INTRODUCTION

The alternatives in this document establish broad visions and management prescriptions for the preservation and use of selected structures and cultural landscapes. Because the NPS cannot predict the variety and locations of adaptive uses that might be proposed by partners, an analysis of specific and quantitative impacts is not possible. The general nature of the alternatives requires that the analysis of impacts also be general. This means that the NPS can make some reasonable projections of likely impacts, but these are based on assumptions that might not prove to be accurate in the future.

Thus, this environmental impact statement (EIS) is programmatic and presents an overview of potential impacts relating to each alternative. This EIS will serve as a basis for future National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents (such as environmental assessments) prepared to assess subsequent partner proposals.

Impact topics were selected for analysis by determining which resources or elements of the human environment would be affected by alternative actions. Those resources and environmental concerns that would not be appreciably affected by alternative actions were eliminated from further consideration and comparative analysis.

IMPACTS DISMISSED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION

The alternatives presented in this document will have no impacts on the following resources, so they have been dismissed from further consideration. They are described in detail at the beginning of Chapter 3, Affected Environment:

-Wild and Scenic Rivers
-Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential
-Submerged Cultural Resources
-Minority and Low Income Populations and Communities (Environmental Justice Policy)
-Sacred Sites
-Indian Trust Resources

The following impact categories are common to all alternatives and are not repeated in the impact sections for individual alternatives:

Air Quality

Temporary impacts on air quality could be caused by preservation, rehabilitation, removal, or demolition activities. These would primarily involve temporary increases in particulates (fugitive dust) and vehicle emissions (where motorized equipment is used). Mitigating measures (such as watering to keep dust down) would be taken to limit even temporary and localized impacts.

Threatened and Endangered Vegetation

Impacts to the federally threatened Pitcher's thistle in the North Manitou Island Village cultural landscape would be minimal or non-existent. Proposals with potentially significant impacts to this threatened vegetation would be rejected.

Threatened and Endangered Wildlife

Impacts to the federally endangered piping plover in the North Manitou Island Village cultural landscape or the federally threatened bald eagle, in the Port Oneida cultural landscape, would be minimal or non-existent. Proposals with potentially significant impacts to these species would be rejected.

Floodplains and Wetlands

Impacts to floodplains in the North Manitou Island Village and Port Oneida cultural landscapes would be minimal or non-existent. Impacts to wetlands in the Boekeloo, Ken-Tuck-U-Inn, North Manitou Island Village, and Port Oneida cultural landscapes would be minimal or non-existent.

Visitor Safety

Impacts to visitors' safety will be minimized by removing or repairing safety hazards in historic structures or physically closing these structures to prevent visitor entry.

Managed Open Fields

Impacts to resources of the managed open fields (wildlife, soils, native plants) would be minimal since any partner proposals for landscape use would have to be consistent with the Open Field Management Program.

Historic Structures in Poor Condition

Historic structures in poor condition would be removed as safety hazards or protected as ruins. Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act would be applied.

IMPACTS ON NATURAL RESOURCES

Recommended Wilderness

Minimal short- and long-term impacts are expected due to restrictions placed on activities by the Wilderness Act. Four landscapes with recommended wilderness could be impacted: Boekeloo, Tweedle/Treat, North Manitou Island Village, and Port Oneida. Preservation activities such as repairing and painting siding, reroofing, and foundation work would create short-term disruptions in solitude, which would return once activities cease. Wilderness attributes could be minimally impacted in the long-term with possible recurring use of the structures, particularly if they are used as staging areas for trips into the wilderness.

Native Vegetation

Minimal impacts to native vegetation would be expected. Proposals with potentially significant impacts to native vegetation would be rejected. Most vegetation adjacent to structures is non-native so impacts to native vegetation would be minimal. Some minimal vista clearing and mowing of fields under prescriptions of the OFMP would minimally impact native vegetation.

Water Resources (including surface water and groundwater)

Minimal impacts to surface water or groundwater would be expected. Proposals with potentially significant impacts to water resources would be rejected. Short-term impacts to soils surrounding structures would occur during preservation or rehabilitation activities that could impact surface waters. No large-scale disruption of soils would be permitted but this alternative might permit the construction of small parking areas or the installation of utility lines.

Wildlife

Wildlife would be minimally impacted under this alternative. Short-term displacement of wildlife would occur during preservation and rehabilitation activities. Longer-term disruption of wildlife could occur with adaptive uses, resulting in frequent human presence in and around the structures and radiating into the landscape.

