BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bennett, J.
1995 “Abnormal chemical element concen-

trations in lichens of Isle Royale

National Park,” Environmental and

Experimental Botany. Fall 35:259-277.

Cochrane, Timothy
1997 Unpublished draft manuscript, Grand
Portage-Isle Royale Cultural Affiliation
Study.

Cromwell, A. E. and Thurman, E. M.
in press Long-range atmospheric transport of
atrazine and other triazines and their
subsequent occurrence in lakes of Isle
Royale National Park, Lake Superior.

Evers, D. C., P. S. Reaman, J. D. Kaplan, and J. D.
Paruk

1996 North American loon biomonitoring
program: 1995 Field Season Final
Report; 1989-95 Comprehensive Report.
Biodiversity, Inc.
Huber, N. K.
1975 The geologic story of Isle Royale

National Park. Geological Survey
Bulletin 1309.

Karamanski, T. J. and R. Zeitlin
1988 Narrative History of Isle Royale
National Park. Mid-America Research
Center, Loyola University, Chicago, IL.

Karamanski, T. J.; T. C. Cochrane, and R. Zeitlin

1991 The Enticing Island: A History of Isle
Royale National Park. Unpublished
revision of the Narrative History of Isle
Royale National Park.

Little, John J.
1978 Island Wilderness: A History of Isle

Royale National Park, dissertation,
University of Toledo.

217

MacArthur, R. H., and E. O. Wilson
1967 The theory of island biogeography.
Princeton University Press. Monograph
1, Population Biology Series. Pr:
NJ.

Martin, P. J., S. R. Martin, and M. Gregory
1995 “Technical Report: 1987/1988 Seasons,
Isle Royale Archeological Project,”
Report of Investigations Number 16.
Department of Social Sciences,
Michigan Technological University.
Houghton, Michigan.

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior
1966 Isle Royale National Park natural
science research plan, edited by R. M.
Linn, L. Sumner, and G. Sprugel, Jr.,
Washington, D.C.
1966 Fauna of the United States: The Wolves
of Isle Royale, by L. D. Mech. National
Parks Fauna Series No. 7. U.S.
Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. 210 pp.
1977 Wolf ecology and prey relationships on
Isle Royale, by R. O. Peterson. Scientific
Monograph Series No. 11. Washington,
DC.
1987 “Submerged Cultural Resources Study,
Isle Royale National Park,” Southwest
Cultural Resources Center Professional
Papers, Daniel J. Lenihan, ed., Santa Fe,
NM.
1992 Fire Management Plan, Isle Royale
National Park, Michigan.
1995 Archeological survey and testing at Isle
Royale National Park, 1987-1990
seasons, by C. P. Clark. Midwest
Archeological Center, Occasional
Studies in Anthropology, No. 32.


0 1 2MILES a
————— a
a |

j
(@> ae
(1) ee

JOHNS ISLAN(

@ BARNUM ISLAND a

GRACE

ISLAND 4
WASHINGTON
ISLAND

TO MINNESOTA A
~ WASHINGTON
1) HARBOR

OCK OF AGES
HTHOUSE

BEAVER ISLAND,

CRYSTAL COVE

AMYGDALOID RANGER STATION Dx

1 z 3 4

pee

5 MILES

a
e
A
a

4 Ee
BELLE ISLE Z

LANE COVE,

CAMPGROUND

é
l f
ys

MCCARGOE COVE

PASSAGE ISLAND

PASSAGE ISLAND LIGHTHOUSE

8)

DUNCAN BAY ~

Za

A
Je set |
o sy |
BS oan usro0n|

ROCK HARBOR:

s)

TO MICHIGAN

PARK HEADQUARTERS,

RANGER STATION
FERRY ROUTE

TRAILS

FRONTCOUNTRY

WILDERNESS PORTAL
(noney

PRIMITIVE

PRISTINE

MOTT ISLAND

OPEN WATER MOTORIZED

QUIET / NO WAKE WATERS

NONMOTORIZED WATERS.

NOTE: WATER ZONES APPLY TO LAKE
‘SUPERIOR ONLY.

2 MILES

ROCK HARBOR’
‘SNUG HARBOR

ALTERNATIVE B

Isle Royale National Park * Michigan
United States Department of the Interior + National Park Service
DSC + JUL 98 + 139 » 20017A

ON MICROFILM



Impacts Common to the Proposed Action, Alternatives B, C, and E

Wilderness Experience/Noise

A reduction in overcrowding and noise levels
would enhance the wilderness experience.
Separation of uses would also enhance the
wilderness experience for some users.

Restriction of aircraft landings to existing
designated areas and prohibition of sightseeing
aircraft and personal watercraft would prevent
noise increases from these activities.

RANGE OF USES

The range of uses refers to the reasons that
visitors come to the park and to visitor
characteristics such as age, income level, or
physical ability. The range accommodated varies
somewhat in different alternatives. In alternatives
that call for major changes in amounts or
locations of facilities and services, these impacts
would be the most significant.

Visitor Use Levels

In all action alternatives it is assumed that
numbers of visitors will have to be managed or
limited. This may mean that in the future some
visitors may be unable to visit the island when
they wish or might not be able to visit at all
during the season.

Disabled visitors would encounter fewer barriers
as changes were made over time to meet
accessibility standards in developed areas and at
campgrounds. Outreach programs would increase
awareness of opportunities for the disabled at Isle
Royale.

Safety

Visitor safety could be affected in some
alternatives because emergency response time
could vary according to number and location of
docks and ranger stations and the general amount
of ferry and motorboat access.

111

In alternatives that call for nonmotorized zones,
boaters would not be prevented from taking
shelter in those zones in the event of hazardous
weather conditions or for other legitimate safety
reasons.

IMPACTS ON PARK OPERATIONS

Partnerships for cultural resource protection and
maintenance would be beneficial to park
resources, but a workload increase would be
associated with their establishment, management,
and coordination.

Establishing limits for visitation growth would
minimize long-term increases in maintenance and
management workload associated with wear and
tear on park facilities and resources.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Cumulative impacts are impacts on the natural
and cultural environments and human experience
that result from the incremental impact of the
action when added to other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless
of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person
undertakes such other actions. Cumulative
impacts can result from individually minor but
collectively significant actions that happen over a
period of time.

The action alternatives reaffirm the NPS
commitment to protect and manage natural
resources. They propose programs and allocations
of funds to support those programs that would
enable the park to continue (or begin) resource
inventories and monitoring. This would provide
the park with information that would be very
beneficial when working or cooperating with
other entities in the Lake Superior basin to
improve the overall quality of the environment,
including the fishery. The concept of the park as a
natural laboratory and benchmark would be
enhanced and the resulting data would be
extremely valuable for research and studies
conducted in the region and beyond.


Draft purpose statements were reviewed by the
park staff and the public. The following state-
ments reflect changes in response to comments.

+ preserve and protect the park’s
wilderness character for use and
enjoyment by present and future
generations

* preserve and protect the park’s cultural
and natural resources and ecological
processes

* provide opportunities for recreational
uses and experiences that are compatible
with the preservation of the park’s
wilderness character and park resources

+ provide park-related educational and
interpretive opportunities for the public

* provide opportunities for scientific study
of ecosystem components and processes,
including human influences and use, and
share the findings with the public

Park significance statements capture the
essence of the park’s importance to the nation’s
natural and cultural heritage. Significance
statements do not inventory park resources;
rather, they describe the park’s distinctiveness
and help to place the park in its regional,
national, and international contexts. Under-
standing park significance helps managers make
decisions that preserve the resources and values
necessary to accomplish the park’s purposes.

The following significance statements were

developed for Isle Royale National Park and
were refined based on park staff and public

comments,

* This maritime park, a U. S. biosphere
reserve, encompasses a remote and
primitive wilderness archipelago isolated
by the size and power of Lake Superior.

+ Isle Royale is world renowned for its
long-term wolf/moose predator/prey

13

Description of the Park

study. The park offers outstanding
possibilities for research in a remote,
relatively simple ecosystem where overt
human influences are limited.

* Park waters contain the most productive
native fishery and genetically diverse
lake trout populations in Lake Superior.

PARK EMPHASIS STATEMENTS

Park emphasis statements flow out of the park
significance statements and incorporate key
resources and stories that characterize Isle
Royale National Park. These statements are
emphasized in the park’s education and
interpretation programs. They also serve as
broad guiding principles for other park programs
and for priority setting. More specific statements
for interpretation, resource management, and
park operations may be developed from the park
emphasis statements.

The park staff developed the following set of
park emphasis statements that incorporate ideas
expressed by the public.

* — Self-sufficiency is a way of life on Isle
Royale. Self-sufficiency is as important
today for park backpackers, canoeists,
and boaters as it was for those who first
used and settled the island — Native
Americans, European miners, lighthouse
keepers, commercial fishermen, and
island summer residents.

+ Wilderness has many meanings to many
people. For Isle Royale National Park,
the meaning is defined by the
Wilderness Act of 1964, which states a
wilderness is an area “. . . affected
primarily by the forces of nature, with
the imprint of man’s work substantially
unnoticeable, [and] has outstanding
opportunities for solitude or a primitive
and unconfined type of recreation . . .”


whom the campground at Siskiwit is the only opportunity to camp on the shoreline of the big @
lake. This special opportunity is often compromised by noise from motorboats and occasional
inappropriate boater behavior. Separation of uses at Siskiwit seems prudent and viable, given
that there will be overnight use sites for motorized users at three nearby sites (Hay Bay,
Wright Island, and Fishermans Home). Moving the campground is not a viable option because
of site limitations such as topography and swampy areas and concerns about impacting wolf
use areas; (2) the existing dock is only viable because of the artificial breakwall, which has
disrupted the natural currents along the beach; (3) the dock is deteriorating and would require
extensive repairs, even if it were to remain.
Comment: Isle Royale’s wilderness legislation and legislative history indicate that Congress intended
all existing docks to remain in place.

Response; The National Park Service disagrees with this assertion. The Senate originally
recommended that the Isle Royale wilderness legislation contain the following special
management language: “. . . the Secretary may, as he deems necessary, a) maintain existing
boat docks for the safety of visitors and the protection of the wilderness resource, and
construct new boat docks at relocated campsites in the event that present campsites need to be
relocated . . .”. Though this language was later deleted, the committee noted that the deletion
was not an indication that maintaining and/or relocating boat docks was not permitted. The
committee noted that “By removing the management language from the legislation the
Committee seeks to separate the two functions of designation and administration.” In other
words, the committee sought to leave such management decisions to the secretary of the
interior and the National Park Service. @

Comment: Every dock is a safety outlet for powerboats (including sailboats) in severe weather and no
docks should be removed. One person commented that the Siskiwit dock is the only dock on the
island’s south side that gives good protection from storms between Windigo and Chippewa Harbor.

Response: Lake Superior can be dangerous at times, and while docks generally provide shelter
from storms, so do protected bays, coves, and lee sides of islands. Each dock or other location
offers advantages and disadvantages depending on wind direction. Between Windigo and
Chippewa Harbor boaters will have a choice of several sheltered locations, including Hay
Bay, Wright Island, Malone Bay, and Fishermans Home. Siskiwit is difficult to approach in a
northeast wind. Some of the alternative sites offer better approaches and shelter during such
conditions.

Comment: Any docks installed to compensate for the removal of docks in other areas should be at
least as long as the removed docks, should offer equally good protection from storms, have water at
least as deep, and be as easy to access by motorboat.

Response: All proposed docks are in areas that have been historically used and are in
protected areas with adequate water depth. Dock length will be consistent with the historic
scene. Longer docks outside of developed areas will not be considered, as they may result in
crowding and associated noise and reduce opportunities for solitude.

142


Consultation and Coordination

* Comments with detail beyond the scope of the Draft General Management Plan /
Environmental Impact Statement

Motorized Use / Water Zones

Comment: The National Park Service should develop and adopt an alternative that would preclude all
motorboats in Isle Royale National Park waters because they are noisy and cause water pollution.
Other commenters suggested that the general management plan should contain a detailed plan for
strongly discouraging the use of private motorboats for access to and movement within Isle Royale
National Park and strongly encourage the use of existing public and commercial ferry services.

esponse: Isle Royale is a wilderness maritime park. No effort was made during congressional
wilderness deliberations to prohibit boats from the Lake Superior waters of the park. In fact, the
following statement relating to boat docks from the congressional deliberations on Isle Royale
wilderness indicates that Congress intended that motorboat use be permitted in the park: “The
Committee understands that no significant expansion of boat dock numbers is anticipated, but that
continued maintenance of these facilities is essential to the continued ease of access as well as the
health and safety of the visitors.” (Senate report 94-1357).

Comment: For clarity, the motorized sensitive zone should be renamed “no-wake zone” or “no-
wake/low noise zone.”

Response: The zone formerly called “motorized sensitive waters zone” has been changed to
“quiet/no-wake zone” in the plan.

Comment: Some people commented that the National Park Service should not ban motorboats from
Isle Royale. One person expressed the concern that ferry service could be discontinued, preventing
people from visiting the island. Others commented that boats provide access for those who can’t hike:
the elderly, the disabled, and the very young.

Response; The proposed action does not ban motorboats from the park and does maintain
ferry service. Proposed changes to motorboat use will not significantly change accessibility
for those who cannot hike.

Comment: Motorboat engine technology has advanced in recent years, resulting in much cleaner and
quieter engines. Engines using old technology are frequently a source of considerable water, air, and
noise pollution. Engines that pollute the air and water should be banned from the park or phased out

over time.

Response: The National Park Service believes that it is not reasonable or practical to establish
boat powerplant requirements in the park that would differ from requirements in effect
throughout the rest of Lake Superior in both Michigan and Minnesota.

Authority for setting engine emission standards rests principally with the Environmental

Protection Agency, which has already promulgated new emission standards that
manufacturers must meet by shortly after the turn of the century. New two-stroke engine

137


RECOMMENDED:

Q) les dhernnf

Douglas A. Barnard
Superintendent, Isle Royale National Park

Wilber, w.Ahonk

William W. Schenk
Director, Midwest Region

eS) Printed on recyled paper

August 17, 1998

August 17, 1998



INTRODUCTION

The alternatives in this document establish broad
overarching management guidelines. The general
nature of the alternatives requires that the analysis
of impacts also be general. This means that the
National Park Service can make reasonable
projections of likely impacts, but these are based
on assumptions that may not prove to be accurate
in the future.

Asa result, this environmental impact statement
is programmatic and presents an overview of
potential impacts relating to each alternative. This
environmental impact statement will serve as a
basis for NEPA documents prepared to assess
subsequent developments or management actions.

Impact topics were selected for analysis by
determining which resources or elements of the
human environment would be affected by
alternative actions to address the planning issues
and concerns described in the Purpose and Need
section. Methods used to avoid or assess impacts
are discussed below and in Appendix A. Those
resources and environmental concerns that would
not be appreciably affected by alternative actions
were eliminated from further consideration and
comparative analysis.

IMPACTS DISMISSED FROM
FURTHER CONSIDERATION

The alternatives presented in this document will
not have discernable negative impacts on the
following resources, so these impact topics were
dismissed from further consideration.

Floodplains and Wetlands

There would be no actions in floodplains or
wetlands in any alternative. Preliminary site
investigation for all actions has ensured that those
resources can be avoided during implementation.
In all alternatives involving removal or
construction of docks in navigable waters, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Michigan

107

Coastal Commission would be consulted for
appropriate permits.

Air Quality

Temporary impacts on air quality could be caused
by construction and demolition of facilities.
These would primarily involve temporary
increases in particulates (fugitive dust) and
vehicle emissions (where motorized equipment is
used). Mitigating measures (such as watering to
keep dust down) would be taken to limit even
temporary and localized impacts.

All alternatives would allow park managers and
others to better understand and manage air
quality. Included are research into suspected
threats (consistent with the concept of Isle Royale
being a laboratory or benchmark for wilderness),
cooperative efforts with regional air quality
ecosystem management and protection programs.

Vegetation and Soils

In each alternative, the total disturbance to
vegetation and soils would be very minor (less
than 10 acres) considering the size of the park.
Most disturbance would take place in previously
disturbed areas, further reducing the overall
impact. Mitigation techniques would be used to
reduce impacts to the minimum necessary to
accomplish the objective. Mitigation would
include careful site selection, salvaging topsoil
and plant material, and rehabilitation of disturbed
areas. Whenever facilities are proposed to be
removed, the disturbed areas would be
rehabilitated and revegetated with native plants.

Inventory work would be beneficial to the park’s
ability to manage these resources. Data gaps in
the baseline information, particularly for rare
plants and several animal species, would be filled
and a better overall understanding of ecosystems
would be attained.


‘THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES.

» relocating campsites for nonmotorized users at
Chippewa Campground further into the cove

Cross-country wilderness experiences would
continue to be provided in pristine zones.

Consistent with the concept of providing visitors
maximum freedom to experience and enjoy the
island, there would be no areas zoned primitive,
quiet/no-wake, or nonmotorized waters in this
alternative.

CONCESSIONS SERVICES

Ferries would continue to serve Rock Harbor,
Windigo, and secondary stops such as McCargoe
Cove and Malone Bay. Water taxi service to
intermediate stops would also continue as
demand warranted. Concession services at Rock
Harbor (motel and housekeeping units,
restaurant and snack bar, marina, boat rentals,
fuel sales, store) and Windigo (store, boat
rentals, fuel sales) would remain.

It is not likely that any combination of overnight
and food services at Rock Harbor could continue
to be offered without financial subsidy to
provide utilities to the concessioner (see
Appendix C). This conclusion was based on the
Concession Feasibility Analysis, Isle Royale
National Park, that was prepared for Rock
Harbor. The study takes into consideration the
high cost of utilities on the island and the rela-
tively low number of visitors using the con-
cession’s overnight accommodations. Without
subsidy, the cost of providing lodging and food
services could continue to drive up prices to a
level that few visitors would be willing or able to
pay (which already appears to be happening).
This could result in the elimination of overnight
and food services at Rock Harbor.

The concessioner would need to be subsidized
through a congressional appropriation to the
park. It would have to be sufficient to cover both
capital costs related to backlogged utility and
infrastructure upgrades and annual operating
costs of supplying utilities to the concessioner in

56

excess of the cost of comparables (the difference
between utility costs on the mainland and costs
at the park). This subsidy is estimated at a
minimum of $2.1 million for the backlogged
utility and infrastructure capital improvement
needs and a minimum of $400,000 per year, plus
annual consumer price index increases to keep
the subsidy current. This subsidy would allow a
reduction in costs of rooms, meals, and all other
goods and services which would make
concessioner services more affordable for the
visitor. If this subsidy is not received, costs for
the visitor will continue to escalate, resulting in
services not being affordable for most park
visitors.

PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

Priorities would include limiting use levels
through a reservation system and upgrading
utilities and infrastructure at Rock Harbor. Other
actions would follow.

Over and above alternative A (no action) costs,
alternative E construction costs are estimated at
$241,800. Additional research, inventory, and
monitoring costs are estimated at $2,130,000
(one-time) and $10,000 annually. An additional
annual appropriation of approximately $400,000
would be necessary to subsidize the concession
operation at Rock Harbor (see Appendix B for
details).


APPENDIXES, BIBLIOGRAPHY, PREPARERS, INDEX

Washington Island 35-36, 50, 61, 117, 118, 173, 185

wetlands 8, 72, 149-150, 178

wilderness 5-6, 11, 23, 27, 29, 32, 35-36, 50, 55, 56,
59, 63, 65, 91, 94, 107, 111, 113, 114,
116-117, 120-121, 123-124, 126, 127,
132-133, 135, 137-138, 140, 142-144,
147-149, 153, 159-160, 162, 171-172,
180-181, 184-186, 192, 205

Windigo 18-19, 28, 36, 37, 39, 45, 50, 51, 63, 65, 81,
84, 86-87, 89-90, 96, 98, 120-122, 140, 144,
146, 147, 150, 158-159, 177, 185, 187, 193

wolf 4, 4, 8, 13, 23, 72-73, 75, 98, 120, 142, 162,
185, 205, 206

Wright Island 24, 24

Zones 7, 18, 25, 27, 30, 32-34, 36, 37, 38, 44-45, 50,
51, 55, 56, 65, 69, 113, 114, 116-118, 120,
125-127, 134, 135, 137-139, 140, 144, 151,
157, 161, 163, 180, 184, 185

zoning 28, 30, 34, 55, 65, 127, 153, 171

222


Comment: The National Park Service work boats and the seaplane are the worst offenders in terms of
noise pollution.

Response: The seaplane is a reasonable alternative for those seeking access to the island. It
does not fly over the main portion of the island but instead follows the shoreline. Landings
and takeoffs are limited to designated areas in Tobin Harbor near Rock Harbor and
Washington Harbor near Windigo. Low altitude plane flights over the island will not increase
in the future, as the proposed action states that scenic overflights are inconsistent with the
wilderness character of the park. When the park workboats are replaced, the National Park

Service will investigate options for quieter vessels and purchase them if they meet park
requirements.

Comment: Safe harbors are needed in bad weather. Nonmotorized zones could endanger the lives of
powerboaters by making harbors of refuge off-limits. One person commented that the NPS response
that nonmotorized zones can be used for harbors of refuge in bad weather is unworkable because the
decision to use the harbor has to be left to the captain, who has to consider future weather and crew
conditions.

Response: The proposed action has been modified — it no longer includes nonmotorized
zones. Thus, concern about what weather conditions warrant use of nonmotorized zones
should no longer be an issue.

Comment: Consider providing mooring buoys to give boaters alternatives to anchoring out or tying up
toa dock.

Response: Self-sufficiency is a way of life on Isle Royale (see the first park emphasis
statement in the plan). Mooring buoys would affect seasonal sailors/motorboaters who
already anchor out without mooring buoys. Moorings can concentrate visitors in certain
areas, causing crowding, decreasing opportunities for solitude, and impacting the natural
scenic beauty. Vessels not self-contained using mooring buoys increase sanitary and health
concerns. In addition, mooring buoys increase the maintenance workload and potential
liability for the park.

Comment: Are any motorized vehicles permitted on inland waters?

Response: Motorized vehicles are not permitted on inland waters, as these areas are designated
wilderness.

Comment: Why is the NPS proposing to keep boaters out of two nonwilderness areas (Siskiwit and
McCargoe Cove)?

Response: The proposal has been modified to eliminate nonmotorized zonesLegislated
wilderness applies to certain land and inland lakes portions of the park but not to Lake
Superior waters (see the Wilderness Status map in the draft plan for details). Boaters, like all
Isle Royale visitors, are welcome to enter both designated wilderness and nonwilderness areas
of the park, provided that they observe applicable laws and regulations. In designated

140




INTRODUCTION

This General Management Plan / Environmental
Impact Statement (GMP/EIS) presents and
analyzes five alternative future directions for
management and use of Isle Royale National
Park. One of the alternatives has been identified
as the National Park Service’s preferred future
direction. Potential consequences and
environmental impacts of all alternatives have
been identified and assessed.

General management plans are intended to be
conceptual documents that establish and
articulate a management philosophy and
framework for decision making and problem
solving in parks. General management plans
usually provide guidance over a 15-20 year
period. Actions called for in general
management plans or in subsequent

implementation plans are accomplished over
time. Budget restrictions, requirements for
additional data or legal compliance, and
competing park priorities prevent immediate
implementation of many actions. Major or
especially costly actions could be implemented
ten or more years into the future.

The plan has been developed by a core team of
professionals including representatives of the Isle
Royale National Park staff and technical
specialists from the NPS Denver Service Center
(the planning and facility development center for
the national park system). The entire park staff
has been involved in scoping meetings and
briefings and has provided feedback to the core
planning team. There has been extensive public
involvement throughout the planning process.


APPENDIXES, BIBLIOGRAPHY, PREPARERS, INDEX

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior (cont.)
1995a Survey of nonnative (exotic) vascular
plant species of campgrounds, devel-
oped areas, and Passage Island Light-
house and trail at Isle Royale National
Park, Michigan, 1994, by E. Judziewicz.
Resource Management Report 95-1, Isle
Royale National Park, MI.
1995b Final Report: Inventory and establish-
ment of monitoring programs for special
floristic elements at Isle Royale National
Park, Michigan, by E. Judziewicz. Isle
Royale National Park, MI. 772 p.
1995c Archeological Survey and Testing at Isle
Royale National Park, 1987-1990
seasons, by Caven P. Clark. Midwest
Archeological Center, Lincoln, NE.
1996 Preliminary report on the fire and
vegetation history of Isle Royale, by K.
Cole, M. G. Winkler, R. A. Flakne, and
T. Cochrane. Resource Management
files, Isle Royale National Park.
1996a Safety Assessment at Rock Harbor, Isle
Royale National Park, prepared by U.P.
Engineers & Architects, Inc., Houghton,
MI.
1997 Concession Feasibility Analysis, Isle
Royale National Park, prepared by
Dombusch & Company, San Francisco,
CA, in association with A.R. Block &
Associates, Sausalito, CA.
1997a Raptor inventory at Isle Royale National
Park, Michigan, report 97-2.
1997b Breeding bird survey at Isle Royale
National Park, Michigan, RM 97-3.

Peterson, R. O.
1994 Final Report: Study of wolf decline, Isle
Royale National Park, Michigan
Technological University, Houghton,
MI.

218

Rakestraw, Lawrence

1965 Historic Mining on Isle Royale. Isle
Royale Natural History Association.
Houghton, MI.

1965 Commercial Fishing on Isle Royale,

1800-1967. Isle Royale Natural History
Association. Houghton, MI.

Shetron, S. and R. Stottlemyer
1991 Final Report: Soil survey of Isle Royale
National Park, Michigan Technology
University, Houghton, MI

Slavick, A. and R. A. Janke
1993 The vascular flora of Isle Royale
National Park. 3rd Edition. Isle Royale
Natural History Association.

State of Michigan

1992  Michigan’s special plants. Michigan
Department of Natural Resources.
1994a_ Michigan fish contaminant monitoring

program: 1994 Annual Report.
Michigan Department of Natural
Resources.

1994b  Michigan’s special animals. Michigan
Department of Natural Resources.

Stottlemyer, R. and D. Toczydlowski

1994 _ Long-term study of boreal
watershed/lake ecosystems, Michigan;
Fraser Experimental Forest, CO; and
Alaska, 1994 Annual Report and 1995
Work Plan.
Swain, W.R.
1978 “Chlorinated organic residues in fish,

water, and precipitation from the
vicinity of Isle Royale, Lake Superior.”
Journal of Great Lakes Research 4:398-
407

U.S. Department of Commerce
1994 Regional Economic Information System,
1969-1994, CD-Rom, Bureau of
Economic Analysis, Economics and
Statistics Administration, Washington,
Dc.


* use disturbed areas and historic structures at
Barnum Island and east end of Washington Island
for an interpretive and /or research facility and
add a campground and/or improved docking
facilities

* provide park orientation at Houghton, Copper
Harbor, and Grand Portage ferry staging areas

+ add a limited number of sustainable rustic
accommodations at Rock Harbor

* remove motel units and discontinue dining room
service at Rock Harbor

+ discontinue concession and public laundries at
Rock Harbor and public laundry at Windigo

+ relocate McCargoe Cove dock somewhat closer
to the mouth of the cove and add a new boater
campground

+ provide a new trail from old McCargoe to new
McCargoe campground

* remove dock and breakwater at Siskiwit Bay
Campground (after other docks in the area are
available for use)

* remove public dock at Threemile Campground
* conduct a separate study to develop and evaluate
options for improving Houghton headquarters

Phase III: 13 — 20 years

Phase III actions depend on the results of phase I
or II studies and are lower priority resource
protection, visitor use, or interpretation needs.

They include:

* remove historic structures with no life leases or
special use permit arrangements unless eligible for
national register and potential use identified

+ develop new campground with dock on Johns
Island

Actions to be Implemented on an Ongoing or
As Needed Basis

* continue systematic monitoring of natural and
cultural resources

+ investigate ways to contribute to and benefit
from regional ecosystem management and

185

Appendix B

protection efforts* convene a panel of wolf subject
matter experts

* cooperate with partners to set standards for and
carry out preservation of shipwrecks

+ work with organizations that encourage and
enable use of wilderness areas by special
populations

* assist writers with park-related materials

* assist educational institutions with development
of programs that promote park goals and reduce
impacts

+ seek partnerships with other groups to enrich
interpretation and education opportunities
regionwide

* modify structures in developed zones, vessels,
and aircraft to meet accessibility standards (as
facilities are replaced or modified)

* cooperate with Native Americans to recognize
established treaty rights

+ limit commercial activity to avoid
commercialization and excessive use

* provide support services to Keweenaw National
Historical Park

+ strengthen education outreach efforts

* conduct research to fill gaps in understanding of
cultural history

+ seek partners to help stabilize, maintain, and
interpret Passage Island, Isle Royale, and Rock of
Ages Lighthouses

+ seek partners to help stabilize, adaptively use,
and maintain historic structures at Wright Island,
Crystal Cove, and Fishermans Home

+ further investigate ship-based overnight
concessions at Rock Harbor


PROPOSED ACTION

IMPACTS ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Wildlife

This alternative proposes moderate new camp-
ground and dock construction (5-10 new
facilities) and minor demolition of facilities
(fewer than 5) that would temporarily disturb or
permanently displace wildlife. The net loss of
habitat would be minimal due to the rehabilitation
of sites where facilities would be removed. Most
new construction would be in previously dis-
turbed areas that have had some degree of human
use. Some increased use could occur that could
cause more disturbance. Overall visitor use of the
park would be monitored and managed, which
would reduce wildlife disturbance compared to
alternative A. (See discussion of the wildlife
impacts in the “Impacts Common to the Proposed
Action and Alternatives B, C, and E” section.)

Disturbance of waterfowl is most critical at
nesting sites near the shoreline. This alternative
establishes quiet/no-wake water zones in many
areas, which affords more protection to sensitive
waterfowl habitat than any of the alternatives
except C. Removal of portions of the Chippewa
trail would create an undisturbed area larger than
existing conditions that would rarely be used by
people and would probably be beneficial to
wildlife.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Potential disturbance to threatened and
endangered species from dispersal of visitation,
increased use in particular areas, and introduction
of use into new areas would be minimized by
monitoring and managing visitation levels. (Also
see discussion of the VERP process in the
“Actions Common to the Proposed Action, Alter-
natives B, C, and E” section.) No additional
impacts on bald eagles or peregrine falcons would
be expected.

116

Designated Wilderness

Existing park activities will delay for the
foreseeable future the conversion of five potential
wilderness areas to wilderness. In this alternative
conversion of two additional areas would be
delayed in order to preserve cultural resources
through adaptive use.

Geologic Processes

Removal of the Siskiwit dock and breakwater
would permit natural shoreline processes to

return, particularly the movement of sand and
sediment along the shoreline in Siskiwit Bay.

Water Quality

Water quality impacts would be similar to
Alternative A, with the following exceptions:
Use limits and prohibition of personal watercraft
in the park mean that emission of hydrocarbon
compounds into park waters is not likely to
increase much beyond current levels. The NPS’s
leadership role in use of non-polluting motorboat
engines, education efforts about environmental
and other benefits of non-polluting engines, and
increased availability of such engines could
gradually result in a greater proportion of cleaner
motorboat engines in the park. This would cause
aconcomitant decrease in hydrocarbon emissions
into Lake Superior waters. (See also “Impacts
Common to the Proposed Action, Alternatives B,
C, and E”).

IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES
Archeological Resources

Short-term minor negative impacts on known or
previously unknown archeological resources
could be caused by construction associated with
adaptive use of structures at Barnum, Wright, and
Washington Islands; Crystal Cove, Fishermans
Home, and up to six new campgrounds and three


ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
IMPACTS ON PARK OPERATIONS

The increased development and services at Rock
Harbor would increase the need for funding to
subsidize the commercial operations there. This
would continue to divert funds from other park
programs.

While maintenance operations would be reduced
in the middle of the island, requirements would
increase significantly at Rock Harbor, Tobin
Harbor, and Windigo. Maintenance activities
would be more time consuming in nonmotorized
and quiet/no-wake zones.

Reduced transportation services, fewer docks, and
decreased NPS presence in the middle of the
island would slow emergency response time, and
overall emergency response logistics would be
more difficult than they are now.

Monitoring and management of visitor use levels
would increase the overall park operations
workload.

122

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

This alternative would give focus and emphasis to
research and monitoring and to preservation of
cultural resources at the ends of the island. The
knowledge gained and the facilities protected
would complement the efforts of historic
preservation groups throughout the region. The
decay and eventual loss of historic structures in
the middle of the island, combined with those lost
or removed previously, would constitute a
cumulative loss of historic fabric and a negative
impact on the record of the island’s history.


APPENDIX A: PLANNING ANALYSIS AND DEVELOPMENT
OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

PLANNING ANALYSIS

Visitor use statistics such as yearly and monthly
trends in lodge, campground, dock, and ferry use
were gathered and studied. The planning team also
discussed areas where visitors or park staff have
noted problems in the past and sought the
underlying reasons for these problems.

Natural and cultural resource inventories were
evaluated. A computerized geographic information
system was used to store, retrieve, display, and
manipulate spatial resource information.

The geographic information system aided in the
placement of management zones and facilities in
different alternatives, Desirable and undesirable
characteristics for each zone (according to the
written descriptions) were identified, then a
suitability map was created for each management
zone. For the frontcountry zone, for example, areas
best meeting the following criteria were identified:
within a day’s hike or boat ride from Rock Harbor
or Windigo, not near sensitive natural resources,
not on steep slopes, and near interesting cultural or
natural features that could be protected from use
impacts (scenic viewpoints, lighthouses, etc.). Each
zone’s suitability map then showed areas of the
park that are particularly well suited or poorly
suited for that zone.

A comprehensive analysis of resources that are
sensitive to human use was also conducted with the
geographic information system. Information on the
following resources was overlaid to create a map
highlighting areas that are particularly sensitive to
human use:

* areas frequently used by wolves
° wet soils

+ steep slopes

+ loon nests

* raptor nests

* colonial waterbird colonies

177

* stream corridors
° rare plant locations and suitable habitat
* known archeological sites

Such GIS-generated resource inventories and
suitability maps were consulted when decisions
were made about how to place zones and facilities
in different alternatives. The maps were also used
to check potential impacts of the alternative
(including the proposed action). Other measures
taken to check feasibility and determine potential
impacts included field-checking alternative ideas
and proposals and consulting with resource experts
and other agencies.

Hundreds of public comments were received in
response to the first four GMP newsletters and
from the first round of public meetings. Each
comment was reviewed. Many of the comments
were incorporated into the draft GMP alternatives.
Input from visitor surveys that were conducted
during the summers of 1995 and 1996 provided a
better understanding of what visitors to Isle Royale
value, what their expectations are, what problems
they experience, and how accepting they would be
of management actions (such as reservations)
designed to keep island experiences enjoyable.

The goal was to ensure that the draft alternatives
did not include actions that had no public support,
or that had unacceptable effects on park resources
or visitors. Public and agency comments on the
draft were given full consideration and were be
incorporated into the final plan.

ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

In order to develop a preliminary preferred
alternative, the five draft alternatives that had been
reviewed by the public were evaluated. To
minimize the influence of individual biases and
opinions, the team used an objective analysis
process called “Choosing By Advantages.” This


Response: The National Park Service does not agree that changes to motorboat use or park
operations as a result of the GMP alternatives are likely to have significant direct, indirect, or
cumulative impacts on the environment. Some degradation in water quality could occur if
motorboat use significantly increased relative to existing conditions. Although (theoretically)
boat use could continue to increase over time in alternative A (no action), this would not occur
under the other alternatives, all of which include caps on visitation growth. Therefore, no
adverse impacts from motorboat use would occur under any of the action alternatives,
including the proposal. The discussion of water quality impacts has been expanded to explain
the reasons for this conclusion. Because the action alternatives would not result in significant
increases in boat use compared to alternative A, the contribution to cumulative impacts
resulting from this plan would be negligible.

The park has implemented a number of safety practices to reduce the potential for accidental
spills to an acceptable level of risk, given the essential role petroleum products play in
operations. Regarding the potential for hydrocarbon spills, U.S. Coast Guard-approved spill
prevention and contingency (response) plans are in place for NPS vessels that transport and
transfer petroleum products in the park. Employees receive spill prevention and response
training; practice exercises are conducted to ensure response readiness. The National Park
Service is investigating the feasibility of applying a honeycomb overlay product to the
gasoline transport barge to achieve a double-walled configuration and reduce spill potential.

A comprehensive spill prevention, control, and counter-measure plan for shore-based storage
facilities will be completed and implemented by the 1999 operating season. Storage facility
spill response plans are now in place. Bulk storage facilities at Rock Harbor, Mott Island,
Malone Bay, Windigo, and Amygdaloid Island have either double-walled storage tanks or are
within containment structures. Single-walled distribution piping is being replaced with
double-walled piping. This work will be completed at Mott Island and Windigo by early in the
1999 operating season and at Rock Harbor by 2000. All shore-based petroleum storage
facilities are inspected by U.S. Coast Guard officials annually. Standard operating procedures
that address spill prevention and immediate response needs are in place and are followed
during fuel transfer operations. Spill containment equipment is prepositioned for rapid
deployment.

A 2-year cycle for pumping and disposing of sewage has been established to control the
volume to be handled each time. The practice of pumping sewage into storage tanks has been
abandoned and a self-contained sewage pumper truck is used to pumpout holding tanks and to
contain the sewage during transport to the mainland for disposal.

Comment: The Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement does not mention
the impacts of continuing seaplane service on residents of the mainland along the flight path.

Response: None of the alternatives propose changing the seaplane service, thus changes to the
seaplane service were not assessed.

Comment: The Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement should address
the possibility that private motorboat access increases the probability of domestic dogs entering the
park from boat docks, causing the transmission of canine viruses to Isle Royale’s wolves. All

166







APPENDIXES, BIBLIOGRAPHY, PREPARERS, INDEX

Sa, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Candice $. Miller, Sccretary of State
Lansing, Michigan 48918-0001

STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
Michigan Historical Ceater
717 West Allegan Street
Lansing, Michigan 48918-1800

July 20, 1998

MR DOUGLAS A BARNARD
SUPERINTENDENT

ISLE ROYALE NATIONAL PARK
800 EAST LAKESHORE DRIVE
HOUGHTON MI 49931-1869

RE: ER-940213 Draft General Management Plan, Isle Royale National Park, Keweenaw County
(NPS)

Dear Mr. Bamard:

Under the authority of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, we have reviewed the
above-cited report. This letter contains our comments on the Draft General Management Plan for Isle
Royale National Park in Keweenaw County.

isle Royale contains several resources listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Furthermore, I am

confident your Classified Structures List will identify a number of additional properties eligible for listing

in the national register. Until the State Histonc Preservation Uffice (SHPO) obtains a copy of that list, my e
comments must remain somewhat general in nature. Proposed changes to resources must be submitted on a

case-by-case basis for review until a list of national register-eligible resources is developed. No comments

on specific changes to docks, campgrounds, concession facilities, etc. are provided in this response.

Overall, the report meets the conditions of the 1995 Programmatic Agreement for National Parks. My
concerns regarding the specific alternatives are as follows:

hemative A - Existing Conditi

This alternative states that once the List of Classified Structures has been completed and national register-
eligible properties are identified: “Such resources would then be maixtained, stabilized, or documented and
allowed to decay.” The SHPO does not support demolition by neglect as a viable planning option and such
am action constitutes ani Adverse Effect (36 CFR Part 800.9 [b]). Alternative uses for all eligible resources
should be considered.

The concession service facilities and overnight lodging facilities at Rock Harbor must be evaluated for
national register eligibility before closure. Alternative uses should be discussed.

The Proposed Action and Alternatives B,C and FE

All alternatives except for C call for retaining historic structures eligible for listing in the national register.
if a potential adaptive use is identified. The process for identifying new uses should be clarified.

Unlike Alternative A, the Proposed Action and Alternatives B and E do not state that the List of Classified

Structures would be updated and a cultural landscape report would be completed. As proposed in

Alternative A, the List of Classified Structures should be updated, a cultural landscape report should be

completed, and the SHPO should review and comment on these documents. The List of Classified

Structures and the cultural landscape report should be incorporated into the Proposed Action and

Alternatives B and E in order to determine what resources must be considered in managing the park. e

212


SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

REGIONAL LAND USE AND REGIONAL
VISITOR FACILITIES AND SERVICES

Regional Characteristics

The affected economic region includes the three
counties of the Keweenaw Peninsula: Houghton,
Keweenaw, and Ontonogon, Michigan, and
Cook County, Minnesota. The area has harsh
and long winters and limited economic
opportunities.

Keweenaw Peninsula, Michigan. In the late
19th and early part of the 20th centuries mining
and forestry were the mainstays of the economy
of the Keweenaw Peninsula. A large population
was encouraged to settle and live in the region
due to the mineral wealth (copper) of the
peninsula. This situation has changed since the
1940s. The region’s population has decreased,
and services, state and local government, and
manufacturing are now the mainstays. Mining no
longer plays a significant part in this region’s
economy.

Consumptive use of natural resources has been
replaced by nonconsumptive uses as the
economy has evolved. Today considerably fewer
people are supported by mining and logging.
Many parks, including Isle Royale and other
attractions, provide a focus for summer
activities. Heavy winter snowfall, averaging
more than 200 inches and hilly topography
provide the basis for winter sports, including
skiing and snowmobiling.

Cook County, Minnesota. Cook County is in
the extreme northeastern part of Minnesota. It
has a triangular shape bordered by Ontario,
Canada, on the north, Lake Superior on the
southeast, and Lake County, Minnesota, on the
west. The Grand Portage Indian Reservation
makes up the easternmost portion of the county.
Much of this rugged and sparsely populated
county is heavily wooded or covered by lakes
and streams. Superior National Forest takes up

91

about % of the county’s 931,756 acres. About Ye
of the county is privately owned. The remainder
is under state and county ownership. The
county’s four incorporated towns and most of
the population are strung out along the Lake
Superior shoreline. About % of the county is in
the Boundary Waters Wilderness canoe area.
Long harsh winters are the norm for the county.

The economy of the Grand Portage Indian
Reservation has evolved over the past decades. It
has changed from subsistence hunting, fishing,
and forestry to a service-oriented economy based
on construction, fishing, forest products,
government services, hunting, crafts, tourism,
and trapping. The seasonal tourism industry
dominates the reservation economy. The Grand
Portage Lodge and Casino are the primary
enterprises of the Grand Portage band of the
Minnesota Chippewa Tribe and provide a
majority of the employment opportunities on the
reservation. The gambling industry on the
reservation and the North American Free Trade
Agreement have combined to provide a real
stimulus to the local economy.

Population

Michigan has nearly 9.5 million people living in
83 counties. Houghton County ranked 44th in
population in the state in 1994. Keweenaw
County was the least populated county in the
state and Ontonagon ranked 78th. Overall the
population in all three counties has declined
since 1980. Between 1980 and 1994 Houghton,
Keweenaw, and Ontonagon Counties have
declined in population by approximately 4.0%,
5.0%, and 12.1% respectively (now having a
total of less than 50,000 people) while the state
as a whole has increased by 2.9%.

Cook County, with fewer than 5,000 inhabitants,
is one of 87 counties in Minnesota, which has a
total population of 4.5 million. Cook County
ranks 85th in the state. The county experienced a


Actions Common to the Proposed Action and Alternatives B, C, and E

indicators and standards will be developed, and
the public will have an opportunity to comment
on them.

Wilderness and Backcountry
Management Plan

A wilderness and backcountry management plan
is needed. It would guide management of
wilderness resources and ensure consistency in
such management over time. The plan would
identify a process to determine the appropriate
tools to use in wilderness, set priorities for
campground and trail maintenance projects, and
could incorporate the VERP implementation
plan to address visitor use limits in wilderness,
identify research and monitoring needs, outline
how VERP will be implemented, and identify
staffing needs.

Several areas on the island were not designated

as wilderness in the park’s wilderness legislation.

Because of changes in park plans and needs, the
wilderness and backcountry management plan
would evaluate these areas for possible
conversion to wilderness.

Resource Management Plan

The Resource Management Plan would be
revised as needed to incorporate management
direction provided by the general management
plan. The revised plan would detail the status of
the park’s natural and cultural resource programs
and would affirm and detail needs for research,
inventories, monitoring, and other programs.
Programs called for by the General Management
Plan are detailed in Appendix B.

Water Resources Management Plan. Water
resources management plans structure and use
information about water resources and water-
related environments to: (1) identify and analyze
water resource issues and management concerns,
(2) provide a detailed description of the
hydrologic environment and summary of water
resource information, and (3) assist management

29

in developing and evaluating alternative actions
for addressing water-related resource
management issues over a 5—10 year period.
Recommended management actions developed
in the water resources management plan are then
incorporated into the resources management
plan.

Fisheries Management Plan. The objective of
fisheries management in the National Park
Service is to preserve or restore the natural
behavior, genetic variability, diversity, and
ecological integrity of fish populations. Fisheries
management within the waters of Isle Royale
National Park is the shared responsibility of the
National Park Service and the state of Michigan.
The fisheries management plan would provide a
framework that the National Park Service and
the state could use to enhance formal coordina-
tion and cooperation to identify issues and
concerns, formulate management objectives, and
implement inventory, monitoring, and manage-
ment actions necessary to protect the fisheries.

Commercial Services Plan

The proposed action and alternatives contain
proposals that could affect current or new
contracts and permits used to manage commer-
cial activities in the park. A commercial services
plan is needed to provide specific guidance
regarding these issues. A commercial services
plan identifies those services that are necessary
and appropriate to support the purpose and
significance of the park. It also identifies the
appropriate instrument (contract or permit) to be
used and procedures to follow when managing
the program. The plan would follow the
direction provided in the general management
plan and be prepared as soon as that direction is
available.

Comprehensive Interpretive Plan
This plan would provide detailed guidance on

improvements to media, facilities, and education
and outreach programs.


north side. The campground symbol has been repositioned on the Existing Conditions map to
more accurately reflect the location.

Comment: Consider increasing the number of small canoe/kayak sites along the Lake Superior
shoreline. In particular, consider a paddler campsite in the vicinity of Blake Point; the campsites on
either side of Blake Point (Merritt Lane and Duncan Narrows) are often full, and there are no other
options in the area for sea kayakers, who cannot compete with motorboaters for shelters and
campsites. If it is not possible to create a new campsite for resource reasons, another option would be
to reserve a shelter or tent site at campgrounds on either side of Blake Point. A last option would be to
create some kayak campsites in or near Rock Harbor.

Response: The proposed action has been modified to include the addition of one or two tent
sites at Merrit Lane to improve opportunities for paddlers to camp in the area. Also, cross-
country camping is allowed in certain locations in this area (a permit is required).

Wilderness

Comment: The General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement should include a
wilderness designation plan and clearer indications of when areas recommended for wilderness will
finally be managed as such.

Response: A wilderness and backcountry management plan is called for in the plan (see p. 28
of the draft). This plan will provide guidance on this topic and will be available for public
review.

Comment: A large part of the unique wilderness experience that could be provided by Isle Royale as
an island wilderness could include the wilderness shoreline looking out on waters also in wilderness
condition. None of the alternatives described in the Draft General Management Plan / Environmental
Impact Statement provide a shoreline that looks out on Lake Superior open waters without motorized
boats. The most protective alternative would have most of the Isle Royale wilderness surrounded by
nonmotorized waters. This alternative does not seem to have been considered. Less protective
alternatives would also benefit from substantial portions of wilderness shoreline buffered by
nonmotorized boating restrictions and were also not considered. Similarly, ferry boat routes could be
moved further offshore; perhaps moved out of the channels between the main island and the offshore
island. These alternatives were also not considered in the draft plan.

Response: Alternatives such as described here were not considered because they are not
believed to be viable alternatives. As mentioned in several other responses, Congress intended
that motorboat use be continued at Isle Royale, as it is a maritime park. Because of the nature
of Lake Superior, it would be unreasonable and dangerous to require motorboaters to travel
and anchor around the island without the protection of coves and harbors. Because of the
length of the ferry trips to the island (it requires six hours or more to travel from Houghton,
Michigan, or Grand Portage, Minnesota, to Rock Harbor) it would not be reasonable to expect
the ferries to lengthen their trips even more by traversing the island far enough out to be
unseen from the shore. The Voyager circumnavigates the island at most three times per week,
the Ranger II makes the round trip twice per week, and the Isle Royale Queen comes straight

152




Appendix B

eo. Table B7: Alternative C Construction Cost Estimate
Advance and Total
Gross Project Planning Project
REPAIR AND REHABILITATION Costs Costs Costs
Repair/rehab docks 982,500 187,500 1,170,000
Repair/rehab Rock Harbor utilities 327,500 62,500 390,000
Rehab Rock Harbor structures 655,000 125,005, 789,000
Repair/rehab Windigo utilities 327,500 62,500 390,000
TOTAL REPAIR AND REHABILITATION $2,292,500 $437,500 $2,730,000
Advance and Total
Gross Project Planning Project
NEW CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION Costs Costs Costs
Total new construction $0 $o $0
Demolition
Rock Harbor 4,585,000 875,000 5,460,000
Mott Island 3,275,000 625,000 3,900,000
Windigo 1,310,000 250,000 1,560,000
Malone Bay 163,750 31,250 195,000
Amygdaloid 163,750 31,250 195,000
Docks 1,637,500 312,500 1,950,000
Total demolition $11,135,000 $2,125,000 $13,260,000
TOTAL NEW CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION $11,135,000 $2,125,000 $13,260,000
Table B8: Alternative E Construction Cost Estimate
Advance and Total
Gross Project Planning Project
REPAIR AND REHABILITATION Costs Costs Costs
Repair/rehab Docks 1,965,000 375,000 2,340,000
Repair/rehab Rock Harbor utilities 2,811,260 536,500 3,347,760
Repair/rehab Mott Island utilities 655,000 125,000 780,000
Repair/rehab Windigo utilities 655,000 125,000 780,000
TOTAL REPAIR AND REHABILITATION $6,086,260 $1,161,500 $7,247,760
Advance and Total
Gross Project Planning Project
NEW CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION Costs Costs Costs
New construction
Docks 131,000 25,000 156,000
Campgrounds 39,300 7,500 46,800
Total new construction $170,300 $32,500 $202,800
Demolition
Docks 32,750 6,250 39,000
Total demolition $32,750 $6,250 $39,000
TOTAL NEW CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION $203,050 $38,750 $241,800

191



concern about potential water pollution resulting from motorboat use and requested more
consideration of this issue.

It is important to understand that while public input is fundamental to responsible planning and greatly
influences decision making in general management plans, the laws, regulations, and policies that
govern the National Park Service and Isle Royale National Park must also be taken into account. The
number of comments for or against certain proposals may not be meaningful because some people
comment more than once (examples include the individual who sent many internet responses and the
petition containing hundreds of names that was submitted by an environmental organization) and
public response is not structured to represent a statistically valid sample of interested people. Public
input on a general management plan is not a poll or a vote. Rather, the National Park Service must
respond to the whole of the public response and must consider the merits of comments received from a
diverse public and other agencies in the context of resource information, laws and mandates, and
sound management practices.

SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS
Substantive comments are defined by the Council on Environmental Quality as comments that :

(a) question, with reasonable basis, the accuracy of the information in the Draft General Management
Plan / Environmental Impact Statement

(b) question, with reasonable basis, the adequacy of the environmental analysis

(c) present reasonable alternatives other than those presented in the plan and environmental impact
statement

(d) cause changes or revisions in the proposal

In other words, substantive comments raise, debate, or question a point of fact or policy. Comments in
favor of or against the proposed action or alternatives or those that only agree or disagree with NPS
policy are not included. Substantive comments on the draft and the NPS replies to those comments are
presented below, grouped into the following topics:

+ Motorized use/water zones

* Docks

+ Carrying capacity

* Rock Harbor lodge and concessions

+ Use conflict/separation of uses

+ Trails and campgrounds

+ Wilderness

* Cultural resources management and interpretation
+ Wildlife/natural resource protection

* Other topics

+ Comments on the “Environmental Consequences” section
+ Native American treaty rights

136


Actions Common to the Proposed Action and Alternatives B, C, and E

ethnographic resources — the island was
important to Native American groups. More
information is needed about their historic and
modem uses.

lighthouses — when the lighthouses come
under NPS management, the first priority
would be to determine the feasibility of
management and preservation options.

shipwrecks — shipwrecks would be open for
scuba diving under the current diving permit
system. Charter diving services would
continue to be available. The park would
continue efforts to monitor and protect the
shipwrecks and in cooperation with partners
such as the Great Lakes Shipwreck Preserv-
ation Society would continue shipwreck
documentation and would evaluate additional
stabilization and restoration projects. *

+ research specific gaps in Isle Royale’s cultural
history, including: early use of the island (7000
B.C. — 1000 B.C.); fur trapping and trade; fire,
history; logging history; fishing; and the park’s
administrative history (including the reasons for
locations of facilities, residential history, and the
chronology of visitor uses such as diving and
concessions history).

* retain and expand the monitoring program to
ensure protection of cultural resources,
particularly where they are used (such as at
shipwrecks). Because cultural sites, such as
mining remains and fishing camps, can be an
important part of the wilderness experience, sites
would be monitored to ensure perpetuation of
that experience.

* cooperate with partners to set standards for and
carry out preservation treatment of shipwrecks
based on the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and
Historic Preservation..

A number of special studies are needed to fill
gaps in the knowledge of human use and activity
on the island. For example, evidence of various
prehistoric cultures using the island during the

25

same time period raises questions. Did the island
function as neutral ground? Were resources
allocated in different ways for different groups?
Was the island’s bounty accessible to all
equally? Did the island serve as a haven in times
of conflict and confusion or starvation on the
mainland? The majority of archeological sites
have been identified by shovel testing and have
not been excavated, so there is potential for
much additional information.

The park does not have knowledge or evidence
of current use by Ojibwa and has little docu-
mentation of their historic use. The modern uses
of the island by the native people should be
identified so that the park can work with the
tribes in managing the resources that they may
be using.

Mitigation

For actions that could involve ground
disturbance or affect structures and/or landscapes
that are either on or eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places, the Michigan
Historic Preservation Office would be consulted
regarding impacts on these cultural resources. In
the case of ground disturbance, an archeological
survey would be undertaken to determine the
extent and significance of the archeological
resource before any ground disturbance occurs.
Any impacts on cultural resources would be
avoided if possible. If this is not possible,
mitigation measures would be developed by the
park in consultation with the Michigan Historic
Preservation Office and the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation.

VISITOR USE
Accessibility

In developed zones all new structures would be
accessible to people with disabilities. Existing
structures would be modified to meet
accessibility standards as funding allowed or as
the facilities were replaced or rehabilitated.


ALTERNATIVE E

OVERALL CONCEPT

Most facilities would remain and services would
continue, but a few changes would be made to
better separate uses and increase interpretation.
To provide better quality experiences without
restricting activities, visitor numbers would be
controlled at substantially lower levels than exist
now. According to visitor feedback, most
congestion and user conflicts take place between
late July and late August. Based on preliminary
analysis of use levels during these times,
visitation would have to be reduced to about
10,000—13,000 people per year in order to avoid
most conflicts. This would mean that
approximately 5,000-8,000 fewer visitors per
year would be accommodated than in recent
years.

Visitation to the island would be managed
through a reservation system. A limited number
of permits could be issued per year on a first-
come, first-served basis, or there could be a
lottery system or some other method. Various
reservation systems would be carefully evaluated
before one was chosen.

Interpreted sites would remain, and historic
structures at Wright Island, Crystal Cove, and
Fishermans Home could be adaptively used for
additional interpretation of park cultural themes.
Interpretation and environmental education
could be provided at the west end of the park at
Washington and Barnum Islands. The Rock
Harbor and Windigo areas would remain the
primary visitor orientation points.

Historic structures and landscapes would be
preserved in priority order according to
significance. The historic commercial fishery
sites at Wright Island, Crystal Cove, and
Fishermans Home would be stabilized and.
adaptive uses would be sought to provide for
their continued preservation and interpretation.
When the National Park Service receives title to
the lighthouses owned by the U.S: Coast Guard

55

(such as Passage Island Lighthouse), partners
interested in preserving the structures would be
considered.

PARK MANAGEMENT ZONING

NPS operations would remain at Rock Harbor,
Mott Island, and Windigo. Ranger stations at
Amygdaloid Island and Malone Bay would also
remain.

The developed zones at Rock Harbor and
Windigo would remain as they are. Ferries
would continue to serve Rock Harbor, Windigo,
and secondary stops such as McCargoe Cove and
Malone Bay. Water taxi service to intermediate
stops would also continue as demand warranted.

Day hiking and interpretation opportunities
would be emphasized in frontcountry zones.

The wilderness portal zones would include five
sites. These areas would continue to serve as
secondary ferry stops and would be entryways
into the backcountry.

Most trails and campgrounds would be zoned as
backcountry. Modifications would be made in
three backcountry zone areas to help separate
motorized and nonmotorized uses at these
popular sites. Actions to implement this concept
would include:

+ relocating the dock to the mouth of McCargoe
Cove, where a new boater campground would be
added, which would reduce noise and traffic at
the head of the cove. The campground at the
head of the cove would remain for use by hikers
and paddlers.

+ relocating hiker campsites away from the dock
area at Siskiwit Bay, leaving sites near the dock
for motor boaters


APPENDIXES, BIBLIOGRAPHY, PREPARERS, INDEX

process, which has been used extensively by
government agencies and the private sector,
evaluates different choices (in this case, the five
preliminary alternatives) by identifying and
comparing the relative advantages of each
according to a set of criteria.

The first step in developing criteria was to establish
goals for the preferred alternative. The goals were
based on park purpose, significance, and emphasis
statements, laws and policies, and public concerns
and comments. The goals were written in two
categories: one represented conditions to be met by
the preferred alternative; the second represented
conditions that would be desirable for the preferred
alternative to meet (i.e., the degree to which an
alternative satisfied the goal would measure the
desirability of the alternative). The two groups of
goals are shown below.

The actions in the preferred alternative must:

* provide safe, sustainable, and efficient
park operations for resource protection
and visitor use

* provide public access

* not adversely impact threatened and
endangered species in ways that could not
be mitigated

* result in no net loss of wetlands

* meet clean air and water standards

+ allow no degradation of resources and
wilderness character in designated
wilderness

+ allow no loss of cultural resources
without complete documentation

Actions that would be desirable in the preferred
alternative:

* maximum public access for all user
groups (consistent with resource
protection and visitor experience goals)
* minimum disruption of desired
experiences for all user groups

* little or no adverse impact on plants,
animals, fish, or soils

178

+ no degradation of wilderness values
islandwide

* preservation of properties eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places

The next step in the CBA process was to develop
the criteria that would be used to compare the
alternatives. Using the goals presented above and
factors that were commonly mentioned by the
public in commenting about the alternatives, the
team identified seven criteria by which to evaluate
the alternatives:

* provide a maximum range of visitor
experiences

* provide maximum access, flexibility,
and freedom of movement around the
island

* provide maximum opportunities for
orientation, interpretation, and education
* preserve or enhance wilderness values
(quiet, opportunities for solitude, absence
of modern intrusions, etc.)

* preserve and protect cultural resources
* preserve and protect natural resources
+ provide for visitor safety

The team identified the relative advantages of each
alternative for each of the seven criteria. Each
advantage was given a point value that reflected its
importance. Then, by adding up the scores for each
alternative, the team was able to determine how the
alternatives compared overall. Costs of
implementing the alternatives were then compared
to examine the relationships between advantages
and costs. The relative advantages of the
alternatives for each criterion are summarized
below.

Provide a Maximum Range of Visitor
Experiences

The team found that alternatives B and D best met
this criterion. Both would add to the range of
activities consistent with the purpose and character
of the park by providing designated areas for
nonmotorized boating and some additional areas


APPENDIX B: PLAN PHASING, COSTS FOR STUDIES, CONSTRUCTION COSTS

IMPLEMENTATION

The proposed action would be implemented over
the next 15 to 20 years. The actions have been
divided into phases to identify priorities for
funding and to guide implementation. The time
frames given for the phases are approximate.

Phase I: 1-5 years

Phase I actions are considered high priority
because they:

address crucial resource protection needs
remedy serious infrastructure concerns
accommodate immediate interpretation or
visitor use needs

must be accomplished before subsequent
steps can be taken

could be accomplished fairly quickly with
relatively little time and money

Phase J actions include:

- expand monitoring of natural resource trends

+ inventory Lake Superior fisheries

* inventory water and air quality

* establish a natural resource research advisory
board

* expand monitoring of cultural resources

* inventory and document archeological sites

+ inventory and document cultural landscapes

+ inventory and document ethnographic resources
* assess condition of lighthouses

+ develop interpretive media supportive of park
emphasis statements

» take action to keep visitation levels in line with
goals and maintain quality visitor experiences and
resource protection

* prepare a commercial services plan

+ prohibit use of personal watercraft, commercial
aircraft for sightseeing, and multidestination cruise
ships

+ place charter fishing operations on limited
concession permits

184

+ establish quiet/no-wake waters zones
+ establish a group campsite at Belle Isle

« remove hiking trail access at Chippewa Harbor
+ eliminate commercial kayak use from the west
end of the island between Todd Harbor and Point
Houghton

« make some privies and shelters accessible for
people with disabilities

* repair/replace docks that are to remain

* replace/rehabilitate Rock Harbor utility systems
+ replace dock at Hay Bay

* consider potential adaptive uses for historic
structures at Barnum and Washington Islands

* repair docks at Wright Island, Crystal Cove, and
Fishermans Home using volunteer agreements for
resource protection and interpretation

* prepare a wilderness and backcountry
management plan

» develop new campground with dock on Wright
Island

» develop new campground with dock at Crystal
Cove

+ develop dock at Fishermans Home

* remove dock at Duncan Bay (after replacement
dock and campground are established at Crystal
Cove)

+ add 1-2 campsites at Merritt Lane

Phase II: 6 — 12 years
Phase II actions would:

require or benefit from the results of
phase I actions

address intermediate priority resource
protection needs

address intermediate interpretation or
visitor use needs.

* inventory reptiles and amphibians

+ inventory insects

+ develop a fisheries management program

* prepare a water resource management plan


AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
decline in population from 1980-1990.

However, its population has rebounded with an
overall gain between 1990-1994 of 7.3%.

Income, Employment, and Poverty

In 1994 the national average per capita income
was $21,696. Michigan ranked 19th ($22,192)

and Minnesota ranked 17th ($22,217).
Houghton ($15,264), Keweenaw ($15,985), and
Ontonagon ($16,591) Counties had average per
capita personal incomes well below the state
average (see table 7). Minnesota ranked 17th in
the country with a state average per capita
income of $22,217. Cook County ($19,999) was
significantly below the average for the state.

TABLE 7. STATE AND LOCAL COUNTY PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOMES FOR SELECTED YEARS

County/State Per Capita Personal Income

1980 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
Michigan 10,154 18,237 18,703 19,739 20,601 22,192
Houghton County 6,863 12,634 13,400 13,615 14,517 15,264
Keweenaw County 6,715 14,586 15,364 15,305 15,052 15,985
Ontonagon County 751 13,758 14,460 14,951 15,604 16,591
Minnesota $9,982 18,779 19,271 20,454 20,911 22,217
Cook County $8,493 16,615 17,570 18,517 18,812 19,999

Source: Regional Economic Information System, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Economics and Statistics

Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1994 data.

Unemployment and poverty rates (1990 census
data) for the states and counties are presented in
table 8. Cook County had higher average
unemployment than the state, but the poverty
level was only slightly above the state average.
The U.S. averages in 1990 for unemployment
were 6.4% and for poverty were 13.1%.

TABLE 8. UNEMPLOYMENT AND POVERTY RATES

Below Poverty

State/County | Unemployed | Level

Michigan 8.2% 13.1%
Houghton 9.9% 21.0%
Keweenaw 17.0% 20.6%
‘Ontonagon 8.4% 13.2%
Minnesota 6.0% 10.2%
Cook 10.9% 10.9%

Source: Census of Population and Housing, 1990:
Summary Tape File 3, Bureau of the Census,
Washington, 1992.

92

The major individual employer in the Keweenaw
region is Michigan Technological University.
Nearly 1,200 employees provide services to a
student body of about 6,000 undergraduates and
600 graduate students. The next two largest
employers combined provide only about half as
many jobs. Health care services are also a top
employer. Four health care facilities combine to
provide about 1,070 jobs. Local school systems
employ about 460 people.

Cook County’s economy, in terms of earnings,
has been based primarily on services, govern-
ment, and retail trade. Due to recreation and
tourism, there is a strong seasonal aspect to this
local economy. More people are employed
during the summer tourist season because of the
influx of seasonal residents and vacationers.
Services, government at all levels, and retail
trade provide the most jobs in Cook County. The
county’s economy is heavily tied to the
vacationing traveler. Hiking, mountain biking,
canoeing, backpacking, camping, golf, and
horseback riding are popular. Hunting and


Consultation and Coordination

use and maintain family homesteads (at the families’ expense or with public donations) into the future.
The park and public would benefit from preservation of the island’s historic culture at very little
expense, and the original families could maintain and preserve their ancestral heritage. Families could
share cultural artifacts with the visiting public by putting them on display at the homesites.

Response; A cultural resource management plan will be completed after the General
Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement is finalized. This plan will address the
future of the homesites/life lease sites. Decisions will be made on which homesites to maintain
based on the criteria outlined on page 24 of the draft plan (wilderness status of the land,
national register eligibility of the structures and sites, condition of the structures, importance
to cultural landscapes, and suitability and potential for adaptive uses by the park.) After these
decisions are made, partnership agreements will be sought to stabilize, maintain, and interpret
the homesites. The original families will be eligible to participate in the partnerships. All
agreements made will be consistent with NPS laws and policies.

Comment; The Wilderness Act of 1964 states “features of historical value may be present in
wilderness areas.” It further states that wilderness “is an area retaining its primeval character and
influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation.” Historic structures should be
allowed to remain on Johns Island (see p. 35 of the draft plan); new docks and tent platforms seem
contradictory to the Wilderness Act.

Response: The cabin on Johns Island will be evaluated for retention or removal based on the
criteria listed on page 24 of the draft and in the above response. Facilities such as tent
platforms will only be used at campgrounds where needed for resource protection, which is
consistent with NPS wilderness management. The Senate hearings on the Isle Royale
wilderness bill provide for the continuance of “. . . the construction and maintenance ofboat
docks along the lakeshore as long as their purpose is for safety of visitors and the protection of
the wilderness resource.”

Comment; The issues section of the plan says “There is no clear policy for the disposition of
structures, grounds, and docks on the island following the expiration of life leases” (p. 5). In the
proposed action section of the plan there is still no clear policy — it says life lease properties will be
dealt with on a case-by-case basis (p. 24).

Response: The criteria by which individual cases will be decided are set forth in the Draft
General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement. These criteria include
information that will be provided by the ongoing cultural landscape inventory and update of
the List of Classified Structures. Results are not yet available. A cultural resource management
plan will be developed upon completion of the General Management Plan and will be
available for public review. It will document decisions to remove or retain and maintain
structures and sites. The decisions will be based on the criteria listed on page 24 of the draft
plan. The results of ongoing studies will be used in the evaluation. After the decisions are
made, partnership agreements will be sought to stabilize, maintain, and interpret the life lease
properties. Family members of the original leaseholders will be eligible to participate in the
partnerships. All agreements made will be consistent with NPS laws and policies.

155


ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

response training, etc.) are in place now or will be
completed in 1999.

Petroleum spills from boat accidents (private,
NPS, or commercial ferry) rarely occur at Isle
Royale. The risk of such accidents could rise if
use of motorboats in park waters increased
significantly, but based on the historic rate of
such incidents, the likelihood of a damaging spill
would still be low. The greatest risk of a major
spill is associated with the NPS fuel barge; this
risk would be minimized, however, by
compliance with U.S. Coast Guard regulations
and conversion to a double-hulled vessel.

IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES
Archeological Resources

Twenty-five of the park’s 36 campgrounds are
located on or near archeological sites. These sites
would continue to deteriorate because of erosion
and foot traffic. Inventories of archeological sites
would continue to be done on a site-by-site basis
for compliance purposes.

The lack of comprehensive surveys would result
in a negative impact on the long-term manage-
ment of archeological resources. Archeological
investigations before ground disturbing activities
would continue to alter sites as data is retrieved,
and there is a risk that information would be
overlooked or lost during the investigations.

Historic Resources

The currently limited park program to identify
significant cultural resources would continue and
would lead to marginally improved understanding
and management of these resources. In the
absence of identified uses for historic structures
and with no strategy for adaptive use, some
structures currently managed by the park (or that
would come into park ownership) would be
documented and allowed to deteriorate.

114

IMPACTS ON VISITOR USE
AND VISITOR EXPERIENCE

Scenic Quality

There would be no impacts associated with
increased shoreline development. Unlimited
visitor use would eventually degrade the

shoreline and inland areas (primarily by trampling
vegetation). The motel units at Rock Harbor
would continue to impact the natural appearance
of the entrance to the harbor area.

Wilderness Experience and Noise

The quality of the experience for many visitors
would continue to decline due to unlimited use
levels, which would result in increased crowding
and more competition for campsites. If motorboat
use continues to increase, visitors would hear
boats more frequently, especially in well traveled
corridors. With no nonmotorized or quiet/no-
wake zones, no decrease in noise levels would be
expected to occur. Noise from sightseeing aircraft
and from personal watercraft could be a problem
in the future.

Range of Uses

Current range of uses and visitor flexibility in
going to and moving around the island would
continue to be accommodated. Potential for
negative visitor experiences would continue as
diverse user groups with different expectations
share the same campgrounds. Disabled visitors
would encounter fewer barriers as changes were
made over time to meet accessibility standards in
developed areas.

Unavailability of funding for concession
subsidies would probably result in higher costs to
the consumer and might price some individuals
out of the market. If the concession operation
fails, people unable to visit the island without
those services would be displaced.


TABLE 1. CAMPGROUNDS WITH DOCKS

The Proposed Action

Campgrounds with Docks on Lake Superior Campgrounds with Docks on Lake Superior (Proposed
(Existing) Action)
Number of | Onboard Number of Onboard
Dock Shelters Generator Use Dock Shelters Generator Use
Windigo 10 [yes Windigo 10 | yes
Grace Island 2 |yes Grace Island 2 [yes
Beaver Island 3 yes Beaver Island 3. | yes
Todd Harbor 1 |yes Washington Island! no
McCargoe Cove 6 yes Johns Island 0 no
Birch Island 1 yes ‘Todd Harbor 1 no
Belle Isle 6 yes McCargoe Cove” 0 yes?
Duncan Bay 2 [yes Birch Island 1 {no
Duncan Narrows 2 yes Belle Isle 6 yes
Bay
Merritt Lane 1 yes Crystal Cove! no
Tobin/Rock Harbor 9 yes Duncan Narrows. 2 no
Tookers 2 yes Merritt Lane 1 [no
Three Mile 8 [yes Tobin ‘Rock Harbor 9 |yes
Caribou Island 2 yes Tookers 2 [no
Daisy Farm 16 | yes ‘Caribou Island 2 | yes
Moskey Basin 6 lyes Daisy Farm 16 | no
Chippewa Harbor 4 lyes Moskey Basin 6 [no
Malone Bay 5 [yes Chippewa Harbor 4 |no
Siskiwit Bay 2 | yes Malone Bay 5 [yes
Wright Island 0 {no
Hay Bay 0 [yes
Fishermans Home! yes
TOTALS
Docks Number of | Onboard Docks Number of Onboard
Shelters Generator Use Shelters Generator Use
20 88 all 22 70 (and 3 with | 10 yes
footnote 1) | 12 no

Adaptive use of historic structures for public accommodations (exact numbers to be determined).

2 Location to be determined based on wilderness land status of new dock location.

> Onboard generators allowed at new dock only.

35


includes data on mercury levels in the fish. Most
recreational fishing of the inland waters focuses

on northern pike, walleye, brook trout, and lake

trout.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Those animal species currently federally listed as
threatened or endangered include the eastern
timber wolf, Canis lupus (endangered), bald
eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus (threatened), and
the peregrine falcon, Falco perigrinus
(endangered). Lynx (Felis lynx) have not bred in
the park since the 1930s. Any that may exist in
the park are probably transient.

Several other species are on the “Michigan’s
Special Animals” list (State of Michigan 1994b).
The list is included as Appendix D.

Others

There have been no comprehensive surveys of
insects, snails, or mussels on Isle Royale.

PHYSIOGRAPHY

Isle Royale National Park lies in the Superior
Upland physical province (Shetron and
Stottlemyer 1991). Elevation ranges from 600
feet at Lake Superior to almost 1,400 feet along
Greenstone Ridge. The physiography of the park
is a product of glaciation modified by bedrock.
The dominant features across the landscape are
the ridge and valley topography with variable
thicknesses of glacial drift deposits left from the
last retreat of the continental glaciers about
10,000 years ago. There are many lakes and
ponds, and vast areas of swamps cover
depressions in the landscape. Numerous low-
gradient stream systems drain the interior of the
island into Lake Superior.

Surficial deposits of glacial debris cover the
island, ranging in thickness from over 5 feet near
Lake Desor to less than 2 feet near the

75

Natural Resources

northeastern end of the island. Bedrock outcrops
are common across the island.

Two major ridges parallel the long axis of the
island, the Minong and Greenstone Ridges. Both
ridges have steep escarpments with elevational
differences of several hundred feet.

GEOLOGY

Precambrian rock layers over one billion years
old, the result of successive volcanism,
sedimentation, uplift, and erosion, form the Isle
Royale archipelago. The bedrock sequence on the
island consists of thick layers of lava and
sedimentary rocks that have been tilted toward
the southeast, and the linear ridges of the island
are the eroded edges of individual layers of the
sequence (Huber 1975). Significant minerals
found in the park include copper, greenstones,
datolite, and agates.

Keweenawan volcanics dominate the geology of
Isle Royale, with interbedded sediments exposed
in the upwarping of the deposits that tilt toward
the southeast and mirror the formations in the
Keweenaw Peninsula that tilt toward the north-
west (Clark 1995). Sedimentary deposits lie on
the southwestern end of the island that have
corresponding features on the south shore of Lake
Superior as sandstones and conglomerates.
Cutting across these beds are many transverse
faults.

Glacial activity is visible throughout the island
and includes abrasions on bedrock, quarrying of
rocks by plucking, striations across the bedrock,
deposits of glacial till (such as at the west end of
Siskiwit Lake), and landscape features such as
drumlins and moraines. Former lake levels of
Lake Superior are evidenced by inland beach
ridges on the island.


CONTENTS

Concession Service Areas 88
Rock Harbor 88
Windigo 90

Socioeconomic Environment 91
Regional Land Use and Regional Visitor Facilities and Services 91
Regional Characteristics 91
Population 91
Income, Employment, and Poverty 92
Visitor Services 93

Park Operations 94
Organization and Program Areas 94
Marine Operations 96
Facilities 96

Trails 96

Docks 96

Campgrounds 97
Developed Areas 97

Houghton 97

Windigo 98

Rock Harbor 98

Mott Island 99

Malone Bay 99

Amygdaloid Island 99

Visitor Use 100
Visitor Use Data 100
Ten Year Annual Data and Analysis 100
Length of Stay 100
Projections of Demand 102

Environmental Consequences

Introduction 107
Impacts Dismissed from Further Consideration 107
Floodplains and Wetlands 107
Air Quality 107
Vegetation and Soils 107
Ethnographic Resources 108
Park Collections 108
Environmental Justice Policy (Executive Order 12898) 108

Impacts Common to the Proposed Action, Alternatives B,C, andE 109
Impacts on Natural Resources 109
Wildlife 109
Threatened and Endangered Species 109


HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT

This document has four main sections. The first,
called “Purpose of and Need for the Plan,”
introduces the plan, describes why it is
necessary, and explains what it will accomplish.
It provides background information about Isle
Royale National Park, including park purpose
and significance, and describes the establishing
legislation for the park.

The “Description of the Proposed Action and
Alternatives” section presents alternatives for the
management of the park. Alternative A (no
action) describes what would happen without an
approved general management plan. Some
actions are common to all but the no-action
alternative; these are discussed in a section titled
“Actions Common to the Proposed Action and
Alternatives B, C, and E.” The proposed action
(based on a revised version of Alternative D
from Newsletter 6) presents the National Park

iii

Service’s preferred approach for managing the
park. Alternatives B, C, and E present other
options for management of Isle Royale

The third major section is called the “Affected
Environment” and describes the park’s cultural
and natural resources, visitor use patterns, and
park operations. This section also describes the
socioeconomic conditions in the surrounding
region. The information in the Affected
Environment section provides the context for
analyzing the impacts of the actions in the
alternatives.

The last major section,” Environmental
Consequences,” describes the effects that
implementing each alternative would have on the
resources as described in the “Affected
Environment” section.


technology, such as Evinrudes’s FICHT fuel injection, already meets the EPA standards.
Engines using this new technology are on the market.

The National Park Service believes that these developments will result in the phaseout of
older engines that do not meet the more stringent emission standards. The National Park
Service will set an example by converting to the new engines as part of its marine engine
replacement program. Public education and interpretive programs will also be used to increase
public awareness of this issue.

Comment: Many people commented that nonmotorized zones should be greatly expanded beyond
those in the draft proposed action to improve wilderness values and provide areas without the sounds
and sights of motors. Many commenters suggested that specific bays and coves, or parts thereof,
should be zoned nonmotorized (examples include Duncan Bay, Tobin Harbor, Robinson Bay, Moskey
Basin, Lane Cove, and Brady Cove). More comprehensive suggestions, such as creating auffer or
transition zone (no motors or low noise) around wilderness land, or designating half the island’s
sheltered waters as nonmotorized, were also received.

Response: Motorboats are not permitted in the inland lakes of Isle Royale, as these areas are
designated wilderness. Lake Superior waters were not included in the wilderness designation.
Congress intended that motorboat use continue in the park. Because of the nature of Lake
Superior, it would be unreasonable and dangerous to require boaters to anchor out for the
night around the island without the protection of coves and harbors.

Instead of expanding nonmotorized zones, the plan has been revised to greatly expand
quiet/no-wake zones, which will result in decreased noise, decreased wake effects on shoreline
resources (including loon nests), and reduced wake impacts on canoers and kayakers. These
expanded zones should provide the opportunity to experience the park in an environment
more conducive to quiet and escape from modern intrusions. The expectation of not seeing
motorboats is contrary to the concept of a maritime national park.

Comment: Some bays and harbors in Lake Superior should be designated as nonmotorized areas to
provide a scientific control for comparison to motorized areas to determine effects on water quality,
wildlife, etc.

Response: The National Park Service agrees that designating nonmotorized areas would
provide some opportunity for future comparative studies of contaminant levels in motorized
vs. nonmotorized Lake Superior waters, but due to the flow and interchange of water, no bays
could serve as absolute control sites.Even without officially designated nonmotorized zones,
the National Park Service can temporarily restrict use of some small bays or coves
administratively to conduct this type of research. The plan has been modified to call for such
research.

Comment: Some commenters suggested that the National Park Service permit sailboats in
nonmotorized waters zones (at no-wake speeds and when wind conditions render navigation under sail
impossible) since their auxiliary motors are not the primary means of propulsion. Someone suggested
that sail-powered watercraft without auxiliary motors should be allowed in nonmotorized zones.

138


THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

Appropriate Kinds of Activities or Facilities —
This zone could include moderate to high-use
trail corridors. Small campgrounds, small docks,
and unpaved but maintained trails would be the
only facilities.

Primitive Zone.

Visitor Experience — This zone would provide a
sense of being immersed fully in nature and
would feel farther away from comforts and
conveniences than the frontcountry and back-
country zones. Opportunities for independence,
closeness to nature, tranquility, and the appli-
cation of outdoor skills would be common. The
probability of encountering other visitors would
be low. Use of this area would require a rela-
tively long time commitment and a high level of
physical exertion. The environment would offer
a relatively high degree of challenge and adven-
ture. Tolerance for noise, visual intrusions, and
social interaction would be low.

Resource Condition or Character — The
primitive zone could be applied to lightly used
trail corridors and associated areas. It would be
located in designated wilderness. A moderate
level of management would be provided for
resource protection and visitor safety. Subtle
onsite controls and restrictions could be present,
such as placing downed trees near trail edges,
restricting off-trail use, and requiring that visitors
demonstrate knowledge of environmental
sensitivity before entering the zone. A few
resource modifications could be evident, but they
would harmonize with the natural environment.
NPS tolerance for resource degradation due to
visitor use in this zone would be very low. Any
facilities in the zone would avoid sensitive
resources.

Appropriate Kinds of Activities or Facilities —
Facilities would be limited to primitive trails and
small campsites with minimal facilities. Docks
would not be located in this zone.

32

Pristine Zone.

Visitor Experience — Visitors to the pristine
zone would experience a pure wilderness setting,
free of development. There would be no facilities
or trails. Little or no sign of humans would be
evident. Use of this zone would require a
relatively high degree of physical exertion and a
long time commitment. The environment would
offer challenge and adventure. Opportunities for
independence, closeness to nature, tranquility,
and the application of outdoor skills would be
common. There would be a very low probability
of encountering other visitors and little or no
evidence of visitor impacts.

Resource Condition or Character — This zone
would be the most natural of the land zones. It
would be in designated wilderness and would
encompass large areas. It could include areas
where very low use is desirable to protect certain
resources and areas of the park that are difficult
to access. Management for resource protection
and safety in the pristine zone would be very
limited; the area would be managed in such a
way that onsite controls and restrictions would
be minimized and those that were present would
be subtle. However, offsite management of
visitors could be intensive and could include
eligibility requirements before entering the zone
and limits on length of stay in the area. NPS
tolerance for resource modifications or
degradation would be very low.

Appropriate Kinds of Activities or Facilities —
No facilities would be appropriate in this zone,
including trails and docks. Cross-country hiking
and camping would be permitted but regulated to
protect resources.

Zones for Lake Superior Waters

Open Water Motorized Zone.

Visitor Experience — This zone would appear
predominantly natural, but there would be

evidence of human use and activity. There would
be few restrictions on visitor activities. The



Consultation and Coordination

Response: There is no attempt in the plan to limit hikers’ access to waterfront areas or to limit
boaters’ access by foot to the inner island. There are some actions in the plan (such as
relocating docks) that would enhance separation of motorized from nonmotorized uses (see
also the response above).

Comment: Several people suggested that the National Park Service should build new dockless
campsites or campgrounds for hikers and paddlers as an alternative to removing docks at some
campgrounds. Some said campsites should be moved away from boating harbors or docks to separate
user groups. One commenter said that the National Park Service should create some inexpensive, easy
to maintain, widely spread out primitive individual campsites like those in the Boundary Waters
Canoe Area. Another suggested that more isolated campsites with good views should be built. Others
argued that development of new campgrounds and trails and replacement of lodging facilities should
be limited to prevent fragmentation of wildlife habitat so that wildlife would have large areas
undisturbed by human activity.

Response: The National Park Service considered the construction of several smaller
campgrounds around the island but rejected this idea due to concerns about cumulative effects
of additional development. Adding new developments, even small primitive campsites, into
presently unused areas would further fragment available wildlife habitat. In general, wildlife
would be displaced from the area around any new developments. The National Park Service
considers these impacts unacceptable. Cross-country camping is still an option for those
individuals seeking a primitive camping experience.

Comment: Isle Royale’s problem with visitor conflicts may be largely the structure of the established
campgrounds: (1) trail shelters/campsites within 100 feet of each other,

(2) insufficient shelters/campsites during peak visitation, (3) desirable shoreline campsites used by
hikers, paddlers, sailboaters, and powerboaters.

Response: The configuration and number of campsites in the park has evolved over the life of
the park, largely in response to growth in demand for campsites. This has resulted in more (or
closer) sites in some areas than would be optimal. Topography, soils, and wetlands are
common design constraints. Increasing the number of sites to accommodate peak use would
result in greater resource impacts caused by facilities that would receive only occasional use.
When use conflicts occur, they are related more to insensitive or rude behavior and noise than
campground design, so optimal campground layouts would not prevent them.

Comment: Rangers should be stationed at points of high visitor concentration. For example, a ranger
should be stationed in McCargoe Cove rather than Amygdaloid Island, and a small ranger station
should be constructed at Daisy Farm.

Response: There is a campground host cabin at Daisy Farm. The National Park Service
believes that visitor conflict issues are best resolved through proper facility design and
location, public education, and ranger patrols rather than through onsite supervision of visitor
use. The constant presence of NPS employees in campgrounds would diminish the wilderness
experience for all users. An NPS employee was stationed at McCargoe Cove for two
summers. While this resolved most conflict issues at McCargoe, it displaced such problems to
unstaffed campgrounds.

149


TABLE 2. (CONTINUED) CAMPGROUNDS ACCESSIBLE BY BOAT, CANOE OR KAYAK, AND HIKING TRAIL
CAMPGROUNDS WITH CHANGES IN ACCESS PROPOSED (SHADING INDICATES A CHANGE)

Campground Alternative A |Proposed Action |Alternative B | Alternative C | Alternative E
Birch Island on on a a on
Chippewa Harbor oOn on hy eoOn Removed oon
Daisy Farm oOn oon On Om oOn
Duncan Bay on : a 7 on
Hay Bay on on Removed !: om on
Lake Desor North ie) ie) fe) Removed fe)
Little Todd Harbor |OTM i om
Malone Bay oOn ant = oOn
McCargoe Cove oOn Om Om
Moskey Basin oOn On oOn
Siskiwit Bay oom oe “lon - On
Three Mile oon oon Om oOn
Todd Harbor oon eoOn Om {Om oon
Wood Lake a a a Removed a
@ New Campground
‘Amygdaloid — = — on =
Crystal Cove* —— on on — —
Fishermans Home* |— on — — —
McCargoe Cove — on — |— on
Wright Island* i— on — on —
Johns Island — on on — —
Washington Island* |— on _ on _
Scoville Point _ — — gO _
Tobin Harbor — — on — —_
Rock Harbor _— — on — —
Channel South
Moskey Basin South |— — on |— _
Lake Superior _ . — _
Shoreline North
Washington Harbor |— — s _ _
Mott Island —_ — — on —

*Campgrounds would be provided on land if possible; otherwise boat camping at the dock would be permitted.

61


AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

There are ongoing efforts in the broader Lake
Superior basin to extend the biosphere reserve
concept to include all or part of Lake Superior.
Isle Royale would serve an integral role in such a
reserve as a core protected area within a broader “
managed landscape.

VEGETATION

Approximately 700 species of vascular plants are
found at Isle Royale (Slavick and Janke 1993), of
which slightly over 100 species (15%) are
nonnative (Judziewicz 1995a). Most park land is
covered by a continuous forest, broken only by
marshlands or open bedrock ridges of brush and
grass. Preliminary information from an ongoing
vegetation mapping project has identified at least
30 different vegetation alliances on the island.
Many examples of forest succession are evident
on the island following fire, insect outbreaks,
windthrow, and browsing as well as along
shorelines.

Two major forest biomes are represented on the
island (Linn 1966) — the boreal coniferous forest
and the northern hardwoods forest. Lake Superior
strongly influences the island climate; this
influence in turn largely determines the forest
vegetation patterns on the island. The cold Lake
Superior water surrounding Isle Royale both
cools and moistens the shorelines. Farther inland
and upland this influence wanes, and drier,
warmer conditions prevail. These two climates
have produced two forest types — the boreal
forest nearer the shoreline and the northern
hardwoods of the interior uplands. Elements of
each type are found across the island, but because
the east end is narrow (averaging only 3-5 miles
wide) and has shallow soils, the boreal forest is
widespread there. On the west end, where the
island is about 8 miles wide and soils are deeper,
the northern hardwoods forest associated with
drier, warmer conditions is more widespread.

The boreal forest includes balsam fir, white
spruce, white birch, and aspen; mountain ash is
also present, but less common. Common

70

understory species are thimbleberry, large-leaved
aster, and Canada dogwood.

The northern hardwoods forest, found in the
interior uplands, is typified by the sugar maple-
yellow birch forest. The large sugar maple forest
centered on Greenstone Ridge on the west end is
perhaps the largest tract of undisturbed and
unaltered forest on Isle Royale. Northern red oak
also is found on dry hillsides. Under the sugar
maple overstory a dense undergrowth of sugar
maple seedlings has developed. Herbaceous
species include trillium, yellow clintonia, and
twisted stalk.

Other significant forest types include jack pine
stands, typically found on dry, open ridges and
bluffs with a past history of fire. White and red
pine also are found but generally as individuals or
in small patches, often along ridges or lake
shorelines.

Wetland environments (beaver ponds, bogs,
swamps, and marshes) are common on the island
and are characterized by specialized vegetation.
The ridge/valley topography has created swamp
environments in most of the valleys. Beaver
ponds can cause standing dead forests, but
swamps that have developed without the beaver
influence typically include white cedar or black
spruce. Tamarack, once more widespread, is
restricted today to scattered individuals in some
swamps. Speckled alder is common in swamps as
well.

There are two major bog types on the island.
Sphagnous bogs are dominated by the sedge
Carex limosa, have little or no drainage, and have
sphagnum moss, labrador tea, black spruce, and
tamarack as common species. Cyperaceous bogs
are dominated by the sedge Carex lasiocarpa.
often have an active water outlet, have less
Labrador tea and sphagnum cover, and have
tamarack and white cedar as overstory.


Gi

FES 98-35

FINAL

GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

(GROFILM



AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

MARINE OPERATIONS

All park operations are dependent on the park’s
fleet of 33 boats, most of which range from
16-33 feet long. Most of the larger vessels are
about 20 years old; most of the smaller vessels
have recently been replaced with low-
maintenance workboats.

Specialized vessels include a tugboat, a work
barge, a 55,000-gallon fuel barge, and a military
landing craft (LCM-8). The work barge and
LCM-8 are primarily used to transport items that
cannot be transported on the Ranger III, such as
vehicles, sand or gravel, and construction
supplies. Park vessels are maintained at facilities
on Mott Island.

Primary transportation and logistical support for
the park is provided by the Ranger III, a 125-
passenger vessel built in 1958. This NPS-owned
and operated vessel sails to the island from park
headquarters in Houghton, a distance of over 60
miles. The Ranger II runs from late April or
early May until the end of October, normally
taking two days for each round trip. All crew
positions on the vessel require Coast Guard
licenses and/or certificates. During the spring and
fall freight season, the vessel makes one trip to
the island per week. A crew of nine is required
May 15—-September 15 when the vessel carries
paying passengers. During this period, the Ranger
III makes two trips to the island each week. The
vessel provides interpretive cruises on the Portage
Canal for paying passengers one night per week
during the summer.

The Ranger II provides transportation to the
island for employees and visitors, carrying
approximately 4,500-5,000 people each year. In a
season, over 1,500 people take the weekly cruise
on the Portage Canal. Most freight, groceries, and
mail needed by NPS and concession operations
on the istand are transported on the Ranger III.
Incineration of garbage was eliminated on the
island in 1996, so the vessel now transports most
of the garbage generated on the island back to the
mainland. Up to six private boats 20 feet long or
less can be transported on the front deck of the

96

vessel. All diesel fuel needed to operate boats and
generators on the island is carried and delivered
by the Ranger IIT.

It costs approximately $425,000 per year to
operate and maintain the Ranger III. This is
partially offset by annual passenger and freight
income of about $175,000. Compliance with the
Oil Pollution Act of 1990 has added significant
new costs and requirements (including training)
to the Ranger IIT operation.

As a certificated vessel, the Ranger II] must
undergo a required hull and open machinery
inspection and routine maintenance in drydock
once every five years. The park contracts with a
shipyard for this work, which costs about
$250,000.

FACILITIES
Trails

There is a network of 165 miles of hiking trails in
the park. Along these trails are about 14,000
maintained erosion control devices,
approximately 6 miles of bridging, and 160 trail
signs. Trails are maintained by seasonal trail crew
workers supplemented by several volunteer
groups. The crew has been reduced to four due to
lack of funds. Insufficient maintenance has
resulted in an increase in erosion and social trail
development.

Docks

There are 70 boat docks of widely varying sizes
in the park. About 66% are available for day or
overnight use by visitors. Approximately 30 of
the docks are associated with the 20 campgrounds
on or near the Lake Superior shoreline. Most
docks can accommodate both small and large
boats and are also used by hikers and paddlers.

Visitors can obtain boat fuel from the con-
cessioner at Windigo and Rock Harbor, where
sewage pumpout service is also available. The


from alternative C (included in the impact section for that alternative in the final document),
no cumulative effects other than those discussed in the draft could be identified.

Comment; There are no real descriptions of “unavoidable adverse effects”, merely a contradictory
assertion that first, no negative effects will be likely to occur, and second, there will be unavoidable
“risk of adverse impact if the recreational purposes of the park are met.” There is no analysis or
justification provided for either of the statements, nor is there any discussion of unavoidable impacts
on other resources or uses. The only section containing even this cursory analysis is that of the
proposed action.

Response: The wording in the draft document was unclear. The language has been clarified to
express the point that while no impacts to wildlife species are anticipated, the mere presence
of people could have unforeseen effects, regardless of specific actions and mitigations called
for in the plan. The only way to ensure no impact to wildlife would be to allow no use ofthe
island — a solution that is not reasonable.

Discussion of “unavoidable” impacts, when anticipated to be minor or nonexistent, is limited
to the proposed action, consistent with the approving official’s interpretation of the National
Environmental Policy Act and Council on Environmental Quality guidelines.

Comment: The section discussing “irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources” is flawed.
The only alternative analysis containing this section is the proposed action, and in that analysis, only
cultural resources are considered. Any alternative containing continued use, transportation of, and
sales of gasoline will need to deal with discharge of persistent toxins into the waters of Lake Superior.

Response: The National Park Service cannot identify any “irreversible and irretrievable
commitment of resources” resulting from the proposed plan, other than those described in the
impact section for the proposal (see discussion on water quality concerns above). Discussion
of “irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources,” when anticipated to be minor or
nonexistent, is limited to the proposed action, consistent with the approving official’s
interpretation of the National Environmental Policy Act and Council on Environmental
Quality guidelines.

Native American Treaty Rights

Comment: The language in the section of the draft plan entitled “Native American Treaty Rights” (p.
26-27) should be revised to indicate: (1) treaty rights are beyond the scope ofhe plan, and any actions
taken to implement the plan must conform to the law regarding these rights, (2) to ensure that it
honors these rights, the National Park Service would cooperate with those tribes that retain hunting,
fishing, and gathering rights at and around Isle Royale, and (3) the National Park Service would
routinely consult with tribes having treaty rights and their designated representatives on a government-
to-government basis.

Response: The comment was considered and the essence of the language was incorporated.
Legally established treaty rights are not currently known. The National Park Service has

170


resources are uses of renewable resources in
construction of new campgrounds, docks, trail

and removal of existing docks and a breakwater.

The funding and renewable resources used for
these endeavors are lost for other activities.

119

Proposed Action


Consultation and Coordination

Comment: One commenter questioned the figures on the actual costs of utilities at Rock Harbor and
Windigo and wondered whether the National Park Service has made any attempt to reduce the costs
through contracted services, better trained personnel, or any other means. Another person said the
draft plan does not appear to consider options to enhance the lodge’s image and/or its use, and
submitted the following: (1) could overnight stays be increased at the lodge/housekeeping units by
relocating the lodge in an area where more trails are available (i.¢., closer to the middle of the island)?
and (2) when more visitors used the lodge in the past, was there better trail access by boat or were
other amenities available to interest lodge guests? Perhaps lodge use could be increased by
establishing convenient, economical water taxi schedules to take lodge guests for day hikes.

Response; Contracted services would not result in significant savings because approximately
the same staff with the same level of expertise would be needed. The cost of fuel and other
operating supplies would not be different, and the environmental protection regulations would
be the same. Better trained employees might be conceptually possible but would not reduce
costs because the same practices would be required by law and regulation. Relocation of the
lodge would affect wilderness values, would impact new areas, and would be prohibitively
expensive. Greater lodge use could increase the profitability for the concessioner to some
degree, but major rehabilitation of the infrastructure would still be required at the same cost.
None of these options would meet the goals of reducing visual impacts and achieving a more
environmentally sustainable operation. As for the water taxi, it serves many areas already, and
it would not be economical for it to operate on a regular schedule, rather than on demand.

Comment: Regarding the concession at Rock Harbor, has the National Park Service made an attempt
to implement the provision in Special Directive 83-2 (revised) that says in special instances “the new
policy has a mechanism for exceptions when additional utility costs will cause the prices of visitor
goods and services to be so high as to impair their marketability and seriously jeopardize the economic
viability of the concessioner?” This provision should be mentioned in the plan.

Response: The Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement
recognizes that Special Directive 83-2 permits the National Park Service to subsidize
concessioner utility costs under exceptional circumstances (see appendix C). This is why the
plan calls for new funding to rehabilitate the utility system infrastructure and to subsidize the
annual utility operating costs. If this funding is not granted, there is no viable option to having
the concessioner pay. It is not appropriate or desirable for the park to subsidize concession
utility costs at the expense of other priority programs, such as resource management and
services affecting a far greater percentage of park visitors. Additionally, the National Park
Service has no obligation to provide economically viable concession operations. The National
Park Service does have the obligation not to allow a concession to operate when it is known
that the operation is not viable.

Comment: Rock Harbor lodge is as much a part of the cultural history of the island as the fisheries,
lighthouses, and mines. There is no evidence in the plan of an attempt to keep, further develop, or
preserve structures on the shore of Rock Harbor where the original guest house is located. The only
reference is to tear down what is there now and build something else, away from the shoreline, that
will have no resemblance to a lodge that has been a part of the island culture since long before the
island was designated a national park.

147




for motorboat camping, especially on the outer
islands. Alternative C would provide the narrowest
range of activities of any of the alternatives.

Provide Maximum Access, Flexibility, and
Freedom of Movement

Alternative A would provide the best access,
flexibility, and freedom of movement overall.
Alternative D would be similar to alternative A,
but separation of uses would preclude some visitor
flexibility. While alternative E would provide the
most freedom of movement of any of the
alternatives, the associated reduction in visitor
numbers would significantly restrict access.
Alternative B would require restrictions toward the
middle of the island, although access to the ends of
the island would be enhanced over existing
conditions. Alternative C would be the most
restrictive of any of the alternatives,

Provide Maximum Opportunities for
Orientation, Interpretation, and Education

While the alternatives would not differ greatly in
the provision of park orientation and information,
alternatives D and E would provide the most
interpretation and education, particularly because
these alternatives call for preservation and/or
adaptive use of more cultural resources than do the
other alternatives. Alternative C would provide
interpretation only off-island.

Preserve or Enhance Wilderness Values (Quiet,
Opportunities for Solitude, Absence of Modern
Intrusions)

Alternative C would provide the best protection of
wilderness values islandwide. While alternative B
would enhance these qualities toward the middle of
the island, the increased development at the ends
could compromise wilderness values. Separation of
uses in alternative D would better meet some
visitors’ expectations for wilderness experiences
but not to the same extent as alternative C.

179

Appendix A

Alternatives A and E would protect wilderness
experiences as they are now, but if visitation levels
continue to increase, wildemess values could be
compromised under alternative A because of
crowding and associated resource impacts.

Preserve and Protect Cultural Resources

The largest number of historic structures would be
preserved in alternative E. The situation would be
similar in alternative D, but the reduced visitation
numbers in alternative E could also result in less
overall impacts on archeological sites.
Archeological sites would be best protected in
alternative C because of the reduction in facilities
and fewer developed campsites, but historic
structures would not be preserved or adaptively
used in that alternative. The same would be true for
the middle area of the island in alternative B,
although some historic structures would be
preserved near the ends of the island.

Preserve and Protect Natural Resources

Because of the creation of larger, unfragmented
natural areas (because of trail removal) and
reduced development and use levels in alternative
C, protection of natural resources would be
greatest in that alternative. Alternative A rated the
lowest for this criterion, primarily because
visitation levels could continue to increase to the
point that resource protection could be
compromised. Alternatives B and E would provide
some improved resource protection over the
existing conditions because of the increase in
primitive areas in alternative B and the overall
visitation reduction in alternative E. Alternative D
was rated higher than A for this criterion because
of the expectation of some management of
visitation levels.

Provide for Visitor Safety

The alternatives did not vary greatly under this
criterion. There was a great deal of concem


Appendix D

S4 = apparently secure in state, with many occurrences.
S5 = demonstrably secure in state and essentially ineradicable under present conditions.

SA = accidental in state, including species (usually birds or butterflies) recorded once or twice or only at very great
intervals, hundreds or even thousands of miles outside their usual range.

SE = an exotic established in the state; may be native elsewhere in North America (e.g. house finch or catalpa in eastern
states).

SH = of historical occurrence in state and suspected to be still extant.
SN = regularly occurring, usually migratory and typically nonbreeding species.

SR = reported from state, but without persuasive documentation which would provide a basis for either accepting or
rejecting the report.

SRF = reported falsely (in error) from state but this error persisting in the literature.
SU = possibly in peril in state, but status uncertain; need more information.

SX = apparently extirpated from state.

199


concession marina at Rock Harbor has six public
docks and is the only location in the park where
water and electrical hook-ups are available for
private boats.

The large main docks at Houghton, Windigo, and
Rock Harbor are designed primarily for use by
the Ranger II] and the two concession-operated
ferry services.

Most park docks are 30 years old or older and are
in need of significant repair or replacement.
Enviroscience, Inc., a marine engineering firm
from Eden Prairie, Minnesota, inspected 17 of the
most popular public docks in 1996. The final
report estimated repair or replacement costs for
the 17 docks at $1.5 million. Repair or replace-
ment estimates for the rest of park docks have not
been prepared.

Campgrounds

There are 36 campgrounds in the park; over half
are located on or near the Lake Superior
shoreline. There are about 90 pit toilets, 88
shelters, and 112 individual tent sites associated
with these campgrounds. There are group
campsites at 17 of the park’s campgrounds.

Since 1996 the park has required all groups
(parties of 7-10 people) to obtain reservations for
group campsites prior to visiting the island.
Groups must follow the camping itinerary
specified on a permit.

Individual use of sites and shelters does not
require a reservation; these sites and shelters are
available on a first-come, first-served basis.

Fuel Transportation and Storage

Diesel generators are used to produce all
electrical power at Windigo, Rock Harbor, and
Mott Island. Diesel fuel is available at Mott Island
and Rock Harbor for both park and visitor boats.
About 80,000 gallons of diesel fuel is delivered to
the island each year by the Ranger II] for

97

Park Operations

generator and boat use. Bulk storage tanks are
located at Windigo and Mott Island. Delivery
lines are all underground single-wall steel pipes.

The fuel barge Greenstone, pulled by the tug
Colombe transports 80,000 to 120,000 gallons of
gasoline to the island each year. Gasoline is
transferred at five locations in the park and is
used primarily to fuel NPS and private boats. The
park charges the concessions for gas delivery
based on actual NPS costs to transport the fuel.
Charges vary depending on whether three or two
fuel runs are made per season.

DEVELOPED AREAS

Park facilities and services are located in
Houghton on the mainland and at Windigo,
Amygdaloid, Rock Harbor, Mott Island, and
Malone Bay on the island. All utility services on
the island (water, sewer, power, and garbage) are
provided by the National Park Service. All
employees who work on the island move from
their homes and offices on the mainland to the
island each spring and then back in the fall.

Houghton

Mainland operations are located on a six-acre
administrative site in Houghton, Michigan.
Principal facilities include a main office building,
warehouse, museum storage building,
maintenance shop, baggage handling building,
Ranger III dock and two parking lots.

The headquarters building in Houghton houses a
small visitor center and office space for the
administrative staff. Winter office space for
permanent employees who are duty stationed on
the island during the operating season is also in
this building. The rental of additional office space
in the city of Houghton has been necessary since
1992.

Houghton serves as the principal staging area for
logistical support for NPS and National Park
Concessions, Inc., island operations.


ALTERNATIVE A (EXISTING CONDITIONS)

OVERALL CONCEPT

This alternative (the status quo or no-action
alternative) would continue current management
at Isle Royale National Park. It provides a
baseline for evaluating the changes and related
environmental effects of the other alternatives.
Park managers would continue to provide for
visitor use and would respond to natural and
cultural resource management concerns
according to current policy and legal require-
ments and as funding allowed. There would be
no change in management direction.

PARK MANAGEMENT

The Rock Harbor and Windigo areas would
remain the focal points for visitor orientation and
visitor services. The campgrounds, docks, and
trails would remain (see Alternative A map).
Portions of the backcountry would continue to
be available for cross-country (off-trail) hiking
and camping; other areas would remain closed to
these uses for resource protection. No-wake
zones would be continued. Designated
wilderness areas (99% of the park’s land) would
be managed according to the Wilderness Act of
1964 and NPS policies. The park would remain
largely unzoned otherwise, although more
remote areas would be wilder and more primitive
than those near developed areas and ferry stops.
No limits would be placed on visitor use, so
visitation could continue to increase.

Visitor orientation and interpretation programs
would continue at the Houghton headquarters, at
Rock Harbor, and at Windigo. Natural or cultural
features of special interest such as scenic
viewpoints, lighthouses, and mining sites would
also be interpreted.

Cultural resources would be managed as funding
allowed according to the park’s Resources
Management Plan. The park would continue to
protect and maintain known archeological sites

and restore or adaptively use certain historic
structures. An update of the List of Classified
Structures and completion of a cultural landscape
report would, in consultation with the Michigan
historic preservation office, determine eligibility
for listing on the national register (including for
structures under life lease) as funding allowed.
Such resources would then be maintained,
stabilized, or documented and allowed to decay.

Park staff would encourage and support research
efforts that would add to the available
information about the park’s history and
prehistory. The park would consider potential
partners interested in stabilizing shipwrecks.
When the National Park Service receives title to
the lighthouses owned by the U.S. Coast Guard
(such as Passage Island Lighthouse), partners
interested in preserving the structures would be
considered. (Current funding levels would not
permit the park to improve or even stabilize the
lighthouses.)

Inventories for archeological sites would
continue on a site-by-site basis following
compliance procedures established by the
September 1995 programmatic agreement
among the National Park Service, the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation, and the
National Conference of State Historic
Preservation Officers.

Natural resources would be managed as time and
funding allowed according to the Resources
Management Plan. The natural resources
inventory and monitoring program would be
continued and expanded if possible. Park staff
would encourage the research that is needed to
fill key information gaps. Fisheries and water
resources management plans would be
developed.

NPS operations at Houghton, Rock Harbor,
Windigo, and the Mott Island headquarters
would not change. Ranger stations at

Amygdaloid Island and Malone Bay would



1981

thetic to the industry and opposed to State or Federal regulation
thereof.

(d) The explanation for the tmmunity of the sald parties since
192 from effective prosecution by the Department of Justice for
violating the antitrust laws, notwithstanding the unlawful charac-
ter of the business activities of the said parties, and particularly
as to whether such immunity has any relation to the fact that the
Successful Regotations by the industry for the services of Will H.
Hays and George Akerson took place while the former was Post-
master General and the latter secretary to the President of the
United States. °

(e) The relations of the sald parties (1) with the State Depart-
ment and the Department of Commerce in connection with the
settlement of acute problems of the industry in several foreign
countries, and (2) with the League of Nations, and the several
committees thereof officially interested in the industry, including
the International Educational Cinematographic Institute of the
League of Nations at Rome, in which a representative of the said
parties {s 8 prominent member.

(f) The explanation for the policy pursued by the sald parties
in the employment in the industry of persons formerly affiliated
with the State Department or the Department of Commerce, and
the financial interest, if any, of Hon. Julius Klein, Assistant Secre-
tary of Commerce, with any company in the industry.

(g) The participation of the sald parties or other members of
the industry in the patent pool agreement between the leading
American and German electrical conipanies entered into at Paris,
France, in June and July, 1930, whereby the world trade in
audible-fllm apparatus and’ theater equipment was apportioned
among the major companies represented, together with the
activities of representatives of the State Department and Depart-
ment of Commerce in accelerating such agreement and in inform-
Ing the President of the United States of the ent and
the loss suffered by nonparticipating companies of the industry as
a result of the agreement.

(bh) The relations, 1f any, of the sald parties with the Federal
Trade Commission and the Department of Justice in connection
with the failure of the department to vigorously prosecute the
sald parties for violating the Federal antitrust laws.

(4) The probable effect on the unlawful activities of the four
members of the industry prosecuted in 1928 by the Government
under the antitrust lawa in the event of decrees in favor of the
United States in those cases. :

(j) The activities of the Copyright Protection Bureau, operated
under direction of the sald parties, in so far as the bureau exacts
large sums of money from independent exhibitors under color of
‘the penalty clause of the Federal copyright laws.

‘The committee shall report to the Senate, as soon as practicable,
the results of its investigations, together with its recommenda-
tions, if any, for legislation requesting the Attorney General to
institute proceedings against the members of the industry pre-
sumably guilty of unfair of unlawful trade practices or com-
binations. -

For the purposes of this resolution such committee or any duly
authorized subcommittee: thereof is authorized to hold hearings,
to sit and act at such times and places during the sessions and
recesses of the Senate in the Seventy-second and succeeding Con-
gresses until the final report is submitted, to employ such cleri-
cal and other assistants, to require by subpena or otherwise the
attendance of such witnesses and the production af such books,
Papers, and documents, to administer such oaths, and to take
such testimony and make such expenditures as it deems advisable.
‘The cost of stenographic services to repert such hearings shall not
be in excess of 25 cents per hundred words. ‘The expenses of the
committee, which shall not exceed $25,000, shail be paid from the
contingent fund of the Senate upon vouchers approved by the
chairman, "

ISLE ROYALE NATIONAL PARK, MICH.

Mr. VANDENBERG. Mr. President, the Senate has com~-
pleted this morning the legislation to create a national park
at Isle Royale, Mich. It will be the greatest national park
in the system if and when the plans are perfected. It is the
only national park in the Great Lakes area. I predict for
it a tremendous popularity when it finally has been taken
into the national system. Perhaps the most remarkable and
enthusiastic indorsement ever given. to a national-park
project is contained in the report of Secretary of the In-
terior and the Director of the National Park Service upon
the so-called Cramton-Vandenberg bill. I ask unanimous
consent that these reports be printed in the Recor.

There being no objection, the memorandum of Director
Albright, of the National Park Service, was ordered to be
printed in the Recorp, as follows:

DEPARTMENT oF THE INTERIOR,
Washington, February 25, 1931.
Hon, Genatp P. Nre,
‘Chairman Committee on Public Lands and Surveys,
United States Senate.

Mr Dean Ma. Cramman: In compliance with your request of
Feb 24, for a report on 8. 6221, which is a bill that would
Provide for the establishment of the Isle Royale National Park, in
the State of Michigan, I transmit herewith a memorandum on the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE

Appendix E
6953

subject that has been submitted by Director Albright of the
National Park Service.
‘After a review of tha proposed measure, I agree with Mr, Albright.
Very truly yours,

Rar Lrman Wrsor, Secretary.

DEPARTMENT oF THE INTERIOR,
NATIONAL Park SERVICE,
Washington, February 25, 1931.
Reference 1s made to letter, dated February 24, from the chair-

Senate, inclosing for report a copy of S. 6221, Seventy-first Con-
gress, third session, entitled “A bill to provide for the establish-
ment of the Isle Royale National Park, in the State of Michigan,
and for other purposes.” “

Isle Royale 1s the largest island in Lake Superior. located just
inside the international boundary about 25 miles north and west
of Keweenaw Point in Michigan. It les in Keweenaw County of
that State. Tt is approximately 44 miles long, with an average
width of 5 miles. Its area is estimated at approximately 205
square miles. Twelve square miles of this area are composed of
inland lakes, 24 in number, leaving 193 square miles, or approxi-
mately 123,520 acres net of land area, To this may be added
about 2,000 acres on the immediately surrounding smaller islands
which should be included in the project. It 1s accessible by boat
from. about May 1 to November 15. For the remainder of the
Year it is ice bound. During the open season boats from Duluth,
Minn., Houghton, Mich., and Port Arthur, Ontarto, provide trans-
portation. “A gocd many people now Gy over the island. It has
no telegraph or telephone connections with the mainland. The
last census indicated only 23 registered voters, mostly trappers,
fishermen, or miners, who live scattered throughout the area. I
1s used on a very small scale for summer resort purposes, a small
lodge being available at Rock Harbor on the eastern end.

The topography of the island is quite broken, and can perhaps
be best described as a moss and forest covered mass of gigantic
rocks, the result of a volcanic upheaval. It has the appearance
of being almost entircly in its primeval state, for, due to the rug-
ged formation, lumbermen have left its tree growth alone. The
island is said to have burned over in the remote past, and evi-
dences of such fires can be seen in places, However, in such in-
stances nature has restored conditions well. There are many
marvelous beauty spots in their primitive condition, thus offering
perfect examples of nature's textbooks for the study of scientist
and student. Especially 1s this the case on the smaller islands
surrounding the main isle Royale. The exquisite, rugged beauty
of the cliffs of the shore lines, indented with countless small bays
and mouths of trout streams thet may be enjoyed by sailing
along the narrow deep flords or channels, constitutes a particu-
larly fascinating contribution to the scenic offerings of the park.

Due to the pecullar combinations of inland lakes and forested
terrain, these factors may be held accountable for the preserva-
tion and increase of the wild life. of the island. Without this
gheltering cover of balsam, spruce,. beech, birch, poplar, and pine,
Isle Royale to-day doubtless would not be the home of moose,
woodland caribou, beaver, deer, and other wild life. It is con-
sidered no exaggeration to estimate 2,000 moose and 400 woodland
caribou on the island, the latter an animal not encountered else-
where within the confines of the mainland of the United States.
Moose may now bg seen with little effort by any visitor. Tas In
itself will present an unusually fine wild-life spectacie. Botanists
report a wealth of flora, equaling in season the finest flower dis-
plays of the other national parks. The flora and fauna of the
Island, said to be entirely foreign to the neighboring shores of
the lake and to be sub-Arctic in character due to the perpetually
cold waters by which Isle Royale 1s surrounded, have long been
the object of scientific curiosity. The waters of the island and
the surrounding lake abound with fish so that the sport of fish-
ing would be one of the outstanding attractlono of the park. The
island group are considered the greatest breeding grounds for
the herring gull in the Great Lakes. The. proposed park thus
offers large opportunities for study and enjoyment to the lover
of bird, animal, and fish iife under most favorable conditions.

‘Another most interesting feature of the island is the archzolog-
ical remains. In two remote sectiore—one on the northern shore
and the other in the south Siskiwit Bay district—extensive mining
operations of ancient days have been uncovered. How far back
into our history these go has not yet been definitely determined.
On the old Minong workings, near McCargoes Cove, great piles of
stone hammers, crude large stone steps leading to the water's
edge and other stone implements have been uncovered. Whether
these represent the operations of ancient white men or began with
their Indian antecedents 1s unknown. However, there are re-
mains of literally thousands of open pit mines from which, in
aboriginal times, the early inhabitants of these regions obtained
practically all of the copper that was used tn aboriginal America.
From here and the adjacent mainland where all of. this copper was
obtained, it found its way by the trade routes into other parts of
North America, and all of the copper, so far as can be determined,
which has been found in mounds in the South and elsewhere, was
originally obtained from this immediate vicinity. Here at and
near the heard of McCargoes Cove. therefore, may be sald on good
authority to be the real seat of this great anclent mining industry.

It is, therefore, evident that from a scenic, recreational. sclen-
tiffc, and educational standpoint, here is presented one of the out-
standing opportunities for the establishment of a great island
national park, unique of its kind in the system, and measuring up

201


CULTURAL RESOURCES

Isle Royale’s natural resources have enticed
human visitors for centuries. The island has
attracted people with its abundant fish, wildlife,
plants, and minerals, but it has also proven to be a
very isolated and difficult place to live. The
aboriginal and historic resources of Isle Royale
span from Archaic times (ca. 2500 B.C.) to the
1900s and trace a rich story of human activity.
Evidence of human use — chipped stone tools,
mining pits, lighthouses, fishing camps, boats,
cabins, domestic flowers — is found across the
island and in the surrounding water.

ARCHEOLOGICAL OVERVIEW

Human activity on Isle Royale can be traced back
over 4,500 years, beginning with the Native
American use of copper and other natural
resources. The earliest use of the island was by
Archaic period people (ca. 2500 to 100 B.Cc.). At
least twelve archeological sites from this period
have been identified (Clark 1995), Archaic use of
the island is not well defined due to the small
number of sites documented. Archaic groups
were the island’s first copper miners, excavating
pits with stone hammers to expose the copper.
Evidence has shown that these early miners also
worked the copper into useful items, but large
copper tools and omate decorative items like
those found south of Lake Superior are not
common in Isle Royale sites.

There is more information on the initial Wood-
land, identified by Laurel cultural remains (ca.
100 B.c.-A.D. 700), and terminal or late (ca. A.D.
600-1650) Woodland period uses of the island.
The appearance of large scrapers and stone
sinkers for fishing nets in the Laurel period
suggest that fish were increasingly important to
their way of life (Clark 1995).

In the terminal Woodland stage the variety of
pottery types found implies that the island was
used by native groups from around the Lake
Superior basin. Blackduck, Selkirk, Straits of

77

Mackinac, and Huron pottery types are all found
in island archeological sites from this period,
some mixed in the same site (Clark 1995). Raw
materials for chipped stone tools found on the
island from this time period originate
predominantly from the north shore of the lake
near Thunder Bay (Clark 1995). Groups traveled
to the island seasonally (spring to fall) to hunt
caribou, beaver, and small game; to catch fish
(whitefish, lake trout, sucker, and sturgeon), and
to gather plants and berries. While there, they
made and repaired their tools with materials they
brought with them. They also made use of the
rich sources of copper, mining it and then
fashioning it into small tools and ornaments.

The island has fostered archeological interest
since the 1870s. The earliest surveys focused
attention on the identity of the early copper
miners, whose pits attracted considerable
attention from historic miners and academicians.
The presence of the prehistoric mining sites was
noted in the park’s 1931 enabling legislation as
worthy of protection.

The Midwest Archeological Center, with the
assistance of Michigan Technological University,
conducted the most recent and comprehensive
archeological study of the island from
1986-1990. The study revisited previously
documented sites and discovered many more new
sites. Attention was focused on the shoreline and
developed areas (trails, campgrounds, facilities).
Isle Royale presently has 199 state-listed sites in
the area covered by the survey.

Isle Royale has a number of significant shoreline
archeological sites. Many of the same places the
Native Americans found suitable for camping are
places the park has chosen to maintain as
campgrounds and developed areas. Twenty-five
of the park’s 36 campgrounds are on
archeological sites. Therefore, the greatest
ongoing threats to the archeological sites are park
change and development.


Appendix B

TABLE B2, ESTIMATED COSTS FOR CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAMS
(BACKLOG ACCORDING TO EXISTING PLANS) IN ALL ALTERNATIVES

One-time Costs Annual or Recurring
Costs
Conduct condition assessment of 3 lighthouses $40,000
Archeological survey of Windigo area $46,000
Update List of Classified Structures and prepare $16,000
national register nominations
Research ethnography of commercial fishing $20,000
Monitor and preserve submerged cultural resources $10,000 $15,000 annually for
monitoring
Inventory / monitor threatened archeological sites $40,000 $8000 annually for
monitoring
Prepare cultural landscape report for Edisen Fishery and |$36,000
Rock Harbor Lighthouse
Complete historic structures report for Edisen Fishery $15,000
Research paleo-Indian environmental interaction $60,000 over three
years
Trace first Euro-Americans on Isle Royale $18,000
Conduct study of cultural landscapes for management $50,000
Research trapping history of Isle Royale $36,000
Prepare administrative history report $50,000
Survey, map, and assess abandoned copper mines $18,000 over two
years
TOTALS $455,000 onetime [$23,000 annually

TABLE B3,ESTIMATED COSTS FOR CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAMS (NEW—TO MEET LEGAL AND
POLICY REQUIREMENTS) FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES B,C, AND E

One-time Costs

Annual or Recurring
Costs

Inventory archeological sites on relict beach ridges

$300,000 over 5 years

Archeological inventory of historic mining sites

$400,000 over 5 years

Archeological inventory of historic fishing sites

$300,000 over 5 years

Inventory submerged components of terrestrial sites $500,000 over 5 years

Inventory archeology of aboriginal mining sites $225,000 over 3 years

Inventory archeology of inland lakes and portage trails |$225,000 over 3 years

Inventory archeology of lighthouses $180,000 over 3 years

Manage museum collection $10,000
TOTALS $2,130,000 one time | $10,000 annually

187


AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Water Quality

There has been limited water quality monitoring
of the Lake Superior waters in the park; indirect
monitoring, such as by analyzing contaminant
levels in fish, indicates that contaminant levels
remain a key concern. Mercury levels in common
loons have been documented since the early
1990s (Evers, et al. 1996). Isle Royale loons in
general exhibit lower levels of mercury than
loons in most other parts of the country
(particularly juvenile loons).

