Apostle Islands National Lakeshore • Wisconsin

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

APOSTLE ISLANDS APOSTLE ISLANDS

NATIONAL LAKESHORE NATIONAL LAKESHORE

Draft General Management Plan

Wilderness Management Plan

Environmental Impact Statement

July 2009

i 

Draft 

General Management Plan / Wilderness Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

Bayfield and Ashland Counties, Wisconsin 

____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore was authorized by an act of Congress on September 26, 1970 (Public 

Law 91-424). The last comprehensive management plan for the park was completed in 1989. Much has 

changed since then—visitor use patterns and types have changed, people are seeking out new recreational 

activities in the park, and the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness was designated in December 2004. Each of 

these changes has implications for how visitors access and use the park, the facilities needed to support 

those uses, how resources are managed, and how the National Park Service manages its operations. A new 

plan is needed. 

This document examines four alternatives for managing Apostle Islands National Lakeshore for the next 

15–20 years. It also analyzes the impacts of implementing each of the alternatives. The “no-action” 

alternative, alternative 1, consists of the existing park management and serves as a basis for comparison 

in evaluating the other alternatives. The concept for park management under alternative 2 would be to 

provide opportunities for more people to have an island experience. The concept for park management 

under alternative 3 would be to provide primitive, lake-oriented recreation and education opportunities 

that include some new and different opportunities. The emphasis in alternative 4 would be on providing 

a greater variety of structured recreation opportunities on the islands, in nonwilderness areas, and on the 

mainland. Alternative 2 is the National Park Service’s preferred alternative. 

This Draft General Management Plan / Wilderness Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement has been distributed to other agencies and interested organizations and individuals for 

their review and comment. The public comment period for this document will last for 60 days after 

the Environmental Protection Agency’s notice of availability has been published in the Federal 

Register. 

U.S. Department of the Interior • National Park Service 
ii 

HOW TO COMMENT ON THIS PLAN 

Comments on this Draft General Management Plan / Wilderness Management Plan / Environmental 

Impact Statement(GMP/EIS) are welcome and will be accepted during the 60-day public review and 

comment period. During the comment period, comments may be submitted using several methods as 

noted below. 

Online: at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/apis 

We prefer that readers submit comments online through the park planning web site identified above, 

so the comments become incorporated in the NPS planning, environment, and public comment 

system. An electronic public comment form is provided through this web site. 

Mail: Apostle Islands National Lakeshore General Management Plan 

National Park Service 

Denver Service Center – P, Greg Jarvis 

P.O. Box 25287 

Denver, CO 80225 

or 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

415 Washington Avenue 

Bayfield, WI 54814 

Hand delivery: at public meetings to be announced in the media following the release of this plan. 

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying 

information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us 

in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 
iii 

SUMMARY 

This Draft General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Management Plan / Environmental 

Impact Statement describes the general path 

the National Park Service (NPS) intends to 

follow in managing Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore for the next 15–20 years. More 

specifically, this plan is intended to 

• clearly define resource conditions and 

visitor uses and experiences to be 

achieved in Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore 

• provide a framework for park managers to 

use when making decisions about how to 

best protect park resources, how to 

provide quality visitor uses and 

experiences, how to manage visitor use, 

and what types of facilities, if any, to 

develop in/near Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore 

• provide direction for management of the 

Gaylord Nelson Wilderness, including its 

resources and visitors. 

The general management plan does not 

describe how particular programs or projects 

should be prioritized or implemented. Those 

decisions will be addressed in future moredetailed planning efforts. All future plans will 

tier from the approved general management 

plan. 

This Draft General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Management Plan / Environmental 

Impact Statement examines four alternatives 

for managing Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore. In all of the alternatives, NPS 

managers would continue to strive to protect 

and maintain natural and cultural resource 

conditions. Natural and cultural resource 

management would concentrate on long-term 

monitoring, research, restoration, and 

mitigation where appropriate. Interpretation/ 

education programs would continue to 

provide a variety of personal and nonpersonal 

services. 

Alternative 1, The 

No-Action Alternative 

Under alternative 1, the National Park Service 

would continue to manage Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore as it has been managed 

since the 1989 general management plan was 

approved and the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness 

was designated in 2004. 

The natural resource program would continue 

to focus on inventorying and monitoring, 

resource protection and restoration, research, 

and mitigation where appropriate. 

The cultural resource program would 

continue to focus on surveying cultural 

resources; protecting historic structures and 

landscapes, particularly in and around the 

light stations; and on mitigation where 

appropriate. 

The interpretation and education programs 

would continue to provide a variety of 

personal and nonpersonal services similar to 

those offered currently. 

In alternative 1, most of the adverse impacts 

on natural resources, wilderness character, 

visitors, and park operations would be 

negligible to minor in magnitude. No adverse 

impacts would occur to cultural resources. 

Among the key impacts would be the 

following. Sandscapes and shorelines would 

continue to be affected by visitors in localized 

areas. Minor to moderate, long-term, adverse 

impacts would occur to the natural 

soundscape in localized areas due to visitor 

use and NPS management activities. Moderate 

to major, long-term, beneficial impacts to 
SUMMARY 

iv 

visitor use and experience would continue 

due to continued opportunities for highquality lake and island recreation 

opportunities. Minor to moderate, long-term, 

adverse impacts would occur to park 

operations due to continued inadequate 

facilities, fragmentation of park staff and 

facilities, staffing shortages, and lack of 

funding. None of these impacts would be 

considered unacceptable or would result in 

the impairment of park resources and values. 

Alternative 2, The 

Preferred Alternative 

Alternative 2 would focus on providing 

opportunities for more people to have an 

island experience. 

Two light stations would be restored or 

rehabilitated, similar to the Raspberry Island 

light station. Part of the Long Island light 

station would be rehabilitated for park staff 

housing. 

Additional transportation opportunities 

would be sought to encourage visitors to come 

to Sand, Basswood, and Oak islands. Some 

additional visitor facilities would be 

developed on these islands, including day use 

areas, new trails, and campsites. 

Manitou fish camp would be preserved and 

stabilized, the cultural landscape would be 

partially rehabilitated, and the area would be 

interpreted. 

There would be no change in the number of 

public docks, but some docks would be 

relocated, improved, or expanded. 

The Bayfield visitor center would be built in a 

new location closer to the water to improve 

contact with visitors and to be located with an 

operations center. The park headquarters 

would remain in the Old Bayfield County 

Courthouse. The Little Sand Bay Visitor 

Center would be replaced with a visitor 

contact station. 

A new ranger station and accessible beach 

ramp would be developed at Meyers Beach. 

Compared to alternative 1, most of the 

impacts of alternative 2 on natural resources, 

wilderness character, visitors, and park 

operations would be long term and negligible 

to minor in magnitude. No adverse impacts 

would occur to cultural resources. Among the 

key impacts would be the following. 

Sandscapes and shorelines would continue to 

be affected by visitors and by existing docks, 

resulting in minor to moderate, long-term, 

adverse impacts in localized areas. New 

developments in this alternative and increased 

visitor use on some islands would result in 

minor to moderate, long-term, adverse 

impacts to vegetation and to the natural 

soundscape in localized areas. Minor to 

major, long-term, beneficial impacts would 

occur to visitor use and experiences due to 

enhanced access to the islands and increased 

recreational opportunities. Long-term, 

beneficial impacts would occur to park 

operations due to improved park facilities, 

decreased staff fragmentation, and increased 

staffing levels. Long-term, beneficial impacts 

also would occur to the socioeconomic 

environment due to increased spending by 

visitors and the National Park Service under 

alternative 2. None of the impacts of 

alternative 2 would be considered 

unacceptable or would result in the 

impairment of park resources and values. 

Alternative 3 

Alternative 3 would focus on providing 

primitive, lake-oriented recreation and 

education opportunities, with some new and 

different opportunities provided. 

Focus would continue on maintaining the 

Raspberry Island light station; part of the 

Long Island light station would be 

rehabilitated for park staff housing. 
Summary 

v 

A few new visitor facilities would be provided 

on Sand, Basswood, and Oak islands including 

interpretive trails and new group campsites, 

but there would be no new day-use facilities. 

Existing transportation opportunities would 

be maintained; no new ones would be 

developed. 

There would be no change in the public docks 

with the exception of improvements to 

Michigan Island dock. 

The park headquarters would remain in the 

Old Bayfield County Courthouse. The 

Bayfield visitor center would be expanded in 

the old courthouse and serve as the park’s 

primary visitor contact facility. The Little 

Sand Bay Visitor Center would be replaced 

with a kiosk. A new ranger station would be 

built at Meyers Beach. A new park operational 

facility would be built at a location to be 

determined. 

Alternative 3 would have largely the same 

effects as described under alternative 2. One 

difference is that, compared to alternative 1, 

alternative 3 would have a minor to moderate, 

long-term, beneficial impact on visitor use and 

experience due to slight improvements in 

access to the islands, the continuation of 

existing recreational opportunities, and 

increased interpretive opportunities on the 

mainland. None of the impacts of alternative 3 

would be considered unacceptable or would 

result in the impairment of park resources and 

values. 

Alternative 4 

Under alternative 4, the emphasis would be on 

providing a greater variety of structured 

recreation opportunities for visitors. More 

visitor facilities would be provided in island 

nonwilderness areas, and mainland visitor 

opportunities would be expanded. 

Focus would continue on maintaining the 

Raspberry Island light station; part of the 

Long Island light station would be 

rehabilitated for park staff housing. 

A few new visitor facilities would be provided 

on Sand, Basswood, and Oak islands including 

interpretive trails and new group campsites, 

but no new day-use facilities would be 

developed. 

Existing transportation opportunities would 

be maintained; no new ones would be 

developed. 

Some docks, including the Michigan Island 

dock, would be improved or expanded for 

boaters; more docks possibly could be 

installed. 

The park headquarters would remain at the 

Old Bayfield County Courthouse and a new 

visitor center would be built in a new location 

closer to the water in Bayfield. The Little Sand 

Bay Visitor Center would be replaced with a 

new visitor contact station with improved 

services. A new ranger/visitor contact station 

and accessible beach ramp would be built at 

Meyers Beach, and a new park operations 

facility would be built at a location to be 

determined. 

With a few exceptions, alternative 4 would 

have largely the same effects as alternative 2. 

One difference is that, compared to alternative 

1, alternative 4 would have a minor to 

moderate, long-term, adverse effect on 

vegetation in localized areas due to the 

development of new facilities and increased 

visitor use on some islands. The development 

of additional dispersed campsites in the 

wilderness area would have a minor, longterm, adverse impact on the wilderness 

character due to some visitors likely 

perceiving a loss of solitude and apparent 

naturalness. None of the impacts of 

alternative 4 would be considered 

unacceptable or would result in the 

impairment of park resources and values. 

Next Steps and 

Implementation of the Plan 

After the distribution of the Draft General 

Management Plan / Wilderness Management 
SUMMARY 

vi 

Plan / Environmental Impact Statement, there 

will be a 60-day public review and comment 

period. After this comment period, the NPS 

planning team will evaluate comments from 

other federal agencies, tribes, organizations, 

businesses, and individuals regarding the draft 

plan and incorporate appropriate changes into 

a Final General Management Plan / Wilderness 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement. The final plan will include letters 

from governmental agencies, any substantive 

comments on the draft document, and NPS 

responses to those comments. 

Following distribution of the Final General 

Management Plan / Wilderness Management 

Plan / Environmental Impact Statement and a 

30-day no-action period, a record of decision 

approving a final plan will be signed by the 

NPS regional director. The record of decision 

documents the NPS selection of an alternative 

for implementation. With the signing of the 

record of decision, the plan can then be 

implemented. 

Once the planning process is completed, the 

selected alternative would become the new 

management plan for the park and would be 

implemented over 15–20 years. It is important 

to note that not all of the actions in the 

alternative would necessarily be implemented 

immediately. 

The implementation of the approved plan, no 

matter which alternative, will depend on 

future NPS funding levels and Servicewide 

priorities, and on partnership funds, time, and 

effort. The approval of a general management 

plan does not guarantee that funding and 

staffing needed to implement the plan will be 

forthcoming. Full implementation of the plan 

could be many years in the future. 
vii 

CONTENTS 

CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND 

A GUIDE TO THIS DOCUMENT 3

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 5

Brief Description of the Park 6

Purpose of the Plan 6

Need For the Plan 11

FOUNDATION FOR PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT 12

Park Purpose 12

Park Significance 12

Fundamental Resources and Values 13

Primary Interpretive Themes 14

SPECIAL MANDATES AND ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITMENTS 15

Treaty Rights and Other Reserved Tribal Rights 15

Wilderness 15

Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping 15

Use of Snowmobiles and Off-Road Vehicles in the Park 15

Navigational Aids 16

Bayfield Visitor Center GSA Lease 16

Roys Point GSA Lease 16

Apostle Islands Cruise Service Contract 16

Agreement with the Town of Russell Regarding Operation of Little Sand Bay 16

Agreement with the State of Wisconsin Regarding the Protection of Submerged Cultural Resources and 

Bottomlands 16

Interagency Agreement on the Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center 16

Memorandum of Understanding with the Ojibwe Bands 17

Other Valid Rights 17

DESIRED CONDITIONS AND RELATED SERVICEWIDE LEGAL AND POLICY REQUIREMENTS 18

SCOPE OF THE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN / ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPACT STATEMENT 46

Planning Issues / Concerns to be Addressed 46

Planning Issues/Concerns Not Being Considered in the General Management Plan / Wilderness 

Management Plan 52

Identification of Impact Topics 52

Relationship of Other Planning Efforts to this General Management Plan / Wilderness Management Plan 

73

Next Steps and Implementation of the Plan 74

CHAPTER 2: FRAMEWORK FOR MANAGEMENT, USE, AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE GAYLORD NELSON 

WILDERNESS 

INTRODUCTION 79

Wilderness Character 79

History of Wilderness at Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 80

Wilderness Management Goals and Philosophy 81
CONTENTS 

viii 

USES, DEVELOPMENTS, AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED IN WILDERNESS 85

Applying the Minimum Requirement Concept 86

Appropriate Natural Resource Conservation and Restoration Activities in Wilderness 87

Fire Management 90

Management of Cultural Resources 90

American Indian Treaty Rights and Access 91

Hunting and Trapping 91

Accessibility for Persons With Disabilities 91

Special Events 92

Interpretation, Education and Permits 92

Commercial Services 93

Scientific Activities and Research 93

Campsite Designation Criteria 94

NPS Administration / Operational Activities and Facilities 94

CHAPTER 3: THE ALTERNATIVES 

INTRODUCTION 101

Formulation of the Alternatives 101

Potential for Boundary Adjustments 102

Identification of the Preferred Alternative 102

MANAGEMENT ZONES 104

USER CAPACITY 110

Overview of Current and Potential Use-Related Impacts 111

Indicators and Standards 112

ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION) 116

Concept and Summary 116

Management Zoning 116

User Capacity 116

Management of Specific Areas 117

Estimated Costs 118

ALTERNATIVE 2 (NPS PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 119

Concept and Summary 119

Management Zoning 119

User Capacity 120

Management of Specific Areas 120

Estimated Costs 125

ALTERNATIVE 3 127

Concept and Summary 127

Management Zoning 127

User Capacity 128

Management of Specific Areas 128

Estimated Costs 132

ALTERNATIVE 4 134

Concept and Summary 134

Management Zoning 134

User Capacity 135

Management of Specific Areas 135

Estimated Costs 140
Contents 

ix 

DEVELOPMENT OF COST ESTIMATES OF THE ALTERNATIVES 141

MITIGATIVE MEASURES COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES 142

Natural Resources 142

Cultural Resources 147

Visitor Safety and Experiences 148

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE 149

FUTURE STUDIES AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 151

ALTERNATIVES AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED 152

Provide Public Lodging on Rocky Island 152

Build A Pedestrian Bridge Over the Sand River 152

Build a Trail Around the Sand River Wetland Complex 153

Permit Biking on the Lakeshore Trail 153

COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES 155

CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 165

INTRODUCTION 167

NATURAL RESOURCES 168

Soils 168

Geology And Coastal Processes 169

Surface Water Quality 170

Wetlands 172

Floodplains 172

Vegetation 173

Wildlife 177

Threatened and Endangered Species 182

Natural Soundscape 182

WILDERNESS CHARACTER 185

Minimal Levels of Development 185

Opportunities for Primitive, Unconfined Recreation 185

Opportunities for Solitude 186

CULTURAL RESOURCES 187

Historic Structures / Cultural Landscapes 187

Archeological Resources 195

Ethnographic Resources 197

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 200

Visitor Use and Characteristics 200

Visitor Perceptions, Opinions, and Concerns 202

Ability to Access the Park, Including Universal Access 202

Lake and Island Recreational Opportunities and Experiences 203

Mainland Recreational Opportunities and Experiences 206

Opportunities to Understand the Significant Stories of the Apostle Islands 207

Visitor Safety 208

PARK OPERATIONS 209

Interpretation and Education 209

Protection 209

Planning and Resource Management 209

Business Services 210

Facility Management 210
CONTENTS 

x 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 211

Population and Demographics 211

Economy 211

Transportation 212

Visitor Spending 212

Operations Spending 212

Authorized NPS Business Partners 212

CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

INTRODUCTION 215

METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR ANALYZING IMPACTS 216

Natural Resources 217

Wilderness Character 217

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Impacts to Cultural Resources 217

Visitor Use And Experience 218

Park Operations 218

Socioeconomic Environment 218

IMPAIRMENT OF PARK RESOURCES 225

CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS 226

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVE 1 228

Natural Resources 228

Wilderness Character 236

Cultural Resources 237

Visitor Use and Experience 241

Park Operations 245

Socioeconomic Environment 246

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 246

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 246

The Relationship between Short-Term Uses of the Environment and Long-Term Productivity 247

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVE 2 248

Natural Resources 248

Wilderness Character 258

Cultural Resources 259

Visitor Use and Experience 264

Park Operations 269

Socioeconomic Environment 269

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 271

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 271

The Relationship between Short-Term Uses of the Environment and Long-Term Productivity 271

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVE 3 272

Natural Resources 272

Wilderness Character 282

Cultural Resources 283

Visitor Use and Experience 288

Park Operations 292

Socioeconomic Environment 293

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 294

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 295
Contents 

xi 

The Relationship between Short-Term Uses of the Environment and Long-Term Productivity 295

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVE 4 296

Natural Resources 296

Wilderness Character 306

Cultural Resources 308

Visitor Use and Experience 313

Park Operations 318

Socioeconomic Environment 319

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 320

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 320

The Relationship between Short-Term Uses of the Environment and Long-Term Productivity 320

CHAPTER 6: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 323

Public Meetings and Newsletters 323

Consultation with Other Agencies/Officials and Organizations 324

Other Federal and State Agencies, Regional and Local Governments, and Partner Organizations 325

Consultation with American Indians 325

FUTURE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS 327

PUBLIC OFFICIALS, AGENCIES, AND ORGANIZATIONS RECEIVING A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT 328

Federal Agencies 328

Congressional Delegation 328

American Indian Tribes and Agencies 328

State of Wisconsin Agencies 329

State and Local Elected Officials 329

Local and Regional Government Agencies 329

Organizations and Businesses 329

Libraries 330

Media 330

Individuals 330

APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS, INDEX

APPENDIX A: ENABLING LEGISLATION 333

APPENDIX B: MINIMUM REQUIREMENT ANALYSIS 335

APPENDIX C: CAMPGROUND DESIGN ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 341

APPENDIX D: AERIAL PHOTO OF MOUTH OF SAND RIVER 346

APPENDIX E: CONSULTATION LETTERS 347

REFERENCES 352

PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS 360
CONTENTS 

xii 

Tables 

Table 1: Desired Conditions and Strategies with Related Servicewide Legal and Policy Requirements 18

Table 2: Impact Topics Retained and Dismissed for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 53

Table 3: Uses, Developments, and Management in Wilderness 85

Table 4: Wilderness Character Indicators to be Monitored in the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness 97

Table 5: Management Zones 104

Table 6: User Capacity Indicators and Standards 113

Table 7: Management Zones in Alternative 2 120

Table 8: Management Zones in Alternative 3 128

Table 9: Management Zones in Alternative 4 135

Table 10: Estimated Costs of the Alternatives (in 2008 dollars) 141

Table 11: Comparison of the Key Differences in the Alternatives 155

Table 12: Summary of Key Impacts of the Alternatives 160

Table 13: Common Noise Levels and Their Effects on the Human Ear 184

Table 14: Summary of Ashland and Bayfield Counties Population, 1950–2006 211

Table 15: Impact Threshold Definitions 219

Table 16: Future Resource Compliance Required for Implementation of the Preferred Alternative. 327

Figures 

Figure 1: Location Map 7

Figure 2: Park Map 9

Figure 3: Wilderness Boundary 83

Figure 4: Map of Alternative 2 121

Figure 5: Map of Alternative 3 129

Figure 6: Map of Alternative 4 137

Figure 7: Annual Visitation, 1980-2007 201

Figure 8: Monthly Visitation, 2004–2007 201

Figure 9: Overnight Stays, 1979-2007 206
CHAPTER 1:

BACKGROUND

CHAPTER 1:

B

Chequamegon Point Lighthouse, Long Island

Devils Island Light

Sea Cave

Sea Stack

3 

A GUIDE TO THIS DOCUMENT 

This Draft General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement for Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore is organized in 

accordance with the Council on 

Environmental Quality’s implementing 

regulations for the National Environmental 

Policy Act, the National Park Service’s “Park 

Planning Program Standards,” and 

Director’s Order 12 and Handbook: 

“Conservation Planning, Environmental 

Analysis, and Decision Making.” 

Chapter 1: Introduction sets the 

framework for the entire document. It 

describes why the plan is being prepared and 

what needs it must address. It gives guidance 

for the management alternatives that are 

being considered—guidance that is based on 

the park’s legislation, its purpose, the 

significance of its resources, special 

mandates and administrative commitments, 

and servicewide laws and policies. 

The chapter also details the planning 

opportunities and issues that were raised 

during public scoping meetings and initial 

planning team efforts; the alternatives in 

chapter 3 address these issues and concerns. 

In addition, the introduction defines the 

scope of the environmental impact 

analysis—specifically what impact topics 

were or were not analyzed in detail. The 

chapter concludes with a description of next 

steps in the planning process and caveats on 

implementation of the plan. 

Chapter 2: Wilderness Management 

Directions focuses on management of the 

Gaylord Nelson Wilderness, describing 

programmatic management directions and 

policies that would not vary between 

alternatives—these directions and policies 

would be followed regardless of which 

alternative was selected for the General 

Management Plan / Wilderness Management 

Plan. Information in this section is more 

administrative/operational in nature and 

would not be assessed in the environmental 

consequences chapter. Topics that are 

covered here include the minimum 

requirement process, accessibility, 

emergency services, science and research, 

campsite design, maintenance, organization 

and responsibilities for wilderness 

management, and monitoring of wilderness 

character. The chapter does not cover 

management zoning, user capacity indicators 

and standards, and public facilities, which 

are included in chapter 3. 

Chapter 3: Alternatives, Including the 

Preferred Alternative, begins by describing 

the development of the alternatives and 

identifies the management zones that would 

be used to manage the park in the future. It 

includes the continuation of current management practices and trends in the park 

(alternative 1, no action). Three alternatives 

for managing the park, the preferred alternative (alternative 2) and alternatives 3 and 4, 

are next presented. Mitigative measures 

proposed to minimize or eliminate the 

impacts of some proposed actions in the 

alternatives are described, followed by a 

discussion of future studies or 

implementation plans that would be needed. 

The environmentally preferable alternative 

is identified next, followed by a discussion of 

alternatives or actions that were considered 

but dismissed from detailed evaluation. The 

chapter concludes with summary tables of 

the alternatives and the environmental 

consequences of implementing those 

alternatives. 

Chapter 4: The Affected Environment 

describes those areas and resources that 
A GUIDE TO THIS DOCUMENT 

4 

would be affected by implementing the 

actions contained in the alternatives. It is 

organized according to the following topics: 

natural resources, cultural resources, 

wilderness character, visitor use and 

experience, socioeconomic environment, 

and park operations. 

Chapter 5: Environmental Consequences 

analyzes the impacts of implementing the 

alternatives on topics described in the 

“Affected Environment” chapter. Methods 

that were used for assessing the impacts in 

terms of the intensity, type, and duration of 

impacts are outlined at the beginning of the 

chapter. 

Chapter 6: Consultation and 

Coordination describes the history of 

public and agency coordination during the 

planning effort, including American Indian 

consultations, and any future compliance 

requirements. It also lists agencies and 

organizations that will be receiving copies of 

the document. 

Appendixes, Selected References, a list of 

Preparers and Consultants, and an Index

are found at the end of the document.
5 

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 

Why The National Park Service Does General Management Planning 

The National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 requires each unit of the National Park Service 

(NPS) to have a general management plan (GMP); and NPS Management Policies 2006 states 

“[t]he Service will maintain a management plan for each unit of the national park system” (2.3.1 

General Management Planning). So what is the value, or usefulness, of general management 

planning? 

The purpose of a general management plan is to ensure that a national park system unit (park 

unit) has a clearly defined direction for resource preservation and visitor use to best achieve the 

National Park Service’s mandate to preserve resources unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 

generations. In addition, general management planning makes the National Park Service more 

effective, collaborative, and accountable by 

• providing a balance between continuity and adaptability in decision making—This defines the 

desired conditions to be achieved and maintained in a park unit and provides a touchstone 

that allows NPS managers and staff to constantly adapt their actions to changing situations, 

while staying focused on what is most important about the park unit. 

• analyzing the park unit in relation to its surrounding ecosystem, cultural setting, and community—This helps NPS managers and staff understand how the park unit can interrelate 

with neighbors and others in ways that are ecologically, socially, and economically sustainable. Decisions made within such a larger context are more likely to be successful over time. 

• affording everyone who has a stake in decisions affecting a park unit an opportunity to be 

involved in the planning process and to understand the decisions that are made—Park units 

are often the focus of intense public interest. Public involvement throughout the planning 

process provides focused opportunities for NPS managers and staff to interact with the public 

and learn about public concerns, expectations, and values. Public involvement also provides 

opportunities for NPS managers and staff to share information about the park unit’s purpose 

and significance, as well as opportunities and constraints for the management of park unit 

lands. 

The ultimate outcome of general management planning for park units is an agreement among the 

National Park Service, its partners, and the public on why each area is managed as part of the 

national park system, what resource conditions and visitor experiences should exist, and how 

those conditions can best be achieved and maintained over time. 

This Draft General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Management Plan / Environmental 

Impact Statement presents and analyzes four 

alternatives for future direction of the management and use of Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore (see figure 1). Alternative 2 is the 

National Park Service’s preferred alternative. 

The potential environmental impacts of all 

alternatives have been identified and assessed. 

General management plans are intended to be 

long-term documents that establish and 

articulate a management philosophy and 

framework for decision making and problem 
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND 

6 

solving in the parks. General management 

plans usually provide guidance for 15–20 

years. 

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PARK 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, near the 

tip of the Bayfield Peninsula in northern 

Wisconsin, includes 21 islands in Lake 

Superior and a 12-mile-long narrow strip of 

mainland shoreline (see figure 2). The park is 

located in Bayfield and Ashland counties. 

Established by an act of Congress (Public Law 

91-424) on September 26, 1970, the purpose of 

the park is “to conserve and develop for the 

benefit, inspiration, education, recreational 

use, and enjoyment of the public” the islands 

and their related geographic, scenic, and 

scientific values (see appendix A for the park’s 

enabling legislation). 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

encompasses 69,372 acres, of which 27,323 

acres are submerged lands in Lake Superior; 

the park boundary extends a 0.25 mile from 

the shore of the mainland and from each 

island. Eighty percent of the land area of the 

park was designated as wilderness in 

December 2004. The islands range in size 

from 3-acre Gull Island to 10,054-acre 

Stockton Island. The islands are spread out 

over a portion of Lake Superior nearly 290,000 

acres in size—an area larger than Rocky 

Mountain National Park or Mount Rainier 

National Park. 

A variety of scenic features can be found on 

the islands, including examples of some of the 

earliest and latest events of geologic history in 

the lower 48 states. The park features pristine 

stretches of sand beaches and coves; 

spectacular sea caves; some of the largest 

stands of remnant old-growth forests in the 

upper Midwest; a diverse population of birds, 

mammals, amphibians, and fish; and the 

largest collection of national register 

lighthouses and lighthouse complexes in the 

national park system. People have used the 

islands for thousands of years. During the 

historic period, people constructed residences 

and started farms, fishing operations, brownstone quarries, and logging camps on the 

islands. Several of these historic sites are listed 

in the National Register of Historic Places. 

PURPOSE OF THE PLAN 

The approved general management plan / 

wilderness management plan will be the basic 

document for managing Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore for the next 15–20 years. 

The purposes of this plan are as follows: 

• Confirm the purpose, significance, and 

special mandates of Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore. 

• Clearly define resource conditions and 

visitor uses and experiences to be 

achieved in Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore. 

• Provide a framework for park managers to 

use when making decisions about how to 

best protect park resources, how to 

provide quality visitor uses and 

experiences, how to manage visitor use, 

and what types of facilities, if any, to 

develop in/near Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore. 

• Provide direction for management of the 

Gaylord Nelson Wilderness, including its 

resources, visitors, and visitor facilities. 

The planning process also ensures that this 

foundation for decision making has been 

developed in consultation with interested 

stakeholders and adopted by the NPS 

leadership after an adequate analysis of the 

benefits and adverse impacts and economic 

costs of alternative courses of action. 

Legislation establishing the National Park 

Service as an agency and governing its 

management provides the fundamental 

direction for the administration of Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore (and other units 
 

61

Apostle Islands

National Lakeshore

Indian Reservation

St. Croix National Scenic Riverway

C a n a d a

U n i t e d S t a t e s

13

Red Cliff

 Indian

 Reservation

8

53

35

2 41

Location

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore

Minneapolis

St.Paul

St. Croix

Falls

Eau Claire

Michigan

Wisconsin

Duluth

Superior

Minnesota

Wisconsin

Marquette Pictured Rocks

National Lakeshore

Copper Harbor

Isle Royale 

National Park

Bear

Island

Devils

Island

Rocky

Island

York

Island

Sand

Island

Eagle

Island

Raspberry

Island

Otter

Island

Oak

Island

Basswood

Island

Hermit

Island

Manitou

Island

Ironwood

Island

North Twin 

Island Outer

Island

Stockton

Island Gull

Island

Michigan

Island

Cat

Island

South 

Twin

Island

Long

Island

Madeline

Island

Park Boundary

Wisconsin

Bayfield

Voyageurs

National Park

Boundary Waters

Canoe Area

Grand 

Portage

National

Monument

Thunder

Ontario

Bay

Minnesota

Lake Superior

FIGURE 1

North

No Scale

North

Kewenaw Peninsula

0 25 50 Miles

Red Cliff

Indian

Reservation

Bad River

Indian

Reservation

Kewenaw 

National 

Historic Park

Calumet

Houghton

Pukaskwa

National 

Park

Bayfield

Ashland

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

DSC • 633 • 20077 • June 2009 

2

2

13

13

13

13

C

C

K

K

H

H

BAD RIVER

INDIAN RESERVATION

RED CLIFF INDIAN RESERVATION

RED CLIFF INDIAN

RESERVATION

Tri-County Recreation Corridor Trail

Summer only

Summer only

Sand 

Island

YorkIsland

Bear

 Island

Rocky Island

South TwinIsland

North Twin Island

Cat

Island

Gull Island

ManitouIsland

IronwoodIsland

Stockton Island

HermitIsland

Long Island

BasswoodIsland

MichiganIsland

Oak

Island

Otter

Island

Outer Island

DevilsIsland

RaspberryIsland

Eagle Island

RUSSELL

(Township)

Ca

r

ferry

Lighthouse

Bay

RaspberryBay

FrogBay

PikesBay Chebomnicon Bay

Big Bay

South Channel

QuarryBay

Oronto

Bay

VandeventerBay

JulianBay

Presque

Isle Bay

Montreal River

River

White

Bad

N orth

Channe l We st

Cha

nne l

Chequamegon

Bay

LAKE

SUPERIOR

River

North

Fish

Creek

South Fish

Cr

River

Sioux

Pik Creek es

Red

Cliff Creek

River

Raspberry

River

Sand

Rive

r

Siskiwit

WISCONSIN MICHIGAN

Sand Point

RaspberryPoint

Red CliffPoint

Presque Isle

Point

HoughtonPoint

Marble

Point

Oak Point

Chequamegon Point

MADELINE

ISLAND

Sea

Caves

Little

Sand

Bay Rd

Ashland

Odanah

Lakeshore

Trail

Whittlesey Creek

National Wildlife Refuge

Bad River Indian  Reservation

Washburn

CHEQUAMEGONNICOLET

NATIONAL

FOREST

Manitou Fish Camp

Brownstone

quarry

Brownstonequarry

McCloud-Brigham Farm

Brownstonequarry

Big BayTown Park

BIG BAY

STATE

PARK

La Pointe

Madeline Island

Historical Museum

Bayfieldcruises,boat rentals,and islandcamper shuttle

(old courthouse building)

Cornucopia Red Cliff

Meyers Beach

Kayak launch

BAYFIELD

PENINSULA

Overlook

Point

Detour

Hokenson Fishery

Kayak launch

A P O S T L E

I S L A N D S

Visitor Center

Park Headquarters

 Little Sand Bay Visitor Center

Stockton Island Visitor Center

Northern Great Lakes

Visitor Center

Introduction and Purpose and Need for the Plan 

11 

and programs of the national park system). 

This general management plan will build on 

these laws and the legislation that established 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore to 

provide a vision for the park’s future. 

The “Desired Conditions and Related 

Servicewide Legal and Policy Requirements” 

section calls the reader’s attention to topics 

that are important to understanding the 

management direction at Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore. The alternatives in this 

general management plan address the desired 

future conditions that are not mandated by 

law and policy and must be determined 

through a planning process. 

NEED FOR THE PLAN 

This new management plan for Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore is necessary 

because the last comprehensive planning 

effort for the park was completed in 1989. 

With major changes in visitor use patterns (in 

particular, a substantial growth in kayaking in 

the area), new development needs, and the 

changes resulting from the designation of 

wilderness in December 2004, the 1989 plan is 

outdated. 

Management direction is needed for Long 

Island, which was acquired just before the 

1989 plan was finalized. The plan also needs to 

address other events that have occurred since 

1989, including the development of the multiagency Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center, 

as well as the sustainability of facilities, 

services, and park operations in light of rising 

costs and climate change. Each of these 

changes has implications for how visitors 

access and use the area, how facilities need to 

be used to support those uses, how the area’s 

resources are managed, and how the National 

Park Service manages its operations. 

A general management plan also is necessary 

to meet the requirements of the National 

Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, NPS 

Management Policies 2006, and NPS policy, 

which mandate development of a general 

management plan for each unit in the national 

park system. The National Parks and 

Recreation Act also requires that all general 

management plans include the following: 

1. measures for the preservation of resources 

2. indications of the types and general 

intensities of development (including 

visitor circulation and transportation 

patterns, systems, and modes), including 

general locations, timing of implementation, and anticipated costs 

3. identification of and implementation 

commitments for visitor carrying capacities 

4. indications of potential boundary 

modifications
12 

FOUNDATION FOR PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT 

PARK PURPOSE 

Purpose statements convey the reason(s) for 

which a national park unit was set aside as part 

of the national park system. Grounded in an 

analysis of park legislation and legislative 

history, purpose statements also provide 

primary criteria against which the 

appropriateness of plan recommendations, 

operational decisions, and actions are tested 

—they provide the foundation for the park’s 

management and use. 

The purposes of Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore include the following: 

• Conserve and protect the outstanding 

collection of scenic, scientific, biological, 

geological, historical, archeological, 

cultural, and wilderness features and 

values of Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore. 

• Provide opportunities for the benefit, 

inspiration, education, recreational use, 

and enjoyment of Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore. 

• Secure the benefits of an enduring 

resource of wilderness in Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore’s Gaylord Nelson 

Wilderness for present and future 

generations of Americans. 

PARK SIGNIFICANCE 

Significance statements capture the essence of 

the park’s importance to our country’s natural 

and cultural heritage. Significance statements 

do not inventory park resources; rather, they 

describe the park’s distinctiveness and why 

the area is important within its regional, 

national, and international contexts. Significance statements answer questions such as the 

following: Why are Apostle Islands’ resources 

distinctive? What do they contribute to our 

natural or cultural heritage? Defining the 

park’s significance helps managers make 

decisions and focus their efforts on the 

protection of resources and enjoyment of 

those values that are directly related to the 

park’s purpose. 

The significance statements for Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore are as follows: 

• The Apostle Islands archipelago contains 

scientifically important geologic features, 

including a highly diverse and stunningly 

beautiful array of coastal landforms that 

retain a high degree of ecological integrity. 

• Shaped and isolated by Lake Superior and 

located where northern hardwoods and 

boreal forests meet, the islands of the park 

sustain rare communities, habitats, and 

species of plants and animals. Some of 

these communities are remnants of 

ancient forests, providing a rare glimpse 

into the past. 

• The Apostle Islands are the traditional 

home of the Ojibwe people and integral to 

their culture. They have used the natural 

resources of the Apostle Islands area for 

centuries to sustain their way of life, and 

continue to do so today. 

• The isolation and remoteness of the 

archipelago has preserved an unparalleled 

variety of historic and archeological 

resources reflecting human response to 

the Great Lakes maritime environment. 

• The Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

has the largest and finest collection of 

lighthouses in the country. 

• Despite hundreds of years of human 

occupation and use, the Apostle Islands 

and Lake Superior remain among the 

wildest places in the Great Lakes, where 

the unbridled forces of nature prevail. 
Foundations for Planning and Management 

13 

• The rare combination of remote but 

accessible scenery, geography, and both 

open and protected waters affords 

unparalleled freshwater sailing, boating, 

sea kayaking, and fishing opportunities. 

• The “island experience” of the Apostle 

Islands, which includes quiet, relative 

solitude, and clear night skies, continues 

to provide, as it has for generations, a 

recreational and rejuvenating experience 

for people seeking relief from the stresses 

of their everyday lives. 

FUNDAMENTAL RESOURCES 

AND VALUES 

Fundamental resources and values are 

systems, processes, features, visitor 

experiences, stories, and scenes that deserve 

primary consideration in planning and 

management because they are critical to 

maintaining the park’s purpose and 

significance. The following fundamental 

resources and values have been identified for 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. 

Coastal Features and Processes 

• diverse collection and high degree of 

integrity of coastal features and processes 

such as tombolos, sand spits, cuspate 

forelands, barrier spits, beaches, 

sandstone cliffs, clay bluffs, shoals, and 

lagoons 

Natural Environment 

• rare plant communities such as 

dune/lagoon complexes, unbrowsed 

forest communities, old-growth stands, 

and cliff communities 

• important bird habitat including resting 

areas for migratory birds, nesting areas for 

summer residents including colonial birds, 

and critical piping plover habitat 

• clean air and water, including healthy 

aquatic environments 

Ethnographic Resources 

• the resources associated with the Ojibwe 

homeland, such as ethno-botanical 

resources and the stories of the Ojibwe 

cultural connections 

Historical and Archeological Resources 

• resource extraction sites, including 

quarries, logging camps, and fishing sites 

• pioneer settlements 

• historic recreational facilities 

• archeological resources, including 

submerged cultural resources 

Light Stations and Cultural Landscapes 

• historic structures associated with 

lighthouses 

• cultural landscapes associated with the 

light stations (e.g., ground clearing, 

gardens, relationships to old-growth 

forests due to lighthouse reservations) 

Stories and Collections 

• continuing and evolving stories of the 

area’s cultural heritage, including oral 

histories, diaries, archives, photos, 

documentation, administrative history 

• stories and related documents associated 

with the lighthouses and lightkeepers 

Wilderness Values 

• wilderness qualities (high degree of 

naturalness and primitive recreation 

opportunities) including the phenomenon 

of re-wilding; lands that were settled, 

logged, and quarried are naturally 

returning to their former condition 

• sense of discovery associated with viewing 

and learning about the historic and 

continuing relationship between humans 

and the natural resources of the islands 

• sense of adventure and challenge where 

the “lake is the boss” 
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND 

14 

Recreational Opportunities 

• access to open and protected waters 

• the challenge and opportunity of safely 

navigating and recreating on Lake 

Superior 

• diverse marine recreational activities 

• access to sea caves and shipwrecks 

The “Island Experience” 

• sensory experiences such as solitude, 

isolation, challenge, and adventure 

• natural light and soundscapes 

• discovering and accessing pristine beaches 

• great vistas including views of and from 

the lighthouses, undeveloped shorelines, 

long-distance views across the lake, views 

of the horizon, views of sailboats, views of 

wildlife 

PRIMARY INTERPRETIVE THEMES 

Interpretive themes are ideas, concepts, or 

stories that are central to the park’s purpose, 

significance, identity, and visitor experience. 

The primary interpretive themes define 

concepts that every visitor should have the 

opportunity to learn. Primary themes also 

provide the framework for the park’s 

interpretation and educational programs; 

influence the visitor experience; and provide 

direction for planners and designers of the 

park’s exhibits, publications, and audiovisual 

programs. Subsequent interpretive planning 

may elaborate on these primary themes. 

Following are the primary interpretive themes 

for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore—the 

most important ideas or concepts to be 

communicated to the public about the park: 

• At the center of the continent, Lake 

Superior has long served as a highway of 

commerce connecting the Apostle Islands 

region to a global economy, thereby 

transforming the landscape and its people. 

• The stories of Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore reveal themselves along edges 

where water meets land and sky, field 

meets forest, culture meets culture, and 

past meets future. 

• After being altered by centuries of 

exploitation, the Apostle Islands’ 

environment is regaining its wilderness 

characteristics. 

• The Apostle Islands have long attracted 

people to Lake Superior’s shore to enjoy 

world-class opportunities for a variety of 

recreational experiences. 

• The Apostle Islands’ protected plant and 

animal communities, remote yet not 

removed from outside influences, serve as 

indicators to help measure the pulse of the 

planet. 

• Lake Superior defines the Apostle Islands, 

shapes its ecosystems, and sustains life in 

the region. 

• Dynamic and uncontrollable, Lake 

Superior is a force to be encountered on 

its own terms.
15 

SPECIAL MANDATES AND ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITMENTS 

Special mandates are legislative or judicial 

requirements that are specific to a particular 

unit of the national park system. They are 

typically mandated by Congress or by the 

courts. Administrative commitments are 

agreements that have been reached through 

formal, documented processes. Examples 

include cooperative agreements. 

TREATY RIGHTS AND OTHER 

RESERVED TRIBAL RIGHTS 

The Apostle Islands region is located within 

the heart of the ancestral homeland of the 

Ojibwe people. As such, the area’s significance 

to Ojibwe traditions and culture cannot be 

overstated. Ojibwe treaty rights will continue 

to be honored under all of the alternatives 

being considered in this document—none of 

the alternatives being considered would 

impede, prevent, or in any way negate tribal 

reserved or treaty guaranteed rights. The 

general management plan will not, and indeed 

cannot, affect the harvesting of plants or plant 

materials, hunting, fishing (including 

commercial fishing in Lake Superior), or 

trapping rights, although with appropriate 

consultation with affected tribal governments 

it may affect the manner in which treaty rights 

are exercised. For the Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore, these rights are reserved by the 

tribes and guaranteed by the United States in 

the treaties of 1842 and 1854, and have been 

affirmed in a number of court cases, including 

State of Wisconsin v. Gurnoe and Lac Courte 

Oreilles Band of Chippewa Indians v. Voigt. In 

addition, for those portions of the park that 

might lie within the boundaries of their 

reservations, the Red Cliff Band of Lake 

Superior Chippewa Indians and the Bad River 

Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa 

Indians enjoy a number of other rights of selfgovernance and self-determination that are 

reserved and protected in the Treaty of 1854 

and other federal enactments. 

WILDERNESS 

The Gaylord Nelson Wilderness, established 

on December 8, 2004, includes 80% of the 

land area of the park (approximately 33,500 

acres of the park’s 42,160-acre land base). The 

wilderness includes all of Bear, Cat, Eagle, 

Gull, Hermit, Ironwood, North Twin, and 

York islands, and most of Michigan, Otter, 

Outer, Raspberry, Rocky, South Twin, Devils, 

Manitou, Oak, and Stockton islands. The 

waters of Lake Superior within the park are 

not included in the wilderness area, nor are 

the lighthouses or other existing developed 

areas of the park. No parts of Sand, Basswood, 

or Long island are included in the wilderness, 

and neither is the park's 12-mile mainland 

strip. 

HUNTING, FISHING, AND TRAPPING 

The enabling legislation (Public Law [PL] 91-

424) of Apostle Island National Lakeshore 

permits hunting, fishing, and trapping in the 

park in accordance with appropriate laws of 

Wisconsin and the United States. The 

legislation also gives park managers the 

flexibility to “designate zones where, and 

establish periods when, no hunting, trapping, 

or fishing shall be permitted for reasons of 

public safety, administration, fish or wildlife 

management, or public use and enjoyment.” 

USE OF SNOWMOBILES AND OFFROAD VEHICLES IN THE PARK 

Special regulations specific to the park, listed 

in 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 7, 

Section (§) 7.82, identify restrictions involving 
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND 

16 

the use and operation of snowmobiles and 

off-road vehicles, and allow the use of ice 

augers and fishing activities under applicable 

state law. 

NAVIGATIONAL AIDS 

Under federal law, navigational aids (lights) 

continue under the jurisdiction of the U.S. 

Coast Guard so long as they are required, 

while the National Park Service manages the 

historic structures and facilities associated 

with the navigational aids. 

BAYFIELD VISITOR CENTER GSA LEASE 

The Bayfield park headquarters and visitor 

center in the Old Bayfield County Courthouse 

is leased from the city of Bayfield by the 

General Services Administration (GSA). The 

annual lease covers administrative office 

space, parking space, the visitor center, and 

building maintenance and janitorial services. 

The lease expires on July 16, 2012. 

ROYS POINT GSA LEASE 

The Roys Point maintenance facility, 

including the warehouse, office space, 

equipment storage, shops, and dock space, is 

leased from Roys Point Partners by the 

General Services Administration. The lease 

expired in 2008, but has been renewed for the 

short term. 

APOSTLE ISLANDS 

CRUISE SERVICE CONTRACT 

Apostle Islands Cruise Service is authorized by 

the National Park Service as a park 

concessioner to serve the public within the 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. The 

concessioner offers a variety of narrated 

sightseeing cruises, island shuttles, and charter 

trips to islands and offshore locations 

throughout the park. Trips leave from 

Bayfield daily from late May to the middle of 

October. The contract expires in 2016. 

AGREEMENT WITH THE TOWN OF 

RUSSELL REGARDING OPERATION OF 

LITTLE SAND BAY 

The Town of Russell owns and manages 

recreational facilities on an 11-acre tract 

within the park at Little Sand Bay. The town 

and National Park Service signed a 

memorandum of understanding, effective 

December 31, 2004, regarding operation of 

the Little Sand Bay area. The agreement 

covers shared use of the sewage treatment 

system, restrooms, shower facilities, and 

drinking water; maintaining the breakwall, 

boat ramp, and navigation lights; dredging the 

harbor and storing dredged materials; 

removing snow and roadside mowing; 

maintaining signs; maintaining town access to 

the memorial on York Island; and working 

together on kayak launching area issues. The 

agreement expires at the end of 2009. 

AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF 

WISCONSIN REGARDING THE 

PROTECTION OF SUBMERGED 

CULTURAL RESOURCES AND 

BOTTOMLANDS 

The National Park Service signed a 

memorandum of understanding with the state 

of Wisconsin Historical Society regarding the 

protection of submerged cultural resources on 

December 1, 2002. The agreement expired in 

December 2007, but is being negotiated and is 

expected to be renewed. 

INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT ON THE 

NORTHERN GREAT LAKES VISITOR 

CENTER 

The National Park Service has a 

memorandum of understanding with the U.S. 

Forest Service to cover the costs of operating 
Special Mandates and Administrative Commitments 

17 

the visitor center near Ashland. Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore is a partner in this 

center and oversees the front desk operations 

and the facility management program. The 

agreement expires at the end of 2011. 

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 

WITH THE OJIBWE BANDS 

The National Park Service is developing a 

memorandum of understanding with Ojibwe 

bands possessing rights that were reserved 

under the treaties of 1842 and 1854 with 

respect to Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore. This agreement will describe the 

manner in which these rights may be 

exercised in the off-reservation portions of 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. 

OTHER VALID RIGHTS 

Several individuals have life-lease use and 

occupancy rights in the park. There are 

several inholdings, public roads, rights-ofway, and mineral rights held by the townships 

of Russell and Bayfield, and the counties of 

Bayfield and Ashland. Above- and belowground utility lines owned by the Bayfield 

Electric Cooperative Association and 

Wisconsin Bell also exist. The general 

management plan will not affect the owners of 

various valid property rights within the park 

boundary. This includes county and township 

owned lands and mineral right owners. The 

National Park Service will continue to honor 

and respect the valid rights of these entities 

and individuals under all of the alternatives.
18 

DESIRED CONDITIONS AND RELATED SERVICEWIDE LEGAL 

AND POLICY REQUIREMENTS 

NPS Management Policies 2006 states that 

“The National Park Service will use all 

available authorities to protect lands and 

resources within units of the national park 

system.” The purpose of this section is to 

summarize the major legal and policy 

requirements governing park management. 

The National Park Service continues to strive 

to implement these requirements with or 

without a general management plan. Table 1 

provides an overview of the legal and policy 

requirements that relate to and are 

particularly important to the management of 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. The 

strategies listed under the topics are examples 

of actions that will be taken and are not 

intended to be all-inclusive—specific 

strategies and management actions and 

prioritization of these actions will be 

addressed in future implementation plans, 

such as the resource stewardship strategy. 

Funding and staffing constraints also will 

affect the implementation of these strategies. 

Table 1: Desired Conditions and Strategies 

with Related Servicewide Legal and Policy Requirements 

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

Relations with 

Private and Public 

Organizations, 

Owners of Adjacent 

Land, and 

Governmental 

Agencies 

NPS Management Policies 2006 emphasize consultation and cooperation with 

local/state/tribal/ federal entities (5.2.1) and calls for cooperative conservation beyond park 

boundaries (1.6) and for cooperative planning (2.3.1.8). DO 75A, “Civic Engagement and 

Public Involvement” provides further guidance. 

Desired Conditions: Apostle Islands National Lakeshore is managed as part of a greater 

ecological, social, economic, and cultural system. 

Good relations are maintained with adjacent landowners, surrounding communities, and 

private and public groups that affect and are affected by Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. 

The area is managed proactively to resolve external issues and concerns and ensure that 

area values are not compromised. 

Because the park is a part of a larger regional environment, the National Park Service and its 

neighbors work cooperatively with others to anticipate, avoid, and resolve potential 

conflicts; protect the park’s resources; and address mutual interests in the quality of life for 

community residents. Regional cooperation involves federal, state, and local agencies, Indian 

tribes, neighboring landowners, and all other concerned parties. 

Strategies: NPS staff will continue to establish and foster partnerships with public and 

private organizations to achieve the purposes of Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. 

Partnerships will continue to be sought for resource protection, research, education, and 

visitor enjoyment purposes. 

To foster a spirit of cooperation with neighbors and encourage compatible adjacent land 

uses, NPS staff will continue to keep landowners, land managers, local governments, and 

the public informed about Apostle Islands National Lakeshore management activities. 

Likewise, NPS managers will seek relationships with adjacent landowners and jurisdictions 
Desired Conditions and Related Servicewide Legal and Policy Requirements 

19 

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

Relations with 

Private and Public 

Organizations, 

Owners of Adjacent 

Land, and 

Governmental 

Agencies 

(continued) 

that will keep NPS managers informed about their activities that may affect the park. 

Periodic consultations will continue with landowners who might be affected by visitors and 

management actions. NPS staff will continue to respond promptly to conflicts that arise over 

NPS activities, visitor access, and proposed activities and developments on adjacent lands 

that could affect Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. Information will be shared with 

adjacent landowners on resources, natural processes, and threats to resources. NPS staff 

may provide technical and management assistance to landowners to address issues of 

mutual interest. 

NPS staff will continue to work closely with local, state, and federal agencies and tribal 

governments whose programs affect or are affected by activities in Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore. NPS managers will continue to pursue cooperative regional planning whenever 

possible to integrate the park into issues of regional concern. 

NPS staff will continue to work closely with local, state, and federal agencies and tribal 

governments to foster interagency training, cooperation, and mutual assistance that affords 

the highest level of protection and security for visitors and park resources. 

Relations with the 

City of Bayfield, 

Town of Russell, 

Town of Bayfield, 

and Bayfield and 

Ashland Counties 

As stated above, NPS Management Policies emphasize consultation and cooperation with 

local governments and for cooperative planning. 

Desired Conditions: NPS staff continues its close working relationships with the City of 

Bayfield, Town of Russell, and Bayfield and Ashland counties. NPS staff and local officials 

maintain a high level of trust and goodwill. Local government officials feel they have an 

important stake in Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, and NPS staff feel they have an 

important stake in the local communities. NPS managers are familiar with local issues and 

concerns. 

Strategies: NPS staff will continue to regularly communicate and meet with local 

government officials to identify problems and concerns facing the local governments and 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, and actions that can be taken to address these problems 

and concerns. 

NPS managers will continue to work with the Town of Russell to address mutual issues and 

improve the quality of the visitor experience at Little Sand Bay. 

Local government officials will continue to be kept informed of planning and other actions 

in Apostle Islands National Lakeshore that could affect the local governments. Likewise, NPS 

managers will seek relationships with local government officials that will keep NPS 

managers informed about their activities that may affect the park. NPS staff will continue to 

work with local government law enforcement, emergency services, and community 

education programs. 

When appropriate, NPS staff will provide technical and management assistance to the local 

governments, including sharing information and resources, to address problems and issues 

of mutual interest, such as growth in park visitation and ecotourism. NPS staff will continue 

to be involved in community-based efforts. NPS staff will participate in community planning 

when it may influence the park. 

Government-toGovernment 

Relations between 

American Indian 

Tribes and Apostle 

Islands National 

Lakeshore 

The Presidential Memorandum of April 29, 1994, Executive Order 13175: “Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”, Executive Order 13007: “Indian Sacred 

Sites”, a variety of federal statutes (e.g., National Historic Preservation Act), and NPS 

Management Policies 2006 (1.11.1 and 5.3.5.3) call for the National Park Service to 

maintain a government-to-government relationship with federally recognized tribal 

governments. 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore is of special importance to the Red Cliff and Bad River 

Bands of Lake Superior Chippewa, and the tribes are also important neighbors for the park. 

Part of the park’s mainland unit is within the Red Cliff reservation, and the remaining land 
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND 

20 

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

Government-toGovernment 

Relations between 

American Indian 

Tribes and Apostle 

Islands National 

Lakeshore 

(continued) 

areas of the park are within territory that was ceded as part of the 1842 Treaty with the 

Chippewa. Within this ceded territory, the Chippewa reserved their rights to hunt and trap. 

The Bad River Band also believes that Long Island is included in their reservation boundary (a 

belief that is not disputed or supported by the National Park Service due to vague treaty 

language). 

Desired Conditions: NPS staff and the tribes culturally affiliated with the park maintain 

positive, productive, government-to-government relationships. NPS managers will seek 

relations with adjacent tribal governments that will keep NPS managers informed about the 

tribes’ activities that may affect the park. The Chippewa’s reserved hunting and trapping 

rights are recognized and respected by the National Park Service. Park managers respect the 

viewpoints and needs of the tribes, continue to promptly address conflicts that occur, and 

consider American Indian values in area management and operation. 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore is a good neighbor to the Bad River Band and Red Cliff 

Band by working together when joint cooperation might be appropriate—sharing research 

and knowledge on the resources, and interpreting the resources of Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore. 

Strategies: NPS staff will continue to regularly meet and communicate with tribal officials 

to identify problems and issues of mutual concern, and work together to take actions to 

address these problems and issues. 

Tribal officials will continue to be kept informed of planning and other actions in the park 

that could affect the tribes. Likewise, NPS managers will seek relationships with tribal 

officials that will keep NPS managers informed about their activities that may affect the 

park. 

When appropriate, NPS staff and the tribes will share information and resources to address 

problems and issues of mutual concern. 

NPS staff will continue to recognize the past and continuing presence of native peoples in 

the region. 

NPS staff will consult with the tribes to develop and accomplish the programs of Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore in a way that respects the beliefs, traditions, and other cultural 

values of the tribes. 

NPS staff will accommodate reasonable access to traditional use areas, once identified 

through further consultation and research, in ways consistent with park purposes and 

American Indian values and that avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sites 

and resources. 

NPS staff will conduct appropriate ethnographic, ethnohistorical, or cultural anthropological 

research in conjunction with, and in cooperation with, American Indian tribes traditionally 

associated with Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. 

NPS managers will work closely with the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa 

Indians on resource or visitor management issues of mutual concern on Long Island. 

NPS managers will work closely with the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians 

on resource and visitor management issues on those areas of the mainland unit within the 

boundaries of the Red Cliff reservation. 

NPS staff will work closely with the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission and 

tribal law enforcement and conservation officials to foster cooperation, support, mutual 

assistance, and close working relationships relating to the discovery, investigation, 
Desired Conditions and Related Servicewide Legal and Policy Requirements 

21 

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

enforcement, and prosecution of NPS and tribal laws involving wildlife management, 

resource protection, and visitor safety. 

Natural Resources

Ecosystem 

Management 

NPS Management Policies 2006 (1.6, 4.1, 4.1.4, 4.4.1) provides general direction for 

managing park units from an ecosystem perspective. 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore is part of a greater ecological, social, economic, and 

cultural system. Activities that take place outside of the park affect, sometimes profoundly, 

the Park Service’s ability to protect natural resources inside the park. As section 1.6 of NPS

Management Policies 2006 states, “Recognizing that parks are integral parts of larger 

regional environments, and to support its primary concern of protecting park resources and 

values, the Service will work cooperatively with others to 

• anticipate, avoid, and resolve potential conflicts; 

• protect park resources and values; 

• provide for visitor enjoyment; and 

• address mutual interests in the quality of life of community residents, including 

matters such as compatible economic development and resource and 

environmental protection.” 

Thus it is important to manage Apostle Islands National Lakeshore from an ecosystem 

perspective, where internal and external factors affecting visitor use, environmental quality, 

and resource stewardship goals are considered at a scale appropriate to their impact on 

affected resources. 

Ecosystem management is a collaborative approach to natural and cultural resource 

management that integrates scientific knowledge of ecological relationships with resource 

stewardship practices for the goal of sustainable ecological, cultural, and socioeconomic 

systems. Approaches to ecosystem management are varied and occur at many levels. 

Achieving the desired future conditions stated in this plan for park resources requires that a 

regional perspective be considered, recognizing that actions taken on lands surrounding the 

park directly and indirectly affect the park. Many of the threats to park resources, such as 

airborne contaminants and invasive species, come from outside of the park boundaries, 

requiring an ecosystem approach to understand and manage the park’s natural resources. 

Imperative in this effort is understanding the health or condition of the ecosystem. Key 

indicators of resource or system conditions must be identified and monitored. 

Cooperation, coordination, negotiation, and partnerships with agencies and neighbors are 

also crucial to meeting or maintaining desired future conditions for the park while 

recognizing the need to accommodate multiple uses on a regional scale. This approach to 

ecosystem management may involve many parties or cooperative arrangements with state 

agencies or tribes to obtain a better understanding of trans-boundary issues. 

Desired Conditions: Apostle Islands National Lakeshore is managed holistically, from an 

ecosystem perspective, where internal and external factors affecting visitor use, 

environmental quality, and resource stewardship goals are considered at a scale appropriate 

to their impact on affected resources. The National Park Service is a leader in resource 

stewardship and conservation of ecosystems within and outside the park. Natural processes 

and population fluctuations occur within a natural range of variability with as little human 

intervention as possible. Park resources and visitors are managed considering the ecological 

and social conditions of the park and surrounding area. Ecological integrity is maintained or 

restored in areas not developed for visitors. NPS managers adapt to changing ecological and 

social conditions within and external to the park and continue as partners in regional 

planning and land and water management. The park is managed proactively to resolve 

external issues and concerns to ensure that park values are not compromised. 
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND 

22 

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

Ecosystem 

Management 

(continued) 

Strategies: NPS staff will continue to participate in and encourage ongoing partnerships 

with local, state, tribal, and federal agencies, educational institutions, and other 

organizations in programs that have importance within and beyond park boundaries. 

Cooperative agreements, partnerships, and other arrangements can be used to set an 

example in resource conservation and innovation, and to facilitate research related to park 

resources and their management. Partnerships important to the long-term viability of 

natural and cultural resources include, but are not limited to, the following: 

• inventorying, monitoring, and managing terrestrial resources 

• managing wildlife across human-created boundaries, such as jurisdictions and 

property lines 

• monitoring and managing aquatic resources (e.g., water quality), and enforcing 

regulations 

• managing nonnative invasive species 

• supporting scientific research and ecological monitoring to increase understanding 

of park resources, natural processes, and human interactions with the 

environment, and to guide recovery/conservation efforts 

• approaching all resource management questions from an ecosystem standpoint, 

taking into account all biological interrelationships 

• continuing long-term monitoring of the change in condition of cultural and natural 

resources and related human influences (see natural resources strategies) 

• identifying management considerations for areas external to the park where 

ecological processes, natural and cultural resources, and/or human use affect park 

resources or are closely related to park resource management; initiating joint 

management actions, agreements, or partnerships to promote resource 

conservation (see natural resources strategies) 

• practicing science-based decision making and adaptive management, and 

incorporating the results of resource monitoring and research into NPS operations 

• as called for in the park’s “Fire Management Plan” (NPS 2005a), continuing to use 

prescribed fire as appropriate to reduce hazardous fuel conditions, supplement the 

ecological role of fire as a natural process, eliminate or reduce nonnative species, 

protect or restore key plant or animal habitats or communities, and restore or 

maintain cultural/historic scenes in the park 

• detecting and investigating illegal activities; apprehending and successfully 

prosecuting violators; and preventing unauthorized and illegal access and 

operations through resource education, public safety efforts, and deterrence 

Natural Resources 

and Diversity 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore’s natural resources are a key element in the use and 

management of the park. Protection, study, and management of natural resources and 

processes are essential for achieving the purposes of the NPS Organic Act and to ensure that 

impairment of park resources and values does not occur. NPS Management Policies 2006 (4) 

and Reference Manual #77, “Natural Resource Management,” provide general direction on 

natural resource management for the park. 

Desired Conditions: Apostle Islands National Lakeshore is recognized and valued as an 

outstanding example of resource stewardship, conservation, education, and public use. The 

park retains its ecological integrity, including its natural resources and processes. The park 

continues to support a full range of native species. Natural processes (including wind, sand, 

and water processes) function as unimpeded as possible. Ecosystem dynamics and population fluctuations occur with as little human intervention as possible. Park resources are 

conserved “unimpaired” for the enjoyment of future generations. Park resources and values 

are protected through collaborative efforts with neighbors and partners. Potential threats to 

the park’s resources are identified early and addressed proactively. Human impacts on 

resources, such as air and water pollution, are monitored, and harmful effects are minimized, mitigated, or eliminated to the greatest degree possible. Visitors and staff recognize 
Desired Conditions and Related Servicewide Legal and Policy Requirements 

23 

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

Natural Resources 

and Diversity 

(continued) 

and understand the value of the park’s natural resources. NPS staff uses the best available 

scientific information and appropriate technology to manage the park’s natural resources. 

Biologically diverse native communities are protected and restored when appropriate. 

Particularly sensitive communities, such as sandscapes, are closely monitored and protected. 

Endemic species and habitats are fully protected. Genetic integrity of native species is 

protected. 

“Nonnative species” (also referred to as exotic, alien, or invasive species) are those species 

that occupy or could occupy park lands as the result of deliberate or accidental human 

activities. The NPS staff prevents the introduction of nonnative species and provides for their 

control to minimize the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that these species 

cause. High priority is given to managing nonnative species that have, or potentially could 

have, a substantial impact on park resources, and that can reasonably be expected to be 

successfully controllable. Lower priority is given to nonnative species that have almost no 

impact on park resources or that probably cannot be successfully controlled. 

Strategies: Science-based, adaptive, decision making will continue to be followed, with the 

results of resource monitoring and research incorporated into appropriate aspects of park 

operations. 

NPS staff will continue to apply ecological principles to ensure that natural resources are 

maintained and not impaired. Integrated pest management procedures will continue to be 

used when necessary to control nonnative organisms or other pests. 

NPS staff and other scientists will continue to inventory park resources to quantify, locate, 

and document biotic and abiotic resources and to assess their status and trends. Inventories 

and monitoring of rare plant communities, native plants, and migratory bird populations in 

the park will continue. 

NPS staff and other scientists will continue to conduct long-term, systematic monitoring of 

resources and processes to discern natural and anthropogenically induced trends, document 

changes in species or communities, evaluate the effectiveness of management actions taken 

to protect and restore resources, and mitigate impacts on resources where possible. 

NPS staff will strive to expand monitoring programs to include geographic areas and 

resources that are not currently monitored. Partnerships with institutions, agencies, and 

scientists will be an important component of this endeavor. 

NPS staff will work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources, Bad River and Red Cliff Bands of the Lake Superior Chippewa, and the Great 

Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission to inventory, monitor, enforce regulations, and 

manage migratory bird populations and habitats. Migratory bird population habitats will be 

protected through timing of park activities; application of visitor restrictions or closures 

when appropriate; and through consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife 

Commission, and American Indian tribes. NPS staff will participate in regional ecosystem 

efforts to protect migratory bird species. 

Inventories and monitoring of nonnative plant species will continue. Efforts will continue to 

control the spread of spotted knapweed and other invasive nonnative species in the park. 

For species determined to be nonnative and where management appears to be feasible and 

effective, the NPS staff will: (1) evaluate the species’ current or potential impact on park 

resources; (2) develop and implement nonnative species management plans according to 

established planning procedures; (3) consult, as appropriate, with federal and state 

agencies, including the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, and (4) invite public 

review and comment, where appropriate. Programs to manage nonnative species will be 

designed to avoid causing damage to native species, rare natural ecological communities, 

natural ecological processes, cultural resources, and human health and safety. 
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND 

24 

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

Natural Resources 

and Diversity 

(continued) 

Future facilities will be built in previously disturbed areas with as small of a construction 

footprint as possible. NPS staff will also apply mitigative techniques to minimize the impacts 

of construction and other activities on park resources. 

Active restoration efforts will continue in the park, primarily focusing on the eradication of 

invasive nonnative species and restoration of native plants and animals. For previously or 

newly disturbed areas that are restored, work will be done using native genetic materials 

(when available) from the local region to regain maximum habitat value. Should facilities be 

removed, the disturbed lands will be rehabilitated to restore natural topography and soils, 

and the areas will be revegetated with native species. 

Scientific research will continue to be encouraged, such as research that contributes to the 

management of rare plant communities and native species. Cooperative basic and applied 

research will be encouraged through various partnerships and agreements to increase the 

understanding of Apostle Islands National Lakeshore’s resources, natural processes, and 

human interactions with the environment, or to answer specific management questions. 

In conjunction with other NPS offices, the NPS staff will continue to expand the data 

management system, including a geographic information system (GIS) and a 

research/literature database, for analyzing, modeling, predicting, and testing trends in 

resource conditions. 

NPS managers will develop and regularly update a park resource stewardship strategy, and 

prioritize actions needed to protect, manage, and study the park’s resources. 

Managers will monitor and assess predicted and actual impacts of climate change on the 

park and develop, where possible, feasible strategies to mitigate impacts. 

New employees will be educated about the significance of natural resources and major 

threats to these resources. 

Interpretive and educational programs will continue to be provided to visitors and residents 

neighboring the park on the preservation of rare plant communities, migratory bird species, 

and other native species. 

NPS staff will continue to detect and investigate illegal activity; apprehend and successfully 

prosecute violators; and prevent unauthorized and illegal access and operations through 

resource education, public safety efforts, and deterrence. 

Threatened and 

Endangered Species 

Under the Endangered Species Act, the National Park Service is mandated to promote the 

conservation of all federal threatened and endangered species and their critical habitats 

within the park boundaries. NPS Management Policies 2006 (4.4.2.3) also call for the 

agency to survey for, protect, and strive to recover all species native to national park system 

units that are listed under the Endangered Species Act. In addition, the National Park Service 

is directed to inventory, monitor, and manage state listed species in a manner similar to the 

treatment of federally listed species, to the greatest extent possible. Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore supports one federally endangered wildlife species, nine state listed threatened 

and endangered wildlife species, and 18 state listed endangered or threatened plant species 

as of 2008. 

Desired Conditions: All federal and state listed threatened and endangered species and 

species proposed for listing and their habitats in Apostle Islands National Lakeshore are 

protected. All Park Service actions help these species to recover—no actions are taken that 

detrimentally affect these species or their habitats. 

Strategies: NPS staff will continue to work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Geological Survey, the Red Cliff and Bad 
Desired Conditions and Related Servicewide Legal and Policy Requirements 

25 

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

Threatened and 

Endangered Species 

(continued) 

River Bands of the Lake Superior Chippewa, and the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Indian 

Commission to ensure that NPS actions help state and federally listed species to recover. If 

any state or federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered species (e.g., piping 

plover) were found in areas that would be affected by construction, visitor use activities, or 

management actions, NPS staff would first reevaluate the suitability of the site for that use 

or attempt to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, compensate, or otherwise mitigate any 

potential adverse impacts on state or federally listed species. Should it be determined 

through informal consultation that an action might adversely affect a federally listed or 

proposed species, NPS staff would initiate formal consultation under section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act. 

The NPS staff will cooperate with the above agencies in inventorying, monitoring, 

protecting, and perpetuating the natural distribution and abundance of all state and 

federally listed species and their essential habitats in Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. 

These species and their required habitats will be specifically considered in ongoing planning 

and management activities. 

NPS staff will continue to detect and investigate illegal activity; apprehend and successfully 

prosecute violators; and prevent unauthorized and illegal access and operations through 

resource education, public safety efforts, and deterrence. 

NPS staff will support the recovery planning process, including participating on recovery 

teams where appropriate. 

Active management programs will be undertaken to monitor, restore, and maintain listed 

species’ habitats, control detrimental nonnative species, control detrimental visitor access, 

and reestablish extirpated populations as necessary to maintain the species and the habitats 

upon which they depend. 

Interpretive and curriculum-based education programs and media will be used to educate 

visitors and the public about NPS efforts to protect and recover these species. 

Geologic Resources Apostle Islands National Lakeshore’s geologic setting is a fundamental underlying factor for 

the characteristics of its landscapes. Geology is a major determinant of the chemistry of the 

water and soil, the type of plants that will grow and thrive, the stability of the hillsides, the 

availability of fresh water, and the locations of habitats. Geologic resources are important 

for their role in the ecosystem, their scenic grandeur, and their contribution to visitor 

enjoyment. 

The park’s geologic resources include both geologic features and geologic processes. 

Sandscapes, coastal processes, and soils are discussed separately below. Other geologic 

resources in the park include sea caves and sandstone deposits. NPS Management Policies 

2006 (4.8) and the “Natural Resource Reference Manual #77” provide general direction on 

the management of geologic resources in park units. 

Desired Conditions: The park’s geologic processes are preserved and protected as integral 

components of the park’s natural systems. 

Strategies: NPS managers will integrate the management and protection of park geologic 

resources into park planning and operations. 

Geologic resources will be systematically inventoried and monitored. 

Scientific research and geologic education and interpretation will be encouraged. 

NPS staff will continue to detect and investigate illegal activity; apprehend and successfully 

prosecute violators; and prevent unauthorized and illegal access and operations through 

resource education, public safety efforts, and deterrence. 
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND 

26 

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

Coastal Processes 

and Sandscapes 

Coastal processes, including wave action (erosion) and deposition and movement of sediments, have shaped, and continue to shape, the shoreline of the park’s islands and mainland unit. NPS Management Policies 2006 (4.8.1) and the “Natural Resource Reference 

Manual #77” provide general direction on the management of coastal processes in park 

units. 

Desired Conditions: The park’s coastal processes are preserved and protected as integral 

components of the park’s natural systems. Natural shoreline processes, such as erosion, 

deposition, and shoreline migration, function in as natural a condition as possible. To the 

extent possible, structures such as docks do not alter the nature or rate of natural shoreline 

processes. 

Strategies: NPS staff will continue to be a partner with federal, state, and local agencies 

and with academic institutions to conduct research on sandscapes and coastal features and 

processes. NPS managers will work with researchers to study the effects of docks on coastal 

processes, such as the transport of sand and the accretion/erosion of adjacent shorelines. 

Where human activities or structures have altered the nature or rate of natural shoreline 

processes, NPS staff will, in consultation with appropriate state and federal agencies, 

investigate alternatives for mitigating the effects of such activities or structures and for 

restoring these processes and/or natural conditions. 

Any shoreline manipulation measures proposed to protect cultural resources will preserve or 

restore natural geologic and coastal processes as much as possible. 

Inventorying and monitoring will continue to ensure that coastal features are not adversely 

affected by human activities. Effects of recreation on shoreline habitat and shoreline 

processes will continue to be monitored at sites with known impacts. 

NPS staff will continue to detect and investigate criminal activity; apprehend and 

successfully prosecute violators; and prevent unauthorized and illegal access and operations 

through resource education, public safety efforts, and deterrence. 

New or replacement developments will not be placed in areas vulnerable to wave erosion or 

active shoreline processes unless the development is essential to meet the park’s purposes, 

and 

• no practicable alternative locations are available 

• the development will be reasonably assured of surviving during its planned life 

span without the need for shoreline control measures 

• steps will be taken to minimize safety hazards and harm to property and natural 

and cultural resources 

Work will continue on restoring the disturbed sandscapes as needed. 

Interpretive and educational programs will continue to be developed to educate visitors and 

the public about the nature and importance of coastal features and processes. 

Soil Resources Soils are a critical element that helps determine what vegetation and wildlife occur in 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, and that affect the area’s productivity, drainage 

patterns, and erosion. Soils also provide structural support to buildings and other developed 

facilities in the park. NPS Management Policies 2006 (4.8.2.4) and the “Natural Resource 

Reference Manual #77” provide general direction on the management of soils resources in 

park units. 

Desired Conditions: The NPS staff understands and protects the soil resources of the park. 

Soil resources and processes function in as natural a condition as possible. To the extent 
Desired Conditions and Related Servicewide Legal and Policy Requirements 

27 

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

Soil Resources 

(continued) 

possible, actions prevent or minimize adverse impacts on soils, including unnatural erosion, 

physical removal, and contamination of soils. 

Strategies: Areas with soil resource problems will be identified and management actions 

taken appropriate to the management zone to prevent or minimize further soil erosion, 

compaction, or deposition. 

Actions that have the potential to result in significant soil disturbance will be evaluated to 

determine if erosion control measures need to be applied. Best management practices will 

be applied to areas with human-caused erosion problems to stop or minimize erosion, 

restore soil productivity, and reestablish or sustain a self-perpetuating vegetative cover. Soil 

excavation, erosion, and off-site soil migration will be minimized during and after any 

ground-disturbing activity. 

NPS staff will continue to detect and investigate illegal activity; apprehend and successfully 

prosecute violators; and prevent unauthorized and illegal access and operations through 

resource education, public safety efforts, and deterrence. 

Air Quality Apostle Islands National Lakeshore is classified as a Class II area under the Clean Air Act (42 

USC 7401 et seq.). This air quality classification is the second most stringent and is designed 

to protect the majority of the country from air quality degradation. The Clean Air Act gives 

federal land managers the responsibility for protecting air quality and related values, 

including visibility, plants, animals, soils, water quality, cultural resources, and public health, 

from adverse air pollution impacts within parks. As directed under the Clean Air Act, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established primary National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six pollutants, called “criteria” pollutants, at levels 

considered protective of human health. (Both primary and secondary NAAQS are set. The 

primary standards are intended to protect human health, the secondary standards are 

intended to protect environmental resources and public welfare. To date, the secondary 

standards are set at the same level as the primary standards.) While the National Park 

Service is concerned with monitoring the status and trends of criteria pollutant concentrations in parks, as well as the impacts of these concentrations on air quality and related 

values, the EPA and state air regulatory agencies have the primary responsibility for ensuring 

that the standards are maintained to protect human health. Further, it has been 

documented that adverse impacts to air quality and related values can occur at levels below 

the NAAQS for criteria pollutants. 

Although no physical and chemical air quality monitoring has been done recently in the 

park, information from nearby monitoring networks suggests that air quality generally is 

thought to be moderate in Apostle Islands, and may be influenced by regional transport 

from distant pollution sources. For instance, the most recent Air Quality Status and Trends 

for National Parks Report (2007) noted that both sulfate and ammonium concentrations in 

precipitation are increasing at nearby Isle Royale National Park. In this status report, the 

National Park Service rated deposition based on recent conditions at Isle Royale as 

“moderate” for sulfur deposition and “significant concern” for nitrogen deposition. This 

same report rated visibility conditions at both Isle Royale and Voyagers national parks as 

“moderate.” Trend analyses for visibility data from these two parks show no significant 

trend in either direction for both the best and worst visibility days. Finally, monitoring 

networks nearby (within 10 miles of Apostle Islands), operated by the state to determine 

attainment of the national standards for ozone and particulate matter (PM), demonstrate 

that recent concentrations of these pollutants are below the applicable standards, but are at 

levels that would be considered “moderate” for air quality and related values protection 

purposes. Collectively, this information indicates that air quality in this region of the country, 

including Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, generally could be considered moderate. 

Desired Conditions: Air quality and air quality indicators in the park are maintained at 

levels that protect the most sensitive resources. Natural visibility conditions exist in the park, 

and scenic views of the landscape are protected from visibility degradation for the 

enjoyment of current and future visitors. The quality of visitor experience and visitor health 
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND 

28 

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

Air Quality 

(continued) 

is protected through attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

Strategies: NPS staff will continue to work with appropriate federal, state, and tribal 

government agencies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources, Bad River Band and Red Cliff Band, and nearby 

communities, to maintain the park’s air quality. NPS staff will participate in regional air 

quality planning, research, and the implementation of air quality standards. 

If possible, air quality in the park will be periodically monitored to gain baseline information 

and to measure any changes (improvement or deterioration) to the Apostle Islands’ airshed. 

Native plants or other species that may be sensitive indicators of air pollution will continue 

to be monitored periodically. 

To the extent possible emissions associated with park operations and visitor use will be 

minimized through timing and the use of best management practices and appropriate 

equipment. Sustainable practices and pollution prevention measures will be used in park 

operations. The use of clean fuels will be promoted for use by the park, visitors, and 

communities. Best available practices and technologies will be used to provide healthful 

indoor air quality. 

Mitigative measures will be required as part of construction to avoid potential impacts to air 

quality. 

To minimize smoke impacts, prescribed burns will occur only when favorable meteorological 

conditions are present. The vegetation to be burned shall be in a condition that will facilitate 

combustion and minimize the amount of smoke emitted during combustion. Before 

conducting prescribed burns, NPS staff will obtain a burning permit from the Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources. 

NPS staff will encourage and assist in research on air quality to learn about the effects of 

local and long-range atmospheric deposition on park water quality, plants, soils, and 

wetlands. 

NPS staff will continue to educate and promote greater public understanding of the 

importance of air quality to the park. Information regarding air quality and related values, 

including threats of air pollution to park resources, will be provided to park visitors and 

regional residents. 

NPS staff will review permit applications for new air pollution sources that could affect the 

park. 

Water Quality Water is a key resource in Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, shaping the landscape and 

affecting plants, animals, and visitor use. The Clean Water Act strives to restore and 

maintain the integrity of U.S. waters, which includes waters in the park. NPS Management 

Policies 2006 (4.6.3) and “NPS Natural Resource Management Reference Manual #77” 

provide direction on the protection and management of water quality in Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore. The state of Wisconsin also has designated Lake Superior waters around 

the islands as outstanding resource waters. 

Desired Conditions: Apostle Islands National Lakeshore’s water quality reflects natural 

conditions and supports native plant and animal communities and administrative and 

recreational uses. All water in the park meets applicable state standards. All human sources 

of water pollution, both within and outside the park, that are adversely affecting Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore are eliminated, mitigated, or minimized. 

Strategies: Using a standardized suite of parameters, NPS staff will monitor surface water 

quality on a regular basis throughout Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, including island 

lagoon sites and mainland bay sites (e.g., Little Sand Bay). Other chemical contaminants, 
Desired Conditions and Related Servicewide Legal and Policy Requirements 

29 

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

Water Quality 

(continued) 

such as pesticides and mercury, will be periodically monitored. 

NPS staff will work with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Wisconsin Department 

of Natural Resources, Bad River and Red Cliff Bands of the Lake Superior Chippewa, Great 

Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Northland College, University of Minnesota (Duluth), University of 

Wisconsin (Stevens Point, Superior, and Madison), the International Joint Commission, and 

adjacent landowners to identify pollution sources outside the park’s boundaries that are 

affecting water quality, such as long-range transport of pollutants and wastewater 

discharges. Locations of stormwater discharges, which contain a number of potentially toxic 

substances, will be documented on the Bayfield Peninsula. 

Mitigative measures will be required as part of construction to avoid potential impacts to 

water quality. 

NPS managers will continue to educate boaters about current regulations and risks posed by 

fuel spills, human waste discharge, aquatic invasive species, and discharge of bilge water or 

bait buckets. 

NPS staff will continue to detect and investigate illegal activity; apprehend and successfully 

prosecute violators; and prevent unauthorized and illegal access and operations through 

resource education, public safety efforts, and deterrence. 

Best management practices will be applied in the park to stormwater runoff and to all 

pollution-generating activities and facilities, such as maintenance and storage facilities and 

parking areas. 

The use of pesticides and other chemicals will be minimized and managed in conformance 

with NPS policy and federal regulations. 

A hazardous substance and spill contingency plan will be kept current on contamination 

from hazardous materials (e.g., petroleum products, sewage, and agricultural chemicals). 

NPS staff will continue to educate and promote greater public understanding of the 

importance of water quality to the park. Information regarding water quality and related 

values, including threats of water pollution to park resources, will be provided to park 

visitors and regional residents. 

NPS staff will review permit applications for major new water pollution sources that could 

affect the park.

Wetlands Small wetlands are present on most of the islands and the mainland unit. Wetlands are 

protected and managed in accordance with Executive Order 11990: “Protection of 

Wetlands” and NPS Director’s Order 77-1: “Wetland Protection” and its accompanying 

procedural manual. 

Desired Conditions: The natural values of wetlands are maintained and protected. If 

appropriate, wetlands are used for educational, recreational, scientific, and similar purposes 

provided the uses do not disrupt natural wetland functions. 

Strategies: If possible, a monitoring program will be developed for wetlands in the park 

based on wetland inventory information to help ensure proper management and protection 

of wetland resources. More detailed wetland mapping will be done in areas that are 

proposed for development or are otherwise susceptible to degradation or loss due to 

human activities. 

NPS staff will be trained on identifying wetlands to ensure that operational activities do not 

inadvertently drain or alter wetlands, including ephemeral (seasonal) wetlands. 
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND 

30 

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

Wetlands 

(continued) 

The construction of new developments in wetlands will be avoided. If it is not possible to 

avoid locating a new development in a wetland or to avoid a management action that 

would adversely affect a wetland, the National Park Service will comply with the provisions 

of Executive Order 11990: “Protection of Wetlands,” the Clean Water Act, and Director’s 

Order 77-1. All practicable measures (including the best management practices described in 

Appendix 2 of the “NPS Procedural Manual #77-1 “Wetland Protection”) will be included in 

the proposed action to minimize harm to wetlands. The loss of any wetlands will be 

compensated. 

A statement of findings for wetlands will be prepared, according to the guidelines defined 

in the NPS Procedural Manual #77-1, if an action would result in an adverse impact on a 

wetland. The statement of findings would include an analysis of the alternatives, delineation 

of the wetland, a wetland restoration plan to identify mitigation, and a wetland functional 

analysis of the impact site and restoration site. 

Floodplains Apostle Islands National Lakeshore has one riverine floodplain on the mainland unit (Sand 

River). However, shoreline areas on the islands and mainland are also subject to flooding 

from the lake and should be managed in accordance with NPS Management Policies 2006

(4.6.4 and 4.8.1.1) and Director’s Order 77-2: “Floodplain Management.” 

Desired Conditions: Natural floodplain values are preserved. Long- and short-term impacts 

associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains are avoided. Hazardous 

conditions associated with flooding that could affect visitor and employee safety are 

minimized. 

Strategies: Whenever possible, new developments will be located on sites outside 

floodplains. If it is not possible to avoid locating a new development on a floodplain or to 

avoid a management action that would affect a floodplain, the National Park Service will: 

• prepare and approve a statement of findings in accordance with Director’s Order 

77-2 

• use nonstructural measures as much as practicable to reduce hazards to human 

life and property while minimizing impacts on the natural resources of floodplains 

• ensure that structures and facilities are designed to be consistent with the intent of 

the standards and criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program (44 CFR 60) 

Mitigative measures will be required as part of construction to avoid any potential indirect 

effects to floodplains. Before initiating any ground-disturbing projects, further investigation 

will be conducted to determine if floodplain resources would be affected. Floodplains will 

be addressed at the project level to ensure that projects are consistent with NPS policy and 

Executive Order 11988: “Floodplain Management.” Nonstructural measures will be 

emphasized as much as practicable to reduce hazards to human life and property while 

minimizing impacts on the natural resources of floodplains. 

Lightscape 

Management / Night 

Sky 

Section 4.10 of NPS Management Policies 2006 recognizes that the night sky of parks plays 

a role in natural resource processes and the evolution of species, as well as being a feature 

that contributes to the visitor experience. The policy further states that NPS staff will seek to 

minimize the intrusion of artificial light into the night scene. In natural areas, artificial 

outdoor lighting will be limited to meeting basic safety requirements and will be shielded 

when possible. 

Desired Conditions: Opportunities to view the night sky are available. Artificial light 

sources within the park do not impair night sky viewing opportunities or adversely affect 

wildlife populations. Intrusion of artificial light from outside the park is minimized when 

practicable. 

Strategies: Impacts on the night sky caused by lights within Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore will be evaluated. NPS staff will work with park visitors, neighbors, and local 
Desired Conditions and Related Servicewide Legal and Policy Requirements 

31 

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

Lightscape 

Management / Night 

Sky 

(continued) 

government to find ways to prevent or minimize the intrusion of artificial light into the night 

scene in the park. 

In developed areas, artificial outdoor lighting will be limited to basic safety requirements and 

will be designed to minimize impacts on the night sky. 

NPS staff will evaluate the impacts on the night sky caused by park operations. If light 

sources in the park are affecting night skies, alternatives will be found to existing lighting 

sources, such as shielding lights, changing lamp types, or eliminating unnecessary sources. 

Natural Soundscape NPS Management Policies 2006 (4.9) and Director’s Order 47: “Sound Preservation and 

Noise Management” require NPS managers to strive to preserve the natural soundscape 

(natural quiet) associated with the physical and biological resources (for example, the 

sounds of the wind in the trees). The concept of natural quiet was further defined in the 

Report on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Park System (NPS 1995): 

What is natural quiet? Parks and wildernesses offer a variety of unique, pristine sounds 

not found in most urban or suburban environments. They also offer a complete 

absence of sounds that are found in such environments. Together, these two 

conditions provide a very special dimension to a park experience —quiet itself. In the 

absence of any discernible source of sound (especially manmade), quiet is an important 

element of the feeling of solitude. Quiet also affords visitors an opportunity to hear 

faint or very distant sounds, such as animal activity and waterfalls. Such an experience 

provides an important perspective on the vastness of the environment in which the 

visitor is located, often beyond the visual boundaries determined by trees, terrain, and 

the like. In considering natural quiet as a resource, the ability to clearly hear the delicate 

and quieter intermittent sounds of nature, the ability to experience interludes of 

extreme quiet for their own sake, and the opportunity to do so for extended periods of 

time is what natural quiet is all about. 

NPS regulations (36 CFR 2.12) further identify audio disturbances that are prohibited in park 

units. In addition, NPS regulations (36 CFR 3.7) state that when operating a vessel in or 

upon inland water, the noise level should not exceed 82 decibels measured at a distance of 

82 feet from the vessel. 

Desired Conditions: Natural soundscapes are preserved. Visitors have opportunities in 

most of Apostle Islands National Lakeshore to hear natural sounds. The sounds of civilization 

are generally confined to developed areas (and limited to specific hours of the day) and 

shorelines. Unreasonable noise from motorized equipment, including motor vehicles, 

considering such factors as the purposes of the park and the impact on other park users, is 

prohibited. Noise-generating activities that could adversely affect park wildlife populations 

are also prevented or minimized to the greatest extent possible. 

Strategies: Baseline data on park soundscapes will be collected to understand 

characteristics and trends in natural soundscapes. 

Activities causing excessive or unnecessary unnatural sounds in and adjacent to the park, 

including low-elevation aircraft overflights and high-speed boat races, will be monitored, 

and action will be taken to prevent or minimize unnatural sounds that adversely affect park 

resources or values or visitors’ enjoyment of them. If demand for commercial air tours 

develops, an air tour management plan will be prepared to address air tours and their 

effects on the park. 

NPS managers will work with concessioners and boat owners to help minimize the noise 

impacts of boats on the park. 

Visitors will be encouraged to avoid unnecessary noise, such as maintaining quiet hours at 

campsites. 
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND 

32 

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

Natural Soundscape 

(continued) 

Interpretive programs and materials will be provided to help visitors understand the role of 

natural sounds and the value of natural quiet. 

NPS managers will minimize noise generated by management activities by strictly regulating 

NPS administrative use of noise-producing machinery such as motorized equipment. Noise 

will be a consideration when procuring and using NPS equipment. 

NPS staff will detect, investigate, and enforce violations relating to unreasonable noise 

described in 36 CFR 2.10, 2.12, 2.15, 2.34, 2.38, 2.50, 2.51. 3.15, 4.2, and temporary rules 

1.5 in the “Superintendent’s Compendium,” will successfully prosecute violators, and will 

prevent unauthorized and illegal activities through resource education, public safety efforts, 

and deterrence. 

Cultural Resources

Archeological 

Resources 

NPS Management Policies 2006 (5.3.5.1) calls for the National Park Service to manage 

archeological resources in situ unless physical disturbance is justified and mitigated by data 

recovery or other means in concurrence with the state or tribal historic preservation officer. 

See also 36 CFR 79, “Curation of Federally Owned and Administered Archeological 

Collection” and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeological 

Documentation. Other guidance is found in Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 USC 470); DO/NPS-28: “Cultural Resources 

Management Guideline”; and Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for 

Archeology and Historic Preservation. 

Desired Conditions: Archeological sites are protected in an undisturbed condition unless it 

is determined through formal processes that disturbance or natural deterioration is 

unavoidable. Historic and prehistoric archeological sites are identified and inventoried, and 

their significance is determined and documented. Archeological investigations may also be 

authorized on a case-by-case basis to support research and cultural resource management 

objectives. 

More than 60 archeological sites have been identified in Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, 

and it is almost certain that there are a substantial number of sites not yet discovered. 

Strategies: When disturbance or deterioration is unavoidable, the site will be professionally 

documented and excavated, and the resulting artifacts, materials, and records will be 

curated and conserved in consultation with the Wisconsin state historic preservation office 

and affiliated American Indian tribal historic preservation offices. Some archeological sites 

that can be adequately protected might be interpreted to the visitor. 

In accordance with Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act, archeological 

surveys will continue to be carried out in a systematic fashion so that as much of the 

national lakeshore as is reasonably possible is surveyed. 

NPS staff will continue to detect and investigate violations of the Archeological Resource 

Protection Act; successfully prosecute violators; and prevent unauthorized and illegal 

activities through resource education, public safety efforts, and deterrence. 

Historic Structures The National Historic Preservation Act calls for analyzing the effects of possible federal 

actions on historic structures on or eligible for the national register and for inventorying and 

evaluating their significance and condition. NPS Management Policies 2006 (5.3.5.4) calls 

for the treatment of historic structures, including prehistoric ones, to be based on sound 

preservation practice to enable the long-term preservation of a structure’s historic features, 

materials, and qualities. See ”Definitions of Cultural Resource Treatments” following table 5 

for more information on treatments; also see the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for 

the Treatment of Historic Properties. 
Desired Conditions and Related Servicewide Legal and Policy Requirements 

33 

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

Historic Structures 

(continued) 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore has a wide variety of historic structures, ranging from 

lighthouse stations to fishermen’s cabins. The NPS List of Classified Structures (LCS), which 

lists all structures within the park that possess historical and/or architectural/engineering 

significance, included 158 structures as of January 2008. Many of these structures are listed 

or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 

Desired Conditions: Structures listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of 

Historic Places, are managed to ensure their long-term preservation and protection of 

character-defining features. All light towers and other national register-listed or -eligible 

properties continue to be treated and maintained. 

Strategies: Appropriate preservation treatments for historic structures will be carried out in 

accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties. As required, historic structures requiring more intensive rehabilitation or 

restoration treatments will receive further investigation and documentation (e.g., historic 

structure reports) to inform management decisions and ensure protection of historic fabric 

and architecturally significant features. Preservation of historic structures will be emphasized 

as a critical component of the park’s ongoing maintenance and resource protection 

programs. 

NPS staff will work with others to maintain historically significant properties to the extent 

possible. 

NPS staff will continue to promote and encourage relevant studies (e.g., historic structure 

reports, shoreline stabilization analyses) to provide baseline documentation in support of 

appropriate treatment and management of the light stations. 

National register nominations and supporting documentation will be prepared for eligible 

properties in consultation with the state and tribal historic preservation offices and other 

concerned parties. 

NPS staff will continue to cooperate and consult with government agencies (e.g., Wisconsin 

state historic preservation office, tribal historic preservation offices, U.S. Coast Guard, etc.), 

other interested parties and partners to achieve appropriate treatments and uses for the 

light stations in efforts to ensure their long-term preservation and continued operation as 

aids to navigation. 

NPS cultural resource, natural resource, and fire management specialists will collaborate on 

strategies to reduce the risk of fire resulting from vegetation encroachment near the light 

stations and other risk factors. 

NPS staff and volunteers will continue to interpret the light stations and other selected 

historic properties to the public, demonstrating the importance of ongoing preservation 

maintenance and stabilization undertakings along with interpretation of historical and 

cultural significance. 

NPS staff will evaluate and implement measures to minimize visitor use impacts to the light 

stations and associated landscape features and other historic structures. 

The historic significance of all the life estates and expired use and occupancy properties will 

be evaluated before making any decisions on their future. 

The park staff will, at a minimum, strive to stabilize all the structures in the life estates and 

expired use and occupancy properties that are listed or eligible for listing in the national 

register. 

NPS staff will continue to detect and investigate acts of tampering, vandalism, damage, and 

violations affecting historic structures; successfully prosecute violators; and prevent 

unauthorized and illegal activities through resource education, public safety efforts, and 
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND 

34 

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

Historic Structures 

(continued) 

deterrence. 

The National Park Service will seek national historic landmark status for the park’s collection 

of light stations. 

Ethnographic 

Resources 

NPS Management Policies 2006 (5.3.5.3) calls for gathering ethnographic information 

through anthropological and collaborative community research that recognizes the sensitive 

nature of such cultural data and documents. Executive Order 13007: “Indian Sacred Sites” 

also calls for NPS managers to accommodate access to and ceremonial use of American 

Indian sacred sites by practitioners and to preserve the sites’ physical integrity. 

Although no systematic survey of ethnographic resources has been conducted in Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore, ethnographic resources are no doubt present given the 

archipelago’s historic central role to the Ojibwe. For example, a wide variety of traditionally 

used plants are found within the park. Ceremonial sites also may be present. 

Desired Conditions: All ethnographic resources determined to be of significance to the 

Red Cliff and Bad River Bands of the Lake Superior Chippewa are protected. 

NPS staff accommodates access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian 

religious practitioners and avoids adversely affecting the physical integrity of these sacred 

sites. 

NPS general regulations on access to and use of natural and cultural resources in the area 

are applied in an informed and balanced manner that is consistent with park purposes, does 

not unreasonably interfere with American Indian use of traditional areas or sacred resources, 

and does not result in the degradation of area resources. 

Strategies: In collaboration with the affiliated tribes, NPS managers will continue to identify 

and evaluate ethnographic resources in the park through research conducted by 

professional cultural anthropologists and meeting approved NPS standards. As funding and 

programming priorities allow, research will be directed towards the preparation of reports 

and studies (e.g., ethnographic overview and assessment, traditional use study, 

ethnographic landscape study, oral histories) that inform NPS management, planning 

efforts, and decision making. 

Identified ethnographic resources of significance to the Red Cliff and Bad River Bands of the 

Lake Superior Chippewa would be documented and protected. 

NPS staff will consult with tribal governments of the Red Cliff and Bad River Bands of the 

Lake Superior Chippewa before taking actions that affect resources of significance to the 

tribes. The consultations will be open and candid so that all interested parties may evaluate 

for themselves the potential impact of relevant proposals. 

American Indian tribes linked by ties of culture to ethnically identifiable human remains, 

sacred objects, objects of cultural patrimony, and associated funerary objects will be 

consulted when such items may be disturbed or are encountered on park lands. The tribal 

and state historic preservation offices will also be consulted. 

The identities of community consultants and information about sacred and other culturally 

sensitive places and practices will be kept confidential if disclosure would result in significant 

invasion of privacy or risk harm to historic resources, or would impede traditional religious 

use by tribal members. 

NPS interpretive activities will sensitively incorporate measures to enhance understanding of 

traditional Ojibwe history and culture. 
Desired Conditions and Related Servicewide Legal and Policy Requirements 

35 

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

Ethnographic 

Resources 

(continued) 

Appropriate cultural anthropological research will be conducted in cooperation with 

affiliated tribes associated with the park. 

Cultural Landscapes NPS Management Policies 2006 (5.3.5.2) calls for the preservation of the physical attributes, 

biotic systems, and uses of cultural landscapes that contribute to historical significance. 

Although a cultural landscape inventory has not been completed for Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore, the cultural landscapes of the light stations remain remarkably intact. 

Desired Conditions: Character-defining features and attributes contributing to the 

national register significance of historic properties as cultural landscapes are appropriately 

preserved and rehabilitated. Additional inventories of other park areas are carried out to 

identify cultural landscape resources potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic 

Places. 

Strategies: NPS staff will prepare cultural landscape inventories and reports to provide 

baseline documentation of cultural landscapes in support of appropriate management of 

the park. National register nominations and supporting documentation will be prepared for 

eligible landscapes in consultation with the state and tribal historic preservation offices and 

other concerned parties. 

Cultural landscape preservation will be emphasized as a critical component of the park’s 

ongoing maintenance and resource protection programs. 

Management of cultural landscapes will focus on protecting and preserving a given 

landscape’s character-defining features and attributes in accordance with recommendations 

in an up-to-date cultural landscape report. The appropriate preservation treatment of 

cultural landscapes will be undertaken in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guideline’s for the Treatment of 

Cultural Landscapes. 

Museum Collections NPS Management Policies 2006 (5.3.5.5) states that the National Park Service “will collect, 

protect, preserve, provide access to, and use objects, specimens, and archival and 

manuscript collections...in the disciplines of archeology, ethnography, history, biology, 

geology, and paleontology to aid understanding among park visitors, and to advance 

knowledge in the humanities and sciences.” 

Desired Conditions: All museum collections and archives and their component artifacts, 

objects, specimens, documents, photographs, maps, plans, and manuscripts are properly 

inventoried, accessioned, catalogued, curated, documented, protected, and preserved, and 

adequate provision is made for their access by NPS staff and other researchers and for their 

use in exhibits, interpretation, and research. 

Strategies: The long-term management of the national lakeshore’s museum collections will 

be addressed by the planned move of the core collection to Keweenaw National Historical 

Park with headquarters in Calumet, Michigan. The Keweenaw facility will serve multiple NPS 

park units in the region, providing preservation and protection of collections from the 

various benefitting parks in the most cost-effective manner. Apostle Island’s archeological 

artifacts will continue to be curated at the NPS Midwest Archeological Center in Lincoln, 

Nebraska. 

Wilderness

Wilderness 

Management 

The Gaylord Nelson Wilderness, established on December 8, 2004, covers some 33,500 

acres, or 80% of the land area of the park. The Wilderness Act (16 USC 11131-1136), NPS 

Management Policies 2006 (6), and “NPS Reference Manual 41: Wilderness Preservation 

and Management” provide direction on management of the area. 

Desired Conditions: The National Park Service manages the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness for 

the use and enjoyment of the American people in such a manner that leaves the area 

unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness. Wilderness characteristics and 
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND 

36 

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

Wilderness 

Management 

(continued) 

values are retained and protected so that visitors continue to find opportunities for solitude 

and primitive, unconfined recreation, and so that signs of people remain substantially 

unnoticeable. Natural processes, native species, and the interrelationships among them are 

protected, maintained, and/or restored to the extent possible, while providing opportunities 

for their enjoyment as wilderness. Cultural resources such as archeological sites, cultural 

landscapes, and structures that have been included within wilderness are protected and 

maintained using methods that are consistent with preservation of wilderness character and 

values and cultural resource requirements. 

Present and future visitors enjoy the unique qualities offered in wilderness, including the 

experiences of solitude, remoteness, risk, challenge, self-sufficiency, discovery, and 

observation of an untrammeled ecosystem. The values of the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness are 

understood by the public (through education in wilderness ethics and use) and by park staff 

(through learning management skills) so that both will promote and preserve these values. 

Park operations and wilderness functions are coordinated in the park to manage and 

protect natural and cultural resources in wilderness and preserve wilderness character. 

Strategies: Activities will be managed to maintain and restore resource conditions, to 

protect visitor experiences, and to protect and restore wilderness character. 

Wilderness resources, facilities, and operational activities will be inventoried and monitored. 

The results of monitoring will be used to refine management programs. 

A minimum requirement assessment will be used to determine whether or not a proposed 

management action is appropriate or necessary for administration of the area as wilderness. 

If the action is deemed appropriate or necessary, the management method selected will be 

that which causes the least amount of impact to the physical resources and experiential 

characteristics of the wilderness. 

Managers considering the use of aircraft or other motorized equipment or mechanical 

transportation within the wilderness area must consider impacts to the character, aesthetics, 

and traditions of wilderness before considering the costs and efficiency of the equipment. 

Administrative use of motorized equipment or mechanical transport will be authorized only 

if the superintendent determines it is the minimum requirement needed to achieve the 

purposes of the area as wilderness, or it is needed in an emergency situation involving the 

health or safety of persons actually within the area. 

Treatment plans will be developed to protect and manage cultural resources in wilderness to 

ensure that cultural resources are managed and protected to avoid adverse effects. 

Treatment includes protection, stabilization, preservation, and rehabilitation (see text 

following table 5 for more details). 

An educational/interpretive program will be developed for visitors, park staff, tribes, park 

neighbors, and others that enhances the appreciation of wilderness resources, and informs 

and familiarizes people regarding acceptable and unacceptable uses and activities, 

wilderness ethics, and how to minimize impacts on wilderness. Leave No Trace practices will 

be emphasized. 

NPS staff will not modify the wilderness area to eliminate risks associated with wilderness, 

but instead will strive to provide users with appropriate information about possible risks. 

In evaluating environmental impacts, the National Park Service will take into account 

wilderness characteristics and values, including the primeval character and influence of the 

wilderness; the preservation of natural conditions (including the lack of man-made noise); 

assurances that there will be outstanding opportunities for solitude; the provision of a 

primitive and unconfined type of recreational experience; and the preservation and use of 

wilderness in an unimpaired condition. 
Desired Conditions and Related Servicewide Legal and Policy Requirements 

37 

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

Wilderness 

Management 

(continued) 

Public use activities will be monitored, and prompt action will be taken to address known or 

potential problems. NPS staff will take appropriate action to limit visitor impacts on 

resources. When resource impacts or demands for use exceed established thresholds or 

capacities, NPS staff may limit or redirect use. 

NPS staff will continue to detect and investigate violations relating to wilderness use and 

access; successfully prosecute violators; and prevent unauthorized and illegal activities 

through resource education, public safety efforts, and deterrence. 

NPS managers will continue to provide opportunities to visitors to camp and hike in the 

wilderness area. 

No new docks or group campsites will be built in or adjacent to the wilderness area because 

concentrating visitors, and the infrastructure required to prevent resource damage due to 

large groups, violates the spirit of wilderness designation. 

 

NPS staff will continue to maintain existing campsites and trails, although some may be 

relocated or redesigned for resource protection purposes. 

Research related to the wilderness ecosystem and key natural resources and visitor 

experiences will be encouraged when consistent with NPS responsibilities to preserve and 

manage wilderness. 

Visitor Use and Experience

Visitor Use and 

Experience 

The NPS Organic Act, NPS General Authorities Act, and NPS Management Policies 2006

(1.4, 8.1, 8.3.1) all address the importance of park units being available for Americans to 

enjoy and experience. Current laws, regulations, and policies leave considerable room for 

judgment about the best mix of types and levels of visitor use activities, programs, and 

facilities. For this reason, most decisions related to visitor experience and uses are addressed 

in the alternatives. However, all visitor use of the national park system must be consistent 

with the above guidelines. 

Desired Conditions: Visitors have opportunities for forms of enjoyment that are uniquely 

suited and appropriate to the superlative natural and cultural resources found in Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore. All areas of the park, with the exceptions of areas with life 

estates and areas that need special resource protection, continue to be open to visitors.

High-quality opportunities continue to be provided for visitors to understand, appreciate, 

and enjoy the park. Visitors have opportunities to understand and appreciate the 

significance of Apostle Islands National Lakeshore and its resources, and to develop a 

personal stewardship ethic. To the extent feasible, park programs, services, and facilities are 

accessible to and usable by all people, including those with disabilities. The types and levels 

of visitor use in all of Apostle Islands National Lakeshore do not result in unacceptable 

resource degradation or significant visitor dissatisfaction. No activities occur that would 

cause derogation of the values and purposes for which the park was established. 

Strategies: All of Apostle Islands National Lakeshore’s programs and facilities will be 

evaluated on a regular basis to ensure that they are accessible to the extent feasible. 

Visitor surveys will be conducted periodically to determine visitor satisfaction with park 

facilities, NPS management actions, and the experiences they are having. 

NPS staff will periodically meet with chambers of commerce, tourism agencies, and other 

land managers in the region, such as Chequamegon–Nicolet National Forest and tribal land 

managers, to improve visitor trip planning and information and orientation and 

interpretation and education opportunities for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore visitors. 

To meet the requirements of the 1978 National Parks and Recreation Act and NPS 

management policies, NPS staff will continue to monitor visitor comments on issues such as 
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND 

38 

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

Visitor Use and 

Experience 

(continued) 

crowding and availability of parking spaces and campsites at busy times of the year, and will 

monitor for resource impacts caused by visitors. Should any of the trends increase to levels 

unacceptable to managers, NPS staff will consider what actions to take. (Additional 

information on user capacity can be found in “The Alternatives” chapter.) 

If new campsites are built, they will be developed according to design standards that would 

protect resources and provide a high-quality visitor experience consistent with the Apostle 

Islands environment. 

Visitor Information, 

Interpretation, and 

Education 

A variety of methods are used to orient visitors to Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, to 

provide information about the park, and to interpret the park’s resources. Interpretation and 

education are two key park programs for achieving the park’s purposes and maintaining its 

significance. NPS Management Policies 2006 (chapter 7), and Director’s Order 6: 

“Interpretation and Education” provide guidance for park interpretive and educational 

programs. 

Desired Conditions: Interpretive and educational services/programs at the park facilitate 

intellectual and emotional connections between visitors and park resources, foster 

understanding of park resources and resource stewardship, and build a local and national 

constituency. Outreach programs through schools, organizations, and partnerships build 

connections to the park. Curriculum and place-based education inspire student 

understanding and resource stewardship. Visitors receive adequate information to orient 

themselves to the park and opportunities for a safe and enjoyable visit. Pre-trip information 

is available for visitors to plan a rewarding trip. 

Strategies: The park’s comprehensive interpretive plan will be implemented and updated as 

appropriate, with emphasis on providing information, orientation, and interpretive services 

in the most effective manner possible. 

NPS staff will stay informed of changing visitor demographics and preferences to effectively 

tailor programs for visitors. Interpretive media will be developed to support park purposes, 

significance, interpretive themes, and fundamental resources and values. 

NPS staff will continue to promote improved pre-trip planning information and orientation 

for park visitors through the park’s web site and other media. NPS staff will work with local 

communities and other entities to provide services outside park boundaries, where 

appropriate. 

NPS staff will limit electronic and interactive media use to pre-trip and visitor center use, so 

that the sights and sounds of park resources remain the primary focus of visitors while 

actually in the park. 

NPS staff will cooperate with partners, other governmental agencies, educational 

institutions, and other organizations to enrich interpretive and educational opportunities 

locally, regionally, and nationally. 

The National Park Service will continue its partnership in operating the Northern Great Lakes 

Visitor Center. 

Regardless of the future of the existing visitor centers, visitors will still be able to obtain 

information on the park at Little Sand Bay and in Bayfield. 

An education strategy plan will be developed and implemented, which outlines goals and 

actions for providing curriculum and place-based education programs.

NPS staff will continue to regularly update plans and prioritize actions needed to serve 

visitors and provide effective interpretation. 
Desired Conditions and Related Servicewide Legal and Policy Requirements 

39 

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

Visitor Information, 

Interpretation, and 

Education 

(continued) 

Efforts will continue to educate staff, visitors, and the public about park 

interpretive/education programs. 

NPS staff will continue to educate, interpret, and inform the public about the significance 

and uniqueness of park resources; conservation; ecologically sound practices; and the laws, 

rules, and regulations developed to protect park resources and provide for their safe and 

nonconsumptive use. 

Sport and 

Commercial Fishing 

Under the park’s enabling legislation and NPS Management Policies 2006 (8.2.2.5) fishing is 

allowed in Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. Recreational fishing is a popular activity in 

the park. Some commercial fishing also occurs within the park boundary. This use is 

consistent with the park’s legislative history, despite not being specifically mentioned in the 

enabling legislation. 

Desired Conditions: High-quality public opportunities continue to be available for fishing 

in the park provided that harvesting does not unacceptably impact park resources or natural 

processes. 

Strategies: NPS staff will continue to work with the Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources, Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, the Red Cliff and Bad River 

Bands of the Lake Superior Chippewa in the park, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the 

U.S.Geological Survey Biological Resource Division in monitoring fish populations and 

enforcing state and tribal regulations to ensure that harvest levels do not adversely affect 

the park’s fish populations. 

Populations of nonnative fish will be managed whenever such species threaten park 

resources or public health and when control is prudent and feasible. 

Nonnative fish will not be stocked in park waters, and NPS managers will work with other 

agencies to minimize stocking outside park boundaries that will influence park resources. 

NPS staff will continue to detect and investigate fishing violations and illegal transportation 

of fish, fish parts, water, and invasive aquatic species; apprehend and successfully prosecute 

criminal violators; and prevent unauthorized and illegal activities through resource 

education, public safety efforts, and deterrence. 

Hunting and 

Trapping 

Under the park’s enabling legislation hunting and trapping are permitted in Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore provided that harvesting does not unacceptably impact park resources 

or natural processes. Since 2002, tribal members have exercised their treaty-reserved rights 

to hunt, trap, and gather on park lands. However, with the exception of deer hunting in a 

few areas, hunting and trapping activities area fairly uncommon in the park. 

Desired Conditions: Consistent with the Wildlife Management Plan for Harvestable 

Species, high-quality opportunities for the public and tribal members continue to be 

available for hunting and trapping in the park provided that harvesting does not 

unacceptably impact park resources or natural processes. 

Strategies: NPS staff will continue to set harvest limits, dates, and seasons for hunting and 

trapping within the park. NPS staff will work with the Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources, Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, and the Red Cliff and Bad River 

Bands of the Lake Superior Chippewa in the park to develop and revise these regulations as 

needed; to monitor and enforce the regulations to ensure that harvest levels are consistent 

with the Wildlife Management Plan for Harvestable Species; and to ensure that visitors have 

a safe, quality experience. 

NPS staff may encourage the intensive harvesting of certain species (e.g., deer) in certain 

situations when needed to meet park management objectives. Habitats will not be 

manipulated to increase the numbers of a harvested species above their natural population 

ranges. 
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND 

40 

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

Hunting and 

Trapping 

(continued) 

NPS staff will continue to detect and investigate hunting and trapping violations; apprehend 

and successfully prosecute criminal violators; and prevent unauthorized and illegal activities 

through resource education, public safety efforts, and deterrence. 

Public and Employee 

Health and Safety 

NPS Management Policies 2006 places a high value on human safety and injury-free visits. 

Other federal statutes and regulations that apply to the protection of public health and 

safety include Director’s Order 50 and RM-50: “Safety and Health”; Director’s Order 58 and 

RM-58: “Structural Fire Management”; Director’s Order 83 and RM-83: “Public Health”; 

Director’s Order 51 and RM-51: “Emergency Medical Services”; Director’s Order 30 and 

RM-30: “Hazard and Solid Waste Management; 29 CFR (OSHA); and Superintendent’s 

Order #31: “Safety and Sustainability. 

Desired Conditions: While recognizing that there are limitations on their capability to 

totally eliminate all hazards, the National Park Service and its partners, contractors, and 

cooperators work to provide a safe and healthful environment for visitors and employees. 

