iii 

PICTURED ROCKS 

NATIONAL LAKESHORE 

July 2003 

Draft 

General Management Plan 

and Wilderness Study 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore 

Michigan 
iv 

HOW TO COMMENT ON THIS PLAN 

Comments on this plan are welcome and will 

be accepted for a 90-day review period

during which public meetings will be held. If 

you wish to respond to the material in this 

document, you may submit your comments 

by any one of several methods. You may mail 

written comments to: 

 K aren Gustin 

 Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore 

 P.O. Box 40 

 N8391Sand Point Road 

 Munising, MI 49862-0040 

You may also comment via the form on the 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore Web site 

(www.nps.gove/PIRO). If you decide not to 

use the Web site form, please submit 

Internet comments as a text file avoiding the 

use of special characters or any form of 

encryption. Include your name and return 

address in your Internet message, and if 

possible, request a return receipt when 

sending your message. If you do not receive 

a confirmation from the system that we have 

received your Internet message, contact 

Brenda St Martin, 906-387-2607. 

You may hand-deliver comments at one of 

several public meetings to be announced in 

the media following release of this document. Also, comments may be taken to the 

national lakeshore headquarters for Pictured 

Rocks National Lakeshore, N8391 Sand 

Point Road, Munising, MI 49862. 

Our practice is to make comments, including 

names and addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular 

business hours. Individual respondents may 

request that we withhold their address from 

the planning record, which we will honor to 

the extent allowable by law. There also may 

be circumstances in which we would withhold from the record a respondent’s identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to 

withhold your name and/or address, you 

must state this prominently at the beginning 

of your comment. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and 

from individuals identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of organizations 

or businesses, available for public inspection 

in their entirety. 

This method for public comment submittal 

listed above stems from recent court rulings 

concerning the release of public comments, 

and it is included as recommended by the 

Office of the Solicitor, Department of the 

Interior (DOI). 
v 

Draft 

General Management Plan and Wilderness Study 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore 

Alger County, Michigan 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore was established in October 1966. The last comprehensive management plan 

for the national lakeshore was completed in 1981. Much has changed since 1981 — visitor use patterns and types 

have changed, the former Coast Guard property in Grand Marais and Munising was added to the national 

lakeshore in 1996 and 2002, the development of a scenic drive has been prohibited by recent legislation, and 

revised NPS management policies allow the possibility of recommending some of the lakeshore’s lands and waters 

for designation as wilderness. Each of these changes has major implications for how visitors access and use the 

national lakeshore, the facilities needed to support those uses, how resources are managed, and how the National 

Park Service manages its operations. A new plan is needed. 

This document examines five alternatives for managing the national lakeshore for the next 15 years. It also 

analyzes the impacts of implementing each of the alternatives. The “no-action” alternative describes the existing 

conditions and trends of national lakeshore management and assumes that these conditions would remain 

unchanged. It also serves as a basis of comparison for evaluating the other alternatives. The preferred alternative

would expand opportunities for visitor use by providing additional and more convenient access to significant 

national lakeshore features. Federal lands in the Beaver Basin area in the national lakeshore would be proposed 

for designation as wilderness. Upgrading portions of County Road H-58, the responsibility of Alger County, 

would be recommended. 

In alternative A management of the national lakeshore would be very similar to existing management except that 

administration and maintenance functions would be consolidated in new facilities at both ends of the national 

lakeshore, a new campground would be provided, and paving County Road H-58 from Munising to Grand Marais 

would be recommended. The central portion of the national lakeshore would be preserved in a relatively 

primitive, undisturbed state. Two other alternatives, B and D, were considered initially in efforts to consider a 

range of alternatives; alternative B was dropped from consideration because of the lack of public support, and 

alternative D was modified to create the preferred alternative. 

The national lakeshore would be an easier and more convenient place to visit in alternative C. Improved access 

would be provided to additional lakeshore areas, features, and significant cultural resources. Many NPS-owned 

roads would be paved or improved, and paving County Road H-58 would be recommended. Facilities and 

infrastructure would be improved at some drive-in campgrounds. Selected cultural landscapes would be restored 

and interpreted. 

Much of the middle third of the national lakeshore, including some Lake Superior waters, relatively small portions 

of the inland buffer zone, Beaver Basin, Chapel Basin, and adjacent areas, would be proposed for designated 

wilderness in alternative E, maximizing opportunities for nonmotorized recreation such as hiking and 

backcountry camping in a relatively remote, quiet, natural area. Within the proposed wilderness portion of the 

lakeshore, structures would be removed and roads would be converted to trails or closed and allowed to revert to 

natural vegetation. To accommodate possible increased use in the nonwilderness portion of the national 

lakeshore, certain roads would be upgraded, and upgrading portions of County Road H-58 would be 

recommended. Also, some cultural and natural features at the east and west portions of the lakeshore would be 

easier to get to and have more facilities and amenities than now. 

This Draft General Management Plan and Wilderness Study Environmental Impact Statement has been distributed 

to other agencies and interested organizations and individuals for their review and comment. After a 90-day 

r3view period, during which public meetings will be held, comments will be analyzed, and a final plan and 

wilderness study/environmental impact statement will be prepared. Readers are encouraged to send written 

comments on this draft plan to Karen Gustin, Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, P.O. Box 40, N8391 Sand Point 

Road, Munising, MI 49862-0040 or email comments to www.nps.gov/PIRO. Please note that NPS practice is to 

make comments, including names and addresses of respondents, available for public review; see “How to 

Comment on this Plan” for further information. 

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

WHY THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE PLANS 

The National Park Service (NPS) plans for one purpose — to ensure that the decisions it makes will 

carry out, as effectively and efficiently as possible, its mission, which is as follows: 

The National Park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and 

values of the national park system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and 

future generations. The service cooperates with partners to extend the benefits of natural 

and cultural resource conservation and outdoor recreation throughout this country and the 

world. 

In carrying out this mandate, NPS managers constantly make difficult decisions about ways to preserve 

significant natural and cultural resources for public enjoyment, about competing demands for limited 

resources, about priorities for using funds and staff, and about differing local and nationwide interests 

and views of what is most important. For example, How can the fragile Everglades ecosystem be 

protected? What role should Zion National Park play in its surrounding ecosystem and cultural setting? 

What types of visitor experiences are desirable at Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore? Planning provides 

methods and tools for resolving these issues and promoting mutually beneficial solutions − solutions 

that articulate how public enjoyment of the parks can be part of a strategy for ensuring that resources 

are protected unimpaired for future generations.

The National Park Service is subject to a number of legal requirements for planning, all intended to 

support the best possible decisions. By law, the National Park Service is required to conduct 

comprehensive general management planning, to base decisions on adequate information and analysis, 

and to track progress made toward goals. Together these processes make the National Park Service 

more effective, more collaborative, and more accountable. 

Planning provides a balance between continuity and adaptability in a dynamic decision-making 

process. The success of the National Park Service will increasingly depend upon the abilities of its 

employees to continuously process new information and use it creatively, often in partnership with 

others, to resolve complex and changing issues. Planning provides a logical, trackable rationale for 

decision making by focusing first on why a park was established and what conditions should exist there 

before delving into details about specific actions. Defining the desired conditions to be achieved and 

maintained provides a touchstone that allows management teams to constantly adapt their actions to 

changing situations while staying focused on what is most important about the park. The planning 

process ensures that decision makers have adequate information about benefits, impacts (natural, 

cultural, visitor use/experience, and socioeconomic), and costs. Analyzing the park in relation to its 

surrounding ecosystem, historic setting, community, and a national system of protected areas helps 

park managers and staffs understand how the park can interrelate with neighbors and others in systems 

that are ecologically, socially, and economically sustainable. Decisions made within this larger context 

are more likely to be successful over time. 

Public involvement throughout the planning process provides focused opportunities for park 

managers and the planning team to interact with the public and to learn about public concerns, 

expectations, and values. Understanding the values that people hold in relation to park resources and 

visitor experiences is often the key to success in coming to decisions that can be implemented. Public 

involvement also provides opportunities to share information about park purposes and significance, as 

well as opportunities and constraints regarding the management of park lands and surrounding areas. 

Finally, planning helps ensure and document that management decisions are promoting the efficient 

use of public funds, and that managers are accountable to the public for those decisions. The ultimate 

outcome of planning for national parks is an agreement among the National Park Service, its partners, 

and the public on why each area is managed as part of the national park system, what resource 

conditions and visitor experiences should exist there, and how those conditions can best be achieved 

and maintained over time. 
vii 

HOW THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE IS DOING PLANNING FOR 

PICTURED ROCKS NATIONAL LAKESHORE 

The principal product of the planning process is the exploration of alternatives created with 

consideration of public comment and resource analysis that leads to the selection and approval of 

a preferred alternative for directing the future management of the national lakeshore. This 

document records the results of that effort. This draft document represents planning activity #4 

(which is shaded below). 

Planning Activity Public Involvement Opportunities 

1. Initiate Project

• The planning team assembles and begins to identify 

the project’s scope and issues and customize the 

process to fit Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore. 

Newsletters inform the public* about the planning 

process and solicit feedback from the public. The 

public can read the newsletters and comment on the 

response forms and ask to be on the national 

lakeshore’s mailing list. 

2. Initiate Planning Context

• The team examines WHY Congress established the 

lakeshore and reaffirms the lakeshore’s mission, 

purpose, and significance. 

• Team members collect and analyze relevant data and 

public comments. 

Public open houses help the public learn about the 

planning process and add public input to the 

process. 

3. Develop and Evaluate Alternatives

• The planning team explores WHAT the lakeshore’s 

future could look like, and proposes and assesses a 

range of reasonable alternatives for the lakeshore’s 

future. 

Newsletters inform the public about the planning 

process and solicit feedback from the public. The 

public can read the newsletters and comment on the 

response forms and ask to be on the national 

lakeshore’s mailing list. 

Public open houses help the public learn about the 

planning process and add public input to the 

process.

4. Prepare a Draft Document

• The team produces and publishes a Draft General 

Management Plan and Wilderness Study 

Environmental Impact Statement that discusses HOW 

each alternative concept would be attained, what the 

impacts of those actions would be on the 

environment (natural, cultural, and socioeconomic 

resources), and what costs would be incurred. 

• The draft document describes the planning context, 

management alternatives, and their impacts. Based 

on the impacts of implementing the alternatives and 

public comment, the team defines the National Park 

Service’s preferred alternative. 

The draft plan brings the planning process and 

alternatives into focus and allows the public to read 

the plan and comment on the alternatives and 

impacts presented. 

5. Prepare and Publish a Final Document

• Based on public comments on the draft document, 

environmental analysis, and other information, the 

team revises the Draft General Management Plan and 

Wilderness Study Environmental Impact Statement 

and distributes a final plan to the public.* 

The final plan allows the public to read the final 

document. 

* Public is defined in this document as anyone or any organization who is interested in or affected by management decisions 

for Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore. This includes, but is not limited to, local residents, adjacent landowners, national 

lakeshore staff, other governmental agencies, tribes, national lakeshore visitors, and state and national special interest 

organizations. 
viii 
ix 

SUMMARY 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore was 

established in October 1966 by Public Law 89-

668 to “preserve for the benefit, inspiration, 

education, recreational use, and enjoyment of 

the public, a significant portion of the diminishing shoreline of the United States and its 

related geographic and scientific features.” 

The last comprehensive planning effort 

(general management plan) for Pictured 

Rocks National Lakeshore was completed in 

1981. Much has occurred since 1981 — patterns and types of visitor use have changed, 

the national lakeshore boundary was 

amended in 1996 and 2002 to add the former 

Coast Guard property in Grand Marais and 

Munising, the development of a scenic drive 

has been prohibited by recent legislation, and 

revised NPS management policies allow us to 

examine the potential for recommending 

some of the lakeshore’s lands and waters for 

designation as wilderness. Each of these 

changes has major implications for how 

visitors access and use the national lakeshore, 

the facilities needed to support those uses, 

how resources are managed, and how the 

National Park Service manages its operations. 

A new plan is needed to 

• Clearly define resource conditions and 

visitor experiences to be achieved in 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore. 

• Provide a framework for national 

lakeshore managers to use when making 

decisions about such issues as how to best 

protect national lakeshore resources, how 

to provide a diverse range of visitor 

experience opportunities, how to manage 

visitor use, and what kinds of facilities, if 

any, to develop in the national lakeshore. 

• Ensure that this foundation for decision 

making has been developed in 

consultation with interested stakeholders 

and adopted by the NPS leadership after 

an adequate analysis of the benefits, 

impacts, and economic costs of alternative 

courses of action. 

This Draft General Management Plan and 

Wilderness Study Environmental Impact 

Statement presents five alternatives, including 

the National Park Service’s preferred alternative, for future management of Pictured Rocks 

National Lakeshore. The five alternatives are 

the no-action alternative (continuation of 

existing management), the NPS preferred 

alternative, alternative A, alternative C, and 

alternative E. (Two other alternatives were 

presented to the public in Newsletter 3. 

Alternative B was dropped and alternative D 

was modified to create the preferred alternative.) The alternatives, which are based the 

national lakeshore’s mission, purpose, and 

significance, present different ways to manage 

resources and visitor use and improve 

facilities and infrastructure at the national 

lakeshore. 

The 17,000 acres in the inland buffer zone 

owned by Kamehameha Schools is being sold 

to the ForestLand Group Limited Liability 

Corporation. On-the-ground management of 

these lands and resources may change as a 

result of this new ownership. 

THE NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

The no-action alternative describes a continuation of existing management at Pictured 

Rocks National Lakeshore and provides a 

baseline for evaluating the changes and impacts of the other alternatives. The National 

Park Service would continue to manage 

Pictured Rocks as it has in the past. Existing 

operations and visitor facilities would remain 

in place, concentrated at the west and east 

ends of the lakeshore, while the central 

portion would remain in a primitive, relatively 

undisturbed state. No new construction 
SUMMARY

x 

would be authorized. Efforts would continue 

to restore the national lakeshore to as natural 

a state as possible. Natural ecological 

processes would continue to be allowed to 

occur, and restoration programs would 

continue or would be initiated where 

necessary. With few limits on visitor use, 

visitation could increase throughout most of 

the national lakeshore. County Road H-58 

would probably remain a mix of paved and 

unpaved road. No wilderness would be 

proposed for designation. 

The major impacts of continuing existing 

conditions would be as follows. 

(1) The deterioration of the museum 

collection. 

(2) The preservation of wilderness values, 

although not necessarily in perpetuity. 

(3) Some benefits from expenditures of 

about $21 million in life-cycle costs 

(estimated for a 25-year period), which 

would benefit the overall Alger County 

economy; some short-term moderate 

benefits for some individuals and 

businesses involved with daily/annual 

operations. 

(4) The maintenance of continuing the 

diverse recreational activities, the current mix of access (easy, more difficult, 

and challenging), access to the cliffs and 

beaches on the Lake Superior shoreline 

(with few additional restrictions on 

motorized and nonmotorized boats), 

and current man-made noise 

interruptions on the visitor experiences. 

(5) The likely preservation of the scenic 

character of County Road H-58 as it is. 

(6) Limited access for visitors with 

disabilities. 

THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

The preferred alternative would provide additional and more convenient access to 

significant national lakeshore features, thus 

expanding opportunities for visitor use in the 

national lakeshore. Efforts would continue to 

restore the national lakeshore to as natural a 

state as possible. Natural ecological processes 

would be allowed to occur, and restoration 

programs would be initiated where necessary. 

Federal lands in the Beaver Basin area in the 

national lakeshore would be proposed for 

designation as wilderness. Vehicular access to 

Little Beaver Lake campground would 

remain, however structures within the 

proposed wilderness would be removed. 

Other roads in Beaver Basin would be closed 

and converted to trails or allowed to revert to 

natural vegetation. To accommodate possible 

increased use and to increase ease of access in 

the portion of the national lakeshore not 

proposed for wilderness, certain roads would 

be upgraded (upgrading portions of County 

Road H-58 would be recommended), and a 

campground would be added in the Miners 

area. Operational facilities would be 

consolidated at the ends of the national 

lakeshore for efficiency. About 18% of the 

national lakeshore would be proposed for 

designation as wilderness. 

Among the important impacts of implementing the preferred alternative would be as 

follows. 

(1) The preservation of and access to the 

museum collection and greater 

protection for the national lakeshore’s 

cultural resources than under the noaction alternative. 

(2) The overall maintenance of wilderness 

values by law in perpetuity. 

(3) Some benefits from expenditures of 

about $50 million in life-cycle costs 

(estimated for a 25-year period), which 

would benefit the overall Alger County 

economy; some moderate to major 

short-term benefits for some individuals 

(mostly in the construction industry) 

from increased business and 

employment opportunities related to 

lakeshore projects proposed in this 

alternative. 
Summary 

xi 

(4) Reduced motorboating opportunities, 

additional or improved recreational 

opportunities, and possibly reduced 

opportunities for primitive driving 

experiences. 

(5) Improved opportunities to visit more 

lakeshore features in a given length of 

time, but possible crowding in certain 

areas at times. 

(6) Reduced opportunities to go to Twelvemile Beach via motorized boats adjacent 

to the recommended wilderness area. 

(7) Possible changes in County Road H-58’s 

scenic character. 

(8) Improved access for visitors and staff 

with disabilities. 

ALTERNATIVE A 

In alternative A management of the national 

lakeshore would be very similar to existing 

management with a few exceptions. Administration and maintenance functions would be 

consolidated in new facilities near Munising 

and Grand Marais. A new campground would 

be provided in the Miners area, and paving 

County Road H-58 from Munising to Grand 

Marais would be recommended. Facilities 

would continue to be concentrated at the 

ends, while the central portion of the national 

lakeshore would be preserved in a relatively 

primitive, undisturbed state. The lakeshore 

would continue to be restored to as natural a 

state as possible. Natural ecological processes 

would be allowed to occur, and restoration 

programs would be initiated where necessary. 

National lakeshore managers would place few 

additional limits on visitor use, thus visitation 

could increase throughout most of the 

national lakeshore. No wilderness would be 

proposed for designation. 

Among the important impacts of 

implementing alternative A would be as 

follows. 

(1) The preservation of and access to the 

museum collection and greater protection for the national lakeshore’s cultural 

resources than under the no-action 

alternative. 

(2) Lands managed under the primitive 

prescription would ensure slightly 

improved overall wilderness values; 

however, these values would not be 

guaranteed by law in perpetuity. 

(3) Some benefits from expenditures of 

about $37 million in life-cycle costs 

(estimated for a 25-year period), which 

would benefit the overall Alger County 

economy; some moderate to major 

short-term benefits for some individuals 

(mostly in the construction industry) 

from increased business and 

employment opportunities related to 

lakeshore projects proposed in this 

alternative. 

(4) Additional opportunities for camping 

and touring historic resources and 

possibly reduced opportunities for 

primitive driving experiences. 

(5) Improved opportunities to visit more 

lakeshore features in a given length of 

time, but possible crowding in certain 

areas at times. 

(6) Continued intrusions on visitor 

experiences by man-made noise. 

(7) Continued access (motorized and 

nonmotorized boats) to cliffs and 

beaches on the Lake Superior shoreline. 

(8) Possible changes in County Road H-58’s 

scenic character. 

(9) Improved access to facilities for people 

with disabilities. 

ALTERNATIVE B 

Alternative B was dropped from 

consideration. 

ALTERNATIVE C 

The national lakeshore would be an easier and 

more convenient place to visit in alternative C. 

Vehicular access and/or improved pedestrian 
SUMMARY

xii 

access would be provided to additional lakeshore areas, features, and significant cultural 

resources. Many roads would be paved or 

improved (paving County Road H-58 would 

be recommended) to increase ease of access 

for visitors. Facilities and infrastructure would 

be improved at some drive-in campgrounds. 

Selected cultural landscapes would be 

restored and interpreted. An overlook in the 

Sevenmile Creek area, one of the most 

spectacular vistas in the national lakeshore, 

would be added contingent on the state 

donating an easement across about 240 acres 

of their land and the acquisition of an 

easement on about 10 acres from ForestLand 

Group, Limited Liability Corporation. 

Operational and administrative facilities 

would be consolidated near Munising and 

Grand Marais for efficiency. Natural 

ecological processes would be allowed to 

occur, and restoration programs would be 

initiated where necessary. No wilderness 

would be proposed for designation. 

Among the important impacts of implementing alternative C would be as follows. 

(1) The preservation of and access to the 

museum collection and greater protection for the national lakeshore’s cultural 

resources than under the no-action 

alternative. 

(2) Lands managed under the primitive 

prescription would ensure slightly 

improved overall wilderness values; 

however, these values would not be 

guaranteed by law in perpetuity. 

(3) Some benefits from expenditures of 

about $74 million in life-cycle costs 

(estimated for a 25-year period), which 

would benefit the overall Alger County 

economy; some moderate to major 

short-term benefits for some individuals 

(mostly in the construction industry) 

from increased business and 

employment opportunities related to 

lakeshore projects proposed in this 

alternative. 

(4) New facilities (e.g., campground and 

roads), but possibly a lost opportunity 

for a long, primitive driving experience. 

(5) Visitors could visit more lakeshore 

features in a given period of time than 

under the no-action alternative, but 

certain areas could be crowded at times. 

(6) Continued intrusions on visitor experiences by man-made noise. 

(7) Continued motorized and 

nonmotorized boat access to Lake 

Superior cliffs and beaches. 

(8) Possible changes in County Road H-58’s 

scenic character. 

(9) Improved access to facilities for people 

with disabilities. 

ALTERNATIVE D 

Alternative D was used as the basis for the 

preferred alternative. 

ALTERNATIVE E 

Much of the middle third of the national lakeshore would be proposed for designated wilderness in alternative E. Beaver Basin, Chapel 

Basin, and adjacent areas would be included in 

the wilderness proposal, maximizing opportunities for nonmotorized recreation such as 

hiking and backcountry camping in a relatively remote, quiet, natural area. Within the 

proposed wilderness portion of the lakeshore, 

structures would be removed and roads 

would be converted to trails or closed and 

allowed to revert to natural vegetation. To 

accommodate possible increased use in the 

nonwilderness portion of the national lakeshore, certain roads would be upgraded 

(upgrading portions of County Road H-58 

would be recommended), and a new campground would be added in the Miners area. 

Operational facilities would be consolidated 

near Munising and Grand Marais for 

efficiency. Some cultural and natural features 

at the east and west portions of the lakeshore 

would be easier to get to and have more 
Summary 

xiii 

facilities and amenities than now. Natural 

ecological processes would be allowed to 

occur, and restoration programs would be 

initiated where necessary. About 25% of the 

national lakeshore would be proposed for 

designation as wilderness. 

Among the important impacts of implementing alternative E would be as follows: 

(1) The preservation of and access to the 

museum collection and greater 

protection for the national lakeshore’s 

cultural resources than under the noaction alternative. 

(2) Enhanced wilderness values that would 

be preserved by law in perpetuity. 

(3) Some benefits from expenditures of 

about $37 million in life-cycle costs 

(estimated for a 25-year period), which 

would benefit the overall Alger County 

economy; some moderate to major 

short-term benefits for some individuals 

(mostly in the construction industry) 

from increased business and 

employment opportunities related to 

lakeshore projects proposed in this 

alternative. 

 (4) Restricting tour boat operation between 

Miners Beach and Chapel Beach might 

affect the economic viability of tour 

boat operations. 

(5) The loss of some motorboating 

opportunities, but additional or 

improved recreational opportunities (a 

new drive-in campground and hiking 

trails) and opportunities to visit and 

learn about historic resources). 

(6) Possibly less opportunities for primitive 

driving experiences. 

(7) Less motorized boat access to primary 

features 

(8) Reduced intrusions on visitor 

experiences from man-made noise. 

(9) Lost opportunities to get close-up views 

of cliffs and beaches from a tour boat or 

other motorboat. 

(10) Possible changes in County Road H58’s scenic character. 

(11) Improved access to facilities for people 

with disabilities. 

THE NEXT STEPS 

After the distribution of the Draft General 

Management Plan and Wilderness Study 

Environmental Impact Statement there will be 

a 90-day review and comment period. After 

public review the NPS planning team will 

evaluate comments from other federal agencies, tribes, organizations, businesses, and 

individuals regarding the draft plan and 

incorporate appropriate changes into a Final 

General Management Plan and Wilderness 

Study Environmental Impact Statement. The 

final plan will include substantive comments 

on the draft document and NPS responses to 

those comments. After a 30-day no-action 

period, a record of decision approving a final 

plan will be signed by the NPS regional 

director. With the signing of the record of 

decision, the plan can then be implemented, 

depending on funding and staffing. (A record 

of decision does not guarantee funds and staff 

for implementing the approved plan.) If the 

record of decision includes lands that are 

being recommended for designation as 

wilderness, another approval process, 

described below, is set in motion. 

THE WILDERNESS STUDY — WHAT IT 

MEANS AND HOW IT IS APPROVED 

The Wilderness Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-

577) established a national wilderness 

preservation system to “secure for the 

American people of present and future 

generations the benefits of an enduring 

resource of wilderness. 

A wilderness ...is...an area where the 

earth and its community of life are 

untrammeled by man, where man himself 

is a visitor who does not remain. An area 

of wilderness ... (1) generally appears to 

have been affected primarily by the forces 
SUMMARY

xiv 

of nature, with the imprint of man’s work 

substantially unnoticeable; (2) has 

outstanding opportunities for solitude or 

a primitive and unconfined type of 

recreation; (3) has at least 5,000 acres of 

land or is of sufficient size as to make 

practicable its preservation and use in an 

unimpaired condition; and (4) may also 

contain ecological, geological, or other 

features of scientific, educational, scenic, 

or historical value. 

If lands are approved as wilderness in the 

record of decision, a wilderness proposal 

would be prepared from the director of the 

National Park Service to the Department of 

the Interior (Assistant Secretary’s Office) as 

“proposed” wilderness. This proposed 

wilderness recommendation will identify 

national lakeshore lands that are being 

recommended for immediate wilderness 

designation, as well as any other lands 

identified as “potential” wilderness (see 

glossary). 

The secretary of the interior reviews the NPS 

proposed wilderness and either approves or 

revises the proposal, and the result is forwarded to the president for his consideration. The 

president is then responsible for transmitting 

his recommendations to both houses of 

Congress (accompanied by maps and 

boundary descriptions). After the president’s 

formal transmittal of the secretary’s wilderness recommendation to Congress, Congress 

may enact the legislation needed to include 

the area within the national wilderness 

preservation system as “designated” and/or 

“potential” wilderness. 
xv 

A GUIDE TO THIS DOCUMENT 

This document contains the General Management Plan, which is a long-term framework for 

making management decisions, and a Wilderness Study, which explores alternatives for 

wilderness designation. The environmental 

impact statement portion of the document 

assesses the impacts for both the General 

Management Plan and the Wilderness Study. 

This draft General Management Plan and 

Wilderness Study / Environmental Impact 

Statement is organized in accordance with the 

Council on Environmental Quality’s 

implementing regulations for the National 

Environmental Policy Act and the National 

Park Service’s Director’s Orders on “Park 

Planning” (DO-2), “Environmental Analysis” 

(DO-12) and “Wilderness Preservation and 

Management” (DO-41).

Chapter 1: The Purpose of and Need for 

Action sets the framework for the entire 

document. It describes why the plan is being 

prepared and what needs it must address. It 

gives guidance for the alternatives that are 

being considered. The alternatives are based 

on the national lakeshore’s legislated mission, 

its purpose, the significance of its resources, 

special mandates and administrative commitments, and servicewide mandates and policies. 

A change in NPS wilderness policies allows 

lands within the national lakeshore to be 

considered for wilderness study. This general 

management plan process provides the 

opportunity to conduct the wilderness study 

in accordance with the Wilderness Act and 

NPS management policies. 

The chapter also details the planning 

opportunities and issues that were raised 

during public scoping; the alternatives in the 

next chapter address these issues and 

concerns to varying degrees. This chapter 

concludes with a section describing impact 

topics considered in the environmental 

impact statement and impact topics dismissed 

from further consideration. 

Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the 

Preferred Alternative, begins by describing 

the management prescriptions that will be 

used to manage the national lakeshore in the 

future. It also describes the existing management in the national lakeshore (the no-action 

alternative). The five alternatives are then 

presented, one of which is the National Park 

Service’s preferred alternative. Alternatives A, 

C, and E are similar to the alternatives that 

were presented to the public in the May 2000 

newsletter 3. Alternative B was dropped from 

consideration after public review. The 

preferred alternative presented in this document used the concept of alternative D 

presented in newsletter 3 as a foundation and 

pulled elements from other alternatives to 

strengthen the preferred alternative and 

respond to public comments. The preferred 

alternative and alternative E present different 

opportunities to set aside some of the national 

lakeshore as wilderness. The possible 

mitigation of the impacts of some proposed 

actions is described. The chapter concludes 

with summary tables of the alternative actions 

and their environmental consequences. 

Chapter 3: The Affected Environment 

describes those areas and resources that 

would be affected by implementing actions in 

the various alternatives −cultural resources, 

natural resources, socioeconomic resources, 

and visitor use and experience. 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

analyzes the impacts of implementing the 

alternatives on topics described in the 

“Affected Environment” chapter. Methods for 

assessing the impacts in terms of the intensity, 

type, and duration of impacts are outlined. 
SUMMARY

xvi 

Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

describes the history of the current planning 

effort and lists agencies and organizations that 

will be asked to review this document. 

The Appendixes present supporting 

information for the document, along with 

references, a glossary, and a list of the 

planning team and other consultants. 
xvii 

CONTENTS 

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

Brief Description: Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore 3

The Region 3

The Setting 3

The National Lakeshore 3

Relevant Legislation and Policies 4

Purpose of and Need for the Plan and Wilderness Study 9

Purpose of the Plan 9

Need For the Plan 9

Purpose of the Wilderness Study 10

Need for the Wilderness Study 10

Guidance for the Planning Effort 12

Mission, Purpose, and Significance Statements 12

Special Mandates and Administrative Commitments 13

Servicewide Mandates and Policies 14

Planning Opportunities and Issues 20

National Lakeshore Access, Circulation, Visitor Orientation, and Carrying Capacity 20

Shoreline and Inland Buffer Zone 20

County Road H-58 21

Wilderness 21

Decision Points 21

Issues Not Addressed in the General Management Plan 22

Impact Topics — Resources and Values at Stake in the Planning Process 24

Impact Topics to be Considered 24

Impact Topics Dismissed from Further Consideration 25 

CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

Introduction 33

Introduction to the Alternatives 33

Formulation of the Alternatives 33

Development of GMP Cost Estimates 34

Implementation of the Approved Management Plan 35

Boundary Adjustments 35

Land Acquisition/Transfers 35

Wilderness Study 36

Management Prescriptions 45

No-Action Alternative 50

Concept and General Management Strategies 50

Western Portion of the National Lakeshore 50

Central Portion of the National Lakeshore 53

Eastern Portion of the National Lakeshore 53
CONTENTS

xviii 

Wilderness 54

Costs 54

Preferred Alternative 55

How this Alternative Was Developed 55

Concept and General Management Strategies 55

Management Prescriptions and Related Actions 56

Wilderness 63

Costs 63

Alternative A 64

Concept and General Management Strategies 64

Management Prescriptions and Related Actions 64

Wilderness 70

Costs 70

Alternative B 72

Alternative C 73

Concept and General Management Strategies 73

Management Prescriptions and Related Actions 73

Wilderness 80

Costs 80

Alternative D 81

Alternative E 82

Concept and General Management Strategies 82

Management Prescriptions and Related Actions 82

Wilderness 89

Costs 89

Mitigation Measures Common to All Alternatives 90

Sustainable Design and Aesthetics 90

Maintaining Ecological Integrity 90

Best Management Practices during Construction 91

Resource-Specific Measures 92

Cultural Resources 93

Scenic Resources 93

Social and Economic Environments 94

Visitor Experience 94

Future Studies Needed 95

Alternatives Dismissed from Further Consideration 114

Environmentally Preferred Alternative 116 

CHAPTER 3: THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Introduction 121

Cultural Resources 122

Historical Overview 122

Archeological Resources 123

Ethnographic Resources 124

Cultural Landscapes and Historic Structures 125

Historic Properties 125
Contents 

xix 

Museum Collections 126

Natural Resources 128

Species of Concern 128

Wetlands 130

Invasive Species 131

Wilderness Resources and Values 133

The Wilderness Act of 1964 133

Wildeness Resources in the Central Upper Peninsula 133

Wilderness Process at Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore 133

Socioeconomic Resources 135

Population 135

Income 135

Major Industries by Earnings 136

Major Industries by Employment 136

Unemployment 137

Poverty 137

Tourism 138

Visitor Use and Experience 139

Opportunities for Recreational Activities 139

Access to Primary National Lakeshore Features 141

Noise 144

Scenic Character of County Road H-58 144

Opportunties for People with Disabilities 145

National Lakeshore Operations and Facilities 147

Operations 147

Facilities 148

Operational Efficiency and Emergency Response Time 148

Administrative Access to Museum Collection 148 

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Introduction 153

Cumulative Impacts 154

Impairment of National Lakeshore Resources 155

Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 156

Cultural Resources 156

Natural Resources 157

Wilderness Resources and Values 158

Socioeconomic Resources 159

Visitor Use and Experience 159

National Lakeshore Operations and Facilities 160

Impacts of the No-Action Alternative 161

Impacts on Cultural Resources 161

Impacts on Natural Resources 164

Impacts on Socioeconomic Resources (Local Economy and County Tax Base) 166

Impacts on Visitor Use and Experience 167

Impacts on National Lakeshore Operations and Facilities 170
CONTENTS

xx 

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 171

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 171

Relationship of Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity 171

Impacts of the Preferred Alternative 172

Impacts on Cultural Resources 172

Impacts on Natural Resources 175

Impacts on Socioeconomic Resources (Local Economy and County Tax Base) 177

Impacts on Visitor Use and Experience 177

Impacts on National Lakeshore Operations 181

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 181

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 182

Relationship of Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity 182

Impacts of Alternative A 183

Impacts on Cultural Resources 183

Impacts on Natural Resources 186

Impacts on Socioeconomic Resources (Local Economy and County Tax Base) 188

Impacts on Visitor Use and Experience 189

Impacts on National Lakeshore Operations 192

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 192

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 193

Relationship of Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity 193

Impacts of Alternative C 194

Impacts on Cultural Resources 194

Impacts on Natural Resources 197

Impacts on Socioeconomic Resources (Local Economy and County Tax Base) 200

Impacts on Visitor Use and Experience 201

Impacts on National Lakeshore Operations 204

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 204

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 205

Relationship of Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity 205

Impacts of Alternative E 206

Impacts on Cultural Resources 206

Impacts on Natural Resources 209

Impacts on Socioeconomic Resources (Local Economy and County Tax Base) 211

Impacts on Visitor Use and Experience 212

Impacts on National Lakeshore Operations 216

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 216

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 217

Relationship of Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity 217 

CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

Planning Process and History of Public Involvement for This Project 221

Summary of Public Involvement 221

Consultation 221

List of Agencies and Organizations Receiving a Copy of the Draft Plan 222 
Contents 

xxi 

APPENDIXES , GLOSSARY, REFERENCES, PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS

Appendix A: Legislation 229

Appendix B: Servicewide Mandates and Policies 235

Appendix C: Laws and Executive Orders 251

Appendix D: Local Zoning Ordinances 255

Appendix E: Relationship of Other Planning Efforts to This General Management Plan 264

Appendix F: Background for Development of the Plan 267

Glossary 269

References 274

Preparers and Consultants 277

Index 279

Maps 

Region 5

Vicinity 7

Wilderness Study 39

No-Action Alternative 51

Preferred Alternative 57

Alternative A 65

Alternative C 75

Alternative E 83

Tables 

Table 1: Servicewide Mandates and Policies Pertaining to the National Lakeshore 17

Table 2: Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore Management Prescriptions 46

Table 3: Summary of Alternatives 96

Table 4: Summary of Environmental Impacts 102

Table 5: Environmentally Preferred Alternative Analysis 117

Table 6: List of Species of Concern at Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore 128

Table 7: Alger County, Michigan: Earnings by Industry 136

Table 8. Alger County, Michigan Full-time and Part-time Employees by Major Industry 137

Table 9: The Tourism Industry in Alger County, 1996 138

Table 10: Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore Visitation, 1995–2002 139

Table 11 Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore Camping 141 
xxii 

2 
3 

BRIEF DESCRIPTION: PICTURED ROCKS NATIONAL LAKESHORE 

THE REGION 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore is in the 

north-central section of the Upper Peninsula 

of Michigan along the south shore of Lake 

Superior (see Region map). Hiawatha 

National Forest, Seney National Wildlife 

Refuge, Grand Island National Recreation 

Area and numerous state forests and parks 

have been established in the vicinity of the 

national lakeshore. Several Canadian parks 

are along the northern shore of the lake. 

National park system units in the region 

include Voyageurs National Park in northern 

Minnesota; Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore in Wisconsin; Isle Royale National 

Park, Keweenaw National Historical Park 

(northwestern Lake Superior), and Sleeping 

Bear Dunes National Lakeshore (on the 

northeastern shore of Lake Michigan) in 

Michigan; and Indiana Dunes National 

Lakeshore in Indiana (at the southern tip of 

Lake Michigan). 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore is within a 

day’s drive of the major metropolitan areas of 

Minneapolis-St. Paul, Madison, Milwaukee, 

Chicago, Lansing, and Detroit. Substantial 

towns near the national lakeshore include 

Sault St. Marie, Marquette, and Escanaba. 

Airports are at each of these localities. Major 

interstate and state roads lead to the Upper 

Peninsula and the national lakeshore from 

these cities and towns. The main tourist 

attractions of the Upper Peninsula are the 

outstanding natural resources, associated 

recreational opportunities, and historic sites 

and communities. 

THE SETTING 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore extends 

42 miles along the south shore of Lake 

Superior between the communities of 

Munising and Grand Marais (see Vicinity 

map). It is known for the spectacular 

multicolored sandstone cliffs (Pictured 

Rocks) that extend about 12 miles along Lake 

Superior in the western portion of the 

national lakeshore and attain a height of 

almost 200 feet. The eastern portion of the 

lakeshore contains the perched Grand Sable 

Dunes, which rise more than 300 feet above 

the lake. The dunes, a major lakeshore 

attraction, are a rare occurrence in the Great 

Lakes region and contain uncommon plant 

species and communities. 

In addition to the Pictured Rocks, the national 

lakeshore offers other recreational attractions. 

Numerous picturesque waterfalls cascade 

over the Pictured Rocks and the inland 

escarpment. Lake Superior and the inland 

lakes accommodate boating, fishing, and 

swimming, and remote backcountry areas 

such as Beaver and Chapel basins are ideal for 

camping and hiking. Also, the lakeshore has a 

variety of cultural resources that depict the 

maritime, iron, logging, and American Indian 

histories of the area. Winter activities include 

ice fishing, snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, 

and snowmobiling. 

County Road H-58 provides access to the 

national lakeshore. It is administered, maintained, and improved by Alger County. 

THE NATIONAL LAKESHORE 

Pictured Rocks was recognized as a potential 

outstanding public recreation site at least as 

far back as 1924, when the Michigan Conservation Commission created a state park at 

Miners Castle. As with so many conservation 

projects, the lack of funding prevented 

acquisition of important acreage. 

The National Park Service, after conducting a 

Great Lakes shoreline recreation area survey 

in 1957-58, identified Pictured Rocks as one of 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

4 

five areas that contained features of national 

significance. It was recommended for 

consideration as an addition to the national 

park system, and planning for the national 

lakeshore began. 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore was 

established October 15, 1966 by Public Law 

(PL) 89-668 to “preserve for the benefit, 

inspiration, education, recreational use, and 

enjoyment of the public, a significant portion 

of the diminishing shoreline of the United 

States and its related geographic and scientific 

features ...” (see appendix A). 

The national lakeshore encompasses 71,397 

acres. The enabling legislation established an 

inland buffer zone within the national 

lakeshore. 

The shoreline zone (33,548 acres, all in federal 

ownership) is to be managed to preserve its 

scenery and outstanding natural features. 

The inland buffer zone (37,849 acres that are a 

mixture of private and governmental ownership) was established by Public Law 89-668 

(October 15, 1966), Section 9(a) to “stabilize 

and protect the existing character and uses of 

the lands, waters, and other properties within 

such zone for the purpose of preserving the 

setting of the shoreline and lakes, protecting 

its watershed and streams, and providing for 

the fullest economic utilization of the 

renewable resources through sustained yield 

timber management and other resource 

management compatible with the purposes of 

this Act.” The ForestLand Group, Limited 

Liability Corporation (about 17,500 acres) and 

the state of Michigan (13,824 acres) own most 

of the land in the inland buffer zone. The 

remaining land in the inland buffer zone is 

owned by private landowners (2,016 acres), or 

by the National Park Service (2,055 acres). 

Local zoning regulates the density, type, 

location, and character of private development in the inland buffer zone. Alger County, 

Burt Township, and the city of Munising 

maintain the authority to regulate land use on 

all private lands in the inland buffer zone. 

Protection through local zoning allows for 

reasonable use of private land, including 

harvesting of timber, and will help to protect 

the lakeshore’s natural and cultural resources 

by controlling the intensity and locations of 

appropriate uses. 

The 17,000 acres in the inland buffer zone 

owned by Kamehameha Schools is being sold 

to the ForestLand Group Limited Liability 

Corporation. On-the-ground management of 

these lands and resources may change as a 

result of this new ownership. 

RELEVANT LEGISLATION 

AND POLICIES 

The enabling legislation for the national lakeshore directed the National Park Service to 

construct a scenic shoreline drive. Title II, 

Section 202 of PL 105-378 amended the 

enabling legislation for the national lakeshore 

and required that the secretary of the interior 

include specific provision for the development of facilities to provide the benefits of 

public recreation, including appropriate 

improvements to Alger County Road H-58. 

The amendment also prohibits the development of a scenic shoreline drive in Pictured 

Rocks National Lakeshore. 

Director’s Order 41, “Wilderness Preservation 

and Management,” allows consideration of 

wilderness designation in areas with outstanding mineral rights only if it is likely that those 

mineral rights will never be exercised. The 

written agreement between Cleveland Cliffs 

Iron Company (on land now owned by the 

ForestLand Group, Limited Liability 

Corporation) and the National Park Service 

would most likely preclude mineral exploration or development within the lakeshore. 
Brief Description: Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore 

5 

Region 

map 

1 page 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

6 

back of map 
Brief Description: Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore 

7 

Vicinity 

map 

1 page
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

8 

back of map 
9 

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN AND WILDERNESS STUDY 

PURPOSE OF THE PLAN 

The approved General Management Plan will 

be the basic document for managing Pictured 

Rocks National Lakeshore for the next 15 

years. The purposes of this general management plan are as follows: 

• Clearly define resource conditions and 

visitor experiences to be achieved in 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore. 

• Provide a framework for national lakeshore managers to use when making 

decisions about such issues as how to best 

protect national lakeshore resources, how 

to provide a quality visitor experience, 

how to manage visitor use, and what kinds 

of facilities, if any, to develop in the 

national lakeshore. 

• Ensure that this foundation for decision 

making has been developed in consultation with interested stakeholders and 

adopted by the NPS leadership after an 

adequate analysis of the benefits, impacts, 

and economic costs of alternative courses 

of action. 

Legislation establishing the National Park 

Service as an agency and governing its management provides the fundamental direction 

for the administration of Pictured Rocks 

National Lakeshore (and other units and 

programs of the national park system). This 

general management plan will build on these 

laws and the legislation as amended that 

established Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore to provide a vision for the lakeshore’s 

future. The “Servicewide Mandates and 

Policies” section calls the reader’s attention to 

topics that are important to understanding the 

management direction at the national lakeshore. Table 1 summarizes the topic and the 

condition to which management is striving. 

Appendix B gives more detail on the law or 

policy directing management actions. The 

alternatives in this general management plan 

address the desired future conditions that are 

not mandated by law and policy and must be 

determined through a planning process. 

NEED FOR THE PLAN 

This new management plan for Pictured 

Rocks National Lakeshore is needed because 

the last comprehensive planning effort for the 

national lakeshore was completed in 1981. 

Much has occurred since then – patterns and 

types of visitor use have changed, the national 

lakeshore boundary was amended in 1996 to 

add the former Coast Guard property in 

Grand Marais, the development of a scenic 

drive has been prohibited by recent legislation, and revised NPS management policies 

allow us to examine the potential for recommending some of the lakeshore’s lands and 

waters for designation as wilderness. Each of 

these changes has major implications for how 

visitors access and use the lakeshore, the 

facilities needed to support those uses, how 

resources are managed, and how the National 

Park Service manages its operations. 

The general management plan represents a 

commitment by the National Park Service to 

the public on how the national lakeshore will 

be used and managed. As such, it is intended 

to 

• Confirm the mission, purpose, and 

significance of the national lakeshore. 

• Determine the best mix of resource 

protection and visitor experiences beyond 

what is prescribed by law and policy. This 

mix is based on the mission, purpose, and 

significance statements for the national 

lakeshore, the range of public expectations and concerns, the natural and cultural resources in the national lakeshore, 

the impacts of the alternatives on natural, 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

10 

cultural, and socioeconomic conditions; 

impacts on visitor use and experience, and 

long-term economic considerations and 

costs. 

• Define management prescriptions that 

implement the goals of the National Park 

Service and the public with regard to 

natural and cultural resource management 

and protection and visitor use and 

experience. Facilities that are appropriate 

within each management prescription are 

also identified. 

• Determine the areas to which the management prescriptions should be applied to 

achieve the overall management goals of 

the national lakeshore. 

• Assist NPS staff in determining whether 

actions proposed by the National Park 

Service or others are consistent with the 

goals embodied in the approved general 

management plan. 

• Serve as the basis for later more detailed 

management documents, such as five-year 

strategic plans and implementation plans. 

The general management plan does not 

describe how particular programs or projects 

should be prioritized or implemented. Those 

decisions will be addressed during the more 

detailed planning associated with strategic 

plans, implementation plans, etc. All of those 

plans will be based on the goals, future conditions, and appropriate types of activities established in the approved general management 

plan. 

A general management plan also is needed to 

meet the requirements of the National Parks 

and Recreation Act of 1978 and NPS policy, 

which mandate development of a general 

management plan for each unit in the national 

park system. 

PURPOSE OF THE 

WILDERNESS STUDY 

A wilderness study evaluates if lands and 

waters in a national park system unit are 

appropriate for designation as wilderness. 

Two of the alternatives (the preferred alternative and alternative E) explore wilderness 

options for the national lakeshore Elements of 

the wilderness study, which have been integrated into this document, are supported by 

appropriate documentation of compliance 

with the National Environmental Policy Act 

and the National Historic Preservation Act. 

NEED FOR THE WILDERNESS STUDY 

NPS Management Policies at the time of the 

1981 planning effort precluded wilderness 

consideration on areas where the federal 

government did not control the underground 

mineral rights, which was the case at Pictured 

Rocks National Lakeshore. Therefore, 

wilderness suitability was not evaluated for 

the national lakeshore. 

However, recently revised NPS Management 

Policies allow consideration of wilderness 

eligibility and designation on lands owned by 

the federal government with outstanding 

mineral rights. The written agreement 

between Cleveland Cliffs Iron Company (land 

subsequently purchased by the Kamehameha 

Schools and now being sold to the ForestLand 

Group, Limited Liability Corporation) and the 

National Park Service would most likely 

preclude mineral exploration or development 

in the national lakeshore. This is a deed 

restriction that stays with the property. 

The Beaver Basin and Chapel Basin areas were 

found to possess wilderness characteristics. 

NPS management policies provide that the 

national lakeshore should prepare a 

wilderness study for lands and waters found 

to have the characteristics and values of 

wilderness as defined in the Wilderness Act. 

The study can also be used to develop the 

recommendation to Congress for designation 
Purpose of and Need for the Plan and Wilderness Study 

11 

as part of the national wilderness preservation 

system. 

The National Park Service is taking advantage 

of the opportunity provided by the general 

management plan / environmental impact 

statement process to complete the required 

wilderness study. If appropriate, depending 

on the findings and conclusions of this 

wilderness study, the National Park Service 

will prepare a wilderness proposal (to forward 

to the Department of the Interior). Lands 

proposed for designation as wilderness are 

required by NPS management policies to be 

managed as wilderness until designation by 

Congress. Therefore, the question of wilderness at Pictured Rocks requires resolution so 

that NPS staff may move ahead in managing 

land within its jurisdiction. 
12 

GUIDANCE FOR THE PLANNING EFFORT 

MISSION, PURPOSE, AND 

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENTS 

Mission statements describe the desired 

future conditions for the national lakeshore 

that exist when the legislative intent is being 

met. The National Park Service mission, as 

stated in the 1916 Organic Act, is “to conserve 

the scenery and the natural and historic 

objects and the wildlife therein and provide 

for the enjoyment of the same in such manner 

and by such means as will leave them 

unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 

generations.” 

Mission 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore is 

dedicated to 

• preserving a nationally significant portion 

of the Great Lakes shoreline 

• allowing public access to its geologic, 

scientific, and historic features 

• offering opportunities for recreation, 

education, inspiration, and enjoyment 

National lakeshore purpose statements are 

based on national lakeshore legislation and 

legislative history, and NPS policies. The 

statements reaffirm the reasons for which the 

national lakeshore was set aside as a unit of 

the national park system, and provide the 

foundation for national lakeshore 

management and use. 

Purpose 

The purpose of Pictured Rocks National 

Lakeshore is to 

• preserve a portion of the Great Lakes 

shoreline for its geographic, scientific, 

scenic, and historic features, and its 

associated ecological processes 

• provide opportunities for public benefit in 

recreation, education, enjoyment, and 

inspiration 

• protect the character and use of the 

shoreline zone while allowing economic 

utilization of the inland buffer zone’s 

renewable resources 

National lakeshore significance statements 

capture the essence of the national lakeshore’s 

importance to our country’s natural and 

cultural heritage. Significance statements do 

not inventory national lakeshore resources; 

rather, they describe the national lakeshore’s 

distinctiveness and help to place the national 

lakeshore within its regional, national, and 

international contexts. Defining national 

lakeshore significance helps managers make 

decisions that preserve the resources and 

values necessary to accomplish Pictured 

Rocks National Lakeshore’s purpose. 

Significance 

The significance of Pictured Rocks National 

Lakeshore is 

• Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore 

preserves and affords public access to a 

spectacular and diverse segment of the 

Lake Superior shoreline. 

− Unmatched in their scenic value, the 

200-foot high Pictured Rocks cliffs rise 

perpendicularly from Lake Superior, 

creating a rock mosaic of form, color, 

and texture, which is enhanced by 

cascading waterfalls. 

− Grand Sable Dunes, perched atop 300-

foot high sand banks above Lake 

Superior, are one of two perched dune 

systems on the Great Lakes; within 

these dunes are unique plant communities resulting from geomorphic 

processes. 
Guidance for the Planning Effort 

13 

− Twelve miles of unspoiled and 

undeveloped Lake Superior beach 

contrast the Pictured Rocks cliffs and 

Grand Sable Dunes. 

• Bedrock geology and glacial landforms 

provide significant topographic relief 

marked by streams, inland lakes, and a 

diversity of associated vegetation. 

• The shoreline offers extraordinary and 

inspirational scenic vistas of Lake 

Superior, the largest surface area of fresh 

water on earth. 

• Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore offers 

a variety of affordable year-round 

recreational opportunities for appropriate 

public use. 

• The lakeshore contains a spectrum of 

cultural resources focused on the human 

use of Lake Superior and its shoreline. 

• Lying in a transition zone between boreal 

and eastern hardwood forest, the lakeshore’s scientifically recognized 

assemblage of flora and fauna is 

representative of associations unique to 

the Lake Superior Basin. 

• Pictured Rocks is the only NPS area with a 

legislated buffer zone. 

SPECIAL MANDATES AND 

ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITMENTS 

Special mandates and administrative commitments refer to lakeshore-specific requirements. These formal agreements are often 

established concurrently with the creation of a 

unit of the national park system. These 

include the following: 

Title II, Section 202, Public Law 105-378 

requires the agency to include "appropriate 

improvements" to Alger County Road H-58 as 

part of agency provisions for public use 

facilities and prohibits the development of a 

scenic shoreline drive required in the enabling 

legislation. 

The harvesting of renewable resources on a 

sustained yield basis − principally timber − is 

to be permitted within the inland buffer zone 

of the national lakeshore (Public Law 89-668, 

Sections 9 and 10). 

The national lakeshore is the only national 

park system unit with a legislated inland 

buffer zone. Pursuant to the national lakeshore’s enabling legislation, interpretation of 

natural and cultural resources will occur in the 

inland buffer zone and focus on the unique 

relationships between resources and processes within the national lakeshore boundary. 

Hunting and fishing are to be permitted in the 

national lakeshore in accordance with Michigan hunting and fishing regulations, however, 

“zones and ... periods” may be designated as 

no hunting for “reasons of public safety, 

administration, or public use and enjoyment.” 

Such closures can take place following 

consultation with the Michigan Department 

of Natural Resources (Public Law 89-668, 

Section 5). 

Mineral rights in the national lakeshore are 

held by the Michigan Department of Natural 

Resources, ForestLand Group, Limited 

Liability Corporation , and other private and 

corporate owners. When Cleveland Cliffs Iron 

Company sold land to the government, they 

reserved mineral rights subject to an agreement with the National Park Service covering 

methods of mineral extraction within the 

national lakeshore. The agreement precludes 

milling or processing facilities from being 

constructed on lands in the inland buffer zone 

or on lands in the shoreline zone where Cleveland Cliffs Iron Company retained mineral 

rights. When the Kamehameha Schools 

purchased the land from Cleveland Cliffs Iron 

Company the provisions of the agreement 

transferred with the title. ForestLand Group, 

Limited Liability Corporation recently purchased the land from the Kamehameha 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

14 

Schools and the provisions transferred with 

the title to the property. The agreement 

precludes waste dumps, tailing deposits, and 

stockpiling of extracted material on the 

surface of shoreline zone lands. These 

activities are also precluded in the inland 

buffer zone except by written consent of the 

director of the National Park Service. 

The state has granted a perpetual easement to 

the National Park Service for maintenance 

and visitor access purposes for a portion of 

the Chapel Road. An additional easement has 

been granted to the National Park Service for 

communication purposes (Buck Hill fire 

tower). 

The National Trails System Act (Public Law 

90-543) states that national scenic trails are 

located to “provide for maximum outdoor 

recreation potential and for the conservation 

and enjoyment of the nationally significant 

scenic, historic, natural, or cultural qualities of 

the areas through which such trails may pass.” 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore contains a 

segment of the North Country National 

Scenic Trail, which was added to the National 

Trails System on March 5, 1980. The North 

Country National Scenic Trail will continue to 

be managed in a way that supports the 

directions given in the National Scenic Trails 

Act and the North Country National Scenic 

Trail’s Comprehensive Management Plan (NPS 

1982). 

The national lakeshore issues special use 

permits. Special use permits have been issued 

to Alger County Parks and Recreation Department to place a volleyball net at Sand Point 

Beach, for an annual sea kayak symposium 

held within the national lakeshore lands and 

waters, to ForestLand Group, Limited 

Liability Corporation, for access across NPS 

lands to move logging equipment and haul 

forest products in the inland buffer zone, and 

for the annual Michigan Ice Festival. 

The national lakeshore maintains incidental 

business permits, which allow private business 

owners the opportunity to conduct commercial operations within the national lakeshore. 

These commercial activities include backpacking, ice climbing, sea kayaking, hiking, 

cross-country skiing, scenic boat tours, and 

snowshoeing. 

There are cooperative mutual aid fire agreements with Hiawatha National Forest, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, and 

Seney National Wildlife Refuge. NPS law 

enforcement staff cooperates with the Michigan State Police, Alger County Sheriff’s 

Department, Michigan Department of Natural 

Resources, and the Munising City Police. 

There is a cooperative agreement between the 

national lakeshore and Burt Township Ambulance Corps for emergency medical services. 

The national lakeshore also has an Interagency Agreement with Hiawatha National 

Forest for joint operation of the visitor center. 

SERVICEWIDE MANDATES 

AND POLICIES 

This section identifies what must be done at 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore to comply 

with federal laws and with the policies of the 

National Park Service. Many park management directives are specified in laws and 

policies guiding the National Park Service and 

are therefore not subject to alternative 

approaches. For example, there are laws about 

managing environmental quality (such as the 

Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species 

Act); laws governing the preservation of 

cultural resources (such as the National 

Historic Preservation Act); and laws about 

providing public services (such as the 

Americans with Disabilities Act). A general 

management plan is not needed to decide, for 

instance, that it is appropriate to protect 

endangered species, control exotic species, 

protect archeological sites, provide for 

barrier-free access, and conserve artifacts. 

Many of the laws and executive orders that 

guide national lakeshore management, with 
Guidance for the Planning Effort 

15 

their legal citations, are identified in appendix 

C. Some of these laws and executive orders 

are applicable solely or primarily to units of 

the National Park Service. These include the 

1916 Organic Act creating the National Park 

Service, the General Authorities Act of 1970, 

and the act of March 27, 1978, relating to the 

management of the national park system. 

Others have much broader application, such 

as the Endangered Species Act, the National 

Historic Preservation Act, and Executive 

Order 11990 addressing the protection of 

wetlands. 

The NPS Organic Act (16 U.S.C. § 1) provides 

the fundamental management direction for all 

units of the national park system: 

promote and regulate the use of the 

Federal areas known as national parks, 

monuments, and reservations...by such 

means and measures as conform to the 

fundamental purpose of said parks, 

monuments and reservations, which 

purpose is to conserve the scenery and the 

natural and historic objects and the 

wildlife therein and to provide for the 

enjoyment of the same in such manner 

and by such means as will leave them 

unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 

generations. 

The National Park System General Authorities 

Act (16 U.S.C. § 1a-1 et seq.) affirms that while 

all national park system units remain “distinct 

in character,” they are “united through their 

interrelated purposes and resource into one 

national park system as cumulative expressions of a single national heritage.” The act 

makes it clear that the NPS Organic Act and 

other protective mandates apply equally to all 

units of the system. Further, amendments 

state that NPS management of park units 

should not “derogat[e]...the purposes and 

values for which these various areas have been 

established.” 

The NPS Organic Act and the General 

Authorities Act prohibit any impairment of 

park resources. NPS 2001 Management 

Policies (Section 1.4 et seq.) state that an 

impact would be 

more likely to constitute an impairment 

to the extent that it affects a resource or 

value whose conservation is: (1) 

necessary to fulfill a specific purpose 

identified in the establishing legislation 

or proclamation of the park; (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the 

park or to opportunities for enjoyment 

of the park; or (3) identified as a goal in 

the park’s general management plan or 

other relevant NPS planning 

documents. 

The National Park Service also includes the 

park’s role in contributing to the national 

dignity, the high public value and integrity, 

and the superlative environmental quality of 

the national park system, and the benefit and 

inspiration provided to the American people 

by the national park system among the values 

that are subject to the no impairment 

standard. Finally, unless the activity is 

required by statute, the National Park Service 

cannot allow an activity in a park if it would 

involve or result in the following: 

• Would impair park resources or values; 

• Create an unsafe or unhealthful 

environment for other visitors or 

employees; 

• Are contrary to the purposes for which the 

park was established; or 

• Unreasonably interfere with: 

--the atmosphere of peace and tranquility, 

or the natural soundscape maintained in 

wilderness and natural, historic, or commemorative locations within the park; 

--NPS interpretive, visitor service, administrative, or other activities; 

--NPS concessioner or contractor 

operations or services; or 

--other existing, appropriate park uses. 

For these reasons, Chapter 4 of this General 

Management Plan and Wilderness Study 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

16 

Environmental Impact Statement provides an 

analysis of the potential of each alternative to 

leave park resources and values unimpaired 

relative to existing and future operations. 

The National Park Service also has established 

policies for all units under its stewardship. 

These are identified and explained in NPS 

Management Policies (NPS 2001). The 

alternatives considered in this document 

incorporate and comply with the provisions of 

these mandates and policies. 

To truly understand the implications of an 

alternative, it is important to combine the 

servicewide mandates and policies with the 

management actions described in an 

alternative. 

Below are some of the key servicewide 

mandates and policy topics that the national 

lakeshore staff are implementing at Pictured 

Rocks National Lakeshore. Across from each 

topic are the desired conditions that the staff 

is striving to achieve for that topic. The table is 

written in the present tense to describe 

desired conditions as if they have already been 

achieved. Appendix B expands on this 

information by citing the source of the 

mandate and examples of the types of actions 

currently being pursued by national lakeshore 

staff. 
Guidance for the Planning Effort 

17 

TABLE 1: SERVICEWIDE MANDATES AND POLICIES PERTAINING TO THE NATIONAL LAKESHORE

TOPIC Current Laws and Policies Require That the Following Conditions 

Be Achieved at the National Lakeshore 

Relations with 

National Lakeshore 

Neighbors 

The national lakeshore is managed as part of a greater ecological, social, economic, and 

cultural system. 

Because the national lakeshore is an integral part of a larger regional environment, the 

National Park Service works cooperatively with others to anticipate, avoid, and resolve 

potential conflicts, protect national lakeshore resources, and address mutual interests in 

the quality of life for community residents. Regional cooperation involves federal, state, 

and local agencies, Indian tribes, neighboring landowners, and all other concerned 

parties. 

Air Quality Air quality in the national lakeshore meets national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS) for specified pollutants. 

Activities in the national lakeshore do not contribute to deterioration in air quality. 

Water 

Resources 

Surface waters and groundwaters are protected and water quality meets or exceeds all 

applicable water quality standards. 

NPS programs and facilities are maintained and operated to avoid pollution of surface 

waters and groundwater. 

Natural floodplain values are preserved. 

The natural and beneficial values of wetlands are preserved and enhanced. 

Geologic 

Resources

Natural soil resources and processes function in as natural a condition as possible, 

except where special management considerations are allowable under policy. 

Invasive Species 

“Native species” are defined as all species that have occurred or now occur as a result of 

natural processes on lands designated as units of the national park system. Native species 

in a place are evolving in concert with each other. “Exotic species” are those species that 

occupy or could occupy park lands directly or indirectly as the result of deliberate or 

accidental human activities. Exotic species are also commonly referred to as non- native, 

alien, or invasive species. Because an exotic species did not evolve in concert with the 

species native to the place, the exotic species is not a natural component of the natural 

ecosystem at that place.

Managing 

Biological 

Resources 

The National Park Service maintains all native plants and animals as parts of the national 

lakeshore’s natural ecosystems. The term “plants and animals” refers to all five of the 

commonly recognized kingdoms of living things(including such groups as flowering 

plants, ferns, mosses, lichens, algae, fungi, bacteria, mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, 

fishes, insects, worms, crustaceans, and microscopic plants or animals). 

Species of 

Concern

Federal and state-listed threatened and endangered species and their habitats are 

protected and sustained. 

Populations of native plant and animal species function in as natural condition as 

possible except where special considerations are warranted. 

Native species populations that have been severely reduced in or extirpated from the 

national lakeshore are restored where feasible and sustainable. 

The management of populations of exotic plant and animal species, up to and including 

eradication, will be undertaken wherever such species threaten national lakeshore 

resources or public health and when control is prudent and feasible. 

Fire Management All wildfires are suppressed or controlled as soon as possible. 

Night Sky

The National Park Service cooperates with national lakeshore neighbors and local 

government agencies to help minimize the intrusion of artificial light into the night sky in 

the national lakeshore. Artificial outdoor lighting is limited to basic safety requirements 

and is shielded when possible. 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

18 

TOPIC Current Laws and Policies Require That the Following Conditions 

Be Achieved at the National Lakeshore 

Natural 

Soundscapes

The National Park Service preserves the natural ambient soundscapes, restores degraded 

soundscapes to the natural ambient condition wherever possible, and protects natural 

soundscapes from degradation due to human-caused noise. The National Park Service 

manages disruptions from recreational uses to provide a high-quality visitor experience, 

striving to preserve or restore the natural quiet and natural sounds. 

Archeological 

Resources 

Archeological sites are identified and inventoried, and their significance is determined 

and documented. 

Archeological sites are protected in an undisturbed condition unless it is determined 

through formal processes that disturbance or natural deterioration is unavoidable. 

In those cases where disturbance or deterioration is unavoidable, the site is 

professionally documented and salvaged. 

Ethnographic 

Resources

Appropriate cultural anthropological research is conducted in cooperation with national 

lakeshore-associated groups. 

The National Park Service accommodates access to and ceremonial use of American Indian 

sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners and avoids adversely affecting the physical 

integrity of these sacred sites. 

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

national lakeshore are applied in an informed and balanced manner that is consistent 

with national lakeshore purposes and does not unreasonably interfere with American 

Indian use of traditional areas or sacred resources and does not result in the degradation 

of national lakeshore resources. 

Other federal agencies, state and local governments, potentially affected American Indian 

and other communities, interest groups, and the state historic preservation officer are given 

opportunities to become informed about and comment on anticipated NPS actions at the 

earliest practicable time. 

The National Park Service consults with tribal governments before taking actions that affect 

Indian tribes. These consultations are open and candid so that all interested parties may 

evaluate for themselves the potential impact of relevant proposals. National lakeshore staff 

regularly consult with traditionally associated American Indians regarding planning, 

management, and operational decisions that affect subsistence activities, sacred materials or 

places, or other ethnographic resources with which they are historically associated. 

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

sensitive places and practices are kept confidential. 

American Indians and other individuals and groups linked by ties of kinship or culture to 

ethnically identifiable human remains are consulted when remains may be disturbed or are 

encountered on national lakeshore lands. 

Historic 

Properties

Cultural resources are inventoried and their significance and integrity are evaluated 

under National Register of Historic Places criteria. The qualities of historic properties 

that contribute to their actual listing or their eligibility for listing on the National Register 

of Historic Places are protected in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation, unless it is determined 

through a formal process that disturbance or natural deterioration is unavoidable. 

Collections All museum objects and manuscripts are identified and inventoried, and their 

significance is determined and documented. Collections are protected in accordance 

with established standards. 
Guidance for the Planning Effort 

19 

TOPIC Current Laws and Policies Require That the Following Conditions 

Be Achieved at the National Lakeshore 

Visitor Use and 

Experience 

Visitor and employee safety and health are protected. 

Visitors understand and appreciate national lakeshore values and resources and have the 

information necessary to adapt to the national lakeshore environments. Visitors have 

opportunities to enjoy the national lakeshore in ways that leave the resource unimpaired 

for future generations. 

Recreational uses in the national lakeshore are promoted and regulated. Basic visitor 

needs are met in keeping with the national lakeshore purposes. 

To the extent feasible, facilities, programs, and services in the national lakeshore are 

accessible to and usable by all people, including those with disabilities. 

Sustainable Design/ 

Development

NPS visitor and management facilities are harmonious with national lakeshore 

resources, compatible with natural processes, aesthetically pleasing, functional, as 

accessible as possible to all segments of the population, energy efficient, and costeffective. 
20 

PLANNING OPPORTUNITIES AND ISSUES 

The general public, national lakeshore staff, 

and other agencies and organizations identified various issues and concerns during 

scoping for this general management plan. 

Comments were solicited at public meetings, 

through planning newsletters, and on the 

national lakeshore’s Web site. 

Comments received during scoping demonstrated that there is much that the public likes 

about the national lakeshore — its management, use, and facilities. The issues and 

concerns generally involve determining the 

appropriate visitor use, types and levels of 

facilities, services, and activities while 

remaining compatible with desired resource 

conditions. 

The general management plan provides a 

framework or strategy for addressing the 

issues within the context of the national 

lakeshore’s purpose, significance, and mission 

goals; it also proposes resource conditions for 

both summer and winter use on the land and 

the water within the lakeshore boundary and 

desired visitor experiences. The analysis of the 

impacts that could result from actions 

proposed in the alternatives is included in 

chapter 4. 

The following issues were identified during 

the scoping process: 

NATIONAL LAKESHORE ACCESS, 

CIRCULATION, VISITOR 

ORIENTATION, AND CARRYING 

CAPACITY 

Background. Patterns and types of visitor use 

have changed since completion of the 1981 

General Management Plan. For example, sea 

kayak use on national lakeshore waters — 

virtually nonexistent in 1981 — occurs today. 

There is increased interest in motorized use of 

the public lands. At the same time, there is 

concern about the noise and impact on 

resources and visitors from motorized use of 

public lands. 

Some people wanted more national lakeshore 

access in general; others wanted access to be 

restricted. Some people commented that 

access to the shoreline should be available at 

more locations. Accessibility for the elderly 

and visitors with disabilities to the shoreline 

and specific sites such as the Au Sable Light 

Station was an issue for many. Also, most 

people felt either that current numbers of 

visitors were appropriate or that visitation 

should be limited or reduced. 

Issue. Define and provide an appropriate 

balance of access, circulation, and visitor 

orientation and use throughout the national 

lakeshore. Determine an appropriate mix of 

visitor experiences, resource conditions, and 

support facilities. 

The general management plan will address 

carrying capacity issues in the national lakeshore by describing desired visitor experiences, resource conditions, and appropriate 

support facilities through management 

prescriptions for the national lakeshore. The 

management plan will not develop standards 

or indicators for carrying capacity, nor will it 

develop a monitoring plan; that will be accomplished in a subsequent implementation plan. 

SHORELINE AND 

INLAND BUFFER ZONE 

Background. The enabling legislation created 

two zones within the national lakeshore 

boundary: the shoreline zone, owned by the 

federal government and managed by the 

National Park Service, and the inland buffer 

zone, a mixture of federal, state, and private 

ownership. Some people commented favorably on the existing legislated zones. A few 
Planning Opportunities and Issues 

21 

wanted the inland buffer zone to be 

eliminated. Respondents with residential or 

commercial interest in the inland buffer zone 

were concerned about their property rights 

and values as well as possible NPS restriction 

on their property and activities. Others said 

that development and noise-producing 

activities should be restricted to the inland 

buffer zone or areas outside of the lakeshore 

to permit a quieter, more natural experience. 

Issue. Define how the shoreline zone and 

inland buffer zone are managed at Pictured 

Rocks National Lakeshore; identify the uses 

that are appropriate for each zone. 

COUNTY ROAD H-58 

Background. This road is the primary access 

to the national lakeshore. Some respondents 

wanted Alger County Road H-58 left as it is. 

Most want some level of improvements 

(gravel or paving). The majority of those 

wanting improvements favor a relatively 

narrow, two-lane, low-speed scenic road with 

a forest canopy. In conjunction with the 

authority provided in PL 105-178, 

(Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 

Century) the National Park Service has 

authority to assist Alger County with the 

improvement of County Road H-58 to ensure 

continued access to the national lakeshore. 

The National Park Service has no authority to 

perform maintenance services on H-58 or to 

provide funds for maintenance services. 

However, the National Park Service does have 

discretionary authority to provide the local 

matching funds for appropriate H-58 

improvement projects for which it has funding 

authority and available funds. 

Issue. Determine what level of improvement, 

if any, is appropriate for County Road H-58. 

WILDERNESS 

Background. Many people expressed a desire 

to retain the wilderness character of the 

national lakeshore but were opposed to a 

formally designated wilderness primarily 

because of restrictions on motorized access to 

the area. Many others supported wilderness as 

a mechanism to retain the wild character of 

the central part of the national lakeshore. 

Issue. Determine what part of the national 

lakeshore, if any, should be proposed for 

designation as wilderness. 

DECISION POINTS 

Decision points identify the key decisions that 

still remain to be made after all the mandates 

are considered. As with any decision-making 

process, there are key decisions that, once 

made, will dictate the direction of subsequent 

decisions. Based on public comments, the 

issues stated above, and agency concerns for 

this general management plan, two major 

resource conditions and visitor experience 

“decision points” were identified. This general 

management plan focuses on alternative ways 

of addressing these decision points. 

Decision Point 1 

Public lands in the Upper Peninsula provide a wide range of visitor opportunities 

and resource conditions. We need to 

define Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore’s role and relationship with other 

public agencies within the Upper 

Peninsula. Some people want a relatively 

wild, remote place requiring physical effort 

to experience it, while others want an easy, 

convenient place to visit. Others want 

some mix of these two. What mix of 

experiences and resource conditions 

should Pictured Rocks National 

Lakeshore offer its visitors? 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

22 

Decision Point 2 

There is concern among those commenting 

regarding what activities and development 

might occur in the congressionally defined 

inland buffer zone while still providing the 

intended protection for the lakeshore 

zone. What conditions for resource 

protection should exist in the inland 

buffer zone? How do we best manage 

congressionally authorized resource 

(timber) extraction, visitor activities, 

and development in the inland buffer 

zone so that these conditions are met? 

ISSUES NOT ADDRESSED IN THE 

GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Not all of the issues raised by the public are 

included in this general management plan. 

Other issues raised by the public were not 

considered because they 

• were not feasible 

• are already prescribed by law, regulation, 

or policy (see the “Servicewide 

Mandates and Policies” section) 

• would be in violation of laws, 

regulations, or policies 

• were at a level that was too detailed for a 

general management plan and are more 

appropriately addressed in subsequent 

planning documents 

This section briefly describes each of these 

issues, and the basis for excluding them from 

this general management plan. 

• A suggestion was made to transfer 

jurisdiction of Grand Island Recreation 

Area from the U.S. Forest Service to the 

National Park Service. 

Congress established the National 

Recreation Area in 1989 and directed 

the U.S. Forest Service to manage it. 

The U.S. Forest Service will continue 

to manage Grand Island Recreation 

Area, therefore, no further options 

will be explored. 

• A suggestion was made that snowmobiles 

should be banned from Pictured Rocks 

National Lakeshore. Some people believe 

this ban should be implemented throughout 

the national park system.

Snowmobile use is currently allowed 

only on existing roads within the 

national lakeshore. The National Park 

Service is reviewing the policy on 

snowmobile use within park 

boundaries on a systemwide basis. 

Until a servicewide policy decision is 

developed, snowmobile use will 

continue on existing roads. 

• A suggestion was made that hunting and 

logging should be banned from Pictured 

Rocks National Lakeshore. 

These uses are permitted within the 

inland buffer zone of the national 

lakeshore by the enabling legislation. 

Hunting is also permitted in the 

shoreline zone of the national lakeshore 

by the enabling legislation. 

• A suggestion was made that logging and 

ORV use should be allowed within the 

shoreline zone.

These uses are prohibited on NPS lands 

by law. 

• A suggestion was made that trapping should 

be allowed on federally owned lands within 

the national lakeshore.

Courts have determined that under 

existing law trapping is not a 

permissible activity on NPS lands and 

waters. 

• Suggestions were made that personal 

watercraft should be banned within the 

0.25-mile portion of Lake Superior that is 

within the national lakeshore boundary to 

preserve the natural quiet. 

A suit filed against the National Park Service 

by a national environmental group led to a 

court-ordered settlement that personal 
Planning Opportunities and Issues 

23 

watercraft would be banned in all national 

parks and recreation areas by April 22, 2002, 

and September 15, 2002, unless the National 

Park Service can prove that they have adverse 

impacts. In response to the settlement, an 

environmental assessment to identify the 

impacts of personal watercraft at Pictured 

Rocks National Lakeshore was conducted. 

The decision was made that personal 

watercraft would be allowed to launch from a 

designated launch site (currently Sand Point) 

and operate on Lake Superior within the 

national lakeshore boundary from the western 

boundary up to the east end of Miners Beach. 

Personal watercraft users would be allowed to 

beach their craft on Miners Beach. Personal 

watercraft would not be allowed to launch or 

operate elsewhere within the national 

lakeshore.=
24 

IMPACT TOPICS – RESOURCES AND VALUES AT STAKE IN THE 

PLANNING PROCESS 

IMPACT TOPICS TO BE CONSIDERED 

Impact topics allow comparison of the 

environmental consequences of implementing 

each alternative. Section 4.4 of Director’s 

Order 12 states, in part, 

Pursuant to the National Parks Omnibus Management Act and National 

Environmental Policy Act, NPS 

management decisions will be based on 

ample technical and scientific studies 

properly considered and appropriate to 

the decisions made. 

These impact topics were identified based on 

federal laws and other legal requirements, 

NPS subject-matter expertise and knowledge 

of limited or easily impacted resources, and 

concerns expressed by staff of other agencies 

or members of the public during scoping. A 

brief rationale for the selection of each impact 

topic is given below. 

Cultural Resources 

The National Historic Preservation Act, the 

Archeological Resources Protection Act, the 

Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act require that the effects of 

any federal undertaking on cultural resources 

be examined. Also, NPS Management Policies, 

Cultural Resource Management Guideline 

(Director’s Order 28), and NPS Museum 

Collections Management Guideline (DO-24) 

call for the consideration of cultural resources 

in planning proposals. Consideration of 

historic properties is required under the 

National Historic Preservation Act and is 

included in the “Servicewide Policies and 

Mandates” section. Actions proposed in this 

plan could affect archeological sites, historic 

structures, cultural landscapes, ethnographic 

resources, and museum collections. 

Natural Resources

Species of Concern. Consultation with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Michigan 

Department of Natural Resources identified a 

number of threatened, endangered, or species 

of concern, which warrants inclusion of this 

topic in this General Management Plan and 

Wilderness Study / Environmental Impact 

Statement. 

Wilderness Resources and Values

Examine lands within the Chapel and Beaver 

Basins for characteristics that might make 

them eligible for consideration for wilderness 

designation. 

Socioeconomic Resources 

The National Environmental Policy Act 

requires an examination of social and economic impacts caused by federal actions. 

Alger County, and the cities of Munising and 

Grand Marais in particular, and other visitor 

service facilities and operators (e.g., tour 

boats, restaurants, and hotels) could be 

affected by actions proposed in this management plan. Impact topics include effects on 

the local economy and the county tax base. 

Visitor Use and Experience 

Providing for visitor enjoyment, understanding and stewardship is one of the fundamental purposes of the National Park Service. 

Many actions proposed in this management 

plan could affect patterns of visitor use and 
Impact Topics – Resources and Values at Stake in the Planning Process 

25 

the type and quality of visitor experiences. 

Visitor access, orientation and interpretation, 

recreation, and visitor services (including 

camping and lodging) are specific elements of 

the visitor experience; however, the impacts in 

other topic areas could also directly affect 

visitor experience. Some actions proposed in 

this plan will impact the visitor experience. 

Impact topics include opportunities for 

recreational activities, access to primary 

national lakeshore features, noise, scenic 

character of County Road H-58, and 

opportunities for visitors with disabilities. 

National Lakeshore 

Operations and Facilities 

The alternatives proposed in this plan could 

affect NPS operations and facilities in the 

national lakeshore. Topics include operations, 

facilities, operational efficiency and emergency response time, and administrative 

access to the museum collection. 

IMPACT TOPICS DISMISSED FROM 

FURTHER CONSIDERATION 

Some impact topics that commonly are considered during the planning process were not 

relevant to this general management plan for 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore due to the 

following: (a) implementing the alternatives 

would have no discernible effect on the topic 

or resource or (b) the resource does not occur 

in the national lakeshore. These topics are as 

follows: 

Sacred Sites 

According to Executive Order 13007 on 

“Indian Sacred Sites” (1996) the National Park 

Service will accommodate, to the extent 

practicable, access to and ceremonial use of 

Indian sacred sites by religious practitioners 

from recognized American Indian and Alaska 

native tribes and would avoid adversely 

affecting the physical integrity of such sacred 

sites. According to the study “Traditional 

Ojibway Resources in the Western Great 

Lakes” (draft; see the “Cultural Resources” 

section in the “Affected Environment” 

chapter of this document) several Ojibway 

tribes, including the Chippewa Tribe, have a 

cultural affiliation with lands in the national 

lakeshore, and some of these lands continue 

to be of spiritual and religious significance to 

the Chippewas. None of known sites that may 

potentially be important to the tribes would 

be affected by actions proposed in the alternatives in this document. Therefore, the impacts 

on sacred sites will not be analyzed. 

Indian Trust Resources

The lands comprising Pictured Rocks 

National Lakeshore are not held in trust by 

the Secretary of the Interior for the benefit of 

Indians due to their status as Indians. Therefore, this topic was not analyzed. 

Coastal Processes 

None of the management prescriptions or 

actions described in the alternatives would 

interfere with natural coastal processes. 

Shoreline stabilization has been required at 

Sand Point and Grand Marais to protect 

historic properties or other structures, and 

may be required in the future. Such stabilization would have no broad effects on coastal 

processes, either in or outside the lakeshore. 

Coastal Zone Management 

Michigan established a coastal management 

program in response to the Coastal Zone 

Management Act (1972). The Michigan program was developed to: improve protection of 

sensitive shoreline resources, identify coastal 

areas appropriate for development, designate 

areas hazardous to development, and improve 

public access to the coastline. The program 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

26 

includes grants, administration of sections of 

Michigan’s Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act that are related to 

coastal resources (1994 PA 451), and review of 

federal agency activities for consistency with 

Michigan’s approved program. The three 

elements of the Coastal Management Program 

— high-risk erosion areas, flood risk areas, 

and environmental areas — provide consumer 

protection from the natural hazards of coastal 

erosion and flooding as well as environmental 

protection. 

There are no high-risk erosion areas, flood 

risk areas, or environmental areas identified 

by Michigan Department of Environmental 

Quality within the national lakeshore (Martin 

Jannereth, Land and Water Management Div., 

Great Lakes Shorelands section chief, 4/5/01). 

