This Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement

describes a preferred alternative and four alternatives for managing and using Grand Portage National Monument. The plan is intended to provide a foundation to help management guide programs and set priorities. The alternative that is finally chosen as the plan will guide the management of Grand Portage National Monument over the next 15 to 20 years. Alternative A, the ìno-actionî or status quo alternative provides a baseline 

for comparing the other ìactionî alternatives. No major changes would be made in resource management, visitor programs, or facilities beyond regular maintenance, and the current road system through the Monument would remain. There would be no changes in the partnership with the Grand Portage Band of Minnesota Chippewa or in the management of the Monumentís museum collections and archives. The four action Alternatives, B through E, all would involve road realignment, restoring the landscape to a historic appearance, and developing a heritage center and other features to enhance visitor understanding of the fur trade story and the areaís maritime history. All the action alternatives propose preserving and interpreting the 20th century Ojibwe village site 

northeast of the stockade, and all would retain Fort Charlotte and the portage relatively unchanged. Alternative B, ìFur Trade with Maritime Emphasis,î would attempt to transport visitors back to the 1790s, with maritime transportation along the historic waterfront and additional interpretation of Lake Superior and connecting waterways. Visitors could learn about the maritime aspects of the fur trade, as well as about the Ojibwe culture and heritage. Alternative C, ìFur Trade and Ojibwe Heritage,î would offer a multifaceted visitor experience: several newly reconstructed structures and interpretive exhibits in the stockade (which would be open seven months per year), a combined heritage center / headquarters open year-round, and an Ojibwe Cultural Demonstration Shelter. Interpretation would encompass prehistoric, historic, and contemporary activities. All administrative/operations facilities would be removed from the national monument, as would County Road 17 (in two phases). Limited restoration of the historic scene would be carried out. In Alternative D, ìHeritage Center Focus,î a large multifunctional heritage center would be built in which to offer a glimpse into the history of the Grand Portage and its inhabitants. Costumed interpreters, live demonstrations of Ojibwe crafts, films, interactive displays, and interpretive talks would try to give visitors a comprehensive understanding of the site and personalize the visitor experience. Alternative E, ìPre

ìhybridî alternative that was developed to combine alternatives to achieve desired results. It would inccenter and an Ojibwe Cultural Demonstration ShelThis document also includes discussions of the poteach alternative. Alternative A would not change thit more like the historic landscape or by adversely asignificant landscape features. Facilities for telling pretive story would not be available. Alternative B more historically authentic appearance and substanbut it would continue a safety concern regarding Chave a less comprehensive interpretive story than twould entail a dramatic increase in staff and maintC would offer a more balanced interpretation betweheritage, would give the national monument better would result in better use of the collections for reseexhibition. Alternative D would not change the lanthe stockade would change relatively little. It woulconcern of visitors crossing County Road 17, and tdrain much of the interpretive excitement from the is on review for 60 days following publication of ththe Federal Register. Comments are due by March For questions about this document, contact Superintendent, Grand Portage National Mon

315 South Broadway P.O. Box 668, Grand Marais, Minnesota 5560or by e-mail: Tim _Cochrane@nps.gov It is National Park Service practice to make comm

addresses of respondents, available for public reviewmay request that we withhold their address from thhonor to the extent allowable by law. However, we anonymous comments. We will make all submissiobusinesses, and from individuals identifying themseofficials of organizations or businesses, available fotheir entirety. 

United States Department of the Interior ï National Park Service 

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

GRAND PORTAGE NATIONAL MONUMENT — COOK COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ii 
iii 

DOCUMENT SUMMARY 

The purposes of this General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement are to specify resource conditions and visitor experiences to be achieved in Grand Portage National Monument and to provide the basic foundation for decision-making regarding the management of the national monument. A plan is needed to provide broad direction for the future of the monument and to help managers make purposeful decisions based on a deliberate vision. When a final plan is approved, it will guide the management, development, and interpretation of Grand Portage National Monument for the next 15 to 20 years. The National Park Service (NPS) has a unique relationship with the Grand Portage Band of Minnesota Chippewa resulting from the national monumentís location in the middle of the Grand Portage Reservation. A member of the Band is a member of the planning team. In addition, an annual agreement between the National Park Service and the Grand Portage Band on a government-to-government basis gives the Grand Portage Band responsibility for the maintenance of the Grand Portage National Monument. The National Park Service views the public as an integral team member in establishing the desired resource and experience conditions that will guide the management of Grand Portage National Monument. ALTERNATIVES On the basis of public comments, and within the framework established by legislation and mandates, the planning team developed a no-action alternative and four additional alternatives that reflected the range of ideas proposed by the public. The four action alternatives, B through E, all would involve road realignment, restoring the landscape to a historic appearance, developing a heritage center, and increasing 

interpretation and staff to enhance visitor fur trade story and the areaís maritime hisalternatives propose preserving and interp

tury Ojibwe village site northeast of the stwould retain Fort Charlotte and the portachanged. All four action alternatives propohousing and maintenance facilities offsite. All the action alternatives include provisiocultural demonstration shelter, ranging froheritage center or within the stockade to a near the 20th century village site. This is an 

demonstration program already existing amonument and is in keeping with the spirlegislation both as an ìoutlet for the produhandicraft objects within the monumentî further understanding the role of the Ojibwthe Grand Portage. Alternative A: No Action The no-action alternative describes what wnational monument if present managemenprojected into the future. Grand Portage Nwould be maintained as it has evolved thube to preserve existing visitor experiences maintain the monumentís natural, culturaNo major changes would be made in resouvisitor programs, or facilities beyond regulthe current road system through the monuThere would be no changes in the partnerPortage Band of Minnesota Chippewa or ithe monumentís museum collections and a
iv 

The historic portage would remain as a fairly primitive trail surrounded by second-growth forest. No attempt would be made to restore the forest along the trail corridor to more accurately depict its historic appearance. The Fort Charlotte campsites would be retained, and interpretation of a general nature would be available at a kiosk in that area. The stockade and surrounding area would be unchanged, but the National Park Service would try to make the site more accessible to visitors with disabilities without impacting site resources. Alternative B: Fur Trade with Maritime Emphasis Alternative B would use reconstructed historic buildings, a dock, a rehabilitated landscape, and an expanded interpretive program of new exhibits and living history activities to try to transport visitors back in time to the 1790s. Distinct from other alternatives, Alternative B would bring a strong maritime emphasis into interpretation, focusing on the monumentís physical and historical relationship with Lake Superior. The lower part of the portage trail would be restored to its historic appearance. That restored part of the trail would be designed to offer visitors with disabilities or time constraints a small example of what the portage was like. The Fort Charlotte campsites would be retained to offer a primitive camping experience. Archeological resources would be protected. The Mount Rose trail would become a loop trail with an extension to the new heritage center. The Monumentís headquarters would be built on Grand Portage Band land, separate from the heritage center. Museum collections would be stored at the headquarters facility. Additional structures would be reconstructed to help visitors visualize the variety, scale, and number of structures in the historic stockade. With the stockade open to the public for seven months and a new onsite heritage center open all year, 

visitors could learn about the maritime asas well as about the Ojibwe culture and herelationship would be illustrated by replicawatercraft and exhibits at the heritage cenwould cover Lake Superior and connectinmaritime aspects of the fur trade, and progconstruction. Alternative C: Fur Trade and Ojibwe Alternative C would offer a multifaceted vseveral newly reconstructed structures and exhibits in the stockade (which would be per year), a combined heritage center / heyear-round, and an Ojibwe Cultural DemoInterpretation would encompass prehistorcontemporary activities. All administrativwould be removed from the national monuCounty Road 17 (in two phases). Limited historic scene would be carried out. The Fort Charlotte campsites would be upprimitive camping experience, but no new added. The Mount Rose trail would be maent condition. The lower part of the portabe restored to its historic appearance, wouof a loop trail to the 20th century Ojibwe v

pretive media would be increased to explahikers along the lower portage. Archeologbe protected. Alternative D: Heritage Center Focus In Alternative D, a large multifunctional FCenter would be built on land leased from 

DOCUMENT SUMMARY
v 

Band. The center would offer a glimpse into the history of the Grand Portage and its inhabitants. Costumed interpreters, live demonstrations of Ojibwe crafts, films, interactive displays, and interpretive talks would try to give visitors a comprehensive understanding of the site and personalize the visitor experience. All maintenance and operations facilities would be removed from the national monument, except that a small parking area for visitors to the stockade would remain. The Fort Charlotte campsites would be retained to offer a primitive camping experience. The Mount Rose trail would be maintained in its present condition. The lower part of the portage trail, which would be restored to its historic appearance, would become a portion of a loop trail to the 20th century 

Ojibwe village site. Interpretive media would be increased to explain the portage to hikers along the lower portage. The site of the late 19th and early 20th century Grand Portage 

village would continue to function as a picnic area and open space. Interpretive programs and cultural demonstrations would be offered at the heritage center, along with information about commercial and subsistence fishing, canoe building and paddling programs, and historic small boats such as bateaux and mackinaw boats. Alternative E: Preferred Alternative Alternative E is a ìhybridî alternative that was developed to combine actions from the other alternatives to achieve desired results. In an effort to integrate the national monument into the community, the National Park Service and the Grand Portage Band would develop a ìgatewayî to the community of Grand Portage at the intersection of MN 61 and County Road 17. This landscaped, redesigned intersection would welcome visitors to the community of Grand Portage, the national monument, and the Grand Portage Casino. 

A new year-round heritage center would bvisitors to the national monument and to tions out of the stockade. An Ojibwe CultShelter would help to explain the rich and the Ojibwe heritage, including contemporties. Three new structures would be reconstockade area, and all other known structuoutlined on the ground to help NPS interpexciting and comprehensive story. The Fort Charlotte campsites would be upcampsites would be added. The Mount Rocome a loop trail connecting to the new heportage trail, which also would become a pconnecting with the stockade and the 20th 

village site, would be restored to a semblaappearance. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The planning team evaluated the consequresult from each of the alternatives. Impacts of Alternative A: No Action Alternative A would allow several contemremain on the portage. The trail is intersecroadway, and the housing area and mainteupon the historic southern terminus. Thesgive visitors an inaccurate representation portage. The mixed use at the stockade and the nufeatures would continue to make accurate difficult. Modern intrusions would continu

SUMMARY 
vi 

scene and ambience. Visitors would not be able to transition from modern times to the historic fur trade era. The staff would not be able to give visitors a comprehensive understanding of the Monumentís historic landscape. There would be little interpretation of contemporary Ojibwe culture, and visitors would have little opportunity to understand the continuum of Ojibwe culture and heritage. Currently there is no comprehensive plan or program in place to preserve archeological sites. In the absence of a comprehensive survey, research, and preservation program, the slow degradation of many of the Monumentís archeological resources would continue. Impacts of Alternative B: Fur Trade with Maritime Emphasis Under Alternative B, the integrity of the stockade landscape would be enhanced by shifting the main entrance to the more historically accurate lake gate. Visitors would be ìtransported in timeî back to the 1790s, with maritime transportation along the historic waterfront and additional interpretation of Lake Superior and connecting waterways. Visitors also could learn about the maritime aspects of the fur trade, as well as about the Ojibwe culture and heritage. The upper portions of the portage trail would continue to possess a high degree of integrity. Removing the roads, housing area, and maintenance buildings at the lower portion and rehabilitating the trail would enhance the historic setting. Improved access and the resultant increase in visitation could lead to increased wear and tear on resources, but the level of integrity and the quality of the visitor experience would improve. 

Realigning the road and constructing the haffect three state-listed plant species found these activities. These projects might invoblasting and excavation to remove a large the listed plants occur. Changes in the sharetention of the site could also affect the pbuffer strip of trees would help to mitigate Impacts of Alternative C: Fur Trade aHeritage Alternative C would offer a more balanced tween fur trade and Ojibwe heritage, woumonument better control of collections, anbetter use of the collections for research aexhibition. As in Alternative B, the upper parts of the continue to possess a high degree of integC, and removing the housing area and maand rehabilitating the trail would enhance Shifting the main visitor entrance to the snorth to the more historically accurate laka more historically accurate footbridge oveCreek would enhance the integrity of the sChanges in vegetation would help transpotime of the fur trade. With less reconstrucB, Alternative C would cause less ground More comprehensive interpretation would Alternatives A and B, including the fur tracontemporary Ojibwe culture. This alternarespond to the Monumentís mandate to rethe Ojibwe heritage. Keeping the heritage round would enable more visitors, even wabout the Monument. 

DOCUMENT SUMMARY
vii 

Impacts of Alternative D: Heritage Center Focus Alternative D would not change the landscape significantly, and the stockade would change relatively little. The upper parts of the portage trail would continue to have a high degree of integrity, and removing the housing and maintenance buildings and rehabilitating the trail would enhance the historic setting. Connecting the portage trail to an overall interpretive trail would give more visitors access to the portage and the community. Outlining missing stockade structures would lend a sense of the character of the stockade during the fur trade era and would not damage any subsurface remains of the original structures. The heritage center, open year-round, would present orientation and in-depth interpretation of the fur trade story and the Ojibwe culture and history, along with Ojibwe cultural demonstrations. This would enable visitors to learn the full story of Grand Portage from its earliest occupation through the present. Alternative D would have fewer impacts on soils than the other action alternatives. Impacts of Alternative E: Preferred Alternative With three centers of activity: the heritage center, the stockade, and a new Ojibwe Cultural Demonstration Shelter, Alternative E would offer the most interpretation of any of the alternatives and an optimum balance between interpretation of the fur trade and the Ojibwe heritage and culture. The overall quality of the visitor experience would be improved, and opportunities for partnerships would increase. As in the other action alternatives, the upper parts of the portage trail would continue to have a high degree of integrity, and removing the housing and maintenance buildings and rehabilitating the trail would enhance the historic setting. 

Active maintenance of the 20th century vil

features would allow them to exist in perpConnecting the portage trail to an overall would improve access to the portage and tvisitors would cause increased wear and tvegetation and potential damage to archeoVisitors would be better able to immerse t

century experience with all the structures furnished as they were during the height ointerpreters dressed in period clothing. Adreconstructed, historically furnished structhe missing stockade structures would givimpression of the stockade during its heydthe fur trade period. Demonstrations of crpractices in the Ojibwe Cultural Demonstenable visitors to understand the continuuConstructing the heritage center and Moncould affect three state-listed plant species of these activities. These projects might inof blasting, which could cause cliff faces tscree slopes to slide. Mitigative measures vibration and air blast would reduce the cor fly rock impacting a listed plant. The prter parking lot could change the shading ation of adjacent sites with listed plants. Plof trees would reduce changes in shading impacts. 
viii 
ix 

The Grand Portage, in the north woods of Minnesota, was an important setting for the activities of the northern fur trade, a dynamic enterprise that forged diverse relationships between American Indian and non-Indian peoples as early as the 17th

century. The Grand Portage (ìGreat Carrying Placeî), a roughly 9-mile trail on the northwestern periphery of the Great LakesñSt. Lawrence River drainage in the middle of North America, connected the lakeshore with Fort Charlotte, an embarkation point for voyageurs heading west and a gathering point for furs going east. The portage was the most direct route from the Great Lakes into the Canadian interior. Several falls and cataracts blocked use of the Pigeon River by the voyageurs so that a portage was needed, hence the name ìGrand Portage.î French and later British traders entered the Great LakesñNorthwest trade by traveling west from Montreal. Having learned to use birch bark canoes, they moved into the midcontinent along an established inland network of Indian canoe routes. Building on entrenched Indian exchange practices and catering to Indian preferences, traders bartered imported European goods and commodities for Indian furs, provisions, and services. This ultimately led to an intercultural exchange of languages, ideas, technologies, diseases, and genes. It also promoted commercial, political, and marital alliances. When business grew more complex and the frontiers of exchange expanded westward, certain places gained distinction as corridors of commerce that played strategic roles in the flow of workers, provisions, merchandise, and information. Grand Portage became such a place in the 18th century, emerging in 

mid-century as a headquarters for local trade and a transshipment center linking markets and trans

the east with branching trade routes and sdistricts to the northwest. Between 1731 aof men shuttled tons of supplies and furs oin and out of warehouses at either end of During the British regime after 1760, the pgeneral rendezvous and a beehive of activbut in winters the comparatively quiet outskeleton crews that engaged in local tradinthe trade, around 1800, Grand Portage waheadquarters of the North West Company Company, two of the largest commercial eNorth America. When the North West Company and the Xtheir operations north to Kaministikwia (lOntario) at the beginning of the 19th centu

became remote to the main channels of tration and less important to the outside worbetween Canada and the United States beand Lake of the Woods was not firmly estaWebster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842. Under treaty, the Grand Portage clearly became Uerty; however, the use of the trail was to rto citizens of both the United States and GThe historic portage is the reason for GranMonument, which is bordered on the nortGrand Portage Indian Reservation, on the perior, and on the west by the Pigeon Rivewithin both the Grand Portage Indian Resunincorporated community of Grand Port

A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE NATIONAL MONUMENT 
x 

is the headquarters of the Grand Portage Band of Minnesota Chippewa (Ojibwe). The nearest incorporated communities are Grand Marais, about 35 miles southwest, and Thunder Bay, Ontario, about 45 miles northeast. The national monument consists of two ìdistricts,î which are connected by the historic Grand Portage. The eastern, or lakeshore, district consists of the major visitor attraction with a reconstructed stockade, a great hall, a kitchen, and a canoe warehouse. It is here that the bulk of interpretation occurs. The western, or Fort Charlotte, district, is named for the historic Fort Charlotte, which today is a camping area with primitive campsites, a point of debarkation for modern canoe travelers leaving the boundary waters to the west, and a destination for hikers following in the footsteps of the voyageurs from the lakeshore. A stone monument marks the location of Fort Charlotte. Visitors to Grand Portage National Monument can glimpse the late 18th century fur trade, see Ojibwe arts and crafts and learn 

about the Ojibwe culture, or simply enjoy fallís changing colors in this quiet forest setting. Grand Portage is also the ìend of the trailî for many visitors coming by canoe from the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. The portage trail can give travelers real insights into the experiences of the voyageurs. 

Much of the above material was drawn from a draft National Register form written by Douglas Birk. 

There are a number of ìfur trade sitesî besides Grand Portage National Monument in the national park system. However, Grand Portage is the earliest site among these (Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, Washington; Fort Union Trading Post National Historic Site, North Dakota; Bentís Old Fort National Historic Site, Colorado; Sitka National Historical Park, Alaska). Grand Portage is the only site concerned with 

the French and subsequent British period. trade site most involved in western explorvoyages to the Arctic and Pacific Oceans) role in the establishment of an internationGrand Portage is significant because it is a history is integrally related to Native Amepresent. For example, Grand Portage is wPortage Indian Reservation, and the ancesReservation residents traded with the Nor200 years ago or more. Grand Portage is utrade sitesî in the national park system beof a pioneering, multinational business thapolitical influence ó the North West ComThe nearby Voyageurs National Park, desplittle interpretation on the fur trade or Ojinone on the business side of the fur trade. connected by story to Grand Portage is its der Bay, Ontario, Old Fort William, operaof Ontario. Historically, Fort William was and summer headquarters for the North Wmoved from Grand Portage in 1803 and reod in fur trade history. Old Fort William dwith its 42 reconstructed buildings, its woscale of its first person living history progrFort William was not reconstructed on its does not, today, have such an intimate relAmericans as does Grand Portage. Contemcerns have redirected some of Old Fort Wtoward revenue-producing activities such nonhistoric special events.
xi 

CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION 

Purpose of and Need for the Action .....................................1 

Purpose of the General Management Plan .......................1 Need for the General Management Plan...........................2 

Monument Significance.........................................................4 Monument Purpose ...............................................................4 Mission Statement and Mission Goals .................................5 Servicewide Mandates and Policies ......................................5 Special Mandates and Administrative Commitments ..........6 

PRIMARY INTERPRETIVE THEMES ....................................

9

PLANNING OPPORTUNITIES AND DECISION POINTS ...  Partnerships .........................................................................11  Decision Points ....................................................................12 IMPACT TOPICS ó RESOURCES AND VALUES AT 

STAKE IN THE PLANNING PROCESS...........................15 Cultural Resources...............................................................15 

Archeology and History...................................................15 Sacred Sites ......................................................................16 

Natural Resources................................................................16 

Soils ..................................................................................16 Air Quality........................................................................16 Water Quality and Aquatic Species.................................16 General Vegetation and Fuel Loading ............................16 Threatened or Endangered Species or Species of Concern 

ó Plants........................................................................16 

Visitor Experience and Interpretation................................16 Population and Economy ....................................................16 Local and Regional Transportation.....................................17 

IMPACT TOPICS DISMISSED FROM F

CONSIDERATION Environmental Justice ............................Indian Trust Resources..........................Public Health and Safety .......................Energy Consumption .............................Geology and Topography.......................Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands ..Water Quantity and Timing...................Coastal Zone Management....................Floodplains .............................................Wetlands.................................................Exotic Vegetation and Noxious Weeds .General Wildlife .....................................Threatened or Endangered Species or 

Species of Concern ó Wildlife...........

ALTERNATIVES 

Potential Management Prescriptions ....

Primitive Trail Zone ...........................Recreation Zone .................................Resources Trust Zone ........................Maintenance / Park Operations Zone Visitor Services and Development ZoInterpretive Historic Zone .................Nonpark Areas....................................

Public Input and the Development AlteAlternative A: No Action.......................

Concept ...............................................Primitive Trail Zone ...........................Recreation Zone .................................Resources Trust Zone ........................Maintenance / Park Operations Zone 
xii 

Visitor Services and Development Zone ........................36 Interpretive Historic Zone...............................................37 Cost...................................................................................37 

Alternative B: Fur Trade with Maritime Emphasis............37 

Concept.............................................................................37 Primitive Trail Zone.........................................................38 Recreation Zone...............................................................39 Resources Trust Zone ......................................................39 Maintenance / Park Operations Zone.............................39 Visitor Services and Development Zone ........................42 Interpretive Historic Zone...............................................42 Cost...................................................................................44 

Alternative C: Fur Trade and Ojibwe Heritage ..................44 

Concept.............................................................................44 Primitive Trail Zone.........................................................44 Recreation Zone...............................................................45 Resources Trust................................................................45 Maintenance / Park Operations Zone.............................45 Visitor Services and Development Zone ........................48 Interpretive Historic Zone...............................................48 Cost...................................................................................50 

Alternative D: Heritage Center Focus ................................50 

Concept.............................................................................50 Primitive Trail Zone.........................................................51 Recreation Zone...............................................................51 Resources Trust Zone ......................................................51 Maintenance / Park Operations Zone.............................51 Visitor Services and Development Zone ........................54 Interpretive Historic Zone...............................................54 Cost...................................................................................55 

Alternative E: Preferred Alternative ...................................55 

Concept.............................................................................55 Primitive Trail Zone.........................................................56 Recreation Zone...............................................................56 Resources Trust Zone ......................................................56 Maintenance /Park Operations Zone..............................57 Visitor Services and Development Zone ........................57 

Interpretive Historic Zone .................Cost.....................................................

Environmentally Preferable Alternative Determining the NPS Preferred AlternaMitigation...............................................Actions Considered but Not Addressed 

Management Plan ..............................Fee Collection.....................................Alternative Access to Fort Charlotte .Reconstructing Fort Charlotte ...........Snowmobile/ATV Access ..................

Future Grand Portage Reconstructions 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Cultural Resources .................................

Cultural Landscape ............................Archeology and History .....................Sacred Sites ........................................

Local and Regional Transportation.......Population, Economy, and Land Use ....Visitor Experience and Interpretation ..Natural Resources ..................................

Soils.....................................................Air Quality..........................................Water Quality and Aquatic Species ...General Vegetation.............................Threatened or Endangered Species or  Concern ó Plants ...........................

The Case for Reconstruction .................

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES O

ALTERNATIVES Methodology...........................................

Intensity..............................................Duration..............................................Cumulative Impacts............................Mitigation ...........................................

CONTENTS CONTENTS
xiii 

Impairment of National Monument Resources ..............89 

 Soil Analysis Assumptions ..............................................91 Impacts of Alternative A, No Action ..................................92 

Cultural Landscape ..........................................................92 Archeology and History...................................................93 Sacred Sites ......................................................................93 Local and Regional Transportation.................................94 Population, Economy, and Land Use ..............................94 Visitor Experience and Interpretation. ...........................95 Soils ..................................................................................96 Air Quality........................................................................96 Water Quality and Aquatic Species.................................97 General Vegetation and Fuel Loading ............................97 Threatened or Endangered Species and 

Species of Concern ó Plants .......................................99 

Impacts of Alternative B: Fur Trade with Maritime  Emphasis ..........................................................................99 

Cultural Landscape ..........................................................99 Archeology and History.................................................100 Sacred Sites ....................................................................101 

Local and Regional Transportation...............................101 Population, Economy, and Land Use ............................102 Visitor Experience and Interpretation ..........................102 Soils ................................................................................103 Air Quality......................................................................104 

Water Quality and Aquatic Species...............................105 General Vegetation and Fuel Loading ..........................107 Threatened or Endangered Species or Species  of Concern ó Plants..................................................108 

Impacts of Alternative C: Fur Trade  and Ojibwe Heritage ......................................................109 

Cultural Landscape ........................................................109 Archeology and History.................................................111 Sacred Sites ....................................................................112 

Local and Regional Transportation...............................113 Population, Economy, and Land Use ............................114 Visitor Experience and Interpretation ..........................115 

Soils.....................................................Air Quality ..........................................Water Quality and Aquatic Species ...

General Vegetation and Fuel LoadingThreatened or Endangered Species or  of Concern ó Plants ......................

Impacts of Alternative D: Heritage Cent

Cultural Landscape ............................

Archeology and History .....................Sacred Sites ........................................Local and Regional Transportation ...

Population, Economy, and Land Use Visitor Experience and InterpretationSoils.....................................................Air Quality ..........................................Water Quality and Aquatic Species ...

General Vegetation and Fuel LoadingThreatened or Endangered Species or  of Concern ó Plants .......................

Impacts of Alternative E: Preferred Alte

Cultural Landscape ............................Archeology and History .....................Sacred Sites ........................................Local and Regional Transportation ...

Population, Economy, and Land Use Visitor Experience and InterpretationSoils.....................................................Air Quality ..........................................Water Quality and Aquatic Species ...

General Vegetation and Fuel LoadingThreatened or Endangered Species or  of Concern ó Plants .......................
xiv 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ......................143 

APPENDIXES 

Appendix A: Servicewide Mandates and Policies ............147 Appendix B: Legislation....................................................152 Appendix C: Costs .............................................................155 

Appendix D: Cultural Resources ......................................157 

Appendix E: Act of September 2, 1958 ............................167 Appendix F: Implementation Plans ..................................169 

BIBLIOGRAPHY..................................................................171 PREPARERS OF DOCUMENT ...........................................173 

FRANK S. GERNER DRAWINGS

Counting House and Shops ......................................................ii Kitchen to Great Hall, October 1971 .......................................8 

The Bourgeois House, October 1971 .....................................10 

Reconstruction of the Great Hall, October 1971 ...................26 Ware Houses..........................................................................141 

MAPS

Vicinity.......................................................Alternative A: Management Prescriptions Alternative A: No Action, Existing ConditAlternative B: Management Prescriptions Alternative B: Fur Trade with Maritime EAlternative C: Management Prescriptions Alternative C: Fur Trade and Ojibwe HeriAlternative D: Management Prescriptions Alternative D: Heritage Center Focus ......Alternative E: Management Prescriptions Alternative E: Preferred Alternative .........Alternatives A through E, Fort Charlotte .

TABLES

Table 1: Impact Summary .........................Table 2: Potential Management PrescriptiTable 3: Estimated Zone Acreages for EacTable 4: Comparison of Alternatives ........Table 5: Documented Species Occurring i

CONTENTS
xv 

*Carolyn Gilman, The Grand Portage Story, 1990:75.
 1

 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE ACTION Purpose of the General Management Plan Grand Portage National Monument was established on September 2, 1958 (72 Stat. 1751) as a unit of the National Park Service ì . . . for the purpose of preserving an area containing unique historical values . . . î Previously, the monument had been designated a national historic site on September 15, 1951. This plan is the basic document for the management of Grand Portage National Monument. It will guide the management, development, and interpretation of the national monument for the next 15 to 20 years. The purposes of this General Management Plan are twofold: • to specify resource conditions and visitor experiences to be 

achieved 

• to provide the basic foundation for decision-making 

regarding the management of the national monument 

As part of this plan, an environmental impact statement has been prepared according to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1500-1508). The environmental impact statement assesses the impacts that potential actions may have on resources in the affected environment. 

This General Management Plan representbetween the National Park Service (NPS) describing how Grand Portage National Mused and managed. As such, it is intended • confirm the significance of Grand Porta

Monument 

• establish the goals of the National Park 

public with regard to visitor experienceand cultural resources 

• outline the future types of resource ma

visitor activities, and development that in the national monument to meet the e

• help National Park Service staff determ

proposed by the National Park Service consistent with the stated goals 

• serve as the basis for shorter-term man

such as five-year strategic plans, annuaand implementation plans 

Some of the future visitor experience, natucultural resource conditions at Grand PorMonument are specified by law or policy (ìServicewide Mandates and Policiesî). Otdebate and must be determined through pGeneral Management Plan addresses the 

ence conditions that are not mandated by 
 2

The National Park Service has a unique relationship with the Grand Portage Band resulting from the national monumentís location in the middle of the Grand Portage Reservation. Actions of either entity could adversely affect the other. To ensure that this does not occur, the planning team has a full team member from the Grand Portage Band who provides the Bandís perspective on the alternatives. In addition, the national monument has an annual agreement with the Grand Portage Band under the Indian Self-Governance Act. The agreement gives the Grand Portage Band responsibility for the maintenance of the Grand Portage National Monument. This yearly agreement requires close cooperation on a governmentto-government basis. The National Park Service views the public as an integral team member in establishing the desired resource and experience conditions that will guide the management of Grand Portage National Monument. Measures taken by the National Park Service to include the public as a partner in general management planning for the national monument include the following: 

The National Park Service solicited formal and informal public participation in the planning process and has incorporated suggestions from the public into the proposed management alternatives. This is described in the ìConsultation and Coordination,î and ìHistory of Public Involvementî sections of this document.The environmental impact statement portion of this draft document evaluates the effects of the alternatives on the impact topics identified as important by the public during scoping. (ìScopingî is the initial public contact designed to elicit concerns, ideas, and suggestions for the management and development of a unit of the national park system (see the ìHistory of Public Involvementî section). 

The public will be asked to comment oGeneral Management Plan. On the baa final general management plan will b

This plan proposes several specific actions more general. The plan does not describe grams or projects would be ranked or impdecisions will be addressed during the moassociated with strategic plans, annual perimplementation plans. All those plans will goals, future conditions, and appropriate testablished in this General Management PNeed for the General Management PThe last comprehensive management plan National Monument, a master plan, was acontained no accompanying environmentaAfter 27 years, many of the facilities and cexisted then have changed, and their manamore complicated. Many of the concepts inever implemented and are no longer desiWithout an effective overall plan, decisionmonument have been made over the years fashion and without the benefit of public iGeneral Management Plan, which providthe future of Grand Portage National Monhelp managers make purposeful decisions vision. 

INTRODUCTION

 4

General management planning is needed to • clarify the minimum levels of resource protection and public 

use that must be achieved for the national monument, based on the Monument-specific purpose and significance plus the body of laws and policies directing management 

• determine the best mix of resource protection and visitor 

experiences beyond what is prescribed by law and policy based on the monument-specific purpose and significance plus the body of laws and policies directing the management of the national monument 

• define the national monumentís purpose • understand the range of public expectations and concerns • identify what resources are found in the national monument • evaluate the effects of alternative management plans on 

existing natural, cultural, and social conditions 

• estimate the long-term economic costs This plan is needed to establish the degree to which the national monument should be managed to • provide visitor services and facilities that do not impact 

natural, cultural, or ethnographic resources (including contemporary Ojibwe resources) 

• accommodate administrative and support services and 

facilities without impacting resources 

• restore the natural and cultural resources to the late 18th

century to enhance the visitor experience 

• partner with other entities to meet common needs while 

continuing to fulfill the NPS mission 

MONUMENT SIGNIFICANCE Grand Portage National Monument is of international significance as the central hub of a once flourishing fur trade. 

Here the bold economic strategy and exploWest Company voyageurs, traders, and Intranscontinental trade route arising from IGrand Portage was and remains a meeting cultures and is home ground for contempoOjibwe. The following significance statements recofeatures of the national monument. • Grand Portage National Monument is a 

and family history and cultural persiste

• Grand Portage National Monument con

buildings and well preserved archeologseveral fur trading posts instrumental ithe West and in the economic history oand Canada. 

• The national monument contains the e

portage that marked the entrance into twestern Canada. 

• The national monument is significant b

fundamental interrelationship of Ojibwtrade history. 

MONUMENT PURPOSE Grand Portage National Monument was edelineate, commemorate, and preserve a pof the 18th century fur trade. This led to pi

international commerce and exploration in well as cultural contact between Ojibwe asocieties and the North West Company ancompaniesí partners, clerks, and canoe mealso was established to work with the Grapreserving and interpreting the heritage anOjibwe people. 

INTRODUCTION
 5

MISSION STATEMENT AND MISSION GOALS The September 1997 Government Performance and Results Act Strategic Plan for Grand Portage National Monument describes the mission of the monument as follows: 

Grand Portage National Monument protects, commemorates, and interprets a reconstructed fur depot of the North West Company, a rendezvous site for international commerce and canoe route for transcontinental exploration, Native heritage, natural scene, and history of cross cultural contact and accommodation between traders, Ojibwa, and other participants in the fur trade. 

Mission goals articulate the broad ideals and vision that the National Park Service is striving to achieve at Grand Portage National Monument. The goals for the national monument are directly linked to the servicewide mission goals contained in the National Park Service Strategic Plan (NPS 1998). They 

are written as desired outcomes in keeping with the Government Performance and Results Act. Mission goals for Grand Portage National Monument are as follows. 

Natural and cultural resources and associated values are protected, restored, and maintained in good condition and managed within their broader ecosystem and cultural context (Service Mission Goal Ia). Grand Portage National Monument contributes to knowledge about natural and cultural resources and associated values; management decisions about resources and visitors are based on adequate scholarly and scientific information (Service Mission Goal Ib). Visitors safely enjoy and are satisfied with the availability, accessibility, diversity, and quality of the facilities, services, 

and appropriate recreational opportunMission Goal IIa). National monument visitors and the gunderstand and appreciate the preservtheir resources for this and future geneMission Goal IIb). Grand Portage National Monument usmanagement practices, systems, and tepreserve resources and to better providenjoyment (Service Mission Goal IVa)Grand Portage National Monument inmanagerial resources through initiativother agencies, organizations, and indMission Goal IVb). 

SERVICEWIDE MANDATES AND POLICAs with all units of the National Park Servof Grand Portage National Monument is gof acts and executive orders, in addition to legislation. Many of the laws and executivmanagement are included in appendix A. Some acts and executive orders are applicunits of the National Park System. These creating the National Park Service, the GeAct of 1970, and the act of March 27, 197management of the national park system. broader application, such as the EndangerNational Historic Preservation Act of 196Executive Order 11990 on the protection Indian Self-Governance Act (PL 103-413)

Servicewi
 6

In addition, the National Park Service has established policies that apply to all of the units under its stewardship. These are identified in the NPS Management Policies (2001) and 

codified at Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR) ìParks, Forests, and Public Property.î These legal mandates and policies prescribe many resource conditions and some aspects of visitor experience. While attaining some of these conditions has been deferred in the national monument because of funding or personnel limitations, the National Park Service will continue to strive to implement these policies at Grand Portage National Monument with or without a new general management plan. For instance, the plan is not needed to decide whether or not it is appropriate to protect endangered species, control exotic species, improve water quality, protect archeological sites, provide for access for people with disabilities, or conserve artifacts. The conditions prescribed by laws, regulations, and policies most pertinent to the planning and management of Grand Portage National Monument are summarized in appendix A. SPECIAL MANDATES AND ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITMENTS The monument was established by Public Law 85-910, an act to provide for the establishment of Grand Portage National Monument in the State of Minnesota, and for other purposes. This was approved September 2, 1958 (72 Stat. 1751). Several sections deal specifically with the relationship between the National Park Service and the Ojibwe, as follows: 

Section 4 grants recognized members of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe the preferential privilege to provide those 

visitor accommodations and services, iservices, which the Secretary of the Innecessary within the monument. This has been further defined under Grand Monument Policy 97-01, or ìMinnesotPreference Policy.î Section 5 gives first preference to the erecognized tribal members in the perfoconstruction, maintenance, or any othmonument for which they are qualifiedSection 6 encourages recognized tribaproduction and sale of handicraft objemonument and prohibits interference wexistence of any trade or business of sboundaries of the national monument. Section 7 recognizes the privilege of thChippewa Tribe to traverse the nationpurposes of logging their land, fishing, means of access to their homes, busineof use, and they shall have the right to pursuit of their traditional rights to huthe monument subject to reasonable represerve and interpret the historic featwithin the monument. Section 8 directs that the Secretary of construct and maintain docking facilitfacilities be available for use by the MiTribe and its recognized members, witsubject to regulations prescribed by thSection 9 directs the secretary, subject provide consultative or advisory assistsota Chippewa Tribe and the Grand Po

INTRODUCTION
 7

Chippewa Indians, Minnesota, in the planning of facilities or developments upon the lands adjacent to the monument. Section 10 directs the secretary to administer, develop, and protect the national monument in accordance with the provisions of the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916. Section 11 returns the national monument to the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe and the Grand Portage Band of Minnesota Chippewa, Minnesota, in the event that Grand Portage National Monument is abandoned. 

The following acts and mandates specific to the management of Grand Portage National Monument are in addition to the 

national monumentís establishing legislation: 

Annual Indian Self-Governance Act Agreement between the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, and the Grand Portage Band of Minnesota Chippewa (first implemented February 1999) Concession contract with the Grand Portage Band of Minnesota Chippewa for Isle Royale parking Snowmobile regulations (36 CFR, titled ìParks, Forests, and Public Propertyî) ó five crossing points Oral history cooperative agreement with the Grand Portage Band of Minnesota Chippewa Interagency Agreement between the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the National Park Service for the operation of a radio repeater on Mount Maud (agreement has expired) 

Memorandum of understanding among thParks Department, the Minnesota Departtation, the Minnesota Department of TourPortage Band of Minnesota Chippewa, anService for coordination of interpretation Memorandum of understanding between tService and the Grand Portage Band of Mfor participation in the ambulance service Memorandum of understanding with the Gof Minnesota Chippewa for assistance witFive-year lease on the Coast Guard buildinGeneral Agreement with the sheriff of CoMinnesota, for mutual law enforcement suMemorandum of agreement with the MinnSociety for long-term artifact curation Webster-Ashburton Treaty Between Great United States, Concluded the 9th of Augus

provides for Grand Portage to be ìfree and citizens of both countries Memorandum of agreement with the InstiArcheology ì . . . to provide for cooperativinvestigations at the monumentî 

Special Mandates and A
 8
 9

PRIMARY INTERPRETIVE THEMES During the planning for the General Management Plan, the 

team took some time to rethink the interpretive themes for Grand Portage National Monument. Interpretive themes are important concepts or underlying principles that help interpreters order their communications to visitors. Interpreters, in turn, make their stories more specific and graphic, but they use these themes to ensure that they communicate the multisignificance of the monument in all forms of interpretive media (talks, signs, brochures, and other publications). These interpretive themes (and thus all interpretersí presentations) are based on the cultural and natural resources unique to the monument and its significance. The themes for Grand Portage National Monument are as follows: • The Grand Portage was a vital part of both American Indian 

and fur trade transportation routes because of the areaís geology, topographic relief, natural resources, and strategic location between the upper Great Lakes and the interior of western Canada. 

• The fur trade was a driving force for the exploration, 

mapping, and early settlement of much of North America by Euro-Americans, and it also played an important role in setting the boundary between the United States and Canada. It was part of an effort of several European countries to expand their colonial holdings worldwide. 

• The Grand Portage Ojibwe, a people w

and a proud heritage, have lived for cenGrand Portage, where their culture thri

• The fur trade industry was an importan

international economy, involved a comsystem, involved both American Indian technologies and practices, and had extthe natural resources and native cultur

• The extensive archeological resources o

National Monument represent not only also hundreds of years of American Indmonument is committed to the preservtion of its archeological resources. 

• The fur trade was a catalyst for cross-c

and exchange between native peoples athat variably affected both populations. 

• The fur trade flourished during a time o

and among native nations and colonial struggling for power and occupancy of resources. 
 10
 11

PLANNING OPPORTUNITIES AND ISSUES PARTNERSHIPS In recent years, the National Park Service has begun to work with state and federal agencies, nonprofit organizations, and commercial entities to provide needed facilities and services that traditionally have been undertaken by the National Park Service alone. As sites have been added to the national park system and as the cost of visitor services and facilities has grown, it has been necessary to develop new ways of funding and managing such services and facilities. Such partnerships could be simple exchanges of services between agencies for the common benefit, sharing of facilities so that separate, similar structures are unnecessary, or sharing of staff. Partnerships also could be developed with commercial entities that use park resources or have special appreciation for the Grand Portage story; for example, canoe manufacturing companies interested in historic canoe building at the site. Grand Portage National Monument already provides visitor information, shares its docking facilities, and provides parking for visitors taking the boat over to Isle Royale National Park. The national monument and Grand Portage State Park exchange interpreters. The national monument has a smallscale partnership with the Grand Portage Casino to exhibit items from the Grand Portage collections, and it uses the utilities of the Grand Portage Band rather than providing its own water and sewage treatment. In return, the national monument has built community water storage facilities and has provided employment for Band members as it works toward 

the common good of the community. Thesthe existing partnerships. The alternatives in this document provide for both large-scale and small-scale partnePortage National Monument will seek to ipartnerships to lower the initial and ongoimanagement and development. Partnershideveloped only where they would provide resulting in an unacceptable commercializExamples of state and federal agencies thapartnership opportunities are the MinnesoSociety, the Minnesota state park system, Department of Transportation, the Minnesystem, the U.S. Forest Service, and the BAffairs. The Grand Portage Band, Old Forcommunities of Grand Portage and Grand partners. Commercial businesses and founcanoeing and the fur trade as forceful regipresent partnership opportunities. Examples of possible partnerships could bfor maintenance between the Band and thand combined visitor facilities with other visitor center, where several similar agencand visitor orientation and interpretation national monument but to the region. Othbe more of a sponsorship nature, with a bu
 12

organization sponsoring the construction of a structure or funding exhibits within the stockade in exchange for some recognition of their assistance. After this plan has been finalized, the National Park Service would work toward the implementation of as many partnerships as possible at Grand Portage National Monument to achieve the goals of the plan as quickly as possible and to reach the level of coordination that would mean a successful experience for all partners. DECISION POINTS The general public, the park staff, and other agencies identified a variety of issues and concerns during scoping for this Draft General Management Plan. Comments, which were solicited at public meetings and through a planning newsletter, were received via e-mail, telephone, and letters. Additional information on issues identification and public involvement is available in the ìConsultation and Coordinationî chapter. Some comments were outside of the scope of this plan. Some concerns identified during scoping are already covered by laws, regulations, or policies or would be in violation of such requirements. These kinds of requirements are discussed in appendix A, ìServicewide Mandates and Policies.î Because they are mandatory requirements, these matters are not subject to decision in this plan. Other issues identified during scoping were at an operational or developmental level of detail. Such issues are most appropriately associated with the monumentís five-year strategic plan or implementation plans. Those plans will be based on the resource conditions and visitor experiences to be achieved at Grand Portage National Monument, which will be 

established in the final general managemesome of the concepts behind operational oissues were incorporated into the alternatthis draft document. Scoping demonstrated that there is much about the national monument. In particulaexisting feeling and character of the nationcontinue and be expanded. On the basis oand agency concerns, four major resource experience issues, called decision points, 

Draft General Management Plan focuses decision points, which are identified belowThis document analyzes the current condialternatives regarding the appropriate levelocations for visitor interpretation and edu(ìdecision pointsî) that led to the developalternatives include the following: 1. To what extent can visitor services (inc

and facilities be provided at Grand PortMonument without impacting natural aresources (especially historical characte• Is it efficient for staff to shuttle betwe

Grand Portage? 