The NPS staff strive to identify recognizable threats to safety and health and protect 

property by applying nationally accepted standards. The park is a safe workplace—no 

preventable workplace accidents, spills, or lost time injuries occur in the park. Consistent 

with mandates, the NPS staff reduces or removes known hazards or applies appropriate 

mitigating measures, such as closures, guarding, gating, and education. 

Strategies: Superintendent’s Order 31: “Safety and Sustainability” will be fully implemented and regularly updated. This order describes the park’s objectives, goals, commitments, 

and processes for employee safety. See the following web site for more information: 

www.nps.gov/apis/ naturescience/upload/APIS_Safety%20and%20Sustainability_policy.pdf 

Safety plans will be maintained to address health and safety concerns and identify 

appropriate levels of action and activities. 

Interpretive signs and materials will be provided as appropriate to notify visitors of potential 

safety concerns/hazards and procedures to help provide for a safe visit to the park and to 

ensure that visitors are aware of the possible risks of certain activities. 

Park equipment will be maintained in a safe and environmentally sound condition. 

Routine safety and environmental checks will be conducted of employees, contractors, and 

business partner operations. 

NPS staff will continue to work with local emergency and public health officials to make 

reasonable efforts to search for lost persons and rescue sick, injured, or stranded persons. 

NPS staff will make reasonable efforts to provide appropriate emergency medical services 

for a person who becomes ill or is injured. 

Other Topics

Sustainable Design/ 

Practices 

Sustainability can be defined as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising 

the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Sustainable practices and 

principles are those choices, decisions, actions, and ethics that will best achieve 

ecological/biological integrity; protect qualities and functions of air, water, soil, and other 

aspects of the natural environment; and preserve human cultures. Sustainable practices 

allow for use and enjoyment by the current generation, while ensuring that future 

generations will have the same opportunities. Sustainable practices consider local and global 

consequences to minimize the short- and long-term environmental impacts of human 

actions and developments through resource conservation, recycling, waste minimization, 

and the use of energy-efficient and ecologically responsible materials and techniques. 
Desired Conditions and Related Servicewide Legal and Policy Requirements 

41 

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

Sustainable Design/ 

Practices 

(continued) 

The federal government has been emphasizing the adoption of sustainable practices. In 

particular, Executive Order 13423 strengthens federal environmental, energy, and 

transportation management. In addition, NPS Management Policies 2006 (1.8, 9.1), 

Director’s Order 13: “Environmental Management Systems,” and Superintendent’s Order 

31: “Safety and Sustainability” provide direction regarding sustainability. 

Desired Conditions: The park is a leader in sustainable practices. All decisions regarding 

park operations, planning, facilities management, and development in Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore, from the initial concept through design and construction, reflect 

principles of resource conservation. Thus, all park developments and operations are 

sustainable to the maximum degree possible and practical. New developments and existing 

facilities are located, built, and modified according to the Guiding Principles of Sustainable 

Design (NPS 1993) or other similar guidelines. All new facilities are built to qualify for silver 

LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) designation or better. The park’s 

land, water, soil, wildlife, and other natural resources are managed in ways that improve 

their condition and mimic or restore natural conditions wherever possible. The park has 

state-of-the-art water systems for conserving water, using energy conservation 

technologies, and using renewable energy sources whenever possible. Nontoxic, 

biodegradable, and/or durable materials are used in the park whenever possible. The 

reduction, use, and recycling of materials is promoted, while materials that are nondurable, 

environmentally detrimental, or require transportation from great distances are avoided as 

much as possible. The park’s carbon footprint is minimized as much as possible. 

Strategies: Superintendent’s Order 31: “Safety and Sustainability” will be fully 

implemented. This order describes the park’s objectives, goals, commitments, and processes 

for sustainability. See the following web site for more information: http://www.nps.gov/ 

apis/ naturescience/upload/APIS_Safety%20and%20Sustainability_policy.pdf 

NPS staff will work with experts both in and outside the agency to make the park’s facilities 

and programs sustainable to the maximum degree possible. Partnerships will be sought to 

implement sustainable practices in the park. NPS staff also will work with stakeholders and 

business partners to augment NPS environmental leadership and sustainability efforts. 

NPS managers will perform value analysis to examine the energy, environmental, and 

economic implications of proposed park developments. 

NPS staff will support and encourage the service of suppliers, and contractors that follow 

sustainable practices. 

Rehabilitation (recycling) of existing buildings and facilities generally will be supported over 

new construction. 

Recycling of solid waste generated at the park will be increased as much as possible. 

Energy use will be substantially reduced, and more energy-efficient practices and renewable 

energy sources will be promoted wherever possible. Vehicles and boats will be converted to 

alternative fuels, such as hybrid electric, biodiesel, or propane, and the number or size of 

vehicles or boats will be reduced if possible. 

Interpretive programs will address sustainable practices both within and outside the park. 

Visitors will be educated on the principles of environmental leadership and sustainability 

through exhibits, media, and printed material. 

NPS staff will be educated to have a comprehensive understanding of their relationship to 

environmental leadership and sustainability. 

The availability of existing or planned facilities in nearby communities and on adjacent lands, 

as well as the possibility of joint facilities with other agencies, will be considered when 

deciding whether to pursue new developments in the park. This will ensure that any 
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND 

42 

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

Sustainable Design/ 

Practices 

(continued) 

additional facilities in the park are necessary, appropriate, and cost-effective. 

NPS staff will work with local communities to develop comprehensive greening plan(s) 

where appropriate. By collaborating with local communities, the National Park Service can 

reduce outside impacts to the park and maximize conservation efforts in the region. 

NPS managers will measure and track environmental compliance and performance. Audits 

will ensure environmental compliance, emphasize best management practices, and educate 

employees at all levels about environmental management responsibilities. Periodic carbon 

footprint audits will be conducted. 

Climate Change Climate change is occurring and is expected to affect the park’s weather, resources (e.g., 

shorelines, vegetation, fish and wildlife, historic structures and light stations, submerged 

cultural resources), facilities (e.g., docks), and visitors (e.g., use seasons, recreational fishing, 

navigational hazards). These changes will have direct implications on resource management 

and park operations, and on the way visitors use and experience the park. Although climate 

change will affect the park during the life of this plan, many of the specific effects, the rate 

of changes, and the severity of impacts are not known. 

 

While there are no laws or policies that provide direct guidance on addressing climate 

change, there is guidance that indirectly addresses climate change, including the NPS 

Organic Act, Executive Order 13423 (includes requirements for the reduction of greenhouse 

gases and other energy and water conservation measures), Department of the Interior 

Secretarial Order 3226 (ensures that climate change impacts be taken into account in 

connection with departmental planning and decision making), and NPS Management 

Policies 2006 (including sections on environmental leadership [1.8], sustainable energy 

design [9.1.1.6], and energy management [9.1.7]). 

Desired Conditions: Apostle Islands National Lakeshore is a leader in its efforts to address 

climate change, reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, and increasing its use of renewable 

energy and other sustainable practices so it is a carbon neutral park. Education and 

interpretive efforts help park visitors understand the process of global warming, climate 

change, the threats to the park and the wider environment, and how they can respond. 

Park staff promote innovation, best practices, adaptive management, and partnerships to 

respond to the challenges of climate change and its effects on park resources. Park staff 

proactively monitor, plan, and adapt to the effects of climate change by using the best 

information as it becomes available. 

Strategies: Apostle Islands National Lakeshore will continue as a member of the Climate 

Friendly Parks program, measuring park-based greenhouse emissions, developing 

sustainable strategies to mitigate these emissions and adapt to climate change impacts, 

educating the public about these efforts, and developing future action plans. 

Scientific studies and inventories will be encouraged to identify and document changes 

caused by climate change, to predict potential changes, and to assist in identifying potential 

responses to climate change. 

Since emissions from all motorized craft contribute to the park’s emissions, options to 

improve transportation efficiencies will be explored, including NPS and visitor activities on 

the water and on the mainland. Emissions from visitors flying or driving to get to the park, 

and from employees commuting to work and traveling for business, all add to the emissions 

associated with the park. Opportunities for alternative transportation options, as well as 

effective carbon offset strategies, will be explored. 

Park education and interpretive efforts will engage park employees, partners, visitors, and 

the public on climate change, providing the latest park research and monitoring data and 

trends, informing the public about what responses are being taken at the park, and 
Desired Conditions and Related Servicewide Legal and Policy Requirements 

43 

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

Climate Change 

(continued) 

inspiring visitors to reduce their carbon footprint. 

NPS staff will work with local, regional, and national agencies, universities, and other 

partners to conduct scenario planning for climate change, and identify actions that can be 

taken to respond to these changes. 

Anticipated climate change impacts, such as decreases in lake levels and changes in 

vegetation, will be incorporated into future management plans. 

(See also the strategies identified above under “Sustainable Design/Practices.”) 

Transportation to 

and within the Park 

The location, type, and design of multimodal transportation facilities (e.g., roads, bridges, 

parking areas, docks, sidewalks, pedestrian trails) strongly influence the quality of the visitor 

experience and the preservation of park resources. These systems also affect, to a great 

degree, how and where park resources would be affected by visitors. NPS Management 

Policies 2006 (9.2) calls for NPS managers to identify solutions to transportation issues that 

preserve natural and cultural resources while providing a high-quality visitor experience. 

Management decisions regarding transportation require a comprehensive alternatives 

analysis and thorough understanding of their consequences. Traditional practices of building 

wider roads and larger parking areas to accommodate more motor vehicles are not 

accepted practice today. 

 

Visitors access the mainland unit of Apostle Islands National Lakeshore primarily in private 

motor vehicles via county and state highways, and the islands via motorboats, sailboats, or 

kayaks. How people travel to the park and how they travel within the park plays a major 

role in the protection of park resources, in visitor levels and the visitor experience, and the 

need for modified or new infrastructure. In this regard, it is critical for the National Park 

Service to participate as a partner in local, regional, and statewide planning efforts that 

would affect transportation to and within the park. 

Some elements of this topic regarding transportation to and on the islands (i.e., new docks, 

mooring buoys, trails) are addressed within the alternatives. 

Desired Conditions: Visitors have reasonable access to Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, 

and there are connections from the park to regional transportation systems as appropriate. 

Transportation facilities in the park (e.g., roads, parking areas, trails) provide access for the 

protection, use, and enjoyment of park resources. Transportation facilities preserve the 

integrity of the surroundings, respect ecological processes, and provide the highest visual 

quality and a rewarding visitor experience. 

Strategies: All currently legal forms of transportation in the park will continue under 

various local, state, and federal rules.

NPS staff will participate in transportation studies and planning processes that may result in 

links to the park or impacts to park resources. NPS managers will work closely with other 

federal agencies (e.g., U.S. Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway 

Administration); tribal, state and local governments (e.g., Wisconsin Department of 

Transportation, Bayfield and Ashland counties); regional planning bodies; citizen groups; 

and others to enhance partnering and funding opportunities, and to encourage effective 

regional transportation planning. Working with these agencies and other stakeholders on 

transportation issues, NPS managers will seek reasonable access to the park, and intermodal 

connections to regional multimodal transportation systems as appropriate. 

In general, the preferred modes of transportation will be those that contribute to maximum 

visitor enjoyment of, and minimum adverse impacts to, park resources and values. Before a 

decision is made to design, construct, expand, or upgrade transportation access to or within 

the park, nonconstruction alternatives—such as distributing visitors to alternative 

locations—would be fully explored. If nonconstruction alternatives would not achieve 

satisfactory results, then a development solution should consider whether the project 
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND 

44 

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

Transportation to 

and within the Park 

(continued) 

• is appropriate and necessary to meet management needs 

• is designed with extreme care and sensitivity to the landscape through which it 

passes 

• would not cause adverse impacts to natural and cultural resources, and would 

minimize or mitigate those impacts that cannot be avoided 

• reduces traffic congestion, noise, air pollution, and adverse effects on park 

resources and values 

• would not violate federal, state, or local air pollution control plans or regulations 

• would not cause use in the area to exceed the area’s user capacity 

• incorporates the principles of energy conservation and sustainability 

• is able to demonstrate financial and operational sustainability 

• incorporates universal design principles to provide for accessibility for all people, 

including those with disabilities 

• takes maximum advantage of interpretive opportunities and scenic values 

• is based on a comprehensive and multidisciplinary approach that is fully consistent 

with the park’s General Management Plan and “Asset Management Plan” 

• enhances the visitor experience by offering new or improved interpretive or visitor 

opportunities, by simplifying travel within the park, or by making it easier or safer 

to see park features 

A tour boat operation, run by a concessioner, has been determined to be necessary and 

appropriate, and will continue to enable visitors to go to selected islands (e.g., Oak, 

Raspberry, Stockton). 

The National Park Service will require, through the concessions contract, concessioner(s) to 

employ energy conservation and sustainable transportation practices. 

NPS staff will continue to work with the cruise boat/water taxi concession operator, NPS 

business partners, and marina operators to ensure that opportunities for safe, reasonable 

access are provided to visitors seeking to reach the islands, consistent with legal mandates, 

park purposes, desired resource and visitor experience conditions, and contractual 

obligations. 

All beaches, including those adjacent to wilderness, will remain open to the beaching of 

boats, except for temporary closures to protect resources or visitor safety. 

NPS managers will develop a commercial services plan to identify the most appropriate 

means of managing commercial transportation and guiding services within the park. 

Utilities and 

Communication 

Facilities 

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 directs all federal agencies to assist in the national 

goal of achieving a seamless telecommunications system throughout the United States by 

accommodating requests by telecommunication companies for the use of property, rightsof-way, and easements to the extent allowable under each agency’s mission. The National 

Park Service is legally obligated to permit telecommunication infrastructure in the park units 

if such facilities can be structured to avoid interference with park unit purposes. 

Rights-of-way for utilities to pass over, under, or through NPS property may be issued only 

pursuant to specific statutory authority, and generally only if there is no practicable 

alternative to such use of NPS lands. Statutory authorities in 16 USC 5 and in NPS 

Management Policies 2006 (8.6.4) provide guidance on these rights-of-way. 

No commercial telecommunication facilities or utilities exist in Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore, and none are expected during the life of this plan. 

Desired Conditions: Park resources or public enjoyment are not denigrated by 

nonconforming uses. No commercial telecommunication facilities are built in the park, and 
Desired Conditions and Related Servicewide Legal and Policy Requirements 

45 

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

Utilities and 

Communication 

Facilities 

(continued) 

towers built to facilitate NPS or other agency communication are the bare minimum, 

unobtusive, and limited to developed areas of the park No new nonconforming use or 

rights-of-way are permitted through the park without specific statutory authority and 

approval by the director of the National Park Service or his/her representative, and uses are 

permitted only if there is no practicable alternative to such use of NPS lands. 

Strategies: If necessary, and there are no other options, new utilities and communications 

infrastructure will be placed in association with existing structures and along roadways or 

other established corridors in developed areas. NPS staff will work with service companies, 

local communities, and the public to locate new telecommunication structures and utility 

lines outside of the wilderness area and so that there is minimal effect on park resources in 

nonwilderness areas. For extension into undisturbed areas in nonwilderness areas, routes 

will be selected that minimize impacts on Apostle Islands National Lakeshore’s natural, 

cultural, and visual resources. 

Utility lines will be placed underground to the maximum extent possible. 

NPS policies will be followed in processing commercial telecommunications applications. 

NPS managers will develop a superintendent’s order defining criteria for locating 

communications and utility infrastructure in the park. 
46 

SCOPE OF THE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / 

WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN / ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPACT STATEMENT 

NPS staff, the general public, and 

representatives from local, state, and federal 

agencies, Indian tribes, and various 

organizations identified a variety of issues and 

concerns during scoping (early information 

gathering) for this plan. An issue is defined as 

an opportunity, conflict, or problem regarding 

the use or management of public lands. 

Comments were solicited at public meetings, 

through planning newsletters, and on the 

park’s web site (see the “Consultation and 

Coordination” chapter). 

Comments received during scoping 

demonstrated that there is much that the 

public likes about the park—its management, 

use, and facilities. The issues and concerns 

generally involve determining the appropriate 

visitor uses, types and levels of facilities, 

services, and activities that would be 

compatible with desired resource conditions. 

The alternatives in the General Management 

Plan / Wilderness Management Plan provide 

strategies for addressing the issues within the 

context of the park purpose, significance, and 

special mandates. 

PLANNING ISSUES / 

CONCERNS TO BE ADDRESSED 

Seven major issues and concerns are 

addressed by this plan. The plan also provides 

some general directions for another issue—

climate change. In addressing all of these 

issues, the planning team also needed to 

consider another basic underlining issue: How 

can the National Park Service effectively and 

efficiently manage the park with limited 

budgets and rising costs. 

Future of the Light Stations 

Apostle Island National Lakeshore’s six light 

stations were established between 1856 and 

1891 to aid navigation through this portion of 

Lake Superior. They represent one of the 

largest and most diverse collections of light 

stations in the United States and are 

collectively listed in the National Register of 

Historic Places. The light stations are the most 

visible historic resources in the park, and they 

are viewed by many as icons inextricably 

linked to the region’s cultural history. Cultural 

landscape features associated with the light 

stations (e.g., keeper’s quarters, outbuildings, 

walkways, gardens, and historic archeological 

remains) contribute to the overall 

understanding and appreciation of light 

station activities and operations during the 

latter half of the 19th century and the first half 

of the 20th century. The light stations 

continue to function as vital navigational aids, 

demonstrating their ongoing importance to 

Great Lakes ship traffic and national 

commerce. 

With the exception of Raspberry Island Light, 

which was recently restored, structural 

stabilization and/or rehabilitation work is 

needed for all the other light stations. The 

lighthouses are kept “presentable” on the 

exterior, but the interiors are sorely in need of 

preservation. Decay in all of them exceeds the 

park staff’s ability to keep up, and historic 

fabric is slowly deteriorating. A growing 

number of safety deficiencies (such as 

deteriorating handrails) also are making it 

increasingly difficult to provide access into the 

lighthouses. In addition, natural weathering 

and erosional processes have resulted in 

deterioration of the light stations and 
Scope of the General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement 

47 

associated resources, threatening the longterm structural and historical integrity of these 

properties. Severe shoreline erosion adjacent 

to the Raspberry Island and Outer Island light 

stations necessitated the recent installation of 

rubble rock revetments to stabilize steep 

slopes and protect critical historic resources. 

Vegetation is encroaching into formerly 

cleared areas around many of the light 

stations, contributing to the loss of some of 

the cultural landscape as well as the buildup of 

fire fuels. As a result, wildland fire poses an 

increased risk to the light stations, although 

fire frequency on the islands is low. 

The issue facing the National Park Service is 

to determine which level of preservation is 

appropriate for each of the light stations. 

Preserving, maintaining, interpreting, and 

studying the light stations requires a 

substantial allocation of the park’s budget. 

The logistical difficulties of undertaking 

historic preservation activities within the park 

add considerably to costs. The park does not 

have, and is not likely to receive, sufficient 

funds to do regular maintenance and other 

preservation treatments on all of the light 

stations and associated structures. 

Management decisions regarding appropriate 

treatment are hindered by a lack of detailed 

guidance documentation (e.g., historic 

structure reports and cultural landscape 

reports) for most of the light stations. The 

park also does not have enough staff to 

interpret and maintain all of the light stations. 

Future of the Life Estates and the 

Expired Use and Occupancy Properties 

The legislation that established Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore (PL 91-424) 

enabled owners with improved properties in 

the park to continue non-commercial 

residential use of the properties for a term of 

up to 25 years or for life (i.e., life estates) if 

they wanted to continue using the properties 

following the sale to the federal government. 

Those who chose to retain the right of use and 

occupancy were compensated up front for the 

fair market value of their properties, minus the 

value of the reserved interest. All of the fixed 

term use and occupancy estates have expired. 

Three life estates still exist on the southeast tip 

and west end of Sand Island (covering a total 

of about 59 acres, including Camp Stella, the 

Campbell-Jensch cottages, and the West Bay 

Club); another life estate is on the sandspit on 

the southeast side of Bear Island (about 10.5 

acres); and three other life estates are on the 

eastern shore of Rocky Island (about 16 acres, 

including part of the fishing settlement). All 

properties encumbered by life estates are 

owned in fee by the United States, subject to 

the outstanding life estate interest. Owners of 

life estates are required to maintain the 

properties. 

The structures and landscapes in the park’s 

use and occupancy properties and life estates 

have been maintained by the lessees to varying 

degrees. Many of the structures have been 

well maintained, but some are in poor 

condition. Some of the structures, such as the 

West Bay Club and Camp Stella, have been 

determined eligible for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places, although historic 

structure and cultural landscape reports still 

need to be completed for most of the 

properties. 

When these remaining properties come under 

NPS management, park staff will assume 

responsibility for their maintenance needs. 

Priorities need to be set regarding the uses and 

level of preservation for each property, 

structure, dock, and landscape. As publicly 

owned components of the park, it is 

imperative that the public interest be the 

paramount consideration for these properties. 

Appropriate Management of the 

Nonwilderness Areas on the Islands and 

Waters within the Park Boundary 

This issue focuses on what changes should 

occur, if any, in the visitor experience 

opportunities, resource conditions, and 
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND 

48 

facilities on the islands and portions of the 

islands that are not designated wilderness. 

These areas, such as Sand Island and 

Stockton-Presque Isle, are among the most 

popular areas in the park. Basswood and Sand 

islands were not included in the designated 

wilderness in order for the National Park 

Service to have flexibility in the future to 

possibly provide limited developments to 

address a variety of visitor needs and 

experiences that wilderness designation 

would preclude. Long Island also was not 

included in the designated wilderness. 

Several factors affect this issue. The overall 

number of visitors going to the nonwilderness 

areas on the islands has remained relatively 

steady over the past 10 years. Campsites are 

sometimes full on the weekends during the 

peak season. Visitors often cannot get the 

campsites they want when they want them, 

such as on Sand, York, and Oak islands. Some 

people would like the National Park Service to 

provide more visitor facilities and/or 

opportunities for visitors on the islands, while 

others believe no changes should occur. 

Kayak outfitters are interested in additional 

group campsites, such as on Sand, Oak, and 

Basswood islands. There are only a few such 

sites, which limits where large kayak groups 

can go. Desires have also been expressed for 

more day use picnic areas, such as on 

Raspberry, Stockton, and Sand islands. 

Some of the park’s campsites are showing 

signs of overuse. The design or condition of 

some campsites has led to soil compaction and 

the loss of vegetation. 

Some nonwilderness areas have sensitive 

resources and are vulnerable to damage from 

visitors, such as on Stockton-Presque Isle and 

Long Island. An extensive network of social 

trails (i.e., those created by visitors) has 

formed on the Stockton-Presque Isle 

tombolo, affecting the fragile dune vegetation 

that grows there. The Stockton Island 

campground also occupies prime black bear 

habitat. With campsites stretched out over a 

long distance, the potential for bear-people 

conflicts is higher than with nearly any other 

potential design. Problems with bears can lead 

to the closure of campsites, docks, and trails, 

or to the removal of a bear. 

Long Island supports important habitat for 

migratory birds and piping plovers, an 

endangered species. Due to its proximity to 

Ashland and Washburn, the island also is a 

popular day use area for local residents. 

Because the island has few signs of being part 

of a national park unit and rarely has NPS staff 

present, illegal uses have occurred here, such 

as the use of jet skis in park waters (which are 

banned in the park) or dogs off leash on the 

land. The Bad River Band of the Lake 

Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians has in the 

past expressed interest in any issues affecting 

Long Island. 

The logistics of transporting goods and staff 

via boats to the islands, spread out over some 

290,000 acres and with highly changeable 

weather, makes operation of the park very 

challenging—and costly. The park staff does 

not have sufficient funds or enough people to 

adequately meet all of the needs it faces in the 

nonwilderness areas, including maintaining 

current campsites, trails, docks, and other 

visitor and administrative facilities; providing 

interpretive and visitor protection services; 

and inventorying, monitoring, and managing 

resources. As a result, difficult decisions need 

to be regularly made on what work gets done 

and what is put off. Adding new facilities will 

increase demands and costs for the park staff. 

Appropriate Management of 

the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness 

This issue focuses on what changes should 

occur, if any, in the visitor experience 

opportunities and visitor facilities and in the 

natural resource conditions on the islands and 

portions of the islands that are designated 

wilderness. 
Scope of the General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement 

49 

Several factors affect this issue. Although a 

relatively small percentage (less than 20%) of 

overall island visitors spend time in the 

wilderness, that number has been holding 

steady or increasing in some areas over time. 

In particular, the number of kayakers, who 

can land and camp along many of the islands’ 

shorelines, has been increasing. 

Some wilderness campsites are showing signs 

of overuse. Like the nonwilderness campsites, 

the design or condition of some wilderness 

campsites has led to resource impacts. In the 

camping zones that do not have designated 

campsites, people sometimes repeatedly camp 

in the same desirable locations near beaches 

on some islands, resulting in “unofficial” 

campsites with compacted soils, disturbed 

vegetation, trash, and human waste. 

Some areas in the wilderness have sensitive 

resources and are vulnerable to damage from 

visitors, such as sandscapes on Outer and Cat 

islands. 

Another issue related to wilderness is 

determining when and under what conditions 

should managers actively intervene in 

wilderness. As established by the Wilderness 

Act, the objectives to manage wilderness for 

ecological conditions (the forces of nature) 

and for wildness (minimal imprint of man’s 

work) can be in conflict. Notwithstanding the 

islands’ long and continuing history of use by 

American Indians, including the Gaylord 

Nelson Wilderness area, the National Park 

Service must grapple with how to manage 

those parts of the wilderness where cultural 

resources are present. 

Finally, as in the nonwilderness areas, the 

logistics of transporting goods and staff via 

boats to the islands is very challenging and 

costly. 

Appropriate Management 

of the Mainland Unit 

This issue only examines the future of NPS 

lands on the mainland within the park 

boundary—not the mainland visitor centers 

and administrative facilities. 

The mainland portion of Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore consists of a 12-mile 

narrow strip of shoreline, often only 0.25 mile 

wide, lying between Little Sand Bay and 

Meyers Beach. Two-thirds of the mainland 

unit falls within the boundaries of the Red 

Cliff Indian Reservation. The mainland unit is 

fragmented by four-wheel drive roads and 

nonfederal land. The Town of Russell has an 

11-acre inholding within the park at Little 

Sand Bay and maintains a boat launch, 

campground, small parking area, and baseball 

field next to the NPS facilities. Development 

of residences is expected to continue 

increasing along the boundary of the mainland 

unit. 

Almost all of the use of the mainland unit 

occurs at its two ends, which are easily 

accessible by road. On one end the park staff 

maintains one of the park’s major visitor 

facilities at Little Sand Bay. On the other end, 

Meyers Beach has recently become a popular 

day use area in both summer and winter, since 

it is the primary access point to the mainland 

sea caves. Together, Little Sand Bay and 

Meyers Beach account for more than half of 

the park’s total visitation in recent years. 

This issue focuses on what visitor experience 

opportunities should be offered on the 

mainland unit. What changes should occur, if 

any, in the current visitor experience 

opportunities and related visitor facilities? 

Should the mainland provide its own 

recreational and educational/interpretive 

opportunities, distinct from the islands, or 

should the mainland primarily serve as a 

portal for visitors going out to the islands? 

Future of the Mainland 

NPS Visitor Centers 

Two mainland visitor centers are operated by 

the National Park Service. The main park 

visitor center is in Bayfield, while a smaller 

visitor center is at Little Sand Bay. In addition, 
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND 

50 

the National Park Service cooperates in the 

operation of the multiagency Northern Great 

Lakes Visitor Center near Ashland. 

The Bayfield Visitor Center is in the Old 

Bayfield County Courthouse that is leased 

from the city of Bayfield. In the 1970s, the city 

and a group of concerned citizens rallied to 

restore the courthouse and ensure its longterm preservation. Although the NPS 

presence in the building has helped in that 

regard, the building is several blocks from the 

waterfront where most tourists congregate, 

and only about 10%–15% of the 150,000 to 

200,000 visitors coming to the park actually 

stop at the visitor center. An even smaller 

fraction of Bayfield’s tourists come to the 

Bayfield Visitor Center. The space at the 

Bayfield Visitor Center is cramped for visitor 

exhibits and the bookstore. The building also 

has no room for storage, expansion, or sharing 

space with any partners. 

The Little Sand Bay Visitor Center is a 

seasonal operation at a major visitor site. It is a 

small facility and does not have adequate 

space for visitor exhibits. The building has 

physically deteriorated and cannot be 

restored in a cost-effective way. 

Although not on the mainland, the Stockton 

Island Visitor Center is commonly unstaffed 

and also has limited exhibit space. However, 

this facility meets the current needs of the 

smaller number of visitors that it serves. 

The Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center 

near Ashland is a relatively new facility with 

excellent space for exhibits, visitor 

information services, and education 

programs. The mission of the visitor center is 

to help people connect with the historic, 

cultural, and natural resources of the 

Northern Great Lakes region. Thus, the 

center has a much broader focus than just the 

park. The National Park Service helps fund 

and staff this visitor center as part of a 

partnership with the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, and state and local 

organizations. NPS funding for that 

partnership vies with funding for the rest of 

the park, and therefore is not likely to increase 

beyond the current level. Although many 

tourists stop at the visitor center, it is not clear 

how many park visitors use this facility. 

This issue looks at whether or not the existing 

NPS mainland visitor centers are providing 

services (e.g., visitor orientation, 

interpretation, assistance) effectively. Are all 

of these visitor centers needed? Are they being 

used by visitors and meeting their needs? Or 

are there other possibilities for the operation 

of the mainland visitor centers? 

Future of NPS Operational and 

Administrative Facilities on the Mainland 

The National Park Service has administrative 

and/or operational facilities in the Bayfield 

Visitor Center (park headquarters), at Little 

Sand Bay, and at Roys Point. Most of the park 

administrative offices are in the Bayfield 

headquarters/visitor center. This historic 

building is leased from the city. There is no 

space for growth in staff in the building. 

Because the headquarters does not include a 

marina on the waterfront and is across the 

peninsula from the mainland unit, staff must 

frequently drive either 3 miles to Roys Point 

or 13 miles to Little Sand Bay. 

The Little Sand Bay administrative and 

operational facilities consist of seasonal 

dormitories, docks, fuel facilities, artifact 

storage space, offices for several rangers, and a 

fire cache. All of the structures were designed 

as seasonal facilities and are of marginal 

quality and construction. 

Roys Point has a large warehouse (which also 

provides offices for rangers and maintenance 

staff), docks, fuel facilities, workshops, and 

storage space for boats, vehicles, and 

equipment. The Roys Point facility is being 

hemmed in by private residential and marina 

development on all sides. The Roys Point 

facilities are leased. Long-term decisions on 
Scope of the General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement 

51 

the renewal of this lease are contingent, in 

part, on the direction of this plan. 

This issue focuses on whether or not the 

existing administrative and operational 

facilities are functioning effectively and 

efficiently, meeting the needs of both park 

staff and visitors. With the facilities being in 

the three locations mentioned above, the park 

staff is fragmented. The lack of a central 

facility means that critical tools, equipment, 

and supplies must be stored in several 

locations. Staff must travel back and forth 

between the facilities. Likewise, the ability of 

the park staff to respond to emergencies (e.g., 

search and rescue and law enforcement) is not 

as effective as it could be due to the staff being 

scattered on the mainland. Roys Point has an 

advantage of being a good location to access 

the islands to respond to an emergency; the 

response time from Bayfield is slightly longer. 

Climate Change 

Climate change refers to any significant 

changes in average climatic conditions (such 

as mean temperature, precipitation, or wind) 

or variability (such as seasonality and storm 

frequency) lasting for an extended period 

(decades or longer). Recent reports by the 

U.S. Climate Change Science Program, the 

National Academy of Sciences, and the United 

Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change provide clear evidence that climate 

change is occurring and will accelerate in the 

coming decades. While climate change is a 

global phenomenon, it manifests differently 

depending on regional and local factors. 

Climate change is expected to result in many 

changes to the Lake Superior region and 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore in 

particular. Some of these changes are already 

occurring. There are documented increases in 

air and lake temperature and reductions in ice 

cover locally, and evidence that spring events 

are happening earlier regionally. Changes that 

are expected to occur in the future in the area 

include hotter, drier summers; warmer 

winters; less winter ice; warmer water; lower 

lake levels; rapidly increasing range of 

nonnative species like gypsy moths; increases 

in the frequency, size, and intensity of forest 

fires; reductions or disappearance of species at 

the edges of their ranges (which includes 

almost all of the unique species on the Great 

Lakes islands), among other changes (NPS 

2007f). 

Climate change will also affect the visitors’ 

park experience in a variety of ways, including 

• changes in wildlife activities, such as 

fishing and bird-watching 

• longer summer season 

• shorter winter recreation season 

• infrastructure problems (e.g., fixed docks 

may be too high and water may be too 

shallow to access some docks) 

• new navigational hazards (e.g., sand bars) 

• increasing frequency and intensity of 

severe storms, which may lead to more 

rescues 

• longer mosquito and black fly seasons 

• changes to recreational fishing 

opportunities due to fish habitat changes 

as water warms, the season lengths, and 

the depth of warm surface waters expands 

Climate change may have potential impacts on 

cultural resources. For example, lower water 

levels in Lake Superior could result in the 

exposure of submerged archeological 

resources near the shorelines of the islands. 

Exposure of these resources, including 

historic shipwrecks and currently unidentified 

prehistoric sites, could place them at 

increased risk of disturbance from erosion, 

development, visitor use activities, looting, 

and other factors. Although historic structures 

and cultural landscape features are currently 

at some risk from wildland fires and storm 

damage, these risks could potentially increase 

as climate change intensifies the severity of 

regional fires, and storms. 

Climate change is a far-reaching and longterm issue that will affect the park, its 

resources, visitors, and management, beyond 
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND 

52 

the scope of this General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Management Plan and its 15- to 20-

year timeframe. Although some effects of 

climate change are considered known or likely 

to occur, many potential impacts are 

unknown. Much depends on the rate at which 

temperature will continue to rise and whether 

global emissions of greenhouse gases can be 

mitigated before serious ecological thresholds 

are reached. 

Climate change science is a rapidly advancing 

field, and new information is being collected 

and released continually. Because the drivers 

of climate change are largely outside the control of park staff, the National Park Service 

alone does not have the ability to prevent 

climate change from happening. The full 

extent of climate change impacts to resources 

and visitor experience is not known, nor do 

managers and policy makers yet agree on the 

most effective response mechanisms for 

minimizing impacts and adapting to change. 

Thus, unlike the other issues noted above, this 

plan does not provide definitive solutions or 

directions to resolving the issue of controlling 

impacts of climate change on Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore. Rather, the plan provides 

some general directions and strategies that can 

help minimize the park’s contribution to climate change (see the desired conditions and 

strategies earlier in this chapter). The plan also 

recognizes that the management actions and 

facilities being proposed in all of the alternatives need to be adopted with future climate 

change and impacts in mind because past 

conditions are not necessarily useful guides 

for future planning. In the “Environmental 

Consequences” chapter of the document, the 

effects analysis includes climate changes on a 

broad scale. 

PLANNING ISSUES/CONCERNS NOT 

BEING CONSIDERED IN THE GENERAL 

MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS 

MANAGEMENT PLAN 

The terms of life estates on use and occupancy 

properties will not be extended or changed. It 

was the intent of Congress when the park was 

established to fully integrate these properties 

into the park when the contracts expired. 

Under the enabling legislation establishing 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, the park 

boundary extends 0.25 mile from the 

shoreline of the mainland unit and around 

each island. Although many visitors probably 

consider the waters between the islands to be 

part of the park, the state of Wisconsin 

controls the remainder of the archipelago’s 

waters. (The National Park Service has 

jurisdiction over less than 15% of the waters.) 

The state has designated the waters in the 

lakeshore boundary as Outstanding Resource 

Waters; currently there is not a proposal for 

the water between the islands to carry the 

same designation. In a related but separate 

issue, the multiple jurisdictions evident in the 

Apostle Islands archipelago makes it challenging for visitors and managers to ascertain 

what is in and outside the park. A boundary 

change incorporating more of the waters of 

the archipelago would enable the National 

Park Service to enforce one consistent set of 

rules and activities for more of the Lake 

Superior water resources between the islands. 

As a part of the planning process, the planning 

team assessed the park boundary and 

determined the boundary was adequate to 

protect resources and provide for visitor use 

and park operations at this time. The separate 

issue of jurisdiction did not, at this time, rise 

to a need requiring a formal boundary change. 

IDENTIFICATION OF IMPACT TOPICS 

An important part of planning is seeking to 

understand the consequences of making one 

decision over another. To this end, general 

management plans are typically accompanied 
Scope of the General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement 

53 

by an environmental impact statement. 

Environmental impact statements identify the 

anticipated impacts of possible actions on 

resources and on park visitors and neighbors. 

Impacts are organized by topic, such as 

“impacts on the visitor experience” or 

“impacts on vegetation.” Impact topics serve 

to focus the environmental analysis and to 

ensure the relevance of impact evaluation. 

Impact topics identified for the park’s General 

Management Plan / Wilderness Management 

Plan / Environmental Impact Statement were 

identified based on federal laws and other 

legal requirements, Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) guidelines, NPS management 

policies, staff subject-matter expertise, and 

issues and concerns expressed by the public 

and other agencies early in the planning 

process (see previous section). The planning 

team selected the impact topics for analysis 

based on the potential for each topic to be 

affected by the alternatives. Also included is a 

discussion of some impact topics that are 

commonly addressed in general management 

plans, but that are dismissed in this plan for 

the reasons given.

The “Environmental Consequences” chapter 

contains a more detailed description of each 

impact topic to be affected by the actions 

described in the alternatives. 

Impact Topics Retained and Dismissed 

Impact topics are retained if there could be 

appreciable impacts from the actions of the 

alternatives considered. Impact topics are 

dismissed if they are commonly considered 

during the planning process, but may not be 

relevant to the development of the management plan because either (a) implementing the 

alternatives would have no effect, negligible 

effect, or minor effect on the topic, or (b) the 

resource does not occur in the park. Table 2 

identifies all of the impact topics considered 

for this General Management Plan / Wilderness 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement and states whether they were 

retained or dismissed. The table is organized 

by theme (e.g., natural resources, cultural 

resources, visitor use and experience, 

socioeconomic environment, public health 

and safety, and park operations) and includes 

a brief rationale as to why the impact topic 

was retained or dismissed.

Table 2: Impact Topics Retained and Dismissed for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, Regulation, 

or Policy 

Natural Resource Impact Topics

Soils Retained The Organic Act and NPS 

Management Policies 2006 both 

require the National Park Service to 

protect and conserve geologic 

resources, including soils that could 

be affected by visitors and managers. 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore’s 

soils are a key resource; the soils help 

determine where native vegetative 

communities occur in the park, and 

they affect the area’s productivity, 

drainage patterns, and erosion. Soils 

also provide structural support to 

buildings and other facilities in the 

NPS Organic Act; 

Management Policies 2006
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND 

54 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, Regulation, 

or Policy 

Soils 

(continued) 

park. Soils generally take thousands 

of years to develop. Proposed 

developments in the alternatives 

would affect the park’s soils. Any 

impacts that would adversely affect 

these resources would be of concern 

to NPS managers and the public. 

Geologic and 

Coastal Processes 

Retained Geologic and coastal processes have 

largely shaped the park over time, 

and continue to shape the park’s 

coastal features, including its cliffs 

and sandscapes. NPS docks and other 

developments may affect local coastal 

processes, and can affect fish and 

wildlife, vegetation, and visitors, 

including recreational activities. Such 

changes would be of concern to visitors, the public, and park managers. 

NPS Organic Act; NPS 

Management Policies 2006

Water Quality Retained Lake Superior’s clean waters are one 

of the park’s fundamental resources. 

The lake’s clean water supports the 

park’s natural ecosystems and is 

important for recreational activities, 

including fishing, boating, swimming, 

wading, and kayaking. 

Clean Water Act; Executive 

Order 12088: “Federal 

Compliance with Pollution 

Control Standards”; NPS 

Management Policies 2006

Wetlands Retained Wetlands are protected and managed 

in accordance with Executive Order 

11990 and NPS Director’s Order 77-1 

and its accompanying handbook. This 

guidance requires the National Park 

Service to protect and enhance 

natural wetland values, and requires 

the examination of impacts on 

wetlands. The alternatives being 

considered could affect some 

wetlands on the mainland. 

Clean Water Act; NPS 

Management Policies 2006;

Executive Order 11990: 

“Protection of Wetlands”; 

Director’s Order 77-1: 

“Wetland Protection” 

Floodplain 

Values and 

Flooding 

Retained The alternatives in this plan propose 

actions that may affect the 

management and use of the 

mainland’s floodplains and areas that 

may be flooded by Lake Superior. 

Executive Order 11988 and Director’s 

Order 77-2 require the examination of 

the impacts on floodplains. The 

alternatives being considered could 

affect the Sand River floodplain on 

the mainland. 

Director’s Order 77-2: 

“Floodplain Management”; 

Executive Order 11988: 

“Floodplain Management”; 

NPS Management Policies 

2006
Scope of the General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement 

55 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, Regulation, 

or Policy 

Terrestrial 

Vegetation 

Retained One of the primary natural resources

of the park is its vegetative 

communities. The Organic Act and 

NPS Management Policies 2006 both 

require the National Park Service to 

protect and conserve native plants 

and vegetative communities that 

could be affected by visitors, 

management actions, and external 

sources. Actions in the alternatives 

could beneficially or adversely affect 

these resources, which would be of 

concern to many people as well as 

park managers. The spread of 

nonnative species also is a major 

concern in the park. 

NPS Organic Act; NPS 

Management Policies 2006

Terrestrial Wildlife Retained The park’s wildlife populations are an 

important park resource and one of 

the attractions that add to the quality 

of the visitor experience in the park. 

As with the above resources, the 

Organic Act and NPS Management 

Policies 2006 both require the 

National Park Service to protect and 

conserve native wildlife populations 

that could be affected by visitors, 

management actions, and external 

sources. Changes in wildlife habitat or 

in wildlife populations due to the alternatives would be of concern to visitors, the public, and park managers. 

NPS Organic Act; enabling 

legislation; NPS Management 

Policies 2006

Selected Federal 

and State 

Threatened and 

Endangered 

Species (piping 

plover) 

Retained The Endangered Species Act of 1973, 

as amended, requires an examination 

of impacts on all federally listed 

threatened or endangered plant and 

animal species. NPS Management 

Policies 2006 repeat this requirement 

and add the further stipulation that 

the analysis examine impacts on state 

listed endangered, threatened, or rare 

species, and federal species proposed 

for listing. Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore supports one federally and 

state listed endangered species, 

piping plover (Charadrius melodus), 

that could be affected by the general 

management plan alternatives. 

Endangered Species Act; NPS 

Management Policies 2006
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND 

56 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, Regulation, 

or Policy 

Soundscape Retained NPS Management Policies 2006 and 

Director’s Order 47: “Soundscape 

Preservation and Noise Management” 

recognize that natural soundscapes 

are a park resource and call for the 

National Park Service to preserve, to 

the greatest extent possible, the 

natural soundscapes of parks. The 

policies and director’s order further 

state that the National Park Service 

will restore degraded soundscapes to 

the natural condition whenever 

possible, and will protect natural 

soundscapes from degradation due to 

noise (undesirable human-caused 

sound). The Apostle Islands’ natural 

soundscape (sometimes called 

“natural quiet”) is one of the 

resources that makes this park a 

special place. Noise can adversely 

affect the natural soundscape and 

other park resources. It can also 

adversely impact the visitor experience. Presently, park visitors have the 

opportunity to experience solitude 

and quiet in an environment of 

natural sounds. Actions in the alternatives that could potentially increase 

noise levels in parts of the park would 

be of concern to some visitors, the 

public, and park managers. 

NPS Management Policies 

2006; Director's Order 47: 

“Soundscape Preservation 

and Noise Management” 

Air Quality Dismissed Apostle Islands National Lakeshore is 

a Class II air quality area. Air quality 

impacts have occurred in the park due 

primarily to external sources. Nothing 

being proposed in the alternatives for 

this plan would noticeably affect the 

park's air quality—all of the actions 

proposed in the alternatives would 

have a negligible impact on the 

airshed. In all of the alternatives the 

National Park Service would continue 

to protect and conserve air quality as 

required under the NPS Organic Act 

and NPS Management Policies 2006. 

Clean Air Act; NPS 

Management Policies 2006

Prime and Unique 

Farmlands 

Dismissed Prime farmlands are defined as lands 

that have the best combination of 

physical and chemical characteristics 

Council on Environmental 

Quality 1980 memorandum; 

Farmland Protection Policy 
Scope of the General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement 

57 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, Regulation, 

or Policy 

Prime and Unique 

Farmlands 

(continued) 

for producing food, feed, forage, 

fiber, and oilseed crops and are also 

available for these uses. Prime 

farmlands have the soil quality, 

growing season, and moisture supply 

needed to produce economically 

sustained high yields of crops when 

treated and managed according to 

acceptable farming methods, 

including water management. In 

general, prime farmlands have an 

adequate and dependable water 

supply from precipitation or irrigation, 

a favorable temperature and growing 

season, acceptable acidity or 

alkalinity, acceptable salt and sodium 

content, and few or no rocks. Unique 

farmlands are lands other than prime 

farmland that are used for the 

production of specific high value food 

and fiber crops. 

Three soil map units that occur in the 

park are prime farmlands, and two 

map units are prime farmland if 

drained. Most of the prime farmlands 

are on Outer and South Twin islands. 

No unique farmlands are located in 

the park. Lands in the park are not 

now in agricultural production. None 

of the alternatives being considered 

would adversely affect these soils. No 

new developments would be 

proposed in these areas. Thus, there is 

no need to evaluate the impacts of 

the alternatives on this topic, because 

there would be no impacts from the 

alternatives. 

Act

Paleontological 

Resources 

Dismissed The park is not known to contain 

scientifically important paleontological 

resources. Thus, this impact topic was 

dismissed. 

NPS Organic Act; NPS 

Management Policies 2006 

Water Quantity 

(including 

groundwater) 

Dismissed None of the alternatives being 

considered would be expected to 

substantially change either surface or 

groundwater flows in the park, or 

affect the park’s water supply. Visitor 

use levels would increase under some 

of the alternatives, but water conClean Water Act; Executive 

Order 12088: “Federal 

Compliance with Pollution 

Control Standards”; NPS 

Management Policies 2006
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND 

58 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, Regulation, 

or Policy 

Water Quantity 

(including 

groundwater) 

(continued) 

sumption would not be expected to 

increase to the point where there 

would be a noticeable impact on surface or groundwater flows. Therefore, 

any impacts would be negligible. 

Fish Dismissed An abundance of different species of 

fish use the park’s waters. Many of 

the park’s fish are sought by sport 

anglers and commercial fishermen. 

None of the actions proposed in the 

alternatives would adversely affect 

fish populations found in the park, 

including impacts to water quality 

that would be large enough to 

adversely affect fish populations. 

Increased sportfishing may occur with 

slightly increased recreational use in 

some areas under the alternatives, but 

it is expected that NPS monitoring 

and the Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resources’ regulation of the 

fisheries would prevent adverse 

impacts to the park’s fish populations.

NPS Organic Act; NPS 

Management Policies 2006

Invasive Aquatic 

Species 

Dismissed Six invasive aquatic species are 

currently known to be in park waters 

or in the vicinity of the park: sea 

lamprey (Petromyzon marinus), 

Eurasian ruffe (Gymnocephalus 

cernus), threespine stickleback 

(Gasterosteus aculeatus), spiny water 

flea (Bythotrephes longimanus), 

Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum 

spicatum), and purple loosestrife 

(Lythrum salicaria) (NPS 2007a). 

Numerous other aquatic invasive 

species may be encroaching on the 

park’s waters, including viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS). These species 

have the potential to threaten the 

diversity or abundance of native 

species, affect ecological health and 

stability of biological communities, or 

impair the water for some human 

use. However, none of the alternatives being considered would affect 

the introduction or spread of these 

species, and there would be no 

impact. Regardless of the General 

National Invasive Species Act;

Lacey Act (as amended); 

Plant Protection Act; NPS 

Management Policies 2006; 

Executive Order 13112: 

“Invasive Species” 
Scope of the General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement 

59 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, Regulation, 

or Policy 

Invasive Aquatic 

Species 

(continued) 

Management Plan / Wilderness 

Management Plan, it is expected that 

these species will spread in park 

waters, and actions will be taken by 

the National Park Service, in cooperation with the state of Wisconsin and 

the tribes, to educate the public 

about the species, monitor park 

waters, check boats and trailers for 

the species, and control the invasive 

species when feasible and 

appropriate. 

Federal and State 

Threatened and 

Endangered 

Species (other than 

piping plover) 

Dismissed This document does not analyze in 

site-specific detail the environmental 

effects that the alternatives might 

have on several federal and state 

listed threatened and endangered 

species, including lynx and peregrine 

falcon. Although the park falls within 

the potential southern range of the 

federally threatened lynx (Lynx 

Canadensis), no verified sightings 

have ever been recorded in the park. 

There is only a limited amount of 

boreal forest habitat for this species in 

the park. Although the federally 

threatened Fassett’s locoweed 

(Oxytropis campestris var. chartacea) 

occurs in Bayfield County, it has not 

been reported in the park. 

The state endangered peregrine 

falcon (Falco peregrinus) uses the park 

during spring and fall migrations, with 

the Outer Island sand spit being 

particularly important. However, no 

actions would be taken under the 

alternatives to affect the migratory 

habitat of the peregrine in the park. 

Several other state listed species may 

migrate through the park, including 

the threatened red-shouldered hawk 

(Buteo lineatus) and Henslow’s 

sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii), 

and the endangered loggerhead 

shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), Caspian 

tern (Hydroprogne caspia), Forster’s 

tern (Sterna forsteri), common tern 

(Sterna hirundo), and red-necked 

NPS Management Policies 

2006
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND 

60 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, Regulation, 

or Policy 

Federal and State 

Threatened and 

Endangered 

Species, other than 

piping plover 

(continued)) 

grebe (Podiceps grisegena). However, 

all of these species are very rarely 

seen in the park, and none are known 

to nest in the park. No actions would 

be taken under the alternatives that 

would affect the migratory habitat of 

these species in the park. 

Five plant species listed by the state of 

Wisconsin as endangered and 13 

listed as threatened also are known to 

occur in the park. These species 

would not be affected by the 

alternatives and thus are not analyzed 

in detail. Lake cress (Armoracia 

lacustris) is a submerged aquatic 

found in estuaries and quiet waters of 

streams and lakes. The species is 

probably extirpated from the park. No 

actions are being taken in the alternatives that would affect the habitat 

where this species might occur. 

Shore sedge (Carex lenticularis) and 

spike trisetum (Trisetum spicatum) are 

two state-threatened species that 

occur in several locations in the park, 

but none of the proposed actions in 

the alternatives would affect the 

populations. There is no indication 

that these species’ populations are 

being adversely affected by NPS or 

visitor activities. The two species both 

occur on Presque Isle, but not in the 

expected area that would be affected 

if the Stockton Island campground 

were moved to Presque Isle. 

A population of mountain cranberry 

(Vaccinium vitis-idaea ssp. minus), a 

state endangered species, occurs 

along the edge of the Lakeshore Trail 

on sandstone cliffs. However, there is 

no evidence to indicate the trail has 

adversely affected the population, 

and no actions are being taken in the 

alternatives that would change the 

trail or its use in the vicinity of the 

plant. 
Scope of the General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement 

61 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, Regulation, 

or Policy 

Federal and State 

Threatened and 

Endangered 

Species, other than 

piping plover 

(continued) 

Several other state listed plant species 

occur in island forests, wetlands, 

ravines, bluffs, and cliffs. No new 

actions would be taken in the 

alternatives that might affect these 

species, or where visitors would be 

likely to affect them, including the 

endangered moonwort grape-fern 

(Botrychium lunaria), common 

butterwort (Pinguicula vulgaris), satiny 

willow (Salix pellita), and the 

threatened fairy slipper (Calypso 

bulbosa, probably extirpated from the 

park), beautiful sedge (Carex 

concinna), coast sedge (Carex exilis), 

Michaux’s sedge (Carex michauxiana), 

drooping sedge (Carex prasina), 

broad-lipped twayblade (Listera 

convallarioides), marsh grass-ofparnassas (Parnassia palustris), plains 

ragwort (Senecio Indecorus), and 

English sundew (Drosera anglica). 

Northern gooseberry (Ribes 

oxyacanthoides) and flat-leaved 

willow (Salix planifolia) are also in 

areas where no new developments 

would occur and people would 

generally not tend to visit. 

To ensure that disturbance to all the 

above species is minimized, sitespecific surveys would be conducted 

before any ground disturbance took 

place. 

Lightscape 

Management 

Dismissed NPS Management Policies 2006 state 

that the National Park Service will 

preserve, to the greatest extent 

possible, the natural lightscapes of 

parks, including natural darkness. The 

agency strives to minimize the 

intrusion of artificial light into the 

night scene by limiting the use of 

artificial outdoor lighting to basic 

safety requirements, shielding 

necessary lights when possible, and 

using minimal impact lighting 

techniques. The actions proposed in 

the alternatives could result in new 

facilities on the mainland and a few 

of the islands, some of which could 

NPS Management Policies 

2006
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND 

62 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, Regulation, 

or Policy 

Lightscape 

Management 

(continued) 

necessitate some nighttime lighting. 

However, the effects of this lighting 

would be localized and minimized by 

the mitigative techniques described 

above. Only a small area would be 

affected by the facilities. In addition, 

future expansion of lighting is 

strongly limited by the lack of power 

at most locations. It is expected that 

these few developments would have 

a negligible impact on the night sky. 

Cultural Resource Impact Topics 

Archeological 

Resources 

Retained Ground disturbance associated with 

proposed development actions (i.e., 

new trails or other facilities) have the 

potential to disturb currently 

unidentified archeological resources. 

Submerged archeological resources, 

such as shipwrecks, could also be 

affected by future actions. 

If impacts on archeological resources 

were to occur, they could be of 

concern to American Indians, visitors, 

the state and tribal historic 

preservation offices, and park 

managers. 

Sections 106 and 110 of the 

National Historic Preservation 

Act of 1966, as amended (16 

USC 470); Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation’s 

implementing regulations 

regarding the “Protection of 

Historic Properties” (36 CFR 

800); DO/NPS-28 “Cultural 

Resources Management 

Guideline”; Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards and 

Guidelines for Archeology 

and Historic Preservation; 

NPS Management Policies 

2006; National Environmental Policy Act; Director’s 

Order 28A: “Archeology” 

(2004) 

Historic Structures 

and Buildings 

Retained Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

contains many historic structures, 

such as the light stations and the 

Hokenson fishery. The alternatives 

could affect some of these historic 

structures. The future of the light 

stations, in particular, is a key issue 

for this plan. Any changes to these 

structures could be of concern to 

visitors, the state historic preservation 

officer, and NPS managers. 

Sections 106 and 110 of the 

National Historic Preservation 

Act of 1966, as amended (16 

USC 470); Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation’s 

implementing regulations 

regarding the “Protection of 

Historic Properties” (36 CFR 

800); DO/NPS-28: “Cultural 

Resources Management 

Guideline”; NPS Management Policies 2006; Secretary 

of the Interior’s Standards for 

the Treatment of Historic 

Properties; the National 

Environmental Policy Act. 
Scope of the General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement 

63 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, Regulation, 

or Policy 

Cultural 

Landscapes 

Retained The park contains rural historic landscapes, which are landscapes that 

evolved through use by the people 

whose activities and occupancy 

shaped that landscape. These landscapes reflect the land use patterns 

and cultural traditions of the historic 

island occupants. Cultural landscapes 

in the national lakeshore include the 

light stations, farmsteads, fish camps, 

and logging camps. Ethnographic 

landscapes may also be identified. 

The future of the light stations and 

their cultural landscapes is a key issue 

for this plan. Changes to the cultural 

landscapes that could result from 

implementing one or more of the 

alternatives would be of concern to 

visitors, the public, the tribes, the 

state historic preservation officer, and 

NPS managers. 

Sections 106 and 110 of the 

National Historic Preservation 

Act of 1966, as amended (16 

USC 470); Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation’s 

implementing regulations 

regarding the “Protection of 

Historic Properties” (36 CFR 

800); Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic 

Properties with Guidelines 

for the Treatment of Cultural 

Landscapes (1996); NPS 

Management Policies 2006; 

DO/NPS-28: “Cultural 

Resources Management 

Guideline”; National 

Environmental Policy Act 

Ethnographic 

Resources 

Retained Ethnographic resources are defined by 

the National Park Service as any “site, 

structure, object, landscape, or 

natural resource feature assigned 

traditional legendary, religious, 

subsistence, or other significance in 

the cultural system or group 

traditionally associated with it” 

(DO/NPS-28: “Cultural Resources 

Management Guideline”). 

Although limited studies and research 

have been completed to identify 

ethnographic resources within the 

park, the islands figure prominently in 

the cultural history of the Lake 

Superior Ojibwe and other tribes. 

Historically, Ojibwe bands frequented 

the islands on a primarily seasonal 

basis to hunt, fish, and collect berries, 

medicinal plants, and other resources. 

These resources have ethnographic 

importance for tribal members, and 

by treaty the Ojibwe retain customary 

rights to hunt, fish, and gather within 

the park. 

Sections 106 and 110 of the 

National Historic Preservation 

Act of 1966, as amended (16 

USC 470); Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation’s 

implementing regulations 

regarding the “Protection of 

Historic Properties” (36 CFR 

800); Native American 

Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act of 1990; 

National Environmental 

Policy Act; DO/NPS-28: 

“Cultural Resources 

Management Guideline”; 

NPS Management Policies 

2006; Executive Order 

13007: ”Indian Sacred 

Sites”(1996) 
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND 

64 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, Regulation, 

or Policy 

Ethnographic 

Resources 

(continued) 

The National Park Service has 

consulted with affiliated tribes for this 

plan, and will continue to consult in 

the future to identify and suitably 

protect ethnographic resources. 

Copies of this General Management 

Plan / Wilderness Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement will 

be forwarded to each affiliated tribe 

for review and comment. Should 

consultation result in the 

identification of ethnographic 

resources and sites (including sites 

having sacred or spiritual importance 

for tribal members), the Park Service 

will further consult to avoid or 

mitigate adverse impacts. The Park 

Service will also accommodate, to the 

extent practicable, access to and 

ceremonial use of sacred sites by 

American Indian religious 

practitioners. The location of 

ethnographic sites would not be 

made public. In the unlikely event that 

human remains, funerary objects, 

sacred objects, or objects of cultural 

patrimony are discovered during 

construction and are determined to 

be of American Indian origin, 

guidance for implementing the Native 

American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act of 1990 would be 

followed. 

Because the plan alternatives have the 

potential to affect or inadvertently 

disturb ethnographic resources, this 

impact topic was retained for analysis. 

Museum 

Collections 

Dismissed Although planning details and time 

frames are presently indefinite, an 

NPS plan has been advanced to move 

the national lakeshore’s core museum 

collections to Keweenaw National 

Historical Park with headquarters in 

Calumet, Michigan. The Keweenaw 

facility is intended to serve multiple 

NPS units in the region. The Apostle 

Islands superintendent will retain 

ultimate responsibility for the national 

National Historic Preservation 

Act; American Indian 

Religious Freedom Act; 

Archeological and Historic 

Preservation Act; 

Archeological Resources 

Protection Act; Native 

American Graves Protection 

and Repatriation Act; NPS 

Management Policies 2006, 

Department of the Interior 
Scope of the General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement 

65 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, Regulation, 

or Policy 

Museum 

Collections 

(continued) 

lakeshore’s collections. The existing 

collections and new additions will be 

managed in conformance with all 

applicable NPS standards and guidelines and will be accessible for professional study. The alternatives in this 

general management plan would 

have only negligible or minor impacts 

on museum collections. Because more 

detailed future planning would be 

carried out as necessary regarding 

moving the core museum collections 

to the Keweenaw facility, the topic of 

museum collections has been 

dismissed from further analysis in the 

general management plan. 

Manual on Museum Property 

Management 411 DM; NPS 

Museum Handbook; 

Director’s Order 24: 

“Museum Collections 

Management” and Director’s 

Order 28: “Cultural 

Resources Management”; 36 

CFR 79 “Curation of 

Federally-Owned and 

Administered Archaeological 

Collections”; the National 

Environmental Policy Act

Indian Trust 

Resources 

Dismissed The federal Indian trust responsibility 

is a legally enforceable fiduciary 

obligation on the part of the United 

States to protect tribal lands, assets, 

resources, and treaty rights, and it 

represents a duty to carry out the 

mandates of federal law with respect 

to American Indian and Alaska Native 

tribes. Secretarial Order 3175 requires 

that any anticipated impacts to Indian 

trust resources from a proposed project or action by U.S. Department of 

the Interior agencies be explicitly addressed in environmental documents. 

There are no Indian trust resources in 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. 

The lands comprising the park, including lands on the mainland that 

are part of the Red Cliff Indian Reservation (and possibly Long Island in 

relation to the Bad River Indian 

Reservation), are not held in trust by 

the secretary of the interior for the 

benefit of Indians due to their status 

as Indians. Although not trust resources, tribes do have specific offreservation treaty-related rights. Under the Treaty of 1842, Lake Superior 

Chippewa reserved off-reservation 

treaty rights to the lands and waters 

of Lake Superior that now fall within 

the park. None of the actions proposed by this General Management 

Secretarial Order 3175
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND 

66 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, Regulation, 

or Policy 

Indian Trust 

Resources 

(continued) 

Plan / Wilderness Management Plan,

and none of the actions that might be 

implemented as a result of the plan, 

would change any existing conditions 

or practices concerning American 

Indian treaty or statutory rights or 

cultural interests that the tribes 

traditionally associated with the park 

maintain in relation to the park. 

Therefore, this topic was dismissed 

from further consideration. 

Wilderness Resources and Values Topic

Wilderness 

Resources and 

Values 

Retained Wilderness was recently designated in 

the park. The park’s wilderness 

resources are important to consider in 

managing the park. Any changes in 

opportunities for solitude, the apparent naturalness of the park, and opportunities for primitive, unconfined 

recreation would be of concern to 

some visitors, managers, and the 

public. 

The Wilderness Act; 

Director’s Order 41: 

“Wilderness Preservation”; 

NPS Management Policies 

2006

Visitor Use and Experience Impact Topics

Ability to Access 

the Park, Including 

Universal Access 

Retained Due to the difficulty and cost in 

reaching the islands, access to the 

islands is an important issue for 

visitors. During scoping for this plan, 

as well as the previous wilderness 

study, many visitors noted the need 

for improved access to certain islands 

(e.g., docks are not deep enough, 

docks are crowded at times, more 

docks/boat landings are needed to 

access certain areas). Other visitors 

would be concerned, however, if 

large numbers of visitors started 

going to the islands due to improved 

access opportunities. Accessibility of 

facilities and programs is another 

issue that could affect visitor use. Any 

changes in the ability to access the 

park would be of concern to visitors, 

the public, and park managers. 

NPS Organic Act; 

Architectural Barriers Act of 

1973; Architectural Barriers 

Act Accessibility Standards 

(2006); NPS Management 

Policies 2006; Director’s 

Order 42: “Accessibility for 

Visitors with Disabilities in 

NPS Programs, Facilities, and 

Services”
Scope of the General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement 

67 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, Regulation, 

or Policy 

Lake and Island 

Related 

Recreational 

Opportunities and 

Experiences 

Retained Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

provides a wide range of lake and 

island based recreation opportunities 

and experiences to choose from. 

During scoping and recent visitor 

surveys, most respondents acknowledged their enjoyment of the park’s 

recreational opportunities and suggested that the amount of opportunities should be maintained close to 

current levels. Because the alternatives would result in various changes 

in these opportunities, such as adding, removing, or improving facilities 

like trails or campsites, this impact 

topic would be of concern to visitors, 

park managers, and the public. 

NPS Organic Act; NPS 

Management Policies 2006

Mainland 

Recreational 

Opportunities and 

Experiences 

Retained With the exceptions of Little Sand Bay

and Meyers Beach, there are relatively 

few recreational opportunities provided on the mainland unit compared 

to the islands. During scoping for the 

plan, some people mentioned 

wanting additional recreation 

opportunities specifically for the 

mainland unit. The alternatives being 

considered would affect mainland 

recreational opportunities, and thus 

would be of concern to visitors, the 

public, and park managers. 

NPS Organic Act; NPS 

Management Policies 2006

Opportunities to 

Understand the 

Significant Stories 

of the Apostle 

Islands 

Retained Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

has many stories, covering a wide 

range of topics. Many visitors seek 

out and enjoy opportunities to hear 

these stories. In this regard the NPS 

staff provide a number of interpretive 

facilities and programs for visitors. 

Alternatives in the plan could have an 

impact on overall visitor 

understanding, including interpretive 

and educational opportunities. Any 

changes in interpretive and 

educational opportunities would be of 

concern to visitors, local residents, 

and park managers. 

NPS Organic Act; NPS 

Management Policies 2006

Visitor Safety Retained Because the park presents many 

potential hazards and risks to visitors 

and employees, safety is an important 

concern. The alternatives being 

CEQ regulations; DO-12 

Handbook, NPS Management Policies 2006; 

Director’s Order 50C: “Public 
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND 

68 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, Regulation, 

or Policy 

Visitor Safety 

(continued) 

considered would address several 

health and safety concerns, and thus 

is considered in the analysis of 

impacts. 

Risk Management Program”

Visitor 

Transportation to 

the Park 

Dismissed Visitor transportation to the park 

addresses how visitors reach the park 

via local and regional transportation 

on the mainland (e.g., motor 

vehicles). No actions are being 

proposed in the alternatives that 

would affect how visitors get to the 

park (excluding access to the islands). 

Therefore, visitor access and 

transportation was dismissed as an 

impact topic. 

NPS Management Policies 

2006

Socioeconomic Impact Topics

Socioeconomics Retained Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

affects local businesses and the 

economy of Bayfield and other 

communities in the area. Recreationrelated tourism is an important 

element of the regional economy. 

Any actions in the alternatives that 

would alter visitor use levels or visitor 

use patterns would be of concern to 

many local businesses, including 

guides, outfitters, and concessioners 

(which could affect jobs and/or 

income), as well as local residents, the 

general public, and NPS managers. 

Likewise, changes in NPS expenditures 

in management of the park due to 

the alternatives would be a concern 

to local residents, the public, and park 

managers. 

National Environmental 

Policy Act 

Environmental 

Justice 

Dismissed Executive Order 12898 requires all 

federal agencies to incorporate 

environmental justice into their 

missions by identifying and addressing 

the disproportionately high or adverse 

human health or environmental 

effects of their programs and policies 

on minorities and low-income 

populations and communities. 

According to the Environmental 

Protection Agency, environmental 

Executive Order 12898: 

“General Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations” 
Scope of the General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement 

69 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, Regulation, 

or Policy 

Environmental 

Justice 

(continued) 

justice is the...

fair treatment and meaningful 

involvement of all people, regardless 

of race, color, national origin, or 

income, with respect to the 

development, implementation, and 

enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations and policies. Fair 

treatment means that no group of 

people, including a racial, ethnic, or 

socioeconomic group, should bear a 

disproportionate share of the 

negative environmental 

consequences resulting from 

industrial, municipal, and 

commercial operations or the 

execution of federal, state, local, 

and tribal programs and policies.

 

None of the alternatives being 

considered would have a 

disproportionately high and adverse 

effect on any minority or low-income 

population or community. This 

conclusion is based on the following 

information: 

• The proposals in the alternatives 

would not result in any identifiable 

adverse human health effects. 

Therefore, there would be no 

direct, indirect, or cumulative 

adverse effects on any minority or 

low-income population or 

community. 

• The alternatives would not affect 

American Indian treaty rights—

American Indian tribes with treatyreserved rights would continue to 

be able to hunt, fish, trap, and 

gather within Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore, consistent 

with those rights. 

• No natural resource adverse 

impacts were identified due to the 

alternatives that would 

significantly and adversely affect 

minority or low-income 

populations or communities. 

• The alternatives would not result 
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND 

70 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, Regulation, 

or Policy 

Environmental 

Justice (continued) 

in any identified effects that would 

be specific to any minority or lowincome community. 

• The planning team actively 

solicited public comments during 

the development of the general 

management plan and gave equal 

consideration to all input from 

persons, regardless of age, race, 

sex, income status, or other 

socioeconomic or demographic 

factors. 

• During the planning process park 

staff consulted and worked with 

the Red Cliff and Bad River Bands 

of the Lake Superior Chippewa, 

and the Voigt Intertribal Task 

Force of the Great Lakes Indian 

Fish and Wildlife Commission, and 

will continue to do so in 

cooperative efforts to improve 

communications and resolve any 

problems that occur. The planning 

team did not identify negative or 

adverse effects due to the 

alternatives that would 

disproportionately and adversely 

affect these American Indians. 

• No impacts were identified that 

would substantially alter the 

physical and social structure of the 

nearby communities. 

Therefore this topic will not be 

addressed further. 

Park Operations Impact Topic

Park Operations Retained This topic covers such things as NPS 

staffing and workloads, maintenance 

activities, management flexibility, 

productivity, operational efficiencies, 

and response times. Park operations 

would be affected by the actions in 

the alternatives, including staffing 

changes, facility construction, and 

facility or infrastructure maintenance. 

NPS Management Policies 

2006
Scope of the General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement 

71 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, Regulation, 

or Policy 

Other Impact Topics

Conformity with 

Local Land Use 

Plans 

Dismissed Actions proposed in the alternatives 

would not be in conflict with any 

local, state, or tribal land use plans, 

policies, or controls for the area. 

The basic land use of the park as a 

public recreation and resource 

management area is in conformance 

with local land use plans. The creation 

of additional recreation and visitor 

service opportunities as proposed in 

the alternatives would be consistent 

with existing park land uses or local 

land use plans. Therefore, this topic 

was dismissed from further 

consideration. 

Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) regulations; 

DO-12 Handbook 

Natural or 

Depletable 

Resource 

Requirements and 

Conservation 

Potential 

Dismissed None of the alternatives being considered would result in the extraction 

of resources from the park. Relatively 

small quantities of depletable resources would be used in the construction 

of new facilities in the alternatives, 

but the impact on these resources 

would be expected to be negligible. 

Under all of the alternatives ecological 

principles would be applied to ensure 

that the park’s natural resources were 

maintained and not impaired. 

Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) regulations 

Energy 

Requirements and 

Conservation 

Potential 

Dismissed A few more facilities may be built on 

the islands under the alternatives. The 

National Park Service would pursue 

sustainable practices whenever 

possible in all decisions regarding park 

operations, facilities management, 

and developments in Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore. Whenever possible, the National Park Service would 

use energy conservation technologies 

and renewable energy sources. Thus it 

is expected that none of the alternatives would result in an appreciable 

change in energy consumption 

compared to current conditions. Any 

impacts would be negligible. 

NPS Management Policies 

2006; Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

regulations 
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND 

72 

Impact Topic Retained 

or 

Dismissed 

Rationale Relevant Law, Regulation, 

or Policy 

Wild & Scenic 

Rivers 

Dismissed No rivers in the park are included in 

the nationwide rivers inventory or 

proposed for wild and scenic river 

study. Therefore, this topic was 

dismissed from further consideration. 

Section 5(d) National Wild 

and Scenic Rivers Act 

Urban Quality and 

Design of the Built 

Environment 

Dismissed The quality of urban areas is not a 

concern in this plan, except possibly 

for the development of a new visitor 

center in Bayfield in some alternatives. 

Throughout the park, vernacular architecture and park-compatible 

design would be taken into consideration for structures built under all of 

the action alternatives. Emphasis 

would be placed on designs and 

materials and colors that blend in and 

do not detract from the natural and 

built environment. Therefore, adverse 

impacts would be expected to be 

negligible. No further consideration of 

this impact topic is necessary. 

CEQ regulations; DO-12 

Handbook
Scope of the General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement 

73 

RELATIONSHIP OF OTHER PLANNING 

EFFORTS TO THIS GENERAL 

MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS 

MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Several plans have influenced or would be 

influenced by the approved Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore General Management 

Plan / Wilderness Management Plan. These 

plans have been prepared by the National 

Park Service. Some of these plans are 

described briefly here, along with their 

relationship to this management plan. 

Superintendent’s Compendium (2009) 

The “Superintendent’s Compendium” is a list 

of designations, closures, permit requirements, and use restrictions promulgated 

under the discretionary authority of the 

superintendent. The compendium covers 

public use limits; public closures and area 

designations for specific uses or activities; a 

list of activities that require a NPS permit; 

regulations regarding preservation of natural, 

cultural and archeological resources; and 

general regulations regarding wildlife 

protection, hunting and fishing, camping and 

food storage, picnicking, and snowmobiling 

among other topics. The compendium would 

be modified as necessary to reflect any 

changes resulting from implementation of this 

general management plan. 

Wildlife Management Plan and 

Environmental Assessment for 

Harvestable Species (2007) 

The purpose of this plan was to provide 

direction for managing hunting and trapping 

of wildlife in the park, including deer, bear, 

furbearers, and small game and waterfowl. In 

particular, the plan focused on the 

management of white-tailed deer, which have 

been rapidly increasing on the islands. 

Implementation of this plan will help achieve 

the desired conditions related to natural 

resource management in this General 

Management Plan / Wilderness Management 

Plan. 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore Fire 

Management Plan and Environmental 

Assessment (2004) 

The purpose of this plan was to develop a 

long-range, comprehensive fire management 

direction for the park. The plan addressed 

both wildland fires and prescribed fire for 

ecological restoration purposes, maintenance 

of cultural landscapes, or reduction of any 

excessive fuel loadings. Specific goals for fire 

management in this plan are consistent with 

and will help achieve the desired conditions 

related to natural and cultural resource 

management and general park administration 

described in this General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Management Plan. 

Business Plan, Fiscal Year 2001 

This plan presented a description of the state 

of park operations and funding at that time, 

and outlined park priorities and funding 

strategies. It detailed the park’s operational 

funding shortfall and communicated 

investment and operational priorities within 

that financial deficit. This funding shortfall 

was a key concern in the development of 

alternatives for the General Management 

Plan / Wilderness Management Plan. 

Resources Management Plan: Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore (1998) 

This plan was intended to provide guidance 

on how to best manage the natural and 

cultural resources of the park. The plan 

documented the status of the resources, 

identified natural and cultural resource 

management efforts and issues/problems, and 

outlined objectives for future resource 

management and recommendations for 

accomplishing those objectives. Although 

resource management plans are no longer 

prepared by the National Park Service, a 

“Resources Stewardship Strategy” will be 

prepared, which will incorporate the 

management directions presented in this 

General Management Plan / Wilderness 

Management Plan. 
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND 

74

General Management Plan / Environmental 

Assessment (1989) 

This plan has been the park’s guiding 

document since 1989. This plan provided an 

overall parkwide management direction, 

zoned the park, and provided broad strategies 

for resource management, access and 

transportation to the islands, visitor use and 

interpretation, future facility development, 

and land acquisition and boundary 

modifications. 

Local, State and Regional Plans 

There are numerous planning efforts on the 

local, state, and regional level that affect the 

park. From local community plans to the 

Wisconsin Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor 

Recreation Plan to multipark efforts such as 

the control of invasive fish in Lake Superior, 

the park staff work with these plans on a 

regular basis. 

NEXT STEPS AND 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN 

After the distribution of the Draft General 

Management Plan / Wilderness Management 

Plan / Environmental Impact Statement there 

will be a 60-day public review and comment 

period. After that the NPS planning team will 

evaluate comments from other federal 

agencies, tribes, organizations, businesses, and 

individuals regarding the draft plan and 

incorporate appropriate changes into a Final 

General Management Plan / Wilderness 

Management Strategy /Environmental Impact 

Statement. The final plan will include letters 

from governmental agencies, any substantive 

comments on the draft document, and NPS 

responses to those comments. Following 

distribution of the Final General Management 

Plan / Wilderness Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement and a 30-day 

no-action period, a record of decision 

approving a final plan will be signed by the 

NPS regional director. The record of decision 

documents the NPS selection of an alternative 

for implementation. With the signing of the 

record of decision, the plan can then be 

implemented. 

Once the planning process is completed, the 

selected alternative would become the new 

management plan for the park and would be 

implemented over 15–20 years. It is important 

to note that not all of the actions in the 

alternative would necessarily be implemented 

immediately. 

The implementation of the approved plan will 

depend on future funding. The approval of 

this plan does not guarantee that the funding 

and staffing needed to implement the plan will 

be forthcoming. Full implementation of the 

actions in the approved General Management 

Plan / Wilderness Management Plan could be 

many years in the future. 

This General Management Plan / Wilderness 

Management Plan does not describe how 

particular programs or actions should be 

prioritized or implemented. Those decisions 

will be addressed in more detailed future 

planning efforts. Other future program and 

implementation plans, describing specific 

actions that managers intend to undertake and 

accomplish in the park, will tier from the 

desired conditions and long-term goals set 

forth in the approved General Management 

Plan / Wilderness Management Plan.

Additional feasibility studies and more 

detailed planning, environmental 

documentation, and consultations would 

need to be completed, as appropriate, before 

certain actions can be carried out. For 

example, 

• additional detailed environmental 

documentation may need to be completed 

for new proposed facilities such as the 

relocation of the Stockton Island 

campground 

• appropriate permits may need to be 

obtained before implementing actions 

• appropriate federal, state, and tribal 

agencies might need to be consulted 

concerning actions that could affect 
Scope of the General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement 

75 

threatened and endangered species or 

cultural resources 

• American Indian tribes might need to be 

consulted on actions that could affect the 

tribes 

In addition to funding, the implementation of 

the approved alternative could be affected by 

other factors, such as changes in NPS staffing, 

visitor use patterns, requirements for 

additional data or regulatory compliance, 

competing national park system priorities, and 

uncontrollable environmental changes (see 

below). More detailed planning and 

environmental documentation may need to be 

completed, if appropriate, before some of the 

actions would be carried out. 

Finally, it needs to be recognized that climate 

change is occurring, which will affect the park 

in a myriad of different ways, both during the 

15- to 20-year life of this plan and beyond. It is 

likely that park staff will need to employ 

adaptive management in response to these 

changes, and that elements of the plan may 

need to be modified. For example, if lake 

levels continue to drop some existing docks 

may no longer be useable without additional 

action, while new docks or improvements to 

docks called for in this plan may no longer be 

feasible or appropriate. Depending on the 

nature of climate and resulting changes that 

occur, the National Park Service would either 

take additional actions consistent with the 

management directions in this plan, or if 

necessary amend or replace the plan. In all 

cases appropriate environmental compliance 

would occur before new actions are taken. 

Adaptive Management 

Adaptive management can be described as a 

series of repeating incremental steps: collect 

information on an existing problem, analyze 

it, propose appropriate interventions, 

implement the interventions, monitor the 

interventions, and if needed use additional 

interventions to address the problem. 
76
CHAPTER 2:

FRAMEWORK 

FOR MANAGEMENT,

USE AND

ADMINISTRATION

OF THE GAYLORD

NELSON WILDERNESS

Outer Island Sandspit

Bear Island

Gull Island

CHAPTER 2:

Cat Island 

79 

INTRODUCTION 

This chapter provides general directions for 

management of the Gaylord Nelson 

Wilderness. A variety of administrative/ 

operational topics are covered, including the 

minimum requirement process, natural and 

cultural resource management, scientific 

activities/research, administration/ 

operations, and monitoring of wilderness 

character. All of the management directions 

included here would not vary among the 

alternatives in chapter 3—the directions 

would be followed regardless of which 

alternative was selected for the General 

Management Plan / Wilderness Management 

Plan. The directions are based on the 

Wilderness Act and NPS policies, including 

NPS Management Policies 2006, Director’s 

Order 41 and Reference Manual 41 

(“Wilderness Preservation and 

Management”), white papers from the NPS 

National Wilderness Steering Committee, and 

the “Wilderness Stewardshp Plan Handbook. 

Level II Guidance: Wilderness Stewardship 

Plan EIS/EA Details” (NPS 2004a). 

This chapter does not cover several topics that 

are addressed in chapter 3, including 

management zoning, user capacity indicators 

and standards, and campsites in the 

wilderness area. The management zones and 

directions provided for these topics in chapter 

3, plus the general directions provided in this 

chapter, and the wilderness management 

desired conditions and strategies identified in 

table 1 in chapter 1 altogether make up the 

management plan for the Gaylord Nelson 

Wilderness. 

WILDERNESS CHARACTER 

The 1964 Wilderness Act states, “it is hereby 

declared to be the policy of Congress to 

secure for the American people of present and 

future generations the benefits of an enduring 

resource of wilderness.” One of the central 

mandates of this act is to preserve wilderness 

character. Section 2(a) states that wilderness 

areas shall be administered “so as to provide 

for the protection of these areas, the 

preservation of their wilderness character . . . ” 

Section 4(b) states, 

“Except as otherwise provided in this 

Act, each agency administering any area 

designated as wilderness shall be 

responsible for preserving the 

wilderness character of the area and 

shall so administer such area for such 

other purposes for which it may have 

been established as also to preserve its 

wilderness character.” 

Wilderness character is not specifically 

defined in the 1964 Wilderness Act, nor is its 

meaning discussed in the act’s legislative 

history. However, wilderness managers have 

identified four qualities of wilderness 

character based on the statutory language of 

the Wilderness Act (U.S. Forest Service 2008): 

untrammeled; natural; undeveloped; and 

offering solitude or a primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation. 

• Untrammeled—This refers to wilderness 

as being essentially unhindered and free 

from modern human control or 

manipulation. Actions that intentionally 

manipulate or control ecological systems 

inside wilderness degrade the 

untrammeled quality of wilderness 

character—even if an action is taken to 

restore natural conditions. 

• Natural—This means areas that are largely 

free from effects of modern civilization—

there is an absence of people and their 

activities. It also refers to the maintenance 

and perpetuation of natural ecological 
CHAPTER 2: FRAMEWORK FOR MANAGEMENT, USE, 

AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE GAYLORD NELSON WILDERNESS 

80

relationships and processes, and the 

continued existence of native wildlife and 

plants in largely natural conditions. 

• Undeveloped—The Wilderness Act states 

that wilderness is “an area of undeveloped 

Federal land retaining its primeval 

character and influence, without 

permanent improvements or human 

habitation,” “where man himself is a 

visitor who does not remain” and “with 

the imprint of man’s work substantially 

unnoticeable.” Thus wilderness is 

essentially without permanent 

improvements or modern human 

occupation. 

• Offering solitude or a primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation—This 

quality is about the opportunity for people 

to experience wilderness. Solitude means 

encountering only a few people, if any, 

and experiencing privacy and isolation. 

There is an absence of distractions, such 

as large groups of people; mechanization; 

and unnatural noises, signs, and other 

modern artifacts. There is freedom from 

the reminders of modern society. 

Primitive and unconfined recreation 

refers to the freedom of visitors to explore 

with few or no restrictions, and the ability 

to be spontaneous. It means self 

sufficiency without support facilities or 

motorized transportation, and directly 

experiencing weather, terrain, and other 

aspects of the natural world with minimal 

shelter or assistance from devices of 

modern civilization. 

Based on the Wilderness Act’s mandate to 

preserve wilderness character, this discussion 

focuses on the extent to which the alternatives 

in this document affect these characteristics of 

the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness area. 

Wilderness character and wilderness 

experience are analyzed together because 

much of wilderness character can only be 

subjectively determined by the visitor’s 

experience (for example, solitude or freedom 

of movement). Impacts on natural and 

cultural resources, visitor access, soundscape, 

and other resources in the wilderness area are 

evaluated elsewhere in the “Environmental 

Consequences” chapter. 

HISTORY OF WILDERNESS AT 

APOSTLE ISLANDS NATIONAL 

LAKESHORE 

Throughout the planning efforts that led to 

the establishment of Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore, the importance of protecting the 

wilderness qualities of the islands was 

recognized. The 1965 Department of Interior 

proposal for the park stated that the islands 

“should be considered as primitive and wild 

areas and as such only minimum basic 

facilities are necessary for their use and 

enjoyment.” Assistant Secretary of the Interior 

Leslie Glasgow stated in testimony at a March 

1970 Senate hearing that “The majority of the 

islands are...ideally suited for wilderness 

camping, hiking, and natural science 

studies....” Jordahl (1994) noted that in 

establishing the park Congress clearly 

intended that, with the exception of Sand 

Island, the islands be kept wild and primitive. 

The state of Wisconsin also directed that 

wilderness qualities be protected in the park. 

One of the conditions the Wisconsin 

legislature stipulated when it donated its lands 

to the federal government for the park was 

that this area’s wilderness character be 

preserved. The legislature stated: “It is the 

policy of the legislature that the Apostle 

Islands be managed in a manner that will 

preserve their unique primitive and wilderness 

character” (Wisconsin Statutes §1.026(1)(b)). 

The 1989 General Management Plan, Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore, called for a formal 

wilderness study for Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore. In the 2001 Department of 

Interior appropriations bill, Congress 

specifically directed the National Park Service 

to conduct a wilderness study for the park. 

The wilderness study was completed in May 

2004 with a proposal to designate 

approximately 80% of the park’s land area as 

wilderness. Later that year Congress approved 
Introduction 

81 

designation of the wilderness area as part of 

the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005 

(PL 108-447, Division E, §140). On December 

8, 2004, President Bush signed the law, 

establishing the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness. 

Eighteen of the 21 islands in the park are all or 

partially within the wilderness area—only 

Basswood, Sand, and Long islands have no 

designated wilderness. Figure 3 shows the 

boundaries of the wilderness area on the ten 

islands that have nonwilderness areas. (For 

more details on the history of establishment of 

the wilderness area, see Krumenaker 2005). 

WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT 

GOALS AND PHILOSOPHY 

The Gaylord Nelson Wilderness will be 

managed in a manner that is consistent with 

the Wilderness Act, national wilderness 

policies, and NPS management policies. The 

primary goals for managing the Gaylord 

Nelson Wilderness are to 

• protect and preserve the area’s natural and 

cultural resources and values, and the 

integrity of the wilderness character for 

present and future generations 

• provide for freedom of public use and 

enjoyment of the wilderness area in a 

manner that is consistent with the 

Wilderness Act, NPS management 

policies, park purposes, and the 

protection of resources and values 

• provide for public understanding and 

support of wilderness values 

As stated in chapter 1, one of Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore’s primary purposes is to 

preserve and protect the park’s wilderness 

character for use and enjoyment by future 

generations as wilderness. Wilderness 

character is the combination of biophysical, 

experiential, and symbolic qualities in an 

untrammeled and natural state that generally 

appears to have been affected primarily by the 

forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s 

work substantially unnoticeable. 

The desired conditions for wilderness 

management, described in table 1 in chapter 1, 

complement the above goals. 

In order to protect and promote wilderness 

character, wilderness management must 

consider the purpose of an action and the 

spirit in which it was carried out. The 

definition of wilderness in the Wilderness Act 

identifies two key qualities: 

• generally appearing to have been affected 

primarily by the forces of nature, with the 

imprint of man’s work substantially 

unnoticeable, and 

• having outstanding opportunities for 

solitude or a primitive and unconfined 

type of recreation 

Providing opportunities for solitude would 

include managing for visitor experiences with 

the following characteristics: 

• freedom from the reminders of society 

• privacy and isolation in natural 

surroundings 

• absence of distractions such as large 

groups, mechanization, unnatural noise, 

signs, and other modern artifacts within 

the wilderness area (however, the 

Wilderness Act offers no protection from 

sights and sounds originating outside of 

wilderness) 

However, at its essence wilderness character is 

unseen and immeasurable—a unique 

challenge of wilderness management. 

Wilderness character includes the natural and 

scenic condition of the land, interactions of 

wildlife, and the integrity of ecological 

processes. But wilderness character, like 

personal character, is much more than a 

physical condition. 

The National Park Service recognizes the 

intangible values of wilderness, and in 

implementing this plan would forego actions 

that might have no seeming physical impact 
CHAPTER 2: FRAMEWORK FOR MANAGEMENT, USE, 

AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE GAYLORD NELSON WILDERNESS 

82

but which would detract from the idea of 

wilderness as a place set apart; a place where 

human uses, convenience, and expediency do 

not dominate; a place where we can know 

ourselves as part of something beyond our 

modern society and its creations. 
Sand 

Island

YorkIsland

Bear

 Island

RockyIsland South Twin

Island

North Twin Island

Cat

Island

ManitouIsland

Ironwood

Island

Stockton Island

HermitIsland

BasswoodIsland

Oak

Island

Otter

Island

DevilsIsland

RaspberryIsland

Eagle 

Island

Lighthouse

Bay

RaspberryBay

FrogBay

QuarryBay

JuliaBay

Presque

Isle Bay

N orth

Channe l We st

Cha

nne l

Sand Point

RaspberryPoint

Red CliffPoint

Bayfield

Point

Detour

 Little Sand Bay 

Visitor Center

MawikweBay

LAKE

SUPERIOR

Meyers Beach

A P O S T L E I S L A N 

North

0 0.5 1 2 Miles

Long Island

RUSSELL

(Township)

BAYFIELD

PENINSULA

RED CLIFF

INDIAN

RESERVATION

Red Cliff

13

13

K

Long Island Inset

Chequamegon 

Bay

South Channel

Chequameg

Point

Bayfield Visitor Center Park Headquarters

K

 East Bay

 West Bay 

Club Shaw Point

Roys Point

 Hanen Farms

HokensonFishery

Rocky IslandHistoric Area

ManitouFish Camp

Oak IslandGroupCampsite

85 

USES, DEVELOPMENTS, AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS 

PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED IN WILDERNESS 

The following table summarizes what recreational uses, management actions, and developments 

are permitted and prohibited in wilderness areas under the Wilderness Act of 1964 and NPS 

policies. 

Table 3: Uses, Developments, and Management in Wilderness 

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

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

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

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

fishing 

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

• guided interpretive walks and onsite talks and presentations 

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

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

• scientific activities, research, and monitoring 

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

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

quality 

• fire management activities (including fire suppression) 

• preservation of historic properties eligible for the National Register of Historic Places 

• trails necessary for resource protection and/or for providing for visitor use for the purposes of wilderness 

• campsites when essential for resource protection and preservation or to meet other specific wilderness 

management objectives, including those facilities necessary for resource protection or visitor safety (e.g., tent 

pads, bear-proof storage boxes) 

• toilets and signs necessary for visitor safety or to protect wilderness resources 

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

support structures, ranger station) 

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

NOTE: For administrative management actions and all of the above facilities, the management actions and facilities 

must be determined to be the minimum necessary to meet the purposes of wilderness (e.g., essential for resource 

protection and preservation, essential for administration of a wilderness area). See the next section for guidance on 

the minimum requirement concept. 

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

following uses are not permitted in a wilderness: 

• permanent improvements or human habitation 

• structures or installations (excluding historic structures) 

• permanent and temporary roads 

• use of motor vehicles and motorized equipment (except for emergency purposes) 

• landing of aircraft (except for emergency purposes) 
CHAPTER 2: FRAMEWORK FOR MANAGEMENT, USE, 

AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE GAYLORD NELSON WILDERNESS 

86

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

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

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

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

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

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

• new utility lines 

• permanent equipment caches 

• site markings or improvements for nonemergency use 

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

• new shelters for public use 

• picnic tables, except when necessary for resource protection 

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

APPLYING THE MINIMUM 

REQUIREMENT CONCEPT 

The Wilderness Act of 1964 states in section 

4(c) 

except as necessary to meet the minimum 

requirement for the administration of the 

area for the purpose of this Act (including 

measures required in emergencies 

involving the health and safety of persons 

within the area) there shall be no 

temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, 

motorized equipment or motorboats, no 

landing aircraft, no other form of 

mechanical transport, and no structure or 

installation... within a wilderness area. 

The act allows for the administrative 

exception, but it is an exception not to be 

abused and to be exercised very sparingly and 

only when it meets the test of being the 

minimum necessary for wilderness 

management. NPS policy dictates that all 

management decisions affecting wilderness 

must be consistent with the minimum 

requirement concept. 

In wilderness, how a management action is 

carried out is as important as the end product. 

Minimum Requirement Concept 

 “The minimum requirement concept is a 

documented process used to determine if 

administrative actions, projects, or programs 

undertaken by the National Park Service or 

its agents and affecting wilderness character, 

resources, or the visitor experience are 

necessary, and if so how to minimize 

impacts.” 

NPS Management Policies 2006 (6.3.5)

When determining the minimum requirement, 

the potential disruption of wilderness 

resources and character will be considered 

before, and given more weight than, economic 

efficiency and convenience. If a compromise 

of wilderness resources or character is 

unavoidable, only those actions that preserve 

wilderness character in the long run and/or 

have localized, short-term adverse impacts 

will be accepted. 

Part of the minimum requirement concept is 

identifying the minimum tool, which is 

defined as the least intrusive tool, equipment, 

device, force, regulation, or practice that 

would achieve the wilderness management 

objective safely and with the least impact on 

wilderness resources. 
Uses, Developments, and Management Actions 

Permitted and Prohibited in Wilderness 

87 

To apply the minimum requirement concept, 

a minimum requirement analysis will be 

completed for most proposed management 

actions, including but not limited to natural 

and cultural resource projects, administrative 

facilities, trail and campsite projects, and 

research. (Where actions take place outside 

the wilderness, consideration should also be 

given to how those actions may have indirect 

effects on wilderness character and values.) 

Completion of the minimum requirement 

analysis is usually part of the environmental 

screening process and accompanies the 

appropriate environmental compliance 

(usually an environmental screening form). 

The minimum requirement analysis is a twostep process. Step 1 helps determine whether 

or not the proposed management action is 

appropriate or necessary for administration of 

the area as wilderness, and does not pose a 

significant impact to wilderness resources and 

character. The assessment of adverse impacts 

must consider physical resources within the 

wilderness as well as wilderness character and 

values. Step 2 describes alternatives for the 

proposed action and evaluates each to 

determine if the techniques and tools and 

equipment (minimum tool) needed to ensure 

that overall impacts to wilderness resources 

and character are minimized. The minimum 

requirement analysis worksheet and 

instructions for its completion are in 

appendix B. 

APPROPRIATE NATURAL RESOURCE 

CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION 

ACTIVITIES IN WILDERNESS 

The 1964 Wilderness Act defines wilderness 

as a place that “in contrast with those areas 

where man and his own works dominate the 

landscape, is ... an area where the earth and its 

community of life are untrammeled by man, 

where man himself is a visitor who does not 

remain.” It is to be “protected and managed so 

as to preserve its natural conditions” and 

“generally appears to have been affected 

primarily by the forces of nature, with the 

imprint of man’s work substantially 

unnoticeable.” 

Although these ideas have much in common, 

they aren’t the same. As established by the act, 

the objectives to manage wilderness for the 

forces of nature (ecological conditions, what 

some consider “naturalness”) and to keep the 

wilderness untrammeled and to minimize the 

impacts of people (what some consider 

“wildness”) can be in conflict. 

Notwithstanding the islands’ long and 

continuing history of use by American Indians 

and the park’s embrace their history in the 

Gaylord Nelson Wilderness, the National 

Park Service must grapple with how to 

manage those parts of the wilderness where 

cultural resources are present. 

Although hands-off management was 

probably once sufficient to keep wilderness 

both natural and untrammeled, land managers 

now realize that human use of the landscape 

has left some areas with nonnative or invasive 

plants; threatened, endangered, and 

extirpated plants and animals; compacted 

soils; artificial fire regimes; trash piles; etc. The 

National Park Service is fully committed to 

the preservation of the tangible remnants that 

are historically significant (an equally 

challenging concept, also defined in federal 

law). However, NPS managers are faced in 

some other cases with the dilemma of whether 

to attempt to restore natural conditions or to 

leave an area alone. If the latter path is 

selected, some areas will restore themselves to 

ecological integrity over time, but other areas 

are likely to remain in an unnatural state 

without active intervention. Further 

complicating the picture, human-induced 

climate change will likely favor some species 

over others, and will likely lead to 

unprecedented ecological conditions that, if 

managers do not intervene, may appear 

“untrammeled” but will hardly be “natural.” 

Managers will be faced with the dilemma of 

artificially aiding some species to try to 

preserve them in their native habitat, or else 

accept their loss as the conditions they require 

disappear from the park. 
CHAPTER 2: FRAMEWORK FOR MANAGEMENT, USE, 

AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE GAYLORD NELSON WILDERNESS 

88

With regard to natural resource management 

in wilderness, NPS wilderness policies state: 

The principle of non-degradation will be 

applied to wilderness management, and 

each wilderness area’s condition will be 

measured and assessed against its own 

unimpaired standard. Natural processes 

will be allowed, in so far as possible, to 

shape and control wilderness ecosystems. 

Management should seek to sustain natural 

distribution, numbers, population 

composition, and interaction of indigenous 

species. Management intervention should 

only be undertaken to the extent necessary 

to correct past mistakes, the impacts of 

human use, and the influences originating 

outside of wilderness boundaries. 

Management actions... should be 

attempted only when the knowledge and 

tools exist to accomplish clearly articulated 

goals. (NPS “Reference Manual 41: 

Wilderness Preservation and 

Management” §6.3.7) 

Thus, conservation and restoration activities 

should occur only when necessary, and the 

threshold for taking management actions 

(intervention) is particularly high in 

wilderness. Managers should err on the side 

of intervening as little as possible in 

wilderness. 

Managing for Wilderness Characteristics 

Two key terms need to be considered in 

determining whether conservation and 

restoration activities are appropriate in 

wilderness: 

Wild—untrammeled; uncontrolled; 

unconstrained; without sign of people or 

intentional human control; on its own terms; 

self-willed; free. 

Natural—unimpaired; ecologically intact, 

with the full complement of native species; 

sustainable; unpolluted. 

These terms, ideally, are not mutually 

exclusive. Scientists, philosophers, and 

managers continue to debate their meanings 

as well as the intent of the Wilderness Act. 

Did the authors of the act anticipate a world 

affected by climate change and other human 

influences that would pervade every corner 

of the globe, no matter how remote? The 

challenge for the National Park Service 

clearly is how to manage for both wild and 

natural, without compromising either, in the 

Gaylord Nelson Wilderness. 

The question of when such actions should be 

taken is often difficult to answer. In light of 

how much past and present human activities 

have altered the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness, 

including logging, recreational uses, clearing 

of areas and developments, the introduction 

of nonnative species, and climate change, the 

concept of maintaining “natural conditions” 

does not provide much guidance on whether 

or not to actively intervene (see the 

description of the park’s vegetation in chapter 

4 and Cole et al. 2008 for more discussion on 

the question of naturalness in protected 

areas). 

In considering whether or not to take action, 

managers of the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness 

in Apostle Islands National Lakeshore should 

define as precisely as possible what outcomes 

are desired before determining how much 

intervention is warranted. The following 

questions (as well as the minimum 

requirement process criteria) can help guide 

managers in their decision: 

• Is the extent and significance of 

diminished naturalness known? 

• Is action needed to maintain ecological 

integrity—the presence of all appropriate 

elements and processes operating at 

appropriate rates? 

• Is the action needed to promote resilience 

of the wilderness—the capacity of the 

system to absorb change and still persist 

without undergoing a fundamental loss of 

character? Is action needed because little 

semblance of natural conditions is 

possible without intervention? 

• What is the intensity of the proposed 

action—how big an area will be affected 
Uses, Developments, and Management Actions 

Permitted and Prohibited in Wilderness 

89 

over how long a time? Is the intervention 

short or long term? 

• Is there sufficient understanding about 

reference conditions and processes, as 

well as the long-term effects of the action? 

• What are the benefits and risks of taking 

action versus not taking action? Is the 

threat or change facing the wilderness 

considered to be a high priority? Does the 

action have the most potential to make a 

difference? 

• Is there public understanding and support 

for the action? 

(Additional questions and ideas can be found 

in Cole et al. 2008; Landres 2004; and Landres 

2002.) 

The NPS National Wilderness Steering 

Committee also has provided a guide for 

evaluating the appropriateness of restoration 

and other conservation activities in 

wilderness. Recognizing that which actions 

should be taken versus avoided will be 

location specific and subjective, the following 

three-tiered framework can help managers in 

structuring their decision. 

Class I: Short-term wilderness disturbance; 

long-term wilderness character 

enhancement 

This class of activity entails one-time reversals 

of anthropogenic changes that, once 

accomplished, are self-sustaining. Users of 

wilderness might well encounter restoration 

activities that would typically result in impacts 

to wilderness character lasting a season to 

perhaps several years. Often, these impacts 

include temporary markers such as flagging, 

or tags and radio-collars on animals. Some of 

this, such as dam removal, may require heavy 

equipment. Upon completion, however, 

traces of the restoration activity would be 

extinguished over a short period of time, 

while the benefits of “re-wilding” and 

naturalness to wilderness character would be 

long term. 

Examples 

• reintroduction of self-sustaining native 

species 

• extirpation of invasive alien species 

Class II: Long-duration or recurring entry; 

benefits and costs to wilderness character 

Many ecosystems that include wildernesses 

suffer anthropogenic disturbances for which 

managers lack the knowledge, the legal 

authority, or the financial resources to correct 

permanently at the present time. For example, 

introduced weedy plants often invade natural 

areas from adjacent lands, and require regular 

removal and frequent monitoring. These 

nature-maintenance activities reflect the 

reality that many designated wildernesses are 

simply too small or disconnected to sustain 

their full suite of ecosystem functions without 

intervention. NPS managers must ultimately 

weigh the restoration benefits to the 

ecosystem against the impacts to other aspects 

of wilderness character. 

Examples 

• periodic control of persistent introduced 

species 

• reintroduced species requiring continuing 

support 

Class III: Support of laws or NPS policies; 

don’t directly enhance wilderness 

character 

These activities can present substantial 

impacts on wilderness character. They clearly 

violate the intent of the Wilderness Act. Some 

of these, such as control of pests, reflect the 

incapacity of some landscapes designated as 

wilderness to function as such either 

ecologically or politically. On the other hand, 

some severe interventions, such as the 

removal of native organisms for restoration 

elsewhere, illuminate the fundamental and 

unavoidable connections between many 

wildernesses and their surrounding, more 

modified landscapes. Ultimately, decisions in 
CHAPTER 2: FRAMEWORK FOR MANAGEMENT, USE, 

AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE GAYLORD NELSON WILDERNESS 

90

this category may require a public review for 

their resolution. 

Examples 

• habitat modification for endangered 

species 

• regulation of predator or prey numbers 

when an area is too small for natural 

regulation or natural controls have been 

lost 

• control of native pests or dangerous 

species to protect life or property outside 

wilderness 

• removal of native organisms in support of 

restoration elsewhere 

FIRE MANAGEMENT 

The park’s 2005 Fire Management Plan / 

Environmental Assessment provides guidance 

on management of fire in the wilderness area. 

Human-caused fires would be suppressed, 

although the use of minimum impact 

suppression techniques would be required. 

Natural ignition of wildland fires would be 

permitted to occur, in keeping with the idea 

that natural forces should predominate in 

wilderness. Prescribed burns could be 

proposed in wilderness to restore “natural 

conditions.” 

As noted in Director’s Order 41: “Wilderness 

Preservation and Management,” all wildland 

fires (unplanned ignitions) in the Gaylord 

Nelson Wilderness will be managed to include 

the application of minimum requirement 

suppression techniques (if needed), and the 

consideration of firefighter and public safety, 

a cost/benefit analysis, and sensitive natural 

and cultural resources. 

MANAGEMENT OF 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

The Gaylord Nelson Wilderness includes 

many cultural resources, including 

archeological sites, historic structures, 

ethnographic resources, and cultural 

landscapes. Cultural resources are included 

under the Wilderness Act as part of wilderness 

and historic values to be protected. In 

addition, laws intended to preserve the 

nation’s cultural heritage, including the 

National Historic Preservation Act, 

Archeological Resources Protection Act, and 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act, 

(among others), all fully apply in wilderness. 

Any adverse impacts on cultural resources in 

the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness will be 

avoided if at all possible. Any actions that 

involve ground disturbance or possible 

disturbance of historic structures or cultural 

landscapes must involve mitigative measures 

developed by the park staff in consultation 

with the Wisconsin state historic preservation 

office and, as appropriate, the Red Cliff and 

Bad River Bands of the Lake Superior 

Chippewa. 

As called for in §6.3.8 of Reference Manual 41, 

“Wilderness Preservation and Management,” 

historic properties eligible for the National 

Register of Historic Places in the Gaylord 

Nelson Wilderness will be protected and 

maintained according to the pertinent laws 

and policies governing cultural resources. 

However, the methods used to protect and 

maintain cultural resources must be consistent 

with the preservation of wilderness character 

and values—the provisions of the Wilderness 

Act must be complied with when conducting 

cultural resource management activities, 

including inventory, monitoring, treatment, 

and research. If these management actions are 

proposed in the wilderness area, they must be 

evaluated in the minimum requirement 

process to minimize negative impacts to 

wilderness character and values. 

It is important to stress that many actions 

affecting cultural resources in the wilderness 

area will only be undertaken after appropriate 

consultations with the Wisconsin state 

historic preservation office, associated 

American Indian tribal historic preservation 

offices, other interested agencies or 

organizations, and the general public. 
Uses, Developments, and Management Actions 

Permitted and Prohibited in Wilderness 

91 

AMERICAN INDIAN 

TREATY RIGHTS AND ACCESS 

As noted in chapter 1, the Red Cliff and Bad 

River Bands of Lake Superior Chippewa have 

hunting, trapping, and gathering rights 

guaranteed by treaty in Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore, including the wilderness 

area. The National Park Service will honor 

those legally established rights and cooperate 

with the tribes holding those rights. American 

Indian access also will be permitted in the 

wilderness for sacred or religious purposes 

consistent with the regulations and intent of 

the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, 

Executive Order 13007: “Indian Sacred Sites” 

of May 24, 1996, the Wilderness Act, and 

related laws and policies. 

HUNTING AND TRAPPING 

As noted in chapter 1, hunting and trapping 

are permitted uses in the park, including the 

wilderness area. Harvest limits and dates and 

seasons for hunting and trapping are the same 

in the wilderness area as in the rest of the 

park. Approved hunting and trapping 

methods will be consistent with NPS 

wilderness management. 

ACCESSIBILITY FOR 

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 

NPS management policies ensure that equal 

opportunities are available for people with 

disabilities in all programs and activities, 

including the opportunity to participate in 

wilderness experiences. In addition, under 

section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and 29 

CFR part 17, the National Park Service has 

legal obligations to ensure that no person who 

has a disability is denied the opportunity to 

participate in a program solely because they 

have a disability. All people, including those 

who have disabilities, are to be allowed to 

participate as long as they “meet the essential 

eligibility requirements” applied to all people 

for participation in that program or activity, 

and they are able “to achieve the purpose of 

the program or activity without modification 

to that program or activity that fundamentally 

alters the nature of that program or activity.” 

The 1965 Architectural Barriers Act (ABA), 

passed a year after the Wilderness Act, 

requires that when a federal agency constructs 

or alters a facility, that facility is to be 

accessible. Congress clarified the issue of 

accessibility in federal wilderness in the 1990 

Americans with Disability Act (ADA), even 

though this act does not normally apply to 

federal agencies. 

Title V section 508(c) of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act specifies that, in federally 

designated wilderness, a person who has a 

mobility impairment may use a wheelchair or 

mobility devices that (1) is designed solely for 

use by a mobility impaired person for 

locomotion, and (2) is suitable for use in an 

indoor pedestrian area. Wheelchairs or 

mobility devices that meet both parts of this 

definition are legally recognized as wheelchairs when used for locomotion by a person 

who has impaired mobility, may be used 

anywhere foot travel is allowed, and are not to 

be considered as forms of mechanical 

transport. Section 508(c) of the act further 

states that “no agency is required to provide 

any form of special treatment, or accommodation, or to construct any facility or modify any 

conditions of lands within a wilderness area to 

facilitate such use.” 

In the case of the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness, 

all visitors will be encouraged to enjoy the 

wilderness on its own terms. Few additional 

facilities are anticipated during the life of this 

plan, and those that are constructed will only 

be added if they provide essential environmental protection and are appropriate to the 

setting. In those cases, the facility design will 

be accessible consistent with federal law and 

NPS policy. Whenever feasible, the National 

Park Service will go beyond the legal 

requirements and make the facilities as 

accessible as possible using a wildernessappropriate primitive design. The park staff 

will work with Wilderness Inquiry, Inc., on 
CHAPTER 2: FRAMEWORK FOR MANAGEMENT, USE, 

AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE GAYLORD NELSON WILDERNESS 

92

adopting best practices with regard to 

accessibility in the Gaylord Nelson 

Wilderness. (The National Park Service has a 

national memorandum of understanding with 

Wilderness Inquiry, Inc., to provide assistance 

related to the concerns and needs of disabled 

people.) 

SPECIAL EVENTS 

NPS Management Policies 2006 (6.4.5) states 

that the agency will not sponsor or issue 

permits for special events in wilderness if the 

events are inconsistent with wilderness 

resources and character, or if they do not 

require a wilderness setting to occur. Permits 

will not be granted for competitive events, 

such as races, to take place in wilderness. 

INTERPRETATION, 

EDUCATION AND PERMITS 

Public information is a critical component of 

any wilderness management program. 

Education is important for park visitors, the 

public who do not visit the park, and NPS and 

partner employees. With regard to wilderness, 

education and interpretation efforts will focus 

on the following areas: 

• promoting and perpetuating public 

awareness and appreciation for wilderness 

character, resources, and ethics while 

providing for acceptable use limits 

• fostering an understanding of the concept 

of wilderness that includes respect for the 

resource and willingness to exercise selfrestraint in demanding access to it 

• encouraging the public to use and accept 

wilderness on its own terms, recognizing 

wilderness is an undeveloped, primitive 

environment and that there are potential 

risks and responsibilities involved in using 

and enjoying wilderness 

• fostering public stewardship, Leave No 

Trace ethics, and minimizing adverse 

human impacts to wilderness resources 

and values 

• presenting information on wilderness 

safety 

• as the wilderness is named for Gaylord 

Nelson, information and education efforts 

will also seek to educate visitors about the 

former Wisconsin governor and senator 

and his conservation legacy 

Wilderness character and resources, as well as 

the above points, will be included in the park’s 

interpretation and educational program and 

as an integral element in the park’s long-range 

interpretive plan and annual implementation 

plan. Appendix I of Reference Manual 41 

provides a description of primary interpretive 

themes for NPS wilderness areas. 

A variety of education and interpretive 

outreach approaches may be used to provide 

visitors and the public with information on 

the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness—such as talks 

and other presentations, waysides, publications, exhibits in visitor centers, web page 

sites, and curriculum-based education programs. All education and interpretive efforts 

will be located outside the wilderness area. 

Staff education is also an important part of the 

wilderness education effort. Wilderness 

awareness training will be incorporated into 

all appropriate training programs, such as 

orientation training for seasonal and new staff, 

concessions staff, and volunteers. 

Education may also be used as a tool for 

addressing wilderness use and management 

problems, and will generally be applied before 

more restrictive management actions. 

Permits are currently required for all 

individuals and groups camping in the park, 

including designated sites and designated 

camping zones in the wilderness. In the future 

the use of permits could change if necessary to 

ensure levels of wilderness use are consistent 

with a high-quality visitor experience, safety, 

and resource protection. Permits can have 

many uses, including the following: 

• providing education concerning resource 

protection and Leave No Trace practices 
Uses, Developments, and Management Actions 

Permitted and Prohibited in Wilderness 

93 

• providing education concerning safety 

issues 

• providing a means to track visitor use 

• identifying a starting point for search and 

rescue efforts 

• regulating use 

 

COMMERCIAL SERVICES 

Under the Wilderness Act commercial 

enterprises are not permitted in wilderness, 

with the exception of commercial services 

deemed necessary for realizing the 

recreational or other wilderness purposes of 

the area. Under NPS Management Policies 

2006 (10.3.1) commercial services need to be 

determined to be an appropriate use of the 

park. 

Commercial guiding (e.g., kayaking, fishing, 

sailing, and backcountry trips; adventure boat 

tours; and water taxi services) is a permitted 

use in Apostle Islands National Lakeshore and 

is consistent with the park’s wilderness 

management objectives and has long been 

deemed appropriate for the following reasons: 

• services are consistent with the purposes 

and values for which the park and 

wilderness area were established, as well 

as with applicable laws, regulations, and 

policies 

• services are consistent with laws, 

regulations, and policies 

• services do not compromise public health, 

safety, or well-being 

• services do not result in unacceptable 

impacts on important wilderness 

resources and values 

• services do not unduly conflict with other 

authorized park uses and activities or 

services outside the park 

• services do not monopolize limited 

recreational activities at the expense of the 

general public 

Commercial use authorization (CUA) permits 

are required of all businesses, groups, 

organizations, or individuals that provide 

guided trips and/or services for hire in the 

park. For nonprofit groups special use permits 

are required. Both types of permits do not 

limit the number of organizations providing 

these services. 

The use of permanent equipment and supply 

caches by commercial operators is prohibited 

within all areas of the park. Commercial 

operators also must adhere to the minimum 

requirement concept in all aspects of their 

activities in wilderness. 

SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITIES AND RESEARCH 

The Wilderness Act, NPS Management Policies 

2006 (6.3.6), and Director’s Order 41 all 

provide for and encourage scientific activities 

in wilderness when they are consistent with 

the National Park Service’s responsibilities to 

preserve and manage wilderness. 

Scientific activities are to be encouraged 

in wilderness, provided that the benefits 

of what may be learned outweigh the 

negative impacts on other wilderness 

values.... The increase of scientific 

knowledge, even if it serves no 

immediate management purpose, may 

be an appropriate wilderness research 

objective when it does not compromise 

wilderness resources and character. 

