SLEEPING BEAR DUNES NATIONAL LAKESHORE

Bcnzie and Leelanau Counties, Michigan

The Department of the Interior, National Park Service, has prepared this Record of Decision on the

Final Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore General Management Plan / Wilderness Study /En

vironmental Impact Statement (GMP/WS/EIS). This Record of Decision includes a description ofthe

purpose and need for the project; alternatives considered; the preferred alternative; dismissed alternatives (none); the environmentally preferable alternative; mitigative measures; public and agency involvement; the basis for the decision; findings on impairment of park resources and values; and a

conclusion.

PURPOSE AND NEEDGeneral management plans are required for all units ofthe national park system and are intended to

establish the ifiture management direction of a park unit. This General Management Plan will pro

vide comprehensive guidance for perpetuating natural systems, preserving cultural resources, and

providing opportunities for quality visitor experiences at Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore

(hereafler referred to as National Lakeshore, Lakeshore, or park). The purpose of this plan is to de

cide how the National Park Service can best ifilfill the National Lakeshore’s purpose, maintain itssignificance, and protect its resources unimpaired for the enjoyment ofpresent and future generations. The National Lakeshore’s last General Management Plan, completed in 1979, is outdated.

New areas have been added to the Lakeshore, many individual parcels within the original boundaryhave been acquired, new information about the significance of natural and cultural resources in the

Lakeshore has been recognized, and private development adjacent to and near the National Lakeshore has increased. The National Lakeshore faces new management challenges as a result of allthese changes.

Wilderness, which can be designated only by Congress, provides for permanent protection of lands intheir natural condition that provide outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfmedrecreation. Wilderness studies typically re~ult in a recommendation to Congress to designate all,

some, or none ofthe lands possessing wilderness character as part of the national wilderness preser

vation system. The Wilderness Study element ofthis new General Management Plan is needed because ofpublic interest in developing a proposal that improves upon the 1981 “Wilderness Recommendation” for Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. Based on the Wilderness Study includedin this document, the National Park Service anticipates preparing a proposal for such a recommendation to forward to the Department of the Interior at the conclusion ofthis planning effort. However,
Lakeshore; it is provided as a baseline against which to compare the other alternatives. It also includes 30,903 acres managed to maintain their existing wilderness character (as per law and policy).In the preferred alternative, the Lakeshore is valued primarily for preservation of its natural resources, and for the opportunities it provides for visitor enjoyment ofthe natural, cultural, and recreational resources in a scenic outdoor setting. Lands proposed for wilderness designation include

32,100 acres and no developed county roads. In alternative A, the Lakeshore is valued primarily for

conservation of its natural resources. Lands proposed for wilderness designation include 33,600

acres and no developed county roads. In alternative B, the Lakeshore is valued primarily for its rec

reational opportunities in scenic outdoor settings. Lands proposed for wilderness designation include

14,400 acres and no county roads. In alternative C, the Lakeshore is managed so that most visitor

use is concentrated in selected areas, with more natural, primitive conditions promoted in the rest ofthe Lakeshore. Lands proposed for wilderness designation include 23,200 acres and no developed

county roads.Four management zones are applied to Lakeshore lands and waters in each of the alternatives. Thehigh use zone provides for visitor orientation, education, and other structured activities where high

numbers of visitors can enjoy and learn about the National Lakeshore. The experience history zone

is managed primarily to preserve historic structures and landscapes with moderate to high numbers of

visitors enjoying and learning about significant historic activities, buildings, and landscapes. The

recreation zone provides a wide range ofrecreational opportunities for moderate numbers of visi

tors. The experience nature zone is the wildest, most natural management zone where low numbers

of visitors enjoy primitive recreation on foot or in nonmotorized watercraft. This is the only management zone in which wilderness may occur.

PREFERRED ALTERNATWE

Under the preferred alternative, the Lakeshore will be valued primarily for preservation of its natural

resources and for the opportunities it provides for visitor enjoyment of natural, cultural, and recreational resources in a scenic outdoor setting. About 32,100 acres (45 percent of the National Lake

shore) in the north, central, south, and island areas of the Lakeshore will be proposed as wilderness.

