|
IMPACT CATEGORIES |
ALTERNATIVE I -
NO ACTION/CONTINUE CURRENT MANAGEMENT |
*ALTERNATIVE II - PRESERVATION
OF STRUCTURES AND CULTURAL LANDSCAPES |
*ALTERNATIVE III - REHABILITATION
OF STRUCTURES AND PRESERVATION WITH USE OF CULTURAL LANDSCAPES
(THE PROPOSED ACTION)
|
|
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 and vehicle emissions. Mitigating measures
(such as watering to keep dust down) would be
taken to limit temporary
and localized impacts. |
Temporary impacts on air quality
could be caused by preservation, removal, or demolition activities.
These would primarily involve temporary increases in particulates
and vehicle emissions. Mitigating measures (such as watering
to keep dust down) would be taken
to limit temporary
and localized impacts. |
Temporary impacts on air quality
could be caused by preservation, rehabilitation, removal, or
demolition activities. These would primarily involve temporary
increases in particulates and vehicle emissions. Mitigating measures
(such as watering to keep dust down) would
be taken to limit temporary
and localized impacts. |
|
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED
VEGETATION |
Impacts to Pitcher's thistle
in the North Manitou Island Village cultural landscape would
be minimal or non-existent. |
Impacts to Pitcher's thistle in the North Manitou
Island Village cultural landscape would be minimal or non-existent. |
Impacts to Pitcher's thistle
in the North Manitou Island Village cultural landscape would
be minimal or non-existent. |
|
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED
WILDLIFE |
Impacts to piping plover, in
the North Manitou Island Village cultural landscape, or the bald
eagle, in the Port Oneida cultural landscape, would be minimal
or non-existent. |
Impacts to piping plover, in
the North Manitou Island Village cultural landscape, or the bald
eagle, in the Port Oneida cultural landscape, would be minimal
or non-existent. |
Impacts to piping plover, in
the North Manitou Island Village cultural landscape, or the bald
eagle, in the Port Oneida cultural landscape, would be minimal
or non-existent. |
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. |
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. |
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 or
physically closing structures
to prevent entry. |
Impacts to visitors' safety
will be minimized by removing or repairing safety hazards or
physically closing structures
to prevent entry. |
Impacts to visitors' safety
will be minimized by removing or repairing safety hazards or
physically closing structures
to prevent entry. |
|
MANAGED OPEN FIELDS |
Impacts to the resources of
the open fields (wildlife, soils, native plants) would be minimal. |
Impacts to the resources
of the open fields
(wildlife, soils, native plants)
would be minimal. |
Impacts to the resources of
the open fields (wildlife, soils, native plants) would be minimal. |
|
HISTORIC STRUCTURES IN POOR
CONDITION |
Historic structures in poor
condition would be
removed as safety hazards
or protected as ruins. |
Historic structures in poor
condition would be
removed as safety hazards
or protected as ruins. |
Historic
structures in poor condition would be
removed as safety hazards
or protected as ruins. |
|
WILDERNESS |
Minimal impact due to restrictions
placed by the Wilderness Act. |
Minimal impact due to restrictions
placed by the Wilderness Act. |
Minimal impact due to restrictions
placed by the Wilderness Act. Unknown if wilderness might be
affected by concentrated recurring use of the structures. Not
applicable to landscape, since partner landscape uses are not
being considered in wilderness areas. |
|
NATIVE VEGETATION |
Minimal impact. Proposals with
potentially significant impacts to native vegetation would be
rejected. Some minimal vista clearing and mowing of fields under
prescriptions of
Open Field Mgt. Plan (OFMP). |
Minimal impact. Most vegetation
adjacent to structures is non-native. Some minimal vista clearing
and mowing of fields under prescriptions of OFMP. |
Minimal impact. Most vegetation
adjacent to structures is non-native. Some minimal vista clearing
and mowing of fields under prescriptions of OFMP. Proposals with
potentially significant
impacts to native vegetation would be rejected. |
WATER
(including surface waters
and groundwater) |
Minimal impact. Proposals
with potentially significant impacts to water resources
would be rejected. |
Minimal impact to surface water
from soil disturbance adjacent to structures during preservation
activities. |
Minimal impact to surface water
from soil disturbance adjacent to structures undergoing rehabilitation.
Potential impacts to water resources from uses in the landscape
originating from structures (adaptive uses) would be minimized
by requirements in the NPS-Partner agreements. Proposals with
potentially significant impacts to water resources would be rejected |
|
WILDLIFE |
Minimal impact. Proposals with
potentially significant impacts to wildlife would be rejected. |
Minimal impact to wildlife adjacent
to structures during preservation activities. |
Minimal impact to wildlife adjacent
to structures during rehabilitation activities. Potential impacts
to wildlife from uses in the surrounding landscape originating
from structures (adaptive uses) would be minimized by requirements
in the NPS-Partner agreements. Proposals with potentially significant
impacts to
wildlife would be rejected |
|
GEOLOGY AND SOILS |
Minimal impact. Proposals with
potentially significant impacts to soils or geological features
would be rejected. Minor soil compaction or soil alteration
of previously-disturbed
areas may occur. |
Minimal impact (compaction)
to soils adjacent to structures. |
Minimal impact to soils adjacent
to structures during rehabilitation and use in previously disturbed
areas. Potential increased soil compaction of landscape from
foot traffic and vehicle parking. Minor soil compaction or soil
alternation of areas may occur. Proposals with potentially significant
impacts to soils
or geological features
would be rejected. |
HISTORIC STRUCTURES NOT IN
POOR CONDITION |
Undetermined. Partners would
not be actively sought. Structures not used by NPS would deteriorate
unless preserved
by NPS or partners, or
adaptively used by partners. |
Available resources would go
further in protecting future options (i.e., stabilize
structures for possible other
uses in the future). |
Likely that the greatest number
of buildings, identified in the plan, would find partners (more
incentives). Structures would be rehabilitated. Options to use
the landscape under NPS guidelines will also attract more interest. |
|
CULTURAL LANDSCAPES |
Undetermined. Partners would
not be actively sought. Likely that little alteration of landscapes
would occur (unless proposed by partner and accepted by NPS).
No commercial or agricultural activities. Where applicable, OFMP
actions would continue, as well as hazard fuel reduction activities
(mowing, pruning). |
Less likely that features of
many landscapes would be repaired and maintained, since few structures
would be preserved. Maintenance activities might include
pruning fruit trees, trimming
hedges, mowing lawns,
and planting flowers. |
More likely that features 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, by NPS, will be continued
where partnerships do not
address this need. |
VISITOR USE
AND ENJOYMENT |
Variable. Unless partners found,
many structures would continue to deteriorate. Visitor experiences
would be reduced for those seeking to view structures in preserved
or restored condition. Visitor experiences would increase for
those
enjoying photographing,
painting, or viewing ruins. |
Positive impact to visitors seeking
to view structures in various stages of decay or
with exteriors preserved, and
seeking landscapes evoking
impressions of past history.
Negative impact to visitors
seeking more active use of
structures and landscapes. |
Positive impact to visitors
seeking more active use of structures and possibly their landscapes,
with a variety of use options. Negative impact to visitors seeking
solitude in the cultural landscape.
Some restrictions on use of
parklands may occur, but
overall more visitor use
of cultural landscapes. |
|
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT |
Preservation, rehabilitation,
and adaptive use activities may provide additional short-term
business for local enterprises. Possible long-term benefits to
tourism-related businesses, particularly in spring and fall. |
Preservation activities may
provide additional short-term business for local enterprises.
Possible long-term benefits to tourism-related businesses, particularly
in spring and fall. |
Rehabilitation and adaptive
use activities, and some preservation work, may provide additional
short-term business for local enterprises. Possible long-term
benefits to tourism-related businesses, particularly in
spring and fall. |
PARK OPERATIONS
AND MANAGEMENT |
Variable. Some NPS staff time
directed to historic preservation activities and partner liaison.
NPS maintenance activities are limited. Emergency repairs and
mowing around structures remain. NO NPS STAFF
INCREASES PROJECTED
IN ANY ALTERNATIVE. |
NPS staff time working with partners
limited due to probable low number of partners. The least amount
of NPS staff time needed to review and evaluate partner proposals,
monitor activities, and implement actions. NPS maintenance actions
include assisting
with partnership projects
and mowing. |
Increased NPS workload due to
probable increase in partner activity. NPS staff time needed
to review and evaluate more complex proposals, meetings, and
site visits. NPS maintenance actions, including mowing, not required
since projects are undertaken and completed by partner. |
|
NPS COSTS |
Minimal costs. Stabilization
only. Limited preservation activities. Section 106
mitigation costs increased. |
Increased cost due to level
of staff time required. Increased preservation cost due to partnership
matches. Section 106 mitigation costs lower due to stabilization
efforts. |
More increased cost due to the
high level of staff time required ("sieve" review,
liaison activities). Less preservation cost due to responsibility
of lessee to provide the repair work. Section 106 mitigation
costs the lowest due to partnership rehabilitation efforts. |
|
PARTNERS' PARTICIPATION |
Variable. The lack of active
NPS solicitation and a formal program may affect overall partner
participation in the program. |
Options are limited and incentives
are lower,
which may result in
low partner participation. |
More options are available;
more partner participation is expected. A formal program would
create more consistency and would provide a process. |
|
PARTNERS' COSTS |
Minimal costs. NPS would match
costs to stabilize. Based on individual or group interest in
preservation of historic structures through small work projects. |
Moderate short- and long-term
costs. NPS would match costs to stabilize. Partners would be
expected to fund much of the preservation efforts, with some
assistance from NPS on higher-priority structures. Compliance
costs (NEPA) probably low or non-existent because projects are
non-impacting to natural resources or visitors. |
Maximum costs. NPS would match
costs to stabilize. Partnerships are expected to fund entire
rehabilitation of historic structures, which may include compliance
costs (e.g., environmental analysis). |