Record of Decision, General Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, Isle Royale National Park, Keweenaw County, Michigan

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

Record of Decision, General Management Plan and Environmental

Impact Statement, Isle Royale National Park, Keweenaw County, Michigan

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the regulations promulgated by the

Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1505.2), the Department of the

Interior, National Park Service, has prepared a Record of Decision on

the Final General Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement

for Isle Royale National Park, Keweenaw County, Michigan.

DATES: The Regional Director, Midwest Region approved the Record of

Decision, on May 11, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Superintendent, Isle Royale National

Park, 800 E. Lakeshore Drive, Houghton, MI 49931-1895, telephone 906-

482-0986.

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:

Introduction

The National Park Service has prepared the Final General Management

Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (GMP/FEIS) for Isle Royale National

Park, Michigan. The GMP/FEIS proposes management direction for the park

for the next 15-20 years and documents the anticipated effects of the

proposed action and other alternatives on the human environment,

including natural and cultural resources. This Record of Decision is a

concise statement of the decisions made, other alternatives considered,

the basis for the decision, the environmentally preferable alternative,

and the mitigating measures developed to avoid or minimize

environmental harm.

Decision

After careful consideration of environmental impacts, costs,

comments from the public, agencies, and tribes, and engineering

evaluations, the National Park Service recommends

[[Page 30538]]

for implementation the proposed action evaluated in the final general

management plan/environmental impact statement.

Summary of the Selected Action

The goal of the selected alternative, which was identified as the

proposed action in the Final Environmental Statement, is to meet the

diverse expectations and needs of Isle Royale visitors while

emphasizing the natural quiet that is fundamental to wilderness

experiences. All park areas will be available to all visitors, so long

as users participate in ways that are consistent with the access,

facilities, and opportunities provided. Management zones will provide

guidance for managing specific areas for desired visitor experience and

resource conditions (see p. 30 of the GMP/FEIS).

Campgrounds will be designed and access provided to separate

motorized and non-motorized uses in a few areas; certain docks will be

removed or relocated, for example, and some new campgrounds will be

provided. A variety of uses will be available that will be fairly

evenly distributed across the island. Use limits may become necessary

in some management zones to prevent overcrowding and maintain quiet and

solitude. Quiet/no-wake water zones will be established to reduce noise

and wake impacts in numerous areas. Other regulations aimed at reducing

sound associated with humans will also be implemented.

Partnerships will be sought to maintain the docks and cultural

resources at Barnum and Washington Islands. Potential adaptive public

overnight use of these historic sites and former commercial fishing

sites at Crystal Cove, Wright Island, and Fisherman's Home will be

considered. When the Passage Island, Isle Royale, and Rock of Ages

lighthouses are transferred to the NPS, partners will be sought to help

stabilize, maintain, and interpret them and their surroundings.

Existing motel units at Rock Harbor will be reconfigured and made

more rustic. Existing Housekeeping cabins will be retained; a few new

rustic cabins will be added. Utility systems and other concession

infrastructure at Rock Harbor will be brought into compliance with

State and Federal standards. The dining room, concession laundry, and

public laundry at Rock Harbor will be discontinued; most other

concession services will remain. Unless the concessioner is subsidized

through a new congressional appropriation, prices of services might

rise to the point that concessions services may be unviable.

In addition to the actions described above, the following actions

are part of the selected alternative and alternatives B, C, and E

(described in the next section). Actions related to natural resources:

complete baseline inventories of natural resources, expand monitoring,

develop fisheries management and water resource management plans, and

establish research and wolf management advisory boards. Actions related

to cultural resources: complete inventory and documentation of

resources, expand monitoring, research specific cultural history gaps,

and cooperate with partners to set standards for and carry out

shipwreck preservation. Except in alternative C, historic structures

would generally be retained if they were eligible for the National

Register and a potential use was identified. Actions related to

interpretation, information, and education: develop a comprehensive

interpretive plan, improve visitor information facilities, strengthen

education outreach, and develop interpretive media supportive of park

emphasis statements. Other actions: develop a wilderness and

backcountry management plan and a commercial services plan, limit

charter fishing permits, prohibit personal watercraft, and perform a

study to develop and evaluate options for improving the mainland

headquarters.

Other Alternatives Considered

Alternative A--Alternative A (the status quo or no-action

alternative) would continue current management at Isle Royale National

Park. It provides a baseline for evaluating the changes and related

environmental effects of the other alternatives. Park managers would

continue to provide for visitor use and would respond to natural and

cultural resource management concerns according to current policy and

legal requirements and as funding allowed. There would be no change in

management direction.

Alternative B--Alternative B would separate uses by concentrating

facilities and services at the ends of the island and by creating an

increasingly primitive wilderness experience toward the middle of the

island. Visitors would find a full range of facilities and services and

a more structured experience at Rock Harbor and Windigo, the primary

access points to the island, which would both require some increased

development. A more primitive wilderness experience with quiet and

solitude would be found toward the center of the island, where most

facilities and amenities would be removed. Limits on the number of

visitors there would probably be necessary.

In addition to orientation and interpretation offered at the

Houghton headquarters, a broad range of services would be available at

both ends of the island. Rock Harbor and Windigo would offer a full

range of orientation information and services. No formal interpretation

would be offered in the middle of the island.

Some cultural resources in developed and frontcountry zones could

be preserved through adaptive use for lodging, interpretation, or

operations. Cultural resources toward the middle of the island would be

documented and allowed to deteriorate.

Additional staff and housing might be needed at Windigo to operate

expanded sewer and water treatment facilities. The Amygdaloid Island

ranger station would remain, but the Malone Bay station in the middle

of the island would be removed.

Alternative C--Most of the island would be truly primitive.

Emphasis would be placed on providing superlative wilderness

experiences, solitude, and escape from the intrusions of the modern

world. Facilities and development would be scaled back and evidence of

management activities would be minimal. Party size would be limited to

a maximum of six people for overnight use on the island.

Visitation would be managed through a reservation system. Permits

could be issued on a first-come, first-served basis, or a lottery

system would be used. Various systems would be carefully evaluated

before one was chosen.

Emphasis would be placed on providing orientation and

interpretation at the Houghton headquarters and other ferry staging

areas. Additional information would be provided in written materials.

No interpretive media or formal programs would be offered on the island

because they could intrude on the wilderness character.

Ferry service would be provided to Rock Harbor and Windigo only.

Water taxi service would be eliminated.

Consistent with the concept of this alternative, all cultural

resources would be documented and allowed to decay. No stabilization or

preservation of these resources would be attempted. The Coast Guard

would continue to maintain navigational aids, and the National Park

Service would continue to maintain access to these areas; however, when

the lighthouses are turned over to the National Park Service, they

would be documented and allowed to decay. Lighthouses could be

maintained, however, by the Coast Guard or some other entity.

[[Page 30539]]

Alternative E--Most facilities would remain and services would

continue, but a few changes would be made to better separate uses and

increase interpretation. To provide better quality experiences without

restricting activities, visitor numbers would be controlled at

substantially lower levels than exist now (10,000 to 13,000 people per

year). This would mean that approximately 5,000 to 8,000 fewer visitors

per year would be accommodated than in recent years.

Visitation to the island would be managed through a reservation

system. A limited number of permits could be issued per year on a

first-come, first-served basis, or there could be a lottery system or

some other method. Various reservation systems would be carefully

evaluated before one was chosen.

Interpreted sites would remain, and historic structures at Wright

Island, Crystal Cove, and Fishermans Home could be adaptively used for

additional interpretation of park cultural themes. Interpretation and

environmental education could be provided at the west end of the park

at Washington and Barnum Islands. The Rock Harbor and Windigo areas

would remain the primary visitor orientation points.

Historic structures and landscapes would be preserved in priority

order according to significance. The historic commercial fishery sites

at Wright Island, Crystal Cove, and Fishermans Home would be stabilized

and adaptive uses would be sought to provide for their continued

preservation and interpretation. When the National Park Service

received title to the lighthouses owned by the U.S. Coast Guard,

partners interested in preserving the structures would be considered.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

The environmentally preferable alternative is defined as ``the

alternative or alternatives that will promote the national

environmental policy as expressed in section 101 of the National

Environmental Policy Act. Ordinarily, this means the alternative that

causes least damage to the biological and physical environment; it also

means the alternative that best protects, preserves, and enhances

historic, cultural, and natural resources'' (``Forty Most Asked

Questions Concerning Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) National

Environmental Policy Act Regulations,'' 1981).

The environmentally preferable alternative is the selected action.

This alternative best meets the full range of national environmental

policy goals as stated in NEPA's Section 101. The selected action (1)

maximizes protection of natural and cultural resources while

maintaining a wide range of neutral and beneficial uses of the

environment without degradation; (2) maintains an environment that

supports diversity and variety of individual choice; (3) achieves a

balance between human population and resource use; and (4) improves

resource sustainability.

Alternative C, as described in the Final GMP/EIS, could potentially

provide additional protection for natural resources beyond that

included in the selected action, primarily through scaling back human

activities and facilities. Alternative C does not protect historic and

cultural resources, however, nor does it provide for a diversity of

human choice.

