HOW TO NAVIGATE THIS MANAGEMENT PLAN: Each web page has a table at the bottom which provides links to the various pages of the plan. The Table of Contents may also be used to move directly to other pages. Additionally, there are links located at the top and bottom of each page for the Sleeping Bear Homepage, Sleeping Bear Virtual Visitor Center, ParkNet, National Parks Homepage, and regular e-mail. Please use the e-mail links in the boxes for making comments on the management plan. Enjoy your reading and, please, let us know what you think!

This Draft Historic Properties Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement describes and analyzes three alternative future directions for the management of selected historic properties within Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. The alternatives are based on the Lakeshore's enabling legislation and recent investigations into the significance of historic properties in the Lakeshore. The Historic Properties Management Plan is intended to provide a blueprint to guide park management decisions regarding these historic properties for the next 10-20 years. The Historic Properties Management Plan is a conceptual document that establishes and articulates a management philosophy and framework for decision making and problem solving. Since many preservation and adaptive use activities would be implemented by partners, this plan will function as a guide for both the National Park Service and partners.

Alternative I is the no-action alternative. It provides a baseline for comparison of the other alternatives. Each of the action alternatives would strive to achieve all desired conditions for the Lakeshore relating to select historic properties. The primary difference between the two action alternatives is their central emphasis. Alternative II would emphasize preservation of the exteriors of structures, through partnership agreements, with no adaptive uses by partners. The Preferred Alternative (Proposed Action), Alternative III, would emphasize the rehabilitation and adaptive use of historic structures through partnership agreements. It would also permit limited compatible uses of cultural landscapes. Under all alternatives, the National Park Service may adapt historic structures for its use.

The potential environmental consequences of the alternatives have been evaluated. As this is a programmatic environmental impact statement, the affects of the alternatives are described in terms of reasonable projections of likely impacts. Both action alternatives provide methods for evaluating partner proposals through a formal process, provide for a prioritized listing of cultural landscapes and structures, and describe cultural landscape "prescriptions," or management directions for future use and development. Major impact topics assessed include vegetation, wildlife, threatened and endangered species, water quality, historic and archeological resources, visitor use, and the socioeconomic environment. All future proposals related to historic properties will be subject to evaluation as required by the National Environmental Policy Act and other environmental laws, regulations, and policies. This document will serve as the foundation for that future analysis.

This Draft Historic Properties Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement will be on public review for 60 days. The document is available on the Lakeshore website at www.nps.gov/slbe. Comments on the plan are welcome, and should be submitted to the address below. Questions regarding this document and planning process can also be directed to this office. You may also comment via e-mail to slbe_hpmp@nps.gov.

Superintendent
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore
9922 Front Street
Empire, Michigan 49630
(231) 326-5134

Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the record a respondent's identify, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

COMMENTS ON THIS DOCUMENT ARE DUE BY FEBRUARY 15, 2000, OR 60 DAYS AFTER THE NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY IS PUBLISHED BY THE U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER, WHICHEVER IS LATER.

This document has four principal chapters in the main body. The first, called "Purpose and Need for the Plan," introduces the plan, describes why it is necessary, and explains what it will accomplish. It provides background information on Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore (Lakeshore) and describes the establishing legislation for the Lakeshore.

The "Proposed Action and Alternatives" chapter presents alternatives for the management of historic properties (structures and cultural landscapes) in the Lakeshore. Some actions are common to all alternatives and some actions are common to only action Alternatives II and III. Some alternative actions have been eliminated from further consideration. These actions are discussed in applicable sections. Alternative I ("No Action/Continue Current Management") describes what would or could happen without an approved plan. The proposed action (Alternative III) presents the National Park Service's preferred approach for managing specific cultural resources in the Lakeshore. Alternative II presents another option for managing these cultural resources.

The third major chapter is called the "Affected Environment" and describes the Lakeshore's cultural and natural resources, visitor use patterns, and park operations that would be impacted by any alternatives. This chapter also describes the socioeconomic conditions in the surrounding region. The information in the Affected Environment chapter provides the context for analyzing the impacts of the action in the alternatives.

The last major chapter, "Environmental Consequences," describes the effects that implementing each alternative would have on the resources described in the "Affected Environment" section.

The appendices contains other key elements of the plan such as the cultural landscape "packages" (with detailed information about each landscape, including structures and management "prescriptions"), prescriptions for selected structures with no significant cultural landscapes, structure removal criteria, and the landscape/structure priority list that, under either action alternative, would assist park management in determining where scarce park funds and staff time should be directed.

The "Notice of Intent" to prepare a General Management Plan (GMP) Amendment and Historic Properties Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (HPMP/EIS) was published in the Federal Register on February 24, 1998. The GMP Amendment was deemed necessary at the time to address changes to the 1979 GMP required to provide an updated foundation for decision-making related to the management of historic properties within the Lakeshore. However, the HPMP/EIS planning process has taken longer than anticipated and a GMP Revision is now underway. Planning for the GMP and HPMP will be coordinated to the maximum extent possible to ensure the documents are consistent.

Two action alternatives were developed in the course of preparing this draft HPMP/EIS. The alternatives grew out of recent investigations into the significance of historic properties within the Lakeshore. Earlier alternatives focused on preserving selected cultural landscapes, or portions of landscapes, designating time limits for partner participation, and immediately relocating structures outside the Lakeshore. These alternatives were eliminated from further study.

ALTERNATIVES

Alternative I is the no-action alternative. It provides a baseline for comparison to the other alternatives. This alternative would continue current management of selected historic properties without a written long-range plan and clear direction or goal. Existing adaptive uses would continue and the National Park Service (NPS) would continue to conduct minimal maintenance of structures as scarce money and staff time permit. NPS policy would provide Lakeshore management with a broad range of options from rehabilitation/adaptive use to removal. No management "prescriptions" or formal priority lists would exist, and actions would be driven by documentation of need or availability of resources.

Action Alternatives II and III would strive to achieve all desired futures for the Lakeshore relating to select historic properties. Each action alternative would provide for a formal proposal evaluation process, a priority listing of structures and cultural landscapes, and management prescriptions. The primary difference between the two action alternatives is their central emphasis. Alternative II would emphasize preservation of the exteriors of structures, through partnership agreements, with no adaptive uses by partners. Minimal actions would occur in the cultural landscapes. The Preferred Alternative (Proposed Action), Alternative III, would emphasize the rehabilitation and adaptive use of historic structures through partnership agreements but could also include preservation actions. It would also permit limited compatible uses of landscapes.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The potential environmental consequences of each the alternatives have been evaluated. As this is a programmatic environmental impact statement, the effects of the alternatives are described in terms of reasonable projections of likely impacts. Both action alternatives provide methods for evaluating partner proposals through a formal process, provide for a prioritized listing of cultural landscapes and structures, and describe cultural landscape and selected structure "prescriptions," or management directions, for future use and development. The formal process would include the option for preparing environmental analyses for those proposals where impacts were anticipated. Major impact topics assessed include vegetation, wildlife, threatened and endangered species, water quality, historic and archeological resources, visitor use, and the socioeconomic environment.

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