No developed county roads are within areas proposed for wilderness.

Based on the emphasis placed on natural resource conditions and experiences in this alternative, the

experience nature zone will extend across much of the Lakeshore. Some selected areas will be zoned

high use or recreation to allow for possible future recreational opportunities.

Based on the emphasis placed on opportunities for enjoyment of cultural resources in this alternative,

the experience history zone will encompass most of the National Lakeshore’s historic resources.

-2-
died; motorized boats will not be allowed on North Bar Lake; electric motors will be allowed on BassLake (Leelanau County), Tucker Lake, and Otter Lake; there will be improved access at some inlandlakes; the Glen Lake picnic area will be upgraded; occasional ferry service for day trips to North Manitou Island will be allowed; concession auto tours to near the Giant Cedars area will be considered;

and the Crystal River access area will be upgraded or relocated.

The National Park Service will continue to acquire lands within the Benzie Corridor on a willingseller basis (subject to available funding) for future development of a scenic road and/or a bike/hilcetrail (determined and evaluated via a fliture study). The road/trail would not be expected to be builtwithin the life of this plan.The key impacts associated with implementing this alternative will be in the areas of visitor opportunities and use and wilderness character. Increased access and visitor opportunities related to additional recreation-oriented facilities will have a long-term, moderate beneficial impact on visitor opportunities and use. Implementation ofuser capacity management strategies will have a long-term,minor beneficial impact on visitor opportunities, but potentially long-term minor adverse effects onuse. The removal ofValley View campground and disallowing gas-powered motorboats on two in

land lakes will have long-term, minor, adverse impacts on visitor opportunities and use. The increased visitor opportunities and facilities will have a long-term, minor, adverse impact on naturalsound and the night sky. Impacts on historic resources, natural resources, regional socioeconomies,and National Park Service operations will not differ substantially from the no-action alternative.

Wilderness studies typically result in a recommendation to Congress to designate all, some, or none

ofthe lands possessing wilderness character as part of the national wilderness preservation system.Based on this GM?!WS/EIS, the National Park Service anticipates preparing a proposal for such a

recommendation to forward to the Department ofthe Interior at the conclusion ofthis GM?!WS/EISplanning effort. However, because of the 1982 amendment (P.L. 97-361) to the Lakeshore’s enabling legislation, areas proposed as wilderness in the 1981 recommendation will be managed as wil

derness until Congress acts on a new wilderness recommendation. If Congress designates wildernessfor the Lakeshore as described in the preferred alternative, establishment of 32,100 acres of desig

nated wilderness in all three portions of the mainland and on both islands will permanently protectwilderness values (naturalness and opportunities for solitude or primitive, uneonfmed recreation).

Impacts of the preferred alternative on wilderness character will be mostly beneficial, moderate, andlong term (permanent), but there will also be some localized, minor adverse impacts.ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATWE

The environmentally preferable alternative is the alternative that promotes the national environmentalpolicy expressed in the National Environmental Policy Act (Sec. 101(b)). This includes alternatives

3
recycling of depletable resources

(National Park Service DO-12 Handbook, Section 2.7D).

The alternatives do not differ much with respect to criteria 2 and 6; therefore the evaluation focuses

on criteria 1,3,4, and 5.

The no-action alternative represents “business as usual” and was included to provide a baseline

against which to compare the effects ofthe other (action) alternatives. The no-action alternative realizes criterion 1 in that most ofthe Lakeshore would be managed as rather natural, and large areas

would be managed to maintain their existing wilderness character. The no-action alternative wouldnot fully realize criteria 3, 4, and 5 to the same extent as alternatives B, C, and the preferred alternative because it has fewer recreational opportunities.

The preferred alternative proposes managing much ofthe National Lakeshore as the experience na

ture zone, provides limited new recreational opportunities, proposes substantial amounts of designated wilderness, and protects the National Lakeshore’s fundamental resources and values; as such it

realizes criteria 1, 3, 4, and 5.

Alternative A realizes criterion 1 by managing most of the Lakeshore as the experience nature zone

and by proposing substantial amounts of designated wilderness. Because it proposes a narrower

range ofrecreational opportunities (and fewer such opportunities) than alternatives B, C, and the preferred alternative, alternative A does not realize criteria 3, 4, and 5 to the same extent as these alter

natives.Alternative B realizes many aspects of criteria 3, 4, and 5 by providing a relatively wide range of andmore new recreational opportunities. Alternative B realizes criterion 1 to a lesser degree than the

other alternatives due to the more limited extent ofthe experience nature zone and its modest wilder

ness proposal.Alternative C realizes criterion 1 to a lesser extent than the preferred alternative and alternative A,

and to a greater extent than alternative B, based on the relative proportions of management zones and

its moderate wilderness proposal. However, similar to alternative B and the preferred alternative, alternative C realizes many aspects of criteria 3, 4, and 5 by providing a relatively wide range of and

more new recreational opportunities.After considering the environmental consequences of the five management alternatives, including

consequences to the human environment, the National Park Service concluded that the preferred al

ternative is also the environmentally preferable alternative. By a slight margin over alternative C,this alternative best realizes the full range of national environmental policy goals as stated in section

101 of the National Environmental Policy Act.

-4-
duce, or compensate for the effects of environmental damage.The following sections summarize mitigative measures that will be applied in the implementation ofthis GMP/WS/EIS.

Gcneral

New facilities (e.g., campsites, trails, bicycle trails) will be sited to minimize impacts on resources.

Before any construction activity, construction zones will be identified with temporary fencing to con

fine disruptions to the minimum area required. All protection measures will be clearly stated in the

construction specifications. Construction activities will implement standard soil erosion and stormwater runoff prevention methods.Outdoor lighting for new or rehabilitated facilities will be the minimum amount required to provide

for personal safety. Lights will also be shielded and/or directed downward to minimize impact on the

night sky. Standard noise abatement measures will be implemented, as appropriate, during park op

erations and construction activities.Cultural Resourccs

Archeological Resources. Funding for a comprehensive archeological survey for the NationalLakeshore has been requested and site-specific surveys continue to be conducted in the interim. As

appropriate, archeological surveys and/or monitoring will precede any construction. Known archeo

logical resources will be avoided to the greatest extent possible. If archeological resources listed inor eligible for listing in the national register could not be avoided, an appropriate mitigation strategy

will be developed in consultation with the state historic preservation officer and, if necessary, associ

ated American Indian tribes. If during construction previously undiscovered archeological resources

were uncovered, all work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery will be halted until the resourcescould be identified and documented and an appropriate mitigation strategy developed in consultation

with the state historic preservation officer and, if necessary, associated American Indian tribes.

Human Remains. In the event that human remains, fianerary objects, sacred objects, or objects ofcultural patrimony are discovered during construction, provisions outlined in the Native AmericanGraves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (25 USC 3001) and other applicable laws will be followed.Ethnographic Resources. Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore staff will consult with associ

ated American Indian tribes to develop and accomplish programs in a way that respects the beliefs,

traditions, and other cultural values ofthe American Indian tribes who have ancestral ties to NationalLakeshore lands. National Park Service staff will maintain government-to-government relations with

5
pearing to meet national register criteria will be treated as though they are listed. No action affecting

any ofthese resources may proceed without appropriate consultation with the state historic preserva

tion officer and documentation of the action under Section 106 of the National Historic PreservationAct of 1966, as amended, as promulgated under the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s

“Regulations for the Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties” (36 CFR 800).Natural Resources

General. For the concessions farm tour to near the Giant Cedars, tour vehicles could travel as far as

the end ofthe county road. From there, visitors will continue on foot for a short distance to the trees.Mitigating measures will be used as needed to prevent visitor-use-related impacts to the cedar trees.Activities with the potential to disturb natural resources will be monitored for use-related impacts.Management options could range from (a) placing structures to limit impacts (e.g., sand ladders andboardwallcs) or redirect visitors (i.e., fences), (b) education, (c) guided activities, and (d) limiting access through a permit system.Wetlands. Trails and other developments will avoid wetlands and “Waters of the United States” tothe extent feasible. Where crossing or impingement upon wetlands is unavoidable, design and con

struction will minimize impacts on the wetlands. All potential impacts on wetlands will require stateand federal permits.Geology and Soils. Structures such as sand ladders, boardwalks, and sidewalks will be used to re

duce impacts to the substrate, and silt fences will be used to control erosion and runoff. Steep slopes

and inundated areas will be avoided.

