National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore • Wisconsin

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA

i 

General Management Plan / Wilderness Management Plan

for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

Summary Document
“This is a unique collection of islands... 

There is not another collection of islands 

of this significance within the continental 

boundaries of the United States. I think 

it is tremendously important that this 

collection of islands be preserved.”

— Senator Gaylord Nelson
i 

INTRODUCTION

This presentation plan is a shortened version of the General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement that was released in 

April 2011. This plan does not include all of the chapters included in the April plan and 

does not include the environmental impact analysis. This approved General 

Management Plan/Wilderness Management Plan will be the basic document the 

National Park Service (NPS) intends to follow in managing the Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore over the next 15–20 years. 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, located near the tip of the Bayfield Peninsula in 

northern Wisconsin, was established by an act of Congress on September 26, 1970. It 

includes 21 islands in Lake Superior and a 12-mile-long narrow strip of mainland shore 

encompassing 69,372 acres, of which 27,323 acres are submerged lands in Lake 

Superior. Eighty percent of the land area of the park was designated as wilderness in 

December 2004.

The lakeshore exhibits a variety of natural scenic resources, including a rich geologic 

record; pristine sand beaches, coves, and caves; remnant stands of old-growth forest; 

diverse populations of birds, mammals, amphibians, and fish; and the largest collection 

of national register lighthouses and lighthouse complexes in the national park system. 

A number of other historic structures and landscapes also reside within the park, 

several of which are listed in the National Register of Historic Places.

A new management plan for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore was needed because 

the last comprehensive management plan for the park was completed in 1989. Much

has happened 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 was thus needed.

The purposes of the plan are 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 more 

detailed future planning efforts. All future plans will tier from this approved general 

management plan. 

Summary
ii

This general management plan retains some of 

the elements of the former plan. For instance, 

NPS managers will continue to strive to 

protect and maintain natural and cultural 

resource conditions. Natural and cultural 

resource management will concentrate on 

long-term monitoring, research, restoration, 

and mitigation where appropriate. 

Interpretation/education programs will 

continue to provide a variety of personal and 

nonpersonal services. 

THE PLAN

The primary focus will be on continuing the 

park’s current management direction. The 

park will continue to look and feel much the 

way it does today. Some minor changes will be 

made to improve access to developed areas on 

the mainland and a few of the inner islands, 

and to add new visitor opportunities in nonwilderness areas. All items with significant 

financial implications are subject to future 

budgets and there will be additional 

opportunities for public engagement on sitespecific designs to implement the plan.

Preservation of natural and cultural resources 

remains a top priority. The current mix of 

recreational activities will stay the same. There 

will be no change in the number of public 

docks, although some will be relocated , 

improved, or expanded. 

Wilderness management will remain 

consistent with current direction, with no net 

change in campsite numbers or trail miles, 

although there could be relocations.

The NPS will continue to have visitor centers 

in Bayfield, Little Sand Bay, Stockton Island, 

and the Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center. 

The park will continue to be a leader in 

sustainable practices.

The Raspberry Light Station will continue to 

be the focal point for cultural resource 

interpretation and its cultural landscape will 

be rehabilitated consistent with plans 

developed but never implemented prior to the 

light station restoration. Two or more

additional light stations will be rehabilitated 

and the rest will continue to be preserved at 

current levels.

If a life estate on Sand Island or Rocky Island 

naturally expires within the life of this plan, 

the properties will be evaluated for historic 

significance and made available for some 

public use.

The National Park Service will explore new 

ways to encourage inexpensive public 

transportation to some of the inner islands, 

such as Basswood or Sand. If successful, a 

small amount of basic infrastructure (e.g. 

toilets and a picnic shelter) will be added to 

accommodate small or large groups who 

visit these islands. 

Additional individual and group campsites 

may be added on Sand, Basswood, and the 

non-wilderness portion of Oak, provided 

there was adequate demand and resource 

conditions on the ground are favorable. Nonwilderness areas on islands outside the inner 

island range will retain the current numbers of 

campsites. 

To reduce the potential for bear conflicts as 

well as to reduce serious erosion damage, 

about 2/3 of the Stockton Island campground 

will be relocated to Presque Isle, south of the 

dock complex, with 4-6 of the existing sites at 

the north end remaining. The new campsites 

will be designed to have the same or better 

amenities than the sites they are replacing, and 

will be located no farther from the dock than 

the existing campsites. The Oak Island group 

campsite on the sand spit will be relocated to 

the non-wilderness area near the dock. Like at 

Stockton Island, the new camping area will be 

thoughtfully designed to assure a quality 

camping experience.

On the mainland, a ramp will be constructed 

at Meyers Beach to improve handicap 

accessibility to the beach. A new (small) 

ranger station will be constructed at Meyers 

Beach to provide visitor services. A day use 

area for large groups will be added at Little 
iii

Sand Bay to provide a place for educational 

activities. 

A new sustainable-design park visitor center 

will be built on, or near, the Bayfield 

waterfront, possibly in partnership with the 

City of Bayfield or the Bayfield Chamber of 

Commerce. The Little Sand Bay Visitor 

Center, currently in poor condition and not 

cost-effective to renovate, will be replaced 

with a more sustainable structure that honors 

the site’s rich history. The National Park 

Service will engage the gateway communities 

in the design and use of these new facilities. 

The National Park Service will continue to be 

a partner at the Northern Great Lakes Visitor 

Center. Park headquarters will remain in the 

old Bayfield County courthouse.

At the expiration of current lease, the park’s 

operational center at Roys Point (including 

maintenance shops, dock space and fueling 

facilities for NPS boats, storage space, and 

some offices) will move to a facility with lower 

operational costs and higher sustainability. 

Sunset from Quarry Bay
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

iv
v 

CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND.....1

Introduction.....1

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE PLANNING FRAMEWORK.....1

Need for the Plan.....2

Wilderness Management Planning.....2

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PARK.....3

GUIDANCE FOR THE PLANNING EFFORT.....3

Purpose and Significance.....3

Fundamental Resources and Values.....9

Primary Interpretive Themes.....10

SPECIAL MANDATES AND ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITMENTS.....10

Treaty Rights and Other Reserved Tribal Rights.....10

General Agreement with the Ojibwe Bands.....11

Wilderness.....11

Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping.....11

Use of Snowmobiles and Off-Road Vehicles in the Park.....11

Navigational Aids.....11

Bayfield Visitor Center GSA Lease.....11

Roys Point GSA Lease.....11

Apostle Islands Cruises Contract.....12

Agreement with the Town of Russell Regarding Operation of Little Sand Bay.....12

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

Resources and Bottomlands.....12

Interagency Agreement on the Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center.....12

Other Valid Rights.....12

DESIRED CONDITIONS AND STRATEGIES.....13

Planning Issues and Concerns Addressed.....13

Planning Issues and Concerns Not Addressed.....19

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN.....20

CHAPTER 2: THE PLAN.....23

INTRODUCTION.....23

MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC AREAS AND ISSUES.....23

Light Stations.....23

Former Use and Occupancy/ Current Life Estate Properties.....24

Other Nonwilderness Areas on the Islands.....25

Gaylord Nelson Wilderness.....26

Mainland Unit.....26

Mainland NPS Visitor Centers.....26

National Park Service Operational (Administrative) Facilities.....27

MANAGEMENT ZONES.....27

USER CAPACITY.....39

Overview of Current and Potential Use-Related Impacts.....39

Indicators and Standards.....40

POTENTIAL FOR BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS.....44

FUTURE STUDIES AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANS.....44

ALTERNATIVES AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED.....46

Provide Public Lodging on Rocky Island.....46

Build A Pedestrian Bridge Over the Sand River.....46

Build a Trail Around the Sand River Wetland Complex.....47

Permit Biking on the Lakeshore Trail.....47

Contents 
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

vi

CHAPTER 3: STEWARDSHIP OF THE GAYLORD NELSON WILDERNESS.....49

INTRODUCTION.....49

WILDERNESS CHARACTER.....49

HISTORY OF WILDERNESS AT APOSTLE ISLANDS NATIONAL LAKESHORE.....50

WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT GOALS AND PHILOSOPHY.....51

USES, DEVELOPMENTS, AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED IN THE 

GAYLORD NELSON WILDERNESS.....52

Actions Permitted in Wilderness Areas.....52

Actions Prohibited in Wilderness Areas.....55

Applying the Minimum Requirement Concept.....55

Appropriate Conservation and Restoration Activities in Wilderness.....56

Fire Management.....59

Management of Cultural Resources.....59

American Indian Treaty Rights and Access.....60

Hunting and Trapping.....61

Accessibility for Persons With Disabilities.....61

Special Events.....62

Interpretation and Education.....62

Camping Permits.....62

Commercial Services.....63

Scientific Activities and Research.....63

Campsite Designation Criteria.....64

NPS Administration / Operational Activities and Facilities.....64

Use of Native Materials.....64

Emergency Services.....65

Administrative Facilities.....65

Signs.....65

Monitoring of Wilderness Character.....66

Organization.....66

APPENDIX A: RECORD OF DECISION.....69

APPENDIX B: LEGISLATION.....83

APPENDIX C: DESIRED CONDITIONS AND STRATEGIES WITH RELATED SERVICEWIDE LEGAL AND 

POLICY REQUIREMENTS.....95

APPENDIX D: CAMPGROUND DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES.....121

REFERENCES.....126

PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS.....135
Contents

vii

Tables

Table 1. Acreage of Management Zones.....28

Table 2. Management Zones.....29

Table 3. User Capacity Indicators and Standards.....42

Table 4. Wilderness Character Indicators to be Monitored in the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness.....67

Figures

Figure 1. Location.....5

Figure 2. The Park.....7

Figure 3. The Plan.....37

Figure 4. Wilderness Boundary.....53

1 

BACKGROUND

INTRODUCTION

This Apostle Islands National Lakeshore General Management Plan is a shortened 

version of the General Management Plan / Wilderness Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement that was released in April 2011 and whose Record of 

Decision was signed on June 28, 2011 (see appendix A). This version contains all of the 

prescriptive elements of the April 2011 version of the document, but omits the addition 

material included in the environmental impact statement for the purposes of 

environmental and other legal compliance.

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE PLANNING FRAMEWORK

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. 

Actions identified by general management plans or in subsequent implementation 

plans may be accomplished over time. Budget restrictions, requirement for additional 

data or regulatory compliance, and competing national park system priorities may 

preclude implementation of many actions. Major or especially costly actions could be 

implemented 10 or more years in the future.

This 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.

Chapter 1 
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

2 

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 

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.

Need for the Plan

This new management plan for Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore was 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 

was outdated. 

Management direction was needed for Long 

Island, which was acquired just before the 

1989 plan was finalized. The plan also 

addresses other events that have occurred 

since 1989, including the development of the 

multi-agency 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 was also

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 

modification

Wilderness Management Planning

NPS Management Policies 2006 requires that a 

wilderness management plan be prepared to 

guide the preservation, management, and use 

of this resource in national park units. These 

plans are intended to ensure that wilderness is 

unimpaired for future use and enjoyment. 

Planning is essential to provide a solid 

foundation for management and preservation 

of each unique wilderness. By setting goals, 

developing strategies, and identifying 

management actions to accomplish the goals, 

wilderness planning helps ensure park 

managers achieve a desired future rather than 

reacting to present conditions. These plans 

provides a dynamic framework for decision 

making, and also make wilderness 

management more effective and accountable.

Because the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness 

comprises most of Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore, a general management plan and a 

wilderness management plan are intimately 

linked—management directions for resource 

preservation and visitor use in a general 

management plan and wilderness 

management plan overlap. Thus, the 

management plan for Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore plan is a fully integrated general 

management plan and wilderness 

management plan.
Chapter 1: Background

3 

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, 

within the ancestral homeland of the Ojibwe 

people. 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 B 

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 highest 

quality 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.

GUIDANCE FOR THE PLANNING 

EFFORT

Purpose and Significance

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.

Visitors at New Michigan Lighthouse 
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

4 

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.

• 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.

Raspberry Island Light Station
 

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 • August 2011

2

2

13

13

13

13

C

C

K

K

H

H

The Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore boundary extends 

one quarter mile into Lake 

Superior from the islands and 

the shoreline of the mainland 

section of the park. 

Lake Superior within

Apostle Islands

National Lakeshore

Picnic area

Boat launch

Backcountry campsite(s), 

National Park Service

Campground, not

National Park Service

Ranger station

Lighthouse Marina

Trailhead

0 5

0 5 10 Miles

10 Kilometers

North

BAD RIVER

INDIAN RESERVATION

RED CLIFF

 INDIAN

 RESERVATION

RED CLIFF INDIAN

RESERVATION

Tri-County Recreation Corridor Trail

Summer only

Summer only

Sand 

Island

York

Island

Bear

 Island

Rocky Island

South Twin

Island

North Twin 

Island

Cat

Island

Gull Island

Manitou

Island

Ironwood

Island

Stockton Island

Hermit

Island

Long Island

Basswood

Island

Michigan

Island

Oak

Island

Otter

Island

Outer Island

Devils

Island

Raspberry

Island

Eagle Island

Car ferry

Lighthouse

Bay

Raspberry

Bay

Frog

Bay

Pikes

Bay Chebomnicon

Bay

Big Bay

South Channel

Quarry

Bay

Oronto

Bay

Vandeventer

Bay

Julian

Bay

Presque

Isle Bay

Montreal

River

River White

Bad

N orth

Channe l

We st Channe l

Chequamegon

Bay

LAKE

SUPERIOR

River

North

Fish Creek

South Fish

Cr

River

Sioux

Pik

Creek

es

Red

Cliff Cr

River

Raspberry

River

Sand River

Siskiwit

WISCONSIN

MICHIGAN

Sand Point

Raspberry

Point

Red Cliff

Point

Presque Isle

Point

Houghton

Point

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

Brownstone

quarry

McCloud-Brigham Farm

Brownstone

quarry

Big Bay

Town Park

BIG BAY

STATE

PARK

La Pointe Madeline Island Historical Museum

Bayfield

cruises,

boat rentals,

and island

camper shuttle

(old courthouse building)

Cornucopia Red Cliff

Meyers Beach Kayak launch

BAYFIELD

PENINSULA

Overlook

Point

Detour

Hokenson Fishery

Kayak launch

Dock (symbol

not to scale)

Trail

Apostle Islands

National Lakeshore

Apostle Islands

National Lakeshore,

Gaylord Nelson

Wilderness

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

Park Map

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

FIGURE 2
BLANK PAGE
Chapter 1: Background

9 

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” 

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
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

10

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 

human use, 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.