Geology and Soils (including Prime and Unique Farmlands)

Soils and unique geological features would be minimally impacted. Proposals with potentially significant impacts would be rejected. Minor soil compaction or soil alteration of previously-disturbed soils may occur during preservation and rehabilitation
activities. Adaptive use activities would increase the potential for soil compaction of the landscape from foot traffic and vehicle parking.

Federally-owned prime and unique farmlands within the Lakeshore are not available for farming. Prime and unique farmlands have been identified in the following landscapes: Tweedle/Treat (unique), Port Oneida (prime), and Bufka/Kropp/Eitzen (prime and unique).

IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES

Archeological Resources

The impacts to archeological resources under this alternative are difficult to determine since no cultural landscapes in this plan have been assessed for archeological sites. However, because much of these lands have been disturbed by agricultural activity, there is low probability that an undamaged prehistoric site will be located. However, historic archeological sites associated with settlers' cabins and farms, as well as native Americans' cabins and long houses, are very likely. To protect these unknown archeological sites, it will be necessary to survey around structures and fields before any ground disturbance work begins, and to monitor the areas during construction.

Historic Structures

The impacts to historic structures under this alternative are impossible to quantify. Partners would not be actively sought. Structures not used by the NPS would deteriorate unless stabilized or rehabilitated by the NPS or partners. Structures in poor condition or creating potential safety hazards would be removed.

Cultural Landscapes

Partners would not be actively sought. It is likely that little alteration of landscapes would occur (unless proposed by partner and accepted by the NPS). No commercial or agricultural activities would be permitted. Where applicable, OFMP actions would continue, as well as hazard fuel reductions activities (mowing, pruning).

IMPACTS ON VISITOR USE AND VISITOR EXPERIENCE

With preservation activities, visitors would be restricted from the most of interiors of structures but would not be restricted from most landscape areas. With adaptive uses, some restrictions on the use of Lakeshore lands may occur, but more overall visitor use of cultural landscapes is expected. Unless partners are found, many structures would continue to deteriorate. Visitor experiences would increase for those enjoying photographing, painting, or viewing ruins, and hiking or driving through landscapes scattered with structures in various stages of decay. Visitor experiences would be reduced for those seeking to view structures in preserved or rehabilitated condition and those desiring to participate in formal activities.

Implementation of this alternative would not result in any significant changes in overall social or economic conditions in the gateway communities. Current economic activities would continue with business enterprises responding to market conditions and demand as warranted.

Preservation, rehabilitation, and adaptive use activities may provide additional business for those enterprises servicing these activities. However, these expenditures would be short-term and provide positive economic benefits for a relatively few individuals and businesses. These activities would likely result in increased visitation, with long-term benefits to tourism-related businesses, particularly in the spring and fall "shoulder" seasons.

IMPACTS ON PARK OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT

The impacts on park operations and management under this alternative cannot be quantified. Some NPS staff time would be directed to historic preservation and partner liaison activities. NPS maintenance activities would be limited, due to limited funds for historic preservation. Emergency repairs and mowing around structures would continue.

IMPACTS ON NPS COSTS

Under this alternative, costs to the NPS would be minimal. Only emergency repairs would be made. Little or no preservation activities would occur. Mitigation costs required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (reports, photographs, drawings) would increase, to record in lieu of preserving structures.

IMPACTS ON PARTNERS' PARTICIPATION

The impacts on levels of partners' participation cannot be determined. The lack of an active NPS solicitation and a formal program may affect the overall partner participation in the program.

IMPACTS ON PARTNERS' COSTS

Partners' costs would be minimal under this alternative. Because overall partner participation may be low, individual or group interest in preserving historic structures through small work projects would be expected.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Cumulative impacts are impacts on the natural and cultural environments and human experience that result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless what agency (federal or
nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions that happen over a period of time.

This alternative does not establish a written long-range view for preserving identified historic structures and landscapes. Project proposals would be reviewed and evaluated using NPS policies, regulations, and guidelines, and the Secretary's Standards. However, no priority lists or cultural landscape prescriptions would exist to guide management decisions. The cumulative impacts of such actions may not be evident. Section 106 procedures would be applied to all proposed actions.

Since acquiring these landscapes and structures, the NPS has protected them to the extent possible with available resources. Some structures have deteriorated, while others have been stabilized. In some cases, structures have been adaptively used by the NPS or partners.

A general management plan revision is now underway. Certain actions could be indicated by that plan that could have additive impacts to the resources addressed in this plan.

RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

This section is intended to describe the relationship of the short-term impacts of the actions proposed in this alternative to the long-term productivity of the human environment in the Lakeshore. The actions that could occur in this alternative, such as the preservation or rehabilitation of historic structures and maintenance of the cultural landscape, would require minimal disturbance to soils, vegetation and habitat. Most activities would occur in previously disturbed areas and mitigation measures would be used. The long-term effect on the natural environment would be minor in terms of habitat or resource loss but the effect on the visitor experience would be great for decades to come.

