Whitefish Point management plan moves forward

Bay Mills News, Dec. 12, 2002

BRIMLEY, Mich. — Despite vocal opposition, the parties to the Whitefish Point Management Plan — the Great Lakes Shipwreck Historical Society, the Michigan Audubon Society, and the United States Fisheries and Wildlife Service — moved forward to present the proposed plan for development of the Whitefish Point Shipwreck Museum and adjacent parking lots.

On Dec. 3, the parties presented the plan for public comment at the Horizons Conference Room at the Bay Mills Resort and Casino. Approximately 100 people were in attendance to express their opinions about how the project should go forward, or if it should go forward at all.

Jim Lively of the Michigan Land Use Institute presented the highlights of the 64-page document, explaining that GLSHS is looking to add two wings to the museum that would extend out from each side of the building. These wings, according to GLSHS Executive Director Tom Farnquist, were approved for construction by the United States Coard Guard in 1992, when it controlled the lighthouse property. The lands were transferred to the GLSHS, the MAS and the USFWS in October 1996, and the museum expansion, as Farnquist said, was included in land patents drafted for the transfer.

The plan calls for a reduction of the current parking lot from 66 spaces to 20 spaces. Much of the parking would be moved to the overflow lot, which would be paved, and along M-123. Some of the space opened up by the reduction of the parking lot would be used to reconstruct the Second Assistant Keeper's Quarters, which would be used as a greeting center and for interpreting the natural history of the area.

Some of the space would be returned to original habitat conditions in order to mitigate habitat that would be removed by expansion of the museum and the off-site parking spaces, and the remainder would be turned into a green space between the lighthouse and the parking lot that could also be used as a visitor orientation center.

Despite the compromises made by GLSHS, MAS and USFWS, many of the audience members were strongly opposed to any expansion on the point. Early on, Bridget Nordurft of the Whitefish Township Planning Committee called for a review of the plan, citing the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.

State Historic Preservation Officer Brian Conway, who is advising the three parties, responded to Nordurft’s concerns by explaining that the plan for expansion was carried out following the guidelines of the act. According to Conway, the act gives specific guidelines as to how an historic building can and cannot be modified, and since the present museum is considered historic, it falls within those guidelines.

He stated that the added wings would adversely affect the historical integrity of the building but, contrary to what many people believe, this does not automatically halt any alterations. He added that the reconstruction of the Second Assistant Keeper's Quarters would serve to mitigate some of the changes planned for the museum.

Another issue that Nordurft and other audience members addressed was the status of the parking lot. Officially, according to some audience members, the parking lot is actually a turnaround for the Chippewa County Road Commission and GLSHS does not have the right to alter the lot.

Nobody from the Road Commission was present at the meeting, but Les Laitinen, superintendent manager of the Chippewa County Road Commission, explained in an interview that the lot was built and funded by the Road Commission for use as a turnaround and snow removal. He said that he is opposed to the plans for the parking lot because reducing the lot would make snow removal difficult, especially if snowmobilers parked their trailers in the lot. Farnquist declined to comment on specifics, but he did indicate that he would be approaching the Road Commission about the issue.

Several other issues surrounding the plan were voiced by audience members, including a mercury spill and the burning of some boards painted with lead-based that had allegedly taken place on GLSHS property; whether the museum should be located in Paradise, which is 11 miles south of the point, and visitors be bused to Whitefish Point by shuttle bus; the short public comment period; and the monitoring of groundwater to ensure that an increased number of visitors would not overly stress the septic system.

Carl Meyer, a member of the Michigan Sierra Club, was particularly concerned about the potential environmental impact that could result from more people visiting the site. He prodded the panel members for an estimate of how many more visitors could be expected.

Lively explained that no visitors would be allowed in environmentally sensitive areas and that the plan called for improved signage that clearly stated trail rules and proper beach access. He also noted that the USFWS section of the point — the eastern beach — would be off limits to everyone.

“The number of people visiting the site is not as important as what they do when they are there. Ten people in an ORV would do far more damage than a thousand people that stayed on the trail,” Lively said.

Along with the dissenters were a number of people who spoke out in support of the plan. Many of the supporters were members of GLSHS, but several community members also expressed support for the plan. Among those were Chippewa County Commissioner Aaron Hopper, who identified himself as a birder. Whitefish Township resident Peter Corra, who was representing families with adjacent properties, applauded the stakeholders for the compromises they made in order to come up with a plan. He asked, however, that the three parties work to control visitors so that they do not trespass on private property.

GLSHS board member and Bay Mills Indian Community member Dwight “Bucko” Teeple also spoke out in support of the plan, saying that it was in the same spirit of the Consent Decree of 2000 between the federal government, the State of Michigan, and five tribes — several parties with differing agendas that voluntarily compromised to come up with a plan that everyone could agree on. He also felt that the expansion would help draw more tourism to the area, which would be beneficial to Bay Mills.

Farnquist said on Dec. 5 that the comments obtained from the meeting were incorporated into the plan on Dec. 4, and the plan was finalized on Dec. 5. He was confident that the plan — which, according to Farnquist, may take at least five years to fully implement — will be a good one for the point, since the three parties would share the responsibility of managing the site.

“This situation is a win-win-win situation for everyone,” Farnquist said.