• Is it necessary to provide year-round 

tation, and ranger services in Grand P

• Is orientation an appropriate use of th• Does the national monument need a m

attendant collection/archives space? 

• Does the national monument need a v

PLANNING OPPORTUNITIES AND ISSUES
 13

• Should the national monument provide camping facilities 

(Fort Charlotte campsites, washrooms, showers,) for visitors arriving from the backcountry? 

• How should Fort Charlotte be accessed and interpreted? • Should the national monument provide camping facilities 

near the lakeshore? 

2. To what extent can administrative and support services and 

facilities be efficiently and effectively provided without impacting resources? • Where should a headquarters facility be, Grand Marais or 

Grand Portage? 

• Does the national monument need employee support 

services at Grand Portage such as housing for permanent and seasonal staff? 

• Where should maintenance facilities for the national 

monument be? 

3. To what extent should the national monumentís built 

environment and interpretive focus be on the 1790s ìgolden eraî of the fur trade while including greater attention to Ojibwe heritage and history? • How much landscape restoration is feasible and desirable? • What is the appropriate level of treatment for landscapes 

and structures (preservation, restoration, reconstruction) commensurate with visitor understanding and expectations? 

• What is the best way to focus on the economic, political, 

and social aspects of the site? 

• What is the best way to focus on the m

the site? 

• What is the best way to tell the fur tra

contemporary Indian Reservation? 

• What is the best means of interpreting 

century Ojibwe remains and story? 

4. To what extent should the national mo

other agencies to further common needmission? • What partnerships can be implemente

visitorsí stay in the Grand Portage are

• Can partnerships be implemented to p

ecosystems, and site hydrology both inational monument boundary? 

• How much all-terrain vehicle (ATV) a

access within the national monument how can such uses be controlled? (se

This document does not specifically addrequestions; however, the team used them tplanning in developing the alternatives.
 15

IMPACT TOPICS — RESOURCES AND VALUES AT STAKE IN THE PLANNING PROCESS

This section identifies the resources and values (impact topics) that were considered in the planning process and describes the criteria used to establish the relevance of each impact topic to long-term planning for the national monument. Specific resources and values, called impact topics, were used to focus the planning process and the assessment of potential consequences of the alternatives. The following criteria were used to determine important resources and values for Grand Portage National Monument: • Resources cited in the establishing legislation for the 

national monument. The establishing legislation for the national monument is reproduced in appendix B. A summary of relevant elements of the legislation is provided in the section entitled ìSpecial Mandates and Administrative Commitments.î 

• Resources critical to maintaining the significance and 

character of the national monument. The section on 

ìSignificanceî describes the defining features of Grand Portage National Monument that were used to establish the resources that are critical to maintaining its significance and character. 

• Resources recognized as important by laws or regulations.

Many of the important congressional acts and executive orders that guide the management of all National Park Service facilities, including Grand Portage National Monument, are listed in appendix B. Some of the relevant 

elements of these acts and orders are suappendix A, ìServicewide Mandates an

• Values of concern to the public that w

scoping for this draft plan. The Nationconducted an extensive public informatprogram to acquire input from the publagencies. This helped the National Park alternatives and identify resources and high interest in Grand Portage Nationa

Each impact topic relative to these criteria below. The ìEnvironmental Consequencesmore detailed description of each impact tof each of the four proposed management planning team selected the resource impacbased on the potential for each resource to alternatives. CULTURAL RESOURCES Archeology and History Grand Portage National Monument is listRegister of Historic Places as nationally siassociation with the fur trade and the expcolonization of the northwest, its historic/between the United States and Canada, anof preservation in a semi-wilderness settin
 16

monumentís enabling legislation recognizes the need for 

preserving its ìunique historical values.î Indeed, the archeological and historic resources and how to interpret them were the main focus during scoping sessions with the public held in June 1999. Sacred Sites It is believed that an important Ojibwe ceremonial site sacred to the Grand Portage Band may exist within or closely adjacent to the national monument. NATURAL RESOURCES Soils All action alternatives propose developments and road realignment. These actions could impact the soil resource. Air Quality Grand Portage National Monument is a class II air quality protection zone. Alternatives B and C propose to restore the landscape to a historical appearance. Prescribed (managementignited) fire might be used to meet this objective and could impact air quality. Water Quality and Aquatic Species All action alternatives propose to remove the existing dock, and Alternatives B, C, and E also include proposals to reconstruct a historical wharf. These actions in addition to 

proposed construction could affect water habitat. General Vegetation and Fuel LoadinAll the action alternatives include removincontemporary elements and rehabilitating a more appropriate setting for interpreting Grand Portage community. This could havcomposition and structure of existing vegeloading. Threatened or Endangered Species oSpecies of Concern — Plants All the action alternatives would include dexisting Isle Royale parking lot. This deveclose to state-listed plants and potentially plants. VISITOR EXPERIENCE AND INTERPRETAll action alternatives propose changes in would use and experience the resources omonument. POPULATION, ECONOMY, AND LAND The alternatives provide various levels of dof the national monument that could affecwould stay in the community and where falocated. There could be differences in econlocal community based on these difference

IMPACT TOPICS ó RESOURCES AND VALUES AT STAKE IN THE PLANNING PROCESS
 17

monument bisects the Reservation, any proposed actions related to circulation and site access, facilities construction, or landscape restoration could impact local land use policies or plans (Land Use Ordinance of the Grand Portage Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians 1996, as amended). Likewise, the land use policies of the Grand Portage Band outside Grand Portage National Monument could affect the character of the national monument, its circulation, and the location of facilities. Many of these possible conflicts were discussed during public scoping. 

LOCAL AND REGIONAL TRANSPORTALocal and regional transportation was ideimpact topic. Issues of visitor safety, site arestoration, and community circulation threlate specifically to the local transportatiothe Reservation. Relocating roads in the nand immediate vicinity was a topic of discscoping. The National Park Service would Grand Portage Band regarding any proposroads. 
 18

TABLE 1: IMPACT SUMMARY

IMPACT TOPIC CULTURAL LANDSCAPE

ARCHEOLOGY AND 

HISTORY SACRED SITES

LOCAL AND REGIONAL 

TRANSPORTATION

ECONOMY, 

POPULATION, AND 

LAND USE

Alternative A 

No Action 

Historic landscape would not be restored. Intrusive development would continue to exist in most historic areas. Cumulative Impact: minor and long-term. No impairment. 

Archeological and historical investigations would precede development. Cumulative Impact: No impact. No impairment. 

No proposals for area of sacred site. Cumulative Impact: None. No impairment. 

No proposals for changes to local or regional transportation. Cumulative Impact: No shortor long-term impacts. No impairment. 

No impact on population, economy or land use within community. Cumulative Impact: Negligibllong-term. No impairment. 

Alternative B 

Fur Trade 

with 

Maritime 

Emphasis 

Housing and maintenance moved out of national monument. Focus on interior stockade landscape but some restoration elsewhere. County Road 17 would remain.Cumulative Impact: moderate, beneficial, longterm. No impairment. 

Archeological and historic investigations would precede development. Upgraded collections storage. Some collections returned to site. Cumulative Impact: moderate, short-term. No impairment. 

Trail construction would be preceded by archeology and consultations. Cumulative Impact: None. No impairment. 

Minor CR 17 realignment. Cumulative Impact: minor short-term, no long-term impact. No impairment. 

New heritage center and extended visitor season could booeconomy. Shortterm impact from construction. Cumulative Impact: minor short-term, minor long-term. No impairment. 
 19

TABLE 1: IMPACT SUMMARY (continued) 

IMPACT TOPIC CULTURAL LANDSCAPE

ARCHEOLOGY AND 

HISTORY* SACRED SITES

LOCAL AND REGIONAL 

TRANSPORTATION

ECONOMY, 

POPULATION, AND 

LAND USE

Alternative C 

Fur Trade 

and Ojibwe 

Heritage 

Facilities moved out of national monument. Some landscape restoration. CR17 removed from monument. Cumulative Impact: moderate, long-term inside and outside monument with both beneficial and adverse impacts. No impairment. 

Archeological and historical investigations would precede development. Upgraded collections storage. All collections returned to site. Cumulative Impact: minor, short-term. No impairment. 

Trail and shelter construction would be preceded by archeology and consultations. Cumulative Impact: None, No impairment. 

Two phase road realignment and facilities on MN 61. Cumulative Impact: minor short-term, moderate, longterm impact within monument and local area. Negligible in regional area. No impairment. 

New Heritage Center on MN 61 open year-round. monument staff living in community, possible secondardevelopment. Short-term economic impact from constructionCumulative Impact: minor short-term,moderate longterm, beneficial. No impairment. 

Alternative D 

Heritage 

Center Focus 

Facilities moved out of national monument. Landscape reflects continuum. Partial road realignment. Cumulative Impact: moderate, long-term inside and outside monument with both beneficial and adverse impacts. No impairment. 

Archeological and historical investigations would precede development. Upgraded collections storage. All collections returned to site. Cumulative Impact: minor, short-term. No impairment. 

No proposals for area of sacred site. Cumulative Impact: None, No impairment. 

Partial road realignment and facilities on MN 61 Cumulative Impact: minor short-term,moderate longterm impact within monument and local area. Negligible on regional area. No impairment. 

New Heritage Center on MN 61 open year-round. monument staff living in community, possible secondardevelopment. Short-term economic impact from constructionCumulative Impact: minor short-term, moderate longterm beneficial. No impairment. 
 20

TABLE 1: IMPACT SUMMARY (continued) 

IMPACT TOPIC CULTURAL LANDSCAPE

ARCHEOLOGY AND 

HISTORY* SACRED SITES

LOCAL AND REGIONAL 

TRANSPORTATION

ECONOMY, 

POPULATION, AN

LAND USE

Alternative E 

Preferred 

Alternative 

Housing and maintenance moved out of national monument. Landscape reflects continuum. Threephase road realignment. Cumulative Impact: Moderate, long-term inside and outside monument with both beneficial and adverse effects. No impairment. 

Archeological and historical investigations would precede development. Upgraded collections storage. Some collections returned to site. Cumulative Impact: Minor, short-term. No impairment. 

Trail and shelter construction would be preceded by archeology and consultations. Cumulative Impact: None, No impairment. 

Three-phase road realignment and gateway on MN 61. Cumulative Impact: Minor short-term, moderate longterm impact within monument and local area. Negligible on regional area. No impairment. 

New heritage center and extended visitor season could boeconomy. monument staff living community, possible secondary development at gateway. Shortterm economic impact from construction. Cumulative Impact: Minor short-term, moderate longterm beneficial effect. No impairment. 
 21

IMPACT TOPICS DISMISSED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION The topics discussed below will not be addressed further in this document for the reasons outlined under each topic heading. 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. None of the proposed alternatives 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 proposed developments and actions 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 impacts on the natural and physical environment that 

would occur in any of the alternatives would not significantly and adversely affect any minority or lowincome population or community. 

• The alternatives would not result in any identified effects 

that would be specific to any minority or low-income community. 

• The planning team actively solicited public comments 

during the development of this plan and gave equal 

consideration to all input, regardless of age, race, income status, or other sociodemographic factors. 

• Park staff have consulted and worked w

Portage Band of Minnesota Chippewa do so in cooperative efforts to improve resolve any problems that occur. No neeffects were identified that would dispradversely affect American Indians. 

• Impacts on the socioeconomic environm

alternatives would be minor or positive mostly within the local and regional geothe monument. These impacts would nbut would be spread over a number of yreduce their magnitude. The impacts on environment would not substantially alsocial structure of the nearby communi

INDIAN TRUST RESOURCES Grand Portage National Monument is witPortage Reservation, and the Grand PortaMinnesota Chippewa donated some of its the establishing legislation notes that the lì. . . in trust by the United States of Ameror band. . . .î The legislation recognizes thwas played by the Ojibwe in the history of 
 22

importance of the relationship between the national monument and the Band. This relationship was a primary topic of discussion during scoping and subsequently during the generation of alternatives. However, Grand Portage National Monument is public property managed by the National Park Service, and the Grand Portage Band did not retain any property rights that would constitute a legal trust responsibility. That is not to say that the Band does not have certain other rights to the land that are spelled out in the legislation establishing the national monument. Those rights will be honored. PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY The proposed developments and actions in the alternatives would not result in any identifiable human health or safety concerns, either direct or indirect. The alternatives were designed to take these factors into consideration and to remove them wherever possible. Several alternatives describe changes to the local transportation system within and outside the national monument that would greatly reduce the possibility of vehicle-pedestrian accidents. ENERGY CONSUMPTION Several of the alternatives describe the need for new facilities and roads. Energy consumption within buildings would be considered within design, and the maximum use of energy saving concepts would be implemented. 

New roads proposed would be approximately the same distance as the roads they replace, resulting in a negligible change in gasoline consumption. 

GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY Altering geologic processes and features is of the alternatives. Some earthmoving and association with facility construction and proposed; however, they would not impacprocesses or features or cause substantial topography. PRIME AND UNIQUE AGRICULTURAL LThe soils and topography in Grand Portagmonument are not conducive to agriculturprime or unique agricultural lands exist w(NPS 1995). WATER QUANTITY AND TIMING None of the proposed alternatives would mquantity of water or timing of runoff. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT Grand Portage National Monument and GReservation are listed as excluded lands frLake Superior Coastal Program (NOAA 1exempts the preferred alternatives from feprovisions of section 307 of the Coastal Zif they do not affect land or water use or nwithin Minnesotaís Lake Superior Coastathe proposed alternatives would have any water use or natural resources outside of GNational Monument or Grand Portage Ind

IMPACT TOPICS DISMISSED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION
 23

FLOODPLAINS Regulatory floodplain mapping is currently unavailable for Cook County. However, during the development of a 1991 environmental assessment to construct proposed master plan developments, Cook County officials were consulted, and no floodplains were identified within Grand Portage National Monument (NPS 1991). Because it is likely that there are, in fact, floodplains, the national monument will follow NPS policy. That policy recognizes and manages for the preservation of floodplain values, minimizes potentially hazardous conditions associated with flooding, and adheres to all federally mandated laws and regulations related to the management of activities in floodprone areas. This topic was determined to be a project level issue; therefore, it will not be addressed further in this document. Floodplains will be addressed at the project level by ensuring that projects are consistent with the floodplain policy of the National Park Service (Directorís Order 12) and Executive Order 11988. WETLANDS Regulatory wetlands and waters of the United States exist throughout Grand Portage National Monument. Proposed development and road realignment could potentially affect wetlands. Wetlands in the monument include a beaver marsh astride a western section of the portage, riparian wetlands adjacent to Grand Portage, Poplar, and Snow Creeks, and 3.3 acres of forested swamp and wet meadow in the southeastern corner of the monument in the area bounded by County Road 17, old BIA 5 (the ìboneyard roadî), and Lower Bay Road. It is NPS policy to avoid affecting wetlands and to minimize impacts when they are unavoidable. However, it is difficult to address impacts on wetlands without site plans, and impacts can often be avoided by simply relocating a development in a slightly different manner. This topic was determined to be a 

project level issue; therefore, it will not be this document. Wetlands will be addressed by ensuring that projects are consistent wpolicy (DO 77-1), Executive Order 11990the Clean Water Act. EXOTIC VEGETATION AND NOXIOUS WAbout 50 exotic plant species are present National Monument. Only two of these spthe rest are innocuous and do not change No program is in place to control these inspecies because eradication would be very program would be cost prohibitive ó the the benefits. The only concern these speciof presenting a true historical landscape, wobservant person with knowledge of exotinotice. None of the alternatives proposes with the innocuous exotic species. Two exotic plants in the monument are lisnoxious weed list as primary noxious wee(Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. var. horridum 

and sow thistle (Sonchus uliginosa Bieb.)

obligates the National Park Service to takeradicate these plants within the boundary National Monument. The monument currpopulations closely and controls them throhand pulling. The existing noxious weed cwould continue in all alternatives. GENERAL WILDLIFE A faunal study completed in 1995 docume102 bird, 27 mammal, 8 amphibian, and 1 
 24

within Grand Portage National Monument (Graetz et al. 1995). In addition, 17 bird, 17 mammal, 3 reptile, and 4 amphibian species have been known to occur in the vicinity of Cook County but were not found in the two years of surveys supporting the 1995 study in the monument. Increased disturbance and loss of some habitat could occur with proposed construction activities and developments. However, the proposed construction and development in all action alternatives occur in the eastern part of the monument, which is degraded through high disturbance levels from urban development, MN Highway 61, other roads, and human use. Wildlife species inhabiting the eastern part of the monument would be adapted to high levels of disturbance and human activity and would be negligibly affected by any of the proposed alternatives. None of the proposed alternatives would be expected to cause measurable changes in the abundance or distribution of any wildlife species. THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES OR SPECIES OF CONCERN — WILDLIFE The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that two wildlife species proposed for federal listing as threatened or endangered may occur or have habitat in the area of Grand Portage National Monument. These species are gray wolf (Canis lupus), threatened, and Canada lynx (Lynx 

canadensis), threatened. All of Grand Portage National Monument is within listed critical habitat for the gray wolf. In 1992 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service developed the Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf, which defines actions that are believed to be necessary for the recovery or protection of the species. The monument contains habitat to support part of the larger home range necessary for the gray wolf. Deer, moose, and beaver appear to be plentiful as a prey base within and adjacent to the monument. Open road 

densities for this area are low, and potentirendezvous sites exist in the monument. A faunal study in 1993 and 1994 (Graetz, 1995) indicated transient use of Grand PoMonument by the gray wolf. Protection mthe wolf population recover to the point ththe threatened species list is occasionally Based on anecdotal information, Canada lsighted in the monument but have been seHowever, lynx denning and travel habitat Portage National Monument within maturconifer and mixed conifer-hardwood foresexist adjacent to the monument within recareas in the Grand Portage Indian Reservatimber management activities have also rethat favor coyote, a primary lynx competitAll action alternatives possibly could affeclikely to adversely affect gray wolf and Caconclusion is based on the following infor• All action alternatives would maintain 

condition along the portage trail and Foof Grand Portage National Monument. 

• Proposed developments and changes in 

would all occur in the eastern part of thareas where gray wolf and lynx habitat degraded through high disturbance levedevelopment, Minnesota Highway 61 (and human use. 

• Only modest increases in visitation (ap

20%) would be expected for the portagCharlotte area. Despite the expected intion levels would still remain low, and n

IMPACT 

TOPICS 

DISMISSED FROM 

FURTHER 

CONSIDERATION Threatened or Endangered Spe
 25

use would be expected. Disturbance of habitat for statelisted species would remain low. 

Faunal surveys indicate that the following state-listed species occur or could occur in Grand Portage National Monument: 

Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) ó threatened 

Gray wolf (Canis lupus) ó special concern Snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina) ó special concern Cerulean warbler (Dendroica cerulea) ó special concern 

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) ó special concern Woodland vole (Microtus pinetorum) ó special concern 

Least weasel (Mustela nivalis) ó special concern 

A taking of any of the state-listed species would not be expected to occur with the implementation of any of the proposed alternatives. This conclusion is based on the following: • All action alternatives would maintain the existing 

condition along the portage trail and Fort Charlotte portions of the monument. 

• Proposed developments and changes in 

would all occur in the eastern part of thareas where habitat for state-listed specdegraded through high disturbance levedevelopment, MN 61, other roads, and modest increases in visitation (approxiwould be expected for the portage trail Charlotte area. Despite the expected intion levels would remain low, and no chwould be expected. Disturbance of habspecies would remain low. 

For all the action alternatives, the potentiaspecies listed as endangered, threatened, owould be negligible. Endangered, threatenspecies will be addressed at the project levconsultations with the U.S. Fish and WildMinnesota Department of Natural Resourprotection of these species. Based on thesmitigating measures would be incorporateproposals if necessary to address any concspecies. 

Threatened or Endangered Species or S
 26
 27

ALTERNATIVES 

The way the alternatives were developed on the basis of scoping is described under ìFormulation of Alternatives.î After each alternative was defined in a general way, developing the alternatives was a two-step process. 1. The National Park Service identified management prescriptions that potentially were applicable to Grand Portage 

National Monument. Each management prescription was defined by desired visitor experiences and resource conditions. This helped establish the kinds of activities or facilities within each prescription that would achieve those targeted conditions. 

2. The management prescriptions were then mapped to 

specific areas of the national monument to create four alternatives evaluated in this Draft General Management Plan.

Each alternative is a combination of several management prescriptions, the locations of which may vary among alternatives.POTENTIAL MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS A management prescription is an approach for administering or treating the resources or uses of a specified area based on 

desired outcomes. This section includes alprescriptions that could be applied to GraMonument under any of the alternatives. Management prescriptions include target for one or more resources and/or visitor epresent within the prescription area. In soment prescriptions apply to an entire parkalternatives for Grand Portage National Mmultiple zones with different management six management prescriptions proposed foNational Monument are described below atable 2.

The management prescriptions included in the desired resource conditions and visitoincluding the appropriate kinds and levels and development. Together, all the managin an alternative meet all the goals of the nDifferent physical, biological, and social cemphasized in each zone. The factors that management prescription are the desired vand the desired natural and cultural resoufactors then indicate the types of activities appropriate within the zone. 
 28

TABLE 2: POTENTIAL 

MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTIONS

Zone Desired Condition 

Primitive Trail • No mechanized vehicular transport 

• Few signs or waysides • Minimal trail development • Protect archeological resources at ìposesî • Maintain rugged character ó footboards, treefalls cut to appear natural, some pr

vegetation for fire safety 

• Individual personal/physical visitor experience (1790s-like) NPS provides some c

have primary opportunity to learn about monument through books, brochures, et

Recreation • Campsites have a primitive character 

• Minimal interpretation and orientation to Grand Portage National Monument sto• Provide aesthetically pleasing yet primitive camping experience • Develop alternative access to backcountry 

Resources Trust • Minimal interpretation (not site-specific) 

• Vegetation management. to protect resources (rare and wetlands plants and arch• Archeological ìdata bankî • Visitors receive indirect info about resources and resource preservation • Continue inventory and monitoring of resources 

Maintenance / Park Operations • Does not intrude on historical areas (physically or visually) 

• Close to facilities (heritage center, housing, or ranger station) • Screened from housing/administration • Visitors would not experience this zone 

Visitor Services and Development 

• Away from historic resources 

• Accessible pathways and contemporary facilities with sensitive alteration of exist• Frequent ranger contacts • Orientation info ó library/museum/office ó varied interpretive media • Fee collection • Visitors would be introduced to all the monumentís interpretive themes and fully 

of interpretive and recreational opportunities at Grand Portage National Monum

• An in-depth interactive enriched interpretive experience 

Interpretive Historic • Nonintrusive accessibility ó minimize modern intrusions 

• Authentic historic scene • Landscape restoration and reconstruction of structures appropriate • Varied interpretive media that would not intrude on historic scene 

ALTERNATIVES
 29

Regardless of the target visitor experience or resource condition, all management prescriptions conform to all parkspecific purpose, significance, and mission goals and to the servicewide mandates and policies described earlier in this document. For example an archeological site would be protected regardless of the zone in which it occurred. However, the use of that site for interpretive or educational purposes could vary, depending on the management prescription to which its vicinity was assigned. Management prescriptions are generally future focused, not a description of the status quo. Therefore, the management prescriptions generally do not apply to the ìNo Action,î or status quo, alternative. However, because the monument currently has no active management zoning, the current situation cannot be readily compared to the proposed zoning. To rectify this, and to allow the reader to better compare alternatives, Alternative A has been described using the same management prescription zoning that is used for all other alternatives. Table 3 shows the estimated zone acreages for each alternative. Primitive Trail Zone Desired Visitor Experience. The primitive trail zone would give 

visitors a sense of being transported back to the late 1700s. 

There would be no mechanized vehicles, afoster a feeling of tranquility, of immersion comforts and conveniences. The frequency other visitors and staff would be low on m

this zone would require a relatively long tia high level of physical exertion. The envira relatively high degree of challenge and afor noise, visual intrusions, and social intelow. Visitor information would come priminterpretive media in the frontcountry. 

Desired Resource Condition. The primitivfeature a rugged trail through a natural-apcorridor. Historic vegetation would be reespecies removed to maintain the historic ctrees have fallen, they would be allowed to interfere with the trail. Visitors would croerosion over footboards as was done histohistoric resting areas of the voyageurs, wotheir possible archeological values protectService tolerance for adverse impacts to re

visitor use would be very low. 

TABLE 3: ESTIMATED 

ZONE 

ACREAGES FOR 

EACH 

ALTERNATIVE

ZONE

ALTERNATIVE A 

ALTERNATIVE B 

ALTERNATIVE C 

ALTERNATIVE D 

A

Historic Interpretation 

7.7 acres (1.1%) 17.0 acres (2.4%) 24.7 acres (3.5%) 10.1 acres (1.4%) 20

Park Operations 2.4 acres (0.3%) Primitive Trail 9.8 acres (1.4%) 9.8 acres (1.4%) 9.8 acres (1.4%) 9.8 acres (1.4%) 9.Recreation 1.5 acres (0.2%) 1.5 acres (0.2%) 1.5 acres (0.2%) 1.5 acres (0.2%) 1.Resources Trust 685.4 acres 

(96.5%) 

676.6 acres 

(95.3%) 

672.8 acres 

(94.8%) 

687.4 acres 

(96.8%) 

Visitor Services and Development 

3.2 acres (0.4%) 5.1 acres (0.7%) 1.2 acres (0.2%) 1.2 acres (0.2%) 5.

Potential M

Potential M
 30

Appropriate Kinds of Visitor Activities or Facilities. The only activity permitted would be hiking and hiking-related actions. No camping would be allowed. Facilities would consist of the trail itself. Recreation Zone Desired Visitor Experience. The recreation zone would contain well-defined trail and campsite areas. The trails would consist of well-maintained or groomed pathways designed to reach a specific destination, but not necessarily the focus of a visitorís experience. The use of this zone would require a commitment of time and exertion. The probability of visitors encountering other visitors would be moderate to high on most days. The likelihood of visitors encountering staff would be low. There would be a good chance of solitary experiences. Noise tolerance would be low to moderate. Visitor information would come from signs placed at overlooks or stops along the trail or interpretive media in the frontcountry. Campsites would appear as an integral part of the ìvoyageursí highwayî in an aesthetically pleasing yet primitive character. There would be a high probability of encountering other campers within the relatively small area. Tolerance for noise and visual intrusion would be moderate. Visitor information would come primarily from interpretive media in the frontcountry. Desired Resource Condition or Character. Trails and campsites would be in a well-maintained condition to provide adequate visitor safety and to protect the quality of the resource. Resource modifications would be evident but would harmonize with the surrounding environment through the use of color, setting, and native materials. NPS tolerance for adverse impacts due to visitor use would be low. Facilities would be away from sensitive cultural and natural resources that could not be protected. 

Appropriate Kinds of Visitor Activities or 

recreation zone would be primarily moderand well-used campsites. Foremost would shoeing, cross-country skiing, and other tralso be appropriate. Resources Trust Zone Desired Visitor Experience. The resources 

includes undeveloped or culturally sensitivnational monument, would be interpreted frontcountry. It would receive light visitor free of development. Desired Resource Condition or Characterinclude areas of the Grand Portage Nationvery low use is desirable to protect certain where access is difficult. Management for and safety would be limited, consisting of monitoring of sensitive resources. NPS toimpacts to resources would be very low. Appropriate Kinds of Visitor Activities or 

facilities would be appropriate in the resouincluding trails or docks. No campsites woInventory and monitoring of cultural and would be ongoing. Maintenance / Park Operations Zone Visitor Experience. The maintenance / paprobably would not be visited by the genebe highly developed and specialized to meand housing needs of national monument Desired Resource Condition or Character

developed in the national monument, or rease of staff access. They would not intrudor cultural significance either physically o

ALTERNATIVES
 31

Appropriate Kinds of Visitor Activities or Facilities.Appropriate facilities in the maintenance / park operations zone would be those necessary to the day-to-day maintenance of the monument and to the housing needs of the staff, such as maintenance yards, residential areas, access roads, utility areas, and corridors. Visitor Services and Development Zone Desired Visitor Experience. Here visitors would pay their entrance fees and receive an overview of monument resources, significance, concepts, and themes in a relatively short time and with a minimum of exertion. Particularly involved or complicated concepts would be especially appropriate in this zone. At times when the stockade was closed, this zone would constitute the principal interpretive experience for visitors. Interaction and encounters with other visitors and monument staff would be common, with occasional periods of overcrowding during fall color and special events. All facilities would harmonize with the area and the natural and cultural resources in proportion, color, and texture. Desired Resource Condition or Character. The structures in the visitor services and development zone would be highly developed for integration into the natural landscape and for ease of function and visitor movement around the site. They would be within walking distance but away from the historic resources to allow visitors to ìtransitionî back to the historic period of the stockade. All structures would be of contemporary design. Compatible with scale and materials of structures found elsewhere on site. Sensitive landscape design and accessible pathways would be developed. Appropriate Kinds of Activities or Facilities. The visitor services and development zone would be highly developed with convenient and accessible facilities, including a visitor orientation/information/exhibition museum facility and parking. Learning about the national monument, short walks, 

and attending interpretive programs would activities in this zone. Reconstructed strucquarters, shops, warehouses, offices, or lathe historic period would be appropriate. Vkiosks, wayside exhibits, and other interprbe appropriate. Support facilities such as rfacilities, and parking would also be preseInterpretive Historic Zone Desired Visitor Experience. Visitors would reconstructed/refurnished structures and wdemonstration shelter that would supplemor information provided in the visitor servment zone. Visitors would encounter perspretation of life within and around the sto1700s from costumed interpreters and uniVisitors would be able to sense the hustle day life. The probability of encountering owould be high. Visiting this zone would reof several hours. Visual intrusions and nowith historic activities would be unwelcomDesired Resource Condition or Characterinterpretive historic zone would be the reshistoric landscape with historic structures reflecting the bustle and crowded nature oing the stockade. Interpretive media such would be as unobtrusive as possible so as the siteís character. Paved walkways woulprotect the landscape from overuse. NPS timpacts on resources due to visitor use woAppropriate Kinds of Visitor Activities or would be able to spend their time learning and the associated history of the Ojibwe ppeople with disabilities would be designed 

Potential M
 32

as possible in keeping with the historic character of the zone. Support facilities such as restrooms would also be appropriate if designed to be unobtrusive. Reconstructed structures, such as quarters, shops, warehouses, offices, or landscape features of the historic period, would be appropriate. Nonpark Areas The National Park Service does not zone properties it does not own. However, any National Park Service facilities constructed outside of national monument boundaries would be managed as though they were within the maintenance / park operations or visitor services and development zones, subject to consultation with the Grand Portage Band. Site-specific environmental documentation would be required before any construction at these locations. PUBLIC INPUT AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES Many aspects of the desired future condition of Grand Portage National Monument are defined in the establishing legislation and in purpose and significance statements and servicewide mandates and policies (see appendix A) that were described earlier. Within these boundaries, the National Park Service solicited input from the public regarding the long-term goals for the national monument and measures that could be implemented to achieve those goals. The public was first invited to suggest ideas for the future of the national monument during scoping at the beginning of the general management planning process in June 1999 (see ìConsultation and Coordinationî). A total of 27 people attended the three public meetings, and many additional suggestions were received via letters, telephone calls, or e-mail. 

On the basis of public comments, and withestablished by legislation and mandates, thdeveloped a no-action alternative and threalternative scenarios that attempted to refideas proposed by the public. These alternof visitor experience and resource conditiooutcomes, or actual conditions on the grothe management prescriptions. These conwith the public in a newsletter dated Apridocument reflects comments on the newslDuring June 2000, the National Park Servalternatives using a technique called ìChoAdvantages.î Following that session, a fifdeveloped to take advantage of the benefitalternatives. The configurations for future conditions awithin each alternative were developed by management prescriptions (described in thon the map. ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION 

ConceptThe no-action alternative is an attempt to happen to the national monument if presepractices and trends were projected into thPortage National Monument would be maevolved thus far. It would be likely that viany substantial change in appearance or onational monument, since the goal would existing visitor experiences and activities monumentís natural, cultural, and scenic v

ALTERNATIVES
 33

The no-action alternative forms a basis for comparison of the other alternatives (which are referred to throughout the document as ìactionî alternatives). There would be no major changes in resource management, visitor programs, or facilities beyond regular maintenance. The current road system through the monument would remain and existing management would continue. The Grand Portage Band of Minnesota Chippewa and Grand Portage National Monument have a fundamental partnership that includes operations, research, and interpretation under the Indian Self Governance Act agreement. No changes to that partnership would occur. The national monument staff would continue to work closely with the Minnesota Historical Society, particularly in the area of collections, archives, and 

historic preservation. More limited partnerships would continue with the state of Minnesotaís Grand Portage State Park and Departments of Tourism and Transportation. Measures that could be taken to achieve the goals of Alternative A are embodied in the management prescriptions presented below. These are shown on the accompanying maps and summarized in table 2. Management prescription zoning under Alternative A is shown in the Alternative A zoning map. Note: Grand Portage National Monument does not now have an active general management plan. Therefore, no zoning is in effect. However, each alternative has been described as though the management prescription zoning proposed in this plan were in effect as a way for the reader to better compare the alternatives. 

Primitive Trail Zone Approximately 1.4 percent of the national encompassed in the primitive trail zone un(9.8 acres based on a 3-meter width). Thechange in the management of this zone. It be minimally maintained for visitor safety continue to have a semblance of its historiwould be no new trails. Any interpretation this zone would occur via brochure or intetalks at the stockade. Archeological featuridentified and protected. Wheeled or motozone would continue to be strictly limitedThe goal for this area would be for visitors ence of traversing the historic portage. Thremain as a fairly primitive trail surroundeforest. Although no attempt would be madforest along the trail corridor to more accuhistoric appearance, visitors would be able adventure and a better appreciation for thvoyageurs using the portage.Recreation Zone The recreation zone would make up appro(1.5 acres) of the national monument. Themajor change in the management of this zcampsites would be maintained to provide pleasing yet primitive camping experiencegeneral nature ó describing the Grand PoMonument, its features, and its history ó  a kiosk near the Fort Charlotte campsitescontinue to provide protection for archeolretain its rugged character reminiscent of 

ALTERNATIVES 


 36

Resources Trust Zone The resources trust zone would be primarily an ìarcheological data bankî ó an area managed to protect unexcavated archeological resources. However, this zone would also be used to protect wetlands or areas containing habitat for rare species. As such, its resources would be interpreted only indirectly, through brochures or NPS ranger talks. Although visitors would not be prohibited in this zone, there would be little reason for them to seek it out. No trails would be developed in this zone. The resources trust zone in Alternative A would encompass about 96.6 percent (686 acres) of the national monument. Fort Charlotte, at the western end of the portage, would retain its current appearance and continue to have a dual purpose under the no-action alternative: it would be managed as an archeological data bank and provide minimal camping facilities near, but not on, archeological sites. Existing minimal wayside exhibits would also remain on the site. Maintenance / Park Operations Zone Under Alternative A the headquarters would remain in Grand Marais. Museum collections storage would continue to be split between headquarters and the Minnesota Historical Society and not easily accessed by monument staff for display or research. The maintenance area would remain in its present location on County Road 17 northeast of the stockade. The small, outdated facilities in the maintenance area would continue to be repaired and used until repair and use was no longer feasible, then new facilities would be constructed in the same approximate location. The maintenance storage area, or ìboneyard,î separate from the maintenance area, would stay in the northeast corner of the national monument. Seasonal employees would continue to live in mobile homes in the 

maintenance area until the homes could nlonger, then they would be replaced with lgeneral area of the national monument. Thonsite NPS ranger would remain on Couninside the west boundary. With the exceptnone of these facilities would be likely to pinterest. This zone would encompass apprpercent (2.4 acres) of the national monumVisitor Services and Development ZoDuring the May to October visitor season, such as information/orientation, NPS rantalks, or sales by the cooperating associatiout of the stockade. The rest of the year, vabout the monument would be available aGrand Marais only. During the Isle Royale visitor season (midSeptember), the Isle Royale parking area walong County Road 17 would remain open staff assisting visitors taking the boat over dock and Isle Royale boat would remain lapeople with disabilities, but the National Pcontinue to seek ways to make the dock mCounty Road 17 would continue to bisect monument and serve the local community lower speed alternative route through the 61. The visitor services and development zone approximately 0.4 percent (3.2 acres) of tmonument. 

ALTERNATIVES 
 37

Interpretive Historic Zone The interpretive historic zone would encompass all the historic resources that would be interpreted to the public or that provide the setting or landscape that would help visitors visualize what the Grand Portage looked like historically. This is the zone where visitors would be able to glimpse the northwestern frontier of the 1790s. In the no-action alternative this zone would overlap with the visitor services and development zone because, in the absence of a visitor information and orientation facility at Grand Portage, nearly all visitor information and orientation occurs in the stockade. In the no-action alternative this zone is relatively small (1.1 percent, 7.7 acres) because the emphasis of the alternative would be on the interior of the stockade and the area immediately outside to the west. The landscape of the rest of the national monument would be maintained ìas isî rather than restored to a more historic appearance. Although the stockade and surrounding area would be maintained as at present, the National Park Service would make an effort to make the site more accessible to visitors with disabilities where the changes would not permanently impact site resources. Walkway materials and grades would be adjusted where possible, and alternative methods for interpreting inaccessible features would be designed. The Great Hall would continue its multipurpose use as an area for visitor contact, interpretation, and sales. Major portions of the historic stockade landscape would not be restored; they would remain as archeological features. Interpretive exhibits, such as the gardens in and adjacent to the stockade, as well as the Ojibwe village / voyageur encampment, would remain within the historic stockade setting. Contemporary intrusions, such as County Road 17 as it passes the stockade, the NPS 

Ranger station parking lot, the restrooms, and the dock would be left in their current Visitor safety and resource protection wouthrough the installation of the newest fire suppression system available. The former village site east of Grand Portaretain both aboveground and subsurface rand mid 20th century landscape, including 

institutional, ceremonial, and public workpresent management approach focuses on archeological resources and the routine stmaintenance of extant features. There is minterpretation of the historic and contempcommunity. Cost The estimated cost of this alternative woumillion. See appendix C for assumptions mALTERNATIVE B: FUR TRADE WITH MARITIME EMPHASIS Concept The concept of Alternative B was inspired National Monumentís rich maritime histoundeveloped and unspoiled waterfront. ThGrand Portage Bay and Grand Portage Islthe waters beyond has changed little since traders. Reconstructed historic buildings, rehabilitated landscape, combined with an tive program of new exhibits and living hiswould help visitors to understand and app

Alternative B: Fur Trade 
 38

significance and meaning of the fur trading post in the 1790s. Distinct from other alternatives, Alternative B would bring a strong maritime interpretive emphasis focusing on Grand Portageís physical and historical relationship with Lake Superior. The visitor season, during which the stockade and historic buildings would be open to the public, would be extended,with the stockade open to the public for seven months, and a new onsite heritage center open all year. The heritage center would significantly enhance onsite interpretation through exhibits, educational sales, audiovisual programs, a research center with archives and library, and a demonstration shelter for interpretation and demonstration of traditional Ojibwe arts and culture. It would also provide visitor amenities such as parking, public washrooms, and areas for picnicking and cooperating association sales. During winter, with the stockade and its buildings closed, most onsite interpretation would shift to the heritage center, which would provide exhibits and visitor amenities. Collections space would be designed to house collections at the Midwest Archeological Center but not the much larger collection housed at the Minnesota Historical Society. A separate headquarters facility would be constructed in or near the national monument. County Road 17 would be adjusted within the Grand Portage National Monument to improve visitor safety. The Grand Portage Band of Minnesota Chippewa and the national monument have a fundamental partnership under the Indian Self-Governance Act agreement, which includes operations, particularly maintenance. Other partnership efforts with the Band involve resources management, interpretation, and possibly museum curation. No changes would be made to 

that agreement. The national monument wwork closely with the Minnesota Historicalarly in the area of collections, archives, antion. To a limited degree, the national moncooperate on interpretation with MinnesoState Park and Departments of Tourism aMeasures that could be taken to achieve tgoals are embodied in the management prbelow. These are shown on the accompansummarized in table 4, ìComparison of Alend of this chapter. Primitive Trail Zone The primitive trail zone would encompass percent (9.8 acres) of the national monumbe minimally maintained for visitor safety have a semblance of its historic appearancnew trails. Any interpretation of features icarried out through brochures or by interptalks at the stockade. 

Archeological features would be identified Wheeled or motorized access to this zone strictly limited. In an effort to restore historic forest coverand prevent dangerous levels of fuel loadinService would carry out selective use of prpiling and burning of woody fuel, suppressexotic plants, removal of hazard trees, and of vegetation in this zone. 

ALTERNATIVES
 39

The goal for trails would be the same as in Alternative A, to offer a primitive trail experience providing a glimpse into a voyageurís labors and landscape. Recreation Zone The recreation zone in Alternative B would make up approximately 0.2 percent (1.5 acres) of the national monument. There would be no major change in the management of this zone. Fort Charlotte campsites would be maintained to offer an aesthetically pleasing yet primitive camping experience. The rugged character reminiscent of the historic period would be retained. The Mount Rose trail, a 0.5-mile, relatively steep, paved walkway with a number of switch backs, handrails, and overlooks, would become a loop trail with an extension to the new heritage center. That trail would be maintained to its present standard. Resources Trust Zone The resources trust zone would be primarily an ìarcheological data bankî ó an area managed to protect unexcavated archeological resources. However, this zone would also be used to protect wetlands or areas containing rare species habitat. As such, its resources would be interpreted only indirectly, through brochures or NPS ranger talks. Although visitors would not be prohibited in this zone, there would be little reason for them to seek it out. No trails would be developed in this zone, although the Mount Rose trail would be removed from this zone and, as described above, would be converted to a loop trail. The resources trust zone in Alternative B would encompass about 95.3 percent (676.6 acres) of the national monument. 

Historic Fort Charlotte would continue to archeological landscape under Alternative features would continue to be preserved in data bank. The only landscape feature is a ment memorializing the trail, its preservatlotte as an embarkation point. Maintenancmainly on keeping the site clean. Access twould be upgraded with better signs and wa new interpretive brochure. This would aabout Fort Charlotteís significance to the The objectives and methods of manipulatizone would be similar to those used in the There would be little emphasis on removintrail obstructions, but similar emphasis on fuels, suppressing invasive exotic plants, aforest cover. Maintenance / Park Operations Zone No maintenance / park operations zone wAlternative B because all facilities that wozone would be provided outside the monuThe Grand Portage National Monument hbe built on Grand Portage Band land near ment, and it would be separate from the hMuseum collections would be stored at thfacility. The maintenance area would be a the national monument and the Grand Posota Chippewa, which would be built on toutside national monument boundaries. Twould be designed to meet the unique neesuch as covered vehicle storage, office spashops, and materials storage (boneyard). 

ALTERNATIVES Alternative B: Fur Trade 


 42

In alternative B, staff size would grow because of the increase in services and infrastructure. Further, because rental housing is scarce and expensive, the national monument must provide additional housing for seasonal and permanent staff. If possible, housing should be leased in Grand Portage, where employees can become part of the Reservation community. Or, if necessary, housing could be constructed on lands that could be transferred from the U.S. Forest Service (and thus off the Reservation). The NPS ranger quarters would be removed to an off-monument site, as well. Visitor Services and Development Zone The Isle Royale ferry operation would be moved offsite to allow for dock removal and construction of a more historically compatible wharf. Parking for the Isle Royale ferry also would be moved. A heritage center would be constructed on national monument grounds, most likely at the Isle Royale parking area. This facility would be open 7 months of the year and would function as a place of information/orientation covering site history and the culture and heritage of the Ojibwe people of Grand Portage. During the visitor season this structure would provide exhibit space and demonstrations of Ojibwe arts and culture, complementing the historic stockade. To allow construction of the heritage center nearer the shoreline, County Road 17 would be realigned to be closer to Mount Rose. Visitors would be able to park at the heritage center and walk to the stockade without crossing any roads. Removing all paving materials and replanting parts of the former roadbed with native plants would rehabilitate the landscape. Pedestrian trails and/or access roads for maintenance staff could be provided along the routes of the former roads. After the NPS ranger station and the parking lot were 

removed, the area would be replanted to cappearance, including a historic encampmstockade. In Alternative B, the visitor services and dwould occupy about 0.7 percent (5.1 acresmonument.  Interpretive Historic Zone The interpretive historic zone under alternlarger than in Alternative A; it would occunational monument (17 acres). The zone wfront areas to the east and west of the stocfocus on the stockade and the adjacent Lafront. A series of interpretive exhibits and waterfront would emphasize Grand PortaVisitors would approach the stockade from center to the west, entering through a busity around the lakeside gate just as newly would have done. The modern dock would replaced with a more accurate wharf for th1790s. The nearby wooden pedestrian bridPortage Creek would be removed, and one appropriate for the period would be reconroom/generator facility along the west palredesigned to fit into the historic setting, agenerator would be removed to the heritagspace created by removing the NPS rangelot would provide a more authentic setting Temporary interpretive programs could be space. Replicas of small historic watercraft and asuch as fishing, cargo handling, warehous

ALTERNATIVES Alternative B: Fur Trade 
 43

building, and maritime transportation would populate Grand Portageís historic waterfront to illustrate the maritime relationship between site history and geography. Exhibits at the heritage center would support this emphasis, with additional interpretation of Lake Superior and connecting waterways as well as maritime aspects of the fur trade. Exhibits could include a diorama showing the fort, the dock, buildings, offshore supply ships and canoes, and a reconstructed North West Company historic vessel, Otter. Expanded canoe 

programming would include programs on canoe construction and offer visitors firsthand experience in using canoes along the waterfront and bay. Alternative B would result in substantial improvement to the existing stockade. At least three additional structures would be reconstructed to create more interpretive exhibit space and to help visitors visualize the variety, scale, and number of structures in the stockade. A reconstructed managerís residence, a trading store, a carpenter/cooperís shop, and possibly other residential, shop, and warehouse structures would reflect the stockadeís appearance and serve as a material interpretive focus for themes such as pioneering tradesmen and their craft, local trading between area Ojibwe and post clerks, and overwintering at the site. New structures would make it possible to offer more diversified stories to visitors. These selected structures, which provided essential support services to fur trade vessels, would enhance maritime interpretation of the site. Structures not rebuilt could be ìghostedî or outlined on the ground. Reconstructions and ghosted structures would act as large-scale interpretive exhibits. A landscape rehabilitation based on sound research would incorporate a program of vegetation management to restore historic views and smallscale features as appropriate. This would allow visitors to experience a more authentic environment both inside and outside the palisade walls. 

This alternative would result in only mino19th and early 20th century Grand Portage 

northeast of the stockade. While its associarcheological features would be more broathrough wayside exhibits, no attempts to relements or remove remnant features woucal resources would be preserved in situ. Tpines would not be retained; instead, it woevolve into a more naturalistic vegetative modern development. The mown charactewould be reduced, and scrub vegetation wreestablish itself at the perimeter. Althougpicnic area, special events encampment, awould provide a somewhat natural setting represent the siteís unkempt appearance dThe preservation of existing vegetation woreconstructed stockade area from modern tion management in this zone could also iusing prescribed fire, suppressing invasive removing hazard trees, and hand-piling anfuel in an effort to maintain the historic apFormer BIA Route 5 (the boneyard road), the old village area, would remain, but it win scale and incorporated into an interpretVehicles might use the road occasionally aservice road. The lower part of the portage trail would bto historic conditions as possible while beaccessible. The area surrounding the trail and maintenance buildings were located wThis might include grading, planting of veexcavation to install wayside exhibits. The of the trail would be designed to offer visitconstraints a small example of what the po

Alternative B: Fur Trade 
 44

Cost The estimated cost to implement Alternative B would be $17ñ23 million. See appendix C for assumptions made. ALTERNATIVE C: FUR TRADE AND OJIBWE HERITAGE Concept Alternative C would offer a multifaceted visitor experience with three areas of visitor focus. During the seven-month visitor season, the major point of interest in Grand Portage National Monument would be the stockade, with several new reconstructed structures and interpretive exhibits. A new facility, which would combine national monument headquarters, a museum complex, and a heritage center, would be built north of the intersection of MN 61 and County Road 17 in cooperation with the Grand Portage Band. The heritage center / headquarters, designed to attract travelers on MN 61, would be open year round. The third area of focus would be an Ojibwe Cultural Demonstration Shelter, which would tell visitors a contemporary story based in Ojibwe crafts and culture. The headquarters / heritage center would act as a fee collection facility, a visitor orientation site, and a museum of the siteís fur trade history. It would include exhibit space, educational materials sales area, and an archives-library for research and reflection. During an expanded summer season, visitors probably would spend minimal time here, with most of their time at the stockade or the Ojibwe Cultural Demonstration Shelter. However, the rest of the year, when the other two facilities were closed, the heritage center, with expanded interpretation, would constitute most of a visitorís experience in Grand Portage National Monument. Working with the Grand Portage Band, the National Park Service would seek to reroute all of County Road 17 to 

eliminate traffic within the heart of the naThe Isle Royale parking lot would remain, parking lot and the NPS ranger station woprovide a more accurate setting for the stoAlternative C would offer a greater degree tion than any of the other alternatives, encEuropean historic, and contemporary activwith this focus, the heritage center would and library resource materials to meet puband fur trade heritage. The cooperative partnership between the Gof Minnesota Chippewa and the national mstrengthened with the location of the heriton lands leased from the Grand Portage BChippewa. A much smaller Ojibwe CulturShelter would be on national monument lrelationship with the Minnesota Historicaof collections, archives, and historic presecontinue. The partnerships with MinnesotState Park and Departments of Tourism awould increase should they agree to particconstruction or operation of the heritage cMeasures that could be taken to achieve tare embodied in the management prescripbelow. These are shown on the accompansummarized in table 4, ìComparison of AlPrimitive Trail Zone The primitive trail zone would encompass percent of the national monument (9.8 accontinue to be minimally maintained for vwith a continuing semblance of its historic would be no new trails. Any interpretation 

ALTERNATIVES Alternative C: Fur T
 45

this zone would occur through brochures or interpretive ranger talks at the stockade. Archeological features would be documented and protected. Wheeled or motorized access to this zone would continue to be strictly limited. The upper part of the portage trail would enable visitors to sense the hard-laboring and spirited experience of the voyageurs and the difficulty of using the trail. In an effort to restore historic forest cover, maintain safety, and prevent dangerous levels of fuel loading, management practices in this zone could include selective use of prescribed fire, hand piling and burning of woody fuel, suppressing invasive exotic plants, removing hazard trees, and other manipulation of vegetation. Recreation Zone The recreation zone would occupy about 0.2 percent (1.5 acres) of the national monument. The Fort Charlotte campsites would be upgraded to offer a primitive, yet more aesthetically pleasing, camping experience, but no new Fort Charlotte campsites would be added. Maintenance would focus on keeping the camping area, a part of the historic voyageursí highway, attractive. Several new wayside exhibits or brochures would enable campers and other visitors to learn about the significance of Fort Charlotte to the fur trade. The 0.5-mile Mount Rose trail, with its steep, paved surface, handrails, switchbacks, and overlooks, would be maintained in its present condition. Archeological resources would be protected in the recreation zone, which would retain its rugged character reminiscent of the historic period. A brochure would be designed to give general information about the Grand Portage National Monument and its history to visitors coming by canoe out of the Boundary Waters Canoe 

Area. The brochure could also give logistineeded by canoe travelers. Resources Trust Zone The resources trust zone would be primardata bankî ó an area managed to protect logical resources. However, this zone wouprotect wetlands or areas containing rare such, its resources would be interpreted othrough brochures or NPS ranger talks. Awould not be prohibited in this zone, therreason for them to seek it out. No trails wthis zone. The resources trust zone would 94.8 percent (672.8 acres) of the national Historic Fort Charlotte would continue to archeological landscape. Subsurface featuto be preserved in situ as a resource data binventory and monitoring purposes. The ofeature is a historic stone monument commThe objectives and methods of the manipuin the resources trust zone would be similfor the primitive trail zone regarding remosuppressing invasive exotic plants, and rescover. However, little emphasis would be hazard trees and trail obstructions. Maintenance / Park Operations Zone There would be no maintenance / park opAlternative C because all maintenance and would be removed from the lands of GranMonument. 

Alternative C: Fur T


 48

The national monument headquarters, which would be combined with the heritage center, would be built on lands of the Grand Portage Band of Minnesota Chippewa at the intersection of MN 61 and County Road 17. Museum collections also would be stored in this building. Maintenance operations and employee housing would be outside the national monument boundary, on lands owned by the Grand Portage Band, possibly on the flanks of Mount Rose. In this alternative, staff size would grow because of the increase in services and infrastructure. Further, because rental housing is scarce and expensive, the national monument would provide additional housing in Grand Portage for seasonal and permanent staff. The maintenance boneyard would also move to this location so that the existing site could be restored. The NPS ranger quarters at the main entrance would be removed. Visitor Services and Development Zone The Isle Royale ferry operation would be moved offsite to allow for removing the dock and constructing a more historically compatible wharf. Parking for the Isle Royale ferry also would be moved. County Road 17 would be realigned around Mount Rose in two phases. The first phase would include construction of a bridge over Portage Creek connecting BIA Route 2 with existing County Road 17 on the east side just north of the existing maintenance area. The second phase would involve rerouting of County Road 17 around Mount Rose west of the national monument to connect with BIA 2. From the national monumentís west boundary to the current Isle Royale parking area, County Road 17 would be downgraded to a road for natopma; monument use only. The main visitor entrance to the stockade would be through the lake gate rather than the present gate near the parking lot. The parking area would accommodate 

visitor parking during times of low visitatishuttle service from the heritage center to be implemented. The asphalt road surface leaving a universally accessible surface of gravel. The road could also be narrowed to feet to permit the passage of NPS vehicleswould be planted with native grasses and overall rehabilitation of the landscape norThe visitor services and development zone 1.2 percent (0.2 acre) of the national monInterpretive Historic Zone In Alternative C the interpretive historic zthe stockade, its immediate surroundings, 20th century Grand Portage Village site, w

percent (24.7 acres) of the national monuzone would be focused on improving the hthe stockade setting to better represent its fur trade era. Development east of Portaglimited so that the historic and contemporcommunity could be fully interpreted. After the housing area and maintenance bmoved, approximately 600 feet of the lowetrail would become a portion of a loop trathe 20th century Ojibwe village site. It wou

historic appearance and managed to give vvegetation historically present along the pmedia would be increased to explain the phikers along the lower portage. Trail mainupgraded to improve access. This might inprovide universal access, planting of vegetexcavation to install wayside exhibits. 

ALTERNATIVES
 49

An accessible interpretive loop trail, which would connect the stockade, the portage trail, and the 20th century village site, 

would lead to resources related to the Grand Portage community. Wayside exhibits would be added to the village site to interpret the remnant landscape features, such as historic plant cultivars, the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) bridge and pine grove, and numerous archeological resources. All aboveground and archeological features would be protected through a program of active maintenance. The area west of the stockade would continue to be used for historic cultural demonstrations, and a small shelter would be added at the village site for contemporary cultural demonstrations. With the permission of the Grand Portage Band, the trail could be extended into the community to include the Holy Rosary Church and other significant landmarks in the contemporary village. The stone bridge would remain as a walkway. The boneyard road (old BIA Route 5) would be downgraded to a pathway leading to the Ojibwe Cultural Demonstration Shelter. Visitor parking in front of the stockade and the existing maintenance/housing area would be removed so that the landscape could be restored. Nonhistoric roads, the parking lot, and the NPS ranger station would be removed, and that area would be rehabilitated to provide an open, meadow-like setting for the stockade. This open space could be used for interpretive programs and exhibits such as the Ojibwe Village, the Ojibwe and North West Company gardens, and the voyaguer encampment. The Isle Royale dock would be removed and replaced with a wharf more appropriate to the historic period. Replicated small craft from the fur trade era, including bateaux, mackinaw boats, and canoes, would be exhibited near the new wharf or in the stockade. The siding on the restroom/generator facility would be replaced to be more visually congruent with the historic setting, and the footbridge over Portage Creek would 

be replaced with one more historically appNational Park Service would offer informacommercial and subsistence fishing, canoe paddling programs, and historic small boasuch as bateaux and mackinaw boats. Alternative C, like Alternative B, would suthe historic appearance and interpretive vstockade. Three additional structures ó a carpenter/cooperís shop, and interpretersí ters ó would better reflect the stockadeís appearance and provide a material interprthemes such as aboriginal, geographical anknowledge, local trading between Ojibwe tinental exploration, and craftsmanship. Nmake it possible to offer more diversified, a richer complement of interpretive themenewly constructed buildings and a greater features would serve as large-scale interprThe integrity of the cultural landscape woenhanced by shifting the main visitor entrto the more historically accurate ìlakeî (waddition, small-scale features would be resof vegetation management would be initiasetting more authentic and restore views oThe objectives and methods of manipulatiinterpretive historic zone would be similar for the primitive trail zone, with greater emhazard trees, dangerous fuels, and trail obsuppressing invasive exotic plants, and rescover. As one stop along the loop interpretive trathe village site would be upgraded. With thGrand Portage Band, the trail could exten

Alternative C: Fur T

Alternative C: Fur T
 50

contemporary village. Seasonal cultural demonstrations would be held at the site, with year-round interpretations of Ojibwe lifeways taking place at the heritage center and within the village when possible. After the housing and maintenance areas were removed from the southern end, the portion of the portage trail within the primitive trail zone that runs through the current housing/maintenance area, would be partially restored to its historic appearance. Vegetation would be added to recreate the corridor, and the alignment would be restored, but the surface would be upgraded to allow universal access. Interpretation of the portage would be expanded with revised or new wayside exhibits set along the trail. Cost The estimated cost of Alternative C would be more than $17 million. See appendix C for assumptions made. ALTERNATIVE D: HERITAGE CENTER FOCUS Concept A large multifunctional Grand Portage heritage center and national monument headquarters would be constructed north of the intersection of MN 61 and County Road 17. It would be designed to attract visitors from the highway and provide a multimedia interpretive/educational glimpse into the history of the Grand Portage and its inhabitants. The heritage center would feature museum exhibits, live demonstrations of Ojibwe crafts, films on various aspects of life at Grand Portage, interactive displays, sales of educational materials, access to archival and library resources via computer terminals, and interpretive talks. Visitors would be able to gain a comprehensive understanding of the site before re

where costumed interpreters would supplepersonalize the visitor experience. No addwould be rebuilt. During the five months wwas closed, visitors still would be able to gunderstanding of Grand Portage National All maintenance and operations facilities wfrom the national monument. Only a smalvisitors to the stockade would remain. On the northeast side of the national monon the north side of Mount Rose would be County Road 17 by a bridge over the portaCreek. This would make it possible to vacCounty Road 17 from the CCC bridge just north and east to Holy Rosary church immnortheast boundary, and use it as a trail. The cooperative partnership between the Gof Minnesota Chippewa and the national mstrengthened by locating the heritage centfrom the Grand Portage Band. The workinthe Minnesota Historical Society in the ararchives, and historic preservation would nerships with Minnesotaís Grand Portage Departments of Tourism and Transportatishould they agree to participate in the contion of the heritage center facility. Measures that could be taken to achieve tare embodied in the management prescripbelow. These are shown on the accompansummarized in table 4, ìComparison of Alend of this chapter. 

ALTERNATIVES
 51

Primitive Trail Zone The primitive trail zone would encompass about 1.4 percent of the national monument (8.8 acres) under Alternative D. The zone would be minimally maintained for visitor safety and use while still having a semblance of its historic appearance. No new trails would be added. Any interpretation of features in this zone would be accomplished through brochures or interpretive NPS ranger talks at the stockade or the Grand Portage heritage center. Archeological features would be identified and protected. Wheeled or motorized access across this zone would be strictly limited to designated crossings. The portage trail would enable visitors to gain a sense of the wilderness experience of the voyageurs and the difficulty of using this area in that time. Recreation Zone The recreation zone would occupy approximately 0.2 percent (1.5 acres) of the national monument. The Fort Charlotte campsites would be maintained to provide an aesthetically pleasing yet primitive camping experience. The 0.5-mile Mount Rose trail, relatively steep and paved, with switchbacks, handrails, and overlooks, would be maintained in its present condition. Maintenance would focus on keeping the camping area attractive. Archeological resources would be protected, and the site would retain its rugged character reminiscent of the historic period. Resources Trust Zone In alternative D the resources trust zone would be primarily an ìarcheological data bankî ó an area managed to protect unexcavated archeological resources. However, this zone would also be used to protect wetlands or areas containing rare 

species habitat. As such, its resources wouonly indirectly, through brochures or NPS Although visitors would not be prohibited would be little reason for them to seek it obe developed in this zone. The resources tencompass about 96.8 percent (687.4 acremonument. Historic Fort Charlotte would continue to archeological landscape under Alternative features would continue to be preserved in data bank. The only landscape feature is a monument commemorating the site. The mwould be mainly on keeping the site cleanupgraded access and very few new waysidwould give visitors an opportunity to learn significance of Fort Charlotte to the fur traMaintenance / Park Operations Zone There would be no maintenance / park opAlternative D because all maintenance anwould be removed from the national monuNational monument headquarters would bMN 61 as a part of the Grand Portage hercollections would be stored in that facilityother housing would be constructed just omonument boundary, on lands owned by tBand. In this alternative staff size would gincrease in services and infrastructure. Fuhousing is scarce and expensive, the natioprovide additional housing in Grand Portapermanent staff. The maintenance area would be outside thment boundary, on lands owned by the Grpossibly on the flanks of Mount Rose. The 

ALTERNATIVES Alternative 


 54

boneyard also would be moved to this location so that the existing site could be restored. The NPS ranger quarters at the main entrance would be removed. Visitor Services and Development Zone Parking for the Isle Royale ferry would be moved offsite to a new location, and the existing site would be redesigned for stockade parking. County Road 17 would be realigned on the northeast side of the national monument to connect with BIA Route 2 by way of a bridge over the portage trail and Portage Creek. This would make it possible to vacate County Road 17 from the CCC bridge just east of the stockade to approximately Holy Rosary Church on the northeast boundary. The Isle Royale parking area would remain to accommodate visitor parking during times of low visitation; at other times, a shuttle service from the heritage center to the stockade could be implemented. The asphalt road surface would be removed, leaving a universally accessible surface of mixed soil and gravel, and the road could be narrowed to approximately 12 feet to permit passage of NPS vehicles. The road edge would be planted with native grasses and forbs as part of the overall rehabilitation of the landscape north of the stockade. The stone bridge would remain as a pedestrian bridge. The boneyard road (old BIA Route 5) would be removed and the landscape restored. The visitor services and development zone would occupy about 0.2 percent (1.2 acres) of the national monument. 

Interpretive Historic Zone The interpretive historic zone, which woustockade and its immediate surroundings, percent (10.1 acres) of the national monufocus of Alternative D would be maximiziprograms in a new visitor-oriented facilitybe made to the stockade, the surrounding former Grand Portage village site. Landscape restoration, which would be limroads or park operations, such as the mainbeen removed, would involve removing aland replanting portions of the roadbed witformer roads could become pedestrian trathe maintenance staff. Visitor parking in front of the stockade antenance/housing area would be removed scould be restored. To enable everyone to hthe historic portage, a loop trail accessible disabilities would be created from the stocup the portage trail. Because contemporary Ojibwe culture and would be interpreted at the new heritage cwould be needed in the stockade or the vibuildings in the stockade area would be ìgthree-dimensionally or by outlines on the make it possible for visitors to have a sensof fur trade operations. Visitor contact, sainterpretive programs would be shifted to center. The Great Hall would be used solethe fur trade. The main entrance would be north to the west (lakeshore gate), and thter west of the stockade would be enlarged modate the voyageur encampment and the 

ALTERNATIVES
 55

The siding on the restroom/generator facility would be replaced to be more visually congruent with the historic setting. Extant features from the 20th century village would be 

more broadly interpreted through wayside exhibits. No attempt would be made to reconstruct missing elements or remove remnant features. Aboveground and archeological resources would be preserved in situ. The current picnic area and open space would be retained, as would contemporary features such as the bridge over Portage Creek. The Isle Royale ferry operation would be moved offsite to allow for dock removal and construction of a more historically compatible wharf. After the housing area and maintenance buildings were removed, the lower part of the portage trail would become a portion of a loop trail to the 20th century Ojibwe 

village site. The area would be restored to its historic appearance and managed to give visitors a sense of the vegetation historically present along the portage. Interpretive media would be increased to explain the portage to more hikers along the lower portage. Trail maintenance would be upgraded to improve access. This might include grading, planting of vegetation, and some excavation to install wayside exhibits. The objectives and methods of manipulating vegetation in the interpretive historic zone would be similar to those described for the primitive trail zone, but greater emphasis would be placed on suppressing invasive exotic plants, removing hazard trees, dangerous fuels, and trail obstructions, and restoring historic forest cover. Alternative D would result in only minor changes to the late 19th and early 20th century Grand Portage village site. While its 

associated landscape and archeological features would be more broadly interpreted through wayside exhibits, no attempts would be made to reconstruct missing elements or remove remnant features, and archeological resources would be 

preserved in situ. The site would continue picnic area and open space. Visitors would interpretive programs and cultural demonheritage center. The National Park Service mation and programming about commercifishing, canoe building and paddling progrsmall boats used at the site, such as bateaboats. Cost The estimated cost for Alternative D woulmillion. See appendix C for assumptions mALTERNATIVE E: THE PREFERRED ALTConcept Alternative E, a ìhybridî alternative, was use of a technique called ìChoosing by Advarious actions are weighted by how well cultural and natural resources, provide for and improve the efficiency of operations, cand environmental responsibility. In this alternative, efforts would be made national monument into the community wof a combined community / national monuintersection of MN 61 and County Road 1inviting landscaped, redesigned intersectiowelcome visitors to the community of Granational monument, and the Grand Portawould effectively outline visitor choices in 

Alternative E
 56

Once past the gateway, County Road 17 would be rerouted around Mount Rose to connect to BIA Route 2, as in Alternative C. A new year-round heritage center would be built, larger than that in Alternative B but smaller than in Alternatives C and D. The center would serve as an introduction to the national monument and would take modern functions out of the stockade. It would include exhibition space, educational materials, sales, and an introductory film. Its archival and library resource materials would be increased to meet public interest in Ojibwe and fur trade heritage. An Ojibwe Cultural Demonstration Shelter similar to that in alternative C would help to explain the related but temporally more complex story of the Ojibwe heritage. All other modern intrusions on the landscape would be removed: the maintenance area, employee housing, and most roads. Primitive Trail Zone The primitive trail zone in Alternative E would encompass about 1.4 percent (9.8 acres) of the national monument. The zone would be minimally maintained for visitor safety and use but would continue to have a semblance of its historic appearance. There would be no new trails. Any interpretation of features in this zone would be carried out through brochures or interpretive NPS ranger talks at the stockade. Archeological features would be identified and protected. Wheeled or motorized access to this zone would be strictly limited. The goal of the primitive trail zone would be to allow visitors to enjoy the experience of walking in the footsteps of the voyageurs. The portage would remain a fairly primitive trail with minimal interpretation at either end. In an effort to restore historic forest cover, maintain safety, and prevent dangerous levels of fuel loading, management practices in this zone could include selective use of prescribed fire, hand piling 

and burning of woody fuel, suppressing inremoving hazard trees, and other manipulNo attempt would be made to restore the condition, but some areas might be targeteconditions and integrity of both natural anRecreation Zone The recreation zone would occupy about 0acres) of the national monument. The Forwould be upgraded to offer a primitive, yepleasing, camping experience, but no new sites would be added. The 0.5-mile Mount relatively steep, paved walkway with switcand overlooks, would become a loop trail new heritage center. A brochure would be designed to give genabout the Grand Portage National Monumvisitors coming by canoe out of the BoundArea. The brochure could also give logistineeded by canoe travelers. Archeological rprotected in the recreation zone, which wcharacter reminiscent of the historic perioResources Trust Zone The resources trust zone would be primardata bankî ó an area managed to protect logical resources. However, this zone wouprotect wetlands or areas containing rare such, its resources would be interpreted othrough brochures or NPS ranger talks. Awould not be prohibited in this zone, ther

ALTERNATIVES
 57

reason for them to seek it out. No trails would be developed in this zone. The resources trust zone would encompass about 94.9 percent (673.5 acres) of the national monument. Historic Fort Charlotte would continue to be managed as an archeological landscape under alternative E. Subsurface features would continue to be preserved in situ as a resource data bank. The only landscape feature is a historic stone monument commemorating the site. The maintenance focus would be mainly on keeping the site attractive and preserving it as part of the historic voyageursí highway. The objectives and methods of manipulating vegetation in the resources trust zone would be similar to those described for the primitive trail zone regarding removing dangerous fuels, suppressing invasive exotic plants, and restoring historic forest cover. However, little emphasis would be placed on removing hazard trees and trail obstructions. Maintenance / Park Operations Zone There would be no maintenance / park operations zone because all such facilities would be constructed outside the national monument boundaries. The maintenance area would be a combined facility of the national monument and the Grand Portage Band, which would be built on Band lands just outside the national monument boundaries. The shared facilities would be designed to meet the unique needs of both entities, such as covered vehicle storage, office space, service bays, shops, and materials storage (boneyard). In this alternative, staff size would grow because of the increase in services and infrastructure. Further, because rental housing is scarce and expensive, housing for seasonal and permanent staff would be leased or constructed outside the 

national monument boundary, on lands owPortage Band. Visitor Services and Development ZoThe gateway to the community of Grand Psection of MN 61 and County Road 17, whoped by the National Park Service and the Band, would introduce visitors to the comPortage, Grand Portage National MonumePortage Casino. The existing County Road monument would become a national monGrand Portage heritage center at the curreparking area. The road beyond the parking removed. On the east side of the national Road 17 would be connected to BIA RoutGrand Portage Creek and the historic portchanges would remove through-traffic fromonument, improving visitor safety and reintrusion from the landscape. The asphalt road surface beyond the Isle Rwould be removed, leaving a universally amixed soil and gravel. The road could be nmately 12 feet to the permit passage of moThe road edge would be planted with nativas part of the overall rehabilitation of the lthe stockade. The new year-round heritage center and hwould become the entry point for national This facility would embody the entire visitwinter. In summer it would be used for fee orientation, a museum, and a sales facilityquickly moving on to the stockade. 

Alternative E

Alternative 



 61

Ojibwe crafts and cultural demonstrations would be offered at the new Ojibwe Cultural Demonstration Shelter near the eastern boundary of Grand Portage National Monument, which would be linked to the stockade and the portage trail by an interpretive loop trail. The Isle Royale ferry operation would be moved offsite to allow for dock removal and placement of the heritage center. The visitor services and development zone would occupy about 5.1 acres (0.7 percent) of the national monument. Interpretive Historic Zone The interpretive historic zone, which would comprise the stockade and its immediate surroundings, would occupy 2.8 percent (20.1 acres) of the national monument. Efforts in this zone would focus on improving the historic accuracy of the stockade interior and setting to better represent its character during the fur trade era. Three new structures would be constructed in the stockade area, and all other known structures would be outlined on the ground. The new structures would be used for interpretation and exhibitions, increasing the ability of monument staff to tell a more exciting and comprehensive story. Visitors would enter through the lake entrance. To improve access to the area, the voyageur encampment would be moved from the west side of the stockade to the former parking area at the north gate. The siding on the restroom/generator facility would be replaced to be more visually congruent with the historic setting. Replicated small craft from the fur trade era, including bateaux, mackinaw boats, and canoes, would be exhibited near the dock or in the stockade. The National Park Service would offer information and programs about commercial and subsistence fishing, canoe building and paddling

boats used at the site. The NPS ranger quarters at the west entramoved and rebuilt nearby on land owned bBand. The Isle Royale ferry operation and moved to an undetermined location outsidment boundary. The current parking area location for the heritage center, as in AlteAll structures in the existing maintenance area would be removed so that the portagwould become a portion of a loop trail constockade and the 20th century Ojibwe villa

restored to a semblance of its historic appclosely approximate the conditions during vegetation management, trail maintenance media would be upgraded to better interprsignificance and provide universal access. would be added to the village site to interplandscape features such as historic plant cbridge and pine grove, and numerous archAll aboveground and archeological featurethrough a program of active maintenance. The CCC stone bridge would remain as a wyard road (old BIA Route 5) would be dowway leading to the Ojibwe Cultural Demoit would accommodate NPS vehicles and mrequirements. Seasonal demonstrations of Ojibwe crafts talks about Ojibwe heritage and history wthe Ojibwe Cultural Demonstration ShelteThe objectives and methods of manipulatiinterpretive historic zone would be similar 

Alternative E

Alternati
 62

for the primitive trail zone, but greater emphasis would be placed on suppressing invasive exotic plants, removing hazard trees, dangerous fuels, and trail obstructions, and restoring historic forest cover. Rather than attempting a full restoration of the historic landscape of the Lake Superior shoreline to a specific period, the existing landscape would be treated and interpreted as part of the siteís continuum of history. The interpretive historic zone would retain its beauty and wild appearance and a semblance of its historical character. Cost The estimated cost of Alternative E would be more than $16 million. See appendix C for assumptions made. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE The environmentally preferable alternative is defined by the Council on Environmental Quality as follows: 

 . . . the alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as expressed in NEPAís Section 101. Generally this means the alternative that causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment. It also means the alternative that best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources. 

Alternative D is the environmentally preferable alternative for the following reasons: • Alternative D is preferable over Alternative A because 

Alternative A does not address the high fuel loading problems that currently exist along the portage and Fort Charlotte areas. This would continue the trend of increasing risk of losing historic, cultural, and natural resources to wildfire. Alternative A would preclude the restoration of the cultural 

landscape of the portage area; Alternatthe cultural landscape by removing and boneyard, the maintenance/housing areroad. However, Alternatives C, D, and struct a road bridge over Grand Portagwould not be consistent with the cultursurrounding the portage and would negquality and noise level. However, the bvehicular traffic from the stockade, impcharacter of the stockade, and improve allowing visitors to become immersed iatmosphere. Despite these impacts, Altwould improve the cultural landscape oAlternative D would remove the facilitimaintenance and housing area, which isensitive area. In addition, Alternative enhance the visitor experience of the naproviding a heritage center where additcurrently presented could be addressed

• Alternative D is preferable over Alterna

native B would cause more new disturbconstruction and road realignment. The realignment and Grand Portage heritagtive B would require large amounts of btion, which would result in greater impsoils, and archeological resources. Altethe greatest potential of all the action aair quality because of the amount of prorestoration that could use prescribed firtool. In addition, Alternative B would cimpacts on water quality and aquatic spdoes not propose constructing a road bPortage Creek. Alternative B might reqnew Isle Royale ferry operation and at tsite. This would be one more possible dthan in Alternative D, so that Alternatigreater impacts on water quality and aq

ALTERNATIVES
 63

would constructing a road bridge over Grand Portage Creek as proposed in Alternative D. Alternatives B and D both would greatly improve visitor interpretation and enjoyment by providing more exhibit and demonstration space. Alternative B would provide that space in reconstructed stockade structures and in the heritage center; Alternative D would provide such space in a year-round facility. 

• Alternative D is preferable over Alternative C because the 

latter would include more new construction and road realignment, which would cause more new disturbance. The greater ground disturbance in Alternative C would result in more impacts on soils, vegetation, and archeological resources than in Alternative D. Alternative C also would have a greater potential for affecting air quality than Alternative D because Alternative C would include more landscape restoration, which could be carried out through the use of prescribed fire as a restoration tool. Alternative C would have slightly more potential to affect water quality and aquatic species because it would include reconstructing a footbridge over Grand Portage Creek and reconstructing a wharf. All other proposed activities, such as the road bridge construction and possible dredging operation at the new Isle Royale ferry operation, which could potentially affect water quality and aquatic species, would be the same in Alternative C as in Alternative D. However, from a visitor experience and interpretation perspective, Alternative C would be preferable because it would remove County Road 17 from the national monument, allowing a safer visitor experience. Removing the roadway also would allow the area to be returned to a more natural landscape. In addition Alternative C would include reconstructing several additional historic structures in the stockade. 

• Alternative D is environmentally preferable over Alternative 

E mainly because Alternative E would cause the most new ground disturbance (both inside and outside the national monument) of all the action alternatives. Alternative E would result in the most potential impacts on soils, vegetation, and archeological resources. However, there are benefits in Alternative E that make it prefera

It would result in the landscape being rhistoric appearance around the stockadmore operationally efficient for both mavisitors (for example, one parking lot vseparated lots in Alternative D). Pedestimprove in Alternative E through the reRoad 17 from the national monument. greatly improve the visitor experience ienhance the presentation of the interprcontemporary Ojibwe culture. Althougpreferable, Alternative D would rely hecenter for the interpretation of the natimaking less use of the existing resource

DETERMINING THE PREFERRED ALTERAll alternatives would preserve and protecnatural resources of Grand Portage Nationfuture generations. The differences lie in topment proposed, the level of impact on tthe level and breadth of site interpretation carried out in each alternative. Alternative A would not include any develthere be any actions that would change thmaking it more like the historic landscape affecting the remaining significant landscaalternative would have the least ability to interpretive story because it would not havsuch interpretation and would be only a seThe National Park Service does not considalternative acceptable because it would leaadministrative/operations facilities in placoffer the desired level of visitor safety, inteeducation. 

Determinin
 64

Alternative B, ìFur Trade with Maritime Emphasis,î proposes a moderate level of development (new heritage center and parking); other facilities not related to visitor experience or interpretation (maintenance, NPS ranger station, NPS ranger house) would be removed. Although County Road 17 would remain an intrusion, the site otherwise would be returned to a more authentic period appearance, and the bulk of the interpretive experience would be focused on the fur trade. This alternative would involve keeping the national monument open only seven months per year. Alternative B was not designated the preferred alternative because it would leave County Road 17 as a safety concern in the national monument, because it would not include as comprehensive an interpretive story as other alternatives, and because the proposed reconstruction of the Otter would dramatically increase staffing and maintenance costs, albeit substantially increasing visitation. Alternative C, ìFur Trade and Ojibwe Heritage,î would remove all administrative/operations facilities from national monument lands and would include a two-phased removal of County Road 17 from within the national monument. Limited restoration of the historic scene would be carried out. This 

alternative would offer a more balanced interpretation between fur trade and Ojibwe heritage by upgrading the exhibits and programs within and around the stockade and providing a new facility focusing on the Ojibwe. The national monument would be open year-round, although the stockade would be open only seven months. New visibility for the national monument would result from the creation of a fur trade heritage center north of the intersection of MN 61 and County Road 17. Alternative C was not designated as the preferred alternative because it would require two widely separated and redundant parking lots, one at the heritage center on MN 61 and one onsite. In addition, the heritage center site might not be agreeable to the Grand Portage Band. Under Alternative D, ìHeritage Center Focus,î all administrative/operations facilities would be moved off the national monument, and County Road 17 would be removed from the 

CCC bridge north, leaving the segment fromonument boundary on the west to the Clandscape would not change significantly, would change relatively little. The new fur heritage center would become the main foand remain open year-round. This alternanated as the preferred alternative because solved the safety concern of visitors crossiand because the heritage center would havthe interpretive excitement from the stocknative C, the heritage center in Alternativagreeable to the Grand Portage Band. Following the development of Alternatives team, using the ìChoosing by Advantagesoped a new alternative (E) to try to ìcaptuadvantages identified in the four alternativalternative would be the best overall alternUnder Alternative E, the preferred alternaOjibwe heritage center would be added on lands, but all other administrative/operatibe offsite. A gateway would be created at MN 61 and County Road 17 to serve as an national monument, the Band Casino and community of Grand Portage. County Roaremoved from the national monument, busite would be left to reflect its evolution to and immediately surrounding the stockadwould be reconstructed. Interpretation woduring a seven-month season, but the heriremain open year round. This alternative winterpretation of any of the alternatives, wactivity: the heritage center, the stockade, Cultural Demonstration Shelter. 

ALTERNATIVES
 65

MITIGATION All actions proposed within this plan would be evaluated by the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Officer to ensure that appropriate mitigation of impacts was designed and undertaken to minimize loss of, or damage to, cultural resources. Monument staff would continue to develop inventories for and oversee research about Grand Portageís cultural resources. These resources would be managed according to federal regulations and National Park Service guidelines. A number of archeological reports have been completed that cover work done within the stockade before ground-disturbing activities. However, a complete 100% archeological survey and evaluation of the national monument has not been undertaken. Until such a survey could be accomplished, archeological expertise would be sought before ground disturbance to determine the appropriate level of mitigation necessary. A cultural landscape inventory has been completed for Grand Portage National Monument, and a full cultural landscape report is planned. A cultural landscape report would use the data from the inventory to analyze the site, explain the appearance of the landscape over the years, and make recommendations for treatment in keeping with the historic character of the national monument. Until that report can be completed, the national monument staff will work closely with landscape architects from the Midwest Regional Office to ensure that their actions do not diminish the importance of the existing landscape. The management of exotic (non-native) species would be undertaken to the extent practicable and feasible. This would be accomplished through various methods, including pulling, burning, and mowing. Such management would be guided by the National Park Service Management Policies and other 

applicable laws and guidance and by the cultural landscape report. Also important to this effort would be consultation and partnership with the Grand Portage Band to coordinate efforts. 

National Park Service staff would apply ecensure that natural resources are maintainThe staff would continue to inventory and mentís natural resources to avoid or miniming from future development. They would other techniques to restore ecosystem integrated pest management procedures when nonnative organisms or other pests. Habitand endangered species would also be conThe national monument staff would apply niques to minimize the impacts of construactivities on the monumentís resources. Fbuilt in previously disturbed areas or in cawith as small a construction footprint as psoil erosion, which can degrade water quament practices such as thorough design anretention structures, and prompt revegetato all disturbed sites associated with constThe national monumentís resource managregularly updated to prioritize actions neeage, and study the monumentís cultural anAreas used by visitors would be monitored disturbance of native vegetation, tramplindevelopment of social trails. ACTIONS CONSIDERED BUT NOT ADDIN THIS GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAAs is described in the ìConsultation and Cter, the identification of actions and develtives for this plan evolved through a series other opportunities for public input. Howissues raised by the public are included in issues that were raised by the public but h

ALTERNATIVES Actions Considered but Not Addressed in This G
 66

addressed in this plan are discussed in this section, along with the rationale for why each was not included. As the National Park Service learned more about what concerned people, the alternatives were modified to address the publicís concerns more effectively. Some management actions that had been proposed earlier were eliminated from further consideration. Some early proposals were unreasonable ideas, some would have been unreasonably expensive, and some were not technically or logistically implementable. Some proposals would have been inconsistent with carefully considered, up-todate statements of purpose and significance or management objectives. Some proposed actions, although seemingly reasonable, would have had severe environmental impacts or would have been undesirable to an outside neighbor. Other issues raised by the public were not considered because (a) they were not feasible; (b) they had already been prescribed by law, regulation, or 

policy; or (c) they would have violated existing laws, regulations, or policies. Such issues are briefly described below, as is the basis for excluding each from this plan. Fee Collection Fee collection is mandated by law, and the superintendent of the national monument chooses how fees are collected; hence, fee collection is not a general management plan issue. Alternative Access to Fort Charlotte Some visitors who would like to trek the portage and see the Fort Charlotte site are physically unable to do so because of the long hike and terrain. An alternative means of access was suggested. This alternative was dismissed from further consideration because such access would hav

land owned by the Grand Portage Band, aand adherence to their land use ordinance required. Adding such access would have tial Band or public funding sources outsidPark Service. The national monument waaccess to Fort Charlotte without the likeliadditional staff and funding necessary to maction feasible. In addition, providing vehCharlotte would have been inconsistent wprimitive recreational experience the Natiwould like to provide at this site. Reconstructing Fort Charlotte The idea of reconstructing Fort Charlotte further consideration for several reasons. menters agreed that greater emphasis shouadding more facilities at the stockade area opment at Fort Charlotte. Considerable exdevelopment and maintenance would havReconstructing buildings to replace the arwould have resulted in considerable impacis difficult to reach, a low number of visitoexpected to visit Fort Charlotte. Additionabeen required, or staff would have had to lakeshore stockade on a daily basis to inteand ensure its protection. Pressure to makaccessible probably would have been forthphysically unable to make the journey up Snowmobile/ ATV Access Members of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribmonument on snowmobiles and ATVs at 

ALTERNATIVES
 67

locations. The national monument devised the crossing locations to honor section 7 of the enabling legislation, Public Law (PL) 85-910, in which ì. . . members of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe shall not be denied the privilege of traversing the area included within the Grand Portage National Monument.î Snowmobile and ATV access by tribal members is subject to reasonable regulation by the superintendent to ensure that no substantive resource degradation occurs. The National Park Service discourages any additional snowmobile uses, which would erode the historic values or protections for which the monument was created. Snowmobiles and ATVs driven by persons other than members of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe can ìcrossî the monument on existing BIA or Cook County roadways. Currently, the amount of snowmobile use is low. 