The National Park Service proposes no 

development in any area of the national 

lakeshore that would conflict with the coastal 

management program. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

The Miners River and the Mosquito River in 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore are listed 

on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) 

prepared by the National Park Service. This 

inventory is a register of rivers that may be 

eligible for inclusion in the national wild and 

scenic river system. These rivers were 

included on the inventory based on the degree 

to which they are free flowing, the degree to 

which the rivers and their corridor are 

undeveloped, and the outstanding natural and 

cultural characteristics of the rivers and their 

immediate environments. Section 5 (d) of the 

National Wild and Scenic River Act (Public 

Law 90-542) requires that, “In all planning for 

the use and development of water and related 

land resources, consideration shall be given by 

all federal agencies involved to potential 

national wild, scenic and recreational river 

areas.” In partial fulfillment of the section 5 

(d) requirements, the National Park Service 

has complied and maintains the Nationwide 

Rivers Inventory. 

The intent of the inventory is to provide information to assist in making balanced decisions 

regarding use of the nation’s river resources. A 

presidential directive and subsequent instructions issued by the Council of Environmental 

Quality, and codified in agency manuals, 

requires that each federal agency, as part of its 

normal planning and environmental review 

process, take care to avoid or mitigate adverse 

effects on rivers identified in the inventory. 

A 9-mile long segment of the Miners River 

between County Road H-58 and its mouth at 

Lake Superior is included on the Nationwide 

Rivers Inventory because of its recreational, 

fish, and wildlife values. 

A 6.5-mile long segment of the Mosquito 

River from Section 17, T48N, R17W to its 

mouth with Lake Superior is included on the 

inventory because of its scenic, recreational, 

geologic, and fish values. 

No actions proposed would impact the values 

for which the rivers were included on the 

National Rivers Inventory or prevent their 

future designation as wild or scenic rivers. 

Vegetation and Plant Communities 

Implementation of the management prescriptions or actions identified in the alternatives 

would result in minor changes in vegetation or 

plant communities within the lakeshore. Some 

actions might require clearing, but such clearing would be small scale and local. Clearing 

associated with county road improvements is 

addressed in the “Impacts on Visitor Experience” sections. Land in the inland buffer zone 

would continue to be managed as commercial 

timber. Because there would be little if any 

change in vegetation and plant communities 

within the lakeshore, this topic is not included 

in the analysis. Specific actions will require 

further analysis before implementation. 
Impact Topics – Resources and Values at Stake in the Planning Process 

27 

General Wildlife 

The management prescriptions and specific 

actions associated with each alternative have 

been evaluated with regard to effects on common wildlife species within the national lakeshore. NPS biologists have determined there 

would be little if any effect on common 

wildlife species. No dramatic changes on 

habitat, resident or migratory populations, or 

the diversity of general wildlife species within 

the national lakeshore would be expected. 

Water Quality 

Two issues related to water quality were 

raised during the scoping process: (1) the 

effect of a fuel spill on inland lakes within the 

lakeshore and (2) sedimentation downstream 

of road crossings. Consultation with the 

Michigan Department of Environmental 

Quality (Great Lakes and Environmental 

Assessment Section, Surface Water Quality 

Division, Bill Taft, pers. comm. 1/27/00 and 

4/12/00) revealed that the probability of a spill 

of a quantity that would cause widespread 

harm is extremely low, and if such a spill were 

to occur, emergency response measures 

would be implemented to minimize the 

effects. The National Contingency Plan considers a minor spill to be less than 1,000 

gallons. It is unlikely that a spill in the national 

lakeshore from small boats would exceed 5 

gallons. 

Consultation with the Michigan Department 

of Natural Resources fisheries biologist (Jim 

Waybrant, Fisheries Habitat Biologist, 

Newberry Operations Service Center, pers. 

comm. 4/12/01) indicated that sedimentation 

from road crossings occurs, but is not a 

significant factor affecting spawning by 

anadromous fish. Therefore, this topic is not 

included as an impact topic. 

Wetlands 

An assessment of the management prescriptions and actions indicated that although there 

are many wetlands in the national lakeshore, 

there is no indication that they would be 

affected by management prescriptions or 

actions. Before initiating any grounddisturbing projects, further investigation 

would be conducted to ensure that no 

wetlands would be affected. This topic is not 

included as an impact topic. 

Unique Landforms 

Grand Sable Dunes is a designated critical 

dune area by the Michigan Department of 

Environmental Quality. Any actions that 

would result in adverse impacts on the dunes 

have been eliminated. For this reason, unique 

landforms is not included as an impact topic. 

Prime and/or Unique Farmland 

The Farmland Protection Policy Act (PL 97-

98) (1981) was passed to minimize the extent 

to which federal programs contribute to the 

unnecessary and irreversible conversion of 

farmland to nonagricultural uses, and to 

ensure that federal programs are administered 

in a manner that, to the extent practicable, is 

compatible with state, unit of local government, and private programs and policies to 

protect farmland. Farmland categories 

includes prime, unique, or land of statewide or 

local importance. 

Prime farmland is land that has the best 

combination of physical and chemical 

characteristics for producing food, feed, 

forage, fiber, and oilseed crops with minimum 

inputs of fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, and labor, 

and without intolerable soil erosion. Unique 

farmland is land other than prime farmland 

that is used for production of specific highvalue food and fiber crops. It has the special 

combination of soil quality, location, growing 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

28 

season, and moisture supply needed to 

economically produce sustained high-quality 

or high-yields of specific crops when treated 

and managed according to acceptable farming 

methods. Examples of such crops include 

citrus, tree nuts, olives, cranberries, fruits, and 

vegetables. 

Farmland, other than prime and unique, that 

is of statewide or local importance for the 

production of food, feed fiber, forage, or 

oilseed crops, as determined by the state or 

local government, is also considered farmland 

for purposes of the act. 

The National Park Service consulted with the 

Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resource 

Conservation Service (Chuck Schwenner, Soil 

Scientist, 4/12/01), the agency responsible for 

implementation of the policy. The Natural 

Resource Conservation Service identified one 

area of about 30 acres that is classified prime 

farmland. This area is in federal ownership 

and would not be developed under actions 

proposed in this plan. 

There are several areas in the inland buffer 

zone that if drained would be prime farmland. 

These small areas are near the Miners River 

Road and Carmody Road. These lands are 

privately owned and zoned by Alger County 

to allow single-family dwellings on lots of 10-

acre minimum. Permitted land use includes 

sustained yield timber harvest, agricultural 

production operations (crop cultivation, 

pasture, orchards, farmstead, and similar uses 

[except feedlots, poultry farms, and fur 

farms]), and outdoor recreation uses such as 

hunting, fishing, and trapping. These areas 

would not be developed under county zoning 

regulations or the actions proposed in this 

plan. 

Development in Floodplains 

Executive Order 11988, “Floodplain Management,” was implemented to avoid to the 

extent possible the long- and short-term 

adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to 

avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain 

development wherever there is a practicable 

alternative. The order requires that agencies 

avoid the base floodplain (100-year or 1%) 

unless it is the only practicable alternative or 

adjust the base floodplain to reduce the 

hazard and the risk of flood loss, minimize the 

impact of floods on human safety, health, and 

welfare, and restore and preserve the natural 

and beneficial floodplain values. The National 

Park Service established policies and procedures for implementing the order which 

include limiting the construction of administrative, residential, warehouse, and maintenance buildings, or other man-made features, 

which by their nature entice or require 

individuals to occupy the site, are prone to 

flood damage, or result in impacts on natural 

floodplain values. Also limited are (1) the 

development of schools, hospitals, clinics, or 

other facilities that are occupied by people 

with physical or medical limitations, (2) fuel 

storage facilities, (3) sewage treatments plants 

that treat 40,000 gallons per day or more, (4) 

the storage of toxic or water-reactive 

materials, including hazardous materials, (5) 

irreplaceable records, museums, the storage of 

archeological artifacts, and (6) emergency 

services within the 500-year (0.2%) floodplain. The order and NPS policy also direct 

special consideration of areas subject to flash 

flooding and coastal high hazard areas. 

None of the actions in any of the alternatives 

would result in development in floodplains or 

high-hazard areas or increase the risk of loss 

of life and property from flood damage. 

Natural and beneficial floodplain values 

would not be affected because there would be 

no modification of floodplain areas. 

Soil 

Although there would be short-term 

disturbance of soil associated with road 

construction or improvements or proposed 
Impact Topics – Resources and Values at Stake in the Planning Process 

29 

development, the extent is confined to very 

specific areas. Road improvements would 

reduce erosion potential and dust associated 

with bare soil as road base. The erosion 

potential is generally low because the topography is relatively level and the degree of 

vegetative cover is very high. The application 

of appropriate best management practices, 

such as silt fencing, prompt revegetation, and 

slope consideration, as identified by Michigan 

Department of Environmental Quality, would 

control and mitigate construction impacts to 

be negligible. Disturbance would take place 

on very specific sites of limited area or along 

narrow corridors associated with roads. The 

total developed area of the lakeshore would 

be very low, so permeability and runoff would 

not be affected to a noticeable degree. 

Geologic Hazards

There are no specific geologic hazards, such as 

earthquakes, volcanoes, or landslides. There is 

potential for cliffs and other areas to collapse 

into Lake Superior as part of the natural 

erosion process. None of the actions analyzed 

in this management plan would affect this 

natural process. Therefore, this topic has been 

dismissed from further consideration. 

Air Quality 

Air quality in the national lakeshore meets 

national ambient air quality standards for 

specified pollutants. Although actions proposed in this plan could result in short-term 

minor effects related to dust and emissions 

associated with construction and road 

improvements, no long-term change in air 

quality associated with these actions would be 

expected (Brian Brady, Michigan Department 

of Environmental Quality, Environmental 

Quality Manager, Marquette District, pers. 

comm. 3/20/01). 

Fire

Woodland fire is infrequent in northern 

hardwood forests, the predominant forest 

type in the national lakeshore. Pine forests are 

subject to more frequent lightning-caused 

fires, on an average 23-year interval (Loope 

1998). There is evidence of a similar frequency 

on small coastal pine forests (500 acres or less) 

associated with human habitation or use 

(Loope 1998). The fire frequency at the 

national lakeshore is one or fewer naturally 

caused fires each year that burn 1 acre or less; 

these fires usually extinguish themselves. 

The new campground proposed in some of 

the alternatives might increase the potential 

for human-caused fire. However, the likelihood of this occurrence would be low because 

campground design and use restrictions 

would minimize the risk and because resource 

management policies for the national lakeshore call for prompt suppression of wildfires. 

Therefore, this topic is not included as an 

impact topic. 

Transportation 

The transportation infrastructure would not 

change significantly within the lakeshore with 

implementation of any of the alternatives in 

this document. There are no proposals for 

primary or secondary road construction in 

this plan that would increase the extent of the 

transportation system in the vicinity of the 

national lakeshore. Some alternatives in this 

management plan consider road improvements and the construction of some additional roads to provide or improve access and 

visitor experience; specific improvements to 

the Alger County road system by the county 

are also encouraged. The effects are fully 

analyzed in the other impact topics discussed. 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

30 

Energy Requirements and 

Conservation Potential 

None of the alternatives presented in this plan 

would result in a major change in energy 

consumption compared to current conditions. 

The National Park Service would pursue 

sustainable practices whenever possible in all 

decisions regarding national lakeshore 

operations, facilities management, and 

development in Pictured Rocks National 

Lakeshore. Whenever possible, the National 

Park Service would use energy conservation 

technologies and renewable energy sources. 

Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 requires federal agencies to identify and address disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or environmental effects of federal programs and 

policies on minority and low-income populations and that these programs and policies do 

not discriminate against people (including 

populations) because of race, color, or 

national origin. None of the actions proposed 

in this management plan would have disproportionate or adverse impacts on minorities or 

economically disadvantaged populations. 

Therefore this impact topic has not been 

analyzed. 

32 
33 

INTRODUCTION 

INTRODUCTION TO 

THE ALTERNATIVES 

This Draft General Management Plan and 

Wilderness Study / Environmental Impact 

Statement presents five alternatives, including 

the National Park Service’s preferred alternative, for future management of Pictured Rocks 

National Lakeshore. The five alternatives are 

the no-action alternative (continuation of 

existing management), the NPS preferred 

alternative, alternative A, alternative C, and 

alternative E. Two other alternatives were 

presented to the public in Newsletter 3. 

Alternative B was dropped (see the “Actions 

and Alternatives Dismissed from further 

Consideration” section). Alternative D was 

modified to create the preferred alternative. 

The alternatives, which are based on the 

national lakeshore’s mission, purpose, and 

significance, present different ways to manage 

resources and visitor use and improve facilities and infrastructure at the national lakeshore. The no-action alternative also serves as 

a baseline for comparing the environmental 

consequences from implementing each 

alternative. 

This chapter also describes the planning process used by the planning team, and it includes 

tables that summarize the key differences 

between the alternatives and the key differences in the impacts that are expected from 

implementing each alternative. The summary 

of impacts table is based on the analysis in 

Chapter 4, "Environmental Consequences." 

FORMULATION OF 

THE ALTERNATIVES 

Many aspects of the desired future condition 

of Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore are 

defined in the establishing legislation, the 

national lakeshore purpose and significance 

statements, and servicewide mandates and 

policies that were described earlier. Within 

these parameters, the National Park Service 

solicited input from the public, national 

lakeshore staff, government agencies, tribal 

officials, and other organizations regarding 

issues and desired conditions for the national 

lakeshore. The first opportunity for public 

comment was at the beginning of the general 

management plan project in August 1999. 

About 300 comments were received. 

Planning team members gathered information 

about existing visitor use and the condition of 

the national lakeshore's facilities and 

resources. They considered which areas of the 

national lakeshore attract visitors, and which 

areas have sensitive resources. 

Using the above information, the planning 

team developed nine management prescriptions for guiding the preservation, use, understanding and development of Pictured Rocks 

National Lakeshore and its resources. The 

management prescriptions are applied in 

varying combinations and locations in the 

alternatives. These prescriptions, described in 

the following section, form the basis of the 

plan’s alternatives. 

The planning team developed four alternatives and the no-action alternative to reflect 

the range of ideas proposed by the national 

lakeshore staff and public. Each of the alternatives consists of an overall management concept and general management strategies and a 

description of how different areas of the national lakeshore would be managed (management prescriptions and related actions).=

The preferred alternative and alternative E 

also explore different possibilities for 

wilderness. In these alternatives management 

is the same for the east and west ends of the 

lakeshore to simplify the alternatives and 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

34 

focus attention on wilderness opportunities in 

the middle portion. 

As noted above in the "Guidance for 

Planning" section, the National Park Service 

would continue to follow existing agreements 

and servicewide mandates, laws, and policies 

under all alternatives considered in this plan. 

These mandates and policies are not repeated 

in this chapter. However, other general 

management plan proposed actions do differ 

among the alternatives. These alternative 

actions are discussed in this chapter. 

The alternatives focus on what resource 

conditions and visitor experiences/ 

opportunities should be at Pictured Rocks 

rather than on details of how these conditions 

and experiences should be achieved. Thus, the 

alternatives do not include details on resource 

or visitor use management techniques. More 

detailed plans or studies will be required 

before most developments proposed in the 

alternatives are built. The implementation of 

any alternative also depends on future funding 

and environmental compliance and resource 

protection issues. This plan does not guarantee that that money will be forthcoming. The 

plan establishes a vision of the future that will 

guide day-to-day and year-to-year management of the national lakeshore, but full 

implementation could take many years. 

These five alternatives embody the range of 

what the public and the National Park Service 

want to see accomplished with regard to 

visitor use and experience, natural resource 

conditions, and cultural resource conditions 

at Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore. The 

actual configurations for future national 

lakeshore conditions and management within 

each alternative were developed by placing 

the management prescriptions (described in 

the next section) on a map. 

In some cases, all four action alternatives 

apply the same management prescription to 

the same area. For example, the orientation/ 

history management prescription is similar for 

each alternative because this seems to be the 

most appropriate way to manage these 

facilities, regardless of the alternative selected. 

DEVELOPMENT OF 

GMP COST ESTIMATES 

NPS decision makers and the public must 

consider an overall picture of the complete 

costs and advantages of various alternatives, 

including “no action,” to make wise planning 

and management decisions for the national 

lakeshore. This can shed light on the cost of 

the no-action alternative and allow a more 

legitimate comparison to the action 

alternatives. 

It is important that the cost estimates contain 

the same elements and are developed with the 

same general assumptions so there can be 

consistency and comparability among alternatives. Development of life-cycle costs provides a way to combine one-time and 

recurring costs (such as annual operating 

costs) into comparable numbers. Comprehensive life-cycle cost estimates are a key factor to be used along with impacts and advantages of the various alternatives during the 

process of selecting a preferred alternative. 

Life-cycle costing is an economic assessment 

of different alternatives, considering all significant costs over a specified period of time, 

expressed in equivalent dollars. Life-cycle 

costs reflect the aggregated initial-one-time 

costs and recurring costs into the future over a 

period of time. The National Park Service uses 

a time period of 25 years to project life-cycle 

costs in design and construction, and that is 

also a reasonable amount of time for evaluating general management plan alternatives. 

The present worth method is used to convert 

present and future expenditures into an 

equivalent expenditure today. This method is 

based on the time value of money, or the 

principle that a dollar spent today is worth 

more in the future because if it was invested it 

would yield a return. To calculate the present 
Introduction 

35 

worth of future annual and recurring 

(replacement) expenditures, the life-cycle 

costs are calculated using a “discount rate” 

that is an assumed rate of return. The National 

Park Service uses a discount rate of 7%. 

The main components of life-cycle costing are 

as follows: 

Initial One-Time Costs 

• new development (including NPS 

transportation infrastructure costs) 

• major rehabilitation or replacement of 

existing facilities and infrastructure 

• interpretive media (audiovisual, exhibits, 

waysides, publications) 

• resource management and visitor service 

costs (resource and visitor inventories, 

implementation planning, compliance) 

• other significant one-time costs, such as 

removal of development, transportation 

equipment, restoration of resources 

specific implementation plans, or major 

compliance needs. 

Recurring or Replacement Costs 

These are significant anticipated costs tht 

recur at intervals (other than annual) within 

the life-cycle cost time period of 25 years. 

Examples might be if the National Park 

Service is supplying bus equipment that will be 

replaced every eight years, or constructing 

temporary yurt structures that will be replaced 

every 12 years. 

Recurring Annual Costs 

• annual national lakeshore operating costs 

(staff salary and benefits, equipment, 

maintenance, utilities, monitoring, contact 

services, etc.) 

• ongoing repair and rehabilitation of 

facilities (projection of past trends and 

known future needs into an annual 

estimate) 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 

APPROVED MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Actions requiring construction to implement 

the intentions of the approved management 

plan will require funding, design, environmental analysis, and public involvement 

before implementation. 

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS 

A boundary adjustment would not be 

considered under any of the alternatives. 

LAND ACQUISITION / TRANSFERS 

Under all alternatives, the National Park 

Service would attempt to acquire outstanding 

mineral rights on federally owned lands. 

The federal government would continue to 

pay PILT (payment-in-lieu of taxes) payments 

to Alger County based upon a governmentwide formula and the number of acres that 

were withdrawn from county tax rolls as the 

result of past federal acquisition. 

Under all alternatives the National Park 

Service would seek transfer of about 7.5 acres 

at Coast Guard Point in Grand Marais from 

the Coast Guard and Army Corps of 

Engineers to consolidate ownership and 

improve public access. 

Under the action alternatives (preferred, A, C, 

and E), the National Park Service will consider 

land acquisition within the inland buffer zone 

if the land is available (including donations), if 

there are willing sellers, and if federal funds 

are available. In addition, the transaction must 

meet at least one of the following criteria is 

met: 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

36 

• Lands protect key viewsheds, particularly 

those associated with proposed designated 

wilderness area. 

• Lands protect scenic views adjacent to or 

associated with the Lakeshore’s 

backcountry trail system. 

• Lands emphasize riparian area acquisition 

(including shoreline and headwaters). 

• Lands have potential for imminent 

development that may be deemed 

detrimental to national lakeshore resources 

and values. 

• Lands have documented threatened or 

endangered species or their habitat. 

• Lands represent the breadth of biotic 

diversity. 

Lands offered to the National Park Service 

outside of the existing park boundary would 

be evaluated through a separate boundary 

assessment process. Expansion of the 

legislated boundary requires action by 

Congress. 

WILDERNESS STUDY 

To help understand how wilderness areas can 

be used by the public, the following page 

defines uses, management actions, and 

facilities in wilderness areas that are permitted 

or prohibited. 

Findings 

Federally owned lands and waters within the 

legislated boundary of Pictured Rocks 

National Lakeshore have been evaluated with 

respect to the characteristics of wilderness as 

defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964 (P.L. 

88-577, 16 U.S.C. 1131-1136). This study has 

identified 18,063 acres of the national lakeshore that possess wilderness characteristics 

— that is 5,220 acres in Chapel Basin and 

12,843 acres in Beaver Basin. All of the lands 

and waters in the study area are in federal 

(National Park Service) fee-simple ownership. 

The study area includes federally owned 

portions of Township 47 North Range 18 

West, Township 48 North Ranges 16, 17, and 

18 West, and Township 49 North Range 16 

West (see Wilderness Study map). The land is 

in Alger County, Michigan. 

By definition, 

A wilderness, in contrast with those areas 

where man and his works dominate the 

landscape, is hereby recognized 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. An 

area of wilderness is further defined to 

mean in this Act 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 (1) generally appears to have been affected 

primarily by the forces of nature, with the 

imprint of man’s work substantially 

unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at 

least five thousand acres of land or is of 

sufficient size as to make practicable its 

preservation and use in an unimpaired 

condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of 

scientific, educational, scenic, or historical 

value. 

Wilderness Act of 1964, P.L. 88-577, 

Section 2. (c) 

The Wilderness Act criteria and how they 

apply to the national lakeshore have been 

divided into sections for ease of 

understanding. 

untrammeled. Although altered by logging 

in historic times, Beaver and Chapel Basins 

represent a significant area that has 

returned to natural conditions and shows 

little evidence of past influences. 

primeval character and influence. 

Although there is some evidence of historic 

use as a corporate retreat in the Beaver Lake 
Introduction 

37 

USES AND MANAGEMENT IN WILDERNESS 

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

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

the impacts of the wilderness proposals. 

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

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

• hunting, trapping, and fishing 

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

• guided interpretive walks and onsite talks and presentation 

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

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

• scientific activities/research 

• monitoring programs 

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

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

and water quality 

• fire management activities (including fire suppression) 

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

• trails 

• campsites 

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

support structures, ranger station) 

• signs necessary for visitor safety or to protect wilderness resources 

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

The Wilderness Act also specifically prohibits certain uses and developments. Under sections 2(c) and 4(c) of the 

act, the following uses are not permitted in a wilderness: 

• permanent improvements or human habitation 

• structures or installations 

• permanent roads 

• temporary roads 

• use of motor vehicles 

• use of motorized equipment 

• landing of aircraft (except for emergency purposes) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

• new utility lines 

• permanent equipment caches 

• site markings or improvements for nonemergency use 

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

• new shelters or public use 

• picnic tables 

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

resources) 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

38 

area (structures have been removed), all the 

land identified in the study area exhibits a 

primeval character. Management of the 

land identified in the study area has focused 

on maintaining the primitive character, and 

permanent improvements or human 

habitation have not been permitted. 

the imprint of man’s work substantially 

unnoticeable. The road to Little Beaver 

Lake and the small campground are the 

only improvements readily noticeable. 

There are several small dams upstream of 

Beaver Lake that were associated with the 

Michigan-Wisconsin Pipeline Company 

hunting club. 

protected and managed so as to preserve 

its natural conditions. Since the 1981 

General Management Plan for the national 

lakeshore was prepared, Beaver and Chapel 

Basins have been managed as primitive 

areas to preserve their natural condition. 

outstanding opportunities for solitude or 

a primitive and unconfined type of 

recreation. Opportunities for solitude and 

a primitive and unconfined recreation 

experience are very high in Beaver and 

Chapel Basins. Wilderness values are 

diminished to a minor degree by noise from 

motorized watercraft on Lake Superior and 

Beaver Lake, logging, and vehicles in the 

Little Beaver Lake campground. 

Description of Study Area 

Physical and Resource Values. The area 

containing wilderness characteristics is 

centered on 761-acre Beaver Lake, 39.5-acre 

Little Beaver Lake, and 62-acre Chapel Lake. 

These are two of the major drainage systems 

of the national lakeshore. The Beaver and 

Chapel basins were formed in eroded sands by 

meltwater channeling to an outlet of ancient 

Lake Minong following a glacial ice sheet 

retreat circa 10,000 B.P. The basins open to 

Lake Superior, which defines the study area’s 

northern boundary. Dissected uplands bound 

the Beaver Basin on the west and a series of 

escarpments representing a face of the 

meltwater channel (the Beaver Basin 

escarpment) essentially define the northeast, 

east, and southern boundaries of the unit. A 

complex of beach ridges with a mantle of 

dune deposits lies north of Beaver Lake 

separating that body of water from Lake 

Superior. These forested beach ridges cover 

an area of approximately 1,100 acres. The 

Chapel area is bounded by extensive wetlands 

to the south and sandstone cliffs reaching a 

height of 200 feet along the Lake Superior 

shore to the north. 

The dominant vegetative cover type of the 

study area is maple/beech with interspersed 

coniferous (spruce and fir) forest in wetter 

areas and pockets of white pine and hemlock 

on drier soils. Although logged during the first 

60 years of the 1900s, in many areas the forest 

is regaining old-growth characteristics. In 

other areas, pockets of forest openings mark 

the physiography, the most notable being 

along the southeast shoreline of Beaver Lake. 

Remaining forests are maturing and will likely 

become old growth. Nonnative invasive plant 

species are not widespread; and efforts to 

control these species are underway. Several 

tributary streams to Beaver and Chapel Lakes 

flow to those water bodies from wetlands 

adjacent to or immediately below the escarpments. The most significant streams are 

Beaver Creek, which flows to Lake Superior as 

an outlet from Beaver Lake, and the Mosquito 

River, which drains extensive wetlands south 

of the study area. The Sevenmile Creek and 

Sevenmile Lake drainage and its pockets of 

wetlands and water bodies dominate the 

eastern portion of the study area, the most 

noteworthy being Trappers Lake (48 acres). 

The study area provides habitat for a number 

of important animal species including gray 

wolf (Canis lupus), moose (Alces alces), American bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), 

black bear (Ursus americanus), fisher (Martes 

pennanti), American marten (Martes 
Introduction 

39 

Wilderness Study 

map 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

40 

back of map 
Introduction 

41 

americana), peregrine falcon (Falco 

peregrinus) and northern goshawk (Accipiter 

gentilis). 

Aquatic systems in the study area are 

important resources with Sevenmile Creek 

and Mosquito River being part of a Lake 

Superior-wide coaster brook trout (Salvelinus 

fontinalis) restoration program. Major lakes 

and their tributaries possess a wild character. 

River otter (Lontra canadensis) and beaver 

(Castor canadensis) frequent the area, and a 

recent study has discovered viable 

populations of freshwater mussels and 

sponges in Beaver and Chapel Lakes. 

Long-term vegetation, avian, and aquatic 

monitoring is underway or planned within the 

study area as part of a lakeshore-wide 

inventory and monitoring science and natural 

resources program. Other research includes 

black bear distribution, habitat use and 

harvest effects, and bald eagle productivity 

and blood toxicology. 

Administrative Facilities. The Chapel and 

Beaver Basin study areas contain a network of 

maintained hiking trails emanating from the 

Chapel and Beaver Lake day use parking area. 

About 41 miles of hiking trails are included in 

this area, including 20 miles of the North 

Country National Scenic Trail. Many of these 

trails were originally rough four-wheel drive 

logging access roads prior to the 

establishment of the national lakeshore. These 

former two-tracks have largely grown in with 

native vegetation, presenting today the 

appearance of a trail 

In addition, the area also includes three 

backcountry campgrounds, one of which is a 

group campground. A total of 41 individual 

and 5 group backcountry sites are available in 

these areas. 

The Chapel day use parking area (37-vehicle 

capacity) is adjacent to the study area, 

providing a portal to this section of the park’s 

backcountry. The site includes a vault type 

toilet, bulletin board, and one wayside 

interpretive exhibit. 

The Chapel study area also includes remnant 

four-wheel drive logging roads. A road enters 

the area from the Chapel access road about 0.1 

mile south of the national lakeshore fee 

boundary (shoreline zone) in the southeast 

quarter of the northwest quarter of section 32. 

The logging road traverses westerly through 

sections 32 and 31, crossing Mosquito River 

en route. The entire length of this and three 

other connecting logging roads is about 1.75 

miles. 

The Beaver Basin study area contains an unimproved and nonmaintained administrative 

road to the site of the former corporate hunting and fishing lodge complex on the southeast shoreline of Beaver Lake. The road enters 

the area from the basin escarpment in the SE 

quarter of the SE quarter of Section 16, 

Township 48N, Range 16W, and extends for a 

distance of about 1.75 miles. This single lane 

roadway is being allowed to revert to the surrounding natural landscape conditions. A 

two-stall wood frame garage structure associated with the former corporate camp is adjacent to the road and about 1 mile from its 

beginning at the escarpment. This garage — 

formerly used to store some park equipment 

— is identified for removal. 

The Little Beaver development includes 

overnight and day use backpacker parking 

area (20-vehicle capacity), which is adjacent to 

the study area providing a portal to this 

section of the park’s backcountry. The area 

also includes Little Beaver Lake campground 

with eight sites. The campground development includes a four-vehicle boat ramp 

parking area. The site includes a vault type 

toilet, bulletin board, and a 1-mile self-guiding 

interpretive trail. These are nonconforming 

uses and would have to be removed if the area 

around the Little Beaver Lake campground 

were proposed for wilderness. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

42 

Public Recreational Use. The Chapel and 

Beaver Basin areas are managed as ‘backcountry.’ Public recreational use centers on 

overnight hiking, backpack camping, and day 

hiking, and trail walking. A system of seven 

backcountry campgrounds (41 sites, 5 of 

which are group sites), accessible only by foot 

or by watercraft, is within the study area. 

Camping numbers and level of intensity are 

managed with a permit system as part of the 

NPS recreational fee demonstration program. 

A system of hiking trails provides the principal 

means of access within the Chapel and Beaver 

Basins. 

A 37-car day use parking area is adjacent to 

the Chapel Basin portion of the study area. 

The Chapel parking lot provides a portal into 

the adjacent backcountry area. In the Beaver 

Basin area, an eight site vehicle accessible 

(drive-in) campground with associated boat 

launching ramp and backpackers parking area 

provides a portal into the area. Other uses in 

the Beaver Basin include canoeing, fishing, 

and boating, primarily on Little and Big 

Beaver Lakes. 

Most recreation use of the area occurs from 

Memorial Day to Labor Day, consisting of 

overnight backpacking and day hiking. Hikein fishing occurs infrequently on Chapel and 

Little Chapel Lakes. Fishing in the Mosquito 

River for trout is popular with anglers spring 

through fall. 

Fishing on Beaver Lake in particular is 

popular throughout the year, especially during 

the spring and fall seasons. In the Sevenmile 

Creek and Lake portion of the area, spring 

and fall stream fishing associated with seasonal salmon runs results in a spike of recreational use at those locations. Nonmaintained 

two-track (former logging) roads currently 

open to the public in the Mosquito River and 

Sevenmile Creek areas provide limited vehicular access combined with nonmaintained 

trails to the most popular fishing locations. 

Some hike-in fishing of the ponds and streams 

elsewhere in the area also occurs. Brook trout 

is the targeted species at those locations. 

Motorized watercraft use (10-hp limit) is 

currently permitted on the interconnected 

Beaver and Little Beaver Lakes. Motorized 

watercraft use on all other waters in the 

Beaver Basin is prohibited. 

Hunting for ruffed grouse, migratory 

waterfowl, white-tailed deer, and black bear 

occurs throughout the Beaver Basin as 

permitted by the park’s enabling legislation. 

(P.L. 89-668, SEC. 5. In administering the 

lakeshore the Secretary shall permit hunting 

and fishing on lands under his jurisdiction in 

accordance with the applicable laws of the 

United States and of Michigan.) 

Evidence of Past Human Use. The study 

area encompasses portions of a regional 

landscape identified as culturally important to 

several Native American Indian groups. The 

waters of Chapel, Little Beaver, and Beaver 

Lakes and their environs are of special 

importance to the Ojibwa of the region. A 

June 2000 draft report of Traditional Ojibway 

Resources in the Western Great Lakes, conducted by the University of Arizona at Tucson, discusses in greater detail the importance 

of the national lakeshore landscape including 

that of the study area to the Ojibwa people. 

Additionally, high cliffs, rock promontories, 

creek mouths, and other natural features are 

also important to the Ojibwa cosmology. 

Archeological resources in the study area are 

comprised of 19 state-registered pre-historic 

habitation, hunting camps, and historic camps 

associated with turn of-the-century through 

1970s use by local residents and loggers. 

Several of the recorded archeological sites in 

the study area related to prehistoric (Archaic 

and Woodland) and historic habitation sites. 

Most of those sites are associated with creeks, 

inland lakes, and the Lake Superior shoreline. 

None of these resources have been fully 

assessed or investigated. 
Introduction 

43 

The most notable logging era resource still 

visible is the remnants of an early 1900s 

logging dam constructed at the mouth of 

Beaver Creek. The dam raised the water level 

of Beaver Creek and Beaver Lake permitting 

the movement of some timber out of the 

Beaver Basin to the Lake Superior shoreline. 

Notable historic logging campsites are 

situated along Sevenmile Creek and on the 

south shoreline of Beaver Lake adjacent to 

Lowney Creek. 

One historic log cabin structure, dating from 

the 1940s, is along the trail to the Mosquito 

backcountry campground (about.25 miles 

north of the Chapel parking lot. The cabin is 

not listed on the National Register of Historic 

Places, nor does park staff believe it to be 

eligible. There are no other visible cultural 

sites within the area. 

A number of former privately owned “camp” 

sites comprised of small cabins were present 

throughout the basin notably in the Sevenmile 

Creek, Trappers Lake, and Beaver Creek areas 

of the national lakeshore. All were removed 

subsequent to the NPS acquisition of the 

properties. The last structure was removed in 

1985 and, unless previously aware that 

structures were present there, evidence of 

their prior existence is absent. Most notable 

among these is the Hall family use of the area 

as a fishing and hunting locale. Extensive 

journals from the Hall family record the 

historic scene and use of the area in the late 

1880s through the turn of the century. Copies 

of the journals are maintained in the national 

lakeshore museum collection. 

Before the October 15, 1966, enactment of PL 

89-668 and the initiation of NPS land acquisition actions at the national lakeshore, the 

Michigan-Wisconsin Pipeline Company had 

acquired and assembled during the period 

1958-66 a tract of about 2,000 acres of land 

and had acquired or constructed facilities as a 

corporate employee retreat (camp) within the 

Beaver Basin. Their facility development 

included stream impoundments for fishing, a 

system of improved two-track roads linking 

deer feeding stations, and lodges and related 

support services buildings centered along a 

portion of the southeast shoreline of Beaver 

Lake. Upon completion in 1974 of the 

acquisition of these lands and properties by 

the National Park Service, removal of the 

structures began. With the exception of a twostall service garage once used by the National 

Park Service for storage and now slated for 

removal, all of the buildings associated with 

the camp were removed by the spring of 1983. 

Several of the impounded stream ponds 

remain in evidence, though to the untrained 

eye the most significant ones now appear 

natural. The low head earthen dams are being 

used as a base for beaver dams at several 

locations. A small (less than 5 acres) sand and 

gravel borrow pit associated with the 

company’s camp is evident adjacent to the 

current NPS administrative road leading to 

the site from the escarpment. 

Timber within the Chapel and Beaver Basins 

was selectively harvested by corporate, other 

private, and state of Michigan owners before 

NPS acquisition. Most harvesting occurred 

during the late 1940s to late 1950s, with none 

taking place after 1965. Today, in combination 

with pockets of timber believed to be virgin or 

not harvested since the early 1900s, the 

forested landscape is reestablishing oldgrowth structure and function. 

The most noticeable evidence of human use of 

the area is the NPS system of trails, rustic 

wood bridge stream crossings, and backcountry (walk-in) campsites with associated 

wood routed trail intersection/directional 

signs. Many of these trail sections were 

formerly logging era two-tracks or vehicle use 

routes associated with the corporate or other 

private landowner camps. In accordance with 

NPS management prescriptions for the backcountry, those roads were converted to trails. 

Mining Claims. There are no mining claims 

in the study area. There are oil and gas reservations related to the former state of Michigan 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

44 

lands (190 acres), the former MichiganWisconsin Pipeline Company lands (2,003 

acres), and the former Cleveland Cliffs Iron 

Company lands (7,190 acres). There are no 

such reservations related to the either the 

former Cliffs-Dow Chemical or the other 

remaining former privately owned lands. 

The former Cleveland Cliffs Iron Company 

lands were acquired by the federal government subject to a ‘Restrictive Easement Deed” 

dated April 29, 1971, pertaining to any 

potential mineral extraction actions the 

company and/or its ‘successors and assigns’

might undertake in exercising their mineral 

reservation. As a result, the restrictive 

easement affects not only ownership of the 

mineral rights by the company, but any future 

owners of those rights. Conditions of the 

easement make it highly unlikely that the 

reserved mineral extraction rights would be 

exercised. This “Restrictive Easement Deed” 

is recorded with the Alger County (Michigan) 

Register of Deeds as: ‘RESTRICTIVE 

EASEMENT DEED’ in Liber 082 pages 52 to 

87 with a recording date of May 3, 1971. 

Although no such restrictive easement deed is 

in effect for either the former MichiganWisconsin Pipeline Company or the state of 

Michigan lands, it is also highly unlikely in 

light of the absence of known mineral deposits 

within the area of extraction interest that 

those reservations would be exercised. 

Lands immediately adjacent to the boundary 

of the study area are in a mix of state of 

Michigan; ForestLand Group, Limited 

Liability Corporation , and federal (NPS) 

ownership. The state of Michigan and 

ForestLand Group, Limited Liability 

Corporation lands are in the inland buffer 

zone of the national lakeshore and are subject 

to provisions of the national lakeshore’s 

enabling legislation with respect to the 

harvesting of timber resources. The NPS lands 

immediately adjacent to the study area 

boundary are managed as backcountry with 

the exception of an eight site drive-in 

campground on Little Beaver Lake with its 

associated boat access to Little Beaver and 

Beaver Lakes and a backcountry trailhead 

parking area. 

Timber harvesting activity is largely selective 

cut of stands of the predominant maple-beech 

forest on a long-term (sustained yield) cyclic 

basis. The cycle currently being practiced by 

ForestLand Group, Limited Liability 

Corporation, in particular is 15-20 years. 

Adjacent pockets of aspen and jack pine are 

harvested as clear cuts. Depending upon the 

species harvested, when timber harvesting is 

ongoing or recently completed, there can be a 

marked contrast in appearance between the 

vegetative cover of the study area and that of 

the adjacent lands. 
45 

MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS 

A management prescription defines specific 

resource conditions and visitor experiences to 

be achieved and maintained in each particular 

area of the national lakeshore under each of 

the action alternatives (i.e., except the noaction alternative). Each prescription includes 

the types of activities and facilities that are 

appropriate in that management prescription. 

However, not all facilities that are appropriate 

in a management prescription will be constructed in each area to which the prescription 

is applied. Decisions to determine what 

facilities are appropriate will be based on an 

analysis of resource protection and visitor 

experience needs. The management prescriptions were presented to the public in 

Newsletter 2 and were modified in response to 

public comments. The management prescriptions were developed as a result of this planning effort and therefore are not applied to 

the no-action alternative and map. 

In formulating the alternatives, the management prescriptions were placed in different 

locations or configurations on the map 

according to the overall intent (concept) of 

each of the alternatives. That is, the management alternatives represent different ways to 

apply the nine management prescriptions to 

the national lakeshore. For example, an 

alternative whose overall concept includes 

having as much wilderness as possible will 

have more of the primitive management 

prescription than an alternative whose overall 

concept is to increase access to the entire 

national lakeshore. 

The alternative descriptions and maps also 

indicate the National Park Service’s desired

management prescriptions for land in the 

inland buffer zone that would be consistent 

with the philosophy of the alternative. In most 

cases, the desired management of these lands is 

the same as existing management and is 

consistent with county zoning regulations (see 

appendix D). 

The nine management prescriptions for 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore are 

presented in table 2. Visitor experiences, 

resource conditions, and appropriate activities 

and facilities are described for each 

management prescription. 
46 

TABLE 2: PICTURED ROCKS NATIONAL LAKESHORE MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS

rce Condition or Character Visitor Experience (what the visitor sees, feels, encounters) Appropriate Activities or Facilities (what the visitor is doing, what facilities may be appropriate) 

vation or interpretation of cultural 

urces is emphasized in some areas. 

ngs, facilities, and other signs of human 

ity are obvious, but natural elements are 

ent. 

 managed; some areas are paved or 

ened to protect resources or focus 

or use, and some areas near buildings are 

ed. 

s may be managed to reflect a particular 

e located where primary lakeshore 

res can be seen or experienced, 

ided resource integrity is not 

promised. 

Visitors get an overview of lakeshore 

opportunities, activities, and resources. 

Outdoor skills and physical exertion are not 

needed; opportunities for challenge or adventure are rare. 

Time commitment is short for orientation, or 

moderate for in-depth interpretation. 

Interaction and encounters with lakeshore staff 

and other visitors are common, but overcrowding is rare. 

Structured visitor opportunities, such as 

interpretive programs and tours, are provided, but self-guided opportunities are also available. 

Orientation and interpretation facilities such as 

visitor centers, contact stations, kiosks, wayside exhibits, and other interpretive media are appropriate. 

Access and support facilities such as parking 

areas, paved walkways, restrooms, picnic areas, and overlooks would be likely; facilities would be compatible with the setting. 

Facilities might include groupings of historic 

structures and related landscapes. 

Sightseeing, walks, educational programs, 

visiting cultural resources, and other organized activities would be common. 

Most facilities would be accessible to visitors 

with disabilities; historic structures might be modified to accommodate these visitors. 

natural and cultural resources could be 

ified for essential visitor and lakeshore 

s (e.g., paving trails or felling hazardous 

). 

would be a high level of management 

ided to ensure natural and cultural 

urce protection and public safety and 

ce visitor conflicts (e.g., fences, law 

rcement, and restrictions on visitor 

ities). 

Visitor attractions would be convenient and 

easily accessible. 

Observing the natural environment is 

important, but there would be little need for visitors to exert themselves, apply outdoor skills, or spend a long time in the area. 

There would be a good chance of encountering 

other visitors and lakeshore staff. 

Activities would include enjoying scenery, 

short walks, beach strolling, casual driving, motorized and nonmotorized boating, and camping. 

Facilities that support visitor touring would be 

present − overlooks, boat ramps, short trails, picnic areas, parking areas, restrooms, and drive-in campgrounds). 

Visitor contact stations and interpretive media 

(waysides, bulletin boards, interpretive tapes) might be present. 

Most facilities and some trails would provide 

access for people with disabilities. 

Hunting would be allowed except where 

specifically prohibited. 

Snowmobiling would be allowed on roads that 

are open to motorized vehicles during snowfree seasons. 
47 

rce Condition or Character Visitor Experience (what the visitor sees, feels, encounters) Appropriate Activities or Facilities (what the visitor is doing, what facilities may be appropriate) 

al processes and surroundings 

ominate. 

would be a low level of management to 

ort visitor activities and natural and 

ral resource protection. 

resource modifications would be 

ent, but they would harmonize with the 

ral environment. 

nce for natural and cultural resource 

adation from visitor use would be very 

cilities would avoid sensitive resources. 

be applied in designated wilderness. 

Provides a sense of remoteness and immersion 

in nature. 

Opportunities would exist for closeness to 

nature, tranquility, physical exertion, and the application of outdoor skills. 

Requires a fairly long time commitment. Opportunities would exist for challenge and 

adventure. 

Tolerance for noise, visual intrusions, and 

social interaction would be low. 

There would be little contact with other 

visitors and lakeshore staff, except in campgrounds. 

Facilities would be limited to primitive 

footpaths and backcountry (tent) campgrounds with minimal facilities. 

Only nonmotorized activities would be allowed 

and would include hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, snowshoeing, kayaking, canoeing, and skiing. 

Structures would be restricted to those 

necessary to protect resources (e.g., trail planking in wet areas). 

 be the most natural of the prescriptions.

nce for degradation of natural resources 

d be very low. 

include areas where low use is desired to 

ect certain resources or areas that are 

cult to access or travel through. 

gnificant cultural resources would be 

wed to molder or decay over time. 

be applied in designated wilderness. 

Provides for an independent, wild experience, 

with full immersion in the natural environment. 

Feels remote − far from comforts and 

conveniences. 

There would be little or no sign of human 

activity. Environment would offer opportunities for solitude, challenge, adventure, and discovery. 

Outdoor skills would be needed. Evidence of visitor impacts would be minimal. Tolerance for noise would be very low. Other visitors or lakeshore staff would rarely 

be encountered. 

Has no facilities, including maintained trails or 

campgrounds. 

Kayaking, cross-country hiking, and exploring 

would be predominant visitor activities. 

Motorized activities and campfire building 

would not be permitted. 

Research would be limited to nonmanipulative 

activities. 

Management actions would be limited to those 

that mimic natural processes (e.g., prescribed fire) or restore natural systems and processes. 

Camping would not be permitted. Management presence would be minimal and 

subtle, but restrictions on length of stay and numbers of visitors would be possible to protect resources and maintain desired visitor experiences. 

Hunting and fishing would be allowed. 
, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

48 

rce Condition or Character Visitor Experience (what the visitor sees, feels, encounters) Appropriate Activities or Facilities (what the visitor is doing, what facilities may be appropriate) 

routes would not necessarily be 

tained. 

al resources might be highly managed or 

cted (e.g., timber management, fish 

king, wildlife habitat management). 

 be located primarily within the inland 

er zone. 

Interpretation and education programs might 

be available in remote portions of the national lakeshore. 

Offers visitors a relatively primitive, 

independent experience. 

Visitors travel at their own risk; little or no 

interpretation would be provided. 

Access would be via primitive roads or trails. Observing and enjoying the natural 

environment would be important. 

Requires a moderate time commitment. Some outdoor skills might be needed; could 

provide a sense of adventure. 

Few visitors or lakeshore staff would be 

encountered. 

Facilities would include primitive roads and 

trails, primitive camps, and private cabins. 

Motorized and nonmotorized transportation 

would be acceptable and could include allterrain vehicles, bicycles, snowshoes, horses, dog sleds, motorcycles, and snowmobiles. 

Hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, and crosscountry skiing would be common. 

al environment would be modified for 

ational and other uses. 

 be rural in character. 

ures and other facilities would be 

rent. 

 not be located near sensitive natural or 

ral areas if resources could not be 

ected. 

Not intended for visitor use. Facilities necessary for lakeshore operations, 

administration, or surrounding land uses might be present, including residential areas, lakeshore maintenance yards, access roads, parking, and utility corridors. 

ed to accommodate all vehicle types. 

y wider and less winding than primitive 

s. 

ved surface. 

igher design standard would require 

ore resource modification than for 

imitive roads. 

orest canopy might be open to 

commodate road width. 

Used for reaching destinations and for scenic 

touring. 

Might include primary access routes to 

lakeshore features. 

Vehicles would travel at moderate speeds. There would be a good chance of encountering 

other vehicles. 

Would be available to all visitors, regardless of 

vehicle type. 

Paved roads, with associated pullouts, 

trailheads, parking areas, and wayside exhibits. 

Driving, bicycling, horses, and snowmobiles 

would be appropriate. 
49 

rce Condition or Character Visitor Experience (what the visitor sees, feels, encounters) Appropriate Activities or Facilities (what the visitor is doing, what facilities may be appropriate) 

ed to accommodate all vehicle types. 

y wider and less winding than primitive 

s. 

 base with regular grading. 

r design standard would require more 

urce modification than for primitive 

s. 

conditions might exist at times. 

canopy might be open to accommodate 

 width. 

Used for reaching destinations and for scenic 

touring. 

Vehicles would travel at fairly slow speeds. Moderate chance of encountering other 

vehicles. 

Available to all visitors, regardless of vehicle 

type. 

Improved gravel roads with associated 

pullouts, trailheads, parking areas, and wayside exhibits. 

Cars, bicycles, horses, and snowmobiles would 

be appropriate. 

n Notes: 

d NPS administrative use and access would be consistent with visitor restrictions on motorized use. (NPS staff would generally abide 

visitors.) 

al resources would be based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. 

ational lakeshore resources by affiliated tribes would be managed through visitor use management and permits. 
50 

NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

CONCEPT AND GENERAL 

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

This alternative describes a continuation of 

existing management at Pictured Rocks 

National Lakeshore. It provides a baseline for 

evaluating the changes and impacts of the 

other alternatives. The National Park Service 

would continue to manage Pictured Rocks as 

it has in the past. Managers would continue to 

follow the special mandates and servicewide 

mandates and policies described earlier in the 

"Guidance for the Planning Effort" section of 

this document, as staffing and budget allow. 

Existing operations and visitor facilities would 

remain in place, concentrated at the west and 

east ends of the lakeshore, while the central 

portion would continue to be preserved in a 

primitive, relatively undisturbed state (see NoAction Alternative map). No new construction 

would be authorized. A diversity of visitor use 

facilities from backcountry to drive-in 

campsites; primitive trails to boardwalks; 

unpaved to paved roads; and self-directed 

interpretation to ranger-led programs would 

continue to be provided. 

The national lakeshore would continue to be 

managed for the perpetuation and protection 

of the natural environment and the preservation of cultural features while making them 

available for appropriate public use. Natural 

ecological processes would continue to be 

allowed to occur, and restoration programs 

would continue or would be initiated where 

necessary. Some significant cultural resources 

would be preserved, upgraded, and/or 

adaptively used, and nonsignificant cultural 

resources would be adaptively used or left 

alone. Locally promulgated zoning would 

continue as the basic management tool in the 

inland buffer zone. 

Managers would place few additional limits 

on visitor use (unless unacceptable resource 

or visitor use impacts were occurring). Thus 

visitation could likely increase throughout 

most of the national lakeshore. National 

lakeshore staff would continue to enforce 

current backcountry use management policies 

that permit camping only in designated sites. 

Permits would continue to be required for 

overnight backcountry use. Managers would 

also continue to regulate use by motorized 

boats, snowmobiles, and off-road-vehicles. 

On Lake Superior waters within the national 

lakeshore (within 0.25 mile from shore), 

motorized and nonmotorized boating would 

continue. 

The National Park Service would continue its 

active role in monitoring and/or influencing 

commercial and private activities that affect 

resources in the lakeshore. Concession structures would not be added to the lakeshore. 

Local communities would be encouraged to 

provide visitor services, and County Road H58 (owned and maintained by Alger County) 

would likely remain a mix of paved and 

unpaved road. Commercial boat tours of the 

pictured rocks would continue. 

The inland buffer zone would continue to be 

managed to preserve the natural setting, 

protect watersheds and streams, allow 

reasonable use by private landowners, and 

permit sustained-yield harvesting of timber. 

WESTERN PORTION OF THE 

NATIONAL LAKESHORE 

In the western (Munising) end of the national 

lakeshore, visitor use would continue to be 

concentrated at Munising Falls, Sand Point, 

the Miners area, and along the North Country 

National Scenic Trail. The only overnight use 

in the west end would occur at backcountry 

campsites. 
51 

No-Action Alternative 

map 

foldout 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

52 

back of map 
No-Action Alternative 

53

Visitor orientation, information, and backcountry permits would continue to be 

available in Munising (at the NPS/USFS 

visitor information center), Munising Falls, 

and Miners Castle. The area's cultural history 

would continue to be interpreted at the 

former Sand Point Coast Guard Station, and 

preservation treatment would continue there, 

as would use of some structures as seasonal 

residences, administrative offices, and/or 

museum storage. Adaptive use of the boathouse would continue. Private tour boats 

would continue tours of the pictured rocks 

from Munising to Chapel Beach. The 

Schoolcraft Furnace and kilns would continue 

to be protected and interpreted. 

Administrative headquarters would remain in 

the old Coast Guard Station at Sand Point and 

at the Munising Range Light Station. Lakeshore maintenance activities would continue 

to be based at the maintenance facility just off 

H-58 near Munising. 

County Road H-58 would remain a paved 

road in the west end of the national lakeshore. 

CENTRAL PORTION OF THE 

NATIONAL LAKESHORE 

In the shoreline zone the central portion of 

the lakeshore (especially Chapel and Beaver 

Basins) would continue to be preserved and 

managed in a relatively primitive, undisturbed 

state. Visitor use would be more dispersed 

than in the east and west ends, although some 

concentration of visitors would occur at 

popular natural features and campgrounds. 

Day uses (e.g., hiking and fishing) and overnight uses (e.g., camping and backpacking) 

would be common in the backcountry. Car 

camping opportunities would continue to be 

available at Little Beaver Lake and Twelvemile 

Beach campgrounds. On the Beaver Lakes 

boat motors would continue to be limited to 

10 horsepower or less. 

There would be few visitor orientation, information, or interpretation services in the central portion of the national lakeshore. County 

Road H-58 would remain a paved road west of 

Little Beaver Lake road and would likely 

remain an unpaved road (some sections 

gravel, some rough sand) east of Little Beaver 

Lake road to the Grand Sable Lake overlook. 

The inland buffer zone would continue to be 

managed to preserve the natural setting, 

protect watersheds and streams, allow 

reasonable use by private landowners, and 

permit sustained-yield harvesting of timber. 

EASTERN PORTION OF THE 

NATIONAL LAKESHORE 

In the eastern (Grand Marais) end of the 

national lakeshore, visitor use would be concentrated around Hurricane River, Twelvemile Beach, Au Sable Light Station, Log Slide, 

Grand Sable Lake and falls, and along the 

North Country National Scenic Trail. Car 

camping would continue at Hurricane River 

campground. Boating on Grand Sable Lake 

(including motorboats with motors 50 

horsepower or less) would continue. 

Efforts to rehabilitate main building exteriors 

and renovate main building interiors at the Au 

Sable Light Station would continue, as would 

preservation treatment and the guided tours. 

Grand Sable Dunes would continue to be 

managed as a research natural area. 

Visitor orientation and information would 

continue to be available at the Grand Sable 

visitor center and the Grand Marais Maritime 

Museum/ranger station. Interpretation of the 

area's cultural history would continue at the 

Au Sable Light Station and the Grand Marais 

Maritime Museum. Some of the items in the 

national lakeshore’s collection are exhibited 

in the Grand Marais Maritime Museum. The 

Abrahamson Farm barn would continue to be 

preserved and used for storage. The 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

54 

environmental conditions for the museum 

collection in the museum and at the 

Abrahamson barn are substandard. 

The use of some structures associated with the 

Grand Marais Coast Guard Station and Grand 

Marais Harbor of Refuge quarters that have 

been stabilized would continue being used as 

seasonal residences, administrative offices, or 

museum/storage space. Preservation treatment would continue at both sites. Management of adjacent land (parking lot, etc.) at the 

Grand Marais Coast Guard Station would be 

transferred from the Coast Guard and Army 

Corps of Engineers to the National Park 

Service. 

Administration in the east end would continue 

to be divided between the Grand Marais 

ranger station and the Grand Sable visitor 

center. The east end maintenance staff and 

facilities would continue to be divided 

between the visitor center and the 

substandard facility at Grand Marais. 

The Grand Marais Harbor of Refuge keepers 

quarters would continue to be leased to the 

Grand Marais Historical Society. County 

Road H-58 would likely remain unpaved 

(some sections gravel, some rough sand) west 

of the Grand Sable Lake overlook and paved 

east of the overlook. 

The inland buffer zone would continue to be 

managed to preserve the natural setting, 

protect watersheds and streams, allow 

reasonable use by private landowners, and 

permit sustained-yield harvesting of timber as 

defined in the national lakeshore’s 

establishing legislation. 

WILDERNESS 

There would be no wilderness proposed for 

designation at Pictured Rocks National 

Lakeshore. 

COSTS 

Costs are given for comparison to other 

alternatives only and are not to be used for 

budgeting purposes. Although the numbers 

appear to be absolutes, they represent a midpoint in a possible range of costs. The costs 

developed are total life-cycle costs, which are 

inclusive of all initial costs (new development 

including transportation infrastructure costs, 

rehabilitation, interpretive media, etc.), 

replacement costs, and recurring annual costs 

such as national lakeshore operations. 

All of these costs are projected out for 25 

years, and are shown as the worth in today’s 

dollars. For a more detailed explanation of 

life-cycle costs, please refer to the “Development of GMP Cost Estimates” section earlier 

in this chapter . The initial capital cost for the 

no-action alternative is assumed to be zero 

because no new capital expenditures would be 

proposed. The recurring or replacement costs 

would be $20,170,000. The recurring annual 

costs would be $943,000. The total life-cycle 

cost for this alternative would be $21,113,000. 
55 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

HOW THIS ALTERNATIVE 

WAS DEVELOPED 

Public comment on the draft alternatives 

showed strong support for both alternatives C 

and D as presented in Newsletter 3 and 

through a series of public meetings. Many 

people favored wilderness designation within 

the national lakeshore while many others were 

concerned about ease of access to lakeshore 

features and the effect wilderness designation 

would have on that access. An analysis of the 

alternatives showed that many public concerns could be met with a blending of these 

two concepts along with some elements 

described in alternative B and still be within 

the purposes of the national lakeshore. 

Starting with the original alternative D, the 

team added some of the watershed protection 

measures from alternative B and then incorporated alternative C actions that would 

improve public access to significant national 

lakeshore features (see Preferred Alternative 

map). 

CONCEPT AND GENERAL 

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

The preferred alternative would expand 

opportunities for visitor use in the national 

lakeshore while preserving the central portion 

of the national lakeshore in a primitive, 

relatively undisturbed state. The national 

lakeshore would be managed for the 

perpetuation and protection of the natural 

environment and the preservation of cultural 

features while making them available for 

appropriate public use. The preferred 

alternative would also provide additional and 

more convenient access to significant national 

lakeshore features on the west and east 

portions of the national lakeshore. The 

diversity of visitor experience opportunities 

would also be maintained in a way that would 

not further degrade resources. The 

operational effectiveness of the national 

lakeshore would be improved. Several 

significant cultural resources would be 

preserved, upgraded, and/or adaptively used, 

and nonsignificant cultural resources would 

be adaptively used or left alone. 

Commercial boat tours of the pictured rocks 

would continue with recommendations made 

to tour boat operators to reduce the noise 

coming from the tour boat public address 

system so that intrusion on the natural quiet 

would be minimized. 

Grand Sable Dunes would continue to be 

managed as a research natural area (see 

glossary and Preferred Alternative map). 

Locally promulgated zoning would continue 

as the basic management tool in the inland 

buffer zone. Cooperative management of the 

Lake Superior watershed with other entities 

(such as the U.S. Forest Service, Michigan 

Department of Natural Resources, 

ForestLand Group, Limited Liability 

Corporation] and other private landowners) 

would be emphasized. Operational facilities 

would be consolidated at the ends of the 

national lakeshore for efficiency. 

Federal lands in the Beaver Basin area in the 

national lakeshore, except Little Beaver Lake 

campground and access road, would be proposed for designation as wilderness. Vehicular 

access to Little Beaver Lake campground 

would continue; however structures within 

the proposed wilderness would be removed. 

Other roads in Beaver Basin would be closed 

and converted to trails or allowed to revert to 

natural vegetation. 

To accommodate possible increased use and 

to increase ease of access in the portion of the 

national lakeshore not proposed for 

wilderness, certain roads would be upgraded 

(upgrading portions of County Road H-58 

would be recommended), and a rustic 

campground (comparable in character to 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

56 

Hurricane River and Twelvemile River campgrounds) would be added in the Miners Castle 

area. All improvements would depend on 

meeting national environmental and cultural 

compliance and resource protection laws. 

Visitor use limits generally would not be 

imposed in the orientation/history, casual 

recreation, or mixed use prescriptions, unless 

dictated by facility design capacities, to protect resources, or to ensure levels of visitor 

experience. Existing backcountry use management policies would be continued, and 

additional visitor use limits could eventually 

be imposed to achieve desired resource or 

social conditions in the primitive and pristine 

prescription areas. 

Managers would continue to follow the special mandates and servicewide mandates and 

policies described earlier in the "Guidance for 

the Planning Effort" section of this document. 

MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS 

AND RELATED ACTIONS 

The greatest proportion of the national 

lakeshore (about 51%) would be managed 

under the mixed-use prescription. The 

primitive prescription would cover about 

30%, and the casual recreation prescription 

would cover about 9%. The developed 

management prescription would cover about 

6%, and about 3% of the national lakeshore 

(the Grand Sable Dunes area) would be 

managed as pristine. The orientation/history 

prescription would cover about 1%. (See table 

3 at the end of the description of the 

alternatives for a comparison of the balance of 

management prescriptions.) 

There would be about 10 miles of the paved 

road prescription, 20 miles of the improved 

gravel road prescription, and no primitive 

road prescription in the preferred alternative. 

These figures do not include H-58 because the 

county has responsibility for this road. 

The remainder of this discussion describes 

how different areas of the national lakeshore 

would be managed and what actions the 

National Park Service would take under the 

preferred alternative. These actions are those 

believed most likely to take place over the 

next 15 years in the national lakeshore given 

the preferred alternative’s concept, management prescriptions, the conditions that 

already exist in the lakeshore, and the lakeshore's environmental constraints. Under this 

alternative, where possible, any new facilities 

would be constructed in already disturbed 

areas. Disturbance to sensitive areas such as 

threatened and endangered species habitat 

and archeological sites would also be avoided 

or mitigated whenever possible. (See 

“Mitigation” section.) 

Orientation/History Prescription 

The NPS/USFS information center at 

Munising would be managed according to the 

orientation/ history prescription. This would 

require no change in management. 

Munising Falls, Sand Point, and the 

Schoolcraft Furnace and kilns would also be 

managed as orientation/history. The furnace 

and kilns would continue to be protected. 

Once the lakeshore headquarters function was 

relocated away from Sand Point and Munising 

Range Light Station to the proposed Munising 

headquarters facility adjacent to the Munising 

maintenance facility, a portion of Sand Point 

would be managed to provide visitors with 

opportunities to learn about Coast Guard 

history. (The Munising Range Light Station 

would be in the developed prescription while 

being used for administrative purposes.) The 

Sand Point Coast Guard station and boathouse would be rehabilitated/ preserved to 

protect the architectural values associated 

with their period of significance (1933-46, 

with an emphasis on the 1940s era). The 

cultural landscape would be restored in line 

with recommendations from a future cultural 
Preferred Alternative

57

Preferred Alternative 

map 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

58 

back of map 
Preferred Alternative

59

landscape report or other appropriate 

research and treatment plan (and in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of 

Cultural Landscapes) to reflect the ambiance 

and most significant elements of this period. 

The site would also be actively interpreted. 

The first floor of the Coast Guard station 

would be restored to the 1940s Coast Guard 

era, and the boathouse would be interpreted 

(with a 1940s focus). 

When the Munising Range Light Station is no 

longer needed for administrative purposes, 

the site would be interpreted as a component 

of the national lakeshore’s preservation and 

interpretation of the Lake Superior maritime 

history and the U.S. Coast Guard involvement 

in the region. It is the national lakeshore’s 

intention to manage and maintain this 

property as a historic site. The station would 

be rehabilitated, preserved, and adaptively 

used for temporary staff offices until the new 

administration facility is completed on County 

Road H-58. (The U.S. Coast Guard would 

continue to maintain the operating aids to 

navigation [the front and rear range lights] 

that comprise two of the six structures on the 

property.) The cultural landscape would be 

restored to reflect the ambiance and significant elements of the period of significance in 

line with recommendations from a future 

cultural landscape report or other appropriate 

research and treatment plan (and in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of 

Cultural Landscapes). Interpretation of the site 

would be via onsite wayside exhibits. 

The Miners Castle area, which provides easy 

access to a popular geologic feature and to the 

Lake Superior shoreline, would be managed as 

orientation/history in this alternative. Opportunities for visitors to become oriented to the 

national lakeshore and learn about lakeshore 

resources would be available. 

The Au Sable Light Station area would be 

managed as orientation/history. Visitors 

would be able to get to the light station by a 

trail, and light station tour and day hiking 

opportunities would be available. The 

exteriors of the small ancillary structures 

would be rehabilitated, and the interiors 

would be renovated for historic interpretation 

and adaptive use. Preservation treatment that 

meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards 

for the Treatment of Historic Properties would 

also be done on the smaller structures to protect the station’s architectural and interpretive 

values. The cultural landscape would be 

restored to reflect the early 1900s time period 

based on the approved 1998 “Cultural 

Landscape Report.” Restrooms and utilities 

would also be added without detracting from 

the historic scene. 

In the Grand Marais area, the Abrahamson 

Farm barn (adjacent to the Grand Sable visitor 

center) would be rehabilitated, and the cultural landscape would be restored to a facsimile of its period of significance in line with 

recommendations from a future cultural landscape report or other appropriate research 

and treatment plan (and in compliance with 

the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes). 

For example, some farm fields might be 

cleared, some orchards might be managed, 

and certain fields might be leased for growing 

hay. 

The Grand Marais Coast Guard Station, 

which would also be managed as orientation/ 

history, would be preserved, rehabilitated, and 

adaptively used. The cultural landscape would 

be restored to a facsimile of its 1940s period of 

significance, in line with recommendations 

from a future cultural landscape report or 

other appropriate research and treatment plan 

(and in compliance with the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties with Guidelines for the 

Treatment of Cultural Landscapes). Management of adjacent land (parking lot, etc.) would 

be transferred from the Coast Guard and 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

60 

Army Corps of Engineers to the National Park 

Service. All management actions would be 

consistent with re-creation of the 1940s 

historic scene. Because the administrative 

offices and maintenance function would move 

to the new east-end administration/ 

maintenance facility, there would likely be 

increased space for the Maritime Museum. 

The Grand Marais Harbor of Refuge quarters 

would be preserved, rehabilitated, and adaptively used. The cultural landscape would be 

restored to a facsimile of its period of significance in line with recommendations from a 

future cultural landscape report or other 

appropriate research and treatment plan (and 

in compliance with the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties with Guidelines for the 

Treatment of Cultural Landscapes). 

The Grand Sable visitor center and the Grand 

Marais Maritime Museum would be managed 

as orientation/history to provide opportunities for comprehensive interpretation of 

agricultural and maritime history. The desired 

conditions would be that visitors are well 

oriented as they enter the lakeshore from the 

east and are able to obtain any permits they 

need. 

Casual Recreation Prescription 

An area between Munising Falls and Miners 

Beach would be managed as casual recreation. 

The Miners area (except Miners Castle) 

would be managed for casual recreation to 

allow construction of a new drive-in campground (25-35 sites), similar in character and 

size to the Twelvemile Beach and Hurricane 

River campgrounds and trails. An exception 

to this would be that Miners Lake would be 

nonmotorized. 

At the Becker farm, the open-field characteristics of the historic farmstead would be 

preserved. 

A corridor including the trails to Chapel Falls 

and Chapel Beach would be managed as 

casual recreation. The juxtaposition of beach, 

inland lake, cliffs, waterfalls, and views would 

provide a key visitor experience for national 

lakeshore visitors. The casual recreation 

prescription would allow for more formal/ 

hardened trails to be provided to protect 

resources. Portions of the trail could be 

accessible to people with disabilities. (Note: 

Chapel Lake would not be included in this 

prescription. It would be managed as 

primitive.) 

The National Park Service would encourage 

management of Kingston Lake and the adjacent state forest campground in a manner 

consistent with the casual recreation prescription and to maintain the existing visitor 

opportunities at this popular state-managed 

recreation area. 

The Twelvemile Beach and Hurricane River 

campground areas would also be managed as 

casual recreation. This would mean no change 

at the Twelvemile Beach campground. A 

detailed site plan for redesign of the Hurricane River campground/Au Sable Light 

Station area would be developed. Desired 

conditions for the redesigned area include 

better protection of the wet areas adjacent to 

the lower campground loop, improved vehicular circulation, and better separation of 

campground activities from day uses. The site 

plan should consider removing the lower 

campground loop and converting a portion of 

this area to day use parking to serve Au Sable 

Light Station visitors. The park staff would 

attempt to find a suitable location for a 

replacement loop if the current lower loop 

were removed. 

An exception to this zone would be the 

retention and administrative use of Sullivan’s 

cabin located between Hurricane River and 

Twelvemile campgrounds. 
Preferred Alternative

61

The Log Slide area would be managed as 

casual recreation (no changes in management 

would be anticipated). 

Access to east-end facilities and attractions 

would be improved, and recreational 

opportunities would be expanded. Boat-in 

campsites at Grand Sable Lake would be 

added. Motorized boating at Grand Sable lake 

would continue with limits on horsepower (50 

horsepower or less). 

From the west lakeshore boundary to Spray 

Falls, the 0.25 mile-wide strip of Lake 

Superior within the lakeshore would be in the 

casual recreation management prescription. 

Motorized and nonmotorized boating access 

from Lake Superior could continue. Tour 

boats would continue to provide tours of the 

pictured rocks with the recommendation that 

noise from the public address system be 

reduced so that intrusion on the natural quiet 

would be minimized. The 0.25-mile-wide 

Lake Superior strip from the mouth of 

Sevenmile Creek to the east boundary near 

Grand Marais would also be managed as 

casual recreation. 

Personal watercraft would be allowed to 

launch from a designated launch site 

(currently Sand Point) and operate on Lake 

Superior within the national lakeshore 

boundary from the western boundary up to 

the east end of Miners Beach. Personal 

watercraft users would be allowed to beach 

their craft on Miners Beach. Personal 

watercraft would not be allowed to launch or 

operate elsewhere within the national 

lakeshore. 

Mixed Use Prescription 

The mixed use management prescription 

would be applied to the inland buffer zone in 

both the eastern and western portions of the 

national lakeshore but not the central (Beaver 

Basin) portion of the national lakeshore (see 

Preferred Alternative map). Mixed-use areas 

would be managed to continue opportunities 

for extractive and recreational activities as 

authorized in the legislation that established 

the national lakeshore. The National Park 

Service would continue cooperative management and zoning in these areas. Management 

of these areas would not be significantly 

different than current management. 

Consistent with the enabling legislation, 

national lakeshore managers are interested in 

using part of the inland buffer zone as a 

demonstration forest. The national lakeshore 

is the only national park system unit that has a 

legislated buffer zone, which provides the 

National Park Service with a unique opportunity to partner with outside industry in 

order to explain the importance of sustainable 

timber practices, the logging industry in the 

Upper Peninsula, and its connection to the 

national lakeshore. 

Pristine Prescription 

Grand Sable Dunes would be managed under 

the pristine prescription, which reinforces its 

status as a research natural area. Natural 

conditions and special resources associated 

with the dune system would be maintained. 

This would not constitute a change in 

management. 

Primitive Prescription

The middle portion of the 0.25-mile-wide 

strip of Lake Superior from Spray Falls to the 

mouth of Sevenmile Creek would be managed 

under the primitive prescription. Motorized 

boats would no longer be permitted to use 

these waters, which is consistent with the 

primitive management prescription and 

supports wilderness values and opportunities 

for wilderness recreation on adjacent 

wilderness lands in Beaver Basin. 

An area between Miners Beach and Spray 

Creek (including most of Chapel Basin) and 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

62 

Chapel Lake would be managed as primitive 

(essentially no change in management). 

Beaver Basin, including Beaver Lakes, would 

be managed as primitive to provide opportunities for relatively remote, wild experiences 

and to maintain natural conditions in this wild 

area. Primitive trails and backcountry campgrounds would be allowed. Except for the 

Little Beaver Lake road, all roads (two-tracks) 

would be closed and allowed to revert to 

natural conditions, and motorized boats 

would no longer be allowed on Little Beaver 

and Beaver Lakes. The Little Beaver Lake 

campground (eight campsites, vault toilet, 

boat launch ramp and small parking lot) is in 

this zone, but would continue to be managed 

as a small drive-in campground and would be 

an exception to the primitive zone 

prescription. 

An area roughly between Log Slide eastward 

to Grand Sable Lake would be managed as 

primitive (essentially no change in management). At Grand Sable Lake new boat-in 

campsites would be added. 

Developed Prescription 

The existing lakeshore maintenance facility 

off H-58, near Munising, would be managed 

under the developed prescription. The 

lakeshore headquarters function would be 

relocated from Sand Point and the Munising 

Range Light Station to this area. (The building 

currently used for headquarters is too small to 

accommodate current staff and is substandard 

with respect to utilities and accessibility.) A 

new administration building (approximately 

20, 000 square feet including garage and 

storage), would include curatorial space that 

would be consistent with NPS standards and 

would be built on land that was prepared for 

this building during the construction of the 

Munising maintenance facility. 

Landowners of areas along Carmody Road, 

Monette Road, and Chapel Road would be 

encouraged to continue to manage these areas 

consistent with the intent of the developed 

prescription, thus allowing private residential 

use and residential development to continue. 

Likewise, landowners of areas in the inland 

buffer zone near Miners Castle Road, around 

Shoe Lakes, and around Kingston Lake would 

be encouraged to manage these areas consistent with the intent of the developed prescription to allow for future private residential 

use and development. (This is consistent with 

current county and/or township zoning.) 

The east-end administrative and maintenance 

functions would be consolidated in a new 

facility (about 6,700 square feet) in a 

developed area near Grand Marais. The 

existing maintenance facility would be 

removed. 

Road Prescriptions 

From the NPS perspective, an improved 

gravel road surface within the lakeshore 

boundary would generally be acceptable for 

County Road H-58. An improved gravel road 

would improve access to national lakeshore 

features while preserving opportunities for 

diverse vehicular traveling experiences in the 

national lakeshore. Any improvements to H58 should maintain a low-speed road that 

preserves the forest canopy, rustic character, 

scenic qualities, and archeological resources 

wherever possible. Paving H-58 would also be 

acceptable to the National Park Service. 

County plans to pave H-58 between the Log 

Slide access road and Grand Sable Lake are 

being implemented. 

Grand Sable Lake road, Log Slide road, 

Miners Castle road, the proposed Miners 

campground road, a portion of Miners Beach 

Road, and Sand Point road would also be 

managed under the paved road prescription to 

provide easy access to primary national 

lakeshore features or to private residential 

areas. This would require paving Grand Sable 
Preferred Alternative

63

Lake road and Log Slide road (the others are 

already paved). 

Roads managed under the improved gravel 

road prescription would include Miners 

Beach road, Chapel road, and Twelvemile 

Beach and Hurricane River campground and 

access roads. The intent would be to provide 

safe and relatively easy access to primary 

national lakeshore features in these areas. A 

portion of Chapel Road would require 

improvement to conform to the improved 

gravel road prescription. 

The Beaver Basin overlook road would be 

kept to maintain access to timber and to 

trailhead parking at the overlook. This road 

would be improved and managed under the 

improved gravel road prescription. 

WILDERNESS 

The National Park Service would propose 

12,843 acres (about 18% of the national 

lakeshore) for wilderness designation under 

the preferred alternative (see wilderness 

boundary, Preferred Alternative map). The 

area proposed for wilderness includes Beaver 

Basin (except for the Little Beaver Lake, 

campground, and road corridor). All of the 

area proposed for wilderness is within the 

shoreline zone designated by Congress (PL 

89-668). 

Areas proposed for wilderness designation 

would be managed under the primitive 

prescription. The primitive management 

prescription is consistent with desired 

wilderness conditions. 

COSTS 

Costs are given for comparison to other 

alternatives only and are not to be used for 

budgeting purposes. Although the numbers 

appear to be absolutes, they represent a midpoint in a possible range of costs. The costs 

developed are total life-cycle costs, which are 

inclusive of all initial costs (new development 

including transportation infrastructure costs, 

rehabilitation, interpretive media, etc.), 

replacement costs, and recurring annual costs 

such as national lakeshore operations. 

All of these costs are projected out for 25 

years, and shown as the worth in today’s 

dollars. For a more detail explanation of life 

cycle costs, please refer to the “Development 

of GMP Cost Estimates” section earlier in this 

chapter. The initial capital cost for the 

preferred alternative is $23,078,000. The 

recurring or replacement costs would be 

$1,154,000. The recurring annual costs would 

be $25,529,000. The total life-cycle cost for 

this alternative would be $49,761,000. 

Improving 16.6 miles of H-58 to a gravel 

surface would cost an additional $8.5 million. 

These costs are the responsibility of Alger 

County and would not be incurred by the 

National Park Service. 
64 

ALTERNATIVE A 

CONCEPT AND GENERAL 

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

In alternative A management of the national 

lakeshore would be very similar to the noaction alternative. The concept for alternative 

A was developed in response to public 

comment that people were essentially pleased 

with the national lakeshore as it is, but they 

had a few suggestions for improvement. The 

differences between the no-action alternative 

and alternative A reflect the most often heard 

suggestions and ideas from the previous 

management plan that are still considered 

viable but have not been implemented. 

Administration and maintenance functions 

would be consolidated in new facilities near 

Munising and Grand Marais. Visitor facilities 

would remain in place, and a new campground would be provided. Facilities would 

continue to be concentrated at the ends, while 

the central portion of the national lakeshore 

would be preserved in a relatively primitive, 

undisturbed state. A diversity of visitor use 

facilities and experience opportunities 

throughout the national lakeshore would be 

provided. (see Alternative A map). Otherwise, 

the National Park Service would continue to 

manage Pictured Rocks as it has in the past. 

National lakeshore managers would continue 

to follow the special mandates and servicewide mandates and policies described earlier 

in the "Guidance for the Planning Effort" 

section of this document. 

The national lakeshore would be managed for 

the perpetuation and protection of the natural 

environment and the preservation of cultural 

features while making them available for 

appropriate public use. No wilderness would 

be proposed. Natural ecological processes 

would be allowed to occur, and restoration 

programs would be initiated where necessary. 

Several significant cultural resources would be 

preserved, upgraded, and/or adaptively used, 

and other cultural resources would be 

adaptively used or left alone. 

National lakeshore managers would place few 

limits on visitor use, thus visitation could 

increase throughout most of the national 

lakeshore. National lakeshore staff would 

continue to enforce current backcountry use 

management policies of permitting camping 

only in designated sites. Permits would be 

required for overnight backcountry use. 

National lakeshore managers would also 

continue to regulate use by motorized boats, 

snowmobiles, and off-road-vehicles. 

Motorboat use on inland lakes would 

continue. 

The National Park Service would continue its 

active role in monitoring and/or influencing 

commercial and private activities that affect 

resources in the lakeshore. Concession 

structures would not be added to the 

lakeshore. Local communities would be 

encouraged to provide visitor services. 

Commercial boat tours of the pictured rocks 

would continue with recommendations made 

to tour boat operators to reduce the noise 

coming from the tour boat public address 

system so that intrusion on the natural quiet 

would be minimized. 

Locally promulgated zoning would continue 

as the basic management tool in the inland 

buffer zone. 

Paving H-58 would from Munising to Grand 

Marais would be the recommended county 

action under this alternative. 

MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS 

AND RELATED ACTIONS 

The greatest portion of the national lakeshore 

(48%) would be managed under the 
Alternative A 

65

Alternative A 

map 

foldout 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

66 

back of map 
Alternative A 

67

mixed-use prescription. The casual recreation 

prescription would cover about 20%, and the 

primitive prescription would cover about 

18%. The developed management prescription would cover 10%, and about 3% (Grand 

Sable Dunes area) would be managed as pristine. The orientation/history prescription 

would cover 1%, and (See table 3 at the end of 

the description of the alternatives for a comparison of the balance of management 

prescriptions.) 

There would be about 9 miles of the paved 

road prescription, about 12 miles of the 

improved gravel prescription, and about 3 

miles of the primitive prescription. 

The remainder of this discussion describes 

how different areas of the national lakeshore 

would be managed and what actions the 

National Park Service would take under 

alternative A. These actions are those believed 

most likely to take place over the next 15 years 

in the national lakeshore given alternative A's 

concept, management prescriptions, the 

conditions that already exist in the lakeshore, 

and the lakeshore's environmental constraints. Under this alternative, new facilities 

would be constructed in already disturbed 

areas where possible. Disturbance to sensitive 

areas such as threatened and endangered 

species habitat and archeological sites would 

also be avoided or mitigated whenever 

possible.

Orientation/History Prescription 

The NPS/USFS information center at 

Munising, is where visitors to the national 

lakeshore and nearby Hiawatha National 

Forest obtain information about recreational 

opportunities and obtain backcountry 

permits. The center would be managed 

according to the orientation/history 

prescription (no change in management). 

Munising Falls, Sand Point, and the 

Schoolcraft furnace and kilns would also be 

managed as orientation/history. The furnace 

and kilns would continue to be protected. 

Once the lakeshore headquarters function was 

relocated away from Sand Point and the 

Munising Range Light Station to the Munising 

administration facility area adjacent to the 

Munising maintenance facility, visitors would 

have opportunities to learn about Coast 

Guard history at Sand Point. (The Munising 

Range Light Station would be in the 

developed prescription while being used for 

administrative purposes.) The Sand Point 

Coast Guard station and boat house would be 

rehabilitated/ preserved and adaptively use to 

protect the architectural values associated 

with their period of significance (1933-46, 

with an emphasis on the 1940s era). The 

cultural landscape would be restored to reflect 

the ambiance and most significant elements of 

this period in line with recommendations 

from a future cultural landscape report or 

other appropriate research and treatment plan 

(and in compliance with the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties with Guidelines for the 

Treatment of Cultural Landscapes). The site 

would also be actively interpreted. The first 

floor of the Coast Guard station would be 

restored to the 1940s Coast Guard era, and the 

boat house would be interpreted (with a 1940s 

focus). 

