is made to propose 

wilderness, and the NPS Director concurs, 

a wilderness proposal will be sent to the 

Assistant Secretary of Fish and Wildlife 

and Parks and the Secretary of the 

Interior, who may revise or approve the 

proposal. The Secretary may then forward 

a wilderness recommendation to the 

President. The President may approve or 

revise the recommendation and then 

transmit his recommendation to Congress 

for consideration. Congress may enact 

legislation needed to include the area 

within the national wilderness 

preservation system as “designated” 

and/or “potential” wilderness. 

It is important to note that under NPS 

policies the 97% of lands within the park 

that have been found suitable for 

wilderness designation will continue to be 

managed as de facto wilderness until 

Congress takes action on a wilderness 

recommendation or the Secretary of the 

Interior recommends to the President that 

no lands be recommended to Congress for 

designation as wilderness.

12
PRIMARY ISSUES AND CONCERNS

Several major issues and concerns 

regarding designating or not designating 

wilderness were raised prior to and during 

the public scoping period by citizens, local 

governments, state agencies, and tribes. 

These issues and concerns were expressed 

at a public open house, held on July 25, 

2001, in Bayfield, mailed in via comment 

forms and the Internet, and voiced at 

several meetings members of the planning 

team held with agencies and organizations 

during the summer of 2001. 

It is important to note that the issues and 

concerns listed below are the perceptions 

of those who commented during the 

scoping period. They do not necessarily 

reflect how the National Park Service 

would actually manage wilderness. For 

more details on wilderness management, 

see the NPS Management Policies 2001, 

which are available on-line at www.nps. 

gov/apis/wstudy.htm. 

1. IMPACTS OF POTENTIAL NEW 

DEVELOPMENTS ON THE 

ISLANDS

The most frequent concern raised by 

individuals and conservation groups was 

the possibility that in the future new 

developments could be built or other 

actions taken that would change the 

character of the park. Many of these 

people wanted to ensure that the islands 

be maintained as they are for present and 

future generations. Concerns were raised 

that without the protection provided by 

wilderness, there could be fewer opportunities for those seeking solitude and 

quiet, primitive recreational experiences, 

and that adverse impacts could occur to 

the islands’ wildlife and other resources. 

2. ACCESS TO APOSTLE ISLANDS 

NATIONAL LAKESHORE 

(MOTORBOATS AND SAILBOATS) 

Another issue frequently raised by 

individuals and local governments was 

access to the park. People were concerned 

that wilderness would “lock up” the park, 

preventing or reducing access and use of 

the islands and preventing motorboat 

access. Local residents were worried that 

they would not be able to use the islands. 

People were apprehensive about wilderness extending out into the 1⁄4-mile water 

area surrounding the islands. Concerns 

were expressed that wilderness designation would prevent docks from being used, 

prevent people from snowmobiling by the 

islands to ice fish, result in restrictions 

being placed on anchorages, and prevent 

people with disabilities from accessing the 

islands. This issue was considered but was 

not addressed further for the reasons 

outlined at the end of this chapter. 

3. CHANGES IN VISITOR USES 

AND EXPERIENCES 

Another major concern was how the 

visitor experience would change as a result 

of wilderness designation. A fear was 

expressed that wilderness would result in 

more and more restrictions being placed 

on uses of the islands over time, which 

would alter the experience people now 

have. Some expressed the opinion that 

with wilderness, visitors would have less 

freedom to do what they want, when and 

where, compared to the present. Other 

concerns were what effect wilderness 

would have on hunting and trapping and 

commercial fishing. 

13
4. IMPACTS TO THE LOCAL 

COMMUNITIES AND ECONOMY 

A fourth major concern was what effect 

wilderness designation would have on the 

local communities and their economies. 

Concerns were expressed that wilderness 

designation would threaten the tourism 

industry, which is vital to the area and has 

shaped itself around the park’s current 

management approach. This issue was 

considered but was not addressed further 

for the reasons outlined at the end of this 

chapter. 

5. IMPACTS ON NATIVE 

AMERICAN TREATY RIGHTS 

Representatives of Native American tribes 

were concerned that wilderness might 

interfere with their treaty rights, 

specifically commercial fishing and 

trapping, hunting, and gathering. A 

concern was expressed that wilderness 

could result in a ban on commercial 

fishing. Another concern was that 

wilderness might limit motorboat access to 

the islands and limit the use of motorized 

vehicles to transport elders to important 

remote areas. This issue was considered 

but was not addressed further for the 

reasons outlined in the textbox in the 

“Wilderness Study Process” section. 

6. PROTECTION OF CULTURAL 

RESOURCES 

Concerns were expressed that wilderness 

designation would restrict actions that can 

be taken to maintain and protect cultural 

resources, such as the quarries and old 

farmsteads. Some people believe that 

wilderness designation would increase the 

temptation to remove and obliterate signs 

of past human use. Specific details regarding the management of cultural resources 

in wilderness are beyond the scope of this 

wilderness study and are more appropriately considered in a subsequent 

wilderness management plan. However, 

this concern is generally addressed in the 

“Environmental Consequences” chapter 

of this environmental impact statement. 

7. PARK OPERATIONS 

Concerns were raised that wilderness 

designation would reduce the flexibility of 

park managers to use machinery and other 

motorized equipment to manage resources 

and visitors in wilderness. This could 

reduce the productivity of staff, increase 

the number of staff needed to complete a 

task, and increase costs. 

14
IMPACT TOPICS CONSIDERED IN THIS 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

To focus the environmental impact 

analysis in this document, and to ensure 

that the alternatives were evaluated against 

relevant topics, the study team selected 

specific impact topics for further analysis 

and eliminated others from evaluation. 

The impact topics selected for analysis in 

this document, listed below, were based 

on public and other agency concerns 

identified during scoping, federal laws, 

regulations and orders, and National Park 

Service Management Policies 2001 (NPS 

2000). A brief rationale for selecting each 

impact topic is provided below. 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

(GENERAL) 

This topic includes geology and coastal 

processes, soils, water quality, vegetation, 

and wildlife. None of the alternatives 

being considered would alter the park’s 

soils, biotic communities, vegetation or 

wildlife populations, or other natural 

resources. Wilderness designation would 

not substantially affect either the 

management of natural resources, such as 

vegetation and wildlife in the park, or uses 

within the park that could affect these 

resources. In all of the alternatives the 

National Park Service would continue to 

protect and conserve native vegetation, 

wildlife, and other natural resources as 

required under the NPS Organic Act and 

NPS Management Policies 2001. However, 

in implementing the alternatives there is 

the potential that future developments 

could occur in those areas that are 

excluded in the various wilderness 

proposals, which could affect the park’s 

natural resources. 

Any loss or alteration of coastal processes, 

soils, vegetation, wildlife, etc., would be of 

concern to visitors, the general public, and 

NPS managers. This impact topic 

addresses issue #1. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

(ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES, 

HISTORIC STRUCTURES, 

ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES, 

AND CULTURAL LANDSCAPES) 

Wilderness designation could affect the 

park’s cultural resources, including 

archeological and ethnographic resources, 

historic structures, and cultural 

landscapes. In all of the alternatives the 

National Park Service would continue to 

protect and conserve cultural resources as 

required under the National Historic 

Preservation Act, Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act, NPS Organic 

Act and National Park Service 

Management Policies 2001. But like the 

natural resources, in the implementation 

of the alternatives there is the potential 

that future developments could occur in 

those areas that are excluded in the 

various wilderness proposals, which could 

affect the park’s cultural resources. Any 

loss or alteration of archeological sites, 

historic structures, cultural landscapes, 

and ethnographic resources would be of 

concern to visitors, the general public, and 

NPS managers. This impact topic 

addresses issue #6. 

15
WILDERNESS RESOURCES 

(INCLUDING THE VISITOR 

WILDERNESS EXPERIENCES) 

The primary purpose of this study is to 

determine whether or not wilderness 

should be proposed for Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore. A wilderness type 

experience is important to many visitors 

who come, or want to come, to the park. 

Director’s Order 41 (“Wilderness 

Preservation and Management”) and 

National Park Service Management Policies 

2001 require that the wilderness qualities 

found in 97% of the park’s land base be 

protected until Congress takes action on a 

wilderness recommendation. Thus, the 

park’s wilderness resources are important 

to consider in the management of the park. 

During the scoping period many people 

emphasized the need to protect the park’s 

wilderness resources. Any decreases in 

opportunities for solitude, the apparent 

naturalness of the park, and opportunities 

for primitive, unconfined recreation 

would be of concern to some visitors, 

managers, and the public. This impact 

topic addresses issue #2. 

VISITOR NONWILDERNESS 

EXPERIENCES 

This topic relates to the quality of those 

visitor experiences not related to 

wilderness, including the range of 

activities available to visitors. The purpose 

of Apostle Islands National Lakeshore is 

“to conserve and develop for the benefit, 

inspiration, education, recreational use, 

and enjoyment of the public.” Any actions 

that would diminish the quality of visitors’ 

experiences in the park would be 

important to visitors and managers — 

changes in available visitor opportunities, 

the character of the visitor experience, or 

what activities are and are not permitted 

would be of concern to many people. 

During the scoping period many people 

expressed concerns about the impacts of 

wilderness designation on their experience 

in the park. This impact topic addresses 

issue #2. 

 

PARK OPERATIONS 

This topic concerns park staffing levels 

and workloads, maintenance activities, 

costs, planning needs, and the ability to 

consider facilities in the future to support 

island administrative operations. Although 

much of the park could be designated as 

wilderness under the alternatives, most 

island operations would not be affected 

because major developments would not be 

included in any of the wilderness 

proposals. But wilderness designation 

could increase some workloads and staff 

needs and decrease other needs. Proposed 

management actions, such as administrative use of motorized equipment or 

mechanical transport, would need to be 

evaluated to determine if they are 

consistent with NPS wilderness policies 

before they could be authorized. Any 

changes in park operations due to wilderness (e.g., changes in maintenance 

activities, ranger patrols, or costs) may be 

of concern to both NPS staff and visitors. 

This impact topic addresses issue #7. 

16
IMPACT TOPICS CONSIDERED 

BUT NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL

Several potential impact topics were 

dismissed because they would not be 

affected, or the potential for impacts 

under all of the alternatives would be 

negligible. These topics are listed below, 

with an explanation of why they were not 

considered in detail. 

PRIME AND UNIQUE 

AGRICULTURAL LANDS 

There are no prime or unique agricultural 

soils within the boundaries of Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore (NPS 1989). 

AIR QUALITY 

In all of the alternatives the National Park 

Service would continue to protect and 

conserve air quality as required under the 

NPS Organic Act and NPS Management 

Policies 2001. None of the alternatives 

being considered would substantially alter 

the park’s air quality. Wilderness designation would not substantially affect either 

the management of air quality in the park 

or uses within the park that could affect air 

quality. 

FLOODPLAINS AND WETLANDS 

None of the alternatives would alter the 

park’s wetlands and floodplains. 

Wilderness designation would not 

substantially affect either the management 

of wetlands and floodplains in the park or 

uses within the park that could affect 

wetlands and floodplains. In all of the 

alternatives the National Park Service 

would continue to protect and conserve 

the park’s wetlands and floodplains as 

required under the NPS Organic Act, 

Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain 

Management), the NPS “Floodplain 

Management Guideline,” Executive Order 

1190 (“Protection of Wetlands”), NPS 

Director’s Order 77-1 (“Wetland 

Protection”), and NPS Management 

Policies 2001. If potential developments 

were to be built in areas not proposed for 

wilderness, the National Park Service 

would avoid building facilities in floodplains (except as permitted under the 

floodplain guidelines) or wetlands. If a 

trail was to be built that passes through a 

wetland, and that wetland could not be 

avoided, the project would be analyzed to 

minimize impacts to the wetland. 

FISH 

The Apostle Islands area is important for 

commercial and recreational fishing. 

However, none of the alternatives propose 

wilderness for the waters of Lake Superior 

or would result in changes that would 

affect the fish populations within the park 

portion of Lake Superior. Recreational 

and commercial fishermen would 

continue to be able to harvest fish within 

the boundaries of the park under all of the 

alternatives, subject to the regulations of 

the Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources. No changes would occur to the 

management of the commercial and 

recreational fishery or commercial fishing 

by Native Americans within the 

boundaries of the park solely due to 

wilderness designation under any of the 

alternatives. 

17
THREATENED & ENDANGERED 

SPECIES 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

supports populations and/or habitats for 

several federal and state listed threatened 

and endangered species (see appendix B). 

Federally endangered timber wolves 

(Canis lupus) have begun to utilize 

portions of the mainland unit, federally 

threatened bald eagles (Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus) nest in the park, and Long 

Island and the Michigan Island sandscape 

have been designated as critical habitat for 

the federally and state endangered piping 

plover (Charadrius melodus). The Apostle 

Islands also provide important habitat for 

five state endangered plants (butterwort 

(Pinguicula vulgaris), moonwort 

(Botrychium lunaria), mountain cranberry 

(Vaccinium vitis-idaea), satiny willow 

(Salix pellita), lake cress (Armoracia 

lacustris)), and 12 state threatened plants. 

None of the alternatives would affect 

threatened and endangered species or 

habitats that occur within the park. 

Wilderness designation would not 

substantially affect either the management 

of threatened and endangered species in 

the park or uses within the park that could 

affect these species and their habitats. In 

all of the alternatives the National Park 

Service would continue to protect, 

conserve, and restore threatened and 

endangered species populations in the 

park as required under the Endangered 

Species Act, NPS Organic Act, and NPS 

Management Policies 2001. If potential 

developments were to be proposed or 

development were to be proposed in 

nonwilderness areas, the National Park 

Service would seek to avoid adverse effects 

on listed federal and state species and their 

habitats in consultation with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service and the Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources. 

LIGHTSCAPE 

Under the NPS Organic Act and NPS 

Management Policies 2001, the National 

Park Service is required to protect to the 

greatest extent possible the natural lightscapes (i.e., night sky) of the park. In particular, the policies call for the National 

Park Service to protect natural darkness. 

None of the alternatives in this wilderness 

study would alter the park’s lightscape. 

Wilderness designation would not substantially alter activities within the park 

that could modify the lightscape. It is also 

considered likely that a potential development that may be built in a nonwilderness 

area on the islands would have only a 

negligible impact on the night sky. Most 

potential developments, such as campsites, 

trails, and picnic areas, would not have 

artificial light sources. If lights were 

needed, they would be localized, affect 

only a small area, and be designed to not 

adversely affect the lightscape. 

SOUNDSCAPE 

Under the NPS Organic Act, Director’s 

Order 47 (“Soundscape Preservation and 

Noise Management”), and NPS Management Policies 2001, the National Park 

Service is required to protect to the greatest extent possible the natural soundscape. 

None of the alternatives in this wilderness 

study would alter the park’s soundscape. 

Wilderness designation would not substantially affect activities within the park 

that could alter the soundscape. Although 

a potential development could be built in 

an area not proposed for wilderness, 

increasing noise levels in that area, it is not 

likely that a substantial change would 

occur in the park’s soundscape. The primary source of noise in the park would 

continue to be motorboats and people at 

the existing primary developments, which 

18
would occur regardless of whether or not 

wilderness was designated. 

MUSEUM OBJECTS 

Museum objects are manifestations and 

records of behavior and ideas that span the 

breadth of human experience and depth of 

natural history. None of the proposed 

alternatives have potential to affect 

museum objects. 

PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 

None of the alternatives would result in 

identifiable risks to human health and 

safety. Wilderness designation would not 

change visitor activities or management 

activities that would substantially alter the 

potential for threats to the health and 

safety of people in the park − regardless of 

whether or not wilderness would be 

designated, Lake Superior would pose the 

same risks for people who paddle, sail, or 

motor to the islands. 

ACCESS TO APOSTLE ISLANDS 

NATIONAL LAKESHORE

None of the alternatives in this study 

would affect access to the park by any 

currently legal means, including 

motorboats and sailboats — all currently 

permitted access methods would continue 

regardless of whether or not wilderness is 

designated in the park. None of the 

alternatives would result in the removal of 

public docks, or prohibit boats from being 

beached on the islands, which also could 

affect access to the islands. 

SOCIOECONOMIC 

ENVIRONMENT 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore affects 

local businesses and the economy of 

Bayfield and other communities in the 

area. Any actions that would alter visitor 

use levels or visitor use patterns would be 

of concern to many local businesses, 

including marinas, lodges, motels and 

restaurants, supply stores, guides, 

outfitters, and concessioners. During the 

scoping period many people expressed 

concern that wilderness designation 

would adversely affect the local economy. 

The two-county economy would be 

negatively affected only if designating 

wilderness (and managing these areas as 

wilderness) would cause negative changes 

in the numbers of visitors and/or their 

expenditure patterns, to the extent that 

individuals or firms would experience a 

loss of jobs and/or income. Because none 

of the alternatives would affect existing 

docks or access to the islands, no changes 

would be expected in overall visitor use 

levels or use patterns, and thus no changes 

would be expected in visitor expenditures 

related to the park. 

Also, NPS policy is to manage parklands 

and waters that have the potential for 

wilderness designation in a manner that 

preserves the wilderness potential and 

qualities of these resources. The islands 

being considered for designation as 

wilderness are currently being, and have 

been, managed to preserve wilderness 

values. Consequently, very little change in 

management activities and allowable types 

of use would occur in these areas of the 

park. As a result, official recognition and 

legal protection of wilderness in the park 

would not cause negative impacts to the 

local economy. 

There are no studies that support the 

hypothesis that negative impacts would 

occur to the local and regional economy as 

a result of the alternatives − there is a lack 

of evidence to substantiate claims that 

designating wilderness actually harms a 

19
local county economy. Thus, the belief 

that there is a connection between 

wilderness designation and negative 

economic impacts, such as a loss of jobs or 

income within the local region, has not 

been substantiated. On the contrary, 

several research studies indicate that 

wilderness is a positive (or at least neutral) 

factor supporting the growth of local 

economies — there is evidence that 

wilderness positively correlate with 

increased economic growth and increasing 

populations in rural counties (Duffy-Deno 

1998, Lorah 2000, Power 2000, Rudzitis 

and Johnson 2000). 

LAND USE 

There are no local land use plans that 

would affect the islands being considered 

for wilderness designation in this 

document. Wilderness designation under 

any of the alternatives also would not 

induce any changes in land use, or increase 

pressure for development, on the 

mainland adjacent to the park. 

INDIAN TRUST RESOURCES 

Secretarial Order 3175 requires that any 

anticipated impacts to Indian trust 

resources from a proposed project or 

action by Department of Interior agencies 

be explicitly addressed in environmental 

documents. In the case of Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore, there are no Indian 

trust resources in the park. The lands and 

waters comprising the park, including the 

lands on the mainland that are part of the 

Red Cliff Indian Reservation (and possibly 

Long Island in relation to the Bad River 

Indian Reservation), are not held in trust 

by the Secretary of the Interior for the 

benefit of Indians due to their status as 

Indians. However, this is not to say that 

the tribes do not have certain other rights 

to the lands and waters in the park. Those 

rights will continue to be honored 

regardless of the alternatives being 

considered in this wilderness study. 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

Executive Order 12898 requires federal 

agencies to identify and address 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects on 

minority and low-income populations. 

Minority or low income populations 

would be treated the same way under all of 

the alternatives considered in this study. 

None of the alternatives being considered 

would have a disproportionately high and 

adverse effect on any minority or lowincome population or community. This 

conclusion is based on the following 

information: 

• The wilderness proposals in the 

alternatives would not result in any 

identifiable adverse human health 

effects. Therefore, there would be 

no direct, indirect, or cumulative 

adverse effects on any minority or 

low-income population or 

community. 

• The alternatives would not trump 

or take precedence over Native 

American treaty rights − Native 

American tribes with treatyreserved rights would continue to 

be able to hunt, fish, trap, and 

gather within Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore, consistent 

with those rights. 

• No natural resource adverse 

impacts were identified due to the 

alternatives that would 

significantly and adversely affect 

minority or low-income 

populations or communities. 

20
• The alternatives would not result in 

any identified effects that would be 

specific to any minority or lowincome community. 

• The study team actively solicited 

public comments during the 

development of the wilderness 

study and gave equal consideration 

to all input from persons, 

regardless of age, race, sex, income 

status, or other socioeconomic or 

demographic factors. 

• During the study process park staff 

consulted and worked with the 

Red Cliff and Bad River Bands of 

the Lake Superior Chippewa, and 

the Voigt Intertribal Task Force of 

the Great Lakes Indian Fish and 

Wildlife Commission, and will 

continue to do so in cooperative 

efforts to improve communications 

and resolve any problems that 

occur. The study team did not 

identify negative or adverse effects 

due to wilderness designation that 

would disproportionately and 

adversely affect these Native 

Americans. 

• No impacts were identified to the 

socioeconomic environment due 

to the alternatives that would 

substantially alter the physical and 

social structure of the nearby 

communities. 

NATURAL OR DEPLETABLE 

RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS AND 

CONSERVATION POTENTIAL

None of the alternatives being considered 

would result in the extraction of resources 

from the park. Under all of the alternatives 

ecological principles would be applied to 

ensure that the park’s natural resources 

were maintained and not impaired. 

ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND 

CONSERVATION POTENTIAL 

None of the alternatives would result in a 

measurable change in energy consumption 

compared to current conditions. Depending on the approaches used to satisfy NPS 

wilderness management policies, the 

park’s use of energy could slightly decline 

due to reduced use of mechanized 

equipment in the wilderness areas in 

alternatives B, C, and D. The use of energy 

could also slightly increase due to the need 

to take more trips to the islands if crews 

used hand tools to maintain wilderness 

facilities such as trails and campsites. 

However, the change in energy 

consumption due to these actions in 

alternatives B, C, and D would be expected 

to be negligible compared to the overall 

energy consumption of the park. 

The National Park Service would pursue 

sustainable practices whenever possible in 

all decisions regarding park operations, 

facilities management, and developments 

in Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, as 

called for in NPS Management Policies 

2001. As with the existing island facilities, 

any new future developments in the 

nonwilderness areas would be powered by 

solar electrical systems or other alternative 

energy sources in all of the alternatives. 

21
POSSIBLE TOPICS FOR A FUTURE WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

If wilderness is designated in the park, a wilderness management plan eventually will be prepared. 

Listed below are some of the topics such a plan will need to address: 

• Management of vegetation to protect cultural resource sites 

• Management of fire, non-native species, threatened and endangered species, and other 

natural resource concerns 

• Stabilization of cultural resource sites 

• Visitor use management 

• Maintenance and development of trails 

• Construction of other new visitor facilities 

• Maintenance and development of new campsites 

• Maintenance and development of administrative facilities 

• Establishment of a procedure to determine what are the minimum requirement for 

administrative facilities normally prohibited in wilderness 

• Providing access for people with disabilities 

• Management of valid existing rights within the wilderness 

• Administration of scientific activities, including research, within the wilderness 

• Interpretation and education 

• Emergency services 

22
Wilderness

Alternatives
24
INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the National Park 

Service’s proposal for designating 

wilderness in Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore (the preferred alternative), and 

three alternative proposals. The first

section in this part describes which 

segments of the park were considered not 

suitable for wilderness in all of the 

alternatives and why. Then alternative A, 

the no wilderness alternative (“no-action”) 

is presented, which provides a baseline for

comparing the effects of the other 

alternatives. Next, alternatives B, C, and D 

are described, which present alternative 

wilderness proposals. The alternatives 

vary in the locations where wilderness 

would be proposed, as well as in the 

acreage amounts. 

For alternatives B, C, and D maps and 

general descriptions are provided that 

show where wilderness would be

proposed in the alternatives. Each 

alternative also includes a brief rationale 

for why wilderness would be proposed in

that particular configuration. At the end of

this part there is a description of

alternatives that were considered by the 

study team initially but dropped from

further analysis. There are two tables at 

the end of the chapter: table 2 shows 

which islands would be included as 

wilderness in each of the alternative; table 

3 summarizes the impacts of each

alternative. 

25
AREAS CONSIDERED NOT SUITABLE FOR WILDERNESS

One of the first tasks of the study team in 

developing alternatives was to identify 

those areas in the park that clearly do not 

meet the Wilderness Act suitability criteria 

and therefore will not be considered in any 

of the wilderness study alternatives (see

the text box on wilderness suitability

criteria on page 10). Eight areas or types of 

areas have been found to be clearly not 

suitable as wilderness. Most of the areas 

listed below were excluded because they 

are primary visitor attractions with a lot of 

people, have obvious signs of development, or are being managed for human 

activities. Areas with use and occupancy 

structures and life estates currently have 

nonconforming uses, but potentially could 

be suitable as wilderness in the future, and 

were not included in this list. 

WATERS AND SUBMERGED LANDS 

OF LAKE SUPERIOR UP TO THE 

ORDINARY HIGH-WATER MARK 

Rationale for not considering: The 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

boundary encompasses both waters and 

submerged lands of Lake Superior. The 

state of Wisconsin owns the submerged 

lands and may own the water column 

(there are legal questions about this), so 

the waters likely do not qualify for 

consideration under the Wilderness Act 

criteria. In addition, there is the question 

of whether it would be possible to manage

a 1⁄4-mile wilderness boundary: it would be

extremely difficult for most visitors and 

managers to tell when they are within or 

outside the 1⁄4-mile limit. 

Furthermore, inclusion of the waters 

would do little, if anything, to enhance the

wilderness experiences of the 

islands, given that motorboats would still 

operate outside the 1⁄4-mile boundary.

It is important to note that beaches on the 

islands, which are below the ordinary 

high- water mark, fall in this category and 

are not included in the wilderness 

proposals in this wilderness study. This 

means that under all alternatives boats 

could continue to be beached on the 

islands and would be outside all the 

wilderness proposals. 

