Whitefish Bay Appeal Upheld
"You might think that no electricity, outhouses, pumping one's own water, cutting wood for fires, bathing in Lake Superior, no phones, TVs and all the other so called "modern" conveniences, would discourage people from wanting to stay. However, the uniqueness of this type of camping has a wonderful, rejuvenating effect on a person's soul." - A camper's comment on the Whitefish Bay Project, Forest Service Project File
On May 15, 2006, Deputy District Ranger Martie Schramm withdrew her February 10, 2006 Decision to implement the Whitefish Bay Scenic Byway Environmental Assessment (EA), in the Sault Ste. Marie District of the Hiawatha National Forest. The EA would have "upgraded" several recreational facilities along 26 miles of this scenic road. There were 4 separate appeals of the plan, including a joint appeal filed by Northwoods Wilderness Recovery and Heartwood. Other appeals came from Three Lakes Group of the Sierra Club and 6 individuals, Frank J. Verito, and Patrick Egan.
At the center of contention was construction of a proposed RV loop (complete with electric and running water) at the rustic Bay View Campground. The Forest Service also met resistance with plans to cut miles of "scenic views" between the roadway and Lake Superior's Whitefish Bay.
The plan did include projects we all could agree on, such as soil erosion control at Big Pines Picnic area, a gate to block motorized access to a rutted and muddied road leading to fragile Naomikong Point, and improvement of hiking trails. However, many believed the proposal in its entirety would increase illegal off-road vehicle use (mostly from cutting vegetation which now serves as a barrier) to the point of causing severe environmental degradation.
Road Leading to Naomikong Point photo Doug Cornett
In 2004, before the plan was first announced, the Hiawatha commissioned Michigan State University (MSU) to hold forums to solicit public input. From this "Small Town Design Initiative," projects were identified that reflected some of the desires of the community. At the top of the list was the need for providing safe pathways for the numerous bicyclists that now use the narrow road.
In 2005, the Whitefish Bay Byway Project was announced. A scoping letter was sent out in March and revised and sent out again in April to correct mistakes and add extensive brushing and timber cutting to open up views of Lake Superior. These so-called vistas were added after Forest Service employee Mike Lanasa commented on the first scoping letter. In his message, Lanasa said he was "under whelmed by the general scenery along most of the road" and cutting "is the missing piece to improving the Scenic Byway." A revised scoping letter was written 2 days later.
Miles of Unspoiled Beach on Whitefish Bay photo Doug Cornett
Nearly 80 people commented on the initial proposal. Many wanted a bike path, including some Forest Service employees. The path was never mentioned in the scoping document and never considered throughout the entire process.
Several proposed actions in the scoping letter were dropped or lessened due to the many objections raised. Two alternatives were developed, with a high level development plan calling for over $1.5 million in upgrades. No funding had been identified or secured for any of the planned actions.
Originally, the Hiawatha wanted to level several acres to create an additional parking lot for Point Iroquios Lighthouse. This would have required another entrance on the narrow Byway. Just a couple of years earlier, existing parking had been expanded to accomodate RV's and bigger vehicles.
Numerous people were outraged by plans to radically alter Bay View Campground, from its more natural environment, to a motorized, electrified RV park.
A new loop of RV camp sites, complete with electricity and a pressurized, chlorinated water system, was proposed for this small, rustic site on the Lake Superior shore. After numerous objections, the Forest Service dropped plans for electric and the RV loop and added 2 camp sites with pull-throughs to accomodate bigger campers and RV's. They kept the pressurized water system. Several had objected to pressurized water, stating that the current hand pump was something that few places still have and a unique feature they look forward to when coming to the Upper Peninsula to camp.
Hiawatha engineers claimed that there is a "directive" from the FS to replace hand pumps with pressurized, chlorinated water systems in its campgrounds, in anticipation of orders from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to do so. We asked to see documents stating this. There aren't any, and we convinced Ranger Schramm that until such directives are in place, there was no need for this, unless contamination of the wells are a threat to human health. Cost estimates for Bay View and Monocle Lake Campgrounds is $150,000 for the systems.
Will Hand Pumping Water Become a Thing of the Past? photo Doug Cornett
The so-called directive is apparently a fabrication, and has been used as an excuse across the National Forest Service system to replace many wells. In a recent article in the Casper (WY) Star-Tribune, Dale Kemery, a spokesman for the EPA said "I've found nothing here (to account for it). It sounds as if it is driven by the Forest Service's budget."
The Environmental Assessment was released in December 2005, despite appellant Carol Ward's concern that seasonal residents weren't around and probably wouldn't get to comment on the project. Also, many people living in the area weren't notified. Of 44 residents on a 2-mile stretch of the byway, at least 13 were not on the mailing list. Despite these inadequacies, 27 people did comment on the EA.
A Decision was issued in February 2006. Several projects were dropped. There would be no additional RV loop or electric at Bay View. The second parking lot and additional restrooms at the lighthouse would not be constructed. A viewing platform at Spectacle Lake Overlook was nixed.
Spectacle Lake Overlook photo Doug Cornett
However, most of the cutting and brushing to create vistas was kept in the plan, along with pressurized water systems at Bay View and Monocle Lake Campgrounds. The most disappointing aspect of the Decision was the way the Forest Service answered many of the concerns raised - by relegating the commenters to a status of amateur and uninformed. Dozens of concerns were answered as being only "an opinion or position statement." When examples of successful erosion mitigation projects were cited, we were met by the answers like "this is outside the scope of the proposed action" or "this statement is conjectural." We were extremely insulted by this treatment, especially when considering that 117 pages were used to discount and dismiss every concern raised by the public.
The cutting and brushing, and the pressurized water systems were the 2 issues we appealed. NWR, Heartwood and Patrick Egan also asked that a citizen's committee be formed to oversee Forest Service plans and provide input on Byway development.
We almost reached an agreement with Ranger Schramm. She was willing to drop the vista cutting and pressurized water, and meet with the public to discuss and review plans before they were implemented. However, we could not get total agreement between all parties on resolution language and Shramm decided to drop the project, claiming that a deadline had expired. The appellants were never informed of a deadline date.
After discussion among the appellants and other area residents, there is a lot of interest in forming a citizens group to oversee the future of the Whitefish Bay Scenic Byway. We plan to meet sometime in mid-August. Announcements of the meeting will be posted on this website.