INTRODUCTION

In this section a proposed future direction for the management and use of selected historic structures and cultural landscapes is described along with two other alternatives. Before the proposal and other alternatives were developed for this plan, information on the Lakeshore's cultural resources were gathered and analyzed, and numerous public meetings were held. As described in the previous section, "Summary of Public Involvement," comments from the public at the public meetings and in response to distributed materials resulted in a major change of course for the Lakeshore; to save as many historically significant structures as possible.

Following public review of the new range of alternatives, at the March 19, 1999 and July 16, 1999 public meetings, the NPS further refined the three action alternatives II, III, and IV by combining Alternatives III and IV into a new Alternative III. Lakeshore management also decided on the new Alternative III as the "preferred alternative" or proposed action.

Alternatives eliminated from further study are presented first, followed by actions common to all alternatives and actions common to Alternatives II and III. Next, Alternative I (no action/continue current management), Alternative II, and Alternative III (the proposal) are described. The proposal and all other alternatives are summarized in two tables: the first compares the proposal and each alternative; the second lists a summary of impacts expected under each alternative.

Potential environmental impacts of the draft proposed action and alternatives are presented in the subsequent "Environmental Consequences" section.

Implementation of any alternative is dependent upon NPS funding and partner participation. The plan will establish a vision of the future that will guide year-to-year management of these historic resources but implementation could be many years in the future.

RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES

The goal of this plan is to establish a framework for preserving as many historically significant structures and landscapes as reasonable, without degrading other park values and resources. This goal can only be met with preservation, rehabilitation, and adaptive use activities that fall within the confines of environmental laws, NPS policies, Lakeshore enabling legislation, Lakeshore management direction, and resource protection. The draft alternatives described in this plan are the result of almost two years of NPS analysis and public involvement. Earlier draft alternatives proposed other actions such as preserving only specific, highly-significant landscapes and structures at the expense of others, limitations on the time partners would have to preserve a structure before it was demolished or removed from the Lakeshore, and immediate removal of structures of lower significance and placement in surrounding lands outside the lakeshore.

ACTIONS ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER STUDY

The following actions have been eliminated from further study due to their significant impact on Lakeshore resources or visitor use, conflicts with law, regulation, or policy, or have generated a significant level of negative public response:

1. Any alternative that provides for private residential use.

The Lakeshore's enabling legislation provides that owners of houses built before 1965 can continue to live in their home if they sign an agreement that restricts development of the property. Nearly one hundred families have selected this option and may retain private residences within the Lakeshore. While it was known that these private residences would create inherent conflicts with resource management efforts and visitor use and enjoyment, such conflicts were accepted as necessary to be fair to the long time owners of Lakeshore land. While these conflicts are unavoidable, it is unacceptable to create still more conflicts of this nature by permitting any additional private residential uses within the Lakeshore. If park structures are to be leased, they must be used for a public purpose that permits large numbers of park visitors to benefit from the use.

2. Any alternative that includes harmful farming practices.

The Lakeshore staff is greatly concerned about the effects of harmful farming practices on the natural resources of the Lakeshore. Pesticides, chemical fertilizers, herbicides and feed lots have direct negative impacts on wildlife and water quality. The Lakeshore's light sandy soils are especially susceptible to wind erosion following plowing. Standard mowing practices injure nesting grassland birds and grazing disrupts grassland ecosystems. The Lakeshore has sought to limit or eliminate these practices to protect the natural communities within the boundary.

3. Any alternative that permits adaptive uses that would exclude visitors from substantial areas of the park.

Because most parkland is used for recreation such as hiking, skiing, hunting and nature observation, no large tracts of land will be closed to the public. Permitted uses would be restricted to the use of small tracts of land or provide for reasonable access by the public through the project area.

4. Any alternative that would preserve only a portion of a cultural landscape. Selected cultural landscapes considered were Port Oneida, Port Oneida core area, M-22 corridor and Cottage Row core (North Manitou Island).

The goal of this alternative was to give a high level of preservation to the most important section of a landscape rather than doing a mediocre job for the entire landscape. This alternative is rejected for several reasons. First, neglect or removal of historic structures not in the selected area would be a major adverse impact and would alter the landscape's National Register status. Secondly, preservation of the full landscape may be possible if there is strong community support.

5. Any alternative that limits the time a partner would have to establish a partnership and preserve a building before it is relocated or removed (e.g. two years or five years).

The intent of this alternative was to prevent historic structure deterioration to the point that they would no longer be attractive candidates for relocation into the local communities for private use. Time limitations would have set the period available for securing partnerships for structure preservation within the park. Structures without partnerships would still be in good or fair condition to be relocated. This alternative was rejected after further consideration. The historic structures in this plan receive their historic significance in large part from their location and their association with other buildings. While relocation might save a few of the major structures, it would not preserve the historic integrity of the cultural landscape. The qualities that the alternative sought to protect, historic significance, would be diminished with the move.

6. Any alternative that would immediately relocate (move) some historic buildings so they could be preserved in the local community.

The goal of this alternative was to relocate many of these buildings into the local community so that they might be preserved before they had endured several years of neglect. While the structures would be maintained, the integrity of the cultural landscape would be diminished.

7. Any alternative that would preserve only selected individual farms or structures without regards to other structures in the historic district or landscape.

Selecting individual farms for preservation was rejected because only one farm (Bufka) is eligible for the national register as an individual farm. None of the other selected farms would be historic and therefore not entitled to any NPS cultural resource preservation funds. With finite NPS resources, preservation activities would be limited and some properties would likely deteriorate to a poor condition unless partners are identified quickly.

8. Any alternative that would restore an entire landscape to a specific time period.

It might be desirable to restore an individual farm to a specific time period for educational purposes. However, the money, effort, and alterations to vegetation needed to restore an entire landscape to the way it appeared at an earlier time is not required to interpret the subject. Nor is restoration needed to provide for other visitor services. Extensive restoration would also take money away from preservation of other cultural resources. Maintenance of a restored landscape would be labor intensive and very expensive.

9. Any alternative that would permit cultural landscapes to revert to their pre-settlement condition.

The pre-European settlement history of the area is an important part of our cultural heritage. The majority of parkland will mature into the hardwood forest representative of this time period. The European settlement history had a major influence on natural features and cultural traditions. Examples of this period also need to be preserved.

ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Open Field Management Plan

The 1990 Open Field Management Plan (OFMP) implements the 1979 GMP direction to maintain certain fields within the Lakeshore to display agricultural settings, for wildlife habitat, and to show examples of significant geologic features that otherwise would be concealed by forest cover. These maintenance actions would continue. Revision of the OFMP would follow approval of the HPMP.

Interpretation

The John Burfiend Barn is being preserved in an ad-hoc partnership with the Michigan Barn Preservation Network and would provide for a variety of future adaptive uses.

The Dechow (Klett) outbuildings are maintained and used by the Lakeshore for interpretation, as are the sheds at the Karsten Burfiend farm and the North Unity School.

The sawmill on North Manitou Island would also be maintained for interpretation.

Housing

The Lakeshore currently utilizes and maintains the Dechow (Klett) farm and the Tweedle (Crouch) farm for seasonal housing. These uses would continue.

Trails

Consideration would be given to the development of hiking trails to connect the farms and points of interest in Port Oneida. The trails might also connect to the Bay View trail system and the Pyramid Point trail and to Lake Michigan beach accesses. Some of the trails might also be used for interpretation of the landscape features.

North Manitou Island U. S. Life-Saving Service Station

Structures contained in the North Manitou Island U. S. Life-Saving Service Station National Historic Landmark have been preserved and are being used for seasonal quarters, ranger station, storage and interpretation. These uses would continue. The 1854 Volunteer Rescue Station would be used for interpretation of the National Historic Landmark.

North Manitou Island Operational Needs

In addition to the U.S. Life-Saving Service Station, four structures (barn, equipment shed, gas station, generator building) of the former Manitou Island Association are being used for storage and maintenance. These uses would continue.

Mainland Operation Uses

Whenever possible, historic structures would be used to accommodate operational uses such as seasonal housing, storage, offices and interpretation. The Lakeshore staff would complete its inventory of present and projected future building needs and would determine which uses might be relocated or expanded into unused historic structures.

Wilderness

Open fields in areas recommended for wilderness would not be maintained unless they are in a nationally significant landscape and/or serve to protect historic structures from wildfire, and then would only be considered on a case-by-case basis.

The Priority-Setting Process

If money were not a concern, there would be no need to prioritize the Lakeshore historic structures for preservation, rehabilitation, or restoration. The NPS would simply apply one of these treatments to the structures as the need arose. But like many other units in the national park system, The Lakeshore has more historic structures than money to care for them.

Lakeshore Superintendent Ivan Miller requested that architects, historians and cultural landscape architects from the NPS and the public work together to prioritize all of the Lakeshore cultural landscapes, groups of structures, and individual structures as an essential part of the HPMP. The team was asked to prioritize the relative importance of historic structures and landscapes in the Lakeshore so that informed management decisions could be made. The team followed the National Register criteria and the Secretary's Standards for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes.

The team included three specialists from the Lakeshore, one specialist from the NPS Midwest Regional Office, and four resource specialists representing the public sector. The team met five times, from November 1998 through March 1999.

The team used the following process and deliberations to evaluate historic significance:

1. All landscapes, districts and structures that had already been listed or formally determined eligible for listing on the National Register.
2. After careful consideration, the team decided that the basic unit of evaluation should be the entire cultural landscape and not individual structures or farmsteads.
3. National Register criteria for determining "Level of Significance" were used to assign a level of significance to each cultural landscape.
4. The final priority list was reviewed to be certain that the full range of Lakeshore's cultural resources and educational themes were represented in the higher groups. These themes include maritime, agriculture, logging, and recreation.
5. Since a part of a resource's significance is its potential to communicate history to the public, a property's educational potential was considered including accessibility to the general public.
6. A property's condition was also considered.
7. The priority list is based entirely on historical significance and the National Register criteria.

The team divided the historic properties into five groups:

I - National Level of Significance including National Historic Landmarks
II - State Level of Significance
III - Local Level of Significance - High Integrity
IV- Local Level of Significance - Moderate Integrity
V - Local Level of Significance - Low Integrity

All partner proposals would be subjected to the priority list found in Appendix 1. The Lakeshore would commit more scarce staff time and monies for those proposals that would preserve high-priority landscapes or structures. Partner proposals for low-priority landscapes or structures would receive minimal NPS assistance.

Removal Criteria

All historic structures in the park would be considered for preservation either by the NPS or by partners. If funds are not available to preserve a structure, it would remain on the landscape until it deteriorates to "poor" condition, the condition determined through a formal process using the Secretary's Standards. It would then be evaluated to determine if it could be removed as a safety hazard or protected as a ruin. Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act would be applied. The detailed removal process is found in Appendix 2.

The Proposal Evaluation Process ("Sieve")

A key element of both the proposed action (Alternative III) and Alternative II is the implementation of a "proposal evaluation process," commonly known through the scoping process as the "sieve." All proposals from prospective partners would be subjected to this process; no proposals would automatically be accepted without using it. Since the NPS cannot project the variety and scope of adaptive uses that might be proposed, or the historic structures that might be involved in these proposals, dependence on this process is paramount. In general, the process incorporates three levels of review: conceptual, environmental, and feasibility. Proposals that conform with NPS management policies and the prescriptions in the HPMP would be considered "conceptually acceptable," in that they generally meet both NPS and Lakeshore requirements.

Proposals meeting this first level would then be subject to evaluation as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other environmental laws, regulations, and policies. This plan will serve as the foundation for that future analysis. Some proposals may be "categorically excluded" from NEPA if they meet specific criteria, many would require environmental assessments (EA), and ambitious proposals may require environmental impact statements (EIS). An EA or EIS would be prepared by Lakeshore staff, as time and personnel permit. A potential partner may expedite the process by contracting with a qualified individual or firm to prepare the EA or EIS, which must meet NPS adequacy requirements. The EA or EIS would be subjected to full public review, which would provide the opportunity for the public to comment on any proposed uses by partners for historic structures and cultural landscapes addressed in this plan. The EA or EIS would allow the prospective partner and NPS to rigorously assess possible environmental impacts from specific proposals. In addition to assessing direct and indirect impacts, the EA or EIS would analyze the cumulative effects of a proposal. For example, the analysis may determine that an additional adaptive use in a particular cultural landscape would not be desirable because the potential detrimental impacts to natural and cultural resources, or visitor use, would outweigh the positive benefits of rehabilitation of an historic structure. Or, while a proposal may singularly not significantly impact park resources or use, the same activity may already be located in the Lakeshore or is available in close proximity to the Lakeshore.

The third level in the process is the feasibility assessment, which includes the preparation of a feasibility/operations plan and a business plan. This level of review will examine the stability and qualifications of the applicant and the financial capacity to accomplish the project and sustain it in the long-term.

The process allows for partners to submit revised proposals. The diagram on the following page illustrates the major elements of this process.

VISION: Under this alternative the Lakeshore would stabilize structures as needed and if funds permitted, and would accept partner assistance as it is offered. Open fields would continue to be mowed periodically to prevent reforestation.

ACTIONS: Alternative I, No Action/Continue Current Management, proposes no changes in current management direction. This alternative would continue current management of selected historic properties without a written long-range plan and clear direction or goal. NPS policy would provide Lakeshore management with a broad range of options from rehabilitation/adaptive use to removal. Management "prescriptions" for each cultural landscape or structure without a landscape would reflect current management policy. No priority lists would exist and preservation actions would be driven by documentation of need or availability of resources.

The existing adaptive uses of historic structures would continue. Unused structures would be locked and secured whenever possible and the area around the structures mowed to protect structures from wildland fire. As the needs for park and visitor support facilities are identified and the funds secured, additional historic structures might be adaptively used. Donations of labor and preservation expertise, materials and dollars, grants for specific projects and the development of partnerships would continue to be accepted and permitted, where appropriate. Structures not preserved by the NPS or partners would continue to deteriorate and could eventually become hazards and liabilities. These structures would be removed.

Structures: Structures could be preserved* (stabilized) with the assistance of partners. Structures could also be rehabilitated* for NPS purposes or for compatible uses by non-profit entities. Structures could also be moved out of the Lakeshore or demolished.

(*See the glossary of terms found in Chapter 6, "Selected References.")

Lands: Open fields would be mowed occasionally as per the approved Open Field Management Plan to keep them from reforesting. Orchards, fencerows, 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 uses consistent with NPS policy. Current Lakeshore management policy does not allow for agricultural or commercial uses of Lakeshore lands.

WHAT THIS MEANS : The No Action Alternative means no new action or plan but a continuation of current management policy. Since most of these structures only became eligible for listing on the National Register shortly before this plan was begun, no definite management direction had been established. Because of the large number of historic resources involved and the wide array of options available under NPS Management Policies, this alternative could include actions such as removal, demolition, stabilization and preservation of the exteriors of structures, or rehabilitation of structures and a wide range of adaptive uses. Commercial uses of structures and landscapes are prohibited and no agricultural use is permitted.

VISION: Structures and selected open fields, yards, and orchards would be maintained. The overall appearance would be of an unoccupied landscape that would evoke impressions of past history within visitors as they hike over the land or view the historic structures as they drive through the area.

ACTIONS: This alternative would actively seek partnerships with non-profit or for-profit groups and individuals to preserve* (stabilize) the exteriors of structures and to assist the NPS with the preservation of the open fields, orchards, yard plantings, and other landscape features. Except for structures being used by the NPS, there would be little interior use of the structures and no new use of the lands. If enough partners can be found, much of the historic scene would be preserved for visitors to view as they drive past or hike through the area. Wayside exhibits would provide information about the farms. This alternative would prioritize landscapes and structures for partner and NPS activity and would develop management prescriptions for each landscape and structures without landscapes.

(*See the glossary of terms found in Chapter 6, "Selected References.")

Structures: Exteriors of structures not used by the NPS could be preserved by partners for exhibit.

Lands: The principal factor in this alternative is guidance provided by the Open Field Management Plan. Selected open fields and yards would be mowed as recommended in this plan to keep them from reforesting. The plan could be revised as necessary to reflect changing conditions. Orchards, fencerows, and other landscape features could be preserved with the help of partners, volunteers, and NPS staff when available.

WHAT THIS MEANS : Under this alternative the NPS would actively seek volunteers and donations to assist with the preservation of structures and historic landscapes. However, neither structures nor lands would be available for continuing use by partners. All proposals would be required to successfully pass through the Proposal Evaluation Process ("the sieve").

VISION: Historic structures would be saved in a variety of ways. Some structures would have their foundations stabilized and exteriors protected through preservation efforts, while others would be rehabilitated and used by partners or the NPS. Open fields would remain open by periodic mowing and some landscape features such as orchards and yard plantings would be maintained. Landscapes may be used for a variety of activities that complement the lakeshore's resources and values.

ACTIONS: This alternative would include all actions described in Alternative II (preservation and stabilization*) but would also encourage the rehabilitation* and adaptive use of the structures through agreements with non-profit or for-profit partners and permit the preservation of open fields, yards, orchards, and other landscape features for compatible adaptive uses. New uses would be compatible with the landscape's historic character and Lakeshore natural resources. Adaptive uses that are authorized by NPS policy and that do not degrade Lakeshore resources would be permissible. Compatibility would be judged on a case-by-case basis using the proposal evaluation process, which would also consider the cumulative impacts of other partnerships. This alternative would prioritize landscapes and structures for partner and NPS activity and would develop management prescriptions for each landscape.

(*See the glossary of terms found in Chapter 6, "Selected References.")

Structures: The NPS would encourage partners to rehabilitate and adaptively use structures or rehabilitate structures for NPS use. As an option under this alternative, the exteriors of structures not used by the NPS could be preserved by partners for exhibit or stabilized until they could be rehabilitated.

Lands: This alternative expands the uses of lands beyond the basic elements of the Open Field Management Plan (i.e., mowing and hand-cutting). A portion of the open fields, yards, orchards, and other landscape features could be preserved or restored* by the NPS with partner help. Landscape features could be preserved or restored by partners through permits or leases for activities compatible with the historic character of the cultural landscape and Lakeshore natural resources.

WHAT THIS MEANS : Under this alternative the NPS would actively seek partners to rehabilitate structures for their use or NPS long term uses. The NPS would also seek volunteers and donations to help with the preservation of historic buildings and landscapes. This alternative would expand uses of lands beyond the basic elements of the Open Field Management Plan to allow preservation and restoration activities. All proposals would be required to successfully pass through the Proposal Evaluation Process ("the sieve").

Last Updated: 07DEC1999
Http://www.nps.gov/slbe/hp_ch2.htm
Author: T.M.Baker