PUBLIC DOCKS ON THE ISLANDS 

Rationale for not considering: The 

public docks within Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore are analogous to

parking lots and trailheads in traditional 

national parks. They are vital access points 

for visitors, are designed to accommodate 

motorized watercraft, and visitors

necessarily congregate near them in 

relatively high numbers. In addition, the 

vast majority of each dock lies upon the 

submerged lands discussed above. For all 

of these reasons, each public dock and all 

land areas within a radius of at least 100 

yards of the end of each dock, or the 

maximum perimeter that encompasses all 

existing developments in the vicinity of a 

dock, were not considered suitable for 

wilderness. Public docks are located at 

Basswood, Oak, Michigan, Stockton, 

Manitou, Outer, Rocky, South Twin, 

Otter, Devils, Long, Raspberry, and Sand 

Islands. 

The nonwilderness areas around the 

docks were modified from the June 2002 

alternatives workbook to better define the 

boundaries of these areas on each island 

and to ensure that developments 

associated with the docks were completely 

incorporated into the nonwilderness 

areas. On some islands the nonwilderness 

areas were increased, while on others the 

nonwilderness areas were decreased. 

26
MAINLAND UNIT 

Rationale for not considering: The 

mainland unit was not considered suitable 

due to its geography and the presence of 

roads and developments. Both Little Sand 

Bay and the Meyers Beach area, at either 

end of the mainland unit, are major visitor 

use areas, with visitor support facilities, 

historic developments, and roads. 

Between these areas there are many fourwheel drive roads, which are used by local 

residents and visitors to varying degrees. It 

is not possible to close all of these roads ⎯

these roads are under township

jurisdiction, and at least one of them, the 

Big Sand Bay Road, must be used to access 

lands outside the park’s boundary. There 

are also a couple of nonfederal tracts in the 

unit. Consequently, the narrow mainland 

unit (often only 1⁄4-mile wide) is

fragmented by developments, roads, and 

nonfederal land. Thus, despite the fact that 

the 1989 General Management Plan found 

the area “may be suitable,” it not feasible 

to manage the mainland’s undeveloped 

areas as wilderness. 

LIGHT STATIONS AND ADJOINING 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES 

Rationale for not considering: The light 

stations and surrounding environs are 

major visitor attractions with many signs 

of people. They clearly do not meet the 

Wilderness Act criteria. These exclusions 

include the historic clearings around the 

lighthouses, which are part of the cultural 

landscapes. 

HOUSING/ADMINISTRATION AREAS 

ON STOCKTON, ROCKY, SAND, AND

OAK ISLANDS 

Rationale for not considering: These

areas all have multiple developments and 

many signs of people. There are no plans 

to remove any of these facilities. 

MANITOU ISLAND FISH CAMP 

Rationale for not considering: This

historic site is a major visitor attraction, 

which under NPS policies should not be 

recommended for wilderness designation. 

The area is being managed to preserve 

human activities. 

SOUTHEAST TIP OF SAND ISLAND 

Rationale for not considering: This area 

has many historic residences, structures, 

and developments, many of which will be

maintained for the foreseeable future. 

WEST BAY CLUB ON SAND ISLAND 

Rationale for not considering: This

historic two-story structure, with 

outbuildings, is clearly a sign of past 

human activity. The structures will be

maintained for the foreseeable future. 

27
ALTERNATIVE A: NO WILDERNESS 

(NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE)

This alternative, which is required under 

the National Environmental Policy Act, 

provides a baseline for comparing the 

changes and impacts of the other action 

alternatives. Under this alternative no

wilderness would be proposed for Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore. (This was 

alternative 5 in the June 2002 workbook.) 

If this alternative was selected, no lands 

would be recommended for wilderness in 

the park. Consequently upon congressional approval, the National Park Service 

would no longer be required to protect the 

area’s wilderness values. 

However, for at least the short term the

National Park Service would continue to 

protect and maintain the park’s wilderness 

characteristics indirectly through the 

existing zoning framework. The lands in 

the park’s natural zone would continue to 

be managed to preserve natural features, 

including many wilderness characteristics, 

as directed in the 1989 General 

Management Plan. Existing recreational 

uses and developments would continue. 

 No major changes in resource 

management could occur and no new 

major developments could be built in the 

natural zone. 

It is important for readers to keep in mind 

that alternative A would not ensure that 

existing conditions and management 

would continue in the future. In the long 

term it is possible that alternative A could 

be a departure from how the National

Park Service has managed Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore in the past. The 

National Park Service would no longer be 

bound to protect and manage most of the 

park’s land base as de facto wilderness in 

this alternative. As a result, when the 

existing general management plan is 

revised or a new general management plan 

is adopted, the management directions for 

the park could change, which could result 

in less protection for wilderness resources 

in parts of the park ⎯ a new plan could 

propose new developments or 

management actions that are not currently 

permitted. 

28
ALTERNATIVE B (MAXIMIZE WILDERNESS)

Alternative B would exclude only the areas 

determined to be not suitable in all of the 

alternatives (i.e., the waters and 

submerged lands of Lake Superior, all 

public docks on the islands, the mainland 

unit, all light stations and cultural 

landscapes, the Manitou Island fish camp, 

housing/administrative areas at Stockton, 

Rocky, Oak, and East Bay of Sand Island, 

and the southeast tip and West Bay Club 

on Sand Island). Of all the alternatives, 

alternative B would be most similar to how 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore is 

currently being managed because 97% of 

the park’s land base is being managed as de

facto wilderness. Altogether, approximately 39,500 acres of the park’s 42,160-

acre land base (94%) would be proposed 

as wilderness under alternative B (see the

alternative B map on page 31). This is the 

equivalent of 57% of the entire park 

(69,372 acres), if one considers the waters 

as well as the lands within the park 

boundary. 

Under alternative B the following areas 

would be potential wilderness: the 

nonfederal tracts on Sand and York 

Islands and the use and occupancy 

reservations on Sand, Rocky, and Bear 

Islands (except for those reservations on 

Sand Island that have been found to be 

unsuitable for wilderness designation). 

Although these areas are identified as

potential wilderness, the National Park 

Service would continue to honor and 

respect all of these valid rights as required 

under the provisions of the Wilderness Act 

and NPS management policies. 

This alternative was alternative 1 in the 

June 2002 alternatives workbook. Except 

for changes that were made to the 

exclusion areas around the docks (which 

also apply to alternatives C and D), no 

changes were made to the original 

alternative. 

29
30

32
ALTERNATIVE C: (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND 

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)

Alternative C is the National Park Service’s 

preferred alternative for designating 

wilderness in Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore. Altogether, approximately 

33,500 acres of the park’s 42,160-acre land 

base (80%) would be proposed as

wilderness under alternative C. This is the 

equivalent of 48% of the entire park 

(69,372 acres), if one considers the waters 

as well as the lands within the park 

boundary. 

This alternative is intended to permanently protect most of the park’s natural, 

cultural, and wilderness resources. It also 

is intended to ensure that there will be

outstanding opportunities for people to 

learn both the stories of the people who 

settled and altered these islands and the 

story of the “rewilding” of the park — a 

term that environmental historian James 

Feldman uses to describe the process 

whereby the park’s historical “wilderness” 

qualities are gradually returning (Feldman 

and Mackreth 2003). 

To ensure that future opportunities for 

interpreting the environmental history of 

the Apostle Islands are preserved, 

Basswood and Sand Islands would not be 

included in this wilderness proposal. 

These two islands are relatively close to 

the mainland and have a representative 

cross-section of all the types of cultural 

resources found in the park. They are 

ideally suited for the expansion of

interpretive opportunities, such as some 

limited facilities to help visitors understand the historical and natural processes 

on the Apostle Islands. Wilderness designation would likely preclude some of these 

facilities and foreclose potential 

interpretive opportunities. 

Alternative C also strives to minimize the 

number of small, fragmented areas of 

wilderness or nonwilderness. As an 

example, rather than excluding numerous 

small locations along the southern shore of

Stockton Island, this alternative excludes 

two areas that encompass all of these sites. 

Some areas were excluded because of the 

potential for expanding visitor facilities 

(consistent with the General Management 

Plan), but again, always with an eye toward 

minimizing small isolated pockets of 

wilderness or nonwilderness. 

The following areas would be proposed as 

wilderness under alternative C: all of Bear, 

Cat, Eagle, Gull, Hermit, Ironwood, North 

Twin, and York, and most of Michigan, 

Otter, Outer, Raspberry, Rocky, South 

Twin, Devils, Manitou, Oak, and Stockton 

Islands (see the alternative C map on page 

35). 

Under alternative C the following areas 

would be potential wilderness: the 

nonfederal tract on York Island, and the 

use and occupancy reservations on Rocky 

and Bear Islands. Although these areas are 

identified as potential wilderness, the

National Park Service would continue to 

honor and respect all of these valid rights, 

as required under the provisions of the 

Wilderness Act and NPS management 

policies. 

Alternative C reflects the same general 

goals and direction of alternative 3 in the 

June 2002 alternatives workbook. 

However, the alternative has been 

modified to refine the wilderness

boundaries so they are more easily 

identifiable on the ground, to enhance 

opportunities for future interpretation of 

significant cultural resources (which were

33
not necessarily provided for in the original 

alternative 3), and in some cases to reduce 

the fragmentation of wilderness and 

nonwilderness areas on islands. Among 

the major changes that were made to the 

original alternative 3: 

• All of Sand Island was excluded

from proposed wilderness. The 

island still has extensive evidence 

of human occupation. The change 

would reduce fragmentation and 

make the island easier to manage, 

provide more possibilities to tell 

stories about the island and to 

interpret resources in ways that 

wilderness would not allow, and 

keep open the possibility of the 

island accommodating additional 

development to provide for 

increased use. 

• The nonwilderness portion of 

Manitou Island was reduced. This 

change provides a better, more 

discernible boundary, consistent 

with how other cultural resources 

are treated under the alternative 

• The nonwilderness portion of 

Rocky Island was increased, 

incorporating a former fishing 

community along the east shore of 

the island. (This change provides 

more possibilities to interpret a 

significant cultural resource, 

beyond what is allowable in a 

wilderness area, and keeps open 

the possibility of providing 

additional visitor developments to 

accommodate increased use in one 

of the park’s most popular areas. 

• The nonwilderness area on 

Stockton was decreased, with two 

areas, Quarry Bay and the Presque 

Isle area, being excluded from the

proposal rather than one large area 

connecting the two. The new 

boundary would be easier to 

identify on the ground, would 

decrease the size of the exclusion 

area, and would keep open the 

possibility of providing additional 

visitor developments to 

accommodate increased 

recreational use in the immediate 

vicinity of these popular areas. 

In addition to the above changes, as in the 

other alternatives, small changes were 

made to the nonwilderness areas around 

the docks.

34

(Back of map blank)

36
ALTERNATIVE D (LIMIT WILDERNESS TO 

 REMOTE AREAS)

Alternative D emphasizes remote, isolated 

areas that provide the best opportunities 

for solitude and primitive recreation 

during the busy summer season. These 

areas are not on the current tour boat

route and generally are more distant from 

the mainland. Altogether, approximately 

23,000 acres of the park’s 42,160-acre land 

base (55%) would be proposed as

wilderness under alternative D. This is the 

equivalent of 33% of the entire park 

(69,372 acres), if one considers the waters 

as well as the lands within the park 

boundary. 

Under this alternative Cat, North Twin, 

Ironwood, Bear, Eagle, Gull, most of Outer 

and Michigan, and portions of Stockton 

would be proposed as wilderness (see the 

alternative D map on page 39). These are 

all areas where one could be best assured 

of solitude and a primitive wilderness 

experiences regardless of the time of year. 

Under alternative D the use and 

occupancy reservations on Bear Island 

would be potential wilderness. Although

this area is identified as potential 

wilderness, the National Park Service 

would continue to honor and respect 

these valid rights as required under the 

provisions of the Wilderness Act and NPS 

management policies. 

This alternative was alternative 4 in the 

June 2002 alternatives workbook. One 

change from the workbook is that the 

nonwilderness area on Stockton Island has 

been decreased, with two areas, Quarry 

Bay and the Presque Isle area, being 

excluded from the proposal rather than 

one large area connecting the two. As in 

alternative C, the new boundary would be

easier to identify on the ground, would 

decrease the size of the exclusion area, and

would keep open the possibility of

providing additional visitor developments 

to accommodate increased recreational 

use in the immediate vicinity of these 

popular areas. 

In addition to the above change, as in the 

other alternatives, small changes were 

made to the nonwilderness areas around 

the docks.

37
Blank

38

(Back of map blank)

40
TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF APPROXIMATE TOTAL ACREAGE (%) PROPOSED FOR 

WILDERENESS IN EACH ALTERNATIVE*

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B Alternative C 

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative D 

Lake Superior 0% 0% 0% 0% 

Mainland Unit 0% 0% 0% 0% 

Basswood 0% >99% 0% 0%

Bear 0% 100% 100% 100%

Cat 0% 100% 100% 100%

Devils 0% 94% 94% 0%

Eagle 0% 100% 100% 100%

Gull 0% 100% 100% 100%

Hermit 0% 100% 100% 0%

Ironwood 0% 100% 100% 100%

Long 0% 99% 0% 0% 

Manitou 0% >99% >99% 0% 

Michigan 0% 96% 96% 96% 

North Twin 0% 100% 100% 100% 

Oak 0% >99% 99% 0% 

Otter 0% >99% >99% 0% 

Outer 0% >99% >99% >99%

Raspberry 0% 97% 97% 0% 

Rocky 0% >99% 95% 0% 

Sand 0% 97% 0% 0% 

South Twin 0% 99% 99% 0% 

Stockton 0% >99% 93% 93% 

York 0% 100% 100% 0% 

* NOTE: All percentages have been rounded and are approximate. 

TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PROPOSED FOR

WILDERNESS IN EACH ALTERNATIVE* 

Alternative A 

(No Action) 

Alternative B (%

of land base)

Alternative C (Preferred

Alternative) (% of land

base) 

Alternative D (% of land

base) 

0 acres 39,500 acres 

(94%) 

33,500 acres (80%) 23,000 acres (55%) 

* NOTE: All acreage figures have been rounded and are approximate. 

41
ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

The environmentally preferred alternative 

is defined as “the alternative that will 

promote the national environmental 

policy as expressed in §101 of the National 

Environmental Policy Act.” Section 101 

states that “...it is the continuing 

responsibility of the Federal Government 

to... 

(1) fulfill the responsibilities of 

each generation as trustee of the 

environment for succeeding 

generations 

(2) assure for all Americans safe, 

healthful, productive, and 

aesthetically and culturally pleasing 

surroundings 

(3) attain the widest range of 

beneficial uses of the environment 

without degradation, risk to health 

or safety, or other undesirable and 

unintended consequences 

(4) preserve important historic, 

cultural, and natural aspects of our 

national heritage, and maintain, 

wherever possible, an environment 

which supports diversity, and 

variety of individual choice 

(5) achieve a balance between 

population and resource use which 

will permit high standards of living 

and a wide sharing of life’s 

amenities 

(6) enhance the quality of

renewable resources and approach 

the maximum attainable recycling 

of depletable resources 

Two of the above goals did not make a 

difference in determining the 

environmentally preferred alternative. 

Goal 1 is satisfied by all of the alternatives: 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore is 

already a national park unit and as a

trustee of this area the National Park 

Service would continue to fulfill its 

responsibilities to protect this area for 

future generations. The difference

between the alternatives in this regard is 

not appreciable. Goal 6 also was 

determined to be not applicable to this 

study. 

When considering the remaining goals, the 

environmentally preferred alternative is 

the NPS preferred alternative in the 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

Wilderness Study / Environmental Impact 

Statement. Of all the alternatives 

considered, alternative C best satisfies the 

four national environmental goals at a 

relatively high level. In particular, by 

designating 80% of the park as wilderness, 

it ensures that most of the park’s natural 

and cultural resources would continue to 

be protected — this alternative would 

provide the best overall protection of all 

the park’s natural and cultural resources. It 

would permanently protect most of the 

park’s wilderness resources. The

alternative also would provide for the 

possible expansion of visitor facilities in 

limited areas in the future if needed to 

meet visitor needs. Managers would have

flexibility to plan where future development occurred, with public involvement, 

and in providing new opportunities for 

interpretation of the park, assuring a 

diversity of individual choices for the

visitor. There would be many places where 

visitors could go and learn about the 

park’s human history and wilderness

stories, contrasting the differences

between wilderness and nonwilderness.

Thus, alternative C would best satisfy 

national goals 2, 3 and 4, and 5, ensuring 

for the long term that visitors coming to 

the park see an aesthetically and culturally 

pleasing area, providing a wide range of 

opportunities for visitors to learn about 

42
and enjoy the area with minimal adverse 

impacts, and preserving the park’s 

important natural and cultural resources. 

Alternative A, the no-wilderness 

alternative, would not achieve the national 

goals as completely as alternative C, 

because the beneficial impacts of 

wilderness designation would not be 

realized. Under alternative A there would 

be the potential for additional 

developments in the future, which in turn 

could result in adverse impacts. Thus, the 

protection of cultural and natural 

resources, as articulated under national 

goals 2, 3 and 4, and 5, would be at a lower 

level than under alternative C. Wilderness 

is a scarce resource both in Wisconsin and 

in much of the country. With the potential 

for the loss of wilderness resources in the 

future, alternative A would not provide as

wide a range of beneficial uses (goal 3), 

would not achieve as good a balance in 

sharing of life’s amenities (goal 5), and 

would not be as likely to ensure an 

environment that supports diversity (goal 

4)as alternative C. 

Alternative B would protect the greatest 

amount of the park under wilderness, 

ensuring long-term protection of more of

the park’s natural resources than under 

alternative C. For instance, the biologically 

important sandscapes on Stockton and 

Long Islands would be protected as

wilderness under alternative B, but not 

under alternative C. However, alternative 

B would have a higher potential for cultural resource impacts in the nonwilderness areas because future developments 

would be restricted to a relatively few 

areas that also contain a high concentration of cultural resources. In other words, 

if developments need to be built in the 

future, alternative B would pose a greater 

threat to cultural resources in the 

nonwilderness areas than alternative C. 

There would also be more areas where 

managers might not apply the full range of 

historic structure treatment options, 

resulting in the possibility of cultural 

resources being left to decay or being 

removed. With so much of the park’s 

islands being wilderness, there would be 

fewer opportunities to install interpretive 

infrastructure onsite and fewer places 

people could go to and contrast the 

differences between wilderness and

nonwilderness — with fewer onsite 

opportunities people would not understand as well the effects of wilderness on 

people and the landscape. Consequently, 

alternative B would not preserve and tell 

the stories of the park onsite as well as 

alternative C. Thus, alternative B would 

not satisfy national goals 3 (attaining a 

wide range of beneficial uses without 

undesirable consequences), 4 (preserving 

important cultural and historic resources), 

or 5 (providing a balance that would result 

in a wide sharing of life’s amenities) as well 

as alternative C. 

Alternative D is similar to alternative C in 

meeting the national goals. However, 

alternative D would provide permanent 

protection to less of the park’s wilderness 

resource and would have more areas 

where natural and cultural resource 

impacts could occur due to future 

developments. Thus, alternative D would 

not meet quite as well national goals 3 

(attain the widest range of beneficial uses

of the environment without degradation), 

4 (preserve important cultural and natural 

resources), or 5 (providing a balance that 

would result in a wide sharing of life’s

amenities) as alternative C. 

43
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED

The study team considered one other 

alternative proposal, which was alternative 

2 in the June 2002 alternatives workbook. 

The alternative called for designating 

extensive areas as wilderness while still 

providing space for potential new developments designed to ensure a diversity of 

recreational experiences. This alternative 

strived to be as consistent as possible with 

the 1989 General Management Plan. It was 

similar to alternative B, but it would exclude a small number of additional areas 

for potential future development to support recreational uses that are consistent 

with the General Management Plan. In 

addition to the areas excluded from all 

alternatives, areas within a 1⁄4-mile radius of

the docks at Stockton Presque Isle, 

Manitou Island, Oak Island, and East Bay 

of Sand Island were also excluded, along 

with all of Basswood Island. Excluding 

these “growth” areas would ensure that 

the park would continue to accommodate 

a diversity of recreational uses in areas 

with the highest numbers of visitors. Most 

of these areas are visited by the tour boat, 

and if use continued to increase, a need

might develop for additional facilities to 

support this use. In order to match this 

alternative as closely as possible with the 

park’s 1989 General Management Plan, all 

known significant cultural resource sites 

were also excluded from this alternative 

the approach used by the General 

Management Plan. 

The following areas were proposed as 

wilderness: all of Eagle, Gull, and North 

Twin Islands, and most of Stockton, Oak, 

Manitou, Sand, Bear, Cat, Hermit, Ironwood, Michigan, Otter, Outer, Raspberry, 

Rocky, South Twin, York, Devils and Long 

Islands. 

The study team dropped this alternative 

for several reasons. With all the exclusions 

around cultural resources, the wilderness 

area would be highly fragmented. This 

would make it extremely difficult for both 

managers and visitors to know when one is 

in or outside the wilderness. Also, there is 

no reason to exclude cultural resources 

from wilderness, unless they are major 

visitor destinations, because all applicable 

laws, regulations, and NPS policies apply 

to the protection of cultural resources 

whether or not they are in wilderness. In 

addition, the distinction between this

alternative and alternative B is fairly minor 

⎯ the alternatives only differ by about 

2,500 acres. Eliminating the alternative 

would not substantially alter the range of 

alternatives being considered ⎯ there is

nothing distinctive in this alternative that 

is not included in one of the other 

alternatives. Finally, very few people 

supported this alternative during the 2002

public review period.

44
TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

Impact

Topic 

Alternative A (No 

Wilderness) 

Alternative B (Maximum

Wilderness - 94% of land 

base proposed for wilderness) 

Alternative C (Preferred 

Alternative & Environmentally Preferred Alternative- 80% of land base

proposed for wilderness) 

Alternative D (Limit Wilderness to Remote Areas - 55%

of land base proposed for 

wilderness) 

Natural 

Resources 

Potential for minor to 

moderate, adverse, longterm impacts in localized 

areas due to future developments; least certainty that 

the park’s natural resources 

would continue to be 

protected and maintained as

they have been 

Moderate, beneficial, longterm impacts in the 

wilderness area; negligible 

to moderate, short and 

long-term adverse impacts 

in localized areas in the 

nonwilderness areas

depending on new developments that occurred 

Moderate, beneficial, longterm impacts in the wilderness 

area; negligible to moderate, 

short and long-term adverse 

impacts in localized areas in

the nonwilderness areas; 

however, more natural 

resources could be adversely 

affected in more areas than in 

alternative B, depending on 

the level of development that 

occurred 

Minor to moderate, long-term, 

beneficial impacts in the 

wilderness area; negligible to 

moderate, short and long-term 

adverse impacts in localized 

areas in the nonwilderness 

areas; more natural resources 

could be adversely affected in 

more areas than in alternatives 

B and C, depending on the level 

of development that occurred 

Cultural 

Resources 

Potential for minor to mod--

erate, long-term, adverse 

impacts, depending on the 

level of future development;

minor to moderate, longterm beneficial impacts 

related to increased flexibility for treating cultural 

resources and for siting new 

developments 

Potential for minor to 

moderate, long-term beneficial and adverse impacts in 

the wilderness area and 

moderate, long-term, 

adverse impacts in the 

nonwilderness areas, 

depending on the new 

development that occurred 

Potential for minor to moderate, long-term, beneficial 

and adverse impacts in both 

the wilderness and the nonwilderness areas, depending

on the new development that 

occurred 

Potential for minor, long-term, 

beneficial and adverse impacts 

in the wilderness area, and 

minor to moderate, long-term, 

adverse impacts in the nonwilderness areas, depending on

the new development that 

occurred 

Wilderness 

Resources 

Potential for minor to major, 

long-term, adverse impacts, 

depending on the level of 

development that occurred; 

least certainty that wilderness resources would 

continue to be protected as

they have been 

Major, long-term, beneficial 

impacts due to permanent 

protection bestowed by 

designation; could be some 

negligible, adverse, longterm impacts in

nonwilderness areas due to 

new developments 

Major, long-term, beneficial 

impacts due to permanent 

protection bestowed by 

designation; could be some 

minor to moderate, adverse, 

long-term impacts in nonwilderness areas due to new 

developments, primarily on 

Basswood, Sand, and Long

Islands 

Moderate, long-term, beneficial impacts; could be minor 

to major, long-term, adverse 

impacts in nonwilderness areas 

due to new developments, 

primarily on 12 islands 

Visitor Nonwilderness 

Experiences 

Potential for minor to 

moderate, long-term, 

beneficial impact, primarily 

due to the flexibility to 

expand recreational facilities

into new areas 

Potential for moderate, 

long-term, adverse impacts, 

primarily due to limits on 

the expansion of certain 

visitor facilities into new 

areas 

Potential for minor, longterm, adverse impacts, 

primarily due to limits on the 

expansion of certain visitor 

facilities into new areas; some 

beneficial impacts due to 

more opportunities to tell 

wilderness and nonwilderness

stories on the islands 

Potential for negligible, longterm, adverse impacts, primarily due to limits on the 

expansion of certain visitor 

facilities into new areas; some 

beneficial impacts due to more 

opportunities to tell wilderness 

and nonwildeness stories on

the islands 

Park 

Operations 

Potential for minor to 

moderate, long-term, 

beneficial impacts due to 

high management flexibility, 

and minor to major, longterm, adverse impacts, 

depending on the level and 

type of new developments 

that occurred 

Potential for minor to 

moderate, long-term, 

beneficial impacts due to 

minimizing new developments in new areas, and 

minor to moderate, longterm, adverse impacts, due 

to reduction in management flexibility and increased costs of management in wilderness 

Potential for minor to moderate, long-term, beneficial 

impacts due to a reduced 

likelihood of new developments in new areas, and 

minor, long-term, adverse 

impacts, due to reduction in

management flexibility and 

increased costs of management in wilderness 

Potential for minor, long-term, 

beneficial impacts due to fewer

areas where new developments

could occur, and minor, longterm, adverse impacts, due to 

decreased management 

flexibility and increased costs 

of management in wilderness

Note: See the “Methodology” section in the Environmental Consequences chapter for definitions of the impact intensities. 