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS

Historic properties would continue to deteriorate. Preservation would be dependent upon the level of NPS and private resources available.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

Irreversible commitments of resources include deterioration of nonrenewable resources such as historic structures. If partners are not found and the NPS is unable to preserve certain structures, they will be lost permanently. Any federal funds expended to support actions under this alternative are irreversible/irretrievable as the funds would no longer be available for other purposes.

IMPACTS ON NATURAL RESOURCES

Recommended Wilderness

Minimal short-term impacts are expected due to restrictions placed on activities by the Wilderness Act. Four landscapes with recommended wilderness could be impacted: Boekeloo, Tweedle/Treat, North Manitou Island Village, and Port Oneida. Preservation activities such as repairing and painting siding, reroofing, and foundation work would create short-term disruptions in solitude, which would return once activities cease.

Native Vegetation

Minimal short-term impacts to native vegetation would be expected. Most vegetation adjacent to structures is non-native and would be impacted during preservation activities. Some minimal vista clearing would be permitted as well as continued mowing of fields under prescriptions of the OFMP.

Water Resources (including surface water and groundwater)

Minimal impacts to surface water or groundwater would be expected. Short-term impacts to soils surrounding structures during preservation activities could indirectly affect surface waters. No large-scale disruption of soils would be permitted.

Wildlife

Wildlife would be minimally impacted under this alternative. Short-term displacement of wildlife would occur during preservation activities.

Geology and Soils (including Prime and Unique Farmlands)

Unique geological features would not be impacted under this alternative. Soils would be minimally impacted due to minor soil compaction or alteration as the result of preservation activities. No large-scale disruption of soils would be permitted.

Federally-owned prime and unique farmlands within the Lakeshore would not be available for farming. Prime and unique farmlands have been identified in the following landscapes: Tweedle/Treat (unique), Port Oneida (prime), and Bufka/Kropp/Eitzen (prime and unique).

IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES

Archeological Resources

The impacts to archeological resources under this alternative are difficult to determine since no cultural landscapes in this plan have been assessed for archeological sites. However, because much of these lands have been disturbed by agricultural activity, there is low probability that an undamaged prehistoric site will be located. However, historic archeological sites associated with settlers' cabins and farms, as well as native Americans' cabins and long houses, are very likely. To protect these unknown archeological sites, it will be necessary to survey around structures and fields before any ground disturbance work begins, and to monitor the areas during construction.

Historic Structures

It is likely that a small number of structures identified in the plan would be preserved (exteriors only), because incentives to partners are low. Those that are preserved would not be available for adaptive uses and would simply function as preserved elements of the cultural landscape. Those that are not preserved would deteriorate, collapse, and function as ruins on the landscape. Ruins posing safety hazards would be removed and the land restored.

Cultural Landscapes

It is less likely that features of many landscapes would be repaired and maintained, since few structures would be preserved. On sites where structures are preserved, maintenance activities might include pruning fruit trees, trimming hedges, mowing lawns, and planting flowers.

IMPACTS ON VISITOR USE AND VISITOR EXPERIENCE

With the preservation option, visitors would be restricted from the interiors of structures but would not be restricted from most landscape areas. Unless partners are found, many structures would continue to deteriorate. Visitor experiences would increase for those enjoying photographing, painting, or viewing ruins, and hiking or driving through landscapes scattered with structures in various stages of decay. Visitor experiences would decrease for those seeking to view structures in a preserved or rehabilitated condition and desiring to participate in formal activities.

IMPACTS ON THE SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

Implementation of this alternative would not result in any significant changes in overall social or economic conditions in the gateway communities. Current economic activities would continue with business enterprises responding to market conditions and demand as
warranted. These activities would likely result in increased visitation, with long-term benefits to tourism-related businesses, particularly in the spring and fall "shoulder" seasons.

Preservation activities may provide additional business for those enterprises servicing these activities. However, these expenditures would be short-term and provide positive economic benefits for a relatively few individuals and businesses.

IMPACTS ON PARK OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT

The NPS short- and long-term staff time needs for working with partners would be limited due to the probable low numbers of partners. The least amount of NPS staff time would be needed to review and evaluate partner proposals, monitor activities, and implement actions. NPS maintenance actions would include assisting with partnership projects and mowing.

IMPACTS ON NPS COSTS

Short-term costs would increase due to the level of staff time required and increased preservation maintenance costs due to partnership initiatives. Lesser amount of Section 106 mitigation costs due to stabilization efforts.