The selected alternative provides the appropriate balance and

flexibility necessary to protect the cultural heritage and traditional

recreational uses at Isle Royale, as well as natural and cultural

resources. This approach is also vital to maintaining relationships

between gateway communities and Isle Royale National Park, a critical

element in the successful implementation of the proposed action and

realization of its beneficial effects on the environment.

Measures To Minimize Harm

All practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm that

could result from implementation of the selected action have been

identified and incorporated into the selected action. They are

presented in detail in the GMP/FEIS. They include, but are not limited

to, resource monitoring and management; visitor use monitoring and

management; commitments for additional resource surveys and

consultation prior to Park Service construction, and proposals for

additional research and data collection as outlined in the plan.

Additional mitigation measures are discussed on pp. 24 and 25, and in

the Consultation and Coordination section (pp. 128-134) of the GMP/

FEIS.

Due to the programmatic nature of the general management plan,

specific development projects will be reviewed as necessary for

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, National

Historic Preservation Act, and other applicable Federal and State laws

and regulations prior to project clearance and implementation. Specific

measures to minimize environmental harm will be included in

implementation plans called for by the GMP/FEIS. These include

fisheries management and water resource management plans, a study to

develop and evaluate options for improving the mainland headquarters, a

comprehensive interpretive plan, a wilderness and backcountry

management plan, and a commercial services plan.

Basis For Decision

The selected alternative best supports the park's purpose,

significance, and wilderness status, and accomplishes the statutory

mission of the National Park Service to provide long-term protection of

park resources while allowing for appropriate levels of visitor use and

means of visitor enjoyment. The selected alternative also does the best

job of addressing issues identified during public scoping while

minimizing environmental harm. Other factors considered in the decision

were public and resource benefits gained for the cost incurred, and

extensive public comment.

Public Involvement

Public involvement for the General Management Plan began with a

workshop for representatives of key stakeholders in February 1994. In

July 1995 the planning team met on the island to discuss preliminary

planning issues. Team members spoke about the planning effort at two

public programs on the island. The planning team also met with park

staff members (those not on the planning team) to solicit their input.

Newsletter #1, published in November 1995, introduced the planning

project and process to the public.

In Newsletter #2 the public was asked to review draft purpose and

significance statements and a list of preliminary planning issues.

Nearly 300 responses were received and 50-60 people attended each

public meeting in Duluth, Minnesota, and Houghton and Lansing, Michigan

to provide additional comments.

Newsletter #3, published in June 1996, summarized public input to

date and presented revised purpose and significance statements, park

emphasis statements, revised issue statements, potential management

zones, and possible alternative concepts. There were again a large

number of responses and the results were reported in November 1996 in

Newsletter #4.

Using the public input, the planning team developed the alternative

concepts in more detail and presented them with maps in Newsletter #5

in February 1997. Public meetings were held in Ann Arbor and Houghton,

Michigan and Duluth, Minnesota, to present the management alternatives

for public comment in March 1997. There was significant response to the

newsletter and 75 to 150 people attended each meeting. Using

[[Page 30540]]

that input the planning team developed a preliminary preferred

alternative, which was presented in Newsletter #6 in July 1997.

The Draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

was produced and distributed for public review in March 1998. Public

meetings were held in April 1998 at St. Paul and Duluth, Minnesota, and

Houghton and Ann Arbor, Michigan. Approximately 75-150 people attended

each of the meetings. Additionally, nearly 600 responses were received

by mail or on the Internet. The preferred alternative was subsequently

revised and the Final General Management Plan/Environmental Impact

Statement was distributed in November 1998.

Sixteen (16) letters commenting on the GMP/FEIS were received.

There were few new ideas expressed in the letters; similar comments

(with NPS responses) were incorporated into the GMP/FEIS. Concerns

related to the following general topic areas were expressed: separation

of uses (including concerns about non-motorized zones), concessions

services at Rock Harbor (including concerns about affordability and

accessibility of overnight accommodations), and dock removal and

replacement. The National Park Service has heard these concerns, and

responded to them in the ``Summary of Public Comments'' section of the

GMP/FEIS.

Conclusion

A notice of availability for the Final General Management Plan/

Environmental Impact Statement for Isle Royale National Park was

published in the Federal Register on November 3, 1998, and the 30-day

no-action period ended on December 3, 1998.

The above factors and considerations justify the selection of the

final plan, as described in the ``Proposed Action'' section of the

Final Environmental Impact Statement. The final general management plan

is hereby approved.

Dated: May 21, 1999.

William W. Schenk,

Regional Director.

[FR Doc. 99-14440 Filed 6-7-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-70-P