45
Blank

46
Affected

Environment
(Back of Divider Page Blank)

48
INTRODUCTION

The “Affected Environment” chapter 

describes the existing environment of

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore and 

the surrounding region. The focus of this 

chapter is on key natural and cultural 

resources, wilderness resources, visitor 

uses and experiences, and park operations 

on the park’s 21 islands that have the 

potential to be affected by the alternatives 

should they be implemented. For 

additional information on the Apostle 

Islands, see the lakeshore’s web site 

(www.nps.gov/apis), the 1989 General 

Management Plan / Environmental 

Assessment (NPS 1989), NPS (1988), and 

Howk (2001). 

This chapter focuses on describing the 

park’s 21 islands, which have the potential 

to be affected by wilderness designation. 

There are also many natural and cultural 

resources on the mainland unit, as well as

visitor and administrative facilities, such as 

the park headquarters in Bayfield and the 

Little Sand Bay visitor center. These all are 

important elements of Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore, but because they 

would not be affected under any of the 

alternatives they are not included in the 

descriptions that follow. 

49
NATURAL RESOURCES

WATER QUALITY 

Lake Superior is the cleanest of the Great 

Lakes. Water quality in and around the 

Apostle Islands reflects the general 

oligotrophic (low nutrient) character of 

Lake Superior in general − the water 

quality of the park’s Lake Superior waters 

and tributaries is relatively high. There 

appears to be little impact of human 

activities on water quality within the park.

Some areas used for full body contact 

recreation in the park, such as swimming 

and diving, are also areas where boats tend 

to moor and, as a matter of course, 

discharge “gray water” and bilge water. 

“Gray water” potentially contains 

nutrients and other contaminants (e.g., 

from cleansers). Although illegal, some 

boaters discharge sewage into the lake. 

Campers may also be adding nutrients to 

Lake Superior; however, they are 

discouraged from bathing and cleaning 

dishes in the lake. In recent years, 

outhouses have been replaced with vault 

toilets, eliminating leaching of human 

wastes into water bodies from this source. 

In 1996, long-term water quality sampling 

sites were established in the park (Lake 

Superior Ecosystem Research Center 

1997). Five open lake and three lagoon 

sites were sampled. Physical and chemical 

water quality parameters were measured 

and biological samples taken (zooplankton 

and benthos). The open water sites were 

found to have low nitrogen and 

phosphorus levels, low chlorophyll “a” 

concentrations, and high water clarity. All 

of the lagoon sites had low or nonexistent 

benthic organism populations and warm, 

highly colored, acidic waters. A three-year 

water quality study (1986-1988) was 

conducted in the lakeshore by the Center 

for Lake Superior Environmental Studies, 

University of Wisconsin-Superior 

(McCauley et al 1989). Consistent with the 

most recent sampling, results of this study 

indicate that park waters are relatively free 

from contamination by human wastes, that 

concentrations of nutrients (e.g., nitrogen 

and phosphorus) were low, and that oil 

and grease in the sediments of heavily used

Stockton harbor were low. Water quality 

studies conducted from 1979 to 1984 by 

the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in Lake 

Superior and the park, including inland 

streams and lagoons and nearshore waters 

within the park, indicated similar results 

(USGS 1988). 

Introduction of toxic chemicals, such as 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), into 

Lake Superior is a serious concern. The 

vast majority of PCBs in Lake Superior 

have entered the system through 

atmospheric deposition (Eisenreich 1987). 

PCBs may move back out of the water at 

both the air-water and water-sediment 

interfaces. PCBs, dioxins, and other 

organo-chlorides accumulate in the fatty 

tissue of organisms and tend to

bioaccumulate in the food chain. High 

levels of PCBs have been found in nesting 

herring gulls and elevated levels of PCBs 

and DDE (dichlorodiphenyldichlorothylene) have been found in nesting bald 

eagles in the lakeshore (Meyer, et. al 1994). 

During the 1990s, levels of PCB and DDE

have decreased in bald eagles. Toxaphene, 

another bioaccumulative toxin, has 

become of increasing concern. Elevated 

levels of toxaphene were measured in lake 

trout collected near the Apostle Islands 

and toxaphene was found by the 

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 

(1996) to be the dominant contaminant in 

lake trout in Lake Superior. 

50
Reflecting the park’s high-water quality, 

Lake Superior waters within the park are 

being considered for designation as 

Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) by

the state of Wisconsin. Lake Superior also

has been recommended by the

International Joint Commission (IJC) as a

demonstration area where no point source 

discharge of any persistent toxic chemical 

will be permitted (Lake Superior 

Binational Program 2000). 

GEOLOGY AND COASTAL 

PROCESSES 

Today’s Apostle Islands are the result of 

events beginning over 1 billion years ago. 

Colorful sandstones, which form the 

underlying bedrock and core of the islands 

were deposited during pre-Cambrian 

times. This sandstone, especially the 

Devils Island formation, forms cliffs and 

sea caves. 

Pleistocene glaciation, which started 

around 3 million years ago and ended 

about 10,000 years ago, was the next 

significant event in the geological history 

of the islands. Thick deposits of reddish 

till were deposited by the glaciers on all of

the islands. Three deposits of till were 

deposited, with the oldest being a sandy 

till and the two youngest being rich in clay 

(Nuhfer and Dalles 1983). Steep clay bluffs 

formed where the till is exposed, especially

on the western sides of the islands. 

The islands continue to be shaped by wave 

and wind energy generated by Lake 

Superior. Coastal features in the park

include sandstone cliffs, clay bluffs, and 

sandscapes. Sandstone cliffs and clay

bluffs are continually eroded by lake

waves. On the other hand, sandscapes are

dependent upon the longshore transport 

of sand. 

Factors both within and outside the 

control of the National Park Service 

influence coastal processes. Lake Superior 

water levels, which are partially regulated 

through orders of the International Joint 

Commission, affect erosion rates on bluffs 

and sandscapes. NPS docks and other 

developments also may seriously affect 

local coastal processes. Docks, especially 

those with solid cores, affect the

movement of sand along the coastline. 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore has 

among the most diverse collection and 

highest quality sandscapes in the Great 

Lakes. Various sandscapes include: 

sandspits, cuspate forelands, tombolos, a 

barrier spit, and numerous beaches. 

(Cuspate forelands are a type of sand spit

that are wider than they are long. 

Tombolos are sand features that join 

either two islands or an island to the 

mainland. Barrier spits are elongate sand 

ridges that extend generally parallel to the

coast.) These coastal features in the park 

tend to occur on the southern end of 

islands and are found only where glacial 

till along shorelines provides a ready 

supply of sand (Nuhfer and Dalles 1983).

SOILS 

All soil formation evident on the Apostle 

Islands has taken place in the last 11,000 

years. As soon as the topmost point on an 

island was exposed to the atmosphere, 

weathering, and plant colonization, soil 

formation (pedogenesis) began. The 

landscape of the Apostle Islands is 

geologically young and various forming 

processes have had very little time to work. 

Therefore, soil development in the area 

has usually affected no more than the 

upper four feet of surficial material. As a 

result, soil profiles are shallow (Cary et al 

1978). 

51
The soils of the Apostle Islands are derived 

from several parent materials that cause 

distinct variations over short distances. 

These parent materials are: lacustrine clay, 

water-deposited sand (by stream as well as 

lake), and glacial till (Brander et al 1978). 

Topography has played a part in soil 

development. Most of the 21 islands are 

relatively level and low-lying. Water runoff 

is limited, with rain and snowmelt filtering 

downward through soil. Oak Island differs 

due to its elevation and rugged landscape 

(Cary et al 1978). 

Between 1998 and 2000, the USDA 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

mapped soils throughout the entire park. 

Soils on the islands were found to be quite 

diverse, ranging from sandy to clayey, and 

some new series were needed to define 

soils unique to the islands. The soils on the

Apostle Islands overall have thicker

humus/organic matter surfaces than the 

mainland. This may reflect reduced 

disturbance from logging, burning, and 

development typically seen on the 

mainland. 

VEGETATION 

Located in far northwestern Wisconsin, 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore is at 

the continental northwestern limits of the 

hemlock-white pine-northern hardwood 

forest and also contains elements of the 

boreal forest. In presettlement times about 

90% of the islands were covered by an

upland mixed coniferous/hardwood forest 

dominated by hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), 

white pine (Pinus strobus), sugar maple 

(Acer saccharum), yellow birch (Betula 

alleghaniensis), and white birch (Betula 

papyrifera). 

The park’s current forests reflect complex 

disturbance histories. Forests within the 

park range from pristine old-growth forest

without a history of deer browsing, to

forests that have been subjected to logging, 

fires, and extensive deer browsing. Areas 

that escaped commercial logging include 

North Twin, Eagle, and Gull Islands and 

the lighthouse reservations on Outer,

Sand, Devils and Raspberry Islands. In the 

case of Devils and Raspberry Islands, the

reservations included the entire islands. 

The old-growth forest on Outer Island is 

one of the best examples of northern

hardwood hemlock forest remaining in the 

upper Great Lakes (Judziewicz and Koch 

1993). This stand is especially unique 

because it has not been affected by deer 

browsing. 

Most of the park’s forests were logged, 

first for white and red pines (Pinus 

resinosa), white cedar (Thuja occidentalis) 

and hemlock (ca. 1870), and later for 

hardwoods, particularly sugar maple and 

yellow birch. Today, a maturing second 

growth northern hardwood forest exists 

throughout the islands. However, the 

effects of logging remain. Hemlock and 

white pine are no longer dominant; the 

most important tree species in the 

archipelago are white birch, sugar and red 

maples, balsam fir (Abies balsamea), and 

white cedar (Judziewicz and Koch 1993). 

The species composition of the boreal 

forest community was not changed due to

logging. Today this community is 

dominated by white spruce, balsam fir, 

tamarack (Larix laricina), white cedar, 

birch, and aspen, as it was during 

presettlement times.

Following logging, deer populations 

irrupted on many of the islands, severely 

impacting species favored by deer, such as 

Canada yew (Taxus canadensis). Several of

the islands, however, that did not have a 

history of deer populations and others that 

52
had moderate deer populations have lush 

stands of Canada yew − a very rare species 

on the mainland due to deer browsing. 

Currently, deer populations occur on only 

a few islands. 

About one-third of the islands’ coasts 

consist of Precambrian sandstone ledges 

and bluffs. Local vegetation on these rock 

faces depends on the microhabitat and can 

vary from common willows (Salix spp.)

and weed species, to subarctic rarities and 

species with calcareous tendencies. Steep 

reddish clay bluffs are vegetated with small 

trees of balsam poplar, white birch, red 

maple and showy mountain ash (Sorbus 

decora) (Judziewicz and Koch 1993). 

As noted above, the park has a rich 

assemblage of sandscapes, including

sandspits, cuspate forelands, tombolos, a 

barrier spit (Long Island), and beaches. 

These are some of the most biologically

diverse lands in the park. They are 

dominated by dune vegetation, beach 

grass (Ammphila breviligulata), and beach 

pea (Lathyrus japonicus), as well as a shrub 

and forest component of speckled alder 

(Alnus rugosa), quaking aspen (Populus 

tremuloides), and white birch. Sandscape 

vegetation is resistant to natural 

disturbances; however, it is very sensitive 

to human trampling. 

Over 800 plant species occur within the 

park, including 26 species of concern. 

Because the Apostle Islands are at the 

extreme northern frontier of Wisconsin, 

they tend to provide plant habitats not 

found elsewhere in the state. Regionally 

rare habitats in the park include oldgrowth forest, boreal forest, northern 

forests (five types), forest seep, clay bluff 

communities, sandstone cliff communities, 

lagoon and bog communities, forested 

ridge and swale, coastal fen, Great Lakes 

barrens (only example in the state), and 

dune communities. The Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources Natural 

Heritage Inventory Program has 

designated four state natural areas within 

the park, including maritime forest, 

sandscape (includes beaches, sandspits, 

cuspate forelands, and tombolos), 

maritime cliff, and critical species areas. 

Exotic vegetation in the lakeshore is primarily confined to disturbed landscapes, 

including old logging camps, farmsteads, 

fishing camps, light station grounds, and 

quarries. NPS developed areas, such as 

Presque Isle on Stockton Island, and 

developments on the mainland unit also 

contain exotics. Sandscapes are vulnerable 

to invasion of exotics, especially where 

native vegetation has been affected by 

human disturbance (NPS 1999). 

WILDLIFE 

Island environments, naturally isolated, 

are a barrier for distribution of some animals. The Apostle Islands were covered by 

Lake Superior during the end of the last 

glacial period (11,500 years before present). When the lake level dropped to 450 

feet above sea level, around 9,500 years 

before present, the current archipelago 

was part of the mainland and the majority 

of terrestrial vertebrates and plant life 

became established. Inconsistencies in 

vertebrate distribution indicate that other 

factors were operating. Mobile species 

may have colonized some of the islands by

swimming (e.g., deer, bear, beaver) or by 

crossing winter ice (e.g., deer, red fox, 

coyote) (Anderson and Stowell 1985). 

Other species may have been intentionally 

or unintentionally brought to the islands 

by humans. Transportation of hay to the 

islands for work animals and livestock 

related to logging and farming activities 

may have been infested by meadow voles, 

53
woodland deer mice, and garter snakes 

(Meierotto 1976). 

Thirty-seven species of mammals are 

known to occur in the park. Large 

mammals are not common on most of the 

islands and tend to be transient. Mammals 

that are common to most islands include 

red squirrel, snowshoe hare, deer mouse, 

and redback vole. Other species, such as 

black bear and white-tailed deer, are 

locally common on certain islands. 

Mammal species found on the islands less 

frequently include fox, coyote, otter, and 

fisher. Some common mainland species 

that are less mobile or dormant in the 

winter (e.g., gray squirrel, least chipmunk, 

porcupine, skunk, raccoon, and possibly 

some species of amphibians and reptiles) 

are not present on the islands. However, 

Long Island, currently a barrier spit rather 

than an island, contains most species that 

occur on the mainland.

White-tailed deer were either absent or in 

very low numbers prior to European

settlement (Anderson and Stowell 1985). 

Habitat changes due to logging resulted in 

deer irruptions on many of the islands 

with populations peaking in the early to 

mid-1950s. However, by the late 1960s, 

deer decreased to low numbers through 

liberal hunting quotas. Deer can occur on 

any of the islands within the park; 

however, reproducing populations are 

limited to Basswood, Oak, and Sand, and 

potentially Long and Stockton Islands. A 

reproducing population of deer was not 

known on Sand Island until the last few 

years and their numbers appear to be 

increasing rapidly. 

Similar to deer, beaver were probably not 

present in the park prior to settlement of 

the region. Their populations also peaked 

following logging, especially on Outer and 

Stockton Islands, but have since been in a 

steady decline. On Outer Island, habitat is 

poor and beaver forage for great distances; 

however, a lack of predators has allowed 

the population to remain fairly stable. On 

Stockton Island, the last monitoring survey 

(1999) found no active beaver lodges. Bear 

on Stockton have been found to prey on 

beaver. 

Stockton and Sand Islands are the only 

islands with a known reproducing black 

bear population. Bears have overwintered 

and/or occasionally been seen on a 

number of other islands, such as Oak, 

Basswood, Long, Ironwood, Manitou, 

Hermit, and Raspberry. Black bears on 

Stockton Island were studied and 

monitored from 1984 to 1994. This island 

population increased significantly from 

1984 to 1994 to a density of 2.1 bears per

square mile. (In 1990, the greatest 

population density estimated for mainland 

Wisconsin was 1.0 bears per square mile.)

The bear population on Stockton Island 

grew from a population of three animals in 

1984 to a peak of 31 in 1994 and then 

declined to approximately 25 in 1996 

(Fleming 1997). 

Due to its strategic geographic location 

and wide diversity of habitats, Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore provides a 

refuge for birds. Through the park’s longterm monitoring program for forest 

breeding birds, 150 species of birds have 

been recorded (NPS 2001). The islands 

provide important habitats for resident 

breeding birds as well as neotropical 

migrant land birds (birds that migrate to 

Central and South America in winter). 

Over 89% of the breeding birds in the park 

are migrants, 59% of which are 

neotropical migrants. 

The Apostle Islands are an important 

migratory flyway stopover in the Great 

Lake region. Nearly all of the islands 

54
provide habitat for migrating birds. In

particular, Outer and Long Islands provide 

key habitats for migratory birds: Outer 

Island is important for passerines, hawks 

and falcons, while Long Island is

important for waterfowl, passerines and 

shorebirds. Migratory bird surveys 

conducted on Outer and Long Islands 

have recorded over 200 species (NPS

1998). 

The park provides important nesting 

habitat for the following colonial nesting 

birds: herring gulls, double-crested 

cormorants, great blue herons, and cliff 

swallows. Gull and Eagle Islands 

combined have 88% of the park’s breeding

herring gull populations and 80% of the 

herring gull breeding population on the 

entire Wisconsin shore of Lake Superior. 

Eagle Island has the only great blue heron 

rookery in the park. 

The park also provides nesting habitat for 

bald eagles (federally threatened) and 

piping plover (federally and state 

endangered). Eagles began recolonizing 

the Apostle Islands in the early 1980s and 

young have been produced annually since 

1983. However, nest productivity still 

remains below levels found on the 

mainland. Current research (1991-1993) 

indicates that lowered productivity is 

primarily due to a low food base and the 

continuing presence of anthropogenic 

toxic chemicals in Lake Superior (Meyer 

et al 1994). Critical habitat for piping 

plover has been designated by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service on Long Island 

and the Michigan Island sandspit. Long 

Island is the only location where piping 

plovers have successfully nested in the 

state of Wisconsin in recent years. 

Six species of salamanders, ten species of

frogs and toads, and six species of reptiles

are known to occur within the park, 

including the islands. The most common 

species of salamander are blue-spotted, 

spotted, and eastern red-backed. Fourtoed salamander and Central newt are 

regionally uncommon, and mudpuppies 

are regionally local. Frogs and toads that 

occur in the park and are regionally 

common include: eastern American toad, 

northern spring peeper, Eastern gray tree 

frog, green frog, northern leopard frog, 

mink frog, and wood frog. Chorus frogs 

are regionally local, Cope’s gray treefrogs 

are regionally rare, and American bullfrogs 

are regionally uncommon. The park has a 

rather depauperate turtle fauna, with only

two species, painted and snapping turtles. 

The most abundant snakes in the park are 

eastern gartersnakes. Other snake species 

that are present include northern redbellied snake, northern ring-necked snake, 

and smooth greensnake (Casper 2001a and 

2001b). 

The park’s enabling legislation permits 

hunting, fishing, and trapping. A special 

black-powder season for deer has been 

open on Oak and Basswood Islands since 

1985. Since 2002 tribal members have 

begun to exercise their treaty-reserved 

rights to hunt, fish, and gather on park 

lands. Species that may be hunted and 

trapped in the park include deer, black 

bear; fox, coyote, beaver (mainland, Outer 

and Stockton), otter, mink, fisher, muskrat 

(mainland), snowshoe hare, waterfowl, 

woodcock, and ruffed grouse (mainland 

and Long). However, with the exception 

of the black-powder and tribal seasons, 

hunting and trapping is relatively rare on 

the islands.

55
CULTURAL RESOURCES 

For the purposes of this environmental 

impact statement, cultural resources are 

divided into archeological resources, 

cultural landscapes, historic structures, 

and ethnographic resources. All of these 

resources are important elements of 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. 

The cultural resources of the Apostle 

Islands preserve the stories of men and 

women whose lives have touched the 

islands over centuries of human 

occupation. Some lived or worked on the 

archipelago; others came as visitors. 

Inhabitants of the islands have included 

pioneer farmers, fishermen, and 

lighthouse keepers. Early Native

Americans camped and gathered plants on 

the islands; loggers and quarrymen 

harvested building materials; tourists came 

to enjoy the islands’ beauty. 

The people of the Apostle Islands left 

evidence of their presence. These traces 

may be easy to see, like the massive walls 

of sandstone quarries, or the tall

lighthouse towers. Other traces blend

subtly into the landscape: farm clearings 

filling in with grass and brush, stone walls 

running through second-growth forest, 

old logging roads now used as hiking trails. 

Each of these elements contributes to a 

seamless picture, telling the story of 

remote islands whose landscape was 

profoundly affected by human activity, but 

which are gradually returning to a wild 

state. 

Cultural resources are distributed widely 

throughout the park. In general, they are 

most often along shorelines, where easy 

access has promoted human settlement; 

yet numerous prehistoric and historic sites 

have been identified in island interiors, as 

well. Certain islands, such as Sand and 

Basswood, are known to be particularly 

rich in cultural sites, but nearly all the 

islands have some record of human 

occupation. 

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Archeological resources are the remains of 

past human activity and records documenting the scientific analysis of these 

remains. Archeological features are typically buried but may extend above 

ground. Examples of archeological 

resources within Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore include Native American campsites dating back several centuries, pioneer 

farmsteads from the 1870s, and logging 

camps of the early 20th century. The park 

also includes numerous submerged 

archeological sites, such as shipwrecks and 

historic dock structures, which are outside 

the scope of this document. 

Surveys conducted so far have identified

more than 60 archeological sites on the 

Apostle Islands. However, only a fraction 

of the park’s land area has been surveyed, 

and it is almost certain that there are a 

substantial number of sites not yet 

discovered. 

HISTORIC STRUCTURES 

Structures are material assemblies that 

extend the limits of human capability. The 

park includes a wide variety of historic 

structures, ranging from the modest 

fishermens’ cabins of Manitou Island to 

the 112-foot light tower on Michigan 

Island. Some historic structures are in

ruins, yet still retain the ability to tell 

stories of former occupants, such as the

cluster of collapsing log buildings on Bear 

Island, which give vivid evidence of a busy 

lumber camp. 

56
The National Park Service inventories 

historic structures by means of the List of

Classified Structures (LCS) program. This

inventory lists all structures within the 

park that possess historical and/or architectural/engineering significance. As of

2001, 163 structures within Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore were on the List of 

Classified Structures (NPS 2002); revisions 

recently undertaken are expected to add 

slightly to this total. 

ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES 

Ethnographic resources are basic expressions of human culture and the basis for 

continuity of cultural systems. A cultural 

system encompasses both the tangible and 

the intangible. It includes traditional arts 

and native languages, religious beliefs, and 

subsistence activities. Some of these traditions are supported by ethnographic

resources: special places in the natural 

world, structures with historic associations, and natural materials. Management 

of ethnographic resources acknowledges 

that culturally diverse groups have their 

own ways of viewing the world and a right 

to maintain their traditions. 

Further research is necessary to identify 

the full range of ethnographic resources 

within the Apostle Islands. No systematic 

survey of ethnographic resources has yet 

been conducted. However, it is known 

that a wide variety of traditionally used 

plants are found within the park: a 

Traditional Resource Utilization Study, 

conducted in 1999, identified 224 plant 

species of importance to the Ojibwe

(Stoffle et al 2001). It is possible that there 

may be ceremonial sites as well. 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES 

Cultural landscapes are settings that 

humans have created in the natural world: 

intertwined patterns of things both natural 

and constructed. These landscapes are 

places that reflect expressions of human 

manipulation and adaptation of the land. 

Historic vernacular landscapes illustrate 

peoples' values and attitudes toward the

land and reflect patterns of settlement, 

use, and development over time. Examples

of historic vernacular landscapes within 

the Apostle Islands include the six light 

stations, with their complex arrangements 

of structures, gardens, clearings, and 

walkways, and commercial fishing sites, 

with cabins, docks, drying reels, and other 

utility structures. 

Ethnographic landscapes are areas associated with contemporary groups but are 

used or valued in traditional ways. Although no specific ethnographic landscapes have been identified within the 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, the 

area has long been a cultural center for the

Ojibwe (Chippewa) people. It is possible 

that further research will identify the 

presence of ethnographic landscapes

within the park. 

Archeological sites may also constitute 

cultural landscapes. Clearings in the forest, 

berms, foundations, and other structural 

remains offer evidence of a site’s human 

history. 

The National Park Service inventories 

cultural landscapes by means of the 

Cultural Landscape Inventory (CLI) 

program. The inventory for Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore has not yet 

been undertaken. A preliminary survey 

conducted in 1993 identified 13 potentially 

eligible vernacular landscapes within the 

park (NPS 1993), but this figure may be 

subject to revision upon further study.

57
WILDERNESS RESOURCES (INCLUDING 

VISITOR WILDERNESS EXPERIENCES)

Although most of the lands comprising 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore were 

at various times logged, quarried, farmed, 

or otherwise utilized by humans in a 

multitude of ways, these activities ceased 

for the most part either before or just after 

the park was established in 1970. Since 

that time, and for considerably longer on 

some islands, the vast majority of the 

park’s lands have been left to the forces of

nature. 

Thomas Heberlein, a rural sociologist and 

professor emeritus at the University of 

Wisconsin – Madison, has studied boaters 

at Apostle Islands and their attitudes since 

1975. While the issue is complex and the 

proportions of the various user groups 

have shifted over time, Heberlein has 

consistently found that a majority of island 

visitors recognize the wilderness 

characteristics of the islands, and 

appreciate them (Heberlein et al. 1999, 

Grossberg 1999). 

Many of the sailboaters and motorboaters 

that park staff have met speak enthusiastically about the scenery afforded by the 

approximately 140 miles of undeveloped 

island shorelines in the park. These 

visitors tend to anchor off the islands, and 

spend comparatively little time hiking or 

camping on the islands themselves (with 

beaches being an exception). Grossberg 

(1999) found that “viewing pristine 

scenery” was very important to the 

recreational experiences of these visitors. 

Many kayakers enjoy paddling along these 

same wild shorelines, and are doing so in 

rapidly increasing numbers. A subset of 

each of these user groups also enjoys 

entering into the undeveloped interiors of

the islands for day hiking or camping. 