Vegetation and Wildlife. Trails/paths will be placed as close to existing disturbances as possible.The construction footprint will be minimized for both temporary and permanent impacts. Construction will take place outside peak breeding and nesting seasons.Threatened and Endangered Species. Surveys will be conducted, as appropriate, for threatened

and endangered species and species of concern before ground-disturbing activities are undertaken.

Impacts on three federally threatened or endangered species are analyzed in detail in the General

Management Plan / Wilderness Study IEnvironmental Impact Statement — the piping plover (and

piping plover critical habitat), the Michigan monkey flower, and the Pitcher’s thistle.Conservation measures will be undertaken to reduce potential impacts on federally listed species orcandidate species as needed. These conservation measures will be based on the recommendationsprovided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and will likely include, but would not be limited to,the following:

-6-
General Public

Prior to the official start of this planning process, the National Park Service held 35 meetings with

793 people, increasing public awareness ofthe wilderness situation at the National Lakeshore and

hearing from the public their preferences for resolution. Primarily as a result of these meetings, the

National Park Service decided to begin a new general management planning process that included a

Wilderness Study.The public was notified of this Sleeping Bear Dunes planning effort via: (1) a Federal Register notice of intent, dated December 28, 2005, to prepare an environmental impact statement; (2) distribution of the first newsletter for this effort in January 2006; and (3) a press release announcing a publiccomment opportunity, including public scoping meetings for the general management plan.Throughout the GMF/WS/EIS process, National Lakeshore staff conducted an extensive public involvement and outreach program. Newsletters and both the drafi and final plans were available online, as were other documents related to this planning effort (e.g., public comment summaries, frequently asked questions, letters, and planning updates from the superintendent). An interactive web

forum related to the planning effort was also available.

Using input from the public and considering the probable environmental consequences and costs of

the alternatives, the planning team developed the preferred alternative. The Draft GMP/WS/EIS wasthen produced and distributed for public review beginning April 7, 2008; the comment period ended

on June 15, 2008. Public hearings were held in Honor, Traverse City, and Glen Arbor, Michigan, onJune 3,4, and 5,2008, respectively, with a total of 196 people attending. A total of 292 commentswere received via letters, electronic mail messages, Web responses, and comments transcribed fromthe public hearings. Comments came from 20 different states. Many other meetings and a radio

broadcast regarding the drafi plan were attended by park staff, for example, congressional briefings

and meetings with road commissions, friends groups, federal agencies, state agencies, and townships.

Public comment received on the Draft GMP/WS/EIS showed broad support for the Preferred Alterna

tive, and the wilderness proposal, resource protection, and recreational/access improvements it called

for. An abbreviated summary of the comments follows:

• There was a great deal of support for the preferred alternative including the wilderness pro

posal from the general public, local, state and federal government agencies, tribes and non

govermnental organizations. Regarding the Benzie Corridor, the most support was for the

preferred alternative’s proposal to continue National Park Service acquisition of lands withinthe corridor for a frmture decision on whether to construct a trail and/or a scenic roadway.

7
In addition to comments on the draft plan, many comments suggested adding equestrian opportu

nities in the park and a moderate number of comments suggested establishing a clothing-optional

beach.

