|
|
ALTERNATIVE I-
NO ACTION/CONTINUE CURRENT MANAGEMENT |
ALTERNATIVE II- PRESERVATION
OF STRUCTURES AND
CULTURAL LANDSCAPES |
ALTERNATIVE III - REHABILITATION
OF STRUCTURES AND PRESERVATION WITH USE OF CULTURAL
LANDSCAPES
(THE PROPOSED ACTION)
|
OVERALL
MANAGEMENT
DIRECTION |
Proposals evaluated as they
are received. GMP direction on islands would apply. Secretary's
Standards would provide direction. Accessible mainland properties
would receive higher priority. Wilderness management
would apply. |
A long-range plan and clear
direction. The emphasis is on preservation of structures on the
landscape. Exteriors restored and no internal use of the structures.
No adaptive uses of structures or landscapes. Secretary's Standards
would provide direction. Fields maintained through mowing or
hand-cutting, minor preservation activities. Wilderness management
would apply. |
A long-range plan and clear
direction. This alternative includes all actions in Alt. II but
the emphasis is on rehabilitation and adaptive use of structures,
where appropriate. Landscapes may be used for a variety of compatible
purposes. Secretary's Standards would provide direction. Wilderness
management would apply. |
PRESERVATION (STABILIZATION)
OF STRUCTURES |
YES.
This is a treatment option. |
YES. This is the preferred treatment
option in all cases. |
YES. This is a treatment option.
The emphasis, however, is on rehabilitation and adaptive use
of structures, where appropriate. In some geographical locations,
the only treatment prescribed is preservation. Preservation may
also be the first phase in a rehabilitation/adaptive use effort. |
REHABILITATION AND ADAPTIVE
USE
OF STRUCTURES |
YES. This is a treatment option,
where appropriate. |
NO. This is not the
preferred treatment in any case. |
YES. This is the preferred treatment,
where appropriate. |
|
FORMAL PROPOSAL SOLICITATION
PROCESS |
NONE. Proposals would be accepted
on a case-by-case basis. |
YES. A formal solicitation process
would be developed
and implemented. |
YES. A formal solicitation process
would be developed
and implemented. |
|
FORMAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION PROCESS
("SIEVE") |
NONE. Proposals would be evaluated
on a case-by-case
basis using NPS
guidelines and regulations,
Secretary's Standards, etc. |
YES. A formal proposal evaluation
process would be developed and implemented. |
YES. A formal proposal evaluation
process would be developed and implemented. |
PRIORITY LISTING
OF LANDSCAPES
AND STUCTURES |
NONE. No formal priority listing
would exist The NPS would evaluate proposals on a case-by-case
basis and assist partners as needed. First priority for funding
would be directed toward existing commitments (i.e., those historic
structures not addressed in this plan).
(The available staff time is
the same in I, II, and III.) |
YES. Available staff time and
monies would be directed towards higher priority landscapes and
structures. |
YES. Available staff time and
monies would be directed towards higher priority landscapes and
structures. |
|
PRESCRIPTIONS FOR CULTURAL
LANDSCAPES AND STRUCTURES WITHOUT LANDSCAPES |
YES. "Prescriptions" reflect
current management policy and existing conditions. Proposals
evaluated on a case-by-case basis. No commercial use of
landscapes and no agriculture. |
YES. Detailed "prescriptions"
(management directions) would be developed for each cultural
landscape or structure. Activities focus on maintaining open
fields through mowing
or hand-cutting, minor preservation activities. |
YES. Detailed "prescriptions"
(management directions) would be developed for each cultural
landscape or structure. This alternative expands the basic elements
of the Open Field Management Plan to permit preservation/restoration
actions compatible with Lakeshore resources. |
|
VISITOR EXPERIENCES AND RANGE
OF USES |
VARIED. Dependent upon the outcome
of partner activity and future levels of NPS resources. |
LIMITED to viewing exteriors
of structures.
Little or no interior use. |
GREATEST range of possible uses
dependent upon
adaptive uses. |