SPECIAL MANDATES AND 

ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITMENTS

Special mandates are legislative or judicial 

requirements that are specific to a particular 

unit of the national park system. 

Administrative commitments are legally 

binding agreements that have been reached 

through formal, documented processes. 

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—the plan 

will not impede, prevent, or in any way negate 

Forest on Stockton Island
Chapter 1: Background

11

tribal reserved or treaty guaranteed rights. 

The general management plan/wilderness 

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 Island 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.

General Agreement 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.

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 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 Off-Road 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 

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, 
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

12

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 Cruises Contract

Apostle Islands Cruises 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 at the 

end of 2015. 

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 was renewed in April 2011.

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. This agreement was 

renewed in April 2011.

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 

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 and is 

expected to be renewed.

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.

Concessions Boat
Chapter 1: Background

13

DESIRED CONDITIONS AND 

STRATEGIES

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.” 

Through the planning process, the National 

Park Service identified the desired conditions 

for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore and 

management strategies that will be 

implemented to achieve those conditions 

consistent with applicable laws and NPS 

Management Policies 2006. While tailored to 

Apostle Islands, these conditions and 

strategies are the “hows” that apply to the 

entire realm of park management above and 

beyond the specific actions outlined in this 

plan. There are many actions that the National 

Park Service is committed to working 

towards, and statements that “The National 

Park Service will...” are considered a full part 

of the plan. The full narrative of desired 

conditions and strategies for Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore appears in appendix C.

SCOPE OF THE

GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN/

WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

Planning Issues and

Concerns 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 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 restored in 2005-2006, 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. A growing number of safety 

Sea Caves
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

14

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 associated resources, 

threatening the long-term structural and 

historical integrity of these properties. Severe 

shoreline erosion adjacent to the light stations 

necessitated the installation of rubble rock 

revetments to stabilize steep slopes and 

protect historic resources at Raspberry Island 

in 2002-2003 and Outer Island in 2004. 

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. The park 

also does not have enough staff to interpret 

and maintain all of the light stations.

Decisions regarding appropriate treatment of 

the light stations will be documented 

following completion of detailed historic 

structure and cultural landscape reports in 

2011. 

Future of the Life Estates and the

Expired Use and Occupancy Properties

The legislation that established Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore (Public Law 91-

424) enabled owners with improved 

properties in the park to continue noncommercial 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. 
Chapter 1: Background

15

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 

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 Island – 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 – 

Presque Isle 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 

Stockton-Presque Isle Dock
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

16

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. 

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. 

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?
Chapter 1: Background

17

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, 

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.

The Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center

near Ashland, which opened in 1998, has

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 of 

Wisconsin 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, one permanent staff residence in 

a historic structure, docks, fuel facilities, 

artifact storage space, offices for several 

Little Sand Bay
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

18

rangers, and a fire cache. Most of the 

structures were designed as seasonal facilities 

and are of marginal quality and construction.

Most of the facilities pre-date the 

establishment of the park and some are either 

historically significant or of great interest to 

some members of the local community. The 

National Park Service needs to be sensitive to 

these concerns. 

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 

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.

Apostle Islands is a leader both in the National 

Park Service and in northern Wisconsin in 

sustainable practices. As the two most energyintensive facilities the park operates (Roys 

Point and the park headquarters/visitor 

center) are leased, the park’s ability to increase 

sustainability and reduce energy consumption 

is currently significantly constrained. Retrofits 

to existing facilities, decisions whether to lease 

or own, and locations of future facilities must 

all consider the long term impact on

sustainability (see Appendix C: Desired 

Conditions and Strategies).

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 

(Schramm and Loehman 2010). 

Climate change will also affect the visitors’ 

park experience in a variety of ways, including

• changes in wildlife-dependent activities, 

such as 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)
Chapter 1: Background

19

• 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 length

changes, 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 

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 in appendix C). 

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. 

Planning Issues and Concerns Not 

Addressed

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 

Low water conditions at Michigan Island dock
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

20

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. 

Should conditions change, these issues may be 

reevaluated as necessary. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN

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 this 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 this plan. 

The implementation of the plan also could be 

affected by other factors, such as changes in 

NPS staffing, visitor use patterns, and 

unanticipated environmental changes. Native 

American tribes and the State Historic 

Preservation Officer will need to be consulted, 

as appropriate, on actions that could affect 

cultural resources. 

In addition, it needs to be recognized that

climate change is occurring, which will affect 

the park in myriad 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.
Chapter 1: Background

21

23

THE PLAN 

INTRODUCTION 

The primary focus of this general management plan / wilderness management plan is 

on continuing the park’s current management direction. The park will continue to 

look and feel much the way it does today. The plan addresses a number of issues that 

provide clarity of direction for the future. All items with significant financial 

implications are subject to future budgets and there will be additional opportunities for 

public engagement on site-specific designs to implement the plan.

Preservation of natural and cultural resources remains a top priority. The current mix 

of recreational activities will stay the same. There will be no change in the number of 

public docks, although some will be relocated, improved, or expanded. The Raspberry 

Light Station will continue to be the focal point for cultural resource interpretation 

and its cultural landscape will be rehabilitated consistent with plans developed but 

never implemented prior to the light station restoration. Wilderness management will 

remain consistent with current direction, with no net change in campsite numbers or 

trail miles, although there could be relocations. The National Park Service will 

continue to have visitor centers in Bayfield, Little Sand Bay, Stockton Island, and the 

Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center. The park will continue to be a leader in 

sustainable practices.

MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC AREAS AND ISSUES

Light Stations

Under the plan, two or more light stations (choosing from Sand, Outer, or Michigan 

Island) will be restored or rehabilitated for cultural resource preservation and 

interpretive opportunities, similar to what was done for the Raspberry Island light. 

Criteria for choosing the light stations will include ease of transporting visitors, level of 

visitor interest, operational costs, financial feasibility of additional transportation 

opportunities, and recommendations of the 2011 “Cultural Landscape/Historic 

Structures Plan / Environmental Assessment.” Restoration work will include both 

interior and exterior elements of the light stations. The cultural landscapes for the 

restored light stations will be partially or fully rehabilitated. 

Due to a failed roof prior to NPS ownership, the Long Island light station triplex has 

severe environmental and safety degradation that may not be feasible to repair, and is 

the subject of an ongoing “Historic Structure Report/Cultural Landscape Report and 

Environmental Assessment.” If feasible and cost effective, it may 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 will 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 

will address historic patterns of circulation, pathways, and outbuildings.

Chapter 

2
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

24

For the remaining light stations, additional 

efforts will be focused on preserving the 

exteriors of the structures. The cultural 

landscapes in the immediate vicinity of the 

light stations will be stabilized and 

preserved. Vegetation encroaching on the 

light station clearings will be removed. If 

there are no other options available to 

ensure the long-term preservation of a light 

station, and if it is economically feasible, a 

light station may be adaptively reused for 

overnight public lodging in order to offset 

the cost of protecting the resource. 

However, the National Park Service will only 

consider this option if the private sector will 

pay the entire cost of the conversion, and if 

public access to the light station is 

maintained. Further environmental 

documentation will be required, and the 

public will be engaged in this effort.

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 will evaluate 

these properties for potential inclusion in 

the National Register of Historic Places, 

including determinations of which buildings 

will be considered contributing structures, 

i.e., structures that contribute to the 

significance of a national register property. 

The buildings will also be evaluated for 

safety and utility to the National Park 

Service for park operations. Structures that 

are not listed in or eligible to be listed in the 

national register and are either unsafe or do 

not have utility for park operations will be 

removed and the areas restored, or in some 

cases allowed to molder to natural 

conditions. 

The following actions will 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 will be preserved and 

the area will 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 

were to come under NPS management 

during the life of the plan, park 

managers will 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 will be 

reestablished as a trail, provided it can 

be built in an environmentally sound 

manner. The dock will be rehabilitated, 

if necessary, so it will be available for 

public overnight use. If economically 

Outer Island Lighthouse
Chapter 2: The Plan

25

feasible, the club will 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 

will be permitted near West Bay; the 

dock will 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 will be 

preserved and park staff will interpret 

the historic story using a combination 

of personal and nonpersonal 

techniques. The historic road between 

Shaw Point and East Bay will be 

reestablished as a trail, provided it can 

be built in an environmentally sound 

manner. One or more deeper water 

docks will be rehabilitated, if necessary, 

and be available for public overnight 

use. If economically feasible, some of 

the Camp Stella structures will be 

adaptively reused (which may require 

rehabilitation or restoration) for some 

overnight public use. (If it is not 

economically feasible, the structures 

will be stabilized but not adaptively 

reused for overnight use.) 

• The Hansen farm contributing 

structures on Sand Island will be 

stabilized and preserved. The cultural 

landscape also will be partially 

restored. Personal and nonpersonal 

interpretation will 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 

will connect the farm to the island trail 

network and provide access to the 

shoreline.

Other Nonwilderness Areas

on the Islands

If feasible, new private-sector opportunities 

(for example, boat shuttles) will 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 will be 

provided on these islands, creating a few day 

use areas that could accommodate small or 

large groups. This infrastructure will include 

such facilities as restrooms and picnic tables. 

An area for day use that can accommodate 

large groups will be designed and 

constructed.

Some of the trails on Sand Island could be 

upgraded so they are accessible to all 

visitors. The lack of topography on the 

island makes it well suited for such trails.

NPS managers will 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, will be improved to 

address access and natural resource 

concerns. There will be no change in the 

number of public docks. 

There will be an increase in the number of 

individual designated campsites and group 

campsites on Sand, Oak, and Basswood

islands, with increased access, subject to 

resource management criteria (e.g., resource 

sensitivity of sites), interest/demand for new 

campsites, and other appropriate criteria. In 

wilderness and nonwilderness areas of other 

islands, there would be no net increase in the 

number of designated individual campsites, 

although campsites may be reconfigured or 

relocated. See “Appendix D: Campground 

Design and Management Strategies” for 

more information.

An Ojibwe cultural demonstration site will 

be designated on Basswood Island in this 

plan. The demonstration site will be 

intended to educate visitors about the tribes’ 

culture and their relationship to the Apostle 

Islands and the park. NPS staff will work 

with the tribes on the details in creating the 
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

26

site, including exhibits, interpretive 

materials, and staffing. 

On nonwilderness areas in the outer islands 

there will be no net gain in the number of 

designated campsites. To partially address 

significant resource concerns, about twothirds of the existing Stockton Island – 

Presque Isle campground sites will be 

relocated to new shoreline sites on Presque 

Isle, with four to six of the northernmost 

campsites staying where they currently are. 

The new campsites on Presque Isle will be 

designed to have the same or better 

amenities than the sites they are replacing, 

and will be located no farther from the dock 

than the existing campsites. Many will be 

shoreline sites with views as good as the 

campsites they are replacing. At least one of 

the new campsites will be designed to be 

universally accessible. The Stockton Island 

Visitor Center will remain.

Park managers will strive to stabilize and 

preserve the original site conditions at 

Manitou fish camp. The cultural landscape 

will be partially rehabilitated. Personal and 

nonpersonal interpretation (e.g., self-guided 

brochures) will be provided for visitors. 

Gaylord Nelson Wilderness 

The wilderness area generally will continue 

to be managed as it is now. There will 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. The Oak Island group campsite 

(the only group campsite in wilderness) will 

be relocated to an area near the dock and the 

wilderness campsite will be restored.

Further guidance on wilderness 

management appears in Chapter 3 and 

Appendixes C and D. 

Mainland Unit

The mainland unit will continue to be 

managed as it has been. The park staff will 

continue to strive to maintain current 

natural and cultural resource conditions and 

visitor experience opportunities to the 

extent possible. A ramp will be installed at 

Meyers Beach, which will provide access to 

the beach for visitors with disabilities. The 

Lakeshore Trail will continue to be 

maintained only between Meyers Beach and 

the mainland campsite. A day use area for 

large groups will 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 will be developed 

at Little Sand Bay. 

Mainland NPS Visitor Centers

A new sustainable-design park visitor center 

will be built on, or near, the Bayfield 

waterfront, possibly in partnership with the 

City of Bayfield or the Bayfield Chamber of 

Commerce. Land acquisition or a lease 

would depend upon suitable property being 

available from a willing owner. A centrallylocated and accessible facility will provide 

opportunities for increased contact with 

visitors to the area, encouraging more people 

to experience the Apostle Islands. More 

people will learn about the natural and 

cultural heritage of the park and its gateway 

communities, even if they don’t get out to 

the islands. Architecture of a new facility in 

Bayfield could complement the historic 

waterfront industrial use of the area. 

The existing Little Sand Bay Visitor Center, 

that houses both the visitor center and 

Exhibits at Bayfield Visitor Center 
Chapter 2: The Plan

27

employee offices, is currently in poor 

condition and not cost-effective to renovate. 

It will be replaced with a more sustainable 

structure that honors the site’s rich history. 

The Hokenson house might be able to serve 

as the new visitor center. Whatever option is 

selected as the visitor center, the historic 

integrity of the Hokenson fishery will be 

preserved. An appropriate permanent 

display site will be constructed for the 

interpretation and preservation of the 

restored historic fishing boat Twilite. 

The National Park Service will engage the 

gateway communities in the design and use 

of these new facilities. The National Park 

Service will continue to be a partner at the 

Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center.

National Park Service Operational 

(Administrative) Facilities

The park headquarters will remain at its 

present location in the Old Bayfield County 

Courthouse, which will be renovated for 

additional office space and limited public 

access.

At the expiration of the current lease, the 

park’s operational center at Roys Point 

(including shops, docks, and storage space) 

will be consolidated with a new visitor 

center on or near the waterfront, preferably 

in Bayfield, although some basic shops and 

storage facilities will remain at Little Sand 

Bay. 

At Little Sand Bay, three trailer pads will 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 will continue to be maintained. 

Some administrative offices now in the Little 

Sand Bay Visitor Center also will be moved 

to either park headquarters or the new 

visitor center in Bayfield, although some 

minimal shops and storage facilities will 

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 will be developed at 

Meyers Beach to provide visitor services 

(e.g., orientation, law enforcement, permits, 

interpretation) in this portion of the park. 

As noted earlier, if it is feasible and costeffective, park housing will be provided on 

the triplex on Long Island. If it proves to be 

either infeasible or cost prohibitive, then 

other options will be considered to provide 

an NPS presence on the island.

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 management zones were identified for 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore: 

frontcountry, backcountry, primitive, 

historic, and park operations. 

The five management zones identified for 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore are 

presented in table 2. Visitor experiences, 

resource conditions, and appropriate 

activities and facilities are described for each 

management zone.

Most of the islands are in the primitive or 

backcountry zone, while most of the 

mainland unit is in the backcountry zone. 

