National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore 

Final

General Management Plan

Wilderness Study

Environmental Impact Statement

Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore 

Michigan

October, 2008
United States Department of the Interior

National Park Service

Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore

9922 Front St. (Hwy M-71)

in reply refer to: Empire, Michigan 49630-9797

D18 (SLBE)

October, 2008

Dear Friends and Neighbors of Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore:

We are very pleased to present to you the Final General Management Plan/Wilderness Study/ 

Environmental Impact Statement for Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore (National 

Lakeshore). The completion of this document depended on the participation of all of you 

and reflects your valued input.

The planning process for this Final General Management Plan/Wilderness Study/

Environmental Impact Statement began in 2006. Throughout the process National Lakeshore 

staff conducted an extensive public involvement and outreach program. As we go to press 

with the final document, National Park Service (NPS) staff have met with more than 2,500 

people in more than 90 informational meetings held throughout the planning process.

We want to express our gratitude to the many of you who provided comments on the Draft 

General Management Plan/Wilderness Study/Environmental Impact Statement. The draft plan 

was made available for public review between April 7 and June 15, 2008. Public hearings 

were held in Honor, Traverse City, and Glen Arbor, Michigan, on June 3, 4, and 5, 2008, 

respectively, with a total of 196 people attending. A total of 292 comments were received via 

letters, electronic mail messages, Web responses, and comments transcribed from the public 

hearings.

The Final General Management Plan/Wilderness Study/Environmental Impact Statement

was crafted from the valuable input we received on the draft plan, and we have revised the 

preferred alternative based upon your input. Perhaps the most significant changes are that 

the Cottonwood Trail into the dunes from the Pierce Stocking Scenic Drive has been removed 

from proposed wilderness, and electric motors will be allowed on Otter, Tucker, and Bass 

(Leelanau County) lakes. To see all the significant changes to the preferred alternative, and for 

information on the wide range of comments received and our responses to those comments, 

please refer to the “Comments on, Changes to, and Responses to Comments on the Draft 

Plan” section in chapter 6 of this plan. 

Copies of the plan will be available at:

•  Libraries: Benzie Shores District Library, Darcy Library of Beulah, Glen Lake 

Community Library, Leelanau Township Library, Leland Township Library, 

Library of Michigan, Suttons Bay Bingham District Library, and Traverse City 

District Library
•  On the Internet (follow instructions and link from the park website at

www.nps.gov/slbe) 

•  Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore Visitor Center

Following distribution of the final plan and a 30-day no-action period, a “Record 

of Decision” will be signed by the National Lakeshore superintendent and the NPS 

regional director documenting the selection of the alternative to be implemented.

I would like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation for your continued

interest in this very special place. Working together, we have developed a final plan 

that maintains a variety of recreational opportunities while continuing to preserve and 

protect the natural and cultural resources of Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. 

We could not have done this without you.

Sincerely,

Dusty Shultz

Superintendent
Final 

General Management Plan / Wilderness Study / Environmental Impact Statement 

Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore 

Benzie and Leelanau Counties, Michigan 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore was 

established by the U.S. Congress in 1970 by Public 

Law 91-479. Part of the national park system, the 

National Lakeshore, which consists of a mainland 

portion plus North Manitou and South Manitou 

islands (71,291 acres total), is in the northwestern 

portion of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula. The 

mainland portion straddles Benzie and Leelanau 

counties. The Manitou Islands, entirely in Leelanau 

County, are located about 7 miles to the northwest 

in Lake Michigan. 

The National Lakeshore’s last General Management Plan was completed in 1979. Since 1970, most 

of the 71,291 acres in the National Lakeshore’s 

boundary have come into federal management. 

Private development adjacent to and near the 

National Lakeshore is continuing to increase. The 

National Lakeshore faces new resource and other 

management challenges as a result of these 

changes. In 1982 a boundary revision was authorized, in a legislative amendment, to include the 

Bow Lakes and Miller Hill areas, and more recently, lands along the Crystal River were added to the 

National Lakeshore. This current General Management Plan will provide management direction for 

these new lands. Recent studies have enhanced the 

National Park Service’s understanding of the 

resources in the National Lakeshore. Desired 

conditions and general (conceptual) direction for 

management of these resources need to be defined. 

The Wilderness Study considerations in this plan 

provide a public forum for evaluating lands within 

the National Lakeshore for possible recommendation to Congress for inclusion in the national 

wilderness preservation system. The Wilderness 

Study is included because of public interest and 

because inclusion saves time and money. 

Wilderness, which can be designated only by 

Congress, provides for permanent protection of 

lands in their natural condition, providing 

outstanding opportunities for primitive and 

unconfined recreation. 

The document examines five alternatives for 

managing the National Lakeshore for the next 20 

or more years. It also analyzes the impacts of 

implementing each of the alternatives. The noaction alternative reflects current conditions and 

activities at the Lakeshore. It is provided as a baseline against which to compare the other alternatives and includes 30,903 acres managed to 

maintain their existing wilderness character. In the 

preferred alternative, the Lakeshore is valued 

primarily for preservation of its natural resources, 

and for the opportunities it provides for visitor 

enjoyment of the 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 recreational 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 of the Lakeshore. Lands 

proposed for wilderness designation include 

23,200 acres and no developed county roads. The 

five alternatives are summarized in table 2 (in the 

pocket at the end of the document).The key 

impacts of implementing these alternatives are 

summarized in table 4 and detailed in chapter 5. 

This document has been distributed to other 

agencies and interested organizations and 

individuals for their review. Following distribution 

of the final plan and a 30-day no-action period, a 

“Record of Decision” will be signed by the 

National Lakeshore superintendent and the NPS 

regional director documenting the NPS selection 

of an alternative for implementation. 

U.S. Department of the Interior • National Park Service 

SUMMARY 

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE 

NATIONAL LAKESHORE 

Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore 

(hereafter referred to as National Lakeshore, 

Lakeshore, or park) was established by the 

U.S. Congress in 1970. Part of the national 

park system, the National Lakeshore consists 

of a mainland portion located in Michigan’s 

lower peninsula plus North Manitou and 

South Manitou islands (71,291 acres total). 

PURPOSE FOR THE GENERAL 

MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS 

STUDY / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT 

General management plans are required for all 

units of the national park system and are 

intended to establish the future management 

direction of a park unit. General management 

plans look 20 or more years into the future 

and consider the park system unit holistically, 

in its full ecological and cultural context and 

as part of a surrounding region. This General 

Management Plan will provide comprehensive 

guidance for perpetuating natural systems, 

preserving cultural resources, and providing 

opportunities for quality visitor experiences at 

Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. The 

purpose of this plan is to decide how the 

National Park Service (NPS) can best fulfill 

the National Lakeshore’s purpose, maintain 

its significance, and protect its resources 

unimpaired for the enjoyment of present and 

future generations. The plan does not provide 

specific and detailed answers to every issue 

facing the park, but rather is a framework to 

assist NPS managers in making decisions 

today and in the future. The National 

Lakeshore’s last General Management Plan,

completed in 1979, is outdated. New areas 

have been added to the Lakeshore at Bow 

Lakes, Miller Hill, and the Crystal River, and 

many individual parcels within the original 

boundary have been acquired. New 

information about the significance of natural 

and cultural resources in the Lakeshore has 

been recognized. Private development 

adjacent to and near the National Lakeshore 

has increased, and this trend has accelerated 

in recent years. The National Lakeshore faces 

new management challenges as a result of all 

these changes. This new General Management 

Plan will update the management framework 

for the National Lakeshore, address changing 

issues and conditions, incorporate new 

resource information, and provide management direction for these new park lands. 

The Wilderness Study element of this new 

General Management Plan evaluates lands 

within Sleeping Bear Dunes National 

Lakeshore for possible recommendation to 

Congress for inclusion in the national wilderness preservation system. The Wilderness 

Study is needed because of public interest in 

developing a proposal that improves upon the 

1981 “Wilderness Recommendation.” 

Including the Wilderness Study in the General 

Management Plan saves time and money 

because the two processes have similar 

environmental compliance and public 

involvement needs. Wilderness, which can be 

designated only by Congress, provides for 

permanent protection of lands in their natural 

condition that provide outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and 

unconfined recreation. 

Wilderness studies typically result in a recommendation to Congress to designate all, some, 

or none of the lands possessing wilderness 

character as part of the national wilderness 

preservation system. Based on the Wilderness 

Study included in this document, the National 

Park Service anticipates preparing a proposal 

for such a recommendation to forward to the 

U.S. Department of the Interior at the conclusion of this planning effort. However, by law, 

iii 
SUMMARY

areas proposed as wilderness in the 1981 

recommendation for the National Lakeshore 

will be managed as wilderness until Congress 

acts on a new wilderness recommendation. 

MANAGEMENT ZONES 

Management zones prescribe how different 

areas of the National Lakeshore would be 

managed. Four management zones have been 

developed for the National Lakeshore — the 

high use zone, the experience history zone, 

the recreation zone, and the experience 

nature zone. The high use zone provides for 

visitor orientation, education, and other 

structured activities (such as ranger-led tours). 

High numbers of visitors enjoy and learn 

about the National Lakeshore. The 

experience history zone is managed primarily 

to preserve historic structures and landscapes. 

Moderate to high numbers of visitors enjoy 

and learn about significant historic activities, 

buildings, and landscapes. The recreation 

zone provides a wide range of recreational 

opportunities for moderate numbers of 

visitors. The active Lake Michigan beach area 

is within this zone, as is the 0.25 mile of Lake 

Michigan waters within the National 

Lakeshore boundary. The experience nature 

zone is the wildest, most natural management 

zone. Low numbers of visitors enjoy primitive 

recreation on foot or in nonmotorized 

watercraft. This is the only management zone 

in which wilderness may occur. 

The alternatives presented in this document 

each propose a different configuration of the 

management zones within the National 

Lakeshore based on the overall concept for 

each action alternative. (The no-action 

alternative, which describes existing 

conditions, has no management zoning.) In 

every management zone, the Lakeshore 

intends to preserve and protect natural and 

cultural resources to the greatest extent 

possible given available funds. 

 

THE ALTERNATIVES 

Five alternatives, including the preferred 

alternative, for future management of Sleeping 

Bear Dunes National Lakeshore are presented 

in this document. The alternatives were 

developed through a lengthy public involvement process, described in detail in the 

“Public Involvement, Including Scoping” 

section in chapter 6. Each alternative is 

consistent with maintaining the National 

Lakeshore’s purpose, significance, and fundamental resources and values; the alternatives 

present different choices for how to manage 

resources, visitor use, and facilities within the 

Lakeshore. The alternatives are the no-action 

(“business as usual”) alternative, the preferred 

alternative, alternative A, alternative B, and 

alternative C. Each alternative includes a 

wilderness proposal. Note that the acreage 

figures for the various wilderness proposals 

are estimates based on small-scale maps. Maps 

of the alternatives are provided in the back 

pocket on the inside back cover. 

The No-Action Alternative 

The no-action alternative primarily reflects 

current conditions and activities at the 

National Lakeshore. This alternative is 

provided as a baseline against which to 

compare the “action” alternatives. As directed 

by Congress in 1982, the National Park 

Service would continue to manage lands 

proposed for wilderness in the 1981 

“Wilderness Recommendation” (30,903 acres 

or 43% of the National Lakeshore) to 

maintain their existing wilderness character. 

Natural resource management programs 

would continue to emphasize protection of 

natural resources and processes. Efforts to 

preserve as many historic structures and 

landscapes as possible would continue. 

Visitor orientation services, interpretive 

activities, visitor access and facilities, and 

recreational opportunities would remain 

much as they are now. 

iv 
Summary 

The National Park Service would continue to 

acquire lands within the Benzie Corridor on a 

willing-seller basis (subject to available 

funding) for future development of a scenic 

road, which would include bike lanes/trail. 

(However, the road and bike lanes/trail would 

not be expected to be built within the life of 

this plan.) 

The key impacts associated with 

implementing this alternative would be in the 

areas of visitor opportunities and use and 

wilderness character. Visitors seem satisfied 

overall with most current opportunities in the 

Lakeshore. Maintaining the current access, 

scenic resources, range of visitor opportunities, experiences, and recreation-oriented 

facilities would have a long-term, minor to 

moderate beneficial impact on visitor opportunities and use. Some visitors would prefer 

some additional improvements in recreationoriented facilities, a few additional visitor 

opportunities, or a reduction of crowding on 

the Platte River, and the lack of these would 

result in a long-term, minor adverse impact on 

these visitors. As the result of ongoing management of nearly 31,000 acres to maintain its 

existing wilderness character, as directed by 

Congress, the National Lakeshore would 

continue to include extensive, largely natural 

undeveloped areas where outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive, unconfined 

recreation would continue to be available. 

Impacts of the no-action alternative would 

continue to be mostly beneficial, moderate, 

and long term — but there would also be some 

continuing localized, minor adverse impacts 

on wilderness character. Impacts on historic 

resources, natural resources, regional 

socioeconomics, and NPS operations would 

not differ substantially among the alternatives. 

Visitor orientation services, interpretive 

activities, visitor access and facilities, and 

recreational opportunities would remain 

much as they are now except that a few trails 

and backcountry campgrounds would be 

added and new designated campgrounds 

would be provided on North Manitou Island; 

Valley View campground would be removed; 

parking at the end of Esch Road (and possibly 

at Platte River Point) would be improved; the 

possibility of improved boat access near Platte 

River Point could be studied; motorized boats 

would not be allowed on North Bar Lake; 

electric motors would be allowed on Bass 

Lake (Leelanau County), Tucker Lake, and 

Otter Lake; there would be improved access at 

some inland lakes; the Glen Lake picnic area 

would be upgraded; occasional ferry service 

for day trips to North Manitou Island would 

be allowed; concession auto tours to near the 

Giant Cedars area would be considered; and 

the Crystal River access area would be 

upgraded or relocated. 

Preferred Alternative 

Under the preferred alternative, the 

Lakeshore would 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% of the 

National Lakeshore) in the north, central, 

south, and island areas of the Lakeshore 

would 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 would 

extend across much of the Lakeshore. Some 

selected areas would 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 would 

encompass most of the National Lakeshore’s 

historic resources. Historic structures and 

landscapes would be preserved at a minimum 

and managed as specified for the management 

zone in which they lie. 

v 
SUMMARY

The National Park Service would continue to 

acquire lands within the Benzie Corridor on a 

willing-seller basis (subject to available 

funding) for future development of a scenic 

road and/or a bike/hike trail (determined and 

evaluated via a future study). The road/trail 

would not be expected to be built within the 

life of this plan. 

The key impacts associated with 

implementing this alternative would be in the 

areas of visitor opportunities and use and 

wilderness character. Increased access and 

visitor opportunities related to additional 

recreation-oriented facilities would have a 

long-term, moderate beneficial impact on 

visitor opportunities and use. Implementation 

of user capacity management strategies would 

have a long-term, minor beneficial impact on 

visitor opportunities, but potentially longterm minor adverse effects on use. The 

removal of Valley View campground and 

disallowing gas-powered motorboats on two 

inland lakes would have long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts on visitor opportunities and 

use. The increased visitor opportunities and 

facilities would have a long-term, minor, 

adverse impact on natural sound and the night 

sky. Establishment of 32,100 acres of 

designated wilderness in all three portions of 

the mainland and on both islands would 

permanently protect wilderness values 

(naturalness and opportunities for solitude or 

primitive, unconfined recreation). Impacts of 

the preferred alternative on wilderness 

character would be mostly beneficial, 

moderate, and long term (permanent), but 

there would also be some localized, minor 

adverse impacts. Impacts on historic 

resources, natural resources, regional socioeconomics, and NPS operations would not 

differ substantially among the alternatives. 

Alternative A 

Under alternative A, the Lakeshore would be 

valued primarily for conservation of its natural 

resources. About 33,600 acres (47% of the 

National Lakeshore) in the north, central, 

south, and island areas of the National 

Lakeshore would be proposed as wilderness. 

No developed county roads are within areas 

proposed for wilderness. Based on the 

emphasis on natural resources conditions and 

experiences in this alternative, the experience 

nature zone would extend across most of the 

Lakeshore. Historic structures and landscapes 

would be managed as specified for the 

management zone in which they lie. 

Visitor orientation services, interpretive 

activities, visitor access and facilities, and 

recreational opportunities would remain 

much as they are now. However, interpretive 

opportunities relating to natural resource 

themes would be emphasized. On South 

Manitou Island, concession-operated farm 

tours would stop at the west end of Chicago 

Road and continue on foot from there, a few 

trails and campgrounds would be added and 

Valley View campground would be removed, 

NPS-owned Tiesma Road would be closed, 

motor boats would no longer be allowed on 

Bass Lake (Leelanau County), and the Glen 

Lake picnic area would be removed. 

The National Park Service would cease acquisition of lands within the Benzie Corridor. No 

scenic roadway or trail would be developed. 

The National Park Service would recommend 

that the Lakeshore’s enabling legislation be 

amended to remove the Benzie Corridor from 

the boundary. This would require 

congressional action. 

The key impacts associated with implementing this alternative would be in the areas of 

visitor opportunities and use and wilderness 

character. Increased access and visitor 

opportunities related to modest additional 

recreation-oriented facilities would have a 

long-term, minor to moderate beneficial 

impact on visitor opportunities and use. 

Implementation of user capacity management 

strategies would have a long-term, minor 

beneficial impact on the visitor experience, 

but potentially long-term minor adverse 

vi 
Summary 

effects on visitor use. The loss of some vehicle 

access, visitor opportunities, and recreationoriented facilities (e.g., Tiesma Road and Glen 

Lake picnic area) would have long-term, 

moderate adverse impacts on visitor opportunities and use. The removal of the Benzie 

Corridor from the Lakeshore boundary would 

have long-term, minor to moderate adverse 

impacts on visitor access and opportunities, 

scenic resources, natural soundscapes, and the 

night sky. Establishment of 33,600 acres of 

designated wilderness (the most of any alternative) in all three portions of the mainland 

and on both islands would permanently 

protect naturalness and opportunities for 

solitude or primitive, unconfined recreation. 

Impacts of alternative A on wilderness 

character would be mostly beneficial, moderate, and long term (permanent), but there 

would also be some localized minor adverse 

impacts on wilderness character. Impacts on 

historic resources, natural resources, regional 

socioeconomics, and NPS operations would 

not differ substantially among the alternatives. 

Alternative B 

Under alternative B the National Lakeshore 

would be valued primarily for its recreational 

opportunities in scenic outdoor settings. 

About 14,400 acres (20% of the National 

Lakeshore), all on North Manitou Island, 

would be proposed as wilderness. No county 

roads are within areas proposed for wilderness. Based on the large extent of the recreation zone in this alternative, natural resources 

might be modified to provide for a variety of 

recreational activities. Historic structures and 

landscapes would be managed as specified for 

the management zone in which they lie. 

Visitor orientation services, interpretive 

activities, visitor access and facilities, and 

recreational opportunities would remain 

much as they are now except that a few trails 

and campgrounds would be added and some 

new campgrounds would be designated (to 

replace dispersed camping on North Manitou 

Island), parking would be improved at 

Peterson Road and the end of Esch Road, 

facilities would be expanded and improved 

boat access could be studied at Platte River 

Point, motorized boats would be allowed on 

Shell and Tucker lakes, access would be 

improved at a few inland lakes, a few picnic 

areas would be upgraded, occasional ferry 

service for day trips to North Manitou Island 

would be allowed, concession auto tours to 

near the Giant Cedars area would be 

considered, and the Crystal River access area 

would be upgraded or relocated. 

The National Park Service would continue to 

acquire lands within the Benzie Corridor on a 

willing-seller basis (subject to available 

funding) for future development of a scenic 

road. The scenic road would include bike 

lanes (or in some stretches a separate bike 

trail, as appropriate). For cost and impact 

comparison purposes, the scenic road was 

assumed to be built in year 25 of the plan. 

The key impacts associated with implementing this alternative would be in the areas of 

visitor opportunities and use and wilderness 

character. Increased access and visitor opportunities related to additional recreationoriented facilities would have a long-term, 

minor to moderate beneficial impact on visitor 

opportunities and use. Implementation of user 

capacity management strategies would have a 

long-term, minor beneficial impact on visitor 

experiences but potentially long-term minor 

adverse effects on visitor use. The removal of 

dispersed camping on North Manitou Island 

would have long-term minor adverse impacts 

on visitor opportunities and use. The 

increased visitor opportunities and facilities 

would have a long-term minor adverse impact 

on scenic resources, natural sound, and the 

night sky. Establishment of 14,400 acres of 

designated wilderness on North Manitou 

Island would permanently protect wilderness 

values therein. However, there would be no 

wilderness protection on the mainland or 

South Manitou Island, so naturalness and 

opportunities for solitude and primitive 

vii 
SUMMARY

recreation would be substantially reduced 

there. Alternative B would have long-term 

(some permanent), minor beneficial and 

minor to major adverse impacts on wilderness 

character. Impacts on historic resources, 

natural resources, regional socioeconomics, 

and NPS operations would not differ 

substantially among the alternatives. 

Alternative C 

Under alternative C the Lakeshore would be 

managed so that most visitor use is concentrated in selected areas, with more natural, 

primitive conditions promoted in the rest of 

the Lakeshore. About 23,200 acres (32% of 

the National Lakeshore) in the central, south, 

and island areas of the Lakeshore would be 

proposed as wilderness. No developed county 

roads are within areas proposed for wilderness. Within the high use and experience 

history zones there would be less emphasis on 

managing the Lakeshore for natural conditions. Outside those concentrated use areas, 

the Lakeshore would be managed for more 

natural conditions. Historic structures and 

landscapes would be managed as specified for 

the management zone in which they lie. 

Visitor orientation services, interpretive 

activities, visitor access and facilities, and 

recreational opportunities would remain 

much as they are now. However, more 

structured interpretive opportunities would 

be offered in concentrated use areas and more 

self-guided opportunities would be offered 

elsewhere. A few trails would be added; the D. 

H. Day campground would be upgraded 

and/or expanded; there would be new 

designated campgrounds on North Manitou 

Island; concession auto tours to near the 

Giant Cedars would be considered; facilities at 

the ends of County Road 669, Esch Road, and 

Platte River Point would be expanded; access 

to a few inland lakes would be improved; the 

Glen Lake picnic area would be upgraded or 

expanded; and the Dune Climb facilities 

would be upgraded. 

The National Park Service would continue to 

acquire lands within the Benzie Corridor on a 

willing-seller basis (subject to available 

funding) for future development of a scenic 

nonmotorized hike/bike trail. For cost and 

impact comparison purposes, the scenic trail 

was assumed to be built in year 25 of the plan. 

The key impacts associated with 

implementing this alternative would be in the 

areas of visitor opportunities and use and 

wilderness character. Increased access and 

visitor opportunities related to additional 

recreation-oriented facilities would have a 

long-term, minor to moderate beneficial 

impact on visitor opportunities and use. 

Implementation of user capacity management 

strategies would have a long-term, minor, 

beneficial impact on the visitor experience, 

but potentially long-term minor, adverse 

effects on visitor use. The increased visitor 

opportunities and facilities in the high-use 

zones would have a long-term, minor, adverse 

impact on scenic resources, natural sounds, 

and the night sky. Establishment of 23,200 

acres of designated wilderness in the central 

and south portions of the mainland and on 

both islands would permanently protect 

wilderness values (naturalness and opportunities for solitude or primitive unconfined 

recreation). However, wilderness values in 

several areas (north portion of the mainland, 

Otter Creek area, and southeast portion of 

South Manitou Island) would no longer have 

wilderness protection. Impacts of alternative 

C on wilderness character would be long term 

(some permanent), minor, and adverse and 

beneficial. Impacts on historic resources, 

natural resources, regional socioeconomics, 

and NPS operations would not differ 

substantially among the alternatives. 

THE NEXT STEPS 

This Final General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Study / Environmental Impact 

Statement includes letters from governmental 

agencies, substantive comments on the draft 

viii 
Summary 

ix 

document, and NPS responses to those 

comments. Following distribution of the final 

plan and a 30-day no-action period, a “Record 

of Decision” will be signed by the National 

Lakeshore superintendent and the NPS 

regional director documenting the NPS 

selection of an alternative for implementation. 

Although this Final General Management Plan/ 

Wilderness Study / Environmental Impact 

Statement provides the analysis and 

justification for future National Lakeshore 

funding proposals, this plan does not 

guarantee future NPS funding. Many actions 

would be necessary to achieve the desired 

conditions for natural resources, cultural 

resources, recreational opportunities, and 

facilities as envisioned in this plan. The 

National Park Service will seek funding to 

achieve these desired conditions; although the 

National Lakeshore hopes to secure this 

funding and will prepare itself accordingly, 

the Lakeshore may not receive enough 

funding to achieve all desired conditions. 

National Lakeshore managers will need to 

continue to pursue other options, including 

expanding the service of volunteers, drawing 

upon existing or new partnerships, and 

seeking alternative funding sources, including 

the philanthropic community. Even with 

assistance from supplemental sources, 

Lakeshore managers may be faced with 

difficult choices when setting priorities. The 

General Management Plan / Wilderness Study / 

Environmental Impact Statement provides the 

framework within which to make these 

choices. 

CONTENTS 

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 

A GUIDE TO THIS DOCUMENT 2 

OVERVIEW OF THE NATIONAL LAKESHORE 3 

BACKGROUND 4 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 4 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE WILDERNESS STUDY 7 

PLANNING ISSUES AND CONCERNS 9 

Wilderness 9 

Access and Management of Roads within the Park 9 

Protecting Fundamental Resources and Values 9 

Benzie Corridor and Crystal Ridge 10 

Crowding and Overuse 10 

Management of Newly Acquired Park Lands 10 

FOUNDATION FOR PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT 11 

PURPOSE 11 

SIGNIFICANCE 11 

FUNDAMENTAL RESOURCES AND VALUES 11 

PRIMARY INTERPRETIVE THEMES 12 

SPECIAL MANDATES 13 

Proposed Wilderness 13 

Road Rights-of-Way 13 

Scenic Road Corridors 13 

Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping 13 

National Historic Landmark — North Manitou Island Life-Saving Service Complex 14 

1836 Treaty 14 

SERVICEWIDE LAWS AND POLICIES 14 

DESIRED CONDITIONS AND STRATEGIES 16 

ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT 16 

NATURAL RESOURCES (GENERAL) AND DIVERSITY 17 

AIR QUALITY 18 

WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY 18 

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 18 

CULTURAL RESOURCES (GENERAL) 19 

HISTORIC STRUCTURES 20 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES 20 

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 20 

ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES 21 

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 21 

VISITOR INFORMATION, INTERPRETATION, AND EDUCATION 22 

VIEWSHEDS 22 

NIGHT SKY 23 

NATURAL SOUNDS 23 

FACILITIES AND SERVICES 23 

ACCESSIBILITY TO THE NATIONAL LAKESHORE 24 

xi 
CONTENTS

RELATIONS WITH PRIVATE AND PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS, ADJACENT 

LANDOWNERS, AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES 24 

RELATIONS WITH AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBES 25 

WILDERNESS 25 

LAND PROTECTION 26 

RESEARCH 26 

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS 27 

RELATIONSHIP OF THE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN TO OTHER PLANNING 

EFFORTS 28 

NPS MANAGEMENT PLANS AND STUDIES 28 

Scenic Road Feasibility Study 28 

Platte River Management Plan 28 

Fire Management Plan 28 

Strategic Plan 29 

Port Oneida Rural Historic District Environmental Assessment 29 

COUNTY AND REGIONAL PLANS 29 

Leelanau General Plan 29 

Benzie County 2020 Comprehensive Plan 30 

Benzie County Open Space and Natural Resources Protection Plan 30 

COOPERATIVE PLANS 30 

Leelanau Scenic Heritage Route Trailway 30 

ONGOING NPS PROJECTS AND PROJECTS PLANNED FOR THE NEAR FUTURE 32 

BEACH ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS — ENDS OF LEELANAU COUNTY ROADS 651 

AND 669 32 

GLEN HAVEN VILLAGE IMPROVEMENTS 32 

LAKE MICHIGAN OVERLOOKS IMPROVEMENTS—PIERCE STOCKING SCENIC 

DRIVE 32 

RESTORE THE FORMER WATER WHEEL AND CASEY’S CANOE LIVERIES —

PLATTE RIVER 32 

RESTORATION OF DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN THE NATIONAL LAKESHORE 33 

SOUTH MANITOU LIGHTHOUSE COMPLEX — EXTERIOR RESTORATION AND 

INTERIOR REHABILITATION 33 

DUNE CLIMB PARKING AREA—PAVING AND OTHER MINOR IMPROVEMENTS 

33 

CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

INTRODUCTION 37 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 38 

IMPLEMENTATION FUNDING 38 

KEY IMPLEMENTATION PLANS TO FOLLOW THIS GENERAL MANAGEMENT 

PLAN / WILDERNESS STUDY / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 38 

Wilderness Management 38 

Asset Management 38 

Ethnographic Resources Study/Assessment 39 

MANAGEMENT ZONES 40 

USER CAPACITY (CARRYING CAPACITY) 44 

OVERVIEW 44 

xii 
Contents 

OVERVIEW OF CURRENT AND POTENTIAL USE-RELATED IMPACTS 45 

POTENTIAL USER CAPACITY INDICATORS AND RELATED MANAGEMENT 

ACTIONS 46 

AREAS FOR SPECIAL MONITORING ATTENTION 47 

ALTERNATIVES 48 

NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 49 

OVERALL VISION 49 

WILDERNESS 49 

NATURAL RESOURCES 49 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 49 

VISITOR ORIENTATION, INTERPRETATION, AND EDUCATION 50 

VISITOR FACILITIES, OPPORTUNITIES, AND ACTIVITIES 50 

Benzie Corridor 50 

Bow Lakes 51 

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS 51 

STAFFING AND COSTS 51 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 52 

OVERALL VISION 52 

WILDERNESS 52 

NATURAL RESOURCES 52 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 52 

VISITOR ORIENTATION, INTERPRETATION, AND EDUCATION 53 

VISITOR FACILITIES, OPPORTUNITIES, AND ACTIVITIES 53 

Benzie Corridor 55 

Bow Lakes 55 

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS 55 

STAFFING AND COSTS 55 

ALTERNATIVE A 56 

OVERALL VISION 56 

WILDERNESS 56 

NATURAL RESOURCES 56 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 56 

VISITOR ORIENTATION, INTERPRETATION, AND EDUCATION 57 

VISITOR FACILITIES, OPPORTUNITIES, AND ACTIVITIES 57 

Benzie Corridor 58 

Bow Lakes 58 

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS 58 

STAFFING AND COSTS 59 

ALTERNATIVE B 60 

OVERALL VISION 60 

WILDERNESS 60 

NATURAL RESOURCES 60 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 60 

VISITOR ORIENTATION, INTERPRETATION, AND EDUCATION 61 

VISITOR FACILITIES, OPPORTUNITIES, AND ACTIVITIES 61 

Benzie Corridor 62 

Bow Lakes 62 

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS 62 

STAFFING AND COSTS 63 

xiii 
CONTENTS

ALTERNATIVE C 64 

OVERALL VISION 64 

WILDERNESS 64 

NATURAL RESOURCES 64 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 64 

VISITOR ORIENTATION, INTERPRETATION, AND EDUCATION 65 

VISITOR FACILITIES, OPPORTUNITIES, AND ACTIVITIES 65 

Benzie Corridor 66 

Bow Lakes 67 

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS 67 

STAFFING AND COSTS 67 

MITIGATIVE MEASURES FOR THE ACTION ALTERNATIVES 68 

GENERAL 68 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 68 

Archeological Resources 68 

Human Remains 69 

Ethnographic Resources 69 

Historic Structures and Landscapes 69 

NATURAL RESOURCES 69 

General 69 

Wetlands 69 

Geology and Soils 70 

Vegetation and Wildlife 70 

Threatened and Endangered Species 70 

THE ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE 71 

CHAPTER 3: WILDERNESS STUDY AND PROPOSAL

INTRODUCTION 83 

WILDERNESS DEFINITION 83 

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA 83 

WILDERNESS STUDY AND PROPOSAL 84 

WILDERNESS ELIGIBILITY 84 

OPTIONS ANALYZED IN THIS WILDERNESS STUDY 84 

PUBLIC COMMENT ON WILDERNESS 86 

WILDERNESS PROPOSAL 87 

IMPLICATIONS OF MANAGING LANDS PROPOSED FOR WILDERNESS 89 

PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT 89 

PRIVATE RIGHTS 89 

RECREATIONAL USE 89 

EMERGENCY SERVICES 90 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH 90 

CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

INTRODUCTION 93 

IMPACT TOPICS CONSIDERED AND ANALYZED IN DETAIL 94 

xiv 
Contents 

HISTORIC RESOURCES 94 

Historic Property Definitions 94 

Properties Listed in the National Register of Historic Places 98 

Properties Determined Eligible for Inclusion on the National Register and Possible New 

National Register Districts 100 

NATURAL RESOURCES 101 

Soils and Geologic Resources 101 

Vegetation 102 

Wildlife 107 

Federal Threatened and Endangered Species 109 

Michigan State-Listed Species 118 

Wetlands 126 

Water Quality 126 

VISITOR OPPORTUNITIES 128 

Fundamental Resources and Values 128 

Primary Interpretive Themes 129 

Information, Interpretation, and Education 129 

Recreational Activities 130 

Natural Soundscapes and Night Sky 131 

VISITOR USE 131 

Origin of Visitors and Length of Stay 131 

Primary Destinations within Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore 133 

WILDERNESS CHARACTER 133 

Current Management of Areas Proposed for Wilderness 133 

Natural and Undeveloped 134 

Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude 135 

Outstanding Opportunities for Primitive, Unconfined Recreation 135 

REGIONAL SOCIOECONOMICS 135 

Population 136 

Economic Overview 136 

Commercial and Noncommercial Services Provided at Sleeping Bear Dunes National 

Lakeshore 139 

Income and Poverty 139 

Demographics 140 

Housing 142 

Highway Traffic and Emergency Services 143 

Land Use and Landownership 144 

Economic Contributions of Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore 145 

Attitudes and Lifestyle Issues Associated with the National Lakeshore 146 

NPS OPERATIONS 147 

Operations and Management 147 

Interpretation and Visitor Services Division 147 

Resource and Visitor Protection Division 147 

Facility Maintenance Division 147 

Natural Resources Management Division 148 

Administration Division 148 

Volunteers and Partners 148 

Facilities and Infrastructure 148 

IMPACT TOPICS CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL 153 

xv 
CONTENTS

MUSEUM COLLECTIONS 153 

ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES 153 

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 154 

INDIAN TRUST RESOURCES 154 

AIR QUALITY 155 

MICHIGAN STATE-LISTED SPECIES 155 

Northern Goshawk 155 

Grasshopper Sparrow 156 

Least Bittern 156 

Calypso or Fairy-slipper 156 

Beauty Sedge 157 

Broad-leaved Sedge 157 

FLOODPLAINS 157 

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT 158 

WATER QUANTITY 158 

PRIME OR UNIQUE FARMLAND 158 

ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND CONSERVATION POTENTIAL 158 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 158 

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS 159 

CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

INTRODUCTION 163 

TERMS AND ASSUMPTIONS 163 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 163 

Fire Management Plan (2005a) 164 

Dredging of the Platte River Mouth (Past, Ongoing) 164 

IMPAIRMENT OF NATIONAL LAKESHORE RESOURCES 164 

IMPACTS TO CULTURAL RESOURCES AND SECTION 106 OF THE NATIONAL 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT 165 

METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR ANALYZING IMPACTS 167 

HISTORIC RESOURCES 167 

SOILS AND GEOLOGIC RESOURCES 167 

VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE 168 

FEDERAL THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 170 

MICHIGAN STATE-LISTED SPECIES 171 

WETLANDS AND WATER QUALITY 173 

VISITOR OPPORTUNITIES AND USE 175 

Visitor Opportunities 175 

Visitor Use 175 

WILDERNESS CHARACTER 177 

REGIONAL SOCIOECONOMICS 178 

Impact Thresholds and Characterization 179 

NPS OPERATIONS 180 

Impact Intensity Definitions 181 

IMPACTS OF THE NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 182 

HISTORIC RESOURCES 182 

Cumulative Impacts 183 

xvi 
Contents 

Conclusion 183 

NATURAL RESOURCES 184 

Soils and Geologic Resources 184 

Vegetation and Wildlife 185 

Federal Threatened and Endangered Species 186 

Michigan State-Listed Species 188 

Wetlands and Water Quality 190 

VISITOR OPPORTUNITIES AND USE 190 

Visitor Opportunities 190 

Visitor Use 192 

Cumulative Effects 192 

Conclusion 192 

WILDERNESS CHARACTER 192 

Natural and Undeveloped 192 

Opportunities for Solitude 193 

Opportunities for Primitive, Unconfined Recreation 193 

Cumulative Impacts 193 

Conclusion 193 

REGIONAL SOCIOECONOMICS 194 

Visitor-Related Economic Impacts 194 

Economic Impacts Related to Implementation and NPS Operations 194 

Effects on Regional Population 195 

Community Services 195 

Traffic and Emergency Services 196 

Attitudes and Lifestyles 196 

Cumulative Impacts 197 

Conclusion 197 

NPS OPERATIONS 197 

Cumulative Impacts 197 

Conclusion 198 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 198 

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 198 

RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 198 

IMPACTS OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 199 

HISTORIC RESOURCES 199 

Cumulative Impacts 200 

Conclusion 200 

NATURAL RESOURCES 201 

Soils and Geologic Resources 201 

Vegetation and Wildlife 202 

Federal Threatened and Endangered Species 204 

Michigan State-Listed Species 206 

Wetlands and Water Quality 208 

VISITOR OPPORTUNITIES AND USE 210 

Visitor Opportunities 210 

Visitor Use 211 

Cumulative Impacts 212 

Conclusion 212 

WILDERNESS CHARACTER 213 

xvii 
CONTENTS

Natural and Undeveloped 213 

Opportunities for Solitude 213 

Opportunities for Primitive, Unconfined Recreation 213 

Cumulative Impacts 213 

Conclusion 214 

REGIONAL SOCIOECONOMICS 214 

Visitor-Related Economic Impacts 214 

Economic Impacts Related to Implementation and NPS Operations 215 

Effects on Regional Population 216 

Community Services 216 

Traffic and Emergency Services 216 

Attitudes and Lifestyles 217 

Cumulative Impacts 217 

Conclusion 218 

NPS OPERATIONS 218 

Cumulative Impacts 218 

Conclusion 219 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 219 

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 219 

RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 219 

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE A 220 

HISTORIC RESOURCES 220 

Cumulative Impacts 221 

Conclusion 221 

NATURAL RESOURCES 222 

Soils and Geologic Resources 222 

Vegetation and Wildlife 223 

Federal Threatened and Endangered Species 224 

Michigan State-Listed Species 227 

Wetlands and Water Quality 229 

VISITOR OPPORTUNITIES AND USE 230 

Visitor Opportunities 230 

Visitor Use 231 

Cumulative Impacts 232 

Conclusion 232 

WILDERNESS CHARACTER 232 

Natural and Undeveloped 232 

Opportunities for Solitude 233 

Opportunities for Primitive, Unconfined Recreation 233 

Cumulative Impacts 233 

Conclusion 233 

REGIONAL SOCIOECONOMICS 234 

Visitor-Related Economic Impacts 234 

Economic Impacts Related to Implementation and NPS Operations 234 

Effects on Regional Population 235 

Community Services 235 

Traffic and Emergency Services 235 

Attitudes and Lifestyles 236 

Cumulative Impacts 236 

xviii 
Contents 

Conclusion 237 

NPS OPERATIONS 237 

Cumulative Impacts 237 

Conclusion 237 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 237 

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 237 

RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 238 

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE B 239 

HISTORIC RESOURCES 239 

Cumulative Impacts 240 

Conclusion 240 

NATURAL RESOURCES 241 

Soils and Geologic Resources 241 

Vegetation and Wildlife 242 

Federal Threatened and Endangered Species 244 

Michigan State-Listed Species 247 

Wetlands and Water Quality 249 

VISITOR OPPORTUNITIES AND USE 250 

Visitor Opportunities 250 

Visitor Use 252 

Cumulative Impacts 252 

Conclusion 252 

WILDERNESS CHARACTER 253 

Natural and Undeveloped 253 

Opportunities for Solitude 253 

Opportunities for Primitive, Unconfined Recreation 253 

Cumulative Impacts 253 

Conclusion 254 

REGIONAL SOCIOECONOMICS 254 

Visitor-Related Economic Impacts 254 

Economic Impacts Related to Implementation and NPS Operations 255 

Effects on Regional Population 256 

Community Services 256 

Traffic and Emergency Services 256 

Attitudes and Lifestyles 256 

Cumulative Impacts 257 

Conclusion 257 

NPS OPERATIONS 257 

Cumulative Impacts 258 

Conclusion 258 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 258 

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 258 

RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 258 

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE C 260 

HISTORIC RESOURCES 260 

Cumulative Impacts 261 

Conclusion 261 

NATURAL RESOURCES 262 

Soils and Geologic Resources 262 

xix 
CONTENTS

Vegetation and Wildlife 263 

Federal Threatened and Endangered Species 265 

Michigan State-Listed Species 268 

Wetlands and Water Quality 269 

VISITOR OPPORTUNITIES AND USE 271 

Visitor Opportunities 271 

Visitor Use 272 

Cumulative Impacts 273 

Conclusion 273 

WILDERNESS CHARACTER 273 

Natural and Undeveloped 273 

Opportunities for Solitude 274 

Opportunities for Primitive, Unconfined Recreation 274 

Cumulative Impacts 274 

Conclusion 274 

REGIONAL SOCIOECONOMICS 274 

Visitor-Related Economic Impacts 275 

Economic Impacts Related to Implementation and NPS Operations 275 

Effects on Regional Population 276 

Community Services 276 

Traffic and Emergency Services 276 

Attitudes and Lifestyles 277 

Cumulative Impacts 278 

Conclusion 278 

NPS OPERATIONS 278 

Cumulative Impacts 279 

Conclusion 279 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 279 

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 279 

RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 279 

CHAPTER 6: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, INCLUDING SCOPING 283 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION TO DATE WITH OTHER AGENCIES, OFFICES, 

AND TRIBES 287 

FEDERAL AGENCIES 287 

STATE AGENCIES 288 

AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBES 289 

LIST OF AGENCIES OR ENTITIES RECEIVING A COPY OF THIS PLAN 290 

COMMENTS ON, CHANGES TO, AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT 

PLAN 295 

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT PLAN 295 

KEY CHANGES TO THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 295 

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT PLAN 296 

 COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES 309 

xx 
Contents 

APPENDIXES, SELECTED REFERENCES, PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS, AND 

INDEX 

APPENDIX A: LEGISLATION 331 

APPENDIX B: ANALYSIS OF BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS 345 

APPENDIX C: COST SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES 348 

APPENDIX D: DEVELOPMENT OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 350 

APPENDIX E: WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS 355 

APPENDIX F: INITIAL CONSULTATION LETTERS 357 

SELECTED REFERENCES 362 

PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS 369 

INDEX 371 

Tables 

Table 1: Management Zones 42

Table 2: Comparison of Alternatives back pocket

Table 3: Range of Treatment for Historic Properties under the Alternatives 74

Table 4: Summary of the Impacts of the Alternatives 76

Table 5: Wilderness Options Evaluated in this Wilderness Study 85

Table 6: Existing Listed Properties 100

Table 7: Bird Species Associated with Cultural Open Lands in Sleeping Bear Dunes National 

Lakeshore That Are Designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as Species of 

Conservation Concern 108

Table 8: Special Status Plant and Animal Species 111

Table 9: Population Growth Trends, 1990 to 2006 136

Table 10: Employment by Major Category, 2005 137

Table 11: Unemployment Rates, 2000 to 2006 138

Table 12: Overview of Agricultural Operations in the Region, 2002 138

Table 13: Total Personal Income 141

Table 14: Composition of Total Personal Income, 2005 (in millions) 141

Table 15: Per Capita Personal Income, 2000 and 2005 141

Table 16: Median Household Income and Incidence of Poverty — 2004 141

Table 17: Selected Demographic Characteristics, 2000 142

Table 18: Selected Housing Characteristics 142

Table 19: Traffic Volumes 2005/06, Selected Locations near the National Lakeshore 143

Table 20: Trails and Trail Systems at Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore 150

Table 21: Summary of Past, Present, and Ongoing (Future) Actions and Their Impacts on 

Threatened and Endangered Species 172

Table 22: Projected Long-Term Increases in Annual Visitor Use Associated with Implementation 

of the General Management Plan (Roughly 20 Years) 176

xxi 
CONTENTS

xxii 

Figures 

Figure 1: Recreation Visits by Year at the National Lakeshore 132

Figure 2: Average Monthly Recreation Visitation at Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, 

1990 to 2006 132

Figure 3: Types of Use at the National Lakeshore 133

Figure 4: Monthly Visitation at Selected Locations, August 2005 134

Figure 5: Total Employment in the Region, 1990 to 2005 137

Figure 6: Comparison of Long-Term Increases in Average Annual Visitor Use to Sleeping Bear 

Dunes National Lakeshore under the Action Alternatives 212

Maps 

Region 5

No-action Alternative back pocket 

Preferred Alternative back pocket 

Alternative A back pocket 

Alternative B back pocket 

Alternative C back pocket 

Prominent Historical Resources Base Map 95

Natural Resources Base Map 103