Whether visitors are entering the wild

parts of the park, or simply enjoying the 

view from their boats, they are appreciating the wild resources of the park that 

provide such contrast to their everyday 

lives and experiences (Grossberg 1999). 

The Wilderness Act speaks of wilderness 

as a resource in itself. The Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore is rich in many of the 

resources and values mentioned in the 

Wilderness Act, including: 

• minimal levels of development, 

resulting in an appearance of 

“naturalness” 

• opportunities for primitive, 

unconfined recreation 

• opportunities for solitude 

MINIMAL LEVELS OF 

DEVELOPMENT 

Although roads existed on many of the 

islands, mainly to support logging activities

or the lighthouses, virtually none of them 

are maintained as roads at this time. Some 

of these former roads are maintained as 

hiking trails, but most are completely 

overgrown, and it now requires a rather 

discerning eye to note where they may 

have been. Collectively, the nearly 40,000 

acres of islands constitute a very large 

roadless area by Upper Midwest 

standards. 

Other forms of development are also 

relatively sparse. There is no permanent 

human presence on any of the islands 

within the park. Areas where the National 

Park Service actively manages visitor

support facilities, historic lighthouses and 

other structures, or performs grounds 

58
work (such as mowing), currently amount 

to roughly 200 acres on the islands. Other 

developments exist, such as hiking trails 

and campsites, but for the most part these 

developments are consistent with the 

Wilderness Act and NPS wilderness 

management policies. Thus, for the 

purposes of this study, roughly 99.5% of 

the island-based lands within the park can 

be considered to possess “minimal levels 

of development.” 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR 

PRIMITIVE, UNCONFINED 

RECREATION 

There are opportunities for primitive, 

unconfined recreation on nearly every 

island in the park. Camping is available on

18 of the 21 islands. In 2002 there were just

over 20,000 visitor days of camping 

recorded on the islands. After subtracting 

out the visitor days at group campsites, 

and at the more concentrated camping 

areas such as Stockton - Presque Isle, 

nearly 10,000 of these visitor days are at 

campsites in the areas being considered for 

wilderness. There are a total of 55 miles of 

hiking trails on 12 of the islands. It is not 

known how many visitors make use of the 

trails, but the opportunities are numerous. 

Except for camping, which requires a 

permit, recreation on the islands is largely 

unconfined. A small number of areas are 

closed during the main visitor season to 

protect nesting bird populations, but

access to most of the islands is

unregulated. 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR SOLITUDE 

The islands are logistically challenging to 

reach, and the visitor season is relatively 

short. The majority of the shorelines are 

steep or rocky, making access difficult or 

impossible in many areas. The only places 

where relatively large numbers of people 

(10-30+) may occur at times are near dock 

areas, some beaches, lighthouses, and 

group camping areas. Opportunities for 

solitude are often not available in these 

places. Island visitation has remained 

steady over the past decade, with a 

combined total of roughly 70,000 to 80,000

visitors per year, of which 84% occurs 

during the summer. With the exception of 

the peak use months of June through 

August, very few people visit the islands.

Heberlein et al. (1999) found that, overall, 

kayakers feel less crowded in the park than 

boaters. This may be due to the tendency 

of boaters to congregate near islands with 

the best anchorages. Even then, however, 

only 17.6% of boaters felt the places they 

stopped at were crowded, compared to 

12.8% of kayakers. Clearly there are 

numerous opportunities for solitude in the 

islands. 

Due to the combined influences of beach, 

campsite, and dock locations, there is a 

very strong tendency for park visitors to 

stay near shorelines. Other factors, such as

insect populations, probably contribute to 

this tendency as well. In any case, for those 

visitors willing to venture into them, the 

interiors of the islands offer outstanding 

opportunities for solitude — even during 

the peak visitor season. On many islands, it 

is possible to walk for miles without 

encountering another visitor. Most of the 

sounds of civilization give way to the 

sounds of the forest after traveling only a 

short distance inland. 

59
VISITOR NONWILDERNESS EXPERIENCES

For the purposes of this document, 

“visitors” are defined as anyone who 

enters the park or uses park facilities for 

any reason. 

Enjoying the park and its resources is a 

fundamental part of the visitor experience. 

That experience is heightened when it 

progresses from enjoyment to an understanding of the reasons for a park’s 

existence and the significance of its 

resources. Natural and cultural resources 

and park facilities provide opportunities 

for a variety of visitor experiences at 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. Many 

of these visitor experiences are not related

to characteristics associated with wilderness (e.g., opportunities for solitude, 

opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation, and naturalness). These 

types of visitor experiences may include, 

but are not limited to, group activities, 

recreational activities (e.g., camping, 

picnicking), participating in personal

interpretive services (e.g., staffed visitor 

centers, ranger conducted activities), and 

utilizing nonpersonal interpretive services 

(e.g., wayside exhibits, visitor center

exhibits, radio information systems, 

computer technologies) to help visitors 

form their own intellectual and emotional 

connections with the meanings and 

significance of park resources. 

GENERAL VISITOR USE 

PATTERNS 

The average number of annual 

recreational visitors to Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore in the period from 

1990-2001 was 166,728. In 2001 there were 

a little more than 195,000 recreational 

visitors in the park. 

Approximately 77,000 of these were island 

visitors. A total of 29,000 visitors toured 

the Apostle Islands by the concessioner’s 

cruise boat, while the remainder came by 

private motorboat, kayak, and sailboat. 

(Since 1990, the number of kayak/campers 

in the park has almost quadrupled, while 

the numbers of campers using other forms 

of transportation has remained relatively

constant.) The seasonal visitation patterns 

for this period show that roughly 2% of 

island visitation occurs in spring (March - 

May), 84% in summer (June - August), 

14% in fall (September - November), and 

less than 0.1% in winter (December - 

February). Peak use is during July and 

August, on weekends. 

Most visitors go to more than one island in 

a day. Most motorboaters and sailboaters 

congregate at relatively secure anchorages 

or docks at Stockton, Rocky/South Twin, 

Raspberry, Oak and Sand Islands. Not 

surprisingly, these islands also receive the 

highest use levels − these islands have

scenic attractions, have visitor facilities, 

several are relatively close to the mainland, 

and most are on the concessioner’s tour 

boat circuit. Islands that are closer to the 

mainland tend to receive higher use levels, 

while the more remote islands, such as 

Outer and Cat, receive lower use levels. 

Eagle and Gull Islands, and the northwest 

corner of Otter Island are closed to visitors 

in the summer (May 15 to September 15) 

due to the presence of nesting birds. 

ISLAND EXPERIENCES 

The Apostle Islands offer a variety of 

recreational experiences. Recreational 

users of the park include sailors, kayakers, 

motorboaters, hikers, sightseers, picnickers, swimmers, campers, fishers, hunters, 

photographers, birdwatchers, divers, 

60
skiers, snowshoers, berry pickers, nature 

students, and lighthouse buffs. The most 

popular activities on the islands tend to be 

sightseeing, lighthouse tours, day hikes, 

and camping, although many visitors who 

come to the park participate in more than 

one activity.

Most people who spend time on the 

islands stay on shorelines, particularly 

beaches, or in the general vicinity of the 

developed areas, particularly areas with 

campsites and/or lighthouses. In general, 

cruise boat, sailboat, and motorboat 

visitors (who all together make up the 

largest number of users) tend to come on 

shore to use the park facilities, picnic, or 

explore. With the exception of campers, 

these visitors spend relatively short 

periods on an island and rarely take long 

hikes. The motorboat and sailboat visitors 

usually sleep on their boats, with only a 

small number camping on shore. (In 2002, 

14% of campers were motorboat users and 

3% were sailboaters.) Kayakers tend to be 

more likely to camp (55% of all campers 

were kayakers in 2002) and spend more 

time exploring an island. 

Over 60 developed campsites are on 14 

islands; eight of these campsites are group 

campsites on four islands. Individual 

campsites generally contain a tent pad, fire 

ring, and picnic table, with a vault toilet 

nearby; group sites have tables, fire rings, 

large gathering areas, and vault toilets 

nearby. All park visitors that camp on the 

islands are required to obtain a permit. 

(The permit system allows campers to 

reserve campsites in advance and helps 

park staff monitor the mount of use each 

campsite receives.) The number of 

camping permits issued annually has 

increased from 1,330 in 1997 to 1,697 in 

2002. In 2002, a total of 7,452 campers 

spent a total of 20,028 nights in island 

camping areas. A total of 2,812 of those 

campers (38%) camped in groups of eight 

or more individuals. Campers spent 10,207 

nights in group campsites on Basswood, 

Oak, Sand, and Stockton Islands or in the 

campground at Presque Isle on Stockton 

Island. 

A total of about 55 miles of trails are 

actively maintained on 12 islands. These 

trails provide hiking opportunities for 

visitors, as well as opportunities to 

experience and enjoy a variety of natural 

and historic features. 

Many opportunities exist for picnicking 

on the islands. All individual campsites, 

except one, and all group campsites have 

picnic tables. Lighthouse lawns tend to

have picnic tables. There are also picnic 

areas that are separate from campsites and

lighthouses on Oak, Rocky, South Twin, 

and Stockton-Presque Isle. 

The islands provide a number of interpretive facilities and programs for visitors. 

A visitor center is on Stockton, which has 

exhibits on natural and cultural history. 

Evening talks or campfire programs are 

offered on Stockton. Guided walks or

tours are given on Stockton, the Manitou 

Island fish camp, and at several of the 

lighthouses. In 2002, 1,390 visitors were 

contacted in the park visitor center at

Stockton Island, 11,862 visitors participated in guided tours of lighthouses on 

Raspberry, Sand, Michigan, Devils, and 

Outer Islands, 3,860 visitors took guided 

tours of the Manitou Island Fish Camp, 

and 1,395 visitors attended evening 

programs at Stockton Island.

 

61
PARK OPERATIONS

The park’s operations are discussed below 

under four divisions: interpretation and 

education, protection, planning and 

resource management, and facility 

management. As noted in the beginning of 

this chapter, this section ignores the park 

headquarters in Bayfield, which plays a 

major role in all of the park’s operations, 

and visitor and administrative facilities on

the mainland unit because they would not 

be affected under any of the wilderness 

alternatives. 

INTERPRETATION AND 

EDUCATION 

The park’s island-based interpreters and 

educators consist mostly of temporary 

employees hired during summer months. 

The NPS interpretation and education 

staff are augmented with volunteers 

through the summer months. 

The park’s island-based interpretive 

efforts have traditionally centered around 

developed visitor use areas. In 2002,

interpretive park rangers were stationed at 

Stockton Island’s Presque Isle, the 

Manitou fish camp, and the Raspberry 

Island lighthouse, all of which operate 

seasonally. Logistics are a constant 

challenge for the park staff even when the 

weather cooperates. Typically, interpretive 

park rangers and volunteers staff the 

visitor center at Stockton-Presque Isle 

from mid-June to Labor Day. From midJune through the end of September 

interpretive park rangers and volunteer 

light keepers conduct lighthouse tours and 

provide educational walks and programs 

at all lighthouses on the islands, except for 

those on Long Island. As with most other 

island-based workers, these employees 

and volunteers usually live in housing units 

on the islands and are transported off the 

islands for their days off duty. 

An information desk, interpretive displays, 

and book sales are also located at the 

Stockton-Presque Isle visitor center. 

Interpretive operations include assistance 

in trip planning and issuing of backcountry 

camping permits. Informational signs, 

maps, and bulletin boards, as well as

wayside exhibits, are located at many

docks and developed areas throughout the

park. There are a few wayside exhibits 

located in more remote areas on several 

islands. 

PROTECTION 

Visitor and resource protection park 

rangers conduct patrols of about 140 miles 

of island shoreline, numerous historic and 

archeological sites, trails, campsites, and 

public use areas and facilities on 21 islands 

spread out over an area larger than Rocky 

Mountain National Park. Protection 

rangers are stationed at Little Sand Bay 

and Roys Point on the mainland year 

round and at Stockton-Presque Isle during 

the summer. Most are permanent park 

employees, although they are typically 

supplemented with a small number of

temporary employees each summer. These 

employees perform law enforcement,

wildland fire suppression, structural fire 

prevention monitoring, building and fire 

security, emergency medical services, and 

search and rescue operations on the

islands, often under very challenging 

conditions. 

PLANNING AND RESOURCE 

MANAGEMENT 

Park planning and resource management 

employees strive to increase understand62
ing of the natural and cultural resources of 

the islands and devise strategies for the 

public to interact with those resources in a 

manner that ensures their preservation for 

future generations. The staff monitor the

park’s wildlife, vegetation, and air and 

water quality. They assess the historic and 

cultural sites located within the park for 

historic significance and make recommendations for their preservation. They 

add to knowledge and understanding of 

the park’s natural and cultural resources 

by performing historical research and 

scientific studies and assist park cooperators who are interested in performing 

their own research. This knowledge is

then applied, with the assistance of other 

park divisions, in a variety of restoration 

projects. Planning and resource management staff also educate park staff on 

current issues affecting park resources, 

perform National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) and National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) compliance, and 

direct or participate in park planning 

efforts such as this study.

Planning and resource management staff 

consist of natural and cultural resource 

specialists, supplemented by a small

number of temporary or volunteer 

technicians. These employees tend to be 

mainland-based but spend considerable 

amounts of time throughout the islands 

during the short summer field season. As 

with other park staff, transporting planning and resource management staff to the 

islands is a constant logistical challenge. 

FACILITY MANAGEMENT 

Facility management staff care for an 

enormous variety of park developments 

and cultural resources. Historic 

preservation staff face the challenging task 

of slowing or preventing decay in the 160 

historic buildings that are spread 

throughout the park, including the largest 

collection of lighthouses found anywhere 

in the national park system. Facility

management crews build and maintain

hiking trails (55 miles spread over 12

islands) and campsites (more than 60

spread over 14 islands), repair docks (17 

on 13 islands), and maintain a wide variety 

of grounds, utility systems, and other 

visitor use facilities distributed over a very 

large area. Facility management staff also 

are responsible for maintaining all of the 

park’s housing quarters, as well as the 

visitor center at Stockton-Presque Isle. 

Skilled in a variety of crafts and trades, 

facility management staff consist of 

permanent employees supplemented by 

temporary employees in the summer.

Most facility management operations are 

not based on the islands. Rather, these 

staff are in almost constant motion, 

regularly transporting themselves and 

others to the islands. Routine activities on

the mainland, such as pumping outhouses 

or delivering propane, become adventures 

on islands in Lake Superior. Some facility 

management staff are devoted to simply 

keeping the park’s aging fleet of more than 

20 boats in safe, working order. 

Island-based park staff on Stockton, Sand, 

Oak, and Rocky Islands are seasonally 

housed in government-owned housing. 

Raspberry Island staff reside in historic 

quarters at the Raspberry Island light 

station, and volunteer light house keepers

are housed in a similar manner on Devils, 

Michigan, and Outer Islands. 

63
64
Environmental

Consequences
(BACK OF DIVIDER PAGE BLANK)

66
INTRODUCTION

The National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) mandates that environmental 

impact statements disclose the environmental effects of proposed federal 

actions. In this case, the proposed 

federal action would be the designation 

of wilderness in Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore. This “Environmental Consequences” chapter analyzes 

the potential effects of four alternatives 

on natural resources, cultural resources, 

wilderness resources, the visitor 

nonwilderness experiences, and 

operations of Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore. By examining the 

environmental consequences of all

alternatives on an equivalent basis, 

decision-makers can decide which 

approach creates the most desirable 

combination of the greatest beneficial 

results with the fewest adverse effects on 

the park. 

Ordinarily, the federal action that 

necessitates the preparation of an 

environmental impact statement is some 

type of planned development, such as

the construction of a road or building. 

In this case, the federal action being 

evaluated is whether or not to designate 

wilderness in the park. The result of this

federal action would either be a 

permanent commitment to continue to 

protect and manage most of the existing 

natural, undeveloped portions of the 

park as wilderness (alternatives B, C,

and D), or the removal of a policy 

constraint that has prevented most new 

developments from occurring in most 

parts of the park (alternative A).

As noted in the “Purpose and Need” 

chapter, this study is not intended to 

address questions regarding how a 

wilderness area should be managed. 

Most of these questions would be 

addressed in a subsequent wilderness 

management plan and accompanying 

environmental document. However, in 

order to analyze the impacts of wilderness designation it is necessary to generally examine and assess the implications of changes in management 

resulting from wilderness designation. 

The text box in the “Purpose and

Need” chapter generally describes what 

management actions, uses, and 

developments would and would not be 

permitted in a wilderness area. It is

assumed in this analysis of the 

alternatives that if wilderness is not 

designated in parts of the park, 

administrative or visitor developments 

could be built on the undeveloped parts 

of the islands in the future, consistent

with the park’s current and future 

general management plans. In order to 

allow new development in areas outside 

the development zones designated in the 

current General Management Plan 

(1989), the plan would need to be 

modified. If this were to occur, 

opportunities for public involvement 

would be provided in the planning 

process, as required under law and NPS 

policies. 

It is important to note that because the 

1989 General Management Plan found 

that 97% of the park was suitable for 

wilderness designation, NPS policy has 

required that the wilderness values of 

this area be protected until Congress 

and the President have taken final 

action. As a result, the vast majority of 

Apostle Islands National lakeshore has 

been managed as de facto (unofficial) 

wilderness. For the purposes of this

environmental impact assessment, it is 

assumed that Congress would take 

action to implement each of the 

alternatives, either designating new 

67
wilderness as outlined in the alternative, 

or agree that no wilderness would be 

designated in the park. 

Because of the above policy constraint, 

it is difficult to know what the park 

might look like should the long-standing 

de facto wilderness management 

guidance be lifted. Thus, instead of 

analyzing the impacts related to a 

planned development, this chapter 

analyzes the impacts related to an 

assortment of developments that could 

be built if wilderness were not 

designated on some or all of the islands. 

The analysis is general because there 

simply is not a plan that outlines how 

the islands could be developed should 

the park’s long history of de facto

wilderness management be removed. 

Although it cannot be known with 

certainty what developments might be 

constructed in the park if current de 

facto wilderness management guidance 

was lifted, it is reasonable to assume that 

the following developments would be 

considered:

• New campsites: There has been an 

increase in camping on the islands 

since the 1989 General Management 

Plan was released. While campsite

development can take place in 

wilderness areas, the nature and 

distribution of the campsites is

necessarily different in wilderness. 

• New picnic areas: Increased use of 

the park by large groups has led to 

an increasing demand for this type 

of facility. 

• New trails: Trails can be constructed 

in wilderness areas, but their level of 

development and placement may 

vary in some alternatives. If the 

current wilderness management 

restrictions were lifted, some of the 

new trails could be paved, and they

could include self-guided 

interpretive trails with permanent 

waysides. 

Island visitation has been kept to low 

numbers due to the relative 

inaccessibility of the islands. Future 

improvements in transportation 

technology could conceivably reduce 

the role of Lake Superior in limiting

visitation, however. Depending on 

future circumstances (e.g., if visitation 

were to substantially increase and if the 

park’s operating budget was sufficient), 

it is possible the following developments 

might be considered: 

• Additional or expanded dock 

facilities: Boaters have expressed an 

interest in seeing more docks in 

some areas and expanded docks in

others. Although docks extend out 

into Lake Superior, which is

excluded from all alternatives, they

have the effect of concentrating 

relatively large numbers of people in

a small area. Thus, new docks would 

not ordinarily be constructed 

adjacent to wilderness. However, it 

also should be stressed that no 

existing public use docks would be

removed by the National Park 

Service under any of the alternatives 

being considered. 

• Additional structures to serve 

visitors or house island-based park 

employees: Examples of structures 

that might be built include visitor 

contact stations, storage facilities, 

shelters, restrooms, and

amphitheaters. 

Because it is difficult to know what 

development(s) might be built where,

and to speculate about other 

management implications of wilderness 

and nonwilderness, the potential 

consequences of the alternatives are

68
analyzed in general terms using 

qualitative analyses. Consistent with the

National Environmental Policy Act, the 

National Park Service would conduct 

additional environmental analyses with 

appropriate documentation before 

implementing site-specific management 

actions or building new developments in 

the park. 

The existing conditions for all of the 

impact topics that are analyzed here 

were identified in the “Affected 

Environment” chapter. This chapter is 

organized by impact topic. All of the 

alternatives are assessed under each 

impact topic. For each impact topic,

there is a description of the positive 

(beneficial) and negative (adverse)

effects of each of the alternatives and a 

brief conclusion for each alternative. 

Alternative A, the no wilderness 

alternative, is the baseline for

comparison of the effects of the other 

alternatives. The other three alternatives 

were compared to alternative A to 

identify the incremental changes that 

would occur as a result of changes in the 

wilderness proposals. 

At the end of the chapter there is a brief 

discussion of unavoidable adverse 

impacts; irreversible and irretrievable 

commitments of resources; and the 

relationship of short-term uses of the 

environment and the maintenance and 

enhancement of long-term productivity. 

A brief summary of the impacts of each 

alternative is in table 3 at the end of the 

“Wilderness Alternatives” chapter. 

69
METHODOLOGIES FOR ANALYZING IMPACTS

As noted in previously, this chapter is

analyzing impacts of designating 

wilderness and impacts from potential 

developments in nonwilderness areas. 

The wilderness study team based the 

impact analysis and the conclusions in 

this chapter largely on information 

provided by experts in the National 

Park Service, on park staff insights and 

professional judgments, and on the 

review of existing literature and studies. 

The team’s method of analyzing impacts 

is further explained below. 

The environmental consequences for 

each impact topic were defined based 

on impact type, context, duration, and 

intensity. 

Effects can be either adverse or 

beneficial for the topic being analyzed. 

The effects also can be direct or indirect. 

Direct effects are caused by an action 

and occur at the same time and place as 

the action. Indirect effects are caused by 

the action and occur later or farther

away, but are still reasonably 

foreseeable. 

Context refers to the setting within

which an impact is analyzed, such as the 

affected region or locality. In this 

document most impacts are either

localized (site-specific) or parkwide. 

Impact duration refers to how long an 

impact would last. Unless otherwise 

specified, in this document the following 

terms are used to describe the duration 

of the impacts: 

Short term: The impact would be

temporary in nature, lasting a year or 

less 

Long term: The impact would last 

more than one year and could be 

permanent in nature, such as the loss 

of soil due to the construction of a 

new facility

Impact intensity refers to the degree or 

magnitude to which a resource would be 

beneficially or adversely affected. It is

important to consider that when 

evaluating the effects of wilderness, 

terms like “beneficial” or “adverse” are 

somewhat subjective and value-laden, 

and what one person might think of as a 

adverse impact may be thought of by 

another person as a beneficial impact. 

Use of these terms should not be viewed

as a value judgment on the part of the 

National Park Service relative to 

wilderness. For example, if the analysis 

concludes that the constraints imposed 

by wilderness on sign construction is an 

adverse impact, this does not imply that 

the National Park Service prefers signs 

more than wilderness. Nor does it imply 

that the National Park Service has a plan 

to develop more signs. Rather, it is an 

acknowledgement that sign 

construction in designated wilderness as

an activity becomes more complicated 

to those charged with performing that 

activity. The question of whether the 

signs themselves are good or bad is left

to the reader to decide.

Levels of intensity for each impact topic 

were determined using the definitions 

presented below. All of the following

intensities were expressed qualitatively. 

Natural Resources. The intensity of 

impacts on natural resources was 

determined using the following 

definitions:

70
• Negligible − The impact would be

either barely noticeable or extremely 

localized and would have no 

discernible effect on natural 

resources on a parkwide scale. 

• Minor − The impact would be slight

but noticeable and would affect only

a small number of natural resources 

in a small number of park locations.

• Moderate − The impact would be

clearly noticeable and spread over a 

number of park locations and would 

have an appreciable effect on natural 

resources. 

• Major − The impact would be highly

noticeable and widespread and 

could result in a substantial change 

in the park’s natural resources. 

Cultural Resources. The intensity of

impacts on cultural resources was 

determined using the following 

definitions:

• Negligible − The impact would be

either barely noticeable or extremely 

localized and would have no 

discernible effect on cultural 

resources on a parkwide scale. 

• Minor − The impact would be slight

but noticeable, with only a small 

number of resources in a small 

number of park locations being

affected. 

• Moderate − The impact would be

clearly noticeable and spread over a 

number of park locations and would 

have an appreciable parkwide effect

on cultural resources. 

• Major − The impact would be highly

noticeable and widespread and 

could result in the irretrievable loss 

of cultural resources within the park. 

Wilderness Resources. The intensity 

of impacts on wilderness resources was 

determined using the following 

definitions:

• Negligible − The impact would be

either barely noticeable or extremely 

localized and would have no 

discernible effect on wilderness 

resources on a parkwide scale. 

• Minor − The impact would be slight

but noticeable and would affect only

a small number of visitors in a small 

number of park locations. 

• Moderate − The impact would be

clearly noticeable and spread over a 

number of park locations and would 

have an appreciable effect on 

wilderness resources. 

• Major − The impact would be highly

noticeable and widespread and 

could result in a substantial change 

in the quantity of lands within the 

park possessing wilderness 

resources. 

Visitor Nonwilderness Experiences. 

The intensity of impacts on visitor 

experiences not related to wilderness 

was determined using the following 

definitions:

• Negligible − The impact would be

barely detectable by few visitors and

would have no discernible effect on 

their experience. 

• Minor − The impact would be

slightly detectable by few visitors 

and would have little effect on 

visitor experiences not related to 

wilderness resources. 

• Moderate − The impact would be

clearly detectable by many visitors 

and would have an appreciable 

effect on visitor experiences not 

related to wilderness resources. 

• Major − The impact would be

severely adverse or exceptionally 

beneficial for the majority of visitors, 

71
and would have a substantial, highly 

noticeable influence on various 

aspects of visitor experiences not 

related to wilderness resources. 

