As another poster mentioned (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39341176), there are a couple other boat launches about 20 minutes away, to the north and south of the project site.
A similar alternative, building a boat launch past the former dredging area, was also considered but dismissed because currents would likely submerge it within a few years. A few other sites were also looked at, but ultimately they went with not building any new ones.
The NPS's subsequent response to public comments (https://parkplanning.nps.gov/showFile.cfm?projectID=60589&MI...) discusses these further on PDF pages 19-20. My summary of the NPS's response is basically that anglers make up a little less than 1% of area visitation, and their main mandate is preservation of the natural resources.
> Regarding the ecological health of Lake Michigan, the mission of the NPS does include
preserving and enhancing ecological health and processes within the National Lakeshore.
However, maximizing angler opportunities in an effort to increase state licensing fees is not an efficient, or appropriate, way for the NPS to attempt to achieve this.
They were also asked why they didn't build more parking, grant the land back to the state, allow the state to take over dredging, etc.
It's worth a read if you're interested.
-------------
I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the NPS's stances here, FWIW. Just wanted to show more of the NEPA process (the National Environmental Policy Act, which is what makes the NPS have to go through all these environmental reviews and public comments). These public comments are the official way for members of the public to respond and critique the federal government's (including the NPS's) planned management efforts.
Of course, sometimes that doesn't work out, and, uh, vigilante land managers volunteer their shovels...
In the environmental assessment (https://parkplanning.nps.gov/showFile.cfm?projectID=60589&MI...), Alternative 3 explored the possibility of adding another boat launch and parking area. This is discussed in detail from PDF pages 22-25.
A similar alternative, building a boat launch past the former dredging area, was also considered but dismissed because currents would likely submerge it within a few years. A few other sites were also looked at, but ultimately they went with not building any new ones.
The NPS's subsequent response to public comments (https://parkplanning.nps.gov/showFile.cfm?projectID=60589&MI...) discusses these further on PDF pages 19-20. My summary of the NPS's response is basically that anglers make up a little less than 1% of area visitation, and their main mandate is preservation of the natural resources.
> Regarding the ecological health of Lake Michigan, the mission of the NPS does include preserving and enhancing ecological health and processes within the National Lakeshore. However, maximizing angler opportunities in an effort to increase state licensing fees is not an efficient, or appropriate, way for the NPS to attempt to achieve this.
They were also asked why they didn't build more parking, grant the land back to the state, allow the state to take over dredging, etc.
It's worth a read if you're interested.
-------------
I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the NPS's stances here, FWIW. Just wanted to show more of the NEPA process (the National Environmental Policy Act, which is what makes the NPS have to go through all these environmental reviews and public comments). These public comments are the official way for members of the public to respond and critique the federal government's (including the NPS's) planned management efforts.
Of course, sometimes that doesn't work out, and, uh, vigilante land managers volunteer their shovels...