The preferred alternative was revised slightly based on input received on the draft plan. Perhaps themost significant changes are that the Cottonwood Trail into the dunes from the Pierce Stocking Scenic Drive was removed from proposed wilderness, and electric motors will be allowed on Otter,Tucker, and Bass (Leelanau County) lakes. Information on changes to the preferred alternative between the draft and final plans, as well as information on substantive comments on the draft plan canbe found in the “Comments on, Changes to, and Responses to Comments on the Draft Plan” sectionin chapter 6 ofthe final plan.In October 2008, the Final GMP/WS/EIS was made available to the public in hard copy, CD, on theLakeshore’s website, and at local libraries. A 30 day no-action period followed.By the time ofprinting the Final GMP/WS/EIS, National Park Service staff had held more than 90informational meetings with the general public and dozens of groups or representatives upon theirrequest. More than 2,500 people in total attended these meetings.U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceThe National Park Service first contacted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in February2006 advising them ofthe National Park Service planning process for this GMF/WS/EIS. In March2006, the USFWS provided the Lakeshore with a list of federally listed threatened, endangered, orcandidate species found within the National Lakeshore. In September 2007, the two agencies agreed

that a biological assessment should not be prepared in association with this GMF/WS/EIS because of

the plan’s broad and strategic nature. However, the National Park Service will consult with the

USFWS on subsequent, more detailed, implementation plans to determine if Section 7 consultation isnecessary.A letter dated June 16, 2008, from the East Lansing Field Office ofthe USFWS provided comments

on the draft preferred alternative in relation to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. This officeconcurred with the National Park Service determination that implementing the preferred alternative

may affect but not likely adversely affect Pitcher’s thistle, Michigan monlcey flower, piping plover orpiping plover critical habitat. Effects of the proposed alternative are considered insignificant, dis

countable, or beneficial. This precludes the need for thrther action on this project as required undersection 7 of the Act.

-8-
(Lack of Objection).

Michigan State Historic Preservation OfficerThe National Park Service contacted the Michigan state historic preservation office in February 2006

to advise them about the start of the GMP/WS/EIS process. In March and September 2007, National

Lakeshore managers met with representatives from the Michigan state historic preservation office todiscuss the planning process and historic properties within the National Lakeshore.

A letter dated July 7, 2008, from Brian Conway, the state historic preservation officer (in the Michi

gan Department of History, Arts, and Libraries in Lansing, Michigan) provided comments on thedraft plan. Mr. Conway stated:

Based on the information provided for our review, it is the opinion ofthe State HistoricPreservation Officer (SHPO) that the preferred alternative identified in the GMP does not

meet the criteria of adverse effect [36CFR section 800.5(a)(I)] and will have no adverse

effect [36CFR section 800.5(b)] on historic properties within the area ofpotential effects

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality & Department of Natural ResourcesThe National Park Service contacted the Chief ofthe Coastal Zone Management Program (MichiganDepartment ofEnvironmental Quality) in May 2006. That office responded with a letter in June2006. Lakeshore managers met with representatives from the Michigan Departments ofNatural Resources and Environmental Quality in April 2007, to discuss the planning process. The MichiganCoastal Zone Management Program was provided the opportunity to review the Draft General Management Plan / Wilderness Study /Environmental Impact Statement.

A letter dated June 23, 2008, from the state Department ofEnvironment Quality provided comments

on the draft plan. That office stated:

[W]e strongly support the Preferred Alternative. . . . The Preferred Alternative strikes a

good balance between protecting sensitive coastal resources and providing ample opportunity for visitor access and recreation. Activities such as controlling invasive species,

protecting open dune areas, restoring disturbed sites, and protecting threatened and endan

gered species are all consistent with the goals of the Coastal Management Program andtheDEQ.

This office also noted there were activities identified in the preferred alternative that will require state

permits.

9
American Indian TribesThe National Park Service contacted the following five American Indian tribal groups in a letterdated February 16, 2006: Bay Mills Indian Community, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chip

pewa Indians, Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, and

Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians. The National Park Service letter advised the tribes of

the planning process, invited them to participate in planning, and inquired about the tribes’ potential

interests and concerns as they relate to the planning effort.On July 18, 2006, Lakeshore managers met with representatives ofthe Grand Traverse Band of Ot

tawa and Chippewa Indians to discuss the GMP/WS/EIS. During that meeting, the Grand Traverse

Band representatives explained that the other tribal groups had authorized them (Grand TraverseBand) to represent the other tribal groups in the National Lakeshore’s planning process.In August 2006, the Grand Traverse Band reviewed and provided input on the National Lakeshore’sdraft interpretive themes. Tn March 2007, the National Park Service sent a letter to the Grand Trav

erse Band and offered to present the preliminary alternatives and answer any questions; this meeting

took place in April. In response to a May 2007 letter from the Grand Traverse Band, National Lake

shore staff met with the Band again in June 2007 to discuss their comments in more detail.

