Request for Proposal

Structural, Cultural Landscape, and Community History — Shaw Point, Sand Island

Apostle Islands Historic Preservation Conservancy PO Box 88 Bayfield, WI 54814

Closing Date: August 31, 2013

I. Calendar of Events

Issuance of Request for Proposals (RFP) July 31, 2013 Proposal Due Date August 31, 2013 Contractor Selection October 1, 2013

II. General Information

A. The Apostle Islands Historic Preservation Conservancy

The Apostle Islands Historic Preservation Conservancy (AIHPC or the Conservancy) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization established in 2006 that has as its mission enhancing the preservation, appreciation and interpretation of the cultural and historical resources of the Apostle Islands region of northern Wisconsin. The Conservancy is run by a diverse Board of Directors consisting of 21 members drawn from the community within the Apostle Islands region. The Conservancy engages in a wide array of activities, including hands-on restoration of historic structures, public education on area history, and issuance of grants to other nonprofit groups, local governments, and tribal entities. Over the course of its seven-year history, the Conservancy has awarded grants for regional history purposes to over 20 different parties.

Most of the Conservancy's projects involve activities in the mainland area of the Apostle Islands region. The Conservancy also has a strong interest in the preservation and public appreciation of the historic resources of the Apostle Islands themselves. Some members of the Conservancy hold life estates to historic structures on the Islands, for which fee title is owned by the National Park Service (NPS). These families are, in some cases, the historic families who were the original owners of the properties over 100 years ago.

The Conservancy has a strong interest in ensuring the development of written histories of these properties. For example, the Conservancy completed a history of the West Bay Club on Sand Island, that is now being used through NPS as the basis for a National Register nomination for this property, previously determined to be eligible for that purpose based on NPS research.

B. Background on Shaw Point

Located in Lake Superior approximately two miles from the northern Wisconsin mainland, Sand Island lies at the western edge of the Apostle Islands group. The 2859-acre island is noteworthy as one of only two islands in the archipelago that was home to a year-round community. Settlement began shortly after the Civil War, and by the time of World War I reached a peak population variously estimated as 75 to 100. At its height, the community featured a post office, a public school, and a small general store. The majority of residents were Norwegian-American, following a fishing/farming lifestyle brought over from the home country.

The island was also home to Camp Stella, one of northern Wisconsin’s first resort complexes, established in 1887. After the turn of the twentieth century, summer residents added to the island mix. The population dwindled with the Depression and changing times, and the last year-round residents left Sand Island in 1944. However, summer use of the island and a strong community of the historic families, has continued to the present.

The Apostle Islands National Lakeshore was established in 1970 by Congress as a unit of the National Park System including all of Sand Island. At that time several Sand Island families negotiated use-and-occupancy agreements with the Federal government and continue to occupy their cabins and cottages to this day. Some of these properties are clustered in the Shaw Point area at the Island’s southeast corner, including several individual structures currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The area, encompassing roughly 40 acres, contains on the order of 30 structures and a variety of landscape features.

Historic individuals associated with the properties include Sam Fifield, former Lt. Governor of Wisconsin and proprietor of Camp Stella; Samuel Campbell, Indian Agent in charge of the LaPointe Agency at a crucial time in the history of the Ojibwe and former Major in the Civil War serving as a Commander for the 109th Regiment, Company I, United States Colored Troops; and Gertrude Wellisch, a single woman who defied conventions and played an important and, until recently, under-appreciated role in the preservation of the Sand Island Lighthouse.

