REJECT ALL FOUR NPS ALTERNATIVES

By Daniel Herd
The following piece is an editorial contribution, and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Glen Arbor Sun. –Ed

Like most people who have lived in Northern Michigan, I have many fond memories of the Sleeping Bear Dunes. Most of these are not centered on the Dune Climb. More prominent are memories of long hikes through the dunes exploring this rare environment. I was stunned when I learned that the National Park Service (N.P.S.) is planning to close all of the dunes in the National Lakeshore except part of the Dune Climb and to eliminate shoreline access to most of the Lake Michigan beaches. Although now in Ohio, I still consistently meet people who frequent the natural escapes and historic sites of the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore (SBDNL). I felt that because it had been instrumental in my childhood and had affected so many others, I had the obligation to find out why this was happening to our park.
My research was quickly stymied. Park service employees are not permitted to talk about the new management plan. Those people most knowledgeable about the dune ecology are gagged when citizens need their expertise to understand the impact of the new proposal. If it makes sense, there would be no need for a restriction on information. If we are to make informed decision about the future of our park, we must insist that there be a fair and open discussion. N.P.S. educators should be leading the information exchange not barred from it. Fortunately, through persistence and alternative methods – speaking with other area naturalists, friends and past N.P.S. employees; and thoroughly reading the plan – I was able to amalgamate insight I will share with you.
The most important thing to know is that we are not allowed to be involved in the key decisions that will dramatically change our future use of the Lakeshore. Someone in the N.P.S. has kept the broader, more impacting decisions from being exposed to public opinion. The closing of all dune areas is not just in the “preferred alternative”; it is in ALL of the action alternatives. It will happen, unless we, the public take dramatic action. The N.P.S. is not considering any alternative protection for the dunes other then keeping you OUT. No boardwalks or ranger guided tours or any of the other effective methods used by other parks to protect fragile areas while still permitting public access will be considered. The closing of the roads is also in every alternative – we get no voice.
As citizens, we must reject all four alternatives and insist that we be permitted to help formulate the new management plan for our Lakeshore. The fact that some bureaucrats in Omaha decided that they’d rather not bother involving local residents and park visitors should be a red flag that this general mismanagement plan has been hijacked from the people it impacts.
You would hope that such a monumental decision like closing the (non dune-climb areas of the –Ed) dunes would have been preceded by careful analysis. Yet, no study of the impact of hikers on the local dune ecosystem has EVER been conducted. The decision to close the dunes is based only on personal opinion. There is no factual data. Even the number of people who hike on the dunes is unknown. Park staff routinely facilitate educational programming on those dune trails scheduled for closing and they are confident that use of these trails by schools and families does NO SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE. No one has asked for the expert advise of these staff persons. Even the affect on dune vegetation in areas where visitors are concentrated is not considered a major problem to the dune system as a whole. Vegetation on the dunes has been steadily INCREASING over the last fifty years. As everyone who has worked in or around the park knows, the major threat to our dunes is non-native plants, yet the N.P.S. would rather weed out people.
The closing of many park access roads is based on a 21-year-old proposal regarding potential wilderness areas. The proposal was never sent to Congress because it has NEVER BEEN APPROVED by the Department of Interior. It is obsolete because the Environmental Impact Statement, on which it is based, is outdated. New alternatives and public hearings are required before it can be reintroduced. The reconsideration of this proposal should have been a logical part of the new management plan. Some proposed wilderness areas are now recognized as significant historic landscapes that must be preserved, while other areas no longer meet the required definition of wilderness. I hope some wilderness areas will remain, but it is only fair that the public has the opportunity to influence how much wilderness should be proposed. A doctor advocating a 21-year-old cure would be sued for malpractice, yet we are about to be given a 21st century bloodletting by the N.P.S.
How did this plan so erroneously miss its purpose? Last year every N.P.S. staff person received a card to remind them of their overarching mission. It says: “The National Park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources of the national park system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations”. The NPS planning team eliminated preservation of cultural resources and public enjoyment from their purpose. With the mission limited to just protecting natural resources, it becomes obvious why they are closing much of the park.
This situation will not correct itself. Without public and private intervention, two years from now we will have 68,000 acres of dead space and a million disappointed visitors. The financial impact on the area will be decimating as the millions of visitor dollars we depend on (like it or not) evaporate. We must take back the planning for our park. The wilderness issue must be reopened, alternatives for preservation and use of the dune areas must be considered and the purpose for the park must accurately reflect Congress’s intent for the National Park System. We must insist that everyone, including Lakeshore employees, be permitted to participate in an open, fair and honest discussion of the issues. Our grandchildren will thank us for the effort.