A letter dated June 18, 2008, from the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians provided comments on the draft plan. The tribe fundamentally supported the preferred alternative be

cause it “provides a good mix of enjoyment opportunities to the public as well as resource protec

tion,” although slight modifications were suggested. The tribe expressed interest in continued communication with National Park Service staff.DECISIONThe National Park Service will implement the preferred alternative as described in the Final SleepingBear Dunes National Lakeshore General Management Plan / Wilderness Study /Environmental Im

pact Statement. This alternative constitutes the National Park Service’s selected action for the Na

tional Lakeshore.

-10-
ternatives and determining how important those differences (advantages) are. After addressing theChoosing by Advantages questions in detail, the team used the resulting information to develop thedraft preferred alternative. Alternative A provided the overall best value (greatest total advantage forthe cost expended). Thus, to build the draft preferred alternative, the team started with alternative A,then studied the Choosing by Advantages results to see where elements of other alternatives could be

incorporated (or substituted for elements of alternative A) to add advantages with minimal additionalcost.

The draft preferred alternative was presented in the Draft GMF/WS/EIS. Based on public, agency,

state, and tribal comments on the draft plan, very minor changes were made to the preferred alterna

tive as described in the Final GMF/WS/EIS.

The preferred alternative incorporates elements that people liked best; it also represents a good bal

ance among the wide range of interests people have in the National Lakeshore. The preferred alter

native strilces a balance that the vast majority of people support because it maintains a variety ofrec

reational opportunities while continuing to preserve and protect the natural and cultural resources of

the Lakeshore.

FINDINGS ON IMPAIRMENT OF PARK RESOURCES AM) VALUESThe National Park Service may not allow the impairment ofpark resources and values unless directly

and specifically provided for by legislation or proclamation establishing the park. Impairment that is

prohibited by the National Park Service Organic Act and the General Authorities Act is an impactthat, in the professional judgment ofthe responsible National Park Service manager, would harm theintegrity ofpark resources or values, including the opportunities that otherwise would be present forthe enjoyment ofthose resources or values. In determining whether impairment would occur, parkmanagers examine the duration, severity, and magnitude of the impact; the resources and values af

fected; and direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the action. According to National Park Service

policy, “an impact would be more likely to constitute an impairment to the extent that it affects a re

source or value whose conservation is: a) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the estab

lishing legislation or proclamation of the park; b) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park orto opportunities for enjoyment ofthe park; or c) identified as a goal ofthe park’s general management plan or other relevant National Park Service planning documents.”This policy does not prohibit all impacts to park resources and values. The National Park Service hasthe discretion to allow impacts to park resources and values when necessary and appropriate to fulfillthe purposes ofthe park, so long as the impacts do not constitute impainnent. Moreover, an impact

is less likely to constitute impairment if it is an unavoidable result, which cannot be further mitigated,of an action necessary to conserve or restore the integrity of park resources or values.

II
and criteria for managing Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore and for meeting national envi

ronmental policy goals. Selection of the prefelTed alternative, as reflected by the analysis containedin the environmental impact statement, will not result in the impairment of park resources and will

allow the National Park Service to conserve National Lakeshore resources and provide for their en

joyment by visitors. As described in the mitigation measures section, all practical means to avoid or

minimize environmental harm in the implementation of the preferred alternative will be adopted.

Recommended:

Date

Dusty Shultz, Sujbintendent ‘ /

Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore

Approved:

4~ Date ‘~- Ernest Quintana, Regional Director

Midwest Regional Office, National Park Service

-12-