Questions and Answers

Isn’t the trail only a 10’ wide path?

The trail is a 10’ wide asphalt path that has 2’ gravel shoulders (14’ total). Historical construction has shown that trees and vegetation are cleared up to 25 feet width to remove tree roots and poor soils and complete the grade excavation. Excavation and tree clearing can be more substantial when there are fluctuating topography challenges (dunes wetlands, steep hills specific to Segment 9) to meet a more gradual finish grade.

Can they save the biggest trees?

Not likely in a forest full of trees, even assuming old trees are the most valuable.  It sounds good in concept, yet in practice swerving to miss one tree usually takes out other trees in the forest. Clearing a path 25’ feet wide through the forest as part of construction impacts the whole ecosystem, not just one tree. Sometimes topographical challenges, boundary restrictions, or trail design limitations prevent the trail from being moved. Even while trying to save a tree, it’s still bulldozing a forest. Ecosystems will be impacted regardless.

Can a retaining wall be designed to look aesthetically pleasing?

While there are ways to enhance the look of retaining walls, including staggered sections to break up the height, the amount of critical dune removal remains the same as well as the amount of tree clearing. Having a discussion about the color and nature of the material misses the bigger question of why the dunes need to be touched or altered in any way. Man-made walls in a scenic wilderness area, no matter how designed, still requires the decimation of State protected Critical Dunes that are part of the natural beauty of the Lakeshore.

Isn’t removing diseased beech trees a good thing?

Beech trees account for 20% of the 7,300 trees. Not all of them are diseased. There are numerous young beech saplings which indicate a healthy ecosystem where older trees get replaced or dying trees give way to new species. The forest can’t naturally regenerate itself where a permanent asphalt trail corridor is constructed.

Hasn’t NPS determined there is no significant impact?

While NPS did issue a finding of no significant impact fifteen years ago, that Environmental Assessment for Segment 9 is flawed with many errors and omissions.  NPS did not acknowledge that significant environmental features existed along the route, features which have been verified by the recent Borealis botanical survey. Segment 9 will have a much more significant impact because it has unique ecosystems and different environmental features which require different engineering designs. The ecosystems along Segment 9 are all regulated or protected. There needs to be an Environmental Assessment and an Environmental Impact Statement completed for Segment 9 based on the new information available after 2009.

NPS says there is an impact but it is not significant, which is only a subjective assessment without objective scientific analysis to arrive at that conclusion. For many it is considered significant to build boardwalks through rich conifer wetlands with a known population of State Special Concern Species, to push a new path through wooded dune and swale complexes that are globally rare and of State concern, to route 85% of trail through State-protected Critical Dune Area, to remove 7,300 trees in wooded dune forests, to build 25’ high retaining walls for 950’ through State-protected Critical Dune Area along a scenic wilderness road, and to build the trail within 10’ of private residential structures.  If removing 7,300 trees, traversing wetlands for 20% of the trail length, and excavating critical dunes to build 25’ high retaining walls isn’t significant, what is?

Was the Environmental Assessment ever revised when the trail along Traverse Lake Road (TLR) was changed from an on-road trail to an off-road trail?

No, it was not. The information specific to Segment 9 in the 2008 Environmental Assessment of the proposed on-road trail using TLR is identical to the 2009 Environmental Assessment of the proposed off-road trail alongside TLR. This is clear when you look at the Segment 9 Cost Projections in Chapter 5 and the scoring for Option 9.2 in Table 17, Impact to Environment, and Table 18, Impact to Feasibility. (For more information see our website page NPS-EA). How can the environmental assessment for an off-road trail be the same for an on-road trail?

Isn’t the high cost due to inflation and price increases in construction?

Consider the $10.5 million cost ($477,00 per mile) of the first 22 miles compared to the cost of the current $14.5 million estimate for this 4.25 mile extension (nearly $3.5 million per mile). The cost of construction has increased but the substantial cost of Segment 9 is due to extreme construction designs required to address unique environmental aspects, such as building 25’ high retaining walls through steep State-protected Critical Dunes and building extensive boardwalks across regulated wetlands for nearly 20% of the trail route. There are alternatives that do not require extensive engineering solutions, resulting in cost savings up to $10 million.

Isn’t having a trail a wonderful thing for people to use?

Of course there are great benefits to recreational trails. To be beneficial the trail must make sense by providing a high demand connection, more easily getting us our goods and services, enhancing neighborhood character, and being environmentally sound. A good example is the Boardman Trail in Traverse City. Segment 9 offers none of those benefits.

