THE éMPACT OF CONFLICHNG

§NST1TUTEONAL VALUES UPON THE

DES!@N OF SLEEPING BEAR DUNES
NATIONAL LAKESHORE

Thesis for fire Degm—e of MU?

M1CH£GAN STATE UNWERSHY

ARTHUR STANLEY WARD:
1973

3" '
I
l. 5-3!

 

MSU
LIBRARIES
.q—

 

 

 

 

0mm 32 9 12000

 

9f l'Z’?’£:"‘--i‘*f

RETURNING MATERIALS:
F1ace in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
amped below.

  

 

 

Chanes W. Barr Planmrw w.
School of Urhfi“
Michtg'm 5"301;

HS! Laft'oxlig, .‘LCi‘QjJ‘.

p,

(x
\

ABSTRACT

THE IMPACT OF CONFLICTING
INSTITUTIONAL VALUES UPON THE
DESIGN OF SLEEPING BEAR
DUNES NATIONAL LAKESHORE

BY
Arthur Stanley Ward

Ideally, the planning process should provide for citizen
input at every stage of decision making. This citizen input
enables the decision-making body to consider arguments pro
and con and to weigh them in the light of consequences which
may arise. The most effective means for influencing any
decision is through an organized body of persons dedicated
to a common cause. These formal organizations, or institu-
tions, have a set of values incorporated in their purpose,
constitution, or bylaws. These institutional values deter-
mine the platform for arguments and the bases for supporting
or opposing a given proposal.

In 1961 a proposal was introduced into the United
States Senate to establish a national lakeshore in the
Sleeping Bear Dunes area of Michigan. The proposal was the
subject of much controversy which extended the legislation
over a nine-year period before a bill was ultimately enacted.

ii

[

 

iii Arthur Stanley Ward
The participating institutions were from one of two areas of
concern; the conservation groups of Michigan who supported
the National Park Service proposal, and the citizen groups
of the Sleeping Bear Dunes area who opposed the lakeshore
concept. Over the nine year legislative history, many amend-
ments were made in the lakeshore bills as a result of
pressures from these two groups.

This study explores the history of the conservation
movement in the United States and the impact of this movement
on the values of the participating institutions. The history
of the legislation is given, bill by bill, including institu-
tional objections and proposed amendments. The changes in
bills are documented in the committee reports, in congres-
sional debate, or as a result of changes in subsequent
proposals.

The institutions who played an active part in the
legislation are examined as to their values, their objections
raised or support given, and the impact the legislation would
have on them. By identifying the values of each participating
institution, justification can be made for their intended
influence on the design of the lakeshore legislation.

This study determines the impact that the various
groups who took an active part, had upon the planning process

at the federal level.

THE IMPACT OF CONFLICTING INSTITUTIONAL
VALUES UPON THE DESIGN OF
SLEEPING BEAR DUNES

NATIONAL LAKESHORE

BY

Arthur Stanley Ward

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF URBAN PLANNING

School of Urban Planning and Landscape Architecture

1978

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My sincere thanks go to Professor Sanford S. Farness
for his helpful comments and suggestions in the preparation
of this thesis; to Dr. M. Rupert Cutler for his interpre-
tation of the Sleeping Bear Dunes controversy which
inspired me to investigate this topic, and for the many
contacts and information sources he provided me; to E.
Genevieve Gillette of the Michigan Parks Association, who
Spent the better part of a day giving me invaluable informa-
tion concerning the early years of the Dunes controversy;
and to my wife Meredith, without whose encouragement this

would not have been possible.

Chapter

I

II

III

IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND . . . . . .

THE

THE

THE

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . .
Objectives of the Study . . . . . .
Research Methods . . . . . . . . .

AMERICAN CONSERVATION MOVEMENT . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . .
Early Naturalists and Writers . . .
Conservation During the Years of
Theodore Roosevelt . . . . . . .
The Creation of the National
Park Service . . . . . . . . . .
Conservation During the Years of
Franklin D. Roosevelt . . . . . .
Conservation Under John F. Kennedy
Conservation Under Lyndon B.
Johnson and the Great Society .
Stewart L. Udall . . . . . . . .
New Rights for the People . . . . .
Environmental Awareness Movement
of the 19605 and 19703 . . . . .

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE . . . . . . .

Creation of the National Park Service

Early Years of the National Park
semice o o o o o o o o o o o o o

The Wirth Administration . . . . .

The National Park Service Today . .

SIGNIFICANCE OF COASTAL ZONES . . .
Public Awareness of Shoreline . . .

The Ecological Significance of
Coastal Zones . . . . . . . . . .

Recreational Appeal of the Shoreline

ETIVironment o o o o o o o o o o 0

vi

Page

ODO\ 0‘ PM!“

14
18

21
25

28
31
33
37
45
‘15
46
SO
57
57
61

64

vii

Chapter Page
v SLEEPING BEAR DUNES O C O O O C O O O O O O O 67

Historic Background . . . . . . . . . . . 67
National Prominence . . . . . . . . . . . 7O
Geological and Biological

Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

VI THE HISTORY OF LEGISLATION PRECEDING
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SLEEPING BEAR
DUNES NATIONAL LAKESHORE . . . . . . . . . 74

An Omnibus Lakeshore Bill . . . . . . . . 74
Senate Bill 2153 o . o . o . o . . . . . 75
Revisions are Made . . . . . . . . . . . 91
The Griffin Bill 0 o o o o o o o o o o o 94
Senate Bill 792 . . o . . . o o . . . o . 95
Senate Bill 936 o o o o o o o o o o o o o 104
5.1192 and H. R. 6616 . . . . . . . . 109
H. R. 11829 and Related Bills . . . . . . 110
The Final Round of Legislation . . . . . 116

VII THE IMPACT OF OTHER LEGISLATION . . . . . . . 119

The Wilderness Act . . . . . . . . . . 120
The'Wild and Scenic Rivers Act . . . . . 121
The National Environmental Policy Act . . 122

VIII INPUT FROM CONSERVATION ORGANIZATIONS . . . . 125

IntrOdUCtion o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 125
Input from Conservation Organizations . . 126
The Impact of Recommendations Made

by Conservation Organizations . . . . . 137

IX INPUT FROM LEELANAU AND BENZIE COUNTIES . . . 141

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Input from Local Groups 0 o o o o o o o o 142
The Impact of Local Pressure Upon

the Lakeshore Legislation . . . . . . . 158

X INPUT FROM THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE . . . . 163

Background on the Recreation Area
Category of the National Park
System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Discussions with the Superintendent
of Sleeping Bear Dunes National
Lakeshore...............166

Chapter

viii

XI CONCLUSIONS . . . .

Changing Institutional values .

Summary of Controversies and
Pressures on the Park Service
A Review of the Opportunities for
the Public to Become Involved
and Affectuate Change in the

Evaluation of the Planning Process
of Sleeping Bear Dunes

Design Process

In Conclusion .

APPENDICES . .

BIBLIOGRAPHY .

Page
170
170

174

177

179
184

186
193

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Introduction

As today's planning proposals have a greater direct or
indirect effect on our growing population, the need for
citizen input to guide the goals and objectives of this
planning increases. Governmental agencies at all levels must
be cognizant of the implications of their plans and must be
willing to accept criticism and amend where necessary in the
development of an acceptable plan.

In the case of the Sleeping Bear Dunes National
Lakeshore, this planning process spanned a nine-year period.
Because the controversies were so numerous in 1961 that many
institutions flatly opposed the legislation, and the conser-
vation organizations believed so strongly in their cause
that they kept the issue alive over the years, a bill to
establish the lakeshore did not become acceptable to a
majority until 1970.

Throughout the nine-year period the National Park
Service was in the position of compromising and amending each
successive lakeshore proposal in an attempt at getting one
through Congress. At the same time, Park Service policies

1

regarding lakeshore areas played a role in the determination
of permissible amendments to the bills.

The environmental awareness movement of the late 19605
and early 19705 created a new set of principles by which
plans are judged. Even the opponents of the Sleeping Bear
Dunes proposal began utilizing tools which were formerly the
domain of conservation organizations. This movement of
increasing concern for the environmental impact of a mans'
actions put the Park Service's development scheme in another
perspective.

The design of the Dunes lakeshore has been influenced
over the years not solely by the conflicting values of the
participating institutions but as a result of the responsive-

ness of these institutions to changing societal values.

Objectives of the Study

Throughout the planning process there are adjustments
and compromises between a planning agency and its citizenry.
This give and take process allows those people and institu-
tions directly or indirectly affected by the master plan to
voice their opinion in an attempt to influence the designers.

The purpose and goals of an institution form the bases
for defining the position that institution will defend in a
controversy and the changes it will propose. The thesis of
my study is that the cultural values implicit in our social
institutions have a definite impact in shaping the design of

our artifacts. The artifact in this case is the Sleeping

Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. The institutions which are
the subject of this thesis include conservation organizations
in Michigan and citizen groups from the Sleeping Bear Dunes
area.

The National Park Service is in a peculiar situation
whenever it designs a park and especially one of the size and
prominence of Sleeping Bear Dunes. "Because of the many
interests involved, the Park Service seeks to bring the
general public into the process of determining preservation
and use policies."1

As might be expected from decisions reached by this

process, controversies will arise. On one side are

the preservationists, for whom the word 'unimpaired'
is the key and who counsel purity in all things.

They maintain parks are to protect wilderness and

should be seen on foot with a backpack. On the other

side are a mixed assortment of individuals and
organizations (and commercial interests) who do not
regard the parks as shrines but rather as places to
have fun. They enjoy the scenery fully but tend to
believe cabins and hotels are preferable to sleeping
on the ground. Generally supportive in their own

way of protective measures in the parks, they see no

inconsistency in development of the parks for

apprOpriate recreational pursuits.

In the adaptation of our social systems to the natural
systems problems will arise, as mentioned above, and a

solution will find a state of harmony between these two

systems. This is the job of the National Park Service.

 

1William C. Everhart, The National Park Service, p. 90.

2"Unimpaired" is the word in the legislation creating
the National Park Service, describing the state in which the
parks are to be after the necessary modifications have been
made to accommodate visitors.

3Everhart,“c_ap. cit., p. 81.

This study will identify the key participants in the
legislative process, the values implicit in the participat-
ing institutions, and the impact of these values on the
planning process. It will identify the institutions which
played a major role in influencing the National Park
Service to develop the legislation as it did, and review the
opportunities for the public to become involved and affectu-

ate change at the federal planning level.

Research Methods

When exploring this topic the researcher relied heavily
on the congressional documents for the verification of much
of the material. The history of the Dunes legislation and
the controversies which surrounded it were well documented

in the committee reports and in the Congressional Record.

 

A great deal of information concerning other than
legislative aspects of the Dunes controversy was supplied in
the form of letters, magazine articles, news releases,
speeches, etc., by various institutions who were involved.
Interviews in the field supplied the majority of data con-
cerning the values and philosophies of the key participants.

The National Park Service supplied most of the data on
the history of the Sleeping Bear Dunes area and how this area
came to receive national prominence.

Investigation of the Dunes controversy began with a

review of the relevant literature which traced the history

5

of the conservation movement in this country and the
evolution of the National Park Service as a result of this
movement.

The significance of coastal zones in relation to the
increased demand for outdoor recreation and the maintenance
of the ecological system was documented in relevant
recreation and resource management literature.

The history of the Dunes area from the time of early
settlement through the Great Lakes Recreational Area Survey
and to its present status was well documented in Park Service
publications. Mbst of the legislative history was obtained
through previously mentioned sources supplemented by input
from key institutions.

The research investigation involved documentation of all
relevant facts concerning the compromises of the Park Service
and the arguments by participants, with supplementary material
and verification through numerous interviews with conservation

groups and interest groups in the Dunes area.

CHAPTER II

THE AMERICAN CONSERVATION MOVEMENT

Introduction

Throughout American history there have been many
movements advocating change in one direction or another.
Unlike some movements whose lifetime occupies only a brief
span in the time frame of the United States, the conservation
movement stands out as one of those which has its roots deep
in America's origin, and though it has had its peaks and
valleys, may be stronger today than ever before.

When European settlers first came to America their
concepts of land ownership conflicted with those of the
Indian. The Englishmen, especially, coveted land and
believed it was something to be owned outright.l This idea
was totally alien to the Indian who believed the land could
not be bought and sold. "The Indian wanted to live not just
in the world, but with it; the white man, who thought in
terms of estates and baronies, wanted land he alone could

cultivate and use."2

 

,IStewart L. Udall, The Quiet Crisis, p. 18.

21bid., p. 19.

It was the Indians who taught the first settlers to work
the land and make it bring forth fruit. Their farming tech-
niques enabled them to fully utilize the land's resources yet
leave them unimpaired for others. The Indians' relationship
with nature is described best by Stewart L. Udall in, The
Quiet Crisis.

The most common trait of all primitive peoples is a

reverence for the life-giving earth, and the native

American shared this elemental ethic: the land was

alive to his loving touch, and he, its son, was

brother to all creatures. His feelings were made

visible in medicine bundles and dance rhythms for

rain, and all of his religious rites and land

attitudes savored the inseparable world of nature

and God, the Master of Life. During the long Indian

tenure the land remained undefiled save for scars no

deeper than the scratches of cornfield clearings or

the farming canals of the Hohokams on the Arizona

desert.

This outlook on our environment is surfacing today as
Americans find themselves " . . . turning back to ancient
Indian land ideas, to the Indian understanding that we are
not outside of nature, but of it."4

In this overview of the American conservation movement
I will identify the major participants and legislation from
the early naturalists to the ecological awareness of the
19703. This will set the stage for the litigation involved
in the planning of Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore.

To understand the values and purposes of the many institu-

tions that were involved in the planning of Sleeping Bear,

 

31b1d., p. 16.

«Ibido , p. 24

an overview of the conditions which led to their formation

is necessary.

Early Naturalists and Writers

After the American colonists had established themselves
on the East coast, men began to look westward for more open
spaces and adventure. Many took their families in hopes of
claiming fertile farm land, and others the adventures of
exploring the wilderness was their only stimulus.

For whatever their reasons, men went traveling, and many
returned to tell others of their experiences. In the early
days there was a presence of mysticism in the way people
viewed these explorers. There were as many legends as facts
that grew out of the accounts of early expeditions.

Stories of men like Daniel Boone, Jed Smith, and Lewis
and Clark sent men out in search of furs and adventure. As
people moved west some of these "mountain men" served as
guides and their knowledge of survival Proved a valuable
resource in America's westward migration.

Just before the outbreak of the French Revolution the
writings of French authors Rousseau, Chateaubriand, and
others expressed fascination with the idea of "back to
nature." Underlying their philosophy was the idea that if
urban.intellectuals could Spend a few days in the bayous of

Louisiana or the lower Mississippi they would be

spiritually purged through their contacts with nature in the
raw.5

American writers were also realizing the significance of
the man-nature relationship. Men like Thoreau, Emerson, and
Audubon were the idea makers, the essential forerunners of
the conservation movements. They began the development of an
American land-consciousness.

Thoreau wrote of the joy of wilderness life as an escape
from the artificialities of ordinary life and a source of

7

physical, moral, and intellectual power. He spent two years
living in a cabin he built on the shore of Walden Pond, near
Concord, Massachusetts. He lived with his physical needs
reduced to a minimum and ate only food he could forage or
grow. Out of this experience came Walden, a book of eighteen
essays, first published in 1854, describing a philosophy of
self-reliance and economy in living in the interests of
spiritual growth.

Thoreau's advice to all communities was that they should
consider themselves poor unless they owned and administered
with care at least one expansive, close-by marsh, forest, or
native laboratory of sufficient size to be a classroom for

8

the young and an outdoor museum for all.

 

sJohn Ise, Our National Park Policy, p. 73.
6Stewart L. Udall, The Quiet Crisis, p. 64.
.7Ise,lgp. cit., p. 640.

8Udall, 1226: Agenda for Tomorrow, p. 116.

10

It was George Catlin, the painter of Indian and frontier
scenes, who first proposed that the government preserve lands
" . . . in their pristine beauty and wilderness, in a
magnificent park . . . ."9 After a journey up the Missouri
River in 1832 he had suggested that large areas be set aside
for the buffalo -— and the Indians -- as a great outdoor
museum of natural history.10

Public sentiment for the preservation of wild areas and
the creation of parks paved the way for government establish-
ment of national and state parks, national and state forests,
and wilderness areas. Cities were laid out with provision
for parks and open space. Major Pierre L'Enfant included
expanses of natural areas for park lands in his plan for
washington, D.C.11

The greatest of the lovers of the wilderness, and the
one who did most to promote the idea of wilderness preser-
vation, was John Muir. Between 1869 and 191412 he traveled
throughout the Sierras from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico,
studying geology, wildlife, botany -- almost everything --
and writing of his travels and observations with poetic
enthusiasm. He knew perhaps more about the western wilder-

ness than anyone else of his time, loved it, and tried to

save the best of it.

 

9Henry Clapper, Origins 25 American Conservation, p. 149.
10

11

Udall, The Quiet Crisis, p. 78.

Clapper, loc. cit.

12Nicholas Roosevelt, Conservation: NOW’EE Never, p. 26.

11

Muir combined the reasoning processes of a scientist
with the soul of a poet . . . he made precise notes
on the work of glaciers and meticulously recorded
details -- the effect of winds on waterfalls, the
melting of snow on evergreens, . . . and countless
interelationships of a kind usually overlooked by
specialists. Long before the word 'ecology'

became part of the patter of naturalists, Muir noted
that if one layer of nature was disturbed in a given
area, the effect was transmitted in that area 0
others, often with far-reaching consequences.

In California he helped found the Sierra Club in San
Francisco in 1892 and was its first president. He was hailed
as a prophet of conservation and had many fo1lowers.14 He
had a great influence in shaping the conservationist attitude

of Theodore Roosevelt.15

. . . Muir's eyes were on spiritual, not on material,
values -- on the everlasting rather than the transient.
The ultimate use that utilitarians preached seemed to
him not only misuse but desecration. He wished to
save for all time -- not just for ghe brief span

. 1
before demand became consumption.

In 1908, thanks to the generosity of Congressman William
Kent of Marin County, California, the fine grove of coast
redwoods just north of San Francisco, now known as "The Muir
WOods," was given to the Federal government, and was set
aside by President Theodore Roosevelt as a national

l7

monument.

 

l3Ibid., p. 27.
14Ibid.
15Hans Huth, Nature and the American, p. 179.

16Roosevelt,{g_p. cit., p. 28.

17Ibido. p. 186.

12

The value of wilderness was present not only in the
writings of naturalists but in other areas too. Jack London,
who may be best known for his.§2£l.2£.£§2.fli£§9 wrote of men
who had been cured of their weaknesses through a bout with
the wilderness. More recently current writers have revived
the theory that American pioneers drew strength from the
wilderness.1

Aldo Leopold wrote that wilderness teaches man something
called, "land ethic," the law which governs the relations
between the members of an ecological society or a biotic
community -- or in other words, the relations between man and
his natural surroundings. The understanding of this law
gives man a greater insight into his place in the community --

19

his position as a biotic citizen. Leopold considered con-

servation a moral obligation and that man's relationship with
nature should be governed by ethics. He believed that land

was the foundation of energy with which man must develop an

"ecological conscience."20

. . . Americans of today and tomorrow owe a great
debt to the little band of men of vision who,
beginning about a century ago believed that some

of these natural phenomena were of permanent value
to the nation as a whole in their present conditions
and must be placed under the protective custody of
the Federal garernment in order to insure their
preservation.

 

181bid., p. 73.

19Ibid., pp. 204, 205.

201bid., p. 205.

211bid., p. 75.

13

The conservation movement took its earliest form

seeking control of the natural resources on the

nation's public domain, which, in the 18903 was

in the neighborhood of one billion acres. The

question was: Should the public lands be stripped

of their natural resources for private gain, or

should they be wisely cropped under the super-

vision of the Federal government thfigugh long

decades on a sustained yield basis?
Settlers near public land took for granted that they were
entitled to use natural resources whether for grazing, timber,
or water and the principle of "first-come-first-served" was
not only fair but practicable. They regarded Federal efforts
to restrict such uses as intolerable. Even before the con-
servation movement began to gain strength in the East (which
was not until Theodore Roosevelt became President), conser-
vation was bitterly opposed in the West, where almost all
public lands lay.23

Westerners expressed their displeasure at the
restrictions on the use of public domain. They believed this
was the duty of the states and not the Federal government.
The state governments would naturally be sympathetic to their

. . . 2

wishes and prejudices.

In the East the public was generally ignorant of, or
apathetic to, the conservation movement. "Republican

presidents from Andrew Johnson through William McKinley were

not noted for keeness or breadth of vision . . . and like

 

22Ibid., p. 12.

'23Ibid.

241bid., p. 13.

14

most Republican leaders tended to favor whatever 'big
business' wanted."25
Today there is an urgency about conservation that did
not exist in the days of Theodore Roosevelt. Unless lands
suitable for esthetic enjoyment and recreation are protected

they will be exploited for commercial purposes and will be

lost forever.

Conservation During the Years of Theodore Roosevelt

Theodore Roosevelt was from early life an ardent lover
of the wilderness, something of a naturalist, and a writer of
no mean ability. His intense interest in big game hunting
compelled him to found the "Boone and Crockett Club."
Although limited to one hundred active members it was an
active and influential organization. "Its select membership
contained some of the most prominent political, scientific,
and literary figures of the day. Under Roosevelt's dynamic
leadership it became one of the most influential forces for
conservation."26

Roosevelt was determined " . . . that conservation was
to be one of the major achievements by which his term in

27

office was to be remembered." During his administrations,

 

zsIbid.

26Clepper,‘9_p. cit., p. 24.

27Huth,‘gp. cit., p. 181.

15

there was a significant expansion of the national forests and
the groundwork was laid for their effective management.

During that period "conservation" became a household word in

the United States.28

Under the Forest Reserve Act of 1891, Presidents
Harrison, Cleveland, McKinley and Roosevelt set aside about
175 million acres of forest lands, which were later given
reasonable protection. That Act of 1891 was perhaps the most
important legislation in the history of conservation.29 The
Act stated:

that the President of the United States may from
time to time, set apart and reserve, in any State
or Territory having public land bearing forests, in
any part of the public lands wholly or in part
covered with timber or undergrowth, whether of
commercial value or not, as public reservations,
and the President shall, by public proclamation,
declare the establig ent of such reservations and
the limits thereof.

In this way not only was the future lumber supply
of the country conserved but, perhaps even more
important, the watersheds of western streams were
protected along with3fcenic and recreational values
in the forest areas.

The "chief idea man" of the conservation movement in its
early days was Gifford Pinchot. He was trained as a forester
and chosen by Roosevelt to organize the United States Forest

Service in the Department of Agriculture.32

 

28¢1epper,‘gp. cit., p. 45.

29Ise,l9__p. cit., p. 48.
.3olbid.
Bllbid.

32Roosevelt, 22. cit., p. 14.

16

Pinchot's approach was a practical one. His first and
foremost aim was to establish order and equity in the
handling of the resources in the public domain.

He was determined to put an end to the wasting of

the nation's natural resources and he worked

relentlessly to devise and impose means for their

long-range335e in the public, rather than in private,
interests.

Pinchot was trained in forestry and understandably he
put his major emphasis on silviculture, and on the develop-
ment of a sustained yield harvesting program for the
forests.34 He could not see the need for parkland preser-
vation solely for aesthetic and recreational purposes. He
looked on the public lands as a workshop to be managed for
many purposes under a plan of balanced use.35

Consequently, Pinchot's philosophy of conservation for
use was contrary to Muir's conviction that the best parts of
the woodlands and wilderness should be preserved inviolate as
sanctuaries of the human spirit.36

This example of two conservationist attitudes, one
leaning toward use and one leaning toward preservation, was a
sign of impending controversies.

Roosevelt's " .-. . conservation interests did not

range as far as Pinchot's, and the subtleties that fascinated

 

33Ibid., p. 15.

34Udall, The Quiet Crisis, p. 131.

-35Ib1d., pp. 131, 132.

361bido 9 p. 132.

17

Muir eluded him, but he was acquainted with the grass and
37
.ll

water and soil of the Great Plains . . and he was no
stranger to the fight for conservation.
The outstanding resource achievement of Theodore

Roosevelt's first term was the Reclamation Act of 1902, which
created an agency to work on water problems in the West. His
concept of the presidential office and its powers made him a
success. "He regarded himself as the trustee of the lands
owned by the people . . . and considered it his duty to stop
'the activity of the land thieves'."38 While in office he,
". . . proved that the pen was mightier than the legislative
act, and before he finished he had, in effect, replaced the
century-old policy of land disposal with a new presidential
39

policy of withdrawal-for-conservation." He increased
national forest land from forty-two million acres to 172
million acres; 138 new forests were created in twenty-one
states; in addition, he proclaimed eighteen monuments, includ-
ing the Grand Canyon, Olympic, Lassen, and Petrified Forest,
which Congress later made national parks.“0

In a speech given at Stanford University in 1903, in an

effort to save the Sequoias and Coast Redwoods, Roosevelt said

that, " . . . there is nothing more practical in the and than

 

37Ibid., p. 140.

381bido, p. 143.

-39Ibid., pp. 144, 145.

4oIbid.

18

the preservation of beauty, than the preservation of anything

that appeals to the higher emotions of mankind."41
Theodore Roosevelt left the White House in 1909 after

restricting the practices of the land grabbers, putting

resource management ahead of consumption and enlightening the

country as to the need fer conservation.

The Creation of the National Park Service

Early in his mountain career, Muir came to a conclusion
that decisively affected his own future and to some
degree the future of his country: wilderness free-
dom, like political freedom, was perennially in danger
and could be maintained only by eternal vigilance. It
was necessary, he became convinced, permanently to
preserve lggge tracts of choice lands in public
ownership.

A few years before Muir came to California a landscape
architect named Frederick Law Olmsted visited the Yosemite
valley. Impressed by its grandeur, Olmsted and others per-
suaded Congress to pass a bill to preserve it "for public use,
resort and recreation."43 The bill was signed by President
Lincoln in 1864 and was the first scenic reserve created by
federal action.

Members of an expedition exploring the Yellowstone

region in wyoming a few years later, were overwhelmed by the

beauty of the geysers, canyons, waterfalls, lakes, and

 

41Ise,‘9_p. cit., p. 109.

-42Udall, The Qgiet Crisis, p. 124.

431b1d.

19

forests. One of the explorers, Judge Cornelius Hedges, later
wrote a newspaper article on their experiences and set forth
the concept of preserving the area as a park. Two years
later President Grant signed the "little-debated and little-
understood Yellowstone Park bill" providing for more than two
million acres to be "dedicated and set apart as a public park
or pleasuring ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the
people . . . ."44

Yellowstone was created in 1872 and in the years that
followed other parks of national significance were created
including the Grand Canyon and Olympic. Hewever, there was no
agency that could coordinate the management of the parks. The
Interior Department was responsible for the parks but the
Secretary had little time for effective leadership. Each park
had a superintendent who was responsible for park operations
and was to report directly to the Secretary of the Interior.45

For many years people such as John Muir and Frederick
Law Olmsted, Jr. had urged the formation of a special agency
to administer and protect the parks. But it took a letter
from Stephen T. Mather, a Chicago businessman, to make the
concept of a special agency a reality. :Mather had visited
Yosemite Valley, was a member of the Sierra Club, and had

gotten to know John Muir. Mather was disturbed over the land

depreciations in Sequoia and Ybsemite and at the idea of

 

441bido , p. 125 o

451b1d., p. 135.

20

cattle grazing in the parks. His letter to Secretary Lane
prompted Lane to invite him to join his staff as director of
the national parks. Mather accepted the offer in 1915 but
had very little staff or funds to work with.

In 1916 the National Park Service Act was passed to
promote and regulate the use of the national parks.46 It
instructed the Interior Department "to conserve the scenery
and the natural historic objects and the wildlife therein,
and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such a manner
and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoy-
ment of future generations."l*7

The national parks differed from the wilderness areas of
the national forests in that they were more rigorously guarded
from all commercial developments. They were designated as
national parks by Congress and boundary alterations or
eliminations took an act of Congress. In contrast, the
national forest wilderness areas could be altered or elimi-
nated at any time by departmental order.

The need for the preservation of extensive wilderness
areas within the parks, that would provide adequate protec-

tion was expressed by Mather when he said:

It is not the plan to have the parks gridironed by
roads, but in each it is desired to make a good

 

46

Great Lakes Basin Commission, 32. 21., Great Lakes
Institutions, p. 21.

’47From the National Park Service Act of 1916.

48136,33. cit., p. 646.

21

sensible road system so that the visitors may have

a good chance to enjoy them. At the same time

large sections of each park will be kept in a

natural wilderness state without piercing feeder

roads and will be accessible only by trails to the

horseback rider and the hiker.

Fifty-two years after Ybsemite valley had been
designated as a scenic reserve a comprehensive bill was
passed which served to coordinate the policies of all of the
national parks. This bill while unifying the parks on one
hand, has also created much controversy in the ranks of con-
servation ever since.

The justification of the Park Service Act is expressed
well by George B. Hartzog, Jr.:

The development in this country of the national park

idea was in many ways a natural outgrowth of the

'pursuit of happiness' clause of the Declaration of

Independence, for it initiated the policy of pre-

serving superlative landscapes and cultural sites 5
in public ownership for the benefit of all citizens.

Conservation During the Years of Franklin D. Roosevelt

After Theodore Roosevelt's term came to a close the
conservation movement lost some of its drive. People were
accustomed to Roosevelt taking on all comers in the fight for
preservation of natural resources, and they had adopted a

51

"let-Teddy-do-it" attitude toward conservation.

 

4?;2;g., Stephen T. Mather was the first Director of the
National Park Service and served in that capacity until 1928.

‘SOWilliam C. Everhart, The National Park Service, from
the foreword by George B. Hartzog, Jr., Director of the
National Park Service.

slUdall, 22. cit., p. 148.

22

In 1933 Franklin D. Roosevelt arrived at the White House
and the "second wave of the conservation movement belatedly

arrived."52

‘With the cooperation of an enthusiastic congress
he created a dozen or more new agencies and services, made
massive appropriations, and developed a series of new resource
programs. He was well prepared to lead the new conservation
campaign. The mistakes of the past were clear in his mind
and he realized the need for new programs that would renew
and rehabilitate the land.

Franklin Roosevelt had long been an ardent
conservationist; as a boy he had been a member of the American
Museum of Natural History. He devoted a notable amount of
energy to almost every aspect of conservation -- soil, forests,
power, wildlife, parks, and the prevention of stream

53

pollution. "As a New York senator from 1910 to 1912 he

worked hard to protect the Adirondack Forests from lumbermen
and power interests, and to protect wildlife."54
Just weeks after his inauguration Roosevelt sent a
message to Congress urging legislation to provide employment
in forest and land reclamation. Out of this came the
Emergency Conservation Act giving the President authority to

establish a series of camps for this purpose; thus the

Civilian Conservation Corps. Two months after the passage of

 

521bid., p. 151.

53

54Ibid.

Ise, 22. cit., p. 354.

23

the act Congress passed another act which provided funds for

relief of unemployment, which were used for forestry and'

other conservation activities. "The word 'conservation' in

Civilian Conservation Corps had a double meaning here, for

the agency was designed to conserve not only the resources

but the character and morale of unemployed young men . . ."55
When the New Deal began, conservation became an integral

56

part of the war against depression. Roosevelt believed
that the price of permanent prosperity was the wise use of
all land and its products.

The creation of the Tennessee valley Authority was
largely the result of persistent efforts by Roosevelt and
Senator George Nbrris of Nebraska. The TVA promoted conser-

57

vation in every aspect including recreation. The Tennessee

Valley had been rich in petroleum resources and in timber

befbre the get-rich-quick industrialists reaped the resources

and left behind an impoverished people. Roosevelt's plan for

TVA included reforestation, soil conservation, outdoor

recreation and other programs aimed at helping the farmers.
In 1935 Roosevelt persuaded Congress to enact

legislation authorizing the Federal government to assist the

states in their acquisition of state forests. Five million

 

551b1d., p. 360.

56Uda11,‘gp. cit., p. 152.

'57Ise, 22. cit., p. 362.

24

dollars was appropriated to aid federal and state agencies in
coordinating a national program of forest land management.58

Roosevelt rarely hesitated to provide the necessary funds
for a worthwhile project. When Isle Royale, in Michigan, was
threatened by lumber companies the State of Michigan was
ordered to begin land acquisition. This proved a long and
tedious process and Roosevelt stepped in, providing the
additional funds to expedite the process.

Whether for a new program that might last for decades or
for a seemingly insignificant cause, F.D.R. was always the
defender of conservation. In 1938 he proclaimed National
Wildlife Week which has been observed every year since.59

Roosevelt called the first North American Wildlife
Conference, a much broadened version of the old American Game
Conference. It brought together top peoPle in biology,
administration and interested sportsmen to discuss new
approaches to wildlife conservation. This has continued on
an annual basis; now under the auspices of the Wildlife
Management Institute.60

Throughout his administration he devoted a great deal of
energy to conservation problems; "even during the war he was

concerned with the project of the International Conservation

Conference, an idea presented to him by Gifford Pinchot in

 

581bido, p. 3130

~59Ibid., p. 428.

60Clepper,_qp. cit., p. 34.

25

1944."61 He believed that this conference was a vital step

toward peace and became more and more convinced that conSer-
vation was the basis of permanent peace.

F.D.R. pledged himself to a policy of conservation which
would guard our natural resources from ruthless exploitation
and insure our own self protection. He stressed the need for
planning in the physical development of the nation.

His general record on conservation was quite comparable

with that of Theodore Roosevelt.

Conservation Under John F. Kennedy

When John F. Kennedy became President he began what many
people refer to as the "third wave of conservation in
America." His policies and programs under New Frontiers were
to begin where F.D.R.'s had ended with the New Deal. There
was "a marked shift in emphasis from sheer quantity to the

quality of our national life."63

He showed a great interest
in land and water conservation projects which would benefit
the less fertunate in the outreaches of our country and pro-
vide them with adequate energy sources.

The application of the great discoveries of science to

the questions of conservation was to be the great contribution

 

61Huth,‘gp. cit., p. 209.

621bid., p. 210.

63Hugh Sidney, A Very Personal Presidency, p. 60.

26

of the fifties and sixties.64 Kennedy foresaw extraordinary
progress in obtaining food from the ocean depths to be made
in the next ten to twenty years. To find new uses for
minerals, to obtain fuel from oil shale, and to utilize our
natural resources to their fullest was the aim of the New
Frontier.

Kennedy was particularly interested in providing parks
and open spaces in two areas. One was the seashores and the
other was near urbanized areas. The report from the Outdoor

65

Recreation Resources Review Commission, after a three-year
study, stressed the need for additional recreation areas for
future generations. The 341 million visits to Federal land
and water areas recorded in 1960 was expected to double by
1970 and Kennedy urged favorable action on legislation pend-
ing before Congress to create ten national parks, including
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. He also encouraged
the approval of S. 543, "a bill to promote the preservation
for the public use and benefit, of certain portions of the

66

shoreline areas of the United States."

 

64John F. Kennedy, from "Remarks to the White Heuse

Conference on Conservation," May 25, 1962, in Public Papers
'2; the Presidents, p. 441.

65The ORRRC was established in 1958 to provide the
greatest possible variety of outdoor recreational oppor~
tunities and values for every citizen.

'66s. 543, 87th Congress, lst Session, will be discussed
in detail later in this paper.

27

The Housing Act of 1961 provided financial aid to urban
67

areas fer the acquisition of open space. Kennedy was con-
cerned especially for the Eastern seaboard and the growing
megalopolis which was consuming the existing green spaces.
Through this act municipalities could purchase available open
space to both guide urban growth and provide needed relief
for city dwellers.

Under the 1961 amendments to the Water Pollution Control
Act, rivers and lakes were provided with three times the
protection they earlier had.68

He provided additional funds for saline water
conversion programs to bring arid regions of the country into
production. The focal point of his conservation program was
to provide the "good life" for more Americans while simultane—
ously conserving our resources for future generations.

The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation was established in the
Department of the Interior to "prepare and maintain a continu-
ing inventory and evaluation of the nations outdoor recreation
needs and resources" and to "administer a program of financial
assistance to the states, and through states to local public

agencies for planning, acquiring and developing public outdoor.

recreation resources."69 Kennedy stressed the need for

 

67U.S. Department of the Interior, "President Kennedy's
Message on Conservation to the Congress," March 1, 1962, p. 7.

68Kennedy,g_p. cit., p. 706, Address at the Pinchot
Institute for Conservation Studies, Milford, Pennsylvania,
September 24, 1963.

69Roosevelt,_o_p. cit., p. 108.

28

comprehensive local, state, regional, and national planning
to coordinate the uses of land and water in an efficient-
manner.

During the Kennedy Administration the need was recognized
for the rapid and efficient acquisition of land for recreation
and wilderness uses. The use of sound conservation principles
in the use of the natural environment was recognized as pre-
venting waste and despoilment while preserving, improving, and

renewing the quality and usefulness of all resources.

Conservation Under Lyndon B. Johnson and the Great Society

The "third wave" of the conservation movement in America,
which began under President Kennedy, was continued enthusias-
tically under President Lyndon B. Johnson.

The New Deal under F.D.R. had been dedicated to raising
living standards and abolishing the problems of want. A final
national effort was still needed to finish what Roosevelt had
started, but now eighty-two percent of the nation's families
had annual incomes above 33,000.70

Johnson had passed the $11.5 billion tax out which
Kennedy had espoused and he was winning the Kennedy civil-
rights bill, the strongest legislation of its kind in a
hundred years. Consequently, Johnson felt he had fulfilled

his obligation to the New Frontier and it was time for the

Johnson Administration to be initiated.

 

7oHugh Sidney, A Very Personal Presidency, p. 62.

 

29

Johnson was concerned with the quality of life that the
majority of the United States citizens were leading and he
wanted some bold new national directions for his
administration.

Private wealth was not curing public ills. The

landscape that the people viewed was too often either

monotonous or scarred. On 265,000 miles of inter-

state and primary highways surveyed, 17,762 highly

visible junkyards were counted along the sides. The

air the people breathed was filthy and getting

dirtier. In Los Angeles, the smog capital, 13,730

tons of contaminants were released into the atmos-

phere every day, most of it from the 3.75 million

automobiles. One fourth of Lake7§rie was too

polluted to support marine life.

In expressing his ambitious programs for America,

Johnson said that "we have been called upon . . . to build a
great society of the highest order, a society not just for
today or tomorrow, but for three or four generations to come.
The great society . . . is a place where man can renew contact
with nature."72

Johnson formally announced the birth of the Great Society
in a speech in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The main thrust of the
Great Society was referred to as the three Cs, classroom,
city and countryside. "Classroom" referred to the strides
that would be made toward providing more funds for schools so
all children could attend. "City" was associated with pro-

grams to aid the urban poor including the acquisition of open

spaces within the urbanized areas.

 

-711bid.

721bid., p. 56.

3O

"Countryside" was a program of National Beauty, and the
most difficult of all to define.

It is awkward, clumsy, primitive -- but it is a

first major attempt, by means of legislation, to

fumble to whatever it is that lies beyond wealth,

beyond power, beyond the raising of the G.N.P.,

. . . it is, somehow, to make Amerigg, with all

its congestion, a liveable society.

Johnson believed that "the same society which receives
the rewards of technology, must, as a cooperating whole, take

74 He called a White House

responsibility for control."
Conference on Natural Beauty in May 1965 to produce new ideas
and approaches for enhancing the beauty of America. It served
"as a focal point for the large campaign of public education"75
which was needed to alert Americans to the eminent danger to,
their natural resources.

Johnson recognized the need for parks of national
significance including Sleeping Bear Dunes which he proposed
to fund through the Land and Water Conservation Fund proposed
by President Kennedy.

He urged support for a nationwide strip and surface
mining study which would provide a factual basis for a fair

and reasonable approach to the correction of these uncon-

scionable practices.

 

73Theodore H. White, The Making 2f the President, p. 401,
quote by President Johnson.

74The White House, Beauty for America, p. 1, quote by
President Johnson.

75Ibid., p. 14.

31

President Johnson was not only a lover of nature who took
a conservationist's attitude toward the utilization of land,
but an aesthete as well. He was disturbed by the prolifera-
tion of billboards along our highways, by urban decay and by

the attitude of the public toward their environment.

Stewart L. Udall

Stewart L. Udall served as Secretary of the Interior
under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson and was a driving force
in the "third wave" of conservation in America. As Secretary
of the Interior for both administrations he maintained close
contact with the many agencies in his department for a span
of eight years. Many pieces of important legislation were
passed during those years; many of which were initiated under
Kennedy and were later realized under Johnson.

Udall moved beyond the classic conservationist role and
worked continuously to broaden the concepts of conservation.

He was concerned with the visual decay of our country
just as Johnson. Udall believed that "the way peOple possess
the land they live on is always a revealing comment on their

76

character and institutions." This is exemplified in the
contrast between the tidy farmscapes of the Pennsylvania
Dutch countryside which say something positive about our

people, and the polluted rivers of our industrialized states

and poisonous air of our congested cities which express the

 

76Stewart L. Udall, 1926: Agenda for Tomorrow, p. 100.

 

32

distorted values of our civilization that allows us to demean
and diminish so much of America.

Udall believes that "too little professional attention
has been given to the effects of the environment on the human

77

psyche." He says that Americans are too prone to accept the
idea that they have arrived at the good life if they are not
being subtly poisoned, unnerved, or irradiated. We are still
haunted by the threat of a "silent spring" because of the long
life of potentially disastrous pesticides still building up

in the foodchain.

Udall was one of the first in recent years to realize
the interrelationships of the whole conservation picture.

The total-environment approach of 'the new conservation'

demands concepts large enough to relate conservation

to the overriding issues of our age. You cannot, in

short, save the land unless you save the people. True

conservation, moreover, begins wherever the people are
and with whatever trouble they are in. A meaningful
agenda for tomorrow would evolve not from a specialized
approach to the over-all environment, but from an

attempt to achieve a full pécture of the interrelated

elements of American life.

The preservation of natural and recreational areas for
future years was an important phase in the Udall planning
program. He identified man as a water-loving animal and
advocated the reservation of "thousands of new beachheads"79

on the oceans, lakes, and rivers for future generations.

Industry and private interests had monopolized the shorelines

 

77Ibid., p. 106.
78

Ibid., from the Foreword, p. viii.

791bid., p. 111.

33

over the years and the need fer greater public access to
water was evident. He advocated the stockpiling of riparian
property for public use.

Udall advocated the acquisition of the suitable remaining
shorelines by 1980 for local, state, and national use. Also
by 1980, he urged the completion of the national wilderness
system which should amount to at least five percent of the
United States total landmass, and that at least two thirds of
the acreage in the national wildlife refuges and national parks
should be accorded wilderness status. By 1985 the future of
most of the major rivers of America should be decided, in
regard to future dams, reservoirs, use restrictions, etc.

Udall proposed immediate purchase of all privately held
inholdings in all national park areas, and the aggressive
expansion of coastal wildlife refuges and national seashores
wherever possible.

Stewart Udall, like President Johnson, used his position
to seek a better quality of life for all Americans. The
emphasis that he put on providing adequate public lands and on
conservation measures advocated to protect these lands was

probably the greatest contribution of the Great Society.

New Rights for the People

The last four years of the Johnson Administration
brought forth some important legislation toward protecting our

natural resources. With the increasing pressures on the

34

national parks and the increasing amount of development within
the parks needed to accommodate visitors, the ability of the
national park system to preserve the natural beauty of many
areas was questioned.

In 1964 the Wilderness Act became law which "established

a National Wilderness Preservation System of federally-owned
lands to be preserved in their natural condition."80 These
areas are to be administered "in such a manner as will leave
them unimpaired fer future use and enjoyment as wilderness."81

To be designated as wilderness, an area must be approved

by Congress as a wilderness area and conform to the following
standards:82

1) A wilderness is an area where the earth and its
community of life are untrampled by man, where man
himself is a visitor and does not remain.

2) Land retaining its primeval character and
influence, without permanent improvements or human
habitation.

3) Land that generally appears to have been affected
primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint

of man's work substantially unnoticeable.

4) Has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a
primitive and unconfined type of recreation.

5) Has at least five thousand acres of land or is of
sufficient size as to make practicable its
preservation and use in an unimpaired condition.

6) May also contain ecological, geological, or other
features of scientific, educational, scenic, or
historical value.

 

80Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental

Quality 1922, p. 225.
81

82Ibid.

U.S. Congress, Public Law B22211: The Wilderness Act.

 

35

The passage of this act was a significant step toward
the permanent preservation of appropriate areas of natural
beauty which had been difficult using prior methods. Amend-
ments now pending on the Wilderness Act will hopefully put
more teeth in the legislation by eliminating practices such
as mining within wilderness areas.

Four years after the passage of the Wilderness Act,
Congress enacted legislation recognizing the importance of
preserving in a natural condition scenic, freeflowing rivers,
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The Act initially designated
all or part of eight rivers and adjacent lands as part of the
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, with a provision for
the addition of others as necessary.

To be included in the system a river and its immediate
environment must "possess outstandingly remarkable scenic,
recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural,
or other similar values . . . and shall be protected for the
benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations."83

Rivers included in the system fall into one of three
categories:

1) Wild river areas -- those rivers or parts of rivers
that are free of impoundments and generally
inaccessible except by trail, located within an
essentially primitive watershed with unpolluted

water.

2) Scenic river areas -- those rivers or parts of
rivers, free of impoundments, within largely

 

830.5. Congress, Public Law 29-542, the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act.

8[‘Ibid.

36

primitive watersheds but are accessible in places
by roads.

3) Recreational river areas -- those rivers or parts
of rivers, readily accessible by road, that may have
undergone impoundment or diversion in the past and
may have some development along the shorelines.

This national act, along with more than twenty states
who have enacted their own wild rivers preservation system,
comes close to the program advocated by Stewart Udall, that
of determining the future of most of our rivers by 1985.

On the same day that Congress passed the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act it also passed the National Trails System Act.
This act provides for the establishment of a system of trails,
throughout the nation, primarily near urban areas and
secondarily, within established scenic areas not necessarily
near urban areas. The act established the Appalachian Trail
and the Pacific Crest Trail as the initial components of the
system, and established a process by which other trails could

be added.

The national system of trails is composed of the following

85

trail categories:

1) National recreation trails -- those trails
established to provide a variety of recreational
uses in or near urban areas.

2) National scenic trails -- those trails established
so as to provide for a maximum outdoor recreational
experiences and for the conservation of nationally
significant scenic, historic, natural, or cultural
qualities of the areas through which they pass.

 

’85U.S. Congress, Public Law 22-54 , the National Trails
System Act.

37

3) Connecting or side trails -- those trails which
provide additional points of public access to both
recreational and scenic trails or which provide'
connections between such trails.

This section is titled, "New Rights for the People"
because it is a uniquely progressive step in the development
of a long-range program providing natural and recreational
areas fer generations to come. By utilizing these three
legislative acts to their fullest, Americans will have the
opportunity to set aside numerous areas of national signifi-
cance. In the 19705 it has become apparent that it is
difficult to muster the necessary support and funds for the
procurement of these wilderness areas, wild rivers, and scenic
trails of national significance. Only through the expeditious

acquisition of these areas, will they be retained in their

relatively natural condition for future generations.

Environmental Awareness Movement of the 19605 and 19705

The conservation movement in the United States existed
in one form or another since the first settlers were taught
wise use of the land by the Indians. Since then the attitude
of Americans toward their environment has fluctuated according
to the state of the economy, the attitude toward big business,
public awareness and other factors, including the recent
"energy crisis."

During the early sixties public awareness of environmental
problems began to grow, especially concerning air and water

pollution. The now familiar cloud of smog began to accumulate

38

over more and more American cities and during more days each
year. Some cities experienced smog alerts during which Some
people died and school children were not permitted to exercise
outside. A federal law was created making anti-smog devices
required on all new cars made in America and imported cars had
to meet minimum standards also.

Incidents of serious water pollution were first
recognized in the industrialized states in the East, states
that were producers of food and kindred products, textile
manufacturers, paper mills, chemicals and allied products,
primary metals, and transportation equipment. In these states
many of the rivers and lakes began turning red, yellow, brown,
and other unnatural colors. Swimming areas were condemned,
the fish died, waterfowl left and the areas became unfit for
use. The Clean Air and Water Acts and amendments to them
have improved some areas and given the people something with
which to fight pollution.

People began to see the effects of DDT and other long
life pesticides on wildlife. In too many cases the warnings
of Rachel Carson in Silent Spring became all too obvious. A
cry went out for the protection of endangered species such
as the bald eagle, the California condor, and marine mammals.
Some of these were in immediate danger and some were predicted
to be in danger in the near future.

The number of people visiting state, local, and national
parks was growing faster than the parks could handle them.

Conflicts arose concerning use of the parks which broke into

39

violence in some cases. The increase in sales of recreational
vehicles has urged families to do more traveling putting'
additional strain on the parks. The number of campers, trailers
and motor-homes utilizing park roads has necessitated building
wider roads and larger parking lots. When a dirt road had
accommodated the public in the past, a paved road was now
needed.

The increase in the number of three-day weekends, better
highways and crowded park conditions led to an increase in
recreational land sales. People began investing in second
homes and vacation homes. DevelOpers began buying up land
near popular recreation areas and subdividing it. The common
practice of renting out second homes during the off seasons
has made purchasing a second home easier.

People began to realize the long-range effects of
subdividing a mountain range or emptying effluent into a water
body. In 1969 something happened off the coast of Santa
Barbara, California which may have been the cause of the
'widespread environmental awareness that exists today.

One of the largest oil spills in California's history
had a devastating effect on the ecology of the shoreline.
Santa Barbara residents worked for months mopping up the oil
spill and cleaning oil out of the eyes and nostrils of water-
fowl. The University of California campus at Santa Barbara
‘was the scene of many demonstrations against offshore drilling.

‘The pressures of our technological society seemed to come

to a peak and people began realizing that there had to be a

40

better way and they began organizing to affectuate change. A
survey of five thousand environmental organizations that was
done in 1972 determined that slightly more than half of these
organizations were founded during or after 1969.86 In one
way or another all of the environmental organizations were
interested in protecting one or more elements of the ecosystem.
During this period the membership of these organizations grew
also. They demonstrated, petitioned, filed suit, marched and
cleaned up their environment in many different ways.

There was a growing movement of "back to nature."
Communes were organized all across the country and people
began buying old abandoned farms and bringing them into
production. People began growing their own food again and
organic gardens proliferated in the city and country alike.

People looked to wilderness areas for relief.
Backpacking and cross-country skiing became popular and many
conservation organizations fought for additional wilderness
areas and for better protection of the existing ones.

The effects of clear cutting forested areas and
stripmining for coal was brought to the attention of the
public and an effort for stricter controls was made. People
'were now organized and they could take private enterprise or
the government to court to correct faulty practices or stop
a project. People began taking an interest in such activities

as water conservation policies and highway location decisions

 

86Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental

Qflntx 192 , p. 380.

41

and they voiced their opinions. Citizen groups took developers
to court over zoning disagreements, environmental impacts and
more.

The first annual Earth Day was held April 22, 1970 and
87

nearly twenty million peOple participated. They demonstrated
in cities across the country against pollution, overpopulation,
overkill, slums, planned obsolescence and more. People from
all walks of life and every age group participated in what

was hoped to be the beginning of a critical movement.

We all became aware of the need for recycling of
materials. Glass, metals, paper and used oil are a few of the
commodities now recycled in some areas. The time will come
when the need to recycle most everything will be necessary, so
why not start now? Both Oregon and Vermont have outlawed non-
returnable beverage cans and bottles and similar legislation
is pending in other states.

The biodegradability of products and their impact upon
the environment was questioned. Everything from laundry
detergents to plastic containers was and is being questioned.

Special agencies were developed to administer areas whose
future as a natural system was questionable. The San Francisco
Bay Conservation and Development Commission was created to
supervise the construction of facilities on the shoreline and

to stop the filling of the bay. An agency was created to

administer the Lake Tahoe Basin in California and Nevada.

 

87National Staff of Environmental Action, Earth Dav --
The Beginning, Introduction.

 

42

They prepared a master plan for develOpment around the
lake.

Environmental impact studies are now required for all
major projects proposed to be done with federal funds or on
federal land. This is an important step in the assurance
that wise conservation principles are observed in the con-
struction and operation of a facility. The requirement for
an environmental impact statement is a critical section in
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The purposes
of the act are:

To declare a national policy which will encourage

productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his

environment, to promote efforts which will prevent

or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere

and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to

enrich the understanding of the ecological systems

and natural resources important to the Nation; 388

to establish a Council on Environmental Quality.

In 1970 the Environmental Quality Improvement Act was
passed, creating the Office of Environmental Quality, to
provide professional and administrative staff for the
Council on Environmental Quality.

Conservation organizations utilized the Environmental
Policy Act to halt construction of the trans-Alaskan oil
pipeline until the effects on animal migrations could be

89

determined. However, with the advent of the "energy crisis"

 

88U.S. Congress, Public Law 21-120, The National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

'89"Energy crisis" is in quotes because of the present
controversy concerning the severity of our present fuel
shortages.

43

Congress passed the measure despite possible detrimental
effects.

The new environmentalism which exists within our
country is a healthy sign of people's dissatisfaction with
their quality of life. The public has expressed its opinion
that it wants time and money spent on Earth problems not
space exploration. People are demanding more open space and
green belts in urban areas. People recognize the importance

90 Our society has been

of plant materials in their cities.

dominated by artifacts which modern technology has provided,

and people are demanding an end to built-in obsolescence.

Cities are beginning to determine their own destiny by

limiting their populations and severely curtailing

construction.9l
Generally, people are not satisfied with the

environment that technology and mass production has provided.

They are organizing to do something about it but Americans

must be constantly reminded that the battle for a better

environment will be continuous; there will always be those

who will take advantage of a situation if given the opportunity.

The increased environmental consciousness that exists

today is a product of past misfortunes. This environmental

 

90For example, the city of Walnut Creek, California
has an ordinance which requires city authorization to cut
down any tree over six inches in diameter.

91Cities in Colorado, Oregon and Florida have been
leaders in the movement to limit the size of their cities.
Along the same lines is the "visit us but don't stay"
attitude that Oregon has taken toward its tourists.

44

consciousness has created the numerous conservation
organizations and their increased membership. These organi-
zations are actively participating in all aspects of planning,
forcing agencies to look at all repercusions of their actions

and planning fer the long-term pursuit of happiness by man.

CHAPTER III

THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Creation of the National Park Service

From the creation of Yosemite and Yellowstone National
Parks until the enactment of the National Park Service Act in
1916, all the national parks were administered by the
Department of the Interior. Each of the parks was managed by
a park superintendent who was responsible to the Secretary of
the Interior. The park superintendents had little guidance
and inadequate funds with which to maintain the parks.

In a letter to the Secretary of the Interior, a Chicago
businessman, Steven T. Mather expressed his objections con-
cerning the management of the parks. Secretary Lane offered
Mather the position of Assistant to the Secretary whose job
it was to oversee the administration of the parks. On January
21, 1915 he became the first director of the national parks.
When the National Park Service Act of 1916 was passed Mather
became the official Director of the National Park Service.
The act provided funds and staff to assist him.

Mather was a tireless worker, a born promoter and he

had a generous devotion to his job. He made a fortune in

4S

46

borax before he went to Washington and gave much of it to the

promotion of the parks.1

Early Years of the National Park Service

The establishment of the National Park Service gave the
park system some notoriety and a base from which to widen its
scope of influence. Congress began to show a more generous
spirit toward the parks and this was a period of almost
unbroken growth for the Park Service.

The attack on Pearl Harbor and the American declaration
of war put an end to this period of growth and the Park Service
entered upon a bleak period of decline which lasted through
WOrld.War II.2 During world war II gas rationing restricted
traveling and the number of visitors to the parks declined.
Funds for the parks were cut to finance the war effort and the
number of Park Service employees declined.

After the war ended, travel to the parks increased,
reaching a record twenty-two million visitors in 1946. While
the number of visitors increased, funds to staff and maintain
the parks trailed far behind.

The outbreak of the Korean war in 1950 doomed hope for

relief, as all non-defense agency appropriations were

cut back, but the phenomenal demand for outdoor rec-

reation continued to accelerate, and by 1954 the parks
were absorbing 54 million visitors a year, with a level

 

lJohn Ise, Our National Park Policy, p. 193.

2William C. Everhart, The National Park Service, p. 34.

47

of staff and the run-down facilities designed for
the 17 million visitors in 1940.

The Wirth Administration

In 1951 Conrad Wirth became the fifth director of the
National Park Service. To rejuvenate the national parks for
their fiftieth anniversary in 1966, he created a package
program called "Mission 66."

The intent of Mission 66 was to provide a comprehensive
study of the national park problem. Director Wirth defined
it as "an intensive study of all the problems facing the
National Park Service -- protection, staffing, interpretation,
use, development, financing, needed legislation, forest pro-
tection, fire -- and all other phases of park management."

To some extent the plan involved changes, and to some extent
it aimed primarily toward more generous provision for existing
activities and facilities.

In 1954, the Park Service launched a study of remaining
seashore areas on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. This study
‘was financed with donated funds from generous friends of the
parks. The study was done in 1954 and 1955 and was to
identify areas of unique or rare plant and animal life. The
results were disheartening.

A similar survey done in 1935 had revealed a large

amount of unspoiled seashore areas suitable for public

 

3Ibid., p. 35.

4Ise,_o_p. cit., p. 547.

48

recreation. Twelve major strips of coastline with 437 miles

5

of beach were recommended for preservation. Only one area,
Cape Hatteras in North Carolina was secured and most of the
others had gone into private and commercial developments by
1955.

The Park Service survey report on the seashores was
criticized by the National Parks Association for putting too
much emphasis on recreation possibilities and not enough on
the possibilities of preserving coastal plant and wildlife
habitats. The Association still gave its support for the
preservation of coastal areas.

The Park Service immediately began preparations for a
similar survey of the Great Lakes shores and the Pacific Coast.
During 1957 and 1958 the National Park Service made a

study of the United States portion of the Great Lakes shore-
line. "The objective was to determine what natural lakeshore
areas still remained which were worthy of preservation for
their scenic, natural or other recreational values."7

The survey determined that the United States portion of
the Great Lakes Shoreline extends for 5,480 miles. Of that
amount 1,480 miles are located on offshore islands. There

was 710 miles of public ownership with sixteen miles of that

occupying such activities as military reservations, municipal

 

SIbid., p. 520.

6Ibid.

.

7Department of the Interior, Remaining Shoreline
Opportunities 3g Minnesota, 33. 21., from Foreword.

 

49

waterworks, public port facilities and other uses not
available for public recreation. This left 694 miles of’
existing public recreation shoreline.

The survey reported 4,786 miles of shoreline in private
ownership and 426 miles of this was identified as possessing
important remaining opportunities for recreation and other
public benefits.

0f the total United States Great Lakes shoreline there
were sixty-six individual areas of significance. There were
forty in Michigan, eight in New York, seven in Wisconsin,
six in Ohio, two in Minnesota and one each in Illinois,
Indiana, and Pennsylvania.

The sixty-six individual areas included five of national
park significance, two major wildlife areas of possible
national significance, thirty-nine state parks, eight state
forest areas, one state wildlife area and eleven areas of
local significance.

Three of the five areas of national park significance
were recommended for consideration as units of the National
Park System by the Advisory Board on National Parks, Historic
Sites, Buildings and Monuments at their October, 1959 meeting.
These were Sleeping Bear Dunes, Huron Mountains and Pictured
Rocks -- all in Michigan.

The report described the proposed Sleeping Bear Dunes
area as nearly thirty thousand acres with thirty-five miles
of shoreline. "Atop a 400 foot high glacial moraine are

perched the shifting sands and ghost forest -- snags of trees

50

once buried by the moving dunes."8 South Manitou Island was
included, which supports a large gull rookery and Lake
Michigan's only island forest of jack pine.

Sleeping Bear Dunes was described as the focal point of
the region and of "possible national significance and should
be given further study to determine the best plan for

9

preservation."

The National Park Service Today

When Congress created the Park Service in 1916, its
purpose was defined as follows: "The Service thus established
shall promote and regulate the use of the federal areas known
as national parks, monuments, and reservations."10

Today the primary function of the Park Service is the
management of the areas that make up the national park system.

In 1962 Secretary Udall appointed an Advisory Board on
Wildlife Management to develop a comprehensive program for
managing wildlife resources within the national parks. The
board concluded that the primary purpose of the national parks
is to preserve places that have been undisturbed by the
processes of civilization and that they "should represent a

vignette of primitive America."11

 

81bid., p. 93.
9Ibid.

loEverhart, 22. cit., p. 59.

llIbid.