Trails in wilderness on Oak, Raspberry, 

Otter, Rocky, Devils, and Stockton islands 

are managed as backcountry zones, while the 

remainder of the wilderness area is 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 are in the frontcountry zone. All of the 

Lake Superior water within the park 

boundary also is included in the 

frontcountry zone. 
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

28

The light stations and many other cultural 

resources and landscapes, such as some 

farmsteads, quarries, fish camps, and logging 

camps, are 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 are in the historic zone, 

reflecting how the areas will be managed 

when they come under full NPS 

management. However, until that time, the 

National Park Service will continue to 

respect the valid rights of the lessees and 

take no actions in these areas. Several small 

park operations zones also are scattered 

among the islands, primarily covering 

administrative cabins.

Table 1. Acreage of Management Zones

Management 

Zones

Acres % 

Park Operations 35 0.05

Historic 324 0.4

Frontcountry 27,714 40

Backcountry 8,216 12

Primitive 33,084 48
Chapter 2: The Plan

Table 2. Management Zones

Frontcountry Backcountry Primitive Historic Park Operations

Zone 

Concept

The primary focus of this 

zone will be providing 

support services for 

recreation in a natural 

setting. These developed 

areas will provide for the 

highest density of 

recreation use in Apostle 

Islands National 

Lakeshore. Thus, they 

will have more visitors 

and visitor developments 

than other parts of the 

park. 

This zone will 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 will be limited, 

substantially 

unnoticeable, and 

appropriate for 

wilderness. 

This zone will emphasize 

the preservation of 

natural resources and 

offer outstanding 

opportunities for solitude 

and primitive recreation. 

Recreational 

opportunities will be 

primarily unstructured, 

with many opportunities 

for adventure. The areas 

will generally appear to 

have been affected 

primarily by the forces of 

nature.

Protection of cultural 

resources will be the 

focus within these areas. 

Education/ interpretive 

opportunities may be 

plentiful in some 

locations in this zone.

This zone will 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

Natural 

Resources

Natural resources will 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 will

function with ecological 

integrity. Active 

restoration and 

mitigative methods will

be employed when 

necessary to meet this 

objective.

Areas with sensitive 

natural resources will be 

protected and may 

receive a high level of 

management attention.

Natural systems and 

natural processes will

function with ecological 

integrity. The areas 

generally will 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 will be avoided 

unless ecological 

integrity was not 

expected to recover 

without human 

The natural environment 

may be manipulated in 

small areas to protect 

cultural resources and to 

provide for visitor use.

Natural resources will

be modified to 

accommodate park 

operations. Natural 

processes may be 

altered (e.g., flooding 

and fire) to protect 

infrastructure and 

resources. 

29
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

Frontcountry Backcountry Primitive Historic Park Operations

Natural 

Resources

(continued)

intervention.

Areas with sensitive 

natural resources will be 

protected and may 

receive a high level of 

management attention, 

although there will be 

minimal evidence of that 

activity.

Cultural 

Resources1

Cultural resources will be 

preserved, restored, or 

rehabilitated for adaptive 

reuse.

Cultural resources will be 

documented, protected, 

and stabilized/ preserved 

as necessary.

Cultural resources will be 

documented, protected, 

and stabilized/ preserved 

as necessary. 

Cultural resources could 

be stabilized, preserved, 

restored, or rehabilitated 

for adaptive use; 

however, the ultimate 

treatment of lighthouses 

will be directed by the 

treatment

recommendations of the 

2011 “Cultural 

Landscape/ Historic 

Structures Plan/ 

Environmental 

Assessment.”

Cultural resources 

will be stabilized, 

preserved, restored, 

or rehabilitated for 

adaptive use. 

Historic character of 

identified cultural 

landscapes will be 

protected. 

 

1 See definitions of cultural resource treatments following this table.

30
Chapter 2: The Plan

Frontcountry Backcountry Primitive Historic Park Operations

Cultural 

Resources 

(continued)

Within the wilderness 

area, treatment methods 

will be consistent with 

the preservation of 

wilderness character and 

values.

Within the wilderness 

area, treatment methods 

will be consistent with 

the preservation of 

wilderness character and 

values.

Cultural resources 

generally will be 

minimally managed. 

There will be allowances 

for some modifications 

(in harmony with historic 

character) of cultural 

landscape elements for 

interpretation, safety, 

and resource protection. 

Submerged resources 

will be cooperatively 

managed with the state 

of Wisconsin.

There will be allowances 

for some modifications 

(in harmony with historic 

character) of cultural 

landscape elements for 

interpretation, safety, 

and resource protection.

There will be allowances 

for minor modifications 

(in harmony with historic 

character) of cultural 

landscape elements for 

resource protection only.

There will be allowances 

for some modifications 

(in harmony with historic 

character) of cultural 

landscape elements for 

interpretation, safety, 

and resource protection.

There will be 

allowances for some 

modifications (in 

harmony with historic 

character) of cultural 

landscape elements 

for interpretation, 

safety, and resource 

protection.

Visitor 

Experience 

Visitors will have 

convenient and easy 

access to developed, 

high use, recreational 

and interpretive areas. 

Visitors will enjoy outstanding opportunities to 

enjoy natural and 

cultural resources and 

solitude. 

Visitors will 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 will have a 

variety of opportunities 

to see and learn about 

cultural resources. Visitor 

access and public safety 

will be a high priority, as 

will protecting historic 

properties.

Visitors will not 

normally enter the 

park operations zone 

except for park 

business purposes, or 

to seek aid or 

information. The area 

will be intended for 

staff and visitors on 

official business. 

High to moderate levels 

of visitors may be 

encountered in these 

areas near beaches, boat

There will be a moderate 

chance of encountering 

others. 

The chance of 

encountering others will

be the lowest within this 

zone.

Moderate levels of 

visitors may be 

encountered in these 

areas.

N/A 

31
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

Frontcountry Backcountry Primitive Historic Park Operations

Visitor 

Experience 

(continued)

launches, and visitor 

centers. Density will

begin to decrease with 

travel farther from these 

points.

A range of small to large 

groups could be 

accommodated.

Only small groups will

generally be 

accommodated.

Only small groups will

generally be 

accommodated. 

A range of small to large 

groups could be 

accommodated. 

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 will occur 

within this zone.

N/A

Snowmobiling and ATV 

use consistent with 

federal regulations will

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 will not be 

permitted.

Snowmobiling and ATV 

use will not be 

permitted.

Snowmobiling and ATV 

use will not be 

permitted.

N/A

Designated Camping

This will be permitted 

with limits on group size.

Designated Camping

Sites will be dispersed or 

clustered to minimize 

resource impacts. There 

will be limits on group 

size and limited 

designated sites within 

wilderness. 

Designated Camping

Existing developed 

campsites will continue 

to be maintained; new 

designated campsites 

might be permitted for 

resource protection 

purposes. There will be 

limits on group size.

Designated Camping

This will not be 

permitted.

N/A

32
Chapter 2: The Plan

Frontcountry Backcountry Primitive Historic Park Operations

Visitor 

Experience 

(continued)

Undesignated Camping

This will not permitted.

Undesignated Camping

This will be permitted in 

this zone, with restricted 

group sizes. Frequently 

used undesignated sites 

will be evaluated for 

closure and 

rehabilitation, or for 

establishment of 

designated sites.

Undesignated Camping

This will be permitted in 

this zone, with restricted 

group sizes. Frequently 

used undesignated sites 

will be evaluated for 

closure and 

rehabilitation, or for 

establishment of 

designated sites

Undesignated Camping

This will not permitted.

N/A

Visitor Services

Support services will be 

extensive.

Visitor Services

There will be no on-site 

visitor support services 

other than necessary 

signs and designated 

developed and 

undeveloped campsites.

Visitor Services

Minimal or no visitor 

services will be provided. 

Visitor Services

There will 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 

re-wilding will be a major 

interpretive focus.

Interpretive 

Programming

There will be no 

waysides or guided 

hikes. Wilderness and rewilding will be a major 

interpretive focus. 

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

Interpretive activities may 

be permitted in the 

wilderness area provided 

they do not adversely 

affect the wilderness 

character. 

Interpretive activities may 

be permitted in the 

wilderness area provided 

they do not adversely 

affect the wilderness 

character. 

33
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

Frontcountry Backcountry Primitive Historic Park Operations

Development Facilities will incorporate 

an unobtrusive design 

and minimal footprint. 

Facilities will 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 will be minimally 

developed facilities such 

as trails and designated 

camping areas to safely 

allow for visitor use.

There will be very 

minimal development 

such as signs that might 

be necessary for visitor 

safety or to protect 

wilderness resources. 

There will be some 

primitive trails and 

designated camping 

areas.

Facilities will incorporate 

an unobtrusive design, 

sensitive to the historic 

scene, and a minimal 

footprint. Facilities will

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 will be 

intensely managed 

for safety purposes 

and will incorporate a 

sustainable design 

sensitive to 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.

Developed campsites will

include tent pads, picnic 

tables, fire ring, and bear 

locker if needed. 

Designated campsites 

could include tent pads, 

fire ring, and bear locker 

if needed.

Designated campsites 

will be limited to places 

where they are needed

No campsites will be 

provided.

No public campsites 

will be provided.

Vault, pit, or alternative 

toilets will be available at 

all sites.

Picnic tables will be 

permitted in 

nonwilderness areas. 

Vault, pit, or alternative 

toilets will be available at 

most sites. 

to protect resources, 

with minimal footprint. 

New campsites will 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.

34
Chapter 2: The Plan

Frontcountry Backcountry Primitive Historic Park Operations

Development 

(continued)

Marked and maintained 

trails will be provided to 

a standard that allows 

for safe use by multiple 

user groups.

Marked and maintained 

trails will be provided at 

a rustic standard. 

Revisions to the trails 

system will be permitted 

for resource protection 

purposes.

Existing trails will

continue to be provided 

at a rustic standard. 

Minor revisions to the 

trails system will be 

permitted for resource 

protection purposes.

Trails will be maintained 

and developed only to 

access historic or 

interpretive resources. 

Revisions to the trails 

system will be permitted 

for resource protection 

purposes.

No public trails will

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.

35
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

36
Julian

Bay

Sand 

Island

York

Island

Bear

 Island

Rocky

Island

South 

Twin

Island

North Twin 

Island

Cat

Island

Gull Island

Manitou

Island

Ironwood

Island

Stockton Island

Hermit

Island

Basswood

Island

Michigan

Island

Oak

Island

Otter

Island

Outer 

Island

Devils

Island

Raspberry

Island

Eagle 

Island Sand Point

Raspberry

Point

Red Cliff

Point

Bayfield

Point

Detour

 Little Sand Bay 

Visitor Center

Stockton Island Visitor Center

The Plan

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore

 East Bay

 West Bay 

Club

 Shaw Point

FIGURE 3

Roys Point

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

DSC • 633 • 20080 • July 2011

L A K E

S U P E R I O R

A P O S T L E I S L A N D S

Meyers Beach

North

0 0.5 1 2 Miles

BAYFIELD

PENINSULA

Red Cliff

13

13

K

Long Island Inset

Bad River

Indian Reservation

Management Zones

Park Operations

Historic

Frontcountry

Backcountry

Primitive

Park Operations

Historic

Bayfield

Indian Reservation

Lands Outside of the Park

Existing Trail

Proposed Trail

(When life estates expire)

Lighthouse

Dock

Visitor Center

Park Headquarters

(Symbols designate smaller zones )

K

RUSSELL

(Township)

RED CLIFF

INDIAN

RESERVATION

Hokenson

Fishery

Rocky 

Island

Historic 

Area

Manitou

Fish Camp

Oak Island

Group

Campsite

Stockton Island

Campground

Æ

Long Island

North

0 0.5 1 2 Miles

South Channel

Quarry

Bay

Presque

Isle Bay

Frog

Bay

Raspberry

Bay

Lighthouse

Bay

Mawikwe

Bay

Chequamegon

Bay

West Channel

North Channel
BLANK PAGE
Chapter 2: The Plan

39

USER 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.

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 D 

given the importance of this issue to the 

park.

The indicators and standards included in this 

management plan will 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 will be available to 

the public. 

Overview of Current and Potential UseRelated Impacts

Existing and potential use-related impacts 

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. Designated 

island campsites are sometimes full on the 

weekends during the peak season. Visitors 

Lone Sailboat on Lake Superior
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

40

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 

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. Some of these concerns 

can arise due to large group activities at 

attraction points.

Indicators and Standards

This section identifies several measurable 

indicators that will 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 4 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 minimum acceptable condition 

for an indicator were 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 4 includes

the indicators, standards, related monitoring, 

and potential future management strategies 

that will 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 will conduct 

periodic visitor surveys of visitor 

characteristics, expectations, and preferences. 

In addition, the park staff will add the user 
Chapter 2: The Plan

41

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 will help the NPS staff identify if any 

revisions are needed. The initial testing of the 

indicators and standards will determine if 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 will comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act; the National 

Historic Preservation Act; and other laws, 

regulations, and policies as needed. NPS staff 

will also inform the public of progress and 

revisions to indicators and standards through 

regular reporting on the user capacity 

program.

Hokenson Dock at Little Sand Bay
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

42

Table 3. 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

• Continue current 

archeological sites 

assessment and 

monitoring program

• 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)

• Avoid or minimize use 

of vulnerable 

archeological sites as 

campsites.

See other management 

strategies outlined in 

campsite management 

guidelines (appendix D) 

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; No campsites with 

documented vulnerable 

archeological sites on 

them at condition class 3, 

4, or 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 

visitor-created 

campsite monitoring 

activities into other 

park program 

activities occurring in 

designated zones

• If zone camping 

• 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 

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 

Evidence of human waste 

visible at less than 25% of 
Chapter 2: The Plan

43

waste sites at all 

visitor created 

campsites

visitor created campsites; 

95% of visitor created 

campsites will have no 

more than one evident 

human waste site.

management (see 

appendix D) is 

adjusted, monitoring 

protocol would also 

be amended

(see camping zone 

management guidelines 

in appendix D) 

TOPIC: Evidence of Illegal Campfires

Indicator Standard Monitoring Strategies Management Strategies

Number of illegal 

campfire remnants 

per 1,000 linear feet 

of beach/coastline

No more than one illegal 

campfire remnant per 

1,000 feet of 

beach/coastline

• Continue monitoring 

of illegal campfire 

remnants as part of 

regular patrols and 

other park program 

activities 

• If illegal 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 onsite contacts and 

pre-trip 

coordination 

activities

• Initiate targeted 

on-site 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.
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

44

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

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 at this time. 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.