IMPACTS ON PARTNERS' PARTICIPATION

Options would be limited and incentives would be lower, which may result in low partner participation.

IMPACTS ON PARTNERS' COSTS

This alternative would provide a moderate level of short- and long-term costs for partners. Partners would be expected to fund much of the preservation of historic structures, with some assistance from the NPS on higher-priority structures. Compliance costs would be low or non-existent since environmental assessments would normally not be required for relatively simple stabilization projects, since they normally are non-impacting to natural resources or visitors.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

This alternative establishes a long-range view for preserving identified historic structures and landscapes, including a formal process for reviewing partners proposals, a priority list for preservation activities, and cultural landscape prescriptions. The alternative provides for less flexibility than the proposed alternative since only the exteriors of structures would be preserved. While total costs to the NPS would be lower than in the proposed alternative, the benefits when compared to the costs are not as great.

Since acquiring these landscapes and structures, the NPS has protected them to the extent possible with available resources. Some structures have deteriorated, while others have been stabilized. In some cases, structures have been adaptively used by the NPS or partners.

A general management plan revision is now underway. Certain actions could be indicated by that plan that could have additive impacts to the resources addressed in this plan.

RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

The actions that could occur in this alternative, preservation of the historic structures and maintenance of the surrounding grounds, would require minimal disturbance to soils, vegetation and habitat. Most activities would occur in previously disturbed areas and mitigation measures would be used. The long-term effect on the natural environment would be minor in terms of habitat or resource loss but the effect on the visitor experience would be positive.

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS

This alternative is not expected to negatively affect overall conditions. Proposals with potentially significant impacts to Lakeshore resources would not be accepted or would be modified to reduce or eliminate the impact.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

Irreversible commitments of resources include deterioration of nonrenewable resources such as historic structures. If partners are not found and the NPS is unable to preserve certain structures, they will be lost permanently. Any federal funds expended to support actions under this alternative are irreversible/irretrievable as the funds would no longer be available for other purposes.

IMPACTS ON NATURAL RESOURCES

Recommended Wilderness

Minimal short- and long-term impacts are expected due to restrictions placed on activities by the Wilderness Act. Four landscapes with recommended wilderness could be impacted: Boekeloo, Tweedle/Treat, North Manitou Island Village, and Port Oneida. Preservation activities such as repairing and painting siding, reroofing, and foundation work would create short-term disruptions in solitude. Solitude would return once activities cease. Wilderness attributes could be minimally impacted in the long-term with possible recurring use of the structures, particularly if they are used as staging areas for trips into the wilderness.

Native Vegetation

Minimal short- and long-term impacts to native vegetation would be expected. Proposals with potentially significant impacts to native vegetation would be rejected. Most vegetation adjacent to structures is non-native so impacts to native vegetation would be minimal. Some minimal vista clearing and mowing of fields under prescriptions of the OFMP would minimally impact native vegetation.

Water Resources (including surface water and groundwater)

Minimal impacts to surface water or groundwater would be expected. Proposals with potentially significant impacts to water resources would be rejected. Short-term impacts to soils surrounding structures would occur during preservation or rehabilitation activities that could impact surface waters. No large-scale disruption of soils would be permitted but this alternative might permit the construction of small parking areas or the installation of utility lines.

Wildlife

Wildlife would be minimally impacted under this alternative. Short-term displacement of wildlife would occur during preservation and rehabilitation activities. Longer-term disruption of wildlife could occur with adaptive uses, resulting in frequent human presence in and around the structures and radiating into the landscape.

Geology and Soils (including Prime and Unique Farmlands)

Soils and unique geological features would be minimally impacted. Proposals with potentially significant impacts would be rejected. Minor soil compaction or soil alteration of previously-disturbed soils may occur during preservation and rehabilitation activities. Adaptive use activities would increase the potential for soil compaction of the landscape from foot traffic and vehicle parking.

Federally-owned prime and unique farmlands within the Lakeshore would not be available for large-scale farming. Prime and unique farmlands have been identified in the following landscapes: Tweedle/Treat (unique), Port Oneida (prime), and Bufka/Kropp/Eitzen (prime and unique).

IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES

Archeological Resources

The impacts to archeological resources under this alternative are difficult to determine since no cultural landscapes in this plan have been assessed for archeological sites. However, because much of these lands have been disturbed by agricultural activity, there is low probability that an undamaged prehistoric site will be located. However, historic archeological sites associated with settlers' cabins and farms, as well as native Americans' cabins and long houses, are very likely. To protect these unknown archeological sites, it will be necessary to survey around structures and fields before any ground disturbance work begins, and to monitor the areas during construction.