Knowledge of water quality in the inland waters
is similarly limited, although recent and ongoing
Projects are providing more information. A
companion effort to the 1995-97 inland lakes
fishery inventory was the documentation of the
baseline physical/chemical water conditions for
the 32 lakes with sportfish.

Toxic contaminant levels in the inland lakes are a
serious concern. Fish monitored in 1992-94 did
not exceed the state of Michigan consumption
advisory levels, but six of the 32 lakes sampled in
the 1995-96 inland lakes fishery inventory
included fish that exceeded the advisory level.

Water quality can be affected by oil and fuel
discharges from boats. Sewage treatment capacity
could become a problem if visitation increases.
Also of concem are inadequate human waste
disposal methods in the backcountry and on the
water from boaters with inadequate means of
disposal.

Floodplains

There has never been a formal determination of
the floodplains on Isle Royale. In general, the
short, low gradient streams on Isle Royale pose
few flooding concerns, and the only facilities and
developments believed to be near these streams
are campgrounds. Occasionally a beaver dam
washout causes flash flooding in a stream
segment. Of greater concern has been the rising
and falling levels of Lake Superior, which have

72

created concerns about erosion near park
developments.

Wetlands

There are a variety of wetland habitats, including
bogs, swamps, beaver ponds, streams, and lakes
ranging from a few acres to the almost 4,000-acre
Siskiwit Lake. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service mapped these wetlands (using aerial
photography) as part of the National Wetlands
Inventory Program, and those maps are being
incorporated into the park’s geographic
information system.

WILDLIFE
Mammals

The mammals of Isle Royale reflect the influence
of an island ecosystem largely isolated from the
continental mainland. Currently 14 mammal
species are found on Isle Royale; the status of at
least three additional species is largely unknown
(the pine marten may be back on Isle Royale in
very limited numbers). Many species common on
the mainland, only 20-25 miles west, are not
found on Isle Royale because they cannot swim
across Lake Superior, do not cross on the
occasional winter ice cover, or have not been
introduced to the island by people. Several
species have disappeared since post-European
humans arrived on the island — most notably the
caribou, coyote, and the lynx. At least two other
species arrived on Isle Royale in the 20th century
— the timber wolf and the moose.

This limited number of mammal species gives
credence to a classic island biogeography theory
(MacArthur and Wilson 1967), which argues that
the number and diversity of species on islands is
less than on mainland areas because island
species are dependent on distance from the main-
land and the size of the island. Mammal colon-
izations of Isle Royale are by chance dispersal;
natural extinction is always a possibility.


CONTENTS,

Tables

1. Campgrounds with Docks 35

2. Campgrounds Accessible by Boat, Canoe or Kayak, and Hiking Trail 60

3. Summary of the Key Differences among the Alternatives 63

4. Summary of Impacts 65

5. NPCI Overnight Accommodations at Rock Harbor in 1997, 1996, and 1995 90

6. Occupancy of the Lodge and Housekeeping Units 90

7. State and Local County Per Capita Personal Incomes for Selected Years 92

8. Unemployment and Poverty Rates 92

9. FY 97 Personnel Summary 95

10. FY 97 Base Funding Summary 95

11. Annual Visitors to the Island ' 100

12. Passenger Numbers 100

13. Overnight Stays 1987-1996 102

14. Overnight Stays by Month and Type 102

15. Projected Visitors 1997-2007 103

16. Projected Overnight Stays 1997-2007 103

17. Actions That Could Affect Cultural Resources and Associated State Historic Preservation Office
and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Compliance Requirements 130

Maps

Region 9

Vicinity 10
Wilderness Status 11
Alternative A 21
Proposed Action 41
Alternative B 47
Alternative C 53
Alternative E 57

xiv


safety inspection and follow-up engineering study
of the park utility systems identified numerous
operational deficiencies, some of which required
immediate corrective action. The park incurred
substantial additional costs in beginning the
required improvements. In addition, NPS utility
costs increase annually due to inflation.

In recent years the National Park Service has begun
to recoup a larger share of the actual cost to provide
utility services, but the park is still only partially
compensated for expenses to support Rock Harbor
concession operations. Money from the park’s base
budget is used to pay the difference between actual
NPS utility costs and reimbursement for utility
services received from the concessioner. Additional
utility charges to the concessioner (consistent with
law and NPS policy) are being evaluated for FY99
to reduce the utility subsidy to the concessioner
from base funds.

The National Park Service will continue to
subsidize certain functions upon which NPCI
operations depend. For example, the park handles
all the solid waste generated by NPCI, transporting
it to the mainland. Under the current contract, the
park must pay all of the costs for this service, even
though NPCI generates a large percentage of all
solid waste on the island. Both NPS and NPCI
operations depend on the Ranger III. This vessel
transports all freight and diesel fuel required for
park and NPCI operations. Operating costs for the
vessel in FY 97 were about $425,000; income from
freight and passengers was $175,000. The
difference was funded out of park base funds. Every
five years the vessel must undergo dry dock
inspection and repair, which typically costs about
$250,000, all of which is paid by the National Park
Service.

CONCESSIONER RATES TO THE PUBLIC

Concessioner charges to visitors for goods and
services are approved by the National Park Service.
Requirements of the Concessions Policy Act
compel the National Park Service to provide a
reasonable opportunity for the concessioner to make

193

Appendix C

a profit. Given Isle Royale’s location 60 miles from
mainland Michigan, concession prices are
substantially higher than similar services on the
mainland. Higher operating costs, the short season,
and rather low volumes factor heavily.

The Concessions Policy Act requires the National
Park Service to charge the concessioners for utility
services and further directs that such charges be
based on the costs for comparable services or actual
cost, whichever is higher. Special Directive 83-2
(revised) specifies how this should be done. Utility
rates from the city of Houghton, Michigan, are used
by the park as the comparable services.
Concessioners are responsible for paying utility
costs up to the level of comparables. If utility
charges to the concessioner exceed comparables,
the act stipulates that concessioners may pass on the
difference to their customers through a pass-through
process. NPS utility rates exceed those of the
comparables.

NPCI has been including a utility pass-through in
their prices for a number of years. In response to the
increasing utility rates being charged by the park,
NPCI asked for NPS approval to institute a utility
surcharge on all their products and services
beginning in 1997. A 20% surcharge was requested
at Rock Harbor and an 18% surcharge was
requested for Windigo. Consistent with the
Concessions Policy Act, both requests were
approved. The previously used pass-through was
eliminated and incorporated in the surcharge, so
concession rates did not increase 20% from 1996 to
1997. Through the surcharge NPCI attempted to
recover the utility costs that exceeded comparables.

Preliminary information suggests that revenue from
the 1997 surcharge will not be sufficient to enable
the company to recover the difference between
comparable utility costs and actual utility costs paid
by the company to the National Park Service. The
contract allows the concessioner to carry over any
such deficit to the next year. However, this adds to
the costs the concessioner must recoup the
following year, resulting in ever higher rates for
lodging and other services. The 18% drop in lodge
use since 1995 suggests that prices are already at a




Consultation and Coordination

petroleum products is necessary to accomplish park operations, risk of accidental release
cannot totally be eliminated.

Comment: The provision of diesel fuel, gasoline, and pumpout stations for public use increases the
potential of water pollution while further encouraging uses of the Isle Royale wilderness that is
perhaps not in keeping with the intent of the wilderness desig: by Congress. A com!
reducing the need for importing and storing diesel fuel and gasoline and upgrading the infrastructure
would make an alternative more protective of the environment. Several commenters said that the
General Management Plan should include a plan to reduce or phase out fuel transportation to, and
sales of fuel at, the island.

f

Response: Alternative C would eliminate fuel sales at the island. However, because access to
the park is possible only by boat and floatplane, even this alternative would not totally
eliminate the use of liquid petroleum fuels in the park. In fact, the risk of petroleum spills and
hazardous situations could increase as the result of boaters transporting fuel in containers
aboard their vessels.

Energy conservation is considered in park operations and is recognized as a practice that can
reduce the amount of petroleum products required for NPS operations.

At present, the park is actively replacing the fuel systems at the remote ranger stations and
Windigo, and is replacing the fuel lines at Mott Island, Windigo, and Rock Harbor with
double wall piping. Employees have received intensive training in spill prevention and
mitigation, and spill prevention plans are either in place or are in preparation. Each fueling
station is provided with absorbent pads for mitigation of small spills incidental to a fueling
station. Pumpout stations are provided to make the disposal of sewage from boats easy,
therefore helping to prevent this material from being dumped into Lake Superior. The boating
industry is actively working to reduce two-cycle engine problems with the shift to four stroke
engines and innovative technology for two-stroke engines.

The park is exploring the feasibility of adding a second hull to the gasoline barge to add a
measure of safety to that operation. There is no other feasible way to move gasoline from the
mainland to the park. The park’s administration requires the use of diesel fuel and gasoline
since there are no practical alternatives. Similarly, a significant portion of the visiting public
would be precluded from visiting the park if fuel sales were banned.

Other Topics

Comment: The plan must emphasize the national significance of Isle Royale National Park as
primarily a resource based, wilderness park. Recreation and visitor use decisions flow from this
recognition, but are secondary in importance. The plan is heavy on visitor experience and light on
resource protection. It appears campground and docking facility placement and density and motor use
zones and densities are driven largely by expectations and traditional use by a small percentage of park
users.

159


VISITOR SERVICES

HOUGHTON

The visitor center in Houghton, Michigan, is on
the Keweenaw Peninsula along Portage Lake. It
is near overnight facilities, stores, medical
facilities, restaurants, and gasoline stations.
Visitors can obtain park information, pay user
fees (if riding the Ranger III or piloting a
personal boat), purchase season passes, obtain
permits, register boats, obtain information,
purchase educational materials, and enjoy several
natural/cultural history exhibits.

Group camping reservations can be made by mail
or by phone or in person at the visitor center.
Reservations and ticketing for the Ranger III and
Keweenaw Waterway Cruise, including all NPS
and other business uses, are made by this office.

A wayside exhibit at the visitor center and six on
the Ranger I interpret local history and island
cultural and natural history. Educational videos
are shown on a variety of natural and cultural
history topics. Exhibits in the visitor center
include artist-in-residence, animals, human
history, and wilderness. Through a partnership
with the Isle Royale Natural History Association,
artist-in-residence program works are displayed in
the visitor center and, in the summer, on the
island.

ROCK HARBOR

Rock Harbor contact center is in Snug Harbor
along the Rock Harbor channel near the northeast
terminus of Isle Royale. It is adjacent to the dock,
gas pumps, store, and restrooms and is near the
ranger station, campground, and Rock Harbor
lodging facilities.

The center is open daily during the visitor season.
Visitors can obtain park information, pay user
fees and purchase season passes, obtain permits,
register boats, purchase educational materials, and
enjoy several natural/cultural history exhibits.

The Rock Harbor contact center is too small to
adequately provide a visitor contact desk, a
bookstore, and exhibits. The Rock Harbor
auditorium, where evening programs and
meetings are held, is nearby. That facility also
houses interpretive offices and storage and
essentially meets the park’s needs. Evening
programs are offered nightly from mid-June
through Labor Day on a variety of natural and
cultural history topics. Guided walks are offered
several times each week. Other guided walks and
interpretive talks are offered when personnel are
available. When passenger ferries arrive, area
orientations are presented, and backcountry
orientations are provided for backpackers before
permits are issued.

A concession boat offers commercial tours.
Concession employees offer educational
programs on a walk to Minong Mine, at
Raspberry Island, and on the various waterways
between Rock Harbor Lighthouse, Passage
Island, and McCargoe Cove.

A variety of wayside exhibits present aspects of
the cultural and natural history of the area. These
are on the Stoll Trail loop up to the wilderness
boundary, on the trail to the America dock, and
along Snug Harbor. Bulletin boards at the visitor
center and on the Sandy dock describe
interpretive programs, safety concerns, and
passenger ferry schedules. Exhibits in the Rock
Harbor visitor center explore geology and animal
life and touch on cultural history.

WINDIGO

Windigo ranger station and visitor center is in
Washington Harbor near the southwest end of Isle
Royale. It is adjacent to the Windigo dock and
near the restrooms. The general store and
amphitheater are near the station.

A new ranger station / visitor center will open in
the summer of 1998 and will be open daily during


Consultation and Coordination

The requirement for groups of 7-10 people to follow a preordained itinerary and camp in
group sites should be dropped. This policy significantly detracts from the island experience (it
fosters point-to-point hiking without stopping to look around or enjoy one’s surroundings)
and does little to improve encounters between smaller groups and the larger group.

Park Operations and Visitor Services

Several comments were received that made recommendations for various park operational programs.
While many of these suggestions may have considerable merit, they are too detailed to be included in
the plan, which is intended to be a long-range, general guidance document. For example, one
commenter requested that a large, permanent dock be built in Hay Bay. Decisions regarding dock size,
materials, and other details are beyond the scope of a general management plan. Many such
recommendations will be considered, however, as the park moves into more detailed implementation
planning. Other detailed comments included:

The National Park Service should consider banning alcohol in park boundaries.

There should be a limit on the size of boats taking dock space and limits on the consecutive
number of nights that boats are allowed to stay at docks.

The General Management Plan should describe the experience for visitors using the
remaining lodge options in the proposed plan, including what they would need to bring and
what would be available on the island.

Water taxi service should be started at Windigo to allow for adaptive reuse of Washington
Island area cabin and homesites by those without their own boats.

A volunteer boater group could help to educate other boaters, and this type of partnership
could extend to other user groups as well. The Isle Royale Natural History Association’s
charter for education makes it a good choice to assist and direct such volunteer groups.

Several comments were received that suggested changes to the Ranger III schedule. Reasons
varied, and included reducing the utility load at Rock Harbor and better accommodation of
users’ schedules.

Private motorboaters should be able to register as park users in advance of their arrival,
instead of being required to travel to Windigo or Rock Harbor first.

Several people suggested ways for the park to increase its fund base, such as charging more to
use the park, starting an adopt-a-wolf program, and selling wolf novelties such as T-shirts and
greeting cards.

The National Park Service has taken the lead in seeking partnerships that can provide large
sums of money and/or abundant staffpower. The National Park Service should also be
receptive to partnerships with small groups (including single families) who may not be able to
provide large sums of money. These people, working under close supervision, can accomplish

173


CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

Response: Text in the proposed action (p. 35) does say that frontcountry zones would be near
developed areas and where there are other natural or cultural features of special interest, such as e
bogs. This statement must be considered in the context of the general description for frontcountry

(p. 30), however, which addresses the potential for negative impacts to bogs and other resources.

“Visitors, sites, and trails would be intensively managed in the frontcountry zone to ensure

resource protection and visitor safety . . .. The zone would not be near sensitive natural or

cultural resources if such resources could not be adequately protected.”

Comment: The National Park Service should undertake the designation of all Lake Superior waters within
the park as Outstanding National Resource Waters under the federal Clean Water Act where increased
loading of persistent bioaccumulative toxics from all sources would be prohibited.

Response: The National Park Service has recommended that all national park waters in the state
of Michigan be designated Outstanding National Resource Waters. This recommendation has
been forwarded to the state of Michigan, which has responsibility for the designation.

Comment: The General Management Plan should include a clearly articulated desired future condition for
all habitats and ecosystems in the park to provide direction for developing long-term ecological protection
strategies.

Response: Because of the general nature of these plans, descriptions of desired future conditions

are also general. Because of Isle Royale’s wilderness status, the range of desired conditions in

different habitats or ecosystems is not broad. This is reflected in the large areas of the island that

are zoned as “pristine.” More detailed desired future conditions will be included in the revision

of the park’s resources management plan and wilderness management plan. )

Comment: Mollusks and snails should be added to the list of taxa in need of inventory. Information for the
state of Michigan indicates that Isle Royale lacks these inventories.

Response: Mollusks and snails have been added to the list in the General Management Plan.

Comment: There is also the potential for short-term water pollution due to spills of toxic materials around
Lake Superior and inside park boundaries” (p. 5 of the draft plan). Spills of what and where?

Response: There could be accidental releases of petroleum products (gasoline, diesel fuel,
lubricating fluids, etc.) that are used to operate boats. Accidents could also occur because the
products are transported as bulk cargo or stored in NPS land-based storage facilities, are
contained on commercial vessels traversing shipping lanes, and are transported on visitors’ boats.
Gasoline and/or diesel fuel are stored in bulk at Rock Harbor, Mott Island, Malone Bay,
Windigo, and Amygdaloid Island. Sewage sludge is pumped from holding tanks at NPS
developed areas and is transported for disposal on the mainland. Regular inspections of NPS
vessels, particularly those transporting petroleum products as bulk cargo and of NPS shore-based
storage facilities are conducted at least annually. U.S. Coast Guard-approved spill prevention and
contingency (response) plans are in place and address actions to be taken should a spill occur.
The NPS has no authority to control commercial vessel activity on Lake Superior and use of

158


TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF THE KEY DIFFERENCES AMONG THE ALTERNATIVES

Alternative A
(No Action)

Proposed Action

Alternative B

Alternative C

Alternative E

Overall Management
Direction

Continue to provide for visitor use and
respond to natural and cultural resource
management concems according to
policy and legal requirements. Continue
interpretive sites and programs.

Emphasize diversity of experiences and
natural quiet to improve the quality of visitor
experiences. Rock Harbor and Windigo
continue as focal points for visitor orientation
and visitor services, Continue interpretive
sites and programs; expand outreach and
environmental education programs.

Concentrate facilities and services at the ends of the
island and create a primitive wilderness experience
toward the middle of the island. Provide a broad
range of orientation, interpretation, and other
experiences at the ends of island and no services or
interpretation in the middle.

Scale back facilities and development to create
a more primitive park. Evidence of
management activities would be minimal. No
interpretive media or formal programs would
be offered on the island.

Manage the park as it is now but control
visitor numbers to provide better experiences
without restricting activities. Continue
interpretive sites and programs; additional
interpretation at historic commercial fishing
sites possible.

Resource Management

Maintain, stabilize, document cultural
resources or allow them to decay,
depending on their eligibility for listing
on the national register.

Preserve historic structures and landscapes in
priority order according to significance.
Stabilize and seek adaptive uses for historic
commercial fishing sites.

Preserve some cultural resources toward the ends of
the island through adaptive use for lodging, inter-
pretation, or operations. Document cultural resources
in the middle of the island and allow them to
deteriorate.

Document cultural resources and allow them
to deteriorate.

Preserve historic structures and landscapes in
priority order according to significance.
Stabilize and seek adaptive uses for historic
commercial fishing sites.

Visitor Experience /
Range of Uses

Allow for a variety of uses, distributed
fairly evenly across the island.

Provide for a variety of uses, distributed
fairly evenly across the island. Emphasize
natural quiet. Add numerous quieter water
zones,

Allow for a variety of uses but in different parts of
the park. Provide a full range of facilities and
services and a more structured experience at Rock
Harbor and Windigo and a more primitive
wildemess experience with quiet and solitude toward
the center of the island, where most facilities and
amenities would be removed, Add some quieter
water zones.

Allow for a more narrow range of experiences
with an emphasis on superlative wilderness,
solitude, and escape from the intrusions of the
modern world. Limit party size to six people
for overnight use. Add some quieter water
zones.

Provide for a variety of uses distributed fairly
evenly across the island. Emphasize maximum
freedom to enjoy the island.

Access

Ferries serve Rock Harbor, Windigo,
and secondary stops such as McCargoe
Cove and Malone Bay. Water taxis
serve intermediate stops as demand
warrants.

Ferries serve Rock Harbor, Windigo, and
secondary stops such as McCargoe Cove and
Malone Bay. Water taxis serve intermediate
stops with limits as needed.

Ferries serve Rock Harbor and Windigo only. Water
taxis serve only developed and frontcountry zones
near ends of island. Ends of island are staging points
for entry into wilderness.

Ferries serve Rock Harbor and Windigo only.
Water taxi service would be discontinued.
Rock Harbor and Windigo would be staging
areas for entry to wilderness.

Ferries serve Rock Harbor, Windigo, and
secondary stops such as McCargoe Cove and
Malone Bay. Water taxis serve intermediate
stops as demand warrants.

Use Limits

Few limits on visitor numbers.

Moderate visitor numbers. Limit use in some
zones.

Moderate visitor numbers. Limit use in some zones.

Low visitor numbers. Limit use islandwide.

Low visitor numbers. Limit use islandwide.

Concession Services

Continue concession services at Rock
Harbor and Windigo.

Reduce lodging and other services at Rock
Harbor.

Expand some facilities and services near Rock
Harbor and Windigo for visitors preparing to go into
the interior and for visitors using the areas as a base
for day use.

Remove all concessions and related facilities.

Continue concession services at Rock Harbor
and Windigo.

63



APPENDIXES, BIBLIOGRAPHY, PREPARERS, INDEX

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
East Lansing Field Office (ES)
2651 Coolidge Road
East Lansing, Michigan 48823

IN REPLY REFER TO

May 22, 1998

Mr. Douglas A. Barnard, Superintendent
Isle Royale National Park
a00 East Lakeshore Drive
Houghton, Michigan 49931

Subject: Endangered Species Act Consultation for General Management Plan EIS
Dear Mr. Barnard:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) apologizes for the unavoidable
delay in this response to your March 30, 1998, request for Endangered Species
Act Section 7 informal consultation for the Draft General Management Plan
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Isle Royale National Park. The
Service concurs with your notification that the eastern timber wolf (Canis
lupus), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and peregrine falcon (Falco
peregrinus) are the only federally listed species known or likely to be on
Isle Royale. You also considered the Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), which is
currently a candidate species, and is likely to be listed in the near future.
Isle Royale also is designated critical. habitat for the wolf.

The Service concurs with your determination that the proposed alternative is
not likely to adversely affect the listed species or critical habitat. Most
activities described in the General Management Plan will occur in areas
previously disturbed and designated for human use. Removal of a few docks and
addition of campgrounds and docks in areas where these facilities have not
previously existed is proposed, but as your analysis indicates, these changes
are relatively minor in scale and would not be expected to further impact
eagle, wolf and peregrine falcon use of the island. The statement on EIS page
115 that “potential disturbance to threatened and endangered species would be
minimized by monitoring and managing of visitation levels" is important in
agsuring that activities conducted under the General Management Plan do not
adversely affect listed species. The Service assumes the statement means that
Isle Royale National Park would promptly act to modify activities, such as
motor boat traffic disturbing nesting eagles, that are fcund to affect listed
species.

This precludes the need for further action on this project as required by
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. However if the project is modified
or new information about the project becomes available that indicates listed
or proposed species may be present and/or affected, consultation with this
Service office should be reinitiated.

We appreciate the opportunity to cooperate with Isle Royale National Park in
the conservation of our Nations’s threatened dangdred species.

Charles M. Wooley
Field Supervisor

cc: MDNR, Wildl. Div., Lansing, MI (Attn: T. Weise)

archives/may9@/{sropl-1. ac?

oan

206


THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

Accessibility standards on visitor transportation
vessels and aircraft would be met within the
limits of marine and aircraft design and safety
requirements.

In campgrounds, sonie outhouses and shelters
would be made accessible. However, the terrain
and other natural conditions will continue to be
challenging. The park would continue to work
with organizations that encourage and enable use
of wilderness areas by special populations. This
sharing of ideas would increase awareness of the
needs of these populations and help to ensure
that potential visitors with particular needs are
aware of the opportunities offered by Isle
Royale.

Visitation Levels / Carrying Capacity

The Park Service is required by law to address
carrying capacity in planning for parks. Each
general management plan must include identi-
fication of and implementation commitments for
visitor carrying capacities for all areas of the
unit. The proposed action and each of the action
alternatives assume that managers would take
action to keep visitation levels in line with the
goals of the alternative and would maintain
quality visitor experiences and resource
protection.

Interpretation, Information, and Education

Some actions related to interpretation,
information, and education programs vary by
alternative. In all alternatives, however,
programs would emphasize understanding and
appreciating the resources of the park.

More detailed planning would be undertaken to
improve visitor information facilities and
services on the island consistent with the intent
of each alternative.

Education outreach efforts would be
strengthened to reach local, regional, and
national school groups, interested organizations,

26

and park visitors prior to their trips to the island.
To help visitors form realistic expectations and
to teach them how to conduct themselves
compatibly with park purposes, advance trip
planning would be emphasized with each user
group (such as motorboaters, paddlers, and
backpackers) and with organized groups such as
the Boy Scouts, Programs would emphasize
wilderness and “leave no trace” values and
principles, and special advance certification
could be granted to individuals completing a
park awareness program. The potential of
accomplishing these goals through the Internet
would be explored.

The park staff would continue to assist writers,
publishers, and researchers with park-related
materials and would make the products available
to the public. The park would assist educational
institutions with development of programs that
promote and support park emphasis statements
and reduce impacts on resources.

The park staff would develop interpretive media
supportive of park emphasis statements such as
exhibits, publications, videos, interpretive talks,
interactive computers, and presentations. On-
island programs, if appropriate, would
emphasize dialogue between visitors and park
staff to encourage understanding and interchange
about issues facing the park. For example,
information about advances in clean engine
technology would be shared with the public.
Programs would support park goals and
emphasis statements.

The park staff would seek partnerships with
other U.S. and Canadian parks on Lake Superior
as well as with educational institutions, clubs,
and organizations to enrich interpretation and
educational opportunities regionwide.

Other Uses

Use of personal watercraft (jet skis) would not be
permitted in the park. Such uses are inconsistent
with the park purpose, significance, and
emphasis statements. If necessary, specific


Consultation and Coordination

large portion of the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act is disclosure, which allows both
the public and the agency to make decisions with the best information possible, something this
document does not do.

Response: The reader is referred to Appendix A, which describes the analysis process used
and the review and consultation by experts and agencies. Specific references are also included
in the “Affected Environment” section. A list of specific consultants can be found on p. 166 of
the draft plan.

Comment: Nearly every section in every analysis merely states in a general manner what the
alternative in question would do and then even more generalized statements regarding what the effects
might be.

Response; General management plans, by NPS policy, are long-range, conceptual guidance
documents. The following wording is included in the introduction to the “Environmental
Consequences” section of the draft document: “The alternatives in this document establish
broad overarching management guidelines. The general nature of the alternatives requires that
the analysis of impacts also be general. This means that the National Park Service can make
reasonable projections of likely impacts, but these are based on assumptions that may not
prove to be accurate in the future. As a result, this environmental impact statement is
programmatic and presents an overview of potential impacts relating to each alternative. This
General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement will serve as a basis for NEPA
documents prepared to assess subsequent developments or management actions.” The
National Park Service believes that the level of impact assessment is in keeping with the
general natural of the draft plan.

Comment: NEPA regulations state : “Agencies shall ensure the professional integrity, including
scientific integrity, of the discussions and analysis in environmental impact statements. They shall
identify any methodologies used and shall make explicit reference by footnote to the scientific and
other sources relied upon for conclusions in the statement. An agency may place discussion of
methodology in an appendix.” This information appears nowhere in the document. Nowhere in the
document are there references to evidence that the agency has made the necessary analysis.

Response: The reader is referred to the section titled “Impacts Common to the Proposed
Action, Alternatives B, C, and E” (p. 109 of the draft) and also Appendix A, which describe
the methodologies used for analysis and conclusions. Resource consultants are listed in the
“Affected Environment” section and on page 166 of the draft plan.

Comment: The cumulative impact sections are woefully inadequate, as well as extremely inconsistent
in terms of the impacts analyzed. Many of the potential consequences, such as impacts on fisheries,
impacts on cultural resources, impacts on the ability of people to enjoy various types of recreational
activities on Lake Superior as a whole, and opportunities for loon nesting in the entire basin, are never
addressed.

Response: The National Park Service has considered whether or not the proposed plan or

alternatives could have cumulative impacts that have not been discussed in the draft plan.
With the exception of a small potential positive effect on Lake Superior fisheries resulting

169


APPENDIXES, BIBLIOGRAPHY, PREPARERS, INDEX

Mr. Douglas Bernard, Superintendent
September 23, 1996
Page 2

This in tum may affect the tribes’ ability to engage in a full and fruitful exercise of their ceded
territory rights.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need further information. Park
Service representatives that would attend a Lakes Committee meeting should coordinate with
Ann McCammon Soltis of the Commission staff.

Sincerely,

James H. Schlender
Executive Administrator

cc: Lakes Committee Representatives
Lakes Committee Biologists
James E. Zorn, Policy Analyst
Neil Kmiecik, Director, Biological Services Division
Ann McCammon Soltis, Policy Analyst

208


‘THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
CONCESSION SERVICES
Rock Harbor

Primary goals of the proposed action at Rock
Harbor include making the scale and visual
impact of the Rock Harbor development more
consistent with the purposes and significance of
the park, providing more diversity in the types
and prices of accommodations, reducing
consumption of resources such as water and
electricity, making the Rock Harbor operations
as efficient as possible, and ensuring that all
facilities are safe and high quality. An additional
goal is to eliminate the need for Isle Royale
National Park to subsidize the services of the
concessioner out of existing base funds at the
expense of other park responsibilities such as
maintenance of trails, docks, and other facilities,
interpretation, backcountry patrols, and basic
resource management. Services considered
necessary and appropriate in this proposal
include lodging, food services, transportation
services (such as ferries, water taxis, and guided
day trips), sales of basic supplies and emergency
items, and visitor and marina services (gas, slip
rentals, pumpouts, water taxi, and boat/canoe
rentals).

Necessary actions that would be taken to
accomplish park goals would include:

+ Retain limited restaurant/cafe service, grocery
store, showers, marina, docks, gasoline sales,
boat/canoe rentals, water taxis, and guided day
trips.

+ Replace, repair, and/or upgrade utility systems
and other concession infrastructure (such as
docks) to bring them into compliance with state
and federal standards.

+ Discontinue dining room, concession laundry,
and public laundry (they create a major demand
for sewer, water, and electrical service and are
staff-intensive to maintain and operate).

Reconfigure overnight accommodations:

retain housekeeping cabins

38

add a minimal number of low maintenance,
sustainable, rustic accommodations with a
separate, common restroom facility (the
exact number of units will be determined
by a concession economic feasibility study
prior to negotiating a new concession
contract in 2002; new units will
accommodate a maximum of 24 people)

remove or renovate motel units (they
require a great deal of water and electricity,
have a significant visual impact on Rock
Harbor, and are underutilized; see table 6)

The motel buildings at Rock Harbor would be
evaluated to determine if:

+ the building exteriors could be modified to
blend with the surrounding landscape

+ the interiors could be modified for a variety of
room sizes and types of accommodations

+ they could meet accessibility requirements

* goals for energy and water conservation could
be met.

A decrease in the number of rooms would be
allowed in the final design to recognize the
historically low occupancy rate. To serve
approximately the same number of people as are
now served, accommodations for no more than
80 people would be provided in the shoreline
buildings.

Simultaneously, the National Park Service would
develop cost estimates for 10 duplex units with
occupancy for no more than 80 people.

The options of renovating the buildings or
removing them and constructing new units
would be evaluated according to:

* exterior aesthetic appearance

* construction/demolition costs

+ feasibility of retrofitting existing structures
* economic feasibility for the concessioner

+ overall resource impact

+ long-term maintenance and operations

If the motel units can be modified and
mechanically upgraded to present an archi-


IS



PASSAGE ISLAND
w

2 MILES
e@

C3 CRYSTAL COVE

BELLE ISLE

PASSAGE ISLAND LIGHTHOUSE

AMYGDALOID RANGER STATION

“i >
“a Li t i Tr |

"TOBIN HARBOR
ROCK HARBOR

|
TO MICHIGAN

JOHNS ISLAND

2 MILES aa
MERRITT LANE.

BARNUM ISLAND

‘WASHINGTON
ISLAND

TO MINNESOTA
rt

ROCK HARBOR)
‘SNUG HARBOR

MOTT ISLAND

Se EDISEN FISHERY i” wb
: 1 2 MILES \ )

FISHERMAN'S ROCK HARBOR LIGHTHOUSE
HOME

FELOTMANN
LAKE

cursovo MB caoe EP vccoorn [J emerson? PROPOSED ACTION

Ue OF AGES
LIGHTHOUSE

PARK HEADQUARTERS, ERCRTCOUNTRY PRIMITIVE QUIET / NO WAKE WATERS

Isle Royale National Park * Michigan
WILDERNESS PORTAL PRISTINE NONMOTORIZED WATERS (NONE) United States Department of the Interior « National Park Service

FERRY ROUTE DSC + JUL 98 + 139 - 20021B

+ TRAIL

1 2 3 4  5MILES ~ NOTE, WATER ZONES APPLY TO LAKE ON MICROFILM

RANGER STATION

| DDier \.



APPENDIX C: ANALYSIS OF NATIONAL PARK CONCESSIONS, INC., OPERATIONS

THE CONCESSIONER AND THE
CONCESSIONS CONTRACT

The principal concessioner at Isle Royale National
Park is National Park Concessions, Inc. (NPCI).
Through one national contract, NPCI operates in
five national park areas: Isle Royale, Olympic, Big
Bend, Mammoth Cave, and Blue Ridge Parkway.
The 20-year contract expires in 2002. The company
had gross revenues of approximately 10.6 million
dollars in 1996; gross revenue from Isle Royale
operations in the same year were about $1.2 million.
The company is a nonprofit entity, exempt from
income taxes; net income is retained by the
company and is not distributed to shareholders.

Unlike most large NPS concessioners, NPCI does
not pay franchise fees. Instead, NPCI pays 3 2% of
gross revenues into a contract fees special account
that the company administers. Funds in this account
are used to fund capital improvements to concession
facilities in all five parks. Working with the
concessioner, the five individual parks identify
projects to be completed using special account
funds. Projects are then ranked in priority and
approved by the NPS Washington Concessions
Office. Special account funds can only be spent on
concession facilities located in NPCI’s land
assignment areas as identified in the contract.

CONCESSIONS MANAGEMENT

NPS management of the NPCI concession operation
is subject to both law and policy, including the
Concessions Policy Act (PL 89-249, 16 USC 20),
NPS Management Policies, NPS-48 Concessions
Management Guidelines, Bureau of the Budget
circular A-25, and the Independent Offices
Appropriation Act (PL 82-137§501, 31 USC 483a).

192

NPS UTILITY SYSTEMS

There are no commercially available utility services
on Isle Royale. All utilities (water, sewer,
electricity, solid waste, and phone service) required
to operate the NPCI concession services are
provided by the National Park Service, and 97% of
the utility services at Rock Harbor are consumed by
the concessioner. The size and scope of the
concession operation requires the largest and most
sophisticated utility infrastructure on the island.

The annual operating and long-term capital costs for
the utility systems to support this concession on a
wilderness island in the middle of Lake Superior are
substantial. These costs have to be paid by the
National Park Service, the concessioner, or the
visitor. The utility system infrastructure is not
included in NPCI’s land assignment area, so funds
in the contract fees special account cannot be used
to pay for the utility system infrastructure. Only
NPS funds may be used.

Traditionally the National Park Service has
subsidized NPCI’s commercial activities at Isle
Royale by charging less than cost for utility and
freight services. The park has tried to keep utility
rates at a level that would enable NPCI to keep
charges for goods and services affordable to the
public. The NPS subsidy also provided the
concessioner with a reasonable opportunity to make
a profit as required by the Concessions Policy Act.
Over the past few years, this situation has become
problematic because of tighter government budgets,
a growing backlog of deferred maintenance,
unfunded needs in other park program areas, and
more demanding safety and public health
regulations,

Park utility charges to NPCI have increased
substantially from the $125,000 charged in FY
1996. There are two reasons for this significant
increase. First, previous formulas used to establish
utility rates to the concessioner did not reflect the
true cost to provide these services. Second, a 1996


ALTERNATIVE E

IMPACTS ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Wildlife

Little temporary or permanent disturbance or
displacement of wildlife would be caused by new
construction or demolition. There would be very
limited introduction of visitor uses into new areas
to contribute to disturbance. This alternative is
very similar to alternative A except that
controlled visitor use would result in decreased
disturbance and displacement throughout the
park, similar to the other alternatives. There
would be no establishment of controlled use
water zones. Waterfowl would continue to be
disturbed at their nesting sites but to a lesser
degree than in alternative A because of visitation
limits.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Reduced visitation levels would reduce general
disturbance to threatened and endangered species,
including wolves, bald eagles, and peregrine
falcons.

Designated Wilderness

Existing park activities will delay for the
foreseeable future the conversion of five potential
wilderness areas to wilderness. In this alternative
conversion of two additional areas would be
delayed in order to preserve cultural resources
through adaptive use.

Geologic Processes

The movement of sand and sediment along the
shoreline in Siskiwit Bay would continue to be
interrupted by the artificial dock and breakwater
structures.

126

Water Quality

Water quality impacts would be the same as in
the proposed action.

IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES
Archeological Resources

The relocation of one dock and several campsites
and construction of one new dock and one new
campground could impact known or presently
unknown archeological resources. The reduction
in park visitation would mean less impacts on
archeological resources. The lack of
nonmotorized and quiet/no-wake zones would
allow for continued impacts on submerged and
shoreline archeological sites due to wave action.

Historical Resources

Adaptive use of structures at five locations would
help preserve them and associated features, but
there could be some loss of historic fabric
through adaptive use. There could also be some
minor impacts to cultural landscapes caused by
adaptive use.

IMPACTS ON VISITOR USE AND VISITOR
EXPERIENCE

Scenic Quality

The amount of developed shoreline would
increase slightly because of three additional
campgrounds, constituting a slight negative
impact to scenic quality. The motel units at Rock
Harbor would continue to impact the natural
appearance of the entrance to the harbor.


tecturally integrated appearance and meet the
other criteria and the cost estimates are less than
the estimates for demolition of the motel units
and construction of new duplex units, the
shoreline buildings may be retained. Including
the new rustic units described above, no more
than 14 new buildings would be constructed if
the motel units are removed. If the shoreline
buildings are retained and modified, accommo-
dations and services would include cost and
resource saving measures such as low-flow
fixtures and minimum maid and linen service.
The evaluation of the two options must be
completed prior to negotiating a new
concessions contract in 2002.

It is not likely that any combination of overnight
and food services could continue to be offered
without financial subsidy to provide utilities to
the concessioner (see Appendix C). This con-
clusion was based on the Concession Feasibility
Analysis, Isle Royale National Park, that was
prepared for Rock Harbor. The study takes into
consideration the high cost of utilities on the
island, the short operating season, and the
relatively low number of visitors using the
concession’s overnight accommodations.
Without subsidy, the cost of providing lodging
and food services could continue to drive prices
to a level that few visitors would be willing or
able to pay (which already appears to be hap-
pening). This could result in the elimination of
overnight and food services at Rock Harbor.

The concessioner would have to be subsidized
through a congressional appropriation to the
park. The subsidy would have to be sufficient to
cover capital costs related to backlogged utility
and infrastructure upgrades and annual operating
costs of supplying utilities to the concessioner in
excess of the cost of comparables (the difference
between utility costs on the mainland and costs
at the park). This subsidy is estimated at a
minimum of $2.1 million for the backlogged
utility and infrastructure capital improvements
and a minimum of $400,000 per year, plus
annual consumer price index increases, to stay
current. This subsidy would allow a reduction in
prices of rooms, meals, and all other goods and

39

The Proposed Action

services, which would make concessioner
services more affordable. If this subsidy was not
received, prices would continue to escalate,
which would result in services not being
affordable for most park visitors.

If the appropriation for a subsidy is received, the
concessioner would initially be charged for
utility services based on comparable mainland
rates. However, utility costs to the park would
probably continue to increase over time due to
inflation and other factors. If additional funds are
not received to pay for these anticipated cost
increases, they would be passed on to the
concessioner so as not to impact other important
park programs.

If a special appropriation is not provided for this
subsidy, and overnight and food services cannot
be continued at Rock Harbor, lodging and dining
on a ship-based operation, such as a small,
single-destination commercial tour boat (see
Actions Eliminated from Detailed Study), could
be reconsidered. The economic feasibility of
such an operation would have to be analyzed.

Windigo

* retain all commercial services except the public
laundry

Transportation Services

+ retain ferry services, including the seaplane and
water taxi; no expansion would be allowed

The number of people permitted to disembark or
be picked up at specific locations could be
limited if necessary to prevent crowding or
resource damage. Because dock space is in short
supply at peak visitation times, dock use by
commercially operated boats such as dive and
fishing charters would continue to be restricted
as needed to preserve docking opportunities for
noncommercial boating visitors.


APPENDIX F: CONSULTATION LETTERS

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
East Lansing Field Office (ES)
2651 Coolidge Road
East Lansing, Michigan 48823

IN REPLY REFER TO.

February 16, 1996

Edward Carlea

National Park Service
1709 Jackson St.
Omaha, NB 68102-2571

Re: Endangered Species List Request, Isle Royale National Park, Michigan
Dear Mr. Carlea:

This responds to your letter of January 18, 1996, requesting U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
review of threatened and endangered species occurrences in relation to the above referenced site.

Endangere jes A

The Service has determined that federally listed and candidate species pursuant to the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (as amended), may be present within the project area (Enclosure A). Federally listed
species are afforded protection pursuant to State of Michigan Public Act 204 (Endangered Species Act of
1974).

Species of concern are currently under review by the Service for consideration of listing as endangered or
threatened. Species of concem have no protection under the federal Endangered Species Act and a
determination of "may affect" does not require preparation of a biological assessment or consultation with
the Service. Species of concem which may be proposed and listed in the future are included as advance
notice to federal agencies or their designees. If early evaluation of your project indicates that it is likely to
adversely impact a candidate species, your agency may wish to request technical assistance from this
Office.

The Service recommends you contact the State Endangered Species Coordinator, Mr. Tom Weise
(Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division, phone: 517/337-1263) to determine the
presence of state listed species. Federal species of concern may be State of Michigan listed species.
The State Endangered Species Act requires permits in advance of any work that could potentially
damage, destroy, or displace State-listed species.

If the project is modified or new information about the project becomes available that indicates additional
listed or proposed species may be present and/or affected, consultation with this Service office should be
teinitiated. The Service further advises that should any other species occurring in the project area
become Federally listed or proposed, the Federal action agency for the work would also be required to
reevaluate its responsibilities under the Act. Since threatened and endangered species data is continually
updated, the Service suggests the lead federal agency annually request an updated Federal list of the
species occurring in the project area.

The Service requests that confirmation of the occurrence data be provided by the National Park Service

(NPS). The Service would like the NPS to identify any endangered species occurrences that are not
included in the list.

203


Appendix D

STATE-LISTED BIRDS

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME RANK 1992 STATUS
GLOBAL STATE US MI
Cooper's hawk Accipiter cooperi G4 S384 SC 0,T
Worihern goshawk Accipiter gentilis G4 $3 C2 Sc R
Short-eared owl Asio flammeus G5 sl E AT
Long-eared owl Asio otus G5 82 T A,T
American bitten Botaurus lentiginosus G4 $283 sc R
Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus GS $283 T A
Piping plover Charadrius melodus G3 Sl LELT E H
Black tern Chlidonias niger G4 $3 c2 sc A
Lark sparrow Chondestes grammacus GS SX A
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus G5 S83 sc O,T
Yellow rail Coturnicops noveboracensis G4 $1S2 T H
Merlin Falco columbarius G4 S1S2 T R
Peregrine felcon Falco peregrinus G3 Sl LE E A,T
Common loon Gavia immer GS $3 T R
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus G3 83 LELT T (e)
Black-crowned night-heron Nycticorax nyticorax GS $283 Sc A
Osprey Pandion haliaetus G5 $3 T ie)
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus GS S4 sc O,T
Black-backed woodpecker Picoides arcticus G5 $2 Sc R
Dickcisse] Spiza americana G4 $3 sc A
Caspian tern Sterna caspia G5 $2 T A
Common tern Sterna hirundo G5 $2 C2 T °
Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus G5 S4 Nie A
Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta G5 S4 Sc A
R= regular occurrence
O= occasional occurrence
A= accidental occurrence
H= hypothetical occurrence
T= breeds on adjacent mainland

Species list and abundance based on Jsle Royale National Park Checklist of Birds (1994)

STATE-LISTED AMPHIBIANS

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME RANK 1992 STATUS
GLOBAL STATE US MI

Boreal chorus frog Pseudacris triseriata maculata GS5T5—sSI sc
Compiled from “Michigan’s Special Animals” (June 1994), Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources

No listed reptiles are known to inhabit Isle Royale. In 1977 there was one inconclusive photo taken of what may have
been a black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta), which is listed as a species of special concern in Michigan.

No comprehensive inventories of insects, snails, or mussels have been completed for Isle Royale.

197


APPENDIXES, BIBLIOGRAPHY, PREPARERS, INDEX

The opportunity to provide our resource protection recommendations is appreciated. Any questions can
be directed to Tom Eitniear of this office at (517) 351-6283.

Sincerely,

Pee

Se chartes M. Wooley
Field Supervisor

Enclosures

cc: Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division, Lansing, MI
(Attn: Tom Weise)

Enclosure A
LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES AND
SPECIES OF CONCERN THAT MAY OCCUR WITHIN THE AREA OF THE

Isle Royale National Park, Michigan

204




AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

SOILS

A soil survey for Isle Royale was completed
(Shetron and Stottlemyer 1991). The research
mapped and described 15 soil series, and 14
distinct soil associations were described. Three
new soil series were included based on their
development associated with the various lake
levels in the Lake Superior basin, the decay and
retreat of the glaciers, and the uplift of the land
mass following glacial retreat.

76

The soils on Isle Royale are derived from deposits
and outwash left by the retreating glaciers and
meltwater. Glacial till deposits vary in thickness
across the island and are much deeper toward the
southwest end. Soils in the northeastern section
are thin and highly organic; on the southwestern
end, the soils are deeper, better developed, and
less organic.


Actions Common to the Proposed Action and Alternatives B, C, and E

probability of encountering other visitors could
be high. There would be ample social contact
and limited solitude. Visitors would expect to
hear noise. The zone could be dangerous under
certain conditions. Visitors traveling
independently would have to be self-sufficient
and would need marine skills because of the
unpredictable nature of Lake Superior.

Resource Condition or Character — The mood
and character of this zone would tend to change
according to Lake Superior fog, rain, wind, and
wave conditions. The zone could include most
Lake Superior waters inside the park. It would be
located away from resources that are sensitive to
intense human activity or noise. Management
would be the minimum necessary to ensure
safety and resource protection.

Appropriate Kinds of Activities or Facilities —
Boating of all types, fishing, and scuba diving
could be common.

Quiet/No-Wake Zone.

Visitor Experience — Motorboaters and others
could find relatively tranquil, natural marine
surroundings. The probability of encountering
other visitors would be moderate, and solitude
would be possible. Tolerance for noise would be
very low. Any challenge would probably relate
to navigating in difficult conditions. Visitors
would have to be relatively self-sufficient.

Resource Condition or Character — This zone
could be in sheltered Lake Superior harbors and
bays where calm water and relative quiet are
desirable for safety, resource, or visitor
experience reasons. It might be appropriate in
harbors or bays where waterbirds nest or where
there are visitor centers or campgrounds. A
moderate level of management would be
provided for resource protection and visitor
safety. NPS tolerance for resource degradation
would be low.

Appropriate Kinds of Activities or Facilities —
Human-powered and motor-powered watercraft
could be found in this zone. Boats would travel

33

at idling speed on flat water and leave no wake
larger than prevailing sea conditions.

Nonmotorized Waters Zone.

Visitor Experience — This zone would provide
visitors with an experience similar to that
provided by the primitive land zone but ina
water setting. Tolerance for noise and visual
intrusions on the natural scene would be low.
Few other visitors would be encountered.

Opportunities for independence, closeness to
nature, tranquility, and application of outdoor
skills would be common. Visitors would have to
be self-sufficient.

Resource Condition or Character — This zone
might include logical, secluded, protected routes
for travel by human-powered watercraft only. It
also might be applied to shallow water and
sensitive resource areas. Narrow bays that are
naturally buffered from outside noise could be
candidates for this zone. There would be few
restrictions, but access might be limited. NPS
tolerance for resource impacts in this zone would
be very low.

Appropriate Kinds of Activities or Facilities —
There would be few, if any, facilities in this
zone. Kayaking and canoeing would be the most
common activities. Boats with motors would not
be permitted (not even NPS maintenance or
patrol boats) except in emergency situations or
when necessary for safe harbor in a storm.


new campsite areas. The long-term effect of
establishing quiet/no-wake water zones in Lake
Superior bays and harbors would be positive.
Submerged and shoreline archeological resources
would be protected from wake effect.

The removal of three docks and one breakwater,
construction of five new docks, and relocation of
one dock could result in short-term impacts on

submerged and terrestrial archeological resources.

Historic Resources

Adaptive use of structures at Barnum Island,
Washington Island, Fishermans Home, Crystal
Cove, and Wright Island would help preserve
them and associated features; however, there
could be some loss of historic fabric through
adaptive use. Development of campsites at these
locations could slightly impact cultural
landscapes, depending on the site, location, size,
and use level of the campground.

IMPACTS ON VISITOR USE AND VISITOR
EXPERIENCE

Scenic Quality

The amount of developed shoreline would
increase slightly because of additional
campgrounds; however, the three campgrounds
where docks would be removed would appear
more natural. Some increased visitor impacts
would occur in areas of increased activity (such
as Crystal Cove and Wright Island); however,
monitoring and management of use levels would
limit these impacts. Removal or remodeling of
motel buildings at Rock Harbor and revegetating
the disturbed areas would make the shoreline
appear more natural.

Wilderness Experience and Noise

Overall visitor use would be monitored and
managed, which would reduce overcrowding and
associated noise and enhance wilderness
experience for all park users. The numerous
quiet/no-wake water zones would reduce noise

117

Proposed Action

from ferries, visitor boats, and NPS boats, thus
enhancing wilderness experiences, particularly in
the northeast portion of the park. Restrictions on
use of generators and noise-producing electronic
devices would also promote quiet.

Range of Uses

The current range of uses would continue to be
accommodated. Some separation of motorized
and nonmotorized uses would increase the
potential for quality visitor experiences. Quiet/no-
wake zones would slightly decrease speed of boat
and ferry movement around the island.

Unavailability of funding for concessioner
subsidies would probably result in higher costs to
the consumer and might price some individuals
out of the market. If the concession operation
fails, people unable to visit the island without
those services would be displaced.

Visitor Use Levels

Visitor use limits would be established.
Management action would be taken to prevent
those limits from being exceeded. Some visitors
may be unable to visit the island at a preferred
time, or they may be unable to visit individual
sites without adjusting their itineraries. If
overnight accommodations cannot be sustained,
some visitors could stop coming to the island.

Safety

With the removal of docks (at Siskiwit for
example) some sites would be more isolated, and
visitors would have to be more self-reliant.

IMPACTS ON THE
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

Facility removal and development in the park
would result in money spent in the gateway
communities for construction labor, management,
and materials. Although this influx of federal
spending would benefit a few individuals and


Visitor Use

Much of that use is during the last two weeks in
@ July and the first two weeks in August.

Figure A. Isle Royale National Park
1996 Recreation Visitors on the Island by Month

7,000
6,638)

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

Recreation Visitors

2,000

1,000

1 August i October
July September
Month

Source: National Park Service, Public Use Statistics Program Center and Isle Royale
National Park

101


ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

nonconforming uses are removed or lessened.
Examples of potential wilderness additions
include the area around the Amygdaloid ranger
station, Fishermans Home, and Wright Island.
Specific actions proposed in each alternative
would affect the future ability to convert these
areas to designated wilderness.

Water Quality

The removal and construction of docks, trails,
campgrounds, and other facilities could increase
turbidity somewhat in adjacent waters. This
impact would be temporary and would be
mitigated by site-specific containment measures
such as silt fencing and retention ponds. All
disturbed areas would be revegetated so that no
long-term siltation impacts from runoff would
occur. All action alternatives would allow park
managers and others to better understand and
manage water quality. Included are research into
suspected threats, cooperative efforts with
regional water quality ecosystem management
and protection programs, and development of a
water resources management plan.

IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES
Archeological Resources

Inventories would improve the park’s ability to
manage archeological resources. All action
alternatives would benefit shipwrecks as the
result of partnerships formed to preserve and
protect these resources.

The removal of trails would benefit archeological
resources because less visitor use in these areas
would reduce disturbance. This would be
proportional to the amount of trail removed. The
same positive effect would result from the
removal of docks, because visitors would be less
likely to come to these areas.

110

Historic Resources

Impacts have been assessed for historic resources
that have been determined eligible for listing on
the National Register of Historic Places and those
resources on the park’s List of Classified
Structures. The list is an inventory of all historic
and prehistoric structures with historical,
architectural, or engineering significance in which
the park has legal interest. Included are structures
that meet the criteria of the National Register of
Historic Places or are contributing elements of
sites and districts that meet the national register
criteria. The list assists park managers in
planning, programming, and recording decisions
about treatment for these resources. To determine
impacts, park and other NPS cultural specialists
and the Michigan State Historic Preservation
Office were consulted.

Adaptive use in several alternatives would help
preserve structures and other features. Develop-
ment of campsites or addition of docks in these
areas could impact cultural landscapes, depending
on the location, size, and use levels.

Inventories would help the park staff to under-
stand and better manage the resources.

IMPACTS ON VISITOR USE
AND VISITOR EXPERIENCE

Scenic Quality

Scenic values relate to the visitors’ perceptions of
the park and its surroundings. Natural appearing
conditions (such as undeveloped shoreline) are -
aesthetically pleasing. Impacts on scenic quality
were determined by considering the number,
nature, and scale of human developments that
would interrupt the natural scene. Constructed
facilities.decrease the amount of undeveloped
area and the sense of naturalness.

Proposed facility additions, such as campgrounds,
lodging, and docks, would be designed to
minimize visual intrusions. Facility design,
colors, and size would be matched as closely as
possible to the surrounding natural features and
would be hidden from view when possible.


APPENDIXES, BIBLIOGRAPHY, PREPARERS, INDEX

LEGEND @

MI 1991 Current species status under the Michigan Endangered Species Act reviewed during 1987-91. Endangered
and threatened designations were legally effective as of November 14, 1991. P (proposed) = species has been officially
dropped for listing by the technical committee.

Listing status with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources
E = endangered
T =threatened
SC = special concern
X = probably extirpated

U.S. 1991 Species status under the Federal Endangered Species Act as of July 15, 1991, and updated August 29, 1992
(for animals). LE, LT (listed endangered, listed threatened) = species has been officially listed as endangered (E) or
threatened (T). P (proposed) = species has been officially proposed for listing. C1 (category 1) = listing as E or T is
considered appropriate but has not yet been officially proposed. C2 (category 2) = listing as E or T may be appropriate

but more information is needed. C3 (category 3) = Species is more widespread or abundant than previously thought.
LELT indicates that an animal is listed as endangered in part of its range and threatened in the remainder of its range.

Global Ranks
G1 = critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity (5 or fewer occurrences rangewide or very few remaining

individuals or acres) or because of some factors(s) making it especially vulnerable to extinction.

G2 = imperiled globally because of rarity (6 to 20 occurrences or few remaining individuals or acres) or because of
factor(s) that make it vulnerable to extinction throughout its range. @

G3 = either very rare and local throughout its range or found locally (even abundantly at some of its locations) in a
restricted range (e.g. a single western state, a physiographic region) or because of other factor(s) making it vulnerable to
extinction throughout its range; occurrences of 21 to 100.

G4 = apparently secure globally, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the periphery.

G5 = demonstrably secure globally, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the periphery.

GH = of historical occurrence throughout it range, i.e. formerly part of the established biota, with the expectation that it
may be rediscovered (e.g. Bachman's Warbler).

GU = possibly in peril rangewide but status uncertain; need more information.

GX = believed to be extinct throughout its range (e.g. passenger pigeon) with virtually no likelihood that it will be
rediscovered.

State Ranks

S1 = critically imperiled in the state because of extreme rarity (5 or fewer occurrences or very few remaining individuals
or acres) or because of some factor(s) making it especially vulnerable to extirpation in the state.

$2 = imperiled in the state because of rarity (6 to 20 occurrences or few remaining individuals or acres) or because of
some factor(s) that makes it very vulnerable to extirpation from the state. @

$3 = rare or uncommon in state (on the order of 21 to 100 occurrences).

198


Safety

As facilities deteriorate, the potential for safety
problems would increase.

IMPACTS ON THE
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

Implementation of alternative A would not result
in any significant changes in overall social or
economic conditions in the gateway communities.
Current economic activities on the island and in
Houghton and Copper Harbor, Michigan, and
Grand Portage, Minnesota, would continue with
business enterprises responding to market
conditions and demand as warranted.

This alternative calls for continuing rehabilitation
and repair of facilities at various locations. These
expenditures would provide short-term positive
economic benefits for a relatively few individuals
and businesses.

Increases in visitor use of the island would not
necessarily translate into increased economic
activity in the gateway communities or on the
island because, while visitor use of the island is
increasing, the actual numbers of visitors to the
island has decreased slightly in the past couple of
years. Visitors to the island are separated from the
gateway communities by Lake Superior and their
spending pattern remains the same — visitors
purchase goods and services in gateway
communities before and after visiting the island.

If changes to the concessions at Rock Harbor
resulted in fewer visitors traveling to the island
from Copper Harbor and Grand Portage, those
communities could be negatively affected.
However, there are many other tourist attractions
in the affected areas, and this disturbance of the
tourism industry would be absorbed in due time
with relatively small long-term negative impacts.

115

Alternative A
IMPACTS ON PARK OPERATIONS

The park would continue to violate the require-
ment that all national park areas have a current
general management plan. In the absence of a
parkwide, long-range direction for the future and
associated approved priorities for actions that are
established in a general management plan,
decisions would continue to be made on a case-
by-case basis.

Anticipated growth in visitation would continue
to increase the maintenance and management
workload caused by wear and tear on park
facilities and resources.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

This alternative does not establish a priority
system or long-range view of needed
developments or programs to meet park
objectives. This would make it difficult for the
park to coordinate efforts with other entities in the
region to improve the overall quality of the
environment in the Lake Superior basin.

Some cultural resources are deteriorating due to
lack of funding. The additional responsibility of
lighthouses, particularly if no partners could be
found, would further dilute funding and staff time
devoted to cultural resources.

If preservation of Passage Island, Menagerie
Island, and Rock of Ages Lighthouses were to
prove infeasible, their loss, when combined with
loss of lighthouses throughout the Great Lakes
region, could result in the disappearance of a
significant segment of Great Lakes maritime
history.