51

An additional function of the national parks is to

-serve as outdoor laboratories in which the

uninterrupted operation of natural laws can be

studied to the best advantage. These areas also

serve as a refuge for plant and animal species, a

kind of biological bank in which a reserve can

exist and from which species that have been 12

exterminated elsewhere can be protected and studied.

Master planning for the national parks began in the
19205. Before Congress approves legislation creating a
national park, a detailed master plan is prepared, designat-
ing boundaries, identifying development sites, and providing
estimates for land acquisition and visitor-use facilities.

The method in which the Park Service carries out its
function is largely determined by the planning activity. In
deveIOping its approach to planning the Park Service has been
guided by two precepts:13

1) That no action will take place until a
comprehensive plan has been prepared.

2) That planning requires a multidiscipline
approach.

Since the day the National Park Service Act was passed
two words, "preservation," and "use," have created controversy
in every planning decision small or large, that has ever
.affected the parks. Proponents of strict preservation
believe the construction of roads, concession stands and the
.1ike should be kept to a minimum, while others desire many of
the comforts of home. Because of the different interests

.involved, the Park Service seeks to bring the general public

 

'lzlbid., p. 60.

13Ibie., p. 68.

52

into the process of determining preservation and use policies.
Occasionally citizens serve on the staff developing a master
plan and plans are discussed at public meetings. This process
is intended to make the administration of the national parks
responsive to the public.

"The ultimate test of the national park idea is its
ability to respond to the urgent needs of society."14

The majority of national parks established in recent
years have been primarily wilderness in character such as Isle
Royale, Olympic, Everglades, and Kings Canyon. According to
John Ise this does not signify any change in the park policy
of Congress or the Park Service. This is merely a recogni-
tion of the unique characteristics of those areas, or other
circumstances.15 Ise states that through the years the Park
Service has generally followed a middle-of-the-road policy in
balancing develOpment against wilderness preservation.l6

If legislation creating a park obligates the Park Service
to actions that it deems injurious to park purposes, the
Director can, and has the responsibility to, present his case
to Congress for reconsideration. The Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 obligates the Director to review all park proposals
17

and report those of significant environmental impact.

 

qubid., p. 2.

l515e, gp. cit., p. 646.

-16Ibid., p. 648.

17Everhart, 22. cit., p. 83.

33

During the early years of the Park Service the objective
was clear: how to provide sufficient facilities and encourage
enough people to visit the parks to insure the success of this
new concept. Today the situation is reversed and the objec-
tives are no longer clear cut. In 1971 more than one hundred
and eighty million people visited the national parks and the
question is whether, in the face of such an increase in visita-
tion, "the national parks can survive and continue to provide
the incomparable benefit of enriching the mind and spirit of
those who have come . . . to leave behind the noise and con-
gestion of their daily lives."18

In the past the duties of the Park Service have been
primarily protective, and its goal has been the safeguarding
of scenic values for the long-range enjoyment of visitors.

Today the Park Service must consider its task not only
one of park tending and serving as protectors of scenery and
wildlife, but also the "management of parks in a way that
expresses a compassion for human values."19

The Park Service has generally provided the opportunity
for all visitors wishing to visit the parks, to do so, and in
a way having the widest public acceptance. A few years ago
both people preferring wilderness solitude and those who

enjoyed the sociability of the campgrounds were able to do so

*without interference. Now, the sheer numbers of people

 

.181bid., p. 39.

19Ibid., p. 222.

54

visiting the parks has created conflicts. One group believes
others are encroaching on its territory and the other grbup
feels the right to enjoy the parks in anyway they choose is
their prerOgative.

The effects of urbanization and industrialization have
put pressures on the national parks and wilderness areas.
There have been demands for hunting in areas where hunting
was previously prohibited, there has been vandalism and
poaching, efforts to exploit mineral and timber resources,
and commercial pressures on the boarders of parks and in the
in-holdings. Easy access to the areas through the improved
highway system has led to the invasion of wilderness areas by
power boats, aircraft, motorcycles, and snowmobiles.20

Theodore Roosevelt experienced similar problems while he
was President and actively seeking additional natural areas
to set aside. Whenever he sought to withdraw lands from the
public domain and thus closing them formally to exploitation,
he received prompt and vigorous opposition from the lobbyists
of three groups -- the lumber, mining, and grazing interests.
Each of these activities had used public lands at no cost and
'with little interference and feared restrictions on one

activity might serve as a precedent for the restriction of

 

 

others.21
20 . . . .
Henry Clapper, Origins 22 American Conservation,
p. 156.
21

Nicholas Roosevelt, Conservation Now 0 Never, p. 9.

 

53

Conservationists are handicapped by fighting for ideals
against Opponents who are fighting for profits. The conser-
vation cause has many supporters, many more than before, but
the major decisions concerning conservation programs will be
made by politicians, and in terms of practical politics the
anticonsarvationists are powerful. "Chief among them is the
lumber industry and its subsidiaries and dependents."22 The
highway builders are a formidable group who are backed by
manufacturers and suppliers of road-building equipment and
materials, by truck manufacturers, oil companies and others
with skilled and influential lobbyists. Other opponents
include suburban real estate interests, backed by contractors,
building supply companies, and bankers. "It may be general-
ized that any legislation which these groups want to see
enacted will be hard to defeat."23

Conservation organizations are becoming stronger and
soliciting more power in Congress but "the future of the
national parks is dependent upon the attitude which this
nation (as a whole) takes toward its environment."24

In 1964, Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior
approved the following long-range objectives of the National

Park Service as recommended to him by the Advisory Board on

.National Parks, Historic Sites, Buildings and Monuments:

 

221bid.

‘231bid., p. 10.

24Everhart, gp. cit., p. 2.

1)

2)

3)

4)

S)

6)

56

To provide the highest quality of use and enjoyment
of the National Park System by increased millions
of visitors in years to come. '

To conserve and manage for their highest purpose the
Natural, Historical and Recreational resources of
the National Park System.

To develop the National Park System through inclu-
sion of additional areas of scenic, scientific,
historical and recreational value to the Nation.

To participate actively with organizations of this
and other Nations in conserving, improving and
renewing the total environment.

To communicate the cultural, inspirational, and
recreational significance of the American Heritage
as represented in the National Park System.

To increase the effectiveness of the National Park
Service as a "people serving" organization dedicated
to park conservation, historical preservation, and
outdoor recreation.

CHAPTER IV
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF COASTAL ZONES

Public Awareness of Shoreline

During the early days of the conservation movement the
primary focus was toward problems of the interior of the
country. The large forests were being cleared by the lumber
companies that moved from one state to another leaving behind
barren slopes exposed to forces of erosion. On the plains
the buffalos were being systematically hunted for their hides.

Little concern was directed toward the shorelines and
their problems. America was too involved in the westward
movement and the settlement of vast unexplored regions.

Wetlands have always been targets for development
because of their beauty and accessibility to water transpor-
tation. The Federal Swamp Lands Acts of 1849, 1850 and 1860
provided for the transfer of nearly sixty-five million acres
of'wetlands in fifteen states from Federal to state adminis-
tration to expedite drainage.1

The Dust Bowl of the 19305 created the widespread

concern for soil conservation, retention of the land. In

 

1Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental

Q‘lalit! ." 92 2, p. 311.
S7

58

1935 the Soil Conservation Service was created -- everything
was oriented toward the land and toward preservation of soil
fertility.

In 1936 Congress became concerned about beach erosion
and declared it to be "the policy of the United States to
assist in the construction, where federal interests are
involved, . . . of works for the improvement and protection
of the beaches along the shores of the United States."2

The Park Service became interested in seashores as
recreation areas and tried to reserve some for such uses.

In 1936 sixteen seashore recreation areas were studied by
the Park Service mostly on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts.
Only one of these, Cape Hatteras National Seashore, in North
Carolina, was created.

During 1954 and 1955 the Park Service completed a
similar survey of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. The study
revealed the vast amount of shoreline property that had gone
into private hands. Real estate interests had developed many
areas and the effects of the second home phenomenon were
apparent. The pollution that had resulted from private
holdings had destroyed much of the unique flora and fauna
that once inhabited the coastal zone.

During 1957 and 1958 the Park Service did a survey of
the Great Lakes shoreline to determine if any natural areas

rwmnained that were worthy of preservation by the government.

 

2John Ise, Our National Park Policy, p. 425.

59

"The question might be raised as to the justification
for government reservation and administration of coastal'

3

areas, at considerable expense." The justification lies in
the number of people that have access to the beaches and the
type of recreation provided. If beaches are owned by a small
number of home owners the general public is excluded; and if
they are developed by private interests the types of recrea-
tion provided are often of the Coney Island type. Either of
these two alternatives provides no protection for wildlife,
plantlife, and aesthetic values.

Long ago the recreation potential of lakes and waterways
was recognized, and it was also realized that the continuance
of such activities was contingent upon their protection from
pollution and misuse. The efforts of such conservation
organizations as the Izaak walton League persuaded Congress
in 1948 to enact legislation inducing the states to develop
their own water pollution abatement programs.

In recent years metropolitan areas and states have
realized the need for protection of waterways for a number of
reasons. An example is the San Francisco Bay Conservation
and Development Commission. This agency must approve all:
projects constructed on or near the shoreline or those proj-
ects which will affect the shoreline. It has banned further

:filling of the bay whether for refuse disposal or for building

 

3Ise, 22, cit., p. 520.

4Han Huth, Nature and the American, p. 203.

60

sites. Bay area residents realized the value of the bay and
formed the "Save the Bay" campaign that resulted in the
creation of this agency.

Recent Federal and state legislation regarding coastal
zone management is indicative of a growing public concern.
In 1972 Congress enacted the Coastal Zone Management Act
which "encourages coastal states to regulate coastal land and
water uses by authorizing grants to states and requiring that
Federal actions in coastal areas be consistent with approved

5

state programs."

In the spring of 1973. Oregon enacted broad land use
legislation empowering the state to control major developments.

California tried unsuccessfully for a number of years to
pass legislation regulating development within the coastal
zone. It was placed on the ballot in 1972 and passed. All
development now taking place between the three-mile seaward
limit and one thousand yards inland of mean high tide must be
approved by one of the state regional commissions establiShed
by the new law.

In 1971, Delaware enacted the Coastal Zone Act which bans
all heavy industry within two miles of the shoreline.

These are some examples of the types of programs states
.are developing. Recognition of the ecological significance

<1f these areas and the desire to control growth has resulted

le the above legislation.

 

SCouncil on Environmental Quality, p. 214.

61
The Ecological Significance of Coastal Zones

Perhaps the most fundamental concept of ecology is
that which holds that nature consists of a series of
ecosystems (ecological systems) -- natural, man-
influenced, and man-made. Each of these systems con-
sists of interrelated populations of plants and
animals, flows of water and energy, and invisible
pathways through which both essential and nonessential
nutrients are cycled. These systems may exist on
various scales of size and complexity. The Coastal
Zone consists of an array of ecological systems, such
as marshes, mudflats, shallow open water, mud and
sand bottom, beaches, and dunes. Each of these
systems has its own characteristic plants and animals,
and each has evolved in such a way that it has a
characteristic pattern of energy flow and nutrient
cycling.

The ecological systems of the Coastal Zone, although

possessing their own discrete properties, are coupled

together in such a way that the entire region con-

sists of a series of discrete, yet interdependent,

systems. The activities of one system clearly

influence the functioning of other systems in the area.

The primary defense against the action of the sea is the
dune formations. Dunes whether large or small are only hills
of sand formed by waves and wind. Grasses are the pioneering
‘vegetation of this environment. These grasses are "astonish-
ingly tolerant to high salinity, extreme glare, soils lacking
humus and an uncertain and oscillating supply of water."7
‘The grass has roots which extend below the surface and form a
dense mat of roots which stabilizes the dune below, and the

.leayes extend above the surface trapping the moving sand and

tallowing it to settle at the base of the grass.

 

6Arthur W. Cooper, "Ecological Considerations," in
Coastal Resource Management, J.C. Hits and J.M. Stepp, eds.,
p. 129.

7Ian L. McHarg, Design with Nature, p. 7.

62

Over time the Dutch have learned the ways of the sea,
and realize that the forces of the ocean "cannot be stopped
but merely directed or tempered."8 Their defenses are not
made, as are ours, with reinforced concrete, which "invite
the full force of the waves and finally succumb to the under-

9

cutting of the insidicous sea;" but are constructed with
layers of bundles of twigs, laid on courses of sand and clay.
This acts in much the same way as the dunes, "accepting the
waves but reducing their velocity and absorbing the muted
forces."10

In the Netherlands this type of information is known by
small children, but in the United States, even in those fragile
areas where survival depends upon such knowledge,

It has made no impact on engineering manuals, where

dependence upon rigid construction has assumed the

aspect of a creed. In the Netherlands, the vulnera-

bility of dune grasses to trampling is so well under-

stood, that dunes are denied to public access; onlyll

licensed naturalists are permitted to walk on them.

If the dunes are needed for protection, the dune grasses
.must be able to stabilize the dunes. These grasses cannot
tolerate man, so the public interest is well served by pro-
tecting the grasses. "Nowhere along our entire eastern sea-

board are they even recognized as valuable."12

 

8Ibid.

91bid.

loIbid.

llIbid., p. 9.

lzIbid., p. 13.

63

The protective dunes are continuously involved in a
contest with the sea; their shapes are dynamic. The relative
stability of the dunes is dependent upon the anchoring vegeta-
tion, which in turn is dependent upon groundwater levels.

"If the use of shallow wells lowers groundwater below a
critical level, the stabilizing plants will die. On the other
hand, if by the building of groins or any other tangential

13

construction the littoral drift is arrested, the source, of
sand to supplement the dunes will be denied."14 Either way
the survival of the dune grasses would be impaired.

McHarg lists a code of three basic prohibitions for
human use of dune environments:15

1) Thou shalt not walk on the dune grasses.

2) Thou shalt not lower groundwater below the critical
level.

3) Thou shalt not interrupt littoral drift.

These lessons will ensure the perpetuation of a natural
sandbar and the defense it provides.

One of the most interesting ecological facts of the

coastal zone is its very high rate of productivity,

 

lBRaymond Hall, of the Advisory Board on National Parks,
.Historic Sites, Buildings and monuments, objected to the plans
by the Park Service to spend $1.4 million for beach erosion
and sand fixation work to prevent shifting of the beach. Hall
(abjected to this interference with nature's processes as in
‘violation of national park principles. Ise, 22. 231., p. 519.

lliMcI-Iarg, loc. cit.

15Ibid.

64

characteristic of estuarine ecosystems. On a relative scale,
these systems rank among the most productive of temperate
ecosystems and, in absolute terms, the annual rates of energy
fixation in several systems approach those found for the most
productive ecosystems on earch, such as tropical rain
forests.16

Any change in this system, such as the restriction of
water flow of a river into the ocean or lake will reduce the
amount of nutrients reaching the water body and thus affect
plant and animal life. Likewise an activity such as dredging
can produce changes in the pattern of water circulation, thus
limiting exchanges between the various subsystems of the

17

estuary.

Many forms of life thrive in the estuarine environments
but the fragility of the system must be recognized when

planning for any use.

Recreational Appeal of the Shoreline Environment

Water has an amazing power to draw people. Early
civilizations looked to water for food and for irrigation,
and.an accessible mode for transporting goods. Over the years
it's been used to turn waterwheels and to generate hydro-
electric power. Industries which needed water for processing

nor cooling, were located on rivers and lakes. Water has also

 

16

Cooper, 22. cit., p. 130.

17Ibid., p. 132.

65

been used as a disposal sink, capable of diluting waste
materials, and containing organisms to aid in decomposition.

Recently, one of the foremost uses of water is for
recreation. The popular demand for this type of activity has
put pressure on other water-related activities. Water
quality standards have created problems for some industrial
activities and forced them to locate elsewhere or install
expensive correcting devices. The necessity of dams for
power generation has been questioned in relation to environ-
mental impact. Even water for irrigation has been denied in
areas with a recreation-oriented economy.

One appealing feature of a water body is its shoreline.
The shoreline forms an edge, a linear element, with which
people can identify. An edge can be a barrier, such as a
freeway, or a uniting seam, such as a shoreline that forms a
clear transition from water to land.18 Edges often serve as
paths as well. This is exemplified by people strolling along
a beach. The shoreline as a path, has a continuity of form
throughout its length, an important visual element in the
shoreline experience. The edge also gains strength if it is
laterally visible for some distance, strongly contrasting the
two regions. When two elements such as water and land are
"in close juxtaposition, and their meeting edge is laid open

19

to view, then visual attention is easily concentrated."

 

18Kevin Lynch, The Image of the City, p. 65.

19Ibid., p. 100.

 

66

"Few landscape forms possess the unique strength
offered by the 'link' between water and land -- the shore."20
The fascination of aquatic environments is not due to the
appeal of water or land as separate elements, but rather the
combination of these two factors. "The shore gains from
both but is a distinct entity unto itself."21

Man is basically a water-loving animal. In recreational
terms, water not only leads to swimming, fishing, sailing and
skipping stones, but it carries images of ancient pirates,
exploration, discovery, and ancient sea battles.

When people are seeking recreation they are inclined
toward the natural-resource base, contrasted to the man-made
base and the synthetic-base.22 The natural-resource base
offers the most interesting and unusual type of experience.
Accommodation of the increasing number of recreationists

visiting the natural areas will necessitate the preservation

of existing resource assets for future expansion.

 

20Clare A. Gunn, Vacationscape, p. 184.

2Inn.

2

2Ibid., p. 122.

 

CHAPTER V

SLEEPING BEAR DUNES

Historic Background

Before the first explorers and fur traders came into the
Great Lakes region, the area was inhabited primarily by the
Ottawa Indians. The Ottawas were the principal tribe but the
Chippewas or Ojibways also lived in this area.

These Indians are responsible for naming Sleeping Bear
Dunes.

According to ancient Ottawa and Chippewa Indian
beliefs, a black bear and her two cubs attempted
to swim across Lake Michigan from the Wisconsin
side. Nearing the Michigan shore, the cubs became
tired and lagged behind. The mother bear climbed
to the top of the bluff to watch and wait for her
offspring that never arrived. Today, she still
can be identified as the Sleeping Bear -- a
solitary dune covered with dark colored vegetation
resting on the edge of the morainal escarpment.
Her ill-fated cubs were transformed into the forest
covered Manitou Islands, that lie a few miles
offshore.

The first recorded discovery of the Great Lakes was in
.July'of 1615 by Samuel de Champlain. He first discovered
Image Huron and later on crossed Lake Ontario. Champlain

1mas probably not the first white man to experience the beauty

 

1National Park Service, Sleeping Bear National Seashore:
A Proposal, p. 16.

67

68

of this region. Other white men such as missionaries, who
were more interested in saving souls, might not have recbrded
such an event.2

During the seventeenth century, French traders and
trappers, and later the English, were attracted to the Great
Lakes by the abundance of fur-bearing animals. The beaver was
the most valuable species and its pelt was a standard of
exchange between the French, English and early Americans in
the New World. Fur trade was the region's first significant
economic activity.

The fur trade prospered throughout the eighteenth century
and reached its peak about 1830. The beaver, marten, otter
and muskrat populations began to dwindle from the intense
trapping; the lumber-industry that followed shortly after.
destroyed the habitat of the few remaining fur-bearing animals.

By 1850 the first settlers had arrived in Leelanau County
(the location of the northern part of Sleeping Bear Dunes
National Lakeshore). Some of them were woodcutters who
supplied fuel to the wood-burning lake steamers. South
Manitou Island was an important fueling stOp and woodcutting
cleared most of the accessible timber.

The ships brought more settlers from the New England
states and later from some of the northern European countries.

Lumber was the second stage of economic evolution that

was experienced in the Grand Traverse region. Many sawmills

 

2National Park Service, Our Fourth Shore, p. 40.

 

 

69

were built near logging communities to handle the harvesting
of the almost unbroken forest of massive white pines.
Michigan became the nation's leading timber-producing state,
a recognition it received from Civil War times through 1890.
Within the century, the heyday of lumbering had passed and
the lumbermen moved on to Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula.

When the lumbering industry moved on many settlers stayed
behind and tried to make a living off the land. In many areas
of Northern Michigan attempts at farming proved unsuccessful.
The soils that abundantly yielded the pines were too sterile,
sandy or acid to produce conventional agricultural crops. In
better soils, however, it was discovered that the moderating
influence of the lake favored fruit growing.

Early orchards grew apples but gradually pie cherries
became the most profitable crop. Agriculture was the third
wave of economic development in the northwestern Lower
Peninsula but early in the twentieth century it began to
decline. Today agriculture is still declining in this area,
except for cherries. Traverse City is known as the "Cherry
Capital of the World."

By 1900, thirty-nine percent of Michigan's population
lived in urban areas, with the bulk of that residing in the
lower half of the Lower Peninsula, just as today. During the
summer months these people moved north by rail and boat for
vacations. When Detroit put the automobile within reach of
the working man and better roads were built, there was an

influx of vacationers to the Grand Traverse region. There

7O

seemed to be an endless supply of inland lakes to build

around. Crystal Lake was easily reached by railroad so it

was developed early. Others such as Platte Lake and Glen Lake
were more difficult to reach so remained relatively undeveloped.
Once access problems were solved, these lakes and others
developed rapidly for summer use.

The Sleeping Bear region has experienced an economic
shift from fur trading, to lumbering, through agriculture and
on to recreation. Some lumber and agriculture interests still
remain but it is in the field of recreation that the greatest
prospects for this region's economic development appear to
lie.

"The recreation industry, including the housing,
servicing, and entertaining of a transient summer population,
is undoubtably the mainstay of the area's economy."4 In terms
of land use, these activities are primarily associated with
the shorelines and waters of the inland lakes, the rivers and
streams, Lake Michigan's shoreline, and the services of the

several small towns in the area.

National Prominence

The Sleeping Bear Dunes area was first identified as

having possible national significance in 1957 and 1958, as a

 

3National Park Service, Sleeping Bear National Seashore:

‘5 Propgsal, p. 18.

quid.

71

result of the Great Lakes shoreline study done by the National
Park Service. This study was similar to those previously
conducted along the Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific coasts.

The objective was to determine what natural shoreline
areas remained which were worthy of preservation for their
scenic, scientific and recreational values. Having been
recognized as a unique area, it was recommended that the area
be studied more thoroughly to determine the feasibility for
its inclusion in the National Park System.

The National Park Service published a number of documents,
calling attention to the unique geological formations and
abundant wildlife. As the Park Service made proposals for the
use of Sleeping Bear the public began to show an interest in
the future of the area.

In March of 1961 a bill was introduced into Congress to
promote the preservation, for public use and benefit, of
certain portions of the shoreline areas of the United States.
In June of that same year, Senators Hart and McNamara intro-
duced a bill to establish Sleeping Bear Dunes as a national
lakeshore.

The history of these bills will be discussed in the

following chapters.

Geological and Biological Characteristics

Geologically speaking, the Sleeping Bear region is an

extremely young landscape. It is a product of the late stages

- — :ln

72

of the Wisconsin glaciation which took place twenty thousand
to eleven thousand years ago. Events in post-glacial times
have shaped and are shaping the landscape of the region.

A variety of geological features related to glaciation
including kames, drumlins, outwash plains, ice block lakes,
ground moraine and glacial channels occur in or adjacent to
the Sleeping Bear area.

The process of shoreline modification continues daily on
Lake Michigan. The shoreline is being straightened, the bays
are slowly filling with sand and the morainal headlands are
being eroded. As sand is blown up the eroding slopes it is
deposited at the peak and forms a perched dune on top of the
morainal bluff.

Many types of dunes are found in the area: active dunes,
perched dunes, lowland dunes, blowout dunes and vegetated
dunes. The largest active dune is Sleeping Bear. It stretches
out into Lake Michigan, and slowly but constantly grows north—
ward and eastward as a result of the joint action of lake
currents and wind. Some of the dunes are stabilized, such as
the perched Empire Dunes, due to a rich diciduous forest.
Several ghost forests occur as a result of moving sands bury-
ing large cedar trees then moving on to expose their dead
trunks.

Within the Lakeshore lies the Platte River which is one
of the few remaining natural rivers within Michigan. It

supports a variety of plant environments and flows into Lake

Michigan in its natural state, unhampered by mans' artifacts.

 

73

Before man began settlements in the Sleeping Bear area
it was entirely forested. Now, there are two principle forest
types that occupy this environment, the maple-beech forests
which grow on the moraines which possess the better soils,
and the pine-oak-aspen forests on the sandy embayments.

Two features of the area's vegetation are of special
interest in the field of plant ecology: one is the large
number of environmental niches available to plants, and the
other is the clearly displayed story of plant succession.
Because of these diverse environments, there is a great
variety of plant species; several of unusual or rare occur-
rence. A fifty-acre tract of northern white cedar is found
on South Manitou Island, which contains some of the largest
of this species in the United States.

The story of plant succession is also depicted in the
aquatic communities from open water to bog, swamp and finally
hardwood forest.

The varied plant life and landscape supports an abundant
wildlife population. The white-tailed deer is the largest of
the native mammals and is seen frequently. Many species of
mammals inhabit the area including red fox, mink, bobcat, otter,
beaver and coyote.

There are about thirty-five species of reptiles and
amphibians, some 220 species of birds and eighty-five to ninety
species of fish.

'The variety of ecological niches within the Lakeshore
provides a unique Opportunity for the observation and study

of natural systems, provided they are protected.

CHAPTER VI

THE HISTORY OF LEGISLATION
PRECEDING THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF SLEEPING BEAR DUNES
NATIONAL LAKESHORE

An Omnibus Lakeshore Bill

Following the release of the reports on the seashore
studies conducted by the National Parks Service, a series of
bills to establish shoreline recreation areas were introduced
in Congress in 1960. Two of the bills proposed the acquisi-

tion of two or more areas while the other bills were to

establish individual areas.
One of the bills proposed Federal acquisition of ten

shoreline areas, the detailed study of ten additional areas,

and a ten million dollar program to assist states in acquiring

shoreline prOperties. All of the areas for acquisition or

study were among a National Park Service list of areas of

national significance.

Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives

.initiated hearings in consideration of bills to authorize

five of the twenty proposed areas. Subsequently, the hearings

or: these five areas revealed the necessity for individual

ccnisideration of each proposed shoreline area. Each of the

sites had problems of land ownership, property boundaries,

74

75

economic effect on adjacent communities, transfer of federal
lands between agencies and other matters that varied so
greatly, it became impractical to consider them in an omnibus
bill.

The Sleeping Bear Dunes and the Pictured Rock-Grand Sable
Dunes areas in Michigan, were both included in these bills.
When one of these proposals, 5.543, reached the Senate floor
for debate Senator McNamara indicated that in 1959, the
National Park Service with donated funds initiated detailed
studies of both of these areas and they were found to be of
national significance. Because of the amount of study which
had been done on these areas, they were amended from the bill
and considered on an individual basis.

The National Park Service then began introducing
legislative proposals to add these areas to the National Park

System.

Senate Bill 2153

In October of 1959: the Advisory Board on National Parks,
{Historic Sites, Buildings, and Monuments recommended to the
Secretary of the Interior, three areas on the Great Lakes
shoreline for consideration as units of the National Park
System. One of these areas was Sleeping Bear Dunes.

The initial survey report of 1959, by the National Park
.Serwdce, identified thirty thousand acres surrounding Sleeping
Bear Dunes as of possible national significance and suggested

further study of the area.

NORTH MANITOU ISLAM D

    

   

I
.~ /
6 fl N Lzozmux

scum MANITOU :suuo H

W

 
   

/

6000 HARBOR BA Y

9

Proposed

SLEEPING BEAR

National Seashore
MICHIGAN

 

 

 

 

LCCLAIAU C00 '7'

a'-.---;,-«--—-—--—-----—'.T.1a-1.7.37" or“-"--—-—-—-%—-_-,-_._,_- ._ .....

 

 

 

 

 

77

The National Park Service prepared two detailed studies
which included a description of the unique qualities of the
landscape, a proposed park plan and other information concern-
ing policies and objectives. A third study by the Institute
for Community Development at Michigan State University
reported on the economic feasibility of a national lakeshore
in the vicinity of Sleeping Bear Dunes.

These three studies concluded that the Sleeping Bear
Dunes area was well qualified for incorporation into the
National Park System.1

On June 27, 1961, Senators Hart and McNamara of Michigan
introduced 5.2153, the first attempt at incorporating the
recommendations of the National Park Service into a legislative
proposal.

At this time it becomes necessary to outline the purpose
of 3.2153 so as to clarify the importance of the provisions
within the bill.

8.2153 sought to establish a recreation area of national
caliber in the area of Sleeping Bear Dunes. The original Park
Service Survey identified thirty thousand acres as of possible
national significance in 1959. When 5.2153 was introduced in
1961 the size had increased to seventy-seven thousand acres.
This larger figure included South Manitou Island and inland

lake areas on the mainland so as to encompass the whole story

 

.1Hearings before the Subcommittee on Public Lands of the
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate, 87th
Congress, lst Session on 3.2153. November 13, 1961.

78

of glaciation and evolution of the area. The question of
size caused controversy in subsequent hearings.

In the proposed seventy-seven thousand acre area there
were some homes, cottages, farms, businesses and other
activities which had to be considered when drafting the bill.
Sleeping Bear Dunes fell into the Park Service category of
recreation areas. This meant that while the area would be
kept in its present natural condition, it wasn't necessary to
expedite the acquisition of all inholdings as in a national
park. To assure the preservation of the area in its relatively
undeveloped state, provisions were put into the bill to
establish guidelines for development, sale and use of prOperty.
Provisions were also incorporated to allow for the acquisition
by various methods of private property within the pr0posed
boundaries in the cases where owners wished to sell to the
government, or refused to use their property in a manner
consistent with the purposes of the recreation area.

Hunting and fishing were allowed in 8.2153 because the
pr0posed area was quite large and these were definitely
:recreational activities. The Park Service policy on hunting
and.fishing in recreational areas is not the same as in
rurtional parks. The question of whether hunting and fishing
should be allowed was seldom disputed in the hearings. The
controversy concerned who was to have jurisdiction over the
area concerning wildlife management and enforcement of
applicable hunting and fishing laws.

After the proposed recreation area was established there

'was 1x) be appointed a Sleeping Bear Dunes National Recreation

79

Area Advisory Commission who would work with the Secretary of
the Interior concerning all phases of deve10pment. The number
of people who would serve on the commission and the method by
which they were appointed was sometimes disputed.

