Appendixes, Selected References, 

Preparers and Consultants, and Index

Lake Michigan in the Winter Empire Bluff

A Day at the Beach

Appendix A: Legislation

331

Appendix A: Legislation
Appendixes

332
Appendix A: Legislation

333
Appendixes

334
Appendix A: Legislation

335
Appendixes

336
Appendix A: Legislation

337
Appendixes

338
Appendix A: Legislation

339
Appendixes

340
Appendix A: Legislation

341
Appendixes

342
Appendix A: Legislation

343
Appendixes

344
APPENDIX B: ANALYSIS OF BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS 

As one of the provisions of Public Law 95-625, 

the National Parks and Recreation Act of 

1978, Congress directed that the National 

Park Service consider, as part of a planning 

process, what modifications of external 

boundaries might be necessary to carry out 

park unit purposes. 

NPS Management Policies 2006 (section 3.5 

Boundary Adjustments) state that the 

National Park Service will conduct studies of 

potential boundary adjustments and may 

make boundary revisions for the following 

reasons: 

1) Protect significant resources and values, 

or to enhance opportunities for public 

enjoyment related to park purposes; 

2) Address operational and management 

issues, such as the need for access or the 

need for boundaries to correspond to 

logical boundary delineations such as 

topographic or other natural features or 

roads; OR 

3) Otherwise protect park resources that are 

critical to fulfilling park purposes. 

Additionally, all recommendations for 

boundary changes must meet the following 

two criteria: 

4) The added lands will be feasible to 

administer considering their size, 

configuration, and ownership; costs; the 

views of and impacts on local 

communities and surrounding 

jurisdictions; and other factors such as 

the presence of hazardous substances or 

exotic species; 

5) Other alternatives for management and 

resource protection are not adequate. 

The following areas were assessed as potential 

additions to the Lakeshore based on public 

comments received and internal scoping. 

 

NORTH AND SOUTH FOX ISLANDS 

North Fox and South Fox islands are located 

in Lake Michigan, approximately 17 and 24 

miles northeast, respectively, of North 

Manitou Island. The Fox Islands are part of 

Leelanau County, Michigan. North Fox is the 

smaller of the two islands at about 832 acres. 

The north island has been owned and 

managed by the state of Michigan since the 

year 2000. South Fox Island is about 3,400 

acres in size. Since 2001, about two-thirds of 

South Fox Island has been privately owned. 

The other third is owned and managed by the 

state, including a lighthouse on the southern 

tip of the island. There is no regular ferry 

service to South Fox Island, and it has no 

docks, fuel, or sheltered harbor. The state 

manages a special deer hunt on the island, and 

hunters can access the area using the seasonal 

service offered by the Manitou Island Transit 

ferry. 

The Fox Islands contain resources and values 

related to the Lakeshore’s purpose (dunes and 

beaches, for example). However, the 

resources and values at the islands are not 

critical to accomplishing the Lakeshore’s 

purpose, nor are the islands required for 

operational or management needs for the 

Lakeshore. If the islands were incorporated 

into the Lakeshore boundaries, they would be 

difficult and costly for the National Park 

Service to administer due to their distance 

from Lakeshore headquarters (more than 50 

miles) and from the docks in Leland, 

Michigan (more than 30 miles). Adequacy of 

other alternatives for the islands’ management 

and resource protection, such as continued 

management by the state and/or a long-term 

lease of lighthouse facilities by a nonprofit 

organization, depends upon the level of 

funding, as would be the case for NPS 

management. Dune areas on the Fox Islands 

are identified by the state of Michigan as 

“critical dunes areas,” affording them special 

345 
APPENDIXES

protection under the Sand Dune Protection 

and Management Act of 1976, as amended. 

Because the Fox Islands do not meet NPS 

criteria for boundary adjustments, the islands 

are not considered for inclusion in the 

National Lakeshore boundary in this General 

Management Plan. 

POINT BETSIE LIGHTHOUSE 

Point Betsie Lighthouse, built in 1858, is 

located on the Lake Michigan shore in Benzie 

County, south of Sleeping Bear Dunes 

National Lakeshore and north of Frankfort, 

Michigan. The lighthouse, which is listed on 

the National Register of Historic Places, is 

owned by Benzie County. In 2004 the 

lighthouse property was transferred by the 

Bureau of Land Management from U.S. 

Government management to ownership by 

Benzie County, with the Coast Guard 

retaining rights to operate the light and 

ownership of the modern house behind the 

lighthouse and the grounds on which that 

guest house sits. According to an operating 

agreement between Benzie County and the 

Friends of Point Betsie Lighthouse, Inc. 

(“Friends”), the capital assets will continue to 

be owned by Benzie County and operated by 

the Friends. The Friends are responsible for 

fundraising to accomplish this, along with the 

county who will apply for various state and 

federal grants. 

The Point Betsie Lighthouse and its 

surrounding property do not contain 

resources and values related to the 

Lakeshore’s purpose. Including the lighthouse 

property within the National Lakeshore 

would not address NPS operational and 

management needs, nor are the resources and 

values at the lighthouse critical to fulfilling the 

National Lakeshore’s purpose. If the Point 

Betsie Lighthouse were incorporated into the 

Lakeshore boundaries, additional operational 

funding would be required for maintaining 

and administering this resource. The 

cooperative agreement between Benzie 

County (owner) and the Friends of Point 

Betsie Lighthouse is an adequate alternative to 

NPS management and resource protection. 

For these reasons, the lighthouse is not 

considered for inclusion in the National 

Lakeshore boundary in this General 

Management Plan. 

NORTH MANITOU SHOAL LIGHT 

The North Manitou Shoal Light (“the Crib”) 

is located offshore from Leland, Michigan. 

The light tower, which is still in service, marks 

the end of North Manitou Shoal, a shallow 

area of the Manitou Passage. The light is listed 

on the National Register of Historic Places 

and consists of a square, two-story, white steel 

building set on a massive concrete crib. The 

light is owned and managed by the U.S. Coast 

Guard. 

The North Manitou Shoal Light does not 

contain resources and values related to the 

Lakeshore’s purpose. Furthermore, including 

the lighthouse property within the National 

Lakeshore would not address NPS operational and management needs, and the 

resources and values at the lighthouse are not 

critical to fulfilling the National Lakeshore’s 

purpose. If the North Manitou Shoal Light 

were incorporated into the Lakeshore 

boundaries, additional operational funding 

would be required for maintaining and 

managing the light. Because the lighthouse is 

still active, continued ownership and management by the U.S. Coast Guard is an appropriate alternative. For these reasons, the 

North Manitou Shoal Light is not considered 

for inclusion in the National Lakeshore 

boundary in this General Management Plan. 

ADDITIONAL LAKE MICHIGAN 

BEACH AND SHORELINE 

During public scoping for this General 

Management Plan, a few members of the 

public suggested that the National Park 

346 
Appendix B: Analysis of Boundary Adjustments 

347 

Service should acquire more beach or 

shoreline along Lake Michigan. The only 

specific suggestion along these lines was to 

acquire beach land located between Old 

Indian Trail (near the south end of the 

National Lakeshore) and Point Betsie, about 3 

miles away. This area, which is bordered by 

Crystal Lake to the south and east, is largely 

forest land, but includes a dune area adjacent 

to the shoreline around Point Betsie. The area 

is in private ownership, and land uses include 

a golf course and numerous private 

residences. 

This area does contain resources and values 

related to the Lakeshore’s purpose (e.g., 

beaches and dune formations). However, 

including more beach lands within the 

National Lakeshore would not address NPS 

operational and management needs, and the 

resources and values in this area are not 

critical to fulfilling the National Lakeshore’s 

purpose. In addition, many of the natural 

resources in this area have been severely 

altered and fragmented. The dune area that 

includes and surrounds Point Betsie is 

identified by the state as a “critical dune area,” 

affording it special protection under the Sand 

Dune Protection and Management Act of 

1976, as amended. The area between the south 

end of Sleeping Bear Dunes and Point Betsie 

would not be feasible to acquire due to very 

high real estate prices for Lake Michigan 

frontage. 

FISHTOWN 

Fishtown is located on the docks along the 

Carp River where it empties into Lake 

Michigan in Leland, Michigan, north of 

Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. 

This 1-acre cluster of small wooden structures 

is listed on the National Register of Historic 

Places and is privately owned. Some of 

Fishtown's buildings were built in the late 

1800s, when lumbering and iron smelting 

were dominant industries in northern 

Leelanau County. The fishing era began 

around 1900 and flourished over the next 

three decades, when most of Fishtown’s 

fishing shanties, icehouses, and smokehouses 

were constructed. Most of the structures now 

house retail businesses, but fishing activities 

continue there today as well. 

Fishtown has been purchased by the nonprofit Fishtown Preservation Society to ensure 

that its historic integrity is preserved for 

public enjoyment. Their plan is to maintain 

and preserve Fishtown’s historic structures, 

boats, and equipment, and to continue to lease 

the buildings to retail businesses, including 

commercial fishing operations, in order to 

continue public access there. 

Fishtown does not contain resources and 

values related to the Lakeshore’s purpose. 

Including the Fishtown property within the 

National Lakeshore would not address NPS 

operational and management needs, and the 

resources and values at the lighthouse are not 

critical to fulfilling the National Lakeshore’s 

purpose. If Fishtown were incorporated into 

the Lakeshore boundaries, additional 

operational funding would be required for 

maintaining and administering this resource. 

Acquisition and management by the Fishtown 

Preservation Society is an adequate alternative 

to NPS management and resource protection. 

For these reasons, Fishtown is not considered 

for inclusion in the National Lakeshore 

boundary in this General Management Plan. 
APPENDIX C: COST SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES 

No Action Preferred 

Alternative Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

One-Time Capital Costs

Facility 

(Construction)(1) $3,200,000 $14,100,000 $11,000,000 $40,100,000 $27,800,000

Non-Facility (2) $3,400,000 $3,400,000 $3,400,000 $2,700,000 $2,700,000

Deferred 

Maintenance (3) $15,400,000 $15,400,000 $15,400,000 $15,400,000 $15,400,000

TOTAL 

ALTERNATIVE 

COSTS (1)(2)(3) 

$22,000,000 $32,900,000 $29,800,000 $58,200,000 $45,900,000

Annual Operating Costs (in 2007 dollars)

ONPS (4) $3,900,000 $4,400,000 $4,200,000 $4,400,000 $4,500,000

Staff- FTE (5) 66 79 77 79 85 

The presentation of costs in a general management plan is applied to the types and general 

intensities of development in a comparative 

format. The following applies to costs presented 

in this general management plan: 

• The costs are presented as estimates and are 

not appropriate for budgeting purposes. 

• The cost estimates were developed in 2007; 

they are very general and intended for 

alternative comparison purposes only. 

• The cost estimates were developed using 

industry standards to the extent available and 

they represent the total costs of projects. 

However, due to cost estimating uncertainty, 

actual costs could be as much as 30% lower 

or 50% higher than noted. 

• Actual costs will be determined at a later date 

and will take into consideration the design of 

facilities, identification of detailed resource 

protection needs, and changing visitor 

expectations. 

• Initial construction was assumed to occur in 

year one except for construction of a Benzie 

Corridor scenic road (alternative B) and 

construction of a Benzie Corridor hike/bike 

trail (alternative C); these were assumed to 

occur in year 25. For the preferred alternative, 

Benzie Corridor construction costs (for a 

scenic road and/or hike/bike trail) were not

included because, similar to the no-action 

alternative, construction is not anticipated to 

occur within the life of the plan. 

• Approval of the general management plan 

does not guarantee funding or staffing for 

proposed actions. 

• Project funding will not come all at once; it 

will likely take many years to secure and may 

be provided by partners, donations, or other 

nonfederal sources. 

• Some proposals may not be funded within the 

life of this General Management Plan and full 

implementation may occur many years into 

the future. 

NOTES 

(1) Facility (construction) costs include costs for 

new facilities that are proposed in the action 

alternatives. For the no-action alternative, 

construction costs include only projects that 

are already planned and funded. 

(2) Non-facility costs include natural and cultural 

resources management activities and visitor 

use projects. 

(3) Deferred maintenance costs are those needed 

to improve Lakeshore assets (structures and 

facilities) to a good condition based on NPS 

standards and calculating tools. 

(4) Annual operating costs (ONPS) are the total 

annual costs for maintenance and operations 

348 
Appendix C: Cost Summary of GMP Alternatives 

associated with each alternative. Included are 

all costs related to Lakeshore maintenance 

(e.g., utilities, materials, supplies, and leasing) 

and visitor services, law enforcement, 

resource management, and administration 

operations (including staff salaries and 

benefits). These costs are based on the 

current budget. 

(5) Total full-time equivalents (FTE) are the 

number of staff required to maintain 

Lakeshore assets at a good level and provide 

acceptable visitor services, protection of 

resources, and other operational support. Fulltime equivalent staff would likely be NPS 

employees. However, Lakeshore managers 

would explore opportunities to work with 

partners, volunteers, and other federal 

agencies to assist in the effective and efficient 

management of the Lakeshore. Those hours 

might be in addition to or instead of NPS 

employees. 

349 
APPENDIX D: DEVELOPMENT OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

INITIAL PLANNING STEPS 

Work on the Sleeping Bear Dunes National 

Lakeshore General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Study / Environmental Impact 

Statement began in late 2005. The planning 

team consisted of Sleeping Bear Dunes 

National Lakeshore staff, the NPS Midwest 

Region Chief of Planning and Compliance, 

and technical specialists from the National 

Park Service’s Denver Service Center. 

Early steps in the planning process included 

the following (see chapter 1 for details): 

• Reaffirm the Lakeshore’s purpose and 

significance. 

• Identify the Lakeshore’s fundamental 

resources and values. 

• Consider legislative mandates. 

• Recognize planning issues. 

• Identify desired conditions. 

The planning team conducted field trips and 

gathered and studied information on National 

Lakeshore resources, visitor uses and values, 

and planning issues. The team also solicited 

input from the public. (See chapter 6 for a 

summary of public involvement.) With help 

from the public, the planning team developed 

four alternative concepts (including no action) 

for managing the Lakeshore. These concepts 

were presented to the public in a newsletter, 

and then comments from the public were 

gathered and reviewed. 

Based on public input and further consideration, the planning team developed the four 

alternative concepts into four full preliminary 

alternatives. These draft alternatives were 

then presented in another newsletter and at 

public meetings, and once again public 

comments were collected and reviewed. 

Possible consequences of the preliminary 

alternatives were considered and additional 

field investigations were conducted. 

DEVELOPING THE 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

The next major step was to develop a 

preferred alternative. After reviewing the 

public comments on the preliminary 

alternatives, the planning team used an 

evaluation process called “Choosing by 

Advantages” to evaluate the four preliminary 

alternatives (no action, alternative A, 

alternative B, and alternative C). In using this 

process, the planning team asks, “What and 

how large are the advantages of each alternative?”, “How important are these advantages?”, and finally “Are these advantages 

worth their associated costs?” The Choosing 

by Advantages process does not “weigh” 

evaluation criteria in advance so that certain 

criteria are automatically more important than 

others. Rather, the process focuses on the 

differences between alternatives and 

determining how important those differences 

(advantages) are. 

After addressing the Choosing by Advantages 

questions in detail, the team used the resulting 

information to develop the preferred alternative. Alternative A provided the overall best 

value (greatest total advantage for the cost 

expended). Thus, to build the 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 without adding too much 

additional cost. 

The draft preferred alternative was presented 

in the Draft General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Study / Environmental Impact 

Statement. Based on comments on the draft 

plan, changes were made to the preferred 

alternative; these are listed on page 295. 

350 
Appendix D: Development of the Preferred Alternative 

RATIONALE FOR AND 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 

ABOUT THE PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE 

This section provides more information about 

and rationale for the preferred alternative. 

High Use Zone 

The M-22 and M-109 road corridors were 

zoned high use in the preferred alternative to 

acknowledge continued vehicular use of these 

state transportation routes3

. Along these 

corridors, the width of the high use zone is 

300 feet (each side) from the highway 

centerline, on NPS-owned lands only, to 

allow for a possible future M-22/M-109 

hike/bike trail. Within this high use zone, 

wherever it turns out that land is not needed 

for the bike trail, the width of the high use 

zone would revert back to the M-22 or M-109 

right-of-way, and lands would revert to 

adjacent management zoning. The high-use 

zoning does not imply the acquisition of 

private lands for the hike/bike trail 

development. 

The area around Lake Michigan Road (in 

Benzie County, near the Platte River) was 

zoned high use to recognize the relatively high 

level of use and activity that occurs along the 

road, at Platte Point, and in and around the 

Platte River campground and picnic area. This 

high use zone extends to the northeast 

towards Tiesma Road to allow for a new Lake 

Michigan boat ramp or dock in this area, 

although a new boat ramp or dock is not 

proposed by the National Park Service. (A 

separate study would be needed to determine 

whether any such facility would be appropriate in this area. If such a study indicated that a 

 

3 State owned road rights-of-way are not controlled 

by the National Park Service. Showing state-owned 

road rights-of-way within the high use management 

zone is not intended to suggest otherwise, but rather 

to indicate continued use under management by the 

state. 

new boat ramp or dock is not appropriate 

here, the high use zone beyond the Lake 

Michigan Road area would revert to the 

experience nature zone and Tiesma Road 

would revert to the recreation zone). NPSowned Tiesma Road would remain open in 

any event. 

Other popular National Lakeshore areas that 

were zoned high use to allow for high levels of 

visitor use and interpretive activities include 

the Pierce Stocking Scenic Drive and the Dune 

Climb. The Lakeshore’s maintenance facility 

area, located just south of Empire, was also 

zoned high use. 

Experience History Zone 

Areas of the National Lakeshore containing 

cultural resources that are fundamental to the 

Lakeshore’s significance (see chapter 1) were 

zoned experience history. These areas are 

Glen Haven (including the area around the 

Sleeping Bear Point Life-Saving Museum), 

Port Oneida Rural Historic District, and the 

U.S. Life-Saving Service Station/villages and 

lighthouse on the Manitou Islands. In 

addition, on South Manitou Island the NPSowned portion of the farm loop tour and 

adjacent fields and the schoolhouse were 

zoned experience history. The primary 

management emphasis in these areas is to 

preserve historic structures and landscapes 

and provide visitors the opportunity to enjoy 

and learn about them. 

Recreation Zone 

Areas zoned recreation in the preferred 

alternative include the following: 

• Lake Michigan beach areas and the 0.25-

mile-wide strip of Lake Michigan within 

the National Lakeshore boundary — to 

allow continued access by watercraft 

(except for personal watercraft, or jet 

skis). 

351 
APPENDIXES

• County-owned road corridors — to 

recognize continued vehicular and other 

use of these routes for recreational and 

other purposes.4

 

• School Lake and Loon Lake —to permit 

continued motorboat and other 

recreational uses. 

• The Platte River — to permit moderate 

levels of recreational use, including use of 

motorboats. 

• To allow for a possible M-22/M-109 

hike/bike trail developed at the initiative 

of Lakeshore partners, the area between 

Peterson Road and north of Platte River 

campground; the area southeast of the 

Lakeshore’s Empire maintenance area 

and west of M-22; the area south of Glen 

Haven and north of the Dune Climb 

(west of M-109); plus corridors or twotracks east of the Pierce Stocking Scenic 

Drive and north of Alligator Hill. If these 

areas are not needed for the bike trail, 

they would revert back to the experience 

nature zone (except for county roads and 

the D. H. Day group campground, which 

would retain the recreation zone). 

• Various trailhead areas — to allow for 

trailhead parking. 

• Various farmsteads, farm fields, and 

other historic elements that are either 

adjacent to M-22 or where there is 

minimal conflict with the adjacent 

experience nature zone — to allow for 

preservation as “scene setters” or 

possible adaptive reuse/rehabilitation by 

partners or the National Park Service. 

Examples include the Boekeloo cabin 

and immediate landscape, the Ken-TuckU-Inn and immediate landscape, 

Tweddle School, the Tweddle farmstead, 

the Bufka farmstead and surrounding 

 

 

4. County-owned road rights-of-way are not 

controlled by the National Park Service. Showing 

county-owned road rights-of-way within the 

recreation management zone is not intended to 

suggest otherwise, but rather to indicate continued 

use under management by the counties. 

open fields, and the Eitzen and Kropp 

farmsteads. 

• The wooded area (“Burnham Woods”) 

south of the Glen Lakes and east of M-22 

— to allow consideration for a possible 

future designated mountain bike trail 

system. 

• The area east of Glen Haven — to 

maintain the rustic character of the D. H. 

Day campground and surroundings, and 

to permit moderate use levels in this area. 

• The Benzie Corridor — to allow for a 

future scenic road per the Lakeshore’s 

enabling legislation, and/or a hike/bike 

trail. About 10% of the 1,100-acre Benzie 

Corridor has been purchased by the 

National Park Service from willing sellers 

over the past quarter century, so 

development of a scenic road or 

hike/bike trail is likely decades off into 

the future. Based on public input 

received to date and preliminary impact 

analyses, NPS managers concluded that 

(a) the Benzie Corridor should remain 

within the Lakeshore’s legislated 

boundary, and (b) future managers 

should have the flexibility to study and 

decide, based on the circumstances, 

public input, and other best available 

information at the time, whether a scenic 

road or hike/bike trail (or both) should 

be built within the Benzie Corridor5

. 

5. The NPS vision of the scenic road at the time of 

this writing is as follows. The road would provide an 

identifiable southern entrance to the National 

Lakeshore. It would include an interchange on US31. From there it would continue in a generally 

northwesterly direction along the Crystal Ridge to an 

intersection with M-22. The road would provide 

scenic variety and offer outstanding scenic views of 

Lake Michigan, Empire Bluffs, Platte Lake, and 

Crystal Lake. Complementary facilities along the 

scenic road would likely include an entrance station, 

scenic overlooks, picnic areas, restrooms, and hiking 

and biking trails. The road would likely be similar to 

Pierce Stocking Scenic Drive, only with two-way 

traffic. It would be closed to commercial traffic. 

352 
Appendix D: Development of the Preferred Alternative 

Experience Nature Zone 

The remainder of the National Lakeshore was 

zoned experience nature, in keeping with the 

purpose of the National Lakeshore: to 

“preserve outstanding natural features, 

including forests, beaches, dune formations, 

and ancient glacial phenomena in their natural 

setting, and protect them from developments 

and uses that would destroy the scenic beauty 

and natural character of the area, for the 

benefit, inspiration, education, recreation, and 

enjoyment of the public.” 

Wilderness Proposal 

Based on public input, preliminary impact 

analyses, and the Choosing by Advantages 

evaluation, the planning team started with 

alternative A’s wilderness proposal and 

modified it as follows: 

• south portion of the Lakeshore — added 

a wilderness exclusion around Empire 

Bluffs Trail to facilitate trail maintenance 

and to ensure that hang gliding could 

continue there; added a wilderness 

exclusion around the Treat farmstead to 

facilitate maintenance of open farm fields 

• central portion of the Lakeshore — 

added a wilderness exclusion for the 

Cottonwood Trail to provide an 

opportunity for large groups to 

experience the namesake Sleeping Bear 

Dunes 

• north portion of the Lakeshore — added 

a wilderness exclusion around the Bufka 

farm to facilitate maintenance or rehabilitation of the farmstead and surrounding 

farm fields 

• South Manitou Island — added a 

wilderness exclusion for the farm loop 

tour route, including the schoolhouse, to 

allow continuation of the interpretive 

tours and to facilitate maintenance, 

rehabilitation, or restoration of the 

structures, farmsteads, and surrounding 

fields. 

• North Manitou Island — added a 

wilderness exclusion for all of Cottage 

Row to facilitate maintenance, 

rehabilitation, or restoration of these 

structures and immediate surroundings. 

Other Elements of the 

Preferred Alternative 

• Parking at Platte River Point (near the 

mouth of the Platte River) could be 

improved to enhance vehicular 

circulation and reduce congestion. 

• The Esch Beach road end would be 

improved to address resource impacts 

and safety concerns associated with 

parking and improve vehicular 

circulation there. 

• Access would be improved at some 

inland lakes to facilitate boat use and 

address natural resource impacts 

(trampling, erosion, etc.) 

• The Crystal River access area would be 

upgraded or relocated and a small 

parking area would be provided to 

address natural resource impacts 

(trampling, erosion of gravel into the 

river, etc.) 

• Motorboats would no longer be allowed 

on North Bar Lake to improve visitor 

experiences for nonmotorized uses 

(canoeing, kayaking, fishing, and 

swimming). Electric motors would be 

allowed in the experience nature zone on 

Bass Lake (Leelanau County), Tucker 

Lake, and Otter Lake to increase the 

range of visitor opportunities that are 

compatible with the intent of this zone. 

• Little Glen Lake picnic area would be 

improved to facilitate beach use. For 

example, the sand area along the beach 

would be expanded and flush toilets 

might be constructed. 

• Valley View campground, which is not 

very popular with visitors, would be 

abandoned and the area returned to 

more natural conditions. A replacement 

campground for hikers and paddlers 

353 
APPENDIXES

354 

would be provided in a more attractive 

location closer to the Lake Michigan 

shoreline as a part of the bay-to-bay trail 

proposal. 

• On South Manitou Island, provided there 

is demand and the service is 

economically feasible, concession auto 

tours to near the Giant Cedars would be 

allowed to the end of the county-owned 

road; from there, tours would continue 

on foot for a short distance to the trees. 

User capacity management strategies 

(e.g., education, supervision by tour 

leaders, fences, and/or boardwalks) 

would be implemented as needed to 

prevent visitor use-related impacts to the 

cedar trees and surrounding vegetative 

community. 

• Day ferry trips to North Manitou Island 

(once or twice a week, not daily) would 

be allowed provided there is demand and 

the service is economically feasible. The 

intent is to allow a different segment of 

visitors to experience this island. 

• On North Manitou Island, designated 

camping would be required within 

certain problem areas to confine and 

address natural resource impacts. In 

areas where use has not resulted in 

problems, dispersed camping would 

continue. 

• At Bow Lakes, a small parking area and a 

loop hiking trail would be provided to 

facilitate visitor use on NPS-owned 

lands.
APPENDIX E: WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS 

Section 5(d) of the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act (16 USC 1271-1287) requires that 

“In all planning for the use and development 

of water and related land resources, 

consideration shall be given by all Federal 

agencies involved to potential national wild, 

scenic and recreational river areas.” It further 

requires that “the Secretary of the Interior 

shall make specific studies and investigations 

to determine which additional wild, scenic 

and recreational river areas . . . shall be 

evaluated in planning reports by all Federal 

agencies as potential alternative uses of water 

and related land resources involved.” 

The National Park Service has compiled and 

maintains a Nationwide Rivers Inventory 

(NRI), which is a register of river segments 

that potentially qualify as national wild, scenic 

or recreational river areas. The inventory is a 

listing of more than 3,400 free-flowing river 

segments in the United States that are believed 

to possess one or more “outstandingly 

remarkable” natural or cultural values judged 

to be of more than local or regional significance. The original inventory, completed in 

1982, was conducted by the U.S. Department 

of the Interior with the cooperation of state 

and local agencies. To be listed, river segments 

had to meet the following three basic criteria: 

• be free flowing (and generally 25 miles or 

longer) 

• be relatively undeveloped (both river and 

corridor) 

• possess outstanding natural and/or 

cultural values 

In 1990, National Lakeshore staff inventoried 

and evaluated rivers and river segments that 

may have had potential for inclusion into the 

national wild and scenic rivers system. Five 

streams were inventoried: Platte River, Otter 

Creek, Shalda Creek, Crystal River, and Good 

Harbor Creek. Only the Platte River was 

identified by the Lakeshore staff for possible 

study and inclusion at that time. 

A major update to the Nationwide Rivers 

Inventory was initiated in 1993. To be eligible 

for listing on the updated inventory, river 

segments had to meet the following two 

criteria: 

• be free flowing (no mileage requirement) 

• have at least one “outstandingly 

remarkable” value 

The Crystal River and the Platte River were 

included on the 1993 update. The entire 3-

mile segment of the Crystal River within the 

National Lakeshore was included, with the 

following description: “Sinuous river channel 

following beach ridges. Large wetlands 

associated with interdunal wetlands. Remnant 

beaches contain rich diversity of species. 

Popular canoeing stream.” The entire segment 

of the Platte River within the National 

Lakeshore (4 miles) was included, with the 

following description: “Sinuous river channel 

following remnant beach ridges. Major 

archeological resources relative to midwoodland period Indian encampments. 

Popular canoeing destination. Important 

salmon and trout resource.” 

In 2005, NPS staff completed acquisition of 

the 104 acres of land identified in the 

Lakeshore boundary expansion authorized by 

Public Law (PL) 108-229. These lands include 

6,300 feet of river frontage along the Crystal 

River, approximately 0.6 miles along both 

banks. The land contains important wetland, 

riparian, and upland habitat for a variety of 

species within mixed northern forests. It also 

provides a natural backdrop for recreational 

river users and exceptional vistas for visitors 

who are hiking, biking or driving on nearby 

trails and roads. 

355 
APPENDIXES

The National Park Service recommends that 

this additional 0.6-mile reach of the Crystal 

River be added to the 3 miles already on the 

Nationwide Rivers Inventory when it is next 

updated.

356 
357

Appendix F: INITIAL consultation letters
Appendixes

358
Appendix F: Consultation Letters

359
Appendixes

360
Appendix F: Consultation Letters

361
SELECTED REFERENCES 

Benzie County 

2000 “Benzie County 2020 Comprehensive 

Plan.” Accessed September 2007 at 

http://www.benzieco.net/dept_planni

ng.htm#master_plan. 

2002 “Benzie County Open Space and 

Natural Resources Protection Plan.” 

Accessed September 2007 at 

http://www.benzieco.net/dept_planni

ng.htm#master_plan. 

Burkett, R. D. 

1984 An Ecological Study of the Cricket 

Frog, Acris crepitans.” Pp 89-102. In: 

Vertebrate Ecology and Systematics by 

R. A. Seigel, L. E. Hunt, J. L. Knight, 

L. Malaret and N. L. Zuschlag (eds.). 

1984. Museum of Natural History, 

The Univ. of Kansas, Lawrence, KS. 

Case, F. W., Jr. 

1987 “Orchids of the Western Great Lakes 

Region.” Revised ed. Cranbrook 

Institute of Science, Bull. 48. 251pp. 

Cooper, J. L. 

1999a “Special Animal Abstract for 

Accipitergentilis (Northern 

Goshawk).” Michigan Natural 

Features Inventory, Lansing, MI. 3 

pp. 

1999b “Special Animal Abstract for Buteo 

lineatus (red-shouldered hawk).” 

Michigan Natural Features 

Inventory, Lansing, MI. 3 pp. 

Corace, G. R. III, C. Goebel, and T. Wyse 

2003 “A Multi-scale Assessment and 

Evaluation of Historic Openlands at 

Sleeping Bear Dunes National 

Lakeshore.” Unpublished report. 

Copy available at National Lakeshore 

headquarters. 

Crispin, S. R. and M. R. Penskar 

1989 “Rangewide Status Survey of Mimulus 

glabratus var. michiganensis (Pennell) 

Fassett, the Michigan Monkeyflower.” Lansing, MI: Michigan 

Natural Features Inventory. p.13. 

Cuthrell, D. L. 

2002 “Special Animal Abstract for Falco 

columbarius (merlin).” Michigan 

Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, 

MI. 3 pp. 

Elias, J. 

2007 “Water Quality Sampling at Pictured 

Rocks and Sleeping Bear Dunes 

National Lakeshores, 2005.” National 

Park Service, Great Lakes Inventory 

and Monitoring Network Report: 

GLKN/2007/06. 

Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and 

Chippewa Indians 

2007 Information from the Grand Traverse 

Band (GTB) website, 

http://www.gtb.nsn.us. 

Haswell, Susan Olsen, and Prof. Arnold R. 

Alanen 

1994 “A Garden Apart: An Agricultural and 

Settlement History of Michigan’s 

Sleeping Bear Dunes National 

Lakeshore Region.” Prepared for 

NPS Midwest Regional Office, 

Omaha, NE, and State Historic 

Preservation office, Michigan Bureau 

of History, Lansing, MI. 

Harding, J. H. 

1997 “Amphibians and Reptiles of the 

Great Lakes Region.” The University 

of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI. 

362 
Selected References 

HerpCenter (Center for Reptile and 

Amphibian Conservation and Management) 

2004 “Blanchard’s Cricket Frog Acris 

crepitans blanchardi: Identification, 

Status, Ecology, and Conservation in 

the Midwest.” Science Building, 

Indiana University-Purdue 

University. Document available at 

http://herpcenter.ipfw.edu/outreach/ 

accounts/amphibians/anurans/Blanc

hards_cricket_frog/BlanchardsFactSh

eet.pdf. Accessed August 1, 2007. 

Higman, P. J. and M. R. Penskar 

1996a “Special Plant Abstract for Bromus 

pumpellianus (Pumpelly’s Brome 

Grass).” Michigan Natural Features 

Inventory, Lansing, MI. 2 pp. 

1996b “Special Plant Abstract for Calypso 

bulbosa (Calypso Orchid).” Michigan 

Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, 

MI. 2 pp. 

1996c “Special Plant Abstract for Orobanche 

fasciculata (Fascicled Broom-rape).” 

Michigan Natural Features 

Inventory, Lansing, MI. 2 pp. 

1999a “Special Plant Abstract for Cirsium 

pitcheri.” Michigan Natural Features 

Inventory, Lansing, MI. 3 pp. 

1999b “Special Plant Abstract for 

Botrychium campestre (Prairie 

Dunewort).” Michigan Natural 

Features Inventory, Lansing, MI. 2 

pp. 

1999c “Special Plant Abstract for Pterospora 

andromeda (Pine-drops).” Michigan 

Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, 

MI. 2 pp. 

Humphrey, S. R., A. R. Richter, and J. B. Cope 

1977 “Summer Habitat and Ecology of the 

Endangered Indiana bat, Myotis 

sodalis.” J. Mammalogy 58:334-346. 

Hyde, D. A. 

1996 “Special Animal Abstract for Sterna 

caspia (Caspian Tern).” Michigan 

Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, 

MI. 3 pp. 

1999a “Special Animal Abstract for 

Charadrius melodus (Piping Plover).” 

Michigan Natural Features 

Inventory, Lansing, MI. 4 pp. 

1999b “Special Animal Abstract for 

Terrapenec. carolina (Eastern Box 

Turtle).” Michigan Natural Features 

Inventory, Lansing, MI. 3 pp. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

(IPCC) 

2007 “Climate Change 2007: The Physical 

Science Basis. Contribution of 

Working Group I to the Fourth 

Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change.” S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. 

Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. 

Avery, M. Tignor and H. L. Miller 

(eds.). Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, United Kingdom and 

New York, NY, USA. 

Kurta, A., D. King, J. A. Teramino, J. M. 

Stribley, and K. J. Williams 

1993 “Summer Roosts of the Endangered 

Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) on the 

Northern Edge of Its Range.” 

American Midland Naturalist

129:132-138. 

Lafrancois, B. Moraska, and J. Glase 

2005 “Aquatic Studies in National Parks of 

the Upper Great Lakes States: Past 

Efforts and Future Directions.” 

Water Resources Division Technical 

Report, NPS/NRWRD/NRTR2005/334. National Park Service, 

Denver, Colorado. 

363 
SELECTED REFERENCES

Ledder, T. 

2003 Water Resource Information and 

Assessment Report for the Great 

Lakes Inventory and Monitoring 

Network.” National Park Service, 

Great Lakes Inventory and 

Monitoring Network, Ashland, WI. 

54806. Great Lakes Network 

Technical Report: GLKN/2003/05. 

42p. 

Lee, Y. 

1999 “Special Animal Abstract for 

Glyptemys insculpta (Wood Turtle).” 

Michigan Natural Features 

Inventory, Lansing, MI. 3 pp. 

Lee, Y., D. A. Hyde, and J. Legge 

2000 Special Animal Abstract for Acris 

crepitans blanchardi (Blanchard’s 

Cricket Frog).” Michigan Natural 

Features Inventory. Lansing, MI. 4 

pp. 

Leelanau County 

2005 “Leelanau General Plan.” Accessed 

September 2007 at 

http://www.leelanau.cc/ 

generalplan.asp. 

MacDonald, Eric and Arnold R. Alanen 

2000 “Tending a Comfortable Wilderness, 

A History of Agricultural Landscapes 

on North Manitou Island, Sleeping 

Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, 

Michigan.” U.S. Department of the 

Interior, National Park Service, 

Midwest Field Office, Omaha, 

Nebraska. 

McEnaney, Marla J., William H. Tischler, and 

Arnold R. Alanen 

1995 “Farming at the Water’s Edge, An 

Assessment of Agricultural and 

Cultural Landscape Resources in the 

Proposed Port Oneida Rural Historic 

District at Sleeping Bear Dunes 

National Lakeshore, Michigan.” 

Midwest Regional Office, National 

Park Service, Omaha, Nebraska. 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources 

2005 “Bird Summary: Prairie Warbler 

(Dendroica discolor).” Michigan’s 

Wildlife Action Plan, SGCN Status & 

Species-Specific Issues. Revised June 

27, 2005. Available at http:// 

www.michigandnr.com/publications/

pdfs/HuntingWildlifeHabitat/WCS/S

GCN/Dendroica_discolor.pdf. 

Accessed 5 August 2007. 

Michigan Department of Transportation 

2007 Annual Average 24-Hour Traffic 

Volumes — 2006. Accessed at 

http://www.michigan.gov/documents

/adtfront_20092_7.pdf. 

Michigan Grape and Wine Industry Council 

2007 “Michigan Wines.” Accessed at 

http://www.michiganwines.com/Win

eries/wineries.html. 

Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) 

2006a “Michigan’s Natural Communities: 

Draft List and Descriptions.” 26 April 

2006. Michigan State University 

Extension. 

2006b “GIS Database of Species 

Occurrences in or proximal to 

Sleeping Bear Dunes National 

Lakeshore.” Data generated and 

transmitted 30 November 2006. 

2007 “Rare Species Explorer (Web 

Application).” Available online at 

http://web4.msue.msu.edu/mnfi/expl

orer. Accessed August 3, October 14, 

and December 14, 2007. 

Michigan State Historic Preservation Office, 

accessed at 

http://www.mcgi.state.mi.us/hso 

364 
Selected References 

Monfills, M. J. 

2003 “Special Animal Abstract for 

Ixobrychus exilis (Least Bittern).” 

Michigan Natural Features 

Inventory, Lansing, MI. 6 pp. 

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the 

Interior 

1982 “Scenic Road Feasibility Study, 

Sleeping Bear Dunes National 

Lakeshore.” NPS Midwest Regional 

Office. Copy available at Sleeping 

Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. 

1992a “Development Concept 

Plan/Interpretive Prospectus, Glen 

Haven Area.” Sleeping Bear Dunes 

National Lakeshore, Michigan. 

1992b “Platte River Management Plan.” 

Denver Service Center, Denver, CO. 

Copy available at National Lakeshore 

headquarters. 

1999a “Draft Historic Properties 

Management Plan, Sleeping Bear 

Dunes National Lakeshore.” 

1999b “Exotic Plant Hit List.” Unpublished 

document; available at National 

Lakeshore headquarters in Empire, 

MI. 

2002 “Water Resources Management Plan 

for Sleeping Bear Dunes National 

Lakeshore.” By David Vana-Miller, 

NPS Water Resources Division, Fort 

Collins, CO. 

2003 “Business Plan—Fiscal Year 2003, 

Sleeping Bear Dunes National 

Lakeshore.” Copy available at 

National Lakeshore headquarters.

2004 “The Homestead Resort Wastewater 

Disposal Environmental 

Assessment.” 112 pp. 

2005a “Fire Management Plan.” Sleeping 

Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. 

Copy available at National Lakeshore 

headquarters. 

2005b “Strategic Plan, Sleeping Bear Dunes 

National Lakeshore.” Sleeping Bear 

Dunes National Lakeshore. Copy 

available at National Lakeshore 

headquarters. 

2006a “Biological Assessment of the 

Sleeping Bear Dunes National 

Lakeshore Invasive Plant Species 

Control in the Vicinity of Endangered 

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus), 

Endangered Michigan Monkeyflower (Mimulus glabratus var. 

michiganensis), Threatened Pitcher’s 

Thistle (Cirsium pitcheri), and 

Threatened Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus).” Sleeping Bear Dunes 

National Lakeshore, National Park 

Service, Empire, Michigan. 

2006b “Does the Cougar Inhabit Sleeping 

Bear Dunes National Lakeshore?” by 

Jerry Belant, Stephen E. Yancho, and 

Kimberly S. Struthers. Natural Areas 

Journal, vol. 26(4): 370-375. 

2006c News Release — “No pets in piping 

plover nesting areas.” A public news 

release reminding visitors of seasonal 

prohibition. May 4, 2006. 

2007 “Public Use Statistics Office — The 

Money Generation Model II.” 

Accessed at 

http://www2.nature.nps.gov/stats/. 

2008 Draft General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Study / Environmental 

Impact Statement. Denver Service 

Center, Denver, CO. 

National Register of Historic Places website, 

accessed at http://www.nr.nps.gov 

NatureServe 

2007 “NatureServe Explorer: An Online 

Encyclopedia of Life [web 

application].” Version 6.2. 

NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. 

Accessed July 2007 at 

http://www.natureserve.org/ 

explorer. 

365 
SELECTED REFERENCES

New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife 

(NJDFW) 

2007 “Indiana Bat fact sheet [pdf].” 

Accessed August 13, 2007, at 

http://www.state.nj.us/ dep/fgw/ 

ensp/pdf/end-thrtened/ 

indianabat.pdf 

Northwest Michigan Council of Governments 

(NMCOG) 

2006 “2007 Economic Forecast for the 5-

County Region of Atrium, Benzie, 

Grand Traverse Kalkaska, and 

Leelanau Counties.” Accessed at 

http://www.tcchamber.org/ 

documents/2007EconomicForecast.p

df 

Penskar, M. R. and P. J. Higman 

1996 Special Plant Abstract for Panax 

quinquefolius (ginseng). Michigan 

Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, 

MI. 3 pp. 

1997 Special Plant Abstract for Asplenium 

rhizophyllum (Walking Fern).” 

Michigan Natural Features 

Inventory, Lansing, MI. 3 pp. 

1999 Special Plant Abstract for 

Cypripedium arietinum (Ram’s-Head 

Lady’s-Slipper).” Michigan Natural 

Features Inventory, Lansing, MI. 2 

pp.

Preserve Historic Sleeping Bear website, 

accessed at http://www.phsb.org 

Rabe, M. L. 

1999 “Special Animal Abstract for 

Trimerotropis huroniana (Lake 

Huron Locust).” Michigan Natural 

Features Inventory, Lansing, MI. 3 

pp. 

Robert Peccia & Associates 

2001 “Transportation Study — Sleeping 

Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, 

Michigan.” Prepared for the Denver 

Service Center, National Park 

Service. 

Soule, J. D. 

1992 Element Stewardship Abstract — 

Glyptemys insculpta, Wood Turtle.” 

Michigan Natural Features 

Inventory, Lansing, MI. 22 pp. 

Stynes, Daniel J. 

2007 “National Park Visitor Spending 

and Payroll Impacts 2006.” 

Prepared by Michigan State 

University for the National Park 

Service, Social Science Program. 

http://web4.canr.msu.edu/mgm2/ 

Tinkle, D.W., P.E. Feaver, R.W. Van 

Devender, and L.J. Vitt 

1979 A Survey of the Status, Distribution 

and Abundance of Threatened and 

Endangered Species of Reptiles and 

Amphibians.” Mich. Department of 

Natural Resources. Unpubl. Rep. 

Travel Michigan 

2004 “Michigan 2002 Travel Summary,” 

prepared by D.K. Shifflet and 

Associates. Accessed at 

http://travelmichigannews.org/mtr/re

search/ 

Traverse City Convention and Visitors Bureau 

2006 “Tourism Industry Analysis for 

Grand Traverse County,” prepared 

by Fishkind & Associates. Accessed at 

http://www.tcchamber.org/ 

documents/TourismIndustryReport.

pdf. 

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 

2007 “Regional Economic Information 

System (REIS), Personal Income by 

Major Source and Earnings by 

Industry and Full-Time and PartTime Employment by Industry, 1969 

to 2005.” Accessed at 

http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/ 

statelocal.htm. 

366 
Selected References 

367 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 

2007 “Local Area Unemployment 

Statistics, Annual Averages, 2000 to 

2006.” Accessed at 

24Hhttp://www.bls.gov/lau/home.htm. 

U.S. Census Bureau 

2002 “Census 2000, Demographic Profiles 

— 100 Percent and Sample Data, 

Michigan.” Accessed at 

25Hhttp://www.census.gov/PressRelease/www/2002/demoprofiles. 

html. 

2005 State Interim Population Projections, 

By Age and Sex, 2004 - 2030, Table 6. 

Total population for regions, 

divisions, and states: 2000 to 2030. 

Accessed at 26Hhttp://www.census.gov/ 

population/www/projections/ 

projectionsagesex.html. 

2007a “Annual Estimates of the Population 

for Counties of Michigan, April 1, 

2000 to July 1, 2006.” Accessed at 

27Hhttp://www.census.gov/ 

popest/counties/ 

2007b “Annual Estimates of the Population 

for Incorporated Places in Michigan, 

Listed Alphabetically: April 1, 2000 to 

July 1, 2006.” Accessed at 

28Hhttp://www.census.gov/ 

popest/cities/. 

2007c “Manufacturing, Mining and 

Construction Statistics — Building 

Permits, by County.” Accessed at 

http://censtats.census.gov/ cgibin/bldgprmt/bldgdisp.pl 

2007d “Small Area Income and Poverty 

Estimates, Estimates for Michigan 

Counties, 2004.” Accessed at 

29Hhttp://www.census.gov/hhes/www/sa

ipe/county.html. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

2007 Natural Resources Conservation 

Service PLANTS Database. Accessed 

July 2007 at 30Hhttp://plants.usda.gov 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National 

Agricultural Statistics Service 

2004 “2002 Census of Agriculture — 

Michigan.” Accessed at 

31Hhttp://www.nass.usda.gov/mi/ 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

2007 “PILT Payment in Lieu of Taxes — 

Total Payments and Total Acres by 

State/County.” Downloaded from 

32Hhttp://www.doi.gov/pilt/. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(USEPA) 

2000 “Ambient Water Quality Criteria 

Recommendations: Information 

Supporting the Development of State 

and Tribal Nutrient Criteria for Lakes 

and Reservoirs in Nutrient Ecoregion 

VII.” Office of Water, Office of 

Science and Technology, Health and 

Ecological Criteria Division, 

Washington, D.C. EPA-822-B-00-

009. 

2006 “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2004.” 

Accessed at 3Hhttp://www.epa.gov/ 

globalwarming/publications/ 

emissions. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. 

Department of the Interior 

1988 “Determination of Threatened Status 

for Cirsium pitcheri (Pitcher’s 

Thistle).” Federal Register 53 (137): 

27137-27141. 

1990 “Determination of Endangered Status 

for Mimulus glabratus var. 

michiganensis (Michigan Monkeyflower).” Federal Register

55(120):25596-25599. 

1991 “Species Account, Indiana Bat.” 

Division of Endangered Species. 

Accessed August 13, 2007, at 

34Hhttp://www.fws.gov/endangered/i/ 

a/saa08.html. 
SELECTED REFERENCES

368 

1997 “Recovery Plan for Michigan 

Monkey-flower (Mimulus glabratus

var. michiganensis).” Ft. Snelling, 

Minnesota. vii+ 37 pp. 

2001 “Final Determination of Critical 

Habitat for the Great Lakes Breeding 

Population of the Piping Plover.” 

Federal Register. Vol. 66, No. 88. 

Monday, May 7, 2001. Rules and 

Regulations. 50 CFR Part 17. 

2002a “Birds of Conservation Concern.” 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Division of Migratory Bird 

Management Arlington, Virginia. 

2002b “Pitcher’s Thistle (Cirsium pitcheri) 

Recovery Plan.” Fort Snelling, 

Minnesota. vii + 92 pp. 

2002c “Draft Conservation Assessment for 

Green Spleenwort (Asplenium 

trichomanes-ramosum L.).” 16 pp. 

2006 “Response to request for information 

on federally listed threatened and 

endangered species for the General 

Management Plan/Wilderness Study/ 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

Sleeping Bear Dunes National 

Lakeshore, MI.” Letter from USFWS 

Field Supervisor Craig Czarnecki to 

NPS Superintendent Dusty Schultz, 

dated 21 March 2006. 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS), U.S. Department 

of Agriculture 

2000 “Conservation Assessment for Ram’s 

Head Lady Slipper (Cypripedium 

arietinum).” USDA Forest Service, 

Eastern Region. September 25, 2000. 

20 pp. 

2003 “Conservation Assessment for 

Braun’s Holly Fern (Polystichum 

braunii).” USDA Forest Service, 

Eastern Region. March 1, 2003. 

U.S. Geological Survey 

1998 “Popular Beach Disappears 

Underwater in Huge Coastal 

Landslide — Sleeping Bear Dunes, 

Michigan.” USGS Fact Sheet-020-98. 

2000 “Piping Plover Charadrius melodus.” 

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, 

Patuxent Bird Identification 

InfoCenter. Accessed July 29, 2007, 

on the World Wide Web at 

35Hhttp://www.mbrpwrc.usgs.gov/id/framlst/i2770id. 

html 

2005 Triphora trianthophora. White 

Mountain NF 2005 Forest 

Management Plan. Laconia, NH. 

2007 “The Effect of changing Water Levels 

on the Fauna of the Crystal River, 

Sleeping Bear Dunes National 

Lakeshore, Michigan.” Final report to 

the Glen Lake/Crystal River 

Technical Committee. USGS Great 

Lakes Science Center, Ann Arbor, MI 

and USGS Water Resources Division, 

Lansing, MI. 

Voss, E.G 

1996 “Michigan Flora. Part III. Dicots 

(Pyrolaceae-Compositae).” Bull. 

Cranbrook First Inst. Sci. 61 & Univ. 

of Michigan Herbarium. xix + 622 pp. 

Williams Wheeler, Brenda, Arnold R. Alanen, 

and William H. Tischler 

1996 “Coming through with Rye: An 

Historic Agricultural Study of South 

Manitou Island at Sleeping Bear 

Dunes National Lakeshore, 

Michigan.” Prepared for Midwest 

Field Area, National Park Service, 

Omaha, Nebraska. 

Yancho, S. 

2007 Telephone conversation between 

Chief of Natural Resources , S. 

Yancho, Sleeping Bear Dunes 

National Lakeshore, and C. Schmidt 

(e2M) about conservation measures 

for piping plover nesting areas/critical 

habitat. 13 August 2007. 
PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS 

PLANNING TEAM MEMBERS 

Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore: 

Dusty Shultz, Superintendent 

Tom Ulrich, Deputy Superintendent 

Michael Duwe, Environmental 

Specialist/Planner 

Bruce Huffman, former Public 

Information Officer 

Lee Jameson, Facility Manager 

Larry Johnson, Chief Ranger 

Dan Krieber, Administrative Officer 

Lisa Myers, Chief of Interpretation and 

Visitor Services 

Steve Yancho, Chief of Natural Resources 

Midwest Regional Office: 

Sändra Washington, Chief of Planning 

and Compliance 

Denver Service Center: 

Miki Stuebe, Landscape Architect/Planner 

(Project Leader) 

Craig Cellar, Archeologist/Planner 

Nola Chavez, Landscape 

Architect/Planner 

PREPARERS 

Craig Cellar, Archeologist/Planner, NPS 

Denver Service Center. B.A. 

History/Anthropology. 35 years with the 

National Park Service as archeologist, 

cultural resources management specialist, 

and project manager. 

Nola Chavez, Landscape Architect/Planner, 

NPS Denver Service Center, B.L.A., M.L.A. 

Landscape Architecture, 28 years 

experience with the National Park Service 

as landscape architect, planner, and 

transportation planner. 

Ronald Dutton, Regional Economist, 

Sammons/Dutton L.L.C. B.S. Economics, 

M.S. Economics. 28 years experience. 

Cheryl Schmidt, Natural Resources Specialist, 

engineering-environmental Management, 

Inc. B.S. Biology, M.S. Biology, Ph.D. 

Biology. 22 years experience. 

Miki Stuebe, Landscape Architect/Planner 

(Project Leader), NPS Denver Service 

Center. B.A. Biology, M.S. BiologyEcology, M.L.A. Land Resource Planning. 

18 years experience, 12 years with the 

National Park Service. 

CONSULTANTS 

Timberly Belish, Parsons Engineering 

Sciences 

Kerri Cahill, Technical Specialist, User 

Capacity, NPS Denver Service Center 

Nicholas Chevance, Regional Environmental 

Coordinator, NPS Midwest Regional 

Office 

Greg Cody, Technical Specialist, Cultural 

Resource Compliance, NPS Denver 

Service Center 

Jan Harris, Branch Chief, Division of 

Planning, NPS Denver Service Center 

John Hoestery, Parsons Engineering Sciences 

Ken Hyde, Wildlife Biologist, Sleeping Bear 

Dunes National Lakeshore 

Dave Kreger, Technical Specialist, Natural 

Resource Compliance, NPS Denver 

Service Center 

Mike Leborgne, Manager, Construction 

Program Management, NPS Washington 

Office 

Todd Morgan, Facility Management 

Specialist, Sleeping Bear Dunes National 

Lakeshore 

Janice Poehlman, Geographic Information 

System Specialist, NPS Midwest Region 

GIS Technical Support Center 

Rick Potts, former Chief, NPS Wilderness 

Stewardship & Recreation Management 

Division 

Douglas Wilder, Coordinator, NPS Midwest 

Region GIS Technical Support Center 

369 
PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS

PUBLICATION SERVICES 

Jim Corbett, Visual Information Specialist, 

 NPS Denver Service Center 

Christy Fischer, Editor, NPS Denver Service 

 Center

370 
INDEX 

access, 4, 7, 9, 10, 14, 24, 26, 27, 32, 33, 42, 

43, 45–47, 50, 51, 54, 55, 58, 62, 63, 66, 67, 

69, 70, 78, 85, 87, 90, 130, 135, 136, 143, 

146, 149, 150, 151, 153, 158, 164, 168, 175, 

183, 184, 186, 187, 190–192, 194, 196, 200, 

201, 203, 205, 209–212, 217, 218, 221, 226, 

230, 232, 235, 236, 240, 241, 243, 246, 248–

252, 256, 258, 262, 264, 266, 268, 270–273, 

277, 278, 288, 296, 297, 300, 301, 303, 304, 

307 

accessibility, 24, 48, 50 

air quality, 18, 155 

American Indian(s), 3, 13, 18, 19, 25, 68, 69, 

140, 146, 153, 154, 289, 290 

asset/asset management, 24, 38, 303 

assets, 38, 148, 149, 154, 197, 303 

beach access, 10, 32, 50, 51, 54, 58, 61, 63, 

66, 67, 130, 133, 135, 149, 151, 191, 230, 

257, 278, 296 

beaches, 3, 7, 9, 11, 12, 18, 30, 32, 47, 83, 

102, 105, 107, 109, 110, 113, 114, 122, 124, 

129, 135, 139, 149, 151, 152, 187, 299, 300, 

303 

Benzie and Leelanau counties/Benzie or 

Leelanau counties, 3, 9, 85, 110–117, 135, 

140, 145, 149, 157, 164, 194, 307 (see also 

Leelanau County, Benzie County) 

Benzie Corridor, 7, 10, 27, 28, 30, 50, 51, 

55, 58, 61–63, 65, 66, 78, 131, 168, 184–187, 

189–192, 195, 201–203, 205, 208–210, 212, 

215, 222, 224, 225, 228–232, 235–238, 241–

245, 248–252, 255–257, 262–264, 266, 269–

272, 276–278, 296, 297 

Benzie County, 13, 30, 97, 111, 112, 123, 

136–138, 140, 141, 144, 145, 151, 154, 216, 

235, 256, 285, 291, 305, 307 (see also 

Leelanau and Benzie counties/Benzie and 

Leelanau counties) 

boundary adjustment, 27, 51, 55, 62, 67, 

297 

Bow Lakes, 7, 10, 12, 51, 54, 55, 57, 58, 61, 

62, 65, 67, 84, 126, 174, 185, 190, 195, 201, 

203, 207–210, 222, 224, 228, 229, 231, 241, 

243, 248, 249, 251, 262, 264, 268, 270, 272 

camper(s), 193, 213, 233, 253, 274 

campground(s), 23, 30, 42, 43, 45, 47, 50, 

53–55, 57, 59, 61, 63, 65–67, 101, 129, 130, 

132–135, 139, 143, 147, 149, 150–152, 168, 

184, 193, 197, 200, 201, 203–205, 207, 210, 

211, 213, 218, 221, 225, 227, 228, 231, 233, 

237, 241–243, 245, 248, 251, 253, 258, 261, 

262, 264, 266, 268, 270, 271, 274, 278, 279, 

297, 304 

camping, 8, 42, 43, 45–47, 50, 53, 54, 57, 61, 

65, 78, 89, 130–133, 135, 139, 145, 146, 150, 

167, 168, 186, 189, 193–195, 201, 211, 213, 

215, 231, 233, 234, 242, 244, 248, 251–253, 

255, 262, 264, 266, 272, 274, 276 

carrying capacity, (see user capacity) 

coastal zone management, 93, 158, 288 

commercial service(s), 23, 42, 43, 139, 215, 

254 

concession(s)/concessioner, 24, 42, 50, 53, 

57, 61, 65, 69, 130, 134, 139, 147, 201, 203, 

210, 215, 218, 230, 241, 247, 250, 254, 258, 

266, 268, 271, 278, 304, 305 

cost(s), 4, 24, 27, 28, 31, 32, 51, 55, 58, 59, 

62, 63, 66, 67, 174, 179, 180, 194, 255, 276, 

284 

county road(s), 9, 13, 30, 32, 42, 43, 49, 50, 

52, 53, 56, 57, 60, 61, 64, 65, 66, 83, 85–87, 

131, 134, 151, 164, 184, 186, 188, 189, 192, 

196, 202, 203, 206, 208, 212, 213, 217, 222, 

224, 226, 228, 232, 233, 242, 244, 246, 248, 

252, 262–264, 266–270, 272–274, 278, 277, 

285, 291, 297, 301, 304–307 

critical dunes, 33, 184, 186, 189, 190, 202, 

204, 208, 209, 222, 224, 228, 229, 242, 244, 

248, 250, 263, 265, 269, 270 

Crystal Ridge, 10, 13, 191, 210, 271 

Crystal River, 7, 10, 12, 45, 47, 50, 54, 58, 

62, 66, 84, 126, 127, 129, 151, 159, 174, 185, 

201–203, 207–210, 218, 222, 223, 227, 229, 

241–243, 249, 251, 258, 262, 263, 268, 269, 

291, 293 

cultural landscape(s), 19, 20, 22, 24, 29, 42, 

49, 52, 94, 98, 106, 112, 130, 134, 148, 156, 

298, 299, 303 

371 
INDEX

cultural resource(s), 4, 10, 14, 16, 19, 20, 

25, 26, 29, 33, 38, 40, 42, 47, 52, 69, 90, 93, 

97, 100, 143, 147, 165, 166, 183, 191, 196, 

201, 210, 221, 230, 240, 251, 262, 271, 297–

302 

desired condition(s), 7, 16, 28, 29, 31, 38, 

44, 45, 48, 49, 51, 52, 55, 56, 59, 60, 63, 64, 

67, 196, 197, 204, 225, 245, 265, 284, 297, 

308 

Dune Climb, 10, 12, 33, 45, 47, 50, 53, 54, 57, 

58, 61, 62, 65–67, 129, 133, 135, 139, 143, 

148, 151, 152, 164, 184, 189–192, 202, 208–

210, 212, 222, 228, 229, 230, 232, 242, 248, 

250, 252, 262, 263, 269–271, 273, 279 

endangered species, (see threatened and 

endangered species)

environmental justice, 93, 158, 159 

erosion, 32, 45, 46, 68, 70, 102, 123, 127, 

158, 167, 168, 173, 180, 184, 185, 189, 201, 

202, 207–209, 222–224, 227, 229, 241–243, 

247, 249, 262, 263, 268, 270 

Esch Beach, 50, 58, 151, 272, 300, 301, 308 

Esch Road, 12, 54, 61, 66, 151, 201, 203, 205, 

207, 210, 218, 241, 243, 245, 248, 251, 258, 

262, 264, 266, 268, 270, 272, 278, 305 

ethnographic resource(s), 21, 39, 94, 148, 

153, 154, 167 

fire, 8, 16, 17, 23, 28, 47, 90, 144, 196 

fishing, 8, 13, 14, 43, 53, 57, 61, 65, 90, 109, 

130, 135, 137, 139, 153, 164, 214, 295, 300 

flood, 158 

floodplain(s), 30, 45, 93, 110, 115–117, 119, 

120, 153, 157, 167, 184 

fundamental resources and values, 2, 4, 9, 

12, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 26, 37, 48, 49, 71, 175, 

210, 230, 236, 250, 256, 271, 277, 283, 302 

Giant Cedars, 52, 53, 56, 61, 64, 65, 69, 106, 

185, 188, 201, 203, 207, 210, 211, 218, 227, 

230, 241, 243, 247, 250, 252, 258, 262, 264, 

266, 268, 271, 272, 278 

Glen Haven, 12, 32, 49, 50–52, 53, 54, 56–

58, 60, 61, 64–66, 74, 94, 98–100, 129, 135, 

139, 143, 147–149, 151, 152, 164, 182–184, 

189, 191, 192, 199, 200, 202, 208, 210, 212, 

220, 221, 222, 228, 230, 232, 239, 240, 242, 

248, 250, 251, 252, 260, 261, 263, 269, 271–

273, 277, 296, 298 

Grand Traverse County, 135–138, 140–

142, 145, 175, 194, 291 

hiking, 8, 42, 43, 50, 51, 53–55, 57, 58, 61, 62, 

65–67, 130, 134, 135, 167–169, 188, 207, 

211, 215, 231, 272, 277, 304 

hunting, 8, 14, 42, 43, 53, 57, 61, 65, 108–

110, 112, 113, 121, 130, 135, 137, 153, 305 

interpretation, 21, 22, 32, 42, 84, 130, 139, 

147, 148, 190, 210, 217, 230, 250, 271 

invasive species/invasives/invasive 

nonnative species, 8, 16, 17, 33, 45, 46, 

49, 52, 56, 60, 64, 106, 121, 148, 168, 169, 

172, 185, 202, 203, 223, 224, 242, 243, 263, 

264, 288 

Lake Michigan, 3, 9, 11, 12, 16, 32, 41–43, 

47, 50, 52, 54, 56, 57, 58, 60–62, 64–66, 83, 

86, 101, 102, 105, 108, 109, 113, 118, 119, 

123–127, 129–131, 135, 146, 149–151, 155, 

157, 158, 164, 172, 184, 186, 188, 189, 191, 

192, 202–204, 206, 208, 211, 212, 217, 218, 

222, 224–226, 228, 231, 232, 242, 244, 245, 

246, 248, 251, 252, 263, 264, 266, 267, 269, 

272, 273, 275, 277, 299, 300, 303, 305, 307 

Leelanau and Benzie counties, 124, 140, 

142, 143, 287 (see also Leelanau County, 

Benzie County) 

Leelanau County, 3, 13, 29, 32, 50, 54, 58, 

61, 62, 66, 85, 94, 111, 114–116, 123, 127, 

136–138, 140–142, 144, 145, 151, 157, 164, 

184–186, 188, 189, 192, 202, 203, 206, 208, 

212, 222, 224, 226–229, 232, 241, 242, 244, 

246, 248, 249, 252, 262–264, 267–269, 273, 

277, 285, 291, 295, 305–307 (see also 

Leelanau and Benzie counties/Benzie and 

Leelanau counties) 

Leelanau Scenic Heritage Route Trailway, 

30, 31 

life-saving station/service/complex, 3, 12, 

14, 49, 50–53, 56, 57, 60, 61, 64, 65, 74, 94, 

99, 100, 130, 135, 149, 152, 182, 199, 200, 

220, 221, 239, 240, 260, 261 

motorized boats/motorized boating, 43, 

50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 78, 131, 151, 174, 185, 

189, 190, 191, 201–203, 207, 208, 211, 212, 

214, 222–224, 227, 229, 231, 241–243, 247, 

249, 251, 262, 263, 268, 269, 272, 295, 304 

National Environmental Policy Act, 16, 38, 

46, 71, 72, 158, 163, 165, 166, 305 

National Historic Preservation Act, 14, 19, 

38, 46, 69, 97, 163, 165, 166, 167, 182, 298, 

301 

372 
Index 

National Register of Historic Places/ 

national register, 8, 19, 20, 33, 42, 43, 49, 

68, 69, 94, 97–101, 154, 166, 167, 182, 183, 

200, 221, 240, 261, 296, 298, 299 

natural resource(s), 2, 8, 13, 16–18, 20, 29, 

30, 32, 38, 40, 42, 43, 49, 52, 56, 57, 60, 69, 

86, 87, 97, 145, 148, 152, 153, 165, 173, 187, 

188, 196–198, 206, 219, 226, 230, 236, 238, 

246, 258, 259, 267, 279, 300, 301 

nonmotorized boats/nonmotorized 

boating, 41, 43, 50, 54, 55, 58, 62, 63, 66, 

67, 139, 203, 295, 306 

nonnative plants, 16, 17, 33, 106, 148, 172 

North Bar Lake, 47, 50, 54, 58, 61, 62, 66, 

127, 128, 151, 152, 174, 185, 189, 201, 203, 

209, 222, 223, 227, 229, 241, 249, 262, 263, 

268, 269, 295 

North Manitou Island, 14, 45, 47, 49, 50, 

52–54, 56–58, 60–62, 64–66, 74, 78, 79, 84–

87, 94, 99–101, 108–110, 123, 134, 150, 168, 

183, 186, 189, 191, 193, 199, 200, 201, 203–

205, 207, 209–211, 213, 218, 220, 230, 233, 

239, 241–245, 247, 248, 250–254, 258, 260, 

262, 264, 266, 268, 271, 274, 298, 305 

orientation, 22, 41, 42, 50, 53, 57, 61, 65, 

129, 130, 147 

parking, 10, 28, 29, 32, 33, 42, 43, 45, 47, 50, 

51, 54, 55, 57, 58, 61, 62, 65, 66, 67, 147–

149, 151, 164, 167, 168, 174, 180, 184, 186, 

188–190, 192, 197, 200–203, 205–210, 212, 

218, 222, 224, 226, 228, 229, 231, 232, 236, 

241–246, 248–252, 256, 258, 262–264, 266– 

271, 273, 296, 301, 304, 308 

partner(s), 16, 17, 19, 22, 23, 26, 32, 38, 51, 

53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 63, 65, 67, 139, 146, 148, 

182, 183, 195, 215, 235, 255, 276, 288 

Peterson Beach, 151 

Peterson Road, 50, 54, 58, 61, 66, 151, 241, 

243, 245, 248, 251, 258, 306 

Pierce Stocking Scenic Drive, 12, 32, 47, 

86, 129, 130, 133, 143, 149, 152, 164, 184, 

186, 188, 189, 192, 202, 203, 206, 208, 212, 

222, 224, 226, 228, 232, 242, 244, 246, 248, 

251, 252, 263, 265, 267–269, 273, 297 

Platte River, 10, 12, 28, 32, 45, 47, 50, 54, 58, 

61, 62, 66, 78, 84–87, 109, 112, 114, 118, 

126, 127, 129, 130, 132, 133, 135, 147, 149, 

150–152, 156, 159, 164, 167, 172, 174, 184–

187, 189–192, 198, 201–204, 207–209, 211, 

214, 218, 222–225, 227–229, 231, 237, 241–

245, 248–252, 257, 258, 262–266, 268–270, 

272, 278, 279, 292, 297, 300, 304, 307 

Port Oneida, 12, 29, 49, 50, 52, 53, 56, 57, 

60, 61, 64, 65, 74, 94, 99, 100, 130, 133, 143, 

148, 152, 182, 191, 192, 199, 210, 213, 220, 

230, 232, 239, 251, 260, 271, 303, 306 

primary interpretive themes, 12, 129, 210, 

230, 250, 271, 283 

recreation, 7, 11, 12, 21, 25, 31, 32, 40–43, 

46, 47, 52–55, 58, 60, 62, 66, 74, 78, 79, 83, 

84, 87, 90, 98, 130, 131, 133, 135, 137, 139, 

144–146, 175, 178, 191–193, 195, 196, 199, 

210–215, 217, 220, 231–234, 236, 239, 245, 

250–254, 256, 257, 260, 265, 271–275, 277, 

278, 288, 296, 299, 300, 303–305, 308 

Section 106, 46, 69, 97, 165–167, 182 

Sleeping Bear Plateau, 12, 52, 56, 64, 84, 86, 

87, 129, 134, 213, 232, 273, 295 

soils, 33, 76, 102, 115, 117, 120, 124, 156–

158, 167, 168, 184, 185, 188, 198, 201, 202, 

219, 222, 223, 227, 237, 241, 242, 258, 262, 

263, 279 

South Manitou Island, 12, 49, 50–54, 56–

58, 60–62, 64–66, 74, 75, 79, 84, 86, 87, 94, 

99–102, 106, 108, 112, 123–125, 130, 134, 

139, 150, 156, 157, 183, 191–193, 200, 201, 

203, 210, 213, 221, 222, 224, 229, 230, 233, 

237, 240, 241, 243, 245, 247, 250, 251, 253, 

254, 258, 261, 262, 264, 266, 268, 271–274, 

305 

South Manitou Island Light Station/ 

lighthouse complex, 12, 51, 74, 94, 99, 

100, 130, 183, 200, 221, 240, 261 

special mandates, 2, 48, 283 

strategies, 4, 10, 16, 18, 48, 78, 212, 231, 232, 

245, 252, 265, 272, 273 

threatened and endangered species, 8, 14, 

17–19, 32, 33, 47, 49, 52, 56, 60, 64, 70, 105, 

106, 109, 110, 116–121, 148, 170–172, 186–

188, 204, 206, 225, 227, 244, 245, 247, 265, 

268, 287, 288, 299, 300 

threatened species, (see threatened and 

endangered species) 

Tiesma Road, 50, 54, 57, 58, 61, 66, 78, 149, 

151, 222, 224, 229, 230, 232, 237, 297, 306 

traffic, 32, 121, 143, 144, 146, 159, 167, 172, 

196–198, 201, 216–219, 235–237, 256–258, 

277–279, 308 

373 
INDEX

374 

trails, 8, 24, 28, 42, 43, 45, 46, 50, 51, 54, 55, 

57–59, 61–63, 65–68, 130, 131, 134, 135, 

147, 149, 168, 169, 180, 184, 185, 187, 191, 

193, 197, 200, 201, 203, 205, 209, 210, 213, 

218, 219, 223, 225, 233, 237, 243, 245, 247, 

252, 253, 258, 264, 266, 270, 271, 274, 278, 

295, 300, 303–305 

treaty, 8, 14, 153, 154 

tribes, 14, 18, 19, 25, 68, 69, 97, 153–155, 

289, 295, 296 

U.S. Life-Saving Service/station, (see lifesaving service/station/complex)

user capacity, 2, 10, 17, 37, 44–46, 78, 109, 

159, 201, 202, 207, 208, 211, 212, 222, 223, 

228, 229, 231, 232, 241, 242, 248, 249, 252, 

262, 263, 268, 269, 272, 273, 284 

vegetation, 28, 33, 44–46, 76, 102, 105, 106, 

108–114, 119, 123, 156, 167–171, 174, 185, 

186, 188, 193, 198, 202–204, 207, 214, 219, 

223, 224, 227, 233, 237, 242–244, 247, 248, 

253, 258, 263–265, 268, 274, 279, 300 

vehicles, 8, 42, 50, 54, 58, 61, 62, 66, 69, 122, 

133, 134, 146, 147, 196, 224, 227, 229, 298, 

301, 306 

viewshed(s), 22, 23, 26 

visitor center, 42, 50, 53, 57, 61, 65, 129, 

139, 147, 148, 152, 191, 210, 230, 250, 254, 

271, 275, 306 

visitor experience, 4, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 22, 

40, 44–46, 78, 89, 129, 165, 177, 180, 211, 

212, 218, 219, 231, 251, 252, 272, 295, 299 

water quality, 8, 16, 18, 45, 46, 77, 119, 120, 

126–128, 148, 158, 173–175, 190, 208, 209, 

229, 230, 249, 250, 269– 271 

water quantity, 18, 158 

wetland(s), 11, 12, 18, 30, 69, 77, 83, 107, 

110, 111, 113, 119–121, 123, 126, 134, 173–

175, 189, 190, 207–209, 227–230, 248–250, 

268– 271 

wheelchair, 50, 90, 152 

wild and scenic river, 93, 159 

wilderness, 2, 7, 8, 9, 13, 25, 26, 38, 45, 49, 

52, 56, 60, 64, 71, 79, 83–87, 89, 90, 131, 

133, 134, 146, 155, 163, 176–178, 185, 191–

193, 196–198, 202, 204, 207, 213, 214, 216, 

217, 219, 223, 225, 227, 232, 233, 235–237, 

243, 245, 247, 253, 254, 257, 258, 264, 265, 

268, 273, 274, 276, 277, 279, 283, 284, 295, 

297, 298, 304, 306, 307, 308 

Wilderness Act, 8, 83, 89, 133, 134, 177 

wilderness study, 7, 8, 83, 84, 133, 284 

wildlife, 15, 16, 18, 76, 106–108, 128, 131, 

135, 144, 168, 169–173, 177, 185, 186, 198, 

202–204, 207, 219, 223, 224, 227, 237, 242–

244, 247, 248, 258, 263–265, 268, 269, 279, 

300, 305 
U S. . DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

MARCH 3, 1849

As the nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility 

for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering 

sound use of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; 

preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; and 

providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The department assesses our 

energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best interests 

of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The 

department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for 

people who live in island territories under U.S. administration. 

NPS D-121A October 2008 
U.S. Department of the Interior • National Park Service • Denver Service Center

Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore