5

Environmental Consequences

Dunes Photographers South Manitou Island Lighthouse

Corn Crib Detail

INTRODUCTION 

The National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (40 CFR 1500-1508) mandates that 

environmental impact statements disclose the 

environmental impacts of a proposed federal 

action. In this case, the proposed federal 

action is implementation of the General 

Management Plan / Wilderness Study / 

Environmental Impact Statement for Sleeping 

Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. The 

alternatives in this document provide broad 

management direction. Thus, this environmental impact statement should be considered a programmatic document. Before 

undertaking specific actions to implement the 

approved plan, NPS managers will need to 

determine if more detailed environmental 

documents must be prepared, consistent with 

the provisions of the National Environmental 

Policy Act. 

The first part of this chapter discusses terms 

and assumptions used in the discussions of 

impacts. The next two parts cover policy and 

terminology related to cumulative impacts and 

impairment of National Lakeshore resources. 

The third part discusses the relationship of the 

impact analyses to requirements of section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

The impacts of the alternatives are then 

analyzed in this order — the no-action alternative, the preferred alternative, alternative A, 

alternative B, and alternative C. Each impact 

topic includes a description of the impacts of 

the alternative, a discussion of cumulative 

effects, and a conclusion. At the end of the 

discussion for each alternative there is a 

required brief discussion of unavoidable 

adverse impacts, irreversible and irretrievable 

commitments of resources, and effects on 

short-term uses and long-term productivity. 

TERMS AND ASSUMPTIONS 

Each impact topic includes a discussion of 

impacts, including the intensity, duration, and 

type of impact. Intensity of impact describes 

the degree, level, or strength of an impact as 

negligible, minor, moderate, or major. Because 

definitions of intensity vary by resource topic, 

separate intensity definitions are provided for 

each impact topic. Duration of impact considers whether the impact would occur over 

the short term or long term. Unless otherwise 

noted, short-term impacts are those that, 

within a short period of time —generally less 

than five years — would no longer be detectable as the resource or value returns to its predisturbance condition or appearance. Longterm impacts refer to a change in a resource or 

value that is expected to persist for five or 

more years. The type of impact refers to 

whether the impact on the resource or value 

would be beneficial (positive) or adverse 

(negative). 

The impact analyses for the action alternatives 

(preferred alternative and alternatives A, B, 

and C) describe the difference between implementing the no-action alternative and implementing the action alternative. In other words, 

to understand the consequences of any action 

alternative, the reader must also consider 

what would happen if no action were taken. 

For all but the no-action alternative, all impact 

analysis assumes that areas proposed for 

designated wilderness are ultimately designated as such by Congress. For the no-action 

alternative, this analysis assumes continuation 

of the current management direction — that 

is, the National Park Service continues to 

manage the areas to maintain their existing 

wilderness character to the extent possible 

given current conditions and constraints until 

“Congress determines otherwise.” 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

Council on Environmental Quality regulations, which implement the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), require 

163 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

assessment of cumulative impacts in the 

decision-making process for federal projects. 

Cumulative impacts result from the incremental impact of an action when added to 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of who undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts 

can result from individually minor but collectively important actions taking place over a 

period of time. 

Cumulative impacts are considered for both 

the no-action and the action alternatives. 

These impacts were determined by combining 

the impacts of the alternatives proposed in 

this document with the impacts of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions. To do this, it was necessary to identify 

other such projects or actions at Sleeping Bear 

Dunes National Lakeshore and in the surrounding area. For the purposes of most 

impact topics in this analysis, the cumulative 

impact analysis area was Benzie and Leelanau 

counties, Michigan. For other impact topics, 

the area was the northwestern lower peninsula of Michigan. The time horizon for the 

cumulative impacts analysis depends on the 

impact topic under consideration but in most 

cases was plus or minus five years. 

The following ongoing projects or projects 

planned for the near future were identified for 

the purposes of conducting the cumulative 

effects analysis (see the “Ongoing NPS 

Projects and Projects Planned for the Near 

Future” section in chapter 1 for more 

information on these actions): 

• Restoration of individual sites within the 

National Lakeshore (past, ongoing) 

• Improvements to parking areas — ends 

of Leelanau County Roads 651 and 669 

(future) 

• Glen Haven Village improvements 

(ongoing) 

• Lake Michigan overlooks 

improvements—Pierce Stocking Scenic 

Drive (future) 

• Restore sites of the former Water Wheel 

and Casey’s Canoe Liveries — Platte 

River (ongoing) 

• South Manitou Lighthouse Complex — 

exterior restoration and interior 

rehabilitation (future) 

• Dune Climb parking area — paving and 

other minor improvements (future) 

In addition, the following projects or actions 

were included. 

Fire Management Plan (2005a) 

The National Lakeshore’s “Fire Management 

Plan,” approved in 2005, will be implemented. 

The plan emphasizes protection of human life 

and property, both public and private, from 

wildfire within and adjacent to NPS lands. It 

includes measures to reduce hazardous fuels. 

Dredging of the Platte River 

Mouth (Past, Ongoing) 

The mouth of the Platte River is dredged 

annually for approximately 30 days, beginning 

immediately after Labor Day in September. 

Dredging allows larger boats to access Lake 

Michigan, primarily for sport fishing of Coho 

salmon, from the county launch ramp at the 

end of Lake Michigan Road. Dredging was 

originally performed by the state Department 

of Natural Resources, but the National 

Lakeshore took over dredging about 25 years 

ago, after the state indicated it intended to 

discontinue the activity. Dredging involves 

using heavy equipment to remove sand and 

sediment from the river channel and relocating it to an open sandy area adjacent to the 

river. 

IMPAIRMENT OF NATIONAL 

LAKESHORE RESOURCES 

In addition to determining the environmental 

consequences of implementing the preferred 

164 
Introduction 

and other alternatives, NPS Management 

Policies 2006 (section 1.4) requires analysis of 

potential effects to determine whether or not 

proposed actions would impair National 

Lakeshore resources and values. 

The fundamental purpose of the national park 

system, established by the Organic Act and 

reaffirmed by the General Authorities Act, as 

amended, begins with a mandate to conserve 

park resources and values. NPS managers 

must seek ways to avoid, or to minimize to the 

greatest degree practicable, adverse impacts 

on park resources and values. However, the 

laws do give NPS managers discretion to allow 

impacts on park resources and values when 

necessary and appropriate to fulfill the purposes of the park, as long as the impact does 

not constitute impairment of the affected 

resources and values. That discretion is 

limited by the statutory requirement that the 

National Park Service must leave resources 

and values unimpaired unless a particular law 

directly and specifically provides otherwise. 

The prohibited impairment is an impact that 

would, in the professional judgment of the 

responsible NPS manager, harm the integrity 

of park resources and or values and violate the 

1916 NPS Organic Act’s mandate (NPS Management Policies 2006 1.4.5). An impact on a 

park resource or value may, but does not 

necessarily, constitute an impairment. An 

impact is more likely to constitute impairment 

to the extent that it affects a resource or value 

whose conservation is 

• necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the establishing legislation 

or proclamation of the park, or 

• key to the natural or cultural integrity of 

the park or to opportunities for 

enjoyment of the park, or 

• identified in the park’s general 

management plan or other relevant NPS 

planning documents as being of 

significance. 

Impairment may result from visitor activities; 

NPS administrative activities; or activities 

undertaken by concessioners, contractors, 

and others operating in the park. Impairment 

may also result from sources or activities 

outside the park. A determination on impairment is made in the conclusion section for 

each impact topic related to the park’s cultural 

and natural resources. A determination of 

impairment is not required for impact topics 

such as visitor experience, regional 

socioeconomics, and NPS operations. 

IMPACTS TO CULTURAL RESOURCES 

AND SECTION 106 OF THE NATIONAL 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT 

In this General Management Plan, impacts on 

cultural resources are described according to 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

“Regulations for the Protection of Historic 

and Cultural Properties” (36 CFR 800) implementing Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 USC 

470(f)). 

Section 106 requires federal agency officials to 

take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, and to afford 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(ACHP) an opportunity to comment. 

Unlike analyses under the National Environmental Policy Act, under the Section 106 

process, an “effect” is defined as “an alteration 

to the characteristics of a historic property 

qualifying it for inclusion in or eligibility for 

the National Register” (36 CFR 800.16i). 

According to the criteria of “adverse effect” in 

the regulations (36 CFR 800.5(a)(1)), 

an adverse effect is found when an 

undertaking may alter, directly or 

indirectly, any of the characteristics 

of a historic property that qualify the 

property for inclusion in the 

National Register in a manner that 

would diminish the integrity of the 

165 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

166 

property’s location, design, setting, 

materials, workmanship, feeling, or 

association. 

The regulations further specify that 

consideration shall be given to all 

qualifying characteristics of a historic property, including those that 

may have been identified subsequent 

to the original evaluation of the 

property’s eligibility for the National 

Register. Adverse effects may include 

reasonably foreseeable effects 

caused by the undertaking that may 

occur later in time, be farther 

removed in distance or be 

cumulative. 

The federal agency official consults with the 

state historic preservation officer and other 

consulting parties (possibly including the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation) 

regarding measures to avoid, minimize, or 

mitigate adverse effects to a historic property. 

These agreed-upon measures are memorialized in a memorandum of agreement that is 

signed by the agency, the state historic preservation officer, and other consulting parties. 

The Advisory Council regulations do not 

specify thresholds for effects and do not 

recognize adverse versus beneficial effects. 

Effects are determined relative to the 

character-defining features of the National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP) listed or 

eligible property—36 CFR 800 does not define 

what constitutes mitigation, but it provides a 

process for determining appropriate mitigation in consultation with the state historic 

preservation officer and other parties. 

Cultural resources, including historic properties, are nonrenewable. Adverse effects generally consume, diminish, or destroy the 

original historic materials or form, resulting in 

a loss of integrity of the property that can 

never be recovered. Therefore, although 

actions to mitigate the adverse effect may be 

carried out in compliance with Section 106, 

the effect on a historic property remains 

adverse. 

A determination of no adverse effect means 

there is an effect, but the effect would not 

meet the criteria of adverse effect (36 CFR 

800.5(b)). 

The impact analyses in this General Management Plan are for the purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. They are intended 

to assist the National Park Service with 

coordinating its compliance with this act and 

with Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act, as amended. However, it 

must be emphasized that the National Park 

Service does not intend to use this General 

Management Plan / /Wilderness Study / 

Environmental Impact Statement to meet 

section 106 compliance for individual actions 

discussed in the document in accordance with 

36 CFR 800.8(c). The National Park Service 

will comply with Section 106 in accordance 

with 36 CFR 800 as it continues land and 

resource planning and refines its management 

options with alternatives analyses and specific 

proposals for individual properties. As is 

required under 36 CFR 800, the National Park 

Service will consult with the Michigan state 

historic preservation officer and other consulting parties to determine areas of potential 

effects; to identify cultural resources and 

evaluate their National Register of Historic 

Places eligibility; to determine effects on 

historic properties; and to develop measures 

to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects 

on historic properties. Measures to avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate adverse effects would be 

outlined in a memorandum of agreement (or 

programmatic agreement). A Section 106 

summary is included for each of the cultural 

resource topics discussed (in this case historic 

resources only). 
METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR ANALYZING IMPACTS 

HISTORIC RESOURCES 

In chapter 4, it was determined that archeological resources, ethnographic resources, and 

museum collections would be considered but 

not analyzed in detail in this General Management Plan / Wilderness Study / Environmental 

Impact Statement. Only historic resources 

(buildings, sites, structures, objects, districts, 

and landscapes) are analyzed in detail in the 

environmental analysis. 

Potential impacts to historic resources either 

listed in or eligible to be listed in the National 

Register of Historic Places were identified and 

evaluated in accordance with the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation’s regulations 

implementing Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800, 

Protection of Historic Properties) by: (1) 

determining the area of potential effects; (2) 

identifying historic resources present in the 

area of potential effect that are national 

register listed or eligible; (3) applying the 

criteria of adverse effect to affected resources; 

and (4) considering ways to avoid, minimize, 

or mitigate adverse effects. 

In this document the criteria for characterizing the severity or intensity of impacts to 

national register listed or eligible historic 

resources are the Section 106 determinations 

of effect: adverse effect or no adverse effect. 

SOILS AND GEOLOGIC RESOURCES 

Analysis of the soils and geologic resources of 

the park area relative to the alternatives 

revealed two primary potential impact sources 

—impacts from visitor use and impacts from 

infrastructure development. 

Visitor uses that impact soils and geologic 

resources (in this case, primarily the dunes 

and their dynamic processes) include hiking 

and dispersed camping, use of rivers and 

lakes, and parking in nondesignated areas. 

Hiking on the dunes destabilizes the substrate 

in sandier areas of the dunes, and packs the 

soil down in areas with higher clay content. 

These actions can lead to soil erosion and soil

compaction, respectively, either of which is 

an adverse impact on the dunes and their 

natural processes, as well as to other soils. The 

same kinds of impacts can occur to soils in 

other portions of the Lakeshore due to hiking 

and other off-trail activities. Dispersed camping can also lead to compaction and erosion 

through very similar mechanisms. Repeated 

use of an area for camping can compact the 

soils, leading to plant failure and then erosion. 

 

Visitor use on the rivers and lakes, and 

particularly on the Platte River where use is 

relatively high during the summer, impacts 

soils in a number of ways. Informal entry and 

exit points along the water, where people get 

out to use or explore the adjacent area, cause 

bank destabilization, which leads to erosion. 

Loss of dune vegetation can cause sand to fill 

stream or lake beds as it is blown by the wind. 

Heavy foot traffic in the adjacent floodplain 

tramples vegetation, reducing plant cover, 

which can lead to erosion. Heavy foot traffic 

can also compact the soil to the point that 

plants can no longer grow; without this plant 

cover, the soils become more susceptible to 

erosion. Finally, high levels of E. coli from 

human excrement are found in the soils of 

some of these areas. 

Vehicular parking in nondesignated areas can 

also lead to soil compaction and erosion, 

depending on the nature of the substrate and 

the soil moisture conditions. Parking in such 

areas when it is muddy can leave deep ruts, 

initiating erosion. On the other hand, parking 

on non-sandy soils when it is dry can lead to 

compaction, loss of plant cover, and then 

erosion. 

 

167 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Development activities frequently result in 

soil disturbance during the construction 

phase. Clearing of vegetation to provide a 

camping area would disturb soils. Removal of 

topsoil to build a foundation for a building or 

parking lot would be a soil disturbance. 

Representative activities considered in this 

document include site restoration activities, 

development of trails, campsites or campgrounds, picnic areas, parking area development or improvement, and upgrade or 

relocation of access points to rivers and lakes. 

Large-scale (i.e., NPS or private) development 

along the Benzie Corridor could impact soils 

and perhaps even underlying geologic strata, 

depending upon the nature and scale of the 

development. 

To reduce repetitiveness, the discussions 

presented later in this chapter about impacts 

to soils and geologic resources will only briefly 

allude to the impacts detailed in the above 

paragraphs. Key words such as compaction, 

erosion, and disturbance refer the reader 

back to the cause and effect descriptions 

provided above. 

Information describing soils and geologic 

resources was compiled and reviewed from 

existing research reports, planning 

documents, and consultation with park 

specialists. The impacts of potential visitation 

increases have been factored into the analysis. 

The thresholds to determine the intensity of 

impacts on soils or geologic resources are 

defined as follows: 

Negligible: The impact is barely detectable 

and/or would result in no measurable or 

perceptible changes to soils or geologic 

resources. 

Minor: The impact is slight but detectable, 

and/or would result in small but 

measurable changes in soils or geologic 

resources; the effects would be localized. 

Moderate: The impact is readily apparent 

and/or would result in easily detectable 

changes to soils or geologic resources; the 

effects would be localized. 

Major: The impact is severely adverse or 

exceptionally beneficial and/or would 

result in appreciable changes to soils or 

geologic resources; the effects would be 

regionally important. 

VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE 

Because a discussion of potential impacts to 

wildlife necessarily involves discussion of 

wildlife habitat, which is primarily the vegetation communities within the park, vegetation and wildlife are addressed together in this 

section. Preliminary analysis of potential 

impacts to the vegetation and wildlife 

resources of the Lakeshore indicated that 

impacts could be associated with two primary 

activities — visitor use and development of 

infrastructure. 

Visitor use can impact vegetation and wildlife 

through a number of mechanisms. Obvious 

and direct impacts include trampling of vegetation when hiking off the trail or camping in 

nondesignated areas (i.e., dispersed camping, 

which is allowed only on North Manitou 

Island). A single trampling event might 

impact one or more individuals of a species. 

Repeated trampling of the vegetation along a 

path or in a campsite, as well as removal of 

down and dead wood for campfires, can lead 

to changes in the vegetation at the population 

level, which results in habitat alteration. 

Habitat alteration can, in turn, further 

impact remaining populations by making the 

habitat less suitable for the species. 

Introduction or spread of invasive species

can also result from visitor activities. 

Establishment of invasive species often results 

in change in both the plant and wildlife 

composition of the infested area. Visitors 

often unwittingly introduce or spread 

propagules (e.g., seeds or larvae) of invasive 

species during recreational activities. 

 

168 
Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 

Although the potential to disturb wildlife 

when hiking off the trail is apparent to most, 

even when hiking or bicycling on established 

trails or roads, visitors can disturb wildlife 

with loud or unusual noises, or even just the 

sight or scent of visitors. Disturbance of 

wildlife due to noises, sights, or scents 

associated with visitor use is referred to as 

sensory-based disturbance. Sensory-based 

disturbance applies primarily to the 

individual response level but can lead to 

population level responses if the disturbance 

is intense or prolonged. An example would be 

individual abandonment of a nest in response 

to a disturbance. If such a disturbance were to 

occur over a large area, or for a long period of 

time, individual nest abandonment could 

translate to population level impacts. 

Development of infrastructure can also 

impact vegetation and wildlife. The most 

obvious impact is the direct removal or loss of 

vegetation that serves as wildlife habitat (i.e., 

habitat loss). Consider development of a new 

road through an area of relatively native 

forest. The swath of vegetation removed to 

construct the road would represent habitat 

loss. That would not, however, be the only 

impact on the wildlife habitat. Opening the 

forest canopy where the road is constructed 

now creates an edge effect, with greater 

insolation of the forest edge and consequent 

changes in plant species composition. In some 

cases this can cascade into changes in wildlife 

species utilization. Further, new use of this 

road would increase sensory-based disturbance to wildlife along the new road corridor. 

Obviously, the larger the corridor required for 

the road, the greater these impacts can be. 

Therefore, a trail would have far less impact 

than a road. The placement of a road or trail 

within the area of forest is also important. 

Roads or trails established through the middle 

of a habitat tend to fragment the habitat, 

making it less usable for some wildlife species. 

Alternatively, placing the road or trail close to 

another road or a natural habitat boundary 

(e.g., the shoreline) may lessen this impact. 

The more indirect impacts of infrastructure 

development described above are referred to 

as habitat degradation. Habitat loss and 

habitat degradation can impact a species at 

the individual or population level depending 

upon their extent. 

To reduce repetitiveness, the discussions 

presented later in this chapter of impacts on 

vegetation and wildlife anticipated for each 

alternative will only briefly allude to the 

impacts detailed in the above paragraphs. Key 

words such as trampling, habitat alteration, 

invasive species, sensory-based disturbance, habitat loss, and habitat degradation

refer the reader back to the cause and effect 

descriptions provided above. 

Available information describing vegetation 

communities and distribution, and the wildlife 

species that inhabit them, including published 

scientific papers, NPS and USGS research 

reports, planning documents, state programs, 

national databases and mapping efforts, and 

consultation with park specialists, was 

gathered, reviewed, and summarized. Impacts 

on vegetation and wildlife were evaluated by 

comparing projected changes resulting from 

the action alternatives (preferred, A, B, and C) 

to the no-action alternative. The impacts of 

potential visitation increases have been 

factored into the analysis. 

The thresholds to determine impacts on 

vegetation and wildlife are defined as follows: 

Negligible: Impacts are barely detectable 

and/or would affect a minimal area of 

vegetation. Impacts to the plant and 

wildlife communities are not detectable. 

Minor: Impacts are slight, but detectable, 

and/or would affect a small area of 

vegetation or few members of the wildlife 

community. The severity and timing of 

changes are not expected to be outside 

natural variability spatially or temporally. 

Key ecosystem processes and community 

structure are retained at the local level. 

Moderate: Impacts are readily apparent 

and/or would affect a large area of 

169 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

vegetation and/or a large portion of the 

wildlife community. The severity and 

timing of changes are expected to be 

outside natural variability spatially and/or 

temporally; however, key ecosystem 

processes and community structure are 

retained at the landscape (regional) level. 

Major: Impacts are severely adverse or 

exceptionally beneficial and/or would 

affect a substantial area of vegetation 

and/or the majority of the inhabiting 

wildlife community. The severity and 

timing of changes are expected to be 

outside natural variability both spatially 

and temporally. Key ecosystem processes 

and community structure may be 

disrupted. Habitat for wildlife species may 

be rendered nonfunctional at the 

landscape level. 

FEDERAL THREATENED AND 

ENDANGERED SPECIES 

Federal threatened and endangered species 

addressed in this document include plants 

(Michigan monkey flower and Pitcher’s 

thistle) and wildlife (piping plover). As such, 

the impacts associated with visitor use and 

infrastructure development described above 

for vegetation and wildlife would also apply to 

these federally listed species. Therefore, the 

reader is encouraged to refer to the above 

descriptions of activities leading to trampling, 

habitat alteration, sensory-based disturbance, habitat loss, and habitat degradation. These key words will be used in the 

alternative-specific impact analyses later in 

this chapter to remind the reader of, or refer 

the reader back to, the cause and effect 

descriptions of the nature of impacts and 

species responses to those impacts provided 

above. 

In accordance with 50 CFR § 402(a), federal 

agencies are required to review all actions to 

determine whether an action may affect listed 

species or critical habitat. If such a determination is made, formal consultation is required, 

unless the federal agency determines, with the 

written concurrence of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, that the proposed action is 

not likely to adversely affect any listed species 

or critical habitat. It is NPS policy to survey 

for, protect, and strive to recover all species 

native to national park system units that are 

listed under the Endangered Species Act. The 

National Park Service strives to fully meet its 

obligations under the National Park Service 

Organic Act and the Endangered Species Act 

to both proactively conserve listed species and 

prevent detrimental effects on these species. 

This is accomplished by cooperating with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that 

NPS actions comply with both the written 

requirements and the spirit of the Endangered 

Species Act, and by cooperating with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies/ 

entities to facilitate delineation of critical 

habitat, development and implementation of 

species recovery plans and candidate 

conservation agreements, and proactively 

managing for proposed and candidate species. 

NPS staff evaluated impacts on federally listed 

threatened and endangered species and 

provided an Endangered Species Act 

determination as defined in 50 CFR Section 

402 and the Endangered Species Consultation 

Handbook (1998) for each alternative. Based 

on this analysis, anticipated impacts to the 

federally listed candidate species that have the 

potential to occur within the park, with the 

exception of the Indiana Bat (see table 8), are 

discussed in this chapter. 

Impacts to the addressed federally listed or 

candidate species were evaluated by 

comparing projected changes resulting from 

the action alternatives to existing conditions. 

These evaluations were based on documented 

occurrences of the species within the park, the 

distribution of their preferred habitats within 

the park, and the distribution of designated 

critical habitat (piping plover). The impacts of 

potential visitation increases have been 

factored into the analysis. 

 

170 
Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 

171 

Impact thresholds for the addressed federally 

listed or candidate species are defined based 

on USFWS Section 7 impact terminology as 

follows: 

No effect means there are absolutely no effects 

to the species or its critical habitat, either 

positive or negative. A no-effect determination does not include small effects or 

effects that are unlikely to occur. If effects 

are insignificant (in size) or discountable 

(extremely unlikely), a determination of 

“not likely to adversely affect” is 

appropriate. 

Not likely to adversely affect means that all 

effects to the species or its critical habitat 

are beneficial, insignificant, or discountable. Beneficial effects have contemporaneous positive effects without adverse 

effects to the species (for example, there 

cannot be “balancing” so that the benefits 

of the action would outweigh the adverse 

effects). Insignificant effects relate to the 

size of the impact and should not reach the 

scale where take occurs. Discountable 

effects are considered extremely unlikely 

to occur. Determinations of “not likely to 

adversely affect, due to beneficial, insignificant, or discountable effects” typically 

require written concurrence from the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Likely to adversely affect means that an 

adverse effect to the species or its critical 

habitat may occur as a direct or indirect 

result of an action, and the effect is not 

discountable, insignificant, or beneficial. In 

the rare event that adverse effects could 

not be avoided, the project would either be 

discontinued or NPS staff would request 

formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

In addition, table 21 provides a summary of 

past, present and ongoing (future) activities 

considered in the cumulative impacts analysis 

for threatened and endangered species. This 

table will be referenced in the cumulative 

impacts section for threatened and 

endangered species under each of the 

alternatives. 

MICHIGAN STATE-LISTED SPECIES 

Michigan state-listed species addressed in this 

document include plant (e.g., walking fern and 

prairie moonwort) and wildlife (e.g., wood 

turtle and common loon) species. As such, the 

impacts associated with visitor use and infrastructure development described above for 

vegetation and wildlife would also apply to 

these state-listed species. Therefore, the 

reader is encouraged to refer to the above 

descriptions of activities leading to trampling, 

habitat alteration, sensory-based disturbance, habitat loss, and habitat degradation. 

These key words will be used in the alternative-specific impacts analyses later in this 

chapter to remind the reader of, or refer the 

reader back to, the cause and effect 

descriptions provided above. 

NPS Management Policies 2006 dictate that, to 

the greatest extent possible, parks will inventory, monitor, and manage state and locally 

listed species in a manner similar to the treatment of federally listed species. In addition, 

the parks are to inventory other native species 

that are of special management concern to 

parks (such as rare, declining, sensitive, or 

unique species and their habitats) and manage 

them to maintain their natural distribution 

and abundance. 

The National Park Service considers how to 

protect and perpetuate federally, state, or 

locally listed species during park management 

planning, and consults with lead federal and 

state agencies, as appropriate. 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

TABLE 21: SUMMARY OF PAST, PRESENT, AND ONGOING (FUTURE) ACTIONS AND THEIR IMPACTS ON 

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

Activity Species Potentially 

Affected 

Potential Impacts 

NPS ACTIVITIES 

Dredging the mouth of 

the Platte River* 

Piping plover and its 

critical habitat 

Positive — adds nesting habitat (cobble) 

Negative — removes some rearing habitat 

Site restoration 

activities* 

Pitcher’s thistle, Michigan 

monkey flower, and 

piping plover critical 

habitat 

Positive — net gain of restored habitat 

Negative — loss of individual plants (no loss 

of individual birds due to appropriate timing 

of activities) 

Nonnative plant control* Pitcher’s thistle Positive — net gain of restored habitat 

Negative — loss of individual plants 

Piping plover recovery 

program* 

Piping plover and its 

critical habitat 

Positive — net gain in population 

Negative — loss of individuals from banding, 

handling, nest disturbance 

Dredging at the island 

docks* 

Pitcher’s thistle Positive — beach nourishment from 

deposition of dredged materials (provides 

better habitat) 

Negative-loss of individual plants from 

coverage 

ACTIVITIES OF OTHERS 

Dogs disrupting wildlife 

on the beach 

Piping plover and its 

critical habitat 

Negative — disturbance, mortality 

Private adjacent 

landowners actively 

managing habitat 

Michigan monkey flower Positive — supports recovery of listed species 

Nonnative plants used 

by adjacent landowners 

for landscaping 

Piping plover and its 

critical habitat, Pitcher’s 

thistle 

Negative — nonnative plants invade habitat 

Shipping industry 

releases exotic species in 

ballast water (Lake 

Michigan) 

Piping plover and its 

critical habitat 

Negative — invasives directly linked to listed 

species mortality 

Visitor use Pitcher’s thistle piping 

plover and its critical 

habitat 

Negative — foot or vehicle traffic causes 

plant mortality and disturbance to piping 

plover during breeding season 

Positive — human-caused disturbance 

provides seedbed 

* Potential impacts on threatened and endangered species are avoided to the extent possible. NPS staff 

coordinate closely with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through recovery plans, biological assessments, and 

regular communications. 

Plant and animal species listed by Michigan as 

threatened, endangered, or as species of concern that have the potential to occur within 

the Lakeshore (see table 8), were analyzed 

relative to the anticipated impacts of, and 

differences of those impacts among, the five 

alternatives. To facilitate analysis and discussion of potential environmental 

172 
Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 

consequences, these species were grouped 

according to shared habitat requirements and 

will be discussed as follows: 

Shoreline/Dunes/Near-shore Associates 

- Caspian tern 

- fascicled moonwort 

- Lake Huron locust 

- prairie moonwort 

- prairie warbler 

Lakes/Wetlands/Riparian Associates 

- bald eagle 

- Blanchard’s cricket frog 

- common loon 

- cut-leaved water parsnip 

- Douglas stenelmis riffle beetle 

- Eastern box turtle 

- ram’s-head lady’s-slipper 

- trumpeter swan 

- wood turtle 

Mature Forest Associates 

- merlin 

- red-shouldered hawk 

- green spleenwort 

- walking fern 

- Pumpelly’s brome grass 

- ginseng 

- pine-drop 

- three-birds orchid 

Impacts on Michigan state-listed species were 

evaluated by comparing projected changes 

resulting from the action alternatives 

compared to the no-action alternative. The 

impacts of potential visitation increases have 

been factored into the analysis. 

Impact thresholds for Michigan state-listed 

plant and wildlife species are defined as 

follows: 

Negligible: Impacts on state-listed plant and 

wildlife species would not be observable or 

measurable and would be well within the 

range of natural variability. 

Minor: Impacts on species or their habitat 

would be detectable, but still within the 

range of natural variability both spatially 

and temporally. No interference with 

feeding, reproduction, or other activities 

affecting population viability would result 

from the impacts. Sufficient functional 

habitat would remain to support viable 

populations. 

Moderate: Impacts on activities necessary for 

survival, and on species habitats, can be 

expected on an occasional basis, but are 

not anticipated to threaten potential or 

continued existence of the species in the 

park. Changes to population characteristics 

could be outside the natural range of 

variability spatially or temporally but 

would not be anticipated to result in loss of 

population viability. 

Major: Impacts on Michigan state-listed 

plant and wildlife species or their habitats 

would be detectable, outside of the natural 

range of variability both spatially and 

temporally, and would be anticipated to 

result in loss of viability at the population 

level. 

WETLANDS AND WATER QUALITY 

Wetlands, in addition to the biodiversity they 

support (addressed above under “Vegetation 

and Wildlife” and “Michigan State-Listed 

Species”) serve critical roles as water purifiers, 

facilitating settling of particulates out of the 

water column and filtering remaining impurities. Because of the importance of wetlands to 

water quality, potential impacts to wetlands 

and water quality will be addressed together in 

this chapter. 

Similar to the other natural resources already 

addressed, wetlands and water quality can be 

impacted by two major types of activities — 

visitor use and development of infrastructure. 

Wetlands and water quality can be affected by 

mechanisms previously described such as 

trampling and erosion. Described below are 

how these and other mechanisms are related 

to visitor use and development, and how they 

impact wetlands and water quality. 

173 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Visitor use probably has a greater potential to 

impact wetlands and water quality along riparian areas (e.g., the Platte and Crystal Rivers, 

Otter Creek), around lakes (e.g., School, 

North Bar, and Loon), and in the Bow Lakes 

area than in the numerous wetlands associated 

with the dune and swale topography common 

in certain less developed portions of the park. 

When a visitor walks through a wetland, the 

vegetation is trampled into the mud, and 

invertebrates living in the wetland can be 

crushed or buried in muck from which they 

cannot escape. If there is standing water, 

sediments from the bottom get stirred up into 

the water column. This resuspension of sediments reduces water quality and its suitability 

for biota dependent upon it. The overall 

physical nature of the wetland is altered in a 

way that typically reduces its ability to filter 

water. Thus wetland trampling impacts a 

wetland and its function at a variety of levels 

and ends up impacting not only the wetland 

but the resultant water quality in any water 

body serviced by that wetland. 

Other visitor activities that could impact 

wetlands and water quality include activities 

such as swimming, bathing, and motorized 

boating, which may result in pollution of 

wetlands and water bodies with petroleum 

products, soaps, and other substances. This 

pollution of the wetlands can lead to loss of 

both structure and function over time, and 

thus further reduced water quality. 

Development actions proposed in the alternatives of this document, such as development 

of parking areas, boat accesses, and other 

infrastructure, would be located to the extent 

feasible to avoid direct dredging or filling of 

wetlands and other “Waters of the U.S.” 

However, runoff from such development 

activities could change the hydrology (quality 

or amount of water) entering adjacent wetlands and waterways. Paved parking lots may 

increase the amount of runoff entering a 

wetland. If the runoff is filtered first, removing 

petroleum products originating from cars in 

the parking lot and other potential pollutants, 

this runoff could potentially augment the 

wetland and waterways during drier periods. 

However, installation of filtering systems 

often increases the footprint and initial cost of 

a project and the ongoing maintenance costs 

associated with such systems. Packed dirt or 

graveled parking lots are not free of potential 

impacts to wetlands and waterways. Runoff 

from these areas can also contaminate wetlands, not only with chemicals, but also with a 

heavier sediment load. Additionally, under the 

right conditions, dust from packed dirt or 

even gravel parking lots or roads can blow 

onto and impact adjacent wetlands and 

waterways. 

To reduce repetitiveness, the discussions 

presented later in this chapter of impacts to 

wetlands and water quality anticipated for 

each alternative will only briefly allude to the 

impacts detailed in the above paragraphs. Key 

words such as trampling, resuspension of 

sediments, pollution, runoff, and dust refer 

the reader back to the cause and effect 

descriptions provided above. 

Available information describing wetlands 

characteristics and distribution and water 

quality for various water bodies across the 

park, including existing research reports, 

planning documents, state programs, national 

mapping efforts, and consultation with park 

specialists, was gathered, reviewed, and 

summarized for this document. 

Wetlands are a protected resource managed 

under the following federal executive and 

director’s orders: 

Executive Order 11990, “Protection of 

Wetlands,” was issued in 1977 “to avoid to 

the extent possible the long- and shortterm adverse impacts associated with the 

destruction or modification of wetlands 

and to avoid direct or indirect support of 

new construction in wetlands wherever 

there is a practicable alternative.” This 

order directs the National Park Service to: 

(1) provide leadership and to take action to 

174 
Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 

minimize the destruction, loss, or 

degradation of wetlands; (2) preserve and 

enhance the natural and beneficial values 

of wetlands; and (3) to avoid direct or 

indirect support of new construction in 

wetlands unless there are no practicable 

alternatives to such construction and the 

proposed action includes all practicable 

measures to minimize harm to wetlands. 

Approved in 1998, Director’s Order 77-1: 

“Wetland Protection” was developed for 

use by the National Park Service in 

carrying out its responsibilities under 

Executive Order 11990. The general 

policies, requirements, and standards 

included in the manual are: (1) no net loss 

of wetlands and a long-term goal of net 

wetlands gain, (2) parkwide wetlands 

inventories, (3) restoration and enhancement of degraded wetlands habitats, (4) 

planning and siting facilities to avoid or 

minimize effects on wetlands, (5) 

restoration of degraded wetlands as 

compensation for adverse effects to 

wetlands, and (6) compliance with federal 

environmental regulations. 

Impacts to wetlands and water quality were 

evaluated by comparing projected changes 

resulting from implementing the alternatives 

to implementing the no-action alternative. 

The impacts of potential visitation increases 

have been factored into the analysis. The 

thresholds to determine wetlands impacts are 

defined as follows: 

Negligible: The impact is barely detectable 

and/or would result in no measurable or 

perceptible changes to wetlands or water 

quality. 

Minor: The impact is slight, but detectable, 

and/or would result in small but 

measurable changes in wetlands or water 

quality; the effects would be localized to 

one area in a drainage. 

Moderate: The impact is readily apparent 

and would result in easily detectable 

changes to wetlands or water quality; the 

effects would be localized to a drainage. 

Major: The impact is severely adverse or 

exceptionally beneficial and/or would 

result in appreciable changes to wetlands 

or water quality; the effects would be 

regionally important. 

VISITOR OPPORTUNITIES AND USE 

Visitor Opportunities 

This topic covers opportunities for recreation 

and interpretive experiences, access, scenic 

resources, natural soundscapes, and night 

skies. Throughout this plan’s public involvement process, wide-ranging opinions about 

Lakeshore visitor opportunities (e.g., access, 

recreational infrastructure, activities, and 

educational opportunities) were expressed. 

Impacts on visitor opportunities were 

evaluated by comparing projected impacts 

from the action alternatives to the no-action 

alternative. These evaluations included 

consideration of the Lakeshore’s purpose, 

significance, and fundamental resources and 

values and what contributes or detracts from 

desirable visitor opportunities. 

Visitor Use 

This topic addresses numbers of visitors. 

Visitor use at the Lakeshore has been relatively steady over time, though with some positive 

correlation to overall economic conditions in 

the broader Great Lakes region and to local 

population growth. Thus, visitor use at the 

National Lakeshore in the future will be 

primarily a function of population growth and 

continuing residential development in the 

vicinity of Benzie, Leelanau, and Grand 

Traverse counties; increases in the region’s 

seasonal population; long-term growth across 

the Great Lakes and the range and type of 

visitor opportunities associated with the 

various alternatives. Population gains of 

nearly 3.3 million residents are projected for 

175 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

176 

Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana between 

2000 and 2030 (U.S. Census Bureau 2005). 

Year-to-year changes in visitor use will vary, 

with periods of faster or slower growth, and 

even periods of short-term declines. Peak 

visitor use is expected to continue to occur in 

July and August. 

Changes in annual visitor use could also be 

affected by the management zoning, visitor 

opportunities, wilderness, and other aspects 

of the various alternatives. Those differences 

and uncertainties about when specific actions 

might occur provide a limited basis upon 

which to project changes in visitor use over 

time. Consequently, the approach to 

projecting visitor use relies on the professional 

judgment of the Lakeshore staff and their 

assessment as to the effects of changes in 

opportunities, capacities, activities, and 

wilderness proposals in promoting or discouraging use. The lack of predictive estimates reflects the lack of any major changes in 

visitor facilities and programs and uncertainties as to the timing and/or type of changes in 

recreational, cultural heritage, and other 

visitor opportunities associated with the 

alternatives. 

Long-term increases in visitor use, albeit 

relatively modest in scale, are foreseen under 

all of the alternatives. Changes in future use 

levels were established in terms of discrete 

increments over and above the change under 

the no-action alternative. Estimates of future 

visitor use are not intended to be predictive or 

absolute but rather provide a means of comparing the likely relative order in visitation 

changes — alternative A being the smallest 

and alternative C the largest. The projected 

long-term changes, on an annual basis are 

shown in table 22. 

The long-term increase in average annual 

visitor use for the no-action alternative is 

estimated at about 5% above the long-term 

average since 1990. The estimated increase for 

the action alternatives ranges from about 1.6% 

to 8.2% above that of the no-action 

alternative. 

The thresholds for this impact topic are as 

follows: 

Negligible: Visitors would likely be unaware 

of any effects associated with implementation of the alternative. There would be no 

noticeable change in visitor use and experience or in any defined indicators of visitor 

satisfaction or behavior. 

TABLE 22: PROJECTED LONG-TERM INCREASES IN ANNUAL VISITOR USE ASSOCIATED WITH 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN (ROUGHLY 20 YEARS) 

Alternative 

Long-Term 

Annual 

Visitor Use 

Increase in Long-Term 

Average Use* 

Historical 

Average (1990-

2006) 

1,194,000 NA

No-Action 

Alternative 

1,278,000 84,000

Preferred 

Alternative 

1,341,000 147,000

Alternative A 1,299,000 105,000

Alternative B 1,362,000 168,000

Alternative C 1,383,000 189,000

* Peak annual visitor use of 1,364,834 at the National Lakeshore 

occurred in 1999. 
Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 

Minor: Changes in visitor use and/or 

experience would be slight but detectable, 

but would not appreciably diminish or 

enhance critical characteristics of the 

visitor experience. Visitor satisfaction 

would remain stable. 

Moderate: Few critical characteristics of the 

desired visitor experience would change 

and/or the number of participants engaging in an activity would be altered. The 

visitor would be aware of the effects associated with implementation of the alternative 

and would likely be able to express an 

opinion about the changes. Visitor 

satisfaction would begin to either decline 

or increase as a direct result of the effect. 

Major: Multiple critical characteristics of the 

desired visitor experience would change 

and/or the number of participants 

engaging in an activity would be greatly 

reduced or increased. The visitor would be 

aware of the effects associated with 

implementation of the alternative and 

would likely express a strong opinion 

about the change. Visitor satisfaction 

would markedly decline or increase. 

WILDERNESS CHARACTER 

The 1964 Wilderness Act states, “it is hereby 

declared to be the policy of Congress to 

secure for the American people of present and 

future generations the benefits of an enduring 

resource of wilderness.” One of the central 

mandates of this act is to preserve wilderness 

character. Section 2.(a) states that wilderness 

areas shall be administered “so as to provide 

for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character . . . .”

Section 4.(b) states: “Except as otherwise 

provided in this Act, each agency administering any area designated as wilderness shall be 

responsible for preserving the wilderness 

character of the area and shall so administer 

such area for such other purposes for which it 

may have been established as also to preserve 

its wilderness character.” Because the Lakeshore has proposed wilderness in each of the 

action alternatives, and based on the act’s 

mandate to preserve wilderness character, this 

impact topic focuses on the extent to which a 

particular wilderness proposal secures for the 

public the benefits of an enduring 

(permanent) resource of wilderness, including 

preservation of wilderness character. 

For all but the no-action alternative, this 

impact assessment assumes that areas 

proposed for designated wilderness are 

ultimately designated as such by Congress. 

For the no-action alternative, this assessment 

assumes continuation of the current 

management direction — that is, the NPS 

continues to manage the areas to maintain 

their existing wilderness character until 

“Congress determines otherwise.” 

Wilderness character is not specifically 

defined in the 1964 Wilderness Act, nor is its 

meaning discussed in the act’s legislative 

history. However, the Wilderness Act 

identifies the following qualities that unify 

wilderness areas regardless of their size, 

location, or any other feature. 

• Undeveloped— “an area of undeveloped 

Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence without permanent 

improvements or human habitation . . . .” 

