For those who’ve never visited Isle Royale National Park (IRNP), you are missing out on an unspoiled wilderness far out into Lake Superior, away from the noise and calamity of modern life. Yet you might not be aware of its vibrant cultural heritage.

IRNP, like other National Parks, relied on a General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (GMP/EIS) that was finalized in 1998. However, attention directed toward the management of Isle Royale’s rich historical and cultural resources was relegated to a later time. During the winter of 2010, staff began working on a Cultural Resource Management Plan and Environmental Assessment (CRMP/EA), specific to Isle Royale’s needs.  

A brief history of IRNP's rich past

Copper mining occurred on the island during Archaic times (estimated 8000 to 1000 BC), and the Anishinaabeg (Ojibwe) used the island for fishing, hunting, mining, and spiritual ceremonies. Starting in the 1840s, European Americans came to Isle Royale to attempt the mining of its large copper deposits, which they eventually gave up due to its remote location. When the locks at Sault Ste. Marie were completed in 1855, maritime travel on Lake Superior increased, and lighthouses were erected around the lake, including four on Isle Royale. In the early 1900s, the Anishinaabeg continued to fish its abundant waters, which also drew Norwegian and Swedish immigrants who brought their folk-fishing traditions with them. Shortly after that, the commercial fishing of Lake Superior took off with 100 families living and fishing on the island. (That industry declined during the late 1940s to 1950s, partly due to the non-native, invasive lamprey eel which decimated the lake’s fish population.) 

 Sivertson Boathouse, Washington Harbor. Photo by Deborah Winchell

From 1901 to 1930, Isle Royale entered the era of wilderness tourism with hotels built along its rugged shores. Land became available for purchase, and families built cabins and summer camps. Folks who could not afford to purchase, or thought it unnecessary because of its remoteness, also built small fish camps and cabins. Eventually, its popularity as a vacation destination resulted in its becoming a National Park in 1933. The wilderness, its plentiful fish and wildlife, and its human imprint on the island archipelago all became part of Isle Royale National Park.

The need for a plan

Managing the cultural and historic resources of Isle Royale is a prodigious undertaking for a small number of Park staff who are only on the island seasonally. 

To preserve the history of this unique landscape, the Park has to manage: 

• Ancient archeological sites

• Precontact and historic mining sites

• Cemeteries and burial sites

• Commercial and family fisheries

• Maritime structures such as docks, fish houses, and lighthouses

• Shipwrecks and vernacular boats

• Recreational cabins and cottages

• CCC and Mission 66-era Buildings

• Landscapes, plants, animals, and places that have significant meaning to both the mainland Anishinaabeg and Scandinavian-Americans, and

• Historic activities related to logging and trapping 

By 2010, it was evident that a system should be developed for prioritizing the never-ending projects associated with managing a National Park. According to Liz Valencia, Interpretation and Cultural Resource Manager for IRNP, “More importantly, there were no guidelines in place to guide the management of all the above resources. The Park needed a strategy for resources located in non-wilderness areas. We started by involving park staff, stakeholders, Lake Superior tribes, government agencies, and the public.”

Liz explained that in December 2010, a team was formed of Isle Royale staff and NPS Resources and Planning Specialists. As part of its responsibility overseeing historic properties, the park is required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act to consider the effect of the plan on its historic properties. They began the process in the fall of 2010 by consulting with the Lake Superior tribes (which include Grand Portage, Milles Lacs, Fond du Lac, Lac Vieux Desert, Keweenaw Bay, Lac Courte Oreilles, and Lac du Flambeau, and eventually Sault Ste. Marie, Bay Mills, and Bois Forte tribes because of their connections to the area), federal and state agencies, and scoping public opinion. Numerous letters, public listening sessions, meetings, and conference calls were conducted between 2010 and 2017. 

State offices were notified of listening sessions in Minneapolis and Duluth, Minnesota as well as Houghton and East Lansing, Michigan. National Historic Preservation Act consulting parties requested that the park work with the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Michigan was consulted, and in July 2015, the park received an updated list of threatened or endangered species. The Sierra Club and Wilderness Watch also asked to be added as consultants in August 2016. Wilderness groups, Isle Royale Families and Friends Association, the State Historic Preservation Office, and other entities were given a draft of an environmental assessment to read. 