One potential change may be appropriate after 

consideration of the potential impact of falling 

lake levels due to climate change on the park’s 

1⁄4-mile boundary. Over the long term, as more 

land emerges from the lake, the park’s water 

zone would shrink if the 1⁄4 mile is fixed at its 

location when the park was established; it is 

possible that eventually, in some areas, the 

park boundary would not reach to Lake 

Superior. In the future, consideration may be 

given to a redefinition of the boundary (which 

would require the concurrence of the State of 

Wisconsin and, most likely, federal legislation) 

to adjust the boundary along with lake levels 

to assure that the park always has at least 1⁄4 

mile of Lake Superior within its boundary.

FUTURE STUDIES AND 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

Other more detailed studies and plans will be 

needed before specific actions included in the 

general management plan / wilderness 

management plan 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 inexpensive boat 

shuttles to selected islands such as 

Basswood and Sand, and the appropriate 

level of outfitter activity in the park), 

consistent with the general management 

plan, and the best way for the National 

Park Service to manage them 
Chapter 2: The Plan

45

• a study of 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

• 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 plan/environmental assessment that 

addresses desired campsite distribution 

throughout the park; the plan would 

include a detailed look at the relocation 

of the Stockton and Oak Island 

campsites called for in the general 

management plans; opportunities for 

public involvement would be provided 

in the planning process 

• an analysis of climate change scenarios 

that may affect the park’s resources, 

infrastructure, and visitor experience, 

with assessment of their likelihood and 

impact, as well as potential actions that 

can be taken to adapt and respond to 

these changes consistent with the 

general management plan

• additional planning for the 

redevelopment of the Long Island light 

station, if it is deemed feasible and cost

effective

• 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 

• a self-evaluation of the park’s current 

policies and practices with respect to 

accessibility for visitors with disabilities, 

and a transition plan that identifies 

actions to be taken to correct 

deficiencies identified in the selfevaluation

• a nomination for national historic 

landmark status for the park’s collection 

of light stations

• line item construction and land 

acquisition proposals to implement the 

plan

Hokenson Brothers Fishery
Chapter 2: The Plan

46

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). 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.

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 
Chapter 3: The Plan

47

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 

The planning team considered mountain 

biking as a possible use of the Lakeshore Trail 

in the mainland unit, although this idea was 

not raised in public scoping. 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.

49

STEWARDSHIP OF THE GAYLORD NELSON 

WILDERNESS

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. The directions are based on the Wilderness Act and NPS policies, including 

NPS Management Policies 2006, NPS Director’s Order 41 and NPS Reference Manual 

41: “Wilderness Preservation and Management,” white papers from the NPS National 

Wilderness Steering Committee, and the “Wilderness Stewardship Plan Handbook. 

Level II Guidance: Wilderness Stewardship Plan EIS/EA Details” (NPS 2004a).

The general directions provided in this chapter, the management zones and related 

management directions in chapter 2 of this document, and the desired conditions and 

strategies identified in appendix C all 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.

Chapter 3 
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

50

• 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 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 actions and 

strategies in this plan 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). 

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 the 

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 
Chapter 3: Stewardship of the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness

51

approximately 80% of the park’s land area as 

wilderness. Later that year Congress approved 

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; and

• provide for public understanding and 

support of wilderness values. 

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,

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 includes 

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 will forego actions that 

might have no seeming physical impact 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 
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

52

ourselves as part of something beyond our 

modern society and its creations. 

USES, DEVELOPMENTS, AND 

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS 

PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED IN 

THE GAYLORD NELSON 

WILDERNESS

The following sections summarizes what 

recreational uses, management actions, and 

developments are permitted and prohibited in 

wilderness areas under the Wilderness Act of 

1964 and NPS policies.

Actions Permitted in Wilderness Areas

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 treatyreserved rights

• guided interpretive walks and onsite 

talks and presentations

• wheelchair use by individuals whose 

disability requires its use, if that 

wheelchair meets both parts of the 

definition of a wheelchair as stated in the 

Americans with Disabilities Act Title V, 

section 508c: “the term wheelchair 

means a device designed solely for use by 

a mobility impaired person for 

locomotion, that is suitable for use in an 

indoor pedestrian area” 

• 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) as approved in the park’s 

fire management plan

• 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, signs, and other infrastructure 

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 stations) 

• uses and facilities permitted for 

landowners or lessees with valid 

property rights in a wilderness area 

NOTE: All 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 “Applying the Minimum 

Requirement Concept” later in this chapter 

for guidance on the minimum requirement 

concept. 
Sand 

Island

York

Island

Bear

 Island

Rocky

Island South Twin

Island

North Twin 

Island

Cat

Island

Gull Island

Manitou

Island

Ironwood

Island

Stockton Island

Hermit

Island

Basswood

Island

Michigan

Island

Oak

Island

Otter

Island

Outer 

Island

Devils

Island

Raspberry

Island

Eagle 

Island Sand Point

Raspberry

Point

Red Cliff

Point

Bayfield

Point

Detour

 Little Sand Bay 

Visitor Center

Stockton Island 

Visitor Center

Gaylord Nelson

Wilderness

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore

FIGURE 4

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

DSC • 633 • 20079 • August 2011

Lighthouse

Bay

Raspberry

Bay

Frog

Bay

Quarry

Bay

Julian

Bay

Presque

Isle Bay

N orth

Channe l

We

s

t

Cha

nne l

Mawikwe

Bay

Chequamegon 

Bay

South Channel

L A K E

S U P E R I O R

Meyers 

Beach

A P O S T L E I S L A N D S

North

0 0.5 1 2 Miles

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

Bad River

Indian Reservation

Gaylord Nelson Wilderness

Non-wilderness

Bayfield

Indian Reservation

Lands Outside of the Park

Lighthouse

Dock

Bayfield Visitor Center Park Headquarters

(Non-wilderness symbol 

designates smaller zone)

K

 East Bay

 Shaw Point

Roys Point

 Quarry

Bay

Hokenson

Fishery

Rocky 

Island

Historic 

Area

Manitou

Fish Camp
BLANK PAGE
Chapter 3: Stewardship of the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness

55

Actions Prohibited in Wilderness Areas

The Wilderness Act also specifically prohibits

certain uses and developments:

• permanent improvements or human 

habitation (§2(c)) 

• structures or installations (§4(c))

• permanent and temporary roads (§4(c))

• use of motor vehicles and motorized 

equipment (except for emergency 

purposes) (§4(c))

• landing of aircraft (except for emergency 

purposes) (§4(c))

• other forms of mechanical transport 

(e.g., bicycles) (§4(c))

• 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) (§4(c) and 

§4(d)(6))

With the exception of permanent roads and 

commercial enterprises, the Wilderness 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 (unless 

necessary for health and safety purposes 

or determined to be necessary through a 

minimum requirement analysis)

• 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 

requirements 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.

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)

In wilderness, how a management action is 

carried out is as important as the end product. 

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 
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

56

run and/or have localized, short-term adverse 

impacts will be accepted. 

The second 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. 

To apply the minimum requirement concept, 

a minimum requirement analysis will be 

completed for 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 part of the environmental screening 

process and accompanies the appropriate 

environmental compliance and may be subject 

to public review prior to approval. 

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. 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore has 

implemented a park-specific minimum 

requirement analysis process and keeps it 

updated to remain consistent with current 

law, policy, and wilderness management 

practice. The park’s current minimum 

requirement analysis process will be posted on 

the park’s website and/or through other 

appropriate media to make it available to the 

public.

Appropriate 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 of their history in the Gaylord 

Nelson Wilderness, the National Park Service 

must manage those parts of the wilderness 

where former logging camps, quarries, farms 

or other cultural resources are present

sensitively while remaining in full compliance 

with both the Wilderness Act and the 

National Historic Preservation Act.

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).
Chapter 3: Stewardship of the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness

57

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.

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 

The Shores of Lake Superior

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.
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

58

(intervention) is particularly high in 

wilderness. Managers should err on the side 

of intervening as little as possible in 

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. 

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 

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? 

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 of Class I

• 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 
Chapter 3: Stewardship of the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness

59

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 of Class II

• 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 

this category may require a public review for 

their resolution. 

Examples of Class III

• 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 will be suppressed, 

although the use of minimum impact 

suppression techniques will be required. 

Natural ignition of wildland fires will 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.” (NPS 2005a)

As noted in NPS 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.

National Park Service fire management 

guidance is likely to change during the life of 

this general management plan/wilderness 

management plan. Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore managers will update their fire 

management strategy in and out of wilderness 

consistent with evolving guidance. 

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, 
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

60

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 NPS 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 governments, other 

interested agencies or organizations, and the 

general public. 

If appropriate, park staff may manage 

encroaching vegetation growing directly on or 

within former logging camp ruins and quarries 

in the wilderness area to protect them from 

accelerated decay. Any such action will be 

subject to the minimum requirements process; 

appropriate NEPA compliance; and 

consultations with the state historic 

preservation office, associated tribal historic 

preservation offices, other interested agencies, 

and members of the general public.

American Indian Treaty Rights and Access 

Several Lake Superior Chippewa tribes 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 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.

LaPointe Lighthouse, Long Island
Chapter 3: Stewardship of the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness

61

Hunting and Trapping

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 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 1968 Architectural Barriers Act (ABA), 

passed four years 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 of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act specifies that, in federally 

designated wilderness, a person who has a 

mobility impairment may use a wheelchair 

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 that meet both parts of this 

definition are legally recognized as wheelchairs when used for locomotion by a person 

who has impaired mobility; they may be used 

anywhere foot travel is allowed, and thus are 

exempt from the mechanical transport 

prohibition as stated in the Wilderness Act. 

Section 508 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 

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.)

Relaxing on Outer Island
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

62

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 and Education 

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 self-restraint 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 NPS 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 outside of 

wilderness, publications, exhibits in visitor 

centers, web page sites, and curriculum-based 

education programs—so long as they do not 

adversely affect the wilderness character. NPS 

staff will work closely with local educators to 

develop appropriate curricula and identify 

appropriate activities in the wilderness.

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.

Camping Permits

Permits are currently required for all 

individuals and groups camping in the park, 

Campfire on Outer Island
Chapter 3: Stewardship of the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness

63

including designated sites and designated 

camping zones in the wilderness. Permits can 

have many uses, including the following:

• providing education concerning 

resource protection and Leave No Trace 

practices

• 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 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 currently limit the number of 

organizations providing these services. After 

the park completes a “Commercial Services 

Strategy,” as called for in the general 

management plan/wilderness management 

plan, how the park manages commercial 

services in wilderness may be re-evaluated, 

with appropriate involvement by the public 

and affected operators. 

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 NPS 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. (NPS Director’s 

Order 41) 

Thus, scientific activities that potentially 

impact wilderness resources or values, 

including access, ground disturbance, use of 

equipment, and animal welfare, will be 
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

64

permitted provided the benefits of the gained 

knowledge outweigh the impacts to 

wilderness resources or values. 

However, NPS 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 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 will be selected 

based on the following criteria:

• resource protection will be of primary 

importance

• campsites will be placed out of view of 

trails

• campsite placement will be subject to 

cultural resource mitigation

Appendix D 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 the “Applying the Minimum 

Requirement Concept” section earlier in this 

chapter). Convenience or economic efficiency 

alone are not considered sufficient 

justification for the use of motorized or 

mechanized equipment. Acceptable uses 

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 
Chapter 3: Stewardship of the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness

65

through the environmental screening process, 

including the completion of the minimum 

requirement analysis, and be approved by the 

wilderness committee. 

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, secondhand 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 will be the 

minimum size and number necessary and will

be compatible with their surroundings. 

Inappropriate signs predating the 
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

66

establishment of the wilderness will be 

removed within two years of the 

implementation of this plan.

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. These 

indicators are addressed in the “User 

Capacity” chapter earlier in this document. 

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 visitors to 

be alone or remote from signs of society, 

to be self-reliant, to be free from the 

constraints of culture, to experience 

personal challenge, self-discovery, and 

physical and mental inspiration

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 et al. (2009), and NPS (2007a). 

If monitoring shows a trend of downward 

quality, indicating degradation of wilderness 

character, then park managers will 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.
Chapter 3: Stewardship of the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness

67

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 

to include representatives of all operational 

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 is designated as the park’s 

wilderness coordinator. This is a collateral 

duty. The individual with this duty has direct 

responsibility for the development, 

coordination, communication, 

implementation, and accountability for the 

park’s wilderness program. This individual 

also serves 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.

69

APPENDIX A: RECORD OF DECISION

APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS 
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83

APPENDIX B: LEGISLATION

Public Law 91-424

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.
Appendixes, References, Preparers and Contributors

84

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.

(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--

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 
Appendixes, References, Preparers and Contributors

85

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
Appendixes, References, Preparers and Contributors 

86

Public Law 99-497

October 17, 1986

An Act

To authorize the inclusion of certain additional lands with the Apostle Island National Lakeshore.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled,

The Act of September 26, 1970 (Public Law 91-424: 16 U.S.C. 460w) is amended as follows:

In section 1 – 

In the first sentence, after the phrase “consisting of”, insert: “(a) IN GENERAL—” 

at the end of the first sentence, delete “1970” and insert: “1970; and (b) LONG ISLAND 

ADDITION.—Approximately 200 acres of land at the mouth of Chequamegon Bay known as “Long 

Island”, as depicted on the map numbered NL-AI-91,001 and dated December, 1985”;

in the last sentence, delete “map” and insert “maps”. 

(2) In section 3, after the word “donation”, strike the following sentence and insert in lieu thereof 

the following: “Notwithstanding any provision of law, any Federal property located within the 

boundaries of the lakeshore is hereby transferred without transfer of funds to the administrative 

jurisdiction of the Secretary for the purposes of the lakeshore: Provided, That the United States 

Coast Guard may retain a right to utilized a portion of such land and facilities for use as 

navigational aids so long as may be required”.

In section 4(c), after “January 1, 1967”, insert: “, or before January 1, 1985 for those lands referred 

to in section 1(b).”. 

Section 8 of such Act is amended by adding the following at the end thereof: “Effective October 1, 

1986, there are authorized to be appropriated such additional sums as may be necessary for the 

acquisition of the lands described in section 1(b).”.
Appendixes, References, Preparers and Contributors

87

Wilderness Legislation

Public Law 108-447, December 8, 2004

Section 140. Gaylord A. Nelson Apostle Islands National Lakeshore Wilderness Act.

(b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

(1) MAP.—The term ‘‘map’’ means the map entitled ‘‘Apostle Islands Lakeshore Wilderness’’, 

numbered 633/80,058 and dated September 17, 2004.

(2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of the Interior.