When the Munising Range Light Station is no 

longer needed for administrative purposes, 

the site would be interpreted as a component 

of the national lakeshore’s preservation and 

interpretation of the Lake Superior maritime 

history and the U.S. Coast Guard involvement 

in the region. It is the national lakeshore’s 

intention to manage and maintain this 

property as a historic site. The station would 

be rehabilitated, preserved, and adaptively 

used for temporary staff offices until the new 

administration facility is completed on County 

Road H-58. (The U.S. Coast Guard would 

continue to maintain the operating aids to 

navigation [the front and rear range lights] 

that comprise two of the six structures on the 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

68 

property.) The cultural landscape would be 

restored to reflect the ambiance and 

significant elements of the period of 

significance in line with recommendations 

from a future cultural landscape report or 

other appropriate research and treatment plan 

(and in compliance with the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties with Guidelines for the 

Treatment of Cultural Landscapes). Interpretation of the site would be via onsite 

wayside exhibits. 

The Miners Castle area provides easy access 

to a popular geologic feature and to the Lake 

Superior shoreline. This area would be managed as orientation/history in this alternative. 

Opportunities for visitors to become oriented 

to the national lakeshore and learn about 

lakeshore resources would be available. 

The Au Sable Light Station area would be 

managed as orientation/history. Visitors 

would be able to easily get to the light station 

via a trail, and light station tour and day hiking 

opportunities would be available. The 

exteriors of the small ancillary structures 

would be rehabilitated, and the interiors 

would be renovated for historic interpretation 

and adaptive use. Preservation treatment that 

meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards 

for the Treatment of Historic Properties would 

also be done on the smaller structures to 

protect the station’s architectural and 

interpretive values. The cultural landscape 

would be restored to reflect the early 1900s 

time period based on the approved 1998 

“Cultural Landscape Report.” Restrooms and 

utilities would also be added without 

detracting from the historic scene. 

The Abrahamson Farm barn, adjacent to the 

Grand Sable visitor center, would be 

rehabilitated, and the cultural landscape 

would be restored to a facsimile of its period 

of significance in line with recommendations 

from a future cultural landscape report or 

other appropriate research and treatment plan 

(and in compliance with the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties with Guidelines for the 

Treatment of Cultural Landscapes). For 

example, some farm fields might be cleared, 

some orchards might be managed, and certain 

fields might be leased for growing hay. 

The Coast Guard Station in Grand Marais, 

also managed as orientation/ history, would 

be preserved, rehabilitated, and adaptively 

used. The cultural landscape would be 

restored to a facsimile of its 1940s period of 

significance, in line with recommendations 

from a future cultural landscape report or 

other appropriate research and treatment plan 

(and in compliance with the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties with Guidelines for the 

Treatment of Cultural Landscapes) and a site 

plan for improvements (comfort station, 

parking, and access for visitors with disabilities) would be developed; management of 

adjacent land (parking lot, etc.) would be 

transferred from the Coast Guard and Army 

Corps of Engineers to the National Park 

Service. All management actions would be 

consistent with re-creation of the 1940s 

historic scene. Because the administrative 

offices and maintenance function would move 

to the new east-end administration/ 

maintenance facility, there would likely be 

increased space for the Maritime Museum. 

The Grand Marais Harbor of Refuge quarters 

would be preserved, rehabilitated, and adaptively used. The cultural landscape would be 

restored to a facsimile of its period of 

significance in line with recommendations 

from a future cultural landscape report or 

other appropriate research and treatment plan 

(and in compliance with the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties with Guidelines for the 

Treatment of Cultural Landscapes). 

The Grand Sable visitor center and the Grand 

Marais Maritime Museum would be managed 

as orientation/history to provide opportunities for comprehensive interpretation of 

agricultural and maritime history. The desired 

conditions would be that visitors are well 
Alternative A 

69

oriented as they enter the lakeshore from the 

east and are able to obtain any permits they 

need. 

Casual Recreation Prescription 

The area between Munising Falls and the east 

end of Miners Beach would be managed as

casual recreation. A new drive-in campground, similar in character and size to the 

existing Twelvemile Beach and Hurricane 

River campground (25-35 sites), and trails 

would be built in the Miners area. Beaver 

Lakes would also be managed under the 

casual recreation prescription to maintain the 

current rustic drive-in camping experience 

and boating opportunities. An exception to 

this would be that Miners Lake would be 

managed as nonmotorized. 

At the Becker farm, the open-field characteristics of the historic farmstead would be 

preserved. 

The Twelvemile Beach and Hurricane River 

campground areas would also be managed as 

casual recreation. This would mean no change 

at the Twelvemile Beach campground. A 

detailed site plan for redesign of the 

Hurricane River campground/Au Sable Light 

Station area would be developed. Desired 

conditions for the redesigned area include 

better protection of the wet areas adjacent to 

the lower campground loop, improved 

vehicular circulation, and better separation of 

campground activities from day uses. The site 

plan should consider removing the lower 

campground loop and converting a portion of 

this area to day use parking to serve Au Sable 

Light Station visitors. A replacement 

campground loop could be constructed only if 

a suitable location could be found. 

The Log Slide area would be managed as 

casual recreation, and easy access to this 

popular area would be maintained (requiring 

no change from existing management). 

At the east end of the lakeshore an area 

around Grand Sable Lake and Sable Falls 

would be managed as casual recreation to 

maintain recreational opportunities and 

access. At Grand Sable Lake motorized boat 

use (50 horsepower or less) would continue. 

The 0.25-mile-wide strip of Lake Superior 

surface waters within the national lakeshore 

would be in the casual recreation management 

prescription, so motorized and nonmotorized 

boating activities and access from Lake 

Superior would continue. Recommendations 

would be made to tour boat operators to 

reduce the noise coming from the tour boat 

public address system so that intrusion on the 

natural quiet would be minimized. 

The National Park Service would encourage 

management of Kingston Lake and the adjacent state forest campground to be managed 

consistent with the casual recreation 

prescription and to maintain the existing 

visitor opportunities at this popular statemanaged recreation area. 

Mixed Use Prescription 

The mixed use management prescription in 

alternative A would be in most of the inland 

buffer zone and within the shoreline zone in 

an area just east of Beaver Basin (see 

Alternative A map). Mixed use areas would be 

managed to continue opportunities for 

extractive and recreational activities. The 

National Park Service would seek to continue 

cooperative management or zoning arrangements with other landholders in these areas. 

Pristine Prescription

Grand Sable Dunes would be managed under 

the pristine prescription, consistent with its 

status as a research natural area. Natural 

conditions and special resources associated 

with the dune system would be maintained; 

there would be no change in management. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

70 

Primitive Prescription

Beaver Basin would be managed under the 

primitive prescription to maintain opportunities for a relatively remote backcountry 

experience. Dispersed use would continue. An 

old garage structure would be removed, a 

gravel pit would be reclaimed, and two track 

roads in the area would be allowed to 

gradually revert to more natural conditions. 

Chapel Basin would also be managed as 

primitive (essentially no change). 

Developed Prescription 

The developed management prescription 

would be for areas that are primarily administrative or private residential. The area around 

the national lakeshore maintenance facility off 

H-58, near Munising, would be managed as 

developed. The lakeshore headquarters 

function would be relocated from Sand Point 

and the Munising Range Light Station to this 

area. A new administration building (about 

20,000 square feet), would include curatorial 

space that is consistent with NPS standards 

and would be built on land that was prepared 

for the new building during construction of 

the Munising maintenance facility. 

The areas along Carmody Road, Monette 

Road, and Chapel Road would be managed as 

developed to allow private residential use to 

continue. 

Landowners of areas in the inland buffer zone 

near Miners Castle Road, around Shoe Lakes, 

south of Log Slide, and around Kingston Lake 

would be encouraged to manage these lands 

consistent with the intent of the developed 

prescription to allow for future private 

residential use and development. (This is 

consistent with current county and/or 

township zoning.) 

East-end administrative and maintenance 

functions would be consolidated in a new 

facility (about 6,700 square feet) near Grand 

Marais. (The existing maintenance facility 

would be removed; it consists of a few 

converted farm buildings and is substandard 

and too small). 

Road Prescriptions 

The county would be encouraged to pave the 

entire stretch of County Road H-58 from 

Munising to Grand Marais to provide easy 

access along the national lakeshore's principal 

transportation route. This would involve 

paving sections that are gravel or sand (about 

60% of the road between Munising and 

Grand Marais). Other paved roads would 

include Sand Point, Carmody (except the eastwest portion), Miners Castle, Monette, a 

portion of Miners Beach Road, and Sable Falls 

roads (no change from existing conditions). 

The Little Beaver Lake road would be 

managed as an improved gravel road (no 

change). Other improved gravel roads would 

include Miners Falls and Beach roads, Chapel 

Road, Little Beaver Lake road, Twelvemile 

and Hurricane campground and access roads, 

Log Slide road, and the Grand Sable Lake 

roads (no change from existing conditions). 

The Beaver Basin overlook road would be 

managed according to the primitive road 

prescription (no change from existing 

conditions). 

WILDERNESS 

There would be no proposal to designate 

wilderness at Pictured Rocks National 

Lakeshore. 

COSTS 

Costs are given for comparison to other 

alternatives only and are not to be used for 

budgeting purposes. Although the numbers 

appear to be absolutes, they represent a 
Alternative A 

71

mid-point in a possible range of costs. The 

costs developed are total life-cycle costs, 

which are inclusive of all initial costs (new 

development including transportation 

infrastructure costs, rehabilitation, 

interpretive media, etc.), replacement costs, 

and recurring annual costs such as national 

lakeshore operations. 

All of these costs are projected out for 25 

years, and shown as the worth in today’s 

dollars. For a more detailed explanation of life 

cycle costs, please refer to the “Development 

of GMP Cost Estimates” section earlier in this 

chapter. The initial capital cost for alternative 

A is $11,283,000. The recurring or 

replacement costs would be $943,000. The 

recurring annual costs would be $24,623,000. 

The total life-cycle cost for this alternative 

would be $36,850,000. 

Improving 20 miles of H-58 to a paved surface 

would cost an additional $18.5 million. These 

costs are the responsibility of Alger County 

and would not be incurred by the National 

Park Service. 
72 

ALTERNATIVE B 

Alternative B was eliminated from 

consideration. 
73 

ALTERNATIVE C 

CONCEPT AND GENERAL 

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

Alternative C responds to public comments 

about making the national lakeshore an easier 

and more convenient place to visit. While 

much of the lakeshore would remain in a 

natural state, additional facilities and infrastructure would be provided to accommodate 

use and make it easier to get to primary 

lakeshore features like waterfalls, lakes, 

cultural resources, and the Lake Superior 

shoreline. Opportunities to understand and 

appreciate the lakeshore's history would be 

enhanced by expanded access at significant 

cultural sites. Ways to accommodate 

additional recreational use and to continue to 

provide a diversity of uses and experience 

opportunities throughout the national 

lakeshore would be explored. 

Vehicular access and/or improved pedestrian 

access would be provided to additional lakeshore areas, features, and significant cultural 

resources. Many roads would be paved or 

improved to increase ease of access for visitors. The county would be encouraged to pave 

the entire stretch of County Road H-58 from 

Munising to Grand Marais to provide easy 

access along the national lakeshore's principal 

transportation route. Facilities and infrastructure would be improved with the addition of a 

drive-in campground and the construction of 

a new overlook and access road. Several 

cultural landscapes would be restored and 

interpreted. Operational and administrative 

facilities would be consolidated near Munising and Grand Marais for efficiency. Local 

communities would be encouraged to provide 

visitor services because concession structures 

would not be added to the lakeshore. 

Commercial boat tours of the pictured rocks 

would continue with recommendations made 

to tour boat operators to reduce the noise 

coming from the tour boat public address 

system so that intrusion on the natural quiet 

would be minimized. 

The national lakeshore would continue to be 

managed for the perpetuation and protection 

of the natural environment and the preservation of cultural features while making them 

available for appropriate public use. Many 

significant cultural resources would be 

preserved, upgraded, and/or adaptively used, 

and nonsignificant cultural resources would 

be adaptively used or left alone. 

Grand Sable Dunes would continue to be 

managed as a research natural area. 

Visitor use limits generally would not be imposed in the orientation/history, casual recreation, or mixed use prescriptions unless 

dictated by facility design capacities or to 

protect resources. Current backcountry use 

management policies would be continued, and 

additional visitor use limits could be imposed 

to achieve desired resource or social conditions in primitive and pristine areas. (See 

Alternative C map.) 

Locally promulgated zoning would continue 

as the basic management tool in the inland 

buffer zone. 

National lakeshore managers would continue 

to follow the special mandates and servicewide mandates and policies described earlier 

in the "Guidance for the Planning Effort" 

section of this document. 

MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS 

AND RELATED ACTIONS 

The greatest proportion of the national 

lakeshore (48%) would be managed under the 

mixed-use prescription. The casual recreation 

prescription would cover the next greatest 

portion of the national lakeshore (25%), 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

74 

including the surface waters of Lake Superior 

to a distance of 0.25 mile off-shore (within the 

national lakeshore boundary). About 13 % of 

the national lakeshore (Beaver Basin area) 

would be managed as primitive, the developed 

management prescription would cover about 

10%, and about 3% (Grand Sable Dunes area) 

would be managed as pristine in alternative C. 

The orientation/ history prescription would 

cover about 1%. (See table 3 at the end of the 

description of the alternatives for a comparison of the balance of management 

prescriptions.) 

There would be about 19 miles of the paved 

road prescription and about 16 miles of the 

improved gravel prescription. No roads would 

be managed as primitive in alternative C. 

The remainder of this section describes how 

different areas of the national lakeshore 

would be managed and what actions the 

National Park Service would take under 

alternative C. 

These actions are those believed most likely to 

take place during the next 15 years in the 

national lakeshore, given alternative C’s 

concept, management prescriptions, the 

conditions that already exist in the lakeshore, 

and the lakeshore's environmental constraints. Under this alternative, new facilities 

would be constructed in already disturbed 

areas where possible. Disturbance to sensitive 

areas such as threatened and endangered 

species habitat and archeological sites would 

also be avoided or mitigated whenever 

possible. 

Orientation/History Prescription

The NPS/USFS information center at 

Munising would be managed according to the 

orientation/ history prescription. This would 

require no change in management. 

Munising Falls, Sand Point, and the 

Schoolcraft furnace and kilns would also be 

managed as orientation/history. The furnace 

and kilns would continue to be protected. 

Once the lakeshore headquarters function was 

relocated away from Sand Point and the 

Munising Range Light Station to the new 

Munising administration facility adjacent to 

the Munising maintenance facility, a portion 

of Sand Point would be managed to provide 

visitors with opportunities to learn about 

Coast Guard history. (The Munising Range 

Light Station would be in the developed 

prescription while being used for administrative purposes.)The Sand Point Coast 

Guard station and boat house would be 

rehabilitated/preserved to protect the architectural values associated with their period of 

significance (1933-46, with an emphasis on the 

1940s era). The cultural landscape would be 

restored to reflect the ambiance and most 

significant elements of this period in line with 

recommendations from a future cultural landscape report or other appropriate research 

and treatment plan (and in compliance with 

the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes). 

The site would also be actively interpreted. 

The first floor at the Coast Guard station 

would be restored to the 1940s Coast Guard 

era, and the boat house would be interpreted 

(with a 1940s focus). 

When the Munising Range Light Station is no 

longer needed for administrative purposes, 

the site would be interpreted as a component 

of the national lakeshore’s preservation and 

interpretation of the Lake Superior maritime 

history and the U.S. Coast Guard involvement 

in the region. It is the national lakeshore’s 

intention to manage and maintain this property as a historic site. The station would be 

rehabilitated, preserved, and adaptively used 

for temporary staff offices until the new 

administration facility is completed on County 

Road H-58. (The U.S. Coast Guard would 

continue to maintain the operating aids to 

navigation [the front and rear range lights] 

that comprise two of the six structures on the 
Alternative C 

75

Alternative C 

map 

foldout 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

76 

back of map 
Alternative C 

77

property.) The cultural landscape would be 

restored to reflect the ambiance and significant elements of the period of significance in 

line with recommendations from a future 

cultural landscape report or other appropriate 

research and treatment plan (and in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of 

Cultural Landscapes). Interpretation of the site 

would be via onsite wayside exhibits. 

The Miners Castle area provides easy access 

to a popular geologic feature and to the Lake 

Superior shoreline. This area would be 

managed as orientation/history in alternative 

C. Opportunities for visitors to become 

oriented to the national lakeshore and learn 

about lakeshore resources would be 

emphasized, so a small visitor orientation/ 

interpretation building would be built (or 

existing buildings would be expanded) at the 

Miners Castle area to house this function. 

The Au Sable Light Station area would be 

managed as orientation/history. Visitors 

would be able to easily get to the light station 

via a trail, and light station tour and day hiking 

opportunities would be available. The 

exteriors of the small ancillary structures 

would be rehabilitated, and the interiors 

would be renovated for historic interpretation 

and adaptive use. Preservation treatment that 

meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards 

for the Treatment of Historic Properties would 

also be done on the smaller structures to protect the station’s architectural and interpretive 

values. The cultural landscape would be 

restored to reflect the early 1900s time period 

based on the approved 1998 “Cultural 

Landscape Report.” Restrooms and utilities 

would also be added without detracting from 

the historic scene. 

The Abrahamson Farm barn, near the Grand 

Sable visitor center, would be preserved/ 

rehabilitated, and the cultural landscape 

would be restored to a facsimile of its period 

of significance in line with recommendations 

from a future cultural landscape report or 

other appropriate research and treatment plan 

(and in compliance with the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties with Guidelines for the 

Treatment of Cultural Landscapes). For 

example, some farm fields might be cleared, 

some orchards might be managed, and certain 

fields might be leased for growing hay. 

The Grand Marais Coast Guard Station, also 

managed as orientation/history, would be 

preserved, rehabilitated, and adaptively used. 

The cultural landscape would be restored to a 

facsimile of its 1940s period of significance, in 

line with recommendations from a future 

cultural landscape report or other appropriate 

research and treatment plan (and in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of 

Cultural Landscapes), and a site plan for 

improvements (comfort station, parking, and 

access for people with disabilities) would be 

developed, as management of adjacent land 

(parking lot, etc.) would be transferred from 

the Coast Guard and Army Corps of 

Engineers to the National Park Service in this 

alternative. All management actions would be 

consistent with re-creation of the 1940s 

historic scene. Because the administrative 

offices and maintenance function would move 

to the new east-end administration/ 

maintenance facility, there would likely be 

increased space for the Maritime Museum. 

The Grand Marais Harbor of Refuge quarters 

would be preserved, rehabilitated, and adaptively used. The cultural landscape would be 

restored to a facsimile of its period of significance in line with recommendations from a 

future cultural landscape report or other 

appropriate research and treatment plan (and 

in compliance with the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties with Guidelines for the 

Treatment of Cultural Landscapes). 

The Grand Sable visitor center and the Grand 

Marais Maritime Museum would be managed 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

78 

as orientation/history to provide opportunities for comprehensive interpretation of agricultural and maritime history. The desired 

conditions would be that visitors are well 

oriented as they enter the lakeshore from the 

east and are able to obtain any permits they 

need. 

Casual Recreation Prescription 

The area between Munising Falls to the east 

end of Chapel Basin would be managed as 

casual recreation. In alternative C the Miners 

area (except Miners Castle) would be 

managed for casual recreation to allow 

development of a new drive-in campground 

(25-35 sites) and trails. Another exception 

would be that Miners Lake would be managed 

as nonmotorized.) The Mosquito River area 

would be in the casual recreation management 

prescription; it could undergo a substantial 

increase in use due to elimination of the 

Chapel backcountry campground (see below). 

The Mosquito Beach backcountry campground would be expanded if demand 

increased as expected. 

At the Becker farm, the open-field characteristics of the historic farmstead would be 

preserved. 

Chapel Basin would be managed as casual 

recreation to allow improvements associated 

with providing drive-in access to Chapel Falls 

and beach (see improved gravel road prescription). Accordingly, the Chapel backcountry 

campground would be eliminated and day use 

facilities (parking, toilets) would be provided. 

Beaver Lakes would also be managed under 

the casual recreation prescription to maintain 

the rustic drive-in camping experience and 

current boating opportunities (10 horsepower 

limit). 

Landowners in the Kingston Lake area would 

be encouraged to manage the lake and the 

adjacent state forest campground to be consistent with the casual recreation prescription 

and to maintain the existing visitor opportunities at this popular state-managed recreation 

area. 

The Twelvemile Beach and Hurricane River 

campgrounds would be managed as casual 

recreation. This would mean no change at the 

Twelvemile Beach campground. At each of 

these campgrounds enhancements would be 

made (comfort stations, water and electric 

service, etc.) to improve sanitation and visitor 

comfort. A detailed site plan for redesign of 

the Hurricane River campground/Au Sable 

Light Station area would be developed. 

Desired conditions for the redesigned area 

include better protection of the wet areas 

adjacent to the lower campground loop, 

improved vehicular circulation, and better 

separation of campground activities from day 

uses. The site plan should consider removing 

the lower campground loop and converting a 

portion of this area to day use parking to serve 

Au Sable Light Station visitors. A replacement 

campground loop could be constructed only if 

a suitable location could be found. 

The Log Slide area would be managed as 

casual recreation, and easy access to this 

popular area would be maintained (no change 

from current management). 

At the east end of the lakeshore, the area 

around Grand Sable Lake would be managed 

as casual recreation to increase recreational 

opportunities and improve access. At Grand 

Sable Lake boat-in campsites would be added. 

Boating on Grand Sable Lake would continue 

(including motorboats with 50 horsepower 

motors or less). 

The 0.25-mile-wide strip of Lake Superior 

within the national lakeshore would be in the 

casual recreation management prescription, 

so current motorized and nonmotorized 

boating activities and access from Lake 

Superior would continue. Recommendations 

would be made to tour boat operators to 
Alternative C 

79

reduce the noise coming from the tour boat 

public address system. 

Mixed Use Prescription 

The mixed use management prescription in 

alternative C would be in most of the inland 

buffer zone and within the shoreline zone in 

an area just east of Beaver Basin (see 

Alternative C map). Mixed use areas would be 

managed to continue opportunities for 

extractive and recreational activities. The 

National Park Service would seek to continue 

cooperative management or zoning arrangements with other landholders in these areas. 

An overlook in the Sevenmile Creek area 

would be added contingent on the state 

donating an easement across about 240 acres 

of their land and the acquisition of an 

easement on about 10 acres of ForestLand 

Group, Limited Liability Corporation land. 

(The national lakeshore’s establishing 

legislation expressly states that property 

owned by the state may be acquired only by 

donation.) The overlook would be on the 

ridge and the parking lot would be placed 

back from the rim edge to mitigate noise, and 

it would be screened by vegetation; there 

would be limited vista clearing and a short 

walk to the overlook. All improvements would 

depend on meeting national environmental 

compliance and resource protection laws. 

This overlook would provide one of the most 

spectacular vistas in the national lakeshore, 

overlooking Sevenmile Creek, Beaver Basin, 

Grand Portal, and Lake Superior. 

Pristine Prescription

Grand Sable Dunes would be managed under 

the pristine prescription, consistent with its 

status as a research natural area. Natural 

conditions and special resources associated 

with the dune system would be maintained; 

there would be no change in management. 

 

Primitive Prescription

Beaver Basin would be managed under the 

primitive prescription to maintain opportunities for a relatively remote backcountry 

experience. An old garage structure would be 

removed, a gravel pit would be reclaimed, and 

two track roads in the area would be allowed 

to revert to more natural conditions. Visitor 

use would continue to be dispersed 

throughout the basin. 

Developed Prescription 

The developed management prescription 

would be for areas that are primarily administrative or residential. The area around the 

national lakeshore maintenance facility off H58, near Munising, would be managed as 

developed. The lakeshore headquarters function would be relocated from Sand Point and 

the Munising Range Light Station to this area. 

(The building used for headquarters is too 

small to accommodate current staff and is 

substandard with respect to utilities and 

accessibility.) A new administration building 

(about 20,000 square feet) would include 

curatorial space that is consistent with NPS 

standards and would be built on land that was 

prepared for the new building during construction of the Munising maintenance 

facility. 

Landowners of the areas along Carmody, 

Monette, and Chapel Roads (see Alternative C 

map) would be encouraged to manage these 

lands consistent with the intent of the 

developed prescription to allow private 

residential use to continue. 

Landowners of areas in the inland buffer zone 

near Miners Castle Road, around Shoe Lakes, 

and around Kingston Lake (except the campground), and south of the Log Slide area along 

County Road H-58 (see map) would be 

encouraged to manage these lands consistent 

with the intent of the developed prescription 

to allow for future private residential use and 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

80 

development. (This is consistent with current 

county and township zoning.) 

East-end administrative and maintenance 

functions would be consolidated in a new 

facility (about 6,700 square feet) near Grand 

Marais, also managed in the developed 

prescription. (The existing maintenance 

facility would be removed; it consists of a few 

converted farm buildings and is substandard 

and too small). 

Road Prescriptions 

The county would be encouraged to pave the 

stretch of County Road H-58 from Munising 

to Grand Marais. (Sections between Little 

Beaver Lake road and Grand Sable Lake 

overlook (about 60% of H-58) are currently 

gravel or sand.) Paving would provide safe, 

easy access along the national lakeshore's 

principal transportation route. 

To provide easier access to major national 

lakeshore features there would be more roads 

in the paved road prescription than in any 

other alternative: Sand Point, Carmody 

(except the east-west portion), Miners Castle, 

Miners Falls, Miners Beach, Monette, and 

Chapel Roads, a portion of Miners Beach 

Road, Twelvemile Beach and Hurricane River 

access and campground roads, and Log Slide 

and Grand Sable Lake roads. The following 

roads would require paving (the others are 

paved already): Miners Falls, Miners Beach, 

Chapel (to south lakeshore boundary), Log 

Slide, and Grand Sable Lake. 

Easier access to Chapel Falls, Chapel Beach, 

and Chapel Rock would be provided by 

upgrading old roads now managed as hiking 

trails to improved gravel roads (vehicular 

access would be permitted). The Little Beaver 

Lake road would also be managed as 

improved gravel (no change from existing 

conditions). The rough Beaver Basin overlook 

road would be upgraded to improved gravel 

for easier access to this scenic viewpoint, 

consistent with the intent of this alternative. A 

new road to Sevenmile Creek overlook from 

County Road H-58 would be constructed and 

managed as improved gravel. This road would 

create vehicular access to scenic views of the 

Sevenmile Creek area, Grand Portal, Lake 

Superior, and Beaver Lake, a desired 

condition for alternative C. 

There would be no roads in the primitive road 

prescription in this alternative. 

WILDERNESS 

There would be no proposal for designation 

of wilderness at Pictured Rocks National 

Lakeshore. 

COSTS 

Costs are given for comparison to other 

alternatives only and are not to be used for 

budgeting purposes. Although the numbers 

appear to be absolutes, they represent a midpoint in a possible range of costs. The costs 

developed are total life-cycle costs, which are 

inclusive of all initial costs (new development 

including transportation infrastructure costs, 

rehabilitation, interpretive media, etc.), 

replacement costs, and recurring annual costs 

such as national lakeshore operations. 

All of these costs are projected out for 25 

years, and shown as the worth in today’s 

dollars. For a more detail explanation of life 

cycle costs, please refer to the “Development 

of GMP Cost Estimates” section earlier in this 

chapter. The initial capital cost for alternative 

C is $48,066,000. The recurring or replacement costs would be $1,188,000. The 

recurring annual costs would be $24,581,000. 

The total life-cycle cost for this alternative 

would be $73,835,000. 

Improving 20 miles of H-58 to a paved surface 

would cost an additional $18.5 million. These 

costs are the responsibility of Alger County 

and would not be incurred by the National 

Park Service.
81 

ALTERNATIVE D

Alternative D was used as the basis for the 

preferred alternative and was therefore 

eliminated from further analysis. 
82 

ALTERNATIVE E 

CONCEPT AND GENERAL 

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

This concept responds to public comments 

that encouraged the National Park Service to 

commit much of the national lakeshore to 

wilderness. It also responds to comments that 

the national lakeshore should be available to 

all user groups, not just a select few. 

Therefore, the national lakeshore would 

continue to provide a diversity of use and 

visitor experience opportunities separated 

geographically − the remote and primitive uses 

would be found in the central portion of the 

national lakeshore (proposed wilderness), 

while the eastern and western portions would 

be more accessible. Some cultural and natural 

features at the east and west portions of the 

lakeshore would be easier to get to and have 

more facilities and amenities than now. 

In alternative E much of the middle third of 

the national lakeshore would be proposed for 

wilderness designation. Beaver Basin, Chapel 

Basin, and adjacent areas would be included in 

the wilderness proposal, maximizing opportunities for nonmotorized recreation such as 

hiking and backcountry camping in a 

relatively remote, quiet, natural area in the 

central portion of the national lakeshore. 

Within the middle (proposed wilderness) 

portion of the lakeshore, structures would be 

removed, and roads would be converted to 

trails or closed and allowed to revert to 

natural vegetation. 

To accommodate possible increased use in the 

nonwilderness portion of the national lakeshore, certain roads would be upgraded (the 

county would be encouraged to upgrade H58), and a campground would be added in the 

Miners area. Operational facilities would be 

consolidated near Munising and Grand 

Marais for efficiency. Concession structures 

would not be added to the lakeshore, and 

local communities would be encouraged to 

provide visitor services. (See Alternative E 

map.) 

The national lakeshore would continue to be 

managed for the perpetuation and protection 

of the natural environment and the 

preservation of cultural features while making 

them available for appropriate public use. 

Several significant cultural resources would be 

preserved, upgraded, and/or adaptively used, 

and nonsignificant cultural resources would 

be adaptively used or left alone. 

Grand Sable Dunes would continue to be 

managed as a research natural area. 

Visitor use limits generally would not be 

imposed in the orientation/history, casual 

recreation, or mixed use prescriptions, unless 

dictated by facility design capacities or to 

protect resources. Existing backcountry use 

management policies would be continued, and 

additional visitor use limits could be imposed 

to achieve desired resource or social 

conditions in primitive and pristine areas. 

Locally promulgated zoning would continue 

as the basic management tool in the inland 

buffer zone. 

National lakeshore managers would continue 

to follow the special mandates and servicewide mandates and policies described earlier 

in the "Guidance for the Planning Effort" 

section of this document. 

MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS 

AND RELATED ACTIONS 

The greatest proportion of the national lakeshore (about 45%) would be managed under 

the mixed use prescription. About 39% of the 

national lakeshore would be managed as 

primitive, including the central Lake Superior 

portion of the national lakeshore, and about 
Alternative E 

83

Alternative E 

map 

foldout 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

84 

back of map 
Alternative E 

85

11% of the national lakeshore would be 

managed as casual recreation. About 3% of 

the national lakeshore would be managed as 

the most restrictive pristine prescription. The 

orientation/ history prescription would cover 

about 1%, and the developed management 

prescription would cover about 1%. (See table 

3 at the end of the description of the alternatives for a comparison of the balance of 

management prescriptions.) 

There would be about 9 miles of the paved 

road prescription, about 13 miles of the 

improved gravel prescription, and no miles 

managed as the primitive prescription. 

The remainder of this discussion describes 

how different areas of the national lakeshore 

would be managed and what actions the 

National Park Service would take under 

alternative E. These actions are those believed 

most likely to take place during the next 15 

years in the national lakeshore, given alternative E’s concept, management prescriptions, 

the conditions that already exist in the 

lakeshore, and the lakeshore's environmental 

constraints. Under this alternative, new 

facilities would be constructed in already 

disturbed areas where possible. 

Orientation/History Prescription 

The NPS/USFS information center at 

Munising would be managed according to the 

orientation/ history prescription (no change 

in management). 

Munising Falls, Sand Point, and the 

Schoolcraft furnace and kilns would also be 

managed as orientation/history. The furnace 

and kilns would continue to be protected. 

Once the lakeshore headquarters function was 

relocated away from Sand Point and the 

Munising Range Light Station to the Munising 

administration facility adjacent to the 

Munising maintenance facility, a portion of 

Sand Point would be managed to provide 

visitors with opportunities to learn about 

Coast Guard history. (The Munising Range 

Light Station would be in the developed 

prescription while being used for administrative purposes.) The Sand Point Coast 

Guard station and boat house would be 

rehabilitated/preserved to protect the architectural values associated with their period of 

significance (1933-46, with an emphasis on the 

1940s era). The cultural landscape would be 

restored to reflect the ambiance and most 

significant elements of this period in line with 

recommendations from a future cultural landscape report or other appropriate research 

and treatment plan (and in compliance with 

the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes). 

The site would also be actively interpreted. 

The first floor of the Coast Guard station 

would be restored to the 1940s Coast Guard 

era, and the boat house would be interpreted 

(with a 1940s focus). 

When the Munising Range Light Station is no 

longer needed for administrative purposes, 

the site would be interpreted as a component 

of the national lakeshore’s preservation and 

interpretation of the Lake Superior maritime 

history and the U.S. Coast Guard involvement 

in the region. It is the national lakeshore’s 

intention to manage and maintain this 

property as a historic site. The station would 

be rehabilitated, preserved, and adaptively 

used for temporary staff offices until the new 

administration facility is completed on County 

Road H-58. (The U.S. Coast Guard would 

continue to maintain the operating aids to 

navigation [the front and rear range lights] 

that comprise two of the six structures on the 

property.) The cultural landscape would be 

restored to reflect the ambiance and significant elements of the period of significance in 

line with recommendations from a future 

cultural landscape report or other appropriate 

research and treatment plan (and in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

86 

Cultural Landscapes). Interpretation of the site 

would be via onsite wayside exhibits. 

The Miners Castle area provides easy access 

to a popular geologic feature and to the Lake 

Superior shoreline. This area would be 

managed as orientation/history in alternative 

E. Opportunities for visitors to become 

oriented to the national lakeshore and learn 

about lakeshore resources would be 

emphasized, so a small visitor orientation/ 

interpretation building would be built (or 

existing buildings would be expanded) at 

Miners Castle. 

The Au Sable Light Station area would be 

managed as orientation/history. Visitors 

would be able to easily get to the light station 

via a trail, and light station tour and day hiking 

opportunities would be available. The 

exteriors of the small ancillary structures 

would be rehabilitated, and the interiors 

would be renovated for historic interpretation 

and adaptive use. Preservation treatment that 

meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards 

for the Treatment of Historic Properties would 

also be done on the smaller structures to 

protect the station’s architectural and 

interpretive values. The cultural landscape 

would be restored to reflect the early 1900s 

time period based on the approved 1998 

“Cultural Landscape Report.” Restrooms and 

utilities would also be added without 

detracting from the historic scene. 

The Coast Guard Station in Grand Marais, 

also managed as orientation/ history, would 

be preserved, rehabilitated, and adaptively 

used. The cultural landscape would be 

restored to a facsimile of its 1940s period of 

significance, in line with recommendations 

from a future cultural landscape report or 

other appropriate research and treatment plan 

(and in compliance with the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties with Guidelines for the 

Treatment of Cultural Landscapes), and a site 

plan for day use improvements (comfort 

station, parking, and access for people with 

disabilities) would be developed. Management of adjacent land (parking lot, etc.) would 

be transferred from the Coast Guard and 

Army Corps of Engineers to the National Park 

Service. All management actions would be 

consistent with re-creation of the 1940s 

historic scene. Because the administrative 

offices and maintenance function would move 

to the new east-end administration and 

maintenance facility, there would likely be 

increased space for the Maritime Museum. 

The Grand Marais Harbor of Refuge quarters 

would be preserved, rehabilitated, and adaptively used. The cultural landscape would be 

restored to a facsimile of its period of significance in line with recommendations from a 

future cultural landscape report or other 

appropriate research and treatment plan (and 

in compliance with the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties with Guidelines for the 

Treatment of Cultural Landscapes). 

The Grand Sable visitor center and the Grand 

Marais Maritime Museum would be managed 

as orientation/history to provide opportunities for comprehensive interpretation of agricultural and maritime history. The desired 

conditions would be that visitors are well 

oriented as they enter the lakeshore from the 

east and are able to obtain any permits they 

need. 

Casual Recreation Prescription 

The area between Munising Falls and Miners 

Beach would be managed as casual recreation. 

At the Becker farm, the open-field characteristics of the historic farmstead would be 

preserved. 

In alternative E the Miners area (except 

Miners Castle) would be managed for casual 

recreation to allow development (e.g., a new 

drive-in campground [25-35 sites] and trails 

similar in character and size to the Hurricane 
Alternative E 

87

River and Twelvemile Beach campgrounds). 

An exception would be that Miners Lake 

would be managed as nonmotorized. 

Landowners in the Kingston Lake area would 

be encouraged to continue to manage these 

lands and waters consistent with the intent of 

the casual recreation prescription (no changes 

in management would be anticipated). 

The Twelvemile Beach and Hurricane River 

campground areas would also be managed as 

casual recreation. This would mean no change 

at the Twelvemile Beach campground. A 

detailed site plan for redesign of the 

Hurricane River campground area would be 

developed. Desired conditions for the 

redesigned area include better protection of 

the wet areas adjacent to the lower 

campground loop, improved vehicular 

circulation, and better separation of 

campground activities from day uses. The site 

plan should consider removing the lower 

campground loop and converting a portion of 

this area to day use parking to serve Au Sable 

Light Station visitors. A replacement 

campground loop could be constructed only if 

a suitable location could be found. 

The Log Slide area would be managed as 

casual recreation (no changes would be 

anticipated). 

The Abrahamson Farm barn, near the Grand 

Sable visitor center, would be rehabilitated, 

and the cultural landscape would be restored 

to a facsimile of its period of significance in 

line with recommendations from a future 

cultural landscape report or other appropriate 

research and treatment plan (and in 

compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of 

Cultural Landscapes). For example, some farm 

fields might be cleared, some orchards might 

be managed, and certain fields might be leased 

for growing hay. 

Part of the far east end of the national lakeshore, including Grand Sable Lake, would be 

managed as casual recreation. In this 

alternative access to east end facilities and 

attractions would be improved. Boating on 

Grand Sable Lake would continue (including 

motorboats with 50 hp or less). 

The 0.25-mile-wide strip of Lake Superior 

within the national lakeshore stretching from 

the west lakeshore boundary to the east end of 

Miners Beach would be in the casual recreation management prescription. The 0.25-milewide Lake Superior strip stretching from the 

mouth of Sevenmile Creek to the east boundary near Grand Marais to would also be 

managed as casual recreation. Motorized and 

nonmotorized boating and access from Lake 

Superior would be allowed to continue in 

these areas. 

Mixed Use Prescription 

The mixed use management prescription in 

alternative E would generally be applied to 

parts of the inland buffer zone that are not 

within the proposed wilderness. These mixed 

use areas would be managed to continue 

opportunities for extractive and recreational 

activities as authorized in the legislation that 

established the national lakeshore. The 

National Park Service would seek to continue 

cooperative management and zoning in these 

areas. Management of these areas would not 

be significantly different than current 

management. 

Pristine Prescription 

Grand Sable Dunes would be managed under 

the pristine prescription, which is consistent 

with its status as a research natural area. 

Natural conditions and special resources 

associated with the dune system would be 

maintained, but this would not constitute a 

change in management. 

 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

88 

Primitive Prescription 

Most of the shoreline zone and part of the 

inland buffer zone in the middle of the 

national lakeshore would be managed as 

primitive to provide maximum opportunities 

for remote, wild experiences and maintain 

natural conditions. Primitive trails and 

backcountry campsites would be allowable 

uses. Included in the primitive prescription, 

from west to east, would be the area between 

Miners Beach and Chapel Basin, Chapel Basin, 

the Spray Creek area, Beaver Basin, and the 

rim area to the east of Beaver Basin (see 

Alternative E map). Roads in these areas 

(mostly two-tracks) would be allowed to 

revert to natural conditions, and motorized 

boats would no longer be allowed on Beaver 

Lakes. 

To bring the area into conformance with the 

primitive management prescription and proposed wilderness, the Little Beaver Lake and 

the Beaver Basin overlook roads would be 

closed and converted to hiking trails, the trailhead parking lots at the ends of those roads 

would be closed, and most other man-made 

structures (the water system, garage, and 

amphitheater, for example) would be 

removed. 

From the east end of Miners Beach to the 

mouth of Sevenmile Creek, the 0.25-mile-wide 

strip of Lake Superior within the lakeshore 

would be managed under the primitive 

prescription. Motorized boats including tour 

boats would no longer be permitted to use 

these waters. The rationale for managing this 

area as primitive is to support wilderness 

values and opportunities for wilderness 

recreation on wilderness lands in adjacent 

areas. It would also provide a quieter section 

of shoreline for nonmotorized boat users. 

At the east end of the national lakeshore, an 

area west of Sullivan Creek to Grand Sable 

Lake and around the lake would be managed 

as primitive (no change in management would 

be required). 

Developed Prescription 

The existing lakeshore maintenance facility 

off H-58, near Munising, would be managed 

under the developed prescription. The 

lakeshore headquarters function would be 

relocated from Sand Point and the Munising 

Range Light Station to this area. A new 

administration building (about 20,000 square 

feet), would include curatorial space that is 

consistent with NPS standards and would be 

built on land that was already prepared for the 

new building during construction of the 

Munising maintenance facility. 

Landowners of areas along Carmody, 

Monette, and Chapel Roads would be 

encouraged to continue to manage these lands 

consistent with the intent of the developed 

prescription to allow private residential use to 

continue (no change from current 

conditions). 

There would be another developed area at the 

east end of the national lakeshore. East-end 

administrative and maintenance functions 

would be consolidated in a new facility (about 

6,700 square feet) near Grand Marais. (The 

existing east-end maintenance area would be 

removed; it consists of a few converted farm 

buildings, and is substandard and too small). 

Road Prescriptions 

The county would be encouraged to pave 

County Road H-58 from Munising to 

Kingston Corner and from Log Slide to Grand 

Marais and the Grand Sable Lake boat ramp 

access road to provide easy, scenic access on 

these road stretches. Thus, parts that are 

gravel or sand should be paved to bring them 

into conformance with the paved road 

management prescription. 

Sand Point, Carmody (except the east-west 

portion), Miners Castle, Monette, and Grand 

Sable Lake Roads, a portion of Miners Beach 

Road, and Log Slide access road would also be 
Alternative E 

89

managed under the paved road prescription to 

provide easy access to primary national 

lakeshore features or to private residential 

areas. This would require that Grand Sable 

Lake and Log Slide roads be paved (the others 

are paved already). The developed road 

prescription for Grand Sable Lake would 

include the boat ramp at the end of the road. 

The county would also be encouraged to 

make County Road H-58 from Kingston 

Corner to the Log Slide access road an 

improved gravel road to provide relatively 

easy access to primary national lakeshore 

features on the east end of the national 

lakeshore. This would involve upgrading 

rough gravel or sand portions to improved 

gravel. 

Other roads managed under the improved 

gravel road prescription would include 

Miners Falls road, Miners Beach road, Chapel 

Road, Twelvemile Beach and Hurricane River 

campground and access roads. The intent in 

this alternative is to provide relatively easy 

access to primary national lakeshore features 

in these areas. Chapel Road is the only road 

requiring improvements to conform to the 

improved gravel road prescription. 

There would be no roads in the primitive 

management prescription in alternative E. 

WILDERNESS 

The National Park Service would propose 

18,063 acres for wilderness designation under 

alternative E (see Alternative E map, 

wilderness boundary). This is equal to about 

25% of the national lakeshore, as compared to 

18% in the preferred alternative. The area 

proposed for wilderness includes Beaver 

Basin, Chapel Basin, and an area between 

Beaver and Chapel Basins. 

Areas proposed for wilderness would be 

managed under the primitive management 

prescription. The primitive management 

prescription is consistent with managing to 

preserve wilderness characteristics of the area. 

COSTS 

Costs are given for comparison to other 

alternatives only and are not to be used for 

budgeting purposes. Although the numbers 

appear to be absolutes, they represent a midpoint in a possible range of costs. The costs 

developed are total life-cycle costs, which are 

inclusive of all initial costs (new development 

including transportation infrastructure costs, 

rehabilitation, interpretive media, etc.), 

replacement costs, and recurring annual costs 

such as national lakeshore operations. 

All of these costs are projected out for 25 

years, and shown as the worth in today’s 

dollars. For a more detail explanation of life 

cycle costs, please refer to the “Development 

of GMP CostEstimates” section earlier in this 

chapter. The initial capital cost for alternative 

E is $10,762,000. The recurring or 

replacement costs would be $820,000. The 

recurring annual costs would be $25,664,000. 

The total life-cycle cost for this alternative 

would be $37,247,000. 

Improving 16.6 miles of H-58 to a gravel 

surface would cost an additional $8.5 million. 

The National Park Service would not incur 

these costs.

 
90 

MITIGATION MEASURES COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

In the legislation that created it, Congress 

charged the National Park Service with 

managing the lands under its stewardship “in 

such manner and by such means as will leave 

them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 

generations” (NPS Organic Act, 16 USC 1). As 

a result, the National Park Service routinely 

evaluates and implements mitigation 

whenever conditions occur that could 

adversely affect the sustainability of national 

park system (national lakeshore) resources. 

To ensure that implementation of the 

alternatives protects unimpaired natural and 

cultural resources and the quality of the visitor 

experience; a consistent set of mitigation 

measures would be applied to actions 

proposed in this plan. The National Park 

Service would prepare appropriate environmental review (i.e., those required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act, National 

Historic Preservation Act, and other relevant 

legislation) for these future actions. As part of 

the environmental review, the National Park 

Service would avoid, minimize, and mitigate 

adverse impacts when practicable. 

SUSTAINABLE DESIGN 

AND AESTHETICS 

Projects should avoid or minimize adverse 

impacts on natural and cultural resources. 

Development projects (e.g., buildings, facilities, utilities, roads, bridges, trails, etc.) or 

reconstruction projects (e.g., road reconstruction, building rehabilitation, utility upgrade, 

etc.) should be designed to work in harmony 

with the surroundings, particularly in historic 

districts. Projects should reduce, minimize, or 

eliminate air and water nonpoint-source pollution. Projects should be sustainable whenever practicable, by recycling and reusing 

materials, by minimizing materials, by minimizing energy consumption during the 

project, and by minimizing energy 

consumption throughout the lifespan of the 

project. 

MAINTAINING 

ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY 

National lakeshore managers will initiate a 

natural resource management project called 

Maintaining Ecological Integrity, which will 

develop quantifiable levels of intactness of 

important natural resource parameters that 

represent ecosystems in and adjacent to the 

national lakeshore. These levels will be 

considered minimum values necessary to 

ensure a naturally functioning ecosystem. The 

intent is to ensure overall integrity of 

resources while planning and implementing 

projects related to visitor services and 

managing visitor experience. Therefore, 

information on spatial and temporal 

distribution of visitors will be required to 

assess their effects on the ecosystem. This 

project will also address more difficult issues, 

including habitat fragmentation and 

cumulative effects. This project differs from 

long-term ecological monitoring in that causeand-effect relationships are critical to 

determine program effectiveness. This project 

will continue indefinitely and will require 

more staff time than is currently available. 

Resulting project data may lead to limitations 

on visitor activities, densities, or other 

controls. The project goals are as follows: 

• develop minimum standards for ecological 

integrity in the national lakeshore 

• increase quality and utility of 

environmental compliance process 

• provide guidance for understanding effects 

of various management alternatives and 

management decisions based on 

scientifically credible data 

 
Mitigation Measures Common to All Alternatives 

91 

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 

DURING CONSTRUCTION 

The following best management practices 

would be implemented, as appropriate, 

before, during, and/or after specific construction (for the purposes of this discussion, construction includes major repair and/or 

rehabilitation, demolition, deconstruction, 

reconstruction, restoration, etc.). Specific 

tasks would include, but are not limited to, the 

following: 

• Implement a compliance-monitoring 

program in order to stay within the 

parameters of National Environmental 

Policy Act and National Historic Preservation Act compliance documents, U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 

permits, etc. The compliance-monitoring 

program would oversee these mitigation 

measures and would include reporting 

protocols. 

• Implement a natural resource protection 

program. Standard measures could 

include construction scheduling, 

biological monitoring, erosion and 

sediment control, the use of fencing or 

other means to protect sensitive resources 

adjacent to construction, the removal of 

all food-related items or rubbish, topsoil 

salvage, and revegetation. This could 

include specific construction monitoring 

by resource specialists as well as treatment 

and reporting procedures. 

• Implement a cultural resource protection 

program. Standard measures could 

include the salvage of historic building 

materials; archeological monitoring 

during ground disturbance; the use of 

fencing or other means to protect sensitive 

resources adjacent to construction and the 

preparation of a discovery plan to handle 

unanticipated exposure of buried human 

remains. This could include specific 

construction monitoring by resource 

specialists and culturally associated Indian 

people, as well as treatment and reporting 

procedures. 

• Implement a traffic control plan, as 

warranted. Standard measures include 

strategies to maintain safe and efficient 

traffic flow during the construction 

period. 

• Implement a dust abatement program. 

Standard dust abatement measures could 

include the following elements: water or 

otherwise stabilize soils, cover haul trucks, 

employ speed limits on unpaved roads, 

minimize vegetation clearing, and 

revegetate after construction. 

• Implement standard noise abatement 

measures during construction. Standard 

noise abatement measures could include 

the following elements: a schedule that 

minimizes impacts on adjacent noisesensitive uses, the use of the best available 

noise control techniques wherever feasible, the use of hydraulically or electrically 

powered impact tools when feasible, and 

the location of stationary noise sources as 

far from sensitive uses as possible. 

• Implement a noxious weed abatement 

program. Standard measures could 

include the following elements: ensure 

construction-related equipment arrives 

on-site free of mud or feed-bearing 

material, certify all seeds and straw 

material as weed-free, identify areas of 

noxious weeds pre-construction, treat 

noxious weeds or noxious weed topsoil 

before construction (e.g., topsoil segregation, storage, herbicide treatment), and 

revegetate with appropriate native species. 

• Implement a spill prevention and 

pollution control program for hazardous 

materials. Standard measures could 

include hazardous materials storage and 

handling procedures; spill containment, 

cleanup, and reporting procedures; and 

limitation of refueling and other hazardous activities to upland/ nonsensitive sites. 

• Implement measures to reduce adverse 

effects of construction on visitor safety 

and experience. 

• Implement a notification program. Standard measures could include notification of 

sensitive receptors, utilities, and 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

92 

emergency response units before 

construction activities. 

• Implement an interpretation and 

education program. Continue directional 

signs and education programs to promote 

understanding among national lakeshore/ 

park visitors. 

• Use silt fences, sedimentation basins, etc. 

in construction areas to reduce erosion, 

surface scouring, and discharge to water 

bodies. 

• Develop revegetation plans for the 

disturbed area and require the use of 

native species. Revegetation plans should 

specify seed/plant source, seed/plant 

mixes, soil preparation, etc. Salvage 

vegetation should be used to the extent 

possible. 

• Delineate wetlands and apply protection 

measures during construction. Wetlands 

would be delineated by qualified NPS staff 

or certified wetland specialists and clearly 

marked before construction work. Construction activities should be performed in 

a cautious manner to prevent damage 

caused by equipment, erosion, siltation, 

etc. 

RESOURCE-SPECIFIC MEASURES 

Species of Concern 

Mitigation actions would occur during normal 

park operations as well as prior to, during, and 

after construction to minimize immediate and 

long-term impacts to rare, threatened, and 

endangered species. These actions would 

vary by specific project and area of the 

national lakeshore affected. Many of the 

measures listed above for vegetation and 

wildlife would also benefit rare, threatened, 

and endangered species by helping to preserve 

habitat. Mitigation actions specific to rare, 

threatened, and endangered species would 

include the following: 

• Conduct surveys for rare, threatened, and 

endangered species as warranted. 

• Site and design facilities/actions to avoid 

adverse effects to rare, threatened, and 

endangered species. If avoidance if 

infeasible, minimize and compensate 

adverse effects on rare, threatened, and 

endangered species as appropriate and in 

consultation with the appropriate 

resource agencies. 

• Develop and implement restoration 

and/or monitoring plans as warranted. 

Plans should include methods for 

implementation, performance standards, 

monitoring criteria, and adaptive 

management techniques. 

• Implement measures to reduce adverse 

effects of non-native plants and wildlife 

on rare, threatened, and endangered 

species. 

Noise 

Mitigation measures would be applied to 

protect the natural sounds in the national 

lakeshore. Specific mitigation measures 

include: 

• Implement standard noise abatement 

measures during park operations. 

Standard noise abatement measures could 

include the following elements: a schedule 

that minimizes impacts to adjacent noisesensitive uses, use of the best available 

noise control techniques wherever feasible, use of hydraulically or electrically 

powered impact tools when feasible, and 

location of stationary noise sources as far 

from sensitive uses as possible. 

• Site and design facilities to minimize 

objectionable noise. 

• Work with Pictured Rocks Cruises to find 

ways to minimize the noise that carries 

inland from the public address system on 

tour boats. 

• Encourage users of snowmobiles and 

personal watercraft to use the new quieter 

vehicles currently being produced. 

• Explore options to reduce the sounds of 

logging activities in the inland buffer zone. 
Mitigation Measures Common to All Alternatives 

93 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

The National Park Service would preserve and 

protect, to the greatest extent possible, 

resources that reflect human occupation of 

the Pictured Rocks area. Specific mitigation 

measures include the following: 

• Subject projects to site-specific planning 

and compliance. Efforts would be made to 

avoid adverse impacts through use of the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for 

Archeology and Historic Preservation, and 

by using screening and/or sensitive design 

that would be compatible with historic 

resources. 

• Conduct archeological site monitoring 

and routine protection. Conduct data 

recovery excavations at archeological sites 

threatened with destruction, where 

protection or site avoidance during design 

and construction is infeasible. Should 

archeological resources be discovered, 

stop work in that location until the 

resources were properly recorded by the 

National Park Service and evaluated 

under the eligibility criteria of the 

National Register of Historic Places. If, in 

consultation with the Michigan state 

historic preservation officer, the resources 

were determined eligible, implement 

appropriate measures either to avoid 

further resource impacts or to mitigate the 

loss or disturbance of the resources. 

• Avoid or mitigate impacts on ethnographic resources. Mitigation could 

include identification of and assistance in 

accessing alternative resource gathering 

areas, continuing to provide access to 

traditional use and spiritual areas, and 

screening new development from 

traditional use areas. 

• Restore and rehabilitate cultural landscape resources to the extent feasible. 

This could entail restoring important 

historic viewsheds through manual 

thinning, rehabilitating agricultural fields 

and orchards, removing noncontributing 

and incompatible structures, and 

incorporating new additions using 

compatible design. 

• Continue and formalize ongoing 

consultations with culturally associated 

American Indian people. Protect sensitive 

traditional use areas to the extent feasible. 

• Conduct additional background research, 

resource inventory, and national register 

evaluation where information about the 

location and significance of cultural 

resources is lacking. Incorporate the 

results of these efforts into site-specific 

planning and compliance documents. 

• Mitigation measures include documentation according to standards of the Historic 

American Buildings Survey/Historic 

American Engineering Record 

(HABS/HARE) as defined in the Reengineering Proposal (October 1, 1997). 

The level of this documentation, which 

includes photography, archeological data 

recovery, and/or a narrative history, 

would depend on significance (national, 

state, or local) and individual attributes 

(an individually significant structure, 

individual elements of a cultural landscape, etc.). When demolition of a historic 

structure is proposed, architectural 

elements and objects may be salvaged for 

reuse in rehabilitating similar structures, 

or they may be added to the national lakeshore’s museum collection. In addition, 

the historical alteration of the human 

environment and reasons for that alteration would be interpreted to national 

lakeshore visitors. 

SCENIC RESOURCES 

Mitigation measures are designed to minimize 

visual intrusions. These include the following: 

• Where appropriate, facilities such as 

boardwalks and fences could be used to 

route people away from sensitive natural 

resources, while still permitting access to 

important viewpoints. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

94 

• Facilities should be designed, sited, and 

constructed to avoid or minimize adverse 

effects on natural communities and visual 

intrusion into the natural landscape. 

• Provide vegetative screening, where 

applicable. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTS 

During the future planning and implementation of the approved management plan for 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, the 

National Park Service would work with local 

communities and county governments to 

further identify potential impacts and 

mitigation measures that would best serve the 

interests and concerns of both the National 

Park Service and the local communities. 

Partnerships would be pursued to improve the 

quality and diversity of community amenities 

and services. 

VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

Conduct an accessibility study to understand 

barriers to national lakeshore programs and 

facilities. Based on this study, implement a 

strategy to provide the maximum level of 

accessibility. 

Conduct periodic studies of visitor experience, needs, level of satisfaction, etc. Based on 

these studies, implement strategies to provide 

optimum levels of visitor satisfaction. 
95 

FUTURE STUDIES NEEDED 

After completion and approval of a general 

management plan for managing the national 

lakeshore, other more detailed studies and 

plans, including additional environmental 

compliance (National Environmental Policy 

Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and 

other relevant laws and policies), and public 

involvement, would be needed. Those 

additional studies include but are not limited 

to the following. 

A visitor management study/plan for the 

lower Hurricane and Au Sable Light Station 

areas would be done. The purpose of this plan 

would be to facilitate visitation to the Au Sable 

Light Station, protect and reduce vehicular 

and developmental impacts on wetlands and 

riparian resources in and adjacent to the lower 

Hurricane River campground, separate 

overnight camping and day use in the lower 

campground via revised or restructured 

facilities, and consider options for getting 

visitors to and from the light station, picnic 

areas, etc. This study should prescribe 

practical and environmentally sound methods 

for visitor use management at these related 

sites. 

An air tour management plan and business 

plan need to be completed for the national 

lakeshore. 

Historic structure reports and cultural 

landscape reports need to be completed for 

the following areas: Munising Range Light 

Station, Sand Point Coast Guard Station and 

boat house, Grand Marais Coast Guard 

Station, the Harbor of Refuge quarters, the 

Abrahamson barn and farm structures, and 

the Becker farm fields. 
TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES

he key differences among the alternatives for the management of Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore. In all areas the no

 continue current management practices. Differences in the other four alternatives are highlighted below. 

No Action Preferred Alternative Alternative A Alternative C Alternative E 

ue existing 

s and visitor 

oncentrated at the 

east ends of the 

. 

ue to provide a 

of visitor use 

rom backcountry 

n campsites; 

trails to 

ks; unpaved to 

ds; and self

nterpretation to 

d programs. 

ue to preserve the 

ortion in a 

 relatively 

ed state. 

• Expand opportunities for visitor use while preserving the central portion of the national lakeshore in a primitive, relatively undisturbed state (propose wilderness in Beaver Basin). • Manage national lakeshore for the perpetuation and protection of the natural environment and the preservation of cultural features while making them available for appropriate public use. • Provide additional and more convenient access to significant national lakeshore features on the west and east portions of the national lakeshore. • Maintain the diversity of visitor opportunities in a way that would not further degrade resources. • Improve the operational effectiveness of the national lakeshore. 

• Continue management as in the no-action alternative with some minor visitor facility improvements. • Continue to provide a diversity of visitor use facilities and experience opportunities throughout the national lakeshore. • Preserve the central portion of the national lakeshore in a relatively primitive, undisturbed state. 

• Make the national lakeshore an easier and more convenient place to visit while keeping much of the lakeshore in a natural state. • Provide additional facilities and infrastructure to accommodate use and make it easier to get to primary features. • Explore ways to accommodate additional recreational use and to continue to provide a diversity of uses and experience opportunities throughout the national lakeshore. 

• Continue to provide a diversity of use and visitor experience opportunities −offer remote and primitive uses in the large proposed wilderness area of Chapel and Beaver Basins, and make eastern and western portions more accessible. • Maximize opportunities for nonmotorized recreation (hiking and backcountry camping) in a relatively remote, quiet, natural area in the central portion of the national lakeshore. • Improve ease of access to some cultural and natural features in the remainder of the national lakeshore. 

Note: Percentages are approximate 

 3% 3% 3% 3% 

30% 18% 13% 39%  9% 20% 25% 11% 51% 48% 48% 45% 

 1% 1% 1% 1%  6% 10% 10% 1% 

agement 

ons were 

d as a result of this 

effort and 

 are not applied to 

tion alternative. 

10 miles 9 miles 19 miles 9 miles 

 96 
97

Preferred Alternative Alternative A Alternative C Alternative E 

20 miles 12 miles 16 miles 13 miles 

0 miles 3 miles 0 miles 0 miles 

ue to manage for 

ction of cultural 

while making them 

for appropriate 

e. 

ue to preserve, 

and/or adaptively 

significant cultural 

; continue to 

y use or leave other 

esources alone. 

ue to rehabilitate 

vate the main 

at the Au Sable 

ion. 

ue to house 

collection in 

ard facilities. 

ue to protect and 

Schoolcraft 

nd kilns. 

• Continue to preserve, upgrade, and/or adaptively use several significant cultural resources; continue to adaptively use or leave alone other cultural resources. • Continue to protect and interpret Schoolcraft Furnace and kilns. • Rehabilitate and adaptively use the Munising Range Light Station and restore cultural landscape. • Rehabilitate, preserve, and adaptively use Sand Point Coast Guard Station and boat house and Grand Marais Coast Guard Station and restore cultural landscapes. • Rehabilitate and renovate ancillary structures at Au Sable Light Station and restore cultural landscape; add restrooms and utilities. • Rehabilitate/preserve the Abrahamson barn and Becker farm and restore 

cultural landscape of farms. • Rehabilitate and preserve Grand Marais Harbor of Refuge quarters and adaptively reuse; restore cultural landscape. • Include curatorial space in new administrative/headquarters facility at Munising administration and maintenance facility. 

Same as preferred alternative. 

Same as preferred alternative. 

Same as the preferred alternative. 
98 

No Action Preferred Alternative Alternative A Alternative C Alternative E 

ue to manage 

sources for the 

ion and protection 

ural environment 

king them available 

priate public use. 

ue to manage 

ble Dunes as a 

natural area. 

Same as no action plus 

Ensure long-term protection of the natural resource values in the Beaver Basin by proposing it for designation as wilderness. 

Same as no action alternative. 

Same as no action alternative. 

Same as no action plus 

Ensure long-term protection of the natural resource values in the Chapel and Beaver Basins by proposing these areas for wilderness designation. 

ate use around 

 Falls, Sand Point, 

rs area, and along 

h Country National 

ail in the west end 

icane River, 

ile Beach, Au Sable 

ion, Log Slide, 

ble Lake and Falls, 

 the North 

National Scenic 

he east end. 

Same as no-action alternative. 

Same as no action alternative. 

Same as no action alternative. 

Same as no action alternative. 

ue visitor orienta

nformation at 

FS visitor 

on center in 

, Munising Falls, 

astle, Grand Sable 

nter, and Grand 

aritime Museum/ 

tion. 

ue interpretation 

mer Sand Point 

ard Station, Au 

ht Station, and 

arais Maritime 

 

Same as no-action, plus . 

Offer interpretation at Munising Range Light Station, the former Sand Point Coast Guard Station (more actively than in the no-action alternative), Au Sable Light Station, Grand Marais Coast Guard Station, Grand Marais Harbor of Refuge quarters, and Grand Marais Maritime Museum. 

Same as preferred alternative. 

Same as preferred, plus 

Construct small visitor orientation/interpretation building (or expand existing buildings) at Miners Castle. 

Same as alternative C. 

 dispersed visitor 

aver Basin. 

Same as no action alternative. 

Same as no action alternative. 

Same as no action alternative. 

Same as no action; close roads and Beaver Basin overlook. 

rive-in 

und and trails in 

rs area. 

Construct new drive-in campground and trails in the Miners area. 

Same as preferred alternative. 

Same as preferred alternative. 

Same as preferred alternative. 

oat-in campsites 

Sable Lake. 

Construct boat-in campsites at Grand Sable Lake. 

Same as no action alternative. 

Same as preferred alternative. 

Same as no action alternative. 
99 

No Action Preferred Alternative Alternative A Alternative C Alternative E 

ook at Sevenmile 

Same as no action alternative.

Same as no action alternative. 

Construct new overlook and improved gravel access road to Sevenmile Creek overlook (through donation of a 240-acre easement from the state and the acquisition of a 10-acre easement from ForestLand Group, Limited Liability Corporation ). 

Same as no action alternative.. 

an for Hurricane 

mpground/Au Sable 

ion area. 

Develop detailed site plan for Hurricane River campground/Au Sable Light Station area. 

Same as preferred alternative. 

Same as preferred alternative. 

Same as preferred alternative. 

rent mix of gravel 

d access roads. 

Pave/improve a few access roads to primary national lakeshore features. 

Same as no action alternative.. 

Pave/improve many access roads to improve vehicular access to additional lakeshore areas, features, and significant cultural resources. 

Pave/improve several access roads to primary national lakeshore features. 

 boating on Grand 

e (50 hp or less) 

Superior. 

Same as no action alternative. 

Same as no action alternative. 

Same as no action alternative. 

Same as no action alternative. 

ds in Beaver Basin 

Close all vehicular roads in Beaver Basin except for Little Beaver Lake campground access road. 

Keep roads in Beaver Basin open. 

Keep roads in Beaver Basin open. 

Close roads in Beaver Basin, and convert to hiking trails. 

 to allow current 

vities on Lake 

Prohibit motorized boat access 0.25 mile into Lake Superior from Spray Falls to the mouth of Sevenmile Creek. 

Allow current water activities on Lake Superior. 

Same as alternative A. Prohibit motorized boat 

access 0.25 mile into Lake Superior from east of Miner’s Beach to the mouth of Sevenmile Creek. 

 current use of all 

n Little Beaver and 

akes. 

Prohibit use of motors on Little Beaver and Beaver Lakes. 

Allow current use of motors on Little Beaver and Beaver Lakes to continue. 

Allow current use of motors on Little Beaver and Beaver Lakes to continue. 

Same as preferred. 

 tours of pictured 

Continue tours of pictured rocks with the recommendation that noise from the public address system be reduced so that intrusion on the natural quiet is minimized. 

Same as preferred alternative. 

Same as preferred alternative. 

Same as preferred; also, boats would be required to be at least 0.25 mile from shore between Miners Beach and Chapel Beach. 
100 

No Action Preferred Alternative Alternative A Alternative C Alternative E 

 mix of paved and 

Recommend improving some portions of the road to a gravel surface to meet NPS needs (however paving H58 would also be acceptable to the National Park Service). 

Recommend paving H-58 from Munising to Grand Marais to provide easy access along the national lakeshore’s principal transportation route. 

Same as alternative A. • Recommend paving H-58 

from Munising to Kingston Corner and Log Slide to Grand Marais to provide easy and scenic access in these areas. • Recommend making H58 improved gravel between Kingston Corner and Log Slide. 

ue to divide 

ation between 

arais ranger 

nd the Grand Sable 

nter. 

ue to base west

tenance at mainte

ility near 

. 

ue administrative 

ters in the old 

ard station at Sand 

ue to base east-end 

nce activities 

he visitor center 

d Marais. 

t to acquire 

ng mineral rights 

lly owned lands. 

ue existing 

in-lieu-of taxes on 

 have been 

y acquired. 

ansfer of about 7.5 

oast Guard Point 

Marais from the 

ard and Army 

Engineers to 

te ownership and 

public access. 

Relocate national lakeshore headquarters function from Sand Point to new administrative building in Munising maintenance facility area. • Move staff at Munising Range Light Station to new administration/maintenance facility. • Consolidate east-end administrative and maintenance functions in new facility; remove existing Grand Marais maintenance facility. • Consider land acquisition, according to criteria, if lands became available. 

Same as preferred alternative. 

Same as preferred alternative. 

Same as preferred alternative.. 
101 

No Action Preferred Alternative Alternative A Alternative C Alternative E 

no wilderness. Propose federal lands in 

Beaver Basin (except for Little Beaver Lake campground and access road) for wilderness designation −12,843 acres (about 18% of national lakeshore). 

Propose no wilderness. Propose no wilderness. Propose Beaver Basin and 

Chapel Basin for wilderness designation − 18,063 acres (about 25% of national lakeshore). 

$0 $23,078,000 $11,283,000 $48,066,000 $10,762,000 

$20,170,000 $1,154,000. $943,000 $1,188,000. $820,000 

$943,000 $25,529,000. $24,623,000 $24,581,000. $25,664,000 

$21,113,000 $49,761,000 $36,850,000 $73,835,000. $37,247,000 
102 

TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

No Action Preferred Alternative Alternative A Alternative C Alternative E 

No project or 

construction-related ground disturbance with the potential to impact known archeological resources would occur. 

Protect sites identified during surveys of project areas to the extent possible, depending on staffing and funding levels. When possible, avoid the site; if avoidance was not possible, mitigate impacts by recovering site data. Overall impacts on sites that could not be avoided would be longterm, minor to moderate (depending on the data recovery potential of the site) adverse impacts. 

Same as preferred alternative. 

Same as preferred alternative. 

Same as preferred alternative. 

Minor long-term beneficial impact on the 

Schoolcraft Furnace site, the Au Sable Light Station, the Sand Point and Grand Marais Coast Guard Stations, the Grand Marais Harbor of Refuge quarters, the Munising Range Light Station, and the Abrahamson barn because preservation work and adaptive use would maintain the structures’ values and ensure the maintenance and preservation of the buildings. 

Long-term minor to moderate beneficial impacts on the Munising Range Light Station, Au Sable Light Station, the Sand Point and Grand Marais Coast Guard Stations, the Grand Marais Harbor of Refuge quarters, and the Abrahamson farm because the structures would be rehabilitated and preserved and documented architectural values would be preserved. 

Same as preferred alternative. 

Same as preferred alternative. 

Same as preferred alternative. 
103 

No Action Preferred Alternative Alternative A Alternative C Alternative E 

Long-term minor 

adverse impacts on cultural landscapes associated with Au Sable Light Station, Abrahamson and Becker Farms, Sand Point and Grand Marais Coast Guard Stations, and Grand Marais Munising Range Light Station, Harbor of Refuge quarters (preservation work and adaptive use would maintain the structures’ values and ensure the maintenance and preservation of the buildings), as well as abandoned agricultural operations, cabin clearings, and abandoned roads. 

Restoring the cultural landscapes at the Munising Range Light Station, the Sand Point and Grand Marais Coast Guard Stations, the Au Sable Light Station, the Grand Marais Harbor of Refuge quarters, and the Abrahamson and Becker Farms would have longterm, moderate beneficial impacts on the 

cultural landscapes associated with these sites by preserving their documented values, removing noncontributing elements, and adding other elements reflective of a reasonable facsimile of the cultural landscape’s period of significance. Eventual loss of landscapes associated with farming or other agricultural activities − a minor long-term adverse impact. 

Same as preferred alternative. 

Same as preferred alternative. 

Same as preferred alternative. 
104 

No Action Preferred Alternative Alternative A Alternative C Alternative E 

No project or 

construction-related ground disturbance with the potential to impact known ethnographic resources. American Indians would continue to be occasionally disrupted during religious activities, a minor, shortterm, recurring adverse impact. 

No project- or construction-related ground disturbance with the potential to impact known ethnographic resources. American Indians desiring privacy for religious activities would be disrupted by the presence of other visitors and noise from visitor-related activities − a minor, short-term, reoccurring, adverse impact; however, conflicts would only be occasional. 

Same as preferred alternative. 

Same as preferred alternative. 

No project- or construction-related ground disturbance with the potential to impact known ethnographic resources. American Indians desiring privacy for religious activities would be disrupted by the presence of other visitors and noise from water-based visitorrelated activities in the casual recreation prescription − a minor, 

short-term, reoccurring, adverse impact; however, conflicts would only be occasional. 

Long-term minor 

adverse impact on some of the national lakeshore’s museum collection from continued substandard storage and display conditions. Long-term moderate adverse impacts on staff and researchers from limited access and lack of sufficient space to curate the collection. 

Long-term major beneficial impacts on the preservation of and access to the national lakeshore’s museum collection because the collection would be housed in a new repository that would meet modern professsional standards and would be more accessible to staff and researchers. 

Same as preferred alternative. 

Same as preferred alternative. 

Same as preferred alternative. 
105 

No Action Preferred Alternative Alternative A Alternative C Alternative E 

Continuing current 

management would perpetuate short- and long-term beneficial impacts for species of concern. Preserving Grand Sable Dunes as a research natural area would continue to provide a major long-term benefit for species of concern in that area. There would be no discernable adverse impacts on the bald eagle, pitcher’s thistle, the gray wolf, or other species of concern expected. Species occurring north of the inland buffer zone elsewhere in the lakeshore would continue to benefit from federal (NPS) protection. Species on state lands are protected through review and management. Species on corporate and privately owned land require review by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Although these laws and policies do not guarantee protection, they are an added incentive for protecting these species. 

Negligible long-term effects on the bald eagle, pitcher’s thistle, gray wolf, or other species of concern. Species occurring within NPSowned lands are managed to maintain or enhance beneficial conditions. Species inhabiting state lands are protected through review and management. Species on privately owned land are subject to review by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources to ensure protection. Although these laws and policies do not guarantee protection, they are an added incentive for protecting these species. 

Same as the no-action alternative. 

Same as the no-action alternative. 

Same as no action alternative. 
106 

No Action Preferred Alternative Alternative A Alternative C Alternative E 

Wilderness values would be maintained by managing the Beaver and Chapel Basins as primitive and natural. This is a moderate long-term benefit for wilderness values. Wilderness values could be adversely affected in the long term without the designation of wilderness −a moderate impact. The opportunity for solitude has been adversely affected to a moderate degree for the short term but recurring basis by noise from boats, the tour boat public address system, and logging. The effect of noise from tour boat public address system is mitigable. The total area of wilderness in the central Upper Peninsula would not increase. 

Wilderness values in the Beaver Basin would be preserved by wilderness designation (12,843 acres), a moderate long-term beneficial impact. Reducing the noise from tour boat public address system operations between Miners Castle and Chapel Rock would be a moderate longterm intermittent, beneficial impact on opportunities for solitude and natural quiet. Most of the Chapel Basin would be managed to preserve wilderness values, a major long-term beneficial impact. The area around Chapel Lake would be managed to allow improved trail development, a minor long-term adverse impact that is reversible. The total area of wilderness in the central Upper Peninsula would increase by almost 26% — a moderate beneficial impact for those who desire that kind of experience. 

Overall, wilderness values would continue to benefit from managing much of the land within the Chapel and Beaver Basins under the primitive management prescription – a major longterm benefit. Reducing the sound on the public address system on the tour boats would improve wilderness values along the shoreline from the west boundary to Chapel Beach over the long term, but intermittently, to a moderate degree. Wilderness values in the Chapel and Beaver Basins would not be guaranteed without designated wilderness — a moderate, long-term, adverse impact. 

There would be a moderate long-term benefit from continuing to manage Beaver Basin under the primitive prescription. Wilderness values would be reduced because management of a portion of Chapel Basin would change from backcountry to casual recreation – a moderate, long-term adverse impact. The opportunity for solitude and natural quiet would continue to be diminished by logging unless logging was reduced – a moderate, long-term, intermittent, adverse impact. Opportunities for solitude and natural quiet would improve with the reduction of noise from the public address system used on tour boats − a moderate, long-term, intermittent beneficial impact. Development of the Sevenmile Creek overlook would diminish the opportunity for solitude and natural quiet to a minor degree for the long term. Wilderness values could be adversely affected in the long term without the designation of wilderness – a moderate long-term impact. 

Overall, wilderness values would be enhanced more than the preferred alternative because a larger area with wilderness characteristics would be preserved (18,063 acres) – a long-term major benefit. Reducing noise from tour boat public address system operations between Miners Castle and Chapel Rock would be a moderate long-term intermittent, beneficial impact on opportunities for solitude and natural quiet. However, motorized boat use would be prohibited within the 0.25-mile-wide portion of Lake Superior from Miners Beach to the mouth of Spray Creek. This would remove much of the noise from motorized boats — a long-term moderate beneficial impact on opportunities for solitude and natural quiet, and other wilderness values. The total area of wilderness in the central Upper Peninsula would increase by about 33% — a major, long-term, beneficial impact. for those who desire that kind of experience. 
107 

No Action Preferred Alternative Alternative A Alternative C Alternative E 

The long-term beneficial impacts of continuing existing management and operations would continue to be minor to moderate compared to the overall economy of Alger County. There would be some benefits from expenditures of about $21 million in lifecycle costs (estimated for a 25-year period), which would benefit the overall Alger County economy. There would be some short-term moderate benefits for some individuals and businesses involved with national lakeshore daily/annual operations. Alger County would continue to receive payment in lieu of taxes from the federal government for lands that have been previously acquired, a continuing long-term moderate beneficial impact. 

Overall, the long-term benefits would be moderate compared to the economy of Alger County. There would be some benefits from expenditures of about $50 million in life-cycle costs (estimated for a 25-year period), which would benefit the overall Alger County economy. There would be some moderate to major short-term benefits for some individuals (mostly in the construction industry) from increased business and employment opportunities related to lakeshore projects proposed in this alternative. National lakeshore operations would be a continuing long-term, beneficial contribution to the local economy. 

Overall, the long-term benefits would be minor to moderate compared to the economy of Alger County. There would be some benefits from expenditures of about $37 million in lifecycle costs (estimated for a 25-year period), which would benefit the overall Alger County economy. There would be some moderate to major shortterm benefits for some individuals (mostly in the construction industry) from increased business and employment opportunities related to lakeshore projects proposed in this alternative. National lakeshore operations would be a continuing long-term, beneficial contribution to the local economy. 

Overall, the long-term benefits of would be moderate to major compared to the economy of Alger County. There would be some benefits from expenditures of about $74 million in life-cycle costs (estimated for a 25-year period), which would benefit the overall Alger County economy. There would be some moderate to major short-term benefits for some individuals (mostly in the construction industry) from increased business and employment opportunities related to lakeshore projects proposed in this alternative. National lakeshore operations would be a continuing long-term, beneficial contribution to the local economy. 

Overall, the long-term benefits would be minor to moderate compared to Alger County’ economy. There would be some benefits from expenditures of about $37 million in lifecycle costs (estimated for a 25-year period), which would benefit the overall Alger County economy. There would be some moderate to major shortterm benefits for some individuals (mostly in the construction industry) from increased business and employment opportunities related to lakeshore projects proposed in this alternative. National lakeshore operations would be a continuing long-term, beneficial contribution to the local economy. If restricting the tour boats from operating closer than 0.25 mile from shore between Miners and Chapel Beaches affected the tour’s popularity so that the economic viability of the operation suffered, tours might be discontinued, a major adverse long-term impact on tour operations.
108 

No Action Preferred Alternative Alternative A Alternative C Alternative E 

ce 

Maintaining the existing diversity of recreational driving experiences would have a long-term minor beneficial impact on the recreational driving opportunities at the national lakeshore for those who prefer a more primitive, slower, unpaved driving experience. However, for those who prefer a less primitive paved experience, actions under this alternative would be a long-term minor adverse impact. 

Impacts on opportunities for recreational activities would be long term and mixed. Reduced motorboating opportunities on the Beaver Lakes and in the 0.25 mile strip of Lake Superior between Spray Falls and the mouth of Sevenmile Creek would have a long-term minor adverse impact on visitors who desire this kind of experience in this area and a long-term moderate beneficial impact on visitors who find motorboat noise undesirable. Additional or improved recreational opportunities (hiking, camping, and touring historic resources) would provide a long-term moderate beneficial impact. Opportunities for primitive driving experiences would be eliminated, a long-term moderate adverse impact. 

Impacts on opportunities for recreational activities would be mixed and long term. Additional opportunities for camping, hiking, and touring historic resources would have a major beneficial impact, and reducing opportunities for long primitive driving experiences leading to primary national lakeshore features would have a moderate long-term adverse impact. 

Impacts on recreational opportunities would be mixed and long term. Additional opportunities would come from new facilities (e.g., a campground, trails, boat-in campsites, building rehabilitation, landscape restoration, the new overlook and road, and paved roads); these would have a major beneficial impact. The opportunity for a long, primitive driving experience that leads to primary features would be eliminated if the county paves H-58 between Little Beaver Lake Road and Grand Sable Lake, a moderate long-term adverse impact for those wishing for this kind of experience. 

Impacts on recreational opportunities would be mixed and long term. Loss of motorboating opportunities on the Beaver Lakes and for 0.25 mile of Lake Superior between Miners Beach and the mouth of Sevenmile Creek would have a long-term major adverse impact. Additional or improved recreational opportunities (a new campground and hiking opportunities and opportunities to tour historic resources) would have a major beneficial impact. Additional hiking opportunities in Beaver Basin and along Little Beaver Lake road would have a moderate beneficial impact. 
109 

No Action Preferred Alternative Alternative A Alternative C Alternative E 

Long-term moderate beneficial impact on visitor access to primary features from continuing the existing diversity of access offered in the national lakeshore. Motorized and nonmotorized boats would continue to approach cliffs and beaches on the Lake Superior shoreline, a long-term moderate benefit for visitors onboard the boats. 

Impacts on access to primary national lakeshore features would be long-term and mixed. Visitors would be able to visit more lakeshore features in a given length of time, a moderate beneficial impact. Due to improved access, certain areas might be crowded at times, a minor adverse impact. Loss of access to a portion of Twelvemile Beach via motorized boats would have a longterm moderate adverse impact for some visitors and a moderate beneficial impact on other visitors. Motorized and nonmotorized boats would continue to approach cliffs and beaches on the Lake Superior shoreline, a long-term moderate benefit for visitors onboard the boats. 

