South Manitou Island Dock

The Alternatives, 

Including the Preferred Alternative

2

Interpretive Program at Maritime Museum Volunteer Blacksmith, Glen Haven

INTRODUCTION 

This chapter presents five alternatives, 

including the preferred alternative, for future 

management of Sleeping Bear Dunes National 

Lakeshore. The alternatives were developed 

through a lengthy and diligent public 

involvement process, described in detail in the 

“Public Involvement, Including Scoping” 

section in chapter 6. The five alternatives, 

each of which is consistent with the National 

Lakeshore’s purpose, significance, and 

fundamental resources and values, are the noaction (“business as usual”) alternative, the 

preferred alternative, alternative A, alternative 

B, and alternative C. The no-action alternative 

is included as a baseline for comparing the 

environmental consequences of implementing 

each “action” alternative. This chapter also 

includes sections on implementation of the 

general management plan, management zones, 

user capacity, mitigative measures common to 

all action alternatives, and the environmentally preferred alternative. It also includes a table 

that compares the alternatives, a table that 

shows the possible range of treatment for 

historic properties under the alternatives, and 

a table that summarizes the expected impacts 

of implementing the alternatives. 

37 
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 

IMPLEMENTATION FUNDING 

Although this General Management Plan

provides the analysis and justification for 

future National Lakeshore funding proposals, 

this plan does not guarantee future NPS 

funding. Many actions would be necessary to 

achieve the desired conditions for natural 

resources, cultural resources, recreational 

opportunities, and facilities as envisioned in 

this plan. The National Park Service will 

request funding to achieve these desired 

conditions; although the National Lakeshore 

hopes to secure this funding and will prepare 

itself accordingly, the Lakeshore may not 

receive enough funding to achieve all desired 

conditions. Because NPS funding may be 

insufficient to accomplish the goals set by the 

plan, National Lakeshore managers will need 

to continue to pursue other options, including 

expanding the service of volunteers, drawing 

upon existing or new partnerships, and 

seeking alternative funding sources, including 

the philanthropic community. Many people 

care deeply about their national parks (and 

Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore in 

particular), and these people are likely to 

continue to offer assistance in meeting NPS 

goals that matter most to them. Many 

potential partner groups exist whose missions 

are compatible with that of the Lakeshore, 

and these groups are likely to offer to work 

with the Lakeshore for mutual benefit. 

Even with assistance from supplemental 

sources, Lakeshore managers may be faced 

with difficult choices when setting priorities. 

The General Management Plan provides the 

framework within which to make these 

choices. 

KEY IMPLEMENTATION PLANS TO 

FOLLOW THIS GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS STUDY / 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT 

Wilderness Management 

If Congress acts to designate wilderness within the National Lakeshore, a wilderness 

management plan would be developed. The 

wilderness management plan would guide 

NPS managers in the preservation, management, and use of areas designated as wilderness. The wilderness management plan would 

be developed with public input and would 

comply with the National Environmental 

Policy Act (1969) and other applicable laws 

and policies. 

Asset Management 

The National Park Service is developing a 

national program for managing structures and 

facilities (assets) in park system units. This 

program is likely to call for development of an 

asset management plan for each park unit. 

Such plans are designed to provide park managers with a means of prioritizing, scheduling, 

and funding maintenance and repair work. 

They also include techniques to manage gaps 

between needed and anticipated funding, 

such as “mothballing” or even disposing of 

lower priority assets. The Lakeshore’s asset 

management plan would follow the guidelines 

of the national program, including guidance 

for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, Sections 106 and 110 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act, and other 

applicable laws and policies. 

38 
Implementation of the General Management Plan 

Ethnographic Resources Study/Assessment 

The National Lakeshore will conduct 

ethnographic studies to formally identify 

groups of people with traditional associations 

to park lands and waters. This is a key step 

toward ensuring that ethnographic resources 

are protected. 

39 
MANAGEMENT ZONES 

Management zones prescribe how different 

areas of the National Lakeshore would be 

managed. Each management zone specifies 

complementary natural resource conditions, 

cultural resource conditions, opportunities 

for visitor experiences, and appropriate 

facilities, and combines these into a possible 

management strategy that could be applied to 

locations within the National Lakeshore. As 

such, management zones give an indication of 

the management priorities for various areas. 

Four management zones have been developed 

for the National Lakeshore — the high use 

zone, the experience history zone, the 

recreation zone, and the experience nature 

zone. The action alternatives presented later 

in this chapter each propose a different 

configuration of the management zones 

within the National Lakeshore based on the 

concept for each alternative. In every 

management zone, the Lakeshore intends to 

preserve and protect natural and cultural 

resources to the greatest extent possible given 

available funds. An overview of the 

management zones is provided on the 

following page, with more detail in table 1 that 

follows. The table describes the conditions, 

opportunities, and services that would apply 

to each management zone. The management 

zones are listed in order from most intensive 

management (high use zone) to least intensive 

management (experience nature zone). 

The cultural resource treatments mentioned 

in the management zones table (table 1) are 

defined as follows: 

 Preservation is the act or process of applying the measures necessary to 

sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of a historic property. Work, 

including preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property, generally 

focuses on ongoing maintenance and repair of historic materials and features 

rather than extensive replacement and new construction. 

 Rehabilitation is the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a 

property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those 

portions or features that convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. 

 Restoration is the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, 

and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by 

removing features from other periods in its history and reconstructing missing 

features from the restoration period. 

40 
Management Zones 

High Use Zone 

This management zone provides for visitor 

orientation, education, and other structured 

activities (such as ranger-led tours). High numbers 

of visitors enjoy and learn about the National 

Lakeshore. This zone also supports the Lakeshore’s 

main administrative and operational facilities. 

Wilderness does not occur in this zone. 

____________________________________________________ 

Experience History Zone 

This management zone is managed primarily 

to preserve historic structures and landscapes. 

Moderate to high numbers of visitors enjoy 

and learn about significant historic activities, 

buildings, and landscapes. Wilderness does not 

occur in this zone. 

_____________________________________________________ 

Recreation Zone 

This management zone provides a wide range of 

recreational opportunities for moderate numbers of 

visitors. The active Lake Michigan beach area is within 

this zone, as is the 0.25 mile of Lake Michigan waters 

within the National Lakeshore boundary. Wilderness 

does not occur in this zone. 

_____________________________________________________ 

Experience Nature Zone 

This is the wildest, most natural management zone. 

Low numbers of visitors enjoy primitive recreation on 

foot or in nonmotorized watercraft. Wilderness may or 

may not occur in this zone. 

41 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

TABLE 1: MANAGEMENT ZONES

High Use Zone Experience History Zone 

Overview This management zone provides for visitor 

orientation, education, and other structured 

activities (such as ranger-led tours). High numbers 

of visitors enjoy and learn about the National 

Lakeshore. This zone also supports the Lakeshore’s 

main administrative and operational facilities. 

Wilderness does not occur in this zone. 

This management zone is managed primarily to 

preserve historic structures and landscapes. 

Moderate to high numbers of visitors enjoy and 

learn about significant historic activities, buildings, 

and landscapes. Wilderness does not occur in this 

zone. 

Resource 

Conditions 

This zone is characterized by high levels of 

recreational use in a modified natural environment. 

This developed zone may be located in previously 

disturbed areas or areas with relatively resilient 

natural resources that can be modified to support 

development with acceptable impacts. Natural 

resources may be modified to accommodate NPS 

operational facilities or high levels of visitor use. 

Cultural resource treatments in this zone may 

range from preservation to rehabilitation based 

on fundamental resources, national register significance, documentation, condition, interpretive 

value, and suitability for NPS operations. Cultural 

resources may be modified to accommodate NPS 

operational facilities or high levels of visitor use. 

This zone is characterized by cultural resources set 

within a natural environment. Protecting and 

preserving cultural resources is a very high priority. 

In keeping with the focus on cultural resources, 

natural resources may be modified to preserve, 

rehabilitate, or restore cultural resources. Cultural 

resource treatments in this zone may range from 

preservation to restoration based on 

fundamental park resources, national register 

significance, documentation, condition, 

interpretive value, and suitability for NPS 

operations. Cultural resources may be modified to 

provide safe visitor access or to preserve them 

through adaptive use. 

Visitor 

Opportunities 

The easily accessed areas in this zone focus on a 

connection with and appreciation of special 

Lakeshore resources. Visitors are offered a variety 

of opportunities for orientation, interpretation, and 

education. Conveying Lakeshore themes to visitors 

is a priority. Common visitor activities may include 

viewing scenic vistas, taking short walks, 

picnicking, camping in developed campgrounds 

accessible by motor vehicles, swimming, boating, 

and attending interpretive programs. This zone is 

popular and well suited for family recreation. Selfsufficiency and knowledge of outdoor skills are not 

necessary. Time commitment varies, depending on 

information or services desired. High visitation 

levels are accommodated. Encounters with other 

visitors and Lakeshore staff are likely, especially 

around developed facilities. 

The primary experience is visiting historic areas and 

learning about cultural history. Visitors are offered 

a variety of opportunities to understand and enjoy 

cultural resources. Common visitor activities may 

include sightseeing, guided walks, historic tours, 

educational programs, hiking, hunting, crosscountry skiing, snowshoeing, and enjoyment of the 

cultural setting. Self-sufficiency and knowledge of 

outdoor skills are not necessary. The time 

commitment is typically one to two hours, but 

longer on the islands due to travel time from the 

mainland. Moderate to high visitation levels are 

accommodated. Encounters with other visitors and 

Lakeshore staff are likely, especially at points of 

interest. Encounters may be fewer in larger districts 

and open areas. 

Facilities and 

Commercial 

Services 

New and existing park roads and trails may be 

accommodated. State highway and county road 

rights-of-way may be in this zone. Developments 

may be used for visitor or administrative purposes. 

Appropriate kinds of facilities may include visitor 

centers, visitor contact stations, museums, roads, 

parking areas, trailheads and trails, developed 

campgrounds, surfaced walkways, picnic areas, 

restrooms, and Lake Michigan and inland lake boat 

ramps or docks. Appropriate kinds of operational 

facilities include administrative offices, employee 

housing, and maintenance areas. Appropriate 

commercial services may include convenience 

concessions, shuttle services, boat rentals, and 

guided services, such as vehicle and bicycle tours. 

New and existing park roads and trails may be 

accommodated. State highway and county road 

rights-of-way may be in this zone. Developments 

include groupings of historic structures and related 

landscape elements such as orchards, fields, and 

cemeteries. Other developments are unobtrusive 

and fit with the cultural landscape. Appropriate 

kinds of facilities may include visitor contact 

stations, roads, museums, parking areas, surfaced 

walkways, restrooms, trailheads and trails, and 

picnic areas. Appropriate kinds of operational 

facilities include administrative offices, employee 

housing, and maintenance areas. Appropriate 

commercial services may include limited 

convenience concessions, shuttle services, and 

guided services such as vehicle and bicycle tours. 

42 
Management Zones 

43 

TABLE 1: MANAGEMENT ZONES (CONT.) 

Recreation Zone Experience Nature Zone 

Overview This management zone provides a wide range of 

recreational opportunities for moderate numbers of 

visitors. The active Lake Michigan beach area is 

within this zone, as is the 0.25 mile of Lake 

Michigan waters within the National Lakeshore 

boundary. Wilderness does not occur in this zone. 

This is the wildest, most natural management zone. 

Low numbers of visitors enjoy primitive recreation 

on foot or in nonmotorized watercraft. Wilderness 

may or may not occur in this zone. 

Resource 

Conditions 

This zone’s character is natural overall; alterations 

are designed to blend with the natural landscape. 

Protecting and preserving natural resources is a 

high priority. Natural resources may be modified to 

provide for a variety of compatible recreational 

activities. Cultural resource treatments in this zone 

may range from preservation to rehabilitation

based on fundamental park resources, national 

register significance, documentation, condition, 

interpretive value, and suitability for NPS 

operations. Cultural resources may be modified to 

provide for a variety of compatible recreational 

activities. 