This refers to areas that are essentially 

without permanent structures, enhancements, or modern human occupation. To 

retain its primitive character, a wilderness 

ideally is managed without the use of 

motorized equipment or mechanical 

transport. 

• Natural — “protected and managed so as 

to preserve its natural conditions . . . .” 

This means areas that are largely free from 

effects of modern civilization. It also refers 

to maintenance of natural ecological 

relationships and processes, continued 

existence of native wildlife and plants in 

largely natural conditions, and absence of 

distractions (e.g., large groups of people; 

mechanization; and evidence of human 

177 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

manipulation, unnatural noises, signs, and 

other modern artifacts.) 

• Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or 

Unconfined Recreation — “has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a 

primitive and unconfined type of 

recreation . . . .” Solitude means encountering few, if any, people, and experiencing privacy and isolation. Primitive and 

unconfined recreation refers to freedom 

to explore with few restrictions, and the 

ability to be spontaneous. It means self 

sufficiency without support facilities or 

motorized transportation, and experiencing weather, terrain, and other aspects of 

the natural world with minimal shelter or 

assistance from devices of modern 

civilization. 

Impact intensity definitions for wilderness 

character are as follows. 

Negligible: Effects on opportunities for 

solitude or primitive and unconfined 

recreation would be confined to a small, 

localized area; any changes would not be 

perceived (or would be barely perceived) 

by most visitors. Also, any effects on the 

degree of development and the prevalence 

of natural conditions would be confined to 

a relatively small, localized area and would 

be barely perceived by most visitors. 

Minor: Effects on opportunities for solitude 

or primitive and unconfined recreation 

would be slightly beneficial or adverse and 

confined to a limited area of a proposed 

wilderness area; (or a wilderness-eligible 

area); changes would be perceived by some 

visitors. Also, effects on the degree of 

development and the prevalence of natural 

conditions would be apparent and 

confined to a limited area of a proposed 

wilderness area (or a wilderness-eligible 

area) and would be perceived by some 

visitors; natural conditions would continue 

to predominate. 

Moderate: Effects on opportunities for 

solitude or primitive and unconfined 

recreation would be apparent in one or 

more proposed wilderness areas; (or 

wilderness-eligible areas); changes would 

be apparent to many visitors. Also, effects 

on the degree of development and the 

prevalence of natural conditions would be 

readily apparent in one or more proposed 

wilderness areas; (or wilderness-eligible 

areas); natural conditions would predominate overall; some changes in wilderness 

character would be apparent to many 

visitors. 

Major: Effects on opportunities for solitude 

or primitive and unconfined recreation 

would be obvious in one or more proposed 

wilderness areas; (or wilderness-eligible 

areas); changes would be obvious to most 

visitors. Also, effects on the degree of 

development and the prevalence of natural 

conditions would be substantial in one or 

more proposed wilderness areas; (or 

wilderness-eligible areas); some changes in 

wilderness character would be obvious to 

most visitors. 

REGIONAL SOCIOECONOMICS 

Scoping identified potential economic and 

social implications of the alternatives as a 

topic of keen public interest. Economic effects 

are commonly expressed in terms of the 

number and types of jobs supported by the 

Lakeshore, changes in income, visitor use at 

the Lakeshore, and associated changes in 

visitor spending. Less well defined economic 

effects include the indirect effects from NPS 

operations and the effects on local government tax revenues. Examples of social impacts 

include effects on local and regional population growth, housing, community facilities 

and services, and effects on individual and 

community quality of life and lifestyles and 

attitudes. 

The analytical approach used in this analysis 

considers the following three main factors: 

• projected future expenditures for 

construction, rehabilitation, restoration 

178 
Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 

and maintenance of facilities and 

infrastructure 

• changes in staffing and federal spending 

to operate the National Lakeshore 

• changes in the levels of visitor use at the 

National Lakeshore 

Implementation costs of the alternatives, 

including staffing, operations, and capital 

construction and maintenance, were 

estimated based on current budgets and actual 

project costs at the National Lakeshore and 

other NPS units. Actual future outlays would 

reflect future NPS policies, actual on-theground conditions, unanticipated events and 

opportunities, and budgets approved by 

Congress for the National Park Service in 

general, or Sleeping Bear Dunes National 

Lakeshore specifically. 

Estimated changes in projected visitor use for 

the alternatives are presented in the “Visitor 

Opportunities and Use” section). Management guidance and zoning established under 

the General Management Plan is expected to 

attract higher visitor use under all of the 

action alternatives, as compared to the noaction alternative. Estimates of future visitor 

use are not intended to be predictive but 

rather reflective of the relative order in 

visitation changes — alternative A being the 

lowest and alternative C the highest. Actual 

visitor use over time will depend on 

temporary and multiyear variations due to 

such factors as regional or national economic 

conditions. 

Impact Thresholds and Characterization 

Economic and social impacts associated with 

the alternatives are assessed in terms of 

scale/intensity, duration, and type/character. 

These parameters are defined as follows. 

Scale/Intensity. The scale or intensity of 

impacts refers to the change(s) associated with 

the alternatives when compared to current 

and future conditions under the no-action 

alternative. In addition to the relative 

magnitude of changes, factors considered in 

assessing scale and intensity include the 

likelihood of people being aware of the 

changes, the ability to measure the effects of 

the changes, and the number of people or size 

of geographic region that would be affected. 

The scale/intensity thresholds for economic 

and social conditions are defined below. 

None/Negligible: Effects on adjacent landowners, neighbors, businesses, agencies, 

community infrastructure, social conditions, etc. would be nonexistent, barely 

detectable, or detectable only through 

indirect means and with no discernible 

impact on local social or economic 

conditions. 

Minor: Effects on adjacent landowners, 

neighbors, businesses, agencies, community infrastructure, social conditions, etc. 

would be small but detectable, geographically localized, affect few people, 

comparable in scale to typical year-to-year 

or seasonal variations, and not expected to 

substantively alter established social or 

economic structures over the long term. 

Moderate: Effects on adjacent landowners, 

neighbors, businesses, agencies, community infrastructure, social conditions, etc. 

would be readily apparent or observable 

across a wider geographic area and affect 

many people, and could have noticeable 

effects on the established economic or 

social structure and conditions over the 

long term. 

Major: Effects on adjacent landowners, 

neighbors, businesses, agencies, community infrastructure, social conditions, etc., 

would be readily detectable or observable, 

affect a large segment of the population, 

extend across much of a community or 

region, and have a substantial influence on 

the established social or economic 

conditions. 

Duration. Social and economic changes 

caused by an alternative may be temporary or 

last for an extended time. Temporary impacts 

179 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

may be noticeable locally, but not result in 

long-term changes of underlying economic 

and social conditions. Long-term impacts, on 

the other hand, may lead to changes in the 

economic base, construction or closure of 

public facilities, changes in real estate markets 

and how people and groups relate to one 

another, and other changes in established 

social and economic conditions. Many longterm effects would extend beyond the life of 

the approved General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Study / Environmental Impact 

Statement. 

Short-Term: Short-term effects are those that 

occur during and in response to planning; 

design; construction and major maintenance of buildings, trails, parking lots and 

other facilities. These effects diminish or 

disappear after the activity is completed. 

The “short-term” may include the initial 

response(s) in social or economic conditions to fundamental changes in park management and operations and changing 

visitor use, which later give way to broader 

changes over time. Generally, “short-term” 

captures effects lasting up to five years. The 

short-term, however, is not a specific fiveyear period tied to the signing of the 

“Record of Decision.” Distinct actions, 

implemented over time, could each trigger 

short-term effects, such that there are 

multiple “short-term” time horizons over 

time. 

Long-Term: Long-term effects are generally 

those lasting longer than five years, 

including some that may not begin until 

after completion of direct activities associated with the initial federal government 

spending or changes in management 

associated with an alternative. Such 

changes include increases in the Lakeshore’s base budget for operations and 

maintenance and effects related to changes 

in visitation over time. 

Type/Character. Social and economic 

consequences may be beneficial, adverse, or 

indeterminate. 

Beneficial: Effects that many individuals or 

groups would accept or recognize as 

improving economic or social conditions, 

either in general or for a specific group of 

people, businesses, organizations, or 

institutions. Examples of beneficial effects 

include lower unemployment, higher 

personal income, and economic and social 

diversity and sustainability. 

Adverse: Effects that most individuals or 

groups would accept or generally recognize as diminishing economic or social 

welfare, either in general or for a specific 

group of people, businesses, organizations, 

or institutions. Examples of adverse effects 

include fewer job opportunities, increases 

in the cost of living without matching 

increases in higher income, or an erosion 

of public sector fiscal resources to fund 

public facilities and services. 

Indeterminate: Effects for which the size, 

timing, location, or individuals or groups 

that would be impacted cannot be 

determined, or those that include both 

beneficial and negative effects, in some 

instances affecting different communities, 

populations, or public entities or jurisdictions, such that the net effect is 

indeterminate. 

NPS OPERATIONS 

This impact topic refers to the ability of NPS 

staff to protect and preserve National Lakeshore resources and provide opportunities for 

effective and enjoyable visitor experiences. It 

also addresses the effectiveness and efficiency 

with which NPS staff are able to perform such 

tasks. Information about NPS operations was 

compiled from various sources, especially 

Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore 

managers and other NPS staff. Information 

gathered includes park staffing, maintenance, 

and expense records, business plans, annual 

reports, volunteer records, and documents. 

Examples of operational considerations 

include needs for maintenance, protection, 

and patrol activities, and time required for 

180 
Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 

181 

park staff to get to/from various park sites 

requiring attention (e.g., research or 

monitoring sites, trailheads, campsites, etc.) 

Impact Intensity Definitions 

Negligible: Effects on NPS operations would 

be at or below the level of detection. 

Minor: Effects on NPS operations would be 

small but detectable. The change would be 

noticeable to staff but probably not to the 

public. 

Moderate: Effects on NPS operations would 

be readily apparent to staff and possibly to 

the public. 

Major: Effects on NPS operations would be 

substantial, widespread, and apparent to 

staff and the public. 
IMPACTS OF THE NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

HISTORIC RESOURCES 

Under the no-action alternative the National 

Lakeshore would continue to preserve and 

protect all of its identified historic properties 

(buildings, sites, structures, objects, districts, 

and landscapes) to the best of its ability given 

the limitations of available funds. Prioritization decisions would be based on such factors 

as national register eligibility and/or listing, 

the Lakeshore’s fundamental resources, 

interpretive values, resource condition, and 

suitability for NPS operations. Individual 

actions would require consultation with the 

Michigan state historic preservation officer 

and the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, if needed, and would be appropriately documented through compliance 

with Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. 

The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties (1995) 

identifies four treatment approaches that 

apply to a wide variety of resource types, 

including buildings, sites, structures, objects, 

districts, and landscape features and patterns. 

Three of those treatments are included in this 

plan — preservation, rehabilitation, and 

restoration — and they are defined on page 

40. These treatment approaches apply to a 

wide variety of resource types, including 

buildings, sites, structures, objects, districts, 

and landscape features and patterns. The 

simplest of these treatment approaches is 

preservation, in which measures are 

undertaken to stabilize the resource to ensure 

that it does not deteriorate further from its 

existing condition and then to maintain and 

repair historic features and materials. The 

second option is rehabilitation, in which the 

resource is made useable for some purpose 

while preserving those features that convey its 

historical, cultural, or architectural value. The 

third is restoration, in which the historic 

appearance at a particular time is accurately 

regained. The fourth treatment, 

reconstruction, is not proposed in this plan. 

All preservation, rehabilitation or restoration 

efforts would be undertaken in accordance 

with the standards. Any materials removed 

during rehabilitation or restoration efforts 

would be evaluated to determine their value to 

the Lakeshore’s museum collection and/or for 

their comparative use in future preservation 

work at the sites. Preservation, rehabilitation, 

or restoration would have no adverse effects 

on historic resources. 

With more than 300 buildings, sites, structures, objects, districts, and landscapes 

present in the park, it is likely that many 

historic properties will not be restored to their 

historic appearance. Most structures would be 

preserved, or they would be rehabilitated if an 

appropriate use for them can be identified and 

funding procured either through federal 

appropriation or through partnerships with 

state or local organizations. Many of the 

properties include smaller outbuildings that 

such partnerships might take on, either to 

rehabilitate for some use or to continually 

monitor and repair to ensure their continued 

existence. Where possible, partner organizations would be identified to fund and/or 

undertake work on historic properties. 

In the Glen Haven/Sleeping Bear Point U.S. 

Life-Saving Service Station area, all buildings, 

structures, and grounds would continue to be 

maintained in their current condition. Structures such as the Sleeping Bear Inn and associated garage may be leased out under the NPS 

historic leasing program; such structures 

would undergo rehabilitation for an adaptive 

modern use. 

In the Port Oneida Rural Historic District, all 

buildings, structures, and the associated 

agricultural landscape would be maintained in 

their current condition. Buildings, structures, 

182 
Impacts of the No-Action Alternative 

and landscape features that are deteriorating 

and at risk would undergo stabilization 

measures. Those currently in a stabilized 

condition await a decision about possible 

future uses that might allow for rehabilitation 

by the National Park Service or by an NPS 

partner organization. 

On North Manitou Island, continuation of the 

no-action alternative would result in the 

preservation (stabilization) of structures, 

buildings, and grounds that are currently 

unmaintained and maintenance of all others in 

their current condition. 

South Manitou Island structures, buildings, 

and grounds would undergo mostly stabilization of structures not currently stabilized and 

maintenance of all others in their current 

condition. 

All other properties on or determined eligible 

for inclusion in the National Register of 

Historic Places would undergo stabilization 

where that action has not already occurred or 

maintenance in the current condition where 

some preservation treatment has already been 

implemented. 

The actions proposed above are general. The 

treatments for each resource (preservation, 

stabilization, and/or rehabilitation with 

adaptive use) have not yet been determined so 

impacts cannot be fully described. However, it 

is the National Park Service’s intent that no 

action proposed be “adverse.” All actions 

affecting these historic structures and landscapes will be undertaken in consultation with 

the Michigan state historic preservation 

officer. 

The no-action alternative would not directly 

or indirectly affect any properties outside the 

boundary of the National Lakeshore that are 

listed on or eligible for the National Register 

of Historic Places, or that are listed by the 

state. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Over the years historic resources in the 

Lakeshore have been and continue to be 

adversely impacted by natural processes such 

as weathering, vegetative encroachment, and 

the wear and tear associated with visitor use. 

Actions proposed for the South Manitou 

Island Lighthouse Complex would result in 

both the restoration of the exterior of the 

keeper’s quarters and connecting passageway 

and the rehabilitation of the interior for 

adaptive reuse. In addition, actions proposed 

for Glen Haven Village include the 

stabilization and maintenance of historic 

structures or their rehabilitation for adaptive 

reuse. All preservation, rehabilitation, or 

restoration efforts would be undertaken in 

accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties (1995), and would result in no 

adverse effects on historic resources. 

As described above, implementation of the no 

action alternative would result in no adverse 

effects on historic resources. The no adverse 

impacts of this alternative, in combination 

with both the adverse and no adverse impacts 

of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would result in a no 

adverse effect cumulative impact. The no 

adverse effects of the no-action alternative 

would contribute modestly to the no adverse 

effect cumulative impact. 

Conclusion 

The no-action alternative would have a 

determination of no adverse effect under the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

“Regulations for the Protection of Historic 

and Cultural Properties” (36 CFR 800). There 

would be no impairment of cultural resources 

from implementation of the no-action alternative (see specific definition of impairment in 

the “Impairment of National Lakeshore 

Resources” section of this chapter. 

 

183 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Soils and Geologic Resources 

Readers are encouraged to refer back to the 

“Soils and Geologic Resources” discussion in 

the “Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing 

Impacts” section for additional details on the 

types of impacts resulting from visitor use and 

development. 

Under the no-action alternative, current 

visitor activities that negatively impact dunes 

would continue. Although dunes impacts, 

primarily soils compaction and erosion, would 

be reduced in some areas by the use of sand 

ladders, boardwalks, and sidewalks, placement and maintenance would be limited to 

what the staff can accomplish with current 

resources. As such, short- and long-term 

adverse impacts on dunes resources, ranging 

from minor to moderate depending upon the 

specific location, would continue. 

Ongoing high use of the Platte River would 

continue to impact soil resources within that 

corridor. Informal entry and exit points along 

the river and proliferation of informal social 

trails in the adjacent floodplain would 

continue to contribute to erosion of the 

riverbank and compaction of floodplain soils, 

resulting in long-term moderate adverse 

impacts on soil resources in that corridor. 

No new trails or different use of existing trails 

would be proposed in the no-action alternative. Use of existing formalized trails would 

continue to have long-term minor adverse 

impacts on the soils due to erosion and 

compaction. 

Soil disturbance or destruction from development of additional infrastructure would not 

occur in the no-action alternative because no 

changes to existing roads, parking areas, or 

campgrounds are proposed in this alternative. 

Parking area and road end upgrades that are 

underway are discussed under cumulative 

impacts. During periods of peak visitation, 

visitors might continue to park in nondesignated areas for access, disturbing those soils 

and leading to soil compaction or erosion. 

This would continue to result in short- and 

long-term minor to moderate adverse impacts 

on soils resources, depending upon the 

specific location and the conditions under 

which parking in nondesignated areas 

occurred. 

Under this alternative, the National Park 

Service would continue to acquire lands on a 

willing-seller basis within the Benzie Corridor 

but would not implement any development 

within the corridor during the life of this plan. 

Continued NPS acquisition of lands in the 

Benzie Corridor would protect the soils and 

geologic resources on NPS-owned parcels 

from development for the life of this plan, 

providing short- and long-term, moderate, 

beneficial effects. Private development within 

the corridor would probably continue at its 

current pace and would continue to have 

minor to moderate adverse impacts to these 

resources. 

Cumulative Impacts. Other past, present, 

and anticipated projects that would contribute 

to impacts on soils and geologic resources 

include 1) improvements to the parking areas 

at the ends of Leelanau County Roads 651 and 

669; (2) Glen Haven Village improvements; 

(3)improvements to the Lake Michigan 

overlooks accessed from the Pierce Stocking 

Scenic Drive; (4) riverbank stabilization on the 

Platte River at the former Water Wheel and 

Casey’s Corner canoe liveries; (5) restoration 

of the natural topography, hydrology, and 

native vegetative cover of nonhistoric areas 

disturbed by past land uses — particularly 

those in critical dunes areas; (6) minor 

improvements to the Dune Climb parking 

area; and (7) continued dredging of the mouth 

of the Platte River. Although activities 1-6 

would likely result in short-term adverse 

impacts during the construction phase, the net 

result would likely be long-term, minor to 

moderate beneficial impacts because all 

projects would contribute to a reduction of 

184 
Impacts of the No-Action Alternative 

the potential for soil compaction and erosion. 

Dredging the mouth of the Platte River results 

in continued addition of dredged material to 

the shoreline. During low-water periods 

deeper dredging is required and results in 

dredge materials with high clay content being 

deposited on the shoreline, resulting in 

armoring of the beach surface and consequent 

profile changes. This results in short- and 

long-term minor to moderate adverse impacts. 

The impacts of other actions described above, 

in combination with those of the no-action 

alternative, would result in short- and longterm minor to moderate adverse, and longterm minor to moderate beneficial cumulative 

impacts. The no-action alternative is expected 

to contribute a small component to these 

impacts. 

Conclusion. The no-action alternative would 

have short- and long-term, minor to moderate 

adverse impacts and short- and long-term 

moderate beneficial impacts on soils and geologic resources. Cumulative impacts would be 

anticipated to be short and long term, minor 

to moderate adverse, and long term, minor to 

moderate beneficial. There would be no 

impairment of soils or geologic resources from 

implementation of the no-action alternative 

(see definition of impairment in the “Impairment of National Lakeshore Resources” 

section). 

Vegetation and Wildlife 

Readers are encouraged to refer back to the 

“Vegetation and Wildlife” discussion in the 

“Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing 

Impacts” section for additional details on the 

types of impacts resulting from visitor use and 

development. 

Under the no-action alternative, 43% (30,903 

acres) of the National Lakeshore would 

continue to be managed as wilderness. No 

new trails or roads would be constructed, so 

no further fragmentation of habitats would be 

anticipated. No loss of habitat to 

infrastructure development is anticipated in 

this alternative. Lands along the Benzie 

Corridor would continue to be purchased on 

a willing-seller basis by the National Park 

Service, thus protecting those lands from 

development for the life of this plan. Access to 

the Giant Cedars area would continue to be by 

foot or, less frequently, via the lake (i.e., by 

boat), resulting in continued low visitor use of 

this sensitive area. The sum of these effects 

would be long-term, moderately beneficial 

impacts on the vegetation and wildlife of the 

Lakeshore. 

Continuing to allow motorboats on School, 

Bass (Leelanau County), North Bar, and Loon 

lakes would result in short- and long-term, 

minor, adverse impacts on wildlife due to 

sensory-based disturbance at these locations. 

The no-action alternative would also continue 

to allow the use of motorized boats on the 

Crystal and Platte rivers, which could have 

short-term, minor adverse impacts on the 

wildlife along those rivers due to sensorybased disruption. High, unconstrained visitor 

use of the Platte River would continue to have 

short- and long-term, moderately adverse 

impacts on the vegetation and wildlife in or 

adjacent to that corridor due to visitors going 

up and down the riverbanks to use the areas 

alongside the river for a variety of activities. 

The effects of these activities include direct 

trampling of vegetation, sensory-based 

disruption of wildlife behaviors, and potential 

spread of invasive and pest species. 

Continuation of the vehicle tours around the 

farm loop would have short- and long-term, 

negligible adverse impacts on habitat suitability and wildlife behaviors in that area because 

of the minor noise and visual disturbance 

associated with those tours and the introduction and spread of invasive species. The lack 

of a formal trail system in the Bow Lakes area 

would continue to encourage random movement of visitors through that habitat, resulting 

in short- and long-term, minor adverse 

impacts on the vegetation and wildlife of the 

185 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

area due to trampling, habitat alteration, and 

sensory-based disruption. Dispersed camping 

on North Manitou Island would continue to 

have short- and long-term, minor adverse 

impacts on the vegetation and wildlife in the 

vicinity of repeatedly used sites for camping. 

Formation of new informal campsites, or 

repeated use of old ones, results in habitat 

alteration and sensory-based disturbance to 

the wildlife in the vicinity of the campsite. 

Under this alternative, the National Park 

Service would continue to acquire lands 

within the Benzie Corridor but would not 

implement any development within the 

corridor during the life of this plan. 

Continued NPS acquisition of lands in the 

Benzie Corridor would protect the vegetation 

and wildlife on NPS-owned parcels from 

development for the life of this plan, 

providing short- and long-term, moderate, 

beneficial effects. Private development within 

the corridor would probably continue at its 

current pace and would continue to have 

minor to moderate adverse impacts to these 

resources. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past, present, and 

anticipated projects that would contribute to 

impacts on vegetation and wildlife include (1) 

the improvements to the parking areas at the 

ends of Leelanau County Roads 651 and 669; 

(2) implementation of the “Fire Management 

Plan”; (3) improvements to the Lake Michigan 

overlooks accessed from the Pierce Stocking 

Scenic Drive; (4) river bank stabilization on 

the Platte River at the former Water Wheel 

and Casey’s Corner canoe liveries; and (5) 

restoration approximating the natural topography, hydrology, and native vegetative cover 

of nonhistoric areas disturbed by past land 

uses — particularly those in critical dunes 

areas. These combined actions would likely 

have short- and long-term minor to moderate 

adverse impacts on vegetation and wildlife 

due to disturbance during the actions, and 

long-term minor beneficial impacts on vegetation and wildlife due to habitat restoration 

and enhancement. The impacts of the other 

actions described above, together with the 

impacts of the no-action alternative, would 

result in short- and long-term minor to 

moderate adverse cumulative impacts, and 

long-term minor to moderate beneficial cumulative impacts on the vegetation and wildlife 

of the Lakeshore. The no-action alternative is 

expected to contribute a relatively small 

component to these cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. The no-action alternative would 

have long-term, moderately beneficial 

impacts, and short- and long-term negligible 

to moderate adverse impacts on the vegetation 

and wildlife of the Lakeshore. The impacts of 

other actions combined with those of the noaction alternative would likely result in shortand long-term negligible to moderate adverse 

cumulative impacts, and long-term, minor to 

moderate beneficial cumulative impacts on 

the vegetation and wildlife of the Lakeshore. 

There would be no impairment of vegetation 

or wildlife resources from implementation of 

the no-action alternative (see specific 

definition of impairment in the “Impairment 

of National Lakeshore Resources” section). 

Federal Threatened 

and Endangered Species 

Readers are encouraged to refer back to the 

“Federal Threatened and Endangered 

Species” discussion in the “Methods and 

Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts” section 

for additional details on the types of impacts 

resulting from visitor use and development. 

Under the no-action alternative, as under all 

alternatives, the active Lake Michigan beach 

area is used for a variety of recreational 

activities. The beach area is also a means of 

access to the National Lakeshore for boaters, 

kayakers, etc. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service has designated 2.1 miles (3.3 km) 

around the southern end of North Manitou 

Island and 14.2 miles (22.5 km) along the 

Lakeshore’s mainland as critical piping plover 

habitat (USFWS 2001). Federally endangered 

186 
Impacts of the No-Action Alternative 

piping plovers nest in the active zone of the 

beach and are easily disturbed by human 

activity during the nest site selection, egglaying, and incubation phases of nesting 

(approximately mid-May to mid-June) 

(USFWS 2001). Sensitivity to human activity 

declines as the nesting season progresses from 

mid-June to mid-July, by which time many of 

the young plovers are capable of flight. 

Although the critical habitat within the 

Lakeshore coincides with the actively used 

recreational beach area, NPS staff have 

demonstrated success in minimizing impacts 

on nesting piping plovers in areas with 

relatively high human activity (e.g., the mouth 

of the Platte River) through various actions 

(see “Mitigative Measures for the Action 

Alternatives” section in chapter 2). Human 

activity is currently restricted in breeding 

areas by use of a specialized fence system. 

Although dogs are allowed in many parts of 

the National Lakeshore, they are required to 

be on a 2-meter (6-foot) leash at all times. 

Furthermore, the park issues a notice each 

year at the beginning of the piping plover 

reproductive season that prohibits pets on 

those segments of beaches where piping 

plovers have established territories or nests. 

That prohibition is kept in place until the 

piping plover reproductive season has ended 

(NPS 2006c). Other actions include further 

provision of information about the species 

and its habits and designating alternate access 

points. 

No trail or other development is proposed 

within designated critical habitat under the 

no-action alternative. 

Under the no-action alternative the one area 

in the Lakeshore where the federally 

endangered Michigan monkey flower is 

known to occur would continue to be managed for protection of this species. No new 

roads, trails, or other developments are 

proposed under the no-action alternative that 

could negatively impact this species. 

Pitcher’s thistle occurs throughout the 

vegetated portions of the shoreline dunes on 

both the mainland and the islands. Most 

occurrences of this federally threatened 

species within the National Lakeshore are in 

areas managed for conservation of natural 

resources under the no-action alternative. No 

new roads, trails, or other developments are 

proposed under the no-action alternative that 

could negatively impact this species. 

At the landscape level, the no-action alternative may affect but is not likely to adversely 

affect listed species (piping plover, Michigan 

monkey flower, and Pitcher’s thistle) because 

continuing the current management direction 

would result in conditions that are beneficial 

to preserving habitat and minimizing impacts 

on listed species. 

Under this alternative, the National Park 

Service would continue to acquire lands 

within the Benzie Corridor but would not 

implement any development within the 

corridor during the life of this plan. Private 

development within the corridor would 

probably continue at its current pace. These 

activities and conditions would have no effect 

on listed species because neither the species 

nor their habitats occur within the corridor. 

Conservation Measures. Conservation 

measures are undertaken to reduce potential 

impacts on federally listed species or 

candidate species. Initiation of conservation 

measures would occur in consultation with 

the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and would 

be required if any of the following occurred: 

 initiation of activities anticipated to have 

impacts on piping plovers or their designated critical habitat beyond those 

addressed in this document 

 additional Michigan monkey flower 

occurrences within the Lakeshore were 

identified in areas where they might 

potentially be impacted 

187 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

 initiation of activities anticipated to have 

impacts on Michigan monkey flower 

populations 

 initiation of activities anticipated to have 

impacts on Pitcher’s thistle populations 

beyond those addressed in this document 

Renewed discussion and consultation with the 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, should any of 

the above events occur, would focus on 

development of specific conservation 

measures to reduce potential impacts on these 

species and/or designated critical habitat. 

Such conservation measures would be based 

on the recommendations provided by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past, present, and 

anticipated projects that would contribute to 

impacts on federally listed species and 

designated critical habit include (1) the 

improvements to the parking areas at the ends 

of Leelanau County Roads 651 and 669; (2) 

implementation of the “Fire Management 

Plan”; (3) improvements to the Lake Michigan 

overlooks accessed from the Pierce Stocking 

Scenic Drive; and (4) those activities 

presented in table 21. Most of these actions 

would benefit natural resources including 

federally listed species and their designated 

critical habitats. Some past projects at the 

National Lakeshore, however, such as the site 

restoration project near Big Glen Lake, have 

adversely affected federally listed species, i.e., 

Michigan monkey flower. These resulted in 

formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. During implementation, 

actions would be taken to avoid or minimize 

potential adverse impacts on such species. 

This would result in actions that might affect 

but would not be likely to adversely affect 

federally listed species. The actions described 

above, in combination with the no action 

alternative, would result in no more than 

insignificant or discountable cumulative 

impacts resulting in overall impacts that may 

affect but are not likely to adversely affect 

these species. The no-action alternative would 

be expected to contribute a relatively small 

component to these cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. The no-action alternative may 

affect but would not be likely to adversely 

affect addressed federally listed species and 

designated critical habitat. The cumulative 

effects of other projects, combined with the 

no-action alternative, may affect but would 

not be likely to adversely affect these species. 

There would be no impairment of federal 

threatened and endangered species from this 

alternative (see specific definition of 

impairment in the “Impairment of National 

Lakeshore Resources” section). 

Michigan State-Listed Species 

Readers are encouraged to refer back to the 

“Michigan State-Listed Species” discussion in 

the “Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing 

Impacts” section for additional details on the 

types of impacts resulting from visitor use and 

development. 

Access to the Giant Cedars area would 

continue to be by foot from the ranger station, 

or, less frequently, via the lake (i.e., by boat). 

Management actions that occur or would be 

considered for reduction of impacts to plants 

and soils in this sensitive area would include 

educating visitors about the sensitive nature of 

the area, fencing to reduce compaction of root 

zones and/or trampling of vegetation, and the 

strategic use of boardwalks. As such, the noaction alternative would be anticipated to 

have short- and long-term minor adverse 

impacts on the Michigan state-listed species 

occurring in this general area. 

The primary activity that would continue 

under the no-action alternative, and which 

would have the potential to impact state-listed 

species in the shorelines/dunes/near-shore 

complex would be recreational hiking. Hiking 

would likely continue to have short-term, 

minor adverse impacts on the fascicled 

moonwort, Lake Huron locust, prairie 

188 
Impacts of the No-Action Alternative 

moonwort, and prairie warbler due to soil 

disturbance, erosion, compaction, and 

trampling for the plant species, and trampling 

and sensory-based disruption for the animal 

species. 

Several activities that would continue under 

the no-action alternative and would likely 

adversely impact state-listed species 

associated with lakes, wetlands, and riparian 

areas (i.e., bald eagle, Blanchard’s cricket frog, 

common loon, cut-leaved water parsnip, 

Douglas stenelmis riffle beetle, ram’s-head 

lady’s-slipper, and wood turtle). Continued 

use of motorized boats on School, Bass 

(Leelanau County), North Bar, and Loon 

lakes would likely prevent common loons and 

trumpeter swans from using these lakes 

because they are sensitive to human 

disturbance, particularly loud noises. 

Continued high and relatively unconstrained 

visitor use of the Platte River corridor reduces 

the suitability of this corridor habitat for the 

Douglas stenelmis riffle beetle, wood turtle, 

and bald eagle due to sensory-based 

disruptions. Collectively, these activities 

would result in short- and long-term, minor to 

moderate, and adverse impacts on state-listed 

species associated with lakes, wetlands, and 

riparian areas. 

Ongoing activities that might affect the mature 

forest associates — merlins and redshouldered hawks — include dispersed 

camping on North Manitou Island; motorized 

boats on Bass (Leelanau County), North Bar 

and Loon Lakes; and hang gliding at 

designated sites. 

Under this alternative, the National Park 

Service would continue to acquire lands 

within the Benzie Corridor but would not 

implement any development within the 

corridor during the life of this plan. Private 

development within the corridor would 

probably continue at its current pace. These 

activities and conditions would have 

negligible effects on state-listed species 

because although some occurrences are 

known near the corridor, none are known or 

anticipated within the corridor. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past, present, and 

anticipated projects that would contribute to 

impacts on Michigan state-listed plant and 

animal species include the improvements to 

the parking areas at the ends of Leelanau 

County Roads 651 and 669; Glen Haven 

Village improvements; implementation of the 

“Fire Management Plan”; improvements to 

the Lake Michigan overlooks accessed from 

the Pierce Stocking Scenic Drive; riverbank 

stabilization on the Platte River at the former 

Water Wheel and Casey’s Corner canoe 

liveries; restoration approximating the natural 

topography, hydrology, and native vegetative 

cover of nonhistoric areas disturbed by past 

land uses — particularly those in critical dunes 

areas; and minor improvements to the Dune 

Climb parking area. Each of these projects 

would result in short-term adverse impacts 

during construction. The long-term impacts 

would likely be minor to moderate and 

beneficial. The no-action alternative would 

contribute short- and long-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse impacts to these effects on 

Michigan state-listed species. The impacts of 

the other actions, together with the impacts of 

the no-action alternative, would result in 

short- and long-term minor to moderate 

adverse, and long-term, minor to moderate, 

beneficial cumulative impacts. The no-action 

alternative would be expected to contribute a 

relatively small component of these 

cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. The no-action alternative would 

have short- and long-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse impacts on Michigan statelisted species. Cumulative impacts are 

predicted to be short- and long-term minor to 

moderate, adverse, and long-term, minor to 

moderate, beneficial. There would be no 

impairment of Michigan state-listed species 

from this alternative (see specific definition of 

impairment in the “Impairment of National 

Lakeshore Resources” section). 

 

189 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Wetlands and Water Quality 

Readers are encouraged to refer back to the 

“Wetlands and Water Quality” discussion in 

the “Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing 

Impacts” section for additional details on the 

types of impacts resulting from visitor use and 

development. 

Visitor activities that would continue under 

the no-action alternative and that could 

impact wetlands and water quality include 

visitor use of riparian areas, wetlands, and 

lakes, including those in the Bow Lakes area. 

Visitor use impacts in these areas includes 

wetland trampling due to walking through the 

wetlands, and pollution of wetlands through 

introduction of petroleum-based and other 

chemicals (e.g., motorized boats and 

swimming/bathing). Collectively, these 

impacts would likely have short- and longterm, minor to moderate, adverse impacts on 

wetlands and water quality within the 

National Lakeshore. 

No development activities are proposed in the 

no-action alternative that would be 

anticipated to impact wetlands or water 

quality. Continued NPS acquisition of lands 

within the Benzie Corridor would help 

protect wetlands and water quality below this 

area, resulting in short- and long-term, 

negligible to minor beneficial impacts. Private 

development within the corridor would 

probably continue at its current pace and 

would continue to have minor to moderate 

adverse impacts to these resources. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past, present, and 

anticipated projects that would contribute to 

impacts on wetlands and water quality include 

implementation of the “Fire Management 

Plan”; river bank stabilization on the Platte 

River at the former Water Wheel and Casey’s 

Corner canoe liveries; restoration approximating the natural topography, hydrology, 

and native vegetative cover of nonhistoric 

areas disturbed by past land uses — 

particularly those in critical dunes areas, 

minor improvements to the Dune Climb 

parking area, and dredging of the Platte River 

mouth. Although each of these projects would 

involve short-term adverse impacts (e.g. 

dredging of the Platte River resulting in shortterm suspension of particulates in the water 

and resulting lower water quality immediately 

downstream (lakeside) of the dredging), the 

net result would likely be long-term, minor to 

moderate beneficial impacts (e.g. dredging the 

mouth of the Platte River allows boats to pass 

without continuously hitting the bottom, 

stirring up material, and reducing water 

quality). The no-action alternative would 

contribute short- and long-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse and short-and long-term, 

negligible to minor, beneficial impacts to the 

cumulative effects on wetlands and water 

quality. The impacts of the other actions, 

together with the impacts of the no-action 

alternative, would result in short- and longterm minor to moderate, adverse; short-term, 

negligible to minor beneficial; and long-term 

negligible to moderate beneficial cumulative 

impacts. The no-action alternative would 

likely contribute a relatively small component 

to these cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. The no-action alternative would 

have short- and long-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse impacts on wetlands and 

water quality. The cumulative impacts would 

be short- and long-term minor to moderate, 

adverse; short-term, negligible to minor beneficial; and long-term negligible to moderate 

beneficial. There would be no impairment of 

wetlands or water quality from this alternative 

(see specific definition of impairment in the 

“Impairment of National Lakeshore 

Resources” section). 

VISITOR OPPORTUNITIES AND USE 

Visitor Opportunities 

Visitors would continue to have access to 

information, interpretation, and educational 

opportunities at a variety of locations, 

190 
Impacts of the No-Action Alternative 

including the visitor center in Empire, at Glen 

Haven, and at the visitor contact station on 

South Manitou Island. Interpretive and 

educational activities throughout the Lakeshore would be similar to those currently 

offered (see chapter 4 “Visitor Opportunities 

and Use” section). Continuation of these 

opportunities would have long-term, 

moderate, beneficial impacts. 

Access to and through the Lakeshore would 

continue on the existing network of state, 

county, and NPS roads and Lakeshore trails, 

trailheads, and beach access points (see 

chapter 4 “Facilities and Infrastructure” 

section under “NPS Operations”). Seasonal 

ferry service would continue to be provided 

for overnight trips to North Manitou Island 

and day and overnight trips to South Manitou 

Island. Visitor access to the Benzie Corridor 

would not be provided due to the current 

limited NPS ownership. Continuation of the 

above-noted Lakeshore access would have 

long-term, moderate, beneficial impacts. 

The scenic resources of the Lakeshore would 

largely reflect existing conditions. Visitors 

could experience relatively large areas of the 

Lakeshore that are natural in character, sites 

that reflect the area’s culture and history (e.g., 

Glen Haven, Port Oneida, and cultural 

resources on North Manitou and South 

Manitou islands), and areas with facilities that 

support recreational use (e.g., the Dune Climb 

and Trails End). NPS land acquisition would 

continue in the Benzie Corridor, on a willingseller basis. The development of private 

properties within the Benzie Corridor might 

continue to occur although NPS properties 

would remain undeveloped. Currently the 

corridor is relatively undeveloped and the 

views of Crystal Ridge from below or more 

distant points within and outside the 

Lakeshore are natural in character. The 

largely natural scenic resources of the 

Lakeshore would continue to have long-term, 

moderate beneficial impacts on visitors. 

The scale of recreation-oriented development 

would continue to be relatively modest (see 

chapter 4 “Facilities and Infrastructure” 

section). Some visitors would be disappointed 

not to have some additional improvements in 

recreation-oriented development. The current 

level of development would continue to have 

long-term, minor beneficial impacts for most 

visitors. For those wanting additional 

developments there would be long-term, 

minor adverse impacts as a result of 

limitations in available developed recreational 

opportunities and amenities. 

A wide range of recreational activities would 

continue to be available. Visitors would 

continue to experience crowding on the Platte 

River during peak use times, and there would 

be no visitor opportunities in the Benzie 

Corridor. Visitor opportunities related to 

wilderness are described in the “Wilderness 

Character” section of this chapter. The range 

of current recreational activities would 

provide an overall long-term, beneficial 

impact on visitors. However, the occasional 

crowding on the Platte River would continue 

to have long-term, minor adverse effects to 

some river users and might result in some 

visitor displacement. 

Natural sounds would continue to dominate 

the Lakeshore except along roadways, in 

developed areas, where motorized boats are 

allowed (along rivers, at specific inland lakes, 

and on Lake Michigan), and when aircraft are 

flying over. The predominance of natural 

sounds would continue to have long-term, 

minor, beneficial impacts on visitors. 

The naturally dark night sky would continue 

to be predominant in the Lakeshore despite 

vehicular lights along roadways and lighting in 

nearby developed areas. These conditions 

would continue to have long-term, minor, 

beneficial impacts for those who value dark 

night skies. 

191 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Visitor Use 

Visitor opportunities under the no-action 

alternative would remain essentially 

unchanged. Consequently, visitor use at 

Sleeping Bear Dunes under the no-action 

alternative would be expected to increase 

modestly over the life of this plan (primarily as 

a result of regional population growth) — 

perhaps on the order of 5% to 7% (up to 

84,000 additional visitors per year). Year-toyear changes in visitor use would vary, with 

periods of faster or slower growth, and even 

periods of declining visitor use. However, the 

long-term growth trend would be expected to 

be positive. Peak visitor use would likely 

continue to occur in July and August. Current 

visitor use levels would have long-term and 

minor effects that may be concurrently viewed 

as beneficial or adverse. The differences 

between beneficial and adverse would depend 

on the expectations and preferences of the 

visitor related to the anticipated increased 

visitation. 

Cumulative Effects 

Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects that would affect visitor opportunities and use include: (1) improvements to 

parking areas at the ends of Leelanau County 

Roads 651 and 669; (2) Glen Haven Village 

improvements; (3) improvements to the Pierce 

Stocking Scenic Drive Lake Michigan overlooks 9 and 10; (4) South Manitou Lighthouse 

Complex exterior restoration and interior 

rehabilitation; and (5) Dune Climb parking 

area paving and other minor improvements. 

These actions would improve visitor opportunities by improving enjoyment, access, 

and/or range of available opportunities for 

visitors and would have an overall long-term, 

minor, beneficial effect on visitor opportunities and use. The development of private 

properties within the Benzie Corridor and 

rural residential developments near the 

Lakeshore (particularly along the access roads 

and in/near Glen Arbor and Empire) might 

continue to occur; these would result in a 

degradation of natural scenic quality, natural 

soundscapes, and night sky. These actions 

would have a long-term, minor, adverse effect 

on visitors. Combined with the no-action 

alternative, these actions would have a longterm, minor, beneficial cumulative effect. 