After again getting input from park staff, stakeholders, tribes, government agencies, and the public, the team came up with three alternative options for the plan. They focused on the key issues such as designating which resources needed preserving and examining the condition of historic structures. They also took into consideration the experiences of the Park’s visitors. All three alternatives required appraising facility cost estimates, locating potential funding sources, and honoring the Park’s obligation to take care of its backlog of maintenance projects. Additionally, all included the continuation with IRNP interpretation programming; documentation required by the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA); researching, inventorying, and preserving historic trails; and the rehabilitation, restoration, or removal of historic structures. Ongoing consultations will occur with the Anishinaabeg and the Scandinavian fishing families, and the park will continue the collection and management of museum artifacts. 

 Menagerie Island Lighthouse, National Park Service 

The Proposed Alternatives

Alternative A would have required that the park take no new action but would continue to manage the park’s non-wilderness resources as they had been doing. Lighthouses not already owned by the park would continue to be maintained by the United States Coast Guard, and transfer of ownership would be initiated by government agencies or non-profits, if the opportunity arose. The historic structures like cabins, docks, and fish houses would still be managed under special use permits by descendants of life leaseholders.  According to Liz, “The most notable downside of “A” was that park management would only be able to connect with potential partners through random opportunities that arose from outside groups.” Such a passive, rather than proactive, manner of procuring partnerships for specific projects could take years, while structures and sites would continue to deteriorate in Isle Royale’s harsh conditions.

Alternative B has several key elements that Plan A and C did not address. It offers more wide-ranging stewardship of the historic structures and encourages creating and maintaining program partnerships. According to Liz,” A key aspect of the CRMP plan was to address the need for informative interpretation at the mining sites in non-wilderness areas in Rock Harbor, Windigo, and McCargoe Cove.”

Liz noted that there are currently two solid partnerships in place. She said that finding partners for Isle Royale’s lighthouses is a “big lift,” because of the difficulty of getting to the locations, the specialized labor and materials, and the sheer magnitude of exterior and interior restoration needed. The park has partnered with a non-profit, Rock of Ages Lighthouse Preservation Society (ROALPS), since 2012. 

 Rock of Ages Lighthouse. Photo by Deborah Winchell

Some of the key elements of Alternative B are:  

• Establishing robust partnerships for necessary projects

• Restoration of historical landscapes with visitor access

• Providing better interpretation of mining sites

• Providing for adaptive reuse of historic structures and cultural landscapes on Barnum and Washington Islands. Structures may be used as visitor or park staff/volunteer accommodations and interpretive sites.

• Improved cataloging and display of the vernacular boats as museum objects

• Reestablishing Edisen Fishery as a demonstration fishery

• Restoration of the exterior, interior, and surrounding landscapes of Passage Island, Isle Royale, and Rock of Ages lighthouses, with an emphasis on future visitor access.

• Rehabilitating Rock Harbor Lighthouse exterior and surrounding lands. 

• Transferring ownership of Passage Island Lighthouse and Isle Royale Lighthouse from the United States Coast Guard to IRNP.

• Engage in research to more completely understand archaeological records and interpretation of the historic mining sites.

• Finding more ways for visitors to access historic buildings, artifacts, and sites.

Alternative C would have concentrated on archeological resources and research, but it was not focused on providing interpretive opportunities and greater access to park visitors. This plan would not be proactively seeking partnerships to aid in the restoration and rehabilitation efforts. It would focus on preserving fishery-related buildings, docks, etc. but would provide no further interpretive features or access for visitors. It would provide for the acquisition of the lighthouses from the Coast Guard and would rehabilitate the exteriors only, with no visitor access to the interiors of any structures. 

Liz pointed out, “These alternatives were opened up to the public, and the comments were pretty much what our team expected. We did consider some of the proposals included in the public comment.”  

In the end, Alternative B was chosen, and a Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was necessary to enact the plan. It’s a standard environmental assessment finding for any plan related to National Parks/Wilderness and Non-Wilderness areas. 

Over the next 20 years, the CRMP/EA will be used to identify and suggest actions needed to achieve the Park’s purpose of managing the importance of its cultural resources and offering relevant, associated experiences for visitors.

The Next Plan

The Wilderness Stewardship Plan was restarted in 2022 after being on hold since 2018. That plan is needed for the multitude of resources found in wilderness areas. Liz mentioned, “We sought public comments on the draft plan and were pleased to receive 1800 comments.” The public has a strong vested interest in the wilderness aspects of this much-revered park. The team will go into review rounds between now and spring 2024. A final Wilderness plan should be signed in the Fall of 2024.

About the author

Deborah Winchell is a Duluth area freelance writer who has spent years visiting the North Shore and Cook County. She met Eric Larsen and Lonnie Dupre in 2005 when she hosted one of their fundraisers at Mayo Clinic. Years later, she invited Eric to Cornell University to speak about leadership to students, faculty, and staff.