Compared to the noaction alternative impacts on access to primary features would be mostly beneficial and long term. Due to road improvements visitors could see more lakeshore features in a given length of time, a moderate long-term beneficial impact. On the other hand, certain areas could be crowded at times, a minor longterm adverse impact. Motorized and nonmotorized boats would continue to approach cliffs and beaches on the Lake Superior shoreline, a long-term moderate benefit for visitors onboard the boats. 

The effect of implementing alternative C on access to primary features would be mixed and long term. Visitors could visit more lakeshore features in a given period of time than under the no-action alternative, a major long-term beneficial impact; however, certain areas might also become crowed, a minor adverse impact. Motorized and nonmotorized boats would continue to approach cliffs and beaches on the Lake Superior shoreline, a long-term moderate benefit for visitors onboard the boats. 

Impacts on motorized access to primary features would be mostly adverse and long term. Notably, the opportunity to get close-up (less than 0.25 mile) views of cliffs and beaches from Miners Beach to Chapel Beach from a tour boat or other motorboat would be lost, a major adverse impact. If this change affected the tour’s popularity so that the economic viability of the operation suffered, tours might be discontinued, a major adverse long-term impact on visitors.Commercial kayak tours, which provide good views of the cliffs from the water, would experience a minor long-term beneficial impact from the removal of motorized boats in the primitive prescription. 
110 

No Action Preferred Alternative Alternative A Alternative C Alternative E 

Man-made noise from snowmobiles, motorized boats, personal watercraft outside the 0.25-mile boundary, the public address system on Lake Superior tour boats, and chainsaws from logging operations would continue to have a short-term moderate adverse impact on the visitor experience. (Because there are several sources of noise, which sometimes overlap, the intensity was determined to be moderate.) Sounds from vehicles on the road to Little Beaver Lake (especially sounds from towed trailers or campers) carrying into Beaver Basin would continue to cause a short-term minor adverse impact on visitors there because the noise disturbance is intermittent and of short duration. 

Boat noise would be reduced along 18 miles (from Miners Beach to the mouth of Sevenmile Creek) of the shoreline and adjacent areas, resulting in a minor longterm beneficial impact on the visitor experience. Sounds from vehicles on the road to Little Beaver lake would cause a recurring, short-term, minor, adverse impact on visitors seeking a wilderness-type experience in the Beaver Basin. 

Man-made noise from snowmobiles, motorized boats, and chainsaws from logging operations would continue to have a long-term, moderate adverse impact on the visitor experience. Noise from the tour boat public address system would be reduced under this alternative — a longterm moderate beneficial impact. 

Man-made noise from snowmobiles, motorized boats, and chainsaws from logging operations would continue to have a long-term, moderate adverse impact on the visitor experience. Noise from the tour boat public address system would be reduced under this alternative — a longterm moderate beneficial impact. 

Alternative E would have long-term beneficial impacts related to reducing manmade noise in the national lakeshore. Boat noise would be reduced along 18 miles (from Miners Beach to the mouth of Sevenmile Creek) of the shoreline and adjacent areas, resulting in a moderate long-term beneficial impact on the visitor experience. Reduced noise from the modified tour boat public address system from the west boundary to Chapel Beach would be a longterm, moderate, beneficial, intermittent impact on people looking for a quiet experience. Reduced motorboat and vehicle noise near Beaver Lakes would also have a minor beneficial impact.
111 

No Action Preferred Alternative Alternative A Alternative C Alternative E 

Maintaining the scenic character on H-58 would be a long-term minor beneficial impact on visitors seeking a slow-speed scenic driving experience and a long-term minor adverse impact on visitors looking for a faster, route between Munising and Grand Marais (an alternate paved route using Highways 77 and 28 already exists). 

If recommended changes were made, moderate long-term adverse impact on H58’s scenic character. 

Same as preferred alternative. 

Same as preferred alternative. 

Same as preferred alternative. 
112 

No Action Preferred Alternative Alternative A Alternative C Alternative E 

Although many outdoor attractions would continue to be available to persons with disabilities, and others that are interpreted through photographs and pamphlets, some important visitororiented and operations facilities (including lakeshore headquarters) would remain inaccessible. Thus, moderate long-term adverse effects on persons who are disabled would continue. 

Providing a new campground at Miners and a day use area at the Grand Marais Coast Guard Station (both accessible to people with disabilities) might make it easier for people with disabilities to get to, see, or use additional national lakeshore features. These actions would have minor longterm beneficial impacts on visitors with disabilities. Moving the headquarters function to a new administration building near Munising and consolidating administrative and maintenance in a new facility near Grand Marais (both accessible to visitors with disabilities) would have a major long-term beneficial impact on staff and others with disabilities who might need to conduct business in the national lakeshore. 

Making the Miners campground accessible to people with disabilities would have a minor impact on these visitors. Moving the headquarters function to a new administration building near Munising and consolidating administrative and maintenance in a new facility near Grand Marais (both accessible to people with disabilities) would have a major long-term beneficial impact on staff and others with disabilities who might need to conduct business in the national lakeshore. 

Providing a new road to Sevenmile Creek overlook, a new campground at Miners, and a day use area at the Grand Marais Coast Guard Station (accessible to people with disabilities) would make it easier for people with disabilities to get to, see, or use additional national lakeshore features. These actions would have minor longterm beneficial impacts on visitors with disabilities. Moving the headquarters function to a new administration building near Munising and consolidating administrative and maintenance in a new facility near Grand Marais (both accessible to visitors with disabilities) would have a major long-term beneficial impact on staff and others with disabilities who might need to conduct business in the national lakeshore. 

Under this alternative, Little Beaver Lake would no longer be accessible to visitors with disabilities, the new campground at Miners would be accessible to people with disabilities, and the Grand Marais Coast Guard Station would have a new day use area that would also be accessible to people with disabilities. Compared to the noaction alternative, these measures would have a minor long-term beneficial impact on visitors with disabilities. Moving the headquarters function to a new administration building near Munising and consolidating administrative and maintenance in a new facility near Grand Marais (both accessible to people with disabilities) would have a major long-term beneficial impact on staff and others with disabilities who might need to conduct business in the national lakeshore. 
113 

No Action Preferred Alternative Alternative A Alternative C Alternative E 

Moderate long-term adverse impact from inefficient and dispersed facilities and limited space. Emergency response times to some areas would continue to be slow 

− a long-term 

moderate adverse impact. The continuation of the existing motorized access for national lakeshore operations is a long-term minor beneficial impact on operational efficiency by allowing employees to continue to quickly access an area and to transport necessary maintenance equipment and supplies. 

Moderate long-term benefit on national lakeshore operations from consolidating operations in new facilities at both ends of the national lakeshore. Improvements to H-58, if made by the county, would result in a minor long-term decrease in emergency response times in the central and eastern portions of the lakeshore. Precluding staff use of motorboats in national lakeshore waters adjacent to the proposed Beaver Basin wilderness and Twelvemile Beach shoreline, except in emergencies, would have a short-term recurring minor adverse impact on national lakeshore operations. (Administrative access to Little Beaver Lake, which is by car or truck, and to Chapel Lake and Falls, which is by foot, would not change.) 

Moderate long-term benefit from consolidating operations in new facilities at both ends of the national lakeshore. If the county paves H-58 as recommended, emergency response times in those portions of the lakeshore would improve, a minor longterm benefit. There would be no change in, and thus no new impacts on, staff access (for maintenance and resource management) to the Beaver Lakes, along the Lake Superior shoreline, and the Chapel area. 

Moderate long-term benefit from consolidating operations in new facilities at both ends of the national lakeshore. If the county paves H-58 as recommended under this alternative, emergency response times would decrease, a minor long-term benefit because it would remain, by design, a slow-speed road. Continued motorized access for maintenance and resource management activities at the Beaver Lakes and along the Lake Superior shoreline, and changing access to the Chapel area from hiking to vehicles would make administrative access more efficient in these areas. 

The impacts of implementing alternative E on national lakeshore operations would be mixed. The proposed consolidated operations facilities would increase efficiency − a long-term moderate benefit. If changes are made by the county as recommended, improving H-58 would improve emergency response times in some areas, a minor longterm benefit. Precluding staff use of motorboats in national lakeshore waters adjacent to the proposed wilderness (about 18 miles) except in emergencies would have an adverse impact on the operational efficiency of the national lakeshore staff. Changes to mode of access would have an adverse impact on national lakeshore operations in Beaver Basin. Altogether, changes in mode of access would have a moderate long-term adverse impact on the operational efficiency of the national lakeshore staff.
114 

ALTERNATIVES DISMISSED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION 

Alternatives B and D, presented in Newsletter 

3 and a series of public meetings, were 

eliminated from further consideration. In that 

newsletter, alternative B’s focus was the 

protection of the Lake Superior watershed 

(including its inland lakes, wetlands, streams, 

and rivers) in and adjacent to the national 

lakeshore. Cooperative management of the 

watershed with other entities such as the U.S. 

Forest Service, Michigan Department of 

Natural Resources, ForestLand Group, 

Limited Liability Corporation, and other 

private landowners were to be emphasized. 

Recreational use on publicly accessible lands 

was to be supported and encouraged, but 

facilities and activities that could degrade 

water quality would have been carefully 

monitored and managed. 

During the analysis of the draft alternatives, 

alternative B scored exceptionally well in 

terms of protecting natural resources and 

processes (a mandate for the National Park 

Service). It did not score well according to the 

other criteria such as providing for visitor 

enjoyment and access and did not receive 

much public support. Therefore, it was 

decided to add some of alternative B’s 

watershed protection measures into the 

preferred alternative and eliminate this 

alternative from further consideration. 

Alternative D’s focus was centered on a 

wilderness proposal that would not require 

additional land or easement purchases by the 

National Park Service. The Beaver Basin area 

(within the shoreline zone between Spray 

Falls and the mouth of Sevenmile Creek) and 

adjacent Lake Superior waters within the 

national lakeshore were to be proposed for 

designated wilderness. Vehicular access to 

Little Beaver Lake campground would have 

remained. Some cultural and natural features 

at the ends of the lakeshore would have been 

easier to get to and would have more facilities 

and amenities than at present. 

During the analysis of the draft alternatives, 

alternative D did very well and many people 

supported the concept, however the 

alternative did not address many public 

concerns of more and convenient access to 

the national lakeshore’s significant features. 

Therefore, it was decided to use alternative D 

as the foundation for the preferred alternative, 

add some of the watershed protection 

elements from alternative B (cooperative 

management within watershed and reduce 

impacts at stream crossings, which received 

public support), and incorporate alternative C 

actions that would improve public access to 

significant national lakeshore features. Since 

alternative D is the foundation for the 

preferred alternative, the planning team 

decided to simplify the Draft General 

Management Plan and Wilderness Study 

Environmental Impact Statement and eliminate 

alternative D from further analysis. 

In addition, to complete alternatives some 

individual actions were considered but 

dismissed from further consideration. They 

are as follows: 

A drive-in campground and trail system was 

considered at Grand Sable Lake. This campground was originally proposed in the 1981 

General Management Plan. The planning team 

considered this campground but decided it 

was ill advised for biological reasons. The 

campground’s proximity to the Grand Sable 

Dunes would likely threaten the integrity of 

one of the last naturally functioning dune 

systems on the upper Lakes, the richest orchid 

flora in Michigan, and a large tract of prime 

habitat for the federally listed Pitcher’s thistle. 

The presence of the campground would 

inevitably result in more foot traffic in the 

dunes even if no trails are proposed or built. 

This increase in traffic has the real potential to 

compromise one of the most pristine dunefields in the Great Lakes Basin. Abundant 

opportunity for developing additional 
Alternatives Dismissed from Further Consideration 

115 

camping would seem to be available outside 

the national lakeshore in or close to Grand 

Marais. 

Also, a road connecting the lower loop of the 

Hurricane River Campground with the Au 

Sable Light Station was considered. Currently, 

the two are connected with a 1.5-mile 

footpath. The planning team considered the 

feasibility of constructing a road to the light 

station. Given the wetlands nature of the area, 

the planning team could not find an environmentally acceptable option and therefore did 

not consider road construction in any of the 

alternatives that were carried forward.
116 

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

This table shows how each alternative would 

or would not achieve the requirements of 

sections 101 and 102(1) of the National 

Environmental Policy Act and other environmental laws and policies. In the National Park 

Service, this requirement is met by (1) 

disclosing how each alternative meets the 

criteria set forth in section 101(b), which are 

listed in table 5 below, and by (2) presenting 

any inconsistencies between the alternatives 

analyzed and other environmental laws and 

policies (Director’s Order 12, 2.7.E). 

According to section 101, this alternative 

would cause the least damage to the biological 

and physical environment, and best protect, 

preserve, and enhance historic, cultural, and 

natural resources. It would also “create and 

maintain conditions under which man and 

nature can exist in productive harmony, and 

fulfill the social, economic, and other 

requirements of present and future 

generations of Americans.” Although all 

alternatives in this plan rated well, which is 

not surprising because elements that were not 

environmentally sound were eliminated from 

consideration, the preferred alternative best 

met the criteria of section 101(b). 

The scores on table 5 show that the alternatives are fairly close. The preferred alternative 

rated high in all categories except one 

(achieving a balance between population and 

resource use that will permit high standards of 

living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities). 

Alternative C scored better than the preferred 

alternative for that criterion but scored 

slightly lower on two other criteria (fulfilling 

the responsibilities of each generation as 

trustee of the environment for succeeding 

generations and enhancing the quality of 

renewable resources and approaching the 

maximum attainable recycling of depletable 

resources). The no-action alternative and 

alternatives A and E scored lower than the 

preferred alternative or alternative C. 

Therefore the preferred alternative was also 

chosen as the environmentally preferred 

alternative. 
Environmentally Preferred Alternative 

117 

TABLE 5: ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS

Alternatives 

Criteria 

No Action Preferred 

A C E 

Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for 

succeeding generations. 1* 2* 1 1 2 

Ensure safe, healthful, productive, and esthetically and culturally pleasing 

surroundings for all Americans. 2 2 2 2 2 

Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without 

degradation, risk of health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended 

consequences. 

1 2 1 2 1 

Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national 

heritage and maintain, wherever possible, an environment that supports 

diversity and a variety of individual choices. 

2 2 1 2 1 

Achieve a balance between population and resource use that will permit high 

standards of living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities. 2 1 2 2 1 

Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum 

attainable recycling of depletable resources. 1 2 1 1 2 

Total Points 9 11 8 10 9 

1* = Alternative only partially achieves the intent of the criteria set forth in section 101(b) of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. 

2* = Alternative achieves the intent of the criteria set forth in section 101(b) of the National Environmental 

Policy Act to cause the least damage to the biological and physical environment, and best protect, 

preserve, and enhance historical, cultural, and natural resources. 

Note: There were no “low” ratings because elements that were not environmentally sound were 

eliminated from consideration. 
118 

120 
121 

INTRODUCTION 

This chapter describes the existing 

environment that could be affected by actions 

proposed in this general management plan 

and wilderness study for Pictured Rocks 

National Lakeshore. This chapter includes the 

specific topics that are analyzed to determine 

the environmental impacts of the alternatives. 

These topics were selected based on federal 

law, regulations, executive orders, NPS 

expertise, and concerns expressed by other 

agencies or members of the public during 

scoping. The conditions described established 

the baseline for the analyses of effects found 

in the chapter on “Environmental 

Consequences.”
122 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 

Prehistory 

Evidence has been found that prehistoric 

peoples occupied the Upper Peninsula of 

Michigan from the Paleo-Indian period 

through the Archaic and the Woodland eras. 

In each of these ages, people tended to live in 

fishing camps along the Lake Superior 

shoreline in warm weather and in inland 

camps from which they hunted in cold 

weather. Over time, more specialized tools 

were developed that permitted easier 

exploitation of resources. Little agriculture 

developed because of a short growing season. 

History 

By 1500 the Chippewa were firmly established 

in the Upper Peninsula. Although their arrival 

date in the Pictured Rocks area has not been 

precisely established, small groups lived there 

when the first Europeans, the French, arrived 

in the early 1600s. Like the population of the 

Late Woodland period, the Chippewa, too, 

occupied shoreline settlements in spring and 

summer while moving inland during the 

winter season. 

Following contact with white men, the history 

of the Chippewa can be said to be one of 

resource exploitation and a growing 

dependence on the goods of European 

culture. The French induced the American 

Indian population to exchange pelts for beads, 

copper, brass and iron implements, guns, and 

liquor. The French were primarily interested 

in making money from the fur trade and did 

not establish settlements or farms. The British, 

who ruled the area after 1763, did nothing to 

change the social and economic trends begun 

by the French. Following acquisition of the 

area by the United Sates in 1783, whites 

pushed the Chippewa aside to settle the 

wilderness and exploit the land. 

In the immediate national lakeshore area, the 

Chippewa lived on Grand Island and later 

occupied the mainland near the community of 

Old Munising. They established a cemetery on 

Sand Point and used the Grand Sable Dune 

area for special purposes, including fasting 

and gravesites. Abandoned lodges were noted 

along the shore of Grand Marais in 1826. The 

Chippewa relinquished their Upper Peninsula 

lands to the United States in 1836. 

With the introduction of the Bessemer 

process in America after the Civil War, the 

production of steel emerged as an important 

industry in America. Pig (crude) iron, the 

product of a blast furnace, was refined to 

produce steel and wrought iron. The Schoolcraft blast furnace was constructed near 

Munising Falls in 1867, and the first pig iron 

was produced in 1868. About nine brick or 

stone kilns were originally constructed near 

the furnace, and at least 20 more were built 

during succeeding years in the nearby area to 

produce the necessary charcoal from the 

area’s hardwood forests. A small company 

town, which has come to be known as Old 

Munising, was established along Munising 

Creek below the furnace, later spreading to an 

area along the south bay. Iron manufacture 

and its attendant commercial activities served 

as the financial mainstay of the area’s 

economy until 1877 when the furnace closed. 

Logging operations in the Pictured Rocks area 

began about 1880. Some of the first cuttings 

were white pine, which was highly valued 

because of its relatively light weight, ease of 

transport, and suitability as building material. 

In 1882 Thomas Sullivan established the first 

logging camp in what is now the national 

lakeshore; this camp came to be known as 

Sullivan’s Landing. During the three years that 

the camp operated near present-day 
Cultural Resources 

123 

Twelvemile Beach, some 50 million board feet 

of white pine were cut. About 10 years later, a 

second white pine logging boom began; this 

boom far overshadowed the first one. A 

wooden chute, known as the Log Slide, was 

constructed near the Grand Sable Dunes. The 

cut logs were hauled by horses to the slide, slid 

down to the beach below, and towed inside 

log booms to the mills at Grand Marais. 

Although the initial logging activity in the 

national lakeshore area concentrated on 

harvesting large white and red pine stands, 

subsequent logging activity, beginning in the 

1890s and lasting through the 1930s, 

periodically cut the upland hardwoods for 

cord wood for blast furnace charcoal, maple 

woodenware, and hardwood veneer mills. 

Hemlock was cut to facilitate the hide tanning 

operations in Munising. Soon after 1900, 

smaller trees were taken for pulpwood to feed 

the Munising Paper Company plant, which 

opened in 1904. Forest regrowth in what is 

now the national lakeshore was subsequently 

cut during the late 1950s and early 1960s for 

pulpwood. Harvesting continues on lands in 

the inland buffer zone. 

With the disappearance of the iron industry 

and the temporary decline of the timber 

industry during the early 1900s came renewed 

attempts to develop a few small family 

subsistence farms in the area. The Bell and 

Abrahamson farms in Grand Marais, as well as 

the Riihima and Becker farms near Munising, 

produced dairy and staple crops for local 

consumption. Many of these old farm fields, 

now clearings, are visible, although most of 

the buildings have collapsed or been removed. 

Lake Superior influenced the development 

and population of the national lakeshore area 

to a large degree. Dangerous cliffs, offshore 

reefs, and stormy seas imperiled mariners in 

the 1840s and 50s when commercial traffic 

began on the lake. Aids to navigation were 

developed in the form of light stations (Au 

Sable -1874 and Grand Marais Harbor of 

Refuge in 1897), a U.S. Lifesaving Station in 

Grand Marais (1895-1938), and U.S. Coast 

Guard motor lifeboat stations in Munising 

and Grand Marais (1933-1960 and 1938-

1975). These stations influenced the 

commercial and social fabric of life for many 

years in the towns that flank the lakeshore. 

Another historic use of the area included the 

development of post-World War II family and 

corporate “camps” in the Upper Peninsula 

and within what is now the national lakeshore. 

The Michigan-Wisconsin Pipeline Company 

owned several hundred acres in the Beaver 

Basin (now in the national lakeshore), where it 

developed a resort camp for employees and 

clients during the early 1950s. Access roads, 

trout ponds, deer feeding structures and a 

boathouse on Beaver Lake were part of this 

development. Along with the corporate camp, 

several family fishing and hunting camps 

sprang up on lakeside properties or forested 

lands that were owned by their builders or 

leased from the Cleveland Cliffs Iron 

Company. (Forestry Division). 

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Various studies have examined and evaluated 

archeological resources in Pictured Rocks 

National Lakeshore. A survey of the national 

lakeshore’s lakeshore zone and the mouths of 

its rivers, entitled “Final Report: An Archaeological Survey of the Pictured Rocks Lakeshore,” was conducted under contract by 

Jeffrey P. Briggs of the University of Michigan 

in 1968. In 1979 NPS Denver Service Center 

personnel conducted an intensive archeological recovery effort centered on the Munising 

Falls area, where a parking area, comfort 

station, and visitor center were to be 

constructed. 

During the 1980s and early 1990s, archeological surveys by NPS Midwest Archeological 

Center personnel have focused on Section 106 

(National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 

as amended) compliance documentation for 

proposed parking areas and comfort stations, 
CHAPTER 3: THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

124 

as well as restoration efforts at the Au Sable 

Light Station. These surveys, as well as 

previous archeological work in the national 

lakeshore, have been recorded in “Archeological Inventory and Evaluative Testing in 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, 

Michigan, 1985-1990,” by Bruce A. Jones, 

Occasional Studies in Anthropology No. 30, 

1993. 

American Indians have lived in what is now 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore since the 

end of the Ice Age. There are 38 recorded 

archeological sites in the national lakeshore; 

most of these are associated with Woodland 

and Archaic period seasonal habitation sites. 

Most of the known sites are near today’s 

national lakeshore developed areas, such as on 

high sand bluffs adjacent to Lake Superior, in 

coves in sandstone bedrock along the lake’s 

shoreline, near streams and the mouths of 

creeks and rivers, and along inland lake 

shorelines; these areas provided natural 

habitation sites in past times and are attractive 

to people today for the same reasons. Artifacts 

associated with the known sites include firecracked rock, bi-polar cores, chert and quartz 

flakes, grit-tempered sherds, and other lithic 

scatter. Much of this material has been 

recovered at short-term hunting or fishing 

camps apparently used by Indians traveling up 

and down the lake. Sites are rarely found in 

the inland upland areas. Most sites are 

subsurface. 

Archeological resources in the national lakeshore reflect all periods of human occupation 

− from the early hunters to late prehistoric 

fishfolk to historic iron and timber industry 

operations, to sailors on the lake. Historic 

archeological sites in the national lakeshore 

are primarily associated with the iron 

(furnace/smelter ruins and charcoal kilns), 

timber (logging railroads, roads, and camps), 

and maritime industries (shipwrecks), as well 

as with small farming operations. Historic 

shipwrecks in the national lakeshore were 

examined and evaluated during an NPS 

Southwest Regional Office study by C. Patrick 

Labadie, entitled Submerged Cultural Resources Study, Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore

(Southwest Cultural Resources Center Professional Papers No. 22), published in 1989. The 

lake bed and everything on it, including shipwrecks, are under the jurisdiction of the state. 

ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES 

The principal study that examines 

ethnographic resources in the national 

lakeshore, entitled (Draft) Traditional 

Ojibway Resources in the Western Great Lakes, 

was prepared by the University of Arizona, 

Tucson, Bureau of Applied Research in 

Anthropology on June 2, 1999. 

The Ojibway have cultural affiliation with the 

lands of Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore. 

Although the national lakeshore and its surrounding areas may have been visited or used 

occasionally by traveling parties, warriors, or 

refugees belonging to other ethnic groups, the 

area remained under Ojibway control until 

1820, when the first land cession treaty was 

signed by leaders of the local bands and 

representatives of the U.S. Government. Six 

Ojibway tribes may rightfully claim cultural 

affiliation with the lands in the national lakeshore, including: the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of 

Chippewa Indians; the Bay Mills Community; 

the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewas, Wisconsin; the Red Cliff Band of Lake 

Superior Chippewas, Wisconsin; the Garden 

River Band, Ontario; and the Manitoulin 

Island Community of Ojibway, Ottawa, 

Ontario. 

There are at least five other Ojibway bands 

whose lands are on or near the north banks of 

the St. Mary’s River and north shore of Lake 

Superior and have close ties with the Garden 

River and Sault Ste. Marie Ojibway. These are 

the Batchewana Band, Thessalon Band, 

Serpent Band, Sagamak Nishnaabek Band, 

and White Fish Lake Band. 
Cultural Resources 

125 

Lands within the boundaries of the national 

lakeshore are believed to have been and 

continue to be of spiritual and religious 

significance to the Chippewas. The Grand 

Sable Dunes were considered to be a sacred 

place; a Euro-American visitor in 1835 

reported finding an Indian burial/spirit house 

and a probable vision quest site on the dunes. 

Other areas in the national lakeshore of 

interest to American Indians are Lake 

Superior, the pictured rocks, and high 

prominences such as Miners Castle. Portions 

of the forested areas are also important for the 

variety of game and plant species they offer. 

Former burial grounds are on Sand Point and 

at the end of City Limits Road in Munising. 

Because their subsistence cultural patterns 

were tied closely to Lake Superior, canoes, 

and fishing, Chippewa encampments were 

generally in sheltered areas along the lakeshore that afforded protection from 

northwest gales. The Munising/Grand Island 

and Grand Marais sites, as well as other creek 

and river mouths, were suitable, but much of 

the shoreline between was too unprotected 

for establishing campsites. 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES AND 

HISTORIC STRUCTURES 

Initial reconnaissance by the NPS staff 

suggests that various cultural landscapes 

might be eligible for listing on the National 

Register of Historic Places. However, with 

one exception (the Au Sable Light Station), 

the required studies have not yet been undertaken. The eligibility of these landscapes 

should be determined in consultation with the 

state historic preservation officer. Cultural 

landscapes in the national lakeshore that 

require further assessment include the 

Munising (Sand Point) Coast Guard Station, 

Grand Marais Coast Guard Station, farmsteads, apple orchards, and the MI-WI 

Consolidated Pipeline camp. 

The Munising Range Light Station property is 

a former U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary 

Operations Station that includes the front and 

rear range lights and the associated property 

in Munising (a total of 0.32 acres of land, lot 

17). The buildings are thought by national 

lakeshore staff to be eligible for the National 

Register of Historic Places, although no 

formal assessment has yet been conducted. 

The U.S. Coast Guard will continue to 

maintain the operating aids to navigation (the 

front and rear range lights) that comprise two 

of the six structures on the property. The lot 

size is too small to support visitor use parking; 

therefore, when the building is no longer 

required for office purposes, the national 

lakeshore could adaptively use the building 

for purposes such as museum collection 

storage or lease to an organization or private 

entity, similar to the arrangement at Grand 

Marais. 

Six structures are reported on the site: a metal 

garage, a brick and wood station building, a 

brick paint locker, the Munising front range 

light (brick and cast iron cylindrical tower), 

the Munising rear range light (brick and cast 

iron), and a skeletal steel VHF tower. 

HISTORIC PROPERTIES 

National Register of Historic Places 

The following two historic properties in the 

national lakeshore are listed in the National 

Register of Historic Places; both encompass 

significant archeological components: 

Au Sable Light Station, listed on May 23, 

1978, under national register criteria A (for 

its association with events that have made a 

significant contribution to the broad 

patterns of American history) and C (for its 

significant architectural characteristics). It 

also contains an archeological site. 

Schoolcraft Furnace Site, listed on 

December 28, 1977, under national register 

criterion A. It also contains an archeological 

site. 
CHAPTER 3: THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

126 

The following two historic properties in the 

national lakeshore have been determined 

eligible for listing on the National Register of 

Historic Places: 

The Grand Marais Coast Guard Station, 

determined eligible for listing by the 

Michigan State Historic Preservation Officer 

on November 15, 1990, under criteria A and 

C. 

The Munising (Sand Point) Coast Guard 

Station, determined eligible for listing by the 

Michigan State Historic Preservation Officer 

on January 27, 1999, under criteria A and C. 

Other archeological sites/historic properties 

that may meet national register criteria 

include numerous archeological sites along 

exposed beaches (particularly in the Miners 

and Chapel Beach areas) as well as at inland 

sites associated with prehistoric shorelines or 

lakes. 

List of Classified Structures 

The List of Classified Structures is a 

computerized, evaluated inventory of all 

historic and prehistoric structures having 

historical, architectural, or engineering 

significance. The following structures have 

been placed on the List of Classified 

Structures for the national lakeshore: 

Sand Point Coast Guard Station main 

 building 

Sand Point oil house 

Sand Point boathouse 

Au Sable keeper’s residence 

Au Sable garage 

Au Sable Lighthouse 

Au Sable assistant keepers’ duplex 

 residence 

Au Sable metal oil house 

Au Sable brick kerosene shed 

Au Sable brick privy #1 

Au Sable brick privy #2 

Au Sable fog signal house 

Au Sable boathouse 

Au Sable seawall 

Au Sable cistern 

U.S. Coast Guard dwelling (Grand Marais) 

U.S. Coast Guard Station quarters #1 

 (Grand Marais) 

Blast furnace 

Kilns 

MUSEUM COLLECTIONS 

The museum collection housed at the national 

lakeshore includes more than 15,000 catalogued items representing a variety of natural 

and cultural themes. More than 36,000 

catalogued archeological artifacts are housed 

at the Midwest Archeological Center in 

Lincoln, Nebraska. Archeological artifacts in 

the center’s collection include thousands of 

items, most of which have not been 

catalogued. 

The park collection has an underrepresentation of geological and other natural 

history specimens. No natural history study 

collections are available for the natural 

resources staff. Future acquisition efforts for 

the collection will focus on furnishings for the 

Au Sable Light Station, the Munising (Sand 

Point) Coast Guard Station, and additional 

natural history collections. 

Some maritime theme items in the national 

lakeshore’s collection are exhibited in the 

Grand Marais Maritime Museum. Others are 

on display at the Munising Falls Interpretive 

Center. 

The main park collection is housed on the 

third floor of the Grand Marais Maritime 

Museum, in the loft of the Abrahamson Barn, 

and at park headquarters in Munising. 

Environmental conditions for the museum 

collection stored at all locations are 

substandard. Temperature and humidity 

controls are nonexistent, resulting in wide 

variability for these parameters. Although the 

Abrahamson Barn artifacts are stored on 
Cultural Resources 

127 

shelves and covered with plastic, the plastic is 

covered with bat guano. 

Improving collection storage and curatorial 

processing has been delayed as the national 

lakeshore waits for funding to construct a new 

headquarters building in Munising. Design for 

the new building includes space for storage 

and collection management activities. 
128 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

SPECIES OF CONCERN 

Species of concern includes federal and state 

threatened or endangered species as well as 

species whose status globally or locally may be 

approaching a level of rarity that warrants 

monitoring at the state or federal level. The 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was consulted 

to confirm listings of threatened or 

endangered species known or likely to occur 

in the national lakeshore. 

The National Park Service also consulted with 

the Michigan Department of Natural 

Resources, Natural Features Inventory to 

obtain a current list of state and federal 

species within the national lakeshore. 

TABLE 6: LIST OF SPECIES OF CONCERN AT PICTURED ROCKS NATIONAL LAKESHORE

 

Federal Threatened Federal Endangered State Threatened State Endangered State Species of Concern 

Alces alces Moose X 

Botrychium 

acuminatum 

Acute-leaved 

moonwort X 

Botrychium campestre Prairie moonwort, 

dunewort X 

Botrychium hesperium Western moonwort X 

Botrychium mormo Goblin moonwort X 

Callitriche 

hermaphroditica 

Autumnal waterstarwort X 

Calypso bulbosa Calypso or fairyslipper X 

Canis lupus Gray wolf X X 

Cirsium pitcheri Pitcher’s thistle X X 

Crataegus douglasii Douglas hawthorn X 

Cryptogramma stelleri Slender cliff-break X 

Cypripedium arietnum Ram’s head ladyslipper X 

Elymus glaucus Blue wild-rye X 

Elymus mollis American dune wildrye  X 

Empetrum nigrum Black crowberry X 

Falco peregrinus Perigrine falcon X X 

Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus Bald eagle X X 

Listera auriculata Auricled twayblade X 

Myriophyllum 

alterniflorum 

Alternate-leaved 

water-milfoil X 

Myriophyllum 

farwellii 

Farwell’s watermilfoil X 
Natural Resources 

129 

 

Federal Threatened Federal Endangered State Threatened State Endangered State Species of Concern 

Pandion haliaetus Osprey X 

Pinguicula vulgaris Butterwort X 

Stellaria longipes Stichwort X 

Tanacetum huronense Lake Huron tansy X 

Trumertropis 

huroniana Lake Huron locust X 

Trisetum spicatum Downy oat-grass X 

Vaccinium cespitosum Dwarf bilberry X 

As the bald eagle population in the Great 

Lakes area has increased, they have 

established nest sites and territories within the 

national lakeshore. The nests at the lakeshore 

are relatively isolated. There are no recreational uses within the primary or secondary 

buffer areas of each nest during critical 

periods. Boating is permitted on a lake near 

one of the nests in the tertiary buffer during 

critical periods, which is consistent with the 

Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan

(USFWS, 1983). Nest activity and success have 

varied each year. 

In July 1999, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

proposed removing the bald eagle from the list 

of threatened species. When and if the bald 

eagle is delisted, a five-year nationwide 

monitoring program will be implemented to 

continue collecting data on the population. 

Inventories will continue at the national 

lakeshore. 

The piping plover has nested within the 

national lakeshore boundary on the beach of 

Lake Superior at Grand Marais in the past, but 

there has been no evidence of use since 1992. 

The national lakeshore provides potential 

nesting and forage habitat. 

Many of the species of concern identified at 

the national lakeshore, including pitcher’s 

thistle, are found in the Grand Sable Dunes 

area (a designated research natural area); 

others are found in various habitats 

throughout the national lakeshore. 

The gray wolf is an endangered species that is 

proposed for reclassification to threatened by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 

2000). Michigan would also reclassify the wolf 

if it is reclassified at the federal level (MDNR 

2000). Late winter surveys indicated 216 

wolves in the upper peninsula in 2000 

(USFWS 2000). Because of winter conditions 

in the lakeshore, it is not likely that denning 

will occur within the national lakeshore. 

According to the Michigan Department of 

Natural Resources (MDNR 2000), the 

national lakeshore is not critical habitat 

because an adequate year-round food source 

is not available. Wolf use at the national 

lakeshore is limited and linked to the deer 

population and occurs during spring, summer, 

and autumn. Deer migrate out of the national 

lakeshore during the winter. 

Grand Sable Dunes is a designated research 

natural area under NPS policies because the 

area contains many rare plants and few such 

undeveloped dunes remain in the Great Lakes 

area. Research natural areas are established 

for areas that are prime examples of natural 

ecosystems and areas with significant genetic 

resources with value for long-term baseline 

observational studies or as control areas for 

comparative studies in other areas. The Grand 

Sable Dunes are also designated a critical dune 
CHAPTER 3: THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

130 

area by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. This designation identifies the 

dunes as an environmental area warranting 

protection under the Michigan Coastal 

Management Program. East of Grand Marais 

there is a dune complex that is 5,453 acres, 

most of which is in state ownership. 

WETLANDS 

The national lakeshore has an abundance of 

wetlands as identified in the National Wetland 

Inventory. The full range of wetland types, 

from riparian, palustrine, and lacustrine, can 

be found throughout the national lakeshore. 

Most are within the Beaver and Chapel Basins 

and were formed by glaciation and other 

geophysical processes. 

Lake Superior forms the northern border of 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore. The lake 

has a maximum depth of 420 m (1,335 feet) 

but is relatively shallow in the national 

lakeshore. Its surface lies at an elevation of 

187 m (600 feet) above sea level. The 

maximum tidal/storm elevation has been 

recorded at 604.3 feet. In recent times the lake 

level has varied several feet in response to 

changes in precipitation and evaporation. 

The more prominent inland lakes are Grand 

Sable, Beaver, Little Beaver, Chapel, Little 

Chapel, Miners, Trappers, Legion, Kingston, 

and the Shoe Lakes. These lakes range in size 

from the 762-acre Beaver Lake to the 10-acre 

Miners Lake. Most of the inland lakes, with 

the exception of Grand Sable Lake and 

Chapel Lake, are shallow (3-6 m/10-20 ft in 

average depth). Many of the lakes have a 

moderate amount of dissolved nutrients and 

are very clear (visibility of 2-5 meters or 6-15 

feet). Logging in the area and recurrent fires 

may have caused erosion and nutrient 

deposition in the lakes. Miners Lake and Little 

Chapel Lake exhibit the greatest levels of 

dissolved nutrients. Legion Lake, the Shoe 

Lakes, and Grand Sable Lake are the most 

deficient in nutrients. The inland lakes vary 

considerably in their water chemistry, but 

many can be classified as moderately 

productive, brown, alkaline-water lakes. 

The rivers and streams that flow to Lake 

Superior through the national lakeshore have 

a relatively steep gradient, including 

waterfalls, and are rather short. The more 

prominent waterfalls within the national 

lakeshore are Munising, Miners, Mosquito, 

Bridalveil, Chapel, Spray, and Sable Falls. 

Especially noticeable at the waterfalls is the 

brown color of the water, which is from 

humic acids originating from the breakdown 

of organic matter in wetlands headwaters. 

Portions of two rivers, both in the national 

lakeshore, are listed on the NPS “Nationwide 

Rivers Inventory” and were considered 

potentially eligible for designation under the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. A 9-mile long 

segment of the Miners River between County 

Road H-58 and its mouth at Lake Superior is 

included on the inventory because of its 

recreational, fish, and wildlife values. A 6.5-

mile long segment of the Mosquito River, 

from Section 17, T48N, R17W to its mouth 

with Lake Superior, is included on the 

inventory because of its scenic, recreational, 

geologic, and fish values. 

Scattered shrub and forested wetlands are 

found on upland benches and in poorly 

drained topographic lows (about 10% of the 

national lakeshore). These patches contain 

black spruce (Picea mariana), white spruce 

(Picea glauca), white cedar (Thuja occidentalis), 

and larch (Larix laricina). Larger white cedar 

stands in the national lakeshore are southwest 

of Grand Sable Lake, south of Au Sable Point, 

along the southern and western edges of 

Beaver Basin, and east and south of Miners 

Basin. 

Bogs in the national lakeshore are usually 

filled-in lake beds having a sphagnum base 

and containing heath-family (ericaceous) 

shrubs, e.g., leatherleaf (Chamaedaphne 

calyculata), bog rosemary (Andromeda 

glaucophylla), bog laurel (Kalmia polifolia), 
Natural Resources 

131 

and cranberries (Vaccinium macrocarpon; V. 

oxycoccos). Several species of orchids are 

found in association with bog communities. 

Four major bog areas are found in the 

lakeshore − at Sand Point, Beaver Lake, 

Legion Lake, and east of Twelvemile Beach 

campground. The best examples of marshes in 

the national lakeshore occur in shallow bays 

of large lakes and around the periphery of 

small lakes, most notably Miners Lake and 

Little Chapel Lake. 

INVASIVE SPECIES 

Nonnative Invasive Species 

Nonnative invasive species are species that 

have been introduced into an environment in 

which they did not evolve and usually lack or 

have fewer natural enemies that limit their 

reproduction and spread (Westbrooks 1998). 

They may possess other characteristics that 

give them the advantage over native species; 

these include rapid or prolific reproduction, 

ability of eggs or seeds to withstand extremes 

in environmental conditions, production of 

biological toxins that suppress native species, 

the presence of spines, thorns, or fowl taste 

that deter predation, and parasitization of 

native species (Westbrooks 1998). 

Of the nonnative plant species at Pictured 

Rocks National Lakeshore, the following are 

notably invasive and pose a serious threat to 

the native plant community of the Grand 

Sable Dunes: spotted knapweed (Centaurea 

maculosa), white sweet-clover (Melilotus alba), 

red clover (Trifolium pratense), and several 

species of hawkweed (Hieracium spp.). Baby’s 

breath (Gypsophila paniculata), currently 

found on the border of national lakeshore, is a 

potential threat to the native dune plant 

community should it become established. 

Periwinkle (Vinca minor) is an aggressively 

growing, shade-tolerant, understory species 

that is capable of threatening the spring flora 

of the northern hardwoods, including trillium, 

Dutchman’s breeches, spring beauty, hepatica, 

and squirrel corn. 

Burdock (Arctium minus) is an exotic species 

that is found in small forest openings such as 

roadsides and the margins of parking lots. 

Spotted knapweed grows in this type of 

habitat as well as in the dunes. 

Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) is a 

potential threat to habitats with moist soil 

and/or shallow, standing water along streams, 

lakes, and ponds of the national lakeshore. It 

has a strong foothold in the Naubinway area 

of Mackinac County to the southeast, and it is 

found occasionally in neighboring Marquette 

County to the west. 

Blister rust is a nonnative, fungal saprophyte 

that attacks confers and causes a deformity 

commonly known as “witch’s broom.” 

Currently its effects are limited. However, the 

beech blight is a fungus that has reached the 

eastern Upper Peninsula and is capable of 

altering the forest community structure. 

Nonnative insect pests are a potential source 

of disturbance to the native plant 

communities. One such is the gypsy moth 

(Lymantria dispar), currently present in the 

national lakeshore but not in large numbers. 

Aquatic Invasive Species 

Aquatic invasive species pose a threat to native 

plant and animal communities throughout the 

upper midwestern states. These organisms 

include the well-known sea lamprey and 

numerous other fish, mussels, crayfish, 

zooplankton, aquatic macrophytes, and 

parasite species. The species that pose the 

greatest threat can reproduce rapidly and 

compete for the same habitat or for the same 

food as native species. Some have defensive 

adaptations that make them unsuitable as food 

to native species, so that they are less likely 

than their native counterparts in the food web 

to be preyed upon. Some actively prey on or 
CHAPTER 3: THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

132 

parasitize native species. Aggressively 

growing, aquatic plants reduce light penetration in the water and grow so densely that 

they do not provide a protective habitat for 

native species. Once established, exotic 

species in an aquatic environment can rarely, 

if ever, be eliminated. The most effective 

means of control is prevention through 

management decisions and public education. 

The potential introduction of aquatic invasive 

species poses a serious threat to the health of 

the aquatic habitats of Pictured Rocks 

National Lakeshore. 

The pathways for the introduction of aquatic 

exotic species already exists at Pictured Rocks 

National Lakeshore and can be identified as 

the routes used by humans in their recreational activities. Exotic species may cling to 

the exterior of boats, may be carried in the 

bilge water or bait fish bucket, may cling to 

line and/or ropes, may be carried in sediment 

trapped in anchors, or cling to the clothing of 

hikers near bodies of water. 

The distribution of several nonnative aquatic 

species in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan is 

known: 

• Purple loosestrife is found in adjacent 

counties. 

• The spiny water flea (a Eurasian 

zooplankton species) has been 

documented from six inland lakes in the 

Upper Peninsula, including Beaver Lake 

and Grand Sable Lake. This species was 

first noticed in the national lakeshore in 

Beaver Lake (Whitman et al. 2002), and its 

status is monitored regularly. The spiny 

water flea was first observed in Grand 

Sable Lake in early August 2002 and will 

be monitored regularly. 

• Zebra mussels have been identified in two 

inland lakes in the Upper Peninsula of 

Michigan and along the north shore of 

Lake Michigan, 45 miles distant. 

• Sea lamprey populations are monitored at 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore in 

cooperation with the USFWS Sea 

Lamprey Control Division, and their data 

are available for the entire Great Lakes 

basin. 
133 

WILDERNESS RESOURCES AND VALUES 

THE WILDERNESS ACT OF 1964 

Public Law 88-577, National Wilderness 

Preservation System, more commonly known 

as the “Wilderness Act of 1964,” was 

established to enable Congress to set aside, 

preserve, and protect areas of pristine 

wilderness for the public to enjoy. Federal 

wilderness can be established only by an act of 

Congress. 

The definition of wilderness is stated in the act 

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 

land is also defined as an area that still holds 

its original character and does not have any 

permanent improvements from human 

intervention. The act continues by defining 

wilderness as an area that has “outstanding 

opportunities for solitude or a primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation.” The land has 

to include 5,000 acres or enough continuous 

area to make feasible protecting and 

preserving it. The act’s definition of 

wilderness concludes by stating that the area 

can contain components of geological, 

ecological, or otherwise scientific, 

educational, scenic, or historical value. 

Although there are activities that are 

prohibited in wilderness areas (Section 4 [c]), 

the act does make allowances for some special 

provisions (Section 4 [d]) (see page 37). The 

prohibited activities include commercial 

operations, permanent roads (except to meet 

the minimum administrative needs for health 

and safety emergencies), temporary roads, 

installations or structures, motorized vehicles 

or equipment, motorboats or landing of 

aircraft, and any other forms of mechanical 

transport. 

These areas are extremely important to 

wildlife, vegetation, outdoor enthusiasts, 

scientists, and educators. They represent and 

foster an area of untouched land, where the 

natural processes can continue to thrive and 

be observed. 

WILDENESS RESOURCES IN THE 

CENTRAL UPPER PENINSULA 

There are two designated wilderness areas in 

the Hiawatha National Forest in the central 

Upper Peninsula in Alger County — the Rock 

River Canyon (5,285 acres) and Big Island 

Lake (6,008 acres); Strangmoor Bog 

Wilderness (25,150 acres, also designated) is 

in Seney National Wildlife Refuge in 

Schoolcraft County. There are no state 

wilderness areas nearby. There is no 

designated wilderness in Pictured Rocks 

National Lakeshore. 

WILDERNESS PROCESS AT PICTURED 

ROCKS NATIONAL LAKESHORE 

NPS Management Policies at the time of the 

1981 planning effort precluded wilderness 

consideration on areas where the federal 

government did not control the underground 

mineral rights, which was the case at Pictured 

Rocks National Lakeshore. Therefore, 

wilderness suitability was not evaluated for 

the national lakeshore. 

However, recently revised NPS Management 

Policies allow consideration of wilderness 

eligibility and designation on lands owned by 

the federal government with outstanding 

mineral rights. The written agreement 

between Cleveland Cliffs Iron Company (land 

subsequently purchased by the Kamehameha 

Schools and now being sold to the ForestLand 

Group, Limited Liability Corporation) and the 

National Park Service would most likely 

preclude mineral exploration or development 

in the national lakeshore. This is a deed 

restriction that stays with the property. 
CHAPTER 3: THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

134 

During the scoping process for this general 

management plan, the National Park Service 

was asked to evaluate the lands in the national 

lakeshore (specifically the Beaver Basin) for 

wilderness characteristics in response to 

public comments. Lands within the Beaver 

Basin and Chapel Basin met the criteria. The 

National Park Service, in response to numerous requests to resolve the wilderness issue at 

the national lakeshore, is completing the 

required wilderness study and accompanying 

environmental impact statement within the 

general management planning process. 

The elements of the wilderness study have 

been integrated into this document. The 

national lakeshore staff and planning team 

worked together to determine if wilderness 

characteristics existed within the national 

lakeshore. The planning team then wove 

appropriate descriptions of desired resource 

conditions and visitor experiences into the 

management prescriptions to accommodate 

the existence of wilderness characteristics. 

There continue to be opportunities for public 

involvement and comment with the review of 

this draft and during public meetings. 

If the National Park Service approves the 

proposed wilderness, then a wilderness 

proposal will be prepared and forwarded to 

the secretary of the interior. The secretary of 

the interior reviews the NPS proposed 

wilderness and either approves or revises the 

proposal, and the result is forwarded to the 

president for his consideration. The president 

is then responsible for transmitting his recommendations to both houses of Congress 

(accompanied by maps and boundary 

descriptions). After the president’s formal 

transmittal of the wilderness recommendation 

to Congress, Congress may enact the legislation needed to include the area within the 

national wilderness preservation system as 

“designated” and/or “potential” wilderness. 
135 

SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES 

The national lakeshore is entirely within Alger 

County. Because any economic or social 

impacts that result from implementing the 

approved plan are most likely to be local in 

nature, this county will serve as the socioeconomic affected area for this planning 

effort.

The 42 miles of lakeshore in Pictured Rocks 

National Lakeshore are flanked by the towns 

of Munising on the west and Grand Marais on 

the east. Munising is the county seat for Alger 

County and serves as a gateway to the national 

lakeshore. Munising had a population of 2,539 

according to the 2000 Census. National 

lakeshore headquarters are north of town at 

the end of Sand Point Road. The National 

Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service 

jointly run a visitor center in town. The 

headquarters of Hiawatha National Forest is 

also in Munising. Visitor services include 

grocery stores, motels, restaurants, and supply 

stores. Medical services are available at 

Munising Memorial Hospital. Visitor services 

are more limited in Grand Marais. 

The national lakeshore serves a regional 

audience as well as attracting visitors from 

other parts of the country. Several hundred 

thousand visitors each year travel to the 

national lakeshore. State Routes 28 and 94 are 

the principal highways leading to Munising. 

County Highway H-58 provides access to the 

national lakeshore and connects Munising 

with Grand Marais, the eastern gateway town. 

A national lakeshore ranger station and the 

Grand Marais Maritime Museum are in Grand 

Marais. The national lakeshore’s Grand Sable 

Visitor Center is west of Grand Marais. These 

facilities are open only during the summer. 

The area around the eastern end of the 

national lakeshore is lightly populated. Burt 

Township’s population, including the town of 

Grand Marais, was 480, based on the 2000 

Census. 

POPULATION 

Alger County has a relatively low population. 

This county is one of 83 counties in Michigan. 

In 2000 it ranked 77th in the state with a 

population of 9,862 or 0.1% of the state total. 

Since 1990, the county’s population had 

grown by 890 persons or 9.9%. Although this 

was a healthy increase, Alger County 

accounted for less than 0.2 % of the state’s 

growth during this 10-year period. 

In contrast, Michigan’s population in 2000 

was 9,938,444. The population growth rate for 

Michigan was less than three-quarters that of 

Alger County or 6.9%. However, this represented a total increase of 643,147 persons 

from 1990 to 2000. 

INCOME 

In 2000 the total personal income in Alger 

County was $182,005,000. This income 

ranked 77th in the state and accounted for 

only 0.1% of the state total. In 1990 the total 

personal income was $111,000,000. This 

income ranked 77th in the state. During these 

10 years, Alger County’s total personal income 

grew by 5.1% while Michigan has had the 

same growth rate. The national average was 

5.5%. 

Per capita personal income for the county was 

$18,485 in 2000. This income was relatively 

low, comprising only 63% of the state’s 

average of $29,127. Alger County ranked 71st 

in the state. The national average per capita 

personal income was $29,469. Since 1990, 

when the county per capita personal income 

was $12,369, this per capita personal income 

grew by an average annual rate of 4.1%. 

Meanwhile, the state per capita personal 

income grew by 4.4%, and the national per 

capita personal income grew by 4.2%. 
CHAPTER 3: THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

136 

While growth in total personal income has 

kept pace with the rest of the state, total 

personal income for Alger County still 

remains low, which translates into a 

significantly lower per capita personal income 

when compared to the rest of the state. The 

historically low per capita personal income is 

an indication of a depressed economy. 

Major Industries by Earnings 

The earnings of people employed in Alger 

County increased from $61,566,000 in 1990 to 

$105,602,000 in 2000, a 71.5% gain (table 7). 

This increase represented a healthy average 

annual growth rate of 5.5%. In 2000, the major 

industries for Alger County (by earnings) were 

manufacturing at 36.9%, state and local 

government at 16.8%, and services at 16.7% of 

the total. In 1990 the largest industries were 

manufacturing representing 40.7% of 

earnings; state and local government at 19.2%; 

and services at 12.2%. 

Major Industries by Employment 

In 1990 there were 3,299 full- and part-time 

employees in Alger County. Manufacturing 

led the way, accounting for 24.3% (800 jobs) 

of the positions. Services, retail trade, and 

state and local government followed with 

20.1% (664 jobs), 18.4% (606 jobs), and 14.8% 

(558 jobs) of the total positions respectively. 

Although Alger County’s population grew by 

890 persons, the number of jobs increased by 

715. By 2000 the number of full- and part-time 

employees had reached 4,014, a 21.7% 

increase over 1990 (table 8). By 2000, Services 

replaced Manufacturing as the top employer. 

Services had increased by 313 jobs. 

Manufacturing increased by only 51 positions 

and represented 21.2% (851 jobs) of all jobs in 

the county. State and local government was 

still an important sector in the county 

economy. This classification accounted for 

13.9% (558 jobs) of the jobs, an increase of 70 

positions. 

TABLE 7: ALGER COUNTY,MICHIGAN: EARNINGS BY INDUSTRY

2000 1990 Industry 

Sectors Earnings % of Total Earnings % of Total 

Manufacturing $38,919,000 36.85% $25,051,000 40.69%

State & Local Government $17,782,000 16.84% $11,814,000 19.19%

Services $17,678,000 16.74% $7,533,000 12.24%

Retail Trade $7,592,000 7.19% $5,768,000 9.37%

Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate $6,901,000 6.53% $1,218,000 1.98%

Construction $5,551,000 5.26% $3,066,000 4.98%

Transportation and Public Utilities $4,350,000 4.12% $2,691,000 4.37%

Federal Government $4,935,000 4.67% $1,878,000 3.05%

Wholesale Trade $1,222,000 1.16% $1,141,000 1.85%

Agricultural Services, Forestry, & Fishing, (D) (D) $899,000 1.46%

Military $278,000 0.26% $274,000 0.45%

Farm (L) (L) $233,000 0.38%

Mining (D) (D) 0 0.00%

Total $105,602,000 100.00% $61,566,000 100.00%

SOURCE: Bureau of Economic Analysis 

 (D) = Not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential information, but the estimates for this item are 

included in the totals. 

 (L) = Less than $50,000, but the estimates for this item are included in the totals. 
Socioeconomic Resources 

137 

TABLE 8. ALGER COUNTY,MICHIGAN FULL-TIME AND PART-TIME EMPLOYEES BY MAJOR INDUSTRY

2000 1990 Industry 

Sectors # of Jobs % of Total # of Jobs % of Total 

Manufacturing 851 21.20% 800 24.25% 

Services 977 24.34% 664 20.13% 

Retail Trade 658 16.39% 606 18.37% 

State & Local Government 558 13.90% 488 14.79% 

Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 321 8.00% 152 4.61% 

Construction 223 5.56% 163 4.94% 

Transportation & Public Utilities 134 3.34% 110 3.33% 

Federal Government 94 2.34% 72 2.18% 

Farm 73 1.82% 93 2.82% 

Agricultural Services, Forestry, & Fishing (D) (D) 65 1.97% 

Wholesale Trade 64 1.59% 53 1.61% 

Military 20 0.50% 29 0.88% 

Mining (D) (D) (L) (L) 

Total 4,014 100.00% 3,299 100.00% 

SOURCE: Bureau of Economic Analysis 

 (D) = Not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential information, but the estimates for this item are 

included in the totals. 

 (L) = Less than $50,000, but the estimates for this item are included in the totals. 

UNEMPLOYMENT 

Another indicator of the general economic 

health of a region is the rate of unemployment. Alger County’s unemployment rates 

have exceeded state and national rates. In 

1990 Michigan’s unemployment rate was 

about 7.6%. In 2000, this rate had declined to 

5.8%. Nationally, in 1990, the unemployment 

rate was 5.6%, and it increased to 5.8% by 

2000. In 1990 the unemployment rate for 

Alger County was 9.5%. By 2000, the level of 

unemployment was 8.6%. Higher unemployment in Alger County relative to the state 

of Michigan is another indication that the 

local economy has been somewhat depressed. 

POVERTY

The percentage of people in Alger County 

living below the poverty level in 1989 was 

14.5%. The poverty rate declined to 13.8% in 

1993. For 1995, the U.S. Census Bureau 

estimated that about 12.3% of the population 

of Alger County was living below the poverty 

level — about 1,140 people. At the same time, 

the estimated poverty rate for the state of 

Michigan was 12.6%. The national average 

poverty rate was 13.8% in 1995. By 1999 the 

poverty rate for the U.S. declined to 12.4%; 

Michigan’s rate was 10.5%, and Alger 

County’s proportion of people living in 

poverty was 10.3% — or 917 people. In terms 

of poverty, Alger County has been relatively 

better than the state or nation. 

Growth in earnings and employment has 

helped to keep the poverty rate down in Alger 

County. Unfortunately, the wages have been 

relatively low, contributing to the relatively 

low personal per capita income. 
CHAPTER 3: THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

138 

TABLE 9: THE TOURISM INDUSTRY IN ALGER COUNTY, 1996 

Type of 

Establishment 

Number of 

Firms Employment Payroll 

Eating and 

drinking places 40 303 $2,144,000 

Hotels and other 

lodging places 17 135 $ 787,000 

Amusement and 

recreation 5 <19 D 

SOURCE: Central Upper Peninsula Planning and Development Regional Commission, 

1999 (from County Business Patterns, 1996 Michigan State University) 

 D = not disclosed 

TOURISM 

The tourist industry plays a prominent role in 

the local economy. In 1996, 62 firms associated with tourism in Alger County employed 

more than 440 persons and provided a payroll 

in excess of $2.9 million (table 9). Assuming 

employment in these firms remained stable 

into 1997, then tourism would have accounted 

for more than 10% of the county’s total 

employment. 

Total annual expenditures attributable to the 

national lakeshore’s designation were estimated at $6.41 million (Figlio 1992). Also, this 

figure represents only direct expenditures; 

indirect and induced expenditures (multiplier 

effects) were not included. Assuming the same 

spending patterns and accounting for inflation 

would place this amount of tourist 

expenditures at $7.61 million in 1999 dollars. 

From May to October many visitors to the 

national lakeshore choose to ride the privately 

operated tour boats to get a close-up view of 

the Pictured Rocks from Lake Superior. The 

tour leaves from Munising, goes by the Grand 

Island lighthouse, and then proceeds along 

the national lakeshore to Chapel Beach and 

returns. The tour boat is usually within the 

0.25- mile of the national lakeshore boundary 

that extends on the surface waters of Lake 

Superior. The tour boat operation provides 

seasonal employment for residents of the area. 

A 2001 visitor survey (Simmons and Gramann, 

2002) asked visitor groups to list the amount 

of money they spent both inside the national 

lakeshore and within 60 miles of the national 

lakeshore on the visit for which they were 

surveyed. Twenty-seven percent of visitor 

groups spent $351 or more and 16% of visitor 

groups spent between $101 and $150. Four 

percent of visitor groups spent no money. Of 

the total expenditures by groups, 31% was for 

lodging, 18% was for restaurants and bars, 

and 12% was for groceries and take out food. 
139 

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR 

RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES 

Visitation 

Recent visitor use at the national lakeshore is 

displayed in table 10. Visitor use statistics at 

the national lakeshore have been reported for 

many years. However the national lakeshore’s 

counting and reporting instructions changed 

in 1995 to comply with updated NPS 

standards. Therefore this recent data cannot 

be accurately compared to previous years’ 

reported visitor use. Before 1995 the data 

showed a general upward trend in visitor use. 

The data since 1995 shows visitation as being 

relatively steady. It is expected that visitation 

to the national lakeshore in the next couple of 

years would remain about the same, plus or 

minus 5%. 

Visitation begins to increase in spring, peaks 

in July and August, and decreases substantially 

beginning in October. Typically, visitors 

during the peak months (July and August) 

represent around 40% of the total annual 

visits. 

A survey of visitors to Pictured Rocks 

National Lakeshore was conducted in 1990, 

the results of which were compiled and 

published in a study entitled “Social Impact 

Assessment, Beaver Basin Rim Road” (Pitt, 

Lime, and Vlaming 1991). 

For the 1990 study purposes, visitors were 

divided into three separate study groups and 

were analyzed independently: 

• backpackers — camped at least one night 

in the backcountry 

• day hikers — did not backpack but did take 

day hikes 

• nonhikers — may have walked on the 

beach but did not take even short day hikes 

Pictured Rocks was the primary destination 

for many visitors (70% of backpackers, 31% 

of day hikers, and 18% of nonhikers). Most of 

the rest listed the national lakeshore as one of 

several other trip destinations. Only about 

10% of the visits were spontaneous; the rest 

had planned their trip in advance. 

Most visitors currently visit the east-central 

portion of the national lakeshore (i.e., 

Twelvemile Beach) via the unpaved county 

road H-58. This means that about 70% of the 

total national lakeshore visitors use at least 

part of the unimproved section of H-58. Based 

TABLE 10: PICTURED ROCKS NATIONAL LAKESHORE VISITATION, 1995–2002 

Year Total Visits Number of Visits in

July and August 

July-August Visits as 

Percentage of Annual 

Visits 

1995 462,687 204,240 44% 

1996 403,684 171,452 42% 

1997 413,963 185,252 45% 

1998 455,120 178,762 39% 

1999 442,916 166,931 38% 

2000 422,683 171,295 41% 

2001 421,312 188,654 45% 

2002 421,2209 171,819 40% 
CHAPTER 3: THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

140 

on the survey, nonbackpackers visit the eastcentral and Grand Sable areas more frequently than they visit the much more modern sites 

on the western end of the national lakeshore. 

The Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore 

Visitor Study was conducted in the summer 

2001 and reported in January 2002. Some 

interesting visitor use statistics were noted: 

• Thirty-six percent of visitor groups were 

groups of two: thirty-six were in groups of 

three to five. Sixty-seven percent of visitor 

groups were family groups. Forty-six 

percent of visitors were age 31-55; 26% 

were age 15 years or younger. 

• Eighty-five percent of visitor groups had 

visited only one I the past 12 months. More 

than half (54%) of visitor groups had 

visited one to four times in the past two to 

five years. 

• Three percent of all visitors were 

international: 41% from Germany, 22% 

from Canada, 9% from France ,and 7% 

from other countries. United States visitors 

were from Michigan (60%), Illinois (8%), 

Wisconsin (8%), and 35 other states. 

• Forty-seven percent of visitors spent less 

than 24 hours at the national lakeshore. 

Twenty-eight percent of visitor groups 

spent one or two days, and 11% spent 

three days at the national lakeshore. 

• Sixty-one percent of visitor groups visited 

the national lakeshore as one of several 

destinations, 30% as their primary 

destination, and 9% had not planned on 

visiting. 

• The Miners Area (59%), Munising Falls 

(47%), and the Visitor Information Center 

(42%) were the most visited sites by visitor 

groups. The least visited site was the Grand 

Marais Maritime Museum (12%). 

• The most common activities of visitor 

groups were sightseeing (78%), beach 

activities (67%), day hiking (66%), and 

enjoying solitude/quiet (65%). 

Overnight Use 

Most visitors (100% of backpackers, 85% of 

day hikers, and 60% of nonhikers) spent at 

least one night in or near the national 

lakeshore. Visitors who did not spend the 

night averaged almost six hours in the area. 

Drive-In Camping 

The season for the drive-in campgrounds is 

May through October. Campsites for visitors 

with disabilities, designated with the blue 

universal symbol of accessibility, are provided 

at each campground. Other public campgrounds are in the Hiawatha National Forest 

and Lake Superior State Forest. 

Little Beaver Lake campground is 20 miles 

east of Munising off County Road H-58. Little 

Beaver has eight campsites on a beautiful 

inland lake. Little Beaver Lake features a 1-

mile self-guiding interpretive trail and a 1.5-

mile trail leading out to Lake Superior beaches 

and cliffs. There is access via a trail network 

that connects with the North Country 

National Scenic Trail, which traverses the 

national lakeshore for 42.8 miles between 

Munising and Grand Marais. 

Twelvemile Beach campground is 12 miles 

west of Grand Marais off county road H-58. 

The campground’s 36 sites are in two loops on 

a sandy bluff above Lake Superior’s Twelvemile Beach. Twelvemile Beach also features a 

2-mile self-guided interpretive trail. 

Hurricane River campground is off County 

Road H-58, about 3 miles east of Twelvemile 

Beach campground where the Hurricane 

River cascades into Lake Superior. Eleven 

campsites are available in the lower campground loop and 10 in the upper loop. A level 

1.5-mile walk on the North Country National 

Scenic Trail east from the lower campground 

leads past shipwreck remnants to the historic 

Au Sable Light Station. 

 
Visitor Use and Experience 

141 

Backcountry Camping 

Thirteen hike-in backcountry campgrounds 

are available throughout the national lakeshore. Campgrounds are in diverse sites: atop 

rugged cliffs, on inland lakes, at river mouths, 

and near sandy Lake Superior beaches. 

Campgrounds are spaced 2-5 miles apart and 

have 3-10 sites each. Camping is restricted to 

the designated backcountry campgrounds. 

Table 11 shows overnight use of the national 

lakeshore. This is based on actual use levels 

recorded by the national lakeshore. Many 

national lakeshore visitors use campgrounds, 

motels, and other types of lodging that are 

outside the national lakeshore. 

Principal Visitor Opportunities 

Visiting Pictured Rocks is not a passive 

activity. Very few people remain in their 

vehicle for their entire visit. At least 75% of 

each visitor study group walked along the 

shore or beach, went sightseeing, and took 

photographs. Day hikers outnumber 

nonhikers by more than four to one. Limited 

fishing also occurs. Within the national 

lakeshore are many two-track roads. Although 

primarily constructed for logging purposes, 

most of these roads are open to the public. 

The little use that occurs on these roads is 

primarily by hunters and local residents. Some 

hunting, primarily of black bear, occurs within 

the national lakeshore. 

Common visitor activities at the national 

lakeshore are camping, beachcombing, hiking, 

and scenic driving. Most scenic driving occurs 

on County Road H-58. Although there is no 

officially designated wilderness in the national 

lakeshore, many visitors enjoy a wilderness 

experience in the lakeshore’s backcountry 

because much of the national lakeshore is 

reachable only by foot or by water. 

Scenic driving is another popular recreational 

activity at Pictured Rocks. Several people 

commented (in response to the preliminary 

draft alternatives) that gravel roads and 

primitive driving opportunities are slowly 

vanishing in the Upper Peninsula and that the 

diversity of opportunities should be 

maintained. Visitor surveys indicate that most 

visitors consider driving unpaved roads to be 

an important element of an enjoyable Pictured 

Rocks experience (Pitt, Lime, and Vlaming 

1991). Unpaved and primitive roads compel 

drivers to slow down and allow people to 

experience their surroundings in more detail 

than if they were driving on a paved road 

designed for faster speeds. 

ACCESS TO PRIMARY NATIONAL 

LAKESHORE FEATURES 

A Lake Superior vantage point is best for 

seeing the Pictured Rocks cliff formations, 

which extend along the shoreline for about 10 

miles between Sand Point and Spray Falls. 

TABLE 11: PICTURED ROCKS NATIONAL LAKESHORE CAMPING

Year Tent Campers RV Campers Backcountry

1995 12,204 3,047 13,566 

1996 11,536 3,195 11,647 

1997 11,629 3,409 12,355 

1998 13,053 3,968 13,346 

1999 13,088 4,233 13,173 

2000 13,121 3,618 13,849 

2001 13,240 3,437 13,773 

2002 12,865 3,912 15,952 
CHAPTER 3: THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

142 

The only other public access in the immediate 

area is Grand Island National Recreation 

Area, which requires access via boats. A ferry 

provides regular public service to the island. 

Commercial motorboat tours to see the 

national lakeshore’s pictured rocks run from 

Munising to Chapel Rock (about 17.5 miles 

northeast along the shoreline) and return. The 

motorboat tours provide about 37,000 people 

per year with cliff-viewing experiences. 

Commercial kayak tours are another way for 

people to see the cliffs (530 people in 2000). 

Kayak tours typically start at Miners Beach 

and go along the cliffs to the northeast for 

about 3 miles before returning. 

Visitor Information 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore/ 

Hiawatha National Forest Service Visitor 

Information Center (Munising). Visitors can 

obtain information at this center as well as at a 

variety of recreational resources in the national lakeshore. The center maintains schedules 

of interpretive activities presented by NPS and 

USFS rangers. The center, at the junction of 

State Highway M-28 and County Road H-58, 

features an attractive pictorial exhibit area and 

a Hiawatha Interpretive Association sales area 

where visitors can purchase posters, slides, 

and a variety of publications that foster greater 

understanding of the area. 

Munising Falls Interpretive Center. Next to 

Munising Falls, the interpretive center 

features displays on the rich natural and 

cultural history of the national lakeshore. 

Exhibits on early iron smelting, geology, forest 

history, rare and endangered species, logging, 

and recreation portray the national 

lakeshore’s diversity. 

Grand Marais Maritime Museum. The 

1930s Grand Marais Coast Guard Station has 

been adapted by the National Park Service for 

use as the Grand Marais Maritime Museum. It 

features exhibits on Lake Superior shipwrecks 

and the lives and times of the U.S. Life Saving 

Service, a forerunner of the Coast Guard. The 

museum includes a small bookstore and is 

open as staffing permits. 

Grand Sable Visitor Center. The Grand 

Sable visitor center is near the east end of the 

national lakeshore and the beginning of the 

Lakeshore − North Country National Scenic 

Trail. An NPS ranger assists hikers, 

backpackers, and nature enthusiasts with 

information to make their stay more 

enjoyable. There is also a bookstore. 

Sightseeing 

Many attractions are accessible either by 

automobile or by short footpaths. 

Munising Falls. Nestled in a cool and shaded 

valley, the 50-foot falls are at the end of a 

short hike on an improved trail. The trail is a 

good place to look for wildflowers in spring 

and early summer. Water from the creek once 

aided the production of iron at the Schoolcraft blast furnace, a story told on wayside 

exhibits and in the nearby interpretive center. 

Sand Point. The Sand Point beach is a 

popular spot for walking in the evening to 

watch the sun go down over Munising Bay. 

The Sand Point Marsh Trail, a 0.5-mile 

interpretive trail (accessible to visitors with 

disabilities), also has a large print brochure for 

visually impaired visitors. NPS headquarters is 

on Sand Point. 

Miners Castle. Beginning at the picnic area, a 

paved foot trail leads visitors past interpretive 

exhibits to breathtaking overlooks of Lake 

Superior and Grand Island. Erosion over long 

periods of time has created the interesting 

rock formations that give this place its name. 

About 65% of national lakeshore visitors go to 

the Miners area. 

Miners Beach. A picnicker and beach 

walker’s delight, Miners Beach extends for 1 
Visitor Use and Experience 

143 

mile along Lake Superior where waves roll in 

to polish beach cobbles. 

Miners Falls/River. A gravel path through a 

deep woods environment leads to two overlooks. Miners River, plunging some 60 feet 

over a cliff, is home to brook and steelhead 

trout. A self-guiding interpretive trail guide is 

available at the trailhead. Miners River is 

popular for steelhead fishing in spring and fall. 

Chapel Falls, Lake, Beach. After a brisk 1.5-

mile walk past abundant stands of jewel weed, 

hikers can see the 90-foot Chapel Falls as it 

cascades toward Chapel Lake. About 1.5 miles 

later, hikers find Chapel Beach. 

Beaver Lakes and Beaver Basin. Beaver 

Lakes provide small boating and fishing 

opportunities for visitors as they watch for 

bald eagle, osprey, and common loons. 

White Pine Trail. At the Little Beaver Lake 

campground, this 1-mile self-guiding 

interpretive trail explores the plant and animal 

community of a cool, shady valley. Trail 

guides are at the trailhead. 

White Birch Trail. With its trailhead at the 

Twelvemile Beach campground, this 2-mile 

self-guiding interpretive trail explores a 

variety of ancient Lake Nipissing beach and 

upland plant communities. Trail guides are at 

the trailhead. 

Twelvemile Beach. This isolated beach is 

great for long walks and picking about the 

flotsam carried to shore by Lake Superior 

storms. 

Hurricane River. The Hurricane River is 

frequented by early season fishing enthusiasts 

in search of steelhead trout. 

Au Sable Light Station. The National Park 

Service is currently renovating this picturesque station. On a stormy day, one may 

get a sense of the history here and understand 

why this light station is preserved. Access to 

the station is by a 1.5-mile trail beginning at 

the east end of the lower Hurricane River 

campground. 

Log Slide. Legend has it that logs sent down 

the dry log chute would generate enough 

friction to cause the chute to catch fire. Today 

the chute is gone, but the lumberjack stories 

still linger as visitors gaze out over the Grand 

Sable Banks and dunes. This is a good place to 

see the Au Sable Light Station to the west and 

the Grand Sable Banks and Grand Marais to 

the east. 

Grand Sable Banks and Dunes. The huge 

dunes were left by enormous retreating 

glaciers. Walking among the shifting sands 

with distant views of the lake is invigorating. 

About 60% of national lakeshore visitors go to 

the Grand Sable area. 

Grand Sable Lake. Fishing and boating are 

favorite activities at Grand Sable Lake, which 

is at the foot of the Grand Sable Dunes. A 

picnic area and overlook on the north shore 

offer views of the landscape. Boat access is by 

a boat ramp on the south shore. 

Sable Falls. A short hike from the parking lot 

leads to the falls and Sable Creek as it winds its 

way to Lake Superior. Another trail from the 

parking lot leads to the Grand Sable Dunes. 

Activities 

Commercial Tours. One of the easiest ways 

to see the Pictured Rocks is to take one of the 

commercial boat tours on Lake Superior. The 

tours, which run on a daily basis from late 

May to early October, leave from the 

Munising city dock. Excursions allow 

spectacular lake views of famous lakeshore 

features — Grand Island, Miners Castle, 

Grand Portal Point, and Chapel Rock. Sea 

kayak guided tours are available in Munising, 

and the national lakeshore is a favorite 

destination for backpacking tours. In addition, 
CHAPTER 3: THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

144 

two air tour companies operate out of 

Munising and Grand Marais. 

Boating, Canoeing, and Sea Kayaking.

Beaver Lake, Little Beaver Lake, and Grand 

Sable Lake are favorites for small boats and 

canoes. Most rivers are too shallow for 

canoeing. Lake Superior can be rough and 

small craft are easily swamped. Munising and 

Grand Marais have launch ramps for motorboats. Backcountry permits are required for 

overnight sea kayakers and boaters. Boat 

motors are limited to a maximum of 10 hp on 

the Beaver Lakes and 50 hp on Grand Sable 

Lake. 

Hiking and Backpacking. With numerous 

trails in the national lakeshore, visitors can 

choose short or long, easy or vigorous trails 

that provide spectacular vistas of the lake, 

cliffs, dunes, and waterfalls. 

The North Country National Scenic Trail 

links outstanding scenic, natural, recreational, 

historic, and cultural areas in seven of the 

northern states. From the grandeur of the 

Adirondack Mountains in New York, it 

meanders westward through the hardwood 

forests of Pennsylvania, through the 

countryside of Ohio and southern Michigan, 

along the shores of the Great Lakes, and 

through the glacier-carved forests, lakes, and 

streams of northern Wisconsin and Minnesota. Its western terminus lies in the vast plains 

of North Dakota. In Pictured Rocks National 

Lakeshore, the 42.8-mile lakeshore trail along 

the rock bluffs and sandy shore of Lake 

Superior (between Munising and Grand 

Marais), which provides outstanding vistas as 

well as primitive camping and hiking 

experiences, is a component of the North 

Country National Scenic Trail 

Snowmobiling. Snowmobiles are restricted to 

roads that are open to vehicles in the summer. 

Snowmobilers often pass through the national 

lakeshore as part of a larger loop tour. 

Hunting. Hunting is a time-honored tradition 

in the national lakeshore. The habitat 

supports many harvestable species, such as 

bear, whitetail deer, snowshoe hare, grouse, 

ducks, and geese. Hunting closure areas have 

been designated for public safety reasons. 

Fishing. Favorite catches include smallmouth 

bass, northern pike, walleye, brook and lake 

trout, whitefish, steelhead, and coho salmon. 

Ice fishing is popular on Munising Bay and 

most inland lakes. 

NOISE 

The primary sources of noise include snowmobiles, chainsaws, air tours, motorboats, and 

the public address system on tour boats. 

Vehicles on national lakeshore roads generate 

some noise but do not present a major source 

of disturbance to visitors. 

SCENIC CHARACTER OF 

COUNTY ROAD H-58 

County Road H-58, which is owned and 

maintained entirely by Alger County, is the 

primary artery for year-round access to the 

national lakeshore. The character of the road 

varies by location due to the nature of the 

roadbed, construction, and maintenance of 

the road. It was constructed primarily as a 

logging road, but use by national lakeshore 

visitors has grown since the establishment of 

the national lakeshore in the mid-1960s. 

Paved roads emanating from H-58 include 

Sand Point, Carmody (except the east-west 

portion), Miners Castle, and Monette roads; 

the Little Beaver Lake campground and Log 

Slide roads are improved gravel, and the 

Chapel and Beaver Basin overlook roads are 

unimproved gravel. 

From Munising east to the Little Beaver 

campground road, H-58 is good quality 

asphalt pavement posted for travel at 55 mph. 

Straight sections interspersed with winding 
Visitor Use and Experience 

145 

curves characterize the drive on this portion. 

From Munising to H-15 numerous residences 

are seen, but they are interspersed with 

forested tracts. There is little residential 

development along much of this section of the 

road beyond the junction with H-15. 

From Little Beaver campground road east to 

the Kingston Corner then north to the edge of 

the Kingston Plains, the road is a wide, 

improved gravel surface. Except for the open 

section through the Kingston Plains, this 

section is through a mature hardwood forest 

with a closed canopy. Fugitive dust is sometimes a problem for visitors during dry 

conditions. Appropriate speeds for vehicles 

traveling this section are 30-35 mph. 

From the northern edge of the Kingston 

Plains to Log Slide, the road is a narrow, 

winding, primitive, sand and gravel road. The 

surface requires frequent grading to maintain 

a suitable driving surface. Depending on the 

maintenance schedule performed by the Alger 

County Road Commission crews, this section 

of the road can become like a washboard, with 

large potholes in the sand. Gravel fill has been 

added to many of these potholes during the 

past few years. Appropriate speeds for 

vehicles traveling this section are 25-30 mph. 

Most of the road is under a canopy of 

northern hardwoods, except for a clear-cut 

portion of Lake Superior State Forest near the 

national lakeshore’s Twelvemile Beach campground. Residential development is limited to 

a few seasonal cabins in the section between 

Grand Sable Lake and Hurricane River. 

From Log Slide to Grand Marais H-58 is 

asphalt similar in design standards to H-58 in 

the western portion of the national lakeshore. 

Within the H-58 corridor, adverse impacts on 

visual quality are relatively few. Logging is a 

relatively minor problem, because visitors 

generally do not drive through logged areas. 

Housing is primarily limited to the section of 

H-58 between Grand Sable Lake and Hurricane River and west of Kingston Corner. 

From visitor surveys, it is clear that most 

visitors see this road as a beneficial attribute to 

visual quality and to the visitor experience. 

County Road H-58 sets the stage for both 

Twelvemile Beach and Hurricane River 

campgrounds, which are small, quiet, 

informal, and intimate. 

In general, visitors have expressed a preference for maintaining this road's relatively 

narrow, curvy character that compels 

passengers to drive slowly and experience 

their surroundings in an intimate, detailed 

way. Visitors especially value the way the 

road's narrow width allows the forest to close 

over the top in places, creating a canopy 

effect. Some people do not care about the 

road's scenery and would prefer a wider, 

faster route between Munising and Grand 

Marais. In the no-action alternative H-58 

would probably be maintained as is, so scenic 

qualities that are valued by many visitors 

would be preserved. 

OPPORTUNTIES FOR 

PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES 

In general, roads and developments at the 

eastern and western ends of the national 

lakeshore are fairly modern. These new 

facilities provide excellent access for the 

elderly and the people with disabilities. 

However, there has been concern that access 

to the more primitive center of the national 

lakeshore is denied to these visitors. Almost 

13% of nonhikers who did not visit the 

Twelvemile Beach area said they were 

prevented by a lack of physical ability. 

However, this perceived barrier is not related 

to the lack of modern development or access 

for visitors with disabilities. No spot in the 

national lakeshore is more modern or accessible than Munising Falls, yet 10% of the nonhikers say they did not have the physical abilities to visit this end of the national lakeshore. 

The Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore/ 

Hiawatha Forest Service Visitor Information 
CHAPTER 3: THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

146 

Center in Munising, the Munising Falls 

interpretive center, and the Grand Sable 

visitor center are all wheelchair accessible. 

Miners Castle overlook, Miners Beach and 

each of the drive-in campgrounds are also 

wheelchair accessible. 

Outdoor lakeshore attractions that are 

accessible to visitors with disabilities include 

Munising Falls, the Sand Point marsh walk 

and beach, Miners Castle overlook, Miners 

Beach, Little Beaver Lake campground, and 

Twelvemile Beach and Hurricane River 

campgrounds. 