C. The Shaw Point History Project

The Conservancy would now like to prepare a history and historic property physical inventory, analysis, evaluation, and description for the Shaw Point area of Sand Island. A description of the history of the Shaw Point area and general research recommendations for undertaking this project is set forth in the enclosed Scoping Report, which is attached to this RFP for background purposes. While the historical report and historic property analysis prepared in response to this RFP might eventually be used as a basis for a National Register eligibility finding or nominations for individual Shaw Point buildings or for a historic district nomination the report’s primary purpose is to research, document, and present a comprehensive history of this unique collection of properties and some of the key historical people who have resided there. Having said that, the final report must be developed, researched, organized, and delivered as if it were a Determination of Eligibility (DOE) for listing on the National Register, using the specific and official regulatory and administrative criteria and procedures established by the National Park Service and the Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for that purpose. Whether the DOE would be submitted, even if the report determines that the area qualifies, would depend upon future action by the Conservancy, in accordance with its bylaws, the historic use families, the National Park Service, the Wisconsin Historical Society, and other relevant parties. Finally, the contractor would make a recommendation as to whether a DOE is appropriate as a district or, if the standards are not met for a district, for any of the individual properties. If a DOE is ultimately made by the SHPO, the Conservancy may seek additional assistance in a future project to prepare the National Register nomination itself. That project is not within the scope of this RFP.

The core area to be evaluated in the report will cover the property from the Campbell/Jensch boathouse in the west to the Shaw Farm buildings in the east, including about 30 structures. Consideration also should be given to whether any eligible district should include the site where the Herman and Betty Jensch cabins used to be and now a dock remnant remains, to the west of the core area, and the Plenty Charm cottage formerly owned by Gert Wellisch, located between Shaw Point and East Bay.

- 2 - III. Desired Scope of Services

The Conservancy seeks assistance for researching, writing, and coordinating with various parties in the preparation of this report.

The process of writing the report will require conducting research in several different venues. A vast and deep history exists for the Shaw Point area, and much of the relevant primary research already has been collected. The attached scoping report discusses the likely sources of this information and the potential area to be covered by the report. (Attachment 1). In addition, the Bayfield Heritage Association currently maintains a comprehensive exhibit on Sand Island, including Shaw Point, entitled Sand Island by Sand Islanders. This exhibit includes an extensive body of historical information that is expected to greatly facilitate gathering the documentation needed for the report. (Attachment 2). Due to the ready availability of source and reference material, the AIHPC does not expect that much original research will be needed. Instead, the historical research aspect of the work should focus more heavily on collecting, evaluating, and reporting on existing records and information.

Because of the extensive nature of the research data base, the contractor will need to coordinate with several parties, including representatives of historic use families, former residents and visitors, local, state, and federal government entities, media outlets, historical societies, and other contacts. Most of the individuals to be contacted, and resources used, are in the Apostle Islands area.

As the report may eventually serve as the basis for a DOE submission, the report should be prepared so it can be used for that purpose with consideration given to the historical context (e.g., regional, state, national) for Shaw Point and the significance and integrity of these properties for that context. In the interest of efficiency and possible future application for this purpose, the contractor will prepare a physical description of the structures and landscapes within the Shaw Point area, as described in the background Scoping Report, in accordance with standards for a DOE.

Transportation to Sand Island would be provided from Little Sand Bay. Access is seasonal during the summer.

The AIHPC has set a target date of August 1, 2014 for a status report on the research and January 15, 2015 for the competition of the draft report. The final report, after receiving comments from all relevant parties, would be due by July 31, 2015.

IV. Proposal Requirements

The following is a list of the information to be provided by the applicant. A proposal that does not include all the information required below shall be deemed non-responsive and subject to rejection. The proposal must respond to all the areas listed below, in the order listed.

- 3 - Any questions concerning this RFP shall be forwarded, in writing, by e-mail, or mail, as follows:

AIHPC P.O. Box 88 Bayfield, WI 54814 or [email protected]

Respondents are required to limit their submissions to 10 single-sided 8 1/2 x 11-inch pages and address the following:

1. Provide the name, title, address, telephone/fax numbers and e-mail address of the individual the AIHPC should contact with respect to your proposal.

2. Briefly discuss the history of your firm or consulting arrangement, including founding date, how organized, names of principals, number of employees, and experience with historic district research, DOEs, and National Register nominations.

3. Describe how you propose to staff the services. Identify the individuals who will be involved and the primary role and responsibilities and their experience for each.

4. Describe your experience or familiarity with historic preservation, cultural landscapes, the history of the Lake Superior region.