(Director’s Order 41) 

Thus, scientific activities that potentially 

impact wilderness resources or values, 

including access, ground disturbance, use of 

equipment, and animal welfare, would be 

permitted provided the benefits of the gained 

knowledge outweigh the impacts to 

wilderness resources or values. 

However, Director’s Order 41 also stresses it 

is important for scientists to understand that 

their research be conducted in accord with 

wilderness preservation principles. All 

scientific activities, including the installation, 

servicing, removal, and monitoring of 
CHAPTER 2: FRAMEWORK FOR MANAGEMENT, USE, 

AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE GAYLORD NELSON WILDERNESS 

94

research devices, must be evaluated using the 

minimum requirement concept and include 

documented compliance that assesses impacts 

against benefits to wilderness. Applications 

for research and scientific work in the 

wilderness area must include a minimum 

requirements analysis of the project’s 

methodologies. Scientific activities that 

involve activities or structures prohibited in 

§4(c) of the Wilderness Act (e.g., motorized 

equipment, mechanical transport) may occur 

in wilderness if several requirements are 

satisfied (see 6.3.6.1 in the NPS Management 

Policies 2006). 

Research and monitoring devices may be 

installed and operated in the Gaylord Nelson 

Wilderness if 

• the desired information is essential for the 

administration and preservation of 

wilderness and cannot be obtained from a 

location outside wilderness without a 

significant loss of precision and 

applicability; and 

• the proposed device is the minimum 

requirement necessary to accomplish the 

research objective. 

The devices will be removed when 

determined to no longer be essential. 

Permanent equipment caches are prohibited 

in wilderness; temporary caches may be 

permitted if they satisfy the minimum 

requirement concept. 

CAMPSITE DESIGNATION CRITERIA 

Existing designated campsites may need to be 

reconfigured and/or additional designated 

campsites may need to be established in the 

wilderness area. New sites would be selected 

based on the following criteria: 

• resource protection would be of 

primary importance 

• campsites would be placed out of view 

of trails 

• campsite placement would be subject to 

cultural resource mitigation 

Appendix C provides further details on 

campsite design considerations for wilderness 

and nonwilderness. 

NPS ADMINISTRATION / 

OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND 

FACILITIES 

Administrative Use of Motorized 

or Mechanized Equipment 

Administrative use of motorized or 

mechanized equipment must meet the 

requirements of the minimum requirement 

concept (see “Applying the Minimum 

Requirement Concept” earlier in this chapter 

and in appendix B). Convenience or economic 

efficiency alone are not considered sufficient 

justification for the use of motorized or 

mechanized equipment. Acceptable uses 

would include emergencies where human life 

is at risk, or where use of this equipment is 

determined to be the least intrusive method 

on wilderness character and values to 

accomplish management objectives. 

Within two years of completion of this plan, 

broad minimum requirement analyses will be 

done for routine maintenance projects in the 

wilderness (e.g., trails, campsites). Thus, the 

minimum requirement process will not have 

to be applied to each individual project in the 

future unless there are Wilderness Act 

exceptions. 

Use of Native Materials 

In keeping with wilderness character, local 

natural materials are preferred when possible 

to repair or construct wilderness facilities 

(e.g., water bars, campsites) or restore desired 

conditions to impacted areas. Any proposed 

rehabilitation or construction will need to go 

through the environmental screening process, 

including the completion of the minimum 

requirement analysis, and be approved by the 

wilderness committee. 
Uses, Developments, and Management Actions 

Permitted and Prohibited in Wilderness 

95 

Emergency Services 

Protecting human health and safety is a 

priority for park managers. Although 

wilderness is to be experienced on its own 

terms with inherent risks and challenges, NPS 

staff will continue to provide emergency 

services for all park visitors. During 

emergency incidents, consideration will be 

given to protecting the park’s wilderness 

resources. While hazard mitigation may be 

required, under no circumstances will pure 

convenience dictate the destruction of any 

wilderness resources. Leave No Trace 

minimum impact techniques will be 

incorporated into incident action plans and 

used whenever possible to lessen impacts to 

wilderness resources during emergency 

operations. 

NPS Management Policies 2006 (6.3.5) provide 

for the administrative use of motorized 

equipment or mechanical transport in 

emergency situations involving human health 

and safety. For the purposes of this plan, 

emergency situations include the following: 

• response to those in need of medical or 

physical assistance when threats to human 

health and safety are reasonably assumed 

• response to those who are determined to 

be unjustifiably overdue and threats to 

human health and safety are reasonably 

assumed 

• any response to downed aircraft 

• any response to an “unknown emergency” 

(e.g., mirror flash, second-hand visitor 

report, radio distress signal) 

• any reported disaster 

• special law enforcement operations when 

threats to human health and safety are 

reasonably assumed 

• responses to wildland fires that threaten 

life, property, cultural, or natural 

resources 

Logistics of the park, however, do not 

necessarily mean that use of 

motorized/mechanized equipment will either 

decrease response time or increase visitor 

safety. 

Administrative Facilities 

As stated in NPS Management Policies 2006

(6.3.10), NPS administrative facilities (e.g., 

patrol cabins, radio repeater sites, storage or 

support structures) will be limited in 

wilderness to the types and minimum number 

essential to meet the minimum requirements 

for the administration of the wilderness area. 

Permanent storage caches are prohibited in 

wilderness unless necessary for health and 

safety purposes or when they are determined 

to be necessary through a minimum 

requirements analysis. 

A decision to construct, maintain, or remove 

an administrative facility will be based 

primarily on whether or not the facility is 

required to preserve wilderness character or 

values, not on considerations of 

administrative convenience, economic effect, 

or convenience to the public or park staff. 

No administrative facilities are within the 

Gaylord Nelson Wilderness, and none are 

foreseen as being needed to administer the 

wilderness area. 

Signs 

Signs detract from wilderness character and 

make the imprint of people and management 

more noticeable. Consequently, NPS 

Management Policies 2006 (6.3.10.4) state that 

only signs necessary for visitor safety or to 

protect wilderness resources are permitted in 

wilderness. Signs that provide other 

information, such as natural and cultural 

history, will not be located within the 

wilderness area. If needed, signs in the 

Gaylord Nelson Wilderness would be the 

minimum size and number necessary and 

would be compatible with their surroundings. 

Inappropriate signs predating the 

establishment of the wilderness will be 

removed within two years of the 

implementation of this plan. 
CHAPTER 2: FRAMEWORK FOR MANAGEMENT, USE, 

AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE GAYLORD NELSON WILDERNESS 

96

Monitoring of Wilderness Character 

Wilderness character has been described as 

the combination of biophysical, 

experiential, and symbolic ideals that 

distinguishes wilderness from other 

lands. These ideals combine to form a 

complex and subtle set of relationships 

among the land, its management, its 

users, and the meanings people 

associate with wilderness. (Interagency 

Wilderness Character Monitoring Team 

2008) 

Both the Wilderness Act and NPS 

Management Policies 2006 (6.3.1) mandate that 

the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness character be 

preserved. To ensure that wilderness 

character is not deteriorating or being altered 

requires monitoring. NPS Management 

Policies 2006 (6.3.6.2) also require that 

conditions and long-term trends of wilderness 

conditions be monitored. 

Visitor impacts on wilderness and monitoring 

of user capacity indicators and standards is 

one facet of wilderness character. However, 

these indicators are addressed in chapter 3. 

This section instead focuses on monitoring 

indicators of wilderness character that are not 

directly tied to visitor impacts (although there 

may be some overlap between the two sets of 

indicators). The monitoring being addressed 

in this section is also different from the NPS 

inventory and monitoring program’s vital 

signs effort (although again there may be some 

overlap in the monitoring efforts). 

The Interagency Wilderness Character 

Monitoring Team has identified four key 

wilderness qualities may be monitored as an 

approximation of wilderness character: 

• untrammeled—wilderness is essentially 

unhindered and free from modern human 

control or manipulation 

• natural—wilderness ecological systems are 

substantially free from the effects of 

modern civilization 

• undeveloped—wilderness retains its 

primeval character and influence, and is 

essentially without permanent 

improvement or modern human 

occupation 

• solitude or primitive and unconfined 

recreation—wilderness provides 

outstanding opportunities for solitude or 

primitive and unconfined recreation 

The following indicators have been identified 

as being appropriate and feasible to monitor 

wilderness character in the Gaylord Nelson 

Wilderness. These indicators may be replaced 

and/or additional indicators may be identified 

if better ways are found to measure changes in 

wilderness character, if the indicators prove 

not to be sufficiently sensitive to measuring 

changes, or if the indicators prove not to be 

cost-effective to check regularly. Some of 

these indicators are already monitored by 

park staff and/or are monitored to satisfy 

Government Performance and Results Act 

(GPRA) requirements. For more information 

on these indicators see the Interagency 

Wilderness Character Monitoring Team 

(2008), Landres and Boutcher (in process),

and NPS (2007). 

If monitoring shows a trend of downward 

quality, indicating degradation of wilderness 

character, then park managers would take 

appropriate action to address the impacts and 

restore the character of the Gaylord Nelson 

Wilderness. 

Organization 

All Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

management divisions will continue to be 

involved in wilderness management. As 

directed by NPS Director’s Order 41, all 

positions having significant wilderness 

responsibilities will be supported by position 

descriptions that detail these responsibilities. 

The park’s backcountry management team 

will continue to facilitate the review of 

projects and management actions proposed 

within the wilderness and associated analyses 

(e.g., minimum requirement analysis). The 

backcountry management team will continue 
Uses, Developments, and Management Actions 

Permitted and Prohibited in Wilderness 

97 

to include representatives of the 

interpretation and education, protection, 

planning and resource management, and 

facility management divisions. Periodic 

meetings will continue to be held to evaluate 

proposals, provide mitigation when necessary, 

and make recommendations to the 

superintendent. 

The park’s chief of planning and resource 

management will be designated as the park’s 

wilderness coordinator. This would be a 

collateral duty of the chief of planning and 

resource management. The chief of planning 

and resource management will have direct 

responsibility for the development, 

coordination, communication, 

implementation, and accountability for the 

park’s wilderness program. This individual 

will also serve as a liaison to regional and 

national wilderness programs. 

 

Wilderness training will continue to be a 

priority for park staff with significant work 

responsibilities within the wilderness area, 

managing resources, or working with the 

park’s wilderness visitors. 

Table 4: Wilderness Character Indicators to be Monitored in the 

Gaylord Nelson Wilderness 

Wilderness Character Quality Indicator 

Untrammeled Quality Number of actions taken or authorized by park staff to manage plants, 

animals, pathogens, soil, water, or fire in the wilderness 

Natural Quality Number of indigenous species that are listed as threatened, 

endangered, sensitive, or of concern 

Total acres of the wilderness where nonnative vegetation is present 

and not considered contained* 

Extent and magnitude of change in water quality 

Undeveloped Quality Extent of wilderness acreage affected by development that does not 

support wilderness uses, such as homes/cabins, temporary structures, 

and utility line corridors* 

Type and amount of administrative and nonemergency use of motor 

vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport* 

Occurrences of noncompliant uses, including unauthorized use of 

motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport* 

Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined 

Recreation Quality 

Type and extent of management restrictions (e.g., requiring permits for 

wilderness visits, area closures, prohibitions or limited use of campfires) 

*Indicators monitored to satisfy requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act. 
98
CHAPTER 3:

THE ALTERNATIVES

Old Michigan Island Lighthouse

Sand Island Lighthouse

Julian Bay on Stockton Island

View of Outer Island Sandspit

101 

INTRODUCTION 

This chapter describes four alternatives for 

managing Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

over the next 15–20 years. The four 

alternatives embody the range of what the 

public and NPS staff want to see 

accomplished regarding natural resource 

conditions, cultural resource conditions, 

visitor use and experience conditions, and 

management at Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore. Alternative 1, the no-action 

alternative, presents a continuation of current 

management direction and is included as a 

baseline for comparing the consequences of 

implementing each alternative. The action 

alternatives are alternatives 2 (the NPS 

preferred alternative), 3, and 4. These 

alternatives present different ways to manage 

resources and visitor use and to improve 

facilities and infrastructure in the park. 

As noted in the “Foundation for Planning and 

Management” section in chapter 1, the 

National Park Service would continue to 

follow existing agreements and servicewide 

mandates, laws, and policies regardless of the 

alternatives considered in this plan. These 

mandates and policies are not repeated in this 

chapter. Likewise, parkwide desired 

conditions (and potential strategies to achieve 

those conditions) for topics ranging from 

ecosystem management to sustainable design 

and practices are presented in chapter 1 and 

would apply regardless of which alternative is 

ultimately selected for implementation. The 

wilderness management directions and 

policies described in chapter 2 also are not 

repeated here. 

Before describing the alternatives, this chapter 

explains how the alternatives were developed 

and the preferred alternative was identified. 

Other sections describe the management 

zones (a key element of the alternatives) and 

the approaches taken to address user capacity 

and boundary adjustments. After the 

alternatives are described, mitigative measures 

that would be used to reduce or avoid impacts 

are listed, needed future studies and 

implementation plans are noted, the 

environmentally preferable alternative is 

identified, and several actions are noted that 

the planning team considered but dismissed. 

At the end of the chapter, there are tables that 

summarize the key differences among the 

alternatives, the costs of the alternatives, and 

the differences in impacts that would be 

expected from implementing each alternative 

based on the analysis in “Chapter 5: 

Environmental Consequences.” 

FORMULATION OF 

THE ALTERNATIVES 

Many aspects of the desired conditions of 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore are 

defined in the establishing legislation, the 

park’s purpose and significance statements, 

and the servicewide mandates and policies 

that were described earlier. Within these 

parameters, the National Park Service 

solicited input from the public, NPS staff, 

governmental agencies, tribal officials, and 

others regarding issues and desired conditions 

for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. 

Planning team members gathered information 

about existing visitor use and the condition of 

the park’s facilities and resources. Then a set 

of management zones and management 

alternatives were developed to reflect the 

range of ideas proposed by NPS staff and the 

public. 

The three action alternatives included in this 

chapter were developed based on seven key 

issues identified by the public and NPS staff in 

the scoping period (see the “Scope of the 

General Management Plan / Wilderness 
CHAPTER 3: THE ALTERNATIVES 

102

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement” section). These issues were 

described in a July 2006 newsletter. For each 

of the issues a series of management options 

or actions were identified. After holding 

public meetings and analyzing public 

comments on these issues and management 

options, the planning team grouped the 

options into different alternatives. Each 

alternative is intended to effectively and 

efficiently manage the park and address all of 

the issues. All of the action alternatives seek to 

incorporate both resource protection and 

visitor opportunities, and were developed to 

be functional and viable. Although all of the 

alternatives are consistent with maintaining 

the park’s purposes, significance, and 

fundamental resources and values, they vary 

in their focus with regard to opportunities for 

visitor experiences and facilities on the islands 

and mainland unit. 

The alternatives focus on what resource 

conditions and what visitor uses, experiences, 

and opportunities should be at Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore rather than on details of 

how these conditions, uses, and experiences 

should be achieved. Thus, the alternatives do 

not include many details on resource or visitor 

use management. 

More detailed plans or studies would be 

required before most conditions proposed in 

the alternatives are achieved. The 

implementation of any alternative also 

depends on future funding and environmental 

compliance. This plan does not guarantee that 

funding will be forthcoming. The plan 

establishes a vision of the future that would 

guide day-to-day and year-to-year 

management of the park, but full 

implementation could take many years. 

POTENTIAL FOR 

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS 

The National Park and Recreation Act of 1978 

requires general management plans to address 

whether boundary modifications should be 

made to park units. In the case of Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore no specific 

boundary adjustments were identified as 

being needed. Thus, none of the alternatives 

propose changes to the park boundary. 

However, this plan does not prohibit small 

additions, such as land for a new visitor center 

or operational (administrative) facility 

considered in the alternatives, or other 

administrative uses that may be identified in 

the future by other land planning processes. 

The purchase of any lands for visitor or 

operational facilities outside the existing NPS 

boundaries of the mainland unit would likely 

require congressional approval. This plan also 

does not preclude future consideration of 

boundary adjustments should needs or 

conditions change. 

IDENTIFICATION OF THE 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

The preferred alternative was developed 

through a process called “Choosing by 

Advantages” (CBA). Using this process, the 

planning team identified and compared the 

relative advantages of each alternative 

according to a set of factors. The benefits or 

advantages of each alternative were compared 

for each of the following CBA factors: 

• Preservation of natural resources 

(protection of vegetation/soils, protection 

of wildlife, protection of coastal 

processes) 

• Protection of wilderness values (apparent 

naturalness, opportunities for solitude or 

primitive unconfined recreation) 

• Preservation of cultural resources 

(protection of light stations, protection of 

other historic structures/properties, 

protection of archeological and American 

Indian ethnographic resources) 

• Ability to tell the stories of the Apostle 

Islands (stories of people and resources) 

• Recreational values (provides appropriate 

and desirable opportunities, universal 

design) 

• Efficiency in park operations/ 

sustainability (operational functionality, 
Introduction 

103 

administrative functionality, emergency 

responsiveness, sustainability) 

The advantages of each alternative were 

considered in the development of the 

preferred alternative. The preferred 

alternative gives the National Park Service the 

greatest overall benefits for each factor listed 

above for the most reasonable cost. 
104 

MANAGEMENT ZONES 

Management zones apply to different areas of 

a park unit and describe the desired 

conditions for resources and visitor 

experiences in those different areas. Together, 

they identify the widest range of potential 

resource conditions, visitor experiences, and 

facilities for the park unit that fall within the 

scope of the park unit’s purpose, significance, 

and special mandates. Five potential 

management zones were identified for Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore: frontcountry, 

backcountry, primitive, historic, and park 

operations. 

In formulating the three action alternatives, 

the management zones were placed in 

different locations or configurations on a map 

of the park according to the overall concept of 

each alternative. 

The five management zones applied to 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore in the 

action alternatives are presented in table 5. 

Visitor experiences, resource conditions, and 

appropriate activities and facilities are 

described for each management zone. 

The cultural resource treatments identified in 

the table and in the alternatives are defined 

following the table. 

Table 5: Management Zones 

Frontcountry Backcountry Primitive Historic Park Operations

Zone 

Concept 

The primary focus 

of this zone would 

be providing 

support services 

for recreation in a 

natural setting. 

These developed 

areas would 

provide for the 

highest density of 

recreation use in 

Apostle Islands 

National 

Lakeshore. Thus, 

they would have 

more visitors and 

visitor 

developments 

than other parts 

of the park. 

This zone would 

emphasize the 

preservation of 

natural and 

cultural resources 

while providing 

for visitor 

enjoyment and 

outstanding 

opportunities for 

solitude and 

primitive 

recreation. 

Impacts due to 

recreation would 

be limited, 

substantially 

unnoticeable, and 

appropriate for 

wilderness. 

This zone would 

emphasize the 

preservation of 

natural resources 

and offer 

outstanding 

opportunities for 

solitude and 

primitive 

recreation. 

Recreational 

opportunities 

would be primarily 

unstructured, with 

many 

opportunities for 

adventure. The 

areas would 

generally appear 

to have been 

affected primarily 

by the forces of 

nature. 

Protection of 

cultural resources 

would be the 

focus within these 

areas. Education/ 

interpretive 

opportunities may 

be plentiful in 

some locations in 

this zone.

This zone would 

support 

management and 

operation of the 

park. 

Wilderness Not applicable for 

wilderness 

Applicable for 

wilderness 

Applicable for 

wilderness 

Not applicable for 

wilderness 

Not applicable for 

wilderness 
Management Zones 

105 

Frontcountry Backcountry Primitive Historic Park Operations

Natural 

Resources 

Natural resources 

would be 

maintained in as 

natural a 

condition as 

possible while 

allowing for some 

modifications to 

provide for visitor 

services and 

developments.

Natural systems 

and natural processes would 

function with 

ecological 

integrity. Active 

restoration and 

mitigative 

methods would be 

employed when 

necessary to meet 

this objective. 

Areas with 

sensitive natural 

resources would 

be protected and 

may receive a high 

level of 

management 

attention.

Natural systems 

and natural 

processes would 

function with 

ecological 

integrity. The 

areas generally 

would appear to 

be affected by 

forces of nature, 

with the imprint 

of man’s work 

substantially 

unnoticeable. The 

application of 

active restoration 

or mitigative 

measures would 

be avoided unless 

ecological integrity 

was not expected 

to recover without 

human 

intervention. 

Areas with 

sensitive natural 

resources would 

be protected and 

may receive a high 

level of management attention, 

although there 

would be minimal 

evidence of that 

activity. 

The natural 

environment may 

be manipulated in 

small areas to 

protect cultural 

resources and to 

provide for visitor 

use. 

Natural resources 

would be 

modified to 

accommodate 

park operations. 

Natural processes 

may be altered 

(e.g., flooding and 

fire) to protect 

infrastructure and 

resources. 

Cultural 

Resources1

Cultural resources 

would be 

preserved, 

restored, or 

rehabilitated for 

adaptive reuse. 

Cultural resources 

would be documented, protected, and 

stabilized/ 

preserved as 

necessary. 

Within the 

wilderness area, 

treatment 

methods would be 

consistent with 

the preservation 

of wilderness 

character and 

values. 

Cultural resources 

would be documented , protected, and 

stabilized/ 

preserved as 

necessary. 

Within the 

wilderness area, 

treatment 

methods would be 

consistent with 

the preservation 

of wilderness 

character and 

values. 

Cultural resources 

would be 

stabilized, 

preserved, 

restored, or 

rehabilitated for 

adaptive use. 

Historic character 

of identified 

cultural 

landscapes would 

be protected. 

Cultural resources 

would be 

stabilized, 

preserved, 

restored, or 

rehabilitated for 

adaptive use. 

 

1 See definitions of cultural resource treatments following this table.
CHAPTER 3: THE ALTERNATIVES 

106

Frontcountry Backcountry Primitive Historic Park Operations

Cultural 

Resources2

(continued) 

 Cultural resources 

generally would 

be minimally 

managed. 

 

There would be 

allowances for 

some 

modifications (in 

harmony with 

historic character) 

of cultural 

landscape 

elements for 

interpretation, 

safety, and 

resource 

protection. 

Submerged 

resources would 

be cooperatively 

managed with the 

state of 

Wisconsin. 

There would be 

allowances for 

some 

modifications (in 

harmony with 

historic character) 

of cultural 

landscape 

elements for 

interpretation, 

safety, and 

resource 

protection.

There would be 

allowances for 

minor 

modifications (in 

harmony with 

historic character) 

of cultural 

landscape 

elements for 

resource 

protection only.

There would be 

allowances for 

some 

modifications (in 

harmony with 

historic character) 

of cultural 

landscape 

elements for 

interpretation, 

safety, and 

resource 

protection. 

There would be 

allowances for 

some 

modifications (in 

harmony with 

historic character) 

of cultural 

landscape 

elements for 

interpretation, 

safety, and 

resource 

protection. 

Visitor 

Experience 

Visitors would 

have convenient 

and easy access to 

developed, high 

use, recreational 

and interpretive 

areas. 

Visitors would 

enjoy outstanding 

opportunities to 

enjoy natural and 

cultural resources 

and solitude. 

Visitors would 

have an 

opportunity to 

experience 

primitive and 

unconfined types 

of recreation in an 

area that generally 

appears to have 

been affected 

primarily by the 

forces of nature. 

Visitors would 

have a variety of 

opportunities to 

see and learn 

about cultural 

resources. Visitor 

access and public 

safety would be a 

high priority, as 

would protecting 

historic properties. 

Visitors would not 

normally enter the 

park operations 

zone except for 

park business 

purposes, or to 

seek aid or 

information. The 

area would be 

intended for staff 

and visitors on 

official business. 

High to moderate 

levels of visitors 

may be 

encountered in 

these areas near 

beaches, boat 

launches, and 

visitor centers. 

Density would 

begin to decrease 

with travel farther 

from these points. 

A range of small 

to large groups 

could be 

accommodated. 

There would be a 

moderate chance 

of encountering 

others. Only small 

groups would 

generally be 

accommodated. 

The chance of 

encountering 

others would be 

the lowest within 

this zone. Only 

small groups 

would generally 

be accommodated. 

Moderate levels of 

visitors may be 

encountered in 

these areas. A 

range of small to 

large groups could 

be accommodated. 

NA 

 

2 See definitions of cultural resource treatments following this table.
Management Zones 

107 

Frontcountry Backcountry Primitive Historic Park Operations

Visitor 

Experience 

(continued) 

Recreational 

activities could 

include walking 

along beaches, 

boating, taking 

boat tours, 

kayaking, 

picnicking, hiking, 

camping, and 

sightseeing. 

Recreational 

activities could 

include walking 

along beaches, 

picnicking, hiking, 

and camping. 

Recreational 

activities could 

include walking 

along beaches, 

picnicking, hiking, 

and camping. 

Recreational 

activities could 

include walking 

along beaches, 

picnicking, and 

hiking. No 

camping would 

occur within this 

zone. 

N/A 

Snowmobiling and 

ATV use 

consistent with 

federal regulations 

would be 

permitted on most 

of Lake Superior 

waters within the 

park and on 

designated routes 

on the mainland, 

but not on the 

islands. 

Snowmobiling and 

ATV use would 

not be permitted. 

Snowmobiling and 

ATV use would 

not be permitted. 

Snowmobiling and 

ATV use would 

not be permitted. 

N/A 

Designated 

Camping 

This would be 

permitted with 

limits on group 

size. 

Designated 

Camping 

Sites would be 

dispersed or 

clustered to 

minimize resource 

impacts. There 

would be limits on 

group size and 

limited designated 

sites within 

wilderness. 

Designated 

Camping 

Existing developed 

campsites would 

continue to be 

maintained; new 

designated 

campsites might 

be permitted for 

resource 

protection 

purposes. There 

would be limits on 

group size.

Designated 

Camping 

This would not be 

permitted. 

N/A 

Undesignated 

Camping 

This would not 

permitted. 

Undesignated 

Camping 

This would be 

permitted in this 

zone ,with 

restricted group 

sizes. Frequently 

used 

undesignated sites 

would be 

evaluated for 

closure and 

rehabilitation, or 

for establishment 

of designated 

sites. 

Undesignated 

Camping 

This would be 

permitted in this 

zone, with 

restricted group 

sizes. Frequently 

used 

undesignated sites 

would be 

evaluated for 

closure and 

rehabilitation, or 

for establishment 

of designated 

sites. 

Undesignated 

Camping 

This would not 

permitted. 

N/A 
CHAPTER 3: THE ALTERNATIVES 

108

Frontcountry Backcountry Primitive Historic Park Operations

Visitor 

Experience 

(continued) 

Visitor Services 

Support services 

would be 

extensive. 

Visitor Services

There would be 

no on-site visitor 

support services 

other than 

primitive trails, 

necessary signs, 

and designated 

developed and 

undeveloped 

campsites. 

Visitor Services 

Minimal or no 

visitor services 

would be 

provided. 

Visitor Services 

There would be a 

moderate level of 

on-site visitor 

support services. 

N/A 

Interpretive 

Programming 

Roving and 

programmed 

interpretive 

opportunities 

could be provided. 

Waysides and 

signs may be 

located at parking 

lots and other 

transportation 

portals. 

Interpretive 

Programming 

Minimal waysides 

may be provided 

in nonwilderness 

areas. Guided 

hikes may be 

provided. 

Wilderness and rewilding would be 

a major 

interpretive focus, 

but all wildernessrelated 

interpretation 

would be done 

from outside the 

wilderness. 

Interpretive 

Programming 

There would be 

no waysides or 

guided hikes. 

Wilderness and rewilding would be 

a major 

interpretive focus, 

but all wildernessrelated 

interpretation 

would be done 

from outside the 

wilderness. 

Interpretive 

Programming 

Roving and 

programmed 

interpretive 

opportunities 

could be provided. 

Waysides and 

signs could be 

available at entry 

locations to the 

adjoining 

wilderness area. 

N/A 

Facilities would 

incorporate an 

unobtrusive 

design and 

minimal footprint. 

Facilities would 

provide for basic 

services, access, 

recreation, and 

visitor safety. 

Facilities could 

include roads, 

paved and 

unpaved trails, 

boat launch areas, 

docks, parking 

lots, visitor contact 

stations, visitor 

centers, and other 

highly developed 

facilities. 

There would be 

minimally 

developed 

facilities such as 

trails and 

designated 

camping areas to 

safely allow for 

visitor use. 

There would be 

very minimal 

development such 

as signs that 

might be 

necessary for 

visitor safety or to 

protect wilderness 

resources. There 

would be some 

designated 

camping areas. 

Facilities would 

incorporate an 

unobtrusive 

design, sensitive 

to the historic 

scene, and a 

minimal footprint. 

Facilities would 

provide for basic 

services, access, 

recreation, and 

visitor safety. 

Facilities could 

include paved and 

unpaved trails, 

docks, boat 

launch areas, light 

houses, and other 

historic structures. 

Facilities would be 

intensely managed 

for safety 

purposes and 

would incorporate 

a sustainable 

design sensitive to 

its context and 

with minimal 

footprint. Facilities 

may include 

administrative 

offices, roads, 

maintenance 

facilities, storage, 

parking lots, 

storage yard, 

waste water 

treatment 

facilities, utility 

management 

facilities, and 

other operational 

needs critical to 

park operation. 
Management Zones 

109 

Frontcountry Backcountry Primitive Historic Park Operations

Development Developed 

campsites would 

include tent pads, 

picnic tables, fire 

ring, and bear 

locker if needed. 

Vault, pit, or 

alternative toilets 

would be available 

at all sites. 

Designated 

campsites could 

include tent pads, 

fire ring, and bear 

locker if needed. 

Picnic tables 

would be 

permitted in 

nonwilderness 

areas. Vault, pit, 

or alternative 

toilets would be 

available at most 

sites. 

Designated 

campsites would 

be limited to 

places where they 

are needed to 

protect resources, 

with minimal 

footprint. New 

campsites would 

not be provided 

except for 

resource 

protection 

purposes. 

Designated 

campsites could 

include tent pads, 

fire ring, bear 

locker, and vault, 

pit, or alternative 

toilet if needed. 

No campsites 

would be 

provided. 

No public 

campsites would 

be provided. 

Marked and 

maintained trails 

would be provided 

to a standard that 

allows for safe use 

by multiple user 

groups. 

Marked and 

maintained trails 

would be provided 

at a rustic 

standard. 

Revisions to the 

trails system 

would be 

permitted for 

resource 

protection 

purposes.

Existing trails 

would continue to 

be provided at a 

rustic standard. 

Minor revisions to 

the trails system 

would be 

permitted for 

resource 

protection 

purposes. 

Trails would be 

maintained and 

developed only to 

access historic or 

interpretive 

resources. 

Revisions to the 

trails system 

would be 

permitted for 

resource 

protection 

purposes. 

No public trails 

would be present. 

Definitions of Cultural Resource Treatments 

• Stabilization is an interim measure taken to structurally reinforce, weatherize, or correct 

unsafe conditions while retaining a historic property’s present form. 

• Preservation is the act or process of applying the measures necessary to sustain the existing 

form, integrity, and materials of a historic property. Work, including preliminary measures to 

protect and stabilize the property, generally focuses on ongoing maintenance and repair of 

historic materials and features rather than extensive replacement and new construction. 

• Rehabilitation is the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property 

through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features that 

convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. 

• Restoration is the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a 

property as it appeared at a particular period of time by removing features from other periods 

in its history and replacing missing features from the restoration period. 
110 

USER CAPACITY 

General management plans are required by 

law to address the topic of user capacity, also 

known as carrying capacity. The National 

Park Service defines user capacity as the types 

and extent of visitor use that can be 

accommodated while sustaining the quality of 

resources and visitor opportunities consistent 

with the purposes of the park. It is a process 

involving planning, monitoring, and 

management actions to ensure that a park 

unit’s values are protected. 

Managing user capacity in national parks is 

inherently complex and depends not only on 

the number of visitors, but also on where they 

go, what they do, and the “footprints” they 

leave behind. In managing for user capacity, 

the park staff relies on a variety of 

management tools and strategies, rather than 

solely on regulating the number of people in a 

park or simply establishing limits on visitor 

use. In addition, the ever-changing nature of 

visitor use in parks requires a deliberate and 

adaptive approach to user capacity 

management. 

The foundations for making user capacity 

decisions in this General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Management Plan are the park’s 

purpose, significance, special mandates, and 

management zones. These define why the 

park was established and identify the most 

important resources and values, including 

visitor experience opportunities, that will be 

protected or provided. The management 

zones qualitatively describe the desired 

resource conditions and visitor experiences, 

including appropriate recreation activities, for 

different locations throughout the park. These 

elements direct the National Park Service on 

how to protect resources while offering a 

diversity of visitor opportunities. 

Based on the desired conditions described in 

the management zones, indicators and 

standards are identified in this plan. An 

indicator is a measurable variable that can be 

used to track changes in resource and social 

conditions related to human activity so that 

existing conditions can be compared to 

desired conditions. A standard is the 

minimum acceptable condition for an 

indicator. The indicators and standards help 

translate the broader qualitative descriptions 

of desired conditions in the management 

zones into measurable conditions. As a result, 

park managers can track changes in resource 

conditions and visitor experiences, and 

provide a basis for the park staff to determine 

whether desired conditions are being met. 

The monitoring component of this process 

also helps test the effectiveness of 

management actions and provides a basis for 

informed adaptive management of visitor use. 

The General Management Plan / Wilderness 

Management Plan also includes a range of 

actions that would be taken to maintain or 

restore desired conditions. For example, 

management actions may include providing 

information about low impact recreational use 

and the principles of Leave No Trace; 

directing visitors to designated facilities or 

areas; adding or altering facilities (e.g., trails, 

campsites) for containment of use to 

designated areas; directing visitors to lesserused areas or off-peak times; restricting the 

types of recreation activities permitted; and/or 

reducing the amount of visitor use in certain 

areas. 

With limited staffs and budgets, NPS 

managers will focus more frequently on areas 

where there are likely visitor use changes 

and/or clear evidence of problems, or where 

problems can reasonably be anticipated 

during the life of this plan. This means 
User Capacity 

111 

monitoring will more frequently take place 

where conditions are approaching or violate 

standards, conditions are changing rapidly, 

specific and important values are threatened 

by visitation, and/or the effects of 

management actions taken to address impacts 

are uncertain. 

User capacity decision making is a continuous 

process; decisions are adjusted based on 

monitoring the indicators and standards. 

Management actions are taken to minimize 

impacts when needed. The indicators and 

standards included in this management plan 

would generally not change in the future. 

However, as monitoring of the park’s 

conditions continues, managers may decide to 

modify, add, or eliminate indicators if better 

ways are found to measure important changes 

in resource and social conditions. Also, if new 

use-related resource or visitor experience 

concerns arise in the future, additional 

indicators and standards will be identified as 

needed to address these concerns. The results 

of the park’s monitoring efforts, related visitor 

use management actions, and any changes to 

the park’s indicators and standards would be 

available to the public. 

In summary, this General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Management Plan addresses user 

capacity in the following ways: 

• It outlines the park’s purpose, 

significance, and management zones, 

which provide the foundation for user 

capacity management. 

• It describes the park’s most pressing userelated resource and visitor experience 

concerns. This helps NPS managers focus 

limited resources on specific issues that 

may need management attention now or 

into the future. It also helps determine the 

most important potential indicators and 

standards to consider. 

• It identifies the most important indicators 

that will be monitored and sets standards 

to determine if desired conditions are not 

being met due to impacts from visitor use. 

• It outlines representative examples of 

management actions that might be used to 

avoid or minimize impacts from visitor 

use. In addition, more specific guidance 

on managing visitor use and related 

impacts in campsites and camping zones is 

included in appendix C given the 

importance of this issue to the park. 

OVERVIEW OF CURRENT AND 

POTENTIAL USE-RELATED IMPACTS 

This section discusses existing and potential 

use-related impacts that may occur in the 

park, challenging managers’ abilities to 

manage for the desired conditions outlined in 

this General Management Plan / Wilderness 

Management Plan. 

Existing facilities in the park generally support 

enjoyable visitor opportunities and protect 

resources, and based on projected trends will 

continue to function fairly well. As noted in 

chapter 1, designated island campsites are 

sometimes full on the weekends during the 

peak season. Visitors may not get some 

campsites they want when they want them, 

such as on Sand, York, and Oak islands. Some 

of the park’s wilderness and nonwilderness 

campsites are showing signs of visitor impacts. 

The design and use of some campsites has led 

to soil compaction, the loss of vegetation, and 

campsite expansion. In the camping zones 

that do not have designated campsites on 

some popular islands, a few “unofficial” 

visitor-created campsites have been 

repeatedly used, resulting in impacts such as 

compacted soils, trampled vegetation, trash, 

and incidences of improper human waste 

disposal. 

Some resource-related impacts also have 

occurred in localized areas on the islands and 

mainland. An extensive network of social 

trails (i.e., those created by visitors) has 

formed on the Stockton Island–Presque Isle 

tombolo, affecting the fragile dune vegetation 

that grows there. The vegetative cover on 

some popular sandscapes and beaches, such as 
CHAPTER 3: THE ALTERNATIVES 

112

on Cat and Ironwood islands, also has been 

adversely affected due to trampling by visitors. 

Although there are no major crowding or use 

conflicts affecting visitor opportunities on the 

islands or the mainland, visitor crowding is a 

concern at some docks and parking areas at 

times, such as at Stockton–Presque Isle and 

Rocky Island, at kayak launch areas at Little 

Sand Bay and Meyers Beach, and at Meyers 

Beach in the winter when ice conditions allow 

access to the sea caves. Crowding and noise 

have been identified by a few visitors to be a 

concern in surveys and during the scoping 

effort for this plan (see the description of 

visitor use and experience in the “Affected 

Environment” section and the summary of 

issues in chapter 1). Some of these concerns 

can arise due to large group activities at 

attraction points. 

INDICATORS AND STANDARDS 

This section identifies several measurable 

indicators that would be monitored in Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore. The indicators 

focus on key aspects of visitor experiences 

and resources, and more specifically on the 

most pressing use-related concerns described 

in the previous section. The planning team 

considered many potential indicators that 

would identify visitor use impacts of concern, 

but those included in table 6 are considered 

the most salient at this time given the park’s 

desired conditions and existing visitor use 

patterns. 

After selecting indicators, standards that 

represent the points where visitor experience 

and resource conditions become unacceptable 

were then assigned. The standards selected for 

each indicator were based on best 

professional management judgment that was 

informed by the desired conditions outlined 

in the management zones, the park’s baseline 

conditions for each indicator, and relevant 

park-specific and national research studies. 

Ten indicators and standards were selected as 

measures of visitor use effects at Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore. Table 6 includes 

the indicators, standards, related monitoring, 

and potential future management strategies 

that would be implemented as a result of this 

planning effort. The majority of these 

indicators and standards are related to 

camping activities on the islands. Camping is a 

popular activity in the park and contributes to 

visitors being able to achieve an island 

experience—a fundamental value of the park. 

Further, the potential for resource impacts as 

a result of overnight activities, especially given 

the significant amount of this activity in the 

park, can contribute to a number of concerns 

such as vegetation loss, soil compaction, 

erosion, and improper human waste disposal. 

These impacts can be substantial in terms of 

affecting natural resource conditions and 

processes, and also can contribute to a 

reduction in perceived naturalness that affects 

the visitor experience. An additional indicator 

and standard related to group activities was 

included since the dynamics of group use can 

contribute to a number of issues such as noise 

impacts, crowding, use conflicts, and an 

overload on infrastructure. Managing the size 

and timing of groups is important for 

minimizing these types of impacts. 

The staff will continue general monitoring of 

use levels and patterns and would conduct 

periodic visitor surveys of visitor 

characteristics, expectations, and preferences. 

In addition, the park staff would add the user 

capacity indicators identified in the zone 

descriptions that are not already included in 

the current monitoring program. The rigor of 

monitoring the indicators (e.g., frequency of 

monitoring cycles, amount of geographic area 

monitored) may vary considerably depending 

on how close existing conditions are to the 

standards. If the existing conditions are well 

below the standard, the rigor of monitoring 

may be less than if the existing conditions are 

close to or trending towards the standards. 

In addition, the initial phases of monitoring 

for the indicators and standards defined 

above would help the NPS staff identify if any 

revisions are needed. The initial testing of the 

indicators and standards would determine if 

1 
User Capacity 

113 

Table 6: User Capacity Indicators and Standards 

TOPIC: Size and Condition of Designated Campsites

Indicator Standard Monitoring Strategies Management Strategies

Optimal campsite size 

measured in square 

feet for individual sites 

and group sites 

Individual site: 1,600 

square feet 

Group site: 5,400 square 

feet 

• Continue regular 

condition assessments 

on the existing 

campsite system using 

existing monitoring 

protocol and a 

rotating schedule of 

sites 

• Incorporate user 

capacity campsite 

monitoring with 

facility condition 

monitoring and 

management 

activities 

• Increased education on 

campsite regulations and 

Leave No Trace 

techniques (e.g., packing 

out waste) 

• Relocation of campsites 

to more durable and 

naturally constrained 

areas 

• Increased site management and maintenance 

(e.g., site boundary 

delineation) 

• Designate use areas (e.g., 

tenting, cooking) 

• Addition of visitor 

facilities (e.g., pit toilets, 

campfire rings) 

• See other management 

strategies outlined in 

campsite management 

guidelines (appendix C) 

Maximum campsite 

size measured in 

square feet for 

individual sites and 

group sites 

Individual site: 2,150 

square feet 

Group site: 8,100 square 

feet 

Condition class (see 

rating system* 

following this table) of 

designated campsites 

No more than 10 

designated campsites at 

condition class 4; No 

campsites at condition 

class 5. 

Presence and percent 

of visible human waste 

sites at all designated 

campsites 

Evidence of human waste 

visible at less than 25% of 

designated campsites; 

95% of designated 

campsites have no more 

than one evident human 

waste site. 

TOPIC: Proliferation and Condition of Visitor Created Campsites in Camping Zones 

Indicator Standard Monitoring Strategies Management Strategies

Number of visitorcreated campsites in 

any zone 

No more than two visitorcreated campsites in any 

zone 

• Initiate monitoring of 

the presence and 

condition of visitorcreated campsites 

using rapid assessment 

techniques and a 

rotating schedule of 

zones 

• To the extent feasible, 

incorporate visitorcreated campsite 

monitoring activities 

into other park 

program activities 

occurring in 

designated zones 

• If zone camping 

management (see 

appendix C) is 

adjusted, monitoring 

protocol would also be 

amended 

• Increased education on 

campsite zone regulations 

and Leave No Trace 

techniques 

• Improved delineation and 

information on camping 

zone boundaries and 

closure areas 

• Increased restoration of 

visitor-created campsites 

• Alteration of zone 

camping management to 

a concentric circle system 

with established sites in 

high use areas (see 

camping zone management guidelines in 

appendix C) 

Condition class (see 

rating system* following this table) of 

visitor-created campsites in any designated 

camping zone 

No more than one in any 

designated camping zone 

will be in condition class 

level 3; no sites will be 

above condition class level 

3 

Number of visitorcreated campsites in 

closed areas 

No visitor-created 

campsites in closed areas 

Presence and percent 

of visible human waste 

sites at all visitor 

created campsites 

Evidence of human waste 

visible at less than 25% of 

visitor created campsites; 

95% of visitor created 

campsites will have no 

more than one evident 

human waste site. 
CHAPTER 3: THE ALTERNATIVES 

114

TOPIC: Evidence of Campfires 

Indicator Standard Monitoring Strategies Management Strategies

Number of campfire 

remnants per 1,000 

linear feet of 

beach/coastline 

No more than one 

campfire remnant per 

1,000 ft of 

beach/coastline 

• Continue monitoring 

of campfire remnants 

as part of regular 

patrols and other park 

program activities 

• If campfire remnants 

increase in an area, 

target for more 

systematic monitoring 

• Increased education on 

campfire regulations and 

Leave No Trace 

techniques 

• Improved delineation and 

information on areas 

permitted for campfire 

activities 

• Reduction of areas 

permitted for campfire 

activities 

• Restrictions on campfire 

activities 

TOPIC: Organized Group Management

Indicator Standard Monitoring Strategies Management Strategies

Maximum people per 

organized group 

Historic and Frontcountry 

Zones: 60 people at one 

time per group** 

Primitive and Backcountry 

Zones: 20 people at one 

time per group** 

**Except for special 

events (e.g., Lighthouse 

Celebration) and special 

use permits that are 

regulated separately 

• Continue monitoring 

the presence and size 

of organized groups 

through on-site 

contacts and pre-trip 

coordination activities 

• Initiate targeted onsite monitoring of the 

presence and size of 

organized groups 

• Increased pre-trip 

planning information, 

with targeted contact for 

organized groups 

• Increased education on 

regulations and 

recommendations for 

organized group activities

• Coordinate the arrival 

(day and time) and 

distribution of organized 

groups 

• On-site contact with 

individual visitors and 

groups to provide 

information , direct use, 

and avoid conflicts 

*Condition Class Rating System: 

Class 0: Campsite barely distinguishable; no or minimal disturbance of vegetation and/or organic litter. 

Often an old campsite that has not seen recent use. 

Class 1: Campsite barely distinguishable; slight loss of vegetation cover and/or minimal disturbance of 

organic litter. 

Class 2: Campsite obvious; minor to moderate loss of vegetation cover (10%-40%) and/or organic litter 

crushed in primary use areas. 

Class 3: Moderate loss of vegetation cover (40%-60%) and/or organic litter crushed on much of the site, 

some bare soil exposed in primary use areas. Some soil erosion indicated by exposed tree roots 

and minor shoreline disturbance. 

Class 4: Moderate to high loss of vegetation cover (60%-90%) and/or organic litter crushed on much of 

the site, bare soil exposed in primary use areas. Soil erosion indicated by exposed tree roots and 

moderate shoreline disturbance. 

Class 5: Nearly complete or total loss of vegetation cover (90%-100%) and organic litter, bare soil 

widespread. Soil erosion obvious, as indicated by exposed tree roots and rocks and extensive 

shoreline disturbance. 
User Capacity 

115 

the indicators are accurately measuring the 

conditions of concern. Park staff may decide 

to modify the indicators or standards and 

revise the monitoring program if more 

effective and efficient methods are found to 

measure changes caused by visitor use. Most 

of these changes should be made within the 

first several years of incorporating changes 

to current campsite monitoring. This 

iterative learning and refining process is the 

strength of this approach to managing user 

capacity—it can be adapted and improved as 

knowledge grows. 

After this initial testing period of monitoring 

indicators and standards, adjustments 

should not occur unless there is a compelling 

reason. 

Finally, if use levels and patterns change 

substantially, the park staff may need to 

initiate additional monitoring of new 

indicators to ensure that desired conditions 

are maintained. Some of the potential future 

user capacity indicators may relate to the 

topics of crowding at high-use docks and 

attraction points, use conflicts on the lake, 

and trampling of sensitive vegetation. 

The selection of any new indicators and 

standards for monitoring purposes, changes 

to the indicators and standards identified in 

this general management plan, or the 

implementation of any management actions 

that affect use would comply with the 

National Environmental Policy Act; the 

National Historic Preservation Act; and 

other laws, regulations, and policies as 

needed. NPS staff would also inform the 

public of progress and revisions to indicators 

and standards through regular reporting on 

the user capacity program. 
116 

ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION) 

CONCEPT AND SUMMARY 

This alternative would provide a baseline for 

evaluating changes and impacts in the other 

alternatives. In the no-action alternative, the 

National Park Service would continue to 

manage Apostle Islands National Lakeshore as 

it has been managed since the approval of the 

1989 General Management Plan and the 

designation of the Gaylord Wilderness in 

2004. For the foreseeable future there would 

be no major change in the management 

direction of the park. NPS managers would 

continue to strive to protect/maintain current 

natural and cultural resource conditions in the 

park, preserving light stations and providing 

for quality visitor experiences on the islands. 

Facilities and resource programs would 

continue as they are, without substantial 

changes. The natural resource program would 

continue to focus on inventorying and 

monitoring, resource protection and 

restoration, research, and mitigation where 

appropriate. The cultural resource program 

also would continue to focus on surveying 

cultural resources; protecting historic 

structures and landscapes, particularly in and 

around the light stations; and mitigation 

where appropriate. The interpretive/ 

education programs would continue to 

provide a variety of personal services (e.g., 

information and orientation at visitor centers, 

informal visitor contacts, guided walks and 

lighthouse tours, evening and educational 

programs) and nonpersonal services (e.g., 

publications like the park newspaper and site 

bulletins). 

Natural and cultural resources would 

continue to be managed under existing 

approved plans (e.g., fire management, 

wildlife management). As appropriate, 

archeological surveys and/or monitoring 

would precede any ground disturbance 

associated with excavation or construction, 

and national register-eligible or national 

register-listed archeological resources would 

be avoided to the greatest extent possible. To 

appropriately preserve and protect national 

register-listed or national register-eligible 

historic structures and cultural landscapes, all 

stabilization, preservation, and rehabilitation 

efforts, as well as daily, cyclical, and seasonal 

maintenance, would be undertaken in 

accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties (1995). 

MANAGEMENT ZONING 

In alternative A, NPS managers would 

continue to follow the management and 

zoning described in the 1989 General 

Management Plan Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore, as modified by the 2004 wilderness 

designation. Most of the land on the islands 

would be managed as wilderness. Small 

scattered areas on the islands with cultural 

resources outside wilderness (e.g., light 

stations) would be in historic zones, and areas 

with visitor facilities (e.g., docks, campsites, 

visitor centers) would be in development 

zones. On the mainland most of the land 

would continue to be in a natural zone, with 

Meyers Beach and Little Sand Bay being in 

development zones. The Lake Superior 

submerged lands within the park boundary 

and the use and occupancy/life estates on the 

islands would continue to be included in 

special use zones. 

USER CAPACITY 

In this alternative NPS managers would 

continue managing visitors as they have in the 

past, relying on approved plans. The park staff 
ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION) 

117 

would continue to respond to user capacity 

issues on a case-by-case basis, with facility 

capacity largely setting the park’s user 

capacity. No major new initiatives would be 

pursued to manage visitors, and a parkwide 

user capacity approach (i.e., monitoring 

indicators and standards) would not be 

established. 

MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC AREAS 

Light Stations 

NPS managers would continue existing 

management of light stations, striving to 

maintain current resource preservation efforts 

and visitor experience opportunities to the 

extent possible. Except for the Raspberry 

Island light station, in the absence of a sitespecific plan, the cultural landscapes in the 

immediate vicinity of the light stations would 

be stabilized and preserved. At the Raspberry 

Island light station, the cultural landscape 

would be restored to the degree possible, as 

described in the approved 2004 “Cultural 

Landscape Report and Environmental 

Assessment” (NPS 2004f). 

Former Use and Occupancy/ 

Current Life Estate Properties 

Decisions would be made on the future of life 

estates when the leases expire. The structures 

associated with expired leases would be 

prioritized based on their historical 

significance, potential for viable adaptive uses, 

cost, and other criteria. Based on the assigned 

priorities, the National Park Service would 

determine the level of treatment to give each 

resource. Structures and landscapes at the 

high end of the priority list would receive 

more attention compared to the low priority 

structures and landscapes. Structures that are 

not historically significant would be allowed 

to molder or be removed (particularly if they 

pose safety hazards), and the natural values of 

the sites would be restored. In the absence of a 

site-specific plan, no public use would be 

permitted in the interior of the structures. 

(Some of the grounds of these properties 

would be open to public use.) The public use 

of associated docks would be decided on a 

case-by-case basis. 

 

Other Nonwilderness 

Areas on the Islands 

NPS managers would continue existing 

management priorities, striving to maintain 

current natural and cultural resource 

conditions and visitor experience 

opportunities to the extent possible. In the 

absence of a site-specific plan there would be 

no significant changes in visitor uses or 

facilities, including docks and campsites, and 

the Stockton Island Visitor Center. 

In this alternative park managers would 

continue to strive to preserve and stabilize the 

Manitou fish camp. Efforts would continue to 

partially rehabilitate the cultural landscape. 

Personal and nonpersonal interpretation (selfguided brochures) would be provided for 

visitors. 

Wilderness Area 

NPS managers would continue existing 

management priorities, striving to maintain 

current natural and cultural resource 

conditions and visitor experience 

opportunities to the extent possible. In the 

absence of a site-specific plan there would be 

no significant changes in visitor uses or 

facilities. There would continue to be a 

mixture of designated campsites and zoned 

(undesignated) camping. The group campsite 

on the sandspit at Oak Island would continue 

to be maintained. No new campsites would be 

provided under this alternative. 

Mainland Unit 

The park staff would continue existing 

management priorities, striving to maintain 

current natural and cultural resource 

conditions and visitor experience 

opportunities to the extent possible. In the 

absence of a site-specific plan there would be 

no significant changes in visitor uses or 

facilities. Meyers Beach and Little Sand Bay 

would continue to be managed as they 

currently are. The presence of NPS staff at 
CHAPTER 3: THE ALTERNATIVES 

118

Meyers Beach would continue to be seasonal 

and subject to weather conditions.

Mainland NPS Visitor Centers 

NPS managers would continue current 

operations, using the old Bayfield County 

Courthouse and Little Sand Bay Visitor 

Center to the extent possible. The Bayfield 

Visitor Center would continue to operate at 

reduced hours during the winter, while the 

Little Sand Bay Visitor Center would be 

closed during the winter. If at some point the 

Little Sand Bay Visitor Center becomes 

unusable, site-specific planning would be 

done to determine what action should occur, 

taking into consideration the historic 

Hokenson fishery. 

The National Park Service would continue its 

commitment to the cooperative operation of 

the Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center. 

NPS Operational 

(Administrative) Facilities 

The park headquarters would remain at the 

old courthouse building in Bayfield. Park 

managers would continue to lease a 

waterfront facility for operational facilities 

(e.g., shops, marina support facilities, storage 

space, docks), and would continue to 

maintain operational facilities at Little Sand 

Bay. 

ESTIMATED COSTS 

Cost estimates for alternative 1 are identified 

below. The cost estimates, in 2008 dollars, 

shown here are not for budgetary purposes; 

they are only intended to show a very general 

relative comparison of costs between the 

alternatives. A discussion of the development 

of the costs and a comparison between the 

alternatives is included after the description of 

the alternatives. 

The implementation of the approved plan will 

depend on future funding. The approval of 

this plan does not guarantee that the funding 

and staffing needed to implement the plan will 

be forthcoming. Full implementation of the 

actions in the approved General Management 

Plan could be many years in the future. 

Costs have been broken down into two 

categories—annual operating costs and onetime costs. 

Annual costs include the costs associated with 

ongoing maintenance, utilities, staffing, 

supplies and materials, and any leasing costs. 

One-time costs include new construction, the 

cost of removal or divestiture of resources, the 

cost of restoration of resources, the cost of 

rehabilitation, and any cost of additions to 

structures. 

Annual Costs 

As of 2008, the park’s staff consisted of 36 

permanent employees. This approximate 

staffing level would continue in alternative 1. 

The park’s annual operating budget (FY 2008) 

was $ 2.9 million.

One-time Costs 

Alternative 1 would continue the current level 

of facilities with no additional development or 

changes to facilities.
119 

ALTERNATIVE 2 (NPS PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

CONCEPT AND SUMMARY 

Alternative 2 would focus on providing 

opportunities for more people to have an 

island experience, encouraging additional 

transportation opportunities for visitors to 

reach some of the inner islands who don’t 

have their own boats or the skills to deal with 

challenging Lake Superior conditions. Two 

light stations would be restored or 

rehabilitated under this alternative (in 

addition to the already restored Raspberry 

light) for interpretive/educational purposes. 

Additional opportunities, such as day use 

areas, also would be provided for visitors on 

some nonwilderness areas on the inner 

islands. The visitor experience on the other 

nonwilderness island areas would largely stay 

as it is, with the possible exception of 

additional opportunities to experience 

selected light stations. The wilderness area 

generally would continue to be managed as it 

has been, as mandated under the Wilderness 

Act, Director’s Order 41, and Reference 

Manual 41 (see also the desired conditions 

and strategies for wilderness in table 1 and 

chapter 2). 

The visitor experience on the mainland unit 

would remain largely the same with the 

addition of a greater NPS presence at Meyers 

Beach. A new Bayfield Visitor Center would 

be located closer to the water in Bayfield to 

increase contact with visitors and assist people 

in getting out to the islands. A new NPS 

operations facility would be colocated with 

the new visitor facility to increase efficiency. 

The park headquarters would remain in the 

old courthouse building in Bayfield. The Little 

Sand Bay Visitor Center would be replaced 

with a visitor contact station. 

As in all of the alternatives, NPS managers 

would continue to protect/maintain natural 

and cultural resource conditions in park. 

Natural and cultural resource management 

would primarily concentrate on long-term 

monitoring, research, restoration, and 

mitigation where appropriate. The 

interpretive/education programs would 

continue to provide a variety of personal 

services (e.g., information and orientation at 

visitor centers, informal visitor contacts, 

guided walks and lighthouse tours, evening 

and educational programs) and nonpersonal 

services (e.g., publications like the park 

newspaper and site bulletins). 

MANAGEMENT ZONING 

Under alternative 2, the potential 

management zones described in table 5 would 

be applied to the park as presented in the map 

of alternative 2 (see figure 4). Most of the 

islands would either be in the primitive or 

backcountry zone, while most of the mainland 

unit would be in the backcountry zone. Trails 

in wilderness on Oak, Raspberry, Otter, 

Rocky, Devils, and Stockton islands would be 

managed as backcountry zones, while the 

remainder of the wilderness area would be in 

the primitive zone. In nonwilderness areas, 

popular use areas such as Meyers Beach and 

Little Sand Bay, the Stockton Island Visitor 

Center and campground, and areas with 

docks would be in the frontcountry zone. All 

of the Lake Superior water within the park 

boundary also would be included in the the 

frontcountry zone. 

The light stations and many other cultural 

resources and landscapes, such as some 

farmsteads, quarries, fish camps, and logging 

camps, would be in the historic zone. (The 

boundaries of the zones around the light 

stations include the maximum historic 

clearings. However, the size of these areas 
CHAPTER 3: THE ALTERNATIVES 

120

could be modified based on the 

recommendations in future cultural landscape 

reports.) The use and occupancy/ life lease 

properties on Sand and Rocky islands also 

would be in the historic zone, reflecting how 

the areas would be managed when they come 

under NPS management. However, until that 

time the National Park Service would 

continue to respect the valid rights of the 

lessees and take no actions in these areas. 

Several small park operations zones also 

would be scattered among the islands, 

primarily covering administrative cabins. 

Table 7: Management Zones in 

Alternative 2 

Management 

Zones 

Acres % 

Park Operations 35 0.05 

Historic 215 0.31 

Frontcountry 27,714 40 

Backcountry 8,325 12 

Primitive 33,084 48 

USER CAPACITY 

As described in the management zones and in 

the beginning of this chapter, park staff would 

monitor social and resource indicators, 

evaluate current conditions against standards, 

and take appropriate steps to ensure that the 

park’s user capacity is not exceeded. See table 

6 for the user indicators, standards, and 

management and monitoring strategies that 

would be followed under this alternative. 

MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC AREAS 

Light Stations 

Under alternative 2, two light stations 

(choosing from Sand, Outer, or Michigan 

Island) would be restored or rehabilitated for 

cultural resource preservation and 

interpretive opportunities, similar to what was 

done for the Raspberry Island light. Criteria 

for choosing would include ease of 

transporting visitors and the number of 

visitors interested in going to the light stations. 

Restoration work would include both interior 

and exterior elements of the light stations. The 

cultural landscapes for the restored light 

stations would be partially or fully 

rehabilitated. 

Part of the Long Island light station would be 

rehabilitated for NPS staff housing to increase 

resource protection and provide some limited 

visitor information. 

At the Raspberry Island light station, the 

cultural landscape would be restored to the 

degree possible, as described in the approved 

“Raspberry Island Light Station Cultural 

Landscape Report and Environmental 

Assessment” (NPS 2004f).This restoration 

work would address historic patterns of 

circulation, pathways, and outbuildings. 

For the remaining light stations additional 

efforts would be focused on preserving the 

exteriors of the structures compared to 

alternative 1. The cultural landscapes in the 

immediate vicinity of the light stations would 

be stabilized and preserved. Vegetation 

encroaching on the light station clearings 

would be removed. If there were no other 

options available to ensure the long-term 

preservation of a light station, and if it is 

economically feasible, a light station might be 

adaptively reused for overnight public lodging 

in order to offset the cost of protecting the 

resource. However, the National Park Service 

would only consider this option if the private 

sector would pay the entire cost of the 

conversion, and if public access to the light 

station is maintained. Further environmental 

documentation would be required, and the 

public would be engaged in this effort. 
Sand 

Island

YorkIsland

Bear

 Island

RockyIsland

South TwinIsland

North Twin Island

Cat

Island

ManitouIsland

Ironwood

Island

Stockton Island

HermitIsland

BasswoodIsland

Oak

Island

Otter

Island

DevilsIsland

RaspberryIsland

Eagle 

Island

Lighthouse

Bay

RaspberryBay

FrogBay

QuarryBay

JuliBay

Presque

Isle Bay

N orth

Channe l We st

Cha

nne l

Sand Point

RaspberryPoint

Red CliffPoint

Bayfield

Point

Detour

 Little Sand Bay 

Visitor Center

 East Bay

 West Bay 

Club

 Shaw Point

Roys Point

MawikweBay

LAKE

SUPERIOR

A P O S T L E I S L A N 

Meyers Beach

BAYFIELD

PENINSULA

Red Cliff

13

13

K

Long Island Inset

Chequamegon 

Bay

South Channel

Chequameg

Point

Visitor Center

Park Headquarters

K

RUSSELL

(Township)

RED CLIFF

INDIAN

RESERVATION

HokensonFishery

Rocky IslandHistoric Area

ManitouFish Camp

Oak IslandGroupCampsite

Æ

Long Island

North

0 0.5 1 2 Miles

Alternative 2 (NPS Preferred Alternative) 

123 

Former Use and Occupancy/ 

Current Life Estate Properties 

If during the life of the plan the former use 

and occupancy/current life estate property 

leases expire, the park staff would evaluate 

these properties for potential inclusion in the 

National Register of Historic Places, including 

determinations of which buildings would be 

considered contributing structures, i.e., 

structures that contribute to the significance 

of a national register property. The buildings 

would also be evaluated for safety and utility 

to the National Park Service for park 

operations. Structures that are not listed in the 

national register, are unsafe, or do not have 

utility for park operations would be removed 

and the areas restored, or in some cases 

allowed to molder to natural conditions. 

The following actions would be taken for the 

Rocky Island properties, West Bay Club, Shaw 

Point properties, and the Hansen farm. 

• If the Rocky Island properties were to 

come under NPS management during the 

life of the plan, the contributing structures 

on the National Register of Historic Places 

would be preserved and the area would be 

interpreted using nonpersonal services 

(e.g., waysides, brochures). One or more 

of the docks may be rehabilitated if 

needed and opened for public day use, 

provided safety and resource conditions 

can be met and adequate visitor facilities 

(i.e., toilets) provided. 

• If the West Bay Club on Sand Island was 

to come under NPS management during 

the life of the plan, park managers would 

preserve the West Bay Club and interpret 

the historic story using nonpersonal 

interpretation (e.g., waysides). The 

historic road between the West Bay Club 

and East Bay would be reestablished as a 

trail, provided it can be built in an 

environmentally sound manner. The dock 

would be rehabilitated, if necessary, so it 

would be available for public overnight 

use. If economically feasible, the club 

would be adaptively reused (which may 

require rehabilitation or restoration) to 

permit some public overnight use of the 

structure. (If it is not economically 

feasible, overnight designated camping 

would be permitted near West Bay; the 

dock would be available for public 

overnight use.) 

• If the Shaw Point properties on Sand 

Island were to come under NPS 

management during the life of the plan, 

the contributing structures would be 

preserved and park staff would interpret 

the historic story using a combination of 

personal and nonpersonal techniques. 

The historic road between Shaw Point and 

East Bay would be reestablished as a trail, 

provided it can be built in an 

environmentally sound manner. One or 

more deeper water docks would be 

rehabilitated, if necessary, and be available 

for public overnight use. If economically 

feasible, some of the Camp Stella 

structures would be adaptively reused 

(which may require rehabilitation or 

restoration) for some overnight public 

use. (If it were not economically feasible, 

the structures would be stabilized but not 

adaptively reused for overnight use.) 

• The Hansen farm contributing structures 

on Sand Island would be stabilized and 

preserved. The cultural landscape also 

would be partially restored. Personal and 

nonpersonal interpretation would be 

provided to educate visitors about the 

Hansens, the farm, and the farm’s ties to 

the rest of island and the wider region. A 

new trail would connect the farm to the 

island trail network and provide access to 

the shoreline. 

Other Nonwilderness 

Areas on the Islands 

New opportunities, for example boat shuttles, 

would be sought to provide inexpensive 

transportation to selected islands—such as 

Basswood and Sand islands. To support these 

visitors, a small amount of new infrastructure 

would be provided on these islands, creating a 
CHAPTER 3: THE ALTERNATIVES 

124

few day use areas that could accommodate 

small or large groups. This infrastructure 

would include such facilities as restrooms and 

picnic tables. An area for day use that can 

accommodate large groups would be designed 

and constructed. 

NPS managers would provide more 

convenient opportunities for boaters who 

depend on docks to experience the islands 

under a greater variety of weather and lake 

conditions by relocating, improving, or 

expanding or doing minor relocations of some 

existing public docks such as those at Sand 

and Basswood islands. The Michigan Island 

dock, in addition, would be improved to 

address access and natural resource concerns. 

There would be no change in the number of 

public docks. 

There also could be an increase in the number 

of individual designated campsites and group 

campsites on Sand, Oak, and Basswood, with 

increased access, subject to resource 

management criteria (e.g., resource sensitivity 

of sites), interest/demand for new campsites, 

and other appropriate criteria. 

On nonwilderness areas in the outer islands 

there would be no net gain in the number of 

designated campsites. The Stockton Island 

campground would be relocated to Presque 

Isle to address resource concerns (e.g., bank 

erosion and potential for bear-visitor 

conflicts). At least one of the new campsites 

would be designed to be universally 

accessible. The Stockton Island Visitor Center 

would remain. 

The intent for the Manitou fish camp under 

this alternative would be the same as under 

alternative 1. Park managers would strive to 

stabilize and preserve the original site. The 

cultural landscape would be partially 

rehabilitated. Personal and nonpersonal 

interpretation (e.g., self-guided brochures) 

would be provided for visitors. 

Wilderness Area 

The wilderness area generally would continue 

to be managed as it is now. The desired 

conditions in table 1 in chapter 1 and the 

general guidance in chapter 2 would be 

applied. There would be no net gain in the 

number of designated individual campsites 

and trail miles, although campsites may be 

reconfigured and/or relocated and trails may 

be rerouted to protect resources and 

wilderness character. 

In this alternative the Oak Island group 

campsite (the only group campsite in 

wilderness) would be relocated to an area near 

the dock and the wilderness campsite would 

be restored. 

Mainland Unit 

The mainland unit would continue to be 

managed as it has been. The park staff would 

continue striving to maintain current natural 

and cultural resource conditions and visitor 

experience opportunities to the extent 

possible. A ramp would be installed at Meyers 

Beach, which would provide access to the 

beach for visitors with disabilities. The 

Lakeshore Trail would continue to be 

maintained only between Meyers Beach and 

the mainland campsite. A new trail would be 

developed from Little Sand Bay to Sand River. 

A day use area for large groups would be 

developed in the Little Sand Bay area to 

provide a space for park staff to provide 

programs for educational groups. (No area is 

now available for this activity.) A small loop 

trail would be developed at Little Sand Bay. 

Mainland NPS Visitor Centers 

The Bayfield Visitor Center would move to a 

new central location on the waterfront to 

increase contact with visitors and assist people 

in getting out to the islands. 

The Little Sand Bay Visitor Center would be 

replaced with a smaller visitor contact station 

to assist visitors in this part of the park. This 

new visitor contact station would have limited 

exhibit and sales space. The Hokenson house 
Alternative 2 (NPS Preferred Alternative) 

125 

might be able to serve as the contact station. 

But whatever option is selected for the visitor 

contact station, the historic integrity of the 

Hokenson fishery would be preserved. 

The National Park Service would continue its 

commitment to the cooperative operation of 

the Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center. 

NPS Operational 

(Administrative) Facilities 

The park headquarters would remain at its 

present location in the Old Bayfield County 

Courthouse, which would be renovated. 

At the expiration of the current lease, the 

park’s operational center at Roys Point 

(including shops, docks, and storage space) 

would be consolidated with the Bayfield 

Visitor Center in a new waterfront location in 

Bayfield, although some basic shops and 

storage facilities would remain at Little Sand 

Bay. 

At Little Sand Bay three trailer pads would be 

added to the three existing trailer pads to 

provide more space for NPS seasonal 

employees and volunteers. The two 

nonhistoric seasonal staff houses at Little 

Sand Bay would continue to be maintained. 

Some administrative offices now in the Little 

Sand Bay Visitor Center also would be moved 

to either park headquarters or the new visitor 

center in Bayfield, although some minimal 

shops and storage facilities would remain at 

Little Sand Bay if they can be shown to 

enhance the sustainability of park operations 

in the western portion of the park. 

A new ranger station would be developed at 

Meyers Beach to provide visitor services (e.g., 

orientation, law enforcement, permits, 

interpretation) in this portion of the park. 

This development would replace some of the 

functions that were at Little Sand Bay. 

ESTIMATED COSTS 

Cost estimates for alternative 2 are identified 

below. The cost estimates, in 2008 dollars, 

shown here are not for budgetary purposes; 

they are intended to only show a very general 

relative cost comparison among the 

alternatives. The actual costs to the federal 

government could vary depending on various 

factors such as the final design of each facility, 

opportunities for partnerships, and future 

economic conditions. Note that these costs do 

not include the costs for any additional plans 

or studies. A discussion of the development of 

the costs and a comparison between the 

alternatives is included after the description of 

the alternatives. 

The implementation of the approved plan will 

depend on future funding. The approval of 

this plan does not guarantee that the funding 

and staffing needed to implement the plan will 

be forthcoming. Full implementation of the 

actions in the approved General Management 

Plan could be many years in the future. 

Costs have been broken down into two 

categories: annual costs and one-time costs. 

Annual costs include the costs associated with 

ongoing maintenance, utilities, staffing, 

supplies and materials, and any leasing costs. 

One-time costs include new construction, the 

cost of removal or divestiture of resources, the 

cost of restoration of resources, the cost of 

rehabilitation, and any cost of additions to 

structures. 

Annual Costs 

This alternative would be implemented with 

the current staffing levels plus seven full-timeequivalent staff (FTEs) for resource 

management , resource protection, and 

interpretation. (One FTE is one person 

working 40 hours per week for one year, or 

the equivalent.) The park’s operating budget 

would need to be increased by approximately 

$700,000. The total cost to operate the park in 

this alterative would be $3.6 million per year 

(in 2008 dollars). 
CHAPTER 3: THE ALTERNATIVES 

126

One-time Costs 

Alternative 2 would consist of the 

development and improvements to facilities 

and structures described in this alternative. 

The estimated development costs in 2008 

dollars — for light station restoration/ 

rehabilitation, historic structures 

preservation/stabilization, and visitor and 

administrative facilities — would be 

approximately $27.7 million. 
127 

ALTERNATIVE 3 

CONCEPT AND SUMMARY 

Alternative 3 would focus on providing 

primitive, lake-oriented recreation/education 

opportunities unique to the Apostle Islands. 

The wilderness area would continue to be 

managed largely as it is now, as mandated 

under the Wilderness Act, Director’s Order 

41, and Reference Manual 41 (see also the 

desired conditions and strategies for 

wilderness in table 1 and chapter 2). In the 

nonwilderness area new or different 

education/interpretive opportunities would 

be provided. Interpretive opportunities at the 

light stations would focus on the Raspberry 

light station, although important resources at 

all the light stations would be preserved. 

Mainland recreation opportunities would 

focus on lake-oriented activities. The park 

headquarters would remain in the old 

courthouse building in Bayfield. The Bayfield 

Visitor Center would be expanded in the old 

courthouse building and serve as the park’s 

primary visitor contact facility. The Little 

Sand Bay Visitor Center would be replaced 

with an informational kiosk. A new ranger 

station would be built at Meyers Beach on the 

mainland. A new park operational facility 

would be built at a location to be determined. 

Like the previous alternatives, in alternative 3 

NPS managers would continue to strive to 

protect/maintain current natural and cultural 

resource conditions in the park. Natural and 

cultural resource management would 

primarily focus on long-term monitoring, 

research, restoration, and mitigative efforts 

where appropriate. The interpretive/ 

education programs would continue to 

provide a variety of personal services (e.g., 

information and orientation at visitor centers, 

informal visitor contacts, guided walks and 

lighthouse tours, evening and educational 

programs) and nonpersonal services (e.g., 

publications like the park newspaper and site 

bulletins). 

MANAGEMENT ZONING 

Under alternative 3, the potential 

management zones described in table 5 would 

be applied to the park as presented in the map 

of alternative 3 (see figure 5). Most of the 

islands would be in the primitive zone, while 

most of the mainland unit would be in the 

backcountry zone. In nonwilderness areas, 

popular use areas such as Meyers Beach and 

Little Sand Bay, the Stockton Island Visitor 

Center and campground, and areas with 

docks would be in the frontcountry zone. All 

of the Lake Superior water within the park 

boundary also would be included in the 

frontcountry zone. 

The light stations and many other cultural 

resource sites and landscapes, such as some 

farmsteads, quarries, fish camps, and logging 

camps, would be in the historic zone. (The 

boundaries of the zones around the light 

stations include the maximum historic 

clearings. However, the size of these areas 

could be modified based on the 

recommendations in future cultural landscape 

reports.) The use and occupancy/life lease 

properties on Sand and Rocky islands also 

would be in the historic zone, reflecting how 

the areas would be managed when they come 

under NPS management. However, until that 

time the National Park Service would 

continue to respect the valid rights of the 

lessees and take no actions in these areas. 

Several small park operations zones also 

would be scattered among the islands, 

primarily covering administrative cabins. 
CHAPTER 3: THE ALTERNATIVES 

128

Table 8: Management Zones in 

Alternative 3 

Management 

Zones 

Acres % 

Park Operations 35 0.05 

Historic 194 0.28 

Frontcountry 27,645 40 

Backcountry 3,469 5 

Primitive 38,030 55 

USER CAPACITY 

As described in the management zones and in 

the beginning of this chapter, park staff would 

monitor social and resource indicators, 

evaluate current conditions against standards, 

and take appropriate steps to ensure that the 

park’s user capacity is not exceeded. See table 

6 for the user indicators, standards, and 

management and monitoring strategies that 

would be followed under this alternative. 

MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC AREAS 

Light Stations 

Park managers would focus on maintaining 

the Raspberry Island light station both for 

cultural resource protection and for visitor 

use. Visitor experience opportunities would 

continue or expand there. The cultural 

landscape would be restored to the degree 

possible, as described in the approved 

“Raspberry Island Light Station Cultural 

Landscape Report and Environmental 

Assessment” (NPS 2004f). This restoration 

work would address historic patterns of 

circulation, pathways, and outbuildings. 

At the remaining light stations, NPS managers 

would focus preservation efforts on the 

exterior elements of the lighthouses. Except 

for Raspberry Island, no rehabilitation work 

would occur on the interiors of the light 

stations—only stabilization and preservation. 

The cultural landscapes in the immediate 

vicinity of the light stations would be 

stabilized and preserved. Vegetation 

encroaching on the light station clearings 

would be removed. Unstaffed interpretive 

experiences would be provided at these light 

stations—the emphasis would be more on 

self-discovery and interpretation through 

waysides. 

Part of the Long Island light station would be 

rehabilitated for NPS housing to increase 

resource protection and provide limited 

visitor information. 

Former Use and Occupancy/ 

Current Life Estate Properties 

If, during the life of the plan, the former use 

and occupancy/current life estate property 

leases expire, the park staff would evaluate 

these properties for potential inclusion in the 

National Register of Historic Places, including 

determinations of which buildings would be 

considered contributing structures, i.e., 

structures that contribute to the significance 

of a national register property. The buildings 

would also be evaluated for safety and utility 

to the National Park Service for park 

operations. Structures that are not historically 

significant, are unsafe, or do not have utility 

for park operations would be removed and 

the areas restored, or in some cases allowed to 

molder. 

The following actions would be taken for the 

Rocky Island properties, West Bay Club, Shaw 

Point properties, and the Hansen farm. 

• If the Rocky Island properties were to 

come under NPS management during the 

life of the plan, the contributing structures 

on the National Register of Historic Places 

would be preserved but no interpretation 

of the historic story of the area would be 

provided. If safety and resource 

conditions can be met and adequate 

visitor facilities (i.e., toilets) provided, one 

or more of the docks may be rehabilitated 

if necessary and opened for public day 

use. 
Sand 

Island

YorkIsland

Bear

 Island

RockyIsland

South TwinIsland

North Twin Island

Cat

Island

ManitouIsland

Ironwood

Island

Stockton Island

HermitIsland

BasswoodIsland

Oak

Island

Otter

Island

DevilsIsland

RaspberryIsland

Eagle 

Island

Lighthouse

Bay

RaspberryBay

FrogBay

QuarryBay

JuliBay

Presque

Isle Bay

N orth

Channe l We st

Cha

nne l

Sand Point

RaspberryPoint

Red CliffPoint

Bayfield

Point

Detour

 Little Sand Bay 

Visitor Center

MawikweBay

LAKE

SUPERIOR

A P O S T L E I S L A N 

Meyers Beach

North

0 0.5 1 2 Miles

Æ

Long Island

BAYFIELD

PENINSULA

RED CLIFF

INDIAN

RESERVATION

Red Cliff

13

13

K

Long Island Inset

Chequamegon 

Bay

South Channel

Chequameg

Point

Visitor Center

Park Headquarters

K

 East Bay

 West Bay 

Club

 Shaw Point

RUSSELL

(Township)

HokensonFishery

Rocky IslandHistoric Area

ManitouFish Camp

Roys Point

Alternative 3 

131 

• If the West Bay Club on Sand Island were 

to come under NPS management during 

the life of the plan, it would be preserved 

and the historic story of the area would be 

interpreted using a combination of 

nonpersonal techniques (e.g., waysides). 

The dock would be rehabilitated, if 

necessary, and made available for public 

day use. 

• If the Shaw Point properties on Sand 

Island were to come under NPS 

management during the life of the plan, 

contributing structures on the National 

Register of Historic Places would be 

preserved and the historic story of the 

area would be interpreted using 

nonpersonal techniques. One or more 

deeper water docks would be rehabilitated 

if necessary and be available for public day 

use. 

• The Hansen farm contributing structures 

on Sand Island would be stabilized and 

preserved. The cultural landscape also 

would be partially restored. A trail would 

connect the farm with the island trail 

network and provide access from the 

shoreline. Nonpersonal interpretation 

(e.g., brochures, waysides) would be 

provided to educate visitors about the 

area’s history. 

Other Nonwilderness 

Areas on the Islands 

In this alternative, NPS managers would 

provide new or different education/ 

interpretive opportunities for visitors—the 

focus of the education/interpretive program 

would broaden to reflect different park 

stories, such as the stories of American 

Indians, farmsteads, quarries, logging camps, 

and the rewilding of the islands. New selfguided interpretive trails and/or an Ojibwe 

cultural demonstration site might be provided 

under this alternative. 

 

With regard to other visitor facilities, no 

changes would occur in this alternative in the 

number and location of public docks in the 

nonwilderness area. However, the Michigan 

Island dock would be improved to address 

access and natural resource concerns. There 

would be no net gain in individual designated 

campsites, although some campsites could be 

moved or reconfigured to satisfy resource 

management criteria. There could be an 

increase in the number of group campsites on 

Sand and Basswood islands and/or the 

nonwilderness portions of Oak Island, subject 

to resource management criteria (e.g., 

resource sensitivity of sites), interest/demand 

for new campsites, and other appropriate 

criteria. The Stockton Island campground on 

the tombolo would be relocated to Presque 

Isle to address resource concerns (e.g., bank 

erosion and potential visitor conflicts with 

bears). At least one of the new campsites 

would be designed to be universally 

accessible. The Stockton Island Visitor Center 

would be retained. 

Park managers would strive to stabilize and 

preserve the original Manitou fish camp site. 

The cultural landscape would be partially 

rehabilitated. Although no interpretive staff 

would be present, more nonpersonal 

interpretation would be provided for visitors 

than presently exists. 

Wilderness Area 

The wilderness area generally would continue 

to be managed as it is now. The desired 

conditions in table 1 in chapter 1 and the 

general guidance in chapter 2 would be 

applied. There would be no net gain in the 

number of designated individual campsites 

and trail miles, although campsites might be 

reconfigured and/or relocated, and trails 

might be rerouted to protect resources and 

wilderness character. The Oak Island group 

campsite (the only group campsite in 

wilderness) would be removed under this 

alternative and the site restored. 

Mainland Unit 

In alternative 3, park managers would focus 

on providing recreation and interpretive/ 

educational opportunities in the mainland 

unit that can only be found in the park and not 
CHAPTER 3: THE ALTERNATIVES 

132

elsewhere in the region. The opportunities 

would be lake oriented and nature based, 

emphasizing primitive recreation. Examples of 

such opportunities could include building a 

short trail loop out of Little Sand Bay, 

providing water trails and water-access 

campsites, and providing more interpretation 

of the Hokenson Brothers fishery, the history 

of the Great Lakes fishery, and the history of 

American Indian presence in the area. A new 

2.5-mile trail also would be built from Little 

Sand Bay to the east side of the Sand River, 

providing a coastal hiking opportunity in this 

part of the park. This trail proposal would 

require coordination with the Town of Russell 

to cross their lands. 

Mainland NPS Visitor Centers 

Under this alternative visitor contact would 

primarily occur in Bayfield. The existing 

Bayfield Visitor Center would be expanded 

and improved at its current location (old 

courthouse) to increase interpretive efforts. 

The deteriorating Little Sand Bay Visitor 

Center would be removed and replaced with 

an unstaffed or occasionally staffed kiosk that 

provides limited orientation and 

interpretation functions through waysides and 

personal services. Planning for the new facility 

would take into consideration preservation of 

the historic Hokenson fishery. 

The National Park Service would continue its 

commitment to the cooperative operation of 

the Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center. 

NPS Operational 

(Administrative) Facilities 

In this alternative the park headquarters 

would remain at the courthouse with the 

expanded visitor center. Some administrative 

offices now at Little Sand Bay would be 

moved to the courthouse. 

A ranger station would be developed at 

Meyers Beach to provide visitor services (e.g., 

orientation, law enforcement, permits, 

interpretation) in this portion of the park. 

At the expiration of the current lease, the 

park’s operations center (including shops, 

docks, and storage space) would be moved to 

a new location, to be determined. 

Two nonhistoric seasonal staff houses would 

be removed at Little Sand Bay. The three 

existing trailer pads at Little Sand Bay would 

be maintained, and three new trailer pads 

would be added for NPS employees and 

volunteers. New seasonal staff apartments 

(studio or one-bedroom units) would be built 

at the NPS operational center area. 

ESTIMATED COSTS 

Cost estimates for alternative 3 are identified 

below. The cost estimates, in 2008 dollars, 

shown here are not for budgetary purposes; 

they are intended to only show a very general 

relative cost comparison among the 

alternatives. The actual costs to the federal 

government could vary depending on various 

factors such as the final design of each facility, 

opportunities for partnerships, and future 

economic conditions. Note that these costs do 

not include the costs for any additional plans 

or studies. A discussion of the development of 

the costs and a comparison between the 

alternatives is included after the description of 

the alternatives. 

The implementation of the approved plan will 

depend on future funding. The approval of 

this plan does not guarantee that the funding 

and staffing needed to implement the plan will 

be forthcoming. Full implementation of the 

actions in the approved General Management 

Plan could be many years in the future. 

Costs have been broken down into two 

categories: annual costs and one-time costs. 

Annual costs include the costs associated with 

ongoing maintenance, utilities, staffing, 

supplies and materials, and any leasing costs. 

One-time costs include new construction, the 

cost of removal or divestiture of resources, the 

cost of restoration of resources, the cost of 
Alternative 3 

133 

rehabilitation, and any cost of additions to 

structures. 

Annual Costs

This alternative would be implemented with 

the current staffing levels plus five full-timeequivalent staff (FTEs) for resource 

management, resource protection, and 

interpretation. (One FTE is one person 

working 40 hours per week for one year, or 

the equivalent.) The park’s operating budget 

would need to be increased by approximately 

$500,000. The total cost to operate the park in 

this alterative would be $3.4 million per year 

(in 2008 dollars). 

One-time Costs 

Alternative 3 would consist of the 

development and improvements to facilities 

and structures described in this alternative. 

The estimated development costs in 2008 

dollars — for light station restoration/ 

rehabilitation, historic structures 

preservation/stabilization, and visitor and 

administrative facilities — would be 

approximately $17.6 million.
134 

ALTERNATIVE 4 

CONCEPT AND SUMMARY 

Under alternative 4 the emphasis would be on 

providing a greater variety of structured 

recreation opportunities for visitors, 

compared to the present, especially on the 

mainland. More visitor facilities would be 

provided in island nonwilderness areas, 

including the potential for more or improved 

public docks. Interpretive opportunities at the 

light stations would focus on Raspberry Island 

light station, although staffed interpretive 

opportunities would continue to be provided 

at some other light stations. The wilderness 

area would continue to be managed largely as 

it is now, as mandated under the Wilderness 

Act, Director’s Order 41, and Reference 

Manual 41 (see also the desired conditions 

and strategies for wilderness in table 1, and 

chapter 2). 

Mainland visitor opportunities, such as 

hiking, camping, and interpretation, would be 

expanded. The park headquarters would 

remain at the old courthouse, and a new 

visitor center would be built closer to the 

water in Bayfield. The Little Sand Bay Visitor 

Center would be replaced with a new visitor 

contact station with improved services. A new 

ranger/visitor contact station would be built at 

Meyers Beach, and a new park operational 

facility would be built at a location to be 

determined. 

As in all of the alternatives, NPS managers 

would continue to strive to protect/maintain 

current natural and cultural resource 

conditions in the park. Managers would 

continue to preserve and protect natural and 

cultural resources through long-term 

monitoring, research, restoration, and 

mitigation where appropriate. The 

interpretive/education programs would 

continue to provide a variety of personal 

services (e.g., information and orientation at 

visitor centers, informal visitor contacts, 

guided walks and lighthouse tours, evening 

and educational programs) and nonpersonal 

services (e.g., publications like the park 

newspaper and site bulletins). 

MANAGEMENT ZONING 

Under alternative 4, the potential 

management zones described in table 5 would 

be applied to the park as presented in the map 

of alternative 4 (see figure 6). Most of the 

islands would be in the primitive zone, while 

most of Sand and Basswood islands and the 

mainland unit would be in the backcountry 

zone. In nonwilderness areas, popular use 

areas such as Meyers Beach and Little Sand 

Bay, the Stockton Island Visitor Center and 

campground, and areas with docks would be 

in the frontcountry zone. All of the Lake 

Superior water within the park boundary also 

would be included in the frontcountry zone. 

The light stations and many other cultural 

resource sites and landscapes, such as some 

farmsteads, quarries, fish camps, and logging 

camps, would be in the historic zone. (The 

boundaries of the zones around the light 

stations include the maximum historic 

clearings. However, the size of these areas 

could be modified based on the 

recommendations in future cultural landscape 

reports.) The use and occupancy/life lease 

properties on Sand and Rocky islands also 

would be in the historic zone, reflecting how 

the areas would be managed when they come 

under NPS management. However, until that 

time the National Park Service would 

continue to respect the valid rights of the 

lessees and take no actions in these areas. 

Several small park operations zones also 
Alternative 4 

135 

would be scattered among the islands, 

primarily covering administrative cabins. 

Table 9: Management Zones in 

Alternative 4 

Management 

Zones 

Acres % 

Park Operations 21 0.03 

Historic 208 0.30 

Frontcountry 27,727 40 

Backcountry 8,325 12 

Primitive 33,091 48 

USER CAPACITY 

As described in the management zones and in 

the beginning of this chapter, park staff would 

monitor social and resource indicators, 

evaluate current conditions against standards, 

and take appropriate steps to ensure that the 

park’s user capacity is not exceeded. See table 

6 for the user indicators, standards, and 

management and monitoring strategies that 

would be followed under this alternative. 

MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC AREAS 

Light Stations 

In alternative 4, as in alternative 3, park 

managers would focus on maintaining the 

Raspberry Island light station both for cultural 

resource protection and for visitor use. Visitor 

experience opportunities would continue or 

expand there. The cultural landscape would 

be restored to the degree possible, as 

described in the approved “Raspberry Island 

Light Station Cultural Landscape Report and 

Environmental Assessment” (NPS 2004f). 

This would include historic patterns of 

circulation, pathways, and outbuildings. 

At the remaining light stations, NPS managers 

would focus preservation efforts on the 

exterior elements of the lighthouses. Except 

for Raspberry Island, no rehabilitation work 

would occur on the interiors of the light 

stations—only stabilization and preservation. 

The cultural landscapes in the immediate 

vicinity of the light stations would be 

stabilized and preserved. Vegetation 

encroaching on the light station clearings 

would be removed. Staffed interpretive 

experiences would be provided at some light 

stations, while unstaffed interpretive 

experiences would be provided at the other 

light stations. 

Part of the Long Island light station would be 

rehabilitated for NPS housing to increase 

resource protection and provide visitor 

services. 

Former Use and Occupancy/ 

Current Life Estate Properties 

If during the life of the plan, the former use 

and occupancy/current life estate property 

leases expire, the park staff would evaluate 

these properties for potential inclusion in the 

National Register of Historic Places, including 

determinations of which buildings would be 

considered contributing structures, i.e., 

structures that contribute to the significance 

of a national register property. The buildings 

would also be evaluated for safety and utility 

to the National Park Service for park 

operations. Structures that are not historically 

significant, are unsafe, or do not have utility 

for park operations would be removed and 

the areas restored, or in some cases allowed to 

molder. 

The following actions would be taken for the 

Rocky Island properties, West Bay Club, Shaw 

Point properties, and the Hansen farm. 

• If the Rocky Island properties were to 

come under NPS management during the 

life of the plan, the contributing structures 

on the National Register of Historic Places 

would be preserved and the historic story 

of the area would be interpreted using a 
CHAPTER 3: THE ALTERNATIVES 

136

combination of personal and nonpersonal 

techniques (e.g., waysides, trails). If safety 

and resource conditions can be met and 

adequate visitor facilities (i.e., toilets) 

provided, one or more of the docks may 

be rehabilitated (if necessary) and opened 

for public day use. 

• If the West Bay Club on Sand Island were 

to come under NPS management during 

the life of the plan, it would be preserved 

and the historic story of the area would be 

interpreted using a combination of 

personal and nonpersonal techniques 

(e.g., waysides). The dock would be 

rehabilitated, if necessary, and made 

available for public overnight use. 

Although the club would not be available 

for public overnight use in this alternative, 

camping would be permitted in designated 

sites in the West Bay area. the historic 

road between the club and East Bay would 

be reestablished as a trail. 

• If the Shaw Point properties on Sand 

Island were to come under NPS 

management during the life of the plan, 

contributing structures on the National 

Register of Historic Places would be 

preserved and the historic story of the 

area would be interpreted using a 

combination of personal and nonpersonal 

techniques. The historic road between the 

Shaw Point and East Bay would be 

reestablished as a trail, provided it can be 

built in an environmentally sound manner. 

One or more deeper water docks would 

be rehabilitated, if necessary, and be 

available for public overnight use. No 

overnight use of the Camp Stella 

structures would occur. 

• The Hansen farm contributing structures 

on Sand Island would be preserved and 

stabilized. In addition, the homestead 

building would be restored and the 

landscape would be restored to a greater 

extent than in the other alternatives. A 

trail would connect the farm with the 

island trail network and provide access to 

the shoreline. Personal interpretation 

would be provided to tell visitors about 

stories of the area (e.g., the Ojibwe people, 

stewardship, community, agriculture). 

Other Nonwilderness 

Areas on the Islands 

Under alternative 4, more trails, designated 

group campsites, and designated individual 

campsites with infrastructure to provide 

resource protection (e.g., bear locker, tent 

pad, fire ring, outhouse) and/or visitor 

amenities (e.g., picnic tables) would be 

provided on Sand, Basswood, and/or Oak 

islands. New day use areas that could 

accommodate small or large groups would be 

provided. Existing docks on the islands would 

be maintained or improved where needed 

(e.g., the Michigan Island dock), and possibly 

a few more public docks might be installed 

throughout the park. The number and 

location of all of these new visitor facilities 

would be subject to resource management 

criteria (e.g., resource sensitivity of sites), 

interest/demand, and other appropriate 

criteria. 

In this alternative mooring buoys may be 

installed at selected high use bays if feasible, 

considering winter ice and if they can be 

annually maintained without a dive team. The 

southeast side of Raspberry Island; the east 

side of Rocky Island; and Presque Isle, Julian, 

and Quarry bays on Stockton Island are 

examples of areas where buoys might be 

installed. 

Most of the Stockton Island campsites would 

be relocated to Presque Isle to address 

resource concerns (e.g., bank erosion, 

potential visitor conflicts with bears). 

However, for the most part, the three to four 

campsites at the north end of the campground 

do not face these resource problems and 

would remain in their existing location in this 

alternative. At least one of the new campsites 

would be designed to be universally 

accessible.
Sand 

Island

YorkIsland

Bear

 Island

RockyIsland

South TwinIsland

North Twin Island

Cat

Island

ManitouIsland

Ironwood

Island

Stockton Island

HermitIsland

BasswoodIsland

Oak

Island

Otter

Island

DevilsIsland

RaspberryIsland

Eagle 

Island

Lighthouse

Bay

RaspberryBay

FrogBay

QuarryBay

JuliBay

Presque

Isle Bay

N orth 

 

 

Channe l We st

Cha

nne l

Sand Point

RaspberryPoint

Red CliffPoint

Bayfield

Point

Detour

 Little Sand Bay 

Kiosk 

LAKE

SUPERIOR

A P O S T L E I S L A N 

North

0 0.5 1 2 Miles

Æ

Long Island

BAYFIELD

PENINSULA

Red Cliff

13

13

K

Long Island Inset

Chequamegon 

Bay

South Channel

Chequameg

Point

Visitor Center

Park Headquarters

K

 East Bay

 West Bay 

Club Shaw Point

RUSSELL

(Township) Mawikwe Bay

RED CLIFF

INDIAN

RESERVATION

HokensonFishery

Rocky IslandHistoric Area

ManitouFish Camp

Oak IslandGroupCampsite

Roys Point

Meyers Beach

Alternative 4 

139 

Under alternative 4, park managers would 

rehabilitate the Manitou fish camp. The 

cultural landscape would be partially 

rehabilitated, including historic vegetation 

patterns and circulation. Personal interpretive 

services would be provided to educate visitors 

about the area. 

Wilderness Area 

The wilderness area would continue to be 

managed largely as it is now. The desired 

conditions in table 1 in chapter 1 and the 

general guidance in chapter 2 would be 

applied. The existing Oak Island group 

campsite would continue to be available for 

public use. There would be no net gain in the 

number of trail miles, although trails may be 

rerouted to protect resources. 

Unlike the other alternatives, in alternative 4 

there would be a small increase in the number 

of individual dispersed designated wilderness 

campsites throughout the park. This increase 

would be subject to resource management 

criteria, interest in and demand for new 

campsites, impacts on wilderness character, 

and other appropriate criteria to be defined at 

a later date. The new designated campsites 

would have the same amenities as the existing 

designated campsites in the wilderness area. 

Mainland Unit 

Under alternative 4, a diverse range of 

recreational and interpretive opportunities 

would be provided on the mainland. 

Examples of new opportunities could include 

providing water access campsites or walk-in 

campsites; attempting to complete the 

Lakeshore Trail from its present terminus to 

Little Sand Bay (possibly including the 

construction of an approximately 1-mile long 

boardwalk); improving or building new trails, 

such as universally accessible trails; and 

providing new wayside exhibits or staffed 

interpretive programs. 

A new ranger/visitor contact station would be 

developed at Meyers Beach to provide 

services (orientation, permits, interpretation) 

for visitors in this portion of the park. A ramp 

also would be installed at Meyers Beach, 

which would provide access to the beach for 

visitors with disabilities. 

A day use area for large groups would be 

developed in the Little Sand Bay area to 

provide a space for park staff to provide 

programs for educational groups. (No area is 

now available for this activity.) 

Mainland NPS Visitor Centers 

In alternative 4 the Bayfield Visitor Center 

would be built at a new central location on the 

waterfront in Bayfield to increase contact with 

visitors and assist people in getting out to the 

islands. 

A new visitor contact station would replace 

the existing deteriorating structure at Little 

Sand Bay in the same location or nearby. The 

contact station would provide limited 

interpretation, orientation, and other visitor 

services for people using the mainland unit. 

The Hokenson house might serve as the 

contact station. Whatever option is selected 

for the visitor contact station, the historic 

integrity of the Hokenson fishery would be 

preserved. 

The National Park Service would continue its 

commitment to the cooperative operation of 

the Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center. 

NPS Operational 

(Administrative) Facilities 

Park headquarters would remain at its present 

location in the old Bayfield County 

Courthouse, which would be renovated. Some 

administrative offices now at Little Sand Bay 

would be moved to another location. 

At the expiration of the current lease, the 

park’s operations center (including shops, 

docks, and storage space) would be moved to 

a new location, to be determined. 

At Little Sand Bay, two nonhistoric seasonal 

staff houses would be removed and replaced 
CHAPTER 3: THE ALTERNATIVES 

140

with a set of apartments (studio or onebedroom units). The apartments would be 

located outside the cultural landscape. In 

addition, three new trailer pads would be built 

for NPS employees and volunteers, in 

addition to the three existing trailer pads. As 

noted earlier, a ranger/visitor contact station 

would be built at Meyers Beach. 

 

ESTIMATED COSTS 

Cost estimates for alternative 3 are identified 

below. The cost estimates, in 2008 dollars, 

shown here are not for budgetary purposes; 

they are intended to only show a very general 

relative cost comparison among the 

alternatives. The actual costs to the federal 

government could vary depending on various 

factors such as the final design of each facility, 

opportunities for partnerships, and future 

economic conditions. Note that these costs do 

not include the costs for any additional plans 

or studies. A discussion of the development of 

the costs and a comparison between the 

alternatives is included after the description of 

the alternatives. 

The implementation of the approved plan will 

depend on future funding. The approval of 

this plan does not guarantee that the funding 

and staffing needed to implement the plan will 

be forthcoming. Full implementation of the 

actions in the approved General Management 

Plan could be many years in the future. 

Costs have been broken down into two 

categories: annual operating costs and onetime costs 

Annual costs include the costs associated with 

ongoing maintenance, utilities, staffing, 

supplies and materials, and any leasing costs. 

One-time costs include new construction, the 

cost of removal or divestiture of resources, the 

cost of restoration of resources, the cost of 

rehabilitation, and any cost of additions to 

structures. 

Annual Costs

This alternative would be implemented with 

the current staffing levels plus six full-timeequivalent staff (FTEs) for resource 

management, resource protection, and 

interpretation. (One FTE is one person 

working 40 hours per week for one year, or 

the equivalent.) The park’s operating budget 

would need to be increased by approximately 

$600,000. The total cost to operate the park in 

this alterative would be $3.5 million per year 

(in 2008 dollars). 

One-time Costs 

Alternative 4 would consist of the 

development and improvements to facilities 

and structures described in this alternative. 

The estimated development cost in 2008 

dollars — for light station restoration/ 

rehabilitation, historic structures 

preservation/stabilization, and visitor and 

administrative facilities — would be 

approximately $24.5 million.
141 

DEVELOPMENT OF COST ESTIMATES OF THE ALTERNATIVES 

NPS decision makers and the public must 

consider an overall picture of the complete 

costs and advantages of various alternatives, 

including the no-action alternative, to make 

wise planning and management decisions for 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. 

In estimating costs of the alternatives, 

different types of costs need to be taken into 

account, including one-time costs and annual 

operating costs. 

Initial one-time costs include the following: 

• new development (including NPS 

infrastructure costs) 

• major rehabilitation or restoration of 

existing facilities 

• interpretive media (e.g., audiovisual 

materials, exhibits, waysides, and 

publications) 

Examples of recurring annual costs include 

the following: 

• annual lakeshore operating costs (e.g., 

staff salary and benefits, maintenance, 

utilities, monitoring, and contract 

services) 

• ongoing repair and rehabilitation of 

facilities (i.e., the projection of past trends 

and known future needs into an annual 

estimate) 

The following cost estimates are intended to 

provide a relative comparison of the costs of 

the alternatives. The derivation of the cost and 

staffing information in the table below can be 

found in the “Estimated Costs” sections of 

each alternative. These figures are not 

intended to be used for budgetary purposes or 

to implement funding requests. The 

implementation of the approved plan will 

depend on future funding. The approval of 

this plan does not guarantee that the funding 

and staffing needed to implement the plan will 

be forthcoming. Full implementation of the 

actions in the approved General Management 

Plan could be many years in the future. 

Table 10: Estimated Costs of the Alternatives (in 2008 dollars) 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) 

Alternative 2 

(NPS Preferred) 

Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

Initial 

One-time Costs $27.7 million $17.6 million $24.5 million 

Annual Costs $2.9 million $3.6 million $3.4 million $3.5 million 

Total Staffing 

(FTEs) 

36 43 41 42 
142 

MITIGATIVE MEASURES COMMON 

TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES 

Congress charged the National Park Service 

with managing the lands under its stewardship 

“in such manner and by such means as will 

leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of 

future generations.” (NPS Organic Act, 16 

USC 1) As a result, NPS staff routinely 

evaluate and implement mitigative measures 

whenever conditions occur that could 

adversely affect the sustainability of national 

park system resources. 

Mitigative measures are the practicable and 

appropriate methods that would be used 

under the action alternative to avoid and/or 

minimize harm to park natural and cultural 

resources, wilderness, visitors, and the visitor 

experience. 

The general management plan provides a 

management framework for the park. Within 

this broad context, the following mitigative 

measures would be used to avoid or minimize 

potential impacts from the implementation of 

the action alternatives. These measures would 

be applied to all of the action alternatives, 

subject to funding and staffing constraints. 

Additional mitigation would be identified as 

part of implementation planning and for 

individual projects to further minimize 

resource impacts. 

The National Park Service would prepare 

environmental review (i.e., those required by 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA), and other relevant legislation) for 

these future actions where appropriate. As 

part of the environmental review, the National 

Park Service would avoid, minimize, and 

mitigate adverse impacts when practicable. 

The implementation of a compliance 

monitoring program would be within the 

parameters of NEPA and NHPA compliance 

documents, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Section 404 permits, etc. 

The following mitigative measures and best 

management practices would be applied to 

avoid or minimize potential impacts from 

implementation of the action alternatives. 

These mitigative measures have been 

developed by using existing laws and 

regulations, best management practices, 

conservation measures, and other known 

techniques from past and present work in and 

around Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

General 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore’s 

resources, including air, water, soils, 

vegetation, and wildlife, would be inventoried 

and monitored to provide information needed 

to avoid or minimize impacts of future 

development. Any museum collections 

generated by such activities would be 

managed according to NPS policies. 

• Whenever possible, new facilities would 

be built in previously disturbed areas or in 

carefully selected sites with as small a 

construction footprint as possible. During 

design and construction periods, NPS 

natural resource staff would identify areas 

to be avoided. 

• Fencing or other means would be used to 

protect sensitive resources adjacent to 

construction areas. 

• Construction activities would be 

monitored by resource specialists as 

needed. 
Mitigative Measures Common To All Action Alternatives 

143 

• Construction materials would be kept in 

work areas, especially if the construction 

takes place near streams, springs, natural 

drainages, or other water bodies. 

• Best management practices would be 

employed to reduce the introduction of 

invasive species during construction work 

and other soil-disturbing activities. 

• All food-related items or rubbish would be 

removed. 

• Visitors would be informed of the 

importance of protecting the park’s 

natural resources and leaving these 

resources undisturbed for the enjoyment 

of future generations. 

• Trails and campsites would be relocated if 

necessary for resource protection 

purposes. 

Air Quality 

• Measures to control dust and erosion 

during construction would be 

implemented and could include the 

following: water or otherwise stabilize 

soils, minimize vegetation clearing, 

revegetate with native species, cover haul 

trucks, and employ speed limits on 

unpaved roads in the mainland unit. 

• NPS vehicle emissions would be 

minimized by using the best available 

technology whenever possible. 

• Sustainable designs would be employed 

that reduce energy demands, thus 

reducing pollutant production. 

Soundscapes/Natural Quiet 

• Noise abatement measures would be 

implemented. These measures could 

include the following: a schedule to 

minimize impacts in noise-sensitive areas, 

use of the best available noise control 

techniques wherever feasible, use of 

hydraulically or electrically powered 

impact tools when feasible, and location 

of stationary noise sources as far from 

sensitive uses as possible. 

• Facilities would be located and designed 

to minimize objectionable noise. 

• The idling of motors (power tools, 

equipment, and vehicles) would be 

minimized. 

Soils 

• New facilities would be built on soils 

suitable for development. 

• Soil erosion would be minimized by 

limiting the time that soil is left exposed 

and by applying other erosion control 

measures, such as erosion matting, silt 

fencing, and sedimentation basins in 

construction areas, to reduce erosion, 

surface scouring, and discharge to water 

bodies. 

• Between construction seasons, filter 

fabric, temporary vegetative cover, and/or 

other means would be used as necessary 

to ensure stabilization of disturbed soils. 

• Disturbed areas would be monitored for 

invasive plants. 

• Once work is completed, construction 

areas would be revegetated with native 

plants in a timely period, and disturbed 

soils would be monitored for invasive 

species. 

• To minimize soil erosion on new trails, 

best management practices for trail 

construction would be used. Examples of 

best management practices could include 

installing water bars, check dams and 

retaining walls; contouring to avoid 

erosion; and minimizing soil disturbance. 

Water Resources (including 

Wetlands and Floodplains) 

• To prevent water pollution during 

construction, erosion control measures 

would be used to minimize discharge to 

water bodies, and construction equipment 

would be regularly inspected for leaks of 

petroleum and other chemicals. The use of 

heavy equipment in waterways would be 

minimized. 
CHAPTER 3: THE ALTERNATIVES 

144

• Best management practices, such as the 

use of silt fences, would be followed to 

ensure that construction-related effects 

were minimal and to prevent long-term 

impacts on water quality, wetlands, and 

aquatic species. 

• Caution would be exercised to protect 

water resources from activities with the 

potential to damage water resources, 

including damage caused by construction 

equipment, erosion, and siltation. 

Measures would be taken to keep fill 

material from escaping work areas, 

especially near streams, springs, natural 

drainages, wetlands, and lakes. 

• For new facilities, such as visitor centers, 

and to the extent practicable for existing 

facilities, stormwater management 

measures would be implemented to 

reduce nonpoint source pollution 

discharge from parking lots and other 

impervious surfaces. Such actions could 

include oil/sediment separators, street 

sweeping, infiltration beds, use of 

permeable surfaces, and vegetated or 

natural filters to trap or filter stormwater 

runoff. 

• Some alternatives involve construction or 

improvement of boat docks. To help 

reduce the potential for impacts, sitespecific studies of longshore sand 

transport would be undertaken before 

work would commence on these projects. 

Any activities involving dredging or the 

placement of fill material below the 

ordinary high water line of Lake Superior 

would comply with requirements of §401 

and 404 of the Clean Water Act and with 

other applicable state permit programs 

(e.g., Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act). 

Impacts from any potential fill or dredge 

activities would be assessed further, and 

specific mitigative measures would be 

identified as part of the development of a 

specific design and further NEPA 

compliance that would be prepared in 

conjunction with the permit process. 

• Wetlands potentially affected by new 

facilities would be delineated by qualified 

NPS staff or certified wetland specialists 

and clearly marked before construction 

work. All new facilities would be sited to 

avoid wetlands, or if that is not 

practicable, to otherwise comply with 

Executive Order 11990: “Protection of 

Wetlands” and regulations of the Clean 

Water Act. 

• New structures would be located outside 

floodplains with the exception of the Sand 

River area in alternative 4. A statement of 

findings for floodplains would be 

prepared if a new facility must be located 

in a floodplain. 

Vegetation 

• Areas used by visitors (e.g., trails) would 

be monitored for signs of native 

vegetation disturbance and the 

introduction of invasive plants. To control 

potential impacts on plants from trail 

erosion or social trailing, public 

education, revegetation of disturbed areas 

with native plants, and the installation of 

erosion control measures and barriers 

would be used. 

• River access/crossing points and use 

barriers and closures would be designated 

to prevent trampling and loss of riparian 

vegetation. 

• Revegetation plans would be prepared for 

disturbed areas. Revegetation plans 

should specify such features as seed/plant 

source, seed/plant mixes, soil preparation, 

fertilizers, and mulching. Salvage 

vegetation, rather than new planting or 

seeding, would be used to any extent 

possible. To maintain genetic integrity, 

whenever possible native plants that grow 

in the project area or the region would be 

used in restoration efforts. Use of 

nonnative species or genetic materials 

would be considered only where deemed 

necessary to maintain a cultural landscape 

or to prevent severe resource damage, and 

would be approved by the park’s natural 

resource specialist. Restoration activities 

would be instituted immediately after 

construction was completed. Monitoring 

would occur to ensure that revegetation 
Mitigative Measures Common To All Action Alternatives 

145 

was successful, plantings were maintained, 

and unsuccessful plant materials were 

replaced. 

• Where possible, trees removed during 

construction would be used in trail 

construction, mulch, or other 

construction material, or would remain 

on-site as habitat. Wood would not be 

moved off island. 

• The transportation of firewood to or 

between islands would not be permitted; 

other materials transported from the 

mainland would be checked for the 

presence of insects such as gypsy moths. 

• For any new campsite, such as the 

development that could occur on Presque 

Isle, the proposed site would be surveyed 

to determine if any threatened and 

endangered plant species are present. 

New developments would be carefully 

located to minimize impacts. If needed, 

well-defined trails would be developed 

between the sites and the water on the 

islands to help minimize inadvertent 

visitor impacts to any listed or rare plant 

populations in the area. Where 

appropriate, visitors would also be 

educated about the presence of these rare 

plants and the need to stay on trails. 

Nonnative (Exotic) Plant Species 

• Special attention would be devoted to 

preventing the spread of noxious weeds 

and other nonnative plants. Standard 

measures could include the following: 

ensure construction-related equipment 

arrives on-site free of mud or seed-bearing 

material; certify all seeds and straw 

material as weed-free; identify areas of 

noxious weeds before construction; treat 

noxious weeds or noxious weed topsoil 

before construction (e.g., topsoil 

segregation, storage, herbicide treatment); 

and revegetate with appropriate native 

species. 

• All construction equipment would be 

pressure washed to ensure that it is clean 

and weed-free before entering the park. 

• All vehicle parking would be limited to 

road shoulders, parking areas, or 

previously disturbed areas. 

• Fill, rock, or additional topsoil would be 

obtained from the project area. If this is 

not possible, weed-free sources would be 

required to be obtained from NPSapproved sources outside the park. 

• Monitoring and follow-up treatment of 

nonnative vegetation on revegetated areas 

would occur for several years following 

construction. Follow-up treatment could 

include mechanical, biological, chemical, 

and/or additional revegetation treatments. 

Wildlife 

• To the extent possible, new or 

rehabilitated facilities would be sited to 

avoid sensitive wildlife habitats, including 

feeding and resting areas, major travel 

corridors, nesting areas, and sensitive 

amphibian habitat. 

• Techniques would be employed to reduce 

impacts on wildlife from construction, 

such as construction scheduling, 

biological monitoring, erosion and 

sediment control, the use of fencing or 

other means to protect sensitive resources 

adjacent to construction, the removal of 

all food-related items or rubbish, topsoil 

salvage, and revegetation. This could 

include specific construction monitoring 

by resource specialists as well as treatment 

and reporting procedures. 

• Measures would be taken to reduce the 

potential for wildlife to get food from 

humans. Wildlife-proof storage containers 

would be required in developed areas 

(including visitor centers, picnic areas, 

trails, interpretive waysides, and 

campgrounds). Signs would continue to 

educate visitors about the need to refrain 

from feeding wildlife. 

• Other visitor impacts on wildlife would be 

addressed through such techniques as 

visitor education programs, restrictions on 

visitor activities, and park ranger patrols. 
CHAPTER 3: THE ALTERNATIVES 

146

Threatened and Endangered 

Species and Species of Concern 

Mitigative actions would occur during normal 

park operations as well as before, during, and 

after construction to minimize immediate and 

long-term impacts on rare, threatened, and 

endangered species. These actions would vary 

by specific project and area of the park 

affected, and additional mitigation will be 

added depending on the specific action and 

location. Many of the measures listed above 

for vegetation and wildlife would also benefit 

rare, threatened, and endangered species by 

helping to preserve habitat. Mitigative actions 

specific to rare, threatened, and endangered 

species would include the following: 

• Surveys would be conducted for rare, 

threatened, and endangered species as 

warranted. 

• Critical habitat features would be 

protected and preserved whenever 

possible. 

• Work would be conducted outside critical 

periods for the specific species when 

possible. Work in areas in or near suitable 

threatened and endangered bird habitat 

would occur as late as possible in the 

summer/fall. 

• Facilities/actions would be located and 

designed to avoid adverse effects on rare, 

threatened, and endangered species. If 

avoidance is infeasible, actions would be 

taken to minimize and compensate for 

adverse effects on rare, threatened, and 

endangered species as appropriate and in 

consultation with the appropriate 

resource agencies. Work would be 

conducted outside critical periods for the 

specific species. 