(3) HIGH-WATER MARK.—The term ‘‘high-water mark’’ means the point on the bank or 

shore up to which the water, by its presence and action or flow, leaves a distinct mark

indicated by erosion, destruction of or change in vegetation or other easily recognizable 

characteristic.

(c) DESIGNATION OF APOSTLE ISLANDS NATIONAL LAKESHORE WILDERNESS.— 

(1) DESIGNATION.—Certain lands comprising approximately 33,500 acres within the 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, as generally depicted on the map referred to in subsection

(b), are hereby designated as wilderness in accordance with section 3(c) of the Wilderness Act 

(16 U.S.C. 1132), and therefore as components of the National Wilderness Preservation

System.

(2) MAP AND DESCRIPTION.— 

(A) The map referred to in subsection (b) shall be on file and available for public inspection in 

the appropriate offices of the National Park Service.

(B) As soon as practical after enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit a description 

of the boundary of the wilderness areas to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of 

the Senate and the Committee on Resources of the United States House of Representatives.

(C) The map and description shall have the same force and effect as if included in this section, 

except that the Secretary may correct clerical and typographical errors in the description and 

maps.

(3) BOUNDARY OF THE WILDERNESS.—Any portion of wilderness designated in 

paragraph (c)(1) that is bordered by Lake Superior shall use as its boundary the high-water 

mark.

(4) NAMING.—The wilderness area designated by this section shall be known as the Gaylord 

A. Nelson National Wilderness.

(d) ADMINISTRATION.— 

(1) MANAGEMENT.—Subject to valid existing rights, the lands designated as wilderness by 

this section shall be administered by the Secretary in accordance with the applicable 

provisions of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131), except that— 

(A) any reference in that Act to the effective date shall be considered to be a reference to the 

date of enactment of this section; and

(B) where appropriate, any reference to the Secretary of Agriculture shall be considered to be a 

reference to the Secretary of the Interior with respect to lands administered by the Secretary.

(2) SAVINGS PROVISIONS.—Nothing in this section shall— 

(A) modify, alter, or in any way affect any treaty rights;

(B) alter the management of the waters of Lake Superior within the boundary of the Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore in existence on the date of enactment of this section; or
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

88

(C) be construed to modify, limit, or in any way affect the use of motors on the lake waters, 

including snowmobiles and the beaching of motorboats adjacent to wilderness areas below the 

high-water mark, and the maintenance and expansion of any docks existing at the time of the

enactment of this section.

Public Law 109-97, November 11, 2005

SEC. 440. REDESIGNATION OF WILDERNESS.

(a) REDESIGNATION — Section 140(c)(4) of division E of Public Law 108-447 is amended by 

striking ‘National’. 

(b) REFERENCES — Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other record 

of the United States to the ‘Gaylord A. Nelson National Wilderness’ shall be deemed to be a 

reference to the ‘Gaylord A. Nelson Wilderness’.

Public Law 111-11, March 30, 2009

SEC. 7116. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

(a) GAYLORD NELSON WILDERNESS.— 

(1) REDESIGNATION.—Section 140 of division E of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 

(16 U.S.C. 1132 note; Public Law 108–447), is amended— 

(A) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘Gaylord A. Nelson’’ and inserting ‘‘Gaylord Nelson’’; and

(B) in subsection (c)(4), by striking ‘‘Gaylord A. Nelson Wilderness’’ and inserting ‘‘Gaylord 

Nelson Wilderness’’.

(2) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of 

the United States to the ‘‘Gaylord A. Nelson Wilderness’’ shall be deemed to be a reference to the 

‘‘Gaylord Nelson Wilderness’’.
SOVEREIGNTY AND JURISDICTION 1.025 1 Updated 07−08 Wis. Stats. Database

Not certified under s. 35.18 (2), stats.

 Electronic reproduction of 2007−08 Wis. Stats. database, updated and current through Dec. 1, 2008.

Text from the 2007−08 Wis. Stats. database updated by the Legislative Reference Bureau. Only printed statutes are certified

under s. 35.18 (2), stats. Statutory changes effective prior to 1−1−09 are printed as if currently in effect. Statutory changes effective on or after 1−1−09 are designated by NOTES. Report errors at (608) 266−3561, FAX 264−6948, http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/stats.html

TEXT FROM REVISOR OF STATUTES BUREAU DATABASE OF

 2007−08 WISCONSIN STATUTES & ANNOTATIONS

Updated through December 1, 2008.

CHAPTER 1

SOVEREIGNTY AND JURISDICTION OF THE STATE

1.01 State sovereignty and jurisdiction.

1.02 United States sites and buildings.

1.025 United States jurisdiction in Adams County.

1.026 Apostle Islands land purchase.

1.03 Concurrent jurisdiction over United States sites; conveyances.

1.031 Retrocession of jurisdiction.

1.035 Wildlife and fish refuge by United States.

1.036 Bird reservations, acquisition by United States.

1.04 United States sites exempt from taxation.

1.05 United States sites for aids to navigation.

1.055 National forest.

1.056 State conservation areas.

1.06 Surveys by United States; adjustment of damages.

1.07 State coat of arms.

1.08 State flag.

1.09 Seat of government.

1.10 State song, state ballad, state waltz, state dance, and state symbols.

1.11 Governmental consideration of environmental impact.

1.12 State energy policy.

1.13 Land use planning activities.

1.14 Display of flag at public buildings, structures, and facilities.

1.01 State sovereignty and jurisdiction. The sovereignty

and jurisdiction of this state extend to all places within the boundaries declared in article II of the constitution, subject only to such

rights of jurisdiction as have been or shall be acquired by the

United States over any places therein; and the governor, and all

subordinate officers of the state, shall maintain and defend its sovereignty and jurisdiction. Such sovereignty and jurisdiction are

asserted and exercised over the St. Croix River from the eastern

shore thereof to the center or thread of the same, and the exclusive

jurisdiction of the state of Minnesota to authorize any person to

obstruct the navigation of said river east of the center or thread

thereof, or to enter upon the same and build piers, booms or other

fixtures, or to occupy any part of said river east of the center or

thread thereof for the purpose of sorting or holding logs, is denied;

such acts can only be authorized by the concurrent consent of the

legislature of this state.

History: 1983 a. 538.

Cross Reference: See also Article IX. As to sky sovereignty, see s. 114.02.

Treaties between the federal government and Menominee tribe do not deprive the

state of criminal subject matter jurisdiction over crimes committed by a Menominee

tribal member outside of the reservation. Sturdevant v. State, 76 Wis. 2d 247, 251

N.W.2d 50 (1977).

Jurisdiction over crimes committed by tribal members on the Menominee reservation is vested in the federal and tribal governments. State v. LaTender, 86 Wis. 2d 410,

273 N.W.2d 260 (1979).

The state has no jurisdiction to prosecute a traffic offenses committed by a Menominee tribal member on a highway within the boundaries of the Menominee reservation. State v. Webster, 114 Wis. 2d 418, 338 N.W.2d 474 (1983).

Property held in trust by the federal government for the Menominee tribe and tribal

members is not subject to state taxation. The tribe and tribal members residing and

working in Menominee county are not subject to the state income tax. 66 Atty. Gen.

290.

The jurisdictional relationship between the state and Menominee Tribe is discussed. 70 Atty. Gen. 36.

State, county, and tribal jurisdiction to regulate traffic on streets in housing projects

that have been built and are maintained by the Winnebago Tribe on tribal lands is discussed. 78 Atty. Gen. 122.

1.02 United States sites and buildings. Subject to the

conditions mentioned in s. 1.03 the legislature consents to the

acquisitions heretofore effected and hereafter to be effected by the

United States, by gift, purchase or condemnation proceedings, of

the title to places or tracts of land within the state; and, subject to

said conditions, the state grants, cedes and confirms to the United

States exclusive jurisdiction over all such places and tracts. Such

acquisitions are limited to the following purposes:

(1) To sites for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals,

dockyards, custom houses, courthouses, post offices, or other

public buildings or for any purpose whatsoever contemplated by

the 17th clause of section 8 of article one of the United States constitution.

(2) To all land now or hereafter included within the boundaries

of Fort McCoy in townships 17, 18 and 19 north, ranges 2 and 3

west, near Sparta, in Monroe County, to be used for military purposes as a target and maneuvering range and such other purposes

as the department of the army deems necessary and proper.

(3) To erect thereon dams, abutments, locks, lockkeepers’

dwellings, chutes, or other structures necessary or desirable in

improving the navigation of the rivers or other waters within and

on the borders of this state.

(4) To the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of section 6, township 19

north, range 2 west of the fourth principal meridian to be used for

military purposes as a target and maneuvering range and such

other purposes as the department of the army deems necessary and

proper.

History: 1985 a. 135.

1.025 United States jurisdiction in Adams County. The

legislature consents to the conveyance by lease with option to purchase to the United States of the institution and the land on which

it is located in the town of New Chester, Adams County, described

as follows: The entire section 15, township 16 north, range 7 east

of the fourth principal meridian, consisting of 640 acres, and upon

the execution of said lease the state grants, cedes and confirms to

the United States exclusive legislative jurisdiction over said place

and tract, retaining concurrent jurisdiction solely to the extent that

all legal process issued under the authority of the state may be

served upon persons located on said place and tract. The authority

granted in this section shall remain in effect for the duration of said
Updated 07−08 Wis. Stats. Database 2

1.025 SOVEREIGNTY AND JURISDICTION Not certified under s. 35.18 (2), stats.

 Electronic reproduction of 2007−08 Wis. Stats. database, updated and current through Dec. 1, 2008.

Text from the 2007−08 Wis. Stats. database updated by the Legislative Reference Bureau. Only printed statutes are certified

under s. 35.18 (2), stats. Statutory changes effective prior to 1−1−09 are printed as if currently in effect. Statutory changes effective on or after 1−1−09 are designated by NOTES. Report errors at (608) 266−3561, FAX 264−6948, http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/stats.html

lease and continue in effect in the event title passes to the United

States at the termination of the lease.

History: 1973 c. 90; 1977 c. 418.

1.026 Apostle Islands land purchase. (1) LEGISLATIVE

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND INTENT. (a) The legislature concurs

with the stated purpose of Congress in authorizing the establishment of the Apostle Islands national lakeshore. It is therefor the

purpose of this section to conserve and develop for the benefit,

inspiration, education, recreational use, and enjoyment of the public certain significant islands and shorelands of this state and their

related geographic, scenic and scientific values.

(b) 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. The department of natural resources is

directed before taking any action or making a decision concerning

the Apostle Islands to make a finding that such an action or decision will ensure that the citizens of this state will be assured the

opportunity for wilderness, inspirational primitive and scenic

experiences in the Apostle Islands into perpetuity.

(2) JURISDICTION CEDED TO THE UNITED STATES. The consent

of the state is given to the acquisition by the United States, in any

manner authorized under an act of Congress, of lands lying within

the boundaries of Apostle Islands national lakeshore, and jurisdiction is hereby ceded to the United States to all territory which is

now or may be included within the lakeshore, except that the state

shall retain concurrent jurisdiction in all cases, and such criminal

process as may issue under the authority of the state against any

persons charged with the commission of any offense within or

without such areas, including, but not limited to, state laws and

regulations governing hunting, fishing and trapping on those areas

open to such activities, may be executed thereon in like manner

as if such jurisdiction had not been ceded to the United States.

(3) LANDS TO BE CONVEYED. Notwithstanding any other law

to the contrary, the department of natural resources, with the

approval of the governor, is directed to donate and convey, upon

request of the United States for purposes of the development of the

lakeshore, all state−owned lands within the lakeshore boundary,

as hereafter described: The state−owned lands on Basswood, Oak,

Michigan and Stockton Islands in township 50 north, range 3

west; township 51 north, range 1 west; township 51 north, range

3 west, township 52 north, range 3 west, all in the town of

La Pointe, Ashland County, Wisconsin. Each conveyance shall

contain a provision that such lands shall revert to the state when

they are no longer used for national lakeshore purposes as defined

by section 7 of the Apostle Islands national lakeshore act of 1970

(P.L. 91−424; 84 stat. 880), except that such reversion does not

apply to lands upon which capital improvements have been placed

by the United States.

History: 1975 c. 51; 1975 c. 198 s. 62; 1979 c. 89.

1.03 Concurrent jurisdiction over United States sites;

conveyances. The conditions mentioned in s. 1.02 are the following conditions precedent:

(1) That an application setting forth an exact description of the

place or tract so acquired shall be made by an authorized officer

of the United States to the governor, accompanied by a plat

thereof, and by proof that all conveyances and a copy of the record

of all judicial proceedings necessary to the acquisition of an unencumbered title by the United States have been recorded in the

office of the register of deeds of each county in which such place

or tract may be situated in whole or in part.

(2) That the ceded jurisdiction shall not vest in the United

States until they shall have complied with all the requirements on

their part of ss. 1.02 and 1.03, and shall continue so long only as

the place or tract shall remain the property of the United States.

(3) That the state shall forever retain concurrent jurisdiction

over every such place or tract to the extent that all legal and military process issued under the authority of the state may be served

anywhere thereon, or in any building situated in whole or in part

thereon.

1.031 Retrocession of jurisdiction. The governor may

accept on behalf of the state, retrocession of full or partial jurisdiction over any roads, highways or other lands in federal enclaves

within the state where such retrocession has been offered by

appropriate federal authority. Documents concerning such action

shall be filed in the office of the secretary of state and recorded in

the office of the register of deeds of the county wherein such lands

are located.

History: 1977 c. 26.

1.035 Wildlife and fish refuge by United States. (1) The

state of Wisconsin consents that the government of the United

States may acquire in this state, in any manner, such areas of land,

or of land and water, as the United States deems necessary for the

establishment of the “Upper Mississippi River Wildlife and Fish

Refuge,” in accordance with the act of congress approved June 7,

1924; provided, that the states of Illinois, Iowa and Minnesota

grant a like consent, and all rights respectively reserved by said

states, in addition to the reservation herein made, are hereby

reserved to this state; and provided, further, that any acquisition

by the government of the United States of land, or of land and

water, shall first be approved by the governor, on the advice of the

department of natural resources.

(2) The consent hereby given is upon the condition that the

United States shall not, by an act of congress or by regulation of

any department, prevent the state and its agents from going upon

the navigable waters within or adjoining any area of land, or land

and water, so acquired by the United States, for the purpose of rescuing or obtaining fish therefrom; and the state shall have the right

to construct and operate fish hatcheries and fish rescue stations

adjacent to the areas so acquired by the United States; and the navigable waters leading into the Mississippi and the carrying places

between the same, and the navigable lakes, sloughs and ponds

within or adjoining such areas, shall remain common highways

for navigation and portaging, and the use thereof, as well to the

inhabitants of this state as to the citizens of the United States, shall

not be denied.