Park Operations. The intensity of

impacts on park operations was 

determined using the following 

definitions:

• Negligible − The impact would be

barely detectable and would have

little discernible effect on park 

operations and facilities.

• Minor − The impact would be

slightly detectable but would not

affect the park’s overall ability to 

provide services and maintain 

facilities. 

• Moderate − The impact would be

clearly detectable and could have an 

appreciable effect on park 

operations and facilities.

• Major − The impact would have a 

substantial, highly noticeable 

influence on park operations and 

facilities, and could change the 

park’s services and/or facilities. 

72
MITIGATION MEASURES, CUMULATIVE IMPACTS, 

AND RESOURCE IMPAIRMENT

MITIGATION MEASURES 

No impacts were identified due to

wilderness designation that would 

require mitigation measures. It is

assumed in the impact analyses that 

appropriate mitigation measures would 

be applied for developments that may be 

built in the nonwilderness areas under 

the alternatives. For example, sites 

would be surveyed for archeological 

resources and state-listed and rare 

plants before developments would be 

permitted. Developments in wetlands 

and in important wildlife habitats also 

would be avoided. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

The Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations implementing NEPA define 

a cumulative impact as “...the impact on 

the environment which results from the 

incremental impact of the action when 

added to other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

regardless of what agency (federal or

nonfederal) or person undertakes such 

other actions. Cumulative impacts can 

result from individually minor, but 

collectively significant, actions taking

place over a period of time.” Each 

cumulative impact analysis is additive, 

considering the overall impact of the 

alternative when combined with effects 

of other actions (inside and outside the 

park) that have occurred or that would 

occur in the foreseeable future. 

The wilderness study team considered

the potential of actions occurring within 

and outside the park, which when added 

to the designation of wilderness, could 

result in a cumulative impact. It should 

be noted that there are no designated 

wilderness areas near the park, and 

wilderness areas in the region would

attract different types of visitors than 

those who would come to the Apostle 

Islands. Also, no private or other agency 

actions were identified occurring on the 

mainland, such as in Bayfield, that, 

considered together with the 

designation of wilderness, would have a 

cumulative impact on resources, visitors, 

local economies, or management of the 

park. 

Among the various actions considered 

in evaluating cumulative impacts were 

• initiatives to outsource services 

provided by NPS staff. This is not 

likely to result in a cumulative 

impact. 

• nationwide security efforts, which 

would likely result in law 

enforcement staff being directed to 

other duties outside the park, and in 

turn, fewer NPS staff being available

to assist visitors which may affect the 

visitor experience. But this would 

not be expected to have a cumulative 

effect with wilderness designation.

• climate change, which could affect 

Lake Superior’s water level. This 

could affect use of the park, possibly 

resulting in longer use seasons and 

more visitors, and could have both 

positive and negative impacts on 

park resources. But this effect would 

likely occur over time, and 

wilderness designation (plus changes 

in lake levels) would not result in 

additive changes in visitation, 

resources, or park operations. 

• Native American treaty rights, which 

would continue to be honored by 

73
the National Park Service. Wilderness designation plus the exercise of 

the treaty rights would not result in 

any additive cumulative impacts on 

visitor uses or experiences on the 

islands, on island resources, or on 

park operations. 

• granting of a new concessions 

contract for tour boats. This 

probably would not change existing 

use patterns of the park or 

substantially change use levels. 

Many of the visitors who use this

service would not enter the 

wilderness area. Wilderness 

designation plus this change are 

independent actions and would not

combine together to result in a 

cumulative effect on visitors or 

island resources. 

• development of a new general 

management plan. It is uncertain 

what would be proposed in a new

general management plan. Until 

Congress takes action on wilderness 

in the park, major changes in how 

much of the park would be managed 

would not be likely. Under NPS

policy, wilderness values must be 

maintained in areas determined to

have been suitable for wilderness 

until Congress takes action. Under 

this policy most new developments

that could be proposed in a new plan 

would not occur in areas proposed 

for wilderness. Similarly, no major 

changes in visitor uses would likely

be made in areas proposed for 

wilderness. 

In conclusion, no ongoing or foreseeable actions were identified that would 

combine with proposals for wilderness 

that would result in cumulative effects. 

Therefore, it is expected that there 

would be no cumulative impacts (on the 

impact topics being analyzed in this

document) that would result from the 

designation of wilderness in Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore. No further 

evaluation of cumulative impacts is

included in this chapter. 

IMPAIRMENT OF PARK 

RESOURCES OR VALUES 

In addition to determining the environmental consequences of the preferred 

alternative, NPS Management Policies 

2001 require that potential effects be 

analyzed to determine whether or not 

actions would impair park resources. 

The fundamental purpose of the 

national park system, established by the 

Organic Act and reaffirmed by the 

General Authorities Act, as amended, 

begins with a mandate to conserve park 

resources and values. NPS managers 

must always seek ways to avoid, or to 

minimize to the greatest degree

practicable, adversely impacting park 

resources and values. However, the laws 

do give the National Park Service the 

management discretion to allow impacts 

to park resources and values when

necessary and appropriate to fulfill the 

purposes of a park, as long as the impact 

does not constitute impairment of the 

affected resources and values. Although 

Congress has given the National Park 

Service the management discretion to 

allow certain impacts within the park, 

that discretion is limited by the statutory 

requirement that the National Park 

Service must leave park resources and 

values unimpaired, unless a particular 

law directly and specifically provides 

otherwise. 

The prohibited impairment is an impact 

that, in the professional judgment of the 

responsible NPS manager, would harm 

the integrity of park resources or values. 

An impact to any park resource or value 

may constitute an impairment, but an 

74
impact would be more likely to 

constitute an impairment to the extent 

that it has a major or severe adverse 

effect on a resource or value whose 

conservation is: 

• necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the establishing 

legislation or proclamation of the 

park 

• key to the natural or cultural 

integrity of the park or opportunities 

for enjoyment of the park 

• identified as a goal in the park’s 

general management plan or other 

relevant NPS planning documents 

Impairment may result from National 

Park Service activities in managing the 

park, visitor activities, or activities 

undertaken by concessioners, 

contractors, and others operating in the 

park. 

Impairment Determination 

After evaluating the natural and cultural 

resource impacts for the four 

alternatives considered in this 

document, none of the impacts were

found to be of sufficient intensity to

constitute an impairment of park 

resources and values. Indeed, many of 

the resource impacts of wilderness 

designation were determined to be 

beneficial impacts. All adverse impacts 

due to wilderness designation were 

found to be moderate or lower in 

intensity and are not anticipated to be of 

sufficient magnitude to warrant a 

finding of impairment of park resources 

and values. From an impairment 

standpoint, impacts cannot be analyzed 

in the nonwilderness areas due to 

uncertainty regarding what actions 

might be taken where and when, and 

what resource values might be affected. 

Future actions in these areas would be 

evaluated for possible impairment of 

resource values in future environmental 

documents, consistent with the National 

Environmental Policy Act and NPS 

management policies. 

75
IMPACTS ON NATURAL RESOURCES

ALTERNATIVE A (NO 

WILDERNESS) 

Analysis. Under alternative A the 

current requirement to manage most of 

the park as de facto wilderness would be 

removed. As a result new developments 

could be built throughout the park, 

consistent with the general management 

plan. Thus, alternative A has the highest 

level of uncertainty of all the alternatives 

relative to impacts on the park’s natural 

resources. 

Under alternative A new docks could be 

built in most locations, consistent with 

the current general management plan. 

The development of additional docks in 

the park has the potential to cause 

moderate, long-term, adverse impacts 

on coastal processes. Docks, especially 

those with solid cores, impede transport 

of sediments along the shores.

Sediments would be trapped by the 

docks and, therefore, would not be 

available to replenish downstream areas. 

Without this replenishment, Lake 

Superior currents and waves can erode 

beaches. Depending on the design, 

location, and extent of the docks, this 

could cause a moderate level of impact 

to the geomorphology of one or more of 

the park’s sandscapes. The development 

of additional docks could also cause

moderate, short-term, adverse water 

quality impacts during construction due 

to an increase in localized turbidity. In

addition, new docks potentially could 

permanently modify the bottom 

substrate through the disturbance of 

nearshore transport of sediments. Both 

of these changes could cause long-term 

adverse impacts on fish habitat in very 

small areas, primarily confined to the 

areas immediately surrounding the

docks where the substrate has been 

changed. 

Development of campsites along the 

shoreline could cause a minor level of 

impact to shoreline erosion, especially if 

campsites were grouped along a 

shoreline. People going back and forth 

across shorelines could trample 

vegetation, which in turn could increase 

shoreline erosion. Also, if an area 

becomes cleared of vegetation due to 

the creation of a campsite(s), and if there 

are trees behind the cleared area and the 

beach, the trees would be more subject 

to blowdown, which in turn could result 

in shoreline erosion. 

The primary impacts on soils related to 

new campsites, trails, picnic areas, and 

buildings would be compaction and 

potential erosion. Depending on the 

level of new development, impacts 

could be moderate and long-term; 

however, individual impacted areas 

would tend to be small. Areas 

surrounding interpretive signs and 

kiosks could also be subjected to

increased soil compaction. 

 

The primary impacts on vegetation

related to new campsites, trails, picnic 

areas, and buildings would be the loss of 

vegetation in the most heavily used areas 

and in surrounding areas. Similar to 

soils, impacts to vegetation could be

moderate and long-term (depending on 

the level of development); however, 

individual impacted areas would tend to 

be small. Areas surrounding interpretive

signs and kiosks could also be subjected 

to impacts on vegetation due to

trampling. 

76
Unless future developments were 

located in important habitat for sensitive 

species (a very unlikely situation), 

impacts would be expected to be 

negligible to minor on wildlife species. 

Conclusion. Of all the alternatives 

considered, alternative A has the highest

potential for adverse, long-term impacts 

to the park’s natural resources — this

alternative has the least certainty that 

the park’s natural resources would 

continue to be protected and 

maintained as they have been. 

Depending on the level of development 

that occurred, minor to moderate, longterm, adverse impacts could occur in 

localized areas.

ALTERNATIVE B (MAXIMIZE 

WILDERNESS) 

Analysis. Designating 94% of the park’s 

land base as wilderness would ensure

that relatively few new developments

would occur in undeveloped areas of the 

park. As a result, there would be 

relatively few natural resource impacts 

⎯ compared to alternative A, alternative 

B would have a long-term, beneficial 

impact by ensuring that coastal 

processes, water quality, soils, 

vegetation, and wildlife would continue 

to be maintained in a relatively “natural” 

condition, or would not be altered 

beyond current conditions, on most of 

the islands. Although new campsites or 

trails could be built in the wilderness 

area, consistent with NPS wilderness 

management standards, no impacts to 

water quality would be expected. Some

soil compaction would result from the 

construction and use of these facilities, 

and vegetation would be lost or 

trampled in these areas. Since there 

would likely be fewer campsites and 

trails constructed in the wilderness area 

compared to alternative A, these impacts 

would be minor and long term and 

restricted to small areas. Impacts to 

wildlife would likely be negligible, given 

the size of the facilities, careful siting of 

the campsites and trails, and expected 

low-use levels. 

New developments would largely be

focused in the 6% of the park’s land 

base that would not be designated as 

wilderness. Natural resources in many 

of these areas already have been 

disturbed or altered by past 

developments. If new developments are 

built in these areas, with appropriate 

mitigation measures few additional 

natural resource impacts would be 

likely. However, if developments such as 

docks, picnic areas, and buildings were 

built in undeveloped areas, impacts 

would be similar to those described

under alternative A: minor to moderate, 

short and long-term, adverse impacts 

could occur to coastal processes, soils 

and vegetation, and negligible to minor 

impacts to wildlife populations. 

Conclusion. Since this alternative 

would be the least likely to result in 

developments in currently undeveloped 

areas, it has the lowest potential for 

adverse, long-term impacts to the park’s 

natural resources. Overall, compared to 

alternative A, alternative B would have a 

moderate, long-term, beneficial impact 

on natural resources because the 

increased protection wilderness would 

provide to most of the islands would 

ensure that potential impacts of new

developments would largely be avoided. 

In the nonwilderness areas alternative B 

could result in negligible to moderate, 

short and long-term impacts to natural 

resources in localized areas, depending 

on the level of development that 

occurred.

77
ALTERNATIVE C (PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE) 

Analysis. Alternative C would have 

similar impacts as those described for 

alternative B, except a smaller area (80% 

of the park’s land base) would be

designated as wilderness. Like 

alternative B, alternative C would have a 

long-term, beneficial impact on most of 

the park’s natural resources, ensuring 

long-term protection of coastal 

processes, water quality, soils, 

vegetation, and wildlife populations in

the wilderness area. Some soil 

compaction could result from the 

construction and use of new campsites 

and trails in the wilderness area, some 

vegetation would be lost or trampled, 

and some wildlife could be disturbed,

but these impacts would be localized,

long term, and negligible to minor in 

intensity. 

New developments could be built in 

20% of the park’s land base under 

alternative C, many of which are not 

currently developed. In particular, new 

developments could be built on 

Basswood, Sand, and Long Islands, and 

larger portions of Stockton and Rocky 

Islands, assuming this was consistent 

with the general management plan. If 

new developments were built in these 

undeveloped areas, impacts similar to

those described under alternative A 

could occur: minor to moderate, shortand long-term, adverse impacts could

occur to coastal processes, soils, and 

vegetation. Negligible to minor impacts 

could occur to wildlife populations. 

Conclusion. Compared to alternative A, 

alternative C would have a moderate, 

long-term, beneficial impact for the park 

due to the additional level of protection 

wilderness would bestow to most of the 

islands and to ensuring that the potential 

impacts of new developments would 

largely be avoided. Adverse impacts to

natural resources in the wilderness area 

likely would be negligible to minor and 

long term. In the nonwilderness areas 

the alternative could result in negligible 

to moderate, short and long-term 

impacts to natural resources in localized 

areas, depending on the level of

development that occurred. With more 

of the park potentially open to new 

development in this alternative, 

compared to alternative B, the natural 

resources in more areas could be 

adversely affected under alternative C, 

although much less than in alternative A. 

ALTERNATIVE D (LIMIT 

WILDERNESS TO REMOTE 

AREAS) 

Analysis. Alternative D would have 

similar impacts as those described for 

alternative B, except a smaller area (55% 

of the park’s land base) would be

designated as wilderness. Like 

alternatives B and C, alternative D 

would have a long-term, beneficial 

impact on much of the park’s natural 

resources, ensuring long-term 

protection of coastal processes, water 

quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife 

populations in the wilderness area. As in 

the other alternatives, some soil 

compaction, loss of vegetation, and 

wildlife disturbance could result from

the construction and use of new 

campsites and trails in the wilderness 

area, but these impacts would be

localized, long term, and negligible to

minor in intensity. 

New developments could be built in 

45% of the park’s land base under 

alternative D, much of which is not

developed. In particular, new 

developments could be built on the 

78
islands excluded from the wilderness 

area in alternative C plus an additional 

nine islands, assuming this is consistent 

with the general management plan. If 

new developments were built in these 

undeveloped areas, impacts similar to

those described under alternative A 

could occur: minor to moderate, short 

and long-term, adverse impacts could

occur to coastal processes, soils, and 

vegetation; negligible could occur to

minor impacts to wildlife populations. 

Conclusion. Compared to alternative A, 

alternative D would have a minor to 

moderate, long-term, beneficial impact 

for the park due to the additional level 

of protection wilderness bestows to 

most of the islands and to ensuring that

the potential impacts of new developments would largely be avoided. (The 

beneficial impact would be lower than 

alternatives B and C because less of the 

park would be designated as wilderness.) Adverse impacts to natural 

resources in the wilderness area likely 

would be negligible to minor and long 

term. In the nonwilderness areas the

alternative could result in negligible to 

moderate, short and long-term impacts 

to natural resources in localized areas, 

depending on the level of development 

that occurred. With more of the park 

potentially open to new development in 

this alternative, compared to alternatives 

B and C, the natural resources in more

areas could be adversely affected under 

alternative D, although less than in 

alternative A. 

79
IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES

Analysis of the proposed alternatives’ 

impacts on the cultural resources of the 

Apostle Islands is challenging. Most of 

the potential impacts identified are 

indirect and long term in nature. Many 

are related to the consequences of 

potential development, which 

wilderness designation would largely 

restrict to nonwilderness portions of the 

park. 

Additionally, analysis of impacts on the 

cultural resources must consider several 

other factors: 

• Most importantly, analysis of 

alternatives must take into account 

the fact that the park has not been 

completely surveyed for cultural 

resources, and additional sites may 

be identified as time passes. For 

example, only about 20% of the 

park’s land area has been 

archeologically surveyed. Prior to 

implementing any grounddisturbing activity in the future, 

appropriate archeological surveys 

would be undertaken. The 

significance of any discovered 

archaeological resources would be 

evaluated and documented, and an 

appropriate mitigation strategy 

developed, if necessary, through 

consultation with the Wisconsin 

state historic preservation office and 

any affiliated American Indian 

tribes. 

• The cultural resources of the Apostle 

Islands are not set off in a distinct, 

separate area; rather they are 

distributed widely throughout the 

park. Cultural features tend to 

cluster along the shoreline, where 

access is easiest. Consequently, 

those sites that are most appealing 

for modern development also tend 

to be the spots where cultural 

features are most often found. 

• The island setting resulted in special 

patterns of use and development, 

and contributed to the excellent 

state of preservation of early 

homesteads, logging camps, and 

quarry operations. Because access 

has always been difficult, island sites 

have escaped both the development 

and disturbance that have destroyed 

or damaged similar sites on the

mainland throughout the northern 

Great Lake states. 

• Progress in our understanding of the 

islands’ history and cultural 

resources continues to affect the 

assessment of significance of cultural 

resources within the park. Sites that 

were once thought to lack 

significance have subsequently been

identified as eligible for listing on the 

National Register of Historic Places; 

examples include the West Bay Club 

complex on Sand Island and the

logging camp near the northeast 

cove on Bear Island. Thus, the 

current national register status of a 

site cannot serve as the sole measure 

of its historic significance. The 

Advisory Council for Historic 

Preservation (ACHP) offers this 

guidance: 

When approaching questions of

historical significance, build 

upon national register criteria as 

commonly applied to historic 

properties by drawing upon a 

wide range of scholarship in the 

agency’s evaluative and 

80
interpretive frameworks. How 

do the agency’s cultural 

landscapes illustrate the 

continuum of human life? To

what degree does the potentially 

affected area itself embody the 

qualities of a heritage resource? 

Would interpretation of the 

area’s associated cultural 

traditions enrich understanding 

of the values inherent in the 

area? (ACHP 2002) 

Thus, identification of cultural 

resources is an ongoing process. As time 

passes, scholarly and/or public thinking 

about the significance of cultural 

resources may change. The significance 

of cultural resources may require reevaluation based on new information. 

ALTERNATIVE A (NO 

WILDERNESS) 

Analysis. Pursuant to the Secretary of 

the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment 

of Historic Properties (NPS 1995), park 

managers would be able to choose 

between four alternative treatments for 

all historic structures within the park: 

preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, 

and reconstruction. Managers would be 

free from the restraints imposed by

wilderness management policies on the 

general use of power tools and other 

equipment, and as a result could choose 

the most cost-effective tools and 

methods for the treatment of cultural 

resources, making it more likely that the 

cultural treatment would occur. This 

could have a minor to moderate 

beneficial effect, enhancing the level of 

protection available to the park’s

cultural resources, including resources 

that are not on the national register. 

Alternative A would provide maximum 

flexibility for siting future developments 

and so would entail the least likelihood 

for developments to be placed in such a 

way as to directly affect archeological 

resources or cultural landscapes. On the 

other hand, new developments could 

occur throughout the park, consistent 

with the general management plan in

place at the time. New developments

could result in increased numbers of 

visitors in areas that are currently lightly 

visited. Thus, there is an increased

potential for disturbance of cultural 

resources that are located adjacent to or 

near any new development, which could 

have a minor to moderate, adverse 

impact on these resources. 

Ethnographic resources would be 

protected by existing laws and policies, 

including the American Indian Religious 

Freedom Act, the Native American 

Graves Protection Act, §110 (sacred 

sites) of the National Historic 

Preservation Act, Executive Order 

13007, and NPS Management Polices 

(2001), and thus would not likely be

adversely affected under alternative A. 

Conclusion. Under alternative A most 

of the park’s cultural resources could be 

maintained. The alternative also would 

provide maximum flexibility in 

managing and preserving cultural 

resources, including flexibility in

locating new developments to avoid 

cultural resource impacts. But even with 

this flexibility, of all the alternatives, 

alternative A has the highest potential 

for adverse, long-term impacts 

associated with increased visitation in 

more areas. Overall, depending on the 

level of development that occurred, 

alternative A would have the potential 

for minor to moderate, long-term, 

adverse impacts to cultural resources 

throughout the park.

81
ALTERNATIVE B (MAXIMIZE 

WILDERNESS) 

Analysis. Under this alternative, a 

substantial portion of the park’s cultural 

resources would be included in 

wilderness. 

In keeping with NPS wilderness 

management policies, future park 

managers would be limited in the tools 

they can use to rehabilitate, restore, or 

reconstruct historic structures within

the wilderness area. There would be a 

greater likelihood that structures with 

potential to be listed on the National 

Register of Historic Places would be left 

to molder in the wilderness area, due to 

restrictions on the tools available for the 

treatment of these structures. In 

addition, NPS Management Policies 2001

states that human-disturbed areas 

should be restored to natural conditions 

and processes, which might include the 

removal of structures that are not listed 

as historically significant. In a 

designated wilderness area it would be 

more likely that structures not currently 

listed on the national register could be

removed, consistent with this policy.

However, this could preclude future 

research that might lead to the 

reassessment of their significance and 

possible nomination to the national 

register. Consequently, a minor to 

moderate, adverse impact on cultural 

resources in the wilderness area would 

be anticipated. 

Future development of park facilities 

would be restricted to the limited areas 

excluded from wilderness designation, 

approximately 6% of the park’s land 

base. These areas, such as existing

developments and lighthouse 

complexes, contain a high concentration 

of cultural resources. Construction of 

new facilities in these areas and

increased visitor use in these 

developments would almost certainly 

affect archeological sites and/or cultural 

landscapes, which could have a 

moderate, adverse impact on these 

resources. 

Since this alternative has a low potential 

for new development in 94% of the 

park’s land base, there would be a low 

potential for disturbance of cultural 

resource sites in those areas due to more 

dispersed visitation patterns. The 

relative inaccessibility that has protected 

the park’s cultural resources so well over 

the years would have a high potential for 

continuing for most of the park under 

alternative B, resulting in a minor to

moderate, beneficial impact. 

Ethnographic resources would not likely 

be impacted under alternative B. 

Wilderness would prevent most new

developments and thus ensure that the 

ethnographic resources’ existing 

condition would be maintained. In all of

the park ethnographic resources also 

would continue to be protected by 

existing laws and policies, including the 

American Indian Religious Freedom 

Act, the Native American Graves 

Protection Act, §110 (sacred sites) of the 

National Historic Preservation Act, 

Executive Order 13007, and NPS 

Management Polices (2001), and thus 

would not be adversely affected by 

alternative B. 

Conclusion. Compared to alternative A, 

alternative B would have the potential 

for a minor to moderate, long-term, 

beneficial impact on cultural resources 

due to the low potential for new 

development and more dispersed 

visitation patterns in the areas 

recommended for wilderness. However, 

with reduced flexibility in the tools that 

82
can be used to protect and manage 

cultural resources in those areas, there 

could be long-term, adverse impacts to

cultural resources if they were allowed 

to molder. In the nonwilderness areas, 

additional long-term adverse impacts 

might occur due to new developments 

being built in areas where there are 

concentrations of cultural resources. 

Overall, alternative B would have the 

potential for minor to moderate, longterm, beneficial and adverse impacts in 

the wilderness area and moderate, longterm, adverse impacts in the 

nonwilderness areas. 

ALTERNATIVE C (PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE) 

Analysis. Under this alternative, several 

areas containing substantial 

concentrations of cultural resources 

would be excluded from wilderness 

designation. The exclusion of Sand, 

Basswood, and Long Islands, along with 

small portions of Rocky and Stockton 

Islands, from wilderness designation 

would allow a full range of treatments

for a diverse representation of cultural 

sites. In particular, this alternative would 

provide for flexibility in planning the 

preservation and interpretation of 

pioneer farmsteads on Sand and 

Basswood Islands; of historic stone 

quarries on Basswood and Stockton

Islands; and of logging camps on Sand, 

Basswood, and Stockton Islands. It

would allow consideration of a full 

range of treatments for historic 

structures in the settlements on Sand

and Rocky Islands. Managers would be 

able to choose the most cost-effective

tools and methods for treatment of 

cultural resources in these 

nonwilderness areas, making it more

likely that the treatment would occur. 

Thus, on the above islands alternative C 

would have the same minor to moderate 

beneficial effect as alternative A 

regarding efforts to restore, rehabilitate, 

or reconstruct historic structures. 

Because 20% of the park’s land base 

would be excluded from wilderness, 

there would be a broader range of 

options when planning future 

development, resulting in less pressure 

on individual locations. This would 

reduce the chances of adverse impacts 

to cultural landscapes and archeological 

sites in nonwilderness areas compared 

to alternative B. But compared to 

alternative A, alternative C could result 

in minor to moderate, long-term, 

adverse impacts on cultural resources if 

new developments were built near 

existing developments and visitation

increased around the developments in 

the nonwilderness areas.

Since this alternative has a low potential 

for new development in 80% of the 

park’s land base, there would be a low 

potential for disturbance of cultural 

resource sites in those areas due to more 

dispersed visitation patterns. The 

relative inaccessibility that has protected 

the park's cultural resources so well over 

the years would likely continue for the 

majority of the park under alternative C, 

resulting in a minor to moderate, 

beneficial impact. 

Ethnographic resources would not likely 

be impacted under this alternative. 