INDEX

accessibility 6, 25-27, 30, 31, 34, 38, 60, 61, 111,
114, 137, 145, 151, 174, 184, 185

Amygdaloid 18, 34, 36, 37, 43, 49, 50, 55, 61, 82,
85, 97, 110, 149, 158, 166

Barnum Island 36, 50, 80, 117, 118, 185

boat 5, 8, 19, 28, 30, 33, 37-40, 44, 49, 50, 65, 72,
7T, 79-82, 85-88, 90, 94, 97, 99, 100, 114,
117, 123, 137, 139, 141-144, 146, 147, 150,
152, 153, 155-157, 159-160, 164, 166, 167,
173, 174, 177, 183

camp 37, 50, 65, 85, 116, 124, 130, 142, 151, 152,
173

campgrounds 4-6, 17, 18, 24, 26, 29, 32, 35-37, 44,
45, 49-51, 55, 61, 72, 77, 84-86, 94, 96-97,
99, 111, 116, 117, 119-120, 126, 136, 141-
142, 148, 150-153, 155-156, 159, 167, 171,
177, 184, 185, 206

camping 18, 32, 44, 49-50, 61, 77, 84, 93, 94, 97,
100, 152, 153, 179

canoe 8, 60, 61, 83, 88, 90, 91, 135, 146, 149, 150,
152

Chippewa 27, 36, 37, 55, 61, 65, 83, 87, 91, 93, 99,
116, 130, 132, 135, 150, 184

concession 6, 19, 28, 38-40, 44, 45, 56, 59, 63, 87,
96, 117, 118, 145, 180, 184, 185, 193, 206

concessioner 19, 27-28, 38-39, 45, 89, 94, 96, 117,
145, 160, 192-193

Crystal Cove 24, 35-37, 44, 61, 80, 82, 116-118, 130,
141, 156, 182, 184, 185

Daisy Farm 35, 35, 44, 61, 78, 87, 150

eagle 71, 73, 75
eagles 65, 74, 113, 116, 120, 123, 126, 151
Edisen 4, 34, 44, 74, 80-82, 85, 160, 161

fish 4, 5, 29, 74, 75, 77, 86, 93, 109, 133, 134, 157,
167-168, 178, 186, 195, 209, 213

Fishermans Home 35-37, 61, 80, 82, 99, 110,
116-118, 130, 156, 182, 185

fishery 4-5, 13-14, 18, 23, 28, 29, 34, 44, 55, 65, 74,
78, 80-82, 85, 88, 111, 147, 156-157, 160,
161, 174, 182, 186, 208

fishing 5-6, 8, 24-25, 27, 28, 33, 36, 40, 63, 74, 75,
79, 82, 83, 86, 88, 93, 94, 131, 170, 181, 184,
206

float plane 28

221

floodplain 72, 133
freight 27, 28, 79, 88, 89, 96, 160, 192-193

ishpeming 37, 50, 99
kayak 8, 37, 61, 135, 171, 184

lighthouse 4, 13, 14, 18, 34, 36, 44, 50, 55, 77-79,
81, 84-85, 115, 130, 147, 160, 177, 182, 184,
185, 187, 188, 206

Malone 18, 19, 34-35, 43, 44, 49-50, 56, 61, 63, 82,
85, 97, 130, 141, 142, 150, 158, 166

McCargoe 19, 36-37, 50, 56, 63, 78, 79, 84, 127,
130, 135, 140, 141, 149, 167, 185

Minong 37, 50, 75, 79, 82, 84, 143

moose 4-4, 8, 13, 72-73, 98, 109, 157, 162, 174

motorboat 5, 8, 34, 44, 50, 111, 113, 114, 120, 123,
124, 127, 136-139, 142, 143, 152, 156, 160,
165, 171, 179, 183

passenger 27, 79, 87, 127, 146, 193
peregrine 74, 75, 113, 116, 120, 123, 126

Rock Harbor 4, 6, 18-19, 28, 34, 36, 39, 40, 44-45,
49, 51, 56, 59-61, 65, 74, 78, 80-81, 85, 87,
89-90, 96, 98-99, 114, 115, 117-118, 126,
127, 130, 135, 136, 140, 144-145, 148, 153,
158, 161, 174, 177, 180, 182, 184-185, 187,
192-193, 206

shoreline 8, 34, 37, 61, 70, 71, 78, 91, 96, 97, 110,
113-114, 116-117, 120-121, 124, 126, 135,
138, 140-142, 147, 163

Siskiwit 35, 37, 44, 50, 55, 61, 65, 71, 72, 75, 81,99,
113, 117, 126, 130, 135, 140, 185

Tobin Harbor 43-45, 61, 65, 80, 87, 122, 138, 140,
148, 150

trail 5, 6, 8, 18, 29, 34, 36-38, 43, 44, 49-51, 55,
59-61, 77, 81, 85, 86, 89, 94, 96, 99, 110,
116, 118, 119, 124, 130, 132, 135, 136, 141,
143-144, 147, 149, 158, 171, 174, 179, 182,
184, 185, 187, 206

utility 19, 38-39, 43, 45, 56, 59, 88-90, 94, 97, 98,
125, 146-147, 161, 163, 171, 173, 180, 184,
192-194, 208


APPENDIXES, BIBLIOGRAPHY, PREPARERS, INDEX

Isle Royale General Management Plan Project Leader
April 17, 1998
Page 2

The Lakes Committee appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments. Please do
not hesitate to contact Ann McCammon Soltis or me if you have questions or need further
information.

Sincerely,

Q- 0 PL

James H. Schlender
Executive Administrator

cc: Lakes Committee
James E. Zom, Policy Analyst
Neil Kmiecik, Director, Biological Services Division
Bill Mattes, Great Lakes Biologist
Ann McCammon Soltis, Policy Analyst

210


Consultation and Coordination

Response: The areas zoned as nonmotorized in the draft plan have been changed to quiet/no-
wake zones (formerly called motorized sensitive zones). Sailboats would be permitted in these
zones and in all Lake Superior waters in the park.

Comment: Visitor surveys indicate that sailboaters differ from other powerboaters in that they
consider experiences such as tran
important. They also perceive motorboat noise in narrow harbors and bays to be more of a problem
(see Draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement p. 86). Thus, the National
Park Service should consider designating some waters deep enough for cruising sailing craft to use as
anchorages and nonmotorized water zones so sailors can find the quiet and solitude they seek.

ity and solitude and nonmotorized water a

Response: The proposed action has been revised. Quiet/no-wake zones (formerly called
motorized sensitive zones) have been expanded, and the nonmotorized zones have been
eliminated, so sailboats will have access to all Lake Superior waters. Expansion of quiet/no-
wake zones will increase opportunities for tranquillity and quiet for motorized craft
throughout the park. Parkwide noise restrictions called for in the plan will enhance and
preserve quiet in narrow harbors and bays and will provide tranquillity and quiet for sailboats
at anchor in these locations.

Comment: Concern was expressed that motorboaters will not comply with the proposed nonmotorized
and quiet/no-wake zones. Commenters also suggested that quiet/no-wake zones and nonmotorized
zones must be backed up with funding and a strong commitment to user education and enforcement.

Response: Nonmotorized zones have been eliminated from the proposed plan. Experience has
shown that the vast majority of park users obey park rules and regulations. Violations of such
tules and regulations are handled according to federal law. Current park funding requests
include both education/interpretation and marine patrol.

Comment: Concern was expressed that the proposal to limit the innermost portion of McCargoe Cove
to nonmotorized traffic would unduly restrict access to one of the most secure anchorages along the
north shore of the island. This anchorage is especially important during southerly winds. Anchoring
adjacent to the new proposed dock would permit too little swing room. It was suggested that the
National Park Service consider providing mooring buoys in this area to increase safe anchorage.

Response: McCargoe Cove has been changed to a quiet/no-wake zone, where sailboats and
other boats are permitted. Thus anchoring opportunities in this areas will not change as the
result of the plan.

Comment: A variety of alternative suggestions for managing McCargoe Cove were received.
Examples include: zoning the entire cove motorized sensitive (quiet/no-wake); opening the cove to
motorboats for overnight anchorages only; making the cove quiet/no-wake during the day and
nonmotorized at night.

Response: Zoning the cove for quiet/no-wake, combined with relocation of the dock closer to

the mouth of the cove should meet goals for increased quiet at McCargoe Cove. (Also see
response immediately above.)

139


Consultation and Coordination

e@ Comment: Restore a dock at Todd Harbor and schedule the Voyageur to stop there again. Todd
Harbor is big enough for the entire mix of visitors as long as they aren’t right next to each other and
respect each other’s version of the wilderness experience.

Response: There is a dock at Todd Harbor. The National Park Service considered this idea
during formulation of alternatives but decided against this action to avoid increasing use
pressure on the Minong Traii, which is zoned primitive.

Comment: The General Management Plan should specify that the National Park Service will continue
to evaluate docking options and continue to remove docks or relocate them so that boater/hiker
interactions will be minimized. The plan should be only a starting point from which additional
changes can be made.

Response: General management plans are intended to be long-term general guidance
documents, It is not anticipated that decisions made in these plans would continue to evolve
over the life of the plan. Changes to general management plans can be made, but they require
a formal amendment process that includes public input. Because docks at Isle Royale are the
major points of park access for most visitors, their general numbers and locations have been
specified in this plan. These decisions are not expected to evolve over the 15-20-year life of
the plan. While some separation of motorized and nonmotorized uses is accomplished by the
proposed plan, minimizing boater/hiker interactions is not necessarily a goal.

e@ Carrying Capacity

Note to readers: also see the Carrying Capacity section under theheading “Comments with Detail
beyond the Scope of the General Management Plan”

Comment: Comments were received expressing concern about increasing numbers of powerboats and
their effects on the island’s environment. The following question and suggestions were included in the
comments: What will be done if private motorboat use continues to increase? Consider the following
actions to limit boat use: limit the number of rented boats with outboard motors, stop bringing small
powerboats over on the Ranger III, stop selling fuel for boats except for emergencies or for rented
boats.

Response: The draft plan (pages 26 and 28) refers to the NPS’ legal requirement to address
carrying capacity issues and to describe the visitor experience and resource protection (VERP)
implementation plan that will be prepared following completion of the Final General
Management Plan /Environmental Impact Statement. The VERP process has been developed
by the National Park Service to address issues related to increases in visitation and use.
Researchers have been collecting survey data from Isle Royale visitors to determine how
crowded visitors feel and under what conditions visitors might feel too crowded in the future.
Similarly, resource conditions are being examined to try to determine when visitor use levels
result in unacceptable resource impacts. If the number of motorboaters (or other users) at Isle
Royale increases to the point that crowding becomes a problem, visitors’ experiences are
compromised, or impacts on resources become unacceptable, management actions such as

143


FINAL
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

ISLE ROYALE NATIONAL PARK
KEWEENAW COUNTY, MICHIGAN

The five alternatives that were developed in the course of preparing this General Management
Plan / Environmental Impact Statement were based on park purpose, significance, and emphasis
statements, which in turn were based on the park’s legislation and legislative history, other special
designations, and NPS policies. The plan is intended to provide a foundation for park management
and use and to serve as a guide for park programs and for priority setting over at least the next
15-20 years.

Alternative A is the no-action, or status quo, alternative and provides a baseline for comparison of
the other four alternatives. The proposed action has been revised from the proposal in the Draft
General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement. It is intended to meet the diverse
expectations and needs of Isle Royale visitors while emphasizing the natural quiet that is
fundamental to wilderness experiences. All park areas would be available to all visitors as long as
users participate in ways that are consistent with the access, facilities, and opportunities provided.
Alternative B would expand facilities and services at the ends of the island and create a more ©
primitive experience toward the center. Cultural resources would be preserved only at the ends of
the island. Use limits would be imposed in some zones. Some facilities in developed areas would
be expanded to serve visitors preparing to enter the backcountry. Alternative C would scale back
all development to create a more primitive park. No interpretive media or formal programs would
be offered on the island. All cultural resources would be documented and allowed to deteriorate. A
narrower range of experiences would be available. Visitor numbers would be lowered and use
limits would be instituted islandwide. All concessions and related facilities would be removed.
Alternative D was modified to become the proposed action. Alternative E would allow park
management to continue as it is now, but visitor numbers would be controlled and would be low.
Historic structures would be preserved according to significance. A variety of uses would continue
across the island.

The potential consequences of the actions in the alternatives on natural resources, cultural
resources, visitor use and experiences, park operations, and the socioeconomic environment have
been evaluated. In general, all alternatives would better protect the park’s natural resources than
the current management direction (alternative A). Alternative C would provide the greatest benefit
to natural resources, but would have the most negative effects on cultural resources and on visitor
use. The proposed action and alternative E would best protect cultural resources. Impacts on park
operations from the alternatives would be mixed; the workload would remain roughly the same
(except in alternative C, where it would be reduced), but the emphasis would change depending on
the alternative. The alternatives would not appreciably affect the socioeconomic environment.

U. S. Department of the Interior * National Park Service


Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(16 USC 1531 et seq.)

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires
all federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service to ensure that any action
authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency
does not jeopardize the continued existence of
listed species or critical habitat.

Informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service for the general management plan
was initiated by letter dated January 18, 1996, to
determine if any endangered or threatened species
existed in or near Isle Royale National Park. A
response, dated February 16, 1996, stated that
certain listed and proposed endangered and
threatened species and species of concern may
occur in the area. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service commented on the draft in a letter dated
May 22, 1998. The agency concurred with the
National Park Service that the proposed action
would not be likely to adversely affect listed
species or critical habitat. Written correspondence
is reprinted in Appendix F.

The National Park Service would continue to
consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
regarding the need for threatened and endangered
species surveys before beginning construction or
rehabilitation activities. If such species were
found, the National Park Service would develop
and implement measures in consultation with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that
protected species would not be affected.

As required by NPS Management Policies the
National Park Service would cooperate with the
state of Michigan to ensure protection of state-
listed species in the park.

Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 USC et seq (1988),
78 Stat. 890, Pub. L. 88-577).

This act established the national wilderness
preservation system and sets forth requirements
for wilderness designation and management. Isle
Royale National Park includes 132,018 acres of
designated wilderness that must be managed
following NPS policies.

133

Consultation and Coordination

Clean Air Act, as amended (42 USC 701 et
seq.)

Section 118 of the Clean Air Act requires all
federal facilities to comply with existing federal,
state, and city air pollution control laws and
regulations. Isle Royale management will work
with the state of Michigan to ensure that park
activities meet all requirements.

Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain
Management) and Executive Order 11990
(Protection of Wetlands)

Executive orders 11988 and 11990 direct federal
agencies to enhance floodplain and wetland
values, to avoid development in the floodplains
and wetlands whenever there is a practicable
alternative, and to avoid to the extent possible
adverse impacts associated with the occupancy or
modification of floodplains or wetlands.

Pursuant to federal and state regulations, there
would be no actions in floodplains or wetlands in
any alternative. Preliminary site investigation for
all actions has ensured that impacts on these
resources could be avoided during implemen-
tation. In all alternatives involving removal or
construction of docks in navigable waters, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Michigan
Coastal Commission would be consulted about
permits.

Federal Water Pollution Control Act as
amended (USC 9 sec. 1251 et seq., as amended,
33 USC sec. 1251-1376, and 1987 Federal
Water Quality Act)

Proposed construction and NPS operations would
have only temporary, localized effects on water
quality. Federal construction would comply with
the requirements of sections 401 and 404 of the
Clean Water Act and other applicable federal,
state, and local regulations.


PARK OPERATIONS

ORGANIZATION AND
PROGRAM AREAS

The superintendent is responsible for the overall
operation and management of the park. There are
two centers of operation: the administrative
headquarters at Houghton and the summer
headquarters at Mott Island. The park is
organized into three main divisions:
administration, maintenance, and ranger activities
and resource management.

Because of the proximity of Isle Royale National
Park to Keweenaw National Historical Park and
the need to conserve money and other resources,
Isle Royale will provide some support services to
Keweenaw. The current use of Isle Royale
National Park administrative staff for compre-
hensive administrative services to Keweenaw
National Historical Park will continue. The
superintendent of Keweenaw National Historical
Park is under the direct supervision of the
superintendent of Isle Royale National Park. This
is the most effective sharing of services and
expertise.

The Division of Administration, located in
Houghton, is headed by the administrative
manager/assistant superintendent. The division is
responsible for personnel management, payroll,
procurement, contracting, budget and finance,
property management, mail and files, and the
operation and maintenance of the parkwide
computer system. The division also manages and
supervises the operation of the Ranger III, a 165-
foot vessel that provides primary transportation
and logistical support for all island operations.

The Maintenance Division is responsible for the
operation and maintenance of all park facilities
and equipment, including buildings, boats, utility
systems (water, power, sewer, and solid waste),
employee housing, trails, campgrounds, docks,
and radio and telephone systems. The division is
also responsible for the transportation, storage,

94

and distribution of gasoline for both the National
Park Service and the concessioner.

The Division of Ranger Activities and Resource
Management is responsible for program areas that
include natural resource management (wildland
and natural fire management, inventory and
monitoring programs, research, wilderness
management, and geographic information
systems), emergency services (search and rescue,
emergency medical services), SCUBA diving
program, law enforcement, concessions
management, interpretation and visitor services,
environmental education, fee collection, Ranger
IIT and group camping reservations, and cultural
resource management (management of museum
collections and historic structures, archeological
inventory and compliance, cultural fishing
demonstration program, and management of life
leases).

Funding and staffing (full-time equivalency, or
FTE) available and allocated to the different
division program areas in FY97 are itemized in
tables 9 and 10.




THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES,

habitat areas, development of a contaminants
monitoring scheme, and other related projects

* conduct research to determine baseline levels
of petroleum hydrocarbons in Lake Superior
waters and sediments

Mitigation

Disturbance of vegetation in construction areas
would be held to a minimum or would take place
in previously disturbed areas. Mitigation would
reduce impacts to the minimum necessary to
accomplish objectives and would include careful
site selection, salvaging topsoil and plant
materials, and rehabilitation of disturbed areas.
Whenever facilities were removed, the disturbed
areas would be rehabilitated and revegetated
with native species. Only native plants and seed
sources proximate to the disturbed site would be
used in rehabilitation and revegetation efforts.

Several sites with existing docks proposed for
public use, such as Wright Island and Crystal
Cove, may historically have had loon nesting
activity. If ongoing research confirms that these
locations are potential loon nesting sites,
mitigation actions (such as increased educational
efforts or temporary dock closures during loon
nesting periods) would be implemented.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

General strategies have been identified for
management of cultural resources at Isle Royale.
The primary goal of cultural resource manage-
ment is to understand, preserve, and interpret the
history of human experience on the island.

Specific strategies for management of certain
structures and landscapes are described in the
various alternatives. Alternative C would remove
all historic structures. In general the other action
alternatives would retain historic structures if
they were eligible for listing on the national
register and a potential use was identified.
Priority for adaptive use would be given to

24

structures in nonwilderness areas. Partnerships
would be sought for preservation and adaptive
use of historic structures. As life-lease properties
come under NPS management, the specific
actions for each property would be identified on
a case-by-case basis. Criteria for selecting
specific actions would be based on wilderness
status, national register eligibility, condition of
structures, importance to cultural landscapes, and
the suitability and potential for adaptive uses by
the park.

Decisions regarding the identification and treat-
ment of historic properties will follow NPS
Management Policies. The planning and imple-
mentation of preservation treatments, such as
rehabilitation for adaptive use, would be under-
taken in accordance with section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as
amended, and as set forth in the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation guidelines in
39 CFR 800 and the servicewide programmatic
agreement among the National Park Service, the
advisory council, and the National Conference of
State Historic Preservation Officers. All historic
preservation treatments would follow the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guide-
lines for Archeology and Historic Preservation.

Priorities
Strategies would include:

* complete inventory and documentation of
cultural resources on the island; areas of
particular focus would include:

archeological sites — both terrestrial and
underwater sites are of concern and represent
the maritime and mining heritage of the
island. Inventories would be particularly
important in areas of potential disturbance
such as campgrounds and busy boating areas.

cultural landscapes — landscapes related to
maritime, mining, commercial fishing, and
resort era stories are important to under-
standing and interpreting island history.


Consultation and Coordination

Response: Edisen Fishery, Rock Harbor Lighthouse, and Passage Island Lighthouse are in
frontcountry zones, where “day use, interpretation, and educational opportunities would be
emphasized” (p. 35). Guided day trips to such areas will continue, and this has been clarified
in the plan.

Comment; Comments at a public meeting on the plan alternatives indicated that alternative A (no
action) was the most popular, so why does the National Park Service propose to do something other
than continue existing conditions?

Response: Written comments and comments at other meetings did not show the same level of
support for alternative A, which does not address many of the issues described in the plan.
Substantial public support was shown for all of the alternatives. Nevertheless, the selection of
a proposed action or a final plan is not determined by vote. In making management decisions,
the laws, regulations, and policies that govern the National Park Service and Isle Royale
National Park must be followed. The National Park Service must consider the merits of
comments received from a diverse public and other agencies and must consider resource
information and sound management practices. All the issues and information summarized in
both the draft and final documents, including the issues raised in these comments, have been
seriously considered. The number of comments in itself is not meaningful because some
people comment more than once, and public comment is not structured to represent a
statistically valid sample of all interested people.

Comment: It is evident from the language in the plan that deferred maintenance has caught up with the
park. However, the need to repair the ravages of time and neglect does not, in and of itself, justify
changing to different types of facilities.

Response: The National Park Service agrees that the need to repair or replace facilities does
not, in and of itself, justify changing the park’s infrastructure. In no case during the GMP
process has the decision to make changes in facilities been made lightly or arbitrarily.
Recommendations have been made with considerations related to visitors, management of
natural and cultural resources, and long-term operations and maintenance.

Comment; The National Park Service has not demonstrated that the proposed changes in Rock Harbor
will result in any real monetary savings or will lead to any significant operational changes in utilities
operations. Studies conducted by an NPS engineer, consultation with the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality on wastewater treatment options, and close study of water treatment operations
all bear this out.

Response: Proposed changes to concession accommodations at Rock Harbor reflect numerous
considerations in addition to NPS utility system costs. These include: the historically low
occupancy rate of the motel units, visual impact and appearance of buildings, public desire for
some more rustic (and less expensive) units, concession staffing and housing needs, and the
desirability of reducing energy and water consumption. Engineering studies did show that
substantial utility cost savings, particularly in sewage treatment, could not be accomplished
without drastic reductions in overnight visitor accommodations.

161


$125,000 for utility services at Windigo and Rock
Harbor; in FY 97 $241,000.

A significant percentage of the increase resulted
from new annual operating costs incurred by the
NPS in correcting deficiencies identified in the
1996 safety inspection. The balance of the
increase resulted from a revision in the formulas
used to establish annual utility rates. The revised
formulas included a higher percentage of
maintenance employees’ salaries to more
accurately reflect actual NPS costs.

The National Park Service contracted for two
independent studies to analyze this situation. One
was to determine the necessary improvements and
costs to bring utility systems at Rock Harbor into
compliance with public health codes and
regulations and to identify other capital costs .
associated with utilities that may be anticipated
over the next 10-15 years. The other study was to
determine how much of the utility facilities and
operations upgrade costs could be borne by the
concessioner while still allowing for a reasonable
profit.

The Safety Assessment at Rock Harbor, Isle
Royale National Park found that about $2.1 to
$3.8 million in repairs would be required. Some
of the repairs are necessary to comply with
regulations and codes. Other work would be done
to repair deteriorating facilities, such as
concession docks, or to replace aging structures
as they near the end of their useful lives. Several
projects would reduce long-term maintenance
costs through up-front capital investments.
Without some of the repairs and upgrades the
concessions operation may not be able to
continue, at least in its current configuration. In
some of the problem areas, engineers identified
different approaches that could be selected based
on costs and other considerations. It is likely that
future mandates will continue to demand a
financial response from the National Park Service
in order to maintain compliance. Newer facilities
would require more sophisticated care and
maintenance, which will add to the annual
operating expense.

89

Concessions / Commercial Services

The Concession Feasibility Analysis, Isle Royale
National Park indicated that it is not
economically feasible for the concessioner to
fund a proportional share of the repair and
operations costs. However, the concessioner
might be able to fund a portion. The study called
for the concessioner to increase the annual
payment for utility system operations that directly
support concession services.

Approximately 97% of the Rock Harbor utility
use is by the concessioner. In recent years the
Park Service has begun to recoup more of the
utility costs from the concessioner; however, the
government is still substantially subsidizing the
Rock Harbor concession for capital and annual
operating costs. The concessions contract allows
the concessioner to recover some of the utility
costs from visitors through a “pass-through”
process. The 20% surcharge on lodge rooms
during the 1997 season was part of that process,
but there was still a deficit. The contract also
allows the concessioner to carry over the deficit
to the next year. However, this adds to the costs
the concessioner must recoup and results in
higher rates for lodging. A similar situation exists
for freight costs on the Ranger IIT, and the Park
Service bears all the costs for solid waste removal
from the island.

It is desirable for a concessioner to provide
services without cost to the government.
However, Isle Royale has an uncommon
operating situation and a short season in an
extremely remote location, so that goal may not
be fully attainable. The Isle Royale budget cannot
provide for the utility system upgrades or the
annual operating increases. The park would have
to receive a special allocation of funds to upgrade
the utilities and subsidize the concessioner’s share
of operations. Otherwise, the National Park
Service would have to continue to support the
concessioner to the detriment of trail
maintenance, backcountry patrols, maintenance of
public marine facilities, park interpretive
programs, etc. These programs and facilities serve
the vast majority of visitors and are important to
the purpose of the park. They can no longer suffer
to allow support of a function that only serves


PLANNING BACKGROUND

Isle Royale rose from the depths of Lake
Superior some 11,000 years ago and
remains ecologically connected to the
lake; the forces of the lake still shape
and nurture the landscape. The park
offers visitors a chance to experience
wildness, seclusion, solitude, and
recreation. It restores the human spirit. It
is a wilderness to be entered on its own
terms. It is an adventure.

Adventure, simple living, and solitude
are important parts of an Isle Royale
visit. In order to ensure these kinds of
experiences, park users must have the
skills and habits that foster an ethic of
“leave no trace” on the island.

“Isle Royale is a living laboratory where
plant and animal life can be studied in a
relatively simple ecosystem. The theory
of island biogeography is illustrated by
both the limited number and variety of
species to be found in the park.

Because of Isle Royale’s generally
undisturbed setting, it is an important
source of information about the world
around us — how the world evolved,
how the impacts of civilization have
altered natural systems, and what the
unmodified environment holds.

Isle Royale, as a U. S. biosphere reserve,
is a valuable asset as a natural baseline
that reveals the extent of impacts
elsewhere, as a site where scientists and
students can study natural processes, as a
gene pool helping to maintain the
diversity of a northern boreal forest and
Lake Superior, and as a sanctuary for
certain plants and animals that cannot
survive outside of isolated wilderness.

For thousands of years people have lived
an episodic existence on Isle Royale. For
centuries the presence of pure copper has
drawn people to the island. Similarly,
people have been drawn by the island’s
spectacular scenery and wilderness
opportunities to establish resorts and
summer housing on the island. An
abundant fishery attracted many.
Although the remnants of mining
activity, commercial fishing, and the
resort era are melding into the landscape,
wilderness visitors may still find traces
of the park’s rich history.

Isle Royale has a rich maritime heritage.
The island serves as a significant
navigational reference point, a refuge
from storms, and a treacherous obstacle
to mariners. For well over a century its
lighthouses have guided ships safely
through passages. The park’s waters are
the final resting place for an array of
shipwrecks that provide an underwater
museum that includes many types and
stages of maritime technology.

The National Park Service is striving to
sustain the native fishery of Isle Royale
National Park — perhaps the most
exceptional fishery in the Great Lakes
region. For centuries Isle Royale’s
waters have drawn fishermen —
prehistoric people, immigrant
commercial fishermen, and today’s
sports fishermen. A relic of the past
adaptive fishing lifestyle and technology
still remains as a reminder of this
significant island culture.


APPENDIXES, BIBLIOGRAPHY, PREPARERS, INDEX

Composting toilets could be considered in all new development.

Ninety-nine percent of Isle Royale is Wilderness (p.8), as designated by Congress. The
major threats to Isle Royale are from development of non-Wilderness amenities, motorized
boating and the support of these non-Wilderness activities by supplying diesel fuel,
gasoline, docks, pumping stations, etc. This is a difficult balancing act for the managers
of Isle Royale, however, encouraging the primary stresses to the Isle Royale Wilderness
may not be in the long-term best interest of Wilderness management of the island.

Clarifications needed:
Are any motorized vehicles permitted on inland waters?

“There is also the potential for short-term water pollution due to spills of toxic
materials around Lake Superior and inside park boundaries.” (Page 5.) Spills of
what and where?

Based upon our review and the comments set forth above, we have assigned an “EC-2"
tating to the DEIS. The “EC” portion of the rating indicates that EPA has environmental
concerns. The “2" portion of the rating indicates that additional information should be
provided with the forthcoming FEIS. Our concerns will be resolved if the requested
information is provided, as related to (1) the development of the resource management
plan and its relation to the purpose and need statement, and inventory and monitoring; (2)
Wilderness management in relation to structures in the various management zones; and
(3) non-motorized zones along Wilderness shorelines.

We appreciate the opportunity to review the Isle Royale DEIS. If you have any questions
on our comments please contact Dr. John Schneider, of my staff, at 312.886.0880 or by
E-mail at schneider.john@epamail.epa.gov.

7

Michael W. MacMullen, Manager
Environmental Review Program

Office of Strategic Environmental Analysis

216


United States Department of the Interior / National Park Service,


IW » Wed JEUOTEN @]eAOY 9IS} e ”

ALINISIA ¥ smoot kw a

wOsIpeW OL "\y

W1ISOHDIN NO

Nouwauasay NvION [|

id TYNOLLWN
STVAOH SIS! OL AWHAS -=---~ wuvd TwioniAoud anv avis [lI]
asayosqvnouvn puve noun 6,

wong OL

auivio nva
anva 1s
PO
SMOdVaNNIN

es)
AMA

OINADS TYNOLLWN,
Xi0H9 1S

Mud “TYNOILWN
‘SUNIOVAON

wea wourors eoueiag Il
wea woos

‘eoyang ae
J 7s

Ed |IOUINO @E7 AUN,


fishing are available according to various
seasons for individual fish and game. A fall color
tour is promoted. Winter sports, including
downhill skiing, cross-country skiing, snow-
mobiling, and dog-sled racing are popular in the
off season. The Grand Portage Lodge and
Casino, a Chippewa tribal enterprise, is a major
attraction in the Grand Portage area. Grand
Portage National Monument is in the county and
received over 71,000 recreational visits in 1996.

VISITOR SERVICES

The Keweenaw Peninsula is promoted as a
tourist destination by the Keweenaw Peninsula

93

Socioeconomic Environmment

Chamber of Commerce and the Keweenaw
Tourism Council. Accommodations, food,
automotive services, medical services, etc. are
available in Houghton, Hancock, Calumet, and
several other locations.

Visitor services in Cook County are somewhat
limited in scope and location due to the relatively
small permanent population base. However, all
necessary services are available. These services
are concentrated along U.S. 61 and in Grand
Marais, Schroeder, Tofte, and Grand Portage.
Many businesses cater to the tourist trade.


Trails and Campgrounds

Comment: What is the rationale for removing the hiking trail connection from Chippewa Harbor to the
east end of Lake Richie? This action eliminates a cross-island option for hikers. Some hikers will still
go cross-country, however, and a trail concentrates and limits hiking impacts. Removing the trail
connection also prevents motorboaters from accessing the rest of the trail system from this point.

Response: The portage trail connection from Chippewa Harbor to Lake Richie will remain in
place to provide access to the lake for paddlers and boaters. Chippewa Harbor has become a
very popular area and is heavily used by paddlers, boaters, and hikers. Removal of the trail
segment will reduce crowding and use pressure on this fragile resource area. The campground
is primarily situated on rock, and expansion of the campground would encroach on an area of
archeological significance. Further, the closing of the trail as a route from Moskey Basin or as
a cross-country trail will allow some separation of uses. It is true that motorboaters and hikers
will have to access the island’s trail system from another point. However, the cross-island
canoe route will remain open, with Chippewa Harbor continuing to serve as a destination or
point of embarkation for this group of island visitors.

Comment: Isle Royale lacks sufficient trails along the Lake Superior shoreline. The lakeside hiking
trails that led from Daisy Farm to Moskey Basin in the 1970s should be replaced.

Response: The following trails follow the Lake Superior shoreline for at least part of their
length: the Tobin Harbor trail from Rock Harbor lodge to the Mount Franklin trail, the Rock
Harbor trail from Rock Harbor lodge to Daisy Farm, the Scoville Point trail, a portion of the
Feldtmann Lake trail near Windigo, the Island Mine trail along Siskiwit Bay, andi portion of
the east Hugginin Cove trail.

The shoreside trail between Daisy Farm and Moskey Basin was relocated primarily because it
was in a very wet area. There are two ways to deal with trails crossing wet areas: bridging and
trail rerouting. Trail rerouting, where an alternative route is possible, is the more sustainable
choice because of reduced impacts on wetlands and reduced maintenance costs over the long
term. Contributing to the decision to reroute the trail were visitor complaints about hikers and
boaters seeing and hearing each other along the trail.

Comment: Several commenters suggested creating new trails, such as (1) a day use trail from the
Siskiwit Bay campground toward Point Houghton, (2) a trail between Moskey Basin and the Rock
Harbor Lighthouse on the Rock Harbor side, (3) from the Rock Harbor lighthouse to the Chippewa
Harbor vicinity, and (4) from Malone Bay to the Island Mine trail. Reasons given for creating such
trails included dispersing use and allowing visitors to visit points of interest without using a
concessions-operated boat.

Response: Early in the planning process the team considered the option of creating additional
trails on the island. In the end, these ideas were not included in the alternatives because of
concerns about adding to the trail maintenance load, the need to avoid or bridge wet areas, and
wildlife concerns related to introducing human activity into new areas of the island. Regarding
suggestion (1) in the comment above, wetlands and raptor nesting areas are a concern. For

150


Consultation and Coordination

in and out of Rock Harbor without circling the island; therefore, the majority of visitors do not
see the ferries during most times of most days.

Comment: The draft states that potential wilderness additions will be managedike wilderness. In this
regard, it is not clear that the ferry landings, shelters, docks, and campgrounds proposed for the
frontcountry zone, wilderness portal zone, and backcountry zone are in keeping with the management
of wilderness.

Response: In Senate hearings on the Isle Royale wilderness bill, language is included that
indicates the intent to retain motorized boat access to the island. Included in the language is
the continuance of “. . . the construction and maintenance of boat docks along the lakeshore as
long as their purpose is for safety of visitors and the protection of the wilderness resource.”
Further language reads, “The Committee understands that no significant expansion of boat
dock numbers is anticipated, but that continued maintenance of these facilities is essential to
the continued ease of access as well as the health and safety of the visitors.” The National Park
Service believes that the ferry landings and docks, as called for in the various alternatives, are
consistent with the intent of this language. The number of ferry landings is not increased in
any of the alternatives. The number of docks in the various alternatives remains the same as
existing conditions, is increased slightly, or, in alternatives B and C, is reduced.

“Relatively large campgrounds” would be permitted in frontcountry zones only when the
zones are in nonwilderness (p.30). “Moderate-sized campgrounds,” including shelters, would
be permitted in frontcountry and wilderness portal zones. In these staging areas, such
campgrounds are deemed necessary for protection of resources because visitors are dropped
off at these primary ferry stops (the only way to access these areas other than hiking or private
boats) and often cannot disperse immediately to other areas. Established camping areas help
limit impacts resulting from this “pulsed” visitation. No new shelters would be added in
backcountry zones, but tent platforms may be provided as necessary to protect resources.

Comment: Wilderness management zones are unnecessary and probably violate the Wilderness Act.
Planning that condones impairment or potential impairment of a wilderness area because of its
proximity to human intrusions violates the Wilderness Act. The National Park Service should instead
establish a good baseline for management decisions regarding recreational use, scope of development,
and visitor facilities and services by setting goals through desired future conditions and adapting use
patterns as new data becomes available through inventorying and monitoring.

Response: Park management prescriptions for visitor use and resource protection in different
areas of the park (management zoning) is basic to good planning and is required by NPS
planning policy. Zone descriptions are descriptions of desired future conditions. Zones that
prescribe uses and resource conditions consistent with wilderness values are not in violation of
wilderness law or management policy.

153


Consultation and Coordination

Lake Superior waters of the park. Evidence that loon nests can be affected by boat wakes is
based on nest observations; these effects are not specific to Pickerel Cove.

Comment: One person said that the National Park Service should let the Michigan Department of
Natural Resources manage the fisheries at Isle Royale. Another said that the National Park Service
should work closely with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and statewide sportsmens’
groups to foster a positive relationship as stewards of island wildlife resources.

Response: By law, responsibility for the management of the inland lakes fishery and terrestrial
wildlife rests with the National Park Service. Primary responsibility for the management of”
the Lake Superior fishery in the park rests with the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources. The park has and will continue to work closely with the state, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Indian tribes, and other stakeholders to manage and protect this fishery. The
plan calls for the development of a fisheries management plan (see page 29 of Draft General
Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement).

Comment: Has the carrying capacity of the island for animals been studied? Too many animals can
harm the vegetation. Hunting or relocation of animals should be considered to reduce overpopulation
of moose and other species.

Response: Nature has its own way of managing wildlife; NPS policy will remain constant —
to intervene as little as possible. Harm to vegetation is a value judgment; overpopulation of
moose has occurred in the past at Isle Royale and will probably occur again The significant
moose population crash of 1996 (due to the severe winter, parasites, and lack of food) has
removed any current concerns about overpopulation. Relocation of animals, particularly from
an area as remote as Isle Royale, is very expensive and not always successfulHunting in
national parks is prohibited by law unless specifically authorized by the enabling legislation.

Comment: The plan should address pollution emanating from Thunder Bay and Duluth.

Response: The National Park Service believes that it will be most effective in addressing
pollution from such areas by cooperating in regional efforts designed to tackle such issues.
Examples include the Great Lakes Regional Air Partnership and the Binational Program to
Protect and Restore the Lake Superior Basin. According to the plan (p. 23), the National Park
Service will investigate ways to contribute to and benefit from regional ecosystem
management and protection. Also, there is ongoing research at Isle Royale examining this
issue.

Comment; Because natural resource inventories for all species have not been completed, is it possible
that new information about natural resources could result in changes to the General Management
Plan?

Response; Yes, depending on the nature of the information and any adjustments, a general
management plan amendment may nor may not be required.

Comment: The language describing frontcountry zones suggests that the proposed action would
negatively affect bogs, which are very fragile plant communities.

157




Consultation and Coordination

Nations any role or authority whatsoever in the management of units of the U.S. national park
system. Because the National Park Service is an agency of the Department of the Interior, the
secretary of interior is the ultimate policy maker for the national parlsystem.

Comment: A reading of the plan leaves the impression that the alternatives are based on relatively
sketchy information on park resources. The National Park Service should refrain from establishing
fixed management zones, either land- or water-based, until sufficient baseline data becomes available.

Response: Park planning is undertaken with the best available resource information. All
desirable information will never be available, especially with the realities oNPS budgets.
Delaying the establishment of long-term goals and strategies for park management until some
future date when all information is available is not a viable option.

Comment; On page 28, the resources management plan is characterized as one of the “implementation
plans to follow this general management plan.” However, in appendix B, where the work is scheduled
and funded, the resources management plan is not included. The purpose and need section indicates
that Isle Royale needs a new resource management plan, which will use inventorying and monitoring
data to help make decisions; however, this document does not indicate how that will occur.

Response: The park has an approved Resources Management Plan. This plan will be updated
to be consistent with the General Management Plan, following GMP approval. Although the
resources management plan itself is not listed in appendix B, the inventories and monitoring
activities that will be included in the plan are listed. Language has been added to clarify these
points.

Comments on the Environmental Consequences Section
Comment: Shoreline sediment distribution is not significantly impacted by the dock and breakwater at

Siskiwit Bay. Shoreline sediment 45 years ago was essentially the same as it is today; the bay is very
shallow with a mud bottom.

Response: There has been a dock in place for many years in the same area as the present dock
at Siskiwit Bay. The aerial photography record of this area, which dates back to 1930,
indicates that these docks have interrupted the natural current along the shoreline and caused a
considerable buildup of sand and silt. A small artificial peninsula is being formed. Because a
dock has been at that location for years does not justify leaving the dock and breakwater in
place. Removing the dock will allow a return to the natural currents that existed before docks
were built.

Comment: There is insufficient presentation of data and analysis in the environmental impact
statement. It does not adequately address impacts of Mott Island and does not discuss the impacts of
removal of buildings, storage tanks, and utilities in terms of debris, runoff, etc. There is no discussion
of the impacts of creating new campsites. The environmental impact statement does not assess impacts
of all alternatives equally.

163


PREPARERS

PLANNING TEAM

Nationa! Park Service
Isle Royale National Park

Peter D. Armington — chief, Ranger Activities and
Resource Management, responsible for all division
operations, including concessions, natural and
cultural resources, interpretation, law enforcement,
and emergency response. Twenty-six years NPS, four
years at Isle Royale.

Douglas Barnard — superintendent, B.S.
Conservation and Biology, responsible for all park
management and operations. Thirty-three years NPS,
5 years at Isle Royale.

Doug Boose — visitor services assistant, B. S.
Forestry (Recreational Land Management), formerly
trails and campgrounds foreman, responsible for
planning and maintenance for all trails and
campgrounds on the island. Now responsible for
group reservations and trip planning for park visitors.
Twenty-three years Isle Royale, 21 seasons on the
island.

Jed Davis —- chief of maintenance, Death Valley
National Park. Formerly facility manager, Isle Royale
National Park; responsible for park operations related
to maintenance of park facilities and utility systems.
Twenty-five years NPS, four years at Isle Royale.

Larry Kangas — west district ranger, B. S.
Conservation and Park Management. Responsible for
Tanger operations in the west district (emergency
response and wilderness management). Nineteen
years NPS, eight years at Isle Royale.

Terry Lindsay — wayside exhibit planner, Harpers
Ferry Center, B.S., Recreation and Parks Adminis-
tration (Recreation Resources Management). Former-
ly branch chief, Resource Education and Interpre-
tation, Isle Royale National Park, responsible for
education and interpretation and visitor center oper-
ations. Twenty-one years NPS, three years at Isle
Royale.

219

Jack Oelfke — branch chief, Natural Resource
Management, B. A., M.S., Geography. Responsible
for natural resources and wilderness management and
issues, including research, inventory and monitoring,
air and water quality, GIS, fire, wildlife, and
fisheries. 22 years NPS, six years at Isle Royale.

Smitty Parratt — branch chief, Interpretation, B. S.
Biology, M.S. Zoology, responsible for education
and outreach. 21 years NPS, one at Isle Royale.

Elizabeth Valencia — branch chief, Cultural
Resource Management. B. A. History, M.A.
American History, responsible for issues and
resources related to the human history of the island,
including historic structures, archeological sites,
museum items, and ethnographic resources. Eight
years NPS, six years Isle Royale.

Bob Whaley — east district ranger, B.S. Natural
Resources, responsible for east district ranger
operations and diving program management.
Fourteen years NPS, six years at Isle Royale.

Denver Service Center

Terry Goodrich — planner, formerly Denver
Service Center; currently Concessions Program
Center; B.S. Biology; B.S. Land Use Planning, 20
years NPS,

Marilyn Hof — job captain / planner, B.S. Recrea-
tion Resources, M.S. Recreation Resources; two
years Bureau of Land Management, 20 years NPS.

Richard Lichtkoppler — resource economist, B.S.
Business Administration, M.S., Natural Resources,
Ph.D. Resource Economics; two years Auburn
University, 3 years General Services Administration,
8 years NPS.

John C. Paige — cultural resource specialist, B.A.
History, M.A. History, four years state of Wyoming,
19 years NPS.


range. Caution is warranted when interpreting and
using the results.

Growth rates of 1% and 3% are used for the
projections. The figures represent a possible
range of visitation growth over the next few
years. The low range would result in an increase
of fewer than 2,000 visitors to the island by 2007,
or approximately 11.5%. The low growth
projection for overnight stays is an increase of
approximately 8,000, 11.5% over 1996 levels.
For visitors to the island, the high forecast
projects an increase of more than 6,500 visitors
by the year 2007, more than a 38% increase over
1996. The high projection for overnight stays is
for an increase of more than 38%, or 26,500
additional overnight stays.

Uncontrolled growth would have serious negative
impacts on the resources and on the quality of the
visitor experience. High levels of visitation could
only be accommodated by allowing significant
negative impacts on resources and visitor experi-
ences. Managed visitation would reach an accept-
able level of use and then be maintained to
protect the resources and provide quality visitor
experiences.

TABLE 15. PROJECTED VISITORS 1997-2007

Projected Recreational Visitors
Year Low 1% High 3%
2007 19,100 23,700
2006 18,900 23,000
2005 18,750 22,350
2004 18,550 21,700
2003 18,350 21,050
2002 18,200 20,450
2001 18,000 19,800
2000 17,800 19,200
1999 17,650 18,700
1998 17,450 18,150
1997 17,300 17,650

@ Source: National Park Service, Denver Service Center

103

Visitor Use

TABLE 16. PROJECTED OVERNIGHT STAYS 1997-2007

Projected Overnight Stays on
Year the Island
Low 1% High 3%

2007 77,350 96,000
2006 76,600 93,200
2005 75,850 90,500
2004 75,100 87,850
2003 74,350 85,300
2002 73,600 82,800
2001 72,900 80,400
2000 72,150 78,050
1999 71,450 75,800
1998 70,750 73,550
1997 70,050 71,450

Source: National Park Service, Denver Service Center,

Resource Planning


J9A9] UOTEISTA

Jamo] JO asnesaq
OpIMpur]s! poonpos

Sous [eo1Sopooyoue

uo syoedurt 103 jeuajod «
qdse owes

:peasasoid SOINJONYS «

asn pasiedsip Jo asnesaq
V aAreUIOye 0} sepLUNIS
Sous [LoIZojoayore

uo sjoedum 103 Jenuajod »
Purjs] ISLA pue ow]
sueuLioysty ye soumonys
snd “g se oures
:peasasoid soumonays «

[2A9] UOHRIISIA MOT

Jo asneoeq oplmpuryst
poonpal Ajjueorlusis
Sous Jeo1Sojooyoe

UO syoedult 103 JeNUa}Od «
urges sonudg ‘,asnoy,
yson3,, 10qIe}]] YOOY,
:poasasaid somporuys «

purjsi Jo spua
ye poseosoul ‘puryst
JO 9|pprur ut peonpas
Sauls [Borsojoayoze uo
syoedurt 103 jenusjod «
BA0D [eISKID

pue ‘purjst osesseg
‘spuejs! wnweg pue
uoySurysep ye Souny
-onys snjd ‘y se owes
:paarasoid SOINJONYS «

saseaiout
UONRIISIA JI poseasUT
Sous [eOISojoayose UO
syoedut 103 enuajod «
SUIqed Bassa] aJt] MAJ
‘urges somudg ‘,,asnoy
qsan3,, Joqiepy YOOY
‘gsnoypysi] Joqueyy
yoy “Araysty uosipy
:paasasaid soumonys «

seomnosal JesTy]Nd
ypajoid pue aasasoig

$9y@J J9]UN0OUd JOUSIA
dyeJopoUr YIM PUeysT

jo o8equsosed ySiy «
soyed

JQJUNODUD JOYSIA MO]
AJ9A pue MO] YIM puRTSst
Jo a8ejuacied Moy «
suoljonpas

QSIOU YIM SBIR MoJo

soyed
JayunooUus JOUSIA YSIy,
Ppue ajesopour YIM purist
JO a8ejuacied MO] «
soyed

JQUNODUD JONISIA MOT
AJOA pue MO] UM puryst
JO a8ejusoled ayesopoul «
sosn

jo uonesedas pure (souoz
PeZliojow! uoU pue oye
-oujainb) suononpes
OSIOU YIM SBaIB SUIOS +

(soyed JoyUnOoUe YSIY OU)
Sayed Jo}UNODUD JONSIA
ayesopOUl YIM puryst

JO o8ejus0I0d MO] «
purjst Jo sour

UO Sayed J9]UNODUA JONSIA
MoO] AIDA pur MO] «
saoustiedxe oantulid

uo siseyduro pue (souoz
PeZl10}0Ul UoU pur aye
-ouainb) suononpas
asiou yim seoze Aueur

$9}e1 19}UN09U9

JONSIA YSty pue
aye1OPOU YIM PUrISI JO
adejusosed oyesopoul «
saved Joyunooua

JONUSIA MO] AIDA

Pur MOT WIM puelst

Jo adejuaosed o81r] «
sasn jo uoneredes:

pur (souoz psziiojow
uou pue oyem
-ousainb) suonjonper
QSIOU YIM SBOTE OUIOS «

soseasoUur
UOHeTISIA ssopun
Sunsixo se poyajoid
SON[BA SSOUIOP]IM «

sonjea ssoutopyiMm soueyug

a AALLVaaLTV

d FAILVNUALTV

O FAILVNUALTV

@ AALLVNUALTV

V FAILVNUALTV

VIda.LMdD SISATVWNV

182


Appendix F

Michigan Historical Center Page 2
State Historic Preservation Office

The National Park Service (NPS) and the SHPO may have differing opinions regarding priority of
structures. As stated on page 24 “Priority for adaptive use would be given to structures in nonwilderness
areas.” Note that the SHPO will use different criteria for determining priority such as historical
significance and uniqueness of the resource in question. Therefore, the SHPO should be consulted when
Priority is determined.

Regarding accessibility requirements on existing national register-eligible structures, the ADA requirements
should he fulfilled while meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation (NPS, 1990).

The propased water and sewer treatment plant plan outlined in Alternative B must he reviewed hy the
SHPO for its impact on both below and above-ground resources.

Alternative C, which calls for the removal of all historic structures, would constitute a determination of
Adverse Effect (36 CFR Part 800.9 {b]).

Archaeology

Dr. John Halsey, the State Archaeologist, infers from this plan thar the NPS intends to continue to conduct
archaeological surveys in advance of construction and in areas of high archaeological potential. We
emphasize the need for continuation of these surveys.

Additional Comments

Some portions of the draft plan Icad us to ask for additional information. The chart you provided showing
the proposed actions and compliance requirements emphasizes archaeological resources, but appears to
overlook the potential for above-ground resources. No. 4, “removal and relocation of McCargo Cove
dock...” states that no further SHPO/Advisory Council (ACHP) review is necessary unless a survey
determines thst the site coutaius achevlogical resources. Has a determination of eligibility been made for
the McCargo Cove dock? Has a determination been made regarding the hiking trails and other manmade.
landscape features (hal are pari of the park's histury?

Tn addition to che SHPO/ACHP reviewing plans for strucuure stabilization, etc., the SHPO must alsu review
and comment when a structure is slated for abandonment or demolition.

In order to review NPS Isle Royale projects in an efficient manner, it is essential that the SHPO receive a
Sinal copy of the List of Classified Structures with photographs of each eligible property. Was every
structure evaluated in the compilation of this list?

Tf you have any questions, please contact Martha MacFarlane, Environmental Review Coordinator, at (517)
335-2721. Thank you for this opportunity to review and comment.

Sincerely,

Pra DUNG

Brian D. Conway
State Historic Preservation Office:

BDC:LRA:mim

213


ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.
Historic Resources

All cultural resources would be documented and
allowed to decay. No stabilization or preser-
vation of these resources would be attempted.
This would result in an irretrievable loss of
structures, including life lease cabins, mining
sites, and commercial fishing complexes. Any
potential cultural landscapes associated with
historic structures would also be lost.

IMPACTS ON VISITOR USE AND
VISITOR EXPERIENCE

Scenic Quality

The removal of many facilities from the island
(such as NPS administrative facilities and
housing, ranger stations, lodging, and docks) and
subsequent revegetation of such areas would
dramatically increase the amount of natural,
undeveloped shoreline around the island,
positively affecting scenic quality.

Wilderness Experience and Noise

This alternative would provide more solitude and
primitiveness than the other alternatives.
Removal of most of the development and
reducing human activity would greatly enhance
the wilderness experience and reduce noise and
congestion. Visitors would seldom experience
crowded conditions. Restrictions on groups
would further enhance the experience by
reducing encounters and noise. The establish-
ment of a large number of nonmotorized and
quiet/no-wake water zones would reduce noise
and enhance the wilderness experience more
than any other alternative.

Range of Uses

Visitors desiring other than primitive experiences
would not be well served; this could
disproportionately affect elderly visitors, those
with mobility impairments, those who prefer not
to camp or hike, and those with time constraints.
Visitors seeking interpretive talks and contact

124

with rangers would have to find them on the
mainland. Some commercial services, such as
guided scuba diving and fishing, might no longer
be provided due to the lack of fuel and other
services on the island. Nonmotorized and
quiet/no-wake zones would greatly lessen
flexibility of movement by visitors.

Visitor Use Levels

Visitors would have less flexibility in moving
about the island due to reduced ferry and water
taxi service and fewer docks and trails. Numbers
of visitors would be limited significantly.
Visitors would have to plan ahead to visit the
island; spontaneous trips could be curtailed.
Some people might have to wait as long as a
year or more between visits.

Safety

Emergency response could be slowed because of
reduced NPS and other human presence, fewer
docks, and fewer ranger stations. Visitors who
were not adequately prepared might suffer
hardship because few services would be
provided, and the likelihood of encountering
other visitors would be less. There could be
greater potential for accidents related to
transporting extra fuel on private motorboats.

IMPACTS ON THE
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

Removal of park facilities would provide some
positive short-term benefits for the individuals
and businesses involved in the work. There
would be relatively little impact on the gateway
communities as a whole.

Long-term impacts of reduced visitation and
park operations would be more dramatic. Scaling
back the services and development in the park
would result in a reduced workload for the park
staff, and fewer workers would be needed. While
the individuals and some businesses (especially
the concessions) would be negatively impacted,
the overall effects on the local gateway


Consultation and Coordination

@ Removal mechanisms such as photolysis, volatilization, sedimentation, or hydrological
processes may explain losses of PAHs from the water column throughout the summer. This is
in agreement with another study which found the highest hydrocarbon concentrations in Lake
Metigoshe, North Dakota, in July (during peak boating activity) and the lowest concentrations
in October (low boating activity.

Recreational boating levels at Isle Royale are relatively low now, and will not be allowed to
increase indefinitely. Personal watercraft (jet skis) are prohibited in the park by the General
Management Plan. Limits on boating may be required in the future if concerns related to
resource impacts or visitor experiences become apparent during monitoring. The duration of
motorboat use at Isle Royale is not long; most recreational use occurs during June, July, and
August. PAH molecules are likely to be well-dispersed given the sheer size and depth of Lake
Superior. For all of these reasons, PAH concentrations in water and sediments in coves is
expected to be quite low at most locations during most of the year (Roy Irwin, personal
communication).

The National Park Service recognizes, however, that it has no baseline information on current
petroleum hydrocarbon levels in the Lake Superior waters of the park-The park will initiate
proposals to fund research to examine this concern and establish baseline conditions for
hydrocarbon levels; this action has been added to the General Management Plan. The
National Park Service can administratively and temporarily restrict the use of some small
water areas in this research effort. If future research or other new information suggests that
motorboat use is resulting in ecological harm, additional administrative actions can be taken,
and/or the General Management Plan can be amended to call for measures to prevent or
e@ mitigate such harm. Also, the plan now calls for the National Park Service to take a leadership
role at Isle Royale in using cleaner engines and in educating others about clean engine
technology. The National Park Service anticipates no discernable adverse effects on water
quality or aquatic or other organisms from the proposed plan or any of the action alternatives.

Comment: The collective impact of individual motorboats, when combined with past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions and existing systemic pollution, is likely to have significant
cumulative effects. There is no good faith effort in the Draft General Management Plan /
Environmental Impact Statement to identify and explain these indirect and cumulative effects. The
direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of all motorized activity in park waters, including private,
commercial, and public transport and support facilities and activities, should be addressed for each
alternative. Fuel transportation, storage, and pumping of fuel, accidental fuel spills, leaking fuel tanks,
bilge emissions, sewage pumpout spills, boating accidents, plane crashes, and water and sound
pollution should also be addressed.

* Brammer J.D. and R.L. Puyear. 1982. Identification and quantification of water soluble components of
outboard motor exhaust and of a gasoline in a North Dakota lake, and a determination of their biological
effects upon selected freshwater organisms. NTIS PB83-224436, Springfield, VA.

165




VISITOR USE

VISITOR USE DATA
Ten Year Annual Data and Analysis

Isle Royale visitor use data has been collected
since 1941. Since then there have been many
management actions that influenced the numbers
of visitors reported. Island visitor counts are a
compilation of concessions and NPS ferry counts,
day use boaters reported at the visitor centers, and
overnight private boater camping permits. In
1984 the park began recording visitors to the
Houghton visitor center and from 1986-1990
counted visitors at the Copper Harbor visitor
center. Mainland visitor center totals are not
included in the island totals.

For management purposes, visitor use of the
island is the critical measurement. Table 11
shows the number of visitors to the island itself.
Table-12 details passenger numbers. Overnight
use (the number of visitors multiplied by the
number of nights that they stayed on the island) is
the most useful measure because the number of
overnight stays has a direct bearing on the kinds
and levels of impacts expected on resources and
visitor experiences. Table 13 displays overnight
use information on the island.

TABLE 11. ANNUAL VISITORS TO THE ISLAND

Year Island Visitors
1996 17,122
1995 18,488
1994 18,725
1993 16,625
1992 16,751
1991 16,468
1990 16,258
1989 15,824
1988 13,951
1987 15,215

100

TABLE 12. PASSENGER NUMBERS

1996 [1995 1994
Ranger iif ion [1848 | 1,584
iste Royale Queen 4878 [5,278 | 4,691
Voyageur If 1,422. |2,476 | 1,610
Wenonah 3,226 [2,544 | 3,262
Isle Royale seaplane 923 948 | 1,103
Private boats 4859 [5,539 | 6,408
Total 17,219 |18,633 [18,658

Source for tables: National Park Service, Public Use
Statistics Program Center, and Isle Royale National Park

From 1986 to 1989 visitation to the island
showed a pattern of increases and decreases.
During the next four years (1990-1993) visitation
was relatively constant. In 1994 and 1995
visitation increased by approximately 10%. There
was a decline of 7.4% in 1996.

Length of Stay

In 1996 there were a total of 69,348 overnight
stays. Average stay for overnight users was 4.7
days; when day users were included, the average
stay dropped to 4.1 days. An overnight stay is
defined as one visitor spending one night in the
park for recreational purposes. As island
visitation has increased and decreased over the
years, so have overnight stays. Records have been
kept since 1974, and there has been a steady
increase in overnight stays since 1987.

Recent increases in overnight use have largely
been a result of increases in visitor use during the
months of July and August (table 14). Visitation
during the shoulder seasons is low, but the rate of
increase has been significant. The park is open to
visitors from April 16 through November 1.
Weather and ice conditions on Lake Superior
dictate when visitors and park staff are able to
arrive and depart. Over 70% of visitation takes
place during July and August.






AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

be found at Minong Mine, Island Mine, Siskowit
Mine, Wendigo Mine, and Todd Harbor’s
Haytown mine site.

Washington Harbor (including Washington,
Booth, Grace, and Barnum Islands) in the early
decades of this century was the scene of a
thriving fishing community of over 20 families.
The harbor should be evaluated to determine its
cultural landscape significance. Many of the
Sivertson fishery buildings and docks still exist.
Most of the rest of the structures and docks there
are used by summer residents. Crystal Cove at the
northeast end of Amygdaloid Island and
Fishermans Home on the south shore of Isle
Royale are the most intact and have the most
historical integrity of all the remaining commer-
cial fishing sites. Johnson Island fishery on the
north shore, Mattson fishery in Tobin Harbor, and
Wright Island in Malone Bay also have buildings,
docks, and boats. A few of the commercial
fishery sites still show evidence of human
occupation in the vegetation: domestic flowers
(sweet william, delphiniums, and violets), apples,
and rhubarb.

Isle Royale was also home to summer cottagers
and vacationers in the first half of the century.
There are still 16 life leaseholdings that should be
evaluated as cultural landscapes. The era holds a
piece of the history of the island and of park
history — many life-lessees were involved in the
movement to include Isle Royale in the national
park system (Little 1978). The Tobin Harbor life
lease community as a whole has the potential to
be documented as a cultural landscape. Much of
its significance lies in the harbor community as a
whole and not in the individual cabin sites.

The greatest threat to the cultural landscapes is
neglect and attrition over time. The winters are
long in Lake Superior and many of the buildings
and much of the vegetation are disappearing. The
other major threat over time to the potential
landscapes has been park development and
destruction of key elements, such as buildings
and docks. At many sites, however, enough
features remain to define significance.

82

Ethnographic Resources

Information about the park’s ethnographic
resources is very limited. Few have been
identified, and only the culture of the commercial
fishing residents of the first half of the century
has been documented. Many of the fishermen at
that time were of Scandinavian ancestry. The
lifeways of these fishermen are being interpreted
at the Edisen Fishery. Another avenue for study
has been the boat-building traditions of the
fishermen. Through the vernacular boat study,
related information about their cultural patterns
and use of the island was collected.

Historically, groups of northern Ojibwa living on
both sides of the U.S.-Canadian border used the
island for hunting, trapping, fishing, and maple
sugaring (Cochrane 1997). Isle Royale was an
important site for procuring food and furs. Isle
Royale was in the territory ceded to the U.S.
government in 1842 and 1844 treaties. The
pattern and frequency of Ojibwa use of the island
is being studied and documented.

Objects

Isle Royale’s museum collection contains a good
general representation of the island’s cultural and
natural resources. The collection is housed in a
new museum storage facility in Houghton. The
facility was constructed to meet the standards for
museum collection storage and provides a proper
storage environment with climate controls and
security. The building provides sufficient space
for the collection.

The natural history collection includes the
herbarium (approximately 2,300 records),
geology and zoology specimens, and a small
number of insects, including moths and
dragonflies.