This zone’s character is natural overall; alterations 

are minimal and designed to blend with the natural 

landscape. Protecting and preserving natural 

resources is a very high priority. Natural resources 

may be modified to provide safe visitor access or 

reduce the overall level of resource impacts. 

Cultural resources within the zone would be 

preserved, but may be modified to preserve or 

restore natural resources. 

Visitor 

Opportunities 

Generally, the experience is rustic and there is a 

sense of being in a natural landscape. Visitors enjoy 

a wide range of recreational activities. Common 

visitor activities may include scenic driving, hiking, 

backpacking, motorized and nonmotorized 

boating, bicycling on roads and designated trails, 

hunting, fishing, horseback riding on designated 

trails, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, camping, 

beach-going, and swimming. Self-sufficiency and 

knowledge of outdoor skills are typically not 

necessary (except for backpacking and camping on 

the islands). The time commitment ranges from 

about 30 minutes to more than a day (for 

camping). On the islands, this zone requires a 

longer time commitment. Moderate visitation levels 

are accommodated. Encounters with other visitors 

and Lakeshore staff are likely at trailheads, points 

of interest, and river access sites. The number of 

encounters may be moderate along major trails and 

rivers. Solitude can usually be found if sought. 

There is a sense of being in a primitive, natural 

landscape. Visitors enjoy natural surroundings on 

foot or in nonmotorized watercraft. Common 

visitor activities may include hiking, nonmotorized 

boating, backpacking, hunting, fishing, horseback 

riding on designated trails, cross-country skiing, 

snowshoeing, beach-going and swimming, and 

backcountry camping. Typically, the amount of 

time, outdoor skill, and self-reliance needed is 

greater than for other zones. This is especially true 

on the islands. Lower visitation levels are 

accommodated. Encounters with other visitors and 

Lakeshore staff are generally few, although there 

may be pulses of visitor activity near trailheads and 

other entry points. Opportunities for solitude are 

plentiful. 

Facilities and 

Commercial 

Services 

New and existing park roads and trails may be 

accommodated. County road rights-of-way may be 

in this zone. Developments are unobtrusive and fit 

in with the natural environment. Appropriate kinds 

of facilities may include roads, trailheads and trails, 

primitive or rustic campgrounds, parking areas, 

primitive toilets, picnic areas, inland water boat 

docks and launches, and information kiosks. 

Appropriate kinds of operational facilities include 

employee housing. Appropriate commercial services 

may include boat rentals and guided services such 

as hunting, fishing, hiking, bicycling, and horseback 

riding. 

There are no active roads in this zone. However, 

county road rights-of-way that have not been 

developed, or that are being used as trail corridors 

may be in this zone. Developments are limited to 

those necessary for protecting resources or for 

safety purposes. Appropriate kinds of facilities may 

include trails, backcountry campsites or 

campgrounds, primitive toilets, and special trail 

surfaces in localized areas (e.g., sand ladders to 

protect sensitive dunes, or raised planking to 

protect wet areas). There are no operational 

facilities in this zone. Appropriate commercial 

services may include nonmotorized boat rentals and 

guided services such as hunting, fishing, horseback 

riding, and hiking. 
USER CAPACITY (CARRYING CAPACITY) 

OVERVIEW 

General management plans for national park 

system units, including national lakeshores, 

must address user capacity management. The 

National Park Service defines user capacity as 

the type and level of use that can be accommodated while sustaining the quality of a park 

unit’s resources and visitor opportunities 

consistent with the purposes of the park unit. 

User capacity management involves 

establishing desired conditions, monitoring, 

evaluating, and taking actions (managing 

visitor use) to ensure that park unit values are 

protected. The premise is that with any use on 

public lands comes some level of impact that 

must be accepted; therefore it is the 

responsibility of the National Park Service to 

decide what level of impact is acceptable and 

what management actions are needed to keep 

impacts within acceptable limits. Instead of 

just tracking and controlling user numbers, 

NPS staff manage the levels, types, and patterns of visitor use and other public uses as 

needed to preserve the condition of the 

resources and quality of the visitor experience. The monitoring component of this 

process helps NPS staff evaluate the effectiveness of management actions and provides a 

basis for informed management of public use. 

The user capacity management process can be 

summarized by the following major steps: 

1. Establish desired conditions for 

resources and visitor experiences 

(through management zoning). 

2. Identify indicators (things to monitor to 

determine whether desired conditions 

are being met, e.g., soil loss, vegetation 

damage. 

3. Identify standards (limits of acceptable 

change) for the indicators. 

4. Monitor indicators to determine if there 

are disturbing trends or if standards are 

being exceeded. 

5. Take management action to maintain or 

restore desired conditions. 

With limited staffs and budgets, NPS managers must focus on areas where there are 

definite concerns and/or clear evidence of 

problems. This means monitoring should 

generally take place where conditions are 

approaching or violate standards, conditions 

are changing rapidly, specific and important 

values are threatened by visitation, and/or the 

effects of management actions taken to 

address impacts are uncertain. 

This General Management Plan addresses user 

capacity in the following ways: 

• It outlines management zones that provide the foundation for user capacity 

management. The management zones 

prescribe desired resource conditions, 

visitor experience opportunities, and 

types of facilities to support the resource 

conditions and visitor experiences for 

different areas; 

• It describes the Lakeshore’s most 

pressing use-related resource and visitor 

experience concerns. This helps NPS 

managers focus limited resources on 

specific potential indicators and determine what kinds of baseline information 

to collect. 

• It identifies potential indicators that 

could be monitored as needed in the 

future to determine if desired conditions 

are not being met due to unacceptable 

impacts from public use. As National 

Lakeshore managers collect more 

detailed information on use-related 

concerns, specific indicators will be 

selected for monitoring and corresponding standards (limits of acceptable 

change) will be identified. 

44 
User Capacity (Carrying Capacity) 

• It outlines representative examples of 

management actions that might be used 

to avoid or minimize unacceptable 

impacts from public use. 

• It identifies specific geographic areas for 

special monitoring attention. 

• It calls for a wilderness management 

plan to be completed soon after 

wilderness designation (if any). 

The last steps in the user capacity process, 

which will continue indefinitely, involve 

monitoring the National Lakeshore’s indicators and taking management actions as needed 

to minimize impacts. As a means for providing 

flexibility in the face of changing conditions, 

National Lakeshore managers will use an 

adaptive management approach when appropriate. (Adaptive management is a management system based on clearly identified outcomes, monitoring to determine if management actions are meeting outcomes, and if 

not, making changes that will best ensure that 

outcomes are met or that outcomes are reevaluated.) If new use-related resource or visitor 

experience concerns arise in the future, additional indicators and standards will be identified as needed to address these concerns. 

OVERVIEW OF CURRENT AND 

POTENTIAL USE-RELATED IMPACTS 

This section discusses existing and potential 

use-related impacts that may occur in the 

National Lakeshore, challenging the National 

Park Service’s ability to manage for the 

desired conditions outlined in this General 

Management Plan. 

Existing facilities in the Lakeshore generally 

support enjoyable visitor opportunities and 

protect resources, and based on projected 

trends will continue to function fairly well. 

Beach access parking areas, the Dune Climb 

parking area, and campgrounds sometimes fill 

to capacity during the summer. As a result, 

visitors may be frustrated in trying to reach 

certain areas of the Lakeshore and may park 

in or use nondesignated areas. In addition to 

the associated impact on the visitor experience, using nondesignated areas may cause 

impacts such as vegetation loss, erosion, and 

introduction of invasive species, particularly 

in vulnerable areas. 

In the summer, high volumes of use along the 

Platte River cause crowded conditions at 

times. Some people who commented during 

the GMP process expressed concern about 

this issue and its related impacts (e.g., bank 

erosion). If use increases or patterns of use 

change, crowding on the Platte River may 

worsen and/or become more frequent. In 

addition to crowding, use on the Platte River 

is resulting in excessive impacts to the riverbanks and associated floodplains, such as 

proliferation of informal trails, erosion, 

vegetation damage and loss, litter, and 

improper disposal of human waste. Impacts to 

water quality (e.g., increased sedimentation, 

nitrates, and E. coli) on the rivers and inland 

lakes from visitor use are also a concern. In 

the future, use levels may also increase on the 

Crystal River and cause similar conditions 

during the busy summer season. 

Visitor crowding does not currently seem to 

be a problem on trails. However, visitor 

encounter rates must remain low on trails in 

some areas to ensure that visitors’ expectations for solitude and natural conditions are 

met. 

Use levels on the islands are relatively low and 

are highly influenced by the capacity and 

timing of the island ferry. At this time, there 

do not seem to be any major crowding or use 

conflicts affecting visitor opportunities on the 

islands. Some resource-related impacts (e.g., 

proliferation of campsites, damage to vegetation, and improper human waste disposal) are 

associated with dispersed backcountry 

camping on North Manitou Island. 

45 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

POTENTIAL USER CAPACITY 

INDICATORS AND RELATED 

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS 

The following section outlines some potential 

indicators that may be monitored to better 

understand the magnitude and trends of the 

most pressing use-related concerns described 

in the previous section. The management 

zones for which each indicator is likely to 

be most relevant is identified, along with 

potential management actions to address 

resource and/or visitor experience concerns. 

Some management actions may not be 

appropriate in some management zones. Final 

selection of indicators and standards for 

monitoring purposes and implementation of 

management actions that affect use will 

comply with the National Environmental 

Policy Act (1969), Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act, and other laws and 

NPS management policies as appropriate. 

Potential user capacity indicators may include 

the following: 

• Water quality (high use zone, recreation 

zone, experience nature zone) 

Management actions that may be 

considered to avoid or minimize 

impacts to water quality include 

encouraging low-impact practices 

(e.g., Leave No Trace); directing use 

to designated areas or facilities; 

providing more waste disposal 

facilities; redistributing use to lesser 

used areas or off-peak times; cleaning 

equipment before entering 

waterways; and reducing/eliminating 

certain uses, activities, or equipment. 

• Impacts to riverbanks, such as erosion, 

vegetation damage or loss, creation of 

informal trails (high use zone, recreation 

zone, experience nature zone) 

Management actions that may be 

considered to avoid or minimize 

riverbank impacts include 

encouraging low impact practices; 

directing use to designated areas or 

facilities; providing more waste 

disposal facilities; increasing the 

number of signs to direct visitors to 

appropriate facilities; redistributing 

use to lesser used areas or off-peak 

times, rehabilitating some sites; and 

reducing use levels. 

• Amount of litter (high use zone, 

recreation zone, experience nature 

zone, experience history zone) 

Management actions that may be 

considered to avoid or minimize litter 

include encouraging personal 

responsibility for waste disposal, 

providing more waste disposal 

facilities, and directing use to 

designated areas or facilities. 

• Improper human waste disposal (high 

use zone, recreation zone, experience 

nature zone) 

Management actions that may be 

considered to prevent or minimize 

improper human waste disposal 

include encouraging proper waste 

disposal, providing more toilet 

facilities, directing use to appropriate 

facilities, and reducing use levels. 

• Impacts to dunes (e.g., erosion, 

vegetation damage and loss, informal 

trails, invasive species) (recreation zone, 

experience nature zone, experience 

history zone) 

Management actions that may be 

considered to prevent or minimize 

impacts to dunes include 

encouraging low-impact practices 

through information, directing use to 

designated areas or facilities, 

increasing the number of signs to 

direct visitors to appropriate access 

points, using erosion control 

techniques to stabilize problem areas, 

designating alternate access points, 

and reducing use levels. 