The state of Minnesota has for many years snowmobile trail from Duluth across the minternational border crossing, linking with Canadian snowmobile trail to Thunder Bamonument manages the 8.5 mile portage awhich motorized vehicular traffic is not alMinnesota has recently suspended interesthe snowmobile trail. The Grand Portage Band has renewed intesnowmobile trail from Thunder Bay to theThe trail is planned to cross the Portage apublic road and easement not owned by thmonument. 

Actions Considered but Not Addressed in This G
 68

TABLE 4: COMPARISON OF 

ALTERNATIVES

ALTERNATIVE A: 

NO 

ACTION

ALTERNATIVE B: 

FUR 

TRADE WITH 

MARITIME 

EMPHASIS

ALTERNATIVE C: 

FUR 

TRADE 

AND 

OJIBWE 

HERITAGE

ALTERNATIVE D: 

HERITAGE 

CENTER FOCUS

Headquarters would remain in Grand Marais. 

Headquarters onsite or nearby and separate from heritage center. 

Headquarters / heritage center on MN 61 in Grand Portage. 

Headquarters / heritage center on MN 61 in Grand Portage. 

HeCefor

No heritage center; limited seasonal operation; visitor orientation to site would be personnel-dependent. 

Heritage center onsite and separate from headquarters; 7-month operation at Isle Royale former parking area; expanded curation/exhibits and visitor orientation. 

Heritage center / headquarters on MN 61 in Grand Portage, open year-round; expanded curation/exhibits and visitor orientation. 

Same as Alternative C. He

quRoyeacuvis

Seasonal/employee housing would remain in maintenance area. 

Seasonal/employee housing relocated south of Reservation. 

Seasonal/employee housing relocated on Grand Portage Band lands just outside the national monument. 

Same as Alternative C. Sa

Ranger house would remain. 

Ranger house removed; new housing constructed south of Reservation. 

NPS ranger house removed; NPS ranger housed in new housing just outside the national monument. 

Ranger house would remain. 

Sa

No road realignment; CCC bridge would remain in use. 

Segment of County Road 17 realigned slightly upslope from canoe warehouse to NPS ranger house so that heritage center could be placed on the lakeshore side of County Road 17; use of CCC bridge would continue. 

Two-phase road realignment: (1) BIA 2 realigned to connect with County Road 17 east across Grand Portage Creek, (2) County Road 17 west of national monument realigned to connect with BIA 2; CCC bridge retained but used for trail and monument maintenance. 

 BIA 2 realigned to connect with County Road 17 across Grand Portage Creek; CCC bridge retained but used for trail and monument maintenance. 

Thmemoity of aliCoacrCr17 mewiretanan
 69

TABLE 4: COMPARISON OF 

ALTERNATIVES (continued) 

ALTERNATIVE A: 

NO 

ACTION

ALTERNATIVE B: 

FUR 

TRADE WITH 

MARITIME 

EMPHASIS

ALTERNATIVE C: 

FUR 

TRADE

AND 

OJIBWE 

HERITAGE

ALTERNATIVE D: 

HERITAGE 

CENTER FOCUS

Maintenance shop would remain on portage trail. 

Maintenance shop moved to new site on Grand Portage Band land (possibly west of Mount Rose); portage restored. 

Maintenance shop moved to new site on Grand Portage Band land (possibly west of Mount Rose); portage restored and a short accessible loop created up trail from stockade. 

Same as Alternative C. Sa

Maintenance ìboneyardî retained. 

Maintenance ìboneyardî moved to new maintenance facility. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B. Sa

Stockade approach and restrooms unchanged. 

Stockade approach changed to come from west to lake entrance; restroom facades redesigned and/or screened to be more historically compatible. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B. Sa

Inside of stockade retained unchanged. 

Minimum of 3 more structures reconstructed within stockade to voyageur period: carpenter space / cooper shop, trading store, and managerís residence; ìghostî or outline rest of buildings. 

Minimum of 3 more structures reconstructed within stockade to voyageur period: carpenter space / cooper shop, trading store, and clerkís/interpreterís quarters. 

Historic structures not reconstructed to date; would be outlined or delineated. 

Mistrwivopeshoclequou

Great hall, kitchen, warehouse would continue to be primary interpretive and orientation areas; limited (seasonal) operation. 

Reconstructed buildings would provide additional interior space for interpretive exhibits; limited (seasonal) operation. 

Same as Alternative B. Great hall, kitchen, warehouse would remain the 

only interpretive areas within stockade; limited (seasonal) operation. 

Sa
 70

TABLE 4: COMPARISON OF 

ALTERNATIVES (continued) 

ALTERNATIVE A: 

NO 

ACTION

ALTERNATIVE B: 

FUR 

TRADE 

WITH 

MARITIME 

EMPHASIS

ALTERNATIVE C: 

FUR 

TRADE

AND 

OJIBWE 

HERITAGE

ALTERNATIVE D: 

HERITAGE 

CENTER FOCUS

Visitor parking would continue to be outside stockade entrance. 

Visitor parking moved to west of Isle Royale parking site near new heritage center. 

Visitor parking moved to heritage center site at MN 61 and County Road 17 and to former Isle Royale parking site. 

Same as Alternative C. Sa

Existing footbridge retained. 

Footbridge removed and replaced with one more appropriate to the historic period. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative A. Sa

Contemporary Ojibwe cultural demonstrations offered in Great Hall. Historic cultural demonstrations offered outside stockade at voyageur encampment site and Ojibwe village west of stockade. 

Contemporary Ojibwe Cultural Demonstration Shelter expanded inside stockade but removed from Great Hall. Historic cultural demonstrations expanded at voyageur encampment site and Ojibwe village west of stockade. 

Contemporary Ojibwe Cultural Demonstration Shelter / Ojibwe heritage greatly expanded at new facility off ìboneyard road.î Historic cultural demonstrations expanded west of stockade. 

Contemporary Ojibwe Cultural Demonstration Shelter / Ojibwe heritage expanded at new heritage center. Historic cultural demonstrations expanded west of stockade. 

CoCuShgrefacroaHienold 

Maritime component interpreted within stockade. 

Heavy maritime emphasis: Otter, small 

craft reconstructed; canoe programming expanded. 

Maritime additions of small craft: batteaux, Mackinaw boat, and canoe programming. 

Expanded canoe programming. 

Sa

Isle Royale ferry would continue use of dock; parking would remain. 

Isle Royale ferry moved offsite; dock removed; wharf reconstructed; parking removed. 

Same as Alternative B. Isle Royale ferry moved 

offsite; dock and parking removed. 

Sa
 71

TABLE 4: COMPARISON OF 

ALTERNATIVES (continued) 

ALTERNATIVE A: 

NO 

ACTION

ALTERNATIVE B: 

FUR 

TRADE

WITH 

MARITIME 

EMPHASIS

ALTERNATIVE C: 

FUR 

TRADE

AND 

OJIBWE 

HERITAGE

ALTERNATIVE D: 

HERITAGE 

CENTER FOCUS

Ranger station and parking would remain. 

Ranger station and parking removed; function moved to new heritage center. 

Ranger station and parking removed;. new parking and contact station on former Isle Royale parking site. 

Same as Alternative C. Sa

Landscape of lakeshore area kept as at present; no attempt would be made to restore to a historic appearance. 

Landscape west of creek restored to a more historic appearance; east of creek would have a more 20th century appearance. 

Limited restoration of landscape west of creek to North West Company era; east of creek would have a more 20th century appearance. 

Landscape of lakeshore area managed to reflect the continuum of use through the siteís history. 

Sa

19th and 20th century Ojibwe village site left uninterpreted. 

19th and 20th century Ojibwe village site preserved and interpreted; new trail added. 

19th and 20th century Ojibwe village site preserved and interpreted; new trail and interpretive shelter would become focus of contemporary Ojibwe heritage. 

19th and 20th century Ojibwe village site preserved but interpreted in heritage center. 

Sa

Boneyard road retained. Boneyard road would 

remain but would be diminished in scale to trail or monument-only road. 

Boneyard road would remain but would be diminished in scale and become part of accessible loop trail leading to interpretive structure. 

Boneyard road allowed to deteriorate back into landscape. 

Sa

Contemporary Grand Portage community would continue to be uninterpreted. 

Contemporary Grand Portage community interpreted through signs along trails and at heritage center. 

Contemporary Grand Portage community interpreted at simple seasonal interpretive shelter and through a walking tour of landscape, using both monument and community resources (e.g., Holy Rosary Church). 

Contemporary Grand Portage community interpreted at heritage center. 

CoPointOjDedevbo
 72

TABLE 4: COMPARISON OF 

ALTERNATIVES (continued) 

ALTERNATIVE A: 

NO 

ACTION

ALTERNATIVE B: 

FUR 

TRADE

WITH 

MARITIME 

EMPHASIS

ALTERNATIVE C: 

FUR 

TRADE

AND 

OJIBWE 

HERITAGE

ALTERNATIVE D: 

HERITAGE 

CENTER FOCUS

Fort Charlotte retained and interpreted as at present. 

Fort Charlotte trail access improved; better signs and interpretive brochure. 

Fort Charlotte retained as at present but with increased interpretation of importance of the Grand Portage; campsites improved but no new campsites added. 

Same as Alternative C. Sa

Collections would remain at Minnesota Historical Society, Midwest Archeological Center, and Grand Portage National Monument. 

Collections would remain at Minnesota Historical Society, but collections at Midwest Archeological Center would be returned to national monument. 

All collections returned to Grand Portage National Monument. 

All collections at Minnesota Historical Society and Midwest Archeological Center returned to the national monument; library/archives expanded for public use. 

Moremtorat Cenalibfor 

Mount Rose trail retained as at present. 

Mount Rose trail made into a loop connecting to new heritage center. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Sa
 73

Future Grand Portage Reconstructions and National Park Service Policy 

National Park Service policy generally discourages the reconstruction of ìmissingî buildings. The National Park Service Management Policies, 2001

notes, ìNo matter how well conceiv ed or executed, reconstructions are contemporary interpretations of the past rather than authentic surv ivals f rom it.î Most importantly, any reconstructions must be based on detailed data from archeological, archiv al, historical, and other physical evidence. Accuracy in reconstruction is critical and must be based on strong documentary ev idence, not conjecture or ìarchitectural analogyî or buildings thought to be similar at another site (such as at Old Fort William in Ontario). More practical considerations include visitor satisf action, interpretive needs, structural maintenance, archeological impacts, and improv ements or impacts to the cultural landscape of the site. Despite these strong general reserv ations about the appropriateness of f uture reconstructions at National Park Serv ice sites, there are also many counterpoints to these issues that apply to Grand Portage. First, when the National Park Serv ice acquired the site, it already included reconstructions. The National Park Service subsequently reconstructed three additional structures. In effect, the process of National Park Service reconstruction has already begun, although the current appearance is strikingly incomplete, and it is unclear to many visitors why the National Park Serv ice would cease the reconstruction effort. Tremendous care and effort are currently lavished on the present (reconstructed) Great Hall, Kitchen, Canoe Warehouse, Stockade, gatehouse, and dock. Second, there was a congressional intent when the site was established that reconstructions be part of the ìunique historical v aluesî of the site. The Grand Portage Band donated approximately half of the lands that make up the 710-acre historic site, with the understanding that a visitor center and additional buildings would be constructed. There is a unanimous desire of v isitors and groups commenting during the scoping process for the general management plan for additional reconstructions. And there are many critical park themes (f or example, the role of local ìexchangesî ó trade, languages, ideas, f amily ties, technologies) that are not supported by the current infrastructure at the site or that of the proposed heritage center. To determine whether f urther reconstructions are appropriate at the monument, f ive conditions, outlined in the Management Policies, must be met: 

• There is no alternative that would accomplish the parkís interpretiv e 

mission. 

• Sufficient data exist to enable its accurate reconstruction based on the 

duplication of historic features substantiated by documentary or physical ev idence, rather than on conjectural designs or features from other structures. 

• Reconstruction will occur in the original location. 

• The disturbance or loss of significant archeologica

and mitigated by data recov ery. 

• The Director of the National Park Service approv es Reconstructions are the most compelling means of amentís interpretiv e mission. The present reconstructithe f ocal point of visitation at the site. Visitors enjoy aHowev er, the present buildings primarily tell a f ur traAmerican, business elites) as well as the colorf ul stopref erred alternativ e, which seeks to f urther integrate interpretiv e efforts, can be greatly improved by the reìguide and interpreterís quarters,î as well as the ìf ur trading took place. In addition, further select reconstrmeans of providing visitors a physical sense of the scand historic character of the stockade as a whole. In would improv e the cultural landscape inside the stocinterpretiv e message, and giv e v isitors a better senslike in its f ur trade hey day. Reconstructions would only be built on the original lobeen done with the existing reconstructions. Many of hav e f oundations within the stockade that have alreaexcav ated. More than 75,000 artifacts hav e been reccal excav ations at the national monument, and there recov ery. Any additional archeological work to determproposed reconstructed buildings, or to ensure that nlogical resources are lost when the building is reconscoordinated with the Minnesota State Historic Preserconv ersations with that office indicate few concerns wreconstructions beyond archeological mitigation. The noted that there already has been a great deal of grothe stockade because of earlier archeological work athat ran through the site. When adequate inf ormation is assembled, monumenNational Park Service Directorís permission to reconbuildings of the pref erred alternativ e. At present, detais y et to be synthesized and perhaps uncov ered. The the General Management Plan proposes that additio

gather adequate inf ormation about the physical charproposed buildings. And if adequate inf ormation is f oadv erse effect to contributing archeological resourcepermission secured, then additional reconstructions s(blank) 
 75

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT CULTURAL RESOURCES Cultural Landscape The Grand Portage cultural landscape is a mosaic of elements representing significant events in history. A cultural landscape is the physical result of generations of human activity at a place. The landscape has many layers, both visible and hidden, portraying its historic and contemporary significance. Cultural landscapes consist of both built and natural features. The depot, the village site, and the portage trail and surrounding forest are associated with the continuum of use from the original occupation through the fur trade and logging eras up to the most recent residential and recreational development of the Grand Portage community. Because the cultural landscape of Grand Portage National Monument has changed so dramatically over time, it does not simply resemble a single period in the past; however, it does function as an appropriate background for interpreting the site. The four primary component landscapes are the portage, the stockade, Fort Charlotte, and the site of the former Grand Portage village. Archeology and History Evidence from other sites in the Lake Superior region indicates that northern Minnesota and western Ontario were occupied as much as 8,000 years ago. However, the archeological record for Grand Portage National Monument is sketchy. From existing data it appears that the site was not regularly occupied 

during the prehistoric period, although the and used by American Indians. Nearby sitoccupied in sheltered locations or where fbountiful, such as along the Pigeon River, appear to have been in the general area of ment. This is based on archeological work the stockade and at Fort Charlotte, but it logical investigations that were conducted ground-disturbing projects periodically unNational Park Service elsewhere in the naFurther archeological work may change thHowever, most archeological resources foidentified with the post-contact British tralater historic use of the Grand Portage. Liperiod of use has been identified at the sitcommunity of Grand Portage seems to havof the North West Company depot. The office of the Minnesota state archeoloregistered site numbers: 21CK6, which enof Grand Portage National Monument, thpany site north of Snow Creek (21CK7) asite south of Snow Creek (subidentified as multi-component site on the bay (21CK12National Monumentís cultural resource inand Woolworth 1982) lists 110 archeologi(or potentially within) the boundary of the cause much of the monument has not yet surveyed (particularly the 8.5 mile Grand 
 76

is great potential for adding more sites to this inventory. In addition, current research into the ethnohistory of Grand Portage, using oral interviews with tribal elders, has the potential to add sites of ethnographic or traditional cultural significance. No architectural resources from the voyageur period remain. However, several reconstructed structures representative of the period exist on the site. These structures are a log palisade with gatehouse that enclosed the North West Company depot, the Great Hall, the kitchen, and an outdoor bake oven. Outside the palisade is the canoe warehouse. Other historic structures on the site from a later period are the dock and the CCC bridge over Grand Portage Creek. More information on individual cultural resources is available in appendix D. Sacred Sites An Ojibwe Midewiwin sacred site may be on national monument property somewhere within the old Grand Portage community site. Its exact location is unknown and its current use by the community is also unknown. It is thought that the original wooden church in the community replaced the lodge associated with the Midewiwin ceremonies. That church was later moved and enlarged and is the current Our Lady of the Holy Rosary Church just outside the north boundary on County Road 17. Archeological remains of the lodge may still exist at the site. Current research into the ethnohistory of Grand Portage, using oral interviews with tribal elders, may help to place facilities and trails away from sites of traditional cultural significance, such as the Midewiwin site. At present, it is not certain whether any other sites considered sacred by the Ojibwe exist on national monument ground. 

LOCAL AND REGIONAL TRANSPORTAMN 61 is the major regional and local tranthrough the Grand Portage Reservation. Iflowing from Duluth on the south to Thunthe north. It is a major truck route providibetween the United States and Canada. Dseason, roughly May through October, thireceives considerable traffic from visitors (summer only residents). During the rest relatively quiet. No other federal or state hReservation. Through the Reservation, MN 61 provides community traffic. The speed limit is 55 mit are local county and BIA roads that provwith access to residential, commercial, anCounty Road 17 bisects the lakeshore porPortage National Monument, southwest to approximately its midpoint within the moforms a ìTî intersection with BIA 2, whicthe community store and other Band facilCounty Road 17 and BIA 2 are important within the Reservation, allowing access to without having to drive on or cross MN 6true of the period from May through Octothe community is south of MN 61, County portant link between the housing area and and the housing and community facilities of the national monument. Traffic through poses something of a hazard to pedestrianRoad 17 to reach the portage trail or the MSight distances are not good for visitors exparking area at the stockade, and many neoccurred. Traffic on County Road 17 often 30 mph speed limit. 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
 77

POPULATION, ECONOMY, AND LAND USE Population In 1999 the U.S. Census Bureau estimated the population of Minnesota at 4,775,508, ranking it the 20th largest state in the 

nation. Per capita personal income (PCPI) was $26,295 in 1997, or 104 percent of the national average ($25,298). The 1999 Census Bureau estimate for the population of Cook County was 4,772, ranking it 84th of Minnesotaís 87 counties. 

Cook County includes the Grand Portage Reservation, Grand Portage National Monument, and Grand Marais (where national monument headquarters are located). The per capita personal income for 1997 was $22,484, which is 86% of the statewide average and 89% of the national average (Bureau of Economic Analysis Regional Facts 1999). Cook County is experiencing a boom in vacation home construction for summer use and, less often, for winter use. In 1997, 308 Grand Portage Band of Minnesota Chippewa members lived on the Grand Portage Reservation (with many more Band members living in Grand Marais and Duluth). That composed approximately 6.5% of the Cook County estimated population (4,744) for that year. Per capita personal income was $10,808, or 48% of the county average (41% of the state average) (Paula Giese, Grand Portage homepage). Other ethnic groups (black, Asian/Pacific Islander) made up less than 1% of the county population in 1997. Cook County is rural, with the vast majority of population along the MN 61 corridor in the unincorporated communities of Taconite Harbor, Schroeder, Tofte, Lutsen, Croftville, Hovland, Grand Portage, and the town of Grand Marais (population 1,200). However, within a radius of 50 miles (an hourís drive) live approximately 120,000 people. About 

400,000 people live within 150 miles (a 3-within 300 miles (less than a dayís drive) million people. Land Use In 1997, Minnesotaís largest industries wedurable goods manufacturing (12.6%), angovernment (10.8%). For Cook County thwere services (38.1%), state and local govand retail trade (13.9%). For the Grand Pthe largest industry was hotel and gamblinavailable). Within 100 miles of Grand Portage NationMinnesota are a large number of state parSplit Rock Lighthouse State Historic Site, Park, George H. Crosby Manitou State PaState Wayside Park, Cross River Wayside River State Park, Ray Berglund State WayRiver State Park, Kodonce River State WaR. Magney State Park, and Grand Portage within 100 miles are the Superior NationaBoundary Waters Canoe Area, Finland StaState Forest, and the Grand Portage State miles in Canada are Middle Falls ProvinciFalls Provincial Park, Quimet Canyon Proing Giant Provincial Park, Quetico ProvinWilliam Provincial Park as well as several in Thunder Bay. Grand Portage National Monument bisectIndian Reservation. The Reservation is apacres of Lake Superior headlands, lakes, rstriking beauty. The center of the unincorof Grand Portage is immediately outside a

Population
 78

of the stockade. Housing is dispersed over a wide area but mainly south of MN 61. Employment The Grand Portage tribal government is a large employer of the Band members. Along County Road 17, just west of the national monument, is a hotel, conference center, and casino owned by the Grand Portage Band. These facilities employ approximately 175 people, many of them Band members. The hotel and casino complex draws on a market that includes Duluth to the south and Thunder Bay to the north, as well as the ìsnowbirdsî who return from more southerly climes each summer to swell the north shore population. The Grand Portage Band also owns a construction company and a marina and boat rental/launch facility that provide seasonal employment. Other seasonal employment includes commercial fishing and logging. Still, about a fourth of the Band population is unemployed (26.5% in 1997, Giese, 2.8 percent statewide for 1999). When Grand Portage National Monument was established in 1958, one of the implicit benefits was the employment of Grand Portage Band members. In an area of high unemployment, the hope was that the monument would become a generator of jobs for the area. Over the years, many Band members have worked at the national monument, but the number of jobs available at any one time has been small. This has been partly because the expected development of the national monument did not occur and partly due to the seasonal nature of site operation. At the same time, the state of Minnesota has placed increased emphasis on the importance of tourism within the state as a means of generating jobs and helping the overall state economy. 

Impact of the Monument on the LocThe National Park Service uses a ìmoney developed by Michigan State University to nomic impact of its units on the local com90 miles along the North Shore of Lake SGrand Portage. This model helps to quantvisitor spending on goods and services and number of jobs that are directly attributabmodel is calibrated to assess the economic term visits, campers, and visits that includ(which is approximately 10% of Grand Pomodel calculates, for example, that overnierates more than three times the economic visits. The direct economic effect on sales in the proximately $1,263,000, based on the 94,6came to Grand Portage National Monumejobs in the community and $465,000 in saattributable to spending by monument visway, without the national monument, $1,2services such as hotels, restaurant food, ancommunity would not have been producedfewer jobs in the community and a loss to $465,000 in the salaries of those 36 peoplVISITOR EXPERIENCE AND INTERPRETGrand Portage National Monument was eserve its ìunique historical values.î In the yearly average of visitation has been more per year. Visitors have come to the nationmarily to learn about its history and to wastructed structures. It is normally a quiet, a pleasant discovery on a journey to Cana

AFFECTED 

ENVIRONMENT
 79

destination. Other experiences are also available. The portage and the Mount Rose trail allow visitors to see the change of seasons or simply to commune with nature in a forest setting. Grand Portage also gives visitors an opportunity to interact with Ojibwe culture and gain new insights into the human condition. Most people come to Grand Portage National Monument to experience the reconstructed stockade and get a glimpse into the fur trade of the late 18th century. The encircling palisade 

with lookout tower, the Great Hall, the kitchen, the canoe warehouse, and the fur press all give visitors some sense of what the original fur trading post was like when it was a key component of the North West Companyís fur trade business. Visitors can learn about the fur trading business in the Great Hall; see demonstrations of foods and food preparation techniques used in the late 1700s; try on fur trade period clothing; watch furs being pressed for shipment; experience a voyager encampment; see weapons from the period demonstrated; learn about canoe construction and use; and interact with interpreters costumed like people of the fur trade period, who will discuss the details of stockade life. However, many visitors know little of the complexity and importance of the fur trade or of Ojibwe heritage before their arrival. Contemporary elements, such as orientation signs, wayside exhibits, and access ramps may be installed at the stockade. While they would help visitors, these features might also compromise the power of the reconstructed buildings to convey a sense of history. The highway, parking area, and orientation exhibits represent an even more dramatic introduction of the modern world to the front gate of the stockade. Visitors going inside the Great Hall for orientation to the fur trade story encounter uniformed NPS rangers and such modern items as a television monitor, a video player, a selection of interpretive videos to view, interpretive brochures, a bookstore, and a cash register. The Great Hall 

contemporary Ojibwe arts and crafts. Opportunities to learn about the Ojibwe cthe interpretive programs and cultural demappropriately costumed interpreters in the cent to the stockade. These programs are from mid-June through Labor Day. Visitorof Ojibwe culture that depends on the prothey arrive and how much time they have village site. They also can spend time with demonstrators (elders). Grand Portage is also the ìend of the trailcoming by canoe from the Boundary WateCanoers generally arrive at Fort Charlotte and camp overnight or head down the traithe stockade. While they generally are mophysical outdoor experience than the interGrand Portage National Monument, the eing, camping, and the continued primitive portage trail give canoe travelers real insigences of the voyageurs. Because of the climate of northern Minnesunwinterized reconstructed buildings of thstockade is open to the public only from mOctober. Visitors coming to Grand Portagment in other seasons have little opportunfur trade history of the site. Some interpreavailable year-round at national monumenGrand Marais, but onsite experiences in thlimited to hiking or skiing the portage and stockadeís exterior. Housing for seasonal winterized, and this limits the national moto remain open in winter. 

Visitor Exp
 80

Most visitors stay overnight within an easy dayís drive of the national monument. The primary overnight use is along the North Shore and MN 61 between Duluth, Minnesota and Thunder Bay, Ontario. The average visit to the Grand Portage National Monument is between 30 minutes and one hour. This allows enough time to see the reconstructed fur trade post and perhaps hike the Mount Rose trail. Because the stockade is closed during winter, winter visitors come primarily to ski the Grand Portage, and their length of stay varies from several hours to all day. NATURAL RESOURCES Soils Grand Portage National Monument is wholly within the Canadian Shield, a large area made up of hard, dense rocks that are very old (Precambrian in age). Geologic formations underlying Grand Portage National Monument consist of the Rove Formation and the Logan intrusions. The Rove Formation, which is about 1.8 billion years old and is thought to be 3,200 feet thick, consists of sedimentary layers of shale and graywacke sandstone that have been changed through contact with molten Logan magma to metamorphic rocks of slate and quartzite. The strata of the Rove Formation are tilted toward the south-southeast. About 1.1 billion years ago, molten magma was intruded into the Rove Formation. As hot liquid Logan magma rose through the earthís crust it followed the natural planes of weakness parallel and perpendicular to the layering in the Rove Formation creating sills and dikes of variable thickness. As the magma cooled, it crystallized into dense black igneous rock known as diabase, and resulted in alternating layers of sedimentary and igneous rocks. This diabase is more resistant to erosion than the sedimentary rocks of the Rove Formation. Over a long period of time, erosion and glacial scouring wore away the Rove Formation more rapidly 

than the diabase, resulting in the present-phy of long and narrow depressions, undeFormation, separated by high ridges of dia1999). The high falls on the Pigeon River river flows over the more resistant diabase falls made the river impassable and requirPigeon River on the 8.5 mile overland rouas the Grand Portage. Most of the soils in Grand Portage Nationtheir origin to glacial deposition. Depressiare partially filled with coarse glacial till threceding glaciers about 10,000 years ago. part of the monument tend to be sandy anloams. They are subject to erosion, especiaon creek banks and in other locally steep athe area tend to be shallow, coarse, stony, Soils in the developed area of the monumesusceptible to frost heave due to climate, sphy, depth to bedrock, and high groundwaclose to the surface. The cold climate of nocombined with the fine-grained nature of Portage National Monument, provides the formation of ice lenses as frost penetrates local topography tends to drain water towarea of the monument; this and the relativbedrock exacerbate frost heave conditions sheet flows through the lower portion of tLake Superior. This high amount of grounfrost line but within the influence of capillice lens formation creates the conditions nheaving. Future construction projects woufrost-heaving mitigation such as locating ffrost penetration levels, replacing frost susrestricting water to the frost zone. 

AFFECTED 

ENVIRONMENT
 81

Air Quality The weather at Grand Portage National Monument is controlled by three major air masses: the Continental Polar, Maritime Tropical, and Maritime Polar. The Continental Polar air mass from the Arctic brings cold, dry weather in the winter and cool conditions in the summer. The Maritime Tropical air mass from the Gulf of Mexico brings warm, moist winter weather and hot, humid summer conditions. The Maritime Polar from the northern Pacific Ocean brings mild weather with little precipitation (Albert 1995). In addition to the influences of the major air masses, Lake Superior affects the weather at Grand Portage National Monument. Lake Superior tends to intensify storms in late fall. It also tends to decrease the intensity of storms and increase the stability of air masses during spring and summer (Albert 1995). The total annual precipitation at the monument averages about 27 inches, with May through September receiving the heaviest rainfall. Snow accumulations from November through March frequently exceed 10 inches a month, with a mean annual accumulation of 78 inches (NPS 1991). A weather station in Grand Marais, approximately 35 miles south of Grand Portage National Monument, indicates that July tends to be the warmest month, with average daily maximum temperatures of about 70° F. The coldest month is January, with average daily minimum temperatures of about 4°F (NRCS n.d.). 

Grand Portage National Monument is a class II air quality area (airshed) under the Clean Air Act. The nearest class I airsheds to the national monument are Boundary Waters Canoe Area, about 10 miles west, and Isle Royale National Park, about 20 miles east. Air pollution sources generally are from automobile emissions, wood burning for home heating, prescribed fire, and industries in nearby population centers. Thunder Bay, Ontario, 

with approximately 114,000 residents, aboeast of the monument, is the nearest large coal-fired power plant exists near Schroed70 miles southwest of the monument. Effepollution sources have not been noticed in In general, the air quality at Grand Portagment is considered good. It is likely that anational monument is in attainment of stastandards, although there are no air monitmonument to substantiate this. However, tors that air quality is a problem at the moknown to be good indicators of air quality sensitivity to low levels of many atmosphemental analysis of lichens in 1991 indicateaccumulations of polluting elements at annational monument except for manganese (Wetmore 1992). The reasons for these unmanganese are unknown. There is no indithe monument are being damaged by air q1992), and the lichens within the monumeWater Quality and Aquatic Species The dominant hydrologic feature of Grand Monument is Grand Portage Bay of Lake immediately east of the monument. High wSuperior have caused erosion along the sherosion control measures (riprap) along thbanks of Grand Portage Creek appear to hproblem. Major streams passing through Grand PorMonument include Grand Portage, PoplarGrand Portage Creek flows into Lake SupPortage Bay. Poplar and Snow Creeks flow 
 82

River, which flows into Lake Superior at Pigeon Bay. The Pigeon River also defines the western boundary of Grand Portage National Monument. Grand Portage National Monument is within the U.S. Geological Survey delineated Baptism-Brule watershed (hydrologic unit code 04010101). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has characterized the overall watershed as ìbetter water qualityñlow vulnerabilityî based on indicators of watershed health (EPA 1999). Water quality data collected from 28 monitoring stations between 1968 and 1994 were recently summarized (NPS-WRD 1999). Water quality parameters from monitoring stations in the national monument did not exceed any water quality criteria. For monitoring stations adjacent to the monumentís boundaries, five parameters (turbidity, total coliform, fecal coliform, copper and lead) exceeded water quality criteria; however, these parameter data were collected in the late 1960s to mid-1970s. Seven out of eight (88%) of the exceedances occurred in just one of those years, and the proportion of exceedance (number of exceedances/total number of observations) ranged from only 1.7% to 8.8%. Therefore, the water quality at the national monument over that timeframe appeared good. All three streams that flow through the monument were monitored for 28 water quality parameters from May to November 2000 (Draft Baseline Water Quality Report, March 2001). No parameters exceeded water quality criteria during the study period. Improved forestry practices on surrounding Reservation lands and a recently constructed wastetreatment facility for residents suggest the water quality in and around Grand Portage National Monument will remain good. Groundwater in the area is generally shallow and not abundant due to the impervious bedrock. The groundwater is generally hard, and the basaltic lava creates an unpredictable aquifer; 

private wells have revealed a wide variety conditions, yield, and character (NPS 199Fish-bearing streams in Grand Portage Nainclude Grand Portage, Poplar, and Snow indicate that abundant and common fish ssuckers (Catostomus commersoni), mottl

bairdii), slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus), 

plumbeus), coho salmon (Oncorhynchus 

trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), smelt (Osmbrook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and cratromaculatus). In addition, fish species toccasionally or rarely include long nose sucatostomus), lake herring (Coregonus arte(Etheostoma nigrum), burbot (Lota lota)

flavescens), round whitefish (Presopium 

walleye (Stizistedion vitreum). Grand Portage Creek flows directly into Lprovides spawning habitat for many lake sthese lake species move from the deep wato shallow shoreline areas and adjacent triGrand Portage Creek, to spawn. One such brook trout (locally known as coasters), weliminated by the early 1900s by fishing, dtat, and competition from exotic salmonidcoho salmon). From 1991 to 1995, a progbrook trout to Grand Portage Creek was istocked annually in Grand Portage Creek Fry were stocked annually from 1992 to 1tion effort appears to have been successfucate that brook trout are now common in Creek. Baseline aquatic habitat data have been coPortage and Poplar Creeks. Temperature, dissolved oxygen concentration, pH, nitro

AFFECTED 

ENVIRONMENT
 83

phosphorus concentrations, and benthic macroinvertebrate density have been collected. This data can be used during future monitoring efforts as a baseline to determine changes in aquatic habitat. General Vegetation Grand Portage National Monument lies in a transition zone between northern hardwood forests, which stretch south and west to the grasslands of the plains, and the boreal forest of the north latitudes. The monument is dominated by forest community types interspersed with small openings created by rock exposures, grassy meadows, and shrub fields dominated by alder (Alnus spp.) and willow (Salix spp.). Most of the forested acreage in Grand Portage National Monument is dominated by quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), 

paper birch (Betula papyrifera), white spruce (Picea glauca), 

and/or balsam fir (Abies balsamea) occurring within two 

major forest community types: aspen-birch and spruce-fir. Generally the aspen-birch community type becomes established following a major vegetation altering disturbance such as insect or disease outbreak, wildfire, or logging. Aspen-birch generally succeeds to spruce-fir community type in the absence of any disturbance. The spruce-fir community type is a climax community and can eventually develop into old growth. Most of the aspen-birch community type in Grand Portage National Monument is in the eastern part of the monument and was established following logging that occurred through the 1940s. Many of these stands are beginning to succeed into the spruce-fir community type, as evidenced by the declining aspen-birch overstory and the second layer of spruce-fir. These stands will eventually grow into mature spruce-fir stands in the absence of any disturbance. 

The majority of the spruce-fir community monument is found in the western part of Many of the mature spruce-fir stands in threcently succumbed to a spruce budworm birch are now becoming established in the the dead and dying spruce and fir. Many odying spruce and fir have blown down, pawestern part of the portage trail. This blowbrush layer are creating a fuel loading concreates a wildfire control and firefighter/pIn addition to the dominant tree species, ofound in Grand Portage National Monum(Pinus resinosa), white pine (Pinus strob

banksiana), white cedar (Thuja occidenta

(Picea mariana), balsam poplar (Populus 

maple (Acer saccharum), red maple (Acer 

birch (Betula cordifolia), and black ash (F

Many of these trees occur in association wand spruce-fir community types, as well as munity types. Other notable forest commumonument are red pine, white pine, white community types. Red pine community types exist near the sT64N, R5E, section 25. The red pine stand was planted and is now a mature stand. Tand has not developed a second layer. Purprobably never existed near the stockade, dependent community type, and it is unlikever played a major role adjacent to Lake pine stand in T64N, R5E, sec. 25 is larger the stockade. A second layer of balsam fir developed under the red pine layer, but thbe healthy. Most of the native red pine stahave been converted to other forest commlogging and succession (MN DNR 1993). 
 84

White pine community types are found in the western part of Grand Portage National Monument. The stands in the monument generally are healthy, despite the presence of a dense understory in many stands. White pine blister rust does not appear to be affecting the white pines, and the alternate hosts gooseberry (Ribes hirtellum) and currant (Ribes spp.) have no 

indication of rust. Periodic ground fires historically maintained white pines, which were a major old-growth forest type in Minnesota. Old growth white pine stands are not common now because of white pine blister rust, harvesting (it is a desirable commercial species), fire suppression, and natural succession. A band of upland white cedar community type occurs along the western portion of the portage. These almost pure stands of white cedar with little or no understory appear not to be reproducing. This could be attributed to deer browsing, which has been known to substantially impact white cedar reproduction. Black ash community types occur as narrow zones along wet draws and as wetland inclusions. Historically, flooding (especially that caused by beaver dams) and windthrow were the dominant disturbance regimes affecting this community type (MN DNR 1993). Major disturbance factors affecting vegetation at Grand Portage National Monument include insects, disease, windthrow, wildfires, fire suppression, and timber management. Disturbance events from insects, disease, and windthrow have impacted the vegetation periodically throughout history and generally have created conditions that favor early successional species. In addition, impacts from insects, disease, and windthrow often have set up the landscape for stand replacement fires by increasing fuel loads and creating environments for a dense second layer within stands that act as ladder fuels to surviving overstories. 

The historic fire regimes at the national mwere characterized by stand replacement fintervals (NPS 1997). The historic averagthe monumentís two major forest communbirch and spruce-fir) probably were about (Heinselman 1996). Since European settleMinnesota, the historic fire regimes have blarge-scale landscape modification and fire pression efforts. This probably has resulteloadings and a decrease in fire dependent Past timber harvesting throughout and admonument has resulted in large tracts of sbirch community types. No timber has beemonument for more than 50 years. Timbevested in adjacent areas, with the majority under an even-aged system. Threatened or Endangered Species or Species of Concern — Plants No plant species federally listed as proposendangered are known to inhabit Grand PMonument; however, the Minnesota DepaResources (DNR), Section of Ecological Sdocumented 17 species, as listed in table 5Many state-listed threatened and endangethe vicinity of Mount Rose and the beaver corridor. The unique microhabitat provideoutcrops and scree slopes on Mount Rose habitat at the beaver ponds make these arfor plant habitat. 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
 85

TABLE 5: DOCUMENTED PLANT SPECIES OCCURRING IN THE MONUMENT

SPECIES STATUS

lichen (Parmelia stictica (Duby) Nyl.) endangered wild chives (Allium schoenoprasum L. var. sibiricum (L.) hartm.) threatened moonwort (Botrychium lunaria (L.) Sw.) threatened black-fruited hawthorn (Crataegus douglasii Lindl.) threatened Chilean sweet cicely (Osmorhiza berteroi) threatened smooth cliff fern (Woodsia glabella R. Br.) threatened Rocky Mountain cliff fern (Woodsia scopulina D. C. Eat.) threatened least moonwort (Botrychium simplex) special concern wavy hairgrass (Deschampsia flexuosa (L.) Trin.) special concern rock whitlow grass (Draba arabisans Michx.) special concern creeping juniper (Juniperus horizontalis Moench) special concern blunt-fruited sweet cicely (Osmorhiza depauperata Phil.) special concern satiny willow (Salix pellita Anderss. ex Schneid.) special concern Torreyís manna grass (Torreyochloa pallida (Torr.) Church) special concern moonwort fern (Botrychium matricariifolium) tracked intermediate sedge(Carex media) tracked mountain cliff fern (Woodsia oregana) tracked 
 87

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVESThe National Environmental Policy Act requires that environmental documents disclose the environmental impacts of the proposed federal action, reasonable alternatives to that action, and any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the Preferred Alternative be implemented. This section analyzes the environmental consequences of the five alternatives on the impact topics. This analysis provides the basis for comparing the alternatives. METHODOLOGY The impact analysis and conclusions were based on the national monument staffís knowledge of the resources and site; review of existing literature and studies; information provided by experts in the National Park Service and other agencies; and professional judgment. Intensity Intensity refers to the degree or severity of an impact. Impacts are described as adverse or beneficial and levels of intensity for each impact topic were determined using the definitions presented in the following sections. 

Cultural Resources (cultural landscahistory, sacred sites). The intensity of i

resources was determined using the follow• Negligible: the impact would be barely 

measurable and would be confined to a single contributing element of a historic archeological resource. 

• Minor: the impact would be perceptible 

is confined to a small area or a single coof a historic structure, site, or archeolo

• Moderate: the impact would be sufficie

in the character-defining features of a rgenerally involves a single or small grouelements of a historic structure, site, or resource. 

• Major: the impact would result in subst

noticeable change in character-defining resource and involves a large group of cand/or an individually significant histoarcheological resource. 

Visitor Experience and Interpretatio

impacts on visitor experience and interpredetermined using the following definitions

• Negligible: the impact would not be det

and would have no discernible effect on 
 88

• Minor:-the impact would be slightly detectable by visitors 

but would not affect overall visitor use and/or the visitor experience. 

• Moderate: the impact would be clearly detectable by visitors 

and could have an appreciable effect on the visitor experience. 

• Major: the impact would have a substantial, highly 

noticeable influence on the visitor experience and could permanently alter access, use, and availability of various aspects of the visitor experience. 

Local and Regional Transportation. The intensity of 

impacts on monument operations, facilities, partnerships, and the local and regional transportation network was determined using the following definitions: 

• Negligible: the impact would be barely detectable and would 

have no discernible effect on park operations and facilities. 

• Minor: the impact would be slightly detectable but would 

not affect the monumentís 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 reduce the monumentís ability to provide adequate services and/or maintain facilities. 

Economy, Population, and Local Land Use. The intensity of impacts on the economy, population, and local land use was determined using the following definitions: • Negligible: the impact would be barely detectable and would 

have no discernible effect on the local community. 

• Minor: the impact would be slightly det

not have an appreciable effect on the lopopulation, nor affect local land use wi

• Moderate: the impact would be clearly 

have an appreciable effect on the local population, and it could affect local lancommunity. 

• Major: the impact would have a substa

noticeable influence on the local econoand would result in local land use chan

Natural Resources. For the purposes of analysis, intensity of impact is defined as f• Negligible: the impact would be barely 

measurable and would be confined to a 

• Minor: the impact would be perceptible 

it would be localized. 

• Moderate: the impact would be clearly 

have appreciable effect on the natural r

• Major: the impact would have a substa

noticeable influence on the natural reso

Duration Duration refers to the time period over whimpact persist. For impact topics evaluatethe duration of impacts across all categoriusing the following definitions: • Short-term: the impact would last less t

• Long-term: the impact would last one y

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES
 89

Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts are impacts on the environment that result from the incremental (i.e., additive) impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what entity (federal or nonfederal) undertakes such actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. Cumulative impacts analyzed in this document consider the incremental effects of the no-action alternative and each of the action alternatives in conjunction with past, current, and future actions at Grand Portage National Monument. These actions include the following planned or ongoing activities: • Development by the Grand Portage Band of the Grand 

Portage Lodge, Casino, and Marina facilities is ongoing. The Band is constantly improving facilities to attract visitors to the area. Until a large casino was constructed at Thunder Bay, Ontario, much of the Casino business came from Canada. That business has dropped off considerably, and now the Band is working to attract more visitors from the Duluth area and to win back visitation from Ontario. One of the actions being undertaken is an enlargement of the marina. 

• Potential development of a combination state tourist information center and semi-trailer truck rest area. This has been 

an on again, off again proposition for many years. It would replace the existing Tourist Information Center now located high above MN 61 near its intersection with BIA 2. The existing facility is seasonal and cannot handle large trucks. The plan would provide a place for visitors to the region to receive information about local and state attractions and for drivers of large trucks to rest, as required by daily legal driving time constraints. 

• Development of Grand Portage State P

Pigeon Falls. Grand Portage State Park state park that interprets Pigeon Falls amunity/region. Facilities are cramped, athe foreseeable future for any developmupon availability of state funds. 

• Controlled burning of Band lands to im

forest health. The Grand Portage Band burning of small portions of its land in forest fires, to improve forest health anencourage the growth of certain species 

• Purchase of the Voyageurs Marina by t

Band. The Voyageurs Marina was a privided a landing for one of the boats takRoyale National Park. The Band plans in the future and continue to provide ththis marina has deeper water, it is espelow water years. The purchase is so rechave been developed, although a campgpossibility. 

• The designation of a snowmobile route 

Grand Portage Lodge and Casino. The designate a snowmobile trail from the Cthe casino. It would cross the Grand Po

• Development by the Grand Portage Ba

infrastructure for Band members. The Gis developing a new housing area west along the Bay Road. In conjunction witService, the Band has upgraded its watthroughout the community. At present through the national monument is a malocal people to access the Bandís facilitnortheast of the national monument. 
 90

• The state of Minnesota is seeking a designation of MN 61 as 

a national scenic byway. Such a designation would provide another incentive for people to drive this route. 

• The Band is contemplating a new tribal council office, but 

no location has been designated. There is also discussion of a museum to interpret the history of the Grand Portage Band. 

• The Indian Health Service and the Band near the log 

schoolhouse in the community have constructed a new clinic. 

• The U.S. Forest Service is undertaking an environmental 

impact statement dealing with the aftermath of the July 4, 1999 blowdown in the Superior National Forest. Much of the blowdown is near the Fort Charlotte unit within designated wilderness. 

• A cultural landscape report is planned to provide the data 

needed to determine the proper treatment for the entirety of the national monument landscape. 

Mitigation Mitigation is a key concept in resource management planning because it accommodates interactions between visitors and NPS operations with natural and cultural resources and their tolerance for disturbances. Mitigation and best management practices are regularly used to ensure that natural and cultural resources are protected and preserved for future visitors with minimum impairment. In the legislation that created the national park system, Congress charged the National Park Service with managing lands under its stewardship ìin such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generationsî (NPS Organic Act, 16 USC 1). As a result, the National Park Service routinely evaluates and implements mitigation whenever conditions occur that could adversely affect the sustainability of the 

resources in national parks and national mtion was included in the formulation of thGrand Portage National Monument (discudocument), such as considering different ltrative offices, maintenance facilities, and Impairment of National Monument RIn addition to determining the environmenimplementing the preferred and other alte(Interpreting the National Park Service OPark Service Management Policies) requitial effects to determine whether or not acsite resources. The fundamental purpose of the national plished by the Organic Act and reaffirmed bAuthorities Act, as amended, begins with serve national park resources and values (Portage National Monument). NPS manaseek ways to avoid, or to minimize to the ticable, adverse impacts on such resources ever, the laws do give the National Park Sment discretion to allow impacts on resounecessary and appropriate to fulfill the pumonument, as long as the impact does not ment of the affected resources and values. has given the National Park Service the mtion to allow certain impacts within the nathat discretion is limited by the statutory rNational Park Service must leave resourcepaired, unless a particular law directly and otherwise. The prohibited impairment is aprofessional judgment of the responsible mthe integrity of national monument resourcluding the opportunities that otherwise w

ENVIRONMENTAL NVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES OF THE ONSEQUENCES OF THE 

ALTERNATIVES LTERNATIVES
 91

the enjoyment of those resources or values. An impact on any national monument resource or value may constitute an impairment. An impact would be more likely to constitute an impairment to the extent it affects a resource or value whose conservation is • necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation for the national monument 

• key to the natural or cultural integrity of the national 

monument or to opportunities for enjoyment of the national monument 

• identified as a goal in the national monumentís General 

Management Plan or other relevant NPS planning documents 

Impairment may result from NPS activities in managing the national monument, visitor activities, or activities undertaken by concessioners, contractors, and others operating in the national monument. A determination on impairment is made in the ìEnvironmental Consequencesî section in the conclusion section for each impact topic. All actions proposed in this plan would be evaluated by the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Officer to ensure that appropriate mitigation of impacts is designed and undertaken to minimize the loss of, or damage to, cultural resources. The Monument staff would continue to develop inventories for and oversee research about Grand Portageís cultural resources. These resources would be managed according to federal regulations and NPS guidelines. A number of archeological reports covering work done within the stockade and before ground disturbing activities have been completed. However, a complete archeological survey and evaluation of the national monument has not been undertaken. Until such a survey can be accomplished, archeological expertise would be sought before any ground di

mine the appropriate level of mitigation neSoil Analysis Assumptions The following assumptions were made to sof impacts on the soil resource. Roads. The lineal distances for roads wer

graphic information system (GIS) maps. Cbance from roads was assumed to be 60 feexisting and proposed road segments. The based on several measurements of average widths from orthographic photos of the GGateway. It was estimated that the ìgateproposed in Alternative E near the interse17 and MN 61 would impact about 3 acreedge of the site. Heritage Center / Headquarters. Preliproposed visitor center / headquarters facyears ago indicated an impact area of aboufacility and associated parking lot. These dbasis for the assumptions of the impact arheritage center / headquarters. For the twcenter and headquarters buildings in Alterassumed that the areas impacted would be acres, respectively, which would be slightlpreliminary design of the combined facilitand D, it was assumed that 3 acres would combined facility, based on the preliminarnative E it was assumed that the impact aacres because it would be located on the eparking lot, which is about 0.25 acre. 
 92

Housing. No site has been selected as a location for housing, 

but standard NPS architecture would be used, or the equivalent if the Grand Portage Band built the housing. The proposed housing probably would consist of two duplex-type buildings slightly larger than the existing NPS ranger quarters and a dormitory. On the basis of this assumption, it was assumed that the impact area for the proposed new housing would be about 0.5 acre. Maintenance Facility / Boneyard. No preliminary design 

work exists for the proposed combined maintenance facility and boneyard; however, the existing maintenance facility and boneyard occupy 0.7 and 0.5 acre, respectively. The proposed facility probably would be larger than the existing two facilities; it was assumed that the combined facility would impact about 3 acres. Total Estimate. The estimate for the total soil disturbance 

from proposed developments for each alternative was rounded to the nearest half acre. IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION Cultural Landscape The housing area and maintenance facility have obliterated what is believed to be the southern terminus of the Grand Portage. Alternative A would not restore the Portage. Visitors would continue to use an alternative route for the first several hundred feet of the portage trail. Although the landscape of the national monument does not look like it did during the historic period, it provides a rustic background for interpreting the stockade and the portage trail. Some modern day intrusions would continue to mar this background; examples are a parking area and a 

stockade front gate, an NPS ranger house entrance, County Road 17, the boneyard, Isle Royale parking area, and a campgrounWithin the stockade, the landscape would large grassy area unlike its historic appearThere would be no change in the landscapFort Charlotte portion of the national monthe landscape of the Grand Portage Villagpresence appearance. Cumulative Impacts. Over the years sinPortage was abandoned and operations wWilliam, a variety of changes have occurrebeen logged, with the result that the specimix of trees have changed. The area arounmonument has been designated a Reservacommunity of Grand Portage has been devcommunity with roads and facilities that sthe national monument. Several species of exotic, invasive species lished in the monument. In addition, since national monument, the landscape has beeease of management rather than to recreata historic landscape. In the future, it is expected that the landscmuch as at present with the emphasis on rspecies that can be removed, replacement that are lost or damaged, and removal and maintenance shops, and employee housing sensitively designed facilities. 

ENVIRONMENTAL NVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES OF THE ONSEQUENCES OF THE 

ALTERNATIVES LTERNATIVES
 93

Conclusion. The historic landscape of Grand Portage would not be restored. Intrusive development would continue to exist within the most historic areas of the national monument. The no-action alternative would have a minor long-term impact on the cultural landscape. There would be no major adverse impacts on resources or values whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the national monumentís establishing legislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of the national monument, or (3) identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or other relevant NPS 

planning documents. Consequently there would be no impairment of resources or values associated with cultural landscapes. Archeology and History Archeological resources would continue to be identified during ground-disturbing activities and as a result of other monument actions taken to identify such resources within the national monument. At such time as the maintenance and housing facilities were to be replaced, archeological investigations would be undertaken to determine whether any resources remained within the area and how best to preserve them. Historical research would continue. Archeological resources associated with the Grand Portage trail could be lost during construction of new maintenance and housing proposed for the location of existing such facilities. Testing and/or excavation before construction would minimize the likelihood of such loss. Cumulative Impact. In the past, decisions about site development were made that, in hindsight, may not have been best for the archeological and historic resources. Such 

decisions include the placement of parking maintenance and housing facilities, which constructed on top of archeological resourArcheological or historic resources associaPortage National Monument may exist on Island or as underwater archeological featHowever, such resources have not been idConclusion. Archeological and historic inbe undertaken before development to ensuresources were understood and that they wdamaged or lost as a result of NPS actionsminor long-term impact on the archeologinational monument. There would be no imhistorical significance of the site. There would be no major adverse impacts values whose conservation is (1) necessarpurposes identified in the national monumlegislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity enjoyment of the national monument, or (goal in this General Management Plan or planning documents. Consequently, there ment of resources or values associated withistoric resources. Sacred Sites A Midewiwin site sacred to the Ojibwe manational monument property. However, itunknown. Alternative A does not propose would impact the suspected general area. have been identified. 

Impacts o
 94

Cumulative Impact. It is possible that maintenance activities conducted since the national monument was established, such as mowing, are having an ongoing impact on the Midewiwin site. Development of the community outside the monument boundaries may also have an effect through erosion or some other secondary impact. As sacred sites outside the monument are lost, those remaining, such as the Midewiwin site, become more significant to the Grand Portage Band. Protection of the likely location by the National Park Service would allow any existing remains to be preserved and allow the Ojibwe to use the site. Conclusion. If the Midewiwin ceremonial site is indeed on national monument lands, it would be preserved and protected for future use by the Grand Portage Band. Impacts would be characterized as negligible but long term. There would be no major adverse impacts on resources or values whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the national monumentís establishing legislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of the national monument, or (3) identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or other relevant NPS 

planning documents. Consequently, there would be no impairment of resources or values associated with sacred sites. Local and Regional Transportation Alternative A would not include any changes to the local or regional transportation systems, nor would it allow for a large increase in visitors, which would necessitate additional transportation planning. 

Cumulative Impact. Alternative A woulcumulative impacts on local or regional trConclusion. No short or long-term impacttransportation would result from AlternatThere would be no major adverse impacts values whose conservation is (1) necessarpurposes identified in the national monumlegislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity enjoyment of the national monument, or (goal in this General Management Plan or planning documents. Consequently, there ment of resources or values associated wittransportation. Population, Economy, and Land Use The ìno actionî alternative would have no population surrounding Grand Portage Nanor would it change any land uses outside aries. Visitation to the monument may grogrowth of tourism in the region but visitor not likely increase without an additional iresulting in no appreciable spur to the locCumulative Impact. The Grand Portage working to upgrade water, sewer, housingfacilities within the Reservation to benefit One of the goals is to provide an incentive would allow Band members living elsewheReservation and make a good living. Altersupports this initiative nor detracts from i

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES
 95

Conclusion. Alternative A would have a negligible long-term impact on the local population, economy, or land use. No actions proposed would constitute impairment. 

There would be no major adverse impacts on resources or values whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the national monumentís establishing legislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of the national monument, or (3) identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or other relevant NPS planning documents. Consequently, there would be no impairment of resources or values associated with population, economy, or land use. Visitor Experience and Interpretation Under the no-action alternative, visitors to Grand Portage National Monument would continue to arrive at the stockade without the opportunity to receive orientation to interpretive stories, site significance, or available activities before reaching the stockade. Without this basic information before the stockade experience, many visitors would not be able to appreciate the stockadeís resources in their historic context. The stockade would continue to serve the dual functions of visitor center and late 18th century fur trade post / living history site. With 

the highway and parking lot directly in front of the stockade, visitors still would have little opportunity to transition from the present to an immersion experience of the fur trade period. Inside the stockade, modern intrusions would continue to mar the historic scene and ambience. The Great Hall still would serve as an orientation site and a sales area, in addition to its role in interpreting the North West Company and the business side of the fur trade. With only the Great Hall, the kitchen, the fur press, and the warehouse, it still would be difficult for visitors to see the stockade as it was during th

more than a dozen buildings were inside tof historic structures would give visitors tlarge, grassy, and sleepy stockaded fort, mreality of a bustling, crowded commercial al significance. The current interpretive infrastructure, whunder Alternative A, would not support testory of the fur tradeís role in the exploratsettlement of the northwestern section of and western Canada. There still would be visitors to appreciate the complexity of thimpacts. Other interpretive themes that wpresented are exploration, maritime historabout local fur trade interactions. Opportunities to learn about Ojibwe cultuconstrained to the interpretive programs ademonstrations in the Ojibwe village arealittle interpretation of contemporary Ojibwvisitors still would have little opportunity continuum of Ojibwe culture and heritageWinter and ìshoulder seasonî visitors to GNational Monument would have little oppunderstand the significance of the site and Cumulative Impacts. Under the no-acti

visitor experience of the stockade and othwould not be as rich and personal as they would have little opportunity to receive baabout the fur trade or the Ojibwe culture bstockade. This would diminish the interprstockade. Not all the primary interpretive interpreted. Winter and shoulder season v

Impacts o
 96

little opportunity to understand the significance of the national monument. Conclusion. Under Alternative A, the opportunity for visitors to understand and appreciate the significance of the monumentís resources would be limited over the long term. No actions proposed would constitute impairment. Soils No direct or indirect impacts on the soil resource would be expected under Alternative A, because no developments or road realignment are proposed under this alternative. Cumulative Impacts. Alternative A would not contribute to 

cumulative impacts. However, impacts from existing roads and developments in the national monument would remain under the no-action alternative. In addition, foreseeable future actions of further developments in the vicinity of Grand Portage National Monument would adversely impact the soil resource through compaction and displacement from construction activities. Conclusion. There would be no change to the soil resource, and no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts would be expected. There would be no major adverse impacts on resources or values whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the national monumentís establishing legislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of the monument, or (3) identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or other relevant NPS planning 

documents. Consequently, there would be resources or values associated with the soAir Quality Alternative A would have no direct impacSince monument operations would remain substantial increase in the number of visitexpected, there would be no substantial inemissions and no change in potential sourAn indirect effect of implementing this altincreased potential for higher particulate mfrom wildfires as fuel loads and understorWhen fuel loads increase, so does the poteWildfires tend to have a greater impact on prescribed fires due to greater fuel consumties, and atmospheric conditions (prescribduring favorable atmospheric conditions tThe increased emissions from wildfires woperiodic short-term negligible adverse impCumulative Impacts. The air quality wo

adversely affected by vehicle emissions, whome heating, prescribed fire, and industrpopulation centers. The levels of emissioncould change slightly in the near future, bbe negligible and would not measurably chforeseeable future action that would be momost impacts on the national monumentís the prescribed burning of adjacent Band latat and forest health. Prescribed fire would sodes of degraded air quality. The implemtive A in combination with past, present, afuture actions would result in periodic sho

ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES OF THE 

ALTERNATIVES
 97

adverse impacts on air quality mainly from prescribed fire activity adjacent to the monument. Conclusion. The air quality at Grand Portage National Monument would remain good under Alternative A. No direct impacts would be expected from implementing Alternative A. Indirect impacts of increased emissions from wildfires would constitute a short-term negligible adverse impact. Cumulative impacts mainly from adjacent prescribed fire activity would result in a short-term minor adverse impact. There would be no major adverse impacts on resources or values whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the national monumentís establishing legislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of the monument, or (3) identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or other relevant NPS planning documents. Consequently, there would be no impairment of resources or values associated with air quality. Water Quality and Aquatic Species Alternative A would have no direct or indirect impacts on water quality or aquatic species. No ground disturbance would occur, monument operations would remain the same as at present, the existing dock would remain in place, and the number of visitors to Grand Portage National Monument would not be expected to increase. There would be no substantial changes in the water quality or aquatic habitat. Therefore, no impact on aquatic species would be expected. Cumulative Impacts. No change in impacts on water quality 

or aquatic species would be expected under Alternative A. The sources of impacts on water quality and aquatic species outside and within the national monument would remain at about 

existing levels; consequently, no cumulativanticipated under Alternative A. Conclusion. The water quality and aquatPortage National Monument would remaiaction alternative. There would be no percwater quality. There would be no major adverse impacts values whose conservation is (1) necessarpurposes identified in the national monumlegislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity enjoyment of the monument, or (3) identiGeneral Management Plan or other relevadocuments. Consequently, there would be resources or values associated with water species. General Vegetation and Fuel LoadinThe existing mowing and maintenance pratinue, and no vegetation manipulation is palternative. In the short term, plant commthe same. However, in the absence of distforest community types would eventually successional community type. Shrubs and would encroach on natural openings. Asptypes would convert to a spruce-fir commupine, red pine, white pine, and white cedadecline and eventually would become assofir community type. These changes cannot either beneficial or adverse. However, thesconsidered a long-term moderate impact. 

Impacts o
 98

Periodic disturbances in the backcountry would continue to occur, resetting the successional clock of many stands. Most disturbances would be small and localized, such as windthrow pockets, individual dying trees, or fires where suppression action would keep them small. Pioneer communities such as aspen-birch or shrub community types would be established in forest openings created by these disturbances. The impact of these periodic disturbances and the resulting pioneer communities cannot be characterized as either beneficial or adverse; however, these changes would be considered a long-term moderate impact. The existing pockets of high fuel loads caused by the recent outbreak of spruce budworm and windthrow in the backcountry would be augmented by the continual input from dying vegetation. The current trend of increasing fuel loads would continue, resulting in a trend of increasing risk of stand replacement fire. This increased risk would translate to increased difficulty of wildfire and would constitute a long-term minor to moderate adverse impact. Cumulative Impacts. Timber harvest in areas adjacent to 

and near the backcountry portion of Grand Portage National Monument would continue, and even-aged harvest practices probably would continue to be the dominant silvicultural system used. Therefore, early successional forests and young age classes would continue to be represented across the region. Older age class stands (more than 100 years) would continue to be represented below historic levels due to previous and continued timber harvest. Many harvested areas would be artificially regenerated to species that historically occurred in the region but are now underrepresented, such as red pine and white pine. However, aspenbirch and spruce-fir would remain the dominant community 

types of the region. These impacts from haconstitute a long-term moderate impact. Active and successful fire suppression protinue throughout the region. Fuel loading managed would continue to increase, resurisk of stand replacement fire. Fuel loadinwould contribute to this potential. The incconsidered a long-term minor to moderate Initial discussions with the Grand Portage regarding cooperative prescribed fire manaReasonable levels of interest have been exa possibility for future cooperative vegetatfuel reduction efforts, which would be a bImplementing Alternative A in combinatioand foreseeable future actions would resuminor to moderate adverse impact. This wto the increased risk of stand replacement Conclusion. Implementing Alternative A long-term minor to moderate adverse impamainly due to fuel loadings increasing ovean increased risk of stand replacement wilvegetation would remain natural-appearinfected by active management, other than fThere would be no major adverse impacts values whose conservation is (1) necessarpurposes identified in the national monumlegislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity enjoyment of the monument, or (3) identiGeneral Management Plan or other relevadocuments. Consequently, there would be 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES OF THE 

ALTERNATIVES
 99

resources or values associated with general vegetation or fuel loading. Threatened or Endangered Species and Species of Concern — Plants No direct or indirect effects on any listed plant species would be expected under this alternative, which would not include any developments or road realignment. Cumulative Impacts. Since existing conditions would be retained under the no-action alternative and existing developments and park operations would continue, there would be no new impacts on any listed plant species. Conclusion. There would be no major adverse impacts on resources or values whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the national monumentís establishing legislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of the monument, or (3) identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents. Consequently, there would be no impairment of resources or values associated with plants listed as threatened, endangered, or species of concern. IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE B: FUR TRADE WITH MARITIME EMPHASIS Cultural Landscape The housing area and maintenance facility have obliterated what is believed to be the southern terminus of the Grand Portage. Alternative B would remove the housing area, the maintenance facility, and associated roads and parking near the southern terminus to allow restoration of the trail to its original location and the forested landscape to a semblance of its historic appearance. 

Realigning the entrance road closer to Mothe parking area toward the lake would pomore visible from the stockade. Shifting the main visitor entrance of the stnorth to the more historically accurate laka more historically accurate footbridge oveCreek would enhance the integrity of the sRemoving some existing vegetation to creaand replanting other areas ó the former rand the NPS ranger station ó would creaaround the stockade reminiscent of the fuClearing and grading areas in or adjacent monument as part of the realignment of Cconstruction of the heritage center would natural drainage and vegetation. In the primitive trail, resource trust, and izones, selectively using prescribed fire, haing woody fuel, and suppressing invasive ehelp to restore historic forest cover, maintprevent dangerous levels of fuel loading, ahazard trees and other forms of vegetation Within the stockade, reconstructing at leastructures and outlining all other known srestore the historic landscape, but the area much more historic appearance than at prCumulative Impact. Should the upgradnational monument be successful in increakeeping visitors longer, development aroumonument and within the community coucorresponding change in the landscape. Dscape in the national monument to have a would have a major long-term beneficial elandscape, providing a more appropriate bcultural resources. 

Impacts of Alternative B: Fur Trade 
100

Conclusion. Alternative B would have a moderate long-term beneficial effect on the national monumentís cultural landscape, which would result from the continued gradual upgrading to a more appropriate setting. There would be no major adverse impacts on resources or values whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the national monumentís establishing legislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of the monument, or (3) identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or other relevant NPS planning documents. Consequently, there would be no impairment of resources or values associated with the cultural landscape. Archeology and History Preconstruction archeological evaluation would be carried out before any proposed ground-disturbing activity. This would lessen the likelihood that archeological resources associated with the fur trade or with prehistoric use of the site would be damaged or lost. The National Park Service also would conduct archeological evaluations of sites proposed for facilities outside the national monument. Because the headquarters complex would include collections storage and management space large enough to include the collections now housed at the Midwest Archeological Center, the national monument would have better accessibility for research and display purposes. At historic Fort Charlotte, the portage, and the Grand portage village the presence of more visitors could result in increased wear and tear on the resources and a greater possibility of disturbing archeological deposits. 

Cumulative Impacts. As archeological sassociated with the fur trade are lost or dedevelopment, the resources of the nationaeven more significant for scientific study aLikewise, the historic and archeological rePortage National Monument could pique trade era that would result in the preservaelsewhere in the region. Previous archeological and historical reseaceded the reconstruction of the stockade, kitchen, and main hall. Work was accompscientific methods and techniques of the dexcavation may have resulted in a loss of dbeen preserved using modern techniques. cal work would be preceded by consideraband preparation. Conclusion. Under Alternative B the loss many of the national monumentís historic resources would be minimized, and the abformed decisions about such resources woAlternative B would result in a moderate simpact due to the extensive amount of arction required and the fact that the site is uthe process. This loss would be mitigated by the data collected in the process. There would be no major adverse impacts values whose conservation is (1) necessarpurposes identified in the national monumlegislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity enjoyment of the monument, or (3) identiGeneral Management Plan or other relevadocuments. Consequently, there would be 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES OF THE 

ALTERNATIVES
101

resources or values associated with archeological and historic resources. Sacred Sites The exact location of the Midewiwin ceremonial site is unknown. Alternative B would include building a trail through the general area with interpretive signs explaining the significance of the early 20th century town center. To avoid construction near the site, the National Park Service would consult 

with the Grand Portage Band of Minnesota Chippewa, and the trail would be designed after archeological evaluation; therefore, there would be no effect on any archeological remains. Members of the Grand Portage Band would be able to use the site for religious purposes. No other sacred or ceremonial sites would be affected by implementing Alternative B. Cumulative Impacts. How much the Grand Portage Band makes use of the Midewiwin ceremonial site is unknown. How many such sites exist outside the national monument is also unknown. However, because it is in an area away from visitor facilities, this site is believed to be relatively unaffected by visitor activities and programs. Adequate consultation with Band members with knowledge of the Midewiwin ceremonial site and predesign archeological evaluation, if acceptable to its users, would allow the site to remain unaffected by trail construction or the presence of visitors. With the subsequent loss of sacred sites outside the Reservation, this site would become more significant to the Grand Portage Band. Conclusion. Alternative B would not result in any impacts on sacred sites. There would be no major adverse impacts on resources or values whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the national monumlegislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity enjoyment of the monument, or (3) identiGeneral Management Plan or other relevadocuments. Consequently, there would be resources or values associated with sacred Local and Regional Transportation Alternative B proposes a minor realignmeto provide more room on the lake side for heritage center. That road would not be clwould be some inconvenience during consthe road would be moved slightly away frowarehouse, there would be better visibility of pedestrian-automobile accidents. The uably would increase because of the heritagcould cause some minor congestion at the parking area. This would be offset somewRoyale ferry traffic in the early morning anCumulative Impact. There would be no deriving from this alternative. Conclusion. The impact of Alternative B short-term inconvenience during construcalignment and during construction of the There would be no long-term cumulative iregional transportation network. There would be no major adverse impacts values whose conservation is (1) necessarpurposes identified in the national monumlegislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity enjoyment of the national monument, or (goal in this General Management Plan or 

Impacts of Alternative B: Fur Trad
102

planning documents. Consequently, there would be no impairment of resources or values associated with local and regional transportation. Population, Economy, and Local Land Use Federal property such as Grand Portage National Monument is not generally subject to local land use plans. However, the management and activities of the national monument are consistent with existing local land use plans and policies of the Grand Portage Reservation. Alternative B would not include any actions that would change this situation. Except for the heritage center, most new facilities in Alternative B would be built outside the Reservation to the west. A new maintenance facility that would be constructed on the Reservation would conform to any local land use plans. Building this facility would be a partnership effort between the Grand Portage Band and Grand Portage National Monument. An extended 7-month visitor season could make commercial development such as gas stations, convenience stores, or restaurants more feasible outside national monument boundaries. During construction, there could be a temporary economic benefit from workers staying in the local area and using commercial establishments. Construction companies also could employ local workers, temporarily augmenting the economy. Following construction, national monument staff occupying the new housing would use some of the local commercial outlets for food and supplies, although most purchases probably would be made in Grand Marais. Because NPS employees would not live on the Reservation in Alternative B, there would be no change in the population of the Reservation. 

Cumulative Impact. Building a new hertending the monumentís season could comefforts to increase visitation to the hotel, cproviding a more comprehensive destinatiDepending upon the location selected, a moutside monument boundaries could resulof more homes or businesses at or near thtake advantage of a new entry road. Conclusion. There would be a minor shoduring construction and a minor long-term construction. 

There would be no major adverse impacts values whose conservation is (1) necessarpurposes identified in the national monumlegislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity enjoyment of the national monument, or (goal in this General Management Plan or planning documents. Consequently, there ment of resources or values associated witpopulation, or local land use. Visitor Experience and InterpretatioAlternative B would result in opportunitiereceive orientation and some in-depth intetrade story and Ojibwe culture and history Portage heritage center before experiencinresources. Keeping the heritage center opeeach year would enable more visitors to lecance of Grand Portage National MonumeRealigning County Road 17 closer to Mouquent shift of the parking and heritage comlake would improve visitor safety because 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES OF THE 

ALTERNATIVES
103

have to cross County Road 17 to reach the stockade. However, those changes could make these facilities more visible from the lakeshore and stockade. Removing parking from in front of the stockade would create a more historically correct setting for the stockade. Having visitors approach the stockade from the lake side would present a view that would more closely represent the late 18th century 

historic scene and focus their attention on the important role the lake played in both the daily life of the stockade and the business of the fur trade. The walk from the parking area to the stockade would enable visitors to experience a better transition from the heritage centerís modern exhibits to the historic fur trade era. With the reconstructed dock, the reconstructed vessel Otter, and other period watercraft at the dock, visitors could better understand the pivotal role of the portage between the fur trapping regions and Montreal. These watercraft, coupled with expanded canoe programming, would give visitors an opportunity to learn more about the overall story of the transportation that brought trade goods into the region in exchange for furs. With all the structures in the stockade furnished as they were during the height of the fur trade and interpreters dressed in period clothing, visitors would be better able to immerse themselves in the 18th century experience. Adding at least three 

more reconstructed and historically furnished structures (the carpenter/cooper shop, the trading store, and the managerís residence) and ghosting or outlining the remaining missing stockade structures would enable visitors to more easily imagine the stockade as it was during its heyday and to better understand what life was like during the fur trade period. The new interpretive trail through the 20th century Ojibwe 

village site, added to the interpretation of Ojibwe culture and history in the heritage center, would enable visitors to experience more of the cultural continuum that 

and heritage of the Ojibwe at Grand PortaCumulative Impacts. The visitor experiheritage center would complement that at State Park and would greatly expand the uOjibwe culture that is a goal of the Grand Minnesota Chippewa. It would also providwide variety of activities, from snowshoeinin the community to gambling at the casinmarina. Conclusion. Alternative B would improvopportunities, and the expanded season wvisitors to understand the significance of GNational Monument, which would have mpotential as a destination. The change woterm beneficial effect because visitors coulsive understanding of the Grand Portage rThere would be no major adverse impacts values whose conservation is (1) necessarpurposes identified in the national monumlegislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity enjoyment of the national monument, or (goal in this General Management Plan or planning documents. Consequently, there ment of resources or values associated witexperience and interpretation. Soils Implementing Alternative B would directlacres of the soil resource from new develorealignment. These developments would csoil at the proposed construction sites. Ad

Impacts of Alternative B: Fur Trad
104

ated with compaction include reduced water infiltration and soil porosity, less water-holding capacity, reduced aeration of the soil, increased surface runoff, and increased soil erosion. Adverse impacts associated with displacement include removal of the nutrient surface layer and soil profile disruption. The proposed realignment of County Road 17 slightly upslope (west) of the existing alignment to accommodate the Grand Portage heritage center on the lakeshore side of the road would require large amounts of blasting and excavation of a rock lobe that extends west to east through the proposed new alignment. Excavating the rock lobe to accommodate the new alignment would require stockpiling topsoil adjacent to the road shoulders in the disturbance area so that the stockpiled soil could be applied after the excavation. The adverse impacts on the soil resource from Alternative B would be long-term and minor because they would be localized and limited to 10 acres. Cumulative Impacts. The existing developments and roads 

in the national monument impact about 13 acres of the soil resource. Alternative B would result in about 4.5 acres of new disturbance within the monument. In addition, about 3.7 acres of soil would be rehabilitated by reclaiming the NPS ranger quarters site and part of the boneyard road and County Road 17. Implementing Alternative B, combined with past, present, and foreseeable future actions within the monument, would impact about 15 acres of the soil resource, which equates to about 2 percent of the monument. Most of the impacts on the soil resource would occur outside the national monument from the proposed headquarters, housing, maintenance facility, and boneyard. Alternative B would affect about 5.5 acres of the soil resource outside the monument. These 5.5 acres, combined with past, present, and foreseeable future actions outside the national monument, would continue the trend of urban development and compaction and displacement due to construction activities. The 

cumulative adverse impact on the soil resomenting this alternative would be long-terthis continuing trend. Conclusion. Implementing Alternative B long-term minor adverse impact on the sowould be no major adverse impacts on reswhose conservation is (1) necessary to fulidentified in the national monumentís esta(2) key to the cultural integrity or opportuof the monument, or (3) identified as a goManagement Plan or other relevant NPS Therefore, there would be no impairment values associated with the soil resource. Air Quality Alternative B would involve increased use part of the landscape restoration effort. Thably would use prescribed fire more than tternatives because it is the most aggressivof restoring the landscape to a historic appincrease smoke production and reduce visand duration of these impacts would be limwould be initiated under conditions for goWeather forecasts, smoke management fostability, fuel loadings, fuel moisture, the asumed, and local and upper level winds alto minimize the effects of smoke from any use of prescribed fire would result in a shoadverse impact on air quality. Construction projects would potentially redust from soil exposure and disturbance. Hwhich would occur only during the constr

ENVIRONMENTAL NVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES OF THE ONSEQUENCES OF THE 

ALTERNATIVES LTERNATIVES
105

be limited in extent and duration. In addition, mitigating measures would be implemented to minimize dust from construction activities, such as applying water or dust control agents. Construction activities would result in a short-term minor adverse impact on air quality. Increased visitation would lead to a minor increase of vehicles in the national monument; however, vehicle numbers in the monument would remain low; thus, vehicle emissions from visitors would remain low. Relocating the headquarters from Grand Marais would reduce the distance traveled for trips between the headquarters and the monument, thus reducing vehicle emissions from administrative trips. However, the reduction in emissions would be small and would not measurably change the air quality. The change in air quality from vehicle emissions would result in a long-term negligible adverse impact. Cumulative Impacts. Impacts from vehicle emissions, wood 

burning for home heating, and industries in nearby population centers would continue at about the same level. Smoke from prescribed burning adjacent to the national monument would increase, but the impacts would be localized because burning would be done during conditions with good smoke dispersion. Overall, the levels of emissions from all sources would increase slightly, but any adverse impact would be negligible and would not measurably change the air quality in the long term. Conclusion. The air quality at Grand Portage National Monument would decline at a local level but remain good. The only 

noticeable impact on air quality from this alternative would be an increased number of days on which the air quality and visibility were locally affected by prescribed fire or construction projects. Alternative B would have the greatest effect on air quality of the action alternatives. Implementing this alternative would result in a short-term minor adverse impact and a longterm negligible adverse impact on air quality. 

There would be no major adverse impacts values whose conservation is (1) necessarpurposes identified in the national monumlegislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity enjoyment of the monument, or (3) identiGeneral Management Plan or other relevadocuments. Consequently, there would be resources or values associated with air quaWater Quality and Aquatic Species Proposed developments and road realignmpotential to impact water quality and aquaground disturbance, which would result in runoff and soil erosion. However, because opment would be limited to 10 acres and bpractices would be implemented to controincreased sedimentation and turbidity woulimited to the period of construction and vDevelopment activities would result in a sadverse impact on water quality and aquaThe primary impact on water quality from ing dock and constructing a historical whaship would be increased turbidity. Howevited to the period of demolition/constructishortly thereafter. This adverse impact woshort term. Dredging might be needed along the proponavigable waters for the historical ship. Thon water quality from dredging would be rsediment, increased turbidity, reduced lighpotential release of pollutants incorporatesediments. The intensity and duration of tquality and aquatic species is unknown be

Impacts of Alternative B: Fur Trade 
106

type (sand, silt, organic material) and sediment contaminants (heavy metals, phosphates, pesticides) associated with the dredging area are unknown. The primary impacts on aquatic species from dredging would be the destruction of benthic habitat and the loss of individuals. However, this would occur only along the actual dredging trench, which would be limited to the dock area and channel to deeper water. In addition to impacts on benthic habitat and individuals, increased sedimentation from construction activities, dock removal, wharf reconstruction, and dredging could affect aquatic species by filling interstitial spaces within spawning gravel. Many aquatic species such as the brook trout need clean interstitial spaces within gravel for successful spawning and incubation. These spaces in the spawning beds allow for the infiltration of water to incubate the eggs. In addition, they provide cover for eggs and fry when they emerge from the eggs and are still dependent on their yolk sacs for nutrients. The disposal of dredge material also would have the potential to adversely impact water quality and aquatic species. Adjacent water bodies and/or groundwater can be impacted by seepage out of the fill area. The primary concern with potential seepage would be leaching of soluble minerals, chemicals, or toxic substances. Again, the intensity and duration, or whether there would be impacts at all, are all unknown because the nature of the dredge material, the disposal location, and the characteristics of the disposal site must be known to understand the impacts. Additional site-specific analysis would be needed if dredging operations were conducted. Cumulative Impacts Alternative B proposes the removal of the Isle Royale ferry operation from the national monument. Of the two ferries that leave from Minnesota, the Wenonah

leaves from the dock at the national monument and the Voyageur leaves from a private dock at the Voyageurs Marina recently purchased by the Grand Portage Band. There are two 

possible locations to which the Wenonah Grand Portage Marina or the Voyageur MVoyageur Marina is a deeper water marina accommodate the Wenonah with no addit

Grand Portage Marina performs occasionaprobably could accommodate the Wenona

frequent dredging. This plan can only specimpacts of either site because the decision relocate the Wenonah probably would be 

National Park, the concessioner, and the Grather than by Grand Portage National Modredging was necessary, there would be sowater quality and aquatic habitat in the imPortage Bay, the primary impact being incresuspension of sediments during dredginthereafter. Conclusion. Alternative B would result i

water quality than any of the other alternaimpacts on water quality and aquatic specconcern except in Grand Portage Bay becaproposed development and site disturbancPortage Bay, water quality would remain gon aquatic habitat from proposed developoperations would be minimal. The potential dredging operations might cdation of water quality and aquatic habitaBay. The primary impact probably would bturbidity and resuspension of sediments, wlimited to the period of the actual dredginthereafter. The impacts from resuspending not be likely to be of concern because Graprobably has relatively low levels of criticaprobable because the area surrounding Grnot industrial or agricultural and it is relatmajor source of critical pollutants. 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES OF THE 

ALTERNATIVES
107

Implementing this alternative would result in a short-term negligible adverse impact on water quality and aquatic habitat in Grand Portage, Snow, and Poplar Creeks, and there would be a long-term minor to moderate adverse impact on water quality and aquatic habitat in Grand Portage Bay. There would be no major adverse impacts on resources or values whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the national monumentís establishing legislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of the monument, or (3) identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or other relevant NPS planning documents. Consequently, there would be no impairment of resources or values associated with the water quality or aquatic species. General Vegetation and Fuel Loading Removing vegetation from about 10 acres at proposed development and road realignment sites would disturb adjacent vegetation, remove biomass, reduce nutrient capital, and increase the risk of noxious weed introduction and spread. However, the extent of the vegetation removal would be minor and limited to the area proposed for development. Some existing pockets of high fuel loads caused by the recent outbreak of spruce budworm and continuing the current levels of maintenance and increasing fuel reduction efforts along the trail corridor and in the Fort Charlotte area would eliminate associated windthrow. This would decrease the difficulty of wildfire control. Manipulating vegetation in the eastern part of the national monument would help to return the area to a historical landscape. The area west of Grand Portage Creek would be restored to the Northwest Company era, and the area east of 

the creek would be restored to an early 20

setting. It is likely that the vegetation in thvery similar ó stands of large trees with loSometime during the early 20th century, ti

matically changed the landscape. Before th

forest stands probably consisted of large trtimber harvesting was occurring except foneeds. Fuel loading in the eastern part of thave been low due to fuel wood consumptcooking. In natural openings that are relatively weling shrubs and trees would be removed, efthe size of the openings. This would be acmowing, manual cutting, prescribed fire, oall those activities. The red pine stand eventually would be relandscape because pure red pine stands prat this site. This stand could be allowed to ent community type through natural succesuppression of fires, but it could be 200 yecommunity type could be established. Remstands would be a reduction in vegetative unique community type for the monumenThe management of the aspen-birch and stypes within the area proposed for a historfocus on fuel reduction. This would probaand pile burning. Overall, the vegetation mloading reduction activities would result in beneficial effect. This would be mainly dufuel loading and the corresponding reductreplacement fire. Cumulative Impacts. Despite the active manipulation along the lakeshore portion 

Impacts of Alternative B: Fur Trade 
108

monument, the cumulative impacts on vegetation from Alternative B would be similar to those of Alternative A, mainly because of the relatively small area proposed for vegetation manipulation. As in Alternative A, early successional forests and young age classes would continue to be represented, and older age class stands would remain underrepresented. Regeneration efforts from foreseeable future actions outside the monument would lead to continued regional increases in white and red pine stands, but they would remain below historic levels. Active and successful fire suppression efforts would continue the trend of increasing fuel loads across the landscape, particularly in forests not actively managed. Implementing Alternative B in combination with past, present, and foreseeable future actions would result in a long-term minor adverse cumulative impact. This is mainly due to the continuing trend of increasing fuel loads across the regional landscape. Conclusion. Despite the proposed vegetation manipulation, the vegetation in the monument would remain natural in appearance. Alternative B would result in a minor long-term beneficial effect on vegetation and fuel loading in the monument. There would be no major adverse impacts on resources or values whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the national monumentís establishing legislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of the monument, or (3) identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or other relevant NPS planning documents. Consequently, there would be no impairment of resources or values associated with general vegetation and fuel loading. 

Threatened or Endangered Species or Species of Concern — Plants Of the 17 state listed plant species known Portage National Monument, only 3 woulto be affected by any proposed developmespecies are not near any proposed developalignment. The three species that could be listed species and include mountain cliff fgana) ó tracked, Rocky Mountain cliff fe

lina D. C. Eat.) ó threatened, and rock warabisans Michx.) ó species of special coare found near the existing Isle Royale parthe proposed road realignment and heritagspecies occur on or near cliff faces and amscree slopes on Mount Rose adjacent to thheritage center sites. The primary concern would be changes in moisture regimes and cause the cliff faces or scree slopes to crumIt is likely that the road realignment and cproposed heritage center would adversely cause blasting and excavation would be nelarge rock lobe that crosses the proposed rferns occur on this rock lobe. The road rearock lobe would destroy habitat and indivtion, the new alignment would create a linto fern habitat, which might change the simoisture retention, making it more sunny mize the impacts of vegetation removal, a would be planted and maintained before rshade the ferns that would not be directly part of the rock lobe. This mitigative measchanges in shading and moisture regimes, impacts on the ferns. However, despite thsures, implementing Alternative B would 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES OF THE 

ALTERNATIVES
109

minor to moderate adverse impact on three state listed plant species. Cumulative Impacts. Existing developments and operations 

would continue not to affect any listed plant species. Foreseeable future actions would not be likely to impact any state or federally listed plant species because they would not take place in the habitat of any listed plant species. The only cumulative impacts on listed plant species would be the direct and indirect impacts from implementing this alternative. Conclusion. This alternative would have no potential to affect 14 of the 17 listed plant species, but there probably would be a long-term minor to moderate adverse impact on 3 listed species from the proposed road realignment. Despite the impacts on the state-listed plants, there would be no major adverse impacts on resources or values whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the national monumentís establishing legislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of the monument, or (3) identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or other relevant NPS planning documents. Consequently, there would be no impairment of resources or values associated with plants that are listed as threatened, endangered or species of concern. IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE C: FUR TRADE AND OJIBWE HERITAGE Cultural Landscape The upper portions of the portage trail would continue to possess a high degree of integrity under Alternative C. Removing the housing area and maintenance buildings at the lower portion and rehabilitating the trail would enhance its historic setting. Additional trail construction from the Mount 

Rose trail to the small redeveloped Isle Rowould likely require considerable design to impact on the natural landscape to the extAfter the NPS ranger house was removed, could be landscaped in keeping with the smaking it more appropriate to the main naentrance. Realigning the roads outside the national remove cars and other traffic that visually rural, historic character of the stockade arThe landscape of the lakeshore area immestockade would be restored to the fur tradeast of the stockade would be restored to t

Removing some existing vegetation to creaand replanting other areas ó the former rand the NPS ranger station ó to create an the stockade would let visitors step back icontemporary development to the time of ited landscape restoration west of the stocWest Company period would provide an afrom the monument entrance to the stockstockade, the landscape would have more appearance, in keeping with the current uinterpret the 20th century Ojibwe commun

Fort Charlotte would remain relatively unIn the primitive trail, resource trust, and izones, selectively using prescribed fire, haing woody fuel, and suppressing invasive ehelp to restore historic forest cover, maintprevent dangerous levels of fuel loading, ahazard trees and other forms of vegetation 

Impacts of Alternative C: Fur T
110

Cumulative Impact. Placing the heritage center and the national monument headquarters along MN 61 would add more development to a general location that already has considerable development from the hotel and casino, parking, and the marina. The landscape of the heritage center site would change from a natural mix of open and wooded vegetation to a more manicured landscape. This could be even greater should a state of Minnesota Tourist Information Center be combined with or located in the same general area. Additional development could be expected in the general area to provide concentrated support facilities for visitors, casino and hotel guests, and marina users. Such development would change the landscape from rural to urban. Road realignment would change the Reservation landscape by replacing wooded land between County Road 17 and BIA 2 with a paved right-of-way approximately 60 feet wide. Housing and other development could occur along this new road. Removing the Isle Royale ferry from the national monument would be a beneficial change to the landscape of the national monument and result in no significant impact on the landscape of the Reservation. Removing the steel passenger ship Wenonah from the NPS dock would change the cultural landscape by allowing the removal of an intrusive nonhistoric dock, making it possible to create a more historic wharf in keeping with the character of the site. (The ship Wenonah does not relate to the site historically.) The Grand Portage Band has recently purchased the Voyageur Marina where the passenger ship Voyageur docks. This is the 

likely site for the Wenonah to dock as well, although the existing Grand Portage Marina also could handle such a ship. Adequate parking exists at both locations. 

Locations for new employee housing and outside the national monument boundary selected, so the impact on the Reservation known. However, additional development area as a result of the new facilities. A posthe loss of the natural landscape at these lControlled burning by the Grand Portage national monument could dramatically chof the area along the portage by changing density of the forest landscape that serves environmental impact statement being preForest Service dealing with the aftermath blowdown also could propose actions that affect the landscape of Fort Charlotte. Conclusion. Although many of the actionfully developed yet, the cultural landscape monument and the area outside, which codevelopment, could significantly change, ascape within the national monument. This potential to result in moderate and long-teadverse impacts on the cultural landscape outside the national monument. There would be no major adverse impacts values whose conservation is (1) necessarpurposes identified in the national monumlegislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity enjoyment of the monument, or (3) identiGeneral Management Plan or other relevadocuments. Consequently, there would be resources or values associated with culturLikewise, there would be no impairment oresources outside the national monument. 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES OF THE 

ALTERNATIVES
111

Archeology and History Reconstructing three structures and ìghostingî (outlining) all other known stockade structures possibly could damage the subsurface remains of the original structures. Archeological evaluation would be undertaken before construction to identify any such remains and to determine whether reconstruction should continue or a different structure should be rebuilt. Alternative C would cause less ground disturbance than Alternative B because less reconstruction is proposed. The National Park Service would make every effort to avoid losing or damaging archeological or historic resources when the heritage center, national monument headquarters, the maintenance facility, and employee housing were moved to locations outside the national monumentís boundaries to protect the historic feeling of the stockade area from modern intrusions. Should such resources be identified, their significance would be evaluated against National Register of Historic Places criteria, and if they were found eligible for listing on the register, the design would be modified or another site chosen for construction. This would minimize any adverse impacts on cultural resources at these locations. At historic Fort Charlotte, more visitors could result in a greater possibility that archeological deposits would be disturbed, a potential negative impact. More visitors also would be expected at the 20th century village site, with corresponding 

wear and tear and potential damage to archeological resources. Archeological data gathered through systematic inventory and testing and the judicious use of excavation before any construction would help to fill in the gaps in the siteís context, both historic and prehistoric. Information gained would include building locations and construction methods, prehistoric and historic activity areas, the locations of poses, and the objects of everyday life. Such data would improve interpretation, so that visitors could gain a fuller an

understanding of the site. Each archeological site identified would bsion on the National Register of Historic Pof the existing nomination for Grand Portment or as a distinct site in its own right. the protection of such resources from actithreaten their existence, and it would allow ment to make long-term planning decisionout significant cultural resources. Because the headquarters complex would storage and management space large enoucollections now housed at the Minnesota and the Midwest Archeological Center, thwould have more control of those collectiosult in better use of the collections for resetive exhibition, as well as reducing the chadamaging objects in transit between two fAfter the national monument was fully invtions returned to Grand Portage National lections storage space developed, the likeland irreversible loss of archeological resouminimized. Cumulative Impacts. Alternative C wouoptimum atmosphere for preserving archeand collections. With the passage of time athe number of remaining fur trade sites, thresources and collections of Grand PortagMonument would become more and more purposes. There has been no historical research or athat covers the area proposed for national 

Impacts of Alternative C: Fur T
112

outside the monument boundary, and no properties are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Therefore, little is known about the historic and archeological resources at any of these sites. Those resources would be inventoried and evaluated for the national register before any construction. Likewise, no systematic archeological inventory and evaluation of archeological resources in the national monument has been undertaken, although specific archeological work has been undertaken before any development activities. The plan calls for such an inventory in Appendix D. Until more is known about the archeological resources, nothing substantive can be said about cumulative impacts except that the National Park Service would work with the Minnesota Historical Society, the Grand Portage Band, and any other entity to ensure that significant historic or archeological resources would not be lost or destroyed as a result of NPS actions. Conclusion. In all instances where identified sites would be disturbed and could not be avoided, the national monument would undertake data recovery in accordance with the programmatic agreement among the National Park Service, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers. This would be done to retrieve important information, thereby reducing the intensity of adverse impacts. For some proposed project areas, information regarding the nature and importance of archeological resources is unknown; in these instances before any construction disturbance the national monument would first inventory project areas, test and evaluate the significance of identified sites, and carry out appropriate data recovery in accordance with the programmatic agreement. The impact of Alternative C on resources of historic or archeological significance would be minor and of short duration, based on the mitigative measures to be implemented. 

There would be no major adverse impacts values whose conservation is (1) necessarpurposes identified in the national monumlegislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity enjoyment of the national monument, or (goal in this General Management Plan or planning documents; therefore, there wouof resources or values associated with archSacred Sites The exact location of the Midewiwin ceremknown. Alternative C would include buildshelter and trail in the general area with inexplaining the significance of the early 20t

center. Because it would be designed after ation and full consultation with the Grand Minnesota Chippewa to avoid constructiowould be no effect on any archeological reNo other sacred or ceremonial sites would implementing Alternative C. Cumulative Impacts. How much the Gmakes use of the Midewiwin ceremonial smany such sites exist outside the national unknown. However, because it is in an arefacilities, this site is believed to be relativevisitor activities and programs. Adequate Band members with knowledge of the Midsite and predesign archeological evaluatiousers, would allow the site to remain unafconstruction or the presence of visitors. Wloss of sacred sites outside the Reservationbecome more significant to the Grand Por

ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES OF THE 

ALTERNATIVES
113

Conclusion. There would be no effect on sacred sites under Alternative C. There would be no major adverse impacts on resources or values whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the national monumentís establishing legislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of the monument, or (3) identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or other relevant NPS planning documents. Consequently, there would be no impairment of resources or values associated with sacred sites. Local and Regional Transportation The proposed rerouting of County Road 17 around Mount Rose, leaving the current roadbed about 1,800 feet west of the boundary, roughly parallel to MN 61 to BIA Route 2, and the added bridge across Grand Portage Creek would allow local traffic to circumnavigate the national monument without having to drive on MN 61. County Road 17 would end at the current Isle Royale parking area and be totally removed from that point to the northeast boundary. These changes would enable the national monument to close County Road 17 in the historic area and restore the landscape to a more historic appearance. It also would enhance the safety of visitors crossing County Road 17 to reach national monument facilities, because it would alleviate the problems of drivers exceeding the 20 mph speed limit, endangering visitors who do not pay close enough attention to traffic. This realignment would be almost entirely on Grand Portage Band land, with the bridge over Portage Creek being on national monument land. Rerouting the county road would afford new access to the Baptist cemetery and to several houses that otherwise can be reached only from the high-speed MN 61. For local traffic coming from the west, the distance to the community center 

and other facilities in the east part of the mcomparable to the existing route. It is unlikely that any regional impacts woternative C. A change in local use patterns A church and several homes along County monument would be inconvenienced sombeing truncated just inside the national mcausing them to backtrack as much as a ththe newly rerouted section.Cumulative Impact. Placing the heritagnational monument headquarters along Mconcentrate development at the intersectioCounty Road 17. This could encourage thother related businesses or facilities in the Such facilities as a tourist information centruck stop, and convenience stores could bsame time, the Band is making efforts to ethe marina, hotel, and casino. The Band is developing a housing area wewill depend on either MN 61 or County Rthe rest of the community. The state of Minnesota is working to get Mnational scenic byway as a means of increaarea of the state. This has the potential to MN 61 within the Reservation. Constructing a bypass road around Mount connecting County Road 17 with BIA 2 wpact on the local transportation network broads would remain open until the new byOnce the bridge and the bypass road were would be some minor inconvenience as lochanged to the new route. 

Impacts of Alternative C: Fur T
114

Conclusion. There is a potential for development to occur at the intersection of MN 61 and County Road 17. This could affect the local transportation network, causing some inconvenience to local users. These actions would have the potential to result in a moderate, long-term impact on the local transportation system. Impacts on the regional transportation network would be negligible. During construction activities associated with a new heritage center and headquarters, there could be a minor impact on local traffic. There would be no major adverse impacts on resources or values whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the national monumentís establishing legislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of the national monument, or (3) identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or other relevant NPS 

planning documents. Consequently, there would be no impairment of resources or values associated with local and regional transportation. Population, Economy, and Land Use Federal property such as Grand Portage National Monument is not generally subject to local land use plans. However, an effort is made to work with local governments to ensure that any actions are consistent with local land use plans to the extent possible. This alternative calls for the development of most new visitor, administrative, and maintenance facilities, as well as employee housing, outside the national monument on Reservation lands. All actions would be developed in consultation with the Grand Portage Band to ensure that NPS actions would be consistent with the Bandís land use plans. 

Building the heritage center and national quarters at the intersection of MN 61 and would provide the visibility necessary to aoperation of the national monument. This visitation numbers and possibly encouragcommercial enterprises that would serve tto the monument and the hotel, casino, anDuring construction, there could be tempobenefit from workers staying in the local amercial establishments. Construction comemploy local workers, temporarily augmenFollowing construction, national monumethe new housing would use some of the looutlets for food and supplies, although moprobably would be made in Grand MaraisAny new development could bring jobs thBand members to return to the Reservatiopopulation also would increase as a result ment staff living in the community, possibpeople. Cumulative Impact. Constructing visitoand County Road 17, along with the Bandthe facilities at the Grand Portage Lodge amarina, could result in a moderate long-teon the local economy. Other Band efforts include the creation of a snowmobile trail Grand Portage Lodge, purchasing and devVoyageurs Marina, and community infrasment. The state of Minnesota is working tas a national scenic byway, develop a new center in the area, and develop facilities at 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES OF THE 

ALTERNATIVES
115

Park. Any or all of these actions could improve the local economy and increase population as jobs increased. Conclusion. Placing the heritage center and the national monument headquarters at MN 61 and County Road 17 could spur the development of the immediate area and result in change to the economy, land use, and population. This beneficial effect would be moderate and long-term. 

There would be no major adverse impacts on resources or values whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the national monumentís establishing legislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of the monument, or (3) identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or other relevant NPS planning documents. Consequently, there would be no impairment of resources or values associated with population, economy, or land use. Visitor Experience and Interpretation Alternative C would result in opportunities for visitors to receive orientation and in-depth interpretation of the fur trade story and Ojibwe culture and history at the Grand Portage heritage center before experiencing the monumentís resources. Keeping the heritage center open year-round would enable more visitors, even winter visitors, to learn about the significance of Grand Portage National Monument. Removing parking from in front of the stockade would create a more historically correct setting for the stockade. Having visitors approach the stockade from the lake side would give them a view that would more closely represent the late 18th century 

historic scene and focus their attention on the important role the lake played in both the daily life of the stockade and the business of the fur trade. The walk from the parking area to the 

stockade would enable visitors to experienfrom the modern exhibits in the heritage cfur trade era. With the reconstructed dock period watercraft at the dock, visitors wouunderstand the pivotal role of the portage ping regions and Montreal. These watercrpanded canoe programming, would give vto learn more about the overall story of thbrought trade goods into the region in excWith some effort, visitors would be able to in the 18th century experience, and they w

oppor-tunity to experience first-hand the ccomplexity of the stockade and its structustockade, the Great Hall and the kitchen wthey were during the height of the fur traddressed in period clothing and all the othewere originally a part of the stockade idenappropriate locations, visitors could receivthe interior landscape of the stockade. Visexperience a landscape (inside the stockadthem a truer sense of crowding and the scthe landscape, the sense of the whole that impress voyageurs, Ojibwe, and rival comVisitorsí opportunities to understand the cculture and history would be greatly enhantive C through the interpretive exhibits in heritage center and exhibits in the Ojibwe tion Shelter, where interpretive exhibits aGrand Portage Band would be offered, as tions of Ojibwe crafts and cultural practicthe area east of the stockade to the early 2

village appearance would further emphasiOjibwe culture and history. 

 Impacts of Alternative C: Fur T
116

The added accessibility to part of the historic portage trail would enable all visitors to have a direct experience of the portage. Improving the campsites near Fort Charlotte would slightly enhance the visitor experience at that end of the portage. Shifting the main visitor entrance of the stockade from the north to the more historically accurate lake gate and installing a more historically accurate footbridge over Grand Portage Creek would enhance the integrity of the stockade landscape. The addition of small maritime craft and a more historic appearing wharf would likewise enhance landscape integrity, introducing the clutter and sense of activity that was historically a part of the landscape. Cumulative Impacts. Visitors would have a greater variety of activities and places to visit in the local area, with the possible result that people would stay longer in the area and receive a more in-depth understanding of the fur trade. The Grand Portage State Park and the national monument have complementary missions that tell different parts of the Grand Portage story. A snowmobile trail planned by the Grand Portage Band would complement the hiking and snowshoeing available on the portage trail. The casino and marina offer a different kind of visitor experience unrelated to the national monument mission, but one that would allow a visitor to spend more time in the community. Throughout the year, there is a variety of activities in the Grand Portage community, some related to Grand Portage National Monument, some not. Examples would be a Fur Trade Rendezvous at the national monument, an Indian Pow Wow and rodeo, and a winter dog sled race. Conclusion. Alternative C would provide a greater variety of activities and visitor experiences than now exist. A more indepth understanding of the fur trade woul

national monument. The heritage center wround rather than seasonally. Overall, Altresult in a major long-term beneficial effecThere would be no major adverse impacts values whose conservation is (1) necessarpurposes identified in the national monumlegislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity enjoyment of the national monument, or (goal in this General Management Plan or planning documents. Consequently, there ment of resources or values associated witexperience and interpretation. Soils The impacts on soils that would result frowould be the same as those described for Athat the location of the soil impacts would tive B, Alternative C would impact about resource, resulting in long-term minor advimpacts would be localized and limited to Cumulative Impacts. The existing deve

in the national monument affect about 13 source, and there would be about 3 acres owithin the national monument. About 2.2 be rehabilitated by reclaiming the NPS ranmaintenance/housing area, the boneyard, boneyard road. Implementing Alternative past, present, and foreseeable future actionational monument, would impact about percent of the monument. 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES OF THE 

ALTERNATIVES
117

Approximately 7 acres of impacts on soils outside the national monument would result from the proposed road realignment, housing, the maintenance facility, and the boneyard. Combined with past, present, and foreseeable future actions outside the monument, these effects on 7 acres would continue the trend of urban development and compaction and displacement of the soil resource from construction activities. Alternative C would result in a long-term cumulative minor adverse impact on the soil resource. Conclusion. Implementing Alternative C would result in a 

long-term minor adverse impact on the soil resource. There would be no major adverse impacts on resources or values whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the national monumentís establishing legislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of the monument, or (3) identified as a goal in this General 

Management Plan or other relevant NPS planning documents. Consequently, there would be no impairment of resources or values associated with soils. Air Quality Alternative C would involve the use of prescribed fire as part of the landscape restoration effort. This alternative would not use prescribed fire as much as Alternative B, which means there would be fewer days on which air quality and visibility would be locally impacted by prescribed fire operations. Any impacts on air quality from prescribed fire operations would be limited in extent and duration. To minimize the impacts of smoke from any prescribed fire, weather forecasts, smoke management forecasts, atmospheric stability, fuel loadings, fuel moisture, amount of fuel consumed, and local and upper level winds would all be evaluated. The use of prescribed fire would result in a short-term minor adverse impact on air quality. 

Impacts on air quality from construction pabout the same as those described for Altesoil exposure and disturbance at construclimited in extent and duration. To minimistruction activities, the National Park Servmitigative measures such as applying wateagents. As in Alternative B, construction ain a short-term minor adverse impact on aThe heritage center on MN 61 would have crease visitation. However, the increase in would result from better visibility of the mproved access from the highway, which mtravelers to stop for rest or on the spur of fore, the increase in visitation would not iof vehicles in the area; thus, vehicle emisswould not increase. In addition, relocating from Grand Marais would reduce the distabetween the headquarters and the nationareducing vehicle emissions from administrthis reduction in emissions would be smalsurably change the air quality. Any change vehicle emissions would be a long-term neimpact. Cumulative Impacts. Impacts from veh

burning for home heating, and industries icenters would continue at about the currefrom prescribed burning would increase, bbe local because burning would be done dgood smoke dispersion. Overall, the levels sources would increase slightly, but any chgible, and the air quality would not changlong term. Conclusion. The air quality at Grand Por

ment would deteriorate at a local level but 

Impacts of Alternative C: Fur T
118

only noticeable impacts on air quality and visibility from Alternative C would result from prescribed fire or construction projects on more days than at present, but this would occur on fewer days than in Alternative B. Alternative C would result in a short-term minor adverse impact and a negligible long-term adverse impact on air quality. There would be no major adverse impacts on resources or values whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the national monumentís establishing legislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of the monument, or (3) identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or other relevant NPS planning documents. Consequently, there would be no impairment of resources or values associated with air quality. Water Quality and Aquatic Species Proposed developments, road realignment, and bridge construction over Grand Portage Creek would have the potential to impact water quality and aquatic habitat through ground disturbance, which would result in increased surface runoff and soil erosion. However, due to the limited extent of the proposed developments (10 acres) and implementation of best management practices to control soil erosion, increased sedimentation and turbidity would be minimal and limited to the period of construction and vegetation recovery. A key difference between Alternatives B and C is the bridge construction over Grand Portage Creek in Alternative C. This difference would result in greater sedimentation and turbidity in Grand Portage Creek in Alternative C for the period of construction and vegetation recovery. Despite this difference, there would be only a short-term negligible difference in water quality and aquatic habitat in Grand Portage Creek. 

The biggest difference between Alternativproposed dredging near the historical whaout in Alternative C. Water quality and aqstill be impacted from removing the existinstructing a historical wharf, which would during the period of demolition/constructshortly thereafter. However, eliminating that the dock site would do away with the bwater quality and aquatic habitat. Implemwould result in a short-term negligible advquality and aquatic habitat. Cumulative Impacts. Selection of eithe

Marina or the Grand Portage Marina for d

could affect water quality if dredging was site. The cumulative impacts would be simAlternative B, but there would be the potedredging operation, which would make thquality in the bay from Alternative C abouAlternative B. Implementing Alternative Cwith past, present, and foreseeable future in a long-term minor to moderate adverse the dredging activities for the Isle Royale fConclusion. Water quality would be expe

and any adverse effects on aquatic habitat developments and national monument opeshort term and negligible. The cumulative dredging operations from the Isle Royale fcause some degradation of water quality aGrand Portage Bay. The primary cumulatiwould be more turbidity and resuspension would be limited to the period of dredging after. The cumulative impacts from resuspwould not be likely to be of concern becauBay probably has relatively low levels of c

ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES OF THE 

ALTERNATIVES
119

There would be no major adverse impacts on resources or values whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the national monumentís establishing legislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of the monument, or (3) identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or other relevant NPS planning documents. Consequently, there would be no impairment of resources or values associated with water quality and aquatic species. General Vegetation and Fuel Loading Removing vegetation from about 10 acres at proposed development and road realignment sites would disturb adjacent habitat, remove biomass, reduce nutrient capital, and increase the risk of noxious weed spread. Although the acreage of vegetation removal would be the same as Alternative B, this alternative would impact more habitat and create more edge habitat because there would be more road construction. This would constitute a long-term, minor, adverse impact. The impacts on vegetation and fuel loading along the trail corridor and in the Fort Charlotte area would be the same as in those described for Alternative B. The increased fuel reduction efforts would eliminate the existing pockets of high fuel loads. This would decrease the difficulty of wildfire control and constitute a long-term, minor, beneficial impact. Vegetation manipulation is proposed in the eastern part of the national monument to return the area to a historical landscape. Limited restoration of the landscape west of Grand Portage Creek would bring the area to its historical appearance in the North West Company era; the area east of the creek would have a more 20th century appearance. This would primarily 

entail reducing fuel loading and maintaining existing natural 

openings. This would constitute a long-tereffect. The red pine stand near the stockade, whias part of the landscape, would be maintacutting, prescribed fire, or a combination othis stand would provide species diversity an element that is present below historic lscale. This would constitute a long-term meffect. Overall, the vegetation manipulation and tion would result in a long-term minor benwould be due mainly to the reduction in fucorresponding reduction in risk of stand rCumulative Impacts. The combined im

C with past, present, and foreseeable futurthe same as those described for Alternativsuccessional forests and young age classes be represented, and older age class stands represented. Regeneration efforts in manalead to continued regional increases in whstands, but they would remain below histosuccessful fire suppression efforts would cincreasing fuel loads across the landscape, forests not actively managed. Conclusion. Despite the proposed vegetathe vegetation in Grand Portage National remain natural in appearance. Alternative long-term, minor, beneficial impact on vegloading. There would be no major adverse impacts values whose conservation is (1) necessarpurposes identified in the national monum

Impacts of Alternative C: Fur T
120

legislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of the monument, or (3) identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or other relevant NPS planning documents. Consequently, there would be no impairment of resources or values associated with general vegetation or fuel loading. Threatened or Endangered Species or Species of Concern — Plants Alternative C would not have any direct or indirect impacts on any listed plant species. All development and the road realignment would be in areas away from known sites of listed plants. Cumulative Impacts. Existing developments and national 

monument operations would continue to have no impact on any listed plant species, and Alternative C would not involve any actions at or near any of the known listed plant species sites; therefore, no cumulative impacts on listed plant species would be expected. Conclusion. There would be no effects on any listed plant 

species under this alternative. There would be no major adverse impacts on resources or values whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the national monumentís establishing legislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of the monument, or (3) identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or 

other relevant NPS planning documents. Therefore, there would be no impairment of resources or values associated with plants listed as threatened, endangered, or species of concern. 

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE D: HERITACultural Landscape The upper portions of the portage trail wopossess a high degree of integrity under Amoving the housing area and maintenance lower portion and rehabilitating the trail whistoric setting. Connecting the portage trinterpretive trail would give more visitors and the Grand Portage community. With visitor facilities located offsite, the exparking area could not be removed becausto serve visitors driving to the stockade. The most dangerous segment of County Reliminated by removing the segment of Cothe stockade east and north to near the naboundary and constructing a bridge across Creek and the portage trail that connects Cinside the north boundary with BIA 2 on twould make it possible to obliterate the exreplant it with native species. It would not landscape around the stockade because thand traffic would continue to exist as modThe landscape of the lakeshore area would reflect the continuum of use throughout thwould allow the national monument to main different ways but would not necessarilreminiscent of the period of the siteís heyddock would eliminate a large modern intrustockade area. 

ENVIRONMENTAL NVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES OF THE ONSEQUENCES OF THE 

ALTERNATIVES LTERNATIVES
121

The Grand Portage 20th century village site would be maintained much as it is today, with the protection of its wetlands 

features and archeological resources foremost. Because the village site would be interpreted at the Grand Portage heritage center, there would be little reason for visitors to go to the village. The landscape would therefore be managed for its wetlands and other natural values. In the primitive trail, resource trust, and interpretive historic zones, selectively using prescribed fire, hand-piling and burning woody fuel, and suppressing invasive exotic plants would help to restore historic forest cover, maintain safety, and prevent dangerous levels of fuel loading, as would removing hazard trees and other forms of vegetation manipulation. Cumulative Impact. Placing the heritage center and the national monument headquarters along MN 61 would add more development to a general location that already has considerable development from the hotel and casino, parking, and the marina. The landscape of the heritage center site would change from a natural mix of open and wooded vegetation to a more manicured landscape. This could be even greater should a state of Minnesota Tourist Information Center be combined with or located in the same general area. Additional development could be expected in the general area to provide concentrated support facilities for visitors, casino/hotel guests, and marina users. Such development would change the landscape from rural to urban. Locations for new employee housing and maintenance facilities outside the national monument boundary have not been selected, so the impact on the Reservation landscape is not known. However, additional development could occur in the area as a result of the new facilities. A possible result would be the loss of the natural landscape at these locations. 

Removing the Isle Royale ferry from the nwould be a beneficial change to the landscmonument and result in no significant impof the Reservation. Removing the steel pasnah from the NPS dock would change the by allowing the removal of an intrusive nomaking it possible to create a more historiwith the character of the site. (The ship W

relate to the site historically.) The Grand Portage Band has recently purMarina where the passenger ship Voyageulikely site for the Wenonah to dock as weing Grand Portage Marina also could handAdequate parking exists at both locations. Controlled burning by the Grand Portage national monument could dramatically chof the area along the portage by changing density of the forest landscape that serves buffer from development. An environmentbeing prepared by the U.S. Forest Service aftermath of a July 4, 1999, blowdown couactions that dramatically affect the landscConclusion. Although many of the actionfully developed yet, the cultural landscape monument and the area outside that could development could significantly change, ain the national monument. The cumulativcultural landscape both inside and outside ment from this alternative has the potentialong term with both beneficial and adverse 

There would be no major adverse impacts values whose conservation is (1) necessarpurposes identified in the national monum

Impacts of Alternative 
122

legislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of the monument, or (3) identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or other relevant NPS planning documents. Consequently, there would be no impairment of resources or values associated with cultural landscapes. Archeology and History Outlining (ìghostingî) all known structures with slate rock or some other material in the stockade would not damage any subsurface remains of the original structures. The National Park Service would try to ensure that there would be no loss or damage to archeological or historic resources when the heritage center, national monument headquarters, the maintenance facility, and employee housing were moved to locations outside the national monumentís boundaries to protect the historic feeling of the stockade area from modern intrusions. Should such resources be identified, their significance would be evaluated against National Register of Historic Places criteria, and if they were found eligible for listing on the register, the design would be modified or another site chosen for construction. This would minimize any adverse impacts on cultural resources at these locations. Archeological data gathered through systematic inventory and testing and the judicious use of excavation before any construction would help to fill in the gaps in the siteís context, both historic and prehistoric. Information gained would include building locations and construction methods, prehistoric and historic activity areas, the locations of poses, and the objects of everyday life. Such data would improve interpretation, so that visitors could gain a fuller and more accurate understanding of the site. 

Each archeological site identified would bclusion on the National Register of Historpart of the existing nomination for Grand Monument or as a distinct site in its own increase the protection of such resources fmight threaten their existence and allow tment to make long-term planning decisionout significant cultural resources. At historic Fort Charlotte, the presence of result in a greater possibility of inadvertenarcheological vandalism, a potential negatBecause the headquarters complex would storage and management space large enoucollections now housed at the Minnesota and the Midwest Archeological Center, Grtional Monument would have more immedcollections. This would result in better use for staff research and interpretive exhibitioducing the chances of losing or damaging between two facilities. Cumulative Impacts. As with AlternativAlternative D would result in an optimum preserving archeological resources and moWith the passage of time and the reductioremaining fur trade sites, the archeologicacollections of Grand Portage National Mobecome more and more valuable for reseaThere has been no historical research or athat covers the area proposed for national outside the boundary, and no properties ational Register of Historic Places. Therefoabout the historic and archeological resou

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES
123

locations. Those resources would be inventoried and evaluated for the national register before any construction. Likewise, no systematic archeological inventory and evaluation of archeological resources has been undertaken in the national monument, although specific archeological work has been undertaken before any development activities. The plan calls for such an inventory in Appendix D. Until more is known about the archeological resources, nothing substantive can be said about cumulative impacts except that the National Park Service would work with the Minnesota Historical Society, the Grand Portage Band, and any other entity to ensure that significant historic or archeological resources were not lost or destroyed as a result of NPS actions. Conclusion. In all instances where identified sites would be disturbed and could not be avoided, the national monument would undertake data recovery in accordance with the programmatic agreement among the National Park Service, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers. This would be done to retrieve important information, thereby reducing the intensity of adverse impacts. For some proposed project areas, information regarding the nature and importance of archeological resources is unknown; in these instances before any construction disturbance the national monument would first inventory project areas, test and evaluate the significance of identified sites, and carry out appropriate data recovery in accordance with the programmatic agreement. The impact of Alternative D on resources of historic or archeological significance would be minor and of short duration, based on the mitigative measures to be implemented. 

There would be no major adverse impacts on resources or values whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the national monumentís establishing 

legislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity enjoyment of the national monument, or (goal in this General Management Plan or planning documents. Consequently, there ment of resources or values associated withistory. Sacred Sites The exact location of the Midewiwin ceremknown. Alternative D proposes no developarea; therefore, there would be no impact resources. No other sacred or ceremonial affected by implementing Alternative D. Cumulative Impact. There would be no on sacred sites because there would be no area possibly containing the Midewiwin siConclusion. Alternative D would result isacred sites, and there would be no major resources or values whose conservation is fulfill specific purposes identified in the naestablishing legislation, (2) key to the cultopportunities for enjoyment of the monumas a goal in this General Management PlaNPS planning documents. Consequently, impairment of resources or values associaLocal and Regional Transportation With BIA route 2 north of Mount Rose coRoad 17 on the northeast side of the natiobridge over the portage and Portage CreekCounty Road 17 from the CCC bridge to Hcould be vacated, its roadbed could be rem

Impacts of Alternative 
124

ment could be revegetated. This would enable local traffic to avoid a dangerous curve at the CCC bridge. County Road 17 would not be closed from the CCC bridge to the monumentís western boundary. For local traffic coming from the west, the route to the community center and other facilities on the national monumentís east side would be comparable in distance to the existing route. It is unlikely that any regional impacts would result from these changes. A minor change in use patterns would be necessary for people in the surrounding community. Cumulative Impact. Developing a heritage center and headquarters would concentrate development at the intersection of MN 61 and County Road 17. This could encourage the development of other related businesses or facilities in the immediate vicinity. Such facilities as a tourist information center, gas stations or a truck stop, and convenience stores could be developed. At the same time, the Band is making efforts to encourage business at the marina, hotel, and casino. The Band also is developing a housing area west of the casino that will depend on either MN 61 or County Road 17 for access to the rest of the community. The state of Minnesota is working to get MN 61 designated a national scenic byway as a means of encouraging tourism to this area of the state. This has the potential to bring more traffic to MN 61 within the Reservation. Constructing a bridge connecting BIA 2 to County Road 17 would have little impact on the local transportation network because the existing roads would remain open until the new bypass was in place. Once completed, there would be some minor short-term inconvenience as local road use patterns changed and people switched to the new route. Conclusion. There is a potential that there would be development at the intersection of MN 61 and County Road 17. This 

new development could affect the local trawork, causing some inconvenience to locaThese actions have the potential to becomterm impact on the local transportation syregional transportation network would be construction activities associated with a nand headquarters, there could be a minor traffic. There would be no major adverse impacts values whose conservation is (1) necessarpurposes identified in the national monumlegislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity enjoyment of the national monument, or (goal in this General Management Plan or planning documents. Consequently, there ment of resources or values associated wittransportation. Population, Economy, and Land Use Federal property such as Grand Portage Nnot generally subject to local land use planfort is made to work with local governmenactions are consistent with local land use possible. This alternative calls for most new housinistrative, and maintenance facilities to be tional monument on Reservation lands. Adeveloped in consultation with the Grand sure that actions would be consistent with A heritage center and national monument the intersection of MN 61 and County Roa

ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES OF THE 

ALTERNATIVES
125

the visibility necessary to allow year round operation of the national monument. This would increase visitation numbers and possibly encourage the development of commercial enterprises that would serve the additional visitation and that of the hotel, casino, and marina. During construction, there could be temporary economic benefit from workers staying in the local area and using commercial establishments. Construction companies also could hire local workers, temporarily augmenting the economy. Following construction, national monument staff occupying the new housing would use some of the local commercial outlets for food and supplies, although most purchases probably would be made in Grand Marais. Any new development could bring jobs that would allow the Band members to return to the Reservation. There would also be an increase in local population resulting from national monument staff living in the community, possibly as many as 10ñ15 people. Cumulative Impact. Constructing visitor facilities at MN 61 and County Road 17, along with the Bandís efforts to upgrade facilities at the Grand Portage Lodge and Casino and at the marina, could result in a moderate long-term beneficial effect on the local economy. Other efforts to increase tourism by the Band include the creation of a snowmobile trail from Canada to the Grand Portage Lodge, purchasing and developing the former Voyageurs Marina, and community infrastructure development. The state of Minnesota is working to designate MN 61 as a national scenic byway, develop a new tourist information center in the area, and develop facilities at Grand Portage State Park. Any or all of these actions could improve the local economy and increase population as jobs increased. 

Conclusion. A heritage center and nationquarters at MN 61 and County Road 17 coopment of the immediate area and result ieconomy, land use, and population. The bbe minor in the short-term and moderate iThere would be no major adverse impacts values whose conservation is (1) necessarpurposes identified in the national monumlegislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity enjoyment of the national monument, or (goal in this General Management Plan or planning documents. Consequently, there ment of resources or values associated witmy, and land use. Visitor Experience and InterpretatioUnder Alternative D, visitors who came ocenter and not the rest of Grand Portage Nwould be able to have a satisfying visit annificance of the diverse resources. The heryear-round, would be central to the visitor orientation and in-depth interpretation of and the Ojibwe culture and history. It wouOjibwe cultural demonstrations. In additiohave a number of opportunities to understsignificance. Interpretive media would preoverview of the fur trade story, with emphthe portage. Removing parking from in front of the stomore historically correct setting for the stotors approach the stockade from the lake sview that would more closely represent th

historic scene and focus their attention on 

Impacts of Alternative 
126

the lake played in both the daily life of the stockade and the business of the fur trade. Visitors would be better able to experience a transition from the modern exhibits in the heritage center to the historic fur trade era. With all modern intrusions removed from inside the stockade and orientation offered at the heritage center, visitors would have a more authentic 18th century experience in the Great Hall. Since all the structures original to the stockade would be identified in their 

proper location, visitors would be able to experience the complexity and scope of the stockade landscape. Cumulative Impact. Visitors would have a greater variety of 

activities and places to visit in the local area with the possible result that they would stay in the area longer and receive a more in-depth understanding of the fur trade and Ojibwe culture. The Grand Portage State Park and the national monument have complementary missions that tell different parts of the Grand Portage story. A snowmobile trail planned by the Grand Portage Band would complement the hiking and snowshoeing available on the portage trail. The casino and marina provide a different kind of visitor experience unrelated to the national monument mission but one that would allow a visitor to spend more time in the community. Throughout the year, there is a variety of activities in the Grand Portage community. Some are related to Grand Portage National Monument, some not. Examples include a Fur Trade Rendezvous at the national monument, an Indian Pow Wow and rodeo, and a winter dog sled race. Conclusion. Alternative D would provide a greater variety of activities and visitor experiences than now exist. A more indepth understanding of the fur trade would be available at the national monument. The heritage center would be open year round rather than seasonally. 

Overall, Alternative D would have a majoeffect on the variety and quality of visitor There would be no major adverse impacts values whose conservation is (1) necessarpurposes identified in the national monumlegislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity enjoyment of the monument, or (3) identiGeneral Management Plan or other relevadocuments. Consequently, there would be resources or values associated with the visinterpretation. Soils The types of effects on soils that would resD would be the same as those described foexcept that the extent of impacts from Altdiffer; the total land affected would be abowould be the smallest area of soil disturbaalternatives, and it would result in a long-impact on the soil resource. Cumulative Impacts. The existing deve

in the national monument impact about 1resource, and there would be about 3 acreAbout 2.7 acres of soil would be rehabilitaNPS ranger quarters site, the maintenanceboneyard, and the boneyard road. Implemcombined with past, present, and foreseeawithin the monument, would result in impacres of the soil resource, or 2 percent of tMost impacts on the soil resource ó abouoccur outside the national monument; thethe proposed road realignment, housing, m

ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES OF THE 

ALTERNATIVES
127

and boneyard. These 4 acres, combined with past, present, and foreseeable future actions outside the national monument, would continue the trend of urban development and adverse impacts on the soil resource. The cumulative impact on the soil resource from implementing this alternative would be long term, minor, and adverse. Conclusion. Alternative D would have the least impact on soils of all the action alternatives; the impact on the soil resource would be long term, minor, and adverse. There would be no major adverse impacts on resources or values whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the national monumentís establishing legislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of the monument, or (3) identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or other relevant NPS planning documents. Consequently, there would be no impairment of resources or values associated with soils. Air Quality The direct and indirect impacts on air quality from Alternative D would be the same as those described for Alternative B, except that Alternative D would involve slightly less use of prescribed fire than Alternative B or C. This would result in fewer days of localized degraded air quality and visibility from prescribed fire than in Alternatives B and C. Implementing Alternative D would result in a short-term minor adverse impact on air quality from prescribed fire and construction activities. In addition, implementing this alternative would result in a negligible long-term adverse impact from changes in vehicle emissions. Cumulative Impacts. Impacts from vehicle emissions, wood 

burning for home heating, and industries in nearby population centers would continue at about the current levels. Smoke 

from prescribed burning would be less thaand C. Overall, the levels of emissions from increase slightly in the long term, but any negligible and would not measurably chanConclusion. The air quality at Grand PorMonument would deteriorate at a local levThe only noticeable impact on air quality fwould be that the air quality and visibility impacted by prescribed fire or constructiotive D would result in a short-term minor long-term negligible adverse impact on air There would be no major adverse impacts values whose conservation is (1) necessarpurposes identified in the national monumlegislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity enjoyment of the monument, or (3) identiGeneral Management Plan or other relevadocuments. Consequently, there would be resources or values associated with air quaWater Quality and Aquatic Species The impacts on water quality and aquatic tive D would be similar to those of Alternahistorical wharf would not be constructed This would mean that Alternative D woulpacts on water quality and aquatic species Bay. Impacts on water quality and aquatic streams would be the same as those descrC. Overall, implementing Alternative D wterm negligible adverse impact on water qhabitat. 

Impacts of Alternative 
128

Cumulative Impacts. The cumulative impacts on water quality from Alternative D would be similar to those of Alternative C. As in Alternative C, implementing Alternative D in combination with past, present, and foreseeable future actions would result in a long-term minor to moderate adverse impact. Conclusion. Alternative D would have fewer impacts on 

water quality than the other action alternatives because it would entail fewer activities that could affect water quality. Water quality would be expected to remain good, and any effects on aquatic habitat from proposed developments and park operations would be minimal except in Grand Portage Bay. Potential dredging operations from the Isle Royale ferry service might cause some degradation of water quality and aquatic habitat in Grand Portage Bay. The primary impact would be more turbidity and resuspension of sediments, which would be limited to the period of dredging and shortly thereafter. The impacts from resuspending pollutants would not be likely to be of concern because Grand Portage Bay has relatively low levels of critical pollutants. Alternative D would result in a short-term negligible adverse impact on water quality and aquatic habitat. There would be a long-term minor to moderate adverse cumulative impact on water quality and aquatic habitat in Grand Portage Bay. There would be no major adverse impacts on resources or values whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the national monumentís establishing legislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of the monument, or (3) identified as a goal in this General 

Management Plan or other relevant NPS planning documents. Consequently, there would be no impairment of resources or values associated with water quality or aquatic species. 

General Vegetation and Fuel LoadinRemoving vegetation from about 7 acres ament and road realignment sites would distat, remove biomass, reduce nutrient capitrisk of noxious weed spread. Of all the actAlternative D would involve the smallest aremoval for proposed developments and roThe impacts on vegetation and fuel loadincorridor and in the Fort Charlotte area wothose described for Alternative C. The incefforts would eliminate the existing pockeThis would decrease the difficulty of wildfAlternative D would include the manipulaalong the lakeshore area to reflect the conthrough the siteís history. This alternative least vegetation manipulation of all the acThe red pine stand near the stockade, whias part of the landscape, would be maintacutting, prescribed fire, or a combination othis stand would provide species diversity an element that is probably present below regional scale. Overall, the vegetation manloading reduction would result in a long-teffect. Cumulative Impacts. The combined im

D with past, present, and foreseeable fututhe same as those described for Alternativearly successional forests and young age ccontinue to be represented, and older age remain underrepresented. Regeneration efforests would lead to continued regional inred pine stands, but they would remain be

ENVIRONMENTAL NVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES OF THE ONSEQUENCES OF THE 

ALTERNATIVES LTERNATIVES
129

Active and successful fire suppression efforts would continue the trend of increasing fuel loads across the landscape, particularly in forests not actively managed. 