The cultural history collection is made up of a
large variety of shipwreck artifacts, commercial
fishing gear, household goods, summer home
items, archives, and archeological objects. The
archeological collection is estimated at about


Contents

e Designated Wilderness 109
Water Quality 110
Impacts on Cultural Resources 110
Archeological Resources 110
Historic Resources 110
Impacts on Visitor Use and Visitor Experience 110
Scenic Quality 110
Wilderness Experience/Noise 111
Range of Uses 111
Visitor Use Levels 111
Safety 111
Impacts on Park Operations 111
Cumulative Impacts 111

Alternative A 113

Impacts on Natural Resources 113
Wildlife 113
Threatened and Endangered Species 113
Designated Wilderness 113
Geologic Processes 113
Water Quality 113

Impacts on Cultural Resources 114
Archeological Resources 114

Historic Resources 114
e@ Impacts on Visitor Use and Visitor Experience 114
Scenic Quality 114
Wilderness Experience and Noise 114
Range of Uses 114
Safety 115
Impacts on the Socioeconomic Environment 115
Impacts on Park Operations 115
Cumulative Impacts 115

Proposed Action 116

Impacts on Natural Resources 116
Wildlife 116
Threatened and Endangered Species 116
Designated Wilderness 116
Geologic Processes 116
Water Quality 116

Impacts on Cultural Resources 116
Archeological Resources 116
Historic Resources 117

Impacts on Visitor Use and Visitor Experience 117
Scenic Quality 117
Wilderness Experience and Noise 117
Range of Uses 117

e Visitor Use Levels 117
Safety 117

xi


TABLE 4, SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

ALTERNATIVE A

ACTIONS COMMON TO.
ALL ACTION
ALTERNATIVES

PROPOSED ACTION

ALTERNATIVE B

ALTERNATIVE C

ALTERNATIVE E

Natural Resources

Movement of sand and sediment in
Siskiwit Bay would continue to be
interrupted by the dock and break-
water; unrestricted increases in visitor
use could displace wildlife; waterfowl!
would continue to be disturbed by
unrestricted motorboat use. Conver-
sion of 5 potential wilderness areas
would be delayed. The risk of
environmental harm from a petroleum
spill would be low due to spill
prevention and response measures.

Inventories, monitoring, and the
fisheries and water resources
management plans would permit
better understanding and
management of natural
resources.

Displacement or disturbance of wildlife
would be minor; managing visitor use
would reduce displacement impacts,
removing Chippewa trail would have a
beneficial effect. Conversion of 7 poten-
tial wilderness areas would be delayed.
Removal of the Siskiwit dock and
breakwater would restore natural
processes. The risk of environmental
harm from a petroleum spill would be
low due to spill prevention and response
measures.

Disturbance of wildlife would increase at the
ends of the island and decrease near the
middle. Wolves could be displaced from
several areas. Decreased use would reduce
impacts, as would zoning. Conversion of 6
potential wilderness areas would be delayed.
Removal of the Siskiwit dock and breakwater
would restore natural processes. The risk of
environmental harm from a petroleum spill
would be low due to spill prevention and
response measures.

Disturbance of wildlife would be reduced by
lower visitation levels, fewer facilities, and by
zoning. More habitat would be available for
wolves, peregrines, and cagles. All 18 potential
wilderness areas would be converted. Removal
of the Siskiwit dock and breakwater would
restore natural processes. The risk of
appreciable environmental harm from a
petroleum spill would be low due to spill
prevention and response measures and fewer
boats.

Reduced visitation would reduce impacts on
wildlife, waterfowl would continue to be
disturbed by unrestricted motorboat use.
Minor displacement could result from
construction, There would be a delay in the
designation of 7 potential wilderness areas.
The artificial dock and breakwater would
remain at Siskiwit Bay, interrupting the flow
of sand and sediment. The risk of
environmental harm from a petroleum spill
would be low due to spill prevention and
response measures.

Cultural Resources

Historic and archeological sites would
continue to deteriorate; lack of surveys
would have a negative impact on
archeological sites

Inventories, monitoring, and
partnerships would permit better
understanding of cultural
resources, including shipwrecks
Trail and dock removals would
result in less disturbance to
archeological resources.

Minor short-term impacts could result
from construction and demolition; adap-
tive use could result in some loss of
historic fabric while helping to preserve
historic structures.

Development and increased visitor use at the
ends of the island would impact archeological
sites. Adaptive use would help to protect
some historic resources; others would be
allowed to decay.

Construction and demolition could damage
archeological resources, but reduced visitation
would minimize long-term damage. Historic
Tesources and cultural landscapes would be lost.

Relocations and construction could impact
archeological resources. Reduction in
visitation would reduce impacts. Adaptive
use would help to preserve structures, but
some historic fabric would be lost.

Visitor Use and Visitor
Experience

If use continues to increase, impacts
related to noise, crowding, and
differing expectations would increase.
As facilities deteriorate, potential for
safety problems would increase. There
would be no loss in flexibility of
movement around the island. If all
lodging is lost, some visitors would be
displaced.

Restrictions on aircraft landings,
sightseeing aircraft, and
personal watercraft would
prevent related noise increases.
Limits on visitor use might
mean that some people might
not be able to visit.

There would be a slight increase in
developed shoreline and in activity at
some sites, and some areas would be
reclaimed. Management of visitation
would reduce noise and crowding.
Quiet/no-wake zones would reduce noise
and improve wilderness values. Visitors
would have to be fairly self-sufficient in
some isolated areas. There would some
reduction in speed of boat travel around
the island. If all lodging is fost, some
visitors could be displaced.

The ends of the island would appear more
developed and would be noisier than now, but
the middle would be more natural and quieter.
Day use visitors would probably not have a
wilderness experience. The range of uses
would not change, but use limits would be
necessary. Visitors would have to be self
reliant in some isolated areas, and there would
be some reduction in flexibility of movement.

Visual quality would be greatly improved with
the removal of facilities. Solitude and
primitiveness would be enhanced, Noise would
be reduced. The range of uses would be reduced
and people with disabilities, the elderly, and
those who do not camp or hike would be
affected. There would be a significant loss of
flexibility of movement around the island.
Visitors would have to be self-reliant
islandwide

Developed shoreline would increase.
Crowding would be reduced, but noise in
some areas would not. Separating uses
would reduce noise impacts in some areas.
‘The range of uses would not change. Use
levels would not be managed by zoning, but
significant reductions in visitation would be
made, There would be no loss in flexibility
of movement around the island. If all
lodging is lost, some visitors could be
displaced.

Socioeconomic Environment

No significant changes in overall
social or economic conditions.

None.

If changes to concessions resulted in
fewer visitors to the island, small
negative effects could occur in gateway
communities.

No significant changes in overall social or
economic conditions would be expected.

Because of reduced visitation, small negative
effects would occur in gateway communities.

No significant changes in overall social or
economic conditions would be expected.

Park Operations

Decisions would continue to be made
on a case-by-case basis; growth in
visitation would continue to increase
the maintenance workload.

Partnerships for cultural
resource protection and
maintenance would benefit park
resources but would also
increase the operational
workload.

The maintenance and operational
workload at Rock Harbor would be
reduced. New facilities would increase
maintenance, and managing visitor use
would increase the operational load

Park funding would continue to be diverted to
support concessions at Rock [ arbor.
Maintenance would increase at Rock Harbor,
Windigo, Tobin Harbor. Emergency response
times would be slowed. Management of
visitor use would increase the workload

Initial costs would be high, but over the long-
term expenses would be greatly reduced.
Management of a reservation system would
increase the workload. Maintenance, emergency
response, and logistics would be difficult, More.
emphasis would be placed on natural resource
management.

‘The reservation system would increase the
workload as would interpretive services. Fee
revenue and Ranger //I income would be
reduced.

65



Rare Species — Vegetation

There are no federally listed threatened or
endangered plants at Isle Royale, although there
are two species of concern, the auricled
twayblade (Listera auriculata) and the ram’s head
lady slipper (Cypripedium arietinum) (USDI
1996).

Over 60 species of plants on the state of Michigan
rare species list occur at Isle Royale (State of
Michigan 1992). Locations of 102 rare plant
species were documented on the island
Judziewicz (1995b), all of which are (1) on the
state list, and/or (2) are new findings in the state,
and/or (3) are more common regionally but are
known to be very rare on Isle Royale. Many of
these species are found in the narrow, specialized
rock shoreline habitat along Lake Superior.

Arctic-Alpine and Western Disjunct Species

Several plant species found on Isle Royale are far
removed from their present range; they are
believed to have arrived on Isle Royale during
post-glacial times and have survived along the
cool, moist rock shorelines (Slavick and Janke
1993). Many of these species are on the state of
Michigan rare species list. Perhaps the most
visible of these species is thimbleberry, which is
widespread throughout the island; most notable is
devil’s club, not found elsewhere east of its native
range in western Montana.

AIR QUALITY

The Clean Air Act (1977) designated Isle Royale
as a class I airshed, which provides for the highest
level of protection of air quality. Air quality
remains a long-standing concern, as the health of
this resource is so intimately linked to the other
resources of the park.

Monitoring of some air quality conditions in the
park was conducted beginning in the late 1980s,
but lack of funding has caused the elimination of
most of that effort. Some baseline information

71

Natural Resources

exists for visibility monitoring and gaseous
pollutants.

In 1991-92 visibility monitoring equipment
operating in the park identified industrial sources
of visible pollutants in the viewshed toward
Thunder Bay, Ontario. The direct impact to park
resources from these pollutants is unknown. Park
staff have documented pulp and paper mill odors
reaching the park from Thunder Bay, Ontario; on
average, these odors reach the park 20% of the
time during the visitor season.

The park continues to operate an acid deposition
monitoring station to document trends. Acid
deposition is not believed to be causing problems
at this time.

Of greatest concern to the park are aerially
transported toxic contaminants. Some of these
contaminants include mercury, organochlorines,
herbicides, and elemental sulfur and zinc. In 1993
lake trout in Siskiwit Bay exceeded the state
consumption advisory for total chlordane,
toxaphene, total PCBs, mercury, and total DDT
(MDNR 1994a). The resurgence of bald eagle
and osprey nesting in the park and the dramatic
increase of double-crested cormorants are linked
in part to lower levels of PCBs than in previous
decades, but the effects of contaminants on the
plant and animal life of Isle Royale remains
largely unknown.

WATER RESOURCES

Aquatic habitats account for more than 75% of
the total park acreage, and cover a wide spectrum
ranging from the deep, cold waters of Lake
Superior to the inland lakes, streams, beaver
ponds, marshes, and bogs of the island. The
diversity of aquatic plant and animal life is tied to
the health of the total park ecosystem, but (as
with most other park resources) understanding
and documentation remains sketchy. The park has
no water resources management plan to guide the
management or monitoring of this resource.


Appendix F

inventories may well have been different, and the funding and scheduling of the resource
management would have been clearer.

Funds for the inventory and monitoring of Lake Superior fisheries could be sought from
other sources, especially since these are potentially commercially viable fisheries and at
least, important recreational game fisheries. Federal, state, and NGO funds may well be
found for the development of the fishery. This would preserve National Park Service (NPS)
funds for inventory and monitoring activities on Isle Royale. This matter should be further
addressed in the forthcoming Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).

Mollusks and snails should be added to the list of taxa in need of inventory. Information
for the State of Michigan indicates that Isle Royale lacks these inventories.

Wilderness areas or Potential Wilderness additions should not be compromised by NPS
actions. The DEIS states that Potential Wilderness additions will be managed like
Wilderness. in this regard it is not clear that ferry landings, shelters, docks and
campgrounds, as proposed for the “Frontcountry Zone”, “Wilderness Portal Zone” and
“Backcountry Zone” are in keeping with the management of Wilderness.

A large part of the unique Wilderness experience that could be provided by Isle Royale,
as an island Wilderness, couid include the Wilderness shoreline looking out on waters also
in Wilderness condition. None of the alternatives described in the DEIS however, provide
a shoreline that looks out on Lake Superior open waters without motorized boats. The
most protective alternative would have most of the Isie Royale Wilderness surrounded by
non-motorized waters. This alternative does not seem to have been considered. Less
protective alternatives would also benefit from substantial portions of Wilderness shoreline
buffered by non-motorized boating restrictions and were also not considered.

Similarly, ferry boat routes could be moved further offshore from some shorelines; perhaps,
moved out of the channels between the main island and the offshore islands. These
alternatives were also not considered in the DEIS.

Motorboat engine technology has advanced in recent years, resulting in much cleaner and
quieter engines. Engines using old technology are frequently a source of considerable
water, air and noise pollution. The opportunity to require the newer technology engines,
especially in “motorized sensitive waters” was not included in any alternative.

The need for diese! fuel transportation and storage (and potentiat spillage) could possibly
be reduced by provision of solar generated electricity. The present storage and
transmission infrastructure for diesel and other fuels appears to be somewhat fragile. The
provision of diesel fuel, gasoline and pumpout stations for public use increases the
potential of water pollution while further encouraging uses of the Isle Royale Wilderness
that is perhaps not in keeping with the intent of the Wilderness designation by Congress.
Acombination of reducing the need for improving and storing diesel fuel and gasoline, and
upgrading the infrastructure would make an alternative more protective of the environment.

215


e@ Contents

Planning Background
Introduction 3

Purpose of and Need for the Plan 4
Overview 4
Issues 4

Summary of Public Involvement 7

Description of the Park 8
Park Purpose and Significance 8
Park Emphasis Statements 13

The Proposed Action and Alternatives
Introduction 17

Alternative A (Existing Conditions) 18
Overall Concept 18
e@ Park Management 18
Concessions Services 19
Plan Implementation 19

Actions Common to the Proposed Action and Alternatives B,C, andE 23

Natural Resources 23
Priorities 23
Mitigation 24

Cultural Resources 24
Priorities 24
Mitigation 25

Visitor Use 25
Accessibility 25
Visitation Levels / Carrying Capacity 26
Interpretation, Information, and Education 26
Other Uses 26
Native American Treaty Rights 27

Park Operations 27

Boundary Adjustments 28

Concessions and Other Commercial Services 28

Implementation Plans to Follow this General Management Plan 28
Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) Plan 28
Wildemess and Backcountry Management Plan 29

e@ Resource Management Plan 29

vii


lab associated with the wastewater plant. There
are four sewage lift stations, two of which are of
the air-injected type and require replacement.
There is one boat pumpout facility.

Mott Island

Park headquarters is on Mott Island and includes
a boat repair/carpenter shop, warehouse/
maintenance building, central office building,
multiple storage buildings, generator powerhouse,
bulk fuel storage tanks, water treatment facility
and storage tanks, and boat docking facilities.
Most park operations on the island are conducted
or supported by employees living and working
there.

The housing units on Mott Island include seven
one-, two-, or three-bedroom duplexes, two eight-
unit dormitories, a five-unit apartment building,
and six one- or two-bedroom single family
houses. A number of employees who work at
Rock Harbor live on Mott and commute to Rock
Harbor daily.

Principal components of the Mott Island utility
system include a powerhouse, water pumping and
treatment building, water storage tanks, four
septic tank/leachfield systems, and bulk fuel
storage tanks. Many components of the utility
system infrastructure are old. Electrical power
poles, overhead powerlines and septic tank/
leachfield systems are in need of significant
repairs, replacement, or upgrading.

Malone Bay

NPS facilities at Malone Bay include a duplex for
employee housing, one-room log ranger station,
maintenance shed, water storage tank, dock,
gasoline storage tank, and a seven-site lakeshore
campground. Solar power and composting toilets
are used in the duplex; backup power is supplied
by a portable gasoline generator. Propane is used
for heating and cooking. A trail connects this area
to Siskiwit Lake and the Greenstone Ridge via
Ishpeming Point. The area is staffed seasonally

99

Park Operations

with two employees whose principal area of

responsibility includes the south shore of Isle
Royale from Fishermans Home to Chippewa
Harbor.

Amygdaloid Island

On the west end of Amygdaloid Island, NPS
facilities include a duplex for employee housing,
maintenance shed, dock, gasoline storage tank,
water treatment shed and storage tank, and two
historic structures formerly used for employee
housing. There are solar power and composting
toilets in the duplex; backup power is supplied by
a portable gasoline generator. Propane is used for
heating and cooking. The area is staffed
seasonally with two employees whose principal
area of responsibility includes the north shore of
Isle Royale from Little Todd Harbor to Blake
Point.


NATURAL RESOURCES

Isle Royale National Park is a forested archi-
pelago surrounded by the cold, deep waters of
Lake Superior. The land base is comprised of one
large island surrounded by several hundred
smaller islands. Boreal and northern hardwood
forests dominate the landscape cover. Over 75%
of the park acreage is water and includes Lake
Superior and many lakes, ponds, bogs, marshes,
and streams.

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
Wilderness

Public Law 94-567, approved October 26, 1976,
designated 131,880 acres of the land base of Isle
Royale as wilderness. An additional 231 acres
were designated as potential wilderness. Thus,
some 99% of the land base is designated as
wilderness. This law requires Isle Royale
National Park to manage the land in designated
wilderness in accordance with the provisions of
the Wilderness Act of 1964 (PL 88-577).

The Wilderness Act defined wilderness as “an
area where the earth and its community of life are
untrammeled by man, where man himself is a
visitor who does not remain.” The law further
defined wilderness as an area “of undeveloped
Federal land retaining its primeval character and
influence, without permanent improvements or
human habitation, which is protected and
managed so as to preserve its natural condition
and which . . . generally appears to have been
affected primarily by the forces of nature, with
the imprint of man’s work substantially
unnoticeable; . . . has outstanding opportunities
for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of
recreation.”

These definitions of wilderness have considerable
implications for management in NPS units. Most
notable is the following from NPS Management
Policies (chapter 6:3): “Within a designated
wilderness area, the preservation of wilderness

69

character and resources while providing for
appropriate use is the primary management
responsibility (other than activities related to the
saving of human life).” For Isle Royale, this
wilderness preservation mandate applies to all the
designated wilderness. NPS policy stipulates that
land currently under potential wilderness
designation is to be managed as wilderness.

U.S. Biosphere Reserve

Isle Royale was formally designated as a U.S.
biosphere reserve in 1980 through the Man and
the Biosphere Programme (MAB) of the United
Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization. This program is an international
effort to protect examples of major ecosystems
that provide a baseline of conditions against
which human impact can be assessed. Isle Royale
is one of almost 50 U.S. reserves, a majority of
which are found in NPS units. Isle Royale is in
the lake systems biome.

The biosphere reserve model includes a protected
core zone where natural ecosystem function is
largely protected and intact, a buffer zone
surrounding the core in which some landscape
manipulation occurs, and an intensively
manipulated zone surrounding the buffer zone in
which there is considerable development and
economic activity. Isle Royale’s participation in
the MAB program has been limited, largely
because only one of the three zones is represented
— the protected core area.

Nonetheless, the value of Isle Royale as an
ecosystem baseline to monitor natural systems
and human impacts has been recognized and
documented, thus fulfilling some of the objectives
of the MAB program. There are several long-term
ecological monitoring efforts underway in the
park, and the first widespread recognition of the
role of atmospheric transport of contaminants into
the natural environment arose from research at
Isle Royale.




TABLE 9. FY 97 PERSONNEL SUMMARY

Park Operations

OFFICE/DIVISION TOTAL FTE ALLOTTED |PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL
Superintendent’s office 1.15 2.0%
Administration 739 13.2%
Ranger III 6.30 11.2%
Maintenance 22.51 40.1%
Natural resource management 3.56 6.3%
Cultural resource management 1.62 2.9%
Interpretation 7.33 13.0%
Law enforcement / emergency services 4.25 71.6%
Ranger activities and concessions management 2.07 3.7%
TOTAL 56.18 100.0%
*Base FTE allocation is 56

TABLE 10. FY 97 BASE FUNDING SUMMARY
OFFICE/DIVISION FUNDING ALLOTTED |PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL
Superintendent’s office $128,500 5.7%
Administration 359,100 16.1%
Ranger IIT 244,300 11.0%
Maintenance 840,500 37.8%
Natural resource management 154,300 6.9%
Cultural resource management 60,100 2.7%
Interpretation 161,500 7.3%
Law enforcement / emergency services 181,200 8.1%
Ranger activities and concessions management 97,800 44%
TOTAL $2,227,300 100.0%

95



AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Chisolm, Chester A. Condgon, George M. Cox,
Cumberland, Emperor, Glenlyon, Kamloops, and
Monarch. The NPS Submerged Cultural
Resources Unit conducted an extensive survey of
the underwater resources 1980-1984. The
resulting report, The Submerged Cultural
Resources Study, completed in 1987, identified
and documented the shipwrecks, smaller sunken
vessels (such as the Stanley off Star Island and
the tug in Five Finger Bay), and numerous under-
water resources associated with land-based
mining and fishery sites.

A vernacular boat study conducted from 1990—
1994 located and documented handmade wooden
fishing boats used by the island’s commercial
fishermen and residents from the 1880s through
the 1950s. The boats, which were found on shore,
in the water, and on the mainland, were generally
constructed by area boat builders specifically for
use at Isle Royale. Some of the boats were
purposely scuttled when they were no longer
needed, but many were pulled up on shore and
left with engines, rudders, and other equipment
intact. These boats — like the Skipper Sam at
Wright Island — now contribute significantly to
the landscape of the historic fishing camps. Most
are in poor condition and are deteriorating along
with the structures.

Structures

The park has approximately 180 structures that
are over 50 years old, some of its most visible
cultural resources. The structures stand as
reminders of the island’s maritime heritage
(lighthouses and fishery sites), the resort era, and
the early development of the park. The oldest
structure on the island is the 1855 Rock Harbor
Lighthouse, which is listed on the National
Register of Historic Places.

The List of Classified Structures for the park
should be updated. Of the almost 180 potentially
significant structures, only nine — the eight at the
Edisen Fishery and the Rock Harbor Lighthouse
— are on the List of Classified Structures. The
Midwest Regional Office is in the process of

updating the list and has completed two seasons
of fieldwork on the island. The update is expected
to be finished by winter 1998 and will determine
which structures are eligible for the national
register.

Fifteen park structures are listed on the national
register. The Edisen Fishery complex is listed for
its regional significance. The fishery contains
seven buildings — the fish house, residence,
honeymoon cabin, nethouse, sleeping cabin,
chicken coop, and privy — and Belle, a wooden
fishing boat. The fishery was restored in the mid-
1980s for use as a cultural demonstration
interpretive site. Some landscaping was done in
1992 to reflect the historic landscape.

Rock Harbor Lighthouse, Rock of Ages
Lighthouse, and Isle Royale Light Station are also
listed on the national register. The Johns Hotel on
Barnum Island was recently listed.

A number of summer cabins on the island are still
being used by life leaseholders. When the federal
government acquired land for the new park in the
1930s, landowners were offered the opportunity
to sell their land and structures while ensuring
continued access through a life lease agreement.
The leases are active as long as the original
leaseholders (or their children born before the
leases were signed) are still alive. There are 16
life lease sites, most of them in Tobin Harbor.
The Tobin Harbor buildings are a high priority
for documentation and national register
evaluation.

Isle Royale was a base for commercial fishing
from the late 1830s until the park was established.
Fishing continued under special use permits
through the 1980s. Only one original permit is
active — the Stanley Sivertson fishery at
Washington Harbor. The park holds a permit to
conduct cultural demonstrations with gill net
fishing at Edisen Fishery. Despite the loss of the
fishermen, many commercial fishing camps
remain; buildings (fish houses, net houses,
cabins), docks, and boats are still intact. The
fisheries at Wright Island, Fishermans Home,
Crystal Cove, Washington Harbor, Tobin Harbor,


CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

Comment: We are disturbed to see the continuation of the trend towards making a decision first, and
then simply manufacturing other alternatives later. NEPA is very clear that the very purpose for
requiring differing alternatives is so that the agency and the public may examine possible different
actions and their consequences before making any decisions on the matter. In this case, the agency has
clearly been working toward a preferred alternative for over a year, well prior to formulating any other
alternatives. This was further confirmed at the public meetings, where the only alternative discussed or
presented was the proposed action.

Response: This comment is inaccurate and without foundation. Preliminary alternative
concepts were presented for public review in a newsletter released in June 1996. In response to
public comment, the concepts were revised and full alternatives were presented to the public in
a workbook distributed in March 1997. Public meetings on the draft alternatives were also held
in March. Following response by the public to the draft alternatives, a preliminary preferred
alternative was shared with the public in July 1997. This preliminary preferred alternative was
subsequently modified and presented equally with the other alternatives in the Draft General
Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement. Analysis of potential consequences of
the alternatives was carried out in conjunction with the development of preliminary concepts
(see Appendix A) and continued through the formulation of full draft alternatives and
preparation of the draft document. There have been no public meetings where all of the
alternatives were not represented.

Comment: Statements regarding potential effects of possible alternatives are vague, generalized, and
unsubstantiated. For example, in the proposed action analysis, page 115, under “Threatened and
Endangered Species,” the analysis simply states that “Potential disturbance to threatened and
endangered species would be minimized by monitoring and managing of visitation levels.” There is no
description of what the potential disturbance might be, or how monitoring and managing of visitation
levels would occur, or how these practices might minimize potential disturbance.

Response: The statements on p. 115 were intended to be read in context with the “impacts
common to the proposed action, alternatives B, C, and E” section beginning on p. 109.
Additional language has been added to the impact sections to clarify this information.
Monitoring and management of visitation levels are discussed on p. 28 of the draft plan. The
US. Fish and Wildlife Service has concurred with the determination that the proposed
alternative would not be likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat (see
Appendix F).

Comment: There is no comprehensive listing of the known occurrences of threatened and endangered
species (merely a list of all T&E species in the state and a listing of species which “may occur” in the
area).

Response: The table in Appendix D is, in fact, the list of state threatened and endangered
species that may occur in Isle Royale National Park, and the title has been revised to clarify
this. The National Park Service believes that this is the most appropriate list to include. The U.
S. Fish and Wildlife Service has concurred with the NPS assessment.

Comment: Nowhere in the document are there any references to accurate scientific analysis or expert
agency comments. It may be that the National Park Service feels.that these have been gathered, but a

168


Consultation and Coordination

formally requested this determination. The park is currently consulting with regional tribes on
a government-to-government basis.

Comments with Detail Beyond the Scope of the GMP (includes sustainability, carrying capacity,
and park operations and visitor services sections below)

Sustainability

Several comments were received that made specific recommendations for ways that the National Park
Service could improve the long-term sustainability of park operations. Sustainability is an important
long-term goal, and such a statement has been added to the General Management Plan /
Environmental Impact Statement. Specific actions to improve sustainability are too detailed, however,
to include in a general management plan. These detailed suggestions will be considered by the park
staff as they undertake implementation of the plan and in subsequent implementation plans. Detailed
comments included:

The rental of motorboats on Isle Royale should be phased out in favor of nonmotorized and
solar-charged electric watercraft. The National Park Service should set an example of low-
impact use and could use the transition as an opportunity to educate the public.

The General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement should include a plan to
replace diesel generators with renewable electricity/heat generation. It should also address
waste generation, recycling, and disposal.

Concern was expressed about the increasing impact of park administration and staff presence.
The park’s reliance on large motorboats compromises the island’s integrity as a wilderness
park, as does the growing need for staff housing and associated generator-driven utilities. The
following solutions were suggested: (1) reconsider the addition of new buildings and focus on
using what is already there, (2) vastly increase the use of alternative energy sources such as
solar, and (3) vastly decrease staff use of motorboats and look for alternatives such as using
money saved on fuel to hire more people to kayak patrol and hike to maintain trails and
campgrounds instead of boating.

Composting toilets could be considered in all new development.

The need for diesel fuel transportation and storage (and potential spills) could possibly be
reduced by provision of solar-generated electricity.

Carrying Capacity

The legal requirement for general management plans to address visitor carrying capacity is discussed
in the Carrying Capacity section above. It is NPS policy to establish goals for visitor experience and
resource protection for all areas of a park through management zoning in general management plans.
More detailed quantification of use levels appropriate to those management goals and discussion of

171




THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

are natural or cultural features of special interest.
In the frontcountry zone, day use and
interpretation/educational opportunities would be
emphasized in nonwilderness areas and a
relatively high use level would be expected.
Actions to implement this concept would
include:

* retaining interpretive facilities at Edisen
Fishery, Rock Harbor Lighthouse, and
Raspberry Island

+ maintaining selected day hike trails to a higher
standard for increased use

+ converting Daisy Farm to a hiker/paddler
campground (convert dock to day use only),
which would reserve the campground for those
who need another option within a day’s travel of
Rock Harbor

+ considering adaptive use of historic structures
on Washington, Barnum, and Passage Islands for
rustic lodging for visitors or housing for
volunteers or park staff

The backcountry zone would provide a
transition between the developed and
frontcountry zones and the more primitive zones.
Day use, higher standard trails, campgrounds,
and docks would be appropriate. This zone
would offer more opportunities for day users
from the developed areas and would disperse
hikers into the more remote zones. It would also
allow for better access to popular trails and
interpretive sites. Some docks would be removed
and new campgrounds with docks would be
provided, which would serve to separate user
groups. Implementation actions would include:

+ providing new campgrounds for motorboaters
and paddlers at Tobin Harbor (adaptively use
docks), on one of the islands on the south side of
the Rock Harbor channel, on the south side of
Moskey Basin, Crystal Cove, and on Johns
Island

44

+ converting Duncan Bay, McCargoe Cove, and
Siskiwit Bay to hiker/paddler campgrounds by
removing docks

The primitive zone would primarily be used to
provide more primitive trail corridors through
the middle of the island. Most facilities along the
trails or in campgrounds at the shoreline would
be removed. To enhance solitude, no groups of
more than six people would be allowed. The
actions to implement this concept would be:

+ removing docks at Birch Island, Malone Bay,
and Todd Harbor

+ providing a new paddler campground at
Washington Harbor

* providing a new paddler campground on the
Lake Superior shoreline between Duncan
Narrows and the mouth of McCargoe Cove

The experience in the pristine zone would be
the most remote available on the island with the
most opportunities for solitude. To enhance the
experience there would be virtually no facilities.
There would be no docks, but primitive, anchor-
out boat camping would be encouraged. The
actions to implement this concept would be:

+ removing docks at Wright Island, Fishermans
Home, and Hay Bay

+ allowing structures to decay at Wright Island
and Fishermans Home

Quiet/no-wake zone designations were used in
this alternative to expand primitive wilderness
opportunities for boaters (see the Alternative B

map).

The nonmotorized waters zone would be used
to improve the wilderness character of the
adjacent land and provide a better experience for
paddlers. This could also protect sensitive
resource areas. For the most part, these are not
primary motorboat corridors (see the Alternative
B map).


PLANNING BACKGROUND

Visitor information facilities are not effectively
serving visitors. There is insufficient room in the
Rock Harbor contact station to house a visitor
contact desk, book sales, and exhibits. Inter-
pretive media are inadequate — some exhibits
are outdated or do not cover needed topics.
Educational outreach (which would include
general information about the park and park
themes) to schools and other groups is limited.

Very few facilities on the island (docks, trails,
shelters, lodge accommodations, visitor contact
stations) are accessible to people with
disabilities. As a result, opportunities for people
with disabilities are limited; some potential
visitors may be discouraged from visiting the
island at all.

Many commercial services at Isle Royale are
provided through incidental business permits
(IBPs), which are based outside the park. These
include guided backpacking, charter fishing, sea
kayaking, scuba diving, and other activities. If
the National Park Service issues an incidental
business permit, all qualified commercial
interests are entitled to receive one. There is no
limit on the number that can be issued. Requests
for permits have been steadily increasing over
the past few years. There is concern from the
public and the Park Service that there will be
resource impacts and competition among com-
mercial and private parties for facilities and
space unless controls are initiated. A moratorium
has been placed on new permits until better
direction is established in the general
management plan.

Difficult and potentially costly decisions must be
made about the future of concessions services on
Isle Royale. Opinions on the types and number
of visitor services that should be offered differ
greatly. Some feel that the lodge and restaurant
are inappropriate in a wilderness setting, are too
resource-consumptive, and too expensive. Others
feel that these services are traditional and should
be offered for visitors with various needs and
abilities.

Concession operations at Isle Royale have been
heavily subsidized by the National Park Service
for many years. Continuation of this subsidy has
become increasingly problematic because of
tighter government budgets and increasing
requirements of safety and health regulations.
Maintenance needs have been increasingly
deferred (affecting docks, buildings, and util-
ities), staff has been reduced (for example,
smaller trail crew, no wilderness rangers, and
fewer maintenance specialists such as plumbers
and electricians). Other park program needs have
remained unfunded, such as basic resource
inventories and monitoring, environmental
education programs, and preservation programs
for cultural resources.

With static budgets and declining staff, the Park
Service cannot maintain the existing levels of
facilities and services on Isle Royale. The
island’s docks, signs, buildings, campgrounds,
and trails are deteriorating. Administrative and
support facilities are also deteriorating and are
not in compliance with health and safety
standards. There are also backlogs in preven-
tative and cyclic maintenance, specialized
training, and equipment replacement.

The mainland headquarters facilities and parking
in Houghton are too small to serve park
operations and respond to visitor needs.
Additional rental space is used to provide offices
and work space in the winter. The main
headquarters structure was built in 1939-40 by
Works Project Administration work crews as a
temporary office and workshop and has been
remodeled extensively to house administrative
offices. Office, work, and storage space is
limited; working conditions are cramped. There
are no meeting rooms or areas for breaks. The
crowded and hectic atmosphere affects staff
productivity and morale. Portions of the
administrative part of the facility are not
accessible to people with disabilities.



As the nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our
nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering sound use of our land and water
resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving the environmental and cultural values of
our national parks and historical places; and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The
department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best
interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The department also
has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island territories
under U.S. administration. .

Publication services were provided by the graphics staff, Resource Planning, Denver Service Center.
NPS D-87A / September 1998


specific areas. To provide maximum access for
day users and to protect sensitive resources, no
overnight use would be permitted at the docks at
Passage Island or Hidden Lake (these areas are
currently managed for day use only). Actions to
implement this concept would include:

* The dock and breakwater at Siskiwit Bay
campground would be removed. Removal of
these structures would permit separation of uses
and allow for the reestablishment of the natural
current and distribution of sediment along the
shoreline. Campground shelters would be
removed.

+ A new trail from old McCargoe to new
McCargoe campground would be provided to
allow hikers and paddlers to be picked up and
dropped off by ferry and for boaters to hike from
the new campground.

« A new campground with a dock would be
developed on Johns Island (upon expiration of
the life lease) to provide needed docking and
camping opportunities in the Windigo area.

+ At Crystal Cove (east end of Amygdaloid
Island), Fishermans Home, and Wright Island,
the park would seek partners to maintain docks
and adaptively use cultural resources. Camp-
grounds would be provided if resource concerns
could be addressed; alternatively, overnight use
could be restricted to boat camping at the docks.
Campground hosts and tent platforms could
reduce camping impacts on archeological sites
and historic structures in these areas. Public use
of certain historic structures would be
considered.

* One or two additional tent sites would be
provided at the Merritt Lane campground to
improve opportunities for paddlers to camp in
that area.

* The public dock at Threemile campground
would be removed to help ease use pressure,
separate uses, and eliminate the need to maintain
a public dock in this very exposed location.

37

The Proposed Action
+ The dock at Hay Bay would be replaced.

+ Following engineering studies park manage-
ment would consider strengthening the
breakwater at Malone Bay.

Some other campgrounds and trails would be
zoned primitive, indicating that visitors could
expect to find fewer people and more primitive
campgrounds. These areas would include a
portion of the Minong Trail, the Ishpeming Trail
(the trail from the Greenstone Ridge to Malone
Bay), the Lane Cove trail, the trail from Mount
Franklin to Lookout Louise, and the southern
portage loop (see map). Off-trail cross-country
experiences would continue to be available in the
pristine zones. Actions to implement this
concept would include:

* The dock at Duncan Bay campground would
be removed. Shelters would eventually be
removed as well.

* The removed segment of the Chippewa Harbor
trail (south end of Lake Richie to the east end of
Lake Richie) would become part of the pristine
zone,

* Commercial kayak trips would be eliminated
from the west end of the island between Todd
Harbor on the north and Point Houghton on the
south. This action would help to prevent the
establishment of undesignated campgrounds by
repeated use in sensitive resource areas and
would help maintain isolated shorelines with
outstanding opportunities for solitude.

Numerous Lake Superior bays and harbors
would be zoned quiet/no-wake to reduce noise
and wake effects (see map). If goals for quiet are
not met in the quiet/no-wake zone, and
substantial comptiance with noise regulations
cannot be achieved, creation of some
nonmotorized areas would be considered
through an amendment to the General
Management Plan.


ACTIONS COMMON TO THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES B, C, AND E

A number of actions supporting the park’s stated
purpose and significance are proposed in all
action alternatives. These common actions are
described below and are not repeated in the
individual descriptions of the alternatives.

NATURAL RESOURCES
Priorities

Several broad strategies have been identified to
help guide and set priorities for managing natural
resources at Isle Royale. The primary goal of
natural resource management is to preserve the
ecological integrity of Isle Royale. This goal
requires an understanding of park resources as
well as adequate resource protection. General
strategies include:

* complete the inventories of natural resources
for baseline information. These inventories are
necessary for the park to effectively protect the
resources and serve as a natural laboratory for

research. Highest priorities would include:

Lake Superior fisheries — as part of Isle
Royale’s significance, the fishery is important
as an exceptional natural resource and as part
of the island’s cultural history

water and air quality — fundamental to the
island’s research role and the wilderness
character of the island, there are suspected
threats to both air and water quality that
should be understood

reptiles, amphibians, mollusks, and snails —
consistent with the park’s role as a research
baseline, knowledge of these species at Isle
Royale could offer insights into the decline of
these populations elsewhere in the world

insects — very little is known about the many
insect species found in the Isle Royale

23

ecosystem, including the potentially rare
species

rare plants — about 70 rare plant species are
found in the park, yet extensive areas in the
park remain unsurveyed for these fragile
populations, including visitor use areas

* retain and expand the park’s monitoring of
resource trends; systematic, scheduled
monitoring would document changes in species
or communities and provide direction for
research and management

* investigate ways to contribute to and benefit
from regional ecosystem management and
protection efforts, such as the Binational
Program to Protect and Restore the Lake
Superior Basin, Great Lakes Regional Air
Quality Partnership, and Man and the Biosphere
(U. S. Biosphere Reserve) Programme

* support the Canadian Marine Sanctuary
Program, which could establish a marine
sanctuary abutting the park’s northern boundary

+ develop a fisheries management program to
define the surveys and monitoring required for
Lake Superior fisheries as well as management
actions for inland fisheries

+ establish a research advisory board to identify
and set priorities for natural resource research,
using the park’s significance and emphasis
statements and natural resource management
goals and strategies for guidance; this could lead
to partnerships that would encourage research

* convene a panel of NPS and other subject
matter experts to identify and evaluate potential
actions for management of the wolf population if
viability becomes a concern

+ develop a water resource management plan to
address water quality concerns in the park,
identifying monitoring and research needs, key




CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

TABLE 17. ACTIONS THAT COULD AFFECT CULTURAL RESOURCES AND
ASSOCIATED STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE AND
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS

ACTIONS

COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS

Adaptive use of structures and disturbed areas at
Barnum, Washington, and Wright Islands and Crystal
Cove and Fishermans Home.

Requires further SHPO/ACHP review if adaptive use of
structures is undertaken and/or survey determines
presence of archeological resources

Transfer of Passage Island, Isle Royale, and Rock of
Ages Lighthouses to the National Park Service

Requires further SHPO/ACHP review when NPS
and/or partners develop plans for the stabilization,
maintenance, and interpretation of these structures

Change of services at Rock Harbor

Requires further SHPO/ACHP review only if service
changes result in alteration of structures that are
eligible for or on the national register

Removal and relocation of McCargoe Cove dock and
new boater campground

Further SHPO/ACHP review necessary to assess effects
on cultural resources

Elimination of hiking trail segment at Chippewa Harbor
and new camp sites for paddlers

Further SHPO/ACHP review necessary to assess effects
on cultural resources

New group campsite at Belle Isle

Further SHPO/ACHP review necessary to assess effects
on cultural resources

Removal of dock and breakwater at Siskiwit Bay
campground, removal of dock at Threemile and
Duncan Bay

Further SHPO/ACHP review necessary if actions are
determined to affect submerged cultural resources

New trail from old McCargoe to new McCargoe
campground

Further SHPO/ACHP review necessary to assess the
effect of the trail on cultural resources

Retain national register-eligible properties if a potential
use is identified

Requires further SHPO/ACHP review when structures
are identified

Deveiop new headquarters facilities at Houghton

‘No further SHPO/ACHP review unless survey
determines that site contains archeological resources

‘New campground and dock at Johns Island; evaluate
structure at Johns Island for national register eligibility

Requires further SHPO/ACHP review to determine
impacts on cultural resources

Replace dock at Hay Bay and strengthen breakwater at
Malone Bay

Requires further SHPO/ACHP review to determine
impacts on cultural resources

Tribal Consultation

The Keweenaw Bay Indian community of L’Anse
and Ontonagon bands of Chippewa Indians and
the Grand Portage band of the Minnesota
Chippewa tribe were invited to the GMP scoping
meeting on February 21, 1995. Keweenaw Bay
sent a representative, Mike Donofrio, the tribal

biologist. Grand Portage did not send a
representative.

In August 1995 letters were sent to the Grand
Portage, Keweenaw Bay, Bay Mills Indian
community of the Sault Ste. Marie band of
Chippewa Indians, Lac Vieux Desert band of
Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan,
Bad River band of the Lake Superior tribe of

130



ALTERNATIVE C

IMPACTS ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Wildlife

This alternative affords the greatest benefit to
wildlife of all the alternatives. There would be
virtually no new construction to disturb or
displace wildlife. There would be a significant
amount of demolition that would temporarily
disturb wildlife until the areas were rehabilitated
at which time there would be a large net gain of
habitat. Human activity would be reduced,
decreasing disturbance and benefitting wildlife. A
large (about 100 miles of shoreline) amount of
protection would be provided by establishment of
many nonmotorized and quiet/no-wake water
zones that would reduce disturbance to waterfowl
and their nest sites more than any other
alternative.

Threatened and Endangered Species

More of island would be suitable for use by
wolves due to the creation of large tracts of
untrailed land and less human use. The potential
for human disturbance of bald eagles and
peregrine falcons would also be significantly
reduced.

Designated Wilderness

All 18 potential wilderness areas would be con-
verted to wilderness after human intrusions end.
Geologic Processes

Removal of the Siskiwit dock and breakwater
would permit natural shoreline processes to

return, particularly the movement of sand and
sediment along the shoreline in Siskiwit Bay.

123

Water Quality

The elimination of fuel sales on the island would
result in many fewer motorboats in park waters.
Hydrocarbon emissions from boat engines would
be reduced as a result, especially in bays and
coves zoned nonmotorized. The ecological
impact of this reduction is not expected to be
appreciable, however, for the reasons outlined
under alternative A impacts.

The risk of gasoline spills from boating accidents
and sewage pumpout spills would remain low
because there would be fewer boats. There could
be an increased risk of accidental spills by visitors
transporting fuel and refueling independently
because they could not buy fuel at the island. The
chances of the National Park Service effectively
responding to and containing a spill in this
situation would be low.

With a reduced NPS presence and no concessions
operations, there would be fewer fuel storage and
transfer facilities on the island, but the risk of a
harmful spill would not change significantly; the
risk is already low due to spill prevention and
response plans and other measures already in
place.

IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES
Archeological Resources

In the short term, the construction of four new
campgrounds, construction of three dispersed
campsite areas and one new dock, and removal of
eight docks could impact archeological resources
by disturbing known or presently unknown
archeological resources.

Establishment of nonmotorized and quiet/no-
wake zones would have a positive impact on
submerged and shoreline archeological resources
by protecting them from wave effects. The long-
term effect of removing docks and campgrounds
would be positive as less visitation would reduce
potential disturbance.




communities might be absorbed with relatively
minor disturbances because of the magnitude of
the tourism industries in the Keweenaw
Peninsula and northern Minnesota. Visitation to
the park would be reduced, which would result
in a reduced park contribution to the local
economies. However, there are many other
tourist attractions in the affected areas, and this
disturbance of the tourism industry would be
absorbed in due time with relatively small long-
term negative impacts.

IMPACTS ON PARK OPERATIONS

Although the initial, one-time cost for facility
removal in this alternative would be very high,
the long-term maintenance and operational
requirements for the park would be significantly
reduced compared to the current operation. This
would include reductions in needed staffing,
housing, administration, training, and many
other park functions. There would be less
workload and cost associated with compliance
with utility standards.

Maintenance and emergency response would be
time-consuming, and logistics would be difficult
because there would be fewer docks and centers
of operation and because there would be
extensive nonmotorized and quiet/no-wake
zones.

125

Alternative C

Because of the reductions in overall park
operations, more emphasis could be placed on
natural resource management, monitoring, and
preservation efforts than is possible now.

There would be a very high one-time cost and
workload for documentation of cultural
resources.

Depending on visitation levels, management of a
reservation system could result in a significant
operational workload.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The eventual loss of all physical traces of
cultural resources on the island, when combined
with the loss of cultural resources elsewhere,
would constitute a significant negative
cumulative impact to the record of human
history of the Lake Superior region.

The significantly lower fishing pressure expected
due to fewer boaters could limit fishing pressure
for coaster brook trout. This effect, combined
with the various federal, state, and tribal efforts
to reestablish coaster populations in other Lake
Superior basin waters, could have a positive
cumulative effect. Gametes from Isle Royale
coasters are being used as part of this effort.


ALTERNATIVE B

OVERALL CONCEPT

This alternative would separate uses by
concentrating facilities and services at the ends
of the island and by creating an increasingly
primitive wilderness experience toward the
middle of the island. Visitors would find a full
range of facilities and services and a more
structured experience at Rock Harbor and
Windigo, the primary access points to the island,
which would both require some increased
development. A more primitive wilderness
experience with quiet and solitude would be
found toward the center of the island, where
most facilities and amenities would be removed.
Limits on the number of visitors there would
probably be necessary.

In addition to orientation and interpretation
offered at the Houghton headquarters, a broad
range of services would be available at both ends
of the island. Rock Harbor and Windigo would
offer a full range of orientation information and
services. No formal interpretation would be
provided in the middle of the island.

Some cultural resources in developed and
frontcountry zones could be preserved through
adaptive use for lodging, interpretation, or
operations. Cultural resources toward the middle
of the island would be documented and allowed
to deteriorate.

Additional staff (and housing) might be needed
at Windigo to operate expanded sewer and water
treatment facilities. The Amygdaloid Island
ranger station would remain, but the Malone Bay
station in the middle of the island would be
removed.

PARK MANAGEMENT ZONING

Zoning would be used to separate uses and
provide the differing degrees of wilderness
experience desired by various user groups. The

43

current range of uses would continue, but the
experiences would be separated by zones.
Hikers, boaters, and paddlers who desire solitude
and a primitive wilderness experience would find
it in the primitive and pristine zones in the center
of the island. A more structured day use
experience would be possible in the developed
and frontcountry zones at either end. A back-
country zone would provide a transition between
the two.

All visitors to the island would enter through the
two developed zones at Rock Harbor and
Windigo (see Alternative B map). Some facilities
and services would be expanded to
accommodate visitors preparing to go into the
interior and visitors using the developed areas as
a base for day use activities. The increased use in
the developed areas would result in increased
traffic on trails, which would be maintained to a
higher standard. Ferries would serve Rock
Harbor and Windigo, and water taxis would
serve only the developed and frontcountry zones.
Actions to implement this concept in the
developed zone would be:

+ Retain the marina in Snug Harbor and provide
new dock slips (no utilities) in Tobin Harbor and
new docks and/or mooring at Windigo. Parkwide
actions would result in no net loss in overnight
docking. Docks would not be removed until
replacements in new areas became operational.

+ Provide a greater proportion of lower-cost
housekeeping units at Rock Harbor.

+ Expand water and sewer treatment capacity at
Rock Harbor and Windigo. This would require a
new sewage treatment plant and additional staff
housing at Windigo.

The frontcountry zone, particularly at the east
end of the island, would be relatively large to
accommodate the anticipated concentration of
day use. Frontcountry zones would be located
near developed zones and in areas where there




Comment; There is a lack of a well-defined bottom-line priority in the draft plan. The five park
purpose statements put the plan in the position of trying to accomplish everything. If budgets continue
to be tight, where will the park focus its resources? Too much money and attention is being paid to
maintenance and development. A bottom-line, number one priority for the park should be included in
the plan, and the National Park Service should commit to that priority with supporting financial‘and
staffing investments.

Response: While the National Park Service is largely in agreement with this comment, it
believes that the General Management Plan has gone as far as it can to accomplish the goal of
focusing priorities. National parks are not single-purpose places. All parks struggle with the
delicate balances between protection and public access, visitor services and facilities and the
costs of maintaining them, and the wide range of often conflicting public needs, demands, and
desires and the responsibilities ofpark managers. This plan has attempted to narrow the park’s
focus in prescribing the relatively limited range of visitor experiences considered consistent
with designated wilderness, acknowledging that only the most significant cultural resources
can be protected (at least without help from private funding sources), and recommending
actions to increase the sustainability of commercial visitor facilities and decrease their impacts
on park resources and operations.

Comment: What is the plan regarding research accommodations such as the Boreal Research Station
on Davidson Island or structures used by the wolf-moose researchers? No mention was made in the
alternatives regarding these areas/structures.

Response: No changes to these facilities are proposed by the GMP alternatives. Research is
supported by the park purpose statement. The park will continue to promote and support
research activities.

Comment: The General Management Plan should address the investment and changes necessary from
the NPS administrative and operational standpoint to achieve the goals of the plan. The plan is
incomplete if it provides a new framework for visitor use alone.

Response: Need for administrative staff on the island is determined by the requirements of
each alternative. Only alternative C would result in substantive changes in park operations
(administrative staff on the island would be significantly reduced, consistent with alternative
C’s concept as discussed in the plan).

Comment: Several people commented on Isle Royale’s designation as an international biosphere
reserve under the Man and the Biosphere Programme of the United Nations Educational, Scientific,
and Cultural Organization. Most commenters said this designation is not needed because the United
Nations should have no say in the management of the park. One commenter asked several questions:
who imposed this designation, and by what authority?, what is supposed to happen next under the
program?, and who is the ultimate policy maker for our national park system?

Response: In 1980 the park was designated a U.S. Biosphere Reserve under the United
Nations Man and the Biosphere Programme in recognition of Isle Royale’s global significance
as a representative of the Lake Forest Biogeographical Province. The United Nations does not
have a coercive role in implementing the biosphere reserve program, nor has the United

162


APPENDIXES, BIBLIOGRAPHY, PREPARERS, INDEX

NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCE RESEARCH,
INVENTORY, AND MONITORING COSTS

TABLE B1. ESTIMATED COSTS FOR NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAMS
(BACKLOG ACCORDING TO EXISTING PLANS) IN ALL ALTERNATIVES

One-time Costs | Annual or Recurring Costs

Lake Superior Fish

Conduct study of lake trout hooking mortality $100,000

Conduct additional coaster brook trout surveys $15,000 $10,000 every other year for
monitoring

Conduct Lake Superior creel survey $25,000

Monitor water quality (inland lakes and Lake $15,000 annually

Superior)

Conduct air quality contaminants research $300,000 $30,000 every 5 years for monitoring

(determine existing levels in sediments, water,
organisms, then monitor; study food web impacts)
Inventory and monitor reptiles and amphibians $70,000 over $5000 annually for monitoring

two years
Inventory and monitor insects $90,000 $6000 every 3 years for monitoring
Monitor rare plants $9000 every 3 years for monitoring
Inventory and monitor other aquatic wildlife $100,000 $6000 annually for monitoring
(mollusks, exotic species, etc.)
Inventory and monitor other terrestrial wildlife $200,000 $6000 annually for monitoring
(owls, small mammals, etc.)
Expand existing monitoring program $75,000 annually
(institutionalize program, establish database
management program; employee and support costs)
Develop fisheries management plan (includes $10,000
partnerships/meetings with state and federal agencies)
Convene research advisory committee (primarily $8000 annually
travel/meeting costs)
Monitor wilderness management impact $6000 annually
Develop water resources management plan $40,000

Conduct research to determine baseline levels of $35,000
petroleum hydrocarbons in Lake Superior water
and sediments

TOTALS $985,000 one $176,000 annually
time

186



Appendix F

© GREAT LAKES INDIAN FISH & WILDLIFE COMMISSION
P.O, Box 9 « Odanah, WI 54861 + 715/682-6619 + FAX 715/682-9294

+ MEMBER TRIBES +
MICHIGAN WISCONSIN MINNESOTA
Bay Mills Communiry Bad River Band Red ChE Band Sond du Lac Rand
‘Keweenaw Bay Community Lac Courte Oreilles Band St. Croix Chippewa Mille Lacs Band
Lac Vieux Desert Band Lac du Flambeau Band Sokaogon Chippewa

April 17, 1998

Isle Royale General Management Plan Project Leader
National Park Service, Denver Service Center

P.O. Box 25287

Denver, Colorado 80225

Re: Draft General Management Plan Environment Impact Statement

Dear Sir or Madam,

The Great Lakes Indian Fisheries Committee of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission (GLIF WC) submits the following comments on Isle Royale National Park’s Draft
@ General Management Plan Environment Impact Statement. As acknowledged in the draft plan, a
number of tribes (including GLIFWC member tribes) have reserved treaty rights in Lake
Superior surrounding Isle Royale and on Isle Royale itself. These comments are submitted from
a ceded territory perspective with the explicit understanding that each GLIFWC member tribe
may choose to submit comments from their own perspective.

Although the language in the plan is a good first step, several changes would be
appropriate. The section entitled Native American Treaty Rights (p. 26-7) could be revised as+
follows: [Note: Deletions from the present draft are struck out and additions are underscored.]

Several bands of Lake Superior Chippewa have rights guaranteed by various
treaties in the geographic area in which Isle Royale and Isle Royale National Park
are located. Vv vale ent

: g
Pprocedures-and-guidetines; i ure that it rs these
rights, the National Park Service would cooperate with+these-entities those tribes
i d ts at and around Isle vale to
recognize established treaty nights. is include: i i hi se

It would be park policy to to work to strengthen dialogue and to work with involved
Indian tribes and the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission to ensure
that issues of common interest are addressed.

209


Consultation and Coordination

suggestions (2), (3), and (4) there are threatened and endangered species concerns (bald eagles
and wolves).

Comment; One person suggested that backpackers should be allowed to camp in areas other than
designated campsites, such as beside trails. Another commenter said a possible solution to conflicts
between users at campgrounds would be to make hikers and paddlers aware that there are options to
campgrounds (i.e., cross-country camping).

Response: The park does allow off-trail camping (cross-country camping) in certain areas of
the park, and this use will continue. Special protective regulations apply to cross-country
camping, and a special camping permit is required. Cross-country camping is intended for
those who want to get away from park trails and established campgrounds. It is not intended
as overflow or trailside camping. As long as there is a relatively low level of this type of
camping, its impact to wildlife and vegetation will remain acceptably low.

Comment: I assume the Three Mile campsite would be off-limits to boaters.

Response: Boaters would be welcome to use this campsite but with the removal of the public
dock, they would have to access it via the trail system or by beaching a small craft.

Comment: There should be some campsites established exclusively for sail and powerboaters,
preferably on small islands, and for paddlers in more sheltered areas along the main island generally
not accessible by hikers.

Response: The proposed plan will not reserve campgrounds or campsites exclusively for
particular user groups. Instead, the means of access provided will largely determine who uses
particular campgrounds.

Comment; Regarding the elimination of commercial kayak trips around the west end of the island, the
plan says this would “help maintain isolated shorelines with opportunities for solitude.” Solitude for
whom? The shorelines can’t be reached other than by boat (kayak). Won’t such trips just be relocated
to the east end, thereby increasing the demand for already crowded campsites? Since these kayakers
apparently distribute themselves away from developed campgrounds where conflicts exist, they should
be congratulated rather than penalized.

Response: The intent is to provide areas where paddlers who are not traveling as part of a
commercial trip can find solitude. This action will help prevent cumulative impacts from
repeated use of specific areas in pristine zones.

Comment: The location of campsites on Lake Richie needs clarification. The Existing Conditions map
shows campsites on the east and south ends of the lake, but the map for the proposed action shows no
campsite on the south side of the lake and a “new” campsite on the north side of the lake, with no
explanation of the change.

Response: The plan does not propose to relocate any campgrounds on Lake Richie. The
campground in question is located at the end of a peninsula that extends out into lake on the

151


TABLE 2. CAMPGROUNDS ACCESSIBLE BY BOAT, CANOE OR KAYAK, AND HIKING TRAIL
(boat access ® canoe or kayak access Ml hiking access O)

CAMPGROUNDS WITH NO CHANGES IN ACCESS PROPOSED

Beaver Island @

Belle Isle @

Caribou Island @
Chickenbone Lake East O
Chickenbone Lake West O
Duncan Narrows @
Feldtmann Lake O ll

Grace Island @ Hi

Hatchet Lake O
Huginnin Cove Of
Intermediate Lake Hl
Island Mine O

Lake Desor South O
Lake Richie OM
Lake Richie Canoe Ht

Lake Whittlesey ll
Lane CoveO
Merritt Lane @
Pickerel Cove
Rock Harbor # O
Tookers Island @
Washington Creek O i

60






CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Michigan Coastal Management Program

The National Coastal Zone Management Act of
1972 authorizes a state-federal partnership to
ensure the wise use and protection of the nation’s
coastal resources. Under the federal act, eligible
states receive federal funding assistance to
implement approved programs and to review
federal activities consistent with those programs.

Federal agency activities in or affecting
Michigan’s coastal zone or activities requiring
federal permits must comply with section 307 of
the Coastal Zone Management Act and
implementing regulations, which require that
such federal activities be conducted consistently
with Michigan’s Coastal Management Program.
Review of the Draft General Management Plan /
Environmental Impact Statement by the state of
Michigan constituted a review of consistency
determination. When the state of Michigan
concurs with a consistency determination, the
state transmits a formal state consistency response
to the federal agency.

Analysis of Impacts on Prime and Unique
Agricultural Lands (45 FR 59189)

Federal agencies are required to analyze the
impacts of federal actions on agricultural lands in
accordance with the National Environmental
Policy Act. This policy was developed to
minimize the effect of federal programs in
converting prime, unique, or locally important
farmland to nonagricultural uses. There are no
prime or unique farmlands in Isle Royale
National Park.

134

LIST OF AGENCIES TO WHOM THIS
DOCUMENT HAS BEEN SENT

Copies of this Final General Management Plan /
Environmental Impact Statement will be sent to
the following agencies.

Federal Agencies

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Michigan and Minnesota Congressional
Delegation

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. Fish and Wildlife

State Agencies

Michigan State Historic Preservation Office
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality


PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

Phasing for alternative C would be similar to the
proposed action except that the highest priority
would be the removal of concession facilities at
Rock Harbor and Windigo. This would eliminate
the need for upgrades at Rock Harbor and would
allow for removal of housing and other support
facilities for the concession.

Docks and trails in poor condition would be
removed first. Campgrounds and other facilities
would follow before the NPS presence was fully
reduced. The facilities at Mott Island would be

51

Alternative C

removed after critical functions were relocated to
Rock Harbor. As facilities were removed,
adjacent nonmotorized water zones would be
established.

Over and above alternative A (no action) costs,
alternative C construction costs (which are
actually costs for demolition of facilities and
removal of materials) are estimated at
$13,260,000. Additional research, inventory, and
monitoring costs are estimated at $2,130,000
(one-time) and $10,000 annually. See Appendix
B for details.


DESCRIPTION OF THE PARK

Isle Royale National Park, in the northwestern
section of Lake Superior, is a remote island
archipelago with a northeast/southwest orien-
tation (see Region and Vicinity maps). The
archipelago consists of one large island about 45
miles long and 9 miles wide that is surrounded
by about 400 small islands. It includes many
inland lakes and streams. The park is about 60
miles from Michigan’s Keweenaw Peninsula, 22
miles from Grand Portage, Minnesota, and 35
miles from Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada. The
year-around headquarters for the park is in
Houghton, Michigan.

The park was authorized by act of Congress on
March 3, 1931. The intent of Congress was
further defined by wilderness legislation in
October 1976 that designated 98% of the park’s
land area as federal wilderness. Later additions
brought the total to 99% (see Wilderness Status
map). The park extends 4.5 miles out into Lake
Superior from the outer islands or to the
international boundary. In 1980 the park was
designated as a U. S. Biosphere Reserve under
the United Nations’ Man and the Biosphere
Programme.

Isle Royale is primarily a northwoods wilderness
and maritime park. There is one overnight lodge
at the east end of the main island. Visitors come
to the island to hike, backpack, motorboat,
canoe, kayak, sail, scuba dive, or fish.

The primary means of access to the park are via
ferry and seaplane from Houghton, Michigan,
and via ferry from Copper Harbor, Michigan and
Grand Portage, Minnesota. About 30% of
visitors travel to the park in private boats. The
park is open from mid-April through the end of
October; it is closed the rest of the year due to
extreme winter weather conditions and for
protection of wildlife and for the safety and
protection of visitors.

Isle Royale is comprised of a series of parallel
ridges and valleys oriented along the same axis.

Many of the park’s 165 miles of hiking trails
follow ridge lines. Swamps and other wetlands
are common throughout the park.

Isle Royale is densely forested. The waters of
Lake Superior remain cool year-round, creating
cool, moist conditions near the shoreline where
northern boreal spruce-fir forests are found. The
warmer and drier interior of the island is
covered, especially at the southwestern end of
the island, in sugar maple, yellow birch, and
other northern hardwoods.

Many mammals common to the continental
mainland are not found on Isle Royale because
of the island’s isolation in Lake Superior. The
island’s best known species are the timber wolf
and moose, but at least twelve others, including
beaver, red fox, and snowshoe hare, can also be
found. Birds on Isle Royale are similar to those
on the mainland. Relatively little is known about
the island’s reptile and amphibian populations.
The fish of Isle Royale are one of the park’s
most significant natural resources.

Human activity on Isle Royale can be traced
back at least 4,500 years, when Native American
groups first began using the island’s copper and
other natural resources. Fur trapping, the island’s
first historic commercial activity, was followed
by copper mining, commercial fishing, logging,
and vacationing. Evidence of most of these
activities remains on the island today.

PARK PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE

Park purpose statements are based on park
legislation and legislative history, other special
designations, and NPS policies. The statements
reaffirm the reasons for which Isle Royale was
set aside as part of the national park system.
Purpose statements provide the foundation for
park management and use.


Actions Common to the Proposed Action and Alternatives B, C, and E

regulations would be developed. Use of aircraft
to access the island would continue to be
restricted and present landing zones would not
be expanded. The use of aircraft for sightseeing
is incompatible with wilderness. Because of the
potential demand on the island’s limited
infrastructure and visitor experience impacts
(crowding and noise), cruise ships (defined as
commercial vessels carrying more than six
paying passengers) are also considered
incompatible with park goals.

The park would work to reduce noise from
passenger ferry whistles and would encourage
the reduction of commercial aircraft overflights
to reduce noise and visual impacts. Adminis-
trative no-wake areas would continue to be
established as needed to protect docked boats
and park resources, such as loon nests.

Native American Treaty Rights

Several bands of Lake Superior Chippewa have
rights guaranteed by various treaties in the
geographic area in which Isle Royale and Isle
Royale National Park are located. Treaty rights
are beyond the scope of this plan; however, any
actions taken to implement the plan must
conform to the law regarding these rights. To
ensure that it honors legally established rights,
the National Park Service would cooperate with
those tribes that retain valid hunting, fishing, and
gathering rights. The National Park Service
would routinely consult with tribes having treaty
rights and their designated representatives on a
government-to-government basis.

PARK OPERATIONS

Docks to remain (according to each alternative)
would be repaired or replaced as needed.

The MV Ranger IIT would continue to provide
transportation and freight service to Isle Royale
National Park. Its schedule and purpose are
designed to support park operations; services to
the concessioner and passengers are secondary

27

and increases in these services are not antici-
pated. The Ranger III will be rehabilitated
during the winter of 1998-1999. New engines,
bow thrusters, electrical panels, and sound
dampening will be installed. The main deck
restroom will be made accessible to people with
disabilities. Other general improvements in
appearance will be made.

The park would continue to be closed from
November | to April 15 for the benefit and
protection of wildlife and for visitor and
employee safety.

Park management would continue to work
toward more sustainable operations, including
purchasing water- and energy-conserving
systems and machinery. The park would take a
leadership role in using less polluting, quieter
boats as current equipment was upgraded or
replaced.

A separate study would be conducted to develop
and evaluate options for improving the
Houghton headquarters, which houses such
functions as visitor information, ticketing and fee
collection, administration, and maintenance. The
current facilities are too small to serve park
operations and respond to visitor needs. The new
study would be guided by the following
requirements: headquarters must remain in the
Houghton / Hancock area; facilities must be
consolidated for efficiency; the site must have a
minimum of 500 feet of waterfront deep enough
for docking the Ranger III, and the site must be
visible to and easily accessible for visitors.
Primary functions and needed spaces for the
headquarters facility would include:

* visitor orientation (including other
nearby NPS units); overall park
interpretation, education, and
orientation, office space, storage

¢ natural history association office,
storage, and sales

¢ ticketing, fee collection, reservations

* collections storage


Consultation and Coordination

Response: The draft plan acknowledges the need for some overnight accommodations for
visitors who do not want to camp or who are unable to camp or backpack on the island. The
plan calls for a range of different types of accessible overnight accommodations at Rock
Harbor.

Comment: Many suggestions were received regarding options for the Rock Harbor motel units (rather
than removing them), including: convert them to housekeeping units or to spartan, low-priced motel
rooms without linens or maid service, convert them to housing for park employees, or remove two of
the motel units and run the other two at higher capacity.

Response; The National Park Service agrees that possible adaptive use of the motel buildings
should be explored in combination with or in place of new construction. Architectural and
engineering assistance will be enlisted to explore options. This work will occur in advance of
the current concessions contract expiration and negotiation of a new contract in 2002. The
Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement has been revised to
reflect this change, and criteria were developed to guide the decision-making process (see the
concessions section in the proposed action).

Comment: Concern was expressed for the areas left by removal of the lodge units.

Response: If the lodge units are removed, the sites will be rehabilitated and revegetated with
native species (see p. 24 of the draft plan). The intent is to restore the areas over time to as
close to their original condition as possible. Only native plants and seed sources near the
disturbed site would be used in rehabilitation and revegetation.

Comment: Why are there plans to fix up the motel units if the ultimate plan is to remove them?

Response: The plan has been modified. Depending on the feasibility of retrofitting the motel
buildings to create accommodations more in keeping with the goals for the Rock Harbor area,
the buildings may be retrofitted and remain in place. In any case, health, safety, and
accessibility standards must be met and the buildings must be maintained while the motel
units are in operation.

Comment: One person suggested that the concessioner should do laundry in Houghton rather than on
the island. Another suggested that the public laundry at Rock Harbor does not constitute a large
energy and wastewater load compared to NPS-owned and operated laundry machines at Rock Harbor
and Mott Island.

Response: Some of the concessioners’ commercial laundry is transported to Houghton.
Because concession and NPS employees live on the island for 3-6 months per year, laundry
facilities are considered essential. For visitors who stay on the island for several days, laundry
service is not essential.

Comment: There will not be enough overnight units if the motel structures are removed.

Response: There will be some loss of overnight capacity resulting from the removal or
modification of the motel buildings. However, given the current low occupancy rate of the

145


CONCESSIONS SERVICES

Subsidies of the concession would continue at
the expense of other park programs such as trail
and dock maintenance and interpretation.
Renovation of the Rock Harbor utility systems
would be necessary to bring the systems up to
state and federal standards. The concessioner
would be assessed an annual utility charge that
would be passed on to the public in higher rates
for lodging and other services.

Ferries would continue to serve Rock Harbor and
Windigo, but there would be no secondary stops
toward the center of the island. Water taxi
service would be offered only in the developed
and front country zones. The seaplane operation
would remain unchanged. Given the concept of
this alternative, expanded concession facilities
would be necessary and appropriate to achieve
desired future conditions. Other actions to
implement this alternative would include:

* retaining the marina in Snug Harbor and
providing new dock slips, without utilities, in
Tobin Harbor

* retaining the motel and adding more
housekeeping cabins at Rock Harbor

* expanding water and sewer capacity at Rock
Harbor and Windigo, which would require a new
sewage treatment plant and additional staff
housing at Windigo

45

Alternative B
PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

Phasing for alternative B would be similar to the
proposed action. The first phase would include
upgrading the utility systems at Rock Harbor and
installing campgrounds and rehabilitating or
constructing docks. In general, facilities would
be added at the ends of the island before facilities
toward the middle of the island would be
removed. As facilities were removed from the
middle of the island, adjacent nonmotorized
water zones would be established.

Over and above alternative A (no action) costs,
alternative B construction costs are estimated at
$16,107,000. Additional research, inventory, and
monitoring costs are estimated at $2,130,000
(one-time) and $10,000 annually. See Appendix
B for details,


Little Todd

Harbor Hatchet Lake

ISHPEMING ...
POINT. _.:

Amygdaloid
Island

ee

Robinson Bay.
Pickerel Cove.

BIRCH ISLAND

McCargoe Cove

*“Intermediate Lake
Lake Whittlesey...

Siskiwit Lake me
Wood Lake.

a
Huginnin Malone Bay
Cove :
BEAVER ISLAND, WRIGHT ISLAND
Washington Harbor
He
Island Mine a Isle Royale Lighthouse
(MENAGERIE ISLAND)
JOHNS
e Siskiwit Ba
ISLAND North Gap ¢ iskiwit Bay S
GRACE ISLAND F, Point Houghton
WASHINGTON me
Grace Harbor
ISLAND—— Faldiann Fishermans Home
Rock of Ages Lake (sNoN-WiLDERNESS
S Lighthouse ‘ HM POTENTIAL WILDERNESS
Rainbow...
RNS WILDERNESS
ISLAND
) eo thes s he sued UD ao TRAILS

Lane Cove

BELLE ISLE
Crystal Cove

Belle Harbor,
en |
-

MOUNT
FRANKLIN.

Chippewa Harbor

PASSAGE ISLAND

ssage Island.

DUNCAN NARROWS
LOOKOUT LOUISE

BLAKE POINT
x MERRITT LANE
0 4 —— epwaros isano

Duncan Ba
Five Finger a
2 —— SCOVILLE POINT

‘ Hidden Lake
Tobin Harbor
— RASPBERRY ISLAND

ROCK HARBOR

TOOKERS
ISLAND

OTT ISLAND

nS CARIBOU ISLAND

Rock Harbor Lighthouse

Edisen Fishery

Conglomerate Bay

WILDERNESS STATUS
Isle Royale National Park + Michigan

United States Department of the Interior + National Park Service
DSC + FEB 98 + 139 + 20022

ON-MIEGROFILM


CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Indians tribes and organizations contacted:

Keweenaw Bay Tribal Council

Lac Vieux Desert Band Business Committee

Grand Portage Reservation Tribal Council

Bad River Tribal Council

Red Cliff Tribal Council

Bay Mills Executive Council

Sault Ste. Marie Chippewa Tribal Council

Lac Court Oreilles Governing Board

St. Croix Council

Lac du Flambeau Tribal Council

Sokaogon Chippewa Tribal Council

Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission

Minnesota Chippewa Tribal Executive
Committee

Fond du Lac Chippewa Band Tribal Council

Mille Lacs Chippewa Tribe, Tribal Council

1854 Authority

The Draft General Management Plan / Environ-
mental Impact Statement was sent to these tribes
and organizations in March 1998. The park
received a letter in response from the Great Lakes
Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission in April
1998 concerning treaty rights (the letter is
included in Appendix F).

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (42 USC
4151 et seq.), Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29
USC 701 et seq.), and Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-336,
104 Stat. 327)

The National Park Service recognizes its
obligations to provide public facilities that are
accessible to and usable by all segments of the
visitor population, regardless of ability. Accessi-
bility to and use of Isle Royale National Park
facilities by visitors with disabilities will continue
to be provided in conformance with laws and
regulations. To the greatest extent possible,
commensurate with their abilities, visitors with
disabilities will be able to enjoy the park and
participate in recreational activities, using the
same facilities and programs as the able-bodied;
sensitive park planning and design will facilitate

132

this goal. Coordination of accessibility consider-
ations will be developed where possible through
consultation with local clubs and organizations
whose members have disabilities.

Some developed areas of the park are more
accessible than others. The degree of accessibility
is, and will continue to be, proportional to the
degree of development. Wilderness, primitive,
and backcountry areas typically have little or no
development and are managed primarily as areas
removed from the imprint of man. These areas
will be accessible to the extent feasible without
major modifications. Although trails to these
areas will be formalized to some degree, they will
continue to be basically unimproved and will
have topographic variations. New facilities in
more developed areas will be accessible as will
existing facilities that may be remodeled,
including employee work areas and housing.

Programmatic access for sensory- and learning-
impaired visitors will continue to be expanded.

Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act of 1990 (PL 101-601; 104
Stat. 3049)

Ownership or control of Native American human
remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and
objects of cultural patrimony that are excavated
or discovered on federal or tribal land would be
assigned to lineal descendants of culturally
affiliated Native American groups. Criminal
penalties were established for trafficking in

remains or objects obtained in violation of the act.

The Isle Royale museum collection was
inventoried for human remains and associated
funerary objects, and summaries were prepared.
Culturally affiliated tribes were consulted during
the process as required.

NATURAL RESOURCES

The following natural resources laws and
regulations will be followed during imple-
mentation of the general management plan.


AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Most inland portions of the island, away from the
developed areas, have not been formally
surveyed. Archaic period groups faced a lake
level as much as 60 feet higher than today. Many
Archaic sites, located well away from the modern
shoreline, undoubtedly remain undiscovered.

These archeological sites enhance knowledge of
early mining technology and provide insight on
the ways of life of prehistoric people — food
gathering and preparation and hunting and fishing
technology. Although only the Minong Mine site
is presently listed on the National Register of
Historic Places, many of the prehistoric sites have
the potential and integrity to yield additional
information about the island’s earliest use and
culture and may be determined eligible for the
national register (Clark 1995). With the exception
of some severely impacted campground sites,
many of the archeological sites are stable, with
limited active deterioration.

Some archeological sites contain historic remains
along with prehistoric evidence. Fur trade and
Native/European contact trade goods have been
found at six sites. The fishery bases of the
American Fur Company and the camps of
commercial fishing families are often found near
or on prehistoric sites. Mining pits and
settlements and lighthouse-associated sites have
all been identified from the historic period.

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

Early French explorers and missionaries to the
Great Lakes region in the early 1600s did not
mention Isle Royale specifically, although they
wrote of a place to the west where the Indians
told them copper could be found (Karamanski
and Zeitlin 1988). By late in the century, the
island began appearing on European maps of
North America. Fur-bearing animals attracted
trappers and traders to the region during the late
1600s and 1700s. The fur traders (Hudson’s Bay
Company, Northwest Company, and American
Fur Company) relied on native Ojibwas and other
tribes with knowledge of the region, including
Isle Royale, to provide furs for the market

(Cochrane 1997). These native trappers used the
island’s abundance of caribou, beaver, marten,
and other small mammals and traded them in
exchange for European goods, such as blankets,
clothing, cooking kettles, tools, weapons, and
traps.

Two other significant resources — copper and
fish — drew prospectors and entrepreneurs
throughout the last 200 years. Centuries after the
aboriginal copper miners, there were three phases
of historic copper mining; 1843-1855,
1873-1881, and 1889-1893 (Rakestraw 1965).
Some companies had limited success and initially
made money, but copper veins were depleted.
The expense of maintaining an operation on an
isolated island in Lake Superior combined with
fluctuations in copper prices to eventually force
them all to close.

Lake Superior tribes ceded their ancestral land to
the U.S. government through treaties in 1842 and
1844, which opened up Isle Royale for
prospecting and sale. The Isle Royale and Ohio
Mining Company was one of the first to stake
claims on the island. They established mining and
smelting operations near present-day Daisy Farm
campground in 1846—49 and conducted
exploratory work at various other locations
(Martin 1995). The Siskowit Mining Company
located operations in the Rock Harbor channel at
a site with evidence of prehistoric mining. Mining
operations on the island ceased by 1855.

After the Civil War, a rise in the price of copper
stimulated more mining. Companies with success
in Michigan’s Keweenaw copper industry looked
for similar proceeds at two island sites —
Siskiwit Bay and McCargoe Cove. The Island
Mine operations in Siskiwit Bay had a large
wharf on the bay, a road to the mine, 200-foot
shafts, a stamp mill, a tramway, and a settlement
of about 130 people (Rakestraw 1965). Supplies
of copper were only marginal, and a fire in 1875
that destroyed the dock and stamp mill caused the
mine to close by 1879.

The Minong Mine made use of aboriginal
prospecting and located operations in the ridge


Response: The park purpose, significance, and park emphasis statements, presented in the
planning background section of the Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact
Statement, clearly reflect the national and international significance of Isle Royale and its
wilderness/natural resource focus. Along with resource protection, visitor use of national
parks is a primary, not a secondary part of the system’s missionIn as much as they focus
visitor use in resource areas best able to withstand use, park facilities and management zones
are as much a part of resource protection as they are support for visitor experiences. In this
maritime park, motorboat use is supported, not only by traditional use but by congressional
intent. Monitoring for resource protection and visitor experience indicators, as called for in
this plan and subsequent carrying capacity and wilderness management plans, will help to
ensure use appropriate with resource protection goals.

Comment: The General Management Plan should call for a noise ordinance that bans the use of noise-
making equipment such as stereos, generators, loud parties in wilderness or within hearing distance of
wildemess. It should include a noise mitigation plan that would include the noise ordinance as well as
mitigation measures for machinery, motorized vessels, etc.

Response: The plan has been modified to call for noise restrictions in most zones. Also
included are commitments to replace park equipment with quieter models as funding allows.
Any specific plans needed to implement these actions would be prepared subsequent to
approval of the plan.

Comment: Under “Park Operations” the draft plan states that “the schedule and purpose of the M.V.
Ranger II is to support operations, and services to the concessioner and passengers are secondary.”
The purpose of the Ranger II] was and is to complement the added capacity of the lodge rooms and
cottages constructed during the same period that the ship was built, i.e., carry more passengers. The
Ranger II] is the “entrance highway to the park”. This entrance highway should be open for travel
more than four days per week.

Response: This assertion is not true. Legislation appropriating funds for construction of the
Ranger II] describes the primary purpose of the vessel as providing logistical support to park
operations, including transportation of freight (supplies, materials, equipment) and fuel.
Transportation of park employees whose presence is required on the island is a secondary
purpose, and transportation of island visitors is a third purpose. Schedules are established to
meet these needs in an effective and economical manner (see also the comment about Ranger
JI schedules in the Rock Harbor lodge and concessions comment section).

Comment: The Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement gives no attention
to provision of interpretive information, orientation, or preregistration in Minnesota.

Response: The draft plan proposes on p. 34 that park orientation be provided to visitors at the
Houghton, Copper Harbor, and Grand Portage (Minnesota) ferry staging areas. Also, private
boaters may preregister by purchasing an annual boat pass.

Comment: Access to Edisen Fishery, lighthouses, and other points of interest via NPS or commercial
boat trips is not addressed in the plan.

160


THE PROPOSED ACTION

OVERALL CONCEPT

The goal of this proposed action, revised from
the proposal in the Draft General Management
Plan / Environmental Impact Statement, is to
meet the diverse expectations and needs of Isle
Royale visitors while emphasizing the natural
quiet that is fundamental to wilderness
experiences. All park areas would be available to
all visitors, so long as users participate in ways
that are consistent with the access, facilities, and
opportunities provided.

PARK MANAGEMENT ZONING

Campgrounds would be designed and access
provided to separate motorized and nonmo-
torized uses in some areas. For example, some
shoreline campgrounds would have docks and
some would not. A variety of uses would
continue to be available that would be fairly
evenly distributed across the island. Use limits
would probably become necessary in some zones
in order to prevent overcrowding and maintain
the quiet and solitude that are fundamental to
wilderness experiences.

Docks would be removed from a few camp-
grounds to reduce noise and better meet the
expectations of hikers and paddlers in these
areas. Similarly, several new campgrounds with
docks for motorboats and paddlers are proposed
in areas that are not accessible by trail. Docks
would not be removed until the new docks in the
vicinity were available for public use.

Quiet/no-wake water zones would be established
to reduce noise and wake impacts in numerous
areas. Operation of electronic and motorized
devices such as stereos, televisions, radios tuned
to commercial stations, and portable generators
would not be permitted except in developed and
open-water motorized zones. Use of marine band
radios and other emergency communication
devices would be allowed in quiet/no-wake

34

zones if they are used at reasonably low
volumes. The use of on-board generators would
only be permitted at docks in developed zones
and at approximately half of the docks associated
with campgrounds on Lake Superior (see table
1). Use of air compressors to fill scuba tanks
would be permitted only at designated locations
and times; compressor use (either portable or
onboard) would not be permitted at any dock
outside of the developed zones. Sound insulated
facilities would be established in developed
zones so that divers could fill scuba tanks using
their own portable compressors. To protect the
natural quiet and wilderness values sought by
most visitors, additional administrative actions
would be taken, such as expanding quiet hours
and prohibiting on-board generator use in certain
sensitive locations or during specific hours.

Because all new campgrounds would lie within
designated or potential wilderness areas, no
shelters would be constructed. If a structure is
needed for resource protection, tent platforms
would be constructed rather than shelters.

Park orientation would be provided to visitors at
the Houghton, Copper Harbor, and Grand
Portage ferry staging areas. On the island,
orientation, interpretation, and education
programs would be concentrated in developed
and frontcountry zones such as Rock Harbor and
Windigo, Rock Harbor Lighthouse, and Edisen
Fishery. No interpretive media would be placed
in backcountry, primitive, or pristine zones.

Most NPS operations at Mott Island, Rock
Harbor, and Windigo would not change. Ranger
stations at Amygdaloid Island and Malone Bay
would remain; some structures would be used to
interpret park resources. Because of interest in
preserving historic structures at Barnum and
Washington Islands, park management would
seek partnerships (including use and occupancy
arrangements) to maintain the docks and cultural
resources. Potential adaptive uses would be
considered that would further interpretation,



Two species that have profoundly influenced the
island ecology in the 1900s are the timber wolf
and the moose. Moose arrived in the early 1900s
and with no significant predator to influence
population growth, quickly reached population
levels that outstripped the natural carrying
capacity. After a significant population crash in
1934, the moose population slowly began to
increase again. The arrival of wolves in the late
1940s brought a stabilizing influence to the
moose population. Moose have had a profound
impact on vegetation, almost completely
eliminating some species, such as Canada yew,
and over browsing other species, such as aspen,
mountain ash, willow, birch, and balsam fir.
These impacts ripple throughout the ecosystem
and even extend to an alteration of the natural fire
cycle, as the more flammable Canada yew has
been replaced by the less flammable
thimbleberry.

The wolf and moose populations have been the
subject of perhaps the longest running predator-
prey research and monitoring program in the
world. Initiated in 1958 by Durward Allen of
Purdue University and continued since the mid-
1970s by Dr. Rolf Peterson of Michigan
Technological University and the National Park
Service, the 40th annual monitoring program will
be completed in the winter of 1998. Much of
what is known about wolves in the natural
setting, free of human harassment, comes from
the Isle Royale studies (Mech 1966, Peterson
1977, 1994).

Other mammals on the island include the red fox,
snowshoe hare, mink, short-tailed weasel, beaver,
deer mouse, and red squirrel. Three known bat
species are found (little brown myotis, Keen’s
myotis, and the big brown bat myotis). A less
common species is the muskrat.

The river otter has increased substantially in
numbers in the 1990s, which is probably closely
related to the upswing in herring populations
around the island.

73

Natural Resources
Birds

Less affected by the isolation of Isle Royale are
the avian species, which mirror those found on
the mainland (with the exception of the ruffed
grouse and spruce grouse, which cannot manage
the long flight across Lake Superior). Park staff
have increased the effort in the 1990s to monitor
bird populations in the park; at present the park is
actively monitoring bald eagle and osprey
reproduction, forest songbird populations,
common loon reproduction, and colonial
waterbird populations. Here again, with the
unaltered habitats that the island offers, the park
can play a role in providing avian population
information for comparison to the more altered
ecosystems on the mainland.

Bald eagle and osprey populations continue to
rise. Following the devastating effects of
pesticides, which eliminated nesting of these
species in the 1960s and 1970s on Isle Royale,
both species began nesting in the park in the early
1980s. As of 1997 there were nine successful bald
eagle nests and four successful osprey nests
(National Park Service 1997a).

Forest songbird monitoring began in 1994; the
most common include the white-throated
sparrow, Nashville warbler, ovenbird, and the
red-eyed vireo. In 1997, 58 species were recorded
during the monitoring program (National Park
Service 1997b).

Isle Royale has the only known common loon
nesting activity on Lake Superior. Annual
monitoring of chick production has been ongoing
since 1990 for both Lake Superior and the inland
lakes. The population appears to be stable, and
research aimed at understanding the ecology of
loons and the effects of mercury bioaccumulation
in loons across the country includes data from the
Isle Royale population (Evers, et al. 1996).

The colonial waterbird (great blue heron, double-
crested cormorant, herring gull, and ring-billed
gull) populations on the island appear healthy.
Isle Royale has also witnessed the explosive
growth experienced by the cormorant population


Response: The level of analysis in the draft is necessarily general because of the conceptual e
nature of the plan. Effects of specific actions related to construction and demolition of
facilities will be assessed in specific environmental analyses that will be carried out in advance
of such activities. Operations at Mott Island would be substantially modified only in
alternative C. These effects are discussed in the impact section for alternative C. Potential
consequences of new campsites are discussed throughout the “Environmental Consequences”
section of the draft, and mitigation measures are discussed on pages 107 and 108. The
alternatives were treated equally in the draft, except that sections on “unavoidable adverse
impacts” and “irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources” were included only for
the proposed action, consistent with the approving official’s interpretation of the National
Environmental Policy Act and Council on Environmental Quality guidelines.

Comment: The environmental impact statement does not adequately address impacts on natural
resources (water quality, aquatic ecology, and wildlife) from motorboat hydrocarbon emissions.

Response: The discussion of water quality impacts has been expanded. However, because
these impacts are not believed to be significant at this time, the level ofletail remains at
approximately the same level as for other impact topics. More detail is provided below.

It is true that motorboats can contribute some (usually small quantities) harmful contaminants

into lake waters. As pointed out by the Environmental Protection Agency and others, some

two-cycle engines tend to produce more hydrocarbons than certain other engines (usually

four-cycle engines). The National Park Service has reviewed studies related to motorboat

pollution at diverse locations, including a recent study of hydrocarbon contaminants entering

park waters at Crater Lake National Park. Even in areas with much higher boating activity @
year-round, it has been hard to find documented biological impacts from petroleum

hydrocarbons originating from motorboats. Other conclusions of these studies include the

following:

Potential contaminants from gasoline spills and incomplete combustion of mixed fuels include
BTEX compounds, PAHs, alkyl PAHs, and alkanes. The BTEX (benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, and xylene) compounds and alkanes tend to break down fairly quickly through
biological, chemical, photochemical, and volatilization processes. More resistant to
breakdown are PAHs (polycyclic aromatic compounds) and alkyl PAHs.However, even

PAHs are subject to rapid loss from the water column due to volatilization and sedimentation,
Ata heavily boated reservoir in Virginia, the presence of PAHs, especially the lower
molecular weight compounds (eg. acenaphthene and naphthalene), in the water column during
June probably resulted from recent PAH inputs.

2 “Investigation of the Extent and Significance of Hydrocarbon Contamination Associated With Boat Use
at Crater Lake National Park,” project no. CRLA-N-301.002. Investigators: Robert Collier and Bernd (sic)
Simoneit, College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

3 Mastran, R.A. A.M. Dietrich, D.L. Gallegher, and T.J. Grizzard. 1994. Distribution of polyaromatic
hydrocarbons in the water column and sediments of a drinking water reservoir with respect to boating,
activity. Wat Res. 28:2353-2366. Portions reprinted with permission of Elsevier Science Ltd, Pergamon
Imprint, The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington 0X5 1GB, UK.

164


APPENDIX E: LEGISLATION

LAWS FOR NT, PARK SERVICE, PARKS, & MONUMENTS

7, Isle Royale National Perk

An Act To provide fcr the establishment of the Isle Royale Na-
tlomel Park, in the State of Michigan, end for other Purnoses,
approved March 3, 1951 (46 Stct. 1514)

Be it enacted by the Senate and Evuse of Represenia-
tives of the United States of America in Congress as-
semdled, That when title to all alienated lands within
Isle Royale in Lake Superior, Keweenaw County, Michi-
gan, and immediately surrounding islands as shall be

esignated by the Secretary of the Interior in the exer-
cise of his judgment and discretion as necessary or desir-
able for national-park purposes, shell have been vested

i in the United States and exclusive jurisdiction over the

aoviemst same shall have been ceded by the State of Michigan to

the United States, said area shall be, and is hereby, es-
tablished, dedicated, and set apart as a public park for
the benefit and enjoyment of the people, end shall be
provine lmown as the Isle Royale National Park: Provided, That
Lands to bese the United States shall not purchase by appropriation
feiniest of public moneys any lands within the aforesaid area,
but such lands shall be secured by the United States only
by public or private donation. (U.S.C., 6th supp., title
16, sec. 408.) —
Sec. 2. The Secretary of the Interior is hereby author-
ized, in his discretion and upon submission of evidence
aie tof title satisfactory to him, to accept on behalf of the
United States title to any. lands located on said islancs
offered to the United States, without cost, as may be
deemed by him necessary or desirable for national-park
. purposes. (U.S.C., 6th supp., title 16, sec. 408a.)
ieRutal Sin Sec. 3. The administration, protection, and develop-

Service. ment of the aforesaid park shall be exercised under the

direction of the Secretary of the Interior by the Na-

tional Park Service, subject to the provisions of the Act

sat 85 of August 25, 1916 (32 Stat. 535), entitled “An Act to
. establish a National Park Service, and for other pur-

Fodent'water poses,” as amended: Provided, That the provisions of

ipolatie “tthe Act approved June 10, 1920, known as the Federal

va. ai, p. Water Power Act, shall not apply to this park. (U.S.C,

2068. 6th supp., title 16, sec. 408b.)

200


APPENDIXES, BIBLIOGRAPHY, PREPARERS, INDEX

Table B6: Alternative B Construction Cost Estimate

Advance and Total

Gross Project Planning Project
REPAIR AND REHABILITATION Costs Costs Costs
Repair/rehab docks 1,965,000 375,000 2,340,000
Repair/rehab Rock Harbor utilities 2,811,260 536,500 3,347,760
Repair/rehab Mott Island utilities 655,000 125,000 780,000
Repair/rehab Windigo utilities 655,000 125,000 780,000
TOTAL REPAIR AND REHABILITATION $6,086,260 $1,161,500 $7,247,760

Advance and Total

Gross Project Planning Project
NEW CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION Costs Costs Costs
New construction
Docks 1,965,000 375,000 2,340,000
Campgrounds 327,500 62,500 390,000
Rock Harbor lodging 1,310,000 250,000 1,560,000
Windigo housing 655,000 125,000 780,000
Rock Harbor utilities 1,310,000 250,000 1,560,000
Windigo utilities 6,550,000 1,250,000 7,800,000
Washington, Barnum, Passage Islands (adaptive use) 982,500 187,500 1,170,000
Total new construction $13,100,000 $2,500,000 $15,600,000
Demolition
Docks 262,000 50,000 312,000
Malone Bay ranger station 163,750 31,250 195,000
Total demolition $425,750 $81,250 $507,000
TOTAL NEW CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION 13,525,750 | $ 2,581,250 16,107,000

190


THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

trails, and camping sites for motorized and
nonmotorized users. Removal or relocation of
docks and campgrounds would separate and
disperse users. Particularly at campgrounds
within a day’s hike of Rock Harbor, where use
would be concentrated, docks would be removed
to reduce use pressure. To compensate, docks
and campgrounds accessible by motorboat
would be added in locations not accessible by
trail. With removal of park facilities from Mott
Island, additional camping and hiking for
motorboaters could be offered. Actions to
implement this alternative would include:

* constructing a new dock and a motorboat
campground at Wright Island

+ adding motorboat campgrounds at Mott Island,
the west end of Amygdaloid Island, and at the
east end of Washington Island or on Barnum
Island

* removing docks at Daisy Farm and Threemile
campgrounds

+ adding a hiker/paddler campground between
Rock Harbor and Scoville Point

Several trails that are difficult to maintain,
duplicative, or little used would be eliminated to
decrease the need for trail maintenance and
increase cross-country hiking and camping
opportunities. Most other trails would be in
primitive zones and managed for low use levels
to ensure solitude. Shelters would be removed
except where necessary for resource protection.
In several areas individual camping sites would
be dispersed to increase opportunities to camp
out of sight and sound of other users. Actions to
implement this concept would include:

+ providing dispersed individual campsites at
Richie, Intermediate, and Whittlesey Lakes and
at McCargoe Cove

* removing the Minong Trail from the Huginnin
loop to Hatchet Lake junction, the trail from
Malone Bay to Ishpeming Point, the eastern
portion of the Chickenbone loop, the trail from

50

Lake Richie to Chippewa Harbor (excluding the
portage trail), the western portion of Daisy Farm
to Greenstone Ridge loop, and the Greenstone
Trail from Mount Franklin to Lookout Louise
and Hidden Lake

* removing docks at Todd Harbor, Siskiwit Bay,
Birch Island, Malone Bay, Duncan Bay, and
Moskey Basin campgrounds to convert to
paddler or paddler/hiker campgrounds

* removing Wood Lake and North Lake Desor
campgrounds

* removing the dock and campground at
Chippewa Harbor

* removing trail and interpretive signs at
Raspberry Island and Rock Harbor Lighthouse

In order to increase wilderness experiences for
paddlers and to reduce noise in primitive and
pristine zones, several bays and coves would be
in the nonmotorized zone (see Alternative C

map).

Low-speed quiet/no-wake zones would be
designated in many other bays, coves, and
harbors, further reducing noise impacts and
wake-related disruption of waterfowl nesting
areas (see Alternative C map).

CONCESSIONS SERVICES

Concessions-operated ferries would serve only
Rock Harbor and Windigo. Water taxi service,
lodging, food service, the store, fuel sales, and
boat rentals would be removed or discontinued.
The associated structures would be removed
except those needed to support the operational
functions that would be relocated to Rock
Harbor from Mott Island.


AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

since the late 1980s and has been seen throughout
the Midwest.

Fifty peregrine falcon young were released in the
park over a five-year period beginning in 1987,
primarily along the Feldtmann Ridge. Although
occasional sightings are made of individual birds
in the park, no nesting has occurred.

Herpetofauna

Little is known about the reptiles and amphibians
of Isle Royale. Park staff began basic frog
monitoring surveys in 1996 on the east end of the
island, but no systematic work has been done
since the mid-1960s. A long-term research effort
focused on chorus frog tadpole populations has
been ongoing for nearly 20 years, but that project
is limited to the northeast end of the island.

There are three reptile (western painted turtle,
red-bellied snake, and garter snake) and seven
amphibian (blue-spotted salamander, American
toad, spring peeper, chorus frog, green frog, mink
frog, wood frog) species known on Isle Royale.
The status of one other reptile (black rat snake)
and two other amphibian (red-spotted newt and
mudpuppy) species is in question.

The alarming decline in amphibian populations
worldwide and concerns about amphibian
deformities illustrate the need for good
herpetofauna population information.

Fish

The diverse fishery of the Lake Superior and
inland waters of Isle Royale represent the most
nationally significant natural resources in the
park, The lake trout is recognized as the best
example of a rehabilitated lake trout population in
Lake Superior. They are the most genetically
diverse population in the lake. The coaster brook
trout population, considered to be extremely rare,
is the only known reproducing population in U.S.
waters. Herring populations have rebounded in
the park as they have elsewhere, enabling

74

predators such as otters, eagles, osprey, common
loons, and cormorants to improve. The fishery
provides an outstanding opportunity for
recreational fishing for many park visitors.

Jurisdiction over the fishery in Isle Royale is
split; the state of Michigan manages and sets
regulations for the Lake Superior fishery, and the
National Park Service manages the inland lakes.

Much of the information on the Lake Superior
fishery is focused on the lake trout. Information
from the Sivertson commercial fishery on Wash-
ington Island, the Edisen Fishery in the Rock
Harbor channel, the more than 30 years of net
surveys by the Ashland Biological Station, and
limited creel information indicates a generally
healthy lake trout population. Park staff are
actively working with the professional fishery
managers in the Lake Superior basin to gather
more information.

A regional cooperative effort involving the
National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, several tribal agencies, and the states of
Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin is
increasing knowledge of the rare coaster brook
trout. A project to create a broodstock based on
the Isle Royale coaster populations started in
1995. However, there remain serious concerns
about the future of the Isle Royale coaster
populations, and ongoing efforts will focus on
acquiring more information on the park’s
populations.

Information on the status of the other fisheries in
Lake Superior is much less extensive, Other fish
species include herring, whitefish, suckers,
sturgeon, northem pike, walleye, and yellow
perch.

An intensive fishery inventory of the inland lakes
was conducted from 1995-97. This information
provides the first comprehensive update of the
inland lakes fishery resource since the 1920s and
will enable park management to assess the
adequacy of the catch regulations. The project
serves as an important baseline for the fishery and
limnological resources in the inland lakes and


IMPACTS COMMON TO THE PROPOSED ACTION, ALTERNATIVES B, C, AND E

The following impacts are common to all
alternatives except Alternative A (the no-action
alternative) and are not repeated in the impact
sections for individual alternatives.

IMPACTS ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Wildlife

Wildlife information was consulted during
development of this plan in an attempt to avoid
sensitive habitats. Impacts on wildlife were
determined by studying locations of nests and
considering habitat needs in relationship to the
alternatives. Researchers and other resource
experts were consulted.

Some displacement of wildlife could result from
dispersal of visitation around the island, increase
in visitor use of specific areas above present
levels, and introduction of visitor use into
previously unused areas (see wildlife discussion
for each alternative). This impact would be minor
and would affect a relatively small amount of the
park. The survival of populations would not be
threatened and available critical habitat would not
be reduced. Smaller and less mobile wildlife
would be affected more than larger animals that
are able to move out of the areas of disturbance.
The impact would last for the duration of the
visitor use or the life of the facility.

Disturbance to soils and vegetation in the
alternatives would have very little effect on the
availability of habitat across the island. Most
disturbance would be in previously disturbed
areas that are relatively small and dispersed
across the island and would be mitigated by
revegetation where possible. Continued winter
closure of the island would benefit wildlife by
reducing human contact and interference.

In all alternatives, inventories would improve
management of these resources. A better
understanding of park resources would allow for
better management and sustainability. Better data
on reptiles, amphibians, insects, mollusks, and

snails in a natural setting would have far-reaching
benefits and would contribute to the park’s role as
a laboratory or benchmark for similar ecosystems.

Study of the wolf and moose relationship on Isle
Royale has already produced significant results
that have helped management of these species on
the island and elsewhere. Because the benefits of
research transcend the park boundary, convening
a panel of subject matter experts if dramatic wolf
population changes occur would involve those
who would benefit substantially from continued
research.

The Lake Superior fisheries are part of Isle
Royale’s significance and contribute to the
experience of many park visitors. Development of
a fisheries management plan would be beneficial
to the management of those resources.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Data bases from the park, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the state of Michigan, and current
researchers have been consulted during
development of all alternatives. During imple-
mentation of any action additional research would
be conducted to identify appropriate mitigation
measures. Specific area closures would continue
to be used as necessary for protection of
resources, primarily wildlife.

Additional inventory work and monitoring would
benefit the management of these resources.
Suitable habitat exists in the park for several
threatened and endangered plant and animal
species; research would verify their existence in
the park and add to the knowledge needed for
better management.

Designated Wilderness

There are several areas presently designated as
potential wilderness additions under the 1976 Isle
Royale wilderness legislation. These areas are to
convert to designated wilderness after


gouesoid uewmy Jo
[AQ] [[2JOAO oyeJOpoUr «
S$S9998 JeOGIO}OW

sped uo suonoiysa ou +
sdoys Auay 1 ‘suonesodo

souaseid ueumY

JO JOAQ] [T2I9A0 YBTY
$$9998 JLOGIO}OU!

ued ou 410 paonpar
1MIM seare autos »

sdojs Auoy 1 ‘suonesodo

syeog ayeAlid uo jong.
Byxo SuIpodsuen wos
squapioce 10] yerUDI0d «
gouasaid uewiny

JO [Ad] [JPIA0 MO «
ss90908 120qI0}0UI

zed ou 10 paonpas
YIM sore Aueul «

sdoys Auray 7 ‘suonesado

orppra

Je [2A9] MO] ‘puelst
JO spus ye souasaid
ueUINY Jo [9Ag] YSTY +
$8908 J20qI0}0UI
3yed ou Jo poonpar
Ulm seare oulOs «
sdojs

Augy Z ‘suonesado

goussaid uewiny

JO [2AQ] fyesoao YSty -
Ssad08 J20G10}0UI

ysed Uo suonorqsol Ou »
sdois Aurgy 4 ‘suonesodo

ppred so saseq ¢ « | sed Jo saseq ¢ + sued Jo saseq 7+ ed Jo saseq p+ aed Jo saseq ¢ + AyoyeS IOUSIA JO} OPIAOI
sousdures Jo
Tessodsip pur soysdureo soyisdures jo

UONRISTA

MO| pure susayed

asn ul saSueys May

JO osnes9q woTEyo3oA,
pue sjlos 0} soueqimsip
pue juawusoRldsip
SgTIPIIM OTT

MOU Wy UOT]EI9TOA.
Pure ‘slos ‘ay1p]I Uo
syoedum pazijeso] auios «
WOnRIISIA pasiadsip Woy
PIM Jo coueqinysip
SPIMpur|s! SWOS
yYMaUlOs OITP[IM
yyaueq pjnom vole
yeuqey poywoursegun
ABB] 9U0 JO UOIRaID »

[essodsip pue soysdures
MOU WO UOIE}9SIA
pur ‘sjtos ‘ay1plim uo
syoeduil paziyeso] oulos «
SJOAST UONESIA

AMO] P[NOM Sv azITP]IA
yyouagq pinom (jeAourer
[18.4 0} onp) seare
yenqey poywowseyun
adue] dary} JO UONBAIO «

S|PPrw puryst

UT asvaidap prnom
syoedunt ‘spuo purjst

ye 98n payequasu0.
Woy aseorouT

Pinos uonejo3aa

pur sjios 0) aourqumysip
pue juataoejdsip
2JIIPIIM OUIOS «

UONJETISTA posealoUT
WOY SUM] J8A0 astos0UT
PInoo uoneyoSoa pue
S[10s 0) Soueqinystp pue
quawiaoe]dsip ayt[pM
auios ‘swayed asn

Ul soBueyo Moy oytdsap «

soomnosal
Jeangeu yoa}01d pure aasasoig

a FAILVaAALTV

d GALLVNUALTV

OD AAILVNUALTV

@ JAILVNYALTV

V FTAILVNUALTY

VIAALIAD SISATYNV

183


ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

If preservation of Passage Island, Menagerie
Island, and Rock of Ages Lighthouses were to
prove infeasible, their loss, when combined with
loss of lighthouses throughout the Great Lakes
region, could result in the disappearance a
significant segment of Great Lakes maritime
history.

112


remain. The park would continue to be closed
from November | to April 15 for the benefit and
protection of wildlife.

CONCESSIONS SERVICES

Ferries would continue to serve Rock Harbor,
Windigo, and secondary stops such as McCargoe
Cove and Malone Bay. Water taxi service to
intermediate stops would also continue as
demand warranted. Concession services at Rock
Harbor (motel and housekeeping units,
restaurant and snack bar, marina, boat rentals,
fuel sales, store) and Windigo (store, boat
rentals, fuel sales) would remain.

It is not likely that any combination of overnight
and food services at Rock Harbor could continue
to be offered without a financial subsidy to
provide utilities to the concessioner (see
Appendix C). This conclusion was based on the
Concession Feasibility Analysis, Isle Royale
National Park, which was prepared for Rock
Harbor. The study takes into consideration the
high cost of utilities on the island and the
relatively low number of visitors using the
concession’s overnight accommodations.
Without subsidy, the cost of providing lodging
and food services could drive up visitor costs to
a level that few visitors would be willing or able
to pay (which already appears to be happening).
This could result in the elimination of overnight
and food services at Rock Harbor.

The concessioner would have to be subsidized
through a congressional appropriation to the

Alternative A

park. This subsidy would have to be adequate for
capital costs related to backlogged utility and
infrastructure upgrades and the annual operating
cost of supplying utilities to the concessioner in
excess of the cost of comparables (the difference
between utility costs on the mainland and costs
at the park). This subsidy is estimated at a
minimum of $2.1 million for the backlogged
utility and infrastructure capital improvement
needs and a minimum of $400,000 per year, plus
annual consumer price index increases, to keep
the subsidy current. This subsidy would allow a
reduction in the prices of rooms, meals, and all
other goods and services and would make
concessioner services more affordable. If this
subsidy is not received, costs for the visitor will
continue to escalate, which would result in prices
not affordable to most park visitors.

PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

Priorities for programmatic actions have been
identified in existing plans. Upgrading utility
systems at Rock Harbor would be the highest
priority.

Alternative A construction costs (actually costs
for backlogged repair and rehabilitation needs)
are estimated at $7,247,760. Research, inven-
tory, and monitoring costs (existing backlog) are
estimated at $1,440,000 in one-time costs plus
$199,000 annually. An additional annual appro-
priation of approximately $400,000 would be
needed to subsidize the concession operation at
Rock Harbor:.See Appendix B for details.


CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

permit or reservation systems may be implemented. The public will have an opportunity to
comment on the VERP implementation plan prior to its approval.

Comment: Several comments were received about reservation systems. Some were opposed to any kind of
reservation system for Isle Royale; others supported the idea of reservations. Some people had specific
suggestions. Some suggested that those who come to the island in private boats should have first priority.
Others suggested that a first-come, first-served reservation system would be fairest.

Response: A reservation system may be needed at some point to keep use levels consistent with
positive visitor experiences and resource protection. It is not within the scope of the general
management plan, however, to decide the details of a reservation system. If a reservation system
is needed in the future, different options would be carefully evaluated before one was chosen.

Comment: No consideration should be given to visitor limits. The sheer remoteness of the island provides
more than adequate visitor controls.

Response: As noted above, the NPS is required by law to address the issue of carrying capacity
in all units of the national park system. Despite the remoteness of the island, visitation has
continued to increase over time. Some visitors already complain that campsites are crowded and
that wilderness experiences are being compromised. If this trend continues, some limits on visitor
numbers may be necessary to maintain visitor experience and resource protection objectives
established by the General Management Plan.

Comment: Much of the primitive zone designations have been given to trails that already see less use. The
National Park Service should consider designating some others that currently experience more use as
primitive, such as the Lake Desor trail and the Feldtmann Lake trail. (The ecosystems are different in
these two areas and need protection).

Response: The Lake Desor trail (assumed to be the Greenstone Ridge Trail) is part of the main
route between Windigo and Rock Harbor. The National Park Service feels that it is appropriate
for this corridor and the Feldtmann Lake trail to be zoned backcountry to accommodate moderate
use and groups of up to ten people. The backcountry designation will not preclude protection of
these areas.

Comment: Isle Royale is like a city park already; which will win out — the visitors or the resources?
Response: As described above, the VERP process is intended to consider use levels that are
consistent with resource protection objectives in different areas of the park. Part of the VERP
implementation process is to identify resource and visitor experience indicators that ensure that
visitor use is consistent with resource protection. In this way, visitors and resources both win.

Rock Harbor Lodge and Concessions

Comment: Elimination of the motel units at Rock Harbor would preclude the elderly, the disabled, and the
very young from visiting Isle Royale.

144


Consultation and Coordination

recreational impacts to wolves and other threatened and endangered species must be fully addressed in
the Environmental Impact Statement and in formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.

Response: The park prohibits domestic mammals within park boundaries and vigorously
enforces this regulation. While it is conceivable that more boats (assumed to bring more dogs)
could increase the risk of intentional or unintentional violation of the regulations and hikers
could bring the virus over on their boots, the only way to completely eliminate the risk would
be to not allow people on the island, which is not a reasonable solution. The proposed plan
calls for no actions that would increase the risk of virus transmission.

All other reasonably foreseeable recreational impacts to wolves and other proposed, threatened,
and endangered species from the alternatives have been discussed in the “Environmental
Consequences” section of the draft. No other issues or impacts have been raised by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service during their review of the draft (see letter in appendix F).

Comment: Researchers have raised concerns about wolves losing their fear of humans if too many
campgrounds are dispersed around Isle Royale.

Response: Dispersal of human activities and/or facilities into new areas, which could cause
impacts on wolves and other species, was identified as a concern during the scoping, planning,
and environmental analysis process. Minimizing such dispersal of use was a goal during
development of the proposed plan. With the exception of a new dock and campground at
McCargoe Cove, the draft plan does not propose new campgrounds in areas that do not have a
tradition of human activity or use, so associated impacts to wolves and other threatened and
endangered species have been avoided. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has concurred with
this conclusion.

Comment: One person suggested that the public involvement process for developing the plan was
inadequate and out of compliance with NEPA guidelines.

Response: There is no basis for this claim. The public involvement effort for this plan, which is
summarized on p. 7 of the draft, exceeded NEPA requirements and typical GMP public
involvement programs.

Comment: Even though the National Park Service has been charged with developing a general
management plan for the park, should not private citizens, such as representatives of the major user
groups, have been included in the decision-making process and included on the planning team?

Response: Individuals and interest groups have been extensively involved in the entire GMP
process over the past three years, including scoping, alternatives, and environmental impact
analysis through the public involvement process. The Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public
Law 92-463, prohibits federal agencies from involving interest groups in decision-making or as
“team-members” on federal projects (except when advisory committees are specifically
authorized by Congress).

167


Contents

e@ Vegetation 70
Rare Species — Vegetation 71

Arctic-Alpine and Western Disjunct Species 71
Air Quality 71
Water Resources 71

Water Quality 72

Floodplains 72

Wetlands 72
Wildlife 72
Mammals 72
Birds 73
Herpetofauna 74
Fish 74
Threatened and Endangered Species 75
Others 75
Physiography 75
Geology 75
Soils 76

Cultural Resources 77
Archeological Overview 77
Historical Overview 78
Submerged Resources 79
Structures 80
e@ Cultural Landscapes 81
Ethnographic Resources 82
Objects 82

Visitor Services 84
Houghton 84
Rock Harbor 84
Windigo 84
Daisy Farm 85
Edisen Fishery 85
Malone Bay Ranger Station 85
Amygdaloid Ranger Station 85

Visitor Experience 86

Concessions /Commercial Services 87
Transportation Services 87
The Royale Line 87
Grand Portage-Isle Royale
Transportation Line, Inc. 87
Isle Royale Seaplane Service 87
National Park Concessions, Inc. 87
Other Commercial Services 87


APPENDLXES, BIBLIOGRAPHY, PREPARERS, INDEX.

point where visitors are either unable or unwilling
to pay the higher costs. Special Directive 83-2
provides an exception under which the National
Park Service can subsidize a concessioner’s utility
costs if those costs are excessively high. Such a
subsidy is dependent on available NPS funds and
the need for those funds by other competing
program areas.

194


Wilderness Experience and Noise

Crowding impacts would be reduced due to the
reduction in visitation. There would be no non-
motorized sensitive or quiet/no-wake zones, so
noise would not be reduced in specific areas, but
motorboats would be heard somewhat less
frequently islandwide due to lower visitation
levels.

Relocating the McCargoe Cove dock would
reduce noise and motorboat traffic at the head of
the cove. Providing separate campsites for hikers
and paddlers at three locations would reduce
impacts on such users from motorboats.

Range of Uses

The current range of uses would continue.
Separation of uses in some areas and ‘the lower
level of visitation islandwide would lower the
potential for impacts on visitor experiences, but
because use levels would not be managed through
zoning, occasional crowding could occur in
certain areas. Visitors would have substantial
freedom to move about the island.

Unavailability of funding for concession
subsidies would probably result in higher costs to
the consumer and might price some individuals
out of the market. If the concession operation
fails, people unable to visit the island without
those services would be displaced.

Visitor Use Levels

Visitors would have to plan ahead to visit the
island, spontaneous trips might be curtailed, and
some people might have to wait as long as a year
between visits. If overnight accommodations
cannot be sustained, some visitors could stop
coming to the island.

Safety

There would be no change.

127

Alternative E

IMPACTS ON THE
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

Modifications to some facilities would provide
short-term economic benefits to a few individuals
and businesses. Phasing of the work would spread
the benefits over the life of the various projects.

Impacts would be insignificant in the gateway
community economies over the long-term.
Visitation would be reduced, which would reduce
the park contribution to the local economies.
However, there are many other tourist attractions
in the affected areas, and this disturbance of the
tourism industry would be absorbed in time with
relatively minor long-term negative impacts.

If changes to the concessions at Rock Harbor
resulted in fewer visitors traveling to the island
from Copper Harbor and Grand Portage, those
communities could be negatively affected.
However, there are many other tourist attractions
in the affected areas, and this disturbance of the
tourism industry would be absorbed in due time
with relatively small long-termi negative impacts.

IMPACTS ON PARK OPERATIONS

Some increased maintenance workload would
result from adaptive use and preservation of
historic structures.

Management of a reservation system could result
in a significant operational workload. Some
workload increase would also result from
increased interpretation services.

There would be some reduction in fee revenue
and reduced income from passenger
transportation on the Ranger III.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Emphasis and focus would be placed on cultural
resource research and monitoring and on
preservation of certain cultural resources.
Knowledge gained and facilities protected would
complement historic preservation efforts across
the region.


PUBLIC COMMENTS, INCLUDING CONSOLIDATED SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS
ISLE ROYALE DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN/
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS

The Draft General Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for Isle Royale National
Park was released for public comment in March 1998. Responses were received by mail, internet, and
at four public meetings (St. Paul and Duluth, Minnesota, and Houghton and Ann Arbor, Michigan).
Written comments were received from almost 300 individuals, agencies, and organizations, including
a petition with an extensive list of names; over 300 comments were submitted on the internet (half of
those comments may be attributable to a single individual); and there were 75-150 people at each of
the four meetings. The number of comments is impressive, but the responses have been focused on
understanding the comment patterns and trends among the many different ideas, concerns, complaints,
and compliments that were expressed.

Many people found the proposed plan to be reasonable and, while not perfect for everyone, many
people indicated that they could live with the proposal as drafted. There were, however, several areas
of contention.

The greatest number of comments addressed the issue of the proposed nonmotorized waters zone.
Many commenters expressed their desire for much more nonmotorized area than proposed (one
comment included a petition with hundreds of individual signatures). Many stated that the existing
level of motor noise is inconsistent with expectations of a wilderness area. Other commenters opposed
the nonmotorized zones as being unduly restrictive to motorboaters and sailors.

Most commenters expressed support for the proposed motorized sensitive zones, though many
suggested that the zones be renamed to be more descriptive of the desired quiet, no-wake conditions.
Some people suggested that the amount of motorized sensitive zone be increased.

Another major point of contention was the proposed removal and relocation of docks. Some people
expressed support for and others opposed the changes in dock locations, particularly at McCargoe
Cove and Siskiwit Bay. Many commenters who favored moving the docks voiced support for
separating motorized and nonmotorized uses to reduce noise in some areas. Many of those opposed to
changes were concerned about losing motorized access to certain areas, felt that the proposal
discriminated against motorboaters, or felt that the changes would be too costly.

Some people expressed concern about the reduction of overnight lodging facilities at Rock Harbor,
while others indicated that they believe some reduction to be appropriate. Several people stated that
the proposal to remove the shoreline motel units was premature and suggested that additional options
should be considered for modifying the structures in some fiscally responsible way.

Other frequently heard responses included: opposition to removal of the Chippewa Harbor trail
segment, requests for additional canoe/kayak campsites, support for and opposition to visitor
reservation systems or other limiting measures for managing visitation, concern about the role of the
United Nations in the park’s U.S, Biosphere Reserve designation, and suggestions for making the
park’s operations more environmentally sustainable. Several environmental organizations expressed

135


Consultation and Coordination

wilderness mechanized equipment such as motors must be left behind. Boaters may access the
land portion by hiking, paddling, tying to shore, or using small auxiliary craft.

Comment: The General Management Plan should include a ban on the use of jet skis.

Response: The General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement hans §
Isle Royale National Park.

Docks

Comment; Some people commented that it would be wasteful to spend money to remove docks that
have any expected use life remaining and build new ones in new locations. Others said the plan should
call for installation of new docks prior to elimination or closure of other docks.

Response: All four docks proposed for removal (Siskiwit, Three Mile, McCargoe, and Duncan
Bay) would have to be replaced within the life of the plan, even if they were to remain. The
intent of the plan is to not remove docks until replacements are constructed in the same
general area (i.e., the Siskiwit Bay dock would not be removed until new docks were available
at Wright Island and Hay Bay. Similarly, the Duncan Bay dock would not be removed until
the new dock at Crystal Cove was available for public use).

Comment: Some commenters said docks are needed for emergency response in the backcountry. One
person suggested that cleats and bollards be removed from docks proposed for removal, but the docks
be left in place for emergency evacuations until they deteriorate to the point that they must be
removed.

Response: The docks proposed for removal are not needed for emergency evacuations or
response. Park personnel routinely access shoreline areas lacking docks during both routine
and emergency operations.

Comment: Keep the public dock at Threemile but make it day use only; it is popular with boaters,
including lodge guests, who use it for accessing the Mount Franklin Trail.

Response: The dock at Three Mile is in poor condition and would have to be replaced if it
were to remain. It is subject to ice damage, severe weather conditions, and boat wakes.
Visitors wishing to access Mount Franklin could still reach it via the trail system.

Comment: Removing the Siskiwit Bay dock would eliminate trail access from the whole southwest
end of the island.

Response: It is true that the closest docks (Windigo and Malone Bay) will be considerably
farther from the southwestern portion of the island than the Siskiwit Bay dock. Boaters might
choose, however, to anchor larger boats in Siskiwit Bay and take a dinghy ashore or beach
smaller boats to take hikes or visit beaches in this area There are several reasons for
proposing the removal of the dock at Siskiwit Bay: (1) the dock and campground have
become problematic for many users who are seeking quiet wilderness experiences and for

141


THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES,

education, or research programs. One example
could be a retreat for creative and innovative
conservation study, similar to the artist-in-
residence program but directed toward consid-
eration of environmental problems. Results
could supplement the park’s environmental
education program. Maintenance of the sites
would be dependent on the establishment of
partnerships.

The Edisen Fishery and Rock Harbor Lighthouse
would continue to be maintained and interpreted.
At Crystal Cove (east end of Amygdaloid
Island), Wright Island, and Fishermans Home,
which are former commercial fishing sites, the
structures and other features would be evaluated
for adaptive use. Depending on the outcome of
historic structure and cultural landscape
inventories for these areas, the park would seek
partnerships (including use and occupancy
arrangements) to maintain docks and structures.
When the Passage Island, Isle Royale, and Rock
of Ages Lighthouses are transferred to the
National Park Service, partners would be sought
to help stabilize, maintain, and interpret them
and their surroundings.

Rock Harbor, Windigo, and the Mott Island
headquarters and administrative site would be in
the developed zones and would remain much as
they are now, except that overnight accommo-
dations at Rock Harbor would be more rustic,
and some services would be reduced or
eliminated (see Concessions Services section).

Frontcountry zones would be near developed
areas and where there are natural or cultural
features of special interest, such as bogs, scenic
views, and historic lighthouses. Day use,
interpretation, and educational opportunities
would be emphasized. To provide maximum
access for day users, and to protect sensitive
resources, no overnight use would be permitted
except in established campgrounds or at
designated docks (for example, there would be
no overnight use at Raspberry Island or Edisen
Fishery). The only new action needed to
implement this concept would be to use
disturbed areas and historic structures at Barnum

Island and the east end of Washington Island for
an interpretive and/or research facility. Docks
would be available at both islands, and anew
campground would be developed at Washington
Island if it could be added in a way that would
not detract from other uses. Long-term
maintenance of these areas could be dependent
on funding from private sources/partners.

