Final General Management Plan/ Environmental Impact Statement : Isle Royale National Park, Michigan

240 Pages·1998·12.5 MB·English

by  National Park Service

JM>r
s-He^y£:s» |.^^
^#jz,fcd_
FINAL
General Management Plan
Environmental Impact Statement
Nil IONaI PARK MICHIGAN
•
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
WATER RESOURCES
DIVISION
dHST.SS^INS, COLORADO
RESOURCE ROOM PROPERTY
RECOMMENDED:
N-^/VU^t^Ci^^J^
August 17, 1998
Douglas A. Barnard
Superintendent, Isle Royale National Park
August 17, 1998
William W. Schenk
Director, Midwest Region
Printed on recyledpaper
FINAL
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ISLE ROYALE NATIONAL PARK
KEWEENAW COUNTY, MICHIGAN
The five alternatives that were developed in the course ofpreparing this GeneralManagement
Plan/EnvironmentalImpactStatement were based on park purpose, significance, and emphasis
statements, which in turn were based on the park's legislation and legislative history, other special
designations, and NPS policies. The plan is intended to provide a foundation forpark management
and use and to serve as a guide for park programs and for priority setting over at least the next
15-20 years.
Alternative A is the no-action, or status quo, alternative and provides a baseline for comparison of
the other four alternatives. The proposed action has been revised from the proposal in the Draft
GeneralManagementPlan/EnvironmentalImpactStatement. It is intended to meet the diverse
expectations and needs ofIsle Royale visitors while emphasizing the natural quiet that is
fundamental to wilderness experiences. All park areas would be available to all visitors as long as
users participate in ways that are consistent with the access, facilities, and opportunities provided.
Alternative B would expand facilities and services at the ends ofthe island and create a more
primitive experience toward the center. Cultural resources would be preserved only at the ends of
the island. Use limits would be imposed in some zones. Some facilities in developed areas would
be expanded to serve visitors preparing to enterthe backcountry. Alternative C would scale back
all development to create a more primitive park. No interpretive media or formal programs would
be offered on the island. All cultural resources would be documented and allowed to deteriorate. A
narrower range ofexperiences would be available. Visitor numbers would be lowered and use
limits would be instituted islandwide. All concessions and related facilities would be removed.
Alternative D was modified to become the proposed action. Alternative E would allow park
management to continue as it is now, but visitor numbers would be controlled and would be low.
Historic structures would be preserved according to significance. A variety ofuses would continue
across the island.
The potential consequences ofthe actions in the alternatives on natural resources, cultural
resources, visitor use and experiences, park operations, and the socioeconomic environment have
been evaluated. In general, all alternatives would better protect the park's natural resources than
the current management direction (alternative A). Alternative C would provide the greatest benefit
to natural resources, but would have the most negative effects on cultural resources and on visitor
use. The proposed action and alternative E would best protect cultural resources. Impacts on park
operations from the alternatives would be mixed; the workload would remain roughly the same
(except in alternative C, where it would be reduced), but the emphasis would change depending on
the alternative. The alternatives would not appreciably affect the socioeconomic environment.
U. S. Department ofthe Interior National Park Service

HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT
This document has four main sections. The first, Service's preferred approach for managing the
called "Purpose ofand Need for the Plan," park. Alternatives B, C, and E present other
introduces the plan, describes why it is options for management ofIsle Royale
necessary, and explains what it will accomplish.
It provides background information about Isle The third major section is called the "Affected
RoyaleNational Park, including park purpose Environment" and describes the park's cultural
and significance, and describes the establishing and natural resources, visitor use patterns, and
legislation for the park. park operations. This section also describes the
socioeconomic conditions in the surrounding
The "Description ofthe Proposed Action and region. The information in the Affected
Alternatives" section presents alternatives for the Environment section provides the context for
management ofthe park. Alternative A (no analyzing the impacts ofthe actions in the
action) describes what would happen without an alternatives.
approved general management plan. Some
actions are common to all but the no-action The last major section,"Environmental
alternative; these are discussed in a section titled Consequences," describes the effects that
"Actions Common to the Proposed Action and implementing each alternative would have on the
Alternatives B, C, and E." The proposed action resources as described in the "Affected
(based on a revised version ofAlternative D Environment" section.
from Newsletter 6) presents the National Park
in

SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION services at the ends ofthe island and create a
more primitive experience toward the center.
Five alternatives were developed in the course of Cultural resources would be preserved only in
preparing this Final GeneralManagementPlan/ areas at the ends ofthe island. Use limits would
EnvironmentalImpactStatement. The be imposed in some zones. Some facilities in
alternatives grew out ofpark purpose, developed areas would be expanded to serve
significance, and emphasis statements. Park visitors preparing to enterthe backcountry.
purpose statements were based on the park's Alternative C would scale back all development
legislation and legislative history, other special to create a more primitive park. No interpretive
designations, and NPS policies; they reaffirm the media or formal programs would be offered on
reasons forwhich Isle Royale was set aside as the island. All cultural resources would be
part ofthe national park system and provide a documented and allowed to deteriorate. A
foundation for park management and use. narrower range ofexperiences would be avail-
Significance statements capture the essence of able. Visitor numbers would be lowered and use
the park's importance to the country's natural limits would be instituted islandwide.
and cultural heritage. Emphasis statements were Concessions and related facilities would be
also written and incorporate key resources and removed. Alternative D was modified to
stories that characterize Isle RoyaleNational become the proposed action, above. Alternative
Park. They serve as broad guiding principles for E would allow management ofthe park to con-
park programs and for priority setting. tinue as it is now, butvisitor numbers would be
controlled and would be low. Historic structures
Before and during preparation ofthe alternatives would be preserved according to significance. A
several newsletters were sent out and public variety ofuses would continue and would take
meetings were held to gather input. The original place across the island.
alternative D was revised and became the
proposed action, which was reviewed as part of
the Draft GeneralManagementPlan/ ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
EnvironmentalImpactStatement. It has been
further modified as a result ofcomments The potential impacts ofthe actions in the
received. The Final GeneralManagementPlan/ alternatives on natural resources, cultural
EnvironmentalImpactStatement is intended to resources, visitor use and experiences, park
guide the management ofIsle Royale National operations, and the socioeconomic environment
Park over at least the next 15-20 years. have been evaluated. In general, all alternatives
would better protect the park's natural resources
than the current management direction (alterna-
ALTERNATIVES tive A). Alternative C would provide the most
benefit to natural resources, but would have the
Alternative A is the no-action, or status quo, most negative effects on cultural resources and
alternative and provides a baseline for compar- on visitor use. The proposed action and alterna-
ison ofthe other four alternatives. The proposed tive E would best protect cultural resources.
action is intended to meet the diverse expecta- Impacts on park operations from the alternatives
tions and needs ofIsle Royale visitors while would be mixed; the workload would remain
emphasizing the natural quiet that is fundamental roughly the same (except in alternative C, where
to wilderness experiences. All park areas would it would be reduced), but the emphasis would
be available to all visitors as long as users change depending on the alternative. The
participate in ways that are consistent with the alternatives would not appreciably affect the
access, facilities, and opportunities provided. socioeconomic environment.
Alternative B would expand facilities and
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2012 with funding from
LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation
http://archive.org/details/finalgeneralmanaOOroya
7 8
Contents
Planning Background
Introduction 3
Purpose ofand Need forthe Plan 4
Overview 4
Issues 4
Summary ofPublic Involvement 7
Description ofthe Park 8
Park Purpose and Significance
Park Emphasis Statements 13
The Proposed Action and Alternatives
Introduction 1
A
Alternative (Existing Conditions) 18
Overall Concept 18
Park Management
1
Concessions Services 19
Plan Implementation 19
Actions Common to the Proposed Action and Alternatives B, C, and E 23
Natural Resources 23
Priorities 23
Mitigation 24
Cultural Resources 24
Priorities 24
Mitigation 25
Visitor Use 25
Accessibility 25
Visitation Levels / Carrying Capacity 26
Interpretation, Information, and Education 26
Other Uses 26
Native American Treaty Rights 27
Park Operations 27
Boundary Adjustments 28
Concessions and Other Commercial Services 28
Implementation Plans to Follow this General Management Plan 28
Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) Plan 28
Wilderness and Backcountry Management Plan 29
Resource Management Plan 29
vn
1
CONTENTS
Commercial Services Plan 29
Comprehensive Interpretive Plan 29
Park Management Zones 30
Land Zones 30
Zones for Lake Superior Waters 32
Nonmotorized Waters Zone 33
The Proposed Action 34
Overall Concept 34
Park Management Zoning 34
Concession Services 38
Rock Harbor 38
Windigo 39
Transportation Services 40
Plan Implementation 40
Alternative B 43
Overall Concept 43
Park Management Zoning 43
Concessions Services 44
Plan Implementation 45
Alternative C 49
Overall Concept 49
Park Management Zones 49
Concessions Services 50
Plan Implementation 5
Alternative E 55
Overall Concept 55
Park Management Zoning 55
Concessions Services 56
Plan Implementation 56
Actions Eliminated from Detailed Study 59
Shipboard Overnight Accommodations 59
Additional (Dispersed) Campsites 59
Additional Trails 59
Affected Environment
Natural Resources 69
Special Designations 69
Wilderness 69
U. S. Biosphere Reserve 69
vin