• Restoration and/or monitoring plans 

would be developed and implemented as 

warranted. Plans would include methods 

for implementation, performance 

standards, monitoring criteria, and 

adaptive management techniques. 

• Measures to reduce adverse effects of 

nonnative plants and wildlife on rare, 

threatened, and endangered species 

would be implemented. 

• Management practices to protect piping 

plover nesting areas would continue to be 

implemented, such as closing and fencing 

off beaches from visitor use, monitoring 

the nesting areas throughout the breeding 

season, and minimizing trash along the 

beach that attracts predators. The 

National Park Service would continue to 

work cooperatively with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and other partners to 

identify and implement appropriate 

mitigative measures to protect plover 

nesting areas and critical habitat within 

the park. 

Hazardous Materials 

• Apostle Islands National Lakeshore’s spill 

prevention and pollution control program 

for hazardous materials would be 

followed and updated on a regular basis. 

Standard measures could include 

hazardous materials storage and handling 

procedures; spill containment, cleanup, 

and reporting procedures; and limitation 

of refueling and other hazardous activities 

to upland/nonsensitive sites. 

• Plan notes would direct contract 

personnel to immediately stop work 

should suspected hazardous materials or 

wastes be encountered. NPS personnel 

will be notified, and appropriate 

remediation will be accomplished prior to 

resuming work. 

• With the exception of motorboats, 

refueling of equipment would take place 

only on impervious containment pads. 

• If appropriate, absorbent booms and 

other spill containment materials would 

be available on-site during construction. 

Scenic Resources 

• Where appropriate, facilities such as 

boardwalks and fences would be used to 

route people away from sensitive natural 

and cultural resources while still 

permitting access to important viewpoints. 
Mitigative Measures Common To All Action Alternatives 

147 

• Facilities would be designed, sited, and 

constructed to avoid or minimize visual 

intrusion into the natural environment or 

landscape. 

• Vegetative screening would be provided, 

where appropriate. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

All projects with the potential to affect 

cultural resources would be carried out in 

compliance with Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act to ensure that the 

effects are adequately addressed. All 

reasonable measures would be taken to avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate adverse effects in 

consultation with the Wisconsin state historic 

preservation office, tribal historic preservation 

offices, and, as necessary, the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation and other 

concerned parties. In addition to adhering to 

the legal and policy requirements for cultural 

resources protection and preservation, the 

National Park Service would also undertake 

the measures listed below to further protect 

the park’s resources. 

• All areas selected for construction would 

be surveyed to ensure that cultural 

resources (i.e., archeological, historic, 

ethnographic, and cultural landscape 

resources) in the area of potential effects 

are adequately identified and protected by 

avoidance or, if necessary, mitigation. 

• Compliance with the Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 

1990 (NAGPRA) would apply in the 

unlikely event that human remains 

believed to be American Indian are 

discovered inadvertently during 

construction. Prompt notification and 

consultation with the tribes traditionally 

associated with Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore would occur in accordance 

with this act. If such human remains were 

believed to be non-Indian, standard 

reporting procedures to the proper 

authorities would be followed, as would 

all applicable federal, state, and local laws. 

• Archeological documentation would be 

done in accordance with the Secretary of 

the Interior’s Standards for Archeological 

Documentation. 

• If during construction, previously 

undiscovered archeological resources 

were uncovered, all work in the immediate 

vicinity of the discovery would be halted 

until the resources could be identified and 

documented and an appropriate 

mitigation strategy developed in 

consultation with the Wisconsin state 

historic preservation office and, if 

necessary, associated American Indian 

tribes. 

• New construction or alterations and 

rehabilitation of historic structures would 

be sensitively carried out in accordance 

with the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards and Guidelines for Archeology 

and Historic Preservation to ensure that 

character-defining features are protected. 

Vegetation screening and sensitive 

topographic or other site selection criteria 

would be used to minimize the visual 

intrusion of new construction on historic 

viewsheds or in historic areas. 

• The park would continue to consult with 

affiliated American Indian tribes to 

identify ethnographic resources to 

develop and accomplish programs in a 

way that respects the beliefs, traditions, 

and other cultural values of the Indians 

who have ancestral ties to park lands. 

Ethnographic resources would be 

protected and mitigated by such means as 

identifying and maintaining access for 

recognized and affiliated groups to 

traditional, spiritual/ceremonial, resource 

gathering, and other activity areas. As 

practical, new developments would be 

screened from these areas, and conflicting 

uses would be relocated or timed to 

minimize disruptions. 

• Cultural landscapes would be protected, 

and any alterations and changes affecting 

cultural landscapes would follow the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties, with 
CHAPTER 3: THE ALTERNATIVES 

148

Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural 

Landscapes (1996). All potential actions, 

such as thinning vegetation to reduce fuel 

loads, removing exotic species, modifying 

historic circulation patterns, removing 

noncontributing or nonhistoric structures 

and landscape features, or adaptively 

using a cultural landscape, would 

incorporate compatible design guidelines 

to retain essential historic character and 

mitigate potential adverse effects. 

• Further background research, resource 

inventories, and National Register of 

Historic Places evaluation of historic 

properties would be carried out where 

management information is lacking. The 

results of these efforts would be 

incorporated into site-specific planning 

and compliance documents. 

• No national register-listed or national 

register-eligible structure or landscape 

feature would be removed or allowed to 

decay naturally (molder) without prior 

review by park and region cultural 

resource specialists, including approval by 

the NPS regional director and 

consultation with the Wisconsin state 

historic preservation office. Before a 

national register-listed or -eligible 

structure is removed or allowed to 

molder, appropriate documentation 

recording the structure or feature would 

be prepared in accordance with Section 

110(b) of the National Historic 

Preservation Act, and the documentation 

would be submitted to the Historic 

American Buildings Survey/Historic 

American Engineering Record/Historic 

American Landscapes Survey program. 

• Visitors would be educated on the 

importance of protecting the park’s 

historic properties and leaving these 

undisturbed for the enjoyment of future 

visitors. 

• Museum collections would be 

accessioned, catalogued, protected, and 

preserved in accordance with NPS 

standards and guidelines. 

VISITOR SAFETY AND EXPERIENCES 

Measures to reduce adverse effects of 

construction on visitor safety and experience 

would be implemented, including project 

scheduling and the use of best management 

practices. 

Directional signs to orient visitors and 

education programs to promote 

understanding among visitors would continue 

in nonwilderness areas. 
149 

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE 

The environmentally preferable alternative is 

defined as “the alternative that will promote 

national environmental policy as expressed in 

Section 101 of the National Environmental 

Policy Act.” Section 101 states that “it is the 

continuing responsibility of the federal 

government to 

1. fulfill the responsibilities of each 

generation as trustee of the environment 

for succeeding generations; 

2. assure for all Americans safe, healthful, 

productive, and aesthetically and 

culturally pleasing surroundings; 

3. attain the widest range of beneficial uses 

of the environment without degradation, 

risk to health or safety, or other 

undesirable and unintended 

consequences; 

4. preserve important historic, cultural, and 

natural aspects of our national heritage; 

and maintain, wherever possible, an 

environment which supports diversity, 

and a variety of individual choices; 

5. achieve a balance between population and 

resource use which would permit high 

standards of living and a wide sharing of 

life’s amenities; and 

6. enhance the quality of renewable 

resources and approach the maximum 

attainable recycling of depletable 

resources. 

Three of the above criteria did not make a 

difference in determining the environmentally 

preferred alternative. Criteria 1 is satisfied by 

all the alternatives: Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore is already a national park unit, and 

as a trustee of this area the National Park 

Service would continue to fulfill its 

responsibilities to protect this area for future 

generations. The difference between the 

alternatives in this regard is not appreciable. 

Likewise, all of the alternatives being 

considered are intended to meet criterion 2: 

provide for all Americans a safe experience in 

a visually pleasing environment. Criterion 6 

was determined to be not applicable to this 

plan. 

When considering the remaining criteria, the 

environmentally preferable alternative is 

alternative 2, the NPS preferred alternative for 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. This 

alternative best satisfies the national 

environmental goals embodied in goals 3, 4, 

and 5—it provides a high level of protection of 

natural and cultural resources while 

concurrently providing for a wide range of 

neutral and beneficial uses of the environment. The preferred alternative maintains an 

environment that supports a diversity and 

variety of individual choices, and it integrates 

resource protection with an appropriate range 

of visitor uses and understanding. 

The preferred alternative would provide more 

resource protection than the no-action 

alternative—e.g., unlike alternative 1, 

alternative 2 would restore/rehabilitate two 

light stations, relocate the Stockton Island 

campground out of an environmentally 

sensitive area, preserve and stabilize the 

Manitou fish camp, and address resource 

concerns related to the Michigan Island dock. 

In addition, the preferred alternative would 

provide substantially more opportunities for 

public enjoyment and understanding of the 

park than the no-action alternative, and thus 

better fulfills criteria 3, 4, and 5. 

Alternative 3 would provide about the same 

level of resource protection as alternative 2, 

but it would not provide as many opportunities for public enjoyment and understanding 

of the park—e.g., not including the visitor 

center at the Bayfield waterfront, removing 
CHAPTER 3: THE ALTERNATIVES 

150

the Oak group campsite, not providing an 

access ramp at Meyers Beach, and not 

providing new day use areas on the islands 

and at Little Sand Bay would result in fewer 

opportunities for the public to enjoy the park 

and fewer individual choices compared to 

alternative 2. Thus, alternative 3 would not 

fulfill criteria 3, 4, and 5 as well as 

alternative 2. 

Alternative 4 would also provide about the 

same level of resource protection as 

alternative 2, and would provide for more 

visitor use opportunities, particularly on the 

mainland. But alternative 4 would also have a 

higher potential for more impacts to natural 

resources in comparison with the preferred 

alternative—providing more docks on the 

islands and increasing the number of 

campsites would increase both opportunities 

for visitor use and the potential for resource 

impacts compared to alternative 2. Thus, 

alternative 4 would not satisfy criterion 3 

(attain the widest range of beneficial uses of 

the environment without degradation) as well 

as the preferred alternative satisfies this 

criterion.
151 

FUTURE STUDIES AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

After the completion and approval of this 

General Management Plan / Wilderness 

Management Plan, other more detailed 

studies and plans will be needed before 

specific actions can be implemented. As 

required, additional environmental 

compliance (National Environmental Policy 

Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and 

other relevant laws and policies) and public 

involvement would be conducted. These 

additional plans and studies include the 

following: 

• a resource stewardship strategy that 

provides comprehensive, long-range 

direction for natural and cultural 

resource management 

• a commercial services strategy, which 

would identify necessary and/or 

appropriate commercial services in the 

park (including appropriate 

transportation services to the islands and 

the appropriate level of outfitter 

activity), consistent with the General 

Management Plan, and the best way for 

the National Park Service to manage 

them; the strategy could also identify 

new sources of potential revenue that 

the National Park Service could earn 

from commercial services in the park 

• a study on what action should be taken 

to address the pitting and corrosion of 

the metal pilings in the Stockton dock 

• a study to address the design of the 

park’s docks in light of changing lake 

levels 

• a study to address the impacts of the 

park’s docks on sand transport and 

erosion, and in particular to determine 

what course of action should be taken 

for the future of the Michigan Island 

dock 

• studies of the park’s cultural resources to 

fill in gaps in the knowledge and 

understanding of the park’s resources, 

including surveys of archeological 

resources, ethnographic resources, 

historic structures, and cultural 

landscapes (including light stations) 

• a long-term study on the effects of 

climate change on the park’s resources 

and possible actions that can be taken to 

adapt and respond to these changes 

• additional planning for the 

redevelopment of the Long Island light 

station 

• an acoustic monitoring study to 

determine baseline ambient sound levels 

and the level of noise generated by 

motorized boats, including the 

concession boat and cigarette boats 

during the “poker run” or similar events 
152 

ALTERNATIVES AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS CONSIDERED 

BUT DISMISSED 

PROVIDE PUBLIC LODGING 

ON ROCKY ISLAND 

The planning team considered the possibility 

of rehabilitating and adaptively reusing the 

former fish camp cabins on Rocky Island for 

overnight public lodging. 

The planning team dismissed this potential 

action because it is inconsistent with the 

original vision for the establishment of 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. The 

legislative history and proposals for the 

establishment of the park called for the islands 

to continue to be wild, with minimal facilities, 

with the possible exception of providing 

lodging on Sand Island. 

BUILD A PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE 

OVER THE SAND RIVER 

Another proposal the planning team 

considered and dismissed was building a 

bridge over the Sand River on the mainland. A 

bridge would be one way to complete the 

Lakeshore Trail from its present terminus to 

Little Sand Bay. 

Building a bridge over the mouth of the Sand 

River is not feasible for several reasons, 

including building and maintenance concerns, 

environmental impacts, landownership issues, 

and cost. The bridge would need to be built 

across the mouth of the river (see appendix D 

for an aerial photograph of the area). Due to 

the environmental characteristics of the area, 

a long bridge (approximately 400 feet or more 

in length) would need to be built. A span 

bridge would not be feasible, because the 

dynamics of the river mouth and Lake 

Superior cause the mouth to wander and 

relocate. The sand dune that holds back an 

approximate 15-acre freshwater estuary is 

subject to change from large storms from the 

north. During a storm, sand can be pushed in 

from the lake and could dam the mouth; this 

could cause the freshwater estuary to rise and 

rupture the dune at another location. 

Hydrologically, the Sand River has a low base 

flow but high flood flows, resulting in 

extremes in discharges. From 1980 to 1984, 

when the U.S. Geological Survey monitored 

the river, flows varied from 3.9 to 1,630 cubic 

feet per second (Rose 1988). 

The area also is subject to seiche activity, or 

standing waves, that can result in a rapid rise 

in water levels in the freshwater estuary. Large 

waves can occur due to storms, particularly in 

the winter, which potentially could wash out 

the bridge. In addition, the soils in this area 

are very limited, due to a shallow depth to the 

saturated zone, and are prone to frost action 

and ponding. Finally, it is likely that cribbing 

would need to be built to protect the bridge. 

All of this means that this would be a 

substantial and costly structure to build and 

maintain, with the chance that the bridge 

could be damaged or lost by wave action and 

storms. 

Construction of the bridge would require an 

easement from the Red Cliff Band. The 

National Park Service does not have 

jurisdiction over some of the land where the 

bridge would need to be built, including the 

west side of the mouth of Sand River. 

Also, the most feasible way to build and 

maintain the bridge would be to bring in 

supplies from the lake. Water transportation 

would dramatically increase the cost of 

building and maintain the bridge. 
Alternatives and Management Actions 

Considered but Dismissed 

153 

From an environmental standpoint, building 

the bridge would have many potential aquatic, 

coastal, vegetation, and potential fish impacts, 

even with the application of mitigative 

measures. The bridge pilings and cribbing 

would affect the water flows into and out of 

the freshwater estuary and the hydraulic 

characteristics of the area. If the dunes on the 

east and west side of the river mouth were 

stable, the process of putting cribs or pilings in 

the river to support a bridge that is at least 400 

feet long would increase the velocity of the 

water leaving the river; this would erode and 

deepen the channel. The increased depth 

would have a direct effect on the freshwater 

estuary and wetlands and would cause them 

to drain. In addition, the longshore transport 

of sand in this area and sediment transport 

would be affected. Vegetation in the area 

would need to be removed to build the bridge. 

Water quality impacts would occur with the 

sinking of pilings and construction of 

cribbing. Fish movement into and out of the 

river could be affected by the presence of the 

bridge. All of these impacts together could 

result in a moderate to major, short-term, 

adverse impact to the aquatic environment of 

the freshwater estuary of the Sand River 

during construction of the bridge. After 

completion of the bridge, there would be a 

moderate, long-term, adverse impact. 

BUILD A TRAIL AROUND THE 

SAND RIVER WETLAND COMPLEX 

Another possible alternative to completing the 

Lakeshore Trail to Little Sand Bay would be to 

build a segment of the trail completely around 

the freshwater estuary and wetland complex, 

thus foregoing the need to build a boardwalk 

or bridge. This would require the trail to run 

outside the park’s southern boundary for 

approximately 4.5 to 5 miles. The trail would 

cross a complex patchwork of tribal 

reservation, tribal allotments, and county 

lands. Determining the landownership and 

then obtaining easements from all of the 

landowners to build and maintain a trail 

across their property would be extremely 

difficult to do and probably would not be 

feasible. The county lands also are heavily 

managed for timber production, which could 

present conflicts with a recreational trail. 

PERMIT BIKING ON 

THE LAKESHORE TRAIL 

Mountain biking has been suggested as a 

possible use of the Lakeshore Trail in the 

mainland unit. However, the planning team 

has determined it would not be appropriate to 

include biking as a possible use because of the 

potential for resource impacts (e.g., soil 

erosion and compaction) and conflicts with 

hikers. In addition, biking is not a historic use 

of the Lakeshore Trail, and prohibiting this 

potential activity would not displace or 

adversely affect bikers. Finally, extensive 

opportunities for mountain biking already 

exist in the region. 

155 

COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES

Table 11: Comparison of the Key Differences in the Alternatives 

Topic Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 (Preferred) Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

CONCEPT Park would continue to be 

managed as it is currently, with no substantial changes in facilities, visitor experience opportunities, or programs 

Focus on providing opportunities for more visitors to have an island experience, while continuing to protect and maintain park resources 

Focus on providing primitive, 

lake-oriented recreation/ education opportunities unique to the Apostle Islands, while continuing to protect and maintain park resources 

Emphasis on providing a greater variety of structured recreation opportunities for visitors, especially on the mainland, while continuing to protect and maintain park resources 

LIGHT STATIONS Continue existing 

management, striving to maintain current resource preservation efforts and visitor experience opportunities to the extent possible 

• Two light stations would be 

restored or rehabilitated, similar to the Raspberry Island light 

• Focus would continue on 

maintaining the Raspberry Island light station 

• Same as alternative 3 

• Part of the Long Island light 

station would be rehabilitated for NPS staff housing 

• Same as alternative 2 • Same as alternative 3 

FORMER USE & OCCUPANCY/ CURRENT LIFE ESTATES (These actions would occur only if these properties are acquired by the National Park Service during the life of this plan.) 

Decisions on the future of the properties would be made on a case-by-case basis when each life estate is extinguished or expires; structures that are not historically significant would be allowed to molder or be removed; there would be no public use of the interiors of the structures 

• Rocky Island: the contributing 

structures would be preserved and interpreted; one or more docks may be rehabilitated for public use 

• Rocky Island: same as 

alternative 2 except no interpretation would be provided 

• Rocky Island: same as 

alternative 2 but with more interpretation provided 
156

Topic Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 (Preferred) Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

FORMER USE & OCCUPANCY/ CURRENT LIFE ESTATES (continued) 

• West Bay Club: the structure 

would be preserved and interpreted; if feasible, the club would be adaptively reused for public overnight use; the dock would be rehabilitated for public use; the historic road between the club and East Bay would be reestablished as a trail 

• West Bay Club: the structure 

would be preserved and interpreted; no overnight use of the area; the dock would be rehabilitated for public use; no new trail would be established 

West Bay Club: the structure would be preserved and interpreted; camping would be permitted in the West Bay area; the dock would be rehabilitated for public use; the historic road between the club and East Bay would be reestablished as a trail 

• Shaw Point: the contributing 

structures would be preserved and interpreted; if feasible, some of the Camp Stella structures would be adaptively reused for overnight use by permitted groups; one or more docks would be rehabilitated for public use; the historic road between Shaw Point and East Bay would be reestablished as a trail 

• Shaw Point: the contributing 

structures would be preserved and interpreted; no overnight use of the area; one or more docks would be rehabilitated for public use; no new trail would be established 

• Shaw Point: Same as 

alternative 2 except no overnight use of the area 

• Hansen farm: Contributing 

structures would be preserved and stabilized, the cultural landscape would be partially restored, and the area would be interpreted; a new trail would connect the farm to the island trail network and provide access to the shoreline 

• Hansen farm: Same as 

alternative 2 

• Hansen farm: Same as 

alternative 2, except the homestead building would be restored 
157 

Topic Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 (Preferred) Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

NONWILDERNESS (ISLANDS) 

Continue existing management, striving to maintain current resource conditions and visitor experience opportunities to the extent possible; no major changes to the island facilities 

• New transportation 

opportunities would be sought to encourage visitors to come to selected islands 

• Existing transportation 

opportunities would be maintained; no new transportation opportunities 

• Same as alternative 3 

• New visitor facilities would be 

provided, including day use areas, new trails, and individual and group campsites, on Sand, Basswood, and Oak islands 

• A few new visitor facilities 

would be provided on Sand, Basswood, and Oak islandsincluding interpretive trails and new group campsites, but no day-use facilities 

• Same as alternative 2 

• No change in the number of 

public docks, but some docks would be relocated, improved, or expanded for boaters (e.g., Michigan Island dock) 

• No change in the public docks 

with the exception of improvements to the Michigan Island dock 

• Some docks would be 

improved or expanded for boaters, including the Michigan Island dock, and possibly more docks could be installed 

• The Stockton Island 

campground would be relocated to Presque Isle 

• Same as alternative 2 • Same as alternative 2, except 

3-4 campsites on the north end of the campground would not be relocated 

• The Manitou fish camp would 

be preserved and stabilized, the cultural landscape would be partially rehabilitated, and the area would be interpreted

• Same as alternative 2 • The Manitou fish camp would 

be rehabilitated, the cultural landscape would be partially rehabilitated, and the area would be interpreted 

• No mooring buoys would be 

provided 

• Same as alternative 2 • Mooring buoys may be 

provided at selected high use bays 
158

Topic Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 (Preferred) Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

WILDERNESS AREA Strive to maintain current 

resource conditions and visitor experience opportunities 

• No net gain in number of 

campsites, although sites may be reconfigured and relocated

• Same as alternative 2 • May be an increase in the 

number of dispersed campsites 

• Oak group campsite relocated 

to nonwilderness area 

• Oak group campsite removed • Oak group campsite remains 

within the wilderness area 

MAINLAND UNIT Strive to maintain current 

resource conditions and visitor experience opportunities; no changes in visitor or administrative facilities 

• A new trail would be 

developed from Little Sand Bay to Sand River 

• A small loop trail would be 

developed in Little Sand Bay 

• Additional recreational 

opportunities provided for visitors, such as water trails, water-access campsites; more interpretive opportunities provided 

• Same as alternative 3, plus 

complete the Lakeshore Trail from its present terminus to Little Sand Bay 

• Build a new hiking trail from 

Little Sand Bay to the east end of the Sand River 

• An access ramp would be 

provided for visitors with disabilities at Meyers Beach 

• No access ramp provided at 

Meyers Beach 

• Same as alternative 2 

• Day use area for large groups 

provided at Little Sand Bay 

• No day use area provided at 

Little Sand Bay 

• Same as alternative 2 

• Lakeshore Trail not expanded • Lakeshore Trail not expanded • Lakeshore Trail completed to 

Little Sand Bay with a boardwalk 
159 

Topic Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 (Preferred) Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

MAINLAND VISITOR CENTERS / CONTACT STATIONS 

No change in existing visitor centers 

• Bayfield Visitor Center would 

be built in a new central location on the Bayfield waterfront and combined with operations center 

• Bayfield Visitor Center 

expanded and improved at current location 

• Bayfield Visitor Center built in 

a new central location on the Bayfield waterfront 

• Little Sand Bay Visitor Center 

replaced with smaller visitor contact station 

• Little Sand Bay Visitor Center 

replaced with unstaffed kiosk 

• Same as alternative 2 

• No change at Meyers Beach • No change at Meyers Beach • Ranger/visitor contact station 

developed at Meyers Beach 

OPERATIONAL FACILITIES 

No change in existing operational facilities 

• Park headquarters would 

remain in a renovated courthouse 

• Operations center would be 

colocated with the Bayfield Visitor Center on the waterfront 

• Ranger station would be 

developed at Meyers Beach, but no visitor facilities would be included. 

• Park headquarters would 

remain at the courthouse 

• Operations center would be 

located to a new location (to be determined) 

• Same as alternative 2 

• Same as alternative 3 • Same as alternative 3 • Ranger/visitor contact station 

developed at Meyers Beach 
CHAPTER 3: THE ALTERNATIVES 

160 

Table 12: Summary of Key Impacts of the Alternatives 

Topic Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

NATURAL RESOURCES Soils 

Most soils would not be affected; however, alteration would continue in popular areas such as around campsites and near the lakeshore. 

Some soils would be altered due to construction of new facilities in some areas and increased visitor use in some localized areas. Adverse Impacts would likely be minor to moderate and long term. Establishing and monitoring user capacity indicators and standards should help prevent soil erosion. 

Same as alternative 2. Same as alternative 2. 

NATURAL RESOURCES Geological and Coastal Processes 

Visitors and existing docks would continue to affect sandscapes and shorelines, resulting in minor to moderate, long-term, adverse impacts in localized areas. 

Visitors and existing docks would continue to affect sandscapes and shorelines, resulting in minor to moderate, long-term, adverse impacts in localized areas. The relocation of the Stockton Island campground and the rehabilitation of several docks would result in long-term beneficial impacts. 

Same as alternative 2. Same as alternative 2. 

NATURAL RESOURCES Surface Water Quality 

Minor, long-term, adverse impacts in localized areas would continue. 

Minor, long-term, adverse impacts in localized areas would continue, The rehabilitation of docks would result in negligible to minor, shortterm, adverse impacts. 

Same as alternative 1. Same as alternative 1. 

NATURAL RESOURCES Wetlands 

Negligible, short- and long-term impacts due to people occasionally walking in these areas would continue. 

Same as alternative 1. Same as alternative 1. Same as alternative 1. 
161 

Topic Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

NATURAL RESOURCES Floodplains (including flooding) 

Negligible, short- and long-term impacts due to people walking in the area would continue. 

Same as alternative 1. Same as alternative 1. Same as alternative 1. 

NATURAL RESOURCES Vegetation 

Negligible to minor, long-term, adverse impacts due to past construction and continuing visitor use. 

Restoration actions, the application of user capacity indicators and standards, and increased NPS presence on Long Island and Meyers Beach would result in an overall long-term, beneficial impact. The development of new facilities and increased visitor use on some islands would result in minor to moderate, long-term, adverse impacts. 

Same as alternative 2. Restoration actions, the 

application of user capacity indicators and standards, and increased NPS presence on Long Island and Meyers Beach would result in an overall long-term, beneficial impact. The development in this alternative would result in the greatest potential for adverse impacts to native vegetation due to the potential for the spread of nonnative species. 

NATURAL RESOURCES  Wildlife 

Negligible to minor, long-term, adverse impacts would continue due to visitor use. 

New developments on the islands would result in the loss of some habitat, resulting in a minor, longterm, adverse impact. Restoration efforts, increased NPS presence at Meyers Beach and Long Island, and the relocation of the Stockton Island campground would result in long-term, beneficial impacts. 

Same as alternative 2. Same as alternative 2. 
162

Topic Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

NATURAL RESOURCES Threatened & Endangered Species 

No new developments would occur to affect piping plover. Continued visitor use of island beaches could have the potential to disturb plovers, but protection measures would keep affects minor. 

No new developments or actions would have the potential to affect the piping plover. Visitors would continue to have the potential to disturb the plovers; however, with increased NPS presence on Long Island and the continuation of other protection measures, impacts would be expected to be negligible. 

Same as alternative 2 Same as alternative 2 

NATURAL RESOURCES Natural Soundscape 

Long-term. minor to moderate, adverse impacts in local areas due to visitor use and NPS maintenance and management activities. 

Same as alternative 1. In addition, short- and long-term, minor to moderate, adverse impacts due to construction and use of new facilities. 

Same as alternative 1. In addition, short- and long-term, minor to moderate, adverse impacts due to construction and use of new facilities. 

Same as alternative 1. In addition, short- and longterm, minor to moderate, adverse impacts due to construction and use of new facilities. 

WILDERNESS CHARACTER 

Minor, long-term, adverse impacts would occur due to the continuing requirement to obtain a permit to camp in the wilderness. 

Same as alternative 1. In addition, the clustering of campsites would have a minor, longterm, adverse impact due to some visitors perceiving a loss of solitude. The relocation of the Oak Island group campsite out of the wilderness area would have a longterm, beneficial impact. 

Same as alternative 2. Same as alternative 1. 

In addition, development of additional dispersed campsites would have a minor, long-term, adverse impact due to some visitors perceiving a loss of solitude and apparent naturalness. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES Historic Structures / Cultural Landscapes 

There would be no adverse effect on resources listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 

There would be no adverse effect on resources listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 

There would be no adverse effect on resources listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 

There would be no adverse effect on resources listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 
163 

Topic Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

CULTURAL RESOURCES Archeological Resources 

There would be no adverse effect on resources listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 

There would be no adverse effect on resources listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 

There would be no adverse effect on resources listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 

There would be no adverse effect on resources listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES Ethnographic Resources 

There would be no adverse effect. 

There would be no adverse effect. There would be no adverse effect. There would be no adverse 

effect. 

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 

There would be long-term, moderate to major, beneficial impacts due to continued access to high-quality lake and island recreation opportunities and the preservation of existing launches and docks at desired locations. 

There would be minor to major, beneficial impacts due to enhanced access to the islands; increased recreational opportunities; and preservation of natural quiet, solitude, and primitive recreation throughout most of the park. 

There would be minor to moderate, beneficial impacts due to slight improvements in access to the islands, continuation of existing recreational opportunities, and increased interpretive opportunities on the mainland. 

Same as alternative 2. 

PARK OPERATIONS There would be minor to 

moderate, long-term, adverse impacts due to inadequate facilities, fragmentation of park staff and facilities, staffing shortages, and lack of funding. 

There would be long-term, beneficial impacts due to actions to improve park operations facilities, decreased staff fragmentation, and increased staffing levels. 

Same as alternative 2. Same as alternative 2. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

There would be no effect. There would be long-term, 

beneficial impacts due to increased spending by visitors, increased spending by the National Park Service, and increased spending by new park employees. These changes, however, would be relatively small compared to the overall regional economy. 

Same as alternative 2. Same as alternative 2. 

CHAPTER 4:

AFFECTED

ENVIRONMENT

A

Outer Island Lighthouse

East Landing at Devils Island

167 

INTRODUCTION 

The “Affected Environment” chapter 

describes the existing environment of Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore and the 

surrounding region. The focus of this part is 

on key natural and cultural resources, 

wilderness qualities, uses, facilities, and 

lakeshore operations that have the potential to 

be affected by the alternatives should they be 

implemented. For additional information on 

the Apostle Islands, see the park’s website 

(www.nps.gov/apis), and the following 

sources: 

NPS. 1988. The Apostle Islands: A Guide to 

the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. The 

Official National Park Handbook.

Washington, D.C.: NPS Division of 

Publications. 

NPS. 1989. General Management Plan / 

Environmental Assessment, Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore, Wisconsin. Denver, 

Colorado: Denver Service Center. 

Busch, Jane C. 2008. People and Places: A 

Human History of the Apostle Islands. 

Prepared under contract to the Midwest 

Regional Office, National Park Service, 

Omaha, Nebraska. 

Howk, N., ed. 2003. Hiker’s Guide to 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. Fort 

Washington, Pennsylvania: Eastern 

National. 

Nuhfer, E., ed. 2006. A Guidebook to the 

Geology of Lake Superior’s Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore and Nearby Areas of 

the Bayfield Peninsula of Wisconsin. Fort 

Washington, Pennsylvania: Eastern 

National. 

.
168 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

SOILS 

Soils in Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

are very young, yet quite diverse. They formed 

in a variety of parent materials over the last 

11,000 years after the retreat of glaciation in 

the region. As soon as the topmost point on an 

island was exposed to the atmosphere, 

weathering, plant colonization, and soil 

formation began. The soils of the Apostle 

Islands are derived from several parent 

materials that cause distinct variations over 

short distances. These parent materials are: 

lacustrine clay, water-deposited sand (by 

stream as well as lake), and glacial till (Brander 

et al. 1978). Clay is present under both loam 

and sand in the two most abundant soil 

classes. Twenty percent of the soils on the 

islands are sand over clay (NPS 2005a). 

Topography has played a part in soil 

development. Most of the 21 islands are 

relatively level and low-lying. Water runoff is 

limited, with rain and snowmelt filtering 

downward through soil. Oak Island differs 

due to its elevation and rugged landscape 

(Cary et al. 1978). 

The Natural Resources Conservation Service 

mapped soils throughout the entire park and 

completed the soil survey in 2006 (USDANRCS 2006). Fifty-two soil map units were 

identified, of which the most common were 

Superior-Sedgwick complex, 0%-6% slopes 

(found in 12.8% of the park) and KelloggAllendale-Ashwabay complex, 2%-6% slopes 

(11.6% of the park). The number of soil 

mapping units on the islands varied from one 

on Eagle and Gull islands to 31 on Stockton 

Island. 

The soils on the Apostle Islands were found to 

be quite diverse, ranging from sandy to clayey, 

and some new series were needed to define 

soils unique to the islands. Soil types on the 

islands include clays, loams, sands, and 

various combinations of these types. Clay is 

present as subsoil under both loam and sand 

in the two most abundant classes (NPS 2005a). 

A considerable amount of organic soils 

(histisols) exist in the park, forming in organic 

parent materials. These soils, including the 

Beseman, Cathro, Dawson, Loxley, Lupton, 

and Rifle soils, have different potential 

management issues than the “mineral soils” in 

the park. Soil drainage classes range from 

excessively well drained to very poorly 

drained, with ponding being an issue on 

several soils. Seasonal high water tables also 

are an issue. Seven hydric soil map units 

related to potential wetlands are present in the 

park. 

Continuing natural shoreline erosion has been 

a concern in the park. Lake Superior wave 

action has eroded steep bluffs on the islands. 

This erosion threatened the light stations on 

Outer and Raspberry islands (NPS 1999a, NPS 

2001, NPS 2003). Erosion control work was 

done to stabilize and revegetate slopes 

adjacent to the structures on Raspberry Island 

from 2002-2004 and on Outer Island from 

2004-2006. Wave action also has eroded the 

shoreline and threatens to eliminate several of 

the Presque Isle Bay campsites. 

Bank erosion also has occurred due to people 

climbing up and down banks. Bank erosion 

was documented over a two-year period at the 

Presque Isle Bay campground (Milfred 1987 as 

cited in NPS 2005c). Subsequent monitoring 

of Stockton Island campsites has showed 

increased shoreline erosion at several 

campsites. 
Natural Resources 

169 

GEOLOGY AND 

COASTAL PROCESSES 

Today’s Apostle Islands are the result of 

events beginning over 1 billion years ago. 

Colorful sandstones, which form the 

underlying bedrock and core of the islands, 

were deposited during Precambrian times. 

This sandstone, especially the Devils Island 

formation, forms shelves and cliffs on the 

islands and on the northern shore of the 

Bayfield Peninsula. Caves are also present on 

the mainland near Meyers Beach and on 

Devils and Sand islands. 

Pleistocene glaciation, which started around 3 

million years ago and ended about 10,000 

years ago, was the next significant event in the 

geological history of the islands. Thick 

deposits of reddish till (material of various 

sizes) were deposited by the glaciers on most 

of the islands. Three deposits of till were laid 

down, with the oldest being a sandy till and 

the two youngest being rich in clay (Nuhfer 

and Dalles 1987). Steep bluffs formed where 

the till was exposed, especially on the western 

sides of most of the islands. 

The islands and mainland coast continue to be 

shaped by wave and wind energy generated by 

Lake Superior and by weathering from 

precipitation, frost, wind, and sun. Coastal 

features in the park include sandstone cliffs, 

sandy or silty bluffs, and sandscapes (sandbased landforms). Sandstone cliffs and bluffs 

are continually eroded by lake waves. On the 

other hand, the park’s sandscapes are 

dependent upon the longshore transport of 

sand from these cliffs and bluffs—changes in 

the movement of suspended materials along 

and around the island shorelines (littoral drift) 

can affect the formation and disintegration of 

sandscapes like sandbars and tombolos. 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore has one of 

the most diverse collections of high-quality 

sandscapes in the Great Lakes region. The 

park has 17 designated sandscapes, which 

have been monitored since 1988 (NPS 2007b). 

The state of Wisconsin recognized the variety 

of the park’s sandscapes when it designated 

the Apostle Islands Sandscapes State Natural 

Area, including Raspberry, Rocky, Stockton, 

and Outer islands, in 1992. The park’s 

sandscapes tend to occur on the southern end 

of islands and are found only where glacial till 

along shorelines provides a ready supply of 

sand (Nuhfer and Dalles 1987). 

Five types of sandscapes are found on the 

islands: sandspits, cuspate forelands, 

tombolos, a barrier spit, and numerous 

beaches. True sandspits are found on several 

islands, including Cat and Outer. Cuspate 

forelands are a type of wedge-shaped sandspit 

that are wider than they are long, and are 

found on Raspberry, South Twin, Rocky, Oak, 

Ironwood, Otter, Bear, and York islands. 

Tombolos are sand features that join either 

two islands or an island to the mainland. 

Rocky and York islands support welldeveloped tombolos, while Stockton Island 

has one of the few examples of a double 

tombolo in the Great Lakes (Judziewicz and 

Koch 1993 as cited in NPS 2005a). Barrier 

spits are elongate sand ridges that extend 

generally parallel to the coast. Long Island is a 

barrier spit with a narrow connection to the 

mainland. Sandscapes are typically comprised 

of a beach that is devoid of vegetation, active 

dunes, interdunal hollows, stabilized dunes 

and/or beach ridges. Frequently a bog or alder 

thicket is associated with sandscapes. 

Factors within and outside the control of the 

National Park Service influence coastal 

processes. Lake Superior water levels, which 

are partially regulated through orders of the 

International Joint Commission, affect 

erosion rates on bluffs and sandscapes. NPS 

docks and other developments also may 

seriously affect local coastal processes. Docks, 

especially those with solid cores, affect the 

movement of sand along the coastline. Some 

of these docks are likely affecting the drift of 

sand (NPS 1999a). For example, the Little 

Sand Bay docks were found to alter currents 

and longshore drift, which in turn altered 

sedimentation patterns (Rittschof 1976). 

Likewise, a solid dock in front of the Michigan 

Island light station, built in 1987, affected 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

170

erosion on one side of the dock for several 

years. In 1993 the dock was modified to 

reduce its impact on erosion, and to increase 

its usefulness for docking, but problems at the 

dock continue (NPS 2007b). 

Climate change will also likely affect Lake 

Superior coastal processes in the future, 

although specific effects in the park are 

difficult to predict. Scientists believe it is likely 

that the level of Lake Superior will drop over 

the remainder of the century. With a drop in 

the lake level, beaches may expand, channels 

will become shallower, and (in the long term) 

the park’s expanded land area may approach 

the legal boundary of the park. Decreasing ice 

cover could also increase the impacts of 

storms in the shallow bays of the lake, 

including the park (Lofgren et al. 2002, Union 

of Concerned Scientists and the Ecological 

Society of America 2005). These changes 

could in turn increase erosion and deposition 

rates and the movement of sand, and thus 

affect the park’s sandscapes. 

SURFACE WATER QUALITY 

Lake Superior generally has very good water 

quality. The overland drainage area is small 

compared to its immense size, and the 

watershed has a high percentage of forest 

cover, which contributes to the high water 

quality. Water quality in and around the 

Apostle Islands reflects the general 

oligotrophic (low nutrient) character of Lake 

Superior in general. The water quality of the 

park’s Lake Superior surface waters is 

considered to be good (Ledder 2003, NPS 

2005c, NPS 2007b). The park’s mainland 

streams, mainland coastline and bays, and the 

islands’ coastline and bays all appear generally 

to have high water quality (NPS 2007b). There 

appears to be little impact of human activities 

on water quality within the park. No bacteria 

samples collected annually at Little Sand Bay 

and Stockton Island have exceeded state 

water quality standards (NPS 2004d). 

Reflecting the park’s high water quality, a 

0.25-mile buffer of Lake Superior waters 

around the islands was designated as 

Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) by the 

state of Wisconsin in 2006 (Wisconsin 

Administrative Code NR 102.10 1m). Lake 

Superior also has been recommended by the 

International Joint Commission (IJC) as a 

demonstration area where no point source 

discharge of any persistent toxic chemical will 

be permitted (Lake Superior Binational 

Program 2000). 

Water quality has been monitored at Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore since 1996. This 

monitoring has included measuring physical 

and chemical parameters at five Lake Superior 

sites every two to three years and doing more 

detailed monitoring for physical, chemical, 

and biological parameters approximately 

every five years at three lagoons and at five 

Lake Superior sites. Beginning in 2006, the 

NPS Great Lakes Inventory and Monitoring 

Network began long-term monitoring within 

the park that focuses on monitoring four of 

the park’s lagoons on an annual basis. 

In 1996 long-term water quality sampling sites 

were established in the park (Lake Superior 

Ecosystem Research Center 1997). Five open 

lake and three lagoon sites were sampled. 

Physical and chemical water quality 

parameters were measured and biological 

samples taken (zooplankton and benthos). 

The open water sites were found to have low 

nitrogen and phosphorus levels, low 

chlorophyll “a” concentrations, and high 

water clarity. All of the lagoon sites had low or 

nonexistent benthic organism populations 

and warm, highly colored, acidic waters. A 

three-year water quality study (1986-1988) 

was conducted in the park by the Center for 

Lake Superior Environmental Studies, 

University of Wisconsin-Superior (McCauley 

et al. 1989). Consistent with the most recent 

sampling, results of this study indicate that 

park waters are relatively free from 

contamination by human wastes, that 

concentrations of nutrients (e.g., nitrogen and 

phosphorus) were low, and that oil and grease 

in the sediments of heavily used Stockton 

harbor were low. Water quality studies 

conducted from 1979 to 1984 by the U.S. 
Natural Resources 

171 

Geological Survey (USGS) in Lake Superior 

and the park, including inland streams and 

lagoons and nearshore waters within the park, 

indicated similar results (USGS 1988). 

There are relatively few local sources of water 

pollution in the archipelago and the mainland. 

The park’s water quality is temporarily 

degraded locally by strong storms. Natural 

spring runoff erosion may be the source of 

some contaminants. Heavy rain and spring 

runoff may discolor nearshore lake waters, 

and wave erosion generated from high winds 

can cause a major increase in particulate 

matter in the waters around islands with 

clay/sand banks. 

Some pollution probably comes from 

unburned fuel discharged by outboard 

motorboats. Some areas used for full body 

contact recreation in the park, such as 

swimming and diving, are also areas where 

boats tend to moor and, as a matter of course, 

discharge “gray water” and bilge water. Gray 

water potentially contains nutrients and other 

contaminants (e.g., from cleansers). Although 

illegal, some boaters may discharge sewage 

into the lake. Campers may also be adding 

nutrients to Lake Superior; however, they are 

discouraged from bathing and cleaning dishes 

in the lake. 

There are many potential sources of water 

pollution outside the park including the 

discharge of treated wastewater from towns 

and cities (although many local communities 

have been making significant improvements to 

their treatment plants recently); industrial 

discharges; runoff from agricultural, 

silvicultural, and quarrying operations; 

discharges from commercial cargo ships; 

pollution from recreational use (tour boats 

and private boats) and marinas; stormwater 

discharges; and atmospheric deposition (NPS 

1999b, NPS 2005a, NPS 2007a). But these 

pollutants are widely scattered, and strong 

circulation disperses pollutants widely. 

Airborne contamination is the major source of 

the most persistent pollutants in Lake 

Superior (NPS 2007b). Lake concentrations 

are minute; however, biological accumulation 

in aquatic organisms of these contaminants 

continues to be a concern. Lake Superior has 

an extremely slow flushing time for toxins. It 

takes approximately 200 years for the lake to 

clear 95% of nondegrading, nonsettling 

pollutants. Only 0.05% annually can be 

expected to leave by way of St. Mary’s river, 

the only outlet for the lake (NPS 2005a). 

Fortunately, concentration levels have been 

decreasing since the use and manufacturing 

ban of many of these compounds. 

Another potential source of pollution is a spill 

of cargo or fuel from Great Lakes cargo ships. 

These ships travel within 5 miles (8 km) of 

Devils and Sand islands, 4 miles (6 km) of 

Michigan Island, and 0.6 mile (1 km) of Long 

Island, and may come closer during storms 

(NPS 2007b). 

Introduction of toxic chemicals, such as 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), into Lake 

Superior is a serious concern. The vast 

majority of PCBs in Lake Superior have 

entered the system through atmospheric 

deposition (Eisenreich 1987). PCBs may move 

back out of the water at both the air-water and 

water-sediment interfaces. PCBs, dioxins, and 

other organo-chlorides accumulate in the 

fatty tissue of organisms and tend to 

bioaccumulate in the food chain. High levels 

of PCBs have been found in nesting herring 

gulls, and elevated levels of PCBs, PBDEs 

(polybrominated diphenyl ethers), and DDE 

(dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) have 

been found in nesting bald eagles in the park 

(Meyer, et al. 1994, Route 2006). During the 

1990s levels of PCB and DDE have decreased 

in bald eagles. Toxaphene, another 

bioaccumulative toxin, has become of 

increasing concern. Elevated levels of 

toxaphene were measured in lake trout 

collected near the Apostle Islands, and 

toxaphene was found by the Minnesota 

Pollution Control Agency (1996) to be the 

dominant contaminant in lake trout in Lake 

Superior. Finally, high levels of mercury, 

especially methyl mercury, have been detected 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

172

in the park’s island lagoons (Stockton, Outer), 

and in samples taken from fish and eagles 

(NPS 2007a; NPCA 2007; J. Van Stappen, 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, pers. 

comm., March 16, 2007). This toxic chemical 

likely has been transported into the park from 

external sources such as emissions from 

power plants. 

WETLANDS 

Wetlands are areas that are inundated or 

saturated by surface or groundwater often 

enough and long enough to support a 

prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for 

life in saturated soil conditions. The 

Wisconsin Land Cover Grid classified 2,041 

acres (846 hectares) of the islands as wetlands, 

or about 5% of the islands. In the mainland 

unit about 220 acres (89 hectares) were 

classified as wetlands, or about 9% of the area 

(NPS 2007b). Although all of the park’s 

wetlands have not been mapped using the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service’s Classification of 

Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats (USFWS 

1979), selected wetlands have been mapped 

and characterized on the islands and the 

mainland (Judziewicz and Koch 1993; Meeker 

1998; Meeker 2000; Meeker 2002). 

Wetland types in the park include alder 

thickets, beaver flowages, bogs, lagoons, 

marshes, ridge/swale communities, and wet 

sedge meadows. These wetlands contain 

unique flora and fauna species and add a 

considerable amount of ecological diversity to 

the park. Wetlands dominated by thickets of 

speckled alder are frequent on the Apostle 

Islands and are found in association with a 

number of habitats. These very wet 

communities frequently fringe beaver 

flowages, sandscape bogs, and old roads 

(Judziewicz and Koch 1993). Beaver flowages 

(dams) on Outer Island greatly increase the 

diversity of bird habitat on the island. Bogs 

dominated by sedges, ericads, and sphagnum 

mosses often occur in the filled-in lake basins 

that occur just inland from sandscape dune 

ridges. The larger bogs on Michigan, Outer, 

and Stockton islands have lagoons with 

floating and submersed aquatic species. A 

perched bog, on an old beach ridge, is on Bear 

Island. 

Small wetlands are present behind or in close 

proximity of sandspits on Raspberry and 

Rocky islands. Bogs are also found on poorly 

drained lowlands on Devils, Otter, Sand, and 

South Twin. These interior wetlands are often 

smaller and have poorer bog floras than their 

coastal, sandscape counterparts, but all of the 

common ericads and insectivorous plants are 

usually present (Judziewicz and Koch 1993). 

Lagoons occur on Michigan, Outer, and 

Stockton islands, and on the mainland unit. 

The Julian Bay lagoon on Stockton Island has 

a very rich flora, including rare species such as 

coast sedge (Carex exilis), Michaux’s sedge (C. 

michauxiana), sooty beak rush (Rhynchospora 

fusca), dragon’s mouth (Arethusa bulbosa), 

and yellow-eyed grass (Xyris montana Ries). 

Long Island has several types of wetlands 

including ridge and swale topography in its 

northwest end, sphagnum/heath wetland 

behind the Chequamegon Bayside beach 

running along most of its length, and 

extensive sedge meadow habitat on its 

southeast end. 

On the mainland unit there are two barrier 

beach/bog complexes. One is near the Little 

Sand Bay dock. The other much more 

extensive wetland, covering over 370 acres 

(150 ha) is the Sand River bog or estuary 

complex. This wetland is where the Sand 

River empties into Lake Superior. In back of 

the barrier beach are alder-willow-dogwood 

thickets that grade into a marshy bog mat with 

pools of open water. These wetlands rival 

Long Island in the diversity of submersed and 

emergent aquatic plants (Judziewicz and Kock 

1993). 

FLOODPLAINS 

Current data on floodplains is limited. The 

largest drainage on the mainland unit is Sand 

River, which flows through the park and 

empties into Sand Bay on Lake Superior. 

However, the majority of the Sand River 
Natural Resources 

173 

drainage basin is outside the park. Saxine 

Creek is located at the extreme west end of 

the mainland unit, and several other smaller, 

unnamed drainages are scattered through the 

unit. The presence of surface drainages varies 

by island and is based upon topography, 

island size, and relief. Variation in elevation is 

not a significant feature of Apostle Islands. 

Generally, larger islands have small 

intermittent streams. Stockton and Outer 

islands have more extensive stream systems, 

some of which are impounded by beaver 

dams. The smaller islands, including Devils, 

Eagle, Ironwood, Gull, North Twin, and 

South Twin, lack any significant drainage 

channels that are identifiable on 10-foot 

interval topographic-contour maps. Streams 

are present on all other islands but most 

notably on Oak (which has the greatest 

topographical relief, approximately 400 feet), 

Outer, and Stockton (which has the largest 

single drainage basin, 2.56 square miles) (NPS 

2005a). 

VEGETATION 

Located in far northwestern Wisconsin, 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore is at the 

continental northwestern limits of the 

hemlock-white pine-northern hardwood 

forest and also contains elements of the boreal 

forest. In presettlement times about 90% of 

the islands were covered by an upland mixed 

coniferous/hardwood forest dominated by 

eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), white 

pine (Pinus strobus), sugar maple (Acer 

saccharum), yellow birch (Betula 

alleghaniensis), and white birch (Betula 

papyrifera) (Judziewicz and Koch 1993). Presettlement vegetation of the mainland unit was 

most likely eastern hemlock, yellow birch, and 

white cedar (Thuja occidentalis) with smaller 

amounts of balsam fir (Abies balsamea), white 

birch, and white pine (Judziewicz and Koch 

1993). 

History 

The park’s current forests reflect complex 

disturbance histories. Forests within the park 

range from pristine old-growth forest without 

a history of deer browsing, to forests that have 

been subjected to logging, fires, and extensive 

deer browsing. Areas that escaped commercial 

logging include North Twin, Eagle, and Gull 

islands and the lighthouse reservations on 

Outer, Sand, Devils and Raspberry islands. In 

the case of Devils and Raspberry islands, the 

reservations included the entire islands. A 

total of approximately 1,300 acres of oldgrowth forest remains on the islands in the 

park. A 200-acre old-growth forest on the 

north end of Outer Island is one of the best 

examples of northern hardwood hemlock 

forest and one of the oldest stands remaining 

in the upper Great Lakes region (Judziewicz 

and Koch 1993). This stand is unique because 

it has not been affected by deer browsing. An 

old-growth forest remnant on the north end 

of Sand Island supports extremely large white 

pine trees. Very little old growth is left in the 

mainland unit except for a few hemlocks and 

hardwoods in small but rugged ravines near 

Little Sand Bay. 

Most of the park’s forests were logged, first 

for white and red pines (Pinus resinosa), white 

cedar and hemlock (ca. 1870), and later for 

hardwoods, particularly sugar maple and 

yellow birch. Today, a maturing secondgrowth northern hardwood forest exists 

throughout the islands. The species 

composition of the boreal forest community 

was not changed due to logging. Today this 

community is dominated by white spruce, 

balsam fir, tamarack (Larix laricina), white 

cedar, birch, and aspen, as it was during 

presettlement times. However, other effects of 

logging remain. Hemlock is no longer 

dominant, except in stands on Bear, Oak, 

Outer, and Stockton islands; white pine is 

much less abundant than it was historically 

and primarily occurs on sandscapes as mature 

second-growth stands and as scattered supercanopy individuals on Outer, Sand, Devils, 

and North Twin islands. The most important 

tree species in the archipelago now are white 

birch, sugar and red maples, balsam fir, and 

white cedar (Judziewicz and Koch 1993). In 

the mainland unit, the forest is now consists of 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

174

pole-sized quaking aspen(Populus 

tremuloides), sugar maple, balsam fir, and 

some white spruce (Picea glauca). 

Following logging, deer populations irrupted 

on many of the islands, severely impacting 

species favored by deer, such as Canada yew 

(Taxus canadensis). This species has only 

minimally recovered on islands impacted by 

deer and may take hundreds of years to 

recover (NPS 2007c). Several of the islands, 

however, that did not have a history of deer 

populations and others that had moderate 

deer populations have lush stands of Canada 

yew—a very rare species on the mainland due 

to deer browsing. Islands that historically had 

few to no deer include Devils, Eagle, North 

Twin, Outer, Raspberry, Sand, and York (NPS 

2005a). In recent years, deer populations have 

become established on both Sand and York 

island,s and extensive deer browse is 

threatening this rare vegetation community. 

Islands that historically had a moderate deer 

population but where yew is still dominant 

include Cat, Ironwood, Michigan, and Otter 

islands. 

Vegetation Today 

The three largest ecological communities 

present today in the park are mesic forest 

(comprising 72% of the park), wet mesic 

forest (17% of the park), and dry mesic forest 

(5% of the park) (NPS 2005a). The mesic 

forest community type includes the 

hemlock/white pine/hardwood, and boreal 

forests. Hemlock is no longer a dominant tree 

in the archipelago except in stands on Bear, 

Oak, Outer, and Stockton islands. A 

comparison of presettlement and present-day 

community types shows hemlock has 

decreased from 26% to 4%. Decline of 

hemlock and white pine has benefited aspen, 

white birch, and sugar maple the most. Aspen 

species and white birch (18% increase 

between presettlement and current forests) 

also increased dramatically in the first decades 

after logging ceased but are now mature and 

starting to decline. Sugar maple is doing well 

on well-drained upland second-growth sites 

and is the only species exhibiting good 

seedling and sapling recruitment. Boreal forest 

is an important upland community in the 

archipelago. Elements of the boreal forest 

exist on North Twin, Raspberry, Rocky, Sand, 

South Twin, and York islands, but the 

northern two-thirds of Devils Island has what 

Judziewicz calls “classic boreal forest” where 

white spruce, balsam fir, white cedar, white 

birch, and aspen dominate (Judziewicz and 

Koch 1993). 

Wet mesic forests are comprised of white 

cedar, balsam fir, and black ash. One type of 

wet mesic forest is the krumholtz forest, or 

those stunted by the harsh conditions such as 

shallow soils and exposure to maritime 

weather. Krumholtz forests are found on the 

northern tips of Bear, Cat, Devils, and North 

Twin islands, and on Austad Point on Outer 

Island. They occur along coastal bluff-tops 

and extend inland between 33 to 98 feet (10-

30 meters) on Devils Island, which has the 

best example of this type. The forests are low 

and include white birch, balsam-fir, white 

cedar, and Canada yew. 

Several other ecological communities occur 

far less frequently in the park, each of which 

covers less than 1% of the park (NPS 2005a; 

Judziewicz and Koch 1993). These 

communities include wet forest, northern 

shrub (alder) thickets and beaver flowages, 

bogs and lagoons, Great Lakes barren, 

clayscapes (clay bluffs), rockscapes 

(Precambrian sandstone ledges and bluffs), 

and sandscapes (dunes, pine savanna and 

forest, and bogs). 

About one-third of the islands’ coasts consist 

of Precambrian sandstone ledges and bluffs. 

Local vegetation on these rock faces depends 

on the microhabitat and can vary from 

common willows (Salix spp.) and weed 

species, to subarctic rarities and species with 

calcareous tendencies. Steep reddish clay 

bluffs are vegetated with small trees of balsam 

poplar, white birch, red maple, and showy 

mountain ash (Sorbus decora) (Judziewicz and 

Koch 1993). 
Natural Resources 

175 

Because the Apostle Islands are at the extreme 

northern frontier of Wisconsin, they tend to 

provide plant habitats not found elsewhere in 

the state. Many of the rare plants in the park 

are arctic remnants, such as butterwort 

(Pinguicula vulgaris) and arctic primrose 

(Primula mistassinica). Regionally rare 

habitats in the park include old-growth forest, 

forest seep, clay bluff communities, sandstone 

cliff communities, lagoon and bog 

communities, forested ridge and swale, coastal 

fen, Great Lakes barrens (the only example in 

the state, found on the Stockton Island 

tombolo), and dune communities (NPS 

2007c). The Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources Natural Areas Program recognized 

the special qualities of the Apostle Islands’ 

vegetation and landscapes, designating the 

Apostle Islands Maritime Forest, Maritime 

Cliff, Sandscapes, and Critical Species State 

Natural Areas in 1992. 

As noted above, the park has a rich 

assemblage of sandscapes, including sandspits, 

cuspate forelands, tombolos, a barrier spit 

(Long Island), and beaches. These areas add a 

lot of biodiversity to the park, but they are 

very fragile. Typical park sandscapes include 

the following vegetation zones: a beach 

without vegetation, active dunes, intertidal 

hollows (sometimes with ephermal pools or 

ponds), stabilized dunes and/or beach ridges 

(sometimes covered with pine savanna or 

forest), and finally a filled-in lake basin 

covered either with bog or alder thicket 

vegetation (Nuhfer and Dales 1987 and 

Judziewicz and Koch 1993, as cited in NPS 

2007b). Plant communities on these habitats 

are adapted to survive harsh conditions, 

including shifting sands, strong winds, and 

nutrient-poor soils. They are dominated by 

dune vegetation, American beach grass 

(Ammphila breviligulata), and beach pea 

(Lathyrus japonicus), which help to stabilize 

the sandscape environment, as well as a shrub 

and forest component of speckled alder 

(Alnus rugosa), quaking aspen (Populus 

tremuloides), and white birch. Shrubs that help 

stabilize the sandscapes include beach heather 

(Hudsonia tomentosa), dwarf juniper 

(Juniperus communis), blueberry (Vaccinium 

angustifolium), and rose (Rosa blanda). 

Over 750 plant species occur within the park, 

including 26 rare species of concern. 

Nonnative vegetation in the park is confined 

primarily to disturbed landscapes, including 

old logging camps, farmsteads, fishing camps, 

light station grounds, and quarries. Eroding 

clay bluffs tend to have fairly high numbers of 

nonnative plants. NPS developed areas, such 

as Presque Isle on Stockton Island, and 

developments on the mainland unit also 

contain nonnative species. Sandscapes and 

wetlands are vulnerable to invasion of 

nonnative species, especially where native 

vegetation has been affected by human 

disturbance (NPS 1999a). Invasive nonnative 

species that are of most concern to the park’s 

native vegetation include purple loosestrife 

(Lythrum salicaria), spotted knapweed 

(Centaurea biebersteinii), and Japanese 

knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum). Purple 

loosestrife has been found on Long Island, 

both in the “cut area” and along the tip of the 

island on Chequamegon Bay shore area. 

Spotted knapweed has been found on the 

north end of Outer Island, along Quarry Bay 

on Stockton Island, and on Meyers Beach on 

the mainland. Japanese knotweed has been 

found on Raspberry Island. NPS staff are 

working on controlling the spread of all of 

these species. 

Other nonnative species of concern found in 

the park include orange hawkweed 

(Hieracium aurantiacum), common mullein 

(Verbascum thapsus), sheep sorrel (Rumex 

acetosella), burdock (Arctium minus), Canada 

thistle (cirsium arvense), and crown vetch 

(Coronilla varia )( NPS 2007a; J. Van Stappen, 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, pers. 

comm., July 5, 2007). Other invasive nonnative 

species could spread (or may already have 

spread) into the park in the future, such as 

garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), which has 

been found in Ashland. This species could 

seriously affect forested areas (J. Van Stappen, 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, pers. 

comm., September 15, 2008). 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

176

Vegetation and People 

As noted previously, the vegetation of the 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore has been 

substantially altered by people. There is little 

information on the influence of American 

Indians on the northern hardwood forest of 

the Apostle Islands, but it appears to have 

been minimal. Most of the islands and the 

mainland have a history of logging. In the late 

1800s white pine was harvested, followed by 

the removal of large hemlocks, yellow birch, 

and sugar maple until nearly all virgin stands 

were harvested by 1950. A wide range of 

species were harvested from a number of 

islands until the 1970s. As a result of logging, 

white pine, hemlock, and white cedar are 

examples of species that have been greatly 

reduced in relative importance on 15 of the 

islands and the mainland due to logging and 

fires that followed logging (NPS 1999a). 

Logging and fires also were followed by 

regeneration of early successional species, 

which created habitats attractive to deer and 

beaver. Increases in deer and beaver 

populations affected the mainland and 

islands’ vegetation. In particular, Canada yew 

was practically extirpated from several of the 

islands (NPS 2005a). 

Other human activities on the islands, 

including farming, the building of cabins, 

quarrying, development of roads, and fish 

camps, also altered vegetation in the park. 

Today, the majority of the islands and the 

mainland support a forest ecosystem quite 

unlike what would have prevailed had there 

been no human activity in the 19th and 20th 

centuries (NPS 1999a). 

Although sandscape vegetation is resistant to 

natural disturbances, it is particularly sensitive 

to human use and is easily altered by 

trampling during the growing season. 

Historical disturbances of the sandscapes 

include construction and use of cordwood 

docks, logging camps, cabins, boat docks, and 

sand mining. The cuspate forelands of 

Ironwood, Otter, and York islands were used 

as ramps during logging operations and as a 

result were heavily impacted. Since the park 

was established, visitor use also has affected 

the sandscape vegetation. Sandscapes receive 

relatively high visitor use due to their 

accessibility and scenery. The result is that 

vegetation of several spits and beaches has 

been heavily impacted by human trampling 

(NPS 1999a). Monitoring has indicated 

degradation of vegetation on several of the 

park’s sandscapes. Studies have documented 

declines in vegetative cover on sandscapes at 

Bear, Oak, and Long islands in 2004, and on 

Cat Island and Michigan Island sandspits in 

2005 (NPS 2007a). The vegetative community 

on the Oak Island cuspate foreland has seen a 

lot of disturbance because of its long history 

of human use and current visitor use. 

However, since 2000 work has been underway 

to restore Oak Island’s sandscape, including 

planting native plants, controlling nonnative 

species, and installing floating boardwalks to 

help direct and minimize visitor impacts (Van 

Stappen 2003). Sandscape restoration has also 

taken place on South Twin and Raspberry 

islands and restoration work began on Cat 

and Long islands in 2008. 

Campsite use also has affected vegetation in 

localized areas on the islands. The percent of 

bare ground, and loss of vegetation, increased 

at six campsites on Stockton Island in 2004, 

and exceeded the limits of acceptable change; 

an additional site was approaching this 

threshold. Four other campsites on the islands 

(two on Oak, one on Outer, and one on 

Basswood) exceeded the limits of acceptable 

change in 2002 and 2003. All of these sites are 

in need of site restoration (NPS 2007a). 

In the past there has been a serious problem in 

parts of the park with the introduction of 

nonnative species where there has been 

construction. Any project that has brought in 

soil or gravel has introduced invasive 

nonnative species such as spotted knapweed 

(J. Van Stappen, Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore, pers. comm., September 2008). 

Communities at high risk of impact from 

nonnative invasive species include wetlands 

and sandscapes. In addition, nonnative 

species such as garlic mustard (Alliaria 

petiolata), if introduced, could seriously 
Natural Resources 

177 

impact forested areas. NPS staff have been 

working for several years to control the spread 

of these species. Monitoring for spotted 

knapweed on the park’s sandscapes is 

conducted annually. Monitoring and control 

efforts for spotted knapweed have taken place 

at Meyers Beach, Stockton Quarry Bay, Little 

Sand Bay, and the north end of Outer Island. 

Purple loosestrife control and monitoring is 

done on Long Island, Japanese knotweed 

control is done on Raspberry Island, and 

orange hawkweed has been controlled on Oak 

and South Twin sandscapes. 

The gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) has been 

spreading westward across the country and 

recently has greatly increased in numbers in 

the park. Based on monitoring in 2007, these 

nonnative insects were found on 18 of 19 

islands where traps were set, and were 

especially abundant on Manitou and Stockton 

islands (NPS 2007e). Since the rapid increase 

of gypsy moths seems to be centered on the 

islands and not the mainland, it is possible 

they were introduced by campers bringing 

firewood to the islands. Gypsy moths feed on 

the foliage of hundreds of species of plants, 

but its most common hosts are oaks and 

aspen. When moth densities reach very high 

levels, trees may become completely 

defoliated. Several successive years of 

defoliation, together with contributions by 

other stress factors, can result in tree 

mortality. 

Although it has not yet been discovered in the 

park, the emerald ash borer (Agrilus 

planipennis) is another nonnative insect that is 

in Wisconsin and may invade the park. If it 

does enter the park, this nonnative beetle will 

likely kill the park’s ash trees. 

Climate change also will affect the park’s 

vegetation in the future, although the rate and 

magnitude of specific vegetation changes are 

not known. Forest species composition will 

change. Apostle Islands National Lakeshore is 

on the southern fringe of the boreal forest 

ecosystem. Scientists believe that with an 

increase in annual temperatures, the park’s 

forest will change from a northern 

hardwood/boreal mix to more southern 

species. Cool-adapted tree species such as 

sugar maple and paper birch are projected to 

lose habitat in the northeastern U.S., while 

oaks and pines may see an expansion. Thus, 

the boreal forest elements of the park will 

likely be diminished or lost. Also, many of the 

park’s rare arctic remnant plants (e.g., 

butterwort, arctic primrose) would be 

expected to be affected by climate change. 

(Monitoring indicates that the park’s 

butterwort populations may already be 

declining [J. van Stappen, Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore, pers. comm., February 8, 

2008]). Mountain cranberry (Vaccinium vitisidaea) is another northern species, listed as 

endangered by the state, that may disappear if 

the forest surrounding it matures and the 

canopy becomes more dense due to climate 

change. Warming temperatures also are 

expected to increase problems related to 

insects and disease, such as noted above for 

the gypsy moth, and increase the potential for 

fire (NPS 2007f; Union of Concerned 

Scientists and the Ecological Society of 

America 2005). 

WILDLIFE 

A variety of wildlife species use the many 

habitat types present in Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore. Island environments, 

naturally isolated, are a barrier for distribution 

of some animals. The Apostle Islands were 

covered by Lake Superior during the end of 

the last glacial period (11,500 years before 

present). When the lake level dropped to 450 

feet above sea level, around 9,500 years before 

present, the current archipelago was part of 

the mainland and the majority of terrestrial 

vertebrates and plant life became established. 

Inconsistencies in vertebrate distribution 

indicate that other factors were operating. 

Mobile species may have colonized some of 

the islands by swimming (e.g., deer, bear, 

beaver) or by crossing winter ice (e.g., deer, 

red fox, coyote) (Anderson and Stowell 1985). 

Other species may have been intentionally or 

unintentionally brought to the islands by 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

178

humans. Transportation of hay to the islands 

for work animals and livestock related to 

logging and farming activities may have been 

infested by meadow voles, woodland deer 

mice, and garter snakes (Meierotto 1976). 

Thirty-seven species of mammals are known 

to occur in the park. However, the islands in 

the park have a lower diversity and abundance 

of mammals compared to the mainland unit—

approximately 25% more species are found on 

the mainland unit than on the islands (NPS 

2005a). Large mammals are not common on 

most of the islands and tend to be transient. 

Mammals that are common to most islands 

include red squirrel (Tamiasciurus vulgaris), 

snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus), deer 

mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), masked 

shrew (Sorax cinereus), and boreal redback 

vole (Clethrionomys gapperi). Other species, 

such as black bear and white-tailed deer, are 

locally common on certain islands. Red fox 

(Vulpes vulpes) are believed to be fairly 

widespread in the park. Coyote (Canis latrans) 

are abundant on the mainland unit yearround, and have been observed on 10 of the 

islands. 

Some common mainland species that are less 

mobile or dormant in the winter (e.g., gray 

squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), least chipmunk 

(Tamias minimus), porcupine (Erethizon 

dorsatum), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), 

raccoon (Procyon lotor), and possibly some 

species of amphibians and reptiles, are not 

present on the islands. However, Long Island, 

currently a barrier spit rather than an island, 

contains most species that occur on the 

mainland. Species that may rarely occur in the 

park, or occur in very small numbers, include 

mink (Mustela vison), bobcat (Lynx rufus), 

river otter (Lutra canadensis), and fisher 

(Martes pennanti). Although river otter have 

not been trapped in the park, there have been 

signs of otter on Michigan, Outer, Sand, and 

Stockton islands (NPCA 2007). Muskrat 

(Ondatra zibethicus) habitat is present on the 

mainland at Sand River and the lagoons of 

Michigan, Outer, and Stockton islands, but 

little is known about the current muskrat 

population in the park (NPS 2007c). 

White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) 

were either absent or in very low numbers on 

the islands prior to European settlement 

(Anderson and Stowell 1985, 2007c). Deer 

numbers increased on the mainland due to 

habitat modification from logging and deer 

began colonizing some of the islands. Habitat 

changes on the islands due to logging and 

subsequent fires resulted in deer irruptions on 

many of the islands, with populations peaking 

in the early to mid-1950s. But by the early 

1960s deer decreased to low numbers due to 

overbrowsed and deteriorating habitat, severe 

winters, starvation, and liberal hunting quotas. 

As of 2005, islands that did not have deer 

populations include Devils, Eagle, Gull, North 

Twin, Outer, and Raspberry islands. However, 

deer have started again to recolonize some of 

the islands. Reproducing populations are 

currently limited to Basswood, Oak, and Sand, 

and more recently to Long and Stockton 

islands. A reproducing population of deer was 

not known on Sand Island until the last few 

years and their numbers appear to be 

increasing rapidly, threatening the rare 

Canada yew plant community. In 2005, signs 

of overwintering deer were observed for the 

first time on York Island (NPS 2007b). Their 

numbers have increased rapidly, and Canada 

yew on the island has been seriously impacted, 

as it has on Sand Island. 

The absence of deer on many of the park’s 

islands is noteworthy. Dr. Donald M. Waller 

of the University of Wisconsin pointed out the 

following: 

Landscapes like those in the Apostle 

Islands without deer have become 

vanishingly scarce elsewhere in the upper 

Midwest and, indeed, throughout North 

America.... Unbrowsed vegetative 

communities in the Apostle Islands 

represent a unique resource with national 

and international significance. They 

provide a living baseline record for 

understanding the pervasive impacts deer 

are having elsewhere and an ongoing 

laboratory for comparative research. Deer 

populations have been chronically 

overabundant in the region for >20 
Natural Resources 

179 

years.... Islands without deer, and those 

that have variable histories of deer 

occupation and use, provide a priceless 

'living laboratory' for us to understand the 

deer impacts. The Apostle Islands provide, 

in particular, a 'natural experiment' into 

the short- medium- and long-term impacts 

of deer browsing and thus a setting for 

evaluating the cascading effects of this 

'keystone' herbivore (NPS 2007c). 

Deer also are present on the mainland unit. A 

small portion of the Sand River deer yard, 

where deer overwinter, is in the park, one of 

several along the Lake Superior coast of 

Wisconsin. 

Similar to deer, beaver (Castor canadensis) 

were probably present in the park in small 

numbers prior to European settlement of the 

area. Their populations also peaked following 

logging, especially on Outer and Stockton 

islands, but have since the later 1970s been in 

a steady decline. On Outer Island, beaver have 

declined rapidly in recent years, decreasing 

from 24 active beaver lodges to one lodge 

between 1994 and 2005. On Stockton Island 

there have been few active beaver lodges since 

1994, apparently due to bear predation. Other 

islands where beaver have occurred include 

Basswood, Cat, Devils, Long, Michigan, Oak, 

and Sand (NPS 2007c). 

Resident black bears (Ursus americanus) exist 

on the mainland unit. Stockton, Oak, and 

Sand islands are the only islands with a known 

reproducing black bear population. Bears 

have overwintered and/or occasionally been 

seen on a number of other islands, such as 

Basswood, Long, Ironwood, Manitou, 

Hermit, and Raspberry. However, bears are 

good swimmers and potentially can be found 

on any island—transient bears have been 

observed on 14 of the 21 islands. The park’s 

black bear population is currently 

concentrated on Stockton, Sand, and Oak 

islands and the mainland unit (NPS 2007c). 

Black bears on Stockton Island were studied 

and monitored from 1984 to 1994. This island 

population increased significantly from 1984 

to 1994 to a density of 2.1 bears per square 

mile. (In 1990, the greatest population density 

estimated for mainland Wisconsin was 1.0 

bear per square mile.) The bear population on 

Stockton Island grew from a population of 

three animals in 1984 to a peak of 31 in 1994 

(Fleming 1997). Their population remained 

high (26) in 2002. Based on a DNA analysis of 

hair, there is relatively high genetic variability 

in the island populations, but three distinct 

populations have been found—Stockton, Oak, 

and mainland (Delant, Van Stappen, and 

Paetkau 2005). Berries are an important food 

source, which is locally abundant around the 

Stockton tombolo and other open areas (e.g., 

bogs, sandscapes). Mast production of acorns 

is probably locally abundant in good years on 

Oak and Long islands (NPS 2005a). 

Surveys in 2001–2007 found signs of river 

otter on Outer, Stockton, Michigan, and Sand 

islands. The occurrence and abundance of 

otter sign on Sand, Outer, and Michigan 

islands was related to beaver ponds, interior 

open water habitats, and lagoons (NPS 2007c). 

Although gray wolves (Canis lupus) do not live 

permanently in the park, potential habitat 

exists that could be used by visiting packs or 

individuals. There have been wolf sign and 

sightings in and adjacent to the park, 

particularly on the mainland unit from Sand 

Point to Meyers Road (NPS 2005a; NPS 

2007c). Transient wolves may also 

occasionally swim out to the islands, but do 

not stay. 

Four species of bats were recorded in a 2004 

survey in the park: little brown bat (Myotis 

lucifugus), northern Myotis (Myotis 

septenrionalis), eastern red bat (Lasiurus 

borealis), and silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris 

noctivagans). The bats were observed on Sand 

and Devils islands and the mainland unit. The 

park’s sea caves might provide summer 

roosting habitat for area bats, although the 

extent of use by bats is not known (NPS 

2007a). 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

180

Due to its strategic geographic location and 

wide diversity of habitats, Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore provides a refuge for 

birds. Through the park’s long-term 

monitoring program for forest breeding birds, 

approximately 150 species of birds have been 

recorded (NPS 2007a). The islands provide 

important habitats for resident breeding birds 

as well as neotropical migrant land birds 

(birds that migrate to Central and South 

America in winter). Over 89% of the breeding 

birds in the park are migrants, 59% of which 

are neotropical migrants. 

The Apostle Islands are an important 

migratory flyway stopover in the Great Lakes 

region. Passerines, hawks, falcons, waterfowl, 

and shorebird species all stop in the park. 

Surveys indicate that 230 species move 

through the archipelago during the fall 

migration (NPS 2005a). Nearly all of the 

islands provide habitat for migrating birds. In 

particular, Outer and Long islands provide 

key habitats for migratory birds; Outer Island 

is important for passerines, hawks, and 

falcons, and Long Island is important for 

waterfowl, passerines, and shorebirds. 

Migratory bird surveys conducted on Outer 

and Long islands have recorded over 200 

species (NPS 2007a). 

The park provides important nesting habitat 

for the following colonial nesting birds: 

herring gulls (Larus argentatus), doublecrested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus), 

great blue herons (Ardea herodias), and cliff 

swallows (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota). The 

importance of Eagle and Gull islands for 

nesting by gulls and colonial waterbirds was 

recognized by the state of Wisconsin when it 

designated the Apostle Islands Critical Species 

State Natural Area in 1992. Eagle Island has 

the only great blue heron rookery in the park. 

Gull and Eagle islands combined have 80% of 

the herring gull breeding population on the 

entire Wisconsin shore of Lake Superior (NPS 

1999c). However, the number of nesting pairs 

of herring gulls and double-crested 

cormorants decreased between 1999 and 2004 

(NPS 2007a). 

Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) began 

recolonizing the Apostle Islands in the early 

1980s, and young have been produced 

annually since 1983. The number of occupied 

nests in the archipelago has been increasing 

since 1980. Nests have been reported on 15 

islands and on the mainland at different times. 

A total of 147 nesting attempts occurred 

between 1980 and 2005, with 83 successful 

nests. In 2007, ten nests were initiated; more 

than ten chicks were successfully fledged from 

seven nests (J. Van Stappen, Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore, pers. comm., October 16, 

2007). However, nest productivity still 

remains below levels found on the mainland. 

Research (1991-1993) indicates that lowered 

productivity is primarily due to a low food 

base and the continuing presence of 

anthropogenic toxic chemicals in Lake 

Superior (Meyer et al. 1994; NPS 1999c). In 

June 2007, the bald eagle was removed from 

the federal list of threatened and endangered 

species. It is still, however, afforded 

protection under the Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 

Six species of salamanders, ten species of frogs 

and toads, and six species of reptiles are 

known to occur within the park, including the 

islands (Casper 2001 as cited in NPS 2007b). 

The most common species of salamander are 

blue-spotted (Ambystoma laterale), spotted (A. 

maculatum), and eastern red-backed 

(Plethodon cinereus cinereus). The four-toed 

salamander (Hemidactylium scutatum) and 

central newt (Notophthalmus viridescens 

louisianensis) are regionally uncommon, and 

mudpuppies (Necturus maculosus maculosus) 

are locally common. Frogs and toads that 

occur in the park and are regionally common 

include: eastern American toad (Bufo 

americanus americanus), northern spring 

peeper (Pseudacris crucifer crucifer), eastern 

gray tree frog (Hyla versicolor), green frog 

(Rana clamitans), northern leopard frog (R. 

pipiens), mink frog (R. septentrionalis), and 

wood frog (R. sylvatica). Chorus frogs 

(Pseudacris sp.) are regionally local, Cope’s 

gray treefrogs (Hyla chrysoscelis) are 

regionally rare, and American bullfrogs (R. 

catesbeiana) are regionally uncommon. The 
Natural Resources 

181 

park has a rather depauperate turtle fauna, 

with only two species, painted turtle 

(Chrysemys picta) and snapping turtle 

(Chelydra serpentina). The most abundant 

snakes in the park are common garter snakes 

(Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis). Other snake 

species that are present include northern redbellied snake (Storeria occipitomaculata 

occipitomaculata), northern ring-necked 

snake (Diadophis punctatus edwardsii), and 

smooth green snake (Opheodrys vernalis) 

(Casper 2001a and 2001b; NPS 2007b). 

A variety of moths and some butterflies 

(Lepidoptera) have been identified in the 

park. Ninety-eight species were identified in a 

1996 inventory on a dune locality on Long 

Island, while a 2000 survey recorded 

collectively a total of 174 species (Ferge 2001; 

J. Van Stappen, Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore, pers. comm., October 16, 2007). 

Most of the species documented were moths. 

The park’s enabling legislation permits 

hunting, fishing, and trapping. A “Wildlife 

Management Plan and Environmental 

Assessment for Harvestable Species” was 

recently completed (NPS 2007c). The plan 

provides guidance for the management of 

hunting and trapping within the park, but 

does not address fishing. It also does not 

affect tribal members’ treaty-reserved rights to 

hunt, trap, and fish within the park. Changes 

to the management of harvestable species 

primarily affect the harvest of deer. The plan 

expands harvest opportunities for deer, while 

focusing on providing a primitive type of 

experience. The plan also specifically 

recognizes islands that have a unique 

vegetation community due to a lack of deer 

browse and provides for management control, 

when needed. Species that may be hunted and 

trapped in the park include deer, black bear, 

fox, coyote, beaver, otter, mink, fisher, 

muskrat, snowshoe hare, waterfowl, 

woodcock (Scolopax minor), and ruffed 

grouse (Bonasa umbellus). Although the park 

supports several furbearer species, the 

populations tend to be small and somewhat 

transient. Most of the islands are too small to 

support furbearer populations such as fisher 

and otter (NPS 2007c). Hunting and trapping 

on the islands has tended to be low, in part 

due to difficult access and fairly low 

population numbers of most species. 

Climate change will likely affect the park’s 

wildlife populations, although as noted 

previously it is difficult to predict the rate and 

magnitude of change to specific wildlife 

populations. It is known that bird species 

migration timing and ranges are changing due 

to climate change, and that changes in climate 

are having significant effects on breeding and 

winter distribution of birds in North America. 

Some northern birds that are on the edge of 

their range in the park may disappear, while 

other birds may expand northward into the 

park. Food sources may be reduced for longdistance migratory birds such as warblers, 

thrushes, and flycatchers. There is a risk that 

the delicate timing between the arrival of 

migrating birds and the availability of their 

food supply may be disrupted, as has been 

documented in other areas (Union of 

Concerned Scientists and the Ecological 

Society of America 2005; Root et al. 2005). 

Some resident mammal species such as whitetailed deer, raccoons, and skunks, may benefit 

from climate change due to milder winters 

and consequently reduced winter mortality. 

Other species, such as wood tick 

(Dermacentor variabilis), wild turkey 

(Meleagris gallopavo), and flying squirrel 

(Glaucomys sp.), may extend their ranges 

and/or increase in numbers in the park. 

Longer mosquito and black fly seasons will 

also likely occur (NPS 2007f; NPS 2007g; 

Union of Concerned Scientists and the 

Ecological Society of America 2005). Cold 

water fish species in Lake Superior, such as 

lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) and 

whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis), are likely 

to be adversely affected as the lake’s mixing 

season lengthens and the depth of the 

increasingly warm surface water layer 

expands. Cool water fish species, such as bass 

(Micropterus sp)and crappie (Pomoxis 

nigromaculatus), may increase. 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

182

THREATENED AND 

ENDANGERED SPECIES 

The park provides nesting habitat for piping 

plover (on the federal and state endangered 

list). The Great Lakes population of piping 

plovers (Charadrius melodus) was listed as 

endangered by the state of Wisconsin in 1979 

and by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as 

endangered in 1985. Piping plovers need large 

undisturbed beaches that are wide, sandy, flat 

and open, and have very little grass or other 

vegetation. Plovers are very site tenacious and 

return year after year to the same nesting 

territory. The birds are easily disturbed in 

May through July when they are nesting and 

raising young. Birds can be scared away from 

potential breeding areas when they are 

establishing nesting territories in May. 

Likewise, if disturbances cause adults to be off 

their nests for very long in June, when they are 

nesting, their eggs will not survive. 

In Apostle Islands National Lakeshore critical 

habitat for piping plover has been designated 

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Long 

Island and the Michigan Island sandspit. 

Piping plovers are protected in the park 

through the joint efforts of the National Park 

Service, Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources, the Bad River Tribe, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, University of Minnesota 

researchers, and volunteers. To protect any 

nests that are found in the park, an area 

approximately 100 meters square is posted 

closed to the public and an “exclosure” or 

fence (approximately 4 meters in diameter) is 

placed around the nests to help prevent 

predation. The nests are also monitored. 

Long Island and Outer Island are the only 

locations where piping plovers have 

successfully nested in the state of Wisconsin 

in recent years. In 2006, three nests on Long 

Island were successful, producing a total of 

five fledglings. In 2007, a total of 13 young 

were produced on Long Island and 2 young 

were produced on Outer Island. In 2008, a 

total of five nests were on Long Island, of 

which three nests successfully fledged six 

young (J. Van Stappen, Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore, pers. comm., February 6, 

2009). 

NATURAL SOUNDSCAPE 

Soundscapes include both natural and human 

components. Natural soundscapes include all 

naturally occurring sounds such as waves on 

the shoreline, running water, bird calls, wind 

blowing through trees, or thunder. It also 

includes “natural quiet” that occurs in the 

absence of natural or human-caused sound. 

The opportunity to experience natural 

sounds/quiet is an enjoyable part of some 

visitor experiences at Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore. 

Much of Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

is considered to be a relatively quiet place. 

Away from visitor facilities on the mainland 

unit and the islands, most of the sounds heard 

in the interior of the park is due to the waves 

of Lake Superior crashing on the shoreline, 

the wind blowing through trees, and wildlife 

calls (e.g., birds). The most common humancaused sounds are from motorized watercraft 

and other vessels. Other human-caused 

sounds include vehicle noise (e.g., vehicles on 

roads on the mainland, depending on wind 

direction), human voices, radios, and other 

sounds generated by people picnicking and 

camping. At major developed areas, like the 

Stockton Island campground, and the visitor 

facilities at Little Sand Bay and Meyers Beach, 

noise from vehicles and people is frequently 

heard. Noise from logging operations can 

sometimes be heard in the mainland unit. 

Urban sounds from Bayfield can occasionally 

be heard in the park. Occasional human voices 

are also heard in the wilderness area. Human 

sounds are not unexpected or inappropriate 

in the nonwilderness portion of the park, but 

are part of the overall soundscape in an area 

where water activities, picnicking, camping, 

and other recreational uses are part of the 

visitor experience in the park. 

Winters generally are much quieter in the 

park, when there are fewer people present, 

than the summer. Depending on the winter 
Natural Resources 

183 

and ice conditions, the sounds of snowmobiles passing by may be periodically heard. 

Probably the loudest and most frequently 

heard noise on the islands is from motorized 

watercraft either passing by or landing at the 

islands. On most days during July and August, 

noise from the concessioner’s tour boat is 

evident at both the islands that the boat visits 

and the islands that it passes by. Noise related 

to motorized watercraft is highest during the 

summer. Outboard motors with underwater 

exhaust systems typically generate around 75 

to 85 A-weighted decibels (dBA) during full 

throttle pass-bys at 50 feet (Lanpheer 2000). 

However, the noise level of inboard/outboard 

boats can range widely, depending on the 

exhaust system, from below 80 dBA to 105 

dBA or more (Lanpheer1987; Sea Doo 2000). 

For comparison, a power lawnmower at 25 

feet typically ranges from approximately 75 to 

80 dBA (Noise Pollution Clearinghouse 2004), 

which is considered by many to be very loud. 

(See table 13 for a comparison of noise 

generated by various sources.) 

Personal watercraft and cigarette boats 

occasionally pass by the islands outside the 

park and contribute noise in the summer. 

From 2005 through 2007, a “poker run”—a 

powerboat rally primarily consisting of fast 

cigarette boats—occurred outside of the park 

boundary, near several islands. This rally 

generated considerable noise and was very 

controversial. 

In addition to affecting visitors, noise in and 

outside the park also may affect wildlife. Many 

animals depend on acoustic communication 

for finding food, avoiding predators, 

establishing territory, courting and mating, 

and nurturing young. Depending on such 

factors as the intensity, frequency, and 

duration of the noise, wildlife behavior can be 

affected (Knight and Gutzwiller 1995).
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

184

Table 13: Common Noise Levels and Their Effects on the Human Ear 

Source Decibel Level 

(dBA)

How it Feels (Subjective Impression) / 

Effect 

Leaves rustling at Canyonlands National Park 20 Just audible

Soft whisper, quiet library (15 feet) 30

Very quiet

Bedroom or quiet living room, bird calls 40

Conversational speech (3 feet [1 meter]), 4-

stroke snowmobile (30 mph at 50 feet), 

automobile (45 mph at 100 feet) 

60 Comfortable hearing levels are under 

60 dB 

Personal watercraft (at 82 feet [25 meters]) 68 - 76

Vacuum cleaner, hair dryer, 2-stroke 

snowmobile (30 mph at 50 feet) 

70 Intrusive; interferes with telephone 

conversation 

Recreational vehicles, TV gniraeh hcihw ta level eht si Bd 5809- 07

damage (8 hours) begins 

Outboard motor with underwater exhaust 

system (at 50 feet) 

75-85

V8 “muscle” boat (cigarette boat) (at 82 feet 

[25 meters]) 

85 - 86

Heavy truck or motorcycle (25 feet) 90 No more than 15 minutes of 

unprotected exposure recommended 

for sounds between 90 – 100 dB 

 revoylf teJ duol yreV301

SOURCES: Kormanoff and Shaw 2000; traffic noise background information (www.drnoise.com/PDF_files/ 

Traffic%20Noise%20Primer.pdf); NPS 2007d; Lanpheer 2000; and Vicki McCusker, NPS natural soundscape program, 

pers. comm. July 19, 2007. 
185 

WILDERNESS CHARACTER 

The Gaylord Nelson Wilderness in Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore was established by 

Congress on December 8, 2004, with the 

passage of PL 108-447, section 140. The 

wilderness area encompasses about 80% of 

the land area of the park (approximately 

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

base) The wilderness area encompasses all of 

Bear, Cat, Eagle, Gull, Hermit, Ironwood, 

North Twin, and York islands; 99% or more 

of Manitou, Oak, Otter, Outer, and South 

Twin islands; 97% of Raspberry Island; 96% 

of Michigan Island; 95% of Rocky Island; 94% 

of Devils Island; and 93% of Stockton Island 

(see figure 3). The waters of Lake Superior 

within the park are not included in the 

wilderness area, nor are the lighthouses or 

other existing developed areas of the park. 

Sand, Basswood, and Long islands and the 12-

mile mainland strip, also are not part of the 

wilderness area. The boundary of the 

wilderness area immediately adjacent to Lake 

Superior is defined as the variable “high water 

mark,” which keeps the boundary from ever 

extending into the lake; this allows beaching 

of boats in both high and low water years. 

Thus the practice of anchoring boats near the 

islands is unaffected by the wilderness 

designation, since the wilderness boundary 

will never include any portion of Lake 

Superior. 

The Wilderness Act speaks of wilderness as a 

resource in itself. The Gaylord Nelson 

Wilderness is rich in many of the resources 

and values mentioned in the Wilderness Act, 

including 

• minimal levels of development, resulting 

in an appearance of “naturalness” 

• opportunities for primitive, unconfined 

recreation 

• opportunities for solitude 

MINIMAL LEVELS OF DEVELOPMENT 

The wilderness area appears to most visitors 

to be largely natural and undeveloped, 

covered largely by forests. Although most of 

the lands comprising the wilderness area were 

at various times logged, quarried, farmed, or 

otherwise utilized by humans in a multitude of 

ways, these activities ceased for the most part 

either before or just after the park was 

established in 1970. Since that time, and for 

considerably longer on some islands, the vast 

majority of the wilderness area’s lands have 

been left to the forces of nature. 

Although roads existed on many of the 

islands, mainly to support logging activities or 

the lighthouses, virtually none of them are 

maintained as roads at this time. Some of these 

former roads are maintained as hiking trails, 

but most are completely overgrown, and it 

now requires a rather discerning eye to note 

where they may have been. 

Other forms of development in the wilderness 

area are also relatively sparse. People no 

longer reside year-round on any of the islands. 

Some former cabins, farm clearings, and 

fishing and logging camps are reverting to 

more natural conditions. Hiking trails and 

campsites are present, as are some historic 

structures, but for the most part they are 

consistent with the Wilderness Act and NPS 

wilderness management policies—little if any 

noticeable human imprint is present in much 

of the wilderness area other than these 

developments. 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR PRIMITIVE, 

UNCONFINED RECREATION 

There are opportunities for primitive, 

unconfined recreation on every island in the 

wilderness area, including opportunities for 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

186

hunting, fishing, hiking, backpacking, wildlife 

watching, and snowshoeing. Camping 

opportunities are available on 15 of the 18 

islands in the wilderness area. There is a total 

of approximately 38 miles of hiking trails on 

the islands in the wilderness area. It is not 

known how many visitors make use of the 

trails, but the opportunities are numerous. 

Except for camping, which requires a permit, 

recreation on the islands is largely 

unconfined. A small number of areas are 

closed during the main visitor season to 

protect nesting bird populations, but access to 

most of the islands is unregulated. 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR SOLITUDE 

The Gaylord Nelson Wilderness has many 

opportunities for solitude. The wilderness 

area is relatively quiet, with natural sounds 

dominating the soundscape for much of the 

year (with the exception of noise from 

motorized watercraft). Except during peak 

visitor use months of June through August, 

very few people visit the islands—and most of 

those who do visit them do not go into the 

wilderness area or do not spend much time 

there. The islands are logistically challenging 

to reach, and the visitor season is relatively 

short. The majority of the shorelines are steep 

or rocky, making access difficult or impossible 

in many areas. There are a few places where 

relatively large groups of people (10-30+) may 

gather at one time in the wilderness area, 

particularly on weekends and holidays; these 

places are the Oak Island group campsite and 

nearby sandspit, the beach at the southeast 

side of Raspberry Island, and the beach on the 

north side of York Island. Other areas on the 

islands that receive high use levels, including 

dock areas, lighthouses, and group camping 

areas, are all outside the wilderness area. 

Due to the combined influences of beach, 

campsite, and dock locations, there is a very 

strong tendency for park visitors to stay near 

shorelines. Other factors, such as insect 

populations, probably contribute to this 

tendency as well. In any case, for those visitors 

willing to venture into them, the interiors of 

the islands offer outstanding opportunities for 

solitude—even during the peak visitor season. 

On many islands, it is possible to walk for 

miles without encountering another visitor. 

Most of the sounds of civilization give way to 

the sounds of the forest after traveling only a 

short distance inland. 
187 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

HISTORIC STRUCTURES / 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES 

The following thematic summary of historic 

sites, structures, and cultural landscape 

features highlights the national lakeshore’s 

diverse array of light stations and other 

historic properties associated primarily with 

tourism and recreation, commercial fishing, 

farming, quarrying, and logging. Seventeen of 

these properties are listed in the National 

Register of Historic Places, and 158 structures 

are listed in the national lakeshore’s list of 

classified structures (LCS). As feasible, NPS 

staff of the national lakeshore carry out 

preservation undertakings and ongoing 

maintenance of these historic structures, often 

incurring the added expenses and difficult 

logistical challenges of transporting staff, 

materials, and equipment from the mainland 

to the islands and remote site locations. 

Although the Raspberry Island light station 

has recently received the most extensive 

preservation treatment with rehabilitation / 

restoration of its light tower and keeper’s 

quarters, the national lakeshore has 

completed numerous other preservation 

projects at other light stations and historic 

properties over the last 10 years. These 

undertakings have included reroofing, 

repointing, painting, foundation drainage 

rehabilitation, structural reinforcement, and 

other repairs at selected light station buildings 

(Devils Island, Long Island, Michigan Island, 

Outer Island, Raspberry Island, and Sand 

Island). Various preservation and stabilization 

activities also have been completed for 

buildings of the Hokenson fishery and the 

Manitou fish camp. The national lakeshore is 

committed to carrying out (at a minimum) 

preservation and stabilization of its significant 

historic structures and cultural landscape 

features, with the intent to carry out more 

extensive rehabilitation and restoration 

activities as funding allows and as appropriate 

guidance documentation (e.g., historic 

structure reports and cultural landscape 

reports) is completed. 

According to the NPS “Cultural Resources 

Management Guideline” (NPS/DO-28), a 

cultural landscape is 

a reflection of human adaptation and use 

of natural resources and is often expressed 

in the way land is organized and divided, 

patterns of settlement, land use, systems of 

circulation, and the types of structures that 

are built. The character of a cultural 

landscape is defined both by physical 

materials, such as roads, buildings, walls, 

and vegetation, and by use reflecting 

cultural values and traditions. 

Several of the national lakeshore’s historic 

sites have associated cultural landscapes, 

although detailed inventories and reports are 

required for many of these landscapes to more 

fully identify contributing features and 

provide baseline information to support 

treatment recommendations. Cultural 

landscapes with varying degrees of integrity 

are associated with the national lakeshore’s 

light stations, fishing and logging camps, 

quarries, farms, and former recreational 

resorts. Ethnographic landscapes may also be 

identified through future investigations. 

Some of the cultural landscape features are 

relatively easy to observe (e.g., outbuildings 

and foundations, paths and roads, garden 

areas), while in other cases landscape features 

are obscured by encroaching forest vegetation 

and are more difficult to discern. Because of 

the close association of cultural landscapes to 

historic sites and structures at the national 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

188

lakeshore, these topics are presented together 

where appropriate. 

Light Stations 

Apostle Island National Lakeshore’s light 

stations were constructed between 1856 and 

1891 to aid navigation through this portion of 

Lake Superior. Renowned historian of 

American lighthouses, F. Ross Holland, 

described these properties as “the largest and 

finest single collection of lighthouses in the 

country” (Holland 1989). Five of the light 

stations (Michigan Island, Raspberry Island, 

Outer Island, Sand Island, and Devils Island) 

were collectively listed in the National 

Register of Historic Places in 1977 (NPS 

1977). The La Pointe light station, on Long 

Island, was listed in the national register in 

1983. The overall period of historic 

significance (1856 to 1978) reflects the 122 

years from construction of the first light 

station on Michigan Island to the automation 

of the Devils Island light station and 

consequent departure of its U.S. Coast Guard 

crew. 

The light stations are the most visible historic 

resources in the national lakeshore; they are 

viewed by many as icons inextricably linked to 

the region’s cultural history. Adjoining lands 

that were reserved for the light stations were 

removed from logging and other development 

activities, and consequently contain some of 

the best preserved old-growth forest in the 

region. In addition to the lighthouses and 

keepers’ dwellings, the light stations retain a 

substantial number of auxiliary buildings (e.g., 

oil houses, privies, barns, and shops) and 

associated cultural landscape features that 

provide a more complete understanding of the 

nature of operations and the living conditions 

of the keepers and their families. 

Of the six light stations, the Raspberry Island 

light station is the only one for which a 

cultural landscape report and a historic 

structure report have been completed. The 

park has unsuccessfully sought funding for 

cultural landscape reports and historic 

structure reports for the other stations. 

Michigan Island Light Station 

The first Michigan Island lighthouse, the 

oldest in the Apostle Islands, was constructed 

in 1856 at the island’s southern point. The 

conical rubble-stone masonry structure is 

about 65 feet tall with an exterior railed 

walkway at the top. A rubble-stone 1 1⁄2-story 

keeper’s dwelling was attached to the 

lighthouse as part of the original construction, 

with dormers added to the single-gabled 

dwelling in 1914. The lighthouse was put into 

service in 1857, but ceased operation after 

only one year and remained abandoned until 

it was refurbished and reoccupied in 1869. For 

reasons that are not entirely clear, the 

lighthouse was constructed on Michigan 

Island despite the U.S. Lighthouse Board’s 

original intention to construct it on Long 

Island. 

In 1919, efforts were made to increase the 

visibility of the light station. A cylindrical steel 

tower (built in 1880) that originally stood on 

the Delaware River near Philadelphia was 

disassembled and transported to the site on 

Michigan Island to replace the earlier 

lighthouse. However, the 112-foot-tall skeletal 

steel tower was not reassembled near the 

original lighthouse until 1929. Other 

improvements to the light station at this time 

(1928-29) included the construction of a new 

2-story brick keeper’s quarters, a 11⁄2-story 

wood-frame assistant keeper’s dwelling, a 

dock, and a brick building that housed an 

electric generator, radio fog beacon, and a 

hoist engine for a tramway. 

The Michigan Island light was automated in 

1943. The light tower’s Fresnel lens was 

removed in 1972 and is now on display in the 

national lakeshore’s visitor center in Bayfield. 

A dense stand of trees and vegetation has 

grown in the formerly cleared area between 

the light station and the shoreline, obscuring 

offshore views of the original lighthouse and 

all but the upper portion of the newer light 

tower. A steel light tower on nearby Gull 

Island (constructed in 1929 and put into 

operation in 1933) is considered a 

contributing structure of the Michigan Island 

light station (NPS 2002b; NPS 2005a). 
Cultural Resources 

189 

La Pointe (Long Island) Light Station 

The La Pointe light station consists of three 

distinct sites: the Chequamegon Point light, a 

steel skeleton-frame lighthouse at the western 

tip of Long Island; the new La Pointe light 

complex (about 4,000 feet east) with cast-iron 

light tower, oil house, and triplex keeper’s 

dwelling; and the ruins of the original La 

Pointe lighthouse, located approximately 

midway between the other two and nearly 

obscured by dense vegetation. 

The original La Pointe lighthouse, a woodframe schoolhouse style building, was built in 

1858. It was constructed in response to the 

U.S. Lighthouse Board’s determination that 

the Michigan Island light station (constructed 

two years earlier in 1856) was unsatisfactory, 

and the preferred site location should be on 

Long Island as initially planned. 

In 1896 the original lighthouse was converted 

to a keeper’s dwelling and the tower was 

removed. Also at that time, a new La Pointe 

light tower was constructed about 1,500 feet 

to the east of the original site, and the 

Chequamegon Point light was constructed 

about 2,500 feet to the west. A concrete 

walkway linked the light houses to facilitate 

transport of supplies and the long walk of the 

keeper who operated both lights. The 

Chequamegon Point light and the new La 

Pointe lighthouse were initially equipped with 

fourth-order Fresnel lenses; both were 

replaced with fully automated navigational 

beacons in 1964. The altered keeper’s quarters 

at the original site was used until 1938, when it 

was replaced by a new 2-story wood-frame 

triplex constructed with Works Progress 

Administration funding at the new eastern site 

location. The La Pointe light station was listed 

in the national register in 1983 (NPS 2002b; 

NPS 2005a). 

Outer Island Light Station 

The Outer Island light station was constructed 

in 1874 to guide ships past this extreme 

northern point of the Apostle Islands enroute 

to the growing ports of Duluth, Minnesota, 

and Superior, Wisconsin. The white, 90-foottall brick lighthouse exhibits Italianate 

architectural elements that became popular in 

the 1860s and 1870s. It is considered a fine 

example of a “Poe tower” in recognition of 

Orlando M. Poe (chief engineer for the 

Lighthouse Board’s 11th District from 1870 to 

1873) with whom several Italianate-style 

lighthouses are associated. Distinctive features 

of the lighthouse include its iron spiral 

staircase, decorative brackets supporting the 

watch room walkway, and arched exterior 

windows. A large third-order Fresnel lens was 

installed in the lighthouse—it was removed in 

1961 when the station was fully automated. 

A three-story brick keeper’s dwelling, with 

semi-hipped roof and attached shed-roofed 

summer kitchen, was built as part of the 

original 1874 construction of the lighthouse. It 

is attached to the lighthouse by a short 

passageway. Among the other structures 

contributing to the significance of the site are 

a concrete dock and breakwater, wood-frame 

fog signal building, oil house, and tramway 

with concrete steps. Because of its exposed 

location, the Outer Island light station has 

faced intense storms, which has resulted in 

structural loss and damage. The dock washed 

away during the station’s first year of 

operation, and the original fog signal building 

was destroyed as a consequence of wave 

erosion at the base of the bluff embankment. 

Ongoing shoreline erosion continues to 

threaten the light station’s structures; damage 

has occurred to the stairs and tramway that 

lead up the steep embankment from the dock. 

To protect the site, NPS staff has undertaken 

shoreline stabilization measures including the 

placement of riprap and revegetation to check 

erosion (NPS 2002b; NPS 2005a). 

Raspberry Island Light Station 

The Raspberry Island light station (considered 

the “showplace of the Apostle Islands”) is the 

most readily accessible and most frequently 

visited of the Apostle Island lights. It was 

constructed on the southwest end of 

Raspberry Island in 1862 in response to 

increased commercial shipping underway in 

the 1850s that passed between the mainland 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

190

and the inner Apostle Islands. The founding 

of the port city of Bayfield, Wisconsin, in 1856 

contributed to the ship traffic and the need for 

a light station in the vicinity. The station was 

activated in 1863 when a fifth-order Fresnel 

lens was installed. The original light tower was 

incorporated into the center of a wood-frame 

two-story keeper’s dwelling with attached 

shed. The current appearance of the structure 

reflects significant modifications carried out 

in 1906, when the light tower was moved from 

the center of the structure to the front façade, 

and the former single-family dwelling was 

enlarged to a triplex to accommodate the 

keeper, assistant keepers, and their families. 

The former single-gable roof was modified 

with a red-painted metal tile hipped roof, and 

hipped roofs were also placed over one-story 

wing additions on either side of the main 

structure. Exterior siding is of whitewashed 

clapboards. 

The lighthouse was occupied until 1947, when 

the light was converted to an automated 

operation and no longer required the 

presence of an on-site keeper. The Fresnel 

lens (now on display at the Wisconsin State 

Historical Society Museum on Madeline 

Island) remained in the tower until 1957. The 

U.S. Coast Guard replaced the lens with a 

battery-operated, pole-mounted beacon. A 

portion of the keeper’s dwelling is open for 

interpretive tours, and a small collection of 

historic light station artifacts are displayed 

there. Although the National Park Service 

maintains a portion of the cleared area around 

the light station structures and grounds, the 

overall historic setting of the light station has 

changed; forest succession has reclaimed 

much of the surrounding acreage that had 

once been cleared to allow greater visibility of 

the beacon. 

The light station contains a number of 

additional contributing structures dating from 

the period of original construction in the 

1860s, and later site development in the early 

1900s. These structures provide a more 

complete understanding of historic operations 

and the evolution of the station’s cultural 

landscape. Among these are a brick 11⁄2 story 

fog signal building (1903), which once housed 

a steam engine to power the tram that 

delivered supplies from the dock to the light 

station complex. Other contributing 

structures include the dock and boathouse, 

barn/workshop, oil building, sheds, privies, 

concrete sidewalks and steps, and the 

tramway tracks. National lakeshore staff have 

planted gardens and ornamental flowerbeds 

that create a semblance of the historic 

landscape. 

Two important studies have provided specific 

guidance for subsequent treatment and 

ongoing management of the light station. The 

Historic Structure Report – Raspberry Island 

Lighthouse (Quinn Evans 2000) incorporated 

historical and architectural investigations to 

support design recommendations for 

restoration/rehabilitation and contemporary 

use of the lighthouse. The historic structure 

report served as the primary planning 

document guiding preservation treatments 

and provided the basis for construction 

drawings and specifications. In a broader 

holistic approach, the Cultural Landscape 

Report and Environmental Assessment – 

Raspberry Island Light Station (NPS 2004f) 

analyzed the historical evolution and 

adaptation of the light station to the island 

environment, identified contributing and 

noncontributing landscape features, and 

provided recommendations for rehabilitation 

of the cultural landscape. 

The National Park Service completed erosion 

control measures in 2003 in response to severe 

shoreline erosion and slumping of the 

embankment that threatened the light station 

structures. These measures included the 

placement of a rock revetment across the base 

of the bluff below the station, regrading the 

slope to a stable angle, drainage improvements 

to divert runoff, and revegetation to anchor 

the soils. A rehabilitation project was 

undertaken in 2006 to address structural 

deterioration of the lighthouse and keeper’s 

dwelling to improve its functional use for 

employee housing and enhance visitor 

interpretation. These measures included the 

restoration (both interior and exterior) of the 
Cultural Resources 

191 

south half of the building to its early 20th 

century appearance, adaptive use of the north 

half of the building for seasonal employee 

housing, water supply and electric power 

systems upgrades, and installation of a septic 

system. 

Sand Island Light Station 

The Sand Island light station was constructed 

in 1881 on the northern tip of the 

westernmost island in the Apostle Islands 

chain. The 44-foot-tall light tower and 

attached keeper’s quarters were constructed 

of locally quarried brownstone in a 

picturesque Norman Gothic-revival 

architectural style. Distinctive elements 

include rounded arch window sashes, flared 

eaves, and decorative carved wood trim at the 

gable end of the keeper’s quarters. The lower 

portion of the light tower is square and 

transitions upwards to an octagonal shape at 

the second floor level, surmounted by the 

walkway and lantern room. An original shedroofed summer kitchen is attached to the 

south end of the building. A full basement and 

interior brick chimney are other notable 

elements. The building is in good condition, 

although the formerly cleared area around the 

station has rapidly revegetated (principally 

with balsam fir) since clearing activities were 

last conducted in the early 1990s. 

For the first 40 years of operations, only two 

keepers were in charge of the Sand Island light 

station: Charles Lederle (1881-1892) and 

Emmanuel Luick (1892-1921). In 1921, an 

acetylene burner apparatus was attached to 

the beacon, making it the first among the 

Apostle Islands stations to be automated. 

Thereafter, keepers at nearby Raspberry 

Island were charged with monitoring the 

automated Sand Island beacon and refilling its 

fuel tanks. In 1933, the U.S. Lighthouse 

Service erected a 50-foot-tall steel tower in 

front of the lighthouse and placed the beacon 

on top. The original fourth-order Fresnel lens 

in the lighthouse was removed. The U.S. Coast 

Guard returned the signal to the lighthouse in 

1985 and removed the steel tower. Other 

contributing buildings at the station are a 

square brick oil house with metal hipped roof 

(1901) and a brick metal-roofed privy (1881) 

(NPS 2002b; NPS 2005a). 

Devils Island Light Station 

The Devils Island light station, the sixth and 

last station established in the Apostle Islands, 

was put into operation in 1891 at the northern 

tip of the island. Initial funding proved 

inadequate for the construction of a 

permanent lighthouse, but to avoid delays the 

U.S. Lighthouse Board opted for the 

placement of the light in a temporary wood 

skeleton-frame tower. The principal keeper’s 

dwelling was completed in 1896; it is a 2 1⁄2-

story Queen Anne style brick house with 

wood-shingle, gabled roofs, extended roof 

line and narrow eaves, and attached rear 

kitchen. An assistant keeper’s quarters 

(completed in 1897) was also constructed as a 

2 1⁄2-story Queen Anne style brick house with a 

second story bay window, molded brackets, 

and ornamental curved windows. These 

dwellings were the most spacious of all the 

keepers’ quarters in the Apostle Islands, 

providing family privacy and comfortable 

middle-class Victorian amenities. A third 

wood-frame keeper’s dwelling (intended for 

the second keeper’s assistant) was removed by 

the Coast Guard in 1956. 

A permanent steel light tower was constructed 

in 1898, but was not put into operation until 

1901 when a third-order Fresnel lens was 

installed. A skeletal steel framework was 

added to the 82-foot-tall cylindrical tower in 

1915 to brace it against high winds. Devils 

Island was the last manned station in the 

Apostle Islands, and its light tower was not 

automated until 1978. The original Fresnel 

lens is no longer operative, but remains on 

display in the tower. The National Park 

Service carried out a lead abatement project 

on the tower in 2003. Additional contributing 

structures include a one-story wood-frame 

fog signal building, two square brick oil 

buildings, pump house, tramway engine 

building (tramway track and tram cart are also 

extant), hoist house, and radio tower. Also 

contributing to site significance are a 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

192

boathouse, dock, and breakwater at the south 

end of the island. The latter structures are 

connected to the lighthouse area by an 

unpaved, approximately 1-mile-long service 

road built by the U.S. Coast Guard in 1960 

(NPS 2002b; NPS 2005a). 

Brownstone Quarries 

In the latter 19th century, the popularity of 

brownstone (brown sandstone) as a building 

material led to the development of quarrying 

operations on Basswood, Hermit, and 

Stockton islands to supply the growing 

regional demand. Active quarrying lasted little 

more than 30 years (from the late 1860s to the 

late 1890s), although Chequamegon Bay 

brownstone was renowned throughout the 

upper Midwest as an attractive and durable 

material and was used on many prominent 

buildings. Following the catastrophic Chicago 

fire of 1871, stricter fire codes further 

increased the demand for stone and masonry 

buildings. Other than the quarry excavations 

with drill markings evident on the rock walls, 

little physical evidence of the Apostle Island’s 

four quarries and their once bustling camps 

and machinery is readily visible. However, 

only limited archeological investigations of 

the sites have been carried out, and 

archeological remains associated with 

workers dwellings and industrial activity areas 

are likely to yield significant information on 

the nature of the operations. Hiking trails 

provide visitor access to the quarry sites. 

On Basswood Island, the Bass Island Brown 

Stone Company was the first to begin regional 

quarrying in 1868. The quarry (listed in the 

national register in 1978) had a far-reaching 

impact on the economic development of the 

Chequamegon Bay area, drawing outside 

investment capital that helped spur the 

economies of Bayfield and Ashland counties. 

The first stone taken from the site was used to 

construct a new courthouse in Milwaukee. 

The quarry measures about 400 feet long, 300 

feet wide, and 40 feet deep. Water has filled in 

the deepest part of the quarry, leaving about 

25 feet of the walls exposed. In 1872 former 

U.S. Vice President John Breckenridge (who 

served as secretary of war for the Confederacy 

during the Civil War) announced plans to 

open a second quarry on Basswood Island. 

However, his heirs did not begin actual 

quarrying of the site until 20 years later. The 

limited operation was marginally successful, 

and only two small excavations remain. 

The Excelsior Brownstone Company’s quarry 

on Hermit Island was established in 1891. 

Company owner Frederick Prentice built an 

elaborate private summer home (Cedar Bark 

Lodge) on the island that was soon 

abandoned and demolished in the 1930s. The 

national economic depression of 1893 forced 

the company into receivership, although stone 

cutting continued until 1897. 

A fourth operation, the Ashland Brown Stone 

Company’s quarry on Stockton Island, began 

quarrying in 1871. It was the largest of the 

Apostle Island quarries, consisting today of a 

75-foot-deep excavation covering several 

acres. Although production peaked in 1895 

with 285,000 cubic feet of sandstone shipped, 

operations ceased in 1897 (NPS 2002b; NPS 

2005a). 

Farmsteads 

American Indians engaged in subsistence 

farming on Madeline Island and elsewhere in 

the Chequamegon Bay region prior to the 

arrival of European-Americans. The Ojibwe, 

Huron, and Ottawa were known to have 

cultivated pumpkins, squash, and corn. Later. 

European-American settlers established farms 

to support the region’s growing population, 

but their initial attempts to farm on Rocky, 

South Twin, and Ironwood islands proved 

short-lived. More substantial and successful 

farming enterprises eventually took hold on 

Michigan, Basswood, and Sand islands. 

Despite the comparative success of these latter 

operations, these farms could never compete 

economically with those on the mainland 

because of their isolated locations and the 

added expenses and difficulties associated 

with island farming and the delivery of crops 

to mainland markets. The last island farm was 

abandoned by the end of World War II, and 
Cultural Resources 

193 

forest succession is reclaiming many of the 

former farm fields. 

In 1865 Civil War veteran Richard McCloud 

acquired a homestead on Basswood Island. By 

1870 he was providing produce from his farm 

to crews of the nearby brownstone quarry. 

McCloud’s successor, Elisha Brigham, farmed 

the property until his death in 1923. No 

standing buildings remain on the site, 

although building foundations, a remnant 

orchard, fence lines, stonewalls, and 

associated domestic artifacts provide evidence 

of the former farm. Charles Rudd also farmed 

near the northwest corner of Basswood 

Island, supplementing his income with 

tanbark and cordwood operations. Rudd’s 

farm ceased upon his death in 1897; building 

foundations and associated archeological 

resources remain at the site. 

On Michigan Island, lighthouse keeper 

Roswell Pendergast (appointed keeper in 

1869) planted thousands of fruit trees—

apples, cherries, peaches, plums, and pears. 

He sold the fruit and supplied nursery stock to 

regional farmers. He eventually resigned his 

position as lighthouse keeper in 1874, and 

moved to the mainland to pursue his nursery 

enterprise. Little physical evidence of 

Pendergast’s Michigan Island orchards 

remains (a gnarled apple tree stands in the 

woods near the lighthouse), although his 

legacy is reflected in the orchard industry of 

the Bayfield Peninsula. 

Agricultural development on Sand Island 

proved to be the most extensive and 

successful undertaken in the Apostle Islands. 

In the 1870s, Civil War veteran Frank Shaw 

purchased 37 acres (later expanded to 183 

acres) at the southern tip of the island. The 

farm was acquired by Shaw’s daughter, Anna 

Mae, and her husband Burt Hill. The couple 

operated the farm until 1942. Burt Hill also 

managed a post office on the property. The 

Shaw-Hill Farm, listed in the national register 

in 1976, includes the following contributing 

structures: the original 1870 log residence/ 

post office; main house (1919); smokehouse; 

workshop, Burt Hill cabin (1910); privy; and 

grain storage building. 

In the 1890s, another agricultural community 

of primarily Norwegian immigrants developed 

the East Bay Settlement on Sand Island. These 

settlers supported themselves with both 

farming and fishing. Although most of the 

settlement’s buildings no longer exist, some 

foundations are present, such as that of the 

schoolhouse, which operated from about 1910 

to 1930. At the Noreng family farm site, field 

boundaries, a remnant orchard, and the 

remains of former buildings, agricultural 

implements and associated artifacts are 

present. The Hansen farm retains the best 

overall structural integrity, with remaining 

buildings that include the two-story main 

house (1936) and earlier buildings from about 

1900: a guest house, sheds (machine, wood, 

and twine storage), ice house, and the “Boar’s 

Nest” (a net mending shop built in 1920) (NPS 

2002b; NPS 2005a). 

Tourism/Recreational Sites 

In addition to the economic opportunities 

provided by agriculture and extractive 

industries, the Apostle Islands also attracted 

tourism-related development beginning in the 

mid-19th century. Tourists arrived by 

excursion steamboats and railroad to Bayfield 

where they then embarked for the islands. On 

Sand Island, Sam Fifield (Ashland, Wisconsin 

businessman and politician) established the 

small summer resort of Camp Stella at Shaw 

Point in the 1880s. The resort operated until 

1914. Guest accommodations included 

platform tents, a dining hall, and permanent 

cabins. The site’s remaining structures consist 

of five cabins, two cottages, kitchen/dining 

hall, ice house, and pump house. The “Sevona 

cabin,” listed in the national register in 1976, 

was constructed from materials salvaged from 

the steamer Sevona that sank off Sand Island 

in 1905. 

The West Bay Club on Sand Island was 

developed by the prominent St. Paul, 

Minnesota, architectural firm of Buechner 

and Orth. Architects Charles Buechner and 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

194

Henry Orth previously vacationed on 

Madeline Island and at Camp Stella. They 

designed the West Bay Club lodge for the 

summer vacation use of their families and 

colleagues. The lodge was constructed in 1911 

in the rustic Adirondack-style of log 

construction that first gained popularity in 

upstate New York. The 11⁄2-story, single-gable 

building has shed-roofed dormers, an interior 

fireplace with brick chimney, and wraparound porch. Among the lodge’s amenities 

were modern bathrooms and hot and cold 

running water piped to the bedrooms. An 

icehouse and shed were constructed in 1913. 

The property has been determined eligible for 

the national register. 

In 1908 the Campbell/Jensch cottage, also on 

Sand Island, was built as the summer home of 

prominent Indian agent, Sam Campbell. A 

shed and pump remain at the site, although 

cabins, privy, and boathouse are no longer 

extant. The property is potentially eligible for 

inclusion in the national register. Another 

Sand Island cabin, “Plenty Charm,” was built 

by locally renowned craftsman Clyde Nylen, 

and is being considered for adaptive use. 

Commercial Fishing 

American Indians traditionally supplemented 

their subsistence activities in the 

Chequamegon Bay region by fishing primarily 

for lake trout, herring, and whitefish. 

Beginning with the American Fur Company’s 

foray into commercial fishing in the 1830s, 

Lake Superior later attracted hundreds of 

competing commercial fishing operations by 

the latter 19th century. The fishing boom at 

this time was spurred by the arrival of large 

numbers of Scandinavian immigrants to the 

Great Lakes, many with fishing skills 

previously honed in their European 

homelands. Several fishing camps are known 

to have existed throughout the Apostle 

Islands. Few standing structures remain 

because of the temporary nature of these 

operations and structural deterioration 

resulting from weathering; however, 

archeological resources remain at these sites. 

The commercial fishing industry suffered a 

major setback by the mid-20th century, as 

overfishing and depredations by sea lampreys 

dramatically reduced fish stocks. 

The Manitou fish camp, located in a small 

clearing at the southwest corner of Manitou 

Island, is the only unaltered commercial 

fishing camp in the Apostle Islands and is 

listed in the national register. The camp was 

first developed in the 1890s, and presently 

appears much as it did during the 1930s and 

1940s. It was occupied year-round, and its 

hardy fishermen engaged in both open-water 

herring fishing and gill-netting through the ice 

when the lake froze over in the winter. The 

camp’s two log cabins and three wood-frame 

sheds were restored by the National Park 

Service in 1983. Other contributing structures 

include a smokehouse, privy, dock, windlass, 

and net-drying reels. Approximately 2,000 

catalogued museum objects are displayed and 

interpreted at the site, including nets, tools, 

and domestic furnishings. 

Another former fishing settlement is located 

on the eastern shore of Rocky Island. The 

settlement consists of some 35 dwellings and 

structures that were seasonally occupied by 

Norwegian-American fishermen and their 

families from approximately the 1930s to the 

1940s and 1950s. Booth Fisheries had 

previously established a fishing operation on 

the island in the 1880s. Many of the fish camp 

structures were later used by summer 

vacationers, and a small-scale resort and 

restaurant operated there from about 1946 to 

1974. In 2008 the Rocky Island Historic 

District was added to the national register. 

The district encompasses the Hadland fishing 

camp, which was developed in the 1930s. The 

Hadland camp consists of two cabins, the 

ruins of a third cabin, and net drying reels. It 

was the last working family fishing camp 

within the boundaries of the national 

lakeshore, and was listed in the national 

register in 1977. 

The Hokenson fishery complex is located on 

the southeast shore of Little Sand Bay (on the 

mainland at the northern tip of Bayfield 

Peninsula). Brothers Eskel, Leo, and Roy 
Cultural Resources 

195 

Hokenson, the sons of Swedish immigrants, 

operated the fishery for more than 30 years 

(1927 to 1961). The Hokensons constructed 

several buildings and structures that remain at 

the site: a dock, fish processing and packing 

shed (herring shed), icehouse, twine barn 

(storage building and workshop), garage, 11⁄2-

story residence (used for NPS housing), cabin, 

privy, net reel, pile driver, and box slides. The 

Hokensons’ fishing boat Twilite is also 

exhibited on-shore. Approximately 4,000 

catalogued museum objects are displayed at 

the complex. The site (listed in the national 

register in 1976) provides easily accessible 

opportunities for visitors to receive 

interpretation of the region’s historic 

commercial fishing industry (NPS 2002b; NPS 

2005a). 

Logging Sites 

Logging in the Apostle Islands began shortly 

after steamship traffic was established on Lake 

Superior in 1855. The geography of the islands 

facilitated the skidding of logs by horse or ox 

teams a relatively short distance to shore. Logs 

were then rafted to the mainland, where 

several sawmills in Bayfield, Washburn, and 

Ashland were in operation by the 1880s. The 

islands’ white pine and hemlock forests were 

nearly exhausted by the late 1890s. 

Hardwoods were then harvested following 

the departure of the specialized pine 

lumbering operations. Although many of the 

regional sawmills had closed by the late 1920s, 

logging reemerged in the Apostle Islands in 

the 1930s and 1940s and continued 

sporadically afterwards until logging ceased 

altogether in the park in 1974. 

Cultural remains from the logging operations 

consist of deteriorating cabins and 

foundations, narrow-gauge railroad lines on 

Michigan and Outer islands, and other 

primarily archeological features and materials 

at the former camp sites. Natural revegetation 

threatens to obscure cultural landscape 

evidence of the sites. NPS historian Kate 

Lidfors’ study of logging in the Apostle Islands 

(Historic Logging Sites in the Apostle Islands: A 

Resource Management Plan, 1984) provided a 

historical overview of logging in the islands, 

and identified 34 logging sites. Ten of the sites 

were recognized as having archeological and 

interpretive significance. Subsequent 

archeological investigations of the Trout Point 

Camp on Stockton Island, which operated 

from about 1910 to 1930, resulted in the 

camp’s listing in the national register. Other 

logging camp sites were identified after 

Lidfors’ study, including a well-preserved site 

on Bear Island. Archeological evaluations of 

potentially significant sites are anticipated to 

result in additional determinations of national 

register eligibility (NPS 2002b; NPS 2005a). 

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

The long span of American Indian use and 

occupation of the Apostle Islands and upper 

Great Lakes region is supported in the 

archeological record across several cultural 

periods. Small bands of Paleo-Indian hunters 

and gatherers pursued megafauna and other 

large game in the area approximately 11,000 to 

7,000 years ago. The fluted projectile points 

manufactured by these late Ice Age hunters 

are perhaps the most distinguishing lithic 

artifacts of the period. The earliest known site 

in the region dates to about 11,000 BP and was 

discovered near Chequamegon Bay on a 

remnant beach associated with ancient Lake 

Duluth (a glacial period precursor to Lake 

Superior). The site consisted of stone tools 

and chert materials. No confirmed PaleoIndian sites have been discovered within the 

national lakeshore, although glacial beach 

remnants are common and sites from the 

period could exist in association with these 

features. An inconclusive site consisting of 

non-diagnostic quartz debris was found on 

Oak Island (NPS 2004f; NPS 2005a). 

The following Archaic period (8,000–2,000 

BP) was characterized by cultural adaptations 

to the climatic changes occurring at the close 

of the last Ice Age. Although the period was 

marked by massive floral and faunal 

extinctions, a diverse range of resources 

remained available to support Archaic period 

peoples. The size of groups increased, tool kits 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

196

became more complex, and evidence of 

ceremonial burials also characterize the 

period. The Ebob Site on Stockton Island 

consists of a single stemmed projectile point 

dating from the late Archaic period (NPS 

2004f). 

In the eastern United States, the subsequent 

Woodland period (approximately 2,000–500 

BP) is typically subdivided into early, middle 

and late periods. However, because of the 

cultural continuity of the period in the 

western Lake Superior region, some 

archeologists consider it more useful to divide 

the Woodland period in this region into Initial 

(2,000–1,300 BP) and Terminal (1,300–ca. 500 

BP) periods. Although no sites from the Initial 

Woodland period have been identified in the 

national lakeshore, two distinct groups (the 

Blackduck and Sandy Lake cultures) from the 

Terminal Woodland period are documented 

in the archeological record. The semisedentary Blackduck people harvested wild 

rice and may be ancestors of the historic 

Ojibwe or Cree. The less well known Sandy 

Lake people are recognized in the 

archeological record by their manufacture of a 

diagnostic ceramic ware. Archeological 

remains from both cultures have been 

identified at the national register-listed Morty 

Site on Stockton Island. Most of the known or 

confirmed aboriginal sites in the park are from 

the Terminal (or Late) Woodland period, with 

ceramic assemblages similar to the Lakes 

phase of the northern Great Lakes region ( 

NPS 1995a; NPS 2004f; NPS 2005a). 

The early historic period begins in the mid 

17th century, marked by the arrival of French 

explorers, missionaries, and fur traders to the 

Chequamegon Bay region. A French trading 

post was established on Grant’s Point on 

Madeline Island, and the fur trade dominated 

the regional economy until about 1820. 

Extensive farming was undertaken at this time 

along Chequamegon Bay by several tribes: the 

Huron, Ottawa, Potawatomi, Sauk, Fox, and 

Illinois. The Santee Dakota (commonly 

known as the Sioux) replaced many of these 

tribes by the end of the 17th century. Within 

the national lakeshore, archeological sites 

from this period consist of small hunting and 

fishing camps, including the P-Flat Site on 

Manitou Island, which is listed in the national 

register. Large historic period village sites also 

are found on Madeline Island (NPS 2004f; 

NPS 2005a). 

Archeological surveys of the park began in the 

mid-1970s under the contracted services of 

Beloit College’s Logan Museum of 

Anthropology. These initial surveys focused 

primarily on the identification of prehistoric 

sites; surveys were conducted of beaches, 

ancient lake level ridges, and other locations 

having a reasonable probability for prehistoric 

camps and activity areas. Subsequent research 

at the P-Flat Site on Manitou Island and the 

Morty Site on Stockton Island led to the 

listing of these sites in the national register. 

Archeological investigations conducted in the 

1980s (often in fulfillment of Section 106 

compliance requirements) led to the 

recording of several historic archeological 

sites on the islands, including former 

farmsteads, logging camps, and other historic 

sites associated with European–American 

settlement and activities. The Trout Point Site 

on Stockton Island (an early 20th century 

logging camp) was recorded and subsequently 

listed in the national register (NPS 1999a). 

Historic archeological resources provide 

physical evidence to supplement information 

found in the written historical record. This 

information can reveal the nature of 

subsistence and commercial activities, the 

lifestyles and living arrangements of former 

island inhabitants, and other research 

questions. 

Several historic shipwrecks have also been 

recorded within or just outside the boundaries 

of the national lakeshore. The wreck of the 

Noquebay, which sank off the east coast of 

Stockton Island in 1905, was documented and 

evaluated by the NPS Submerged Cultural 

Resources Unit in 1983. In partnership with 

the Wisconsin underwater archeology 

program, other shipwrecks have been 

positively identified including the Lucerne off 

Long Island; the R.G. Stewart off the eastern 

shore of Michigan Island; the Fedora and the 
Cultural Resources 

197 

H.D. Coffinberry, Ottawa, both located 

between Basswood Island and the mainland; 

the Sevona off the Sand Island shoals; and the 

Pretoria off the northeastern shore of Outer 

Island. The above vessels were engaged 

predominantly in the transport of iron ore, 

timber, and other commodities for 

commercial markets during the latter 19th 

century. The archeological evidence 

associated with the wreck sites provides 

valuable insight into the nature of historic 

shipping activities on Lake Superior. The 

Noquebay, R.G. Stewart, and the Lucerne have 

been listed in the national register (NPS 

1999a; NPS 2004f). 

All of the national lakeshore’s 66 known 

prehistoric and historic archeological sites are 

recorded in the Archeological Sites 

Management Information System (ASMIS) 

database maintained by the NPS Midwest 

Archeological Center. Approximately 25% of 

the park has been surveyed, with most survey 

work focused on locations considered likely 

to yield archeological resources, or conducted 

in response to compliance requirements for 

development or other undertakings. Limited 

archeological excavations or data recovery has 

been carried out in the park, and only the 

Morty and P-Flat Sites have been excavated 

for research purposes beyond initial 

evaluative testing (NPS 1999a; NPS 2004f). 

ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES 

As defined in DO/NPS-28, an ethnographic 

resource is “a site, structure, object, landscape, 

or natural resource feature assigned 

traditional legendary, religious, subsistence, or 

other significance in the cultural system of a 

group traditionally associated with it.” Only 

limited research has been carried out to 

identify the ethnographic importance of the 

Apostle Islands to associated American Indian 

groups. Ethno-historians have generally 

placed the presence of the Lake Superior 

Ojibwe in the area from the latter 17th century 

based on the accounts of French explorers. 

Ojibwe histories often push tribal presence in 

the area further back in time by several 

centuries. 

The eastern two-thirds of the Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore’s mainland unit falls 

within the reservation boundaries of the Red 

Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa. The 

Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of 

Chippewa Indians maintain cultural ties to 

Long Island (Chequamegon Point), which is 

linked to the mainland as a sand spit during 

periods of low lake water levels. Historical 

accounts from the late 17th century indicate 

that along with the Ojibwe, the Huron, 

Ottawa, Potawatomi, Sauk, and Fox also were 

known to inhabit the Chequamegon Bay 

region (NPS 1999a; NPS 2005a). 

In 1998 a research team from the University of 

Arizona interviewed Ojibwe elders during 

preliminary ethnographic investigations. The 

elders reported that historically, Ojibwe bands 

from the entire Lake Superior region 

frequented all of the Apostle Islands on a 

primarily seasonal basis. Islands closer to the 

mainland were generally inhabited for longer 

periods of time than those further offshore. 

However, the seminomadic Ojibwe traveled 

widely between the islands and the mainland 

in response to seasonal changes and the 

availability and distribution of resources. The 

islands were used for various purposes, such 

as hunting and fishing, and as an abundant 

source of berries, maple sap for processing 

sugar, and medicinal plants. Controlled 

burning reportedly was used as a means of 

maintaining the flourishing berry patches 

(NPS 2005a). 

The Ojibwe historically lived together in 

villages during the summer, and dispersed into 

smaller family groups during the winter when 

hunting became a primary activity. Several 

families related by kinship formed bands of 

about 20 to 50 people, and on occasion joined 

other bands for ceremonies, trade, and other 

important events. Individuals also maintained 

clan affiliations with others outside their 

immediate families. Religious and spiritual life 

permeated daily existence, and prayers and 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

198

offerings were made to tribal spirits for 

protection and guidance. Traditional 

medicine people were important figures in 

Ojibwe society, respected for their powers to 

contact the spirit world and conduct healing 

and other rituals. Although religion was 

largely personal, the Midewiwin or Medicine 

Lodge served an important communal 

religious function, guiding spiritual health and 

individual behavior. 

Beginning in the early 17th century, French 

explorers, traders, and missionaries made the 

first European contact with the Ojibwe and 

other regional tribes. The fur trade 

profoundly altered traditional ways of life, as 

increasing tribal dependence on the trade 

goods supplied by the French in exchange for 

furs disrupted customary hunting and 

gathering activities. Intertribal warfare and 

territorial relocations were other 

consequences of the fur trade. Initially forced 

west by the Iroquois Confederacy, the Ojibwe 

in turn were generally successful in pushing 

the Santee Dakota farther west into presentday Minnesota and North and South Dakota. 

The Ojibwe laid claim to the region around 

the western point of Lake Superior and the 

headwaters of the Mississippi River. Madeline 

Island in Chequamegon Bay was the site of a 

major Ojibwe settlement, and other villages 

were established during the 18th century 

further inland at Lac Courte Oreilles and Lac 

du Flambeau. 

Treaties signed in 1837 and 1842 between the 

United States and the Wisconsin Ojibwe 

resulted in the cession of tribal lands in 

Wisconsin, eastern Minnesota, and the upper 

peninsula of Michigan in exchange for 

annuities, provisions, and other federal 

support. The treaties contained stipulations 

that reserve to the Ojibwe customary rights to 

hunt, fish, and gather on the ceded lands. 

Ojibwe efforts to resist removal from their 

homelands led a tribal delegation to meet with 

President Millard Fillmore in Washington, 

D.C., in 1852. The meeting provided the 

impetus for the 1854 Treaty of La Pointe by 

which the Ojibwe ceded the last of their lands 

in Minnesota to the United States in exchange 

for reservation lands. The 1854 treaty created 

the Bad River, Red Cliff, Lac du Flambeau, 

and Lac Courte Oreilles reservations in 

Wisconsin. 

Long-standing legal disputes between the 

state of Wisconsin and the U.S. federal 

government regarding the Ojibwe’s retained 

treaty rights resulted in the “Voigt Decision” 

of 1983. Under the decision, the federal 

district court affirmed the treaty rights 

retained by the Ojibwe to hunt and fish on offreservation lands ceded to the United States. 

The Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife 

Commission, in cooperation with the state of 

Wisconsin, currently regulates the safe harvest 

of treaty resources to ensure conservation 

objectives. Interim agreements on regulations 

for hunting, fishing, trapping, and gathering 

seasons have been negotiated between the 

Ojibwe and the National Park Service for 

ceded territory within Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore. A long-term agreement is 

being developed. 

Adaptation to reservation life has often been a 

struggle for the Ojibwe over the last 150 years. 

More recently, however, economic growth in 

areas near the reservations has provided 

employment opportunities for tribal 

members. Many live and work in urban areas 

but travel back and forth to the reservations to 

connect with family and reintegrate with tribal 

culture. Economic opportunities on the 

reservations are also increasing, and several 

successful tribal enterprises have emerged, 

such as the fish hatcheries that each of the six 

Ojibwe bands operates in the state. Despite 

the challenges, the Ojibwe have successfully 

retained several aspects of their traditional 

heritage including use of the Ojibwe language, 

religious practices, oral traditions, crafts, 

knowledge of herbal medicines, and 

important gathering activities such as 

harvesting wild rice. 

Although no comprehensive ethnographic 

resource investigations have been conducted 

at the national lakeshore, a study conducted in 

1999 identified over 200 plants having 

traditional importance to the Ojibwe (Stoffle 
Cultural Resources 

199 

et al. 2001). In accordance with NPS 

Management Policies 2006, the Park Service 

permits consumptive use of national lakeshore 

resources by tribal members, including treatyprotected rights for hunting, fishing and the 

gathering of certain plants and berries, to the 

extent that these activities are compatible with 

park purposes, do not adversely affect park 

wildlife or the reproductive potential of plant 

species, or otherwise adversely affect park 

resources. 

Also in accordance with NPS Management 

Policies 2006, the American Indian Religious 

Freedom Act (1996), and other laws and 

policies, the Park Service permits tribal access 

to park areas for traditional religious, 

ceremonial, and other customary activities at 

places historically used for such purposes. In 

consultation with the tribes and consistent 

with tribal goals, the Park Service will protect 

sacred sites and other ethnographic resources 

should these be identified. The National Park 

Service will not disclose the location and 

character of sites or resources to the general 

public if disclosure would result in significant 

invasion of privacy, risk harm to historic 

resources, or impede traditional religious use 

and access by tribal members. 

In collaboration with the Ojibwe and other 

affiliated tribes, the National Park Service will 

identify or evaluate potential ethnographic 

resources by conducting appropriate research 

and investigations (i.e., ethnographic 

overviews and assessments, traditional use 

studies, ethnographic landscape studies, oral 

histories) that inform decision making. 
200 

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 

VISITOR USE AND CHARACTERISTICS 

For the purposes of this document, visitors are 

defined as anyone who enters the park or uses 

NPS facilities for any reason. Visitor use data 

is the information regarding how many people 

visit the park, when they visit, how often they 

visit, where they travel from, how long they 

stay in the park, etc. 

Visitation in Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore has generally increased from the 

1980s, with slight declines in visitation from 

1984-86, 1991-92, and 1999-2004 (see figure 

7). Over the last few years, visitation has been 

on the rise, with 189,000 recreation visits in 

2006 and 182,000 in 2007. Total recreation 

visits had a peak level of visitation in 1998. 

The rather substantial decline in visitation 

after 1999 and until 2004 corresponds to an 

overall decline in visitation to national parks 

around the country. There is not a clear 

consensus as to the cause for the decline, but 

many suggest that political and economic 

events played a role in the reduced number of 

tourists at many attractions. 

Long-term trends suggest that the park’s 

visitation will hold steady or slightly increase 

during the next 25 years. This would be due to 

potential increases, at least in the near term, in 

international visitation due to favorable 

exchange rates, and the more important 

consideration of the surrounding region’s 

population growth. 

Approximately 72% of annual visitation to 

Apostle Islands occurs in June-August (see 

figure 8) when visitors experience more 

favorable weather and lake conditions. 

Visitation in the winter months is mostly 

related to viewing the sea caves, which is 

highly dependent on when and how much 

Lake Superior freezes over. 

A recent visitor study at the Apostle Islands 

(Littlejohn and Hollenhorst 2004) identified 

the current visitor profile in terms of 

demographics, trip characteristics, and 

preferences. The study was conducted by the 

University of Idaho, Park Studies Unit, in the 

summer of 2004. Visitor contacts were made 

at 10 different locations in the national 

lakeshore, including several islands, with 718 

visitor groups contacted and 671 of these 

groups (93%) responding. 

Based on the study, average group size of 

visitors was four, with 40% of groups having 

two people, 28% having three or four people, 

and 22% having six or more people. Average 

age of visitors was 47, with 59% aged 36 to 60 

and 11% aged 15 years or younger. This is an 

increase in the average age of visitors in 

comparison to a previous visitor study 

(Kuentzel and Heberlein 2003) that examined 

visitor use in the Apostle Islands in 1975, 1985, 

and again in 1997. The average age of visitors 

in 1975 was 37; in 1985 it was 36; and in 1997 it 

was 44. A majority of visitors (65%) in the 

2004 visitor study had a college or graduate 

degree. Roughly one-third of visitors 

contacted during the study were visiting the 

Apostle Islands for the first time, while 68% 

had visited more than once. The majority of 

respondents were from Wisconsin (42%) or 

Minnesota (33%), with 2% of visitors coming 

from outside the United States. The average 

length of stay for visitors was 5.5 hours for 

those who did not stay overnight. For those 

who spent more than 24 hours, the average 

length of stay was 4.6 days (Littlejohn and 

Hollenhorst 2004). 
Visitor Use and Experience 

201 

Figure 7: Annual Visitation, 1980-2007 

Figure 8: Monthly Visitation, 2004–2007 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

202 

VISITOR PERCEPTIONS, 

OPINIONS, AND CONCERNS 

Based on the 2004 visitor survey, the 2001 

survey of campers, annual polling of visitor 

satisfaction, and the GMP scoping effort, the 

overall quality of the visitor experiences in the 

park is considered to be very high. In both the 

2004 visitor survey and the GMP scoping 

effort, people said they wanted to see little, if 

any, change to the current visitor recreation 

and interpretive opportunities. Some people 

mentioned wanting more trail and camping 

facilities, particularly group camping facilities, 

improved boat docks (more spaces, more 

accessible), and other island access 

opportunities. 

Items frequently identified in the 2004 survey, 

and supported by the GMP scoping effort, 

that greatly contribute to a positive visitor 

experience include encounters with rangers, 

lighthouse tours, visiting historic sites, park 

information, great scenery, natural quiet, 

access to the lake, campsite and trail 

opportunities, walking the beaches, wildlife 

watching, and the cruise boat tours (Littlejohn 

and Hollenhorst 2004). In the 2004 visitor 

survey, visitors were asked which facilities 

were considered important and to rate the 

quality of each of the visitor services and 

facilities they used. The services and facilities 

that received the highest “importance” rating 

were campsites, trails, vault toilets/outhouses, 

and the cruise boat tour. The services and 

facilities that received the highest quality 

ratings, “good” and “very good,” included the 

Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center, ranger 

programs and tours, and the park brochure 

and map. The services and facilities that 

received the lowest quality ratings were the 

cruise boat tour and the vault toilets/ 

outhouses (Littlejohn and Hollenhorst 2004). 

Some of the most commonly mentioned 

concerns of visitors related to crowding at 

parking lots and docks, noise associated with 

motorboats and larger visitor groups, and 

litter. Some visitors suggested alternative 

management strategies to mitigate existing 

problems such as increased education on 

Leave No Trace practices, improvements to 

parking areas, more efficient docking 

practices, more dock space, and increased 

enforcement of rules and regulations 

(Littlejohn and Hollenhorst 2004). 

Information collected in the 1975, 1985, and 

1997 studies (Kuentzel and Heberlein 2003) 

specifically evaluated perceptions of crowding 

among Apostle Island boaters in relation to 

increasing use levels, particularly kayak use. 

The study concluded that increasing use was 

not commensurate with increasing 

perceptions of crowding—in fact, even with 

twice as many boaters in 1997 than the 

previous years, the 1997 boaters felt no more 

crowded than the 1975 boaters. However, 

another study (Heberlein et al. 1999) did find 

that, overall, boaters feel slightly more 

crowded than kayakers. This may be due to 

the tendency of boaters to congregate near 

islands with the best anchorages. Even then, 

however, only 17.6% of boaters felt the places 

they stopped at were crowded, compared to 

12.8% of kayakers. The studies demonstrate 

that there are numerous opportunities for 

solitude in the islands. The only places where 

relatively large numbers of people (10-30+) 

may occur at times are near dock areas, some 

beaches, lighthouses, and group camping 

areas. 

ABILITY TO ACCESS THE PARK, 

INCLUDING UNIVERSAL ACCESS 

The mainland unit of the park can be reached 

by road, but most visitors consider the islands 

and Lake Superior to be the most rewarding 

destination. Little Sand Bay is the most 

frequently used area in the mainland unit, 

serving up to 60,000 visitors a year. It has a 

beach, boat launch, kayak launch, picnic area, 

and a visitor center. The other primary use 

areas in the mainland unit are Meyers Beach, 

serving up to 40,000 visitors a year, and the 
Visitor Use and Experience 

203 

visitor center at the historic Old Bayfield 

County Courthouse. 

According to the 2004 visitor survey, lack of 

time (57%) was the most common reason for 

not visiting the park islands, while 20% said 

they did not own a boat. Visitors reach the 

islands by a variety of watercraft, including 

concession-operated cruise boats, private 

powerboats, sailboats, canoes, and kayaks. 

According to the 2004 survey, the most used 

form of transportation to visit the park was a 

private vehicle (68%), followed by foot (27%), 

kayak (25%), powerboat (21%), sailboat 

(15%), and commercial cruise boat (14%) 

(Littlejohn and Hollenhorst 2004). Kayak use 

at Apostle Islands National Lakeshore has 

increased rapidly since the late 1980s and is 

now the main mode of transportation used by 

visitors to reach campsites on the islands. 

Most visitors go to more than one island in a 

day. Public docks can be found on 13 of the 

islands in the park. Most motorboaters and 

sailboaters congregate at relatively secure 

anchorages or docks at Stockton, Rocky. 

South Twin, Raspberry, Oak, and Sand 

islands. These islands also receive the highest 

levels of use due to the secure docks but also 

because of their scenic attractions and visitor 

facilities—several are relatively close to the 

mainland, and most are on the concessioner’s 

tour boat circuit. Islands that are closer to the 

mainland tend to receive higher levels of use, 

while the more remote islands, such as Outer 

and Cat, receive lower levels of use. Eagle and 

Gull islands and the northwest corner of Otter 

Island are closed to visitors in the summer 

(May 15 to September 15) due to the presence 

of nesting birds. 

Cruise boats provide opportunities for visitors 

to sightsee the islands and light stations from a 

distance, view the sea caves, watch wildlife, 

spend time on Lake Superior, and enjoy the 

sunset. Current cruise boats can 

accommodate up to 149 passengers. The 

cruise service also provides daily island 

shuttles, for a fee, to Stockton, Oak, and 

Raspberry islands from late June to 

September. Day use visitors can use these 

shuttles to spend up to three hours on 

Stockton or Raspberry islands. Shuttle 

passengers can hike, camp, picnic, and take 

interpretive tours during their stay on the 

islands. Between 1,000 and 4,000 cruise 

passengers tour the Raspberry Island 

lighthouse annually. 

Currently, the park has several facilities that 

are accessible to visitors with disabilities 

including the visitor centers at headquarters, 

Little Sand Bay, and Stockton Island. There 

also is a campsite at Stockton Island that is 

accessible, but visitors would need to be able 

to navigate getting onto the island via a dock 

or other boat landing that is not designed for 

universal access. There are no universally 

accessible docks in the park, but there is an 

accessible kayak launch at Little Sand Bay. 

Currently, there are no recreation trails that 

are designed for universal access. Although 

there are not many facilities on the islands 

designed specifically to promote universal 

access, there have been several organized 

groups of visitors with disabilities who have 

visited the park. 

LAKE AND ISLAND RECREATIONAL 

OPPORTUNITIES AND EXPERIENCES 

Visitors have a wide range of lake and island 

based recreation opportunities and 

experiences to choose from, whether it is a 

small group tour of one of the light stations, a 

family cruise on the lake, a solitary walk to 

discover an old automobile half-buried in the 

sand, or kayaking on a multiple stop overnight 

trip through the wilderness area of the islands. 

It is this diversity of unique and place-based 

recreation opportunities in a beautiful and 

interesting setting that visitors appreciate 

about the national lakeshore. As noted by 

William Cronon (2003), the Apostle Islands 

allow visitors to experience a “superb example 

of a wilderness in which natural and human 

histories are intimately intermingled.” 

A variety of lake based recreation 

opportunities are available in and near the 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

204

national lakeshore. The area has long been a 

major attraction for boaters, sailors, and more 

recently, kayakers. The islands’ protected 

bays, public docks, pristine beaches, historic 

sites, and natural beauty offer outstanding 

boating, fishing, and sightseeing opportunities. In particular, the many miles of 

undeveloped shorelines and wild, forested 

interiors make for stunning scenery that is 

greatly valued by visitors during their 

recreation experiences. Further, the open 

waters of Lake Superior can provide visitors 

with a high degree of challenge and adventure 

due to constantly changing marine conditions 

that require preplanning and constant 

caution. 

In addition, the islands offer plentiful day and 

overnight recreation opportunities in close 

contact with nature and extensive history. 

Island based recreation opportunities include 

hiking, swimming, camping, fishing, 

sightseeing, hunting, visiting historic sites, and 

participating in interpretive programs and 

guided trips. Some of the most popular 

activities on the islands tend to be sightseeing, 

lighthouse touring, day hiking, and camping, 

although many visitors participate in more 

than one activity. 

Most people who spend time on the islands 

stay on the shorelines, particularly beaches, or 

in the general vicinity of the developed areas, 

particularly those areas with campsites or 

lighthouses. In general, cruise boat, sailboat, 

and motorboat visitors (who together make 

up the largest number of users) tend to come 

on shore to use the park facilities, picnic, or 

explore. With the exception of campers, these 

visitors spend relatively short periods on an 

island and rarely take long hikes. The 

motorboat and sailboat visitors usually sleep 

on their boats, with only a small number 

camping on shore. Kayakers are the most 

frequent users of campsites and tend to 

venture further into the interior of the islands 

than other visitors. 

The islands are logistically challenging to 

reach, so visitors who make the effort to 

directly experience Lake Superior and the 

islands are treated with outstanding 

opportunities for remoteness, immersion in 

nature, and personal challenge, while gaining 

a better understanding of “island living” from 

both a modern and historical perspective. 

Currently, the islands are relatively wild, with 

limited development and no permanent 

human presence. Further, except for camping 

(which requires a permit), access on the 

islands is largely unconfined and unregulated. 

Opportunities to have an island experience 

are a fundamental value of the national 

lakeshore. This sentiment is echoed by a 

student visitor: “You have never lived until 

you have slept on an island.” 

The 2004 visitor survey and recent GMP 

scoping effort confirmed that visitors highly 

value being able to experience solitude, quiet, 

wildness, connection with nature, and first 

hand discovery of the islands’ history. Most 

visitors to the islands stay near the shorelines, 

but for those visitors who take the opportunity to venture into the interior of the islands, 

an extremely high degree of solitude and 

primitive recreation opportunities may be 

found. On many islands, it is possible to walk 

for miles without encountering another 

visitor. Most of the sounds of civilization give 

way to the sounds of the forest after traveling 

only a short distance inland. Further, many 

cultural resources are scattered throughout 

the islands and contribute to outstanding 

opportunities for self-discovery and 

understanding of the islands’ history. 

Well-developed trail systems are present on 

Basswood, Oak, Outer, Sand, and Stockton 

islands. Minor trail systems exist on Devils, 

Manitou, Michigan, Otter, Raspberry, and 

Rocky islands. There are more than 50 miles 

of maintained trail opportunities on the 

islands that provide access to forested areas, 

scenic beaches, abandoned quarries, old farm 

sites, historic logging camps, lighthouses, 

beaches, and campsites. 

Besides trails, there are numerous sandy 

beaches that are great for walking and 

exploring the islands and the beautiful scenery 

of Lake Superior. Some favorite beaches on 
Visitor Use and Experience 

205 

the islands are Julian Bay on Stockton Island, 

Long Island beaches, Raspberry Island 

sandspit, East Bay on Sand Island, South Twin 

sandspit, and Rocky Island sandspit. 

Many opportunities exist for picnicking on 

the islands. Many individual and group 

campsites have picnic tables. Lighthouse 

lawns tend to have picnic tables. There are 

also picnic areas that are separate from 

campsites and lighthouses on Oak, Rocky, 

South Twin, and Stockton islands. 

Overnight opportunities are also plentiful on 

the Apostle Islands and are an important part 

of visitors being able to immerse themselves in 

the natural rhythms of the islands and gain a 

sense of island living. There are 65 designated 

campsites in the park, and zones have been 

established on 16 islands where camping is 

allowed outside designated sites. 

In general, from the 1980s to 2007, overnight 

stays in the park have increased. In 1997 a 

computerized backcountry permit system was 

developed and implemented. More than 1,500 

camping permits have been issued annually 

since 1998. 

Stockton Island receives the highest amount 

of camping use (>4,500 campers/year). It has 

21 individual sites and 3 group sites. A small 

amphitheater and a visitor center with an 

information desk, exhibits, and sales items are 

located near Stockton Island campground. 

Nightly campfire programs serve 1,000-1,400 

visitors from late June to Labor Day. 

With the exception of Stockton, the islands 

that are closest to the mainland receive the 

highest overnight visitation. These islands 

include Basswood (>1,400 campers/year), Oak 

(>2,950 campers/year), and Sand (>2,600 

campers/year). Islands farthest from the 

mainland such as Devils, Michigan, and Outer 

have fewer campsites and receive fewer 

visitors. All designated sites and the majority 

of sites used by backcountry campers are 

located near the shoreline. Designated 

campsites generally (but not always) contain a 

tent pad, fire ring, bear-proof food locker, and 

picnic table, with a toilet nearby. Group sites 

generally have tables, fire rings, and bearproof food lockers, with toilets nearby. Very 

little camping is done in the island interiors. 

A visitor study in 2001, conducted by Dr. 

Ingrid Schneider and Raintry Salk, examined 

the trip patterns of over 200 Apostle Island 

campers, among other study objectives. 

According to the study results, respondents 

most frequently used kayaks (54.1%); another 

25.1% used motorboats as their primary mode 

of travel. Average group size of campers was 

3.74 people, with an average stay of 3 nights 

(Schneider and Salk 2002). The majority of 

campers entered the islands at Bayfield 

(58.1%); 24.1% entered at Little Sand Bay, and 

14.8 % entered at Red Cliff. Survey 

respondents stopped at an average of 3.4 

islands and camped on 1.7 different islands 

during their stay (Schneider and Salk 2002). 

The average number of total contacts with 

NPS personnel during their visit was 1.6. For 

more detailed information about typical 

camping trip routes, please see the final visitor 

study report (Schneider and Salk 2002). 

In addition to campsites, boaters have 

overnight opportunities at public docks on 13 

islands and at Little Sand Bay on the mainland 

unit. Dock space is available on a first come – 

first served basis. A fee is charged for using 

docks between 6:00 pm and 6:00 am. Dock 

space is often in high demand at some 

locations, and there have been some 

complaints about crowding and associated 

noise with overnight activities. Further, some 

have noted concerns about the lack of 

accessibility of some docks for different types 

of watercraft. 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

206

Figure 9: Overnight Stays, 1979-2007 

MAINLAND RECREATIONAL 

OPPORTUNITIES AND EXPERIENCES 

Visitors who remain on the mainland during 

their visit to the national lakeshore, or spend 

time there before or after their visit to the 

islands, will find a number of rewarding 

opportunities. Visitors can stop at the multiagency Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center 

located near Ashland to get an overview of 

and information on the region. It is 

recommended that all visitors begin their visit 

with a trip to the headquarters visitor center in 

Bayfield. At the visitor center, park staff are 

available to provide orientation, information, 

and interpretation. A film and other exhibits 

highlight the resources and opportunities 

throughout the national lakeshore. 

If visitors travel 13 miles north of Bayfield, 

they access Little Sand Bay where they can 

walk along a popular sandy beach and gain 

extensive views of several of the islands. In 

addition, another smaller visitor center is 

available for area orientation. The National 

Park Service provides a dock, kayak launch, 

picnic area, overnight parking lot, and 

restrooms. The Town of Russell operates a 

public boat launch and campground adjacent 

to the NPS facilities. Further, the Hokenson 

Brothers Fishery, a commercial fishing 

historic site, may be open for exploring. 

Meyers Beach, 18 miles from Bayfield on 

Highway 13, also has visitor opportunities 

including an extensive beach and the 

Lakeshore Trail. The Lakeshore Trail is a 

rugged path that currently extends 4.5 miles 

from Meyers Road past the cliffs, with viewing 

opportunities of the mainland sea caves. 

Meyers Beach is a very popular beach area for 

launching kayaks, swimming, sunning, 

walking, and viewing the lake. 

Visitors may also camp on the Mainland unit 

with one campsite located along the 

Lakeshore Trail, 4.5 miles northeast of the 

trailhead at Meyers Road. Overnight dock 

opportunities are also available at Little Sand 

Bay. 
Visitor Use and Experience 

207 

OPPORTUNITIES TO UNDERSTAND 

THE SIGNIFICANT STORIES OF THE 

APOSTLE ISLANDS 

Enjoying the park and its resources is a 

fundamental part of the visitor experience. 

That experience is heightened when it 

progresses from enjoyment to an 

understanding of the reasons for the national 

lakeshore’s existence and the significance of 

its resources. Participating in personal 

interpretive services (e.g., staffed visitor 

centers, ranger-led activities), and making use 

of nonpersonal interpretive services (e.g., 

wayside exhibits, visitor center exhibits, 

publications, computer technologies) helps 

visitors form their own intellectual and 

emotional connections with the meanings and 

significance of the national lakeshore’s 

resources. 

The islands provide a number of interpretive 

facilities and programs for visitors. A visitor 

center is on Stockton Island and is staffed 

intermittently; it has exhibits on natural and 

cultural history. Evening talks or campfire 

programs, offered on the island from late June 

through Labor Day, cover topics such as

bears, wilderness, and shipwrecks. A Stockton 

Island guided nature walk is also sometimes 

available. National lakeshore staff offer guided 

tours to visitors arriving in private boats from 

mid-June to September. These tours occur at 

several lighthouses and occasionally at the 

Manitou Island fish camp. From 2,000 to 

4,000 visitors arriving at Raspberry Island via 

sailboat, power boat, or sea kayak tour the 

lighthouse each summer. Sand Island 

lighthouse is toured by 1,500 to 2,500 visitors 

annually with the guidance of volunteer 

lighthouse keepers. The light stations at Devils 

and Michigan islands receive 1,000 to 1,500 

visitors each, also with assistance from 

volunteer lighthouse keepers. From 1,200 to 

1,500 visitors tour the historic commercial 

fishing camp at Manitou Island. 

On the mainland, visitors have opportunities 

to gain a better understanding of the national 

lakeshore’s natural and cultural resources as 

well as visitor opportunities at several 

locations. The park’s main visitor center is 

located at the old Bayfield County 

Courthouse, colocated with headquarters, in 

the middle of the City of Bayfield. This facility 

is staffed and contains exhibits, an 

information desk, and a retail outlet. Visitors 

also may get information at the Little Sand Bay 

Visitor Center and can request a guided tour 

of the Hokenson Brothers Fishery, a 

commercial fishing museum. 

In addition, the National Park Service is a 

cooperating agency in the Northern Great 

Lakes Visitor Center, located near Ashland, 

Wisconsin. This visitor center has information 

on visitor opportunities in the regional area 

including the national lakeshore, interactive 

exhibits, a five-story observation tower, and 

interpretive trails. 

The 2008 fiscal year visitation figures for the 

visitor centers are as follows: Bayfield Visitor 

Center, 17,001; Little Sand Bay Visitor Center, 

6,713; Stockton Island Visitor Center, 2,597; 

and Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center, 

60,306. 

All of the visitor centers support orientation 

and education of visitors to the national 

lakeshore. However, there have been some 

concerns about the size, condition, and 

location of some of these facilities. The visitor 

center associated with headquarters in the 

City of Bayfield is located in a historic building 

that is very important to the gateway 

community and has an excellent auditorium. 

However, this facility has limited, inflexible 

space for exhibits and limited opportunities 

for direct interaction between visitors and 

NPS staff and volunteers. Further, although 

the historic building is located in the center of 

the City of Bayfield, it is outside the immediate 

transportation routes through town, so it has 

limited visibility to out-of-town visitors. In 

addition, the current location is a distance 

from the concession cruise boat, so few cruise 

visitors access the visitor center. Finally, there 

are no views of the islands or Lake Superior 

from the facility. 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

208

The Little Sand Bay Visitor Center is in poor 

condition and has limited exhibit space. The 

Stockton Island Visitor Center is commonly 

unstaffed and also has limited exhibit space. 

However, this facility meets the current needs 

of the smaller number of visitors that it serves. 

The Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center is a 

new and modern facility with innovative 

exhibit design and a coordinated focus on 

regional public lands. However, this facility is 

not located in a place that captures a high 

number of Apostle Island visitors. 

Collectively, the issues related to the national 

lakeshore’s visitor centers create some 

challenges for visitor understanding of the 

significant stories of the Apostle Islands. 

Additional education and orientation is 

provided to visitors via nonpersonal services 

such as trailhead and boat dock bulletin 

boards, waysides, trail signs, and park 

brochures. 

VISITOR SAFETY 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore is a 

challenging place to access and explore, which 

is exciting but also potentially hazardous. 

National lakeshore staff are always especially 

diligent in providing effective visitor safety 

information in easily accessible locations and 

formats. The park encompasses more than 

450 square miles of Lake Superior that is 

renowned for its cold temperatures, rough 

seas, fog, and sudden squalls. The lake has 

been described by Julian Nelson, a 

commercial fisherman, in the following terms: 

“The lake is the boss. No matter how big you 

are or what kind of a boat you’ve got, the lake 

is still the boss. Mother Nature dictates a lot of 

things.” The National Park Service must 

ensure that visitors are aware of the risks and 

hazards associated with the lake and island 

environments. 

Many visitors are not highly skilled boaters 

and therefore run the risk of being caught offguard with changing weather and lake 

conditions. Response times to areas on Lake 

Superior can be far greater than for similar 

distances on the mainland. This concern is 

compounded by the compromised ability of 

the park staff to maintain adequate emergency 

response capabilities due to the use of 

inadequate and outdated facilities. 

Other visitor safety concerns include the 

resident bear populations on the islands of 

Stockton, Oak, and Sand. Although these 

islands host resident bears, bears can swim to 

any of the Apostle Islands, so bear safety is an 

issue for all visitors. Information on the 

availability of well water and lake water 

treatment options is also important for 

visitors’ safety, especially those planning 

overnight trips. Well water is only available at 

Little Sand Bay, on Sand Island, and at 

Presque Isle on Stockton Island. Finally, 

topics such as campfire safety, grilling in dock 

areas, and insect and tick control are other 

safety related issues that visitors need to be 

educated about before and during their trip to 

the national lakeshore.
209 

PARK OPERATIONS 

The park’s operations are discussed below 

under four divisions: interpretation and 

education, protection, planning and resource 

management, and facility management. 

INTERPRETATION AND EDUCATION 

The park’s interpretation and education staff 

consists of a core group of permanent 

employees supplemented by temporary 

employees hired during summer months. This 

staff is also augmented with numerous 

volunteers in summer. 

The park’s keystone education program, 

developed and conducted in partnership with 

Northland College, is called Island School. It 

typically takes place on Stockton Island in 

May. Interpretive efforts have traditionally 

centered on developed visitor use areas. In the 

summer of 2008, interpretive park rangers 

were stationed at the Bayfield Visitor Center, 

Meyers Beach, Stockton Island’s Presque Isle, 

and the Raspberry Island lighthouse. Logistics 

are a constant challenge for the park staff even 

when the weather cooperates. Typically, 

interpretation rangers and volunteers staff the 

visitor center at Stockton-Presque Isle from 

mid-June to Labor Day. From mid- June 

through the end of September, interpretation 

rangers and volunteer lightkeepers conduct 

lighthouse tours at several lighthouses on the 

islands. As with most other island-based 

workers, these employees and volunteers 

usually live in housing units on the islands and 

are transported off the islands for their days 

off. 

An information desk, interpretive displays, 

and book sales area are also located at the 

Bayfield, Little Sand Bay, and StocktonPresque Isle visitor centers. Interpretation 

operations include assistance in trip planning 

and the issuance of backcountry camping 

permits. The interpretation staff is also 

primarily responsible for collecting, counting, 

and depositing revenues generated by the 

park’s fee program. 

Informational signs, maps, and bulletin 

boards, as well as wayside exhibits, are located 

at many docks and developed areas 

throughout the park. There are a few wayside 

exhibits located in more remote areas on 

several islands. 

PROTECTION 

Visitor and resource protection rangers 

conduct patrols of about 154 miles of 

shoreline, numerous historic and 

archeological sites, trails, campsites, and 

public use areas and facilities on 21 islands 

and the mainland. These protection rangers 

are based out of Little Sand Bay and Roys 

Point on the mainland year-round. In 2008 all 

were permanent park employees, although, at 

times, the permanent staff has been 

supplemented with a small number of 

temporary employees during the summer. 

These employees perform law enforcement, 

wildland fire suppression, structural fire 

prevention monitoring, building and fire 

security, emergency medical services, and 

search and rescue operations, often under 

very challenging conditions. 

PLANNING AND 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

Park planning and resource management 

employees strive to increase understanding of 

the natural and cultural resources of the park 

and devise strategies for the public to interact 

with those resources in a manner that ensures 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

210

their preservation for future generations. Staff 

members monitor the park’s wildlife, 

vegetation, and air and water quality. They 

assist in and monitor restoration efforts. They 

assess the historic and cultural sites located 

within the park for historic significance and 

make recommendations for their 

preservation. They add to knowledge and 

understanding of the park’s natural and 

cultural resources by performing historical 

research and scientific studies and assisting 

and facilitating research and studies 

performed by cooperators who are interested 

in augmenting the work done by the Park 

Service. This knowledge is then applied, with 

the assistance of other park divisions, in a 

variety of restoration projects. 

Planning and resource management staff also 

educate park staff on current issues affecting 

park resources, perform National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) 

compliance, and direct or participate in park 

planning efforts such as this study. Planning 

and resource management staff consists of 

natural and cultural resource specialists 

supplemented by a small number of 

temporary or volunteer technicians. These 

employees tend to be mainland-based but 

spend considerable amounts of time 

throughout the islands during the short 

summer field season. As with other park staff, 

transporting planning and resource 

management staff to the islands is a constant 

logistical challenge. 

BUSINESS SERVICES 

The business services division is responsible 

for park administrative functions including 

communications, information technology, 

financial management, procurement, and 

human resources. In 2008 there were six fulltime-equivalent employees in the business 

services division. These employees are 

responsible for providing critical assistance 

and advice to park employees, helping the 

National Park Service meet its legal and fiscal 

responsibilities. 

FACILITY MANAGEMENT 

Facility management staff members care for 

an enormous variety of park developments 

and cultural resources. Historic preservation 

staff face the challenging task of slowing or 

preventing decay in the nearly 160 historic 

buildings and structures that are spread 

throughout the park, including the largest 

collection of lighthouses found anywhere in 

the national park system. Facility management 

crews build and maintain hiking trails (54 

miles spread over 12 islands) and campsites 

(64 spread over 14 islands); repair docks (15 

on 14 islands and one at Little Sand Bay); and 

maintain a wide variety of grounds, utility 

systems, and other visitor facilities distributed 

over a very large area. Facility management 

staff also are responsible for maintaining all of 

the park’s housing quarters, as well as the 

visitor center at Stockton-Presque Isle. 

Skilled in a variety of crafts and trades, facility 

management staff consist of permanent 

employees supplemented by temporary 

employees in the summer. Most facility 

management operations are not based on the 

islands. Rather, these staff members are 

almost in constant motion, regularly 

transporting themselves and others to the 

islands. Routine activities on the mainland, 

such as pumping outhouses or delivering 

propane, become adventures on islands in 

Lake Superior. Some of the facility 

management staff is devoted to simply 

keeping the park’s aging fleet of more than 20 

boats in safe, working order. 

Island-based park staff on Stockton, Sand, 

Oak, and Rocky islands are housed in 

government owned housing on a seasonal 

basis. Raspberry Island staff reside in historic 

quarters at the Raspberry Island light station, 

and volunteer lighthouse keepers are housed 

in a similar manner on Devils, Michigan, and 

Outer islands. Park staff at the Manitou Island 

fish camp are also housed in historic quarters.
211 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

The primary geographic study area selected 

for the socioeconomic baseline is comprised 

of Bayfield and Ashland counties, Wisconsin. 

Although Apostle Island National Lakeshore’s 

socioeconomic influence certainly extends 

beyond these counties’ borders, it appears 

that most of the lakeshore’s demographic and 

economic effects occur locally, within 

communities adjacent to and close to the 

lakeshore, including, in particular, the 

communities of Bayfield, Washburn, and 

Ashland. 

POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS 

Table 14 summarizes the population of 

Bayfield and Ashland counties from 1950 

through 2006. The table indicates that during 

this period of more than 50 years, Bayfield 

County has had an increase in population over 

the last 25 years. Ashland County’s population 

has been stable for the last 35 years. 

ECONOMY 

The largest employers in Bayfield County are 

County of Bayfield, Red Cliff Band- Lake 

Superior Chippewa, the Washburn school 

district, and the Bayfield school district. The 

major industries of the county are educational 

services, general government, accommodations, and food services. In Ashland County 

the prominent employers are the Bad River 

Band–Lake Superior Chippewa, Memorial 

Medical Center, CG Bretting Manufacturing 

Company Inc., and the Ashland school 

district. Educational services, general 

government, food services, and wood product 

manufacturing are the major industries of 

Ashland County. 

Table 14: Summary of Ashland and Bayfield Counties Population, 1950–2006 

Year Bayfield County 

Population 

Ashland County 

Population 

1950 13,760 19,461 

1960 11,910 17,375 

1970 11,683 16,743 

1980 13,822 16,783 

1990 14,008 16,307 

2000 15,013 16,866 

2006 (U.S. Census 

Bureau est.) 

15,147 16,511 

Source: Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau.
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

212

TRANSPORTATION 

Bayfield and Ashland counties are in northern 

Wisconsin. The area is crossed east to west by 

U.S. Highway 2, which provides access to the 

region from Duluth to the west. State 

Highway 13 runs south to north and links 

Ashland, Washburn, and Bayfield. The nearest 

commercial airport is 90 miles from Bayfield, 

in Duluth, Minnesota. 

VISITOR SPENDING 

Total visits to Apostle Island National 

Lakeshore were recorded as 182,396 in 2007. 

Of that total, 25,636 visits involved overnight 

stays. Visitor spending in the region was 

estimated at $19.3 million, with $15.3 million 

coming from nonlocal visitors.3

 Nonlocal 

visitor spending is new money coming to the 

area, and results in more local income being 

generated and supports local jobs. Visitors 

supported an estimated 333 jobs and $6.5 

million in personal income. This is in addition 

to jobs and income associated with park 

operations and staff, which are discussed in 

the next section. 

OPERATIONS SPENDING 

The annual budget of the national lakeshore 

provides income to employees who go on to 

spend in the regional economy. The budget 

also includes spending for utilities payments, 

leasing, supplies, and local services, which 

support regional sales, jobs, and income. The 

effects of these amounts are in addition to 

effects of spending by visitors. 

 

3

 Visitor spending impacts were calculated using the 

Money Generation Model 2 (MGM2) developed for the 

Park Service by Michigan State University.

The staff working at Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore is employed by the National Park 

Service. Payroll in 2007 was $2.1 million, plus 

benefits for 43 NPS full-time-equivalent 

employees. This spending generates an 

estimated additional $3.1 million in local 

incomes and 60 jobs. 4

AUTHORIZED NPS 

BUSINESS PARTNERS 

Business partners of the National Park Service 

provide a variety of ways to see and enjoy the 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. They 

offer opportunities to learn, explore, and 

experience the park through unique and 

specialized trips, tours, adventures, and 

expeditions. There are a number of 

commercial, public, and private companies 

and organizations that are authorized to 

operate within the park under terms of a 

commercial use authorization or special use 

permit. These include adventure tours; water 

taxi service; guided canoe and kayak 

expeditions; guided fishing charters; guided 

sailing charters; SCUBA and diving services; 

and university, recreational, and youth camps.

 

4

 The impacts of operations spending in the regional 

area are estimated each year by Michigan State 

University.
CHAPTER 5:

ENVIRONMENTAL

CONSEQUENCES

Stockton Lagoon

North Twin Shoreline

Long Island

215

INTRODUCTION 

The National Environmental Policy Act 

requires that environmental documents 

discuss the environmental impacts of a 

proposed federal action, feasible alternatives 

to that action, and any adverse environmental 

effects that cannot be avoided. In this case, the 

proposed federal action would be the 

adoption of a new general management plan 

for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. This 

chapter analyzes the environmental impacts of 

implementing the four alternatives on natural 

resources, cultural resources, visitor experience, and park operations. The analysis is the 

basis for comparing the beneficial and adverse 

effects of implementing the alternatives. 

Because of the general, conceptual nature of 

the actions described in the alternatives, the 

impacts of these actions are analyzed in 

general qualitative terms. Thus, this environmental impact statement should be considered a programmatic analysis. For the 

purposes of analysis, it is assumed that all of 

the specific actions proposed in the alternatives would occur during the life of the plan. 

This environmental impact statement 

generally analyzes several actions, such as the 

restoration of light stations, development of a 

new visitor center, relocation of the Stockton 

Island campsites, and the extension of the 

mainland lakeshore trail. Other general 

actions noted in the alternatives, such as 

future rerouting of island trails and campsite 

relocations for resource protection purposes, 

are considered operational mitigative 

measures and are not evaluated here. The 

locations of a number of proposed 

developments in the alternatives, such as a 

new operations center and new island day use 

areas and campsites, are not identified. If and 

when proposed site-specific developments or 

other actions are ready for implementation 

following the approval of the general 

management plan, appropriate detailed 

environmental and cultural compliance 

documentation would be prepared. This 

compliance would be in accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

and the National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966, both as amended, and would meet 

requirements to identify and analyze each 

possible impact for the resources affected. 

This chapter begins with a description of the 

methods and assumptions used for each 

impact topic. Impact analysis discussions are 

organized by alternative and then by impact 

topic under each alternative. The existing 

conditions for all of the impact topics that are 

analyzed were identified in the “Affected 

Environment” chapter. All of the impact 

topics are assessed for each alternative. 

The analysis of the no-action alternative (the 

continuation of current management) 

identifies the future conditions in the park if 

no major changes to facilities or NPS 

management occurred. The three action 

alternatives are then compared to the noaction alternative to identify the incremental 

changes in conditions that would occur 

because of changes in park facilities, uses, and 

management. Impacts of recent decisions and 

approved plans, such as the 2007 Wildlife 

Management Plan and Environmental 

Assessment for Harvestable Species, are not 

evaluated as part of this environmental 

analysis. Although these actions would occur 

during the life of the general management 

plan, they have been evaluated in other 

environmental documents. 

Each alternative discusses cumulative impacts; 

these are identified when this project is 

considered in conjunction with other actions 

occurring in the region. The discussion of 

cumulative impacts is followed by a 

conclusion statement. The impacts of each 

alternative are briefly summarized at the end 

of the “The Alternatives” chapter. 
216 

METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS 

FOR ANALYZING IMPACTS 

The planning team based the impact analysis 

and the conclusions in this chapter primarily 

on the review of existing literature and 

studies, information provided by experts in 

the National Park Service and in other 

agencies, and staff insights and professional 

judgment. The team’s method of analyzing 

impacts is further explained below. It is 

important to remember that all the impacts 

have been assessed assuming that mitigating 

measures would be implemented to minimize 

or avoid impacts. If mitigating measures 

described in the “Alternatives, Including the 

Preferred Alternative” chapter were not 

applied, the potential for resource impacts 

and the magnitude of those impacts would 

increase. 

The environmental consequences for each 

impact topic were identified and 

characterized based on impact type, intensity, 

context, and duration. 

Impact intensity refers to the degree or 

magnitude to which a resource would be 

beneficially or adversely affected. Each impact 

was identified as negligible, minor, moderate, 

or major, in conformance with the definitions 

for these classifications provided for each 

impact topic (see table 15). Because this is a 

programmatic document, the intensities were 

expressed qualitatively. 

Context refers to the setting within which an 

impact may occur, such as the affected region 

or locality. In this document most impacts are 

either localized (site-specific) or park-wide. 

Cumulative impacts are either park-wide or 

regional. 

Impact duration refers to how long an impact 

would last. The planning horizon for this plan 

is approximately 20 years. Unless otherwise 

specified, in this document the following 

terms are used to describe the duration of the 

impacts: 

Short-term: The impact would be 

temporary in nature, lasting one year or 

less, such as the impacts associated with 

construction. 

Long-term: The impact would last more 

than one year and could be permanent in 

nature, such as the loss of soil due to the 

construction of a new facility. Although an 

impact may only occur for a short duration 

at one time, if it occurs regularly over a 

longer period of time the impact may be 

considered to be a long-term impact. For 

example, the noise from a vehicle driving 

on a road would be heard for a short time 

and intermittently, but because vehicles 

would be driving the same road 

throughout the 20-year life of the plan, the 

impact on the natural soundscape would 

be considered to be long term. 

Effects also can be direct or indirect. Direct 

effects are caused by an action and occur at 

the same time and place as the action. Indirect 

effects are caused by the action and occur 

later or farther away, but are still reasonably 

foreseeable. This document discloses and 

analyzes both direct and indirect effects, but 

does not differentiate between them in the 

discussions in order to simplify the narrative. 

The impacts of the action alternatives describe 

the difference between implementing the noaction alternative and implementing the 

action alternatives. To understand a complete 

“picture” of the impacts of implementing any 

of the action alternatives, the reader must also 

take into consideration the impacts that 

would occur in the no-action alternative. 
Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 

217

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Analysis of natural resources (soils, geological 

and coastal processes, water quality, wetlands, 

floodplains, terrestrial vegetation, terrestrial 

wildlife, threatened and endangered species, 

and soundscapes) was based on research, 

knowledge of the area’s resources, and the 

best professional judgment of planners, 

natural resource specialists, and biologists 

who have experience with similar types of 

projects. Information on the area’s natural 

resources was gathered from several sources. 

As appropriate, additional sources of data are 

identified under each topic heading. 

WILDERNESS CHARACTER 

Based on the Wilderness Act’s mandate to 

preserve wilderness character, this impact 

topic focuses on the extent to which the 

alternatives affect these characteristics of the 

Gaylord Nelson Wilderness area. (For more 

information on what wilderness character is, 

see chapter 2.) Wilderness character and 

wilderness experience are analyzed together 

because much of wilderness character can 

only be subjectively determined by the 

visitor’s experience (for example, solitude or 

freedom of movement). Impacts on natural 

and cultural resources, visitor access, 

soundscape, and other resources in the 

wilderness area are evaluated elsewhere in the 

environmental consequences chapter. 

SECTION 106 OF THE NATIONAL 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT AND 

IMPACTS TO CULTURAL RESOURCES 

In this environmental assessment impacts to 

cultural resources are described in terms of 

type, context, duration, and intensity, which is 

consistent with the regulations of the Council 

on Environmental Quality (CEQ) that 

implement the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA). These impact analyses are 

intended, however, to comply with the 

requirements of both NEPA and Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA). In accordance with the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation’s regulations 

implementing Section106 of the NHPA (36 

CFR 800, Protection of Historic Properties), 

impacts to cultural resources were also 

identified and evaluated by (1) determining 

the area of potential effects; (2) identifying 

cultural resources present in the area of 

potential effects that are either listed in or 

eligible to be listed in the National Register of 

Historic Places; (3) applying the criteria of 

adverse effect to affected national registereligible or national register-listed cultural 

resources; and (4) considering ways to avoid, 

minimize or mitigate adverse effects. 

Under the Advisory Council’s regulations, a 

determination of either adverse effect or no 

adverse effect must also be made for affected 

national register-listed or national registereligible cultural resources. An adverse effect

occurs whenever an impact alters, directly or 

indirectly, any characteristic of a cultural 

resource that qualifies it for inclusion in the 

National Register of Historic Places, e.g., 

diminishing the integrity (or the extent to 

which a resource retains its historic 

appearance) of its location, design, setting, 

materials, workmanship, feeling, or 

association. Adverse effects also include 

reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the 

alternatives that would occur later in time, be 

farther removed in distance or be cumulative 

(36 CFR 800.5, Assessment of Adverse Effects). 

A determination of no adverse effect means 

there is an effect, but the effect would not 

diminish the characteristics of the cultural 

resource that qualify it for inclusion in the 

national register. 

CEQ regulations and the National Park 

Service’s Director’s Order 12: “Conservation 

Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis and 

Decision Making” also call for a discussion of 

mitigation, as well as an analysis of how 

effective the mitigation would be in reducing 

the intensity of a potential impact, e.g., 

reducing the intensity of an impact from 

major to moderate or minor. Any resultant 

reduction in intensity of impact due to 

mitigation, however, is an estimate of the 

effectiveness of mitigation under the National 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

218

Environmental Policy Act only. It does not 

suggest that the level of effect as defined by 

Section 106 is similarly reduced. Cultural 

resources are non-renewable resources and 

adverse effects generally consume, diminish, 

or destroy the original historic materials or 

form, resulting in a loss in the integrity of the 

resource that can never be recovered. 

Therefore, although actions determined to 

have an adverse effect under Section 106 may 

be mitigated, the effect remains adverse. 

A Section 106 summary is included in the 

impact analysis sections. The Section 106 

summary is an assessment of the effect of the 

undertaking (implementation of the 

alternative),based upon the criterion of effect 

and criteria of adverse effect found in the 

Advisory Council’s regulations. 

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 

This impact analysis considers various aspects 

of visitor use and experience at Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore, including the 

following: 

• ability to access the park, including 

universal access 

• lake and island related recreational 

opportunities and experiences 

• mainland recreational opportunities and 

experiences 

• opportunities to understand the 

significant stories of the Apostle Islands 

• visitor safety 

The analysis is primarily qualitative rather 

than quantitative due to the conceptual nature 

of the alternatives. Impacts on visitor use and 

experience were determined considering the 

best available information. Information on 

visitor use and opinions was taken from a 

relatively recent survey of visitors conducted 

by the University of Idaho Park Studies Unit 

in the summer of 2004 (Littlejohn and 

Hollenhorst 2004). Other relevant studies that 

were analyzed include a long-term visitor 

study (Kuentzel and Heberlein 2003) that 

examined visitor use in the Apostle Islands in 

1975, 1985, and again in 1997, as well as a 

visitor study in 2001, conducted by Dr. Ingrid 

Schneider and Raintry Salk, that examined the 

trip patterns of over 200 Apostle Island 

campers, among other study objectives. 

Other information that was considered in the 

analysis includes the park’s annual reporting 

of visitor use levels, including overnight stays, 

to the National Park Service’s Public Use 

Statistics Office, and local and regional travel 

and tourism data. All of this background data 

was supplemented by information gathered 

during the planning process for this 

management plan, including opinions from 

park visitors and neighbors, and information 

from park staff. 

PARK OPERATIONS 

The impact analysis evaluated the effects of 

the alternatives on park operations, including 

staffing, infrastructure, maintenance, visitor 

facilities, and services. 

The analysis focused on how park operations 

and facilities might vary with the different 

management alternatives. The analysis is 

qualitative rather than quantitative because of 

the conceptual nature of the alternatives. 

Consequently, professional judgment was 

used to reach reasonable conclusions as to the 

intensity, duration, and type of potential 

impact. 

It should be noted that the Roys Point area, 

which includes key facilities for park 

maintenance and operations, is leased. It is not 

certain what will happen to this area after the 

lease expires in the near future. This analysis 

assumes that, under all of the alternatives, the 

functions that are now associated with Roys 

Point would continue, although the location 

may change. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

Recreation-related tourism is an important 

element of the regional economy, which for 

the purposes of this analysis includes Ashland 
Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 

219

and Bayfield Counties. Thus, any changes to 

the park that affect local businesses and the 

economy of Bayfield and other communities 

are of special interest. 

The analytical approach used in this analysis 

considers the following three main factors in 

the alternatives: 

• projected future expenditures for 

construction, rehabilitation, restoration 

and maintenance of facilities and 

infrastructure 

• changes in staffing and federal spending to 

operate the park 

• changes in the levels of visitor use at the 

park 

Implementation costs of the alternatives, 

including staffing, operations, and capital 

construction and maintenance, were 

estimated based on current budgets and actual 

project costs at the park and other NPS units. 

Actual future outlays would reflect future NPS 

policies, actual on-the-ground conditions, 

unanticipated events and opportunities, and 

budgets approved by Congress for the 

National Park Service in general, or Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore specifically. 

The analysis of socioeconomic effects is 

qualitative rather than quantitative because of 

the general conceptual nature of the 

alternatives. Consequently, professional 

judgment was used to reach reasonable 

conclusions regarding the intensity, duration, 

and type of potential impact. 

Table 15: Impact Threshold Definitions 

Impact Topic 

and Duration Negligible Minor Moderate Major 

NATURAL 

RESOURCES – Soils 

Short-term effects 

would be temporary, 

lasting a year or less, 

such as effects 

associated with 

construction. 

Long-term effects 

would last more than 

one year and could 

be permanent. 

The action would 

result in a change in a 

soil, but the change 

would be at the 

lowest level of 

detection. 

The action would 

result in a detectable 

change, but the 

change would be 

slight and local. There 

could be changes in 

topsoil in a relatively 

small area, but the 

change would not 

increase the potential 

for erosion. 

The action would 

result in a clearly 

detectable change in 

a soil. There could be 

a loss or alteration of 

the topsoil in a small 

area, or the potential 

for erosion to remove 

small quantities of 

additional soil would 

increase. 

The action would 

result in the 

permanent loss or 

alteration of soils in a 

relatively large area, 

or there would be a 

strong likelihood for 

erosion to remove 

large quantities of 

additional soil as a 

result of the action. 

NATURAL 

RESOURCES –

Geological and 

Coastal Processes 

Short-term effects 

would be temporary, 

lasting a year or less, 

such as effects 

associated with 

construction. 

Long-term effects 

would last more than 

one year and could 

be permanent. 

The action would 

result in changes to 

park geologic/coastal 

processes, but the 

changes would be 

barely detectable 

based on standard 

scientific 

methodologies. 

The action would 

result in detectable 

changes, but the 

changes in 

geologic/coastal 

processes would be 

slight and localized, 

possibly showing 

small disruptions or 

improvements. No 

changes to key 

geologic and coastal 

processes would 

occur. 

The action would 

result in a clearly 

detectable change in 

geological and 

coastal processes—a 

geologic feature or 

process would be 

obviously altered, or a 

few features would 

show changes in a 

localized area. The 

changes could result 

in disruption or 

restoration of key 

coastal and geologic 

processes. 

The action would 

result in clearly 

detectable changes in 

key geological and 

coastal processes—

important geologic/ 

coastal processes or 

features would be 

disrupted or restored, 

or there would be 

highly noticeable, 

widespread changes 

in many processes 

and features. 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

220

Impact Topic 

and Duration Negligible Minor Moderate Major 

NATURAL 

RESOURCES –Water 

Quality 

Short-term e effects 

would be temporary, 

lasting a year or less, 

such as effects 

associated with 

construction. 

Long-term effects 

would last more than 

one year and could 

be permanent 

Changes would be 

either barely 

detectable or would 

have effects that 

would be considered 

slight and localized. 

An action would have 

measurable effects on 

water quality in a 

localized area and 

may affect a few 

organisms. 

Alternatively, an 

impact would be 

visible to a few 

visitors. 

An action would have 

clearly detectable 

effects on water 

quality and 

potentially would 

affect organisms or 

natural ecological 

processes. 

Alternatively, an 

impact would be 

visible to visitors. 

An action would have 

substantial effects on 

water quality and 

would affect 

organisms or natural 

ecological processes. 

Alternatively, an 

impact would be 

easily visible to 

visitors. 

NATURAL 

RESOURCES –

Wetlands 

Short-term effects 

would be temporary, 

lasting a year or less, 

such as effects associated with 

construction. 

Long-term effects 

would last more than 

one year and could 

be permanent 

Changes would be 

barely detectable and 

would have effects 

that would be 

considered slight and 

localized. There 

would be no 

measurable or 

perceptible changes 

in wetland size, 

integrity, or function. 

Changes would be 

measurable in a 

relatively small, 

localized area. There 

could be barely 

perceptible changes 

to the wetlands’ 

integrity and 

function. 

Changes would be 

readily apparent in a 

relatively small, 

localized area. There 

could be a small 

change in the 

wetlands’ integrity 

and function, 

including a small loss 

in acreage. 

Changes would be 

readily apparent over 

a relatively large area, 

and would be highly 

noticeable. The 

change would 

substantially alter the 

wetlands’ integrity 

and function, 

including a large loss 

in acreage. 

NATURAL 

RESOURCES –

Floodplains 

(including flooding) 

Short-term effects 

would be temporary, 

lasting a year or less, 

such as effects 

associated with 

construction. 

Long-term effects 

would last more than 

one year and could 

be permanent 

The action would 

result in a barely 

perceptible change in 

natural floodplain 

values (e.g., river 

processes or aquatic 

habitat) and the 

ability of the 

floodplain to function 

naturally. There 

would be essentially 

no increase in risk to 

life or property. 

The action would 

slightly degrade 

natural floodplain 

values (e.g., river 

processes or aquatic 

habitat) in a localized 

area, and there could 

be minimal changes 

to floodplain 

function. There 

would be a slight 

increase in the risk of 

damage to property, 

but there would be 

essentially no change 

in risk to life. 

The action would 

interfere with natural 

floodplain values 

(e.g., river processes 

or aquatic habitat) in 

a substantial way or 

in a large area. 

Floodplain function 

would be measurably 

affected. There would 

be a noticeable 

increase in the risk to 

life and/or property. 

The action would 

substantially alter 

natural floodplain 

values, including 

natural river processes 

or aquatic habitat. 

Floodplain function 

would be 

substantially altered. 

There would be a 

substantial increase in 

the risk that severe 

damage to property 

would occur as well 

as a substantial 

increase in risk to life. 
Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 

221

Impact Topic 

and Duration Negligible Minor Moderate Major 

NATURAL 

RESOURCES –

Terrestrial 

Vegetation and 

Wildlife (threshold 

definitions are the 

same for both 

vegetation and 

wildlife)

Short-term effects 

would be temporary, 

lasting a year or less, 

such as effects 

associated with 

construction. 

Long-term effects 

would last more than 

one year and could 

be permanent. 

The action might 

result in a change in 

vegetation or wildlife, 

but the change 

would not be 

measurable or would 

be at the lowest level 

of detection. 

The action might 

result in a detectable 

change, but the 

change would be 

slight and have a 

local effect on a 

population. This 

could include 

changes in the 

abundance or 

distribution of 

individuals in a local 

area, but not changes 

that would affect the 

viability of local 

populations. Changes 

to local ecological 

processes would be 

minimal. 

The action would 

result in a clearly 

detectable change in 

a population and 

could have an 

appreciable effect. 

This could include 

changes in the 

abundance or 

distribution of local 

populations, but not 

changes that would 

affect the viability of 

regional populations. 

Changes to local 

ecological processes 

would be of limited 

extent. 

The action would be 

severely adverse or 

exceptionally 

beneficial to a 

population. The 

effects would be 

substantial and highly 

noticeable, and they 

could result in 

widespread change. 

This could include 

changes in the 

abundance or 

distribution of a local 

or regional 

population to the 

extent that the 

population would not 

be likely to recover 

(adverse) or return to 

a sustainable level 

(beneficial). Key 

ecological processes 

would be altered, and 

“landscape-level” 

(regional) changes 

would be expected. 

NATURAL 

RESOURCES –

Threatened & 

Endangered Species 

The action could 

result in a change to 

a population or 

individuals of a 

species or designated 

critical habitat, but 

the change would be 

so small that it would 

not be of any 

measurable or 

perceptible 

consequence and 

would be well within 

natural variability. 

This impact intensity 

equates to a U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 

“may affect, not 

likely to adversely 

affect” 

determination. 

The action could 

result in a change to 

a population or 

individuals of a 

species or designated 

critical habitat. The 

change would be 

measurable, but small 

and localized and not 

outside the range of 

natural variability. 

This impact intensity 

equates to a U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 

“may affect, not 

likely to adversely 

affect” or a “likely to 

adversely affect” 

determination. 

The action could 

result in a detectable 

change to a 

population or 

individuals of a 

species or designated 

critical habitat. 

Changes to the 

population or habitat 

might deviate from 

natural variability but 

the changes would 

not threaten the 

continued existence 

of the species in the 

park. This impact 

intensity equates to a 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service “may affect, 

not likely to adversely 

affect” or a “likely to 

adversely affect” 

determination. 

The action would 

result in a noticeable 

effect on the viability 

of a population or 

individuals of a 

species or designated 

critical habitat. 

Considerable changes 

may occur during key 

time periods for a 

species. Changes to 

the population or 

habitat would 

substantially deviate 

from natural 

variability and 

threaten or help 

ensure the continued 

existence of the 

species in the park. A 

major adverse impact 

would be considered 

a “take” situation 

and would equate to 

a U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service “likely 

to adversely affect” 

determination. 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

222

Impact Topic 

and Duration Negligible Minor Moderate Major 

NATURAL 

RESOURCES –

Natural Soundscape 

Short-term effects 

would be temporary, 

lasting a year or less, 

such as effects 

associated with 

construction. 

Long-term effects 

would last more than 

one year and could 

be permanent. 

The natural 

soundscape might be 

affected, but the 

effects would be at or 

below the level of 

audibility, or changes 

in the soundscape 

would be so slight 

they would not be of 

any measurable or 

perceptible 

consequence to 

wildlife or visitors. 

A change in the 

natural soundscape 

would be audible, but 

the effects would be 

small, local, and of 

little consequence to 

wildlife or visitors. 

A change in the 

natural soundscape 

would be readily 

audible, affecting the 

behavior of wildlife or 

visitors in a large 

area. 

A severely adverse or 

exceptionally 

beneficial change in 

the natural 

soundscapewould be 

obvious and would 

affect the health of 

wildlife or visitors; or 

cause a substantial, 

highly noticeable 

change in the 

behavior of wildlife or 

visitors in a local or 

regional area. 

WILDERNESS 

CHARACTER 

Short-term effects 

would last less than 

one year and would 

affect only one 

season of visitor use. 

Long-term effects

would last more than 

one year and would 

be more permanent 

in nature.

Effects on 

opportunities for 

solitude or primitive 

and unconfined 

recreation would be 

confined to a small, 

localized area; any 

changes would be 

barely perceived, if at 

all, by most visitors. 

Any changes in the 

prevalence of natural 

conditions due to 

human-caused 

actions would be 

confined to a small, 

localized area; the 

vast majority of the 

wilderness area 

would continue to be 

primarily affected by 

forces of nature. 

Effects on 

opportunities for 

solitude or primitive 

and unconfined 

recreation would be 

slightly beneficial or 

adverse and confined 

to a limited area of 

the wilderness area, 

such as along a single 

trail or an area of less 

than 100 acres; 

changes would be 

perceived by some 

visitors. 

Changes in the 

prevalence of natural 

conditions due to 

human-caused 

actions (either 

beneficial or adverse) 

would be apparent 

but confined to 

limited areas of the 

wilderness; natural 

conditions would 

continue to 

predominate. 

Effects on 

opportunities for 

solitude or primitive 

and unconfined 

recreation (beneficial 

or adverse) would be 

apparent to many 

visitors in limited 

areas of the 

wilderness. 

Changes in the 

prevalence of natural 

conditions due to 

human-caused 

actions (beneficial or 

adverse) would be 

readily apparent in 

limited areas of the 

wilderness; natural 

conditions would 

continue to 

predominate overall. 

Effects on 

opportunities for 

solitude or primitive 

and unconfined 

recreation would be 

obvious to most 

visitors throughout 

the wilderness area. 

Changes in the 

prevalence of natural 

conditions due to 

human-caused 

actions would be 

readily apparent 

throughout the 

wilderness. 

CULTURAL 

RESOURCES – 

Archeological 

Resources 

Impact(s) is at the 

lowest level of 

detection with no 

perceptible 

consequences. For 

purposes of Section 

106, the 

determination of 

effect would be no 

adverse effect. 

 Impacts would be 

detectable and 

measurable but 

would not diminish 

the overall integrity of 

the resource. For 

purposes of Section 

106, the 

determination of 

effect would be no 

adverse effect. 

Impacts would result 

in loss of overall 

integrity that would 

consequently 

jeopardize a site’s 

National Register 

eligibility. For 

purposes of Section 

106, determination of 

effect would be 

adverse effect. 

Impacts would result 

in the loss of most or 

all of the site, to the 

extent that it would 

no longer be eligible 

for National Register 

listing. For purposes 

of Section 106, the 

determination of 

effect would be 

adverse effect. 
Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 

223

Impact Topic 

and Duration Negligible Minor Moderate Major 

CULTURAL 

RESOURCES – 

Historic Structures 

and Cultural 

Landscapes 

Impacts would be at 

the lowest levels of 

detection with no 

perceptible 

consequences. For 

purposes of Section 

106, the 

determination of 

effect would be no 

adverse effect. 

Impacts would affect 

character defining 

features, elements or 

landscape patterns 

but would not 

diminish the overall 

integrity of the 

resource. For 

purposes of Section 

106, the 

determination of 

effect would be no 

adverse effect 

Impacts would alter 

character defining 

features, elements or 

landscape patterns, 

diminishing the 

overall integrity of the 

resource to the extent 

that its National 

Register eligibility 

could be jeopardized. 

For purposes of 

Section 106, the 

determination of 

effect would be 

adverse effect. 

Impacts would alter 

character defining 

features, elements or 

landscape patterns, 

diminishing the 

integrity of the 

resource to the extent 

that it would no 

longer be eligible to 

be listed on the 

National Register. For 

purposes of Section 

106, the 

determination of 

effect would be 

adverse effect. 

CULTURAL 

RESOURCES – 

Ethnographic 

Resources 

Impacts would be at 

the lowest levels of 

detection and barely 

perceptible. Impacts 

would neither alter 

resource conditions, 

such as traditional 

access or site 

preservation, nor alter 

the relationship 

between the resource 

and the affiliated 

group’s body of 

practices and beliefs. 

For purposes of 

Section 106, the 

determination of 

effect would be no 

adverse effect. 

Impacts would be 

slight but noticeable 

and would neither 

appreciably alter 

resource conditions, 

such as traditional 

access or site 

preservation, nor alter 

the relationship 

between the resource 

and the group’s body 

of beliefs and 

practices. For 

purposes of Section 

106, the 

determination of 

effect would be no 

adverse effect. 

Impacts would be 

apparent and would 

alter resource 

conditions or 

interfere with 

traditional access, site 

preservation, or the 

relationship between 

the resource and the 

affiliated group’s 

beliefs and practices, 

even though the 

group’s practices and 

beliefs would survive. 

For purposes of 

Section 106, the 

determination of 

effect would be 

adverse effect. 

I Impacts would alter 

resource conditions. 

Proposed actions 

would block or 

greatly affect 

traditional access, site 

preservation, or the 

relationship between 

the resource and the 

group’s body of 

beliefs and practices 

to the extent that the 

survival of a group’s 

beliefs and/or 

practices would be 

jeopardized. For 

purposes of Section 

106, the 

determination of 

effect would be 

adverse effect. 

VISITOR USE AND 

EXPERIENCE 

A short-term impact 

would last less than 

one year and would 

affect only one 

season’s use by 

visitors. 

A long-term impact 

would last more than 

one year and would 

be more permanent 

in nature. 

Most visitors would 

likely be unaware of 

any effects associated 

with implementation 

of the alternative. 

Changes in visitor 

opportunities and/or 

setting conditions 

would be slight but 

detectable, would 

affect few visitors, 

and would not 

appreciably limit or 

enhance experiences 

identified as 

fundamental to the 

park’s purpose and 

significance. 

Changes in visitor 

opportunities and/or 

setting conditions 

would be noticeable, 

would affect many 

visitors, and would 

result in some 

changes to 

experiences identified 

as fundamental to 

the park’s purpose 

and significance. 

Changes in visitor 

opportunities and/or 

setting conditions 

would be highly 

apparent, would 

affect most visitors, 

and would result in 

several changes to 

experiences identified 

as fundamental to 

park purpose and 

significance. 

 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

224

Impact Topic 

and Duration Negligible Minor Moderate Major 

PARK OPERATIONS 

A short-term impact 

would last less than 

one year and would 

affect only one 

season of visitor use. 

A long-term impact 

would last more than 

one year and would 

be more permanent 

in nature. 

The effect would be 

at or below the lower 

levels of detection, 

and would not have 

an appreciable effect 

on park operations. 

The effects would be 

detectable, but would 

be of a magnitude 

that would not have 

an appreciable effect 

on park operations. 

The effects would be 

readily apparent and 

would result in a 

change in park 

operations in a 

manner noticeable to 

staff and the public. 

The effects would be 

readily apparent and 

would result in a 

substantial change in 

park operations in a 

manner noticeable to 

staff and the public 

and be markedly 

different from 

existing operations. 

SOCIOECONOMIC 

ENVIRONMENT 

Short-term effects are 

those that occur 

during and in 

response to planning, 

design, construction 

and major 

maintenance of 

buildings, trails, 

parking lots and 

other facilities. These 

effects diminish or 

disappear after the 

activity is completed. 

Generally, “shortterm” captures 

effects lasting up to 

five years. 

Long-term effects are 

generally those 

lasting longer than 

five years, including 

some that may not 

begin until after 

completion of direct 

activities associated 

with the initial NPS 

spending or changes 

in management 

associated with an 

alternative. 

Effects on adjacent 

land-owners, 

neighbors, 

businesses, agencies, 

community 

infrastructure, social 

conditions, etc. 

would be barely 

detectable, or 

detectable only 

through indirect 

means and with no 

discernible impact on 

the character of the 

social and economic 

environment. 

Effects on adjacent 

landowners, 

neighbors, 

businesses, agencies, 

community 

infrastructure, social 

conditions, etc. 

would be small but 

detectable, 

geographically 

localized, affect few 

people, comparable 

in scale to typical 

year-to-year or 

seasonal variations, 

and would not alter 

the character of the 

social and economic 

environment. 

Effects on adjacent 

landowners, 

neighbors, 

businesses, agencies, 

community 

infrastructure, social 

conditions, etc. 

would be readily 

apparent or 

observable across a 

wide geographic area 

and affect many 

people, and could 

have noticeable 

effects on the social 

and economic 

environment. 

Effects on adjacent 

landowners, 

neighbors, 

businesses, agencies, 

community 

infrastructure, social 

conditions, etc., 

would be readily 

detectable or 

observable, affect a 

large segment of the 

population, extend 

across much of a 

community or region, 

and likely to have a 

substantial effect on 

the social and 

economic 

environment. 
225 

IMPAIRMENT OF PARK RESOURCES 

In addition to determining the environmental 

consequences of implementing the 

alternatives, NPS Management Policies 2006 

1.4 requires analysis of potential effects to 

determine whether the alternatives would 

impair Apostle Islands National Lakeshore’s 

resources and values. 

The fundamental purpose of the national park 

system, established by the Organic Act and 

reaffirmed by the General Authorities Act, as 

amended, begins with a mandate to conserve 

resources and values. NPS managers must 

always seek ways to avoid, or to minimize to 

the greatest degree practicable, adverse 

impacts on resources and values. However, 

the laws give the National Park Service the 

management discretion to allow impacts on 

resources and values when necessary and 

appropriate to fulfill the purposes of the area, 

as long as the impact does not constitute an 

unacceptable impact or impairment of the 

affected resources and values. Although 

Congress has given the National Park Service 

the management discretion to allow certain 

impacts within a unit, that discretion is limited 

by the statutory requirement that the National 

Park Service must leave resources and values 

unimpaired unless a particular law directly 

and specifically provides otherwise. 

The prohibited impairment is an impact that, 

in the professional judgment of the 

responsible NPS manager, would harm the 

integrity of resources and values, including the 

opportunities that otherwise would be present 

for the enjoyment of those resources or values 

(NPS Management Policies 2006, 1.4.5). An 

impact on any resource or value may 

constitute impairment. An impact would be 

more likely to constitute impairment if it 

results in a moderate or major adverse affect 

on a resource or value whose conservation is 

• necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the establishing legislation or 

proclamation of the area; 

• key to the natural or cultural integrity of 

the area or to opportunities for enjoyment 

of the area; or 

• identified as a goal in the area’s general 

management plan or other relevant NPS 

planning documents. 

Impairment may result from NPS activities in 

managing the area, visitor activities, or 

activities undertaken by concessioners, 

contractors, and others operating in the park. 

A determination on impairment is made in the 

“Conclusion” section for each required 

impact topic related to the park’s resources 

and values. An evaluation of impairment is not 

required for topics related to visitor use and 

experience (unless the impact is resource 

based), NPS operations, or the socioeconomic 

environment. When it is determined that an 

action or actions would have a moderate to 

major adverse effect, an explanation is 

presented of why this would not constitute 

impairment. Impacts of only negligible or 

minor intensity would, by definition, not 

result in impairment. The impairment analysis 

for each of the impact topics has determined 

that none of the alternatives presented in this 

plan would result in impairment of park 

resources.
226 

CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS 

A cumulative impact is described in the 

Council on Environmental Quality’s 

regulation 1508.7 as follows: 

Cumulative impacts are the impacts that 

result from incremental impacts of the 

action when added to other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable actions, 

regardless of what agency (federal or 

nonfederal) or person undertakes such 

other action. Cumulative impacts can 

result from individually minor, but 

collectively significant, actions taking 

place over time. 

Each cumulative impact analysis is additive, 

considering the overall impact of the 

alternative when combined with effects of 

other actions—both inside and outside the 

park—that have occurred or that would likely 

occur in the foreseeable future. 

To determine potential cumulative impacts, 

past, present, and future potential actions and 

developments within and surrounding 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore were 

considered by the planning team. The area 

included Ashland and Bayfield counties, 

Wisconsin. 

In this case, most of the cumulative impacts 

that can be analyzed are due to actions that 

have occurred in the past. Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore is a remote park. Most of 

the park’s land base is wilderness, and its 

island location isolates it from other adjacent 

land uses. With a few exceptions, no new 

actions or developments are foreseen within 

or adjacent to the park that would affect park 

resources and uses. No new developments, 

including marinas, tourism developments, and 

roads on the mainland, or other changes in 

land ownership and management of adjacent 

lands are expected to occur that would 

directly or indirectly affect the park. No new 

uses of the park or changes in transportation 

to the islands are considered likely, 

independent of what is proposed in the 

alternatives. Park visitation and the local 

resident population have been relatively stable 

and are not expected to substantially change 

over the timeframe being analyzed. 

One action that likely will occur in the near 

future, independent of the general 

management plan, is the removal of the park 

housing unit and relocation or redesign of 

campsites at Quarry Bay on Stockton Island. 

Another NPS action that has occurred in the 

past, and will likely occur in the future, is the 

restoration of native vegetation in areas that 

have been damaged or altered by people. 

Several other non-NPS actions have occurred, 

and are likely to continue to occur, which 

would likely affect the park independent of 

this plan. The following actions were 

considered in the analysis of cumulative 

effects. 

Nonnative species have been spreading in 

different locations in the park, such as Meyers 

Beach, due to past construction activities, 

visitor activities, and natural sources like wind 

and birds. The spread of nonnative species is 

likely to continue in the future. 

As noted in the “Affected Environment” 

chapter, deer are spreading from the mainland 

to the islands in increasing numbers. Although 

NPS staff are taking steps to try to control 

deer numbers on the islands, this trend is 

likely to continue in the future. 

Also as noted in the “Affected Environment” 

chapter, many potential sources of water 

pollution outside the park have been affecting 

and are likely to continue to affect the park’s 

water quality. These sources include the 

discharge of treated wastewater from towns 
Cumulative Impact Analysis 

227

and cities; runoff from agricultural, 

silvicultural, and quarrying operations; 

discharges from commercial cargo ships; 

pollution from recreational boats (tour boats 

and private boats) and marinas; stormwater 

discharges; and atmospheric deposition (e.g., 

polychlorinated biphenyls, mercury). These 

impacts have occurred and are likely to occur 

in the future. 

Climate change is occurring in the Lake 

Superior region. As noted in “Chapter 1: 

Background,” climate change will likely result 

in many far-ranging, short- and long-term 

changes to the Lake Superior region and 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore in 

particular. The effects of climate change are 

expected to affect the park, its resources, its 

visitors, and its management, in a multitude of 

ways. 

Harsh climatic conditions contribute to 

adverse cumulative effects on the national 

lakeshore’s historic buildings, structures and 

cultural landscape features. The long-term 

exposure of these properties to severe 

weather and storms can result in the loss and 

deterioration of building materials, fabric or 

other character-defining features, diminishing 

their historic integrity. As feasible, the 

national lakeshore implements necessary 

preservation and stabilization measures, often 

facing difficult logistical challenges and 

incurring the added expenses of transporting 

materials and staff from the mainland to the 

islands to carry out these measures. There is 

also an increased risk of fire damage to 

historic structures and contributing features 

where forest vegetation has encroached into 

formerly cleared areas around the light 

stations and other historic sites. Archeological 

and ethnographic resources are also subject to 

potential adverse cumulative impacts from 

erosion, ground-disturbance, visitor use 

impacts and other factors. 
228 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVE 1 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Soils 

Analysis. No soils would be altered due to the 

construction of new park facilities under 

alternative 1. Maintenance of existing facilities 

such as trails and campsites would probably 

result in some erosion or alteration of soil 

properties over time, resulting in a negligible 

to minor, long-term, adverse impact in 

localized areas. 

Soils in areas that receive relatively high levels 

of use, such as light stations, docks, picnic 

areas, and campsites in Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore would likely continue to 

be compacted and eroded by visitors. Some 

designated campsites probably would expand 

in area over time, and informal “zone” 

campsites would continue to be created or 

expanded on islands, resulting in changes to 

the topsoil in localized areas (e.g., loss of 

surface organic matter, reductions in surface 

organic horizons, compaction of mineral soil). 

The removal of large pieces of wood for 

campfires also can be detrimental to soil 

productivity (Hammitt and Cole 1998). In 

some areas, user-created trails would continue 

to form, particularly in developed areas with 

higher visitor numbers. In sloped areas, these 

user-created trails would continue to result in 

increased soil erosion from stormwater 

runoff. Although park staff monitor for all of 

these impacts and take action to control them, 

visitor-caused impacts would be expected to 

continue. All of these long-term, adverse 

visitor impacts would likely be minor to 

moderate in intensity and be limited to 

popular areas, mostly along or near the 

shorelines of the islands. 

Cumulative Impacts. Soils in much of 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore probably 

have been altered by past activities (e.g., 

logging, agricultural practices). Some soils on 

lands adjacent to the mainland unit of the park 

may be lost or modified in the future due to 

new development. Also in the future, if the 

Quarry Bay campsites on Stockton Island 

were relocated, this would affect soils in a 

localized area. Assuming the campsites were 

relocated to a relatively undisturbed site, soils 

would be lost or modified. When these 

impacts are added to the continuing minor to 

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

minor to moderate, adverse cumulative 

impact on area soils—although the Quarry Bay 

action would add a very small increment to 

the overall cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Most of Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore’s soils would not be affected by the 

actions under alternative 1. However, some 

soils would continue to be eroded and lost 

and soil properties in popular areas, such as 

around campsites near the lakeshore would 

continue to be altered due to visitor use. 

These adverse impacts would likely be minor 

to moderate and long term in extent. None of 

the expected impacts would be considered 

unacceptable. No impairment to Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore’s resources and 

values would result from soil impacts under 

this alternative. When the impacts of 

alternative 1 are added to past and foreseeable 

future impacts (i.e., relocation of the 

campsites in Quarry Bay) there would be a 

long-term, minor to moderate, adverse 

cumulative impact on area soils. 

Geological and Coastal Processes 

Analysis. In the past, visitor use has affected 

the park’s sandscapes (see “Chapter 4: 

Affected Environment”). Although restoration 

efforts have been underway and would be 

expected to continue in the future on some 

sandscapes, such as Cat and Long islands, 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 1 

229

other sandscapes would not receive sufficient 

management attention due to limited 

resources. With continuing visitor use of the 

islands’ sandscapes and beaches, it is expected 

that the vegetative cover on some popular 

areas, such as the Raspberry and Ironwood 

sandspits, would continue to decline due to 

trampling, which in turn would increase the 

potential for wind and water erosion to affect 

the characteristics of some sandscapes (e.g., 

size, shape). The effect of these changes on the 

park’s sandscapes over time would vary, 

depending on the level of use and 

environmental conditions, but could result in 

long-term, adverse impacts that would range 

from minor to moderate. 

Erosion due to people climbing up and down 

lake banks also would continue, particularly at 

island campsites near the lakeshore, such as 

the Stockton Island campground. Although 

mitigative measures, such as the use of sand 

ladders and boardwalks, would help limit 

some of these bank impacts, the placement 

and maintenance of these structures would be 

limited to what the staff can accomplish with 

current resources. As a result, there would 

continue to be minor to moderate, adverse, 

long-term impacts in localized areas. 

Although no new docks would be built under 

alternative 1, the existing docks would 

continue to affect coastal processes. As noted 

in the “Affected Environment” chapter, 

docks, especially those with solid cores, affect 

the movement of sand along the coastline, as 

has happened at the Little Sand Bay docks and 

the Michigan Island dock. Sediments would 

continue to be trapped by the docks and, 

therefore, would not be available to replenish 

downstream areas. Without this replenishment, Lake Superior currents and waves can 

erode beaches. Depending on the design, 

location, and extent of the docks, this could 

cause a moderate, long-term, adverse impact 

to the geomorphology of one or more of the 

park’s sandscapes. 

Cumulative Impacts. As noted above and in 

the “Affected Environment,” coastal 

processes in the past have been altered in 

specific areas, such as the installation of the 

dock at Michigan Island. Climate change is 

expected to affect lake levels and thus would 

affect coastal processes, including sediment 

transport and the park’s sandscapes and 

beaches. Because the changes due to climate 

change in the park are unpredictable, both in 

their timing (whether they occur within the 

timeframe of this plan or beyond) and in 

magnitude or intensity of the impact—the 

effects of climate change on coastal processes 

could range from minor to major in intensity. 

When the effects of the actions in alternative 1 

are added to the potential effects of climate 

change, there would be the potential for a 

minor to major, long-term, adverse, 

cumulative impact. But alternative 1 would 

add a very small increment when added to the 

potential effects of climate change. 

Conclusion. Visitors would likely continue to 

affect the park’s sandscapes and shorelines, 

resulting overall in a minor to moderate, longterm, adverse impact in localized areas of the 

islands. Loss of vegetation on some popular 

sandscapes would likely continue, increasing 

the potential for erosion and other changes to 

the existing sandscapes. Bank erosion also 

would likely continue to occur, particularly 

next to shoreline campsites. In addition, 

existing docks would continue to affect 

coastal processes, affecting the transport of 

sediments along the shoreline. When the 

effects of climate change are added to the 

effects of alternative 1, there would be the 

potential for a long-term, minor to major, 

adverse cumulative impact on coastal 

processes—although the actions in alternative 

1 would add a very small increment to this 

overall impact. No unacceptable impacts or 

impairment to Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore’s resources and values would result 

from changes to coastal processes under this 

alternative. 

Surface Water Quality 

Analysis. Because no new facilities would be 

built under this alternative, no impacts to 

water quality would occur. 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

230

Visitors have likely affected water quality in 

localized areas through swimming and 

bathing, and through the disposal of human 

waste and trash. These activities can contribute to the degradation of water quality by 

increasing nutrient and bacteria levels, and the 

levels of other chemicals (e.g., petroleumbased products, sunscreen, and soaps). Some 

sedimentation also likely occurs at unsurfaced 

landings in localized areas where visitors put 

in and take out their boats and in areas where 

bank erosion is occurring due to visitors 

walking down steep slopes. With the very 

small changes in visitor use levels on the 

islands expected under this alternative, there 

would likely continue to be a negligible to 

minor, long-term, adverse impact to water 

quality in localized areas due to relatively low 

use levels and the dilution effect of Lake 

Superior. Most of these impacts would occur 

in areas where there are no outhouses, such as 

the campsites at the southern end of 

Basswood Island, and the beaches that receive 

a lot of kayak use. 

It is likely that motorized boats are also 

affecting the park’s water quality. 

Hydrocarbon engine and bilge emissions from 

private motorboats and NPS craft would 

continue at about existing levels under this 

alternative. Most motorized watercraft use 

inefficient two-stroke engines that lose about 

30% of their fuel to the environment 

(California Environmental Protection Agency 

Air Resources Board). The primary pollutants 

of concern from marine engines in Lake 

Superior include MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl 

ether), PAHs (polyaromatic hydrocarbons), 

BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and 

xylene) and heavy metals such as copper (NPS 

2002d). However, the use of motorboats is 

relatively light, occurring primarily during the 

three summer months, and the large size of 

Lake Superior dilutes and disperses these 

pollutants. These factors probably limit the 

impacts of marine engines to minor, long-term 

impacts to water quality in the park. However, 

in areas that receive higher use levels, such as 

Presque Isle Bay and Little Sand Bay, 

particularly on weekends and holidays, there 

could be minor to moderate, long-term 

impacts to water quality. 

Cumulative Impacts. Several sources of 

water pollution external to Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore have affected, and are 

likely to continue affecting, the water quality 

of the park. When added to the water quality 

impacts of alternative 1 being considered 

(negligible to minor, long-term, adverse 

impacts due to visitors), there could be a 

minor to major, long-term, adverse 

cumulative impact to the park’s water quality, 

depending on the type and quantity of 

pollutants that enter park waters. However, 

the increment added by the alternatives would 

be relatively small compared to the impact 

from pollutants being added from actions 

outside the park boundary. 

Conclusion. Under alternative 1 there would 

continue to be minor, long-term, adverse 

impacts to the park’s water quality in localized 

areas, primarily due to visitor activities (e.g., 

swimming, disposal of human waste in areas 

without sanitary facilities, emissions from 

motorboats). In a few areas that receive 

heavier motorboat uses, such as Presque Isle 

Bay, minor to moderate, long-term, adverse 

impacts would be expected. When the effects 

of alternative 1 are added to the effects of 

water pollution from sources outside of the 

park, there would be the potential for a minor 

to major, adverse cumulative effect on the 

park’s water quality. However, the actions in 

alternative 1 would add only a small 

increment to the overall cumulative impact. 

The level of impact to the park’s water quality 

due to alternative 1 would not constitute an 

unacceptable impact and would not be 

considered an impairment of the park’s 

resources and values. 

Wetlands 

Analysis. No developments would occur 

under alternative 1 that would have the 

potential to affect wetlands in the park. Some 

impacts would continue to occur due to 

people walking through the wetlands, 

trampling vegetation. But only a few people 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 1 

231

would be expected to walk into the wetlands 

over the course of a year, resulting in 

negligible, short- and long-term, adverse 

impacts. 

Cumulative Impacts. Climate change will 

likely affect the park’s wetlands, including 

their species composition and water levels. 

For example, if the frequency or intensity of 

storms change, park wetlands could be 

affected. Because the changes due to climate 

change in the park are unpredictable, both in 

their timing and in magnitude or intensity of 

the impact, the effects of climate change on 

the park’s wetlands could range from minor to 

major in intensity. When the effects of 

alternative 1 are added to the potential effects 

of climate change, there would be the 

potential for a minor to major, long-term, 

adverse, cumulative impact on wetlands. But 

alternative 1 would add a very small increment 

to the potential effects of climate change on 

wetlands. 

Conclusion. Alternative 1 would have a 

negligible, short- and long-term, adverse 

impact on the park’s wetlands primarily due to 

people occasionally walking through the 

wetlands. When the effects of this alternative 

are added to the potential effects of climate 

change, there could be a minor to major, longterm, adverse cumulative effect on the park’s 

wetlands, although alternative 1 would add a 

very small increment to the overall cumulative 

impact. The effects of this alternative would 

not result in unacceptable impacts or 

impairment of the park’s resources and values. 

Floodplains 

Analysis. No new developments or other 

actions would occur in the Sand River floodplain, on the mainland, under alternative 1. 

Visitors would continue to walk through the 

floodplain, trampling vegetation. But with no 

trails in the area, only a few people would be 

expected to walk into the floodplains over the 

course of a year, resulting in negligible, shortand long-term, adverse impacts. 

Cumulative Impacts. No past, present, or 

foreseeable actions within or outside the park 

are expected to affect the Sand River 

floodplain. Thus, there would be no additive 

cumulative effects on the floodplain. 

Conclusion. Alternative 1 would continue to 

result in a negligible, short- and long-term, 

adverse impact due to people walking in the 

Sand River floodplain. No cumulative effects 

would be expected. The impacts of 

alternative 1 would not be considered 

unacceptable and the level of impact would 

not constitute an impairment of the park’s 

resources and values. 

Vegetation 

Analysis. No impacts on vegetation would 

occur due to development or improvement of 

facilities in this alternative. 

Visitor use of Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore, including hiking and camping, 

would continue to affect the park’s vegetation. 

With use levels expected to stay at present 

levels or slightly increase, some vegetation 

would likely be lost due to the continuing 

formation of user-created trails in popular use 

areas such as campsites and picnic areas. 

Vegetation along Lake Superior would 

continue to be trampled and damaged in 

places when visitors walk up and down the 

shoreline. Some plants would also probably 

continue to be lost through visitors walking on 

sensitive vegetation on sandscapes. Some 

existing designated campsites probably would 

expand in area over time, and informal 

campsites would continue to be created or 

expanded on islands, resulting in changes to 

and loss of vegetation in localized areas. If an 

area becomes cleared of vegetation due to the 

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

trees behind the cleared area and the beach, 

the trees would be more likely to be subject to 

blowdown. However, none of these impacts 

would affect the integrity, distribution, or 

presence of native plant communities in 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. Thus, 

visitor use would be expected to continue to 

have a long-term, negligible to minor, adverse 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

232

impact on the park’s native vegetation in 

localized areas. 

Cumulative Impacts. Several potential 

actions, independent of this plan, could affect 

the park’s vegetation. As described in the 

“Affected Environment” chapter, much of the 

park’s vegetation has been substantially 

altered by past human activities, including 

logging and fires, farming, the building of 

cabins, quarrying, and the development of 

roads and fish camps. The impacts of these 

past actions far outweigh the impacts of the 

actions being proposed in the alternatives in 

this plan. 

In the future developments such as second 

homes may be built on some lands adjacent to 

the mainland unit of the park, which would 

result in the loss and modification of 

vegetation in these areas. This would have a 

long-term, minor, adverse impact on natural 

vegetation in the vicinity of the park. 

The possible relocation or redesign of the 

Quarry Bay campsites on Stockton Island, 

independent of this plan, would affect 

vegetation in the area, which would add a 

minor, long-term, adverse incremental effect 

to the effects of alternative 1. 

As noted in the “Affected Environment” 

chapter, the spread of nonnative plants is a 

problem in the park. Nonnative species have 

been spreading in different locations in the 

park, such as Meyers Beach, due to past 

construction activities, visitor activities, and 

natural sources like wind and birds. In 

addition, even with education efforts, some 

nonnative plants could be introduced or 

spread by visitors in the park, such as at picnic 

areas and campsites. It is difficult to determine 

the impact of these nonnative species on 

native vegetation due to the uncertainties 

about the type of species that might be 

introduced in the future, and the locations 

and frequencies of introductions. In spite of 

monitoring and weed control efforts, the 

adverse effect of the introduction and spread 

of nonnative species would be unknown, but 

could range from minor to major and be long 

term in duration. 

As noted in the “Affected Environment” 

chapter, deer are spreading from the mainland 

to the islands in increasing numbers. 

Increasing numbers of deer would browse the 

islands’ native vegetation, reducing or 

eliminating such species as Canada yew, 

which could have a moderate to major, longterm, adverse impact on some native 

vegetation on the islands. 

Climate change likely has affected and will 

continue to affect the park’s vegetation, 

including species composition and population 

numbers. Some southern species will expand 

into the park, while other northern species 

will decline or disappear. Warming 

temperatures are expected to increase the 

potential for wildfires and the spread of and 

seasons for insects, which in turn would have 

a minor to major, long-term, adverse impact 

on the park’s native vegetation. 

When the effects of all of these past and future 

actions are added to the effects of alternative 

1, there would be a major, long-term, adverse, 

cumulative effect on the park’s vegetation. 

However, the effects of alternative 1 would 

add a very small increment to the overall 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Alternative 1 would continue to 

result in a negligible to minor, long-term, 

adverse impact on the park’s native 

vegetation, primarily due to past construction 

projects and visitor use (e.g., trampling of 

vegetation). When the effects of alternative 1 

are added to other past, present and future 

actions occurring independent of this plan, 

such as climate change and the spread of 

nonnative species, a major, long-term, adverse 

impact would be expected to the park’s native 

vegetation—although the effects of alternative 

1 would add a very small increment to the 

overall cumulative effect. None of the 

vegetation impacts that would occur under 

this alternative would be unacceptable or 

sufficient to result in an impairment of 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 1 

233

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore’s 

resources and values. 

Wildlife 

Analysis. Few actions in this alternative

would affect Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore’s wildlife populations or habitats. 

No impacts on wildlife would occur due to 

development or improvement of facilities in 

this alternative. The continuation of hunting 

and trapping would not be expected to 

adversely affect the park’s populations, 

assuming that harvests stay at about existing 

levels and there was careful monitoring and 

enforcement of federal, state, and tribal 

regulations by park staff, the state of 

Wisconsin, and tribal wardens—no changes 

would be expected in the wildlife population 

levels in the park. 

Wildlife populations, behaviors, and habitats 

already have been altered by visitors and 

employees, which would continue under 

alternative 1. Human use of the park would 

continue to be concentrated in areas such as 

the light stations, the islands’ shorelines, and 

campsites. Animals sensitive to human 

presence and noise-generating activities 

already avoid these areas when people are 

present. Wildlife that occupy these areas, such 

as red squirrels, rabbits, mice, and white-tailed 

deer, are mostly adapted to the presence of 

people , but wildlife behavior is still being 

affected. Courtship, territory establishment, 

intra-species communication, predation and 

predator avoidance, and effective use of 

habitat could already have been affected by 

noise. That said, it is expected that wildlife in 

the above areas would not be noticeably 

affected by the actions being taken in 

alternative 1. 

Bear-human conflicts could occur in the 

future in areas where visitors are camping, 

particularly at the Stockton Island 

campground, which is good bear habitat. 

Because the campsites are stretched out along 

the beach, the potential for bear-human 

encounters and conflicts is high. Bears have 

entered campsites and damaged property. To 

protect visitor safety, campsites have been 

closed to public use at times. Problem bears 

have been moved from this area and on one 

occasion killed. A combination of non-lethal 

deterrence, visitor education, and temporary 

closures have been successful in minimizing 

the number of native bear-human 

interactions. However, it is likely in the future 

that additional problem bears may need to be 

conditioned to avoid humans. This would 

result in a negligible long-term adverse 

impact. 

Some animals would continue to occasionally 

be injured or killed by motor vehicles driving 

on roads in the mainland unit. Some animals 

such as mice, blue jays, bears, sea gulls, and 

red squirrels, also probably would continue to 

be attracted by visitors feeding them or to 

areas where food and garbage are left out. 

Even with continued efforts to educate the 

public on not feeding wildlife, negligible to 

minor adverse effects on wildlife would likely 

occur in localized areas from these activities. 

Cumulative Impacts. Like vegetation, several 

potential actions, independent of this plan, 

could affect the park’s wildlife. As described 

in the “Affected Environment,” the loss of 

and/or changes in vegetation have affected the 

habitat for wildlife in the park (e.g., the spread 

of deer). Hunting also has affected wildlife in 

the past and present. 

In the future developments such as second 

homes may be built on some lands adjacent to 

the mainland unit of the park, which would 

result in the displacement of some wildlife and 

the loss and modification of wildlife habitat in 

these areas. In addition, noise generated by 

human activities in the vicinity of the islands, 

such as motorized watercraft, could also 

disturb or displace some wildlife, particularly 

if these uses were to increase. These actions 

would likely have a long-term, minor, adverse 

impact on wildlife populations in or near the 

park. 

The possible relocation or redesign of the 

Quarry Bay campsites on Stockton Island, 

independent of this plan, would affect wildlife 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

234

in the area, displacing some animals, which 

would add a minor, long-term, adverse 

incremental effect to the effects of 

alternative 1. 

Climate change will also likely affect wildlife 

composition of the park. Some southern 

species will expand into the park, while other 

northern species will decline or disappear. 

Warming temperatures are expected to 

increase the spread of and seasons for insects, 

which could benefit some wildlife species and 

adversely affect other species. (See the 

“Affected Environment” chapter for more 

information.) Because the changes due to 

climate change in the park are unpredictable, 

both in their timing and in magnitude or 

intensity of the impact, the effects of climate 

change on the park’s wildlife could range from 

minor to major in intensity. When the effects 

of the actions in alternative 1 are added to the 

potential effects of climate change, there 

would be the potential for a minor to major, 

long-term, adverse, cumulative impact on the 

park’s wildlife populations. But alternative 1 

would add a very small increment to the 

potential effects of climate change on wildlife. 

Conclusion. Most wildlife in the park would 

not change as a result of the actions in this 

alternative. No actions would affect areas 

known to be important for breeding, nesting, 

foraging, or key migration routes. No actions 

would interfere with feeding, reproduction, or 

other activities necessary for the survival of 

wildlife species. Long-term, negligible to 

minor, adverse impacts would continue to 

occur to wildlife due to continuing visitor use 

of the park. There would be the potential for a 

minor to major, long-term, adverse 

cumulative impact on the park’s wildlife when 

the effects of alternative 1 are added to the 

potential effects of climate change. But the 

increment added by alternative 1 to the overall 

cumulative impact would be very small. None 

of the wildlife impacts resulting from 

alternative 1 would be considered 

unacceptable or would constitute an 

impairment of the park’s resources and values. 

Federal and State Threatened 

and Endangered Species 

Analysis. No new actions or developments 

would occur under alternative 1 that would 

affect the federal and state endangered piping 

plovers in the park. Visitors and their dogs 

could disturb plovers. But with the low 

numbers of plovers scattered around the 

islands, and with continued efforts to protect 

nesting birds, including temporary closures at 

nesting locations, it is less likely that visitors 

would deliberately or accidentally disturb the 

birds. With current protection measures it is 

anticipated that visitor impacts would be 

infrequent. If visitor use impacts were 

identified in the future, the park staff would 

consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

to identify and implement additional 

appropriate mitigative measures. 

Consequently, under alternative 1 visitors 

might affect, but would not likely adversely 

affect, piping plovers in the park. 

Cumulative Impacts. As described in the 

piping plover recovery plan, increasing habitat 

loss, recreational pressure, predation, and 

contaminants are likely responsible for 

continuing population declines of the piping 

plover throughout its range (USFWS 2003). 

Outside of the park, habitat loss and 

modification has historically affected the 

Great Lakes region, although this impact is 

now thought to be occurring at a much 

reduced level (J. Trick, biologist, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, pers. comm., 10-22-2008). 

Predation and disease, the use of motorized 

vehicles on beaches, recreational activities on 

beaches (e.g., beach walking, bike riding) 

likely will continue to affect the birds. 

Contaminants, pollution, and noise from 

human activities within and outside the park 

also may be affecting the species, although this 

is unknown. Although actions are being taken 

to protect piping plovers and their species, 

such as controlling human access to nesting 

areas and educating the public, the species is 

likely to continue to be imperiled during the 

life of this plan. 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 1 

235

Independent of the plan, park staff would 

continue to monitor and protect all piping 

plover nest sites. 

Adding the effects of actions occurring 

outside the park to alternative 1 would not 

result in any cumulative effects on the piping 

plover. This is because the alternative does not 

include any actions that would contribute or 

add to the effects of other actions in and 

outside the park. 

Conclusion. No new developments or actions 

would occur under alternative 1 that would 

have the potential to affect the piping plover 

in the park. Visitor use on island beaches 

would continue to have the potential to 

disturb the plovers, but with current 

protection measures impacts would be 

expected to be negligible. Thus, alternative 1 

may affect, but would not adversely affect, the 

park’s piping plovers. No cumulative impacts 

would result from alternative 1 and no 

impacts would occur that would be 

considered unacceptable or result in an 

impairment of the park’s resources and values. 

Natural Soundscape 

Analysis. Noise from NPS maintenance and 

management activities, such as trail 

maintenance, grass mowing, pumping of vault 

toilets, and restoration activities, would 

continue to be heard occasionally on the 

park’s islands. Most noise from these activities 

would be in or near developed areas that are 

already exposed to noise from vehicles, 

motors, and visitors. Overall, noise from 

ongoing maintenance and restoration 

activities would have a minor to moderate 

adverse impact on the natural soundscape in 

local areas, depending upon the activity, 

presence of other facilities and people, 

vegetation, and wind. The impacts would be 

of short duration, but because they would 

occur over the life of the plan, the impacts 

would be long term. 

Under alternative 1, during much of the year, 

there would continue to be few noises because 

there would be few people. However, during 

the peak use season there would continue to 

be moderate levels of noise due to visitors and 

motorboats stopping at the islands. Noise 

levels would be most noticeable primarily in 

developed areas and popular use areas, such 

as the light stations, anchorages, or docks at 

Rocky, South Twin, Raspberry, Oak, and Sand 

islands; the visitor center and campground on 

Stockton Island; Little Sand Bay Visitor 

Center; and Meyers Beach launch area. 

Depending on winter conditions, noise levels 

would also likely be moderate at times at 

Meyers Beach with visitors going out to see 

the ice caves. These impacts would be brief, 

but would increase in intensity and duration 

during holidays and weekends when high 

numbers of visitors are present. Noise from 

regular concessioner island cruise service in 

the summer to Raspberry, Stockton, and Oak 

islands also would continue, with large groups 

of people disembarking on these islands. 

Thus, there would continue to be long-term, 

minor to moderate, adverse noise impacts in 

local areas on the mainland and most islands 

throughout Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore. 

Cumulative Impacts. Noise from outside the 

park has affected the park’s soundscape in the 

past and will continue to do so in the future. 

As described in the “Affected Environment” 

chapter, depending on location and wind 

direction, common human-caused sounds 

including engines from watercraft passing 

near the park, vehicles on roads on the 

mainland, sounds from logging operations, 

and urban sounds from Bayfield would 

continue to be heard in the park. Noise from 

the concession boat would continue to be 

heard not just at the islands it visits but also on 

the islands it passes by. In the winter, noise 

from snowmobiles passing by the park would 

continue to be heard. 

It is possible in the future that events like the 

speedboat “poker run” and other unregulated 

activities may occur just outside the park 

boundary, generating substantial noise. In 

addition, developments such as second homes 

may be built on some lands adjacent to the 

mainland unit of the park, which would result 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

236

in noise during and after the construction 

period in these areas. 

These adverse noise impacts would be minor 

to moderate (depending upon the type of 

noise and location), intermittent, and long 

term—occurring every year. 

When these impacts are added to the 

continuing impacts of alternative 1 there 

would be the potential for a long-term, minor 

to moderate, adverse cumulative impact on 

the natural soundscape. However, these 

cumulative impacts would primarily occur at 

certain times in the summer, such as 

weekends. The actions in alternative 1 would 

add a very small increment to the overall 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Alternative 1 would continue to 

result in long-term, minor to moderate, 

adverse noise impacts in local areas on the 

mainland and most islands in Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore, particularly in developed 

areas. These impacts would be primarily due 

to visitor use and NPS maintenance and 

management activities. None of these noise 

impacts, however, would be unacceptable or 

be sufficient to result in an impairment of the 

park’s resources and values. There would be 

the potential for a long-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse cumulative impact to the 

soundscape when the noise resulting from 

implementing this alternative is added to noise 

from activities outside of the park. But the 

increment added by alternative 1 to the overall 

cumulative impact would be very small. 

WILDERNESS CHARACTER 

Analysis. Under alternative 1, no changes in 

management would occur in the Gaylord 

Nelson Wilderness—the area would continue 

to be managed as it is now. Although island 

use levels might slightly increase over time, 

most of these visitors would likely stay in 

developed areas and on the park shoreline, 

and not venture into the wilderness area. 

There would be no change in the 

opportunities for solitude in the wilderness 

area under alternative 1. Most of the 

wilderness area would receive very low use. 

There would continue to be a few places 

where relatively large groups of people (10-

30+) may gather in the wilderness area, 

particularly on weekends and holidays; these 

areas would be the Oak Island group campsite 

and sandspit, and the beaches on the 

southeast side of Raspberry Island and the 

north side of York Island. In these areas 

opportunities for solitude would continue to 

be diminished. 

Continuing current management practices 

would not alter opportunities for primitive 

recreation in the wilderness area. 

Opportunities for primitive, unconfined 

recreation would continue to be present on 

most of the islands. Day-use visitors would 

have complete freedom to go wherever they 

pleased, except for the small number of areas 

that are closed for resource protection 

purposes (e.g., Gull and Eagle islands). For 

visitor safety and resource concerns, permits 

for overnight camping at designated campsites 

and for zoned camping would continue to be 

required. Although most visitors would likely 

agree that there would be outstanding 

opportunities for primitive, unconfined 

recreation on the islands, permit and camping 

requirements would continue to slightly 

diminish these qualities, resulting in a minor, 

long-term, adverse impact. 

No new developments would occur in the 

wilderness area. Signs of people, including 

hiking trails, campsites, and some historic 

structures, would continue to be evident, as 

would occasional user-created trails and 

trampled vegetation/bare ground from 

informal campsites. But most visitors in this 

alternative would continue to find what they 

perceive to be natural conditions in most of 

the wilderness area—visitors would continue 

to find a forested landscape generally 

untrammeled by people, with few obvious 

signs of disturbance or alteration. Thus, 

alternative 1 would have no effect on the 

apparent naturalness of the area. 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 1 

237

Cumulative Impacts. Actions independent of 

this alternative have affected, and would likely 

continue to affect the wilderness character of 

the park. Noise generated from human 

activities outside of the park, such as 

motorized boats, would continue to affect 

some visitors’ perceptions of solitude, 

resulting in a long-term, minor, adverse 

impact to wilderness character. As noted in 

the impact topics above, the spread of 

nonnative species and climate change have 

affected, and are likely to continue adversely 

affecting the park’s biological communities—

including the wilderness area—resulting in a 

long-term, minor to moderate, adverse impact 

to wilderness character (i.e., apparent 

naturalness of the wilderness areas). On the 

other hand NPS staff have worked to restore 

disturbed areas in wilderness and likely will 

continue to do so in the future. This would 

have a minor, long-term, beneficial impact on 

wilderness character. 

When all of the above actions are added to the 

effects of alternative 1, there would be the 

potential for a minor to moderate, long-term, 

adverse cumulative impact on the wilderness 

character. However, alternative 1 would add a 

very small increment to the overall cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion. Alternative 1 would continue to 

result in a minor, long-term, adverse impact to 

the area’s wilderness character, due to the 

continuing requirement to obtain a permit to 

camp in the wilderness. But assuming use 

levels do not substantially increase, in most of 

the wilderness area visitors would continue to 

find outstanding opportunities for solitude 

and primitive, unconfined recreation in what 

most people perceive to be a natural 

landscape. 

None of these continuing impacts to 

wilderness character would be considered 

unacceptable. When the effects of actions 

occurring independent of the alternative are 

added to the effects of alternative 1 there 

would be the potential for a minor to 

moderate, adverse, cumulative effect on 

wilderness character—albeit alternative 1 

would add a very small increment to this 

overall cumulative impact. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Historic Structures / Cultural Landscapes 

Light Stations 

Under the no-action alternative, the national 

lakeshore staff would, as needed, stabilize and 

preserve its historic light stations in 

accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties. With particular regard to the 

standards and guidelines for preservation, the 

existing form, features, and architectural 

detailing of the light station buildings and 

structures would be retained. Preservation 

maintenance of character-defining features 

would be emphasized over replacement of 

historic fabric. Stabilization measures would 

be carried out to structurally reinforce, 

weatherize, and correct unsafe conditions. 

Other than proposed use at the Raspberry 

Island light station for seasonal NPS staff, no 

public overnight use would occur, and 

consequently there would be no need for 

interior rehabilitation of the light stations. As 

needed, shoreline stabilization would also be 

undertaken (such as that completed for the 

Raspberry Island and Outer Island light 

stations) to control erosion of the shoreline 

embankments that has threatened the historic 

structures. Implementation of these 

preservation and stabilization measures would 

have long-term negligible to minor adverse 

impacts on the historic light stations. 

More extensive preservation treatments 

would be reserved for the Raspberry Island 

light station. This light station would remain 

the primary focus for interpreting the role of 

historic light stations in the Apostle Islands 

because of its relative accessibility and renown 

as a “showplace” property. Rehabilitation and 

restoration of the light tower and attached 

keeper’s quarters were undertaken in 2006 to 

address structural deterioration, enhance 

visitor interpretation, and provide for NPS 

seasonal employee housing. As funding 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

238

permits, further rehabilitation of the 

Raspberry Island light station’s cultural 

landscape, including other outbuildings, 

would also be carried out in accordance with 

recommendations from the 2004 cultural 

landscape report, and the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (with Guidelines for the 

Treatment of Cultural Landscapes). 

Implementation of these measures would have 

long-term negligible to minor adverse impacts 

on the Raspberry Island light station. 

Although cultural landscape reports have not 

been completed for the remainder of the light 

stations, preservation and stabilization 

measures would be carried out as required to 

maintain the integrity of cultural landscape 

features identified as contributing to site 

significance (i.e., outbuildings, vegetation, 

walkways, tramways, docks, etc.). Vegetation 

clearing would only occur in the immediate 

vicinity of the light stations and contributing 

buildings. As a consequence, historic views 

may be obscured by trees and other vegetation 

encroaching into the larger surrounding areas 

historically reserved for the light stations. 

However, preservation and stabilization of 

cultural landscape elements associated with 

the light stations would have long-term 

negligible to minor adverse impacts on 

historic properties. 

Other Historic Structures / 

Cultural Landscapes 

National register-listed or national registereligible structures and buildings associated 

with historic farmsteads, tourism/recreational 

sites, fishing and logging camps, etc. would be 

preserved and stabilized in accordance with 

the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties. Contributing 

cultural landscape features associated with 

these sites would also be preserved and 

stabilized. The historic Hokenson fishery on 

the mainland at Little Sand Bay may be 

considered in future planning for 

rehabilitation and adaptive use as a visitor 

center or contact facility. These actions would 

have long-term negligible to minor adverse 

impacts t on historic properties. 

For properties currently under use and 

occupancy leases or life estates, the park 

would prioritize and determine ultimate 

preservation treatments following the 

termination of existing private leases. 

Properties listed in or eligible for the national 

register could be considered for adaptive use, 

which would be carried out in accordance 

with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

for the Treatment of Historic Properties with 

particular attention to the standards and 

guidelines for rehabilitation. Under the 

rehabilitation treatment, historic building 

materials and character-defining features 

would be protected and maintained to the 

extent possible, although extensively 

deteriorated, damaged, or missing features 

would be replaced with traditional or 

substitute materials. Possible alterations and 

additions may be appropriate to permit 

efficient contemporary uses of the structures 

and buildings. Non-historic properties would 

be allowed to molder or may be removed to 

restore natural resource values. These actions 

would have long-term negligible to minor 

adverse impacts on historic properties. 

Cumulative Impacts. Historic buildings, 

structures and cultural landscapes at the park 

are susceptible to severe weathering and 

storm damage from harsh climatic conditions. 

Forest vegetation encroaching near historic 

structures and sites also presents a risk of fire 

damage from increasing fuel loads. Park staff 

also face logistical challenges and the 

additional expenses associated with 

transporting materials and equipment by boat 

from the mainland to island docks, and 

subsequently from docks to worksites on the 

islands to carry out preservation activities. 

Consequently, preservation treatment of 

historic buildings, structures and cultural 

landscapes may not always occur in a timely 

manner and/or may be deferred in some 

instances. The integrity of these historic 

properties can be adversely affected if historic 

fabric deteriorates or is lost. However, in 

conformance with the Secretary’s Standards 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 1 

239

and as funding permits, the national lakeshore 

continues to carry out stabilization and 

preservation of historic structures (e.g., 

reroofing, repointing, painting, structural 

reinforcement and other repairs) to arrest 

deterioration and to retain as much of the 

historic integrity of these structures as 

possible. These measures, in addition to more 

extensive preservation treatments such as the 

rehabilitation and restoration of the 

Raspberry Island light tower and keeper’s 

quarters, have had long-term beneficial 

impacts. 

The impacts associated with implementation 

of the no-action alternative would have longterm negligible to minor adverse impacts on 

the park’s light stations, and other historic 

buildings, structures and cultural landscapes. 

Other past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable actions would result in both 

negligible to minor adverse and beneficial 

impacts. However, the impacts of the other 

actions described above, in combination with 

the impacts of the no-action alternative, 

would result in long-term negligible to minor 

adverse cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Implementation of actions 

proposed by the no-action alternative would 

have long-term negligible to minor adverse 

impacts to the park’s light stations and other 

historic structures, buildings and cultural 

landscapes listed in or eligible for listing in the 

National Register of Historic Places. There 

would also be long-term negligible to minor 

adverse cumulative impacts on these historic 

properties from implementation of the noaction alternative in conjunction with other 

past, present or reasonably foreseeable 

actions. 

Because there would be no adverse impacts to 

a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified 

in the establishing legislation of Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore, (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the national 

lakeshore or to opportunities for enjoyment 

of the national lakeshore, or (3) identified as a 

goal in the national lakeshore’s General 

Management Plan / Wilderness Management 

Plan or other relevant NPS planning 

document, there would be no impairment of 

the national lakeshore’s resources or values. 

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effect (36 CFR Part 800.5, 

Assessment of Adverse Effects), the National 

Park Service concludes that implementing 

alternative 1 would result in no adverse effect 

on historic structures and cultural landscapes. 

Archeological Resources 

Within wilderness and nonwilderness areas 

on the islands, and at mainland units of the 

park, there would be no substantial changes in 

visitor uses or facilities, including docks, trails, 

campsites, and day-use areas. Consequently, 

there would be little potential for impacts to 

archeological resources as a result of grounddisturbing construction activities beyond that 

associated with routine maintenance activities. 

NPS archeologists would continue to monitor 

the condition of known archeological sites, 

and would undertake appropriate protection 

and stabilization measures as necessary to 

reduce or avoid site impacts possibly 

occurring from erosion, visitor use, or other 

factors. A relatively small percentage of the 

park’s terrestrial and submerged areas have 

been intensively surveyed, and therefore NPS 

archeological staff would continue to expand 

and contribute to the existing data base by 

conducting survey inventories and 

documenting archeological resources in 

fulfillment of section 110 requirements of the 

National Historic Preservation Act. 

Continuation of archeological resource 

management actions under existing laws and 

policies would have long-term negligible to 

minor adverse impacts on archeological 

resources. 

Cumulative Impacts. Archeological 

resources at the park (and throughout the 

region) are subject to a variety of disturbances 

associated with shoreline erosion and other 

natural erosion processes, high winds that can 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

240

overturn trees and dislodge buried sites, 

ground-disturbing construction activities, 

inadvertent visitor use impacts, artifact 

looting, etc. These factors can contribute to 

adversely affect the integrity of archeological 

resources as the potential of impacted sites to 

yield important prehistoric or historic 

information is diminished and/or irretrievably 

lost. However, understanding of regional 

prehistory and history can also benefit as 

archeological information continues to be 

acquired through ongoing research and 

perhaps from data recovery investigations 

carried out in fulfillment of mitigation 

requirements. 

The impacts associated with implementation 

of the no-action alternative would have longterm negligible to minor adverse impacts on 

the park’s archeological resources. Other past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable actions 

would result in both negligible to minor 

adverse and beneficial impacts. Consequently, 

the beneficial and adverse impacts of the other 

actions described above, in combination with 

the impacts of the no-action alternative, 

would cumulatively result in long-term 

negligible to minor adverse impacts on 

archeological resources. 

Conclusion. Implementation of actions 

proposed by the no-action alternative would 

have long-term negligible to minor adverse 

impacts on the park’s prehistoric and historic 

archeological resources listed in or eligible for 

listing in the National Register of Historic 

Places. There would also be long-term 

negligible to minor adverse cumulative 

impacts on archeological resources from 

implementation of the no-action alternative in 

conjunction with other past, present or 

reasonably foreseeable actions. 

Because there would be no adverse impacts to 

a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified 

in the establishing legislation of Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore, (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the park or to 

opportunities for enjoyment of the park, or (3) 

identified as a goal in the park’s General 

Management Plan or other relevant NPS 

planning document, there would be no 

impairment of the park’s resources or values. 

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effect (36 CFR Part 800.5, 

Assessment of Adverse Effects), the National 

Park Service concludes that implementing 

alternative 1 would result in no adverse effect 

on archeological resources. 

Ethnographic Resources 

NPS staff would continue to collaborate with 

the Ojibwe and other affiliated tribes to 

identify and evaluate potential ethnographic 

resources by conducting appropriate research 

and investigations (i.e., ethnographic 

overviews and assessments, traditional use 

studies, ethnographic landscape studies, oral 

histories, etc.). Identified ethnographic 

resources meeting the criteria of national 

register-eligibility would be documented and 

managed as “traditional cultural properties.” 

Efforts to identify, document and protect 

ethnographic resources would have longterm, beneficial impacts on these resources 

should they be found to exist in the park. 

Within wilderness and nonwilderness areas 

on the islands, and at mainland units of the 

park, there would be no substantial changes in 

visitor uses or facilities, including docks, trails, 

campsites, and day-use areas. Consequently, 

there would be little potential for impacts to 

ethnographic resources as a result of grounddisturbing construction activities beyond that 

associated with routine maintenance activities. 

Continuing consultations with the Ojibwe and 

other affiliated tribes to identify ethnographic 

resources would minimize the possibility that 

unknown sites could inadvertently be 

disturbed. Long-term negligible to minor 

adverse impacts by visitor use or NPS 

activities would be anticipated. 

In consultation with affiliated tribes, the Park 

Service would continue to permit customary 

harvest and consumptive use of park 

resources, including the rights to hunt, fish 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 1 

241

and gather plants and berries. These activities 

would be carried out in accordance with park 

purposes and NPS policies, with the provision 

that they do not to adversely affect park 

wildlife or the reproductive potential of plant 

species, or otherwise adversely affect park 

resources. Also in accordance with applicable 

laws and policies, the Park Service would 

permit tribal access to park areas for 

traditional religious, ceremonial, and other 

customary activities. In consultation with the 

tribes and consistent with tribal goals, the 

Park Service would protect sacred sites and 

other ethnographic resources should these be 

identified. Providing and protecting tribal 

access to traditional use areas in the park, and 

protection of customary hunting, fishing, and 

gathering activities would have long-term, 

beneficial impacts on ethnographic resources. 

Cumulative Impacts. Ethnographic 

resources at the park (and throughout the 

region) are subject to a variety of disturbances 

associated with erosion and other natural 

processes, ground-disturbing construction or 

development activities, inadvertent visitor use 

impacts, blocked access to traditional use 

areas, artifact looting, etc. In part because of 

tribal concerns for retaining the 

confidentiality of ethnographic resources, 

land managers are occasionally challenged to 

provide adequate protection for these 

resources because of the limited information 

available regarding their potential existence, 

nature and location. These factors can 

contribute to adversely affect the integrity of 

ethnographic resources having particular 

significance to tribes and other cultural 

groups. However, ongoing research and 

information gathered from tribal 

consultations can provide long-term benefits 

by increasing understanding and appreciation 

for the protection of regional ethnographic 

resources. 

The impacts associated with implementation 

of the no-action alternative would have longterm negligible to minor adverse impacts on 

the park’s ethnographic resources. Other past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable actions 

would result in both negligible to minor 

adverse and beneficial impacts. Consequently, 

the beneficial and adverse impacts of the other 

actions described above, in combination with 

the impacts of the no-action alternative, 

would result in long-term negligible to minor 

adverse cumulative impacts on ethnographic 

resources. 

Conclusion. Implementation of the actions 

proposed by the no-action alternative would 

have long-term negligible to minor adverse 

impacts on ethnographic resources at the 

park. Long-term negligible to minor adverse 

cumulative impacts on ethnographic 

resources would also occur from 

implementation of the no-action alternative in 

conjunction with other past, present or 

reasonably foreseeable actions. 

Because there would be no adverse impacts to 

a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified 

in the establishing legislation of Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore, (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the national 

lakeshore or to opportunities for enjoyment 

of the park, or (3) identified as a goal in the 

park’s General Management Plan or other 

relevant NPS planning document, there would 

be no impairment of the park’s resources or 

values. 

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effect (36 CFR Part 800.5, 

Assessment of Adverse Effects), the National 

Park Service concludes that implementing 

alternative 1 would result in no adverse effect 

on ethnographic resources. 

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 

Ability to Access the Park, 

Including Universal Access 

The park has numerous access points both on 

the mainland and the islands. An important 

aspect of access in the park is the presence of 

boat launches, landings, and docks, as well as 

access to the islands for those without a boat. 

In this alternative existing launches and docks 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

242

would be maintained and would continue to 

service the majority of visitors to the park’s 

most desired visitor locations, resulting in a 

long-term, moderate, beneficial impact. In 

addition, the current island ferry service 

would continue providing an alternative 

means of access to the islands, resulting in a 

long-term, moderate, beneficial impact. 

During scoping for this plan as well as the 

previous wilderness study, many visitors 

noted the need for improved access to certain 

islands (e.g., docks are not deep enough, 

docks are crowded at times, more docks and 

boat landings are needed to access certain 

areas). Under this alternative, this situation 

would continue to affect a small number of 

visitors in a few locations—resulting in an ongoing, long-term, minor, adverse impact. 

Further, the park has several facilities, 

including all three visitor centers that are 

accessible to visitors with disabilities. It has 

been noted by the public during interactions 

with park staff that there is interest in seeing 

more facilities and programs at Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore that would 

support the needs of visitors with disabilities. 

This alternative would maintain the limited 

accessible facility and program opportunities 

on both the mainland and islands, thus the 

existing long-term, minor, adverse impact to 

visitors would continue. 

Lake and Island Related Recreation 

Opportunities and Experiences 

In this alternative, visitors would continue to 

access high-quality lake and island 

recreational opportunities including boating, 

swimming, hiking, camping, fishing, 

sightseeing, hunting, visiting historic sites, and 

participating in interpretive programs and 

guided trips. It is likely that the most popular 

activities on the islands will continue to be 

sightseeing, lighthouse tours, day hikes, and 

camping. During scoping and recent visitor 

surveys, most respondents acknowledged 

their enjoyment of the park’s recreational 

opportunities and suggested that the amount 

of opportunities should be maintained close 

to current levels. This alternative would 

continue existing opportunities, resulting in a 

long-term, major, beneficial impact. 

During scoping for the plan, there were some 

mentions of additional recreation 

opportunities that were desired including 

more trail and camping facilities, particularly 

group camping. The lack of some of these 

desired improvements in this alternative 

would continue to create a long-term, minor, 

adverse impact for visitors, especially those 

seeking these specific facilities and 

opportunities. 

The park continues to provide outstanding 

opportunities for solitude, quiet, “wildness,” 

connection with nature, and first hand 

discovery of the islands’ history. These 

characteristics of the park’s visitor 

opportunities are highly valued by the public. 

The wilderness areas of the park are especially 

important for protecting the opportunities for 

solitude and primitive recreation. The 

continuation of these types of opportunities 

by the protection of a high degree of 

naturalness, access opportunities via rustic 

trail systems, and primitive camping 

opportunities would result in a long-term, 

major, beneficial impact. Further, the efforts 

of the Park Service to protect opportunities 

for self discovery of the islands’ cultural 

history by promoting “rewilding” in 

designated wilderness areas creates a unique 

and highly valued experience for many 

visitors, leading to a long-term, moderate, 

beneficial impact. 

Some of the current impacts to opportunities 

for solitude and primitive recreation are 

related to crowding and congestion at high 

use docks and boat launches and landings. In 

addition, increasing use levels and noise 

associated with motorized use on Lake 

Superior may also continue to influence the 

natural soundscape and viewscapes of the 

park’s wilderness area. Also, the group 

campsite activity on Oak Island may cause 

noise impacts and increase the perception of 

crowding in the designated wilderness of the 

island. Finally, the designated camping zones 

promote visitor freedom and outstanding 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 1 

243

opportunities for primitive recreation, but can 

also lead to resource impacts, such as creation 

of informal campsites resulting in vegetation 

loss, soil erosion, and incidences of improper 

human waste disposal. These impacts may 

detract from the wilderness area’s naturalness, 

influencing the visitor experience. All of these 

impacts will continue in this alternative and 

may increase over time if use levels and types 

change. This alternative would not take 

measures to mitigate these current impacts, 

allowing the long-term, minor, adverse 

impacts on opportunities for solitude, 

primitive recreation and naturalness to 

continue in certain areas. 

Mainland Recreational 

Opportunities and Experiences 

In this alternative, visitors would continue to 

access high-quality mainland recreational 

opportunities including hiking, swimming, 

camping, boat launching, fishing, sightseeing, 

visiting historic sites, and participating in 

interpretive programs. As noted above, during 

scoping and recent visitor surveys, most 

respondents acknowledged their enjoyment 

of the park’s recreational opportunities and 

suggested that the amount of opportunities 

should be maintained close to current levels. 

This alternative would continue existing 

opportunities on the mainland, resulting in a 

long-term, major, beneficial impact. 

During scoping for the plan, there was some 

mention of additional recreation 

opportunities that were desired specifically 

for the mainland, including extension of the 

Lakeshore Trail and more camping 

opportunities. The lack of some of these 

desired improvements in this alternative 

would continue to be a long-term, minor, 

adverse impact for visitors, especially those 

seeking these specific facilities and 

opportunities. 

Opportunities to Understand the 

Significant Stories of the Apostle Islands 

There are four visitor centers associated with 

the park. NPS staff members provide 

education and orientation programs and 

services at these visitor centers. All of these 

opportunities would continue in this 

alternative. 

There are several concerns related to these 

facilities that will continue in this alternative. 

The visitor center associated with headquarters in the City of Bayfield is located in a 

historic building that is very important to the 

gateway community and has an excellent 

auditorium. However, this facility has limited, 

inflexible space for exhibits and direct 

interaction between visitors and NPS 

staff/volunteers. Although the historic 

building is located in the center of the City of 

Bayfield, it is outside of the immediate 

transportation routes through town, so it has 

limited visibility to out of town visitors. Also, 

the current location is a distance from the 

concession cruise boat, so few cruise visitors 

access the visitor center. Finally, there are no 

views of the islands or Lake Superior from the 

facility. 

The Little Sand Bay Visitor Center is in poor 

condition and has limited exhibit space. The 

Stockton Island Visitor Center is commonly 

unstaffed and also has limited exhibit space. 

However, this facility meets the current needs 

of the smaller number of public that it serves. 

The Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center is a 

new and modern facility with cutting edge 

exhibit design and a coordinated focus on 

regional public lands. However, this facility is 

not located in a place that captures a high 

number of Apostle Island visitors. Collectively, these visitor center issues create some 

challenges for visitors being able to fully 

understand the significant stories of the 

Apostle Islands, resulting in a long-term, 

moderate, adverse impact. 

Additional education and orientation is 

provided to visitors via nonpersonal services 

such as trailhead bulletin boards and wayside 

exhibits, trail signs, and park brochures. These 

opportunities are considered satisfactory and 

will continue in this alternative, resulting in a 

long-term, moderate, beneficial impact. 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

244

Many of the park’s significant cultural sites 

and resources have visitor access and 

interpretation that is highly valued and sought 

after by the public, such as the Raspberry 

Island light station. However, there are many 

cultural sites in the park that have limited or 

no visitor access or associated interpretive 

programs and materials. The public has 

expressed an interest in having more access 

and educational opportunities related to these 

resources. Further, the NPS staff believe that 

major aspects of the park’s significant stories 

are not effectively communicated due to the 

lack of access and interpretation of these 

sites—this results in a long-term, moderate, 

adverse impact. 

Visitor Safety 

Safety information about navigating Lake 

Superior and interacting with wildlife will 

continue to be available at the visitor centers, 

on-line, and through roving contacts with 

NPS staff. 

Current concerns regarding visitor safety 

include the need for a higher level of visitor 

contact at Meyers Beach, more strategic 

stations for NPS staff to improve response 

times, and a more visible location for the main 

visitor center to interact with more visitors 

that come to the park. These concerns are 

compounded by the ability of the park to 

maintain adequate emergency response 

capabilities, which are seriously compromised 

due to the use of inadequate and outdated 

facilities. None of these suggested 

improvements will be made in this alternative, 

resulting in a long-term, moderate, adverse 

impact on visitor safety. 

Further, the continued interaction of visitors 

and bears on Stockton Island due to the 

interface of the campsites and bear habitat 

creates a long-term, minor, adverse impact on 

visitor safety. 

Cumulative Effects. There are no actions or 

developments foreseen within or adjacent to 

the park that would likely affect visitor use 

and experience. There is the possibility of a 

slight increase in visitation or a change in 

visitor interests and demand due to potential 

changes in regional populations or national 

recreation trends. The likelihood of these 

changes is unknown at this time. If this were 

to occur, it may cause a slight increase in 

existing visitor use concerns such as crowding 

and conflicts at high use docks and attraction 

sites. Also, any significant effects from climate 

change could have a minor to major effect on 

visitor use and experiences. Of particular 

concern is the likely warmer water and longer 

seasons, punctuated by more severe and 

unpredictable storms, suggesting a long term 

adverse impact on visitor safety as more 

visitors are likely to be vulnerable to Lake 

Superior without adequate preparation. Other 

changes that could result in impacts include 

reduced access to infrastructure and 

alterations to wildlife watching and fishing 

opportunities as a result of habitat changes. 

Conclusion. Alternative 1 would result in 

long-term, moderate to major, beneficial 

impacts from continued opportunities to 

access high-quality lake and island 

recreational opportunities, and the 

preservation of existing launches and docks 

that service the majority of desired visitor 

locations. Further, the park would continue to 

provide outstanding opportunities for 

solitude, quiet, “wildness,” connection with 

nature, and first hand discovery of the islands’ 

history. These are all highly valued 

characteristics of the visitor experience by the 

public. However, minor to moderate adverse 

impacts on the visitor experience from visitor 

crowding and use conflicts at specific 

locations, the location and condition of some 

of the park’s visitor centers, limited 

interpretation and access to significant 

cultural sites and safety concerns at Meyers 

Beach and Stockton Island would continue. 

Finally, any effects resulting from changes in 

population, recreational trends or climate 

change may result in additional minor to 

major adverse effects, but the ability to predict 

the type or intensity of these impacts is limited 

at this time.
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 1 

245

PARK OPERATIONS 

Analysis. Under the no-action alternative 

(and all of the other alternatives as well), NPS 

operations would continue to be 

characterized by (1) a substantial number of 

facilities or assets (e.g., visitor contact stations, 

campsites, trails, and historic structures and 

landscapes) that must be maintained; (2) 

visitor-related operational demands (e.g., 

interpretive services, patrols, and campground 

maintenance) that are much greater in the 

busy summer visitor season than at other 

times of year; and (3) island operations that 

command a disproportionate share of the 

park’s annual operating budget due to the 

logistics of transporting equipment, materials, 

and staff to and from the islands.

With the park spread out over nearly 450 

square miles, the geography of the park’s 

islands poses operational challenges. In 

alternative 1, park operations/administration 

and maintenance facilities and staff would 

continue to be based out of Bayfield, Roys 

Point, and Little Sand Bay. Assuming the Roys 

Point facilities do not move in the near future, 

staff, equipment, and facilities would continue 

to be fragmented. The lack of a central 

maintenance facility means that critical tools, 

equipment, and supplies would continue to be 

stored in several locations. Staff would 

continue to travel back and forth between the 

three facilities. Thus, the physical separation 

of the maintenance/operations facilities, staff, 

and the geography of the park would continue 

to result in some inefficiency for park 

operations and maintenance management, 

including staff and equipment mobilization 

and travel. Emergency response times would 

continue to be less effective as they could be 

since park staff would be scattered on the 

mainland. Administrative/operational 

facilities at Little Sand Bay would continue to 

be substandard, affecting staff productivity. 

The absence of a staff facility at Meyers Beach 

would continue to detract from the park 

staff’s ability to effectively and efficiently 

protect park resources and meet visitor needs. 

All of the above consequences would have a 

minor to moderate, adverse, long-term effect 

on park operations. 

Current funding levels have caused some 

positions to remain vacant, which has had an 

effect on the park’s organizational capacity. 

All of the park’s divisions have identified 

staffing shortages through business planning 

models, and the impact of staffing deficiencies 

would likely continue, resulting in a moderate, 

adverse, long-term effect on park operations. 

Assuming current funding trends continue 

and staffing levels remain similar to present, 

the park would continue to be unable to fully 

achieve desired conditions in program areas 

such as resource protection, visitor services, 

and cyclic maintenance; and the deferred 

maintenance backlog would continue to grow 

over time. Natural and cultural resource 

programs would also be adversely affected. 

Staff would need to devote more time to 

management of the wilderness area, such as 

performing wilderness minimum requirement 

analyses to ensure the existing wilderness 

character is maintained. The no-action 

alternative would have continuing beneficial 

and long-term, minor to moderate, adverse 

impacts on NPS operations, but there would 

be no new impacts. 

Cumulative Impacts. No major new park 

projects and actions, independent of this plan, 

are expected over the life of this plan. Thus, 

no foreseeable actions would combine with 

alternative 1 that would result in cumulative 

park operations impacts.

Conclusion. Under alternative 1, park 

operations would continue to experience 

minor to moderate, long-term, adverse 

impacts due to inadequate facilities, the 

fragmentation of park staff and facilities, 

staffing shortages, and lack of funding. No 

cumulative impacts on park operations would 

be expected as a result of the alternative.
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

246

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

Analysis. Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

affects many elements of the regional 

economy, as noted in the “Affected 

Environment” chapter. With visitor use likely 

to be steady in the future and continuing NPS 

expenditures to operate and maintain the 

park, the park would continue to have a longterm, beneficial impact on the socioeconomic 

environment. Visitor spending would 

continue to affect local tourism businesses 

(e.g., motels, local stores, marinas, guides). 

Park spending would also continue to benefit 

local merchants, equipment suppliers, and 

contractors. Local governments also would 

continue to collect revenues from visitor 

spending and from businesses that obtain 

income from tourism and park operations.

The park would continue to be an important 

attraction for many residents and for people 

considering relocation to the region, although 

the park would not be expected to cause 

major changes in the regional population. 

There would be little or no change in parkrelated demands on community services and 

facilities. 

Although the park would continue to be 

important to socioeconomic environment, 

under the no-action alternative park facilities, 

access, and visitor opportunities would 

generally be maintained at existing levels, and 

park expenditures would not substantially 

change. Thus, it is expected that this 

alternative would result in no changes in the 

socioeconomic environment. 

Cumulative Impacts. No ongoing or new 

park projects, independent of this plan, or 

other major changes on lands adjacent to the 

park (e.g., substantial changes in management 

and land use of lands adjacent to the mainland 

unit) are expected over the life of this plan. In 

the future developments such as second 

homes may be built on some lands adjacent to 

the mainland unit. With increased revenues 

for construction businesses, and increased tax 

payments, this likely would have short- and 

long-term, minor, beneficial impacts on the 

regional economy, depending on the nature 

and scope of the developments. But because 

alternative 1 would have no socioeconomic 

effects, there would be no additive, 

cumulative impacts on the regional economy.

Conclusion. Although Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore would continue to be a 

key component of the regional socioeconomic 

environment, the no-action alternative would 

have no effect on the socioeconomic 

environment. No cumulative effects would 

occur as a result of the alternative.

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

Unavoidable adverse impacts are defined as 

impacts that cannot be fully mitigated or 

avoided. Under the no-action alternative, 

some soils and vegetation would continue to 

be lost or altered in developed and high use 

areas due to soil erosion from visitor use. This 

would include bank erosion, and trampling of 

vegetation on sandscapes. Docks (e.g., 

Michigan Island) would continue to alter 

coastal processes. Visitors also may 

inadvertently contribute to the introduction 

and spread of nonnative species and to water 

pollution in localized areas. Long-term, 

adverse impacts would continue to the natural 

soundscape due to visitor use and NPS 

maintenance activities, primarily in high-use 

areas and during high-use periods (e.g., 

summer weekends). Crowding and congestion 

at high use areas (e.g., docks) would occur 

during the summer, adversely affecting some 

visitors’ experiences. Bear-human conflicts 

would likely continue at the Stockton Island 

campground, which would adversely affect 

some bears and possibly people. Education, 

interpretation, and outreach efforts would 

help minimize, but not eliminate, the 

likelihood of these impacts. 

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE 

COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 

Irreversible commitments of resources are 

actions that result in loss of resources that 

cannot be reversed, except perhaps in the 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 1 

247

extreme long term. Irretrievable commitments 

of resources are actions that result in the loss 

of resources but only for a limited period of 

time. 

No new actions would be taken that would 

result in either the consumption of 

nonrenewable natural or cultural resources, 

or the use of renewable resources that would 

preclude other uses for a period. Because it 

takes so long for soils to form, the loss of soils 

due to visitor use in localized areas, and 

erosion of soil in places within Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore would be an irreversible 

commitment of resources. 

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORTTERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT 

AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 

This question explores long-term effects of an 

alternative, and whether or not the 

productivity of park resources is being traded 

for the immediate use of land. The National 

Park Service would continue to manage the 

park to maintain ecological processes and 

native biological communities and to provide 

appropriate recreational opportunities 

consistent with preservation of cultural and 

natural resources. The vast majority of 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore would 

continue to be protected in its current, 

relatively natural state and would maintain its 

long-term productivity. The primary shortterm uses of the park would continue to be 

recreational use. Continuing adverse impacts 

on the area’s soils, water quality, vegetation, 

and wildlife due to visitor use, could reduce 

the productivity of natural resources in 

localized areas over time, although overall 

there would be no measurable effect on the 

park’s long-term productivity. On the other 

hand, continuing efforts to restore disturbed 

areas would increase long-term productivity 

of the environment in localized areas.
248 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVE 2 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Soils 

Analysis. Several new park facilities would be 

built under alternative 2 that would involve 

ground disturbance and consequently impacts 

to soil. The construction and use of a new day 

use area on Basswood or Sand Island and at 

Little Sand Bay, new trails on selected islands, 

new group and individual campsites on Sand, 

Oak, and Basswood; the relocation of the 

Stockton Island campground and the Oak 

Island group campsite to new sites; the 

clearing of vegetation at light stations and on 

the Hansen farmsite on Sand Island; and the 

construction and use of a new ranger station 

and access ramp at Meyers Beach would all 

result in the loss or alteration of soil in 

localized areas. Site preparation and 

landscaping work would disturb soils in the 

project areas and construction equipment 

would disturb and compact soils. The 

development of trailer pads for NPS housing 

and visitor contact station at Little Sand Bay, 

and a new visitor center/operations facility in 

Bayfield, would likely occur on areas that have 

already been altered by past actions and 

developments, and thus would have a 

negligible effect on area soils. A total of no 

more than about 25 acres of soil would likely 

be altered or lost by these new developments. 

The adverse impact on soils in the project 

areas would likely be moderate and long term, 

but from a parkwide perspective the adverse 

impacts due to new developments would be 

minor to moderate, and long term. 

With visitation being encouraged on selected 

islands, such as Basswood and Sand, some 

popular areas would receive heavier use than 

under alternative 1. Thus, the adverse impacts 

on soils due to visitor use would be expected 

to be moderate in these localized areas and 

long term under alternative 2. Most of the soil 

impacts would likely occur along or near the 

shorelines of the islands that experience 

higher use levels. 

As in alternative 1, some soils may be 

compacted and eroded due to some existing 

campsites expanding, informal “zone” 

campsites being created, and “user-created 

trails” being formed in areas with facilities that 

receive relatively high levels of use. But with 

continued monitoring and instituting more 

formal user capacity indicators and standards 

in alternative 2 should help ensure that an 

unacceptable expansion in the size of 

campsites does not occur. Thus, compared to 

alternative 1, even with increased use levels on 

some islands, alternative 2 would be expected 

to result in fewer soil impacts, resulting in a 

long-term, beneficial impact. 

Cumulative Impacts. Soils in much of 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore probably 

have been altered by past activities (e.g., 

logging, agricultural practices). Some soils on 

lands adjacent to the mainland unit of the park 

may be lost or modified in the future due to 

new development. Also in the future, if the 

Quarry Bay campsites on Stockton Island 

were relocated, this would affect soils in a 

localized area. Assuming the campsites were 

relocated to a relatively undisturbed site, soils 

would be lost or modified. When these 

impacts are added to the minor to moderate 

adverse impacts under alternative 2, there 

would be a long-term, minor to moderate, 

adverse cumulative impact on area soils—

although the Quarry Bay action would add a 

very small increment to the overall cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion. Most of the park’s soils would 

not be affected by the actions in alternative 2. 

However, some soils would be eroded and 

lost, and soil properties would be altered due 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 2 

249

to construction of new facilities on the islands 

and mainland, and increased visitor use in 

localized areas on some islands such as 

Basswood and Sand. Overall, these adverse 

impacts would likely be minor to moderate 

and long term in extent. On the other hand, 

establishing and monitoring user capacity 

indicators and standards should help reduce 

the expansion of campsites, preventing soil 

erosion. This would have a long-term, 

beneficial impact. No unacceptable soil 

impacts or impairment to the park’s resources 

and values would result from this alternative. 

When the impacts of alternative 2 are added 

to past and foreseeable future impacts (i.e., 

relocation of the campsites in Quarry Bay) 

there would be a long-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse cumulative impact on area 

soils. 

Geological and Coastal Processes 

Analysis. With proper design and planning, 

the relocation of the Stockton Island 

campground to Presque Isle would reduce soil 

impacts to the sandscape in this area 

compared to alternative 1, resulting in a longterm, beneficial impact. 

With continuing visitor use of the islands’ 

sandscapes and beaches, it is expected that the 

vegetative cover on some popular areas, such 

as the Raspberry and Ironwood sandspits, 

would continue to be trampled, which in turn 

would increase the potential for wind and 

water erosion to affect the characteristics of 

some sandscapes (e.g., size, shape). Erosion 

due to people climbing up and down lake 

banks also would continue at island campsites 

near the lakeshore. Thus, visitor use in 

alternative 2 from a parkwide perspective 

would likely have the same effect on the park’s 

sandscapes over time as alternative 1: visitor 

use impacts would vary, depending on the 

level of use and environmental conditions, but 

long-term adverse impacts to coastal 

processes could range from minor to 

moderate in localized areas. 

As in alternative 1, existing docks would 

continue to affect coastal processes, altering 

the transport of sediments along the shoreline, 

resulting in minor to moderate, long-term, 

adverse impacts in localized areas. But several 

docks on the islands, such as the Michigan 

Island dock, would be rehabilitated and 

improved in alternative 2. As noted in the 

mitigative measures in chapter 3, these 

improvements would not occur until studies 

of longshore sand transport have been 

completed. Although it is not certain what 

would come out of these studies, for some 

docks the improvements could include 

measures to reduce the impact of the docks on 

the movement of sand along the coastline. 

With more sand available to replenish 

downstream areas, it is likely that Lake 

Superior currents and waves would not erode 

beaches as much under alternative 2 as under 

alternative 1. Depending on the design, 

location, and extent of the docks, and 

assuming the frequency and intensity of major 

storms does not substantially change, 

alternative 2 could have a long-term, 

beneficial impact on a few of the park’s 

sandscapes compared to alternative 1. 

Cumulative Impacts. As noted above and in 

the “Affected Environment” chapter, coastal 

processes in the past have been altered in 

specific areas, such as the installation of the 

dock at Michigan Island. Climate change is 

expected to affect lake levels and thus would 

affect coastal processes, including sediment 

transport and the park’s sandscapes and 

beaches. Because the changes due to climate 

change in the park are unpredictable, both in 

their timing (whether they occur within the 

timeframe of this plan or beyond) and in 

magnitude or intensity of the impact—the 

effects of climate change on coastal processes 

could range from minor to major in intensity. 

When the effects of the actions in alternative 2 

are added to the potential effects of climate 

change, there would be the potential for a 

minor to major, long-term, adverse, 

cumulative impact. But alternative 2 would 

add a very small increment when added to the 

potential effects of climate change. 

Conclusion. Alternative 2 would have both 

adverse and beneficial effects on coastal 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

250

processes. Visitors and existing docks would 

likely continue to affect the park’s sandscapes 

and shorelines, resulting overall in a minor to 

moderate, long-term, adverse impact in 

localized areas of the islands. On the other 

hand, compared to alternative 1 the relocation 

of the Stockton Island campground and the 

rehabilitation of several docks would help 

reduce visitor and dock impacts on shorelines 

and sandscapes, resulting in a long-term, 

beneficial impact. None of these impacts 

would be considered unacceptable, and none 

would result in an impairment of park 

resources and values. When the effects of 

climate change are added to the effects of 

alternative 1, there would be the potential for 

a long-term, minor to major, adverse 

cumulative impact on coastal processes—

although the actions in alternative 2 would 

add a very small increment to this overall 

impact. 

Surface Water Quality 

Analysis. As in alternative 1, in alternative 2 

visitors would continue to affect water quality 

in localized areas through swimming and 

bathing, and through the disposal of 

graywater and trash. These activities can 

contribute to the degradation of water quality 

by increasing nutrient and bacteria levels, and 

other chemicals (e.g., petroleum-based 

products, sunscreen, soaps). Some 

sedimentation also would occur at unsurfaced 

landings in localized areas where visitors put 

in and take out their boats and in areas where 

bank erosion is occurring due to visitors 

walking down steep slopes. With user levels 

increasing on some islands in this alternative, 

the potential for impacts to water quality 

would increase, although the large volume of 

Lake Superior would continue to dilute these 

impacts. On the other hand, new facilities on 

Basswood would likely include outhouses, 

which would help reduce the potential for 

water pollution in this area. Overall, visitor use 

in alternative 2 would likely have the same 

impact as in alternative 1: a negligible to 

minor, long-term, adverse impact to water 

quality in localized areas due to relatively low 

use levels and the dilution effect of Lake 

Superior. 

Although new transportation options would 

be encouraged in alternative 2, overall 

motorized boat use levels would not be 

expected to substantially change in the park. 

Thus, pollution from motorized boats, 

including MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether), 

PAHs (polyaromatic hydrocarbons), BTEX 

(benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene) 

and heavy metals such as copper, would be 

expected to result in about the same overall 

minor, long-term, adverse water quality 

impacts as alternative 1. Also, as in 

alternative 1, there could be minor to 

moderate, long-term impacts to water quality 

in those areas—such as Presque Isle Bay and 

Little Sand Bay—that receive high use levels, 

particularly on weekends and holidays. 

Unlike in alternative 1, in alternative 2 several 

docks would be rehabilitated. Depending on 

the nature and extent of the work, there could 

be water quality impacts due to increased 

turbidity in adjacent waters. However, the 

application of mitigative measures should 

minimize potential impacts due to accidental 

spills. Any such impacts from the dock work 

would be negligible to minor and short term in 

duration. 

Cumulative Impacts. Several sources of 

water pollution external to Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore have affected, and are 

likely to continue affecting, the water quality 

of the park. When added to the water quality 

impacts of alternative 2 being considered 

(negligible to minor, long-term, adverse 

impacts), there could be a minor to major, 

long-term, adverse cumulative impact to the 

park’s water quality, depending on the type 

and quantity of pollutants that enter park 

waters. However, the increment added by 

alternative 2 would be relatively small 

compared to the impact from pollutants being 

added from actions outside the park 

boundary. 

Conclusion. Alternative 2 would have the 

same negligible to minor, long-term, adverse 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 2 

251

impacts in water quality due to visitor use as 

alternative 1. Negligible to minor, short-term, 

adverse impacts to water quality also would 

occur due to rehabilitation of docks in this 

alternative. None of these impacts would be 

considered unacceptable, and the level of 

impact would not constitute an impairment of 

the park’s resources and values. When the 

effects of alternative 2 are added to the effects 

of water pollution from sources outside of the 

park, there would be the potential for a minor 

to major, adverse cumulative effect on the 

park’s water quality. However, the actions in 

alternative 2 would add only a small 

increment to the overall cumulative impact. 

Wetlands 

Analysis. No developments would occur 

under alternative 2 that would have the 

potential to affect wetlands in the park. As in 

alternative 1, some impacts would occur due 

to people walking through wetlands, 

trampling vegetation. But only a few people 

would be expected to walk into the wetlands 

over the course of a year, resulting in 

negligible, short- and long-term, adverse 

impacts. 

Cumulative Impacts. Climate change will 

likely affect the park’s wetlands, including 

their species composition and water levels. 

For example, if the frequency or intensity of 

storms change, park wetlands could be 

affected. Because the changes due to climate 

change in the park are unpredictable, both in 

their timing and in magnitude or intensity of 

the impact, the effects of climate change on 

the park’s wetlands could range from minor to 

major in intensity. When the effects of the 

actions in alternative 2 are added to the 

potential effects of climate change, there 

would be the potential for a minor to major, 

long-term, adverse, cumulative impact on 

wetlands. But alternative 2 would add a very 

small increment to the potential effects of 

climate change on wetlands. 

Conclusion. Alternative 2 would have the 

same effect as alternative 1: a negligible, shortand long-term, adverse impact on the park’s 

wetlands primarily due to people occasionally 

walking through the wetlands. The effects of 

this alternative would not result in 

unacceptable impacts or impairment of the 

park’s resources and values. When the effects 

of this alternative are added to the potential 

effects of climate change, there could be a 

minor to major, long-term, adverse 

cumulative effect on the park’s wetlands, 

although the actions in alternative 2 would 

add a very small increment to the overall 

cumulative impact. 

Floodplains 

Analysis. Under alternative 2, no new 

developments or other actions would occur in 

the Sand River floodplain on the mainland. 

Visitors would continue to walk through the 

floodplain, trampling vegetation. But with no 

trails in the area, only a few people would be 

expected to walk into the floodplains over the 

course of a year, resulting in negligible, shortand long-term, adverse impacts. 

Cumulative Impacts. No past, present, or 

foreseeable actions within or outside the park 

are expected to affect the Sand River 

floodplain. Thus, there would be no additive 

cumulative effects on the floodplain. 

Conclusion. Alternative 2 would have the 

same effect as alternative 1: a negligible, shortand long-term, adverse impact due to people 

walking in the Sand River floodplain. These 

impacts would not be considered 

unacceptable and the level of impact would 

not constitute an impairment of the park’s 

resources and values. No cumulative impacts 

would occur as a result of this alternative. 

Vegetation 

Analysis. The development of trailer pads for 

NPS housing, a visitor contact station and 

ramp at Little Sand Bay, and a new visitor 

center/operations facility in Bayfield in 

alternative 2 would likely occur on areas that 

have already been altered by past actions and 

developments, and thus would have a 

negligible to minor adverse effect on native 

vegetation. Removal of vegetation that is 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

252

encroaching on the light station clearings also 

would result in the loss of some native 

vegetation, which would have a negligible to 

minor, long-term, adverse impact depending 

on how much vegetation was removed. 

Several new park facilities would be built in 

alternative 2 that would involve clearing of 

native vegetation. The construction and use of 

new day use areas on the islands and at Little 

Sand Bay, new trails on selected islands, new 

group and individual campsites on Sand, Oak, 

and Basswood, relocation of the Stockton 

Island campground and the Oak Island group 

campsite to new sites, and development of a 

new ranger station at Meyers Beach would all 

result in the loss or alteration of vegetation in 

localized areas. The cultural landscape 

restoration work at some light stations could 

result in the removal of native vegetation, 

although these areas were substantially altered 

in the past. 

Efforts to partially restore the Hansen farm 

cultural landscape would entail, at a 

minimum, the removal of some native 

vegetation and weeds from old fields. Some 

native vegetation would be removed; 

however, because this area has been disturbed 

and altered in the past, this action would have 

a minor, long-term, adverse impact on native 

vegetation populations in this localized area. 

A total of no more than about 25 acres of 

vegetation would likely be altered or lost by 

these new developments in alternative 2. The 

adverse impact on native plants in the project 

areas would likely be moderate and long term, 

but from a parkwide perspective, the adverse 

impacts due to new developments would be 

minor to moderate, and long term. 

Under alternative 2, visitor use of Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore, including hiking 

and camping, would continue to affect the 

park’s vegetation. Although use levels would 

remain at current levels or slightly increase 

parkwide, on some islands a greater increase 

in use would be expected. Thus, as in 

alternative 1, some vegetation would likely be 

lost due to the formation of user-created trails 

in popular areas such as campsites and picnic 

areas. Vegetation along the Lake Superior 

shoreline would continue to be trampled and 

damaged in places where visitors walk up and 

down the shoreline. Some plants would also 

probably continue to be lost through visitors 

walking on sensitive vegetation on sandscapes. 

Some existing designated campsites probably 

would expand in area over time, and usercreated campsites would continue to be 

established or expand on islands, resulting in 

changes to and loss of vegetation in localized 

areas. If an area becomes cleared of vegetation 

due to the creation of a campsite(s), and if 

there were trees behind the cleared area and 

the beach, the trees would be more likely to be 

subject to blowdown. On the other hand, 

continued monitoring and the establishment 

of formal user capacity indicators and 

standards would assist managers in taking 

action before campsite conditions become 

unacceptable; this would have a minor, longterm, beneficial effect. Thus, visitor use under 

alternative 2, even with higher use levels in 

some areas, would be expected to have a longterm, minor, adverse impact on the park’s 

native vegetation in localized areas. 

As noted in the “Affected Environment” 

chapter, there has been a serious problem in 

the park with the introduction of nonnative 

species at construction sites. It is likely that 

some nonnative species would be introduced 

with new developments in this alternative. In 

addition, under alternative 2 some nonnative 

plants could be introduced or spread by park 

visitors at picnic areas and campsites, in spite 

of education efforts. Although it is difficult to 

determine the impact on native species due to 

the uncertainties about the type of species that 

might be introduced in the future and the 

locations and frequencies of introductions, it 

is likely that new introductions would occur. 

Even with monitoring and weed control 

efforts, the adverse effect of these impacts 

would be unknown, but could range from 

minor to major and be long term in duration. 

Alternative 2 would have several beneficial 

impacts for native vegetation. Restoring 

vegetation on the Oak Island group campsite 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 2 

253

and the Stockton Island campground, also 

would have beneficial impacts. Providing a 

ranger station at Meyers Beach and housing 

on Long Island would provide an NPS 

presence in these areas, which would aid in 

monitoring and taking action to address 

vegetation impacts due to visitors. Taken 

together, these actions would have a longterm, beneficial impact on the park’s 

vegetation in localized areas. 

Cumulative Impacts. Several potential 

actions, independent of this plan, could affect 

the park’s vegetation. As described in the 

“Affected Environment” chapter, much of the 

park’s vegetation has been substantially 

altered by past human activities, including 

logging and fires, farming, the building of 

cabins, quarrying, and the development of 

roads and fish camps. The impacts of these 

past actions far outweigh the impacts of the 

actions being proposed in the alternatives in 

this plan. 

In the future developments such as second 

homes may be built on some lands adjacent to 

the mainland unit of the park, which would 

result in the loss and modification of 

vegetation in these areas. This would have a 

long-term, minor, adverse impact on natural 

vegetation in the vicinity of the park. 

The possible relocation or redesign of the 

Quarry Bay campsites on Stockton Island, 

independent of this plan, would affect 

vegetation in the area, which would add a 

minor, long-term, adverse incremental effect 

to the effects of alternative 2. 

Nonnative species have been spreading in 

different locations in the park, such as Meyers 

Beach, due to past construction activities, 

visitor activities, and natural sources like wind 

and birds. Independent of the actions in the 

alternative, the spread of nonnative species is 

likely to continue in the future. From a 

parkwide perspective, this has resulted in a 

minor to major, long-term, adverse 

cumulative impact on the park’s vegetation, 

depending on the species. 

As noted in the “Affected Environment” 

chapter, deer are spreading from the mainland 

to the islands in increasing numbers. 

Increasing numbers of deer would browse the 

islands’ native vegetation, reducing or 

eliminating such species as Canada yew, 

which could have a moderate to major, longterm, adverse impact on some native 

vegetation on the islands. 

Climate change likely has affected and will 

continue to affect the park’s vegetation, 

including species composition and population 

numbers. Some southern species will expand 

into the park, while other northern species 

will decline or disappear. Warming 

temperatures are expected to increase the 

potential for wildfires and the spread of and 

seasons for insects, which in turn would have 

a minor to major, long-term, adverse impact 

on the park’s native vegetation. 

When the effects of all of these past and future 

actions are added to the adverse and 

beneficial effects of alternative 2, there would 

be a major, long-term, adverse, cumulative 

effect on the park’s vegetation. However, the 

effects of alternative 2 would add a very small 

increment to the overall cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Alternative 2 would result in 

both beneficial and adverse impacts to the 

park’s vegetation in localized areas. 

Restoration actions, the application of user 

capacity indicators and standards, and 

increased NPS presence on Long Island and 

Meyers Beach would result in an overall longterm, beneficial impact. Minor to moderate, 

long-term, adverse impacts would occur due 

to the development of new facilities and 

increased visitor use on some islands. The 

potential for the introduction and spread of 

nonnative invasive species in the park could 

increase, relative to alternative 1, resulting in 

an unknown impact on native vegetation. 

However, overall most of the park’s 

vegetation would not be affected by the 

actions in alternative 2 (with the possible 

exception of the impact of nonnative species). 

None of the impacts would likely affect the 

integrity, distribution, or presence of native 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

254

plant communities in Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore. None of the vegetation impacts in 

alternative 2 would be considered 

unacceptable or sufficient to result in an 

impairment of Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore’s resources and values. There 

would be the potential for a major, long-term, 

adverse cumulative effect on park vegetation, 

when past, present and foreseeable future 

actions within and outside the park are added 

to the effects of alternative 2. However, 

alternative 2 would add a very small increment 

to the overall cumulative impact. 

Wildlife 

Analysis. Some of the new developments in 

alternative 2 would occur in areas that have 

relatively natural vegetation, where people 

have not been present in large numbers. These 

areas and actions include the new day use 

areas on the islands and at Little Sand Bay; 

new trails on selected islands; new group and 

individual campsites on Sand, Oak, and 

Basswood islands; the new Meyers Beach 

ranger station; the relocation of the Stockton 

Island campground to Presque Isle; the 

clearing of vegetation at light stations and on 

the Hansen farmsite on Sand Island; and the 

possible relocation of the Oak Island group 

campsite to a new site. These new 

developments and actions would result in a 

loss or alteration of approximately 25 acres of 

wildlife habitat, with some wildlife, such as 

forest birds and mammals (e.g., voles, 

squirrels, hares) being displaced from the 

areas. Noise generated from the construction 

activities and from visitor use of the new 

facilities could potentially result in a larger 

area being subject to wildlife disturbance and 

displacement. Although construction 

activities would result in short-term impacts 

on wildlife, use of the facilities would result in 

long-term effects. As a result, there would 

likely be minor, long-term, adverse impacts on 

wildlife populations in these localized areas. 

Other new developments, including the new 

trailer pads and visitor contact station at Little 

Sand Bay, and the new visitor center/ 

operations facility in Bayfield, would occur in 

areas that have already been altered by past 

actions and developments and by the presence 

of people. Wildlife remaining in these areas 

have adapted to the presence of people, but 

wildlife are still being affected. Courtship, 

territory establishment, intra-species 

communication, predation and predator 

avoidance, and effective use of habitat could 

already have been affected by noise. That said, 

it is expected that any adverse impacts to 

wildlife due to these projects during the 

construction period would be negligible and 

short term in duration. 

Although increased use levels would occur on 

several islands under alternative 2, the impacts 

would be about the same as described under 

alternative 1. Wildlife populations, behaviors, 

and habitats already have been altered by 

people in popular areas of the park; these 

effects would continue under this alternative. 

In alternative 2, human use of the park would 

continue to be primarily concentrated in areas 

such as the light stations, the islands’ 

shorelines, and at campsites. Animals sensitive 

to human activities already avoid these areas 

when people are present. Wildlife that occupy 

these areas, such as red squirrels, hares, and 

mice, are mostly adapted to the presence of 

people and would not be noticeably affected 

by increased visitation. As in alternative 1, 

some animals would continue to occasionally 

be injured or killed by motor vehicles driving 

on roads in the mainland unit. Some animals, 

such as mice, blue jays, bears, sea gulls, and 

red squirrels, also probably would continue to 

be attracted by visitors feeding them or to 

areas where food and garbage are left out. The 

continuation of hunting and trapping would 

not be expected to adversely affect the park’s 

populations, assuming that harvests stay at 

about existing levels and there is careful 

monitoring and enforcement of the state’s 

regulations by the state of Wisconsin and the 

park staff. Taken altogether, visitor use in this 

alternative would be expected to have a 

minor, long-term, adverse impact on the 

park’s wildlife populations. 

Alternative 2 would have several beneficial 

impacts on wildlife. With the relocation of the 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 2 

255

Stockton Island campground to Presque Isle, 

out of key bear habitat, the potential for bearhuman conflicts would decline compared to 

alternative 1. Thus, in alternative 2, it is likely 

in the future that fewer problem bears would 

need to be conditioned to avoid humans, 

resulting in a long-term, beneficial impact. In 

addition, under alternative 2 the restoration of 

native vegetation on the Oak Island group 

campsite site would increase wildlife habitat, 

resulting in a long-term, beneficial impact. 

Clustering some campsites in the wilderness 

area would decrease habitat fragmentation 

and concentrate people in fewer areas, which 

in turn would reduce direct human-wildlife 

interactions, resulting in a long-term, 

beneficial impact. Finally, providing a ranger 

station at Meyers Beach and staff housing on 

Long Island would provide a long-term NPS 

presence in these areas, which would aid in 

monitoring and taking action to address 

wildlife impacts due to visitors. 

Cumulative Impacts. Like vegetation, several 

potential actions, independent of this plan, 

could affect the park’s wildlife. As described 

in the “Affected Environment” chapter, the 

loss of and/or changes in vegetation have 

affected the habitat for wildlife in the park 

(e.g., the spread of deer). Hunting also has 

affected wildlife in the past and present. 

 

In the future, developments such as second 

homes may be built on some lands adjacent to 

the mainland unit of the park, which would 

result in the displacement of some wildlife and 

the loss and modification of wildlife habitat in 

these areas. In addition, noise generated by 

human activities in the vicinity of the islands, 

such as that generated by the use of motorized 

watercraft, could also disturb or displace 

some wildlife, particularly if these uses were to 

increase. These actions would likely have a 

long-term, minor, adverse impact on wildlife 

populations in or near the park. 

The possible relocation or redesign of the 

Quarry Bay campsites on Stockton Island, 

independent of this plan, would affect wildlife 

in the area, displacing some animals, which 

would add a minor, long-term, adverse 

incremental effect to the effects of 

alternative 2. 

Climate change will also likely affect wildlife 

composition of the park. Some southern 

species will expand into the park, while other 

northern species will decline or disappear. 

Warming temperatures are expected to 

increase the spread of and seasons for insects, 

which could benefit some wildlife species and 

adversely affect other species. (See the 

“Affected Environment” chapter for more 

information.) Because the changes due to 

climate change in the park are unpredictable, 

both in their timing and in magnitude or 

intensity of the impact, the effects of climate 

change on the park’s wildlife could range from 

minor to major in intensity. When the effects 

of the actions in alternative 2 are added to the 

potential effects of climate change, there 

would be the potential for a minor to major, 

long-term, adverse, cumulative impact on the 

park’s wildlife populations. But alternative 2 

would add a very small increment to the 

potential effects of climate change on wildlife. 

Conclusion. Alternative 2 would result in 

both adverse and beneficial impacts to wildlife 

in localized areas. Most wildlife in the park 

would not change as a result of the actions in 

this alternative. No actions would affect areas 

known to be important for breeding, nesting, 

foraging, or key migration routes. No actions 

would interfere with feeding, reproduction, or 

other activities necessary for the survival of 

wildlife species. New developments on the 

islands would result in the loss of some 

wildlife habitat, resulting in a minor, longterm, adverse impact. Minor, long-term 

adverse impacts also would occur due to 

increased visitation on several islands. On the 

other hand, alternative 2 would result in longterm, beneficial impacts due to habitat 

restoration efforts, increased NPS presence at 

Meyers Beach and Long Island, and the 

relocation of the Stockton Island campground 

out of key bear habitat. There would be the 

potential for a minor to major, long-term, 

adverse cumulative impact on the park’s 

wildlife when the effects of alternative 2 are 

added to the potential effects of climate 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

256

change. But the increment added by 

alternative 2 to the overall cumulative impact 

would be very small. None of the wildlife 

impacts resulting from alternative 2 would be 

considered unacceptable or constitute an 

impairment of the park’s resources and values. 

Federal and State Threatened 

and Endangered Species 

Analysis. No new actions or developments on 

Long Island or the Michigan Island sandspit 

under alternative 2 would affect the federal 

and state endangered piping plovers in the 

park. As in alternative 1, visitors and their 

dogs could disturb plovers. However, in 

alternative 2, NPS housing at the Long Island 

light station would enable NPS staff to more 

effectively monitor the plover nests and 

reduce the potential for visitor disturbance. In 

addition, with continued efforts to protect 

nesting birds, including visitor education 

efforts and temporary closures around nesting 

areas, it is less likely that visitors would 

deliberately or accidentally disturb the 

plovers. If visitor use impacts were identified 

in the future, the park staff would consult with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to identify 

and implement additional appropriate 

mitigative measures. Consequently, under 

alternative 2 visitors might affect, but would 

not likely adversely affect, piping plovers in 

the park. 

Cumulative Impacts. As described in the 

piping plover recovery plan, increasing habitat 

loss, recreational pressure, predation, and 

contaminants are likely responsible for 

continuing population declines of the piping 

plover throughout its range (USFWS 2003). 

Outside of the park, habitat loss and 

modification has historically affected the 

Great Lakes region, although this impact is 

now thought to be occurring at a much 

reduced level (J. Trick, biologist, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, pers. comm., October 22, 

2008). Predation and disease, the use of 

motorized vehicles on beaches, recreational 

activities on beaches (e.g., beach walking, bike 

riding) likely will continue to affect the birds. 

Contaminants, pollution, and noise from 

human activities within and outside the park 

also may be affecting the species, although this 

is unknown. Although actions are being taken 

to protect piping plovers, such as controlling 

human access to nesting areas and educating 

the public, the species is likely to continue to 

be imperiled during the life of this plan. 

Independent of the alternative, park staff 

would continue to monitor and protect all 

piping plover nest sites. 

As noted above, alternative 2 would have a 

beneficial effect on the protection of piping 

plovers on Long Island. When this beneficial 

impact is added to the effects of actions 

occurring outside the park, there would 

overall be a long-term, adverse, cumulative 

impact. However, the effect of alternative 2 on 

the overall cumulative impact would be a very 

small beneficial increment. 

Conclusion. No new developments or actions 

would occur on the beaches under 

alternative 2 that would have the potential to 

affect piping plover in the park. Visitor use on 

island beaches would continue to have the 

potential to disturb plovers, but with 

increased NPS presence on Long Island and 

the continuation of other protection 

measures, impacts would be expected to be 

negligible. Thus, alternative 2 may affect, but 

would not adversely affect, the park’s piping 

plovers. No impacts would occur that would 

be considered unacceptable or result in an 

impairment of the park’s resources and values. 

The effect of alternative 2 added to the effects 

of other past, present, and foreseeable future 

actions occurring outside the park would 

result in a long-term, adverse, cumulative 

impact, although the increment added by the 

alternative would be beneficial and very small. 

Natural Soundscape 

Analysis. In alternative 2 noise would result 

from the construction and use of several new 

developments, including campsites, trails, day 

use areas, a new ranger station and access 

ramp at Meyers Beach, trailer pads and a new 

visitor contact station at Little Sand Bay, and a 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 2 

257

new visitor center/operations facility in 

Bayfield. In some of these areas, the noise 

from construction equipment (e.g., chainsaws) 

would be minor to moderate, but it would be 

temporary and localized, and would occur at 

different times and different places in the 

park. In some areas where there are other 

people and facilities, such as Meyers Beach, 

Bayfield, and Little Sand Bay, the impact of 

this noise would be less than in areas where 

there are relatively few people, such as on 

Basswood Island. 

As in alternative 1, noise from NPS 

maintenance and management activities, such 

as trail maintenance, grass mowing, pumping 

of vault toilets, and restoration activities, 

would continue to be heard occasionally on 

the park’s islands. Most noise from these 

activities would be in or near developed areas 

that are already exposed to noise from 

vehicles, motors, and visitors. Overall, noise 

from ongoing maintenance and restoration 

activities would have a minor to moderate, 

adverse impact on the natural soundscape in 

local areas, depending upon the activity, 

presence of other facilities and people, 

vegetation, and wind. Although the impacts 

would be of short duration, because they 

would occur over the life of the plan the 

impact would be long term. 

In alternative 2, during much of the year, 

particularly during the winter, there would 

continue to be few noises due to the absence 

of people. However, during the peak use 

season, there would continue to be moderate 

levels of noise due to visitors and motorboats 

stopping at the islands. Noise levels would be 

most noticeable primarily in developed areas 

and popular use areas, such as the light 

stations, anchorages, or docks at Rocky, South 

Twin, Raspberry, Oak, and Sand islands, the 

Stockton Island Visitor Center, Little Sand 

Bay, and Meyers Beach. Noise levels would 

also likely be moderate at times at Meyers 

Beach during the winter, when visitors go out 

to see the ice caves. These impacts would be 

brief, but would increase in intensity and 

duration during holidays and weekends when 

high numbers of visitors are present. Noise 

from regular concessioner island cruise 

service in the summer to Raspberry, Stockton, 

and Oak islands also would continue, with 

large groups of people disembarking on these 

islands. In addition, under alternative 2, there 

would be the potential for increased use on 

several islands, which in turn would increase 

the potential for noise. But most of these 

people would likely go to the popular use 

areas, and the increase in visitor numbers 

would not be expected to substantially 

increase noise levels. Because visitor use levels 

overall in the park in alternative 2 would be 

about the same as in alternative 1, the impacts 

of noise from visitors in the two alternatives 

would be about the same—minor to 

moderate, long-term, adverse noise impacts in 

local areas on the mainland and most islands 

throughout Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore. 

Cumulative Impacts. Noise from outside the 

park has affected the park’s soundscape in the 

past and will continue to do so in the future. 

As described in the “Affected Environment” 

chapter, depending on location and wind 

direction, common human-caused sounds 

include engines from watercraft passing near 

the park, vehicles on roads on the mainland, 

sounds from logging operations, and urban 

sounds from Bayfield would continue to be 

heard in the park. Noise from the concession 

boat would continue to be heard not just at 

the islands it visits, but also on the islands it 

passes by. In the winter, noise from 

snowmobiles passing by the park would 

continue to be heard. 

It is possible in the future that events like the 

speedboat “poker run” and other unregulated 

activities may occur just outside the park 

boundary, generating substantial noise. In 

addition, developments such as second homes 

may be built on some lands adjacent to the 

mainland unit of the park, which would result 

in noise during and after the construction 

period in these areas. 

These adverse noise impacts would be minor 

to moderate (depending upon the type of 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

258

noise and location), intermittent, and long 

term—occurring every year. 

When these impacts are added to the 

continuing impacts of alternative 2 there 

would be the potential for a long-term, minor 

to moderate, adverse, cumulative impact on 

the natural soundscape. However, these 

cumulative impacts would primarily occur at 

certain times in the summer, such as 

weekends. The actions in alternative 2 would 

add a very small increment to the overall 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative 2, most of the 

park would remain relatively quiet, with some 

noise affecting the natural soundscape. 

Alternative 2 would result in short- and longterm, minor to moderate, adverse impacts due 

to the construction and use of new facilities 

on the islands and mainland. Minor to 

moderate, adverse noise impacts also would 

occur in local areas on the mainland and most 

islands in Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, 

particularly in developed areas, due to visitor 

use and NPS maintenance and management 

activities. None of these noise impacts, 

however, would be unacceptable or be of a 

magnitude to result in an impairment of the 

park’s resources and values. There would be 

the potential for a long-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse cumulative impact to the 

soundscape when the noise resulting from 

implementing this alternative is added to noise 

from activities outside of the park. But the 

increment added by alternative 2 to the overall 

impact would be very small. 

WILDERNESS CHARACTER 

Analysis. Alternative 2 would have many of 

the same effects on wilderness character as 

alternative 1. No major changes in 

management would occur in the Gaylord 

Nelson Wilderness in alternative 2—the area 

would continue to be managed largely as it is 

now. 

Although use levels would increase on several 

islands, it is expected that most of these 

visitors would stay in popular use areas and 

not venture into the wilderness. Thus, like 

alternative 1, most of the wilderness area 

would likely receive very little use. There 

would continue to be a few places in the 

wilderness area where relatively large groups 

of people (10 – 30+) may gather at times, 

particularly on weekends and holidays; these 

areas could include the beaches at the 

southeast side of Raspberry Island, and on the 

north side of York Island. In these areas, 

opportunities for solitude would be 

diminished. 

Clustering campsites in the wilderness area 

would reduce opportunities for solitude for 

some campers, resulting in a minor, longterm, adverse impact. On the other hand, 

relocating the Oak Island group campsite out 

of the wilderness area would increase 

opportunities for solitude in this area, 

resulting in a minor, long-term, beneficial 

impact. 

No new developments would occur in the 

wilderness area, although some campsites may 

be reconfigured and clustered. As in 

alternative 1, in a few other areas of the 

wilderness, signs of people, including hiking 

trails, campsites, and some historic structures, 

would be evident, as would occasional usercreated trails and trampled vegetation or bare 

ground from informal campsites. Nevertheless, most visitors in this alternative would 

continue to find what they perceive to be 

natural conditions in most of the wilderness 

area—visitors would continue to find a 

forested landscape generally appearing 

untrammeled by people, with few obvious 

signs of disturbance or alteration. 

The removal of the Oak Island group campsite 

from the wilderness area and restoration of 

the site would make this area once again 

appear more natural. Thus, the actions in 

alternative 2 would have a long-term, minor, 

beneficial effect on the apparent naturalness 

of the area. 

Implementation of alternative 2 would not 

alter opportunities for primitive recreation in 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 2 

259

the wilderness area. Opportunities for 

primitive, unconfined recreation would 

continue to be present on most of the islands. 

Day-use visitors would have complete 

freedom to go wherever they pleased, except 

for the small number of areas that are closed 

for resource protection purposes (e.g., Gull 

and Eagle islands). For visitor safety and 

resource concerns, permits for overnight 

camping at designated campsites and for 

zoned camping would continue to be 

required. The permit system would ensure 

that overcrowding of campers does not occur 

in the wilderness. Although most visitors 

would likely agree that there would be 

outstanding opportunities for primitive, 

unconfined recreation on the islands, permit 

and camping requirements would continue to 

slightly diminish these qualities, resulting in a 

minor, long-term, adverse impact on primitive 

recreation. It is possible that the 

implementation of user capacity indicators 

and standards could result in additional 

restrictions on visitor use if standards were 

exceeded, but it is not possible to speculate 

what actions, if any would be taken—and 

obtrusive use restrictions would only be taken 

as a last resort, if no other actions could 

correct the problem. 

Cumulative Impacts. Actions independent of 

alternative 2 have affected, and would likely 

continue to affect the wilderness character of 

the park. Noise generated from human 

activities outside of the park, such as that 

generated from the use of motorized boats, 

would continue to affect some visitors’ 

perceptions of solitude, resulting in a longterm, minor adverse impact to wilderness 

character. As noted in the impact topics 

above, the spread of nonnative species and 

climate change have affected, and are likely to 

continue adversely affecting the park’s 

biological communities—including the 

wilderness area—resulting in a long-term, 

minor to moderate, adverse impact to 

wilderness character (i.e., adverse effect on 

apparent naturalness of the wilderness areas). 

On the other hand NPS staff have worked to 

restore disturbed areas in wilderness and 

likely will continue to do so in the future. This 

would have a minor, long-term, beneficial 

impact on wilderness character. 

When all of the above actions are added to the 

impacts in alternative 2, there would be the 

potential for a minor to moderate, long-term, 

adverse cumulative impact on the wilderness 

character. However, alternative 2 would add a 

very small increment to the overall cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion. In this alternative, in most of the 

wilderness area, visitors would be able to find 

outstanding opportunities for solitude and 

primitive, unconfined recreation in what most 

people would perceive to be a natural 

landscape. Overall, alternative 2 would have a 

minor, long-term, beneficial impact compared 

to alternative 1. The relocation of the Oak 

Island group campsite out of the wilderness 

area would have a long-term, minor, beneficial 

impact on opportunities for solitude and 

apparent naturalness in this area. On the other 

hand, alternative 2 would have the same 

minor, long-term adverse impact to the area’s 

wilderness characteristics as alternative 1, due 

to the continuing requirement to obtain a 

permit to camp in the wilderness. Clustering 

campsites also would have a minor, long-term, 

adverse impact, due to some visitors 

perceiving a loss of solitude. 

None of these impacts to wilderness character 

would be considered unacceptable. When the 

effects of actions occurring independent of 

the alternative are added to the effects of 

alternative 2 there would be the potential for a 

minor to moderate, adverse, cumulative effect 

on wilderness character—albeit alternative 2 

would add a very small increment to this 

overall cumulative impact. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Historic Structures / Cultural Landscapes 

Light Stations 

Under alternative 2, the park would consider 

more extensive preservation treatments of 

selected light stations for interpretive and 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

260

educational purposes. Initial stabilization of 

the light stations would be carried out as 

needed in accordance with the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties to structurally reinforce, 

weatherize, and correct unsafe conditions.

With particular regard to the standards and 

guidelines for preservation, the existing form, 

features, and architectural detailing of the 

light station buildings and structures would be 

retained. As needed, shoreline stabilization 

would also be undertaken (such as that 

completed for the Raspberry Island and Outer 

Island light stations) to control erosion of the 

shoreline embankments that has threatened 

the historic structures. These measures would 

have long-term negligible to minor adverse 

impacts on the historic light stations. 

In addition to the Raspberry Island light 

station, restoration and/or rehabilitation of 

other light stations (e.g., those on Sand, 

Michigan and Outer islands) would be 

undertaken to enhance visitor interpretation, 

education, and recreational opportunities. As 

feasible, one of the light stations could be 

rehabilitated to permit overnight visitor 

lodging, and portions of the Long Island light 

station could be rehabilitated for NPS staff 

housing. In accordance with the Secretary of 

the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (with particular attention 

to the standards and guidelines for 

rehabilitation), historic building materials and 

character-defining features would be 

protected and maintained to the extent 

possible, although extensively deteriorated, 

damaged, or missing features would be 

replaced with traditional or substitute 

materials. Possible alterations and additions 

may be appropriate to permit efficient 

contemporary uses of the structures and 

buildings. Although full restoration may not 

be feasible, partial restoration carried out in 

accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties may be appropriate in certain 

instances to approximate the appearance of 

selected light stations (or portions thereof) at 

particular historically significant periods. 

Rehabilitation and/or restoration of the light 

stations carried out in accordance with the 

Secretary’s Standards would have long-term 

negligible to minor adverse impacts on these 

historic properties. 

The cultural landscapes associated with 

restored or rehabilitated light stations would 

also be partially or fully restored or 

rehabilitated in accordance with the Secretary 

of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (with Guidelines for the 

Treatment of Cultural Landscapes),and 

cultural landscape report recommendations.

The cultural landscapes of other light stations 

would be preserved and stabilized to maintain 

the integrity of cultural landscape features 

identified as contributing to site significance. 

Historic views may be obscured in some 

instances by trees and other vegetation 

encroaching into the larger surrounding areas 

historically reserved for the light stations. 

However, preservation, rehabilitation, and 

restoration of cultural landscape elements 

associated with the light stations would have 

long-term negligible to minor adverse impacts 

on historic properties. 

Other Historic Structures 

and Cultural Landscapes 

National register-listed or national registereligible structures and buildings associated 

with historic farmsteads, tourism/recreational 

sites, fishing and logging camps, etc. would be 

preserved and stabilized in accordance with 

the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties. Contributing 

cultural landscape features associated with 

these sites would also be preserved and 

stabilized. The historic Hokenson fishery on 

the mainland at Little Sand Bay may be 

considered in future planning for 

rehabilitation and adaptive use as a visitor 

center or contact facility. These actions would 

have long-term negligible to minor adverse 

impacts on historic properties. 

For selected historic properties currently 

under use and occupancy leases or life estates 

(i.e., the former fishing settlement and later 

resort on Rocky Island, the West Bay Club on 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 2 

261

Sand Island, and Shaw Point / Camp Stella on 

Sand Island), the park staff would undertake 

various preservation treatments and adaptive 

uses once leases have expired and/or private 

occupancy has ceased. Historic structures 

would be preserved at the Rocky Island 

settlement, and one or more docks may be 

rehabilitated. The West Bay Club lodge and 

dock would be preserved and possibly 

rehabilitated for public overnight use, and the 

historic road between the West Bay Club and 

East Bay would be used for trail access. At 

Shaw Point, docks would be rehabilitated and 

contributing Camp Stella historic structures 

would be preserved and possibly rehabilitated 

for public overnight use. The historic road 

between Shaw Point and East Bay would be 

used for trail access. Contributing structures 

at the Hansen farm would be stabilized and 

preserved, and its cultural landscape would be 

partially restored. Implementation of these 

actions in accordance with the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties would have long-term 

negligible to minor adverse impacts on these 

historic properties. 

Cumulative Impacts. Historic buildings, 

structures and cultural landscapes at the park 

are susceptible to severe weathering and 

storm damage from harsh climatic conditions. 

Forest vegetation encroaching near historic 

structures and sites also presents a risk of fire 

damage from increasing fuel loads. Park staff 

also face logistical challenges and the 

additional expenses associated with 

transporting materials and equipment by boat 

from the mainland to island docks, and 

subsequently from docks to worksites on the 

islands to carry out preservation activities. 

Consequently, preservation treatment of 

historic buildings, structures and cultural 

landscapes may not always occur in a timely 

manner and/or may be deferred in some 

instances. The integrity of these historic 

properties can be adversely affected if historic 

fabric deteriorates or is lost. However, in 

conformance with the Secretary’s Standards 

and as funding permits, the national lakeshore 

continues to carry out stabilization and 

preservation of historic structures (e.g., 

reroofing, repointing, painting, structural 

reinforcement and other repairs) to arrest 

deterioration and to retain as much of the 

historic integrity of these structures as 

possible. These measures, in addition to more 

extensive preservation treatments such as the 

rehabilitation and restoration of the 

Raspberry Island light tower and keeper’s 

quarters, have had long-term beneficial 

impacts. 

The impacts associated with implementation 

of alternative 2 would have long-term 

negligible to minor adverse impacts on the 

park’s light stations, and other historic 

buildings, structures, and cultural landscapes. 

Other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions would result in both 

negligible to minor adverse and beneficial 

impacts. However, the impacts of the other 

actions described above, in combination with 

the impacts of alternative 2, would result in 

long-term negligible to minor adverse 

cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Implementation of actions 

proposed by alternative 2 would have longterm negligible to minor adverse impacts on 

the park’s light stations and other historic 

structures, buildings and cultural landscapes 

listed in or eligible for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places. There would also 

be long-term negligible to minor adverse 

cumulative impacts on these historic 

properties from implementation of alternative 

2 in conjunction with other past, present or 

reasonably foreseeable actions. 

Because there would be no adverse impacts to 

a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified 

in the establishing legislation of Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore, (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the park or to 

opportunities for enjoyment of the park, or (3) 

identified as a goal in the park’s General 

Management Plan or other relevant NPS 

planning document, there would be no 

impairment of the national lakeshore’s 

resources or values. 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

262

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effect (36 CFR Part 800.5, 

Assessment of Adverse Effects), the National 

Park Service concludes that implementing 

alternative 2 would result in no adverse effect 

on historic structures and cultural landscapes. 

Archeological Resources 

Efforts to enhance visitor accessibility to 

nonwilderness areas on the islands would 

entail some new development such as day-use 

areas and campsites on Sand and Basswood 

islands, new trails on selected islands, and 

improvements to public docks. The Stockton 

Island campground would be relocated to 

Presque Isle. In wilderness areas, some camp 

sites and trails may be reconfigured or 

relocated. New construction on the mainland 

unit would include a beach access ramp and 

an NPS ranger station at Meyers Beach, and a 

public day-use area at Little Sand Bay. 

Ground-disturbing construction activities 

associated with development proposals have 

the potential to impact archeological 

resources. In consultation with the Wisconsin 

state historic preservation office and affiliated 

tribal historic preservation offices, the Park 

Service would ensure that archeological 

assessments and surveys are carried out for all 

areas of potential effect proposed for 

development prior to construction. Known 

resources would be avoided to the greatest 

extent possible. If during construction 

previously undiscovered archeological 

resources were uncovered, all work in the 

immediate vicinity of the discovery would be 

halted until the resources could be identified 

and documented and an appropriate 

mitigation strategy developed through further 

consultation. Few, if any, adverse impacts 

would be anticipated. 

NPS archeologists would continue to monitor 

the condition of known archeological sites, 

and would undertake appropriate protection 

and stabilization measures as necessary to 

reduce or avoid site impacts possibly 

occurring from natural erosion, visitor use, or 

other factors. NPS archeologists would also 

continue to carry out survey inventories and 

documentation of archeological resources in 

fulfillment of section 110 requirements of the 

National Historic Preservation Act. 

Continuation of archeological resource 

management actions under existing laws and 

policies would have long-term negligible to 

minor adverse impacts on archeological 

resources. 

Cumulative Impacts. Archeological 

resources at the park (and throughout the 

area) are subject to a variety of disturbances 

associated with shoreline erosion and other 

natural erosion processes, high winds that can 

overturn trees and dislodge buried sites, 

ground-disturbing construction activities, 

inadvertent visitor use impacts, artifact 

looting, etc. These factors can contribute to 

adversely affect the integrity of archeological 

resources as the potential of impacted sites to 

yield important prehistoric or historic 

information is diminished and/or irretrievably 

lost. However, understanding of regional 

prehistory and history can also benefit as 

archeological information continues to be 

acquired through ongoing research and 

perhaps from data recovery investigations 

carried out in fulfillment of mitigation 

requirements. 

The impacts associated with implementation 

of alternative 2 would have long-term 

negligible to minor adverse impacts on the 

park’s archeological resources. Other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 

would result in both negligible to minor 

adverse and beneficial impacts. Consequently, 

the beneficial and adverse impacts of the other 

actions described above, in combination with 

the impacts of alternative 2 would 

cumulatively result in long-term negligible to 

minor adverse impacts on archeological 

resources. 

Conclusion. Implementation of actions 

proposed by alternative 2 would have longterm negligible to minor adverse impacts on 

the park’s prehistoric and historic 

archeological resources listed in or eligible for 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 2 

263

listing in the National Register of Historic 

Places. There would also be long-term 

negligible to minor adverse cumulative 

impacts on archeological resources from 

implementation of alternative 2 in 

conjunction with other past, present or 

reasonably foreseeable actions. 

Because there would be no adverse impacts to 

a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified 

in the establishing legislation of Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore, (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the national 

lakeshore or to opportunities for enjoyment 

of the park, or (3) identified as a goal in the 

park’s General Management Plan or other 

relevant NPS planning document, there would 

be no impairment of the national lakeshore’s 

resources or values. 

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effect (36 CFR Part 800.5, 

Assessment of Adverse Effects), the National 

Park Service concludes that implementing 

alternative 2 would result in no adverse effect 

on archeological resources. 

Ethnographic Resources 

Efforts to enhance visitor accessibility to 

nonwilderness areas on the islands would 

entail some new infrastructure development 

such as day-use areas and campsites on Sand 

and Basswood islands, new trails on selected 

islands, and improvements to public docks. 

The Stockton Island campground would be 

relocated to Presque Isle. In wilderness areas, 

some camp sites and trails may be 

reconfigured or relocated. New construction 

on the mainland unit would include an 

accessible visitor use ramp and NPS ranger 

station at Meyers Beach, and a public day-use 

area at Little Sand Bay. Although management 

information to identify the existence or 

location of ethnographic resources is limited 

at the park, ethnographic resources could 

potentially be impacted as a result of these 

ground-disturbing construction activities. 

Continuing consultations with the Ojibwe and 

other affiliated tribes to identify ethnographic 

resources would minimize the possibility that 

unknown sites could inadvertently be 

disturbed by visitor use or NPS activities. 

Long-term negligible to minor adverse 

impacts would be anticipated. 

NPS staff would continue to collaborate with 

the Ojibwe and other affiliated tribes to 

identify and evaluate potential ethnographic 

resources by conducting appropriate research 

and investigations (i.e., ethnographic 

overviews and assessments, traditional use 

studies, ethnographic landscape studies, oral 

histories, etc.). Identified ethnographic 

resources meeting the criteria of national 

register-eligibility would be documented and 

managed as “traditional cultural properties.” 

Efforts to identify, document and protect 

ethnographic resources would have longterm, beneficial impacts on these resources 

should they be found to exist in the park. 

In consultation with affiliated tribes, the Park 

Service would continue to permit customary 

harvest and consumptive use of park 

resources, including the rights to hunt, fish 

and gather plants and berries. These activities 

would be carried out in accordance with park 

purposes and NPS policies, with the provision 

that they do not to adversely affect park 

wildlife or the reproductive potential of plant 

species, or otherwise adversely affect park 

resources. Also in accordance with applicable 

laws and policies, the Park Service would 

permit tribal access to park areas for 

traditional religious, ceremonial, and other 

customary activities. In consultation with the 

tribes and consistent with tribal goals, the 

Park Service would protect sacred sites and 

other ethnographic resources should these be 

identified. Providing and protecting tribal 

access to traditional use areas in the park, and 

protection of customary hunting, fishing and 

gathering activities would have long-term, 

beneficial impacts on ethnographic resources. 

Cumulative Impacts. Ethnographic 

resources at the park (and throughout the 

region) are subject to a variety of disturbances 

associated with erosion and other natural 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

264

processes, ground-disturbing construction or 

development activities, inadvertent visitor use 

impacts, blocked access to traditional use 

areas, artifact looting, etc. In part because of 

tribal concerns for retaining the 

confidentiality of ethnographic resources, 

land managers are occasionally challenged to 

provide adequate protection for these 

resources because of the limited information 

available regarding their potential existence, 

nature and location. These factors can 

contribute to adversely affect the integrity of 

ethnographic resources having particular 

significance to tribes and other cultural 

groups. However, ongoing research and 

information gathered from tribal 

consultations can provide long-term benefits 

by increasing understanding and appreciation 

for the protection of regional ethnographic 

resources. 

The impacts associated with implementation 

of alternative 2 would have long-term 

negligible to minor adverse impacts on the 

park’s ethnographic resources. Other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 

would result in both negligible to minor 

adverse and beneficial impacts. However, the 

impacts of the other actions described above, 

in combination with the impacts of alternative 

2, would result in long-term negligible to 

minor adverse cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Implementation of the actions 

proposed by alternative 2 would have longterm negligible to minor adverse impacts on 

ethnographic resources at park. Long-term 

negligible to minor adverse cumulative 

impacts on ethnographic resources would also 

occur from implementation of alternative 2 in 

conjunction with other past, present or 

reasonably foreseeable actions. 

Because there would be no adverse impacts to 

a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified 

in the establishing legislation of Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore, (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the park or to 

opportunities for enjoyment of the park, or (3) 

identified as a goal in the park’s General 

Management Plan or other relevant NPS 

planning document, there would be no 

impairment of the park’s resources or values. 

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effect (36 CFR Part 800.5, 

Assessment of Adverse Effects), the National 

Park Service concludes that implementing 

alternative 2 would result in no adverse effect 

on ethnographic resources. 

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 

Ability to Access the Park, 

Including Universal Access 

In alternative 2, the focus would be on 

providing opportunities for more visitors to 

have an island experience, encouraging 

additional transportation options for visitors 

to reach some of the inner islands who don’t 

have their own boats or the skills to deal with 

challenging Lake Superior conditions. 

Further, some existing docks on the islands 

would be improved, including some 

associated with former use and 

occupancy/current life estates. These 

improvements would increase access 

opportunities to some of the most desired 

locations in the park, which was encouraged 

by some members of the public. Further, these 

improvements would increase the diversity of 

visitors that could partake in an island 

experience, which is considered a 

fundamental value of the park. These access 

improvements would be considered a longterm, major, beneficial impact. 

In this alternative, in addition to the existing 

facilities that are accessible to visitors with 

disabilities, a new access ramp to the beach 

that is accessible would be added at Meyers 

Beach. The addition of this facility would 

enhance visitors’ opportunities to more easily 

access Meyers Beach, a popular location for 

viewing the islands and the nearby sea caves. 

This new facility would be considered a longterm moderate beneficial impact. 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 2 

265

Lake and Island Related Recreational 

Opportunities and Experiences 

As noted, this alternative would focus on 

providing more people the opportunity to 

have an island experience. This would include 

additional opportunities for recreation 

facilities on the nonwilderness areas of the 

islands. Existing lake and island recreational 

opportunities would continue to be available. 

Most of Sand, Basswood, and Long islands 

would be in the backcountry zone to protect 

resources while also allowing for exploration 

of additional nature based recreation 

opportunities. 

New facilities would include new trails on 

selected islands, and increased designated 

campsites and group campsites on Sand and 

Basswood islands. Also, new trail opportunities that make use of historic road routes may 

be provided to connect the West Bay Club and 

East Bay, as well as Shaw Point and East Bay. 

In addition, a day-use site for large groups and 

a few day-use sites for small groups would also 

be provided in appropriate locations. All of 

these facilities would increase the diversity of 

day and overnight opportunities available to 

island visitors. The opportunity to have an 

“island experience” is considered a fundamental value of the park. In addition, many of 

these additional facilities were desired by the 

public, particularly the additional group 

campsites. The addition of these facilities to 

the existing opportunities on the islands 

would be a long-term, moderate, beneficial 

impact. 

This alternative also includes the proposal to 

relocate the Stockton Island campground to 

Presque Isle to mitigate existing resource 

impacts. This campground is popular for 

many repeat visitors, and the location of the 

campsites along the shoreline is considered 

highly desirable due to the great lake views 

and privacy between sites. The concentration 

of these sites on Presque Isle may limit the 

number of sites with lake views and may 

reduce the screening and privacy between 

sites. This proposal will likely detract from the 

visitor experience, especially for those repeat 

visitors that enjoy staying at a particular site in 

the existing campground. Although this is an 

important resource protection strategy, the 

relocation of the campsite will likely have a 

long-term, moderate, adverse impact to the 

visitor experience. During the construction of 

the new campground and the relocation of 

camping activities, there will be short-term, 

minor, adverse impacts to visitors due to 

noise, temporarily restricted access, and visual 

intrusions. 

The park will continue to provide outstanding 

opportunities for solitude, quiet, “wildness,” 

connection with nature, and firsthand 

discovery of the islands’ history. 

Opportunities for solitude, quiet and 

connection with nature will be enhanced by 

several proposals in alternative 2. First, the 

majority of the wilderness areas would be in 

the primitive zone that would direct the 

National Park Service to continue protection 

of the values of natural quiet and solitude, and 

opportunities for visitor contemplation, 

naturalness and primitive recreation. These 

are some of the most highly valued 

characteristics of the park, and the 

preservation of these values would be a longterm, major, beneficial impact. Further, the 

group campsite on Oak Island will be 

relocated from the designated wilderness to a 

nonwilderness area, minimizing potential 

impacts to the soundscape and perceptions of 

crowding in the designated wilderness area. 

This would result in a long-term, minor, 

beneficial effect. 

There would be no net gain in campsite and 

trail opportunities in designated wilderness, 

but there is a possibility that some designated 

campsites and trails may be reconstructed and 

relocated to protect resources. For those 

visitors that enjoy camping at a particular 

wilderness campsite or hiking a specific trail, 

the potential relocation or realignment of 

these facilities may result in a long-term, 

minor, adverse impact. In addition, this may 

include a short term, minor, adverse impact 

during the relocation and construction of new 

sites and trails. 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

266

Although this alternative includes high levels 

of protection for the qualities of solitude and 

primitive recreation, the emphasis in this 

alternative on providing more visitors with an 

island experience may make achieving these 

desired visitor experiences more challenging. 

The potential increase in visitor use levels and 

the potential for larger group sizes in some 

locations may exacerbate some of the current 

impacts related to crowding and noise impacts 

at high use locations, including docks and 

boat launches and landings. Further, visitor 

access to some of the former use and 

occupancy/current life estates and possibly 

more light stations may increase use levels, 

including overnight use, which may increase 

the potential for crowding and noise impacts 

on adjacent areas. These impacts would be 

localized and most apparent during the peak 

season resulting in a long-term, minor, 

adverse impact. 

To help mitigate these concerns, this 

alternative includes the institution of the 

Visitor Experience and Resource Protection 

Framework to guide long-term visitor use 

management in the park. The park would 

monitor several indicators related to visitor 

experience and resource impacts that identify 

if and when additional management strategies 

are needed to achieve desired conditions. The 

park would take all actions necessary to 

ensure that these indicators stay within 

standard to protect the highly valued 

opportunities for solitude in the park. The 

inclusion of these types of indicators in the 

park’s monitoring program would be a longterm, moderate, beneficial impact. Specific 

actions to achieve the standards identified in 

this management plan would be evaluated 

under the requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act, the National 

Historic Preservation Act, and other 

applicable laws and policies. 

Mainland Recreational 

Opportunities and Experiences 

In this alternative, the mainland would be 

primarily in the backcountry zone, except for 

Little Sand Bay and Meyers Beach that would 

be zoned as frontcountry. This would direct 

the National Park Service to promote 

outstanding opportunities to enjoy natural 

resources and solitude in the backcountry 

zone and convenient and easy access to 

developed, high use, recreational and 

interpretive areas in the two frontcountry 

zones. This zoning pattern would continue to 

promote concentration of high use and 

educational opportunities in the existing 

developed areas, while promoting values of 

nature-based recreation and contemplation in 

other areas of the mainland. This supports 

much of the desired condition heard from the 

public during scoping and provides a longterm, moderate, beneficial impact to 

recreation opportunities on the mainland. 

This alternative also includes specific 

strategies to improve mainland recreational 

opportunities. As noted above, improved 

access to the beach at Meyers Beach will 

improve recreation opportunities by 

providing access to a greater diversity of 

visitors. Another specific strategy is to provide 

a large group, day-use area at Little Sand Bay. 

Currently, the park does not have facilities 

that purposively accommodate groups, 

although groups do occasionally congregate at 

Little Sand Bay. Having appropriate facilities 

for this purpose will improve the range of 

visitor opportunities allowed on the mainland, 

and concentrate group activity in a specific 

location to minimize its impacts on other 

visitors, resulting in a long-term, minor, 

beneficial impact. 

This alternative would not include extension 

of the Lakeshore Trail or more camping 

opportunities, which were specific facilities 

desired by some members of the public. The 

lack of some of these desired improvements in 

this alternative would continue to result in a 

long-term, minor, adverse impact. 

Opportunities to Understand the 

Significant Stories of the Apostle Islands 

In this alternative, the park headquarters, 

operations center, and visitor center will be 

consolidated at a new Bayfield location. This 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 2 

267

facility will include improved and expanded 

exhibit areas and stations for visitor contact 

with NPS staff and volunteers. This would 

improve the ability of visitors to understand 

the significant stories and resources of the 

park in a centralized, highly visible, and 

modernized facility. It is likely this facility 

would capture more visitors to the park due to 

the improved location and visitor education 

offerings. This would result in a long-term, 

moderate, beneficial impact on understanding 

of the significant stories of the Apostle Islands. 

In addition, this alternative includes the 

replacement of the Little Sand Bay Visitor 

Center with a smaller visitor contact station, 

possibly through the conversion of the 

historic Hokenson House. The current Little 

Sand Bay Visitor Center is in poor condition 

and has very limited space for exhibits. A 

replacement contact station that focuses on 

providing easily accessible, high-quality 

orientation, interpretation, and information 

would likely improve the visitor experience at 

this location and be a long-term, minor, 

beneficial impact. This alternative would not 

include any changes to the Stockton Island 

Visitor Center or the Great Lakes Visitor 

Center. 

It is likely that the emphasis in this alternative 

on providing more visitors with an island 

experience will create a future need for 

additional education and orientation via nonpersonal services such as trailhead and boat 

dock kiosks, trail signs, and park brochures. 

The park will assess the need for additional 

locations and types of information to support 

the overall desired conditions of increasing 

exposure of visitors to the islands—resulting 

in a long-term, minor, beneficial impact. 

In this alternative, many of the park’s 

significant cultural sites and resources will 

have improved visitor access and 

interpretation. Specifically, this alternative 

states that additional light stations may be 

rehabilitated for interpretation purposes, with 

the possibility of overnight use at one light 

station if that is found to be feasible. Further, 

the cultural landscapes of the rehabilitated 

light stations would be partially or fully 

restored. Visiting the light stations is a popular 

activity for most visitors, and is the main 

attraction of the park for some visitors. 

Having the opportunity to experience and 

learn about the light stations and maritime 

history on Lake Superior is considered a 

fundamental value of the park. The increased 

access and interpretation of the light stations, 

including the potential for overnight use, 

would be considered a long-term, major, 

beneficial impact. 

In addition, several of the former use and 

occupancy/current life estates will be made 

available for visitor access and interpretation 

as the opportunity comes available. The 

Rocky Island, West Bay Club, Shaw Point, and 

Hansen farm sites would have visitor access, 

including public use of the nearby docks (if 

applicable), and visitor interpretation with 

non personal and possibly some personal 

services. The West Bay Club and Camp Stella 

may also be adaptively reused for overnight 

use if that action is found to be feasible, and 

the associated docks may also have overnight 

use permitted. An overnight experience in 

these historic structures would allow for 

complete immersion in the cultural landscape. 

Further, historic roads would be reestablished 

as trails to connect the different cultural 

landscapes. These visitor access and 

interpretation opportunities would greatly 

enhance visitors’ exposure to and 

understanding of the human history on the 

islands in the park—resulting in a long-term, 

moderate, beneficial impact. 

Finally, the Manitou fish camp would be 

stabilized and the cultural landscape would be 

partially rehabilitated. These improvements 

would allow for continued interpretation of 

this resource, resulting in a long-term, minor, 

beneficial impact. 

Visitor Safety 

This alternative includes a ranger station at 

Meyers Beach, which will increase NPS 

presence, improving visitor orientation and 

safety information dissemination, as well as 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

268

response times to this area of the park. Due to 

the high levels of public use of Meyers Beach 

and the nearby sea caves, this will greatly 

improve visitor safety for a large number of 

visitors to the park—creating a long-term, 

moderate, beneficial impact. Further, the 

improved boat launch at Meyers Beach will 

improve visitor safety for those launching 

boats, resulting in a long-term, minor, 

beneficial impact. 

Further, the relocation of the visitor center in 

Bayfield to a more visible location will likely 

increase the number of park visitors that 

access the visitor center; therefore the ability 

of the National Park Service to distribute 

safety information would be greater—creating 

a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact. 

The improvements to the Little Sand Bay 

Visitor Center may slightly increase the 

amount of safety information that is 

effectively disseminated to park visitors who 

visit this area of the park, resulting in a longterm, minor, beneficial impact to visitor safety. 

The rehabilitation of the Long Island light 

station for NPS housing will increase the NPS 

presence on Long Island, improving 

interpretation and visitor safety. This would 

result in a long-term, minor, beneficial impact. 

This alternative also includes the proposal to 

relocate the Stockton Island campground 

from the tombolo to Presque Isle, which will 

help reduce the interaction of visitors and 

bears on Stockton Island. This will improve 

visitor safety on Stockton Island, and result in 

a long-term, minor, beneficial impact. 

Cumulative Impacts. There are no actions or 

developments foreseen within or adjacent to 

the park that would likely affect visitor use 

and experience. There is the possibility of a 

slight increase in visitation or a change in 

visitor interests and demand due to potential 

changes in regional populations or national 

recreation trends. The likelihood of these 

changes is unknown at this time. If this were 

to occur, it may cause a slight increase in 

existing visitor use concerns such as crowding 

and conflicts at high use docks and attraction 

sites. Also, any significant effects from climate 

change could have a minor to major effect on 

visitor use and experiences. Of particular 

concern is the likely warmer water and longer 

seasons, punctuated by more severe and 

unpredictable storms, suggesting a long term 

adverse impact on visitor safety as more 

visitors are likely to be vulnerable to Lake 

Superior without adequate preparation. Other 

changes that could result in impacts include 

reduced access to infrastructure and 

alterations to wildlife watching and fishing 

opportunities as a result of habitat changes. 

Conclusion. Alternative 2 includes minor to 

major beneficial impacts resulting from 

enhanced access to the islands, increased 

recreational opportunities in specific areas on 

the islands and mainland and the preservation 

of natural quiet, solitude and primitive 

recreation throughout the majority of the 

park. This alternative would provide more 

visitors with an opportunity to have an island 

experience, which is considered a 

fundamental value of the park. Further, this 

alternative includes proposals to improve 

access and interpretation of significant 

cultural sites, and improvements in the 

location and condition of the park’s visitor 

centers. These proposals would increase 

visitor opportunities to understand the 

significant stories of the Apostle Islands. 

Finally, infrastructure improvements such as a 

ranger station at Meyers Beach, relocation of 

the visitor center in Bayfield and increased 

NPS presence on Long Island would result in 

minor to moderate improvements in visitor 

safety. However, some of the proposals to 

increase visitor opportunities and facilities, 

including access to certain cultural sites, may 

increase existing site-specific adverse impacts 

such as crowding, conflicts and noise. Further, 

this alternative includes a proposal to relocate 

the Stockton Island campground which would 

have a moderate adverse impact, particularly 

on those visitors that frequently use this 

campground. Finally, any effects resulting 

from changes in population, recreational 

trends or climate change may result in 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 2 

269

additional minor to major adverse effects, but 

the ability to predict the type or intensity of 

these impacts is limited at this time. 

PARK OPERATIONS 

Analysis. As in alternative 1, in alternative 2 

the park’s physical geography would pose an 

operational challenge. However, under 

alternative 2 actions would be taken to reduce 

the fragmentation of park staff and facilities. 

Locating the facilities now at Roys Point on 

the waterfront in Bayfield, along with the 

visitor center, building a new ranger station at 

Meyers Beach, and relocating some 

administrative staff from Little Sand Bay to 

Bayfield would improve the effectiveness and 

efficiency of park staff, and increase their 

productivity. The new maintenance facility, 

which would be constructed specifically to 

meet the needs of park staff, would also 

improve staff efficiency in doing their jobs. 

Greater staff efficiency reduces the carbon 

footprint and would help achieve energy 

reduction goals; however the new 

maintenance location in Bayfield would be 

farther from many locations within the 

lakeshore, potentially adding to the total 

number of boat miles. 

Although the separation of the park 

headquarters from the new Bayfield visitor 

center/maintenance facility would still 

separate staff, compared to alternative 1, the 

improvements in alternative 2 would result in 

a long-term, beneficial impact on park 

operations. 

Unlike alternative 1, in alternative 2 several 

new actions and developments would occur, 

which would affect park operations. The 

construction of new facilities and trails (e.g., 

building an access ramp at Meyers Beach, 

providing a day use area at Little Sand Bay, 

moving the Stockton Island campground to 

Presque Isle), and rehabilitation of existing 

facilities (e.g., rehabilitating the Bayfield park 

headquarters, rehabilitating the Manitou fish 

camp and Long Island light station) under this 

alternative would require additional resources 

for operations and maintenance and 

additional efforts from maintenance, 

interpretation and resource management staff 

(as well as more staff). However, assuming 

additional funding and staff are provided as 

called for under the alternative, the additional 

developments and new actions in alternative 2 

should have a negligible, long-term, adverse 

effect on park operations. 

With several additional employees the park 

staff would be able to better achieve desired 

conditions in program areas such as resource 

protection, visitor services, wilderness 

management, cyclic maintenance, and the 

deferred maintenance backlog would likely 

decrease. This would have a long-term, 

beneficial impact on park operations. 

Cumulative Impacts. No major new park 

projects or actions, independent of this plan, 

are expected over the life of this plan. Thus, 

no foreseeable actions would combine with 

the actions proposed in alternative 2 that 

would result in cumulative park operations 

impacts 

Conclusion. Compared to alternative 1, 

alternative 2 would have a long-term, 

beneficial effect on park operations, due 

primarily to actions taken to improve park 

operational facilities, decrease staff 

fragmentation, and increase staffing levels. 

Although new developments and management 

actions in alternative 2 would require 

additional time and resources to initiate and 

maintain, the increase in staffing and funding 

should meet these needs, resulting in a 

negligible, long-term, adverse effect on park 

operations. No cumulative impacts on park 

operations would be expected as a result of 

this alternative. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

Analysis. Alternative 2 would affect the 

socioeconomic environment in a variety of 

ways. Under this alternative there would be 

both increases in visitor spending and 

increases in park expenditures. As noted in 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

270

the alternative there would be a number of 

new opportunities on the islands for visitors 

(e.g., the development of trails and campsites 

on Sand, Oak, and Basswood islands, the 

restoration of another light station like the 

Raspberry Island light station). In addition, 

new transportation options would be sought 

to bring more visitors to the islands. And 

building a new visitor center on the Bayfield 

waterfront would attract more visitors to this 

facility. As a result, more visitors would likely 

go to the islands and spend time at the 

mainland visitor center. Consequently, more 

visitors would spend a longer time in the area. 