5. Provide the company name, contact person, address and telephone number and a project summary of three references for which you have performed similar work.

6. Identify the nature of any potential conflict of interest your firm might have in providing services under this proposal.

7. Describe in detail the estimated plan and cost for completion of the work including hours dedicated to planning, travel, research, drafting and revisions. Include a timeline for completion of the project.

V. Evaluation and Selection

A. Evaluation

The AIHPC Board will serve as the selection committee of the proposals. In doing so, it will seek assistance from retired NPS cultural resource experts Kate Stevenson and Pat Tiller. The Conservancy also will invite input from NPS and the Wisconsin Historical Society. The Board will evaluate the proposals based on the following factors (which are not necessarily listed in order of importance):

1. The qualifications, experience and availability of the lead person(s) and any other individuals assigned to the team.

2. Overall completeness, clarity, quality of proposal and responsiveness to the RFP.

- 4 - 3. Capabilities in response to the scope of services and criteria.

4. Information provided by client references.

5. Cost.

6. Other factors deemed material.

B. Selection Process

The Board will initially review all proposals to determine responsiveness and whether all threshold criteria have been met. The Board will do a comparative review of all proposals and may conduct interviews with all applicants.

The AIHPC retains the right to reject all submittals. Selection is also dependent on the negotiation of a mutually acceptable contract between the Applicant and the AIHPC.

VI. Proposal Conditions and Instructions

A. Limitations

This RFP does not commit the AIHPC to award a contract, pay any costs associated with the preparation and presentation of a proposal, or procure or contract for services of any kind whatsoever. The AIHPC reserves the right to revise the evaluation and selection process without notice and in its sole discretion, to accept or reject any or all responses to this RFP, to negotiate with any or all considered contractors, or to cancel the RFP in whole or in part. The AIHPC reserves the right to request additional information from any or all applicants.

Applicants may be requested to clarify the contents of their proposals.

An applicant may be required to participate in negotiations and to submit any price, technical or other revisions to its proposal that may result from such negotiations.

All materials submitted in response to this RFP will become the sole property of AIHPC and will not be returned.

B. Proposal Submission

A cover letter, which shall be considered an integral part of the proposal, shall be bound with the proposal and signed by the individual or individuals authorized to bind the Applicant contractually. The cover letter shall contain a statement to the effect that the applicant’s work for the AIHPC will not create any conflicts of interest and shall certify that the statements contained in their proposal are true and correct to the best of their knowledge.

- 5 - C. General Conditions

The applicant must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that may arise if they were to accept an award of a contract with the AIHPC.

All applicants are obligated to update any changes in their proposal prior to the proposal due date.

A contract must be entered into between the parties that specifies all of the terms and conditions.

The contract regarding these services shall be governed and construed in accordance with and pursuant to the laws of the AIHPC.

All applicants will receive written notification as to whether their proposal was selected.

- 6 -

1 Shaw Point Historic District National Register Evaluation Scoping Report

2 Prepared by Carol Ahlgren, M.A., and Nancy Farm Männikkö, Ph.D.1 3 July 31, 2013 4 5 Executive Summary 6 This scoping report describes what actions and categories of expenses would be required to evaluate 7 and possibly nominate resources (buildings, structures, sites, and objects) and cultural landscapes 8 located on Sand Island in Apostle Islands National Lakeshore (APIS) to the National Register of Historic 9 Places (NR) on an historic district basis. The document includes an explanation of the desired outcome, a 10 description of existing documentation, a summary of the actual work entailed in preparing a National 11 Register nomination, and a comparison of different approaches to achieving the desired outcome. 12 13 Purpose of Evaluation 14 The Apostle Islands Historic Preservation Conservancy has as its mission the preservation and protection 15 of historic structures and cultural landscapes in the Apostle Islands region of northern Wisconsin. At this 16 point in time, the Conservancy is interested in evaluating whether structures and landscapes located in 17 the Shaw Point area on Sand Island qualify as an historic district for purposes of a nomination to the NR. 18 The area known as Shaw Point is especially rich in terms of Island history as it was the site of early 19 farming, fishing, tourism, and recreation. Shaw Point is also associated with at least two persons 20 noteworthy in Wisconsin history, Sam S. Fifield and Samuel Campbell. If the area qualifies as a district, 21 the Conservancy could prepare a draft NR nomination and supporting documents, working together 22 with the families that have historic ties to the Shaw Point area and the National Park Service (NPS). The 23 Conservancy followed a similar approach earlier this year for the West Bay Club lodge by preparing a 24 draft nomination and providing it to the Peters family, which holds a life estate in that property. The 25 Peters family submitted the report to the APIS Cultural Resource staff, which in turn submitted the 26 report to the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). The assumption is that a Shaw Point District 27 nomination would be handled in the same manner. 28

