THE FOLLOWING CULTURAL LANDSCAPE PACKAGES CONTAIN MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS THAT ARE PART OF EACH ALTERNATIVE DESCRIBED IN CHAPTER II.

LANDSCAPE DESCRIPTION:

Boekelodge, as it is known today, was built as a homestead cabin just after the turn of the century. The homesteader (the Cooper family) hunted, trapped, fished, and tended a garden to survive on the sandy Platte Plains from 1932-1935. When the Boekeloo family acquired the cabin in 1945, it had been abandoned for ten years. The family repaired and modernized the cabin and maintained it as a wilderness vacation spot.

The Boekeloo family continues to use the land and cabin for a rustic getaway throughout the year for family and friends. The family philosophy, as stated in 1955, was to maintain the wilderness character of the land. This included not subdividing the portion of the land on Lake Michigan, because it was felt this would adversely impact the natural features of the land.

Today the cabin represents a rapidly disappearing Michigan cultural resource - a rustic log cabin on an isolated pond. Similar cabins around the state are being torn down and replaced by more substantial homes or their landscapes are being converted from forest to resort developments. This site is historically significant because of the homesteader heritage and it's wilderness landscape.

This landscape is located approximately 15 miles (24 kilometers) south of Empire, west of State Highway M-22 off Boekeloo Road, a county road. The landscape boundary is proposed as the five-acre (two hectare) reservation of use and occupancy that expires in 2006 (see attached map).

The only historic structure in this landscape is the cabin. The attached table provides information on the recommended level of significance this structure and its condition.

LANDSCAPE AND STRUCTURE PRIORITIES:

Based on evaluations of the NPS-public working group, the landscape and associated structure have been placed in Priority II (State Level of Significance). The complete priority list is found in the Appendix.

LANDSCAPE RESOURCES/AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT:

Cultural resources include the cabin and other features of the landscape, including the access road, pond, canal, bridge over the canal, fence, and duck houses. The landscape has not been surveyed for archeological resources.

Natural resources include a mixed-hardwood forest and excellent examples of the ridge-swale complex, characterized by low, steep ridges separated by wetlands. Soils are sandy, typical of many other areas found in the Lakeshore.

Visitor services and facilities do not exist in this landscape but the surrounding area is used during deer hunting season.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:

All of the landscape lies within the boundary of a proposed wilderness area, as identified in the 1981 Wilderness Recommendation.

LEVEL OF DOCUMENTATION/PLANNING NEEDS:

The level of historic documentation is adequate. Photographs are available for the period 1945-1982 and a family history of the site exists from 1945-1976.

A National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) nomination needs to be completed on this property. Site specific information is adequate to prepare the NRHP nomination. More information is needed to complete the context statement to determine the level of significance. An initial Northwoods Cabin Study has been completed by the Midwest Regional Office of the National Park Service. A cultural landscape inventory is needed to determine the boundary of this landscape.

A parkwide vegetation survey was conducted in the early 1980s but has not been updated. No systematic parkwide survey of animals has been conducted.

IMPACT ANALYSIS:

An array of alternatives (I through III) has been described in Chapter 2 of the document. Impacts to the landscape resources from actions anticipated under each action alternative were analyzed to assist in the preparation of a "prescription" for the landscape under each action alternative. The impact analysis located in the "Environmental Consequences" section of the environmental impact statement (EIS) is general in nature covering a broad range of potential proposals. Uses could range from preservation (stabilization) of structure shells (exteriors) and preservation of the landscape, to rehabilitation of structures and the landscape, with associated active use of the structures and landscapes. The analyses contained in this EIS will serve as a basis for any necessary NEPA documents (environmental assessments) prepared to address specific proposals and to direct park management decisions. All proposals would be subject to the "proposal evaluation process," described in the Appendix, and no significant negative impacts to park resources and values would be allowed in any case.

KEY FACTORS FOR DETERMINING PRESCRIPTIONS:

· This landscape is not visible from State Highway M-22. The landscape evokes a feeling of remoteness and solitude, and has had limited human impact.
· The entire landscape lies within the recommended wilderness area, a designation that restricts activities within this area.
· The landscape includes a reservation of use and occupancy that expires in 2006.
· The landscape and cabin have been placed in Priority II (State Level of Significance). Moderate effort would be made to preserve this landscape, including the cabin, but not maximum effort as with nationally significant and National Historic Landmarks.
· Any NPS management alternatives would include low levels of activity to maintain the remoteness/solitude feel.

LANDSCAPE PRESCRIPTIONS:

Based on the information described above, and the elements of the "Proposal Evaluation Process," prescriptions have been developed for the landscape under each of the plan's alternatives (I, II, and III). The final plan will select one alternative, or a combination of alternatives, along with associated landscape prescriptions.

Alternative I-No Action:

The no action/continuation of current management alternative would propose no changes in current management direction. Proposals from partners would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis...

Structures:

· The reservation of use and occupancy continues until 2006.
· When the cabin becomes vacant, it could be preserved (stabilized) by the NPS and/or partners, rehabilitated and adaptively used by partners or the NPS, or allowed to deteriorate into a poor condition. The deteriorated structure would then either be removed by demolition or allowed to upon completion of the Section 106 review. Building could be moved out of the park or removed, or rehabilitated.
· Provides no priority based on national register significance. Preservation often not based on predetermined plan, or support for stabilization with available money.
· No formal written procedure to determine which partners should receive NPS assistance.
· Wilderness constraints would apply.

Lands:

· Landscape features could be preserved with the help of partners, volunteers, and NPS staff when available.
· Partners could adaptively use the yard for projects consistent with wilderness, NPS and park policy.

Visitor Services and Facilities:

· Visitor experiences could range from viewing and/or utilizing an unstabilized cabin, preserved cabin, or rehabilitated cabin dependent upon NPS and partner resources. If structure is removed visitors could view a restored and reforested area.

Alternative II-Preservation of Buildings and Landscapes:

This alternative would seek partnerships with groups and individuals to preserve the exteriors of structures and to assist the NPS with the preservation of the landscape…

Structures:

· When the cabin becomes vacant, it could be preserved (stabilized) by partners or the NPS and used as an "exhibit" on the landscape.
· Moderate effort would be made to preserve the structures and landscapes but not a maximum effort as required for structures in landscapes of higher priorities.

Lands:

· Landscape features would be preserved consistent with wilderness designation.
· The area around the cabin would be mowed to protect it from wildfire.
· Lands would not be available for partner use.

Visitor Services and Facilities:

· The cabin could be preserved and maintained for viewing of the exterior.
· The lands would be available for a variety of wilderness-type uses.

Alternative III-The (Proposed Action) Rehabilitation of Structures and Preservation of Lands with Use:

This alternative would encourage the rehabilitation of structures and adaptive through partnership agreements. This alternative would permit preservation with use of open fields, yards, orchards, and other landscape features for compatible uses…

Structures:

· Everything in Alternative II plus . . .
· The cabin would be available for rehabilitation by NPS or partners for uses compatible with wilderness.

Lands:

· Same as Alternative II.

Visitor Services and Facilities:

· Same as Alternative II.

LANDSCAPE DESCRIPTION:

The focal point of this landscape is the Bufka farm. It is an excellent example of a developed farmstead with its many out buildings easily seen along State Highway M-22. There is a dramatic view of the landscape and Good Harbor Bay from the top of Eitzen Road. This landscape is less obvious and has more missing features than the other rural landscapes in the park. There are no vistas of open fields from State Highway M-22 and many of the fields have returned to shrubs or have been planted to pines. Like the other historic rural landscapes in the park, the landscape represents the diversified family farms developed and farmed between 1870 and 1940 by the Northern European settlers to the Great Lakes region.

This 270-acre (109-hectare) landscape is located approximately 17 miles (27 kilometers) north of Empire, along State Highway M-22 (see attached map). The north edge is defined by State Highway M-22 and County Road 651. The west edge is defined by the proposed wilderness boundary, which may be observed along the tree line and escarpment. The southern edge is defined by the original Bufka land ownership. The landscape boundary crosses State Highway M-22, follows the open field and forest line to the Lakeshore boundary along Townline Road, running along the Eitzen and Kropp farm boundaries. The east edge is defined by the Eitzen and Kropp farm boundaries.

Structures in this landscape include those associated with the Bufka farmstead (house, barn, garage, granary, log barn, smokehouse, privy, and workshop), the Kropp farmstead (house, privy shed #1, shed #2, shed #3, granary, and smokehouse), and the Eitzen farmstead (house, barn, horse barn, garage/shop, and corn crib). None of the structures in this landscape are presently being used by the Lakeshore. The Bufka and Eitzen farms are under reservations of use and occupancy until 2004 and 2003 respectively and are not available for public use. The attached table provides information on the recommended significance level for each of these structures and their condition.

Additional developments in this landscape include the St. Pauls Lutheran Church and cemetery, which are on a 2.98-acre private inholding , a 10-inch diameter water well used for fire suppression activities by local fire departments, and a Michigan Consolidated Gas compressor station (see landscape map).

LANDSCAPE AND STRUCTURE PRIORITIES:

Based on evaluations by the NPS-public working group, the landscape and associated structures have been assigned Priority IV (Local Level of Significance-Moderate Integrity), except for the Bufka Farmstead, which has been assigned Priority III (Local Level of Significance-High Integrity). The complete priority list is found in the Appendix.

LANDSCAPE RESOURCES/AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT:

Cultural resources include the structures described above, other features of the landscape (fence rows, remnant orchards, tree groves, open fields, pine plantations, etc.), archeological resources, vistas and viewsheds, and the open fields. The open fields contain native and non-native plant species, with a significant portion of the open landscape dominated by non-native plants. These fields provide habitat for a variety of flora and fauna, many of which would not be present, or would be present in limited numbers if the landscape were still covered in mature forest.

Natural resources include hardwood forests and native grasses that inhabit the open fields. There are no known plants or animals present in this landscape that could be classified by the state or federal government as threatened, endangered, or of special concern. No floodplains or wetlands exist in this landscape. Soils are sandy, typical of many other areas found in the Lakeshore. Had this land not been cleared and cultivated in the past, it would support a mixed hardwood forest, common to the area.

Visitor services and facilities include state and county roads, some of which offer views of the landscape. The area provides photographic and artistic opportunities.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:

The western portion of the landscape lies adjacent the boundary of the proposed wilderness area, as identified in the 1981 Wilderness Recommendation, but no portion of the landscape lies within it. No fields here have been identified in the Lakeshore's 1990 Open Field Management Plan, but fields could be added to this plan in the future. None of the landscape is included in any of the 1979 General Management Plan's special management zoning areas, such as the "Agricultural Management Subzone."

LEVEL OF DOCUMENTATION/PLANNING NEEDS:

A National Register of Historic Places nomination needs to be completed on this property. Additional information is needed for all the farmsteads included in this district.

A cultural landscape inventory (CLI) has been completed, by the Midwest Regional Office, for the Kropp farms. A CLI is needed for the Bufka and Eitzen farmsteads.

A parkwide vegetation survey was conducted in the early 1980s but has not been updated. No systematic parkwide survey of animals has been conducted.

IMPACT ANALYSIS:

An array of alternatives (I through III) has been described in Chapter 2 of this plan. Impacts to the landscape resources from actions anticipated under each action alternative were analyzed to assist in the preparation of a "prescription" for the landscape under each action alternative. The impact analysis located in the "Environmental Consequences" section of the environmental impact statement (EIS) is general in nature covering a broad range of potential proposals. Uses could range from preservation (stabilization) of structure shells (exteriors) and preservation of the landscape, to rehabilitation of structures and preservation with use of the landscape. The analyses contained in this EIS will serve as a basis for any necessary NEPA documents (environmental assessments) prepared to address specific proposals and to direct park management decisions. All proposals would be subject to the "proposal evaluation process," described in the Appendix, and no significant negative impacts to park resources and values would be allowed in any case.

KEY FACTORS FOR DETERMINING PRESCRIPTIONS:

· This landscape is not very visible from State Highway M-22, the major Lakeshore access road.
· A private inholding is located in the landscape, adjacent to State Highway M-22.
· The landscape and associated structures have been placed in Priority IV (Local Level of Significance-Moderate Integrity), except for the Bufka Farmstead, which has been assigned Priority III (Local Level of Significance-High Integrity). Minimal effort would be made to preserve this landscape, including the structures, but not maximum effort as with nationally significant and National Historic Landmarks.
· When compared to the other landscapes in the Lakeshore, it is not as significant.
· A major portion of the district lies outside of the Lakeshore boundary, and is not protected from development.

LEVEL OF DOCUMENTATION/PLANNING NEEDS:

A National Register of Historic Places nomination needs to be completed for this landscape. Additional information is needed for all the farmsteads included in this landscape.

A cultural landscape inventory (CLI) has been completed, by the Midwest Regional Office, for the Kropp farms. A CLI is needed for the Bufka and Eitzen farmsteads.

Based on the information described above, and the elements of the "Proposal Evaluation Process," prescriptions have been developed for the landscape under each of the plan's alternatives (I, II, and III). The final plan will select one alternative along with associated landscape prescriptions.

Alternative I -No Action:

The no action/continuation of current management alternative would propose no changes in current management direction. Proposals from partners would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis…

Structures:

· The "use and occupancy" reservations on two properties would continue until 2004 and 2003. The private inholding would also continue.
· Existing vacant structures, and those that become vacant, could be preserved (stabilized) by the NPS and/or partners, rehabilitated and adaptively used by partners or the NPS, or allowed to deteriorate into a poor condition. The structures would either be removed by demolition or allowed to molder upon completion of the Section 106 review. Structures could be moved out of the park or removed, or rehabilitated.
· Provides no priority based on national register significance. Preservation often not based on predetermined plan, or support for stabilization with available money.
· No formal written procedure to determine which partners should receive NPS assistance.

Lands:

· No fields have been identified in the Open Field Management Plan but they could be added.
· Orchards, fence rows, and other landscape features could be preserved with the help of partners, volunteers, and NPS staff when available.
· Partners could adaptively use the lands for projects consistent with NPS and park policy.
· Current Lakeshore management policy does not allow for agricultural or commercial uses.

Visitor Services and Facilities:

· Vistas could be maintained.
· Visitor experiences could range from viewing unstabilized structures, preserved structures, or rehabilitated structures dependent upon NPS and partner resources. The structure could be removed so that visitors could view a reforested landscape.

Alternative II-Preservation of Buildings and Cultural Landscapes:

This alternative would seek partnerships with groups and individuals to preserve the exteriors of structures and to assist the NPS with the preservation of the landscape…

Structures:

· No structures are currently being used by the NPS. The "use and occupancy" reservations on two properties would continue until they expire. The private inholding would also continue.
· Some vacant structures and those that become vacant, could be preserved (stabilized) by partners or the NPS and used as "exhibits" on the landscape.
· Minimal effort would be made to preserve the structures and landscapes but not a maximum effort as required for structures in landscapes of higher priorities.

Lands:

· No fields have been identified in the Open Field Management Plan but they could be added.
· Fence rows could be preserved.
· Vegetation could be pruned.
· Tree lines along roads would be opened through selective cutting of new growth to allow viewing of the open fields from the road.
· Historic plantings near farmyards would be permitted.
· Lands would not be available for partner use.

Visitor Services and Facilities:

· Vistas could be maintained.
· Visitor experience could range from viewing unstabilized structures, or preserved structures dependent upon NPS and partner resources.
· Visitors would have the opportunity to view wildlife, hike trails, and have few access constraints, but few organized activities.

Alternative III-(Proposed Action) Rehabilitation of Structures and Preservation of Lands with Use:

This alternative would encourage the rehabilitation of structures and adaptive reuse through partnership agreements. This alternative would permit the preservation with use of open fields, yards, orchards, and other landscape features for compatible uses…

Structures:

· Everything in Alternative II plus . . .
· Once use and occupancy reservations have expired, all historic structures would be available for rehabilitation and adaptive use by NPS or partners. The private inholding would also continue.

Lands:

· Everything in Alternative II plus . . .
· The NPS would permit use of the land with activities that are compatible with the historic character of the landscape and are compatible with park resources and values.
· Fields could be added to the Open Field Management Plan but would receive minimal treatment.
· Actions would preserve landscape features such as orchards and fence rows.

Visitor Services and Facilities:

· Additional visitor experiences could be available at any of the structures.

· This alternative would offer the visitor the greatest opportunity to experience adaptively used structures, with active use extending into the landscape.

LANDSCAPE DESCRIPTION:

This landscape represents the area's transition from logging and subsistence farms to a more tourist based economy. The Ken-Tuck-U Inn also represents the final chapter in the story of Aral, the logging town at Otter Creek that vanished after the logging era. Bertie Bancroft, who owned and operated the Inn with his wife Donna, was born at Aral. His father Robert was the first settler at Otter Creek and operated a general store during the years that the town was in existence. After the town of Aral was abandoned, Bertie Bancroft closed his general store and built the Ken-Tuck-U-Inn and farm to provide meals and lodging to the growing numbers of visitors. Several other farm inns developed in the Benzie County area. Produce grown on the farm had value added by converting it to complete dinners rather than being sold at wholesale prices at the local market.

In 1925 Bertie sold his land at Aral and began building the Ken-Tuck-U-Inn. To accommodate the boarders and dinners, the house was built more graciously than would have been for a family farm. Chicken dinners from their own farm-raised chickens were a Sunday specialty. During peak times, Donna and her staff prepared Sunday dinners for over one hundred guests on her wood stove. Whipped cream, ice cream and other dairy products came from their cows. Boarders often returned year after year until they purchased their own summer cottages. Many became good friends. The house, which was painted pale yellow, was surrounded by gardens, flowerbeds and trees that lined the entranceway. A sunroom was filled with books and seashells. Bertie Bancroft lived at the house until his death in 1963. Donna died the following year.

This 3.5-acre (1.4-hectare) landscape is located approximately 16 miles (27 kilometers) south of Empire, along State Highway M-22 (see attached map). The north boundary is defined by State Highway M-22, the west by Long Lake Road, the south by the tree line at the field's edge, and the east boundary is just beyond the brooder house.

Structures in this landscape include the house, garage, and the brooder house. None of the structures in this landscape are now being used by the Lakeshore. The attached table provides information on the recommended significance level for each of these structures and their condition.

LANDSCAPE AND STRUCTURE PRIORITIES:

Based on evaluations of the NPS-public working group, the landscape and associated structures have been placed in Priority III (Local Level of Significance-High Integrity). The complete priority list is found in the Appendix.

LANDSCAPE RESOURCES/AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT:

Cultural resources include the historic structures described above and other features of the landscape, including fence rows, power poles, clothes line, white pine stand, open field, and designed landscape features such as the allee (tree-lined entrance), rock garden, and steps to State Highway M-22. The landscape has not been surveyed for archeological resources. There are no significant viewsheds in the landscape.

Natural resources include small stands of mixed-hardwood forest and a wetland in the northwest corner of this landscape, at the intersection of State Highway M-22 and Long Lake Road. There are no known plants or animals present in this landscape that could be classified by the state or federal government as threatened, endangered, or of special concern. Soils are sandy, typical of many other areas found in the Lakeshore. A significant portion of this landscape is dominated by non-native plants, including Chinese-tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus glandulosa), Scots pine, Norway spruce, myrtle, garlic mustard, and a variety of low ground covers.

Visitor services and facilities do not exist in this landscape. Access is by State Highway M-22 and Long Lake Road, a county road.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:

None of the landscape lies within the boundary of a proposed wilderness area, as identified in the 1981 Wilderness Recommendation. The field has not been identified in the Lakeshore's 1990 Open Field Management Plan, but could be added to this plan in the future. None of the landscape is included in any of the 1979 General Management Plan's special management zoning areas, such as the "Agricultural Management Subzone."

LEVEL OF DOCUMENTATION/PLANNING NEEDS:

A National Register of Historic Places nomination needs to be completed on this property. Additional information is needed on the operation of the Inn to complement the historical data already collected. Enough information exists to complete the national register nomination. A context statement needs to be written as part of the nomination process, and additional information on area roadhouses is necessary.

A cultural landscape inventory is needed for this site.

IMPACT ANALYSIS:

An array of alternatives (I through III) has been described in Chapter 2 of this document. Impacts to the landscape resources from actions anticipated under each action alternative were analyzed to assist in the preparation of a "prescription" for the landscape under each action alternative. The impact analysis located in the "Environmental Consequences" section of the environmental impact statement (EIS) is general in nature covering a broad range of potential proposals. Uses could range from preservation (stabilization) of structure shells (exteriors) and preservation of the landscape, to rehabilitation of structures and preservation of the cultural landscape with associated active use of the structures and landscapes. The analyses contained in this EIS will serve as a basis for any necessary NEPA documents (environmental assessments) prepared to address specific proposals and to direct park management decisions. All proposals would be subject to the "proposal evaluation process," described in the Appendix, and no significant negative impacts to park resources (cultural and natural) and values would be allowed in any case.

KEY FACTORS FOR DETERMINING PRESCRIPTIONS:

· This landscape is adjacent to state highway M-22, the major Lakeshore access road. It is visible from the highway, near the southern boundary of the Lakeshore.
· The landscape and associated structures have been placed in Priority III (Local Level of Significance-High Integrity). Minimal effort would be made to preserve this landscape, including the structures, but not maximum effort as with nationally significant and National Historic Landmarks.

LANDSCAPE PRESCRIPTIONS:

Based on the information described above, and the elements of the "Proposal Evaluation Process," prescriptions have been developed for the landscape under each of the plan's alternatives (I, II and III). The final plan will select one alternative, or a combination of alternatives, along with associated landscape prescriptions.

Alternative I-No Action:

The no action/continuation of current management alternative would propose no changes in current management direction. Proposals from partners would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis…

Structures:

· Some vacant structures could be preserved (stabilized) by the NPS and/or partners, rehabilitated and adaptively used by partners or the NPS, or without funding structures would deteriorated into poor condition. Structures could be moved out of the park or removed, or rehabilitated as support for stabilization money is available.
· Provides no priority based on national register significance. Preservation often not based on predetermined plan. Stabilization based on funding support available.
· No formal written procedure to determine which partners should receive NPS assistance.

Lands:

· The field has not been identified in the Open Field Management Plan but could be added.
· Landscape features could be preserved with the help of partners, volunteers, and NPS staff when available, or could be allowed to deteriorate.
· Partners could adaptively use the yard for projects consistent with NPS and park policy; or it might be allowed to revert to nature.
· Current Lakeshore management policy does not allow for agriculture and commercial uses of Lakeshore lands.

Visitor Services and Facilities:

· Visitor experiences would range from viewing unstabilized structures, preserved structures, or rehabilitated structures dependent upon NPS and partner resources. If structures are removed visitors could view a restored and reforested area.

Alternative II-Preservation of Structures and Cultural Landscapes:

This alternative would seek partnerships with groups and individuals to preserve the exteriors of structures and to assist the NPS with the preservation of the landscape…

Structures:

· No structures are currently being used by the NPS.
· Vacant structures could be preserved (stabilized) by partners or the NPS and used as "exhibits" on the landscape.
· Minimal efforts would be made to preserve the structures and landscapes but not a maximum effort as required for structures in landscapes of higher priority.

Lands:

· The field has not been identified in the Open Field Management Plan but could be added.
· Lands would not be available for partner use.
· Fence rows would be preserved.
· Vegetation would be pruned.
· Tree lines along roads would be opened through selective cutting of new growth to allow viewing of the landscape from the road.
· Historically appropriate plantings in the yard would be permitted to remain.
· The allee in the front yard would be maintained.

Visitor Services and Facilities:

· Structures would be preserved and maintained for viewing of the exteriors; the number based on partner participation.
· Visitor experiences would range from viewing unstabilized structures to preserved structures.
· Visitors would have the opportunity to view wildlife and have few access constraints, but few organized activities.

Alternative III-(Proposed Action) Rehabilitation of Structures and Preservation of Cultural Landscapes with Use:

This alternative would encourage the rehabilitation of structures and adaptive reuse through partnership agreements. This alternative would permit the use of open fields, yards, orchards, and other landscape features for compatible adaptive uses…

Structures:

· Everything in Alternative II plus . . .
· Structures would be available for rehabilitation and adaptive use by NPS or partners.
· Minimal effort would be made to preserve the structures and landscape but not a maximum effort as required for structures landscapes of higher priorities.

Lands:

· Everything in Alternative II plus . . .
· The NPS would permit use of the land with activities that are compatible with the historic character of the landscape and are compatible with park resources and values.
· The field could be identified in the Open Field Management Plan but would receive minimal treatment.
· Actions would preserve landscape features such as fence rows, allee, and gardens.

Visitor Services and Facilities:

· Everything in Alternative II plus . . .
· This alternative would offer the visitor the greatest opportunity to experience adaptively used structures, with active use extending into the landscape.
· Additional visitor experiences could be available at any of the structures.
· Visitors would have the opportunity to view wildlife and have few access constraints, but few organized activities.

LANDSCAPE DESCRIPTION:

The structures near the North Manitou Island dock are known as the "village." The village contains structures from three distinct historic periods, the U.S. Life-Saving Service Station, Cottage Row, and the Manitou Island Association. The setting of the village, along the shore of an isolated island, captures the scene and feeling for the events that took place here. The U. S. Life-Saving Service Station has been designated a National Historic Landmark because no other site in America exhibits so completely the creation and development of a federal lifesaving system. Because steamships provided early resorters convenient transportation to many Lake Michigan destinations, Cottage Row is an important part of the maritime history of the region. The Manitou Island Association represents a unique effort at commercial agriculture and development as a sportsmans' resort.

This 186-acre (75-hectare) landscape is located on North Manitou Island, approximately 22.5 miles (36 kilometers) north of Empire, in Lake Michigan (see attached map). The landscape boundaries were determined in a 1994 cultural landscape inventory prepared by the Midwest Regional Office of the National Park Service. The north, south, and west boundaries are defined by the mature hardwood forest. The east boundary is defined by a line 0.25 miles (0.4 kilometers) out from, and parallel to, the Lake Michigan shoreline, to coincide with the limits of NPS jurisdiction.

As identified in the "Elements Common to all Alternatives" section, historic structures in this landscape that are currently maintained and used by the NPS are not subject to the alternatives of this plan. These structures include the sawmill, Manitou Island Association (MIA) barn, gas station, equipment shed, stone office, generator building, and the life saving station complex, including the 1887 Life-Saving Station, 1877 Lifeboat Station (North Lodge), 1854 Volunteer Rescue Station (Beach Cart House), root cellar, Ready Room (South Lodge), Hans Halseth House (Caretakers House), and the U. S. Coast Guard generator building. The structures have a variety of uses including maintenance, interpretation, storage, housing, and ranger activities.

Historic structures to be addressed in this Historic Properties Management Plan include "Cottage Row" and other "Village" structures. Within Cottage Row are the Katie Shepherd Hotel, dining hall, and privy, the Trude/Fiske Cottage (including the privy, storage shed, and water reservoir), Foote/Wing Cottage and shed, Monte Carlo Cottage, Rhoades Tree House, and Tanglewood Cottage. "Cottage Row Park" was a jointly-owned commons located between Cottage Row and Lake Michigan. The village structures included in this plan are the sawmill privy, Water Storage Shed, Degan Cottage (with sheds #1 and #2), privy, Rental Cottage and shed, Margaret Riggs Cottage and shed, Fiske Cottage garage, fire hall, storage shed, carpenter shop, machine shop, and
garage (see landscape map). The attached table provides information on the recommended or established significance level for each of these structures and their condition.

LANDSCAPE AND STRUCTURE PRIORITIES:

The cultural landscape includes numerous proposed and existing designations, as shown on the enclosed map. The United States Life-Saving Service Station Complex was designated a National Historic Landmark (NHL) in 1998 and has been recommended as Priority I-National Level of Significance by the NPS-public working group.

Cottage Row (with the Katie Shepherd Hotel, Wing Cottage, Blossom Cottage/Monte Carlo House, and Trude/Fiske Cottage as contributing elements), is included along with the United States Life-Saving Complex NHL, Bournique Cottage, Sleeping Bear Point Life-Saving Station, Glen Haven Village, and South Manitou Island Lighthouse/Coast Guard Station/Village in the proposed Manitou Passage Maritime Landscape NHL, a proposal of the National Maritime Initiative, an interagency consortium. This landscape has been recommended as Priority I-National Level of Significance by the working group.

The Sawmill Complex (sawmill, privy, and surrounding lands), includes the only known steam-powered sawmill on an original site in the state of Michigan. It has been recommended as Priority II--State Level of Significance by the working group.

The Manitou Island Association Landscape, which encompasses the same boundaries as this North Manitou Island Cultural Landscape, includes locally significant agricultural and recreational development on the island and has been recommended as Priority III-Local Level of Significance (High Integrity) by the working group.

The complete priority list and Priority Team findings are found in the Appendix.

LANDSCAPE RESOURCES/AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT:

Cultural resources include the historic structures described above, other features of the landscape (fence rows, seawalls, dock pilings, etc.), archeological resources, vistas and viewsheds, open fields, and vegetation introduced to the landscape by humans. Historic features include power poles, water-gathering tanks (barrels), the abandoned airstrip, privies, dock pilings, capstan, seawalls, orchard, roads, and sidewalks. Non-native vegetation planted by past inhabitants such as lombardy poplar, black locust, lilacs, iris, day lilies, butternuts, fruit trees, andother ornamental trees also contribute to the landscape. The open fields contain both native (e.g., little blue stem) and non-native plant species, with a significant portion of the open landscape dominated by non-native plants. The rose that is present in the open fields is most likely hip rose/kitchen rose/Sweetbrier (all the same), Rosa rubiginosa, a naturalized species from Europe.

These fields provide habitat for a variety of flora and fauna, many of which would not be present, or would be present in limited numbers, if the landscape were still covered in mature forest. Non-historic features include the photo voltaic array, monitoring wells for contaminated sites, the above-ground fuel storage tank, well house, vault toilets, water fountains, modern dock, entrance sign, waste receptacles, portable ramp, radio tower, and campground.

Natural resources include open fields interspersed with small areas of native hardwood forest, dune grasses, wetlands, a variety of mammals and birds, and at least one federally-listed species. The federally-threatened Pitcher's thistle is found in dune areas near Lake Michigan. The federally-endangered piping plover has been spotted on the beach in the village area and could possibly nest there in the future. A floodplain extends along the Lake Michigan beach and fluctuates yearly with changes in lake levels. Wetlands are found in low areas behind the dunes and provide habitat for snipe and a variety of ducks. Soils are sandy, typical of many other areas found in the Lakeshore. Had this land not been cleared in the past, it would support a mixed hardwood forest, common to the area.

Visitor services and facilities include historic structures for viewing exteriors, hiking trails, and a campground. There are no interpretive tours and there is limited ferry service to the island. Ranger staff provide an orientation to the island for campers and hunters. The area provides photographic and artistic opportunities.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:

The 1979 General Management Plan (GMP) stated that visitor experience at North Manitou Island would be a primitive experience emphasizing solitude, a feeling of self-reliance, and a sense of exploration. Interpretation would be limited to literature and a few wayside exhibits in the village.

All of the landscape except a 27-acre (11-hectare) village area lies within the boundaries of the recommended wilderness area, as identified in the 1981 Wilderness Recommendation (see map). The Lakeshore is required to manage this area as designated wilderness and any actions in this area would be subject to the provisions of the Wilderness Act. Much of Cottage Row was not included in the 27-acre (11-hectare) wilderness exclusion area, making management of these resources difficult. This issue needs to be addressed in the new GMP. No fields have been identified in the Lakeshore's 1990 Open Field Management Plan, as the fields lie within the proposed wilderness area. A Development Concept Plan/Interpretive Prospectus (DCP/IP) was prepared for the island in 1988. This document stated that "most village structures outside the lifesaving station complex will be removed except for one building for maintenance and storage, one building for a camping shelter, and a historic sawmill." However, the historical significance of many of these structures was not known at that time.

One private inholding of 0.70 acres (0.28 hectares) exists in Cottage Row. This inholding will remain indefinitely.

The United States Life-Saving Service Station Complex was designated a National Historic Landmark (NHL) in 1998 and, along with some buildings in Cottage Row, has been proposed by the National Maritime Initiative to become a part of a larger NHL, the Manitou Passage Maritime Landscape. National Historic Landmark status would afford these structures and landscapes the highest level of recognition and protection. Section 110(f) of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, requires that all federal agencies "to the maximum extent possible, undertake such planning and actions as may be necessary to minimize harm to such landmarks."

The old pilings offshore in the village area are included in the Manitou Passage Underwater Preserve and are protected by the Michigan Submerged Lands Act, administered by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, and Part 761 (Aboriginal Records & Antiquities and Abandoned Property) of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act of 1994.

A preliminary archeological survey was conducted in 1966 and subsequent project-related surveys have been made.

Visitation to the island is limited by access. Most visitors come to the island via ferry service operated under a concession contract. Very few visitors access the island on private watercraft because there is no protected anchorage. Currently, a passenger ferry serves the island five days per week in the summer (except Tuesday and Thursday), less frequently during the shoulder seasons. The ferry schedule does not permit day trips to the island; most but not all visitor stays are overnight. Ferry passengers totaled 3,582 for 1997.

LEVEL OF DOCUMENTATION/PLANNING NEEDS:

A National Register of Historic Places nomination needs to be completed on the Manitou Island Association features, the Sawmill complex, and Cottage Row with associated park. A Cultural Landscape Report is needed for the village.

IMPACT ANALYSIS:

An array of alternatives (I through III) has been described in Chapter 2 of this document. Impacts to the landscape resources from actions anticipated under each action alternative were analyzed to assist in the preparation of a "prescription" for the landscape under each action alternative. The impact analysis located in the "Environmental Consequences" section of the environmental impact statement (EIS) is general in nature covering a broad range of potential proposals. Uses could range from preservation (stabilization) of
structure shells (exteriors) and preservation of the landscape, to rehabilitation of structures and preservation with use of the cultural landscape. The analyses contained in this EIS will serve as a basis for any necessary NEPA documents (environmental assessments) prepared to address specific proposals and to direct park management decisions. All proposals would be subject to the "proposal evaluation process," described in the Appendix, and no significant negative impacts to park resources (cultural and natural) and values would be allowed in any case.

KEY FACTORS FOR DETERMINING PRESCRIPTIONS:

· The GMP stated that visitor experience would be primitive; emphasizing solitude, a feeling of self-reliance, and a sense of exploration.
· Some of the landscape is within a recommended wilderness area.
· The landscape includes a variety of structures and landscapes that range in recommended priority from I (National Level of Significance), to Level II (State Level of Significance, to III (Local Level of Significance). The priority I landscapes include a designated and a proposed National Historic Landmark, denoting the highest level of significance and required protection.
· Visitor access is limited by the size and frequency of ferry trips.

LANDSCAPE PRESCRIPTIONS:

Based on the information described above, and the elements of the "Proposal Evaluation Process," "prescriptions" have been developed for the landscape under each of the plan's alternatives (I, II, and III). The final plan will select one alternative, or a combination of alternatives, along with associated landscape prescription(s). The range of developments and activities proposed under these alternatives are weighted towards preservation due to the uniqueness of the island, access limitations, and management direction provided in other planning documents.

Alternative I-No Action:

The no action/continuation of current management alternative would propose no changes in current management direction. Proposals from partners would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis…

Structures:

· Current operational uses would continue.
· The private inholding would continue.
· Cottage Row structures that are contributing elements to the proposed NHL would be stabilized, preserved, or adaptively used.
· Structures in Cottage Row not contributing to the NHL could be preserved (stabilized) by the NPS or partners, rehabilitated and adaptively used by partners or the NPS. Without funding, structures would deteriorated into poor condition and be removed. Structures could be removed, rehabilitated, or made available for preservation or rehabilitation by NPS or not-for-profit organizations within the park.
· Required new construction would consider rehabilitation of existing structures whenever possible.
· Provides no priority based on national register significance. Preservation often not based on predetermined plan. Support for stabilization undertaken when money is available.
· No formal written procedure to determine which partners should receive NPS assistance.

Lands:

· Orchards, fencerows, and other landscape features of the NHL could be preserved with the help of partners, volunteers, and NPS staff when available.
· Partners could adaptively use the lands consistent with NPS policy.
· Open fields could be mowed occasionally to keep them from reforesting.
· Firebreaks around structures could be maintained to protect them from wildfire.

Visitor Services and Facilities:

· The 1854 Volunteer Rescue Station (Beach Cart House) would serve as an exhibit.
· Visitor contact would continue to occur at the MIA generator building.
· Occasional interpretive tours by NPS for special groups would continue.
· Vistas would be maintained and forest succession controlled.
· Structures could be preserved and maintained for viewing of the exteriors, depending on partner participation.
· Visitor experiences could range from viewing unstabilized structures, preserved structures, or rehabilitated structures, dependent upon NPS and partner resources.

This alternative would seek partnerships with groups and individuals to preserve the exteriors of structures and to assist the NPS with the preservation of the landscape…

Structures:

· Current operational uses would continue.
· The private inholding would continue.
· The structures in Cottage Row that are proposed for NHL designation would be preserved by the NPS or partners.
· The NHL structures in Cottage Row that are currently in poor condition, and not pivotal, but are documented safety hazards, would be removed per the Removal Criteria included in the Appendix.
· Manitou Island Association structures currently in poor condition would be removed by demolition or allowed to molder per the Removal Criteria included in the Appendix. Manitou Island Association structures subject to the Removal Criteria include the Carpenter Shop, Maintenance Shop, and Fire Hall Ruin.
· Some vacant structures could be preserved (stabilized) by partners or NPS and used as exhibits on the landscape.
· Maximum effort would be made to preserve the structures and landscapes in the nationally significant landscapes (Cottage Row). Moderate effort would be made to preserve the structures and landscapes in the state significant landscape (Sawmill). Minimal effort will be made to preserve the structures and locally significant landscape (MIA).

Lands:

· The remains of cultural vegetation directly related to the nationally significant landscape (Cottage Row) would be maintained and managed (e.g. lilacs, spirea).
· Firebreaks would be maintained around Cottage Row and most structures within the 27-acre (11-hectare) village area.
· The ridge in front of Cottage Row would be selectively cleared of vegetation.
· Selected areas in Cottage Row Park would be cleared.
· Additional areas for management would be identified in a Cultural Landscape Report, which builds on the cultural landscape inventory, provides the historic database, and provides management recommendations.
· Lands would not be available for partner use.

Visitor Services and Facilities:

· Structures would be available for viewing the exteriors.
· The emphasis would be on solitude, self-reliance, and exploration.
· Vistas and open areas would be maintained.
· Limited wayside exhibits could be developed in non-wilderness areas.
· The 1854 Volunteer Rescue Station (Beach Cart House) would serve as an exhibit.
· Visitor contact would continue to occur at the MIA generator building.
· Visitors would have the opportunity to view wildlife, hike trails, and have few access constraints, but few organized activities.

Alternative III-(Proposed Action) Rehabilitation of Structures and Preservation of Cultural Landscapes with Use:

This alternative would encourage the rehabilitation of structures and adaptive reuse of through partnership agreements. This alternative would permit the preservation with use of open fields, yards, orchards, and other landscape features for compatible adaptive uses…

Structures:

· Everything in Alternative II plus . . .
· Some vacant structures would be available for rehabilitation by NPS or partners.

Lands:

· Everything in Alternatives II plus . . .
· The NPS could permit use of the land with activities that are compatible with the cultural landscape and are compatible with the park resources and values.
· Use of the landscape in the proposed wilderness area would not be allowed unless actions meet the provisions of the wilderness act.

Visitor Services and Facilities:

· Same as Alternative II.

LANDSCAPE DESCRIPTION:

The Port Oneida Rural Historic District was added to the National Register of Historic Places at the state level of significance in 1997. The "Narrative Statement of Significance" section of the National Register Nomination Form included the following:

"The Port Oneida Rural Historic District is significant under National Register Criterion A as a rural agricultural landscape reflecting the general settlement patterns by Northern European immigrants in the Upper Great Lakes region. The district derives its significance from its ability to convey the land use patterns that resulted from subsistence level agriculture as practiced by these settlers through the end of the WWII. The district reflects the loose social organization of the community known as Port Oneida through its circulation patterns, community buildings, scattered farms, and the kinship relationships of the former and current landowners. The use of heavy timber framing and spirit symbols reflects the continuation of Northern European building traditions in the New World. The practice of arranging structures to form a tight courtyard or linear pattern can also be seen in Port Oneida's farms.

Port Oneida's significance and integrity also results from the continuum of farming technology displayed by the agricultural buildings and intact field patterns constituting the majority of the district. Overall, the contemporary Port Oneida landscape reflects historic land use patterns and a historic range of agricultural advancements from approximately 1870 through 1945.

This 3,400-acre (1,376-hectare) landscape is located approximately 10 miles (16 kilometers) north of Empire, adjacent to State Highway M-22 (see attached map). The landscape boundaries were determined during the development of the 1995 Cultural Landscape Inventory (Farming at the Water's Edge) and were included in the National Register Nomination Form:

"South Boundary: The boundary for the Port Oneida Rural Historic District begins in the southwest at the point on Sleeping Bear Bay where the property lines of the former Fred Miller farm and Frank G. King property coincide. The boundary follows the property line east until it intersects with Sunset Trail. At this point, the boundary proceeds south along Sunset Trail, excluding the Sunset Haven Subdivision on the west side, until the open field to the east abruptly ends and a dense forest landscape begins at the approximate elevation of 700 feet (Point D). The boundary proceeds due east and south following this elevation to the southwest corner of the former Thoreson farmstead. The boundary follows the southernmost edge of the Thoreson land east until reaching the Werner-Basch farm property (Point C). The boundary continues following the 700 foot elevation line east along the
southern boundary of the Werner-Basch farm, crossing State Highway M-22, until it meets the wooded ridge south of the Dechow/Klett farm at elevation 834'. At this point the district boundary proceeds north and east along the 800' elevation line south of the Dechow/Klett farm which can be clearly discerned from M-22. The ridgeline meets M-22 southwest of the North Unity schoolhouse shortly after bisecting the first principal bend in Wheeler Road. At this juncture, the boundary proceeds east along M-22, excluding all property to the south, until meeting the eastern edge of the Goffar/Roman property on the north side (Point B).

East Boundary: The boundary line follows the edge of the Goffar/Roman property north and west, encompassing all of Narada Lake, until meeting the southeast corner of the Howard Olsen property. The boundary then follows the Olsen property line north until meeting an escarpment which is readily seen from Basch Road and in aerial surveys. The boundary follows this escarpment line north and slightly to the west, excluding all territory to the east. The escarpment forks at the dunes at the top of Pyramid Point. The boundary proceeds west and north along the edge of the dunes, thereby excluding them until meeting Lake Michigan.

North and West Boundary: At the point where the western edge of the Pyramid Point dunes meet Lake Michigan, the district boundary proceeds west and south along the shoreline, encompassing the Port Oneida dock ruins, coming full circle to the southwest edge of the Miller property which borders on Sleeping Bear Bay."

The historic district includes a number of farmsteads, residences, and two schoolhouses, which are listed in the attached table. As identified in the "Elements Common to all Alternatives" section, historic structures in this landscape that are currently maintained and used by the NPS are not subject to the alternatives of this plan. These structures include the Dechow/Klett farmhouse and outbuildings (including the Sugar Bush and Pasture Barn), North Unity School, outbuildings at the Burfiend farmstead, and the Garthe barn. The structures have a variety of uses including maintenance, interpretation, storage, and seasonal employee housing.

There are seven "reservations of use and occupancy" within this landscape (totaling 687 acres/278 hectares), as well as seven private inholdings (totaling 476 acres/193 hectares). The use and occupancy reservations expiration dates range from 2001 to 2011. The private inholdings may remain indefinitely.

LANDSCAPE AND STRUCTURE PRIORITIES:

The landscape was added to the National Register as the Port Oneida Rural Historic District in 1997 at the state level of significance. The district has been recommended as "Priority I-Evaluated as Meeting the National Level of Significance" by the NPS-public working group ("Priority Team"), and will be proposed for National Historic Landmark (NHL) status, denoting the highest level of significance and protection. This group revisited expert evaluations in the report, Farming at the Water's Edge, Alanen & Tischler & McEnaney, 1995. Because this landscape district is in public ownership and protected from development, the district will become even more significant each year as other agricultural landscapes are lost to development.

The complete priority list and Priority Team findings are found in Appendix.

LANDSCAPE RESOURCES/AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT:

Cultural resources include the historic structures described above and open fields, fence rows, transportation corridors, dock pilings, archeological resources, vistas and viewsheds, and vegetation introduced to the landscape by humans. Vegetation includes items such as orchards, sugar maple rows, conifer windbreaks, pine plantations, black locust groves, and ornamental plantings near farmhouses (e.g., lilac, spirea, roses, vibernum, hosta, and iris).

From approximately 1900 to 1945, the predominant land use in the Port Oneida area was agriculture, with sizable expanses of land devoted to sustaining livestock. The land was cultivated for such grain crops as oats, wheat, and rye and the major cash crop of potatoes. Pasture areas were used for grazing both dairy and beef cattle and sheep. Fields and pastures were often in low level to gently-sloping parcels in the southern and central portion of the district and were delineated by fences, windbreaks, or roads, and were surrounded by forested moraines. Today, these large open spaces are punctuated by occasional farmsteads, individual isolated trees, long-standing tree lines and windbreaks. The former fields and pastures must be periodically mowed to control encroaching vegetation in order to maintain the historic landscape pattern. The former fields and pastures now consist of forbs, grasses and wildflowers, including common milkweed, smooth brome, spotted knapweed, wild carrot, wild strawberry, king devil, common St. John's wort, blackmedic, timothy, sheep sorrel, goldenrod, common mullein, sparrow vetch, and wild bergamot.

Remnant orchards are also found throughout the district. Historically, these orchards consisted of five to ten apple, peach, or pear trees, and were located near farmhouses. Today, remnants are scattered throughout the district, and are limited almost exclusively to apple and pear trees. These small orchards represent a significant activity in Port Oneida's history-small-scale fruit production for domestic use by farm families. The orchards may also offer valuable information about historic pomological varieties and cultivation.

Logging was a historic land use that permanently shaped the Port Oneida landscape. The legacy of reforestation that followed the demise of this activity is evident in second-growth forests and the 1940s-era pine plantations.
Port Oneida's spatial character is primarily defined in topography and vegetation. Open fields and pastures are framed by forested moraines, roadways are lined by rows of large maple trees that were once tapped by farmers, and rows of conifers (spruce and pines that
were planted in the 1930s and 1940s) delineate fields and property lines as reminders of attempts to conserve the sandy soil that dominates the district.

Small groves of black locust were planted in order to provide wood for fence posts and wagon tongues. There are three groves still evident in the district.

Lake Michigan played a vital role in the development of the community. Early settlers arrived on the shores in the years before the area was connected to a road system, and the lake continued to be used as a transportation system between Port Oneida and surrounding communities. Surplus fish were packed in salt-filled barrels for sale at the dock.

Port Oneida's circulation system has remained intact since the earliest years of settlement. The path of State Highway M-22 follows the glacial meltwater channel through the south central portion of the district. The Port Oneida Road was relocated in 1923 several meters inland to its present location.

Although most of the fence lines that once existed within the district have been removed since the cessation of farming, at least four examples of fence types are still evident. These include milled board fences, woven wire and post fences, barbed wire and post fences, and an unusual post fence consisting of a short hand-hewn post with a longer hewn log leaned on the upright in a horizontal position.

Natural resources include geology, soils, vegetation, wildlife, and water features. The existing physical features were formed during the Wisconsin glacial stage, in which the ice retreated after creating moraines, bluffs, drainage channels, and carving out the bays that characterize the Lakeshore. The thick layer of till left by the retreating glacier covers most of the lakeshore's underlying bedrock. This rubble remains in the form of ridges and hills that terminate in steep bluffs near Lake Michigan. These bluffs at Pyramid Point eventually developed into perched dunes after northwesterly winds deposited sand from the bluffs on upland areas. Other topographical features created by glacial activity include the wetlands and small inland lakes that constitute a significant portion of the district.

The district's soils are generally coarsely textured and highly permeable. As a result, the available water holding capacity is reduced and any natural fertility that may be generated is continually leached away, limiting agricultural productivity. At Port Oneida, the Kalkaska-Mancelona soil association dominates. It contains soils that are well-drained, nearly-level to steeply-sloping and sandy, and is found on outwash plains.

The Kalkaska-Mancelona soil association supports a variety of vegetative types that are strongly correlated to the area's glacial and post-glacial geology. Native hardwood
species once predominated, but through the years much of its was cleared-first through lumbering, and later from the development of farms and orchards. These forests were primarily found in coastal areas and on the upland moraines. In shoreline areas, the hardwood forest consisted of a beech, sugar maple, white birch, hemlock forest community. Coastal birch-maple-aspen forest communities are also found in shoreline areas such as dunes and beach ridges, primarily in bays and swamps. The inland moraines that form the boundaries of the district, and frame many of the scenic views, are
covered by northern hardwoods, specifically those comprising beech-maple-ash-oak forests. The dune ecosystem that forms much of the western boundary of the district includes a rich variety of tree, shrub, grass, herb, and vine species.

Water features within the district include Narada Lake and several intermittent streams that drain from high elevations into Lake Michigan. A large wetland at the center of the district has increased in size due to beaver activity, as has the area surrounding Narada Lake. The three types of wetland areas are bogs, cedar swamps, and alder thickets.

Wildlife species are numerous and occupy a variety of different habitats. Beaver, woodcock, sandhill cranes, white-tailed deer, ravens, black bear (very infrequent), badger, and many small birds and mammals have been observed. The bald eagle, a federally threatened species, nests adjacent to the district and is frequently observed. The spotted turtle (a state threatened species), Blanchard cricket frog (a state special concern species), and the upland sandpiper (rare but not listed) have been found in the district. Turkey vultures inhabit structures at two farmsteads.

Visitor facilities and services include historic structures for viewing exteriors, hiking and cross-country ski trails with parking, numerous paved and unpaved county roads, scenic vistas, and beach access to Lake Michigan. A walk-in campground (Valley View) is located adjacent the south end of the district. NPS ranger led interpretive tours are presented weekly in July and August. The area provides photographic and artistic opportunities. The Shielding Tree Nature Center has a formal agreement with the Lakeshore to operate an environmental education center at an old farmstead (the former Lawr Farm) near the intersection of State Highway M-22 and Wheeler Road.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:

The 1979 General Management Plan (GMP) is relatively silent on the district because, at the time, the historical significance had not been determined. The GMP zoned the western part of the district as "Agricultural Management Subzone," with emphasis on the perpetuation of a managed landscape to enhance the aesthetic setting (see landscape map). Much of the district lies within the boundaries of the recommended wilderness area, as identified in the 1981 Wilderness Recommendation (see landscape map). The Lakeshore is required to mange this area as designated wilderness and any actions in this area would be subject to the provisions of the Wilderness Act. Only selected fields along State Highway M-22, Port Oneida Road, and Basch Road were included in the 1990 Open Field Management Plan (see landscape map). Additional fields may be added to the program in the future.

LEVEL OF DOCUMENTATION/PLANNING NEEDS:

A National Historic Landmark nomination is needed for this district.

IMPACT ANALYSIS:

An array of alternatives (I through III) has been described in Chapter 2 of this document. Impacts to the landscape resources from actions anticipated under each action alternative were analyzed to assist in the preparation of a "prescription" for the landscape under each action alternative. The impact analysis located in the "Environmental Consequences" section of the environmental impact statement (EIS) is general in nature covering a broad range of potential proposals. Uses could range from preservation (stabilization) of structure shells (exteriors) and preservation with use of the landscape, with associated active use of the structures and landscapes. The analyses contained in this EIS will serve as a basis for any necessary NEPA documents (environmental assessments) prepared to address specific proposals and to direct park management decisions. All proposals would be subject to the "proposal evaluation process," described in the Appendix, and no significant negative impacts to park resources (cultural or natural) and values would be allowed in any case.

KEY FACTORS FOR DETERMINING PRESCRIPTIONS:

· This is a complex landscape containing a variety of structures.
· The landscape will be proposed for National Historic Landmark status, denoting the highest level of significance and protection.
· The landscape is visible from State Highway M-22 and Port Oneida Road.
· The landscape is large (3,400 acres/1,376 hectares) with a variety of landscape features and natural resources.
· There are seven reservations of use and occupancy and seven private inholdings.
· A portion of the landscape lies within the recommended wilderness area.
· The NPS currently uses a number of the structures for maintenance, interpretation, storage, and seasonal employee housing.
· The Shielding Tree Nature Center has a formal agreement with the NPS to operate an environmental education center at the Lawr Farm.

Based on the information described above, and the elements of the "Proposal Evaluation Process," prescriptions have been developed for the landscape under each of the plan's alternatives (I, II, and III). The final plan will select one alternative, or a combination of alternatives, along with associated landscape prescriptions.

Alternative I-No Action:

The no action/continuation of current management alternative would propose no changes in current management direction. Proposals from partners would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis…

Structures:

· Current operational uses would continue. The Dechow/Klett farmhouse and outbuildings (including the Sugar Bush and Pasture Barn), North Unity School, outbuildings at the Burfiend farmstead, and the Garthe barn are used in a variety of ways including maintenance, interpretation, storage, and seasonal employee housing.
· The seven reservations of use and occupancy would continue until they expire (expiration dates range from 2001-2011).
· The seven private inholdings would continue.
· Structures that are contributing elements to the proposed NHL would be stabilized, preserved, or adaptively used if resources are available.
· Removal of structures in poor condition would be subject to the Section 106 process. Structures could be rehabilitated by the NPS or a not-for-profit for uses within the Lakeshore.
· No formal written procedure to determine which partners should receive NPS assistance.

Lands:

· Maintenance activities identified in the Open Field Management Plan would continue and other open fields would be added.
· Orchards, fence rows, and other landscape features could be preserved with the help of partners, volunteers, and NPS staff when available.
· Partners and concessions could adaptively use the lands for projects consistent with NPS policy.
· Current Lakeshore management policy does not allow for agricultural or commercial uses of Lakeshore lands.

Visitor Services and Facilities:

· Vistas would be maintained.
· Visitors could view structures in various levels of condition from deteriorated to rehabilitated, dependent upon NPS and partner resources.
· Visitor experiences could range from viewing unstabilized structures, preserved structures, or rehabilitated structures dependent upon NPS and partner resources.

Alternative II-Preservation of Structures and Cultural Landscapes:

This alternative would seek partnerships with groups and individuals to preserve the exteriors of structures and to assist the NPS with the preservation of the landscape…

Structures:

· Some vacant structures could be preserved by partners or NPS and used as exhibits on the landscape.
· Structures in poor condition and not pivotal would be removed by demolition or allowed to molder per the Removal Criteria located in the Appendix.
· NHL contributing structures currently in poor condition that are pivotal to Port Oneida would be stabilized.
· Maximum effort would be made to preserve the structures and landscape.

Lands:

· Firebreaks would be maintained around all structures, where appropriate.
· Maintenance activities identified in the Open Field Management Plan would continue and fields could be added to the program, including those located in the wilderness.
· Fence rows could be preserved.
· Trees could be pruned.
· Historically appropriate plantings would be allowed in the farmyard.
· Tree lines along roads could be opened through selective cutting of new growth to allow viewing of open fields from the road.
· Work with the county road commission on road maintenance activities (activities should conform to "heritage corridor" designs).
· Lands would not be available for partner use.

Visitor Services and Facilities:

· Vistas could be maintained.
· Structures would be preserved and maintained for viewing of the exteriors; the number based on partner participation.
· Visitors would have the opportunity to view wildlife, hike trails, and have few access constraints, but few organized activities.

Alternative III-(Proposed Action) Rehabilitation of Structures and
Preservation of Lands with Use:

This alternative would encourage the rehabilitation of structures and adaptive reuse through partnership agreements. This alternative would permit the preservation with use of open fields, yards, orchards, and other landscape features for compatible uses…

Structures:

· Everything in Alternative II plus . . .

· Some structures would be available for rehabilitation and adaptive use by NPS or partners but wilderness considerations must be addressed, where applicable.
· Once use and occupancy reservations have expired, all historic structures in federal ownership (not used by NPS) would be available for rehabilitation and adaptive use by NPS or partners.

Lands:

· Everything in Alternative II plus . . .
· The NPS would permit use of the land with activities that are compatible with the historic character of the landscape and are compatible with park resources and values.

Visitor Services and Facilities:

· Visitors would have the opportunity to view and use adaptively used structures.

· This alternative would offer the visitor the greatest opportunity to experience adaptively used structures, with active use extending into the landscape.

LANDSCAPE DESCRIPTION:

The Tweedle/ Treat Rural Historic Landscape is a picturesque rural landscape along State Highway M-22 south of Empire. Its most prominent cultural features are the weathered Pelky barn set in the open meadow with the brightly painted Tweedle farmstead in the distance. The open field is located in the former bed of a river that once flowed from a melting glacier. Forested parts of the landscape can only be explored on foot. This contrasts sharply with the Tweedle farm, and it's many specialized agricultural buildings.

This 554-acre (224-hectare) landscape is located approximately two miles (three kilometers) south of Empire, along State Highway M-22 (see attached map). The west edge is defined by the natural features identified at the base of Old Baldy and a hardwood forest. The south edge is defined by the field line of the Manning and Schmidt farms and the hardwood forest edge. The north edge is defined by Stormer Road and the tree line just north of Norconk Road. The east boundary is defined by the Lakeshore boundary and the forest edge.

Structures in this landscape include the Tweedle School, Pelky Barn, Tweedle (Crouch) Farm complex, the Treat Farm complex, and the Schmidt Farm complex. The Manning tract, on the south end of the landscape, is within the boundary of the Lakeshore, but is in private ownership. As identified in the "Elements Common to all Alternatives" section, historic structures in this landscape that are currently maintained and used by the NPS are not subject to the alternatives of this plan. At present, the Tweedle (Crouch) farmhouse is used to house NPS seasonal employees, volunteers, and "artists-in-residence." The chicken coop is used as a rustic art studio and the barn is used for storage. The Pelky Barn is also used for storage. The Tweedle School and the Treat Farm structures are not being used by the Lakeshore. The attached table provides information on the recommended significance level for each of these structures and their condition.

A small (0.80 acre/0.32 hectare) parcel in the center of the landscape is under a reservation of use and occupancy until 2013.

LANDSCAPE AND STRUCTURE PRIORITIES:

Based on evaluations of the NPS-public working group, the landscape and associated structures have been recommended for Priority III (Local Level of Significance-High Integrity). The complete priority list is found in the Appendix.

LANDSCAPE RESOURCES/AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT:

Cultural resources include the structures described above, other features of the landscape (fencerows, orchards, tree groves, etc.), archeological resources, vistas and viewsheds, and open fields. Small remnant apple and pear orchards exist and remnant trees from a walnut grove are located in the landscape. The open fields are known to provide habitat for upland sandpiper, an uncommon bird, declining in numbers but not listed by state or federal agencies. The open fields contain both native and non-native plant species, with a significant portion of the open landscape dominated by non-native plants. These fields provide habitat for a variety of flora and fauna, many of which would not be present, or would be present in limited numbers, if the landscape were still covered in mature forest.

Natural resources include hardwood forest, a variety of wildlife, and a glacial drainage channel. There are no known plants or animals present in this landscape that could be classified by the state or federal government as threatened, endangered, or of special concern. No floodplains or wetlands exist in this landscape. Soils are sandy, typical of many other areas found in the Lakeshore. Had this land not been cleared and cultivated in the past, it would support a mixed hardwood forest, common to the area.

Visitor facilities and services include state and county roads, which, at certain locations, offer views of the landscape. A gated lane off Norconk Road functions as a trailhead access to the unoccupied Treat Farm. Scattered apple and pear trees offer the visitor the opportunity to pick fruit in the fall and the area provides outstanding photographic and artistic opportunities.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:

The western portion of the landscape lies within the boundaries of a recommended wilderness area, as identified in the 1981 Wilderness Recommendation (see landscape map). The Lakeshore is required to manage this area as designated wilderness and any actions in this area would be subject to the provisions of the Wilderness Act. The fields in the eastern portion have been identified in the Lakeshore's 1990 Open Field Management Plan (see landscape map). These fields have been identified as key open areas for retaining farm settings, wildlife habitat, and for viewing special geologic features. The fields are also within the 1979 General Management Plan's "Agricultural Management Subzone," with emphasis on the perpetuation of a managed landscape to enhance the aesthetic setting (see landscape map).

LEVEL OF DOCUMENTATION/PLANNING NEEDS:

A National Register of Historic Places nomination needs to be completed on this property. Adequate information is available on the Treat farmstead. Enough information is available to complete the National Register nomination at this time.

A cultural landscape inventory (CLI) has been completed by the National Park Service Midwest Regional Office for the Treat farm. A CLI is needed for the Schmidt, Pelky, and Tweedle farmsteads.

A parkwide vegetation survey was conducted in the early 1980s but has not been updated. No systematic parkwide survey of animals has been conducted.

IMPACT ANALYSIS:

An array of alternatives (I through III) has been described in Chapter 2 of this document. Impacts to the landscape resources from actions anticipated under each action alternative were analyzed to assist in the preparation of a "prescription" for the landscape under each action alternative. The impact analysis located in the "Environmental Consequences" section of the environmental impact statement (EIS) is general in nature covering a broad range of potential proposals. Uses could range from preservation (stabilization) of structures (exteriors) and preservation of the landscape, to rehabilitation of structures and preservation with use of the landscape. The analysis contained in this EIS will serve as a basis for any necessary NEPA documents (environmental assessments) prepared to address specific proposals and to direct park management decisions. All proposals would be subject to the "proposal evaluation process," described in the Appendix, and no significant negative impacts to park resources and values would be allowed in any case.

KEY FACTORS FOR DETERMINING PRESCRIPTIONS:

· This landscape is adjacent to State Highway M-22, a heavily used Lakeshore access corridor. Many landscape features are visible from this highway.
· The remnant glacial channel is an important natural resource.
· The landscape and associated structures have been recommended for Priority III (Local Level of Significance-High Integrity). Effort would be made to preserve this landscape, including the structures, but not maximum effort as with nationally significant National Historic Landmarks.
· The open fields are known habitat for the upland sandpiper, an uncommon and declining bird.
· A reservation of use and occupancy, for a portion of the area, exists until 2013.
· The western portion of the landscape lies within a recommended wilderness area, a designation that protects natural resources and restricts activities within this area.
· The General Management Plan identified an agricultural management subzone in this landscape and the subsequent Open Field Management Plan identified fields in this landscape to maintain for the agricultural setting, wildlife habitat, viewing of geological features, and viewing wildlife.
· An abandoned sand and gravel pit lies adjacent to the south boundary of the landscape, on either side of State Highway M-22. This pit is scheduled to be reclaimed in FY 2000.

LANDSCAPE PRESCRIPTIONS:

Based on the information described above, and the elements of the "Proposal Evaluation Process," prescriptions have been developed for the landscape under each of the plan's alternatives (I, II, and III). The final plan will select one alternative, or a combination of alternatives, along with associated landscape prescriptions.

Alternative I-No Action:

The no action/continuation of current management alternative would propose no changes in current management direction. Proposals from partners would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis…

Structures:

· Current operational uses for seasonal housing and storage would continue.
· The "use and occupancy" would continue through 2013.
· Some vacant structures could be preserved (stabilized) by the NPS and/or partners, rehabilitated and adaptively used by partners or the NPS, or without funding structures would deteriorate into poor condition. Structures could be moved out of the park or removed, rehabilitated, or made available for preservation or rehabilitation by the NPS or not-for-profit organizations within the park.
· Provides no priority based on national register significance. Preservation often not based on predetermined plan. Preservation based on funding available to accomplish the work.
· No formal written procedure to determine which partners should receive NPS assistance.

Lands:

· Actions identified in the Open Field Management Plan would continue.
· Orchards, fencerows, and other landscape features could be preserved with the help of partners, volunteers, and NPS staff as available.
· Partners could adaptively use the lands consistent with NPS policy.
· Current Lakeshore management policy does not allow for agricultural or commercial uses of Lakeshore lands.

Visitor Services and Facilities:

· Vistas would be maintained.
· Visitor experiences could range from viewing unstabilized structures, preserved structures, or rehabilitated structures, and development on the landscape dependent upon NPS and partner resources.

Alternative II-Preservation of Structures and Cultural Landscapes:

This alternative would seek partnerships with groups and individuals to preserve the exteriors of the structures and to assist the NPS with the preservation of the landscape…

Structures:

· Current operational uses for seasonal housing and storage would continue.
· The "use and occupancy" would continue through 2013.
· Some vacant structures could be preserved (stabilized) by partners or the NPS and used as "exhibits" on the landscape.
· Structures currently in poor condition would be removed by demolition or allowed to molder per the Removal Criteria included in the Appendix. Structures presently in poor condition and subject to the Removal Criteria include the Tweedle/Treat Barn, and Chicken Coop.
· Efforts would be made to preserve the structures and landscapes but not a maximum effort as required for structures in landscapes of higher priorities.

Lands:

· Actions identified in the Open Field Management Plan would continue.
· Fence rows would be preserved.
· Vegetation would be pruned.
· Tree lines along roads would be opened through selective cutting of new growth to allow viewing of the open fields.
· Historically appropriate plantings near farmyards would be permitted. No preservation actions would be permitted in recommended wilderness since this is a lower priority landscape.
· Lands would not be available for partner use.
· The remnant glacial channel will be kept in an unforested condition for visitor viewing.

Visitor Services and Facilities:

· Vistas would be maintained.
· Structures would be preserved and maintained for viewing of the exteriors, depending on partner participation.
· Visitor experiences could range from viewing unstabilized structures, preserved structures, or rehabilitated structures, dependent upon NPS and partner resources.
· Visitors would have the opportunity to view wildlife, hike trails, and have few access constraints, but few organized activities.

Alternative III-(Proposed Action) Rehabilitation of Structures and Preservation of the Landscape with Use:

This alternative would encourage the rehabilitation of the structures and adaptive reuse through partnership agreements. This alternative would permit the preservation with use of open fields, yards, orchards, and other landscape features for compatible uses…

Structures:

Everything in Alternative II plus . . .
· Structures would be available for rehabilitation and adaptive use by NPS or partners, but wilderness considerations must be addressed.
· Structures currently in poor condition would be removed by demolition or allowed to molder per the Removal Criteria included in the Appendix. Structures subject to the Removal Criteria include the Tweedle/Treat Barn, and Chicken Coop.
· Efforts would be made to preserve the structures and landscape but not a maximum effort as required for structures in landscapes of higher priorities.

Lands:

Everything in Alternative II plus . . .
· The NPS could permit use of the land with activities that are compatible with the historic character of the landscape and are compatible with park resources and values.
· Use of the landscape in the proposed wilderness area would not be allowed, unless actions met the provisions of the Wilderness Act.
· Any uses would have to consider impacts to upland sandpiper habitat and other resources.
· Actions would perpetuate the intent of the 1979 GMP Agricultural Management Subzone.
· Actions would consider the prescriptions in the Open Field Management Plan.
· Actions would preserve landscape features such as orchards, fence rows and groves of special tree species.

Visitor Services and Facilities:

Everything in Alternative II plus . . .
· Additional visitor experiences could be available.
· This alternative would offer the visitor the greatest opportunity to experience adaptively used structures, with active use extending into the landscape

Last Updated: 08DEC1999
Http://www.nps.gov/slbe/hp_app3.htm
Author: T.M.Baker