Wilderness would prevent most new

developments and thus ensure that the 

ethnographic resources’ existing 

condition would be maintained. In all 

areas, ethnographic resources also 

would continue to be protected by 

existing laws and policies, including the 

American Indian Religious Freedom 

Act, the Native American Graves 

Protection Act, §110 (sacred sites) of the 

83
National Historic Preservation Act, 

Executive Order 13007, and NPS 

Management Polices (2001), and thus 

would not be adversely affected by 

alternative C. 

Conclusion. Like all of the other 

alternatives, alternative C has the 

potential for a mix of beneficial and 

adverse impacts relative to cultural 

resources. Alternative C would have a 

minor to moderate beneficial impact in 

the wilderness area due to the low 

potential for long-term cultural resource 

impacts associated with new 

developments and increased visitation 

in the wilderness area. However, some 

minor adverse, long-term impacts could 

occur in the wilderness area due to

reduced flexibility in the treatment 

options that would likely be used to 

manage and protect some cultural 

resources. Minor to moderate, longterm, adverse impacts could occur in the 

nonwilderness areas, depending on the 

level and location of new development 

that occurred. Overall, compared to 

alternative A, alternative C could have 

minor to moderate, long-term, 

beneficial and adverse impacts on 

cultural resources in both the wilderness 

and nonwilderness areas. 

ALTERNATIVE D (LIMIT 

WILDERNESS TO REMOTE 

AREAS) 

Analysis. The exclusion of 12 islands, 

along with portions of several others, 

from wilderness under alternative D 

would allow a full range of treatments

for a diverse representation of cultural 

sites on those islands. The alternative

would provide for flexibility in planning 

the preservation and interpretation of 

pioneer farmsteads on Sand and 

Basswood Islands; of historic stone 

quarries on Basswood, Hermit, and 

Stockton Islands; and of logging camps 

on Sand, Oak, Basswood, and Stockton 

Islands. It would allow consideration of 

a full range of treatments for historic

structures in the settlements on Sand

and Rocky Islands. Managers would be 

able to choose the most cost-effective

tools and methods for treatment of 

cultural resources in the nonwilderness 

areas, making it more likely that the

treatment would occur. Thus, on the 

above islands alternative D would have 

the same minor to moderate beneficial 

effect as alternative A regarding efforts 

to restore, rehabilitate, or reconstruct 

historic structures. 

Because 45% of the park’s land acreage 

would be excluded from wilderness 

designation, there would be a broader 

range of options when planning future 

development, resulting in less pressure 

on individual locations. This would 

reduce the chances of adverse impact to 

cultural landscapes and archeological 

sites in nonwilderness areas compared 

to alternatives B and C. But compared to 

alternative A, alternative D could result 

in minor to moderate, long-term, 

adverse impacts on cultural resources if 

new developments were built near 

existing developments and visitation

increased around the developments in 

the nonwilderness areas.

Since this alternative has a low potential 

for new development in 55% of the 

park’s land base, there would be a low 

potential for disturbance of cultural 

resource sites in those areas due to more 

dispersed visitation patterns. The 

relative inaccessibility that has protected 

the park's cultural resources so well over 

the years would likely continue for 

about half the park under alternative D, 

resulting in a minor beneficial impact. 

84
Ethnographic resources would not likely 

be impacted under this alternative. 

Wilderness would prevent most new

developments and thus ensure that the 

ethnographic resources’ existing 

condition would be maintained. In all 

areas, ethnographic resources also 

would continue to be protected by 

existing laws and policies, including the 

American Indian Religious Freedom 

Act, the Native American Graves 

Protection Act, §110 (sacred sites) of the 

National Historic Preservation Act, 

Executive Order 13007, and NPS 

Management Polices (2001), and thus 

would not be adversely affected by 

alternative D. 

Conclusion. Like all of the other 

alternatives, alternative D has the 

potential for a mix of beneficial and 

adverse impacts relative to cultural 

resources. Alternative D would have a 

minor beneficial impact in the 

wilderness area due to the low potential 

for long-term cultural resource impacts 

associated with new developments and 

increased visitation in the wilderness 

area. However, some minor, long-term, 

adverse impacts could occur in the 

wilderness area due to reduced 

flexibility in the treatment options that 

would likely be used to manage and 

protect some cultural resources. 

Moderate, long-term, adverse impacts 

could occur in the nonwilderness areas, 

depending on the level and location of 

new development that occurred.

Overall, compared to alternative A,

alternative D could have both minor, 

long-term, beneficial and adverse 

impacts on cultural resources in the 

wilderness area, and minor to moderate, 

long-term, adverse impacts in the 

nonwilderness area. 

85
IMPACTS ON WILDERNESS RESOURCES (INCLUDING THE 

VISITOR WILDERNESS EXPERIEINCE)

For the purposes of this assessment,

wilderness resources are defined as 

those qualities of the environment that 

people seek when they travel to

federally designated wilderness areas. 

These qualities include minimal levels of 

development; opportunities for 

primitive, unconfined recreation; 

opportunities for solitude; and quiet. 

ALTERNATIVE A (NO 

WILDERNESS) 

Analysis. Under this alternative new 

developments, such as visitor centers, 

docks, or concession-operated lodges, 

could be built in the park, provided the 

general management plan is in place at 

the time allowed for them. Under 

alternative A these developments could 

be placed in areas that are currently 

managed to protect wilderness 

resources. It would be unlikely that a 

substantial amount of new development 

would occur in the near future, given the 

park’s purposes and significance, and 

the difficulty (and cost) in placing new 

developments on the islands. But if any 

new visitor or administrative 

development(s) were built in those 

areas, they would result in the loss of

wilderness resources. There would be 

fewer opportunities in the park for 

visitors seeking solitude and primitive, 

unconfined recreation than at present. 

The apparent naturalness visitors see in 

the park would decline in the areas with 

development, and scenic views could be 

obstructed or degraded in localized 

areas. If transportation technology were 

to change in the future, allowing 

substantially more visitors to get to the 

islands, additional adverse impacts 

would occur to the park’s wilderness 

resources. Thus, under alternative A 

visitors seeking wilderness experiences 

would have fewer opportunities to find 

this experience in the park. 

Conclusion. Of all the alternatives, 

alternative A has the highest potential 

for widespread, adverse, long-term

impacts to wilderness resources. 

Depending on the level of development 

that occurred in undeveloped areas and 

the increase in visitation, there could be 

minor to major, long-term, adverse 

impacts to wilderness resources. However, these impacts would likely be 

localized, limited to the general vicinity 

of where the new developments are 

built. Ultimately, it is the certainty that

the park will resemble its present wild 

and primitive character that is most at

risk from this alternative ⎯ alternative A 

provides the least certainty that the 

park’s wilderness resources would 

continue to be protected and maintained as they have been. 

ALTERNATIVE B (MAXIMIZE 

WILDERNESS) 

Analysis. Under alternative B most of 

the park’s land area would be designated 

wilderness. This would be a major, 

beneficial, long-term, impact, ensuring 

that most of the park’s wilderness 

resources would be permanently 

protected and maintained. In most of 

the park there would be opportunities 

for visitors seeking solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation. Most of the 

park would appear relatively natural to 

visitors. 

About 6% of the park’s land base would 

be nonwilderness under this alternative 

86
and could experience additional

development in the future. The vast 

majority of this land is contained within 

developed areas that this study has 

found to be unsuitable for wilderness 

designation. By definition, these lands 

possess few wilderness characteristics, 

so the impacts to wilderness resources 

under alternative B would be negligible. 

However, the few impacts that might

occur could be long term. 

Conclusion. Since wilderness 

designation is by definition intended to 

protect the area’s wilderness resources, 

it stands to reason that alternative B 

would have a beneficial impact on the 

wilderness resources of Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore. Compared to

alternative A, alternative B would have a 

major, long-term, beneficial impact on 

the park’s wilderness resources. There 

could be some negligible, adverse, longterm impacts to wilderness resources in 

the areas excluded under alternative B, 

assuming additional development 

occurred in undeveloped areas. 

ALTERNATIVE C (PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE) 

Analysis. With 80% of the park’s land 

base designated as wilderness under 

alternative C, most of the park’s

wilderness resources would be 

permanently protected ⎯ a major, longterm, beneficial impact. In most of the 

park there would be opportunities for 

visitors seeking solitude and primitive, 

unconfined recreation. Most of the park 

would appear relatively natural to 

visitors. 

New developments could be built in 

20% of the park’s land area that would 

be nonwilderness areas under 

alternative C. As in alternative B, some 

of these areas already have developments and were found to be unsuitable 

for wilderness designation, possessing 

few or no wilderness characteristics. 

Thus, impacts from new developments 

and/or increased use levels in these 

areas would have no impact on 

wilderness resources. However, the 

majority of the nonwilderness area 

acreage would be on Sand, Long, and 

Basswood Islands, as well as some

additional small areas on other islands. 

If new developments were built on these 

islands, and/or use levels increased

substantially due to changes in

technology, there would be a long term, 

adverse impact to wilderness resources. 

Visitors going to those islands would 

find fewer opportunities for solitude 

and primitive, unconfined recreation. 

The apparent naturalness of the islands 

could be adversely affected and some

scenic views could be degraded or

obstructed. Consequently, minor to 

moderate, long-term, adverse impacts 

could occur to opportunities for solitude, primitive, unconfined recreation, 

and apparent naturalness in the 

nonwilderness areas on three of the

park’s 21 islands. 

Conclusion. Compared to alternative A, 

alternative C would have a major, longterm, beneficial impact. Most of the 

park’s wilderness resources (80%)

would be permanently protected. In the 

nonwilderness areas, there would be the 

potential for minor to moderate, longterm, adverse impacts, depending on the 

level of development and use levels that 

occur. These adverse impacts would be 

mostly limited to Basswood, Sand, and 

Long Islands. 

87
ALTERNATIVE D (LIMIT

WILDERNESS TO REMOTE 

AREAS) 

Analysis. With 55% of the park’s land 

base designated as wilderness in 

alternative D, over half the park’s 

wilderness resources would be 

permanently protected ⎯ a long-term, 

moderate, beneficial impact. In much of 

the park there would be opportunities 

for visitors seeking opportunities for 

solitude and primitive, unconfined 

recreation. Much of the park would 

appear relatively natural to visitors. 

New developments could be built in the 

45% of the park’s land base that would 

be nonwilderness areas under 

alternative D. As in alternatives B and C, 

some of these areas already have 

developments and were found to be 

unsuitable for wilderness designation, 

possessing few or no wilderness 

characteristics. Thus, impacts from new 

developments and/or increased use

levels in these areas would have a 

negligible, long-term impact on 

wilderness resources. However, there 

would be the potential for a long-term, 

adverse impact on 12 islands: Basswood, 

Sand, Long, Oak, Otter, Rocky, South 

Twin, Devils, Manitou, Hermit, York, 

and Raspberry Islands. Many of these 

islands have good opportunities for 

solitude and primitive, unconfined 

recreation, particularly in areas away 

from beaches and shorelines. If new

developments were built in these areas, 

such as campgrounds or visitor contact 

stations, or use levels were to substantially increase due to changes in technology, these opportunities would decline 

and the areas would appear less natural 

to visitors. Consequently, minor to 

major, long-term, adverse impacts could 

occur to wilderness resources on a 

number of islands. 

Conclusion. With 55% of the park’s

land base designated as wilderness, 

alternative D would have a moderate, 

beneficial, long-term impact on wilderness resources. In much of the park, 

visitors would be able to find opportunities for solitude and primitive,

unconfined recreation in a fairly 

“natural” setting. However, in a large 

portion of the park (mostly 12 islands) 

there would be the potential for minor 

to major, long-term, adverse impacts to 

wilderness resources, depending on the 

level of development and/or increase in 

use levels that occurs. Ultimately, it is 

the certainty that the park would 

resemble its present wild and primitive 

character that is most at risk in the areas 

excluded from wilderness under this 

alternative.

 

88
IMPACTS ON VISITOR NONWILDERNESS EXPERIENCES

Enjoying the park and its resources is a 

fundamental part of visitor experience. 

That experience is heightened when it 

progresses from enjoyment to an 

understanding of the reasons for a 

park’s existence and the significance of 

its resources. Natural and cultural 

resources and park facilities provide 

opportunities provide opportunities for 

a variety of visitor experiences at

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore.

Many of these visitor experiences are 

not related to, nor dependent upon,

wilderness resources (i.e., opportunities 

for solitude, opportunities for primitive 

and unconfined recreation, naturalness, 

and quiet). These types of visitor experiences might include, but are not limited 

to, such activities as camping, picnicking, swimming, socializing, and sunbathing. These activities might take place in a 

solitary, family, or group setting. 

ALTERNATIVE A (NO 

WILDERNESS) 

Analysis. Compared to the other 

alternatives, alternative A would provide 

managers with the most flexibility for

expanding current visitor experience 

opportunities or creating new ones. For 

example, the demand for group camping 

and/or day use facilities has been slowly 

but steadily increasing in recent years. 

Alternative A would provide the most 

flexibility to substantially increase the 

number of group campsites or create 

new day use areas. This would have a 

moderate beneficial impact on groups 

visiting the park in the long term. 

All alternatives would allow the 

National Park Service to continue 

providing for the existing range of 

recreational activities. But alternative A 

would allow the park staff to expand 

facilities and recreational opportunities 

to new areas. For instance, while all 

alternatives call for maintaining the 

existing docks on the islands, alternative 

A could allow the addition of new docks 

in currently undeveloped areas. Under 

alternative A, the present range of

facilities (including picnic tables) would 

continue at individual campsites 

throughout the park. This alternative 

would also allow the maximum flexibility for a wider range of recreational 

activities and to consider adding paved 

trails and other accessible facilities in the 

islands, provided they were consistent 

with the general management plan in

effect at the time. If new wayside

exhibits and trails with interpretive signs 

were provided, visitors would have

additional opportunities to learn about 

the park’s stories and further understand the area’s significance. This would 

provide a minor, long-term, beneficial 

impact for visitors seeking experiences 

not related to wilderness resources. 

Conclusion. Alternative A would have a 

minor to moderate, long-term, beneficial impact on visitor experiences not 

related to wilderness resources. It would 

provide park managers with the highest

degree of flexibility for expanding recreational facilities into new areas of the 

park. 

ALTERNATIVE B (MAXIMIZE 

WILDERNESS) 

Analysis. Alternative B would limit the 

construction or expansion of certain 

new recreational facilities, such as trails 

with interpretive signs, group campgrounds, picnic areas, and visitor

89
centers, to the 6% of the park’s land area 

not recommended for wilderness designation. Limiting most future visitor 

developments to such a small area could 

increase crowding and have a moderate, 

adverse impact on visitor nonwilderness 

experiences.

Implementation of this alternative could 

result in visitors having fewer new 

opportunities to learn about the park 

from nonpersonal interpretive media 

such as wayside exhibits or self-guided 

interpretive trails. Thus, visitors could 

have fewer potential opportunities to

gain an understanding of the park and 

its significance than they would have 

under alternative A, although this could 

be partially addressed through increased

reliance on brochures and other printed 

materials that visitors could pick up at 

trailheads. It is expected that this would 

have a negligible to minor, adverse 

impact on visitors. 

Alternative B would preclude adding

public docks to islands in the wilderness 

area where they currently do not exist. 

Implementation of this alternative also 

would mean picnic tables from 23

individual campsites and from one

group campsite would be removed, 

since NPS policy precludes picnic tables 

in wilderness. These sites were used by 

5,570 campers in 2002. Removing the 

tables could inconvenience these

campers, resulting in a minor, adverse 

impact. 

Conclusion. Compared to alternative A, 

alternative B would result in fewer 

opportunities to add picnic sites or 

group campsites in new areas under this 

wilderness proposal, which could 

adversely affect some visitors. While 

most existing recreational facilities 

would remain (with the exception of 

picnic tables in certain campsites), the 

potential for substantial expansion of

recreational or visitor use facilities 

would be limited under this alternative. 

Overall, compared to alternative A 

alternative B would have a long-term, 

moderate, adverse impact on visitor 

experiences not related to wilderness 

resources. 

ALTERNATIVE C (PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE) 

Analysis. Alternative C would limit the 

construction and expansion of some

recreational and visitor use facilities to 

the 20% of the park’s land area not 

recommended for wilderness designation. The expansion of group campsites 

and picnic areas would be easier under 

this alternative than under alternative B, 

since the excluded area is larger and

includes areas that are currently in high 

demand. But restricting options for 

these future visitor developments could 

increase crowding in a few areas and 

have a minor, adverse impact on visitor 

nonwilderness experiences. 

Although all of the Apostle Islands are 

rich in human history, some are richer 

than others. The areas excluded from

wilderness in alternative C were 

excluded largely due to their human 

history. In terms of telling the stories of

the islands’ early years, this alternative 

would provide the National Park Service 

with maximum flexibility in the areas 

where it is most needed. Of all the alternatives, alternative C has the most 

visible “edge” between wilderness and 

nonwilderness on the islands, which 

would provide more opportunities for 

the National Park Service to educate 

visitors onsite on the role that wilderness plays in shaping the American 

cultural and physical landscape. This 

would have a minor, beneficial impact

on some visitors’ experience. 

90
Implementation of alternative C would 

mean that visitors potentially would 

have fewer opportunities to learn about 

the park from certain nonpersonal 

interpretive media (e.g., wayside 

exhibits) in the areas proposed for 

wilderness compared to alternative A, 

although this could be partially addressed through increased reliance on 

brochures and other printed materials. 

Wayside exhibits and interpretive signs 

would be possible, however, on Basswood and Sand Islands, where there is 

considerable evidence of past human 

activity and many important interpretive 

themes could be highlighted. Thus, it is 

believed that alternative C would have a 

negligible, adverse impact on visitors

relying on personal and nonpersonal 

interpretive services to help them

understand the park and its significance. 

Under alternative C picnic tables from 

13 individual campsites and from one

group campsite would be removed, 

since NPS policy precludes picnic tables 

in wilderness. These sites were used by 

3,953 campers in 2002. Removing the 

tables could inconvenience some 

campers. There also would be fewer 

opportunities to add group campsites in

new areas on the islands compared to 

alternative A. Consequently, a minor, 

adverse impact on visitors’ 

nonwilderness experiences would be

expected. 

Conclusion. Under alternative C 

existing recreational facilities would 

remain (with the exception of picnic

tables in certain campsites), and the 

potential for substantial expansion of

recreational or visitor use facilities 

would be limited. Compared to 

alternative B, alternative C would have 

less impact on visitor nonwilderness 

experiences, because visitors seeking

these experiences would be able to find 

them on more islands and possibly enjoy 

more services and facilities. These 

nonwilderness islands are places where 

the pressure for new facilities is high.

Compared to alternative A, alternative C 

also could have a beneficial impact on 

some visitors’ experience by providing 

more opportunities onsite for visitors to 

learn about the wilderness and nonwilderness stories of the Apostle Islands. 

Overall, alternative C would have a 

minor, long-term, adverse impact on

visitor experiences not related to 

wilderness resources, compared to 

alternative A. 

ALTERNATIVE D (LIMIT 

WILDERNESS TO REMOTE 

AREAS) 

Analysis. Alternative D would limit the 

expansion of some recreational and 

visitor use facilities to the 45% of the 

park’s land area not recommended for 

wilderness designation. As with

alternatives B and C, potential new 

group campsites and/or day use areas 

for groups would be limited to these 

nonwilderness areas. With a much larger 

area excluded from wilderness, the 

potential for substantially expanding

group campsites or picnic areas would 

be much higher in alternative D than in 

alternatives B and C (although potential 

opportunities would be lower than 

those afforded by alternative A). It is 

expected that the limits on new visitor 

facilities under alternative D would have 

a negligible adverse impact on visitor 

nonwilderness experiences. 

Implementation of alternative D would 

mean that visitors would have potentially fewer opportunities to learn about 

the park from certain nonpersonal 

interpretive media (i.e., wayside exhibits) in the areas proposed for wilderness, 

91
although this could be partially addressed through increased reliance on 

brochures and other printed materials. 

But as with alternative C, wayside 

exhibits and interpretive signs would be 

possible on Basswood and Sand Islands 

since they would be in nonwilderness 

areas. Most of the islands included in

alternative D are expected to continue 

to be lightly visited, so it is believed that 

the adverse impacts on visitors who rely 

on personal and nonpersonal interpretive services to help them understand

the park and its significance would be

negligible. 

Compared to alternative A, alternative D 

would provide more “edge” between

wilderness and nonwilderness on the 

islands, which would provide more 

opportunities for the National Park 

Service to educate visitors on the role

that wilderness plays in shaping 

American culture. This would have a 

minor beneficial impact on some 

visitors’ experience. 

Under alternative D picnic tables from 

five individual campsites would be

removed, since NPS policy precludes 

picnic tables in wilderness. These

campsites were used by 852 campers in 

2002. Removing the tables could 

inconvenience some campers, resulting 

in a negligible adverse impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative D most 

existing recreational facilities would 

remain (with the exception of picnic

tables in certain campsites), and the 

potential for substantial expansion of

recreational or visitor use facilities 

would be limited in 55% of the park’s 

land base. Although the flexibility of 

park managers to add additional

recreational or visitor use facilities to 

new areas would be lower under 

alternative D compared to alternative A, 

the pressure to add new facilities on the 

islands in the alternative D wilderness 

proposal is expected to be very low.

Alternative D also could have a beneficial impact on some visitors’ 

experience by providing more opportunities for visitors to learn onsite about 

the wilderness and nonwilderness 

stories of the Apostle Islands. Overall, 

compared to alternative A it is expected

that alternative D would have a negligible, long-term, adverse impact on

visitor experiences not related to 

wilderness resources.

92
IMPACTS ON PARK OPERATIONS 

Without exception, the National Park 

Service can accomplish its core mission 

in areas of designated wilderness. What 

changes in designated wilderness areas 

is how the mission gets accomplished. 

What follows is an analysis of the 

impacts to the park’s major functions ⎯

interpretation and education, natural 

and cultural resource management, 

visitor and resource protection, and 

facility management ⎯ that would 

result from the four alternatives. 

ALTERNATIVE A (NO 

WILDERNESS) 

Analysis. Under alternative A new trails 

with interpretive signs, wayside exhibits, 

and other permanent developments

could be built throughout the park. 

Depending on the type and number of 

facilities, additional demands could be

placed on the time and energy of the

park’s existing interpretive staff to 

operate and maintain these facilities, if 

additional staff were not hired. Even if 

volunteers were to run the facilities, 

park staff would still need to supervise 

these volunteers as well as run existing 

interpretive and educational efforts. 

Additional operational costs related to 

planning and design of these facilities 

also could be incurred. The effect on 

interpretive operations could range 

from minor to major, adverse impacts, 

depending on the type and number of 

facilities constructed. 

The park staff’s ability to respond to

emergencies from additional fullyequipped, island-based locations could 

be enhanced under alternative A, 

although the need for such facilities is 

currently fairly low. This would be a 

negligible, beneficial impact. Should 

future planning documents recommend 

any new developments, there would be 

increased costs associated with their 

planning, design, construction, and 

maintenance, and there may be an 

increased need for additional resource

monitoring. This could have a minor to 

moderate, adverse impact. 

The park’s natural and cultural resource 

management staffs would have 

maximum flexibility in how their work is 

performed in this alternative, although 

an increase in the level of development 

in the park could substantially increase 

their workloads. As a result, a minor to 

moderate, beneficial impact on resource 

management operations would be

anticipated to occur. 

Likewise, facility management staff 

could choose from a full range of 

options in performing their work. For 

instance, in trail-clearing operations, the 

use of chainsaws and motorized vehicles 

would be possible, although park 

managers may choose different options. 

The construction and repair of park 

facilities that lie in areas currently being 

managed as de facto wilderness could be 

performed with fewer constraints under 

alternative A. Consequently, a minor to 

moderate, beneficial impact on facility 

management operations would be

expected. 

Current planning documents call for 

little or no expansion to the park’s 

present level of development. This could 

change if alternative A were implemented, however. The resulting increase 

in management flexibility could result in 

an increase in the quantity and complexity of park facilities. This would increase 

facility management workloads and 

93
could have moderate to major adverse 

impacts on the park’s facility 

management operations, depending on 

the number and type of new developments, and whether or not new staff and 

funds would be available. 

Conclusion. Alternative A would have 

beneficial impacts in that it would offer

park staff the highest degree of flexibility for carrying out its various 

programs and operations. On the other 

hand, potential increased levels of 

development could have adverse 

impacts on the park’s operations, 

primarily due to increased costs. Thus, 

alternative A could have both minor to 

moderate, long-term, beneficial impacts 

and minor to major, long-term, adverse 

impacts, depending on the number and 

type of developments that were built

and changes in staffing and funding. 

ALTERNATIVE B (MAXIMIZE 

WILDERNESS) 

Analysis. In many ways, the impacts of 

alternative B on park operations would 

be the opposite of those in alternative A. 

Under alternative B, even if future 

budgets allowed, there would be fewer 

new places for nonpersonal interpretive 

media, such as wayside exhibits and 

trails with interpretive signs, and fewer 

new places to hold formal park 

programs in the undeveloped portions 

of the islands compared to alternative A. 

Foregoing these potential developments

could reduce the extent of the park 

staff’s future personal and nonpersonal 

interpretive services, which could result 

in minor, long-term adverse impacts on 

the park’s interpretive operations. On

the other hand, alternative B would 

likely result in lower operational costs 

than alternative A due to a smaller 

interpretive infrastructure that would be 

largely confined to a few places in the 

park. 

Under alternative B, the park’s visitor 

and resource protection staff would 

have fewer opportunities to add new 

island-based facilities for the storage of 

equipment or for basing operations. 

Although this could decrease efficiency 

and increase the cost of operations in

the short term, in the long term it is 

likely to make park operations less 

expensive, since there would be less 

infrastructure to plan, design, construct, 

and repair. There also would not be an 

increased need for additional resource

monitoring associated with additional 

infrastructure. Consequently, a minor to 

moderate beneficial impact on resource 

management operations would be

expected to occur. 