National lakeshore headquarters at Sand 

Point is not accessible to people in 

wheelchairs. The Sand Point Marsh Trail, a 

0.5-mile interpretive trail, features a large 

print brochure for visually impaired visitors. 
147 

NATIONAL LAKESHORE OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES 

OPERATIONS 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore is 

administered by a superintendent with the 

assistance of five division chiefs. Because of 

the size of the national lakeshore, the 

operations are split between two districts −

the east (Grand Marais) and west (Munising) 

districts. Most of the staff (27 full-timeequivalent positions) is stationed at national 

lakeshore headquarters in the former Sand 

Point Coast Guard Station in Munising. The 

Munising Range Light Station is being used 

for NPS administrative purposes. A small 

number of maintenance, visitor services, and 

law enforcement personnel are stationed at 

the east end of the national lakeshore at 

Grand Marais. Several seasonal employees 

and volunteers augment the permanent 

national lakeshore staff each summer. These 

seasonal positions include, for example, 

maintenance workers who paint historic 

buildings, park rangers who guide lighthouse 

tours, visitor use assistants in visitor centers, 

and aquatic and mammal researchers. 

The management of the national lakeshore is 

organized into the following divisions: 

Administration. This division provides 

coordination, guidance, and is responsible for 

the national lakeshore’s budget, fiscal, and 

real property management activities. All 

contracting and purchasing for the national 

lakeshore is conducted through this division. 

They also have responsibility for housing 

management and overseeing fee collection 

operations in the national lakeshore. 

Interpretation and Cultural Resources. This 

division is responsible for interpretive programming, education outreach, visitor center 

and cooperating association bookstores, and 

personal and nonpersonal services such as the 

park web site, publications, exhibits, and the 

volunteer in parks program management. The 

Grand Sable Visitor Center, the Grand Marais 

Maritime Museum, and the Pictured 

Rocks/Hiawatha National Forest visitor 

information center in Munising and the 

Miners Castle information center northeast of 

Munising are maintained by this division. The 

division also maintains the museum 

collection, which includes several thousand 

artifacts. Artifacts in the collection include 

items that are related to the maritime use of 

the area, archeological sites, vegetation/ 

natural resources, logging, and fishing. 

Visitor Services and Land Management. 

This division is responsible for monitoring 

and documenting development on lands 

within the inland buffer zone and administering commercial licenses and special use 

permits. The division is also responsible for 

public and employee safety, law enforcement 

and criminal investigation, wildland fire 

preparedness, front- and backcountry management and patrol, and search and rescue. 

Maintenance. This division is responsible for 

the operation and maintenance of all national 

lakeshore facilities and equipment including 

utilities (water, wastewater, power, and solid 

waste), administrative and historic structures 

and grounds, front- and backcountry visitor 

use areas, trail systems, campgrounds, picnic 

areas, roads, and national lakeshore signs and 

vehicles. The division is also engaged in an 

active sustainable environmental practices 

program. 

Science and Resource Management. This 

division is responsible for the direction and 

coordination of social and natural science 

research, day-to-day resource management 

projects, NEPA compliance issues, and 

national lakeshore GIS data. 
CHAPTER 3: THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

148 

FACILITIES 

NPS-owned facilities serving visitors and 

supporting management operations are 

centered in the Munising area in the west 

district and in the Grand Marais area in the 

east district of the national lakeshore. Visitor 

service facilities include four information 

centers, an interpretive center, a museum, and 

wayside exhibits; the national lakeshore also 

shares a visitor information center with the 

Forest Service in Munising. The National Park 

Service manages roads to and trails at 

principal attractions at Munising Falls, Miners 

Castle and beach, and Sable Falls. Three drivein campgrounds (67 sites) are in the central 

core of the national lakeshore, and a system of 

backcountry campgrounds (13) is in place 

throughout the national lakeshore. These 

campgrounds are connected by a system of 

trails (84 miles) including a segment of the 

North Country National Scenic Trail. 

Principal vehicular access to and through the 

park to its facilities and attractions is provided 

by Alger H-58 (county owned) and spur roads 

owned by Alger County and the National Park 

Service (total of 38 miles of road, 8 miles 

paved). Former U.S. Coast Guard stations 

serve as the administrative headquarters for 

the national lakeshore — at Sand Point in the 

west district and at Grand Marais in the east 

district (including offices, a ranger station, 

seasonal dormitory, and a maritime museum). 

There are maintenance facilities in both 

districts, with a recently (1995) constructed 

facility in Munising. 

The condition of the National Park Service 

facilities is generally good, although some 

have begun to deteriorate in the absence of 

adequate funds to provide routine 

maintenance and needed repairs. 

OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY AND 

EMERGENCY RESPONSE TIME 

The operational efficiency of the national 

lakeshore is not optimal. Except for the 

recently completed Munising maintenance 

facility, operations functions are housed in 

historic structures that are being adaptively 

used. The headquarters function is in the 

historic (former) Sand Point Coast Guard 

Station. Office and storage space is limited, 

utilities are substandard, and the building is 

not accessible to visitors with disabilities. The 

staff has increased and can no longer be 

accommodated at the Sand Point headquarters. A portion of the headquarters staff is 

being relocated from the Sand Point Coast 

Guard Station to the Munising Range Light 

Station in Munising until the new national 

lakeshore administration building is 

completed on County Road H-58. The 

separation of staff on the west end in three 

different locations (Sand Point, Munising, and 

the maintenance facility) is highly inefficient. 

The east-end maintenance facilities are in a 

converted garage and construction trailer. The 

space is inadequate, it is not accessible to 

people with disabilities, and the utilities and 

conditions are substandard. 

Emergency response time is good throughout 

the national lakeshore in areas served by 

paved portions of H-58. Because sand and 

gravel roads dictate slower speeds for safety 

reasons, the remainder of the national 

lakeshore has a somewhat slower emergency 

response time. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ACCESS TO 

MUSEUM COLLECTION 

Standards for collection, preservation, 

management, and long-term care of national 

lakeshore museum collections are found in 

NPS-28 and the automated checklist program 

(ACP) within the automated national catalog 

system (ANCS). In fiscal year 97 (the national 
National Lakeshore Operations and Facilities 

149 

lakeshore’s baseline), there were 449 

deficiencies, which were noted in the 1994 

ACP. National lakeshore staff have been able 

to eliminate 43 deficiencies in fiscal years 1999 

and 2000, however, limited display and 

substandard storage areas for the national 

lakeshore’s collections continue to limit 

convenient staff and researchers’ access to the 

collection. 
150 

152 
153 

INTRODUCTION 

The National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) requires that environmental 

documents discuss the environmental impacts 

of a proposed federal action, feasible 

alternatives to that action, and any adverse 

environmental effects that cannot be avoided 

if a proposed action is implemented. In 

addition, the effects on historic properties are 

considered in accordance with the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The 

following portion of this document analyzes 

the environmental impacts of the five 

alternatives on cultural resources, natural 

resources, the socioeconomic environment, 

the visitor experience, and national lakeshore 

operations. The analysis is the basis for 

comparing the beneficial and adverse effects 

of implementing the alternatives. 

During the development of the alternatives, 

the planning team tracked the placement of 

each of the management prescriptions within 

the national lakeshore and documented the 

reason for selecting the particular 

management prescription. The desired visitor 

experience and resource condition from the 

management prescription was then compared 

to the existing condition. The changes needed 

to move from existing conditions toward 

desired conditions were then identified. These 

changes helped the planning team identify the 

impacts to be evaluated for each of the 

alternatives and helped evaluate the impacts 

of applying the management prescriptions. 

Because of the general, conceptual nature of 

the actions described in the alternatives, the 

impacts of these actions can only be analyzed 

in general terms. Thus, this environmental 

impact statement should be considered a 

programmatic analysis. If and when specific 

developments or other actions are proposed 

subsequent to this General Management Plan, 

NPS staff will determine whether more 

detailed environmental and cultural 

documentation is needed in accord with 

NEPA and NHPA requirements. 

This chapter begins with a description of the 

methods and assumptions for each topic. 

Impact analysis discussions are organized by 

alternative and then by impact topic under 

each alternative. Each alternative discussion 

also details cumulative impacts and presents a 

conclusion. 

The NPS National Environmental Policy Act 

guideline (Director’s Order 12) presents an 

approach to identifying the duration (short or 

long term), type (adverse or beneficial) and 

intensity or magnitude (negligible, minor, 

moderate, or major) of the impact(s). That 

approach has been used in this document. 

Where duration is not noted in the impact 

analysis, it considered long term. Direct and 

indirect effects caused by an action were 

considered in the analysis. Direct effects are 

caused by an action and occur at the same 

time and place as the action. Indirect effects 

are caused by the action and occur later in 

time or farther removed from the place, but 

are still reasonably foreseeable. 

Mitigating actions would be taken during 

implementation of the alternatives. All 

impacts have been assessed assuming that 

mitigating measures have already been 

implemented. 

There are plans by other organizations and 

agencies (see Appendix E: “Relationship to 

Other Planning Efforts”) that could also affect 

the national lakeshore’s natural and cultural 

resources as well as the socioeconomic 

conditions. The National Park Service is 

aware of these plans, and is working in 

coordination with these other efforts. If they 

exist, the cumulative impacts of NPS actions 

as well as actions by others are included in the 

impact analysis for each alternative. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

154 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

A cumulative impact is described in the 

Council on Environmental Quality’s 

regulation 1508.7 as follows: 

Cumulative impacts are incremental 

impacts 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 action. 

Cumulative impacts can result from 

individually minor, but collectively 

significant, actions taking place over a 

period of time. 

To determine potential cumulative impacts, 

projects within the area surrounding Pictured 

Rocks National Lakeshore were identified. 

The area included Alger County, the northern 

portion of Schoolcraft County north of M-28, 

and nearby lands administered by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, 

and the state. Information about projects was 

obtained by phone calls with county and town 

governments and federal land managers. 

Potential projects identified as cumulative 

actions included any planning or development 

activity that had been completed in the past, 

was currently being implemented, or would be 

implemented in the reasonably foreseeable 

future. Representatives of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, and the 

state did not believe their activities would 

contribute to the cumulative impact scenario. 

These actions are evaluated in conjunction 

with the impacts of each alternative to determine if they have any cumulative effects on a 

particular natural, cultural, visitor use, or 

social resource. Because most of these cumulative actions are in the early planning stages, 

the evaluation of cumulative impacts was 

based on a general description of the project. 

Past Actions 

Residential Development. The construction 

of minimum and medium security prisons 

near Munising created 300 new jobs. This 

raised the demand somewhat for new home 

construction in an area that had previously 

been static or declining in population. 

Munising Marina. The marina extended the 

L-dock 300 feet and added 112 slips to 

support local and transient boater needs. The 

only other marinas to support boater needs in 

this area are in Grand Marais and Marquette. 

The L-dock was repaired, and 85,000 cubic 

yards of material was dredged inside the Ldock. This project was completed in summer 

2001. 

Present Actions 

Residential Development. Most of the 

current development is for seasonal dwellings. 

These are used as hunting base camps, and 

some are even winterized and used for rentals 

to snowmobilers. It is anticipated that even at 

the current rate of development, because of 

county and township zoning regulations, the 

rural character of the area will continue. 

Alger County Roads. Alger County will pave 

H-58 from Log Slide east to Grand Sable Lake 

with funds available from the TEA-21 

legislation (Transportation Equity Act for the 

21st Century). All other roads in the county 

will remain at the existing level of service. 

Winter Use. The tourist season used to be 

from June through September. Because of the 

large amount of snow from the lake effect (305 

inches in the winter of 2000-2001) 

snowmobiling, and to a lesser extent dog sled 

racing, now draws tourists to the area in large 

numbers in December through March. 
Introduction 

155 

Future Actions 

Munising Tourist Park. Plans for the park 

include extending water lines to support the 

construction of a pavilion and additional 

campsites. 

Munising Infrastructure. The city government is working to develop a comprehensive 

water and sewer system to support future city 

growth. A five-year plan has been prepared to 

direct the street and sidewalk program. 

Alger County Roads. Long-range plans are to 

pave H-58 from Little Beaver Lake campground road east to the Log Slide road the 

entire length of the national lakeshore. The 

implementation of these plans is dependent 

upon funding. All other roads in the county 

will remain at the existing level of service. 

IMPAIRMENT OF NATIONAL 

LAKESHORE RESOURCES 

In addition to determining the environmental 

consequences of implementing the preferred 

and other alternatives, NPS policy (Interpreting the National Park Service Organic Act, 

National Park Service Management Policies) 

requires analysis of potential effects to determine whether or not actions would impair site 

resources and values. An evaluation of 

impairment is not required for topics related 

to visitor use and experience, NPS operations, 

or the socioeconomic environment. 

The fundamental purpose of the national park 

system, established by the Organic Act and 

reaffirmed by the General Authorities Act, as 

amended, begins with a mandate to conserve 

park/national lakeshore resources and values. 

NPS managers must always seek ways to 

avoid, or to minimize to the greatest degree 

practicable, adverse impacts on park/national 

lakeshore resources and values. However, the 

laws do give the National Park Service the 

management discretion to allow impacts on 

park/national lakeshore resources and values 

when necessary and appropriate to fulfill the 

purposes of a the park/national lakeshore, as 

long as the impact does not constitute impairment of the affected resources and values. 

Although Congress has given the National 

Park Service the management discretion to 

allow certain impacts within a park/national 

lakeshore, that discretion is limited by the 

statutory requirement that the National Park 

Service must leave resources and values 

unimpaired, unless a particular law directly 

and specifically provides otherwise. The 

prohibited impairment is an impact that, in the 

professional judgment of the responsible NPS 

manager, would harm the integrity of national 

lakeshore resources and values, including the 

opportunities that otherwise would be present 

for the enjoyment of those resources or 

values. An impact to any national lakeshore 

resource or value may constitute an 

impairment. An impact would be more likely 

to constitute an impairment to the extent it 

affects a resource or value whose conservation 

is: 

• necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the establishing legislation or 

proclamation of the park; 

• key to the natural or cultural integrity of 

the park or to opportunities for enjoyment 

of the park; or 

• identified as a goal in the park’s general 

management plan or other relevant NPS 

planning documents. 

Impairment may result from NPS activities in 

managing the national lakeshore, visitor 

activities, or activities undertaken by concessioners, contractors, and others operating 

in the national lakeshore. A determination on 

impairment is made in the “Environmental 

Consequences” section in the conclusion 

section for each required impact topic related 

to the park’s resources and values. When it is 

determined that an action(s) would have a 

moderate to major adverse effect, a justification for nonimpairment is made. Impacts of 

only negligible or minor intensity would by 

definition not result in impairment.
156 

METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR ANALYZING IMPACTS 

This section presents the methods used to 

conduct the environmental impact analyses. 

Each resource topic area includes a discussion 

of the impact assessment and the intensity, 

duration, and type of impact. The intensity of 

the impact considers whether the impact 

would be negligible, minor, moderate, or 

major. The duration of the impact considers 

whether the impact would occur in the short 

term (temporary) or the long term 

(permanent). The type of impact considers 

whether the impact on the environment 

would be beneficial or adverse. 

Pursuant to National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) requirements, the impact analyses 

for the no-action alternative compare 

resource conditions in the year 2018 to 

existing conditions in 2003. The impact 

analysis for the action alternatives (the 

preferred alternative and alternatives A, C, 

and E) compare the action alternative in the 

year 2018 to the no-action alternative in the 

year 2018. Said differently, the impacts of the 

action alternatives describe the difference

between implementing the no-action alternative and implementing the action alternative. 

To understand a complete “picture” of the 

impacts of implementing any of the action 

alternatives, the reader must also take into 

consideration the impacts that would occur 

under the no-action alternative. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Regulations and Policies 

This impact analysis applies to five basic types 

of cultural resources: archeological sites, historic structures, cultural landscapes, ethnographic resources, and museum collections. 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires a federal agency to take into 

account the effects of its undertakings on 

properties included on, or determined eligible 

for inclusion on, the National Register of 

Historic Places and to provide the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation reasonable 

opportunity to comment. This also applies to 

properties not formally eligible but that are 

considered to meet eligibility criteria. All NPS 

planning and undertakings affecting historic 

properties are subject to the provisions of the 

1995 programmatic agreement developed 

among the National Park Service, the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 

and the National Conference of State Historic 

Preservation Officers. Applicable legislation 

and regulations and specific management 

procedures regarding cultural resources are 

detailed in the National Park Service’s 

Cultural Resource Management Guideline, 

Director’s Order No. 28, Release No. 5, 1998. 

The methods for assessing impacts on historic 

resources is based on the regulations of the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36 

CFR 800) implementing Section 106. These 

methods include: (1) identifying areas that 

could be impacted; (2) comparing that location with that of resources listed, eligible, or 

potentially eligible for listing on the National 

Register; (3) identifying the extent and type of 

effects; (4) assessing those effects according to 

procedures established in the Advisory 

Council’s regulations; and (5) considering 

ways to avoid, reduce, or mitigate adverse 

effects as described in the “Mitigation” 

section in chapter 2. 

Cultural resource impacts in this document 

are described in terms that are consistent with 

the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), and in compliance with 

the requirements of both the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 

Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. 
Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 

157 

Terms for Assessing the Impacts 

Duration of Impact. Impacts on historic 

properties (cultural resources) could be of 

short-term (one year or less), or long-term 

(more than one year). One year was selected 

for short term since renovations to historic 

structures usually take one year or less to 

complete. Anything beyond one year is 

considered long-term. 

Type of Impact. The analysis section 

provides a detailed analysis of the type of 

impacts that would or could result from 

implementing the actions proposed in each 

alternative. The conclusion section summarizes the key points or results of the analysis. 

When analyzed under the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Park 

Service’s NEPA guideline (DO-12), an impact 

on historic properties (cultural resources) is 

either adverse or beneficial. This effect can be 

partially or completely mitigated, and the 

reduction in intensity from applying mitigation efforts is an estimate of the effectiveness 

of mitigation. The cultural resources portion 

of the environmental consequences section 

for each alternative includes an analysis and 

conclusion that uses NEPA terminology. 

Additionally, under the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106), an impact on 

historic properties is either adverse or not 

adverse. Adverse effects under Section 106 

may also be partially or completely mitigated; 

however, unlike NEPA analysis, the effect 

cannot be reduced and remains an adverse 

effect. To comply with this difference in 

terminology for Section 106, an additional 

“Section 106 Summary” discussion has been 

added for each subheading under the impacts 

on cultural resources for each alternative. The 

required determination of effect for the 

undertaking (implementation of the 

alternative) is included in the “Section 106 

Summary” sections for each alternative. 

Effects under both the National 

Environmental Policy Act and the National 

Historic Preservation Act are considered 

adverse when they diminish the significant 

characteristics of a historic property. 

Intensity of Impact. The intensity of an 

impact on a cultural resource can be defined 

as negligible, minor, moderate, or major. 

Negligible impacts would be barely perceptible changes in significant characteristics of a 

historic property. Minor impacts would be 

perceptible, noticeable, and localized and 

confined to a single element or significant 

characteristic of a historic property (such as a 

single archeological site containing low data 

potential within a larger archeological district 

or a single contributing element of a larger 

historic district). Moderate impacts would be 

perceptible, noticeable and would affect 

several elements or significant characteristics 

of a historic property. Major impacts would 

result in substantial and highly noticeable 

changes in significant characteristics of a 

historic property. 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Regulations and Policies 

The National Park Service is committed to 

minimizing wetland loss. The wetland 

protection mechanisms used by the National 

Park Service include Executive Order 11990,

“Protection of Wetlands”; Director’s Order 

77-1, “Wetland Protection,” and its 

accompanying Procedural Manual 77-1; Clean 

Water Act Section 404; and the “no net loss” 

goal outlined by the White House Office on 

Environmental Policy in 1993. Executive 

Order 11990 requires that leadership be 

provided by involved agencies to minimize the 

destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands. 

NPS Director’s Order 77-1 and Procedural 

Manual 77-1 provide specific procedure for 

carrying out the executive order. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

158 

Species of Concern 

The National Park Service consulted with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1999) and 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources 

to obtain the most recent list of species of 

concern, including threatened or endangered 

species at the federal and state levels. The 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources 

(1999) provided a list of occurrences for both 

federal and state species of concern. Recorded 

locations for identified species were 

compared with management or activities 

identified in each alternative to determine the 

likelihood of impact. As specific plans are 

developed, surveys may be required, and 

consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, or Michigan Department of Natural 

Resources, as appropriate, will be initiated. 

The impact evaluation for wildlife species of 

concern for each alternative is based on the 

following: (1) the possibility of a species or its 

preferred habitat types occurring in areas 

expected to be affected; (2) the direct loss of 

habitat; (3) the partial loss of habitat from 

modification; and (4) the species’ sensitivity to 

disturbance from human activities that may 

cause it to abandon currently occupied habitat 

or deter it from occupying suitable habitat. 

Habitat fragmentation is also a critical factor 

for special-status species. Restored blocks of 

habitat should be large enough to support 

viable populations, and intact habitat should 

not be reduced or affected to the point that it 

would no longer support viable populations. 

The assessment of potential impacts on 

species of concern is based on comparisons 

between the alternatives to the no-action 

alternative. Impacts have been evaluated 

considering species’ sensitivity to impacts 

(based on rarity, resilience, size of population, 

and extent of species throughout the national 

lakeshore); location of species in proximity to 

disturbance; and mitigation applied as 

appropriate for the species and the site. 

Duration of Impact. The expected duration 

of impacts is described as long term or short 

term. The duration of the impacts would 

depend to some degree on how easily impacts 

could be mitigated. Loss of a population of 

plants that could not be easily mitigated by 

reintroduction would be long term, while 

impacts that could be mitigated easily would 

be short term. Short term impacts would 

generally lead to recovery in three years or 

less; long-term impacts would take more than 

three years to attain recovery, if at all. 

Intensity of Impact. The intensity and 

magnitude of impacts on species of concern 

have been described as negligible, minor, 

moderate, or major. Negligible impacts would 

be barely perceptible or detectable regardless 

of the size of the area affected. Minor impacts 

would affect a few individuals or have very 

local impacts on habitat and would not affect 

the viability of species. Moderate impacts 

would cause measurable effects on: a moderate number of individuals within a population, 

the dynamics among a number of species in a 

system, or a large area of habitat or important 

habitat attributes. Major impacts would lead 

to extirpating a local population or jeopardize 

the continued existence of a species. 

Type of Impact. The type of impact refers to 

whether an impact is adverse or beneficial. 

Impacts were classified as adverse if they 

reduce the species’ population or habitat size, 

continuity, or integrity. Conversely, impacts 

were classified as beneficial if they increase 

population or the size, continuity, or integrity 

of habitat. 

WILDERNESS RESOURCES 

AND VALUES 

The National Park Service compared the 

management prescriptions for each alternative 

with the wilderness criteria identified in the 

Wilderness Act to determine how those values 

might be affected. 
Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 

159 

Duration of Impact. A short-term impact 

would last less than five years following the 

implementation of an alternative. A long-term 

impact would last longer than five years after 

implementing the alternative. 

Intensity of Impact. The intensity and magnitude of impacts on wilderness values have 

been described as negligible, minor, moderate, 

or major. Negligible impacts would have no 

discernable effect on wilderness values. Minor 

impacts would be detectable and affect a limited area that meets wilderness criteria. Moderate impacts would be sufficient to cause a 

change in the wilderness resource values and 

they would be readily apparent. Major impacts would substantially alter the wilderness 

values, eliminating the characteristics that 

meet the criteria for consideration as 

wilderness. 

Type of Impact. Impacts were classified as 

adverse if they would adversely affect 

wilderness values or integrity. Conversely, 

impacts were classified as beneficial if they 

would enhance wilderness values or integrity. 

SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES 

The National Park Service applied logic, 

experience, professional expertise, and 

professional judgment to analyze the impacts 

on the social and economic situation resulting 

from each alternative. Economic data, historic 

visitor use data, expected future visitor use, 

and future developments of the national 

lakeshore were all considered in identifying, 

discussing, and evaluating expected impacts. 

Assessments of potential socioeconomic 

impacts were based on comparisons between 

the no-action alternative and the four action 

alternatives. 

Duration of Impact. The evaluation of 

impacts also included an assessment of duration. Distinguishing between short-term and 

long-term duration was necessary to understand the extent of the identified effects. In 

general, short-term impacts are temporary 

and typically are transitional effects associated 

with implementation of an action (e.g., related 

to construction activities) and are less than 

one year. In contrast, long-term impacts have 

a permanent effect on the socioeconomic 

environments and their effect extends beyond 

one year (e.g., operational activities). 

Intensity of Impact. The intensity of each 

impact was rated in terms of increasing severity, as negligible, minor, moderate, or major. 

Negligible impacts are effects considered 

barely detectable and are expected to have a 

barely discernible effect on the socioeconomic 

environment. Minor impacts are slightly 

detectable and are not expected to have an 

overall effect on the character of the socioeconomic environment. Moderate impacts are 

detectable, without question, and could have 

an appreciable effect on the social and 

economic environment. Major impacts are 

considered to have a substantial, highly 

noticeable influence on the socioeconomic 

environment and could be expected to alter 

that environment permanently. In addition, 

impacts are recognized as indeterminate if the 

intensity of their effects on the socioeconomic 

environment could not be readily identified. 

Type of Impact. Impacts were recognized as 

beneficial if they would improve on characteristics of the socioeconomic environment as it 

relates to local communities, regional economies, and visitors. Conversely, impacts were 

considered adverse if they would degrade or 

otherwise adversely alter the characteristics of 

the environment in these areas. 

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 

This impact analysis considers various aspects 

of visitor use and experience at Pictured 

Rocks, including opportunities for recreational activities, access to significant national 

lakeshore features, noise, the scenic character 

of County Road H-58, and opportunities for 

people with disabilities. The analysis is based 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

160 

on how visitor use and experiences would 

change with the way management prescriptions were applied in the alternatives. The 

analysis is primarily qualitative rather than 

quantitative due to the conceptual nature of 

the alternatives. 

Impacts on visitor use and experience were 

determined considering the best available 

information regarding visitor use and experience. Information on visitor use and visitor 

opinions was taken primarily from a survey of 

863 visitors conducted in the summer of 1990 

(Pitt, Lime, and Vlaming 1991). This 

information was supplemented by data 

gathered during this planning process, 

including opinions from Pictured Rocks 

visitors and neighbors and information 

provided by national lakeshore staff. 

Duration of Impact. A short-term impact 

would last less than one year and would affect 

only one season’s use by visitors. A long-term 

impact would last more than one year and 

would be more permanent in nature. 

Intensity of Impact. Impacts were evaluated 

comparatively between alternatives, using the 

no-action alternative as a baseline: 

Negligible: the impact is at the lower levels 

of detection. 

Minor: the impact is slight, but detectable. 

Moderate: the impact is readily apparent. 

Major: the impact is severely adverse or 

exceptionally beneficial. 

Type of Impact. Adverse impacts are those 

that most visitors would perceive as 

undesirable. Beneficial impacts are those that 

most visitors would perceive as desirable. 

NATIONAL LAKESHORE 

OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES 

Impacts for each action alternative were 

evaluated by assessing changes to operations 

that would be required to meet various operational requirements outlined in each of the 

action alternatives. These effects were 

compared to existing operations that are 

described in the no-action alternative. 

The discussions of impacts are for those 

operations that would be new, undergo major 

operational change, or show susceptibility to 

increases or decreases in operational activity. 

For most daily and programmatic activities, 

the action alternatives would have negligible 

effects, i.e., there would not be a measurable 

change or difference in operations. These 

activities were generally not included in the 

analysis. For example, keeping a picnic area at 

the same size, serving the same types of user 

groups, and with the same types of facilities 

would have negligible effects on campground 

maintenance operations, and thus was not 

included in the analysis. 

Duration of Impact. Short-term impacts 

would be less than one year since most 

construction is generally completed within a 

year’s timeframe and would last only until all 

construction-related action items are 

completed. Long-term impacts would extend 

beyond one year and have a permanent effect 

on operations. 

Intensity of Impact. With negligible impacts, 

there would not be a measurable difference in 

costs from existing levels. With minor 

impacts, measurable additions or reductions 

in cost would be less than 15% of existing 

levels. With moderate impacts, additions or 

reductions in cost would be between 15% and 

30% of existing levels. With major impacts, 

additions or reductions in cost would exceed 

30% of existing levels. 

Type of Impact. Adverse impacts represent 

an increase in operating costs. Beneficial 

impacts represent a decrease in operating 

costs.
161 

IMPACTS OF THE NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Archeological Sites 

Under the no-action alternative, there would 

be no project or construction-related ground 

disturbance with the potential to impact 

known archeological resources. 

Cumulative Impacts. An archeological site 

could possibly be disturbed/exposed/ 

impacted by human activity (such as residential development, recreational activities, 

logging, or artifact hunting) or natural 

processes (such as erosion or vegetation loss). 

The possibility of ground disturbance and 

exposure would be most likely at readily 

accessible locations such as Miners Beach, 

Hurricane River, Grand Sable Lake, Little 

Beaver Lake, and several backcountry 

locations. The site would be protected to the 

extent possible, depending on staffing and 

funding levels. The loss would be mitigated by 

data recovery (salvage archeology), which 

would be done in consultation with the tribes 

and state historic preservation officer (see 

“Mitigation” section). The resulting impact on 

such sites would be anticipated to be adverse, 

long term, and minor (at a site with low data 

potential) to moderate (at a site with greater 

data potential). No past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions by the National 

Park Service under this alternative would be 

expected to combine with the impacts just 

described to result in cumulative impacts on 

archeological sites under the no-action 

alternative. 

Conclusion. Under the no-action alternative, 

there would be no project or constructionrelated ground disturbance with the potential 

to impact known archeological resources. 

There would be no impairment of 

archeological sites.

Section 106 Summary. Under regulations of 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(36 CFR 800.5 “Assessment of Adverse 

Impacts”) the National Park Service finds that 

the selection of this alternative would not 

result in adverse effects on archeological sites. 

Historic Structures 

Continuing, as funding and staffing permit, 

the 

protection of the Schoolcraft Furnace site 

and kilns (a national-register listed 

property), 

preservation treatment and extensive 

rehabilitation of main building exteriors, 

renovation of main building interiors, and 

adaptive use at the Au Sable Light Station 

(as funding and staffing permit) of the Au 

Sable Light Station (a national-register 

listed property), and 

preservation treatment of the four properties 

determined eligible for listing (Sand Point 

and Grand Marais Coast Guard Stations, 

Munising Range Light Station, and Grand 

Marais Harbor of Refuge quarters) 

would help protect their documented architectural values (in compliance with the 

Secretary’s Standards for Historic Structures). 

Preservation work could result in the loss of 

some historic fabric, a long-term minor 

adverse impact because the changes would be 

minimal. Overall, there would be a minor 

long-term beneficial impact on these historic 

structures because the preservation work 

(consistent with an ongoing historic preservation and maintenance program) and adaptive 

use would maintain the values that made these 

properties eligible for listing on the National 

Register of Historic Places and would ensure 

the maintenance and preservation of the 

buildings. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

162 

Continued seasonal guided tours at the Au 

Sable Light Station could result in some loss of 

historic fabric − a long-term negligible to 

minor adverse impact because the potential 

for damage is low. Continuing to lease the 

Grand Marais Harbor of Refuge keepers 

quarters to the Grand Marais Historical 

Society would result in continued 

preservation and maintenance of the building, 

a long-term, minor, beneficial impact. 

Cumulative Impacts. No past, present, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions by 

others under this alternative would be 

expected combine with the actions described 

above to result in cumulative impacts on 

archeological sites under the no-action 

alternative. 

Conclusion. Actions under this alternative 

would generally have a minor long-term 

beneficial impact on the Schoolcraft Furnace 

site, the Au Sable Light Station, the Sand Point 

and Grand Marais Coast Guard Stations, and 

the Grand Marais Harbor of Refuge quarters, 

the Munising Range Light Station (national 

register and national register-eligible 

properties) because the preservation work 

(consistent with an ongoing historic 

preservation and maintenance program) and 

adaptive use would maintain the values that 

made these properties eligible for listing on 

the National Register of Historic Places and 

would ensure the maintenance and 

preservation of the buildings. 

There would be no impairment of historic 

structures. 

Section 106 Summary. Under regulations of 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(36 CFR 800.5 “Assessment of Adverse 

Impacts”) the National Park Service finds that 

the selection of this alternative would not 

result in overall adverse effects on certain 

historic properties listed on or eligible for 

listing on the National Register of Historic 

Places. 

Cultural Landscapes 

Without documentation and active management of cultural landscapes that might be 

determined eligible for listing on the national 

register (including those associated with the 

Au Sable Light Station, the Abrahamson and 

Becker Farms, the Sand Point and Grand 

Marais Coast Guard Stations, Munising Range 

Light Station, and the Grand Marais Harbor 

of Refuge quarters), these landscapes would 

not reflect their periods of significance, a 

minor long-term adverse impact because 

visitors can still see the resources and get a feel 

for what it must have been like during those 

periods. 

Without active management, woody vegetation would encroach on abandoned agricultural operations, cabin clearings, and 

abandoned roads that are not part of other 

visitor service areas, resulting in a more 

closed-in appearance and eventual change to a 

more wooded scene. This would result in the 

loss of landscapes associated with and farming 

or other agricultural activities. The potential 

loss of some of these remaining landscapes in 

the national lakeshore would have a minor 

long-term adverse impact on these cultural 

landscapes and relatively few would be left. 

Cumulative Impacts. No past, present, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions by 

others under this alternative would be 

expected combine with the actions described 

above to result in cumulative impacts on 

cultural landscapes under the no-action 

alternative.

Conclusion. There would be long-term 

minor adverse impacts on cultural landscapes 

associated with the Au Sable Light Station, the 

Abrahamson and Becker Farms, Sand Point 

and Grand Marais Coast Guard Stations, 

Munising Range Light Station, and Grand 

Marais Harbor of Refuge quarters because 

preservation work and adaptive use would 

maintain the structures’ values and ensure the 
Impacts of the No-Action Alternative 

163 

maintenance and preservation of the 

buildings. 

Woody vegetation would encroach in areas of 

abandoned agricultural operations, cabin 

clearings, and abandoned roads that are not 

part of other visitor service areas, resulting in 

the eventual loss of landscapes associated with 

farming or other agricultural activities — a 

minor long-term adverse impact on these 

cultural landscapes, and relatively few would 

be left. 

There would be no impairment of cultural 

landscapes. 

Section 106 Summary. Under regulations of 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(36 CFR 800.5 “Assessment of Adverse 

Impacts”) the National Park Service finds that 

the selection of this alternative would result in 

adverse effects on cultural landscapes 

associated with the Au Sable Light Station, 

Sand Point and Grand Marais Coast Guard 

Stations, and the Grand Marais Harbor of 

Refuge quarters as well as abandoned 

agricultural operations, cabin clearings, and 

abandoned roads that are not part of other 

visitor service areas. 

Ethnographic Resources 

Under the no-action alternative, there would 

be no project or construction-related ground 

disturbance with the potential to impact 

known ethnographic resources. 

American Indians desiring privacy for 

religious activities would continue to be 

disrupted occasionally by such things as the 

presence of other visitors who are hiking or 

camping and noise from visitor-related 

activities such as motorboats and tour boats. 

These conflicts would constitute a minor, 

short-term, reoccurring, adverse impact; 

however, conflicts would only be occasional. 

(Areas where impacts could occur include 

high cliffs or promontories, river and creek 

mouths, inland lakes, Lake Superior, and the 

Grand Sable Dunes.) 

Cumulative Impacts. No past, present, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions by 

others under this alternative would be 

expected combine with the actions described 

above to result in cumulative impacts on 

ethnographic resources under the no-action 

alternative. 

Conclusion. Under the no-action alternative, 

there would be no project or constructionrelated ground disturbance with the potential 

to impact known ethnographic resources. 

However, American Indians would continue 

to be occasionally disrupted during religious 

activities, a minor, short-term, recurring 

adverse impact. 

There would be no impairment of ethnographic resources. 

Section 106 Summary. Under regulations of 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(36 CFR 800.5 “Assessment of Adverse 

Impacts”) the National Park Service finds that 

the selection of this alternative would result in 

the continuation of adverse effects on ethnographic resources because American Indians 

desiring privacy for religious activities would 

continue to be occasionally disrupted by 

visitor-related activities/noise. 

Museum Collection 

Under this alternative the museum collection 

would continue to be housed in substandard 

conditions at the Grand Marais Maritime 

Museum and Abrahamson barn. Thus, some 

items in the collection would continue to 

undergo slow deterioration, resulting in a 

long-term minor adverse impact on some 

objects. In addition to the substandard 

conditions, space to store and display the 

museum collection is inadequate and limits 

the staff’s and researchers’ abilities to protect, 

recover, exhibit, interpret, or study the 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

164 

information contained in the collection. This 

results in a long-term moderate adverse 

impact on the accessibility of the collection to 

staff and researchers. 

Cumulative Impacts. No past, present, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions by 

others would be expected to combine with 

these actions and result in a cumulative impact 

on the museum collection under the no-action 

alternative. 

Conclusion. The continuation of substandard 

storage and display conditions for the 

museum collection under this alternative 

would have a long-term minor adverse impact 

on some of the national lakeshore’s museum 

collection. Limited access to the collection 

and lack of sufficient space to curate the 

collection would result in long-term moderate 

adverse impacts on staff and researchers. 

There would be no impairment of the 

museum collection. 

Section 106 Summary. Under regulations of 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(36 CFR 800.5 “Assessment of Adverse 

Impacts”), the National Park Service finds that 

the selection of this alternative would result in 

adverse effects on some objects in the 

museum collection and on staff and 

researchers wanting access to the collection. 

IMPACTS ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

Species of Concern 

The continuation of current use patterns, 

including motorized boats on the Beaver and 

Grand Sable Lakes, would likely have no 

discernable adverse effect on nesting bald 

eagles in those areas. This determination is 

based on the following observations: that the 

nests were established while boating has been 

occurring; the use of the lakes during the 

critical period is low; and the boat use 

(fishing) occurs outside the tertiary buffer 

during critical periods (nesting, incubation, 

and brooding) (USFWS 1983). The nests are 

0.25 mile or more away from these lakes, 

which is an acceptable distance to minimize 

the effect of human activity during nesting and 

fledging activity. Hiking occurs on a trail near 

one of the nests, but use during the critical 

periods is low, and the trail is outside the 

secondary buffer identified by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS 1983). 

Pitcher’s thistle and other species of concern 

within the Grand Sable Dunes would continue 

to benefit from the area’s management as a 

research natural area. The lack of development would discourage visitor use and would 

continue to provide a high degree of protection. The populations are stable and expected 

to remain so for the long term. Visitor use is 

very low, and no increase in visitor activity in 

the dunes would be expected. The benefit for 

Pitcher’s thistle and other species of concern 

would be major and long term. Continued 

management of the Grand Sable Dunes as a 

research natural area would perpetuate the 

long-term major benefit for all species of 

concern within the area. 

Continued use of two tracks (old logging 

roads) in the Beaver Basin would have a negligible impact on species of concern in the short 

or long term because the tracks do not 

traverse habitats where species of concern are 

found. Use of areas where species of concern 

are found would continue to be very low. As a 

result, negligible impacts on species of 

concern in the Beaver Basin would be 

expected, either short or long term. 

Wolf use would follow current patterns, 

influenced by population size, climate, and 

food availability. Habitat conditions in the 

national lakeshore would be influenced by 

natural processes and cycles and would not be 

expected to change drastically over the longterm, providing a potential benefit for the gray 

wolf. Implementing the no-action alternative 

would have no known impact on the gray 

wolf. 
Impacts of the No-Action Alternative 

165 

Cumulative Impacts. Consultation with 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 

the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and ForestLand Group, 

Limited Liability Corporation indicate that all 

agencies and entities implement policies that 

offer consideration and protection to species 

of concern in accord with federal and state 

law regarding threatened, endangered, or 

other species of concern. Such policy provides 

a potentially major long-term benefit for 

species of concern in the inland buffer zone 

and Alger and Schoolcraft Counties (and the 

state). 

In Michigan, threatened and endangered 

species are protected on both public and 

private land. The Endangered Species 

Protection law states that an individual may 

not harm or take threatened and endangered 

species (Michigan Natural Resources and 

Environmental Protection Act 1994, part 365). 

It is the responsibility of the landowner to 

submit projects for review to determine if a 

threatened or endangered species is known to 

occur or has potential to occur within the 

project scope. Logging on state land is conducted under these guidelines. ForestLand 

Group, Limited Liability Corporation,

management practices address species of 

concern as identified by the Michigan 

Department of Natural Resources and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Such law 

provides a potentially major long-term benefit 

for species of concern in the inland buffer 

zone, and Alger and Schoolcraft Counties, 

(and the state). 

Also, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

the Michigan Department of Natural 

Resources conduct active management 

programs for the gray wolf in the Seney area, a 

major short- and long-term benefit for this 

species in the central Upper Peninsula. 

Although the policies and laws mentioned 

above do not guarantee protection, they do 

serve as a deterrent to harming endangered 

species. In combination with federal laws that 

protect endangered species, overall 

cumulative effect is that species of concern 

would continue to be protected in the national 

lakeshore, a major short- and long -term 

benefit. 

Conclusion. Continuing current management 

practices would perpetuate short- and longterm beneficial impacts for species of concern. 

Preserving Grand Sable Dunes as a research 

natural area would continue to provide a 

major long-term benefit for species of concern 

in that area by providing an environment with 

very limited use or disturbance. There would 

be no discernable adverse impacts on the bald 

eagle, pitcher’s thistle, the gray wolf, or other 

species of concern expected if the no-action 

alternative was implemented. Species occurring north of the inland buffer zone elsewhere 

in the lakeshore would continue to benefit 

from federal (NPS) protection. Species on 

state lands are afforded protection through 

review and management. Species on corporate 

and privately owned land are subject to state 

law and require review by the Michigan 

Department of Natural Resources to ensure 

protection. Although these laws and policies 

do not guarantee protection, they are an 

added incentive for protecting these species. 

There would be no impairment of species of 

concern. 

Wilderness Resources and Values 

Although there is no designated wilderness, 

wilderness values in Beaver and Chapel Basins 

would be preserved by continuing current 

management policy as set forth in the national 

lakeshore’s “Backcountry Management Plan.” 

Overall, continued management as backcountry would have a moderate beneficial 

effect on wilderness resources and values. The 

opportunity for solitude has been adversely 

affected to a moderate degree for the short 

term but recurring basis by noise from boats 

and logging. The effect of noise from the tour 

boat public address system is mitigable. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

166 

Cumulative Impacts. The U.S. Forest Service 

manages two wilderness areas in Hiawatha 

National Forest − Big Island 6,008 acres and 

Rock River Canyon 5,285 acres (11,293 acres 

total). No other wilderness areas are proposed 

for the area. There are no state wilderness 

areas nearby. The cumulative effect is that 

wilderness values have been protected on 

some federal land managed by the U.S. Forest 

Service. If current management of the Chapel 

and Beaver Basins (around 19,000 acres) 

continues at the national lakeshore, in 

combination with the existing wilderness 

areas nearby, there would be an overall longterm major beneficial cumulative impact on 

wilderness resources and values because these 

resources and values would be preserved. 

However, if current management of the 

Chapel and Beaver Basins did not continue at 

the national lakeshore, in combination with 

the existing wilderness areas nearby, there 

would be an overall long-term major adverse 

cumulative impact on wilderness resources 

and values because the wilderness values and 

resources in the national lakeshore would be 

degraded or lost. 

Conclusions: Wilderness values would be 

maintained by managing the Beaver and 

Chapel Basins as primitive and natural. This is 

a moderate long-term benefit for wilderness 

values. Wilderness values could be adversely 

affected in the long term without the 

designation of wilderness — a moderate 

impact. The opportunity for solitude has been 

adversely affected to a moderate degree for 

the short term but recurring basis by noise 

from boats, the tour boat public address 

system, and logging. The effect of noise from 

tour boat public address system is mitigable. 

The total area of wilderness in the central 

Upper Peninsula would not increase. 

Although the opportunity for solitude would 

continue to be adversely affected to a 

moderate degree, these impacts (from tour 

boats and logging) would occur intermittently 

and for short periods of time. Noise from the 

tour boats is mitigable with a different sound 

system for the tour boats. There would be no 

major adverse impacts on resources or values 

whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill 

specific purposes identified in the national 

lakeshore’s establishing legislation, (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of the national lakeshore, 

or (3) identified as a goal in this general 

management plan or other relevant NPS 

planning documents. Consequently, there 

would be no impairment of wilderness 

resources or values. 

IMPACTS ON SOCIOECONOMIC 

RESOURCES (LOCAL ECONOMY AND 

COUNTY TAX BASE)

There would be no changes in management or 

operations of the national lakeshore, 

therefore, no new impacts would be expected, 

and current beneficial effects on the area 

economy would continue. The visitation to 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore has 

remained relatively constant over the past 

decade — in the low- to mid-400,000 range. 

The annual operating budget has grown 

modestly to generally keep up with inflation. 

There would be some benefits from 

expenditures of about $21 million in life-cycle 

costs (estimated for a 25-year period), which 

would benefit the overall Alger County 

economy. There would be some short-term 

moderate benefits for some individuals and 

businesses involved with daily/annual 

operations. This would continue to be a longterm minor to moderate beneficial impact on 

the overall economy of Alger County. 

There would be no major new construction 

projects or major improvements to facilities. 

The federal government would continue to 

pay PILT (Payment in lieu of taxes) payments 

to Alger County based upon a governmentwide formula and the number of acres that 

were withdrawn from county tax rolls as the 

result of past federal acquisition. 
Impacts of the No-Action Alternative 

167 

Cumulative Impacts. There would be no 

perceptible change in the current continuing 

conditions expected, and no known actions in 

the past or in the reasonably foreseeable 

future by the National Park Service or by 

others that would result in minor cumulative 

impacts on the Alger County local economy 

and county tax base/ socioeconomic 

resources. 

Conclusions. The long-term beneficial 

impacts of continuing existing management 

and operations would continue to be minor to 

moderate compared to the overall economy of 

Alger County. There would be some benefits 

from expenditures of about $21 million in lifecycle costs (estimated for a 25-year period), 

which would benefit the overall Alger County 

economy. There would be some short-term 

moderate benefits for some individuals and 

businesses involved with national lakeshore 

daily/annual operations. 

Alger County would continue to receive 

payment in lieu of taxes from the federal 

government for lands that have been 

previously acquired, a continuing long-term 

moderate beneficial impact. 

IMPACTS ON VISITOR 

USE AND EXPERIENCE 

Opportunities for Recreational Activities 

There would be no new impacts of continuing 

existing opportunities for popular recreational 

activities (e.g., hiking, drive-in and backcountry camping, boating, hunting, fishing, kayaking, motorboat tours, skiing, snowmobiling, 

and ice climbing). There would be no new 

impacts from continuing use of motorboats on 

the Beaver Lakes and Grand Sable Lake (with 

restricted motor size), continuing commercial 

air tours, and continuing to allow backcountry 

camping at designated campgrounds. 

The no-action alternative would maintain 

desirable opportunities for visitors to enjoy a 

more primitive, slower, unpaved driving 

experience, assuming that the Alger County 

keeps County Road H-58 as it is, and by 

letting some two-track roads (used mostly by 

hunters and local residents) remain open. 

Thus, maintaining the existing diversity of 

recreational driving experiences would be a 

continuing long-term minor beneficial impact 

on the recreational driving opportunities at 

the national lakeshore. However, this would 

be a long-term adverse minor impact on 

visitors who prefer to have the road paved 

because the rough road surface and dust 

common to unpaved roads would continue. 

Cumulative Impacts. There would be no 

perceptible change in the current continuing 

conditions expected, and no known actions in 

the past or in the reasonably foreseeable 

future by the National Park Service or by 

others that would result in cumulative impacts 

on providing opportunities for recreational 

activities. 

Conclusion. Maintaining the existing diversity of recreational driving experiences would 

have a long-term minor beneficial impact on 

the recreational driving opportunities at the 

national lakeshore for those who prefer a 

more primitive, slower, unpaved driving 

experience. However, for those who prefer a 

less primitive paved experience, actions under 

this alternative would be a long-term minor 

adverse impact. 

Access to Primary National 

Lakeshore Features 

Under the no-action alternative the current 

mix of access (some features easy to get to, 

some moderate, and some more challenging) 

would be maintained. Several primary 

national lakeshore features, including 

Munising Falls, Miners Castle Beach, Grand 

Sable Dunes, and Sable Falls, would continue 

to be easily accessible via paved road and a 

short walk. Access to Miners Beach and falls 

would be via short hikes from unpaved access 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

168 

roads. Mosquito Beach, Chapel Beach, 

Twelvemile Beach, and Au Sable Light Station 

would be reached by unpaved road and a hike 

of more than a mile (unless approached by 

boat from Lake Superior). 

In the no-action alternative, the continuation 

of motorized and nonmotorized boats 

approaching the cliffs and beaches on the 

Lake Superior shoreline would be a major 

long-term beneficial impact on people using 

the boats. The continuation of commercial 

motorboat tours (about 17.5 miles from 

Munising to Chapel Rock and back along the 

shoreline) would be a long-term moderate 

beneficial impact on visitors who want to see 

the Pictured Rocks from Lake Superior. The 

continuation of commercial kayak tours 

(typically about 3 miles from Miners Beach 

and back) would be a long-term beneficial 

minor impact for those visitors seeking a 

nonmotorized view of the pictured rocks from 

the water. Because the only other public 

access to similar lakeshore features in the 

immediate area is Grand Island National 

Recreation Area, which is accessible only via a 

ferry or privately owned watercraft, the 

impact of continuing the existing diversity of 

access offered in the national lakeshore would 

be a long-term moderate beneficial impact on 

visitor access. 

Cumulative Impacts. There would be no 

perceptible change in the current continuing 

conditions expected, and no known actions in 

the past or in the reasonably foreseeable 

future by the National Park Service or by 

others that would result in cumulative impacts 

on visitor access to primary national lakeshore 

features. 

Conclusion. The impact of continuing the 

existing diversity of access offered in the 

national lakeshore would be a long-term 

moderate beneficial impact on visitor access 

to primary features. Motorized and 

nonmotorized boats would continue to 

approach cliffs and beaches on the Lake 

Superior shoreline, a long-term moderate 

benefit for visitors onboard the boats. 

Noise 

Public comments received on the preliminary 

draft alternatives indicate that many visitors 

are seeking a quiet, nature-based experience 

when visiting the national lakeshore and manmade noise that carries over long distances is 

incompatible with that expectation. The primary sources of man-made noise in the 

national lakeshore, most of which are 

generated from outside the national lakeshore, are snowmobiles, motorized boats, 

personal watercraft outside the 0.25-mile 

boundary, the public address system on Lake 

Superior tour boats, and chainsaws from 

logging operations. Noise from these sources 

would continue to be readily apparent, which 

would result in recurring, short-term, moderate, adverse impacts on individual visitors and 

groups of visitors and the quiet, nature-based 

experiences they would likely be seeking. 

Personal watercraft are permitted within the 

national lakeshore boundaries only from the 

western boundary to the east end of Miners 

Beach. Noise carries well over water, and it is 

anticipated that noise from personal watercraft within the permitted portion of the 

national lakeshore as well as outside the 

boundary would still be audible from the land. 

Cars, trucks, and recreational vehicles 

generate some noise, which tends to be 

greater on gravel roads than on paved or 

sandy roads; however, in most areas the 

vegetation dampens and absorbs sounds 

sufficiently so that the adverse impact is shortterm and negligible. 

Sounds from vehicles on the road to Little 

Beaver Lake (especially sounds from towed 

trailers or campers) carry into Beaver Basin, 

causing a recurring, short-term, minor, adverse impact on visitors seeking a wilderness 

type experience in the Beaver Basin. 
Impacts of the No-Action Alternative 

169 

Cumulative Impacts. Noise outside of the 

national lakeshore is primarily from personal 

watercraft near the east and west ends of the 

national lakeshore, chainsaws associated with 

logging activities adjacent to the inland buffer 

zone, and snowmobiles in the winter along 

County Road H-58. These activities produce 

generally short-term, minor to moderate 

adverse impacts (depending on proximity to 

the noise source and setting). There are also 

occasional noise sources within the national 

lakeshore — the tour boat public address 

system, snowmobiles and vehicles on roads in 

the national lakeshore, and chainsaws used for 

logging in the inland buffer zone. These 

disruptions, in combination with the noise 

sources mentioned above that are outside the 

national lakeshore, would result in continuing 

adverse short-term minor to moderate 

(depending on proximity to the noise source 

and setting) cumulative impacts on the natural 

quiet of the national lakeshore. 

Conclusion. Man-made noise from snowmobiles, motorized boats, personal watercraft 

outside the 0.25-mile boundary, the public 

address system on Lake Superior tour boats, 

and chainsaws from logging operations would 

continue to have a short-term moderate 

adverse impact on the visitor experience. 

(Because there are several sources of noise, 

which sometimes overlap, the intensity was 

determined to be moderate.) Sounds from 

vehicles on the road to Little Beaver Lake 

(especially sounds from towed trailers or 

campers) carrying into Beaver Basin would 

continue to cause a short-term minor adverse 

impact on visitors there because the noise disturbance is intermittent and of short duration. 

Scenic Character of County Road H-58 

Maintaining the current conditions on H-58 −

some portions paved with a wide vegetation 

clearance along the side of the road and other 

portions narrow, unpaved, and curvy with a 

canopy effect into the future — would be a 

long-term minor beneficial impact for those 

visitors seeking a slow-speed scenic driving 

experience; it would also be a long-term 

minor adverse impact on those visitors 

looking for a faster, more direct route 

between Munising and Grand Marais. 

Cumulative Impacts. There would be no 

perceptible change in the current continuing 

conditions expected, and no known actions in 

the past or the reasonably foreseeable future 

by the National Park Service or by others that 

would result in cumulative impacts on the 

scenic character of H-58. 

Conclusion. Maintaining the current 

conditions on H-58 would be a long-term 

minor beneficial impact on those visitors 

seeking a slow-speed scenic driving 

experience and a long-term minor adverse 

impact on those visitors looking for a faster, 

more direct route between Munising and 

Grand Marais (an alternate paved route using 

Highways 77 and 28 already exists). 

Opportunities for People with Disabilities 

Most visitor-oriented buildings in the national 

lakeshore are accessible to people with 

disabilities; exceptions include Au Sable Light 

Station, the Maritime Museum at Grand 

Marais, and the Sand Point boathouse. 

Although the exterior of these buildings can 

be seen from a boat or auto and interpretive 

pamphlets about them are available, their 

inaccessibility is a minor long-term adverse 

impact on disabled visitors because alternative 

forms of experiencing the historic structures 

are available. However, the lack of physical 

accessibility deprives them of the ability to see 

the resources first hand. 

Some administrative facilities are accessible to 

people with disabilities, such as the Munising 

maintenance facility, but others, including the 

Sand Point headquarters building, the Grand 

Marais maintenance facility, and the Munising 

Range Light Station, are not. This inaccessibility means that some jobs at the national 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

170 

lakeshore are not available to people with 

certain disabilities, and that other disabled 

persons are not able to conduct business at the 

lakeshore. The no-action alternative would 

maintain this moderate, long-term adverse 

impact on national lakeshore staff members 

and others who are disabled. 

Cumulative Impacts. There would be no 

perceptible change in the current continuing 

conditions expected, and no known actions in 

the past or the reasonably foreseeable future 

by the National Park Service or by others that 

would result in cumulative impacts that would 

affect this population. 

Conclusion. Although many outdoor 

attractions would continue to be available to 

persons with disabilities, and others that are 

interpreted through photographs and 

pamphlets, some important visitor-oriented 

and operations facilities (including lakeshore 

headquarters) would remain inaccessible. 

Thus, moderate long-term adverse effects on 

persons who are disabled would continue. 

IMPACTS ON NATIONAL LAKESHORE 

OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES 

Continuing the inefficient operations at the 

former Coast Guard Station at Sand Point and 

the Munising Range Light Station, the west 

end of the national lakeshore would be a 

moderate long-term adverse impact on 

national lakeshore operations because it is too 

small to adequately accommodate staff, the 

utilities are substandard, it lacks accessibility, 

and it is 5 miles from the Munising 

maintenance facility. 

Continued use of the converted farm 

buildings and residence at the east end of the 

national lakeshore would continue to be a 

long-term moderate adverse impact on 

national lakeshore operations because the 

buildings have inadequate space and are 

substandard in terms of utilities and 

accessibility, and because staff time is required 

to drive between these buildings. 

Emergency response times, because of slower 

sand-or dirt-based roads or gravel roads, 

would not change or improve under this alternative. This would continue to be a long-term 

moderate adverse impact in emergency situations when quick response times might be 

critical. 

National lakeshore staff would continue to 

hike into Chapel Lake and Falls and use 

wheeled vehicles or boats (motorized 

vehicles) to conduct maintenance and 

resource management activities at the Beaver 

Lakes and along the Lake Superior shoreline. 

This motorized access is a long-term minor 

beneficial impact on operational efficiency 

because employees can quickly access an area 

and transport necessary maintenance 

equipment and supplies. 

Transferring 7.5 acres at Grand Marais Coast 

Guard Station from the Coast Guard and the 

Army Corps of Engineers would consolidate 

and simplify management of this small parcel 

to one agency. This would be a long-term, 

minor, beneficial impact on national lakeshore 

operations in Grand Marais. 

Cumulative Impacts. There would be no 

perceptible change in the current continuing 

conditions expected, and no known actions in 

the past or reasonably foreseeable future by 

the National Park Service or by others that 

would result in cumulative impacts that would 

affect national lakeshore operations and 

facilities. 

Conclusion. Operations would continue to 

be inefficient with the dispersed facilities and 

limited space — a moderate long-term adverse 

impact. Emergency response times to some 

areas would continue to be slow — a longterm moderate adverse impact. The continuation of the existing motorized access for 

national lakeshore operations is a long-term 

minor beneficial impact on operational 
Impacts of the No-Action Alternative 

171 

efficiency by allowing employees to continue 

to quickly access an area and to transport 

necessary maintenance equipment and 

supplies. 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

The following discussion identifies impacts on 

resources associated with the implementation 

of this alternative. These impacts have been 

identified as being unavoidable, moderate to 

major, and adverse. 

Some important visitor-oriented and 

operations facilities would remain inaccessible 

for people with disabilities. This would be a 

long-term, adverse, moderate impact on 

people with disabilities. 

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE 

COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 

The irretrievable and irreversible commitments of resources that are associated with 

this alternative are summarized below. 

Irreversible commitments are those that 

cannot be reversed, except perhaps in the 

extreme long-term (e.g., the regrowth of an 

old-growth forest). Irretrievable commitments 

are those that are lost for a period of time (e.g., 

if a road is constructed, the vegetative 

productivity is lost for as long as the road 

remains). 

There would be no irreversible and 

irretrievable commitments of resources under 

the no-action alternative. 

RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM 

USES AND LONG-TERM 

PRODUCTIVITY 

This section discusses the effects of the shortterm use of resources in this alternative on the 

long-term productivity of the resources. 

There would be no adverse effects on biological, agricultural, or economic productivity 

associated with implementing the no-action 

alternative. 
172 

IMPACTS OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Archeological Sites 

The construction operations associated with 

paving some portions of County Road H-58 

and constructing the Miners River campground 

and the new east-end administrative/ maintenance facility could result in damage to existing 

archeological sites (if any) in the vicinity of the 

road right-of-way/proposed construction. 

Before any ground-disturbing activities 

occurred, surveys would be done to identify the 

presence of archeological resources in the 

project area. When possible, identified sites 

would be avoided and protected to the extent 

possible, depending on staffing and funding 

levels. If avoidance was not possible, impacts 

would be mitigated by recovering site data, 

which would be done in accord with an 

archeological data recovery assessment 

developed in consultation with the state historic 

preservation officer (see “Mitigation” section). 

The resultant impacts on sites that could not be 

avoided would be anticipated to be long term, 

minor (for sites with low data recovery 

potential) to moderate (for sites with greater 

data recovery potential), and adverse. 

Cumulative Impacts. An archeological site 

could possibly be disturbed/exposed/impacted 

by human activity (such as residential development, recreational activities, logging, or artifact 

hunting) or natural processes (such as erosion 

or vegetation loss). The possibility of ground 

disturbance and exposure would be most likely 

at readily accessible locations such as Miners 

Beach, Hurricane River, Grand Sable Lake, 

Little Beaver Lake, and several backcountry 

locations. The site would be protected to the 

extent possible, depending on staffing and 

funding levels. The loss would be mitigated by 

data recovery (salvage archeology), which 

would be done in consultation with tribes and 

the state historic preservation officer (see 

“Mitigation” section). The resulting impact on 

such sites would be anticipated to be adverse, 

long term, and minor (at a site with low data 

potential) to moderate (at a site with greater 

data potential). These impacts, combined with 

the impacts of paving and constructing roads 

and constructing a campground and east-end 

facility would have a long-term minor to 

moderate adverse cumulative impact on 

archeological sites under the preferred 

alternative. 

Conclusion. Should sites be identified during 

surveys of project areas, these site(s) would be 

protected to the extent possible, depending on 

staffing and funding levels. When possible, the 

site would be avoided; if avoidance was not possible, impacts would be mitigated by recovering 

site data. The overall impacts on sites that could 

not be avoided would be long-term, minor to 

moderate (depending on the data recovery 

potential of the site) adverse impacts. 

There would be no impairment of archeological 

sites. 

Section 106 Summary. Under regulations of 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(36 CFR 800.5 “Assessment of Adverse 

Impacts”) the National Park Service finds that 

the selection of this alternative would result in 

adverse effects on archeological sites that were 

disturbed by paving or construction activities 

and could not be avoided. 

Historic Structures 

Preserving and rehabilitating the Munising 

Range Light Station; rehabilitating the Sand 

Point Coast Guard Station and boat house, and 

actively interpreting the site and moving some 

of the adaptive uses to other sites; doing preservation treatment on the ancillary buildings at 

the Au Sable Light Station; rehabilitating 

structures at and developing a site plan for the 

Grand Marais Coast Guard Station; 
Impacts of the Preferred Alternative 

173 

rehabilitating the Grand Marais Harbor of 

Refuge quarters; and rehabilitating the 

Abrahamson barn and preserving other 

structures at the Abrahamson farm would help 

protect the documented architectural values (in 

compliance with the Secretary’s Standards for 

Historic Structures) of these structures. Historic 

buildings would be enhanced through rehabilitation of these resources as recommended in 

the historic structure reports/plans. Although 

some historic fabric might be lost during 

preservation/rehabilitation efforts, a minor 

long-term adverse impact (because changes 

would be minimal), overall there would be a 

long-term minor to moderate beneficial impact 

because the structures would be rehabilitated 

and documented architectural elements and 

values would be protected. 

Cumulative Impacts. No past, ongoing, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions by others 

would be expected to combine with the actions 

proposed in the preferred alternative to have a 

cumulative impact on historic structures. 

Conclusion. Actions under this alternative 

would have long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial impacts on the Munising Range Light 

Station, Au Sable Light Station, the Sand Point 

and Grand Marais Coast Guard Stations, the 

Grand Marais Harbor of Refuge quarters, and 

the Abrahamson farm because the structures 

would be rehabilitated and preserved and 

documented architectural values would be 

preserved. 

There would be no impairment of historic 

structures. 

Section 106 Summary. Under regulations of 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(36 CFR 800.5 “Assessment of Adverse 

Impacts”) the National Park Service finds that 

the selection of this alternative would have an 

adverse impact from the loss of some historic 

fabric from the preservation/rehabilitation 

efforts (changes would be minimal). However, 

overall there would not be an adverse effect 

because the structures would be preserved from 

further deterioration and important 

architectural elements and values would be 

protected. 

Cultural Landscapes 

Restoring the cultural landscape at the 

Munising Range Light Station; restoring the 

cultural landscape at the Sand Point Coast 

Guard Station and boat house, actively 

interpreting the site; and moving some of the 

adaptive uses to other sites; restoring the 

cultural landscape at the Au Sable Light Station; 

restoring the cultural landscape and developing 

a site plan for the Grand Marais Coast Guard 

Station; restoring the cultural landscape at the 

Grand Marais Harbor of Refuge quarters; and 

restoring the cultural landscape at the 

Abrahamson and Becker Farms would be a 

long-term moderate beneficial impact on these 

important cultural landscapes. Significant 

elements of the historic scenes would be 

restored to a reasonable facsimile of their 

period of historical significance, documented 

values would be preserved, and noncontributing elements would be removed. 

In areas of abandoned agricultural operations, 

cabin clearings, and abandoned roads that are 

not part of other visitor service areas, woody 

vegetation would encroach, resulting in a more 

closed-in appearance and eventual change to a 

more wooded scene. This would result in the 

loss of landscapes associated with farming or 

other agricultural activities. The potential loss 

of some of these remaining landscapes in the 

national lakeshore would have a minor longterm adverse impact on these cultural 

landscapes, and relatively few would be left. 

Cumulative Impacts. No past, ongoing, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions by others 

would be expected to combine with the actions 

proposed in the preferred alternative to have a 

cumulative impact on cultural landscapes. 

Conclusion. Restoring the cultural landscapes 

at the Munising Range Light Station, the Sand 

Point and Grand Marais Coast Guard Stations, 

the Au Sable Light Station, the Grand Marais 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

174 

Harbor of Refuge quarters, and the 

Abrahamson and Becker Farms under this 

alternative would have long-term, moderate 

beneficial impacts on the cultural landscapes 

associated with these sites by preserving their 

documented values, removing noncontributing 

elements, and adding other elements reflective 

of a reasonable facsimile of the cultural 

landscape’s period of significance. 

Woody vegetation would encroach in areas of 

abandoned agricultural operations, cabin 

clearings, and abandoned roads that are not 

part of other visitor service areas, resulting in 

the eventual loss of landscapes associated with 

farming or other agricultural activities — a 

minor long-term adverse impact on these 

cultural landscapes — and relatively few would 

be left. 

There would be no impairment of cultural 

landscapes. 

Section 106 Summary. Under regulations of 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(36 CFR 800.5 “Assessment of Adverse 

Impacts”) the National Park Service finds that 

the selection of this alternative would not have 

adverse effects on the cultural landscapes at 

Munising Range Light Station, the Sand Point 

and Grand Marais Coast Guard Stations, the Au 

Sable Light Station, the Grand Marais Harbor 

of Refuge quarters, and the Abrahamson Farm. 

Woody vegetation would encroach in areas of 

abandoned agricultural operations, cabin 

clearings, and abandoned roads, resulting in the 

eventual loss of landscapes associated with 

farming or other agricultural activities — an 

adverse impact on these cultural landscapes, 

and relatively few would be left. 

Ethnographic Resources 

Under the preferred action, there would be no 

project or construction-related ground 

disturbance with the potential to impact known 

ethnographic resources. 

American Indians desiring privacy for religious 

activities would be disrupted occasionally by 

such things as the presence of other visitors 

who are hiking or camping and noise from 

visitor-related activities such as motorboats, 

and tour boats. These conflicts would 

constitute a minor, short-term, reoccurring, 

adverse impact, however, conflicts would only 

be occasional. (Areas where impacts could 

occur include high cliffs or promontories, river 

and creek mouths, inland lakes, Lake Superior, 

and the Grand Sable Dunes.) 

Cumulative Impacts. No past, ongoing, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions by others 

would be expected to combine with the actions 

proposed in the preferred alternative to have a 

cumulative impact on ethnographic resources. 

Conclusion. Under the preferred alternative, 

there would be no project- or constructionrelated ground disturbance with the potential to 

impact known ethnographic resources. 

American Indians desiring privacy for religious 

activities would be disrupted occasionally by 

such things as the presence of other visitors 

who are hiking or camping and noise from 

visitor-related activities such as motorboats, 

and tour boats. These conflicts would constitute a minor, short-term, reoccurring, adverse 

impact; however, conflicts would only be 

occasional. 

There would be no impairment of ethnographic 

resources. 

Section 106 Summary. Under regulations of 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(36 CFR 800.5 “Assessment of Adverse 

Impacts”) the National Park Service finds that 

the selection of this alternative would have 

recurring, occasional, adverse impacts on the 

ability of American Indians to collect resources 

for ceremonial and religious purposes or to 

conduct ceremonies. 
Impacts of the Preferred Alternative 

175 

Museum Collection 

Moving the museum collection to the proposed 

new administrative headquarters building near 

Munising would provide long-term major 

beneficial effects for the preservation the 

collection because the new repository would 

meet modern professional standards and would 

be more accessible to staff and researchers. 

Cumulative Impacts. No past, ongoing, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions by others 

would be expected to combine with the actions 

described above (moving the collection to a 

repository that meets professional standards) to 

have a cumulative impact on the museum 

collection under the preferred alternative. 

Conclusion. Actions under this alternative 

would have long-term major beneficial impacts 

on the preservation of and access to the 

national lakeshore’s museum collection by staff 

and researchers because the collection would 

be housed in a new repository that would meet 

modern professional standards and would be 

more accessible to staff and researchers. 

There would be no impairment of the museum 

collection. 

Section 106 Summary. Under regulations of 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(36 CFR 800.5 “Assessment of Adverse 

Impacts”) the National Park Service finds that 

the selection of this alternative would not have 

an adverse effect on the museum collection. 

IMPACTS ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

Species of Concern 

The elimination of motorized boats on Beaver 

and Little Beaver Lakes could reduce further 

the already low potential for disturbance of 

bald eagle nesting in these areas, but the benefit 

would be difficult to quantify. There would be 

no change at other nest sites in the lakeshore, 

and no adverse effect would be expected. 

Because there would be no change in the 

management of Grand Sable Dunes, Pitcher’s 

thistle and other species of concern found there 

would continue to benefit from the protection 

afforded by the designation and management of 

the area as a research natural area. All species of 

concern found in the dunes would remain 

protected and primarily subject to natural 

changes. It is unlikely that species of concern 

elsewhere in the lakeshore would be affected 

because management prescriptions and actions 

in this alternative would not lead to activities 

that would be detrimental to individual species 

of concern. 

The development of the Miners campground 

would probably not adversely affect gray wolf 

use of the lakeshore. There has been evidence 

of wolf activity in the Miners area. The 

campground would be in an area with little 

development. Because the overall level of 

development in the lakeshore would remain 

very low, it is unlikely that this additional 

development would affect use of the national 

lakeshore by wolves. (USFWS 1992; MDNR 

1997). There would be no appreciable increase 

in the density of roads, although road improvements, particularly paving of primary roads, 

could result in higher travel speeds. High 

speeds (about 60 miles per hour) could increase 

the potential for road fatalities if wolf use 

coincides with traffic use. The design for H-58 

would incorporate elements to provide a design 

speed of about 35 miles per hour. 

The abandonment of old logging roads in the 

Beaver Basin and other areas managed under 

the primitive prescription would have a negligible long-term effect on species of concern, 

adverse or beneficial, because these roads have 

not been available for vehicle use for many 

years. 

Cumulative Impacts. In Michigan, endangered 

species protection applies to all private and 

public land. The Endangered Species Protection law states that an individual may not harm 

or take threatened and endangered species 

(Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act 1994, part 365). It is the 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

176 

responsibility of the landowner to submit 

projects, including logging, for review to 

determine if a threatened or endangered species 

is known to occur or has potential to occur 

within the project scope. ForestLand Group, 

Limited Liability Corporation, management 

practices address species of concern as identified by the Michigan Department of Natural 

Resources and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Species of concern would continue to 

be afforded protection in the inland buffer zone 

as well as in the shoreline zone. The net longterm cumulative effect would be negligible. 

Also, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources 

conduct active management programs for the 

gray wolf in the Seney area, a major short- and 

long-term benefit for this species in the central 

Upper Peninsula. 

Although the policies and laws mentioned 

above do not guarantee protection, they do 

serve as more of a deterrent to harming 

endangered species than without these laws. In 

combination with federal laws that protect 

endangered species, overall cumulative effect is 

that species of concern would continue to be 

protected in the national lakeshore, a major 

short- and long -term benefit. 

Conclusion. There would be negligible longterm effects on the bald eagle, pitcher’s thistle, 

gray wolf, or other species of concern 

associated with implementing the preferred 

alternative. Species occurring within NPSowned lands are managed to maintain or 

enhance beneficial conditions. Species 

inhabiting state lands are afforded protection 

through review and management. Species on 

privately owned land are subject to state law 

and require review by the Michigan 

Department of Natural Resources to ensure 

protection. Although these laws and policies do 

not guarantee protection, they are an added 

incentive for protecting these species. 

There would be no impairment of species of 

concern. 

 

Wilderness Resources and Values 

If Congress designated wilderness on 12,843 

acres in the Beaver Basin, it would preserve the 

wilderness values of this area in perpetuity — a 

long-term moderate beneficial impact. 

Most of Chapel Basin would be managed under 

the primitive prescription to preserve primitive 

values, a major long-term beneficial impact. The 

area around Chapel Lake would be managed to 

allow improved trail development — a minor 

long-term impact that would be reversible. The 

total area of wilderness in the central Upper 

Peninsula would increase by about 26%. 

Opportunities for solitude and natural quiet 

would improve with the reduction of noise 

from the public address system used on tour 

boats between Miners Castle and Chapel Rock 

— a moderate, long-term, intermittent 

beneficial impact. 

Cumulative Impacts. The addition of Beaver 

Basin as wilderness (12,843 acres) would 

increase the protection afforded by wilderness 

designation in the central Upper Peninsula to 

49,286 acres (Big Island 6,008 acres, Strangmoor 

Bog 25,150 acres, and Rock River Canyon 5,285 

acres), resulting in a moderate beneficial 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Wilderness values in the Beaver 

Basin would be preserved by wilderness designation (12,843 acres), a moderate long-term 

beneficial impact. Reducing the noise from tour 

boat public address system operations between 

Miners Castle and Chapel Rock would be a 

moderate long-term intermittent, beneficial 

impact on opportunities for solitude and 

natural quiet. Most of the Chapel Basin would 

be managed to preserve wilderness values, a 

major long-term beneficial impact. The area 

around Chapel Lake would be managed to 

allow improved trail development, a minor 

long-term adverse impact that is reversible. The 

total area of wilderness in the central Upper 

Peninsula would increase by about 26% — a 

long-term moderate beneficial impact for those 

who desire that kind of experience. 
Impacts of the Preferred Alternative 

177 

There would be no impairment of wilderness 

resources or values from actions proposed in 

this alternative. 

IMPACTS ON SOCIOECONOMIC 

RESOURCES (LOCAL ECONOMY AND 

COUNTY TAX BASE) 

The preferred alternative proposes a range of 

development and restoration projects 

(construction of the Miners campground and 

trails and the east-end administration/maintenance facility; paving portions of H-58; and 

partial landscape restoration at the Sand Point 

and Grand Marais Coast Guard Stations, the 

Grand Marais Harbor of Refuge quarters, Au 

Sable Light Station, the Munising Range Light 

Station, and the Abrahamson Farm) to be 

accomplished over the life of this plan. There 

would be some benefits from expenditures of 

about $50 million in life-cycle costs (estimated 

for a 25-year period), which would benefit the 

overall Alger County economy. There would be 

some moderate to major short-term benefits for 

some individuals (mostly in the construction 

industry) from increased business and 

employment opportunities related to lakeshore 

projects. This economic activity would occur 

over time as various projects are phased in and 

others are completed. How much the Alger 

County economy actually benefits would 

depend upon the degree to which national 

lakeshore needs are fulfilled within and by the 

local businesses. 

The national lakeshore would remain a part of 

the local socioeconomic environment. NPS 

expenditures for goods, services, and staff 

would continue to benefit the local economy. 

Visitors would still be attracted to the county 

because of the national lakeshore, and their 

spending patterns would continue to contribute 

to the area’s economy. The actions proposed in 

the preferred alternative are expected to result 

in short-term beneficial impacts on income, 

earnings, and employment and unemployment. 

Cumulative Impacts. Development projects 

within the national lakeshore in this alternative 

combined with ongoing or reasonably foreseeable activities in the construction sector outside 

the national lakeshore (some new housing 

construction and proposed commercial 

development on the outskirts of Munising) 

would contribute short-term expenditures over 

the life of the plan that would have a minor 

beneficial cumulative impact primarily affecting 

the construction industry. 

Conclusion. Overall, the long-term benefits 

would be moderate compared to the economy 

of Alger County. There would be some benefits 

from expenditures of about $50 million in lifecycle costs (estimated for a 25-year period), 

which would benefit the overall Alger County 

economy. There would be some moderate to 

major short-term benefits for some individuals 

(mostly in the construction industry) from 

increased business and employment opportunities related to lakeshore projects proposed 

in this alternative. 

National lakeshore operations would be a 

continuing long-term, beneficial contribution 

to the local economy. 

IMPACTS ON VISITOR 

USE AND EXPERIENCE 

Opportunities for Recreational Activities 

In the preferred alternative, there would be 

some changes in recreational opportunities 

compared to the no-action alternative. 

Motorboats would no longer be allowed on 

Little Beaver and Beaver Lakes because the 

lakes would be managed under the primitive 

prescription — a long-term, moderate adverse 

impact on visitors who desire this kind of 

experience at the Beaver Lakes, and a long-term 

minor beneficial impact on visitors who find 

motorboat noise undesirable. 

From Spray Falls to the mouth of Sevenmile 

Creek, the 0.25-mile strip of Lake Superior 

within the national lakeshore would be 

managed under the primitive prescription, so 

motorized boats would no longer be permitted 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

178 

— a long-term minor adverse impact on visitors 

who desire this kind of experience in this area 

and a long-term moderate beneficial impact on 

visitors who find motorboat noise undesirable. 

A new drive-in campground and trails at the 

Miners area would expand camping and hiking 

opportunities in the national lakeshore. 

However, hikers in the Miners area might 

encounter more hikers than in the no-action 

alternative, a minor long-term adverse impact. 

Restoration/ preservation measures and other 

improvements at the Munising Range Light 

Station, Sand Point and Grand Marais Coast 

Guard Stations, Au Sable Light Station, the 

Grand Marais Harbor of Refuge quarters, and 

Abrahamson Farm would improve opportunities for touring and learning about historic 

resources. Improvements at the Grand Marais 

Coast Guard Station would provide additional 

opportunities for day use activities. Together 

these additional or improved recreational 

opportunities would have a moderate beneficial 

impact on the visitor experience. 

If the county converts sections of County Road 

H-58 to improved gravel or pavement, changes 

would occur in the road’s character, even 

though efforts would be made to maintain 

characteristics that visitors say contribute to the 

road's scenic character — narrow and slow 

speed with forest canopy. Some stretches of H58 would likely be wider, more vehicles would 

probably be encountered, vehicle speeds would 

probably increase, the forest canopy over the 

road would be eliminated in places, and opportunities for a primitive driving experience 

leading to primary national lakeshore features 

would likely be reduced. This reduction would 

be a moderate adverse impact on visitors over 

the long term. 

Closing two-track roads in Beaver Basin and 

other areas managed as primitive would have a 

minor long-term adverse impact on visitor 

experiences because there are few two-track 

roads and they are not maintained. 

Cumulative Impacts. No past, ongoing, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions by others 

would, in combination with the impacts just 

described, result in cumulative impacts on 

opportunities for recreational experiences 

under this alternative. 

Conclusion. Impacts on opportunities for 

recreational activities would be long term and 

mixed. Reduced motorboating opportunities on 

the Beaver Lakes and in the 0.25 mile strip of 

Lake Superior between Spray Falls and the 

mouth of Sevenmile Creek would have a longterm minor adverse impact on visitors who 

desire this kind of experience in this area and a 

long-term moderate beneficial impact on 

visitors who find motorboat noise undesirable. 

Additional or improved recreational opportunities (hiking, camping, and touring historic 

resources) would provide a long-term moderate 

beneficial impact. Opportunities for primitive 

driving experiences would be eliminated, a 

long-term moderate adverse impact. 

Access to Primary National 

Lakeshore Features 

Somewhat easier access would be provided to 

many primary national lakeshore features (e.g., 

Little Beaver Lake, Beaver Basin overlook and 

Log Slide) if the county makes recommended 

improvements to County Road H-58. Improvements to existing access roads (e.g., Miners 

Falls and Log Slide Roads) would also contribute to this effect. As a result, visitors would 

be able to visit more lakeshore features in a 

given length of time, a moderate long-term 

beneficial impact. On the other hand, as a result 

of improved access, certain areas might get 

more visitors and could be crowded at times, a 

minor long-term adverse impact. 

Placing the 8-mile stretch of shoreline, 

including a portion of Twelvemile Beach, in the 

primitive prescription would make this area offlimits to motorcraft except in an emergency or 

when human safety was threatened, a moderate 

long-term adverse impact on the visitor experience for those who desire to have this kind of 

experience in this area and a moderate longterm beneficial impact on those who find 
Impacts of the Preferred Alternative 

179 

motorboat noise undesirable. Commercial 

motorboat tours and kayak tours would not be 

affected. Motorized and nonmotorized boats 

would continue to approach cliffs and beaches 

on the Lake Superior shoreline, a long-term 

moderate benefit for visitors onboard the boats. 

Cumulative Impacts. No past, ongoing, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions by others 

would, in combination with the impacts just 

described, result in cumulative impacts on 

access to primary national lakeshore features 

under this alternative. 