This gives a basic understanding of the purpose of the
various provisions of 5.2153 which will be explained below.
When considering the provisions of the bill one must recognize
the impact they would have had on the various institutions
involved had the bill become law: the Park Service, home
owners, local schools, conservationists, businessmen, the local
recreation industry, etc.

5.2153 was "to establish in the State of Michigan the
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Recreation Area, and for other
purposes"2 -- basically encompassed the following provisions:

The Sleeping Bear Dunes National Recreation Area was to
encompass seventy-seven thousand acres including South Manitou
Island.

The Secretary's3 (of the Interior) right to condemn land
*was suspended with respect to all improved property within
the proposed boundaries for one year following enactment of
‘the Act” A landowner could remain on land acquired by the
Secretary for non-commercial residential purposes for twenty-
five years.

‘The Secretary would have paid the owner the fair market

valiue, as determined by the Secretary, on the date of acquisition.

 

2Title of 5.2153.

:3"Secretary" shall refer to the Secretary of the Interior.

80

The Secretary's authority to condemn was suspended with
respect to all improved property within the proposed area
during all times when the affected counties had in force a
duly adopted, valid zoning bylaw approved by the Secretary.

If any improved property, with respect to which the
Secretary's authority to acquire by condemnation has been
suspended, is made the subject of a variance or exception
which fails to conform or is inconsistent with the purposes
of the recreation area, the Secretary may acquire such
improved property by condemnation.

The term "improved property" shall mean a detached,
one-family dwelling, construction of which was begun before
July 1, 1961, together with any structures accessory to the
dwelling and at least three acres or all of such lesser
acreage as may be held by the owner of the dwelling:. provided,
the Secretary may acquire any beach or waters together with so
much.land adjoining such beach and waters, as the Secretary
may deem necessary for public access thereto.

The Secretary may permit hunting and fishing on lands
and waters in his jurisdiction and he shall consult the
appropriate officials of the State of Michigan prior to the
issuance of such regulations.

A Sleeping Bear Dunes National Recreation Area Advisory
Commission shall be created and said Commission shall
ternfiunate ten years after the establishment of the recreation
area. The Commission shall be composed of five members, each

appointed for a term of two years by the Secretary: one from

81

recommendations made by each county in which the recreation
area is situated, two to be appointed from recommendations

made by the Governor of Michigan, and one appointed by the

Secretary.

5.2153 being the first bill introduced proposing a
recreation area at Sleeping Bear Dunes was substantially a
working draft from which the National Park Service, Congress
and others could obtain feedback.

The response of the Department of the Interior was
favorable and they suggested a few amendments to clarify the
language of the bill and make it more appealing to the public.

The first of these was the substitution of the word
"Seashore" wherever the words "Recreation Area" appeared in
the bill. They felt that ”Sleeping Bear Dunes National
Recreation Area" put too much emphasis on recreation and too
little on preservation.

They recommended inclusion of a provision to allow the
continued Operation of commercial properties within the area
if they were in keeping with the objectives of conservation
of‘the seashore. The original intent of 5.2153 was to pro-
Jhibit commercial activity within the proposed boundaries.

5.2153 provided for the acquisition of lakeshore
property to allow for public access. This would have allowed
the public use of the beach and adjacent land in front of

privately owned homes and cottages surrmmding some of the

 

4Richard L. Callaghan, Staff Director, Committee on
ILnterior and Insular Affairs, Hearings on 5.2153, p. 5.

82

inland lakes. An amendment prOposed by the Department of the
Interior would have limited the acquisition of private

property for public access only on Lake Michigan and the
undeveloped inland lakeshores. This would have protected

the private homeowners along the substantially developed inland
lakeshores from heavy use by the visiting public.

Also proposed, was the addition of North Manitou Island
and Sugarloaf Mountain into the seashore, increasing the size
to 92,172 acres.

On November 13, 1961, the Senate Subcommittee on Public
Lands held hearings in Traverse City, Michigan giving local
interests an opportunity to voice their opinion.

A criticism of the proposed bill, that was often
mentioned, was the adverse effect which the national lakeshore
‘would have on the local economy. According to testimony given,
the real estate and construction activities had come to a near
standstill after the introduction of 5.2153, the schools could
not afford the loss of funding if private property were taken
off'the tax rolls,5 and other complaints regarding the pending
economic plight if 5.2153 were to become law.

Due to the visible decrease in real estate and construction
activity in the area, some doubt was cast upon the reliability
11f the "Report on Economic Feasibility . . ." prepared by
liichigan State University, in particular, the statements made

by Frank H. Watson of the "Traverse City Record-Eagle"

 

SHearings before the Subcommittee on Public Lands, op. cit.,
p. 5 and others.

concerning the role the Park Service played in the writing
of the report.

The report prepared by the Institute for Community
Development at Michigan State University summarizes the

anticipated economic impact to the region should the lakeshore

be established:

It is exPected that the establishment of the proposed
Sleeping Bear National Seashore would result in the
immediate expansion of payrolls and employment in the
trade, service and construction industries . . . it
appears that the best prospect for future economic
growth is the tourist industry . . . the establishment
of the proposed . . . seashore would preclude the
unwise use and haphazard development of the tourist
industry's major attraction in the region, thus
increasing the probability of maximum lgng-range gains
to local, regional and State economies.

The findings of the report were very beneficial to those
favoring the prOposed lakeshore which led people such as Frank
H. Watson to question the amount of input provided by the Park
Service (for whom the study was done) and the amount of edit-
ing done by the Park Service prior to publication.

In a letter to the Institute for Community Development,
on NOvember 21, 1961, Mr. Watson posed the following questions:
"was all of the text of the economic report written by your
agency? Or were certain conclusions and inferences added or
so inserted by the National Park Service before the report

was published?"7

 

6Institute for Community Development, Michigan State
University, Report 23 Economic Feasibility'gf the Proposed
Sleeping Bear National Seashore, p. 3.

7Hearings before the Subcommittee on Public Lands,
92. 23.2., p. 41.

84

Charles R. Adrian, Director of the Institute for
Community DevelOpment responded to the questions in a news
release on December 1, 1961 stating that "the data included
in the economic report were those derived by the institute
and the interpretations of the data were those of our staff
. . . at no time did the Park Service attempt to modify or
distort our findings."

A loyal spokesman for the residents of the proposed
lakeshore was Representative Robert P. Griffin, a U.S.
Congressman, representing Michigan's Ninth District which
includes the proposed lakeshore area and Leelanau and Benzie
counties. Mr. Griffin had received a large amount of feed—

back from local residents and organizations voicing their

opposition to 5.2153.9

The objections given by Mr. Griffin at the hearings in

Traverse City were representative of the local opposition.lo

 

8Ibid., p. 43.

9Ibid., letters, resolutions, news clippings, pp. 57-72.

10The following local interests expressed similar

opposition to 5.2153: Board of Supervisors of Manistee County,
Interlochen Woman's Club, Glen Arbor Township Board, Village of
1 Beulah, Traverse City Veterans Association, Junior Women's Club
40f Glen Arbor, Leland Improvement Association, Glen Lake
Commnnxity Schools, Council Members of the Village of Empire,
Glen Arbor P.T.A., Chamber of Commerce of the Village of Cedar,
Board.of'Education of the Honor Public School District,
LLeelanau.Hbrticultural Society, Glen Lake Association, Good
Harbor’Farm Bureau Group, City Commission of the City of
‘Praverse, Board of Supervisors of Grand Traverse County,
Chamber'of‘Commerce of Leelanau County, Board of Supervisors
of Leelanau and Osceola Counties, Glen Arbor Senior Women's
Club, Leelanau County Federation of Women's Clubs, Citizen's
Council oi'the Sleeping Bear Dunes Area, Inc., The Builders
and Traders Exchange of Traverse City, Inc., West Michigan
Tourist and Resort Association, Traverse City Chamber of
Commerce, West Michigan Tourist Association.

85

Mr. Griffin pointed out that because of the July 1, 1961
cutoff date for improved prOperty, "the mere introduction of
this bill has already had serious and far-reaching effects
upon the whole region."11 The November 13, 1961 hearings in
Traverse City were the first time local residents had been
consulted according to Mr. Griffin, and local residents were
"shocked that legislation of this nature"12 was introduced
without their prior consultation.

One of the primary concerns of the people in the area
was the great concentration of power this bill would have
given the Secretary of the Interior, an appointed official.
Examples of this power were the approval of all zoning
. ordinances by the Secretary; that the Secretary would decide
when a zoning violation had occurred; that he would bring
charges; condemn the property and decide on the fair market
value of the property. This was considered too much power
for one man (Stewart L. Udall) who was considered an avid
conservationist and pro-National Park Service.

The size of the proposed lakeshore at Sleeping Bear Dunes
and how that size was increased gave the Department of the
Interior an image of "land grabbers" in the eyes of local
residents.

The original survey by the National Park Service

identified approximately thirty thousand acres in the vicinity

 

.llHearings before Subcommittee on Public Lands, 23.,git.,

p. 45. .-
lzIbid.

86

of Sleeping Bear Dunes to be of national significance and
worthy of preservation as a part of the national park system.
Mr. Griffin expressed hope that 5.2153 could ultimately be
amended from the existing provision for a seventy-seven
thousand acre lakeshore to the point where he could give it
support. Congressman Griffin believed that a shoreline
preservation bill, as recommended by the 1959 survey, should
include just the shoreline, with enough inland area to provide
for camping, etc. Mr. Griffin and local residents totally
Opposed a bill that included inland areas over four miles
from the Lake Michigan shore. The proposed boundaries of
5.2153 included Glen Lake which was highly developed in some
areas.

5.2153 not only threatened to take preperty and summer
cottages away from families who had worked most of their
lives to obtain vacation property, some of which had been
owned by generations of families, but the loss of income to
the area through property taxes was imminent. The local
school systems voiced their opposition to Federal purchase of
private lands stating that they had worked hard to build up
their school systems and did not want an increased tax burden
placed on the remaining property owners, nor did they want to
depend on Federal subsidies to finance their schools.13

5.2153 contained no provision to increase taxes so as to

balance revenues and expenditures.

 

1323—2" pp. 63’ 64’ 69’ 70, et. a1.

87

Congressman Griffin argued that there was no ceiling on
expenditures for purchasing land and developing the lakeshore.
Such a provision, allowing for no scrutiny or control by the
Appropriations Committees of Congress, was extravagant and
wasteful considering the $290 billion national debt. Griffin
called for the consideration of "the whole pattern of the
National Park Service program . . . in the light of the need
for increased defense expenditures."14

Opponents to the bill could not understand the
government spending vast sums of money to acquire improved,
expensive property "particularly when there is so much unde-
veloped acreage in Michigan available and already under govern-
ment ownership which is appropriate and can be utilized for
recreational purposes."15

There were existing state parks in Benzie and Leelanau
counties and the local residents had an "obvious awareness
. . . of the importance and the value of these natural
features."16 This was exemplified by the "lack of gaudy

17 and the lack of billboards.

commercialism in that area"
Congressman Griffin was disturbed at the attempts of the
Park Service to smooth over the concern about the drop in tax

revenues with soothing assurances that, in time, booming

 

lqlbid., p. 48.

15Ibid.

.16Ibid., p. 49.

171bid.

88

commercial enterprises would spring up on the periphery Of the
proposed lakeshore. The residents had succeeded in keeping
out this type of activity but the Park Service proposal seemed
to encourage this type of commercial exploitation.

Some opponents to 5.2153 claimed that property values
within the proposed lakeshore would be depressed because of
the limits on use and sale. Argument centered around the
question of unimproved property. Since it could not be built
upon, it was of little use to most people, so the only
probable buyer would be the Department of the Interior. If
the Secretary refused to buy a piece of unimproved land, or
had no funds to purchase it at that time, the owner would
simply be forced to hold and pay taxes on it.

The greatest fault of 5.2153 according to its Opponents
was that it took away property rights of owners either by
condemnation or by forcing them to adhere to strict use
standards determined by the Secretary. One organization
identified a basic issue at stake in this legislation as the
"human right of Americans to hold prOperty against the
capricious whim or seizure by such a Government agency."1
bbst Opponents thought it to be "contrary to the rights
guaranteed under the Constitution to have and to hold private
property without fear of confiscation."19

The only local support of 5.2153, by a recognized

organization, was from the Benzie County Board of Supervisors

 

181bid., p. 67.

191bid., p. 66.

89

who believed that the proposed lakeshore was "a greatly
needed and highly desired economic development"20 for their
county.

Support was given by conservation organizations and other
institutions throughout Michigan dedicated to the wise use of
natural areas.21 Each of these institutions enthusiastically
supported the principles of the bill but, they too, were con-
cerned about the property rights of individuals. The Michigan
Parks Association expressed this well in a resolution stating
that they would support 5.2153 provided that:

existing private developments which are harmonious

with the proposed development and use of the . . .

area be permitted to continue until such time as

the present owners and future heirs are willing

without coercion to release and sell tBEir properties

for national recreation area purposes.

It was also suggested that 5.2153 be amended to provide
for the development Of the lakeshore utilizing sound planning
methods. The Michigan Parks Association was concerned that no
development or plan for the convenience of visitors be under-

taken which would be incompatible with the environmental

characteristics of the area.

 

201bid., p. 40.

21Institutions that voiced support for 5.2153 include:
Michigan Parks Association, Michigan United Conservation Clubs,
Recreation Association of Michigan, Woman's National Farm and
Garden Association of Michigan, Michigan Natural Areas Council,
Michigan Chapter of the American Society of Landscape
Architects, Michigan Conservation Commission.

22Hearings before the Subcommittee on Public Lands,
22. cit., p. 160.

90

To assure development of the lakeshore in a manner
compatible with existing development the Michigan Conservation
Commission requested that they be consulted when the National
Park Service was determining boundary locations. They also
requested that the inland lakeshore residential areas be
exempted from condemnation and allowed to remain.

The Conservation Commission encouraged the continued
practice of timber harvesting in the lakeshore as an essential
element of habitat maintenance for game and wildlife. In the
words of the Commission, "Forest management, when it does not
impair other natural values, adds variety to the landscape,
may itself have recreational attractiveness, and enhances some
recreational features of the area as a whole."23 They
encouraged the concept of "multiple-use" of the lakeshore in
line with the policies of the United States Forest Service.
This was contrary to established Park Service policy, however,
the Conservation Commission was of the Opinion that multiple-
use was an administrative policy which was compatible with the
purposes of recreational areas.

Residents of the Sleeping Bear area were overwhelmingly
Opposed to 5.2153 and this was made clear through the many
institutions by which they were represented. The Opposition
of owners of summer homes near the proposed lakeshore, many
'who lived in other states, was evident from letters received

by Committee members.

23Ibid., p. 154.

91

About the only interests supporting 5.2153 were the Park
Service and a handful of conservation groups. The primary
defect in the bill was its handling of property acquisition.
Property owners were not satisfied with the protection they
received from 5.2153 and envisioned the Park Service eventually
acquiring all inholdings. Promises made by the Park Service
were no substitute for legislative provisions.

5.2153 was a working bill through which areas Of
additional modification became evident. The Committee could
not report favorably on legislation needing extensive study

and change and 5.2153 died.

Revisions are Made

On July 11, 1962, Senators Hart and McNamara introduced
Senate bill 3528 which replaced 5.2153 and contained changes
as a result of testimony at hearings and correspondence from
many interests.

After a year of study and as a result of numerous
suggestions and criticisms, 5.3528 was the first attempt at
resolving some of the difficult questions posed by the first
bill.

5.3528 changed the name of the proposed area to Sleeping
Bear Dunes National Lakeshore but the size remained the same.

Property owners were given more assurance through
provisions which suspended the Secretary's authority to acquire

improved property by condemnation within inland lakeshore areas

92

for a period of one year fOllowing enactment of the act.
Thereafter, the Secretary's condemnation powers would be-
suspended during all times when the affected counties or town-
ships had in force a duly adopted zoning ordinance. The addi-
tion of "townships" to the Act removed the burden of drafting
a zoning ordinance satisfactory to the entire county.

The new bill also provided for the donation of mutually
protective scenic easements covering future development in
lieu of a valid zoning bylaw covering such property.

If any improved property, formerly protected by a zoning
bylaw or a protective easement was made the subject of a
variance inconsistent with any applicable standard contained
in the regulations, the Secretary had to give the owner a
written notice stating the basis for the intention to exercise
the power of condemnation sixty days prior to any exercise of
that power.

Each private property owner was still guaranteed at least
three acres or any lesser amount of land owned for the enjoy-
ment of the dwelling, with any accessory structures; however,
under 5.3528 the Secretary could only acquire beach or water
with adjoining land necessary for public access to Lake
Michigan. All private residences on the inland lakes were
protected from the acquisition of their waterfront by the
Secretary. No public use or access areas were to be Opened or
developed by the Secretary within the 3,500 acre inland lake

areas for twenty-five years.

93

5.3528 required the Secretary to give immediate
consideration to Offers to sell, especially to hardship Cases
resulting from undue delay in acquisition.

All commercial property existing on July 1, 1961 was
allowed to remain providing it did not impair the usefulness
and attractiveness of the area.

The new bill provided for the determination of the fair
market value under full judicial protection, not solely by the
Secretary or his appointees.

The provision on hunting and fishing was changed from
"the Secretary may . . ." to "the Secretary shall permit hunt-
ing and fishing . . . ." In administering wildlife programs
the Secretary was to consult with the Michigan Department Of
Conservation.

The Lakeshore Advisory Commission was enlarged to ten
members, each serving for a term of two years. The Commission
‘was to terminate twenty-five years after establishment of the
lakeshore and the members were to be appointed as follows:

1) four members to be appointed from recommendations
made by the counties in which the lakeshore is
situated, two members to represent each such
county;

2) four members to be appointed from recommendations
made by the Governor of the State of Michigan;
and

3) two members to be designated by the Secretary.

5.3528, with the preceding amendments was sent to the

Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs where no

action was taken.

94
The Griffin Bill

Representative Robert P. Griffin was very dissatisfied
with the two earlier bills for infringing on the rights of
property owners and because the size of the proposed lakeshore
would remove so much property from the tax rolls.

On January 21, 1963, Mr. Griffin introduced H.R.2400, to
establish the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Park.

The Griffin bill called for a thirty-seven thousand acre
park, including North and South Manitou Island. This would
provide more shoreline area than either of the previous bills.

The Secretary could not acquire by condemnation any
improved property except for the following limited interests
in improved property with payment of just compensation:

l) a scenic easement requiring the owner to maintain

the character and condition of the prOperty only
for the purposes for which it was being used on
December 31, 1962.

2) an option that gave the United States prior right

to purchase any right, title, or interest in the
prOperty if the owner wishes to sell.

The term "improved property" means a detached building
Ilsed as a dwelling, gg is used for a commercial purpose that
:is compatible with the purposes of the park.

H.R.2400 provided for the acquisition of all property,
Vthich the Secretary was authorized to acquire by this Act, as
3(Don as funds were available. This was not in either of the
Olfiiginal bills. It would have prevented some cases of hard-

$1”L'ipwhere property values may have dropped appreciably before

ITUurchase by the Secretary.

95

Hunting and fishing provisions were the same as in
5.3528.

The National Park Advisory Commission was basically the
same as 5.3528 but H.R.2400 called for the members to serve a
term of four years rather than two, and of the four members
appointed by the Governor of Michigan, at least two of those
were to have been members of the Michigan State Conservation
Commission.

The most significant difference in H.R.2400, other than
the size of the proposed park, was the payments that were to
be made by the United States to local subdivisions of state
government in lieu of real property taxes upon property which
was subject to local taxation before acquisition by the
Secretary. These payments were to be equal to the amount of
taxes, and were to be paid at such times as would have been
required had such real prOperty been held by a private citizen.
These payments were to cease after all bonded indebtedness
incurred by local governments, prior to the enactment of the
bill, had been paid in full.

H.R.24OO was sent to the House Committee on Interior and

Insular Affairs but hearings were never held.

Senate Bill 792

On February 14, 1963 Senators Hart and McNamara
introduced their third bill attempting to establish the
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore.

5.792 was very similar to the previous Senate bill 3528.

96

The size of the proposed lakeshore was the same, hunting
and fishing regulations were the same and the Lakeshore
Advisory Commission remained the same.

Two significant changes occurred in the condemnation
clause:

1) 5.792 required the Secretary to purchase property
within one year if the Secretary determined delay
would have resulted in hardship. The price of
such property was to be decided by the court if
the Secretary and the owner could not agree.

2) In lieu of a zoning bylaw, to prevent condemnation
of residential property after the first year, an
owner had to furnish the Secretary with a written
statement which stated his intention to use his
property consistent with standards for zoning
approval.

This removed some of the burden for establishing a zoning
bylaw within each township before the end of the first year
after enactment.

Nine days after the introduction of 5.792, an identical
bill was introduced into the House of Representatives.
Representative Neil Staebler of Michigan introduced H.R.4201
and it was referred to the House Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs but no action was taken.

Committee hearings were held on 5.792 in Washington, D.C.
in March and April of 1963 and in Frankfort, Michigan in July.

5.792 received a much more favorable response than the
earlier bills.

At the Federal level the Department of the Interior
.favored the establishment of a lakeshore but suggested some

amendments. The Secretary still wanted North Manitou Island

included in the lakeshore.

97

Other amendments gave the Secretary more power and would
have negated many of the provisions which were specifically
added to reassure local residents:

1) The Secretary wanted termination of the Advisory
Commission after ten years.

2) He did not want to depend on the cooperation of
the Michigan Conservation Commission to initiate
hunting and fishing programs.

3) All references to inland lakeshore residential
areas were to be deleted because it granted
special privileges to these areas.

4) He wanted the power to terminate the suspension
of his authority to condemn improved property at
any time, thus giving no protection to property
owners.

5) He wanted more latitude in accepting or rejecting
proposed zoning amendments.

6) He wanted the list of acceptable commercial uses
deleted from the bill and felt that determination
of compatibility should be left to him.

Representative Griffin supported a lakeshore area but
more along the lines of H.R.2400. He still believed the
expense of acquiring improved prOperties was too great and
that payments should be made to compensate for lost revenue.

At the State level in Michigan the legislature passed a
concurrent resolution stating that "any proposal for a national
lakeshore . . . in Leelanau and Benzie Counties . . . should be
confined to that general area described in the National Park
Service report of l959,"24 approximately thirty thousand acres.

In consideration of the above resolution Senator Ernest

(Bruening Of Alaska posed the following question to

 

quarings before the Subcommittee on Public Lands on
5.792, 88th Congress, lst Session, p. 87.

98

Representative Staebler of Michigan who was testifying on
behalf of 5.792:

Senator Gruening: Assuming that the vote had been
unanimous -- unanimous in the house, and there was

no dissent in the senate -- how would you feel about
having a group of Senators from other states to come
down to Michigan and impose their will over that of
the elected representatives of the people of Michigan?
Would you think that was proper fulfillment of our
debts as representatives of the public interest?

Mr. Staebler: The National Government takes a little
different look at problems than perhaps the
legislators in the State of Michigan take a look at
things.

This is inherent in the very creation of lakeshore

areas. You are here working on a program with a

view to fifty years ahead. But in Michigan we have

had some considerable difficulty getting the legis-

lature 'nterested even in acquiring public fishing
. 23

Sites.

After further probing into this resolution it was
realized that most of those voting and all of those who
signed the resolution were Republicans. Mr. Staebler told
the committee that the Michigan legislature had "a way of
putting things through rather quickly, sometimes without
notice."26 He quoted a paragraph from the "Detroit News"
that stated "many Democrats who favored the larger area did
not even note the resolution's passing."27

On March 29, 1963 the Committee received a telegram
giving strong support to 5.792 and signed by forty-eight state

legislators -— all Democrats. This suggested that the

 

25Ibid., p. 109.

'26Ibid.

271bid.

99

opposition indicated by the prior resolution was not wholly
justified.

A number of members of the Michigan State Conservation
Commission gave their views regarding the proposed lakeshore.

Stanley A. Cain, Chairman of the Park Committee of the
Commission noted the Commission's unanimous approval of a
national recreation area at Sleeping Bear but they were not
in total agreement with the provisions of 5.792. Mr. Cain
encouraged the utilization of the Commission in the final
determination of the lakeshore boundaries.

They were in favor of including North Manitou Island and
Sugarloaf Mountain in the lakeshore.

Harry Whiteley of the Commission wanted North Manitou
Island included but could not give full approval to 5.792
because seventy-seven thousand acres was too large.28 He
believed the Michigan State Department of Conservation should
have authority over wildlife management and that members of
the Commission should be on the Lakeshore Advisory Commission.

Organizations at the national level were generally
supportive of 5.792.29

The American Forestry Association supported a lakeshore

area but thought the State should take a more active role.

 

28

Michigan State Conservation Commissioners Kenneth S.
Lowe and Carl T. Johnson supported a proposed lakeshore but of
a size substantially less than proposed by 5.792.

29National organizations who supported 5.792 and are not
mentioned in the text of this section are: The Wilderness
Society, Citizens Committee on Natural Resources, Sierra Club,
National Wildlife Federation, American Planning and Civic
Association, National Audubon Society.

100

They also supported the exclusion of established residential
areas from either a state or Federal recreation area.

The Izaak Walton League of America strongly supported the
principles and purposes of 5.792 but stated that no national
lakeshore area should have as a major purpose protecting the
private properties for the enjoyment Of the owners.

The National Parks Association suggested the addition of
a clause into the bill giving the area protection against
overdevelopment for use and occupation by automobiles.

All of the statewide organizations and prominent interests
in Michigan (excluding those in the vicinity of the proposed
lakeshore) supported 5.792.3O Many of those also encouraged
enlargement of the area in line with the National Park
Service preposal of approximately ninety-two thousand acres.

The majority of opposition to 5.792 came from the
Sleeping Bear region but there were many interests within the

area that saw the proposed lakeshore as a boon to their region.31

 

30The Michigan organizations and interests who supported
5.792 include: Michigan Forestry and Park Association, Parks
and Recreation Commission of the City Of Detroit, Izaak Walton
League of Grand Rapids, Michigan Audubon Society, Jerome P.
Cavanagh, Mayor, Detroit, Recreation Department of the United
Auto Workers, Recreation Association of Michigan, Michigan
United Conservation Clubs, Michigan Parks Association, American
Society of Landscape Architects, Inc., of Grand Rapids,
Michigan Tourist Council, American Institute of Planners of
Detroit, West Michigan Tourist Association, Michigan State AFL-
CIO, Michigan Botanical Club, Michigan Natural Areas Council,
Federated Garden Clubs of Michigan.

31The institutions and representatives of institutions
within the Sleeping Bear region who were supportive of the bill
include: Waldo Hobson, Supervisor, Lake Township, Benzie
County; Gilmore Township, Benzie County; Citizens for a National
Park in Benzie and Leelanau Counties; Northwest Michigan Motel
and Resort Association; Citizens Association for the Sleeping
Bear National Recreation Area; Dale Herren, Mayor, Frankfort;
John Peterson, Editor and Publisher, "Benzie County Patriot."

101

The Opposition to the bill was strong, for the same
32

reasons as earlier bills and can be summarized as follows:

1) Sleeping Bear Dunes was too far from populated
areas.

2) The need for a Federal park in the area was not
demonstrated.

3) 5.792 infringed improperly on the rights of
private citizens.

4) The bill was a means for the Park Service to
control expensive, developed and built-up
inland lake areas without payment to the owners.

5) The dunes and related areas were already protected
under public ownership.

6) County governments and school districts would have
been injured seriously through loss of revenues.

7) The sound economy and established tourist industry
would have been jeopardized by the threat of
nationalization.

8) There were sufficient recreation lands in Michigan.

9) The legislative concept of suspending the power of
condemnation was considered alien to the laws and
misleading to property owners.

On December 18, 1963 the Committee on Interior and

Insular Affairs reported favorably on 5.792 with amendments
and recommended that the measure pass.

The size of the proposed lakeshore was reduced from

77,000 acres to 47,600. South Manitou Island was still

 

32Local institutions expressing this viewpoint include:
Glen Arbor Junior Women's Club; Leelanau County Board of
Supervisors; Citizens Committee of Sleeping Bear Dunes; Platte
Lakes Area Association; Glen Lake Board of Education; Village
of Empire; Benzie County Board of Supervisors; Glen Arbor
Township Board; Citizens Council of Sleeping Bear Dunes;
JPlatte Lakes Area Council; Glen Lake Resort and Business Bureau;
.Empire Woman's Club; South Manitou Island Private Property
Owners ' Committee .

102

included. The amended bill deleted all references to "inland
lakeshore residential areas." The number Of improved private
prOperties included in the actual park boundaries was reduced
from 1,587 in the original bill to 288 in the amended version.
These improved sites were allowed to remain provided they were
zoned and maintained properly.

The one-year suspension of condemnation powers formerly
provided to inland lakeshore residential areas was amended to
include all improved property within the lakeshore.

The term "improved property" was amended to include
detached one-family dwelling construction which had begun
before December 31, 1962.

A provision was added to provide for the construction of
a scenic parkway to "provide scenic overlooks for public

33

enjoyment and interpretation" of the area.

5.792 as amended authorized appropriation of not more
than $4,750,000 for acquisition of necessary lands.

The Committee did not amend the bill to provide for
payments to local governments to Offset any possible revenue
losses "because benefits to the State localities involved"
would "soon exceed tax losses."3

Six committee members who expressed a minority view,

could not support 5.792 because a number Of areas within the

__.

)3Congressional Record —- Senate, 88th Congress,
December 19, 1963, p. 25161.

'345enate Report No. 810 from the Committee on Interior
and Insular Affairs to accompany 5.792, 88th Congress, lst
Session, p. 6.

103

lakeshore boundaries were considered "unnecessary for the

purposes of the bill"35

and infringed unnecessarily upon'
individual prOperty rights. The additional minority view
questioned the justification or need for the establishment of
the lakeshore area, citing the abundance of existing public
land in Michigan. They called the comparison for the need of
the Sleeping Bear Area with that of the Cape Cod National
Seashore in Massachusetts unrealistic when considering the
amount of recreation area per capita in each state.

On December 19, 1963 5.792 was debated in the Senate.
Aside from the minority views expressed in the report, the
only criticism of the bill came from Senator Wayne Morse of
Oregon.

The condemnation clause was of concern to Mr. Morse; he
considered it unjustified. He said that ”condemnation should
be used sparingly, and never used unless a real public
necessity demands it."36

At that time there was talk of an Oregon Dunes bill and
Mr. Morse had "pledged to the people of Oregon that" he "would
not support a dunes bill containing a provision for the con-
demnation Of property which" in his judgement was "not necessary
for the Federal Government to take."37

He Opposed all park bills that contained condemnation

procedures and stated that the legislature should not grant

 

351bid., p. 12.