Alternative B would offer the natural 

and cultural resource management staffs 

the least amount of flexibility in how

their work is performed. But the 

minimized level of development that 

would occur in the park as a result of 

alternative B would also reduce some 

aspects of their workloads, such as 

compliance-related activities and some 

resource monitoring. This would result 

in a minor to moderate, beneficial 

impact. 

Likewise, facility management staff 

would have fewer options in performing 

their work. In trail-clearing operations, 

for instance, the use of chainsaws and 

motorized vehicles would be possible 

only if it could be demonstrated that 

they are the minimum requirement for 

getting the work done. The potential for

construction of park facilities that lie in 

areas proposed as wilderness would be 

sharply reduced, compared to alternative A, and the repair of existing facilities 

94
(mostly cultural resources) would have 

to conform to NPS wilderness management principles as well as other NPS 

policies. Some additional staff time and 

effort would be needed to ensure that

the proposed actions meet these 

policies. It is expected that this would 

result in a minor to moderate, adverse 

impact. 

Of all the alternatives, alternative B 

would have the least likelihood that the 

park’s present level of development 

would increase in the vast majority of 

the islands. Operational costs for some 

individual facility management activities 

could increase under this alternative, 

compared to alternative A, since there 

are generally fewer work methods to 

choose from in wilderness areas due to 

restrictions in the use of mechanized 

equipment. For example, trail crews 

equipped with traditional hand tools 

would not be able to work as efficiently 

as trail crews equipped with chainsaws. 

But overall costs associated with facility 

management could be lower, compared 

to alternative A, because there would be 

fewer areas where new infrastructure 

would be built in alternative B ⎯ costs 

would be lower if the amount of new 

infrastructure in the park was limited to 

a few already developed areas. Thus, 

there could be minor to moderate, 

adverse, and beneficial impacts 

associated with alternative B relative to 

facility management costs. 

Conclusion. Alternative B would result 

in a mix of adverse and beneficial 

impacts. Management flexibility would 

be reduced in this alternative, resulting 

in fewer options, and in some cases, 

possible increased costs. Overall, 

however, it is believed that the park’s 

operational costs would be lowest under 

this alternative, due to the likelihood of 

little or no new development in most 

(94%) of the park’s land base. Thus, 

compared to alternative A, alternative B 

could have a minor to moderate, longterm, beneficial impact on park 

operations, due to new developments 

mostly being confined to a few areas, 

and a minor to moderate, long-term, 

adverse impact due to decreased 

management flexibility and possible 

increased costs in managing the few 

facilities that are in the wilderness area. 

ALTERNATIVE C (PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE) 

Analysis. Under alternative C there 

would be fewer new places where 

nonpersonal interpretive media, such as 

wayside exhibits and trails with 

interpretive signs, could be provided 

compared to alternative A. There also 

would be fewer new places to hold 

formal park programs. Foregoing these 

potential developments could reduce 

the extent of the park staff’s future 

personal and nonpersonal interpretive 

services, and thus could have a minor, 

long-term, adverse impact on the park’s 

interpretive operations. On the other 

hand, alternative C would be expected 

to have lower operational costs than 

alternative A due to the likelihood of a 

smaller interpretive infrastructure that is 

confined largely to existing developed 

areas. 

The park’s visitor and resource 

protection staff would have fewer

opportunities to add new island-based 

facilities for the storage of equipment or 

for basing operations in the areas

proposed as wilderness. The areas that 

are currently thought to need such 

facilities the most would be excluded

from wilderness under alternative C, 

however. Thus overall, the adverse 

impacts to visitor and resource 

95
protection operations would be

negligible to minor at most. 

Alternative C would provide the park’s 

natural and cultural resource 

management staffs with considerably 

less flexibility in how their work is

performed, compared to alternative A, 

although considerably more flexibility 

than under alternative B. The exclusion 

of the cultural resource-dense areas of 

Basswood and Sand Islands would 

enhance the National Park Service’s 

ability to preserve or restore the cultural 

resources themselves, rather than just 

preserving their stories. Overall, the 

park would remain very lightly 

developed. This would help ensure that 

some aspects of the workloads for

resource management staffs, such as

compliance-related activities and some 

resource monitoring, would not 

substantially increase. Consequently, a 

minor to moderate, beneficial impact 

would be expected on these operations. 

Alternative C would likely have a minor, 

adverse impact on facility management. 

Facility management staff would have 

fewer options in performing their work 

compared to alternative A, although the 

area in which the full range of options is 

available would be considerably larger 

than in alternative B. Except in nonwilderness areas, trail-clearing 

operations would not routinely use 

chainsaws and motorized vehicles, 

unless it could be demonstrated that 

they were the minimum requirement for 

getting the work done. The potential for 

construction of park facilities that lie in 

areas proposed as wilderness would be 

sharply reduced, and the repair of 

existing facilities in those areas (mostly 

cultural resources) would have to 

conform to NPS wilderness management principles as well as other NPS 

policies. Some additional staff time and 

effort may be needed to ensure that the 

proposed actions meet these policies. 

However, alternative C would keep 20% 

of the park’s land base as nonwilderness 

areas, so the adverse impacts associated 

with alternative B would be moderated. 

Compared to alternative A, alternative C 

would have a sharply reduced likelihood

that the park’s present level of 

development would increase on most of 

the islands. Operational costs for some 

individual facility management activities 

could increase under this alternative, 

since there are generally fewer work 

methods to choose from in wilderness 

areas due to restrictions in the use of 

mechanized equipment. But alternative 

C would reduce the number of work 

areas where these cost increases would 

take place by excluding certain areas 

from wilderness. For example, many of 

the agricultural openings and quarries 

that the park staff desires to occasionally 

clear would be excluded in alternative 

C. This would enable the National Park 

Service to use the most efficient means 

available to maintain the clearings. In 

this way, many of alternative B’s adverse 

impacts to the park’s facility management operations would be moderated, 

resulting in a minor, adverse impact on 

operational costs. 

Conclusion. To varying degrees, many 

of the beneficial effects of alternatives A 

or B would be true in alternative C as 

well, and many of the adverse impacts 

associated with those alternatives would 

be moderated in alternative C. Although 

alternative C would allow for new development in the nonwilderness areas, 

there would be only a limited number of 

new areas on a few islands where 

development could occur. This would 

give the park staff flexibility in the areas 

where the need is highest, and would 

help to ensure that the level of 

96
development doesn’t further overwhelm 

the capability of the park’s staff to maintain it. Overall, compared to alternative 

A, alternative C would have a minor to 

moderate, long-term, beneficial impact 

on park operations due to ensuring that 

there would be fewer places where new 

developments could occur, and a minor, 

long-term, adverse impact due to

decreased management flexibility 

(primarily on Basswood and Sand 

Islands) and possible increased costs in 

managing the wilderness area. 

ALTERNATIVE D (LIMIT 

WILDERNESS TO REMOTE 

AREAS) 

Analysis. Like alternatives B and C, 

alternative D would have fewer new 

places for nonpersonal interpretive 

media, such as wayside exhibits and 

trails with interpretive signs, and fewer 

new places to hold formal park 

programs compared to alternative A.

Foregoing these potential new developments could reduce the extent of the 

park staff’s future personal and 

nonpersonal interpretive services, and 

thus could have a minor, long-term

adverse impact on the park’s interpretive operations. But alternative D also 

would be expected to have lower

operational costs than alternative A due 

to the likelihood of a smaller interpretive infrastructure. 

The park’s visitor and resource 

protection staff would have fewer

opportunities to add new island-based 

facilities for the storage of equipment or 

for basing operations in the areas

proposed as wilderness. The areas that 

are currently thought to most need such 

facilities would be excluded from

wilderness under alternative D, 

however. Thus, the adverse impacts to 

visitor protection operations would be 

negligible to minor at most. 

Alternative D would provide the park’s 

natural and cultural resource 

management staffs with considerably 

less flexibility in how their work is

performed, compared to alternative A, 

although there would be considerably 

more flexibility than in alternatives B or 

C. The exclusion of the cultural 

resource-dense areas of Basswood and 

Sand Islands would enhance the 

National Park Service’s ability to 

preserve or restore the cultural 

resources themselves, rather than just 

preserving their stories. Overall, the 

park would remain very lightly developed. This would help ensure that some 

aspects of the workloads for resource

management staffs, such as compliancerelated activities and some resource 

monitoring, would not substantially 

increase. Consequently, a minor to 

moderate, beneficial impact would be 

expected on these operations. 

Alternative D would likely have a minor, 

adverse impact on facility management. 

Facility management staff would have 

fewer options in performing their work, 

compared to alternative A, although the 

area in which the full range of options 

were available would be considerably 

larger than in alternatives B or C. Except 

in nonwilderness areas, trail clearing 

operations would not routinely utilize 

chainsaws and motorized vehicles, 

unless it could be demonstrated that 

they are the minimum requirement for 

getting the work done. The potential for 

construction of park facilities that lie in 

areas proposed as wilderness would be 

sharply reduced compared to alternative 

A, and the repair of existing facilities in 

those areas (mostly cultural resources) 

would have to conform to NPS 

wilderness management principles as 

97
well as other NPS policies. Compared to 

alternative A, some additional staff time 

and effort would be needed to ensure

that the proposed actions meet these 

policies. However, alternative D would 

keep 45% of the park’s land base as 

nonwilderness so the adverse impacts 

associated with alternative B would be 

considerably moderated. 

Compared to alternative A, alternative D 

would have a reduced likelihood that 

the park’s present level of development 

would increase beyond most of the 

existing developed areas, although it 

could increase on several individual 

islands. Operational costs for some 

routine facility management activities 

could increase under this alternative, 

since there would be generally fewer 

work methods to choose from in 

wilderness areas due to restrictions in

the use of mechanized equipment. But 

alternative D would reduce the number 

of work areas where these cost increases 

would take place by excluding many

areas from wilderness. In addition to

excluding the agricultural openings and 

quarries discussed in alternative C, 

alternative D also would exclude a 

quarry on Hermit Island and logging 

camps on Oak Island. This would enable 

the National Park Service to utilize the 

most efficient means available to

maintain these resources, should the 

agency choose to actively maintain them 

in the future. Overall costs of park 

operations could increase in the long

term due to the increased likelihood of 

new developments in the nonwilderness 

areas, however, resulting in a minor, 

adverse impact on operational costs.

Conclusion. Like alternative C, many of 

the beneficial or adverse impacts 

associated with alternatives A and B 

would be moderated in alternative D. 

Flexibility to add new developments or 

to perform work in the most efficient 

manner would be higher in this

alternative than in any other except 

alternative A. But if new developments 

were to be built in the nonwilderness 

areas (45% of the park’s land area), the 

increased amount of maintenance and 

resource monitoring that would be 

needed could make the park staff’s job 

more difficult. Overall, compared to

alternative A, alternative D would have 

minor, long-term, beneficial impacts on 

park operations, due to ensuring that

there would be fewer places where new 

developments could occur, and a minor, 

long-term, adverse impact due to

decreased management flexibility and 

possible increased costs in managing the

wilderness area. 

98
OTHER REQUIRED IMPACT TOPICS 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE 

IMPACTS 

Unavoidable adverse impacts are defined 

as impacts that cannot be fully mitigated or 

avoided. For all of the park under 

alternative A, and for those areas not 

included in the wilderness proposals in 

alternatives B, C and D, there would be the 

potential for some unavoidable adverse 

impacts to natural and cultural resources 

and wilderness resources (solitude, 

naturalness), depending on the number 

and type of new developments that could 

be built in undeveloped areas and 

increases in use levels. These impacts 

could include in localized areas: changes 

to coastal processes, losses of soil and 

vegetation, loss of archeological resources 

and changes in cultural landscapes, loss of 

opportunities for solitude and primitive 

unconfined recreation, a decline in 

apparent naturalness, and also a loss of the 

ability to add new picnic areas and group 

campsites in certain locations. In 

wilderness areas the removal of picnic 

tables would be an unavoidable adverse 

impact for some visitors. Another

unavoidable impact in wilderness areas 

could be a decrease in management 

flexibility and an increase in costs for some 

park operations. The potential for 

unavoidable adverse resource impacts 

would be highest in alternative A, because 

more areas potentially could be subject to 

future development, and lowest in 

alternative B, because future developments 

would be largely confined to very small 

areas. Alternatives C and D would have 

lower potentials for unavoidable adverse 

impacts than alternative A, but higher than 

alternative B, due to the size of the 

nonwilderness areas where new developments potentially could occur. 

Wilderness designation in alternatives B, 

C, and D would result in no unavoidable 

adverse impacts to natural or cultural 

resources in the wilderness area. However, 

the removal of picnic tables from the 

wilderness area in the three alternatives 

could be an unavoidable adverse impact to 

some visitors’ experience. 

IRREVERSIBLE AND 

IRRETRIEVABLE 

COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 

No actions would be taken as a result of 

any of the alternatives that would result in 

the consumption of nonrenewable natural 

resources or in the use of renewable 

resources that would preclude other uses 

for a period of time. Thus, there would be

no irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources in the park by the 

National Park Service. 

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN 

SHORT-TERM USES AND 

MAINTENANCE AND 

ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM 

PRODUCTIVITY 

Under all of the alternatives the majority 

of the park would be protected in a natural 

state and would continue to be used for 

recreation. The National Park Service 

would continue to manage the area under 

all the alternatives to maintain ecological 

processes and native and biological 

communities, and to provide for outdoor 

recreational activities consistent with the 

preservation of natural and cultural 

resources. Any actions the National Park 

Service takes in the park would be 

intended to ensure that uses do not 

adversely affect the productivity of the 

biotic communities. 

99
Under alternative A, there would be the 

potential for a reduction in long-term

biological productivity in localized areas if 

new developments were built on the 

islands or mainland unit. 

Compared to alternative A, wilderness 

designation under alternatives B, C, and D

would help further ensure the long-term 

productivity of the areas proposed for 

wilderness. With the largest wilderness 

proposal, alternative B would provide the 

highest potential for ensuring long-term 

productivity, while alternative D, with the 

smallest proposal, would have the lowest

potential (but higher than alternative A). 

By minimizing future developments and 

other uses that can occur on the islands, 

the long-term biological productivity of 

the islands would be maintained in the 

three action alternatives. On the other 

hand, for those areas that are not included

in the wilderness proposals in alternatives 

B, C, and D, there would remain the 

potential for future developments that

could reduce or eliminate long-term 

biological productivity in localized areas. 

Alternative B would have the lowest 

potential for such a reduction, while 

alternative D would have the highest 

potential (albeit still lower than alternative 

A). 

100
Consultation and

Coordination
(Back of Divider Page Blank) 

102
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The National Park Service has sought the 

public’s views on wilderness throughout 

the wilderness study process. The input 

was used to help identify the issues to be 

addressed in the environmental impact 

statement, and to identify and help shape 

the alternatives. 

A “notice of intent” to prepare a 

wilderness suitability study and 

environmental impact statement for 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore was 

published in the Federal Register (volume 

66, number 198, pages 52151-52152) on 

October 12, 2001. The National Park 

Service held meetings, and issued press 

releases and Internet messages on the 

park’s web site to provide opportunities 

for the public, agencies, and organizations 

to identify issues and concerns for the 

study (see below). 

A total of 4,512 separate written comments 

were received through the mail, FAX, and 

the Internet between July 2001 (when the 

National Park Service held a public 

meeting on the study in Bayfield) and 

February 1, 2002, when the scoping 

comment period closed.1

 Two petitions 

also were also received, with a total of 895 

names. 

WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 

AND THE INTERNET 

A variety of techniques were used to keep 

the public informed about the wilderness 

study and to solicit input. During the study 

process a mailing list of over 4,200 names 

was compiled. The list included officials 

from other state and federal governmental 

agencies, federal and state legislators, 

Indian tribal governments, local and 

regional governments, businesses, 

organizations, and interested citizens. A 

post card was mailed in the spring of 2002 

asking people if they wanted hard copies 

of the study documents and encouraging 

use of the Internet to access the 

documents. The public mailing list was 

subsequently pared down to about 300. 

Press releases were issued at key points 

during the study, including the initiation of 

the study (May 8, 2001), the announcement of the Bayfield scoping open house 

(July 17, 2001), an extension of the scoping 

comment period (November 20, 2001), 

another extension of the scoping period 

(January 9, 2002), and an announcement 

that the preliminary alternatives were 

ready for public input and a schedule of 

open houses (June 18, 2002). 

The Internet was used extensively to 

publicize the study, inform people about 

the study and meetings, and provide a 

means for people to provide input. 

The park’s Internet web site (http://

www.nps.gov/apis/study.htm) included

all publications, messages on the status of

the study, a timeline, a “frequently asked 

questions” section, and contacts for 

additional information. 

1. Officially, the scoping comment period did not begin until the “notice of intent “ was published in the Federal 

Register on October 12, 2001, but was extended to January 15, 2002, and then again to February 1, to provide the 

public with additional time to provide input to the NPS study team.

103
A newsletter was sent to the public in

November 2001. This newsletter was an 

update on the study and was published

shortly after the Federal Register notice of 

intent was published. It summarized 

comments that had been received to date, 

noted key issues and concerns, announced 

that the comment period had been 

extended, encouraged people to provide 

comments on the study, and provided a 

schedule for the project.

An alternatives workbook was published 

in May 2002 and also placed on the park’s 

web site. The workbook summarized the 

purpose of the study and the scoping 

comments, provided responses to several 

concerns raised by the public during the 

scoping period, noted areas that the study 

had determined were not suitable for

wilderness, and identified six preliminary 

alternatives. A schedule for the study and a 

comment response form were also 

included in the workbook. Approximately 

1,000 copies of the alternatives workbook 

were printed and distributed to the mailing 

list and handed out at various meetings. In 

addition, the workbook was downloaded 

from the study web site nearly 3,000 times 

during the comment period. Between June 

20 and August 1, 2002, when the comment 

period closed, a total of 1,784 written 

comments were received via response 

forms, letters, e-mails, and faxes. 

PUBLIC, AGENCY, AND 

ORGANIZATIONAL MEETINGS 

The study team held many meetings

during the course of the study. At the 

beginning of the study (2001), park staff 

met with a variety of local, state, and tribal 

agencies and governments to identify 

issues and concerns for the study, 

including the State of Wisconsin Historic 

Preservation Office (July 31, 2001), Bad 

River and Red Cliff Bands of Lake

Superior Chippewa (June 21 and June 29, 

2001), Voigt Intertribal Task Force of the 

Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife

Commission (September 6, 2001), United 

States Fish and Wildlife Service

(December 18, 2001), United States 

Geological Survey (December 18, 2001), 

Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources (September 13, 2001), Bayfield 

County Board of Supervisors (June 26, 

2001), Mayor of Ashland (June 28, 2001), 

Bayfield City Council (July 18, 2001), Chair 

of the Town of La Pointe (July 23, 2001), 

Town of Russell Board of Supervisors

(August 14, 2001), and the Ashland 

Chamber of Commerce (June 28, 2001). 

On July 25, 2001, a public open house was 

held in Bayfield, Wisconsin, to identify the 

public’s issues and concerns regarding 

designating wilderness in the Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore. A total of 78 

people attended. 

After the preliminary alternatives 

workbook was distributed, the study team 

held more meetings with the public, 

governments, agencies, and organizations. 

On May 16, 2002, letters of invitation were 

sent to the following governments, 

agencies, and organizations inviting them 

to meet with study team members during 

the 2002 alternatives workbook comment 

period: 

• Ashland County Board of 

Supervisors 

• Bayfield County Board of 

Supervisors 

• Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior 

Chippewa Indians 

• Bad River Band of Lake Superior 

Tribe of Chippewa Indians 

• Bay Mills, Bois Forte, Fond du Lac, 

Grand Portage, Keweenaw Bay, 

Lac Courte Oreilles, Lac du 

Flambeau, Lac Vieux Desert, Mille 

104
Lacs, Mole Lake, and St. Croix 

Bands of Chippewa Indians 

• Great Lakes Indian Fish and 

Wildlife Commission 

• Cities of Ashland, Bayfield, and

Washburn 

• Towns of Bayfield, La Pointe, 

Russell, and Sanborn 

• Chambers of Commerce of 

Ashland, Bayfield, and Washburn 

• State of Wisconsin 

• United States and state of 

Wisconsin senators and 

representatives 

Invitations to meet were also extended to

the Wisconsin State Historic Preservation 

Office, the Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resources, and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Informal invitations were

extended to numerous civic organizations, 

boating organizations, and user groups 

during the course of the comment period. 

Park staff met with all entities that 

responded to the invitation, including the 

Lac du Flambeau, Lac Vieux Desert, Red 

Cliff, and Bad River Bands of Chippewa 

Indians (June 10, June 14, June 18, and July 

3, 2002, respectively), Voigt Intertribal 

Task Force of the Great Lakes Indian Fish 

and Wildlife Commission (June 6, 2002), 

Ashland County Board of Supervisors 

(July 24, 2002), Bayfield City Council (June 

12, 2002), Bayfield Chamber of Commerce 

(June 19, 2002), Town of Russell Board of 

Supervisors (July 22, 2002), Town of

Bayfield Board of Supervisors (July 15, 

2002), staff at local marinas (June 20,

2002), Bayfield Yacht Club (July 27, 2002), 

Duluth Power Squadron (September 19, 

2002), and the Pikes Creek Keel Club

(October 5, 2002). In addition, park staff 

met with the Wisconsin state preservation 

office on December 9, 2002.

The study team held five public open

houses during the summer of 2002 to seek 

public views, concerns, and issues 

regarding the preliminary alternatives. The 

open houses were held July 5 at the 

Stockton/Presque Isle Visitor Center in 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, July 8 

at Odanah, Wisconsin, July 9 at Bayfield, 

Wisconsin, July 10 at Red Cliff, Wisconsin, 

and July 11 at Saint Paul, Minnesota. 

About 175 people attended the five 

meetings. 

CONSULTATIONS WITH NATIVE 

AMERICAN TRIBES 

As noted above, several meetings were 

held with different bands of Chippewa 

Indians and the Voigt Intertribal Task 

Force of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and 

Wildlife Commission during the study. At 

every meeting with tribal officials, there 

was discussion related to the hunting, 

fishing, and gathering rights guaranteed to 

them by the Treaty of 1842. Park staff 

assured tribal leaders that those rights 

would continue to be honored regardless 

of whether wilderness was designated or 

not. Both the Red Cliff and Bad River 

Bands endorsed the concept of wilderness 

designation, provided their treaty rights 

are unaffected. In that regard, both Bands 

recommended that guarantees of those 

rights be specifically inserted into any 

legislation that might be drafted for 

wilderness designation. The Bad River 

Band also expressed concern over Long 

Island being within designated wilderness. 

CONSULTATION WITH THE 

WISCONSIN STATE HISTORICAL 

PRESERVATION OFFICE (SHPO) 

Members of the study team met twice with

compliance staff in the Wisconsin State 

Historical Preservation Office. The SHPO 

staff acknowledged that wilderness is very 

105
protective of archeological resources due 

to the low likelihood of ground disturbance, but also expressed concern that 

wilderness designation may make it more 

difficult to perform archeological surveys 

in the future. The SHPO staff were also 

concerned that management’s flexibility to 

choose certain treatment options (such as 

restoration or reconstruction) would be 

limited in designated wilderness. They 

believe this may result in an increased 

likelihood that certain cultural resources 

would be left to molder in the field. 

CONSULTATIONS WITH THE U.S. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

(USFWS) 

The study team initiated informal consultation with the Endangered Species Field 

Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

in Green Bay, Wisconsin, in June 2001. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service has indicated that due to the nature of wilderness, 

the threatened or endangered species 

known to exist in the park will not be

affected (see appendix B). 

COASTAL ZONE CONSISTENCY 

DETERMINATION

Federal agency activities in or affecting 

Wisconsin's coastal zone must comply

with §307 of the Coastal Zone 

Management Act and implementing 

regulations, which require that such 

federal activities be conducted in a manner 

consistent to the maximum extent 

practicable with Wisconsin's Coastal 

Management Program. 

Although all of Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore is federal land and excluded

from Wisconsin's coastal zone, the park is 

geographically within the coastal zone. 

The National Park Service has determined 

that the preferred alternative described in

this document is consistent with 

Wisconsin's Coastal Management 

Program, including the state's goals and 

policies for this area. 

This draft wilderness study/EIS provides 

the substantive basis for the National Park 

Service’s consistency determination and it 

has submitted this document to the 

Wisconsin Coastal Management Council 

for its concurrence. This consistency 

determination and the Council's concurrence complies with the requirements of

the Coastal Zone Management Act If the 

state of Wisconsin concurs with the

National Park Service’s consistency 

determination, it will transmit its formal 

concurrence and that letter will be 

published in the final wilderness study / 

environmental impact statement.

106
PUBLIC OFFICIALS, AGENCIES, AND ORGANIZATIONS TO 

WHOM COPIES OF THE DRAFT STUDY WERE SENT

The National Park Service is circulating 

the Draft Wilderness Study/Environmental 

Impact Study to the agencies and 

organizations listed below. A limited 

number of copies of the wilderness study 

are available upon request by interested 

individuals. Copies of the document are 

also available for review at the park, on the 

Internet (http://www.nps.gov/apis/

wstudy.htm) and at libraries. 

CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION 

Representative David Obey 

Senator Russell Feingold 

Senator Herb Kohl 

STATE AND LOCAL ELECTED 

OFFICIALS 

Representative Gary Sherman 

Senator Bob Jauch 

FEDERAL AGENCIES 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Army Corps of Engineers 

Great Lakes Commission 

Natural Resource Conservation Service 

Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service 

Chequamegon-Nicolet National 

Forests 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

National Park Service 

Grand Portage National 

Monument 

Ice Age and North Country 

National Scenic Trails 

 Keweena Historical Park 

 

Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore 

Isle Royale National Park 

 Midwest Archaeological Center 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore 

Saint Croix National Scenic Riverway 

Sleeping Bear Dunes National 

Lakeshore 

Voyageurs National Park 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered 

Species Field Office, Green Bay 

U.S. Coast Guard 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5 

NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES AND 

AGENCIES 

Chippewa Indian Bands 

Lac du Flambeau 

Lac Vieux Desert 

Lac Courte Oreilles 

Red Cliff 

Bad River 

Bay Mills 

Bois Forte 

Fond du Lac 

Grand Portage 

Keweenaw Bay 

Mille Lacs 

Mole Lake 

St. Croix 

Voigt Intertribal Task Force of the Great 

Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife 

Commission 

STATE OF WISCONSIN AGENCIES 

Department of Natural Resources 

Department of Tourism

Northwest Regional Planning Commission 

Office of the Governor 

State Historical Preservation Office 

State Historical Society 

107
Wisconsin Coastal Management Program 

LOCAL AND REGIONAL 

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES 

Ashland County Board of Supervisors 

Bayfield County Board of Supervisors

Bayfield County Forest 

City of Ashland 

City of Bayfield 

City of Washburn 

Town of Bayfield

Town of Bell

Town of LaPointe 

Town of Russell 

Town of Sanborn 

ORGANIZATIONS AND 

BUSINESSES 

Adventures in Perspective 

Alliance for Sustainability

Animaashi Sailing Company 

Apostle Islands Cruise Service 

Apostle Islands Marina 

Ashland Chamber of Commerce 

Ashland Marina 

Association of Wisconsin Snowmobile 

Clubs 

Bayfield Chamber of Commerce 

Bayfield Hertiage Association 

Bayfield Yacht Club 

Bruce River Canoe Rental 

Camp Amnicon 

Camp Manio-wish 

Camp Voyageur 

Catchun-Sun Charter Co. 

Chequamegon Adventure Company

Chequamegon Audubon Society 

Duluth Power Squadron

Friends/Boundary Waters Wilderness 

Glacier Valley Wilderness Adventures 

Great Lakes Cruising Club 

Great Lakes Sport Fishing Council 

Madeline Island Chamber of Commerce 

National Audubon Society 

National Park Foundation 

National Parks Conservation Association 

National Trust for Historic Preservation 

National Wildlife Federation 

Northland College

NW Passage Outing Club, Inc. 

Pikes Bay Marina 

Pikes Creek Keel Club 

Port Superior Marina 

Red Cliff Marina 

Roberta’s Charters 

Sailboats, Inc. 

Schooner Bay Marina 

Sierra Club 

 Midwest Office 

 John Muir Chapter 

Siskiwit Bay Marina 

Superior Charters, Inc. 

Superior Sailor 

The Nature Conservancy 

Trek and Trail 

University of Minnesota

Voyageur Outward Bound School 

Washburn Chamber of Commerce 

Washburn Marina 

Wilderness Inquiry 

Wilderness Society 

LIBRARIES 

Ashland Public Library 

Duluth Public Library 

University of Minnesota, Forestry Library 

University of Wisconsin, Madison 

(Steenbock Library) 

Washburn Public Library 

MEDIA 

County Journal 

The Daily Press 

Duluth News-Tribune 

Ironwood Daily Globe 

The Journal 

The Journal Times 

KADL Radio 

KBJR TV Duluth 

KDLH TV Duluth 

108
Lake Superior Magazine 

Madison Capitol Times 

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel 

Minneapolis Star Tribune 

The Outdoor Network 

St. Paul Pioneer Press 

Superior Evening Telegram 

WATW (AM 1400) 

WDIO TV, Duluth 

WDSE TV, Duluth 

WEGZ Eagle 106 

Wisconsin Public Radio

109
110
Appendixes/Bibliography/

Preparers/Index
(Back of Divider Page Blank)

112
APPENDIX A: WILDERNESS SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT MEMORANDUM

113
114
115
APPENDIX B: LETTER OF CONSULTATION 

116
117
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Advisory Council for Historic 

Preservation (ACHP) 

2002 “ACHP Policy Statement: 

Balancing Cultural and 

Natural Values on Federal 

Lands.” http://www.achp.gov/ 

achpcultnatpolicy.html. 

Anderson, R. and L. Stowell 

1985 “Wildlife Management Plan 

for Select Habitats and Species 

of the Apostle Islands

National Lakeshore.” 

Prepared for the National 

Park Service. Contract CX—

6000-7-R059. University of 

Wisconsin, Stevens Point. 

Brander, R., R. Maxwell, and C. Wickman 

1978 “An Inventory of Selected 

Natural and Cultural 

Resources on Eight Islands of 

the Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore.” Sigurd Olson 

Institute Special Report No. 

24, Northland College,

Ashland, WI. 

Cary, S., P. McDowell, and L. Graumlich 

1978 “Soils and Surficial Geology of 

Four Apostle Islands.” Paper 

presented at annual meeting of 

Wisconsin Academy of

Science, Arts, and Letters. 

Casper, G. 

2001a. “Amphibian Inventory of the 

Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore, with an Evaluation 

of Malformity Rates, 

Monitoring Recommendations, and Notes on Reptiles.”

Prepared for Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore. Casper 

Consulting, Milwaukee, WI. 

2001b “Reptile Surveys of Long, 

Michigan, and Stockton

Islands, and Little Sand Bay, in 

the Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore, with Notes on 

Amphibians.” Prepared for 

Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore. Casper Consulting, 

Milwaukee, WI. 

Duffy-Deno, K. T. 

1998 “The Effect of Federal 

Wilderness on County 

Growth in the Intermountain 

Western United States.”

Journal of Regional Science

38(1):109-136. 

Eisenreich, S. 

1987 “The Chemical Limnology of 

Nonpolar Organic Contaminants: Polychlorinated 

Biphenyls in Lake Superior” 

In: Sources and Fates of

Aquatic Pollutants, Advances 

in Chemistry Series 216, edited 

by R.A. Hites, and S.J. Eisenreich. American Chemical 

Society, Washington, D.C. 

Feldman, J. and R. Mackreth. 

2003 “Wasteland, Wilderness, or 

Workplace: Perceiving and 

Preserving the Apostle 

Islands.” Paper presented at 

the April 2003 George Wright 

Conference, San Diego, CA. 

118
Fleming, K. 

1997 “A Demographic Comparison 

of a Hunted and an Unhunted 

Population of Black Bears in 

Northern Wisconsin.” M.S. 

thesis. University of

Wisconsin, Stevens Point, 

Wisconsin. 

Grossberg, R. A. 

1999 “Changing Landscape 

Perceptions and the Meaning 

of Wilderness: Visitors’ Beliefs 

about a National Park.” MS 

thesis. University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI. 

Heberlein, T. A., R.A. Grossberg, 

 and W. Kuentzel 

1999 “Preliminary Results from the 

1997 Apostle Islands Boater 

and Kayaker Survey.” Report 

presented to Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore. On file at 

park headquarters. 

Howk, N. ed. 

2001 Hiker’s Guide to Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore. 

Eastern National Park and 

 Monument Association. Fort 

Washington, PA. 

Jordahl, H.C. Jr. 

1994 A Unique Collection of Islands, 

The Influence of History, 

Politics, Policy, and 

Planning on the Establishment 

of the Apostle Islands National

Lakeshore. Univ. of 

Wisconsin. Madison, WI. 

Judziewicz, E. and R. Koch 

1993 “Flora and vegetation of the 

Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore and Madeline

Island, Ashland and Bayfield 

Counties, Wisconsin.”

Michigan Botanist, vol. 32(2).

Ann Arbor, MI. 

Lake Superior Binational Program 

2000 Lake Superior Lakewide

Management Plan. On file at 

park headquarters. 

Lake Superior Ecosystem Research Center 

1997 “Lake Superior food web – 

Apostle Islands.” ONRW final

report. Lake Superior 

Ecosystem Research Center, 

Michigan Technological 

University, Houghton, 

Michigan. 

Lorah, P. A. 

2000 “Population Growth, Economic Security, and Cultural 

Change in Wilderness 

Counties.” USDA Forest 

Service Proceedings, Wilderness Science in a Time of 

Change Conference, May 23-

27, 1999. RMRS-P-15-Vol-2. 

U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Ogden, Utah. 

McCauley, D., M. Balcer and M. Hage 

1989 “Abundance and Distribution 

of Forage Fishes in the Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore.” 

Report to Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore. 

University of Wisconsin, 

Superior. 

119
Meierotto, R. 

1976 “Speciation Among Small 

Mammals of the Apostle 

Islands.” Report to the 

National Geographic Society. 

Meyer, M., D. Andersen, K. Warnke, W. 

Karasov, C. Dykstra, R. Brander, and J. 

Van Stappen 

1994 “Factors Controlling Great 

Lakes Bald Eagle 

Productivity.” Report 

prepared for The Great Lakes 

Protection Fund, Chicago, IL. 

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 

(MPCA)

1996 “Toxaphene in the Great

Lakes.” Roseville, MN. 

National Park Service (NPS) 

1988 The Apostle Islands: A Guide to 

the Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore. The Official 

National Park Handbook. 

NPS Division of Publications, 

Washington, D.C. 

1989 General Management Plan / 

Environmental Assessment. 

Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore, Wisconsin. Denver 

Service Center, Denver, CO. 

1993 “Draft Interim Cultural 

Landscape Management

Plan.” Unpublished. On file at 

park headquarters. 

1995 The Secretary of the Interior’s

Standards and Guidelines for 

Treatment of Historic 

Properties, with Guidelines for 

Preserving, Rehabilitating, 

Restoring, and Reconstructing 

Historic Buildings, by K.D. 

Weeks and A.E. Grimmer. 

Washington, D.C. 

1998 “Migratory Bird Survey,

Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore.” G. Smith. 

Bayfield, WI. 

1999 “Resource Management Plan.” 

On file at park headquarters. 

2000a National Park Service 

Management Policies 2001. 

Washington, D.C. 

2000b “Director’s Order #47: 

Soundscape Preservation and 

Noise Management.” 

Washington, D.C. 

2001 “2001 Breeding Bird Survey 

Report, Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore.” H.

McConnel and G. Smith.

Bayfield, WI. 

2002 “List of Classified Structures. 

Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore.” On file at park 

headquarters. 

Nuhfer E. and M. Dalles

1983 A Guidebook to the Geology of

Lake Superior’s Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore. Eastern 

National Park and Monument 

Association. Fort Washington, 

PA. 

Power, T. M. 

2000 “The Economics of Wildland 

Preservation.” A report prepared for the Pew Wilderness 

Center. University of Montana, Missoula, Montana. 

120
Rudzitis, G. and R. Johnson 

2000 “The Impact of Wilderness 

and Other Wildlands on Local 

Economies and Regional

Development Trends.” USDA 

Forest Service Proceedings, 

Wilderness science in a time of

change conference, May 23-

27, 1999. RMRS-P-15-Vol-2. 

U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Ogden, Utah. 

Stoffle, Richard W., et al. (Bureau of 

Applied Research in Anthropology, 

University of Arizona) 

2001 “Traditional Ojibway 

Resources in the Western 

Great Lakes: An Ethnographic 

Inventory of the States of

Michigan, Minnesota, and 

Wisconsin.” Omaha, NE: 

Midwest Regional Office, 

National Park Service, U.S. 

Department of the Interior. 

Suhr, J. 

1999 The Choosing By Advantages 

Decisionmaking System. 

Qurum Books. Westport, CA 

U.S. Department of the Interior, North 

Central Field Committee 

1965 Proposed Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore, Bayfield 

and Ashland Counties, 

Wisconsin. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

1988 Water Resources of the 

Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore, Northern 

Wisconsin.” W. Rose. 

Madison, WI. 

121
PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS

CORE TEAM 

Nancy Baker, Project Manager, Denver 

Service Center. B.A. and M.L.A. Twentyfour years with the National Park Service. 

Responsible for project budget and 

schedule. 

Tami DeGrosky, Facility Manager, Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore. A.A. (Liberal 

Arts), A.A. (Heavy Equipment Operation), 

B.S. (Resource Management). Twenty-two 

years with the National Park Service. 

Responsible for writing sections on 

parkwide operations in the document. 

Neil Howk, Assistant Chief, Interpretation 

and Education, Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore. B.S. (Natural Resources). 

Nineteen years with the National Park 

Service. Responsible for writing portions 

of “Visitor Experiences Not Related to 

Wilderness Characteristics” in the 

“Affected Environment” chapter and 

“Impact Analysis” section.

Sue Jennings, Environmental Protection 

Specialist, Midwest Region. BSF (Bachelor 

of Science, Forestry). Fifteen years with 

the National Park Service. Responsible for 

liaison between the study team and the 

Midwest Regional Office. Provided input 

in all parts of the document, including 

development of the alternatives. 

Bob Krumenaker, Superintendent, Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore. Sc. B. 

(Bachelor of Science), M.F.S. (Master of 

Forest Science). Twenty-one years with 

the National Park Service. Responsible for 

providing overall management and 

oversight for all aspects of the study.

Bob Mackreth, Cultural Resource 

Management Specialist, Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore. Twenty-six years 

with the National Park Service. 

Responsible for writing on cultural 

resources in the “Affected Environment” 

and “Environmental Consequences” 

chapters, including compliance with §106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

Maintained the park’s web site. 

Mary McVeigh, Community Planner, 

Denver Service Center. BA in Technical 

Communications. Fifteen years in 

planning with the National Park Service. 

Participated in developing the alternatives 

and facilitated the selection of the 

preferred alternative 

Jim Nepstad, Chief of Planning and 

Resource Management, Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore. B.S. (Mathematics). 

Seventeen years with the National Park 

Service. Responsible for coordinating the 

activities of park staff involved with the 

project, and for coordinating public 

involvement activities. Analyzed public 

comments. Prepared the description of 

wilderness resources in the “Affected 

Environment” chapter and the assessment 

of impacts on wilderness resources. 

Maintained the administrative record. 

Michael Rees, Natural Resource Specialist, 

Denver Service Center. B.A. 

(Environmental Studies) and M.F.S

(Master of Forest Science). Twelve years 

with the National Park Service and 8 years 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Job 

captain for the wilderness study. Oversaw 

all phases of the study. Provided guidance 

to team members on the wilderness study 

and prepared the “Purpose and Need” and 

“Alternatives” chapters. Analyzed public 

122
comments. Coordinated the development 

and production of the document. 

Julie Van Stappen, Supervisory Natural 

Resource Specialist, Apostle Islands

National Lakeshore. B.S. (Geology), M.S. 

(Natural Resources). Twenty years with 

the National Park Service. Responsible for 

writing sections on natural resources in 

the “Affected Environment” and 

“Environmental Consequences” chapters. 

Conducted informal consultation with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

PUBLICATIONS SPECIALISTS

Linda Ray, Visual Information Specialist 

Sandy Schuster, Editor 

Joan Huff, Information Technology

 Specialist 

TECHNICAL 

EXPERTS/CONSULTANTS/OTHER 

CONTRIBUTORS 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

Clay Alderson, Former Acting 

 Superintendent 

Myra Dec, Chief of Interpretation and 

 Education

Jeff Hepner, Supervisory Protection

 Ranger 

Damon Panek, Cultural Educator 

Jeff Rennicke, Seasonal Interpreter 

Greg Zeman, Chief of Protection 

Denver Service Center 

Greg Cody, Cultural Resource Technical 

 Specialist 

Dave Kreger, Natural Resource Technical 

 Specialist 

Nat Kuykendall, Chief of Planning 

Midwest Region 

Sändra Washington, Chief, Planning and 

 Compliance 

Nicholas Chevance, Regional 

 Environmental Coordinator 

Mike Madell, former Regional 

 Environmental Coordinator 

Jeff Maxted, Graduate Assistant, Midwest 

 Region GIS Technical Support Center 

Other Contributors 

Rich Lichtkoppler, Resource Economist, 

 Bureau of Reclamation 

Claudia Rector, volunteer

123
GLOSSARY

Barrier spit – Elongate sand ridges that 

extend generally parallel to the coast.

Cultural landscape – A geographic area, 

including both cultural and natural 

resources and the wildlife or domestic 

animals therein, associated with a historic 

event, activity, or person, or exhibiting 

other cultural or esthetic values. There are 

four nonmutually exclusive types of 

cultural landscapes: historic sites, historic 

designed landscapes, historic vernacular 

landscapes, and ethnographic landscapes. 

Cuspate forelands – A type of sand spit 

that is wider than it is long. 

De facto wilderness – An area that is 

managed as if it were wilderness, but

which has not been officially designated 

and included in the national wilderness 

preservation system. Under NPS Management Policies, the National Park Service 

manages lands that have found to be 

suitable for wilderness, but have not yet 

studied or actions have not been taken on 

a wilderness proposal or recommendation, 

as de facto wilderness. 

Environmental impact statement – As 

required by the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA), a detailed document 

that is prepared when a proposed action 

or alternatives have the potential for

significant impact on the human 

environment. 

Environmentally preferred alternative – 

Of the action alternatives analyzed, the 

one that would best promote the policies 

in §101 of the National Environmental 

Policy Act. 

Ethnographic resource – Objects and 

places, including sites, structures, 

landscapes, and natural resources, with 

traditional cultural meaning and value to 

associated peoples. Research and 

consultation with associated people 

identifies and explains the places and 

things they find culturally meaningful. 

Ethnographic resources eligible for the 

National Register of Historic Places are 

called traditional cultural properties.

General management plan (GMP) – A

plan that clearly defines direction for 

resource preservation and visitor use in a 

park, and serves as the basic foundation 

for decision making. 

Impairment – An impact so severe that, in 

the professional judgment of a responsible 

NPS manager, it would harm the integrity 

of park resources or values and violate the 

1916 NPS Organic Act. 

Interpretive media – This term is basically 

the same as nonpersonal interpretive 

services. Examples of these media include: 

includes park brochures and other publiccations, museum and visitor center exhibits, wayside exhibits, web pages, audiovisual programs, and radio information 

systems. 

Life estate – Structures and land leased 

back to the original owner for the lifetime

of that owner. The park’s enabling legislation authorized the government to offer 

life estates to the prior owners at the time 

their land was acquired.

Lightscape – The state of natural

resources and values as they exist in the 

absence of human-caused light. This is 

usually associated with natural darkness 

and night skies. 

124
Minimum requirement concept – A twostep process that documents 1) the 

determination as to whether or not a

proposed management action is 

appropriate or necessary for the 

administration of the area as wilderness, 

and does not pose a significant impact to 

the wilderness resources and character; 

and 2) the selection of the management 

method (tool) that causes the least amount 

of impact to the physical resources and 

experiential qualities (character) of 

wilderness. 

Nonpersonal interpretive services – 

Non-personal interpretive services are 

those that do not require the presence of 

staff. Examples of these services include 

wayside exhibits, visitor center exhibits, 

radio information systems, and computer 

technologies. 

Nonwilderness area – An area that does

not meet wilderness suitability criteria, or 

other lands that may satisfy the criteria but 

for other reasons are not included in a 

wilderness proposal. These areas may vary 

between alternatives in a wilderness study 

/ environmental impact statement. 

Ordinary high water mark – In the case 

of Lake Superior, the highest level reached 

by the lake’s water. Typically, this corresponds to a surface elevation of about 602 

feet in the Apostle Islands, and often 

corresponds to stable vegetation lines 

adjacent to beaches. 

Personal interpretive services – Personal 

interpretive services are those in which 

staff interact with visitors. Examples of 

these services include ranger talks, staffed 

visitor centers, and other rangerconducted activities. 

Potential wilderness – Lands that possess 

wilderness characteristics that would 

normally qualify them for designation with 

the national wilderness preservation 

system but contain temporary nonconforming conditions (such as structures 

or roads) or uses (such as inholdings or 

valid mining claims) that prevent their 

being immediately designated as wilderness. Potential wilderness may be identified in NPS wilderness proposals, wilderness recommendations, and within 

legislation designating other portions of a 

park as wilderness. 

Proposed wilderness – A suitable 

wilderness area that has been studied by 

the National Park Service and has been 

submitted as a proposal to the director but 

has not been approved by the Department 

of the Interior. 

Recommended wilderness – A suitable 

wilderness area that has been studied and 

proposed by the National Park Service, 

recommended for wilderness by the 

Secretary of the Interior to the President, 

and then transmitted by the President to 

Congress. Once approved by the 

Secretary, the area can be considered 

recommended wilderness for management 

purposes. 

Record of Decision – A document that is

prepared to substantiate a decision based 

on an environmental impact statement. 

Sandscape – A landscape that is dominated by sand. In the Apostle Islands that 

are various sandscapes, including 

sandspits, cuspate forelands, tombolos, 

numerous beaches, and a barrier spit. 

Scoping – The process followed in 

preparing a National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) document for 

determining the scope of issues to be

addressed and for identifying the 

significant issues related to a proposed 

125
action. Internal scoping is when NPS staff 

decides what needs to be analyzed in a 

NEPA document. External scoping is early 

public involvement in a NEPA process,

intended to identify what issues and 

concerns the public has regarding a 

proposed action. 

Soundscape – The natural soundscape is 

the aggregate of all the natural sounds that 

occur in an area, together with the physical 

capacity for transmitting natural sounds. 

Natural soundscapes exist in the absence 

of human-caused sound. 

Suitable wilderness – An area that posses 

the qualities and character, as identified 

within the Wilderness Act, which would 

qualify it for designation within the 

national wilderness preservation system. 

An area where, based upon a wilderness 

suitability assessment, the NPS Director 

has approved the determination of 

suitability for wilderness designation. 

Tombolo – A sand feature that joins either

two islands or an island to the mainland. 

Use and occupancy agreement – 

Structures and land leased back to the 

original owner for a finite period of time. 

The park’s enabling legislation authorized 

the government to offer use and 

occupancy agreements to the prior owners 

at the time their land was acquired. 

Visitor nonwilderness experiences – The 

experiences a visitor has in those parts of 

the park that are not included in a 

wilderness proposal. This includes 

interactions with natural and cultural 

resources, park staff, and park facilities 

(e.g., campgrounds, trails) that visitors use.

Examples of activities that generate these

visitor experiences include using a visitor 

center or wayside exhibit, walking on a 

self-guided interpretive trail, socializing at 

a picnic area or group campsite, or 

watching a ranger presentation at an 

amphitheater. 

Wilderness suitability assessment – A 

brief memorandum, from a regional 

director to the Director, that makes a 

management determination as to the 

suitability of a park’s lands for wilderness 

designation. All lands and waters found to 

possess the characteristics and values of

wilderness, as defined in the Wilderness 

Act, and determined suitable pursuant to 

the wilderness suitability assessment are 

formally studied to develop a proposal for 

wilderness designation. 

126
INDEX

Basswood, 26, 33, 41, 44-45, 54-56, 61, 78, 

83-84, 87-88, 91-92, 96-97 

Bear, 29, 33, 37, 41, 44, 54, 56, 80, 107

campsite, 59, 61, 68, 76 

Cat, 33, 37, 41, 44, 60 

Devils, 26, 33, 41, 44, 51, 52, 61, 63, 88

dock, 26, 56, 59, 68 

Eagle, 33, 37, 41, 44, 52, 55, 60, 109, 120 

ethnographic resource, 15, 56, 57, 82-83, 

85 

fish camp, 29, 61, 62 

fishing, 5, 6, 11, 14, 17, 34, 53, 55, 57, 105 

general management plan, 28, 67, 74-76, 

78-79, 81, 86, 89 

group camp, 59, 61, 89, 90-91, 99, 126

Gull, 6, 33, 37, 41, 44, 52, 55, 60 

Hermit, 33, 41, 44, 54, 84, 88, 98 

Historic Preservation Act, 15, 63, 81-82, 

84-85 

hunting, 5, 11, 14, 54-55

interpretive trail, 68, 90 

Ironwood, 33, 37, 41, 44, 54 

lighthouse, 52, 56, 61-62, 82 

Long, 18, 20, 26, 41, 43-45, 53-55, 62, 70, 

78, 83, 87-88

Manitou, 26, 29, 33, 34, 41, 44, 54, 56, 61- 

62, 88 

Michigan, 18, 26, 33, 37, 41, 44, 55-56, 61, 

63 

Native American, 11, 14, 17, 20-21, 56, 73, 

81-83, 85 

North Twin, 33, 37, 41, 44, 52 

Oak, 26, 29, 33, 41, 44, 52, 54-55, 60-61, 63, 

84, 88, 98 

Otter, 26, 33, 41, 44, 60, 88 

Outer, 26, 33, 37, 41, 44, 52, 54-55, 60-61, 

63 

picnic table, 5, 61, 89, 90-92, 99 

Presque Isle, 34, 37, 44, 53, 59, 61-63

quarry, 80, 98 

Raspberry, 26, 33, 41, 44, 52, 54, 60-63, 88 

Rocky, 26, 29, 33, 34, 41, 44, 60, 61, 62, 63, 

78, 83, 84, 88, 119, 121 

Sand, 6, 26-27, 29, 33, 34, 41, 44-45, 49, 52, 

54, 56, 60-63, 78, 80, 83-84, 87-88, 91-92, 

96-97 

soil, 51, 52, 70, 76-78, 99

South Twin, 26, 33, 41, 44, 60, 61, 88

Stockton, 26, 29, 33-34, 37, 41, 43-44, 50, 

53-55, 59-63, 78, 83-84, 105 

trail, 17, 93-97 

vegetation, 15, 53, 63, 76-79, 99 

visitor nonwilderness experience, 67, 90- 

91 

Wilderness Act, 3-5, 9-12, 26-27, 29, 33, 37, 

58-59 

wilderness resource, 5, 16, 28, 33, 42-43, 

45, 49, 67, 71-72, 86-92, 99 

wilderness suitability, 3, 9, 26, 103 

wildlife, 13, 15, 63, 73, 77-79 

York, 29, 33, 41, 44, 88 

127