Conclusion. Impacts on access to primary 

national lakeshore features would be long-term 

and mixed. Visitors would be able to visit more 

lakeshore features in a given length of time, a 

moderate beneficial impact. Due to improved 

access, certain areas might be crowded at times, 

a minor adverse impact. Loss of access to a 

portion of Twelvemile Beach via motorized 

boats would have a long-term moderate adverse 

impact for some visitors and a moderate 

beneficial impact on other visitors. Motorized 

and nonmotorized boats would continue to 

approach cliffs and beaches on the Lake 

Superior shoreline, a long-term moderate 

benefit for visitors onboard the boats. 

Noise 

Noise from snowmobiles, motorboats, and 

chainsaws would have a long-term, moderate 

adverse impact on the visitor experience in 

much of the national lakeshore unless ways to 

reduce or muffle the sounds were implemented. 

Because of modifications to the tour boat public 

address system, noise would be reduced from 

the west boundary to Chapel Beach — a 

moderate, long-term, beneficial, intermittent 

impact. Boat noise would be reduced along 18 

miles (from Miners Beach to the mouth of 

Sevenmile Creek) of the shoreline and adjacent 

areas, resulting in a minor long-term beneficial 

impact on the visitor experience, with users of 

shoreline and beach areas benefiting most. 

Motorboat noise would be eliminated on the 

Beaver Lakes (managed as the primitive 

prescription). Compared to the no-action 

alternative these changes would have a longterm minor beneficial impact on visitors who 

find such noise undesirable because the current 

10-horsepower restriction produces only low 

noise levels. 

Reducing the noise from the public address 

system on the tour boats would have a 

moderate, long-term, intermittent beneficial 

impact on the visitor experience for visitors 

who find such noise undesirable. 

Sounds from vehicles on the road to Little 

Beaver Lake (especially sounds from towed 

trailers or campers) carry into Beaver Basin, 

causing a recurring, short-term, minor, adverse 

impact on visitors seeking a wilderness type 

experience in the Beaver Basin. 

Cumulative Impacts. Noise outside of the 

national lakeshore is primarily from personal 

watercraft and commercial boat tours outside 

the 0.25-mile boundary near the east and west 

ends of the national lakeshore, chainsaws 

associated with logging activities adjacent to the 

inland buffer zone, and snowmobiles in the 

winter along County Road H-58. These 

activities produce generally short-term, minor 

to moderate adverse impacts (depending on 

proximity to the noise source and setting). 

There would also be occasional noise sources 

within the national lakeshore — snowmobiles 

and vehicles on roads in the national lakeshore, 

and chainsaws used for logging in the inland 

buffer zone. These disruptions, in combination 

with the noise sources mentioned above that 

are outside the national lakeshore, would result 

in continuing adverse short-term minor to 

moderate (depending on proximity to the noise 

source and setting) cumulative impacts on the 

natural quiet of the national lakeshore. Noise 

from the tour boat public address system would 

be reduced under this alternative — a long-term 

moderate beneficial impact. 

Conclusion. The preferred alternative would 

have a moderate, long-term, intermittent 

beneficial impact related to reducing noise from 

the tour boat public address system from the 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

180 

west boundary to Chapel Beach. Boat noise 

would be reduced along 18 miles (from Miners 

Beach to the mouth of Sevenmile Creek) of the 

shoreline and adjacent areas, resulting in a 

minor long-term beneficial impact on the visitor 

experience. Sounds from vehicles on the road 

to Little Beaver Lake would cause a recurring, 

short-term, minor, adverse impact on visitors 

seeking a wilderness-type experience in the 

Beaver Basin. 

Scenic Character of County Road H-58 

Some loss of the characteristics that many 

visitors say contribute to H-58’s scenic 

character (narrow width, curves, and forest 

canopy) would occur if the county makes the 

recommended improvements (paving and 

improved gravel) to this road. This would result 

in a moderate long-term adverse impact on the 

visitor experience. 

Cumulative Impacts. No past, ongoing, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions by others 

would, in combination with the impacts just 

described, result in cumulative impacts on the 

scenic character of County Road H-58 under 

this alternative. 

Conclusion. If recommended changes to 

County Road H-58 were made, these changes 

would have a moderate, long-term adverse 

impact on the road’s scenic character. 

Opportunities for People with Disabilities 

A new campground at Miners would be 

accessible to people with disabilities, providing 

additional options for campers who are not able 

to use backcountry campgrounds. The Grand 

Marais Coast Guard Station would provide a 

new day use area that is accessible to visitors 

with disabilities. Compared to the no-action 

alternative, these measures would have a minor 

long-term beneficial impact on disabled visitors 

because there would not be much change from 

existing accessible opportunities. 

Most visitor-oriented buildings in the national 

lakeshore are accessible to people with 

disabilities; exceptions include Au Sable Light 

Station, the Maritime Museum at Grand 

Marais, and the Sand Point boathouse. 

Although the exterior of these buildings can be 

seen from a boat or auto and interpretive 

pamphlets about them are available, their 

inaccessibility is a minor long-term adverse 

impact on visitors with disabilities because 

alternative forms of experiencing the historic 

structures are available. However, the lack of 

physical accessibility deprives them of the 

ability to see the resources first hand. 

Moving the headquarters function from Sand 

Point to a new administration building (accessible to visitors with disabilities) near the 

Munising maintenance facility and consolidating administrative and maintenance functions 

in a new facility near Grand Marais (also 

accessible to visitors with disabilities) would 

have a major beneficial impact on disabled 

lakeshore staff and other disabled persons 

needing to conduct business in the national 

lakeshore because the current headquarters is 

not accessible to people with disabilities. 

Cumulative Impacts. No past, ongoing, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions by others 

would, in combination with the impacts just 

described, result in cumulative impacts on 

people with disabilities. 

Conclusion. Providing a new campground at 

Miners, and a new day use area at the Grand 

Marais Coast Guard Station (accessible to 

visitors with disabilities) might make it easier 

for disabled visitors to get to, see, or use 

additional national lakeshore features. These 

actions would have minor long-term beneficial 

impacts on visitors with disabilities. 

Moving the headquarters function to a new 

administration building (accessible to visitors 

with disabilities) near Munising and 

consolidating administrative and maintenance 

in a new facility near Grand Marais (also 

accessible to visitors with disabilities) would 

have a major long-term beneficial impact on 
Impacts of the Preferred Alternative 

181 

staff and others with disabilities who might 

need to conduct business in the national 

lakeshore. 

IMPACTS ON NATIONAL 

LAKESHORE OPERATIONS

Consolidating national lakeshore operations at 

both ends of the national lakeshore in new 

facilities that meet NPS standards would 

improve operational efficiency, providing a 

long-term moderate benefit. Moving the 

headquarters office from Sand Point to a new 

administration building ear the Munising 

maintenance facility would not impact soils 

because the underground area has already been 

readied for the construction of the new 

building. 

Leasing the Munising Range Light Station for 

needed staff space would be an asset to the staff 

and a minor short-term beneficial impact on 

lakeshore operations. 

Improvements to H-58, if made by the county, 

would result in a minor long-term decrease in 

emergency response times in the central and 

eastern portions of the lakeshore. However, 

impacts would be minor because the road 

would remain a slow-speed road by design. 

Precluding national lakeshore staff use of 

motorboats in national lakeshore waters 

adjacent to the proposed Beaver Basin 

wilderness and Twelvemile Beach shoreline, 

except in emergencies, would have a short-term 

recurring minor adverse impact on national 

lakeshore operations because little 

administrative use of motorboats in this area 

occurs now. (Administrative access to Little 

Beaver Lake, which is by car or truck, and to 

Chapel Lake and Falls, which is by foot, would 

not change.) 

Developing a new drive-in campground would 

have a minor long-term adverse impact on 

enforcement staff who would have another site 

to patrol and maintenance staff would have an 

additional campground to operate and 

maintain. 

Cumulative Impacts. No past, ongoing, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions by others 

would, in combination with the impacts just 

described, result in cumulative impacts on 

national lakeshore operations. 

Conclusion. Implementing the preferred 

alternative would have a moderate long-term 

benefit on national lakeshore operations from 

consolidating operations in new facilities at 

both ends of the national lakeshore. 

Improvements to H-58, if made by the county, 

would result in a minor long-term decrease in 

emergency response times in the central and 

eastern portions of the lakeshore. 

Precluding staff use of motorboats in national 

lakeshore waters adjacent to the proposed 

Beaver Basin wilderness and Twelvemile Beach 

shoreline, except in emergencies, would have a 

short-term recurring minor adverse impact on 

national lakeshore operations. (Administrative 

access to Little Beaver Lake, which is by car or 

truck, and to Chapel Lake and Falls, which is by 

foot, would not change.) 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

The following discussion identifies impacts on 

resources associated with the implementation 

of this alternative. These impacts have been 

identified as being unavoidable, moderate to 

major, and adverse. 

Some archeological sites adjacent to construction would be subject to disturbance. 

Restricting motorboating and closing primitive 

roads would reduce opportunities for these 

types of experiences in the Beaver Basin. 

Managing the offshore waters adjacent to 

wilderness as primitive would eliminate access 

to a portion of Twelvemile Beach by motorboat 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

182 

and would adversely affect a small number 

visitors and national lakeshore staff. 

Improvements to County Road H-58 in the 

national lakeshore would change its scenic 

quality from a primitive road to a rural highway 

experience between Grand Sable Lake and Log 

Slide. Improving the remainder of County Road 

H-58 outside of national lakeshore boundaries 

(by the county) would make the scenic 

character more open. 

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE 

COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 

The irretrievable and irreversible commitments 

of resources that are associated with this 

alternative are summarized below. Irreversible 

commitments are those that cannot be reversed, 

except perhaps in the extreme long-term (e.g., 

the regrowth of an old-growth forest). 

Irretrievable commitments are those that are 

lost for a period of time (e.g., if a road is 

constructed, the vegetative productivity is lost 

for as long as the highway remains). 

No irreversible or irretrievable commitments of 

resources were identified for the preferred 

alternative. 

RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM USES 

AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 

This section discusses the effects of the shortterm use of resources in this alternative on the 

long-term productivity of the resources. 

There would be no adverse effects on biological 

or agricultural productivity associated with 

implementing the preferred alternative. 
183 

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE A 

IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Archeological Sites 

The construction operations associated with 

paving County Road H-58 and constructing 

the Miners campground and the new east-end 

administrative maintenance facility could 

result in damage to potential archeological 

sites in the vicinity of the road right-of-way/ 

proposed construction. Before any grounddisturbing activities occurred, surveys would 

be done to identify the presence of archeological resources in the project area. When 

possible, identified sites would be avoided and 

protected to the extent possible, depending 

on staffing and funding levels. If avoidance 

was not possible, impacts would be mitigated 

by recovering site data, which would be done 

in accord with an archeological data recovery 

assessment developed in consultation with the 

state historic preservation officer (see 

“Mitigation” section). The resultant impacts 

on sites that could not be avoided would be 

anticipated to be long term, minor (for sites 

with low data recovery potential) to moderate 

(for sites with greater data recovery potential), 

and adverse. 

Cumulative Impacts. An archeological site 

could possibly be disturbed/exposed/ 

impacted by human activity (such as residential development, recreational activities, 

logging, or artifact hunting) or natural 

processes (such as erosion or vegetation loss). 

The possibility of ground disturbance and 

exposure would be most likely at readily 

accessible locations such as Miners Beach, 

Hurricane River, Grand Sable Lake, Little 

Beaver Lake, and several backcountry 

locations. The site would be protected to the 

extent possible, depending on staffing and 

funding levels. The loss would be mitigated by 

data recovery (salvage archeology), which 

would be done in consultation with the state 

historic preservation officer (see “Mitigation” 

section). The resulting impact on such sites 

would be anticipated to be adverse, long term, 

and minor (at a site with low data potential) to 

moderate (at a site with greater data 

potential). These impacts, combined with the 

impacts of paving and constructing roads, 

constructing the east-end administration/ 

maintenance facility, and constructing a 

campground would have a long-term minor to 

moderate adverse cumulative impact on 

archeological sites under alternative A. 

Conclusion. Should sites be identified during 

surveys of project areas, these site(s) would be 

protected to the extent possible, depending 

on staffing and funding levels. When possible, 

the site would be avoided; if avoidance was 

not possible, impacts would be mitigated by 

recovering site data. The overall impacts on 

sites that could not be avoided would be longterm, minor to moderate (depending on the 

data recovery potential of the site) adverse 

impacts. 

There would be no impairment of archeological sites. 

Section 106 Summary. Under regulations of 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(36 CFR 800.5 “Assessment of Adverse 

Impacts”) the National Park Service finds that 

the selection of this alternative would result in 

adverse effects on archeological sites that 

were disturbed by construction activities and 

could not be avoided. 

Historic Structures 

Preserving and rehabilitating the Munising 

Range Light Station; rehabilitating the Sand 

Point Coast Guard Station and boat house, 

and actively interpreting the site and moving 

some of the adaptive uses to other sites; doing 

preservation treatment on the ancillary 

buildings at the Au Sable Light Station; 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

184 

rehabilitating structures at and developing a 

site plan for the Grand Marais Coast Guard 

Station; rehabilitating the Grand Marais 

Harbor of Refuge quarters; and rehabilitating 

the Abrahamson barn and preserving other 

structures at the Abrahamson farm would 

help protect the documented architectural 

values (in compliance with the Secretary’s 

Standards for Historic Structures) of these 

structures. Historic buildings would be 

enhanced through rehabilitation of these 

resources as recommended in the historic 

structure reports/ plans. Although some 

historic fabric might be lost during preservation/rehabilitation efforts, a minor longterm adverse impact (because changes would 

be minimal), overall there would be a longterm minor to moderate beneficial impact 

because the structures would be rehabilitated 

and documented architectural elements and 

values would be protected. 

Cumulative Impacts. No past, ongoing, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions by 

others would be expected to combine with the 

actions proposed in alternative A to have a 

cumulative impact on historic structures. 

Conclusion. Actions under this alternative 

would have long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial impacts on the Munising Range 

Light Station, Au Sable Light Station, the Sand 

Point and Grand Marais Coast Guard 

Stations, the Grand Marais Harbor of Refuge 

quarters, and the Abrahamson and Becker 

Farms because the structures would be 

rehabilitated and preserved and documented 

architectural values would be preserved. 

There would be no impairment of historic 

structures. 

Section 106 Summary. Under regulations of 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(36 CFR 800.5 “Assessment of Adverse 

Impacts”) the National Park Service finds that 

the selection of this alternative would have an 

adverse impact from the loss of some historic 

fabric from the preservation/rehabilitation 

efforts (changes would be minimal ). 

However, overall there would not be an 

adverse effect because the structures would be 

preserved from further deterioration and 

important architectural elements and values 

would be protected. 

Cultural Landscapes 

Restoring the cultural landscape at the 

Munising Range Light Station; restoring 

cultural landscape at the Sand Point Coast 

Guard Station and boat house, actively 

interpreting the site; and moving some of the 

adaptive uses to other sites; restoring the 

cultural landscape at the Au Sable Light 

Station; restoring the cultural landscape and 

developing a site plan for the Grand Marais 

Coast Guard Station; restoring the cultural 

landscape at the Grand Marais Harbor of 

Refuge quarters; and restoring the cultural 

landscape at the Abrahamson and Becker 

Farms would be a long-term moderate 

beneficial impact on these important cultural 

landscapes. Significant elements of the 

historic scenes would be restored to a 

reasonable facsimile of their period of 

historical significance, documented values 

would be preserved, and noncontributing 

elements would be removed. 

In areas of abandoned agricultural operations, 

cabin clearings, and abandoned roads that are 

not part of other visitor service areas, woody 

vegetation would encroach, resulting in a 

more closed-in appearance and eventual 

change to a more wooded scene. This would 

result in the loss of landscapes associated with 

farming or other agricultural activities. The 

potential loss of some of these remaining 

landscapes in the national lakeshore would 

have a minor long-term adverse impact on 

these cultural landscapes and relatively few 

would be left. 

Cumulative Impacts. No past, ongoing, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions by 

others would be expected to combine with the 
Impacts of Alternative A

185 

actions proposed in alternative A to have a 

cumulative impact on cultural landscapes. 

Conclusion. Restoring the cultural landscapes at the Munising Range Light Station, 

the Sand Point and Grand Marais Coast 

Guard Stations, the Au Sable Light Station, the 

Grand Marais Harbor of Refuge quarters, and 

the Abrahamson Farm under this alternative 

would have long-term, moderate beneficial 

impacts on the cultural landscapes associated 

with these sites by preserving their documented values, removing noncontributing 

elements, and adding other elements reflective 

of a reasonable facsimile of the cultural 

landscape’s period of significance. 

Woody vegetation would encroach in areas of 

abandoned agricultural operations, cabin 

clearings, and abandoned roads that are not 

part of other visitor service areas, resulting in 

the eventual loss of landscapes associated with 

farming or other agricultural activities — a 

minor long-term adverse impact on these 

cultural landscapes, and relatively few would 

be left. 

There would be no impairment of cultural 

landscapes. 

Section 106 Summary. Under regulations of 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(36 CFR 800.5 “Assessment of Adverse 

Impacts”) the National Park Service finds that 

the selection of this alternative would not 

have adverse effects on the cultural landscapes 

at Munising Range Light Station, the Sand 

Point and Grand Marais Coast Guard 

Stations, the Au Sable Light Station, the Grand 

Marais Harbor of Refuge quarters, and the 

Abrahamson Farm. 

Woody vegetation would encroach in areas of 

abandoned agricultural operations, cabin 

clearings, and abandoned roads, resulting in 

the eventual loss of landscapes associated with 

farming or other agricultural activities — an 

adverse impact on these cultural landscapes, 

and relatively few would be left. 

Ethnographic Resources 

Under alternative A, there would be no 

project or construction-related ground 

disturbance with the potential to impact 

known ethnographic resources. 

American Indians desiring privacy for religious activities would be disrupted occasionally by such things as the presence of 

other visitors who are hiking or camping and 

noise from visitor-related activities such as 

motorboats, and tour boats. These conflicts 

would constitute a minor, short-term, 

reoccurring, adverse impact; however, conflicts would only be occasional. (Areas where 

impacts could occur include high cliffs or 

promontories, river and creek mouths, inland 

lakes, Lake Superior, and the Grand Sable 

Dunes.) 

Cumulative Impacts. No past, ongoing, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions by 

others would be expected to combine with the 

actions proposed in alternative A to have a 

cumulative impact on ethnographic resources. 

Conclusion. Under alternative A, there would 

be no project- or construction-related ground 

disturbance with the potential to impact 

known ethnographic resources. 

American Indians desiring privacy for religious activities would be disrupted occasionally by such things as the presence of 

other visitors who are hiking or camping and 

noise from visitor-related activities such as 

motorboats, and tour boats. These conflicts 

would constitute a minor, short-term, reoccurring, adverse impact; however, conflicts 

would only be occasional. 

There would be no impairment of ethnographic resources. 

Section 106 Summary. Under regulations of 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(36 CFR 800.5 “Assessment of Adverse 

Impacts”) the National Park Service finds that 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

186 

the selection of this alternative would have 

recurring, occasional, adverse impacts on the 

ability of American Indians to collect 

resources for ceremonial and religious 

purposes or to conduct ceremonies. 

Museum Collection 

Moving the museum collection to the 

proposed new administrative headquarters 

building near Munising would provide longterm major beneficial effects for the 

preservation the collection because the new 

repository would meet modern professional 

standards and would be more accessible to 

staff and researchers. 

Cumulative Impacts. No past, ongoing, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions by 

others would be expected to combine with the 

actions described above (moving the collection to a repository that meets professional 

standards) to have a cumulative impact on the 

museum collection under the alternative A. 

Conclusion. Actions under this alternative 

would have long-term major beneficial 

impacts on the preservation of and access to 

the national lakeshore’s museum collection by 

staff and researchers because the collection 

would be housed in a new repository that 

would meet modern professional standards 

and would be more accessible to staff and 

researchers. 

There would be no impairment of the 

museum collection. 

Section 106 Summary. Under regulations of 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(36 CFR 800.5 “Assessment of Adverse 

Impacts”) the National Park Service finds that 

the selection of this alternative would not 

have an adverse effect on the museum 

collection. 

IMPACTS ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

Species of Concern 

The continuation of current use patterns, 

including motorized boats on the Beaver and 

Grand Sable Lakes, would likely have no 

discernible adverse effect on nesting bald 

eagles in those areas. This determination is 

based on the following observations: that the 

nests were established while boating has been 

occurring; the use of the lakes during the 

critical period is low; and the boat use 

(fishing) occurs outside the tertiary buffer 

during critical periods (nesting, incubation, 

and brooding) (USFWS 1983). The nests are 

0.25 mile or more away from these lakes, 

which is an acceptable distance to minimize 

the effect of human activity during nesting and 

fledging activity. Hiking occurs on a trail near 

one of the nests, but use during the critical 

periods is low, and the trail is outside the 

secondary buffer identified by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS 1983). 

Because there would be no change in the 

management of Grand Sable Dunes, Pitcher’s 

thistle and other species of concern found in 

the dunes would continue to benefit from the 

protection afforded by the designation of the 

area as a research natural area. All species of 

concern found in the dunes would remain 

protected. 

There would be no appreciable increase in the 

density of roads, although road improvements, particularly the paving of primary 

lakeshore roads, could result in higher travel 

speeds. High speeds (about 60 miles per hour) 

could increase the potential for road fatalities 

if wolf use coincides with traffic use. The 

design for H-58 would incorporate elements 

to provide a design speed of about 35 miles 

per hour. As a result, implementing alternative 

A would have a negligible effect on gray 

wolves. Wolf use would be expected to follow 

present patterns, influenced by climate and 

food availability. Conditions within the 

national lakeshore would not be expected to 
Impacts of Alternative A

187 

change drastically, providing a moderate 

benefit for the gray wolf. Wolf use of the 

national lakeshore is not critical to the 

population and is not likely to become so. 

Developing the Miners campground would 

increase human presence in that area. It is 

unlikely that campground development would 

have any effect on wolves because the levels of 

development in the lakeshore are well below 

those that could affect wolf use, and wolf use 

is in the lakeshore is sporadic. 

Abandoning primitive roads in the Beaver 

Basin and other areas managed under the 

primitive prescription would have a negligible 

effect on species of concern because the roads 

do not traverse specific habitat associated 

with species of concern. 

Cumulative Impacts. Consultation with 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 

the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and ForestLand Group, 

Limited Liability Corporation, indicate that all 

agencies and entities implement policies that 

offer consideration and protection to species 

of concern in accord with federal and state 

law regarding threatened, endangered, or 

other species of concern. Such policy provides 

a potentially major long-term benefit for 

species of concern in the inland buffer zone 

and Alger and Schoolcraft Counties, (and the 

state). 

In Michigan, threatened and endangered 

species are protected on both public and 

private land. The Endangered Species 

Protection law states that an individual may 

not harm or take threatened and endangered 

species (Michigan Natural Resources and 

Environmental Protection Act 1994, part 365). 

It is the responsibility of the landowner to 

submit projects for review to determine if a 

threatened or endangered species is known to 

occur or has potential to occur within the 

project scope. Logging on state land is 

conducted under these guidelines. 

ForestLand Group, Limited Liability 

Corporation, management practices address 

species of concern as identified by the 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources 

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Such 

law provides a potentially major long-term 

benefit for species of concern in the inland 

buffer zone, and Alger and Schoolcraft 

Counties, (and the state). 

Also, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

the Michigan Department of Natural 

Resources conduct active management 

programs for the gray wolf in the Seney area, a 

major short- and long-term benefit for this 

species in the central Upper Peninsula. 

Although the policies and laws mentioned 

above do not guarantee protection, they do 

serve as more of a deterrent to harming 

endangered species than without these laws. 

In combination with federal laws that protect 

endangered species, overall cumulative effect 

is that species of concern would continue to 

be protected in the national lakeshore, a major 

short- and long -term benefit. 

Conclusion. As in the no-action alternative, 

continuing current management practices 

would perpetuate short- and long-term 

beneficial impacts for species of concern. 

Preserving Grand Sable Dunes as a research 

natural area would continue to provide a 

major long-term benefit for species of concern 

in that area by providing an environment with 

very limited use or disturbance. There would 

be no discernable adverse impacts on the bald 

eagle, pitcher’s thistle, the gray wolf, or other 

species of concern expected if alternative A 

was implemented. Species occurring north of 

the inland buffer zone elsewhere in the 

lakeshore would continue to benefit from 

federal (NPS) protection. Species on state 

lands are afforded protection through review 

and management. Species on corporate and 

privately owned land are subject to state law 

and require review by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources to ensure protection. Although these laws and policies do not 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

188 

guarantee protection, they are an added 

incentive for protecting these species. 

There would be no impairment of the park’s 

species of concern. 

Wilderness Resources and Values 

Although there would be no designated 

wilderness, wilderness values in Beaver and 

Chapel Basins would be preserved by the 

primitive management prescription — a major 

long-term benefit. Wilderness values in the 

Chapel and Beaver Basins would not be 

guaranteed without designated wilderness. 

Unlike congressionally designated wilderness, 

which guarantees the wilderness values will be 

protected in perpetuity, management prescriptions can be changed via a general management plan amendment. Because management of the wilderness values cannot be 

guaranteed in perpetuity, this represents a 

moderate long-term adverse impact on 

wilderness values. 

Opportunities for solitude and natural quiet 

would improve with the reduction of noise 

from the public address system used on tour 

boats — a moderate, long-term, intermittent 

beneficial impact. 

Cumulative Impacts. Natural quiet would 

continue to be diminished to a moderate 

degree by logging in the inland buffer zone. 

The effects are cyclic and depend on the 

proximity of logging activity to Beaver and 

Chapel Basins. The effect is moderate and 

would continue for the long term. 

Conclusion. Overall, wilderness values would 

continue to benefit from managing much of 

the land within the Chapel and Beaver Basins 

under the primitive management prescription 

— a major long-term benefit. Reducing the 

sound on the public address system on the 

tour boats would improve wilderness values 

along the shoreline from the west boundary to 

Chapel Beach over the long term, but 

intermittently, to a moderate degree. 

Wilderness values in the Chapel and Beaver 

Basins would not be guaranteed without 

designated wilderness — a moderate, longterm, adverse impact. 

Although the opportunity for solitude would 

continue to be adversely affected by logging in 

the inland buffer zone, to a moderate degree, 

these impacts would occur intermittently and 

for short periods of time. Noise from the tour 

boats would be reduced with a different 

sound system for the tour boat public address 

system. There would be no major adverse 

impacts on resources or values whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the national lakeshore’s 

establishing legislation, (2) key to the natural 

or cultural integrity or opportunities for 

enjoyment of the national lakeshore, or (3) 

identified as a goal in this general management 

plan or other relevant NPS planning 

documents. Consequently, there would be no 

impairment of wilderness resources or values. 

IMPACTS ON SOCIOECONOMIC 

RESOURCES (LOCAL ECONOMY AND 

COUNTY TAX BASE) 

Alternative A follows the current management 

direction. In addition, this alternative would 

require several development and restoration 

projects (construction of a small administration and maintenance facility at the east end of 

the national lakeshore, a new administration 

building adjacent to the Munising maintenance facility, and a new campground and 

trails; paving H-58; and partial landscape 

restoration at the Sand Point and Grand 

Marais Coast Guard Stations, the Grand 

Marais Harbor of Refuge quarters, Au Sable 

Light Station, the Munising Range Light 

Station, and the Abrahamson Farm) to be 

accomplished over the life of this plan. There 

would be some benefits from expenditures of 

about $37 million in life-cycle costs (estimated 

for a 25-year period), which would benefit the 

overall Alger County economy. There would 
Impacts of Alternative A

189 

be some moderate to major short-term 

benefits for some individuals (mostly in the 

construction industry) from increased 

business and employment opportunities 

related to lakeshore projects. This economic 

activity would occur over time as various 

projects are phased in and others are 

completed. How much the Alger County 

economy actually benefits would depend 

upon the degree to which national lakeshore 

needs are fulfilled within and by the local 

businesses. 

The national lakeshore would remain a part of 

the local socioeconomic environment. NPS 

expenditures for goods, services, and staff 

would continue to benefit the local economy. 

Visitors would still be attracted to the county 

because of the national lakeshore, and their 

spending patterns would continue to 

contribute to the area’s economy. The actions 

proposed in alternative A are expected to 

result in short-term beneficial impacts on 

income, earnings, and employment. There are 

no indications that the actions and effects of 

this alternative would result in any long-term 

impacts on the major socioeconomic 

indicators (population, income, earnings, 

employment, unemployment, and poverty) in 

Alger County. 

Cumulative Impacts. Development projects 

in the national lakeshore, combined with 

ongoing activities in the construction sector 

outside the national lakeshore (some new 

housing construction and proposed 

commercial development on the outskirts of 

Munising) would contribute short-term 

expenditures over the life of the plan that 

would be a minor beneficial cumulative 

impact that would primarily affect the 

construction industry. 

Conclusion. Overall, the long-term benefits 

of implementing this alternative would be 

minor to moderate when compared to the 

overall economy of the predominantly rural 

Alger County. There would be some benefits 

from expenditures of about $37 million in lifecycle costs (estimated for a 25-year period), 

which would benefit the overall Alger County 

economy. There would be some moderate to 

major short-term benefits for some individuals (mostly in the construction industry) 

from increased business and employment 

opportunities related to lakeshore projects 

proposed in this alternative (such as construction of a small administration and maintenance facility at the east end of the national 

lakeshore, a new administration building 

adjacent to the Munising maintenance facility, 

and a new campground and trails; paving H58; and partial landscape restoration at several 

sites). The operations of the national 

lakeshore would be a continuing long-term, 

beneficial contribution to the local economy. 

IMPACTS ON VISITOR 

USE AND EXPERIENCE 

Opportunities for Recreational Activities 

There would be no new impacts of continuing 

opportunities for popular recreational activities (e.g., hiking, backcountry camping, scenic 

driving, boating, hunting, fishing, kayaking, 

motorboat tours, skiing, ice climbing, and 

snowmobiling) continued use of motorboats 

on the Beaver Lakes and Grand Sable Lakes 

(with restrictions on motor size), continued 

commercial air tours, and continued backcountry camping (in designated campgrounds), as in the no-action alternative. 

Drive-in camping options would be expanded 

by adding a campground in the Miners area, 

providing more opportunities for national 

lakeshore camping, a moderate long-term 

benefit. Adding hiking trails south of the 

Miners area might mean that hikers in this 

area would encounter more hikers than in the 

no-action alternative — a minor adverse 

impact. 

Opportunities for touring and learning about 

historic resources would be improved by 

restoration/preservation measures and other 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

190 

improvements at Sand Point, Grand Marais, 

and Au Sable Light Station. These improvements would have a major long-term 

beneficial impact on visitor experiences. 

The opportunity for a long, primitive driving 

experience leading to primary national 

lakeshore features would be lost if the county 

paves the portion of County Road H-58 that is 

between Little Beaver Lake Road and Grand 

Sable Lake. This loss would be a moderate 

adverse impact on visitors over the long term 

because most feel that that the primitive 

experience (narrow road, little traffic, slow 

speeds, and forest canopy, which would 

change with paving) contributes beneficially 

to their national lakeshore visit (Pitt, Lime, 

and Vlaming 1991). 

The closure of old logging roads (‘two tracks’) 

to vehicular travel would slightly reduce 

opportunities for visitors to enjoy a more 

primitive, slower, unpaved driving experience, 

a minor long-term adverse impact. 

Cumulative Impacts. No past, ongoing, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions by 

others would, in combination with the 

impacts just described, result in cumulative 

impacts on providing opportunities for 

recreational activities at the national lakeshore 

under this alternative. 

Conclusion. Impacts on opportunities for 

recreational activities would be mixed and 

long term. Additional opportunities for 

camping, hiking, and touring historic 

resources would have a major beneficial 

impact, and reducing opportunities for long 

primitive driving experiences leading to 

primary national lakeshore features would 

have a moderate long-term adverse impact. 

Access to Primary National 

Lakeshore Features 

If done by the county, road improvements — 

paving County Road H-58 throughout the 

lakeshore, enabling visitors to get more easily 

and quickly to Little Beaver Lake, Beaver 

Basin overlook, Twelvemile Beach, Log Slide, 

and Au Sable Light Station — would mean 

that visitors could see more lakeshore features 

in a given length of time compared to the noaction alternative, a moderate long-term 

beneficial impact. On the other hand, certain 

areas would probably get more visitors and 

could be crowded at times, a minor long-term 

adverse impact. 

Commercial tour boats and commercial kayak 

tours, both of which could continue, provide 

the best views of the Pictured Rocks cliffs, 

continuing a long-term moderate benefit for 

visitors onboard boats. 

Cumulative Impacts. No past, ongoing, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions by 

others would, in combination with the 

impacts just described, result in cumulative 

impacts on access to primary national 

lakeshore features under this alternative. 

Conclusion. Compared to the no-action 

alternative. Impacts on access to primary 

features would be mostly beneficial and long 

term. Due to road improvements visitors 

could see more lakeshore features in a given 

length of time, a moderate long-term 

beneficial impact. On the other hand, certain 

areas could be crowded at times, a minor 

long-term adverse impact. Motorized and 

nonmotorized boats would continue to 

approach cliffs and beaches on the Lake 

Superior shoreline, a long-term moderate 

benefit for visitors onboard the boats. 

Noise 

As in the no-action alternative, noise from 

snowmobiles, motorboats, and chainsaws 

would continue to have a long-term, moderate 

adverse impact on the visitor experience 

unless ways to reduce or muffle the sounds 

were implemented. Noise from the tour boat 

public address system would be reduced 
Impacts of Alternative A

191 

under this alternative — a long-term moderate 

beneficial impact. Sounds from vehicles on the 

road to Little Beaver Lake (especially sounds 

from towed trailers or campers) would 

continue to carry into Beaver Basin, 

continuing the long-term minor adverse 

impact on visitors there. 

Cumulative Impacts. Noise outside of the 

national lakeshore is primarily from personal 

watercraft outside the 0.25-mile boundary 

near the east and west ends of the national 

lakeshore, chainsaws associated with logging 

activities adjacent to the inland buffer zone, 

and snowmobiles in the winter along County 

Road H-58. These activities produce generally 

short-term, minor to moderate adverse 

impacts (depending on proximity to the noise 

source and setting). There would also be 

occasional noise sources within the national 

lakeshore — snowmobiles and vehicles on 

roads in the national lakeshore, and chainsaws 

used for logging in the inland buffer zone. 

These disruptions, in combination with the 

noise sources mentioned above that are 

outside the national lakeshore, would result in 

continuing adverse short-term minor to 

moderate (depending on proximity to the 

noise source and setting) cumulative impacts 

on the natural quiet of the national lakeshore. 

Noise from the tour boat public address 

system would be reduced under this 

alternative — a long-term moderate beneficial 

impact. 

Conclusion. Man-made noise from snowmobiles, motorized boats, and chainsaws from 

logging operations would continue to have a 

long-term, moderate adverse impact on the 

visitor experience. Noise from the tour boat 

public address system would be reduced 

under this alternative — a long-term moderate 

beneficial impact. 

Scenic Character of County Road H-58 

In alternative A, the county would be 

encouraged to pave H-58 for its entire length 

between Munising and Grand Marais. Efforts 

to maintain characteristics that visitors say 

contribute to the road's scenic character 

(narrow width, curves, and forest canopy or 

tunnel) would also be recommended, but 

some loss of these characteristics would be 

unavoidable. If County Road H-58 was 

improved, the section of road close to the 

shoreline bluff, near Sullivan’s Creek, would 

be relocated away from the shoreline, 

meaning that views of Lake Superior from H58 would no longer be possible. Taken 

together, recommended changes to H-58 

under alternative A would result in a moderate 

long-term adverse impact on the visitor 

experience. 

Cumulative Impacts. No past, ongoing, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions by 

others would, in combination with the 

impacts just described, result in cumulative 

impacts on the scenic character of County 

Road H-58 under this alternative. 

Conclusion. If recommended changes to 

County Road H-58 occurred, these changes 

would have moderate long-term adverse 

impacts on its scenic character. 

Opportunities for 

People with Disabilities 

No new outdoor features would be made 

accessible to visitors with disabilities under 

alternative A; however, a new campground at 

Miners would be accessible to visitors with 

disabilities, providing additional options for 

visitors who are not able to use backcountry 

campgrounds. Compared to the no-action 

alternative this would have a minor long-term 

beneficial impact. 

Moving the headquarters from Sand Point to a 

new administration building (accessible to 

people with disabilities) near the Munising 

maintenance facility and consolidating the 

east-end lakeshore administrative and 

maintenance in a new facility (accessible to 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

192 

people with disabilities) near Grand Marais 

would be a major beneficial impact on 

disabled lakeshore staff and other disabled 

persons needing to conduct business in the 

national lakeshore. 

Cumulative Impacts. No past, ongoing, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions by 

others would, in combination with the 

impacts just described, result in cumulative 

impacts on opportunities for people with 

disabilities under this alternative. 

Conclusion. Making the Miners 

campground accessible to people with 

disabilities would have a minor impact on 

these visitors. 

Moving the headquarters function to a new 

administration building near Munising and 

consolidating administrative and maintenance 

in a new facility near Grand Marais (both 

accessible to people with disabilities) would 

have a major long-term beneficial impact on 

staff and others with disabilities who might 

need to conduct business in the national 

lakeshore. 

IMPACTS ON NATIONAL 

LAKESHORE OPERATIONS 

Consolidating national lakeshore operations 

in new facilities that meet NPS standards at 

both ends of the national lakeshore would 

improve operational efficiency and provide a 

long-term moderate benefit. 

If the recommended paving of H-58, the 

primary access route to the central and 

eastern portions of the national lakeshore, 

occurred, this would be a minor long-term 

benefit for emergency response times in those 

portions of the lakeshore; the road would still 

be a slow-speed road by design. 

There would be no change in, and thus no 

new impacts on, staff access (for maintenance 

and resource management) to the Beaver 

Lakes, along the Lake Superior shoreline, and 

the Chapel area. 

Developing a new drive-in campground 

would have a minor long-term adverse impact 

on enforcement staff who would have another 

site to patrol. 

Cumulative Impacts. No past, ongoing, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions by 

others would, in combination with the 

impacts just described, result in cumulative 

impacts on the national lakeshore operations 

under this alternative. 

Conclusion. Implementing alternative A 

would have a moderate long-term benefit on 

national lakeshore operations from 

consolidating operations in new facilities at 

both ends of the national lakeshore. 

If the county paves H-58 as recommended, 

emergency response times in those portions of 

the lakeshore would improve, a minor longterm benefit. 

There would be no change in, and thus no 

new impacts on, staff access (for maintenance 

and resource management) to the Beaver 

Lakes, along the Lake Superior shoreline, and 

the Chapel area. 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

The following discussion identifies impacts on 

resources associated with the implementation 

of this alternative. These impacts have been 

identified as being unavoidable, moderate to 

major, and adverse. 

Some archeological sites adjacent to 

construction or that are easily accessible 

would be subject to disturbance. 

Noise from motorized boats, tour boats, and 

logging activities would continue. 
Impacts of Alternative A

193 

Recommended improvements to County 

Road H-58, if made, would change its scenic 

quality from a primitive road to a rural 

highway experience between Grand Sable 

Lake and Kingston Lake. 

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE 

COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 

The irretrievable and irreversible commitments of resources that are associated with 

this alternative are summarized below. 

Irreversible commitments are those that 

cannot be reversed, except perhaps in the 

extreme long-term (e.g., the regrowth of an 

old-growth forest). Irretrievable commitments 

are those that are lost for a period of time (e.g., 

if a road is constructed, the vegetative 

productivity is lost for as long as the highway 

remains). 

There would be no irreversible and 

irretrievable commitments of resources under 

this alternative. 

RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM 

USES AND LONG-TERM 

PRODUCTIVITY 

This section discusses the effects of the shortterm use of resources in this alternative on the 

long-term productivity of the resources. 

There would be no adverse effects on 

biological or agricultural productivity 

associated with implementing alternative A. 
194 

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE C 

IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Archeological Sites 

The construction operations associated with 

paving County Road H-58 and constructing 

the Miners campground, Sevenmile overlook 

and access road, the new east-end administrative maintenance facility, and possibly a small 

interpretive center in the Miners Castle area 

could result in damage to potential archeological sites in the vicinity of the road right-ofway/ proposed construction. Before any 

ground-disturbing activities occurred, surveys 

would be done to identify the presence of 

archeological resources in the project area. 

When possible, identified sites would be 

avoided and protected to the extent possible, 

depending on staffing and funding levels. If 

avoidance was not possible, impacts would be 

mitigated by recovering site data, which would 

be done in accord with an archeological data 

recovery assessment developed in consultation with the state historic preservation officer 

(see “Mitigation” section). The resultant 

impacts on sites that could not be avoided 

would be anticipated to be long term, minor 

(for sites with low data recovery potential) to 

moderate (for sites with greater data recovery 

potential), and adverse. 

Cumulative Impacts. An archeological site 

could possibly be disturbed/exposed/ 

impacted by human activity (such as 

residential development, recreational 

activities, logging, or artifact hunting) or 

natural processes (such as erosion or 

vegetation loss). The possibility of ground 

disturbance and exposure would be most 

likely at readily accessible locations such as 

Miners Beach, Hurricane River, Grand Sable 

Lake, Little Beaver Lake, and several 

backcountry locations. The site would be 

protected to the extent possible, depending 

on staffing and funding levels. The loss would 

be mitigated by data recovery (salvage 

archeology), which would be done in consultation with the state historic preservation 

officer (see “Mitigation” section). The 

resulting impact on such sites would be 

anticipated to be adverse, long term, and 

minor (at a site with low data potential) to 

moderate (at a site with greater data 

potential). These impacts, combined with the 

impacts of paving H-58 and constructing the 

east-end administration/maintenance facility, 

a campground, and the Sevenmile overlook 

and access road, and possibly a small 

interpretive center in the Miners area would 

have a long-term minor to moderate adverse 

cumulative impact on archeological sites 

under alternative C. 

Conclusion. Should sites be identified during 

surveys of project areas, these site(s) would be 

protected to the extent possible, depending 

on staffing and funding levels. When possible, 

the site would be avoided; if avoidance was 

not possible, impacts would be mitigated by 

recovering site data. The overall impacts on 

sites that could not be avoided would be longterm, minor to moderate (depending on the 

data recovery potential of the site) adverse 

impacts. 

There would be no impairment of archeological sites. 

Section 106 Summary. Under regulations of 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(36 CFR 800.5 “Assessment of Adverse 

Impacts”) the National Park Service finds that 

the selection of this alternative would result in 

adverse effects on archeological sites that 

were disturbed by construction activities and 

could not be avoided. 

Historic Structures 

Preserving and rehabilitating the Munising 

Range Light Station; rehabilitating the Sand 
Impacts of Alternative C

195 

Point Coast Guard Station and boat house, 

and actively interpreting the site and moving 

some of the adaptive uses to other sites; doing 

preservation treatment on the ancillary 

buildings at the Au Sable Light Station; 

rehabilitating structures at and developing a 

site plan for the Grand Marais Coast Guard 

Station; rehabilitating the Grand Marais 

Harbor of Refuge quarters; and rehabilitating 

the Abrahamson barn and preserving other 

structures at the Abrahamson farm would 

help protect the documented architectural 

values (in compliance with the Secretary’s 

Standards for Historic Structures) of these 

structures. Historic buildings would be 

enhanced through rehabilitation of these 

resources as recommended in the historic 

structure reports/plans. Although some 

historic fabric might be lost during 

preservation/ rehabilitation efforts, a minor 

long-term adverse impact (because changes 

would be minimal), overall there would be a 

long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

impact because the structures would be 

rehabilitated and documented architectural 

elements and values would be protected. 

Cumulative Impacts. No past, ongoing, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions by 

others would be expected to combine with the 

actions proposed in alternative C to have a 

cumulative impact on historic structures. 

Conclusion. Actions under this alternative 

would have long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial impacts on the Munising Range 

Light Station, Au Sable Light Station, the Sand 

Point and Grand Marais Coast Guard 

Stations, the Grand Marais Harbor of Refuge 

quarters, and the Abrahamson farm because 

the structures would be rehabilitated and 

preserved and documented architectural 

values would be preserved. 

There would be no impairment of historic 

structures. 

Section 106 Summary. Under regulations of 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(36 CFR 800.5 “Assessment of Adverse 

Impacts”) the National Park Service finds that 

the selection of this alternative would have an 

adverse impact from the loss of some historic 

fabric from the preservation/rehabilitation 

efforts (changes would be minimal). However, 

overall there would not be an adverse effect 

because the structures would be preserved 

from further deterioration and important 

architectural elements and values would be 

protected. 

Cultural Landscapes 

Restoring the cultural landscape at the 

Munising Range Light Station; restoring 

cultural landscape at the Sand Point Coast 

Guard Station and boat house, actively 

interpreting the site; and moving some of the 

adaptive uses to other sites; restoring the 

cultural landscape at the Au Sable Light 

Station; restoring the cultural landscape and 

developing a site plan for the Grand Marais 

Coast Guard Station; restoring the cultural 

landscape at the Grand Marais Harbor of 

Refuge quarters; and restoring the cultural 

landscape at the Abrahamson and Becker 

Farms would be a long-term moderate 

beneficial impact on these important cultural 

landscapes. Significant elements of the 

historic scenes would be restored to a 

reasonable facsimile of their period of 

historical significance, documented values 

would be preserved, and noncontributing 

elements would be removed. 

In areas of abandoned agricultural operations, 

cabin clearings, and abandoned roads that are 

not part of other visitor service areas, woody 

vegetation would encroach, resulting in a 

more closed-in appearance and eventual 

change to a more wooded scene. This would 

result in the loss of landscapes associated with 

farming or other agricultural activities. The 

potential loss of some of these remaining 

landscapes in the national lakeshore would 

have a minor long-term adverse impact on 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

196 

these cultural landscapes, and relatively few 

would be left. 

Cumulative Impacts. No past, ongoing, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions by 

others would be expected to combine with the 

actions proposed in the alternative C to have a 

cumulative impact on cultural landscapes. 

Conclusion. Restoring the cultural 

landscapes at the Munising Range Light 

Station, the Sand Point and Grand Marais 

Coast Guard Stations, the Au Sable Light 

Station, the Grand Marais Harbor of Refuge 

quarters, and the Abrahamson and Becker 

Farms under this alternative would have longterm, moderate beneficial impacts on the 

cultural landscapes associated with these sites 

by preserving their documented values, 

removing noncontributing elements, and 

adding other elements reflective of a 

reasonable facsimile of the cultural 

landscape’s period of significance. 

Woody vegetation would encroach in areas of 

abandoned agricultural operations, cabin 

clearings, and abandoned roads that are not 

part of other visitor service areas, resulting in 

the eventual loss of landscapes associated with 

farming or other agricultural activities — a 

minor long-term adverse impact on these 

cultural landscapes, and relatively few would 

be left. 

There would be no impairment of cultural 

landscapes. 

Section 106 Summary. Under regulations of 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(36 CFR 800.5 “Assessment of Adverse 

Impacts”) the National Park Service finds that 

the selection of this alternative would not 

have adverse effects on the cultural landscapes 

at Munising Range Light Station, the Sand 

Point and Grand Marais Coast Guard 

Stations, the Au Sable Light Station, the Grand 

Marais Harbor of Refuge quarters, and the 

Abrahamson Farm. 

Woody vegetation would encroach in areas of 

abandoned agricultural operations, cabin 

clearings, and abandoned roads, resulting in 

the eventual loss of landscapes associated with 

farming or other agricultural activities − an 

adverse impact on these cultural landscapes, 

and relatively few would be left. 

Ethnographic Resources 

Under alternative C, there would be no 

project or construction-related ground 

disturbance with the potential to impact 

known ethnographic resources. 

American Indians desiring privacy for religious activities would be disrupted occasionally by such things as the presence of 

other visitors who are hiking or camping and 

noise from visitor-related activities such as 

motorboats, and tour boats. These conflicts 

would constitute a minor, short-term, reoccurring, adverse impact; however, conflicts 

would only be occasional. (Areas where 

impacts could occur include high cliffs or 

promontories, river and creek mouths, inland 

lakes, Lake Superior, and the Grand Sable 

Dunes.) 

Cumulative Impacts. No past, ongoing, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions by 

others would be expected to combine with the 

actions proposed in alternative C to have a 

cumulative impact on ethnographic resources. 

Conclusion. Under this alternative, there 

would be no project or construction-related 

ground disturbance with the potential to 

impact known ethnographic resources. 

American Indians desiring privacy for 

religious activities would be disrupted 

occasionally by such things as the presence of 

other visitors who are hiking or camping and 

noise from visitor-related activities such as 

motorboats, and tour boats. These conflicts 

would constitute a minor, short-term, 
Impacts of Alternative C

197 

reoccurring, adverse impact; however, 

conflicts would only be occasional. 

There would be no impairment of 

ethnographic resources. 

Section 106 Summary. Under regulations of 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(36 CFR 800.5 “Assessment of Adverse 

Impacts”) the National Park Service finds that 

the selection of this alternative would have 

recurring, occasional, adverse impacts on the 

ability of American Indians to collect 

resources for ceremonial and religious 

purposes or to conduct ceremonies. 

Museum Collection 

Moving the museum collection to the 

proposed new administrative headquarters 

building near Munising would provide longterm major beneficial effects for the 

preservation the collection because the new 

repository would meet modern professional 

standards and would be more accessible to 

staff and researchers. 

Cumulative Impacts. No past, ongoing, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions by 

others would be expected to combine with the 

actions described above (moving the collection to a repository that meets professional 

standards) to have a cumulative impact on the 

museum collection under alternative C. 

Conclusion. Actions under this alternative 

would have long-term major beneficial 

impacts on the preservation of and access to 

the national lakeshore’s museum collection by 

staff and researchers because the collection 

would be housed in a new repository that 

would meet modern professional standards 

and would be more accessible to staff and 

researchers. 

There would be no impairment of the 

museum collection. 

Section 106 Summary. Under regulations of 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(36 CFR 800.5 “Assessment of Adverse 

Impacts”) the National Park Service finds that 

the selection of this alternative would not 

have an adverse effect on the museum 

collection. 

IMPACTS ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

Species of Concern 

The continuation of current use patterns, 

including motorized boats on the Beaver and 

Grand Sable Lakes, would likely have no 

discernable adverse effect on nesting bald 

eagles in those areas. This determination is 

based on the following observations: that the 

nests were established while boating has been 

occurring; the use of the lakes during the 

critical period is low; and the boat use 

(fishing) occurs outside the tertiary buffer 

during critical periods (nesting, incubation, 

and brooding) (USFWS 1983). The nests are 

0.25 mile or more away from these lakes, 

which is an acceptable distance to minimize 

the effect of human activity during nesting and 

fledging activity. Hiking occurs on a trail near 

one of the nests, but use during the critical 

periods is low, and the trail is outside the 

secondary buffer identified by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS 1983). 

Because there would be no change in management of Grand Sable Dunes, Pitcher’s thistle 

and other species of concern found there 

would continue to be protected by the 

research natural area designation. The species 

of concern in the dunes environment would 

remain stable and primarily subject to natural 

change. The construction of boat-in campsites 

at Grand Sable Lake would not likely result in 

increased use of Grand Sable Dunes because 

the primary focus of these visitors would be 

boating and fishing and no trails would be 

developed. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

198 

The abandonment of two track roads in the 

Beaver Basin and other areas managed as 

primitive would have a negligible effect on 

species of concern because the roads do not 

traverse habitat of species of concern. 

Development of the proposed Miners campground and associated trails would increase 

human activity in the area, but the level of 

development at this site and throughout the 

lakeshore would remain well below densities 

described by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the Michigan Department of 

Natural Resources and would not likely affect 

wolf use in the lakeshore (USFWS 1992; 

MDNR 1997). There would be no appreciable 

increase in the density of roads, although road 

improvements, particularly paving of primary 

roads, could result in higher travel speeds. 

High speeds (about 60 miles per hour) could 

increase the potential for road fatalities if wolf 

use coincides with traffic use. The design for 

H-58 would incorporate elements to provide a 

design speed of about 35 miles per hour. 

Cumulative Impacts. Logging on state land is 

conducted under guidelines established by the 

Michigan Endangered Species Protection law, 

Part 365 of the Natural Resources and 

Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the 

Michigan Public Acts of 1994, which affords 

protection to species of concern identified by 

the state. Logging on corporate and private 

land is subject to the same law that applies to 

state land. The ForestLand Group, Limited 

Liability Corporation, management practices 

address species of concern as identified by the 

state and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

The overall effect is that species of concern 

would continue to be afforded protection in 

the inland buffer zone. 

Also, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

the Michigan Department of Natural 

Resources conduct active management 

programs for the gray wolf in the Seney area, a 

major short- and long-term benefit for this 

species in the central Upper Peninsula. 

Although the policies and laws mentioned 

above do not guarantee protection, they do 

serve as more of a deterrent to harming 

endangered species than without these laws. 

In combination with federal laws that protect 

endangered species, overall cumulative effect 

is that species of concern would continue to 

be protected in the national lakeshore, a major 

short- and long -term benefit. 

Conclusion. As in the no-action alternative, 

continuing current management practices 

would perpetuate short- and long-term 

beneficial impacts for species of concern. 

Preserving Grand Sable Dunes as a research 

natural area would continue to provide a 

major long-term benefit for species of concern 

in that area by providing an environment with 

very limited use or disturbance. There would 

be no discernable adverse impacts on the bald 

eagle, pitcher’s thistle, the gray wolf, or other 

species of concern expected if alternative C 

was implemented. Species occurring north of 

the inland buffer zone elsewhere in the lakeshore would continue to benefit from federal 

(NPS) protection. Species on state lands are 

afforded protection through review and 

management. Species on corporate and 

privately owned land are subject to state law 

and require review by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources to ensure 

protection. Although these laws and policies 

do not guarantee protection, they are an 

added incentive for protecting these species. 

There would be no impairment of species of 

concern. 

Wilderness Resources and Values 

Although there would be no designated 

wilderness, wilderness values in Beaver Basin 

would be preserved by management under the 

primitive prescription — a moderate longterm benefit. However, unlike congressionally 

designated wilderness, which guarantees the 

wilderness values will be protected in perpetuity, management prescriptions can be 
Impacts of Alternative C

199 

changed via a general management plan 

amendment. Wilderness values could be 

adversely affected in the long term without the 

designation of wilderness — a moderate longterm impact. 

Converting Chapel Basin from the backcountry to the casual prescription to improve 

old roads currently used as trails and to 

provide vehicle access to Chapel Rock would 

reduce its wilderness values by opening an 

area that is currently not accessible by vehicle 

— a long-term moderate adverse impact. This 

adverse impact would be moderate and long 

term; it would also be reversible. 

Constructing the Sevenmile Creek road and 

overlook could introduce additional noise 

from cars and associated activity. The area the 

road would traverse is predominantly state 

land. The overlook would be at the Beaver 

Basin rim, inside the shoreline zone, but the 

parking area would be set back from the rim 

to mitigate the noise. Constructing the 

overlook would also require clearing an area 

to open a vista that has not been disturbed for 

some time, which is forested with mature 

hardwoods. The overlook would be small, and 

use would be expected to be light. The 

overlook would diminish wilderness values in 

the Beaver Basin to a minor degree — a minor 

adverse impact. 

Opportunities for solitude and natural quiet 

would improve with the reduction in noise 

from the tour boat public address systems, 

which would be a long-term, beneficial, 

intermittent, moderate impact. 

Cumulative Impacts. In Alger County the 

total area of wilderness would remain 

unchanged. The opportunities for solitude 

and natural quiet would continue to be 

diminished by logging in the inland buffer 

zone. The effects would be cyclic and depend 

on the proximity of logging activity to the 

Beaver Basin. The effect would be moderate 

and would continue for the long term. 

Conclusion. There would be a moderate 

long-term benefit from continuing to manage 

Beaver Basin under the primitive prescription. 

Wilderness values would be reduced because 

management of a portion of Chapel Basin 

would change from backcountry to casual 

recreation — a moderate, long-term adverse 

impact. The opportunity for solitude and 

natural quiet would continue to be diminished 

by logging unless logging was reduced — a 

moderate, long-term, intermittent, adverse 

impact. Opportunities for solitude and natural 

quiet would improve with the reduction of 

noise from the public address system used on 

tour boats between the west boundary and 

Chapel Beach — a moderate, long-term, 

intermittent beneficial impact. 

Development of the Sevenmile Creek overlook would diminish the opportunity for 

solitude and natural quiet to a minor degree 

for the long term. 

Wilderness values could be adversely affected 

in the long term without the designation of 

wilderness — a moderate long-term impact. 

Although the opportunity for solitude would 

continue to be adversely affected by logging in 

the inland buffer zone to a moderate degree, 

these impacts (from logging) would occur 

intermittently and for short periods of time. 

Because of modifications to the public address 

systems, noise from the tour boats would be 

reduced. There would be no major adverse 

impacts on resources or values whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the national lakeshore’s 

establishing legislation, (2) key to the natural 

or cultural integrity or opportunities for 

enjoyment of the national lakeshore, or (3) 

identified as a goal in this general management 

plan or other relevant NPS planning documents. Consequently, there would be no 

impairment of wilderness resources or values 

from actions proposed under this alternative. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

200 

IMPACTS ON SOCIOECONOMIC 

RESOURCES (LOCAL ECONOMY AND 

COUNTY TAX BASE) 

Alternative C calls for a wide range of 

development and restoration projects 

(construction of the Sevenmile overlook road, 

Miners campground and trails, and the eastend administration/maintenance facility; 

paving H-58 and other access roads; and 

partial landscape restoration at the Sand Point 

and Grand Marais Coast Guard Stations, the 

Grand Marais Harbor of Refuge quarters, Au 

Sable Light Station, the Munising Range Light 

Station, and the Abrahamson Farm) to be 

completed during the life of this plan. There 

would be some benefits from expenditures of 

about $74 million in life-cycle costs (estimated 

for a 25-year period), which would benefit the 

overall Alger County economy. There would 

be some moderate to major short-term 

benefits for some individuals (mostly in the 

construction industry) from increased 

business and employment opportunities 

related to lakeshore projects proposed in this 

alternative. This economic activity would 

occur over time as various projects are phased 

in and others are completed. How much the 

Alger County economy actually benefits 

would depend upon the degree to which 

national lakeshore needs are fulfilled within 

and by the local businesses. 

The donation of an easement on 240 acres 

(state land) and the acquisition of an easement 

on about 10 acres (ForestLand Group, 

Limited Liability Corporation land) would 

benefit the public by having this additional 

area added to the national lakeshore (for the 

Sevenmile overlook and road access). A minor 

one-time, expenditure of federal funds and a 

negligible effect on the county’s tax base 

(from acquiring 10 acres) would result. 

The national lakeshore would remain a part of 

the local socioeconomic environment. NPS 

expenditures for goods, services, and staff 

would continue to benefit the local economy. 

Visitors would still be attracted to the county 

because of the national lakeshore, and their 

spending patterns would continue to 

contribute to the area’s economy. The actions 

proposed in alternative C are expected to 

result in short-term beneficial impacts on 

income, earnings, employment, and unemployment. There are no indications that the 

actions and effects of this alternative would 

result in any long-term impacts on the major 

socioeconomic indicators (population, 

income, earnings, employment, unemployment, and poverty) in Alger County. 

Cumulative Impacts. Development projects 

within the national lakeshore in this alternative combined with ongoing activities in the 

construction sector outside the national 

lakeshore (some new housing construction 

and proposed commercial development on 

the outskirts of Munising) would contribute 

short-term expenditures over the life of the 

plan that would have a minor beneficial 

cumulative impact primarily affecting the 

construction industry. 

Conclusion. Overall, the long-term benefits 

of implementing this alternative would be 

moderate to major when compared to the 

overall economy of the predominantly rural 

Alger County. There would be some benefits 

from expenditures of about $74 million in lifecycle costs (estimated for a 25-year period), 

which would benefit the overall Alger County 

economy. There would be some moderate to 

major short-term benefits for some individuals (mostly in the construction industry) 

from increased business and employment 

opportunities related to lakeshore projects 

proposed in this alternative (such as construction of the Sevenmile overlook road, Miners 

campground and trails, and the east-end 

administration/ maintenance facility; paving 

H-58 and other access roads; and partial 

landscape restoration at the Sand Point and 

Grand Marais Coast Guard Stations, the 

Grand Marais Harbor of Refuge quarters, Au 

Sable Light Station, the Munising Range Light 

Station, and the Abrahamson Farm). The 

operations of the national lakeshore would be 
Impacts of Alternative C

201 

a continuing long-term, beneficial 

contribution to the local economy. 

IMPACTS ON VISITOR USE 

AND EXPERIENCE 

Opportunities for Recreational Activities 

There would be no new impacts from continuing opportunities for popular recreational 

activities (e.g., hiking, backcountry camping, 

scenic driving, boating, hunting, fishing, 

kayaking, tour boats, skiing, snowmobiling, 

and ice climbing), continuing use of motorboats on the Beaver Lakes and Grand Sable 

Lake (and restricting motor size, continuing 

commercial air tours, and continuing 

backcountry camping only in designated 

campgrounds, as is currently the case. 

Building a new drive-in campground and trails 

at the Miners area, eliminating the Chapel 

backcountry campground and providing day 

use facilities would be a long-term beneficial 

impact on visitor experience for drive-in 

campers. Hikers in the Miners area might 

encounter more hikers than in the no-action 

alternative − a minor adverse impact. In a 

related action, expanding the Mosquito 

backcountry campground if necessary, and 

providing new opportunities for boat-in 

camping at Grand Sable Lake would be a 

beneficial impact on visitor experience. 

Restoration/rehabilitation/preservation 

measures and other improvements at the 

Munising Range Light Station, the Sand Point 

and Grand Marais Coast Guard Stations, Au 

Sable Light Station, the Grand Marais Harbor 

of Refuge quarters, and the historic farm area 

near Grand Marais would improve 

opportunities for touring and learning about 

historic resources, a moderate long-term 

beneficial impact. Improvements at Coast 

Guard Point at Grand Marais would provide 

additional opportunities for day use activities. 

Taken together, these additional recreational 

options and improvements would have a 

major long-term beneficial impact on the 

visitor experience. 

The opportunity for a long, primitive driving 

experience that leads to primary national 

lakeshore features would be lost if the county 

paves the portion of County Road H-58 

between Little Beaver Lake Road and Grand 

Sable Lake as recommended under this 

alternative; after paving some stretches would 

be wider, the road would be busier, vehicle 

speeds would increase, and the forest canopy 

over the road would be eliminated in some 

places. This would be a moderate long-term 

adverse impact on visitors who want a 

primitive driving experience. 

In most areas of the national lakeshore, old 

logging roads ("two track" roads) that are now 

open to the public would remain open. Opportunities for primitive driving experiences 

on two track roads would continue to be 

available in alternative C except in Beaver 

Basin, a moderate long-term beneficial impact. 

Cumulative Impacts. No past, ongoing, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions by 

others would, in combination with the 

impacts just described, result in cumulative 

impacts on providing for recreational 

activities at the national lakeshore under this 

alternative. 

Conclusion. Impacts on recreational opportunities would be mixed and long term. 

Additional opportunities would come from 

new facilities (e.g., a campground, trails, boatin campsites, building rehabilitation, 

landscape restoration, the new overlook and 

road, and paved roads); these would have a 

major beneficial impact. The opportunity for a 

long, primitive driving experience that leads to 

primary features would be eliminated if the 

county paves H-58 between Little Beaver Lake 

Road and Grand Sable Lake, a moderate longterm adverse impact for those wishing for this 

kind of experience. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

202 

Access to Primary National 

Lakeshore Features 

New roads and road improvements − paving 

the access roads to Miners Falls, Miners 

Beach, Chapel, Log Slide, and Grand Sable 

Lake; providing new vehicular access to the 

Chapel area and a Sevenmile Creek overlook 

area; upgrading the Beaver Basin overlook 

road to improved gravel; and recommending 

that the county pave County Road H-58 

throughout the national lakeshore − would 

mean that visitors could visit many more 

lakeshore features in a given period of time 

compared to the no-action alternative, a major 

long-term beneficial impact. 

Implementing alternative C would change the 

mix of access. More national lakeshore 

features would be easy to get to or require 

moderate effort; many challenging experiences would be lost. Crowding would be more 

likely at popular national lakeshore attracttions. Areas that are now relatively remote and 

wild would have more visitors and more 

facilities. 

Commercial tour boats and commercial kayak 

tours, both of which could continue to 

provide the best views of the Pictured Rocks 

cliffs, would be a long-term moderate benefit 

for visitors onboard the boats. 

Cumulative Impacts. No past, ongoing, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions by 

others would, in combination with the 

impacts just described, result in cumulative 

impacts on access to primary national 

lakeshore features under this alternative. 

Conclusion: The effect of implementing 

alternative C on access to primary features 

would be mixed and long term. Visitors could 

visit more lakeshore features in a given period 

of time than under the no-action alternative, a 

major long-term beneficial impact; however, 

certain areas might also become crowed, a 

minor adverse impact. Motorized and 

nonmotorized boats would continue to 

approach cliffs and beaches on the Lake 

Superior shoreline, a long-term moderate 

benefit for visitors onboard the boats. 

Noise 

As in the no-action alternative, noise from 

snowmobiles, motorboats, and chainsaws 

would continue to have a long-term, moderate 

adverse impact on the visitor experience 

unless ways to reduce or muffle the sounds 

were implemented. Noise from the tour boat 

public address system would be reduced 

under this alternative — a long-term moderate 

beneficial impact. Sounds from vehicles on the 

road to Little Beaver Lake (especially sounds 

from towed trailers or campers) would 

continue to carry into Beaver Basin, 

continuing the long-term minor adverse 

impacts on visitors there. 

Cumulative Impacts. Noise outside of the 

national lakeshore is primarily from personal 

watercraft outside the 0.25-mile boundary 

near the east and west ends of the national 

lakeshore, chainsaws associated with logging 

activities adjacent to the inland buffer zone, 

and snowmobiles in the winter along County 

Road H-58. These activities produce generally 

short-term, minor to moderate adverse 

impacts (depending on proximity to the noise 

source and setting). There would also be 

occasional noise sources within the national 

lakeshore — snowmobiles and vehicles on 

roads in the national lakeshore, and chainsaws 

used for logging in the inland buffer zone. 

These disruptions, in combination with the 

noise sources mentioned above that are 

outside the national lakeshore, would result in 

continuing adverse short-term minor to 

moderate (depending on proximity to the 

noise source and setting) cumulative impacts 

on the natural quiet of the national lakeshore. 

Noise from the tour boat public address system would be reduced under this alternative 

— a long-term moderate beneficial impact. 
Impacts of Alternative C

203 

Conclusion: Man-made noise from snowmobiles, motorized boats, and chainsaws from 

logging operations would continue to have a 

long-term, moderate adverse impact on the 

visitor experience. Noise from the tour boat 

public address system would be reduced 

under this alternative — a long-term moderate 

beneficial impact. 

Scenic Character of County Road H-58 

Although efforts should be made to maintain 

characteristics that visitors say contribute to 

the road's scenic character (narrow width, 

curves, and forest canopy or tunnel), paving 

H-58 would result in some loss of these 

characteristics. As County Road H-58 was 

improved, the section of road close to the 

shoreline bluff, near Sullivan’s Creek, would 

be relocated away from the shoreline. This 

means that views of Lake Superior from H-58 

would no longer be possible. Altogether, 

changes to H-58 under alternative C would 

have a moderate long-term adverse impact on 

the road's scenic character. 

Cumulative Impacts. No past, ongoing, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions by 

others would, in combination with the 

impacts just described, result in cumulative 

impacts on the scenic character of H-58 under 

this alternative. 

Conclusion: If recommended changes were 

made to County Road H-58, the result would 

be moderate long-term adverse impacts on its 

scenic character. 

Opportunities for People with Disabilities 

No additional existing outdoor attractions 

would be made accessible to visitors with 

disabilities under this alternative. A new road 

to Sevenmile Creek overlook would make it 

easier for visitors with disabilities to get to or 

see additional national lakeshore features. A 

new campground at Miners would be accessible to visitors with disabilities, providing 

additional options for campers who are not 

able to use backcountry campgrounds. Coast 

Guard Point would be a new day use area that 

is accessible to visitors with disabilities. 

Compared to the no-action alternative these 

measures would have a minor long-term 

beneficial impact on disabled visitors. 

Moving the headquarters function from Sand 

Point to a new administration building 

(accessible to visitors with disabilities) near 

the Munising maintenance facility and 

consolidating the lakeshore administrative 

and maintenance functions at the east end 

near Grand Marais would represent a major 

beneficial impact to disabled lakeshore staff 

and other disabled persons needing to 

conduct business in the national lakeshore. 

Cumulative Impacts. No past, ongoing, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions by 

others would, in combination with the 

impacts just described, result in cumulative 

impacts on opportunities for visitors with 

disabilities under this alternative. 

Conclusion: Providing a new road to Sevenmile Creek overlook, a new campground at 

Miners, and a new day use area at Coast 

Guard Point (accessible to people with 

disabilities) would make it easier for disabled 

visitors to get to, see, or use additional 

national lakeshore features. These actions 

would have minor long-term beneficial 

impacts on visitors with disabilities. 

Moving the headquarters function to a new 

administration building (accessible to people 

with disabilities) near Munising and consolidating administrative and maintenance in a 

new facility near Grand Marais (also accessible to people with disabilities) would have a 

major long-term beneficial impact on staff and 

others with disabilities who might need to 

conduct business in the national lakeshore. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

204 

IMPACTS ON NATIONAL 

LAKESHORE OPERATIONS 

Operational efficiency would improve, 

providing a long-term moderate benefit, from 

consolidating national lakeshore operations 

(at both ends of national lakeshore) in new 

facilities that meet NPS standards. 

Developing a new drive-in campground 

would have a minor long-term adverse impact 

on enforcement staff who would have an 

additional site to patrol. 

If the county paves H-58 as recommended 

under this alternative, the primary route of 

access to the central and eastern portions of 

the national lakeshore, would result in a 

minor long-term decrease in emergency 

response times in the central and eastern 

portions of the lakeshore − a minor long-term 

benefit because it would remain, by design, a 

slow-speed road. 

National lakeshore staff would continue to 

use motorized vehicles (wheeled vehicles or 

boats) to conduct maintenance and resource 

management activities at the Beaver Lakes and 

along the Lake Superior shoreline. Access to 

the Chapel area would change from hiking to 

wheeled vehicle with the construction of new 

roads to these areas making administrative 

access more efficient. 

Cumulative Impacts. No past, ongoing, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions by 

others would, in combination with the 

impacts just described, result in cumulative 

impacts on national lakeshore operations 

under this alternative. 

Conclusion. Implementing alternative C 

would have a net moderate long-term benefit 

on national lakeshore operations from 

consolidating operations in new facilities at 

both ends of the national lakeshore. 

If the county paves H-58 as recommended 

under this alternative, emergency response 

times would decrease, a minor long-term 

benefit because it would remain, by design, a 

slow-speed road. 

Continued motorized access for maintenance 

and resource management activities at the 

Beaver Lakes and along the Lake Superior 

shoreline, and changing access to the Chapel 

area from hiking to vehicles would make 

administrative access more efficient in these 

areas. 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

The following discussion identifies impacts on 

resources associated with the implementation 

of this alternative. These impacts have been 

identified as being unavoidable, moderate to 

major, and adverse. 

Some archeological sites adjacent to 

construction or that are easily accessible 

would be subject to disturbance. 

Converting Chapel Basin from the primitive to 

the casual recreation management 

prescription would have a long-term 

moderate adverse impact. 

The opportunity for solitude and natural quiet 

would continue to be reduced by logging and 

tour boat operations (unless logging was 

reduced or the public address system was 

modified to reduce projected sound), which 

would be a long-term moderate, intermittent, 

adverse impact. 

The opportunity for an extended primitive 

driving experience to primary national 

lakeshore features over primitive roads would 

be lost. 

Crowding and loss of solitary primitive 

experiences would have a major long-term 

negative effect on the visitor experience. 

Noise from motorized boats, tour boats, and 

logging activities would continue. 
Impacts of Alternative C

205 

If made by the county, improvements to 

County Road H-58 in the lakeshore would 

change its scenic quality from a primitive road 

to a rural highway experience between Grand 

Sable Lake and Kingston Lake. 

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE 

COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 

The irretrievable and irreversible commitments of resources that are associated with 

this alternative are summarized below. 

Irreversible commitments are those that 

cannot be reversed, except perhaps in the 

extreme long-term (e.g., the regrowth of an 

old-growth forest). Irretrievable commitments 

are those that are lost for a period of time (e.g., 

if a road is constructed, the vegetative 

productivity is lost for as long as the highway 

remains). 

Constructing the 2.5-mile improved gravel 

road to the proposed Sevenmile overlook 

would eliminate the vegetative production of 

the 2.5 miles of roadbed. 

RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM 

USES AND LONG-TERM 

PRODUCTIVITY 

This section discusses the effects of the shortterm use of resources in this alternative on the 

long-term productivity of the resources. 

There would be no adverse effects on 

biological, agricultural, or economic 

productivity associated with implementing 

alternative C. 
206 

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE E 

IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Archeological Sites 

The construction operations associated with 

paving sections of County Road H-58 and 

constructing the Miners River campground, 

the new east-end administrative maintenance 

facility, and possibly a small interpretive 

center in the Miners area could result in 

damage to potential archeological sites in the 

vicinity of the road right-of-way/proposed 

construction. Before any ground-disturbing 

activities occurred, surveys would be done to 

identify the presence of archeological 

resources in the project area. When possible, 

identified sites would be avoided and 

protected to the extent possible, depending 

on staffing and funding levels. If avoidance 

was not possible, impacts would be mitigated 

by recovering site data, which would be done 

in accord with an archeological data recovery 

assessment developed in consultation with the 

state historic preservation officer (see 

“Mitigation” section). The resultant impacts 

on sites that could not be avoided would be 

anticipated to be long term, minor (for sites 

with low data recovery potential) to moderate 

(for sites with greater data recovery potential), 

and adverse. 

Cumulative Impacts. An archeological site 

could possibly be disturbed/exposed/ 

impacted by human activity (such as 

residential development, recreational 

activities, logging, or artifact hunting) or 

natural processes (such as erosion or 

vegetation loss). The possibility of ground 

disturbance and exposure would be most 

likely at readily accessible locations such as 

Miners Beach, Hurricane River, Grand Sable 

Lake, Little Beaver Lake, and several 

backcountry locations. The site would be 

protected to the extent possible, depending 

on staffing and funding levels. The loss would 

be mitigated by data recovery (salvage 

archeology), which would be done in consultation with the state historic preservation 

officer (see “Mitigation” section). The 

resulting impact on such sites would be 

anticipated to be adverse, long term, and 

minor (at a site with low data potential) to 

moderate (at a site with greater data 

potential). These impacts, combined with the 

impacts of paving section of H-58 and 

constructing the east-end administration/ 

maintenance facility, a campground, and 

possibly a small interpretive center in the 

Miners area would have a long-term minor to 

moderate adverse cumulative impact on 

archeological sites under alternative E. 

Conclusion. Should sites be identified during 

surveys of project areas, these site(s) would be 

protected to the extent possible, depending 

on staffing and funding levels. When possible, 

the site would be avoided; if avoidance was 

not possible, impacts would be mitigated by 

recovering site data. The overall impacts on 

sites that could not be avoided would be longterm, minor to moderate (depending on the 

data recovery potential of the site) adverse 

impacts. 

There would be no impairment of archeological sites. 

Section 106 Summary. Under regulations of 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(36 CFR 800.5 “Assessment of Adverse 

Impacts”) the National Park Service finds that 

the selection of this alternative would result in 

adverse effects on archeological sites that 

were disturbed by construction activities and 

could not be avoided. 

Historic Structures 

Preserving and rehabilitating the Munising 

Range Light Station; rehabilitating the Sand 

Point Coast Guard Station and boat house, 
Impacts of Alternative E

207 

and actively interpreting the site and moving 

some of the adaptive uses to other sites; doing 

preservation treatment on the ancillary 

buildings at the Au Sable Light Station; 

rehabilitating structures at and developing a 

site plan for the Grand Marais Coast Guard 

Station; rehabilitating the Grand Marais 

Harbor of Refuge quarters; and rehabilitating 

the Abrahamson barn and preserving other 

structures at the Abrahamson farm would 

help protect the documented architectural 

values (in compliance with the Secretary’s 

Standards for Historic Structures) of these 

structures. Historic buildings would be 

enhanced through rehabilitation of these 

resources as recommended in the historic 

structure reports/ plans. Although some 

historic fabric might be lost during 

preservation/ rehabilitation efforts, a minor 

long-term adverse impact (because changes 

would be minimal), overall there would be a 

long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

impact because the structures would be 

rehabilitated and documented architectural 

elements and values would be protected. 

Cumulative Impacts. No past, ongoing, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions by 

others would be expected to combine with the 

actions proposed in alternative E to have a 

cumulative impact on historic structures. 

Conclusion. Actions under this alternative 

would have long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial impacts on the Munising Range 

Light Station, Au Sable Light Station, the Sand 

Point and Grand Marais Coast Guard 

Stations, the Grand Marais Harbor of Refuge 

quarters, and the Abrahamson farm because 

the structures would be rehabilitated and 

preserved and documented architectural 

values would be preserved. 

There would be no impairment of historic 

structures. 

Section 106 Summary. Under regulations of 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(36 CFR 800.5 “Assessment of Adverse 

Impacts”) the National Park Service finds that 

the selection of this alternative would have an 

adverse impact from the loss of some historic 

fabric from the preservation/rehabilitation 

efforts (changes would be minimal ). 

However, overall there would not be an 

adverse effect because the structures would be 

preserved from further deterioration and 

important architectural elements and values 

would be protected. 

Cultural Landscapes 

Restoring the cultural landscape at the Munising Range Light Station; restoring cultural 

landscape at the Sand Point Coast Guard 

Station and boat house, actively interpreting 

the site; and moving some of the adaptive uses 

to other sites; restoring the cultural landscape 

at the Au Sable Light Station; restoring the 

cultural landscape and developing a site plan 

for the Grand Marais Coast Guard Station; 

restoring the cultural landscape at the Grand 

Marais Harbor of Refuge quarters; and restoring the cultural landscape at the Abrahamson 

and Becker Farms would be a long-term 

moderate beneficial impact on these important cultural landscapes. Significant elements 

of the historic scenes would be restored to a 

reasonable facsimile of their period of 

historical significance, documented values 

would be preserved, and noncontributing 

elements would be removed. 

In areas of abandoned agricultural operations, 

cabin clearings, and abandoned roads that are 

not part of other visitor service areas, woody 

vegetation would encroach, resulting in a 

more closed-in appearance and eventual 

change to a more wooded scene. This would 

result in the loss of landscapes associated with 

farming or other agricultural activities. The 

potential loss of some of these remaining 

landscapes in the national lakeshore would 

have a minor long-term adverse impact on 

these cultural landscapes, and relatively few 

would be left. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

208 

Cumulative Impacts. No past, ongoing, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions by 

others would be expected to combine with the 

actions proposed in alternative E to have a 

cumulative impact on cultural landscapes. 

Conclusion. Restoring the cultural 

landscapes at the Munising Range Light 

Station, the Sand Point and Grand Marais 

Coast Guard Stations, the Au Sable Light 

Station, the Grand Marais Harbor of Refuge 

quarters, and the Abrahamson and Becker 

Farms under this alternative would have longterm, moderate beneficial impacts on the 

cultural landscapes associated with these sites 

by preserving their documented values, 

removing noncontributing elements, and 

adding other elements reflective of a 

reasonable facsimile of the cultural 

landscape’s period of significance. 

Woody vegetation would encroach in areas of 

abandoned agricultural operations, cabin 

clearings, and abandoned roads that are not 

part of other visitor service areas, resulting in 

the eventual loss of landscapes associated with 

farming or other agricultural activities — a 

minor long-term adverse impact on these 

cultural landscapes, and relatively few would 

be left. 

There would be no impairment of cultural 

landscapes. 

Section 106 Summary. Under regulations of 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(36 CFR 800.5 “Assessment of Adverse 

Impacts”) the National Park Service finds that 

the selection of this alternative would not 

have adverse effects on the cultural landscapes 

at Munising Range Light Station, the Sand 

Point and Grand Marais Coast Guard 

Stations, the Au Sable Light Station, the Grand 

Marais Harbor of Refuge quarters, and the 

Abrahamson Farm. 

Woody vegetation would encroach in areas of 

abandoned agricultural operations, cabin 

clearings, and abandoned roads, resulting in 

the eventual loss of landscapes associated with 

farming or other agricultural activities — an 

adverse impact on these cultural landscapes, 

and relatively few would be left. 

Ethnographic Resources 

Under alternative E, there would be no 

project or construction-related ground 

disturbance with the potential to impact 

known ethnographic resources. 

American Indians desiring privacy for religious activities would be disrupted occasionally by such things as the presence of 

other visitors who are hiking or camping and 

noise from water-based visitor-related 

activities such as motorboats, and tour boats 

in the casual recreation prescription. These 

conflicts would constitute a minor, shortterm, reoccurring, adverse impact; however, 

conflicts would only be occasional. (Areas 

where impacts could occur include high cliffs 

or promontories, river and creek mouths, 

inland lakes, Lake Superior, and the Grand 

Sable Dunes.) 

Cumulative Impacts. No past, ongoing, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions by 

others would be expected to combine with the 

actions proposed in alternative E to have a 

cumulative impact on ethnographic resources. 

Conclusion. Under this alternative, there 

would be no project or construction-related 

ground disturbance with the potential to 

impact known ethnographic resources. 

American Indians desiring privacy for 

religious activities would be disrupted 

occasionally by such things as the presence of 

other visitors who are hiking or camping and 

noise from water-based visitor-related 

activities such as motorboats, and tour boats 

in the casual recreation prescription. These 

conflicts would constitute a minor, shortterm, reoccurring, adverse impact; however, 

conflicts would only be occasional. 
Impacts of Alternative E

209 

There would be no impairment of ethnographic resources. 

Section 106 Summary. Under regulations of 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(36 CFR 800.5 “Assessment of Adverse 

Impacts”) the National Park Service finds that 

the selection of this alternative would have 

recurring, occasional, adverse impacts on the 

ability of American Indians to collect 

resources for ceremonial and religious 

purposes or to conduct ceremonies. 

Museum Collection 

Moving the museum collection to the 

proposed new administrative headquarters 

building near Munising would provide longterm major beneficial effects for the preservation the collection because the new 

repository would meet modern professional 

standards and would be more accessible to 

staff and researchers. 

Cumulative Impacts. No past, ongoing, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions by 

others would be expected to combine with the 

actions described above (moving the collection to a repository that meets professional 

standards) to have a cumulative impact on the 

museum collection under alternative E. 

Conclusion. Actions under this alternative 

would have long-term major beneficial 

impacts on the preservation of and access to 

the national lakeshore’s museum collection by 

staff and researchers because the collection 

would be housed in a new repository that 

would meet modern professional standards 

and would be more accessible to staff and 

researchers. 

There would be no impairment of the 

museum collection. 

Section 106 Summary. Under regulations of 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(36 CFR 800.5 “Assessment of Adverse 

Impacts”) the National Park Service finds that 

the selection of this alternative would not 

have an adverse effect on the museum 

collection. 

IMPACTS ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

Species of Concern 

Eliminating vehicle access to the Little Beaver 

Lake campground and use of motorized boats 

on Beaver and Little Beaver Lakes could 

reduce the already low potential for disturbance of bald eagles nesting in this area, a beneficial impact but one that would be difficult to 

quantify. There would be no change at other 

nest sites in the lakeshore and no adverse 

effect would be expected. 

Because there would be no change in management of Grand Sable Dunes, Pitcher’s thistle 

and other species of concern found there, 

would continue to benefit from the protection 

afforded by research natural area designation. 

All species of concern found in the dunes 

would remain protected and primarily subject 

to natural changes. 

Campground development at Miners Basin 

would result in a minor increase of human 

presence and traffic for the long term. 

However, the increase would be localized and 

seasonal. The very low density of roads and 

development in the national lakeshore would 

have a negligible effect on the gray wolf use in 

the lakeshore and the central Upper Peninsula 

(USFWS 1992; MDNR 1997). There would be 

no appreciable increase in the density of 

roads, although road improvements, particularly paving of large portions of the primary 

roads, could result in higher travel speeds. 

High speeds (about 60 miles per hour) could 

increase the potential for road fatalities if wolf 

use coincides with traffic use. The design for 

H-58 would incorporate elements to provide a 

design speed of about 35 miles per hour. 

 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

210 

The abandonment of two track roads in the 

Beaver Basin and other areas managed under 

the primitive prescription would have a 

negligible effect on species of concern. 

Cumulative Impacts. In Michigan, 

endangered species protection applies to all 

private and public land. The Endangered 

Species Protection law states that an individual may not harm or take threatened and 

endangered species (Michigan Natural 

Resources and Environmental Protection Act 

1994, part 365). It is the responsibility of the 

landowner to submit projects for review to 

determine if a threatened or endangered 

species is known to occur or has potential to 

occur within the project scope. Logging on 

state land is conducted under these guidelines. 

ForestLand Group, Limited Liability Corporation management practices address 

species of concern as identified by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The overall 

effect is that species of concern would continue to be afforded protection in the inland 

buffer zone as well as in the shoreline zone. 

Also, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

the Michigan Department of Natural 

Resources conduct active management 

programs for the gray wolf in the Seney area, a 

major short- and long-term benefit for this 

species in the central Upper Peninsula. 

Although the policies and laws mentioned 

above do not guarantee protection, they do 

serve as more of a deterrent to harming 

endangered species than without these laws. 

In combination with federal laws that protect 

endangered species, overall cumulative effect 

is that species of concern would continue to 

be protected in the national lakeshore, a major 

short- and long -term benefit. 

Conclusion. As in alternative A, continuing 

current management practices would 

perpetuate short- and long-term beneficial 

impacts for species of concern. Preserving 

Grand Sable Dunes as a research natural area 

would continue to provide a major long-term 

benefit for species of concern in that area by 

providing an environment with very limited 

use or disturbance. There would be no 

discernable adverse impacts on the bald eagle, 

pitcher’s thistle, the gray wolf, or other species 

of concern expected if alternative E was 

implemented. Species occurring north of the 

inland buffer zone elsewhere in the lakeshore 

would continue to benefit from federal (NPS) 

protection. Species on state lands are afforded 

protection through review and management. 

Species on corporate and privately owned 

land are subject to state law and require 

review by the Michigan Department of 

Natural Resources to ensure protection. 

Although these laws and policies do not 

guarantee protection, they are an added 

incentive for protecting these species. 

There would be no impairment of species of 

concern. 

Wilderness Resources and Values 

The designation of 18,063 acres of land in the 

Beaver and Chapel Basins as wilderness would 

preserve in perpetuity the wilderness values 

these areas have — a major long-term 

beneficial impact on wilderness values. 

Opportunities for solitude and natural quiet 

would also be improved because tour boats 

would no longer come as close to shore 

between Miners Beach and Chapel Beach — a 

moderate, long-term beneficial benefit. 

Reducing the noise from tour boat public 

address system operations between Miners 

Castle and Chapel Rock would be a moderate 

long-term intermittent, beneficial impact on 

opportunities for solitude and natural quiet. 

East of Miners Beach tour boats and other 

motorized boats would be required to stay 

outside the lakeshore boundary, further 

reducing the effects of noise from that source. 

 
Impacts of Alternative E

211 

Cumulative Impacts. The addition of Beaver 

and Chapel Basins as wilderness (18,063 acres) 

would increase the protection afforded by 

wilderness designation in the central Upper 

Peninsula to 54,506 acres (Big Island 6,008 

acres, Strangmoor Bog 25,150 acres, and Rock 

River Canyon 5,285 acres) — a major longterm beneficial cumulative impact on 

wilderness values. 

Logging activity would continue in the inland 

buffer zone, but the effect on opportunities 

for solitude and natural quiet would be 

decreased because logging immediately 

adjacent to the area proposed for wilderness 

designation would be discontinued as 

prescribed in the primitive management 

prescription — a moderate long-term benefit. 

Conclusion. Overall, wilderness values would 

be enhanced more than the preferred alternative because a larger area with wilderness 

characteristics would be preserved (18,063 

acres) — a long-term major benefit. Reducing 

the noise from tour boat public address 

system operations between Miners Castle and 

Chapel Rock would be a moderate long-term 

intermittent, beneficial impact on opportunities for solitude and natural quiet. However, 

motorized boat use would be prohibited 

within the 0.25-mile-wide portion of Lake 

Superior from Miners Beach to the mouth of 

Spray Creek. This would remove much of the 

noise from motorized boats — a long-term 

moderate beneficial impact on opportunities 

for solitude and natural quiet, and other 

wilderness values. The total area of wilderness 

in the central Upper Peninsula would increase 

by about 33% — a major, long-term, beneficial 

impact for those who desire that kind of 

experience. 

There would be no impairment of wilderness 

resources or values from actions proposed 

under this alternative. 

IMPACTS ON SOCIOECONOMIC 

RESOURCES (LOCAL ECONOMY AND 

COUNTY TAX BASE) 

Alternative E outlines a variety of development and restoration projects (construction of 

Miners campground and trails, the east-end 

administration/maintenance facility, and 

possibly a small interpretive center; paving 

sections of H-58 and other access roads; and 

partial landscape restoration at the Sand Point 

and Grand Marais Coast Guard Stations, the 

Grand Marais Harbor of Refuge quarters, Au 

Sable Light Station, the Munising Range Light 

Station, and the Abrahamson Farm) to be 

accomplished over the life of this plan. There 

would be some benefits from expenditures of 

about $37 million in life-cycle costs (estimated 

for a 25-year period), which would benefit the 

overall Alger County economy. There would 

be some moderate to major short-term 

benefits for some individuals (mostly in the 

construction industry) from increased business and employment opportunities related to 

lakeshore projects proposed in this alternative. This economic activity would occur over 

time as various projects are phased in and 

others are completed. How much the Alger 

County economy actually benefits would 

depend upon the degree to which national 

lakeshore needs are fulfilled within and by the 

local businesses. 

Some potential tour boat riders might feel that 

being close to the pictured rocks (the primary 

attraction) but farther (0.25 mile) from the 

shore between Miners Beach and Chapel 

Beach would have little influence on their 

decision to ride the tour boat. Others might 

choose not to take the tour because the boat 

would be prohibited from operating as close 

to the shore in that area as it has in the past 

(less than 0.25 mile). If this changed affected 

the popularity of the tours so that the economic viability of the operation suffered, the 

tours might be discontinued altogether, a 

major adverse long-term impact on the tour 

operators. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

212 

The national lakeshore would remain a part of 

the local socioeconomic environment. NPS 

expenditures for goods, services, and staff 

would continue to benefit the local economy. 

Visitors would still be attracted to the county 

because of the national lakeshore, and their 

spending patterns would continue to 

contribute to the area’s economy. The actions 

proposed in alternative E would be expected 

to result in short-term beneficial impacts on 

income, earnings, employment, and unemployment. There are no indications that the 

actions and effects of this alternative would 

result in any long-term-impacts on the major 

socioeconomic indicators (population, 

income, earnings, employment, unemployment, and poverty) in Alger County. 

Cumulative Impacts. Development projects 

in the national lakeshore combined with 

ongoing activities in the construction sector 

outside the national lakeshore would 

contribute short-term expenditures over the 

life of the plan that would be a minor 

beneficial cumulative impact that would 

primarily affect the construction industry. 

Conclusion. Overall, the long-term benefits 

of implementing this alternative would be 

minor to moderate when compared to the 

overall economy of the predominantly rural 

Alger County. There would be some benefits 

from expenditures of about $37 million in lifecycle costs (estimated for a 25-year period), 

which would benefit the overall Alger County 

economy. There would be some moderate to 

major short-term benefits for some individuals (mostly in the construction industry) 

from increased business and employment 

opportunities related to lakeshore projects 

proposed in this alternative (such as construction of Miners campground and trails, the 

east-end administration/ maintenance facility, 

and possibly a small interpretive center; 

paving sections of H-58 and other access 

roads; and partial landscape restoration at the 

Sand Point and Grand Marais Coast Guard 

Stations, the Grand Marais Harbor of Refuge 

quarters, Au Sable Light Station, the Munising 

Range Light Station, and the Abrahamson 

Farm). The operations of the national 

lakeshore would be a continuing long-term, 

beneficial contribution to the local economy. 

If the restriction on tour boats operating 

closer than 0.25 mile from the shore between 

Miners and Chapel Beaches affected the tour’s 

popularity and the economic viability of the 

operation suffered, tours might be discontinued, which would be a major, adverse, 

long-term impact on tour operations. 

IMPACTS ON VISITOR 

USE AND EXPERIENCE 

Opportunities for Recreational Activities 

There would be many changes in opportunities for recreational activities compared to 

the no-action alternative. Motorboats would 

no longer be allowed on the Beaver Lakes 

because Beaver Basin would be managed 

under the primitive prescription. Between the 

east end of Miners Beach and the mouth of 

Sevenmile Creek, the 0.25-mile strip of Lake 

Superior within the national lakeshore (about 

18 miles) would be managed under the 

primitive prescription. This means that 

motorized boats (including commercial tour 

boats) would no longer be permitted to use 

these waters. The Superior, a shipwreck near 

Spray Falls that is often visited by scuba 

divers, would become inaccessible to 

motorized dive boats. 

Eliminating motorboats on the Beaver Lakes, 

eliminating motorized boats, including 

commercial tour boats, from the 0.25-mile 

strip between the east end of Miners Beach 

and the mouth of Sevenmile Creek, and 

making the Superior shipwreck near Spray 

Falls inaccessible to motorized dive boats 

would have a major adverse impact on the 

visitor experience. 

A new drive-in campground and trails at the 

Miners area would result in additional 
Impacts of Alternative E

213 

opportunities for visitors seeking those kinds 

of experiences — a long-term benefit. 

However, hikers in the Miners area might 

encounter more hikers than in the no-action 

alternative, a minor adverse impact. 

Opportunities for touring and learning about 

historic resources would be improved by 

rehabilitation/restoration/preservation 

measures and other improvements at the 

Munising Range Light Station, Sand Point and 

Grand Marais Coast Guard Stations, Au Sable 

Light Station, the Grand Marais Harbor of 

Refuge quarters, and the historic farm area. 

These additional or improved recreational 

opportunities would have a major beneficial 

impact on the visitor experience. 

Opportunities for a primitive driving 

experience leading to primary national 

lakeshore features could be reduced if the 

country paves two stretches of County Road 

H-58 as recommended, a moderate adverse 

impact over the long term on visitors seeking 

this kind of experience. There could be a 

moderate beneficial impact on those not 

wanting a primitive driving experience. 

Several additional unpaved and primitive 

driving opportunities would be lost in alternative E. Closing Little Beaver Lake road and the 

Beaver Basin overlook road to motor vehicles 

and closing two track roads that are now open 

to the public in areas managed as primitive, 

such as Chapel Basin and Beaver Basin (see 

alternative E map) would have a moderate 

long-term adverse impact on visitor experiences. However, converting what are now 

Little Beaver Lake road and Beaver Basin 

overlook road to hiking trails after closing 

them to motor vehicles would have a 

moderate long-term beneficial impact for 

hikers. 

Cumulative Impacts. No past, ongoing, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions by 

others would, in combination with the 

impacts just described, result in cumulative 

impacts on opportunities for recreational 

opportunities under this alternative. 

Conclusion. Impacts on recreational opportunities would be mixed and long term. Loss 

of motorboating opportunities on the Beaver 

Lakes and for 0.25 mile of Lake Superior 

between Miners Beach and the mouth of 

Sevenmile Creek would have a long-term 

major adverse impact. Additional or improved 

recreational opportunities (a new 

campground and hiking opportunities and 

opportunities to tour historic resources) 

would have a major beneficial impact. 

Additional hiking opportunities in Beaver 

Basin and along Little Beaver Lake road would 

have a moderate beneficial impact. 

Access to Primary National 

Lakeshore Features 

If, as recommended, the county paves County 

Road H-58 throughout the national lakeshore, 

a few national lakeshore features such as Au 

Sable Light Station and Log Slide would be 

somewhat easier to get to — a minor beneficial 

impact on the visitor experience. Converting 

Little Beaver Lake and Beaver Basin overlook 

access roads to hiking trails would make it 

more difficult for some visitors to get to these 

features, resulting in a minor reduction of 

motorized access to national lakeshore 

features but a long-term beneficial impact on 

hikers. Features with improved access would 

probably get more visitors and could be 

crowded at times, a minor long-term adverse 

impact. 

An 18-mile stretch of Lake Superior (0.25 mile 

wide) would be managed under the primitive 

prescription, and would be off-limits to 

motorboats except in an emergency or when 

human safety was threatened. Although commercial tour boats could continue, people on 

the tours would not see the shoreline or cliffs 

nearly as well as in the no-action alternative 

because the vessels would have to stay 0.25 

mile from shore. If this change affected the 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

214 

popularity of the tours so that the economic 

viability of the operation suffered, the tours 

might be discontinued altogether, a major 

long-term adverse impact on the tour 

operators. Commercial kayak tours, which 

provide good views of the cliffs from the 

water, would experience a minor long-term 

beneficial impact from the removal of 

motorized boats in the primitive prescription. 

Nonetheless, up to 37,000 people per year 

could lose an opportunity to get good views of 

the cliffs and beaches from a tour boat, a 

major long-term adverse impact on the visitor 

experience. 

Cumulative Impacts. No past, ongoing, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions by 

others would, in combination with the 

impacts just described, result in cumulative 

impacts on access to primary national 

lakeshore features under this alternative. 

Conclusion. Impacts on motorized access to 

primary features would be mostly adverse and 

long term. Notably, the opportunity to get 

close-up (less than 0.25 mile) views of cliffs 

and beaches from Miners Beach to Chapel 

Beach from a tour boat or other motorboat 

would be lost, a major adverse impact. If this 

change affected the popularity of the tours so 

that the economic viability of the operation 

suffered, the tours might be discontinued 

altogether, a major long-term adverse impact 

on visitors. Commercial kayak tours, which 

provide good views of the cliffs from the 

water, would experience a minor long-term 

beneficial impact from the removal of 

motorized boats in the primitive prescription. 

Noise 

Noise from snowmobiles, motorboats, and 

chainsaws would have a long-term, moderate 

adverse impact on the visitor experience in 

much of the national lakeshore unless ways to 

reduce or muffle the sounds were 

implemented. Because of modifications to the 

tour boat public address system, noise would 

be reduced from the west boundary to Chapel 

Beach — a moderate, long-term, beneficial, 

intermittent impact. Noise from motorized 

boats on Lake Superior within 0.25 mile of the 

shore would be reduced in the central portion 

of the national lakeshore (near Beaver Basin), 

with users of shoreline and beach areas 

benefiting most. Motorboat noise would be 

eliminated on the Beaver Lakes (managed as 

the primitive prescription). Compared to the 

no-action alternative these changes would 

have a long-term minor beneficial impact on 

visitors who find such noise undesirable 

because the current 10-horsepower restriction 

produces only low noise levels. 

Reduced noise from the tour boat public 

address system would have a moderate, longterm, intermittent beneficial impact on the 

visitor experience for visitors who find such 

noise undesirable. 

Eliminating motorboats on the Beaver Lakes 

and converting Little Beaver Lake road to a 

hiking trail would eliminate these sources of 

noise and would have a long-term minor 

beneficial impact. 

Cumulative Impacts. Noise outside of the 

national lakeshore is primarily from personal 

watercraft outside the 0.25-mile boundary 

near the east and west ends of the national 

lakeshore, chainsaws associated with logging 

activities adjacent to the inland buffer zone, 

and snowmobiles in the winter along County 

Road H-58. These activities produce generally 

short-term, minor to moderate adverse 

impacts (depending on proximity to the noise 

source and setting). There are also occasional 

noise sources within the national lakeshore −

the tour boat public address system (which 

would be reduced under this alternative), 

snowmobiles and vehicles on roads in the 

national lakeshore, and chainsaws used for 

logging in the inland buffer zone. These 

disruptions, in combination with the noise 

sources mentioned above that are outside the 

national lakeshore, would result in continuing 

adverse short-term minor to moderate 
Impacts of Alternative E

215 

(depending on proximity to the noise source 

and setting) cumulative impacts on the natural 

quiet of the national lakeshore. 

Conclusion. Alternative E would have longterm beneficial impacts related to reducing 

man-made noise in the national lakeshore. 

Boat noise would be reduced along 18 miles 

(from Miners Beach to the mouth of Sevenmile Creek) of the shoreline and adjacent 

areas, resulting in a moderate long-term 

beneficial impact on the visitor experience. 

Reduced noise from the modified tour boat 

public address system from the west boundary 

to Chapel Beach would be a long-term, 

moderate, beneficial, intermittent impact on 

people looking for a quiet experience. 

Reduced motorboat and vehicle noise near 

Beaver Lakes would also have a minor 

beneficial impact. 

Scenic Character of County Road H-58 

Efforts should be made to maintain characteristics that visitors say contribute to the 

County Road H-58’s scenic character. 

However, if it is upgraded by the county as 

recommended under this alternative, some 

loss of these characteristics would be unavoidable and would result in a moderate longterm adverse impact on the visitor experience. 

Cumulative Impacts. No past, ongoing, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions by 

others would, in combination with the 

impacts just described, result in cumulative 

impacts on the scenic character of County 

Road H-58 under this alternative. 

Conclusion. If undertaken by the county as 

recommended under this alternative, changes 

to County Road H-58 would have moderate 

long-term adverse impacts on its scenic 

character. 

Opportunities for People with Disabilities 

Outdoor lakeshore attractions that are accessible to visitors with disabilities would remain 

as they currently exist under this alternative 

except that Little Beaver Lake would no 

longer be accessible to disabled visitors and a 

new campground at Miners would be accessible to disabled visitors. This new campground would provide additional options for 

visitors who are not able to use backcountry 

campgrounds. The Grand Marais Coast 

Guard Station would be a new day use area 

that is accessible to visitors with disabilities. 

Compared to the no-action alternative, these 

measures would have a minor long-term 

beneficial impact on disabled visitors. 

Moving the headquarters function from Sand 

Point to a new administration building (accessible to people with disabilities) near the 

Munising maintenance facility and consolidating the east-end lakeshore administrative 

and maintenance functions in a new facility 

(also accessible to people with disabilities) 

near Grand Marais would be a major 

beneficial impact on disabled lakeshore staff 

and other disabled persons needing to 

conduct business in the national lakeshore. 

Cumulative Impacts. No past, ongoing, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions by 

others would, in combination with the 

impacts just described, result in cumulative 

impacts on people with disabilities under this 

alternative. 

Conclusion. Under this alternative, Little 

Beaver Lake would no longer be accessible to 

visitors with disabilities, the new campground 

at Miners would be accessible to visitors with 

disabilities, and Coast Guard Point would be a 

new day use area that is accessible to visitors 

with disabilities. Compared to the no-action 

alternative, these measures would have a 

minor long-term beneficial impact on disabled 

visitors. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

216 

Moving the headquarters function to a new 

administration building (accessible to people 

with disabilities) near Munising and consolidating administrative and maintenance in a 

new facility (also accessible to people with 

disabilities) near Grand Marais would have a 

major long-term beneficial impact on staff and 

others with disabilities who might need to 

conduct business in the national lakeshore. 

IMPACTS ON NATIONAL 

LAKESHORE OPERATIONS 

Consolidating national lakeshore operations 

in new facilities that meet NPS standards at 

both ends of the national lakeshore would 

improve operational efficiency and provide a 

long-term moderate benefit. 

There would be a minor long-term benefit to 

(decrease in) emergency response times in 

those portions of the lakeshore if the county 

paves H-58 (the primary access route to the 

central and eastern portions of the national 

lakeshore) as recommended under this 

alternative. The road would still be a slowspeed road by design. 

Precluding national lakeshore staff use of 

motorboats within national lakeshore waters 

adjacent to the proposed wilderness (a stretch 

of about 18 miles), except in emergencies 

would have a minor adverse impact on the 

operational efficiency of the national 

lakeshore staff. 

Administrative access to the Beaver Lakes area 

would change from motorized access to 

hiking access because Little Beaver Lake Road 

would be closed and converted to a hiking 

trail. This would affect routine maintenance 

and resource management activities as well as 

emergency response (motorized access is 

allowed for emergencies, however conversion 

from road to trail might restrict the size of 

vehicle that could be accommodated) − a 

minor adverse impact on the operational 

efficiency of the national lakeshore staff. 

There would be no change in, and thus no 

new impacts on, access to the Chapel area. 

Developing a new drive-in campground 

would have a minor long-term adverse impact 

on enforcement staff who would have another 

site to patrol. 

Cumulative Impacts. No past, ongoing, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions by 

others would, in combination with the 

impacts just described, result in cumulative 

impacts on national lakeshore operations 

under this alternative. 

Conclusion: The impacts of alternative E on 

national lakeshore operations would be 

mixed. The proposed consolidated operations 

facilities would increase efficiency − a longterm moderate benefit. 

If changes are made by the county as 

recommended, improving H-58 would 

improve emergency response times in some 

areas, a minor long-term benefit. 

Precluding staff use of motorboats within 

national lakeshore waters adjacent to the 

proposed wilderness (about 18 miles) except 

in emergencies would have a minor adverse 

impact on the operational efficiency of the 

national lakeshore staff. 

Changes to mode of access would have a 

minor adverse impact on national lakeshore 

operations in Beaver Basin. Altogether, 

changes in mode of access would have a 

moderate long-term adverse impact on the 

operational efficiency of the national 

lakeshore staff. 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

The following discussion identifies impacts on 

resources associated with the implementation 

of this alternative. These impacts have been 

identified as being unavoidable, moderate to 

major, and adverse. 
Impacts of Alternative E

217 

Some archeological sites adjacent to 

construction or that are easily accessible 

would be subject to disturbance. 

Restricting motorized boats east of Miners 

Beach could result in a major loss of revenue 

for tour boat operations and a missed 

opportunity for most visitors to see the 

Pictured Rocks cliffs. 

Converting the Little Beaver Lake Road to a 

trail would reduce access to the Beaver Lakes. 

Closing Little Beaver Lake and the Beaver 

Basin overlook access roads would reduce 

opportunities for a primitive driving experience and preclude visitors with disabilities. 

The management of the offshore waters as 

primitive would prohibit access by motorboats between Miners Beach and the mouth 

of Sevenmile Creek (where wilderness 

extends 0.25 mile offshore into Lake 

Superior). 

Improvements to County Road H-58 in the 

lakeshore would change its scenic quality 

from a primitive road to a rural highway 

experience between Grand Sable Lake and 

Log Slide resulting in loss in extended 

primitive driving experiences. 

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE 

COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 

The irretrievable and irreversible commitments of resources that are associated with 

this alternative are summarized below. 

Irreversible commitments are those that 

cannot be reversed, except perhaps in the 

extreme long-term (e.g., the regrowth of an 

old-growth forest). Irretrievable commitments 

are those that are lost for a period of time (e.g., 

if a road is constructed, the vegetative 

productivity is lost for as long as the highway 

remains). 

There would be no irreversible and 

irretrievable commitments of resources under 

this alternative. 

RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM 

USES AND LONG-TERM 

PRODUCTIVITY 

This section discusses the effects of the shortterm use of resources in this alternative on the 

long-term productivity of the resources. 

There would be no adverse effects on 

biological or agricultural productivity 

associated with implementing alternative E. 

Economic productivity would be reduced 

proportional to the contribution of Pictured 

Rocks Tours to the local economy. 
218 

220 
221 

PLANNING PROCESS AND HISTORY OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT FOR 

THIS PROJECT 

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC 

INVOLVEMENT 

In the summer of 1999 the public was notified 

of the Pictured Rocks general management 

plan effort by means of Newsletter 1 and 

announcements in the media. Part of the 

framework for the plan (and the first task for 

the planning team) was to reaffirm the 

purpose, significance, and mission for the 

national lakeshore. In Newsletter 1 the public 

was asked to review the lakeshore's purpose, 

significance, and mission statements. The first 

newsletter also asked the public to comment 

on a list of preliminary topics and issues to be 

addressed in the plan (also see appendix F). 

Nearly 300 written comments were received 

in response to Newsletter 1. Additional 

comments were provided by people who 

attended a series of public scoping meetings 

held in August and September 1999 in Novi, 

Grand Rapids, Grand Marais, and Marquette, 

Michigan and in Green Bay, Wisconsin. The 

rest of the national lakeshore staff (those not 

on the planning team) were introduced to the 

planning process, and their comments were 

solicited as part of the planning process. 

Newsletter 2, issued in November 1999, 

provided information on several topics. It 

summarized public response to the first 

newsletter and announced that a wilderness 

study would be prepared as part of the general 

management plan. It presented draft general 

management plan "decision points," which 

are the key questions the plan needs to 

answer. It also introduced and asked for 

public input on management prescriptions, 

which identify a range of ways to manage 

resources and provide for different 

experiences in the national lakeshore. More 

than 250 comments were received in response 

to Newsletter 2. 

The results of the public responses to 

Newsletter 2 were summarized in May 2000 in 

Newsletter 3. This newsletter also presented 

revised management prescriptions and five 

draft alternative concepts. In June 2000 public 

meetings were held in Lansing, Grand Marais, 

and Wetmore, Michigan to provide another 

way for the public to learn about the 

alternatives, ask questions about them, and 

share ideas with the planning team. A total of 

107 persons attended the meetings, and more 

than 500 written responses were received. 

Using input from the public and considering 

the probable environmental consequences 

and costs of the alternatives, the planning 

team developed a preferred alternative. A 

Draft Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore 

General Management Plan and Wilderness 

Study Environmental Impact Statement was 

produced and distributed for public review. 

All newsletters and draft documents are also 

available on-line at 

www.nps.gov/piro/gmpudat.htm. 

CONSULTATION 

In accordance with Section IV of the 1995 

programmatic agreement among the National 

Park Service, the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation, and the National 

Conference of State Historic Preservation 

Officers, certain undertaking require only 

internal NPS review for Section 106 purposes. 

Other undertakings require standard Section 

106 review in accordance with 36 CFR 800, 

and in those instances the National Park 

Service consults as necessary with the state 

historic preservation officer, the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation, tribal 

officials, and other interested parties. 

NPS staff met with Mr. Eugene Big Boy, Tribal 

Chairman of the Bad River Band (Wisconsin) 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

222 

of the Lake Superior Ojibwa Tribe. There are 

about 1,500 members of the tribe on the 

reservation and some 7,000 nationwide. Mr. 

Big Boy did not have any immediate concerns 

and expressed interest in keeping informed of 

planning for the general management plan and 

other activities within the Pictured Rocks 

National Lakeshore. 

Other affiliated tribes were contacted via 

letter and phone calls but did not elect to meet 

with national lakeshore staff. No comments 

were received. 

In accordance with the Endangered Species 

Act, the National Park Service consulted with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources 

regarding species known or potentially 

occurring in the national lakeshore. 

LIST OF AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS RECEIVING A COPY OF THE 

DRAFT PLAN 

Federal Agencies 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Army Corps of Engineers 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Bureau of Land Management 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Federal Highway Administration 

International Joint Commission 

National Park Service 

 Washington Office 

 Midwest Regional Office 

 Isle Royale National Park 

 Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore 

 Keweenaw National Historical Park 

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 

 Pukaskwa National Park 

US Fish & Wildlife Service 

 Seney National Wildlife Refuge 

US Forest Service 

 Hiawatha National Forest 

 Grand Island National Recreation Area 

US Geological Survey 

USDA-Natural Resources Conservation 

Service 

USGS-Biological Resources Division 

Tribes 

Bay de Noc Indian Cultural Association 

Bay Mills Indian Community 

Bay Mills Tribe 

Bad River Tribal Council 

Forest County Potawatomi Tribal Office 

Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa & Chippewa 

Hannahville Indian Community 

Keweenaw Bay Band 

Keweenaw Bay Indian Community 

Lac Courte Oreilles Governing Board 

Lac du Flambeau Tribal Council 

Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior 

Chippewa 

Menominee Indian Tribe 

Red Cliff Tribal Council 

Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe 

Sault Tribe of Chippewa Indians 

Sokaogon Chippewa Community 

Sokaogon Chippewa Tribal Office 

St Croix Tribal Council 

Stockbridge Munsee Tribal Council 

Wisconsin Winnebago Tribal Office 

US House of Representatives/Senate 

The Honorable Bart Stupack, U.S. House of 

Representatives 

The Honorable Carl Levin, U.S. Senate 

The Honorable Debbie Stabenow, U.S. Senate 

Michigan House of Representatives/Senate 

The Honorable Michael Prusi, Michigan 

Senate, district #38 

The Honorable Stephen F. Adamini, Michigan 

House, district 109 

State Agencies 

The Honorable Jennifer Granholm, Michigan 

Governor 

Michigan Department of Environmental 

Quality 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources 

Michigan Department of State 

Michigan Department of Transportation 

Michigan Air National Guard 
Planning Process and History of Public Involvement for This Project

223 

Michigan Environmental Council 

Michigan Welcome Center 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

State of Michigan 

City/Township/County Agencies 

Alger Chamber of Commerce 

Alger Conservation District 

Alger County Board of Commissioners 

Alger County Clerk 

Alger County Planning Commission 

Alger County Sheriff's Dept 

Alger Parks & Recreation Dept 

Altran 

AuTrain Township 

Burt Township Planning & Zoning 

Commission 

Burt Township Public School 

Burt Township Supervisor 

Central U.P. Planning & Development 

Commission 

Eastern U.P. Community Assistance Tech 

Council 

Grand Island Township 

Limestone Township 

Marquette Co Soil Conservation District 

Mathias Township 

Munising City Manager 

Munising Township 

Munising Township Board 

Onota Township 

Rock River Township 

Upper Great Lakes Regional Commission 

Organizations 

Alger County Historical Society 

Alger County Kiwanis 

Alger County Promotional Committee 

Alger County Sportsman Club 

Alger Snowmobile Association 

Alger Underwater Preserve 

American Legion Post 131 

Audubon Council Minnesota 

Audubon Society - Laughing Whitefish 

Chapter 

Audubon Society - Northeast Wisconsin 

Bear Hunters Association 

Capitol Area Audubon Society 

Central Lake Superior Watershed Partnership 

Central U.P. Sportfishing Association 

Central U.P. Sportsmen Association 

Champion International Corporation 

Circle Michigan 

Coalition for Canyon Preservation 

Degraff Nature Center 

Delta County Chamber of Commerce 

Dickinson County Chamber of Commerce 

Discovering Michigan 

Ducks Unlimited 

Grand Island Lodge 422, Masonic Lodge 

Grand Marais Chamber of Commerce 

Greater Ishpeming Chamber of Commerce 

Great Lakes Cruising Club 

Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife 

Commission 

Great Lakes Lighthouse Keepers Association 

Great Lakes Natural Resources Center 

Great Lakes Sea Kayak Club 

Great Lakes Sea Kayakers 

Great Lakes Shipwreck Museum 

Great Lakes Sport Fishing Council 

Great Lakes Sports Fishermen Inc 

Headwaters Environmental Station 

Izaak Walton League 

Kalamazoo Nature Center 

Little Traverse Conservancy 

Loyal Order of the Moose 

Marines of Munising 

Marquette Area Chamber of Commerce 

Marquette County League of Women Voters 

Menominee Chamber of Commerce 

Michigan Association of Conservation 

Districts 

Michigan Association of Timbermen 

Michigan Audubon Society 

Michigan Bearhunter's Association 

Michigan Bow Hunters Association 

Michigan Chamber of Commerce 

Michigan Loon Preservation Society 

Michigan Natural Areas Council 

Michigan Natural Features Inventory 

Michigan Nature Association 

Michigan Sharp-tailed Grouse Association 

Michigan Snowmobile Association 

Michigan Trailfinders Club 

Michigan Trappers Association 

Michigan United Conservation Clubs 

Michigan Waterfowl Association 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

224 

Michigan Wildlife Habitat Foundation 

Moosewood Nature Group 

Munising Council − Knights of Columbus 

2804 

Munising Lioness Club 

Munising Lions Club 

Munising Memorial Hospital Auxiliary 

Munising Rotary Club 

Munising Senior Citizens Club, Inc 

Munising Visitors Bureau 

National Federation of Federal Employees 

National Parks & Conservation Association 

Natural Areas Association 

Newberry Area Chamber of Commerce 

North Country National Scenic Trail 

Association 

North Country National Scenic Trail Hikers 

Northeast Michigan Consortium 

Oakland Audubon Society 

Oneida Business Committee 

Paradise Area Chamber of Commerce 

Rails to Trails Conservancy 

Ruffed Grouse Society 

Sault Ste. Marie Chamber of Commerce 

Schoolcraft Co Chamber of Commerce 

Sierra Club 

Sigurd Olson Environmental Institute 

Skylane Pictured Rocks 

Snell Environmental Group 

Society of American Foresters 

St. Ignace Area Chamber of Commerce 

Superior Scenic Drive Committee 

Superiorland Fish & Game Club 

The Nature Conservancy 

Timber Products Michigan 

Travel Michigan, MEDC 

Trout Unlimited - Michigan State Council 

Trout Unlimited 

Trust for Public Lands 

U.P. Bear Houndsmen 

U.P. Catholic 

U.P. Whitetails Association Inc 

Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition 

Upper Peninsula Highway Coalition 

Upper Peninsula Travel & Recreation Assn. 

Vietnam Veterans Association Chapter 237 

West Shore Snowmobile Council 

Wetmore Community Club 

White Water Associates Inc 

Whitefish Point Bird Observatory 

Wilderness Society 

Wildlife Unlimited of Delta County 

Local Businesses 

BayWatch Resort 

Camel Riders Resort 

Curly's Hilltop Grocery 

Das Gift Haus 

Forest Glen Resort 

ForestLand Group, Limited Liability 

Corporation 

Hiawatha Log Homes 

Mead Corporation 

Melstrand General Store 

Munising Pro Sports 

Pictured Rocks Cruises 

Robinsons Grocery 

Shelter Bay Forests 

Shingleton Oil Co 

Shipwreck Tours 

Trenary Home Bakery 

Wandering Wheels Campground 

White Fawn Lodge 

Media 

Action Shopper News 

Associated Press 

Boat U.S. Reports 

Booth Newspapers 

Capitol Times 

Chicago Tribune 

Daily Globe 

Daily Mining Gazette 

Delta Reporter 

Detroit Free Press 

Detroit News 

Escanaba Daily Press 

Evening News 

Grand Marais Gazette 

Grand Marais Pilot 

Grand Rapids Press 

Green Bay Press Gazette 

Iron Mountain News 

Iron River Reporter 

Lake Superior Magazine 

Lansing State Journal 

Manistique Pioneer 

Marinette Eagle-Star 
Planning Process and History of Public Involvement for This Project

225 

Marquette Monthly 

Michigan Boat & Travel 

Michigan Snowmobiler 

Milwaukee Journal 

Milwaukee Sentinel 

Mining Journal 

Munising News 

Newberry News 

North Woods Call 

Porcupine Press 

WBAY-TV 

WDBC-WYKX 

WFRV-TV 

WGLQ 

WHCH-WQXO 

Wheels Cycle & Sport 

WHWL 

WJPD-WDMJ-WIAN 

WLUC-TV 

WLUK-TV 

WMQT 

WNBY 

WRUP-WFXD 

WSOO News 

WTIQ 

Education 

AuTrain Onota Public School 

Bay de Noc Community College 

Central Elementary School 

Delta Schoolcraft ISD 

Lake Superior State University 

Marquette-Alger ISD 

Mather Middle School 

Michigan State University 

Michigan Tech University 

MSU Extension 

Munising Baptist School 

Munising High School 

Munising Public Schools 

Northern Michigan University 

Ohio University, Athens, Ohio 

Okemos Montessori/Radmoor School 

Seventh Day Adventist School 

Superior Central Public Schools 

University of Michigan 

University of Minnesota 

University of Pittsburgh 

University of Rochester 

University of Wisconsin 

University of Wisconsin - CPSU 

Utah State University 

Libraries 

Blue Water Library 

Brown County Public Library 

Detroit Public Library 

Gogebic Community College Library 

Grand Marais Public Library 

Grand Rapids Public Library 

Kent County Library 

Lansing Public Library 

Lenawaee County Public Library 

Library of Michigan 

Macomb Library 

Mideastern Michigan Library 

Munising Public Library 

Muskegon County Library 

Novi Public Library 

Oakland County Library 

Peter White Public Library 

Superiorland Library Cooperative 

Traverse Area District Library 

Wasahtenaw Public Library 

Wayne Public Library 
226 

228 
229 

APPENDIX A: LEGISLATION 
APPENDIXES

230 
Appendix A: Legislation

231 
APPENDIXES

232 
Appendix A: Legislation

233 

P.L. 1-05-378 LAWS OF 105th CONG.–2nd SESS. Nov. 12 

SEC. 202. PROVISION FOR ROADS IN PICTURED ROCKS NATIONAL LAKESHORE. 

Section 6 of the Act of October 15, 1966, entitled ``An Act to establish in the State of 

Michigan the Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, and for other purposes'' (16 U.S.C. 460s-5), is 

amended as follows: 

(1) In subsection (b)(1) by striking ``including a scenic shoreline drive'' and inserting 

“including appropriate improvements to Alger County Road H-58”. 

(2) By adding at the end the following new subsection: 

``(c) PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN CONSTRUCTION.--A scenic shoreline drive may not be 

constructed in the Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore.''. 

 Approved November 12, 1998. 

PUBLIC LAW 107–295—NOV. 25, 2002 116 STAT. 2129-30 

 SEC. 437. PICTURED ROCKS NATIONAL LAKESHORE BOUNDARY REVISION. 16 USC 460s–15. 

 (a) TRANSFER.—As soon as practicable after the date of enact 

 ment of this Act, the Administrator of General Services may transfer 

 to the Secretary, without consideration, administrative jurisdiction 

 over, and management of, the public land. 

 (b) BOUNDARY REVISION.—The boundary of the Lakeshore is 

 revised to include the public land transferred under subsection 

 (a). 

 (c) AVAILABILITY OF MAP.—The map shall be on file and available 

 for public inspection in the appropriate offices of the National 

 Park Service. 

 (d) ADMINISTRATION.—The Secretary may administer the public 

 land transferred under section (a)— 

 (1) as part of the Lakeshore; and 

 (2) in accordance with applicable laws (including regulations). 

 (e) ACCESS TO AIDS TO NAVIGATION.—The Secretary of 

 Transportation, in consultation with the Secretary, may access the 

 front and rear range lights on the public land for the purposes 

 of servicing, operating, maintaining, and repairing those lights. 

 (f) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

 (1) LAKESHORE.—The term ‘‘Lakeshore’’ means the Pictured 

 Rocks National Lakeshore in the State of Michigan. 

 (2) MAP.—The term ‘‘map’’ means the map entitled ‘‘Pro 

 posed Addition to Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore’’, num 

 bered 625/80048, and dated April 2002. 

 (3) PUBLIC LAND.—The term ‘‘public land’’ means the 

 approximately .32 acres of United States Coast Guard land 

 and improvements to the land, including the United States 

 Coast Guard Auxiliary Operations Station and the front and 

 rear range lights, as depicted on the map. 
APPENDIXES

234 

 (4) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary 

 of the Interior. 

 (g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized 

 to be appropriated to the Secretary $225,000 to restore, preserve, 

 and maintain the public land transferred under subsection (a). 
235 

APPENDIX B: SERVICEWIDE MANDATES AND POLICIES 

The alternatives considered in this document incorporate and comply with the provisions of the 

following mandates and policies as funding and staffing allow. Conditions prescribed by 

servicewide mandates and policies that are particularly important to this document are 

summarized below. These mandates and policies illustrate that a general management plan is not 

needed to decide, for instance, that it is appropriate to protect endangered species, control 

exotics species, protect archeological sites, provide for access for visitors with disabilities, and 

conserve artifacts. Those and other things are already laws, mandates, or policies. 

Relations with National Lakeshore Neighbors 

Current policy requires the following: 

Relations with National Lakeshore Neighbors and Other Agencies 

Desired Condition Source 

The national lakeshore is managed as part of a greater ecological, 

social, economic, and cultural system. 

Because the national lakeshore is an integral part of larger regional 

environment, the National Park Service works cooperatively with 

others to anticipate, avoid, and resolve potential conflicts, protect 

national lakeshore resources, and address mutual interests in the 

quality of life for community residents. Regional cooperation 

involves federal, state, and local agencies, Indian tribes, neighboring 

landowners, and all other concerned parties. 

NPS Management Policies 

The National Park Service will take the following kinds of actions to meet legal and policy 

requirements related to national lakeshore neighbors: 

• Continue to establish and foster partnerships with public and private organizations to achieve 

the mission and purposes of the national lakeshore. Partnerships will be sought for resource 

protection, research, education, and visitor enjoyment. 

• National lakeshore staff will keep landowners, land managers, local governments, and the 

general public informed about national lakeshore management activities. Periodic 

consultations will occur with landowners and communities affected by national lakeshore 

visitors and management actions. The National Park Service will work closely with local, 

state, and federal agencies and tribal governments whose programs affect or are affected by 

activities in the national lakeshore. National lakeshore staff will continue their regular 

consultations with such entities as: the Michigan State Historic Preservation Office, the 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources, American Indian tribes, Alger County and Burt 

Township planning commissions and zoning boards, the Central Upper Peninsula Regional 

Planning Commission, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the city of 

Munising, the Burt and Munising Townships, the Alger County Sheriff’s Department, the 

Michigan State Police, and the Department of Defense.

• Frequent consultations will continue to take place with ForestLand Group, Limited Liability 

Corporation, and other inland buffer zone property owners. 

 
APPENDIXES

236 

Air Quality 

The national lakeshore is a class II air quality area. Current laws and policies require that the 

following conditions be achieved in the national lakeshore. 

Air Quality Desired Condition Source 

Air quality in the national lakeshore meets national ambient air 

quality standards for specified pollutants. 

Activities in the national lakeshore do not contribute to 

deterioration in air quality. 

Clean Air Act 

NPS Management Policies 

Clean Air Act 

NPS Management Policies

The National Park Service has little control over air quality in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. 

Therefore, the national lakeshore must cooperate with other government agencies and the 

Environmental Protection Agency to monitor and protect air quality. The National Park Service 

will take the following kinds of actions to meet the legal and policy requirements related to air 

quality in Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore. 

• Conduct air quality monitoring in conjunction with other government agencies. 

• Participate in regional air pollution control plans and regulations. 

• Conduct national lakeshore operations in compliance with federal, state, and local air quality 

regulations. 

Water Resources 

Current laws and policies require that the following conditions are achieved in the national 

lakeshore. 

Water Resources Desired Condition Source 

Surface waters and groundwater are protected and water quality 

meets or exceeds all applicable water quality standards 

NPS programs and facilities are maintained and operated to avoid 

pollution of surface waters and groundwater. 

Natural floodplain values are preserved. 

The natural and beneficial values of wetlands are preserved and 

enhanced. 

Clean Water Act 

Executive Order 11514 

NPS Management Policies 

Clean Water Act 

Executive Order 12088 

NPS Management Policies 

Clean Water Act 

Executive Order 11988 

Rivers and Harbors Act 

NPS Management Policies 

Clean Water Act 

Executive Order 11990 

Rivers and Harbors Act 

NPS Management Policies 

2001
Appendix B: Servicewide Mandates and Policies 

237 

The national lakeshore lies within the Lake Superior watershed. The management of the 

watershed that is south of the national lakeshore can have a significant impact on the waters in 

and flowing through the national lakeshore boundary. 

The national lakeshore lies within the Lake Superior watershed. The management of the 

watershed that is south of the national lakeshore can have a significant impact on the waters in 

and flowing through the national lakeshore boundary. 

As with air quality, the National Park Service must cooperate with other government agencies to 

protect water quality. The National Park Service will take the following kinds of actions to meet 

legal and policy requirements related to water resources. 

• Apply best management practices to all pollution-generating activities and facilities in the 

national lakeshore, such as operating maintenance and storage facilities and parking areas. 

• Minimize the use of pesticides and other chemicals and manage them in conformance with 

NPS policy and federal regulations. 

• Promote greater public understanding of water resource issues at Pictured Rocks National 

Lakeshore and encourage public support for and participation in protecting the Lake 

Superior watershed. 

• Continue NPS monitoring program and participation in watershed councils. 

• Continue to work with Alger County on the maintenance and redesign of H-58 to reduce 

sedimentation. Continue to monitor the Miners Beach road and take appropriate mitigating 

actions to reduce sedimentation at the three road crossings that are identified as high risk for 

sedimentation downstream of road crossings (over rivers). 

Invasive Species 

Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved in the national 

lakeshore. 

Invasive Species Desired Condition Source 

All exotic plant and animal species that are not maintained to meet an 

identified national lakeshore purpose are managed— up to and including 

eradication— if (1) control is prudent and feasible, and (2) the exotic species: 

• Interferes with natural processes and the perpetuation of natural 

features, native species or natural habitats; or 

• Disrupts the genetic integrity of native species; or 

• Disrupts the accurate presentation of a cultural landscape; or 

• Damages cultural resources; or 

• Significantly hampers the management of national lakeshore or adjacent 

lands; or 

• Poses a public health hazard as advised by the U. S. Public Health Service 

(which includes the Centers for Disease Control and the NPS Public 

Health Program); or 

Creates a hazard to public safety. 

NPS Management Policies 2001
APPENDIXES

238 

Invasive Species Desired Condition (cont.) Source (cont.) 

High priority is given to managing exotic species that have, or potentially 

could have, a substantial impact on national lakeshore resources, and that 

can reasonably be expected to be successfully controllable. Lower priority is 

given to exotic species that have almost no impact on national lakeshore 

resources or that probably cannot be successfully controlled. 

The decision to initiate management should be based on a determination 

that the species is exotic. For species determined to be exotic and where 

management appears to be feasible and effective, superintendents should 

(1) evaluate the species’ current or potential impact on national 

lakeshore resources; (2)develop and implement exotic species 

management plans according to established planning procedures; (3) 

consult, as appropriate, with federal and state agencies; and (4) invite 

public review and comment, where appropriate. Programs to manage 

exotic species are designed to avoid causing significant damage to native 

species, natural ecological communities, natural ecological processes, 

cultural resources, and human health and safety. 

The national lakeshore prevents the introduction of invasive species and 

provides for their control and to minimize the economic, ecological, and 

human health impacts that invasive species cause 

Executive Order 13112 (which 

addresses portions of the following 

laws: National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.), Nonindigenous Aquatic 

Nuisance Prevention and Control Act 

of 1990, as amended (16 U.S.C. 4701 

et seq.), Lacey Act, as amended (18 

U.S.C. 42), Federal Plant Pest Act (7 

U.S.C. 150aa et seq.), Federal Noxious 

Weed Act of 1974, as amended (7 

U.S.C. 2801 et seq.), Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 

Each federal agency whose actions may affect the status of invasive species 

shall, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, 

 1. identify such actions; 

 2. subject to the availability of appropriations, and within Administration 

budgetary limits, use relevant programs and authorities to: 

 (i) prevent the introduction of invasive species; (ii) detect and respond 

rapidly to and control populations of such species in a 

cost-effective and environmentally sound manner; (iii) monitor 

invasive species populations accurately and reliably; (iv) provide 

for restoration of native species and habitat conditions in 

ecosystems that have been invaded; (v) conduct research on 

invasive species and develop technologies to prevent 

introduction and provide for environmentally sound control of 

invasive species; and (vi) promote public education on invasive 

species and the means to address them; and 

 3.not authorize, fund, or carry out actions that it believes are likely to 

cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species in 

the United States or elsewhere unless, pursuant to guidelines that it 

has prescribed, the agency has determined and made public its 

determination that the benefits of such actions clearly outweigh the 

potential harm caused by invasive species; and that all feasible and 

prudent measures to minimize risk of harm will be taken in 

conjunction with the actions. 

Federal agencies shall pursue the duties set forth in this section in 

consultation with the Invasive Species Council, consistent with the “Invasive 

Species Management Plan” and in cooperation with stakeholders, as 

appropriate, and, as approved by the Department of State, when Federal 

agencies are working with international organizations and foreign nations. 
Appendix B: Servicewide Mandates and Policies 

239 

Managing Biological Resources 

Current laws/policies require that the following condition be achieved in the national lakeshore. 

Managing Biological Resources Source 

The National Park Service maintains all native plants and animals as parts of the national 

lakeshore’s natural ecosystems. The term “plants and animals” refers to all five of the commonly recognized kingdoms of living things(including such groups as flowering plants, ferns, 

mosses, lichens, algae, fungi, bacteria, mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes, insects, 

worms, crustaceans, and microscopic plants or animals). The Service will achieve this 

maintenance by: 

Preserving and restoring the natural abundances, diversities, dynamics, distributions, 

habitats, and behaviors of native plant and animal populations and the communities and 

ecosystems in which they occur; 

Restoring native plant and animal populations in the national lakeshore when they have 

been extirpated by past human- caused actions; and 

Minimizing human impacts on native plants, animals, populations, communities, and 

ecosystems, and the processes that sustain them.

NPS 

Management 

Policies, 2001

The individual plants and animals found within the national lakeshore are genetically parts of 

species populations that may extend across both national lakeshore and non- nationallakeshore lands. As local populations within a group of populations naturally fluctuate in size, 

they become vulnerable to natural or human-caused extirpation during periods when their 

numbers are low. The periodic disappearance of local populations is common in some species, 

and the regional persistence of these species depends upon the natural recolonization of 

suitable habitat by individuals from the remaining local populations. Thus, providing for the 

persistence of a species in the national lakeshore may require maintaining a number of local 

populations, often both within and outside the national lakeshore. 

In addition, some populations of vertebrate and invertebrate animals, such as bats, warblers, 

frogs, salmon, deer, and butterflies, migrate at regular intervals into and out of the national 

lakeshore. For these migratory populations, the national lakeshore provides only one of the 

several major habitats they need, and survival of the species in the lakeshore also depends on 

the existence and quality of habitats outside the lakeshore. The Park Service will adopt 

lakeshore resource preservation, development, and use management strategies that are 

intended to maintain the natural population fluctuations and processes that influence the 

dynamics of individual plant and animal populations, groups of plant and animal populations, 

and migratory animal populations in the national lakeshore. 

In addition to maintaining all native plant and animal species and their habitats inside the 

lakeshore, the Park Service will work with other land managers to encourage the conservation 

of the populations and habitats of these species outside lakeshore whenever possible. To meet 

its commitments for maintaining native species in the lakeshore, the Park Service will 

cooperate with states, tribal governments, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. 

Forest Service, as appropriate, to: 

Participate in local and regional scientific and planning efforts, identify ranges of 

populations of native plants and animals, and develop cooperative strategies for 

maintaining or restoring these populations in the national lakeshore; 

Suggest mutually beneficial harvest regulations for lands and waters outside the national 

lakeshore for populations that extend across lakeshore boundaries, such as resident 

deer or fishes; for short-distance seasonal migrant populations, such as moose or 

fishes; or for long-distance migrant populations, such as salmon; 

Develop data, through monitoring, for use in plant and animal management programs 

(such as local land management decision- making for assessing resident plant and 

animal population trends. 

Present information about species life cycles, ranges, and population dynamics in national 

lakeshore interpretive programs for use in increasing public awareness of management 

needs for all species, both resident and migrant, that occur in the lakeshore. 
APPENDIXES

240 

Geologic Resources 

Current laws and policies require that the following condition be achieved in the national 

lakeshore. 

Geologic Resources Desired Condition Source 

Natural soil resources and processes function in as natural a condition 

as possible, except where special considerations are allowable under 

policy. 

NPS Management Policies 

2001 

Soil resources in some portions of the national lakeshore are adversely affected by accelerated 

erosion, compaction, and deposition caused by human activities. The National Park Service will 

take the following kinds of actions to comply with the legal and policy requirements related to 

geologic resources. 

• Survey areas of the national lakeshore with soil resource problems and take actions 

appropriate to the management prescription to prevent further artificial erosion, 

compactions, or deposition. 

• Apply effective best management practices to problem soil erosion and compaction areas in a 

manner that stops or minimizes erosion, restores soil productivity, and re-establish or sustain 

a self-perpetuating vegetative cover. 

Species of Special Concern 

Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved in the national 

lakeshore. 

Species of Special Concern Desired Condition Source 

Federal and state-listed threatened and endangered species and 

their habitats are protected and sustained. 

Populations of native plant and animal species function in as natural 

condition as possible except where special considerations are 

warranted. 

Native species populations that have been severely reduced in or 

extirpated from the national lakeshore are restored where feasible 

and sustainable. 

The management of populations of exotic plant and animal species, 

up to and including eradication, will be undertaken wherever such 

species threaten national lakeshore resources or public health and 

when control is prudent and feasible. 

Endangered Species Act and 

equivalent state protective 

legislation, NPS Management 

Policies 

NPS Management Policies 

2001 

NPS Management Policies 

2001 

NPS Management Policies 

2001

 
Appendix B: Servicewide Mandates and Policies 

241 

Development and activities in the national lakeshore affect native species habitat. For instance, 

structures, roads, and trails needed for visitor use and national lakeshore maintenance influence 

both native and exotic species distribution. Roads also dissect the natural areas of the national 

lakeshore and may create barriers or hazards for some animals such as invertebrates, snakes, and 

small mammals. 

In the case of species that are rare and subject to collection for American Indian cultural reasons, 

surveys and monitoring programs will be undertaken to ensure that stable populations of these 

species are maintained. 

The National Park Service will take the following kinds of actions to comply with legal and policy 

requirements related to native species. 

• Inventory the plants and animals in the national lakeshore. Use the inventory as a baseline 

against which to regularly monitor the distribution and condition of selected species, 

including indicators of ecosystem condition and diversity, rare or protected species, and 

invasive exotics. Modify management plans to be more effective, based on the results of 

monitoring. 

• Support research that contributes to management knowledge of native species. 

• Review national lakeshore fishing regulations and revise them as appropriate to support 

native fish populations. 

• Manage exclusively for native plant species in pristine and primitive management 

prescriptions. In other management prescriptions, limit planting of nonnative species to 

noninvasive plants that are justified by the historic scene or operational needs. 

• Control or eliminate exotic plants and animals, exotic diseases, and pest species where there is 

a reasonable expectation of success and sustainability. Base control efforts on: 

 the potential threat to legally protected or uncommon native species and habitats 

 the potential threat to visitor health or safety 

 the potential threat to scenic and aesthetic quality 

 the potential threat to common native species and habitat 

• Manage exotic diseases and pest species based on similar priorities. 

• Provide interpretive and educational programs on the preservation of native species for 

visitors and for residents neighboring the national lakeshore boundary. 

Fire Management 

Current laws and policies require that the following condition be achieved in the national 

lakeshore. 

Fire Management Desired Condition Source 

All wildfires are suppressed or controlled as soon as possible. NPS Management Policies 

2001

The national lakeshore averages less than one wildfire per year. Those wildfires are usually less 

than 1 acre in size. Past fire causes have been lightning (natural) and unattended campfires (man). 

There is the possibility of applying prescribed fire in the future to achieve specific resource 

management goals, but there is no plan to use prescribed fire in the next five to seven years. 
APPENDIXES

242 

Large wildfires in the national lakeshore, if they were to occur, could pose a threat to residences 

and commercial development adjoining the national lakeshore. To prevent these types of fires, 

the National Park Service will take the following kinds of actions to comply with fire management 

legal and policy requirements. 

• Suppress all wildfires as quickly as possible. 

• Maintain a cooperative agreement for wildfire suppression in the national lakeshore with 

Hiawatha National Forest, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, and Seney 

National Wildlife Refuge. 

Night Sky 

Views of the national lakeshore’s night skies are features that contribute to the visitor experience. 

Night Sky Desired Condition Source 

The National Park Service cooperates with national lakeshore 

neighbors and local government agencies to help minimize the 

intrusion of artificial light into the night sky in the national 

lakeshore. In natural areas, artificial outdoor lighting is limited to 

basic safety requirements and is shielded when possible.

NPS Management Policies 

2001

The National Park Service will take the following kinds of actions to comply with this policy: 

• National lakeshore staff will work with local communities and other agencies to encourage 

protection of the views of the night sky. 

• National lakeshore staff will evaluate impacts on the night sky caused by facilities in the 

national lakeshore. If light sources in the national lakeshore are determined to be affecting 

views of the night skies, national lakeshore staff will study alternatives such as shielding lights, 

changing lamp types, or eliminating unnecessary sources. 

Natural Soundscapes 

An important part of the NPS mission is to preserve or restore the natural soundscapes associated 

with national park system units. The sounds of nature are among the intrinsic elements that form 

the environment of our national park system units. Natural sounds occur within and beyond the 

range of sounds that humans can perceive and can be transmitted through air, water, or solid 

materials. Natural sounds are slowly and inexorably disappearing from most national park system 

units. 

Natural Soundscapes Desired Condition Source 

The National Park Service preserves the natural ambient 

soundscapes, restores degraded soundscapes to the natural ambient 

condition wherever possible, and protects natural soundscapes from 

degradation due to human-caused noise. The National Park Service 

manages disruptions from recreational uses to provide a high-quality 

visitor experience, striving to preserve or restore the natural quiet 

and natural sounds.

NPS Management Policies 

2001
Appendix B: Servicewide Mandates and Policies 

243 

The National Park Service will take the following kinds of actions to comply with this policy: 

• Activities causing excessive or unnecessary unnatural sounds in and adjacent to the national 

lakeshore, including low-elevation aircraft overflights, will be monitored, and action will be 

taken to prevent or minimize unnatural sounds that adversely affect national lakeshore 

resources or values or visitors’ enjoyment of them. 

• Noise generated by NPS management activities will be minimized by strictly regulating 

administrative functions such as motorized equipment. Noise will be a consideration in the 

procurement and use of equipment by the national lakeshore staff. 

• National lakeshore managers will work with tour operators and all other interested parties to 

develop an air tour management plan. The National Park Service will continue to work with 

the Federal Aviation Administration, tour operators, commercial businesses, and general 

aviation interests to encourage aircraft to fly around the national lakeshore, especially for 

those flights where the presence of the national lakeshore is incidental to the purpose of the 

flight (i.e., transit between two points.) 

Archeological Resources 

Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved in the national 

lakeshore. 

Archeological Resources Desired Condition Source 

Archeological sites are identified and inventoried, and their 

significance is determined and documented. 

Archeological sites are protected in an undisturbed condition unless 

it is determined through formal processes that disturbance or 

natural deterioration is unavoidable. 

In those cases where disturbance or deterioration is unavoidable, 

the site is professionally documented and salvaged. 

National Historic 

Preservation Act, Executive 

Order 11593 

Archeological and Historic 

Preservation Act, 

Archeological Resources 

Protection Act, Secretary of 

the Interior’s Standards and 

Guidelines for Archeology and 

Historic Preservation (1992), 

Programmatic Memorandum 

of Agreement among the 

National Park Service, 

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, and National 

Council of State Historic 

Preservation Officers (1995), 

NPS Management Policies 

2001

The archeological sites in the national lakeshore have not been systematically surveyed or 

inventoried. Precise information about the location, characteristics, significance, and condition of 

most archeological resources in the national lakeshore is lacking, and impacts are difficult to 

measure. The National Park Service will take the following kinds of actions to meet legal and 

policy requirements related to archeological sites. 

• Survey and inventory archeological resources and document their significance. 
APPENDIXES

244 

• Treat all archeological resources as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic 

Places pending the opinion of the Michigan state historic preservation officer (SHPO) and a 

formal determination by the Keeper of the national register as to their significance. 

• Protect all archeological resources determined eligible for listing or listed on the national 

register. If disturbance to such resources is unavoidable, conduct formal consultation with the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and the state historic preservation officer 

in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act. 

Historic Properties 

Current laws/policies require that the following conditions be achieved in the national lakeshore 

for historic properties, such as buildings, structures, roads, trails, and cultural landscapes: 

Historic Properties Desired Condition Source 

Historic properties are inventoried and their significance and 

integrity are evaluated under National Register of Historic 

Places criteria. 

The qualities of historic properties that contribute to their 

actual listing or their eligibility for listing on the National 

Register of Historic Places are protected in accordance with the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for 

Archeology and Historic Preservation unless it is determined 

through a formal process that disturbance or natural 

deterioration is unavoidable. 

National Historic Preservation 

Act, Executive Order 11593 

Archeological and Historic 

Preservation Act, Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards and Guidelines 

for Archeology and Historic 

Preservation (1992), 

Programmatic Memorandum of 

Agreement among the National 

Park Service, Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation, and 

National Council of State Historic 

Preservation Officers (1995), NPS 

Management Policies

The national lakeshore includes two listed National Register of Historic Places sites and several 

others that are considered eligible for listing. All of these cultural resources are considered to be 

in good condition with a number having undergone historic restoration. The survey, inventory, 

and evaluation of cultural resources have begun. 

The National Park Service will take the following kinds of action to meet legal and policy 

requirements related to historic properties. 

• Complete a survey, inventory, and evaluation of historic properties under national register 

criteria. 

• Complete a survey, inventory, and evaluation of cultural landscapes. 

• Submit the inventory and evaluation results to the state historic preservation officer and the 

Keeper of the national register with recommendations for eligibility to the national register. 

• Determine the appropriate level of preservation for each historic property formally determine 

to be eligible for listing or actually listed on the national register, subject to the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards. 

• Implement and maintain the appropriate level of preservation for such properties. 

• Identify, inventory, and conserve collections. 
Appendix B: Servicewide Mandates and Policies 

245 

Ethnographic Resources 

Certain contemporary American Indian and other communities are permitted by law, regulation, 

or policy to pursue customary religious, subsistence, and other cultural uses of national lakeshore 

resources with which they are traditionally associated. Recognizing that its resource protection 

mandate affects this human use and cultural context of national lakeshore resources, the National 

Park Service plans and executes programs in ways that safeguard cultural and natural resources 

while reflecting informed concern for the contemporary peoples and cultures traditionally 

associated with them. 

Ethnographic Resource Desired Condition Source 

Appropriate cultural anthropological research is 

conducted in cooperation with national lakeshoreassociated groups. 

NPS Management Policies

The National Park Service accommodates access to and 

ceremonial use of American Indian sacred sites by 

Indian religious practitioners and avoids adversely 

affecting the physical integrity of these sacred sites. 

Executive Order 13007 on American 

Indian Sacred Sites 

NPS general regulations on access to and use of 

natural and cultural resources in the national 

lakeshore are applied in an informed and balanced 

manner that is consistent with national lakeshore 

purposes and does not unreasonably interfere with 

American Indian use of traditional areas or sacred 

resources and does not result in the degradation of 

national lakeshore resources. 

NPS Management Policies, 

E.O. 13007 on American Indian Sacred 

Sites 

Other federal agencies, state and local governments, 

potentially affected American Indian and other 

communities, interest groups, the state historic 

preservation officer, the tribal historic preservation 

officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation are given opportunities to become 

informed about and comment on anticipated NPS 

actions at the earliest practicable time. 

National Historic Preservation Act, 

Programmatic Memorandum of 

Agreement among the National Park 

Service, Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, and the National Council of 

State Historic Preservation Officers 

(1995), Executive Order 11593, American 

Indian Religious Freedom Act, Native 

American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act, Executive Order 13007 

on American Indian Sacred Sites, 

Presidential Memorandum of April 29, 

1994 on Government-to-Government 

Relations with Tribal Governments, NPS 

Management Policies 2001 

 
APPENDIXES

246 

Ethnographic Resource Desired Condition (cont.) Source (cont.) 

The National Park Service consult s with tribal 

governments before taking actions that affect federally 

recognized tribal governments. These consultations are 

open and candid so that all interested parties may 

evaluate for themselves the potential impact of relevant 

proposals. National lakeshore staff regularly consult 

with traditionally associated American Indians 

regarding planning, management, and operational 

decisions that affect subsistence activities, sacred 

materials or places, or other ethnographic resources 

with which they are historically associated. 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act, 

Presidential Memorandum of April 29, 

1994 on Government-to-Government 

Relations with Tribal Governments, NPS 

Management Policies

The identities of community consultants and 

information about sacred and other culturally sensitive 

places and practices are kept confidential. 

NPS Management Policies

American Indians and other individuals and groups 

linked by ties of kinship or culture to ethnically 

identifiable human remains are consulted when 

remains may be disturbed or are encountered on 

national lakeshore lands. 

NPS Management Policies, 

Native American Grave Protection and 

Repatriation Act 

To accomplish these goals, the National Park Service will do the following: 

• Survey and inventory ethnographic resources and document their significance. 

• Treat all ethnographic resources as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic 

Places pending a formal determination by NPS and Michigan state historic preservation 

officer as to their significance. 

• Protect all ethnographic resources determined eligible for listing or listed on the national 

register; if disturbance to such resources is unavoidable, conduct formal consultation with 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the state historic preservation officer in 

accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act. 

• Conduct regular consultations with affiliated tribes to continue to improve communications 

and resolve any problems or misunderstandings that occur. 

• Provide for access to and use of natural and cultural resources in the national lakeshore and 

collections by American Indians that are consistent with national lakeshore purposes, do not 

unreasonably interfere with American Indian use of traditional areas or sacred resources, and 

do not degrade national lakeshore resources. 

In addition, consultation with affiliated Indian tribes was conducted throughout the course of the 

planning process for this document. Resources important to Indian tribes were identified during 

the scoping process by the tribes. That information was carefully incorporated into the design of 

the alternatives so that these resources are protected under any alternative considered. 
Appendix B: Servicewide Mandates and Policies 

247 

Collections 

Current laws and policies require that the following condition be achieved in Pictured Rocks 

National Lakeshore. 

Collections Desired Condition Source 

All museum objects and manuscripts are identified and 

inventoried, and their significance is determined and 

documented. Collections are protected in accordance 

with established standards. 

National Historic Preservation Act, 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act, 

Archeological and Historic Preservation 

Act, Archaeological Resources Protection 

Act, Native American Graves Protection 

and Repatriation Act, NPS Management 

Policies 2001

The Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore museum collections are at risk. Improper storage and 

lack of adequate security and fire protection at facilities where the collections are housed threaten 

their safety and integrity. Significant portions of the archeological and historical collections are 

not cataloged. They are stored in two locations: the Grand Marais Maritime Museum storage and 

Midwest Archeological Center in Lincoln, NE. The National Park Service will take the following 

kinds of actions to meet legal and policy requirements related to collections. 

• Inventory and catalogue all of the national lakeshore’s museum collection in accordance with 

standards outlined in the NPS Museum Handbook (NPS1976). 

• Develop and implement a collection management program according to NPS standards to 

guide protection, conservation, and use of museum objects. 

Visitor Experience and Use Requirements 

Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved in Pictured Rocks 

National Lakeshore. 

Visitor Experience and Use Desired Condition Source 

Visitor and employee safety and health are protected. 

Visitors understand and appreciate national lakeshore 

values and resources and have the information necessary 

to adapt to the national lakeshore environments. Visitors 

have opportunities to enjoy the national lakeshore in 

ways that leave national lakeshore resources unimpaired 

for future generations. 

Recreational uses in the national lakeshore are promoted 

and regulated. Basic visitor needs are met in keeping 

with the national lakeshore purposes. 

NPS Management Policies 2001, General 

Authorities Act 

NPS Organic Act, Pictured Rocks 

National Lakeshore enabling legislation, 

NPS Management Policies 2001 

NPS Organic Act, Pictured Rocks 

National Lakeshore enabling legislation, 

Title 36 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, NPS Management Policies 

2001
APPENDIXES

248 

Visitor Experience and Use Desired Condition (cont.) Source (cont.) 

To the extent feasible, facilities, programs, and services 

in the national lakeshore are accessible to and usable by 

all people, including those with disabilities. 

The Architectural Barriers Act of 1968; 

the Americans with Disabilities Act of 

1990 and 28 CFR Part 36 (most current) 

on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of 

Disability by Public Accommodations 

and in Commercial Facilities (ADAAG −

ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for 

Buildings and Facilities): NPS 

Management Policies 2001; the Uniform 

Federal Accessibility Standards of 1984 

(UFAS); the US Access Board Draft 

Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor 

Developed Areas of 1999; the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973; Secretary of 

the Interior’s regulation 43 CRF 17 −

Enforcement on the Basis of Disability in 

the Interior Programs 

Regulations governing visitor use and behavior in units of the national park system are contained 

in Title 36 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR). These regulations have force of law 

and include a variety of use limitations, such as limits on commercial activities. The following 

regulations are especially pertinent to planning for Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore because of 

issues raised by the public during scoping. 

• Pets must be crated, caged, restrained on a leash (6 feet long or less), or otherwise physically 

confined at all times (36 CFR 2.15). 

• Bicycles are prohibited except on roads, parking areas, and designated routes (36 CFR 4.30). 

• Snowmobiles are prohibited except on designated routes (36 CFR 2.18 and 7.32). 

• Personal watercraft would be allowed to launch from a designated launch site (currently Sand 

Point) and operate on Lake Superior within the national lakeshore boundary from the 

western boundary up to the east end of Miners Beach. Personal watercraft users would be 

allowed to beach their craft on Miners Beach. Personal watercraft would not be allowed to 

launch or operate elsewhere within the national lakeshore. 

• Commercial recreational activities are managed under provisions of incidental business 

permits. 

The National Park Service will take the following kinds of actions to meet legal and policy 

requirements related to visitor experience and use at the national lakeshore: 

• Provide opportunities for visitors to understand, appreciate, and enjoy the national lakeshore. 

• Ensure that all national lakeshore programs and facilities are accessible to the extent feasible. 

• Continue to enforce the regulations in 36 CFR. 

These laws, regulations, and policies leave room for judgment regarding the best mix of types and 

levels of visitor use activities, programs, and facilities. The alternatives presented and evaluated in 

this general management plan represent different approaches to visitor experience and national 

lakeshore use. 
Appendix B: Servicewide Mandates and Policies 

249 

The National Park Service will take the following kinds of actions to meet legal and policy 

requirements related to accessibility. 

• Architectural and Site Access. The National Park Service will develop strategies to ensure that 

all new and renovated buildings and facilities, including those provided by concessioners are 

designed and constructed in conformance with applicable rules, regulations, and standards. 

Existing buildings and facilities will be evaluated to determine the degree to which they are 

currently accessible to and usable by people with disabilities, and to identify barriers that limit 

access. Each national park system unit will develop action plans identifying how those 

barriers will be removed. Action plan elements and funding strategies should be included 

within annual and strategic (five-year) plans. 

• Programmatic Access. The National Park Service will develop strategies to ensure that all 

services and programs, including those offered by concessioners and interpreters, are 

designed and implemented in conformance with applicable rules, regulations, and standards. 

Existing programs, activities, and services (including interpretation, communication, media, 

and Web pages) will be evaluated to determine the degree to which they are currently 

accessible to and usable by people with disabilities, and to identify barriers that limit access. 

Each national park system unit will develop action plans to identify how those barriers will be 

removed. Action plan elements and funding strategies should be included in annual and 

strategic plans. 

• National-lakeshore-specific discussion should include: the types of national lakeshore 

experiences offered and how a representative range of experiences are offered to those with 

disabilities; any factors likely to limit access solutions or require alternative forms of access 

(steep grades, historic structures, special circumstances, and restrictions on service animals. 

Every attempt should be made to provide access to essential national lakeshore experiences. 

Sustainable Design/Development 

Sustainability can be described as the result achieved by doing things in ways that do not 

compromise the environment or its capacity to provide for current and future generations. 

Sustainable practices minimize the short- and long-term environmental impacts of developments 

and other activities through resource conservation, recycling, waste minimization, and the use of 

energy-efficient and ecologically responsible materials and techniques. 

Sustainable Design/Development Desired Condition Source 

NPS visitor and management facilities are harmonious with national 

lakeshore resources, compatible with natural processes, aesthetically 

pleasing, functional, as accessible as possible to all segments of the 

population, energy efficient, and cost-effective. 

NPS Management Policies

The NPS Guiding Principles of Sustainable Design (1993) directs NPS management philosophy. It 

provides a basis for achieving sustainability in facility planning and design, emphasizes the 

importance of biodiversity, and encourages responsible decisions. The guidebook articulates 

principles to be used in the design and management of tourist facilities that emphasize 

environmental sensitivity in construction, use of nontoxic materials, resource conservation, 

recycling, and integration of visitors with natural and cultural settings. Sustainability principles 

have been developed and are followed for interpretation, natural resources, cultural resources, 
APPENDIXES

250 

site design, building design, energy management, water supply, waste prevention, and facility 

maintenance and operations. The National Park Service also reduces energy costs, eliminates 

waste, and conserves energy resources by using energy-efficient and cost-effective technology. 

Energy efficiency is incorporated into the decision-making process during the design and 

acquisition of buildings, facilities, and transportation systems emphasizing the use of renewable 

energy sources. 

In addition to following these principles, the following will also be accomplished: 

• National lakeshore staff will work with appropriate experts to make the national lakeshore’s 

facilities and programs sustainable. Value analysis and value engineering, including life-cycle 

cost analysis, will be performed to examine the energy, environmental, and economic 

implications of proposed national lakeshore developments. 

• National lakeshore staff will support and encourage suppliers, permittees, and contractors to 

follow sustainable practices. 

• National lakeshore interpretive programs will address sustainable national lakeshore and nonnational lakeshore practices. 
251 

APPENDIX C: LAWS AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS 

LEGAL CITATIONS 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ENABLING LEGISLATION

• Act of June 30, 1864, 13 Stat. 325, 16 U.S.C. §48 

• Act of March 1, 1872, 17 Stat. 32, 16 U.S.C. §21 et seq.

• Lacey Act of 1900, as amended by P.L. 97-79, 18 U.S.C. §§42-44, Title 50 CFR 

• Act of August 25, 1916 (National Park Service Organic Act), P.L. 64-235, 16 U.S.C. §1 et seq. as 

amended 

• Act of June 5, 1920, 41 Stat. 917, 16 U.S.C. §6 

• Act of February 21, 1925, 43 Stat. 958, (temporary act, not classified) 

• Act of May 26, 1930, 16 U.S.C. §17-17j 

• Act of March 3, 1933, 47 Stat. 1517 

• Parks, Parkways, and Recreational Programs Act, June 23, 1936, 49 Stat. 1894, 16 U.S.C. 

§§17k-n 

• Act of August 8, 1953, 16 U.S.C. §1b-1c 

• Act to Improve the Administration of the National Park System, August 18, 1970; P.L. 91-383, 

84 Stat. 825, as amended by P.L. 94-458, P.L. 95-250, and P.L. 95-625; 16 U.S.C. § 1a1 et seq. 

• General Authorities Act, October 7, 1976, P.L. 94-458, 90 Stat. 1939, 16 U.S.C. §1a-1 et seq

• Act amending the Act of October 2, 1968 (commonly called Redwoods Act), March 27, 1978, 

P.L. 95-250, 92 Stat. 163, 16 U.S.C. §§1a-1, 79a-q 

• National Parks and Recreation Act, November 10, 1978, P.L. 95-625, 92 Stat. 3467; 16 U.S.C. 

§1 et seq. 

• Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, P.L. 96-487, 94 Stat. 2371, 16 U.S.C. 

§3161 et seq

• NPS resources, improve ability to manage, P.L. 101-337, 16 U.S.C. §19jj 

• National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998, P.L. 105-391, Title IV, National Park 

Service Concessions Management Improvement Act of 1998 

OTHER LAWS AFFECTING THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Accessibility

• Americans with Disabilities Act, P.L. 101-336, 104 Stat. 327, 42 U.S.C. §12101 

• Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, P.L. 90-480, 82 Stat. 718, 42 U.S.C. §4151 et seq. 

• Rehabilitation Act of 1973, P.L. 93-112, 87 Stat. 357, 29 U.S.C. §701 et seq. as amended by the 

Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1974, 88 Stat. 1617 

Cultural Resources

• Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987, P.L. 100-298, 102 Stat. 432, 42 U.S.C. §2101-6 

• American Folklife Preservation Act of 1976, P.L. 94-201, 89 Stat. 1130, 20 U.S.C. §§2101-2107 

• American Indian Religious Freedom Act, P.L. 95-341, 92 Stat. 469, 42 U.S.C. §1996 

• Antiquities Act of 1906, P.L. 59-209, 34 Stat. 225, 16 U.S.C. §432 and 43 CFR 3 

• Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, P.L. 93-291, 88 Stat. 174, 16 U.S.C. §469 

• Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, P.L. 96-95, 93 Stat. 712, 16 U.S.C. §470aa 

et seq and 43 CFR 7, subparts A and B, 36 CFR 79 

• Executive Order 11593: Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, 3 CFR 

1971. 

• Executive Order 13007: Indian Sacred Sites, May 24, 1996 
APPENDIXES

252 

• Historic Sites Act, P.L. 74-292, 49 Stat. 666, 16 U.S.C. §§ 461-467 and 36 CFR 65 

• Historic Preservation Certifications Pursuant to the Tax Reform Act of 1976, the Revenue act 

of 1978, the Tax Treatment Extension Act of 1980, and the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 

1981, 36 CFR 67 

• Management of Museum Properties Act of 1955, P.L. 84-127, 69 Stat. 242, 16 U.S.C. §18f 

• National Historic Preservation Act as amended, P.L. 89-665, 80 Stat. 915, 16 U.S.C. §470 et seq

and 36 CFR 18, 60, 61, 63, 68, 79, 800 

• National Trust Act of 1949, P.L. 81-408, 63 Stat. 927, 16 U.S.C. §§468c-e 

• Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act, P.L. 101-601, 104 Stat. 3049, 25 

U.S.C. §§3001-3013 

• Presidential Memorandum of April 29, 1994 “Government-to-Government Relations with 

Native American Tribal Governments, ” 59 FR 85 

• Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties, E.O. 11593; 36 CFR 60, 61, 63, 800; 44 FR 6068 

• Public Buildings Cooperative Use Act of 1976, P.L. 94-541, 90 Stat. 2505, 42 U.S.C. §4151-

4156 

• Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960, P.L. 86-523, 70 Stat. 220, 16 U.S.C. §§469-469c 

• Tax Reform Act of 1976, P.L. 94-455, 90 Stat. 1916, 

• World Heritage Convention, 1980, P.L. 96-515, 94 Stat. 3000 

Natural Resources

• Acid Precipitation Act of 1980, P.L. 96-294, 94 Stat. 770, 42 U.S.C. §8901 et seq

• Bald and Golden Eagles Protection Act as amended, P.L. Chapter 28, 54 Stat 250, 16 U.S.C. 

§§668-668d 

• Clean Air Act as amended, P.L. Chapter 360, 69 Stat. 322, 42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq. 

• Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982, P.L. 97-348, 96 Stat. 1653, 16 U.S.C. §3501 et seq

• Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 as amended, P.L. 92-583, 86 Stat. 1280, 16 U.S.C. 