Conclusion. Despite the proposed vegetation manipulation, 

the vegetation in Grand Portage National Monument would remain natural in appearance. Alternative D would result in a long-term minor, beneficial effect on vegetation and fuel loading. There would be no major adverse impacts on resources or values whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the national monumentís establishing legislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of the monument, or (3) identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or other relevant NPS 

planning documents. Consequently, there would be no impairment of resources or values associated with general vegetation or fuel loading. Threatened or Endangered Species or Species of Concern — Plants Alternative D would not have any direct or indirect impacts on any listed plant species. All development and the road realignment would be in areas away from known sites of listed plants. Cumulative Impacts. Existing developments and park operations would continue to have no impact on any listed plant species, and Alternative D would not involve any actions at or near any of the known listed plant species sites; therefore, no cumulative impacts on listed plant species would be expected. Conclusion. There would be no effects on any listed plant 

species under this alternative. There would be no major adverse impacts on resources or values whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the 

national monumentís establishing legislaticultural integrity or opportunities for enjoment, or (3) identified as a goal in this GePlan or other relevant NPS planning docuquently, there would be no impairment of associated with plants listed as threatenedspecies of concern. IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE E: THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Cultural Landscape The upper portions of the portage trail wopossess a high degree of integrity under Amoving the housing area and maintenance lower portion and rehabilitating the trail whistoric setting. Connecting the portage trinterpretive trail would give more visitors and the Grand Portage community. Realigning County Road 17 outside of the and constructing a bridge in the national mCounty Road 17 with BIA 2 would eliminaof cars and other traffic that detracts from character of the historic areas of the natioThese actions also would allow the roadwrelandscaped. Removing traffic and obliterwould enhance the cultural landscape aroThe landscape of the lakeshore area would reflect the continuum of use throughout thwould allow the national monument to main different ways but would not necessarilreminiscent of the period of the siteís heydremoving the boneyard and replacing it w

Impacts of Alternative E
130

Cultural Demonstration Shelter and appropriate landscaping would replace an unsightly maintenance facility with a more attractive structure, but this would not restore the landscape to a historic period. Removing the NPS ranger station, parking at the stockade, and the dock would remove modern visual intrusions from the immediate stockade area. Constructing an extension to the Mount Rose trail that would connect with the heritage center would be designed to have the least possible impact on the natural landscape and to be as unobtrusive visually as possible. However, it is possible that segments of the trail might be seen from the historic stockade area. In the primitive trail, resource trust, and interpretive historic zones, selectively using prescribed fire, hand-piling and burning woody fuel, and suppressing invasive exotic plants would help to restore historic forest cover, maintain safety, and prevent dangerous levels of fuel loading, as would removing hazard trees and other forms of vegetation manipulation. Cumulative Impact. This alternative calls for a joint effort by the national monument and the Grand Portage Band to create a gateway or formal entrance to the community of Grand Portage and Grand Portage National Monument. This would require a comprehensive redesign of the landscape south of the intersection of County Road 17 and MN 61, which would create an attractive entrance to both the community and the national monument while improving the traffic flow of the area for community members and visitors alike. This action would result in considerable change to the existing landscape and could encourage the development of commercial and governmental enterprises in the immediate area. 

Locations for new employee housing and outside the national monument boundary lected, so the impact on the Reservation laknown. However, additional development area as a result of the new facilities. A posthe loss of the natural landscape at these lRemoving the Isle Royale ferry from the nprobably would be a beneficial change to tnational monument and would result in non the landscape of the reservation. Remopassenger ship, Wenonah, from the NPS dthe cultural landscape by allowing removanonhistoric dock and allowing a more histcreated in keeping with the character of thWenonah does not relate to the site historThe Grand Portage Band has recently purMarina where the passenger ship Voyageu

likely site for the Wenonah to dock, as weexisting Grand Portage Marina could also Adequate parking exists at both locations. Controlled burning by the Grand Portage national monument could dramatically chof the area along the portage trail by chanand density of the forest landscape that seand a buffer from development. An envirostatement being prepared by the U.S. Forewith the aftermath of a July 4, 1999, blowpropose actions that would dramatically aFort Charlotte. Conclusion. Although many of the actionfully developed yet, the cultural landscape monument and the area outside that could velopment could significantly change, as c

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES
131

within the national monument. This alternative has the potential to result in both beneficial and adverse effects on the cultural landscape both inside and outside the national monument. The effects would be moderate and long term. There would be no major adverse impacts on resources or values whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the national monumentís establishing legislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of the monument, or (3) identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or other relevant NPS planning documents. Consequently, there would be no impairment of resources or values associated with cultural landscapes. Archeology and History Any new construction or ground disturbance resulting from this plan would be sited and designed to avoid damaging or losing scenic, historic, or archeological resources. Any historic or archeological resources found would be evaluated against National Register of Historic Places criteria, and if they were found eligible for listing on the register, the design would be modified or another site chosen for construction. This would minimize any adverse impacts on cultural resources at these locations. Archeological data gathered through systematic inventory and testing and the judicious use of excavation before any construction would help to fill in the gaps in available prehistoric and historic information. Information gained would improve interpretation because monument interpreters could offer broader, more accurate understanding of the monumentís significance, history, and resources, including building locations and construction methods, prehistoric and historic activity areas, location of poses, and patterns and objects of everyday life. 

Because collections would be stored and mquarters complex, the national monument immediate control of those collections. Thbetter use of the collections for staff reseawould reduce the chances of losing or damCumulative Impact. Alternative E wouloptimum atmosphere for preserving archeand monument collections. With the passareduction in the number of remaining fur archeological resources and collections of National Monument would become more for research purposes. There has been no historic research or arcthat covers the area proposed for national outside the boundary, and no properties aNational Register of Historic Places. Therabout the historic and archeological resoulocations. Those resources would be invenfor the national register before any construLikewise, no systematic archeological inveof archeological resources has been undermonument, although specific archeologicaundertaken before any development activifor such an inventory in Appendix D. Untabout the archeological resources, nothing said about cumulative impacts except that Service would work with the Minnesota HGrand Portage Band, and any other entity nificant historic or archeological resources lost or destroyed as a result of NPS actionConclusion. In all instances where identibe avoided and would be disturbed, the nawould undertake data recovery in accorda

ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES OF THE 

ALTERNATIVES Impacts of Alternative E
132

programmatic agreement among the National Park Service, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers to retrieve important information, thereby reducing the intensity of adverse impacts. For some proposed project areas, information regarding the nature and importance of archeological resources is unknown; in these instances the national monument would first inventory project areas, test and evaluate the significance of identified sites, and carry out appropriate data recovery in accordance with the programmatic agreement before any construction disturbance. The impact of Alternative E on resources of historic or archeological significance would be likely to be minor and of short duration based on the mitigative measures to be implemented. There would be no major adverse impacts on resources or values whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the national monumentís establishing legislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of the monument, or (3) identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or other relevant NPS planning documents. Consequently, there would be no impairment of resources or values associated with archeology and history. Sacred Sites The exact location of the Midewiwin ceremonial site is unknown. Alternative E would include building an interpretive shelter and trail in the general area with interpretive signs explaining the significance of he early 20th century town center. 

Because it would be designed after archeological evaluation 

and full consultation with the Grand Portasota Chippewa to avoid construction near be no effect on any archeological resourceother sacred or ceremonial sites would be menting Alternative E. Cumulative Impact. How much use of tmonial site is made by the Grand Portage How many such sites exist outside the natalso unknown. However, because it is in avisitor facilities, this site is believed to be by visitor activities and programs. Adequathe Band members with knowledge of the monial site and predesign archeological evable to its users, would allow the site to retrail construction or the presence of visitoquent loss of sacred sites outside the Resewould become more significant to the GraConclusion. Alternative E would result isacred sites. There would be no major adverse impacts values whose conservation is (1) necessarpurposes identified in the national monumlegislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity enjoyment of the monument, or (3) identiGeneral Management Plan or other relevadocuments. Consequently, there would be resources or values associated with sacred Local and Regional Transportation By jointly creating a gateway at the interseCounty Road 17 on land owned by the GrMinnesota Chippewa, the National Park S

ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES OF THE 

ALTERNATIVES
133

Portage Band would improve safety for visitors and Band members. The gateway would present an aesthetically pleasing entry to the community of Grand Portage, Grand Portage National Monument, and the Grand Portage Casino. Traffic would be temporarily disrupted during construction. Safety would be improved by the creation of better sight lines at the intersection and better directional signs. The proposed rerouting of County Road 17 around Mount Rose, would leave the current roadbed about 1,800 feet west of the boundary, roughly parallel to MN 61 and BIA Route 2. The rerouting and the added bridge across Grand Portage Creek would allow local traffic to circumnavigate the national monument without having to drive on MN 61. County Road 17 would end at the current Isle Royale parking area and be totally removed from that point to the northeast boundary. These changes would allow the national monument to close County Road 17 in the historic area and restore the landscape to a more historic appearance. The changes also would enhance visitor safety. At present, pedestrians cross County Road 17 from the parking area and the heritage center to reach other national monument facilities. Rerouting the county road would eliminate the hazard caused by drivers exceeding the 20 mph speed limit. Such drivers endanger visitors who fail to pay close enough attention to traffic. This realignment would be almost entirely on Grand Portage Band land, with the bridge over Portage Creek being on national monument land. Rerouting the county road would afford new access to the Baptist cemetery and to several houses that otherwise can be reached only from the high-speed MN 61. For local traffic coming from the west, the distance to the community center and other facilities in the east part of the monument would be comparable to the existing route. 

It is unlikely that any regional impacts woAlternative E. A change in local use pattersary. A church and several homes along Cof the monument would be inconvenienceroad being truncated just inside the nationboundary, causing them to backtrack as mmile to reach the newly rerouted section. Cumulative Impacts. Joint efforts by thBand and the National Park Service to devcould encourage further development at th61 and County Road 17. Such facilities as center, gas stations or a truck stop, and cocould be developed. At the same time the efforts to encourage business at the marinthat would also use this gateway. The Band is developing a housing area wewill depend on either MN 61 or County Rthe rest of the community. The state of Minnesota is working to get Mnational scenic byway as a means of encouthis area of the state. This has the potentiatraffic to MN 61 within the Reservation. Constructing a bypass road around Mount to connect County Road 17 with BIA 2 woimpact upon the local transportation netwisting roads would remain open until the nplace. Once the projects were completed, minor inconvenience as local road use patnew route. Conclusion. There is a potential for deve

the intersection of MN 61 and County Roa

Impacts of Alternative E
134

with new development. This could affect the local transportation network, causing some inconvenience to local users. These actions would have the potential to result in a moderate long-term impact on the local transportation system. The impacts on the regional transportation network would be negligible. During construction activities associated with a new heritage center and headquarters, there could be a minor impact on local traffic. There would be no major adverse impacts on resources or values whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the national monumentís establishing legislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of the monument, or (3) identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or other relevant NPS planning documents. Consequently, there would be no impairment of resources or values associated with local and regional transportation. Population, Economy, and Land Use Federal property such as Grand Portage National Monument is not generally subject to local land use plans. However, an effort is made to work with local governments to ensure that any actions are consistent with local land use plans to the extent possible. Except for the heritage center, most new facilities in Alternative E would be built outside the Reservation to the west. A new maintenance facility that would be constructed on the Reservation would conform to any local land use plans. A year-round heritage center and a developed gateway to Grand Portage and the Grand Portage National Monument, when added to the existing hotel, casino, and marina facilities, 

could make more feasible commercial devgas stations, convenience stores, or restaution of MN 61 and County Road 17. During construction, there could be a tembenefit from workers staying in the local amercial establishments. Construction comhire local workers, temporarily augmentinFollowing construction, national monumepying the new housing would use some of outlets for food and supplies although mowould be made in Grand Marais. Cumulative Impact. Constructing visitoand County Road 17, along with the Bandfacilities at the Grand Portage Lodge and marina, could result in a moderate long-teon the local economy. Other efforts to incBand include the creation of a snowmobilto the Grand Portage Lodge, purchasing aformer Voyageurs Marina, and community development. The state of Minnesota is working to designational scenic byway, develop a new tourcenter in the area, and develop facilities at Park. Any or all of these actions could impeconomy and increase population as jobs Conclusion. Alternative E could result in local population both because national mobe expected to live in NPS housing and frodevelopment associated with the proposed economy could be affected by increased vinational monument, by increased use of th

ENVIRONMENTAL NVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES OF THE ONSEQUENCES OF THE 

ALTERNATIVES LTERNATIVES
135

marina, and by any development that might be attracted to the intersection of MN 61 and County Road 17. Development near the gateway would change the land use in the area from rural, wooded, and open to a more urban or commercial experience. There would be a minor short-term impact during construction and a moderate long-term impact following construction should development at MN 61 and County Road 17 result in the creation of new jobs. There would be no major adverse impacts on resources or values whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the national monumentís establishing legislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of the monument, or (3) identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or other relevant NPS planning documents. Consequently, there would be no impairment of resources or values associated with population, economy, and land use. Visitor Experience and Interpretation Alternative E would result in opportunities for visitors to receive orientation and in-depth interpretation of the fur trade story and Ojibwe culture and history at the Grand Portage heritage center before experiencing the monumentís resources. Keeping the heritage center open year-round would enable more visitors, even winter visitors, to learn about the significance of Grand Portage National Monument. Removing parking from in front of the stockade would create a more historically engaging setting for the stockade. Having visitors approach the stockade from the lake side would give them a view that would more closely represent the late 18th

century historic scene and focus their attetant role the lake played in both the daily and the business of the fur trade. The walarea to the stockade would enable visitors better transition from the modern exhibits center to the historic fur trade era. With scraft near the stockade, visitors would be stand the pivotal role of the portage betweregions and Montreal. These watercraft, ced canoe programming, would give visitorlearn more about the overall story of the tbrought trade goods into the region in excVisitors would be better able to immerse t

century experience with all the structures were during the height of the fur trade and in period clothing. The addition of three mand historically furnished structures (the iguideís quarters, the fur trading store, and erís shop), with the remaining missing stoìghostedî or outlined, would reflect the stcrowded appearance. This would provide dimensions of the fur trade story (cross-cuexploration, international commerce, assimand would re-people the grassy expanse of ideas, characters and cultural meanings. New structural exhibits would make it posmore diversified, less elitist stories, and a interpretive themes. Visitors could experiestockade landscape that would give them crowding and scale, the function of the lanthe whole that was meant to impress voyarival companies. Visitorsí opportunities to understand the cculture and history would be greatly enhan

Impacts of Alternative E
136

tive E through the interpretive exhibits in the Grand Portage heritage center and exhibits in the Ojibwe Cultural Demonstration Shelter, where interpretive exhibits and programs from the Grand Portage Band would be offered, as would demonstrations of Ojibwe crafts and cultural practices. The landscape of the area east of the stockade would further emphasize the continuum of Ojibwe culture and history from the days of the fur trade to the present. The added accessibility to a short loop of the historic portage trail would enable all visitors to have a direct experience of the portage. Improving the campsites near Fort Charlotte would slightly enhance the visitor experience at that end of the portage. Cumulative Impact. Visitors would have a greater variety of activities and places to visit in the local area, with the possible result that people would stay longer in the area and receive a more in-depth understanding of the fur trade and Ojibwe culture. Grand Portage State Park and the national monument have complementary missions that tell different parts of the Grand Portage story. A snowmobile trail planned by the Grand Portage Band would complement the hiking and snowshoeing available on the portage trail. The casino and marina provide a different kind of visitor experience unrelated to the national monument mission, but one that would allow a visitor to spend more time in the community. Throughout the year, there are a variety of activities in the Grand Portage community. Some are related to Grand Portage National Monument, some not. Examples include a Fur Trade Rendezvous at the national monument, an Indian Pow Wow and rodeo, and a winter dog sled race. Conclusion. Alternative E would provide a greater variety of activities and visitor experiences than now exist. A more indepth understanding of the fur trade would be available at the 

national monument. The heritage center wround rather than seasonally. Overall, Alternative E would result in a mbeneficial effect on the variety and quality and interpretation. There would be no major adverse impacts values whose conservation is (1) necessarpurposes identified in the national monumlegislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity enjoyment of the monument, or (3) identiGeneral Management Plan or other relevadocuments. Consequently, there would be resources or values associated with the visinterpretation. Soils The impacts on soils from Alternative E wthose described for Alternative B, but the from Alternative E would differ; about 13 affected. This would be the most disturbanresource of all the action alternatives. Howalternative having the greatest impact on timplementing this alternative would have adverse impact because the impacts would limited in extent to 13 acres. Cumulative Impacts. The existing devewithin the monument impact about 13 acrresource, and there would be about 3 acrein the national monument. About 2.2 acrerehabilitated by reclaiming the NPS rangepart of the boneyard road. Implementing Abined with past, present, and foreseeable f

ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES OF THE 

ALTERNATIVES
137

the monument, would impact about 13.8 acres of the soil resource, or about 2 percent of the national monumentís soils. Most impacts on soils would occur outside the national monument from the proposed road realignment, gateway, housing, maintenance facility, and boneyard. These actions would affect about 10 acres of soils outside the national monument. These 10 acres, combined with past, present, and foreseeable future actions outside the monument, would continue the trend of urban development and adverse impacts to the soil resource. The cumulative impact on the soil resource from implementing Alternative E would be long term, minor, and adverse. Conclusion. Alternative E would result in the most impacts 

on the soil resource of all the action alternatives, but the effect still would be a long-term minor adverse impact. There would be no major adverse impacts on resources or values whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the national monumentís establishing legislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of the monument, or (3) identified as a goal in this General 

Management Plan or other relevant NPS planning documents. Consequently, there would be no impairment of resources or values associated with soils. Air Quality The direct and indirect impacts of Alternative E on air quality would be the same as those described for Alternative D. Alternative E would result in a long-term minor adverse impact on air quality. Cumulative Impacts. The cumulative impacts on air quality 

from Alternative E would be the same as those described for Alternative D; that is, vehicle emissions, wood burning, and 

industries in nearby population centers wocurrent levels, and smoke from prescribed less than in Alternatives B and C. Overall, sources would increase slightly in the long change would be negligible and would not air quality. Conclusion. The air quality at Grand Por

ment would deteriorate at a local level but native E would result in a short-term minoa negligible long-term adverse impact on awould be no major adverse impacts on reswhose conservation is (1) necessary to fulidentified in the national monumentís esta(2) key to the cultural integrity or opportuof the monument, or (3) identified as a goManagement Plan or other relevant NPS 

Consequently, there would be no impairmvalues associated with air quality. Water Quality and Aquatic Species The effects on water quality and aquatic stive E would be the similar to those of Altthat the extent of proposed developments greater in Alternative E. Alternative E proof new development versus 10 acres in Altthis difference, implementing Alternative negligible short-term adverse impact on waquatic species, as would Alternative C. Tnoticeable difference in the effects on watspecies in Alternative E and Alternative C alternatives would entail a limited extent oopments, and the other actions with potenwater quality and aquatic species (dredginconstruction) would be similar. 

Impacts of Alternative E
138

Cumulative Impacts. The selection of either the Voyageurs 

Marina or the Grand Portage Marina for docking the Wenonah

could affect water quality if dredging was required at either site. The cumulative impacts would be similar to those of Alternative B, but there would be the potential for only one dredging operation, which would make the impacts on water quality in the bay about half those of Alternative B. Implementing Alternative E in combination with past, present, and foreseeable future actions would result in a long-term minor to moderate adverse impact mainly from the dredging activities for the Isle Royale ferry service. Conclusion. Water quality would be expected to remain good, 

and any effects on aquatic habitat from proposed developments and park operations would be minimal except in Grand Portage Bay. Potential dredging operations for the Isle Royale ferry service might cause some degradation of water quality and aquatic habitat in Grand Portage Bay. The primary impact probably would be more turbidity and resuspension of sediments, which would be limited to the period of dredging and shortly thereafter. The impacts from resuspending pollutants would not be likely to be of concern because Grand Portage Bay probably has relatively low levels of critical pollutants. Alternative E would result in a short-term negligible adverse impact and a long-term minor to moderate adverse cumulative impact on water quality and aquatic habitat. There would be no major adverse impacts on resources or values whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the national monumentís establishing legislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of the monument, or (3) identified as a goal in this General Management Plan other relevant NPS planning documents. Consequently, there would be no impairment of resources or values associated with water quality or aquatic species. 

General Vegetation and Fuel LoadinRemoving vegetation from about 13 acres opment and road realignment sites would habitat, remove biomass, reduce nutrient the risk of noxious weed spread. Alternatithe removal of the most vegetation from pments and road realignment of all the actiother direct and indirect impacts on vegetloading would be the same as those descriD. The vegetation manipulation and fuel lwould result in a minor long-term beneficiCumulative Impacts. The cumulative imE on vegetation would be the same as thosAlternative B; that is, early successional foclasses would continue to be represented, stands would remain underrepresented. Rmanaged forests would lead to continued white and red pine stands, but they would toric levels. Active and successful fire supwould continue the trend of increasing fuelandscape, particularly in forests not activmenting Alternative E in combination witforeseeable future actions would result in adverse cumulative impact due to the contincreasing fuel loads across the regional laConclusion. Despite the proposed vegetathe vegetation in Grand Portage National main natural in appearance. Alternative E long-term minor beneficial effect on vegetdue to reduced fuel loading within the mobe no major adverse impacts on resources servation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific in the national monumentís establishing lethe cultural integrity or opportunities for e

ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES OF THE 

ALTERNATIVES
139

monument, or (3) identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or other relevant NPS planning documents. Consequently, there would be no impairment of resources or values associated with general vegetation or fuel loading. Threatened or Endangered Species or Species of Concern — Plants Of the 17 state-listed plant species known to occur in Grand Portage National Monument, only 3 would have the potential to be affected by any proposed developments in Alternative E. The other 14 species are not near any proposed developments or road realignment. The three species that could be affected are mountain cliff fern (Woodsia oregana), Rocky Mountain cliff fern (Woodsia scopulina D. C. Eat.), and rock whitlow grass (Draba arabisans Michx.), all of which are found near the existing Isle Royale parking lot, the site for the proposed heritage center and monument headquarters. These species occur on or near cliff faces and among slate (argilliste) scree slopes on Mount Rose adjacent to the proposed heritage center and headquarters sites. The primary concern for these plants would be changes in moisture regimes and activities that could cause the cliff faces or scree slopes to crumble and slide. Large amounts of blasting and excavation (about 1,700 cubic yards) might be necessary in the areas of the proposed heritage center and headquarters. Blasting could cause the cliff faces to crumble or the scree slopes to slide through ground vibration, air blast, and fly rock. To minimize the potential of this occurring, controlled/sequential blasting would be practiced to minimize the intensity of ground vibration, and blasting mats would be used to minimize air blast and fly rock. These mitigative measures, worked out in consultation with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, would substantially reduce the chances of rock slides or fly rock impacting a listed plant (see the ìConsultation and Coordinationî chapter). In addition, post-construction protective measures such as 

shading and new plantings would be undeconstruction impacts on state-listed plantsThe proposed parking lot associated with and headquarters south of the building coing and moisture retention of sites with listo the parking lot. To minimize these impatrees would be planted and maintained beshade the listed ferns. This mitigative meachanges in shading and moisture regimes on the listed plants. Implementing Alternalong-term minor adverse impact on the thspecies. Cumulative Impacts. Existing developmtions would continue to have no effect on species. No actions proposed for Alternatiplace at or near any of the known listed plcumulative impacts on listed plant species from this alternative. Conclusion. There would be no potentialisted plant species under this alternative, heritage center and monument headquarteimpact three of them. However, through mthe likelihood of a listed plant being affectless than in Alternative B. In addition, thesignificant ìtakingî (destruction) of any sthis alternative was implemented, and it wthat any listed plants would be taken. ImpAlternative E would have a long-term minthe three state-listed plants. There would be no major adverse impacts values whose conservation is (1) necessarpurposes identified in the national monumlegislation, (2) key to the cultural integrity 

 Impacts of Alternative E

Impacts of Alternative E
140

enjoyment of the monument, or (3) identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or other relevant NPS planning documents. Consequently, there would be no impairment of 

resources or values associated with plants endangered or values associated with planthreatened, endangered, or species of conc

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES
141
143

 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

A notice of intent to prepare a general management plan and environmental impact statement was published on Monday, May 3, 1999, in the Federal Register (volume 64, number 84, pages 23666-23667). On May 25, 1999, the National Park Service mailed a press release to local and regional media to announce the beginning of planning for the General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement and giving the dates, times, and locations of public scoping meetings. In addition, in late May a newsletter was mailed to everyone on the national monumentís mailing list. The newsletter described the planning process, announced the scoping meetings, and gave a tentative schedule for the plan. The planning team conducted three scoping meetings in 1999 to seek public interest, concerns, and ideas: June 8 at the Grand Marais Community Center, June 9 at the Grand Portage Lodge, and June 10 at the Minnesota Historical Society in Saint Paul. A total of 27 people attended the three meetings. Letters, telephone calls, and e-mail messages have been received commenting about the national monument and responding to the newsletter. Many of the ideas and concepts received have been incorporated into this document. On May 27, 1999, the National Park Service sent a letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to initiate consultation and 

request information concerning any federaor endangered species near Grand Portage ment. A letter received from the U.S. Fish on June 4, 1999, notified the National Parlisted species, one proposed species, and dhabitat for one species exist at or near GraMonument. On January 7, 2000, The Naticontacted Lee Newman of the U.S. Fish agather information on the effort to reintrobrook trout in Grand Portage Creek. The Nvice will submit a copy of this document tWildlife Service and ask for concurrence oof ìmay affectî or ìnot likely to adversely wolf and the Canada lynx. Letters initiating consultation with the Mitoric preservation officer and the Advisory Preservation were sent out during late sprtional information was provided to the Mipreservation officer during a scoping sessiHistorical Society on June 10, 1999. The National Park Service initiated consuMinnesota Department of Natural Resour1999, and requested information concernithreatened or endangered species or speci
144

Grand Portage National Monument. Information about statelisted species was obtained from the following Internet site: 

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ecological_services/nhnrp/endlist.pdf. 

In August 2000 the National Park Service consulted with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources about the potential impacts of the proposed heritage center on state-listed plants near the site. On September 7, 2000, the National Park Service met onsite with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and developed mitigating measures to be incorporated into the project level analysis for the proposed heritage center. On October 3, 2000, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources concurred with the National Park Service that a taking of any state-listed plant was very unlikely, and that a taking permit would not be necessary. The National Park Service in December 1999 contacted the Minnesota Geological Survey to gather information on the geomorphology of Grand Portage National Monument. Terry 

Boerboom, a geologist for the Minnesota Gprovided information and reviewed the ìAmentî chapter relating to the geologic proAlso in December 1999, the National Park consultation with the Minnesota Lake Supgram to request information for compliancZone Management Act. Through telephonmunications on January 3, 2000, Tricia RyCoordinator, informed the National Park Sconsistency determination would not be nOn February 9, 2000, the National Park Sinformation from the Minnesota Departmcompliance with Minnesota noxious weed dick, noxious weed advisor, informed the vice that no secondary noxious weeds havCook County; thus, only primary noxious addressed.

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
145

APPENDIXES 
147

NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS Air Quality Grand Portage National Monument is designated as a class II area under the Clean Air Act. Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved in the national monument: 

CONDITION SOURCE

Air quality in the monument meets national ambient air quality standards for specified pollutants 

Clean Air Act; 40 CFR, Part 50; NPS Management Policies

Emissions do not exceed the maximum allowable increase in concentrations of specified pollutants and particulate matter over the baseline concentration 

Clean Air Act; 42 U.S. Code, Chapter 85, Subchapter I, Part C, Section 7473; NPS Management Policies

All air pollution sources in the monument will comply with all federal, state, and local air quality regulations. The National Park Service will take the following types of actions to meet legal and policy requirements related to air quality: • inventory air quality related values associated with the Monument • monitor and document the condition of air quality and related 

values 

• evaluate air pollution impacts and identify causes • ensure healthful indoor air quality in NPS facilities Water Resources Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved in the national monument: 

CONDITION 

Surface water and groundwater are protected and maintained so that water quality meets all applicable Minnesota state water quality standards 

Clean Water 7050, 7052, aManagement 

Natural floodplains values are preserved or restored 

Clean Water 11988; NPS M

The natural and beneficial values of wetlands are preserved and enhanced 

Clean Water 11990; NPS M

Grand Portage National Monument has limitetrol actions that affect water resources due to location of the monument; however, to meet lments related to water resources, the Nationathe following types of actions: • provide adequate sewage treatment and disp

and administrative facilities 

• manage human activities to control erosion • manage toxic substances such as pesticides, 

and heavy metals to minimize the risk of wa

• regulate the intensity of use in certain areas 

necessary based on water quality monitorin

Species of Special Concern Current laws and policies require that the follachieved in the national monument: 

CONDITION 

Federally listed and state-listed threatened, endangered, and special concern species and their habitats are protected and sustained 

Endangered SMinnesota RManagement 

Noxious weeds will be controlled or eradicated 

Federal NoxiMinnesota SManagement 

APPENDIX A: SERVICEWIDE MANDATES AND POLICIES 
148

The National Park Service will take the following actions to meet legal and policy requirements: • inventory and monitor federally listed and state-listed species • ensure that monument operations and activities are consistent with 

the Endangered Species Act, recovery plans, and other applicable documents for endangered, threatened, candidate, or special concern species and their critical habitats within the national monument 

• to the fullest extent possible, integrate management actions with 

other federal, state, and private recovery efforts 

• take steps to control or eradicate listed noxious weeds CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS Archeological Resources Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved in the national monument: 

CONDITION SOURCE

Archeological sites are identified and inventoried, and their significance is determined and documented Archeological sites are protected in an undisturbed condition unless it is determined through formal processes that disturbance or natural deterioration is unavoidable In cases where disturbance or deterioration is unavoidable, the site is professionally documented and salvaged. 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; Executive Order 11593; Archeological and Historic Preservation Act; Archeological Resources Protection Act; The Secretary of the Interiorís Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation; Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement Among the NPS, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (1995); NPS Management Policies

No full systematic survey or inventory has been done for the archeological sites in Grand Portage National Monument. Precise information about the location, characteristics, significance, and condition of most of the archeological resources in the national monument is lacking, and impacts are difficult to measure. 

The National Park Service will take the followmeet legal and policy requirements related to • fully survey and inventory archeological reso

their significance 

• treat all archeological resources as eligible fo

tional Register of Historic Places pending thnesota state historic preservation officer as a formal determination by the Keeper of the Historic Places 

• protect all archeological resources determin

listed on the national register; if disturbance unavoidable, conduct formal consultation wcil on Historic Preservation and the Minneservation officer in accordance with the Natition Act 

Historic Properties Current laws and policies require that the follhistoric properties (e.g. buildings, structures, landscapes) be achieved in the national monu

CONDITION 

Historic properties are inventoried and their significance and integrity are evaluated under National Register criteria. The qualities that contribute to the listing or eligibility for listing of historic properties on the National Register of Historic Places are protected in accordance with the Secretary of the Interiorís standards (unless it is determined through a formal process that disturbance or natural deterioration is unavoidable). 

National His1966, as ame11593; ArchePreservation Interiorís Stafor ArcheologPreservation; Memorandum the NPS, AdvHistoric PresNational ConHistoric Pres(1995); NPS 

Directorís OrResources M

The National Park Service will take the followmeet legal and policy requirements related to 

APPENDIXES
149

• Complete a survey, inventory, and evaluation of historic properties and cultural landscapes under National Register of Historic Places 

criteria 

• Submit inventory/evaluation results to the Minnesota state historic preservation officer and the Keeper of the National Register of 

Historic Places with recommendations for eligibility to the national register 

• Determine the appropriate level of preservation for each historic 

property formally determined to be eligible for listing or listed on the national register (subject to the Secretary of the Interiorís Standards) 

• Implement and maintain the appropriate level of preservation for 

such properties 

• Analyze the design elements (e.g., materials, colors, shape, mass- ing, scale, architectural details, site details) of historic structures 

and cultural landscapes in the monument (e.g., bridges, trails, roads and intersections) to guide rehabilitation and maintenance of sites and structures and to ensure that future park structures are compatible with the historic character in design and materials 

Collections Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved: 

CONDITION SOURCE

All museum objects and manuscripts are identified and inventoried, and their significance is determined and documented. The qualities that contribute to the significance of collections are protected in accordance with established standards. Human remains, funerary or sacred objects, or those with cultural patrimony are identified and repatriated in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; American Indian Religious Freedom Act; Archeological and Historic Preservation Act; Archeological Resources Protection Act; Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act; NPS Management Policies

The Grand Portage National Monument museat risk. A large portion of the collection is houHistorical Society under a formal agreement. the national monument or housed at the MidwCenter or at the Minnesota Historical Society Marais at the monument headquarters in climtions with appropriate fire and security systemlection have been catalogued; however, items torical Society have been catalogued into both Park Service systems. The national monumentís museum collection are subject to provisions of the Native Americand Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). Grand Portment has completed the inventory and summastipulated by NAGPRA) and determined that turally affiliated with the Grand Portage Band pewa. Monument staff continues to consult wBand of Minnesota Chippewa about these artiThe National Park Service will take the followmeet legal and policy requirements related to • inventory and catalogue all of the monumen

in accordance with standards outlined in thHandbook

• develop a collection management program a

standards to guide the protection, conservatmuseum objects 

• implement the collection management progr• following provisions of NAGPRA, repatriate 

federally recognized and culturally affiliated Grand Portage Band of Minnesota Chippew

Appendix A: Servicewi
150

Visitor Experience and Monument Use Requirements Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved in Grand Portage National Monument: 

CONDITION SOURCE

Visitor and employee safety and health are protected 

NPS Management Policies

Visitors understand and appreciate monument values and resources and have the information necessary to adapt to monument environments; visitors have opportunities to enjoy the national monument in ways that leave its resources unimpaired for future generations 

NPS Organic Act; Grand Portage enabling legislation; NPS Management Policies

Recreational uses in the national monument are promoted and regulated, and basic visitor needs are met in keeping with the national monumentís purposes. 

NPS Organic Act; Grand Portage enabling legislation; 36 CFR; NPS Management Policies

The policy of the National Park Service is to maximize accessibility for people (visitors and staff) with disabilities. Codes set minimum legal requirements. Universal design of new facilities better supports NPS policy. 

CONDITION SOURCE

All reasonable efforts will be made to make buildings and facilities of the NPS accessible to and usable by all people, including those with disabilities. 

Architectural Barriers Act of 1968; Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; 28CFR36, ìNondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilitiesî (ADAAG-ADA Accessi- bility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities); Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards of 1984 (UFAS); U.S. Access Board Draft Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas of 1999; NPS Management Policies; DO 42, Accessibility for Visitors with Disabilities in NPS Programs, Facilities, and Services 

All reasonable efforts will be made to make programs and services of the NPS accessible to and usable by all people, including those with disabilities. 

Rehabilitatioof the InterioìEnforcemenbility in InterManagement cessibility for bilities in NPand Services.

The National Park Service will take the followmeet legal and policy requirements related to Architectural and Site Access. The National Pvelop strategies to ensure that all new and renfacilities, including those provided by concessand constructed in conformance with applicaband standards. Existing buildings and facilitiedetermine the degree to which they are currenusable by people with disabilities and to identaccess. Action plans will be developed identifybe removed. Action plan elements and fundinincluded within annual and strategic (five-yeaProgrammatic Access. The National Park Serstrategies to ensure that all services and progroffered by concessioners, volunteers, cooperatinterpreters, are designed and implemented in applicable rules, regulations and standards. Exactivities, and services (including interpretatiomedia, and web pages) will be evaluated to dewhich they are currently accessible to and usadisabilities, and to identify barriers to access. Adeveloped identifying how barriers will be remelements and funding strategies will be includstrategic (five-year) plans. Regulations governing visitor use and behavionational park system are contained in title 36 Regulations. These regulations have force of lnumber of use limitations, such as limits on co

APPENDIXES
151

CONDITION SOURCE

Pets must be crated, caged, restrained on a leash six feet long or less, or otherwise physically confined at all times. Pets are not allowed in specifically restricted areas 

36 CFR 2.15 

Bicycles are prohibited in the national monument except on established public roads and parking areas and on routes designated for their use by the posting of signs or by marking on a map available at the superintendentís office 

36 CFR 4.3 

The use of off-road vehicles is prohibited except on routes designated for that use by the superintendent or where specifically allowed in the enabling legislation 

36 CFR 4.19, Grand Portage National Monument enabling legislation 

The National Park Service will take the following kinds of actions to meet legal and policy requirements related to visitor experience and use in Grand Portage National Monument: • Provide opportunities for visitors to understand, appreciate, and 

enjoy the national monument 

• Ensure that all Grand Portage National Monument programs and 

facilities are accessible to the extent feasible 

• Continue to enforce the regulations in 36 CFR These laws, regulations, and policies leave considerable room for judgment over the best mix of types and levels of visitor use activities, programs, and facilities. The alternatives presented and evaluated in this Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement represent different approaches to visitor experience and the use of the national monument. 

Special Use Management Requirements ìSpecial useî refers to the use of national monposes other than those of the monument. Currequire that the following conditions be achievmonument with regard to the management of 

DESIRED CONDITION 

No new nonconforming uses or rights-of-way will be permitted in the national monument without specific statutory authority and approval by the director of the National Park Service or his representative, and only if there is no practicable alternative to such use of NPS lands. 

36 CFR 14; NPolicies

Housing Housing is a critical condition at the national one house that is occupied by a ranger and thtrailers. The ranger is required to occupy the htrailers, used seasonally, are occupied by four The trailers are obsolete and pose very difficusafety concerns. They also sit on top of the mofeature in the national monument, the portagetrailers do not meet ADA standards and restriwith disabilities. To some extent, they also resemployees hired. Housing in the Grand Portage Reservation cofor either purchase or rental. Outside the Resepremium because the second home / summer County is tight in summer, when seasonal stalikely that seasonal employees would be unab

Appendix A: Servicewi
152

APPENDIX B: LEGISLATION 

National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (PL 95-625). Section 604(b) of this act requires that general management plans be prepared and revised in a timely manner for each unit in the national park system. The act further specifies that general management plans shall include measures for the preservation of the areaís resources, indications of the types and intensities of development associated with public use of the unit, visitor carrying capacities for all areas of the unit, and indications of potential modifications of the unitís external boundaries if needed. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (Title 42 U.S. Code sections 4321 to 4370 [42 USC 4321ñ4370]). The purposes of NEPA include encouraging ìharmony between [humans] and their environment and promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment . . . and stimulate the health and welfare of [humanity]î. The purposes of NEPA are accomplished by evaluating the effects of federal actions. The results of these evaluations are presented to the public, federal agencies, and public officials in document format (e.g., environmental assessments and environmental impact statements) for consideration before official action is taken or official decisions are made. Implementing regulations for the NEPA are contained in Parts 1500 to 1515 of title 40 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 1500ñ1515). Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended (CWA) (33 USC 1251ñ1387). The purposes of the Clean Water Act are to ìrestore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nationís watersî. To enact this goal, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has been charged with evaluating federal actions that result in potential degradation of waters of the U.S. and issuing permits for actions consistent with the act. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency also has responsibility for the oversight and review of permits and actions that affect waters of the U.S. Implementing regulations describing the Corpsí CWA program are contained in 33 CFR 320ñ330. Clean Air Act (PL 360, 69 Stat 322, 42 USC 7401 et seq.). The main purpose of this act is to protect and enhance the nationís air quality 

to promote the public health and welfare. The programs that provide special protection for aquality related values associated with NPS unmental Protection Agency has been charged wact. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 1544). The purposes of the ESA include provithe ecosystems upon which endangered speciecies depend may be conservedî. According to departments and agencies shall seek to conserand threatened speciesî and ì[e]ach Federal athat any action authorized, funded, or carried is not likely to jeopardize the continued existespecies or threatened speciesî. The U.S. Fish (non-marine species) and the National Marine rine species, including anadromous fish and mminister the ESA. The effects of any agency acendangered, threatened, or proposed species mconsultation with either the USFWS or NMFSmenting regulations that describe procedures cooperation to determine the effects of actionened, or proposed species are contained in 50 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amStat. 1280, 16 USC 1451 et seq.). This act staìpreserve, protect, develop, and where possibthe resources of the nationís coastal zones,î ining the Great Lakes. Requires federal actions state coastal zone management plans to the msible. Stipulates that applicants for federal licefy that their activities are consistent with mandirectly affected states. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, adeclared a national policy of historic preservatencouragement of preservation on the state an
153

authorized the secretary of the interior to expand and maintain a National Register of Historic Places, including properties of state and local as well as national significance; authorized matching federal grants to the states and the National Trust for Historic Preservation for surveys and planning and for acquiring and developing national register properties; established the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; required federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on national register properties and gave the Advisory Council opportunities to comment (section 106). Amended in 1976 to expand section 106 to properties eligible for as well as listed on the national register. Amended in 1980 to incorporate EO 11593 requirements, to give national historic landmarks extra protection in federal project planning, and to permit federal agencies to lease historic properties and apply the proceeds to any national register properties under their administration. Amended in 1992 to, among other things, redefine federal undertakings, address ìanticipatory demolition,î and emphasize the interests and involvement of American Indians and Native Hawaiians.Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. Section 106 mandates that federal agencies take into account the effects of their actions on properties listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and give the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment. While it does not require the preservation of such properties, it does require that their historic or prehistoric values be considered in weighing the benefits and costs of federal undertakings to determine what is in the public interest. Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. Section 110 gives federal agencies positive responsibility for preserving historic properties in their ownership or control. It calls for them to use such properties, where feasible and compatible with their preservation, in preference to acquiring, constructing, or leasing others. Agencies are also directed to establish preservation programs to identify, evaluate, protect, and nominate to the national register historic properties under their ownership or control, whether they are of significance at the local, state, or national level. The law emphasizes cooperation with state historic preservation officers in establishing such programs. 

Executive Order 11593, ìProtection and Enhtural Environment,î May 13, 1971. This EO iagencies to support the preservation of culturthem to identify and nominate to the national erties under their jurisdiction and to ìexercise that any federally owned property that might qis not inadvertently transferred, sold, demolishaltered.î American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1ìthe policy of the United States is to protect acan Indians their inherent right of freedom to exercise the traditional religions of the AmericAleut, and Native Hawaiians, including, but nsites, use and possession of sacred objects, anship through ceremonial and traditional rites. Archeological Resources Protection Act of 19archeological resources as any material remainactivities that are of archeological interest and required federal permits for their excavation oalties for violators; provided for preservation avated materials, records, and data; provided foarcheological site locations; encouraged coopeparties to improve protection of archeological 1988 to require development of plans for survarcheological resources and systems for reporsuspected violations. Native American Graves Protection and RepaThis act assigns ownership or control of Nativmains, funerary objects, sacred objects and obmony that are excavated or discovered on fedeafter passage of the act to lineal descendants oNative American groups; establishes criminal in remains or objects obtained in violation of federal agencies and museums that receive fedventory Native American human remains and objects in their possession or control and idengeographical affiliations within five years and 
154

information about Native American unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony. This is to provide for repatriation of such items when lineal descendants or Native American groups request it. Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (PL 93-638) and Indian Self-Determination Act Amendments of 1994 (PL 103-413). The first act attempted to maximize tribal participation in the planning and administration of federal services and programs within the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service. The second act amended the first, establishing selfgovernance throughout the Department of the Interior and allowing each tribe to voluntarily choose whether and to what degree it wants to participate in self-governance. The bill also requires an orderly transition from federal domination to tribal authority and control with accompanying reduction in the federal bureaucracy. All dealings between the Department of the Interior and a self-governance tribe are to be bilateral and consensual and may not be altered unilaterally. Executive Order 13007, ìIndian Sacred Sites,î May 24, 1996. This EO instructed each executive branch agency with statutory or administrative responsibility for the management of federal lands to 1) accommodate to the extent practicable, permitted by law, and not clearly inconsistent with essential agency functions, access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners, 2) avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites, and 3) where appropriate, maintain the confidentiality of such sites. 