This would result in a minor to moderate, 

long-term, benefit to local businesses, 

including concessions and water taxis that 

transport people to the islands, guides, and 

outfitters. A new visitor facility located closer 

to the business in Bayfield also would benefit 

businesses located near the facility. The 

impact would be a long-term, beneficial 

impact to the socioeconomic environment. 

 

As noted in the alternative description, the 

National Park Service would be spending 

additional funds on construction and 

maintenance of facilities. This would in turn 

have a long-term, beneficial impact on 

businesses that supply materials and services 

to the park, including local merchants, 

utilities, equipment suppliers, and contractors. 

Construction businesses would receive shortterm benefits from the development of 

facilities in the alternative, such as the new 

visitor center. (How much the local economy 

actually would benefit would depend upon 

the degree to which park needs can be fulfilled 

within and by local businesses.) Hiring 

additional park staff under the alternative 

would also result in these individuals spending 

their income for housing, food, entertainment, 

and other services and goods, which in turn 

would increase revenues for local businesses. 

In addition, local governments would collect 

more tax revenues as a result of both visitor 

spending and park spending in the area. 

As in all of the alternatives, under alternative 2 

the park would continue to be an important 

attraction for many residents and for people 

considering relocation to the region, although 

the alternative would not be expected to cause 

major changes in the regional population. 

There would be more demands on mainland 

community services (e.g., water and sewer 

systems, local law enforcement) with visitors 

spending more time in the area, compared to 

alternative 1, but levels would not be expected 

to increase to a level that would substantially 

change park-related demands on community 

services and facilities. 

Cumulative Impacts. No ongoing or new 

park projects, independent of this plan, or 

other major changes on lands adjacent to the 

park (e.g., substantial changes in management 

and land use of lands adjacent to the mainland 

unit) are expected over the life of this plan. In 

the future developments such as second 

homes may be built on some lands adjacent to 

the mainland unit. With increased revenues 

for construction businesses, and increased tax 

payments, this likely would have short- and 

long-term, beneficial impacts on the regional 

economy, depending on the nature and scope 

of the developments. When these impacts are 

added to the beneficial impacts of 

alternative 2, there could be a long-term, 

beneficial, cumulative impact to the 

socioeconomic environment.

Conclusion. Under alternative 2 there would 

likely be increased spending by visitors, with 

more visitors spending more time in the area, 

increased spending by the park, and increased 

spending by new park employees. These 

changes, however, would be relatively small 

compared to the overall regional economy 

and would not be expected to change the 

character of the social and economic 

environment. Most of the benefits of the 

alternative would occur in the Bayfield area. 

Compared to the no-action alternative, 

alternative 2 would result in a long-term, 

beneficial impact. The effects of alternative 2, 

in combination with the potential beneficial 

socioeconomic impacts of future residential 

developments adjacent to portions of the 

mainland unit, could result in a long-term, 

beneficial cumulative impact to the 

socioeconomic environment. 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 2 

271

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

Under alternative 2, some soils and vegetation 

would be lost or altered due to construction of 

new facilities on the islands and mainland and 

due to visitor use in developed and high use 

areas. This would include bank erosion, and 

trampling of vegetation on sandscapes. Some 

docks would continue to alter coastal 

processes. Visitors and construction activities 

also may inadvertently contribute to the 

introduction and spread of nonnative species 

and to water pollution in localized areas. 

There would be loss or alteration of some 

wildlife habitat (and wildlife in those areas) 

due to construction and use of new facilities; 

increased visitor use in some areas may 

adversely affect wildlife in those areas. Shortand long-term, adverse impacts to the natural 

soundscape would occur due to facility 

construction, visitor use, and NPS 

maintenance activities, primarily in high use 

areas and during high use periods (e.g., 

summer weekends). Clustering of campsites in 

the wilderness areas would adversely affect 

the wilderness character for some visitors (i.e., 

loss of solitude). Construction of some visitor 

facilities, such as the new Presque Isle 

campground, would result in unavoidable 

impacts to visitors due to temporarily 

restricted access and visual intrusions. Some 

repeat visitors’ experiences would be 

adversely affected by the relocation of the 

Stockton Island campground to Presque Isle 

and the potential relocation or realignment of 

some wilderness campsites. Crowding and 

congestion at high use areas (e.g., docks) 

would occur during the summer, adversely 

affecting some visitors’ experiences. 

Education, interpretation, and outreach 

efforts would help minimize, but would not 

eliminate, the likelihood of the above impacts 

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE 

COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 

New actions would be taken in alternative 2 

that would result in the consumption of 

nonrenewable natural resources and in the 

use of renewable resources that would 

preclude other uses for a period. In the 

construction of new facilities, including 

buildings and trails, limited amounts of 

nonrenewable resources would be used and 

there would be a loss of vegetative 

productivity and wildlife habitat for as long as 

these facilities remain. These resources would 

be essentially irretrievable once they were 

committed. In addition, because it takes so 

long for soils to form, the loss of soils due to 

the construction of new facilities, visitor use in 

localized areas, and erosion of soil in places 

within Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

would be an irreversible commitment of 

resources. 

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORTTERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT 

AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 

As in all of the alternatives, the National Park 

Service would continue to manage the park to 

maintain ecological processes and native 

biological communities and to provide 

appropriate recreational opportunities 

consistent with preservation of cultural and 

natural resources. The vast majority of 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore would 

continue to be protected in its current, 

relatively natural state and would maintain its 

long-term productivity. The primary shortterm uses of the park would continue to be 

recreational use. Under alternative 2, there 

would be expanded (but still relatively 

modest) development to support recreational 

use and park operations, resulting in some 

localized loss of ecological productivity. 

Adverse impacts on the area’s soils, water 

quality, vegetation, and wildlife due to visitor 

use also could reduce the productivity of 

natural resources in localized areas over time, 

although overall no measurable effect on the 

park’s long-term productivity would be 

expected. On the other hand, efforts to restore 

native vegetation would increase long-term 

productivity of the environment in localized 

areas. 
272 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVE 3 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Soils 

Analysis. Several new park facilities would be 

built under alternative 3 that would involve 

ground disturbance and consequently impacts 

to soil. The construction and use of new 

interpretive trails on selected islands and new 

campsites on Sand and Basswood and the 

mainland; the relocation of the Stockton 

Island campground to a new site; the 

development of a new ranger station at 

Meyers Beach, and the development of the 

mainland trail from Little Sand Bay to Sand 

River would all result in the loss or alteration 

of soil in localized areas. So would the clearing 

of vegetation at light stations and on the 

Hansen farm site on Sand Island. Site 

preparation and landscaping work would 

disturb soils in the project areas and 

construction equipment would disturb and 

compact soils. The development of trailer 

pads for NPS housing and a kiosk at Little 

Sand Bay, and a new operations/maintenance 

facility and staff apartments would likely 

occur in areas that have already been altered 

by past actions and developments, and thus 

would have no effect on area soils. A total of 

no more than about 2 acres of soil would 

likely be altered or lost by these new 

developments. The adverse impact on soils in 

the project areas would likely be moderate 

and long term, but from a parkwide 

perspective the adverse impacts due to new 

developments would be would be minor to 

moderate, and long term. 

Visitation levels would be about the same as 

under alternative 1. Thus, the adverse impacts 

on soils due to visitor use would be expected 

to be minor to moderate in localized areas and 

long term under alternative 3. Most of the soil 

impacts would likely occur along or near the 

shorelines of the islands that experience 

higher use levels. 

As in alternative 1, some soils may be 

compacted and eroded due to some existing 

campsites expanding, informal “zone” 

campsites being created, and user-created 

trails being formed in areas with facilities that 

receive relatively high levels of use. But 

continuation of monitoring and establishing 

formal user capacity indicators and standards 

in alternative 3 should help ensure that an 

unacceptable expansion in the size of 

campsites does not occur. Thus, compared to 

alternative 1, alternative 3 would be expected 

to result in fewer soil impacts, resulting in a 

long-term beneficial impact. 

Cumulative Impacts. Soils in much of 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore probably 

have been altered by past activities (e.g., 

logging, agricultural practices). Some soils on 

lands adjacent to the mainland unit of the park 

may be lost or modified in the future due to 

new development. Also in the future, if the 

Quarry Bay campsites on Stockton Island 

were relocated, this would affect soils in a 

localized area. Assuming the campsites were 

relocated to a relatively undisturbed site, soils 

would be lost or modified. When these 

impacts are added to the minor to moderate 

adverse impacts under alternative 3, there 

would be a long-term, minor to moderate, 

adverse cumulative impact on area soils—

although the Quarry Bay action would add a 

very small increment to the overall cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion. Most of the park’s soils would 

not be affected by the actions in alternative 3. 

However, some soils would be eroded and 

lost, and soil properties would be altered due 

to construction of new facilities on the islands 

and mainland, and due to visitor use in 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 3 

273

localized areas on some islands. Overall, these 

adverse impacts would likely be minor to 

moderate and long term. On the other hand, 

establishing formal user capacity indicators 

and standards should help reduce the 

expansion of campsites, and prevent soil 

erosion. This would have a long-term, 

beneficial impact. No unacceptable soil 

impacts or impairment to the park’s resources 

and values would result from this alternative. 

When the impacts of alternative 2 are added 

to past and foreseeable future impacts (i.e., 

relocation of the campsites in Quarry Bay) 

there would be a long-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse cumulative impact on area 

soils. 

Geological and Coastal Processes 

Analysis. With proper design and planning, 

the relocation of the Stockton Island 

campground to Presque Isle would reduce soil 

impacts to the tombolo sandscape compared 

to alternative 1, resulting in a long-term, 

beneficial impact in this area. 

It is expected that with proper design and 

planning, and with the application of 

appropriate mitigative measures, bank erosion 

due to visitors accessing the new mainland 

water-accessible campsites would constitute a 

negligible to minor, long-term, adverse 

impact. 

With continuing visitor use of the islands’ 

sandscapes and beaches, it is expected that the 

vegetative cover on some popular areas, such 

as the Raspberry and Ironwood sandspits, 

would continue to experience trampling, 

which in turn would increase the potential for 

wind and water erosion to affect the 

characteristics of some sandscapes (e.g., size, 

shape). Erosion due to people climbing up and 

down lake banks also would continue at island 

campsites near the shoreline. Thus, visitor use 

in alternative 3 would likely have the same 

effect on the park’s sandscapes over time as 

visitor use in alternative 1: visitor use impacts 

would vary, depending on the level of use and 

environmental conditions, but could range 

from minor to moderate, and be long term 

and adverse. 

As in alternative 1, some existing docks would 

continue to affect coastal processes, altering 

the transport of sediments along the shoreline, 

resulting in minor to moderate, long-term, 

adverse impacts in localized areas. However, 

the Michigan Island dock and possibly several 

other docks on the former use and 

occupancy/life estates might be rehabilitated 

and improved in alternative 3. As noted in the 

mitigative measures in chapter 3, these 

improvements would not occur until studies 

of longshore sand transport have been 

completed. Although it is not certain what 

would come out of these studies, for some 

docks the improvements could include 

measures to reduce the impact of the docks on 

the movement of sand along the coastline. 

With more sand available to replenish 

downstream areas, Lake Superior currents 

and waves would not be as likely to erode 

beaches as much as under alternative 1. 

Depending on the design and extent of the 

docks, and assuming the frequency and 

intensity of major storms does not 

substantially change, alternative 3 could have 

a long-term, localized, beneficial impact on a 

few of the park’s sandscapes compared to 

alternative 1. 

Cumulative Impacts. As noted above and in 

the “Affected Environment,” coastal 

processes in the past have been altered in 

specific areas, such as the installation of the 

dock at Michigan Island. Climate change is 

expected to affect lake levels and thus would 

affect coastal processes, including sediment 

transport and the park’s sandscapes and 

beaches. Because the changes due to climate 

change in the park are unpredictable, both in 

their timing (whether they occur within the 

timeframe of this plan or beyond) and in 

magnitude or intensity of the impact—the 

effects of climate change on coastal processes 

could range from minor to major in intensity. 

When the effects of the actions in alternative 3 

are added to the potential effects of climate 

change, there would be the potential for a 

minor to major, long-term, adverse 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

274

cumulative impact. But alternative 3 would 

add a very small increment when added to the 

potential effects of climate change. 

Conclusion. Alternative 3 would have both 

adverse and beneficial effects on coastal 

processes. Visitors and existing docks would 

likely continue to affect the park’s sandscapes 

and shorelines, resulting overall in a minor to 

moderate, long-term, adverse impact in 

localized areas of the islands. On the other 

hand, compared to alternative 1 the relocation 

of the Stockton Island Campground, and the 

rehabilitation of several docks would help 

reduce visitor and dock impacts on shorelines 

and sandscapes, resulting in a long-term, 

localized, beneficial impact. None of these 

impacts would be considered unacceptable, 

and none would result in an impairment of 

park resources and values. When the effects of 

climate change are added to the effects of 

alternative 3, there would be the potential for 

a long-term, minor to major, adverse 

cumulative impact on coastal processes—

although the actions in alternative 3 would 

add a very small increment to this overall 

impact. 

Surface Water Quality 

Analysis. Like alternative 1, in alternative 3 

visitors would continue to affect water quality 

in localized areas through swimming and 

bathing, the disposal of graywater, and trash. 

These activities can contribute to the 

degradation of water quality by increasing 

nutrient and bacteria levels, and other 

chemicals (e.g., petroleum-based products, 

sunscreen, soaps). Some sedimentation also 

would occur at unsurfaced landings in areas 

where visitors put in and take out their boats, 

and in areas where bank erosion is occurring 

due to visitors walking down steep slopes. 

Overall, visitor use in alternative 3 would 

likely have the same impact as in alternative 1: 

a negligible to minor, long-term, adverse 

impact to water quality in localized areas due 

to relatively low use levels and the dilution 

effect of Lake Superior. 

Overall, the level of use of motorized boats 

would not be expected to substantially change 

in the park under alternative 3. Thus, 

pollution from motorized boats, including 

MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether), PAHs 

(polyaromatic hydrocarbons), BTEX 

(benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene) 

and heavy metals such as copper, would be 

expected to result in about the same overall 

minor, long-term, adverse impacts to water as 

alternative 1. Also like alternative 1, there 

could be minor to moderate, long-term 

impacts on water quality in areas that receive 

greater use, such as Presque Isle Bay and Little 

Sand Bay. 

Unlike alternative 1, in alternative 3 the 

Michigan Island dock and possibly several 

other docks would be rehabilitated. 

Depending on the nature and extent of the 

work there could be water quality impacts due 

to increased turbidity in adjacent waters. 

However, the application of mitigative 

measures should minimize potential impacts 

due to accidental spills. Any such impacts 

from the dock work would be negligible to 

minor and short term in duration. 

Cumulative Impacts. Several sources of 

water pollution external to Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore have affected, and are 

likely to continue affecting, the water quality 

of the park. When added to the water quality 

impacts of alternative 3 being considered 

(negligible to minor, long-term, adverse 

impacts), there could be a minor to major, 

long-term, adverse cumulative impact to the 

park’s water quality, depending on the type 

and quantity of pollutants that enter park 

waters. However, the increment added by 

alternative 3 would be relatively small 

compared to the impact from pollutants being 

added from actions outside the park 

boundary. 

Conclusion. Alternative 3 would have the 

same negligible to minor, long-term, adverse 

impacts in water quality due to visitor use as 

alternative 1. Negligible to minor, short-term, 

adverse impacts also would occur to water 

quality due to rehabilitation of docks in this 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 3 

275

alternative. None of these impacts would be 

considered unacceptable, and the level of 

impact would not constitute an impairment of 

the park’s resources and values. When the 

effects of alternative 3 are added to the effects 

of water pollution from sources outside of the 

park, there would be the potential for a minor 

to major, adverse cumulative effect on the 

park’s water quality. However, the actions in 

alternative 3 would add only a small 

increment to the overall cumulative impact. 

Wetlands 

Analysis. As in alternative 1, some impacts 

would occur in wetlands due to people 

walking through the wetlands and trampling 

vegetation. But only a few people would be 

expected to walk into the wetlands over the 

course of a year, resulting in negligible shortand long-term adverse impacts. 

Cumulative Impacts. Climate change will 

likely affect the park’s wetlands, including 

their species composition and water levels. 

For example, if the frequency or intensity of 

storms change, park wetlands could be 

affected. Because the changes due to climate 

change in the park are unpredictable, both in 

their timing and in magnitude or intensity of 

the impact, the effects of climate change on 

the park’s wetlands could range from minor to 

major in intensity. When the effects of the 

actions in alternative 3 are added to the 

potential effects of climate change, there 

would be the potential for a minor to major, 

long-term, adverse, cumulative impact on 

wetlands. But alternative 3 would add a very 

small increment to the potential effects of 

climate change on wetlands. 

Conclusion. Alternative 3 would result in 

negligible, short- and long-term, adverse 

impact impacts due to people occasionally 

walking through wetlands. The effects of 

alternative 3 would not result in unacceptable 

impacts or impairment of the park’s resources 

and values. When the effects of this alternative 

are added to the potential effects of climate 

change, there could be a minor to major, longterm, adverse cumulative effect on the park’s 

wetlands, although the actions in alternative 3 

would add a very small increment to the 

overall cumulative impact. 

Floodplains 

Analysis. No new developments or other 

actions would occur in the Sand River 

floodplain, on the mainland, under 

alternative 3., with the exception of the new 

trail that would terminate at Sand River. 

However, this trail would not affect floodplain 

functions. Visitors would trample and crush 

some vegetation if they leave the trail and 

wander on the floodplain. However, relatively 

few people would be expected to walk 

through the floodplains over the course of a 

year, resulting in negligible, short and longterm, adverse impacts to the floodplain. 

Cumulative Impacts. No past, present, or 

foreseeable actions within or outside the park 

are expected to affect the Sand River 

floodplain. Thus, there would be no additive 

cumulative effects on the floodplain. 

Conclusion. Alternative 3 would have the 

same effect as alternative 1 on the park’s 

floodplains: a negligible, short- and long-term, 

adverse impact due to people walking in the 

Sand River floodplain. These impacts would 

not be considered unacceptable and the level 

of impact would not constitute an impairment 

of the park’s resources and values. No 

cumulative impacts would occur as a result of 

this alternative. 

Vegetation 

Analysis. Some of the proposed 

developments in alternative 3, including the 

trailer pads for NPS housing and visitor kiosk 

at Little Sand Bay, and a new maintenance/ 

operations center and staff apartments, would 

likely occur in areas that have already been 

altered by past actions and developments, and 

thus would likely have a negligible to minor 

adverse effect on native vegetation. Clearing 

of vegetation that is encroaching on the light 

station clearings also would result in the loss 

of some native vegetation, which would have a 

negligible to minor, long-term, adverse impact 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

276

depending on how much vegetation was 

removed. 

On the other hand, several new park facilities 

would involve clearing of native vegetation. 

The construction and use of new interpretive 

trails on selected islands, new group campsites 

on Sand and Basswood and new campsites on 

the mainland; the relocation of the Stockton 

Island Campground to Presque Isle; the 

development of a new ranger station at 

Meyers Beach; and the development of the 

new mainland trail from Little Sand Bay to 

Sand River would all result in the loss or 

alteration of vegetation in localized areas. In 

addition, the clearing of vegetation at light 

stations and on the Hansen farm site on Sand 

Island would result in the loss of some native 

vegetation. In total, about 22 acres of 

vegetation would likely be altered or lost by 

these new developments and actions in 

alternative 3. The adverse impact on native 

plants in the project areas would likely be 

moderate and long term, but from a parkwide 

perspective, the adverse impacts due to new 

developments would be minor to moderate, 

and long term. 

The partial restoration of the Hansen farm 

cultural landscape also would likely entail the 

removal of some native vegetation and weeds 

from old fields. However, because this area 

has been disturbed and altered in the past, this 

action would have a minor, long-term, adverse 

impact on native vegetation populations in 

this localized area. 

Under alternative 3, visitor use of Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore would continue to 

affect the park’s vegetation. As in alternative 1, 

some vegetation would likely be lost due to 

the formation of user-created trails in popular 

areas such as campsites and picnic areas. 

Vegetation along the Lake Superior shoreline 

would continue to be trampled and damaged 

in places when visitors walk up and down the 

shoreline. Some plants would also probably 

continue to be lost through visitors walking on 

sensitive vegetation on sandscapes. Some 

existing designated campsites probably would 

expand in area over time, and user-created 

campsites would continue to be established or 

expanded on islands, resulting in changes to 

and loss of vegetation in localized areas. If an 

area becomes cleared of vegetation due to the 

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

trees behind the cleared area and the beach, 

the trees would be more likely to be subject to 

blowdown. On the other hand, continued 

monitoring and the establishment of formal 

user capacity indicators and standards would 

assist managers in taking action before 

campsite conditions become unacceptable, 

which would have a long-term, beneficial 

effect. Weighing both the adverse and 

beneficial effects, visitor use under 

alternative 3 would be expected to have a 

long-term, minor, adverse impact on the 

park’s native vegetation in localized areas. 

As noted in the “Affected Environment” there 

has been a serious problem in the park with 

the introduction of nonnative species at past 

construction sites. It is likely that some 

nonnative species would be introduced 

through construction projects in this 

alternative. In addition, under alternative 3, 

some nonnative plants could be introduced or 

spread by visitors at picnic areas and 

campsites, in spite of education efforts. The 

potential for the spread of nonnative species 

would increase with the extension of the 

mainland lakeshore trail and any new 

developments. Although it is difficult to 

determine the impact on native species due to 

the uncertainties about the type of species that 

might be introduced in the future, and the 

locations and frequencies of introductions, it 

is likely that new introductions would occur. 

Even with monitoring and weed control 

efforts, the adverse effect of these impacts 

would be unknown, but could range from 

minor to major and be long term in duration. 

Alternative 3 would have several beneficial 

impacts for native vegetation. The removal 

and restoration of the Stockton Island 

campground site and the restoration of the 

Oak Island group campsite would have 

beneficial impacts. Providing a ranger station 

at Meyers Beach and staff housing on Long 

Island would provide an increased NPS 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 3 

277

presence in these areas, which would aid in 

monitoring and taking action to address 

vegetation impacts due to visitors. Taken 

together, these actions would have a longterm, beneficial impact on the park’s 

vegetation in localized areas.

Cumulative Impacts. Several potential 

actions, independent of this plan, could affect 

the park’s vegetation. As described in the 

“Affected Environment” chapter much of the 

park’s vegetation has been substantially 

altered by past human activities, including 

logging and fires, farming, the building of 

cabins, quarrying, and the development of 

roads and fish camps. The impacts of these 

past actions far outweigh the impacts of the 

actions being proposed in the alternatives in 

this plan. 

In the future developments such as second 

homes may be built on some lands adjacent to 

the mainland unit of the park, which would 

result in the loss and modification of 

vegetation in these areas. This would have a 

long-term, minor, adverse impact on natural 

vegetation in the vicinity of the park. 

The possible relocation or redesign of the 

Quarry Bay campsites on Stockton Island, 

independent of this plan, would affect 

vegetation in the area, which would add a 

minor, long-term, adverse incremental effect 

to the effects of alternative 2. 

Nonnative species have been spreading in 

different locations in the park, such as Meyers 

Beach, due to past construction activities, 

visitor activities, and natural sources like wind 

and birds. Independent of the actions in the 

alternative, the spread of nonnative species is 

likely to continue in the future. From a 

parkwide perspective, this has resulted in a 

minor to major, long-term, adverse 

cumulative impact on the park’s vegetation, 

depending on the species. 

As noted in the “Affected Environment” 

chapter, deer are spreading from the mainland 

to the islands in increasing numbers. 

Increasing numbers of deer would browse the 

islands’ native vegetation, reducing or 

eliminating such species as Canada yew, 

which could have a moderate to major, longterm, adverse impact on some native 

vegetation on the islands. 

Climate change likely has affected and will 

continue to affect the park’s vegetation, 

including species composition and population 

numbers. Some southern species will expand 

into the park, while other northern species 

will decline or disappear. Warming 

temperatures are expected to increase the 

potential for wildfires and the spread of and 

seasons for insects, which in turn would have 

a minor to major, long-term, adverse impact 

on the park’s native vegetation. 

When the effects of all of these past and future 

actions are added to the adverse and 

beneficial effects of alternative 3, there would 

be a major, long-term, adverse, cumulative 

effect on the park’s vegetation. However, the 

effects of alternative 3 would add a very small 

increment to the overall cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Alternative 3 would result in 

both beneficial and adverse impacts to the 

park’s vegetation in localized areas. Taken 

together, restoration actions, the application 

of user capacity indicators and standards, and 

increased NPS presence on Long Island and 

Meyers Beach would have a long-term, 

beneficial impact. Minor to moderate, longterm, adverse impacts would occur due to the 

development of new facilities, and increased 

visitor use on some islands. The potential for 

the introduction and spread of nonnative 

invasive species in the park could increase, 

relative to alternative 1, resulting in an 

unknown impact on native vegetation. 

However, overall, most of the park’s 

vegetation would not be affected by the 

actions in alternative 3 (with the possible 

exception of the impact of nonnative species). 

None of the impacts would likely affect the 

integrity, distribution, or presence of native 

plant communities in Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore. 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

278

None of the vegetation impacts under 

alternative 3 would be considered 

unacceptable or sufficient to result in an 

impairment of Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore’s resources and values. There 

would be the potential for a major, long-term, 

adverse cumulative impact on the park’s 

natural vegetation when the effects of past, 

present and future actions within and outside 

the park are added to the effects of alternative 

3. But the increment added by alternative 3 to 

the overall cumulative impact would be very 

small. 

Wildlife 

Analysis. Some of the new developments in 

alternative 3 would occur in areas that have 

relatively natural vegetation, where people 

have not been present very often. These areas 

include new trails on selected islands, new 

group campsites on Sand and Basswood 

islands, new campsites on the mainland, the 

new Meyers Beach ranger station, the new 

mainland trail from Little Sand Bay. An 

additional action that could affect wildlife is 

the relocation of the Stockton Island 

campground to Presque Isle. These new 

developments and actions would result in a 

loss or alteration of approximately 22 acres of 

wildlife habitat, with some wildlife, such as 

forest birds and mammals (e.g., voles, 

squirrels, hares) being displaced from the 

areas. The construction of the mainland trail 

also would be another source of 

fragmentation of wildlife habitat. Noise 

generated from the construction activities and 

from visitor use of the new facilities could 

potentially result in a larger area being subject 

to wildlife disturbance and displacement. 

Although construction activities would result 

in short-term impacts on wildlife, use of the 

facilities would result in long-term effects. As 

a result of all the proposed developments and 

actions, there would likely be minor to 

moderate, long-term, adverse impacts on 

wildlife populations in localized areas. Other 

new developments, including the new trailer 

pads and visitor kiosk at Little Sand Bay, and 

the new maintenance/operations facility and 

staff apartments, would probably be built in 

areas that have already been altered by past 

actions and developments and already have 

people present. Wildlife remaining in these 

areas have adapted to these conditions. , but 

wildlife are still being affected. Courtship, 

territory establishment, intra-species 

communication, predation and predator 

avoidance, and effective use of habitat could 

already have been affected by noise in these 

areas. That said, it is expected that any adverse 

impacts to wildlife due to the above projects 

during the construction period would be 

negligible and short term. 

Impacts due to visitor use in alternative 3 

would be about the same as those described 

under alternative 1. Wildlife populations, 

habitats, and behaviors already have been 

altered by people in popular areas of the park; 

these alterations would continue under this 

alternative. Human use of the park would 

continue to be primarily concentrated in areas 

such as the light stations, the islands’ 

shorelines, and at campsites in alternative 3. 

Animals sensitive to human activities already 

avoid these areas when people are present. 

Wildlife that occupy these areas, such as red 

squirrels, hares, mice, and white-tailed deer, 

are mostly adapted to the presence of people. 

As in alternative 1, some animals would 

continue to occasionally be injured or killed 

by motor vehicles on roads in the mainland 

unit. Some animals, such as mice, blue jays, 

bears, sea gulls, and red squirrels, also 

probably would continue to be attracted by 

visitors feeding them or to areas where food 

and garbage are left out. The continuation of 

hunting and trapping would not be expected 

to adversely affect the park’s populations, 

assuming that harvests stay at about existing 

levels and there was careful monitoring and 

enforcement of the state’s regulations by the 

state of Wisconsin and the park staff. Taken 

altogether, visitor use in this alternative would 

be expected to have a minor, long-term, 

adverse impact on the park’s wildlife 

populations. 

Alternative 3 would have several beneficial 

impacts on wildlife. With the relocation of the 

Stockton Island campground to Presque Isle, 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 3 

279

away from key bear habitat, the potential for 

bear-human conflicts would decline 

compared to alternative 1. Thus, it is likely in 

the future that fewer problem bears would 

need conditioning to avoid humans in 

alternative 3, resulting in a long-term, 

beneficial impact. In addition, under 

alternative 3 the restoration of the Oak Island 

group campsite would increase wildlife 

habitat, resulting in a long-term, beneficial 

impact. Clustering some campsites in the 

wilderness area would decrease habitat 

fragmentation and would concentrate people 

in fewer areas, which in turn would reduce 

direct human-wildlife interactions, resulting 

in a long-term, beneficial impact. Finally, 

providing a ranger station at Meyers Beach 

and staff housing on Long Island would 

provide a long-term NPS presence in these 

areas, which would aid in monitoring and 

taking action to address wildlife impacts due 

to visitors. 

Cumulative Impacts. Like vegetation, several 

potential actions, independent of this plan, 

could affect the park’s wildlife. As described 

in the “Affected Environment,” the loss of 

and/or changes in vegetation have affected the 

habitat for wildlife in the park (e.g., the spread 

of deer). Hunting also has affected wildlife in 

the past and present. 

In the future developments such as second 

homes may be built on some lands adjacent to 

the mainland unit of the park, which would 

result in the displacement of some wildlife and 

the loss and modification of wildlife habitat in 

these areas. In addition, noise generated by 

human activities in the vicinity of the islands, 

such as that generated by the use of motorized 

watercraft, could also disturb or displace 

some wildlife, particularly if these uses were to 

increase. These actions would likely have a 

long-term, minor, adverse impact on wildlife 

populations in the vicinity of the park. 

The possible relocation or redesign of the 

Quarry Bay campsites on Stockton Island, 

independent of this plan, would affect wildlife 

in the area, displacing some animals, which 

would add a minor, long-term, adverse 

incremental effect to the effects of 

alternative 3. 

Climate change will also likely affect wildlife 

composition of the park. Some southern 

species will expand into the park, while other 

northern species will decline or disappear. 

Warming temperatures are expected to 

increase the spread of and seasons for insects, 

which could benefit some wildlife species and 

adversely affect other species. (See the 

“Affected Environment” chapter for more 

information.) Because the changes due to 

climate change in the park are unpredictable, 

both in their timing and in magnitude or 

intensity of the impact, the effects of climate 

change on the park’s wildlife could range from 

minor to major in intensity. When the effects 

of the actions in alternative 3 are added to the 

potential effects of climate change, there 

would be the potential for a minor to major, 

long-term, adverse cumulative impact on the 

park’s wildlife populations. But alternative 3 

would add a very small increment to the 

potential effects of climate change on wildlife. 

Conclusion. Alternative 3 would result in 

both adverse and beneficial impacts to wildlife 

in localized areas. Most wildlife in the park 

would not change as a result of the actions in 

this alternative. No actions would affect areas 

known to be important for breeding, nesting, 

foraging, or key migration routes. No actions 

would interfere with feeding, reproduction, or 

other activities necessary for the survival of 

wildlife species. New developments on the 

islands and the mainland would result in the 

loss of wildlife habitat, resulting in a minor to 

moderate, long-term, adverse impact. Minor, 

long-term, adverse wildlife impacts also would 

occur due to visitation in the park. On the 

other hand, alternative 3 would result in longterm, beneficial impacts due to habitat 

restoration efforts, increased NPS presence at 

Meyers Beach and Long Island, and the 

relocation of the Stockton Island campground 

out of key bear habitat. There would be the 

potential for a minor to major, long-term, 

adverse cumulative impact on the park’s 

wildlife when the effects of alternative 3 are 

added to the potential effects of climate 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

280

change. But the increment added by 

alternative 3 to the overall cumulative impact 

would be very small. None of the wildlife 

impacts resulting from alternative 3 would be 

considered unacceptable or constitute an 

impairment of the park’s resources and values. 

Federal and State Threatened 

and Endangered Species 

Analysis. No new actions or developments 

would occur on Long Island or the Michigan 

Island sandspit under alternative 3 that would 

affect the federal and state endangered piping 

plovers in the park. As in alternative 1, visitors 

and their dogs could disturb plovers. But in 

alternative 3 providing NPS housing at the 

Long Island light station would enable NPS 

staff to more effectively monitor the plover 

nests and reduce the potential for visitor 

disturbance. In addition, with continued 

efforts to protect nesting birds, including 

visitor education efforts and temporary 

closures around nesting areas, it is less likely 

that visitors would deliberately or accidentally 

disturb the plovers. If impacts from visitors 

were identified in the future, the park staff 

would consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service to identify and implement additional 

appropriate mitigative measures. Consequently, under alternative 3 visitors might 

affect, but would not likely adversely affect, 

piping plovers in the park. 

Cumulative Impacts. As described in the 

piping plover recovery plan, increasing habitat 

loss, recreational pressure, predation, and 

contaminants are likely responsible for 

continuing population declines of the piping 

plover throughout its range (USFWS 2003). 

Outside of the park, habitat loss and 

modification has historically affected the 

Great Lakes region, although this impact is 

now thought to be occurring at a much 

reduced level (J. Trick, biologist, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, pers. com., 10-22-2008). 

Predation and disease, the use of motorized 

vehicles on beaches, recreational activities on 

beaches (e.g., beach walking, bike riding) 

likely will continue to affect the birds. 

Contaminants, pollution, and noise from 

human activities within and outside the park 

also may be affecting the species, although this 

is unknown. Although actions are being taken 

to protect piping plovers and their species, 

such as controlling human access to nesting 

areas and educating the public, the species is 

likely to continue to be imperiled during the 

life of this plan. 

Independent of the alternative, park staff 

would continue to monitor and protect all 

piping plover nest sites. 

As noted above, alternative 3 would have a 

beneficial effect on the protection of piping 

plovers on Long Island. When this beneficial 

impact is added to the effects of actions 

occurring outside the park, there would be an 

overall long-term, adverse cumulative impact. 

However, the effect of alternative 3 on the 

overall cumulative impact would be a very 

small beneficial increment. 

Conclusion. Alternative 3 would have the 

same effect on piping plovers as the other 

action alternatives. No new developments or 

actions would occur on the beaches under 

alternative 3 that would have the potential to 

affect the piping plover in the park. Visitor use 

on island beaches would continue to have the 

potential to disturb the plovers, but with an 

increased NPS presence on Long Island and 

the continuation of other protection 

measures, impacts would be expected to be 

negligible. Thus, alternative 3 may affect, but 

would not likely adversely affect, the park’s 

piping plovers. This alternative would not 

result in impacts that would be considered 

unacceptable or result in an impairment of the 

park’s resources and values. The effect of 

alternative 3 added to the effects of other past, 

present, and foreseeable future actions 

occurring outside the park would result in a 

long-term, adverse, cumulative impact, 

although the increment added by the 

alternative would be beneficial and very small. 

Natural Soundscape 

Analysis. In alternative 3 noise would result 

from the construction and use of several new 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 3 

281

developments, including new campsites, trails, 

a new ranger station at Meyers Beach, trailer 

pads, and a new maintenance/operations 

facility and staff apartments. In some areas the 

noise from construction equipment (e.g., 

chainsaws) would be minor to moderate, but 

it would be temporary and localized, and 

would occur at different times and places in 

the park. In areas where there are other 

people and facilities, such as Meyers Beach, 

Bayfield, and Little Sand Bay, the impact of 

this noise would be less than in areas where 

there are relatively few or no people, such as 

the area of development of the new mainland 

trail from Little Sand Bay to Sand River. 

As in alternative 1, noise from NPS 

maintenance and management activities, such 

as trail maintenance, grass mowing, pumping 

of vault toilets, and restoration activities, 

would continue to be heard occasionally on 

the park’s islands. Most noise from these 

activities would be in or near developed areas 

that are already exposed to noise from 

vehicles, motors, and visitors. Overall, noise 

from ongoing maintenance and restoration 

activities would have a minor to moderate 

adverse impact on the natural soundscape in 

local areas, depending upon the activity, 

presence of other facilities and people, 

vegetation, and wind. The impacts would be 

of short duration, but because they would 

occur over the life of the plan, the impact 

would be long term. 

During much of the year, particularly the 

winter, there would be few human-generated 

noises because there would be few people 

present. But during the peak use season there 

would be moderate levels of noise due to 

visitors and motorboats stopping at the 

islands. Noise levels would be most noticeable 

primarily in developed areas and popular use 

areas, such as the light stations, anchorages or 

docks at Rocky, South Twin, Raspberry, Oak 

and Sand islands, the Stockton Island Visitor 

Center, Little Sand Bay, and Meyers Beach. 

Depending on winter conditions, noise levels 

would also likely be moderate at times at 

Meyers Beach with visitors going out to see 

the ice caves. These impacts would be brief, 

but would increase in intensity and duration 

during holidays and weekends when high 

numbers of visitors are present. Summer noise 

from regular concessioner island cruises to 

Raspberry, Stockton, and Oak islands also 

would continue, with large groups of people 

disembarking on Raspberry and Stockton 

islands. Because visitor use levels under 

alternative 3 would be about the same as 

under alternative 1, the impacts of visitor 

generated noise in the two alternatives would 

be about the same—the proposed actions 

would result in long-term, minor to moderate, 

adverse noise impacts in local areas on the 

mainland and most islands throughout 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. 

Cumulative Impacts. Noise from outside the 

park has affected the park’s soundscape in the 

past and will continue to do so in the future. 

As described in the “Affected Environment” 

chapter, depending on location and wind 

direction, common human-caused sounds 

include engines from watercraft passing near 

the park, vehicles on roads on the mainland, 

sounds from logging operations, and urban 

sounds from Bayfield would continue to be 

heard in the park. Noise from the concession 

boat would continue to be heard not just at 

the islands it visits, but also on the islands it 

passes by. In the winter, noise from 

snowmobiles passing by the park would 

continue to be heard. 

It is possible in the future that events like the 

speedboat “poker run” and other unregulated 

activities may occur just outside the park 

boundary, generating substantial noise. In 

addition, developments such as second homes 

may be built on some lands adjacent to the 

mainland unit of the park, which would result 

in noise during and after the construction 

period in these areas. 

These adverse noise impacts would be minor 

to moderate (depending upon the type of 

noise and location), intermittent, and long 

term—occurring every year. 

When these impacts are added to the 

continuing impacts of alternative 3 there 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

282

would be the potential for a long-term, minor 

to moderate, adverse cumulative impact on 

the natural soundscape. However, these 

cumulative impacts would primarily occur at 

certain times in the summer, such as 

weekends. The actions in alternative 3 would 

add a very small increment to the overall 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative 3 most of the 

park would remain relatively quiet, with few 

human-generated noises affecting the natural 

soundscape. Alternative 3 would result in 

short- and long-term, minor to moderate, 

adverse impacts due to the construction and 

use of new facilities on the islands and 

mainland. Minor to moderate, adverse noise 

impacts also would occur in local areas on the 

mainland and most islands, particularly in 

developed areas, due to visitor use and NPS 

maintenance and management activities. 

None of these noise impacts, however, would 

be unacceptable or be of a magnitude that 

would result in an impairment of the park’s 

resources and values. There would be the 

potential for a long-term, minor to moderate, 

adverse cumulative impact to the soundscape 

when the noise resulting from implementing 

this alternative is added to noise from 

activities outside of the park. However, the 

increment added by alternative 3 to the overall 

impact would be very small. 

WILDERNESS CHARACTER 

Analysis. No major changes in management 

would occur in the Gaylord Nelson 

Wilderness in alternative 3—the area would 

continue to be managed largely as it is now. 

As in alternative 1, most of the wilderness area 

would be expected to receive very low use 

levels. Although island use levels might slightly 

increase over time, it is expected that most of 

these visitors would stay in popular use areas 

and not venture into the wilderness. There 

would continue to be a few places in the 

wilderness area where relatively large groups 

of people (10-30+) may gather at one time, 

particularly on weekends and holidays. These 

areas would include the beaches at the 

southeast side of Raspberry Island and on the 

north side of York Island. In these areas 

opportunities for solitude would be 

diminished. 

No new developments would occur in the 

wilderness area, although some campsites may 

be reconfigured and clustered. As in all of the 

alternatives, a few areas of the wilderness 

would show evidence of people, including 

hiking trails, campsites, and some historic 

structures, as well as occasional user-created 

trails and trampled vegetation/bare ground 

from informal campsites. Nevertheless, most 

visitors in this alternative would continue to 

find what they perceive to be natural 

conditions in most of the wilderness area—

visitors would continue to find a forested 

landscape generally appearing untrammeled 

by people, with few obvious signs of 

disturbance or alteration. 

Clustering campsites in the wilderness area 

would reduce opportunities for solitude for 

some campers, which would have a minor, 

long-term, adverse impact. On the other hand, 

relocating the Oak Island group campsite out 

of the wilderness area would increase 

opportunities for solitude in this area, 

resulting in a minor, long-term, beneficial 

impact. 

The removal of the Oak Island group campsite 

from the wilderness area and the restoration 

of the site would make this area once again 

appear more natural. This action would have a 

long-term, minor, beneficial effect on the 

apparent naturalness of the area. 

Implementation of alternative 3 would not 

alter opportunities for primitive recreation in 

the wilderness area. Opportunities for 

primitive, unconfined recreation would 

continue to be present on most of the islands 

in the wilderness area. Day-use visitors would 

have complete freedom to go wherever they 

pleased, except for the small number of areas 

that are closed for resource protection 

purposes (e.g., Gull and Eagle Islands). For 

visitor safety and resource concerns, permits 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 3 

283

for overnight camping at designated campsites 

and for zoned camping would continue to be 

required. The permit system would ensure 

that overcrowding of campers does not occur 

in the wilderness. Although most visitors 

would likely agree that there would be 

outstanding opportunities for primitive, 

unconfined recreation on the islands, permit 

and camping requirements would continue to 

slightly diminish these qualities, resulting in a 

minor, long-term, adverse impact. It is 

possible that the implementation of user 

capacity indicators and standards could result 

in additional restrictions on visitor use if 

standards were exceeded, but it is not possible 

to speculate what actions, if any would be 

taken—and obtrusive use restrictions would 

only be taken as a last resort, if no other 

actions could correct the problem. 

Cumulative Impacts. Actions independent of 

alternative 3 have affected, and would likely 

continue to affect the wilderness character of 

the park. Noise generated from human 

activities outside of the park, such as that 

generated by the use of motorized boats, 

would continue to affect some visitors’ 

perceptions of solitude, resulting in a longterm, minor adverse impact to wilderness 

character. As noted in the impact topics 

above, the spread of nonnative species and 

climate change have affected, and are likely to 

continue adversely affecting the park’s 

biological communities—including the 

wilderness area—resulting in a long-term, 

minor to moderate, adverse impact to 

wilderness character (i.e., adverse effect on 

apparent naturalness of the wilderness areas). 

On the other hand, NPS staff have worked to 

restore disturbed areas in wilderness and 

likely will continue to do so in the future. This 

would have a minor, long-term, beneficial 

impact on wilderness character. 

When all of the above actions are added to the 

impacts in alternative 3, there would be the 

potential for a minor to moderate, long-term, 

adverse cumulative impact on the wilderness 

character. However, alternative 3 would add a 

very small increment to the overall cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion. Alternative 3 would have the 

same effects on wilderness character as 

alternative 2. Overall, alternative 3 would have 

a minor, long-term, beneficial impact 

compared to alternative 1. As in all of the 

alternatives being considered, in alternative 3 

visitors would be able to find in most of the 

wilderness area outstanding opportunities for 

solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation 

in what most people perceive to be a natural 

landscape. The relocation of the Oak Island 

group campsite out of the wilderness area 

would have a long-term, minor, beneficial 

impact on opportunities for solitude and 

apparent naturalness in this area. On the other 

hand, alternative 3 would result in the same 

minor, long-term, adverse impact to the area’s 

wilderness character as alternative 1, due to 

the continuing requirement to obtain a permit 

to camp in the wilderness. Clustering 

campsites also would have a minor, long-term, 

adverse impact, due to some visitors 

perceiving a loss of solitude. 

None of these impacts to wilderness character 

would be considered unacceptable. When the 

effects of actions occurring independent of 

the alternative are added to the effects of 

alternative 3 there would be the potential for a 

minor to moderate, adverse, cumulative effect 

on wilderness character—albeit alternative 3 

would add a very small increment to this 

overall cumulative impact. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Historic Structures / Cultural Landscapes 

Light Stations 

Under alternative 3, the Raspberry Island light 

station would remain the primary focus of 

preservation treatments and visitor use 

opportunities because of its relative 

accessibility and renown as a “showplace” 

property. Rehabilitation and restoration of the 

light tower and attached keeper’s quarters 

were undertaken in 2006 to address structural 

deterioration, enhance visitor interpretation, 

and provide for NPS seasonal employee 

housing. As funding permits, rehabilitation 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

284

and restoration of the Raspberry Island light 

station’s cultural landscape would also be 

carried out in accordance with 

recommendations from the 2004 cultural 

landscape report, and the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (with Guidelines for the 

Treatment of Cultural Landscapes). 

Implementation of these measures would have 

long-term negligible to minor adverse impacts 

on the Raspberry Island light station. 

The park staff would stabilize and preserve 

the other historic light stations in accordance 

with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

for the Treatment of Historic Properties. With 

particular regard to the standards and 

guidelines for preservation, the existing form, 

features, and architectural detailing of the 

light station buildings and structures would be 

retained. Preservation maintenance of 

character-defining features (with primary 

focus on building exteriors) would be 

emphasized over replacement of historic 

fabric. Stabilization measures would be 

carried out to structurally reinforce, 

weatherize, and correct unsafe conditions. As 

needed, shoreline stabilization would also be 

undertaken (such as that completed for the 

Raspberry Island and Outer Island light 

stations) to control erosion of the shoreline 

embankments that has threatened the historic 

structures. Implementation of these 

preservation and stabilization measures would 

have long-term negligible to minor adverse 

impacts on the historic light stations. 

Rehabilitation measures would be carried out 

at the Raspberry Island and Long Island light 

stations to provide for NPS staff use and 

housing. In accordance with the Secretary of 

the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (with particular attention 

to the standards and guidelines for 

rehabilitation), historic building materials and 

character-defining features would be 

protected and maintained to the extent 

possible, although extensively deteriorated, 

damaged, or missing features would be 

replaced with traditional or substitute 

materials. Possible alterations and additions 

may be appropriate to permit efficient 

contemporary uses of the structures and 

buildings. However, no public or staff 

overnight use would occur at the other light 

stations, and consequently there would be no 

need for interior rehabilitation of these 

structures. Rehabilitation of selected light 

stations carried out in accordance with the 

Secretary’s Standards would have long-term 

negligible to minor adverse impacts on these 

historic properties. 

Although the primary focus of cultural 

landscape restoration and rehabilitation 

would be reserved for the Raspberry Island 

light station, the cultural landscapes of other 

light stations would be preserved and 

stabilized to maintain the integrity of 

landscape features identified as contributing 

to site significance. Historic views may be 

obscured in some instances by trees and other 

vegetation encroaching into the larger 

surrounding areas historically reserved for the 

light stations. However, preservation of 

cultural landscape elements associated with 

the light stations would have long-term 

negligible to minor adverse impacts on 

historic properties. 

Other Historic Structures 

and Cultural Landscapes 

National register-listed or national registereligible structures associated with historic 

farmsteads, tourism/recreational sites, fishing 

and logging camps, etc. would be preserved 

and stabilized in accordance with the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties. Contributing 

cultural landscape features associated with 

these sites also would be preserved and 

stabilized. The historic Hokenson fishery on 

the mainland at Little Sand Bay may be 

considered in future planning for 

rehabilitation and adaptive use as a visitor 

center or contact facility. These actions would 

have long-term negligible to minor adverse 

impacts on historic properties. 

For selected historic properties currently 

under use and occupancy leases or life estates 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 3 

285

(i.e., the former fishing settlement and later 

resort on Rocky Island, the West Bay Club on 

Sand Island, and Shaw Point / Camp Stella on 

Sand Island), the park staff would undertake 

various preservation treatments and adaptive 

uses once leases have expired and/or private 

occupancy has ceased. Historic structures 

would be preserved at the Rocky Island 

settlement, and one or more docks may be 

rehabilitated. The West Bay Club lodge would 

be preserved and the dock rehabilitated for 

public day use. At Shaw Point, docks would be 

rehabilitated for public day use and 

contributing Camp Stella historic structures 

would be preserved and interpreted. 

Contributing structures at the Hansen farm 

would be stabilized and preserved, and its 

cultural landscape would be partially restored. 

Implementation of these actions in 

accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties would have long-term negligible to 

minor adverse impacts on these historic 

properties 

Cumulative Impacts. Historic buildings, 

structures and cultural landscapes at the park 

are susceptible to severe weathering and 

storm damage from harsh climatic conditions. 

Forest vegetation encroaching near historic 

structures and sites also presents a risk of fire 

damage from increasing fuel loads. Park staff 

also face logistical challenges and the 

additional expenses associated with 

transporting materials and equipment by boat 

from the mainland to island docks, and 

subsequently from docks to worksites on the 

islands to carry out preservation activities. 

Consequently, preservation treatment of 

historic buildings, structures and cultural 

landscapes may not always occur in a timely 

manner and/or may be deferred in some 

instances. The integrity of these historic 

properties can be adversely affected if historic 

fabric deteriorates or is lost. However, in 

conformance with the Secretary’s Standards 

and as funding permits, the national lakeshore 

continues to carry out stabilization and 

preservation of historic structures (e.g., 

reroofing, repointing, painting, structural 

reinforcement and other repairs) to arrest 

deterioration and to retain as much of the 

historic integrity of these structures as 

possible. These measures, in addition to more 

extensive preservation treatments such as the 

rehabilitation and restoration of the 

Raspberry Island light tower and keeper’s 

quarters, have had long-term beneficial 

impacts. 

The impacts associated with implementation 

of alternative 3 would have long-term 

negligible to minor adverse impacts on the 

park’s light stations, and other historic 

buildings, structures and cultural landscapes. 

Other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions would result in both 

negligible to minor adverse and beneficial 

impacts. Consequently, the impacts of the 

other actions described above, in combination 

with the impacts of alternative 3, would 

cumulatively result in long-term, negligible to 

minor, adverse impacts on these historic 

properties. 

Conclusion. Implementation of actions 

proposed by alternative 3 would have longterm negligible to minor adverse impacts on 

the park’s light stations and other historic 

structures and cultural landscapes listed in or 

eligible for listing in the National Register of 

Historic Places. There would also be longterm negligible to minor adverse cumulative 

effects on these historic properties from 

implementation of alternative 3 in 

combination with other past, present, or 

reasonably foreseeable actions. 

Because there would be no adverse impacts to 

a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified 

in the establishing legislation of Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore, (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the national 

lakeshore or to opportunities for enjoyment 

of the national lakeshore, or (3) identified as a 

goal in the national lakeshore’s General 

Management Plan or other relevant NPS 

planning document, there would be no 

impairment of the national lakeshore’s 

resources or values. 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

286

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effect (36 CFR Part 800.5, 

Assessment of Adverse Effects), the National 

Park Service concludes that implementing 

alternative 3 would result in no adverse effect 

on historic structures and cultural landscapes. 

Archeological Resources 

Under alternative 3, there would be little 

substantial change to park facilities or 

infrastructure, and to visitor use 

opportunities. In nonwilderness areas, the 

Stockton Island campground would be 

relocated to Presque Isle. Self-guided 

interpretive trails, an Ojibwe cultural 

demonstration site, and additional group 

campsites may be developed. In wilderness 

areas, some campsites and trails may be 

reconfigured or relocated. The Oak Island 

group campsite would be removed. New 

construction on the mainland unit would 

include additional trails, campsites, an NPS 

ranger station at Meyers Beach, and seasonal 

employee apartments. 

Ground-disturbing construction activities 

associated with development proposals have 

the potential to impact archeological 

resources. In consultation with the Wisconsin 

state historic preservation office and affiliated 

tribal historic preservation offices, the Park 

Service would ensure that archeological 

assessments and surveys are carried out for all 

areas of potential effect proposed for 

development prior to construction. Known 

resources would be avoided to the greatest 

extent possible. If during construction 

previously undiscovered archeological 

resources were uncovered, all work in the 

immediate vicinity of the discovery would be 

halted until the resources could be identified 

and documented and an appropriate 

mitigation strategy developed through further 

consultation. Few, if any, adverse impacts 

would be anticipated. 

NPS archeologists would continue to monitor 

the condition of known archeological sites, 

and would undertake appropriate protection 

and stabilization measures as necessary to 

reduce or avoid site impacts possibly 

occurring from natural erosion, visitor use, or 

other factors. NPS archeologists would also 

continue to carry out survey inventories and 

documentation of archeological resources in 

fulfillment of section 110 requirements of the 

National Historic Preservation Act. 

Continuation of archeological resource 

management actions under existing laws and 

policies would have long-term negligible to 

minor adverse impacts on archeological 

resources. 

Cumulative Impacts. Archeological 

resources in the park (and throughout the 

region) are subject to a variety of disturbances 

associated with shoreline erosion and other 

natural erosion processes, high winds that can 

overturn trees and dislodge buried sites, 

ground-disturbing construction activities, 

inadvertent visitor use impacts, artifact 

looting, etc. These factors can contribute to 

adversely affect the integrity of archeological 

resources as the potential of impacted sites to 

yield important prehistoric or historic 

information is diminished and/or irretrievably 

lost. However, understanding of regional 

prehistory and history can also benefit as 

archeological information continues to be 

acquired through ongoing research and 

perhaps from data recovery investigations 

carried out in fulfillment of mitigation 

requirements. 

The impacts associated with implementation 

of alternative 3 would have long-term 

negligible to minor adverse impacts on the 

park’s archeological resources. Other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 

would result in both negligible to minor 

adverse and beneficial impacts. Consequently, 

the beneficial and adverse impacts of the other 

actions described above, in combination with 

the impacts of alternative 3, would 

cumulatively result in long-term negligible to 

minor adverse impacts on archeological 

resources. 

Conclusion. Implementation of actions 

proposed by alternative 3 would have long-
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 3 

287

term negligible to minor adverse impacts on 

the park’s prehistoric and historic 

archeological resources listed in or eligible for 

listing in the National Register of Historic 

Places. There would also be long-term 

negligible to minor adverse cumulative 

impacts on archeological resources from 

implementation of alternative 3 in 

conjunction with other past, present or 

reasonably foreseeable actions. 

Because there would be no adverse impacts to 

a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified 

in the establishing legislation of Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore, (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the park to 

opportunities for enjoyment of the park, or (3) 

identified as a goal in the park’s General 

Management Plan or other relevant NPS 

planning document, there would be no 

impairment of the park’s resources or values. 

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effect (36 CFR Part 800.5, 

Assessment of Adverse Effects), the National 

Park Service concludes that implementing 

alternative 3 would result in no adverse effect 

on archeological resources. 

Ethnographic Resources 

Under alternative 3, there would be little 

substantial changes to park facilities or 

infrastructure, or to visitor use opportunities. 

In nonwilderness areas, the Stockton Island 

campground presently on the tombolo would 

be relocated to Presque Isle. Self-guided 

interpretive trails, an Ojibwe cultural 

demonstration site, and additional group 

campsites may be developed. In wilderness 

areas, some campsites and trails may be 

reconfigured or relocated. The Oak Island 

group campsite would be removed. New 

construction on the mainland unit would 

include additional trails, campsites, an NPS 

ranger station at Meyers Beach, and seasonal 

employee apartments. Although management 

information to identify the existence or 

location of ethnographic resources is limited 

at the park, ethnographic resources could 

potentially be impacted as a result of these 

ground-disturbing construction activities. 

Continuing consultations with the Ojibwe and 

other affiliated tribes to identify ethnographic 

resources would minimize the possibility that 

unknown sites could inadvertently be 

disturbed by visitor use or NPS activities. 

Long-term negligible to minor adverse 

impacts would be anticipated. 

NPS staff would continue to collaborate with 

the Ojibwe and other affiliated tribes to 

identify and evaluate potential ethnographic 

resources by conducting appropriate research 

and investigations (i.e., ethnographic 

overviews and assessments, traditional use 

studies, ethnographic landscape studies, oral 

histories, etc.). Identified ethnographic 

resources meeting the criteria for national 

register eligibility would be documented and 

managed as “traditional cultural properties.” 

An Ojibwe cultural demonstration site would 

provide an opportunity to educate visitors 

about Ojibwe cultural history and the 

importance of respecting and protecting 

ethnographic resources important to the 

Ojibwe and their traditional way of life. 

Efforts to identify, document and protect 

ethnographic resources would have longterm, beneficial impacts on these resources 

should they be found to exist in the park. 

In consultation with affiliated tribes, the Park 

Service would continue to permit customary 

harvest and consumptive use of park 

resources, including hunting, fishing, and 

gathering plants and berries. These activities 

would be carried out in accordance with park 

purposes and NPS policies, with the provision 

that the activities do not to adversely affect 

park wildlife or the reproductive potential of 

plant species, or otherwise adversely affect 

park resources. Also in accordance with 

applicable laws and policies, the Park Service 

would permit tribal access to park areas for 

traditional religious, ceremonial, and other 

customary activities. In consultation with the 

tribes and consistent with tribal goals, the 

Park Service would protect sacred sites and 

other ethnographic resources should these be 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

288

identified. Providing and protecting tribal 

access to traditional use areas in the park, and 

protection of customary hunting, fishing and 

gathering activities would have long-term, 

beneficial impacts on ethnographic resources. 

Cumulative Impacts. Ethnographic 

resources at the park (and throughout the 

region) are subject to a variety of disturbances 

associated with erosion and other natural 

processes, ground-disturbing construction or 

development activities, inadvertent visitor use 

impacts, blocked access to traditional use 

areas, artifact looting, etc. In part because of 

tribal concerns for retaining the 

confidentiality of ethnographic resources, 

land managers are occasionally challenged to 

provide adequate protection for these 

resources because of the limited information 

available regarding their potential existence, 

nature and location. These factors can 

contribute to adversely affect the integrity of 

ethnographic resources having particular 

significance to tribes and other cultural 

groups. However, ongoing research and 

information gathered from tribal 

consultations can provide long-term benefits 

by increasing understanding and appreciation 

for the protection of regional ethnographic 

resources. 

The impacts associated with implementation 

of alternative 3 would have long-term 

negligible to minor adverse impacts on the 

park’s ethnographic resources. Consequently, 

the beneficial and adverse impacts of the other 

actions described above, in combination with 

the impacts of alternative 3 would 

cumulatively result in long-term negligible to 

minor adverse impacts on ethnographic 

resources. 

Conclusion. Implementation of the actions 

proposed by alternative 3 would have longterm negligible to minor adverse impacts on 

ethnographic resources at the park. Longterm negligible to minor adverse impacts on 

ethnographic resources would also occur 

from implementation of alternative 3 in 

conjunction with other past, present or 

reasonably foreseeable actions. 

Because there would be no adverse impacts to 

a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified 

in the establishing legislation of Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore, (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the park or to 

opportunities for enjoyment of the park, or (3) 

identified as a goal in the park’s General 

Management Plan or other relevant NPS 

planning document, there would be no 

impairment of the park’s resources or values. 

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effect (36 CFR Part 800.5, 

Assessment of Adverse Effects), the National 

Park Service concludes that implementing 

alternative 3 would result in no adverse effect 

on ethnographic resources. 

 

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 

Ability to Access the National 

Lakeshore, Including Universal Access 

In alternative 3, the focus would be on 

providing primitive, lake-oriented recreation 

and education opportunities unique to the 

Apostle Islands. The existing transportation 

options to the islands would be maintained. 

Some of the docks associated with the former 

use and occupancy/current life estates would 

be rehabilitated for public day use. This 

alternative would maintain existing access to 

desired locations. Upon termination of the 

existing reservations and the completion of 

rehabilitation by the Park Service, access to 

Rocky Island and Sand Island also would be 

improved, resulting in a long-term, major, 

beneficial impact. 

The existing facilities that are accessible to 

visitors with disabilities would be maintained, 

but no additional facilities would be added in 

this alternative. During interactions with park 

staff, people have expressed interest in having 

more facilities and programs that would 

support the needs of visitors with disabilities. 

This alternative would maintain the limited 

accessible facility and program opportunities 

on both the mainland and islands, continuing 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 3 

289

a long-term, minor, adverse impact for 

visitors. 

Lake and Island Related Recreational 

Opportunities and Experiences 

As noted, this alternative would focus on 

providing primitive, lake-oriented recreation 

and education opportunities. The emphasis 

on the primitive zone for most areas on the 

islands would promote these types of 

primitive, solitude seeking types of recreation 

experiences. Existing lake and island 

recreational opportunities would continue to 

be available. Some new interpretation and 

education opportunities, such as interpretive 

trails and cultural demonstration areas, may 

be available in the future. These would 

provide additional island-based recreation 

opportunities, resulting in a long-term, minor, 

beneficial impact. Other new opportunities 

including an increase in group campsites, 

which was of particular interest to some 

members of the public, would have a longterm, minor, beneficial impact. The Oak 

Island group campsite would be removed due 

to its location in wilderness, resulting in a 

long-term, minor, adverse impact. 

This alternative also includes the proposal to 

relocate the Stockton Island campground 

from the tombolo to Presque Isle to mitigate 

existing resource impacts. This campground is 

popular for many repeat visitors, and the 

location of the campsites along the shoreline 

is considered highly desirable due to the great 

lake views and privacy between sites. The 

concentration of these sites on Presque Isle 

may limit the number of sites with lake views 

and may reduce the screening and privacy 

between sites. This proposal will likely detract 

from the visitor experience, especially for 

those repeat visitors who enjoy staying at a 

particular site in the existing campground. 

Although this is an important resource 

protection strategy, the relocation of the 

campsite will likely have a long-term, 

moderate, adverse impact to the visitor 

experience. During the construction of the 

new campground and the relocation of 

camping activities, there will be short-term, 

minor, adverse impacts to visitors due to 

noise, temporarily restricted access, and visual 

intrusions. 

This alternative would promote and possibly 

increase the park’s outstanding opportunities 

for solitude, quiet, “wildness,” connection 

with nature, and first hand discovery of the 

islands’ history. Opportunities for solitude, 

quiet, and connection with nature would be 

enhanced by several proposals in this 

alternative. First, all of the wilderness areas 

would be in the primitive zone that would 

direct the National Park Service to continue 

protection of the values of natural quiet and 

solitude, and opportunities for visitor 

contemplation, naturalness, and primitive 

recreation. These are some of the most highly 

valued characteristics of the park, and the 

preservation of these values would have a 

long-term, major, beneficial impact. Further, 

the group campsite on Oak Island will be 

removed, minimizing potential impacts to the 

soundscape and perceptions of crowding in 

the designated wilderness area. This would 

have a long-term, minor, beneficial effect. 

There would be no net gain in campsite and 

trail opportunities in designated wilderness, 

but there is a possibility that some designated 

campsites and trails may be reconstructed and 

relocated to protect resources. For those 

visitors who enjoy camping at a particular 

wilderness campsite or hiking a specific trail, 

the potential relocation or realignment of 

these facilities may be perceived as a longterm, minor, adverse impact. In addition, 

these actions may result in a short-term, 

minor, adverse impact during the relocation 

and construction of new sites and trails. 

Although this alternative includes high levels 

of protection for the qualities of solitude and 

primitive recreation, the visitor access to some 

of the former use and occupancy/current life 

estates may increase the potential for 

crowding and noise impacts on adjacent areas, 

resulting in a long-term, negligible, adverse 

impact. 

To help mitigate these concerns, this 

alternative includes the institution of the 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

290

Visitor Experience and Resource Protection 

Framework to guide long-term visitor use 

management in the park. The park would 

monitor several indicators related to visitor 

experience and resource impacts that identify 

if and when additional management strategies 

are needed to achieve desired conditions. The 

park would take all actions necessary to 

ensure that these indicators stay within a given 

standard to protect the highly valued 

opportunities for solitude in the park. The 

inclusion of these types of indicators in the 

park’s monitoring program would create a 

long-term, moderate, beneficial impact. 

Specific actions to achieve the standards 

identified in this management plan would be 

evaluated under the requirements of the 

National Environmental Policy Act, the 

National Historic Preservation Act, and other 

applicable laws and policies. 

Mainland Recreational 

Opportunities and Experiences 

In this alternative, the mainland would be 

primarily zoned backcountry, except for Little 

Sand Bay and Meyers Beach that will be zoned 

with the frontcountry zone. This would direct 

the National Park Service to promote 

outstanding opportunities to enjoy natural 

resources and solitude in the backcountry 

zone and convenient and easy access to 

developed, high use, recreational and 

interpretive areas in the two areas zoned with 

the frontcountry zone. This zoning pattern 

would continue to promote concentration of 

high use and educational opportunities in the 

existing developed areas, while promoting 

values of nature based recreation and 

contemplation in other areas of the mainland. 

This supports much of the desired conditions 

heard from the public during scoping and 

would provide a long-term, moderate, 

beneficial impact to recreation opportunities 

on the mainland. 

This alternative also includes specific 

strategies to improve the high-quality 

mainland recreational opportunities. Water 

trails and water access campsites are all 

proposed in this alternative to increase the 

diversity of opportunities that are nature 

based and focus on the lake and islands. A 

large number of visitors to the park only visit 

the mainland, so these new opportunities 

would allow visitors to experience the lake 

and gain views of the islands, enhancing the 

visitor experience of the park from the 

mainland. These new opportunities on the 

mainland would result in a long-term, 

moderate, beneficial impact. However, these 

new opportunities may bring higher volumes 

of use that could cause additional crowding 

during peak use times especially at attraction 

points such as Meyers Beach, resulting in a 

long-term, minor, adverse effect. 

Opportunities to Understand the 

Significant Stories of The Apostle Islands 

In this alternative, the visitor center in the 

historic courthouse in the City of Bayfield 

would be expanded at its current location. 

This facility will include updated and 

expanded exhibit areas and stations for visitor 

contact with NPS staff and volunteers. This 

would improve the ability of visitors to get 

high-quality interpretation, orientation, and 

information, increasing their understanding of 

the significant stories and resources of the 

park. Further, the historic building is very 

important to the gateway community and has 

an excellent auditorium. However, as noted in 

the discussion of the no-action alternative, the 

location of the visitor center is outside of the

immediate transportation routes through 

town, relatively far from the departure 

location of the concession cruise boat, and 

outside of the viewshed for the islands or Lake 

Superior. Thus the improvements to the 

visitor center at the existing location would 

result in a long-term, minor, beneficial impact. 

In addition, this alternative includes the 

replacement of the Little Sand Bay Visitor 

Center with an unstaffed kiosk. The current 

Little Sand Bay Visitor Center is in poor 

condition and has very limited space for 

exhibits. An unstaffed kiosk would provide 

orientation information, but very little 

interpretive information and no NPS contact 

opportunities for visitors. Visitors who only 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 3 

291

stop at Little Sand Bay will likely miss out on a 

full understanding of the significant stories of 

the Apostle Islands, unless they participate in 

a programmed tour of the Hokenson House. 

This proposed action for the visitor center at 

Little Sand Bay would result in a long-term, 

minor, adverse impact. This alternative would 

not include any changes to the Stockton 

Island Visitor Center or the Northern Great 

Lakes Visitor Center. 

In this alternative, it is likely that the need for 

nonpersonal services, such as bulletin boards 

and wayside exhibits, trail signs, and park 

brochures will remain relatively the same as 

the need for nonpersonal services identified in 

the no-action alternative. However, new 

opportunities for personal services on the 

mainland that would focus on the Hokenson 

Brothers Fishery, the more broad history of 

Great Lakes’ Fishery, and the Native 

American presence in the area would increase 

opportunities for visitors to understand the 

significant stories of the Apostle Islands. 

These new programs would be accessible to 

many visitors, and would more fully reflect the 

park’s major interpretive themes, resulting in a 

long-term, moderate, beneficial impact. 

Further, this alternative includes new 

interpretation and education opportunities on 

the islands, such as interpretive trails and 

cultural demonstration areas. These new 

opportunities may be less accessible to the 

majority of visitors, but would still result in a 

long-term, minor, beneficial impact for 

visitors. 

In this alternative, only minimal changes 

would be made to the park’s significant 

cultural sites and resources. Specifically, this 

alternative states that no light stations, other 

than Raspberry Island Light station, would be 

rehabilitated for interpretation purposes. 

However, the cultural landscape of Raspberry 

Island Light station would be partially or fully 

restored. The exteriors of the other light 

stations would be stabilized, and nonpersonal 

services would provide interpretation. The 

cultural landscapes in immediate proximity to 

the other lighstations would be stabilized. This 

alternative would reduce the amount of 

personal services that are currently provided, 

often by volunteers during peak season, at the 

other lighstations. This change in the amount 

of the light stations that are attended during 

peak season would reduce some of the 

opportunities to learn about the stories 

associated with the light stations, creating a 

long-term, minor, adverse impact. The 

improvements to Raspberry Island’s cultural 

landscape and the stabilization of the other 

cultural landscapes in immediate proximity to 

the light stations would result in a long-term, 

minor, beneficial impact to the opportunity 

for visitors to understand the significant 

stories of the Apostle Islands. 

In this alternative, several of the former use 

and occupancy/current life estates would be 

available for limited visitor access, mostly to 

the exterior of the structures; some nonpersonal interpretation would also occur at 

these sites, as the opportunity presents itself. 

The historic roads would not be reestablished 

as trails. The increase in visitor access and 

interpretation opportunities would enhance 

visitors’ exposure to and understanding of the 

human history on the islands in the park—

resulting in a long-term, minor, beneficial 

impact. 

Visitor Safety 

This alternative includes a ranger station at 

Meyers Beach, which will increase the NPS 

presence at that site, improving visitor 

orientation and safety information 

dissemination, as well as improving response 

times to this area of the park. This will greatly 

improve visitor safety for a large number of 

visitors to the park—creating a long-term, 

moderate, beneficial impact. 

Further, the expansion of the visitor center in 

Bayfield will likely increase the ability of the 

National Park Service to distribute safety 

information—resulting in a long-term, minor, 

beneficial impact. However, the replacement 

of the Little Sand Bay Visitor Center with an 

unstaffed kiosk may reduce the amount of 

safety information that is effectively 

disseminated to park visitors in this area of the 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

292

park. The reduction in contacts with visitors 

could result in a long-term, minor, adverse 

impact on visitor safety. 

The rehabilitation of the Long Island light 

station for NPS housing will increase the NPS 

presence on Long Island, improving 

interpretation and visitor safety. This would 

be considered to have a long-term, minor, 

beneficial impact. 

This alternative also includes the proposal to 

relocate the Stockton Island campground 

from the tombolo to Presque Isle, which will 

help reduce the interaction of visitors and 

bears on Stockton Island. This will improve 

visitor safety on Stockton Island, creating a 

long-term, minor, beneficial impact. 

Cumulative Effects. There are no actions or 

developments foreseen within or adjacent to 

the park that would likely affect visitor use 

and experience. There is the possibility of a 

slight increase in visitation or a change in 

visitor interests and demand due to potential 

changes in regional populations or national 

recreation trends. The likelihood of these 

changes is unknown at this time. If this were 

to occur, it may cause a slight increase in 

existing visitor use concerns such as crowding 

and conflicts at high use docks and attraction 

sites. Also, any significant effects from climate 

change could have a minor to major effect on 

visitor use and experiences. Of particular 

concern is the likely warmer water and longer 

seasons, punctuated by more severe and 

unpredictable storms, suggesting a long term 

adverse impact on visitor safety as more 

visitors are likely to be vulnerable to Lake 

Superior without adequate preparation. Other 

changes that could result in impacts include 

reduced access to infrastructure and 

alterations to wildlife watching and fishing 

opportunities as a result of habitat changes. 

Conclusion. Alternative 3 would result in 

minor to moderate beneficial impacts due to 

slight improvements in access opportunities, 

continuation of existing lake and island 

recreational opportunities, and increased 

interpretive opportunities on the mainland. 

This alternative would promote and possibly 

increase the park’s outstanding opportunities 

for solitude, quiet, “wildness,” and connection 

with nature, which are highly valued 

characteristics by the public. This alternative 

also includes expansion of the visitor center in 

Bayfield and placement of a ranger station at 

Meyers Beach, which would improve visitor 

education, orientation and safety. However, 

this alternative only makes minimal changes to 

access and interpretation of significant 

cultural sites and actually reduces the amount 

of personal services currently provided at light 

stations, resulting in minor adverse impacts. 

This alternative also includes the proposal to 

relocate the Stockton Island campground 

which will have a moderate adverse impact, 

particularly on those visitors that frequently 

use this campground. Finally, any effects 

resulting from changes in population, 

recreational trends or climate change may 

result in additional minor to major adverse 

effects, but the ability to predict the type or 

intensity of these impacts is limited at this 

time. 

PARK OPERATIONS 

Analysis. Like all of the alternatives, the 

park’s physical geography would pose an 

operational challenge in alternative 3. 

Depending on the location of the new 

maintenance/operations center, 

fragmentation of park staff and facilities 

would either be reduced or exacerbated—

without knowing the location of this new 

facility it is not possible to analyze this impact. 

However, building a new ranger station at 

Meyers Beach, and relocating some 

administrative staff from Little Sand Bay to 

Bayfield would improve the effectiveness and 

efficiency of park staff, and increase their 

productivity. Although the separation of the 

park headquarters from the maintenance 

facility would still separate staff, overall 

compared to alternative 1 the improvements 

in alternative 3 would result in a long-term, 

beneficial impact on park operations. 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 3 

293

Unlike alternative 1, in alternative 3 several 

new actions and developments would occur, 

which would affect park operations. The 

construction of new facilities and trails (e.g., 

building a new trail at Little Sand Bay, moving 

the Stockton Island campground to Presque 

Isle), and rehabilitation of existing facilities 

(e.g., expanding the Bayfield visitor center, 

rehabilitating the Manitou fish camp and 

Long Island light station) under this 

alternative would require additional resources 

for operations and maintenance and 

additional efforts from maintenance, 

interpretation and resource management staff 

(as well as more staff). On the other hand, 

under alternative 3, the Little Sand Bay Visitor 

Center would be replaced with an unstaffed 

kiosk, which would slightly lower the 

demands on park staff (including funding, 

equipment, supplies, etc.). Overall, assuming 

additional funding and staff are provided as 

called for under the alternative, the additional 

facilities and actions in alternative 3 should 

have a minor, long-term, adverse effect on 

park operations. 

With several additional employees the park 

staff would be able to better achieve desired 

conditions in program areas such as resource 

protection, visitor services, wilderness 

management, cyclic maintenance, and the 

deferred maintenance backlog would likely 

decrease. This would have a, long-term, 

beneficial impact on park operations. 

Cumulative Impacts. No major new park 

projects and actions, independent of this plan, 

are expected over the life of this plan. Thus, 

no foreseeable actions would combine with 

the actions proposed in alternative 3 that 

would result in cumulative park operations 

impacts. 

Conclusion. Compared to alternative 1, 

alternative 3 would have a long-term, 

beneficial effect on park operations, due 

primarily to actions taken to improve park 

operational facilities, decrease staff 

fragmentation, and increase staffing levels. On 

the other hand, new developments and 

management actions in alternative 3 would 

require additional time and resources to 

initiate and maintain, resulting in a minor, 

long-term, adverse effect on park operations. 

No cumulative impacts on park operations 

would be expected as a result of this 

alternative. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

Analysis. Alternative 3 would have several 

effects on the socioeconomic environment. 

Under this alternative there would be both 

increases in time visitors spending and 

increases in park expenditures. As noted in 

the alternative there would be a number of 

new opportunities on the islands for visitors 

(e.g., the development of campsites and 

interpretive trails on Sand, Oak and Basswood 

islands, a new mainland trail, more 

interpretive opportunities on the mainland). 

As a result, more visitors would spend a longer 

time in the area. This would result in a longterm benefit to local businesses that provide 

services and goods to tourists, such as 

restaurants and other local merchants. The 

impact would be a long-term, beneficial 

impact to the socioeconomic environment. 

As noted in the alternative description, the 

National Park Service would be spending 

additional funds on construction and 

maintenance of facilities. This would in turn 

have a long-term, beneficial impact on 

businesses that supply materials and services 

to the park, including local merchants, 

utilities, equipment suppliers, and contractors. 

Construction businesses would receive shortterm benefits from the development of 

facilities in the alternative. (How much the 

local economy actually would benefit would 

depend upon the degree to which park needs 

can be fulfilled within and by local 

businesses.) Hiring additional park staff under 

the alternative would also result in these 

individuals spending their income for 

housing, food, entertainment, and other 

services and goods, which in turn would 

increase revenues for local businesses. In 

addition, local governments would collect 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

294

more tax revenues as a result of both visitor 

spending and park spending in the area. 

As in all of the alternatives, in alternative 3 the 

park would continue to be an important 

attraction for many residents and for people 

considering relocation to the region, although 

the alternative would not be expected to cause 

major changes in the regional population. 

There would be more demands on mainland 

community services (e.g., water and sewer 

systems, local law enforcement) with visitors 

spending more time in the area, compared to 

alternative 1, but levels would not be expected 

to increase to a level that would substantially 

change park-related demands on community 

services and facilities. 

Cumulative Impacts. No ongoing or new 

park projects, independent of this plan, or 

other major changes on lands adjacent to the 

park (e.g.,substantial changes in management 

and land use of lands adjacent to the mainland 

unit) are expected over the life of this plan. In 

the future developments such as second 

homes may be built on some lands adjacent to 

the mainland unit. With increased revenues 

for construction businesses, and increased tax 

payments, this likely would have short- and 

long-term, beneficial impacts on the regional 

economy, depending on the nature and scope 

of the developments. When these impacts are 

added to the beneficial impacts of 

alternative 3, there could be a long-term, 

beneficial, cumulative impact to the 

socioeconomic environment.

Conclusion. Under alternative 3 there would 

likely be increased spending by visitors, with 

visitors spending more time in the area, 

increased spending by the park, and increased 

spending by new park employees. These 

changes, however, would be relatively small 

compared to the overall regional economy 

and would not be expected to change the 

character of the social and economic 

environment. Most of the benefits of the 

alternative would occur in the Bayfield area. 

Compared to the no-action alternative, 

alternative 3 would result in a long-term, 

beneficial impact. The effects of alternative 3, 

in combination with the potential beneficial 

socioeconomic impacts of future residential 

developments adjacent to portions of the 

mainland unit, could result in a long-term, 

beneficial cumulative impact to the 

socioeconomic environment.

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

Under alternative 3, some soils and vegetation 

would be lost or altered due to construction of 

new facilities on the islands and mainland and 

due to visitor use in developed and high use 

areas. This would include bank erosion, and 

trampling of vegetation on sandscapes. Some 

docks would continue to alter coastal 

processes. Visitors and construction activities 

also may inadvertently contribute to the 

introduction and spread of nonnative species 

and to water pollution in localized areas. 

There would be loss or alteration of some 

wildlife habitat (and wildlife in those areas) 

due to construction and use of new facilities, 

and increased visitor use in some areas may 

adversely affect wildlife in those areas. Short 

and long-term, adverse impacts to the natural 

soundscape would occur due to facility 

construction, visitor use, and NPS 

maintenance activities, primarily in high-use 

areas and during high-use periods (e.g., 

summer weekends). Clustering of campsites in 

the wilderness areas would adversely affect 

the wilderness character for some visitors (i.e., 

loss of solitude). Construction of some visitor 

facilities, such as the new campground on 

Presque Isle, would result in unavoidable 

impacts to visitors due to temporarily 

restricted access and visual intrusions. Some 

repeat visitors experience would be adversely 

affected by the relocation of the Stockton 

Island campground to Presque Isle and the 

potential relocation or realignment of some 

wilderness campsites. Crowding and 

congestion at high use areas (e.g., docks) 

would occur during the summer, adversely 

affecting some visitors’ experiences. 

Education, interpretation, and outreach 

efforts would help minimize, but not 

eliminate, the likelihood of the above impacts. 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 3 

295

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE 

COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 

New actions would be taken in alternative 3 

that would result in the consumption of 

nonrenewable natural resources, and in the 

use of renewable resources that would 

preclude other uses for a period. In the 

construction of new facilities, including 

buildings and trails, limited amounts of 

nonrenewable resources would be used and 

there would be a loss of vegetative 

productivity and wildlife habitat for as long as 

these facilities remain. These resources would 

be essentially irretrievable once they were 

committed. In addition, because it takes so 

long for soils to form, the loss of soils due to 

the construction of new facilities, visitor use in 

localized areas, and erosion of soil in places 

within Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

would be an irreversible commitment of 

resources. 

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORTTERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT 

AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 

As in all of the alternatives, the National Park 

Service would continue to manage the park to 

maintain ecological processes and native 

biological communities and to provide 

appropriate recreational opportunities 

consistent with preservation of cultural and 

natural resources. The vast majority of 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore would 

continue to be protected in its current, 

relatively natural state and would maintain its 

long-term productivity. The primary shortterm uses of the park would continue to be 

recreational use. Under alternative 3 there 

would be expanded (but still relatively 

modest) development to support recreational 

use and park operations, resulting in some 

localized loss of ecological productivity. 

Adverse impacts on the area’s soils, water 

quality, vegetation, and wildlife due to visitor 

use also could reduce the productivity of 

natural resources in localized areas over time, 

although overall no measurable effect on the 

park’s long-term productivity would be 

expected. On the other hand, efforts to restore 

native vegetation would increase long-term 

productivity of the environment in localized 

areas. 
296 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVE 4 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Soils 

Analysis. Several new park facilities would be 

built under alternative 4 that would involve 

ground disturbance and consequently impacts 

to soil. The construction and use of new trails 

on selected islands, a new day use area at Little 

Sand Bay and on one of the nonwilderness 

islands; the development of new group site 

and other designated campsites on Sand and 

Basswood islands, new dispersed wilderness 

campsites, and new mainland campsites; the 

relocation of the Stockton Island campground 

to Presque Isle; the development of a new 

visitor contact station/ranger station and ramp 

at Meyers Beach; and the extension of the 

mainland trail to Little Sand Bay would all 

result in the loss or alteration of soil in 

localized areas. So would the clearing of 

vegetation at light stations. Site preparation 

and landscaping work would disturb soils in 

the project areas and construction equipment 

would disturb and compact soils. The 

development of trailer pads for NPS housing 

and a visitor contact station at Little Sand Bay, 

a new visitor center/park headquarters in 

Bayfield, and a new operations/maintenance 

facility and staff apartments would likely 

occur in areas that have already been altered 

by past actions and developments; thus these 

actions would have a negligible effect on area 

soils. In total, about 24 acres of soil would 

likely be altered or lost by these new 

developments. The adverse impact on soils in 

the project areas would likely be moderate 

and long term, but from a parkwide 

perspective, the adverse impacts due to new 

developments would be would be minor to 

moderate and long term. 

Visitation levels would be about the same as 

under alternative 1. Thus, the adverse impacts 

on soils due to visitor use would be expected 

to be minor to moderate in localized areas and 

long term under alternative 4. Most of the soil 

impacts would likely occur along or near the 

shorelines of the islands that experience high 

use levels. 

As in alternative 1, some soils may be 

compacted and eroded due to some existing 

campsites expanding, informal “zone” 

campsites being created, and user-created 

trails being formed in areas with facilities that 

receive relatively high levels of use. However, 

the continuation of monitoring, and the 

establishment of user capacity indicators and 

standards in alternative 4 should help ensure 

that an unacceptable expansion in campsite 

size does not occur. Thus, compared to 

alternative 1, alternative 4 would be expected 

to result in fewer soil impacts, resulting in a 

long-term, beneficial impact. 

Cumulative Impacts. Soils in much of 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore probably 

have been altered by past activities (e.g., 

logging, agricultural practices). Some soils on 

lands adjacent to the mainland unit of the park 

may be lost or modified in the future due to 

new development. Also in the future, if the 

Quarry Bay campsites on Stockton Island 

were relocated, this would affect soils in a 

localized area. Assuming the campsites were 

relocated to a relatively undisturbed site, soils 

would be lost or modified. When these 

impacts are added to the minor to moderate 

adverse impacts under alternative 2, there 

would be a long-term, minor to moderate, 

adverse cumulative impact on area soils—

although the Quarry Bay action would add a 

very small increment to the overall cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion. Like all of the alternatives, most 

of the park’s soils would not be affected by the 

actions in alternative 4. However, some soils 

would be eroded and lost, and soil properties 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 4 

297

would be altered due to construction of new 

facilities on the islands and mainland, and due 

to visitor use in localized areas on the islands. 

Overall, these adverse impacts would likely be 

minor to moderate and long-term in extent. 

On the other hand, establishing formal user 

capacity indicators and standards should help 

reduce the expansion of campsites and 

prevent soil erosion. This would have a longterm, beneficial impact. No unacceptable soil 

impacts or impairment to the park’s resources 

and values would result from this alternative. 

When the impacts of alternative 4 are added 

to past and foreseeable future impacts (i.e., 

relocation of the campsites in Quarry Bay) 

there would be a long-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse cumulative impact on area 

soils. When the impacts of alternative 4 are 

added to past and foreseeable future impacts 

(i.e., relocation of the campsites in Quarry 

Bay) there would be a long-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse cumulative impact on area 

soils. 

Geological and Coastal Processes 

Analysis. With proper design and planning, 

the relocation of the Stockton Island 

campground to Presque Isle would reduce soil 

impacts to the sandscape compared to 

alternative 1, resulting in a long-term, 

beneficial impact in this area. 

It is expected that with proper design and 

planning, and appropriate mitigative 

measures, bank erosion due to visitors using 

the new water accessible mainland campsites 

would be negligible to minor and long term in 

extent. 

With continuing visitor use of the islands’ 

sandscapes and beaches, it is expected that the 

vegetative cover on some popular areas, such 

as the Raspberry and Ironwood sandspits, 

would continue to experience trampling, 

which in turn would increase the potential for 

wind and water erosion, affecting the 

characteristics of some sandscapes (e.g., size, 

shape). Erosion due to people climbing up and 

down lake banks also would continue at island 

campsites near the shoreline. Thus, visitor use 

in alternative 4 would likely have the same 

effect on the park’s sandscapes over time as 

visitor use in alternative 1: visitor use impacts 

would vary, depending on the level of use and 

environmental conditions, but could range 

from minor to moderate, and be long term 

and adverse. 

As in alternative 1, some existing docks would 

continue to affect coastal processes, altering 

the transport of sediments along the shoreline, 

resulting in minor to moderate, long-term, 

adverse impacts in localized areas. But the 

Michigan Island dock and possibly several 

other docks on the former use and 

occupancy/life estates would be rehabilitated 

and improved, and several new docks might 

be installed in nonwilderness areas in 

alternative 4. As noted in the mitigative 

measures in chapter 3, improvements and new 

docks would not occur until studies of 

longshore sand transport have been 

completed. Although it is not certain what 

would come out of these studies, for some 

existing docks the improvements could 

include measures to reduce the impact of the 

docks on the movement of sand along the 

coastline. New docks also would be built with 

coastal processes in mind. With more sand 

available to replenish downstream areas, Lake 

Superior currents and waves would not be as 

likely to erode beaches as much as under 

alternative 1. Depending on the location, 

design, and extent of the docks, and assuming 

the frequency and intensity of major storms 

does not substantially change, alternative 4 

could reduce past coastal process impacts for 

some docks, resulting in a long-term, 

beneficial, localized impact on a few of the 

park’s sandscapes compared to alternative 1. 

Cumulative Impacts. As noted above and in 

the “Affected Environment,” coastal 

processes in the past have been altered in 

specific areas, such as the installation of the 

dock at Michigan Island. Climate change is 

expected to affect lake levels and thus would 

affect coastal processes, including sediment 

transport and the park’s sandscapes and 

beaches. Because the changes due to climate 

change in the park are unpredictable, both in 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

298

their timing (whether they occur within the 

timeframe of this plan or beyond) and in 

magnitude or intensity of the impact—the 

effects of climate change on coastal processes 

could range from minor to major in intensity. 

When the effects of the actions in alternative 4 

are added to the potential effects of climate 

change, there would be the potential for a 

minor to major, long-term, adverse, 

cumulative impact. But alternative 4 would 

add a very small increment when added to the 

potential effects of climate change. 

Conclusion. Alternative 4 would have both 

adverse and beneficial effects on coastal 

processes. Visitors and existing docks would 

likely continue to affect the park’s sandscapes 

and shorelines, resulting overall in a minor to 

moderate, long-term, adverse impact in 

localized areas of the islands. On the other 

hand, compared to alternative 1, the 

relocation of the Stockton Island 

campground, and the rehabilitation of several 

docks would help reduce visitor and dock 

impacts on shorelines and sandscapes, 

resulting in a long-term beneficial, localized 

impact. None of these coastal process impacts 

would be considered unacceptable. None of 

the impacts would result in an impairment of 

park resources and values. When the effects of 

climate change are added to the effects of 

alternative 1, there would be the potential for 

a long-term, minor to major, adverse 

cumulative impact on coastal processes—

although the actions in alternative 4 would 

add a very small increment to this overall 

impact. 

Surface Water Quality 

Analysis. As in alternative 1, in alternative 4 

visitors would continue to affect water quality 

in localized areas through swimming and 

bathing, and through the disposal of 

graywater and trash. These activities can 

contribute to the degradation of water quality 

by increasing nutrient and bacteria levels, and 

other chemicals (e.g., petroleum-based 

products, sunscreen, soap). Some 

sedimentation also would occur at unsurfaced 

landings in localized areas where visitors put 

in and take out their boats and in areas where 

bank erosion is occurring due to visitors 

walking down steep slopes. Overall, visitor use 

in alternative 4 would likely have the same 

impact as in alternative 1: a negligible to 

minor, long-term, adverse impact to water 

quality in localized areas due to relatively low 

use levels and the dilution effect of Lake 

Superior. 

Overall, motorized boat use levels would not 

be expected to substantially change in the 

park under alternative 4. Thus, pollution from 

motorized boats, including MTBE (methyl 

tertiary butyl ether), PAHs (polyaromatic 

hydrocarbons), BTEX (benzene, toluene, 

ethylbenzene, and xylene) and heavy metals 

such as copper, would be expected to result in 

about the same overall minor, long-term, 

adverse water quality impacts as pollution 

from motorized boats in alternative 1. Also 

like alternative 1, there could be minor to 

moderate, long-term impacts to water quality 

in areas that receive high use levels, such as 

Presque Isle Bay and Little Sand Bay. 

Unlike alternative 1, in alternative 4 the 

Michigan Island dock and possibly several 

other docks would be rehabilitated, and 

several new docks would be installed. 

Depending on the nature and extent of the 

work, there could be water quality impacts 

due to increased turbidity in adjacent waters. 

However, the application of mitigative 

measures should minimize potential impacts 

due to accidental spills. Any such adverse 

impacts from the dock work would be minor 

to moderate and short term in duration. 

Under alternative 4 there could be potential 

water quality impacts due to the installation of 

a boardwalk over wetlands along part of the 

mainland lakeshore trail. However, careful 

selection of materials should avoid leaching of 

contaminants into the water. Some negligible, 

short-term, adverse impacts would occur 

during construction due to increased turbidity 

in the water. 

Cumulative Impacts. Several sources of 

water pollution external to Apostle Islands 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 4 

299

National Lakeshore have affected, and are 

likely to continue affecting, the water quality 

of the park. When added to the water quality 

impacts of alternative 4 being considered 

(negligible to minor, long-term, adverse 

impacts), there could be a minor to major, 

long-term, adverse cumulative impact to the 

park’s water quality, depending on the type 

and quantity of pollutants that enter park 

waters. However, the increment added by 

alternative 4 would be relatively small 

compared to the impact from pollutants being 

added from actions outside the park 

boundary. 

Conclusion. Alternative 4 would have the 

same negligible to minor long-term adverse 

impacts to water quality due to visitor use as 

alternative 1. Minor to moderate, short-term, 

impacts also would occur due to rehabilitation 

of docks in this alternative. None of these 

impacts would be considered unacceptable, 

and the level of impacts would not constitute 

an impairment of park resources and values. 

When the effects of alternative 4 are added to 

the effects of water pollution from sources 

outside of the park, there would be the 

potential for a minor to major, adverse 

cumulative effect on the park’s water quality. 

However, the actions in alternative 4 would 

add only a small increment to the overall 

cumulative impact. 

Wetlands 

Analysis. As in alternative 1, some impacts 

would occur in wetlands due to people 

walking through the wetlands, trampling 

vegetation. However, only a few people would 

be expected to walk into the wetlands over the 

course of a year, resulting in negligible, shortand long-term, adverse impacts. 

Under alternative 4, in order to complete the 

mainland lakeshore trail, a boardwalk would 

be built through wetlands in the vicinity of the 

Sand River. Construction of the boardwalk 

would result in the loss of some wetland 

vegetation, and the boardwalk could prevent 

vegetation from growing under it. This would 

have a moderate, long-term, adverse impact 

on wetland vegetation. It is expected that 

boardwalk would be built with materials that 

would not pollute the water and would 

minimize impacts of hikers walking through 

the wetlands. Thus, the trail would be 

expected to have a moderate, long-term, 

adverse effect on wetlands in this area. 

Cumulative Impacts. Climate change will 

likely affect the park’s wetlands, including 

their species composition and water levels. 

For example, if the frequency or intensity of 

storms change, park wetlands could be 

affected. Because the changes due to climate 

change in the park are unpredictable, both in 

their timing and in magnitude or intensity of 

the impact, the effects of climate change on 

the park’s wetlands could range from minor to 

major in intensity. When the effects of the 

actions in alternative 4 are added to the 

potential effects of climate change, there 

would be the potential for a moderate to 

major, long-term, adverse cumulative impact 

on wetlands. But alternative 4 would add a 

small increment to the potential effects of 

climate change on wetlands. 

Conclusion. Alternative 4 would have a 

moderate, adverse, short- and long-term 

impact due to the construction and 

maintenance of a boardwalk through wetlands 

along the mainland lakeshore trail, and would 

have a negligible, short- and long-term, 

adverse impact due to people occasionally 

walking through the wetlands. The effects of 

alternative 4 would not result in unacceptable 

impacts or impairment of the park’s resources 

and values. When the effects of this alternative 

are added to the potential effects of climate 

change, there could be a moderate to major, 

long-term, adverse cumulative effect on the 

park’s wetlands, although the actions in 

alternative 4 would add a very small increment 

to the overall cumulative impact. 

Floodplains 

Analysis. Like the previous alternatives, some 

people would likely trample and crush some 

vegetation in the Sand River floodplain. But 

relatively few people would be expected to 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

300

walk through the floodplains over the course 

of a year, resulting in negligible, short and 

long-term, adverse impacts to the floodplain. 

Cumulative Impacts. No past, present, or 

foreseeable actions within or outside the park 

are expected to affect the Sand River 

floodplain. Thus, there would be no additive 

cumulative effects on the floodplain. 

Conclusion. Alternative 4 would have a 

negligible, short and long-term, adverse 

impact due to people walking in the Sand 

River floodplain. However, the level of impact 

to floodplain values under alternative 4 would 

not constitute an impairment of the park’s 

resources and values. No cumulative effects 

would occur as a result of alternative 4. 

Vegetation 

Analysis. Several of the proposed 

developments in alternative 4, including the 

trailer pads for NPS housing, the visitor 

contact station, day use area, staff apartments, 

beach ramp at Little Sand Bay, the new visitor 

center in Bayfield, and a new maintenance 

operations center, would likely occur in areas 

that have already been altered by past actions 

and developments, and thus would likely have 

a negligible to minor adverse effect on native 

vegetation. 

Clearing of vegetation that is encroaching on 

the light station clearings would result in the 

loss of some native vegetation, which would 

have a negligible to minor, long-term, adverse 

impact depending on how much vegetation 

was removed. 

However, several new park facilities would 

involve clearing of native vegetation. The 

construction and use of new trails on selected 

islands (e.g., Sand Island) and the mainland, 

the extension of the mainland lakeshore trail, 

new group campsites on Sand and Basswood, 

new individual campsites in the wilderness 

area, and new campsites on the mainland, a 

new day use site on one of the nonwilderness 

islands, the relocation of the Stockton Island 

campground to Presque Isle, and the 

development of a new visitor contact 

station/ranger station at Meyers Beach would 

all result in the loss or alteration of vegetation 

in localized areas. The construction of the 

Lakeshore Trail boardwalk also would result 

in the loss of some wetland vegetation. In 

addition, the clearing of vegetation at light 

stations on the islands would result in the loss 

of native vegetation. In total, no more than 

about 24 acres of vegetation would likely be 

altered or lost by these new developments and 

actions in alternative 4. The adverse impact on 

native plants in the project areas would likely 

be moderate and long term, but from a 

parkwide perspective the adverse impacts due 

to new developments would be minor to 

moderate, and long term. 

Efforts to partially restore the Hansen farm 

cultural landscape would likely entail the 

removal of some native vegetation and weeds 

from old fields. Although some native 

vegetation would be removed, this area has 

been disturbed and altered in the past, thus 

this action would have a minor, long-term, 

adverse impact on native vegetation 

populations in this localized area. 

Under alternative 4, visitor use of Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore, including hiking 

and camping, would continue to affect the 

park’s vegetation. As in alternative 1, some 

vegetation would likely be lost due to the 

formation of user-created trails in popular 

areas such as campsites and picnic areas. 

Vegetation along the Lake Superior shoreline 

would continue to be trampled and damaged 

in places when visitors walk up and down the 

shoreline. Some plants would also probably 

continue to be lost through visitors walking on 

sensitive vegetation on sandscapes. Some 

existing designated campsites probably would 

expand in area over time, and user-created 

campsites would continue to be established or 

be expanded on islands, resulting in changes 

to and loss of vegetation in localized areas. If 

an area becomes cleared of vegetation due to 

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

trees behind the cleared area and the beach, 

the trees would be more likely to be subject to 

blowdown. On the other hand, the continua-
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 4 

301

tion of monitoring and the establishment of 

formal user capacity indicators and standards 

would assist managers in taking action before 

campsite conditions become unacceptable, 

which would have a long-term, beneficial 

effect. Weighing both the adverse and 

beneficial effects, visitor use under alternative 4 would be expected to have a long-term, 

minor to moderate, adverse impact on the 

park’s native vegetation in localized areas. 

As noted in the “Affected Environment” 

chapter, there has been a serious problem in 

the park with the introduction of nonnative 

species at construction sites. It is likely that 

some nonnative species would be introduced 

during construction projects in this 

alternative. In addition and in spite of 

education efforts, some nonnative plants 

could be introduced or spread by visitors in 

picnic areas and campsites. The potential for 

the spread of nonnative species would 

increase with the extension of the mainland 

lakeshore trail and other new developments. 

Although it is difficult to determine the impact 

on native species due to the uncertainties 

about the type of species that might be 

introduced in the future, and the locations 

and frequencies of introductions, it is likely 

that new introductions would occur. Even 

with monitoring and weed control efforts, the 

adverse effect of these impacts would be 

unknown, but could range from minor to 

major and be long term in duration. 

Alternative 4 would have several beneficial 

impacts to native vegetation. The removal and 

restoration of most of the Stockton Island 

campground would have beneficial impacts. 

Providing a ranger station at Meyers Beach 

and housing on Long Island would provide an 

increased NPS presence in these areas, which 

would aid in monitoring and taking action to 

address vegetation impacts due to visitors. 

Taken together, these actions would have a 

long-term, beneficial impact on the park’s 

vegetation in localized areas.

Cumulative Impacts. Several potential 

actions, independent of this plan, could affect 

the park’s vegetation. As described in the 

“Affected Environment” chapter, much of the 

park’s vegetation has been substantially 

altered by past human activities, including 

logging and fires, farming, the building of 

cabins, quarrying, and the development of 

roads and fish camps. The impacts of these 

past actions far outweigh the impacts of the 

actions being proposed in the alternatives in 

this plan. 

In the future developments such as second 

homes may be built on some lands adjacent to 

the mainland unit of the park, which would 

result in the loss and modification of 

vegetation in these areas. This would have a 

long-term, minor, adverse impact on natural 

vegetation in the vicinity of the park. 

The possible relocation or redesign of the 

Quarry Bay campsites on Stockton Island, 

independent of this plan, would affect 

vegetation in the area, which would add a 

minor, long-term, adverse incremental effect 

to the effects of alternative 4. 

Nonnative species have been spreading in 

different locations in the park, such as Meyers 

Beach, due to past construction activities, 

visitor activities, and natural sources like wind 

and birds. Independent of the actions in the 

alternative, the spread of nonnative species is 

likely to continue in the future. From a 

parkwide perspective, this has resulted in a 

minor to major, long-term, adverse 

cumulative impact on the park’s vegetation, 

depending on the species. 

As noted in the “Affected Environment” 

chapter, deer are spreading from the mainland 

to the islands in increasing numbers. 

Increasing numbers of deer would browse the 

islands’ native vegetation, reducing or 

eliminating such species as Canada yew, 

which could have a moderate to major, longterm adverse impact on some native 

vegetation on the islands. 

Climate change likely has affected and will 

continue to affect the park’s vegetation, 

including species composition and population 

numbers. Some southern species will expand 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

302

into the park, while other northern species 

will decline or disappear. Warming 

temperatures are expected to increase the 

potential for wildfires and the spread of and 

seasons for insects, which in turn would have 

a minor to major, long-term, adverse impact 

on the park’s native vegetation. 

When the effects of all of these past and future 

actions are added to the adverse and 

beneficial effects of alternative 4, there would 

be a major, long-term, adverse, cumulative 

effect on the park’s vegetation. However, the 

effects of alternative 4 would add a very small 

increment to the overall cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Alternative 4 would result in 

both adverse and beneficial impacts on the 

park’s vegetation in localized areas. Taken 

together, restoration actions, the application 

of user capacity indicators and standards, and 

increased NPS presence on Long Island and 

Meyers Beach would have a long-term, 

beneficial impact. On the other hand, 

compared to the other alternatives, 

alternative 4 has the greatest potential to result 

in adverse impacts to native vegetation due to 

the development of new facilities and the 

potential for the spread of nonnative species. 

Minor to moderate, long-term, adverse 

impacts would occur due to the development 

of new facilities, and increased visitor use on 

some islands. The potential for the 

introduction and spread of nonnative invasive 

species in the park could increase, relative to 

alternative 1, resulting in an unknown impact 

on native vegetation. However, overall most 

of the park’s vegetation would not be affected 

by the actions in alternative 4 (with the 

possible exception of the impact of nonnative 

species). None of the impacts would likely 

affect the integrity, distribution, or presence 

of native plant communities in Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore. None of the vegetation 

impacts under alternative 4 would be 

considered unacceptable or sufficient to result 

in an impairment of Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore’s resources and values. There 

would be the potential for a long-term, major, 

adverse cumulative impact on the park’s 

vegetation when the effects of past, present, 

and foreseeable actions within and outside the 

park are added to the effects of alternative 4. 

But the increment added by alternative 4 to 

the overall cumulative impact would be very 

small. 

Wildlife 

Analysis. Some of the new developments in 

alternative 4 would occur in areas that have 

relatively natural vegetation, where few 

people have been present. These areas include 

new trails on selected islands, new group and 

individual campsites on Sand and Basswood 

islands, new campsites on the mainland and 

on the islands in the wilderness area. Other 

actions that could affect wildlife include the 

development of the new Meyers Beach visitor 

contact station/ ranger station, the extension 

of the mainland lakeshore trail to Little Sand 

Bay, and the relocation of the Stockton Island 

campground to Presque Isle. These new 

developments and actions would result in a 

loss or alternation of approximately 24 acres 

of wildlife habitat, with some wildlife, such as 

forest birds and mammals (e.g., voles, 

squirrels, hares) being displaced from the 

areas. The extension of the mainland 

lakeshore trail and the wilderness campsites 

also would be another source of 

fragmentation of wildlife habitat. Noise 

generated from the construction activities and 

from visitor use of the new facilities could 

potentially result in a larger area being subject 

to wildlife disturbance and displacement. 

Although construction activities would result 

in short-term impacts on wildlife, use of the 

facilities would result in long-term effects. As 

a result of all the above proposed 

developments, there would likely be minor to 

moderate, long-term, adverse impacts on 

wildlife populations in localized areas. 

Other new developments, including the trailer 

pads, apartments, day use area, and visitor 

contact station at Little Sand Bay, the visitor 

center in Bayfield, and the new 

maintenance/operations facility would 

probably be built in areas that have already 

been altered by past actions and developments 

and already have people present. Wildlife 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 4 

303

remaining in these areas have adapted to the 

presence of people, but wildlife are still being 

affected. Courtship, territory establishment, 

intra-species communication, predation and 

predator avoidance, and effective use of 

habitat could already have been affected by 

noise in these areas. That said, it is expected 

that any adverse impacts to wildlife due to the 

above projects during the construction period 

would be negligible and short term. 

Impacts due to visitor use in alternative 4 

would be about the same as described under 

alternative 1. Wildlife populations, habitats, 

and behaviors already have been altered by 

the presence of people in popular areas of the 

park; this would continue under this 

alternative. Human use of the park would 

continue to be concentrated in areas such as 

the light stations, the islands’ shorelines, and 

at campsites in alternative 4. Animals sensitive 

to human activities already avoid these areas 

when people are present. Wildlife that occupy 

these areas, such as red squirrels, hares, and 

mice, are mostly adapted to the presence of 

people and would not be noticeably affected 

by visitation. As in alternative 1, some animals 

would continue to be injured or killed by 

motor vehicles driving on roads in the 

mainland unit. Some animals, such as mice, 

blue jays, bears, and red squirrels, also 

probably would continue to be attracted by 

visitors feeding them or to areas where food 

and garbage are left out. The continuation of 

hunting and trapping would not be expected 

to adversely affect the park’s populations, 

assuming that harvests stay at about existing 

levels, and there is careful monitoring and 

enforcement of the state’s regulations by the 

state of Wisconsin and the park staff. 

Therefore, visitor use in this alternative would 

be expected to have a minor, long-term, 

adverse impact on the park’s wildlife 

populations. 

Alternative 4 would have some beneficial 

impacts on wildlife. With the relocation of 

most of the Stockton Island campground to 

Presque Isle, away from key bear habitat, the 

potential for bear-human conflicts would 

decline compared to alternative 1. Thus, it is 

likely in the future that fewer problem bears 

would need to be conditioned to avoid 

humans in alternative 4, resulting in a longterm, beneficial impact. In addition, providing 

a ranger station at Meyers Beach and staff 

housing on Long Island would provide a longterm NPS presence in these areas, which 

would aid in monitoring and taking action to 

address wildlife impacts due to visitors. 

Cumulative Impacts. Like vegetation, several 

potential actions, independent of this plan, 

could affect the park’s wildlife. As described 

in the “Affected Environment” chapter, the 

loss of and/or changes in vegetation have 

affected the habitat for wildlife in the park 

(e.g., the spread of deer). Hunting also has 

affected wildlife in the past and present. 

In the future developments such as second 

homes may be built on some lands adjacent to 

the mainland unit of the park, which would 

result in the displacement of some wildlife and 

the loss and modification of wildlife habitat in 

these areas. In addition, noise generated by 

human activities in the vicinity of the islands, 

such as that generated by the use of motorized 

watercraft, could also disturb or displace 

some wildlife, particularly if these uses were to 

increase. These actions would likely have a 

long-term, minor, adverse impact on wildlife 

populations in the vicinity of the park. 

The possible relocation or redesign of the 

Quarry Bay campsites on Stockton Island, 

independent of this plan, would affect wildlife 

in the area, displacing some animals, which 

would add a minor, long-term, adverse 

incremental effect to the effects of 

alternative 4. 

Climate change will also likely affect wildlife 

composition of the park. Some southern 

species will expand into the park, while other 

northern species will decline or disappear. 

Warming temperatures are expected to 

increase the spread of and seasons for insects, 

which could benefit some wildlife species and 

adversely affect other species. (See the 

“Affected Environment” chapter for more 

information.) Because the changes due to 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

304

climate change in the park are unpredictable, 

both in their timing and in magnitude or 

intensity of the impact, the effects of climate 

change on the park’s wildlife could range from 

minor to major in intensity. When the effects 

of the actions in alternative 4 are added to the 

potential effects of climate change, there 

would be the potential for a minor to major, 

long-term, adverse cumulative impact on the 

park’s wildlife populations. But alternative 4 

would add a very small increment to the 

potential effects of climate change on wildlife. 

Conclusion. Alternative 4 would result in 

both adverse and beneficial impacts to wildlife 

in localized areas. Most wildlife in the park 

would not change as a result of the actions in 

this alternative. No actions would affect areas 

known to be important for breeding, nesting, 

foraging, or key migration routes. No actions 

would interfere with feeding, reproduction, or 

other activities necessary for the survival of 

wildlife species. New developments on the 

islands and the mainland would result in the 

loss of wildlife habitat, resulting in a minor to 

moderate, long-term, adverse impact. Minor 

long-term adverse wildlife impacts also would 

occur due to visitation in the park. On the 

other hand, alternative 4 would result in longterm, beneficial impacts due to increased NPS 

presence at Meyers Beach and Long Island, 

and the relocation of the Stockton Island 

campground away from key bear habitat. 

There would be the potential for a minor to 

major, long-term, adverse cumulative impact 

on the park’s wildlife when the effects of 

alternative 4 are added to the potential effects 

of climate change. But the increment added by 

alternative 4 to the overall cumulative impact 

would be very small. None of the wildlife 

impacts resulting from alternative 4 would be 

considered unacceptable or would constitute 

an impairment of the park’s resources and 

values. 

Federal and State Threatened 

and Endangered Species 

Analysis. No new actions or developments 

would occur on Long Island or the Michigan 

Island sandspit under alternative 4 that would 

affect the federal and state endangered piping 

plovers in the park. As in alternative 1, visitors 

and their dogs could disturb plovers. 

However, providing NPS housing at the Long 

Island light station would enable NPS staff to 

more effectively monitor the plover nests and 

reduce the potential for visitor disturbance. In 

addition, with continued efforts to protect 

nesting birds, including visitor education 

efforts and temporary closures of beaches, it is 

less likely that visitors would deliberately or 

accidentally disturb the plovers. If impacts 

from visitor use were identified in the future, 

the park staff would consult with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service to identify and 

implement additional appropriate mitigative 

measures. Consequently, under alternative 4, 

visitors might affect, but would not likely 

adversely affect, piping plovers in the park. 

Cumulative Impacts. As described in the 

piping plover recovery plan, increasing habitat 

loss, recreational pressure, predation, and 

contaminants are likely responsible for 

continuing population declines of the piping 

plover throughout its range (USFWS 2003). 

Outside of the park, habitat loss and 

modification has historically affected the 

Great Lakes region, although this impact is 

now thought to be occurring at a much 

reduced level (J. Trick, biologist, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, pers. comm., October 22, 

2008). Predation and disease, the use of 

motorized vehicles on beaches, recreational 

activities on beaches (e.g., beach walking, bike 

riding) likely will continue to affect the birds. 

Contaminants, pollution, and noise from 

human activities within and outside the park 

also may be affecting the species, although this 

is unknown. Although actions are being taken 

to protect piping plovers and their species, 

such as controlling human access to nesting 

areas and educating the public, the species is 

likely to continue to be imperiled during the 

life of this plan. 

Independent of the alternative, park staff 

would continue to monitor and protect all 

piping plover nest sites. 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 4 

305

As noted above, alternative 4 would have a 

beneficial effect on the protection of piping 

plovers on Long Island. When this beneficial 

impact is added to the effects of actions 

occurring outside the park, there would 

overall be a long-term, adverse cumulative 

impact. However, the effect of alternative 4 on 

the overall cumulative impact would be a very 

small beneficial increment. 

Conclusion. Alternative 4 would have the 

same effect on piping plovers as the other 

action alternatives. No new developments or 

actions would occur on the beaches under 

alternative 4 that would have the potential to 

affect the piping plover in the park. Visitor use 

on island beaches would continue to have the 

potential to disturb the plovers, but with 

increased NPS presence on Long Island and 

the continuation of other protection 

measures, impacts would be expected to be 

negligible. Thus, alternative 4 may affect, but 

would not likely adversely affect, the park’s 

piping plovers. This alternative would not 

result in impacts that would be considered 

unacceptable or result in an impairment of the 

park’s resources and values. The effect of 

alternative 4 added to the effects of other past, 

present, and foreseeable future actions 

occurring outside the park would result in a 

long-term, adverse cumulative impact, 

although the increment added by the 

alternative would be beneficial and very small. 

Natural Soundscape 

Analysis. In alternative 4, noise would result 

from the construction and use of several new 

developments, including new campsites, trails, 

a day use area, a new visitor contact 

station/ranger station at Meyers Beach, trailer 

pads, a new maintenance/operations facility, 

and a new visitor center in Bayfield. In some 

areas the noise from construction equipment 

(e.g., chainsaws) would be minor to moderate, 

but it would be temporary and localized, and 

occur at different times and places in the park. 

In areas where there are other people and 

facilities, such as Meyers Beach, Bayfield, and 

Little Sand Bay, the impact of this noise would 

be less than in areas where there are relatively 

few or no people, such as the potential areas 

for the new wilderness campsites and the 

eastward expansion of the mainland lakeshore 

trail. 