There are other alternatives that create favorable recreational experiences without decimating wilderness areas. The “win” of a trail does not justify the “loss” of wilderness. There are win-win solutions where both nature and recreationists can win. We shouldn’t destroy nature in order to enjoy nature.

Doesn’t having people ride bicycles rather than driving help minimize climate change?

Yes, if biking replaces driving to places people normally and commonly drive for their daily existence. One has to drive many miles to reach this trail. Most Heritage Trail users drive their cars to park and bike on the Heritage Trail, so the touted reduction of climate impacts by people riding bikes instead of driving is negligible.  Segment 9 does not serve as a transportation substitute for people commuting to work or to access goods and services.  People have the option to drive to trailheads and bike the other 22 miles of Heritage Trail. Alternatives can extend the trail without environmental impact or exorbitant costs.  

Have all the approvals been given?

No. NPS has not yet applied for all the necessary permits. The Leelanau County Road Commission, governed by elected officials, must approve the use of the county road right-of-way or this segment to construct boardwalks across regulated wetlands, to build large retaining walls through State protected Critical Dune Area, and to route the trail across private property.  The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy (EGLE) has to issue permits for construction in the protected Critical Dune Area and in wetlands, including the wooded dune and swale complex. TART Trails is still in the process of raising the necessary funds, and bids have not yet been received to determine the actual cost.

Is it too late to do an environmental assessment or consider alternatives?

No, it’s never too late to complete an accurate environmental assessment as required by NEPA to determine the full environmental impact and to consider all alternatives. Even though money has been spent on preliminary trail design, the potential savings of millions of dollars makes those design expenditures look small, while saving 7,300 trees is priceless. One doesn’t keep blindly moving forward building a house when the blueprints are flawed.

Why has there not been a bigger discussion about diverse alternatives in the Good Harbor area?

A very good and important question. Ask NPS and TART Trails why other feasible alternatives have been off-limits for discussion. Is this narrow scope meant to discourage alternatives that make more sense when all information is taken into account?  TART Trails has stated that it seeks to eventually connect the Heritage Trail to the Suttons Bay Trail.  Why does that preempt a discussion of what is best for this Good Harbor area within Sleeping Bear National Lakeshore?  TART Trails doesn’t even have a detailed plan for getting to Suttons Bay nor has it engaged with the public and local communities on that idea.  At the very least, irreversible environmental damage incurred with Segment 9 should not happen now. Let Tart Trails go ahead and build the trail from Suttons Bay first. There has been no community input into Tart Trails’ bigger ideas.

Isn’t the opposition to Segment 9 just a small number of property owners who are NIMBYs?

Using NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) seems to be a way to label and marginalize people, indicating that one is not really open to hear what they may have to say. It is an effort to dismiss or devalue their voice.  In fact, everyone should be listening to what the local community says because they know the environment and ecosystem better than anyone else.  They walk it, live it, and appreciate it in ways visitors rarely appreciate or experience.  

Little Traverse Lake Association (LTLA) has been diligently asking for an accurate Environmental Assessment because they are intimately aware of the unique ecosystems that exist along the proposed Segment 9.  LTLA is an active environmental organization passionate about protecting the lake, watershed, and environment they live in.  They hired an expert botanist to do a botanical survey so there was a scientific identification and analysis of the ecosystems and environmental features along the proposed Segment 9.  NPS should have done that but didn’t.  Congratulations to LTLA for doing what should have been done in 2009 by NPS, who never did any environmental analysis during the last fifteen years.  Furthermore, LTLA has not been against the Heritage Trail but has actively suggested viable alternatives to create recreational opportunities in the Good Harbor area. LTLA has been advocating for the protection of an environment that is important to all the visitors enjoying Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, not just to local residents.

Sleeping Bear Naturally, a group of diverse individuals from different geographical areas who frequently enjoy the Lakeshore, is committed to the dissemination of accurate and comprehensive information regarding the proposed Segment 9 so the general public can be informed and can engage in healthy discussion about the future of the people’s Sleeping Bear National Lakeshore. Unfortunately, public information has been limited and has been inaccurate (e.g. NPS 2009 Trailway Plan and Environmental Assessment).  But more and more people are finally becoming aware of all the ramifications of the proposed Segment 9 and questioning whether it should be built as planned.