1 This Scoping Report received peer review comments by Dr. Nina Archabal, Donald Baur, Bob Mackreth, Kate Stevenson, de Teel Paterson Tiller, and Royce Yeater.

Page 1 of 8 29 The nomination report would advance the public interest. As noted in the December 2012 report by the 30 United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), Federal Real Property: Improved Data Needed to 31 Strategically Manage Historic Buildings, Address Multiple Challenges, on page 29: 32 33 The National Register is intended to be an authoritative guide and planning tool to 34 identify properties agencies should for protection and, before undertaking a project 35 related to such properties, to provide ACHP [Advisory Council on Historic Preservation], 36 state historic preservation officers, and other stakeholders a reasonable opportunity to 37 comment on the project. 38 39 In addition, the GAO report notes that “listings are typically not updated.” Both of these factors apply at 40 Shaw Point, where a report on Shaw Point would provide useful information that could be considered by 41 the National Park Service (NPS) and the Wisconsin SHPO for purposes of a new NR listing and establish a 42 record for updating the current NR designations for individual structures at Shaw Point. 43 44 Current Situation 45 Two NR-listed properties exist within the proposed district: the Sevona Cabin and the Shaw-Hill Farm. 46 Both nominations could be updated to reflect current NR standards. The Sevona nomination, for 47 example, used the Cabin’s association with Sam S. Fifield as the basis for significance rather than 48 explicating its association with the rich and interesting history of Camp Stella as a whole.2 Camp Stella 49 was a rustic resort established by Fifield in the mid-1880s and was quite possibly one of the earliest 50 commercial resorts in northern Wisconsin. Indeed, Camp Stella as a whole may have sufficient 51 significance to merit nomination on a state as well as local level. 52 53 The Shaw-Hill Farm nomination also does not reflect all aspects of the property’s historic significance. In 54 addition, neither nomination looks at the area holistically within the larger context of either Island or 55 State history. Even if no other work is done, both nominations should, in fact, be amended to reflect the 56 site’s full significance and history. 57 58 Other properties within the potential district include the Campbell-Jensch complex and Plenty Charm, a 59 summer home constructed by Gertrude Wellisch in the 1940s. Campbell-Jensch includes the Campbell

2 http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/76000051.pdf. Accessed 2012 November 14.