• Impacts from backcountry camping, 

such as proliferation of user created 

campsites, increase in campsite size, tree 

46 
User Capacity (Carrying Capacity) 

47 

damage, and improper human waste 

disposal (experience nature zone) 

Management actions that may be 

considered to prevent or minimize 

impacts from backcountry camping 

include encouraging low-impact 

practices (e.g., Leave No Trace), 

directing use to designated campsites, 

providing information directing 

visitors to appropriate areas or 

facilities, providing information on 

how to select an appropriate 

campsite, better defining appropriate 

use areas, providing facilities to 

contain impacts (e.g., fire grates and 

privies), managing access to certain 

areas with natural barriers, 

redistributing use to lesser used areas 

or off-peak times, rehabilitating some 

sites, and reducing use levels. 

• Failure of nesting piping plovers to raise 

young (recreation zone). Piping plovers 

are federally endangered shorebirds that 

prefer certain areas along Lake 

Michigan beaches for nesting. 

Management actions that may be 

continued or considered to prevent 

or minimize impacts to piping plovers 

include providing information about 

the species and its habits, temporary 

fencing and closing nesting territories 

to discourage inadvertent trampling 

of nests or disturbance of the species, 

designating alternate access points, 

and establishing and enforcing dog 

closure areas. 

• Overcrowding at beach parking areas 

(high use zone, recreation zone) 

Management actions that may be 

considered to prevent or minimize 

these impacts include providing 

advanced planning information that 

encourages visitation to lesser used 

areas or at off-peak times, providing 

real-time information about parking 

availability, adding more parking or 

redesigning parking areas for greater 

efficiency, and closing areas when full 

and actively redistributing use to 

other sites. 

• Crowding from high use levels on rivers 

(high use zone, recreation zone, 

experience nature zone) 

Management actions that may be 

considered to prevent or minimize 

crowding on rivers include providing 

information on visitor etiquette, 

redistributing visitation to lesser used 

areas or off-peak times, and limiting 

the number of watercraft on the river. 

• Vandalism and unintentional damage to 

historic structures (experience history 

zone, recreation zone) 

Management actions that may be 

considered to prevent or minimize 

impacts to historic structures include 

providing more information on the 

sensitivity and value of the Lakeshore’s cultural resources, hardening 

or protecting heavily used areas with 

special materials, increased ranger 

patrols in target areas, using remote 

video-monitoring, and directing use 

away from (or closure of) particularly 

vulnerable sites. 

AREAS FOR SPECIAL 

MONITORING ATTENTION 

Areas that have been identified for special 

monitoring attention include the following: 

• Platte River, Crystal River, and associated 

riverbank areas 

• dune areas near the Dune Climb and 

North Bar Lake 

• Lake Michigan Overlook (Overlooks 9 

and 10) on the Pierce Stocking Scenic 

Drive 

• Piping plover nesting areas, especially 

those near visitor use areas 

• Platte Point developed area 

• White Pine backcountry campground 

• popular camping areas on North 

Manitou Island
ALTERNATIVES 

Regardless of this planning effort, the 

National Park Service would continue to 

follow special mandates and servicewide laws 

and policies as noted in chapter 1. Similarly, 

Lakeshore-wide desired conditions (and 

potential strategies to achieve those 

conditions) for topics ranging from ecosystem 

management to Lakeshore accessibility are 

presented in chapter 1 and would apply 

regardless of which GMP alternative is 

ultimately selected for implementation. As this 

General Management Plan / Wilderness Study / 

Environmental Impact Statement was being 

developed, the National Lakeshore was 

proceeding with a number of projects that are 

planned or already underway; these projects, 

discussed in chapter 1 in the “Ongoing NPS 

Projects and Projects Planned for the Near 

Future” section and in chapter 5 (cumulative 

impacts), would also occur regardless of this 

planning effort. 

The alternatives described on the following 

pages, each of which is consistent with maintaining the National Lakeshore’s purpose, 

significance, and fundamental resources and 

values, present different choices for how to 

manage resources, visitor use, and facilities 

within the Lakeshore. 

48 
NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

OVERALL VISION 

The no-action alternative primarily reflects 

current conditions and activities at the 

Lakeshore. This alternative is provided as a 

baseline against which to compare the other 

“action” alternatives. 

WILDERNESS 

The existing wilderness proposal of 30,903 

acres (43% of the National Lakeshore) would 

remain in place (see No-action Alternative 

map in back pocket). As directed by Congress 

in 1982, the National Park Service would 

continue to manage lands proposed for 

wilderness in the 1981 “Wilderness 

Recommendation” to maintain their existing 

wilderness character. These proposed 

wilderness areas are in the north, south, and 

island areas of the National Lakeshore. Some 

county roads are within areas proposed for 

wilderness. 

Areas proposed for wilderness include the 

following: 

• North area of the mainland — most of 

the area north of M-22, including a 

portion of Port Oneida 

• Central area of the mainland — none 

• South area of the mainland — much of 

the area north and west of M-22 

• North Manitou Island — most of the 

island (the historic village is excluded; 

part of Cottage Row is included) 

• South Manitou Island — most of the 

island (the lighthouse complex, historic 

village, and farm loop tour route are 

excluded) 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Natural resource management programs 

would continue to emphasize protection of 

natural resources and processes. Natural 

resource management programs that would 

occur regardless of the general management 

plan are outlined in the “Desired Conditions 

and Strategies” section in chapter 1. Examples 

of ongoing programs include controlling 

invasive species, restoring disturbed sites, 

protecting open dune areas, and protecting 

threatened and endangered species. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Efforts to preserve as many historic structures 

and landscapes as possible would continue; 

management would consider the Lakeshore’s 

fundamental resources and values, national 

register significance, documentation, condition, interpretive value, and suitability for NPS 

operations. More information on individual 

areas is provided on the following pages. 

• Glen Haven (same in all alternatives) — 

The Glen Haven Historic District and 

cultural landscape would be preserved, 

rehabilitated, or restored. The Sleeping 

Bear Point Life-Saving Station would be 

preserved, rehabilitated, or restored. 

• Port Oneida (same in all alternatives) — 

Historic structures and landscapes would 

be preserved, rehabilitated, or restored. 

• North Manitou Island — The historic 

life-saving station structures would be 

preserved, rehabilitated, or restored. 

Preservation and/or adaptive use of the 

rehabilitated historic former Manitou 

Island Association structures for 

administrative and operational purposes 

would continue. Historic structures on 

Cottage Row and elsewhere on the island 

would be preserved. 

49 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

• South Manitou Island — The historic 

life-saving station, lighthouse complex, 

schoolhouse, and village historic 

structures would be preserved, 

rehabilitated, or restored. Structures and 

landscapes elsewhere on the island 

would be preserved. 

• Other Mainland Historic Structures and 

Landscapes — Treatments for historic 

structures and landscapes range from 

preserved to rehabilitated. 

VISITOR ORIENTATION, 

INTERPRETATION, AND EDUCATION 

Visitor orientation services would continue at 

the NPS visitor center in Empire, at Glen 

Haven, and at the visitor contact station on 

South Manitou Island. Interpretive activities 

would continue throughout the Lakeshore, 

with special emphasis at the Dune Climb, the 

major campgrounds, Port Oneida, Glen 

Haven, and Sleeping Bear Point Maritime 

Museum. A variety of interpretive and educational programs (e.g., guided hikes, summer 

and school programs) would continue. On 

South Manitou Island, concession-operated 

farm loop tours would continue. 

VISITOR FACILITIES, 

OPPORTUNITIES, AND ACTIVITIES 

Opportunities to enjoy recreational activities 

would exist in a variety of settings. 

• Roads — Roads would remain essentially 

the same as now. 

• Trails — Trails would remain essentially 

the same as now. 

• Campgrounds — Campgrounds and 

camping would remain essentially the 

same as now. 

• Lake Michigan Beach Access — Beach 

access points that are accessible to motor 

vehicles (Lake Michigan Road [Leelanau 

County], Glen Haven, North Bar Lake, 

Esch Beach, Peterson Road, Tiesma 

Road, and Lake Michigan Road [Platte 

River mouth] would remain essentially 

the same. (By late summer 2008, beach 

access improvements at the County Road 

651 and 669 road ends are expected to be 

complete. See the “Ongoing NPS Projects 

and Projects Planned for the Near 

Future” section in chapter 1 for more 

information.) 

• Lake Michigan Boat Access — Boat 

access to Lake Michigan would remain at 

the end of Lake Michigan Road, near the 

mouth of the Platte River. 

• Inland Lake Use and Access — 

Motorized boats would continue to be 

allowed on School, Bass (Leelanau 

County), North Bar, and Loon lakes. 

• Picnic Areas — Existing picnic areas 

would remain. 

• Ferry Service — Ferry service for day and 

overnight stays on South Manitou Island 

and overnight stays on North Manitou 

Island would continue. 

• Boat Access for River Use — Motorized 

and nonmotorized watercraft use along 

the Platte and Crystal rivers would 

continue. 

• Dune Climb — The Dune Climb would 

remain essentially the same. (By late 

summer 2008, the parking area is 

expected to be paved and wheelchair 

accessibility and drainage issues are 

expected to be addressed. See the 

“Ongoing NPS Projects and Projects 

Planned for the Near Future” section in 

chapter 1 for more information). 

• Bicycle Use — Bicycle use would 

continue to be allowed on roads used by 

motor vehicles but not on hiking trails. 

• Hang Gliding — Hang gliding would 

continue to be allowed at designated sites 

within the Lakeshore. 

Benzie Corridor 

The National Park Service would continue to 

acquire lands within the Benzie Corridor on a 

willing-seller basis (subject to available 

50 
No-Action Alternative 

51 

funding) for future development of a scenic 

road. The scenic road would include bike 

lanes (or in some stretches a separate bike 

trail, as appropriate). However, the road and 

bike lanes/trail would not be expected to be 

built within the life of this plan. 

Land acquisition costs are not included in the 

cost estimates below. Merely stating that the 

National Lakeshore would continue to 

purchase lands within the Benzie Corridor 

would not immediately make funds available 

for acquisition. It might be several years 

before funds are actually available to 

implement the plan. 

Bow Lakes 

Nature observation and backcountry hiking 

on informal, undesignated trails would 

continue. The National Park Service would 

acquire properties within this area of the 

Lakeshore on a willing-seller basis as they 

become available (subject to available 

funding). 

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS 

There would be no boundary adjustments 

under this alternative. 

STAFFING AND COSTS 

The staffing level under the no-action 

alternative would continue to be the 

equivalent of 66 full-time staff members. 

Volunteers and partnerships would continue 

to be key contributors to NPS operations. 

The cost estimates provided here are given for 

comparison to other alternatives only; they 

are not to be used for budgeting purposes. 

Although the numbers appear to be absolutes, 

they represent a midpoint in a possible range 

of costs. The costs developed are estimates 

inclusive of all one-time capital costs (see 

“Ongoing NPS Projects and Projects Planned 

for the Near Future” in chapter 1) and nonfacility costs such as major resource plans and 

projects are estimated at $6.6 million. Ongoing 

plans and projects include improvements to 

selected beach access parking areas and 

overlooks, Glen Haven improvements, 

restoration/ rehabilitation of the South 

Manitou Island Lighthouse complex, and 

restoration of areas disturbed by past land 

uses. Deferred maintenance costs of the noaction alternative are estimated at $15.4 

million. The total cost of this alternative (onetime capital costs plus deferred maintenance 

costs) is estimated at $22 million. Annual 

operating costs under this alternative would 

be $3.9 million. Presentation of these costs in 

this plan does not guarantee future NPS 

funding. Project funding will not come all at 

once; it will likely take many years to secure 

and may be provided by partners, donations 

or other nonfederal sources. Although the 

National Lakeshore hopes to secure this 

funding and will prepare itself accordingly, 

the Lakeshore may not receive enough 

funding to achieve all desired conditions 

within the timeframe of the General Management Plan (the next 20 or more years). More 

information on costs is provided in appendix 

C. 
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

OVERALL VISION 

The Lakeshore is valued primarily for 

preservation of its natural resources, and for 

the opportunities it provides for visitor 

enjoyment of natural, cultural, and 

recreational resources in a scenic outdoor 

setting. The preferred alternative was 

determined through a planning process that 

included public involvement. See “Appendix 

D: Development of the Preferred Alternative” 

for rationale and other information about the 

preferred alternative. 

WILDERNESS 

About 32,100 acres (45% of the National 

Lakeshore) in the north, central, south, and 

island areas of the Lakeshore would be 

proposed as wilderness (see Preferred 

Alternative map in back pocket). No 

developed county roads are within areas 

proposed for wilderness. None of the Lake 

Michigan active beach zone is in areas 

proposed for wilderness. Please note that the 

acreage figures for the various wilderness 

proposals are estimates based on small-scale 

maps; the acreage for the approved wilderness 

proposal will be refined prior to legislation, 

using detailed, large-scale maps. 

Areas of proposed wilderness are as follows: 

• North area of the mainland — an area 

north of M-22 and east of Port Oneida; 

none in Port Oneida 

• Central area of the mainland — Sleeping 

Bear Plateau 

• South area of the mainland — much of 

the area north and west of M-22 

• North Manitou Island — most of the 

island (the historic village and Cottage 

Row would be excluded) 

• South Manitou Island — most of the 

island (the lighthouse complex, historic 

village, schoolhouse, farm loop tour and 

surrounding cultural landscape, and the 

route to the Giant Cedars would be 

excluded) 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Based on the emphasis placed on natural 

resource conditions and experiences in this 

alternative, the experience nature zone would 

extend across much of the Lakeshore. Some 

selected areas would be zoned high use or 

recreation to allow for possible future recreational opportunities. Natural resource management programs that would occur regardless of the general management plan are 

outlined in the “Desired Conditions and 

Strategies” section in chapter 1. Examples 

include controlling invasive species, restoring 

disturbed sites, protecting open dune areas, 

and protecting threatened and endangered 

species. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

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

alternative, the experience history zone would 

encompass most of the National Lakeshore’s 

historic resources. Historic structures and 

landscapes would be preserved at a minimum 

and managed as specified for the management 

zone in which they lie (see alternative map and 

zone descriptions). 

• Glen Haven (same in all alternatives) — 

The Glen Haven Historic District and 

Sleeping Bear Point Life-Saving Station 

would be preserved, rehabilitated, or 

restored. 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 

52 
Preferred Alternative 

adaptive use. All other structures would 

be stabilized and maintained in their 

current condition. 

• Port Oneida (same in all alternatives) — 

Historic structures and landscapes would 

be preserved, rehabilitated, or restored. 

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. 

• North Manitou Island — The historic 

life-saving station and Cottage Row 

structures would be preserved, 

rehabilitated, or restored. 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. 

• South Manitou Island — The historic 

life-saving 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 — Historic structures and 

landscapes would be managed as 

specified for the management zone in 

which they lie (see alternative map and 

zone descriptions). 

VISITOR ORIENTATION, 

INTERPRETATION, AND EDUCATION 

Visitor orientation services would continue at 

the NPS visitor center in Empire, at Glen 

Haven, and at the visitor contact station on 

South Manitou Island. Interpretation 

activities would continue throughout the 

Lakeshore, with special emphasis at the Dune 

Climb, the major campgrounds, Port Oneida, 

Glen Haven, and Sleeping Bear Point 

Maritime Museum. A variety of interpretive 

and educational programs (e.g., guided hikes, 

summer and school programs, etc.) would 

continue. On South Manitou Island, 

concession-operated farm loop tours would 

continue. Concession auto tours to near the 

Giant Cedars would be allowed, provided 

there is demand and the service is economically feasible. (Concession autos would go as 

far as the end of the county road; the tours 

would continue on foot to the cedars from 

there). 

VISITOR FACILITIES, 

OPPORTUNITIES, AND ACTIVITIES 

Opportunities for experiencing solitude and 

natural quiet would abound in many areas of 

the Lakeshore. Opportunities for recreational 

activities such as hiking, backpacking, fishing 

and hunting, paddling, cross-country skiing, 

and backcountry camping would be facilitated 

or expanded as described below: 

• Roads — Roads would remain essentially 

the same as now. All developed county 

roads would be zoned compatible with 

motor vehicle and bicycle use. 

• Trails — Trails would remain the same, 

except for a few additions: (1) a 

hike/bike trail located primarily along M22 and M-109 could be developed at the 

initiative of partners; a separate study 

would be needed to make certain that 

such a trail would have no significant 

impact. Several candidate areas for the 

hike/bike trail that are zoned recreation 

53 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

(such as Wilco hill, north of the Dune 

Climb, and near M-109 at Alligator Hill) 

would revert to experience nature if they 

are not needed for the M-22/M-109 

hike/bike trail; (2) a “bay-to-bay” trail for 

hikers and Lake Michigan paddlers 

would parallel the mainland shoreline 

within the Lakeshore; on land, this trail 

would make use of active beach areas or 

existing disturbed areas and corridors to 

the extent possible; and (3) a loop hiking 

trail and trailhead parking area would be 

provided at Bow Lakes. 

• Campgrounds — Campgrounds and 

camping would remain essentially the 

same, except that (1) four or five small, 

primitive campgrounds would be 

constructed an easy day’s hike or paddle 

apart along the Lake Michigan shoreline, 

for paddlers and hikers (see “trails” 

above); (2) Valley View backcountry 

campground would be abandoned and 

the area returned to more natural 

conditions; a replacement campground 

for hikers and paddlers would be 

provided closer to the Lake Michigan 

shoreline (location to be determined); 

and (3) on North Manitou Island, in 

addition to dispersed camping, additional 

designated campgrounds would be 

provided (locations to be determined). 

• Lake Michigan Beach Access — The 

following beach access points that are 

accessible to motor vehicles would 

remain essentially the same: Lake 

Michigan Road (Leelanau County), Glen 

Haven, North Bar Lake, Peterson Road, 

and Tiesma Road. Parking at the end of 

Esch Road would be improved. The 

beach access area at the end of Lake 

Michigan Road near the mouth of the 

Platte River would be zoned high use to 

allow for parking improvements; a separate study would examine the appropriateness of these developments in more 

detail. 

• Lake Michigan Boat Access — A high use 

zone would be located around and east of 

the mouth of the Platte River. The high 

use zone would allow for boat ramps or 

docks for access to Lake Michigan, 

although no new boat ramps or docks are 

proposed by the National Park Service. A 

separate study would be needed to 

determine whether any such facility 

would be appropriate in this area. If this 

study indicated that a new boat ramp or 

dock was not appropriate near the mouth 

of the Platte River, the high use zone 

beyond the Lake Michigan Road area 

would revert to the experience nature 

zone and Tiesma Road would revert to 

the recreation zone. 

• Inland Lake Use and Access — 

Motorized boats would be allowed on 

School and Loon lakes. Motorized boats 

would no longer be allowed on North 

Bar Lake. Electric motors would be 

allowed in the experience nature zone on 

Bass Lake (Leelanau County), Tucker 

Lake, and Otter Lake. Access for boats 

would be improved at a few inland lakes 

(locations to be determined). 

• Picnic Areas — Existing picnic areas 

would remain. The Glen Lake picnic area 

would be improved to facilitate beach 

and picnic use. 

• Ferry Service — Ferry service for day and 

overnight stays on South Manitou Island 

and overnight stays on North Manitou 

Island would continue. Day trips to 

North Manitou Island would be allowed 

once or twice a week (not daily), 

provided there is demand and the service 

is economically feasible. 

• Boat Access for River Use — Motorized 

and nonmotorized watercraft use along 

the Platte and Crystal rivers would 

continue. The Crystal River access area 

would be upgraded or relocated, and a 

small parking area would be provided. 

• Dune Climb — The Dune Climb would 

remain essentially the same (see the noaction alternative). 

• Bicycle Use — Bicycle use would 

continue to be allowed on roads used by 

motor vehicles, but not on hiking trails. 

An exception would be that as part of the 

54 
Preferred Alternative 

55 

M-22/M-109 hike/bike trail, bicycle use 

would be evaluated for portions of the 

Bay View Trail immediately adjacent to 

the M-22 corridor. Bicycle use would be 

evaluated for expansion in zones that 

permit it (recreation, high use, and 

experience history) — e.g., the Burnham 

Woods area south of the Glen Lakes. 

• Hang Gliding — Hang gliding would 

continue to be allowed at designated sites 

within the Lakeshore. 

Benzie Corridor 

The National Park Service would continue to 

acquire lands within the Benzie Corridor on a 

willing-seller basis (subject to available 

funding) for future development of a scenic 

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

evaluated via a future study). The road/trail 

would not be expected to be built within the 

life of this plan. 

Land acquisition costs are not included in the 

cost estimates below. Merely stating that the 

National Lakeshore would continue to 

purchase lands within the Benzie Corridor 

would not immediately make funds available 

for acquisition. It might be several years 

before funds are actually available to 

implement the plan. 

Bow Lakes 

Nature observation and backcountry hiking 

would be facilitated by development of a small 

parking area and a loop trail. The National 

Park Service would acquire properties within 

this area of the Lakeshore on a willing-seller 

basis as they become available (subject to 

available funding). 

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS 

There would be no boundary adjustments 

under this alternative. 

STAFFING AND COSTS 

The staffing level needed to implement the 

preferred alternative would be the equivalent 

of 79 full-time staff members. Volunteers and 

partnerships would continue to be key 

contributors to NPS operations. 

The cost estimates provided here are given for 

comparison to other alternatives only; they 

are not to be used for budgeting purposes. 

Although the numbers appear to be absolutes, 

they represent a midpoint in a possible range 

of costs. The costs developed are estimates 

inclusive of all one-time capital costs of the 

preferred alternative, including projects that 

are planned for the near future. One-time 

capital costs of the preferred alternative, 

including projects that are planned for the 

near future or are underway, new construction, and non-facility costs such as major 

resource plans and projects, are estimated at 

$17.5 million. In addition to items mentioned 

for the no-action alternative, this includes 

costs of new trails and campgrounds, picnic 

area improvements, improved access for 

nonmotorized boats at inland lakes and rivers, 

and historic preservation/ rehabilitation/ 

restoration (various areas). Deferred 

maintenance costs of the preferred alternative 

are estimated at $15.4 million. The total cost 

of this alternative (one-time capital costs plus 

deferred maintenance costs) is estimated at 

$32.9 million. Annual operating costs under 

this alternative would be $4.4 million. 

Presentation of these costs in this plan does 

not guarantee future NPS funding. Project 

funding will not come all at once; it will likely 

take many years to secure and may be 

provided by partners, donations or other 

nonfederal sources. Although the National 

Lakeshore hopes to secure this funding and 

will prepare itself accordingly, the Lakeshore 

may not receive enough funding to achieve all 

desired conditions within the timeframe of the 

General Management Plan (the next 20 or 

more years). More information on costs is 

provided in appendix C. 
ALTERNATIVE A 

OVERALL VISION 

Under alternative A, the Lakeshore would be 

valued primarily for conservation of its natural 

resources. 

WILDERNESS 

About 33,600 acres (47% of the National 

Lakeshore) in the north, central, south, and 

island areas of the National Lakeshore would 

be proposed as wilderness (see Alternative A 

map in back pocket). No developed county 

roads are within areas proposed for wilderness. None of the Lake Michigan active beach 

zone is in areas proposed for wilderness. 

Please note that the acreage figures for the 

various wilderness proposals are estimates 

based on small-scale maps. 

Areas of proposed wilderness are as follows: 

• North area of the mainland — an area 

north of M-22 and east of Port Oneida; 

none in Port Oneida 

• Central area of the mainland — Sleeping 

Bear Plateau 

• South area of the mainland — much of 

the area north and west of M-22 

• North Manitou Island — most of the 

island (the historic village and Cottage 

Row would be excluded) 

• South Manitou Island — most of the 

island (the lighthouse complex, historic 

village, and county roads on the farm 

tour and Giant Cedars routes would be 

excluded) 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Based on the emphasis on natural resources 

conditions and experiences in this alternative, 

the experience nature zone would extend 

across most of the Lakeshore. Natural 

resource management programs that would 

occur regardless of the general management 

plan are outlined in the “Desired Conditions 

and Strategies” section in chapter 1. Examples 

include controlling invasive species, restoring 

disturbed sites, protecting open dune areas, 

and protecting threatened and endangered 

species. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Historic structures and landscapes would be 

managed as specified for the management 

zone in which they lie (see alternative map and 

zone descriptions). More information on 

individual areas is provided below: 

• Glen Haven (same in all alternatives) — 

The Glen Haven Historic District and 

Sleeping Bear Point Life-Saving Station 

would be preserved, rehabilitated, or 

restored. 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. 

• Port Oneida (same in all alternatives) — 

Historic structures and landscapes would 

be preserved, rehabilitated, or restored. 

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. 

56 
Alternative A 

• North Manitou Island — The historic 

life-saving station structures would be 

preserved, rehabilitated, or restored. 

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 on Cottage Row and 

elsewhere on the island would be 

preserved. 

• South Manitou Island — The historic 

life-saving 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 — Historic structures and 

landscapes would be managed as 

specified for the management zone in 

which they lie (see alternative map and 

zone descriptions). 

VISITOR ORIENTATION, 

INTERPRETATION, AND EDUCATION 

Visitor orientation services would continue at 

the NPS visitor center in Empire, at Glen 

Haven, and at the visitor contact station on 

South Manitou Island. Interpretive activities 

would continue throughout the Lakeshore, 

with special emphasis at the Dune Climb, the 

major campgrounds, Port Oneida, Glen 

Haven, and Sleeping Bear Point Maritime 

Museum. Interpretive opportunities relating 

to natural resource interpretive themes would 

be emphasized. On South Manitou Island, 

concession-operated farm tours would stop at 

the west end of Chicago Road rather than 

continue around the farm loop. Tours would 

continue to the farms on foot rather than by 

vehicle. 

VISITOR FACILITIES, 

OPPORTUNITIES, AND ACTIVITIES 

Opportunities for experiencing solitude and 

natural quiet would abound, and opportunities for recreational activities such as hiking, 

backpacking, fishing and hunting, paddling, 

cross-country skiing, and backcountry 

camping would be facilitated or expanded as 

described below: 

• Roads — Roads would remain essentially 

the same as now, except that two NPSowned roads in the experience nature 

zone would be closed and returned to 

more natural conditions — Tiesma Road 

on the mainland and the NPS portion of 

the current farm loop route off Chicago 

Road on South Manitou Island. All 

developed county roads would be zoned 

compatible with motor vehicle and 

bicycle use. 

• Trails — Trails would remain the same, 

except for a few additions: (1) a hike/ 

bike trail located primarily along M-22 

and M-109 could be developed at the 

initiative of partners; a separate study 

would be needed to make certain that 

such a hike/bike trail would have no 

significant impact; (2) a “bay-to-bay” trail 

for hikers and Lake Michigan paddlers 

would parallel the mainland shoreline 

within the Lakeshore; on land, this trail 

would make use of active beach areas or 

existing disturbed areas and corridors; 

and (3) a short loop hiking trail (with 

trailhead parking area) would be 

provided at Bow Lakes. 

• Campgrounds — Campgrounds and 

camping would remain essentially the 

same, except that (1) four or five small, 

primitive campgrounds would be 

constructed an easy day’s hike or paddle 

apart along the Lake Michigan shoreline, 

for paddlers and hikers (see “trails” 

above), and (2) Valley View backcountry 

campground would be abandoned and 

the area returned to more natural 

conditions; a replacement campground 

57 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

for hikers and paddlers would be 

provided closer to the Lake Michigan 

shoreline (location to be determined). 

• Lake Michigan Beach Access — The 

following beach access points that are 

accessible to motor vehicles would 

remain essentially the same: Lake 

Michigan Road (Leelanau County), Glen 

Haven, North Bar Lake, Esch Beach, 

Peterson Road, and Lake Michigan Road 

(Platte River mouth). Tiesma Road (NPS 

owned) would be closed. 

• Lake Michigan Boat Access — Boat 

access to Lake Michigan would remain at 

the end of Lake Michigan Road, near the 

mouth of the Platte River (same as in the 

no-action alternative). 

• Inland Lake Use and Access — Motorized boats would be allowed on School, 

Loon, and North Bar lakes. Motorized 

boats would no longer be allowed on 

Bass Lake (Leelanau County). 

• Picnic Areas — Existing picnic areas 

would remain, except for Little Glen 

Lake picnic area, which would be 

restored to a natural state in keeping with 

the experience nature zone. 

• Ferry Service — Ferry service for day and 

overnight stays on South Manitou Island 

and overnight stays on North Manitou 

Island would continue (same as in the noaction alternative). 

• Boat Access for River Use — Motorized 

and nonmotorized watercraft use along 

the Platte and Crystal rivers would 

continue (same as in the no-action 

alternative). 

• Dune Climb — The Dune Climb would 

remain essentially the same. 

• Bicycle Use — Bicycle use would 

continue to be allowed on roads used by 

motor vehicles, but not on hiking trails. 

An exception would be that as part of the 

M-22/M-109 hike/bike trail, bicycle use 

would be evaluated for portions of the 

Bay View Trail immediately adjacent to 

the M-22 corridor. Bicycle use would be 

evaluated for expansion in zones that 

permit it (recreation, high use, and 

experience history). 

• Hang Gliding — Hang gliding would 

continue to be allowed at designated sites 

within the Lakeshore, although not at 

Empire Bluff. 

Benzie Corridor 

The National Park Service would cease 

acquisition of lands within the Benzie 

Corridor. No scenic roadway or trail would be 

developed. The National Park Service would 

recommend that the Lakeshore’s enabling 

legislation be amended to remove the Benzie 

Corridor from the boundary. 

Land acquisition costs are not included in the 

cost estimates below. Merely stating that the 

National Lakeshore would cease to purchase 

lands within the Benzie Corridor would not 

immediately stop any ongoing acquisitions, 

but would be dependent upon the passage of 

legislation removing the Benzie Corridor from 

the boundary. It might be several years before 

the plan could be implemented. 

Bow Lakes 

Nature observation and backcountry hiking 

would be facilitated by development of a small 

parking area and a short loop trail. The 

National Park Service would acquire properties within this area of the Lakeshore on a 

willing-seller basis as they become available 

(subject to available funding). 

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS 

Under this alternative the Benzie Corridor 

would be removed from the National 

Lakeshore boundary. This would require 

congressional action. 

58 
Alternative A 

59 

STAFFING AND COSTS 

The staffing level needed to implement 

alternative A would be the equivalent of 77 

full-time staff members. Volunteers and 

partnerships would continue to be key 

contributors to NPS operations. 

The cost estimates provided here are given for 

comparison to other alternatives only; they 

are not to be used for budgeting purposes. 

Although the numbers appear to be absolutes, 

they represent a midpoint in a possible range 

of costs. The costs developed are estimates 

inclusive of all one-time capital costs of the 

preferred alternative, including projects that 

are planned for the near future. One-time 

capital costs of alternative A, including 

projects that are planned for the near future or 

are underway, new construction, and nonfacility costs such as major resource plans and 

projects, are estimated at $14.4 million. In 

addition to items mentioned for the no-action 

alternative, this includes costs of new trails 

and campgrounds and historic preservation/ 

rehabilitation/ restoration (various areas). 

Deferred maintenance costs of alternative A 

are estimated at $15.4 million. The total cost 

of this alternative (one-time capital costs plus 

deferred maintenance costs) is estimated at 

$29.8 million. Annual operating costs under 

this alternative would be $4.2 million. 

Presentation of these costs in this plan does 

not guarantee future NPS funding. Project 

funding will not come all at once; it will likely 

take many years to secure and may be 

provided by partners, donations, or other 

nonfederal sources. Although the National 

Lakeshore hopes to secure this funding and 

will prepare itself accordingly, the Lakeshore 

may not receive enough funding to achieve all 

desired conditions within the timeframe of the 

General Management Plan (the next 20 or 

more years). More information on costs is 

provided in appendix C. 
ALTERNATIVE B 

OVERALL VISION

Under alternative B the National Lakeshore 

would be valued primarily for its recreational 

opportunities in scenic outdoor settings. 

WILDERNESS 

About 14,400 acres (20% of the National 

Lakeshore), all on North Manitou Island, 

would be proposed as wilderness (see Alternative B map in back pocket). No county 

roads are within areas proposed for wilderness. None of the Lake Michigan active beach 

zone is in areas proposed for wilderness. 

Please note that the acreage figures for the 

various wilderness proposals are estimates 

based on small-scale maps. 

Areas of proposed wilderness are as follows: 

• North area of the mainland — none 

• Central area of the mainland — none 

• South area of the mainland — none 

• North Manitou Island — most of the 

island (the historic village and Cottage 

Row would be excluded) 

• South Manitou Island — none 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Based on the large extent of the recreation 

zone in this alternative, natural resources 

might be modified to provide for a variety of 

recreational activities. Natural resource 

management programs that would occur 

regardless of the general management plan are 

outlined in the “Desired Conditions and 

Strategies” section in chapter 1. Examples 

include controlling invasive species, restoring 

disturbed sites, protecting open dune areas, 

and protecting threatened and endangered 

species. 

 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Historic structures and landscapes would be 

managed as specified for the management 

zone in which they lie (see alternative map and 

zone descriptions). More information on 

individual areas is provided below. 

• Glen Haven (same in all alternatives) — 

The Glen Haven Historic District and 

Sleeping Bear Point Life-Saving Station 

would be preserved, rehabilitated, or 

restored. 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. 

• Port Oneida (same in all alternatives) — 

Historic structures and landscapes would 

be preserved, rehabilitated, or restored. 

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. 

• North Manitou Island (same as the 

preferred alternative) — The historic lifesaving station and Cottage Row structures would be preserved, rehabilitated, 

or restored. 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. 

60 
Alternative B 

• South Manitou Island — The historic 

life-saving 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 — Historic structures and 

landscapes would be managed as 

specified for the management zone in 

which they lie (see alternative map and 

zone descriptions). 

VISITOR ORIENTATION, 

INTERPRETATION, AND EDUCATION 

Visitor orientation services would continue at 

the NPS visitor center in Empire, at Glen 

Haven, and at the visitor contact station on 

South Manitou Island. Interpretive activities 

would continue throughout the Lakeshore, 

with special emphasis at the Dune Climb, the 

major campgrounds, Port Oneida, Glen 

Haven, and Sleeping Bear Point Maritime 

Museum. On South Manitou Island, 

concession-operated farm loop tours would 

continue. Concession auto tours to near the 

Giant Cedars would be allowed, provided 

there is demand and the service is 

economically feasible. (Concession autos 

would go as far as the end of the county road; 

the tours would continue on foot to the 

Cedars from there.) 

VISITOR FACILITIES, 

OPPORTUNITIES, AND ACTIVITIES 

Opportunities for recreational activities such 

as hiking, backpacking, fishing and hunting, 

paddling, cross-country skiing, and 

backcountry camping would be expanded as 

described below: 

• Roads — Roads would remain essentially 

the same as now, except that a new scenic 

road would eventually be built within the 

Benzie Corridor. All county road rightsof-way would be zoned compatible with 

motor vehicle and bicycle use. 

• Trails — Trails would be expanded in 

several areas of the National Lakeshore: 

(1) a hike/bike trail located primarily 

along M-22 and M-109 could be 

developed at the initiative of partners; a 

separate study would be needed to make 

certain that such a trail would have no 

significant impact; (2) a “bay-to-bay” trail 

for hikers and Lake Michigan paddlers 

would parallel the mainland shoreline 

within the Lakeshore; on land, this trail 

would make use of active beach areas or 

existing disturbed areas and corridors; 

(3) a modest, multi-loop hiking trail 

system (with trailhead parking area) 

would be provided at Bow Lakes; (4) 

existing trails would be evaluated to see if 

a few could be groomed for skiing in 

winter; and (5) bike lanes (or in some 

stretches a separate bike trail, as 

appropriate), would accompany the 

Benzie Corridor scenic road. 

• Campgrounds — Campgrounds and 

camping would remain essentially the 

same, except that (1) four or five small, 

primitive campgrounds would be 

constructed an easy day’s hike or paddle 

apart along the Lake Michigan shoreline, 

for paddlers and hikers (see ‘‘trails” 

above); (2) the D. H. Day group 

campground would be relocated to the 

main D.H. Day campground; and (3) on 

North Manitou Island, dispersed 

camping would no longer occur; instead, 

designated campgrounds would be 

provided (locations to be determined). 

• Lake Michigan Beach Access — The 

following beach access points that are 

accessible to motor vehicles would 

remain essentially the same — Lake 

Michigan Road (Leelanau County), Glen 

Haven, North Bar Lake, and Tiesma 

Road. Parking at the ends of Peterson 

Road and Esch Road would be improved. 

The area around the mouth of the Platte 

River would be zoned high use and 

61 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

managed as a more developed beach 

access area (e.g., expanded parking area, 

picnicking, and comfort station). 

• Lake Michigan Boat Access — A high use 

zone is located around and east of the 

mouth of the Platte River. The high use 

zone allows for boat ramps or docks for 

access to Lake Michigan, although no 

new boat ramps or docks are proposed 

by the National Park Service. A separate 

study would be needed to determine 

whether any such facilities would be 

appropriate for this area. 

• Inland Lake Use and Access — 

Motorized boats would be allowed on 

School, Bass (Leelanau County), Loon, 

North Bar, Shell, and Tucker lakes. 

Access (parking areas, ramps or docks) 

would be improved at a few inland lakes 

(locations to be determined). 

• Picnic Areas — Existing picnic areas 

would remain. A few of these areas would 

be upgraded. 

• Ferry Service — Ferry service for day and 

overnight stays on South Manitou Island 

and overnight stays on North Manitou 

Island would continue. Day trips to 

North Manitou Island would be added, 

but these would occur once or twice a 

week, not daily. 

• Boat Access for River Use — Motorized 

and nonmotorized watercraft use along 

the Platte and Crystal rivers would 

continue. The Crystal River access area 

would be upgraded or relocated, and a 

small parking area would be provided. 

• Dune Climb — The Dune Climb would 

remain essentially the same. 

• Bicycle Use — Bicycle use would 

continue to be allowed on roads used by 

motor vehicles, but not on hiking trails. 

An exception would be that as part of the 

M-22/M-109 hike/bike trail, bicycle use 

would be evaluated for portions of the 

Bay View Trail immediately adjacent to 

the M-22 corridor. Bicycle use would be 

evaluated for expansion in zones that 

permit it (recreation, high use, and 

experience history). Bicycle rentals on 

South Manitou Island would be 

considered. 

• Hang Gliding — Hang gliding would 

continue to be allowed at designated sites 

within the Lakeshore (same as in the noaction alternative). 

Benzie Corridor 

The National Park Service would continue to 

acquire lands within the Benzie Corridor on a 

willing-seller basis (subject to available 

funding) for future development of a scenic 

road. The scenic road would include bike 

lanes (or in some stretches a separate bike 

trail, as appropriate). For cost and impact 

comparison purposes, the scenic road was 

assumed to be built in year 25 of the plan. 

Land acquisition costs are not included in the 

cost estimates below. Merely stating that the 

National Lakeshore would continue to 

purchase lands within the Benzie Corridor 

would not immediately make funds available 

for acquisition. It might be several years 

before funds are actually available to 

implement the plan.

Bow Lakes 

Nature observation and backcountry hiking 

would be facilitated by development of a 

modest, multi-loop trail system, which would 

link up with the nearby public school if 

possible, to facilitate use by students. The 

National Park Service would acquire 

properties within this area of the Lakeshore 

on a willing-seller basis as they become 

available (subject to available funding). 

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS 

There would be no boundary adjustments 

under this alternative. 

62 
Alternative B 

63 

STAFFING AND COSTS 

The staffing level needed to implement 

alternative B would be the equivalent of 79 

full-time staff members. Volunteers and 

partnerships would continue to be key 

contributors to NPS operations. 

The cost estimates provided here are given for 

comparison to other alternatives only; they 

are not to be used for budgeting purposes. 

Although the numbers appear to be absolutes, 

they represent a midpoint in a possible range 

of costs. The costs developed are estimates 

inclusive of all one-time capital costs of the 

preferred alternative, including projects that 

are planned for the near future. One-time 

capital costs of alternative B, including 

projects that are planned for the near future or 

are underway, new construction, and nonfacility costs such as major resource plans and 

projects, are estimated at $42.8 million. In 

addition to items mentioned for the no-action 

alternative, this includes costs of the Benzie 

Corridor scenic road, new trails and 

campgrounds, picnic area improvements, 

improved access for nonmotorized boats at 

inland lakes and rivers, beach access 

improvements, and historic preservation/ 

rehabilitation/restoration (various areas). 

Deferred maintenance costs of alternative B 

are estimated at $15.4 million. The total cost 

of this alternative (one-time capital costs plus 

deferred maintenance costs) is estimated at 

$58.2 million. Annual operating costs under 

this alternative would be $4.4 million. 

Presentation of these costs in this plan does 

not guarantee future NPS funding. Project 

funding will not come all at once; it will likely 

take many years to secure and may be 

provided by partners, donations or other 

nonfederal sources. Although the National 

Lakeshore hopes to secure this funding and 

will prepare itself accordingly, the Lakeshore 

may not receive enough funding to achieve all 

desired conditions within the timeframe of the 

General Management Plan (the next 20 or 

more years). More information on costs is 

provided in appendix C. 
ALTERNATIVE C 

OVERALL VISION 

Under alternative C the Lakeshore would be 

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

primitive conditions promoted in the rest of 

the Lakeshore. 

WILDERNESS 

About 23,200 acres (32% of the National 

Lakeshore) in the central, south, and island 

areas of the Lakeshore would be proposed as 

wilderness (see Alternative C map in back 

pocket). No developed county roads are 

within areas proposed for wilderness. None of 

the Lake Michigan active beach zone is in 

areas proposed for wilderness. Please note 

that the acreage figures for the various 

wilderness proposals are estimates based on 

small-scale maps. 

Areas of proposed wilderness are as follows: 

• North area of the mainland — none 

• Central area of the mainland — Sleeping 

Bear Plateau 

• South area of the mainland — much of 

the area north of M-22 

• North Manitou Island — most of the 

island (the historic village and Cottage 

Row would be excluded) 

• South Manitou Island — the 

northwestern two-thirds of the island 

(the lighthouse complex, historic village, 

farm loop tour route, Florence Lake, and 

Giant Cedars would be excluded) 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Within the high use and experience history 

zones there would be less emphasis on 

managing the Lakeshore for natural 

conditions. Outside those concentrated use 

areas, the Lakeshore would be managed for 

more natural conditions. Natural resource 

management programs that would occur 

regardless of the general management plan are 

outlined in the “Desired Conditions and 

Strategies” section in chapter 1. Examples 

include controlling invasive species, restoring 

disturbed sites, protecting open dune areas, 

and protecting threatened and endangered 

species. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Historic structures and landscapes would be 

managed as specified for the management 

zone in which they lie (see alternative map and 

zone descriptions). More information on 

individual areas is provided below. 

• Glen Haven (same in all alternatives) — 

The Glen Haven Historic District and 

Sleeping Bear Point Life-Saving Station 

would be preserved, rehabilitated, or 

restored. 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. 

• Port Oneida (same in all alternatives) — 

Historic structures and landscapes would 

be preserved, rehabilitated, or restored. 

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. 

64 
Alternative C 

• North Manitou Island (same as the 

preferred alternative) — The historic lifesaving station and Cottage Row 

structures would be preserved, 

rehabilitated, or restored. 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. 

• South Manitou Island (same as 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 — Historic structures and 

landscapes would be managed as 

specified for the management zone in 

which they lie (see alternative map and 

zone descriptions). 

VISITOR ORIENTATION, 

INTERPRETATION, AND EDUCATION 

Visitor orientation services would continue at 

the NPS visitor center in Empire, at Glen 

Haven, and at the visitor contact station on 

South Manitou Island. Interpretive activities 

would continue throughout the Lakeshore, 

with special emphasis at the Dune Climb, the 

major campgrounds, Port Oneida, Glen 

Haven, and Sleeping Bear Point Maritime 

Museum. Educational and interpretive 

programs for visitors would be more 

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

concentrated use areas. Outside the 

concentrated use areas, most interpretive 

opportunities would be self-guided. On South 

Manitou Island, concession-operated farm 

loop tours would continue. Concession auto 

tours to near the Giant Cedars would be 

allowed, provided there is demand and the 

service is economically feasible. (Concession 

autos would go as far as the end of the county 

road; the tours would continue on foot to the 

Cedars from there.) 

VISITOR FACILITIES, 

OPPORTUNITIES, AND ACTIVITIES 

Concentrated use areas would be managed for 

more developed facilities and guided recreational opportunities. Opportunities for recreational activities such as hiking, backpacking, 

fishing and hunting, paddling, cross-country 

skiing, and backcountry camping would be 

expanded as discussed below: 

• Roads — Roads would remain essentially 

the same as now. All developed county 

roads would be zoned compatible with 

motor vehicle and bicycle use. 

• Trails — Additional trails would be 

considered within the high use zone near 

Little Glen Lake to increase both 

recreational options and connectivity 

between Lakeshore attractions. Other 

trail opportunities would be added: (1) a 

hike/bike trail located primarily along M22 and M-109 could be developed at the 

initiative of partners; a separate study 

would be needed to make certain that 

such a trail would have no significant 

impact; (2) a “bay-to-bay” trail for hikers 

and Lake Michigan paddlers would 

parallel the mainland shoreline within the 

Lakeshore; on land, this trail would make 

use of active beach areas or existing 

disturbed areas and corridors; (3) a short 

loop hiking trail (with trailhead parking 

area) would be provided at Bow Lakes; 

and (4) a hike/bike trail would eventually 

be developed within the Benzie Corridor. 

• Campgrounds — Campgrounds and 

camping would remain essentially the 

same, except that: (1) the D. H. Day 

group campground would relocated to 

the main D. H. Day campground; (2) the 

D. H. Day campground would be zoned 

65 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

high use, allowing for improved facilities 

and/or campground expansion; and (3) 

on North Manitou Island, in addition to 

dispersed camping, additional designated 

campgrounds would be provided 

(locations to be determined). 

• Lake Michigan Beach Access — The 

following beach access points that are 

accessible to motor vehicles would 

remain essentially the same: Lake 

Michigan Road (Leelanau County), Glen 

Haven, North Bar Lake, Peterson Road, 

and Tiesma Road. The areas around the 

ends of County Road 669, Esch Road, 

and the Platte River mouth would be 

zoned high use and managed as more 

developed beach access areas (e.g., 

expanded parking and picnicking and 

comfort station). 

• Lake Michigan Boat Access — High use 

zones would be located near the end of 

County Road 669, around the Platte 

River mouth, and near the end of Esch 

Road. The high use zone allows for boat 

ramps or docks for access to Lake 

Michigan, although no new boat ramps 

or docks are proposed by the National 

Park Service. Separate studies would be 

needed to determine whether any such 

facilities would be appropriate in these 

areas. 

• Inland Lake Use and Access — 

Motorized boats would be allowed on 

School, Bass (Leelanau County), North 

Bar, and Loon Lakes. Access (parking 

areas, ramps, or docks) would be 

improved at a few inland lakes (locations 

to be determined). 

• Picnic Areas — Existing picnic areas 

would remain, and the Glen Lake picnic 

area would be formalized and upgraded 

(including a comfort station) to facilitate 

beach and picnic use. 

• Ferry Service — Ferry service for day and 

overnight stays on South Manitou Island 

and overnight stays on North Manitou 

Island would continue (same as in the no 

action alternative). 

• Boat Access for River Use — Motorized 

and nonmotorized watercraft use along 

the Platte and Crystal rivers would 

continue (same as in the no action 

alternative). 

• Dune Climb — Facilities at the Dune 

Climb would be upgraded (e.g., picnic 

tables and pedestrian paths would be 

better defined) to support continued 

heavy use. 

• Bicycle Use — Bicycle use would 

continue to be allowed on roads used by 

motor vehicles, but not on hiking trails. 

An exception would be that as part of the 

M-22/M-109 hike/bike trail, bicycle use 

would be evaluated for portions of the 

Bay View Trail immediately adjacent to 

the M-22 corridor. Bicycle use would be 

evaluated for expansion in zones that 

permit it (recreation, high use, and 

experience history). 

• Hang Gliding — Hang gliding would 

continue to be allowed at designated sites 

within the Lakeshore (same as in the no 

action alternative). 

Benzie Corridor 

The National Park Service would continue to 

acquire lands within the Benzie Corridor on a 

willing-seller basis (subject to available 

funding) for future development of a scenic 

nonmotorized hike/bike trail. For cost and 

impact comparison purposes, the scenic trail 

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

Land acquisition costs are not included in the 

cost estimates below. Merely stating that the 

National Lakeshore would continue to 

purchase lands within the Benzie Corridor 

would not immediately make funds available 

for acquisition. It might be several years 

before funds are actually available to 

implement the plan. 

66 
Alternative C 

67 

Bow Lakes 

Nature observation and backcountry hiking 

would be facilitated by development of a small 

parking area and a short loop trail. The 

National Park Service would acquire 

properties within this area of the Lakeshore 

on a willing-seller basis as they become 

available (subject to available funding). 

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS 

There would be no boundary adjustments 

under this alternative. 

STAFFING AND COSTS 

The staffing level under alternative C would 

be the equivalent of 85 full-time staff members. Volunteers and partnerships would 

continue to be key contributors to NPS 

operations. 

The cost estimates provided here are given for 

comparison to other alternatives only; they 

are not to be used for budgeting purposes. 

Although the numbers appear to be absolutes, 

they represent a midpoint in a possible range 

of costs. The costs developed are estimates 

inclusive of all one-time capital costs of the 

preferred alternative, including projects that 

are planned for the near future. One-time 

capital costs of alternative C, including 

projects that are planned for the near future or 

are underway, new construction, and nonfacility costs such as major resource plans and 

projects, are estimated at $30.5 million. In 

addition to items mentioned for the no-action 

alternative, this includes costs of new trails, 

new or upgraded campgrounds, picnic area 

improvements, improved access for nonmotorized boats at inland lakes, beach access 

and Dune Climb improvements, and historic 

preservation/ rehabilitation/ restoration 

(various areas). Deferred maintenance costs of 

alternative C are estimated at $15.4 million. 

The total cost of this alternative (one-time 

capital costs plus deferred maintenance costs) 

is estimated at $45.9 million. Annual operating 

costs under this alternative would be $4.5 

million. Annual operating costs under this 

alternative would be $4.5 million. Presentation 

of these costs in this plan does not guarantee 

future NPS funding. Project funding will not 

come all at once; it will likely take many years 

to secure and may be provided by partners, 

donations or other nonfederal sources. 

Although the National Lakeshore hopes to 

secure this funding and will prepare itself 

accordingly, the Lakeshore may not receive 

enough funding to achieve all desired 

conditions within the timeframe of the 

General Management Plan (the next 20 or 

more years). More information on costs is 

provided in appendix C. 
MITIGATIVE MEASURES FOR THE ACTION ALTERNATIVES 

In the legislation that created the National 

Park Service, Congress charged the agency 

with managing lands under its stewardship “in 

such manner and by such means as will leave 

them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 

generations” (National Park Service Organic 

Act). As a result, the National Park Service 

routinely considers and implements mitigative 

measures whenever activities that could 

adversely affect the resources or systems are 

anticipated. Mitigation means to take action to 

avoid, reduce, or compensate for the effects of 

environmental damage. 

A common set of mitigative measures would 

be applied to the action alternatives in this 

General Management Plan. The National Park 

Service would avoid, minimize, and mitigate 

adverse impacts whenever practicable. 

GENERAL 

New facilities (e.g., campsites, trails, bicycle 

trails) would be sited to minimize impacts on 

resources, including avoiding steep slopes and 

sensitive areas and placing new facilities as 

close to existing disturbances as feasible. 

Before any construction activity, construction 

zones would be identified with temporary 

fencing to confine disruptions to the 

minimum area required. All protection 

measures would be clearly stated in the 

construction specifications, and workers 

would be instructed to avoid areas beyond the 

fencing. 

Construction activities would implement 

standard soil erosion and stormwater runoff 

prevention methods such as use of silt fencing 

to avoid erosion and runoff in flowing water 

environments or during rain events. 

Outdoor lighting for new or rehabilitated 

facilities would be the minimum amount 

required to provide for personal safety. Lights 

would also be shielded and/or directed downward to minimize impact on the night sky. 

Standard noise abatement measures would be 

implemented, as appropriate, during park 

operations and construction activities. Examples include: scheduling activities so that 

impacts are minimized, use of the best available noise control techniques, use of hydraulically or electrically powered tools, and 

situating noise-producing machinery as far as 

possible from sensitive uses or resources. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Archeological Resources 

The Archeological Resources Protection Act 

of 1979 requires that all federal land managers 

develop plans for surveying lands under their 

control to determine the nature and extent of 

archeological resources on those lands. 

Funding for a comprehensive survey has been 

requested and site-specific surveys continue 

to be conducted in the interim. The following 

procedures would be taken to ensure that 

archeological resources are not lost or 

damaged due to National Lakeshore activities: 

As appropriate, archeological surveys and/ 

or monitoring would precede any construction. Known archeological resources 

would be avoided to the greatest extent 

possible. If archeological resources listed in 

or eligible for listing in the national register 

could not be avoided, an appropriate 

mitigation strategy would be developed in 

consultation with the state historic preservation officer and, if necessary, associated 

American Indian tribes. If during construction previously undiscovered archeological 

resources were uncovered, all work in the 

immediate vicinity of the discovery would 

be halted until the resources could be 

identified and documented and an 

68 
Mitigative Measures for the Action Alternatives 

appropriate mitigation strategy developed 

in consultation with the state historic 

preservation officer and, if necessary, 

associated American Indian tribes. 

Human Remains 

In the event that human remains, funerary 

objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural 

patrimony were discovered during 

construction, provisions outlined in the 

Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act of 1990 (25 USC 3001) and 

other applicable laws would be followed. 

Ethnographic Resources 

Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore staff 

would consult with associated American 

Indian tribes to develop and accomplish 

programs in a way that respects the beliefs, 

traditions, and other cultural values of the 

American Indian tribes who have ancestral 

ties to National Lakeshore lands. NPS staff 

will maintain government-to-government 

relations with associated tribes to ensure a 

collaborative working relationship, and will 

consult regularly with them before taking 

actions that would affect natural and cultural 

resources that are of interest and concern to 

them. Access to, and ceremonial use of, 

American Indian sacred sites by American 

Indian religious practitioners would be 

accommodated in a manner that is consistent 

with National Lakeshore purposes and 

applicable law, regulations, and policy. 

Historic Structures and Landscapes 

All structures and landscapes in the National 

Lakeshore have been or are being inventoried 

and evaluated using the criteria of the 

National Register of Historic Places. Not all of 

these structures and landscapes have been 

fully documented and submitted to the keeper 

of the national register. Until that action has 

occurred, however, all properties listed on or 

appearing to meet national register criteria 

will be treated as though they are listed. No 

action affecting any of these resources may 

proceed without appropriate consultation 

with the state historic preservation officer and 

documentation of the action under Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

of 1966, as amended, as promulgated under 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s “Regulations for the Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties” (36 CFR 800). 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

General 

For alternatives that include a concessions 

farm tour to near the Giant Cedars, tour 

vehicles could travel as far as the end of the 

county-owned road. From there, visitors 

would continue on foot for a short distance to 

the trees. Mitigating measures (e.g., education, 

supervision by tour leaders, fences, and/or 

boardwalks) would be used as needed to 

prevent visitor-use-related impacts to the 

cedar trees, which are believed to be vulnerable to trampling due to shallow root systems. 

Activities with the potential to disturb natural 

resources would be monitored for use-related 

impacts. Management options could range 

from (a) placing structures to limit impacts 

(e.g., sand ladders and boardwalks) or redirect 

visitors (i.e., fences), (b) education, and (c) 

guided activities, and (d) limiting access 

through a permit system. 

Wetlands 

Trails and other developments would avoid 

wetlands and “Waters of the United States” 

(all waters that are currently used, were used 

in the past, or may be susceptible to use in 

interstate or foreign commerce) to the extent 

feasible. Where crossing or impingement 

upon wetlands is unavoidable, design and 

69 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

70 

construction would minimize impacts on the 

wetlands. All potential impacts on wetlands 

would require state and federal permits. 

Geology and Soils 

Structures such as sand ladders, boardwalks, 

and sidewalks would be used to reduce 

impacts to the substrate, and silt fences would 

be used to control erosion and runoff. Steep 

slopes and inundated areas would be avoided. 

Vegetation and Wildlife 

Trails/paths would be placed as close to 

existing disturbances as possible. The 

construction footprint would be minimized 

for both temporary and permanent impacts. 

Construction would take place outside peak 

breeding and nesting seasons. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Surveys would be conducted, as appropriate, 

for threatened and endangered species and 

species of concern before ground-disturbing 

activities are undertaken. 

Impacts on three federally threatened or 

endangered species are analyzed in detail in 

this document— the piping plover (and piping 

plover critical habitat), the Michigan monkey 

flower, and the Pitcher’s thistle. (See chapter 5 

for details.) 

Conservation measures would be undertaken 

to reduce potential impacts on federally listed 

species or candidate species as needed. 

Conservation measures would be 

implemented in consultation with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and would be 

required if 

• activities expected to have impacts on 

piping plovers or their designated critical 

habitat beyond those addressed in this 

document were initiated 

• additional Michigan monkey flower 

occurrences were identified within the 

Lakeshore 

• activities anticipated to have impacts on 

Michigan monkey flower populations 

were initiated 

• activities anticipated to have impacts on 

Pitcher’s thistle populations beyond those 

addressed in this document were initiated 

Should any of the above events occur, 

renewed discussion and consultation with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 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. 

Conservation measures would likely include, 

but would not be limited to, the following: 

• Protecting piping plovers by fencing or 

another system designed to prevent 

impacts from human activity and 

discourage predators. 

• Restricting dogs from piping plover 

breeding areas during the breeding 

season. 

• Providing education about species and 

habitats. 

• Designating alternate access points. 
THE ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE 

The environmentally preferable alternative is 

the alternative that promotes the national 

environmental policy expressed in the 

National Environmental Policy Act (Sec. 

101(b)). This includes alternatives that 

(1) fulfill the responsibilities of each 

generation as trustee of the environment 

for succeeding generations; 

(2) ensure for all Americans safe, healthful, 

productive, and esthetically and 

culturally pleasing surroundings; 

(3) attain the widest range of beneficial uses 

of the environment without 

degradation, risk of health or safety, or 

other undesirable and unintended 

consequences; 

(4) preserve important historic, cultural, 

and natural aspects of our national 

heritage and maintain, wherever 

possible, an environment that supports 

diversity and variety of individual 

choice; 

(5) achieve a balance between population 

and resource use that will permit high 

standards of living and a wide sharing of 

life’s amenities; and 

(6) enhance the quality of renewable 

resources and approach the maximum 

attainable recycling of depletable 

resources” (NPS DO-12 Handbook, 

Section 2.7D). 

The alternatives do not differ much with 

respect to criteria 2 and 6; therefore the 

evaluation focuses on criteria 1, 3, 4, and 5. 

The no-action alternative represents “business 

as usual” and was included to provide a 

baseline against which to compare the effects 

of the other (action) alternatives. The noaction alternative realizes criterion 1 in that 

most of the Lakeshore would be managed as 

rather natural, and large areas would be 

managed to maintain their existing wilderness 

character. The no-action alternative would 

not fully realize criteria 3, 4, and 5 to the same 

extent as alternatives B, C, and the preferred 

alternative because it has fewer recreational 

opportunities. 

The preferred alternative proposes managing 

much of the National Lakeshore as the 

experience nature zone, provides limited new 

recreational opportunities, proposes 

substantial amounts of designated wilderness, 

and protects the National Lakeshore’s 

fundamental resources and values; as such it 

realizes criteria 1, 3, 4, and 5. 

Alternative A realizes criterion 1 by managing 

most of the Lakeshore as the experience 

nature zone and by proposing substantial 

amounts of designated wilderness. Because it 

proposes a narrower range of recreational 

opportunities (and fewer such opportunities) 

than alternatives B, C, and the preferred 

alternative, alternative A does not realize 

criteria 3, 4, and 5 to the same extent as these 

alternatives. 

Alternative B realizes many aspects of criteria 

3, 4, and 5 by providing a relatively wide range 

of and more new recreational opportunities. 

Alternative B realizes criterion 1 to a lesser 

degree than the other alternatives due to the 

more limited extent of the experience nature 

zone and its modest wilderness proposal. 

Alternative C realizes criterion 1 to a lesser 

extent than the preferred alternative and 

alternative A, and to a greater extent than 

alternative B, based on the relative 

proportions of management zones and its 

moderate wilderness proposal. However, 

similar to alternative B and the preferred 

alternative, alternative C realizes many aspects 

of criteria 3, 4, and 5 by providing a relatively 

wide range of and more new recreational 

opportunities. 

 

71 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

After considering the environmental 

consequences of the five management 

alternatives, including consequences to the 

human environment, the National Park 

Service has concluded that the preferred 

alternative is also the environmentally 

preferable alternative. By a slight margin over 

alternative C, this alternative best realizes the 

full range of national environmental policy 

goals as stated in section 101 of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. 

72 
TABLE 2: COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

This table is included with the maps in the back pocket of this document. 

73 
TABLE 3: RANGE OF TREATMENT FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES UNDER THE ALTERNATIVES

 

experience history zone (allows for preservation, rehabilitation, or restoration)

 recreation zone (allows for preservation or rehabilitation)

experience nature zone (allows for preservation)

The shading in the table below reflects the management zone and the possible treatment range (see table 

box above) where the property is located. (There are no historic properties in the high use zone.) See 

definitions for preservation, rehabilitation, and restoration on page 40. 

No Action 

Preferred 

Alternative Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Treatment 

Preservation Rehabilitation Restoration Preservation Rehabilitation Restoration Preservation Rehabilitation Restoration Preservation Rehabilitation Restoration Preservation Rehabilitation Restoration 

FUNDAMENTAL HISTORIC RESOURCES 

Sleeping Bear Point 

Life-Saving Station (4)a ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

North Manitou LifeSaving Station (8)a ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

South Manitou Island 

Lighthouse Complex 

and Life-Saving Station 

Historical District (13)a

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Glen Haven Village 

Historic District (15) a ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Port Oneida Rural 

Historic District (121)a 

(18 farms) 

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

SUBTOTAL (161) 

OTHER HISTORIC RESOURCES 

North Manitou Island 

Village (Manitou Island 

Association) (10) a

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

North Manitou Island 

Village (Cottage Row) 

(13) a

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

North Manitou Island 

Westside Barn (1) a ● ● ● ● ●

Bournique Cabin (4) a

● ● ● ● ●

South Manitou Island 

Loop (Schoolhouse, 

August Beck farm, G.C. 

Hutzler farm (13) a

● ○ ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

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

75 

No Action 

Preferred 

Alternative Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Treatment 

Preservation Rehabilitation Restoration Preservation Rehabilitation Restoration Preservation Rehabilitation Restoration Preservation Rehabilitation Restoration Preservation Rehabilitation Restoration 

South Manitou Island 

non-farm loop (G. J. 

Hutzler farm, T. Beck 

farm) (5) a

● ● ● ● ● ●

Remainder of South 

Manitou Island Village 

(9) a

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Bufka Farm (8) a

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Kropp Farm (5) a

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Eitzen Farm (7) a

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Shalda Log Cabin (1) a

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Tweddle School (1) a

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Pelky Barn (1) a

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Treat Farm (9) a

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Esch Farm (1) a

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Lyle Schmidt 

Farm (3) a ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Tweddle Farm (6) a

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Boekeloo Log Cabin (2)a

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Ken-Tuck-U Inn (3) a

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

SUBTOTAL (102)

TOTAL (263)

Figures refer to 

numbers of structures.

206 (78%) 180 (68%) 193 (73%) 206 (78%) 

35 (13%) 7 (03%) 42 (16%) 41 (16%)

22 (08%) 76 (29%) 28 (11%) 16 (06%) 

a Number of buildings at each property. All landscapes are preserved. Numbers do not include other 

landscape features such as fence rows, cemeteries, sidewalks, etc. 

○ Restoration of Schoolhouse only, preservation of all others. 
TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF THE IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES

There would be no impairment of National Lakeshore resources or values from actions proposed in the alternatives. 

NO-ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE 

PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE IMPACT TOPIC ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C 

Impacts on Historic Resources

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). 

The preferred 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). 

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). 

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). 

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 Properties”(36 CFR 800). 

Impacts on Natural Resources 

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. 

The preferred alternative would have short- and long-term, minor to moderate adverse and beneficial impacts on soils and geologic resources. 

Alternative A would have short- and longterm, negligible to moderate adverse impacts, and long-term, minor beneficial impacts on soils and geologic resources. 

Alternative B would have short- and long-term, negligible to moderate adverse and beneficial impacts on soils and geologic resources. 

Alternative C would have short- and longterm, negligible to moderate adverse and beneficial impacts. 

Soils and Geologic Resources 

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 preferred alternative would have short- and long-term negligible to minor adverse impacts, and short- and longterm minor to moderate beneficial impacts. 

Alternative A would have short- and longterm negligible to moderate adverse impacts, and short- and long-term negligible to moderate beneficial impacts. 

Alternative B would have short- and long-term negligible to moderate adverse impacts, and short- and long-term negligible to moderate beneficial impacts. 

Vegetation and Wildlife 

Alternative C would have short- and longterm negligible to moderate adverse impacts, and short- and long-term, minor to moderate beneficial impacts. 

76 
Table 4: Summary of the Impacts of the Alternatives 

NO-ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE 

PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE IMPACT TOPIC ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C 

The no-action alternative may affect but would not be likely to adversely affect addressed federally listed species and designated critical habitat. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Federal Threatened and Endangered Species 

The no-action alternative would have short- and long-term, minor to moderate, adverse impacts on Michigan state-listed species. 

The preferred alternative would have short- and long-term, minor to moderate adverse and beneficial impacts on state-listed species. 

Alternative A would have short- and longterm negligible to moderate adverse impacts and short- and long-term minor to moderate beneficial impacts on Michigan state-listed species. 

Alternative B would have short- and long-term, negligible to moderate, adverse impacts and short- and long-term negligible to moderate beneficial impacts on state-listed species. 

Alternative C would have short- and longterm, minor to moderate, adverse impacts, and short- and long-term minor to moderate beneficial impacts on state-listed species. 

Michigan State-Listed Species 

The no-action alternative would have short- and long-term, minor to moderate, adverse impacts on wetlands and water quality. 

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. 

Alternative A would contribute short-and long-term negligible to moderate adverse, and negligible to moderate beneficial impacts on wetlands and water quality. 

Alternative B 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. 

Alternative C would have short-term, negligible to moderate, adverse; short-term, negligible to minor, beneficial; and longterm negligible to moderate beneficial impacts on wetlands and water quality. 

Wetlands and Water Quality 

77 
CHAPTER 2:

ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE 

PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE

NO-ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE 

PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE IMPACT TOPIC ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C 

Impacts on Visitor Opportunities and Use

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 have a longterm, 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. 

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 a long-term minor adverse impact. 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. 

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 the visitor experience, but potentially long-term minor adverse effects on use. The removal of Valley View campground and disallowing gaspowered motorboats on two inland lakes would have long-term, minor, adverse impacts. The increased visitor opportunities and facilities would have a long-term, minor, adverse impact on natural sound and the night sky. Construction activities would have short-term, minor, adverse impacts. 

Increased access and visitor opportunities related to modest additional recreation-oriented facilities would have a long-term, minor to moderate beneficial impact on visitor opportunities and use. Implementation of user capacity management strategies would have a long-term, minor beneficial impact on the visitor experience, but potentially long-term minor adverse 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 longterm, moderate adverse impact. 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. 

Increased access and visitor opportunities related to additional recreation-oriented facilities would have a long-term, minor to moderate beneficial impact on visitor opportunities and use. Implementation of user capacity management strategies would have a long-term, minor, beneficial impact on the visitor experience, but potentially long-term minor, adverse effects on visitor use. The increased visitor opportunities and facilities in the high-use zones would have a long-term, minor, adverse impact on scenic resources, natural sounds and the night sky. Construction activities would have short-term, minor, adverse impacts. 

78 
Table 4: Summary of the Impacts of the Alternatives 

NO-ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE 

PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE IMPACT TOPIC ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C 

Impacts on Wilderness Character

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 long-term (some permanent), minor beneficial and minor to major adverse impacts on wilderness character. 

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. 

79 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

80 

IMPACT TOPIC 

NO-ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE 

PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C 

Impacts on Regional Socioeconomics

The economic and social effects of the no-action 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 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. Short- and long-term consequences on lifestyles and attitudes would be minor benefits, because many interested parties could support the management direction established in the preferred alternative. Long-term social consequences would include a negligible to minor contribution to long-term population growth and demands on community infrastructure and services. 

The economic and social effects of alternative A would include negligible to minor short-term and moderate long-term economic benefits compared to the noaction alternative. Shortand 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. 

The economic and social effects of alternative B would include negligible to minor short-term and moderate long-term economic benefits compared to the noaction alternative. Shortand long-term effects on lifestyles and attitudes are indeterminate. Longterm social consequences would include a negligible to minor contribution to longterm population growth and demands on community infrastructure and services. 

The economic effects of alternative C would include negligible to minor short-term and minor to moderate longterm economic benefits, the latter due to increased visitation. Shortand long-term consequences 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. 

Impacts on NPS Operations

Ongoing impacts (longterm minor to moderate beneficial and adverse) would continue, but the no-action alternative would have no new impacts on NPS operations. 

The preferred alternative would have long-term, minor beneficial and adverse impacts on NPS operations. 

Alternative A would have long-term, minor beneficial and adverse impacts on NPS operations. 

Alternative B would have long-term minor beneficial and moderate adverse impacts on NPS operations. 

Alternative C would have long-term minor beneficial and moderate adverse impacts on NPS operations.