Five sites would serve as wilderness portal
zones. These areas would continue to serve as
water taxi and secondary ferry stops and would
allow for continued access to wilderness areas.
To help control numbers of visitors entering the
wilderness at these points, pickups and dropoffs
could be limited. Actions to implement this
concept would include:

* The McCargoe Cove dock would be relocated
somewhat closer to the mouth of the cove, and a
new boater campground would be added. This
would reduce noise and vessel traffic at the head
of the cove. The campground at the head of the
cove would remain for use by hikers and
paddlers.

« The Chippewa Harbor hiking trail access from
the campground to the south end of Lake Richie,
including the Lake Mason spur, would be
retained. The Indian Portage trail between the
south end of Lake Richie and the east end of
Lake Richie would be eliminated in order to
relieve use pressure in the area, separate uses,
and protect area archeological resources. A few
campsites would be added near the campground
at Chippewa Harbor if the need to separate uses
in the Chippewa Harbor area continues after the
trail closure.

+ A new group campsite at Belle Isle would be
established.

Most trails would be zoned as backcountry,
indicating that they can accommodate moderate
levels of use and that group use would continue
at current levels. Where campgrounds or docks
are in sensitive resource areas, potential resource
impacts would be mitigated by allowing
camping only at docks or by directing use to


APPENDIXES, BIBLIOGRAPHY, PREPARERS, INDEX

Macoun's buttercup
Prairie buttercup
Gooseberry
Pearlwort

Satiny willow
Tea-leaved willow
Encrusted saxifrage
Prickly saxifrage
Rayless mountain ragwort
Awlwort

False asphodel
Downy oatgrass
Dwarf bilberry
Alpine blueberry
Mountain-cranberry
Squashberry
Northern woodsia

Unc = uncommon

Ranunculus macounii
Ranunculus rhomboideus
Ribes oxyacanthoides
Sagina nodosa

Salix pellita

Satix planifolia
Saxifraga paniculata (S. aizoon)
Saxifraga tricuspidata
Senecio indecorus
Sublaria aquatica
Tofieldia pusilla
Trisetum spicatum
Vaccinium cespitosum
Vaccinium uliginosum
Vaccinium vitis-idaea
Viburnum edule
Woodsia alpina

GS
G4
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
G4G5
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS

Sl

S2
$3
82
S2
SH
Sl

82
Sl

Sl
$2
$2
S182
S2
SX
$283
Sl

rare
unc
frequent
unc

rare

unc

Tare

unc

unc

rare

unc
frequent
rare

rare

rare
common
rare

QAGAGAARAYD
Z RAgra

AaxaA

List compiled from “Michigan’s Special Plants” (June 1992 list), Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources

COMMON NAME

Lake Sturgeon

Cisco or lake herring*
Siskiwit Lake cisco**
Kiyi

Shortjaw cisco
Spoonhead sculpin
*subspecies
**species

COMMON NAME

Moose

Gray Wolf

Lynx

Marten

Woodland caribou

Compiled from “Michigan’s Special Animals” (June 1994), Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources

STATE-LISTED FISH

SCIENTIFIC NAME RANK
GLOBAL STATE
Acipenser fulvescens G3 $2
Coregonus artedii GS $3
Coregonus bartletti GIQ_ Sl
Coregonus kiyi G3 $3
Coregonus zenithicus G3 $2
Cottus ricei GS? $3

STATE-LISTED MAMMALS

SCIENTIFIC NAME

Alces alces

Canis lupus

Felis lynx

Martes americana
Rangifer tarandus

196

1992 STATUS
US MI
C2 T

T

sc
C2 sc
C2 T

sc

RANK
GLOBAL STATE
GS $3
G4 SI
GS SI
GS $2
GS SX

1992 STATUS

US MI

Sc

LELT E

C2 E
T

LE x



APPENDIXES, BIBLIOGRAPHY, PREPARERS, INDEX

3 7 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ew, 3 REGION 5
SZ 2 77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD
nee CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590
prove

REPLY TO THE ATTENTION OF:

B-19J

Ms. Marilyn Hof

Isle Royale General Management Plan Project Leader
National Park Service, Denver Service Center

P.O. Box 25287

Denver, CO 80225

Dear Ms. Hof:

In accordance with our responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
and section 309 of the Clean Air Act, we have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) on the Isle Royale General Management Plan. We have consolidated
comments that we have received from our Lake Superior Team, Critical Ecosystem Team
and the Great Lakes National Program Office, along with the comments from the
Environmental Review Group. Our detailed comments on the DEIS are expressed in the
remainder of this letter.

The Purpose and Needs statement (p.4), under OVERVIEW states that, “A new plan is
needed to provide an cverall guide for the future use of resources and facilities, to clarify
research and resource management needs and priorities .. . "; and continues under
ISSUES, “The natural resource program at Isle Royale is committed to developing a basic
understanding of the park's resources and ecosystem and monitoring the health of those
resources and processes.” Yet, on page 28, the Resources Management Plan, which
includes inventorying and monitoring, is characterized as one of the “IMPLEMENTATION
PLANS TO FOLLOW THIS GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN.” Moving to Appendix B,
where the work is scheduled and funded, the Resources Management Plan is not
scheduled and not funded. The Purpose and Needs section indicates that Iste Royale
National Park needs a new resource management plan, which will utilize inventorying and

monitoring data to help make decisions, however this document does not indicate how that
will occur.

Adaptive management of natural resources is being advocated by many land and
fesources management agencies. Inventorying and monitoring are important components
of adaptive management and Isle Royale should be commended for the commitment to
inventorying and monitoring under the proposed action as noted in Appendix B. Careful
consideration of parameters to be measured during inventorying and monitoring, and
consideration of how those data will be used in future adaptive management decision-
making, are prerequisite to actual data collection. For these reasons, a draft resource
management plan would be very useful in the overall design of a comprehensive inventory
and monitoring program. if this path were followed, the scheduling of some of the

214


CONTENTS

Commercial Services Plan 29
Comprehensive Interpretive Plan 29

Park Management Zones 30
Land Zones 30
Zones for Lake Superior Waters 32
Nonmotorized Waters Zone 33

The Proposed Action 34

Overall Concept 34

Park Management Zoning 34

Concession Services 38
Rock Harbor 38
Windigo 39
Transportation Services 40

Plan Implementation 40

Alternative B 43
Overall Concept 43
Park Management Zoning 43
Concessions Services 44
Plan Implementation 45

Alternative C 49
Overall Concept 49
Park Management Zones 49
Concessions Services 50
Plan Implementation 51

Alternative E 55
Overall Concept 55
Park Management Zoning 55
Concessions Services 56
Plan Implementation 56

Actions Eliminated from Detailed Study 59
Shipboard Overnight Accommodations 59
Additional (Dispersed) Campsites 59
Additional Trails 59

Affected Environment

Natural Resources 69
Special Designations 69
Wilderness 69
U.S. Biosphere Reserve 69

viii



THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES,

PARK MANAGEMENT ZONES

Management zones identify how different areas
of the park could be managed to achieve a
variety of resource and social conditions and
serve recreational needs. Each zone specifies a
particular combination of physical, biological,
social, and management conditions. Different
actions would be taken by the Park Service in
different zones with regard to the types and
levels of uses and facilities.

Nine possible zones have been described that
could be appropriate to various areas on and
around Isle Royale. Ideas for the range of zones
came from responses to the newsletters and from
park staff. In formulating alternatives for future
park conditions and management, these zones
were placed in different locations or
configurations on the ground.

Some zones were applied only to areas outside
designated wilderness (such as the developed
zone), and some were applied either in or outside
of designated wilderness (such as the back-
country zone). The characteristics of any zone
applied inside wilderness are consistent with
specified conditions such as avoidance of
manmade intrusions and opportunities for
solitude. The different zones illustrate that even
in wilderness, experiences vary. The experience
on a well-marked, maintained trail where
encounters with a few other hikers would be
expected is very different from a totally untrailed
experience where any encounter might be
intrusive. Zoning in wilderness allows for a
range of experiences.

Land Zones (Including Inland Lakes)
Developed Zone.

Visitor Experience — In this highly developed
zone, facilities would be convenient and
accessible; there would be little need for visitors
to physically exert themselves, use outdoor
skills, or make a long time commitment to see
the area. Opportunities for adventure would be

30

relatively unimportant. These areas would
provide many social experiences, and the
probability of encountering other visitors or NPS
staff would be very high.

Resource Condition or Character — The NPS
tolerance for resource degradation would be
moderate. Resources would be modified for
visitor and park operational needs. Visitors and
facilities would be intensively managed in this
zone for resource protection and visitor safety.
Although buildings, structures, and other signs
of human activity would be fairly obvious, there
would be natural elements present. The zone
would not be in designated wilderness nor would
it be located near sensitive natural or cultural
resources if such resources could not be
adequately protected. This zone would be
confined to relatively small areas.

Appropriate Kinds of Activities or Facilities —
This land-based zone would include visitor and
administrative facilities such as visitor centers,
lodges, maintenance areas, and residences.
Primary ferry landings, large docks, and marinas
could be included in this zone. Paved paths and
other walkways connecting facilities could be
appropriate.

Frontcountry Zone.

Visitor Experience — Compared to most other
zones, the frontcountry zone would offer visitors
a fairly structured experience with onsite
interpretation and education. Visitors would feel
that they were in a natural park setting, but they
would not be more than a typical day’s hike or a
short boat ride from developed facilities. To use
this area visitors would make a short time
commitment and would have to physically exert
themselves to some degree. There would be
limited challenge or adventure, and there would
be little need for outdoor skills. At certain times
of day or season there would be opportunities for
solitude, but in general the probability of
encountering other visitors would be high; use
levels at attractions could be limited to ensure
quality interpretive experiences. The probability



ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Ethnographic Resources

No ethnographic resources have been identified
in the park to date. If any ethnographic resources
were identified the park would follow legal
requirements and NPS policy to protect these
resources.

Park Collections

None of the alternatives would impact the park’s
collections (museum artifacts, animal specimens,
etc.). These are currently being stored and
catalogued according to NPS curation standards
and guidelines, and the facilities are anticipated to
be adequate for the duration of this plan. No
alternative would change the status of these
resources.

Environmental Justice Policy
(Executive Order 12898)

This order requires federal agencies to
incorporate environmental justice into their
missions by identifying and addressing
disproportionately high and adverse human health
or environmental effects of their programs and
policies on minorities and low income
populations and communities. The alternatives
would have no such adverse effects.

* The developments and actions proposed in the
proposed action would not result in any
identifiable adverse human health effects.
Therefore, there would be no direct or indirect
negative or adverse effects on any minority or
low-income population or community.

108

+ The impacts on the natural and physical
environment that occur due to implementation of
the alternatives would not significantly and
adversely affect any minority or low-income
population or community.

+ The alternatives would not result in any effects
that would be specific to any minority or low-
income community.

+ The National Park Service has had an active
public participation program and has considered
all public input regardless of age, race, income
status, or other socioeconomic or demographic
factors.

+ Consultations were conducted with Native
Americans, and no negative or adverse effects
were identified that disproportionally and
adversely affect these minority groups.

+ Impacts on the socioeconomic environment
from the alternatives would be minor and would
be confined mostly within the local and regional
geographic area near the park. These impacts
would not occur at one time but would spread
over a number of years, thus mitigating their
effects. Impacts on the socioeconomic
environment are not expected to significantly
alter the physical and social structure of the
nearby communities.


APPENDIXES, BIBLIOGRAPHY, PREPARERS, INDEX

6954

to the high standards that have been: Ibed for such estab-

pari primit usual

wild life and interesting. flora, its evidences.of possible prehistoric

cecupation, all combine to make Isle Royale and its neighboring
islands of national park caliber.

It 1s this very wnustainess which will also present unusual

problems far development, if and when created as a national park.

ys unending
beenes of marvelous beauty would be unfolded, without disturb:
ing the wilderness character of the area ar the wild life. Such
development of the inner section of the park would be paralleled

by the boat routes through the channels surrounding the
‘The matter of establishing this national park was Srst senoualy
Brought to the attention of the deparrment in 1924 through the
conservation associations which were actively

who gave it his unqualified approval. He was much {m| and
very enthusiastic over the possibilities. It has been visited and

Life Resources
States Senate, and other members of that committee.
cussions of the possible creation of this park, the department and
the service, while being favorable to the project, have taken the
stand that the only condition: under which the project would be
acceptable under established policies would be that ail the area

t this point that, while all ex-
cept B21 acteo of the island, whieh are public land” are in pri-
vate or State ownership, the head of one of the large copper com-

‘the island hss indicated

Hoxace M. AtsnicHr, Director.
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
A message from the House of Representatives by Mr.
Chaffee, one of its clerks, announced that the House had
passed without amendment the following bills of the Senate:
8.5455. An act to authorize an additional appropriation
of $7,500 for the completion of the acquisition of land in the
eng OF on ACT ce 8S & target range in connection with
Port Ethan Allen, Vt.;

S. 5588. ‘An act to add certain public lands to the Washa-

kie National Forest, Wyoming;
8, 6078. An act to provide for the commemoration of the

‘The message further announced that the House had passed
the following bills of the Senate, each with amendments, in
which it requested the concurrence of the Senate:

8,101. An act to provide for producers and others the
benefit of official tests to determine protein in wheat for use
in merchandising the same to the best advantage, and for
acquiring and disseminating information relative to protein
in wheat, and for other purposes; and

& 5724. An act authorizing the George Washington Bi-
Centennial Commission to print and distribute additional
sets of the writings of George Washington.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE

Marcy 3

The message also announced that the House had passed
the bill (S. 6169) to extend the restrictive period against
alienation of any interest of restricted heirs of members at
the Five Civilized Tribes, and for other purposes, with an
amendment, in which it’ requested the concurrence of the
Senate.

ENROLLED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTION SIGNED

‘The message further announced that the Speaker had
affixed his signature to the following enrolled bills and joint
resolution, and they were signed by the President pro
tempore:

8.5033. An act to authorize an appropriation of tribal
funds to purchase certain privately owned lands within the
Fort Apache Indian Reservation, Ariz.

5455. An act to authorize an additional appropriation
of $7,500 for the completion of the acquisition of land in

the | the vicinity of and for use as a target range in connection
in | With Fort Ethan Allen, Vt.;

§. 5524. An act to coordinate the agricultural: experiment-
station work and to extend the benefits of certain acts of
Congress to the Territary of Porto Rico;

8.6011. An act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior
to purchase certain land in California for addition to the
Cahuilla Indian Reservation, and issuance of a patent to the
band of Indians therefor;

§. 6078. An act to provide far the commemoration of the
Battle of Fort Necessity, Pa.;

S. 6128. An act to amend sections 17 and 27 of the general
leasing act of February 25, 1920 (41 Stat. 437; U. S. C., title
30, sées, 184 and 226), as amended;

8. 6346. An act to provide for distribution of tribal funds
of the Puyallup Indians. of the State of Washington;

8.6271. An act relating to the tenure of congressional
members of the George Washington Bicentennial Com-
mission;

H.R. 8677. An act for the relief of certain disbursing
officers.of the Army of the United States and for the settle-
ment of individual claims approved by the War Department;

HR. 15493. An act to authorize the Secretary of War to.
lease to the city of Little Rock portions of the Little Rock
air depot, Ark., and for other purposes; and

H. J. Res. 303. Joint resolution to amend Public Resolution
No. 80, Seventieth Congress, second session, relating to pay-
ment of certain claims of grain elevators and grain firms.

HOUSE BILL REFERRED

The bill (H. R. 17262) granting pensions and increase of
pensions to certain soldiers and sailors of the Regular Army
and Navy, and so forth, and certain soldiers and sailors of
wars other than the Civil War, and to widows of such
soldiers and sailors, was read twice by its title and referred
to the Committee on Pensions.

ECONOMIC DIVESTIGATION IN THE OIL; COAL, LUMBER, AND OTHER

Mr. SMOOT. Mr. President, the the Finance Committee met.
to-day and considered the joint resolution (HL. J. Res. 525)
to provide for the investigation of economic conditions in
the oil, coal, lumber, manganese, asbestos, and agricultural
industries, and for other purposes, I am authorized as chair-
man of the committee to repart it to the Senate and ask
unanimous consent for its.immediate consideration.

Mr. LA FOLLETTE. I object.

-The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is made.

MINING EXPERIMENT STATION, COLLEGE PARK, MD.

‘The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate the
amendments of the House af Representatives to the bill
<S, 5220) authorizing the establishment of a mining experi-
ment station of the Bureau. af Mines at College Park, Md.,
which were, on page 1, line 11, after the word “site,” to
insert “of not less than 20 acres”; on page 2, Tine 2, after
the word “donated,” to insert “and conveyed by deed con-
veying absolute title,” and on the same page, line 3, to
strikeout all after the word “ purpose " down to and includ-
ing the word “ indicated * in line 4

202


SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Public involvement for the general management
plan at Isle Royale began with a workshop for
representatives of key park stakeholders that was
held in February 1994. The GMP effort formally
began in July 1995. The planning team met on
the island to familiarize team members from
outside the park with the resources and to discuss
the scope and issues of the plan. During that trip
the planning team spoke about the project at two
public programs. In November 1995 the public
was formally notified of the planning effort and
introduced to the planning process by means of
Newsletter #1. The rest of the park staff (those
not on the planning team) were introduced to the
process and their comments were solicited as
part of public involvement.

Part of the framework for the plan (and the first
task for the planning team) was to define the
purpose and significance of the park using the
input from the 1994 workshop. In Newsletter #2
the public was asked to review the planning
team’s purpose and significance statements and a
list of 26 preliminary issues. Nearly 300
responses were received and 50-60 people
attended each public meeting in Duluth,
Minnesota, and Houghton and Lansing,
Michigan, to provide additional comments. The
original mailing list of 1,000 quickly rose to
nearly 2,500 people, which indicated intense
interest in Isle Royale even at the early stages of
planning.

The results of the public input from Newsletter
#2 were presented in June 1996 via Newsletter

#3. The revised purpose and significance
statements, park emphasis statements, revised
issues statements, potential management zones,
and possible alternative concepts were presented.
There were again a large number of responses
and the results were reported in November 1996
in Newsletter #4.

Using the public input, the planning team
developed the alternative concepts in more detail
and presented them with maps in Newsletter #5
in February 1997. Public meetings were held in
Ann Arbor and Houghton, Michigan, and ‘
Duluth, Minnesota, to present the management
alternatives for public comment in March 1997.
There was significant response to the newsletter
and each meeting was attended by 75 to 150
people. Using that input the planning team
developed a preliminary preferred alternative,
which was presented in Newsletter #6 in July
1997,

A Draft General Management Plan was
produced and distributed for public review in
March 1998. Public meetings were held in April
1998 at St. Paul and Duluth, Minnesota, and
Houghton and Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Approximately 75-150 people attended each of
the meetings. Additionally, nearly 600 responses
were received by mail or on the internet. The
preferred alternative was subsequently revised
and is presented in this Final General
Management Plan / Environmental Impact
Statement.




SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

Five alternatives were developed in the course of
preparing this Final General Management Plan/
Environmental Impact Statement. The
alternatives grew out of park purpose,
significance, and emphasis statements. Park
purpose statements were based on the park’s
legislation and legislative history, other special
designations, and NPS policies; they reaffirm the
reasons for which Isle Royale was set aside as
part of the national park system and provide a
foundation for park management and use.
Significance statements capture the essence of
the park’s importance to the country’s natural
and cultural heritage. Emphasis statements were
also written and incorporate key resources and
stories that characterize Isle Royale National
Park. They serve as broad guiding principles for
park programs and for priority setting.

Before and during preparation of the alternatives
several newsletters were sent out and public
meetings were held to gather input. The original
alternative D was revised and became the
proposed action, which was reviewed as part of
the Draft General Management Plan /
Environmental Impact Statement. It has been
further modified as a result of comments
received. The Final General Management Plan/
Environmental Impact Statement is intended to
guide the management of Isle Royale National
Park over at least the next 15-20 years.

ALTERNATIVES

Alternative A is the no-action, or status quo,
alternative and provides a baseline for compar-
ison of the other four alternatives. The proposed
action is intended to meet the diverse expecta-
tions and needs of Isle Royale visitors while
emphasizing the natural quiet that is fundamental
to wilderness experiences. All park areas would
be available to all visitors as long as users
participate in ways that are consistent with the
access, facilities, and opportunities provided.
Alternative B would expand facilities and

services at the ends of the island and create a
more primitive experience toward the center.
Cultural resources would be preserved only in
areas at the ends of the island. Use limits would
be imposed in some zones. Some facilities in
developed areas would be expanded to serve
visitors preparing to enter the backcountry.
Alternative C would scale back all development
to create a more primitive park. No interpretive
media or formal programs would be offered on
the island. All cultural resources would be
documented and allowed to deteriorate. A
narrower range of experiences would be avail-
able. Visitor numbers would be lowered and use
limits would be instituted islandwide.
Concessions and related facilities would be
removed, Alternative D was modified to
become the proposed action, above. Alternative
E would allow management of the park to con-
tinue as it is now, but visitor numbers would be
controlled and would be low. Historic structures
would be preserved according to significance. A
variety of uses would continue and would take
place across the island.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The potential impacts of the actions in the
alternatives on natural resources, cultural
resources, visitor use and experiences, park
operations, and the socioeconomic environment
have been evaluated. In general, all alternatives
would better protect the park’s natural resources
than the current management direction (alterna-
tive A). Alternative C would provide the most
benefit to natural resources, but would have the
most negative effects on cultural resources and
on visitor use. The proposed action and alterna-
tive E would best protect cultural resources.
Impacts on park operations from the alternatives
would be mixed; the workload would remain
roughly the same (except in alternative C, where
it would be.reduced), but the emphasis would
change depending on the alternative. The
alternatives would not appreciably affect the
socioeconomic environment.


ALTERNATIVE B

IMPACTS ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Wildlife

This alternative proposes little new campground
and dock construction and demolition of more
than 10 facilities throughout the park, which
would temporarily disturb and permanently
displace some wildlife. This alternative also
proposes new facility construction at Rock
Harbor and Windigo; however, habitat is mar-
ginal in those areas due to current uses. The net
loss of habitat would be minimal due to the
rehabilitation of sites where facilities would be
demolished. Much of the new construction would
be in previously disturbed areas that have had
some degree of human use, but some increased
use could occur and increase disturbance. The
removal of facilities and the general decrease in
human activity in the middle of the island would
more than compensate for the increased facilities
and activity toward the ends. Overall visitor use
of the park would be monitored and managed,
which would reduce general wildlife disturbance
compared to alternative A.

A moderate amount of protection would be
afforded to waterfowl and their nesting sites near
the shoreline compared to the other alternatives,
and a significant amount of protection would be
afforded compared to alternative A.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Increased activity at the ends of the island and
proposed new campgrounds would cause wolves
to avoid areas that they presently use. If wolves
from this area were forced into an area already
used by another wolf pack, the viability of one or
both packs could be threatened. For species in the
middle of the island, habitats would be generally
improved as the result of less human presence.
Potential for disturbance to bald eagles or
peregrine falcons would be reduced in the middle
of the island and could increase at the ends of the
island.

120

Designated Wilderness

Park activities would delay for the foreseeable
future the conversion of five potential wilderness
areas to wilderness. There-would be a delay in
conversion of one additional area (in order to
preserve cultural resources), and nonconforming
uses would be eliminated in one area.

Geologic Processes

Removal of the Siskiwit dock and breakwater
would permit natural shoreline processes to

return, particularly the movement of sand and
sediment along the shoreline in Siskiwit Bay.

Water Quality

Water quality impacts would be the same as the
proposed action except that hydrocarbon
emissions from motorboats would be reduced in
the three coves zoned nonmotorized. The
ecological effects of this reduction are not
expected to be appreciable for the reasons
outlined in the impacts of alternative A.

IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES
Archeological Resources

In the short term, the construction necessary for
the slight expansion of park housing at Windigo,
expansion of water and sewer treatment capacity
at Rock Harbor and Windigo, development of six
new campgrounds, and construction of two new
docks and removal of seven docks could have
negative impacts by disturbing known or
presently unknown archeological resources. In
the long term, the placement of campground and
docks could result in the disturbance of
archeological resources by visitor use.

The establishment of nonmotorized and quiet/no-
wake zones would benefit submerged and


AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Windigo

Public facilities at Windigo are used primarily by
visitors who enter the park from the north shore
of Minnesota and include a 19-site campground,
five docks, a shower/restroom building, visitor
center, and concession store. Visitors reach
Windigo by concession ferry from Grand
Portage, Minnesota, by concession seaplane from
Houghton, Michigan, or by private boat. Windigo
serves as the winter base of operations for the
annual wolf/moose study.

A new 2,300-square-foot visitor center/ranger
station is being built to replace an old facility of
the same size that will be demolished. Windigo
has nine employee housing units for the four
permanent and 6-10 seasonal employees. NPS
facilities include water treatment and storage
facilities, five bulk fuel storage tanks, a small
community building, and maintenance shop. All
electrical power is produced by diesel generators.
Sewage treatment is provided by two separate
leachfield/septic tank systems.

Rock Harbor

The National Park Service and National Park
Concessions, Inc., both operate public and
administrative facilities at Rock Harbor.

The NPCI facilities and services at Rock Harbor
are detailed in the Commercial Services section.
All of the principal structures used by the
concession are owned by the government.

The size and scope of the concession operation at
Rock Harbor requires the largest and most
sophisticated utility system on the island. All
utility system services required for concession
operations are provided by the National Park
Service. NPS use of these systems represents
about 3% of the total that the systems produce.

In order to correct operational deficiencies
identified in a 1996 safety inspection and a
followup engineering study, the park incurred
substantial new costs to operate the Rock Harbor

98

utility systems in 1997. These costs include
charges for one additional utility systems
operator, extended seasons for the four other
utility systems operators, reestablishment of an
electrician position, and required travel and
training.

NPS facilities that use water, power, and/or sewer
utilities at Rock Harbor include three employee
housing units for one permanent and 8-10
seasonal employees, a small visitor center, a 22-
site walk-in campground, an auditorium, a public
bathroom, a first aid cabin, several storage
buildings, and the main ferry dock.

Electrical Power Plant and Distribution
System. There are three diesel powered
generators ranging in size from 135kw—275kw in
a powerhouse. The electrical distribution system
consists of 35 transformers, 150 poles, 3,000 feet
of high line and 500 feet of underground
powerline. :

Water Supply Treatment System. A mixed
media filtration type surface water treatment plant
with a 70-gallon per minute capacity supplies
water to the Rock Harbor area. A state- certified
operator is required whenever the plant is in
operation. A state-certified water laboratory and
certified lab technicians are also required. Water
is stored in a 40,000-gallon clear well and in an
elevated 15,000-gallon tank. The elevated tank is
in poor condition and (due to lack of height) fails
to provide water pressure sufficient to meet
Michigan Department of Public Health
requirements. A four-inch pipeline distribution
system with three dead ends is in use. There is
about 9,000 feet of water line on the system.

Wastewater System and Collection Systems.

The wastewater plant is an activated sludge,
extended aeration type with a capacity of 30,000
gallons per day. Though the plant is operational,
system improvements and additions are needed.
All state health department requirements are
being met. The plant is operated under a state of
Michigan discharge permit. Michigan requires a
state-certified operator for the system. There is a


| Mone GLAND,

| 0 if 2MILES |
| a ——————— ||

= y ! | PASSAGE ISLAND LIGHTHOUSE
J i

BEAVER ISLAND. /

WINDIGO

JOHNS ISLAN(

LAKE
RICHIE

‘CHIPPEWA HARBOR

DUNCAN BAY

TO MINNESOTA

MOTT ISLAND

SISKIWIT BAY

WINDIGO

CARIBOU ISLAND
EDISEN FISHERY
1

ROCK HARBOR LIGHTHOUSE

SSS ee SS

FISHERMAN
HOME a

@ dock OPEN WATER MOTORIZED: ALTERNATIVE E
Park Heavouanrens enonrcounrey |] Pare ron) [fff] ove Ho wae wares roe ; =
Cancer station Isle Royale National Park * Michigan
FEREYRDUTE WILDERNESS PORTAL PRISTINE NONMOTORIZED WATERS (none) United States Department of the Interior + National Park Service
DSC + JUL 98 + 139 » 20020A.

2 3 4 5 MILES + TRAILS
NOTE: WATER ZONES APPLY TO LAKE

‘SUPERIOR ONLY.



APPENDIX D: STATE THREATENED AND ENDANGERED PLANTS, FISH,
MAMMALS, BIRDS, AND AMPHIBIANS OF ISLE ROYALE NATIONAL PARK

e@ (updated January 1998)

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME RANK 1992 STATUS
GLOBAL STATE US MI ABUNDANCE

Wild chives Allium schoenoprasum GS Sl E une
Round-leaved orchid Amerorchis rotundifolia Gs S$] E rare
Rosy pussytoes Antennaria rosea G4G5 SH T rare
Big leaf sandwort Arenaria macrophylla G4 SI T rare
Great northern aster Aster modestus GS Sl T rare
Western moonwort Botrychium hesperium G3 Sl T rare
Slough grass Beckmannia syzigachne GS SI T rare
Low northern rock-cress Braya humilis G4 Sl T
Reedgrass Calamagrostis lacustris G2G3Q SI T rare
Narrow-leaved reedgrass Calamagrostis stricta G4 SI T.
Autumnal water starwort Callitriche hermaphroditica GS S2 sc rare
Calypso orchid Calypso bulbosa G5 S2 T une
Sedge Carex atratiformis GS S2 T unc
Sedge Carex media (norvegica) G5 $283 T frequent
Eastern paintbrush Castilleja septentrionalis G5 $283 T common
Purple clematis Clematis occidentatis GS $3 sc unc
Small blue-eyed mary Collinsia parviflora GS S2 T rare
Douglas's hawthorn Crataegus douglasii GS S384 sc rare
Ram's head lady-slipper Cypripedium arietinum G3 $3 C3 Sc rare
American rock brake Cryptogramma acrostichoides G5 S2 T unc
Slender rock brake Cryptogramma stelleri G5 S384 sc rare

e@ Wild oatgrass Danthonia intermedia GS $1S2 sc rare
Rock whitlow-grass Draba arabisans G4 $2S3 T une
Smooth whitlow-grass Draba glabella G4G5_ SI T rare
Twisted whitlow-grass Draba incana G5 St T rare
English sundew Drosera anglica G5 $2 sc rare
Spreading wood fern Dryopteris expansa G5 $283 sc une
Fragrant cliff woodfern Dryopteris fragrans GS $3 sc
Black crowberry Empetrum nigrum G5 S2 T rare
Willow herb Epilobium palustre G5 S3 SC unc
American eyebright Euphrasia artica G5 SI T frequent
Moor rush Juncus stygius G5 SI T
Blue lettuce Lactuca pulchella G4 SH T rare
Auricled twayblade Listera auriculata G3 S283 C3 sc rare
Involucred honeysuckle Lonicera involucrata G4G5 S82 T rare
Small-flowered wood-rush Luzula parviflora G5 Sl T unc
Fir clubmoss Lycopodium selago G5 S2S3 sc rare
Water-milfoil Myriophyllum alterniflorum G5 S2$3 sc une
Pygmy water-lily Nymphaea tetragona G5 Sl T rare
Devil's club Oplopanax horridus G4G5 S82 T unc
Sweet cicely Osmorhiza depauperata GS S2 Sc frequent
Marsh grass-of-parnassus Parnassia palustris GS S2 T rare
Franklin's phacelia Phacelia franklinii G4 SI T une
Butterwort Pinguicula vulgaris Gs $3 sc une
Alpine bluegrass Poa alpina GS $182 T rare
Canby's bluegrass Poa canbyi G4G5_ SI T rare

e Alpine buckwheat Polygonum viviparum G5 S182 T unc
Prairie cinquefoil Potentilla pensylvanica G5 SI T unc

195




Chippewa Indians, and Red Cliff band of Lake
Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin. The
letters informed them about the GMP process, let
them know that they had been placed on the GMP
mailing list, and asked them how and to what
extent they would like to be involved. The tribes
received Newsletter #1 in November 1995 and
Newsietier #2 in December i995 and Newsietter
#3 in June 1996.

Park staff met with the Keweenaw Bay tribal
council in Baraga in February 1996 to discuss the
GMP effort and general park issues.

In September 1996 the park received a letter from
the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission requesting a formal consultation
about the general management plan, specifically
to discuss the accommodation of treaty rights.

In December 1996 the park updated the tribal
mailing list and added the Sokaogon Chippewa
community of the Mole Lake band of Chippewa
Indians, St. Croix Chippewa Indians of
Wisconsin, Sault Ste. Marie tribe of Chippewa
Indians of Michigan, Lac Courte Oreilles band of
Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Lac du
Flambeau band of Lake Superior Chippewa
Indians, Minnesota Chippewa tribal executive
committee (which represents six tribes of
Minnesota Chippewa Indians), and the Great
Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission,
which represents 11 bands of Chippewa Indians
of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. These
tribes and organizations were sent Newsletter #4
and the previous three newsletters. The park
confirmed receipt of the mailing.

On January 9, 1997, park staff met in St. Paul
with other NPS personnel to discuss treaty rights,
commercial fishing issues, and GMP tribal
consultation before meeting with the Great Lakes
Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission. That
meeting was scheduled for January 16 but was
canceled due to weather.

The expanded mailing list received Newsletter #5
in March 1997.

In April 1997 park staff met in Odanah,
Wisconsin, with the Lakes Committee of the

Consultation and Coordination

Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission in response to their September 1996
letter requesting a government-to-government
meeting. Present at the meeting were
representatives of the Red Cliff, Keweenaw Bay,
Lac du Flambeau, and Bad River tribes along
with employees of Great Lakes Indian Fish and
Wiidiife Commission.

In June 1997 a letter was sent to the tribes on the
mailing list (excluding the Great Lakes Indian
Fish and Wildlife Commission and the Minnesota
Chippewa Tribal Committee) informing them that
the park was willing to meet at the tribal
headquarters to discuss the general management
plan. The letters also stated that the park would
contact them about scheduling meetings. At that
time the park added the Mille Lacs band of
Chippewa Indians and the Fond du Lac band of
Minnesota Chippewa to the mailing list and sent
them Newsletter #5.

Newsletter #6 was sent to the expanded mailing
list in July 1997.

Park staff began contacting the tribes in July to
determine if they wanted to meet. As a result of
the contacts, Keweenaw Bay, Lac du Flambeau,
Lac Vieux Desert, and Sault Ste. Marie requested
meetings, which were scheduled for November
1997. Bay Mills, Fond du Lac, Mille Lacs, and
Red Cliff declined meetings but asked that they
be kept on the mailing list. Another tribal organ-
ization was added to the mailing list — the 1854
Authority, which represents the treaty rights
(1854 treaty) of Grand Portage and the Bois Forte
band of Chippewa. The park will continue efforts
to contact Mole Lake, Bad River, St. Croix, and
Lac Courte Oreilles to attempt to meet.

On August 12, 1997 park staff met with Grand
Portage Tribal Chairman Norm Deschampe and
other tribal representatives in Grand Portage to
discuss the GMP effort.


CONTENTS

Impacts on the Socioeconomic Environment 117

Impacts on Park Operations 118

Cumulative Impacts 118

Relationship of Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity 118
Unavoidable Adverse Effects 118

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 118

Alternative B 120
Impacts on Natural Resources 120
Wildlife 120
Threatened and Endangered Species 120
Designated Wilderness 120
Geologic Processes 120
Water Quality 120
Impacts on Cultural Resources 120
Archeological Resources 120
Historical Resources 121
Impacts on Visitor Use and Visitor Experience 121
Scenic Quality 121
Wilderness Experience and Noise 121
Range of Uses 121
Visitor Use Levels 121
Safety 121
Impacts on the Socioeconomic Environment 121
Impacts on Park Operations 122
Cumulative Impacts 122

Alternative C 123
Impacts on Natural Resources 123
Wildlife 123
Threatened and Endangered Species 123
Designated Wilderness 123
Geologic Processes 123
Water Quality 123
Impacts on Cultural Resources 123
Archeological Resources 123
Historic Resources 124
Impacts on Visitor Use and Visitor Experience 124
Scenic Quality 124
Wilderness Experience and Noise 124
Range of Uses 124
Visitor Use Levels 124
Safety 124
Impacts on the Socioeconomic Environment 124
Impacts on Park Operations 125
Cumulative Impacts 125

xii



specifically excluded in the programmatic
agreement must be reviewed by the state historic
preservation office and the advisory council
before implementation. Throughout the process
there will be consultation on all potential actions.

The National Park Service has developed a list of
actions associated wiih the proposed generai
management plan that could have an effect on
cultural resources. Some of these actions are
covered by programmatic exclusions, and would
require no further SHPO/ACHP review, but
others would need further SHPO/ACHP review.
This information is presented in table 17.

The Final General Management Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement includes a list of
actions with which the Michigan Historic
Preservation Office concurs. In addition, the
Michigan Historic Preservation Office will be
involved in updating the List of Classified
Structures and the development of cultural
landscape reports that are part of the imple-
mentation of the proposed action. When the List
of Classified Structures is finalized the Michigan
Historic Preservation Office will receive the list
along with photographs of all national register-
eligible property. The Michigan Historic
Preservation Office will be provided these
documents for review and comment. The
Michigan Historic Preservation Office further will
be consulted in any priority setting for adaptive
use of structures undertaken by the park. The
adaptive or new uses could include, but not be
limited to, such functions as park housing, or
visitor lodging, storage, or emergency shelter.
Archeological surveys would be part of any park
development work. If a structure is scheduled for
abandonment or demolition, it would be
evaluated for national register eligibility and the
Michigan Historic Preservation Office would
provide documentation for review and comment.

Internally, the National Park Service will com-
plete an “Assessment of Actions Having an Effect
on Cultural Resources” form before implemen-
tation of any proposed actions. This is necessary
to document any project effects, outline actions
proposed to mitigate any effects, and document
that the proposed actions flows from the general
management plan. All implementing actions for

129

Consultation and Coordination

cultural resources would be reviewed and
certified by cultural resource specialists following
the September 1995 programmatic agreement.

Prior to any ground-disturbing action by the
National Park Service, a professional archeologist
would determine the need for archeological
inventory or testing evaluation. Any such studies
would be carried out in conjunction with
construction and would meet the needs of the
state historic preservation offices, as well as the
National Park Service. Any large-scale
archeological investigations would be undertaken
in consultation with the state historic preservation
officer.

Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation
Act requires the National Park Service to identify
and nominate to the National Register of Historic
Places all resources under its jurisdiction that
appear to be eligible.

NPS historic areas are automatically listed on the
national register upon their establishment by law
or executive order.

The following studies as defined in NPS-28
(Cultural Resource Management Guideline) are
needed for the park:

ethnographic overview and assessment
ethnographic oral history and life histories
ethnographic program

park administrative history

ethnohistory

Ongoing research has not been fully incorporated
into the park’s database. The following items
should be updated:

cultural sites inventory

cultural resources base map
List of Classified Structures
cultural landscape inventory

During the implementation phase of the proposed
action, archeological surveys, historic structures
reports, and ethnographic use studies may be
required. Determinations would be made on a
case-by-case basis as planning for construction is
funded and undertaken.


possible strategies that could be employed to manage use levels if necessary are documented in
implementation planning that follows. Several commenters offered recommendations for how to
manage visitors or asked detailed questions about how various use level decisions might be made.
These comments will be considered during implementation planning subsequent to the approval of
this plan. Comments included:

The National Park Service should not spend time and money developing a VERP (carrying
capacity) plan for Isle Royale unless it makes the commitment to funding the monitoring that
is necessary to make the plan effective. Consider dedicating a percentage of use fees collected
from park visitors to a monitoring program.

Comments were received asking for more detail on how visitor numbers mightbe limited and
what indicators might be monitored.

Regarding carrying capacity, the National Park Service should add dispersed individual
campsites, then issue a limited number of entry permits so that hikers are not required to file
or follow a specified itinerary. This would allow visitors a true wilderness experience.

The general management plan does not address how many and what types of visitors the NPS
hopes to serve at Isle Royale. The number of backcountry hikers and one-day visitors is
currently limited by the number of water vessels and airplanes that transport them to the
island, and this is appropriate. However, the draft plan does not propose any limits for
powerboaters, 70% of whom travel to the island via private motorcraft. Eventually the relative
balance of hikers, one-day visitors, and lodge users to boaters will favor boaters because there
is no transportation limit or barrier for boaters. The plan should include the relative
percentages of user groups now, the target percentages for the future, and what potential
actions might be taken to preserve the balance between motorboaters and other users.

If the major crowding issues are in the final two weeks of July and all of August, create a
system that removes the peak and provides incentives for greater visitation earlier in the
summer. Creating more of a season in June and early July may also assist the concessions
operations in smoothing out the peaks and valleys.

For weekend boaters, establish critical weekends that require anchorage and/or limited dock
usage. Don’t limit the numbers of boaters, but rather regulate the use of limited space. Boaters
have the advantage of mobility; use it to spread the impact.

Annual use permits should not be issued to boaters. Such permits are discriminatory because
hikers don’t have this option, and they are undesirable because they encourage boaters to visit
as many times as possible and bring as many people as possible to maximize the value of their
pass.

Many more powerboaters than hikers and day users are repeat visitors to the park. The plan
should have a specific statement of intent that encourages first time visitors to come to Isle
Royale. The General Management Plan should discourage repeat visitors, particularly those
who may overuse and overtax Isle Royale’s wilderness resources.

172


INTRODUCTION

In this section a proposed future direction for Isle
Royale National Park (the proposed action) is
described along with four alternatives (including
one that would not substantially change existing
conditions).

Before the proposal and alternatives were
developed, information on park resources, visitor
use, and visitor preferences was gathered and
analyzed. Information was solicited about the
issues and the scope of the project from the
public, government agencies, and special interest
groups through newsletters, meetings, and
personal contacts, which helped with the
development of five preliminary concepts for the
park’s future. All the concepts were intended to
support the park’s purpose and significance,
address issues, avoid unacceptable resource
impacts, and respond to public desires and
concerns. (More information about the analysis
is presented in Appendix A.)

Five draft alternatives were developed from the
preliminary concepts. Following public review
of the alternatives, an evaluation process called
“Choosing By Advantages” was used to evaluate
and compare the alternatives and to develop a
preliminary preferred alternative. A summary of
this analysis is also presented in Appendix A.
The preliminary preferred alternative was then

17

shared with the public. The draft proposed
action, resulting from public review and
adjustment of the preliminary preferred
alternative, was presented to the public in a Draft
General Management Plan / Environmental
Impact Statement.

Alternative A (existing conditions) is presented
first. Next are actions that are common to the
proposal and alternatives B-E. Descriptions of
the proposed action and the alternatives follow.
Then, the proposal and alternatives are summar-
ized in three tables: the first compares the
proposal and each alternative; the second lists
each campground and shows the means of access
under the proposal and each alternative; the third
summarizes the expected impacts of each action.

Potential environmental impacts of the proposed
action and alternatives are presented in the
subsequent environmental consequences section.

While a general management plan provides the
analysis and justification for future funding, the
plan in no way guarantees that the money will be
forthcoming. The plan will establish a vision of
the future that will guide year-to-year manage-
ment of the park, but full implementation of a
plan could take a number of years.


Cultural Resources Management and Interpretation

Comment: There is little attention given to monitoring the conditions of Isle Royale’s shipwrecks. It is
not until Phase III (13-20 years out) that there is mention of setting standards and/or implementing any
preservation policies or partnering for the shipwrecks.

Response: Cooperating with partners to set standards for and carry out preservation of
shipwrecks is listed not under Phase III, but rather under “Actions to be Implemented on an
Ongoing or As-Needed Basis” (see p. 144 of the draft plan). This means that such efforts
could begin right away and continue throughout the life of the plan. Also, we have expanded
the discussion of the Great Lakes Shipwreck Preservation Society and shipwreck
documentation and stabilization in the plan so that readers can better understand the nature of
shipwreck management.

Comment; There are no visitor statistics presented in the plan on the number of shipwreck divers that
visit the island. Therefore, the National Park Service apparently has no means to estimate diver impact
on shipwreck resources or to determine funding and staff needs to monitor, stabilize, and preserve the
wrecks for future visitors.

Response: The park does have statistics on numbers of divers and numbers of dives. The plan
does not include this information because no changes are proposed related to diving. Current
monitoring indicates that there is no need to make any changes to diving practices on the
island, but if future inventory and monitoring identify potential impacts, the park will take
action as necessary to protect these resources.

Comment: Why is the cottage history not as important as some of the other storiesInterpretation of
this part of Isle Royale’s history is largely ignored in the plan.

Response: The National Park Service did not intend to overlook the interpretation of cottage
history (people who have traditionally summered on the island in private dwellings). Two
park emphasis statements have been revised to address the island’s cottage history.

Comment: Modifications to the cottages (solar panels, water filtration systems, etc., for buildings
adapted to administrative uses) are inconsistent with their preservation.

Response: Adaptive use is recognized as a means to preserve historic structures. Consultation
with the State Historic Preservation Office and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
(as required by section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act) will ensure that all

significant features of adaptively used historic structures will be either preserved or recorded.

Comment: Comments were received regarding former homesites on the island. Commenters said that
remaining homesites are relics of a significant past culture and are of interest to visitorsSSome said
statements in the plan about using partnerships for preserving historic structures are not strong enough
(draft text on p. 24 was cited as an example);the National Park Service should encourage partnerships
with previous owners, lease holders, fishermen, and concerned people who develop preservation plans
for specific sites. Other comments were more specifically related to the families who once owned the
homesites. There was a suggestion that the plan address the issuance of permits to original families to

154


many actions identified in the general management plan if tasks are broken down into small
steps so that volunteers can accomplish useful work in the amount of time they can spend on
the island in a given year. Over time, such efforts will provide significant benefits to the park,
the general public, and the volunteers.

The National Park Service should discontinue the pumpout service for private boats.

A disproportionate amount of user fee income is being spent on docks. The NPS should use it
instead to maintain the Ranger III, create more interpretive programs, improve accessibility at
Rock Harbor, maintain historic structures, or create informational brochures.

Why is it that the National Park Service comes up with large amounts of money for
destruction and removal of facilities, but there is never enough money for rangers, trails,
docks, etc.?

Vegetation growth along the Greenstone trail from Mount Franklin to approximately
Angleworm Lake has resulted in reduced opportunities to see Lake Superior. Is there potential
for limited, controlled burns along this section of trail to improve views and create diverse
vegetation for moose? °

Funds for the inventory and monitoring of Lake Superior fisheries could be sought from other
sources, especially since these are potentially commercially viable fisheries and important
recreational game fisheries. This would preserve NPS funds for inventory and monitoring
activities on Isle Royale.

Adjusting operating requirements of incidental business permits annually to control the
number of people brought to the island by diving, paddling, and hiking charters (see p. 28 of
the draft plan) could have a significant impact on holders of permits if instituted without
appropriate notice. A minimum of one year notice is needed; 1999 user numbers should be
instituted in the spring of 1998 rather than the fall, for example, so that charters could be
booked appropriately.

174


VISITOR EXPERIENCE

Most visitors (approximately 65%) travel to Isle
Royale on one of three commercial transportation
services or on the NPS-operated Ranger III.
Approximately 30% travel to the island on private
boats. Most activities center around the natural
environment and the wilderness character of the
park and include hiking, backpacking, fishing,
canoeing, boating, sailing, kayaking, diving, and
observing and enjoying nature. The human
history of the island and the remnants of mining,
fishing, and maritime industries are also of
interest to many visitors.

Isle Royale’s visitors are typical of most national
park visitors. They are usually highly educated
and travel in family or peer groups of two to four
people. They differ from visitors to many parks in
that most have more experience in backcountry
settings, place high value on wilderness attributes,
and stay longer than visitors to most national
parks (see section on visitor use numbers).

During the summer of 1996, a visitor survey was
conducted to help characterize the kinds of
experiences sought by visitors to Isle Royale and
to determine whether or not those experiences
were attained. For purposes of the survey, visitors
were categorized as backcountry users (primarily
backpackers, canoers, and kayakers), power-
boaters (including sailboaters as a subset), and
day users (some day use occurs at Rock Harbor,
but most day use is concentrated at Windigo
because of the daily ferry trips from Minnesota).
For each user group the study identified the most
popular activities, the kinds of opportunities
sought, to what extent expectations were met, or
problems encountered.

For backcountry visitors the most popular
activities included viewing wildlife, backpacking,
short walks and day hiking, photography, and
enjoying NPS visitor centers. Visitors want to -
observe scenic beauty, enjoy a natural setting,
observe and hear wildlife, and relax. They also
like to satisfy curiosity, enjoy the smells and
sounds of nature, get to know the park, get

86

exercise, and learn about nature. While no visitors
reported problems that seriously detracted from
their experiences, minor problems associated with
noise and crowding (such as too much motorboat
noise, too many other hikers in the campgrounds,
difficulty finding a vacant shelter or campsite,
and too many other watercraft on Lake Superior)
were mentioned.

Powerboaters’ most popular activities were listed
as fishing Lake Superior, short walks and day
hiking, motorboating, wildlife viewing, and
photography. Boaters also want restorative
experiences such as relaxing, observing scenic
beauty, and enjoying a natural environment. They
also enjoy satisfying curiosity, enjoying the
smells and sounds of nature, and getting to know
the park. They emphasized boating-related
activities and catching fish. Similar to back-
country users, powerboaters reported only minor
problems, and these were related to crowding and
park conditions (difficulty finding available
docking space, campsites, and shelter, restrictions
on fires at some campsites, and docks in poor
condition).

Sailboaters differed from other powerboaters in
that they considered experiences such as tran-
quility and solitude and nonmotorized water
activities more important. They also perceived
motorboat noise in narrow harbors and bays as
more of a problem than did other powerboaters.

Day users’ most popular activities included
visiting stores and NPS visitor centers, taking
short walks and hikes, photography, taking
ranger-led tours/walks, using self-guiding nature
trails, and viewing wildlife. Day users reported
minor problems related to not seeing the types of
wildlife they expected.


CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL AND
STATE LAWS, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND
REGULATIONS

In implementing the Jsle Royale National Park
General Management Plan, the National Park
Service would comply with all applicable laws
and executive orders, including those listed
below. Informal consultation with the appropriate
federal, state, and local agencies has been
conducted in the preparation of this document.

The Draft General Management Plan /
Environmental Impact Statement was on public
review for 45 days. The Final General
Management Plan / Environmental Impact
Statement responds to or incorporates the public
comments on the draft document. After a 30-day
no-action period, a record of decision will be
prepared to document the selected alternative and
set forth any stipulations for implementation of
the general management plan, thus completing
the requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act.

This environmental impact statement is
essentially a programmatic statement, presenting
an overview of potential impacts relating to the
proposed program for each alternative. More
detailed plans may be developed for individual
actions. Any such document would be tiered to
this programmatic statement.

Cultural Resources

The National Park Service is mandated to pre-
serve and protect its cultural resources through
the act of August 25, 1916, and through specific
legislation such as the Antiquities Act of 1906,
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
and the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966 as amended in 1992. Cultural resources in
Isle Royale National Park would be managed in
accordance with these acts and with chapter V of
NPS Management Policies, the Cultural
Resources Management Guidelines (NPS-28),
and other relevant policy directives, such as the

128

NPS Museum Handbook, the NPS Manual for
Museums, and NPS-6, Interpretation and Visitor
Services Guidelines.

As part of its cultural resource management
responsibilities, the National Park Service surveys
and evaluates all cultural resources under its
jurisdiction. Cultural resources are evaluated by
applying the criteria of the National Register of
Historic Places. In addition, the National Park
Service maintains the List of Classified
Structures, which is an inventory of all above
ground historic and prehistoric structures in the
national park system. All cultural resources
eligible for the national register are recorded and
measured according to professional standards,

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966 as amended (16 USC 470, et seq.)
requires that federal agencies that have direct or
indirect jurisdiction take into account the effect of
undertakings on national register properties and
allow the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation an opportunity to comment. Toward
that end the National Park Service would work
with the Michigan State Historic Preservation
Office and the advisory council to meet
requirements of 36 CFR 800 and the September
1995 programmatic agreement among the
National Conference of State Historic
Preservation Officers, the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation, and the National Park
Service. This agreement requires the Park Service
to work closely with the state historic
preservation office and the advisory council in
planning for new and existing NPS areas.

The agreement also provides for a number of
programmatic exclusions for specific actions that
are not likely to have an adverse effect on cultural
resources. These actions may be implemented
without further review by the Michigan State
Historic Preservation Office or the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation (reducing
required consultation with the state historic
preservation office) provided that NPS internal
review finds the actions meet certain conditions.
Undertakings, as defined in 36 CFR 800, not


near McCargoe Cove. An almost 6,000-pound
chunk of pure copper was found in one aboriginal
pit, which led to extreme optimism about the
possibilities of the site. The Minong Mining
Company established docks, warehouses, a tram
road, stamp mill, and blacksmith shop. They
excavated two deep vertical shafts and numerous
open pits (Rakestraw 1965). Here, too, the purity
of the copper declined and the mine closed in
1885.

In 1889 the Wendigo Mining Company started
mining explorations in the Windigo area. The
company constructed a large office building,
sheds, storehouses, boarding houses, log cabins,
and a large wharf along the edge of the harbor in
what was called Ghyllbank (Rakestraw 1965).
They prospected along Washington Creek and all
over the west end of the island. Between 1890-92
a number of roads were built as far inland as Lake
Desor for prospecting. Using trenches and
diamond drills they looked for copper, but no
productive mines were developed. In 1892 the
operations were shut down.

Unlike the boom and bust cycles of mining,
fishing has been the longest-lived and successful
economic enterprise on the island. As the Great
Lakes fur trade waned in the 1830s, the American
Fur Company turned to the abundant trout and
whitefish around Isle Royale to support its
operations, ushering in a century of commercial
fishing (Rakestraw 1968). The company set up
fishing stations at seven sites around the island. A
predominantly Ojibwa and Metis workforce
fished and worked at the stations. Although the
fur company enterprise did not last long
(1837-1841), commercial fishing continued.
During the mining booms on the island, local
fishermen often supplied the miners with fish.

Commercial fishing continued through the 19th
century. It came to be primarily conducted from
small family fishing camps. At the peak in the
early 1900s, over 100 fishing families were based
on the island (Karamanski et al. 1991). The
fishermen used wooden mackinaw sailing boats
and fished with gill nets or hooklines for lake
trout, whitefish, and herring. Many of the

79

Cultural Resources

fishermen by the early 1900s were of Scandin-
avian ancestry. They usually came to the island in
the spring and stayed into the fall or early winter.
Some families wintered on the island.

Enterprising commercial fishermen were the first
to accommodate vacationers to Isle Royale. The
island offered a rugged vacation spot with great
fishing and crisp, clear air to city dwellers at the
turn of the century. Growing gradually from a
few rental rooms at a fisherman’s home in
Washington Harbor, a number of resorts and
summer homes dotted the island by the 1910s and
20s. The growth of tourism was encouraged and
fostered by Great Lakes shipping companies.

In 1902 the Isle Royale Land Corporation sold
the Wendigo Mining Company headquarters
building, some service buildings, and
approximately 70 acres of land at Windigo to a
group of wealthy and prominent Duluth
businessmen, headed by Colonel Charles Graves,
a Civil War veteran (Karamanski 1988). The
group formed the Washington Club, a private
fishing and boating club that functioned until the
establishment of the island as a national park.
They turned the headquarters building into their
main clubhouse.

Copper mining on the island and the growth of
Lake Superior shipping led to the establishment
of four lighthouses around Isle Royale. For many
ships, the island became either a big obstacle or a
safe haven in times of severe weather. For others,
it was a destination point for passengers and
freight. Increased boat traffic brought inevitable
shipwrecks. Ten large ships and many smaller
vessels found a final resting place around Isle
Royale.

Submerged Resources

The park boundary extends 4.5 miles into Lake
Superior and encompasses a number of under-
water cultural resources. Ten major shipwrecks
lie inside the park boundary and are listed on the
National Register of Historic Places with state
significance — the Algoma, America, Henry


Appendix F

S GREAT LAKES INDIAN FISH & WILDLIFE COMMISSION
P.O. Box 9 + Odanah, WI 54861 + 715/682-6619 + FAX 715/682-9294

* MEMBER TRIBES +

MICHIGAN WISCONSIN MINNESOTA
Bay Mills Community Bad River Band Red Cliff Band Fond du Lac Band
Reweenaw Bay Communicy Lac Courte Oreilles Band St. Croix Chinnewa Mille Lacs Rand
Lac Vieux Desert Band ‘ac du Flambeau Band ‘Sokaogon Chippewa

September 23, 1996

Mr. Douglas Bernard, Superintendent
National Park Service

Isle Royale National Park

800 E. Lakeshore Dr.

Houghton, Michigan 49931-1895

Dear Superintendent Bernard,

The Great Lakes Fishery Committee (Lakes Committee) of the Great Lakes Indian Fish
and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC) has requested that I contact you regarding the development
of a general management plan for Isle Royale National Park. The Lakes Committee is
undertaking a review of Newsletter Number 3, and seeks the prerequisite government-to-
government consultation process about this matter that the federal government's trust and treaty

@ obligations require. President Cliinton’s Memorandum on the government-to-government
relationship with tribes requires agencies to consult with affected tribal governments prior to
taking actions that would affect them.!

The Lakes Committee's perspective on the general management plan is an off-reservation
one, and it is from that aspect of the tribes’ sovereignty and retained rights that these comments
are submitted. Any comments by the Lakes Committee are from an intertribal, ceded territory

perspective and are not intended to, nor should be construed as, precluding comments by tribes
based upon their individual sovereign prerogatives.

Pursuant to specific delegations of tribal sovereign authority, the Lakes Committee
develops natural resource management plans, assists its member tribes in developing suitable
conservation regulations, and assists the tribes in securing their usufructuary rights in the Great
Lakes and their tributaries. Thus it is appropriate as well as necessary for the Park Service to
consult with the Lakes Committee as well as any individual tribe that may be impacted by the
plan. The Lakes Committee invites Park Service representatives to attend an upcoming meeting
of the Lakes Committee to explain and discuss the management planning process in more depth.

The Lakes Committee is concerned about the management of Isle Royale National Park.
Natural resource management affects the availability of resources and their supporting habitats.

'Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments,
e@ Memorandum of April 29, 1994, 59 Fed. Reg. 22951.

207


sous Surysyy 2110)s14y
sel} 2 paseosour pue
ur se uoneyosdioyut «
V Ul Se UOTeULIO;UT
Pur uOoIEUILIO »

umnueg/uojsuryse M

ye uoneyasdiaqul
Teuontppe «

‘SBOIe SSOWOP]IMUOU Ut
Poseosoul uONejoIdioqul «
Y ul se uoljeuLOsUT

Pure UOTEIUATIO «

puryst

ayy uo uoHeIoidsaqut
do ‘uoneuLojuT
“UOTJE]UDLIO OU «
a8enog

Ppueld pure “1oqueH
saddog ‘uoyysnoxy
ye UOTBULIOJUT

Pue UONEIUSLIO «

Purjsi Jo a[pprut
ul UoNRIediajuI OU .
Spuryst

JO spuo ye pasearour
uonejaidiout «
osipulm,

pure Joqiey] Yooy 18
Poseasoul UoKeULO;UI
pur uoneuaiio «

qsol9qur

Jeroads yo sonjeay
ye uoeyordroqut «
O8IpulM “JOqIeH
yooy ‘uojysnoy
ye uoTeULIOJUT
PUP UOE]USLIO «

uoneonpo pue
‘uonejasdiajur ‘uoreualio
Joy sorunioddo wnunxeyy

MOJ S[9A9] UONEIISIA »
SUONOLNSOI SS909B MJ

aye19poul
S[OA2] UOTIERISIA «
sasn Jo uoneredes
0} onp payorysor
Ajaye1opoul ssao0e «

MO] S[9A3] UOTIEIISIA «
SpiMpur|st
Pojorysas A]YSIY ssao0e «

ayerapour
S]@A2] UONPISIA »
purjsi Jo spua

JE PAseoJOUI S990" «
purjst Jo o[ppruy

Ul POJOLsSol sso00R «

WIMOIS UOHEISIA
Yo UOHeITUNT] OU +
SUONOINSOI SS99B MAJ «

purjs!

ay) punose yuswioaour

Jo wopaay pur ‘ArIqixay
“ssa00e UMUNTXeYy

saituntioddo saiqrunjioddo

JYSIWIVA0 spuedxo « JYSIWI9A0 spuedxe «

soouatiedxe jo osuer sgouatiodxo Burstxe ueyy saouatiodxa
Sunstxe surejurewt «| pozizojouruou spuedxo « sooualiodxe jo oduel pozis0jowuoU saoualiedxe jo Burr soouatiadxo
2 0} Je[IUNS}] MoLeU sou! B soprAoid « spuedxo « Sunstxo surequreul « A JO oSues WINWITXeE,
a FALLVUALTV @ FALLVNUALTV oO AALLVNUALTV @ JALLVNUALTV VGAILVNYALTV) VINALIAO SISATVNV

VIMALIYD SISATWNY FHL OL LOadSaY HLIM SAAILVNYALTY TYNISINO FAL] IHL AO HOV" AO SALNGIULLY HL ‘LV A1aV.L

181


Contents

Alternative E 126
Impacts on Natural Resources 126
Wildlife 126
Threatened and Endangered Species 126
Designated Wilderness 126
Geologic Processes 126
Water Quality 126
Impacts on Cultural Resources 126
Archeological Resources 126
Historical Resources 126
Impacts on Visitor Use and Visitor Experience 126
Scenic Quality 126
Wilderness Experience and Noise 127
Range of Uses 127
Visitor Use Levels 127
Safety 127
Impacts on the Socioeconomic Environment 127
Impacts on Park Operations 127
Cumulative Impacts 127

Consultation and Coordination 128

Appendixes, Bibliography, Preparers, Index
Appendix: A: Planning Analysis and Development of the Proposed Action 177
Appendix B: Plan Phasing, Costs for Studies, Construction Costs 184
Appendix C: Analysis of National Park Concessions, Inc., Operations 192
Appendix D: State Threatened and Endangered Plants, Fish, Mammals, Birds, and Amphibians 195
Appendix E: Legislation 200
Appendix F: Consultation Letters 203
Bibliography 217
Preparers 219

Index 221

xiii


the main visitor season. It is close to the store,
amphitheater, and restrooms. The new facility is
built around the Rock of Ages lens and pedestal.
The counter should be sufficient to meet visitor
needs even after ferry docking. There is room for
interpretive exhibits and display and sales of
educational materials.