36Congressional Record, gp. cit., p. 25161.

371bid.

104

blanket condemnation power. Condemnation should only be used
"in relation to specific facts in connection with parcels of
land as to which it can be shown that the absence of Federal
ownership would be contrary to the public need."38

There was no further discussion on the bill and it was
voted on and passed in the Senate.

5.792 was then sent to the House Committee on Interior

and Insular Affairs which declined to hold hearings.

Senate Bill 936

On February 1, 1965 Senators Hart and McNamara
introduced 5.936 which was basically the same as 5.792, as
passed by the Senate in December of 1963.

5.936 provided for a 46,100 acre lakeshore including
South Manitou Island. It differed from the previous bill in
that it eliminated a 420 acre strip of shoreline west Of the
town of Empire (which was not included in the original
proposal) and it gave a precise description of the route of
the proposed scenic highway and its right-of-way.

The bill was sent to the Senate Interior Committee which
did not hold hearings due to its similarity to the Senate
passed bill.

The Committee reported favorably on 5.936 and

recommended its passage as amended.

 

381bid., p. 25165.

105

The Committee amended the bill to terminate the
Lakeshore Advisory Commission ten years after the establish-
ment of the lakeshore. The authorized apprOpriations for
acquisition of lands and interests in lands were increased
from $4,750,000 to $9,500,00039 and the sum of $18,500,000
was authorized for the development of the lakeshore.

Four Senators expressed the minority view in the
Committee report for basically the same reasons as 5.792;
there was no justification or need for the proposed lakeshore.

On August 26, 1965 5.936 was brought to the Senate floor
for debate. During debate Senator Hart quoted Dr. Ralph A.
MacMullan, Director of the Michigan Department of Conservation,
to refute arguments stated in the minority views. He said:

Much Of Michigan's sizable acreage of State-owned

land came to the State in the twenties and thirties

through tax reversion and is suitable mainly for

extensive forms of outdoor recreation such as hunt-

ing. Unfortunately, only about four percent of the

State-owned lands have the necessary prime recreational

potential required for intensive recreationgfi purposes

such as State parks and water access sites.

The only amendment to the reported bill in debate was by

Senator Bible of Nevada. He proposed to reduce the figure of

a $18,500,000 limit for development of the lakeshore to a

 

39The Department of the Interior reported that funds for
acquisition of land should not be limited to 34,750,000. They
estimated the cost of acquiring the lands and improvements
within the preposed lakeshore, as contemplated in 5.936 as
$9,500,000; however, they recommended an amendment to the bill
providing for "such sums as may be necessary to carry out the
provisions of this Act."

40Congressional Record -- Senate, 89th Congress, lst
Session, August 26, 1965, p. 22075.

106

$14,500,000 limit. The amendment was agreed to and the bill
passed as amended. It was then referred to the House
Interior Committee.

The Committee held hearings in Traverse City, Michigan
on October 4, 1965 and in Washington, D.C. on May 27 and June
20, 1966.

5.936 received support from all Federal government
agencies. The Interior Department was among many interests who
wanted North Manitou Island included in the lakeshore. Allen
T. Edmundsl‘1 of the National Park Service testified on the
subject of the inclusion of North Manitou and stated that it
was not included because its resources were "not as superlative
as those on South Manitou, plus the fact we are adding some
fourteen thousand acres to the proposal at a cost of
31,250,000."42

Representative Griffin was in agreement with the
principles of 5.936 but there were many areas of which he was
concerned. He wanted to be sure that the emphasis would be
put on preservation and conservation. He did not want the
area turned into a big playground. Mr. Griffin said that
since 1959 the emphasis of some proponents had shifted some-
what from a concern for preservation of natural beauty to a

primary concern about recreation and the number of people who

could be accommodated in camping facilities, etc.

 

41Allen T. Edmunds is the Chief of the Office of Resource
Planning, Philadelphia Planning Center, National Park Service.

2Hearings befOre the Subcommittee on National Parks and
Recreation of the House Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs, 89th Congress, lst Session, June 20, 1966, p. 168.

107

Mr. Griffin also encouraged the inclusion of North
Manitou Island. He was concerned that the Secretary was not
required to purchase improved property which the owner wished
to sell. He also criticized the lack of payments to local
governments and school districts to compensate for lost
revenue.

Generally the governmental institutionslk3 within Michigan
enthusiastically supported 5.936.

Support was given by both nationally recognized
organizations44 and those at the State level.45

As with similar bills the strongest oppositionlt6 to 5.936
came from Leelanau and Benzie Counties. Their opposition was

in four areas:

1) The area would have suffered an economic decline as
the result of the loss Of taxable property. The

 

43These institutions or representatives of institutions
include: Senator Hart; Governor Romney; The Michigan House
and Senate; Michigan State Highway Department; Michigan
Department of Conservation; Michigan Conservation Commission;
Jerome P. Cavanagh, Mayor of Detroit.

44This group included the Citizens Committee on Natural
Resources; American Automobile Association; National Wildlife
Federation; National Conference on State Parks.

45Included was the Michigan Chapter of the American
Society of Landscape Architects; Michigan Forestry and Park
Association; Michigan Botanical Club; Michigan United
Conservation Clubs; Michigan Tourist Council.

46The local opposition to 5.936 included: Glen Lake
Community Schools Board of Education; Benzie County Central
Schools Board of Education; Citizens Council of Sleeping Bear
Dunes Area, Inc.; Leelanau County Board of Supervisors; Empire
Township Board; Glen Lake Chamber of Commerce; Empire Lions
Club; Glen Arbor Junior WOmen's Club; Empire WOmen's Club;
Glen Arbor WOman's Club; Cleveland Township Board; Glen Arbor
Township Board; Leelanau County Federation of Women's Clubs;
Platte Lakes Area Association, Inc.

108

school districts were particularly concerned and
claimed that the reduction in the student popula-
tion would not have been proportional to the loss
in tax base, and there was no provision in the
legislation for compensating payments by the
government.

2) There was considerable anxiety over the.
condemnation clause. Much of this as a result
of misinterpretation of the bill.

3) Location of the lakeshore boundaries was questioned
especially regarding the proposed scenic drive.

4) The size of the lakeshore. Some opponents objected
to the lakeshore coming so far inland and believed
it should encompass solely the shoreline area.
Others wanted North Manitou Island included perhaps
in exchange for acreage on the mainland.

47

The institutions who supported 5.936 were primarily

commercial activities.
After the public hearings the full Committee on Interior
and Insular Affairs gave consideration to 5.936 on August 3,
4, and 9, 1966. They reported favorably on the bill and
recommended its enactment as amended:
1) The addition of North Manitou Island, and of a
three-mile strip Of land to the east of Michigan
Highway 22 in the Platte Bay area to protect the
scenic beauty along both sides of the highway.
2) A provision that required the donation of any
State lands before the area is declared

established.

3) A modification that strengthened the intent of the
Secretary to purchase property in cases of hardship.

4) Limiting the Secretary's authority to acquire
property by exchange to cases where the Federal

 

47T‘hose groups supporting the bill included: Citizens
Committees of Frankfort; Muskegon Progress and Development
Fund; Weest Michigan Tourist Association; Frankfort Chamber of
Commerce ; Grand Traverse Motel and Restaurant Association.

5)

109

property involved in transaction was in the
State of Michigan.

Elimination of the requirement that the Secretary
wait for a year after enactment Of the bill
before instituting any condemnation action.

As amended the size of the lakeshore was approximately

sixty thousand acres. The amount authorized for land

acquisition was increased from $9,500,000 to $10,810,000 to

compensate for the increased size.

A minority view was written in the Committee report by

nine representatives who opposed the bill for the following

reasons 3

1)

2)

3)

4)

The legislation was unnecessary since the
proposed area was already a well-kept and highly-
develOped recreation area;

It confiscated private property;

There was no provision for assisting local
governments in lieu of tax revenues;

Congress would have continued to extend national
park legislation beyond the point where funds
could have reasonably been available.

On August 25, 1966 5.936 was referred to the Committee

Of the Whole HOuse where no action was taken.

5.1192 and H.R.66l6

On March 6, 1967 two identical Sleeping Bear Dunes

proposals were introduced into Congress -- 5.1192 by Senator

Hart and H.R.6616 by Representative James G. O'Hara Of

Michigan's Twelfth District, part of the City of Detroit.

These bills were basically the same as the previous bill

5.936 which was passed by the Senate as amended in Committee.

110

Both bills provided for a 61,171 acre lakeshore which included
both North and South Manitou Islands.

The condemnation clause was the same as in 5.936.

5.1192 was referred to the Senate Committee on Interior
and Insular Affairs but no action was taken.

H.R.66l6 went to the House Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs which held hearings on July 29, 1968. The
hearings were not made available and no report was issued by

the Committee.

H.R.11829 and Related Bills

During the 9lst Congress twenty House bills were
introduced proposing a Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore.
These bills were basically identical except for the sums
authorized for land acquisition, development of the lakeshore
and the proposed size. All Of the bills were along the same
lines as 5.936 and subsequent proposals.

A significant difference between the Vander Jagt Bill,
H.R.12230, and other bills in that group was in the intro-
ductory paragraph. The preceding bills had slanted the
purpose of the legislation toward recreation such as in
Section 1a of H.R.11829:

that . . . in order to stabilize and preserve for

the benefit, inspiration, education, recreational

use, and enjoyment of the public a significant

portion Of the diminishing shoreline Of the United

States and its related geographic and scientific
~features, . . ."

111

This is contrasted with section la of H.R.12230 which
states:

that . . . the Congress finds that certain outstanding

natural features, including forests, beaches, dune

formations, and ancient glacial phenomena, exist along
the mainland shore of Lake Michigan and on certain
nearby islands in Benzie and Leelanau Counties, Michigan,
and that such features ought to be preserved in their
natural setting and protected from developments and

uses which would destroy the scenic beauty and natural

character of the area.

Previous bills went on to state that "the Secretary of
the Interior . . . is authorized to take appropriate action,
as herein provided, to establish in the State of Michigan the
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore."

H.R.12230 however, states:

that in carrying out the provisions of this Act,

the Secretary of the Interior shall administer and

protect the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore

in a manner which provides for recreational Oppor-

tunities consistent with the maximum protection of

the natural environment within the area.

The change of emphasis in the introductory section by
Representative Vander Jagt was indicative of pressures from
residents of the Dunes Area who feared the concept of a
"national playground" in their region. Mr. Vander Jagt
hOped to elicit more support from local residents for his bill,
but the hearings proved this was not the case.

On June 8 and 9, 1970, the HOuse Subcommittee on National
Parks and Recreation, of the Interior Committee, held hearings
on these bills in Washington, D.C.

The Department of the Interior reported favorably on
H.R.1223O and related bills. They suggested amendments to the

bills including one which allowed for continued State

112

ownership and operation of three hundred acres in the Platte
Bay area. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources had
established a coho salmon fishery and they operated a fish
wier on the Platte River. Plans were also underway for a
fisherman access area and small boat harbor!‘8

H.R.11829 and related bills received overwhelming

support from many levels of government in Michigan. All of

 

48On September 23, 1967, a severe storm struck the
Sleeping Bear Dunes area and seven fishermen were drowned,
fifteen others were hospitalized and dozens of boats were
swamped and damaged. This tragedy triggered widespread public
demand for better and safer boating facilities at the Platte
River area.

In December, 1967, the Michigan Waterways Commission
took steps to initiate construction of a harbor and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers made a study of the area, completed in
November of 1970. The study recommended a large harbor located
in the mouth of the Platte River.

As the proposed project became known to the public,
Objections were raised. The Waterways Commission ordered a
public hearing on April 26, 1971, at Beulah, where twenty-seven
persons gave mixed testimony.

On September 9, 1971, the Natural Resources Commission
endorsed the concept of a harbor at the mouth of the Platte
but suggested possible changes in design and location to mini-
mize environmental intrusion. Public opposition to the project
grew, and in February 1972, the Waterways Commission passed a
resolution to seek an alternate site in Platte Day.

After further studies by the Corps of Engineers and the
waterways Division staff, the Waterways Commission concluded
in April, 1973, that the harbor should be constructed at the
mouth of the Platte or not at all. The Natural Resources
Commission then ordered the preparation of an Environmental
Impact Statement.

Public hearings on the EIS were held in Lansing and
Beulah on January 22 and 24, 1974. The overwhelming Opinion
expressed at the hearings was that the Platte River mouth
should be preserved as nearly as possible in its natural
condition.

The Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore Advisory
Commission twice considered the Platte Bay harbor proposal
and twice vetoed it.

On February 8, 1974, the Natural Resources Commission
decided to take no further action on the proposed harbor
faCilj-ty.

113

the United States Representatives and Senators from Michigan
supported these bills, many were sponsors of them. The '
Governor of Michigan at its State Legislature gave support to
these bills.

Mr. A. Gene Gazlay, Assistant Director of the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources stated that Governor Milliken
had indicated that he would immediately submit legislation to
appropriate funds to reimburse the affected school districts
to offset temporary tax losses as soon as Congress enacted,
lakeshore legislation. This was to replace funds which were
initially to be used for reimbursement obtained through the
sale of State lands to the government. Mr. Gazlay stated
that as soon as Congress enacted legislation establishing the
national lakeshore, a bill would be introduced providing for
the donation of certain State lands located within the project
boundaries.

Many of the statewide institutions which had supported
Sleeping Bear Dunes legislation since its start, continued to

support H.R. 11829 and related billsflk9

The conservation
groups were more vocal, during this round of legislation, in

making their views known concerning development of the lakeshore.

 

9These groups include: Citizens Committee on Natural
Resources; Wilderness Society; American Forestry Association;
Michigan Natural Areas Council; Michigan Botanical Club; West
Michigan Environmental Action Council; National Audubon
Society; Michigan United Conservation Clubs; Sierra Club;
National Wildlife Federation; Great Lakes Commission;
Interstate Compact Commission of the Eight Great Lakes States;
Michigan State Recreation Advisory Committee; Michigan
Recreation and Park Association; Michigan Chapter of the
American Society of Landscape Architects; Izaak Walton League
of America; Friends of the Earth, Washington, D.C.; ENACT,
Environmental Action for Survival; Garden Club of America.

114

The Wilderness Society and the Izaak Walton League
called for a study of the area to determine which areas
might possibly qualify for inclusion into the Wilderness
System. Both organizations mentioned North Manitou Island
as a possibility.

Prior to the hearing a preliminary master plan for the
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore was prepared by the
National Park Service which raised more questions regarding
development of the lakeshore.

The Michigan United Conservation Clubs criticized the
proposed airstrip contemplated for construction on North
Manitou Island which was otherwise slated to be left
essentially wild and undeveloped. They also considered the
concept of a minibus delivering people to the "semi-primitive
camping" areas as laughable.

The American Forestry Association voiced its
opposition to the continued operation of the dune-buggy
rides.

There were only three institutions which supported
the proposed legislation. These included the Save the
Sleeping Bear Dunes Committee, the Frankfort Area Chamber
of Commerce and the Benzie County Lakes Area Chamber of
Commerce.

Local opposition to the pending bills came from the
same institutions as in past hearings but centered not so

much on the concept of private property rights but more on

115

the fears Of the effect of the millions of visitors that
would be drawn to the lakeshore.50

Opponents were concerned that neither the National Park
Service nor the sponsors Of the legislation were motivated by
a desire to preserve the area in its "pristine beauty." They
claimed that recreation was the issue, not conservation, and
that the addition of two percent additional public shoreline
to the State of Michigan did not warrant taking the risks of
pollution and destruction that an influx of visitors to the
area might cause. Residents were concerned with the
character of the proposed lakeshore and the effect it would
have on the quality of life as they knew it. They were con-
cerned with the prospect of bulldozing good second growth
timber to put through a scenic parkway.

During the Committee hearings it became evident that some
residents were truly concerned that with the publicity that a
lakeshore of this magnitude would create, hordes of visitors
would lessen the beauty and the uniqueness of the area. Other
residents would have supported a national lakeshore at another
location but not in their area.

NO further action was taken on H.R.11829 or the related

bills.

 

soLocal institutions voicing opposition to H.R.11829 and
related bill included: Citizens Council of the Sleeping Bear
Dunes Area; Lake TOwnship Board; Platte Lakes Area Association;
Leelanau County Federation of WOmen's Clubs; Leelanau County
Planning Commission; Glen Lake Community Schools Board of
Education; Leelanau County Board of Commissioners; Empire
Village Council; Traverse City Chamber of Commerce.

116
The Final Round of Legislation

On August 3, 1970 Representative O'Hara and others,
introduced H.R.18776 into the House, which was referred to
the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

H.R.18776, which provided for a 60,789 lakeshore, was
very similar to H.R.12230 which the Committee held hearings
on earlier in the year. The only substantial difference
between the bills was that H.R.18776 included a provision
requiring the Secretary to review the area within the proposed
lakeshore and to make recommendations as to the suitability or
nonsuitability of any area for preservation as wilderness.

The House Committee did not hold hearings on H.R.18776
and recommended its enactment with minor amendments. On
August 10, 1970 it was reported to the Committee of the Whole
House.

On September 22, 1970 H.R.18776 was debated on the House
floor. The House was overwhelmingly in favor of the bill.
Representative Reid of Illinois offered the strongest
Opposition based primarily on the arguments of some Of the
residents of the Sleeping Bear area. It was pointed out by
many Congressmen that the goal of both proponents and
opponents of Sleeping Bear Dunes legislation was preservation
of the natural beauty Of the area and that designating the
area as a national lakeshore would provide the surest
protection.

[The bill passed in the House and was referred to the

Senate Interior Committee.

117

The Senate Subcommittee on Parks and Recreation met on
August 26, 1970 to hold hearings on 5.1023 and H.R.18776.

5.1023 was introduced by Senator Hart on February 17,
1969 and was essentially the same as the Senate passed bill,

5.9360

H.R.18776 had not yet been passed in the House.
51

The opposition to these bills was from the Sleeping

Bear area and was summarized well by Dayton Willard of the

Platte Lake Association:
In short we are opposed to 5.1053 because:
1) it will not protect and preserve but destroy;

2) projected costs for acquisition and develop-
ment are not realistic;

3) there is nothing in this bill to protect
sanitary needs, brought on by influx of
visitors; we are concerned about the

inevitable pollution; we are concerned about
health;

4) locally, the few who are pushing for the dunes
are not concerned about preservation, they are
only looking for the economic carrot; and

5) so-called protection of land owner rights are
not realistic; condemnation is still a threat.

52

 

51Institutions opposing these bills included: Platte
Lake Association, Citizens Council of Sleeping Bear Dunes,
Leelanau County Federation of WOmen's Clubs, Leelanau County
Planning Commission.

S2'Hearings before the Subcommittee on Parks and
Recreation on 5.1023 and H.R.18776, 9lst Congress, 2nd
Session, p. 87.

118

53

The institutions supporting this legislation had
supported previous Sleeping Bear Dunes preposals.

On October 2, 1970 the Committee reported favorably on
H.R.18776 without amendment and recommended its enactment.

H.R.18776 was debated in the Senate on October 7, 1970.
Only one amendment was offered, that of Senator Griffin, who
prOposed to strike all of H.R.18776 and insert the language
of H.R.2400, a Sleeping Bear Dunes National Park Proposal he
introduced in 1963. The amendment did not pass.

No amendments were made and H.R.18776 passed in the
Senate. On October 8, 1970 it was examined and signed by the
Speaker, signed by the President pro tempore on October 9,
and by President Nixon on October 21, 1970 when it became

Public Law 91-479.

 

S‘DThese supportive institutions included: Michigan
Department of Natural Resources; Michigan Natural Resources
Commission; Michigan Legislature; Benzie County Board of
Commissioners; all United States Representatives to Congress
from Michigan; Save the Sleeping Bear Dunes Committee; Sierra
Club; Friends of the Earth; National Wildlife Federation;
American Forestry Association; National Parks and Conservation
Association; Izaak Walton League of America, Inc.

CHAPTER VII

THE IMPACT OF OTHER LEGISLATION

During the past decade it became evident that
established methods of preserving land were not always
adequate to protect many of the amenities valued by segments
of our society. The Park Service administered national parks,
monuments, recreation areas, etc., and the Forest Service
administered the national forests.

During the middle 19603 the public called for stricter
control of use and development of these Federally owned lands.
The public's increased awareness of the quality of the land-
scape paved the way for new legislative proposals and
ultimately new laws by which Federal lands and activities
must be administered.

These laws had an impact on the design of the Sleeping
Bear Lakeshore just as surely as the institutions which took
part in the hearings. The laws discussed below are a product
of the legislative process and were shaped by institutional
values just as the Sleeping Bear bill was.

There are three such laws which were a product of the
'603 awareness which affected or will affect the design of

the lakeshore.

119

120
The Wilderness Act

The Wilderness Act was passed in 1964 to set aside
portions of Federally-owned land, which qualified under the
Act, as wilderness areas to be preserved in their natural
conditions, without permanent improvements or human
habitation.

For an area to qualify as a wilderness area it must:

1) generally appear to have been affected primarily

by the forces of nature, with the imprint of

man's work substantially unnoticeable;

2) have outstanding opportunities for solitude or
a primitive and unconfined type of recreation;

3) have at least five thousand acres of land or is
of sufficient size as to make practicable its
preservation and use in an unimpaired condition;
and

4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other

features of scienfific, educational, scenic, or
historical value.

Subsections 3(c) and 3(d) of the Act provide for the
Secretary of the Interior to "review every roadless area of
five thousand contiguous acres or more in the national parks,
monuments and other units of the national park system" under
his jurisdiction on the effective date of the Act. This means
that all units of the national park system which were not
established before the enactment of the Wilderness Act will
not automatically be considered for inclusion.

Therefore, on the recommendation of a few conservation

groups that the lakeshore be studied for areas of possible

 

lPub1ic Law 88-577 -- September 5, 1964.

121

wilderness designation, Section 6(c) was included in the
Sleeping Bear Dunes Act. What Section 6(c) did was to require
the Secretary to review the lakeshore area within four years
from the date Of enactment of the Sleeping Bear Dunes Act in
accordance with subsections 3(c) and 3(d) of the Wilderness
Act.

If areas of lakeshore are designated as wilderness areas
they will have to be administered as such even though they may
lie within a recreation area.

The Wilderness Act provides for the continued operation
of aircraft or motorboats, where these uses have become
established. This means that the existing transportation
facilities to both NOrth and South Manitou Islands will not

disqualify them from possible designation as wilderness areas.

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

On October 2, 1968 the "Wild Rivers Act" was enacted,
creating a system of rivers to be preserved and a procedure
through which additions could be made. The purpose of the
Act was to provide for the preservation of natural free flow-
ing rivers uninhibited by dams, reservoirs, or other man-made
alterations and to control development along their banks.
This is a step toward a goal proposed by Stewart Udall that
the future Of most Of the major rivers of America should be
decided by 1985.

(The Act provides for three categories of rivers:

1) Wild Rivers -- which are generally inaccessible
except by trail, free of impoundments, generally

122
primitive shorelines and watersheds and
unpolluted.

2) Scenic Rivers —- which are free of impound-
ments, largely undeveloped, and accessible
in places by roads.

3) Recreational Rivers -- which are readily
accessible by trail or roads, may have some
development and may have undergone some
impoundments in the past.

From time to time the Secretary of the Interior, or the
Secretary of Agriculture in the case of National Forest lands,
may make recommendations for the addition of certain rivers
to the system.

In the case of the Sleeping Bear Dunes Lakeshore the
Secretary could recommend the addition of any of the rivers
or parts of rivers within the lakeshore to the Wild Rivers
system.

The jurisdiction and agreements with owners of private
prOperty along such a river will be according to prior arrange-
ment (the Sleeping Bear Dunes Act) rather than the Wild Rivers
Act. At such time as these properties may be acquired by the

Secretary, the rivers shall be administered by the Wild Rivers

Act.

The National Environmental Policy Act

The purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 was:

to declare a national policy which will encourage
productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his
environment; to promote efforts which will prevent
or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere
and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to

123

enrich the understanding of the ecological systems
and natural resources important to the Nation; a d
to establish a Council on Environmental Quality.

In carrying out the policies set forth in the Act, all
agencies of the Federal Government shall:

A) Utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach
which will insure the integrated use of the
natural and social sciences and the environmental
design arts in planning and decision making which
may have an impact on man's environment;

B) Identify and develop methods and procedures, in
consultation with the Council on Environmental
Quality, which will insure that presently
unquantified environmental amenities and values
may be given appropriate consideration in
decision making along with economic and technical
considerations;

C) Include in every recommendation or report on
proposals for legislation and other major Federal
actions significantly affecting the quality of
the human environment, a detailed statement by
the responsible official on --

l) The environmental impact of the proposed
action,

2) Any adverse environmental effects which
cannot be avoided should the proposal be
implemented,

3) Alternatives to the proposed action,

4) The relationship between short-term uses
of man's environment and the maintenance
and enhancement Of long-term productivity,
and

5) Any irreversible and irretrievable
commitments of resources which would be
involved in the3pr0posed action should it
be implemented.

 

2Public Law 91-190 —- January 1, 1970.

3Ibid.

124

This Act had no direct impact upon the content of the
Sleeping Bear Dunes bill but it will have an impact upon the
design of the lakeshore area. After the final master plan,
for development and use, has been completed, an impact state-
ment will be prepared according to Section 102(c) of NEPA.

Elements of the master plan will have to be sensitive to
the ecological limits Of the area. According to Section
102(b) of NEPA, "presently unquantified environmental
amenities and values" will have to be given the appropriate
consideration in the decision-making process. The environ-
mental impact statement will have to consider "any adverse
environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the
prOposal be implemented." All new roads, parking areas,
visitor facilities and other improvements will have to be
assessed as to their impact on the surrounding landscape.

The Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, being a
Federal project, will now have to be developed and adminis—
tered under the auspices of NEPA. The final draft of the
EIS will then be the subject of a public hearing, enabling
the public to respond to planning decisions made by the

National Park Service.

CHAPTER VIII

INPUT FROM CONSERVATION
ORGANIZATIONS

Introduction

In Chapter VI the history of the Sleeping Bear Dunes
legislation was summarized, identifying proponents and
opponents of the Federalization of the area at each committee
hearing. Many institutions and individuals participated by
either giving testimony at the hearings or through correspon-
dence in the form of resolutions or letters.

Throughout the legislative history of the Sleeping Bear
Dunes bills, active participation in the planning or drafting
Of each bill came from three main bodies of thought, conser-
vation organizations within Michigan, a variety of institu-
tions within Leelanau and Benzie Counties and from the
National Park Service.

Throughout the planning process of the Sleeping Bear
legislation it is difficult to determine who was responsible
for each change in the design of a bill and that is not the
objective of this paper. During the course of almost ten
years of committee hearings, key participants can be identi-
fied. When the values of each participating institution are

identified, similarities between some institutions become
125

126

obvious. When these institutions having similar values and
objectives apply pressure toward a given end and this pres-
sure ultimately produces a change, this group of institutions
can be identified as being primarily responsible.

The following chapters will identify key institutions
within these groups and how the values and purposes of these
groups influenced the position they advocated during the

legislative process.

Input from Conservation Organizations

Conservation organizations were by far the most active
group of institutions, with statewide recognition, that
participated in the legislative process. Other statewide
institutions such as the Michigan TOurist Council, the
American Society of Landscape Architects and the Forestry and
Park Association supported legislative proposals throughout
the ten years of debate through letters, resolutions, or tele-
grams, but took no active part in Congressional hearings.

The Michigan Botanical Club was the first organization
to identify and attempt to preserve some of the unique
natural features of the Sleeping Bear area. It was founded
in 1941 to promote the understanding, enjoyment and preser-
vation of Michigan plant life and the conservation of natural
resources.

During the early years of the Michigan Botanical Club
the membership sought to identify a needy cause toward which

they could direct their efforts in the area of preservation,

127

education or other causes which would have a lasting effect
and would offer a change from the usual field trips and ‘
outings in which members of the club participated.

The Club learned of the unique beauty of an area near
Sleeping Bear Dunes called the Platte Plains, from a member
who had visited the area in 1926 while making a film on wild-
flowers of the Lake Leelanau, Glen Lake and Sleeping Bear
Dunes area.1 The Platte Plains is an area near the mouth of
the Platte River which tells the history of plant succession
over thousands Of years as one walks from the shore inland
over successive dunes and troughs, each containing plant life
more advanced than the past dune and trough.

The Botanical Club appointed a committee, called the
Natural Areas Committee (which later grew into an independent
organization -- the Michigan Natural Areas Council), to make
further studies of this area and to make recommendations for
its protection. The Committee tried to get the State to
include the Platte Plains into Benzie State Park but was
unsuccessful.

When Sleeping Bear Dunes legislation was introduced, the
Michigan Botanical Club was fully aware of the significance
of protecting this area and supported the proposals enthusi-

astically. Their support for the lakeshore legislation was

 

lPersonal interview with Genevieve Gillette (on May 6,
1974), who is a landscape architect in Ann Arbor, Michigan
and who has been active in the Michigan Botanical Club, the
Natural Areas Council, Michigan United Conservation Clubs
and the Michigan Park Association.

128

in full agreement with the Objectives of the Club which
encourages "sponsorship of legislation to promote the
preservation of Michigan flora and to establish sanctuaries
and natural areas" and "cooperation in programs concerned
with the wise use and conservation of all natural resources
and scenic features."2

Throughout the legislative history of the lakeshore the
Botanical Club gave full support and supported any compromise
in the legislation which would increase its size. The Club
supported the concept that only through its inclusion into
the National Park System would the area be adequately
preserved.

The Michigan Natural Areas Council, which evolved out of
the Michigan Botanical Club and which is affiliated with the
Nature Conservancy at the national level, supported Sleeping

3 The

Bear Dunes legislation since its introduction in 1961.
Council has as its goal the "preservation of areas of out-
standing scenic beauty or scientific value which are representa-
tive of the full variety of Michigan's natural wealth."4 It

"seeks to locate and evaluate choice natural areas and to

prepare recommendations for their preservation."5

 

2From a pamphlet put out by the Michigan Botanical Club.

3The Natural Areas Council was instrumental in instigating
the Great Lakes Shoreline Study in 1958 and 1959 by recommending
the use of surplus money from the Mellon Fund which helped
finance the shoreline studies on the East, West and Gulf coasts.

4From a pamphlet published by the Michigan Natural Areas
CounCil 0

5Ibid.