(3) The legal title to and the custody and protection of the fish

in the navigable waters leading into the Mississippi River and in

the navigable lakes, sloughs and ponds within or adjoining such

areas in this state, is vested in the state, for the purpose of regulating the enjoyment, use, disposition and conservation thereof.

(4) The state retains jurisdiction in and over such areas so far

that civil process in all cases, and such criminal process as may

issue under the authority of the state against any persons charged

with the commission of any offense within or without such areas,

may be executed thereon in like manner as if this consent had not

been given.

(5) Subject to the conditions specified in s. 1.02, the United

States commissioner of fisheries may establish fish hatcheries

within Wisconsin and may take fish or fish eggs from the waters

of this state for propagation in such hatcheries. The United States

commissioner of fisheries and authorized agents may conduct fish

culture operations, rescue work, and all fishing and other operations necessary therefor in connection with such hatcheries in

such manner and at such times as is considered necessary and

proper by the commissioner and agents.

History: 1989 a. 56.

1.036 Bird reservations, acquisition by United States.

Consent of this state is given to the acquisition by the United States

by purchase, gift, devise, or lease of such areas of land or water,

or of land and water, in Wisconsin, by and with the consent of the

governor of the state, as the United States deems necessary for the

establishment of migratory bird reservations in accordance with

the act of congress approved February 18, 1929, entitled “An Act

to more effectively meet the obligations of the United States under
SOVEREIGNTY AND JURISDICTION 1.08 3 Updated 07−08 Wis. Stats. Database

Not certified under s. 35.18 (2), stats.

 Electronic reproduction of 2007−08 Wis. Stats. database, updated and current through Dec. 1, 2008.

Text from the 2007−08 Wis. Stats. database updated by the Legislative Reference Bureau. Only printed statutes are certified

under s. 35.18 (2), stats. Statutory changes effective prior to 1−1−09 are printed as if currently in effect. Statutory changes effective on or after 1−1−09 are designated by NOTES. Report errors at (608) 266−3561, FAX 264−6948, http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/stats.html

the migratory bird treaty with Great Britain by lessening the dangers threatening migratory game birds from drainage and other

causes by the acquisition of areas of land and of water to furnish

in perpetuity reservations for the adequate protection of such

birds; and authorizing appropriations for the establishment of

such areas, their maintenance and improvement and for other purposes,” reserving, however, to this state full and complete jurisdiction and authority over all such areas not incompatible with the

administration, maintenance, protection, and control thereof by

the United States under the terms of said act of congress.

1.04 United States sites exempt from taxation. Upon

full compliance by the United States with ss. 1.02 and 1.03, relating to the acquisition of any place or tract within the state the governor shall execute in duplicate, under the great seal, a certificate

of such consent given and of such compliance with ss. 1.02 and

1.03, one of which shall be delivered to such officer of the United

States and the other filed with the secretary of state. Such certificate shall be sufficient evidence of such consent of the legislature

and of such compliance with the conditions specified. All such

places and tracts after such acquisition and while owned by the

United States, shall be and remain exempt from all taxation and

assessment by authority of the state.

History: 1981 c. 314 s. 146.

1.05 United States sites for aids to navigation. Whenever the United States shall desire to acquire title to any land

belonging to the state and covered by the navigable waters of the

United States, for sites for lighthouses, beacons, or other aids to

navigation, the governor may, upon application therefor by any

authorized officer of the United States, setting forth an exact

description of the place desired, and accompanied by a plat

thereof, grant and convey to the United States, by a deed executed

by the governor in the name of the state and under the great seal,

all the title of the state thereto; and such conveyance shall be evidence of the consent of the legislature to such purchase upon the

conditions specified in s. 1.03.

History: 1989 a. 56.

1.055 National forest. (1) Consent of this state is given to

the acquisition by the United States by purchase, gift, lease or condemnation, with adequate compensation therefor, of such areas of

land not exceeding 2,000,000 acres as the United States deems

necessary for the establishment of national forests in the state, in

accordance with the act of congress approved June 7, 1924, and

the board of commissioners of public lands are authorized to sell

and convey for a fair consideration to the United States any state

lands included within such areas; provided, that this state shall

retain concurrent jurisdiction with the United States in and over

such areas so far that civil process, in all cases, and such criminal

process as may issue under the authority of this state against any

persons charged with the commission of any crime within or without said areas, may be executed thereon in like manner as if this

consent had not been given. Provided, further, that the boundaries

of any areas so selected shall be first approved by the governor, the

board of commissioners of public lands, the department of natural

resources, and the county board of each county in which any such

area is located.

(2) Power is conferred upon the congress of the United States

to pass such laws and to make or provide for the making of such

rules and regulations, of both a civil and criminal nature and provide punishment therefor, as in its judgment may be necessary for

the administration, control and protection of such lands as may be

acquired by the United States under sub. (1).

1.056 State conservation areas. Consent of this state is

given to the United States to acquire by purchase, gift, lease or

condemnation, with adequate compensation therefor, areas of

land and water within boundaries approved by the governor and

the county board of the county in which the land is located, for the

establishment of state forests, state parks or other state conservation areas to be administered by the state under long−term leases,

treaties or cooperative agreements, which the department of natural resources is hereby authorized to enter into on behalf of the

state with the federal government.

1.06 Surveys by United States; adjustment of damages. Any person charged under the laws of the United States

with the execution of a survey or any part thereof, may enter upon

any lands in this state for the purpose of doing any act necessary

to the performance of the survey. The person may erect on the

lands any signals, temporary observatories or other small frame

structures, establish permanent marks of stations, and encamp on

the land. The person is liable for all actual damages done thereby.

If the amount of the damages cannot be agreed upon by the person,

or any representative of the federal government, and the owner or

occupant of the lands entered upon, either of them may petition the

circuit court for the county in which the lands, or any part of them,

are situated for the appointment of a day for the hearing of the parties and their witnesses and the assessment of the damages. The

hearing shall be held at the earliest practicable time after 14 days’

notice of the time and place is given to all the parties interested in

the manner the court orders. The damages may be assessed by the

court with or without a view of the premises. If the damages

assessed do not exceed the sum tendered the occupant or owner

of the land, the person who made the tender shall recover costs;

if they are in excess of that sum, the other party shall recover costs,

which shall be allowed and taxed in accordance with the rules of

the court.

History: 1977 c. 449.

1.07 State coat of arms. The coat of arms of the state of Wisconsin is declared to be as follows:

ARMS.—Or, quartered, the quarters bearing respectively a

plow, a crossed shovel and pick, an arm and held hammer, and an

anchor, all proper; the base of shield resting upon a horn of plenty

and pyramid of pig lead, all proper; over all, on fesse point, the

arms and motto of the United States, namely: Arms, palewise of

13 pieces argent and gules; a chief azure; motto (on garter surrounding inescutcheon), “E pluribus unum”.

CREST.—A badger, passant, proper.

SUPPORTERS.—Dexter, a sailor holding a coil of rope, proper;

sinister, a yeoman resting on a pick, proper.

MOTTO.—Over crest, “Forward”.

History: 1975 c. 41.

NOTE: An example of the state coat of arms is shown below:

1.08 State flag. (1) The Wisconsin state flag consists of the

following features:
Updated 07−08 Wis. Stats. Database 4

1.08 SOVEREIGNTY AND JURISDICTION Not certified under s. 35.18 (2), stats.

 Electronic reproduction of 2007−08 Wis. Stats. database, updated and current through Dec. 1, 2008.

Text from the 2007−08 Wis. Stats. database updated by the Legislative Reference Bureau. Only printed statutes are certified

under s. 35.18 (2), stats. Statutory changes effective prior to 1−1−09 are printed as if currently in effect. Statutory changes effective on or after 1−1−09 are designated by NOTES. Report errors at (608) 266−3561, FAX 264−6948, http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/stats.html

(a) Relative dimensions of 2 to 3, hoist to fly.

(b) A background of royal blue cloth.

(c) The state coat of arms, as described under s. 1.07, in material of appropriate colors, applied on each side in the center of the

field, of such size that, if placed in a circle whose diameter is equal

to 50% of the hoist, those portions farthest from the center of the

field would meet, but not cross, the boundary of the circle.

(d) The word “WISCONSIN” in white, capital, condensed

Gothic letters, one−eighth of the hoist in height, centered above

the coat of arms, midway between the uppermost part of the coat

of arms and the top edge of the flag.

(e) The year “1848” in white, condensed Gothic numbers,

one−eighth of the hoist in height, centered below the coat of arms,

midway between the lowermost part of the coat of arms and the

bottom edge of the flag.

(f) Optional trim on the edges consisting of yellow knotted

fringe.

(2) The department of administration shall ensure that all official state flags that are manufactured on or after May 1, 1981 conform to the requirements of this section. State flags manufactured

before May 1, 1981 may continue to be used as state flags.

History: 1979 c. 286.

1.09 Seat of government. Be it enacted by the council and

house of representatives of the territory of Wisconsin, that the seat

of government of the territory of Wisconsin, be and the same is

located and established at the town of Madison, between the 3rd

and 4th of the 4 lakes, on the corner of sections 13, 14, 23 and 24

in township 7, north, of range 9, east.

1.10 State song, state ballad, state waltz, state dance,

and state symbols. (1) The Wisconsin state song is “On, Wisconsin”, music written by W. T. Purdy, the words to which are as

follows: “On, Wisconsin! On, Wisconsin! Grand old badger state!

We, thy loyal sons and daughters, Hail thee, good and great. On,

Wisconsin! On, Wisconsin! Champion of the right, ‘Forward’, our

motto — God will give thee might!”.

(1m) The Wisconsin state ballad is “Oh Wisconsin, Land of

My Dreams,” music written by Shari A. Sarazin and lyrics written

by Erma Barrett, the words to which are as follows: “Oh Wisconsin, land of beauty, with your hillsides and your plains, with your

jackpine and your birch tree, and your oak of mighty frame. Land

of rivers, lakes and valleys, land of warmth and winter snows, land

of birds and beasts and humanity, oh Wisconsin, I love you so. Oh

Wisconsin, land of my dreams. Oh Wisconsin, you’re all I’ll ever

need. A little heaven here on earth could you be? Oh Wisconsin,

land of my dreams. In the summer, golden grain fields; in the winter, drift of white snow; in the springtime, robins singing; in the

autumn, flaming colors show. Oh I wonder who could wander, or

who could want to drift for long, away from all your beauty, all

your sunshine, all your sweet song? Oh Wisconsin, land of my

dreams. Oh Wisconsin, you’re all I’ll ever need. A little heaven

here on earth could you be? Oh Wisconsin, land of my dreams.

And when it’s time, let my spirit run free in Wisconsin, land of my

dreams.”

(1r) The Wisconsin state waltz is “The Wisconsin Waltz,”

music and lyrics written by Eddie Hansen, the words to which are

as follows: “Music from heaven throughout the years; the beautiful Wisconsin Waltz. Favorite song of the pioneers; the beautiful

Wisconsin Waltz. Song of my heart on that last final day, when it

is time to lay me away. One thing I ask is to let them play the beautiful Wisconsin Waltz. My sweetheart, my complete heart, it’s for

you when we dance together; the beautiful Wisconsin Waltz. I

remember that September, before love turned into an ember, we

danced to the Wisconsin Waltz. Summer ended, we intended that

our lives then would both be blended, but somehow our planning

got lost. Memory now sings a dream song, a faded love theme

song; the beautiful Wisconsin Waltz.”

(2) The Wisconsin state dance is the polka.

(3) The Wisconsin state symbols are as follows:

(a) The mourning dove (zenaidura macroura corolinensis linnaus) is the symbol of peace.

(b) Milk is the state beverage.

(c) The sugar maple (acer saccharum) is the state tree.

(d) Corn (Zea mays) is the state grain.

(e) The wood violet (viola papilionacea) is the state flower.

(f) The robin (turdus migratorius) is the state bird.

(g) The muskellunge (Esox masquinongy masquinongy

Mitchell) is the state fish.

(h) The badger (taxidea taxus) is the state animal.

(i) The dairy cow (bos taurus) is the state domestic animal.

(j) The white−tailed deer (odocoileus virginianus) is the state

wildlife animal.

(k) The American water spaniel is the state dog.

(L) The honey bee (apis mellifera) is the state insect.

(m) The trilobite (calymene celebra) is the state fossil.

(n) Galena (lead sulfide) is the state mineral.

(o) Red granite is the state rock.

(p) Antigo silt loam (typic glossoboralf) is the state soil.

(r) The cranberry (vaccinium macrocarpon) is the state fruit.

(s) The tartan whose thread count is described in this paragraph

is the state tartan. The thread count for the state tartan shall begin

with 44 threads of muted blue, followed by 6 threads of scarlet, 4

threads of muted blue, 6 threads of gray, 28 threads of black, 40

threads of dark green, 4 threads of dark yellow, 40 threads of dark

green, 28 threads of black, 22 threads of muted blue, and 12

threads of dark brown, at which point the weave reverses, going

through 22 threads of muted blue, and continuing the sequence in

reverse order until the weave reaches the beginning point of 44

threads of muted blue, at which point the weave reverses again.

(4) The Wisconsin Blue Book shall include the information

contained in this section concerning the state song, ballad, waltz,

dance, beverage, tree, grain, flower, bird, fish, animal, domestic

animal, wildlife animal, dog, insect, fossil, mineral, rock, soil,

fruit, and tartan.

History: 1971 c. 14, 129, 167, 228, 307; 1977 c. 326; 1983 a. 33; 1985 a. 162, 295,

332; 1987 a. 279; 1989 a. 162; 1993 a. 411; 1999 a. 83, 186; 2001 a. 16; 2003 a. 174,

321; 2007 a. 217.

1.11 Governmental consideration of environmental

impact. The legislature authorizes and directs that, to the fullest

extent possible:

(1) The policies and regulations shall be interpreted and

administered in accordance with the policies set forth in this section and chapter 274, laws of 1971, section 1; and

(2) All agencies of the state shall:

(c) Include in every recommendation or report on proposals for

legislation and other major actions significantly affecting the

quality of the human environment, a detailed statement, substantially following the guidelines issued by the United States council

on environmental quality under P.L. 91−190, 42 USC 4331, by the

responsible official on:

1. The environmental impact of the proposed action;

2. Any adverse environmental effects which cannot be

avoided should the proposal be implemented;

3. Alternatives to the proposed action;

4. The relationship between local short−term uses of the

human environment and the maintenance and enhancement of

long−term productivity;

5. Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of

resources that would be involved in the proposed action should it

be implemented; and

6. Such statement shall also contain details of the beneficial

aspects of the proposed project, both short term and long term, and

the economic advantages and disadvantages of the proposal.
SOVEREIGNTY AND JURISDICTION 1.12 5 Updated 07−08 Wis. Stats. Database

Not certified under s. 35.18 (2), stats.