Evening programs are offered nightly from June
12-Labor Day on a variety of natural and cultural
history topics. One-hour nature walks are offered
each afternoon as well as 20-minute dockside
walks. Upon the arrival of the Wenonah or the
Voyageur II, a general orientation is presented
and backcountry orientation is provided before
permits are issued.

There are four wayside exhibits along the nature
trail that describe aspects of natural and cultural
history. Bulletin boards on the ranger station,
restrooms, and at the campground have boat and
interpretive schedules, weather forecasts, and
natural and cultural history.

DAISY FARM

Daisy Farm is a large boater / hiker campground
in the Rock Harbor channel across from the
Edisen Fishery and Rock Harbor Lighthouse
complex. There are evening programs at the
amphitheater during the summer and occasional
guided interpretive walks, sometimes including
the entire Ojibway Loop. Campground bulletin
boards are updated with program announcements
and regulatory / safety information. They describe
interpretive programs and provides some
interpretation. The campground is staffed with a
volunteer camp host / interpreter.

85

Visitor Services

EDISEN FISHERY

Edisen Fishery is in the Rock Harbor channel
near Rock Harbor Lighthouse. It provides a
fishery demonstration using techniques similar to
those practiced in the 1930s—1950s. A wayside
exhibit outlines the history of the fishery.

A number of exhibits in the Rock Harbor Light-
house explore the island’s maritime history.

MALONE BAY RANGER STATION

There is a small library and some posted
information. Interpretive exhibits are planned for
the visitor contact station.

AMYGDALOID RANGER STATION

A few photos on the walls fit in with the homey
atmosphere of this old ranger station. Exhibits
explore the idea of the companionship of solitude
and the dangers of isolation by interpreting the
lives of rangers and others who lived here.




AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

about 15% of the visitors and operates at 45% of
capacity.

Windigo

At Windigo, National Park Concessions, Inc.,
operates a small convenience store and provides
gasoline and sewage pumpout for boaters,
showers, laundry, and limited canoe and small
boat rentals. The NPCI Windigo operation runs
from June 10 through mid-September. National
Park Concessions, Inc., provides no overnight

accommodations, restaurants, or marina facilities.

Utility upgrades are necessary and the funding
situation is the same as at Rock Harbor.

TABLE 5. NPCE OVERNIGHT ACCOMMODATIONS AT
ROCK HARBOR IN 1997, 1996, AND 1995,

Number of Number of
Guests Nights
May 22 62
June 420 1,285
July 921 2,681
August 1,261 3,050
September 145 435
1997 total 2,769 7,513
May 42 118
June 483 1,372
July 1,173 2,955
August 1,320 3,322
September 151 506
1996 total 3,169 8,273
May 17 33
June 522 1,199
July 1,218 3,092
August 1,376 3,629
September 235 613
1995 total 3,368 8,566

Occupancy percentages have remained relatively
stable over time.

90

TABLE 6. OCCUPANCY OF THE LODGE AND

HOUSEKEEPING UNITS
1995 Lodge _| Housekeeping
May 0% 16%
June 27% 48%
July 41% 82%
August 52% 84%
September 38% 53%

Source for tables 5 and 6; Isle Royale National Park


S.. RESOURCES
OMMISSION

JERRY C. BARTNIK

KEITH J. CHARTERS

NANCY A. DOUGLAS

L. THORNTON EDWARDS, JR.
PAUL EISELE

‘WILLIAM U. PARFET

LLOYD F. WEEKS:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
om,

S

JOHN ENGLER, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

STEVENS T MASON BUILDING, PO BOX 30028, LANSING MI 48909-7528

Appendix F

REPLY TO:

LOWER PENINSULA FIELD HEADQUARTERS
8717 N ROSCOMMON RO

PO BOX 128

ROSCOMMON MI 48653

WEBSITE: www.dnr.state.mi.us
K. L. COOL, Director

May 6, 1998

Iste Royale General Management Plan Project Leader
National Park Service, Denver Service Center

P.O: Box 25287

Denver, CO 80225

Project Planning Team:

Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft General Management Plan
Environmental Impact Statement for Isle Royale National Park. | have been asked to
review the Draft and comment on potential impacts on wildlife resources resulting from
planned actions.

The preferred alternative will have minimal impact on wildlife resources. Any loss of
habitat caused by new construction would be mitigated by removal of facilities at
existing sites. There will also be minimal impacts to threatened and endangered
species.

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft plan.

Sincere, ta Lt

John Hendrickson
Field Coordinator
WILDLIFE DIVISION
517/275-5151

e cc: Mary Benson

211


Appendix B

@ Table B4: Alternative A (No Action) Construction Cost Estimate
Advance and Total
Gross Project Planning Project
REPAIR AND REHABILITATION Costs Costs Costs
Repair/rehab docks 1,965,000) 375,000| 2,340,000}
S 2,814,260) 536,500) 3,347,760
Repair/rehab Mott Island utilities 655,000 125,000} 780,000)
Repair/rehab Windigo utilities 655,000 125,000} 780,000)
TOTAL REPAIR AND REHABILITATION $6,086,260 $1,161,500 $7,247,760
Advance and Total
Gross Project Planning Project
NEW CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION Costs Costs Costs
Total new construction ) 0 0
Total demolition 0 0 0
TOTAL NEW CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION $0 $0 $0
Table B5: Proposed Action Construction Cost Estimate
Advance and Total
Gross Project Planning Project
REPAIR AND REHABILITATION Costs Costs Costs
Repair/rehab docks 1,965,000 375,000 2,340,000
Repair/rehab Rock Harbor utilities 2,811,260 536,500 3,347,760
Repair/rehab Mott Island utilities 655,000 125,000 780,000
Repair/rehab Windigo utilities 655,000 125,000 780,000
TOTAL REPAIR AND REHABILITATION $6,086,260 $1,161,500 $7,247,760
Advance and Total
Gross Project Planning Project
NEW CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION Costs Costs Costs
New construction
Docks 917,000 175,000 1,092,000
Campgrounds 117,900 22,500 140,400
Rock Harbor rustic lodging 1,310,000 250,000 1,560,000
Historic commercial fishing sites (adaptive use) 982,500 187,500 1,170,000
Total new construction $3,327,400 $635,000 $3,962,400
Demolition
Rock Harbor motel units,etc. 1,310,000 250,000 1,560,000
Docks 163,750 31,250 195,000
Trails 13,100 2,500 15,600
Total demolition 1,486,850 $283,750 $1,770,600
TOTAL NEW CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION $4,814,250 $918,750 $5,733,000

189



APPENDIXES, BIBLIOGRAPHY, PREPARERS, INDEX

expressed in the public response about boaters not
having access to safe harbors during periods of
rough weather. While not communicated in the
description of the preliminary alternatives, it was
never intended that nonmotorized zones would
exclude boaters from taking shelter for safety
reasons. For this criterion the alternatives varied
mostly in regard to the number of bases of park
operations and ferry stops (affecting response time
in emergencies) and, in the case of alternative C,
the risks associated with boaters having to carry
their own fuel. Alternatives C and B were rated as
lowest for this criterion. Alternative A rated
highest due to the larger number of people in the
backcountry.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRELIMINARY
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Alternatives D and E had the highest total ratings.
Alternative E rated significantly lower than D for
the criteria related to visitor access (because of the
greatly reduced visitor numbers) and for preser-
vation of wilderness values (because of the lack of
separation of uses). The team concluded that
alternative D was the closest to the direction a
preferred alternative should take; however,
alternative D rated relatively low for resource
protection and would be the second most expensive
to implement of the original five alternatives. Also,
some actions in preliminary alternative D would
have been unpopular with many users.

The team worked to develop a preliminary
preferred alternative that would be similar to
alternative D but would improve natural resource
protection and require fewer restrictions on use
levels than alternative E. Some modifications were
also made to reduce implementation costs and to
avoid actions with little public support.

EVOLUTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

The preliminary preferred alternative was shared
with the public in Newsletter #6 (distributed in July
1997). The planning team read and considered over

180

300 responses. Analysis of the potential impacts on
resources and visitors was completed, and
additional analysis of NPS costs to subsidize the
Rock Harbor concession services and rehabilitate
the supporting utility systems was undertaken.
Based on these analyses and careful consideration
of public opinion, the preliminary preferred
alternative was modified to create the proposed
action described in the draft document. Following
public review, the proposed action was modified
further and is presented here.




PASSAGE ISLAND.

La

2 0 1 2MILES
( —

PASSAGE ISLAND LIGHTHOUSE

BELLE ISLE

a So

: Se 2

o- oi 2MILES
| qe A :
| LA a BEAVER ISLAND, No (4 4 TO MICHIGAN
} a
oo
Fi
o}
4 j
| 1 ~ 3
iy 4 ¢
JOHNS ISLAND yy a dsl om v4
{Mm wey of
Zo) ———— ==
| c ee sf a 0 1 2MILES MERRITT LANE i
= mm ‘ SS Pas
| BARNUM ISLANQ ec il ) ( 3 ) DUNCAN NARROWS on RP
as J ,
ia @ ‘est EZZ? or

a —Weganton _/7 SISKIWIT LAKE.

2 a

es Pena a es a al yi a f
on hes (i ‘it I é
a

aan

TO MINNESOTA

}OCK HARBOR LIGHTHOUSE

(CAMPGROUND | Sear | DEVELOPED ae] BACKCOUNTRY | OPEN WATER MOTORIZED

FELDTMANN:
LAKE

—_

x ROCK OF AGES
LIGHTHOUSE

A

@ vock =

_PaNcer station } FRONTCOUNTENY | Primmive QUIET / NO WAKE WATERS ALTERNATIVE C

DISPER: Ar ; ahi
a’ Rowibuee Gain Stes PRISTINE jciucieanieo waren Isle Royale National Park + Michigan
cote Nereekes WILDERNESS PORTAL ie United States Department of the Interior + National Park Service
ce + sims ceumnocumron Socrates
SUPERIOR ONLY.

ON MICROFILM



ACTIONS ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY

SHIPBOARD OVERNIGHT
ACCOMMODATIONS

In Newsletter #5 an option to provide concession
services aboard a small ship was presented. This
ship would have been used for overnight
accommodations and food services. The ship
would have been self contained and would not
have used utilities at Rock Harbor. Initial inquiries
through the Concession Feasibility Analysis, Isle
Royale National Park indicated moderate, if
cautious, interest on the part of some cruise
companies for such an arrangement. Although
some members of the public expressed interest in
the idea, others thought that this type of operation
would be inappropriate at Isle Royale. The idea
remains a possible future fallback option in the
proposed action, but it is not considered viable for
the near future. Details are available in the
Concession Feasibility Analysis, Isle Royale
National Park.

59

ADDITIONAL (DISPERSED) CAMPSITES

Construction of additional small campsites was
considered but rejected because there were
concerns about cumulative effects of additional
development. Adding new developments would
further fragment available wildlife habitat,
undeveloped shorelines, and interior wilderness
areas. In general, wildlife would be displaced from
the area around any new developments.

ADDITIONAL TRAILS

Early in the planning process the option of
creating additional trails was considered. This idea
was not included in the alternatives because of
concerns about adding to the trail maintenance
workload, the need to avoid or bridge wet areas,
and wildlife concerns related to introducing and
concentrating human activities into new areas of
the island.


APPENDIXES, BIBLIOGRAPHY, PREPARERS, INDEX.
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES

Included below in the construction cost estimates
for the alternatives are costs for backlogged repair
and rehabilitation of facilities, new construction,
and demolition. These figures are meant to give a
very rough idea of the relative costs of the
alternatives only. Costs for Isle Royale are
considerably higher than for most other national
parks due to the expense of barging materials,
equipment, and workers across Lake Superior.
The

188

cost to the National Park Service for many
actions could be less than shown, however,
depending on contributions by partners and the
amount of labor provided by volunteers.

Costs for stabilizing or rehabilitating the Rock of
Ages, Passage Island, and Menagerie Island
lighthouses were not estimated because their
condition has not been assessed; these costs would
not vary significantly among the alternatives in
any case.


PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

OVERVIEW

Isle Royale National Park is operating under a
master plan that was written in 1963. Because
the master plan is outdated, the park does not
have a comprehensive plan to direct its decision-
making processes. Current park planning efforts
are fragmented into individual projects. A new
plan is needed to provide an overall guide for the
future use of resources and facilities, to clarify
research and resource management needs and
priorities, and to address changing levels of park
visitation and use.

There are many issues or problems that the
National Park Service is facing or may face in
the future at Isle Royale National Park. The
general management plan will provide a
framework or strategy for addressing these issues
within the context of the park’s purpose,
significance, and emphasis statements. The
issues were identified and refined through
discussions with park staff, park visitors,
interested agencies and organizations, and the
general public.

ISSUES

The natural resource program at Isle Royale is
committed to developing a basic understanding
of the park’s resources and ecosystem and
monitoring the health of those resources and
processes. The gene pool of the fish, wildlife,
and plants in the park must be preserved and
protected. The park staff has been able to track
some wildlife, such as moose, wolves, and
beaver, but there is incomplete information on
the status of small mammals, reptiles,
amphibians, neo-tropical migrant birds, insects,
and other resources. Information on air and water
quality is also incomplete.

Inventory and monitoring of cultural resources
are also needed. The majority of the known
archeological sites are near campgrounds and

developed areas or along shorelines because
surveys have been conducted in those areas on
an as-needed basis. Little of the remainder of the
island has been surveyed. The park has prepared
cultural landscape information only for Rock
Harbor Lighthouse and Edisen fishery. Other
areas with culturally significant landscapes may
exist. Information about current and historic use
of the island by groups such as Native
Americans is needed.

No strategies are in place for the long-term
management of historic structures, including
shipwrecks, in the park. Many of these resources
are deteriorating. The current list of classified
structures for the park is outdated; historic
structures have become eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places (national register) or
have reverted to the park through the life lease
process. It is anticipated that the park will
assume responsibility for the structures at three
U.S. Coast Guard light stations; long-term
preservation goals are not in place.

One of the most noteworthy ongoing research
projects in the park is the wolf/moose study. The
classic predator/prey relationship can be studied
at Isle Royale in a relatively closed environment
with minimal influence from humans. During the
last four decades, populations of both species
have fluctuated dramatically. In recent years the
moose population has fluctuated from a high of
2,400 animals to a low of about 500; wolf
numbers have risen from a low of 12 animals to
the mid-20s. The likelihood of island extinction
of the wolves has lessened in recent years but
remains a concer.

In order to accommodate property owners when
the park was established, a life lease program
was established at Isle Royale. Under this
program the National Park Service purchased the
properties, but allows owners to use them during
their lifetimes. When the owners die, the
property is turned over to the National Park
Service. A systematic evaluation of these



Response: In the proposed plan, the guest house (constructed 1922-24) and the Spruces cabin
(1911) will be retained. The lodge motel units, constructed in 1956 and 1962 by the National
Park Service, are not historic structures, nor are they significant elements of the historic Rock
Harbor lodge. Before the island was designated a national park, the Rock Harbor lodge and
other resorts around the island were generally made up of a main lodge building and
numerous smaller guest cabins. Retention of the guest house and the only remaining guest
cabin, Spruces, is consistent with the history of the Rock Harbor lodge area.

Comment: The Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement discusses the
negative visual impact of the Rock Harbor lodge. But a five minute stroll to the west along Rock or
Tobin Harbor trails puts visitors beyond sight of the lodge development.

Response: The primary aesthetic concern with the Rock Harbor motel buildings is the
intrusion on the scenic view from the water. The proximity of the structures to the shoreline
and the architectural style of the buildings make them particularly obtrusive.

Use Conflict / Separation of Uses

Comment: Several people said that conflicts between user groups and separation of uses was given
undue attention in the plan. Some said there would be less need to separate users if visitors were
informed in advance about what to expect on the island and if users were more aware of and respectful
of others’ needs and expectations. Someone suggested that the National Park Service should consider
the use of campground hosts to help reduce conflicts between user groups at campgrounds. Others
pointed out that boaters give aid to hikers and paddlers who are injured or in trouble, share food, and
provide transportation.

Response: The plan text has been revised to clarify the distinction between separating uses
and separating users. It is not the intent of the plan to separate users; the National Park
Service recognizes that many people who motorboat also hike and/or paddle and that many
interactions between types of users are positive. The goal of the plan is to separate uses in a
few areas of the park to ensure a variety of experience opportunities and to respond to many
visitors who are requesting respite from motorboat noise. All park users are welcome to use
all areas in the park, so long as they do so in ways consistent with visitor experience and
resource protection objectives of the area. The attention paid to the issue of separating uses in
the plan is warranted by the amount of public comment requesting some separation of
motorized and nonmotorized uses. Though the National Park Service agrees that user
education and increased awareness will help to prevent problem situations, it is also true that
visitors come to Isle Royale with the expectation of wilderness, which is a reasonable
expectation because 99% of the land base is statutory wilderness. The wilderness designation
for Isle Royale requires the National Park Service to manage for wilderness, rather than
inform the visitors that they should lower their expectations for a wilderness experience.

Comment: The notion that hikers’ and boaters’ use of the island should be separated, with hiking
access to waterfronts limited and boaters’ access by foot to the inner island restricted makes no sense.
Many boaters come to the island to explore its interior and hike its trails, while hikers walking the
interior for hours look forward to the waterfront contact that the trails provide at key locations.

148


APPENDIXES, BIBLIOGRAPHY, PREPARERS, INDEX

Miki Stuebe — landscape architect / planner, B.A.
Biology, M.S. Biology-Ecology, M.L.A. Landscape
Architecture (Land Resource Planning), one year
U.S. Forest Service, two years academia, seven years
NPS.

CONSULTANTS OR CONTRIBUTORS

Dorothy Anderson, University of Minnesota

Buzz Brown, Isle Royale National Park

Roger Brown, Washington Office, National Park
Service

Peter Budde, Midwest Regional Office, National
Park Service

Judy Dersch, Denver Service Center, National Park
Service

Kathy Dimont, Denver Service Center, National Park
Service

David Given, Midwest Regional Office, National
Park Service

Eric Hague, Air Quality Division, National Park
Service

John Haubert, Washington Office, National Park
Service

Al Hutchings, Midwest Regional Office, National
Park Service

Mike Hyslop, Michigan Technological University

Roy Irwin, Water Resources Division, National Park
Service

David Kreger, Denver Service Center, National Park
Service

David Lime, University of Minnesota

Mark Lynott, Midwest Archeological Center,
National Park Service

Rolf Peterson, Michigan Technological University

Jeffrey L. Marion, National Biological Service,
Virginia Tech

Chad Pierskalla, University of Minnesota

Dave Soleim, Isle Royale National Park

Bruce Wadlington, Concessions Program Center,
National Park Service

Joel Wagner, Water Resources Division, National
Park Service

Linda Witkowski, Isle Royale National Park

David Evers, Biodiversity, Inc.

Joe Kaplan, Biodiversity, Inc.

Ted Gostomski, Sigurd Olson Environmental
Institute

Chris Shafer, Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality

Kathryn Eckert, Michigan State Historic Preservation
Office (former SHPO)

Charles Wooley, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Gail Jackson, Parks Canada

220


CONCESSIONS / COMMERCIAL SERVICES

TRANSPORTATION SERVICES

Three concession permittees have five-year
contracts to provide public transportation to the
island. The contracts expire in 2000.

The Royale Line

This concessioner operates the M.V. Isle Royale
Queen III and provides service between Cooper
Harbor, Michigan, and Rock Harbor. This 81-foot
vessel generally carries a maximum of 80-85
passengers per trip and makes the round trip to
the island in one day. The vessel sails twice each
week in May and September, five days per week
in June, six days per week in July, and seven days
per week in August.

Grand Portage-Isle Royale
Transportation Line, Inc.

This concessioner operates both the M.V.
Wenonah and the M.V. Voyageur II. The 65-foot
Wenonah carries a maximum of 100 people and
provides daily round-trip service from Grand
Portage, Minnesota, to Windigo June
15—September 15. The Voyageur II carries a
maximum of 39 people and also departs from
Grand Portage. The Voyageur II circumnavigates
the island in two days on each trip, overnighting
at Rock Harbor. The vessel stops at Windigo on
the way out and on the way back and picks up
and drops off at McCargoe Cove, Belle Isle,
Daisy Farm, Chippewa Harbor, and Malone Bay.
The Voyageur makes two trips per week in the
spring and fall; the schedule is expanded to three
trips per week between Memorial Day and Labor
Day.

87

Isle Royale Seaplane Service

This concessioner operates a twin-engine Domier
seaplane capable of carrying five passengers and
gear. The service operates between private
facilities on the Portage Canal in Houghton,
Michigan, and designated landing areas at
Windigo and Tobin Harbor. On-demand service
is available late May-late September.

National Park Concessions, Inc.

The park’s primary concessioner provides water
taxi service out of Rock Harbor that employs
several six-passenger charter boats. Service is
provided as far as McCargoe Cove on the north
shore and Malone Bay on the south shore.

OTHER COMMERCIAL SERVICES

Businesses that operate under incidental business
permits (IBP) are allowed to use the park for
specified activities. They do not have a place of
business in the park but bring their customers
with them. They also have no level of exclusivity;
others can compete with them to provide services.
The park may determine whether a permit will be
issued or not for any particular activity but does
not restrict the number issued. Use may be
regulated through various operating plans that
identify overall limits. Incidental business permits
are reviewed annually, and park management
may decide not to issue or renew them based on
the level of use or determinations of unacceptable
impacts.

Four types of commercial services are currently
authorized in the park under incidental business
permits. In 1997, 13 permits were issued for
charter fishing, five for sea kayaking, four for
scuba diving, and one for backpacking. In
addition, 24 special use permits were issued to
commercial enterprises, primarily youth camps,


ONTARIO
CANADA

WISCONSIN

Minneapolis /
SuPaut

Green Bay

Milwaukee

Chicago

ILLINOIS

!
INDIANA QHIO

° 50 100 200 MILES
2m 0

e@ REGION

Isle Royale National Park + Michigan
United States Department of the Interior * National Park Service

DSC + FEB 98 + 139 + 20023
ON MICROFILM



‘THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

The proposed action would be implemented over
the next 15-20 years in three phases (see
Appendix B). Over and above alternative A (no
action) costs, proposed action construction costs
are estimated at $5,733,000. Additional research,
inventory, and monitoring costs are estimated at
$2,130,000 (one-time) and $10,000 annually. An
additional $400,000 would be needed annually
to subsidize the concession at Rock Harbor (see
Appendix B for details).

40


7,400 items. The majority was generated by the
Midwest Archeological Center’s 5-year survey
and is curated in Lincoln, Nebraska.

The history collection (approximately 1,150
items) contains the bulk of the objects stored in
the park — primarily commercial fishing gear,
household goods, books, maps, artifacts from
summer homes, and small archives collection
(about 450 items) of paper records, photos, and
correspondence.

83

Cultural Resources

The park has a small ethnographic collection
(approximately 220 items) that is made up
primarily of the Warren basket collection. This
collection of handmade baskets and containers
includes birchbark items crafted by Tchi-ki-wis, a
Chippewa woman, who lived on Birch Island
with her husband, John Linklater. The
birchbark/canvas canoe used by the Linklaters is
also in the park collection.


LOOKOUT LOUISE

Duncan Bay

MERRITT LANE
GOVERNMENT

¥

A OR
leg LAND
2 epwanns istano
SCO POINT
Hidden Lake
__ Tobin Harbor
erg |— RASPBERRY ISLAND

ee EAKLIN © SROCK HARBOR
Te ey

Lane Cove Five Finger Ba

Y
TO MICHIGAN

* Lak
Richie

“Intermediate Lake

TO MINNESOTA 4 on ; ; Isle Royale Lighthouse
D (MENAGERIE ISLAND)

Point Houghton

Grate Harbor: Fishermans Home

Fekiomann + ee ALTERNATIVE A
Giemnnnasics EXISTING CONDITIONS
Q pancer station Isle Royale National Park » Michigan
seeeee TRAILS United States Department of the Interior * National Park Service
4 5 MILES ---- FERRY ROUTE DSC + JUL 98 + 139 + 20016A

_ON MICROFILM



Comment: Underwater archeological sites should be mapped (such a map should have been included
in the plan) and motor use restrictions should be implemented to protect these archeological and
cultural resources.

Response: A priority for the management of cultural resources in the proposed plan is
completion of inventories and documentation of all archeological sites, both underwater and
terrestrial (p. 24). The inventories will include areas of potential disturbance, such as
campgrounds and popular boating spots. If impacts to archeological sites are determined
through future monitoring, steps will be taken to limit the impacts, and (if necessary) the
General Management Plan will be amended. Due to the sensitive nature of archeological
sites, specific maps and site data are not made available to the public.

Comment: As the draft plan acknowledges, the Lake Superior fishes and fisheries are very significant
resources and important components of the maritime park experience. Two suggestions related to the
theme of Lake Superior fishes and fisheries are as follows: (1) a theme study and comparative analysis
for the fishes and fisheries of Isle Royale to establish their national significance and provide a clearer
direction for management and research and (2) a 5-year strategic management plan for the historic
fisheries that includes options for adaptive use, site preservation and maintenance, interpretation, and
sustainable funding and financing.

Response: The National Park Service agrees that a study of the fishery resources at Isle
Royale, for the purposes of establishing national significance and to provide clear direction for
research and management, is appropriate; a fisheries management plan is called for in the
Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement (see p. 29). A priority for
cultural resource management will be completion of inventory and documentation of cultural
landscapes, which will include historic fishery sites (see p. 24 of the draft). Structures at the
historic fisheries were included in the List of Classified Structures update and are being
evaluated for national register eligibility and historical significance. An ethnographic study of
commercial fishing on Isle Royale was funded in 1998 and will greatly help to increase
knowledge of the fishing culture on Isle Royale. Management plans for the fishery sites
proposed to be used as campgrounds (Fishermans Home, Wright Island, and Crystal Cove)
will be developed upon completion of the General Management Plan and will include options
and strategies for adaptive use, site preservation and maintenance, interpretation, and
partnerships for funding, as suggested.

Wildlife / Natural Resource Protection

Comment: Commenters suggested that nonmotorized zones be increased to protect loon populations

and other nesting waterbirds. One commenter asked about what scientific evidence is available to
suggest that loons are being negatively affected by boat wakes in Pickerel Cove.

Response: Input from biologists who have worked with Isle Royale waterbirds was sought by
the planning team throughout the planning process. Their recommendations to protect such
species were incorporated into the proposed action (as revised); the biologists have
commented that the quiet/no-wake zones in the plan do a good job of minimizing impacts to
waterbirds such as loons, while still providing safe harbor and permitting motorboat use in

156


shoreline archeological resources by protecting
them from wave action.

Historical Resources

Adaptive use of historic structures in four areas
wouid heip io preserve ihem and associaied
features. Decay and deterioration of historic
structures in the middle of the island would cause
adverse impacts on the structures and to the
associated cultural landscapes.

IMPACTS ON VISITOR USE AND VISITOR
EXPERIENCE

Scenic Quality

The ends of the island, particularly Rock Harbor
and Windigo, would appear more developed and
busier than now, negatively affecting aesthetic
values. The motel units at Rock Harbor would
continue to impact the natural appearance of the
entrance to the harbor. A substantial decrease in
development and use toward the middle of the
island would increase the amount of undeveloped
shoreline and the sense of naturalness of this area.

Wilderness Experience and Noise

Overall visitor use would be monitored and
managed, which would generally reduce
overcrowding and associated noise. This
alternative attempts to spatially separate visitor
uses to enhance wilderness experiences toward
the middle of the island. Only alternative C would
enhance wilderness experiences more. At the
ends of the island, the wilderness experience
would be somewhat reduced by frontcountry
noise and activity that would increase compared
to the other alternatives. A moderate amount of
nonmotorized and quiet/no-wake water zones are
proposed that would reduce some noise for land-
based and paddling. visitors thus enhancing their
wilderness experience over alternative A.

121

Alternative B
Range of Uses

The current range of uses would continue to be
accommodated. More visitors would be
accommodated at the islands ends, and there
would be more options for disabled visitors or
elderly visitors or others seeking more structured,
fronicountry experiences. Visitors wouid have
less flexibility in moving about the middle of the
island due to reduced ferry and water taxi service
and fewer docks.

Visitor Use Levels

Use limits would be necessary, especially for
areas in the middle of the island. Some visitors
would not be able to visit specific areas on the
island without adjusting their itineraries.

Safety

Emergency response toward the middle of the
island could be slowed because of fewer docks
one fewer ranger station. Because of fewer
facilities and services, visitors in the middle of the
island would have to be more self-reliant.

IMPACTS ON THE
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

Facility construction and removal would provide
short-term positive economic benefits for a
relatively few individuals and businesses. The
work would be completed in phases, and the
benefits would be spread over the duration of the
projects. Activities in the gateway communities
of Houghton and Copper Harbor, Michigan, and
Grand Portage, Minnesota, would continue with
business enterprises responding to market
conditions and demand as warranted. Despite
some increased spending for development, the
short- and long-term positive economic impacts
of this alternative would be relatively small when
compared to the affected economies as a whole.


structures is underway to determine their signif-
icance and national register eligibility. There is
no clear policy for the disposition of structures,
grounds, and docks on the island following the
expiration of life leases.

The outstanding fishery is a significant resource
that provides recreation for visitors to Isle
Royale. Scientific information is incomplete and
no long-term monitoring or management strategy
exists to ensure the perpetuation of the fishery.

During the last decade, airborne pollutants have
been identified in the park from as far away as
agricultural fields on the Great Plains and
waterborne pollutants from industrial areas
around the Great Lakes. These pollutants are
probably having an effect on vegetation and fish
in the park and thus on the visitor experience.
There is also the potential for short-term water
pollution due to spills of toxic materials around
Lake Superior and inside park boundaries.
Regional or national strategies are needed to
ensure that the quality of air and water at Isle
Royale remains high.

Common visitor activities at Isle Royale include
hiking, backpacking, motorboating, sailing,
canoeing, kayaking, and fishing. While Isle
Royale’s visitation is low compared to other
national parks, it ranks ninth in total number of
backcountry user nights. When land area is
considered, Isle Royale has the highest number
of overnight stays in the backcountry per acre of
any national park. Some visitors complain that
their wilderness experiences are being
compromised by visual intrusions and noise
from park developments, jets and other aircraft,
boats, and the behavior and activities of other
visitors, such as having loud parties and playing
stereos. Some visitors to the island have
expectations for a certain kind of experience, and
the actions of others may interfere with those
expectations, The problem may not be evident to
all, but park managers hear about visitors’
disappointments in letters and through verbal
complaints. With Isle Royale’s density of
backcountry use, differing preferences and
expectations are especially evident. The federal

Purpose of and Need for the Plan

wilderness designation also carries with it certain
expectations for visitors, such as solitude and
quiet.

Increasing visitation is resulting in resource
impacts and in crowding of some campgrounds,
docks, and trails. While visitation is highest in
July and August, some visitors’ expectations for
uncrowded experiences are not being met even
during the spring and fall seasons. The number
of backcountry permits issued has risen each
year from 1985-1995. There was a slight drop in
1996, but the general upward trend is projected
to continue. Some visitors complain that there
are too few backcountry campsites on the island,
and they are concerned about having to share
campsites. Many campgrounds are filled beyond
capacity in July and August. While most
backcountry areas are in good condition, in some
areas visitors are inadvertently damaging natural
and archeological resources by widening trails,
creating social trails and overflow campsites
outside designated campgrounds, and trampling
areas along trails and around campsites. Trails
and campgrounds are especially susceptible to
damage in the spring, when wet soils quickly
turn muddy underfoot.

Because of advances in motorboat size, power,
and navigation technology, many boaters who
once would not have made the trip across Lake
Superior to Isle Royale now are able to do so.
For this reason, and perhaps because of changes
in demographics and the popularity of
motorboating, motorboat use at the park has
increased over the past 20 years, and this trend is
likely to continue. Many boaters believe that the
park does not provide adequately for them
(number and size of docks, fuel availability,
pumpouts, campsites, mooring buoys).

For many years the waters around Isle Royale
have supported a small-scale commercial fishing
industry. Commercial fishing has gradually all
but disappeared. It has been suggested that
historic commercial fishing should be restored
for interpretation purposes and for the
perpetuation of this traditional lifestyle.


ALTERNATIVE C

OVERALL CONCEPT

In this alternative, most of the island would be
truly primitive. Emphasis would be placed on
providing superlative wilderness experiences,
solitude, and escape from the intrusions of the
modern world. Facilities and development would
be scaled back and evidence of management
activities would be minimal. Party size would be
limited to a maximum of six people for
overnight use on the island.

Visitation would be managed through a reser-
vation system. Permits could be issued on a first-
come, first-served basis, or a lottery system
could be used. Various systems would be
carefully evaluated before one was chosen.

Emphasis would be placed on providing
orientation and interpretation at the Houghton
headquarters and other ferry staging areas.
Additional information would be provided in
written materials. No interpretive media or
formal programs would be offered on the island
because they could intrude on the wilderness
character.

Ferry service would be provided to Rock Harbor
and Windigo only. Water taxi service would be
eliminated.

Consistent with the concept of this alternative,
all cultural resources would be documented and
allowed to decay. No stabilization or preser-
vation of these resources would be attempted.
The Coast Guard would continue to maintain
navigational aids, and the National Park Service
would continue to maintain access to these areas;
however, when the lighthouses are turned over to
the National Park Service, they would be
documented and allowed to decay. Lighthouses
could be maintained, however, by the Coast
Guard or some other entity.

49

PARK MANAGEMENT ZONES

Only those facilities necessary for island
management and maintenance support would
remain on the island. The ranger station and
ferry dock would remain at the Windigo
developed zone, but staff housing would be
reduced. Ranger stations at Amygdaloid Island
and Malone Bay would be removed.

Developed zones would be retained only at
Rock Harbor and Windigo. All concessions and
related facilities would be removed. There would
be less need for NPS maintenance and support,
so crucial functions would be relocated from
Mott Island to Rock Harbor to consolidate
operations. Actions necessary to implement this
concept would be:

* removing all NPS facilities (headquarters,
maintenance, housing) from Mott Island

* moving any absolutely necessary operations
functions (such as the fire cache) to Rock Harbor

* removing all concessions (lodging, food
service, store, fuel sales, boat rental) from Rock
Harbor and Windigo

* removing any unnecessary NPS facilities
(including housing) from Rock Harbor and
Windigo

The frontcountry zone would not be used
because more intensive use and structured
interpretive experiences are not consistent with
the concept of this alternative.

Wilderness portal zones at Rock Harbor and
Windigo would serve as staging areas for entry
to the wilderness for visitors. To compensate for
the elimination of lodging, campgrounds at these
sites could be made larger if demand warranted.

Backcountry zones in a few areas would
provide day hiking opportunities, moderate use


Appendix F

April 30, 1996

N1621 (ISRO)

Memorandum
Ts; Fisid Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
East Lansing, Michigan

From: Superintendent, Isle Royale National Park, Michigan

Subject: Informal consultation for Isle Royale National Park
General Management Plan/Environmental Impact
Statement, Michigan

We received your letter of February 16, 1996 Providing a list of
the proposed endangered and threatened species and species of
concern believed to occur within Isle Royale National Park. We
appreciate your timely response to our request for such a list.

We can confirm the presence of four of the five species you listed
(gray wolf, bald eagle, auricled twayblade, and ram’s head lady’ s-
slipper). We cannot confirm the presence of the lynx. There has
been no evidence of a breeding population of lynx since the 1930s;
sporadic sightings of lynx are occasionally given to the park by
visitors, although we have no way to confirm the accuracy of those
sightings. In all likelihood, if any lynx do exist in the park
they represent individual transients.

We are unsure if your list should include the peregrine falcon.
Some 50 young were hacked on Isle Royale from 1987 to 1991,
although we have had no confirmed nesting since then. We get
occasional sighting reports every year by visitors and researchers,
but those birds observed may be migrants or transient visitors. We
have spent some time searching suitable habitat for nests, but have
found none.

If you have any questions please contact Jack Oelfke, Branch Chief,
jatural Resource Management, at 906-487-9080.

Svgnd)
Dougtas A/ Barnard

ee:
Jill Medland, GPSSO, Omaha
Terry Goodrich, DSc

bee:
NRMS, ISRO

DABarnard: JGOelfke:pk1:4/30/96
C...vsrps\nrms\fws-gmp.mem

205


ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

firms, these benefits would be short-term, lasting
only for the duration of the projects. The benefits
would be spread over time as the work would be
conducted in phases over several seasons, which
would mitigate the overall impacts.

Activities in the gateway communities of
Houghton and Copper Harbor, Michigan, and
Grand Portage, Minnesota, would continue with
business enterprises responding to market
conditions and demand as warranted. If changes
to the concessions at Rock Harbor resulted in
fewer visitors traveling to the island from Copper
Harbor and Grand Portage, those communities
could be negatively affected. However, there are
many other tourist attractions in the affected
areas, and this disturbance of the tourism industry
would be absorbed in due time with relatively
small long-term negative impacts.

IMPACTS ON PARK OPERATIONS

With reduced and more sustainable systems at
Rock Harbor, the maintenance and operational
workload would be reduced.

Some increase in maintenance workload would
be anticipated due to the construction of new
campgrounds and other facilities, and main-
tenance in quiet/no-wake zones would be more
time-consuming because of the reduced
motorized access.

Monitoring and managing visitor use levels
would increase the overall park operational
workload.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

This alternative gives focus and emphasis to
researching, monitoring, and preserving cultural
resources. The knowledge gained and the
facilities protected would complement the efforts
of historical, ethnic, and preservation groups and
agencies throughout the region.

118

RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM USES
AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

This section is intended to describe the
relationship of the short-term impacts of the
actions proposed in this alternative to the long-
term productivity of the human environment at
Isle Royale. The proposed actions, such as
removing or constructing docks, constructing
campgrounds, removing trail sections, and
modifying concession services, would require
relatively minor disturbance of soils, vegetation,
and habitat. Most work would be done in
previously disturbed areas and mitigation
measures would be used. The long-term effect on
the natural environment would be minor in terms
of habitat or resource loss but the effect on visitor
experience would be great for decades to come.
The potential for meeting all visitor expectations
at Isle Royale would be greatly enhanced. Overall
water and electricity use would be reduced
because fewer services would be provided at
Rock Harbor.

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS

The proposed action is not expected to negatively
affect overall conditions for archeological sites or
for rare, threatened, or endangered species.
Because of the recreational purposes of the park,
human activity at archeological sites in known or
potential habitat for rare, threatened, or
endangered species would continue. Though
considered to be small, some risk of unforeseen
adverse impact would be unavoidable.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE
COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

Irreversible commitments of resources include
destruction of nonrenewable resources such as
historic fabric and archeological resources. Even
with mitigating measures, it is possible that such
losses could occur through adaptive use at
Barnum Island, Washington Island, Crystal Cove,
Wright Island, and Fishermans Home. The
National Park Service would take no other actions
that would constitute an irreversible commitment
of resources. Irretrievable commitment of


AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

TABLE 13. OVERNIGHT STAYS 1987-1996 e@
Rock Harbor
NPCI Rock Harbor and Windigo Nonrecreational
Year |Lodging* {Marina Campgrounds |Backcountry | Mise. Overnight Total*
1996 8,273 1,432 8,343 46,625 4,035 640 — | 69,348
1995 8,566 1,397 8,178 45,564 4,474 985 | 69,164
1994 7,962 1,628 8,665 43,673 4,262 1,192 | 67,382
1993 9,202 1,616 8,058 40,690 3,154 784 | 63,504
1992 9,512 1,456 7,397 39,663 2,243 915 | 61,186
1991 9,420 1,852 6,902 38,148 3,239 876 | 60,437
1990 8,696 1,537 6,981 37,489 3,769 706 | 59,178
1989 | 10,038 1,434 6,446 33,977 3,982 1,124 | 57,001
1988 9,921 2,368 5,932 31,807 4,016 1,217 | 55,261
1987 9,694 1,243 6,292 33,251 4,812 1,498 | 56,790

*These numbers are based on new information and do not match official NPS figures.

Note: Total overnight visitation to the island combines recreational and nonrecreational overnight visits. Miscellaneous
includes boaters anchored out, life lessees and guests, NPS employee guests, and commercial fishermen and guests.

TABLE 14. OVERNIGHT STAYS BY MONTH AND TYPE (1996)

Rock Rock Harbor @
NPCI_ ‘|Harbor and Windigo

Month Lodging |Marina Campgrounds Backcountry |Misc. Nonrecreational | Total

May 118 0 222 1,461 46 199 2,046
June 1,372 161 1,445 9,916 644 68 13,606
July 2,955 590 2,603 14,170 1,632 66 22,016
‘August 3,322 658 3,307 17,146 1,434 64 (125,931
September 506 23 708 3,615 247 116 5,215
October 0 0 58 317 32 127 534
Total 8,273 1,432 8,343 46,625 4,035 640 69,348

Source for tables: National Park Service, Public Use Statistics Program Center

PROJECTIONS OF DEMAND Park use is affected by many factors, but fore-
casted use is based solely on historical data,
A projection of future visitor use for Isle Royale which is projected forward and assumes that
was made (tables 15 and 16). They are the best whatever factors influenced visitation in the past
estimates available using a simple straight-line will continue. Forecasting in this manner may
projection method and the island visitation data provide reasonable estimates only if the changes
for 1986-1996. Projections of both the total that affected visitation continue. This may not be
numbers of visitors and the numbers of overnight true over extended periods, so projections are less @
stays are provided. reliable over the long-term than they are short-

102







and Johnson Island are intact and have structures,
docks, and boats.

Many administrative facilities, some dating from
the CCC and early park period, are over 50 years
old, such as the offices and residences at Mott
Island. Most have been altered for park uses. The
majority of these structures have been treated as
eligible for the national register based on their
age. Some of the structures may be eligible for
the national register as representative of CCC-era
structures or as structures representative of the
administrative history of the park.

Four lighthouses are inside park boundaries.
Rock Harbor Lighthouse (1855) is owned and
maintained by the park. The lighthouse consists
of a 50-foot-high tower and lantern room with an
attached keeper’s dwelling. It functioned as a
navigational aid from 1855-1859 and again from
1874-1879. After 1879 it was used as a campsite
for vacationers and researchers and later as a base
for the Johnson commercial fishing families. An
extensive rehabilitation project in the 1980s
prepared the lighthouse for a permanent maritime
history exhibit that was installed in 1995.

The Coast Guard owns and retains jurisdiction
over the other 3 lighthouses in the park — Isle
Royale (on Menagerie Island), Passage Island,
and Rock of Ages. Isle Royale Light Station was
constructed on Menagerie Island to guide ships
into Siskiwit Bay. Construction began in the
spring of 1875 and the station was completed and
lit by September of that year. It has functioned as
an aid to navigation continuously since that time.
The lighthouse consists of a 55-foot-high tower
and attached keeper’s dwelling of Jacobsville
sandstone. The complex also had, in 1910, a
boathouse and two landings. Other buildings
included a privy, paint house, oil storage
building, washhouse, and workshop. On the
grounds now are the oil storage building and two
outbuildings. There are no historic docks or
landings at Menagerie Island. The lighthouse is
listed on the national register.

Passage Island Lighthouse (1882) still guides
ships passing around the northeast end of Isle

81

Cultural Resources

Royale. The light was first lit in 1882. A fog
whistle and signal house were added to the
complex in 1884. At the Passage Island light-
house complex are the tower and dwelling,
tramway, turntable, winch house, landing, fog
signal building, oil storage building, outhouse,
helicopter landing pad, and a radio tower. A trail
connects the lighthouse and a boat cove with a
boathouse and a dock. The National Park Service
owns the boathouse, fog signal building, and all
the land at Passage Island except for
approximately 6 acres around the lighthouse
complex. The Passage Island station has been -
proposed for the national register but has not yet
been listed.

Construction of the Rock of Ages light station
began in 1907. Due the remoteness of the site, the
work crews were based at Washington Harbor for
the first season. The 10-story lighthouse was
completed and lit with a temporary light and lens
by October 1908. The lighthouse received a
permanent second order Fresnel lens in 1910,
which is now on display at Windigo. Rock of
Ages is listed on the national register.

The long winters at Isle Royale combined with
lack of use and maintenance are taking a toll on
island structures. Many structures were not built
to last long but were meant to be functional,
simple shelters for use during the summer
months. As soon as the constant care needed by
buildings of this type is ended, they begin to
deteriorate.

Cultural Landscapes

The midwest regionwide cultural landscape
inventory will identify register-eligible cultural
landscapes. Fieldwork began with basic docu-
mentation in August 1997. Only the Edisen
Fishery and Rock Harbor Lighthouse have been
identified as cultural landscapes, but many areas
have the potential for cultural significance —
fishing camps, life lease cabin sites, and old resort
areas. Historic mining sites also may be culturally
significant. Mine shafts, rock piles, dams, road
and tramway remains, and partial structures can


THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

¢ park administration (including
Keweenaw National Historical Park)
office space, storage

* maintenance warehousing, shops (auto,
boat, general), garage

¢ Ranger III dock and support, ware-
housing, freight handling, baggage,
recycling, hazardous waste, solid waste

*  concessioner support

* barge support storage, handling
(loading/unloading)

* employee support; meeting rooms,
lunchroom

* parking

° museum storage

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS

The park boundary is adequate to support park
purposes. No boundary adjustments are proposed
in any of the GMP alternatives.

CONCESSIONS AND OTHER
COMMERCIAL SERVICES

Several companies provide visitor services. The
primary concessioner, National Park
Concessions, Inc., manages the facilities at Rock
Harbor and Windigo. Ferry and float plane
services would continue in all alternatives,
although some modifications could be made to
control island access.

Charter fishing operators, currently authorized
under incidental business permits, would be
placed on limited concessions permits. This
would allow the Park Service to better manage
and protect the fishery by limiting the number of
operators to current levels or below.

All other commercial activities, such as guided
diving, hiking, and paddling trips, would
continue under incidental business permits. To
avoid resource damage and to ensure adequate
opportunities for noncommercial users, the
operating requirements of these permits could be
adjusted annually to control the number of

28

people that each permittee would be allowed to
bring to the island on a single visit or
cumulatively during the season.

Commercial activity on Isle Royale would be
limited to avoid over-commercialization and
excessive demand for use. Future concession
contracts would emphasize consistency with Isle
Royale’s thematic character. For example, mer-
chandise sold at the park and use of packaging
and food and beverage containers would be in
keeping with wilderness and sustainability
concepts, natural and cultural history themes,
and the character of Lake Superior.

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS TO FOLLOW
THIS GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

Visitor Experience and Resource
Protection (VERP) Plan

The VERP program, which is used to address
carrying capacity for NPS units, consists of four
key elements: (1) a parkwide management
zoning scheme (established through evaluation
of the alternatives) that defines visitor experience
and resource condition goals for each area of the
park, (2) selection of indicators that can be
monitored to ensure that the goals are being met,
(3) a systematic monitoring program, and (4)
standards for each monitored indicator that is
expected to warn when conditions merit
management action. The first element will be
accomplished as part of the general management
plan. The other elements will be detailed in a
VERP implementation plan or incorporated into
the wilderness and backcountry management
plan described below.

For the Draft General Management Plan the
status of park resources in visitor use areas was
assessed and visitors were surveyed about their
expectations and experiences. Concerns related
to crowding and use levels in different parts of
the island were noted. Ongoing research will
identify meaningful indicators and standards that
can be used to ensure provision of quality
experiences while protecting park resources. The


motel units and the intended addition of some housekeeping units and/or rustic cabins, the @
total reduction in overnight capacity will not be substantial. The National Park Service

considers some reduction reasonable in light of reduced resource and visual impacts, a more
sustainable design, and units that meet code and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

requirements.

Comment; Despite the economics involved, the fees the concessioner must pay to the National Park
Service must be kept within reason so that prices paid by visitors remain affordable. Otherwise the
national parks become, in effect, costly private country clubs.

Response: The Nationa] Park Service agrees that it is desirable to keep overnight
accommodations affordable to visitors. This is one reason that the Draft General Management
Plan /Environmental Impact Statement calls for additional annual funding of $400,000 to
subsidize the concessioner’s utility costs. If this base increase is obtained, utility charges to the
concessioner will be significantly reduced, enabling the concessioner to reduce rates charged
to the public. Without the increase, utility charges to the concessioner will have to be raised,
as will resulting rates to the public (see appendix C for a more detailed discussion).

Comment: The National Park Service should think about establishing a lodge and dining facilities at
Windigo also.

” Response: Alternative B explores the concept of adding lodging for visitors at the west end of
the island. The majority of public comment has opposed additional development on the island.

Comment: The National Park Service should take measures beyond those proposed to remove @
unnecessary concessions and services from the park. This would encourage provision of these services

in the settled gateway communities and lessen the visual and actual impacts of development in the

park.

Response; Discontinuing all concession services except ferry transportation to and from the
island was considered in alternative C. It is not feasible for gateway communities to provide
the concession services that are available on the island, such as meal service, overnight
accommodations, water taxi service, canoe and boat rentals, and fuel sales.

Comment: Clarify in the final plan that the number of lodge guests is dropping as a direct result of the
M .V. Ranger III schedule being reduced from three to two round trips per week.

Response: The schedule for the Ranger IJ was reduced from 3 to 2 trips per week more than
25 years ago. After that, the number of passengers carried each year increased steadily with
only minor fluctuations downward in years corresponding to increased gasoline prices
nationwide or increases in other costs directly associated with a visit to the island, such as
lodging costs. Adding an additional trip per week would increase NPS operating costs for the
ship by approximately $75,000 per year (for additional crew members, overtime pay, fuel
costs, etc.). As only a few Ranger III trips per year are full to capacity (and the seaplane and
other ferries are not usually full),there is no reason to expect that the addition of another
round trip per week would increase guest numbers appreciably.

146


ALTERNATIVE A

IMPACTS ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Wildlife

No temporary or permanent disturbance or
displacement of wildlife would occur as a result
of new construction or demolition. There would
be no introduction of visitor use into new areas,
but disturbance in existing areas would continue.
Uncontrolled increases in visitor use would result
in increased disturbance and displacement in busy
areas. Some wildlife species would continue to
adapt to human use and others would seek more
suitable habitat elsewhere. Controlled use water
zones would not be established, and waterfowl
would continue to be disturbed at their nesting
sites. This impact could increase with
uncontrolled motorboat use.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Disturbance to these species (animal displacement
or trampling of rare plants) could increase with
rising and unrestricted use. The potential for
human disturbance of wolves, bald eagles (that
nest in the park), and peregrine falcons (that
occasionally use the park but are not known to
nest there) could increase with rising and
unrestricted visitor use.

Designated Wilderness

Eighteen potential wilderness areas would be
converted to wilderness after nonconforming uses
are eliminated. Of these, five areas include
functions (such as staff housing and the park’s
artist-in-residence program) that are expected to
continue for the foreseeable future. Conversion of
these five areas will be delayed until such
functions are no longer needed or can be
relocated to nonwilderness areas.

113

Geologic Processes

The movement of sand and sediment along the
shoreline in Siskiwit Bay would continue to be
interrupted by the artificial dock and breakwater
structures.

Water Quality

Hydrocarbon engine and bilge emissions from
private motorboats, NPS craft, and commercial
ferries would continue. Without use limits or
restrictions, use of motorboat and personal
watercraft could increase significantly, resulting
in increased emissions of hydrocarbon
compounds into Lake Superior waters. Motorboat
fuel emissions are not believed to be of much
ecological concern at Isle Royale, however (Roy
Irwin, personal communication), for the
following reasons: (1) Motorboat fuel is made up
largely of volatile compounds that evaporate and
disperse into the air. Sunlight and microbial
action help to break down most substances over
time into harmless compounds. (2) More
persistent hydrocarbon compounds are not likely
to build to toxic levels because of the relatively
low number of boats and the nature of Lake
Superior; as the largest freshwater lake in the
world, there is ample room in Lake Superior for
dispersal of molecules, and dispersal is enhanced
by water mixing from seasonal temperature
changes and wave action. (3) The duration of
hydrocarbon emissions is limited, as motorboat
use occurs primarily during the three summer
months.

Although refueling of visitor boats at park
marinas would continue, potential for spills with
appreciable adverse effects would remain low
because approved spill prevention and response
plans and measures are already in place.
Similarly, the risk of environmental harm from
fuel storage or transfer operations would remain
low, as spill prevention and response measures
(double-walled pipes and storage tanks,
containment structures and equipment, spill


AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

for backpacking trips. Most of the 24 permittees
visit only once or twice each season.

All charter fishing permittees operate off the
north shore of Minnesota. National Park
Concessions, Inc., has a contractual right to
provide all charter fishing in the park. That right
has only been exercised on the eastern half of the
island. Charter fishing is the single largest IBP
activity in the park. Park managers and visitors
were concerned that escalating charter fishing
activity could negatively affect the fishery, so a
short-term moratorium was established on the
issuance of permits during the GMP process.
There are currently 12 incidental business permits
issued to various individuals to bring charter
groups to the park.

CONCESSION SERVICE AREAS
Rock Harbor

Most of the commercial services at Rock Harbor
are operated by National Park Concessions, Inc.,
under a 20-year concessions contract that will
expire in 2002. This includes 20 housekeeping
cabins, 60 motel units (in four structures), a
restaurant, snack bar, gift shop, public showers,
laundry, gasoline dock (gas/diesel sales and
sewage pumpout), a tour boat operation, canoe
and small boat rentals, overnight docking
facilities (equipped with water and power), and a
water taxi and charter fishing operation.

The operating season begins with limited service
around the end of May. Full service begins
around June 10 and ends around September 7.
NPCI employees are usually off the island by the
third week in September. The company employs
about 60 people during peak season, most of
whom are housed in a large dormitory.

For the period 1991-1996, the lodge accounted
for about 36% of the concessioner’s annual gross
revenues. The average occupancy rate at the
lodge during that period was 45%; the highest
monthly average was in August (54%). The
housekeeping cabins averaged 67% during the

88

same period with an August average of 84%.
Historically about 15%~17% of all visitors to Isle
Royale use the concessioner’s overnight facilities.
The rate structure at the lodge is based on the
American plan, which includes three meals per
day in the dining room. Housekeeping guests,
boaters, and campers also eat at the restaurant and
accounted for about 28% of the total meals served
in 1995. During 1991-1996 food services
accounted for about 19% of the concessioner’s
annual gross revenues. Grocery sales accounted
for about 17%. Boat rentals and fuel sales
accounted for about 16%.

The park’s management of the NPCI operation is
subject to the requirements of the Concessions
Policy Act (16 USC 20), chapter 10 of NPS
Management Policies, NPS-48 Concessions
Management Guidelines, Bureau of the Budget
circular A-25, and the Independent Offices
Appropriation Act (PL 82-137§501, 31 USC
483a). The park is permitted to provide services
to the concessioner and is required to charge them
for the services based on comparable or actual
costs, whichever is higher.

Traditionally the National Park Service has
subsidized the concessioner’s commercial
activities by charging less than cost for the
provision of utilities and freight services. The
Park Service has tried to keep the rates to the
public at an affordable level while providing the
concessioner with a reasonable opportunity for
profit. Over the past few years this situation has
become problematic because of more demanding
safety and public health requirements, increasing
deferred maintenance, and unfunded needs in
other park programs.

National Park Concessions, Inc., is permitted by
NPS policy to pass on to their customers the
difference between comparable costs and the
actual costs as charged by the park.

In FY 97, NPS utility service charges to National
Park Concessions, Inc., were increased to more -
accurately reflect the park’s true costs. In FY 96,
National Park Concessions, Inc., paid the park


Actions Common to the Proposed Action and Alternatives B, C, and E

of encountering NPS staff would be moderate.
These areas would provide ample opportunity
for social interaction.

Resource Condition or Character — Visitors,
sites, and trails would be intensively managed in
the frontcountry zone to ensure resource
protection and public safety. The areas in this
zone would be predominantly natural, but the
sights and sounds of people would be evident.
The natural environment could be modified for
essential visitor and park operation needs, but
changes would harmonize with the natural
environment. Except for essential changes, NPS
tolerance for resource degradation would be low.
This land-based zone could be in designated
wilderness or in nonwilderness. The zone would
not be near sensitive natural or cultural resources
if such resources could not be adequately
protected.

Appropriate Kinds of Activities or Facilities —
This zone would be comprised of heavily used
areas adjacent to developed zones and heavily
used trail corridors that access prime park
features such as cultural sites or scenic areas.
Relatively large campgrounds, hardened trails,
and interpretive facilities and signs might be
present in nonwilderness. Some trails might be
accessible to visitors with disabilities.

Wilderness Portal Zone.

Visitor Experience — These portal or gateway
areas would provide the access and facilities
needed to experience or manage other zones,
such as the backcountry and primitive zones.
There could be pulses of activity, especially
around the times of ferry or water taxi landings.
Mixing of different types of users would be
common, and solitude and quiet would be
available some of the time. Visitors would have
some need for self-sufficiency, but adventure or
challenge would be relatively unimportant.

Resource Condition or Character — NPS
tolerance for resource degradation in this zone
would be low. The zone would appear mostly
natural, but there would be some evidence of

31

human facilities and use. Resources could be
altered for essential visitor and park operational
needs, but alterations or facilities would blend
with the natural environment. This zone could be
located in designated wilderness or in
nonwilderness and would be confined to
relatively small areas. Like the developed and
frontcountry zones, it would not be near
sensitive natural or cultural resources if such
resources could not be protected.

Appropriate Kinds of Activities or Facilities —
Facilities in this zone could include moderate-
sized campgrounds with shelters, trailheads,
trails, and docks. Secondary ferry landings could
be located in this zone. Some interpretive
activities could be appropriate when presented
with sensitivity to the zone character.

Backcountry Zone.

Visitor Experience — The backcountry zone
would provide a sense of being immersed in a
natural landscape, and it would feel somewhat
distant from most comforts and conveniences.
There would be possibilities for challenge and
adventure. Visitors would have to commit a
block of time, have outdoor skills, and exert
themselves. The probability of encountering
other hikers would be moderate, and there would
be a good chance of solitary experiences. There
would be chances for social interaction. Quiet
generally would be expected, but occasional
noise would be tolerated.

Resource Condition or Character — The
backcountry zone could be applied to trail
corridors and areas of a somewhat more
primitive nature than those in the frontcountry
zone. This land-based zone would be appropriate
in designated wilderness areas. A relatively high
level of management would be provided for
resource protection and visitor safety. Some
resource modifications would be evident, but
they would harmonize with the natural
environment. NPS tolerance for resource
degradation would be low. Facilities would not
be placed near sensitive resources that could not
be protected.