§1451 et seq. 

• Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (commonly 

referred to as CERCLA or Superfund), P.L. 96-510, 94 Stat.2767, 42 U.S.C. §9601 et seq

• Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, P.L. 99-499, 100 Stat. 1725, 42 

U.S.C. §1101 

• Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, P.L. 93-205, 87 Stat. 884, 16 U.S.C. §1531 et seq. 

• Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969, 

• Estuary Protection Act, P.L. 90-454, 82 Stat. 625, 16 U.S.C. §1221 

• Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management, 42 FR 26951, 3 C.F.R. 121 (Supp 177) 

• Executive Order 11990: Protection of Wetlands, 42 FR 26961, 3 C.F.R. 121 (Supp 177) 

• Executive Order 11991: Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality 

• Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1982, P.L. 97-98 

• Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988, P.L. 94-377, 102 Stat. 4546, 16 U.S.C. §4301 

• Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, P.L. 92-463, 86 Stat.770 

• Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, P.L. 92-516, 86 Stat. 973, 7 U.S.C. §136 et 

seq

• Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly referred to as Clean Water Act), P.L. 92-500, 

33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq. as amended by the Clean Water Act, P.L. 95-217 

• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 as amended, P.L. 85-624, 72 Stat. 563, 16 U.S.C. 

§661 et seq. 

• Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, P.L. 93-234, 87 Stat. 975, 12 U.S.C. §24, §1709-1 

• Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, as amended, 84 Stat. 1566, 30 U.S.C. §§1001-1027 

• Geothermal Steam Act Amendments, P.L. 100-443, 30 U.S.C. §§1001, 1105, 1026, 1027 

• Manguson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, P.L. 94-625, 90 Stat. 331m 16 

U.S.C. §1801 et seq

• Marine Mammal Protection Act, P.L. 92-552, 86 Stat. 1027, 16 U.S.C. §1361 et seq. 
Appendix C: Laws and Executive Orders 

253 

• Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (commonly known as Ocean 

Dumping Act), P.L. 92-532, 86 Stat. 1052, 16 U.S.C. §1361 et seq. 

• Migratory Bird Conservation Act, P.L. Chapter 257, 45 Stat. 1222, 16 U.S.C. §715 et seq

• Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, P.L. 186, 40 Stat. 755 

• National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, P.L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 852, 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq. 

• National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, P.L. 90-448, 82 Stat. 572, 42 U.S.C. §4001 et seq, as 

amended 

• National Park System Final Procedures for Implementing E.O. 11988 and 11990 (45 FR 35916 

as revised by 47 FR 36718) 

• Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality, E.O. 11514 as amended, 1970, E.O. 

11991, 35 Federal Register 4247; 1977, 42 Federal Register 26967) 

• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, P.L. 94-580, 30 Stat. 1148, 42 U.S.C. §6901 et seq.

• Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. Chapter 425, as amended by P.L. 97-332, October 

15, 1982 and P.L. 97-449, 33 U.S.C. §§401-403 

• Safe Drinking Water Act, P.L. 93-523, 88 Stat. 1660, 42 U.S.C. §300f et seq., 42 U.S.C. §201 and 

21 U.S.C. §349 

• Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 

• Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-80, 42 U.S.C. § 1962 et seq.) and Water 

Resource Council's Principles and Standards, 44 FR 723977 

• Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, P.L. 92-419, 68 Stat. 666, 16 U.S.C. §100186 

Other

• Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551-559, §§701-706 

• Aircraft Overflights Study Act of 1987, P.L. 101-91, 101 Stat. 674 

• Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970, P.L. 91-258, 84 Stat. 226, 49 U.S.C. § 2208 

• Airports In or Near National Park s Act, 64 Stat. 27, 16 U.S.C. §§ 7a-e 

• Arizona Desert Wilderness Act (contains NPS boundary study provisions), P.L. 101-628, 16 

U.S.C. §§1a-5, 460ddd, 460fff, and many more 

• Concessions Policy Act of 1965, P.L. 89-249, 79 Stat. 969, 16 U.S.C. § 20 et seq. 

• Department of Transportation Act of 1966, P.L. 89-670, 80 Stat. 931, 49 U.S.C. § 303 

• Disposal of Materials on Public Lands (Material Act of 1947), 30 U.S.C. §§601-604 

• Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974 

• Executive Order 11987: Exotic Organisms, 42 FR 26407 

• Executive Order 11989 (42 FR 26959) and 11644: Offroad Vehicles on Public Lands 

• Executive Order 12003: Energy Policy and Conservation, 3 C.F.R. 134 (Supp. 1977), 42 U.S.C. 

§ 2601 

• Executive Order 12008: Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards 

• Executive Order 12372: Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, 47 FR 30959 

• Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976, P.L. 94-377, 90 Stat. 1083, 30 U.S.C. §201 

• Federal Land Policy and Management Act, P.L. 94-579, 90 Stat. 199, 43 U.S.C. §1714 et seq. 

• Federal Power Act of 1920, P.L. Chapter 285, 41 Stat. 106, 16 U.S.C. §791a et seq

• Federal Water Power Act, P.L. Chapter 285, 41 D 1063, 16 U.S.C. §823a, as amended 16 U.S.C. 

§797 

• Federal Water Project Recreation Act, 79 Stat. 213, P.L. 89-72, 16 U.S.C. §§ 460l-12 to 460l-21 

• Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act, P.L. 95-307, 92 Stat. 353, 16 U.S.C. 

§1600 et seq

• Freedom of Information Act, P.L. 93-502, 5 U.S.C. §552 et seq. 

• Interagency Consultation to Avoid or Mitigate Adverse Effects on Rivers in the Nationwide 

Inventory, 45 FR 59189, 08/15/80, ES 80-2 

• Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968, P.L. 90-577, 40 U.S.C. §§ 531-535 and 31 U.S.C. 

§§6501-6508 

• Intergovernmental Coordination Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. §§4101, 4231, 4233 
APPENDIXES

254 

• Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 as amended, P.L. 88-578, 78 Stat. 897, 16 

U.S.C. §§460l-4 to 460l-11 

• Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947, P.L. Chapter 681, 61 Stat. 681, 30 U.S.C. 

§351 et seq

• Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, 30 U.S.C. §181 et seq, as amended 

• Mineral Materials Disposal Act of 1947, 30 U.S.C. §601 et seq

• Mining Law of 1872, 30 U.S.C. §22 et seq.

• Mining Activity Within National Park Service Areas, P.L. 94-429, 90 Stat. 1342 16 U.S.C. §1901 

et seq. 

• National Trails System Act, P.L. 90-543, 82 Stat. 919, 16 U.S.C. §§1241-1251 

• National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, P.L. 93-509, 88 Stat. 1603, 16 U.S.C. 

§668dd-ee 

• Noise Control Act of 1972 as amended, P.L. 92-574, 42 U.S.C. §4901 et seq. 

• Outdoor Recreation Coordination Act of 1963, P.L. 88-29, 77 Stat. 49 

• Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, P.L. Chapter 345, 67 Stat. 462, 43 U.S.C. §1331 et seq and 

§1801 et seq

• Payment in Lieu of Taxes Act, P.L. 94-565, 90 Stat. 2662, 31 U.S.C. §6901 et seq. 

• Policies on Construction of Family Housing for Government Personnel, OMB A-18 

• Procedures for Interagency Consultation to Avoid or Mitigate Adverse Effects on Rivers in 

the Nationwide Inventory, E.S. 80-2, 08/15/80, 45 FR 59191 

• Revised Statute 2477, Right-of-way across Public Lands, Act of July 26, 1866, 43 U.S.C. §932 

(1976), repealed by FLPMA §706(a) October 21, 1976 

• Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, P.L. 95-87, 91 Stat. 445, 30 U.S.C. § 1201 et seq.

• Surface Resources Use Act of 1955, 30 U.S.C. §601 et seq

• Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, 96 Stat. 2097, 23 U.S.C. §§101 and many others 

• Toxic Substances Control Act, P.L. 94-469, 90 Stat. 2003, 15 U.S.C. §2601 

• Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, P.L. 

91-646, 84 Stat. 1894, 42 U.S.C. §4601 et seq. 

• Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978, P.L. 95-625, 92 Stat. 3467, 16 U.S.C. §2501 

et seq. 

• Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, P.L. 90-542, 82 Stat. 906, 16 U.S.C. §§1271-1287 

• Wilderness Act, P.L. 88-577, 78 Stat. 890, 16 U.S.C. §§1131-1136 

• Wildfire Disaster Recovery Act, P.L. 101-286 

• Wildlife Suppression Assistance Act, P.L. 101-11, 42 U.S.C. §1856m, 1856p
255 

APPENDIX D: LOCAL ZONING ORDINANCES 

The inland buffer zone (37,849 acres that are a 

mixture of private and governmental 

ownership) is to be managed to preserve the 

setting of the Lake Superior shoreline and the 

inland lakes, protect the watersheds and 

streams, and permit harvesting of timber 

under a program of sustained-yield forest 

management. ForestLand Group, Limited 

Liability Corporation (19,954 acres) and the 

state of Michigan (13,824 acres) own most of 

the land in the inland buffer zone. The 

remaining land in the inland buffer zone is 

owned by private landowners (2,016 acres), or 

by the National Park Service (2,055 acres). 

Local zoning regulates the density, type, 

location, and character of private development in the inland buffer zone. Alger County, 

Burt Township, and the city of Munising 

maintain the authority to regulate land use on 

all private lands in the inland buffer zone. 

Protection through local zoning allows for 

reasonable use of private land, including 

harvesting of timber, and will help to protect 

the lakeshore’s natural and cultural resources 

by controlling the intensity and locations of 

appropriate uses. 

Portions of zoning ordinances that relate to 

the inland buffer zone for Alger County, Burt 

Township, and the city of Munising are 

included in this appendix. 

Interim Zoning Ordinance of Munising 

Township, the County of Alger, Michigan 

Munising Township Zoning Board, 

adopted April 30, 2002 

APPLICATION OF DISTRICT 

REGULATIONS ONLY WITHIN THE 

BOUNDARIES OF THE INLAND BUFFER 

ZONE (IBZ) OF THE PICTURED ROCKS 

NATIONAL LAKESHORE (PRNL) 

Any requests for any activities such as zoning 

amendments, conditional uses, variances, or 

Class A designation affecting property within 

the PRNL–IBZ shall be provided to the 

Superintendent of the Pictured Rocks 

National Lakeshore. The Superintendent shall 

be provided 30 days from receipt of the 

request to provide the appropriate zoning 

body with his written comments regarding the 

request. No final action shall be taken on the 

request until such comments are received or 

until the 30 days have elapsed. 

The Superintendent must be provided a 

written notice by the Zoning Administrator of 

any variance granted under, or exception 

made to the application of, a zoning ordinance 

or amendment. The Superintendent must be 

provided a copy of every zoning compliance 

permit that authorizes any use or development 

of lands within the boundaries of the PRNL. 

Parcels of land which were described in a 

recorded plat or by a recorded deed prior to 

the adoption of the Zoning Amendment: 

Changes in the Pictured Rocks National 

Lakeshore Buffer Zone (2 June 1986), shall be 

exempt from the lot size and lot width 

regulations of this ordinance. 

All signs within the Inland Buffer zone are 

subject to laws and regulations related to 

outdoor signs. The following additional sign 

restrictions apply, and, where they conflict 

with the existing sign ordinances, they 

supersede them. 

All signs must be subdued in appearance, 

harmonizing in design and color with the 

surroundings. Signs may not be illuminated by 

neon or flashing devices. 

Sign restrictions are established in two 

categories: on-premises and off-premises. 

An off-premises sign is located off the property for which the sign information is provided, 

in a location visible from a road or highway. 

Three types are permitted: safety signs or 
APPENDIXES

256 

symbols, public site identification signs, and 

commercial directories. Commercial 

directories for permitted commercial uses 

may be established at various lakeshore access 

road intersections along H-58 and Michigan–

77. 

On-premises signs within the Inland Buffer 

Zone must be limited to public site 

identification signs, business identification 

signs, and 911 emergency signs. One such sign 

is allowed per property (excluding the 911 

emergency sign), and it must be on the 

premises and relate to the use of those 

premises. Posting and Trespassing signs are 

exempt. On-premises signs must be a minimum of 15 feet from the street line or road. 

One name plate or sign, not illuminated, equal 

to or less than 3’ x 2’ (six square feet) is permitted, excluding the 911 emergency sign. 

One temporary sign, not illuminated, equal to 

or less than 3’ x 2’ (six square feet) advertising 

the sale, lease, or rental of the property is 

permitted. 

Applicants for zoning compliance permits 

within the IBZ shall be informed in writing by 

the Zoning Administrator of any development 

limitations indicated by the Critical Resources 

and Development Limitations Map of the 

Inland Buffer Zone as adopted by the 

National Park Service in the Land Protection 

Plan for PRNL. The Zoning Administrator 

shall also inform other appropriate 

authorities, such as the Township Health 

Department and the Michigan DNR, of the 

permit request. Reference to the Critical 

Resources Development Limitations by the 

Zoning Administrator shall be for 

informational purposes only in order to 

inform the applicant and other agencies of 

possible development problems. The Critical 

Resources Development Limitations Map 

shall not be used in determining if a zoning 

compliance permit is to be issued. 

If a recreational vehicle or mobile home is 

occupied on a site for more than 45 days in 

any one year, it must meet all the requirements 

for a residential dwelling, including a 

permanent foundation and the same water 

and sewage disposal requirements of those 

residential dwellings constructed on site. 

A recreational vehicle or mobile home may be 

occupied in the IBZ for a period of 45 days or 

less in any one year without meeting the 

requirements of residential dwelling. These 

units must be self-contained and not have 

external sources of electricity, natural gas, 

propane, telephone, sewage disposal, potable 

water, or other services. Sewage disposal must 

be done at approved sanitary dumping 

stations. Where such a vehicle is stored and 

not occupied in the IBZ, it must be parked 

near the permanent dwelling and screened by 

vegetation where possible. 

Any land use ore structure which does not 

conform to a provision or requirement of this 

ordinance, but which was lawfully established 

in accordance with state and local statues 

prior to the effective date of the adoption of 

the Zoning Amendment: Changes in the 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore Buffer 

Zone (2 June 1986), shall be considered a 

nonconforming use. As such, they are subject 

to all the nonconforming use provisions of 

this ordinance. Violation of Public Law 89-

668 prior to the adoption of the aforementioned Amendment shall not disqualify a 

land use or structure from status as a 

nonconforming use under this ordinance. 

EXEMPTIONS 

The location of pipes, wires, poles, and 

generating and transmission equipment of 

public utilities or railroad tracks regulated by 

the State of Michigan or by the United States 

are exempt from regulation under this 

Ordinance. 
Appendix D: Local Zoning Ordinances 

257 

ZONING DISTRICTS 

For the purpose of this Ordinance, Munising 

Township is hereby divided into the following 

zoning districts, which shall be known by the 

following respective symbols and names: 

R1 Residential 1 

R2 Residential 2 

RR Rural Residential 

LS/R Lake Shore/River 

TD Town Development 

T/RP Timber/ Resource Production 

AP Agriculture Production 

C Commercial 

I Industrial 

IBZ-RM Inland Buffer Zone –Resource 

 Management 

IBZ-RR Inland Buffer Zone–Rural 

 Residential 

IBZ-SD/TP Inland Buffer Zone–Seasonal 

 Dwelling/Timber Production 

IBZ-SC Inland Buffer Zone—Seasonal 

 Commercial 

(Note: only the IBZ zones have been reproduced 

in this document) 

Inland Buffer Zone—Resource 

Management

Intent: The IBZ –RM (Inland Buffer Zone–

Resource Management) District is intended to 

establish and maintain for low intensity use 

those areas of the Pictured Rocks National 

Lakeshore Inland Buffer Zone, as established 

by PL 89-668, which, because of their 

location, accessibility, soils, drainage, and 

other characteristics, are suitable for the 

development of single-family seasonal and 

year-round residences, for timber management and agricultural purposes, and for 

outdoor recreational uses. 

Permitted Principle Uses:

Single-family dwellings 

Mobile home where placed on a permanent 

foundation and meeting the same water 

and sewage disposal requirements of 

dwellings (except as provided in Section 

9.6) 

The growing and harvesting of timber 

products 

Agricultural production operations, including 

crop cultivation, pastures, orchards, 

farmsteads, and similar uses (except 

feedlots, poultry farms, and fur farms) 

Outdoor recreational uses, such as hunting, 

fishing and trapping 

Conditional Uses:

None 

Inland Buffer Zone—Rural Residential

Intent: The IBZ-RR (Inland Buffer Zone–

Rural Residential) District is intended to 

establish and maintain a low-intensity use, 

rural residential environment for those areas 

of the Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore 

Inland Buffer Zone, as established by PL 89-

668, which, because of their location, accessibility, sols, drainage, and other characteristics, are suitable for the development of 

single-family, year-round dwellings. 

Permitted Principle Uses:

Single-family dwellings, mobile homes when 

placed on a permanent foundation and 

meeting the same water sewage disposal 

requirements of dwellings (except as 

provided in Section 9.6) 

The growing and harvesting of timber 

products 

Outdoor recreational uses, such as hunting, 

fishing, and trapping 

Conditional Uses:

None 

Inland Buffer Zone—Seasonal 

Dwelling/Timber Production

Intent: The IBZ-SD/TP (Inland Buffer Zone–

Seasonal Dwelling/Timber Production) 
APPENDIXES

258 

district is established to maintain low intensity 

and seasonal use those areas of the Pictured 

Rocks National Lakeshore Inland Buffer 

Zone, as established by PL 89-668, which, 

because of their location, accessibility, sols, 

drainage, and other characteristics, are suited 

for recreational uses. 

Permitted Principle Uses:

The growing and harvesting of timber on a 

scientifically managed basis 

Outdoor recreational uses, such as hunting, 

fishing, and trapping 

Single-family seasonal dwellings and mobile 

homes 

Conditional Uses:

None 

Inland Buffer Zone—Seasonal Commercial

Intent: The IBZ-SC (Inland Buffer Zone–

Seasonal Commercial) district is established to 

maintain areas of the Pictured Rocks National 

Lakeshore Inland Buffer Zone, as established 

by PL 89-668, to service the needs of Lakeshore visitors and other tourists in rural areas. 

Uses should be conceived and planned so that 

they will not require year-round road access 

and other services commonly found in more 

accessible areas. 

Permitted Principle Uses:

Campgrounds 

Tourist cabins 

Gasoline service stations, convenience stores 

providing gasoline, goods, and similar 

items needed by travelers. Commercial 

uses should be limited to those needed to 

provide necessary services to the Lakeshore visitor, and so located so as not to 

detract from the visitor’s enjoyment of the 

Lakeshore. 

Conditional Uses:

None 

Burt Township Zoning Ordinance of the 

Township of Burt, County of Alger, 

Michigan (October 1995) 

SECTION 318 DISTRICT SD/TP-IBZ: 

SEASONAL DWELLING/TIMBER 

PRODUCTION—INLAND BUFFER ZONE 

(A) Intent: To establish and maintain for low 

intensity and seasonal use those areas 

within the Inland Buffer Zone of the 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore as 

established by Public Law 89-668, which 

because of their location, accessibility, 

soils, and other characteristics are best 

suited for timber production, seasonal 

dwelling and outdoor recreational uses. 

(B) Permitted principal uses: 

1. Growing and harvesting of timber on a 

sustained yield basis. 

2. Outdoor recreational uses such as 

hunting, fishing and trapping. 

3. Single-family seasonal dwelling 

(government services may not be 

provided on a year-round basis or may 

not be provided at all to some 

locations within this district). 

4. Mobile homes. 

5. Stabling two horses per 20 acres. 

(C) Permitted Accessory Uses: The following 

are permitted accessory uses: 

1. Accessory structures normally 

associated with single-family 

dwellings, such as private garage, shed 

for yard tools, playhouse, pens, boat 

house, swimming pools, recreational 

docks, sauna, and woodshed. 

(D) Conditional Uses Authorized by Permit: 

The following uses for land and structures 

may be permitted in this District by 

application for and the issuance of a 

Conditional Use Permit as provided for in 

Article VII and Article VIII. 

1. None. 

SECTION 319 DISTRICT RM-IBZ: 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT—INLAND 

BUFFER ZONE 

(A) Intent: To establish and maintain for low 

intensity use those areas of the Pictured 
Appendix D: Local Zoning Ordinances 

259 

Rocks National Lakeshore Inland Buffer 

Zone as established by Public Law 89-668, 

which because of their location, accessibility, soils, drainage, and other characteristics are suitable for the development of 

single-family seasonal and year-round 

residences, for timber management and 

agricultural purposes, and for outdoor 

recreational uses. 

(B) Permitted Principal Uses: 

1. Single-family dwellings. 

2. Mobile homes placed on a permanent 

foundation. 

3. Growing and harvesting of timber on a 

sustained yield basis. 

4. Agricultural production operations, 

including crop cultivation, pastures, 

orchards, farmstead, and similar uses 

(except feedlots, poultry farms and fur 

farms). 

5. Outdoor recreational uses such as 

hunting, fishing, and trapping. 

(C) Permitted Accessory Uses: The following 

are permitted accessory uses: 

1. Accessory structures normally associated with single-family dwellings, such 

as private garage, shed for yard tools, 

playhouse, pens, boat house, swimming pools, recreational docks, sauna, 

and woodshed. 

(D) Conditional Uses Authorized by Permit: 

The following uses for land and structures 

may be permitted in this District by application for and the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit as provided for in 

Article VII and Article VIII. 

1. None. 

SECTION 320 DISTRICT RR-IBZ: RURAL 

RESIDENTIAL—INLAND BUFFER ZONE 

(A) Intent: To establish and maintain a low 

intensity use rural residential environment 

for those areas of the Pictured Rocks 

National Lakeshore Inland Buffer Zone as 

established by Public Law 89-668, which 

because of their location, accessibility, 

soils, drainage, and other characteristics 

are suitable for the development of singlefamily, year-round dwellings. 

(B) Permitted Principal Uses: 

1. Single-family dwellings. 

2. Mobile homes placed on a permanent 

foundation. 

3. Growing and harvesting of timber. 

4. Outdoor recreational uses such as 

hunting, fishing and trapping. 

(C) Permitted Accessory Uses: The following 

and permitted accessory uses: 

1. Accessory structures normally associated with single-family dwellings, such 

as private garage, shed for yard tools, 

playhouse, pens, boat house, swimming pools, recreational docks, sauna, 

and woodshed. 

(D) Conditional Uses Authorized by Permit: 

The following uses for land and structures 

may be permitted in this District by 

application for and the issuance of a 

Conditional Use Permit as provided for in 

Article VII and Article VIII. 

1. None. 

SECTION 321 DISTRICT SC-IBZ: 

SEASONAL COMMERCIAL—INLAND 

BUFFER ZONE 

(A) Intent: To establish and maintain areas for 

seasonal commercial uses within the 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore 

Inland Buffer Zone as established by 

Public Law 89-668 to service the needs of 

lakeshore visitors and other tourists in 

rural areas. Uses should be conceived and 

planned so that they will not require yearround road access and other services 

commonly found in more accessible areas. 

Commercial uses should be limited to 

those needed to provide necessary 

services to the lakeshore visitor and so 

located so as not to detract from the 

visitor’s enjoyment of the lakeshore. 

(B) Permitted Principal Uses: 

1. Campgrounds 

2. Tourist cabins. 

3. Convenience stores providing 

gasoline, food and similar items 

needed by the traveler. 

(C) Permitted Accessory Uses: The following 

are permitted accessory uses: 
APPENDIXES

260 

1. Accessory structures customarily 

associated with campgrounds, tourist 

cabins, and convenience stores. 

(D) Conditional Uses Authorized by Permit: 

The following uses for land and structures 

may be permitted in District by application for the issuance of a Conditional Use 

Permit as provided for in Article VII and 

Article VIII. 

1. None. 

SECTION 322 DISTRICT PR: PICTURED 

ROCKS DISTRICT 

(A) Intent: This district includes the lands of 

the shoreline zone of the Pictured Rocks 

National Lakeshore. The shoreline zone 

was established by Public Law 89-668 to 

preserve the scenery and outstanding 

natural features and “to provide the 

benefits of public recreation.” It is the 

intent of the Congress that the National 

Park Service manage and develop the 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore to 

protect the area’s scenery and natural 

features and provide for public recreation. 

(B) Permitted Principal Uses: 

1. Recreational facilities and other 

appropriate facilities and services as 

provided for by Public Law 89-668 

and the Pictured Rocks National 

Lakeshore General Management Plan. 

(C) Permitted Accessory Uses: The following 

are permitted accessory uses: 

1. Accessory structures normally associated with recreational structures and 

uses and as permitted by Public Law 

89-668 and the Pictured Rocks 

National Lakeshore General 

Management Plan. 

(D) Conditional Uses Authorized by Permit: 

The following uses of land and structures 

may be permitted in this application for 

and issuance of a Conditional Use Permit 

as provided for in Article VII: 

1. None. 

SECTION 413: RECREATIONAL VEHICLE 

OR MOBILE HOME LOCATED WITH 

INLAND BUFFER ZONES 

(A) If a recreational vehicle or mobile home is 

occupied on a site for more than 14 days 

in any one year, it must meet all the 

requirements for a residential dwelling, 

including a permanent foundation and the 

same water and sewage disposal requirements of those residential dwellings 

constructed on site. 

(B) A recreational vehicle or mobile home 

may be occupied in the Inland Buffer 

Zone (IBZ) for a period of 14 days or less 

in any one year without meeting the 

requirements of a residential dwelling. 

These units must be self-contained and 

not have external sources of electricity, 

natural gas, propane, telephone, sewage 

disposal, potable water, or other services. 

Sewage disposal must be done at approved 

sanitary dumping stations. Where such a 

vehicle is stored and not occupied in the 

IBZ, it must be parked near the permanent 

dwelling and screened by vegetation 

where possible. 

SECTION 507 INLAND BUFFER ZONE 

DISTRICTS SIGN REGULATIONS 

All signs within the Inland Buffer Zones (RMIBZ, RR-IBZ, SD/TP-IBZ) are subject to the 

appropriate regulation as provided in Article 

V Signs with the following exceptions and 

provisions: 

(A) All signs must be subdued in appearance, 

harmonizing in design and color with the 

surroundings. Signs may not be 

illuminated by neon or flashing devices. 

(B) Sign restrictions are established in two 

categories, on-premises and off-premises. 

An off-premises sign is located off the 

property for which the sign information is 

provided, in a location visible from a road 

or highway. Three types of off-premises 

signs are permitted: safety signs or 

symbols, public site identification signs, 

and commercial directories. 

Commercial directories for permitted 

commercial uses may be established at 
Appendix D: Local Zoning Ordinances 

261 

various lakeshore access road 

intersections along H-58 and Michigan 77. 

On-premises sign that can be seen from 

Inland Buffer Zone roads must be limited 

to public site identification signs and 

business identification signs. One such 

sign is allowed per property, and it must 

be on the premises and relate to the use of 

those premises. Posting and trespassing 

signs are exempt. On-premises signs must 

be at least 15 feet from the street line or 

road. One located on the right-of-way and 

shall not interfere with traffic visibility. 

SECTION 1005 ZONING AND 

COMPLIANCE PERMIT 

(C) Applicants for zoning permits within the 

Buffer Zone shall be informed in writing 

by the Zoning Administrator of any 

development limitations indicated by the 

Critical Resources and Development 

Limitations Map of the Inland Buffer 

Zone as adopted by the National Park 

Service in the Land Protection Plan for the 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore. The 

Zoning Administrator shall also inform 

other appropriate authorities such as the 

County Health Department and the 

Michigan DNR of the permit request. 

Reference to the Critical Resources 

Development Limitations map by the 

Zoning Administrator shall be for 

informational purposes only in order to 

inform the applicant and other agencies of 

possible development problems. The 

Critical Resources and Development 

Limitations Map shall not be used in 

determining if a zoning permit is to be 

issued. 

Minimum Yard 

Requirements 

Front 

(feet) 

Side 

(feet) 

Rear 

(feet) 

Maximu

m Height* 

(feet)

SD/TP—

IBZ 150 50 50 30 

RM—

IBZ 100 50 50 30 

RR—IBZ 50 30 30 30 

SC—IBZ 200 50 50 30 

PR -- -- -- -- 

 *Height restrictions do not apply to farm structures. 

District Minimum 

Lot Size 

Minimum 

Lot Width 

SD/TP—IBZ 20 acres 660 

RM—IBZ 10 acres 330 

RR—IBZ 2 acres 200 

SC—IBZ 10 acres 330 

PR -- -- 

City of Munising Zoning Ordinance (July, 

1986) 

SECTION 22: DD-2 DEFERRED 

DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (this section 

amended March 1989) 

INTENT: To establish and maintain a low 

intensity use rural residential environment for 

those areas of the Pictured Rocks National 

Lakeshore Inland Buffer Zone, as established 

by Public Law 89-668, which because of their 

location, accessibility, soils, drainage, and 

other characteristics are suitable for the 

development of single family and seasonal 

dwellings. 

22.1 Principle Uses: Single family dwellings, 

seasonal dwellings, mobile homes when 

placed on a permanent foundation and 

meeting the same and water and sewage 

disposal requirements of dwellings (except as 

provided in Section 24.2 (F), the growing and 

harvesting of timber, agriculture that is limited 

to crop production for sale or personal use, 

and animals and livestock for personal use, 
APPENDIXES

262 

and outdoor recreational uses such as 

hunting, fishing, and trapping. 

22.2 Conditional Uses: A. Home Occupations. 

SECTION 23: PL PUBLIC LANDS 

DISTRICT 

INTENT: To establish and preserve areas for 

certain public purposes. 

23.1 Permitted Principal Uses: Any governmental or proprietary function conducted by 

any governmental agency or publicly-owned 

corporation which is authorized to conduct 

such function, including, but not limited to, 

government offices, schools, parks, open 

space, and utility buildings and facilities. 

Section 24: SCHEDULE OF GENERAL 

REGULATIONS 

24.1 Concerning regulations to limit heights, 

bulk, density, area and placement by district, 

no building or structure or part thereof shall 

hereafter be erected, constructed, altered or 

maintained, and no new use or change in use 

shall be made or maintained of any building 

structure or land, in part, thereof, except in 

conformity with the Schedule of General 

Regulation or as otherwise specifically 

provided in this Ordinance. 

24.2 Lakeshore Inland Buffer Zone. The 

following regulations shall apply only within 

the boundaries of the Pictured Rocks National 

Lakeshore Inland Buffer Zone and when they 

are in conflict with other regulations of this 

Ordinance, they shall supersede them: 

A. Any requests for zoning amendments, 

variances, or Class A designations 

affecting property within the Inland 

Buffer Zone shall be provided to the 

Superintendent of the National 

Lakeshore. The Superintendent shall be 

provided 30 days from receipt of the 

request to provide the appropriate body 

with his comments regarding the request. 

The superintendent must determine if the 

proposal would adversely affect the 

lakeshore and if its approval would be 

contrary to the lakeshore purposes. The 

superintendent must advise the zoning 

body whether or not the intended use is 

proper, requires modification and 

mitigation measures, or would subject the 

property to civil or criminal sanctions or 

acquisition by condemnation. No final 

action shall be taken on the request until 

such comments are received or until the 

30 days has elapsed. 

B. Legally created parcels of land which have 

been described in a recorded plat or by a 

recorded deed prior to the effective date 

of this Ordinance, shall be exempt from 

the lot size and lot width regulations of 

this Ordinance. 

C. All signs within the Inland Buffer Zone are 

subject to other provisions of this 

Ordinance relating to outdoor signs. The 

following additional sign restrictions 

apply, and where they conflict with the 

existing sign regulations, they supersede 

them. All signs must be subdued in 

appearance, harmonizing in design and 

color with the surroundings. Signs may 

not be illuminated by neon or flashing 

devices. 

Sign restrictions are established in two 

categories, on-premises and off-premises. 

An off-premises sign is locate off the 

property for which the sign information is 

provided, in a location visible from a road 

or highway. Three types of off-premises 

signs are permitted: safety signs or 

symbols, public site identification signs, 

and commercial directories. Commercial 

directories for permitted commercial uses 

may be established at various lakeshore 

access road intersections along H-58. 

On-premises signs that can be seen from 

Inland Buffer Zone roads must be limited 

to public site identification signs and 

business identification signs. One such 

sign is allowed per property, and it must 

be on the premises and relate to the use of 

those premises. Posting and trespassing 
Appendix D: Local Zoning Ordinances 

263 

signs are exempt. On-premises signs must 

be at least 15 feet from the street line or 

road. One name plate or sign, not 

illuminated, equal to or less than 3’ x 2’ (6 

square feet) is permitted. One temporary 

sign, not illuminated, equal to or less than 

3’ x 2’ (6 square feet) advertising the sale, 

lease, or rental of the property is 

permitted. 

D. Applicants for zoning permits within the 

Buffer Zone shall be informed in writing 

by the zoning administrator of any 

development limitation indicated by the 

Critical Resources and Development 

Limitations Map of the Inland Buffer 

Zone as adopted by the National Park 

Service in the Land Protection Plan for the 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore. The 

zoning administrator shall also inform 

other appropriate authorities such as the 

County Health Department and the 

Michigan DNR of the permit request. 

Reference to the Critical Resources and 

Development Limitations may by the 

zoning administrator shall be for 

informational purposes only in order to 

inform the applicant and other agencies of 

possible development problems. The 

Critical Resources and Development 

Limitations map shall not be used in 

determining if a zoning permit is to be 

issued. 

E. If a recreational vehicle or mobile home is 

occupied on a site for more than 30 days 

in any one year, it must meet all the 

requirements for a residential dwelling, 

including a permanent foundation and the 

same water and sewage disposal 

requirements of those residential 

dwellings constructed on site. 

F. A recreational vehicle or mobile home 

may be located in the Inland Buffer Zone 

(IBZ) for a period of 30 days or less in any 

one year without meeting the requirements of a residential dwelling. These 

units must be self-contained and not have 

external sources of electricity, natural gas, 

propane, telephone, sewage disposal, 

potable water, or other services. Sewage 

disposal must be done at approved 

sanitary dumping stations. Where such a 

vehicle is stored and not occupied in the 

IBZ, it must be parked near the permanent 

dwelling and screened, where possible, by 

vegetation. 

G. Any land use or structure which does not 

conform to a provision or requirement of 

this Ordinance but which was lawfully 

established in accordance with state and 

local statutes prior to the effective date of 

this ordinance shall be considered a 

nonconforming use. As such, they are 

subject to all the nonconforming use 

provision of this Ordinance. Violation of 

Public Law 89-668 prior to the effective 

date of this Ordinance shall not disqualify 

a land use or structure from status as a 

nonconforming use under this ordinance. 

Minimum Yard 

Requirements District Front 

(feet) 

Side 

(feet) 

Rear 

(feet) 

Maximum 

Height* 

(feet)

DD-2 30 ft. 15 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. 

PL None None None None 

*Height restrictions do not apply to farm structures. 

District Minimum 

Lot Size 

Minimum 

Lot Width 

DD-2 1 Acre 100 ft. 

PL None None 
264 

APPENDIX E: RELATIONSHIP OF OTHER PLANNING EFFORTS TO THIS 

GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 

The General Management Plan for Pictured 

Rocks National Lakeshore is the first of 

several public agency planning update efforts 

in the Upper Peninsula. Listed below, by 

organization, are plans that have influenced or 

will be influenced by this General 

Management Plan. 

EASTERN UPPER PENINSULA 

PARTNERS IN ECOSYSTEM 

MANAGEMENT (EUPPEM) 

This partnership was formed in July 1992 in 

response to a need to deal with landscape 

management issues that cross ownership 

boundaries and to address concerns for the 

maintenance of biodiversity. The partnership 

functions on the premise that the represented 

organizations will be more likely to choose 

landscape management actions that are 

ecologically sound if they have the benefit of 

shared information and coordinated 

opportunities. 

The partnership’s mission is to facilitate 

complementary management of public and 

private lands, for all appropriate land uses, 

through a large-scale landscape-ecological 

approach to maintaining and enhancing 

sustainable representative ecosystems, in the 

Eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan. 

This collaborative partnership among the 

primary land managers in the eastern Upper 

Peninsula in Michigan has contributed greatly 

to the success of ecosystem management in 

the Upper Peninsula. The partners meet 

regularly to discuss issues of mutual interest 

concerning the lands and ecosystem for which 

they are responsible. 

The members of this partnership manage 66% 

of the 3.9 million acres comprising the Eastern 

Upper Peninsula landscape. They are the U.S. 

Forest Service (Hiawatha National Forest), 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Seney National 

Wildlife Refuge), Michigan Department of 

Natural Resources, ForestLand Group, 

Limited Liability Corporation, The Nature 

Conservancy, the National Park Service 

(Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore), 

Champion International, and Mead 

Corporation. 

U.S. FOREST SERVICE 

Hiawatha National Forest encompasses about 

880,000 acres and receives 1.5 million 

recreation visitors per year. Visitors enjoy 

hiking, biking, sightseeing, camping, winter 

recreation, hunting, and fishing opportunities. 

The Munising District of the Hiawatha 

National Forest will begin revision of its 

General Forest Management Plan in October 

2001. The proposed new Forest Service 

planning rule focuses on the sustainability of 

ecosystems, societies, and economies; greater 

use of science; collaboration among the Forest 

Service and other entities; and dynamic forest 

plans that are monitored and adjusted 

periodically. 

This General Management Plan is compatible 

with the Forest Management Plan (October 

1986) and is expected to be compatible with 

the new plan. A Forest Service planner was 

involved in developing alternatives for the 

General Management Plan. 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

The Seney Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan provides strategies to 

ensure: that breeding and migration habitat 

for migratory birds is protected, habitat for 

resident wildlife is provided, endangered and 
Appendix E: Relationship to Other Planning Efforts 

265 

threatened species are protected, biodiversity 

is provided, and public opportunities for 

outdoor recreation and environmental 

education are provided. A new comprehendsive conservation planning effort is scheduled 

to begin in 2002. 

The General Management Plan is compatible 

with the existing Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for the Seney Wildlife 

Refuge. 

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT 

OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

The Forest Resource Management Division 

provides for the protection, integrated 

management, and responsible use of a healthy, 

productive, and undiminished forest resource 

base for social, recreational, environmental, 

and economic benefits. 

The Superior State Forest is divided into 

management units composed of about 200 

compartments of 1,000 to 3,000 acres each. 

Some compartments of the Shingleton 

Management Unit of the Lake Superior State 

Forest are in the inland buffer zone of the 

national lakeshore. Compartments are 

inventoried on a 10-year cycle, and each year 

foresters inventory one-tenth of the state 

forest. The information gathered includes 

size, age and health of trees; wildlife and 

recreational use and need; and social factors, 

such as proximity of the area to roads and 

neighborhoods. 

This General Management Plan is compatible 

with the management prescriptions for the 

Shingleton Management Unit compartments 

that are within the inland buffer zone. 

FORESTLAND GROUP, LIMITED 

LIABILITY CORPORATION 

Kamehameha Schools certified their Forest 

Management Plan in 1994 with the revision of 

the Commercial Forest Act. The 17,000 acres 

in the inland buffer zone owned by 

Kamehameha Schools is being sold to the 

ForestLand Group Limited Liability 

Corporation. On-the-ground management of 

these lands and resources may change as a 

result of this new ownership. 

THE NATURE CONSERVANCY 

The Nature Conservancy manages several 

land tracks in the Upper Peninsula and is a key 

partner in the innovative collaboration with 

public and private partners to preserve the 

Great Lakes ecosystem. The conservancy is no 

longer focusing solely on protecting the rare 

and natural communities but also the 

declining, vulnerable, and even common 

elements that encompass the diversity of life. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore GPRA 

Plans (1999) 

The Government Performance and Results 

Act (GPRA) directs all federal agencies to produce a strategic plan and annual performance 

plans. A park system unit strategic plan 

describes the unit’s mission, mission goals, 

and measurable long-term goals and includes 

a resource assessment. An annual performance plan lists annual performance goals (the 

outcomes expected to be achieved in a given 

fiscal year) and includes an annual work plan 

(inputs and outputs) to achieve the annual 

goal. 

The planning team used the national 

lakeshore‘s mission goals in developing this 

General Management Plan. In the future, 

GPRA plans will tier off of the General 

Management Plan, building on the mission, 

mission goals, and management prescriptions 

described here. The adequacy of the General 

Management Plan will also be continually 
APPENDIXES

266 

reevaluated in the strategic planning process 

for Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore. 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore 

Land Protection Plan (1993) 

Land protection plans are developed for each 

national park system unit containing 

nonfederal lands or interests that may be 

subject to acquisition. Land acquisition is 

guided by a land protection plan. The national 

lakeshore’s Land Protection Plan addresses the 

use of nonfederal lands in the inland buffer 

zone. The plan proposes two primary 

methods for protecting lakeshore values on 

these lands: (1) protect most state lands 

through continued management by the 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 

and (2) protect most private lands through 

zoning ordinances that would establish one 

district emphasizing timber harvesting, two 

districts recognizing the low-density residential use patterns in the city of Munising 

and the Munising Township near Munising 

and Melstrand, and one district for seasonal 

commercial use to serve the needs of the 

lakeshore visitors. The protection afforded by 

local zoning ordinances may be supplemented 

by federal and state land use regulations. 

LOCAL POLICIES 

Alger County, Burt Township, and the city of 

Munising maintain authority to regulate 

through land use ordinances all private lands 

in the lakeshore boundary. These local 

jurisdictions have adopted zoning ordinances 

that apply to privately owned lands within the 

national lakeshore. Local zoning ordinances 

limit the density, type, location, and character 

of private development. Zoning often can 

effectively control development. Local zoning 

is most likely to meet federal management 

objectives when some reasonable economic 

uses of the land are compatible with 

protection needs. Zoning does not ensure 

permanent resource protection because it may 

be changed or variances may be granted. 

The enforcement of zoning ordinances can 

provide an adequate level of protection for 

most of the private land in the inland buffer 

zone, assuming that (1) the regulations are 

consistent with achieving the congressionally 

intended purposes of this portion of the 

lakeshore and (2) variances are strictly 

controlled. 

The National Park Service will be closely 

involved in the development of revised zoning 

ordinances and/or amendments that apply to 

private lands in the national lakeshore. 
267 

APPENDIX F: BACKGROUND FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLAN 

Work on the Pictured Rocks Draft General 

Management Plan and Wilderness Study 

Environmental Impact Statement began in the 

summer of 1999. The planning team consisted 

of national lakeshore staff, specialists from the 

NPS Denver Service Center, and additional 

consultants. Throughout the planning 

process, newsletters were distributed and 

meetings were held (described above) to 

solicit the views and concerns of interested 

citizens. 

Early in the planning process the national 

lakeshore's purpose and significance were 

reaffirmed, legislative mandates and 

constraints were considered, and issues to be 

addressed by the plan were identified. 

The next major step was to develop a range of 

alternatives for managing the national 

lakeshore. The planning team gathered and 

studied information on national lakeshore 

resources, visitor use, and planning issues. 

With this information, the team developed 

five preliminary or draft alternatives 

(alternatives A through E) for managing visitor 

use and natural and cultural resources. These 

alternatives were presented to the public in a 

newsletter and public meetings, and 

comments from the public were collected and 

reviewed. 

The next step was to identify a preferred 

alternative. The five draft alternatives that had 

been reviewed by the public were evaluated, 

as was a "no-action" alternative. The planning 

team used an evaluation process called 

"Choosing by Advantages". This process 

evaluates different choices (in this case, the six 

alternatives) by identifying and comparing the 

relative advantages of each according to a set 

of criteria. The criteria were based on national 

lakeshore purpose, significance, laws and 

policies, and public concerns and comments. 

The criteria are listed below: 

• protects natural resources and processes 

• protects cultural resources 

• provides for a range of appropriate 

outdoor recreational activities 

• provides convenient access to significant 

national lakeshore features 

• preserves or enhances wilderness values 

• provides for efficient and sustainable 

operations 

• provides for congressionally mandated 

extraction, visitor activities, and 

development in the inland buffer zone 

• provides economic benefits to nearby 

communities 

The team identified the relative advantages of 

each alternative for each of the nine 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. 

Protects natural resources and processes Χ The 

team found that alternative B best met this 

criterion because habitat and watershed 

protection would be extended to a much 

larger area. 

Protects cultural resources Χ Alternative E 

would provide slightly better protection of 

cultural resources than A, B, and D. In 

alternative E motorized access to the Beaver 

Lakes and Beaver Basin would be eliminated 

and a relatively large wilderness area would be 

proposed, providing better protection of 

backcountry resources. 

Provides for a range of appropriate outdoor 

recreational activities Χ Alternative C was 

rated best according to this criterion due to 

new campgrounds, campground 
APPENDIXES

268 

improvements, and new opportunities for day 

use. Alternative A was the next best alternative 

with respect to this criterion, followed by 

alternative D. The no-action alternative and 

alternative E were rated lowest. 

Provides convenient access to significant 

national lakeshore features Χ Alternative C 

provided the most convenient access to 

significant national lakeshore features due to 

extensive road improvements and new roads. 

Alternative C was followed by alternative A 

and then alternative B. Alternative E was the 

least preferred alternative due to road closures 

and reduced access for motorized boats. 

Preserves or enhances wilderness values Χ

Alternative E would best preserve or enhance 

wilderness values because it proposed the 

largest designated wilderness. Alternative D 

would also preserve wilderness values over 

the long term but over a smaller area. 

Alternative C was rated lowest for this 

criterion. 

Provides for efficient and sustainable operations 

Χ The alternatives did not vary greatly with 

respect to this criterion. Alternative C would 

provide the most efficient and sustainable 

operations, but it did not have a large 

advantage over the other alternatives. The noaction alternative was least preferred. 

Provides for congressionally mandated 

extraction, visitor activities, and development in 

the inland buffer zone Χ The no-action 

alternative would best provide for 

congressionally mandated activities in the 

inland buffer zone because no additional land 

would be purchased and because no areas 

would be managed under the primitive or 

pristine prescriptions. The no-action 

alternative had only a slight advantage over 

alternatives C and D. 

Provides economic benefits to nearby 

communities − Alternative C, followed by the 

no-action alternative, would provide the most 

economic benefits to nearby communities. 

The alternatives did not differ much 

according to this criterion, however. 
269 

GLOSSARY 

Action alternative: An alternative that 

proposes a change to existing conditions or 

current management direction. The 

environmental consequences of an action 

alternative are analyzed in relation to the noaction alternative. 

Adaptive use: A use for a structure or landscape other than its historic use, normally 

entailing some modification of the structure 

or landscape. 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation: 

An independent federal agency with statutory 

authority to review and comment on federal 

actions affecting properties listed on or 

eligible for the National Register of Historic 

Places. 

Affected environment: The existing 

biological, physical, cultural, social, and 

economic conditions that are subject to both 

direct and indirect changes as a result of 

actions described in the alternatives under 

consideration. 

Alternatives: A reasonable range of options 

that can accomplish an agency’s objectives. 

Anthropology: The scientific study of the 

human condition, including cultural, 

biological, and physical adaptation over time 

and in various natural and social 

environments. 

Archeology: The scientific study, 

interpretation, and reconstruction of past 

human cultures from an anthropological 

perspective based on the investigation of the 

surviving physical evidence of human activity 

and the reconstruction of related past 

environments. 

Best management practices: Schedules of 

activities, prohibitions of practices, 

maintenance procedures, and other 

management practices to prevent or reduce 

resource degradation. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ):

Part of the Executive Office of the president, 

this office is the “caretaker” of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. 

Cultural Landscape: A geographic area, 

including both cultural and natural resources 

and the wildlife or domestic animals therein, 

associated with a historic event, activity, or 

person or exhibiting other cultural or 

aesthetic values. There are four general kinds 

of cultural landscapes, not mutually exclusive: 

historic sites, historic designed landscape, 

historic vernacular landscape, and 

ethnographic landscape. 

Cultural Resources: An aspect of a cultural 

system that is valued by or significantly 

representative of a culture or that contains 

significant information about a culture. A 

cultural resource may be a tangible entity or a 

cultural practice. 

Cumulative Impacts: The culmination of the 

proposed action added to past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future action; actions 

may be taken by anyone and may occur inside 

or outside the national lakeshore. 

Designated Wilderness: See Wilderness. 

Ecosystem: A system that involves the 

interaction of organisms with their physical 

environment. 

EUPPEM: Eastern Upper Peninsula Partners 

in Ecosystem Management is a collaborative 

partnership for ecosystem management in the 

Upper Peninsula. It consists of representatives 

from the National Park Service, U.S. Forest 

Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 
GLOSSARY

270 

ForestLand Group, Limited Liability 

Corporation, and The Nature Conservancy. 

EIS: An environmental impact statement is 

required by the National Environmental 

Policy Act to examine a range of federal 

actions and their potential effects on the 

environment. 

Endangered Species: A plant or animal that is 

in danger of becoming extinct throughout all 

or part of its range. 

Environmental Education: Programs that 

teach students of all ages and disciplines about 

the national lakeshore’s cultural and natural 

resources; usually means multiple contacts 

with the same group of learners; curriculumbased education programs are tied to state 

competency standards. 

Ethnography: Part of the discipline of 

cultural anthropology concerned with the 

systematic description and analysis of cultural 

systems or lifeways, such as hunting, 

agriculture, fishing, other food procurement 

strategies, family life festivals, and other 

religious celebrations. 

GMP: General management plan; the 

broadest level of planning used by the 

National Park Service; provides an overall 

direction for future national lakeshore 

management as well as a framework for 

managers to use when making decisions about 

such things as park resources, visitor use, and 

facilities. 

Harbor of Refuge: A designated bay that 

provides protection from storms. 

Historic American Building Survey 

(HABS)/Historic American Engineering 

Record (HAER): an architectural and 

engineering documentation program that 

produces a thorough archival record of 

buildings, structures, and cultural landscapes 

significant in American history and the growth 

and development of the built environment. 

Historic Property: A district, site, structure, 

or landscape that is significant in American 

history, architecture, engineering, archeology, 

or culture; an umbrella term for all entries in 

the National Register of Historic Places. 

Impacts: Effects, both beneficial and adverse, 

of an action on the environment. Direct 

effects are those occurring at the same time 

and place as the action itself. Indirect effects 

occur later in time or are farther removed in 

distance from the action, yet are reasonably 

foreseeable. 

Impairment: The impairment that is 

prohibited by the Organic Act and the General 

Authorities Act is an impact that, in the 

professional judgment of the responsible NPS 

manager, would harm the integrity of park 

resources or values, including the 

opportunities that otherwise would be present 

for the future enjoyment of these resources or 

values. 

Interpretation: A communication process 

designed to reveal meanings and relationships 

of our cultural and natural heritage to the 

public through first-hand experiences with 

objects, artifacts, landscapes, or sites; 

facilitating a connection between the interests 

of the visitor and the meaning of the national 

lakeshore by explaining the national 

lakeshore’s purpose and significance; usually a 

single contact with a group or individual. 

Inland Buffer Zone: Established to stabilize, 

protect, and preserve the setting of the Lake 

Superior shoreline and inland lakes, protect 

the watersheds and streams, and permit 

selective logging on a sustained yield basis. 

Lands in the inland buffer zone are in federal, 

state, corporate, and other private ownership. 

MDEQ: Michigan Department of 

Environmental Quality 

MDNR: Michigan Department of Natural 

Resources 
Glossary

271 

Management prescription: Management 

prescriptions specify the desired resource 

conditions for different areas of the national 

lakeshore and describe the desired visitor 

experiences based on resource management 

concerns and also on a concern to maintain a 

diversity of experiences for national lakeshore 

visitors. They integrate resource protection 

and management with visitor use. 

Mitigation: An activity designed to avoid, 

minimize, rectify, eliminate, or compensate 

for the impacts of a proposed project. A 

mitigation measure should be a solution to an 

identified environmental problem. 

Molder: To allow to decay naturally. 

Motor: A small compact engine powered by 

gas, fuel, battery, or other means. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA): Among other things, this act requires 

full disclosure of the impacts that would result 

from a proposed federal action that would 

have a major effect on the quality of the 

environment. 

National Register of Historic Places: The 

comprehensive list of districts, sites, buildings, 

structures, and objects of national, regional, 

state, and local significance in American 

history, architecture, archeology, engineering, 

and culture. This list is maintained by the 

National Park Service under authority of the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. 

Natural Resources: Things that occur in their 

natural state – wildlife, water, forests, etc. 

Features and values that include plants and 

animals, water, air, soils, topographic features, 

geologic features, paleontologic resources, 

natural quiet, and clear night skies. 

No-Action Alternative: An alternative in an 

environmental impact statement that 

continues current management direction. A 

no-action alternative is a benchmark against 

which action alternatives are compared. 

Outreach: To go beyond the national 

lakeshore boundary to develop partnerships 

with other organizations, other government 

entities, and members of the general public to 

build relationships that foster stewardship; 

actively providing information and programs 

to groups or individuals who are not national 

lakeshore users. 

Personal Watercraft: Personal watercraft are 

not motorboats. They are small vessels, 

usually less than 16 feet long, that use an 

inboard motor powering a water jet pump as 

its primary source of power. Operators can sit, 

stand, or kneel on the vessels that are designed 

for high speed and maneuverability. They are 

commonly called jet skis, waverunners, wavejammers, wetjets, sea-doos, wetbikes, and surf 

jets. 

Potential Wilderness: see Wilderness 

Preservation (cultural resources): The act or 

process of applying measures to sustain the 

existing form, integrity, and material of a 

historic structure, landscape, or object. Work 

may include preliminary measures to protect 

and stabilize the property, but generally 

focuses on the ongoing preservation, 

maintenance, and repair of historic materials 

and features rather than extensive 

replacement and new work. 

Preservation (natural resources): The act or 

process of preventing, eliminating, or 

reducing impacts on natural resources and 

natural processes. 

Proposed Wilderness: see Wilderness 

Protect: To keep from harm, attack, or injury; 

long-term efforts to deter or prevent 

vandalism, theft, or other acts. 

Recommended Wilderness: see Wilderness 

Record of Decision (ROD): The public 

document following the preparation of an 

environmental impact statement that reflects 
GLOSSARY

272 

the agency’s final decision, rationale behind 

the decision, and commitments to monitoring 

and mitigation. 

Research Natural Areas: Research natural 

areas contain prime examples of natural 

resources and processes, including significant 

genetic resources, that have value for longterm observational studies or as control areas 

for manipulative research taking place outside 

the national lakeshore. Activities in research 

natural areas are restricted to 

nonmanipulative research, education, and 

other activities that will not detract from an 

area’s research values. Federal land 

management agencies, including the National 

Park Service, have established a national 

network of research natural areas. 

Restoration: Process of accurately depicting 

the form, features, and character of a historic 

property for a particular period of time; may 

involve removing features from other periods 

and adding missing features from the 

restoration period. 

Rehabilitation: The act or process of making 

possible an efficient compatible use for a 

historic structure or landscape through repair, 

alterations, and additions while preserving 

those portions or features that convey its 

historical, cultural, or architectural values. 

Scoping: Planning process that solicits 

people’s opinions on the value of the national 

lakeshore, issues facing the national lakeshore, 

and the future of the national lakeshore. 

Shoreline Zone: Established primarily to 

preserve the national lakeshore’s scenery and 

outstanding natural features, this zone is in 

federal ownership. 

Soundscape: The natural soundscape is the 

aggregate of all the natural sounds that occur 

in parks, together with the physical capacity 

for transmitting natural sounds. Natural 

sounds occur within and beyond the range of 

sounds that humans can perceive, and can be 

transmitted through air, water, or solid 

materials. 

Stabilization: Treatment action taken as an 

intervention to increase the stability or 

durability of an object when preventative 

conservation measures fail to decrease its rate 

of deterioration to an acceptable level or when 

it has deteriorated so far that its existence is 

jeopardized. 

State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO): 

An official within each state appointed by the 

governor to administer the state historic 

preservation program and carry out certain 

responsibilities relating to federal 

undertakings within the state. 

Threatened and Endangered Species:

Species of plants and animals that receive 

special protection under state and federal 

laws. Also referred to as listed, endangered, or 

protected species or species of special 

concern. 

Treatment: Work carried out to achieve a 

particular historic preservation goal. 

U.S.C.: United States Code. Contains the 

general and permanent laws of the United 

States. 

Visitor experience: The perceptions, feelings, 

and interaction a national lakeshore visitor 

has in relationship with the environment. 

Other elements also contribute to the quality 

of the visitor experience, such as the condition 

of natural and cultural resources, air quality, 

transportation, and noise. 

Visitor services: Providing information and 

assistance to visitors to facilitate an enjoyable 

experience at the national lakeshore (e.g., trip 

planning, emergency response, naturalist 

programs, etc.); multiple opportunities for 

visitors to make intellectual and emotional 

connections to the national lakeshore through 

such things as walks, talks, roving informal 

contacts, brochures, exhibits, and other 
Glossary

273 

media; services may be provided onsite or 

offsite. 

Wilderness: Areas protected by provisions of 

the Wilderness Act of 1964. These areas are 

characterized by a lack of human interference 

in natural processes; generally, there are no 

roads, structures, or installations, and the use 

of motorized equipment is not allowed. 

Designated Wilderness: Federal land 

designated by Congress as a wilderness 

area and a component of the National 

Wilderness Preservation System where the 

NPS is required to manage according to the 

Wilderness Act of 1964. 

Potential Wilderness: Lands that are 

surrounded by or adjacent to lands 

proposed for wilderness designation but 

that do not themselves qualify for 

immediate designation due to temporary, 

non-conforming, or incompatible 

conditions. If so authorized by Congress, 

these potential wilderness areas will 

become designated wilderness upon the 

Secretary’s determination, published in the 

Federal Register, that they have finally met 

the qualifications for designation by the 

cessation or termination of the nonconforming use. 

Proposed Wilderness: An area that has 

been studied by the NPS that has been 

submitted as a proposal by a park or a 

region to the Director but has not been 

approved by the Department of the 

Interior. 

Recommended Wilderness: An area that 

has been studied and proposed by the NPS, 

recommended for wilderness designation 

by the Secretary to the President, and then 

transmitted by the President to Congress. 

Once approved by the Secretary, the area 

can be considered recommended 

wilderness for management purposes. 
274 

REFERENCES 

Alger County 

2000 “Alger County Online.” Accessed on February 2, 2000. Available on Internet at 

http://www.algercounty.com/ 

Alger County Chamber of Commerce 

2000 “The Official Website of Alger County Chamber of Commerce.” Accessed on February 2, 

2000. Available on Internet at http://www.algercounty.com/chamber/topframe.html 

Bureau of Economic Analysis 

1999 “Regional Economic Information System (REIS), REIS Bearfacts for Alger, Michigan 1987-

97.” Accessed on February 1, 2000. Available on Internet at 

http://govinfo.library.orst.edu/cgi-bin/bfact?8_05-003.mic 

1999 “Regional Economic Information System (REIS), REIS Bearfacts for Michigan 1987-97.” 

Accessed on February 1, 2000. Available on Internet at http://govinfo.library.orst.edu/cgibin/bfact?8_05-state.mis 

1999 “Regional Economic Information System (REIS), REIS Bearfacts for Alger, Michigan 1996-

97.” Accessed on February 1, 2000. Available on Internet at 

http://govinfo.library.orst.edu/cgi-bin/bfact?9_9_25-003.mic 

1999 “Regional Economic Information System (REIS), REIS Bearfacts for Michigan 1996-97.” 

Accessed on February 1, 2000. Available on Internet at http://govinfo.library.orst.edu/cgibin/bfact?9_05-state.mis 

n.d. “Regional Economic Information for Alger County, Michigan, Full-time and Part-time 

Employees by Major Industry.” Accessed on February 1, 2000. Available on Internet at 

http://govinfo.library.orst.edu/cgi-bin/reis-list?9_25-033.mic and 

http://govinfo.library.orst.edu/cgi-bin/reis-list?6_05-033.mic 

n.d.. “Regional Economic Information for Alger County, Michigan, Personal Income by Major 

Source and Earnings by Industry.” Accessed on February 2, 2000. Available on the Internet 

at http://govinfo.library.orst.edu/cgi-bin/reis-list?9_05-033.mic and 

http://govinfo.library.orst.edu/cgi-bin/reis-list?6_05-033.mic 

Central Upper Peninsula Planning and Development Regional Commission (CUPPAD) 

1999 “Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy Report.” Escanaba, Michigan. 

Figlio, D.N. 

1992 “The Economic Impact of Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore on the Local Community.” 

Technical report submitted to the Cooperative Studies Park Unit, University of Wisconsin, 

Madison, Wisconsin. 

Goerler, Raimund E. 

1998 Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore: Archival Assessment and Survey. Columbus, OH: 

Raimund Goerler. 

Jones, Bruce A. 

1993 “Archeological Inventory and Evaluative Testing in Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, 

Michigan, 1985-1990.” Occasional Studies in Anthropology No. 30, 1993. 
References

275 

Loope, Walter L. and John B. Anderton 

1998 “Human vs. Lighting Ignition of Presettlement Surface Fire in Coastal Pine Forests of 

the Upper Great Lakes.” The American Midland Naturalist, vol. 140, no. 2. 

Mark F. Pfaller Associates, Inc., Architects 

1981 “Historic Resource Study: Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, Michigan,” by 

Frederick Stonehouse. Copy available at national lakeshore headquarters. 

Munising, Michigan 

n.d. “Munising Michigan Welcomes You to Upper Michigan”, Munising, Michigan. Accessed on 

February 2, 2000. Available on the Internet at http://www.munising.com/ 

National Park Service 

n.d. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Beaver Basin Rim Road. Denver Service 

Center, Denver, CO. 

1978 “An Inventory of Cultural Resources, Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore,” by Louis 

Torres. Denver Service Center, Denver, CO. Copy available at national lakeshore 

headquarters. 

1996 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines 

for the Treatment of Historic Landscapes, edited by Charles A. Birnbaum and Christina C. 

Peters. Washington, D.C. 

1995 “The Pictured Rocks: An Administrative History of Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore.” 

Prepared under contract to Midwest Regional Office. Copy available at national lakeshore 

headquarters. 

1998 “Visits from 1979 – 1998 in Database Format”, updated on July, 17, 1998. By “Butch” L. 

Street. NPS Public Use Statistics Office, Denver, Colorado. 

2000 “Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, Virtual Visitor Center”. Last update January 17, 2000. 

Available on Internet at http://www.nps.gov/the national lakeshore 

National Park Service, Southwest Regional Office 

1989 “Submerged Cultural Resources Study, Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore,” by C. 

Patrick Labadie. Southwest Cultural Resources Center Professional Papers No. 22. 

Pitt, David G., David W. Lime, and Jonathan Vlaming 

1991 “Social Impact Assessment, Beaver Basin Rim Road, Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, 

Final Report.” University of Minnesota, St. Paul Minnesota. 

Quinn Evans/Architects 

1999 “Historic Structure Report, Au Sable Lighthouse Complex.” Prepared for the National Park 

Service. Copy available at national lakeshore headquarters.

Quinn Evans/Architects and Land and Community Associates 

1998 “Au Sable Light Station Cultural Landscape Report.” Prepared for the National Park 

Service. 

Simmons, Todd and James H. Gramann 

2002 “Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore Visitor Study”, National Park Service, Visitor Services 

Project.” Copy available at national lakeshore headquarters. 
REFERENCES 

276 

Symon, Charles A., ed. 

1986 Alger County: A Centennial History, 1885-1985. Munising, Michigan: Bayshore Publishing 

Co. 

U.S. Census Bureau 

1999 “Poverty 1998.” Accessed on February 1, 2000. Available on Internet at 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty98/pv98est1.html 

1999 “Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, 1995 State and County FTP Files and 

Description.” File est95mi.dat, February 12, 1999. Accessed on February 3, 2000. Available 

on Internet at http://www.census.gov/housing/saipe/estmod95/est95_MI.dat 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3 

1983 Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan. Prepared by the Northern States Bald Eagle 

Recovery Team. Copy available at Fish and Wildlife Reference Service, 3840 York St., Unit 

1, Denver, CO 80225, 303/571-4656. 

1992 Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf. Region 3, Twin Cities, MN. 

2000 Wolf Recovery in the Western Great Lakes States. Available on Internet at 

www.fws.gov/R3PAO/wolf/wgl/r3wolfct.htm 

University of Arizona, Tucson, 

1999 “(Draft) Traditional Ojibway Resources in the Western Great Lakes.” Bureau of 

Applied Research in Anthropology. Tucson, AZ. Copy available at national lakeshore 

headquarters.

University of Michigan 

1968 “Final Report: An Archaeological Survey of the Pictured Rocks Lakeshore.” Prepared 

for the National Park Service under contract by Jeffrey P. Briggs. Copy available at 

national lakeshore headquarters. 
277 

PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS 

Planning Team Members 

 National Park Service, Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore 

 Karen Gustin, Superintendent 

Education: B.S. in Outdoor Recreation, Colorado State University.

Experience: 21 years with the National Park Service throughout the United States, the 

Territory of Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, serving 

as superintendent, training instructor, chief ranger, and chief of interpretation.

 Gregg Bruff, Chief, Interpretation and Cultural Resources 

Education: B.S. Wildlife Management, Southwest Missouri State University 

Experience: 26 years with the National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service 

specializing in visitor use management, interpretation, personal and nonpersonal 

services, and park planning. 

 Larry Hach, Chief Ranger/Acting Superintendent 

Education: B.S. in Outdoor Recreation Resources 

Experience: 27 years with the National Park Service, specializing in visitor services 

activities related to law enforcement, emergency medical services, search and rescue, 

and firefighting. 

Brian Kenner, (former) Chief, Science and Resource Management 

Education: B.S. in Biology (South Dakota State University), M.S. in Recreation 

Management (University of Montana) 

Experience: 16 years with the National Park Service, 10 as a natural resource specialist. 

Graduate of the NPS Natural Resource Management Training Program 

Bruce Leutscher, Biologist 

Education: B.S. Natural Resources, M.F. Forest Ecology 

Experience: 4 years with the National Park Service as a biologist specializing in 

terrestrial ecosystems; 8 years with the University of Michigan School of Natural 

Resources and Environment as a research associate specializing in forest health 

monitoring. 

 Grant Petersen, (former) Superintendent 

Education: B.S. Park Management; M.S. Recreation and Parks 

Experience: 33 years with the National Park Service serving in various park units as 

superintendent, management assistant, recreation resource specialist, park ranger, etc. 

Special assignments on NPS master plan studies and national scenic trail and river 

studies; instructor at NPS Training Institute; international assignments in Canada and 

United Kingdom. 

 National Park Service, Denver Service Center

Jan Harris, Senior Planner/Team Captain, Planning and Design Services 

Education: B.S. Recreation and Park Administration 

Experience: 21 years with National Park Service; specializing in planning and public 

involvement, four years with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources; 

specializing in state park planning and state comprehensive recreation planning 
PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS

278 

 David Lee, (former) Natural Resource Specialist 

Education: B S Biology

Experience: 8 years with the National Park Service specializing in natural resource 

planning and 6 years with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation specializing in natural 

resource planning. 

 Harlan Unrau, Cultural Resources Specialist, Planning and Design Services 

Education: B.A., M.A. -- History 

Experience: 28 years with National Park Service; specializing in historical research and 

cultural resource planning 

e

2

M 

 Miki Stuebe, Landscape Architect/Planner 

Education: B.A. Biology, M.S. Biology-Ecology, M.L.A. Land Resource Planning 

Experience: 11 years with National Park Service, 2 years with private sector, 

specializing in park planning and resource assessment. 

Consultants 

 National Park Service, Washington Office

 John Haubert, Outdoor Recreation Planner 

 National Park Service, Midwest Region 

Mike Evans, Regional Ethnographer

Al Hutchings, Assistant Regional Director for Planning, Legislation, and WASO 

Coordination 

Michael Madell, (former) Compliance Specialist 

Sändra Washington, Chief of Planning and Compliance 

 National Park Service, Denver Service Center

 Dave Kreger, Technical Specialist, Planning and Design Services 

National Park Service, Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore 

Chris Case, Chief, Maintenance 

 Teri Perry, Computer Specialist, Administration 

 Brenda St. Martin, Secretary 

Other 

 Dr. Richard Lichtkoppler, Natural Resource Economist, Economics Group, Technical 

Service Center, Bureau of Reclamation 

Education: B.S. Business Administration 1971, The Ohio State University; M.S. Park 

and Recreation Administration 1974, The Ohio State University; and Ph.D. Resource 

Economics 1989, Auburn University 

Experience: 2 years with the National Park Service Statistical Office working on survey 

research analysis, 7 years with National Park Service specializing in park planning and 

resource economics, 2 years with Bureau of Reclamation working in natural resource 

economics 
279 

INDEX 

Abrahamson Farm, 53, 59, 68, 77, 87, 95, 

97, 102, 103, 123, 126, 162, 163, 173, 174, 

177, 178, 184, 185, 188, 195, 196, 200, 

207, 208, 211, 212 

administrative headquarters, 100, 148, 

175, 186, 197, 209 

air tour(s), 95, 144, 167, 189, 201 

Alger County, 3, 4, 13, 14, 21, 24, 28, 29, 

35, 36, 44, 50, 63, 71, 80, 107, 133, 135, 

136, 137, 138, 144, 145, 148, 154, 155, 

166, 167, 177, 188, 189, 199, 200, 211, 

212 

American Indian, 3, 18, 25, 42, 93, 104, 

122, 124, 125, 163, 174, 185, 186, 196, 

197, 208, 209 

archeological resources, 62, 93, 102, 123, 

161, 172, 183, 194, 206 

Au Sable Light Station, 20, 53, 59, 60, 68, 

69, 77, 78, 86, 87, 95, 97, 98, 99, 102, 103, 

115, 124, 125, 126, 140, 143, 161, 162, 

163, 168, 169, 172, 173, 174, 177, 178, 

180, 183, 184, 185, 188, 190, 195, 196, 

200, 201, 207, 208, 211, 212, 213 

backcountry campsites, 50, 88 

Beaver Basin, 10, 24, 36, 38, 41, 42, 43, 53, 

55, 61, 63, 69, 70, 74, 79, 80, 82, 88, 89, 

96, 98, 99, 101, 106, 108, 110, 113, 114, 

123, 130, 134, 139, 143, 144, 164, 166, 

168, 169, 175, 176, 178, 179, 180, 181, 

187, 188, 190, 191, 198, 199, 201, 202, 

210, 212, 213, 214, 216, 217 

Beaver Basin overlook, 63, 70, 80, 88, 98, 

144, 178, 190, 202, 213, 217 

Beaver Creek, 38, 43 

Beaver Lake, 36, 38, 41, 42, 43, 44, 53, 55, 

61, 69, 70, 78, 80, 88, 99, 108, 110, 113, 

123, 130, 131, 132, 140, 143, 144, 167, 

170, 177, 178, 179, 189, 192, 201, 204, 

209, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217 

Becker Farm, 60, 69, 78, 86, 95, 97, 103, 

123, 162, 173, 174, 184, 195, 196, 207, 

208 

camping, 3, 25, 37, 42, 46, 47, 48, 50, 53, 64, 

69, 78, 82, 95, 96, 108, 115, 141, 144, 163, 

167, 174, 178, 185, 189, 190, 196, 201, 

208 

Carmody Road, 28, 62, 70, 79, 80, 88, 144 

Chapel Basin, 10, 36, 38, 42, 61, 70, 78, 82, 

88, 89, 101, 106, 130, 134, 165, 166, 176, 

188, 199, 204, 210, 211, 213 

Chapel day use parking area, 41 

Chapel Lake, 38, 41, 60, 61, 106, 113, 130, 

143, 170, 176, 181 

Chapel Road, 14, 62, 70, 79, 80, 88, 89 

Cleveland Cliffs Iron Company, 4, 10, 13, 

44, 123, 133 

cultural landscape, 24, 56, 59, 60, 67, 68, 

73, 74, 77, 85, 86, 87, 93, 95, 97, 103, 125, 

156, 162, 163, 173, 174, 184, 185, 195, 

196, 207, 208 

cultural resources, 3, 4, 9, 13, 14, 18, 24, 46, 

47, 49, 50, 55, 64, 73, 82, 90, 93, 97, 99, 

153, 156, 157 

Grand Island, 3, 22, 122, 125, 138, 142, 

143, 168 

Grand Marais, 3, 9, 24, 25, 35, 53, 54, 59, 

60, 61, 62, 64, 68, 70, 73, 77, 80, 82, 86, 

87, 88, 95, 97, 98, 100, 102, 103, 111, 112, 

115, 122, 123, 125, 126, 129, 130, 135, 

140, 142, 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 154, 

161, 162, 163, 169, 170, 172, 173, 174, 

177, 178, 180, 184, 185, 188, 190, 191, 

192, 195, 196, 200, 201, 203, 207, 208, 

211, 212, 213, 215, 216 

Grand Marais Harbor of Refuge, 54, 60, 

68, 77, 86, 97, 98, 102, 103, 123, 161, 162, 

163, 173, 174, 177, 178, 184, 185, 188, 

195, 196, 200, 201, 207, 208, 211, 212, 

213 

Grand Marais Historical Society, 54, 162 

Grand Marais maintenance facility, 100, 

170 

Grand Sable Dunes, 3, 12, 13, 27, 53, 55, 

56, 61, 67, 69, 73, 74, 79, 82, 87, 98, 105, 

114, 123, 125, 129, 131, 143, 163, 164, 

165, 167, 174, 175, 185, 186, 187, 196, 

197, 198, 208, 209, 210 

Grand Sable Lake, 53, 54, 61, 62, 69, 70, 78, 

80, 87, 88, 98, 99, 108, 114, 130, 132, 143, 

144, 145, 154, 161, 164, 167, 172, 182, 

183, 186, 189, 190, 193, 194, 197, 201, 

202, 205, 206, 217 

gray wolf, 38, 105, 129, 164, 165, 175, 176, 

187, 198, 209, 210 
INDEX

280 

group campground, 41 

H-58, 3, 4, 13, 21, 25, 26, 50, 53, 54, 55, 56, 

59, 62, 63, 64, 67, 70, 71, 73, 74, 79, 80, 

82, 85, 88, 89, 100, 108, 111, 113, 130, 

135, 139, 140, 141, 142, 144, 145, 148, 

154, 155, 159, 167, 169, 172, 175, 177, 

178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 186, 188, 

189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 198, 200, 

201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 209, 211, 

212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217 

Hiawatha National Forest, 3, 14, 67, 133, 

135, 140, 142, 147, 166 

hiking, 3, 14, 37, 41, 42, 47, 48, 53, 59, 68, 

77, 80, 82, 86, 88, 96, 99, 108, 113, 140, 

141, 144, 163, 167, 174, 178, 185, 189, 

190, 196, 201, 204, 208, 213, 214, 216 

hunting, 13, 22, 28, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43, 47, 

123, 124, 141, 154, 161, 167, 172, 183, 

189, 194, 201, 206 

Hurricane River, 53, 56, 60, 62, 69, 78, 80, 

87, 89, 95, 98, 99, 115, 140, 143, 145, 146, 

161, 172, 183, 194, 206 

Hurricane River campground, 53, 60, 62, 

69, 78, 87, 89, 95, 99, 140, 143, 145, 146 

inland buffer zone, 4, 12, 13, 14, 20, 21, 22, 

26, 28, 35, 44, 45, 48, 50, 53, 54, 55, 61, 

62, 64, 69, 70, 73, 79, 82, 87, 88, 92, 105, 

123, 147, 165, 169, 176, 179, 187, 188, 

191, 198, 199, 202, 210, 211, 214 

Kamehameha Schools, 4, 10, 13, 133 

Kingston Corner, 88, 89, 100, 145 

Kingston Lake, 60, 62, 69, 70, 78, 79, 87, 

193, 205 

Little Beaver Lake, ix, 38, 41, 42, 44, 53, 55, 

61, 63, 70, 80, 88, 99, 101, 108, 110, 112, 

113, 114, 140, 143, 144, 146, 155, 161, 

168, 169, 172, 175, 178, 179, 180, 181, 

183, 190, 191, 194, 201, 202, 206, 209, 

213, 214, 215, 216, 217 

Little Beaver Lake campground, 38, 41, 

55, 62, 99, 101, 114, 140, 143, 144, 146, 

155, 209 

Little Beaver Lake Road, 108, 190, 201, 

216, 217 

Little Chapel Lake, 42, 130, 131 

Log Slide, 53, 61, 62, 69, 70, 78, 79, 80, 87, 

88, 89, 98, 100, 123, 143, 144, 145, 154, 

155, 178, 182, 190, 202, 213, 217 

logging, 3, 14, 22, 36, 38, 41, 42, 43, 61, 92, 

106, 110, 122, 123, 124, 141, 142, 144, 

147, 161, 164, 165, 166, 168, 169, 172, 

175, 176, 179, 183, 188, 190, 191, 192, 

194, 199, 201, 202, 203, 204, 206, 211, 

214 

mineral rights, 4, 10, 13, 35, 44, 100, 133 

Miners Beach, 60, 61, 62, 69, 70, 80, 86, 87, 

88, 89, 99, 106, 108, 109, 110, 142, 146, 

161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 180, 183, 194, 

202, 206, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 

217 

Miners Castle, 3, 53, 56, 59, 60, 62, 68, 70, 

77, 78, 79, 80, 86, 88, 98, 106, 125, 142, 

143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 167, 176, 194, 

210, 211 

Miners Castle road, 62 

Mosquito River, 26, 38, 41, 42, 78, 130 

motorized boats, 50, 61, 64, 88, 106, 109, 

110, 164, 168, 169, 175, 177, 179, 186, 

191, 192, 197, 203, 204, 209, 210, 211, 

212, 214, 217 

Munising, 3, 4, 14, 24, 50, 53, 56, 59, 60, 62, 

64, 67, 69, 70, 73, 74, 78, 79, 80, 82, 85, 

86, 88, 95, 97, 98, 100, 102, 103, 111, 112, 

122, 123, 125, 126, 127, 130, 135, 138, 

140, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 

154, 155, 161, 162, 167, 168, 169, 170, 

172, 173, 174, 175, 177, 178, 180, 181, 

183, 184, 185, 186, 188, 189, 191, 192, 

194, 195, 196, 197, 200, 201, 203, 206, 

207, 208, 209, 211, 212, 213, 215, 216, 

Munising Falls, 50, 53, 56, 60, 67, 69, 74, 

78, 85, 86, 98, 122, 123, 126, 140, 142, 

145, 146, 148, 167 

Munising maintenance facility, 56, 62, 67, 

70, 74, 79, 85, 88, 100, 148, 169, 170, 180, 

181, 188, 189, 191, 203, 215 

nonmotorized boats, 109, 168, 179, 190, 

202 

North Country National Scenic Trail, 14, 

41, 50, 53, 98, 140, 142, 144, 148 

NPS/USFS visitor information, 53 

paved road, 50, 53, 56, 62, 67, 70, 74, 80, 

85, 88, 89, 96, 108, 141, 167, 201 

personal watercraft, 22, 23, 92, 110, 168, 

169, 179, 191, 202, 214 

sacred sites, 18, 25 

Sand Point Coast Guard Station, 53, 95, 

97, 98, 126, 147, 148, 172, 173, 183, 184, 

195, 206, 207 
Index

281 

Schoolcraft Furnace, 53, 56, 97, 102, 125, 

161, 162 

Seney National Wildlife Refuge, 3, 14, 133, 

Sevenmile Creek, 38, 41, 42, 43, 61, 79, 80, 

87, 88, 99, 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 177, 

178, 179, 180, 199, 202, 203, 212, 213, 

215, 217 

Sevenmile Lake, 38 

shoreline zone, 4, 12, 13, 20, 21, 22, 41, 53, 

63, 69, 79, 88, 114, 176, 199, 210 

snowmobiles, 22, 48, 49, 50, 64, 92, 110, 

144, 168, 169, 179, 190, 191, 202, 203, 

214 

timber harvesting, 44 

tour boat, 24, 53, 55, 64, 69, 73, 78, 88, 92, 

106, 107, 109, 110, 138, 144, 163, 165, 

166, 168, 169, 174, 176, 179, 185, 188, 

190, 191, 192, 196, 199, 201, 202, 203, 

204, 208, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 

217 

trails, 14, 37, 41, 42, 43, 46, 47, 48, 50, 55, 

60, 61, 69, 78, 80, 82, 86, 88, 90, 96, 98, 

99, 108, 114, 144, 148, 177, 178, 188, 189, 

197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 211, 212, 213 

transportation, 29, 35, 48, 54, 63, 70, 71, 

73, 80, 89, 100 

Twelvemile Beach, 53, 60, 62, 69, 78, 80, 

87, 89, 98, 109, 113, 123, 131, 139, 140, 

143, 145, 146, 168, 178, 179, 181, 190 

wilderness, 4, 9, 10, 11, 15, 21, 24, 33, 36, 

37, 38, 41, 45, 47, 54, 55, 61, 63, 64, 70, 

80, 82, 87, 88, 89, 96, 98, 101, 106, 110, 

113, 114, 121, 122, 133, 134, 141, 158, 

159, 165, 166, 169, 176, 177, 179, 180, 

181, 188, 198, 199, 210, 211, 216, 217 

Wilderness Act, 10, 36, 37, 133, 158 

wilderness study, 10, 11, 121, 134 

As the nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility 

for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering 

sound use of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; 

preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; and 

providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The department assesses our 

energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best interests 

of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The 

department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for 

people who live in island territories under U.S. administration. 

NPS D-110 July 2003 Printed on recycled paper. 

U S. . DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

MARCH 3, 1849