Presidential Memorandum, ìGovernment to with Native American Tribal Governments,î presidential memorandum provided guidance executive branch departments and agencies wgovernment-to-government relationship with tribal governments. Part ìaî makes the head opartment and agency responsible for ensuring agency operates within a government-to-goverwith federally recognized tribal government. Pdepartment or agency to consult to the greateand to the extent permitted by law. Part ìcî reof plans, projects, programs and activities on tassessed and that tribal rights and concerns bdevelopment of such plans, projects, programìdî requires the removal of any procedural imdirectly and effectively with tribal governmentaffect the trust property and/or governmental ìeî requires each executive department and aother federal departments and agencies to enlsupport in cooperative efforts to accomplish torandum. Part ìfî requires application of the 12875 (ìEnhancing the Intergovernmental Pa(ìRegulatory Planning and Reviewî) to design federal programs, in appropriate circumstanceunique needs of tribal communities. 

APPENDIXES
155

APPENDIX C: COSTS APPENDIX C: COSTS 

The assumptions made in estimating costs are for the purposes of comparing alternatives and should not be used for construction estimates. ALTERNATIVE A Alternative A assumes that at some point within the next 20 years, maintenance facilities and housing for seasonal employees will have to be replaced. These facilities are already beyond their predicted life expectancies. Structure removal was estimated to cost $300,000, with replacement costs of $500,000 (maintenance facility) and $300,000 (assumes 2 trailers). It was also assumed that within the next 20 years the Isle Royale wharf would have to be replaced at an estimated removal cost of $450,000 and a replacement cost of $620,000. The cost of utilities replacement to the site is an unknown. The estimate for this alternative is more than $2 million. No additional staff would be required. ALTERNATIVE B Alternative B assumes construction of a heritage center ($6 million), a separate headquarters facility, a new maintenance facility, and two duplexes and one dormitory for housing ($4.6 million total). It assumes that between 5 and 11 buildings would be reconstructed in the stockade (for 5 buildings the range was $1.5ñ3.5 million, for 11 buildings the range was $4ñ9 million). Researching, designing, constructing, furnishing, dredging, and placement plus the cost of archeological excavation and a film on the entire process of reconstructing the Otter would cost ca. $6 millionñ$7 million. Annual maintenance costs would average $500,000. The vessel would require replacement approximately every 25 years. 

Roadwork is estimated at $1 million. It is assuranger residence, maintenance facility, and serestoring the site would cost $300,000. Wharf cost $450,000. A more historically accurate do$500,000. Removing and replacing the footbriapproximately $350,000. No cost estimate was determined for reconstrwharf offsite because it was assumed that it wpartially by the concessioner. The cost of utiliwas an unknown. The estimate for this alternative ranges from $million. Additional staff required (per year in FY 2000 follows. 

Archivist/curator, (1), GS-11, $52,900 Interpreters (3), GS-9, $43,700 Seasonal rangers, (3.6), GS-4/5, $28,800 Law enforcement ranger, (1), LE-9, $45,200 Resource manager, (0.5), GS-9, $43,800 Vessel captain, (1), GS-12, $63,400 Maintenance employees, (3), WG-3, $18,169 Crewmen, (2), WG-7, $42,658 Total 

ALTERNATIVE C Alternative C assumes the construction of a hmillion), an Ojibwe Cultural Demonstration Sreconstruction of 3 structures within the stockroadwork ($3 million), removing ranger residefacility, and two duplexes and one dormitory fmillion), construction of a new maintenance f
156

new seasonal housing ($600,000), and wharf removal ($450,000). A more historically accurate dock would cost about $500,000. Removing and replacing the footbridge would cost approximately $350,000. No cost estimate was determined for reconstructing the Isle Royale wharf offsite because it was assumed that it would be at least partially paid by the concessioner. The cost of utilities replacement also was unknown. The estimate for this alternative is more than $16 million. Additional staff required (per year in FY 2000 dollars) would be as follows. 

Archivist/curator, (1), GS-11, $52,900 $ 53,000 Interpreters (3), GS-9, $43,700 131,000 Seasonal rangers, (3), GS-4/5, $28,800 86,000 Law enforcement ranger, (1), LE-9, $45,200 45,000 Resource manager, (0.5), GS-9, $43,700 22,000 Maintenance employees, (2), WG-3, $18,169 36,000 Total $373,000 

ALTERNATIVE D Alternative D assumes the construction of a heritage center ($6 million), a new maintenance facility ($500,000), and two duplexes and one dormitory for housing ($1,200,000). It also assumes the cost of removing a ranger residence, a maintenance facility, seasonal housing ($300,000), and the wharf ($450,000). Roadwork proposed is estimated at $1.5 million. No cost estimate was determined for reconstructing of the Isle Royale wharf offsite because it was assumed that it would be at least partially paid by the concessioner. The cost of utilities was also an unknown. The estimate for this alternative is more than $12 million. 

Additional staff required (per year in FY 2000 follows. 

Archivist/curator, (1), GS-11, $52,900 Interpreters (2), GS-9, $43,700 Seasonal rangers, (1.6), GS-4/5, $28,800 Law enforcement ranger, (1), LE-9, $45,200 Resource manager, (0.5), GS-9, $43,700 Maintenance employee, (1), WG-5, $39,532 Total 

ALTERNATIVE E Alternative E assumes construction of a heritaan Ojibwe Cultural Demonstration Shelter ($structions within the stockade ($2.5 million), facility ($500,000), and two duplexes and one housing ($1,200,000). It also assumes the cosresidence, a maintenance facility, and seasonaand a wharf ($450,000). Roadwork would cosNo cost estimate was determined for reconstrwharf because it was assumed that it would be by the concessioner. The cost of utilities was aThe estimate for this alternative is more than Additional staff required (per year in FY 2000 follows. 

Archivist/curator, (1), GS-11, $52,900 Interpreters (2), GS-9, $43,700 Seasonal rangers, (3), GS-4/5, $28,800 Law enforcement ranger, (1), LE-9, $45,200 Resource manager, (0.5), GS-9, $43,700 Maintenance employees, (2), WG-5, $39,532 Total 

APPENDIXES 
157

APPENDIX D: CULTURAL RESOURCES 

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES The cultural resource inventory of Grand Portage National Monument (Woolworth and Woolworth 1982) lists 110 archeological sites and cultural features within (or potentially within) the boundary of the monument. Because much of the monument has not yet been archeologically surveyed (particularly the 8.5-mile Grand Portage) there is great potential for adding more archeological sites to this inventory. In addition, current research into the ethnohistory of Grand Portage, using oral interviews with tribal elders, has the potential to add many sites of ethnographic or traditional cultural significance. The following paragraphs list the principal archeological and cultural resources in Grand Portage National Monument, outside of the reconstructed North West Company depot area: 

XY Company Depot: Written records indicate that the competing XY 

post was somewhere east of the North West Company post. Its precise location has not been determined, although there is some evidence to indicate that the ruins of this depot may be under the present seasonal housing and maintenance facilities. 

Boucherís Little Fort: Boucherís Little Fort is mentioned in historic 

tradersí journals. Minnesota Historical Society fieldwork in 1975 may have encountered remains of this legendary site. It is believed that Boucherís Little Fort was occupied from 1785 to 1802; however, structures found in this area indicate habitation until approximately 1805. According to Woolworth and Woolworth (1982), this is one of the more significant locations in the monument. 

American Fur Company Fishing Station: The American Fur Company opened a commercial fishery at Grand Portage in 1836 under 

the direction of Pierre CotÈ. According to Carolyn Gilman, the company ì . . . provided the nets, barrels, and salt; the Indians provided much of the labor and know-how. From August to November they set nets where trout and whitefish congregated . . .î (Gilman 1992). The fish were cleaned and then salted down in barrels by 

Ojibwe women, and CotÈ purchased fish at $3 500 barrels a year were shipped east on the coJohn Jacob Astor. An 1839 visitor mentioned fishing station, which was in business till 184

The Public Road: In 1778 Lt. Thomas Bennet

Regiment of Foot began the work of laying ouìpublic road.î The road ran from the lakeshorPortage east of the creek, and then around the present-day Roman Catholic Church stands. 

Prehistoric Lithic Site: A prehistoric lithic sit

area containing remains of stone tools) dating B.C.ñ0 

A.D., discovered by Woolworth, yielded 

scraper, and a stone blade. The site is east of Gand south of the road which was built across tencampment in 1914. According to Woolwort(1982), ìScientifically, this find is of considersite of the camp should be preserved.î This is human habitation or activity in the monumen

BIA Structures: The U.S. Indian Department 

first schoolhouse in 1856. It stood northeast omaintenance boneyard at the monumentís sou1914 a BIA schoolhouse and outbuildings werPortage Creek in the current picnic area. The a new BIA log structure in 1938 (located outsthe national monument). After use as a coopehall, and canteen, the 1914 school was torn doIndian Department / BIA structures in the areage Creek included warehouses, a dock, a baragency building used by the BIAís assistant goThese sites are significant because they relate intensive U.S. government involvement with tOjibwe. It is possible that these buildings may top of older structures from the fur trade era c(Woolworth and Woolworth 1982). 
158

Midewiwin Lodge Site: At one time this site contained a bark Midewiwin lodge (an Ojibwe ceremonial structure). The precise location 

of the original Midewiwin ground and church is uncertain. It was also the site of the first wooden Roman Catholic Church, ca. 1851ñ1865. Eastman Johnsonís 1857 painting (Gilman 1992) shows the location of the first church. The original painting is in the collection of the Saint Louis Historical Society in Duluth. The church was moved to higher ground around 1865, sided, enlarged and consecrated to Our Lady of the Holy Rosary; it still stands today (Gilman 1992; Woolworth and Woolworth 1982, Woolworth, personal communication 1999). On this site three successive birch-bark Roman Catholic chapels were built, and a small log cabin was built for Father Pierz in 1858. 

Ojibwe Burials: Minnesota Historical Society excavations in 1962 

revealed four adult Ojibwe burials (ca. 1800ñ1825) on a small hill east of the creek in the vicinity of the 1914 BIA school. There are probably additional burials at this site (Woolworth and Woolworth 1982). 

The Grand Portage: The Grand Portage leads from Lake Superiorís 

Grand Portage Bay up to the Pigeon River to the northwest. It was developed as a means of bypassing treacherous falls and cascades of the lower Pigeon River. Grand Portage was subsequently used first by French, then by British traders for a period of nearly 75 years until the last rendezvous of 1804 (Gilman 1992). It was used prehistorically by native peoples for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years and 

by the French explorers, missionaries, French-Canadian voyageurs, Scots partners, guides, and others from the mid-17th century onward. It is best known for its association with the fur trade era, between 1731 and 1803. After the Frenchman La Verendrye recorded his portage experiences in 1731, use of the route was dominated by the voyageurs transporting packs and canoes from the Grand Portage landing site to the Pigeon River, 8 miles to the northwest. However, the extent of French occupation at Grand Portage is still unclear. According to Woolworth and Woolworth (1982) the scanty available historical literature on the French use of the Grand Portage indicates that the French had small wooden structures at each end of the Grand Portage from 1732 to 1760 for the seasonal use of personnel and storage of munitions and supplies. 

In its day the portage was acknowledged as thCanadaís prime fur country. Initially it was onor 4 feet wide, but by 1787 it had been widenetwo-wheeled carts (Woolworth and Woolwortexact starting point for the Grand Portage is iand Woolworth (1982) state emphatically, ìIt assume that the centuries old Grand Portage bof the North West Company depot which was that it then proceeded along the west bank of for a considerable distance. The historical evidthat the Grand Portage began on the east banCreek and that it apparently originated at the The British assumed control of the fur trade in summer of 1767. By the 1780s, trade ó in facon the portage ó was dominated by the North though no records survive, it is assumed that pany kept the portage in decent repair using tAfter the post was abandoned in 1804, the deuse on the portage resulted in its reverting to Surveyors and missionaries occasionally used Grand Portage Band of Minnesota Chippewa variety of purposes. The trail remained in this a group of Boy Scouts, working for the Indian 3.5 miles of the route. This work continued unarea was established as a national historic site designated a national monument in 1958), the assumed responsibility for the care and maintToday the Grand Portage is an 8.5-mile trail ereconstructed depot site to the Pigeon River amonument consists of a narrow (100 foot widsurrounding the Grand Portage and extending Grand Portage village to MN 61. The corridor feet over the rest of the distance to Fort Charlto be the historic route of the Grand Portage lcenter of this corridor. 

APPENDIXES
159

The Grand Portage trail remains an international road. Under the terms of the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842, the use of the trail remains free and open to citizens of both the United States and Great Britain. This corridor is of paramount significance to the Grand Portage National Monument. Without the Grand Portage, British and American political history and national boundaries might have been quite different. 

Ford: The old ford that served the North West Company depot 

crossed Grand Portage Creek a short distance upstream of the 1938 stone bridge. This is near the present location of the maintenance facility and seasonal housing. 

Poses: Historical data indicate that there were 16ñ18 poses along the 

Grand Portage (Gates 1965; Woolworth and Woolworth 1982; Woolworth 1993). Poses were routinely used resting places for voyageurs who, carrying two 90-pound bundles between Fort Charlotte and the North West Company post on Grand Portage Bay at a rapid pace, were in frequent need of repose. Poses were located approximately 600ñ800 yards apart, often at the crossing of small creeks and springs. 

Fort Charlotte: Fort Charlotte, on the Pigeon River, lies at the 

western end of the portage. Fort Charlotte and the surrounding area encompass 101.15 acres of NPS land. From the late 1770s or early 1780s through about 1803, it functioned as the historic contact point and storage location for the North West Company and the XY Company. At least two smaller companies also had relatively permanent operations at the site. It is likely that before the North West Companyís activity, the French had log structures at this site, ca. 1732ñ1760. A series of palisaded depots eventually developed at Fort Charlotte; their remains were visible as late as 1893. It is a rich archeological resource, with both terrestrial and underwater deposits. More detailed discussion of Fort Charlotte is found in Woolworth and Woolworth (1982) and Woolworth (1993). 

Palisades: Upland archeological excavations have not been undertaken at Fort Charlotte. However, a surface survey documented 

surface remains and soil depressions showing the locations of roadways, palisades, and buildings for both the North West Company and 

the XY Company (Albinson 1922). The palisawas first excavated in 1936ñ1937 by Minnesoarcheologist Ralph Brown, directing a crew of workers. Archeological evidence indicates thalarged twice during the North West Company Midwest Archeological Center conducted a prsurvey of Fort Charlotte in 1978. Data from thfindings reported by Albinson (Huggins and Wbelieved that the palisade depot was built arouCharlotte, consort of King George the III (Woworth 1982). 

Wharf/Dock: Underwater exploration of the P

Charlotte in the early 1970s found evidence oalong the south side of the river, adjacent to tWest Company Post (Birk 1975). The physicaarea showed that hewn cedar logs paralleled tjected into the river, suggesting the existence one, possibly two docks. The underwater excarich evidence of the material culture of the fur that took place at Fort Charlotte (Birk 1975). 

XY Company Post: The remains of a short-liv

the XY Company in 1797 are evident in the Fosite is in an angle formed by Snow Creek on tRiver on the west. SITE HISTORYGrand Portage National Monument is listed oof Historic Places for its ì. . . important assocand the exploration and colonization of the noand geographic link between the United Stateexcellent state of preservation in a semi-wildeThe National Register form describes the siteí

Grand Portage National Monument is situated near the northwestern tip of Lake Superior. It e

Append
160

of one of the most important fur posts on the North American continent. Geography, the quest for fur, the search for the Northwest Passage, and a boundary dispute between the United States and Canada caused it to become a great center of activity. The strategic location of Grand Portage between Lake Superior and the interconnected waterway along the present Minnesota-Ontario border guaranteed it an important place in history, because it guarded one of the best natural routes to the northern interior of the continent (the other being Hudson Bay). Because of its geographical advantages, Grand Portage was selected as the headquarters of the North West Company, a powerful British fur trading firm. Because of the importance of the company, Grand Portage was the only scene of military activity in Minnesota during the Revolutionary War when British soldiers were stationed there to protect the companyís property. The Grand Portage, or the ìgreat carrying place,î though neither the longest, the most difficult, nor the most spectacular of the portages, was a vital link in the fur trade from Montreal. This nine-mile trail represented the end of travel on the Great Lakes and the beginning of the interior river and lake route. By 1778, the North West Companyís trading post, located on the shores of the small bay at the eastern end of the ìgreat carrying place,î was in operation. This post, which took its name from the portage, served as the companyís inland headquarters, and it was here that the ìNorí Westersî held their summer rendezvous. At the peak of the North West Companyís trade, there were over a thousand voyageurs in the companyís service. These faithful laborers usually carried two 90-pound packs over the portage between Fort Charlotte and Grand Portage, each trip. The North West Company was unable to maintain a complete monopoly over the trade that passed through Grand Portage. Rivals sprang up from time to time, usually to flourish a few years and then merge with the ìNorí Westers.î The most aggressive competitor, the XY Company, operated neighboring posts at Grand Portage and Fort Charlotte from 1797 to 1804. By 1800 the boom years of Grand Portage were near an end. In that year a United States tax collector visited the North West Companyís post and gave notice that the United States would, the next year, levy duties on all merchandise and furs passing over the portage. 

The ìNorí Westersî like many others, were uncportage lay on United States or Canadian soil. Bthat the collector had a good case in the Jay Trehis warnings should be taken seriously, they implans to move their post to the mouth of the KaCanadian soil, about 30 miles northeast, and to doned and more difficult route to the west. By 1803, the new post ó first named Fort Kamcalled Fort William in honor of the companyís cWilliam McGillivray ó was near completion, anCompany bade a final farewell to Grand PortagAlthough the trapping regions and trade routes Canada, the people and events of Grand Portagcant in United States history. It could be said thplayed a larger part in the history of Canada thaUnited States. But, in a larger context, it must bGrand Portage played a part in the historical denations. The French explorers who used the ponational boundary; they traveled into the Dakotcountry, as well as through western Canada. The Grand Portage trail was and still is an interthe terms of the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1remains free and open to this day to citizens of States and Great Britain. 

HISTORIC RESOURCES The name of Grand Portage became known arbetween 1762 and 1804 because of the old Nothe midpoint of the voyageursí highway into tnent, it was the site of the principal annual rethe inland headquarters for one of North Ameempires, Grand Portage was possibly the singassociated with the fur trade. The stockade (or depot) area consists of the laSuperior and the Grand Portage at modern CoAlthough archeological evidence is not abundprobably used this area occasionally for thous

APPENDIXES
161

transportation corridor and for seasonal fishing and food gathering activities. A seasonal village (probably Ojibwe) was in place at the time of the La Verendrye expedition to Grand Portage in 1731. The extent of French occupation at Grand Portage is still unclear. According to Woolworth and Woolworth (1982) the scanty available historical literature on the French use of the Grand Portage indicates that the French had small wooden structures at each end of the Grand Portage from 1732 to 1760 for the seasonal use of personnel and storage of munitions and supplies. Although British traders began using the portage by 1765, the first structures built by the British probably did not appear until 1768. Numerous small competing fur traders became established at Grand Portage through the 1770s, several of whom consolidated into the North West Company in 1784. The development of the new company depot beginning in 1785 (probably incorporating some earlier buildings) was the beginning of the major period of fur trade era construction at Grand Portage (Gilman 1992). Written accounts and archeological investigations have provided information necessary to accurately reconstruct several of these North West Company structures. These are furnished in the period of 1797. Reconstructed historic features of the stockade area include the white cedar palisade, a wooden dock, a gatehouse, the Great Hall, a kitchen, an outdoor bake oven, a kitchen garden, an Ojibwe garden, a flagpole, a fur press, a canoe-building bed, and a canoe warehouse. Seasonal living history exhibits of a voyageur encampment and an Ojibwe village also add to the historic setting. Historic furnishings in the structures are mostly replicas and are catalogued as such in the monumentís collection. Actual museum pieces such as a historic rotisserie coffee bean roaster, American Indian clothing and artifacts, fur trade era archeological objects, and a birch-bark ricing canoe are also displayed. RECONSTRUCTIONS The reconstructed buildings at Grand Portage National Monument represent a small percentage of those that once occupied the site. 

Sixteen buildings were inside the main palisadunknown number outside. Historical and archindicates that most of the structures were builìpoteaux sur soleî or post-on-sill construction also referred to as the Canadian style or Canation. Buildings were built of squared hewn timspruce, with shingles of cedar and pine. Doorsframes were painted ìSpanish brown.î The bustorehouses for merchandise and furs, dwellinhouse, and a mess house (now called the GreaHowever, no historic structures remain standera at the Grand Portage site or at Fort Charloremains are preserved. 

Palisade: As was mentioned above, the palisa

in 1936ñ1937, and archeological evidence indlarged twice during the North West Company the Civilian Conservation Corps reconstructed the direction of the Bureau of Indian Affairs aresearch. The National Park Service entirely ragain in 1988ñ1989. Today there are 1,574 linlog palisade wall approximately 14 feet high. 

Gatehouse: A 13 ́ by 13 ́ reconstructed gateho

mately 12 feet above grade. The present gatehand remains in excellent condition. 

Dock: As was mentioned above, limited histo

evidence indicates that a wharf or dock was loPortage Bay adjacent to the palisade. A 270′-l1931 by the Grand Portage Band and the CooSociety as a memorial to members of the Andcommemoration of the bicentennial of the La That dock was destroyed by a storm in 1951. Twhich is somewhat L-shaped, is placed on 12 ́ with rubble. The dock is in fair condition and vessel Wenonah, a boat that carries visitors to National Park, 20 miles offshore. The monumlation mandates that the Grand Portage Band this dock, but they have not exercised this rig

Appen
162

Great Hall: It is believed that John Erskine originally built the Great 

Hall in 1768. Other documents indicate that the Great Hall and kitchen were constructed around 1785 when the palisades were expanded to enclose additional space. It is uncertain what became of the original building. Minnesota Historical Society archeologist Ralph Brown first excavated the site of the Great Hall in 1936ñ1937, and the Civilian Conservation Corps reconstructed it in 1938ñ1940 under the direction of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and based on Brownís research. Some negative impacts resulted from the 1930s reconstructions: the installation of concrete footings for a propane gas tank directly east of the Great Hall and the installation of sewer and water lines destroyed some archeological evidence, including a section of buried stone wall. Lightning struck the CCC-era Great Hall in 1969, and the resulting fire destroyed the Great Hall and many artifacts. However, this damage resulted in an opportunity to conduct additional archeological excavations and rebuild the structure more accurately. Minnesota Historical Society archeologist Alan Woolworth excavated the site a second time in 1970. Based on this research, the National Park Service rebuilt the Great Hall in the early 1970s. It is constructed from square timbers hand-hewn from locally cut logs. The structure measures 30′ by 95′ and is 11⁄2 stories tall with two fireplaces of random coarse fieldstone. The hip roof has six gable dormers and covers the porch running along the south side of the hall. The building is in excellent condition. 

Kitchen: The original kitchen, which served the main dining facilities 

in the Great Hall, was constructed around 1785, when the palisade was expanded to enclose additional space. Minnesota Historical Society archeologist Alan Woolworth extensively excavated the kitchen site in 1970ñ1971. Approximately 15,000 artifacts were recovered, including rosehead nails, dish fragments, liquor bottles, cutlery and woodworking tools, door and window hardware, fire steels, beads, buckles, brass tinklers, clay pipestems and bowl fragments, and pieces of firearms. The National Park Service reconstructed the kitchen between 1973 and 1976, using archeological evidence and knowledge of construction methods of the day. The present 11⁄2-story structure measures 35′ by 27′ and is connected by a wooden elevated walkway to the Great Hall. Additional archeological work was conducted around the kitchen in 1989 in advance of construction to improve water drainage around the structure (Noble 1990). 

Bake Oven: A precise location for an outdoor 

oven has never been found. However, it is hislarge quantities of fresh bread were supplied tWhat is believed to be a historically accurate rwas built in 1987 and rebuilt in 1994, followinthe Historic Structures Report (1973) for the which is patterned after one used by the Hudsused during the summer for demonstrations o

Gardens: Written historic accounts of activitie

Company depot indicate that hay, potatoes, anat the post. However, inventories of post suppother posts suggest that many other types of pcultivated to supplement the postís dried storeA raised garden has been established north of ing a post garden that probably was originally palisade walls. A second garden was establishOjibwe village exhibit to depict American Indniques. Both gardens are built on raised beds deposits. Heirloom seeds, descendants of actucultivars, are grown in these gardens using ormethods. 

Flagpole: Archeological evidence has not reve

tion of the postís flagpole; however, original wGrand Portage depot refer to a flag flying over pole, flying the North West Companyís red ensoutheast corner of the Great Hall in 1994 bations by Alan Woolworth. 

Canoe Warehouse: The site of the canoe ware

wall of the stockade, was excavated by Woolwindicated that a squared log structure 52 ́ by 1located here. Its reconstruction was completed and stairs leading to the south end of the build1999. The building is in excellent condition. 

Fur Press: A functional, reconstructed lever-s

the stockade area between the Great Hall and 

APPENDIXES
163

dock. There is no archeological evidence indicating the precise location of a fur press. 

Ojibwe Village: The Ojibwe village is just west of the stockade, near 

the canoe warehouse. Precise locations for original villages are uncertain, but they varied through time. The current site consists of the following reconstructed birch-bark structures: a summer (domeshaped) wigwam, a work shelter, a winter (conical) wigwam, and a long house. An elevated earthen canoe-building bed is also located here. A campfire and elevated earthen canoe building bed were added in 1999. From mid-June through Labor Day, personnel in historic costume staff this living history exhibit. 

Voyageur Camps (North Men and Montreal Camps): Historic written records indicate that Montreal voyageur camps were located 

across Grand Portage Creek, east of the stockade. The location of the North Men camps was to the west of the stockade. Up to 1,000 men would camp here for several weeks each summer. A small voyageur North Men encampment has been reconstructed near the outer southwest corner of the stockade. Personnel in historic costume staff the exhibit from mid-June through Labor Day. CULTURAL LANDSCAPE For many years, Grand Portage National Monument has interpreted the history of the fur trade and its associated transportation networks and commemorated the tradition of cross-cultural contact between the Ojibwe and Euro-American explorers. This section describes the cultural resources that are critical to conveying these concepts and might be affected by one or all of the alternatives. A cultural landscape is the physical result of generations of human activity at a place. The landscape at Grand Portage has many layers, both visible and hidden, portraying both its historic and contemporary significance. Cultural landscapes consist of both built and natural features. The depot, the portage trail and surrounding forest, burials, and the village site are associated with the continuum of use from the original occupation, through the fur trade and logging eras, up to the most recent residential and recreational development of the 

Grand Portage community. Because the monulandscape has changed dramatically over timeresemble a single period in the past. The four landscapes are the portage, the stockade, Fort former Grand Portage village site. A cultural landscape inventory for Grand Portment is underway. When completed, the invendocument critical features to be protected. Bement could begin, a more detailed implementatural landscape report would be completed to ensure that the cultural landscape would not bFor the purposes of describing the impacts of General Management Plan / Environmental Icultural landscape of Grand Portage National everything within its boundaries. 

The Grand Portage: The Grand Portage, desc

an important component of the cultural landsment and character of the portage areas are veappearance during the 1790s, the period of pebecause the forest surrounding the trail has beits species and quality may be dramatically diffur trade period. What was once native white-consists of successional second growth, dominaspen, paper and heartleaf birch, spruce and bThe path was a primarily wooded corridor, altappeared along its course, and periodic fires wcover. Large groves of sugar maples accessed tapped to make maple sugar, and birch bark wcanoes. The portage, which was depicted in vamaps, initially was only a footpath perhaps 3 o1787 it had been widened to a narrow trail thathoroughfare wide enough to accommodate twdrawn carts (Woolworth and Woolworth 1982Visitors to Grand Portage National Monumennarrow rugged path between the Pigeon River 

 Appen
164

Bay with very few contemporary intrusions. The trail is a narrow, gradually sloping corridor through the forest. Its sometimes rocky, often swampy and muddy surface allows hikers to contemplate the grueling passages taken by the voyageurs. The present alignment and character of the portage are similar to its appearance during the 1790s, the period of peak use. Because the forest surrounding the trail has been extensively logged, its species and quality may be dramatically different from that of the fur trade period. What was once native white-pine forest today consists of successional second growth, dominated by both quaking aspen, paper and heartleaf birch, spruce and balsam fir. 

Stockade: The stockade landscape includes the area west of Grand 

Portage Creek, between County Road 17 and Lake Superior, as well as Mount Rose. The landscape includes reconstructions of historic structures, as well as contemporary buildings used for either park operations or employee housing. The buildings are interspersed with areas of shrubs and trees, and the landscape within the stockade walls is mown grass. Although the reconstructions serve to interpret the fur trade era for visitors, the landscape does not replicate the historic environment within which these activities occurred. As early as 1767, voyageurs approaching from the water used Mount Rose as a landmark. Drawing near, they probably observed a bustle of activity along a shoreline that had been stripped of vegetation to create voyageur campsites, build fires, and construct the stockade. The cleared area, which ran up to the surrounding ridges, was dotted with encampments, small commercial ventures, and a number of pens for containing the livestock that was raised at the site. The clusters of encampments surrounded the centralized depot and a number of utilitarian buildings. This historic working landscape contrasts with the contemporary forested Mount Rose and Mount Josephine and the carefully maintained stockade and Ojibwe village. The historically significant view from Mount Rose to Lake Superior continues to provide stunning views of the shoreline; photographs taken over the last century allow us to track changes in the use of the area through patterns of vegetation, circulation, and construction of buildings. Todayís carefully maintained monument landscape tells only part of the story; there are very few features that demonstrate the rather scruffy, dirty, somewhat wild quality of life at the stockade and th

tions of pelts, rituals of trade, repair of equipmcelebrations. The configuration and appearance of the stockis not known whether any structures existed aPortage creek during the French occupation (British assumed control of Canada in 1761, thstopping point and campsite until the North Wstructed its stockade around 1780. In addition closing the post, at least 16 buildings stood wdepot during the height of the fur trade. After the British abandoned the post in 1804, became of the stockade and buildings, althougsome of the structures were relocated for use stockade site remained abandoned until the GMinnesota Chippewa started establishing a pe1865. It had been used primarily as a seasonafocus on ìceremonial, political, and (on rare oactivitiesî (Gilman). By the early 19th centuryOjibwe were living in the area between Grand William. An exact count of the Band members not available. Itinerant traders came through Depression-era federal work projects had a mGrand Portage landscape. The Civilian ConseWorks Progress Administration, and the Civil were all active in the community. Many old buthe community itself was reoriented from the roads. New homes, a community hall, and a nan inland ridge. In preparation for the initial sin 1938, the area at the creek mouth was again and vegetation. Archeological investigations tthe reconstruction located the main stockade stone foundation of the Great Hall, and a numstructures. The 1938 reconstruction activity began with tgatehouse, and the Great Hall. Work stopped 

APPENDIXES
165

War II. After the initially reconstructed Great Hall burned in 1969, a second, more accurate structure was built (completed in 1974), as well as a canoe warehouse in 1973 and a kitchen in 1978. At present, reconstructions at the stockade include the following features, all described above: 

Great Hall gatehouse Ojibwe village flagpole canoe warehouse fur press voyageur camp (North Men and  Montreal camps) 

kitchen 

palisade gardens 

INTERPRETIVE OBJECTS Items that are known to have existed at the post during the historic period but without a known location include the following: 

Fort Charlotte: As described under ìArcheological Resources,î Fort 

Charlotte was an important stop in the 18th century. Today, the buildings used in trade are gone, replaced by thick cover of secondgrowth forest. Campgrounds at the site provide a resting-place for visitors traveling along the portage. 

Grand Portage Village Site: The site of the late 19th and early 20th

century Grand Portage village sits on the opposite side of Grand Portage Creek, to the east of the portage and the stockade. Until the late 1930s the village appeared much like any small Great Lakes community ó a strong orientation to the lake, modest frame houses and commercial buildings, domestic plantings and simple unpaved roads. When Grand Portage National Monument was established, the structures closest to the shore were dismantled in preparation for archeological activity. The village site, now used as a picnic area and open space, contains numerous archeological remains, including a prehistoric campsite, fur trade deposits, traces of the seasonal Ojibwe encampments, early to mid 19th century burials, domestic sites, a U.S. Indian Department warehouse and structures, and a BIA schoolhouse and outbuildings. Extant landscape features include remains of the historic lakefront road, the CCC-period stone bridge (ca. 1938ñ

1940), a jack and red pine (Pinus banksiana 

planted by CCC crews (Woolworth, 1982), Euas roses, timothy grass (Phleum pratense), tan

gare), caraway (Carum carvi), and native spe

residents, such as chives (Allium schoenopras

Ojibwe oral tradition also holds that significanceremonial grounds were present. 

Museum Collection: The legal mandate for th

to acquire and preserve museum collections is Antiquities Act, the NPS Organic Act of 1916of 1935, the Museum Act of 1955, and the Navation Act of 1966 (as amended), specifically Since Grand Portage is largely an archeologiccal Resources Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979 and NPS Management Policies apply to its cothe Native American Graves Protection and Rmay also come into play with items in the collMost of the catalogued objects in the Grand Pment collection are in good condition, and it icollection management plan, a scope of collecmuseum access plan are in place. The scope oreviewed every two years. Conservation treatment has been performed bSociety staff as necessary. A conservation neeformed in 1998 by NPS conservators sampled the collection and determined that the collecticurated, although they cautioned that the collbe damaged if subjected to frequent research uCatalogued museum objects are on display in kitchen, and the canoe warehouse at the stockexhibit cases at the Grand Portage Lodge and artifacts from the monument collection. 

 Appen
166

MUSEUM RESOURCES At present, collections are curated and/or exhibited in five separate locations. Much of the Grand Portage National Monument archeological collection is stored at Minnesota Historical Society facilities in Saint Paul by means of a formal agreement. Approximately 20,000 of these items have been catalogued into the NPS Automated National Catalogue System (ANCS). Approximately 2,200 artifacts are housed at Grand Portage National Monument headquarters in Grand Marais, Minnesota. These artifacts (including most of the monumentís historical, ethnographic, photographic, and archival collections and important portions of the archeological collections, along with related accession records) are stored in a custom-designed climate-controlled structure in a storage building at the Grand Marais Coast Guard Station / NPS headquarters. The Midwest Archeological Center in Lincoln, Nebraska, is holding about 4,600 archeological items, which have been accessioned and catalogued into the Grand Portage collection by the Midwest Archeological Center staff. As of 1999, more than 16,198 catalog records had been completed for the collection, which numbers 29,445 objects. A backlog of approximately 250 uncatalogued post-1987 objects and 15,000 uncatalogued pre-1987 archival items remains. In addition, much of the collection has not been photographed. The backlog of pre-1987 uncatalogued non-archival objects was largely eliminated in 1998. 

ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES Grand Portage National Monument has a longwith the Grand Portage Band of Minnesota Cand cultural resources in the monument shoucultural significance to the Band (e.g., The stosweet grass, a number of museum objects). Prmonument stress a collaborative approach to source management, and supporting the Bandlifeways is an important part of the national mGrand Portage National Monument also helps Ojibwe people to experience some cross-cultucommunication. Ethnographic research includes an ongoing twation study of both prehistoric and historic peand an oral history study, including interviewPortage Band of Minnesota Chippewa leadersFort William Reserve in Thunder Bay, Ontariotoric study of the fur trade currently underwaand contributions of the Grand Portage Ojibw

APPENDIXES
167

APPENDIX E: ACT OF SEPTEMBER 2, 1958 
168

APPENDIXES
169

APPENDIX F: IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

Listed below are plans and studies that would be needed to implement the General Management Plan. The list is not exhaustive, nor is it complete. Rather, this list provides an indication of the work yet to be completed over the 15ñ20 year life of the plan. Environmental Assessments 

• Heritage Center, parking • Loop trail connection to Heritage Center from Mount Rose trail, 

Old Village loop trail 

• Additional structures in the stockade • Removal of the dock • Construction of maintenance and housing • Gateway development • Portage Restoration

Historic Structures Reports for Reconstructed Buildings 

• Guide/Interpreterís Quarters • Carpenter/Cooperís Shop • Trading Store

Exhibit Plans 

• Guide/Interpreterís Quarters • Carpenter/Cooperís Shop • Trading Store

Other Studies 

• Cultural Landscape Report for the Old V

Grand Portage Creek 

• Inventory of Ethnographic Resources • Historic Maritime Activity Areas Study (

shoreline) 

• Monument-wide Archeological Survey • Archeological Survey of Stockade Interio• Catalogue of Archival Collections • Furnishings Plan for the Great Hall Bedr• Fire Management Plan • Geological Mapping and Geomorphologi• Housing Assessment Update • Scope of Collections Statement • Study of Winter Lifeways at Grand Porta• Publicity/Marketing Plan • Comprehensive Interpretive Plan 
171

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Albinson, Dewey  1922 ìSite of Fort Charlotte, August 10, 1922.î Original 

map in the manuscripts division, Minnesota Historical Society. 

Birk, Douglas A.  1975 ìRecent Underwater Recoveries at Fort Charlotte, 

Grand Portage National Monument, Minnesota.î International Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration 4(1): 73ñ84. 

Birk, Douglas A. and David Cooper  2001 ìGrand Portage Survey Project: 2000 Progress 

Report.î The Institute for Minnesota Archaeology Reports of Investigations Number 603. St. Paul, Minnesota. 

Boerboom, Terry  1999 Electronic mail message from Terry Boerboom, 

Minnesota Geological Survey, December 1999. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce  N.d. Regional Facts on Internet at 

http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/bearfacts

Council on Environmental Quality  1978 Regulations for Implementing Procedural Provisions 

of the National Environmental Policy Act

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture  1995 Regional Landscape Ecosystems of Michigan, 

Minnesota, and Wisconsin: A Working Map and Classification, by Dennis A. Albert. General Technical Report NC-178. Saint Paul, MN: North Central Forest Experimentation Station. 

Gilman, Carolyn  1992 The Grand Portage Story. Saint 

Minnesota Historical Society Pr

1995 Faunal Surveys of Agate Fossil B

Portage National Monument. M

University of WisconsinñMadisoWildlife Ecology. 

Grand Portage Band of Minnesota Chippewa  N.d. ìHomepage.î Giese, at 

http://www.kstrom.net/isk/maps/

Grand Portage Land Use Management Task F 1996 Land Use Ordinance of the Gra

Lake Superior Chippewa Indiannumber 95-02, as amended June 

Heinselman, Miron  1996 The Boundary Waters Wilderne

Minneapolis, MN: University of 

Huggins, Robert A., and John Weymouth  1979 ìA Magnetic Survey of Fort Cha

Portage National Monument.î MDepartment of Physics and Astrof Nebraska. On file at National Midwest Archeological Center, L

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

 1993 Minnesotaís Native Vegetation, 

Communities. Biological Report MN. 

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the  1976 National Register of Historic Pla

Portage National Monument. 
172

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior  1991 Environmental Assessment: Construct Proposed 

Master Plan Developments. 

 1995 Resource Management Plan, Grand Portage 

National Monument. 

 1997 Grand Portage National Monument Wildland Fire 

Management Plan. 

 1999a Baseline Water Quality Data Inventory and 

Analysis: Grand Portage National Monument. Fort Collins, Co: NPS Water Resources Division. Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTRñ98, 195. 

 1999b Conservation Planning and Environmental 

Impact Analysis. 

 2000a ìDraft Cultural Landscapes Inventory, Grand 

Portage National Monument, 2000.î Omaha, NE: Midwest Region, National Park Service. 

 2000b Draft Resource Management Plan: Grand Portage 

National Monument. Grand Marais, MN: Grand Portage National Monument. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources  1999 Combined Coastal Management Program and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for the State of Minnesota. N.p. Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Minnesotaís Lake Superior Coastal Program, Minnesota Department of Natural ResourcesñWater. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture  N.d. Climate Wetlands Data Set for Cook County, MN. 

Available on Internet at ftp://ftp.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/support/climate/wetlands/mn/27031.txt

Thompson, Erwin  1969 Grand Portage: A History of the S

Fur Trade. Division of History, Oand Historic Preservation. U.S. DInterior, Washington, D.C. 

Noble, Vergil E.  1989 An Archeological Survey of Deve

within Grand Portage National MCounty, Minnesota. Lincoln, NE

Archeological Center Reports. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  1999 Watershed Health for Baptism-B

Available on Internet at http://www.epa.gov/iwi/hucs/04

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Departme 1992 The Recovery Plan for the EasterWetmore, Clifford M.  1992 ìLichens and Air Quality in Gran

National Monument: Final ReporUSDA 42-649. Saint Paul, MN: UMinnesota, Botany Department. 

Woolworth, A. R.  1993 Grand Portage National Monum

Overview and Inventory of CultuMinneapolis, MN: Minnesota His

Woolworth, Alan R., and Nancy L. Woolworth  1982 Grand Portage National Monum

Overview and an Inventory of Its Resources. 2 vols. Saint Paul, MNHistorical Society. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY
173

Core Team with Writing Responsibilities Nancy Baker, Project Manager, Denver Service Center. M.L.A., Landscape Architecture. Twenty-two years with the National Park Service. Responsible for project budget and schedule. Craig Cellar, Job Captain, Denver Service Center. B.A., Anthropology and B.A., History. Twenty-seven years with the National Park Service. Responsible for coordinating data collection, public involvement activities for the project, day to day guidance to team members, writing general sections, alternatives descriptions. Tim Cochrane, Superintendent, Grand Portage National Monument. Ph.D. Folklore. Fourteen years with the National Park Service. Responsible for providing overall management direction for the plan and major contributions to various sections of the plan. David Cooper, Chief of Resources Management, Grand Portage National Monument. M.A., Nautical Archeology. Three years with the National Park Service, 10 years State of Wisconsin. Responsible for major contributions to Cultural Resources, Natural Resources, Interpretive sections of the plan. Don Kodak, Interpretive Planner, Harpers Ferry Center. Sixteen years with the National Park Service. Responsible for Interpretive sections of the plan. Marla McEnaney, Cultural Landscape Architect, Midwest Regional Office (Omaha). M.L.A., Landscape Architecture. Responsible for Cultural Resources sections of the plan. Pam Neil, Chief of Interpretation, Grand Portage National Monument. B.A., History. Seventeen years with the National Park Service. Responsible for major contributions to Cultural Resources and Interpretive sections of the plan. 

Kenneth Tu, Natural Resources Management Service Center. B.S., Forestry. Seventeen yearGovernment (U.S. Forest Service, National PaResponsible for natural resources sections of tCore Team with Review Responsibilities Curtis Gagnon, Land Trust Administrator, GrMinnesota Chippewa Melvin Gagnon, Maintenance Foreman, GranMinnesota Chippewa Rosalie Kirmse, Chief of Administration, GranMonument Jon Sage, Lead Park Ranger, Grand Portage NPublication Services to the Planning Team Glenda Heronema, Visual Information SpeciaCenter Lou Layman, Writer-Editor, Denver Service CMary Ryan, Visual Information Technician, D

PREPARERS OF DOCUMENT 
As the nationís principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationall

lands and natural resources. This includes fostering sound use of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildldiversity; preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; and providing for life through outdoor recreation. The department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that thethe best interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The department alsresponsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island territories under U.S. admiPublication services were provided by Planning and Design Services, Denver Service Center. NPS D-55, December 2001