 Electronic reproduction of 2007−08 Wis. Stats. database, updated and current through Dec. 1, 2008.

Text from the 2007−08 Wis. Stats. database updated by the Legislative Reference Bureau. Only printed statutes are certified

under s. 35.18 (2), stats. Statutory changes effective prior to 1−1−09 are printed as if currently in effect. Statutory changes effective on or after 1−1−09 are designated by NOTES. Report errors at (608) 266−3561, FAX 264−6948, http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/stats.html

(d) Prior to making any detailed statement, the responsible

official shall consult with and obtain the comments of any agency

which has jurisdiction or special expertise with respect to any

environmental impact involved. Copies of such statement and the

comments and views of the appropriate agencies, which are

authorized to develop and enforce environmental standards shall

be made available to the governor, the department of natural

resources and to the public. Every proposal other than for legislation shall receive a public hearing before a final decision is made.

Holding a public hearing as required by another statute fulfills this

section. If no public hearing is otherwise required, the responsible

agency shall hold the hearing in the area affected. Notice of the

hearing shall be given by publishing a class 1 notice, under ch.

985, at least 15 days prior to the hearing in a newspaper covering

the affected area. If the proposal has statewide significance, notice

shall be published in the official state newspaper;

(e) Study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to

recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves

unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available

resources;

(h) Initiate and utilize ecological information in the planning

and development of resource−oriented projects.

(j) Annually, no later than September 15, submit a report to the

chief clerk of each house of the legislature for distribution to the

legislature under s. 13.172 (2), including the number of proposed

actions for which the agency conducted an assessment of whether

an impact statement was required under par. (c) and the number

of impact statements prepared under par. (c).

(4) Nothing in this section affects the specific statutory obligations of any agency:

(a) To comply with criteria or standards of environmental quality;

(b) To coordinate or consult with any other state or federal

agency; or

(c) To act, or refrain from acting contingent upon the recommendations or certification of any other state or federal agency.

(5) The policies and goals set forth in this section are supplementary to those set forth in existing authorizations of agencies.

History: 1971 c. 274; 1973 c. 204; 1979 c. 89, 262; 1985 a. 29, 332; 1991 a. 273;

1993 a. 184, 213; 2001 a. 103.

Cross Reference: See also chs. NR 150, PSC 4, TCS 4 and ss. Adm 60.01, ATCP

3.07, Comm 1.01, DOC 335.01, DHS 18.01, NR 2.085, and Trans 400, Wis. adm.

code.

The Wisconsin Environmental Protection Act, while not creating a public trust

analogous to the public trust in the state’s navigable waters, recognizes an interest sufficient to grant a person standing to question compliance with its provisions when it

is alleged that agency action will harm the environment in the area where the person

resides. Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade, Inc. v. PSC, 69 Wis. 2d 1, 230 N.W.2d

243 (1975).

Counties are not “agencies of the state” within meaning of sub. (2) (c). Robinson

v. Kunach, 76 Wis. 2d 436, 251 N.W.2d 449 (1977).

Sub. (2) (e) is applicable to proceedings involving authorization of priority systems

for the curtailment of natural gas service. Wisconsin Environmental Decade, Inc. v.

PSC, 79 Wis. 2d 161, 255 N.W.2d 917 (1977).

On judicial review of a state agency’s decision not to prepare an environmental

impact statement, the agency has the burden of producing a reviewable record reflecting a preliminary factual investigation into relevant areas of environmental concern

and of showing a reasonable determination based on the same. Wisconsin Environmental Decade, Inc. v. PSC, 79 Wis. 2d 409, 256 N.W.2d 149 (1977).

The lack of a DNR prepared environmental impact statement did not invalidate a

DNR order to close a landfill site. Holtz & Krause, Inc. v. DNR, 85 Wis. 2d 198, 270

N.W.2d 409 (1978).

DNR’s decision to limit the scope of a threshold decision to consideration of the

impact of a segment of a proposed sewer interceptor was reasonable when the segment had: 1) independent utility; 2) a main purpose of fulfilling a local need; 3) logical termini, and construction of the first segment did not compel construction of the

second segment. Wisconsin Environmental Decade, Inc. v. DNR, 94 Wis. 2d 263,

288 N.W.2d 168 (Ct. App. 1979).

An agency determination that an EIS was adequately prepared is reviewed under

s. 227.20. Wisconsin Environmental Decade, Inc. v. PSC, 98 Wis. 2d 682, 298

N.W.2d 205 (Ct. App. 1980).

The court erred in finding that this section applied to the department’s code compliance review procedure. Wisconsin Environmental Decade, Inc. v. DILHR, 104

Wis. 2d 640, 312 N.W.2d 749 (1981).

An order establishing depreciation rates for a utility’s nuclear plant did not require

an environmental impact statement. Wisconsin Environmental Decade, Inc. v. PSC,

105 Wis. 2d 457, 313 N.W.2d 863 (Ct. App. 1981).

Standing to challenge a final EIS requires that the agency decision directly cause

injury to the interest of the petitioner, which must be an interest recognized by law.

Fox v. DHSS, 112 Wis. 2d 514, 334 N.W.2d 532 (1983).

An EIS is not required when the project will have minor impacts on the environment, but will have possible socio−economic impacts. Wisconsin Environmental

Decade, Inc. v. DNR, 115 Wis. 2d 381, 340 N.W.2d 722 (1983).

Increased traffic congestion was a sufficient allegation of injury to acquire standing to challenge a final EIS. Milwaukee Brewers v. DHSS, 130 Wis. 2d 56, 387

N.W.2d 245 (1986).

When a state action did not come within an action type listed in DOA rules, an environmental assessment was required. A determination following an assessment that

an EIS was not required for a building constructed for the state by a private developer

under a lease/purchase agreement was reasonable under the circumstances. Larsen

v. Munz Corp. 167 Wis. 2d 583, 482 N.W.2d 583 (1992).

The test as to whether an EIS should be conducted is one of reasonableness and

good faith. When conditions for approval that compensate for any adverse environmental impacts are imposed, the statutory threshold of significant environmental

impact is not crossed and no EIS is required. State ex rel. Boehm v. DNR, 174 Wis.

2d 657, 497 N.W.2d 445 (1993).

Section 227.42 (1) does not grant a right to a contested case hearing regarding the

need for an EIS. North Lake Management District v. DNR, 182 Wis. 2d 500, 513

N.W.2d 703 (Ct. App. 1994).

When the legislature has selected a specific project site, consideration of alternative sites is too remote and speculative and not reasonably related to the proposed

project. Shoreline Park Preservation, Inc. v. DOA, 195 Wis. 2d 750, 537 N.W.2d 388

(Ct. App. 1995), 94−2512.

The burden of proving the adequacy of an environmental impact statement is discussed. CUB v. PSC, 211 Wis. 2d 537, 565 N.W.2d 554 (Ct. App. 1997), 96−0867.

It was reasonable to suspend the requirement for a draft EIS and the corresponding

comment period, when legislatively imposed time constraints could not have been

met if they were not suspended. RURAL v. PSC, 2000 WI 129, 239 Wis. 2d 660, 619

N.W.2d 888, 99−2430.

Court review of an EIS is narrow. The PSC’s determination that an EIS is adequate

is a conclusion of law that is accorded great weight deference. An EIS must be

assessed in light of the rule of reason, which requires an EIS to furnish only such

information as appears to be reasonably necessary under the circumstances for evaluation of the project rather than to be so all−encompassing in scope that the task of preparing it would become either fruitless or well nigh impossible. While reasonable

alternatives are to be considered, every potentiality need not be evaluated. Clean

Wisconsin, Inc. v. Public Service Commission, 2005 WI 93, 282 Wis. 2d 250, 700

N.W.2d 768, 04−3179.

The EIS is an informational tool that does not compel a particular decision by the

agency or prevent the agency from concluding that other values outweigh the environmental consequences of a proposed action. Clean Wisconsin, Inc. v. Public Service Commission, 2005 WI 93, 282 Wis. 2d 250, 700 N.W.2d 768, 04−3179.

Agency decision−making under the Wisconsin environmental policy act. 1977

WLR 111.

1.12 State energy policy. (1) DEFINITIONS. In this section:

(a) “Local governmental unit” has the meaning given in s.

19.42 (7u).

(b) “State agency” means an office, department, agency, institution of higher education, the legislature, a legislative service

agency, the courts, a judicial branch agency, an association, society, or other body in state government that is created or authorized

to be created by the constitution or by law, for which appropriations are made by law, excluding the Health Insurance Risk−

Sharing Plan Authority.

(2) CONSERVATION POLICY. A state agency or local governmental unit shall investigate and consider the maximum conservation

of energy resources as an important factor when making any major

decision that would significantly affect energy usage.

(3) GOALS. (a) Energy efficiency. It is the goal of the state to

reduce the ratio of energy consumption to economic activity in the

state.

(b) Renewable energy resources. It is the goal of the state that,

to the extent that it is cost−effective and technically feasible, all

new installed capacity for electric generation in the state be based

on renewable energy resources, including hydroelectric, wood,

wind, solar, refuse, agricultural and biomass energy resources.

(c) Afforestation. It is the goal of the state to ensure a future

supply of wood fuel and reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide by

increasing the forested areas of the state.

(4) PRIORITIES. In meeting energy demands, the policy of the

state is that, to the extent cost−effective and technically feasible,

options be considered based on the following priorities, in the

order listed:

(a) Energy conservation and efficiency.

(b) Noncombustible renewable energy resources.

(c) Combustible renewable energy resources.
Updated 07−08 Wis. Stats. Database 6

1.12 SOVEREIGNTY AND JURISDICTION Not certified under s. 35.18 (2), stats.

 Electronic reproduction of 2007−08 Wis. Stats. database, updated and current through Dec. 1, 2008.

Text from the 2007−08 Wis. Stats. database updated by the Legislative Reference Bureau. Only printed statutes are certified

under s. 35.18 (2), stats. Statutory changes effective prior to 1−1−09 are printed as if currently in effect. Statutory changes effective on or after 1−1−09 are designated by NOTES. Report errors at (608) 266−3561, FAX 264−6948, http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/stats.html

(d) Nonrenewable combustible energy resources, in the order

listed:

1. Natural gas.

2. Oil or coal with a sulphur content of less than 1%.

3. All other carbon−based fuels.

(5) MEETING ENERGY DEMANDS. (a) In designing all new and

replacement energy projects, a state agency or local governmental

unit shall rely to the greatest extent feasible on energy efficiency

improvements and renewable energy resources, if the energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy resources are cost−

effective and technically feasible and do not have unacceptable

environmental impacts.

(b) To the greatest extent cost−effective and technically feasible, a state agency or local governmental unit shall design all new

and replacement energy projects following the priorities listed in

sub. (4).

(6) SITING OF ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION FACILITIES. In the siting

of new electric transmission facilities, including high−voltage

transmission lines, as defined in s. 196.491 (1) (f), it is the policy

of this state that, to the greatest extent feasible that is consistent

with economic and engineering considerations, reliability of the

electric system, and protection of the environment, the following

corridors should be utilized in the following order of priority:

(a) Existing utility corridors.

(b) Highway and railroad corridors.

(c) Recreational trails, to the extent that the facilities may be

constructed below ground and that the facilities do not significantly impact environmentally sensitive areas.

(d) New corridors.

History: 1977 c. 29; 1993 a. 414; 2003 a. 89; 2005 a. 74.

NOTE: 1993 Wis. Act 414, which creates subs. (1) and (3) to (5), contains

extensive explanatory notes.

Cross Reference: See also ch. NR 150 and s. PSC 4.30, Wis. adm. code.

PSC decisions under s. 196.025 (4) applying the energy source priorities under sub.

(4) are entitled to great weight deference. When the PSC makes a determination

under the plant siting law, s. 196.491, it applies sub. (4) in the context of determining

whether to approve the requested plant siting. The question the PSC should ask is:

Given the requirements of the plant siting law, what is the highest priority energy

option that is also cost effective and technically feasible? Clean Wisconsin, Inc. v.

Public Service Commission, 2005 WI 93, 282 Wis. 2d 250, 700 N.W.2d 768,

04−3179.

1.13 Land use planning activities. (1) In this section:

(a) “Local governmental unit” has the meaning given in s. 1.12

(1) (a).

(b) “State agency” has the meaning given in s. 1.12 (1) (b).

(2) Each state agency, where applicable and consistent with

other laws, is encouraged to design its programs, policies, infrastructure and investments of the agency to reflect a balance

between the mission of the agency and the following local, comprehensive planning goals:

(a) Promotion of the redevelopment of lands with existing

infrastructure and public services and the maintenance and rehabilitation of existing residential, commercial and industrial structures.

(b) Encouragement of neighborhood designs that support a

range of transportation choices.

(c) Protection of natural areas, including wetlands, wildlife

habitats, lakes, woodlands, open spaces and groundwater

resources.

(d) Protection of economically productive areas, including

farmland and forests.

(e) Encouragement of land uses, densities and regulations that

promote efficient development patterns and relatively low municipal, state governmental and utility costs.

(f) Preservation of cultural, historic and archaeological sites.

(g) Encouragement of coordination and cooperation among

nearby units of government.

(h) Building of community identity by revitalizing main streets

and enforcing design standards.

(i) Providing an adequate supply of affordable housing for

individuals of all income levels throughout each community.

(j) Providing adequate infrastructure and public services and

an adequate supply of developable land to meet existing and

future market demand for residential, commercial and industrial

uses.

(k) Promoting the expansion or stabilization of the current economic base and the creation of a range of employment opportunities at the state, regional and local levels.

(L) Balancing individual property rights with community

interests and goals.

(m) Planning and development of land uses that create or preserve varied and unique urban and rural communities.

(n) Providing an integrated, efficient and economical transportation system that affords mobility, convenience and safety

and that meets the needs of all citizens, including transit−dependent and disabled citizens.

(3) Consistently with other laws, each state agency, whenever

it administers a law under which a local governmental unit prepares a plan, is encouraged to design its planning requirements in

a manner that makes it practical for local governmental units to

incorporate these plans into local comprehensive plans prepared

under s. 66.1001.

History: 1999 a. 9, 148; 2001 a. 30.

1.14 Display of flag at public buildings, structures, and

facilities. (1) In this section:

(a) “Local governmental unit” has the meaning given in s.