As in alternative 1, occasionally noise from 

NPS maintenance and management activities, 

such as trail maintenance, grass mowing, 

pumping of vault toilets, and restoration 

activities, would continue to be heard on the 

park’s islands. Most noise from these activities 

would be in or near developed areas that are 

already exposed to noise from vehicles, 

motors, and visitors. Overall, noise from 

ongoing maintenance and restoration 

activities would have a minor to moderate 

adverse impact on the natural soundscape in 

local areas, depending upon the activity, 

presence of other facilities and people, 

vegetation, and wind. The impacts would be 

of short duration, but because they would 

occur over the life of the plan, the impact 

would be long term. 

As in alternative 1, in alternative 4, there 

would be few human-generated noises during 

much of the year—particularly the winter—

due to the absence of people. But during the 

peak use season, there would be moderate 

levels of noise due to visitors and motorboats 

stopping at the islands. Noise levels would be 

most noticeable in developed areas and 

popular use areas, such as the light stations, 

anchorages, or docks at Rocky, South Twin, 

Raspberry, Oak and Sand islands, the 

Stockton Island Visitor Center, Little Sand 

Bay, and Meyers Beach. Noise levels would 

also likely be moderate during the winter at 

Meyers Beach, depending on conditions, with 

visitors going out to see the ice caves. These 

impacts would be brief, but would increase in 

intensity and duration during holidays and 

weekends when high numbers of visitors are 

present. Noise from regular concessioner 

cruise services in the summer to Raspberry, 

Stockton, and Oak islands also would 

continue, with large groups of people 

disembarking on Raspberry and Stockton 

islands. Because visitor use levels under 

alternative 4 would be about the same as 

under alternative 1, the impacts of visitor 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

306

generated noise in the two alternatives would 

be about the same—actions would result in 

long-term, minor to moderate, adverse noise 

impacts in local areas on the mainland and 

most islands throughout Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore. 

Cumulative Impacts. Noise from outside the 

park has affected the park’s soundscape in the 

past and will continue to do so in the future. 

As described in the “Affected Environment” 

chapter, depending on location and wind 

direction, common human-caused sounds 

include engines from watercraft passing near 

the park, vehicles on roads on the mainland, 

sounds from logging operations, and urban 

sounds from Bayfield would continue to be 

heard in the park. Noise from the concession 

boat would continue to be heard not just at 

the islands it visits, but also on the islands it 

passes by. In the winter, noise from 

snowmobiles passing by the park would 

continue to be heard. 

It is possible in the future that events like the 

speedboat “poker run” and other unregulated 

activities may occur just outside the park 

boundary, generating substantial noise. In 

addition, developments such as second homes 

may be built on some lands adjacent to the 

mainland unit of the park, which would result 

in noise during and after the construction 

period in these areas. 

These adverse noise impacts would be minor 

to moderate (depending upon the type of 

noise and location), intermittent, and long 

term—occurring every year. 

When these impacts are added to the 

continuing impacts of alternative 4 there 

would be the potential for a long-term, minor 

to moderate, adverse cumulative impact on 

the natural soundscape. However, these 

cumulative impacts would primarily occur at 

certain times in the summer, such as 

weekends. The actions in alternative 4 would 

add a very small increment to the overall 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. As in the other alternatives, in 

alternative 4 most of the park would remain 

relatively quiet, with few human-generated 

noises affecting the natural soundscape. 

Alternative 4 would result in short- and longterm, minor to moderate, adverse impacts due 

to the construction and use of new facilities 

on the islands and mainland. Minor to 

moderate, adverse noise impacts also would 

occur in local areas on the mainland and most 

islands in Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, 

particularly in developed areas, due to visitor 

use and NPS maintenance and management 

activities. None of these noise impacts, 

however, would be unacceptable or be of a 

magnitude to result in an impairment of the 

park’s resources and values. There would be 

the potential for a long-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse cumulative impact to the 

soundscape when the noise resulting from 

implementing this alternative is added to noise 

from activities outside of the park. But the 

increment added by alternative 4 to the overall 

impact would be very small. 

WILDERNESS CHARACTER 

Analysis. With one exception, no major 

changes in management would occur in the 

Gaylord Nelson Wilderness in alternative 4. 

As in alternative 1, most of the wilderness area 

would be expected to receive very low use 

levels. Although use levels on the islands 

might slightly increase over time, it is expected 

that most of these visitors would stay in 

popular use areas and not venture into the 

wilderness. There would continue to be a few 

places where relatively large groups of people 

(10-30+) may gather at a time in the 

wilderness area, particularly on weekends and 

holidays—places such as the beaches at the 

southeast side of Raspberry Island and on the 

north side of York Island. In these areas, 

opportunities for solitude would be 

diminished. 

Like the other alternatives, signs of people, 

including hiking trails, campsites, and some 

historic structures, would be evident in a few 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 4 

307

areas in the wilderness area in alternative 4, as 

would occasional user-created trails and 

trampled vegetation/bare ground from 

informal campsites. The one difference in this 

alternative from the other alternatives is that 

additional dispersed wilderness campsites 

would be developed. As a result, additional 

relatively small areas would appear to be less 

natural and opportunities for solitude would 

likely decline. This would have a minor, longterm, adverse impact on the wilderness 

character compared to alternative 1. But most 

visitors in this alternative would continue to 

find what they perceive to be natural 

conditions in most of the wilderness area—

visitors would continue to find a forested 

landscape generally appearing untrammeled 

by people, with few obvious signs of 

disturbance or alteration. 

Implementation of alternative 4 would not 

alter opportunities for primitive recreation in 

the wilderness area. Opportunities for 

primitive, unconfined recreation would 

continue to be present on most of the islands 

in the wilderness area. Day-use visitors would 

have complete freedom to go wherever the 

pleased, except for the small number of areas 

that are closed for resource protection 

purposes (e.g., Gull and Eagle islands). For 

visitor safety and resource concerns, permits 

for overnight camping at designated campsites 

and for zoned camping would continue to be 

required. The permit system would ensure 

that overcrowding of campers does not occur 

in the wilderness. Although most visitors 

would likely agree that there would be 

outstanding opportunities for primitive, 

unconfined recreation on the islands, permit 

and camping requirements would continue to 

slightly diminish these qualities, resulting in a 

minor, long-term, adverse impact. It is 

possible that the implementation of user 

capacity indicators and standards could result 

in additional restrictions on visitor use if 

standards were exceeded, but it is not possible 

to speculate what actions, if any would be 

taken—and obtrusive use restrictions would 

only be taken as a last resort, if no other 

actions could correct the problem. 

Cumulative Impacts. Actions independent of 

alternative 4 have affected, and would likely 

continue to affect the wilderness character of 

the park. Noise generated from human 

activities outside of the park, such as that 

generated by the use of motorized boats, 

would continue to affect some visitors’ 

perceptions of solitude, resulting in a longterm, minor adverse impact to wilderness 

character. As noted in the impact topics 

above, the spread of nonnative species and 

climate change have affected, and are likely to 

continue adversely affecting the park’s 

biological communities—including the 

wilderness area—resulting in a long-term, 

minor to moderate, adverse impact to 

wilderness character (i.e., adverse effect on 

apparent naturalness of the wilderness areas). 

On the other hand NPS staff have worked to 

restore disturbed areas in wilderness and 

likely will continue to do so in the future. This 

would have a minor, long-term, beneficial 

impact on wilderness character. 

When all of the above actions are added to the 

impacts in alternative 4, there would be the 

potential for a minor to moderate, long-term, 

adverse cumulative impact on the wilderness 

character. However, alternative 4 would add a 

very small increment to the overall cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion. As in all of the alternatives being 

considered, in alternative 4 visitors would be 

able to find in most of the wilderness area 

outstanding opportunities for solitude and 

primitive, unconfined recreation in what most 

people perceive to be a natural landscape. 

However, compared to alternative 1, 

alternative 4 overall would have a minor, longterm, adverse impact on wilderness character. 

Alternative 4 would result in a minor, longterm, adverse impact to the area’s wilderness 

character, due to the continuing requirement 

to obtain a permit to camp in the wilderness. 

Developing additional dispersed wilderness 

campsites also would have a minor, long-term, 

adverse impact, due to some visitors 

perceiving a loss of solitude and apparent 

naturalness. None of these impacts to 

wilderness character would be considered 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

308

unacceptable. When the effects of actions 

occurring independent of the alternative are 

added to the effects of alternative 4 there 

would be the potential for a minor to 

moderate, adverse, cumulative effect on 

wilderness character—albeit alternative 4 

would add a very small increment to this 

overall cumulative impact. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Historic Structures / Cultural Landscapes 

Light Stations 

Under alternative 4 (in common with 

alternative 3), the Raspberry Island light 

station would remain the primary focus of 

preservation treatments and visitor use 

opportunities because of its relative 

accessibility and renown as a “showplace” 

property. Rehabilitation and restoration of the 

light tower and attached keeper’s quarters 

were undertaken in 2006 to address structural 

deterioration, enhance visitor interpretation, 

and provide for NPS seasonal employee 

housing. As funding permits, rehabilitation 

and/or restoration of the Raspberry Island 

light station’s cultural landscape would also be 

carried out in accordance with 

recommendations from the 2004 cultural 

landscape report, and the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (with Guidelines for the 

Treatment of Cultural Landscapes). Implementation of these measures would have longterm negligible to minor adverse impacts on 

the Raspberry Island light station. 

The park staff would stabilize and preserve 

the other historic light stations in accordance 

with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

for the Treatment of Historic Properties. With 

particular regard to the standards and 

guidelines for preservation, the existing form, 

features, and architectural detailing of the 

light station buildings and structures would be 

retained. Preservation maintenance of 

character-defining features (with primary 

focus on building exteriors) would be 

emphasized over replacement of historic 

fabric. Stabilization measures would be 

carried out to structurally reinforce, 

weatherize, and correct unsafe conditions. As 

needed, shoreline stabilization also would be 

undertaken (such as that completed for the 

Raspberry Island and Outer Island light 

stations) to control erosion of the shoreline 

embankments that has threatened the historic 

structures. Implementation of these 

preservation and stabilization measures would 

have long-term negligible to minor adverse 

impacts on the historic light stations. 

Rehabilitation measures would be carried out 

at the Raspberry Island and Long Island light 

stations to provide for NPS staff use and 

housing. In accordance with the Secretary of 

the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (with particular attention 

to the standards and guidelines for 

rehabilitation), historic building materials and 

character-defining features would be 

protected and maintained to the extent 

possible, although extensively deteriorated, 

damaged, or missing features would be 

replaced with traditional or substitute 

materials. Possible alterations and additions 

may be appropriate to permit efficient 

contemporary uses of the structures and 

buildings. However, no public overnight use 

would occur at the other light stations, and 

consequently there would be no need for 

interior rehabilitation of these structures. 

Rehabilitation of selected light stations carried 

out in accordance with the Secretary’s 

Standards would have long-term negligible to 

minor adverse impacts on these historic 

properties. 

Although the primary focus of cultural 

landscape restoration and rehabilitation 

would be reserved for the Raspberry Island 

light station, the cultural landscapes of other 

light stations would be preserved and 

stabilized to maintain the integrity of 

landscape features identified as contributing 

to site significance. Historic views may be 

obscured in some instances by trees and other 

vegetation encroaching into the larger 

surrounding areas historically reserved for the 

light stations. However, preservation of 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 4 

309

cultural landscape elements associated with 

the light stations would have long-term 

negligible to minor adverse impacts on 

historic properties. 

Other Historic Structures 

and Cultural Landscapes 

National register-listed or national registereligible structures and buildings associated 

with historic farmsteads, tourism/recreational 

sites, fishing and logging camps, etc. would be 

preserved and stabilized in accordance with 

the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties. Contributing 

cultural landscape features associated with 

these sites would also be preserved and 

stabilized. The historic Hokenson fishery on 

the mainland at Little Sand Bay may be 

considered in future planning for 

rehabilitation and adaptive use as a visitor 

center or contact facility. These actions would 

have long-term negligible to minor adverse 

impacts on historic properties. 

For selected historic properties currently 

under use and occupancy leases or life estates 

(i.e., the former fishing settlement and later 

resort on Rocky Island, the West Bay Club on 

Sand Island, and Shaw Point / Camp Stella on 

Sand Island), the park staff would undertake 

various preservation treatments and adaptive 

uses when each life estate is extinguished or 

expires and/or private occupancy has ceased. 

Historic structures would be preserved at the 

Rocky Island settlement, and one or more 

docks may be rehabilitated. The West Bay 

Club lodge would be preserved, the dock 

would be rehabilitated for public overnight 

use, and the historic road between the West 

Bay Club and East Bay would be used for trail 

access. At Shaw Point, docks would be 

rehabilitated for public overnight use, 

contributing Camp Stella historic structures 

would be preserved and interpreted, and the 

historic road between Shaw Point and East 

Bay would be used as trail access. Contributing structures at the Hansen farm would 

be stabilized and preserved, and the main 

farmhouse possibly restored. The cultural 

landscape of the farm would be partially 

restored and rehabilitated including the 

reestablishment of orchards. Implementation 

of these actions in accordance with the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties would have 

long-term negligible to minor adverse impacts 

on these historic properties. 

Cumulative Impacts. Historic buildings, 

structures and cultural landscapes at the park 

are susceptible to severe weathering and 

storm damage from harsh climatic conditions. 

Forest vegetation encroaching near historic 

structures and sites also presents a risk of fire 

damage from increasing fuel loads. Park staff 

also face logistical challenges and the 

additional expenses associated with 

transporting materials and equipment by boat 

from the mainland to island docks, and 

subsequently from docks to worksites on the 

islands to carry out preservation activities. 

Consequently, preservation treatment of 

historic buildings, structures and cultural 

landscapes may not always occur in a timely 

manner and/or may be deferred in some 

instances. The integrity of these historic 

properties can be adversely affected if historic 

fabric deteriorates or is lost. However, in 

conformance with the Secretary’s Standards 

and as funding permits, the national lakeshore 

continues to carry out stabilization and 

preservation of historic structures (e.g., 

reroofing, repointing, painting, structural 

reinforcement and other repairs) to arrest 

deterioration and to retain as much of the 

historic integrity of these structures as 

possible. These measures, in addition to more 

extensive preservation treatments such as the 

rehabilitation and restoration of the 

Raspberry Island light tower and keeper’s 

quarters, have had long-term beneficial 

impacts. 

The impacts associated with implementation 

of alternative 4 would have long-term 

negligible to minor adverse impacts on the 

park’s light stations, and other historic 

buildings, structures and cultural landscapes. 

Other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions would result in both 

negligible to minor adverse and beneficial 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

310

impacts. However, the impacts of the other 

actions described above, in combination with 

the impacts of alternative 4, would result in 

long-term negligible to minor adverse 

cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Implementation of actions 

proposed by alternative 4 would have longterm negligible to minor adverse impacts on 

the park’s light stations and other historic 

structures, and cultural landscapes listed in or 

eligible for listing in the National Register of 

Historic Places. There would also be longterm negligible to minor adverse cumulative 

impacts on these historic properties from 

implementation of alternative 4 in 

conjunction with other past, present or 

reasonably foreseeable actions. 

Because there would be no adverse impacts to 

a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified 

in the establishing legislation of Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore, (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the park or to 

opportunities for enjoyment of the park, or (3) 

identified as a goal in the park’s General 

Management Plan or other relevant NPS 

planning document, there would be no 

impairment of park’s resources or values. 

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effect (36 CFR Part 800.5, 

Assessment of Adverse Effects), the National 

Park Service concludes that implementing 

alternative 4 would result in no adverse effect 

on historic structures and cultural landscapes. 

Archeological Resources 

A variety of development actions could occur 

to support visitor activities under 

alternative 4. In nonwilderness areas, more 

trails and campsites would be provided, 

existing docks would be improved, and 

additional docks would be constructed. Day 

use sites for large groups would be added, and 

most of the Stockton Island campground 

presently on the tombolo would be relocated 

to Presque Isle. In wilderness areas, there 

would be a small increase in the number of 

dispersed designated campsites, and some 

trails may be reconfigured or relocated. New 

construction on the mainland unit would 

include additional trails, campsites, a day-use 

area and NPS staff apartments at Little Sand 

Bay, and a visitor contact station and 

accessible visitor-use ramp at Meyers Beach. 

Ground-disturbing construction activities 

associated with development proposals have 

the potential to impact archeological 

resources. In consultation with the Wisconsin 

state historic preservation office and affiliated 

tribal historic preservation offices, the Park 

Service would ensure that archeological 

assessments and surveys are carried out for all 

areas of potential effect proposed for 

development prior to construction. Known 

resources would be avoided to the greatest 

extent possible. If during construction 

previously undiscovered archeological 

resources were uncovered, all work in the 

immediate vicinity of the discovery would be 

halted until the resources could be identified 

and documented and an appropriate 

mitigation strategy developed through further 

consultation. Few, if any, adverse impacts 

would be anticipated. 

NPS archeologists would continue to monitor 

the condition of known archeological sites, 

and would undertake appropriate protection 

and stabilization measures as necessary to 

reduce or avoid site impacts possibly 

occurring from natural erosion, visitor use, or 

other factors. NPS archeologists would also 

continue to carry out survey inventories and 

documentation of archeological resources in 

fulfillment of section 110 requirements of the 

National Historic Preservation Act. 

Continuation of archeological resource 

management actions under existing laws and 

policies would have long-term negligible to 

minor adverse impacts on archeological 

resources. 

Cumulative Impacts. Archeological 

resources at the park (and throughout the 

region) are subject to a variety of disturbances 

associated with shoreline erosion and other 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 4 

311

natural erosion processes, high winds that can 

overturn trees and dislodge buried sites, 

ground-disturbing construction activities, 

inadvertent visitor use impacts, artifact 

looting, etc. These factors can contribute to 

adversely affect the integrity of archeological 

resources as the potential of impacted sites to 

yield important prehistoric or historic 

information is diminished and/or irretrievably 

lost. However, understanding of regional 

prehistory and history can also benefit as 

archeological information continues to be 

acquired through ongoing research and 

perhaps from data recovery investigations 

carried out in fulfillment of mitigation 

requirements. 

The impacts associated with implementation 

of alternative 4 would have long-term 

negligible to minor adverse impacts on the 

park’s archeological resources. Other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 

would result in both negligible to minor 

adverse and beneficial impacts. However, the 

impacts of the other actions described above, 

in combination with the impacts of alternative 

4, would result in long-term negligible to 

minor adverse cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Implementation of actions 

proposed by alternative 4 would have longterm negligible to minor adverse impacts on 

the park’s prehistoric and historic 

archeological resources listed in or eligible for 

listing in the National Register of Historic 

Places. There would also be long-term 

negligible to minor adverse cumulative 

impacts effects on archeological resources 

from implementation of alternative 4 in 

conjunction with other past, present or 

reasonably foreseeable actions. 

Because there would be no adverse impacts to 

a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified 

in the establishing legislation of Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore, (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the park or to 

opportunities for enjoyment of the park, or (3) 

identified as a goal in the park’s General 

Management Plan or other relevant NPS 

planning document, there would be no 

impairment of the park’s resources or values. 

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effect (36 CFR Part 800.5, 

Assessment of Adverse Effects), the National 

Park Service concludes that implementing 

alternative 4 would result in no adverse effect 

on archeological resources. 

Ethnographic Resources 

A variety of development actions could occur 

to support visitor activities under 

alternative 4. In nonwilderness areas, more 

trails and campsites would be provided, and 

docks would be improved or additional docks 

may be constructed. Day use sites for large 

groups would be added, and most of the 

Stockton Island campground presently on the 

tombolo would be relocated to Presque Isle. 

In wilderness areas, there would be a small 

increase in the number of dispersed 

designated camp sites, and some trails may be 

reconfigured or relocated. New construction 

on the mainland unit would include additional 

trails, campsites, a day-use area, and NPS staff 

apartments at Little Sand Bay, and a visitor 

contact station and accessible visitor-use ramp 

at Meyers Beach. Although management 

information to identify the existence or 

location of ethnographic resources is limited 

at the park, ethnographic resources could 

potentially be impacted as a result of these 

ground-disturbing construction activities. 

Continuing consultations with the Ojibwe and 

other affiliated tribes to identify ethnographic 

resources would minimize the possibility that 

unknown sites could inadvertently be 

disturbed by visitor use or NPS activities. 

Long-term negligible to minor adverse 

impacts would be anticipated. 

NPS staff would continue to collaborate with 

the Ojibwe and other affiliated tribes to 

identify and evaluate potential ethnographic 

resources by conducting appropriate research 

and investigations (i.e., ethnographic 

overviews and assessments, traditional use 

studies, ethnographic landscape studies, oral 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

312

histories, etc.). Identified ethnographic 

resources meeting the criteria of national 

register-eligibility would be documented and 

managed as “traditional cultural properties.” 

Efforts to identify, document and protect 

ethnographic resources would have longterm, beneficial impacts on these resources 

should they be found to exist in the park. 

In consultation with affiliated tribes, the Park 

Service would continue to permit customary 

harvest and consumptive use of park 

resources, including hunting, fishing, and 

gathering plants and berries. These activities 

would be carried out in accordance with park 

purposes and NPS policies, with the provision 

that they do not to adversely affect park 

wildlife or the reproductive potential of plant 

species, or otherwise adversely affect park 

resources. Also in accordance with applicable 

laws and policies, the Park Service would 

permit tribal access to park areas for 

traditional religious, ceremonial, and other 

customary activities. In consultation with the 

tribes and consistent with tribal goals, the 

Park Service would protect sacred sites and 

other ethnographic resources should these be 

identified. Providing and protecting tribal 

access to traditional use areas in the park, and 

protection of customary hunting, fishing and 

gathering activities would have long-term, 

beneficial impacts on ethnographic resources. 

Cumulative Impacts. Ethnographic 

resources at the park (and throughout the 

region) are subject to a variety of disturbances 

associated with erosion and other natural 

processes, ground-disturbing construction or 

development activities, inadvertent visitor use 

impacts, blocked access to traditional use 

areas, artifact looting, etc. In part because of 

tribal concerns for retaining the 

confidentiality of ethnographic resources, 

land managers are occasionally challenged to 

provide adequate protection for these 

resources because of the limited information 

available regarding their potential existence, 

nature and location. These factors can 

contribute to adversely affect the integrity of 

ethnographic resources having particular 

significance to tribes and other cultural 

groups. However, ongoing research and 

information gathered from tribal 

consultations can provide long-term benefits 

by increasing understanding and appreciation 

for the protection of regional ethnographic 

resources. 

The impacts associated with implementation 

of alternative 4 would have long-term 

negligible to minor adverse impacts on the 

park’s ethnographic resources. Other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 

would result in both negligible to minor 

adverse and beneficial impacts. However, the 

impacts of the other actions described above, 

in combination with the impacts of alternative 

4, would result in long-term negligible to 

minor adverse cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Implementation of the actions 

proposed by alternative 4 would have longterm negligible to minor adverse impacts on 

ethnographic resources at the park. Longterm negligible to minor adverse cumulative 

impacts on ethnographic resources would also 

occur from implementation of alternative 4 in 

conjunction with other past, present or 

reasonably foreseeable actions. 

Because there would be no adverse impacts to 

a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified 

in the establishing legislation of Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore, (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the park or to 

opportunities for enjoyment of the park, or (3) 

identified as a goal in the park’s General 

Management Plan or other relevant NPS 

planning document, there would be no 

impairment of the park’s resources or values. 

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effect (36 CFR Part 800.5, 

Assessment of Adverse Effects), the National 

Park Service concludes that implementing 

alternative 4 would result in no adverse effect 

on ethnographic resources. 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 4 

313

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 

Ability to Access the Park, Including 

Universal Access 

In alternative 4, the focus would be on 

providing more structured recreation 

opportunities for visitors, especially on the 

mainland. Existing public docks would be 

maintained and possibly improved, and more 

public docks might be provided where 

appropriate and needed. In addition, some of 

the docks associated with the former use and 

occupancy/current life estates would be 

rehabilitated for public day and possibly 

overnight use. Mooring buoys may also be 

provided in selected high use bays, increasing 

access opportunities. This alternative would 

improve access to desired locations. Upon 

termination of the existing reservations and 

the completion of rehabilitation by the Park 

Service, access to Rocky Island and Sand 

Island also would be improved, resulting in a 

long-term, major, beneficial impact. 

In this alternative, in addition to the existing 

facilities that are accessible to visitors with 

disabilities, a new access ramp to the beach 

will be added at Meyers Beach. The addition 

of this facility would enhance visitors’ 

opportunities to access Meyers Beach, a 

popular location for viewing the islands and 

the nearby sea caves. This new facility would 

result in a long-term, moderate, beneficial 

impact. 

Ability to Participate in a Diverse Range 

of Lake and Island Related Recreation 

Opportunities and Experiences 

This alternative would include additional 

recreation facilities on the nonwilderness 

areas of the islands. Existing lake and island 

recreational opportunities would continue to 

be available. Most of Sand, Basswood and 

Long Island would be in the backcountry zone 

to protect resources while allowing for 

exploration of additional nature-based 

recreation opportunities. 

New facilities would include new trails on 

selected islands, and additional designated 

campsites and group campsites. The group 

campsite on Oak Island would remain. Also, 

new trail opportunities that make use of 

historic road routes may be provided to 

connect the West Bay Club and East Bay, as 

well as Shaw Point and East Bay. In addition, 

one or more day use sites for large groups 

would also be provided in appropriate 

locations. All of these facilities would increase 

the diversity of day and overnight 

opportunities available to visitors who make 

the trip to visit one or more of the islands. The 

opportunity to have an “island experience” is 

considered a fundamental value of the park. In 

addition, people expressed a desire for these 

additional facilities, particularly the additional 

group campsites. The addition of these 

facilities to the existing opportunities on the 

islands would result in a long-term, moderate, 

beneficial impact. 

This alternative also includes the proposal to 

relocate the Stockton Island campground 

from the tombolo to Presque Isle, with the 

exception of three to four campsites on the 

north end of the campground; this would be 

done to mitigate existing resource impacts. 

This campground is popular for many repeat 

visitors; the campsites along the shoreline are 

considered highly desirable due to the great 

lake views and privacy between sites. The 

concentration of these sites on Presque Isle 

may limit the number of sites with lake views 

and may reduce the screening and privacy 

between sites. Keeping three to four sites on 

the north end will reduce the impact; 

however, overall, this action will likely detract 

from the visitor experience. This would be 

especially relevant for those repeat visitors 

who enjoy staying at a particular site in the 

existing campground and may find that site 

relocated. Although this is an important 

resource protection strategy, the relocation of 

the campsite will likely have a long-term, 

moderate, adverse impact to the visitor 

experience. However, the visitor experience at 

the three to four sites that remain in place may 

be slightly improved due to reduced levels of 

visitor use and associated noise nearby—

resulting in a long-term, minor, beneficial 

impact. During the construction of the new 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

314

campground and the relocation of camping 

activities, there will be short-term, minor, 

adverse impacts to visitors due to noise, 

temporarily restricted access, and visual 

intrusions. 

The park would continue to provide 

outstanding opportunities for solitude, quiet, 

“wildness,” connection with nature, and first 

hand discovery of the islands’ history. 

Opportunities for solitude, quiet, and 

connection with nature would be largely 

preserved. First, the majority of the wilderness 

areas would be zoned primitive, which would 

direct the National Park Service to continue 

protection of the values of natural quiet and 

solitude, and opportunities for visitor 

contemplation, naturalness, and primitive 

recreation. These are some of the most highly 

valued characteristics of the park, and the 

preservation of these values would result in a 

long-term, major, beneficial impact. There 

would be a small gain in campsite 

opportunities in designated wilderness. This 

would increase primitive camping opportunities, resulting in a long-term, minor, beneficial 

impact. Further, there is a possibility that 

some designated campsites and trails may be 

reconstructed and relocated to protect 

resources or improve visitor experiences. For 

those visitors who enjoy camping at a 

particular wilderness campsite or hiking a 

specific trail, the potential relocation or 

realignment of these facilities may result in a 

long-term, minor, adverse impact. In addition, 

this may include a short-term, minor, adverse 

impact during the relocation and construction 

of new sites and trails. However, if campsites 

are relocated to increase privacy and seclusion 

between sites, this may enhance opportunities 

for solitude, resulting in a long-term, minor, 

beneficial impact. 

Although this alternative includes high levels 

of protection for the qualities of solitude and 

primitive recreation, the proposals in this 

alternative related to increasing structured 

recreation opportunities and related facilities, 

including improved access to the 

nonwilderness portions of the islands, will 

likely bring more visitors to these areas. This 

may make achieving the desired visitor 

experiences of solitude and primitive 

recreation in the wilderness areas more 

challenging. The potential increase in visitor 

use levels and the potential for larger group 

sizes in some locations may exacerbate some 

of the current impacts related to crowding 

and noise impacts at high use locations, 

including docks and boat launches and 

landings. Further, visitor access to some of the 

former use and occupancy/current life estates 

and possibly more light stations may increase 

use levels, including overnight use, which may 

increase the potential for crowding and noise 

impacts on adjacent areas. Lastly, the group 

campsite on Oak Island will remain, which has 

localized impacts on opportunities for 

solitude and primitive recreation in 

designated wilderness. All of these impacts 

would be localized to the immediate areas 

with more recreation facilities and use, so the 

overall impact to solitude and primitive 

recreation would be a long-term, minor, 

adverse impact. 

To help mitigate these concerns, this 

alternative includes the institution of the 

Visitor Experience and Resource Protection 

Framework to guide long-term visitor use 

management in the park. The park would 

monitor several indicators related to visitor 

experience and resource impacts that identify 

if and when additional management strategies 

are needed to achieve desired conditions. The 

park staff would take all actions necessary to 

ensure that these indicators stay within 

standard to protect the highly valued 

opportunities for solitude in the park. The 

inclusion of these types of indicators in the 

park’s monitoring program would result in a 

long-term, moderate, beneficial impact. 

Specific actions to achieve the standards 

identified in this management plan would be 

evaluated under the requirements of the 

National Environmental Policy Act, the 

National Historic Preservation Act, and other 

applicable laws and policies. 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 4 

315

Mainland Recreational 

Opportunities and Experiences 

In this alternative, the mainland would be 

primarily in the backcountry zone, except for 

Little Sand Bay and Meyers Beach that will be 

zoned with the frontcountry zone. This would 

direct the NPS to promote outstanding 

opportunities to enjoy natural resources and 

solitude in the backcountry zone and 

convenient and easy access to developed, high 

use, recreational and interpretive areas in the 

two areas zoned with the frontcountry zone. 

This zoning pattern would continue to 

promote concentration of high use and 

educational opportunities in the existing 

developed areas, while promoting values of 

nature based recreation and contemplation in 

other areas of the mainland. This would 

support much of the desired condition heard 

from the public during scoping and would 

result in a long-term, moderate, beneficial 

impact to recreation opportunities on the 

mainland. 

This alternative also includes specific 

strategies to improve mainland recreational 

opportunities, including the establishment of 

walk-in campsites and water access campsites. 

These proposals would increase the diversity 

of structured recreation opportunities that are 

nature based and focus on the lake and 

islands. The construction of a handicap access 

ramp at Meyers Beach would improve 

recreation opportunities by providing access 

to a greater diversity of visitors. 

A large number of visitors to the park only 

visit the mainland, so these new opportunities 

would allow visitors to experience the lake 

and gain views of the islands, enhancing the 

visitor experience of the park from the 

mainland. Also, some of these improvements 

were specifically mentioned by the public 

during scoping for this plan. These new 

opportunities on the mainland would result in 

a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact. 

 

Another specific strategy is to provide a large 

group day-use area at Little Sand Bay. The 

park does not currently have facilities that 

purposively accommodate groups, although 

groups do occasionally congregate at Little 

Sand Bay. Having appropriate facilities for this 

purpose will improve the range of visitor 

opportunities on the mainland, and 

concentrate group activity in a specific 

location to minimize impacts on other visitors. 

This would result in a long-term, minor, 

beneficial impact. 

However, these new opportunities may bring 

higher volumes of use that could cause 

additional crowding during peak use times, 

resulting in a long-term, minor, adverse 

impact. 

Opportunities to Understand the 

Significant Stories of the Apostle Islands 

In this alternative, the visitor center in the 

historic courthouse in the City of Bayfield will 

remain at its current location without any 

improvements. The historic building is very 

important to the gateway community and has 

an excellent auditorium. However, this facility 

has limited, inflexible space for exhibits and 

for direct interaction between visitors and 

NPS staff and volunteers. Also, although the 

historic building is located in the center of the 

City of Bayfield, it is outside of the immediate 

transportation routes through town, so it has 

limited visibility to out of town visitors. In 

addition, the current location is distant from 

the concession cruise boat, so few cruise 

visitors access the visitor center. Finally, there 

are no views of the islands or Lake Superior 

from the facility. Continuing to use the 

existing visitor center without any 

improvements would result in a long-term, 

minor, adverse impact. 

This alternative includes the replacement of 

the Little Sand Bay Visitor Center with a 

smaller visitor contact station, possibly 

through the conversion of the historic 

Hokenson House. The current Little Sand Bay 

Visitor Center is in poor condition and has 

very limited space for exhibits. A replacement 

contact station that provides easily accessed 

and updated, high-quality orientation, 

interpretation, and information would likely 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

316

improve the visitor experience at this location 

and result in a long-term, minor, beneficial 

impact. This alternative would not include any 

changes to the Stockton Island Visitor Center 

or the Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center. 

This alternative includes the addition of a 

visitor contact station at Meyers Beach. 

Currently there is no visitor contact facility in 

this area of the park. Meyers Beach is a heavily 

visited location due to the access point for the 

islands, the trailhead for the Lakeshore Trail 

and the close proximity of the sea caves. Many 

visitors to the park may visit only this location 

or access the islands from this point without 

visiting the Bayfield or Little Sand Bay visitor 

centers. A visitor contact station at this 

location would enhance the opportunities for 

visitors to receive information about the park, 

including interpretation of important natural 

and cultural resources. This would result in a 

long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on 

opportunities to understand important stories 

of the Apostle Islands. 

It is likely that the emphasis in this alternative 

on providing more structured recreation 

opportunities, especially on the mainland, will 

create a future need for additional education 

and orientation via nonpersonal services such 

as bulletin boards and wayside exhibits, trail 

signs, and park brochures. The park will assess 

the need for additional locations and types of 

information to support the overall desired 

conditions of increasing recreation 

opportunities to visitors—resulting in a longterm, minor, beneficial impact. 

In this alternative, only minimal changes will 

be made to the park’s significant cultural sites 

and resources. Specifically, this alternative 

states that no light stations, other than 

Raspberry Island light station, will be 

rehabilitated for interpretation purposes. 

However, the cultural landscape of Raspberry 

Island light station would be partially or fully 

restored. The exteriors of the other light 

stations would be stabilized and nonpersonal 

and some staffed services would provide 

interpretation. The cultural landscapes in 

immediate proximity to the other lighstations 

would be stabilized. This alternative would 

maintain a relatively similar level of personal 

services to what is currently provided—often 

by volunteers—during peak season at the 

other light stations. This alternative would not 

significantly change the opportunities to learn 

about the stories associated with the light 

stations. The improvements to Raspberry 

Island’s cultural landscape and the 

stabilization of the other cultural landscapes 

in immediate proximity to the light stations 

would result in a long-term, minor, beneficial 

impact on the opportunity for visitors to 

understand the significant stories of the 

Apostle Islands. 

In this alternative, several of the former use 

and occupancy/current life estates will be 

made available for visitor access and 

interpretation as the opportunity comes 

available. The Rocky Island, West Bay Club, 

Shaw Point and Hansen farm sites would have 

visitor access, including public use of the 

nearby docks (if applicable), and visitor 

interpretation with non personal and possibly 

some personal services. Further, historic 

roads would be reestablished as trails to 

connect the different cultural landscapes. 

These visitor access and interpretation 

opportunities would enhance visitors’ 

exposure to and understanding of the human 

history on the islands in the park—resulting in 

a long-term, minor, beneficial impact. 

Finally, the Manitou fish camp and cultural 

landscape would be rehabilitated. Additional 

interpretive services would be provided, 

allowing for increased interpretation of this 

resource, resulting in a long-term, minor, 

beneficial impact. 

Visitor Safety 

This alternative includes a ranger station as 

part of the visitor contact station at Meyers 

Beach; this will increase NPS presence for 

visitor orientation and safety information 

dissemination, as well as improve response 

times to this area of the park. This will greatly 

improve visitor safety for a large number of 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 4 

317

visitors to the park—resulting in a long-term, 

moderate, beneficial impact. 

The relocation of the visitor center in Bayfield 

to a more visible location will likely increase 

the number of park visitors that access the 

visitor center; therefore the ability of the 

National Park Service to distribute safety 

information would be greater—creating a 

long-term, moderate, beneficial impact. The 

improvements to the Little Sand Bay Visitor 

Center may slightly increase the amount of 

safety information that is effectively 

disseminated to park visitors who visit this 

area of the park, resulting in a long-term, 

minor, beneficial impact to visitor safety. 

The rehabilitation of the Long Island light 

station for NPS housing will increase the NPS 

presence on Long Island, improving 

interpretation and visitor safety. This would 

result in a long-term, minor, beneficial impact. 

This alternative also includes the proposal to 

relocate the Stockton Island campground 

from the tombolo to Presque Isle, which will 

help reduce the interaction of visitors and 

bears on Stockton Island. This will improve 

visitor safety on Stockton Island, resulting in a 

long-term, minor, beneficial impact. 

Finally, this alternative includes the possible 

provision of mooring buoys in selected high 

use bays. These buoys would provide a 

predictable place to tie a boat in storm events, 

increasing both real and perceived safety, 

resulting in a long-term, moderate, beneficial 

impact. However, there is also an increased 

risk that boaters, without appropriate safety 

skills and knowledge, will rely on NPSprovided buoys and be otherwise unprepared 

for unsafe weather conditions; this could 

result in a long-term, moderate, adverse 

impact. 

Cumulative Impacts. There are no actions or 

developments foreseen within or adjacent to 

the park that would likely affect visitor use 

and experience. There is the possibility of a 

slight increase in visitation or a change in 

visitor interests and demand due to potential 

changes in regional populations or national 

recreation trends. The likelihood of these 

changes is unknown at this time. If this were 

to occur, it may cause a slight increase in 

existing visitor use concerns such as crowding 

and conflicts at high use docks and attraction 

sites. Also, any significant effects from climate 

change could have a minor to major effect on 

visitor use and experiences. Of particular 

concern is the likely warmer water and longer 

seasons, punctuated by more severe and 

unpredictable storms, suggesting a long term 

adverse impact on visitor safety as more 

visitors are likely to be vulnerable to Lake 

Superior without adequate preparation. Other 

changes that could result in impacts include 

reduced access to infrastructure and 

alterations to wildlife watching and fishing 

opportunities as a result of habitat changes.

Conclusion. Alternative 4 includes minor to 

major beneficial impacts resulting from 

significantly enhanced access to the islands, 

increased recreational opportunities in 

specific areas on the islands and mainland and 

the preservation of natural quiet, solitude and 

primitive recreation throughout the majority 

of the park. This alternative would increase 

the structured recreation opportunities on 

both the islands and mainland, providing 

access to a greater diversity of visitors. 

Further, many of the former use and 

occupancy/current life estates would 

eventually be made available for visitor access 

and interpretation, increasing visitors’ 

understanding of the human history on the 

islands. Finally, this alternative also includes 

the ranger station at Meyers Beach and 

rehabilitation of the Long Island light station 

for NPS use, which would improve visitor 

education and safety in these areas. However, 

some of the proposals to increase visitor 

opportunities and facilities, including access 

to certain cultural sites, may increase existing 

site-specific adverse impacts such as 

crowding, conflicts and noise impacts. 

Further, this alternative includes a proposal to 

relocate the Stockton Island campground, 

with the exception of three to four sites, 

which would have a moderate adverse impact, 

particularly on those visitors that frequently 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

318

use this campground. Finally, any effects 

resulting from changes in population, 

recreational trends or climate change may 

result in additional minor to major adverse 

effects, but the ability to predict the type or 

intensity of these impacts is limited at this 

time.

PARK OPERATIONS 

Analysis. Like all of the alternatives, the 

park’s physical geography would pose an 

operational challenge in alternative 4. 

Depending on the location of the new 

maintenance/operations center, 

fragmentation of park staff and facilities 

would either be reduced or exacerbated—

without knowing the location of this new 

facility it is not possible to analyze this impact. 

However, building a new ranger station at 

Meyers Beach, and relocating some 

administrative staff from Little Sand Bay to 

Bayfield would improve the effectiveness and 

efficiency of park staff, and increase their 

productivity. Although the separation of the 

park headquarters from the 

maintenance/operations facility and the 

Bayfield visitor center would still separate 

staff, overall compared to alternative 1 the 

improvements in alternative 4 would result in 

a long-term, beneficial impact on park 

operations. 

Like alternatives 2 and 3, in alternative 4 

several new actions and developments would 

occur, which would affect park operations. 

The construction of new facilities and trails 

(e.g., building an access ramp at Meyers 

Beach, completing the mainland lakeshore 

trail, moving the Stockton Island campground 

to Presque Isle), and rehabilitation of existing 

facilities (e.g., rehabilitating the Manitou fish 

camp and Long Island light station, 

restoration of the Hansen farm homestead 

building on Sand Island) under this alternative 

would require additional resources for 

operations and maintenance and additional 

efforts from maintenance, interpretation and 

resource management staff (as well as more 

staff). The annual installation and removal of 

mooring buoys in this alternative also could 

require additional staff expertise as well as 

new equipment. On the other hand, under 

alternative 4, the Little Sand Bay Visitor 

Center would be replaced with a smaller 

visitor contact station, which would slightly 

lower the demands on park staff (including 

funding, equipment, supplies, etc.). Overall, 

assuming additional funding and staff are 

provided as called for under the alternative, 

the additional facilities and actions in 

alternative 4 should have a moderate, longterm, adverse effect on park operations. 

With several additional employees the park 

staff would be able to better achieve desired 

conditions in program areas such as resource 

protection, visitor services, wilderness 

management, cyclic maintenance, and the 

deferred maintenance backlog would likely 

decrease. This would have a long-term, 

beneficial impact on park operations. 

Cumulative Impacts. No major new park 

projects and actions, independent of this plan, 

are expected over the life of this plan. Thus, 

no past, ongoing or foreseeable actions would 

combine with the actions proposed in 

alternative 4 that would result in cumulative 

park operations impacts. 

Conclusion. Compared to alternative 1, 

alternative 4 would have a long-term, 

beneficial effect on park operations, due 

primarily to actions taken to improve park 

operational facilities, decrease staff 

fragmentation, and increase staffing levels. On 

the other hand, new developments and 

management actions in alternative 4 would 

require additional time and resources to 

initiate and maintain, resulting in a moderate, 

long-term, adverse effect on park operations. 

No cumulative effects on park operations 

would be expected as a result of this 

alternative. 
Environmental Consequences of Alternative 4 

319

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

Analysis. Alternative 4 would have many 

effects on the socioeconomic environment. 

Under this alternative there would be both 

increases in visitor spending and increases in 

park expenditures. As noted in the alternative 

there would be a number of new 

opportunities on the islands for visitors (e.g., 

the development of trails and campsites on 

Sand, Oak, and Basswood islands, the 

extension of the mainland lakeshore trail, 

mew mainland camping opportunities, 

perhaps an increase in the number of 

dispersed wilderness campsites). And building 

a new visitor center on the Bayfield waterfront 

would attract more visitors to this facility. As a 

result, more visitors would likely go to the 

islands and spend time on the mainland unit 

and at the mainland visitor center. 

Consequently, more visitors would spend a 

longer time in the area. This would result in a 

minor, long-term, benefit to local businesses, 

including water taxis that transport people to 

the islands, guides, outfitters, and other 

businesses that provide services and goods to 

visitors. A new visitor facility located closer to 

the business in Bayfield also would benefit 

businesses located near the facility. The 

impact would be a long-term, beneficial 

impact to the socioeconomic environment. 

As noted in the alternative description, the 

National Park Service would be spending 

additional funds on construction and 

maintenance of facilities. This would in turn 

have a long-term, beneficial impact on 

businesses that supply materials and services 

to the park, including local merchants, 

utilities, equipment suppliers, and contractors. 

Construction businesses would receive shortterm benefits from the development of 

facilities in the alternative, such as the new 

visitor center. (How much the local economy 

actually would benefit would depend upon 

the degree to which park needs can be fulfilled 

within and by local businesses.) Hiring 

additional park staff under the alternative 

would also result in these individuals spending 

their income for housing, food, entertainment, 

and other services and goods, which in turn 

would increase revenues for local businesses. 

In addition, local governments would collect 

more tax revenues as a result of both visitor 

spending and park spending in the area. 

As in all of the alternatives, under alternative 4 

the park would continue to be an important 

attraction for many residents and for people 

considering relocation to the region, although 

the alternative would not be expected to cause 

major changes in the regional population. 

There would be more demands on mainland 

community services (e.g., water and sewer 

systems, local law enforcement) with visitors 

spending more time in the area, compared to 

alternative 1, but levels would not be expected 

to increase to a level that would substantially 

change park-related demands on community 

services and facilities. 

Cumulative Impacts. No ongoing or new 

park projects, independent of this plan, or 

other actions outside the park (e.g., new 

recreational developments, changes in land 

ownership, management of adjacent lands) 

that would affect the park are expected over 

the life of this plan. Thus, no ongoing or 

foreseeable actions would combine with the 

actions proposed in alternative 4 that would 

result in cumulative socioeconomic impacts.

Conclusion. Under alternative 4 there would 

likely be increased spending by visitors, with 

more visitors spending more time in the area, 

increased spending by the park, and increased 

spending by new park employees. These 

changes, however, would be relatively small 

compared to the overall regional economy 

and would not be expected to change the 

character of the social and economic 

environment. Most of the benefits of the 

alternative would occur in the Bayfield area. 

Compared to the no-action alternative, 

alternative 4 would result in a long-term, 

beneficial impact. The effects of alternative 4, 

in combination with the potential beneficial 

socioeconomic impacts of future residential 

developments adjacent to portions of the 

mainland unit, could result in a long-term, 

beneficial cumulative impact to the 

socioeconomic environment. 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

320

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

Under alternative 4, some soils and vegetation 

would be lost or altered due to construction of 

new facilities on the islands and mainland and 

due to visitor use in developed and high use 

areas. This would include bank erosion, and 

trampling of vegetation on sandscapes. Some 

docks would continue to alter coastal 

processes. Visitors and construction activities 

also may inadvertently contribute to the 

introduction and spread of nonnative species 

and to water pollution in localized areas. 

There would be loss or alteration of some 

wildlife habitat (and wildlife in those areas) 

due to construction and use of new facilities, 

and increased visitor use in some areas may 

adversely affect wildlife in those areas. Shortand long-term adverse impacts to the natural 

soundscape would occur due to facility 

construction, visitor use, and NPS 

maintenance activities, primarily in high-use 

areas and during high-use periods (e.g., 

summer weekends). Construction of some 

visitor facilities, such as the new campground 

on Presque Isle, would result in unavoidable 

impacts to visitors due to temporarily 

restricted access and visual intrusions. Some 

repeat visitors experience would be adversely 

affected by the relocation of the Stockton 

Island campground to Presque Isle and the 

potential relocation or realignment of some 

wilderness campsites. Crowding and 

congestion at high use areas (e.g., docks) 

would occur during the summer, adversely 

affecting some visitors’ experiences. 

Education, interpretation, and outreach 

efforts would help minimize, but not 

eliminate, the likelihood of the above impacts. 

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE 

COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 

New actions would be taken in alternative 4 

that would result in the consumption of 

nonrenewable natural resources, and in the 

use of renewable resources that would 

preclude other uses for a period. In the 

construction of new facilities, including 

buildings and trails, limited amounts of 

nonrenewable resources would be used and 

there would be a loss of vegetative 

productivity and wildlife habitat for as long as 

these facilities remain. These resources would 

be essentially irretrievable once they were 

committed. In addition, because it takes so 

long for soils to form, the loss of soils due to 

the construction of new facilities, visitor use in 

localized areas, and erosion of soil in places 

within Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

would be an irreversible commitment of 

resources. 

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORTTERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT 

AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 

As in all of the alternatives, the National Park 

Service would continue to manage the park to 

maintain ecological processes and native 

biological communities and to provide 

appropriate recreational opportunities 

consistent with preservation of cultural and 

natural resources. The vast majority of 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore would 

continue to be protected in its current, 

relatively natural state and would maintain its 

long-term productivity. The primary shortterm uses of the park would continue to be 

recreational use. Under alternative 4 there 

would be expanded (but still relatively 

modest) development to support recreational 

use and park operations, resulting in some 

localized loss of ecological productivity. 

Adverse impacts on the area’s soils, water 

quality, vegetation, and wildlife due to visitor 

use also could reduce the productivity of 

natural resources in localized areas over time, 

although overall no measurable effect on the 

park’s long-term productivity would be 

expected. On the other hand, efforts to restore 

native vegetation would increase long-term 

productivity of the environment in localized 

area.
CHAPTER 6:

CONSULTATION

AND COORDINATION

323 

PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 

The Draft General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Management Plan / Environmental 

Impact Statement represents thoughts of the 

National Park Service (NPS) planning team, 

park staff, American Indian groups, different 

government agencies, and the public through 

invited comments and the application of ideas. 

The process of consultation and coordination 

was vitally important throughout this planning 

project. The public had three primary avenues 

by which it participated during the 

development of the plan: participation in 

public meetings, responses to newsletters, and 

comments submitted by regular mail and 

electronically through the NPS planning 

website. 

PUBLIC MEETINGS AND NEWSLETTERS 

Public meetings and newsletters were used to 

keep the public informed and involved in the 

planning process. A mailing list was compiled 

of members of governmental agencies, tribes, 

organizations, businesses, legislators, local 

governments, and interested citizens. 

Comments and suggestions offered by 

participants have provided NPS planners with 

important insights about what visitors, 

neighbors, officials, and others expect from 

the general management plan / wilderness 

management plan. 

The notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement was published in the 

Federal Register on September 3, 2004 

(Volume 69, Number 171, Page 53942). A 

subsequent notice of intent appeared in the 

Federal Register on May 31, 2005 (Volume 70, 

Number 103, Page 30972), indicating that the 

requirements of a wilderness management 

plan would be incorporated into the general 

management plan because Congress officially 

designated wilderness within the park’s 

boundaries on December 8, 2004. 

Public Scoping Meetings 

Five public open houses with brief 

presentations were held during October 2004 

in different locations: in the Wisconsin 

municipalities of Bayfield, Ashland, and 

Madison, and in St. Paul and Duluth, 

Minnesota. Eight similar meetings were held 

during August 2006 at the visitor center on 

Presque Isle on Stockton Island and in Red 

Cliff, Bayfield, Odanah, Ashland, and 

Madison, Wisconsin, as well as in 

Bloomington and Hermantown, Minnesota. 

About 40 people attended the first set of 

public meetings, and about 150 people 

attended the second set. The meetings in Red 

Cliff and Odanah are referred to in the section 

below on American Indian consultations 

because they represent communities, 

respectively, on the reservations of the Red 

Cliff Band and Bad River Band of Lake 

Superior Chippewa Indians. 

Newsletters 

The National Park Service issued two 

newsletters between 2004 and 2006 during 

preparation of the draft plan. Overall, 

members of the public predominantly valued 

the scenic beauty of the views from and 

around the islands. The total number of 

people who responded to these newsletters 

was 427. In addition, the total number of 

organizations responding was 20 including 

municipalities. These figures include 

comment forms that were mailed back, letters 

that people initiated, and comments about the 

plan submitted by electronic mail or online 

through the NPS planning website at 

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/apis/. 

Newsletter #1, issued during October 2004, 

described the process of general management 

planning and invited comments on identifying 

the special characteristics of Apostle Islands 
CHAPTER 6: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

324

National Lakeshore. Thirty-one people and 

nine organizations commented. 

Newsletter #2, issued during August 2006, 

sought comments on proposed options for 

future management considerations. Some 376 

people and 11 organizations responded. 

Scoping within the National Park Service 

Meetings were held with Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore staff members during 

October 2004, May 2005, February 2006, and 

January 2007. 

CONSULTATION WITH OTHER 

AGENCIES/OFFICIALS AND 

ORGANIZATIONS 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Section 7 Consultation 

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended, requires in Section 7(a)(2) that each 

federal agency, in consultation with the 

secretary of the interior, ensure that any 

action the agency authorizes, funds, or carries 

out is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of a listed species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. During the 

preparation of this plan, NPS staff 

coordinated informally with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service's Green Bay office. A list of 

threatened and endangered species for 

Bayfield and Ashland counties was compiled 

using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 

website that can be accessed at 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/ 

lists/wisc-cty.html. 

In accordance with the Endangered Species 

Act and relevant regulations at 50 CFR Part 

402, the National Park Service determined 

that this General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Management Plan is not likely to 

adversely affect any federal threatened or 

endangered species, and sent a copy of this 

draft plan to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

with a request for written concurrence with 

that determination. 

In addition, the National Park Service has 

committed to consult on future actions 

conducted under the framework described in 

this management plan to ensure that future 

actions are not likely to adversely affect 

threatened or endangered species. 

Section 106 Consultation 

Agencies that have direct or indirect 

jurisdiction over historic properties are 

required by Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended 

(16 USC 470, et seq.), to take into account the 

effect of any undertaking on properties listed 

in or eligible for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places. To meet the 

requirements of 36 CFR 800, on October 27, 

2004, the National Park Service sent a letter to 

the Wisconsin state historic preservation 

office and to the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation presenting opportunities to 

participate in the planning process. 

Throughout the planning process, each office 

was informed of opportunities to attend 

agency and public meetings and afforded the 

opportunity to review and comment on the 

newsletters. These officials will also receive a 

copy of the draft plan for review and 

comment. Affiliated tribal representatives 

were also consulted, in fulfillment of Section 

106 requirements. (See “Consultation with 

American Indians” section below.) 

Table 16 (in the next section) shows the NPS 

determinations for additional consultations 

with the Wisconsin state historic preservation 

office and, if necessary, the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation under Section 106. 

Coastal Zone Consistency Determination 

Federal agency activities in or affecting 

Wisconsin’s coastal zone must comply with 

§307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act 

and implementing regulations, which require 

that such federal activities be conducted in a 

manner consistent to the maximum extent 

practicable with Wisconsin’s Coastal 

Management Program. 
Public and Agency Involvement 

325 

Although all of Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore is federal land and excluded from 

Wisconsin’s coastal zone, the park is 

geographically within the coastal zone. The 

National Park Service has determined that the 

preferred alternative described in this 

document is consistent with Wisconsin’s 

Coastal Management Program, including the 

state’s goals and policies for this area. 

This Draft General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Study / Environmental Impact 

Statement provides the substantive basis for 

the National Park Service’s consistency 

determination and has submitted this 

document to the Wisconsin Coastal 

Management Council for its concurrence. 

This consistency determination and the 

council’s concurrence complies with the 

requirements of the Coastal Zone 

Management Act. If the state of Wisconsin 

concurs with the National Park Service’s 

consistency determination, it will transmit its 

formal concurrence and that letter will be 

published in the Final General Management 

Plan / Wilderness Study / Environmental Impact 

Statement. 

OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE 

AGENCIES, REGIONAL AND LOCAL 

GOVERNMENTS, AND PARTNER 

ORGANIZATIONS 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore staff meet 

from time to time with representatives of 

federal and state agencies and regional and 

local governments (as appropriate) on topics 

of mutual interest and concern, such as 

operating the park, preserving its resources, 

and making it safe and enjoyable for visitors. 

These entities were informed of the 

commencement of the general management 

plan / wilderness management plan, and 

discussion topics and planning issues were 

welcomed, but no meetings solely focused on 

the plan were held with these entities. The 

same can be said about any special interest 

groups whose interests include the park or 

aspects of the park. There were no official 

partners specifically identified for planning 

staff to meet with about the general 

management plan / wilderness management 

plan; however, the Friends of Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore specifically invited its 

members to attend one public meeting. The 

park staff has held meetings with this group 

about many things, not simply the general 

management plan / wilderness management 

plan. 

CONSULTATION WITH 

AMERICAN INDIANS 

The Chippewa/Ojibwe Indian people 

traditionally occupied vast lands that ranged 

from both shores of Lakes Superior and 

Huron in the east to the North Dakota area in 

the west. The Chippewa/Ojibwe hunted, 

fished, gathered wild rice and various fruits, 

and engaged in some horticulture. The 

descendant entity today is the Lake Superior 

Tribe of Chippewa/Ojibwe Indians with 

different Chippewa/Ojibwe bands as 

independent tribal governments in what are 

now Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota. 

Traditionally associated with the area now 

containing the park, the following federally 

recognized American Indian tribes were 

invited by letters, dated October 27, 2004, and 

August 23, 2006, to meet for government-togovernment American Indian consultations 

about the general management plan / 

wilderness management plan: 

Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe 

of Chippewa Indians, Wisconsin 

Bay Mills [Chippewa/Ojibwe] Indian 

Community, Michigan 

Fond du Lac Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota 

Keweenaw Bay Indian Community of the 

Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa/Ojibwe 

Indians, Michigan 

Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwe Tribe, 

Wisconsin 

Lac Du Flambeau Band of the Lake 

Superior Tribe of Chippewa/Ojibwe 

Indians, Wisconsin 
CHAPTER 6: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

326

Lac Vieux Desert Band of the Lake 

Superior Tribe of Chippewa/Ojibwe 

Indians, Michigan 

Mille Lacs Ojibwe Tribe, Minnesota 

Red Cliff Band of the Lake Superior Tribe 

of Chippewa Indians, Wisconsin 

Sokogon Chippewa Community, 

Wisconsin 

St. Croix Chippewa Tribe, Wisconsin 

(A representative copy of one of these letters 

is included in appendix E.) 

Because the Apostle Islands region is in the 

heart of the ancestral homeland of the 

Chippewa/ Ojibwe people, the area’s 

significance to Chippewa/Ojibwe traditions 

and culture cannot be overstated. 

Chippewa/Ojibwe treaty rights will continue 

to be honored. None of the proposed actions 

being considered in this Draft General 

Management Plan / Wilderness Management 

Plan / Environmental Impact Statement would 

impede, prevent, or in any way negate treaty 

rights. The options being proposed here will 

not, and indeed cannot, affect the harvesting 

of plants or plant materials, hunting, fishing 

(including commercial fishing in Lake 

Superior), or trapping rights (although with 

appropriate consultation with affected tribal 

governments it might affect the manner in 

which treaty rights are exercised). For Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore, these rights are 

reserved for the tribes and guaranteed by the 

United States of America in the Treaties of 

1842 and 1854, and these rights have been 

affirmed in a number of court cases, including 

State of Wisconsin v. Gurnoe and Lac Courte 

Oreilles Band of Chippewa Indians v. Voigt. In 

addition, for those portions of the park that lie 

within the boundaries of their reservations, 

the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior 

Chippewa/Ojibwe Indians of Wisconsin and 

the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe 

of Chippewa/ Ojibwe Indians of Wisconsin 

enjoy a number of other rights of selfgovernance and self-determination that are 

reserved and protected in the Treaty of 1854 

and other federal enactments.
327 

FUTURE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS 

In the table below, specific undertakings found in the preferred alternative are listed. Associated 

compliance requirements are also listed. 

Table 16: Future Resource Compliance Required for 

Implementation of the Preferred Alternative. 

Action Section 106 Compliance Requirements 

Continued nomination of eligible historic properties, 

including historic structures, cultural landscapes, and 

archeological sites, to the National Register of Historic 

Places. An example is the August 2008 national 

register listing of a fish camp as the Rocky Island 

National Historic District. 

Wisconsin state historic preservation office and tribal 

historic preservation office concurrence would be 

sought concerning individual historic property 

determinations of national register eligibility. 

Actions to preserve, restore, or rehabilitate park 

historic properties for adaptive use, interpretation, or 

other purposes. 

Wisconsin state historic preservation office and tribal 

historic preservation office review would likely be 

necessary at the planning and/or design stages of 

project implementation. 

Action Other Compliance Requirements

Facility development that potentially could affect the 

habitat of the piping plover.

Consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for 

threatened and endangered species as required under 

the Endangered Species Act. 

New site-specific developments and management 

actions. 

Prepare appropriate National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) documentation. 

Construction or renovation of docks that affect 

waters of the United States. 

Obtain a section 10 permit from the U. S. Army Corps 

of Engineers under the Rivers and Harbors Act, a 

section 404 permit under the Clean Waters Act, and a 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources permit. 
328 

PUBLIC OFFICIALS, AGENCIES, AND ORGANIZATIONS 

RECEIVING A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT 

The National Park Service is circulating the 

Draft General Management Plan / Wilderness 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement to the agencies and organizations 

listed below. A limited number of copies of the 

plan are available upon request by interested 

individuals. Copies of the document are also 

available for review at the park, on the Internet 

at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/apis/ 

FEDERAL AGENCIES 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Army Corps of Engineers, CEMVP-CO-R 

Great Lakes Commission 

Natural Resource Conservation Service 

Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

 Forest Service 

Chequamegon-Nicolet 

National Forests 

USDA Office of General Counsel 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

 Bureau of Indian Affairs 

 National Park Service 

 Grand Portage National Monument 

 Ice Age and North Country National 

Scenic Trails 

 Keweenaw National Historical Park 

Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore 

Isle Royale National Park 

Midwest Archaeological Center 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore 

Saint Croix National Scenic Riverway 

Sleeping Bear Dunes National 

Lakeshore 

Voyageurs National Park 

U.S. Coast Guard – Duluth 

ALDER 

Marine Safety Office 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered 

Species Field Office, Green Bay 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 

5 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great 

Lakes National Program Office 

CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION 

Representative David Obey 

Senator Russell Feingold 

Senator Herb Kohl 

AMERICAN INDIAN 

TRIBES AND AGENCIES 

Chippewa Indian Bands 

Lac du Flambeau 

Lac Vieux Desert 

Lac Courte Oreilles 

Bad River 

Bay Mills 

Bois Forte 

Bois Forte Reservation Business 

Committee 

Fond du Lac 

Grand Portage 

Keweenaw Bay 

Mille Lacs 

Mole Lake 

Red Cliff 

 Red Cliff Natural Resource Committee 

St. Croix 

Sokogon Chippewa Community, 

Wisconsin 

Voigt Intertribal Task Force 

 Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife 

Commission 
Public Officials, Agencies, and Organizations 

Receiving a Copy of this Document 

329 

STATE OF WISCONSIN AGENCIES 

Department of Natural Resources 

 Office of the Secretary, Madison 

 Regional Director, Spooner 

Water Team Leader, Lake Superior Basin, 

Superior 

Brule River State Forest 

 Big Bay State Park 

Department of Tourism 

Natural Resources Board 

Northwest Regional Planning Commission 

Office of the Governor 

Governor’s Office 

Governor’s Northern Office 

State Historical Preservation Office 

University of Wisconsin 

Sea Grant Program 

Wisconsin Historical Society 

Wisconsin Coastal Management Program 

STATE AND LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS 

Mayor of Ashland 

Mayor of Bayfield 

Mayor of Washburn 

Representative Gary Sherman 

Senator Bob Jauch 

LOCAL AND REGIONAL 

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES 

Ashland County Board of Supervisors 

Bayfield County Board of Supervisors 

Bayfield County Forest Administrator 

Bayfield County Forestry Department 

City of Ashland 

City of Bayfield 

City of Washburn 

Northwest Regional Planning Commission 

Town of Bayfield 

Town of Bell 

Town of LaPointe 

Town of Russell 

Town of Sanborn 

ORGANIZATIONS AND BUSINESSES 

Adventures in Perspective 

Alliance for Sustainability 

American Lands Alliance 

 Upper Midwest 

American Lighthouse Foundation 

Animaashi Sailing Company 

Apostle Islands Cruise Service 

Apostle Islands Marina 

Apple Hill Orchard 

Ashland Chamber of Commerce 

Ashland Marina 

Association of Wisconsin 

Snowmobile Clubs 

Audubon Center of the North Woods 

Bayfield Chamber of Commerce 

Bayfield Heritage Association 

Bayfield Yacht Club 

Bodin Fisheries 

Bruce River Canoe Rental 

Camp Amnicon 

Camp Manito-wish 

Camp Voyageur 

Center for Environmental Studies 

Catchun-Sun Charter Co. 

Chequamegon Adventure Company 

Chequamegon Audubon Society 

Chequamegon Democratic Party 

Citizens Against AI Wilderness 

Duluth Power Squadron 

The Ecotopian Society 

Friends/Boundary Waters Wilderness 

Glacier Valley Wilderness Adventures 

Great Lakes Cruising Club 

GreatLakes Lighthouse Keepers Association 

Great Lakes Sport Fishing Council 

Howard County Bird Club 

Izaak Walton League 

The League of Women Voters 

Madeline Island Chamber of Commerce 

National Audubon Society 

National Park Foundation 

National Parks Conservation Association 

National Trust for Historic Preservation 

National Wildlife Federation 

Natural Resource Research Institute 

The Nature Conservancy 

Northland College 

NW Passage Outing Club, Inc. 
CHAPTER 6: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

330

The Outdoor Network 

Perkins Coie 

Public Employees for Environmental 

Responsibility (PEER) 

Pikes Bay Marina 

Pikes Creek Keel Club 

Port Superior Marina 

Red Cliff Marina 

Roberta’s Charters 

Roys Point Partners 

Sailboats, Inc. 

Save Lake Superior Association 

Schooner Bay Marina 

Sierra Club 

 Midwest Office 

 John Muir Chapter 

Sigurd Olson Environmental Institute 

Siskiwit Bay Marina 

Superior Charters, Inc. 

Superior Sailor 

SWCA Environmental Consultants 

Trek and Trail 

University of Minnesota 

Voyageur Outward Bound School 

Washburn Chamber of Commerce 

Washburn Marina 

Wilderness Inquiry 

The Wilderness Society 

Wisconsin Indianhead Technical College 

Wisconsin Lighthouse District 

LIBRARIES 

Ashland Public Library 

Bayfield Carnegie Library 

Duluth Public Library 

University of Minnesota, Forestry Library 

University of Wisconsin, Madison (Steenbock 

Library) 

Vaughn Public Library 

Washburn Public Library 

MEDIA 

County Journal 

The Daily Press 

Duluth News-Tribune 

Ironwood Daily Globe 

The Journal 

The Journal Times 

KADL Radio 

KDLH TV Duluth 

KBJR TV Duluth 

Lake Superior Magazine 

Madison Capitol Times 

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel 

Minneapolis Star Tribune 

The Outdoor Network 

St. Paul Pioneer Press 

Superior Evening Telegram 

WATW (AM 1400) 

WDIO TV, Duluth 

WDSE TV, Duluth 

WEGZ Eagle 106 

Wisconsin Public Radio 

INDIVIDUALS 

The list of individuals is available from park 

headquarters.
APPENDIXES,

SELECTED REFERENCES,

PREPARERS,

INDEX

333 

APPENDIX A: ENABLING LEGISLATION 

Public Law 91-424 

91st Congress, S. 621 

September 26, 1970 

An Act 

To provide for the establishment of the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

 in the State of Wisconsin, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress 

assembled, That in order to conserve and develop for the benefit, inspiration, education, recreational 

use, and enjoyment of the public certain significant islands and shoreline of the United States and 

their related geographic, scenic, and scientific values, there is hereby established the Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore (hereinafter referred to as the ''lakeshore'') in Ashland and Bayfield Counties, 

Wisconsin, consisting of the area generally depicted on the map entitled ''Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore'', numbered NL-AI-91,000, sheets 1 and 2, and dated June 1970. The map shall be on file 

and available for public inspection in the office of the Director, National Park Service, Department 

of the Interior. 

 Sec. 2. No lands held in trust by the United States for either the Red Cliff Band or Bad River Band of 

the Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, or for allottees thereof, shall be acquired or included within 

the boundaries of the lakeshore established by this Act, with the following exception: 

If the Indians who own more than 50 per centum of the interest in allotment number 74 GL 

or allotment number 135 in the Red Cliff Reservation agree to sell the allotment to the 

Secretary of the Interior (hereinafter referred to as the ''Secretary''), the Secretary may 

consent to the sale on behalf of the other owners, purchase the allotment for the negotiated 

price and revise the boundaries of the lakeshore to include the allotment. 

 Sec. 3. The Secretary may acquire within the boundaries of the lakeshore lands and interests therein 

by donation, purchase with donated or appropriated funds, or exchange, but lands and interests in 

lands owned by the State of Wisconsin may be acquired only by donation. Notwithstanding any 

other provision of law, any Federal property located within the boundaries of the lakeshore may, 

with the concurrence of the agency having custody thereof, be transferred without transfer of funds 

to the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary for the purposes of the lakeshore. 

 Sec. 4. (a) With the exception of not more than eighty acres of land to be designated within the 

lakeshore boundaries by the Secretary as an administrative site, visitor center, and related facilities, 

as soon as practicable, any owner or owners of improved property on the date of its acquisition by 

the Secretary may, as a condition of such acquisition, retain for themselves and their successors or 

assigns a right of use and occupancy of the improved property for noncommercial residential 

purposes for a definite term not to exceed twenty-five years, or, in lieu thereof, for a term ending at 

the death of the owner, or the death of his spouse, whichever is the later. The owner shall elect the 

term to be reserved. The Secretary shall pay to the owner the fair market value of the property on the 

date of such acquisition less the fair market value on such date of the right retained by the owner. 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS, INDEX 

334

 (b) A right of use and occupancy retained pursuant to this section may be terminated with respect 

to the entire property by the Secretary upon his determination that the property or any portion 

thereof has ceased to be used for noncommercial residential or for agricultural purposes, and upon 

tender to the holder of a right an amount equal to the fair market value, as of the date of the tender, 

of that portion of the right which remains unexpired on the date of termination. 

 (c) The term “improved property”, as used in this section, shall mean a detached, noncommercial 

residential dwelling, the construction of which was begun before January 1, 1967 (hereinafter 

referred to as “dwelling”), together with so much of the land on which the dwelling is situated, the 

said land being in the same ownership as the dwelling, as the Secretary shall designate to be 

reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of the dwelling for the sole purpose of noncommercial 

residential use, together with any structures accessory to the dwelling which are situated on the land 

so designated. 

 Sec. 5. The Secretary shall permit hunting, fishing, and trapping on lands and waters under his 

jurisdiction within the boundaries of the lakeshore in accordance with the appropriate laws of 

Wisconsin and the United States to the extent applicable, except that he may designate zones where, 

and establish periods when, no hunting, trapping, or fishing shall be permitted for reasons of public 

safety, administration, fish or wildlife management, or public use and enjoyment. Except in 

emergencies, any regulations prescribing any such restrictions shall be put into effect only after 

consultation with the appropriate State agency responsible for hunting, trapping, and fishing 

activities. 

 Sec. 6. The lakeshore shall be administered, protected, and developed in accordance with the 

provisions of the Act of August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 535; 16 U.S.C. 1, 2-4), as amended and 

supplemented; and the Act of April 9, 1924 (43 Stat. 90; 16 U.S.C 8a et seq), as amended, except that 

any other statutory authority available to the Secretary for the conservation and management of 

natural resources may be utilized to the extent he finds such authority will further the purposes of 

the Act. 

 Sec. 7. In the administration, protection, and development of the lakeshore, the Secretary shall 

adopt and implement, and may from time to time revise, a land and water use management plan 

which shall include specific provision for-- 

(a) protection of scenic, scientific, historic, geological, and 

archeological features contributing to public education, 

inspiration, and enjoyment; 

(b) development of facilities to provide the benefits of public recreation together with such 

access roads as he deems appropriate; and 

(c) preservation of the unique flora and fauna and the 

physiographic and geologic conditions now prevailing on the Apostle Islands within the 

lakeshore: Provided, That the Secretary may provide for the public enjoyment and 

understanding of the unique natural, historical, scientific, and archeological features of the 

Apostle Islands through the establishment of such trails, observation points, exhibits, and 

services as he may deem desirable. 

Sec. 8. There are authorized to be appropriated not more than $4,250,000 for the acquisition of lands 

and interests in lands and not more than $5,000,000 for the development of the Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore. 

Approved September 26, 1970
335 

APPENDIX B: MINIMUM REQUIREMENT ANALYSIS 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS, INDEX 

336
Appendix B 

337 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS, INDEX 

338
Appendix B 

339 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS, INDEX 

340
341 

APPENDIX C: CAMPGROUND DESIGN ANALYSIS AND 

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

Based on discussions with the planning team, park staff, and Dr. Jeff Marion, research biologist with 

the USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Virginia Tech Field Station, the following guidance on 

campsite planning, design, and management was prepared for the Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore. The appendix includes objectives for the park’s campsite system, campsite management 

guidelines, and designated camping zone management strategies. 

CAMPSITE SYSTEM OBJECTIVES 

• Protect natural and cultural resources 

• Provide for a diversity of high-quality camping opportunities, including informal, zone-based, 

camping 

• Provide some opportunities for solitude throughout the park, especially at campsites within the 

Gaylord Nelson Wilderness 

• Provide reasonable access for visitors and staff to the campsite system 

• Ensure campsites are safe and maintainable 

• Provide effective messages on appropriate use of campsites, and Leave No Trace principles 

CAMPSITE MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES 

To achieve the campsite system objectives, the following campsite management guidelines would be 

followed. 

Natural Resource Protection 

 Avoid or minimize campsites in areas with sensitive vegetation that are not resistant or resilient 

to trampling impacts, such as sandspits, wetlands, and dunes. 

 Avoid or minimize campsites in erosion prone areas. 

 Keep campsites to the minimum size necessary so as to minimize impacts on vegetation and soil 

communities. 

 Avoid or minimize campsites in sensitive or key wildlife habitat, including minimizing the spatial 

interface between camping activities and bear activity. 

 Provide appropriate food storage options in areas with known or likely bear activity. 

 Minimize fragmentation of wilderness. 

 Limit facilities in wilderness to only those needed for resource protection. 

 Seek campsite locations that offer the most suitable substrate and are self-limiting due to 

vegetation, rock and/or topography. Seek sidehill opportunities where feasible. If natural 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS, INDEX 

342

topography and vegetation are not self-limiting, campsite borders should be constructed and 

anchored (if needed). Guidelines for the use of campsite borders include: use as few constructed 

borders as necessary, limit the use of geometric shapes and straight lines, and use rustic materials 

to the extent practical. 

 Construct desirable tenting areas (e.g., no obstacles, level ground) that are limited by topography, 

vegetation or rock to the extent possible. If natural topography and vegetation are not selflimiting, tent borders should be constructed and anchored (if needed). Guidelines for the use of 

tent borders include: use as few constructed borders as necessary, ensure good drainage, and use 

rustic materials to the extent practical. 

 Provide reasonable separation of campsite cooking facilities (e.g., bear locker, fire pit and picnic 

table, if applicable) and desirable tent areas on campsites to concentrate trampling impacts and 

minimize bear and human interactions. 

 Manage campfires according to the availability of downed firewood. 

 In locations where fires are permitted and fire rings provided, standardize and reduce fire ring 

size (20-24 inches may be appropriate) to minimize the size of fires and use of firewood. 

 Regulate axes and saws to minimize damage to trees and vegetation associated with campsites. 

 Use site ruination strategies and signage (if needed) on unnecessary, peripheral use areas to 

concentrate camping activities on formal campsites and reduce campsite sizes. 

 Provide education on Leave No Trace principles to visitors and outfitters. 

Cultural Resource Protection 

 Avoid or minimize campsites in areas with significant archeological, sacred and historic sites, 

particularly those located in unstable substrate. 

 If archeological or historic sites can’t be avoided, use management techniques to minimize 

impacts to the resources and stabilize soils (e.g., maintain grass, use floating boardwalks). 

 Consult with cultural resource advisors on campsite management activities to prevent further 

damage to sites caused by ground disturbing activities, both on campsites as well as in areas 

where borrow dirt or stone are gathered. 

 Provide education on Leave No Trace principles. 

Promotion of High Quality Visitor Experiences 

 Seek campsite locations that will be attractive to visitors. 

 Provide campsites with reasonable access based on the mode of travel (e.g., motorized boat 

versus non-motorized). 
Appendix C 

343 

 Avoid or minimize the potential for conflicts between user groups. 

 Promote uncrowded and quiet campsites to the maximum extent possible. 

 Provide privacy between campsites to the degree possible (conversational voices generally 

become unclear beyond 100 feet) and locate campsites out of sight from trails. 

 Manage campsites to look as natural as possible, and minimize signage to the extent practical. 

 Tenting areas (including constructed tent pads) should be sized for only one tent per area, and 

the number and size of tenting areas on a campsite should accommodate the allowed persons per 

campsite (e.g., individual campsites = up to 7 people, group campsites = up to 20 people) and the 

number of tents allowed per campsite. 

 Provide visitors with information on the number and size of tenting areas on campsites being 

reserved. 

 Provide visitors with site layout information so facilities associated with campsites are easily 

found (e.g., sign of site map at each campsite). 

 Avoid or minimize safety hazards (e.g., tree fall). 

 Provide education on Leave No Trace principles, campsite management strategies and visitor 

regulations. 

 Match visitor needs to camping opportunities, to the extent feasible. 

 Consider visitor use patterns when evaluating new campsite opportunities. 

 Provide some universal access opportunities. 

Sustainability of Park Operations 

 Maximize efficiency of accessing sites for maintenance purposes. 

 To the extent feasible and appropriate, co-locate sites to improve efficiency of support facilities 

and reduce the development footprint on resources. 

 Minimize the use of materials and facilities that require expensive and/or time consuming 

maintenance. 

 Use toilets of minimum design needed to protect water quality, other natural and cultural 

resources and visitor safety. 

 Continue regular maintenance and monitoring of campsites and associated facilities. 

 Institutionalize an adaptive management framework (e.g., LAC/VERP) that justifies action in 

response to changing resource conditions or visitor experiences.
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS, INDEX 

344

Designated Camping Zone Management 

Background Information 

Designated camping zone management as currently implemented at Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore is relatively unstructured, allowing visitors maximum freedom in selecting preferred 

campsite locations. Visitors may camp on resistant, pristine sites or they can camp on established 

sites (sites that look like they have already been used by another visitor). This type of camping 

management strategy has the highest level of visitor freedom, but also can lead to the highest amount 

of site proliferation and use conflicts. 

Currently, the low amount of use occurring in the camping zones at the park has not shown that the 

current management strategy is resulting in significant problems with resource or social impacts. The 

park staff does not have an inventory of visitor-created campsites in the designated camping zones, 

but it is estimated there are a few visitor-created campsites in the park. These campsites are more 

likely on islands that don’t have designated campsites, like Bear and Hermit islands. 

Few people camp in the zones (less than 3% of campers) and park staff do not encourage people to 

apply to camp in the zones—which may be why there have not been more resource and social 

impacts resulting from this type of camping policy. If these zones are to be promoted to increase the 

percentage of campers who use them, then more attention to the strategy for limiting impacts will be 

needed. 

Management Strategy 

The park staff will continue unregulated zone camping unless monitoring indicates that a more 

structured approach is needed to minimize impact, and/or visitor use of zone camping greatly 

increases. The staff would monitor the presence and condition class of campsites (using the 

classification system below) within the designated camping zones. Monitoring human waste impacts 

around visitor-created campsites is also critical to ensure that these areas aren’t being overused (e.g., 

if cat holes are used beyond 15–20 nights per year in an area, resource impacts from human waste 

could be a problem). 

Condition Class Rating System:

Class 0: Campsite barely distinguishable; no or minimal disturbance of vegetation and/or 

organic litter (often an old campsite that has not seen recent use). 

Class 1: Campsite barely distinguishable; slight loss of vegetation cover and/or minimal 

disturbance of organic litter. 

Class 2: Campsite obvious; minor to moderate loss of vegetation cover (10-40%) and/or 

organic litter crushed in primary use areas. 

Class 3: Moderate loss of vegetation cover (40-60%) and/or organic litter crushed on much 

of the site, some bare soil exposed in primary use areas. Some soil erosion indicated 

by exposed tree roots and minor shoreline disturbance. 

Class 4: Moderate- high loss of vegetation cover (60-90%) and/or organic litter crushed on 

much of the site, bare soil exposed in primary use areas. Soil erosion indicated by 

exposed tree roots and moderate shoreline disturbance. 
Appendix C 

345 

Class 5: Nearly complete or total loss of vegetation cover (90-100%) and organic litter, bare 

soil widespread. Soil erosion obvious, as indicated by exposed tree roots and rocks 

and extensive shoreline disturbance. 

If a different management strategy is needed, the following ideas would be considered: 

• Design the designated camping zones in a concentric circle system, with a pristine site* camping 

strategy on the island interiors, and an established site** camping strategy on or near the island 

shorelines. If an established site could not be found on or near the shoreline, then visitors would 

be instructed to pristine site camp. Beach camping (below the leading edge of vegetation) would 

follow the pristine site strategy. 

• All sites found in the pristine site camping area (interior of islands) would be closed and restored. 

In areas of the established site camping (on or near shorelines), sites that do not meet criteria for 

an acceptable site (e.g., too close to trails, near a sensitive resource), or those in unacceptable 

condition, would be closed and restored. If needed, the park staff will create established sites in 

desirable and acceptable locations to direct visitor use. 

• Visitors would be educated on the designated camping zone management policy and would need 

to be prepared to camp in these areas. At the visitor center or on the park web site, campers 

could be required to watch a video and be tested on their knowledge. Another approach would 

be to develop a specific camping brochure for designated camping zone activities. Outfitters 

would be required to hand out Leave No Trace literature to visitors, particularly those who are 

spending a night in the park. 

Rationale for this approach: Given the unique circumstances of island camping in the park, the 

concentric circle approach to managing the designated camping zones could be effective to allow for 

visitor freedom while also reducing the potential for visitor impacts. The island shorelines are the 

most popular (and most used) for camping activities since visitors tend to gravitate toward water, 

and the heat and insects associated with the island interiors make them less desirable for camping in 

June and July. The shoreline areas available for camping are relatively small, and given that these 

areas will likely continue to receive the most use, an established site camping policy could be an 

effective approach for providing a moderate level of visitor freedom while minimizing resource and 

social impacts in these areas. Given the lower number of visitors and the larger area available on the 

island interiors, these areas present an excellent opportunity for pristine site camping to allow for the 

highest levels of visitor freedom and opportunities for solitude. Camping on the beach, below the 

leading edge of vegetation, could follow the pristine site camping policy since resources are highly 

resistant and resilient, and it would provide another opportunity for visitors to choose their own 

campsite.

*Pristine site camping – visitors camp only on durable areas that have not been used by other visitors 

**Established site camping – visitors camp only on sites that have been noticeably used by other 

visitors or are NPS designated campsites 
346 

APPENDIX D: AERIAL PHOTO OF MOUTH OF SAND RIVER 
347 

APPENDIX E: CONSULTATION LETTERS 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS, INDEX 

348 
Appendix E 

349 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS, INDEX 

350

Letters identical in content to this one were sent to all the tribes listed in the “Consultation & 

Coordination” chapter of this document. 
Appendix E 

351 
352 

REFERENCES 

Anderson, R., and L. Stowell 

1985 “Wildlife Management Plan for Select Habitats and Species of the Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore.” Prepared for the National Park Service. Contract CX—6000-7-

R059. University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point. 

Belant, J.L., J.F. Van Stappen, D. Paetkau 

2005 “American Black Bear Population Size and Genetic Diversity at Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore.” Ursus 16(1):85-92. 

Bluewater Network 

2001 “Jet Skis Position Paper.” 

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

1978 “An Inventory of Selected Natural and Cultural Resources on Eight Islands of the 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore.” Sigurd Olson Institute Special Report No. 24, 

Northland College, Ashland, WI. 

Busch, Jane C. 

2008 People and Places: A Human History of the Apostle Islands. Prepared under contract 

to Midwest Regional Office, National Park Service, Omaha, NE. 

California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board 

1999 “Fact Sheet: New Regulations for Gasoline Marine Engines. Sacramento, CA. 

(http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/marine/facts.pdf). Accessed October 26, 2007. 

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

1978 “Soils and Surficial Geology of Four Apostle Islands.” Paper presented at annual 

meeting of Wisconsin Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters. 

Casper, G. 

2001a “Amphibian Inventory of the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, with an Evaluation 

of Malformity Rates, Monitoring Recommendations, and Notes on Reptiles.” 

Prepared for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. Casper Consulting, Milwaukee, 

WI. 

2001b “Reptile Surveys of Long, Michigan, and Stockton Islands, and Little Sand Bay, in the 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, with Notes on amphibians.” Prepared for 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. Casper Consulting, Milwaukee, WI. 

Cole, D.N., L. Yung, E.S. Zavaleta, G.H. Aplet, F. S. Chapin III, D.M. Graber, E.S. Higgs, R.J. Hobbs, 

P.B. Landres, C.I. Millar, D.J. Parsons, J.M. Randall, N.L. Stephenson, K.A. Tonnessen, P.S. White, 

and S.Woodley. 

2008 “Naturalness and Beyond: Protected Area Stewardship in an era of Global 

Environmental Change.” George Wright Society Forum. [in press] 
References 

353 

Cronon, William 

2003 “The Riddle of the Apostle Islands,” Orion Magazine. May/June 2003. 

Eisenreich, S. 

1987 “The Chemical Limnology of Nonpolar Organic Contaminants: Polychlorinated 

Biphenyls in Lake Superior” In: Sources and Fates of Aquatic Pollutants, Advances in 

Chemistry Series 216, edited by R.A. Hites, and S.J. Eisenreich. American Chemical 

Society, Washington, D.C. 

Holland Jr., F. Ross 

1989 Great American Lighthouses. The Preservation Press. The National Trust for Historic 

Preservation. Washington, D.C. 

Ferge, L.A. 

2001 “Lepidoptera of Apostle Island Sandscapes. Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. 

Ashland and Bayfield Counties, Wisconsin.” Unpub. report prepared for the Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore. On file at park headquarters. Bayfield, WI. 

Fleming, K. 

1997 “A Demographic Comparison of a Hunted and an Unhunted Population of Black 

Bears in Northern Wisconsin.” M.S. thesis. University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point, 

Wisconsin. 

Grossberg, R. A. 

1999 “Changing Landscape Perceptions and the Meaning of Wilderness: Visitors’ Beliefs 

about a National Park.” MS thesis. University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI. 

Hammitt, W.E. and D.N. Cole 

1998 Wildland Recreation. Ecology and Management. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., NY. 

Heberlein, T. A., R.A. Grossberg, and W. Kuentzel 

1999 “Preliminary Results from the 1997 Apostle Islands Boater and Kayaker Survey.” 

Report presented to Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. On file at park 

headquarters. 

Hendee, J.C. and C.P. Dawson. 

2002 Wilderness Management. Stewardship and Protection of Resources and Values. Third 

edition. The Wild Foundation and Fulcrum Publishing. Golden, CO. 

Interagency Wilderness Character Monitoring Team. 

2008 “Keeping it Wild: An Interagency Strategy to Monitor Trends in Wilderness 

Character Across the National Wilderness Preservation System.” 

Jordahl, H.C. Jr. 

1994 A Unique Collection of Islands, The Influence of History, Politics, Policy, and Planning on 

the Establishment of the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. Univ. of Wisconsin. Madison, 

WI. 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS, INDEX 

354

Judziewicz, E. and R. Koch 

1993 “Flora and vegetation of the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore and Madeline 

Island, Ashland and Bayfield Counties, Wisconsin.” Michigan Botanist 32(2): 43-193. 

Ann Arbor, MI. 

Knight, R.L and K.J. Gutzwiller 

1995 Wildlife and Recreationists. Coexistence Through Management and Research. Island 

Press. Washington, D.C. 

Komanoff, C., and H. Shaw 

2000 “Drowning in Noise: Noise Costs of Jet Skis in America: A Report for the Noise 

Pollution Clearinghouse.” Available at 

<http://www.nonoise.org/library/drowning/drowning.htm>. 

Krumenaker, B. 

2005 “New Wilderness Can be Created: A Personal History of the Gaylord Nelson 

Wilderness at Apostle Islands National Lakeshore” The George Wright Forum 22(3): 

35-49. 

Kuentzel, Walter F., and Thomas A. Heberlein 

2003 “More Visitors Less Crowding: Change and Stability of Norms Over Time at the 

Apostle Islands.” Journal of Leisure Research, Vol34, No.4, pp. 349-371. 

Lake Superior Binational Program 

2000 Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan. On file at park headquarters. 

Lake Superior Ecosystem Research Center 

1997 “Lake Superior food web – Apostle Islands.” ONRW final report. Lake Superior 

Ecosystem Research Center, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, 

Michigan. 

Landres, P. 

2002 “Wilderness Restoration: The Dilemma of Managing for Wilderness and 

Naturalness.” Lecture given as part of the annual Wilderness Lecture Series, Univ. of 

Montana, Feb. 2002. Available at http://leopold/wilderness.net/htopics/restor.htm 

2004 “Managing Wilderness in Designated Wilderness.” Frontiers in Ecology and the 

Environment 2: 498-499. Available at 

http://leopold/wilderness.net/htopics/restor.htm 

Landres, P. and S. Boutcher (ed) 

In process “Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness 

Character.” Developed by the Wilderness Character Technical Guide Development 

Team and the Forest Service Wilderness Monitoring Committee. 

Lanpheer, R.A. 

1987 “Powerboat Sound Level Engineering Report” October 16, 1987. As cited in Lanpheer 

2000. 
References 

355 

2000 “Pleasure Motorboat Model Noise Act.” Available at 

http://www.nmma.org/lib/dox/nmma/gr/evnrionmenta/Model_Noise_Act_Histor,_S

tatus,_etc..doc 

Ledder, T. 

2003 “Water Resource Information and Assessment Report for the Great Lakes Inventory 

and Monitoring Network.” Great Lakes Technical Report GLKN/2003/05. NPS, 

Great Lakes Inventory and Monitoring Network, Ashland, WI. 

Littlejohn, Margaret A., and Steven J. Hollenhorst 

2004 Apostle Islands National Lakeshore Visitor Study. Visitor Services Project, Report 157. 

National Park Service in cooperation with the University of Idaho. 

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

1989 “Abundance and Distribution of Forage Fishes in the Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore.” Report to Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. University of Wisconsin, 

Superior. 

Meeker, J. 

1998 “Wetlands of Long Island, Apostle Islands National Lakeshore.”Unpub. paper, on 

file at park headquarters. 

2000 “Characterization and Establishment of Permanent Sampling Plots on Select Apostle 

Island National Lakeshore Wetlands.” Unpub. paper, on file at park headquarters. 

2002 “Report on Wetland Monitoring of Sand River Lagoon, Sand Island Bog, and 

Stockton Island Bog.” Unpub. paper, on file at park headquarters. 

Meierotto, R. 

1976 “Speciation Among Small Mammals of the Apostle Islands.” Report to the National 

Geographic Society. 

Mestre Greve Associates 

1992 “Noise Assessment for Beaver Basin Rim Road. Picture Rocks National Lakeshore.” 

Prepared for the National Park Service. Newport Beach, CA. 

Meyer, M., D. Andersen, K. Warnke, W. Karasov, C. Dykstra, R. Brander, and J. Van Stappen 

1994 “Factors Controlling Great Lakes Bald Eagle Productivity.” Report prepared for The 

Great Lakes Protection Fund, Chicago, IL. 

Milfred, C. 

1987 “Measurement of Bank Erosion Along the Presque Island Campground on Stockton 

Island, Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, 1984-1986.” College of Natural 

Resources & Dept. of Geography and Geology, Univ. of Wisconsin-Stevens Point. 

Report on file at park headquarters. 

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) 

1996 “Toxaphene in the Great Lakes.” Roseville, MN. 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS, INDEX 

356

National Park Service (NPS). 

1984 “Historic Logging Sites in the Apostle Islands: A Resource Management Plan. 

Prepared by Kate Lidfors. 

1999a “Resources Management Plan. Apostle Islands National Lakeshore.” On file at park 

headquarters. 

1999b “Baseline Water Quality Data Inventory and Analysis. Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore.” NPS Water Resources Division and Servicewide Inventory and 

Monitoring Program, Fort Collins, CO. 

1999c “Natural Resource Monitoring Plan.” Unpub. report. On file at park headquarters. 

2001 Erosion Control at Raspberry Island Light Station. Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore, Wisconsin. Final Environmental Assessment. Prepared by Woolpert LLP. 

2002a“ Issue: Cultural Resources and Wilderness.” National Wilderness Steering Steering 

Committee Guidance White Paper Number 1. Available at 

http://wilderness.nps.gov/document/Guidance%20Paper%20%231.doc 

2002b “List of Classified Structures. Apostle Islands National Lakeshore.” On file at park 

headquarters. 

2002c “Procedural Manual #77-2. National Park Service. Floodplain Management.” 

Available at http://www.nature.nps.gov/rm77/floodplain.cfm. 

2002d Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore Personal Watercraft Use Environmental 

Assessment. Munising, MI. 

2003 Erosion Control at Outer Island Light Station. Revised Environmental Assessment. 

Prepared by Woolpert LLP. Contract No. 1443-CX-2000-99-2003. Dayton, OH. 

2004a Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. Final Wilderness Study / Environmental Impact 

Statement. Bayfield, WI. 

2004b “Issue: What Constitutes Appropriate Conservation and Restoration Activities in 

Wilderness?” National Wilderness Steering Committee Guidance White Paper 

Number 2. Available at 

http://wilderness.nps.gov/document/Guidance%20Paper%20%232.doc 

2004c “Migratory Bird Survey, Apostle Islands National Lakeshore.” Bayfield, WI. 

2004d Meyers Road Environmental Assessment. Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. 

Bayfield, WI. 

2004e “2004 Breeding Bird Survey Report, Apostle Islands National Lakeshore.” Bayfield, 

WI. 

2004f “Cultural Landscape Report and Environmental Assessment – Raspberry Island 

Light Station, Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, Bayfield County, Wisconsin.” 
References 

357 

Prepared by the National Park Service (Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, Midwest 

Regional Office, Denver Service Center) and HRA Gray and Pape LLC, Woolpert 

LLP. 

2005a Apostle Islands National Lakeshore Final Fire Management Plan / Environmental 

Assessment. Bayfield, WI. 

2005b “Apostle Islands National lakeshore Rare Plant Monitoring Guideline.” Created by P. 

Burkman. On file at park headquarters. 

2005c “Aquatic Studies in National Parks of the Upper Great Lakes States: Past Efforts and 

Future Directions.” B.M. Lafrancois, and J. Glase. Water Resource Division 

Technical Report, NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-2005/334. National Park Service, Denver, 

Colorado. 

2007a “Apostle Islands National Lakeshore Bi-annual Research, Monitoring and 

Restoration Report. 2004-2005.” On file at park headquarters. Bayfield, WI. 

2007b Assessment of Coastal Water Resources and Watershed Conditions at Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore (Wisconsin) by G.J. Kraft, C. Mechenich, D.J. Mechenich, and 

S.W. Szczytko. Tech. Report NPS/NRWRD/NR-TR-2007/367. Water Resources 

Div., Natural Resource Program Center, Fort Collins, CO. 

2007c “Wildlife Management Plan and Environmental Assessment for Harvestable 

Species.” Bayfield, WI. 

2007d Winter Use Plans. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Yellowstone and Grand 

Tetons National Parks, John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway. Vol. 1. 

2007e “Gypsy Moth Trapping at Apostle Islands National Lakeshore.” Unpub. report on 

file at park headquarters. Bayfield, WI. 

2007f “Climate Change and Impacts to Resources around the Great Lakes. Talking Points.” 

NPS/NRSS—2007/001. Available at 

http://www.nps.gov/apis/naturescience/upload/Climate%20Change%20Talking%20

Points%20Great%20Lakes-August2007.pdf 

2007g “Climate Change. Impacts of Midwest Warming.” Available at 

http://www.nps.gov/apis/naturescience/upload/2007%20MWR%20Climate%20Cha

nge%20Site%20Bulletin%20-%20Great%20Lakes%20FINAL.pdf 

2008 “Emergency Prevention and Response Plan for Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia. 

National Park System Units and the Grand Portage Indian Reservation within the 

Lake Superior Basin. Available at 

http://www.nps.gov/apis/parkmgmt/upload/VHS%20Plan%20-

%20Final%202008Mar14.pdf 

National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) 

2007 “State of the Parks. National Parks of the Great Lakes. A Resource Assessment.” 

Available at www.npca.org/stateoftheparks/great_lakes 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS, INDEX 

358

Noise Pollution Clearinghouse 

2004 “Quiet Lawns. Creating the ‘Perfect’ Landscape Without Polluting the Soundscape.” 

Available at http://www.nonoise.org/library/qz6/ 

Nuhfer E. and M. Dalles 

1987 A Guidebook to the Geology of Lake Superior’s Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. 

Eastern National Park and Monument Association. Fort Washington, PA. 

Rittschof, W.F. 

1976 “Coastal Geologic Engineering Parameters Relative to Docking Designs, Little Sand 

Bay, Apostle Islands National Lake Shore Park.” M.S. thesis, Univ. of Rhode Island. 

Root, T.L., J.T. Price, K.R. Hall, S.H. Schneider, C. Rosenzweig, J.A. Pounds 

2005 “The Impact of Climatic Change on Wild Animals and Plants: A Meta-Analysis.” 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-191. Available at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr191/Asilomar/pdfs/1115-

1118.pdf 

Rose, W.J. 

1988 “Water Resources of the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, Northern Wisconsin.” 

U.S.G.S. Water Resources Investigations Report 87-4220. 

Route, B. 

2006 “Concentrations of DDE, PBDE, PCB, Lead, and Mercury Concentrations in Bald 

Eagle Nestlings.” Unpublished. Great Lakes Inventory and Monitoring Network, 

Ashland, Wisconsin. 

Sea Doo 

2000 “Personal Watercraft Facts.” Compiled by H. Derricks, Heytrack Australia. 

Schneider, Ingrid E., and Raintry Salk. 

2003 Characteristics of and Differences Among Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

Campers(pdf). CPSP Research Summary No. 31. St. Paul, Minnesota: University of 

Minnesota, Department of Forest Resources, Cooperative Park Studies Program. 

Smith, G. and E. Fawver 

2005 “Small Mammal Inventory of Apostle Islands National Lakeshore and St. Croix 

national Scenic Riverway.” NPS Great Lakes Inventory and Monitoring Network 

Report GLKN.2005/03. 

Union of Concerned Scientists and the Ecological Society of America 

2005 “Executive Summary. Confronting Climate Change in the Great Lakes Region.” 

Available at http://www.ucsusa.org/greatlakes/glchallengereport.html 

2003 “Wisconsin. Findings from Confronting Climate Change in the Great Lakes Region. 

Impacts on Wisconsin Communities and Ecosystems.” Available at 

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/ucssummaryWIrevisedfinal.pdf 
References 

359 

University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute 

2001 “Airborne Contaminats and the Great Lakes.” Available at 

http://www.seagrant.wisc.edu/communications/publications/Onepagers/aircontam.html#howdeposit 

U.S. Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) 

2006 “Soil survey of Apostle Islands National Lakeshore.” 

U.S. Department of Defense 

1978 Environmental Planning in the Noise Environment. 

U.S. Forest Service 

2008 “Keeping it Wild: An Interagency Strategy to Monitor Trends in Wilderness 

Character Across the National Wilderness Preservation System” by P. Landres, C. 

Barns, J.G. Dennis, T. Devine, P. Geissler, CS. McCasland, L. Merigliano, J. 

Seastrand, and R. Swain. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-212. Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

1988 “Water Resources of the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, Northern Wisconsin.” 

Prepared by William Rose. Madison, WI. 

Van Stappen, J. 

2003 “Restoration of Oak Island Sandscape at Apostle Islands National Lakeshore.” 

Natural Resource Year in Review – 2003. NPS Natural Resource Information 

Division, Denver, CO. P.73. 

Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources, Div. of Forestry and Bureau of Endangered Resources, U.S. 

Fish & Wildlife Service, The Nature Conservancy, International Paper, Stora Enso, and Plum Creek 

2000 “Threatened and Endangered Species in Forests of Wisconsin.” Reference 

publication # FR-174. Accessed from 

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/forestry/publications/endangered/PDF/SPECIE

S/Plants/MtnCranbrry.pdf on 7-17-07 
360 

PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS 

CORE TEAM 

Kerri Cahill, Community Planner, Denver Service Center. 

Ph.D. in natural resource management; M.S.P. in natural resource planning. Five years with 

the National Park Service. Responsible for visitor use and recreation management sections 

and analysis, and campsite design appendix. 

Greg Jarvis, Project Manager. 

B.S. in Geology. Twenty years with the National Park Service. Oversaw all phases of the plan. 

Responsible for the plan budget and schedule. Provided guidance to team members on the 

planning process and prepared the impact analysis of park operations and socioeconomics. 

Coordinated the development and production of the document. 

Bob Krumenaker, Superintendent, Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. 

Sc. B. (Bachelor of Science), M.F.S. (Master of Forest Science). Twenty-five years with the 

National Park Service. Responsible for providing overall management and oversight for all 

aspects of the study. 

Merrit Malin, (former) Landscape Architect, Denver Service Center 

Masters Degree in Landscape Architecture. Three years with the National Park Service. 

Responsible for resource mapping, mapping of alternatives, and GIS analysis. 

Jim Nepstad, Chief of Planning and Resource Management, Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

B.S. (Mathematics). Twenty-one years with the National Park Service. Responsible for 

coordinating the activities of park staff involved with the project, and for coordinating public 

involvement activities. Maintained the administrative record. 

Michael Rees, Natural Resource Specialist, Denver Service Center 

B.A. (Environmental Studies) and M.F.S (Master of Forest Science). Sixteen years with the 

National Park Service and eight years with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Analyzed 

public comments. Responsible for the natural resource and wilderness management sections 

of the document. 

Scott Robson, (former) Community Planner, Denver Service Center 

Bachelors degree in environmental design, master’s degree in community/regional planning. 

Two years with the National Park Service. Assisted in the development of alternatives. 

Lawrence Van Horn, Cultural Resource Specialist, Denver Service Center (retired) 

Ph.D. in Anthropology. Thirty-one years with the National Park Service. Responsible for 

section on consultation & coordination. 

Julie Van Stappen, Supervisory Natural Resource Specialist, Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. 

B.S. (Geology), M.S. (Natural Resources). Twenty years with the National Park Service. 

Responsible for writing sections on natural resources in the “Affected Environment” and 
Preparers and Contributors 

361 

“Environmental Consequences” chapters. Conducted informal consultation with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Steve Whissen, Historian/Cultural Resource Specialist, Denver Service Center. 

B.A., history, M.A. historic preservation. Eighteen years with the National Park Service. 

Responsible for all cultural resource sections of the plan. 

PUBLICATIONS SPECIALISTS

Ruth Eitel, Visual Information Specialist 

June McMillen, Writer/Editor 

TECHNICAL EXPERTS/CONSULTANTS/OTHER CONTRIBUTORS 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

Christy Baker, Cultural Resource Management Specialist 

Peggy Burkman, Resource Management Specialist, GIS 

Myra Foster, Chief of Interpretation and Education 

Neil Howk, Assistant Chief of Interpretation and Education 

Steve Kacvinsky, Maintenance 

Damon Panek, Cultural Educator 

Lonni Pelto, Chief of Business Services 

Doug Pratt, HSP Team and Utilities Team Supervisor 

Randy Ross, Facility Manager 

Greg Zeman, Chief of Protection 

Denver Service Center 

Greg Cody, Cultural Resource Technical Specialist 

Barbara J Johnson, Chief, Division of Planning 

Pat Kenney, Branch Chief, Division of Planning 

Dave Kreger, Natural Resource Technical Specialist 

Midwest Region 

Nicholas Chevance, Regional Environmental Coordinator 

Sharon Miles, Regional Liaison 

Sändra Washington, Chief, Planning and Compliance 

Other Contributors 

Jeffrey L. Marion, Research Biologist. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Virginia Tech Field 

Station. 
362 

INDEX 

air quality, 27, 56, 143 

American Indians, 19, 22, 32, 34, 49, 62, 63, 65, 68, 75, 85, 87, 90, 102, 131, 132, 147, 176, 192, 194, 195, 197, 199, 

323, 324, 325, 328 

Ashland, 6, 17, 19, 43, 48, 50, 175, 192, 193, 195, 206, 207, 211, 212, 218, 226, 323, 324 

Basswood Island, 15, 48, 81, 123, 124, 131, 134, 136, 157, 176, 178, 179, 185, 192, 193, 197, 204, 205, 230, 248, 

249, 250, 252, 254, 257, 262, 263, 265, 270, 272, 276, 278, 293, 296, 300, 302, 313, 319 

Bayfield, 6, 16, 17, 19, 28, 38, 43, 49, 50, 51, 68, 72, 118, 119, 124, 125, 127, 132, 134, 139, 149, 159, 169, 182, 

188, 203, 205, 207, 209, 211, 212, 219, 226, 235, 243, 245, 248, 251, 257, 266, 268, 269, 270, 281, 290, 291, 292, 

293, 294, 296, 300, 302, 305, 306, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 323, 324 

Bayfield Visitor Center,16, 50, 118, 127, 132, 159, 207 

camping, 49, 73, 80, 85, 92, 107, 108, 111, 112, 113, 117, 123, 134, 136, 156, 182, 186, 202, 204, 205, 209, 231, 

233, 236, 242, 243, 252, 259, 265, 266, 283, 289, 300, 307, 314, 319 

cultural resources, iii, iv, 4, 13, 16, 21, 22, 26, 27, 34, 35, 37, 42, 43, 49, 51, 53, 73, 75, 80, 81, 87, 90, 102, 104, 105, 

106, 116, 119, 134, 142, 146, 147, 149, 151, 167, 204, 207, 209, 210, 215, 217, 247, 316, 341, 343 

Devils Island, 172, 179, 185, 187, 204, 207, 210 

endangered species, see threatened and endangered species 

erosion, 26, 47, 51, 53, 112, 114, 124, 131, 136, 143, 144, 145, 151, 153, 160, 168, 169, 170, 171, 189, 190, 219, 

227, 228, 229, 230, 237, 239, 241, 243, 246, 247, 249, 250, 260, 262, 263, 271, 273, 274, 284, 286, 288, 294, 295, 

297, 298, 308, 310, 312, 320, 341, 344, 345 

ethnographic resources, 34, 63, 90, 102, 147, 151, 199, 227, 240, 241, 263, 264, 287, 288, 311, 312 

fire, 21, 32, 47, 50, 73, 85, 87, 90, 97, 105, 109, 116, 136, 177, 192, 205, 209, 227, 238, 261, 285, 309, 342 

flooding and floodplains, 30, 54, 144, 152, 172, 217, 231, 251, 275, 300 

Hansen farm, 123, 128, 131, 135, 136, 156, 193, 252, 261, 267, 272, 276, 285, 300, 309, 316, 318 

hiking, 80, 85, 107, 132, 134, 158, 185, 186, 204, 210, 231, 236, 242, 243, 252, 258, 265, 282, 289, 300, 306, 314 

Hokenson fishery, 62, 118, 125, 132, 139, 187, 194, 238, 260, 284, 309 

interpretation,14, 25, 32, 35, 37, 38, 50, 74, 92, 97, 106, 108, 117, 123, 124, 125, 128, 131, 132, 133, 134, 136, 139, 

140, 155, 190, 195, 206, 209, 237, 244, 246, 260, 267, 268, 269, 271, 283, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 308, 315, 

316, 317, 318, 320, 327 

invasive species, 21, 22, 28, 39, 58, 74, 85, 87, 89, 143, 144, 175, 176, 253, 277, 302 

Little Sand Bay,16, 19, 28, 38, 49, 50, 67, 112, 116, 117, 118, 119, 124, 125, 127, 132, 134, 139, 150, 152, 153, 158, 

159, 169, 170, 172, 173, 177, 182, 194, 202, 203, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 229, 230, 235, 238, 243, 245, 248, 

250, 251, 252, 254, 256, 257, 260, 262, 263, 266, 267, 268, 269, 272, 274, 275, 276, 278, 281, 284, 290, 291, 292, 

293, 296, 298, 300, 302, 305, 309, 310, 311, 315, 316, 317, 318, 352, 358 

Little Sand Bay Visitor Center, 118, 125, 267, 290, 293, 315 
Index 

363 

Long Island, 11, 15, 19, 48, 65, 81, 161, 162, 169, 171, 172, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 185, 187, 188, 

189, 196, 197, 205, 228, 253, 255, 256, 268, 276, 277, 279, 280, 292, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 313, 317 

Manitou fish camp,117, 124, 131, 139, 149, 157, 187, 194, 267, 269, 293, 316, 318 

Manitou Island, 15, 179, 185, 194, 196, 204, 207, 210 

Meyers Beach, 49, 67, 112, 116, 117, 119, 124, 125, 127, 132, 134, 139, 140, 150, 158, 159, 161, 169, 175, 177, 

182, 202, 206, 209, 226, 232, 235, 244, 245, 248, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 262, 263, 264, 266, 267, 268, 269, 

272, 276, 277, 278, 279, 281, 286,287, 290, 291, 292, 296, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 310, 311, 313, 315, 316, 

317, 318 

Michigan Island, 15, 120, 124, 171, 172, 174, 176, 178, 179, 182, 185, 187, 188, 192, 193, 195, 196, 204, 205, 207, 

210, 256, 260, 280, 304 

natural resources, 4, 12, 13, 21, 22, 30, 35, 40, 50, 53, 55, 71, 95, 102, 104, 105, 143, 150, 187, 215, 217, 247, 266, 

271, 290, 295, 315, 320, 334, 360, 366 

Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center, 11, 16, 38, 50, 118, 125, 132, 139, 202, 206, 207, 208, 243, 291, 316, 328 

Oak Island, 15, 43, 48, 111, 117, 119, 124, 131, 136, 139, 150, 157, 158, 162, 168, 169, 173, 174, 176, 177, 178, 

179, 185, 186, 195, 203, 204, 205, 208, 210, 235, 236, 242, 248, 252, 254, 255, 257, 258, 259, 265, 270, 276, 279, 

281, 282, 283, 286, 287, 289, 293, 305, 313, 314, 319, 359 

orientation, 37, 38, 50, 92, 116, 119, 125, 127, 132, 134, 139, 206, 207, 208, 243, 267, 290, 291, 292, 315, 316 

Otter Island, 15, 119, 169, 172, 174, 176, 185, 203, 204 

Outer Island, 15, 47, 49, 56, 59, 120, 168, 169, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 182, 185, 187, 188, 189, 

195, 197, 203, 204, 205, 210, 237, 260, 284, 308, 356 

parking, 16, 28, 37, 43, 49, 108, 112, 144, 145, 202, 206, 224 

Raspberry Island, 15, 43, 47, 48, 117, 119, 120, 128, 134, 135, 136, 155, 168, 169, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 

178, 179, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 203, 204, 205, 207, 209, 210, 235, 236, 237, 239, 244, 258, 260, 261, 

270, 282, 283, 284, 285, 291, 306, 308, 309, 316, 356 

religious practices, 34, 63, 85, 91, 197, 198, 199, 241, 263, 287, 312 

Rocky Island, 15, 47, 112, 119, 120, 123, 127, 128, 134, 135, 136, 152, 169, 172, 174, 185, 192, 194, 203, 204, 205, 

210, 235, 257, 260, 267, 281, 285, 288, 305, 309, 313, 316 

Sand Island, 15, 47, 48, 80, 81, 120, 123, 124, 127, 131, 134, 136, 152, 171, 172, 173, 174, 178, 179, 187, 188, 191, 

192, 193, 194, 203, 205, 207, 208, 235, 248, 254, 257, 261, 262, 263, 265, 272, 276, 278, 281, 285, 288, 296, 300, 

302, 305, 309, 313, 318 

Stockton Island, 6, 15, 43, 48, 59, 74, 119, 131, 134, 136, 149, 151, 157, 160, 161, 168, 169, 170, 172, 173, 174, 

175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 182, 185, 192, 195, 196, 203, 204, 205, 207, 208, 209, 210, 215, 226, 228, 229, 232, 233, 

235, 244, 246, 248, 249, 250, 252, 253, 254, 255, 257, 262, 263, 265, 267, 268, 269, 272, 273, 276, 277, 279, 281, 

287, 292, 296, 297, 298, 301, 303, 305, 317, 323 

Stockton Island Visitor Center, 50, 117, 119, 124, 127, 207, 208, 243, 281, 291, 305, 316 

threatened and endangered species, 24, 55, 59, 75, 85, 87, 90, 97, 145, 146, 177, 180, 182, 217, 234 

trails, 35, 43, 48, 62, 67, 85, 86, 94, 108, 109, 110, 111, 124, 131, 132, 136, 139, 143, 144, 145, 157, 158, 185, 186, 

192, 202, 203, 204, 207, 209, 210, 215, 224, 228, 231, 236, 239, 240, 245, 248, 251, 252, 254, 256, 258, 262, 263, 

265, 267, 269, 270, 271, 272, 276, 278, 281, 282, 286, 287, 289, 290, 291, 293, 295, 296, 300, 302, 305, 306, 310, 

311, 313, 314, 316, 318, 319, 320, 334, 343, 345 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS, INDEX 

364

vehicles, 16, 31, 40, 43, 50, 68, 85, 86, 97, 143, 145, 182, 184, 203, 216, 233, 234, 235, 254, 256, 257, 278, 280, 

281, 303, 304, 305, 306 

York Island, 15, 16, 48, 111, 169, 174, 176, 178, 185, 186, 194, 236, 258, 282, 306 
 

As the nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for 

most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering sound use 

of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving the 

environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; and providing for the 

enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The department assesses our energy and mineral 

resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best interests of all our people by 

encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The department also has a major 

responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island 

territories under U.S. administration. 

NPS 633/100163 July 2009 / Printed on recycled paper.