Impacts of the no-action alternative would 

comprise a relatively modest portion of the 

overall cumulative effect. 

Conclusion 

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 recreation-oriented 

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. The cumulative effects would be 

long-term, minor, and beneficial. 

WILDERNESS CHARACTER 

Natural and Undeveloped 

Under this alternative, 30,903 acres (43% of 

the National Lakeshore) would continue to be 

managed to maintain their existing wilderness 

character “until Congress determines otherwise.” For simplicity, these areas are referred 

to simply as “wilderness areas” in this section. 

In the no-action alternative, “wilderness 

areas” would continue to be interrupted by or 

interspersed with non-wilderness in some 

places (e.g., at Port Oneida, near Good 

Harbor, and on South Manitou Island), so 

adjacent motorized or mechanized uses (e.g., 

vehicle use, the motorized farm tour on South 

Manitou Island) would continue to intrude 

192 
Impacts of the No-Action Alternative 

upon the “wilderness areas’” undeveloped, 

primeval character. Within the “wilderness 

areas,” the presence of secondary roads with 

active motor vehicle and bicycle use and 

presence of historic structures would 

continue to locally diminish the areas’ 

naturalness. These would be continuing (not 

new) adverse, localized, and minor long-term 

impacts. 

Opportunities for Solitude 

Outstanding opportunities for solitude would 

continue to be available in the “wilderness 

areas” on the mainland (particularly at the 

north and south ends) and on the Manitou 

Islands. Most portions of the “wilderness,” 

especially away from trails and developed 

areas, would continue to offer excellent 

prospects for privacy and isolation, although 

modest gradual increases in visitation would 

slightly diminish these opportunities over 

time. Solitude would continue to be more 

available on North Manitou Island than on 

South Manitou because the former is larger, 

has fewer visitors (many of whom are seeking 

solitude themselves), and lacks day use. This 

alternative would have continuing moderate 

beneficial impacts and long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts on opportunities for solitude. 

Opportunities for Primitive, 

Unconfined Recreation 

Due to the nature of the ferry schedule there 

would continue to be opportunities for both 

day and overnight wilderness experiences on 

South Manitou Island, but only overnight 

experiences on North Manitou. For visitor 

safety and resource reasons, permits are 

required for backcountry camping, and 

campers must stay in designated campgrounds 

except on North Manitou Island where 

camping would continue to be dispersed. 

Although most visitors would agree that there 

are outstanding opportunities for primitive, 

unconfined recreation both on the mainland 

and on the islands, permit and camping 

requirements would continue to diminish 

these qualities to some degree, resulting in a 

minor, long-term, adverse impact. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Over time, the Lakeshore’s ongoing program 

to restore nonhistoric areas disturbed by past 

land uses to more natural conditions has 

substantially increased the natural, 

undeveloped character of the Lakeshore. In 

2006 alone, restoration was accomplished on 

21 tracts amounting to 135 acres, and another 

14 tracts were partially restored. The work 

includes removing nonnative trees and 

remnants of human enhancements such as 

house foundations, gravel, wells, and septic 

systems, plus reestablishing more natural 

contours and native vegetation. This 

restoration work would continue to have a 

long-term beneficial effect on naturalness. 

Combined with this ongoing program, the noaction alternative would have long term, 

moderate, beneficial cumulative effects. The 

contribution of the no-action alternative to 

these cumulative effects would be substantial. 

Conclusion 

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. The no-action alternative, 

combined with other actions, would result in 

long-term moderate, beneficial cumulative 

effects. 

 

193 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

REGIONAL SOCIOECONOMICS 

Implementing the no-action alternative would 

occur at the same time as other economic, 

demographic and social changes in the region. 

Economic projections for the region 

anticipate population growth of about 5% 

through 2010 and more than 25% through 

2030, a net gain of more than 30,000 residents 

(NWMCOG 2006 and MDOT 2007). Most of 

the growth is expected in Grand Traverse 

County, although nearly 10,000 additional 

year-round residents are projected in Benzie 

and Leelanau counties. Seasonal population is 

also expected to climb. The influx of new 

residents will affect the social dynamics in the 

region. Employment increases will accompany 

the population growth, particularly the 

number of jobs in retail trade and services and 

in the residential construction industries. 

Visitor-Related Economic Impacts 

Visitor use at Sleeping Bear Dunes under the 

no-action alternative would be expected to 

increase modestly over the life of this plan — 

perhaps on the order of 5% to 7% (see 

“Impacts of the No-Action Alternative — 

Visitor Use” section in this chapter). 

Increased visitor spending at local stores, 

motels and hotels, and other tourism-related 

businesses and attractions would accompany 

the rising visitation. Annual spending could 

climb to $34.5 million over the life of this plan, 

a $1.7 million increase over current levels. 

Future visitor use and spending would vary by 

season, with peak visitor use in the summer. 

Future visitor spending would include 

increases in entry and camping fees and sales 

of merchandise through the Eastern National 

cooperating association’s operations at the 

Lakeshore. 

Projected spin-offs from the visitor spending 

include 30 to 35 additional jobs and increased 

personal income in the region. The visitorrelated economic impacts would be long-term 

benefits, but negligible to minor relative to the 

84,000-plus jobs and $3.97 billion in personal 

income in the three-county region in 2005. 

Visitor spending under no action would 

continue to be concentrated in Glen Arbor, 

Empire, Traverse City, and businesses located 

along M-22, M-72, and other highways 

providing access to the Lakeshore. Market 

opportunities created by the spending would 

help sustain the retail trade and service 

establishments in the region, with these 

businesses realizing a collective, albeit limitedscale increase in business revenues. The 

economic stimulus associated with visitor 

spending would remain highly seasonal. 

The state and local governments would collect 

additional sales tax from the increased visitor 

spending. 

The visitor-related economic impacts would 

be beneficial, but negligible in the short term 

and minor and beneficial over the long term 

due to the limited scale of increased visitation 

over time. 

Economic Impacts Related to 

Implementation and NPS Operations 

Implementing the no-action alternative would 

provide a sustained economic infusion to the 

region over the life of this plan. The infusion 

would result from ongoing Lakeshore 

operating expenditures, including payroll, and 

expenditures on projects beyond basic 

operations. Major project needs over the life 

of this plan include $3.2 million in construction spending and $3.4 million in other major 

spending (for total construction costs of $6.6 

million, plus funds to address deferred 

maintenance and continued maintenance of 

the Lakeshore’s infrastructure and resources. 

NPS maintenance staff would perform much 

of the work to address deferred maintenance 

and preservation, restoration, and rehabilitation activities. The Lakeshore’s future outlays 

194 
Impacts of the No-Action Alternative 

for materials and equipment to support 

construction and major maintenance would 

create short-term economic impacts in the 

region. Local merchants, equipment suppliers, 

specialty contractors, and related industries 

would capture a substantial portion of those 

outlays. The timing and amount of these 

expenditures are uncertain, depending on the 

budgetary approvals by Congress, budget 

allocations within the National Park Service, 

and future collections of entry and camping 

fees at the Lakeshore that can be used to 

support projects. Annual NPS payroll, 

operating, and maintenance would produce 

long-term effects on employment, business 

sales, income, and other related measures. 

No major changes in budgeted resources to 

fund NPS operations would be anticipated 

under the no-action alternative. Supportable 

staffing needs under the no-action alternative 

are estimated at about 66 full-time equivalent 

employees, and the Lakeshore would 

continue to benefit from substantial levels of 

volunteer efforts. Available resources would 

include about $3.9 million in annual base 

budget appropriations, about $1.0 million per 

year in entry and camping fees, and roughly 

$1.5 million per year in various nonrecurring 

funding for other projects. Continued 

supplemental land acquisition funding would 

be required for land acquisition in the Benzie 

Corridor. 

Establishment of the National Lakeshore and 

subsequent land acquisition removed lands 

and improvements from the local tax rolls. 

Some adverse effects on local businesses 

might have also resulted. These effects were 

offset in part by PILT payments, the likely 

boost in area property values due to the 

proximity and “amenity” values of the 

National Lakeshore, tax revenues associated 

with sales to Lakeshore visitors, and the 

economic infusions from NPS operations and 

staff. Some additional effects on tax rolls 

would result from future land acquisition in 

the Benzie Corridor and Bow Lakes areas. 

Activities sponsored by the Lakeshore’s 

partners would provide additional sources of 

economic stimulus. The timing, magnitude, 

and indirect economic consequences of those 

activities are indeterminate. 

Economic effects associated with the 

Lakeshore’s operations would be beneficial 

and minor to moderate in the short and long 

term. 

Effects on Regional Population 

The Lakeshore would not be a major catalyst 

for future population growth under the noaction alternative. Staffing levels would 

remain about the same, and little economic 

expansion would result due to the modest 

increases in long-term visitor use. 

The Lakeshore would continue to be an 

important “amenity” for many residents and 

for people considering relocation to the 

region, and thus could contribute indirectly to 

population growth. However, implementation 

of the no-action alternative would not 

dramatically affect the region’s heritage and 

outdoor recreation opportunities that 

contribute to its seasonal tourism economy. 

The effects on regional population growth 

under the no-action alternative would be 

indeterminate, but likely negligible, both in 

the short and long terms. 

Community Services 

Little or no change in Lakeshore-related 

demands on community services and facilities 

across the region would result from 

implementing the no-action alternative. Local 

water and wastewater systems would be 

marginally affected by more people traveling 

through the area and staying locally in second 

homes or lodging accommodations. However, 

the incremental demands associated with the 

increased visitation would not require 

195 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

additional capacity or staffing, due to its 

seasonal nature, limited scale, and 

geographical dispersion. Tax revenues 

generated by visitor spending would help 

provide resources to meet future needs. 

Effects on community services under this 

alternative would be indeterminate and 

negligible over the short and long terms. 

Traffic and Emergency Services 

Traffic would increase marginally on area 

highways and roads as a result of travel 

associated with higher visitation under the noaction alternative. The incremental traffic 

would be highest on summer weekends. 

Traffic increases would be most noticed on 

M-22, M-109, and M-72, the main access 

roads to the Lakeshore, though future traffic 

volumes would be within the design capacities 

of these roads. Over time, increases in traffic 

volumes would lower the level of service 

below desired conditions at the intersection of 

M-22 and M-109 (Robert Peccia & Associates, 

2001). Most Lakeshore-related traffic would 

consist of light-duty vehicles and selfcontained recreational vehicles (RVs) that do 

not result in heavy wear on the paved roads 

and thus, would not require much additional 

maintenance. 

More traffic would cause more traffic accidents and demands on local law enforcement, 

emergency medical and fire protection 

agencies. The scale of changes associated with 

the no-action alternative would not require 

law enforcement agencies to hire more staff, 

though they could contribute to overall needs 

for more staff. Although the frequency of 

incidents would remain relatively low, the 

distances and response times involved and the 

fact that many local emergency medical and 

fire protection agencies are staffed partially by 

volunteers, could impose burdens on these 

providers. 

The effects of the no-action alternative on 

traffic and emergency services would be 

adverse, but negligible over the short term and 

long term. 

Attitudes and Lifestyles 

The Lakeshore’s influence on community 

attitudes and lifestyles would not dramatically 

change under the no-action alternative. Continuing NPS operation within the current 

management framework would not substantially alter existing visitor use opportunities or 

patterns. Maintaining current land and lakeshore access plus management of some lands 

to preserve their wilderness characteristics 

would encourage continued low use levels in 

many areas of the Lakeshore. Such management would enjoy support from several 

affected publics. 

For some members of the community, continued management under the no-action alternative would not be satisfactory because they 

might see it as lacking clear management 

direction for the National Lakeshore. People 

and groups who promote a positive commitment to continued county road access, 

specific recreation opportunities, preservation 

of historical and cultural resources and 

landscapes, or enhanced protection of natural 

resources might not view the management 

direction in this alternative favorably. At the 

same time, some may see benefits with the noaction alternative, either because it avoids 

situations or impacts that they would find less 

desirable, or because they believe it leaves 

open their desired management options to be 

considered in the future. 

The net effects of the no-action alternative on 

community attitudes and lifestyles are 

indeterminate. 

196 
Impacts of the No-Action Alternative 

Cumulative Impacts 

From the economic and social perspectives, 

one cannot readily isolate what happens at the 

Lakeshore from past, present, and future 

development in the surrounding areas. 

Forestry, maritime, and agricultural uses along 

with the establishment of the Lakeshore are 

largely responsible for existing land use patterns. Those uses are also tied to the cultural 

and historical landscapes that are among the 

Lakeshore’s fundamental resources. If not for 

establishment of the Lakeshore, the affected 

lands would undoubtedly provide far fewer 

opportunities for public use and natural 

resource protection. 

Social and economic effects of the above 

actions include moderate short- and longterm increases in traffic on local roads, shortterm moderate demands on local construction 

trades and services, short- and long-term 

moderate demands on community services, 

and changes in the seasonal resident and 

visitor population. Social and economic 

effects of ongoing or planned improvements/ 

restoration at the Lakeshore would result in 

long-term negligible economic effects on 

visitor-related businesses due to changes in 

visitor use levels and distribution. Combined 

with these effects, the no-action alternative 

would result in short- and long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial and adverse cumulative 

effects. The no-action alternative would 

comprise a small portion of these overall 

cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion 

The economic and social effects of the noaction alternative would include negligible to 

minor short-term and long-term economic 

benefits and negligible, indeterminate, or 

adverse effects on population growth and 

demands on community services and facilities. 

Long-term consequences on attitudes and 

lifestyle are indeterminate, but in general 

would be more likely to be adverse than 

beneficial. The no-action alternative would 

have short- and long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial and adverse cumulative social and 

economic effects. 

NPS OPERATIONS 

Under the no-action alternative, NPS operations would continue to be characterized by 

(1) a substantial number of facilities or assets 

(e.g., visitor contact stations, parking and 

picnic areas, campgrounds, trails, and historic 

structures and landscapes) that must be 

maintained; (2) visitor-related operational 

demands (e.g., interpretative services, patrols, 

and campground maintenance) that are much 

greater in the busy summer visitor season than 

at other times of year; (3) island operations 

that command a disproportionate share of the 

Lakeshore’s annual operating budget due to 

the logistics of transporting equipment, 

materials, and staff to and from the islands; 

and (4) increasingly better and stronger 

relationships with outside entities and 

organizations who are interested in the 

Lakeshore. 

Assuming current funding trends continue 

and staffing levels remain similar to present, 

the Lakeshore would continue to be unable to 

fully achieve desired conditions in program 

areas such as resource protection, visitor 

services, cyclic maintenance, and the deferred 

maintenance backlog would continue to grow 

over time. Wilderness minimum requirement 

analysis would continue to be required for the 

30,903 acres managed to maintain their 

existing wilderness character. The no-action 

alternative would have continuing long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial and adverse 

impacts on NPS operations, but there would 

be no new impacts. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Ongoing and planned facility upgrades and 

restoration/rehabilitation projects would have 

197 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

198 

mostly beneficial impacts over the long term 

because these projects would result in 

reduced resource protection and cyclic 

maintenance needs. Minor adverse impacts 

would occur in the short term. Dredging of 

the Platte River mouth would continue to 

place demands on the NPS maintenance staff 

and budget, a minor, long-term, adverse 

effect. Combined with impacts of the above 

actions, the no-action alternative would have 

long-term, minor beneficial and adverse 

cumulative effects. This alternative’s 

contribution to these cumulative impacts 

would be substantial. 

Conclusion 

Ongoing impacts (long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial and adverse) would 

continue, but the no-action alternative would 

have no new impacts on NPS operations. The 

no-action alternative, combined with other 

actions, would result in long-term minor 

beneficial and adverse cumulative effects. 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

Some negligible to moderate impacts to soils, 

vegetation, wildlife, water resources and 

wilderness character caused by ongoing 

recreational use or facilities are essentially 

unavoidable (e.g., soil compaction, vegetation 

trampling, wildlife disturbances, and 

decreased opportunities for solitude). Gradual 

increases in visitor use would have low level 

adverse impacts on regional socioeconomics 

(e.g., increased traffic). 

 

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE 

COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 

Irreversible commitments of resources are 

actions that result in loss of resources that 

cannot be reversed. Irretrievable commitments of resources are actions that result in 

the loss of resources but only for a limited 

period of time. 

With the exception of consumption of fuels 

and raw materials for maintenance activities, 

no actions in this alternative would result in 

consumptions of nonrenewable natural 

resources or use of renewable resources that 

would preclude other uses for a period of 

time. 

RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM 

USES AND LONG-TERM 

PRODUCTIVITY 

The National Lakeshore would continue to be 

used by the public, and most areas would be 

protected in a natural state. The National Park 

Service would continue to manage the Lakeshore to maintain ecological processes and 

native biological communities and to provide 

appropriate recreational opportunities 

consistent with preservation of cultural and 

natural resources. Actions would be taken 

with care to ensure that uses do not adversely 

affect the productivity of biotic communities. 

Under the no-action alternative there would 

be virtually no new development and no 

appreciable loss of long-term ecological 

productivity. 
IMPACTS OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

HISTORIC RESOURCES 

The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties (1995) 

identifies four treatment approaches that 

apply to a wide variety of resource types, 

including buildings, sites, structures, objects, 

districts, and landscape features and patterns. 

Three of those treatments are included in this 

plan — preservation, rehabilitation, and 

restoration. See page 40 for more detailed 

definitions. The simplest of these treatment 

approaches is preservation, in which measures 

are undertaken to stabilize the resource to 

ensure that it does not deteriorate further 

from its existing condition and then to 

maintain and repair historic features and 

materials. The second option is rehabilitation, 

in which the resource is made useable for 

some purpose while preserving those features 

that convey its historical, cultural, or 

architectural value. The third is restoration, in 

which the historic appearance at a particular 

time is accurately regained. The fourth 

treatment, reconstruction, is not proposed in 

this plan. 

Although each alternative calls for preserving 

and protecting all historic properties, each 

action alternative provides a different 

management zone configuration based on that 

alternative’s overall vision, and each 

management zone prescribes which of the 

three treatments could be used for historic 

properties. Thus, potential treatments for the 

National Lakeshore’s various historic 

properties differ among the alternatives. 

Based on the locations and relative 

proportions of management zones in the 

preferred alternative, 78% of historic 

structures would undergo preservation, 

rehabilitation, or restoration (experience 

history zone), 13% of historic structures 

would undergo preservation or rehabilitation 

(recreation zone), and 8% of historic 

structures would undergo preservation 

(experience nature zone). This information is 

summarized in table 3 on page 74. 

All preservation, rehabilitation or restoration 

efforts would be undertaken in accordance 

with the standards. Any materials removed 

during rehabilitation or restoration efforts 

would be evaluated to determine their value to 

the Lakeshore’s museum collection and/or for 

their comparative use in future preservation 

work at the sites. Implementation of the 

actions described above for this alternative, 

which would bring all historic resources up to 

a good condition, would result in no adverse 

effects on historic resources. 

At Glen Haven the Glen Haven Historic 

District and Sleeping Bear Point Life-Saving 

Station would be preserved, rehabilitated, or 

restored (same action in all alternatives). Some 

buildings would be rehabilitated for visitor 

and/or staff use. The Sleeping Bear Inn and 

garage would be placed in the NPS historic 

leasing program to allow rehabilitation for 

adaptive use. All other structures would be 

stabilized and maintained in their current 

condition. 

At Port Oneida historic structures and 

landscapes would be preserved, rehabilitated, 

or restored (same action in all alternatives). 

Structures on at least one farmstead would be 

restored for interpretive purposes. Some 

buildings in the district would be rehabilitated 

for visitor and/or staff use, including a visitor 

contact station and staff housing. At least one 

farmstead would be placed in the NPS historic 

leasing program to allow rehabilitation and 

adaptive use. All other structures and 

landscapes would be stabilized and 

maintained in their current condition. 

On North Manitou Island the historic lifesaving station and Cottage Row structures 

would be preserved, rehabilitated, or restored. 

Preservation and/or adaptive use of the 

199 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

rehabilitated historic former Manitou Island 

Association structures for administrative and 

operational purposes would continue. 

Historic structures and landscapes elsewhere 

on the island would be preserved. 

On South Manitou Island the historic lifesaving station, lighthouse complex, village 

historic structures, schoolhouse, and farm 

loop tour historic structures would be preserved, rehabilitated, or restored. Structures 

and landscapes elsewhere on the island would 

be preserved. 

Other mainland historic structures and 

landscapes would be managed as specified for 

the management zone in which they lie (see 

alternative map and zone descriptions). 

Actions involving other than historic property 

treatments, such as developing new trails, 

improving beach parking and access at 

selected locations, and providing new 

campgrounds on North Manitou Island and 

elsewhere in the National Lakeshore, would 

have no effect on historic properties because 

they would be designed to avoid possible 

impacts on properties on or eligible for the 

national register. 

All properties on or determined eligible for 

inclusion in the National Register of Historic 

Places would, at a minimum, undergo 

stabilization (where that action has not 

already occurred) or maintenance in the 

current condition (where some preservation 

treatment has already been implemented). 

The actions proposed above are general. The 

treatments for each resource (preservation 

[stabilization], rehabilitation with adaptive 

use, restoration) have not yet been determined so impacts cannot be fully described. 

However, it is the National Park Service’s 

intent that no action proposed be adverse. All 

actions affecting these historic structures and 

landscapes would be undertaken in consultation with the Michigan state historic 

preservation officer. 

The preferred alternative would not directly 

or indirectly affect any properties outside the 

boundary of the National Lakeshore that are 

listed on or eligible for the National Register 

of Historic Places, or that are listed by the 

state. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Over the years historic resources in the 

Lakeshore have been adversely impacted by 

natural processes such as weathering, 

vegetative encroachment, and the wear and 

tear associated with visitor use. Actions 

proposed for the South Manitou Island 

Lighthouse Complex would result in both the 

restoration of the exterior of the keeper’s 

quarters and connecting passageway and the 

rehabilitation of the interior for adaptive 

reuse. In addition, actions proposed for Glen 

Haven Village include the stabilization and 

maintenance of historic structures or their 

rehabilitation for adaptive reuse. All 

preservation, rehabilitation, or restoration 

efforts would be undertaken in accordance 

with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

for the Treatment of Historic Properties (1995), 

and would result in no adverse effects on 

historic resources. 

As described above, implementation of the 

preferred alternative would result in no 

adverse effects on historic resources. The no 

adverse impacts of this alternative, in 

combination with both the adverse and no 

adverse impacts of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, would 

result in a no adverse effect cumulative impact. The no adverse effects of the preferred 

alternative would be a sizeable contribution to 

the no adverse effect cumulative impact. 

Conclusion 

The preferred alternative would have a 

determination of no adverse effect under the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

200 
Impacts of the Preferred Alternative 

“Regulations for the Protection of Historic 

and Cultural Properties” (36 CFR 800). There 

would be no impairment of cultural resources 

from implementation of the preferred alternative (see specific definition of impairment in 

the “Impairment of National Lakeshore 

Resources” section in this chapter). 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Soils and Geologic Resources 

Readers are encouraged to refer back to the 

“Soils and Geologic Resources” discussion in 

the “Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing 

Impacts” section for additional details on the 

types of impacts resulting from visitor use and 

development. 

Use of motorized boats on School and Loon 

lakes and the Crystal and Platte rivers would 

also continue. Soil compaction and erosion of 

the dunes would be reduced in some areas by 

using sand ladders, boardwalks, and sidewalks 

to protect the substrate. These ongoing 

activities would continue to have minor to 

moderate (depending on location and 

activity), short- and long-term adverse 

impacts on soils and geologic resources. 

Implementation of user capacity management 

(see discussion in chapter 2) to reduce impacts 

of visitor use in sensitive and yet popular areas 

such as the Platte River corridor, would have 

short- and long-term, minor to moderate 

beneficial impacts. 

Development of the bay-to-bay trail and the 

M-22/M-109 hike/bike trail could result in 

soil disturbance and erosion during construction, and subsequent visitor use would result 

in erosion and compaction. Assuming use of 

best management practices (such as using silt 

fences and avoiding steep slopes and 

inundated areas) during construction and 

later use to prevent erosion and compaction, 

the overall adverse impacts would likely be 

short term and moderate and long term and 

minor. 

The concession tours to near the Giant Cedars 

area on South Manitou Island and day trips to 

and camping in newly designated areas on 

North Manitou Island could increase visitor 

use and associated soil compaction and 

erosion; adverse impacts in such areas above 

the current level might be anticipated. 

However, careful monitoring and the use of 

sand ladders, boardwalks, or fencing to 

reduce compaction and erosion would result 

in short-term moderate and long-term minor 

adverse impacts on soils. 

Improving the parking area at the end of Esch 

Road, improving the Glen Lake Picnic area, 

improving boat access to several inland lakes 

and the Crystal River, providing campgrounds 

associated with the bay-to-bay trail, and 

providing additional designated campsites on 

North Manitou Island would typically disturb 

soils and cause compaction and sometimes 

erosion. Assuming implementation of best 

management practices during design and 

construction, adverse impacts could be 

minimized. The development activities 

proposed in the preferred alternative would 

likely have short-term, moderately adverse 

impacts due to construction activities. The 

long-term impacts on soils would be minor 

and beneficial because, for example, trails in 

the Bow Lakes area would focus pedestrian 

traffic on the trails (reducing impacts in the 

rest of the area), North Bar Lake would be 

closed to all motorized boats, and the current 

Valley View campground, which would be 

removed, would be restored to more natural 

conditions. 

Under this alternative, the National Park 

Service would continue to acquire lands on a 

willing-seller basis within the Benzie Corridor 

but would not implement any development 

within the corridor during the life of this plan. 

Continued NPS acquisition of lands in the 

Benzie Corridor would protect the geology 

and soils on NPS-owned parcels from development for the life of this plan, providing 

short- and long-term, moderate, beneficial 

effects. Private development within the 

201 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

corridor would probably continue at its 

current pace and would continue to have 

minor to moderate adverse impacts to these 

resources. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past, present, and 

anticipated projects that would contribute to 

impacts on soils and geologic resources 

include (1) the improvements to the parking 

areas at the ends of Leelanau County Roads 

651 and 669; (2) Glen Haven Village improvements; (3) improvements to the Lake 

Michigan overlooks accessed from the Pierce 

Stocking Scenic Drive; (4) riverbank 

stabilization on the Platte River at the former 

Water Wheel and Casey’s Corner canoe 

liveries; (5) restoration approximating the 

natural topography, hydrology, and native 

vegetative cover of nonhistoric sites disturbed 

by past land uses — particularly those in 

critical dunes areas; (6) minor improvements 

to the Dune Climb parking area, and (7) 

continued dredging of the mouth of the Platte 

River. Although activities 1-6 would likely 

result in short-term adverse impacts during 

the construction phase, the net result would 

likely be long-term, minor to moderate 

beneficial impacts because all projects would 

contribute to a reduction of the potential for 

soil compaction and erosion. Dredging the 

mouth of the Platte River results in continued 

addition of dredged material to the shoreline. 

During low-water periods deeper dredging is 

required and results in dredge materials with 

high clay content being deposited on the 

shoreline, resulting in armoring of the beach 

surface and consequent profile changes. This 

results in short- and long-term minor to 

moderate adverse impacts. 

The impacts of other actions described above, 

in combination with the impacts of the 

preferred alternative, would result in shortand long-term, minor to moderate adverse 

cumulative impacts, and short- and long-term, 

minor to moderate, beneficial cumulative 

impacts. The preferred alternative’s 

contribution to these cumulative impacts 

would be minimal. 

Conclusion. The preferred alternative would 

have short- and long-term, minor to moderate 

adverse and beneficial impacts on soils and 

geologic resources. Cumulative impacts would 

be anticipated to be short term, moderately 

adverse, and short and long term, minor to 

moderate beneficial. There would be no 

impairment of soils or geologic resources from 

implementation of preferred alternative (see 

specific definition of impairment in the 

“Impairment of National Park Resources” 

section). 

Vegetation and Wildlife 

Readers are encouraged to refer back to the 

“Vegetation and Wildlife” discussion in the 

“Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing 

Impacts” section for additional details on the 

types of impacts resulting from visitor use and 

development. 

The use of motorized boats on School and 

Loon lakes and the Crystal and Platte rivers 

would continue to result in trampling of 

vegetation, habitat alteration, introduction 

and spread of invasive species, and sensorybased disruption of wildlife. Impacts on 

vegetation and wildlife from such activities 

would likely continue to be short and long 

term, negligible to moderate, and adverse. 

Implementation of user capacity management 

(see discussion in chapter 2) to reduce impacts 

of visitor use in sensitive and yet popular areas 

such as the Platte River corridor, would have 

short- and long-term, minor to moderate 

beneficial impacts. 

Under the preferred alternative, 45% (32,100 

acres) of the National Lakeshore would be 

managed as wilderness (assuming that Congress acts to designate wilderness), an increase 

of 1,197 acres (2%) over the no-action alternative. Management of these areas as wilderness conveys a higher level of protection to 

the vegetation and wildlife of the areas than 

any management zone. This wilderness 

proposal would likely have short- and long202 
Impacts of the Preferred Alternative 

term minor beneficial impacts on vegetation 

and wildlife of the Lakeshore. 

The development and use of the bay-to-bay 

trail and the M-22/M-109 hike/bike trail 

would impact vegetation and wildlife through 

trampling of vegetation, habitat loss and 

alteration, introduction and spread of invasive 

species, and sensory-based disruption of 

wildlife. Assuming the use of best 

management practices (such as placement of 

trails/paths as close to existing disturbances as 

possible, minimization of construction 

footprint for both temporary and permanent 

impacts, and timing of construction outside 

peak breeding and nesting seasons), and 

careful monitoring of impacts during use, the 

overall impacts would likely be short and long 

term, negligible to minor, and adverse. 

Cessation of all motorized boating on North 

Bar Lake would likely have short- and longterm, minor beneficial impacts due to 

reductions in trampling, habitat alteration, 

and sensory-based disturbances, and the 

likelihood of introducing nonnative species. 

Day trips to North Manitou Island and 

concession auto tours to near the Giant 

Cedars area on South Manitou Island, would 

increase visitor use resulting in associated 

increases in trampling of vegetation, habitat 

alteration, introduction and spread of invasive 

species, and sensory-based disruption of 

wildlife. Assuming practicable levels of 

monitoring and remediation of visitor-related 

impacts, overall impacts of these types of new 

activities would likely be short and long term, 

negligible to minor, and adverse. 

The loop trail and small parking area at Bow 

Lakes, improvements to inland lake boat 

access and Crystal River access points, and 

the provision of additional designated 

campsites on North Manitou Island could 

result in habitat loss and degradation, both of 

which could be reduced by strategic location 

and design. These improvements could result 

in introduction and spread of invasive species 

to inland waterways. Other development, 

such as improvements to the parking area at 

the end of Esch Road and improvements to 

the Glen Lake picnic area, and providing 

campgrounds associated with the bay-to-bay 

trail might result in increased visitor use and 

associated increases in vegetation trampling, 

habitat alteration, introduction and spread of 

invasive species, and sensory-based disruption 

of wildlife in those areas. The sum of these 

impacts on vegetation and wildlife in the 

Lakeshore would likely be short- and longterm negligible to minor adverse impacts, and 

long-term, minor, beneficial impacts (e.g., 

development of a loop trail in the Bow Lakes 

area concentrating use on trails and leaving 

areas away from the trails relatively 

undisturbed, and removing and restoring the 

Valley View campground to more natural 

conditions). 

 

Under this alternative, the National Park 

Service would continue to acquire lands 

within the Benzie Corridor but would not 

implement any development within the 

corridor during the life of this plan. Continued NPS acquisition of lands in the Benzie 

Corridor would protect the vegetation and 

wildlife on NPS-owned parcels from development for the life of this plan, providing shortand long-term, moderate, beneficial effects. 

Private development within the corridor 

would probably continue at its current pace 

and would continue to have minor to 

moderate adverse impacts on these resources. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past, present, and 

anticipated projects that would contribute to 

impacts on vegetation and wildlife include (1) 

the improvements to the parking areas at the 

ends of Leelanau County Roads 651 and 669; 

(2) implementation of the “Fire Management 

Plan”; (3) improvements to the Lake Michigan 

overlooks accessed from the Pierce Stocking 

Scenic Drive; (4) riverbank stabilization on the 

Platte River at the former Water Wheel and 

Casey’s Corner canoe liveries; and (5) 

restoration approximating the natural 

topography, hydrology, and native vegetative 

203 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

cover of nonhistoric areas disturbed by past 

land uses — particularly those in critical dunes 

areas. These actions would likely have shortand long-term negligible to minor adverse 

impacts due to trampling and sensory based 

disturbance during the activity and long-term 

minor beneficial impacts on vegetation and 

wildlife due to rehabilitation and enhancement of habitat. The impacts of other actions 

described above, together with the impacts of 

the preferred alternative, would result in 

short- and long-term, negligible to minor 

adverse cumulative impacts, and short- and 

long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

cumulative impacts. The contribution of the 

preferred alternative to these cumulative 

effects would be relatively small. 

Conclusion. The preferred alternative would 

have short- and long-term negligible to minor 

adverse impacts, and short- and long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial impacts. The 

impacts of actions in the preferred alternative, 

combined with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions, would likely 

result in short- and long-term, negligible to 

minor adverse cumulative impacts, and shortand long-term minor beneficial cumulative 

impacts. There would be no impairment of 

vegetation or wildlife resources from 

implementation of the preferred alternative 

(see specific definition of impairment in the 

“Impairment of National Lakeshore 

Resources” section). 

Federal Threatened 

and Endangered Species 

Readers are encouraged to refer back to the 

“Federal Threatened and Endangered 

Species” discussion in the “Methods and 

Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts” section 

for additional details on the types of impacts 

resulting from visitor use and development. 

The federally listed species considered are the 

Michigan monkey flower, piping plover (both 

populations and designated critical habitat), 

and Pitcher’s thistle. The piping plover and 

Pitcher’s thistle are found primarily in nearshore dunes; the Michigan monkey flower is 

restricted to one lakeside location in the 

Lakeshore interior. Although part of the 

designated critical habitat within the 

Lakeshore coincides with actively used 

recreational beach areas, NPS staff have 

demonstrated success in minimizing impacts 

on nesting piping plovers in areas with 

relatively high human activity (e.g., the mouth 

of the Platte River) through various actions 

(see “Mitigative Measures for the Action 

Alternatives” section in chapter 2). All impact 

analyses assume continued protection of 

threatened and endangered species as 

outlined in the Lakeshore-wide desired 

condition statements (see chapter 1). 

 

Under the preferred alternative, 45% of the 

National Lakeshore would be managed as 

wilderness (assuming that Congress acts to 

designate wilderness), a 1,197-acre (2%) 

increase over existing conditions. This 

increase would potentially benefit the 

Pitcher’s thistle, and that benefit would be 

insignificant because much of the Lakeshore is 

currently managed to benefit native 

ecosystems regardless of its designation status. 

This increase in proposed wilderness would 

have insignificant effects on piping plovers 

and piping plover critical habitat because 

management of the Lake Michigan shoreline 

and near-shoreline areas would remain 

essentially the same despite the changes in 

wilderness status, and because piping plovers 

successfully nest and fledge under current 

management. This increase would have no 

effect on Michigan monkey flower because 

wilderness is not proposed in the area where 

this species is known to occur. Thus, overall, 

this increase in proposed wilderness would 

have only insignificant beneficial impacts on 

listed species. 

Developing the bay-to-bay trail and associated 

campgrounds and providing additional 

designated campsites on North Manitou 

Island could result in habitat alteration and 

204 
Impacts of the Preferred Alternative 

degradation, both of which could be reduced 

by strategic location and design. Other 

development, such as improvements to the 

parking area at the end of Esch Road, might 

result in increased visitor use and associated 

increases in Pitcher’s thistle trampling, habitat 

alteration for both Pitcher’s thistle and piping 

plover, and sensory-based disruption of 

piping plover in those areas. 

Use of the proposed bay-to-bay trail and 

campgrounds, and the provision of day trips 

to North Manitou Island could have impacts 

on piping plover and Pitcher’s thistle 

populations and habitat due to potential 

trampling and associated habitat alteration, 

and on piping plover populations due to 

sensory-based disturbance. These impacts 

could be reduced by strategic location and 

design such as careful selection and 

demarcation of trails outside of sensitive areas 

(e.g., away from piping plover critical habitat) 

and use of boardwalks. 

Under the preferred alternative, the National 

Park Service would continue to acquire lands 

within the Benzie Corridor but would not 

implement any development within the 

corridor during the life of this plan. Private 

development within the corridor would 

probably continue at its current pace. These 

activities and conditions would have no effect 

on listed species because neither the species 

nor their habitats occur within the corridor. 

For projects proposed in the preferred 

alternative, the National Park Service would 

implement measures to ensure that adverse 

effects on listed species do not occur. These 

avoidance measures might include, but are not 

limited to, the following: 

• Safeguarding the known locations of 

listed species. 

• Restricting human activity in piping 

plover breeding areas by use of a 

specialized fence system. 

• Increasing the number of NPS/volunteer 

piping plover nest monitors, should 

conditions warrant. 

• Restricting human activity in piping 

plover breeding areas. 

• Restricting dogs from piping plover 

breeding areas during the breeding 

season. 

• Flagging or fencing plants prior to any 

work in or adjacent to Pitcher’s thistle 

habitat. Every effort would be made to 

avoid any impacts to these plants. 

• Providing education about the listed 

species and their habitats. 

• Designating alternate access points away 

from areas occupied by listed species. 

The National Park Service staff anticipates 

that adverse effects could be avoided in all the 

projects proposed under the preferred 

alternative. The National Park Service cannot 

foresee at this time any project proposed in 

this General Management Plan for which 

adverse effects could not be avoided. In the 

rare event that adverse effects could not be 

avoided, the project would either be 

discontinued or NPS staff would request 

formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. As such, any impacts from 

implementation of the preferred alternative 

would likely have only beneficial, insignificant, or discountable effects on piping plover 

and piping plover critical habitat, Michigan 

monkey flower, and Pitcher’s thistle. 

At the landscape level, the preferred 

alternative may affect but would not be likely 

to adversely affect listed species because the 

proposed management direction would result 

in conditions that are beneficial to preserving 

habitat and would minimize adverse impacts 

on listed species to either insignificant or 

discountable. As such, implementation of the 

preferred alternative may affect but would not 

be likely to adversely affect piping plover and 

piping plover critical habitat, Michigan 

monkey flower, and Pitcher’s thistle. 

205 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Conservation Measures. Conservation 

measures are activities above and beyond 

avoidance measures and are undertaken to 

reduce potential impacts on federally listed 

species or candidate species. Initiation of 

conservation measures would occur in 

consultation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and would be required if any of the 

following occurred: 

• initiation of activities anticipated to have 

impacts on piping plovers or their 

designated critical habitat beyond those 

addressed in this document 

• additional Michigan monkey flower 

occurrences within the Lakeshore were 

identified in areas where they might 

potentially be impacted 

• initiation of activities anticipated to have 

impacts on Michigan monkey flower 

populations 

• initiation of activities anticipated to have 

impacts on Pitcher’s thistle populations 

beyond those addressed in this document 

Renewed discussion and consultation with the 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, should any of 

the above events occur, would focus on 

development of specific conservation 

measures to reduce potential impacts on these 

species and/or designated critical habitat. 

Such conservation measures would be based 

on the recommendations provided by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past, present, and 

anticipated projects that would contribute to 

impacts on federally listed species and 

designated critical habit include (1) the 

improvements to the parking areas at the ends 

of Leelanau County Roads 651 and 669; (2) 

implementation of the “Fire Management 

Plan”; (3) improvements to the Lake Michigan 

overlooks accessed from the Pierce Stocking 

Scenic Drive; and (4) activities presented in 

table 21. Most of these actions would benefit 

natural resources including federally listed 

species and their designated critical habitats. 

Some past projects at the National Lakeshore, 

however, such as the site restoration project 

near Big Glen Lake, have adversely affected 

federally listed species, i.e., Michigan monkey 

flower. These resulted in formal consultation 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

During implementation, actions would be 

taken to avoid or minimize potential adverse 

impacts on such species. Any adverse impacts, 

such as trampling or sensory based disruption, 

would be insignificant or discountable. The 

impacts of the other actions described above, 

together with the impacts of the preferred 

alternative, may affect but would not be likely 

to adversely affect piping plover, Pitcher’s 

thistle, or Michigan monkey flower. The 

preferred alternative would likely contribute a 

relatively small component to these 

cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Any adverse impacts of the 

preferred alternative on the addressed 

federally listed species and designated critical 

habitat would be no more than insignificant or 

discountable over both the short and long 

terms. Implementation of the preferred 

alternative may affect but would not likely 

adversely affect the addressed listed species 

and critical habitat. The impacts of other 

projects, combined with the impacts of the 

preferred alternative, may affect but would 

not likely adversely affect piping plover, 

piping plover critical habitat, Michigan 

monkey flower, and Pitcher’s thistle. There 

would be no impairment of federal threatened 

and endangered species from this alternative 

(see specific definition of impairment in the 

“Impairment of National Lakeshore 

Resources” section). 

Michigan State-Listed Species 

Readers are encouraged to refer back to the 

“Michigan State-Listed Species” discussion in 

the “Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing 

Impacts” section for additional details on the 

types of impacts resulting from visitor use and 

development. 

206 
Impacts of the Preferred Alternative 

Under the preferred alternative, 45% of the 

National Lakeshore would be managed as 

wilderness (assuming that Congress acts to 

designate wilderness), a 1,197-acre (2%) 

increase over the no-action alternative. 

Management of these areas as wilderness 

conveys a higher level of protection to the 

Michigan state-listed species in those areas 

than any management zone. This level and 

amount of protection would likely have shortand long-term, minor beneficial impacts on 

state-listed species of the Lakeshore. 

Concession auto tours to near the Giant 

Cedars area could negatively impact the statelisted species occurring in that vicinity 

through trampling, and habitat alteration due 

to soil compaction and erosion. However, 

NPS staff would monitor use of and impacts 

to this area and implement measures such as 

boardwalks or fencing to prevent trampling 

and habitat alteration. As such, new 

opportunities for visitor activities would likely 

have only short-term moderate and long-term 

minor adverse impacts on the state-listed 

species that are associated with this area. 

Use of the new bay-to-bay trail and the 

provision of day trips to North Manitou 

Island might impact state-listed species 

associated with shoreline/dunes/near-shore 

habitat (i.e., fascicled moonwort, Lake Huron 

locust, prairie moonwort, and prairie 

warbler). Impacts would include trampling, 

habitat alteration due to soil compaction and 

erosion, and sensory-based disruption of the 

prairie warbler. Assuming continued 

monitoring and protection efforts, these 

activities would likely have short-term 

moderate and long-term minor adverse 

impacts on these state-listed species. 

The ongoing use of motorized boats on 

School and Loon lakes and the Crystal and 

Platte rivers and development and use of the 

loop hiking trail in the Bow Lakes area could 

impact state-listed species associated with 

lakes, wetlands, and riparian areas (i.e., bald 

eagle, Blanchard’s cricket frog, common loon, 

cut-leaved water parsnip, Douglas stenelmis 

riffle beetle, ram’s-head lady’s-slipper, and 

wood turtle). Impacts might include 

trampling, habitat alteration and degradation, 

and sensory-based disruption of behaviors. 

Assuming continued monitoring and 

protection efforts, these activities would likely

have short- term, moderate and long-term 

minor adverse impacts on these state-listed 

species. Implementation of user capacity 

management (see discussion in chapter 2) to 

reduce impacts of visitor use in sensitive and 

yet popular areas such as the Platte River 

corridor, would have short- and long-term, 

minor to moderate beneficial impacts. 

Developing the bay-to-bay trail and associated 

campgrounds, and providing additional 

designated campsites on North Manitou 

Island could impact shoreline/dunes/nearshore species as well as mature forest species 

through habitat loss and degradation, both of 

which could be reduced by strategic location 

and design. Improvements to the parking area 

at the end of Esch Road might result in 

increased visitor use and associated increases 

in trampling and habitat alteration for both 

plants and animals, and sensory-based 

disruption of wildlife in those areas. The sum 

of these impacts on state-listed species 

associated with these habitats in the 

Lakeshore would likely be short and long 

term, minor to moderate, and adverse. 

The M-22/M-109 hike/bike trail, a loop trail 

and small parking area at Bow Lakes, and 

improvements to the Glen Lake picnic area 

could result in habitat loss and degradation, 

both of which could be reduced by strategic 

location and design. These developments 

could also result in increased visitor use and 

associated increases in vegetation trampling, 

habitat alteration, and sensory-based 

disruption of state-listed species associated 

with wetlands, lakes, and rivers. The sum of 

these impacts on state-listed species in the 

Lakeshore would likely be short term, minor 

to moderate, and adverse during construction, 

and long term, minor, and adverse and 

207 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

beneficial (e.g., development of a loop trail in 

the Bow Lakes area would protect wetlandassociated species over the long term). 

Under this alternative, the National Park 

Service would continue to acquire lands 

within the Benzie Corridor but would not 

implement any development within the 

corridor during the life of this plan. Private 

development within the corridor would 

probably continue at its current pace. These 

activities and conditions would have 

negligible effects on state-listed species 

because although some occurrences are 

known near the corridor, none are known or 

anticipated within the corridor. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past, present, and 

anticipated projects that would contribute to 

impacts on Michigan state-listed plant and 

animal species include (1) the improvements 

to the parking areas at the ends of Leelanau 

County Roads 651 and 669; (2) Glen Haven 

Village improvements; (3) implementation of 

the “Fire Management Plan”; (4) improvements to the Lake Michigan overlooks 

accessed from the Pierce Stocking Scenic 

Drive; (5) riverbank stabilization on the Platte 

River at the former Water Wheel and Casey’s 

Corner canoe liveries; (6) restoration 

approximating the natural topography, 

hydrology, and native vegetative cover of 

nonhistoric sites disturbed by past land uses 

— particularly those in critical dunes areas; 

and (7) minor improvements to the Dune 

Climb parking area. Each of these projects 

would result in short-term adverse impacts 

during construction (such as sensory-based 

disturbance). The long-term impacts would 

likely be minor to moderate and beneficial 

(such as habitat rehabilitation and 

enhancement). The impacts of the other 

actions described above, together with the 

impacts of the preferred alternative, would 

result in short- and long-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse cumulative impacts, and 

minor to moderate beneficial cumulative 

impacts. The preferred alternative would be 

expected to contribute a relatively small 

component to these cumulative impacts. 

 

Conclusion. The preferred alternative would 

have short- and long-term, minor to moderate 

adverse and beneficial impacts on state-listed 

species. The cumulative impacts would likely 

be short and long term, minor to moderate 

adverse, and minor to moderate beneficial. 

There would be no impairment of state-listed 

species from implementing this alternative 

(see specific definition of impairment in the 

“Impairment of National Lakeshore 

Resources” section). 

Wetlands and Water Quality 

Readers are encouraged to refer back to the 

“Wetlands and Water Quality” discussion in 

the “Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing 

Impacts” section for additional details on the 

types of impacts resulting from visitor use and 

development. 

Use of motorized boats on School and Loon 

lakes and the Crystal and Platte rivers would 

continue. Impacts on wetlands and water 

quality from motorboat use would include 

resuspension of sediments and pollution of 

wetlands and water bodies. Impacts on 

wetlands and water quality from such 

activities would likely continue to be short 

and long term, minor to moderate, and 

adverse. Implementation of user capacity 

management (see discussion in chapter 2) to 

reduce impacts of visitor use in sensitive and 

yet popular areas such as the Platte River 

corridor, would have short- and long-term, 

minor to moderate beneficial impacts. 

The bay-to-bay trail and the M-22/M-109 

hike/bike trail could impact wetlands and 

water quality through erosion, runoff, and 

pollution during construction, and trampling, 

erosion, resuspension of sediments, and 

pollution. Assuming use of best management 

practices during construction, and careful 

monitoring and management of impacts 

208 
Impacts of the Preferred Alternative 

during use, the overall impacts would likely be 

short and long term, minor, and adverse. 

Discontinuing all motorboat use on North Bar 

Lake would reduce trampling, erosion, 

resuspension of sediments, and pollution. The 

resulting beneficial impacts would be short 

and long term and minor to moderate. 

Providing additional designated campsites on 

North Manitou Island, improving the Glen 

Lake picnic area, developing a short loop trail 

and small parking area in the Bow Lakes area, 

and relocating and upgrading the access point 

for the Crystal River could result in both 

adverse and beneficial impacts to wetlands 

and water quality. New visitor activities as a 

result of these new developments could 

contribute to impacts on wetlands and water 

quality through trampling, resuspension of 

sediments, erosion, and dust. Assuming 

implementation of best management practices 

during construction and practicable levels of 

impact monitoring and management by NPS 

staff, impacts of the Glen Lake picnic area 

improvements and the Bow Lakes trail and 

parking area would likely be short term, minor 

to moderate, and adverse during construction, 

and long term, minor to moderate, and 

beneficial after construction. These actions 

would focus visitor use on less sensitive areas 

(e.g., designated trails), thereby protecting the 

surrounding wetlands and areas adjacent to 

the water. Impacts of the remaining 

developments, assuming use of best 

management practices, would likely vary from 

minor to moderate over both the short and 

long terms, and would be adverse. 

Under this alternative, the National Park 

Service would continue to acquire lands 

within the Benzie Corridor but would not 

implement any development within the 

corridor during the life of this plan. 

Continued NPS acquisition of lands in the 

Benzie Corridor would help protect the 

wetlands and water quality near the corridor 

from development for the life of this plan, 

providing short- and long-term, negligible to 

minor, beneficial effects. Private development 

within the corridor would probably continue 

at its current pace and would continue to have 

negligible to minor adverse impacts to these 

resources near the corridor. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past, present, and 

anticipated projects that would contribute to 

impacts on wetlands and water quality include 

(1) implementation of the “Fire Management 

Plan”; (2) riverbank stabilization on the Platte 

River at the former Water Wheel and Casey’s 

Corner canoe liveries; (3) restoration 

approximating the natural topography, 

hydrology, and native vegetative cover of 

nonhistoric sites disturbed by past land uses 

— particularly those in critical dunes areas; (4) 

minor improvements to the Dune Climb 

parking area, and (5) dredging of the Platte 

River mouth. Although each of these projects 

would involve short-term adverse impacts 

(e.g., dredging of the Platte River resulting in 

short-term suspension of particulates in the 

water and resulting lower water quality 

immediately downstream (lakeside) of the 

dredging), the net result would likely be longterm, minor to moderate beneficial impacts 

(e.g., dredging the mouth of the Platte River 

allows boats to pass without continuously 

hitting the bottom, stirring up material, and 

reducing water quality). 

The impacts of the other actions described 

above, together with the impacts of the 

preferred alternative, would result in shortand long-term, minor to moderate adverse 

cumulative impacts and short- and long-term 

negligible to moderate beneficial cumulative 

impacts; and long-term, negligible to 

moderate beneficial cumulative impacts. The 

preferred alternative would be expected to 

contribute a relatively small component to 

these cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. The preferred alternative would 

have short- and long-term, negligible to 

moderate adverse, and short-and long-term 

negligible to moderate beneficial impacts on 

wetlands and water quality. There would be 

209 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

short- and long-term, minor to moderate 

adverse cumulative impacts and short- and 

long-term negligible to moderate beneficial 

cumulative impacts. There would be no 

impairment of wetlands or water quality from 

this alternative (see specific definition of 

impairment in the “Impairment of National 

Lakeshore Resources” section). 

VISITOR OPPORTUNITIES AND USE 

Visitor Opportunities 

Opportunities would be available for visitors 

to experience the fundamental resources and 

values of the Lakeshore and to learn about the 

Lakeshore’s primary interpretive themes (see 

chapter 1 “Fundamental Resources and 

Values” and “Primary Interpretive Themes” 

sections). Visitors would have access to 

information, interpretation, and educational 

opportunities at a variety of locations, 

including the visitor center in Empire, at Glen 

Haven, and at the visitor contact station on 

South Manitou Island. Interpretive and 

educational activities throughout the 

Lakeshore would be similar to those currently 

offered. These opportunities would have 

long-term, moderate beneficial impacts. 

Access to and through the Lakeshore would 

be on the existing network of state, county, 

and NPS roads (similar to the no-action 

alternative). Visitors would have increased 

Lakeshore access with the addition of the M22/M-109 hike/bike trail (initiated by others) 

and the bay-to-bay hiker/paddler trail, and 

concessioner-operated interpretive tours to 

near the Giant Cedars area would be 

considered. Seasonal ferry service would be 

provided for day and overnight trips to South 

Manitou Island, overnight trips to North 

Manitou Island (similar to the no-action 

alternative), and additional occasional day 

trips to North Manitou Island would be 

allowed. Under the preferred alternative a 

scenic road and/or hike/bike trail would not 

be developed within the Benzie Corridor 

within the life of this plan, so there would be 

no new recreational opportunities or access in 

this area. The above-noted Lakeshore access 

would have long-term, moderate beneficial 

impacts. 

Similar to the no-action alternative, visitors 

could experience relatively large areas of the 

Lakeshore that are natural in character; sites 

that reflect the area’s culture and history (e.g., 

Glen Haven, Port Oneida, and cultural 

resources on North Manitou and South 

Manitou islands); and areas with facilities that 

support recreational use (e.g., the Dune Climb 

and Trails End). NPS land acquisition would 

continue in the Benzie Corridor on a willingseller basis. For the life of the plan, the 

development of private properties within the 

Benzie Corridor might continue to occur, 

although NPS properties would likely remain 

undeveloped. Views of the Crystal Ridge from 

below or more distant points within and 

outside the Lakeshore would likely remain 

natural in character. Even with some modest 

new development, there would be long-term, 

moderate, beneficial impacts on opportunities 

to experience the natural and cultural scenic 

resources of the Lakeshore. 

New recreation-oriented development would 

include the two trails identified above, 

associated primitive campgrounds, designated 

campgrounds on North Manitou Island, 

upgraded/expanded facilities at Little Glen 

Lake picnic/beach area, improved boat access 

at some inland lakes, parking and boat access 

upgrades at the Crystal River, improved 

parking at the end of Esch Road, and a 

trailhead parking area and loop trail in the 

Bow Lakes area. Valley View backcountry 

campground would be abandoned. Even with 

these changes, the scale of recreation-oriented 

development in the Lakeshore would be 

relatively modest. This level of development 

would have long-term, moderate beneficial 

impacts on visitors. 

There would continue to be a wide range of 

recreational activities in the Lakeshore 

210 
Impacts of the Preferred Alternative 

211 

(similar to the no-action alternative); however, 

opportunities for nonmotorized recreational 

activities such as hiking, biking, backpacking, 

paddling, cross-country skiing, and 

backcountry camping would be facilitated and 

expanded. 

There would be a reduction in the number of 

lakes available for gas-powered motorboats, 

which some visitors might view as a reduction 

in recreational opportunities. However, new 

opportunities for visitors using electricpowered boats would be provided at three 

lakes. User capacity management would 

improve visitor experiences on the Platte 

River. These changes to the range of 

recreational activities in the Lakeshore would 

have long-term, minor beneficial impacts. 

Similar to the no-action alternative, natural 

sounds would dominate the Lakeshore except 

along roadways, in developed areas, where 

motorized boats are allowed (along rivers, at 

specific inland lakes, on Lake Michigan), and 

when aircraft are flying over. Two fewer 

inland lakes than in the no-action alternative 

would allow gas-powered motorboats (and 

accompanying sounds) resulting in a slight 

improvement in the natural soundscape. 

Natural sounds would also be temporarily 

disrupted locally by construction activities, 

and visitors could be inconvenienced. 

However, mitigative measures would 

minimize impacts. Overall impacts on those 

who value dark night skies would be longterm, minor, and beneficial, with some 

impacts that are short term, minor, and 

adverse. 

Similar to the no-action alternative, the 

naturally dark night sky would continue to be 

predominant in the Lakeshore despite 

vehicular lights along roadways and lighting in 

developed areas. These conditions would 

have long-term, minor, beneficial impacts for 

those who value the dark night sky. 

Visitor Use 

Implementation of the preferred alternative 

would result in higher annual visitor use at the 

National Lakeshore over the long term than 

would occur under the no-action alternative. 

The increases would result from improved 

access to the Giant Cedars area, upgrades at 

Little Glen Lake picnic/beach area, facility 

improvements at road ends and inland lakes, 

the potential addition of day trip excursions to 

North Manitou Island, expanded hiking, an 

M-22/M-109 hike/bike trail (initiated by 

others) and the bay-to-bay hiker/paddler trail 

and associated primitive campgrounds. 

The timing of increased visitor use is difficult 

to predict because it would depend on when 

projects are funded or carried out. Moreover, 

none of the projects represent major expansions in capacity, and most new opportunities 

would be focused on dispersed and backcountry recreation use. Depending on the 

strategy(ies) chosen, implementation of user 

capacity management on the Platte River 

might locally reduce visitor numbers. Future 

completion of the M-22/M-109 hike/bike trail 

could result in more off-season use in the 

Lakeshore compared to the no-action 

alternative. Consequently, an eventual longterm visitation increase of up to an estimated 

60,000 additional visits per year, over that 

expected for the no-action alternative could 

be foreseen. 

Visitors to the Lakeshore from outside the 

region would likely account for the majority 

of future visits, though the number of visits by 

residents of the region would also increase. 

Increased visitor use levels would have longterm and minor effects that might be 

concurrently viewed as beneficial or adverse. 

The differences between beneficial and 

adverse would depend on the expectations 

and preferences of the visitor related to the 

new opportunities and increased visitation in 

the preferred alternative. 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

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

Bear Dunes National Lakeshore under the Action Alternatives 

0 

20,000 

40,000 

60,000 

80,000 

100,000 

120,000 

140,000 

160,000 

180,000 

200,000 

Preferred 

Alternative

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

No Action Incremental

Cumulative Impacts 

Other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable projects that would affect visitor 

opportunities and use include: (1) 

improvements to parking areas at the ends of 

Leelanau County Roads 651 and 669; (2) Glen 

Haven Village improvements; (3) 

improvements to the Pierce Stocking Scenic 

Drive Lake Michigan overlooks 9 and 10; (4) 

South Manitou Lighthouse Complex exterior 

restoration and interior rehabilitation; and (5) 

Dune Climb parking area paving and other 

minor improvements. These actions would 

improve visitor opportunities by improving 

enjoyment, access, and/or range of available 

opportunities for visitors and would have an 

overall long-term, minor, beneficial effect on 

visitor opportunities and use. The 

development of private properties within the 

Benzie Corridor and rural residential 

developments near the Lakeshore 

(particularly along the access roads and 

in/near Glen Arbor and Empire) might 

continue to occur; these could result in a 

degradation of natural scenic quality, natural 

soundscapes, and night sky. These actions 

would have a long-term, minor, adverse effect 

on visitors. Combined with the actions 

proposed in the preferred alternative, these 

actions would have a long-term, minor, 

beneficial cumulative effect. Impacts of the 

preferred alternative would comprise a 

relatively small portion of the overall 

cumulative effect. 

Conclusion 

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 long-term minor adverse 

effects on use. The removal of Valley View 

campground and disallowing gas-powered 

motorboats on two inland lakes would have 

212 
Impacts of the Preferred Alternative 

long-term, minor, adverse impacts on visitor 

opportunities and use. The increased visitor 

opportunities and facilities would have a longterm, minor, adverse impact on natural sound 

and the night sky. Construction activities 

would have short-term, minor, adverse 

impacts. The cumulative effects would be 

long-term, moderate, and beneficial. 

WILDERNESS CHARACTER 

Natural and Undeveloped 

Under the preferred alternative, 32,100 acres 

(45% of the National Lakeshore) would be 

proposed for wilderness designation, a 1,197-

acre (2%) increase over the no-action alternative. Assuming Congress acted to designate 

the proposed areas as wilderness, wilderness 

values would be protected forever in designated areas within the north, central, and south 

mainland portions of the Lakeshore and each 

island. In contrast to the no-action alternative, 

none of the Port Oneida Rural Historic 

District would be included, and a new area of 

designated wilderness and associated experiences would be available on the Sleeping Bear 

Plateau. Impacts on wilderness character 

would be long-term, moderate, and beneficial. 

Similar to the no-action alternative, wilderness areas would be interrupted by or interspersed with nonwilderness in some places 

(e.g., near the Treat farmstead and on South 

Manitou Island), so adjacent motorized or 

mechanized uses (e.g., the motorized farm 

tour on South Manitou Island) would intrude 

upon naturalness and primitive character in 

some wilderness areas. In contrast to the noaction alternative, there would be no nonconforming motor vehicle or bicycle use within

wilderness because county road rights-of-way 

would be excluded from wilderness. However, as in the no-action alternative, the 

presence of historic structures would continue to locally diminish the areas’ 

undeveloped primeval character. Impacts 

would be long term, minor, and adverse. 

Opportunities for Solitude 

Outstanding opportunities for solitude would 

be available due to designated wilderness in all 

three portions of the mainland and on the 

Manitou Islands. In particular, areas away 

from trails and facilities would continue to 

offer excellent prospects for privacy and 

isolation. Solitude would be more easily found 

on North Manitou Island than on South 

Manitou Island due to the former’s larger size 

and fewer visitors. However, on days with day 

ferry trips to North Manitou Island (once or 

twice per week), wilderness opportunities for 

solitude could be reduced within a few hours 

walk from the ferry dock, a long-term, minor, 

adverse impact. 

Opportunities for Primitive, 

Unconfined Recreation 

Due to the addition of occasional day ferry 

service to North Manitou Island there would 

be opportunities on both Manitou Islands for 

day and overnight wilderness experiences, a 

minor beneficial impact. The permit requirement for backcountry camping would continue. In contrast to the no-action alternative, 

backcountry campers would be required to 

stay in designated campgrounds not only on 

the mainland and South Manitou Island, but 

also on some portions of North Manitou 

Island. Outstanding opportunities for primitive, unconfined recreation would continue to 

be available on both the mainland and the 

islands, but permit and camping requirements 

would have a minor, long-term, adverse 

impact on these opportunities. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Over time, the Lakeshore’s ongoing program 

to restore former nonhistoric sites to more 

natural conditions has substantially increased 

the natural, undeveloped character of the 

Lakeshore. The work includes removing 

nonnative trees and human enhancements, 

213 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

plus reestablishing more natural contours and 

native vegetation. Combined with ongoing 

restoration work, the preferred alternative 

would have long-term, moderate, beneficial 

cumulative effects. The contribution of the 

preferred alternative to these cumulative 

effects would be substantial. 

Conclusion 

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 

continuing localized, minor adverse impacts. 

Combined with other actions, the preferred 

alternative would have long-term, moderate, 

beneficial cumulative effects on wilderness 

character. 

REGIONAL SOCIOECONOMICS 

Implementing the preferred alternative would 

occur against the same backdrop of economic, 

demographic, and social conditions across the 

region described under the no-action alternative, i.e., a gain of more than 30,000 yearround residents between 2005 and 2030. The 

effects of the preferred alternative would add 

one more set of influences affecting the 

region’s economic and social environment, 

but leave the basic foundation of the area’s 

economic and demographic outlook 

unchanged. 

Visitor-Related Economic Impacts 

Implementation of the preferred alternative 

would result in higher annual visitor use at the 

Lakeshore over the long term than would 

occur under the no-action alternative (see 

chapter 5 “Impacts of the Preferred 

Alternative — Visitor Use” section). 

The timing of increased visitor use is difficult 

to predict because it would depend on when 

projects are funded or carried out and other 

factors. Moreover, none of the projects represent major expansions in visitor use opportunities or facility capacity, and most new 

opportunities would be focused on dispersed 

and backcountry recreation use. Implementation of capacity limits on the Platte River, if 

necessary, might adversely impact private 

canoe/kayak livery operations. Future 

completion of the M-22/M-109 hike/bike trail 

could result in more off-season visitor use in 

the Lakeshore as compared to the no-action 

alternative. An eventual long-term visitation 

increase of up to 63,000 additional visits per 

year over that expected for the no-action 

alternative could be foreseen. 

Changes in visitor opportunities with 

implementation of the preferred alternative 

might affect the geographic distribution, 

timing, and activity of visitor use within the 

National Lakeshore, for instance, indirectly 

promoting motorized boating use on School 

Lake and electric-powered boating and boat 

fishing on Otter Lake. Such geographic shifts, 

combined with possible changes in visitor 

participation in various activities, could 

indirectly cause limited increases or 

reductions in visitor use at nearby lakes, parks, 

and other outdoor recreation resources 

managed by the state, local governments, and 

other entities. Given their limited scale, such 

changes probably would not affect future 

management and operations of these 

resources to any large extent. 

Visitors to the Lakeshore from outside the 

region would be expected to account for the 

majority of future visits, though the number of 

visits by residents of the region would also 

increase. 

Retail, lodging, and other tourism-type 

spending would accompany the increased use 

214 
Impacts of the Preferred Alternative 

with expenditures projected to reach $36.2 

million per year, $4.2 million higher than at 

the present time and $1.7 million per year 

higher than for the no-action alternative. 

Some merchants and other recreationoriented establishments might experience 

subtle changes in demands for goods and 

services in response to shifts in visitor use over 

time. The National Lakeshore would collect 

more in entry fees and sales of various passes, 

and Eastern National would sell more 

merchandise. 

Economic spin-offs of visitor spending 

include higher personal income and 20–25 

more jobs than under the no-action alternative. Most of these effects would be seasonal, 

concentrated in the summer. The visitorrelated impacts would occur gradually over 

the long term but would be limited in scale 

relative to current employment and personal 

income in the two counties. Implementation 

of the preferred alternative could provide 

additional concession/commercial service 

opportunities, for example, in conjunction 

with the bay-to-bay hiking/paddling trail. 

Many of these benefits would accrue outside 

the Lakeshore, including in Leland where the 

Manitou Island Transit’s ferry and tour 

service is based. 

The state and local governments would collect 

additional sales tax from the increased visitor 

spending. 

The above visitor-related economic impacts 

would be beneficial, but negligible in the short 

term and minor and beneficial over the long 

term. 

Economic Impacts Related to 

Implementation and NPS Operations 

Implementing the preferred alternative would 

provide a sustained economic infusion to the 

region over the life of this plan— larger than 

that under the no-action alternative. The 

infusion would result from the Lakeshore’s 

ongoing operating expenditures, including 

payroll, and $17.5 million in future construction needs ($10.9 million above that for no 

action). Projected budget needs for other 

major projects and deferred maintenance 

would be the same as for the no action 

alternative. 

As under the no-action alternative, NPS 

maintenance staff would perform much of the 

work to address facility and infrastructure 

maintenance and preservation, restoration, 

and rehabilitation activities. Future 

construction needs would be higher than 

under the no-action alternative, supporting 

the local construction trades industry and 

associated vendors and suppliers. 

Annual NPS payroll, operating, and maintenance would produce long-term effects on 

employment, business sales, income and other 

related measures. Completion of specific 

projects and the implementation of programs 

and management would support increased 

staffing levels over time. 

A need for a modest long-term increase in 

budgeted funds for NPS operations is identified in conjunction with the preferred 

alternative (there are no assurances that such 

increases will occur). Available resources 

would include about $4.4 million base budget 

appropriations ($500,000 per year above the 

no-action alternative), about $1.0 million in 

entry and camping fees, and various 

nonrecurring funding for supplemental and 

specific project construction. Retained 

revenues from entry and camping fees would 

likely increase with higher visitation. 

As with the no-action alternative, supplemental funding would be required for future 

land acquisition in the Benzie Corridor. 

Activities sponsored by the Lakeshore’s 

partners would provide additional sources of 

economic stimulus. The timing, magnitude, 

and indirect economic consequences of those 

activities are indeterminate. 

215 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The economic effects associated with NPS 

operations would be beneficial and minor to 

moderate in the short and long terms. 

Effects on Regional Population 

The preferred alternative would have little 

direct impact on regional population growth. 

The increases in construction and long-term 

jobs and visitor use over the life of this plan 

would provide a negligible impetus for 

growth, relative to other factors, and would be 

insufficient to trigger additional new economic development and job-related migration. It is more likely that many of the jobs 

would be filled by individuals already residing 

in the area. 

Implementation of the preferred alternative 

could indirectly enhance the region’s 

attractiveness for economic development as a 

result of enhanced recreational opportunities 

and establishment of wilderness on the 

mainland. 

The effects on regional population growth 

under this alternative would be negligible, 

both in the short and long terms. 

Community Services 

Impacts on community services associated 

with implementing the preferred alternative 

would be similar to those under the no-action 

alternative, although the demands related to 

levels of visitor use would be slightly higher. 

The limited scale, seasonal nature, and spatial 

dispersion of such demands across the region 

would be such that no facility expansions and 

additional staffing would be required. 

Effects on community services under this 

alternative would be indeterminate and 

negligible over the short and long terms. 

Traffic and Emergency Services 

Traffic impacts of the preferred alternative on 

the highways and roads that serve the Lakeshore would be similar to but slightly higher 

than under the no-action alternative. Most of 

the additional traffic would be concentrated 

on M-22 and M-109, connecting local roads 

around the Glen Lakes area, and local roads 

connecting M-22 to US-31 in Benzie County. 

Seasonal increases in traffic volumes could be 

noticeable in Glen Arbor and Empire, 

particularly on summer weekends. During the 

summer, some travelers might have to wait 

longer at intersections, or experience slightly 

slower travel speeds, but most travelers would 

see little change in travel conditions due to 

implementing the preferred alternative. Even 

with the increases in traffic, future traffic 

volumes would be below the roadway design 

capacities and would not necessitate 

substantially more road maintenance. 

Increases in traffic volumes could accelerate 

the onset of less than desirable levels of 

service at the M-22/M-109 intersection in 

Glen Arbor, possibly triggering intersection 

improvements (Robert Peccia & Associates. 

2001). 

The frequency and number of traffic accidents 

and demands on first responders would be 

higher than under the no action alternative. 

The scale of demands associated with the 

preferred alternative would be such that they 

would not require additional law enforcement 

or emergency response staffing, though the 

increases in the number of “call outs” could 

burden area first response agencies because 

they are staffed partially by volunteers. 

The effects of implementing the preferred 

alternative on traffic and emergency services 

would be adverse and negligible to minor over 

the short and long terms across most of the 

region. 

216 
Impacts of the Preferred Alternative 

Attitudes and Lifestyles 

The preferred alternative establishes future 

management direction for the Lakeshore that 

best reflects public input, the fundamental 

resources and opportunities at the Lakeshore, 

and the mission of the Lakeshore and the 

National Park Service as a whole. In terms of 

attitudes, some individuals might still believe 

that the management zones and wilderness 

proposals do not go far enough to achieve 

their particular preferences, although they 

may also acknowledge the efforts made to 

balance the desired outcomes of a large and 

divergent public. As such, this alternative 

might be characterized as offering management direction, a wilderness proposal, 

recreational opportunities, and preservation 

and interpretation of cultural heritage 

resources for all to appreciate, but also aspects 

for some to disfavor. 

The recreation, conservation, and resource 

management direction associated with the 

preferred alternative would have direct and 

indirect lifestyle consequences, with the direct 

consequences most apparent to neighbors and 

visitors to the Lakeshore. For example, future 

visitors would have access to a broader range 

of experiences and options, including 

wilderness on the mainland and enhanced 

access to backcountry use along the shoreline. 

Individuals desiring improved boating access 

to Lake Michigan would be encouraged by the 

potential prospect for a feasibility study of 

providing such access. Many residents and 

local government officials would approve of 

the explicit statements and policies regarding 

state and county road rights-of-way and other 

valid existing rights reflected in this plan. 

The management and access policies 

established under the preferred alternative 

might have indirect consequences on attitudes 

and lifestyles. Such consequences could arise 

primarily in terms of the extent to which the 

preferred alternative influences or changes 

recreation and resource conditions at a 

broader level over the long term. For example, 

changes in shoreline access might contribute 

to higher population growth in the region and 

attract new residents to the Lakeshore, which 

would mean more use at the Lakeshore and 

conflicts with the preferences and desires of 

others to discourage more use. Given the 

relatively small size of the community, such 

conflicts can become sources of long-term 

division or strength. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Social and economic impacts arising from 

implementing the preferred alternative are of 

the same type as those associated with past, 

present, and future residential development 

near the Lakeshore; the establishment of the 

Lakeshore; and those associated with the noaction alternative. The former includes 

population and economic growth across the 

region that would result in moderate longterm increases in traffic on highways and 

roads in the area; moderate, long-term 

increases in resident and visitor spending, 

bolstering retail trade and service-oriented 

businesses in the region; long-term demands 

on community services; and additional public 

sector revenues to fund public services and 

facilities. The other cumulative actions could 

result in some long-term negligible economic 

effects on visitor-related businesses, and on 

local traffic and safety, due to changes in 

visitor use levels and distribution. 

The incremental effects of the preferred 

alternative to these impacts would be small. 

For example, the incremental traffic would be 

small in relationship to travel by area residents, commercial and other personal travel 

passing through the area, and current 

demands associated with the Lakeshore. 

Additional visitor use under the preferred 

alternative would increase visitor spending, 

benefiting existing businesses and enhancing 

the commercial development potential for 

private lands along the access roads to the 

Lakeshore. Any subsequent development of 

those lands would have economic 

217 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

implications, as well as changing the visitor 

experience. Completion of the M-22/M-109 

hike/bike trail could result in cumulative 

effects in the area of motorist/visitor safety 

along highway corridors in the region. 

The contributions of the preferred alternative 

to the cumulative economic and social effects, 

including those associated with increases 

visitor and NPS operating expenditures, 

would be negligible to minor in the short term 

and minor in the long term, and beneficial. 

Impacts of other actions, in combination with 

those attributable to the preferred alternative, 

would result in minor short- and long-term 

adverse cumulative effects on traffic and highway safety. Impacts of the preferred alternative would comprise a small portion of these 

overall cumulative social and economic 

effects. 

Conclusion 

The economic effects of the preferred 

alternative would include negligible to minor 

short-term and moderate long-term economic 

benefits, the latter due to increased visitation 

tied to this alternative. Short- and long-term 

effects on lifestyles and attitudes would be 

minor benefits, because many interested parties could support the management direction 

established in the preferred alternative. Longterm social consequences would include a 

negligible to minor contribution to long-term 

population growth and demands on community infrastructure and services. Overall, 

the cumulative social and economic effects 

associated with the preferred alternative 

would be minor, short and long term, and 

indeterminate because they include effects 

that might be concurrently viewed as 

beneficial or adverse. 

NPS OPERATIONS 

Under the preferred alternative, the Lakeshore’s maintenance and operational load 

would be increased by (1) the addition of a 

limited number of new trails and backcountry 

campgrounds, (2) upgrading the Glen Lake 

picnic area to support beach and picnic use, 

(3) possible occasional day trips by the ferry to 

North Manitou Island, (4) possible day use on 

North Manitou Island (with increased 

interpretive and ranger patrol needs), (5) 

possible concession tours to near the Giant 

Cedars area, and (6) modest increases in 

National Lakeshore visitation. Some increased 

maintenance would also be incurred with a 

new M-22/M-109 hike/bike trail. Most other 

facility-based changes, such as improving 

parking at the end of Esch and Lake Michigan 

roads, relocation or upgrading the Crystal 

River access area, and closure/removal of the 

Valley View campground, would decrease 

maintenance needs for individual areas or 

change the nature of the maintenance needs 

without increasing the burden. Wilderness 

minimum requirement analysis would be 

required for 32,100 acres, a 1,197-acre (2%) 

increase over the no-action alternative. 

Impacts of the preferred alternative would be 

long term and minor, and both beneficial and 

adverse. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Ongoing and planned facility upgrades and 

restoration/rehabilitation projects would have 

mostly beneficial impacts because these 

projects would result in reduced resource 

management and cyclic maintenance needs. 

Dredging of the Platte River mouth would 

continue to place demands on the Lakeshore’s 

maintenance staff and budget, a minor adverse 

effect. Combined with these impacts, the 

preferred alternative would have both longterm minor beneficial and adverse cumulative 

effects. Impacts of the preferred alternative 

would comprise a substantial portion of these 

overall cumulative effects. 

 

218 
Impacts of the Preferred Alternative 

219 

Conclusion 

The preferred alternative would have longterm, minor beneficial and adverse impacts on 

NPS operations. The preferred alternative, 

combined with other actions, would have 

both long-term minor beneficial and adverse 

cumulative effects. 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

Some negligible to moderate impacts to soils, 

vegetation, wildlife, water resources, wilderness character, scenic resources, natural 

sound, and night sky caused by recreational 

use and facilities would be essentially 

unavoidable (e.g., soil compaction, vegetation 

trampling, wildlife disturbances, decreased 

opportunities for solitude, and decreased 

naturalness). Increases in visitor use would 

have low level adverse impacts on regional 

socioeconomics (e.g., increased traffic). 

 

 

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE 

COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 

Irreversible commitments of resources are 

actions that result in loss of resources that 

cannot be reversed. Irretrievable commitments of resources are actions that result in 

the loss of resources but only for a limited 

period of time. 

With the exception of consumption of fuels 

and raw materials for maintenance or 

construction activities, no actions in this 

alternative would result in consumptions of 

nonrenewable natural resources or use of 

renewable resources that would preclude 

other uses for a period of time. 

RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM 

USES AND LONG-TERM 

PRODUCTIVITY 

The National Lakeshore would continue to be 

used by the public and most areas would be 

protected in a natural state. The National Park 

Service would continue to manage the Lakeshore to maintain ecological processes and 

native biological communities and to provide 

appropriate recreational opportunities 

consistent with the preservation of cultural 

and natural resources. Actions would be taken 

with care to minimize adverse effects on the 

long-term productivity of biotic communities. 

Under the preferred alternative there would 

be a modest number of new recreational 

facilities such as trails, which could reduce 

ecological productivity in some localized 

areas. However, the preferred alternative 

would yield long-term benefits from a visitor 

experience perspective. 
IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE A 

HISTORIC RESOURCES 

The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties (1995) 

identifies four treatment approaches that 

apply to a wide variety of resource types, 

including buildings, sites, structures, objects, 

districts, and landscape features and patterns. 

Three of those treatments are included in this 

plan — preservation, rehabilitation, and 

restoration. See page 40 for more detailed 

definitions. The simplest of these treatment 

approaches is preservation, in which measures 

are undertaken to stabilize the resource to 

ensure that it does not deteriorate further 

from its existing condition and then to 

maintain and repair historic features and 

materials. The second option is rehabilitation, 

in which the resource is made useable for 

some purpose while preserving those features 

that convey its historical, cultural, or 

architectural value. The third is restoration, in 

which the historic appearance at a particular 

time is accurately regained. The fourth 

treatment, reconstruction, is not proposed in 

this plan. 

Although each alternative calls for preserving 

and protecting all historic properties, each 

action alternative provides a different management zone configuration based on that 

alternative’s overall vision, and each management zone prescribes which of the three 

treatments could be used for historic properties. Thus, potential treatments for the 

National Lakeshore’s various historic properties differ among the alternatives. Based on the 

locations and relative proportions of 

management zones in alternative A, 68% of 

historic structures would undergo preservation, rehabilitation, or restoration (experience 

history zone), 3% of historic structures would 

undergo preservation or rehabilitation 

(recreation zone), and 29% of historic 

structures would undergo preservation 

(experience nature zone). This information is 

summarized in table 3 on page 74. 

All preservation, rehabilitation, or restoration 

efforts would be undertaken in accordance 

with the standards. Any materials removed 

during rehabilitation or restoration efforts 

would be evaluated to determine their value to 

the Lakeshore’s museum collections and/or 

for their comparative use in future preservation work at the sites. Implementation of the 

actions described above for this alternative, 

which would bring all historic resources up to 

a good condition, would result in no adverse 

effects on historic resources. 

At Glen Haven the Glen Haven Historic 

District and Sleeping Bear Point Life-Saving 

Station would be preserved, rehabilitated, or 

restored (same action in all alternatives). Some 

buildings would be rehabilitated for visitor 

and/or staff use. The Sleeping Bear Inn and 

garage would be placed in the NPS historic 

leasing program to allow rehabilitation for 

adaptive use. All other structures would be 

stabilized and maintained in their current 

condition. 

At Port Oneida historic structures and 

landscapes would be preserved, rehabilitated, 

or restored (same action in all alternatives). 

Structures on at least one farmstead would be 

restored for interpretive purposes. Some 

buildings in the district would be rehabilitated 

for visitor and/or staff use, including a visitor 

contact station and staff housing. At least one 

farmstead would be placed in the NPS historic 

leasing program to allow rehabilitation and 

adaptive use. All other structures and 

landscapes would be stabilized and 

maintained in their current condition. 

On North Manitou Island the historic lifesaving station structures would be preserved, 

rehabilitated, or restored. Preservation and/or 

adaptive use of the rehabilitated historic 

220 
Impacts of Alternative A 

former Manitou Island Association structures 

for administrative and operational purposes 

would continue. Historic structures and 

landscapes on Cottage Row and elsewhere on 

the island would be preserved. 

On South Manitou Island the historic lifesaving station, lighthouse complex, and village 

historic structures would be preserved, 

rehabilitated, or restored. Historic structures 

and landscapes elsewhere on the island would 

be preserved. 

Other mainland historic structures and 

landscapes would be managed as specified for 

the management zone in which they lie (see 

alternative map and zone descriptions). 

Actions involving other than historic property 

treatments, such as the new bay-to-bay trail 

and campgrounds, would have no effect on 

historic properties because they would be 

designed to avoid possible impacts on 

properties on or eligible for the national 

register. 

All properties in or determined eligible for 

inclusion in the National Register of Historic 

Places would, at a minimum, undergo 

stabilization (where that action has not 

already occurred) or maintenance in the 

current condition (where some preservation 

treatment has already been implemented). 

The actions proposed above are general. The 

treatments for each resource (preservation 

[stabilization], rehabilitation with adaptive 

use, restoration) have not yet been determined so impacts cannot be fully described. 

However, it is the National Park Service’s 

intent that no action proposed be adverse. All 

actions affecting these historic structures and 

landscapes will be undertaken in consultation 

with the Michigan state historic preservation 

officer. 

Alternative A would not directly or indirectly 

affect any properties outside the boundary of 

the National Lakeshore that are listed on or 

eligible for the National Register of Historic 

Places, or that are listed by the state. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Over the years historic resources in the 

Lakeshore have been adversely impacted by 

natural processes such as weathering, 

vegetative encroachment, and the wear and 

tear associated with visitor use. Actions 

proposed for the South Manitou Island 

Lighthouse Complex would result in both the 

restoration of the exterior of the keeper’s 

quarters and connecting passageways and the 

rehabilitation of the interior for adaptive 

reuse. In addition, actions proposed for Glen 

Haven Village include the stabilization and 

maintenance of historic structures or their 

rehabilitation for adaptive reuse. All 

preservation, rehabilitation, or restoration 

efforts would be undertaken in accordance 

with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

for the Treatment of Historic Properties (1995), 

and would result in no adverse effects on 

historic resources. 

As described above, implementation of alternative A would result in no adverse effects on 

historic resources. The no adverse impacts of 

this alternative, in combination with both the 

adverse and no adverse impacts of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, would result in a no adverse effect 

cumulative impact. The no adverse effects of 

alternative A would contribute modestly to 

the no adverse effect cumulative impact. 

Conclusion 

Alternative A would have a determination of 

no adverse effect under the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation “Regulations for the 

Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties” (36 CFR 800). There would be no impairment of cultural resources from implementation of the preferred alternative (see specific 

221 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

definition of impairment in the “Impairment 

of National Lakeshore Resources” section). 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Soils and Geologic Resources 

Readers are encouraged to refer back to the 

“Soils and Geologic Resources” discussion in 

the “Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing 

Impacts” section for additional details on the 

types of impacts resulting from visitor use and 

development. 

Use of motorized boats on School, Loon, and 

North Bar lakes and the Crystal and Platte 

rivers would also continue. Although soil 

compaction and erosion of the dunes would 

be reduced in some areas by using sand 

ladders, boardwalks, and sidewalks to protect 

the substrate, placement and maintenance 

would be limited to what can be accomplished 

with current resources. These ongoing 

activities would continue to have minor to 

moderate (depending on location and activity) 

short- and long-term adverse impacts on soils 

and geologic resources. Implementation of 

user capacity management (see discussion in 

chapter 2) to reduce impacts of visitor use in 

sensitive and yet popular areas such as the 

Platte River corridor, would have short- and 

long-term, minor to moderate beneficial 

impacts. 

Development of the bay-to-bay trail and the 

M-22/M-109 hike/bike trail could result in 

soil disturbance and erosion during construction and subsequent visitor use would result in 

erosion and compaction. Assuming use of best 

management practices, such as using silt 

fencing and avoiding steep or inundated 

terrain, during construction, and later use to 

prevent erosion and compaction, the overall 

adverse impacts would likely be short-term 

and moderate and long-term and minor. 

Closing the farm loop road at the west end of 

Chicago Road on South Manitou Island and 

Tiesma Road on the mainland and no longer 

allowing motorized boats on Bass Lake 

(Leelanau County) would result in short- and 

long-term minor beneficial impacts on soils 

and geologic resources through reduction of 

soil erosion and compaction in these areas. 

Proposed development and associated visitor 

use under alternative A, such as a loop trail 

and small parking area at Bow Lakes and 

restoration of the Glen Lake picnic area to a 

natural state, could result in short-term 

negligible to moderate adverse impacts during 

construction (due to soil disturbance, erosion, 

and compaction) and long-term minor 

beneficial impacts due to protecting adjacent 

resources (e.g., designated trail focusing 

visitors on the trail and sparing the adjacent 

soils). 

Cessation of NPS acquisition of lands within 

the Benzie Corridor (the corridor would no 

longer be part of the Lakeshore under this 

alternative) would make the soils of this area 

susceptible to soil disruption, compaction, 

and erosion from private development. These 

impacts could range from negligible to 

moderate and would likely be adverse over the 

short and long terms. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past, present, and 

anticipated projects that would contribute to 

impacts on soils and geologic resources 

include (1) the improvements to the parking 

areas at the ends of Leelanau County Roads 

651 and 669; (2) Glen Haven Village 

improvements; (3) improvements to the Lake 

Michigan overlooks accessed from the Pierce 

Stocking Scenic Drive; (4) riverbank 

stabilization on the Platte River at the former 

Water Wheel and Casey’s Corner canoe 

liveries; (5) restoration approximating the 

natural topography, hydrology, and native 

vegetative cover of nonhistoric sites disturbed 

by past land uses — particularly those in 

critical dunes areas; (6) minor improvements 

to the Dune Climb parking area; and (7) 

continued dredging of the mouth of the Platte 

River. Although activities 1-6 would likely 

222 
Impacts of Alternative A 

result in short-term adverse impacts during 

the construction phase, the net result would 

likely be long-term, minor to moderate 

beneficial impacts because all projects would 

contribute to a reduction of the potential for 

soil compaction and erosion. Dredging the 

mouth of the Platte River results in continued 

addition of dredged material to the shoreline. 

During low-water periods deeper dredging is 

required and results in dredge materials with 

high clay content being deposited on the 

shoreline, resulting in armoring of the beach 

surface and consequent profile changes. This 

results in short- and long-term minor to 

moderate adverse impacts. 

The impacts of other actions described above, 

in combination with the impacts of alternative 

A, would result in short- and long-term, 

negligible to moderate adverse cumulative 

impacts, and short- and long-term minor to 

moderate and beneficial cumulative impacts. 

Alternative A’s contribution to these 

cumulative impacts would be minimal. 

Conclusion. Alternative A would have shortand long-term, negligible to moderate adverse 

impacts, and long-term, minor beneficial 

impacts on soils and geologic resources. 

Cumulative impacts would likely be short and 

long term, negligible to moderate and adverse, 

and short and long term, minor to moderate 

and beneficial. There would be no impairment

of soils or geologic resources from implementation of alternative A (see specific 

definition of impairment in the “Impairment 

of National Lakeshore Resources” section). 

Vegetation and Wildlife 

Readers are encouraged to refer back to the 

“Vegetation and Wildlife” discussion in the 

“Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing 

Impacts” section for additional details on the 

types of impacts resulting from visitor use and 

development. 

The use of motorized boats on School, Loon, 

and North Bar lakes and the Crystal and Platte 

rivers would continue to result in trampling of 

vegetation, habitat alteration, introduction 

and spread of invasive species, and sensorybased disruption of wildlife. Continuing 

impacts on vegetation and wildlife from such 

activities would likely continue to be short 

and long term, negligible to moderate, and 

adverse. Implementation of user capacity 

management (see discussion in chapter 2) to 

reduce impacts of visitor use in sensitive and 

yet popular areas such as the Platte River 

corridor, would have short- and long-term, 

minor to moderate beneficial impacts. 

Development of the bay-to-bay trail and the 

M-22/M-109 hike/bike trail would impact 

vegetation and wildlife through trampling of 

vegetation, habitat loss and alteration, introduction and spread of invasive species, and 

sensory-based disruption of wildlife. 

Assuming use of best management practices 

(such as placement of trails/paths near 

existing disturbances, minimization of the 

construction footprint, and timing of construction outside of peak breeding/nesting 

periods) during construction, and careful 

monitoring and management of impacts 

during use, the overall impacts would likely be 

short and long term, negligible to minor, and 

adverse. 

Under alternative A, 47% (33,600 acres) of the 

National Lakeshore would be managed as 

wilderness (assuming that Congress acts to 

designate wilderness), with wilderness on 

both islands and in all three mainland portions 

of the Lakeshore. This would be a 2,697-acre 

(4%) increase over the existing conditions. 

Management of these areas as wilderness 

conveys a higher level of protection to the 

vegetation and wildlife of the areas than any 

management zone. This wilderness proposal 

would likely have short- and long-term minor 

beneficial impacts on vegetation and wildlife 

of the Lakeshore. 

223 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Under alternative A, motorized boats would 

no longer be allowed on Bass (Leelanau 

County) Lake, reducing impacts there caused 

by shoreline erosion, habitat alteration, 

introduction and spread of invasive species, 

and sensory-based disruptions. Closure of the 

farm loop to vehicles at the west end of 

Chicago Road on South Manitou Island and 

closure of Tiesma Road, along with cessation 

of motorized boat use on Bass (Leelanau 

County) Lake, would have short- and longterm negligible to minor beneficial impacts on 

the vegetation and wildlife of those areas. 

Activities proposed and their associated 

visitor use under alternative A, such as 

developing a loop trail and small parking area 

at Bow Lakes and restoring the Glen Lake 

picnic area to a natural state, could result in 

short-term negligible to moderate adverse 

impacts during construction due to habitat 

loss and alteration, introduction and spread of 

invasive species, and sensory-based 

disruptions. Long-term, minor beneficial 

impacts would also result due to protecting 

adjacent resources (e.g., designated trail 

would focus visitor use there, protecting the 

habitat and wildlife) and restoration of the 

natural conditions around the Glen Lake 

picnic area. 

Cessation of NPS acquisition of lands within 

the Benzie Corridor would make the vegetation and wildlife of this area susceptible to 

impacts associated with private development, 

including habitat loss, alteration, and degradation, sensory-based disruptions, and the 

likelihood of introducing nonnative species. 

These impacts could range from negligible to 

moderate and would likely be adverse over the 

short and long terms. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past, present, and 

anticipated projects that would contribute to 

impacts on vegetation and wildlife include (1) 

the improvements to the parking areas at the 

ends of Leelanau County Roads 651 and 669; 

(2) implementation of the “Fire Management 

Plan”; (3) improvements to the Lake Michigan 

overlooks accessed from the Pierce Stocking 

Scenic Drive; (4) riverbank stabilization on the 

Platte River at the former Water Wheel and 

Casey’s Corner canoe liveries; and (5) 

restoration approximating the natural 

topography, hydrology and vegetative cover 

of nonhistoric sites disturbed by past land 

uses — particularly those in critical dunes 

areas. These actions would likely have shortand long-term negligible to minor adverse 

impacts due to trampling and sensory-based 

disturbance during the activity, and long-term 

minor beneficial impacts on vegetation and 

wildlife due to habitat restoration and 

enhancement. 

The impacts of actions described above, 

together with the impacts of the alternative A, 

would result in short- and long-term, minor to 

moderate adverse cumulative impacts and 

short- and long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial cumulative impacts. The contribution of alternative A to these cumulative 

impacts would be relatively small. 

Conclusion. Alternative A would have shortand long-term negligible to moderate adverse 

impacts, and short- and long-term negligible 

to moderate beneficial impacts. The impacts 

of alternative A combined with other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 

would likely be short- and long-term, minor 

to moderate adverse cumulative impacts, and 

short- and long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial cumulative impacts. There would be 

no impairment of vegetation or wildlife 

resources from implementing alternative A 

(see specific definition of impairment in the 

“Impairment of National Lakeshore 

Resources” section). 

Federal Threatened 

and Endangered Species 

Readers are encouraged to refer back to the 

“Federal Threatened and Endangered 

Species” discussion in the “Methods and 

Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts” section 

224 
Impacts of Alternative A 

for additional details on the types of impacts 

resulting from visitor use and development. 

The federally listed species considered are the 

Michigan monkey flower, piping plover 

(populations and designated critical habitat), 

and Pitcher’s thistle. The piping plover and 

Pitcher’s thistle are found primarily in nearshore dunes; the Michigan monkey flower is 

restricted to one lakeside location in the 

Lakeshore interior. Although part of the 

designated critical habitat within the 

Lakeshore coincides with actively used 

recreational beach areas, NPS staff have 

demonstrated success in minimizing impacts 

on nesting piping plovers in areas with 

relatively high human activity (e.g., the mouth 

of the Platte River) through various actions 

(see “Mitigative Measures for the Action 

Alternatives” section in chapter 2). All impact 

analyses assume continued protection of 

threatened and endangered species as 

outlined in the Lakeshore-wide desired 

condition statements (see chapter 1). 

Under alternative A, 47% of the National 

Lakeshore would be managed as wilderness 

(assuming that Congress acts to designate 

wilderness), with wilderness on both islands 

and in all three mainland portions of the 

Lakeshore. This would be a 2,697-acre (4%) 

increase over the no-action alternative. This 

increase would potentially benefit the 

Pitcher’s thistle, and that benefit would be 

insignificant because much of the Lakeshore is 

currently managed to benefit native 

ecosystems regardless of its designation status. 

This increase in proposed wilderness would 

have insignificant effects on piping plovers 

and piping plover critical habitat because 

management of the Lake Michigan shoreline 

and near-shoreline areas would remain 

essentially the same and because piping 

plovers successfully nest and fledge under 

current management. This increase would 

have no effect on Michigan monkey flower 

because wilderness is not proposed in the area 

where this species is known to occur. Thus, 

overall, this increase in proposed wilderness 

would have only insignificant beneficial 

impacts on listed species. 

New visitor activities such as use of the new 

bay-to-bay trail and campgrounds would have 

the same impacts as described for the 

preferred alternative and include trampling, 

habitat alteration, and sensory-based 

disturbance. These impacts could be reduced 

by strategic location and design such as 

careful selection and demarcation of trails 

outside of sensitive areas (e.g., away from 

piping plover critical habitat) and use of 

boardwalks. 

Under this alternative, NPS acquisition of 

property within the Benzie Corridor would 

cease and the corridor would be removed 

from the Lakeshore boundary. The rate of 

private development would probably 

substantially increase in this corridor. 

However, this would not be anticipated to 

affect listed species because neither they nor 

their habitats occur within the corridor. 

For projects proposed under alternative A, 

NPS staff would implement measures that 

would ensure that adverse effects on listed 

species do not occur. These avoidance 

measures might include, but are not limited to, 

the following: 

• Safeguarding the known locations of 

listed species. 

• Restricting human activity in piping 

plover breeding areas by use of a 

specialized fence system. 

• Increasing the number of NPS/volunteer 

piping plover nest monitors, should 

conditions warrant. 

• Restricting human activity in piping 

plover breeding areas. 

• Restricting dogs from piping plover 

breeding areas during the breeding 

season. 

• Flagging or fencing plants prior to any 

work in or adjacent to Pitcher’s thistle 

habitat. Every effort would be made to 

avoid any impacts to these plants. 

225 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

• Providing education about the listed 

species and their habitats. 

• Designating alternate access points away 

from areas occupied by listed species.

The National Park Service staff anticipates 

that adverse effects could be avoided in all 

projects that are proposed under alternative 

A. The National Park Service cannot foresee 

at this time any project for which adverse 

effects could not be avoided. In the rare event 

that adverse effects could not be avoided, the 

project would either be discontinued or NPS 

staff would request formal consultation with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. As such, 

any impacts from implementation of 

alternative A would likely have only beneficial, 

insignificant, or discountable effects on piping 

plover and piping plover critical habitat, 

Michigan monkey flower, and Pitcher’s 

thistle. 

At the landscape level, alternative A is not 

likely to adversely affect listed species because 

the proposed management direction under 

this alternative would result in conditions that 

are beneficial to preserving habitat and would 

minimize adverse impacts on listed species to 

insignificant or discountable. As such, 

implementation of alternative A may affect but 

would not be likely to adversely affect piping 

plovers and piping plover critical habitat, 

Michigan monkey flower, and Pitcher’s 

thistle. 

Conservation Measures. Conservation 

measures are activities above and beyond 

avoidance measures and are undertaken to 

reduce potential impacts on federally listed 

species or candidate species. Initiation of 

conservation measures would occur in 

consultation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and would be required if any of the 

following occurred: 

• initiation of activities anticipated to have 

impacts on piping plovers or their 

designated critical habitat beyond those 

addressed in this document 

• additional Michigan monkey flower 

occurrences within the Lakeshore were 

identified in areas where they might 

potentially be impacted 

• initiation of activities anticipated to have 

impacts on Michigan monkey flower 

populations 

• initiation of activities anticipated to have 

impacts on Pitcher’s thistle populations 

beyond those addressed in this document 

Renewed discussion and consultation with the 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, should any of 

the above events occur, would focus on 

development of specific conservation 

measures to reduce potential impacts on these 

species and/or designated critical habitat. 

Such conservation measures would be based 

on the recommendations provided by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past, present, and 

anticipated projects that would contribute to 

impacts on federally listed species and 

designated critical habit include (1) the 

improvements to the parking areas at the ends 

of Leelanau County Roads 651 and 669; (2) 

implementation of the “Fire Management 

Plan”; (3) improvements to the Lake Michigan 

overlooks accessed from the Pierce Stocking 

Scenic Drive, and (4) activities presented in 

table 21. Most of these actions would benefit 

natural resources including federally listed 

species and their designated critical habitats. 

Some past projects at the National Lakeshore, 

however, such as the site restoration project 

near Big Glen Lake, have adversely affected 

federally listed species, i.e., Michigan monkey 

flower. These resulted in formal consultation 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

During implementation, actions would be 

taken to avoid or minimize potential adverse 

impacts on such species. Any adverse impacts, 

such as trampling or sensory-based 

disruption, would be insignificant or 

discountable. 

The impacts of actions described above, 

together with the impacts of alternative A, 

226 
Impacts of Alternative A 

may affect but would not be likely to adversely 

affect piping plover, piping plover critical 

habitat, Pitcher’s thistle, and Michigan 

monkey flower. Alternative A would likely 

contribute a relatively small component to 

these cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Any adverse impacts of 

alternative A on the addressed federally listed 

species and designated critical habitat would 

be no more than insignificant or discountable 

over both the short and long terms. Implementation of alternative A may affect but 

would not likely adversely affect the 

addressed listed species and critical habitat. 

Other projects, combined with the impacts of 

alternative A, on federally listed species and 

designated critical habitat may affect but 

would not likely adversely affect piping 

plover, piping plover critical habitat, Pitcher’s 

thistle, and Michigan monkey flower. There 

would be no impairment of federal threatened 

and endangered species from this alternative 

(see specific definition of impairment in the 

“Impairment of National Lakeshore 

Resources” section). 

Michigan State-Listed Species 

Readers are encouraged to refer back to the 

“Michigan State-Listed Species” discussion in 

the “Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing 

Impacts” section for additional details on the 

types of impacts resulting from visitor use and 

development. 

Under alternative A, 47% of the National 

Lakeshore would be managed as wilderness 

(assuming that Congress acts to designate 

wilderness), with wilderness on both islands 

and in all three mainland portions of the 

Lakeshore. This would be a 2,697-acre (4%) 

increase over the no-action alternative. 

Management of these areas as wilderness 

would convey a higher level of protection to 

the state-listed species of the areas than any 

management zone. This wilderness proposal 

would likely have short- and long-term minor 

beneficial impacts on state-listed species of 

the Lakeshore. 

Access to the Giant Cedars area would 

continue to be by foot from the ranger station, 

or, less frequently, via the lake (i.e., by boat). 

Management actions that occur or would be 

considered for reduction of impacts to plants 

and soils in this sensitive area would include 

educating visitors about the sensitive nature of 

the area, fencing to reduce compaction of root 

zones and/or trampling of vegetation, and the 

strategic use of boardwalks. As such, the noaction alternative would likely have short- and 

long-term minor adverse impacts on the 

Michigan state-listed species occurring in this 

area. 

Closure of the farm loop to vehicles at the 

west end of Chicago Road would likely have 

long-term minor beneficial impacts on statelisted species associated with the dunes west 

of thereby reducing the potential for 

trampling, habitat alteration, and sensorybased disruptions. 

New activities proposed such as use of the 

new bay-to-bay trail and campgrounds could 

result in trampling, habitat alteration, and 

sensory-based disruption of behaviors for 

state-listed species associated with the 

shoreline/dunes/near-shore habitats. 

Assuming practicable levels of monitoring and 

remediation of visitor-related impacts by NPS 

staff, impacts on Michigan state-listed species 

from such activities under alternative A would 

likely be short term moderate and long term 

minor and adverse. 

Ongoing use of motorized boats on School, 

Loon, and North Bar lakes, as well as on the 

Crystal and Platte rivers, would likely have 

short- and long-term minor adverse effects on 

state-listed species associated with lakes/ 

wetlands/riparian due to shoreline erosion, 

resuspension of sediments, pollution, and 

sensory-based disruption of wildlife. The 

cessation of motorized boating on Bass Lake 

(Leelanau County) would likely have equal 

227 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

but beneficial impacts (i.e., short- and longterm, minor, beneficial impacts). Implementation of user capacity management (see 

discussion in chapter 2) to reduce impacts of 

visitor use in sensitive and yet popular areas 

such as the Platte River corridor, would have 

short- and long-term, minor to moderate 

beneficial impacts. 

Development of the bay-to-bay trail and 

associated campgrounds, the M-22/M-109 

hike/bike trail and a loop trail and small 

parking area at Bow Lakes could result in 

habitat loss and degradation for lakes/ 

wetlands/riparian species and for mature 

forest species, which could be reduced by 

strategic location and design. Return of the 

Glen Lake picnic area to a natural state, could 

have beneficial impacts on species associated 

with wetlands and lakes in that area. The sum 

of these impacts on state-listed species 

associated with lakes, wetlands, and riparian 

areas and mature forests in the Lakeshore 

would likely be short and long term, negligible 

to minor, and adverse (e.g., the bay-to-bay 

trail), and long term, minor, and beneficial 

(e.g., development of a loop trail in Bow Lakes 

area and return of Glen Lake picnic area to 

more natural conditions). 

Cessation of NPS acquisition of lands within 

the Benzie Corridor and removal of the 

corridor from the Lakeshore boundary would 

likely expose this area to an increased rate of 

private development. Although no state-listed 

species are known to occur within the actual 

corridor, such development could adversely 

impact state-listed species close to the ridge, 

including species associated with lakes, wetlands, and riparian areas. Impacts associated 

with private development, including habitat 

loss, alteration, and degradation, and sensorybased disruption, could result if this area 

undergoes such development. These impacts 

could range from negligible to moderate and 

would likely be adverse over the short and 

long terms. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past, present, and 

anticipated projects that would contribute to 

impacts on Michigan state-listed plant and 

animal species include (1) the improvements 

to the parking areas at the ends of Leelanau 

County Roads 651 and 669; (2) Glen Haven 

Village improvements; (3) implementation of 

the “Fire Management Plan”; (4) improvements to the Lake Michigan overlooks 

accessed from the Pierce Stocking Scenic 

Drive; (5) riverbank stabilization on the Platte 

River at the former Water Wheel and Casey’s 

Corner canoe liveries; (6) restoration 

approximating the natural topography, 

hydrology, and native vegetative cover of 

nonhistoric areas disturbed by past land uses 

— particularly those in critical dunes areas; 

and (7) minor improvements to the Dune 

Climb parking area. Each of these projects 

would involve short-term adverse impacts 

during construction (such as sensory-based 

disturbance). The long-term impacts would 

likely be minor to moderate and beneficial 

(such as habitat protection, restoration, and 

enhancement). The impacts of the actions 

listed above, together with the impacts of the 

alternative A, would result in short and long 

term minor to moderate adverse cumulative 

impacts, and minor to moderate beneficial 

cumulative impacts. Alternative A would be 

expected to contribute a relatively small 

component to these cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Alternative A would have shortand long-term negligible to moderate adverse 

impacts and short- and long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial impacts on Michigan 

state-listed species. The cumulative impacts 

would likely be short and long term, minor to 

moderate adverse, and minor to moderate 

beneficial. There would be no impairment of 

state-listed species from this alternative (see 

specific definition of impairment in the 

“Impairment of National Lakeshore 

Resources” section). 

228 
Impacts of Alternative A 

Wetlands and Water Quality 

Readers are encouraged to refer back to the 

“Wetlands and Water Quality” discussion in 

the “Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing 

Impacts” section for additional details on the 

types of impacts resulting from visitor use and 

development. 

Current visitor activities that would continue 

and could impact wetlands and water quality 

include the use of motorized boats on School, 

Loon, and North Bar lakes and the Crystal 

and Platte rivers. Impacts would include 

resuspension of sediments and pollution of 

wetlands and water bodies. Impacts on 

wetlands and water quality from such 

activities under all action alternatives would 

likely continue to be short and long term, 

minor to moderate, and adverse. Implementation of user capacity management (see discussion in chapter 2) to reduce impacts of visitor 

use in sensitive and yet popular areas such as 

the Platte River corridor, would have shortand long-term, minor to moderate beneficial 

impacts. 

The bay-to-bay trail and the M-22/M-109 

hike/bike trail could impact wetlands and 

water quality through erosion, runoff, and 

pollution during construction, and trampling, 

erosion, resuspension of sediments, and 

pollution during use. Assuming implementation of best management practices during 

construction, and careful monitoring of 

impacts during use, the overall impacts would 

likely be short and long term, minor, and 

adverse. 

Closure of the farm loop road to vehicles at 

the west end of Chicago Road on South 

Manitou Island, closure of Tiesma Road, and 

cessation of motorized boat use on Bass Lake 

(Leelanau County) would likely have shortand long-term, negligible to moderate beneficial impacts on the wetlands and waters in 

those areas. 

Development activities proposed under 

alternative A that might impact wetlands and 

water quality include return of the Glen Lake 

picnic area to a more natural condition and 

development of a short loop trail and small 

parking area in the Bow Lakes area. Assuming 

use of best management practices during 

construction, the impacts of restoring the 

Glen Lake picnic area to more natural 

conditions and developing the Bow Lakes trail 

and parking area would likely be short term, 

minor to moderate, and adverse during 

construction, and long-term, minor to 

moderate, and beneficial after construction 

because they would be designed to protect 

adjacent wetlands and water bodies. 

Cessation of NPS acquisition of lands within 

the Benzie Corridor might render wetlands 

and water quality below this area susceptible 

to impacts of private development, such as 

increased sediment loads and pollution, 

resulting in short- and long-term, negligible to 

moderate adverse impacts. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past, present, and 

anticipated projects that would contribute to 

impacts on wetlands and water quality include 

(1) implementation of the “Fire Management 

Plan”; (2) riverbank stabilization on the Platte 

River at the former Water Wheel and Casey’s 

Corner canoe liveries; (3) restoration 

approximating the natural topography, 

hydrology, and native vegetative cover of 

nonhistoric areas disturbed by past land uses 

— particularly those in critical dunes areas; (4) 

minor improvements to the Dune Climb 

parking area; and (5) dredging of the Platte 

River mouth. Although each of these projects 

would involve short-term adverse impacts 

(e.g., dredging of the Platte River resulting in 

short-term suspension of particulates in the 

water and resulting lower water quality 

immediately downstream [lakeside] of the 

dredging), the net result would likely be longterm, minor to moderate beneficial impacts 

(e.g., dredging the mouth of the Platte River 

allows boats to pass without continuously 

229 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

hitting the bottom, stirring up material, and 

reducing water quality). 

The impacts of the other actions described 

above, together with the impacts of the 

alternative A, would result in short- and longterm negligible to moderate adverse cumulative impacts, and long-term negligible to 

moderate beneficial cumulative impacts. 

Alternative A would be expected to contribute 

a relatively small component to these 

cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Alternative A would contribute 

short-and long-term negligible to moderate 

adverse, and negligible to moderate beneficial 

impacts on wetlands and water quality. There 

would be short- and long-term negligible to 

moderate adverse cumulative impacts, and 

long-term negligible to moderate beneficial 

cumulative impacts. There would be no 

impairment of wetlands or water quality from 

this alternative (see specific definition of 

impairment in the “Impairment of National 

Lakeshore Resources” section). 

VISITOR OPPORTUNITIES AND USE 

Visitor Opportunities 

Although natural resource interpretive and 

educational opportunities would be emphasized, opportunities would remain available 

for visitors to experience all of the fundamental resources and values of the Lakeshore 

as well as to learn about all of the Lakeshore’s 

primary interpretive themes (see “Fundamental Resources and Values” and “Primary 

Interpretive Themes” sections in chapter 1). 

Visitors would have access to information, 

interpretation, and educational opportunities 

at a variety of locations, including the visitor 

center in Empire, at Glen Haven, and at the 

visitor contact station on South Manitou 

Island. These opportunities would have longterm, moderate, beneficial impacts. 

 

Access to and through the Lakeshore would 

generally be on the existing network of state, 

county, and NPS roads. However, visitors 

would no longer have vehicular access on 

Tiesma Road (for beach access) or the 

complete South Manitou Island farm auto 

tour. Visitors would have increased Lakeshore 

access with the addition of the M-22/M-109 

hike/bike trail (initiated by others) and the 

bay-to-bay hiker/paddler trail, and concessioner-operated interpretive tours to near the 

Giant Cedars area would be considered. 

Seasonal ferry service would be provided for 

overnight trips to North Manitou Island and 

day and overnight trips to South Manitou 

Island (similar to the no-action alternative). 

The National Park Service would recommend 

to Congress that the Benzie Corridor be 

removed from the Lakeshore boundary; 

therefore there would continue to be no 

visitor access in this area. The above-noted 

increases in Lakeshore access would have 

long-term, moderate beneficial impacts. The 

loss of access would have long-term, 

moderate adverse impacts. 

The scenic resources of the Lakeshore would 

reflect relatively large areas that are natural in 

character (this alternative has the greatest 

amount of the experience nature zone). 

Visitors would also experience Lakeshore 

sites that reflect the area’s culture and history 

(e.g., Glen Haven, Port Oneida, and cultural 

resources on North Manitou and South 

Manitou islands) and areas with facilities that 

support recreational use (e.g., the Dune Climb 

and Trails End). If Congress acted to remove 

the Benzie Corridor from the National Lakeshore boundary, future development would 

likely be similar to other locally developed 

ridgelines (that is, the least natural appearing 

of any alternative). Private development of the 

Benzie Corridor would have long-term, 

moderate, negative impacts on scenic 

resources. Even with very modest new 

development, there would be long-term, 

moderate, beneficial impacts on opportunities 

to experience the natural and cultural scenic 

resources of the Lakeshore. 

230 
Impacts of Alternative A 

Additions and deletions to the Lakeshore’s 

recreation-oriented development would cause 

modest changes in recreational opportunities 

for visitors. Additions include the M-22/M109 hike/bike trail (initiated by others), the 

bay-to-bay hiker/paddler trail and associated 

primitive campgrounds, and a trailhead 

parking area and a short loop trail in the Bow 

Lakes area. The Valley View backcountry 

campground would be abandoned, and the 

Little Glen Lake picnic area would be 

removed. Even with these changes, the scale 

of recreation-oriented development in the 

Lakeshore would be relatively modest. This 

level of development would have long-term, 

minor beneficial impacts on visitors. 

There would continue to be a wide range of 

recreational activities in the Lakeshore 

(similar to the no-action alternative); however, 

opportunities for nonmotorized recreational 

activities such as hiking, biking, backpacking, 

paddling, and backcountry camping would be 

facilitated and expanded. User capacity management would improve visitor experiences 

on the Platte River. There would be a reduction in the number of lakes available for 

motorized boats, hang gliding use at Empire 

Bluff would be suspended, and there would be 

no future NPS recreational opportunities in 

the Benzie Corridor. Some visitors might 

perceive these actions as a reduction in 

recreational opportunities. These changes to 

the range of recreational activities in the 

Lakeshore would have long-term, minor 

beneficial impacts. 

Natural sounds would continue to dominate 

the Lakeshore except along roadways, in 

developed areas, where motorized boats are 

allowed (along rivers, at specific inland lakes, 

and on Lake Michigan), and when aircraft are 

flying over. One less inland lake than in the 

no-action alternative would allow motorized 

boats (and accompanying sounds) resulting in 

a slight improvement in the natural soundscape. The Benzie Corridor would be 

removed from the Lakeshore boundary and 

development would likely be similar to other 

locally developed areas. The increased 

residential development and its associated 

sounds would disrupt the natural soundscape. 

Natural sounds would also be temporarily 

disrupted locally by construction activities; 

however mitigation measures would minimize 

impacts. Overall impacts would be long term, 

minor, and beneficial with other impacts that 

are either short or long term, minor, and 

adverse. 

The naturally dark night sky would continue 

to be predominant in the Lakeshore despite 

vehicular lights along roadways and lighting in 

developed areas. Overall impacts would be 

long-term, minor, and beneficial for those 

who value the dark night sky. However, the 

Benzie Corridor would be removed from the 

Lakeshore boundary and development would 

likely be similar to other locally developed 

areas. This increased private development and 

its associated lighting would have long term, 

minor, and adverse impacts on the dark night 

skies. 

Visitor Use 

Annual visitor use at the Lakeshore under 

alternative A would be expected to be slightly 

higher than under the no-action alternative, 

but lower than under the preferred alternative. The net change would result from 

counterbalancing factors affecting use — 

implementation of user capacity management 

strategies on the Platte River and closing two 

NPS roads — would be offset by potential 

increases in use associated with completion of 

the M-22/M-109 hike/bike trail (initiated by 

others) and the bay-to-bay hiker/paddler trail 

and associated primitive campgrounds. New 

opportunities would be focused on dispersed 

and backcountry uses. Consequently, a longterm increase of up to 25% above that 

anticipated under the no-action alternative 

could be foreseen (up to an estimated 21,000 

additional annual visits). 

231 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Levels of visitor use to North Manitou and 

South Manitou islands would see little change, 

with no changes in ferry service occurring 

under alternative A. 

The increases in visitor use would occur 

gradually over time, reflecting not only longterm local and regional population growth, 

but also the implementation of specific 

changes or projects that are contingent upon 

funding, actions of others, or both. Slightly 

increased visitor use levels would have longterm and minor effects that might be 

concurrently viewed as beneficial or adverse. 

The differences between beneficial and 

adverse would depend on the expectations 

and preferences of the visitor related to the 

new opportunities and increased visitation in 

alternative A. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects that would affect visitor opportunities and use include: (1) improvements to 

parking areas at the ends of Leelanau County 

Roads 651 and 669; (2) Glen Haven Village 

improvements; (3) improvements to the Pierce 

Stocking Scenic Drive Lake Michigan overlooks 9 and 10; (4) South Manitou Lighthouse 

Complex exterior restoration and interior 

rehabilitation; and (5) Dune Climb parking 

area paving and other minor improvements. 

These actions would improve visitor opportunities by improving enjoyment, access, 

and/or range of available opportunities for 

visitors and would have an overall long-term, 

minor, beneficial effect on visitor opportunities and use. Combined with actions proposed 

in alternative A, past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions would have a long-term, 

minor, beneficial cumulative effect. Impacts of 

alternative A would comprise a relatively small 

portion of the overall cumulative effect.

Conclusion 

Increased access and visitor opportunities 

related to modest 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 

opportunities, but potentially long-term 

minor adverse effects on visitor use. The loss 

of some vehicle access, visitor opportunities, 

and recreation-oriented development (e.g., 

Tiesma Road, Glen Lake picnic area, and part 

of the farm tour) would have a long-term, 

moderate adverse impact 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. Construction 

activities would have short-term, minor 

adverse impacts. The cumulative effects 

would be long term, minor, and beneficial. 

WILDERNESS CHARACTER 

Natural and Undeveloped 

Under alternative A, 33,600 acres (47% of the 

National Lakeshore, the most of any alternative), would be proposed for wilderness 

designation, a 2,697-acre (4%) increase over 

the no-action alternative. Assuming Congress 

acted to designate the proposed areas as 

wilderness, wilderness values would be 

permanently protected in designated areas of 

the north, central, and south portions of the 

Lakeshore and on each island. In contrast to 

the no-action alternative, none of the Port 

Oneida Rural Historic District would be 

included, and a new area of designated 

wilderness and associated experiences would 

be available on the Sleeping Bear Plateau. 

Impacts on wilderness character would be 

long term, moderate, and beneficial. 

232 
Impacts of Alternative A 

Alternative A’s wilderness proposal is also the 

most contiguous wilderness proposal — that 

is, the places where wilderness areas would be 

interspersed with nonwilderness would be 

minimized. Thus, places where adjacent 

motorized or mechanized uses (e.g., the 

motorized farm tour on South Manitou 

Island) would intrude upon naturalness and 

primitive character would also be minimized. 

In contrast to the no-action alternative, there 

would be no nonconforming motor vehicle or 

bicycle use within wilderness because county 

road rights-of-way would be excluded. 

However, the presence of historic structures 

would continue to locally diminish the areas’ 

undeveloped primeval character. Impacts 

would be long term, minor, and adverse. 

Opportunities for Solitude 

Outstanding opportunities for solitude would 

be available due to wilderness designation in 

all three portions of the mainland and on the 

Manitou Islands. In particular, areas away 

from trails and facilities would continue to 

offer excellent prospects for privacy and 

isolation. Solitude would continue to be more 

easily found on North Manitou Island than on 

South Manitou Island because the former is 

larger, has fewer visitors (most of whom are 

seeking wilderness experiences), and would 

continue to lack day use. 

Opportunities for Primitive, 

Unconfined Recreation 

As in the no-action alternative, there would be 

opportunities for both day and overnight 

wilderness experiences on South Manitou 

Island, but due to the continued lack of day 

ferry service to North Manitou Island there 

would be only overnight wilderness experiences available there (no change from the noaction alternative). The permit requirement 

for backcountry camping would continue, and 

campers would be required to stay in 

designated campgrounds except on North 

Manitou Island where camping would 

continue to be dispersed. Based on the extent 

and configuration of designated wilderness, 

alternative A would provide more opportunities for primitive, unconfined recreation 

(mainland and both islands) than any other 

alternative. Permit and camping requirements 

would continue to diminish these qualities to 

some degree (a minor, long-term, adverse 

impact). 

Cumulative Impacts 

Over time, the Lakeshore’s ongoing program 

to restore former nonhistoric sites to more 

natural conditions has substantially increased 

the natural, undeveloped character of the 

Lakeshore. The work includes removing 

nonnative trees and human enhancements, 

plus reestablishing more natural contours and 

native vegetation. Combined with this 

ongoing restoration program, alternative A 

would have long-term, moderate, beneficial 

cumulative effects. Impacts of alternative A 

would comprise a substantial portion of the 

overall cumulative effect. 

Conclusion 

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. Combined with other actions, 

alternative A would have long-term, 

moderate, beneficial cumulative effects. 

233 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

REGIONAL SOCIOECONOMICS 

Implementing alternative A would occur 

against the same backdrop of economic, 

demographic, and social conditions across the 

region described under the no-action 

alternative. The economic and social effects of 

alternative A would contribute to those 

conditions, but not fundamentally change the 

area’s economic and demographic outlook. 

Visitor-Related Economic Impacts 

Annual visitor use at the Lakeshore under 

alternative A would be expected to be slightly 

higher than under the no-action alternative; a 

long-term increase of up to 25% (up to 21,000 

additional visits) above that under the noaction alternative could be foreseen. The 

timing of increased visitor use is difficult to 

predict because it would depend on when 

projects are funded or carried out and other 

factors. 

Implementation of alternative A might affect 

the geographic distribution, timing, and 

activity of visitor use within the National 

Lakeshore and potentially indirectly affect 

visitor use at nearby outdoor recreation 

resources managed by other entities. The 

potential for such indirect effects is lower than 

for the preferred alternative. Given their 

limited scale, such changes would be 

anticipated to have little or no impact on 

future management and operations of these 

resources. 

The changes in visitor use would be 

accompanied by modest changes in annual 

visitor spending, about $550,000 per year, with 

correspondingly limited effects on local 

personal income and jobs, i.e., 5 to 10 jobs. 

The state and local governments would collect 

additional sales tax from the increases in 

visitor spending. 

The above visitor-related economic impacts 

would be beneficial, but negligible in the short 

term and minor and beneficial over the long 

term. 

Economic Impacts Related to 

Implementation and NPS Operations 

Implementing alternative A would provide a 

sustained economic infusion to the region 

over the life of this plan. The infusion would 

result from the Lakeshore’s ongoing operating 

expenditures, including $14.4 million in future 

construction outlays ($7.8 million above that 

for the no-action alternative). Projected 

budget needs for other major projects and to 

address deferred maintenance would be the 

same as for the no-action alternative. 

As under the no-action alternative, NPS 

maintenance staff would perform much of the 

work to address deferred maintenance and 

preservation, restoration and rehabilitation 

activities. Identified budget needs for future 

construction would be higher than under the 

no-action alternative, which if implemented 

would support the local construction trades 

industry and associated vendors and 

suppliers. 

Annual NPS payroll, operating, and 

maintenance would produce long-term effects 

on employment, business sales, income and 

other related measures. Management under 

alternative A could support staffing increases 

of 11 full-time-equivalent employees. Staff 

would be added over time as projects, programs, and management were implemented. 

A need for a modest long-term increase in 

budgeted funds for NPS operations is 

identified in conjunction with alternative A 

(there are no assurances that such increases 

will occur). Available resources would include 

about $4.2 million in base budget appropriations ($300,000 per year above the no-action 

alternative), about $1.0 million in entry and 

camping fees, and various nonrecurring 

234 
Impacts of Alternative A 

funding for supplemental and specific project 

construction. Retained revenues from entry 

and camping fees would likely increase with 

higher visitation. 

If Congress acts to remove the Benzie 

Corridor from the National Lakeshore, land 

acquisition in the corridor by the National 

Park Service would cease and the eventual 

status of already acquired lands would be 

determined independent of this plan. 

Activities sponsored by the Lakeshore’s 

partners would provide yet additional sources 

of economic stimulus. The timing, magnitude, 

and indirect economic consequences of those 

activities are indeterminate. 

The economic effects associated with NPS 

operations would be beneficial and minor to 

moderate in the short and long term. 

Effects on Regional Population 

Alternative A would have little direct impact 

on population growth. The increases in 

construction and long-term jobs and visitor 

use over the life of this plan would provide a 

negligible impetus for growth relative to other 

factors and would be insufficient to trigger 

additional new economic development and 

job-related migration. Many of the jobs would 

probably be filled by individuals who already 

reside in the area. 

Implementation of alternative A could 

indirectly enhance the region’s attractiveness 

for economic development as a result of a 

limited number of new recreational 

opportunities and establishment of wilderness 

on the mainland. 

There would be some potential effects on 

future residential development in the area 

from curtailing land acquisition in the Benzie 

Corridor. Although the long-term retention or 

disposal of already acquired lands along the 

corridor would be determined separately 

from this plan, it is reasonable to expect the 

cessation of land acquisition to stimulate new 

residential development with corresponding 

increases in year-round or seasonable 

populations on private lands within and near 

the corridor boundary. However, the 

topography and amount of land involved 

might limit the amount of such development. 

The effects on regional population growth 

under this alternative would be negligible, 

both in the short and long terms. 

Community Services 

The effects of implementing alternative A on 

community services and facilities across the 

region would be comparable to those under 

no action, again with the exception of higher 

demands related to future development in the 

vicinity of the Benzie Corridor, spurred by the 

curtailment of land acquisition by the 

National Park Service. The limited scale, 

seasonal nature, and spatial dispersion of the 

effects across the broader region would not 

require facility expansions or more staff. 

Private development in the Benzie Corridor 

would primarily affect demand for services by 

Benzie County. 

Effects on community services under this 

alternative would be indeterminate and 

negligible over the short and long terms. 

Traffic and Emergency Services 

Traffic impacts of alternative A on the 

highways and roads providing access to the 

Lakeshore would be comparable to those 

under the no-action alternative. Even with the 

long-term increases in traffic, future traffic 

levels would be within the current design 

capacity of the roads. Needs for future 

highway maintenance would not increase 

dramatically. 

235 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Long-term impacts on the number of traffic 

accidents and demands on first responders 

would be similar to those under no action. 

Demands associated with implementing 

alternative A would not require additional law 

enforcement or emergency response staffing, 

although the increases in the number of “call 

outs” could burden area first response agencies because they are staffed partially by 

volunteers. 

The effects of implementing alternative A on 

traffic and emergency services would be 

adverse, but minor over the short and long 

terms. 

Attitudes and Lifestyles 

Alternative A establishes future management 

direction for the Lakeshore that reflects 

public input and the Lakeshore’s purpose, 

significance, and fundamental resources and 

values, but with relatively more emphasis on 

natural resource preservation. That emphasis 

will generally appeal to those valuing solitude, 

wilderness, and appreciation of the current 

cultural and recreation opportunities. Those 

more interested in developing facility-based 

recreation or maximizing the economic 

contributions associated with the Lakeshore 

might be less enthusiastic about the management direction set forth in alternative A. 

Suspension of land acquisition in the Benzie 

Corridor would likely garner support from 

those who view the corridor as either a nonessential addition to the recreational 

resources at the Lakeshore or an area competing with other areas for scarce management and funding resources. Members of the 

public more interested in the addition of 

another access gateway into the Lakeshore 

and the expanded scenic and recreational 

opportunities associated with the corridor are 

less likely to favor alternative A. Property 

owners of lands in and adjacent to the 

corridor would be the most directly affected 

due to possible changes in nearby 

development and use. 

Like the no-action alternative, the management direction for this alternative would 

result in relatively few direct lifestyle 

consequences because the influences of the 

Lakeshore would generally be consistent with 

those established under the no-action 

alternative. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Social and economic impacts due to implementation of alternative A would be similar to 

those of other past, current and future 

development across the region and those 

under the no-action alternative. The effects of 

underlying development trends in the region 

include long-term, moderate population and 

economic growth; long-term increases in 

traffic on local roads; related impacts on 

public safety; higher spending that bolsters 

community and recreation-oriented 

businesses in the region; and additional tax 

revenues to fund public services and facilities. 

The effects of the other cumulative actions 

include negligible to minor changes in local 

economic conditions in response to changes 

in visitor use patterns at the Lakeshore 

precipitated by changes in traffic parking and 

circulation. 

The incremental economic and social effects 

of implementing alternative A, including those 

associated with increases in visitor and NPS 

operating expenditures, would be negligible to 

minor in the short term and minor in the long 

term, and generally beneficial. Alternative A 

actions, combined with other actions 

described above, would result in minor shortand long-term adverse cumulative effects on 

traffic and highway safety. Impacts of alternative A would comprise a relatively small 

portion of the overall cumulative social and 

economic effects. 

236 
Impacts of Alternative A 

Conclusion 

The economic and social effects of alternative 

A would include negligible to minor shortterm and moderate long-term economic benefits compared to the no-action alternative. 

Short- and long-term effects on lifestyles and 

attitudes would be indeterminate. Long-term 

social consequences would include a negligible to minor contribution to long-term population growth and demands on community 

infrastructure and services. Alternative A 

actions, combined with other actions 

described above, would result in minor shortand long-term adverse cumulative effects on 

traffic and highway safety. Overall, the 

cumulative social and economic effects 

associated with the alternative A would be 

minor, short and long term, and indeterminate 

because they include effects that might be 

concurrently viewed as beneficial or adverse. 

NPS OPERATIONS 

A limited number of new trails, including the 

M-22/M-109 hike/bike trail, and backcountry 

campgrounds would increase the Lakeshore’s 

maintenance and operational load compared 

to the no-action alternative. However, this 

would be tempered by reduced maintenance 

and operational needs resulting from (a) 

removal or closure of other facilities, such as 

Glen Lake picnic area, NPS-owned Tiesma 

Road, the NPS portion of the farm loop on 

South Manitou Island, and Valley View 

campground, and (b) removal of the Benzie 

Corridor from the Lakeshore. Wilderness 

minimum requirement analysis would be 

required for 33,600 acres, a 2,697-acre (4%) 

increase over the no-action alternative. 

Impacts of alternative A would be long term, 

minor, and both beneficial and adverse. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Ongoing and planned facility upgrades and 

restoration/rehabilitation projects would have 

mostly beneficial impacts because these 

projects would result in reduced resource 

management and cyclic maintenance needs. 

Dredging of the Platte River mouth would 

continue to place demands upon the 

Lakeshore’s maintenance staff and budget, a 

minor adverse effect. Combined with these 

impacts, alternative A would have both longterm minor beneficial and adverse cumulative 

effects. Impacts of alternative A would comprise a substantial portion of these overall 

cumulative effects. 

Conclusion 

Alternative A would have long-term, minor 

beneficial and adverse impacts on NPS 

operations. This alternative, combined with 

other actions, would have both long-term 

minor beneficial and adverse cumulative 

effects. 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

Some negligible to moderate impacts to soils, 

vegetation, wildlife, water resources, 

wilderness character, scenic resources, natural 

sound, and night sky caused by recreational 

use and facilities would be essentially 

unavoidable (e.g., soil compaction, vegetation 

trampling, wildlife disturbances, decreased 

opportunities for solitude, decreased 

naturalness). Increases in visitor use would 

have low level adverse impacts on regional 

socioeconomics (e.g., increased traffic). 

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE 

COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 

Irreversible commitments of resources are 

actions that result in loss of resources that 

cannot be reversed. Irretrievable commitments of resources are actions that result in 

the loss of resources but only for a limited 

period of time. 

 

237 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

238 

If Congress acted to remove the Benzie 

Corridor from the National Lakeshore 

boundary, it is reasonable to assume that the 

corridor could be developed, subject to local 

zoning, development patterns, and market 

forces. Development of the corridor for 

residential or similar land uses would be an 

irreversible commitment of natural and scenic 

resources. 

With the exception of consumption of fuels 

and raw materials for maintenance or 

construction activities, no other actions in this 

alternative would result in consumptions of 

nonrenewable natural resources or use of 

renewable resources that would preclude 

other uses for a period of time. 

RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM 

USES AND LONG-TERM 

PRODUCTIVITY 

The National Lakeshore would continue to be 

used by the public, and most areas would be 

protected in a natural state. The National Park 

Service would continue to manage the Lakeshore to maintain ecological processes and 

native biological communities and to provide 

appropriate recreational opportunities 

consistent with preservation of cultural and 

natural resources. Actions would be taken 

with care to ensure that uses do not adversely 

affect the long-term productivity of biotic 

communities. Under alternative A there 

would be very little new development, and any 

losses of ecological productivity would be 

minimal.
IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE B 

HISTORIC RESOURCES 

The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties (1995) 

identifies four treatment approaches that 

apply to a wide variety of resource types, 

including buildings, sites, structures, objects, 

districts, and landscape features and patterns. 

Three of those treatments are included in this 

plan — preservation, rehabilitation, and 

restoration. See page 40 for more detailed 

definitions. The simplest of these treatment 

approaches is preservation, in which measures 

are undertaken to stabilize the resource to 

ensure that it does not deteriorate further 

from its existing condition and then to 

maintain and repair historic features and 

materials. The second option is rehabilitation, 

in which the resource is made useable for 

some purpose while preserving those features 

that convey its historical, cultural, or 

architectural value. The third is restoration, in 

which the historic appearance at a particular 

time is accurately regained. The fourth 

treatment, reconstruction, is not proposed in 

this plan. 

Although each alternative calls for preserving 

and protecting all historic properties, each 

action alternative provides a different management zone configuration based on that 

alternative’s overall vision, and each management zone prescribes which of the three 

treatments could be used for historic properties. Thus, potential treatments for the 

National Lakeshore’s various historic properties differ among the alternatives. Based on the 

locations and relative proportions of management zones in alternative B, 73% of 

historic structures would undergo preservation, rehabilitation, or restoration (experience 

history zone), 16% of historic structures 

would undergo preservation or rehabilitation 

(recreation zone), and 11% of historic 

structures would undergo preservation 

(experience nature zone). This information is 

summarized in table 3 on page 74. 

All preservation, rehabilitation or restoration 

efforts would be undertaken in accordance 

with the standards. Any materials removed 

during rehabilitation or restoration efforts 

would be evaluated to determine their value to 

the Lakeshore’s museum collections and/or 

for their comparative use in future preservation work at the sites. Implementation of the 

actions described above for this alternative, 

which would bring all historic resources up to 

a good condition, would result in no adverse 

effects on historic resources. 

At Glen Haven the Glen Haven Historic 

District and Sleeping Bear Point Life-Saving 

Station would be preserved, rehabilitated, or 

restored (same action in all alternatives). Some 

buildings would be rehabilitated for visitor 

and/or staff use. The Sleeping Bear Inn and 

garage would be placed in the NPS historic 

leasing program to allow rehabilitation for 

adaptive use. All other structures would be 

stabilized and maintained in their current 

condition. 

At Port Oneida historic structures and 

landscapes would be preserved, rehabilitated, 

or restored (same action in all alternatives). 

Structures on at least one farmstead would be 

restored for interpretive purposes. Some 

buildings in the district would be rehabilitated 

for visitor and/or staff use, including a visitor 

contact station and staff housing. At least one 

farmstead would be placed in the NPS historic 

leasing program to allow rehabilitation and 

adaptive use. All other structures and 

landscapes would be stabilized and 

maintained in their current condition. 

On North Manitou Island the historic lifesaving station and Cottage Row structures 

would be preserved, rehabilitated, or restored 

(same action as in the preferred alternative). 

239 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Preservation and/or adaptive use of the 

rehabilitated historic former Manitou Island 

Association structures for administrative and 

operational purposes would continue. 

Historic structures and landscapes elsewhere 

on the island would be preserved. 

On South Manitou Island the historic lifesaving station, lighthouse complex, and village 

historic structures would be preserved, 

rehabilitated, or restored. Historic structures 

and landscapes elsewhere on the island would 

be preserved or rehabilitated. 

Other mainland historic structures and 

landscapes would be managed as specified for 

the management zone in which they lie (see 

alternative map and zone descriptions). 

Actions involving other than historic property 

treatments, such as improving access to some 

inland lakes, would have no effect on historic 

properties because they would be designed to 

avoid possible impacts on properties on or 

eligible for the national register. 

All properties on or determined eligible for 

inclusion in the National Register of Historic 

Places would, at a minimum, undergo 

stabilization (where that action has not 

already occurred) or maintenance in the 

current condition (where some preservation 

treatment has already been implemented). 

The actions proposed above are general. The 

treatments for each resource (preservation 

[stabilization], rehabilitation with adaptive 

use, restoration) have not yet been determined so impacts cannot be fully described. 

However, it is the National Park Service’s 

intent that no action proposed be adverse. All 

actions affecting these historic structures and 

landscapes would be undertaken in consultation with the Michigan state historic 

preservation officer. 

Alternative B would not directly or indirectly 

affect any properties outside the boundary of 

the National Lakeshore that are listed on or 

eligible for the National Register of Historic 

Places, or that are listed by the state. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Over the years historic resources in the 

Lakeshore have been adversely impacted by 

natural processes such as weathering, 

vegetative encroachment, and the wear and 

tear associated with visitor use. Actions 

proposed for the South Manitou Island 

Lighthouse Complex would result in both the 

restoration of the exterior of the keeper’s 

quarters and connecting passageways and the 

rehabilitation of the interior for adaptive 

reuse. In addition, actions proposed for Glen 

Haven Village include the stabilization and 

maintenance of historic structures or their 

rehabilitation for adaptive reuse. All 

preservation, rehabilitation, or restoration 

efforts would be undertaken in accordance 

with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

for the Treatment of Historic Properties (1995), 

and would result in no adverse effects on 

historic resources. 

As described above, implementation of 

alternative B would result in no adverse effects 

on historic resources. The no adverse impacts 

of this alternative, in combination with both 

the adverse and no adverse impacts of other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, would result in a no adverse 

effect cumulative impact. The no adverse 

effects of alternative B would be a sizeable 

contribution to the no adverse effect 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion 

Alternative B would have a determination of 

no adverse effect under the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation “Regulations for the 

Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties” (36 CFR 800). There would be no 

impairment of cultural resources from 

implementation of alternative B (see specific 

240 
Impacts of Alternative B 

definition of impairment in the “Impairment 

of National Lakeshore Resources” section). 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Soils and Geologic Resources 

Readers are encouraged to refer back to the 

“Soils and Geologic Resources” discussion in 

the “Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing 

Impacts” section for additional details on the 

types of impacts resulting from visitor use and 

development. 

Use of motorized boats on School, Loon, 

North Bar, and Bass (Leelanau County) lakes 

and the Crystal and Platte rivers would 

continue. Although soil compaction and 

erosion of the dunes would be reduced in 

some areas by using sand ladders, boardwalks, 

and sidewalks to protect the substrate, 

placement and maintenance would be limited 

to what can be accomplished with current 

resources. Therefore, short- and long-term 

adverse impacts on soils and geologic 

resources as a result of these ongoing visitor 

activities, ranging from minor to moderate 

depending upon the specific location and 

activity, would continue. These ongoing 

activities would continue to have minor to 

moderate (depending on location and 

activity), short- and long-term adverse 

impacts on soils and geologic resources. 

Implementation of user capacity management 

(see discussion in chapter 2) to reduce impacts 

of visitor use in sensitive and yet popular areas 

such as the Platte River corridor, would have 

short- and long-term, minor to moderate 

beneficial impacts. 

Development of the bay-to-bay trail and the 

M-22/M-109 hike/bike trail could result in 

soil disturbance and erosion during construction, and subsequent visitor use would result 

in erosion and compaction. Assuming use of 

best management practices, such as using silt 

fencing and avoiding steep or inundated 

terrain, during construction and later use to 

prevent soil erosion and compaction, the 

overall adverse impacts would likely be shortterm moderate and long-term minor. 

Visitor activities under alternative B such as 

motorized boat use on additional inland lakes 

(Shell and Tucker), farm loop auto tours and 

concession auto tours to near the Giant 

Cedars area on South Manitou Island, and day 

trips to North Manitou Island could result in 

soil erosion and compaction in these areas. 

Impacts on soils and geologic resources (e.g., 

dune processes) from such activities under 

alternative B would likely be short and long 

term, negligible to moderate depending upon 

location and activity, and adverse. 

Constructing a multi-loop trail and small 

parking area at Bow Lakes with potential 

connection to the local school, providing 

additional designated campsites on North 

Manitou Island, relocating the D. H. Day 

group campground to the D. H. Day main 

campground, and improving access at a few 

inland lakes and the Crystal River might result 

in soil disturbance, erosion, and compaction, 

all of which could be reduced, to some extent, 

by strategic location and design. Other 

development, such as improvements to the 

parking area at the ends of Peterson and Esch 

roads, improvements to the Glen Lake picnic 

area, and improvements at the mouth of the 

Platte River, might result in increased visitor 

use and associated increases in soil 

compaction and erosion in those areas. The 

sum of these impacts to soils and geologic 

resources in the Lakeshore would be short 

and long term, minor to moderate, and 

adverse. 

Continued NPS acquisition of lands on a 

willing-seller basis within the Benzie Corridor 

would have short- and long-term, moderate 

beneficial impacts on soils in that area by 

protecting them from impacts associated with 

development. Construction of a road and 

associated bike trail along the Benzie Corridor 

would result in short-term minor to moderate 

adverse impacts on soils through soil erosion 

241 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

and compaction. Long-term effects would 

include negligible to minor adverse impacts 

on soil resources due to erosion associated 

with increased impermeable surface area. 

Private development within the corridor 

would probably continue at its current pace 

and would be anticipated to have minor to 

moderate adverse impacts on these resources. 

Elimination of dispersed camping on North 

Manitou Island with development of 

additional designated campsites would likely 

have short- and long-term negligible to minor 

adverse impacts on the soils of and adjacent to 

the new campsites. This action would also 

have short- and long-term negligible to minor 

beneficial impacts on the soils and geologic 

resources in wider areas that are being 

impacted by repeated use. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past, present, and 

anticipated projects that would contribute to 

impacts on soils and geologic resources 

include (1) the improvements to the parking 

areas at the ends of Leelanau County Roads 

651 and 669; (2) Glen Haven Village improvements; (3) improvements to the Lake 

Michigan overlooks accessed from the Pierce 

Stocking Scenic Drive; (4) riverbank 

stabilization on the Platte River at the former 

Water Wheel and Casey’s Corner canoe 

liveries; (5) restoration approximating the 

natural topography, hydrology, and native 

vegetative cover of nonhistoric areas 

disturbed by past land uses — particularly 

those in critical dunes areas; (6) minor 

improvements to the Dune Climb parking 

area; and (7) continued dredging of the mouth 

of the Platte River. Although activities 1-6 

would likely result in short-term adverse 

impacts during the construction phase, the net 

result would likely be long-term, minor to 

moderate beneficial impacts because all 

projects would contribute to a reduction of 

the potential for soil compaction and erosion. 

Dredging the mouth of the Platte River results 

in continued addition of dredged material to 

the shoreline. During low-water periods 

deeper dredging is required and results in 

dredge materials with high clay content being 

deposited on the shoreline, resulting in 

armoring of the beach surface and consequent 

profile changes. This results in short- and 

long-term minor to moderate adverse impacts. 

The impacts of other actions described above, 

in combination with the impacts of alternative 

B, would result in short-term, negligible to 

moderate adverse cumulative impacts, and 

short- and long-term, negligible to moderate, 

beneficial cumulative impacts. This alternative’s contribution to these cumulative 

impacts would likely not be large. 

Conclusion. Alternative B would have shortand long-term, negligible to moderate adverse 

and beneficial impacts on soils and geologic 

resources. Cumulative impacts would likely be 

short term, negligible to moderate, and 

adverse, and short and long term, negligible to 

moderate beneficial. There would be no 

impairment of soils or geologic resources from 

implementation of alternative B (see specific 

definition of impairment in the “Impairment 

of National Lakeshore Resources” section). 

Vegetation and Wildlife 

Readers are encouraged to refer back to the 

“Vegetation and Wildlife” discussion in the 

“Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing 

Impacts” section for additional details on the 

types of impacts resulting from visitor use and 

development. 

Use of motorized boats on School and Loon 

lakes and the Crystal and Platte rivers would 

continue to result in trampling of vegetation, 

habitat alteration, introduction and spread of 

invasive species, and sensory-based disruption 

of wildlife. Impacts on vegetation and wildlife 

from such activities would likely continue to 

be short and long term, negligible to 

moderate, and adverse. Implementation of 

user capacity management (see discussion in 

chapter 2) to reduce impacts of visitor use in 

sensitive and yet popular areas such as the 

Platte River corridor, would have short- and 

242 
Impacts of Alternative B 

long-term, minor to moderate beneficial 

impacts. 

Development of the bay-to-bay trail and the 

M-22/M-109 hike/bike trail would impact 

vegetation and wildlife through trampling of 

vegetation, habitat loss and alteration, 

introduction and spread of invasive species, 

and sensory-based disruption of wildlife. 

Assuming use of best management practices 

(such as placement of trails/paths close to 

existing disturbances, minimization of the 

construction footprint, and timing of 

construction outside peak breeding/nesting 

periods) during construction, and careful 

monitoring and management of impacts 

during use, the overall impacts would likely be 

short and long term, negligible to minor, and 

adverse. 

Under alternative B, only 20% (14,400 acres) 

of the National Lakeshore would be managed 

as wilderness (assuming that Congress acts to 

designate wilderness), a 16,503-acre (23%) 

decrease over the no-action alternative. The 

only wilderness would be on North Manitou 

Island; there would be no areas managed as 

wilderness on South Manitou Island or in the 

mainland portions of the Lakeshore. This 

reduction in the portion of the Lakeshore 

conveying wilderness protection for 

vegetation and wildlife, combined with the 

majority of South Manitou Island and the 

mainland portions of the Lakeshore being 

zoned recreational, would likely have shortand long-term minor to moderate, adverse 

impacts on vegetation and wildlife within the 

Lakeshore. 

Under alternative B, motorized boats would 

be allowed on more inland lakes than is 

currently allowed with the addition of Shell 

and Tucker lakes. Use of motorized boats on 

these water bodies would likely have shortand long-term minor adverse effects on their 

associated vegetation and wildlife due to 

shoreline erosion, resuspension of sediments, 

pollution, introduction and spread of invasive 

species, and sensory-based disruption of 

wildlife. 

The farm loop and Giant Cedars area, auto 

tours on South Manitou Island, and day trips 

to North Manitou Island could impact 

vegetation and wildlife through trampling of 

vegetation, habitat alteration, introduction 

and spread of invasive species, and sensorybased disruption of wildlife. Assuming 

practicable levels of monitoring and 

remediation of visitor-related impacts by NPS 

staff, overall impacts of these types of new 

activities would likely be short term and long 

term, negligible to minor, and adverse. 

Constructing a multi-loop trail and small 

parking area at Bow Lakes with potential 

connection to the local school, providing 

additional designated campsites on North 

Manitou Island, relocating the D. H. Day 

group campground to the D. H. Day main 

campground, and improving access at a few 

inland lakes and on the Crystal River could 

result in habitat loss and degradation, both of 

which could be reduced, to some extent, by 

strategic location and design. These improvements might result in introduction and spread 

of invasive species to inland waterways. Other 

development, such as improvements to the 

parking area at the ends of Peterson and Esch 

roads, at the Glen Lake picnic area, and at the 

mouth of the Platte River might result in 

increased visitor use and associated increases 

in vegetation trampling, habitat alteration, and 

sensory-based disruption of wildlife in those 

areas. The sum of these impacts on vegetation 

and wildlife in the Lakeshore would likely be 

short and long term, minor to moderate, and 

adverse. 

Continued NPS acquisition of lands in the 

Benzie Corridor would have short- and longterm, minor beneficial impacts on the vegetation and wildlife in that area by protecting 

them from impacts associated with development. Construction of a road and associated 

bike trail along the Benzie Corridor would 

result in short-term minor to moderate 

243 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

adverse impacts on vegetation and wildlife 

resources due to habitat loss and alteration, 

trampling, and sensory-based disturbances. 

Long-term effects would include negligible to 

minor adverse impacts on vegetation due to 

trampling of adjacent vegetation and sensorybased disruption of wildlife behaviors. Private 

development within the corridor would 

probably continue at its current pace and 

would be anticipated to have minor to 

moderate adverse impacts on these resources. 

Elimination of dispersed camping on North 

Manitou Island with development of additional designated campsites would likely have 

short- and long-term negligible to minor 

adverse impacts on the vegetation and wildlife 

adjacent to the new campsites and short- and 

long-term negligible to minor beneficial impacts on the vegetation and wildlife in wider 

areas that are being impacted by repeated use. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past, present, and 

anticipated projects that would contribute to 

impacts on vegetation and wildlife include (1) 

the improvements to the parking areas at the 

ends of Leelanau County Roads 651 and 669; 

(2) implementation of the “Fire Management 

Plan”; (3) improvements to the Lake Michigan 

overlooks accessed from the Pierce Stocking 

Scenic Drive; (4) riverbank stabilization on the 

Platte River at the former Water Wheel and 

Casey’s Corner canoe liveries; and (5) 

restoration approximating the natural 

topography, hydrology, and native vegetative 

cover of nonhistoric areas disturbed by past 

land uses — particularly those in critical dunes 

areas. These actions would likely have shortand long-term negligible to minor adverse 

impacts due to trampling and sensory-based 

disruption, and long-term minor beneficial 

impacts on vegetation and wildlife due to 

habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement. The impacts of other actions described 

above, together with the impacts of alternative 

B, would result in short- and long-term, minor 

to moderate adverse cumulative effects, and 

short- and long-term, negligible to moderate 

beneficial cumulative effects. Alternative B 

would likely not contribute an appreciable 

portion to these cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Alternative B would have shortand long-term negligible to moderate adverse 

impacts, and short- and long-term negligible 

to moderate beneficial impacts. The actions 

proposed in alternative B, together with other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions, would likely result in short- and longterm, minor to moderate adverse, and shortand long-term negligible to moderate beneficial cumulative effects. There would be no 

impairment of vegetation or wildlife resources 

from implementation of this alternative (see 

specific definition of impairment in the 

“Impairment of National Lakeshore 

Resources” section). 

Federal Threatened 

and Endangered Species 

Readers are encouraged to refer back to the 

“Federal Threatened and Endangered 

Species” discussion in the “Methods and 

Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts” section 

for additional details on the types of impacts 

resulting from visitor use and development. 

 The federally listed species considered are the 

Michigan monkey flower, piping plover 

(populations and designated critical habitat), 

and Pitcher’s thistle. The piping plover and 

Pitcher’s thistle are found primarily in nearshore dunes; the Michigan monkey flower is 

restricted to one lakeside location in the 

Lakeshore interior. Although part of the 

designated critical habitat within the Lakeshore coincides with actively used recreational beach areas, NPS staff have demonstrated success in minimizing impacts on 

nesting piping plovers in areas with relatively 

high human activity (e.g., the mouth of the 

Platte River) through various actions (see 

“Mitigative Measures for the Action 

Alternatives” section in chapter 2). All impact 

analyses assume continued protection of 

threatened and endangered species as 

244 
Impacts of Alternative B 

outlined in the Lakeshore-wide desired 

condition statements (see chapter 1). 

Under alternative B, only 20% of the National 

Lakeshore would be managed as wilderness 

(assuming that Congress acts to designate 

wilderness), a 16,503-acre (23%) reduction 

from existing conditions. The only wilderness 

would be on North Manitou Island; there 

would be no areas managed as wilderness on 

South Manitou Island or in the mainland 

portions of the Lakeshore. This reduction in 

area managed as wilderness would potentially 

affect Pitcher’s thistle and piping plover. The 

wilderness status of areas occupied by the 

Michigan monkey flower would not change. 

Although management as wilderness would 

cease in some areas occupied by Pitcher’s 

thistle, these areas would be managed as 

recreation zone or experience nature zone ―

management strategies that are very similar to 

existing management under which Pitcher’s 

thistle currently does quite well in the Lakeshore. Given demonstrated persistence of this 

species under such management, combined 

with continued protection of threatened and 

endangered species as outlined in the 

Lakeshore-wide desired condition statements, 

this reduction in area managed as wilderness 

would be expected to have no more than 

discountable impacts on this species. The 

reduction in area managed as wilderness 

would have insignificant effects on piping 

plovers and piping plover critical habitat 

because management of the Lake Michigan 

shoreline and near-shoreline areas would 

remain essentially the same despite the change 

in wilderness status, and because piping 

plovers successfully nest and fledge under 

current management. 

New visitor activities proposed in alternative 

B, such as use of the new bay-to-bay trail and 

campgrounds and day trips to North Manitou 

Island, could result in trampling and habitat 

alteration for all addressed federally listed 

plant species, and sensory-based disruption of 

piping plover. These impacts could be 

reduced by strategic location and design such 

as careful selection and demarcation of trails 

outside of sensitive areas (e.g., away from 

piping plover critical habitat) and use of 

boardwalks. 

Developing the bay-to-bay trail and associated 

campgrounds, providing additional designated campsites on North Manitou Island, and 

relocating the D. H. Day group campground 

to the D. H. Day main campground, could 

result in habitat alteration and degradation, 

both of which could be reduced, to some 

extent, by strategic location and design. Other 

development, such as improvements to the 

parking areas at the ends of Peterson and Esch 

roads and improvements at the mouth of the 

Platte River, might result in increased visitor 

use and associated increases in the potential 

for trampling and habitat alteration for piping 

plover and Pitcher’s thistle, and sensory-based 

disruption of piping plover in those areas. 

Under this alternative, the National Park 

Service would continue to acquire lands 

within the Benzie Corridor, and would 

construct a scenic road with accompanying 

bike lanes/trail during the life of this plan. 

Private development within the corridor 

would probably continue at its current pace. 

These conditions and activities are not 

anticipated to affect listed species as neither 

they nor their habitats occur within the 

corridor. 

For projects proposed in alternative B, the 

National Park Service would implement 

measures that would ensure that adverse 

effects on listed species do not occur. These 

avoidance measures might include, but are not 

limited to, the following: 

• Safeguarding the known locations of 

listed species. 

• Restricting human activity in piping 

plover breeding areas by use of a 

specialized fence system. 

• Increasing the number of NPS/volunteer 

piping plover nest monitors, should 

conditions warrant. 

245 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

• Restricting human activity in piping 

plover breeding areas. 

• Restricting dogs from piping plover 

breeding areas during the breeding 

season. 

• Flagging or fencing plants prior to any 

work in or adjacent to Pitcher’s thistle 

habitat. Every effort would be made to 

avoid any impacts to these plants. 

• Providing education about the listed 

species and their habitats. 

• Designating alternate access points away 

from areas occupied by listed species. 

The National Park Service staff anticipates 

that adverse effects could be avoided in all 

projects proposed under alternative B. The 

National Park Service cannot foresee at this 

time any project for which adverse effects 

could not be avoided. In the rare event that 

adverse effects could not be avoided, the 

project would either be discontinued or NPS 

staff would request formal consultation with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. As such, 

any impacts from implementation of 

alternative B would likely have only beneficial, 

insignificant, or discountable effects on piping 

plover and piping plover critical habitat, 

Michigan monkey flower, and Pitcher’s 

thistle. 

At the landscape level, alternative B is not 

likely to adversely affect listed species because 

the proposed management direction under 

this alternative would result in conditions that 

are beneficial to preserving habitat and would 

minimize adverse impacts on listed species to 

insignificant or discountable. As such, 

implementation of alternative B may affect but 

would not be likely to adversely affect piping 

plover, Michigan monkey flower, and 

Pitcher’s thistle. 

Conservation Measures. Conservation 

measures are activities above and beyond 

avoidance measures and are undertaken to 

reduce potential impacts on federally listed 

species or candidate species. Initiation of 

conservation measures would occur in 

consultation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and would be required if any of the 

following occurred: 

• initiation of activities anticipated to have 

impacts on piping plovers or their 

designated critical habitat beyond those 

addressed in this document 

• additional Michigan monkey flower 

occurrences within the Lakeshore were 

identified in areas where they might 

potentially be impacted 

• initiation of activities anticipated to have 

impacts on Michigan monkey flower 

populations 

• initiation of activities anticipated to have 

impacts on Pitcher’s thistle populations 

beyond those addressed in this document 

Renewed discussion and consultation with the 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, should any of 

the above events occur, would focus on 

development of specific conservation 

measures to reduce potential impacts on these 

species and/or designated critical habitat. 

Such conservation measures would be based 

on the recommendations provided by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past, present, and 

anticipated projects that would contribute to 

impacts on federally listed species and designated critical habit include (1) the improvements to the parking areas at the ends of 

Leelanau County Roads 651 and 669; (2) 

implementation of the “Fire Management 

Plan”; (3) improvements to the Lake Michigan 

overlooks accessed from the Pierce Stocking 

Scenic Drive; and (4) activities presented in 

table 21. Most of these actions would benefit 

natural resources including federally listed 

species and their designated critical habitats. 

Some past projects at the National Lakeshore, 

however, such as the site restoration project 

near Big Glen Lake, have adversely affected 

federally listed species, i.e., Michigan monkey 

flower. These resulted in formal consultation 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

During implementation, actions would be 

246 
Impacts of Alternative B 

taken to avoid or minimize potential adverse 

impacts on such species. Any adverse impacts, 

such as trampling or sensory-based 

disruption, would be insignificant or 

discountable. 

The impacts of the actions described above, 

together with the impacts of alternative B, 

would result in no more than insignificant or 

discountable adverse cumulative impacts and 

may affect but would not be likely to adversely 

affect piping plover, piping plover critical 

habitat, Pitcher’s thistle, and Michigan 

monkey flower. Alternative B would be 

expected to contribute a relatively small 

component to these cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Any adverse impacts of alternative B on the addressed federally listed species 

and designated critical habitat would be no 

more than insignificant or discountable over 

both the short and long terms. Implementation of alternative B may affect but would not 

likely adversely affect the addressed listed 

species and critical habitat. Other projects, 

combined with the impacts of alternative B, on 

federally listed species and designated critical 

habitat may affect but would not likely 

adversely affect piping plover, piping plover 

critical habitat, Pitcher’s thistle, and Michigan 

monkey flower. There would be no impairment of federal threatened and endangered 

species from this alternative (see specific 

definition of impairment in the “Impairment 

of National Lakeshore Resources” section). 

Michigan State-Listed Species 

Readers are encouraged to refer back to the 

“Michigan State-Listed Species” discussion in 

the “Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing 

Impacts” section for additional details on the 

types of impacts resulting from visitor use and 

development. 

Under alternative B, 20% of the National 

Lakeshore would be managed as wilderness 

(assuming that Congress acts to designate 

wilderness), a 16,503-acre (23%) reduction 

from the no-action alternative. The only 

wilderness would be on North Manitou 

Island; there would be no areas managed as 

wilderness on South Manitou Island or in the 

mainland portions of the Lakeshore. This 

reduction in the portion of the Lakeshore 

conveying wilderness protection to vegetation 

and wildlife, combined with the majority of 

South Manitou Island and the mainland 

portions of the Lakeshore being zoned 

recreational, would likely have short- and 

long-term, minor to moderate, adverse 

impacts on Michigan state-listed species 

within the Lakeshore. 

Increased visitation associated with concession tours to near the Giant Cedars area could 

result in adverse impacts on the state-listed 

species associated with this sensitive area. 

However, assuming modest levels of impact 

monitoring and remediation by NPS staff, 

these adverse impacts would likely not exceed 

short-term moderate and long-term minor on 

state-listed species in this area. 

Under alternative B, continued or new visitor 

activities that might impact state-listed species 

associated with the shoreline/dunes/nearshore habitat complex include the farm loop 

auto tours and concession tours to near the 

Giant Cedars area on South Manitou, day 

trips to North Manitou, and use of the bay-tobay and M-22/M-109 trails. Impacts would 

likely include trampling, habitat alteration, 

and sensory-based disruption. Assuming 

practicable levels of impact monitoring and 

mitigation, these impacts would likely be long 

term, minor, and adverse. 

Under alternative B, motorized boats would 

be allowed on more inland lakes than 

currently, with the addition of Shell and 

Tucker lakes. Use of motorized boats on these 

water bodies would likely have short- and 

long-term minor adverse effects on their 

associated state-listed species due to shoreline 

erosion, resuspension of sediments, pollution, 

and sensory-based disruption of wildlife. 

247 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Development of the bay-to-bay trail and 

associated campgrounds, provision of 

additional designated campsites on North 

Manitou Island, development within the highuse area at the mouth of the Platte River, and 

relocation of the D. H. Day group campground to the D. H. Day main campground 

could result in habitat loss and degradation 

for species associated with shoreline/dunes/ 

near-shore habitat, both of which could be 

reduced, to some extent, by strategic location 

and design. Improvements to the parking area 

at the ends of Peterson and Esch roads, at the 

mouth of the Platte River, and at the Glen 

Lake picnic area might result in increased 

visitor use and associated increases in 

vegetation trampling, habitat alteration, and 

sensory-based disruption of shoreline/dunes/ 

near-shore associates in those areas. The sum 

of these impacts on state-listed species in the 

Lakeshore would likely be short and long 

term, minor to moderate, and adverse. 

Implementation of user capacity management 

(see discussion in chapter 2) to reduce impacts 

of visitor use in sensitive and yet popular areas 

such as the Platte River corridor, would have 

short- and long-term, minor to moderate 

beneficial impacts. 

Development of the M-22/M-109 hike/bike 

trail, development of a multi-loop trail and 

small parking area at Bow Lakes with potential 

connection to the local school, development 

within the high-use area at the mouth of the 

Platte River, and improved access (parking 

areas, ramps or docks) at a few inland lakes 

(locations to be determined), could negatively 

impact state-listed species associated with 

lakes, wetlands, and riparian areas through 

trampling, habitat alteration, and sensorybased disruption. These adverse impacts 

would likely be short term moderate and long 

term minor to moderate, assuming continued 

NPS impact monitoring and remediation. 

Continued NPS acquisition of lands in the 

Benzie Corridor would have short- and longterm negligible beneficial impacts on statelisted species near that area by protecting 

them from impacts associated with private 

development, which would probably continue 

at its current pace. Construction of a road and 

associated bike trail (integral or adjacent to 

the road footprint) along the Benzie Corridor 

could result in short-term negligible adverse 

impacts on Michigan state-listed species 

occurring near the corridor due to habitat loss 

and alteration and sensory-based disruption 

of wildlife behaviors. Long-term effects would 

include negligible to minor adverse impacts 

on vegetation due to habitat alteration and 

sensory-based disruption of wildlife 

behaviors. 

Elimination of dispersed camping on North 

Manitou Island and development of additional designated campsites would likely have 

short- and long-term negligible to minor 

adverse impacts on the state-listed species 

adjacent to the new campsites, but would also 

have short- and long-term negligible to minor 

beneficial impacts on state-listed species in 

wider areas that are being impacted by 

repeated use. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past, present, and 

anticipated projects that would contribute to 

impacts on Michigan state-listed plant and 

animal species include (1) the improvements 

to the parking areas at the ends of Leelanau 

County Roads 651 and 669; (2) Glen Haven 

Village improvements; (3) implementation of 

the “Fire Management Plan”; (4) improvements to the Lake Michigan overlooks 

accessed from the Pierce Stocking Scenic 

Drive; (5) riverbank stabilization on the Platte 

River at the former Water Wheel and Casey’s 

Corner canoe liveries; (6) restoration approximating the natural topography, hydrology, 

and native vegetative cover of nonhistoric 

areas disturbed by past land uses — particularly those in critical dunes areas; and (7) 

minor improvements to the Dune Climb 

parking area. Each of these projects would 

involve short-term adverse impacts during 

construction. The long-term impacts would 

likely be minor to moderate beneficial (such as 

habitat restoration and enhancement). The 

248 
Impacts of Alternative B 

impacts of the other actions described above, 

together with the impacts of alternative B, 

would result in short- and long-term, minor to 

moderate adverse cumulative impacts, and 

minor to moderate beneficial cumulative 

impacts. Alternative B would likely contribute 

a relatively small component to these 

cumulative adverse impacts. 

Conclusion. Alternative B would have shortand long-term, negligible to moderate, 

adverse impacts and short- and long-term 

negligible to moderate beneficial impacts on 

state-listed species. The cumulative impacts 

would likely be short and long term, minor to 

moderate adverse, and minor to moderate 

beneficial. There would be no impairment of 

state-listed species from this alternative (see 

specific definition of impairment in the 

“Impairment of National Lakeshore 

Resources” section). 

Wetlands and Water Quality 

Readers are encouraged to refer back to the 

“Wetlands and Water Quality” discussion in 

the “Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing 

Impacts” section for additional details on the 

types of impacts resulting from visitor use and 

development. 

Use of motorized boats on School, Loon, 

North Bar, and Bass (Leelanau County) lakes 

and the Crystal and Platte rivers would continue to result in resuspension of sediments 

and pollution of wetlands and water bodies. 

The bay-to-bay trail and the M-22/M-109 

hike/bike trail could impact wetlands and 

water quality through erosion, runoff, and 

pollution during construction, and trampling, 

erosion, resuspension of sediments, and 

pollution during use. Assuming use of best 

management practices during construction, 

the overall impacts would likely be short and 

long term, minor to moderate, and adverse. 

Implementation of user capacity management 

(see discussion in chapter 2) to reduce impacts 

of visitor use in sensitive and yet popular areas 

such as the Platte River corridor, would have 

short- and long-term, minor to moderate 

beneficial impacts. 

 

New motorized boat use on Shell and Tucker 

lakes and potential activities in the high-use 

zone located at the mouth of the Platte River 

under alternative B could result in impacts on 

wetlands and water quality due to trampling, 

resuspension of sediments, erosion, and dust. 

Assuming practicable levels of NPS monitoring and mitigation, these impacts would 

likely range from minor to moderate 

depending on location and activity, and be 

adverse over both the short and long terms. 

Upgrades to a few picnic areas, improvements 

to access areas on several inland lakes and the 

Crystal River, and development of a multiloop trail and small parking area in the Bow 

Lakes area with potential links to a local 

school might impact wetlands and water 

quality. Impacts of these developments would 

be primarily due to potential erosion during 

construction, and erosion, dust, and pollution 

during use. Assuming use of best management 

practices, adverse short-term impacts would 

likely be minor to moderate, and adverse 

long-term impacts would be minor. 

Continued NPS acquisition of lands in the 

Benzie Corridor would help protect wetlands 

and water quality below this area from 

impacts associated with private development, 

resulting in short- and long-term, negligible to 

minor beneficial impacts. Construction of a 

road and associated bike trail along the Benzie 

Corridor would result in short-term negligible 

adverse impacts on waters and water quality 

through sedimentation associated with 

erosion. Long-term effects would include 

negligible adverse impacts on water resources 

due to increased stormwater runoff associated 

with increased impermeable surface area. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past, present, and 

anticipated projects that would contribute to 

impacts on wetlands and water quality include 

(1) implementation of the “Fire Management 

249 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Plan”; (2) riverbank stabilization on the Platte 

River at the former Water Wheel and Casey’s 

Corner canoe liveries; (3) restoration 

approximating the natural topography, 

hydrology, and native vegetative cover of 

nonhistoric areas disturbed by past land uses 

— particularly those in critical dunes areas; (4) 

minor improvements to the Dune Climb 

parking area; and (5) dredging of the Platte 

River mouth. Although each of these projects 

would involve short-term adverse impacts 

(e.g., dredging of the Platte River resulting in 

short-term suspension of particulates in the 

water and resulting lower water quality 

immediately downstream (lakeside) of the 

dredging), the net result would likely be longterm, minor to moderate beneficial impacts 

(e.g., dredging the mouth of the Platte River 

allows boats to pass without continuously 

hitting the bottom, stirring up material, and 

reducing water quality). 

The impacts of the other actions described 

above, together with the impacts of alternative 

B, would result in short- and long-term, negligible to moderate, adverse cumulative impacts, and long-term, negligible to moderate, 

beneficial cumulative impacts. Alternative B 

would likely contribute a relatively small 

component to these cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Alternative B would have shortand long-term, negligible to moderate, 

adverse and short- and long-term, negligible 

to moderate, beneficial impacts on the on 

wetlands and water quality. There would be 

short- and long-term negligible to moderate, 

adverse cumulative impacts, and long-term 

negligible to moderate beneficial cumulative 

impacts. There would be no impairment of 

wetlands or water quality from this alternative 

(see specific definition of impairment in the 

“Impairment of National Lakeshore 

Resources” section). 

VISITOR OPPORTUNITIES AND USE 

Visitor Opportunities 

Opportunities would be available for visitors 

to experience the fundamental resources and 

values of the Lakeshore and to learn about the 

Lakeshore’s primary interpretive themes (see 

chapter 1 “Fundamental Resources and 

Values” and “Primary Interpretive Themes” 

sections). Visitors would have access to 

information, interpretation, and educational 

opportunities at a variety of locations, 

including the visitor center in Empire, at Glen 

Haven, and at the visitor contact station on 

South Manitou Island. Interpretive and 

educational activities throughout the 

Lakeshore would be similar to those currently 

offered. These opportunities would have 

long-term, moderate beneficial impacts. 

Alternative B would provide the greatest level 

of access to and through the Lakeshore via 

foot, bicycle, motor vehicle, and ferry. The 

existing network of state, county, and NPS 

roads plus a new road with bicycle lane/trail in 

the Benzie Corridor would provide increased 

access. Visitors would also have increased 

Lakeshore access with the addition of the M22/M-109 hike/bike trail (initiated by others) 

and the bay-to-bay hiker/paddler trail, and 

concessioner-operated interpretive tours to 

near the Giant Cedars area would be 

considered. Seasonal ferry service would be 

provided for day and overnight trips to South 

Manitou Island, overnight trips to North 

Manitou Island (similar to the no-action 

alternative), and additional occasional day 

trips to North Manitou Island would be 

allowed. The above-noted increases in 

Lakeshore access would have long-term, 

moderate beneficial impacts. 

The scenic resources of the Lakeshore would 

be the least natural in character of all the 

alternatives because of the potential level of 

recreation-oriented development allowed 

(this alternative has the most recreation zone 

of any alternative). However, even with this 

250 
Impacts of Alternative B 

increased development (proposed or 

potential), the overall character of the 

Lakeshore would remain relatively natural. 

The development of a road with bicycle 

lane/trail in the Benzie Corridor could result 

in views of the ridgeline from below or more 

distant points within and outside the 

Lakeshore being slightly less natural in 

character than the no-action alternative. 

However, the Benzie Corridor development 

would be carefully designed and would 

provide visitors with new access to panoramic 

views of the Lakeshore and surrounding 

landscape. As in the no-action alternative, 

visitors could continue to experience sites that 

reflect the area’s culture and history (e.g., 

Glen Haven, Port Oneida, and cultural 

resources on North Manitou and South 

Manitou islands). Even with some increased 

development, there would be long-term, 

moderate, beneficial impacts on opportunities 

to experience the natural and cultural scenic 

resources of the Lakeshore. 

New recreation-oriented development would 

include a new road with bicycle lane/trail in 

the Benzie Corridor, the M-22/M-109 

hike/bike trail (initiated by others), the bay-tobay hiker/paddler trail and associated 

primitive campgrounds, relocation of the D. 

H. Day group campground to the main D. H. 

Day campground, designation of 

campgrounds on North Manitou Island, 

picnic area upgrades at some locations, 

parking improvements at the ends of Peterson 

Road and Esch Road, facility improvements 

(i.e., parking, picnicking, comfort stations) at 

Platte River Point, improved parking areas 

and ramps/docks at some inland lakes, 

parking and boat access upgrades to the 

Crystal River, and a trailhead parking area and 

a multi-loop trail in the Bow Lakes area. Even 

with these changes, the scale of recreationoriented development in the Lakeshore would 

be modest. This level of development would 

have long-term, moderate beneficial impacts 

on visitors. 

 

There would continue to be a wide range of 

recreational activities in the Lakeshore 

(similar to the no-action alternative). 

However in this alternative, opportunities for 

motorized and nonmotorized recreational 

activities would be expanded to the greatest 

degree of any of the alternatives. In addition 

to the above-mentioned additional recreational activities there would be possible 

bicycle rentals on South Manitou Island, 

possible groomed trail skiing, and two additional inland lakes would be accessible to 

motorized watercraft. User capacity management would improve visitor experiences on 

the Platte River. All of these actions would 

have long-term, minor beneficial impacts on 

visitors. There would be a change from 

dispersed camping to designated camping on 

North Manitou Island, which for some visitors would have long-term, minor adverse 

impacts. 

Natural sounds would continue to dominate 

the Lakeshore except along roadways in 

developed areas, where motorized boats are 

allowed (along rivers, at specific inland lakes, 

and on Lake Michigan), and when aircraft are 

flying over. Two more inland lakes than in the 

no-action alternative would allow motorized 

boats (and accompanying sounds). A 

road/bicycle trail would be developed in the 

Benzie Corridor; associated noise impacts 

(minor) would likely be similar to those of the 

Pierce Stocking Scenic Drive. Natural sounds 

would also be temporarily disrupted locally by 

construction activities. Because of more 

visitor opportunities and development in this 

alternative, there would be slightly more 

disruptions to natural sounds compared to the 

no-action alternative; with mitigation these 

impacts would be long-term, minor, and 

adverse. 

The naturally dark night sky would continue 

to be predominant in the Lakeshore despite 

vehicular lights along roadways and lighting in 

developed areas. A road/bicycle trail would be 

developed in the Benzie Corridor; lighting 

would be designed to minimize impacts on the 

251 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

naturally dark night sky. Because of potential 

increases in development in this alternative, 

there would be slightly more disruptions to 

the naturally dark night sky than in the noaction alternative; with mitigation these 

impacts would be long-term, minor, and 

adverse for those who value the dark night 

sky. 

Visitor Use 

Alternative B reflects a broad emphasis on 

dispersed recreation across much of the 

Lakeshore. New facilities are proposed at 

present and other opportunities for expanded 

facilities could be evaluated during the life of 

this plan. Completion the M-22/M-109 

hike/bike trail (initiated by others), the bay-tobay hiker/paddler trail, facility improvements 

at road ends and inland lakes, opportunities 

for skiing on groomed trails, and improved 

access to the Giant Cedars area, the potential 

for day excursions to North Manitou Island, 

and the Benzie Corridor road/bicycle 

lane/trail would provide additional impetus 

for increased visitor use. Depending on the 

strategy(ies) chosen, implementation of user 

capacity management strategies on the Platte 

River might locally reduce visitor numbers. 

The timing of increased visitor use is difficult 

to predict because it would depend on when 

projects are funded or carried out. The net 

effect of alternative B would be a long-term 

increase of up to 100% above the increase 

anticipated under the no-action alternative 

(up to an estimated 84,000 additional annual 

visits). 

Visitors to the Lakeshore from outside the 

region would likely account for the majority 

of future visits, though the number of visits by 

local residents would be expected to account 

for a larger share of future visitor use than is 

occurring now. The largest estimated increase 

in visitor use levels of any alternative would 

have long-term and minor effects that might 

be concurrently viewed as beneficial or 

adverse, depending on the expectations and 

preferences of visitors. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects that would affect visitor opportunities and use include: (1) improvements to 

parking areas at the ends of Leelanau County 

Roads 651 and 669; (2) Glen Haven Village 

improvements; (3) improvements to the Pierce 

Stocking Scenic Drive Lake Michigan overlooks 9 and 10; (4) South Manitou Lighthouse 

Complex exterior restoration and interior 

rehabilitation; and (5) Dune Climb parking 

area paving and other minor improvements. 

These actions would improve visitor opportunities by improving enjoyment, access, 

and/or range of available opportunities for 

visitors and would have an overall long-term, 

minor, beneficial effect on visitor opportunities and use. Developments near the Lakeshore (particularly along the access roads and 

in/near Glen Arbor and Empire) may continue 

to occur; these could result in a degradation of 

natural scenic quality, natural soundscapes, 

and night sky. These actions would have a 

long-term, minor, adverse cumulative effect 

on visitors. Combined with alternative B, 

these actions would have a long-term, minor, 

beneficial cumulative effect. Impacts of 

alternative B would comprise a relatively small 

portion of the overall cumulative effect. 

Conclusion 

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 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 

252 
Impacts of Alternative B 

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. Construction activities would have 

short-term minor adverse impact. The 

cumulative effects would be long-term, 

moderate, and beneficial. 

WILDERNESS CHARACTER 

Natural and Undeveloped 

Under alternative B, 14,400 acres on North 

Manitou Island (20% of the National Lakeshore, the least of any alternative), would be 

proposed for wilderness designation. This is 

16,503 acres (23%) less than in the no-action 

alternative. Assuming Congress acted to designate this area as wilderness, wilderness values 

therein would be protected permanently, a 

long-term minor beneficial impact compared 

to the no-action alternative. In contrast to the 

no-action alternative, there would be no 

wilderness protection on South Manitou 

Island or on the mainland portion of the 

Lakeshore, a major, long-term, adverse 

impact. 

The wilderness would be rather small compared to the no-action alternative, but it 

would be contiguous. In contrast to the noaction alternative, there would be no nonconforming motor vehicle or bicycle use within 

wilderness. As in the no-action alternative, the 

presence of historic structures within 

wilderness would continue to locally diminish 

the areas’ undeveloped primeval character, a 

localized long-term minor adverse impact. 

Opportunities for Solitude 

Outstanding opportunities for solitude would 

be available within wilderness on North 

Manitou Island. In particular, island areas 

away from trails and facilities would continue 

to offer excellent prospects for privacy and 

isolation. On days with day ferry trips to 

North Manitou Island (once or twice per 

week at most), opportunities for solitude 

could be reduced within a few hours’ walk 

from the ferry dock, a long-term, minor, 

adverse impact. In contrast to the no-action 

alternative, there would be no wilderness 

protection on the mainland or South Manitou 

Island; this would reduce prospects for 

solitude, a long-term, major adverse impact. 

Opportunities for Primitive, 

Unconfined Recreation 

Due to the addition of occasional day ferry 

service to North Manitou Island, opportunities would be available there for day and 

overnight wilderness experiences, a minor, 

long-term, beneficial impact. However, 

opportunities for primitive, unconfined 

recreation in wilderness would no longer be 

available on 16,503 acres of South Manitou 

Island and the mainland. The permit requirement for backcountry camping would continue. In contrast to the no-action alternative, 

backcountry campers would be required to 

stay in designated campgrounds not only on 

the mainland and South Manitou Island, but 

also on North Manitou Island. Opportunities 

for primitive unconfined recreation would be 

substantially reduced overall, a major, longterm, adverse impact. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Over time, the Lakeshore’s ongoing program 

to restore former nonhistoric sites to more 

natural conditions has substantially increased 

the natural, undeveloped character of the 

Lakeshore. The work includes removing 

nonnative trees and human enhancements, 

plus reestablishing more natural contours and 

native vegetation. Combined with the ongoing 

restoration program, alternative B would have 

long-term, moderate, adverse cumulative 

effects. Impacts of alternative B would 

253 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

comprise a substantial portion of these overall 

cumulative effects. 

Conclusion 

Establishment of 14,400 acres of designated 

wilderness on North Manitou Island would 

permanently protect wilderness values 

therein. However, about 16,503 acres on the 

mainland and South Manitou Island would no 

longer have wilderness protection, so 

naturalness and opportunities for solitude and 

primitive recreation would be substantially 

reduced there. Alternative B would have longterm (some permanent), minor beneficial and 

minor to major adverse impacts on wilderness 

character. Combined with other actions, 

alternative B would have long-term, moderate, 

adverse cumulative effects on wilderness 

character. 

REGIONAL SOCIOECONOMICS 

Implementation of alternative B would occur 

against the same backdrop of economic, 

demographic, and social conditions described 

under the no-action alternative. The 

economic and social effects of alternative B 

would contribute to those conditions, but 

would not fundamentally alter the area’s 

economic and demographic outlook. 

Visitor-Related Economic Impacts 

Alternative B reflects a broad emphasis on 

dispersed recreation across much of the 

Lakeshore and an overall reduction in amount 

of area managed as wilderness. The net effect 

of alternative B would be a projected longterm increase of up to 100% above the 

increase anticipated for the no-action 

alternative (up to an estimated 84,000 

additional annual visits). 

Changes in visitor use within the National 

Lakeshore with the implementation of 

alternative B could indirectly cause limited 

increases or reductions in visitor use at nearby 

outdoor recreation resources managed by the 

state, local governments, and other entities. 

Given the potential scale of such changes, the 

effects on future management and operations 

of these resources are likely to be limited. 

Retail, lodging, and other tourism-related 

spending would accompany the increased use 

with expenditures projected to reach $37.4 

million per year, $4.6 million higher than at 

present and $2.3 million per year higher than 

for the no-action alternative. Shifts in visitor 

use over time might affect the demands for 

goods and services for local merchants and 

other recreation-oriented establishments. The 

Lakeshore would collect additional entry fees 

and revenues from the sales of various passes, 

and Eastern National would sell more 

merchandise at the visitor center, with 

portions of these receipts retained to support 

recreational, cultural, and educational 

programs in the Lakeshore. 

Economic spin-offs of visitor spending 

include higher personal income and 30 –35 

more jobs than under the no-action alternative, most of the latter being seasonal. These 

visitor-related impacts would be long term but 

limited in scale relative to current employment and personal income in the two 

counties. Implementation of alternative B 

could provide additional concession/commercial service opportunities, for example, in 

conjunction with recreational opportunities 

on South Manitou Island, winter use, and the 

bay-to-bay hiker/paddler trail. 

Under alternative B, Lakeshore visitors from 

within the region would be expected to be a 

larger share of the incremental use than under 

the no-action alternative, although the 

number of visits by nonresidents would also 

increase. 

The state and local governments would collect 

additional sales tax from the increases in 

visitor spending. 

254 
Impacts of Alternative B 

The visitor-related economic impacts would 

be beneficial, but negligible in the short term 

and minor to moderate and beneficial over the 

long term. 

Economic Impacts Related to 

Implementation and NPS Operations 

Alternative B would provide a sustained 

economic infusion to the region over the life 

of this plan resulting from ongoing NPS 

operating expenditures, and $42.8 million in 

identified future project construction needs 

($36.2 million above that for the no-action 

alternative). The future construction budget 

includes an allowance of $26.0 million for 

eventual construction of the road and 

accompanying bike lanes/trail in the Benzie 

Corridor. There are no assurances that such 

funding would be received. Identified costs 

for other major projects would be $700,000 

less than for the no-action alternative. 

Spending to address deferred maintenance 

would be the same as for the no-action 

alternative. 

As under the no-action alternative, NPS 

maintenance staff would perform much of the 

work to address deferred maintenance and 

preservation, restoration and rehabilitation 

activities. Future construction spending 

would be higher than under the no-action 

alternative, supporting the local construction 

trades industry and associated vendors and 

suppliers. 

Annual NPS payroll, operating, and maintenance would produce long-term effects on 

employment, business sales, income and other 

related measures. Up to 13 additional full-time 

equivalent employees, could be supported in 

conjunction with alternative B. Staffing needs 

would increase over time as the implementation of specific projects, programs, and management included in this alternative proceed. 

A need for a modest long-term increase in 

budgeted funds for NPS operations is 

identified in conjunction with alternative B 

(there are no assurances that such increases 

will occur). Available resources would include 

about $4.4 million in base budget appropriations ($500,000 per year above the no-action 

alternative), more than $1.0 million in entry 

and camping fees, and various nonrecurring 

funding for supplemental and specific project 

construction. Retained revenues from entry 

and camping fees would likely increase with 

higher visitation. 

Supplemental funding would be required for 

future land acquisition in the Benzie Corridor, 

the same as under the no-action alternative. 

The eventual construction of a scenic road 

and bike lanes/trail in the Benzie Corridor 

would produce short-term effects on local 

employment, business revenues, income, 

taxes, and other related economic measures. 

Some local heavy construction firms and 

related suppliers and vendors would likely 

garner a portion of the project construction 

spending. The magnitudes of the effects 

would be indeterminate, in large part because 

the length of time required to complete the 

project — a single or multiple construction 

seasons — is uncertain. Based on preliminary 

cost estimates, it is reasonable to anticipate 

that the effects would be beneficial, short 

term, and minor to moderate. Completion of 

the scenic road and accompanying bike 

lanes/trail would likely encourage new 

residential development on private lands near 

the corridor, although topography would act 

to limit the level of such development. 

Activities sponsored by the Lakeshore’s 

partners would provide additional sources of 

economic stimulus. The timing, magnitude, 

and indirect economic consequences of those 

activities are indeterminate. 

The economic effects associated with the NPS 

operations would be beneficial, but negligible 

to minor in the short term and beneficial and 

minor over the long term. 

 

255 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Effects on Regional Population 

Alternative B would have little direct impact 

on regional population growth. Increases in 

construction and long-term jobs and visitor 

use over the life of the plan would provide a 

negligible impetus for growth, relative to other 

factors. The increases would be insufficient to 

trigger additional job-related migration. 

Rather, it is more likely that many of the jobs 

would be filled by individuals already residing 

in the area. 

Implementation of alternative B could 

indirectly enhance the region’s attractiveness 

for job-related and retirement migration as a 

result of enhanced dispersed recreational 

opportunities on the mainland. 

The effects on regional population growth 

under this alternative would be negligible to 

minor, both in the short and long terms. 

Generally, population growth would be 

viewed as beneficial. 

Community Services 

Over time, more visitors to the Lakeshore 

would indirectly result in added demands on 

community services and facilities across the 

region. The limited scale, seasonal nature, and 

spatial dispersion of such demands across the 

region would be such that facility expansions 

and additional staffing would not be required. 

Effects on community services under this 

alternative are indeterminate but would likely 

be negligible to minor over the short and long 

terms. 

Traffic and Emergency Services 

Traffic impacts of alternative B would include 

higher traffic volumes on the highways and 

roads providing access to the Lakeshore, with 

minor increases in travel times, wait times at 

major intersections, and frequency of 

encountering full parking lots. Even with the 

increases in traffic, estimated future traffic 

volumes would remain below design capacity 

on the major routes and not dramatically 

increase maintenance requirements. Increases 

in traffic volumes could accelerate the onset of 

less than desirable levels of service at the M22/M-109 intersection in Glen Arbor, possibly 

triggering intersection improvements (Robert 

Peccia & Associates. 2001). 

The eventual completion of a scenic road with 

bike lanes/trail in the Benzie Corridor would 

increase traffic on roadways in the southern 

portion of the Lakeshore and potentially alter 

traffic patterns on the public roadways 

adjacent to the Lakeshore. Traffic, noise, and 

related factors would become more noticeable 

to residents and their guests on properties in 

the vicinity of the corridor. 

Impacts on the number of traffic accidents 

and demands on first responders would be 

similar to but larger than under the no-action 

alternative. Demands associated with this 

alternative would not require additional law 

enforcement or emergency response staffing, 

although the increases in the number of “call 

outs” could burden area first response 

agencies because they are staffed partially by 

volunteers. Emergency responders in Benzie 

County could see larger increases in demand 

with the completion of the road and bike 

lanes/trail in the Benzie Corridor. 

The effects of implementing alternative B on 

traffic and emergency services across the 

region would be adverse but minor over the 

short and long terms. 

Attitudes and Lifestyles 

Alternative B establishes future management 

direction for the Lakeshore that reflects 

public input and the Lakeshore’s purpose, 

significance, and fundamental resources and 

values, but with added emphasis on providing 

recreational opportunities. That emphasis will 

generally appeal to those valuing interested in 

developing facility-based recreation or 

256 
Impacts of Alternative B 

maximizing the economic contributions 

associated with the Lakeshore. Those valuing 

solitude, wilderness, and appreciation of the 

current cultural and recreation opportunities 

might be less enthusiastic about the management direction set forth in alternative B. 

Construction and completion of the Benzie 

Corridor scenic road and bike lane/trail would 

affect the lifestyles of residents and their 

guests in the general vicinity of the corridor. 

Short-term effects during construction would 

include noise, potentially including blasting, 

heavy truck traffic, and a generally increased 

presence of other humans in settings that had 

been more remote and private. The 

construction-related noise and traffic would 

diminish over the long term, but general 

increases in traffic, noise, and increased 

presence of others would continue. Most of 

these impacts would be viewed as adverse. 

Some property owners, along with members 

of the broader community would view the 

opening of a scenic road and bike lane/trail 

within the Benzie Corridor positively for the 

visitor opportunities (scenic vistas, recreational driving, and bicycling) it would provide. 

The management direction for this alternative 

would result in the most direct lifestyle 

consequences because it recasts many of the 

influences of the Lakeshore — for example, 

potentially promoting more commercial 

development and human use adjacent to the 

Lakeshore on the south, in the Glen Arbor 

and Empire communities, and in Leland. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative social and economic impacts from 

alternative B would be of the same type, but 

larger in scale, as those under the no-action 

alternative. The effects of underlying development trends in the region include long-term, 

moderate population and economic growth; 

long-term increases in traffic on local roads; 

related impacts on public safety; higher 

spending that bolsters community and 

recreation-oriented businesses in the region; 

and additional tax revenues to fund public 

services and facilities. 

The incremental economic and social effects 

of alternative B, including those associated 

with increases visitor and park operating 

expenditures, would be negligible to minor in 

the short term and minor in the long term, and 

generally beneficial. Alternative B, combined 

with the impacts of other actions described 

above, would result in minor short- and longterm adverse cumulative effects on traffic and 

highway safety. Impacts of alternative B would 

comprise a small portion of these overall 

cumulative effects. 

Conclusion 

The economic and social effects of alternative 

B would include negligible to minor shortterm and moderate long-term economic benefits compared to the no-action alternative. 

Short- and long-term effects on lifestyles and 

attitudes are indeterminate. Long-term social 

consequences would include a negligible to 

minor contribution to long-term population 

growth and demands on community infrastructure and services. Overall, the cumulative 

social and economic effects associated with 

alternative B would be minor, short and long 

term, and indeterminate as they include 

effects that might be concurrently viewed as 

beneficial or adverse. 

NPS OPERATIONS 

Under alternative B, the Lakeshore’s maintenance and operational load would be increased 

by (1) managing a substantial portion of the 

Lakeshore as the recreation zone (with more 

need to monitor for use-related impacts); (2) 

development of a scenic road and bike 

lane/trail within the Benzie Corridor (with a 

new area to patrol and new facilities to 

maintain); (3) managing the area around the 

mouth of the Platte River as a more developed 

beach access area; (4) bicycle use on South 

257 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Manitou Island (with increased ranger patrol 

and resource monitoring needs); (5) addition 

of new trails and backcountry campgrounds; 

and possible occasional day trips by the ferry 

to North Manitou Island; (6) possible day use 

on North Manitou Island (with increased 

interpretive and ranger patrol needs); (7) 

possible concession tours to near the Giant 

Cedars area, and (8) a modest visitation increase over time. Some increased maintenance 

would also be incurred with a new M-22/M109 hike/bike trail. Most other facility-based 

changes, such as minor picnic area upgrades, 

improving parking at the end of Esch and 

Peterson roads, and relocation or upgrading 

the Crystal River access area would decrease 

maintenance needs for individual areas or 

change the nature of maintenance needs 

without increasing the burden. Wilderness 

minimum requirement analysis would be 

required for 14,400 acres (all on North 

Manitou Island), a 16,503-acre (23%) 

decrease compared to the no-action alternative. Impacts of alternative B would be long 

term, minor beneficial and long term, 

moderate adverse. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Ongoing and planned facility upgrades and 

restoration/rehabilitation projects would have 

mostly beneficial impacts because these 

projects would result in reduced resource 

management and cyclic maintenance needs. 

Dredging of the Platte River mouth would 

continue to place demands upon the NPS 

maintenance staff and budget, a minor adverse 

effect. Combined with these impacts, 

alternative B would have long-term minor 

beneficial and moderate adverse cumulative 

effects. Impacts of alternative B would 

comprise a substantial portion of these overall 

cumulative effects. 

Conclusion 

Alternative B would have long-term minor 

beneficial and moderate adverse impacts on 

NPS operations. This alternative, combined 

with other actions, would have both longterm minor beneficial and moderate adverse 

cumulative effects. 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

Some negligible to moderate impacts to soils, 

vegetation, wildlife, water resources, 

wilderness character, scenic resources, natural 

sounds, and night sky from recreational use 

and facilities would be essentially unavoidable 

(e.g., soil compaction, vegetation trampling, 

wildlife disturbances, decreased opportunities 

for solitude, and decreased naturalness). 

Increases in visitor use would have low level 

adverse impacts on regional socioeconomics 

(e.g., increased traffic). 

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE 

COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 

Irreversible commitments of resources are 

actions that result in loss of resources that 

cannot be reversed. Irretrievable commitments of resources are actions that result in 

the loss of resources but only for a limited 

period of time. 

With the exception of consumption of fuels 

and raw materials for maintenance or 

construction activities, no actions in this 

alternative would result in consumptions of 

nonrenewable natural resources or use of 

renewable resources that would preclude 

other uses for a period of time. 

RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM 

USES AND LONG-TERM 

PRODUCTIVITY 

The National Lakeshore would continue to be 

used by the public, and most areas would be 

protected in a natural state. The National Park 

Service would continue to manage the Lakeshore to maintain ecological processes and 

native biological communities and to provide 

258 
Impacts of Alternative B 

259 

appropriate recreational opportunities 

consistent with preservation of cultural and 

natural resources. Actions would be taken 

with care to minimize adverse effects on the 

long-term productivity of biotic communities. 

Under alternative B there would be expanded 

(but still relatively modest) facilities to support 

recreational use and some localized loss of 

ecological productivity. 
IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE C 

HISTORIC RESOURCES 

The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties (1995) 

identifies four treatment approaches that 

apply to a wide variety of resource types, 

including buildings, sites, structures, objects, 

districts, and landscape features and patterns. 

Three of those treatments are included in this 

plan — preservation, rehabilitation, and 

restoration. See page 40 for more detailed 

definitions. The simplest of these treatment 

approaches is preservation, in which measures 

are undertaken to stabilize the resource to 

ensure that it does not deteriorate further 

from its existing condition and then to 

maintain and repair historic features and 

materials. The second option is rehabilitation, 

in which the resource is made useable for 

some purpose while preserving those features 

that convey its historical, cultural, or 

architectural value. The third is restoration, in 

which the historic appearance at a particular 

time is accurately regained. The fourth 

treatment, reconstruction, is not proposed in 

this plan. 

Although each alternative calls for preserving 

and protecting all historic properties, each 

action alternative provides a different management zone configuration based on that 

alternative’s overall vision, and each management zone prescribes which of the three 

treatments could be used for historic properties. Thus, potential treatments for the 

National Lakeshore’s various historic properties differ among the alternatives. Based on the 

locations and relative proportions of management zones in alternative C, 78% of historic 

structures would undergo preservation, 

rehabilitation, or restoration (experience 

history zone), 16% of historic structures 

would undergo preservation or rehabilitation 

(recreation zone), and 6% of historic 

structures would undergo preservation 

(experience nature zone). This information is 

summarized in table 3 on page 74. 

All preservation, rehabilitation, or restoration 

efforts would be undertaken in accordance 

with the standards. Any materials removed 

during rehabilitation or restoration efforts 

would be evaluated to determine their value to 

the Lakeshore’s museum collections and/or 

for their comparative use in future preservation work at the sites. Implementation of the 

actions described above for this alternative, 

which would bring all historic resources up to 

a good condition, would result in no adverse 

effects on historic resources. 

At Glen Haven the Glen Haven Historic 

District and Sleeping Bear Point Life-Saving 

Station would be preserved, rehabilitated, or 

restored (same action in all alternatives). Some 

buildings would be rehabilitated for visitor 

and/or staff use. The Sleeping Bear Inn and 

garage would be placed in the NPS historic 

leasing program to allow rehabilitation for 

adaptive use. All other structures would be 

stabilized and maintained in their current 

condition. 

At Port Oneida historic structures and 

landscapes would be preserved, rehabilitated, 

or restored (same action in all alternatives). 

Structures on at least one farmstead would be 

restored for interpretive purposes. Some 

buildings in the district would be rehabilitated 

for visitor and/or staff use, including a visitor 

contact station and staff housing. At least one 

farmstead would be placed in the NPS historic 

leasing program to allow rehabilitation and 

adaptive use. All other structures and 

landscapes would be stabilized and 

maintained in their current condition. 

On North Manitou Island the historic lifesaving station and Cottage Row structures 

would be preserved, rehabilitated, or restored 

(same action as in the preferred alternative). 

260 
Impacts of Alternative C 

Preservation and/or adaptive use of the 

rehabilitated historic former Manitou Island 

Association structures for administrative and 

operational purposes would continue. 

Historic structures and landscapes elsewhere 

on the island would be preserved. 

On South Manitou Island (same action as in 

the preferred alternative) the historic lifesaving station, lighthouse complex, village 

historic structures, the schoolhouse, and farm 

loop tour historic structures would be preserved, rehabilitated, or restored. Historic 

structures and landscapes elsewhere on the 

island would be preserved. 

Other mainland historic structures and 

landscapes would be managed as specified for 

the management zone in which they lie (see 

alternative map and zone descriptions). 

Actions involving other than historic property 

treatments, such as relocating the D.H. Day 

group campground and improving or 

expanding the main D.H. Day campground, 

would have no effect on historic properties 

because they would be designed to avoid 

possible impacts on properties on or eligible 

for the national register. 

 

All properties on or determined eligible for 

inclusion in the National Register of Historic 

Places would, at a minimum, undergo 

stabilization (where that action has not 

already occurred), or maintenance in the 

current condition (where some preservation 

treatment has already been implemented). 

The actions proposed above are general. The 

treatments for each resource (preservation 

[stabilization], rehabilitation with adaptive 

use, restoration) have not yet been determined so impacts cannot be fully described. 

However, it is the National Park Service’s 

intent that no action proposed be adverse. All 

actions affecting these historic structures and 

landscapes will be undertaken in consultation 

with the Michigan state historic preservation 

officer. 

Alternative C would not directly or indirectly 

affect any properties outside the boundary of 

the National Lakeshore that are listed on or 

eligible for the National Register of Historic 

Places, or that are listed by the state. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Over the years historic resources in the 

Lakeshore have been adversely impacted by 

natural processes such as weathering, 

vegetative encroachment, and the wear and 

tear associated with visitor use. Actions 

proposed for the South Manitou Island 

Lighthouse Complex would result in both the 

restoration of the exterior of the keeper’s 

quarters and connecting passageways and the 

rehabilitation of the interior for adaptive 

reuse. In addition, actions proposed for Glen 

Haven Village include the stabilization and 

maintenance of historic structures or their 

rehabilitation for adaptive reuse. All 

preservation, rehabilitation, or restoration 

efforts would be undertaken in accordance 

with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

for the Treatment of Historic Properties (1995), 

and would result in no adverse effects on 

historic resources. 

As described above, implementation of 

alternative C would result in no adverse 

effects on historic resources. The no adverse 

impacts of this alternative, in combination 

with both the adverse and no adverse impacts 

of other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would result in a 

no adverse effect cumulative impact. The no 

adverse effects of alternative C would be a 

sizeable contribution to the no adverse effect 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion 

Alternative C would have a determination of 

no adverse effect under the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation “Regulations for the 

Protection of Historic and Cultural 

261 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Properties” (36 CFR 800). There would be no 

impairment of cultural resources from 

implementation of alternative C (see specific 

definition of impairment in the “Impairment 

of National Lakeshore Resources” section). 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Soils and Geologic Resources 

Readers are encouraged to refer back to the 

“Soils and Geologic Resources” discussion in 

the “Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing 

Impacts” section for additional details on the 

types of impacts resulting from visitor use and 

development. 

The use of motorized boats on School, Loon, 

North Bar and Bass (Leelanau County) lakes 

and the Crystal and Platte rivers would 

continue. Although soil compaction and 

erosion of the dunes would be reduced in 

some areas by the use of sand ladders, 

boardwalks, and sidewalks to protect the 

substrate, placement and maintenance would 

be limited to what can be accomplished with 

current resources. These ongoing activities 

would continue to have minor to moderate 

(depending on location and activity), shortand long-term adverse impacts on soils and 

geologic resources. Implementation of user 

capacity management (see discussion in 

chapter 2) to reduce impacts of visitor use in 

sensitive and yet popular areas such as the 

Platte River corridor, would have short- and 

long-term, minor to moderate beneficial 

impacts. 

Development of the bay-to-bay trail and the 

M-22/M-109 hike/bike trail could result in 

soil disturbance and erosion during 

construction, and subsequent erosion and 

compaction due to use. Assuming use of best 

management practices (such as using erosion 

avoidance and control mechanisms) during 

construction and later use and NPS 

monitoring of impacts during use to prevent 

soil erosion and compaction, the overall 

adverse impacts would likely be short-term 

moderate and long-term minor. 

The new farm loop and Giant Cedars area 

auto tours on South Manitou Island, dispersed 

camping on North Manitou Island, and a variety of as yet undefined but new opportunities 

within the high-use zones in the central and 

southern mainland portions of the Lakeshore 

would likely contribute to soil compaction 

and erosion in these areas. Although practicable levels of monitoring and remediation of 

visitor-related impacts by staff could address 

these impacts to some extent, the large size of 

the high-use areas suggests that the sum of 

these types of activities would likely have 

short- and long-term, negligible to moderate 

adverse impacts. 

Constructing a short loop trail and small 

parking area at Bow Lakes; providing 

additional designated campsites on North 

Manitou Island; relocating the D. H. Day 

group campground to the D. H. Day main 

campground; upgrading or expanding the D. 

H. Day campground and Glen Lake picnic 

area and upgrading the Dune Climb facilities; 

and improving access (parking areas, ramps or 

docks) at a few inland lakes (locations to be 

determined), could result in soil disturbance, 

compaction, and erosion — all of which could 

be reduced by use of best management 

practices during location, design, and 

development. Other development, such as 

potential improvements to the parking areas 

and development of picnic areas and comfort 

stations at the ends of County Road 669 and 

Esch Road and the mouth of the Platte River, 

might result in increased visitor use and 

associated increases in soil erosion and 

compaction in those areas. The sum of these 

impacts on soils and geologic resources in the 

Lakeshore would likely be short and long 

term, minor to moderate, and adverse. 

Continued NPS acquisition of lands on a 

willing-seller basis in the Benzie Corridor 

would have short- and long-term moderate 

beneficial impacts on the soils and geologic 

262 
Impacts of Alternative C 

resources in that area by protecting them from 

impacts associated with private development. 

Construction of a nonmotorized hike/bike 

trail along the Benzie Corridor would result in 

short-term minor adverse impacts on soils 

through soil erosion and compaction. Longterm effects would include negligible adverse 

impacts on soil resources due to erosion 

associated with increased impermeable surface area. Private development would 

probably continue at its current pace and have 

minor to moderate adverse impacts on these 

resources. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past, present, and 

anticipated projects that would contribute to 

impacts on soils and geologic resources 

include (1) improvements to the parking areas 

at the ends of Leelanau County Roads 651 and 

669; (2) Glen Haven Village improvements; (3) 

improvements to the Lake Michigan overlooks accessed from the Pierce Stocking 

Scenic Drive; riverbank stabilization on the 

Platte River at the former Water Wheel and 

Casey’s Corner canoe liveries; (4) restoration 

approximating the natural topography, 

hydrology, and native vegetative cover of 

nonhistoric areas disturbed by past land uses 

— particularly those in critical dunes areas; (5) 

minor improvements to the Dune Climb 

parking area; and (6) continued dredging of 

the mouth of the Platte River. Although 

activities 1-5 would likely result in short-term 

adverse impacts during the construction 

phase, the net result would likely be longterm, minor to moderate beneficial impacts 

because all projects would contribute to a 

reduction of the potential for soil compaction 

and erosion. Dredging the mouth of the Platte 

River results in continued addition of dredged 

material to the shoreline. During low-water 

periods deeper dredging is required and 

results in dredge materials with high clay 

content being deposited on the shoreline, 

resulting in armoring of the beach surface and 

consequent profile changes. This results in 

short- and long-term minor to moderate 

adverse impacts. 

The impacts of other actions described above, 

in combination with the impacts of the 

alternative C, would result in short-term, 

negligible to moderate, adverse cumulative 

impacts, and long-term, minor to moderate 

beneficial cumulative impacts. Alternative C’s 

contribution to these cumulative impacts 

would be minimal. 

Conclusion. Alternative C would have shortand long-term, negligible to moderate adverse 

and beneficial impacts on soils and geologic 

resources. The cumulative impacts would 

likely be short term, negligible to moderate, 

and adverse, and long term, minor to 

moderate, and beneficial. There would be no 

impairment of soils or geologic resources from 

implementing alternative C (see specific 

definition of impairment in the “Impairment 

of National Lakeshore Resources” section). 

Vegetation and Wildlife 

Readers are encouraged to refer back to the 

“Vegetation and Wildlife” discussion in the 

“Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing 

Impacts” section for additional details on the 

types of impacts resulting from visitor use and 

development. 

The use of motorized boats on School, Loon, 

North Bar and Bass (Leelanau County) lakes 

and the Crystal and Platte rivers would 

continue to result in trampling of vegetation, 

habitat alteration, introduction and spread of 

invasive species, sensory-based disruption of 

wildlife, and the likelihood of introducing 

nonnative species. Impacts on vegetation and 

wildlife from such activities would likely 

continue to be short and long term, negligible 

to moderate, and adverse. Implementation of 

user capacity management (see discussion in 

chapter 2) to reduce impacts of visitor use in 

sensitive and yet popular areas such as the 

Platte River corridor, would have short- and 

long-term, minor to moderate beneficial 

impacts. 

263 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The bay-to-bay trail and the M-22/M-109 

hike/bike trail would impact vegetation and 

wildlife through trampling of vegetation, 

habitat loss and alteration, and sensory-based 

disruption of wildlife. Assuming use of best 

management practices (such as locating 

trails/paths close to existing disturbances, 

minimization of the construction footprint, 

and timing of construction outside the peak 

breeding/nesting periods) during construction, and careful monitoring of impacts during 

use, the overall impacts would likely be short 

and long term, negligible to minor, and 

adverse. 

Under alternative C, 32% (23,200 acres) of the 

National Lakeshore would be managed as 

wilderness (assuming that Congress acts to 

designate wilderness) a 7,703-acre (11%) 

decrease from the no-action alternative. Areas 

on both islands and in the central and 

southern portions of the mainland would be 

managed as wilderness. This reduction in the 

portion of the Lakeshore conveying 

wilderness protection to vegetation and 

wildlife, combined with a relatively large 

portion of the mainland portions of the 

Lakeshore being zoned high-use, would likely 

have short- and long-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse impacts on vegetation and 

wildlife within the Lakeshore. 

The new farm loop and Giant Cedars area 

auto tours on South Manitou Island, dispersed 

camping on North Manitou Island, and a 

variety of as yet undefined but new opportunities within the high-use zones in the central 

and southern mainland portions of the 

Lakeshore, would likely result in trampling of 

vegetation, habitat alteration, introduction 

and spread of invasive species, and sensorybased disruption of wildlife. Impacts on 

vegetation and wildlife from such activities 

under alternative C would likely be short and 

long term, negligible to moderate, and 

adverse. 

Constructing a short loop trail and small 

parking area at Bow Lakes; providing 

additional designated campsites on North 

Manitou Island; relocating the D. H. Day 

group campground to the D. H. Day campground; upgrading or expanding the D. H. 

Day campground; and improving access 

(parking areas, ramps or docks) at a few inland 

lakes (locations to be determined), could 

result in habitat loss and degradation, both of 

which could be reduced, to some extent, by 

strategic location and design. These improvements might result in introduction and spread 

of invasive species to inland waterways. Other 

development, such as potential improvements 

to the parking areas and development of 

picnic areas and comfort stations at the ends 

of County Road 669, Esch Road, and at the 

mouth of the Platte River, might result in 

increased visitor use and associated increases 

in vegetation trampling, habitat alteration, and 

sensory-based disruption of wildlife in those 

areas. The sum of these impacts on vegetation 

and wildlife in the Lakeshore would likely be 

short and long term, minor to moderate, and 

adverse. 

Continued NPS acquisition of lands within 

the Benzie Corridor would have short- and 

long-term minor beneficial impacts on the 

vegetation and wildlife in that area by 

protecting them from impacts associated with 

private development. Construction and use of 

a nonmotorized hike/bike trail along the 

Benzie Corridor would result in short-term 

(construction) and long-term (use) negligible 

adverse impacts on vegetation and wildlife 

through trampling of vegetation, habitat loss 

and alteration, and sensory-based disruption 

of wildlife behaviors. Private development 

would probably continue at its current pace 

and have minor to moderate adverse impacts 

on these resources. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past, present, and 

anticipated projects that would contribute to 

impacts on vegetation and wildlife include (1) 

the improvements to the parking areas at the 

ends of Leelanau County Roads 651 and 669; 

(2) implementation of the “Fire Management 

Plan”; (3) improvements to the Lake Michigan 

264 
Impacts of Alternative C 

overlooks accessed from the Pierce Stocking 

Scenic Drive; (4) riverbank stabilization on the 

Platte River at the former Water Wheel and 

Casey’s Corner canoe liveries; and (5) 

restoration approximating the natural 

topography, hydrology, and native vegetative 

cover of nonhistoric areas disturbed by past 

land uses — particularly those in critical dunes 

areas. These actions could have short- and 

long-term negligible to minor adverse impacts 

(due to trampling and sensory-based 

disturbance during the activity) and long-term 

minor beneficial impacts (such as habitat 

protection, restoration and enhancement) on 

vegetation and wildlife. 

The impacts of other actions described above, 

together with the impacts of alternative C, 

would result in short and long term, negligible 

to moderate adverse cumulative impacts, and 

short- and long-term negligible to moderate 

beneficial cumulative impacts. Alternative C 

would likely contribute a relatively small 

portion of these cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Alternative C would have shortand long-term negligible to moderate adverse 

impacts, and short- and long-term, minor to 

moderate beneficial impacts. The cumulative 

impacts of alternative C combined with other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions would likely be short and long term, 

negligible to moderate, adverse, and short and 

long term, negligible to moderate, beneficial. 

There would be no impairment of vegetation 

or wildlife resources from implementation of 

alternative C (see specific definition of 

impairment in the “Impairment of National 

Lakeshore Resources” section). 

Federal Threatened 

and Endangered Species 

Readers are encouraged to refer back to the 

“Federal Threatened and Endangered 

Species” discussion in the “Methods and 

Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts” section 

for additional details on the types of impacts 

resulting from visitor use and development. 

The federally listed species considered are the 

Michigan monkey flower, piping plover 

(populations and designated critical habitat), 

and Pitcher’s thistle. The piping plover and 

Pitcher’s thistle are found primarily in nearshore dunes; the Michigan monkey flower is 

restricted to one lakeside location in the 

Lakeshore interior. Although part of the 

designated critical habitat within the 

Lakeshore coincides with actively used 

recreational beach areas, NPS staff have 

demonstrated success in minimizing impacts 

on nesting piping plovers in areas with 

relatively high human activity (e.g., the mouth 

of the Platte River) through various actions 

(see “Mitigative Measures for the Action 

Alternatives” section in chapter 2). All impact 

analyses assume continued protection of 

threatened and endangered species as 

outlined in the Lakeshore-wide desired 

condition statements (see chapter 1). 

Under alternative C, 32% of the National 

Lakeshore would be managed as wilderness 

(assuming that Congress acts to designate 

wilderness), a 7,703-acre (11%) decrease over 

existing conditions. This reduction in area 

managed as wilderness would potentially 

affect Pitcher’s thistle and piping plover. The 

wilderness status of areas occupied by 

Michigan monkey flower would not change. 

Although management of wilderness would 

cease in some areas occupied by Pitcher’s 

thistle, these areas would be managed as 

recreation zone or experience nature zone ―

management strategies that are very similar to 

existing management under which Pitcher’s 

thistle currently does quite well in the 

Lakeshore. Given demonstrated persistence 

of this species under such management, 

combined with continued protection of 

threatened and endangered species as 

outlined in the Lakeshore-wide desired 

condition statements, this reduction in area 

managed as wilderness would be expected to 

have no more than discountable impacts to 

265 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

this species. The reduction in area managed as 

wilderness would have insignificant effects on 

piping plovers and piping plover critical 

habitat because management of the Lake 

Michigan shoreline and near-shoreline areas 

would remain essentially the same despite the 

change in wilderness status, and because 

piping plovers successfully nest and fledge 

under current management. 

Continuing dispersed camping on North 

Manitou Island, and developing the new 

visitor activities proposed in alternative C, 

such as use of the new bay-to-bay trail, 

provision of concession auto tours to near the 

Giant Cedars area on South Manitou Island, 

potentially expanded bicycle use, and a variety 

of as yet undefined but new opportunities in 

the high-use zones in the central and southern 

mainland portions of the Lakeshore, could 

result in trampling of Pitcher’s thistle, habitat 

alteration, and sensory-based disruption of 

piping plover. These impacts could be 

reduced by strategic location and design such 

as careful selection and demarcation of trails 

outside of sensitive areas (e.g., away from 

piping plover critical habitat) and use of 

boardwalks. 

Developing the bay-to-bay trail, providing 

designated campsites on North Manitou 

Island, relocating the D. H. Day group campground to the D. H. Day main campground 

and upgrading or expanding the D. H. Day 

campground could result in trampling and 

habitat alteration and degradation, all of 

which could be reduced, to some extent, by 

strategic location and design. Other development, such as potential improvements to the 

parking areas and development of picnic areas 

and comfort stations at the ends of County 

Road 669, Esch Road, and the mouth of the 

Platte River, might result in increased visitor 

use and associated increases in trampling and 

habitat alteration for both Pitcher’s thistle and 

piping plover, and sensory-based disruption 

of piping plover in those areas. 

Under this alternative, the National Park 

Service would continue to acquire lands 

within the Benzie Corridor, and would 

construct a hike/bike trail during the life of 

this plan. Private development within the 

corridor would probably continue at its 

current pace. These conditions and activities 

are not anticipated to affect listed species 

because neither they nor their habitats occur 

within the corridor. 

For projects proposed in alternative C, the 

National Park Service would implement 

measures that would ensure that adverse 

effects on listed species do not occur. These 

avoidance measures might include, but are not 

limited to, the following: 

• Safeguarding the known locations of 

listed species. 

• Restricting human activity in piping 

plover breeding areas by use of a 

specialized fence system. 

• Increasing the number of NPS/volunteer 

piping plover nest monitors, should 

conditions warrant. 

• Restricting human activity in piping 

plover breeding areas. 

• Restricting dogs from piping plover 

breeding areas during the breeding 

season. 

• Flagging or fencing plants prior to any 

work in or adjacent to Pitcher’s thistle 

habitat. Every effort would be made to 

avoid any impacts to these plants. 

• Providing education about the listed 

species and their habitats. 

• Designating alternate access points away 

from areas occupied by listed species. 

The National Park Service staff anticipates 

that adverse effects could be avoided in all 

projects proposed under alternative C. The 

National Park Service cannot foresee at this 

time any project for which adverse effects 

could not be avoided. In the rare event that 

adverse effects could not be avoided, the 

project would either be discontinued or NPS 

staff would request formal consultation with 

266 
Impacts of Alternative C 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. As such, 

any impacts from implementation of 

alternative C would likely have only beneficial, 

insignificant, or discountable effects on piping 

plover and piping plover critical habitat, 

Michigan monkey flower, and Pitcher’s 

thistle. 

At the landscape level, alternative C is not 

likely to adversely affect listed species because 

the proposed management direction under 

this alternative would result in conditions that 

are beneficial to preserving habitat and would 

minimize adverse impacts on listed species to 

insignificant or discountable. As such, 

implementation of alternative C may affect 

but would not be likely to adversely affect 

piping plover and piping plover critical 

habitat, Michigan monkey flower, and 

Pitcher’s thistle. 

Conservation Measures. Conservation 

measures are activities above and beyond 

avoidance measures and are undertaken to 

reduce potential impacts on federally listed 

species or candidate species. Initiation of 

conservation measures would occur in 

consultation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and would be required if any of the 

following occurred: 

• initiation of activities anticipated to have 

impacts to piping plovers or their 

designated critical habitat beyond those 

addressed in this document 

• additional Michigan monkey flower 

occurrences within the Lakeshore were 

identified in areas where they might 

potentially be impacted 

• initiation of activities anticipated to have 

impacts on Michigan monkey flower 

populations 

• initiation of activities anticipated to have 

impacts on Pitcher’s thistle populations 

beyond those addressed in this document 

Renewed discussion and consultation with the 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, should any of 

the above events occur, would focus on 

development of specific conservation 

measures to reduce potential impacts on these 

species and/or designated critical habitat. 

Such conservation measures would be based 

on the recommendations provided by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past, present, and 

anticipated projects that would contribute to 

impacts on federally listed species and 

designated critical habit include (1) the 

improvements to the parking areas at the ends 

of Leelanau County Roads 651 and 669; (2)

implementation of the “Fire Management 

Plan”; (3) improvements to the Lake Michigan 

overlooks accessed from the Pierce Stocking 

Scenic Drive; and (4) activities presented in 

table 21. Most of these actions would benefit 

natural resources including federally listed 

species and their designated critical habitats. 

Some past projects at the National Lakeshore, 

however, such as the site restoration project 

near Big Glen Lake, have adversely affected 

federally listed species, i.e., Michigan monkey 

flower. These resulted in formal consultation 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

During implementation, actions would be 

taken to avoid or minimize potential adverse 

impacts on such species. Any adverse impacts, 

such as trampling and sensory-based disrupttion, would be insignificant or discountable. 

The impacts of the actions described above, 

together with the impacts of alternative C, 

may affect but would not be likely to adversely 

affect piping plover, piping plover critical 

habitat, Pitcher’s thistle, and Michigan 

monkey flower. Alternative C would likely 

contribute a relatively small component to 

these cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Any adverse impacts of 

alternative C on the addressed federally listed 

species and designated critical habitat within 

the Lakeshore would be no more than 

insignificant or discountable over both the 

short and long terms. Implementation of 

alternative C may affect but would not likely 

adversely affect the addressed listed species 

and critical habitat. Other projects, combined 

267 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

with the impacts of alternative C, on federally 

listed species and designated critical habitat 

may affect but would not likely adversely 

affect piping plover, piping plover critical 

habitat, Pitcher’s thistle, and Michigan 

monkey flower. There would be no impairment of federal threatened and endangered 

species from this alternative (see specific 

definition of impairment in the “Impairment 

of National Lakeshore Resources” section). 

Michigan State-Listed Species 

Readers are encouraged to refer back to the 

“Michigan State-Listed Species” discussion in 

the “Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing 

Impacts” section for additional details on the 

types of impacts resulting from visitor use and 

development. 

Under alternative C, 32% of the National 

Lakeshore would be managed as wilderness 

(assuming that Congress acts to designate 

wilderness), a 7,703-acre (11%) decrease over 

the no-action alternative. Areas on both 

islands and in the central and southern 

portions of the mainland would be managed 

as wilderness. This reduction in the portion of 

the Lakeshore conveying wilderness protection to vegetation and wildlife, combined with 

a relatively large portion of the mainland 

portions of the Lakeshore being zoned high 

use, would likely have short- and long-term, 

minor to moderate, adverse impacts on 

Michigan state-listed species within the 

Lakeshore. 

Use of the new bay-to-bay trail, concession 

tours to near the Giant Cedars area on South 

Manitou Island; and potential activities at the 

end of Esch Road, in the area stretching from 

the Pierce Stocking Scenic Drive to Sleeping 

Bear Bay, and at the end of County Road 669 

could impact Michigan state-listed species 

associated with the shoreline/dunes/nearshore habitat complex. The concession tours 

to near the Giant Cedars area could also 

impact the state-listed species associated with 

that sensitive area. Although short-term 

impacts due to trampling, habitat alteration, 

and sensory-based disturbance, which would 

likely be moderately adverse, could be somewhat reduced by continued NPS vigilance in 

monitoring and actively managing such 

impacts, the extensive nature of the proposed 

high-use zones and their proximity to sensitive resources suggests that long-term adverse 

impacts would also range from minor to 

moderate. 

Continued use of motorized boats on School, 

Bass (Leelanau County), North Bar, and Loon 

lakes and on the Crystal and Platte rivers 

would continue to have short- and long-term 

minor adverse effects on their associated 

state-listed species due to shoreline erosion, 

resuspension of sediments, pollution, and 

sensory-based disruption , and on mature 

forest species in areas close to these lakes. 

Implementation of user capacity management 

(see discussion in chapter 2) to reduce impacts 

of visitor use in sensitive and yet popular areas 

such as the Platte River corridor, would have 

short- and long-term, minor to moderate 

beneficial impacts. 

Developing the bay-to-bay trail; providing 

designated campsites on North Manitou 

Island; relocating the D. H. Day group campground to the D. H. Day campground; 

upgrading or expanding the D. H. Day 

campground; and development within the 

high-use zones at the ends of County Road 

669, Esch Road, and at the mouth of the Platte 

River could all negatively impact state-listed 

species associated with shoreline/dunes/nearshore habitat due to trampling, habitat alteration, and sensory-based disruption. Developments such as the M-22/M-109 hike/bike trail, 

a short loop trail and small parking area at 

Bow Lakes, and improved access (parking 

areas, ramps or docks) at a few inland lakes 

(locations to be determined) could result in 

habitat loss and degradation for species 

associated with lake/wetland/riparian habitat, 

which could be reduced, to some extent, by 

strategic location and design. Increased visitor 

268 
Impacts of Alternative C 

use and associated increases in trampling, 

habitat alteration, and sensory-based 

disruption of species in these areas could also 

be expected. The sum of these impacts on 

Michigan state-listed species in the Lakeshore 

would likely be short and long term, minor to 

moderate, and adverse. 

Continued NPS acquisition of lands in the 

Benzie Corridor would have short- and longterm minor beneficial impacts on state-listed 

species near that area by protecting them from 

impacts associated with private development. 

Construction and use of a nonmotorized 

hike/bike trail along the Benzie Corridor 

could result in short-term (construction) and 

long-term (use) negligible adverse impacts on 

state-listed species occurring near the corridor through habitat loss and alteration and 

sensory-based disruption of wildlife 

behaviors. Private development would 

probably continue at its current pace and have 

negligible to minor adverse impacts on these 

resources. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past, present, and 

anticipated projects that would contribute to 

impacts on Michigan state-listed plant and 

animal species include (1) the improvements 

to the parking areas at the ends of Leelanau 

County Roads 651 and 669; (2) Glen Haven 

Village improvements; (3) implementation of 

the “Fire Management Plan”; (4) improvements to the Lake Michigan overlooks 

accessed from the Pierce Stocking Scenic 

Drive; (5) riverbank stabilization on the Platte 

River at the former Water Wheel and Casey’s 

Corner canoe liveries; (6) restoration 

approximating the natural topography, 

hydrology, and native vegetative cover of 

nonhistoric areas disturbed by past land uses 

— particularly those in critical dunes areas; 

and (7) minor improvements to the Dune 

Climb parking area. Each of these projects 

would involve short-term adverse impacts 

during construction. The long-term impacts 

would likely be minor to moderate beneficial, 

such as habitat enhancement. 

The impacts of the other actions described 

above, together with the impacts of alternative 

B, would result in short- and long-term, 

negligible to moderate adverse cumulative 

impacts, and minor to moderate beneficial 

cumulative impacts. Alternative C would likely 

contribute a relatively small component to 

these cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Alternative C would have shortand long-term, minor to moderate, adverse 

impacts, and short- and long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial impacts on state-listed 

species. The cumulative impacts would likely 

be short and long term, negligible to moderate 

adverse, and minor to moderate beneficial. 

There would be no impairment of state-listed 

species from this alternative (see specific 

definition of impairment in the “Impairment 

of National Lakeshore Resources” section). 

Wetlands and Water Quality 

Readers are encouraged to refer back to the 

“Wetlands and Water Quality” discussion in 

the “Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing 

Impacts” section for additional details on the 

types of impacts resulting from visitor use and 

development. 

Current visitor activities that would continue 

and might impact wetlands and water quality 

include continued use of motorized boats on 

School, Loon, North Bar and Bass (Leelanau 

County) lakes and the Crystal and Platte 

rivers. Motorboat use would continue to 

result in resuspension of sediments and 

pollution of wetlands and water bodies. 

Impacts on wetlands and water quality from 

such activities would likely continue to be 

short and long term, minor to moderate, and 

adverse. Implementation of user capacity 

management (see discussion in chapter 2) to 

reduce impacts of visitor use in sensitive and 

yet popular areas such as the Platte River 

corridor, would have short- and long-term, 

minor to moderate beneficial impacts. 

269 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The bay-to-bay trail and the M-22/M-109 

hike/bike trail could impact wetlands and 

water quality through erosion, runoff, and 

pollution during construction, and trampling, 

erosion, resuspension of sediments, and 

pollution during use. Assuming use of best 

management practices during construction, 

and careful monitoring of impacts during use, 

the overall impacts would likely be short and 

long term, minor to moderate, and adverse. 

 

Potential improvements at the end of Esch 

Road, County Road 669, and at the mouth of 

the Platte River could result in impacts from 

trampling, resuspension of sediments, erosion, 

and dust. Given the extensive area zoned as 

high use under this alternative, and assuming 

practicable levels of NPS monitoring and 

management, the sum of these impacts would 

likely be moderately adverse over both the 

short and long terms. 

Upgrades to boat access at some inland lakes, 

upgrade of the Glen Lake picnic area and 

Dune Climb facilities, additional trails in the 

Glen Lake high-use zone, upgrades or 

expansion of the D. H. Day campground, and 

a short loop trail and small parking area in the 

Bow Lakes area might impact wetlands and 

water quality. Assuming use of best management practices during construction, impacts 

due to the Bow Lakes trail and parking area 

would likely be short term, minor to 

moderate, and adverse during construction, 

and long term, minor to moderate, and 

beneficial after construction. These actions 

would focus visitor use on less sensitive areas 

(e.g., designated trails). Impacts of the 

remaining developments would be primarily 

due to potential erosion during construction, 

and erosion, dust, and pollution during use. 

Assuming use of best management practices, 

impacts would likely be short and long term, 

moderate, and adverse. 

Continued NPS acquisition of lands within 

the Benzie Corridor would help protect 

wetlands and water quality below this area 

from the impacts of private development, 

resulting in short- and long-term, negligible to 

minor beneficial impacts. Construction and 

use of a nonmotorized hike/bike trail along 

the Benzie Corridor would result in shortterm (construction) and long-term (use) 

negligible adverse impacts on water resources 

through increased stormwater runoff 

associated with construction activities and 

subsequent increased impermeable surface 

area. Private development would probably 

continue at its current pace and have 

negligible to minor adverse impacts on these 

resources. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past, present, and 

anticipated projects that would contribute to 

impacts on wetlands and water quality include 

(1) implementation of the “Fire Management 

Plan”; (2) riverbank stabilization on the Platte 

River at the former Water Wheel and Casey’s 

Corner canoe liveries; (3) restoration 

approximating the natural topography, 

hydrology, and native vegetative cover of 

nonhistoric areas disturbed by past land uses 

— particularly those in critical dunes areas; (4)

minor improvements to the Dune Climb 

parking area; and (5) dredging of the Platte 

River mouth. Although each of these projects 

would involve short-term adverse impacts 

(e.g. dredging of the Platte River resulting in 

short-term suspension of particulates in the 

water and resulting lower water quality 

immediately downstream (lakeside) of the 

dredging), the net result would likely be longterm, minor to moderate beneficial impacts 

(e.g. dredging the mouth of the Platte River 

allows boats to pass without continuously 

hitting the bottom, stirring up material, and 

reducing water quality). 

The impacts of the other actions described 

above, together with the impacts of alternative 

C, would result in short- and long-term, 

negligible to moderate adverse cumulative 

impacts, and short- and long-term, negligible 

to moderate beneficial cumulative effects. 

Alternative C would likely contribute a relatively small component to these cumulative 

impacts. 

270 
Impacts of Alternative C 

Conclusion. Alternative C would have shortterm, negligible to moderate, adverse; shortand long-term, moderate, adverse; short-term, 

negligible to minor, beneficial; and long-term 

negligible to moderate beneficial impacts on 

wetlands and water quality. The cumulative 

impacts would be short and long term, 

negligible to moderate adverse, and short and 

long term, negligible to moderate beneficial. 

There would be no impairment of wetlands or 

water quality from this alternative (see specific 

definition of impairment in the “Impairment 

of National Lakeshore Resources” section). 

VISITOR OPPORTUNITIES AND USE 

Visitor Opportunities 

Opportunities would be available for visitors 

to experience the fundamental resources and 

values of the Lakeshore and to learn about the 

Lakeshore’s primary interpretive themes (see 

chapter 1 “Fundamental Resources and 

Values” and “Primary Interpretive Themes” 

sections). Visitors would have access to 

information, interpretation, and educational 

opportunities at a variety of locations, 

including the visitor center in Empire, at Glen 

Haven, and at the visitor contact station on 

South Manitou Island. Interpretive and 

educational activities would be more 

structured (e.g., more guided programs) in the 

concentrated use areas, and self-guided 

elsewhere, providing options at both ends of 

the spectrum. These opportunities would 

have long-term, moderate beneficial impacts. 

Access to and through the Lakeshore would 

be on the existing network of state, county, 

and NPS roads. Visitors would have increased 

Lakeshore access with the addition of a 

hike/bike trail in the Benzie Corridor, the M22/M-109 hike/bike trail (initiated by others), 

and the bay-to-bay hiker/paddler trail, and 

concessioner-operated interpretive tours to 

near the Giant Cedars area would be 

considered. Seasonal ferry service would be 

provided for overnight trips to North 

Manitou Island and day and overnight trips to 

South Manitou Island (similar to the noaction alternative). The above-noted increases 

in Lakeshore access would have long-term, 

moderate beneficial impacts. 

The scenic resources of the Lakeshore would 

reflect relatively large areas that are natural in 

character (this alternative has the second 

greatest amount of experience nature zone) 

and other areas with concentrated recreationoriented development (this alternative has the 

greatest amount of the high-use zone). The 

development of a hike/bike trail in the Benzie 

Corridor could result in views of the Crystal 

Ridge being slightly less natural in character 

than the no-action alternative. However, the 

Benzie Corridor trail would provide visitors 

with new access to panoramic views of the 

Lakeshore and surrounding landscape. As in 

the no-action alternative, visitors could 

continue to experience Lakeshore sites that 

reflect the area’s culture and history (e.g., 

Glen Haven, Port Oneida, and cultural 

resources on North Manitou and South 

Manitou islands). Even with some increased 

development, there would be long-term, 

moderate, beneficial impacts on opportunities 

to experience the natural and cultural scenic 

resources of the Lakeshore. 

Much of the additional recreation-oriented 

development would be concentrated in select 

areas resulting in a modest level of development, while fewer and more primitive facilities 

would be provided elsewhere. Additional 

facilities include a hike/bike trail in the Benzie 

Corridor; the M-22/M-109 hike/bike trail 

(initiated by others); the bay-to-bay hiker/ 

paddler trail; additional trails south of Glen 

Haven and to Shauger Hill; the relocation of 

the D. H. Day group campground to the main 

D. H. Day campground; the addition of 

amenities and/or capacity at the D. H. Day 

campground; the addition of designated 

campgrounds on North Manitou Island; 

upgraded/expanded facilities at Little Glen 

Lake picnic/beach area; upgraded facilities at 

the Dune Climb to support continued heavy 

visitor use; improved parking areas and 

271 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

ramps/docks at a few inland lakes; expanded 

facilities at the ends of County Road 669, Esch 

Road, and Platte River Point; and a trailhead 

parking area and short loop trail in the Bow 

Lakes area. Even with these changes, the scale 

of recreation-oriented development in the 

Lakeshore would be modest. This level of 

development would have long-term, moderate 

beneficial impacts for visitors. 

There would continue to be a wide range of 

recreational activities in the Lakeshore 

(similar to the no-action alternative) however, 

opportunities for nonmotorized recreational 

activities such as hiking, biking, backpacking, 

paddling, cross-country skiing, and backcountry camping would be facilitated and 

expanded. Opportunities for facility-based 

recreational activities would primarily be 

increased in the high-use zones (e.g., 

669/Good Harbor Bay, south of Glen Haven 

to Shauger Hill, Esch Beach, and Platte River 

Point). User capacity management would 

improve visitor experiences on the Platte 

River. These changes to the range of 

recreational activities in the Lakeshore would 

have long-term, minor beneficial impacts. 

Natural sounds would continue to dominate 

the Lakeshore except along roadways, in 

developed areas, where motorized boats are 

allowed (along rivers, at specific inland lakes, 

and on Lake Michigan), and when aircraft are 

flying over. There is the potential for 

increased visitor opportunities and facilities in 

the 669/Good Harbor Bay, south of Glen 

Haven to Shauger Hill, Esch Beach, and Platte 

River Point areas. A hike/bike trail would be 

developed in the Benzie Corridor; associated 

noise (minor) would likely be comparable to 

similar Lakeshore facilities. Natural sounds 

would also be temporarily disrupted locally by 

construction activities. Because of more 

visitor opportunities and development in this 

alternative, there would be slightly more 

disruptions to natural sounds compared to the 

no-action alternative; with mitigation these 

impacts would be long term, minor, and 

adverse. 

The naturally dark night sky would continue 

to be predominant in the Lakeshore despite 

vehicular lights along roadways and lighting in 

developed areas. There is the potential for 

increased development in the 669/Good 

Harbor Bay, south of Glen Haven to Shauger 

Hill, Esch Beach, and Platte River Point areas. 

A hike/bike trail would be developed in the 

Benzie Corridor. Associated disruptions to the 

naturally dark night sky would likely be 

similar to other Lakeshore developed areas. 

Because of this localized increased development, compared to the no-action alternative 

there would be slightly more disruptions to 

the naturally dark night skies; with mitigation 

these impacts would be long term, minor, and 

adverse for those who value the dark night 

sky. 

Visitor Use 

Among the alternatives in this plan, alternative 

C would be expected to result in the largest 

increase in annual recreation use of any 

alternative. Alternative C reflects an emphasis 

on concentrated use in several high use zones, 

several of which would be near Lake 

Michigan. Expansion/improvements of the D. 

H. Day Campground, the M-22/M-109 

hike/bike trail (initiated by others), the bay-tobay hiker/paddler trail, more guided interpretive programs, improved access to near the 

Giant Cedars area, the Benzie Corridor 

hike/bike trail, facility improvements at road 

ends and inland lakes, and increased interpretive opportunities on the South Manitou 

Island farm loop tours would provide 

additional impetus for increased visitor use. 

Depending on the strategy(ies) chosen, 

implementation of user capacity management 

strategies on the Platte River might locally 

reduce visitor numbers. The net effect of the 

management direction established under 

alternative C would be a long-term increase of 

up to 125% above the increase anticipated 

under the no-action alternative (up to an 

estimated 105,000 additional annual visits). 

The timing and magnitude of increased visitor 

272 
Impacts of Alternative C 

use is difficult to predict because it would 

depend on when projects are funded or 

carried out. 

Visitors to the Lakeshore from outside the 

region would likely account for the majority 

of future visits, though the number of visits by 

local and seasonal residents would be 

expected to account for a large share of future 

visitor use. The largest increase in visitor use 

levels of all of the alternatives would have 

long-term and minor effects that might be 

concurrently viewed as beneficial or adverse, 

depending on the expectations and 

preferences of visitors. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects that would affect visitor opportunities and use include: (1) improvements to 

parking areas at the ends of Leelanau County 

Roads 651 and 669; (2) Glen Haven Village 

improvements; (3) improvements to the Pierce 

Stocking Scenic Drive Lake Michigan overlooks 9 and 10; (4) South Manitou Lighthouse 

Complex exterior restoration and interior 

rehabilitation; and (5) Dune Climb parking 

area paving and other minor improvements. 

These actions would improve visitor opportunities by improving enjoyment, access, 

and/or range of available opportunities for 

visitors and would have an overall long-term, 

minor, beneficial effect on visitor opportunities and use. Developments near the Lakeshore (particularly along the access roads and 

in/near Glen Arbor and Empire) might 

continue to occur; these could result in a 

degradation of natural scenic quality, natural 

soundscapes, and night sky. These actions 

would have a long-term, minor, adverse effect 

on visitors. Combined with alternative C, 

these actions would have a long-term, minor, 

beneficial cumulative effect. Impacts of 

alternative C would comprise a relatively small 

portion of the overall cumulative effect. 

Conclusion 

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 visitor 

opportunities, 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. Construction activities would have short-term, minor, 

adverse impacts. The cumulative effects 

would be long-term, moderate, and beneficial. 

WILDERNESS CHARACTER 

Natural and Undeveloped 

Under alternative C, about 23,200 acres (32 % 

of the National Lakeshore) would be proposed for wilderness designation, a 7,703-acre 

(11%) decrease from the no-action alternative. Assuming Congress acted to designate 

the proposed areas as wilderness, wilderness 

values would be protected forever in designated areas within the central and south 

mainland portions of the Lakeshore and each 

island. In contrast to the no-action alternative, 

there would be no wilderness protection for 

the north portion of the mainland, the Otter 

Creek area, or the southeastern portion of 

South Manitou Island. Naturalness and 

opportunities for solitude and primitive 

recreation would be reduced in these areas, 

but this effect would be tempered by 

management as the experience nature zone. A 

new area of designated wilderness and 

associated experiences would be available on 

the Sleeping Bear Plateau. Impacts would be 

long term, minor, beneficial, and adverse. 

In contrast to the no-action alternative, there 

would be no nonconforming motor vehicle or 

273 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

bicycle use within wilderness because county 

road rights-of-way would be excluded from 

wilderness. However, the presence of historic 

structures within wilderness would continue 

to locally diminish the areas’ undeveloped 

primeval character (same as the no-action 

alternative). Impacts would be localized, long 

term, minor, and beneficial and adverse. 

Opportunities for Solitude 

Outstanding opportunities for solitude would 

be available due to designated wilderness in 

two of three portions of the mainland and on 

the Manitou Islands. In particular, areas away 

from trails and facilities would continue to 

offer excellent prospects for privacy and 

isolation. Solitude would continue to be more 

easily found on North Manitou Island than on 

South Manitou Island because the former is 

larger, has fewer visitors (most of whom are 

seeking wilderness experiences), and would 

continue to lack day use. Also, in contrast to 

the no-action alternative, about one-third of 

South Manitou would not be managed as 

wilderness. Impacts on opportunities for 

solitude would be long term, minor, and 

beneficial and adverse. 

Opportunities for Primitive, 

Unconfined Recreation 

Compared to the no-action alternative, there 

would be reduced opportunities for day and 

overnight wilderness experiences on South 

Manitou Island. Due to the lack of day ferry 

service to North Manitou Island there would 

continue to be only overnight wilderness 

experience opportunities there. The backcountry camping permit requirement would 

remain in place, as would the requirement for 

campers to stay in designated campgrounds 

(except on North Manitou Island where 

camping would continue to be dispersed). 

Permit and camping requirements would 

continue to diminish opportunities for 

primitive, unconfined recreation to some 

degree. Alternative C’s impact on opportunities for primitive, unconfined recreation 

would be long term, minor, and beneficial and 

adverse. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Over time, the Lakeshore’s ongoing program 

to restore former nonhistoric sites to more 

natural conditions has substantially increased 

the natural, undeveloped character of the 

Lakeshore. The work includes removing 

nonnative trees and human enhancements, 

plus reestablishing more natural contours and 

native vegetation. Combined with this 

ongoing restoration program, alternative C 

would have long term, minor, beneficial and 

adverse cumulative effects. Impacts of 

alternative C would comprise a substantial 

portion of these overall cumulative effects. 

Conclusion 

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. Combined 

with other actions, alternative C would have 

long-term minor, beneficial and adverse 

cumulative effects on wilderness character. 

REGIONAL SOCIOECONOMICS 

Implementing alternative C would occur 

against the same backdrop of economic, 

demographic, and social conditions described 

under the no-action alternative. The 

274 
Impacts of Alternative C 

economic and social effects of alternative C 

would contribute to those conditions, but 

would not fundamentally alter the area’s 

economic and demographic outlook. 

Visitor-Related Economic Impacts 

Among the alternatives in this plan, alternative 

C would be expected to result in the largest 

increase in annual recreational use. 

Alternative C reflects an emphasis on 

concentrating use in several high-use areas in 

the Lakeshore. Several of these areas would be 

near the Lake Michigan lakeshore. The net 

effect of alternative C would be a long-term 

increase of up to 125% above the increase 

anticipated under the no-action alternative — 

up to an estimated 105,000 additional annual 

visits (see the “Impacts to the Alternative C — 

Visitor Use” section in this chapter). 

Changes in the geographic distribution, 

timing, and activity of visitor use within the 

National Lakeshore from implementation of 

alternative C could indirectly cause increased 

or reduced visitor use at other nearby outdoor 

recreation resources. Although the potential 

magnitude of such changes is higher than for 

the preferred alternative, such changes would 

not likely appreciably affect future management and operations of these resources. 

Retail, lodging, and other tourism-type 

spending would accompany the increased use 

with expenditures projected to reach $38.0 

million per year, $5.2 million higher than at 

present, and $2.9 million per year higher than 

for the no-action alternative. Demands for 

goods and services from local merchants and 

other recreation-oriented establishments 

might change over time in conjunction with 

shifts in visitor use. The National Lakeshore 

would collect more in entry fees and revenues 

from the sales of various passes, and Eastern 

National would sell more merchandise at the 

visitor center, with portions of these receipts 

retained to support recreational, cultural, and 

educational programs in the Lakeshore. 

Economic spin-offs of the visitor spending 

include higher personal income and 35 to 45 

more jobs than under the no-action alternative. Most of these added jobs would be 

seasonal. The visitor-related impacts would be 

long term but limited in scale relative to 

current employment and personal income in 

the two counties. 

The state and local governments would collect 

additional sales tax from the increases in 

visitor spending. 

The above visitor-related economic impacts 

would be beneficial, but negligible in the short 

term and minor and beneficial over the long 

term. 

Economic Impacts Related to 

Implementation and NPS Operations 

Alternative C would provide a sustained 

economic infusion to the region over the life 

of this plan resulting from ongoing NPS 

operating expenditures and $30.5 million in 

future construction spending ($23.9 million 

above that for the no-action alternative). The 

future construction budget includes $7.3 

million for the eventual construction of the 

Benzie hike/bike trail. However, there would 

be no assurances that the construction funds 

for the hike/bike trail would be forthcoming. 

Budgeted needs to address deferred maintenance would be the same as for the no-action 

alternative. 

As under the no-action alternative, maintenance staff would perform much of the work to 

address deferred maintenance and preservation, restoration and rehabilitation activities. 

Future construction needs would be higher 

than under the no-action alternative, supporting the local construction trades industry 

and associated vendors and suppliers. 

Annual NPS payroll, operating, and 

maintenance would produce long-term effects 

on employment, business sales, income and 

275 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

other related measures. A long-term increase 

of up to 19 full-time-equivalent employees 

could be supported by the management and 

actions included in alternative C. Staff would 

be added over time as specific projects, 

programs, and management included in this 

alternative were implemented. 

A need for a long-term increase in budgeted 

funds for NPS operations is identified in 

conjunction with alternative C (there are no 

assurances that such increases will occur). 

Available resources would include about $4.5 

million base budget appropriations ($600,000 

per year above the no-action alternative), 

more than $1.0 million in retained entry and 

camping fees, and various nonrecurring 

funding for supplemental and specific project 

construction. Total retained fees would be 

higher under alternative C than for the noaction alternative. 

As with the no-action alternative, 

supplemental funding would be required for 

future land acquisition in the Benzie Corridor. 

The eventual construction of a hike/bike trail 

in the Benzie Corridor would produce shortterm effects on local employment, business 

revenues, income, taxes, and other related 

economic measures. Some local heavy 

construction firms and related suppliers and 

vendors would likely garner a portion of the 

project construction spending. The magnitudes of the effects are indeterminate, in large 

part because the length of time required to 

complete the project is uncertain. Based on 

preliminary cost estimates, it is reasonable to 

anticipate that the effects would be beneficial, 

short term, and minor. 

Activities sponsored by the Lakeshore’s 

partners would provide additional sources of 

economic stimulus. The timing, magnitude, 

and indirect economic consequences of those 

activities are indeterminate. 

The economic effects associated with NPS 

operations would be beneficial, but negligible 

to minor in the short term and beneficial and 

minor over the long term. 

Effects on Regional Population 

Alternative C would have little direct impact 

on regional population growth. The increases 

in construction and long-term jobs and visitor 

use over the life of this plan would provide a 

minor impetus for growth, relative to other 

factors. 

Implementation of alternative C could 

indirectly enhance the region’s attractiveness 

for both job-related and retirement migration 

to the region as a result of enhanced 

developed recreational opportunities and 

establishment of wilderness on the mainland. 

The effects of implementing alternative C on 

regional population growth under this alternative would be negligible to minor, both in 

the short term and the long term. Generally, 

population growth would be viewed as 

beneficial. 

Community Services 

Over time, increasing visitor use at the Lakeshore under alternative C would indirectly 

result in added demands on community 

services and facilities across the region. The 

limited scale, seasonal nature, and spatial 

dispersion of such demands across the region 

would be such that facility expansions and 

additional staffing would not be required. 

Effects on community services under 

alternative C would be indeterminate and 

negligible over the short and long terms. 

Traffic and Emergency Services 

Traffic impacts of alternative C would be 

similar to, but greater than those under the 

no-action alternative. With the concentration 

276 
Impacts of Alternative C 

of high-use zoning in the vicinity of the Dunes 

Climb / Glen Haven / Glen lakes areas, traffic 

increases would be more heavily concentrated 

on M-22, M-109, and surrounding local roads. 

Even with the increases, future traffic volumes 

would remain substantially below design 

capacity and not dramatically increase maintenance requirements. Increases in traffic 

volumes could accelerate the onset of less 

than desirable levels of service at the M-22/M109 intersection in Glen Arbor, possibly 

triggering intersection improvements (Robert 

Peccia & Associates. 2001). 

The eventual completion of a hike/bike trail in 

the Benzie Corridor would increase traffic on 

public roadways in the southern portion of 

the Lakeshore — both vehicular and bicycle. 

The increases could be accompanied by 

limited increases in noise and related factors. 

Motorized vehicular traffic would not be 

allowed on the hike/bike trail. 

 

Implementation of alternative C would result 

in greater increases in demand on law 

enforcement and first responders in Leelanau 

County as compared to the no-action alternative. Demands associated with this alternative would not require additional law 

enforcement or emergency response staffing, 

although the increases in the number of “call 

outs” could burden area first response 

agencies because they are partially staffed by 

volunteers. 

The effects of implementing alternative C on 

traffic and emergency services across most of 

the region would be adverse, but minor over 

the short and long terms. 

Attitudes and Lifestyles 

Alternative C establishes future management 

direction for the Lakeshore that reflects 

public input and the Lakeshore’s purpose, 

significance, and fundamental resources and 

values. In terms of attitudes, some individuals 

might be dismayed because they might feel 

that the management zones and wilderness 

proposals do not go far enough to achieve 

their particular preferences. For example, the 

reconfiguration of wilderness to exclude 

county roads and sizable sections of the 

mainland but continue management of a 

substantial area as wilderness might not satisfy 

those who favor a maximum wilderness 

proposal. 

The recreation, conservation, and resource 

management opportunities associated with 

alternative C would have both direct and 

indirect lifestyle consequences, with the direct 

consequences most apparent to neighbors and 

visitors to the Lakeshore. For example, future 

visitors would have access to a broader range 

of experiences and options, including 

wilderness on the mainland and enhanced 

access to backcountry use along the shoreline. 

Individuals promoting improved boating 

access to the Lake Michigan would be 

encouraged by the long-term potential to 

study the feasibility of providing such access. 

Many residents and local government officials 

would approve of the explicit statements and 

policies regarding state and county roads and 

other valid existing rights reflected in this 

plan. 

Construction and completion of the Benzie 

hike/bike trail would affect the lifestyles of 

residents and their guests in the vicinity of the 

corridor. Short-term effects during construction would include noise, potentially blasting, 

truck traffic, and an increased presence of 

humans into settings that had been more 

remote and private. The construction-related 

noise and traffic would diminish over the long 

term, but some limited increase in noise and 

awareness of the presence of others would 

continue. Most of these impacts would be 

viewed as adverse. 

Some property owners, along with members 

of the broader community, would view the 

opening of the Benzie hike/bike trail positively 

for the visitor opportunities (hiking, enjoying 

277 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

the scenic vistas, picnicking, and bicycling) it 

would provide. 

The management and access policies 

established under alternative C might have 

indirect consequences on attitudes and 

lifestyles. Such consequences could arise 

primarily in terms of the extent to which 

alternative C influences or changes recreation 

and resource conditions at a broader level 

over the long term. For example, changes in 

shoreline access might contribute to higher 

population growth in the region and attract 

more use at the Lakeshore and conflicts with 

the preferences and desires of others to 

discourage more use. Given the relatively 

small size of the community, such conflicts 

can become sources of long-term division or 

strength. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative social and economic impacts from 

alternative C would be of the same type, but 

larger in scale, as those under the no-action 

alternative. The effects of underlying 

development trends in the region include 

long-term, moderate population and 

economic growth, long-term increases in 

traffic on local roads, related impacts on 

public safety, higher spending that bolsters 

community- and recreation-oriented 

businesses in the region, and additional tax 

revenues to fund public services and facilities. 

The other cumulative actions could result in 

some long-term negligible economic effects 

on visitor-related businesses, and on local 

traffic and safety, due to changes in visitor use 

levels and distribution. 

The incremental economic and social effects 

of alternative, C including those associated 

with increased visitor and NPS operating 

expenditures, would be negligible to minor in 

the short term and minor in the long term, and 

generally beneficial. Alternative C, combined 

with the impacts of other actions described 

above, would result in minor short- and longterm adverse cumulative effects on traffic and 

highway safety. Impacts of alternative B would 

comprise a small portion of these overall 

cumulative effects. 

Conclusion 

The economic effects of alternative C would 

include negligible to minor short-term and 

minor to moderate long-term economic 

benefits, the latter due to increased visitation. 

Among the alternatives, alternative C offers 

the largest economic benefits for the region. 

Short- and long-term effects on lifestyles and 

attitudes are indeterminate; many interested 

parties would support this alternative, but 

some would be disappointed in one or more 

of its aspects. Long-term social consequences 

include a negligible to minor contribution to 

long-term population growth and demands on 

community infrastructure and services. 

Overall, the cumulative social and economic 

effects associated with alternative C would be 

minor, short and long term, and indeterminate 

as they include effects that might be 

concurrently viewed as beneficial or adverse. 

NPS OPERATIONS 

Under alternative C, the Lakeshore’s 

maintenance and operational load would be 

increased by (1) managing the busy high use 

zone west of Little Glen Lake (with more need 

for patrols and monitoring for use-related 

impacts); (2) developing a hike/bike trail 

within the Benzie Corridor (a new area to 

patrol and new facilities to maintain); (3) 

adding other new trails and backcountry 

campgrounds; improving and/or expanding 

the D. H. Day Campground; (4) managing the 

ends of County Road 669, Esch Road, and the 

Platte River mouth as more developed beach 

access areas; (5) upgrading the Glen Lake 

picnic area to support beach and picnic use; 

(6) possibly adding concession tours to near 

the Giant Cedars area; (7) providing more 

structured interpretive opportunities in 

278 
Impacts of Alternative C 

concentrated use areas, and (8) a modest 

increase in visitation over time. Some 

increased maintenance would also be incurred 

with a new M-22/M-109 hike/bike trail. 

Concentrating use in specific areas and most 

other facility-based changes, such as 

relocating the D. H. Day group campground 

to the main D. H. Day Campground and 

upgrades at the Dune Climb, would decrease 

maintenance needs for individual areas or 

change the nature of the maintenance needs 

without increasing the burden. Wilderness 

minimum requirement analysis would be 

required for 23,200 acres, a 7,703-acre (11%) 

reduction from the no-action alternative. 

Impacts of alternative C would be long term, 

minor beneficial and moderate adverse. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Ongoing and planned facility upgrades and 

restoration/rehabilitation projects would have 

mostly beneficial impacts because these 

projects would result in reduced resource 

management and cyclic maintenance needs. 

Dredging of the Platte River mouth would 

continue to place demands upon the 

maintenance staff and budget, a minor adverse 

effect. Combined with these impacts, 

alternative C would have long-term minor 

beneficial and moderate adverse cumulative 

effects. Alternative C would comprise a 

substantial portion of these cumulative effects. 

Conclusion 

Alternative C would have long-term minor 

beneficial and moderate adverse impacts on 

NPS operations. This alternative, combined 

with other actions, would have long-term 

minor beneficial and moderate adverse 

cumulative effects. 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

Some negligible to moderate impacts to soils, 

vegetation, wildlife, water resources, wilderness character, scenic resources, natural 

sound, and night sky caused by recreational 

use and facilities would be essentially 

unavoidable (e.g., soil compaction, vegetation 

trampling, wildlife disturbances, decreased 

opportunities for solitude, decreased 

naturalness). Increases in visitor use would 

have low level adverse impacts on regional 

socioeconomics (e.g., increased traffic). 

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE 

COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 

Irreversible commitments of resources are 

actions that result in loss of resources that 

cannot be reversed. Irretrievable commitments of resources are actions that result in 

the loss of resources but only for a limited 

period of time. 

With the exception of consumption of fuels 

and raw materials for maintenance or 

construction activities, no actions in this 

alternative would result in consumption of 

nonrenewable natural resources or use of 

renewable resources that would preclude 

other uses for a period of time. 

RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM 

USES AND LONG-TERM 

PRODUCTIVITY 

The National Lakeshore would continue to be 

used by the public, and most areas would be 

protected in a natural state. The National Park 

Service would continue to manage the Lakeshore to maintain ecological processes and 

native biological communities and to provide 

appropriate recreational opportunities 

consistent with the preservation of cultural 

and natural resources. Actions would be taken 

with care to minimize adverse effects on the 

long-term productivity of biotic communities. 

279 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

280 

Under alternative C there would be expanded 

(but still relatively modest) facilities to support 

recreational use and some localized loss of 

ecological productivity.