Final General Management Plan/ Environmental Impact Statement
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
^#jz,fcd_ JM>r s-He^y£:s» |.^^ 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 recyled paper FINAL GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ISLE ROYALE NATIONAL PARK KEWEENAW COUNTY, MICHIGAN The five alternatives that were developed in the course of preparing this General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement were based on park purpose, significance, and emphasis statements, which in turn were based on the park's legislation and legislative history, other special designations, and NPS policies. The plan is intended to provide a foundation for park management and use and to serve as a guide for park programs and for priority setting over at least the next 1 5-20 years. Alternative A is the no-action, or status quo, alternative and provides a baseline for comparison of the other four alternatives. The proposed action has been revised from the proposal in the Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement. It is intended to meet the diverse expectations and needs of Isle Royale visitors while emphasizing the natural quiet that is fundamental to wilderness experiences. All park areas would be available to all visitors as long as users participate in ways that are consistent with the access, facilities, and opportunities provided. Alternative B would expand facilities and services at the ends of the island and create a more primitive experience toward the center. Cultural resources would be preserved only at the ends of the island. Use limits would be imposed in some zones. Some facilities in developed areas would be expanded to serve visitors preparing to enter the backcountry. Alternative C would scale back all development to create a more primitive park. No interpretive media or formal programs would be offered on the island. All cultural resources would be documented and allowed to deteriorate. A narrower range of experiences would be available. Visitor numbers would be lowered and use limits would be instituted islandwide. All concessions and related facilities would be removed. Alternative D was modified to become the proposed action. Alternative E would allow park management to continue as it is now, but visitor numbers would be controlled and would be low. Historic structures would be preserved according to significance. A variety of uses would continue across the island. The potential consequences of the actions in the alternatives on natural resources, cultural resources, visitor use and experiences, park operations, and the socioeconomic environment have been evaluated. In general, all alternatives would better protect the park's natural resources than the current management direction (alternative A). Alternative C would provide the greatest benefit to natural resources, but would have the most negative effects on cultural resources and on visitor use. The proposed action and alternative E would best protect cultural resources. Impacts on park operations from the alternatives would be mixed; the workload would remain roughly the same (except in alternative C, where it would be reduced), but the emphasis would change depending on the alternative. The alternatives would not appreciably affect the socioeconomic environment. U. S. Department of the Interior National Park Service HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT This document has four main sections. The first, Service's preferred approach for managing the called "Purpose of and Need for the Plan," park. Alternatives B, C, and E present other introduces the plan, describes why it is options for management of Isle Royale necessary, and explains what it will accomplish. It provides background information about Isle The third major section is called the "Affected Royale National 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 of the Proposed Action and region. The information in the Affected Alternatives" section presents alternatives for the Environment section provides the context for management of the park. Alternative A (no analyzing the impacts of the 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 of Alternative D Environment" section. from Newsletter 6) presents the National Park in SUMMARY INTRODUCTION services at the ends of the 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 General Management Plan / areas at the ends of the island. Use limits would Environmental Impact Statement. The be imposed in some zones. Some facilities in alternatives grew out of park purpose, developed areas would be expanded to serve significance, and emphasis statements. Park visitors preparing to enter the 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 for which Isle Royale was set aside as the island. All cultural resources would be part of the national park system and provide a documented and allowed to deteriorate. A foundation for park management and use. narrower range of experiences 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 Royale National become the proposed action, above. Alternative Park. They serve as broad guiding principles for E would allow management of the park to con- park programs and for priority setting. tinue as it is now, but visitor numbers would be controlled and would be low. Historic structures Before and during preparation of the alternatives would be preserved according to significance. A several newsletters were sent out and public variety of uses 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 General Management Plan / ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Environmental Impact Statement. It has been further modified as a result of comments The potential impacts of the actions in the received. The Final General Management Plan / alternatives on natural resources, cultural Environmental Impact Statement is intended to resources, visitor use and experiences, park guide the management of Isle Royale National operations, and the socioeconomic environment Park over at least the next 1 5-20 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 of the 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 of Isle 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 of and Need for the Plan 4 Overview 4 Issues 4 Summary of Public Involvement 7 Description of the Park 8 Park Purpose and Significance Park Emphasis Statements 13 The Proposed Action and Alternatives Introduction 1 Alternative A (Existing Conditions) 18 Overall Concept 18 Park Management 1 Concessions Services 19 Plan Implementation 19 Actions Common to the Proposed