129

The Natural Areas Council supported the legislation
along the same lines as the Botanical Club. The Council was
convinced that only the Federal government had the funds and
the ability to acquire and protect over time, the areas
depicted in the bills. They supported a lakeshore of
sufficient size to demonstrate as a unit the natural history
values of the area.

Neither the Michigan Botanical Club nor the Natural Areas
Council offered amendments or criticisms of any of the lake-
shore bills. They were both supportive of the measures which
would preserve the greatest amount of the Sleeping Bear area
and took no part in discussions concerning condemnation of
prOperty, hunting and fishing, or any of the other contro-
versies which delayed the enactment of a lakeshore bill.

An active conservation organization throughout the history
of the legislation was the Michigan United Conservation Clubs
(MUCC). MUCC was formed in 1937:

to further and advance the cause of the environment

and conservation in all its phases, and to per-

petuate and conserve the fish, game, mineral, air,

water, forest and land resources of the state; to

so manage the use of all natural resources that this

generation and posterigy will receive the maximum

benefit from the same.
MUCC also performs an educational function through the
publication of its monthly magazine "Michigan Out—Of—Doors"

which has a readership of approximately 450,000. MUCC is the

state affiliate of the National Wildlife Federation, with a

 

égy-Laws, Michigan United Conservation Clubs, 1972.

130

total membership of about 125,000 members in approximately
350 local clubs.

In its early years, MUCC provided a unified voice of the
sportsmen in the State Capitol. The primary purpose was to
have a citizen pressure group to keep politics out of natural
resource management. Much of the program dealt with fish and
game management, treating other resource management activities
mainly as they related to sporting interests.

Over the years sportsmen began recognizing the total
inter-relationship of fish, game and human needs for environ-
mental quality control, and their awareness was enlarged to
include the total environment.

MUCC sent members to testify at almost all of the
Congressional hearings and supported the bills either in full
or in principle. When the first bill, 5.2153, was introduced
MUCC supported the principle of multiple use, a concept its
members had supported many times concerning State forests and
wildlands,7 and it favored the recreation area concept.

At the hearing on 5.936 in 1965, MUCC supported the bill
in principle and offered amendments:

l) The State should retain the control over hunting
and fishing within the lakeshore area.

2) The local school districts should be reimbursed
to help pay Off bonded indebtedness.

3) A provision to assure the payment by the govern-
ment of fair and equitable prices for condemned
land was needed.

 

7Senate Hearing before the Subcommittee on Public Land
of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 87th
Congress, lst Session on 5.2153, p. 184.

131

At the hearing on H.R.11829 in 1970, MUCC approved the
concept of sustained-yield harvesting of timber within the
lakeshore when and where it was compatible with the project's
primary mission. At the same time they called for ecologically
sound planning and were dismayed at the proposed airstrip and
minibus camper transporter system on North Manitou Island.

MUCC supported a sixty thousand acre lakeshore, thirty thousand
acres less than the Interior Department recommended in 1961
because that area was now "developed and no longer suitable

for a National Park Service unit."8

According to Stuart Myers, past president of MUCC, the
Michigan Parks Association, the Sierra Club and MUCC were the
lay groups who kept the Sleeping Bear Dunes legislation alive
over the years and who caused it to move. Congressman James
G. O'Hara of Michigan stated in 1970 that MUCC was the
motivating force enabling the lakeshore proposal to remain
active over the period of years that assaults had been made
against it.9

MUCC advocates managed use, they have a conservationist
attitude, not preservationist, and credit their success to
"recognition of the possible."10

During the early 19503 a group Of people within MUCC

became aware of the inadequacies in the State Park System.

 

8House Hearings on H.R.11829 and related bills, 1970,
p. 276.

9lbid., p. 278.

10Personal interview with Stuart Myers on May 7, 1974,
Past president of MUCC.

132

MUCC formed a parks committee to make a study of the
conditions of the State parks and work toward improving them.
Their survey identified the Michigan State parks as being
inadequate to accommodate the number Of visitors who wished to
use them and that facilities were in poor condition or lacking.
They discovered that one-third of the visitors were from out
of state. Through correspondence with Congressmen from other
states it became evident that state parks throughout the
country were in bad shape. The Michigan legislature couldn't
provide funding to upgrade the parks to meet the needs of
Michigan residents, and one-third of the park users were from
other states. It was a national problem.

This group within MUCC recommended the creation of an
organization whose sole purpose would be to promote parks at
every level. A group which would educate legislators concern-
ing the condition of the parks for fear that when the legis-
lature did get its money, it wouldn't know about the park
problems. In 1959 the Michigan Parks Association was formed
"to promote in Michigan in every possible way the acquisition
and develOpment of parks which are fully adequate to meet the
needs of the people, both present and future."11

The Michigan Parks Association went to their Congressmen
with extensive data concerning many aspects of State parks in
Michigan. They explained to them that Michigan could not solve
its own problems and were there any Federal funds available,

such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund?

 

11Pamphlet published by the Michigan Parks Association.

133

The point is that, for years before the first Sleeping
Bear Dunes proposal, MUCC and the Michigan Parks Association
had been gathering state park data. When Opponents of the
Dunes bill argued that Michigan had more public land per
capita than any other Great Lakes state and that there was
already too much government control over land, the Parks
Association had the data to prove them wrong.

The Parks Association was active in the early stages of
the legislation and offered amendments to the bills. Aside
from supporting the bills the Association believed that
established commercial activities within the lakeshore should
be allowed to remain if the use was permitted by the Secretary.

The Association suggested the inclusion of a section of
the Cape Cod Act which spelled out certain restrictions on
the manner in which the lakeshore should be develOped. They
asked that improved properties surrounding the inland lake-
shores be excluded from the areas that the Secretary may con-
demn to provide access for the public. In 1963 the Parks
Association called for a 92,000 acre lakeshore as suggested
by the Secretary of the Interior. They favored the
inclusion of North Manitou Island into the lakeshore but
objected to it substituting for acreage on the mainland. A
two thousand acre area Of Sugarloaf Mountain was included in
their requests.

Around 1965 the participation of the Parks Association

began to diminish. They had more or less opened the doors for

134

the Sleeping Bear preposals but the frustrations of
legislative delays dampened their enthusiasm.

At the same time, a new voice for conservation was
growing in Michigan which would continue the fight where the
Parks Association had left Off. In 1967 the Mackinac Chapter
of the Sierra Club was established in Michigan:

to explore, enjoy, and preserve the Sierra Nevada

and other scenic resources of the United States and

its forests, waters, wildlife, and wilderness; to

undertake and to publish scientific, literary, and
educational studies concerning them; to educate the
people with regard to the national and state forests,
parks, monuments, and other natural resources of
especial scenic beauty and to enlisfzpublic interest
and cooperation in protecting them.

Up to that time, Sierra Club members in Michigan had
supported the Dunes legislation but now they had a formal
organization through which to voice their support. With
establishment of the chapter, a Sleeping Bear Dunes National
Lakeshore Task Force was formed and the Dunes legislation
became a priority conservation effort for the Mackinac
Chapter.

The Sierra Club urged the strong protection of scenic
beauty within the lakeshore and supported Representative
vander Jagt's first "Dunes" bill, H.R.12230, which put more
emphasis on the preservation of the natural setting than
earlier bills. They credit themselves with persuading

Representative O'Hara and other Congressmen from Michigan,

and Senators Hart and Griffin to support the same bill. They

 

12Sierra Club, "Bylaws."

135

also encouraged public hearings on the develOpment plan. The
Club strongly recommended that the lakeshore area be reviewed
for areas of possible wilderness designation and called for
public hearings concerning such areas.

An organization whose support for the Dunes legislation
was similar to the Sierra Club's was the Izaak Walton League
of America. The League is one of the Oldest active conser-
vation groups in the United States and is "dedicated to the
wise and prOper management and use of America's natural
resources, and to Optimum realization Of the outdoor recrea-
tion Opportunities which those resources provide."13

The Izaak Walton League enthusiastically supported a
national lakeshore in the Sleeping Bear Dunes area and
supported the principles and purposes Of the early bills.
They were concerned that 5.792, an intermediate bill, went
too far in protecting the interests of local property owners
that the national interest was not fully recognized and pro-
tected. The League said that no national lakeshore should
have as a major purpose protecting private properties for the
enjoyment of the owners. They asked that the Secretary con-
trol the hunting and fishing within the lakeshore boundaries
under established Michigan law. They questioned the designa-
tion of inland lakeshore residential areas because they dis-
criminated in favor of the owner of undeveloped prOperty in

that, it was still marketable and a structure could have been

 

l3Senate Hearings on 5.792, 1963, p. 317.

136

built on it while other undeveloped prOperty could only be
purchased by the Park Service. Along with other conservation
groups they urged the study of the Manitou Islands for
possible wilderness designation.

One of the latest entries into the legislative debate
over Dunes legislation was the West Michigan Environmental
Action Council, Inc. The Action Council was formed in 1970:

to receive, administer and expend funds exclusively

for the promotion of social welfare in West Michigan

and elsewhere by assisting and coordinating the

efforts of individuals and organizations to protect

and restore the quality of the environment and to

take whatever appropriate action is deemed necessaryé

or desirable in order to accomplish this Objective.

The Action Council participates primarily in
legislative matters including the Michigan Natural Rivers Act,
Michigan Environmental Protection Act and other similar
measures at the state and Federal level.

The Action Council favored a lakeshore in the Dunes area
and supported House bills 11839 and 12230 which were very
similar to H.R.18776 which was enacted. All of these bills
provided greater protection for the natural setting than did
others. They were still apprehensive over the possibility
that the lakeshore would be overdevelOped and urged the

incorporation of provisions to protect the wilderness areas

and uniqueness of the park.

 

-14

West Michigan Environmental Action Council, Inc.,
"Articles of Incorporation."

137

The Impact of Recommendations
Made by Conservation Organizations

As a group, the conservation organizations discussed
above were very successful in influencing the design of the
Sleeping Bear Dunes legislation. Some of the groups offered
specific recommendations concerning the bills and others
simply gave their full support and left the more active role
to others.

The single most significant concept which these
institutions as a whole were able to inject into the final
bills was the development philOSOphy for the lakeshore. Each
organization urged ecologically sound planning and the strong
protection of scenic beauty. In the Act this provision was
made when it states that the Secretary shall administer and
protect the lakeshore "in a manner which provides for
recreational Opportunities consistent with the maximum pro-
tection of the natural environment within the area."15

The size of the proposed lakeshore varied throughout its
history. The initial proposal called for 77,000 acres and

then it went to a low of 37,000 acres, then back and forth

I'm-“MM

between 47,600 and 66,000 acres. Each of the proposals

provided for lakeshores of differing size and ultimately
these would change when the Committee report was issued.
Much of the areas which some conservation groups favored,

such as the inland lake areas, were ultimately excluded due

 

15Public Law 91-479.

 

138

to extensive development. Sugar Loaf Mountain was taken out
because of the added acreage necessary for the parkway.1
North Manitou Island was taken in and out and ultimately
included within the boundaries. The Act provides for a lake-
shore of 71,168 acres of land and water. The total land area
of 60,748 comprises:

40,959 acres in three closely associated mainland units;

5,332 acres South Manitou Island; and

14,457 acres North Manitou Island.

The conservation groups were able to keep the lakeshore
at a significant size to protect the area but North Manitou \)
did end up substituting for acreage on the mainland.

Commercial property which was in existence on December
31, 1964 is allowed to remain so long as its use is compati-
ble with the purposes of the lakeshore. The only bill which
excluded commercial activity was 5.2153, the first Dunes
proposal. The conservation groups realized the need for con-
tinued property tax revenue within the area until the lakeshore
could be in full Operation, and knew that in time these
activities would eventually come into Park Service control
through sales or due to the death of the owner.

Hunting and fishing had been included in all lakeshore
proposals but the controversy centered around jurisdiction
over the lakeshore area. The Act reads that the Secretary

shall administer hunting and fishing within the lakeshore in

 

16

House Hearings, 22. cit., p. 281.

139

accordance with the laws of Michigan and shall consult with
the appropriate agency of the State of Michigan concerning
management of fish and wildlife. The conservation groups
succeeded in giving most of the authority to the Secretary of
the Interior who at times shall consult with the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources.

Only one Dunes proposal provided for direct Federal
payments to affected school districts and that was
Representative Griffin's H.R.2400. When Governor Milliken
gave his support to the Dunes legislation he promised the
State of Michigan would provide relief for the school districts.
Two bills are now pending in the State legislature, House Bill
4413 and Senate Bill 330. These identical bills provide for
the conveyance of state-owned lands within the lakeshore to
the Park Service and also provide for payments to school
districts over a ten-year period to compensate for lost
prOperty tax revenue.

Inland lakeshore residential areas which were contained
in the second Dunes proposal, 5.3528, were subsequently
deleted. The high degree of develOpment around these inland
lakes required a different set of regulations which then dis-
criminated against other property owners within the lakeshore
boundaries. All references to inland lakeshore residential
areas were amended from the bills and ultimately these areas
were excluded from the lakeshore.

The conservation groups were successful in incorporating

the provision for wilderness review in the legislation. This

140

was an important element because accOrding to the Wilderness
Act, only areas which were under Federal ownership at the
time the Wilderness Act was passed, are eligible for review.

The concept of multiple-use along with the practice of
sustained-yield harvesting of forest products is incorporated
in the philosophy of the lakeshore develOpment. It is too
early to determine precisely what form the develOpment Of the
lakeshore will take but the Park Service will hold hearings
on the areas designated for wilderness status and on the
environmental impact statement for the lakeshore. Specific
objections to the airstrip and the minibus transport system
on North Manitou have not been settled as yet.

As a whole, the conservation interests were very
successful in implementing their concepts and suggestions
into the final Dunes Act. Only after the lakeshore has been
fully developed, according to a master plan, will the total
effect of the pressures and suggestions of the conservation

groups be realized.

CHAPTER IX

INPUT FROM LEELANAU AND
BENZIE COUNTIES

Introduction

During the early years of the proposals to create a
national lakeshore in the Sleeping Bear Dunes region, there
was considerable Opposition to the concept throughout
Michigan. Most of the Opposition concerned the principle
of condemnation of improved property, much of which had been
in the same families since the region was first settled. The
thought Of the Federal government "uprooting" long-time
residents to create a recreational area embittered pe0ple
throughout Michigan and the Midwest. The strongest opposition
was from Leelanau and Benzie Counties, for these were the
people who would be directly affected.

When the first proposal, 5.2153, was introduced, groups
within Leelanau and Benzie Counties who favored the bill were
few and far between. Individuals who favored the bill, did
not always make the fact known to other residents for fear of

economic reprisals.1 This might have come in the form of

 

1House Hearings before the Subcommittee on National Parks
and Recreation, 89th Congress, lst Session, on 5.936, p. 87.

1111

142

boycotts against businesses whose owner supported the
lakeshore concept.

There were groups formed in this region as a direct
result of the lakeshore proposals. Most organizations had
been in existence beforehand. Most of them participated in
the public hearings one way or the other.

This chapter will discuss the involvement of eight
organizations within the Dunes region. This group of eight
organizations includes the one which most actively supported
the prOposals and the two which most actively opposed them.
These eight institutions display a good cross sectional view
of the values and sentiments of the people in Leelanau and

Benzie Counties during the controversy.

Input from Local Groups

One of the first people to come out in support of the
Park Service prOposals was John Peterson, who at that time
owned, edited and published the "Benzie County Patriot."
John Peterson had lived in the region for fifty-two years and
had seen the area go from wilderness to near honky-tonk
character.2

About two weeks after the park proposal was announced,
Allen Edmunds, Assistant Regional Director for Resource

Planning for the Park Service, stopped into Peterson's office

 

2Personal interview with John Peterson on May 9, 1974,
Frankfort, Michigan.

143

to do a sales pitch on him. Peterson realized the
significance the lakeshore would have on the region, as far
as preserving its "small community character,P and began to
speak out in favor of it. Peterson doesn't know of any other
newspaper which supported the concept from the start.

Up until World War II, Peterson said there were no signs
of habitation for miles. After the war people became more
mobile and more vacationers frequented the region. Many of
these people eventually moved to the area. According to
Peterson, the philosophy of the new residents was that "I
should be the last to move in" and that "I'll preserve the
character of my land but the next guy won't." .

He saw the lakeshore as the best means of preserving the
area and as providing the most good for the greatest number
of peOple. He believed the lakeshore would be economically
beneficial to the area and would be compatible with the
existing resort develOpment.

Peterson owned unimproved property within the proposed
taking area, some of this fronting on Lake Michigan. He said
his family would "deeply regret seeing this property sold,"
however he had faith he would be "fairly paid for (his)
holdings" and would know that future generations would have
the use of his prime recreation land.3

Peterson testified at the Senate hearings in Washington

but primarily voiced his Opinion through his newspaper.

 

3Senate Hearings before the Subcommittee on Public Lands,
88th Congress, lst Session on 5.792, p. 153.

144

A group which supported the lakeshore from the start

was the Frankfort Chamber of Commerce. The purpose of the

4

Chamber of Commerce is "to promote business in Frankfort."

The decision for the Chamber of Commerce to actively
participate in the promotion of the lakeshore was arrived at
in consideration of the following points:5

1) The area was bound to change due to pressures
from an increasing population, and to control
the change to the best interest of local
residents required Federal protection.

2) State and local government agencies could not
have shouldered the financial burden of
permanently protecting the area.

3) The need for setting aside additional recreation
areas is a well-known fact and large groups who
become frustrated in their attempts to enjoy the
pleasures of our area could vent their frustrations
in many costly forms, thus directly affecting the
merchants.

4) A government-controlled recreation area in a
region such as Leelanau and Benzie Counties does
not stymie, but stimulate private enterprise.

5) The economic improvement, and the attempt to
control the change that must occur, along with
natural preservation, are obvious advantages
to local residents.

Frankfort is about four miles south of the lakeshore

boundary and was never included within the boundary of any
legislative proposal. The Chamber of Commerce saw their job

was to neutralize the opposition and to educate local resi-

dents. They put on a dinner for Senator Hart to bring him

 

Personal interview with Don Wickham on May 9, 1974,
Frankfort. President of the Frankfort Chamber of Commerce.

5Hearings on 5.936, 22. cit., p. 97.

145

to the area, show some local support, and Offer a forum for
answering questions.

The Chamber Of Commerce recognized what the landboom in
northern Michigan was doing to the character of the region
and modified their view away from recreation and toward
preservation. TO expand their role in advocating the national
lakeshore the Chamber of Commerce along with local Democratic
and Republican committees formed the Save-the-Sleeping-Bear-
Dunes Committee.

The Save-the-Sleeping-Bear-Dunes Committee was
primarily made up Of members from the Frankfort and Beulah
areas. The Committee sent representatives to the Congressional
hearings and encouraged local Congressmen to support the bills.

The Committee was the most active proponent of the
lakeshore in the Benzie-Leelanau area and channeled most of
its efforts into education of the public. Their program of
"education and people involvement"6 was successtl in that a
public opinion poll in 1969, in the 9th Congressional District
(the Dunes region) showed sixty-two percent Of twenty-one
thousand respondents as favoring the establishment of the
lakeshore.

Their greatest success was in persuading Congressman
Vander Jagt to support the proposal. Representative Guy

Vander Jagt had Opposed the lakeshore as a State Senator. In

 

-6H0use Hearings before the Subcommittee on National Parks
and Recreation, 9lst Congress, 2nd Session on H.R.11829 and
related bills, p. 292.

146

1965, in a rally opposing the Dunes bill, then State Senator
vander Jagt labeled 8.936 (the current bill) as a challenge
to the constitutional rights of citizens of the United States
and stated it lacked respect for justice and for the law.7 A
few years later, and as a United States Congressman, growing
pressures in support of the lakeshore forced him to take the
Opinion poll mentioned above. As a result of a majority
favoring the lakeshore, Vander Jagt decided to ”bite the
bullet" and draft his own bill.8 His bill H.R.12230
emphasized ecological planning and de-emphasized recreation.
It also gave greater assurance to owners of unimproved
property. Since he introduced his Dunes bill, Vander Jagt's
voting record on conservation has been very good.9
The members of the Save-the-Dunes Committee realized the
value of their region and looked upon the national lakeshore
as a means for preserving its character while controlling
develOpment. They viewed the lakeshore as primarily a tool
for preservation and considered its recreational opportunities

as incidental.10

 

71bid., pp. 217, 218.

8Personal interview with Eric Leudke on May 9, 1974,
owner of Leudke Engineering Company of Frankfort, and Vander
Jagt's campaign manager.

9lbid.

loPersonal interview with Roger Johnson on May 9, 1974,
in Frankfort, who is a member of the Chamber of Commerce,
Save-the-Sleeping-Bear-Dunes Committee, and is a supervisor
for Crystal Lake Township.

14?

Opposition to the Dunes legislation was intense, and of
these groups very few changed their stand. Generally, the
groups which opposed the first bill were Opposed to the final
bill.

Some groups who opposed the lakeshore made constructive
criticisms of the bills, perhaps to indicate the form which a
bill should take if they were to support it. Other groups
simply Opposed the bills, offering no suggestions, just
reasons for discontinuing efforts toward establishing the
lakeshore.

The Glen Arbor WOmen's Club Opposed all Dunes proposals.
The object of the Women's Club is "a pure motive to worthy,
and charitable purposes; the promotion of goodwill in the
community; the recognition of civic responsibility."1;'

The Women's Club Opposed the legislation for the
following reasons:

1) It would require the acquisition of over fifteen
hundred privately owned homes, resorts, farms, and
business establishments. (When the bill was
amended to include only two hundred private homes,
farms, cottages, etc., they still opposed it on

this basis.)

2) The project was contrary to the expressed wishes
of the pe0ple in the area.

3) NO urgent public necessity required the inclusion
of privately owned and developed land.

4) Nothing was gained by turning over productive
develOped prOperty to the use of casual visitors

 

-llGlen Arbor Women's Club, "Bylaws."

12Senate Hearings on 5.792, 22. cit., p. 268.

148

for ten weeks out of the year, while destroying
its use and enjoyment by year-round residents
and private owners for the rest Of their lives.'

5) The economy of the entire area prOposed by the
Park Service had worsened and would have been
adversely affected by the passage of the bill.

6) Eighteen percent Of Michigan is already in public
ownership, including five national and twenty-three
state forests.

7) Twenty-one thousand acres of the finest lands and
waters in the proposed area were already owned by
the State.

8) The type of legislation embodied in the bills
would Open the way for further takeover of
private lands throughout the State and Nation
with full constitutional protection.

9) The removal Of so much valuable land from private
ownership would result in crippling property tax
losses to two large consolidated school districts
as well as to governmental functions Of the two
counties.

10) At issue was the future of individual rights to
hold land and other property against arbitrary
control or seizure by Government.

Glen Arbor is surrounded on three sides by the national
lakeshore and on one side by Lake Michigan.

Mrs. Jack Rader, past president of the Women's Club,
said that they were primarily concerned that the Park Service
would acquire almost all of their township, leaving just a
narrow strip between Glen Lake and Lake Michigan. She said
she could see no reason for such a large lakeshore because
visitors just came to see the Sleeping Bear Dune and then
left, that the Dune was the only attraction Of the area.

The object of the Glen Arbor Women's Club states the

Object to be "a pure motive to worthy and charitable

purposes." In Opposing the lakeshore, the "worthy and

149

charitable purposes" were in advocating the will of the
community Of Glen Arbor, in contrast possibly to the wishes
of the people of the United States who might visit the area.
Supporting the view Of the Glen Arbor residents was their
Option, an option which the Frankfort Chamber of Commerce
apparently elected to dismiss. The Frankfort Chamber of
Commerce may have had the wishes of the local residents at
heart and thought federalization Of the region best, or
possibly they were looking for the "economic carrot" as some
suggested.13

The same can be said of the Women's Club's responsibility
to "the promotion of goodwill in the community" and "the
recognition of civic responsibility." The fact that they
opposed the lakeshore confirms their desire to promote good~
will in the community, in the light of the boycotts against
businessmen in Frankfort who supported the park proposals.
As far as civic responsibility goes, taking the word "civic"
as it relates to the city or community, yes it was their
civic responsibility to Oppose the lakeshore. ”Civic" as
related to citizen, in that we are all United States citizens,
no, they did not recognize their civic responsibility to
encourage the establishment Of a recreation area for our
growing population.

0f the schools that Opposed the lakeshore, the Glen Lake

Community Schools were the most vocal. The Glen Lake School

 

1’Senate Hearings before the Subcommittee on Parks and
Recreation, 9lst Congress, 2nd Session on 5.1023 and H.R.18776,

p. 87.

150

District takes in the southwestern half of Leelanau County.
The Board of Education has developed and operated the schools
under the philOSOphy that:

government by the people is a manner of living best
suited to developing inherent worth and work of the
individual personality; that desirable democratic
ideals and behavior should be implanted by practice;
that each individual should be guaranteed certain
inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness.

The Glen Lake Schools Opposed the lakeshore proposals
15

for the following reasons:

1) The school district would suffer a great loss in
revenue by being deprived of a majority of the
schools' assessed prOperty valuation.

2) School population would not decrease proportional
to the loss of property valuation.

3) The school district is bonded over a twenty-year
period thus creating an excessive tax burden on
the remaining district.

4) Federal funds to subsidize the loss in revenue
were not in the best interest of a sound
educational program.

5) With the exception of State-owned lands, the land
to be acquired was mostly improved property.

6) Adequate facilities and prOperty for a suitable
recreation area already existed.

7) Sales tax funds collected from any increased
business would be distributed over the entire
State, with no direct benefit to the school
district.

8) Any change in the prOperty valuation and loss in
revenue would have a direct effect upon the
educational program.

 

l[‘Senate Hearings on 5.792, 22. cit., p. 259, statement

by Ellsworth Faulman, president, Glen Lake Community Schools
Board of Education.

lsSenate Hearings on 3.2153, 22. cit., pp. 63, 64.

151

9) The proposed Federal lakeshore created a negative

voting attitude in the taxpayer.

The Glen Lake Schools offered one amendment, to include
a provision for payment in lieu of taxes to school districts
over a twenty-year period.

The Glen Lakes Schools were motivated to vigorously
oppose this legislation for the obvious reason that they would
definitely lose some money if the State or Federal government
did not provide payments in lieu of taxes. The amount they
might lose would depend on how much land the Secretary would
acquire for public use and development and on how many people
voluntarily sold land in Categories II and III to the
Secretary. The school district obviously felt the need to
Oppose any loss in funding because they saw this loss as a
threat to their educational philosophy of "develop(ing) each
child to his (or her) full potentiality."16

Various woman's groups in the Dunes area participated in
the public hearings. The Empire WOman's Club was one of these.
The village of Empire is located about one-quarter of a mile
north of the northern border of the Platte Bay segment of the
lakeshore, and over one mile south of the southern border of
Glen Arbor Area segment. The Lake Michigan shoreline due west
from Empire was not affected in any of the Dunes proposals.

The proposed scenic parkway is approximately three miles east

of Empire.

 

16Article by J.C. Greenan, superintendent, Glen Lake
Community School District.

152

The Empire Woman's Club was formed in 1915 with the
purpose "to forward social, civic and intellectual develOp-
ment; to advance practical educational work, (and) to foster
club life in the county.".17 Most of their work has been in
community improvements; projects such as park improvement and
bus shelters for school children.

The Woman's Club opposed the bills for these reasons:1

I) The bill was contrary to the will of the people.

2) The economy of the area was based on the
construction of new homes and the July 1, 1961
cutoff date had affected businesses.

3) Passage of the bills would eventually remove
all permanent residences from the area.

4) Ninetyefive hundred acres in the taking area
were already protected by State, county, and
township ownership.

5) The area had been highly develOped by private
enterprises for the past one hundred years for
resort, residential, and commercial use.

6) The State is fully capable under the Conservation
Fund Act, of expanding and improving existing
parks to meet the needs of future generations.

7) The removal of substantial parts of land from
the tax rolls would create a serious loss in
tax revenues to the school districts.

8) The sound economy and established tourist
industry had been damaged by the threat of
nationalization of the area with subsequent
destruction of prOperty values.

9) The Federal government would be guilty Of gross
encroachment of private property rights.

l7Empire WOman's Club, "Bylaws."

18Senate Hearings on 5.792, 32. cit., p. 333.

153

The Woman's Club opposed the Dunes bills because they
saw the lakeshore as a threat to the "civic . . . develop-
ment" of Empire. In that the lakeshore may have produced a
change in Empire which was inconsistent with their concept of
development, the Woman's Club was justified in their
Opposition.

By far the most vocal opposition to any Dunes bill came
from two groups: the Citizens' Council of Sleeping Bear
Dunes and the Platte Lakes Area Association. These two groups
coordinated their efforts in opposing the lakeshore through
every public hearing, and employed one lawyer to work for
both groups.

The Platte Lakes Area Association was organized in 1961
"to promote and protect, the interests of people in the Platte,

l9

Lakes area." Approximately 450 families were members of the
Association.

In the first two proposals, both of the Platte Lakes were
completely surrounded by the lakeshore. Senate bill 936 and
subsequent bills had removed the lakes from the proposed lake-
shore thus removing the majority Of the structures.

The Citizens' Council of Sleeping Bear Dunes Area, Inc.
was organized during the first signs of a lakeshore proposal.

The Council represented over six hundred families in the

Platte Lakes, Glen and Little Traverse Lakes and Good Harbor

 

l9House Hearings on H.R.11829 and others, gp. cit.,
p. 218.

154

regions. The following statement of policy was adopted as
the policy of the corporation:

We oppose the imposition of a federal recreation

park on this area and will resist it with all the

political and legal means available to us at

local, state and congressional legiséative levels,

and in our state and federal courts.

The first two prOposals provided for a lakeshore which
surrounded the Platte Lakes, Glen and Little Traverse Lake,
and most of Good Harbor Bay.

As in the case of the Platte Lakes, 5.936 and subsequent
bills had Glen Lake and Little Traverse Lake amended from
them 0

The arguments against the lakeshore legislation for both
the Platte Lakes Association and the Citizens' Council will
be combined due to their similarity and the COOperation
between these two organizations. These two groups Opposed
the lakeshore proposals for the following reasons:21

1) Michigan had adequate lands in public ownership.

More than half of the thirty-six northern
counties were in State and Federal ownership.

2) The long-range program of park development

planned by the State was a better financial
investment and home ownership, businesses and
farming were allowed to continue without
restriction.

3) Their chief concern was that human rights be

protected while the tourist and agricultural
industries continued a healthy growth.

 

20Citizens' Council of Sleeping Bear Dunes Area, Inc.,
S tatement of Incorporation .

21Senate and House Hearings on 5.2153 et. a1.

4)

S)

6)

7)

8)

9)

10)

11)

12)

13)

14)

15)

16)

155

A good education was more important than a
federalized play area. The park proposal would
remove valuable lands from the tax rolls and

'severely hamper the school systems.

The power of eminent domain was inalienable and
no legislative body could bind itself not to
exercise that power.

Property owners had no guarantee that they would
receive fair compensation for their property, if
and when they decided to sell.

When less than ten percent of the population of
Benzie and Leelanau Counties were within the
taking area, the bills required a minority of
residents to secure the consent to zoning laws
of all the people in the county.

The Secretary could amend the zoning bylaws at
any time.

There was no provision for hardship cases where
peOple might have been forced to sell.

There was nothing permitting existing commercial
use during the life of the owner.

The planners of the Federal park presented no
reason why local and national public interest
was not and could not continue to adequately
serve the growing public park and forest system
of the State.

As owners of inholdings, all residents would
continue to live under the cloud of knowledge
that the Park Service would eventually eliminate
all inholdings.

The designation of inland lakeshore residential
areas would discriminate against owners of
property not in those areas.

The July 1, 1961 cutoff date amounted to
retroactive legislation.

A national lakeshore open only during summer
months would have intensified the highly
seasonable economic atmosphere.

The bills infringed improperly on the rights of
private citizens.

17)

18)

19)

20)

21)

22)

23)

24)

25)

26)

27)

156

Outdoor recreation areas were most urgently
needed near metropolitan areas.

With the inland lakes protected under township
zoning and the dunes and related areas pro-
tected under public ownership, there was no
justification for Federal involvement.

There was no justificafiion for taking over
sixteen hundred homes. Q

There was a marked change from the original
proposal to preserve the area, to developing
a national recreation area.

The predicted influx of three million people
would create sanitation and pollution problems.

The Scenic Parkway would seriously damage the
forested moraine watershed.

Recreation on the proposed scale was not
compatible with conservation.

While the emphasis on develOpment had changed
from preservation to recreation, which would
have destroyed the area, protection was already
assured through the existing zoning laws.

The State owned twenty-one thousand acres and
seventeen miles of Lake Michigan shoreline in
the taking area.

There would be a sharp increase in crime in
the area.

Local support was not concerned with
preservation, just the "economic carrot."

During the congressional hearings the Platte Lakes

Association and the Citizens' Council proposed the following

amendments, should a bill pass:

1)

-22

Just compensation must be paid to every owner
for any taking, in whole or in part, and no
matter how limited.

The Citizens' Council stated this as probably the

greatest direct cause for the violent Opposition to 5.2153
and 5.792.

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

8)

9)

10)

157

The Secretary's power to condemn should be
eliminated from the bill.

If any property, improved or unimproved, was
not acquired by the Secretary on or before

the expiration of two years from the effective
date of enactment, the Secretary could not
acquire such property without the consent of
the owner.

The $17,625,000 for acquisition was not
realistic; a more logical figure for
acquisition and develOpment would be $75 to
390 million.

North Manitou Island should be a wilderness
type area where only back packers and horse-
back trails are allowed -- no motorized
vehicles.

North Manitou should be purchased or leased
by the State.

South Manitou Island should be maintained in
its present status with a mixture of private
and state holdings.

The State should attempt to buy, on the open
market, another mile of frontage on Good
Harbor Bay, make some additions to D.H. Day
and Benzie State Parks, and solidify its
holdings in the Platte Lake area from time to
time as land becomes available.

In lieu of the scenic parkway, the County Road
Commission should develop a series of winding

woodland trails suitable for hikers, horseback
riders, and snowmobiles.

Local zoning ordinances should be kept tight,.
and exceptions made only where develOpment is
compatible with the surrounding countryside.

Both the Citizens' Council and the Platte Lakes

Association stuck to their purpose throughout the legislative

battle.

The Platte Lakes group truly fought to protect the

.interests of its members through opposing the Dunes bills.

'Through the reading of congressional transcripts and through

158

personal interviews in Leelanau and Benzie Counties, it can
be said that a good many residents also owned some or a great
deal of unimproved property within the taking area. The
Platte Lakes group, and others, saw the lakeshore proposals
as a threat to their Option of develOping the land in the
"surrounding countryside."

The Citizens' Council carried through with its intended
purpose of opposing the lakeshore concept with all legal
means, which in 1972 included an attempt at seeking an
injunction restraining the Secretary and the National Park
Service from carrying out the provisions of Public Law

3

91-479.2 The Leelanau County Court found the statute

establishing the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore

24

"constitutional on its face and as a clear matter of law."

The Impact of Local Pressure
Upon the Lakeshore Legislation
The reduction in size of the lakeshore, and thus the
reduction in the number of improved properties within the
taking area, was the most significant accomplishment of the

local opposition.25 The acreage on the mainland was reduced

 

23Personal interview with Anne Fisher on May 11, 1974 in
Glen Arbor.

2l‘Leelanau County Courthouse, Opinion from the Bench,
Jmle 19 ’ 19720

‘25Anne Fisher, one of the plaintiffs in the attempted
court injunction, credits the Citizens' Council with reducing
the size of the lakeshore.

159

from 71,700 acres in 5.2153 to 40,959 acres in H.R.18776, and

the number of homes and summer cottages was reduced from 1600

to fewer than 350.26

The only legislative preposal that provided for payments,
in lieu of taxes, to local school districts was Griffin's bill
H.R.2400. However, two bills are pending in the State
legislature, which will provide payments to affected school
districts for a period not to exceed ten years.

The cutoff date for designating improved property was
changed from July 1, 1961 to December 31, 1964, and in regard
to the legality of this, the Department of the Interior said
the following:

In 1965 there were approximately 266 residential
properties within the proposed lakeshore area. In
1967 there were 280. However, in the approximately
two-year period from January 1967 to December 1968,
the figure jumped to 397. At the present time there
are 420, for a fifty-eight percent increase over the
December 31, 1964 level. We believe those persons
who constructed residences after December 31, 1964,
did so with adequate notice of the reasonable
expectancy that Congress would act to preserve the
area and authorize the acquisition of land for the
lakeshore.

The establishment Of a 'cutoff date' before the
enactment of the authorizing legislation is not
'retroactive.‘ Rather it is a means of defining
those persons whom Congress wishes to recognize
have a long-term attachment to their lands, as dis-
tinguished from those who, for example, may have
developed their property for speculative reasons.
The Congress has adopted similar definitions of
improved prOperty, with a 'cutoff date,‘ in nine

 

26Since the introduction of H.R.12230 on June 17, 1969,
the number of homes and cottages had increased from less
than 350 to 420 on September 9, 1970.

160

other laws authorizing areas of the National Park

System, Egginning with Cape Cod National Seashore

in 1961. .

Concerning the controversy surrounding the ability of
residents, who may experience hardship through continued
ownership of their land within the lakeshore, to sell their
property to the Government; the Act provides that upon
notification of the Secretary, such property shall be
purchased within one year, subject to the availability of
funds.

The difficulty of providing county zoning was
eliminated through the use Of township zoning and in the
absence of this, an owner may notify the Secretary in
writing of his agreement to use his property in a manner
consistent with the purposes of the lakeshore.

The Secretary is prohibited from condemning any
commercial prOperty in existence on December 31, 1964, so
long as, in his opinion, the use thereof would further the
purposes of the Act.

The inland lakeshore residential areas were amended from
the Act because of the amount of development and the special
privileges which these areas would have enjoyed.

In develOping a solution to the dilemma of the
acquisition of property by the Park Service, for developing

the lakeshore, and the private property owners wishing to

 

'27Senate Hearings on 5.1023 and H«Ft-18776: 22°.2l5"
p. 790

1

 

161

know where he stood in regard to possible condemnation,
Representative Vander Jagt and the Park Service developed the

following solution:

. . . the bill provides for three land-use categories
in the Lakeshore. One category, Public Use and
DevelOpment, would consist of lands to be owned out-
right by the Federal Government. The second,
Environmental Conservation, would consist Of some
lands owned outright, but others subject only to
scenic easement provisions, allowing the owners of
this unimproved land the continued right to private
use of the land so long as they complied with the
scenic easement provisions. The land area subject

to this provision has not been specifically defined,
but would occupy roughly twenty-five percent of the
land acreage of the lakeshore. The third category

of land, Private Use and DevelOpment, covers property
which could remain in unincumbered private ownership,
and comprises those lands on which private residences
or businesses spggifically excluded from condemnation
are now located.

The change in emphasis from preservation to recreation, h

which was noted by local groups, was reversed by some measure
in the final bill. The introductory paragraph now states
that the lakeshore shall be administered "in a manner which
provides for recreational Opportunities consistent with the
maximum protection of the natural environment."29 The

degree to which the lakeshore is develOped according to this
statement cannot be ascertained until development has been

well underway.

The Secretary is authorized to pay just compensation,

‘which shall not exceed fair market price, only for lands

 

28

House Hearings on 5.1023 and H.R.18776, 22. cit.,

131.

29Public Law 91-479.

162

which he acquires. Compensation is not provided for use
restrictions, zoning restrictions, scenic easements, etc.

The sum authorized for acquisition was increased to
319.8 million, but not to the recommended $75 to 390 million.

The lakeshore will be studied for areas of possible
wilderness designation, as required in the Act, but specific
locations have not been identified.

Local zoning ordinances will definitely be "kept tight,"
as per the Citizens' Council request, however there will be
no develOpment on the "surrounding countryside," except by
the Park Service.

f” The participating organizations made their greatest
istrides in reducing the size of the lakeshore. Mere pro-
tection was given to owners of improved property, and
commercial activities were allowed to remain. They were able
to affect a partial change away from the past emphasis on
recreational develOpment.

With all of their blatant attacks upon the lakeshore
concept and the National Park Service, they were not able to
prevent the lakeshore from going in. Possibly with the use
of more constructive criticisms and suggestions, a lakeshore
could have been established which would have been more

compatible with their values.

CHAPTER X

INPUT FROM THE
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Background on the Recreation Area
Category of the National Park System

In looking back at the legislative enactments that
have shaped the National Park System, it is clear
that the Congress has included within the growing
System three different categories of areas -~
natural, historical, and recreational.

Natural areas are the oldest category, reaching
back to the establishment of Yellowstone National
Park almost a century ago. A little later
historical areas began to be authorized culminating
in the broad charter for historical preservation
set forth in the Historic Sites Act of 1935. In
recent decades, with exploding population and
diminishing open space, the urgent need for National
Recreation Areas is receiving new emphasis and
attention. (A) single, broad management concept
encompassing these three categories Of areas within
the System is inadequate either for their prOper
preservation or realization of their full potential
for public use as embodied in the expressions of
Congressional policy. Each of these categories
requires a separate management concept and a 1
separate set of management principles . . . .

The purpose of the Natural Area Category of the Park

System is to preserve for all time the superlative examples

of scenic beauty, wilderness, native wildlife, indigenous

plantlife, and areas of scientific significance.

 

1Udall, Stewart L., Memorandum of July 10, 1964,

.Administrative Policies for Recreation Areas of the National
Park System, pp. 64, 65. 163

164

The Historical Area Category includes national historic
sites, historic parks, military parks, memorials, memorial
parks, monuments, and battlefield sites. Historic areas
preserve antiquities, such as ancient Indian ruins and sites
related to national history.

Areas in the Recreation Area Category are areas having
natural endowments well above the ordinary in quality and
recreation appeal and of lesser significance than the unique
scenic and historic elements of the Park System. National
Recreation areas offer a quality of recreational experience
which transcends that normally associated with areas provided
by State and local governments. Names often associated with
areas in the Recreation Area Category are: National Seashore,
National Lakeshore, National Waterway, National Riverway,
National Recreation Demonstration Areas, and similar names
embodying either the physical resource base or the functional
purpose to be served.

In developing legislative prOposals for the Sleeping
Bear Dunes area the Park Service, and Congressmen had to con-
sider the following criteria for the establishment of national
recreation areas. These criteria, developed by the Recreation
Advisory Council in 1963, are mandatory for all recreation
areas.

1) National Recreation Areas should be spacious areas,
including within their perimeter an aggregate gross

 

2Department of the Interior, National Park Service,
.Administrative Policies for Recreation Areas gf the National
Park System, p. 71.

 

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

165

area of not less than twenty thousand acres of
land and water surface, except for riverways,
narrow coastal strips, or areas where total
pOpulation within a 250-mile radius is in excess
Of thirty million people.

National Recreation Areas should be located and
designated to achieve a comparatively high
recreation carrying capacity, in relation to
type of recreation primarily to be served.

National Recreation Areas should provide
recreation opportunities significant enough to
assure interstate patronage within the region of
service, and to a limited extent should attract
patronage from outside of the normal service
region.

The scale of investment, development, and
operational responsibility should be sufficiently
high to require either direct Federal involvement,
or substantial Federal participation to assure
Optimum public benefit.

Although non-urban in character, National
Recreation Areas should nevertheless be
strategically located within easy driving distance,
i.e., not more than 250 miles from urban pOpulation
centers which are to be served. Such areas should
be readily accessible at all times, for all-purpose
recreational use.

Within National Recreation Areas, outdoor
recreation shall be recognized as the dominant or

‘primary resource management purpose. If additional

natural resource utilization is carried on, such
additional use shall be compatible with fulfilling
the recreation mission, and none will be carried
on that is significantly detrimental to it.

National Recreation Areas should be established
in only those areas where other programs (Federal
and non-Federal) will not fulfill high priority
recreation needs in the foreseeable future.

Because of the significance of natural areas of the Park

System,

such as Yellowstone and Yosemite, the long-range

;preservation of these areas can be best achieved when

exploitative and private uses are eliminated by acquisition.

166

Recreation areas also possess natural endowments well above
the ordinary. However, to achieve the primary objective-of
recreation areas it is not essential to eliminate all private
uses with the area.

Some of the earlier legislation creating recreation
areas, such as the Cape Hatteras and Cape Cod legislation,
introduced innovations in land acquisition and management
which have had a profound influence on the administrative
policies of the Park Service for the management of recreation
areas. The Cape Cod legislation Of 1961 authorized the
Secretary to approve zoning bylaws, where, if complied with,
would prohibit the condemnation of such property. The act
also allowed landowners to sell their property to the
Government and retain "the right of use and occupancy" for a
specified time period.3

The Cape Hatteras and Cape Cod legislation authorized
hunting as an appropriate recreational activity.

The Ozark National Scenic Riverways legislation of 1964
authorized the Secretary to acquire lesser interests in land

than fee, including scenic easements.

Discussions with the Superintendent
of Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore

Many changes and improvements have been made in the

Dunes legislation since its first introduction. This is a

 

3Ibid., p. 12.

167

product of the pressures, pro and con, which were put on the
Park Service through the legislative channels.

Throughout the planning process there have been changes
in the size of the lakeshore, changes in condemnation pro-
cedure, changes in use restrictions, changes in the use
emphasis, and many others. The effect of the conflicting
institutional pressures on the design of the legislation is
evident, but now how will these legislative changes affect
the development of the lakeshore? This question can be
answered only after implementation of the master plan is well
underway.

During an interviewli with Jules A. Martinek,
Superintendent of Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, I
was able to gain some insight as to the course of develOpment
the Park Service will take.

The question had come up many times during the hearings,

from both the local opposition and the conservation organi-

1 zationS. of why theJunes-.aneasitaambeiflsgexeégpsens....a

 

Eggneaiign area, with the major emphasis being on high
‘intens' erwrathermthanaaszaznainnal.area. Considering

the fragile character of the sand dunes ecosystem this did
not seem the apprOpriate course of action.
Mr. Martinek said that to preserve the Dunes area as a
l,’ natural area would require its designation as a national park.

.He said that there were no areas left within the forty-eight

 

4

On May 9, 1974 in Frankfort.

4

168

states and Hawaii which had landscapes of national park
caliber. The United States has been developed to the extent I“
that no large areas, where the impact of man is substantially

unnoticeable and that the unusual scenic qualities, remain.

 

He noted the State of Alaska as the only possibility for
acquiring another National Park.

Mr. Martinek said that all areas of significant size
will be incorporated into the Recreation Area Category of the
National Park System. The Park Service cannot justify

"throwing people Off their land and then saying no one can

 

Fse it."5 He said the recreation area concept was develOped
to establish areas in populated regions, and now that most of

the United States has reached a state of significant develop-

 

ment only recreation areas will be established. as
I asked him about the theme of development, since the
bill which was enacted put more emphasis on preservation of
the area than previous bills, and how this new approach
would affect the master plan for development which was pre-
pared in 1969. He said that whether Sleeping Bear Dunes was
called a recreation area or a preservation area, that this
would not change the method of, or empha§i§_gg_fiexelapmgni;
"YOu can't have cars driving onto the sand and getting stuck,
or people throwing trash on the ground for lack of waste
recepticles, or people relieving themselves in the woods for

lack of toilets —— this would be worse than develOpment."

 

SPersonal interview with Jules Martinek on May 9, 1974.

6Ibid.

169

I asked him how the Park Service could justify not
revising the master plan for development so as to be in '
agreement with the emphasis of the act. He said that the
emphasis would not be changed. The plan will stay basically
the same, with the same number and types of activities, but
that the location of some activities may change. Mr.

Martinek said that the area had been surveyed for areas Of
possible wilderness designation and hearings would be held
concerning that. The addition of wilderness areas will
provide for areas of preservation and he said this will not
change the character of the rest of the development.

The introductory paragraph Of the Dunes Act did not have
much impact on Park Service policies regarding development of
the recreation area. It may make them more conscious of the
impact of recreational activities on the surrounding land-
scape. Public hearings will be held on the environmental
impact statement of the lakeshore develOpment and public
input can once again influence change. Only after development
is nearly complete will the impact of "recreational Oppor-
tunities consistent with the maximum protection of the natural

7

environment" be recognized.

 

7Public Law 91-479.

CHAPTER XI

CONCLUSIONS

Changing Institutional Values

The institutions, and the values implicit in the
institutions who participated in and made an impact upon the
Sleeping Bear Dunes legislation, are a product of history.
These institutional values are the result of past errors and
experiences as well as current practices.

This section will primarily be concerned with the
changing institutional values of the groups who participated
in the Dunes legislation as they relate to the environmental
awareness movement of the late 19603, and how these changing
values influenced their criticisms of the Dunes proposals.

The environmental awareness movement which began in the
mid 19603 created a new "land ethic" in this country. One
need not go to a Sierra Club meeting to find people genuinely
concerned with environmental quality. Today the average
citizen is much more aware Of what are compatible land, water
and air uses.

The Sleeping Bear Dunes region is an example of people
concerned with the quality of their communities and who

170

171

planned and developed their region with the "land ethic" in
mind. The Dunes area has been fortunate in that the popula-
tion pressures experienced in many parts of the country have
been slow to affect the Leelanau-Benzie region. This made
preservation of the natural character of the region less
difficult but does not negate the fact that local residents
had a genuine interest in preserving the quality of their
region.

During the years Of the Dunes legislation, local
residents viewed the lakeshore proposals as a threat to their
efforts to plan and develop the region as they wished. In
the early years of debate, from 1961-1965, the local arguments
opposing the lakeshore concerned the control which the Park
Service would have over the region and the amount of success
a national park so far from the population centers could
expect to enjoy. In short, local residents were against any
Federal plan for preservation, due to excessive restrictions
on use of private property; and if a national park was
established, no one would travel that far to use it.

The early arguments in opposition to the lakeshore, from
local residents were the following:

*1) Sleeping Bear Dunes was too far from the population
centers.

2) The Park Service would spend millions of dollars
acquiring and developing the recreation area and
no one would use it.

"3) The Park Service estimate for the number of visitor
days per year were too high.

4) The area was mostly improved property.

5)
6)

7)

8)

9)

10)

11)

172

The State already owned too much land.

The proposal was detrimental to the overall growth
and development of Leelanau and Benzie Counties.

Owners Of property would be greatly restricted in
their use by zoning imposed by the Secretary.

Under the State plan for preservation Of the area,
home ownership, business and farming could continue
without restriction.

Their chief concern was the protection of human
rights while the tourist and agriculture industries
continued a healthy growth.

Real estate and construction activities had come to
a near standstill as a result of park proposals.

A great deal Of money had been invested in resort
businesses and the lakeshore would have replaced
these privately-owned enterprises with Federal
facilities.

After 1966 and 1967, when the environmental awareness

movement began, the type of arguments listed above were

replaced with the arguments listed below which de-emphasized

the Federal restrictions on construction and use, etc., and

emphasized the environmental damage the lakeshore and the

increased visitor use would cause:

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

The lakeshore would have created sewage disposal
and pollution problems from the influx of visitors.

The proposed recreation plan was not compatible
with preserving the natural character of the area.

The scenic parkway would scar the forested moraine
watershed and severely damage the surrounding
landscape.

The existing State-owned lands along with local
zoning could do a better job of preserving the
area than the Federal government.

There was a marked change from the original proposal
to preserve the area, to developing a national
recreation area.

173

6) With the inland lakes protected under township
zoning and the dunes related areas protected under
public ownership, there was no justification for
Federal involvement.

7) While the emphasis on development had changed from
preservation to recreation, which would have
destroyed the area, protection was already assured
through the existing zoning laws.

The emphasis Of criticisms and suggestions from
conservation organizations also changed during this time Of
increased environmental awareness. During the early years of
the Dunes proposals, the role of conservation groups was
primarily supportive in nature. They Offered few amendments
other than encouraging a lakeshore of a significant size to
protect the natural characteristics and to meet the demands
of a growing population. Their goal was to see a lakeshore
develOped at Sleeping Bear, and left the future development
of the lakeshore in the hands of the National Park Service.

Just as the movement of the late '605 affected local
groups, it also affected conservation groups. They became
more concerned with the character of development the Park
Service was proposing because of the significance Of the sand
dunes and the coastal zone in the total environmental picture
of the area. They wanted assurances that the proposed
recreational activities did not take precedent over the need
for preservation.

Conservation groups asked the Park Service to include a
provision in the bill for a wilderness survey of the area.

.They asked that more emphasis be given to preservation and

sound ecological planning as a means of controlling

174

recreational development. In the 1970 congressional hearings,
continued use of the airstrip and the proposed minibus trans-
porter system on North Manitou Island were criticized because
North Manitou had been planned as a primitive, if not wilder—
ness, area and they viewed these as incompatible uses.

Since the enactment of a Dunes bill, conservation groups
and residents of the Dunes area have continued to scrutinize
the develOpments in the lakeshore plan. In 1974, the proposed
harbor of refuge at the mouth Of the Platte River was defeated
as a result of pressure from these groups. Both conservation
groups and local residents anticipate the hearings on the

proposed wilderness areas and environmental impact statement

for the lakeshore.

Summary of Controversies
and Pressures on the Park Service
During the legislative debates the pressures on the
National Park Service centered on two questions:

1) Should the Park Service establish a national
lakeshore in the Sleeping Bear Dunes Area?

2) If so, did the proposed bills provide a good
means for doing this?

The arguments presented to influence the decision on
these questions can be summarized as follows:

1) .élEE -- The proponents of the lakeshore wanted to
establish an area of sufficient size to protect the natural
.elements of the Dunes area and to provide adequate space for

recreational pursuits of a growing population. The opponents

175

proposed no lakeshore at all, or one which would incorporate
basically the existing State-owned lands. Opponents wanted

to minimize the number of improved properties within the lake-
shore boundaries.

2) Condemnation -- Proponents wanted to assure just

 

compensation to property owners and were in agreement with
the continued use of commercial properties consistent with
the lakeshore purposes. Opponents were primarily concerned
that they would constantly be under the threat of condemnation
and that when they did wish to sell, the Park Service would
not have sufficient funds. Owners of unimproved prOperty were
concerned the Park Service would not buy their land and they
would be forced to pay prOperty taxes with no hope fer build-
ing a home or summer cottage.

3) Zoning -- Opponents claimed that requiring countywide
zoning was unjust. They were afraid the Secretary would
change the zoning regulations to suit his needs.

4) Cutoff Date -- Opponents claimed the cutoff dates

 

were retroactive and unconstitutional. They said many people
had saved for a lifetime to build retirement homes or cottages
and the Government was violating private prOperty rights.

5) Character 25 Development -- Proponents wanted the
lakeshore reviewed for areas of possible wilderness designa-
tion and encouraged the rewriting of the bill to emphasize
preservation and ecologically sound planning. Opponents
claimed recreation and preservation were incompatible; the

proposed scenic parkway would scar the landscape; and

176

increased visitation would create sanitation and pollution
problems.

6) ngg'gf Taxbase -- Most participants were concerned
that the school districts receive adequate funding. The
opposition was concerned that both the school districts and
local government would be in financial hardship and stated
that Federal aid to schools did not provide the basis for a
sound educational program.

7) Dunes Area Should B2 State Developed -- The

 

opposition claimed that the State program was a better
financial investment because it already owned twenty-one
thousand acres and seventeen miles of Lake Michigan shoreline
in the taking area. The State development would not require
the purchase of existing homes, and commerce and industry
could continue.

8) Economy -- Proponents claimed that the increased
tourist activity would soon offset any economic hardships the
area experienced. Opponents claimed that the mere introduction
of the lakeshore proposal had seriously affected the real
estate, tourist and construction activities.

9) Public Lgndg -- The lakeshore opposition claimed
that eighteen percent of the State was already in public owner-
ship and adequate parks and recreation areas were available.
Some conservation groups argued that Michigan was in desperate
need of funds for the upgrading of existing parks and

acquisition of new ones.

177

10) Huntigg and Fishing -- Local interests and the State,
wanted State control of hunting and fishing. The Park Service
wanted the Secretary to control these activities.

11) ,flggih Manitou Island -- Various interests wanted to
include the island in the lakeshore but conservation groups
did not want it to substitute for acreage on the mainland.

12) Proximity -- Opponents of the proposal claimed the
Dunes area was too far from population centers to justify

Federal expenditures.

A Review of the Opportunities
for the Public to Become Involved
and Affectuate Change in the
Design Process
Over the nine-year legislative history of the Sleeping
Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, the Opportunities for public
input were significant. The concerned conservation groups
were the ones who provided the impetus for the Great Lakes
Recreation Area Survey of 1958 and 1959. The congressional
hearings provided a forum for direct citizen input with the
decision makers present. Hearings were held in the Sleeping
Bear Dunes area as well as in Washington. Those who could
not attend the hearings provided letters, telegrams and
resolutions to the committee. The public had every oppor-
tunity to participate. ‘
The use of United States and State representatives proved

most successful in attempting to prevent passage of or

implementing change in the Dunes legislation. Senator

178

Griffin, who earlier represented the Dunes area, was
cognizant of the lakeshore Opposition in his district and
supported that Opposition in Congress. He also introduced a
bill of his own, H.R.2400, which was the smallest lakeshore
proposal, in an attempt at preventing a much larger national
lakeshore in the future. His bill included payments to local
subdivisions Of State government, including school districts,
and a provision which allowed for condemnation Of improved
prOperty only as a means Of acquiring scenic easements.
Neither Of these provisions were included in another
proposal.

Representative vander Jagt vigorously Opposed all Dunes
bills until he discovered a majority of his district favored
the lakeshore concept. He then introduced his own bill which
gave added protection to natural areas and provided more
assurances to owners of improved prOperty.

Because Of the strong local Opposition the State
Legislature Opposed the early Dunes bills. They later passed
a measure requiring the sale of State lands within the lake-
shore tO the Secretary. The money from this sale was to
reimburse local governments who would experience the loss.
This transaction was later found to be illegal, so two
additional bills were introduced to provide payments to local
units Of government with State funds. This might not have
occurred if local interests had not voiced their concern.

The same Opportunities were provided to interests who

supported the lakeshore. Conservation groups have won

179

passage Of important environmental legislation in the past
and many Of these have affected the Dunes legislation. The
Wilderness Act gave the public a means through which areas
could be set aside as wilderness, to be preserved for all
time. NEPA gives the public a second chance to review the
proposal Of the Park Service and to provide input concerning
the environmental impact statement. It was citizen involve-
ment which defeated the prOposed harbor of refuge at the
mouth of the Platte River.

Even after the Dunes bill became law, the Citizens'
Council of Sleeping Bear Dunes, Inc., exercised their right
and sought to Obtain a court injunction restraining the
Government from carrying out the provisions of the Dunes Act.

Changes were made in every legislative preposal as a
direct result of pressure from organized interests. The
American system Of government provides every opportunity for
public input when develOping policy decisions of this type.
Those who are dedicated to a cause and those who stand to
lose the most will utilize every Opportunity to influence the

outcome.

Evaluation of the Planning
Process of Sleeping Bear Dunes
In researching the history of the Sleeping Bear Dunes
controversy it became evident that certain procedures might
have increased the public support of the lakeshore. Had more

thought gone into the first bill, some Of the antagonisms and

180

misconceptions which continued throughout the legislative
history might have been prevented.

A common complaint when interviewing local residents
concerned the initial approach the Park Service took when
introducing the proposal. The local residents were not con-
sulted before or during the first prOposal and the Park
Service made no attempt to gather input from the people
directly affected. Had the Park Service held public hearings
before the bill was introduced much time and effort would
have been saved. By proposing a national lakeshore which
would encompass a large part Of two counties, without concern
for the local residents, created animosities which still
exist in the Dunes region. The initial contact with Conrad
Wirth Of the Park Service who in effect said "we're going to
put a park in here whether you like it or not" did little to
create an atmosphere of trust between the Park Service and
local residents.

The Park Service should have made a greater effort to
explain the need for Federal involvement, other than that
Sleeping Bear was of national significance. Documentation of
the park shortages in Michigan, the lack of State funds, the
future threats Of commercial and industrial enterprises in
the region, and others might have converted a few more local
residents.

They should have explained that most of the eighteen
percent of Michigan in public ownership did not possess the

amenities that vacationers seek. A comprehensive

181

documentation Of existing public lands and the outlook for
future population trends, might have given the proposed con-
cept more credence in the eyes of local residents.

The Park Service concept of "eventually eliminating all
inholdings" gave little assurance to private property owners
who wished to remain. The first bill proposed the elimina-
tion of all commercial activities. Rather than eliminating
commercial activities and suggesting eventual elimination of
all private property, the Park Service should have encouraged
people to stay. Farming, orchard growing, and similar
pursuits which are an outgrowth Of the economic activities
of early settlers should have been encouraged to stay fOr
their historical significance.

Because Of the critical nature Of planning for facilities
the size Of Sleeping Bear, independent planning consultants
should be employed to determine future land use, carrying
capacities, etc., to insure an unbiased develOpment plan.
Then both the Park Service and the public could provide input
with neither one holding the stick.

The use of the lakeshore should have been determined by
the ecological characteristics of the area and not by some
preconceived recreational concept. The Park Service should
have made an effort to prepare a plan emphasizing preserva-
tion if indeed this was the purpose of the Great Lakes Survey

Of '58 and '59, "to determine what portions of undeveloped

182

shoreline remained that were worthy of preservation for their
scenic, natural or other recreational values."1

The Park Service should have expanded upon its year-round-
use program. Activities such as ice fishing, cross-country
skiing, etc., should have been encouraged to promote year-round
use and entice the commercial community into accepting the
plan.

They should have made a greater effort to document and
publicize the success of the Cape Cod National Seashore and
others. Had local residents been informed of the local
satisfaction with other similar areas, acceptance of the Dunes
proposal might have been greater.

With the encouragement of the continued use of existing
private develOpments, the fears of local governments and
school districts regarding loss of tax base would have been
eased.

The role of the local residents and conservation
interests was also a determining factor in the encumbered
progress Of the planning process.

Had the local residents accepted the fact that true
preservation Of the area was possible only by Federal means,
and worked with rather than against the Park Service, a lake-
shore might have been established more to their liking. If
the local residents were truly concerned about preserving the

area, they should have helped the Park Service in this manner.

 

1National Park Service, Our Fourth Shore: Great Lakes
Shoreline Recreation Area Surve , p. 3.

 

183

The type Of information and the manner of presentation
made a difference in the acceptance by the decision-making
body. Many participants relied on information which was
grossly generalized or exaggerated. The presentations which
included concise and documented facts held the most weight
during committee hearings.

Lbst of the active participants utilized data from the
National Park Service, the State Department of Natural
Resources, or the local counties. Even when this documented
information was used, half-truths surfaced. For instance,
the Glen Lake Community Schools based their yearly loss in
revenue on the assumption that all privately owned lands
would be purchased immediately. This ignored the fact that
many would remain and continue paying taxes and that the Park
Service would not purchase many Of the privately owned lands
for years.

The Citizens' Council of Sleeping Bear Dunes, Inc.,
retained the J.L. Jacobs Company of Chicago, Illinois to make
an economic survey of the area, upon which their information
was based.

Many groups argued that the proposed lakeshore had
depressed the real estate and construction industries. This
was probably true in the early years but as documented by the
Interior Department, the residential properties within the
taking area increased by fifty-eight percent from December 31,

1964 to September, 1970.

184

The conservation groups did most of their own research,
backed up by their national affiliates. The Michigan Parks
Association did extensive research into park conditions, all
done by Association members, and supported by the State
Conservation Commission.

Comments from park Opponents such as the "scenic parkway
would damage the forested moraine watershed" were not supported
by any information. Comments such as this were generally
deflated through committee questioning. Arguments designed
to appeal to the emotions Of the committee or the Park
Service were not influential. The committee relied on facts
for making judgments and considered suggestions over
criticisms. One constructive suggestion was worth ten
criticisms Of the Park Service or the lakeshore proposal.
Those groups which gave specific suggestions as to the
wording of given provisions Of the bill were remarkably

successful in affectuating change.

In Conclusion

Since the enactment of the Dunes bill and the failure to
Obtain a court injunction against the lakeshore the local
residents are learning to accept the lakeshore and are making
the best Of it. The upcoming hearings on wilderness areas
and impact statements will provide the Opportunity for

additional public input.

 

2Senate Hearings on 5.792, 88th Congress, lst Session,
P0 135.

185

The values of the conservation organizations dictated
that they should promote the lakeshore proposal and attempt
to influence policy decisions regarding its administration.
The greatest success of the conservation organizations was
keeping the Dunes legislation alive over the nine-year period.
The results of early hearings left doubt as to its eventual
passage. Through interorganizational communication and
OOOperation the controversy stayed alive until a bill was
written which satisfied a majority.

The values of the local Opposition influenced them to
discourage all national lakeshore prOposals. The local
Opposition can be credited with successfully postponing the
passage Of a bill for nine years. Throughout that time many
changes and improvements were made as a direct result Of
local criticism.

The changes in the design Of the legislation were
considerable and were the result of the efforts of these
participating groups. The ultimate effect Of these
legislative changes on the final develOpment of the lakeshore
will not be known for some time. Through additional public
involvement in the hearings on wilderness areas and the
environmental impact statement the Park Service will become

more responsive to public input into the planning process.

APPENDIX

186

Public Law 91-479
9lst Congress, H. R. 18776
October 21, 1970

En act

To establish in the State of Michigan the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lake-
shore, and for other purposes.

 

Be it enacied by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United S tafes of America in Congress assembled, That (a) the Con-
wress finds that certain outstanding natural features, including forests,

caches, dune formations, and nncxent glacial phenomena, exist along
the mainland shore of Lake Michi .n and on certain nearby islands
in Benzie and Leelanau Counties, gilichignn, and that such features
ought to be preserved in their natural setting and rotected from
develo ments and uses which would destroy the scenic auty and nat-
ural c aracter of the area. In order to accomplish this purpose for
the benefit, inspiration, education, recreation, and enjoyment of the
public, the Secretary of the Interior (hereinafter referred to as the
"Secretary”) is authorized to take up ropriate action, as herein pro-
vided, to establish in the State of Mic ignn the Sleeping Bear Dunes
National Lakeshore. In carrying out the revisions of this Act,
the Secretary shall administer and protect t 2 Sleeping Bear Dunes
National Lakeshore in a manner which provides for recreational
opportunities consistent with the maximum protection of the natural
environment within the area.

(b) In preserving the lakeshore and stabilizing its development,
substantia reliance shall be placed on cooperation between Federal,
State, and local governments to apply sound rinciples of land use
planning and zoning. In developing the lak ore full recognition
shall be given to protecting the private properties or the enjoyment
of the owners.

Sec. 9.. (a) The Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore (herein-
after referred to as the "lakeshore”) shall com rise the land and
water area enerally depicted on the map entitled ‘A Proposed Sleep-
in , Bear )nncs National Lakeshore Boundary Map’ , numbered
N AGED—91,000 and dated May 1969, which shall be on file and avail-
able for publ 1c inspection in the offices of the National Park Service of
the Department of the Interior.

(b) As soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this Act
and following the acquisition by the Secretary of those lands owned
by the State of Michigan within the boundaries of the area designated
for inclusion in the lakeshore (excepting not to exceed three hundred
acres in the Platte Bay area) and of such additional lands, if an ,
as are necessary to provide an area which in his opinion is cfl'icient y
administrable for the purposes of this Act, he shall establish the
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore by publication of notice
thereof in the Federal Register.

Sac. 3. (n) Within thirt days, or as soon as Spasiblc thereafter,
after the effective date of t is Act, the Secretax all ublish in the
Federal Register a map or other description of e lakes ore delineat-
ing areas constitutin the following categories:

Category I, pu he use and development areas.
Category II environmental conservation areas.
Cate ry III, private use and development areas.

(b) Lan s and interests therein designated as category I may be
acquired by the Secretary in accordance with section 8 of this Act.

(c) Within one hundred and fifty da '3 after the efl'ectivo date of
this Act, the Secrets shall publish in t c Federal Register an addl.
tional map or other escription of those lands, if any, designated as
within categories II and I I for acquisition by him in fee in accord
ance with section 8 of this Act.

84 STAT. 1075

Sleeping Boar
mines National
Lakeshore, Rich.

mbncati on in
Federal. Register.

Desc dption.
Publication in
Federal. Register.

Additional map.
Publication in
Federal Register.

84 S'l'Ult‘l‘J 1076

187

Pub. Law 91-479 - 2 - October 21, 1970

Land acquisition. ((1) Except as provided in subsection (f) of this section, the Secre-

limitat i on.

Real property.
use and devel-
opment by
owners.
Notification

of restric-
tions.

Advisory com-
mission.

Membership.

Punting and
fishing regu-
htiOMo

lary may. after the publication provided for in subsection (c), acquire
only such interests in lands designated as category II, other than
those to be acquired in fee simple, as he deems appropriate to insure
the continued conservation and preservation of the environmental
quality of the lakeshore.

(e) Except as provided in subsection (f) of this section, the Secre-
tary may, after the publication provided for in subsection (c), acquire
only such interests in lands designated as cate ory III, other than
those lands to be acquired in fee simple, as he eems appropriate to
protect lands desi nated for acquisition.

(f) Not later t tan one hundred and fifty days after the effective
date of this Act, the Secretary shall notify owners of real property in
categories II and III. other than property designated by im for fee
acquisition, of the minimum restrictions on use and development of
such property under which such property can be retained in a manner
compatible with the pur se for wlnch the lakeshore was established.
If the owner of any rea property in categories II and III agrees to
the use and development of his property in accordance with such
restrictions, the Secretary may not acquire, without the consent of such
owner, such property or interests therein for so long as the pro rty
affected is used in accordance with such restrictions, unless e eter-
mines that such property is needed for public use development. The
foregoing limitations on acquisition shall also apply to an owners of
real property to whom the Secretary did not, within t e time set
forth, give such a notice, except that if any prOperty owner has not,
within ninety days of the notice agreed to use the property in accord-
ance with the notice, then the Secretary may ac uire, without
limitation, fee or lesser interests in pro rt by any of t e methods set
forth in section 8 of this Act: Providgz, That nothing contained in
subsections (d) and (e), and in this subsection, which limits the
acquisition of the fee simple title to property within the lakeshore,
shall prevent the Secretary from acquirin , without the consent of the
owner, the fee simple title whenever in t e Secretary’s judgment the
estimated cost of acquirin the lesser interest would be a substantial
percentage of the estimate cost of a airing the fee simple title.

Soc. 4. (a) There is hereby estab ished a Sleeping Bear Dunes
National Lakeshore Advisory Commission. The Commission shall
cease to exist ten years after the establishment of the lakeshore
pursuant to section 2 of this Act.

(b) The Commission shall be composed of ten members, each
appointed for a term of two years by the Secretary, as follows:

(1) Four members to be appointed from recommendations made
by the counties in which the lakeshore is situated, two members
to represent each such county;

(2) Four members to be appointed from recommendations
made b the Governor of the State of Michigan; and

ll? wo members to be designated by the Secretary.

(c) e Secretary shall desirrnate one member to be Chairman. An
vacancy in the Commission shad! be filled in the same manner in whic l
the ori inal appointment was made.

((1) mem r of the Commission shall serve without compensation
as such. The Secretary is authorized to pay the expenses reasonably
incurred by the Commission in carrying out its responsibilities under
this Act on vouchers signed by the Chairman.

( e) The Secretary or his deSignee shall consult with the Commission
with respect to matters relating to the development of the lakeshore
and with respect to the provisions of sections 9, 12, and 13 of this Act.

Sec. 5. In administering the lakeshore the Secretary shall permit

188

October 21, 1970 - 3 - Pub. Law 91-479
84 STAT171077

hunting and fishing on lands and waters under his jurisdiction in
accordance .with the laws of the State of Michigan and the United
States applicable thereto. The Secretary, after consultation with the
appropriate agency of the State of Michigan, may designate zones
and establish periods where and when no hunting shall be permitted
for reasons of public safety, administration, or public use and enjov-
ment and issue regulations, consistent with this section, as he may
determine necessary to carry out the purposes of this section.

SEC. 6. (a) The administration, protection, and development of the Administration.

la keshore shall be exercised by the Secretary, subject to the provisions
of this Act and of the Act of August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 535; 16 U.S.C.
1 et seq), as amended and supplemented, relatinnt to the areas admin-
istered and supervised by the Secretarv through the National Park
Service; except that authority otherwise available to the Secretary
for the conservation and management of natural resources may be
utilized to the extent he finds such authority will further the purposes
of this Act.

(b) In the administration, protection, and development. of the area, Land and water
the Secretary shall prepare and implement a land and water use man- use plan.
agement plan, which shall include specific provisions for—

(1) development of facilities to provide the benefits of public
recreation;

(22) protection of scenic, scientific, and hismric features con-
tributing to public enjoyment; and

(3) such protection, management, and utilization of renewable
natural resources as in the judgment of the Secretary is consistent
with, and will further the purpose of. public recreation and pro-
tection of scenic, scientific, and historic features contributing to
public enjoyment.

(c) W'ithin four years from the date of enactment of this Act, the Area review;
Secretary of the Interior shall review the area within the Sleeping "port to
Bear Dunes National Lakeshore and shall re art to the President, in Pfl'ident-
accordance with subsections 3(c) and 3(d) o the “'ilderness Act (78
Stat. 890; 16 U.S.C. 1132 (c) and ((1), his recommendation as to the
suitability or nonsuitability of any area within the lakeshore for pre.
servation as wilderness. and any designation of any such area as a wild-
erness shall be accomplished in accordance with said subsections of the
“'ilderness Act.

((1) In developing the lakeshore the Secretary shall provide public
use areas in such places and manner as he determines wi 1 not. diminish
the value or enjovment for the owner or occupant of any improved
property located thereon. _

Sac. l. Nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting any Tax assessments.
governmental jurisdiction in the State of Michigan from assessing
taxes upon any interest in real estate retained under the provisions of
section 10 of this Act to the owner of such interest.

SEC. 8. (a) The Secretary is authorized to acquire by donation, pur- Land acquisition
chase with donated or appropriated funds, transfer funds, transfer 01' Bitch-nah
from any Federal agency, or exchange lands and interests therein for
the urposes of this Act. \Vhen an individual tract of land is only
partly within the area designated. the Secretary may acquire the entire
tract bv any of the above methods to avoid the payment of severance
costs. Land so ac uired outside the designated area may be exchanged
by the Secretarv or non-Federal lands-within such area, and an por-
tion of the land not utilized for such exchan es may be dis set? of in
accordance with the provisions of the Federafi Property an Adminis-
trative Se)rvices Act of 1949 (63 Stat. 37 7‘), as amended (40 U.S.C.

471 et seq. .

84 STAT, 1078

Transfer of
Federal prop-
erty.

Acquisition by
condemnation.

Zoning bylaws.

189

Pub. Law 91-479 - 4 - October 21, 1970

(b) In exercisinw his authority to ac uire property under this Act,
the Secretary shall «rive immediate an careful consideration to any
offer made by an individual owning property within the lakeshore to
sell such propert ' to the Secretary. An individual owning property
within the lakeshore may notify the Secretary that the continued
owneiship by such individual of that property would result in hard-
ship to him, and the Secretary shall immediately consider such evi-
dence and shall within one year following the submission of such
notice, subject to the availability of funds, purchase such property
otfered for a price which does not exceed its fair market value.

(c) Any property or interests therein, owned b ' the State of Michi-
gan or anv p0 itical subdivisions thereof, may acquired only by
donation. 3' 0t withstanding any other provision of law, any property
owned by the United States on the date of enactment of this Act
located within such area may, with the concurrence of the agency
having custody thereof. be transferred without consideration to the
administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary for use by him in carrying
out. the rovisions of this Act.

(d) \ 'ith reSpect to that property which the Secretary is author-
ized to acquire by condemnation under the terms of this Act, the
Secretary shall initiate no condemnation proceedings until after he
has made every reasonable cli‘ort to acquire such property by negotia-
tion and purchase. The certificate of the determination by the Secretar
or his designated representative that there has been compliance wit
the irovisions of this subsection and of subsection (b) of this section
shall be prima facie evidence of such compliance.

(e) Bathing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit the use of
condemnation as a means of ,acquiring a clear and marketable title,
free of any and all encumbrances.

Sec. 9. (a) The Secretary shall, at the request of any township or
county in or adjacent. to the lakeshore atl'ected by this Act, assist and
consult with the a ipropriate otiicers and employees of such township
or county in establishing zoning bylaws for the purpose of this Act.
Such assistance may include payments to the county or township for
technical aid.

(b) No improved iroperty within the area designated for inclusion
in the lakeshore shall be acquired by the Secretary by condemnation
so long as the affected county or township has in force and applicable
thereto a duly adopted, valid zonin bylaw approved by the Secretary
in accordance with the provisions 0 subsection (d) of this section and
the use of improved property is in compliance therewith. In the event
that the affected county or township does not. have in effect and appli-
cable to any improved property a duly adopted. valid zoning bvlaw so
approved, the Secretary shall be prohibited from acquiring such prop-
erty by condemnation, if the owner thereof notifies the Secretary in
writing of such owner's agreement to use his property in a manner con~
sistent with the applicable standard set forth in subsection ((1) of
this section, and such prohibition against condemnation shall remain
in effect for so long as such property is so used.

(c) If the Secretary determines that any such pro )erty referred to
in subsection (b) of this section covered by any suc bvlaw is being
used in a way which is not in substantial compliance with such bylaw,
or that any such property referred to in subsection (b) with respect
to which an agreement has been made is being used in a manner which
is not substantially consistent with such applicable standards, he shall
so notify the owner of any such pro )ertv in writing. Such notice shall
contain a detailed statement as to why the Secretary believes that such
use is not in substantial compliance with such zoning bylaw or why
such use is not substantially consistent with such applicable standards,
as the case may be. Any such owner shall have sixty days following the

190

October 21, 1970 - 5 - Pub. Law 91-479

receipt by him of that written notification within which to discontinue
the use referred to in such notification. Discontinuance of such use
within such sixty-day period shall have the effect of prohibiting the
Secretary from acquiring such roperty by condemnation by reason
of such use. In any case in whic such use is not discontinued within
such sixty-day period, the Secretary may, in his discretion, acquire
such property by condemnation.

(d) Any zoning bylaw or amendment thereto submitted to the Sec.
retary for a proval for the purposes of this Act shall be it proved by
him if such ylaw or amendment contains provisions whicl‘i—

(1) contribute to the effect of prohibiting the commercial and
industrial use (other than a use for a commercial purpose as
authorized under section 13 of this Act) of all property witliin‘tlie
boundaries of such area which is situated within the cOunty or
township adopting such bylaw or amendment:

(2) are consistent with the objectives and purposes of this Act
so that, to the extent possible under Michigan law, the scenic and
scientific values of the lakeshore area will be protected:

(3) are designed to preserFe the lakeshore character of the area
by appropriate restrictions upon the burning of cover, cutting
of timber (except tracts managed for sustained yield), removal
of sand or ,ravel, and dumping, storage. or piling of refuse and
other unsi tly objects or other uses which would detract from
the natura or traditional lakeshore scene;

(4) provide that no construction, reconstruction, moving. alter-
ation, or enlargement of any property. including improved prop.
erty as defined iii this Act, within the lakeshore area shall be per-
mitted. if such construction, reconstruction, moving. alteration, or
enlargement would afford less than a fifty-foot setback from all
streets measured at a right angle with the street line. and a twenty-
five-foot distance from all conti ous prOperties. Any owner or
zoning authoritv may request tie Secretary of the Interior to
determine Whether a proposed move, alteration, construction,
reconstruction, or enlargement of any such propert v would subject
such property to ac uisition by condemnation, and the Secretary,
within Sixty days 0 the receipt of such request, shall advise the
owner or zoning authority in writing whether the intended use
will subject the property to acquisition by condemnation: and

(5) have the effect of providing that the Secretary shall receive
notice of any variance granted under, and of any BX('9ptl0Ii made
to the application of, such bylaw or amendment.

(e) The approval of any bylaw or amendment nirsuant to sub-
section (d) shall not be withdrawn or revoked by tie Secretary for
so long as such bylaw or amendment remains in effect as approved.
Anv such bylaw or amendment so approved shall not be retroactive
in its application. '

Soc. 10. (a) Any owner or owners of improved property situated
within the area designated for inclusion in the lakeshore on the date
of its acquisition by the Secretary may, as a condition of such a uiSI-
tion, retaiii,,for a term of not to exceed twenty-five years, or or a
term ending at the death of such owner or owners, the right of use and
occupancy of such property for any resrdential urpose which. is not
incompatible with the purposes of this Act or w rich does not impair
the usefulness and attractiveness of the area designated for inclusron.
The Secretary shall pay to the owner the value of the property on
the date of such acquisrtion, less the value on such date of the right.
retained by the owner. Where any such owner retains a right .of use
and occupancy as herein provided, such right during its eXiStence
may be conveyed or leased for noncommercial resrdential purposes in
accordance with the provisions of this section.

84 5 TA? . 1079

Bylaws .
Conditions for
approval.

Property owners,
retention of
use.

84 STAT. 1080
Temination

rights by
Secretary.

"Improved
prope t'ty. "

Scenic roads.

Cameroial
property-

191

Pub. Law 91-479 - 6 - October 21, 1970‘

(b) Any deed or other instrument used to transfer title to property,
with res t to which a right of use and occupancy is,retained under
this section, shall provide that such prOperty shall not be used for
any purpose which is incompatible with purposes of this Act, or
which im airs the usefulness and attractiveness of such area and if
it should 4 so used, the Secretary shall have authority to terminate
such right. In the event the Secretary exercises his power of termina-
tion underthis subsection he shall ay to the owner of the right
terminated an amount equal to the va ue of that portion of such right.
which remained unexpired on the date of such termination.

Sec. 11. As used in this Act, the term “improved property" means a
detached, one-family dwelling, construction of which was begun before
December 31, 1964, together with so much of the land on which the
dwelling is situated, such land being in the Same ownership as the
dwelling, as the Secretary shall designate to he reasmiably necessary
for the enjoyment of the dwelling for the sole purpose of noncommer-
cial residential use, together with any structures accessory to the
dwelling which are situated on the lands so designated. The amount
of the land so designated shall in every case be at least three acres
in area, or all of such lesser acreage as mav be held in the same owner-
shi as the dwelling, and in making such designation the Secretary
sha 1 take into account the manner of noncommercial residential use
in which the dwelling and land have customarily been enjoyed: Pro-
~cizlcd, haicerer. That the Secretary may exclude from the land so
desi iated any beach or waters on Lake Michigan, together with so
time i of the land adjoining any such beach or waters, as the Secretary
inav deem necessary for public access thereto. If the Secreta . makes
such exclusion, an appropriate butler zone. shall be provided tween
any residence and the public access or beach.

Snc. 12. In order to facilitate visitor travel, provide scenic overlooks
for public enjoyment and interpretation of the national lakeshore
and related features, and in order to enhance recreational oppor-
tunities, the Secretary is authorized to construct and administer as a
part of the national lakeshore scenic roads of parkway standards gen-
erally lying within the parkway zone designated on the map spec1fied
in section 2(a) of this Act. Such scenic roads shall include necessary
connections. bridges, and other structural utilities. Notwithstanding
any other provision of this Act. the Secretary may procure for this
pur ose land. or interest therein, by donation, urchase with up ropri-
ate or donated funds, or otherwise: Provide . That land and interest
so procured shall not exceed one hundred and fifty acres per mile of
scenic road, except that tracts may be procured in their entirety in
order to avoid severances. Property so acquired in excess of the acre-
age limitation provided iii this section may be exchanged by the
Secretary for any land of approximately equal value authorized for
ac uisition by this Act.

EC. 13. In any case not otherwise provided for in this Act, the
Secreta ' shall be prohibited from condemning any commercial prop-
ert use for commercial purposes in existence on December 31, 1964,
so ong as, in his opinion, the use thereof would further the purpose of
this Act, and such use does not impair the usefulness and attractiveness
of the area designated for inclusion in the lakeshore. The following
uses, among others, shall be considered to be uses compatible with the
purposes of this Act: Commercial farms, orchards, motels, rental
cottages, camps, craft and art studios. marinas, medical, legal, archi-
tectural, and other such professional offices, and tree farms.

Sec. 14. The Secretary shall furnish to anv interested person request-
ing the same a certificate indicating, with respect. to any propertv

192

October 21, 1970 - 7 - Pub. Law 91-479

which the Secretary has been prohibited from acquirino by condem-
nation in accordance with provisions of this Act, that such authority is
prohibited and the reasons therefor.

SEC. 15. There are authorized to be appropriated not more than
$19,800,000 for the acquisition of lands and interests in lands and not
more than $18,769,000 (June 1970 rices) for development, plus or
minus such amounts, if any, as may he justified bv reason of ordinary
fluctuations in construction costs as indicated by engineering cost
indioes applicable to the type of construction invo 'ed herein.

Approved October 21, 1970.

 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

mus: REPORT No. 91-1401 (Comm. on Interior and Insular mum).
SENATE REPORT No. 91-1263 (Comm. on Interior and Insular*Affairs).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 116 (1970):

Sept. 22, considered and passed House.

Oct. 7, considered and passed Senate.

84 STAT, 1081

Appropriation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Public Documents

Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental anlitxz The

 

Fourth Annual Report 22 the Council pg Environmental

Q‘lalitx, Washington, D.C., U.SoGoPoo.’ 19730

Great Lakes Basin Commission, et. al., Great Lakes

Institutions, Washington, D.C., U.S.G.P.O., 1969.

Kennedy, John F., Public Pepers g; the Presidents g; the

U.S.

United States, 1965, Washington, D.C., U.S.G.P.O., 1963.

 

Congress, House, Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs, Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, House
Report No. I395, 89th Congress, 2nd Session, 1966.

 

. Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, House

 

Report No. 91-1501: 9lst Congress, 2nd Session, 1970.

. Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, Hearings

 

 

 

before a subcommittee of the Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs, House, on H.R.11829 and related bills,
9lst Congress, 2nd Session, 1970.

Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs, Shoreline fiecreation Areas, Hearings before a
subcommittee of the Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs, Senate, on 5.543, 87th Congress, lst Session,
1961.

. Sleeping Bear Dunes National Recreation Area,

 

 

Hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on Interior
and Insular Affairs, Senate, on 5.2153, 87th Congress, lst
Session, 1961.

. Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, Hearings

 

 

before a subcommittee of the Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs, Senate, on 5.792, 88th Congress, lst
Session, 1963.

. Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, Senate

 

 

Report No. 810,38th Congress, lst Session, 1963.

193

194

. Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, Hearings
before a subcommittee of the Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs, Senate, on 5.1023 and H.R.18776, 9lst
Congress, 2nd Session,_l970.

 

. Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, Senate
Report 91-1263, 9lst Congress, 2nd Session, 1970.

 

U.S. Department of the Interior, President Kennedyflg Message
pp Conservation 22 the Congress of the United States,
Washington, D.C., U.S.G.P.O., 1935.

 

. The New Conservation Era 1264-1268, Yearbooks of
the U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.,
U.S.G.P.O., 1968.

 

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service,
Administrative Policies for Recreation Areas 2; the
National Park System, Washington, D.C., U.S.G.P.0., 1968.

. Great Lakes Shoreline Recreation Area Surve ,
‘faShington’ D.C.. U.S.GOPOOO’ 19590

 

. Our Fourth Shore: Great Lakes Shoreline Recreation
Area Survey, Washington, D.C., U.S.G.P.O., 1959.

 

 

 

. Sleeping Bear National Seashore: ‘A Prqposal,
Washington, D.C., UOSOGOPOOO’ 19610

 

. Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, Master Plan,
iJaShington, D.C., U.S.GOPOOO, 1970.

 

White House Conference on Natural Beauty, Beauty for America,
‘anhington’ D.C., U.S.G.P.0., 1965.

Books

Bailey, Stephen K., Congress Makes A Law, New YOrk, Columbia
University Press, 1950.

 

. and Samuel, H.D., Congress 33 WOrk, New Yerk, Henry
Holt and Company, 1962.

 

Berman, Daniel M., A Bill Becomes A Law, New Yerk, The MacMillan
Company, 1962.

Clepper, Henry, Origins 22 American Conservation, New Yerk,
Ronald Press Company, 1965.

Everhart, William C., The National Park Service, New York,
Praeger Publishers, 1972.

195

Fellmeth, Robert C., Politics pf Land, New Yerk, Grossman
Publishers, 1973.

Gunn, Clare A., Vacationscape: Designing Tourist Re ions,
University of Texas, 1972.

Hite, J.C. and Stepp, J.M., editors, Coastal Zone Resource
Management, New Yerk, Praeger Publishers, 1971.

 

Huth, Hans, Nature and the American, Berkeley, University of
California Press, 1957.

Ise, John, Our National Park Polic , Baltimore, The Johns
H0pkins Press, 1961.

 

Lynch, Kevin, The Image of the i ty, Massachusetts, The M.I. T.
Press, 1960.

 

McHarg, Ian L., Design with Nature, Garden City, New York,
Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1969.

McHenry, Robert, editor,‘é Documentany Histopy pf Conservation
in America, New York, Praeger Publishers, 1972.

 

National Staff of Environmental Action, editors, Earth Day --
The Beginning, New Ybrk, Arno Press, 1970.

 

Nixon, Edgar B., editor, Franklin D. Roosevelt and
Conservation, Washington, D. C., U. S. G. P. 0., 1957.

 

Reilly, William K., The Use of Land: A Citizen' 3 Policyw Guide
to Urban Growth, New Ybrk, Thomas Y. Crowell Company,

1973.

 

Roosevelt, Nicholas, Conservation: Now 25 Never, New Yerk,
Dodd, Mead, and Company, 1970.

Sidney, Hugh, A Ve cry Personal Presidenpy, New York, Atheneum,
1968.

Udall, Stewart L.,1226 Agenda for TOmorrow, New Yerk,
Harcourt, Brace, and World, Inc., 1968:

. The Quiet Crisis, New Yerk, Avon Books, 1963.

 

White, Theodore H., The Making of the President, New Yerk,
Atheneum Publishers, 1955.—

Wolman, Harold, Politics of Federal Housing, New Yerk, Dodd,
Mead and Company, 1971.

 

 

196

Booklets and Reports

Blome, Donald A., The Prgposed Sleeping Bear Dunes National
Lakeshore: An Assessment Lf Economic Impact, East Lansing,
Institute for Community Development and Services, 1967.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Waterways Division,
State 2; Michigan Preliminary Environmental Impact
Statement for Developing a Harbor pg Refuge Mooring
Facilities and Launching Facilities g3 the Mouth‘pg Egg
Platte River, Lake Township and Benzie County, Department
of Natural Resources, 1973.

Michigan State University, Institute for Community DevelOpment
and Services, Report Ln the Economic Feasibility Lf the
Proposed Sleeping Bear National Seashore, Michigan _State
University, 1961.

 

Thompson, Paul w., Vegetation and Common Plants,p£ Slegping
Bear, Cranbrook Institute of Science Bulletin No. 52,
1957.

llHlllHllUHllllllllllllllIll!”Illlllllllillllllllllllflllll

 

31293 02938 3811