Page 2 of 8 60 Cottage completed in 1909 by Samuel Campbell, a Civil War veteran and Indian agent, and several other 61 cabins and outbuildings. The Campbell-Jensch complex may reach as far to the west as the former 62 Herman Jensch property. NPS removed the cabins from the Herman Jensch site in 2010, but the 63 remnants of a dock and other vestiges of the buildings remain. The Campbell-Jensch complex, to the 64 authors’ knowledge, has never been evaluated for potential NR eligibility. The complex has a close 65 association with the Shaw Hill Farm and Camp Stella and could merit an individual eligibility finding. 66 67 APIS submitted a proposed consensus determination of eligibility for Plenty Charm in 2001. In March 68 2002, the SHPO disagreed with the NPS assessment and found Plenty Charm ineligible for the NR. 69 Substantial additional information about the cottage and its owner, Gertrude Wellisch, and her activities 70 in the community has been collected since that time, and the question of the property’s eligibility should 71 be re-evaluated in the context of an historic district and possibly on its own merits. 72 73 The National Register of Historic Places 74 In assessing what work needs to be done in evaluating a district nomination for Shaw Point, the starting 75 point is the NR. According to NPS, “The National Register of Historic Places is the official list of the 76 Nation's historic places worthy of preservation. Authorized by the National Historic Preservation Act of 77 1966, the National Park Service's National Register of Historic Places is part of a national program to 78 coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect America's historic and 79 archeological resources.” 3 To qualify for listing on the NR, a property must meet the criteria for 80 evaluation. Basically, a resource must be at least 50 years old, it must look much the same today as it did 81 in the past, and it must be historically significant, i.e., the property must be associated with events, 82 activities, developments, or people who were important in the past. There are four NR criteria for 83 evaluation: A, B, C, and D. Criterion A evaluates significance in relation to events or broad themes in our 84 nation’s history, B looks at the association with significant persons, C bases significance on the 85 embodiment of “a type, period, or method of construction,”4 and D looks at a property’s potential for 86 yielding information. The Shaw-Hill Farm is an example of a nomination that based significance on 87 Criterion A and the Sevona Cabin nomination was based primarily on B. A property may be found eligible 88 under multiple criteria, but typically only the strongest criterion is used. 89

3 http://www.nps.gov/nr/national_register_fundamentals.htm. Accessed 2012 November 14. 4 Ibid.

Page 3 of 8 90 Which NR criteria apply to Shaw Point? 91 Preliminary research suggests that the strongest basis for a district nomination could be Criterion A, with 92 the intertwined themes of Agriculture, Commerce, and Entertainment/Recreation. The earliest 93 economic activity at Shaw Point was agriculture, followed quickly by commercial fishing, tourism, and 94 recreation. Frank Shaw established the first year-round farm and residence on Sand Island in 1870; by 95 the mid-1880s Sam S. Fifield’s Camp Stella was operating. Sam Campbell came to Sand Island in the late 96 1890s as a friend of Sam Fifield and bought land from Fifield and adjacent to Camp Stella for his cottage. 97 Campbell built the cottage between 1905 and 1909 and recorded his purchase of the land in 1909. 98 Campbell was consistently a part of the activities at Camp Stella, and the Campbell cottage residents 99 became integral participants in the activities at Camp Stella and the Shaw Farm. As historian James 100 Feldman has documented,5 there is a clear pattern of cooperation and mutual dependence between the 101 farming community and the recreational community that ties the various properties together into a 102 coherent district. The other Criteria would be considered during the course of the research and could 103 also be used as the basis for a possible nomination. 104 105 What the nomination process would require 106 Preparing a nomination requires research, field work for photography and mapping, writing and 107 revising, preparing photographs and maps obtained during fieldwork, and assembling the text and 108 supporting materials (e.g., maps and photographs) into a properly formatted submission package. 109 Research includes literature searches for previously published material and archival research for primary 110 documents, such as personal papers or business records. How much time the research phase can take 111 will depend on factors such as the location of archival material and the availability and reliability of 112 previously published materials. Seeking out primary sources becomes particularly important when 113 secondary documentation gives conflicting information. For example, in the course of preparing this 114 scoping report, the authors found three different dates in the secondary literature for the establishment 115 of Camp Stella. Although the continued presence of the families involved at Shaw Point through legal 116 rights for use and occupancy ensures a ready source of valuable historic information, substantial 117 additional research will nonetheless be required.

5 James Feldman, “The view from Sand Island: reconsidering the peripheral economy, 1880-1940,” The Western Historical Quarterly 35.3. http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/whq/35.3/feldman.html. Accessed 2012 November 14.

Page 4 of 8 118 119 What specifically needs to be done at Shaw Point? 120 The first step would be to establish a preliminary boundary for the proposed district. Initial research 121 would focus on the properties that clearly fall within that preliminary boundary. Although definitive 122 boundaries for the proposed district cannot be drawn without additional research, the site’s association 123 with tourism and recreation suggests a NR historic district could extend along the south shore as far 124 west as the remnants of the Herman Jensch dock and north along the eastern shore to the Gertrude 125 Wellisch cabin, Plenty Charm. The boundaries for the district would most probably be drawn based on 126 historic plat maps; the former county road would link Plenty Charm to Camp Stella and the Shaw-Hill 127 Farm. 128 129 With regard to Plenty Charm, a case potentially exists for including it as a possible district. Plenty Charm 130 was built by Gertrude Wellisch, a person whose first contact with Sand Island came through her family’s 131 vacationing at Camp Stella. Over the decades, Ms. Wellisch interacted with everyone on Sand Island, 132 both the seasonal residents and the farming and fishing families. 133 134 At this time, there are at least 50 easily visible possible contributing resources (buildings, structures, and 135 objects) within the potential district, including numerous buildings, structures such as light posts and 136 bridges, and landscape features such as plantings of day lilies, roses, and apple trees. A thorough on- 137 the-ground survey of the proposed district would no doubt reveal additional resources. 138 139 Research 140 Despite a plethora of published articles, books, and websites about the Apostles and Sand Island, many 141 questions remain about the specific properties and their relationship to each other. In addition, the 142 historic context needs to be developed. A number of publications have described the development of 143 agriculture and tourism within the Apostle Islands but do not provide a sense of how the Apostle Islands 144 compare with other parts of the State or the upper Midwest. How does the recreational community on 145 Sand Island compare with resort and/or seasonal cottage development elsewhere in Wisconsin? A 146 thorough understanding of the recreational context for the State as a whole is necessary to determine 147 the appropriate level of significance for Shaw Point. Thus, preparing a solid nomination for Shaw Point, 148 should such action be justified, will require a considerable amount of background research to establish 149 the context in addition to research specific to the properties on Sand Island.

Page 5 of 8 150 151 The good news about preparing a NR nomination for Shaw Point is a wealth of reference material exists: 152 oral histories, books, journal articles, stories in the popular press, newspaper accounts, personal papers, 153 and family records. Primary materials are located in multiple archives in Wisconsin and Minnesota and 154 are also in the possession of family members who hold use and occupancy rights to Shaw Point 155 properties; secondary materials provide conflicting or incomplete information. For example, as noted 156 above, the authors found three different dates for the establishment of Camp Stella. Contradictory 157 secondary sources mandate a comprehensive review of all the primary data that can be located. 158 159 In addition to the archival research, extensive field work will be necessary to identify contributing and 160 noncontributing resources and then: 161 • Collect GPS data for all identifiable resources (structures and objects), including circulation 162 patterns; 163 • Photograph all identifiable resources, including interior photography of buildings. Historic 164 photographs may be available from the families, but new photos must be taken to ensure 165 compliance with NR standards; and 166 • Measure resources. 167 Mapping the district will require expertise with GIS and software such as ARCView, as the district will be 168 an irregular shape and include a large number of resources. 169 170 Known research material 171 Archives 172 • Family Records (various locations) 173 • Apostle Islands National Park (Bayfield, Wisconsin)

174 o Oral history transcripts 175 o Site maps /tract files 176 o Historic photographs 177 • Bayfield Heritage Association (Bayfield, Wisconsin)

178 o Oral history interviews on DVD 179 o Historic photographs 180 • Northern Great Lakes Area Research Center (Ashland, Wisconsin) 181 • River Falls Area Research Center (River Falls, Wisconsin)

Page 6 of 8 182 o Sam Campbell papers - 4 boxes 183 • Wisconsin State Historical Society (Madison, Wisconsin)

184 o Historic photos, maps (some may be available online) th 185 o 19 century advertising ephemera for railroads and tourism 186 • Minnesota State Historical Society (St. Paul, Minnesota)

187 o Anderson papers (1 box of personal documents) 188 189 Additional potential references 190 • Interviews with family members, employees, and visitors 191 • Newspaper articles from relevant time periods 192 • Published studies and articles 193 All of the above work should be coordinated with NPS and discussed periodically with the SHPO. 194

Page 7 of 8