Historic Structures

It is likely that the greatest number of those structures identified in the plan would find partners because incentives are greater. Many of the structures would be rehabilitated and adaptively used, and some may be preserved (stabilized) for future rehabilitation or would simply function as preserved elements of the cultural landscape. The options to use the landscape under NPS guidelines would also likely attract more interest.

Cultural Landscapes

It is more likely that features (e.g., fences, sidewalks, ornamental trees), of many landscapes would be repaired and maintained, since some structures would be adaptively used. Frequent use and maintenance of structures would extend to the barnyard and possibly into the landscape. Hazard fuel reduction, performed by the NPS, would be continued where partnerships do not address this need.

With rehabilitation and adaptive use, some restrictions on the use of Lakeshore lands may occur, but more overall visitor use of cultural landscapes is expected. Those structures not rehabilitated may be preserved. With preservation activities, visitors would be restricted from the interiors of structures but would not be restricted from most landscape areas. As more structures are rehabilitated and adaptively used, visitor experiences would increase for those seeking to view structures in preserved or rehabilitated condition and those desiring to participate in formal activities. If partners are not found, many structures would continue to deteriorate. Visitor experiences would increase for those enjoying photographing, painting, viewing ruins, and hiking or driving through landscapes scattered with structures in various stages of decay.

IMPACTS ON THE SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

Implementation of this alternative would not result in any significant changes in overall social or economic conditions in the gateway communities. Current economic activities would continue with business enterprises responding to market conditions and demand as warranted.

Rehabilitation and adaptive use activities, and some preservation work, may provide additional business for those enterprises servicing these activities. However, these expenditures would be short-term and provide positive economic benefits for a relatively few individuals and businesses. These activities could result in increased visitation, with long-term benefits to tourism-related businesses.

IMPACTS ON PARK OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT

With the probable increase in partner activity, the short- and long-term NPS workload would increase proportionately. NPS staff time would be needed to review and evaluate more complex proposals, schedule and participate in meetings, and site visits. NPS maintenance actions, including mowing, would not be required since projects are undertaken and completed by partners.

IMPACTS ON NPS COSTS

Under this alternative, increased short- and long-term costs would occur due to the high level of staff time required to review and evaluate complex proposals, meeting participation, and site visits. Preservation costs would be reduced due to the responsibility of the partner to provide the repair work. Mitigation costs for Section 106 compliance would be low due to partner rehabilitation efforts.

IMPACTS ON PARTNERS' PARTICIPATION

The NPS encouragement of adaptive use options might result in more partner participation. A formal program would create more consistency and would provide a process.

IMPACTS ON PARTNERS' COSTS

This alternative would provide the greatest level of short- and long-term costs for partners. Partners would be expected to fund the entire rehabilitation of historic structures, including the preparation of any compliance requirements, such as environmental assessments.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

This alternative establishes a long-range view for preserving identified historic structures and landscapes, including a formal process for reviewing partners proposals, a priority list for preservation activities, and cultural landscape prescriptions. The alternative provides for the greatest flexibility in preserving and adaptively using historic resources, as long as there is no derogation of other Lakeshore resources, uses, and values. While total costs to the NPS may be highest in this alternative, the benefits compared to the costs are potentially very high.

Since acquiring these landscapes and structures, the NPS has protected them to the extent possible with available resources. Some structures have deteriorated, while others have been stabilized. In some cases, structures have been adaptively used by the NPS or partners.

A general management plan revision is now underway. Certain actions could be indicated by that plan that could have additive impacts to the resources addressed in this plan.

RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

The actions that could occur in this alternative, such as the preservation or rehabilitation of historic structures and maintenance of the cultural landscape, would require minimal disturbance to soils, vegetation and habitat. Most activities would occur in previously disturbed areas and mitigation measures would be used. The long-term effect on the natural environment would be minor in terms of habitat or resource loss but the effect on the visitor experience would be great for decades to come.

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS

This alternative is not expected to negatively affect overall conditions. Proposals with potentially significant impacts to Lakeshore resources would not be accepted or would be modified to reduce or eliminate the impact.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

Irreversible commitments of resources include deterioration of nonrenewable resources such as historic structures. If partners are not found and the NPS is unable to preserve or rehabilitate certain structures, they will be lost permanently. Any federal funds expended to support actions under this alternative are irreversible/irretrievable as the funds would no longer be available for other purposes.

Last Updated: 07DEC1999
Http://www.nps.gov/slbe/hp_ch4.htm
Author: T.M.Baker