16.97 (7).

(b) “State agency” has the meaning given for “agency” under

s. 16.70 (1e).

(c) “State authority” has the meaning given for “authority”

under s. 16.70 (2).

(2) Each state agency, state authority, and local governmental

unit shall ensure that each United States flag that is displayed at

each building, structure, or facility that is owned or occupied

entirely by the agency, authority, or unit is manufactured in the

United States.

History: 2007 a. 166.
95

APPENDIX C: 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 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. 
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

96

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore

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.

GovernmenttoGovernment 

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-togovernment 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, which creates the potential for park visitors 

to inadvertently trespass on reservation lands. The remaining land 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 and tribes informed about activities that 

may affect the park or its neighbors. 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.
Appendixes, References, Preparers and Contributors

97

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore

GovernmenttoGovernment 

Relations 

between 

American 

Indian Tribes 

and Apostle 

Islands 

National 

Lakeshore 

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 work to better educate visitors about tribal lands surrounding the mainland unit and 

the need to avoid trespassing on these lands.

NPS staff will work to involve the tribes in potential future commercial activities within the park.

NPS staff will work with the tribes to explore options to contract services consistent with the Indian 

Self-Determination Act (PL 93-638).

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, 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 
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

98

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore

Ecosystem 

Management 

(continued)

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.

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 
Appendixes, References, Preparers and Contributors

99

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore

Ecosystem 

Management 

(continued)

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 NPS Reference 

Manual 77: “Natural Resource Management” provide general direction on natural resource 

management for the park. The National Parks Omnibus Act of 1998 established the framework for 

integrating natural resource inventories and monitoring into park management. Section 5934 

requires the secretary of interior to develop a program of “inventory and monitoring of national 

park system resources to establish baseline information and to provide information on long-term 

trends in the condition of national park system resources.

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 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. 
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

100

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore

Natural 

Resources and 

Diversity

(continued)

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, as part of the Great Lakes Inventory and Monitoring Network, will continue to monitor 

core indicators (vital signs) of long-term ecological change.

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. 

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. 
Appendixes, References, Preparers and Contributors

101

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore

Natural 

Resources and 

Diversity 

(continued)

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 2011. 

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 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) are found in areas that will be 

affected by construction, visitor use activities, or management actions, NPS staff will 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 will 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.
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

102

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore

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 NPS Reference 

Manual 77: “Natural Resource Management” 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.

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 NPS Reference Manual 77: “Natural Resource 

Management” 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 
Appendixes, References, Preparers and Contributors

103

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore

Coastal 

Processes and 

Sandscapes

(continued)

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 NPS Reference Manual 77: ”Natural Resource 

Management” 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 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 
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

104

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore

Air Quality

(continued)

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 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 

Reference Manual 77: ”Natural Resource Management” 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 
Appendixes, References, Preparers and Contributors

105

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore

Water Quality

(continued)

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, 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 pollutiongenerating 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. 

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 
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

106

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore

Wetlands

(continued)

affect a wetland, the National Park Service will comply with the provisions of Executive Order 

11990: “Protection of Wetlands,” the Clean Water Act, and NPS 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 will 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 NPS 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 NPS 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 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, local governments, and tribal 

governments to find ways to minimize the intrusion of artificial light from outside the park 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.
Appendixes, References, Preparers and Contributors

107

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore

Natural 

Soundscape

NPS Management Policies 2006 (4.9) and NPS 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.

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. 
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

108

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore

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. Information on the condition of archeological sites is kept current. 

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. 

Archeological assessments and monitoring will be applied as needed to keep data on site 

conditions up-to-date.

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 3 for more information on 

treatments; also see the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties. 

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 
Appendixes, References, Preparers and Contributors

109

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore

Historic 

Structures 

(continued)

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 

necessary.

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 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 
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

110

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore

Ethnographic 

Resources

(continued)

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 will 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.

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
Appendixes, References, Preparers and Contributors

111

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore

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: Museum objects that are currently on exhibit will remain in the park for the duration 

of their exhibition. Objects in long-term museum storage may be moved to the planned multipark 

storage facility at Keweenaw National Historical Park in Calumet, Michigan. A select ”core” of 

historically significant objects and archives (primary source records) may be curated locally if 

suitable partnership opportunities are identified that meet NPS preservation, protection, and 

controlled access standards. Apostle Islands’ archeological materials and associated records will 

continue to be curated at the Midwest Region’s archeological repository, the 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 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. 

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. 
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

112

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore

Wilderness 

Management 

(continued)

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.

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 manmade 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. 

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 will be built adjacent to the wilderness area, and no group campsites will be 

constructed within it, 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. 
Appendixes, References, Preparers and Contributors

113

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore

Visitor Use and 

Experience 

(continued)

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 staff of the 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 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. 

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 NPS 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.
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

114

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore

Visitor 

Information, 

Interpretation, 

and Education

(continued)

Regardless of the future of the existing visitor centers, visitors will still be able to obtain 

information on the national lakeshore 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.

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. 
Appendixes, References, Preparers and Contributors

115

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore

Hunting and 

Trapping 

(continued)

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.

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 

NPS Director’s Order 50 and NPS Reference Manual 50: “Safety and Health”; NPS Director’s Order 

58 and NPS Reference Manual 58: “Structural Fire Management”; NPS Director’s Order 83 and 

NPS Reference Manual 83: “Public Health”; NPS Director’s Order 51 and NPS Reference 

Manual 51: “Emergency Medical Services”; NPS Director’s Order 30 and NPS Reference 

Manual 30: “Hazard and Solid Waste Management; 29 CFR (OSHA); and Superintendent’s Order 

31: “Safety, Environmental Management, 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, Environmental Management, 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: http//www.nps.gov/apis/naturescience/upload/Safety_Sustainability_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, 
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

116

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore

Sustainable 

Design/ 

Practices 

(continued)

recycling, waste minimization, and the use of energy-efficient and ecologically responsible 

materials and techniques. 

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), NPS Director’s Order 13: 

“Environmental Management Systems,” and Superintendent’s Order 31: “Safety, Environmental 

Management, 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, Environmental Management, 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/Safety_Sustainability_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 additional facilities in 

the park are necessary, appropriate, and cost-effective. 
Appendixes, References, Preparers and Contributors

117

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore

Sustainable 

Design/ 

Practices 

(continued)

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), Executive Order 15314 (sets sustainability goals, 

requires federal agencies to measure, manage, and reduce greenhouse gases toward agencydefined goals, and increase energy efficiency), Department of the Interior Secretarial Orders 3226 

and 3289 (ensure 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 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.
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

118

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore

Climate Change

(continued)

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

• 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 
Appendixes, References, Preparers and Contributors

119

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore

Transportation 

to and within 

the Park

(continued)

• 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, rights-of-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 towers built to 

facilitate NPS or other agency communication are the bare minimum, unobtrusive, 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 
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

120

TOPIC Desired Conditions and Strategies for Apostle Islands National Lakeshore

Utilities and 

Communication 

Facilities

(continued)

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.
121

APPENDIX D: CAMPGROUND DESIGN AND 

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

CAMPSITE SYSTEM OBJECTIVES

• Protect natural and cultural resources

• Provide for a diversity of high-quality camping opportunities, including informal, zonebased, 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 will 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 

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. 
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

122

 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 self-limiting, 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).

 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. 
Appendixes, References, Preparers and Contributors

123

 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.
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

124

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 will 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. 

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. 
Appendixes, References, Preparers and Contributors

125

If a different management strategy is needed, the following ideas will 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
126

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.

Birmingham, R. and R. Salzer

1980 Test Excavations at the P-Flat Site. Logan Museum of Anthropology, Beloit 

College, Beloit, Wisconsin.

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., and L. Yung 

2010 Beyond Naturalness. Rethinking Park and Wilderness Stewardship in an Era of 

Rapid Change. Island Press. Washington, D.C.
Appendixes, References, Preparers and Contributors

127

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]

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.” Unpublished 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.” 
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

128

Jordahl, H.C. Jr. 

1994 A Unique Collection of Islands, The Influence of History, Politics, Policy, and 

Planning on the Establishment of the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. Univ. of 

Wisconsin. Madison, WI.

Judziewicz, E. and R. Koch

1993 “Flora and vegetation of the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore and Madeline 

Island, Ashland and Bayfield Counties, Wisconsin.” Michigan Botanist 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, Vol. 34, 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
Appendixes, References, Preparers and Contributors

129

Landres, P., S. Boutcher, L. Dean, T. Hall, T. Blett, T. Carlson, A. Mebane, C. Hardy, S. Rinehart, 

L. Merigliano, D.N. Cole, A. Leach, P. Wright, and D. Bumpus. 

2009 “Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness 

Character.” USDA, Forest Service. General Technical Report WO-80. 

Lanpheer, R.A. 

1987 “Powerboat Sound Level Engineering Report.” October 16, 1987. As cited in 

Lanpheer 2000.

2000 “Pleasure Motorboat Model Noise Act.” Available at 

http://www.nmma.org/lib/dox/nmma/gr/evnrionmenta/Model_Noise_Act_Histo

r,_Status,_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.” Unpublished 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.
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

130 

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 WisconsinStevens Point. Report on file at park headquarters.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)

1996 “Toxaphene in the Great Lakes.” Roseville, MN.

National Park Service (NPS). 

1984 “Historic Logging Sites in the Apostle Islands: A Resource Management Plan. 

Prepared by Kate Lidfors.

1986 “An Archeological Evaluation of the Trout Point Logging Camp.” Prepared by J. 

Richner. Occasional Studies in Anthropology 17. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

National Park Service, Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln, Nebraska. 

1989 “1984 Excavations at Site 47AS47: A Fishing Camp on Manitou Island, 

Wisconsin.” Prepared by J. Richner. On file at the Midwest Archeological Center, 

Lincoln, Nebraska.

1993 “The Archeological Investigation of Four Lighthouse Complexes at the Western 

End of Lake Superior: The 1988 Testing Program Within Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore.” Prepared by V. Noble. USDI, NPS, Midwest Archeological Center, 

Lincoln, Nebraska.

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, Colorado.

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, Michigan.

2003 Erosion Control at Outer Island Light Station. Revised Environmental 

Assessment. Prepared by Woolpert LLP. Contract No. 1443-CX-2000-99-2003. 

Dayton, Ohio. 

2004a Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. Final Wilderness Study / Environmental 

Impact Statement. Bayfield, Wisconsin.
Appendixes, References, Preparers and Contributors

131

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, 

Wisconsin.

2004d Meyers Road Environmental Assessment. Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. 

Bayfield, Wisconsin.

2004e “2004 Breeding Bird Survey Report, Apostle Islands National Lakeshore.” 

Bayfield, Wisconsion.

2004f “Cultural Landscape Report and Environmental Assessment – Raspberry Island 

Light Station, Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, Bayfield County, Wisconsin.” 

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, Wisconsin.

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. 

2006 “Trip Report - Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, June 19-30, 2006.” Prepared 

by J. Richner. On file at the Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln, Nebraska.

2007a “Apostle Islands National Lakeshore Bi-annual Research, Monitoring and 

Restoration Report. 2004-2005.” On file at park headquarters. Bayfield, 

Wisconsin.

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, Colorado.

2007c “Wildlife Management Plan and Environmental Assessment for Harvestable 

Species.” Bayfield, Wisconsin. 

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.” Unpublished 

report on file at park headquarters. Bayfield, Wisconsin.

2007f “Climate Change. Impacts of Midwest Warming.” Available at 

http://www.nps.gov/apis/naturescience/upload/2007%20MWR%20Climate%20

Change%20Site%20Bulletin%20-%20Great%20Lakes%20FINAL.pdf

2008a “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
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

132

2008b “Evaluation and Inventory Projects at Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, 

Wisconsin, June 4 - 22, 2007.” Prepared by D. Bringelson. USDI, National Park 

Service, Midwest Archeological Center Lincoln, Nebraska.

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

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, 

Pennsylvania.

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/11

15-1118.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. 

Schramm, A. and R. Loehman 

2010 “Understanding the Science of Climate Change: Talking Points – Impacts to the 

Great Lakes.” Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/NRR—2010/247. National 

Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

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.
Appendixes, References, Preparers and Contributors

133

Salzer, Robert

1980a “Archaeological Testing in the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore.” Logan 

Museum of Anthropology, Beloit College.

1980b “The Morty Site.” Logan Museum of Anthropology, Beloit College, Beloit, 

Wisconsin.

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

University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute

2001 “Airborne Contaminants 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, C.S. McCasland, L. Merigliano, J. 

Seastrand, and R. Swain. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-212. Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

1988 “Water Resources of the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, Northern 

Wisconsin.” Prepared by William Rose. Madison, Wisconsin.

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, Colorado. p. 73.
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

134

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/SPECIES/Plants/MtnCranbrry.pdf 

accessed on July 17, 2007
135

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. Seven 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-two 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. 

Maintained the administrative record.

Bob Krumenaker, Superintendent, Apostle Islands National Lakeshore.

Sc. B. (Bachelor of Science), M.F.S. (Master of Forest Science). Twenty-nine 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, (former) Chief of Planning and Resource Management, Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore

B.S. (Mathematics). Twenty-five years with the National Park Service. Responsible for 

coordinating the activities of park staff involved with the project, and for coordinating 

public involvement activities. 

Michael Rees, Natural Resource Specialist, Denver Service Center

B.A. (Environmental Studies) and M.F.S (Master of Forest Science). Twenty 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.
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

136

Julie Van Stappen, Supervisory Natural Resource Specialist, Apostle Islands National Lakeshore.

B.S. (Geology), M.S. (Natural Resources). Twenty-eight years with the National Park 

Service. Responsible for writing sections on natural resourcesin the “Affected 

Environment” and “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. Twenty 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, Former 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, Former Marine and Grounds Supervisor

Susan Mackreth, Park Ranger

Damon Panek, Cultural Educator

Lonni Pelto, Chief of Business Services

Doug Pratt, HSP Team and Utilities Team Supervisor

Randy Ross, Facility Manager

Greg Zeman, Former Chief of Protection 

Denver Service Center

Greg Cody, Cultural Resource Technical Specialist

Barbara J Johnson, Chief, Division of Planning

Pat Kenney, Former Branch Chief, Division of Planning

Dave Kreger, Natural Resource Technical Specialist

Midwest Region

Nicholas Chevance, Regional Environmental Coordinator

Sharon Miles, Regional Liaison

Sändra Washington, Former Chief, Planning and Compliance

Other Contributors

Jeffrey L. Marion, Research Biologist. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Virginia Tech 

Field Station.



National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore • Wisconsin

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA