SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The Historic Properties Management Plan process began in December 1997 to address future management of historic structures and cultural landscapes in the Lakeshore. The Lakeshore developed a draft list of issues and background information. This information explained the Lakeshore's current financial situation and the stark reality that only a few structures could be saved with federal resources alone, and that continuing deterioration and eventual demolition were likely. To save other properties would take partnerships that would provide donations of funds, materials and labor, preservation, and maintenance in exchange for compatible public use. At the first public meeting in March 1998, (the first of three scoping meetings), approximately 120 citizens listened and expressed a concern to "save as many structures as possible." During the month-long public comment period, following that first meeting, 116 letters were received at the Lakeshore and most expressed that same sentiment. The letters also offered two dozen suggestions for public uses.

Additional scoping meetings to further identify issues to support the development of alternatives, were held at the Lakeshore headquarters in July and October of 1998, with approximately 80 people in attendance at each meeting. These meetings helped the Lakeshore establish that only "a plan for preservation," not a "plan for demolition," would be accepted by the public. This commonly expressed sentiment encouraged the Lakeshore to develop an appropriate range of alternatives. The briefing paper and a summary of the public letters were posted on the Lakeshore website.

The next two public presentations, to discuss the progress of the plan, were held in March and in July of 1999, at the Lakeshore headquarters. At these meetings, the NPS outlined the draft alternatives, landscape prescription prototypes, alternatives considered and rejected, definitions specific to this plan, maps, and a plan outline. The public accepted the draft "plan for preservation" as presented. Minor alterations were needed to refine the alternatives and to select the preferred alternative (the proposed action).

The March 1999 handout was posted on the Lakeshore website. No formal request for comments had been made since the March 1998 public meeting, yet approximately 12 letters arrived after each meeting concerning the plan alternatives. Copies of the handouts were mailed to interested parties as requested. The State Historic Preservation Officer and the Eastern Review Team of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation were provided copies of public handouts. Formal consultation will begin when this draft plan is submitted for public review.

A small group, representing this public sentiment, has responded to the planning process by developing a fund raising and advocacy organization called "Preserve Historic Sleeping Bear" (Preserve). This organization signed a formal agreement with the
Lakeshore in July 1999. The agreement is for five years and designates this organization as the official fund raiser to stabilize vacant historic structures, to assist in educating the public, and to provide assistance in finding partners. Preserve has been successful in raising a number of small grants for establishing their organization. Preserve secured grants to host a three-day festival in June 1999, called "Celebrate Historic Sleeping Bear". This festival educated and raised public awareness on the plight of the 150 vacant historic resources and concluded with volunteers painting the Charles Olsen Farmhouse in the Port Oneida Rural Historic District. Approximately 400 people attended the three day event.

COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND REGULATIONS

In implementing the Historic Properties Management Plan, the NPS would comply with all applicable laws and executive orders, including those listed below. Informal consultation with the appropriate federal, state, and local agencies has been conducted in the preparation of this document.

The draft environmental impact statement for the Historic Properties Management Plan will be on public review for 60 days. A final environmental impact statement will be prepared that will respond to or incorporate the public comments on the draft document. After a 30 day no-action period, a Record of Decision will be prepared to document the selected alternative and set forth any stipulations for implementation of the plan, thus completing the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act.

This environmental impact statement (EIS) is programmatic and presents an overview of potential impacts relating to each alternative. This EIS will serve as a basis for future National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents (such as environmental assessments) prepared to assess subsequent partner proposals.

Cultural Resources

The NPS is mandated to preserve and protect its cultural resources through the act of August 25, 1916, and through specific legislation such as the Antiquities Act of 1906, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended in 1992. Cultural resources in the Lakeshore would be managed in accordance with these acts and with Chapter V of the NPS Management Policies, the Cultural Resources Management Guidelines (NPS-28), and other relevant policy directives.

As part of its cultural resource management responsibilities, the NPS surveys and evaluates all cultural resources under its jurisdiction. Cultural resources are evaluated by applying the criteria of the National Register. In addition, the NPS maintains the List of Classified Structures, which is an inventory of all above ground historic and prehistoric structures in the National Park System.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended (16 USC 470, et seq.) requires that federal agencies that have direct or indirect jurisdiction take into account the effect of undertakings on National Register properties and allow the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) an opportunity to comment. Toward that end, the NPS will work with the Michigan State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the ACHP to meet requirements of 36 CFR 800 and the September 1995 Programmatic Agreement. The 1995 Programmatic Agreement was developed and signed among the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, the ACHP, and the NPS. This agreement requires the NPS to work closely with the SHPO and the ACHP in planning for new and existing NPS areas.

The Programmatic Agreement also provides for a number of programmatic exclusions for specific actions that are not likely to have an adverse effect on cultural resources. These actions may be implemented, without further review by the Michigan SHPO or the ACHP, provided that NPS internal review finds the actions meet certain conditions. Undertakings, as defined in 36 CFR 800, not specifically excluded in the programmatic agreement must be reviewed by the SHPO and the ACHP before implementation. Throughout the process there will be early consultation on all potential actions.

The NPS has developed a list of actions associated with the proposed HPMP that could have an effect on cultural resources. Some of these actions are covered by programmatic exclusions, and would require no further SHPO/ACHP review. Other actions would need further SHPO/ACHP review. This information is presented in each cultural landscape prescription. The final HPMP/EIS will include a listing of those actions with which the SHPO concurs, and any additional requests or comments that office may have.

A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) will be required with SHPO and the ACHP because the plan will contain an "adverse effect" in regards to the removal of National Register and National Historic Landmark contributing structures currently in poor condition. Because the actual impacts of the plan are impossible to predict, the MOA will provide for periodic review by the SHPO and the ACHP concerning the success in implementing the plan and the significance of additional adverse effects, if any. The MOA will include the level of documentation for mitigating the removal of structures currently in poor condition.

Internally, the NPS will complete an Assessment of Actions Having an Effect on Cultural Resources (XXX) form before implementation of any proposed actions. This is necessary to document any project effects, outline actions proposed to mitigate any effects, and document that the proposed actions flow from the HPMP. All implementing actions for cultural resources would be reviewed and certified by cultural resource specialists following the September 1995 Programmatic Agreement.

Prior to any ground-disturbance action by the NPS, a professional archeologist would determine the need for archeological inventory or testing evaluation. Any such studies would be carried out in conjunction with construction and would meet the needs of the
SHPO, as well as the NPS. Any large-scale archeological investigations would be undertaken in consultation with the SHPO.During the implementation phase of the proposed action, archeological surveys may be required as well as historic structure reports, and ethnographic use studies. This will be determined on a case-by-case basis when advance planning and construction is proposed and undertaken by either a partner or the Lakeshore.

Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires the NPS to identify and nominate to the National Register all resources under its jurisdiction that appear to be eligible. All structures included in the HPMP have been formally determined eligible or are currently listed on the National Register. As part of the HPMP process, the Priorities Team has made recommendations for level of significance and even raising the level of significance of structures currently listed. In an October 18, 1999 letter from the SHPO to the Lakeshore, the SHPO concurred with the findings of the Priorities Team. As part of the follow up to the HPMP, all National Register nominations will be completed or amended and forwarded to the Keeper of the National Register.

Natural Environment

The natural resources laws and regulations listed below will be followed during implementation of this plan:

*Act of 1916 (NPS Organic Act)

Establishes the National Park Service and directs the agency to preserve and protect natural objects and wildlife.

*Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 USC 1531 et seq.):

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires all federal agencies to consult with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency does not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or habitat. Informal consultation has been initiated as part of the general management plan process. This consultation will be combined and coordinated with the HPMP/EIS process.

*Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 USC et seq (1988), 78 Stat. 890, Pub. L. 88-577):

This act established the national Wilderness Preservation System and sets forth requirements for wilderness designation and management. 31,000 acres (12,546 hectares) in the Lakeshore have been recommended as wilderness.

*Clean Air Act, as amended (42 USC 701 et seq.):

Section 118 of the Clean Air Act requires all federal facilities to comply with existing federal, state, and city air pollution control laws and regulations.

*Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) and Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands):

Executive orders 11988 an 11990 direct federal agencies to enhance floodplain and wetland values, to avoid development in floodplains and wetlands whenever there is a practicable alternative, and to avoid to the extent possible adverse impacts associated with the occupancy or modification of floodplains or wetlands.

Pursuant to federal and state regulations, there would be no actions in floodplains or wetlands in any alternative.

*Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (USC 9 sec. 1251 et seq., as amended, 33 USC sec. 1251-1376, and 1987 Federal Water Quality Act):

Federal construction or federally-approved construction would comply with the requirements of sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act and other applicable federal, state, and local regulations.

*Analysis of Impacts on Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands (45 FR 59189):

Federal agencies are required to analyze the impacts of federal actions on agricultural lands in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. This policy was developed to minimize the effect of federal programs in converting prime, unique, or locally important farmland to nonagricultural uses.

The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (PL 97-98; 7 USC 4201 et seq.) seeks to minimize the extent to which federal programs contribute to the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. It intends to ensure that federal programs are administered in a manner that, to the extent practicable, will be compatible with state, local government, and private programs and policies to protect farmland. Implementing regulations associated with this act require agencies to coordinate with the NRCS to evaluate the extent to which proposed actions and policies could affect farmland.

*Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore Enabling Legislation (PL 91-479)

Directs the NPS to protect resources in a manner which provides for recreation activities consistent with maximum protection of the natural environment.

The Lakeshore 1982 amendment to PL 91-479, PL 97-361, stated that recommended wilderness shall be administered to maintain the presently existing wilderness character and potential for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System.

The NPS recognizes its obligations to provide public facilities that are accessible to and usable by all segments of the visitor population, regardless of ability. Accessibility to and use of the Lakeshore facilities by physically and learning disabled visitors will continue to be provided in conformance with applicable laws and regulations. To the greatest extent possible, commensurate with their abilities, disabled visitors will be able to enjoy the park and participate in recreational activities, using the same facilities and programs as the able-bodied; sensitive park planning and design will facilitate this goal. Consultation and coordination of accessibility considerations will be developed with local clubs and organizations whose members are disabled, where possible.

Currently, some developed areas of the park are more accessible then others. The degree of accessibility is, and will continue to be, proportional to the degree of development. Wilderness, primitive, and backcountry areas typically have little or no development and are intended to be and are managed primarily as areas removed as far as possible from the imprint of man. These areas will be accessible to the extent feasible without major modification of the site. Although trails to and within these areas will experience a degree of formalization, they will retain the basic unimproved nature and topographic variations currently existing. New facilities in more accessible or highly developed areas will be made accessible, as well as existing facilities that may experience some remodeling. This also applies to employee work areas and housing.

Programmatic access for sensory- and learning- impaired visitors will continue to be provided and expanded.

Tribal Consultation

The Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians will be contacted and invited to participate in this planning process by reviewing this draft plan.

List of Agencies, Governmental Units, Political Officials, and Groups Where This Document has Been Sent

Copies of the draft HPMP/EIS have been sent to the following agencies for their review and comment:

Federal Agencies:

-Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
-Michigan Congressional Delegation
-U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
-U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
-Natural Resources Conservation Service

State Agencies:

-Michigan State Historic Preservation Office
-Michigan Department of Natural Resources
-Michigan Department of Environmental Quality-Executive Office, State of Michigan
-MSU Cooperative Extension Service

Local Governmental Units:

-Benzie and Leelanau County Boards
-Benzie and Leelanau County Planning Commissions
-Benzie and Leelanau County Road Commissions
-Affected township boards and planning boards (Benzie County: Lake, Platte; Leelanau County: Centerville, Cleveland, Empire, Glen Arbor)

Federal and State Elected Officials:

-U. S. Senator Carl Levin
-U. S. Senator Spencer Abraham
-U. S. Representative Bart Stupak
-State Senator George McManus
-State Representative Bill Bobier
-State Representative Jason Allen

State Groups:

-American Youth Hostel - Michigan Chapter
-Kalamazoo Nature Center
-The Nature Conservancy
-Sierra Club - Michigan Chapter
-National Parks and Conservation Association
-Michigan United Conservation Clubs
-Michigan Natural Resources Council
-Michigan Travel Bureau
-Michigan Land Use Institute
-West Michigan Environmental Council
-Water Resources Commission

Local Groups:

-Leelanau Historical Museum
-Benzie Museum
-Empire Area Museum
-Preserve Historic Sleeping Bear
-South Manitou Memorial Society
-Friends of Sleeping Bear Dunes
Local Groups (Continued):

-Shielding Tree Nature Center
-Benzie County Chamber of Commerce
-Frankfort Chamber of Commerce
-Glen Arbor Artist Association
-Grand Traverse Conservancy
-Grand Traverse Bay Watershed Initiative
-Honor Area Business Association
-Grand Traverse Audubon Club
-Leelanau Chamber of Commerce
-Leelanau Conservancy
-Benzie County Motel and Resort Association
-Northern Michigan Environmental Action Council
-Sleeping Bear Dunes Area Citizens' Council
-Traverse City Chamber of Commerce

Media:

Various radio and television stations, magazines, and newspapers

List of Preparers from the Lakeshore:

Michael Duwe, Environmental Specialist/Planner

Education- M. S., Natural Resources, University of Michigan,
B. S., Biological Sciences, Lake Superior State University
Experience- Twenty-five years experience in planning, resource management, and environmental compliance; twenty years with the NPS
Plan responsibility- Plan coordinator, co-writer, environmental impacts

William Herd, Park Ranger Naturalist

Education- B. S., Education, Ohio State University
Experience- Twenty-seven years with the NPS in environmental
Interpretation and cultural resources management
Plan responsibility- Co-writer, cultural resources, archeology, history

Kimberly Mann, Historic Architect

Education- B. S., Architectural Design, University of Nebraska
Experience- Nine years with Corps of Engineers working in design,
Construction, contracting, Section 106 compliance, interior
Design review, A/E design review
Eight years at the Lakeshore working in design,
Construction, contracting, Section 106 and 110 compliance
A/E design and report review, NRHP/NHL preparation
Plan responsibility- Co-writer, ensure compliance with NHPA, Director's #28,
NPS Management Policies

List of Consultants from the Lakeshore:

-Ivan Miller, Superintendent

-Duane Pearson, Assistant Superintendent
-Neal Bullington, Chief of Interpretation
-Dan Krieber, Administrative Officer
-Roger Moder, Chief Ranger
-Pete LaValley, Acting Facility Manager
-Tom Van Zoeren, Park Ranger
-Max Holden, Resources Management Ranger
-Steve Yancho, Resources Management Ranger
-Kim Struthers, GIS Specialist

List of Consultants from the NPS Midwest Regional Office:

-Michael Evans, Senior Cultural Anthropologist
-Michael Gallagher, Resource Management Specialist
-Craig Kenkel, Team Manager, Cultural Resources Division
-Michael Madell, Senior Environmental Protection Specialist
-Marla McEnaney,Historical Landscape Architect
-Don Stevens, Senior Historian

List of Consultants from other Agencies or the Private Sector:

-Kathryn Eckert, Former Michigan SHPO
-Laura Quackenbush, Leelanau Historical Society
-George Weeks, Local Historian
-Klaus Heinert, Landscape Architect

Last Updated: 07DEC1999
Http://www.nps.gov/slbe/hp_ch5.htm
Author: T.M.Baker